Chandran K C Debates With John Benneth Over Science Of Homeopathy- Science Vs Pseudo-science

I am publishing the full text of a Facebook Discussion that happened between John Benneth and myself over science of homeopathy.  From the bitter experience of this encounter, I decided I would here after keep away from discussing those pseudo scientific theories destroying the scientific credentials of homeopathy such as ‘vibration theory’, ‘bio-magnetism’,’wave theory’, ‘frequencies’, ‘resonance theory’, ‘energy medicine’ and the like. These theories are propagated by those who practice occults in the label of homeopathy, such as hair transmission, telephone transmission, photo transmission, mp3 file transmission, radionics, dowsing, spiritual homeopathy etc. I am not at all interested in discussing these topics, as I am sure I cannot convince these ‘theoreticians’, or they cannot convince me. Ultimately it may lead into futile arguments and personal bitterness. My position is clear. I consider all these theories as ‘unscientific’, which harm the interests of homeopathy by providing arms and fuels to ‘anti-homeopathic skeptics. Without abandoning these ‘ultra-science’ and ‘fringe-science’ theories, we cannot make homeopathy a medical science. We have to explain homeopathy in terms of modern science, in a way fitting to scientific paradigms, in a way understandable and acceptable to scientific community. We have to ‘prove’ our theories and concepts according to scientific methods.

During initial stages of this conversation, you can see John Benneth was all praise for me and my ‘structural explanation’ of homeopathy. He said: “given the excellence of Dr. Nambiar’s presentation, I am very interested to see that it gets due attention, as the structural theory is the key to understanding the homeopathic mechanism”. He said “it is my opinion that you are to be complimented for you’re explanation of the physical aspects of this phenomenon”. But he turned completely hostile to me once I made it clear that my explanations have nothing to do with the ‘energy medicine’ and ‘spiritual medicine’ concepts he was trying to propagate under the camouflage of ‘scientific homeopathy.

Please note his remark: “Just because homeopathy is a religious sacrament is not reason to not scientifically study the structure of the remedy, and similarity, just because we understand the remedy scientifically is not a reason to dismiss its spiritual aspects.”  For him, ‘homeopathy is a religious sacrament’, and its scientific understanding will not “dismiss its spiritual aspects”.

John Benneth and people like him talk about ‘clathrates’, ‘intermolecular forces’, ‘supra-molecular clusters’, ‘physico-chemical structures’ ‘piezo-electricity’, ‘hydrogen bonded networks’,  and such seemingly scientific concepts only to ‘prove’ that all these things are “concordant with Hahnemann’s dynamis theory”! They merely hope to utilize these scientific terms to make their theory of ‘spiritual homeopathy’ appear scientific.

John Benneth says:

1. “Homeopathy remedy makes use of a spiritual remedy, not a material one”.

2. “Its influences are transmitted beyond the physical limits of the material organism.”

3. “The remedy, lodged in the pilule, is a product of mind”!

4. “Its radiant forces escape from the bottle, just as light escapes from the bulb, and some people can sometimes consciously feel those forces, and they can be detected outside the bottle while they are in the bottle!”

5. “The experienced practitioner can transmit the remedy spiritually”!

6. “Science is merely mummery”!

HOPE YOU GOT AN OVER-ALL IDEA ABOUT THE ‘SCIENCE OF SPIRITUAL HOMEOPATHY’ AND ‘ENERGY MEDICINE’ PROPAGATED BY JOHN BENNETH!

 Please listen the text of actual conversation:

Chandran Nambiar K C:

Key-Lock mechanism involved in bio-molecular interactions is well explained in Biochemistry. Supra-molecular properties of water such as hydrogen bonding, supra-molecular networks, clathrate formation, polymer-like behavior etc. are studied by physical scientists. Molecular Imprinted Polymers is a well-developed technology. Therapeutic properties of potentized drugs and their spectroscopic studies are already available. If we corroborate all these available scientific information logically, you will see that there remains very little to be ‘proved’ in the scientific explanation of ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ and ‘Potentization’ on the basis of ‘molecular imprinting’ and modern biochemistry. It is only a matter of collecting, understanding and logical synthesizing scientific information available from various resources.

 John Benneth:

  The structural explanation for homeopathy is really nothing new. If we track back the history of clathrate hydrates, it will be seen that hydrates were first noted exactly 200 years ago (1811) by Sir Humphry Davy and Michael Farraday. Mendeleev & 19th cent. French scientists noted them during the 19th century, and by 1911 van der Waals rec’d the Noel prize for his explantion of intermolecular forces. Powell named supramolecular structures in water “clathrates” in the 1940’s and Barnard first suggested hydrogen bonding to explain the NMR analysis of high potencies in the ’60s (Smith and Boericke at Hahnemann in Philadelphia). The point in outlining this is that the physico-chemical explanation has been right under our noses for as long as homeopathy has been around, and is concordant with Hahnemann’s dynamis theory. As I may have already stated, I presented this history and the hydrogen bond theory at Hahnemann College (London, Sept.) & the Cavendish at Cambridge in October of last year, and with all previous explanations, such as Barnard’s, it has been ignored for the most part. So given the excellence of Dr. Nambiar’s presentation, I am very interested to see that it gets due attention, as the structural theory is the key to understanding the homeopathic mechanism. I suggest the homeopathic community fund collaboration for a book on the subject. Classical science (Chaplin) has now admitted that the hydrogen bonded network can indeed store and transmit information concerning solutes. This is a huge admission for homeopathy. We must consolidate this data for the advancement of medicine. There are only two pieces left of the puzzle, the first being how it is that the EM signal is generated, (which I believe is piezo electricity), and second, how it triggers biochemical action, which of course is biomagnetic . . once again, intermolecular forces, which describes telepathy and spirtual healing. Voila!

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  ‎@John Benneth : Sir, why cant we try to explain this ‘puzzle’ in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’? Why should we go for ‘biomagnetc’ or electromagnetic explanations, and drag ‘telepathy and spirtual healing’ into this topic? Please think in terms of ‘molecular imprints’ which are tree-dimensional negative imprints formed in water/alcohol matrix, which can act on pathogenic molecules by complimentary configurations. This ‘molecular imprint’ concept seems to be more fitting to the ‘key-lock’ mechanism involved in biomolecular interactions. I think it is very simple, logical and scientific explanation, fitting well to the existing explanations of pathology and therapeutics accepted by modern science. Kindly think that way, updating yourself on the modern technology of ‘molecular imprinting in polymers’.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  ‎’Molecular imprints’ of drug molecules can act as artificial ‘binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules having complementary configuration, just as a lock and key binds each other. If we understand this mechanism, which is well accepted in biochemistry, we need not have to worry about “how it is that the EM signal is generated, (which I believe is piezo electricity), and second, how it triggers biochemical action”.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  If we could perceive potentization as a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, which involves the preparation of three dimensional ‘imprints’ of drug molecules, which can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules having configurational similarity to drug molecules used for imprinting, everything will be very simple to understand and explain.

John Benneth:

  No problem. I’m not here to rewrite the literature and I’m not contradicting what you are asserting for a structural model, Dr. Nambiar, and it is not my intention to argue with you, and yes, we can set the “spiritual” issues aside for a moment, for they are only another way of referring to the action of intermolecular forces, which have already been elaborated on by the material sciences. Last night I had a long discussion with Prof. Martin Chaplin on the subject of the structural aspects of this problem, and I have yet to see any fundamental disagreement in the literature regarding hydrogen bond structure in liquid aqueous solutions, and once again, it is my opinion that you are to be complimented for you’re explanation of the physical aspects ofthis phenom. What is missing so far regarding the supramolecular aspects (Montagnier, Demangeat, Anagnostatos, Nambiar, Lessel) is how the electromagneitc signal is produced, and I submit to you it is akin to the piezo electric effect, the pressures, suggested by Montagnier, coming from the Schumann resonance, the basic bakground radiation. What we need is the input of someone who understands how piezo electircity is produced to verify the piezo electic theory for homeopathic remedies. The other thing that is missing is how the hydrogen bond network influences biological action, and I believe that this is also easily answered. Linus Pauling suggested that the narcotic effect of clathrates are what give alohol its narcotic effect. Add that piece of information (how clathrates create a narotic effect) to Chaplin’s assertion that water can indeed store and transmit information through its hydrogen bonded network . . and we have a complete proposition of how the homeoapthic remedy is able to conduct its medicinal power to the living organism. Just as nerves conduct feelings, so the biologial organism’s complex bioelectric system reacts electromagnetically to exogenic entities. One magnetic field is perturbed by another, and the H bond net produces a unique biomagnetic field that acts on the electro-immune system. That is the key.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  ‎@John Benneth : Thank you sir. No question of arguing. This is healthy discussion, Which I was looking forward for a long time. I cannot understand why you ignore my repeated suggestions to discuss regarding ‘molecular imprints’ concept regarding “how the hydrogen bond network influences biological action”. I understand that even though we agree up on the ‘structural aspect’ of potentized drugs, you disagree with me regarding ‘molecular imprint’ concept.

If we could perceive potentization as a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, which involves the preparation of three dimensional ‘imprints’ of drug molecules, which can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules having configurational similarity to drug molecules used for imprinting, everything will be very simple to understand and explain.

You are trying to discuss “how the electromagneitc signal is produced”, “the basic bakground radiation”, “input of someone who understands how piezo electircity is produced to verify the piezo electic theory for homeopathic remedies” and such theories for a “proposition of how the homeoapthic remedy is able to conduct its medicinal power to the living organism”.

According to your theory, the “key’ how the homeoapthic remedy is able to conduct its medicinal power to the living organism is: “Just as nerves conduct feelings, so the biologial organism’s complex bioelectric system reacts electromagnetically to exogenic entities. One magnetic field is perturbed by another, and the H bond net produces a unique biomagnetic field that acts on the electro-immune system”.

It is clear that our perceptions differ, at least on the mechanism of “how the homeoapthic remedy is able to conduct its medicinal power to the living organism”.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  One again I request you to consider the concept of “molecular imprints” contained in potentized drugs acting as “artificial binding sites” for the pathogenic molecules and removing the molecular inhibitions in biochemic pathways, as the mechanism of therapeutic action of potentized drugs. Such a concept will be more fitting to the molecular explanation of pathology and therapeutics developed by modern science.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

 I disagree with your theory that “the biologial organism’s complex bioelectric system reacts electromagnetically to exogenic entities”, and “one magnetic field is perturbed by another, and the H bond net produces a unique biomagnetic field that acts on the electro-immune system”. This theory do not agree with the molecular explanations provided by modern biochemistry regarding the mechanism of pathology and therapeutics”.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  The theory you are talking about is already in vogue among the propagandists of ‘hair transmission’, ‘photo transmission’, ‘radionics’, ‘dowsing’ and such pseudoscientific practices in the name of homeopathy. They also talk about theories like ‘biologial organism’s complex bioelectric system’, ‘biomagnetic field that acts on the electro-immune system’, ‘one magnetic field is perturbed by another’ and such things. If we agree to your theory, it would ultimately lead to the ratification of all ‘occult’ practices done under the label of homeopathy. That would not by any way help in taking homeopathy into mainstream science and scientific medical science.

John Benneth:

  It’s of little consequence to me what allopaths and their hostages think of me for suggesting something anyone can see to be true. The infinitessimal dose does not act on the tongue or point of entry, unless it is a remedy that specifically acts on the tongue or point of entry. How do you explain that with your “artificial binding site” theory, without invoking the entire electro-immune system? How do you explain the dramatic reaction by some people to a remedy and no reaction by others, without eplaining it in electromagnetic terms. And so it remains my contention the homeoapthy remedymakes use of a spriitual remedy, not a material one, and that its influences are transmitted beyond the physical limits of the material organism.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  ‎@John Benneth : Sir, it is clear that we differ much regarding our perceptions of homeopathy.

You believe “homeopathy remedy makes use of a spiritual remedy, not a material one, and that its influences are transmitted beyond the physical limits of the material organism”

How can we have a scientific dialogue on your concepts of homeopathy as a “spiritual remedy”, “not material one”, “trasmitted beyond the limits of material organism”?

I am not an allopath, nor a “hostage of allopaths”. I try to see everything in the light of modern science, and verify every claims and theories using scientific methods. I cannot compromise with theories that are evidently unscientific or pseudoscientific.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  If homeopathy is a ‘spiritual remedy’, why should we keep it in corked bottles”. How can we prevent that ‘spiritual remedy’, which is not ‘material one’ from escaping from the bottles? If it is not acting on ‘tongue or point of entry’, why should we apply that ‘spiritual remedy’ on our tongue? It it is “transmitted beyond material organism”, why should the patient take the drug into his “material organism”? What is this “electro-immune system” that modern science could not so far recognize? Immune system acts through molecular interactions, not ‘electromagnetically”. These types of “spiritual” explanations never help in making homeopathy a scientific medical system.

John Benneth:

  The intermolecular forces you are referring to here are indeed electromagentic, the provenance of the atom is nothing more than electricity. Only atheists believe that the influene of the atom ends at its materially detectable edge. The radiant forces of the homeoapthic remedy do indeed “escape” from the bottle, just as light “escapes” from the bulb, and some people can sometimes conciously feel those forces, and they can be detected outside the ottle whilethey are in the bottle. The eperienced practitioner can transmit the remedy spiritually. The remedy, lodged inthe pilule, is a prouct of the mind, the science is merely mummery. Hahnemann the master recognized that, and he reognized that similar forces could be transmitted from the hand of a Mesmerist, and the most practiced of those found that it could be transmitted without word or action, even at great distance. The real world does not cowtow to science, it is nothing more than a delusion that obseration must conform to theory. No, it is the job of science to explain these things to atheists, much like handing a rattle to a baby. Your work is in concordance with the historical, classical literature on the subject of how these spritiual forces affect the homeopathic remedy at the moleular level, and I commend you for its excellence in execution, but I have never said that it adds anything substantially new to what we already know. As Professor Rustum Roy pointed out, the literature is quite extensive on the subject, but few people have read it. Obviously you have, and you are a rarity, but to date I have not seen you make any reference to it. How do you know what you know? Now, what would be new is to explain how these aqueous polymers transmit their unique signals, and how these signals are biologically effective. Just because homeopathy is a religious sacrament is not reason to not scientifally study the structure of the remedy, and similarily, just because we understand the remedy scientically is not a reason to dismiss its spiritual aspects.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  SIR, I JUST PREFER NOT TO ARGUE. Your last comment clearly shows there is no chance for hoping any converging point in between us. I am here to discuss science. EXCUSE ME, PLEASE.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  Kindly read the topic I posted for discussion:

Key-Lock mechanism involved in bio-molecular interactions is well explained in Biochemistry. Supra-molecular properties of water such as hydrogen bonding, supra-molecular networks, clathrate formation, polymer-like behavior etc. are studied by physical scientists. Molecular Imprinted Polymers is a well-developed technology. Therapeutic properties of potentized drugs and their spectroscopic studies are already available. If we corroborate all these available scientific information logically, you will see that there remains very little to be ‘proved’ in the scientific explanation of ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ and ‘Potentization’ on the basis of ‘molecular imprinting’ and modern biochemistry. It is only a matter of collecting, understanding and logical synthesizing scientific information available from various resources.”

It is science. I am not interested in discussing ‘spirituality”, “fringe science” or “beyond science” theories as part of this discussion. I am not concerned about the “spiritual aspects” of homeopathic remedies. I donot consider homeopathy is a “religious sacrament”. We cannot convert this scientific discussion into a dialogue between “atheism and theism”. No real scientific-minded person would say “real world does not cowtow to science, it is nothing more than a delusion that obseration must conform to theory”. There is no meaning in arguing with a man saying “homeopathic remedy, lodged inthe pilule, is a prouct of the mind, the science is merely mummery”. I have no comment when somebody say “radiant forces of the homeoapthic remedy do indeed “escape” from the bottle, just as light “escapes” from the bulb, and some people can sometimes conciously feel those forces, and they can be detected outside the bottle”! How can I discuss “science of homeopathyy” when you say “experienced practitioner can transmit the remedy spiritually”?

Practitioners of hair transmissions, photo-taransmission, dowsing, radionics and such other street occults in homeopathy would of course admire your wisdom for your “scientific” and “electromagnetic” theories, which culminates in your wonderful statement “most practiced of those found that it could be transmitted without word or action, even at great distance”!

Sir, let us say GOODBYE at this point.

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. The problem here is that the term ‘spiritual’ has not been defined. At this point I am not discussing homeopathy here just the use of the term ‘spiritual ‘.

    Certainly the body in all its glory does things that are not ‘material’ – that doesn’t necessarily categorise them as ‘spiritual’ though: i.e. there are electromagnetic signals in the body, this does not however equate to matters ‘spiritual’. (according my my (PERSONAL understanding of the word, and here is the problem, different people use the term differently)

    JB uses that term in a way I consider too broad and undefined, (and IMO mistaken) as if rather to mean, ‘anything not of an identifiable and clearly defined material structure’, or perhaps even ‘anything not identifiable by current scientific – and implied future – technologies’

    One should not mix aetheism and spirituality in the same recipe as as a discussion on the scientific merits of the application of homeopathy (or any other application).

    These ‘belief’ systems are irrelevant to this discussion. I.e. the terms spiritual and aetheism refer to another, different, matter for discussion, i.e. one of beliefs and experience

    At this stage most beliefs on how homeopathy works are just that. This doesn’t make them wrong, or for that matter, right: at least not until there is a way to measure the matters in question; and that is a matter for technological development, if the average scientifically thinking person is to have a framework for comprehending the mechanisms involved.

    Until then the frameworks set by the master appear to work just fine ( in my, very personal, experience). I.e. the effective application of homeopathy does not, for me, require these questions to be answered. In my experience.a conceptual framework exists that works perfectly well for the purposes for which it was designed. That doesn’t preclude discussions on understanding the science behind it.

    I think you both have good intentions in your discussions.

  2. Dr S.K.Vashisht

    Kindly go a head with your work
    Truth is always tough and not easily digested
    Never address these people as “SIR”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: