End stage homeopathic delusion grips Earth

Either way you look at it, it is a strange phenomenon. Millions are either seriously deluded, or a great number of authority figures are fooling somebody, if not themselves.

No one can deny that it is counterintuitive. Its physics are almost totally unknown, or if they are known, then it is as if there is a taboo on talking about them.

What was up until just recently regarded as nothing much more than a cure for the sniffles, its self assembling trajectory is aimed at overthrowing what is regarded as mainstream internal medicine.

The majority of us plod down this road unknown, passerby in the night of the world, our footprints wiped clean by the wind . . a few steps behind soon enough; and all of us, famous, infamous and unknown to his generation alike, even Christ, are, or will be, eventually, completely . . forgotten; forgotten in some landscape like wasteland.

But not apparently in the mind of defrocked Professor Edzard Ernst.

“No! No!” the ego cries out, “I  . . or someone from my race . . Adam! He will always be remembered, always . .”

No, no, I don’t think so. But from his carving out of space of a reality all his own, certainly the world’s first professor of Complementary Medicine, whose caboose once parked in the world’s most important and most coveted chair of the healing arts, Edzard Ernst thinks he will be remembered long after the Sun has blown itself out and Earth, as a cold derelict, is stupidly wandering in space. Uberdoktor Ernst apparently thinks he will be immortalized for what he wrote on December 03, 2013 in his blog   “My two favourite examples of end-stage homeopathic delusionists are John Benneth and Dana Ullman.”

How many have already denied Christ, Mohammed, Moses or Zarathustra? Where is the true remembrance of Abraham? Is one man a myth, another a legend for the choosing? How or why I have to share this honor with Ullman I can only hope be surmised by wild speculation, for I see no sense in it, but I suppose I should be magnamous and share, though now I know what it’s like to receive only half of a Nobel Prize.

The honor was prefaced by Ernst’s report in his December 03, 2013 blog of an interview done with him by Der Spiegel.  Ernst states that although he discussed numerous alternative therapies there were well over 500 responses to it by readers, “focussed [sic] almost entirely on homeopathy.” Most of those responders spoke as if gripped by some strange force, claiming that what was scorned for centuries works.

What is remarkable about the interview is the lack of challenge by Der Spiegel to what Ernst sees as a completely non-scientific “quasi-religious faith many people have in homeopathy.”

I say this because there are countless testimonies saying it works, from scientists and users alike . . and while possessing an uncanny insight into human character, its physicians, adding to the mystery, tend to keep their heads down and their mouths shut about what it is they do, and how they do it . . how for a patient they select an individualized remedy out of thousands.

Anyone can put it to the test and anyone can read the literature online that shows the scientific basis in both evidence and theory. But Der Spiegel failed to confront Ernst with his denial of the facts

Der Spiegel did, however, catch Ernst in another one of his oddball contradictions. Der Spiegel asked the world’s leading antagonist of the doctrine if he thought alternative medicine can treat cancer . .

SPIEGEL: What about using herbal therapies?

Ernst: There is to my knowledge no plant extract that can tackle cancer itself.

SPIEGEL: What about what Rudolph Steiner said long ago about mistletoe as a cancer treatment, that because like cures like, and mistltoe hangs on the tree like a tumor, it could fight tumors. Now today we know that mistletoe actually has effective anti cancer ingredients. What about that?

Ernst: Mistletoe lectins can kill cells, they are highly toxic.  How could Steiner know?  He just had a bit of luck: Many plants have such toxic ingredients. But whether the mistletoe really helps in cancer, due to the study location, is rather questionable.

What? One moment Ernst is saying that “no plant extract can tackle cancer,” (exactly what we would expect to hear from a proselyte of allopathic patent medicine) and the next moment, after the Spiegel interviewer has astutely caught him with the mistletoe example, he admits he knew all along that a plant extract is indeed capable of apoptosis, and Steiner, the Austrian who founded anthroposophy, a religion that promotes a form of homoeopathy, just got lucky?

Steiner made this observation almost 100 years ago. According to the BMJ, by 2006 there had been about 1,000 in vitro studies showing that mistletoe, or its main constituents of alkaloids, lectins, and viscotoxins, do indeed have anti-cancer activity!

This is just one example of the blatant self-contradictions and errors of commission, that besides a breach of trust, got Ernst’s rump booted out of his Exeter throne as the first chair devolved from complementary medicine to a hot seat of uncomplimentary lies that peddle mainstream “orthodox medicine” by bad mouthing curative therapies and the ionized pharmacy.

But who would expect anything more from Exeter? How does a leopard change its spots or the Devil throw out the Devil? For a “medical” institution like Exeter to establish a chair of “complementary medicine” investigating homoeopathy is like asking investigating Islam and not mentioning the Mosaic genocide reported in Numbers 31.

Aren’t these things obvious? “Mainstream medicine” is now the third leading cause of death in the US, where it reigns supreme. It does this solely on a bubble, inflated by hubris, that a competing form of medicine, homoeopathy, built on a radically different iatric and posology, doesn’t exist, for the moment homoeopathy takes over a person’s mind, allopathy loses that person as prey. Up until then, that the victim thought there was only one kind of medicine, and although it may be the third leading cause of death, thought it’s all there was.

When will it be enough? How much longer will we tolerate putting profit over cure?

It doesn’t matter to the allopath that people rhapsodize over homoeopathy’s startling cures, it doesn’t matter homoeopathy is demonstrably superior to modern mainstream “medicine” in the treatment and prevention of deadly and epidemic diseases, it doesn’t matter that homoeopathy is secretly what completely eradicated smallpox, the world’s greatest scourge, homoeopathy will not and cannot exist as a form of medicine in the mind of the allopath. This is because the strategy of allopathy is that Medicine is to rule, not serve.

But the responses in the Der Spiegel interview  shows that with the advent of homeopathy iatrocide may be quelling, as does Ernst’s confused wabbling in his blog , followed by sputtering commentary from his posse . . confused attempts to explain this growing mass delusion called “homoeopathy.”

Into this confused commentary of Ernst’s blog I have waded, and I have issued a challenge they cannot meet . .

I Challenge Edzard Ernst and the Evil Empire Part IV

Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, also denounced homeopathy, but it was on the same grounds as she dismissed allopathy. Professor Edzard Ernst, first chair of Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the University of Exeter in England does not apply such a global perspective to the subject in his argument against homeopathy. His own assertions seep through his dismissals, sweeping aside the evidence with the same dinghy reasoning.

Just as homeopathy competed with her faith healing, it competes with his, the faith healing of the of the hard drug racket of Pfizer, GlaxoSnithKilne and Aventis.

Ernst is their front man. 
Professor Ernst says the evidence for homeopathic verum is insufficient, and so it must be placebo. Very well then, where is his evidence for homeopathic placebo?

What? Yes of course. You don’t think acccusations of guilt don’t need to be proven, do you? Then why is the placebo charge that bears with it the appellation of sham sotolerated?

The accuser must prove it, or suffer the same penalty. And Ernst can’t prove it!
Look, do the math. Homeopathy (H) not equaling verum (V) is not proof for H equaling placebo (P). P must be proven for H by the same terms demanded for H proving V.
But it gets even worse. Ernst doesn’t define what he means by placebo!
Edzard Ernst makes no reference to scientific tests for placebo. Edzard Ernst gives us no theory for psychosomatic, psychogenic effects. Edzard Ernst does not even define what he means by placebo, because placebo is not a scientific term. It is a word from another kingdom.
There are multiple definitions for placebo. In Latin placebo means “to please.” Placebo is primarily a religious term, the opening words for the evening prayers of Vespers. A placebo used to refer to someone who would come to a funeral for the free food and drink. They could be spotted as phonies because it would be the first words out of their mouths when they entered.
And so it is with Ernst, coming to the funeral he’s set for something he’s trying to kill.
“Homeopathy’s dead,” announces Ernst as he enters the hall of science “Placebo” is his word for admission, and the pseudoscientists he lords it over bow and pray to their golden pseudoscience calf!.
But homeopathy is not dead.

In the first installment of this series, I challenged Edzard Ernst to a duel. I challenged him to match me, study for study, placebo for verum, head to head, arm and leg, mano a mano. He shows us a scientific study that shows homeopathy is “placebo,” I show one for verum, the opposite of placebo.
In medical jargon, medical means a sham, verum means the truth.
And that is what I’m here to do. My colleagues and I are here to reveal the lie, show the truth, heal the sick, cleanse the leper, dissolve the cancer, stop malaria, end diabetes, cast out demons. And as an added bonus, not only will we do that, I will reveal the classical science behind the homeopathic remedy, its modus operandi, how it works and its physical structure, right down to the atom.
In ten years of study I have met every shape of skeptic and argument that the broad breadths of the world can furnish, and never to date have I lowered my arm. Every argument against homeopathy is based on fallacy and lie, as spread by the likes of Edzard Ernst.
Excuse me. I, John Benneth, have lectured in the world’s most prestigious halls before the most learned audiences, such as Hahnemann College in London, and the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge. I have stood before the most discerning audiences. But, as one of the world’s greatest physicists was likened to say, no one has yet proven me wrong. And they won’t. They can’t. I am about to reveal to the world one of its greatest mysteries. the supramolecular mechanics of the world greatest medicine, hitherto unknown.
My testaments are supported . . not by entertainers, magicians, pseudoscientists or journalist doctors nor convicted racketeers, as Ernst’s are, but by real scientists, Nobel laureates and professors of the material sciences.
I don’t draw upon the inhabitants of fantasy land like Edzard Ernst, James Randi, John Beddington or David Colquhoun do. I don’t need to posture and pose as if Avogadro finished this sentence, as Michael Shermer and Simon Singh will do. I don’t need to scribble a column for a white washing newspaper like Ben Goldacre does. No! I look to the hard sciences for my answers.
So I can say, without doubt or wish for more, that the case for the world’s greatest medicine is now complete. And with the help of Edzard Ernst, I will spread the truth about homeopathy.
I speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Listen, there were times when I thought that money and reputation spoke louder than the truth. The problem was I was not listening, there was quite enough to go around for all to enjoy. Someone is always standing about who doesn’t care about the money, and that’s the guy who blows the whistle.

Listen! and you will learn one of the greatest truths ever known to Man.
John Benneth, PG Hom. – London (Hons.)

COMING SOON: John Benneth’s Structure of Belief


In part one of this series I issued a challenge to the world’s first Professor of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Edzard Ernst, to prove his assertion that homeopathic are placebos by proving it by his own standards of what constitutes science: For every report of verum, show us one for placebo.
In part two I present the sole ad hominem assertion for the action of homeopathics.
In this part, I examine the claim for placebo more closely, present its solvent, and call for the question, challenging the opponents of homeopathy to create in a dialectic worthy of the academia he represents. if you can’t prove placebo, then stop making that assertion and start asking relevant questions.
We know the assertions of condemned evidence are never taken easily by invested reputations, and we know you know it. So why must we take each other as idiots?
If one someone  says he has seen something you consider to be implasuible, you are well within your rights not to believe him. But if million subscribe to it, even  scientists, who understand that it is implausible, then it bears further inspection. It deserves a personal test. But I don’t see that happening. Ernst won’t drink the dilute Kool Aid. He will not conduct a proving. Remember what he said? After more than a million dollars sunk into him and  his program, he doesn’t have enough money to conduct one.
In the skepticism of Edzard Ernst, are his assertions evoked from global standards, or are they local? What are his criteria for a scientific study? Can he contrast the failing of tests for homeopathy to similar tests for allopathic pharmaceuticals?
If he’s so sure of his position, then he should have no problem in asking basic questions about it.
What dimensions does he see for homeopathy? Why does he not include the biochemical tests in his review of homeopathy?
Aside from alleging placebo, Edzard Ernst’s quest is to dismiss selective evidence qualitatively without naming crtieria, and to ignore the rest.
Within his arguments there are a few hidden assumptions, as there must be in any a priori allegation. This trundles along benignly, but it is missing something. A skeptic who applies his Pyrrhic node globally doesn’t have much to say except “cast thy shadow not on me, the truth cannot be known by any man, it is all for naught.”
Well, if Ernst were to do that we could all admire him, give him some wine and leave him alone in his barrel. But it doesn’t end there. Ernst, like every local skeptic with a positive assertion must ineviatbly succumb to barrel fever and come boiling out of it with his own  hypocritcal version of the truth: Ernst says that the effects of homeopathics are due to “placebo.” That is his sole, ill-defined, vague thesis. That is the one incontrovertible statement of hard fisted, sure-to-the-bone belief of this “master scientist.” He knows from study, logic and law that homeopathics must have the avenue of the human mind to work their thaumaturgy, that they are not idiopathic substances like coals that lie alone in the pit and glow, no! They must have the engine and fire of the intellect to work their magic, for they have no power alone without the bellows of delusion.
However, there is a huge difference between the criteria in the case for homeopathy and the case against it.
In the case for it, the propositions are supported by trial, error and classical scientific terms. His are supported by little more than the criticisms he has levied on the evidence for verum.
His is a circular argument. It feeds on its own solipsism. We show him evidence, he denies it on grounds that there is no theory to support it. We show him theory and he denies it on the basis that there is no evidence to support it. And why is that again? Because there is no accepted theory in science to support he evidence . . yeah, but didn’t we just say . .

“NO!” he shouts.

Do you see the hypocrisy of his argument?
The deciding factor should be found in the specificity of the case. The truth has a rolling detail to it that in inspection gains in resolution, definition and concordance. Seven different types of biochemical tests logically dissolves the placbeo hyptohesis. Intermoelcular forces that constitute polymeric crystalliferous liquid aqueous structuring and the ensuing piezo electric effect define the theory of action.
The lies, however, that physical and dynamic indices don’t exist, that action is solely that of a placebo, lacks a corollary, is full of contradictions and is idiopathic.
But homeopathy is not idiopathic, not like its opponents want us to think. Homeopathy can not stand apart from science, and a diligent inspection of it shows that it does not. Homeopathy can be explained using current scientific terms, found mostly in supramolecular and crystal chemistry.

Next, a comparison of Edzard Ernst to Christian Science.


In my last blog, I issued a challenge to a key figure in the case against homeopathy. For every scientific study that shows the biological action of the high dilutes used in homeopathic practice, let him show one that proves it’s a placebo.

Edzard Ernst writes a column in the popular press. His scientific papers are mostly reviews of other people‘s work, such as his “Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews of Homeopathy.” He doesn’t get his hands dirty like Professor Madeleine Ennis of Queens College in Belfast did when she replicated the basophil degranulation test. He not only avoids doing biochemical and biological tests that disprove placebo, he avoids reviewing them. Edzard Ernst just sticks to bad mouthing clinical trials of homeopathy. That way the placebo charge sounds more reasonable. Saying that non cellular systems or lymphocytes can respond to a bedside manner or homeopathic interview doesn’t make much sense, so Ernst pretends there are no pre-clinicals worthy of conisderation. He mostly references either his own previous reviews or those of others who conclude homeopathic placebo and bypasses the intrinsic contradictions.

He claims there is no evidence for homeopathic verum (intrinsically potent, opposite placebo) on the basis that it is not perfect, without stating what the standards are. He does this without addressing studies that show physical distinctions and biological action between solvent verum and the inert vehicle. When confronted with these pre-clinicals, Ernst pushes them aside for lack of credibility on account of some flaw so egregious that reason must transcend any attempt to replicate them. He characterizes specific biological effects in a solvent lacking an expected heterogeneous guest to match them so preposterous that the procedural flaws of pre-clinical tests only highlight the inevitable missing molecule.

Therefore, says Ernst, any result of a physical, biochemical or biological test that shows the action of the substances in question must be the result of the witness’s misperception, bias or deception.
But there is something wrong with this.
Positive assertions are made by both sides of the argument. I say homeopathy is supported by science, both empirically and rationally and the case for homeopathy is complete. He will say it is not. Fine. That’s his opinion. He will say there can not be any real evidence of intrinsic action because there is no scientific explanation for it. Okay, but its not as though we’re empty handed on that score either. We can show that the recorded electromagnetic emissions of the crystalliferous homeopathic solvent is distinguishable from its vehicle, the inert non-crytalliferous solvent. He will say this is nonsense.  Alright, that’s his opinion again, also unsupported by any reference but his own, but we can also show the electromagnetic effects of homeopathics on six different types of biochemical testing, and in tests on cancerous cells. He will repeat his assertion that there is no scientific theory. No, that’s wrong. We can explain liquid aqueous structuring and how it relates to electromagnetic action using supramolecular chemistry and electronics. He’ll say this is all hogwash. Whatever. But . . .


I CHALLENGE EDZARD ERNST and the Evil Empire at Exeter

It was suggested recently that the Evil Empire’s professor of not so complementary medicine at the University of Exeter Edzard Ernst must have hated his father.
If I was Edzard Ernst, I’d certainly hate my father too for having raised such a despicable son. What Edzard Ernst is doing is unconscionable, unprofessional and unethical. He has become nothing more than a stooge for the criminal interests of allopathy, he has furthered the interest of racketeers, and this series sets out to prove it.
If you think this is unwarranted, libelous and  sensational, read on for the proof, because its true. It’s coming, and Ernst and Exeter both are going to get creamed for it.
It is clear Ernst is a mercenary who has sought to sabotage complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Name one good thing the man has had to say about CAM?

I haven’t heard it.

Edzard Ernst says that complementary medicine in Germany and Austria is mostly practiced by qualified physicians. He claims he began his medical career at a homeopathic hospital in Munich and has practiced homeopathy, but has never completed a course in it.

The man is a fraud. Keep reading here and I’ll show you why.
He argues that “Complementary and Alternative Medicine” (“CAM”) is an almost nonsensical umbrella term, and yet he enjoys the distinction of being its first chair, the first in the world you say at the Peninsular Medical School at the University of Exeter. He does not perform clinical trials there to prove his “placebo hypothesis” for homeopathy. No! He complains of lack of funding, yet he is perfectly comfortable making the claim that homeopathy is a placebo, that that is what it is, while ignoring the pre-clincials that prove it wrong.

In April 2010 the German National Association of Homeopathic Physicians published an interview with Professor Edzard Ernst in its newsletter where he claimed he “acquired the prerequisites” to be able to add ‘homeopathy’ to his medical title “but never applied for the title.”

Oh really?

In Germany, where homeopathy is regulated, it is a prerequisite to have passed an exam by a governing medical council, which Ernst did not do.

GNAHP: “So is it correct that you did not acquire the additional medical title ‘Homeopathy’ but took further medical education courses in homeopathy? If yes, which ones?”
ERNST: “I never completed any courses.”

Began his career at a homeopathic HOSPITAL but never completed any courses in homeopathy in a country that regulates its use?

Practicing without a license the very medicine he now so conveniently despises?
And now he’s in England terrorizing the British?
The University of Exeter knew or should have known better. They are responsible for the inflammatory, anti-scientific and dangerous statements being issued by this man. What kind of “doctors” are they pumping out there? If they could  fathom the critical thinking of homeopathy this would have never happened.

That school would be better off licensing butchers than turning out doctors. Or assassins.

I challenge anyone from the University of Exeter to exonerate  their complicity with that degree mill in this obstructionism and their assault on human health. I challenge Professor Ernst, or any of his supporters, at the price of the Chair and compensation to me for having to bother with it, to back up Ernst’s prevarications against reputable medicine. This cesspool of “learning” is endangering the entire  human race with their iatrogenesis.  Exeter and its “Peninsular Medical School” must be taken to dire task for their complicity in this malfeasance. Either pony up the reputable science that confirms what Ernst is saying to be true, or be forfeit in reputation and pay for the consequences of the lies being told by Edzard Ernst.
I will meet Ernst, Exeter and the Evil Empire they esquire, science for science, study for study, that at the price of their placebo hypothesis proves homeopathy beyond the shadow of a doubt, and they will be unseated and they will pay. They will be unnerved and blasted, and the public will be shocked when they find out what the truth of the matter is.
Read here in subsequent blogs the gritty details of this challenge.
It’s time to take a blowtorch to this mess and end it once and for all.

UPDATE: Ernst is fired from Exeter after the Prince of Wales accuses Ernst of academic malfeasance . .

John BENNETH, PG Hom. – London (Hons.)