BENNETH: The Covert Alliance between Homeopathy & Skepticism [was James Randi]
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:43 pm
The Covert Alliance between Homeopathy and Skepticism [was James Randi]
Excuse me, but just when was it that the homeopathic community started supporting Benveniste, or for that matter, any biochemical or physical tests for homeopathy? Or to put it more accurately, when did homeopaths break with arch skeptic James Randi et al and stop torpedoing them?
The following is taken from a 2003 letter by renowned Greek homeopath George Vithoulkas, Dean of the International Academy of Classical Homeopathy, to Matthew Barrett, the editor of the BBC/Horizon program that reported an attempted replication of a biochemical test of a homeopathic drug by novice workers for the purpose of “winning” a stage magician's vaunted prize of a million dollars.
In this letter Vithoulkas actually sides with Randi against Benveniste.
Vithoulkas writes:
"In 1989 I had the honor of participating in an international assembly of some of the leading conventional scientists, organized by Temple University of Philadelphia and taking place in Bermuda. Dr. Benveniste, one of the participants, presented his research. At that time I strongly objected to his findings, on the grounds that they contradicted the basic principles of homeopathy. According to these principles, a highly diluted and potentized substance will have an effect on the organism opposite its effect in its undiluted state. Therefore, to use Benveniste's model, the highly diluted antigen would be expected to suppress basophile degranulation, not to cause the degranulation Benveniste claimed. In other words, a substance (if taken in large enough quantities) is able to create a set of symptoms but at a high potency counteracts these very symptoms. The symptoms of a bee sting will be reduced by a high potency of Apis Melifica, but could never produce the allergic condition of degranulation which Dr. Benveniste then claimed." http://www.vithoulkas.com/en/writings/c ... /2214.html
Here Vithoulkas is pitting his confused pet theory of homeopathic action against observable, repeated in vitro tests, which is no different from what Randi et al do, saying "because according to our THEORY that it can't work, it doesn't work, therefore WE are right, and any observation by any observer, no matter how reputable, that sees results contrary to what WE, the established authorities re[resenitng dogmatic science, think they should be, is WRONG!"
The problem is that Randi and Vithoulkas can’t screw all of the pre-clinical testing before and after Benveniste's test (Davenas) i.e. what is generally not known about Davenas is that it is not unique, not even when it came out in 1988. This is something few if any want to know, as its just as threatening to homeopathic dogma as it is to the professional skepticism it is in subtle alliance with. As can be seen in Witt‘s review, the 1988 Davenas basophil degranulation assay is not only a replication of earlier assays, beginning with Poitevin, but was in effect part of a two decade long series of 24 published replications of the degranulation-by-isotope effect.
Here is the Witt review so ardently avoided by Randi, Edzard Ernst,Vithoulkas and the rest of the homeopathic community, for it destroys the placebo hypothesis that homeopaths and skeptics alike so desperately cling to:
Complementary Therapies in Medicine (2007) 15, 128—138
WITT: The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies--a systematic review of the literature http://tinyurl.com/7n9sedq
http://www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy. ... otency.pdf
In response to Vithoulkas' hare brained theory that the Apis melifica isotope (potency) should have repressed degranulation rather than triggered it, anyone who has worked with homeopathic drugs or simply read the semiological registers knows that the daughter isotope will act as the mother molecule in producing transitory symptoms. So contrary to Vithoulkas' theory, basophil degranulation would be expected as a primary action of the drug, symptom amelioration segundo, a secondary reaction, when degranulation is repressed when other immune system elements come into play.
I think Randi suspected I was in league with Benveniste and physicist Brian Josephson, and when pushed to schedule a trial of an assay, Randi pursued them to submit the basophil degranulation test for a trial, while brushing me off, saying he had “bigger fish to fry,” claiming the two scientists had agreed to apply for his million dollar challenge. Fortunately, Canadian Syd Baumel of the Aquarian contacted Josephson to confirm Randi's assertion, and Josephson responded to say Randi was “dihonest” . . lying . . as usual.
It's quite obvious, I think, that the foiling of homeopathic drug assays by individuals such as Randi and Sir John Maddox and organizations such as the BBC and Nature, held to dogma, is deliberate and malicious. And there is no support from, and even obstruction of assays by homeopaths to this day, as can be seen in the words of George Vithoulkas.
Here is Vithoulkas in 2013 on Youtube, still denouncing in vitro assays:
On Benveniste's experiment and fallacy
BTW, Barrett wrote to me before the Horizon test in 2003 asking permission to subordinate my claim on Randi's written offer to me to prove homeopathy, which I had accepted, submitting instrumental physical assays to identify homeopathic drugs in post Avogadro potencies from their inert vehicles posing as controls. Having already figured out Randi's million dollar challenge was phony, I acquiesced on the condition that they use workers, like Ennis, Belon and Sainte Laudy or Conte, who had published successful replications, which they obviously did not do.
It should be noted, that at least to my knowledge, the Horizon test was never written up and published in any reputable journal or submitted for peer review. Two dozen published replications of this same bio assay by various workers isn't enough proof that potencies are not inert, but one unpublished failed test they run for the cameras they tout as proof that “homeopathy doesn't work” and no homeopath, or anybody with a Ph.D for that matter, has the wherewithal to point out the inconsistencies, leaving me to wonder who has the brains to understand it or the money, guts and tongue to say it if he does.
In a message dated 12/10/2014 2:33:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
Dear All
Pls see the article below.
Randi has offered $1M to any one who can show that Homeopathy works - yet always escapes the challenge or does a special trick!
James Randi was involved in the 'debunking' of Jacque Beneviste' (JB) work which had shown the Homeopathic effect. The experiment was that diluted histamine was added to basophiles and the result of the effect on the basophiles could be seen under a microscope.
JB's work was first published in Nature in late 1980's and then Nature sent James Randi with another guy (A detective of scientific fraud) to JB's lab for them to repeat the experiment. Randi did the labelling in the double blind test and the results came out as a confused mess. JB was discredited!
Many years later the experiment was successfully repeated by Prof Madeleine Ennis at Belfast University and many other labs.
BBC2's Horizon got to know about this and decided that they would commission a repeat. But with Randi's involvement with the programme, they did not keep to Prof Ennis's protocols for doing the experiment. And gain they did a double blind exercise where the samples were relabelled before being sent for evaluation. They serially diluted and succussed a vial of histamine and a vial of water as control. They went to C30 dilutions if I am not mistaken.
They applied these dilutions to the basophiles, and sent the results to two labs for examination and evaluation. Again the results came out as a hutch potch and Horizon declared that homeopathy does not work.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... -work.html
However, I immediately noticed something strange. The evaluation results from both labs had shown that half the water 'labelled' samples had affected the basophiles - This being a totally nonsensical result (if true every time we drank water we would kill our white blood cells and then die of no immunity) I wrote immediately to the editors of the programme and never got the response. I even contacted the statistics expert of the program and he did not properly answer the question either.
So in my view, both times through sleight of hand and mislabelling, they acted dishonestly to disprove homeopathy.
Rgds
Soroush
From: andrew.sikorski
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)
Excuse me, but just when was it that the homeopathic community started supporting Benveniste, or for that matter, any biochemical or physical tests for homeopathy? Or to put it more accurately, when did homeopaths break with arch skeptic James Randi et al and stop torpedoing them?
The following is taken from a 2003 letter by renowned Greek homeopath George Vithoulkas, Dean of the International Academy of Classical Homeopathy, to Matthew Barrett, the editor of the BBC/Horizon program that reported an attempted replication of a biochemical test of a homeopathic drug by novice workers for the purpose of “winning” a stage magician's vaunted prize of a million dollars.
In this letter Vithoulkas actually sides with Randi against Benveniste.
Vithoulkas writes:
"In 1989 I had the honor of participating in an international assembly of some of the leading conventional scientists, organized by Temple University of Philadelphia and taking place in Bermuda. Dr. Benveniste, one of the participants, presented his research. At that time I strongly objected to his findings, on the grounds that they contradicted the basic principles of homeopathy. According to these principles, a highly diluted and potentized substance will have an effect on the organism opposite its effect in its undiluted state. Therefore, to use Benveniste's model, the highly diluted antigen would be expected to suppress basophile degranulation, not to cause the degranulation Benveniste claimed. In other words, a substance (if taken in large enough quantities) is able to create a set of symptoms but at a high potency counteracts these very symptoms. The symptoms of a bee sting will be reduced by a high potency of Apis Melifica, but could never produce the allergic condition of degranulation which Dr. Benveniste then claimed." http://www.vithoulkas.com/en/writings/c ... /2214.html
Here Vithoulkas is pitting his confused pet theory of homeopathic action against observable, repeated in vitro tests, which is no different from what Randi et al do, saying "because according to our THEORY that it can't work, it doesn't work, therefore WE are right, and any observation by any observer, no matter how reputable, that sees results contrary to what WE, the established authorities re[resenitng dogmatic science, think they should be, is WRONG!"
The problem is that Randi and Vithoulkas can’t screw all of the pre-clinical testing before and after Benveniste's test (Davenas) i.e. what is generally not known about Davenas is that it is not unique, not even when it came out in 1988. This is something few if any want to know, as its just as threatening to homeopathic dogma as it is to the professional skepticism it is in subtle alliance with. As can be seen in Witt‘s review, the 1988 Davenas basophil degranulation assay is not only a replication of earlier assays, beginning with Poitevin, but was in effect part of a two decade long series of 24 published replications of the degranulation-by-isotope effect.
Here is the Witt review so ardently avoided by Randi, Edzard Ernst,Vithoulkas and the rest of the homeopathic community, for it destroys the placebo hypothesis that homeopaths and skeptics alike so desperately cling to:
Complementary Therapies in Medicine (2007) 15, 128—138
WITT: The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies--a systematic review of the literature http://tinyurl.com/7n9sedq
http://www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy. ... otency.pdf
In response to Vithoulkas' hare brained theory that the Apis melifica isotope (potency) should have repressed degranulation rather than triggered it, anyone who has worked with homeopathic drugs or simply read the semiological registers knows that the daughter isotope will act as the mother molecule in producing transitory symptoms. So contrary to Vithoulkas' theory, basophil degranulation would be expected as a primary action of the drug, symptom amelioration segundo, a secondary reaction, when degranulation is repressed when other immune system elements come into play.
I think Randi suspected I was in league with Benveniste and physicist Brian Josephson, and when pushed to schedule a trial of an assay, Randi pursued them to submit the basophil degranulation test for a trial, while brushing me off, saying he had “bigger fish to fry,” claiming the two scientists had agreed to apply for his million dollar challenge. Fortunately, Canadian Syd Baumel of the Aquarian contacted Josephson to confirm Randi's assertion, and Josephson responded to say Randi was “dihonest” . . lying . . as usual.
It's quite obvious, I think, that the foiling of homeopathic drug assays by individuals such as Randi and Sir John Maddox and organizations such as the BBC and Nature, held to dogma, is deliberate and malicious. And there is no support from, and even obstruction of assays by homeopaths to this day, as can be seen in the words of George Vithoulkas.
Here is Vithoulkas in 2013 on Youtube, still denouncing in vitro assays:
On Benveniste's experiment and fallacy
BTW, Barrett wrote to me before the Horizon test in 2003 asking permission to subordinate my claim on Randi's written offer to me to prove homeopathy, which I had accepted, submitting instrumental physical assays to identify homeopathic drugs in post Avogadro potencies from their inert vehicles posing as controls. Having already figured out Randi's million dollar challenge was phony, I acquiesced on the condition that they use workers, like Ennis, Belon and Sainte Laudy or Conte, who had published successful replications, which they obviously did not do.
It should be noted, that at least to my knowledge, the Horizon test was never written up and published in any reputable journal or submitted for peer review. Two dozen published replications of this same bio assay by various workers isn't enough proof that potencies are not inert, but one unpublished failed test they run for the cameras they tout as proof that “homeopathy doesn't work” and no homeopath, or anybody with a Ph.D for that matter, has the wherewithal to point out the inconsistencies, leaving me to wonder who has the brains to understand it or the money, guts and tongue to say it if he does.
In a message dated 12/10/2014 2:33:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
Dear All
Pls see the article below.
Randi has offered $1M to any one who can show that Homeopathy works - yet always escapes the challenge or does a special trick!
James Randi was involved in the 'debunking' of Jacque Beneviste' (JB) work which had shown the Homeopathic effect. The experiment was that diluted histamine was added to basophiles and the result of the effect on the basophiles could be seen under a microscope.
JB's work was first published in Nature in late 1980's and then Nature sent James Randi with another guy (A detective of scientific fraud) to JB's lab for them to repeat the experiment. Randi did the labelling in the double blind test and the results came out as a confused mess. JB was discredited!
Many years later the experiment was successfully repeated by Prof Madeleine Ennis at Belfast University and many other labs.
BBC2's Horizon got to know about this and decided that they would commission a repeat. But with Randi's involvement with the programme, they did not keep to Prof Ennis's protocols for doing the experiment. And gain they did a double blind exercise where the samples were relabelled before being sent for evaluation. They serially diluted and succussed a vial of histamine and a vial of water as control. They went to C30 dilutions if I am not mistaken.
They applied these dilutions to the basophiles, and sent the results to two labs for examination and evaluation. Again the results came out as a hutch potch and Horizon declared that homeopathy does not work.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... -work.html
However, I immediately noticed something strange. The evaluation results from both labs had shown that half the water 'labelled' samples had affected the basophiles - This being a totally nonsensical result (if true every time we drank water we would kill our white blood cells and then die of no immunity) I wrote immediately to the editors of the programme and never got the response. I even contacted the statistics expert of the program and he did not properly answer the question either.
So in my view, both times through sleight of hand and mislabelling, they acted dishonestly to disprove homeopathy.
Rgds
Soroush
From: andrew.sikorski
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)