Minutus

You're not getting it. Geo. Vithoulkas has been the leading voice of homeopathy for decades now, and he's running around the planet telling everyone he can, to disregard what is the best evidence for the biological effects of homeopathic drugs, yet I don't hear anyone other than myself standing up and saying that this is incorrect.

Just like James Randi and Edzard Ernst et al, George Vithoulkas wants everyone to believe that there is no valid biochemical test for homeopathy, and I'm telling you its not true, he's misinformed, he hasn't asked the question, who besides Benveniste has conducted objective assays of these materials we're using as medicine?

Considering the common notion that these materials (homeopathic drugs) are biologically inert, the answer to that question is stunning. Contrary to what James Randi and George Vithoulkas want everyone to believe, Benveniste didn't invent the basophil degranulation assay, he wasn't even the first to replicate it nor was he the last, nor is it the only the biochemical test for homeopathy. Yet numerous people are hiding this fact from themselves and everyone else . .

Homeopaths and their antagonists are colluding on this same coin, they are trying to discredit the real science behind “homeopathic remedies” and selling what are more correctly identified as subtle energy isotopes . . as magic potions.

You want these skeptics to shut up? Then the next time they ask what is it, stop being so plasmophobic and tell them what it is in a word, say “it's radioactive.” That was Benveniste's final conclusion, and Montagnier replicated and refined it.

These materials are not inert, yet everyone is treating them as if they are . . or might be . .

Stop theorizing long enough to look at the evidence

And where's Irene when I need her?

: -)

John
In a message dated 12/13/2014 5:44:31 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

John

What do you mean the remedies are radioactive? Are you being facetious? My understanding is the energy is electromagnetic—No??

Next—I am not getting why Vithoulkas is so opposed to the material testing of the remedies?

Given his history with Randi, it is surprising to hear they are in cahoots with each other on this point. Perhaps I am not understanding
completely

And last, can you do something about the font in your posts. They are microscopic when they come thru

t

Many of us do get it, more than you would think....

GV's position only represents his own one, nobody gave him a mandate to speak for the others, no matter what his students and followers say.
The same goes for Sankaran and Scholten's students and followers: they do not represent the whole homeopathic community.

That is all we are saying.

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

Yes John, you are right about Vithoulkas' error.

I didn't know he was still suggesting it?

I think Vithoulkas developed a cult-like status with the re-emergence of homeopathy and because his teachings spread through most Western homeopathy schools at the time, and now because of his age, people grant him a measure of respect and have been reluctant to challenge some of his statements and teachings.

This behaviour has been a bad thing in our profession - we have to learn how to challenge and test the validity what is being taught (not just suggested which is better left to discussion) without being aggressive or disrespectful. Because we have trouble doing this a whole lot of shlock is passed through as homeopathy.

I for one could never embrace his "Science of Homeopathy" as a student and I definitely know his teachings on prophylaxis are way off the mark. As a result I've not read much else of what he has written because after those experiences of seeing the type of rigour he brings to things, I don't have a lot of upfront confidence to go further when there are too many other things to assimilate.

Fran.

Font size is coming through ok for me.

Ditto again.

The only person whose posts are in a 6 pt font are John’s. It began a while ago.

Your post, Fran, for example comes in a 10 pt font—at least it is readable.

t

Frankly, I don't know. I don't know what the curative response is or should be in this regard, I'm not sure anyone knows. Homeopathy is a semiological science, not an etiological one like allopathy poses to be.
In his lecture at the Cavendish Benveniste says the action of these materials invoke a new biological paradigm that replace the conventional ligand keyhole theory. But I don't remember what if anything he says would answer your question.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't it be noted that the Apis isotope is not prescribed for treating the effects of the venom, Ledum is. What I find fascinating is that Ledum is a vermifuge, or parasiticide. What ingredients are there in Ledum that make it an amelioration of bee venom? No, Apis is for swellings and pains LIKE bee stings.
But whatever, it doesn't change a damn thing. Like Professor Roy used to say, nobody's reading the literature except those who want to destroy it.
1988, when Benveniste did the baso assay with potencies of Apis . . and I think I heard him say they must have done it a thousand times . . at the time I was intellectually, metaphorically speaking, still wearing knickers on the subject, hell, call them diapers, and making what for me were scads of money as a telephonic information storage and retrieval system designer. I was a new father and at the top of my game. Then came homeopathy, a mistress that put a hard grip on me, and look at me now, I'm a wreck, and I can't say it wasn't because of homeopathy and people like Vithoulkas and Randi. God, the stupid arrogance and deception . . it's unbelievable!
Maybe I'm just feeling sorry for myself, or maybe its time to shrug her off . . hard, and go back to making a living, where I get something reasonable back for my efforts. The real science of homeopathy destroyed Benveniste, and now I think it may be destroying me . . and I bet I'm not the only one.
What leads me on is what seems to be wrecking me.
My wife used to say I should be writing novels.
In a message dated 12/13/2014 5:45:55 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

Can I offer this?

The basophils were not "cured" of their granulations because they normally carry granulations, it is their job to do this and discharge them when stimulated properly (please do look it up, even Wikipedia would be OK for this).

So, correct me if I am wrong, but that experience does not show anything about *homeopathy* itself as in the law of similars but demonstrates the profound action dynamisation can have in the process of dilution, the action of succussion as opposed to simple dilution and weakening of the preparation.

We do know that the principle of "same suffering" works with material doses (Ritalin and ADD, herbal tinctures,....) as well as with mental/emotional doses (support groups where you get a similar dose of suffering from the other members of the group). That is one part of the equation.

The difficult part for a rational mind to accept is the "less is more" aspect, until the method of preparation is understood. That is where the clathrate concept comes in as it is a phenomenon known and common to different technologies, it is relatively well understood, it can explain the working of any type of therapy from homeopathy to herbs to drugs to endocrinology, making it a kind of "universal" or "integrated" mechanism as opposed to the others that certainly contain part of the truth but cannot be generalised (electromagnetism, biophotons, etc,.....). And that is what I love in the clathrates, that it puts the homeopathic mode of action on a par with all the other pharmacological and biological activities, it makes it something regular, normal, evident, obvious and not a mysterious if not devious aberration.

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

Yes, many studies done today are merely demonstrating that potentisation does something with what otherwise would be plain old water.

What I find really abhorrent is that quite a few of these studies use animal models but we still trumpet the evidence produced without pointing out that they tell us nothing new - we already know potentisation produces effects so how many more times do we have to show it - and that homeopathy has never had to make animals suffer in the past to know what our remedies treat.

It's all very allopathic, short-sighted and horrible.

Fran.