The Amazing Benneth responds to Randi's commentary about him

[WWu777]

Dear all,
In regards to Randi's commentary about my friend Benneth, the amazing actor, magician, radio show host, writer, and homeopathic expert, which you can read at:

http://www.randi.org/jr/101201.html

I would like to share with you all the Amazing Benneth's eloquent response to it, for you to consider. Here is a fellow is is much more charismatic to listen to, than Randi is. Here it is.
-----------------------------------

Yes, yes, I've read Randi's fan mail of me, and I'm very flattered. But not so much to keep my head down and mouth shut of questions.
My first question to him now would be if he has found time to see what homeopathic Staphysagria does to plant coleoptiles or gas output of yeast?
If a high dilute solution can affect plant growth or the action of yeast, then how is it Mr. James "the Amazing" Randi still pursues the idea that homeopathic medicine, which is regulated by the FDA, is a placebo?
The FDA has established guidelines for the double blind testing of new homeopathic products. If homeopathy is what Mr. Randi would have us believe, how is it then that the FDA is allowing "phony medicine" onto the market?
Currently a class action suit is reportedly being made against a manufacturer of an OTC homeopathic cold medicine because users have reported a permanent loss of smell from it. What will this mean to Mr. Randi's view of the courts if the plaintiff wins?
Could it be possible that skepticism of the type Mr. Randi purveys about homeopathy is actually a great danger to the public because it fosters neglect of the potential dangers posed by the actual efficacy of homeopathic medicines?
Is Mr. Randi aware of reports that homeopathic medicines have been used to kill organisms? To cure genetically induced cancer in fruit flies? To inoculate mice from rabbit fever?
Is Mr. Randi aware of the Geckeler report that molecules in succussed high dilutions have been observed to cluster and expand?
Would Mr. Randi care to comment on Rolland Conte's' theory of a "white hole, " sub atomic clustering forming in high dilutes?
Would Mr. Randi care to comment on hydrogen ion crystal artifacts reportedly observed in high dilutes?
Why did the latest attempt to prove homeopathy a fraud in court fail?
During the tests by the BBC, only forty samples were used, whereas a reportedly successful replication of Benveniste's basophil test by a formerly skeptical researcher used over a thousand.
Does Mr. Randi belive he knows more about homeopathic products than all of the people who claim to successfully test, produce and use them combined?
Boiron reported being able to be able to distinguish serially agitated dilute solutions from their liquid vehicles by measuring their puncture voltage, and this dielectric test for homeopathic solutions was replicated by American and Indian teams. Why was the BBC double blind test not conducted by those who had experience in successfully conducting the test?
What is Mr. Randi's assessment of the biochemical reports of William E. Boyd, M.D., Persson and Patterson? Has he read them? Has he read Conte et al's Theory of High Dilutions?
T
How is it that Boyd and Patterson reported an alteration of the Schick test using dilutes?
Why hasn't Mr. Randi conducted tests by people who claim to be able to successfully execute them?
If homeopathic medicines are placebos, then why did Mr. Randi suggest that for my application the control samples be produced by blanking them out with a magnetic field?
Did Mr. Randi have a magnet or anything that might have created a strong magnetic field with him when he inspected Benveniste's lab for the Nature report?
Is Mr. Randi denying that I made an application to have a method tested?
Is Mr. Randi an authority on psychology? Does Mr. Randi believe he knows more about a subject being tested than the researcher conducting the experiment? For instance, does he believe he can better ascertain the veracity of an individual such as John Edward without testing him than can someone like Dr. Gary Schwartz, who has?
Why has Mr. Randi failed to test Uri Geller when numerous other investigators have?
Is Mr. Randi familiar with the testing done on Chris Robinson? If so, how does he explain the reports that Mr. Robinson is able to foretell randomly chosen locations he was taken to the next day, repeatedly?
What does Mr. Randi have to say about the Panati report, "The Geller Papers"?
One legal opinion is that the psychic challenge is a unilateral contract. Why does the psychic challenge need to be unilateral? What are the consequences for Mr. Randi if the contract was bi lateral between himself and the applicant?
Does successfully beating the Psychic Challenge terminate it for future contestants?

[wert]

A few line breaks would be nice here...

[Zep]

Aaaah, Winston! Taken to spamming the place late at night, have you?

OK, when you have actually written something legible that we can read and make sense of, please get back to us.

[Jaymz]

Originally posted by WWu777
[BI would like to share with you all the Amazing Benneth's eloquent response...[/B]

OK, Cool - Where is it?

[Lothian]

My understanding is that when you respond to someone you first listen to what they say and then answer their questions and address the points they make.

All this does is ask lots of questions of Randi. Is it not a response, well not an adult one.

[Reginald]

Do we have to have this post in several areas? Can a mod gather them together along with the responses? The flame wars forum does have some standards to maintain you know!!!

[Upchurch]

WWu777, please see my post here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870336090#post1870336090)

[Beanbag]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

Oops! Fell asleep while trying to find a response among the meanderings.

Regards;
Beanbag

[Kopji]

I had not even heard of 'ol Gary Schwartz till reading around here.

The University of Arizona has self-admitted an alarming erosion of quality staff the past few years: Doom+Gloom (http://www.arizona.edu/spotlight/1999/Nov151999.html)
(It helps to know what to search for...)

My tax dollars go toward the state universities, this stuff gives me something to discuss when they come asking for more money. Not to mention the fun I have taunting alumni... ("So I see a U of A study has proven there is an afterlife?")


(excerpt from the speech)
Last year alone, 105 of our key faculty received seductive offers from other Universities. We lost 74 of those faculty who received an average salary increase of 40 percent from the new university. We persuaded 31 professors to stay here, granting them an average 31 percent salary increase. We had to. We operate in a competitive marketplace.

Where do you think we get the money to be competitive with faculty salaries? We sure don't get it from the state, which has given us 2 percent merit increases for each of the next two years, effective in April of those years instead of in July when the fiscal year starts.

We don't get it from tuition revenues. Our in-state tuition is 48th among the 50 flagship state universities, and it generates about $28.5 million a year. The average for all 50 of these state universities is 50 percent higher. With state allocations continuing to be low, and tuition continuing to be "as nearly free as possible", we can't count on revenue from either source to keep us competitive.


They get the money from doing HBO TV shows proving paranormal stuff...

[Kopji]

Next...


Why did the latest attempt to prove homeopathy a fraud in court fail?


I was a little curious about this and looked it up. In the case below, Quackwatch lost the case but note it was over ephedra, now a widely derided supplement. The decision is being promoted widely as a victory for freedom of choice in medicine, etc etc when the facts showed people were dying. This seems to illuminate the fallacy of the ‘truth’ of homeopathy being promoted in the opening post.


Last December, Metabolife won a jury verdict in Rancho Cucamonga County, Calif. Though jurors found the supplement defective, they also found it had not caused the plaintiff's stroke. Hendricksen v. Metabolife, No RCV057282.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1046833528560


And…


She noted that in other litigation, the company's founder and co-owner, Michael Ellis, had taken the Fifth Amendment in connection with questions about adverse health affects. Ellis told the Food and Drug Administration in 1998 that Metabolife had received no complaints about serious side effects. But in August 2002, after it was revealed that the Department of Justice was investigating Ellis, the company released over 14,000 reports of complaints by consumers, which included heart attacks, strokes and seizures.

Metabolife contends that the adverse effects are not causally related to its products, saying that there are bound to be some coincidental health issues among the millions of people who use Metabolife 356.
http://www.slackdavis.com/news_article.php/news_id/argval/252/argname/back_link/argval/recent_news


The ‘homeopathy’ legal argument here seems to be that we as consumers are free to test whatever we buy, and choose not to if it does not work (presuming death does not occur first).

Similar in a weird way to the ‘entertainment’ claims of astrologers and psychics.

[Kopji]

Next...

Benveniste's basophil test...
Seems a scandal, and this from the words of homeopaths themselves:


A study recently published in the journal Inflammation Research may mark the beginning of a resolution to the so-called 'Benveniste affair'. The study in question was a multi-centre experiment on the inhibition of degranulation human basophils by ultra-molecular dilutions of histamine.1 In order to understand the background and significance of this work, we need to go back eleven years.
A series of experiments reported by the research group lead by Dr Jacques Benveniste in Nature in June 1988 caused euphoria in the homeopathic world.2 Certainly, the implications were amazing, particularly to those unfamiliar with homeopathy. In Benveniste's own words, 'it was like shaking your car keys in the Seine at Paris and then discovering that water taken from the mouth of the river would start your car!' But euphoria soon gave way to dismay and disarray with the publication of a report by a team nominated by the editor of Nature, which described the work as a 'delusion' and 'pseudo-science'. Benveniste responded indignantly, accusing the inspection team of witch hunting and McCarthyism.3,4

http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Homoeopathy/fisher49.htm

The article goes on to describe the corrected results as 'blah' and ended up picking the results they desired.

So YAWN - not convinced. Sounds like more stuff for the Journal of Irreproducible Results. Scientific sounding glop. BOO!

Homeopathy ain't cool like psychic's or afterlife though. I don't think it would be worth a million, even if proven there was something to it.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kopji
In the case below, Quackwatch lost the case but note it was over ephedra, now a widely derided supplement. The decision is being promoted widely as a victory for freedom of choice in medicine, etc etc when the facts showed people were dying. This seems to illuminate the fallacy of the ‘truth’ of homeopathy being promoted in the opening post.Actually, I think the case referred to is the one where Quackwatch went after King Bio, the manufacturer of homoeopathic remedies that boasts that they are pure water (i.e. they don't use alcohol in the preparation). The judge decided that it wasn't for King Bio to prove its claims, it was for Quackwatch to prove that the claims were false (because it was Advertising Standards law). And since the judge didn't accept the argument "but it's self-evident that pure water isn't medicine", and Quackwatch hadn't done any tests of its own on King Bio's products, they lost.

Now, imagine what would happen if homoeopathic remedies were put under the same obligation all other drugs are under, that is prove it works before you can put it on the market. How many would we see in the shops? Well, I believe the answer to that can be found in Denmark, where there is such an obligation. You can't buy homoeopathic remedies in Denmark, according to MRC_Hans.

Rolfe.

[Kopji]

Rolfe
Thanks,
The opening post was pretty hard to follow so I was just guessing.

A short study of quackwatch's case record in the US was a bit discouraging though. -sigh- :(

The homeopaths seem to be able to want (and DO have it) both ways:

One the one hand, 'fraud' or ill effects can't be proven because there's no causality link, blah blah blah.

On the other hand if there's no causality, it means the stuff is useless so why do people buy it?...

The public at large might begin to wonder how homeopath manufacturers can succeed with the defense they made: that they are not responsible for illness or undesirable side effects (like death) because, well, nobody can tell if the stuff actually works or not.
Humm... I thought, since it was very late when I was reading... that I might be missing some really obvious point that made this all make sense, but alas looks like not.

[Peter Morris]

WWu777 ?

I can't believe someone would actually call themselves woo-woo.

This is a wind-up, isn't it.

[Kopji]

I think his name is Winston Wo, a real guy. Apparently he has scattered his seed in several discussion threads, though not in the Biblical sense... :D

[Jeff Corey]

It's Winston Wu. His sterile seed has been around for over a year. He tends to hit and run.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kopji
The homeopaths seem to be able to want (and DO have it) both ways:

One the one hand, 'fraud' or ill effects can't be proven because there's no causality link, blah blah blah.

On the other hand if there's no causality, it means the stuff is useless so why do people buy it?...

The public at large might begin to wonder how homeopath manufacturers can succeed with the defense they made: that they are not responsible for illness or undesirable side effects (like death) because, well, nobody can tell if the stuff actually works or not.
Humm... I thought, since it was very late when I was reading... that I might be missing some really obvious point that made this all make sense, but alas looks like not. The public doesn't think, that's the trouble.

They have it both ways, indeed. On the one hand, this is only water, how can it be dangerous? No need for safety regulation. On the other hand, every time a patient gets worse, this is a "homoeopathic aggravation", which shows the remedy is working. Oh, and if you "prove" a remedy you might get very sick (which is a good excuse if challenged to win the JREF Challenge with a proving).

But since you, the challenger, don't believe that any of these ill effects are any more than imagination, then how DARE you use them to suggest that safety tests are required????

I have to admire the ingenuity.

Rolfe.

[Mortenm]

Hi

Originally posted by Rolfe
Well, I believe the answer to that can be found in Denmark, where there is such an obligation. You can't buy homoeopathic remedies in Denmark, according to MRC_Hans.

I believe that Hans might be mistaken.This (http://www.homeotek.dk/bestil.html) danish webpage contains an ordering form for homeopathic medicine, and this (http://www.homeopati.dk/behandlere.htm) page contains a list of homeopaths in Denmark. Furthermore the company Holistica-Medica (http://www.holistica-medica.com/) writes the following on their danish webpage:

Holistica Medica har siden januar 1996, som det første homøopatiske laboratorium i Danmark, fået sundhedsstyrelsens godkendelse af homøopatiske lægemidler.

This statement basically says that in january 1996 the company obtained a license from the Danish health authorities to sell homeopathic remedies.

[CFLarsen]

Hi, Morten,

Det var kraftedme også på tide....

Yes, you can easily buy homeopath(et)ic remedies in Denmark.

[psy kick]

Why is everyone amazing?

[Mortenm]

Hi Claus

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Hi, Morten,

Det var kraftedme også på tide....

Thank you for your warm welcome :).

[WWu777]

Another answer from Benneth's list for all you uneducated skeptics:

----------------------------------

homeopathic acts rather like an antidote - homeopathic pot or cocaine ARE used as antidotes

N
www.normanallan.com
see "homeopathy" on my site

[WWu777]

From Benneth:

Questions? What questions? I don't see any questions to me. Not real questions.

However, I would like to take this opportunity to thank MacArthur Genius Dr. James "the Amazing" Randi and the many opponents of homeopathy for its explosive growth since the submission of my evidence for it in 1999.

The homeopathic industry closely watched my application to MacArthur Genius Dr. James "the Amazing" Randi for his million dollar prize.

No one, of course, expected him to jeopardize a million dollars by allowing a demonstration that would win his offer. However, it did bring forth enough evidence for it to embolden production, marketing and use, causing the industry to grow at 20% a year.

[Zep]

To Benneth: POST YOUR CORRESPONDENCE WITH RANDI HERE. ALL OF IT, UNEDITED. LEAVE NOTHING OUT. SHOW US ALL THIS EVIDENCE PUBLICLY OF THIS CLAIMED INJUSTICE. POST DIRECTLY HERE YOURSELF, NOT THROUGH YOUR STOOGE WINSTON WU. THE FLOOR IS YOURS. FIRE AWAY. HAVE AT IT.

Winston, please make sure Benneth gets the message, OK?

Or are you too chicken to do that yourself, Mr Benneth??? Think the nasty skeptics will hurt you? Or censor you? Got to go through some stooge? Well we let Winston post here with no problems - he's not going to be thrown out. He may get tossed around like a beachball, but not tossed out... :) Why don't you post here too, Mr Benneth?

[magicflute]

Ahhhhhhh..... Mr Wu-Wu is back!! I had wondered where he'd been! Up to the same tactics as usual. Yawwwwwwnnnnn!!!!
Expect about as many answers to your questions from him as you got fron Karen Boesen. ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz

[Zep]

Let's see.

Open invitation for presentation of evidence.

Nothing more from Winston Wu.

Nothing at all from Mr Benneth.

What does that tell us? Do I hear the sound of a pair of chickens at our door...??

[Beleth]

Originally posted by WWu777
From Benneth:

I would like to take this opportunity to thank [...] "the Amazing" Randi and the many opponents of homeopathy for its explosive growth since the submission of my evidence for it in 1999.

No one, of course, expected him to jeopardize a million dollars by allowing a demonstration that would win his offer. However, it did bring forth enough evidence for it to embolden production, marketing and use, causing the industry to grow at 20% a year. So Benneth admits that he's only in it for the money, whether it actually works or not, then?

Why would he thank his opponents for his cause's success? Surely his supporters had more to do with his pocket-lining than his opponents did...

"Explosive growth" != "Successful results". Remember that the time frame mentioned also saw the "explosive growth" of the popularity of John Edward.

[Vim Razz]

Oh, but "explosive growth" ~does~ equal "$ucce$$ful re$ult$"! It's all a matter of your point of view! ;) (kidding!!)

Anyway, what the heck--I have too much time on my hands atm.

A few thoughts from a few items his list:
(quotes in italics, I dont feel like tearing up 50 pages with quote bars..)

My first question to him now would be if he has found time to see what homeopathic Staphysagria does to plant coleoptiles or gas output of yeast?

Evidently: (http://www.marius.net/yeast.html). Personaly, I think it would be interesting to see more information on contaminant cencentrations within both the "homeopathic concentration" and the "distilled water" used as a control. Water is a great solent--any number of things could have gotten picked up in production / processing that could affect the outcome of a delicate experiment. In particular, I think this sort of thing would have recieved greater attention in a study where the /test/ concentrations are in the range of 5C, 30C, etc. Contaminant concentrations are pretty much guaranteed to be higher than that--no mater how careful the distilation process was. It just seems that this would be a significant concern in this sort of study.

If a high dilute solution can affect plant growth or the action of yeast, then how is it Mr. James "the Amazing" Randi still pursues the idea that homeopathic medicine, which is regulated by the FDA, is a placebo?

And ~if~ it can, how does these (hypothetical?) findings have anything to do with demonstrating that Staphysagria cures everything from depression to genital sensitivity? (http://www.abchomeopathy.com/r.php/Staph)

The FDA has established guidelines for the double blind testing of new homeopathic products. If homeopathy is what Mr. Randi would have us believe, how is it then that the FDA is allowing "phony medicine" onto the market?

How the heck is the FDA still allowing aspartame? How did it allow phen-phen for so long? I'd go crazy if i expected goverment agencies to be perfect all the time. Mistakes happen.

Currently a class action suit is reportedly being made against a manufacturer of an OTC homeopathic cold medicine because users have reported a permanent loss of smell from it. What will this mean to Mr. Randi's view of the courts if the plaintiff wins?

"Reportedly"? Anyway, what else is in the "medicine"? Can the homeopathic ingredient be isolated as the reportedly offensive element?

Could it be possible that skepticism of the type Mr. Randi purveys about homeopathy is actually a great danger to the public because it fosters neglect of the potential dangers posed by the actual efficacy of homeopathic medicines?

If people aren't touching the stuff on account of what he's said, I'm not sure how that puts them at great risk...

Is Mr. Randi aware of reports that homeopathic medicines have been used to kill organisms? To cure genetically induced cancer in fruit flies? To inoculate mice from rabbit fever?

If reports like that exist, then -I'd- like to see 'em. Point the way; I couldn't find anything.

Is Mr. Randi aware of the Geckeler report that molecules in succussed high dilutions have been observed to cluster and expand?

Being a wanna-be physics geek (college drop-out, working on tuition to go back, etc.. ), I would LOVE to see what kind of experimental equipment is being "used" to obeserve a physical effect like that. Forget homeopathy, hardware capable of determining that sort of thing would be priceless.

Would Mr. Randi care to comment on Rolland Conte's' theory of a "white hole, " sub atomic clustering forming in high dilutes?

That alone is Nobel material if you can provide sufficient evidence for it. Sub atomic "clustering" formed by macroscopic methods under "everyday" conditions? That would blow me away.

Would Mr. Randi care to comment on hydrogen ion crystal artifacts reportedly observed in high dilutes?

"Reportedly" again? Anyway, what exatly is a "hydrogen ion crystal"? I am entirely unfamiliar with the term and was unable to find anything on it. Can anyone help me out here?

Why did the latest attempt to prove homeopathy a fraud in court fail?

My own understanding is that these sorts of court hearings are confrontational by nature. Spin and social politics are the rule. Wining or losing only shows how well your case held up under pressure. (Mind you, "pressure" is not the same as scrutiny in the midst of a debate.)

During the tests by the BBC, only forty samples were used, whereas a reportedly successful replication of Benveniste's basophil test by a formerly skeptical researcher used over a thousand.

I couldn't find the report, maybe someone show me where to look? Still, imediate concerns are similar to those I had with the yeast test above.

Does Mr. Randi belive he knows more about homeopathic products than all of the people who claim to successfully test, produce and use them combined?

"Claim".... Good god, this guy uses almost as many qualifiers and evquivocations as I do. (she: "Do you love me?" me: "As a person, yes." she: "!! 'As a person'??!!?" etc, etc, story of my life... anyway, end tangent..) And.... I dont believe that he has claimed that in particular--only that they dont work. I could be wrong.

Boiron reported being able to be able to distinguish serially agitated dilute solutions from their liquid vehicles by measuring their puncture voltage, and this dielectric test for homeopathic solutions was replicated by American and Indian teams. Why was the BBC double blind test not conducted by those who had experience in successfully conducting the test?

There's not much I can say on this... Boirons research info seems to be centered around here: http://www.boiron.com/en/htm/04-politique/fondamentale.htm ... but I cant find much in the way of procedural specifications or evaluations methods to looks at. Their page reads more like an infomercial than anything else.

What is Mr. Randi's assessment of the biochemical reports of William E. Boyd, M.D., Persson and Patterson? Has he read them? Has he read Conte et al's Theory of High Dilutions?

More reports I couldn't find, and I'm not particularly interested in reading the book without more to recomend it...

T

Hey! My first initial! What are you doing hanging out with this kind of crowd, buddy?



etc, etc, etc... I'm getting bored... :p