CHEMISTRY OF HOMEOPATHY and the FDA

LIGHTNING IN A BOTTLE 

Avogadro’s Constant hypothesis predicts electron pressure and the asymptote at infinite dilution.

Avogadro’s limit doesn’t apply to absence of solute in homeopathic remedies because of electron pressure enthalpy, a measure of energy in a thermodynamic system. its native heat, from the Schumann resonances, the background geomagnetic field, discovered first by Tesla, later by Schumann mid-twentieth century. Ionization of the solvent by dissociation of the solute molecule has been confirmed in the ultra-dilute remedy.

The solute in a dilute homeopathic remedy is not molecular because of de-ionization into electrons, . There are measures within analytic chemistry which prove it, such as conductance tests and transmission electron microscopy  (TEM).

All of the extreme controversy over whether or not the homeopathic remedy is placebo or verum, whether or not these materials are medically effective, and all of these phony money offers to “prove homeopathy”, conveniently avoid this simple, demonstrable fact, a fact that separates homeopathy from fiction: the solute in highly diluted solutions used as homeopathic drugs is ionized and can be physically detected by conventional chemical analysis.

Students and professors of electrochemistry should be well aware of this elementary principle of molecular dissociation, that as the solute presumably decreases, thins out and changes phase fron condensed to plasma, its conductivity increases to an asymptote and evidence of the solute persists in the solvent despite an apparent infinite number of dilutions.

Why or how the solute persists in infinite dilution is not clear, but strange as it may seem to the zenophobic, it does so, no matter how dilute it is in serial dilutions.

According to Copeland, the solute is not completely deionized until the sixth decimal dilution, at which point the aqueous solvent has completely dissociated the molecular structure of the solute by means of hydrolysis.

There are tests of molar conductance that demonstrate this.

The Chemistry of Homeopathy under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

FDA NOTICE FOR HOMEOPATHY
On April 20-21, 2015, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a public hearing at its White Oak Campus to obtain information and comments from stakeholders about the current use of human drug and biological products labeled as homeopathic, as well as the Agency’s regulatory framework for such products. These products include prescription drugs and biological products labeled as homeopathic and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs labeled as homeopathic. FDA is still seeking written comments from all interested parties, including, but not limited to, consumers, patients, caregivers, health care professionals, patient groups, and industry. FDA is seeking input on a number of specific questions, but is interested in any other pertinent information participants would like to share. Please refer to the following documents for more information:
Federal Register Notice
Submit Comments to the Public Docket

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm430539.htm

PROCEEDINGS STOPPED FOR A VOLTE FACE ANNOUNCEMENT: THE CHEMISTRY OF HOMEOPATHY HAS BEEN DISCOVERED!

As dry as this may seem at first, this is really a fascinating topic, and very psimon3 2010_05_01_16_12_21 001wet. A few months ago The Washington Post reported that by analyzing edit changes made by citizen contributors of articles in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, they were able to determine that the two most contentious topics in the Western world are Jesus Christ and homeopathy.

HOMEOPATHY?

Now you might not be surprised to hear that Jesus is still stirring up trouble, but without further erudition . . unless you’ve been in or close to the pot being stirred . . you might be a bit perplexed when told something as innocuous as “homeopathy” is rivaling Christ for the bad boy of the Western world distinction; but I would venture to say that if you  go further East I reckon homeopathy is also kicking Muhammed and Buddha in the skirts for the same title; and get this, it should be even even more perplexing to hear that both doctrines of Christ and homeopathy share atheists as their primary detractors!

“What’s this you say?”

Yes, it pains me to say it, but it’s true. Both Jesus and homeopathy are healers and both kickoveer money tables. The mere mention of the word “homeopathy” can send a malinformed atheist into a fit of glossolalia and make him dance like St. Vitus. There are innumerable high profile atheists, like Richard Dawkins and James Randi, who, when they’re not ridiculing a belief in the Deity and knocking the noses off of marbled saints, are tearing up the well manicured lawn in front of the great doctrine of Hahnemann House, crying a liturgy of shameless pseudoscience, so much so that homeopathy is something of a pariah in the Western mainstream media so slavishly chained to academic science and big money patent medicine . .  which in the case of homeopathy is now itself mouthing pseudoscience!

Now just to make this volte face clear, I’m not accusing homeopathy of being pseudoscience, no! I’m accusing skepticism of it! I’m here in this article doing something that’s never been done before in modern times, and certainly never done to this extent ever heretofore: I’m making the first installment of a presentation where I introduce the chemical principle of what has been thought to be a scientific impossibility, and that my friends is the chemistry of what most material scientists have insisted was a placebo, hoax and fraud, where every man jack of them is a patholgical atheist!

It’s true! And please don’t get me wrong or take me as poe. At times I have found a grudging respect for atheists. I am even inclined to believe they are amongst God’s favorites; they may not be speaking to him, but at least they’re not speaking for him as so many believers do.  But they don’t show this grace for homeopathy, nor in reality do they show it for science, and yes I know, I know, I’ve just thrown more boiling water on the storm troopers by saying that.

I am noting this to reveal an exposition of a pathology that stands in the way of accepting a known chemical principle. Be it because of pride or lacking a gear for reverse travel, they say and will continue to say, as they have said before, incorrectly, that there is no known chemistry to explain the action of the highly aqueous diluted materials used as medicine in the practice of homeopathy . .

WRONG!

. . and so they will still say,  even though it can now be explained to them with a chemical principal to the contrary, that because there’s not one MOLECULE in it of anything but plain water, the homeopathic solution cannot have any specific medical action of its own; therefore homeopathy is without reason and there can be no acceptable evidence for it; all evidence then for the fraud is dismissed!

That is what they say, the rampaging patent medicine engine cheers them on, and they are wrong. There is a widely known chemical principle that supports homeopathy and there are now widely known properties within classical chemistry that prove the action of these drugs. That neither homeopath nor skeptic is aware of the classical chemistry of homeopathy suggests that, as a gesture of compromise with other more insidious reasons, that, lacking finite limitations, the basic underlying chemical principle is sensed by the human mind and rejected . . and this is a premier example of a scientific cognitive dissonance. Both principle and property have been gathering dust in science, and the link between homeopathy and chemistry, once known, has up until now apparently been forgotten, ignored or expelled from classical science for over 100 years. Like a brazen Frankenstein I stand before the torchlit mob and shout “It lives!”

In other words, there is a classical chemistry to explain the potency of what former scientists have been screaming are inert placebos, incapable of intrinsically delivering the effects of their label. Furthermore, and in terms of the FDA, this next piece of information ought to bring everyone still sitting to their feet and the hearing to a halt: The chemistry of homeopathy was first presented by the progenitor of the modern FDA, the chief sponsor of the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA)!

INFINITE DILUTION

It should come as a great surprise . . if not shock and disbelief . . to proponent and opponent alike to learn — contrary to common belief and what is taught by putative skeptics, and medical and “homeopathy” schools alike — there is recognition within standard, classical chemistry, that with materials ionized by molecular dissociation in aqueous solutions, the properties of the solute are fixed and remain constantly in “infinite dilution”!

Furthermore, to the even greater distress of homeopath and skeptic alike, at least those who want to continue the obfuscation of supramolecular chemistry [the study of electric properties beyond the molecule] with homeopathy, associating the “homeopathic remedy” with the chemistry of molecular dissociation was done 106 years ago by none other than the medical doctor and professor of academic medicine who became a US Senator and the chief sponsor of FDA denture, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), the man who gave the FDA its teeth, Senator Royal S. Copeland A.M., M.D.

copeland2

Senator Royal S. Copeland, A.M., M.D.

In a 1909 article entitled “The Scientific Reasonableness of Homeopathy” by Royal S. Copeland, A.M., M.D.  he states:

“. . a chemical, technically an electrolyte, when dissolved, is dissociated into parts or particles smaller than the atoms and known as ions. The more dilute the solution the greater is the dissociation and consequently the atoms are less in number and the ions increased. In a solution infinitely dilute, the dissociation is absolute and the chemical is present only in a state of ionization.”

Read the whole article.   http://www.homeowatch.org/history/copeland.html

Although Copeland goes on to persuade using testimony from Kelvin and other authorities (while most homeopaths will remain paralyzed and silent) Copeland’s article will be dismissed in horror by skeptics, who will use its age and the fact that the author was a homeopath, as excuses for further obloquy of “homeopathy.”
There does indeed seem to be some confusion as to what exactly constitutes an ion, a confusion that persists to this day; but despite cries wishing for the contrary, modern classical chemistry still supports Copeland’s thesis, that the properties of ionized solutes remain constant throughout “infinite dilution.”
Running a search on Google for the number of appearances of “infinite dilution” returns an unbelievable 229,000 hits (search made on June 7th, 2015), and among these, numerous articles that support the principle of an asymptote solute in infinite dilution. Asymptote means approaching but never reaching zero, i.e., due to particle splitting of a solute in aqueous suspension, the concentration of solute ions will approach but never reach zero, no matter how many dilutions are made!

SCIENCE AS AMNESIAC
How is it then that skeptical opinion by professional organizations, engaging the media against homeopathy, can deny what is an orthodox explanation of FDA labeled “homeopathic” pharmaceuticals by modern classical claassical chemistry? They will volley to the end that a belief in homeopathy is delusional, when in fact the scientific principal of the properties of solutes remaining in infinite dilution is a well established fact, to be found online in the literature.

“It may sound like something out of a science fiction movie, but infinite dilution is a concept found in chemistry that is applied to the study of solvents — liquids — and solutes, the substances that are dissolved in solvents. This principle is used to test the properties of solutions and extrapolate or estimate their chemical reactions in varying environments.”
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/about_5459313_definition-infinite-dilution.html

What is infinite dilution – Answers.com
“Infinite dilution means such a large dilution so that when you add more solvent there is no change in concentration.”
http://www.answers.com › Wiki Answers › Categories › Science › Chemistry

“An infinitely dilute solution is one where there is a sufficiently large excess of water that adding any more does not cause any further heat to be absorbed or evolved. … The hydration enthalpy is the enthalpy change when 1 mole of gaseous ions dissolve in sufficient water to give an infinitely dilute solution. Hydration enthalpies are always negative.”
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/energetics/solution.html
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/State_Functions/Enthalpy/Enthalpy_Change_of_Solution

Wikipedia
“The law is based on the fact that only a portion of the electrolyte is dissociated into ions at ordinary dilution and completely at infinite dilution.”  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_dilution

PDF: Theory of infinite dilution chemical potential

University of Illinois at Chicago

Fluid Phase Equilibria, 85 (1993) 141-151. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam. 141. Theory of infinite dilution chemical potential. http://www.uic.edu/labs/trl/HamadInfiniteDilution.pdf 

A search in PUBMED for articles containing “infinite dilution” brought up a dizzying 620 abstracts.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22infinite+dilution%22

JERRY BLOWS UP TOM

This one mere fact, expressed as two words: INFINITE DILUTION, exposes this whole cat and mouse game of gotcha antagonism against the practice of homeopathy to be nothing more than ignorant pseudoscience. This is a monumental discovery. Anybody can look it up online and see it for themselves in a plethora of articles on the subject.
If infinite dilution is not a chemical fact that refers to the properties of the solute remaining in the solvent after unlimited serial dilutions, then perhaps one of these self-appointed celebrity spokesmen for science, such as Richard Dawkins, Penn Jillette or James “the Amazing” Randi et al; or caviling professors such as PZ Myers, Edzard Ernst, Joe Schwarc, David Colquhoun or Steven Novella et al can explain to us, in their own pseudoscientific terms, just what it really means.

MYSTERY OF WHY

Why have homeopathic physicians and manufacturers of homeopathic medicine not seized upon this acknowledged principle as an answer to critics who insist homeopathic medicines contain “nothing in them but plain water”? Why isn’t the burgeoning homeopathy industry insisting that homeopathic remedies be redesignated ionized pharmaceuticals?

The mystery of why standard chemistry’s concept of infinite dilution is not applied to the dilution dilemma of homeopathic medicine might at first seem as perplexing as infinite dilution itself. But dwell on it here a little longer and deeper truths emerge.

STUCK ON AVOGADRO

Due to the momentum gained by an incorrect interpretation of “Avogadros limit,” it will continue to be stated by skeptics, posing as rationalists, that by a process of reduction by dilution, the number of molecules of a solute will be reduced past the asymptote to zero by the 23rd decimal dilution, and this is presented as proof that homeopathic remedies contain none of the ingredient stated on a product labeled “homeopathic” and are therefore fraudulent. But there’s a reason why I italicize the word molecule in the context of Avogadro because this is where skeptic theory for homeopathic remedies having nothing of their labeled materials in them literally falls apart.

First, let’s examine what Avogadros constant, limit or number. Avogadro’s hypothesis as proof of an empty bottle . . is easily rebutted. Avogadro’s number is a constant, the ratio of solute particles to the solvent. It must be for particles, such as ions, not just molecules, in a volume of gas, not water. It doesn’t factor the perpetual production of ions by dissociation.

If a constant such as Avogadro’s, Faraday’s or Henry’s were applied to infinite dilution, it might state that due to repeated expansion and contraction of the ion’s domain within the aqueous host (by enthalpy) and contraction due to dissociation, the number of total ions in solution from the time of complete ionization will remain constant within a sinusoidal range throughout all subsequent dilutions.

The FDA then should address this argument and concern by stating that products registered as “homeopathic remedies” are in reality ionized pharmaceuticals, that they are supramolecular (beyond molecular) and their active constitutuion ionic, not molecular.

Now, this assertion of ionized pharmaceutical calls for a question of assay. How are the properties of the ionized solute detected in what are currently called homeopathic drugs, or remedies? Are there tests, trials or experiments that show the presence of an ionized solute in infinite dilution?

Copeland: “. . the laboratory has proven that the properties of a completely dissociated solution are the sum of all the ions present in the solution. This holds for such properties as conductivity, lowering of the freezing point, refraction equivalent, heat of neutralization, and undoubtedly, for any therapeutic effect possessed by the drug.”

Here then Copeland gives us four physical, non-clinical tests, or assays, from 1909, for ionized pharmaceuticals, tests that promise to separate and identify verum from placebo aliquots of the inert aqueous vehicle:

  1. Conductivity
  2. Freezing point
  3. Refraction equivalent
  4. Heat of neutralization

. . and modern chemistry has given us more; transmission electron microscopy (TEM) gives us a fifth assay that detects the actual presence of ions of the starting materials. http://homeoint.ru/pdfs/Extreme%20homeopathic%20dilutions%20retain%20starting%20%20materials-A%20nanoparticulate%20perspective.pdf

If not yet convinced, any real scientist will put aside his drumroll of ignorance or preconceived notions of what the homepathic remedy is when made aware of the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) test protocol for infinite dilutions:

“Test 4: Infinite Dilution Test. This is a test for consistency in the limiting behavior of GE/(x1x2/RT) and the activity coefficients γ1 and γ2. The percent deviations in both limits are calculated: http://trc.nist.gov/TDE/Help/TDE103b/VLE-DataSets-ConsistencyTests/InfiniteDilution.htm

In lieu of this newly rediscovered chemistry for the materials used in homeopathy, the FDA should drop the term “homeopathic” and replace it with ionized or ionic as the description for these drugs.

I don’t know how it is that they can fight their way out of this paper bag. They and their secret police now stand accused of pseudoscience, the very thing they accused homeopathy of, and as funny as it is, I don’t know now how it is that they and “skepticism” can be taken seriously anymore.

John Henry Clarke, M.D.

The clinical proof has long been extant. If you really look at the semiological registers, most particularly the FDA recommended literature on the subject, (Dictionary of the Materia Medica by John Henry Clarke, M.D. http://www.homeoint.org/clarke/) you will find alternative answers to problems now being addressed almost solely by over-monetized patent medicine, and we all know, or should know, what a disaster it has been.

Death by Medicine http://www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf
https://www.worstpills.org/

Although I am quite aware of the denials that will follow, with the chemistry of infinite dilution now well established in numerous explanations online, it is time to bring this existing, second, more humane pharmacopoeia of inexpensive, time tested, well documented, FDA sanctioned, effective medical materials out of the shadows into the real world of real medicine. This begins with the FDA recognizing what these materials called “homeopathic remedies” really are: IONIZED PHARMACEUTICALS.

IF YOU STILL DON’T BELIEVE THIS . . 

If you don’t believe that properties of the solute remain in solvents diluted beyond the putative limit . . make the assays for ionic concentration, i.e. do the tests to identify homeopathic remedies from plain water!

PUT IT TO THE TEST! (James Randi, get your wallet out)

Test question: What are the assays for ionized pharmaceuticals?

FOLLOW AND SUPPORT THE JOHN BENNETH JOURNAL FOR COMMENTS
AND MORE INFORMATION ON THE CHEMISTRY OF HOMEOPATHY

HOMEOPATHY GETS $2.7M FOR ANIMAL TESTS!

1.7 M Euros = $2.7 million dollars to study homeopathy effects on animals

Homeopathic veternarians are celebrating this month in the UK midst intense pseudo-skeptical denial of evidence for the biological action of high dilutes, the solutions used in homeopathic medical remedies.

VETS SAY IT WORKS

Opposition to the controversial medicine that challenges basic physics and chemistry has reached delusional proportions this month with the announcement that the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee (AGRI) will vote on a draft budget of 2 million Euros ($2.7 million dollars or £1.7million pounds) for research on the use of homeopathy on farm animals.

HOMEOPATHIC VETS DELIGHTED, “SKEPTICS” FURIOUS

Smallholder.co.uk (a website for agricultural users of land smaller than 50 acres)  reports that Homeopathic vet Mark Elliott, President of the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons (BAHVS) says “we are delighted with the proposal to fund further research in to the use of homeopathic and herbal medicine for farm animals.”

But traditional opponents of homeopathy, usually proponent of anti-biotics and synthesized patent medicines are damning AGRI’s decision.

“Even animals can be affected by the placebo affect,” says Ben Goldacre, a medical journalist who writes for the U.K.‘s Guardian newspaper.

Meiron Jones, a producer for the BBC, in a response to Oliver Dowding, a dairyman who has long used homeopathy to treat his herd, goes even further to suggest that some animals are not honest about their reactions to homeopathic remedies:

“Some animals can deceive. Various varieties of ground-nesting birds – plovers and larks for instance – have been recorded (and filmed) pretending to have a broken wing to lure predators away from the nest. But I agree that lying and indulging in semantic arguments would be a stretch. The point is not the animals but the person who is assessing their health which is where the placebo effect comes in. The BBC did cover this a number of years ago. The alternative vet Christopher Day set up a double-blind trial in the mid 1980s which was reported on by `QED’ on the BBC in 1991. The results appeared to show that homeopathy for mastitis in cows did a lot better than the placebo which was water. Unfortunately the trial had not been properly randomised and the paper was not accepted by the Veterinary Record. Day has not been able to replicate the results subsequently but still believes homeopathic remedies are effective in animals. I agree it would be very interesting to see that trial properly done – double-blind, three groups of animals one treated with water, one treated with homeopathic, one treated with antibiotics. It is more a documentary than the sort of thing `Newsnight’ could organise but maybe you should contact `Countryfile’ or `Horizon’ and suggest it. The main BBC switchboard number is 0208 743 8000.”

A DAIRYMAN RESPONDS

Dowding responds to critics of homeopathy like Godacre and Jones who say the success of homeopathy on animals is the placebo effect:

“Perhaps you could explain how that works with millions of animals of all shapes and sizes? I am thinking particularly of dairy cattle, 600kgs, dozens or hundreds in a herd. You may think you can rubbish homoeopathy in relation to humans (which you cannot, as it happens) but you fall down when confronted by these millions of creatures who do not know how to deceive, lie, distort, play with words etc.

“How is it that you think what you dismiss homoeopathy as a “belief system”, works in this instance? How do the animals acquire their “belief”? Who teaches them? Do you credit the thousands of herdsmen and women with incredible powers that they can “counsel” their animals? That presumes that they have time to “counsel” 200 or more cows they may have in their care.

“Whenever I raise this point with cynics (sorry, sceptics) like yourself, I fail to receive a clear answer. That may be because it suddenly becomes clear quite how many animals are responding positively, in hundreds of countries, attended by hundreds of thousands of homoeopaths or stockmen/women, etc. A bit beyond random, or placebo, or chance etc.

“Sometimes we don’t know HOW something works, and sometimes it upsets us and our previously acquired scientific or rational understanding of x or y. But that does not mean it doesn’t work – just as I don’t know how my key hits are putting letters on this screen. I’m not denying it works just because I don’t know the mechanism.

“Situations like this are when we need to reappraise and admit we don’t know it all, have all the solutions and that there just might be an alternative we haven’t worked out for ourselves. I’m happy to accept some of the “conventional medics” solutions. Isn’t this called discovery?

“I appreciate you have backed yourself in to a bit of a corner and getting out could be embarrassing. However, it might be wise to try.”

Dowding follows up with a TV program of his own and makes a powerful statement for homeopathy.

Herdsmen like Dowding, who have used it for common mastitis in cows, and organizations like the BAHVS who have used it on a broad variety of subjects are indicators that the world is on the verge of a paradigm shift in medicine.

The human listeria outbreak in the US is yet another example of how homeopathy could have saved lives, and Dowding’s cows, and the EU’s investment of $2.7M in homeopathy research are proof ot it. Homeopathy works for plants, it works for animals . . and two centuries of epidemiological use has made it quite clear it works for humans too.

John Benneth, Homeopath
Problem? Call for free consultation 503 819 7777

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter: Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

Passionflower of the Skeptic

John Benneth, Homeopath vs. James Randi, Pseudoscientist

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

Herbert Spencer

It’s been said John Benneth carries a grudge against James “the Amazing” Randi because 12 years ago Benneth took Randi’s Challenge to prove homeopathy . . and Randi backed out.

But it could also be said the Benneth carries the torch for Randi, because Randi has been regarded as the King of the Skeptics, a man with a kind of laser like x-ray vision who can see through any kind of deception, detect any kind of fraud, and I, John “the Prosaic” Benneth just keep plodding along in search of the facts.

Take this video for instance. Note the differences in Randi between his stage appearance at TED in 2007 and the video recording done in the JREF library in  2011.  Notice especially his eyes.  It is my suggestion here that Randi’s continued abuse of Calms Forte, which essentially is not homeopathic, but slips past FDA regulations by claiming to be homeopathic, has created irreversible effects, both seen and unseen . . the unseen being intestinal cancer.

Make your own investigation here. Watch the video and then read my commentary below. decide for yourself what is real, what is illusion . .

What follows the commentary is a transcript of the video for your analysis and search engine indexing.

This gets even more mysterious when we examine the item Randi slam dunks . . Calms Forte . . more closely. It isn’t  homeopathic. It may say it’s homeopathic, and by US government standards of the HPUS it may technically may be homeopathic (although I doubt it), but neither are the ingredients of Calms Forte being used homeopathically, nor are they of a truly homeopathic potency! 

That’s right. It only says it is. Because it says it is, the majority of users assume it is.  Homeopathic “drugs” are not subject to the same testing requirements of commercial patent medicines, and so this allows the manufacturer to bring an actual  drug, in it original molecular form, to market without question.

I’ll prove it to you, slowly, inexorably, but with a dogged appetite for reason..

“Why John, why?” you may ask, and the answer is simply this. This is inextricably woven into how we think about what is medicine, healing and cure. This is about a racket, probably the world’s greatest operating sub silentio, protected by illusion, supported by the likes of a confessed charlatan.

Zicam did exactly the same thing, calling a crude molecular concentration of zinc “homeopathic” for its cold remedy, and then got in trouble with the Feds when people began reporting that after using it they were losing their sense of smell . . permanently!

Now how could people lose their sense of smell from something that James “the man with the x-ray eyes” Randi  insists has nothing in it? Because if you read the ingredients, you’ll find that the ingredients are well below Avogadro’s limit, which is the point of dilution where none of the original substance remains, the point where the energetic powers of the solution take over completely, reversing the effect of the diluent, the substance that left its elctromagnetic imprint in hydrogen bonding on the solution used to “medicate” the tablets or pilules, the “little sugar pills” as skeptics love to call them.

Here’ the catch: A substance does not have to be devoid of a molecular substance to be homeopathy. The word homeopathy does not necessarily mean diluted past recognition, as Randi is inferring Calms Forte to be. It is not. Calms Forte has a lot of an herbal sedative in it!

If it seems I’m beating this thing to death, in this case hopefully appearances aren’t deceiving.  I want to make this perfectly clear that Randi is fooling his audience at TED, and anyone else who cares to be duped by this rascal, that he is ingesting an inert susbtance that has no detectable substance of what is listed on the box! And the question that follows should be why?

Why is he gulping something that has a measurable quantity of sedative in it (Passionflower, the main ingredient in Calms Forte), traditionally known for its ability to influence sleep without narcotic effects, when he could just as easily do his demonstration with a homeopathic remedy, indicated for sleeplessness, that is truly without any detectable active substance in it?

“I am satisfied it (Passiflora, Passionflower) is no narcotic. It never stupefies or overpowers the senses. A patient under its full influence may be wakened up and he will talk to you as rationally as ever he did ; leave him for a moment and he will soon be off to the Elysian Fields again. I have tried it, my friend, in all sorts of neuralgic affections, and have usually astonished my more enlightened patients with it. Many times I have them to ask me what in the world it was that had such a sweet influence over them.” Dr. L. Phares, of Newtonia, Miss., States.) from the chapter on “Passiflora” in New, Old and Forgotten Remedies by Edward Pollock Anshutz.

So here is my question to you: Could it be that Randi has found, that repeatedly doing this demonstration  with an actual high dilute as used in homeopathic remedies, has caused long term adverse effects?

It could be possible. The old school medical doctors, who saw the effects of homeopathics on thousands of subjects, reported that too many applications of a remedy of too high a potency could actually graft  symptoms permanently onto the patient!

Perhaps Randi knows this and has found himself to be in too deep, to deep to return tothe Styxxian shore.

Look at his eyes!

The clip of Randi on stage is from TED talks. TED is an acronym for “Technology Entertainment and Design.”  It is a series of conferences, presented globally, produced  by a private non-profit organization . . the Sapling Foundation, which was formed to disseminate “ideas worth spreading.”

The lecture featuring Randi was recorded in February of 2007. The “idea” he presents isn’t worth spreading. It’s a confusion, a menace to the public health. It should either be continued or put into it proper context as it has been done here.

It as worthless as what he claims homeopathy to be.

Two piece of prima facie forensics to note here. One is that Randi explicitly tells his audience to ignore the instructions for use . . the warnings . .  for what are labelled as sleeping pills.

The TED audience seems to think this is funny.

I don’t.

“I’m going to take some medication,” he says, “a full bottle of Calm’s Forte . . ignore the instructions, that’s what the government has put in there to confuse you, I’m sure.”

He then appears to dump the whole bottle of what he just said is medication, a substance used for medical treatment, in his mouth.

Is this a scientific experiment? Entertainment? A publicity stunt? Mass delusion, at $4,000 a throne?

After telling us we need to think critically, he asks us to join him in his assumptions. And the TED audience gullibly swallows it as quickly as he dumps the contents of the container into his mouth.

Randi is a proponent of critical thinking?

What hypocrisy!

“But Pee Wee, what does it mean?”

The word critical is a borderline one-word oxymoron, for it has meanings that are comparatively contradictory . . it can mean expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of something . . or it can mean simply expressing adverse or disapproving comments.

So where’s the science?

What if someone, a young person for instance, who is confused about what is “homeopathic,” repeats this stunt to impress his friends, and in doing so takes something that isn’t as inert as he thinks it is, whether it’s homeopathic or not?

Does he end up with intestinal cancer, like Randi did, two years after this stunt? Or might he  end up dead with little or no idea what caused his final illness?

What Randi is saying, “don’t bother to look more closely at this thing I’m  doing, I’ve got it covered.” In this way it may seem to be a very coherent act, to the impressionable . . which is what magicians want you to be. And Randi is a lifelong magician. And one thing I’ve noticed about magicians, is that they can’t help but eventually reveal the mechanism of their deceptions . . because they’re essentially show oafs, and like most criminals, they actually want to be caught . .

“Nay, indeed, if you had your eyes, you might fail of
the knowing me: it is a wise father that knows his
own child. Well, old man, I will tell you news of
your son: give me your blessing: truth will come
to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man’s son
may, but at the length truth will out.”

Launcelot, The Merchant of Venice

Magicians want you to keep your seat. They can’t have you wandering up on stage to look behind and deeply into things, spoiling their act.

And so Randi doesn’t want you Googling the ingredients of Calms Forte, even after it seems he’s have impllied TED should use critical thinking, but not invetigation, to do just that, for these people will see only what he wants them to see, when he wants them to see it.

He’s living off your assumptions.

If you attempt closer analysis, without his invitation or approval, he will metaphorically, or by simile, hang an “Out of Order” sign around your neck . . or call security.

“No no no!  Stay away from that! Don’t go there! Don’t look behind the JREF curtain!”

In Randi’s World, you’re not supposed to read the instructions . . THE GOVERNMENT PUT THEM THERE TO CONFUSE YOU!

You MIGHT actually stumble upon the actual ingredients!

Now, all of what has transpired here  is implied by presentation and performance, and here Randi is demanding critical thinking  about things outside of his venue . . but . . not within. Only things other than what are in his own hands are to enjoy the chimera of scrutiny, at a distance, by dint of the moderator.

But time has caught up and passed Randi. Now we have the Internet. We don’t have to pay $4,000 a seat to watch some high school drop out try to pull the wool over our eyes. We can just sit here for free . . and then watch him pull the wool over our eyes . . or we can  let our fingers do the walking and rip off the hoodwink!

Google the ingredients for Calms Forte.

See for yourself what it is made of. 1x means one part in ten! And here they say it is triple strength!  Does that mean that a third of it is the sedative Passiflora?

There is a heavy, measurable crude dose of Passiflora incarnata in Calms Forte . Here is what is listed as the actual ingredient of what Randi is over-ingesting.

Passiflora (Passion Flower) 1X triple strength HPUS
Avena Sativa (Oat) 1X double strength HPUS
Humulus Lupulus (Hops) 1X double strength HPUS
Chamomilla (Chamomile) 2X HPUS
Calcarea Phosphorica (Calcium Phosphate) 3X HPUS
Ferrum Phosphorica (Iron Phosphate) 3X HPUS
Kali Phosphoricum (Potassium Phosphate) 3X HPUS
Natrum Phosphoricum (Sodium Phosphate) 3X HPUS
Magnesia Phosphoricum (Magnesium Phosphate) 3X HPUS

Here Randi can’t demand passivity from his audience given the authority of the stage, the license he’s using to control what he has made out to be an investigation of homeopathy. . but which in fact is a hoax that has more than one layer of illusion.

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter: <a href=”http://www.twitter.com/JBennethJournal”><img src=”http://twitter-badges.s3.amazonaws.com/follow_me-a.png&#8221; alt=”Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter”/></a>

Transcript of video:

JOHN BENNETH: My name is John Benneth, honorary post graduate of Hahnemann College of Homeopathy, London,

JAMES RANDI: Hello, I’m James Randi, founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation

JOHN BENNETH: And we’re about to have a little discussion about homeopathy.

JAMES RANDI: I’ve used demonstrations to show audiences the importance of thinking skeptically about pseudoscience.

JOHN BENNETH: Good idea. Let’s take a skeptical look at what Randi is claiming, which you will see is in itself a prima facie example of pseudoscience, beliefs and practices that claim to be science without employing the METHOD of science, So in this case instead of an objective experiment, scientific test, or ranom controlled trial, Randi is using a dangerous stunt to try to prove what he wants to be true.

JAMES RANDI: One demonstration I’ve done many times is downing an entire package of 32 homeopathic sleeping pills. (cut to TED lecture) I have to do something uh now which seems a little bit strange, for a magician . . but I’m going to take some medication . . this is uh . . a full bottle of Calm’s Forte . . I’ll explain that in just a moment . . ignore the instructions, that’s what the government has put in there to confuse you, I’m sure.  I will take enough of these  (appears to empty bottle into mouth)  mmh . . indeed the whole cantainer. (Drinks water. Loud swallowing sound) Thirty two talets of Calms Forte.

JOHN BENNETH: Which is an example of pseudoscience. Randi is asking us to think skeptically about pseudoscience and then uses himself as an example to show exactly what it is that he’s talking about.

JAMES RANDI: The recommended dosage by the way is two to three pills. just to show that these scam medications have no effect.

JOHN BENNETH: Oh yeah? Well, look at his eyes, he can barely keep them open. Don’t do what this man is doing until you’ve heard the whole story, or . . you may saddle yourself with lifelong symptoms. I agree with Randi that you’re being scammed, but the scam here is Randi’s. And in this and other videos I prove it to you. Because homeopathic remedies make use of such highly diluted substances, it is understandable that some people may be doubtful as to whether or not these substances can have any biological action whatsoever, but that isn’t any reason to substitute a pseudoscientific stunt of the type Randi is performing here for the scientific method. Plants, for instance, make much better subjects for testing the action of homeopathic remedies, and likewise extensive testing has been done on plants using homeopathic remedies, objectively showing their biological action. There are simple tests you can do yourself. Homeopathic remedies can either accelerate or stunt plant growth, and they can be used phytopathologically , which means they can be used to control plant pests and diseases. If they work on plants, then it stands to reason tht they can also work on other living subjects, such as biochemical subjects. But Randi, who purports to be a proponent of the scientific method, is not talking about the extensive biochemical testing done on homeopathic remedies. This is a powerful form of medicine that is challenging what is thought to be the only treatments for human illnesses.

JAMES RANDI: There’s a warning on the box to call the poison control center .

JOHN BENNETH: There should also be one of the box made especially for him to call a psychiatrist. This man is publically encouraging people to intentionally overdose on substances he knows little if anything about in order to further a dangerous racket. However, the manufacturer of those homeoapthic sleeping pills would probably sell twice as many if they put a picture of him on the box.

JAMES RANDI: But that’s a joke.

JOHN BENNETH: So is James Randi’s Million Dollar Challenge, and I will prove that to you too in alater video.

JAMES RANDI: But that’s a joke . .

JOHN BENNETH: Tune in and turn on to homeopathy, real medicine that really works and watch as Randi and I continue go head to head on homeopathy. Two men go in, one man comes out. Listen very carefully to what Randi says. Its been carefully scripted, and I will reveal to you his lies. Subscribe to the Bandershot channel here on Youtube for more about the Million Dollar Challenge to homeopathy, and homoepathy’s trillion dollar challenge to the patent medicine racket.

JAMES RANDI: I’ve overdosed on homeopathic medicine many times and my eyes are still open.

JOHN BENNETH: Toothpicks.

END OF VIDEO

(April 2011)