Homeopathy vs. Bioterrorism

John Benneth unveils a new immunology, the Supramolecular Vaccine.

The Scientific Reasonableness of Homeopathy
by Royal S. Copeland, A.M., M.D.
Reprinted from The Chironian
May 1909

Protection of Mice from Tularemia Infection with Ultra-Low, Serial Agitated Dilutions Prepared from Francisella tularensis -Infected Tissue Wayne B. Jonas, Debra K. Dilner http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=

Providing evidence for the homeopathic law of similars (pathological similitude) is easy, prima facie in the smallpox vaccine and subsequent prophylaxis strategy. Immunization by imitating an infection is the soul of homeopathy. CDC – How Vaccines Work : https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-understand-color-office.pdf.
Okay, I’ll try harder! Using bovine variola, cowpox serum, to cure human variola, smallpox, is a perfect example of an application of the law of similars, “like cures like”, or pathological similitude, Even in the molecule, it’s use can be homeopathic. Elementary! CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-understand-color-office.pdf

Molecular dissociation is the key to understanding ultra-dilute homeopathic solutions, how the molecular solute is ionized into expanding electrons. Known in the early 1900’s, 2018 homeopathy paradox commentators are just now becoming aware of it https://www.scitechnol.com/peer-review/a-homeopathy-model-in-the-light-of-hahnemanns-pristine-idea-OxDN.php?article_id=7432


Presidential Alert: JOHN BENNETH IS LOOSE AGAIN, Your TV Homeopath. Self realization, The Public Confessional. Just what you needed to hear. I became the people I portrayed . . the kid who portrayed the hero married another guy, the guy who played the villain went to prison for murder . . Thaumaturgy 101 Miracle Working . On Trial. I invoke an earthquake for judge’s denial of Sui Juris and rejection of Choice of Evils. Judge et al run out of courthouse/ Reverse, Remand and Recuse. Managing a Miracle. The Doctrine of Amazement an anti-materialist creed. FDA/Homeopathy’s 1,352 cures. Busting Avogadro, Homeopathy’s Final Accord. It’s in Your Face, An Attitude of Gratitude, The Power of Grace.

Relevant links:
Busting Avogadro, Homeopathy’s Final Accord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amedeo_Avogadro#Response_to_the_theory
FDA/Homeopathy’s 1,352 cures http://homeoint.org/clarke/index.htm

Electronic structure of vaccines and homeopathic artifice

VIDEO BOOK BONUS “God Particle Undiscovered by John Benneth plays at bottom of the page

Except for the totally baffled astronomer, totally baffled present day science only looks from the outside in, and science and astronomy both appear to be blind looking from the inside out.

Large Hadron Insider smelling trillions of shares

John Benneth Homeopathy‏ @JBennethJournal Mar 21


Replying to @scrutinizer_the @6x10E23

The curative strategy of similitude, of like cures like, is the fundamental basis of immunology, such as the use of cowpox serum to immunize against smallpox. This is the practice of homeopathy, which extends inverse effects to other afflictions.



The Scrutinizer‏ @scrutinizer_the 6h

6 hours ago


Replying to @JBennethJournal @6x10E23

what inverse effects and what afflictions? and no making antibodies, I’m sure homeopathy does NOT do that. I am not against anything that helps people but I am against everything that is a lie and misleads. how does homeopathy cure a staph infection for instance

1.) “Inverse effects” here are highly specific electromagnetic pushbacks by an immune system that programs and degranulates antibodies such as basophils. The literature details biochemical tests that reveal homeopathic ionized solutes triggering degranulation.

2.) How does homeopathy cure staph infections? It uses ionized substances that produce transitory symptoms similar to those variant in Staphylococcus, such as Hepar sulph, Hypericum and Arsenicum. 2 of 2

Hahnemann stopped a streptococcus (Scarlet Fever) epidemic in 1799 in Königslutter using ionized Belladonna

J. Guevara‏ @BocktheRobber 5h

5 hours ago


Replying to @JBennethJournal @6x10E23

Trying to equate vaccination with homeopathy demonstrates a complete ignorance not only of real science but also of homeopathy. Which is a bit silly, coming from a homeopath.

John Benneth Homeopathy‏ @JBennethJournal 6h

6 hours ago


It is ironic to note that the practice of homeopathy, the cure of natural diseases through the application of similar, less virulent diseases is well accepted in vaccination but rejected by allopathic medicine when proven to work on any human affliction than the use of a cowpox to inoculate against smallpox.

3k replies




Here’s a question I punted into Google: How do vaccines immunize?

Here’s what I take to be the answer from conventional settled science via the US government’s Center for Disease Control:

How do vaccines give immunity?

“Vaccines help develop immunity by imitating an infection. This type of infection, however, does not cause illness, but it does cause the immune system to produce T-lymphocytes and antibodies. Sometimes, after getting a vaccine, the imitation infection can cause minor symptoms, such as fever.”

John Benneth Homeopathy‏ @JBennethJournal Mar 22


Replying to @LappinGraham @6x10E23

CDC: “Vaccines help develop immunity by imitating an infection”??!! That, by definition, is HOMEOPATHY! These poor anti-homeopathy suckers have been getting stuck with homeopathy and didn’t even know it. Understanding How Vaccines Work https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/…/vacsafe-understand-color-office.pdf …


I beg your pardon if by raising an objection I have rocked the Titanic, but the stated recognition that vaccines help develop immunity by imitating an infection stumbles over a painful stub-toe that bears immediate hindsight, a huge medical stub-toe: it is one of two reasons for rejecting doctrinal homeopathy, a long practiced medical tradition.

Creating immunity from any particular disease by staging an imitation of that disease is the primary strategy of homeopathy in treating, not just infectious diseases, but a wide range of human problems, such as those caused by emotional stress (like peptic ulcers) infection and toxicity. The broad application of pathological similitude to treat a wide variety of human, animal and even plant, i.e. biological afflictions, is on one count why for over 200 years homeopathy has been banned by standard medical practice.

So this is really an odd conundrum. On one hand, according to the CDC, the use of artificial imitative diseases is the only strategy for conveying immunity, such as using bovine smallpox to eradicate the human strain. On the other hand, its use is rejected. It would appear that one hand is ignorant of the other.

As I intimated in a previous paragraph, as one hand is to the other, there is a second count to this dialectic, the issue of chemistry. What is the chemistry of the homeopathic remedy? We could say biochemistry, we could say electrochemistry, we could say physico-chemistry, we could say quantum chemistry, and as Hahnemannian Freemasons we could even say Geometry, and as skeptics we must decline to answer as we are forced to say there is no distinctive chemistry . . but to invoke the truth just asking what is the chemistry of the homeopathic remedy is solvent enough.

John Benneth Homeopathy‏ @JBennethJournal


Replying to @scrutinizer_the @6x10E23

In 1999 I was the first to apply for James Randi’s million-dollar challenge to prove homeopathy. Randi panicked and tried to avoid me by challenging Benveniste instead, who sent him back to me and my triple-blind dielectric strength test. Randi’s been cowering ever since.

12:42 PM – 23 Mar 2018

as the saying arises

Dr Graham Lappin‏ @LappinGraham 22h

22 hours ago


Replying to @JBennethJournal @scrutinizer_the @6x10E23

You can prove homeopathy? I’ll rush out and rewrite my textbook. And I’ll get all those other scientists to rewrite the laws of nature.

John Benneth Homeopathy‏ @JBennethJournal 2h

2 hours ago


Replying to @LappinGraham @scrutinizer_the @6x10E23

Can I prove homeopathy? Yes of course, Dr. Lappin, I can prove homeopathy. So can you if you are willing to lose your job as a pharmacologist. What more proof do I need than James Randi and his million dollars? What more proof do you need than the basophil degranulation test?

So as you can see, skepticism immediately draws us away from the point: homeopathy and disease prophylaxis of immunization share a common ancestor in the electronic structure of their chemistry. In quantum chemistry, electronic structure is the state of motion of electrons in an electrostatic field created by stationary nuclei. The term encompass both the wave functions of the electrons and the energies associated with them. Electronic structure is what determines the molecule’s properties of action. It may be a novel presentation of this essay that at the quantum level the smallpox serum and homeopathic Variolinum share the same electronic structure, and though inverse semiologically pose similar triggers and snares.

You may immediately pose a reasonable objection calling into question the presumed deterioration of molecular properties due to theoretical dissociation by hydrolysis in the manufacture of a homeopathic remedy, unless we assume that electronic structure is holographic, from the solid first phase of matter to plasma, from molecule to the infinitesimal, electronic structure remains the same.

So the next question then is how do water molecules in the homeopathic remedy imitate the electronic structure of the hydrolyzed solute?

Every field has a circuitry, streams within it, channels of energy that act as capacitors, so where we find an electromagnetic field we are compelled to seek its circuitry, and so in the study of homeopathic chemistry this is found in the hydrogen bonding of the water molecule. The electronic structure of water can be a rote copy of matter’s grammar, imitating the solute’s communication at the subatomic level with organic entities and inorganic elements, to trigger endemic processes, build orthogenic ones or annihilate exogenic antigens.

This is how water imitates the electronic structure of matter.

The water molecule is tetrahedral in shape, that is to say it has transverse lines drawn from input and output ports connecting water molecules around impurities, most notably in homeopathic remedies around impurities such as ethanol, nanoscopic silica and atmospheric cavitation, i.e. bubbles, interstitials that give hydrogen bonding formatting. Hydrogen bonding of water molecules allows for molecular self-assembly into an infinite number of forms. It takes its architectural instructions from hydrolyzed guest solutes, creating a circuitry mimicking the guest, transmitting it’s unique signal to recipient DNA.

A number of scientists, most notably Benveniste, Montagnier and Conte have recorded EMF signals coming off this h-bonded structuring, from the low kilowatt range to high beta. Montagnier found that when homeopathically ionized solutions were mµ shielded from the background radiation (Schumann resonances) the 1kw signal quit, suggesting an external power source transducting biased signals.

This is eyebrow raising. It suggests that matter, irrespective of phase, has within it, in all condensations of HO phase, electromagnetic lensing, holographic fractals, recursive psychograms transducing the background radiation into a specific comprehensive signal emitted throughout the spectrum.

. . to be continued

Subscribe upper right corner



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)

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



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.


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 . .


. . 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)!


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.


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!

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.”

“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.



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.


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.


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

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 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?


Victims of the Great Genius Support Group

Here’s a new blog that may change your basic outlook on science, called

Support Group.

The first entry is entitled “The Speed of Now.” 

I encourage you to be the first to take a look and comment.

John Benneth, Homeopath

503 819 7777

Who wants to smear homeopathy?

I think its a smear campaign.

Kaviraj and I have given them more than enough time to respond to our challenge. All we have asked of the critics of homeopathy, like Edzard Ernst, John Beddington, Ben Goldacre, Andy Lewis and their dopey proxies, is to please show us the evidence that homeopathic remedies are “placebos.”

Show us just one scientific  study that proves it. Please. Just one. That’s all. It’s not too much to ask.

But here we are, empty handed.

Boo hoo.
All we got in here is nothing more than blandishments, rhetorical questions, empty assertions, vague references to something seen on TV, ridicule, rants and accusations, but not one published study. Not one! Nothing to prove the claim that homeopathy is a placebo, nothing to lead us to the truth, not from them!

Instead, we have public figures, people who should be taken as authorities on the subject, such as Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at Excreter Univeristy in England, and Professor Sir John Beddington, Chief Science Advisor to the British government, presenting to the public a conclusion that has dual, contradictory meanings: One, because it is a placebo, homeopathy does not work; and two, the placebo effect can be a powerful one, and so if there is a cure from homeopathy that doesn’t seem like to be a coincidence, it is likely to be because of that.

So why would Beddington, Ernst or anyone with half a mind make a statement like that, that homeopathic medicine is a placebo, when the action of two and a half million (2,500,000) doses of homeopathic medicine was reportedly seen in Cuba to stop epidemic of chronic swamp fever?
Is Beddington going to call that the effects of placebo, or is he going to call the Cubans liars?
You don’t need to be partial to homeopathy to see that the criticisms of it aren’t adding up until, perhaps, I point out that Cuba is one of the few places in the world where drug companies like Pfizer can’t so easily get to.

“Homeopathy is very difficult to write about for a contemporary medical audience. In an ideal informational world, in which science is unbiased information and scientists and academics are unbiased consumers of such information, it would not be so difficult. Unfortunately, it is painfully obvious that science is biased, consumers of scientific information are biased, and science is routinely used to advance personal political and economic agendas that have nothing to do with increasing the store of generalizable knowledge.” (Dean review)

Intelligent people, people in positions of authority, are making stupid statements, that homeopathy is a placebo. Beddington said it in the Guardian just the other day, and that it is scientifically unsupported.

Conversely, one researcher, in making an exhaustive review of the clinical literature, found 205 prospective controlled clinical trials performed in the contemporary research environment from 1940 to 1998. He found evidence of homeopathy’s safety and efficacy in trials of high internal validity. He also found usefulness for homeopathy in areas that are problematic for orthodox medicine. On the basis of trials reviewed, he concluded that homeopathy is clinically relevant and that there are certain conditions in which pragmatic trials of homeopathy versus standard treatment would be useful, for example, in unexplained female infertility, postviral fatigue syndrome, influenza, and atopy. (Dean)
The review of his book then says something very interesting: “Sociologic data show the use of data for this purpose is ineffective. That is, scientists are not convinced by data. That a significant body of data shows homeopathy is more than placebo is now indisputable. Since homeopathy is a school of medicine, and not an ad hoc therapeutic modality or technique, one can conclude that data showing homeopathy is not explainable by placebo are data that go toward confirming the entire school of homeopathy and its claims, not simply that this or that remedy works for this or that disease entity.” (Dean review http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/mednat/research_on_homeopathy_state_of_the_art_(3).pdf)

Well, this is just wild, like Oscar, and it gets wilder, even more than Thornton.

As you can see, first revealed in my previous blog, a review of the literature by the most respected reviewers provided no real evidence for the placebo effect. Researcher Michael Emmons Dean isn’t alone in that assessment. There is no published, scientific support for the placebo charge against homeopathy, yet that’s the claim that the Chief Scientist to the UK government is making, along with the holder of the only chair for complementary medicine, and there appear to be hordes cheering them on, when in fact, in view of the data, the opposite should be happening.
I have never seen anyone, who has taken a vituperative stand against homeopathy, ever recant in the face of the evidence for it. They just slink away or keep yarping the same old bark over and over again, as if they don’t even look at it.
I’ve seen it happen up close and personal. I was friends with Jerry Andrus, a world renowned magician who was on the advisory board of the National Council Against Heath fraud. (NCAHF). Jerry was convinced there was no evidence in support of homeopathy. When I finally put a stack of studies in front of him that showed there was, he literally pushed it away and replaced it with a small pad of paper he was carrying and a pencil, and asked me to list some other stupid things I believed in, like witches, fairy tales and of course, astrology. When he saw the look in my eyes, he quickly withdrew it, confessing that he guessed that wasn’t fair.
It never is. Although they claim science, and demand it from you, when you present it to them, they ignore it at first, or try to pick it apart based on poor statistics.
When challenged to respond with facts over assertions, they simply ignore it. It’s not the behavior of scientists pursuing a concordant truth, its the behavior of people who are legislating. They won’t and can’t face the evidence. If they did, they’d have to stand down. Read the commentary in response. They aren’;t responding to the science with the science they first demanded. They have none. It’s all on the side of homeopathy.

Who is Sir John Beddington? When we look at some of his statged beliefs, an even stranger picture emerges as to why he is denouncing homeopathy. 

DEAN, Review of Michael Emmons Dean, “The Trials of Homeopathy: Origins, Structure, and Development” http://www.homeopathy.org/research/research_reviews/acm-2005-11_15.pdf
Jonas W, Kaptchuk T, Linde K. A critical overview of homeopathy.
Ann Int Med 2003;138:393–399.
Fisher P. Homeopathy: A multifaceted scientific renaissance.
J Altern Complement Med 2001;7:123–125.

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter