Guest post by Ken McLeod

Readers will recall that Barbara O’Neill is an Australian health crank, completely unqualified in anything, who is subject of a Permanent Prohibition Order issued by the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission, (HCCC),[1] preventing her from engaging in any health-related activity, including ‘health education,’ in Australia. The NSW Public Health Act 2010 provides that it is an offence for a person to provide ‘health education’ in contravention of a prohibition order, with a fine of $60,500 AUD ($38,151 USD, 36251 Euros) for an individual or imprisonment for 3 years, or both, or $121,000 AUD for a corporation.

For jurisdictional reasons that Order does not apply outside Australia and for several years she been touring the world giving health education lectures. The latest was a lecture tour of Ireland.[2] Despite the thorough debunking of her fruitloop beliefs by the HCCC,[3] she has maintained them and continues to give the ‘health education’ that was so dangerous that it led to the Prohibition Order in Australia.

Her Irish ‘health education’ lectures were live-streamed to people in Australia who paid the 20 Euro fee, and one was recorded by us.[4]

A transcript was made and is available online.[5] Her statements were analysed and some comments are made as follows. Alas, we didn’t have time to take a deep dive of her lecture to find the best references, but the following shows that an amateur with limited time and resources can prove that she does not know what she is talking about and that her advice is dangerous, even life-threatening.

It is up to the health regulators and immigration authorities in each country to act on her activities there, but so far none outside Australia have done so.

So a quick analysis of her ‘lecture’ in Dublin on 27 September 2023 shows that O’Neill has learned nothing from her experience with the HCCC. Some comments:

1. O’Neill and her husband, after the Prohibition Order was issued, changed the name of their facility from ‘Misty Mountain Health Retreat’ to ‘Misty Mountain Lifestyle Retreat’ to avoid the jurisdiction of the HCCC. However on four occasions in her lecture O’Neill referred to it as a ‘health retreat.’ 00:07:23 , 00:15:48, 01:30:04, 01:40:16.

2. At 00:12:53 O’Neill claims that the Amish don’t get autism. That is false, as explained by AP Factcheck. [6]

3. At 00:12:54 O’Neill claims that the Amish, ‘They don’t vaccinate their Children. Did you know that they don’t vaccinate their Children and yet they don’t get autism Very rare. Maybe 1%. And often that’s because of chemical exposure. There is always a reason. So why are vaccinations causing autism? Well, it’s neurotoxins, the neurotoxins. ‘

False; Amish do vaccinate their children. [7] However, studies have documented cases of autism, diabetes and cancer among the Amish, albeit at lower rates in some cases than the broader population and for reasons that are unrelated to their vaccination status. These reasons include the cultural norms and customs that may be playing a role in the reporting style of caregivers. [8] O’Neill is engaging in cherry-picking on a grand scale here.

4. At 00:13:37 O’Neill claims that ‘there are still two more neurotoxins’ (In vaccines.) Because children are still autistic. There’s formaldehyde, and there is aluminium, both neurotoxins.’

This is scaremongering disinformation. The CDC says ‘Formaldehyde is diluted during the vaccine manufacturing process, but residual quantities of formaldehyde may be found in some current vaccines. The amount of formaldehyde present in some vaccines is so small compared to the concentration that occurs naturally in the body that it does not pose a safety concern.’ As for aluminium, the CDC says ‘Ingredients like aluminum salt help boost the body’s response to the vaccine.’ The CDC says that both are safe. [9]

5. At 00:15:01 O’Neill claims ‘did you know that the milk in the supermarket if you give that to a newborn baby cow, that cow will die?’

I can find no reference supporting that and I suggest that it is pure fantasy.

6. At 00:18:29 O’Neill claims that ‘parents discover that they put their trust in the princes and vaccinated their child. Now their child has epilepsy. Now their child has autism.’

This is misleading panic-mongering that is a misrepresentation of the science. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners says ‘Seizures and status epilepticus can occur within 14 days following administration of inactivated and live-attenuated vaccines. These vaccine-proximate seizures can undermine parental confidence in vaccine safety and affect further vaccination decisions. Vaccine-proximate status epilepticus (VP-SE) is uncommon but may be the first manifestation of genetic developmental epileptic encephalopathies, including Dravet syndrome.’ So ‘epilepsy’ may be first encountered [10] following vaccination but the root cause is genetic.

7. At 00:20:27 O’Neill says that she would like to suggest that no child would be vaccinated, because the fact is, our body was designed to heal itself.

This is pure crazy antivax propaganda, unsupported by the facts.

8. At 00:22:01 O’Neill claims ‘skin cancer has only been around in about the last 80 years, and you know what they’re finding today? That vitamin D deficiency is a big contributing back factor to skin cancer’.

The first claim is false; the science shows that skin cancers have been around ‘since the beginning of time.’ [11]

As for the second claim, the research published at the US National Library of Medicine shows that O’Neill’s advice is dangerous. ‘It is, therefore, preferable and safer to obtain adequate levels of vitamin D through diet than through sun exposure. In fact, it is currently accepted that dietary and supplemental vitamin D is functionally identical to that produced after UV exposure, being more reliable and quantifiable (the risks of keeping high levels of vitamin D have not been extensively studied) source of this vitamin.’ And ‘Neither natural nor artificial sun exposure should be encouraged as the main source of vitamin D.’ [12]

9. At 00:23:18 O’Neill disputes claims that ‘cholesterol causes heart disease. Well, it’s been going for 40 years now, and it still hasn’t proven that. But you know what? It has proven that people with high cholesterol levels don’t get Alzheimer’s.’

O’Neill’s first claim points to the conflicting research as revealed by the Cochrane Collaboration. [13] As for her second claim, the research does not justify her claim that it is ’proven.’ The evidence is conflicting and as the Alzheimer’s Society of the UK say, ‘More research is needed to better understand this relationship and what it can tell us.’ [14] O’Neill’s conviction is not based on evidence.

10. At 00:34:41 O’Neill said that at Dublin airport ‘about 10 days ago,’ she was approached by a man who asked ‘Are you the Australian doctor? And I smiled.’

O’Neill did not correct him and allowed him to be duped into believing she is a real doctor. Despite having no qualifications in anything O’Neill has used the honorific title ‘Dr’ many times in social media,[15] so it is no surprise that he assumed she was a doctor. I can’t help but be confused by her use of the ‘Dr.’ Throughout her lectures she denigrates real doctors, and then tries to boost her credibility by adopting the title.

11. At 00:35:21 she claimed that with ‘epigenetics, you can actually turn your genes on or off.’…. ‘So Michael effectively turned those genes off with castor oil. Castor is very effective for for cataracts. Put it in your eye, one lady said. Is it safe? Does anyone ever ask that of the doctor? Is that drug safe? Then the people have been putting cholesterol in their eyes for centuries. It’s safe.’

Bollocks! As Consumer Lab says ‘Although eye drops containing castor oil may help improve symptoms of dry eye and blepharitis, there is currently no compelling evidence that applying castor oil to the eye can diminish cataracts.’ [16] And there is no evidence that Michael turned the genes off.

12. At 00:40:08 she refers to a woman who recently had a stroke. She says

‘… because she had a stroke, she was put on the protocol she was on put on statins. Cholesterol lowering medication with clear arteries. How much sense does that make? You don’t have. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work this out. Trust in your gut feeling trust in this incredible body that God has given you. Her blood was no longer thick. Her arteries are open now. And so she came to our retreat and I said, Well, I can’t tell you what to do. And I have no authority over your medication. Only you, and go. You and your doctor do. But this is what I would do. I would stop the blood thinning medication immediately because that aspirin causes brain bleeds, eye bleeds and stomach bleeds. Got that? And I would stop the statin drugs because that the side effect of statin drugs is Alzheimer’s dementia, uh, memory loss, muscle wasting. And they’ve just added another one, which is breast cancer, because all our sex hormones are made from cholesterols.’

O’Neill told a woman who had suffered a stroke to stop taking her life-saving medication! These medications are prescribed by highly qualified medical specialists based on the research. As the UK Stroke Association says, ‘Blood-thinning medications reduce your risk of stroke by helping to prevent blood clots from forming. You might be prescribed them after a transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or a stroke caused by a blockage (an ischaemic stroke, or clot).’[17] It is clear that O’Neill, who has no qualifications in anything, does not know what she is talking about.

As for her claim that the side effects of statins is breast cancer, the research shows the opposite. ‘While statins do not affect the incidence of most cancers, they do exert significant benefits on recurrence and survival in many cancer types, including breast cancer.’ [18]

13. At 42:48 O’Neill claims ‘If you are on cholesterol lowering medication and many have been deceived….’ As above, it is O’Neill who is doing the deceiving.

14. At 45:09 O’Neill claims that ‘If you stop your cholesterol lowering medication, there will be a side effect. Your memory will return. Your muscles will get stronger. Any little appearances of Alzheimer’s will start to ease.’

As above, the available research does not show that.

15. At 48:57 O’Neill claims ‘Why did they put fluoride in water? The claim was to harden the teeth. Has it hardened the teeth? Not at all. Has it reduced tooth decay? Not at all.’ And ‘But that fluoride is very hard on the kidneys, very hard on the liver.’

The research here is overwhelming; as the CDC says: ‘The CDC named community water fluoridation one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

‘Many research studies have proven the safety and benefits of fluoridated water. For  75 years people in the United States have been drinking water with added fluoride and enjoying the benefits of better dental health.

‘Drinking fluoridated water keeps teeth strong and reduces cavities (also called tooth decay) by about 25% in children and adults.’

As for O’Neill’s claim that fluoride is very hard on the kidneys, very hard on the liver,’ the research is inconclusive, and in fact the reverse may be true. Research shows ‘Fluoride exposure may contribute to complex changes in kidney and liver related parameters among U.S. adolescents. As the study is cross-sectional, reverse causality cannot be ruled out; therefore, altered kidney and/or liver function may impact bodily fluoride absorption and metabolic processes.’ So the science does not support O’Neill’s certainty.

16. At 48:57 O’Neill claims that ‘all body symptoms and body diseases and shows how dehydrating has a huge factor.’ O’Neill gives no evidence to support that huge claim.

17. At 01:00:20 O’Neill claims that a woman told her ‘I had the vaccine. Now I’ve got clots. Barbara, I had the vaccine. I can’t. I cannot even remember all the diseases that are arising. Have you noticed? And so many people were blackmailed into that vaccine.’ And ‘Is that (COVID19) a crisis? it’s not a crisis at all. And yet we’re seeing so many problems arising.’

O’Neill is dreadfully wrong here. COVID 19 was a crisis. How else would we describe a pandemic that is known to have killed at least 6,961,014 deaths, as reported to the WHO? [19] And what are the problems that we are seeing arising? Outside her imagination, that is.

18. At 01:00:20 O’Neill claims that ‘one man said, Show me the safety studies. They gave him three pages of blank paper. No safety studies, no safety studies at all.’ (On vaccines). And ‘drugs never cure disease.’ And a few lines later, again, ‘Drugs never cure disease.’

The allegation that ‘They (doctors) gave him three pages of blank paper’, is just so deranged. No doctor would do that because there are thousands of studies of vaccine safety.

O’Neill’s claim that there are no safety studies on vaccines is hopelessly wrong and dishonest. It’s one of the many anti-vax lies circulating on the internet, so beloved by the gullible. As the Australian Dept of Health and Aged Care say, ‘Research and testing is an essential part of developing safe and effective vaccines. In Australia, every vaccine must pass strict safety testing before the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) will register it for use. Before vaccines become available to the public, they are tested on thousands of people who take part in large clinical trials.’ [20] It took me a few seconds on the internet to find an interesting research paper on HPV vaccines, including a section on safety. [21] O’Neill could do that so the inevitable conclusion is that she set out to deceive. As for ‘drugs never cure disease,’ that is so bizarre, so whacky, so deluded, that it almost not worth challenging. But I will anyway; medical professionals have seen drugs work billions of times, and I can testify that I was saved from a life-threatening illness due to cephalexin.

19. At 01:10:49 O’Neill claims ‘some (medications) can be stopped immediately, like your statin drugs and your blood thinners. Yeah, what do you take instead of statin drugs? Well, there’s no need, because cholesterol is not a problem.’

O’Neill’s advice here is life-threatening rubbish. As the Mayo Clinic says ‘Abruptly stopping an anticoagulant can increase your risk of a stroke.’ [22] As for her advice on cholesterol, see above.

20. At 01:15:39 O’Neill claims that there was ‘No diabetes on the planet til sugar was well established.’ And lack of nose-breathing causes ‘Chronic fatigue syndrome. There’s one cause; it’s lack of oxygen at the cellular level.’

Humans have gathered sugar since we first became homo sapiens and diabetes has always been a problem for us and other animals.

As for her claim that lack of nose-breathing causes ‘Chronic fatigue syndrome;’ the Mayo Clinic says ‘The cause of ME/CFS is unknown, although there are many theories. Experts believe it might be triggered by a combination of factors.’ They go on to list many possible causes but lack of nose-breathing is not one of them.[23]

21. At 01:26:08 O’Neill claims that a researcher ‘…. could turn cancer cells on and off by the amount of animal, pro and animal protein that he was giving’ and liver cancer could be prevented by ‘a simple diet and cancer weights were very low low compared to the city again, with that high meat diet….’ There is some truth in this, but it does not justify O’Neill’s other advice to avoid prescribed medications.

22. At 01:49:26 O’Neill claims ‘if someone has a rash and they put cortisone on it, what happens to the rash? It’s gone, but But it comes back in about another week. Is that right? Twice as bad.’ And ‘No drug can heal cancer. The body and the body alone when it’s given the right conditions can cause cancer to be conquered in the body.’ And ‘A fever is nothing to fear.’

O’Neill’s claim that ‘No drug can heal cancer’ is demonstrably wrong. Life expectancy following cancer treatment has improved vastly over the decades, largely due to better detection and prescribed medications. As the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) estimates, ‘due to improved detection and treatment, deaths have dropped 41 percent from 1989 to 2018, according to the ACS.’ [24]

As for O’Neill’s claim that ‘a fever is nothing to fear,’ the Victorian Dept of Health says ‘High fever (about 41.5°C or more) is extremely dangerous and could trigger convulsions.’ [25]

23. At 01:53:47 O’Neill claims that drug therapy is not working.

What does O’Neill mean by that? Does she mean that prescribed medication does not work? If she is repeating her earlier claim that ‘drugs never cure disease?’ I repeat my earlier rebuttal. That is so bizarre, so whacky, so deluded, that it almost not worth challenging. But I will anyway; medical professionals have seen drugs work billions of times, and I can testify that I was saved from a life-threatening illness due to cephalexin.

I’ll finish the analysis here because you have suffered enough.

Readers everywhere now have rock-solid evidence that should be presented to their national health regulators, showing that O’Neill, as the HCCC put it, ‘poses a risk to the health and safety of members of the public’ and therefore ‘should be permanently prohibited from providing any health services, whether in a paid or voluntary capacity.’ And you have rock-solid evidence that should be presented to venue managers who have allowed O’Neill to present life-threatening ‘education’ to the public on their premises, asking them to cancel the booking. It’s not hard; it was done in Ireland by members of the public. That led to cancellation of the booking, and a rush by O’Neill’s supporters to find a new venue.





4 The video is available at and a backup is available at























  • Hi Edzard, Thanks so much for your work. There is a new SCAM called phlebotomy – I have a short story here in which you may find interest.

    Keep up the good work!

    Dr Colin Bannon

  • Dunning-Kruger and overweening hubris. A toxic combination.

  • I did not read your article. Instead, I chose to randomly select a “fact” where you claim:
    “At 00:12:53 O’Neill claims that the Amish don’t get autism. That is false, as explained by AP Factcheck.”

    However, in reading this “fact check,” there is not a single reference to a single study.

    it is so interesting to watch when you say something isn’t true and yet provide a link with NO evidence of it.

    So, instead, I went to Google Scholar and asked the question if there is evidence that autism is REDUCED in Amish children.

    Below is the reference that I found in the journal VACCINE.

    There is no doubt that all populations have cancer, heart disease, autism, whatever…but the bigger and more important question is: Do certain populations have reduced incidence of certain diseases.

    I am curious how people hear respond to THIS question…and which studies published in peer-review journal support your point of view?

    • Mr Ullman,

      I am curious as to why you have not responded to my question about naming a laboratory that can distinguish homeopathic water from other water, which you said in this Blog “Only fools or liars” doubted could be done. This is my seventy-second time of asking (and others have also asked).

      Please also answer the question previously asked, as to why you told an outrageous lie in this Blog, claiming to have named such a laboratory “many times” when you have not done so once.

      It would be fine if you would answer these simple questions before posting anything else.

      • I will answer this question when you tell me the mechanism of action of these exceedingly popular drugs, many of whom have hundreds of millions of dollars in sales:

        And then, show me evidence from double-blind and placebo controlled trials for the 10 most common surgical procedures. To attain high levels of scientific inquiry, there should be at least 3 independently confirmed trials for each surgery.

        I’m waiting…

        • No no, it doesn’t work like that – you tried this tactic before, early-on when I asked the question.

        • Dodge, dodge, bluff, bluster.

          The mechanism of action is immaterial. What has been shown is that they DO work. Unlike homeopathy.

          And the ethical problems of placebo surgery has been explained to you repeatedly you pathetic, imbecilic goon. Just because you’re a halfwit, don’t expect us to be the same.

          Find me the placebo-controlled trials on parachutes. I’ll wait.

          Now. That laboratory. Name it you ludicrous, insignificant, lying, fraudulent goon. You’ve been caught with your pants down and you know it. Your squirming is pathetic to witness. (And there’s no ad homs in that paragraph, Dana. All evidenced statements of objective fact)

      • I did not read your article. Instead, I chose to randomly select a “fact” where you claim:
        “At 00:12:53 O’Neill claims that the Amish don’t get autism. That is false, as explained by AP Factcheck.”

        However, in reading this “fact check,” there is not a single reference to a single study.

        it is so interesting to watch when you say something isn’t true and yet provide a link with NO evidence of it.

        So, instead, I went to Google Scholar and asked the question if there is evidence that autism is REDUCED in Amish children.

        Below is the reference that I found in the journal VACCINE.

        There is no doubt that all populations have cancer, heart disease, autism, whatever…but the bigger and more important question is: Do certain populations have reduced incidence of certain diseases.

        I am curious how people hear respond to THIS question…and which studies published in peer-review journal support your point of view?

        • You concocted your own imaginary study. What in the world are you talking about? You clearly never actually read it.

      • Are you serious, boy? “Homeopathic water” does not exists, the correct term is potentized (succused and diluted) liquids and non potentized liquids, similia principle is the rule of prescription. Some laboratories like the Hagenau Hospital leading by Dr. Louis Demangeat, the Oxford Chem lab by Steven Cartwright, the laboratory in Strasbour by Marc Henry, and the lab leaded by A. Tournier.

        • I am well aware of the terminology.

          My use of “homeopathic water” arises from the earlier discussion, now a couple of years ago, in this Blog, in which Mr Ullman branded as “fools or liars” those who doubted that homeopathic water could be distinguished from other water.

          Are you saying that the four institutions you mention can reliably distinguish between one potentised to 30C water, say Rhus tox 30C and another, say Nat mur 30C? Or between Rhus tox 30C and serially diluted and succussed water that did not start with any homeopathic tincture? Or between Rhus tox 30C and Sol 30C?

          If they can make such distinctions, why has Mr Ullman not said so, despite being politely asked more than seventy times? And why did he outrageously lie (which he now tacitly admits in this very Thread) in saying he had done so “many times” when he has not done so once?

        • Thank you for calling me a boy, since I became an Old Age Pensioner yesterday.

          • “homeopathic water could be distinguished from other water.”? In controlled trials the samples must come from the same water source, and not from another to be comparable.

            The scientists I mentioned have already published papers on the subject, distinguishing between different batches of “homeopathics” vs simple dilution vs succussion without starting solute. If you would read, you would know that this behavior is general but not always true for all solute. What you mean by “reliable” is meaningless if you are not an expert in the areas of physical measurements.

          • Thank you for this additional information. I used the word “reliable” in a general English-language sense. To tie it down to a narrower meaning, I could specify “replicated”. Replicated in the sense of there being a robust measured finding, solidly reproduced, in a properly controlled experimental setting.

            I will try to read further into the results of these laboratories. But 1) I don’t want to have to pay to access publications. The findings, if true, would be so revolutionary for science that they’d be trumpeted everywhere, and 2) When I have tried to read of homeopathic experiments in the past, I have found it difficult to wade through the language to the results.

            Just for easy clarification, if you wouldn’t mind, since you have information about all this – were the experiments in these four laboratories you mention, controlled by blinding?

          • “… distinguishing between different batches of ‘homeopathics’ vs simple dilution vs succussion without starting solute”

            Excellent! So, Kate Chatfield gave false evidence when representing the Society of Homeopaths before the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee:

            Note that Lord Broers used “distinguish between” in his question.

          • @Now!

            The scientists I mentioned have already published papers on the subject, distinguishing between different batches of “homeopathics” vs simple dilution vs succussion without starting solute.

            Please provide references for these papers.

          • Mr. Pete. Henness only mentions that Chatfield as a representative of a society of homeopaths could not answer the technical question of whether it is possible to distinguish one homeopathic medicine from another other than by the label. At no point does Chatfield give “evidence” on that question, so by not giving it it makes no sense to accuse her of giving “false evidence”. Moreover, Chatfield’s answer is from 2007 when many articles in physicochemistry were still generally of poor methodology, reproducibility was very low and it was difficult to rule out confounding factors in the measurements (since at that time differences were attributed to “contamination”).

            Now imagine your argument in reverse. I may well show you hundreds of quotes from “skeptics” denying that there were published homeopathy trials, and post it here to mock. You could reply to me that to this day many skeptics no longer believe that (although in fact there are still some who do).

          • Mr. David, The publications on these experiments are already years old, they have been reproduced in several laboratories independently. The most recent review of high quality experiments was published by Dr. Demangeat in one of the most reputable journals in nuclear physics and liquids:

            It is quite interesting to say that none of these experiments are challenged by Edzard Ernst or Richard Rasker or Norbet Aust in any of their books or articles. And I am talking that Aust, Rasker and Ernst are authors of the so called “skeptic” movement that, I could safely say, have produced (at least today) in English language the best objections against homeopathy. Even physicists with negative opinions such as Jim al Khalili, Jean Marie Lehn, Anton Zeilinger or Venkatraman Ramakrishnan do not challenge the most rigorous results.

          • Dr. Demangeat… ScienceDirect S0167732222010388

            It is quite interesting to say that none of these experiments are challenged…

            Touted by Dana Ullman in reply to DavidB on Tuesday 04 July 2023 at 20:26:

          • @Now!

            The most recent review of high quality experiments was published by Dr. Demangeat in one of the most reputable journals in nuclear physics and liquids:

            Right off the bat, there are several questions already, one being that Mr. Demangeat claims to have consistently observed the phenomenon under scrutiny (increased spin relaxation times) in his NMR setup over a frequency range of more than 4 orders of magnitude. I find this rather suspicious, especially since NMR inherently has a low sensitivity, which only gets worse at lower frequencies. Then again, I’m not very knowledgeable about NMR apart from the basic principles, so I’d have to do some further studying before I can make any more pertinent comments.

            It is quite interesting to say that none of these experiments are challenged by Edzard Ernst or Richard Rasker or Norbet Aust in any of their books or articles.

            There are several reasons for this:
            – It is generally a waste of time to start digging into hypothesized homeopathic mechanisms of action as long as there is no evidence that homeopathy actually has any effects beyond placebo.
            Ideally, homeopaths should first demonstrate the validity of their similia principle in a repeatable and robust manner, something that they haven’t accomplished in all the 227 years of homeopathy’s existence. They haven’t even come up with experiments that demonstrate that a homeopathic dilution 12C+ has any clear, consistent and independently replicable effects in any experiment they may suggest. Note that Demangeat claims that he did indeed observe a detectable effect of 12C+ dilutions, and also claims that his results have been independently replicated, so that would fulfil several important conditions laid out for taking homeopathy seriously.
            However, even if those claims indeed prove to be true, then that still does not prove that homeopathy actually works as claimed (i.e. as a medicine) – it would be like Benjamin Franklin claiming to have constructed a computer comparable with what you’re using right now when he just discovered the principle of electric current flow. There are countless links still missing all along the way.
            – Specific: the link you supplied points to an abstract with a few text excerpts, without any details whatsoever, and without any of the actual references to other people’s work that Demangeat mentions. An article must be very bad indeed if it can be demolished based on the abstract alone. A proper assessment of its merits can only take place with the full article, and also may require the original datasets.
            – As mentioned already, I am not an expert in NMR technology, so I won’t even try commenting on any of Demangeat’s specific claims until I have acquainted myself with the subject matter in more detail.

            Having said this, I did in fact request the full version of one of Demangeat’s papers, and he was kind enough to send it to me. I just haven’t had the opportunity to get into it – I have a business to run, and there are also a couple of other articles I’m working on that I want to finish first.

          • Can someone please explain to me how increased spin relaxation times in NMR would constitute a mode of action of homeopathy?

          • @Edzard

            Can someone please explain to me how increased spin relaxation times in NMR would constitute a mode of action of homeopathy?

            That is the whole point of my Ben Franklin analogy: it doesn’t.
            Even if this T1/T2 increase for 12C+ dilutions is indeed a real phenomenon (which I seriously doubt, as there are many possible confounders), this merely shows that there is some (extremely subtle) as of yet unexplained difference between a 12C+ dilution of an actual substance and the pure solute.

            It does not explain AT ALL how this minute difference could have any therapeutic (chemical or otherwise) effects inside organisms. And it certainly does not explain AT ALL how this strange property could pass on from a liquid homeopathic solution to solid sugar crumbs.

            And if I were a homeopathic researcher, one of the first things I would do is to find the limits of this phenomenon – so how many dilution/shaking steps are necessary to still observe it. It does not appear that Demangeat even tried this. And there are many more questions about all this.

          • Mr. Pete, the comments you share from your friend “Lenny” (a dentist) are just taunts towards Dana Ullman. At what point do you question Demangeat’s results with valid objections? At no point, thanks for proving my point!

          • Mr. Richard, you have only speculations of “suspicion”, but no real objection against the data. It is quite funny to read that you admit that you have no knowledge about NMR, the fact that you claim that NMR has “low sensitivity” and “I don’t have much knowledge”, and with that you try to refute something you don’t understand is quite surreal.

            -And yet, just by looking at several of Ernst’s blog posts you can see that your predictions have not come to fruition. Example, Ernst and Mukerji’s article predicted a kind of “end of homeopathy” (like the one predicted by the anonymous editorial in The Lancet, James Randi after defaming Benveniste, Oliver Holmes more than a hundred years ago), and well more and more studies and reviews of better quality appear that refute your points!

            -That you don’t know the literature is no excuse, the consistent effects have been demonstrated in numerous experiments and research models. It is curious that many of these experiments are not mentioned by even one of the “skeptics” of homeopathy in their books. The rest of your comment is comical and indicates to me that you have not read Demangeat’s work, if you had read it you would have noticed that he himself comments that his experiments do not imply biological activity which is obvious because it is an experiment with magnetic resonance, not an in vitro experiment.

            -Obviously, the link takes you to a summary because you don’t have access to the full paid article! (I do) Your comment makes no sense at all!

            -So you admit that you have no familiarity with MRI, even though you expect to be an “expert”. Well, if this is anything like your book, well my goodness, you can’t expect much.

            I remember on Ernts blog they had run a “contest” in which no one from the homeopathy research world applied. Maybe, and just maybe, you could understand the reason why no one outside of the social networking world takes the GWUP seriously.

          • It obviously does not explain the clinical difference because Demanger’s experiments are not clinical trials. “If you were a homeopathic researcher”, but you are not Mr. Richard.

            Mr. Richard, you are disappointing me, I expected more from you since you have published a book in Springer publishing house and you have the support of Edzard Ernst, who is the biggest critic of homeopathy worldwide.

          • Mr. Ernst, your question makes no sense. At no point do neither I nor Demangeat state that a change in relaxation times is a “mode of action of homeopathy”. This intrigues me more, it indicates that you are totally unaware of what a relaxometry study is done for, that you only create straw men to avoid facing the data and conclusions of the study and that your knowledge of fluid physics is nil. This I could see from reading several of your reviews in which in some you timidly cited some old studies, even some that had no direct relation to homeopathy to make some kind of impression.
            I came to this blog because a “skeptic” of homeopathy promised that you were the biggest detractor in existence and the mecca of the “skeptics” barracks. But you have only disappointed me.

          • yes, I tend to disappoint nutters – sorry!

          • I smell Troll….

            I am (slightly) sorry to drag this august forum into the domain of popular entertainment, but…

          • @Now!

            Mr. Richard, you have only speculations of “suspicion”, but no real objection against the data.

            I don’t even have the data, that’s the whole point.
            If I make specific claims, I want to a) make certain that I know what I am talking about, and b) make certain that my claims are supported by evidence. So far, I failed to find any independent, solid evidence supporting Demangeat’s claims, so I’ll have to look into his actual paper and methodology before I can present any conclusions.

            And, as I explained, even if Demangeat’s claims about homeopathic dilutions hold any (haha) water, then that does NOT constitute evidence for the viability of homeopathy as a form of medicine AT ALL. All that Demangeat will have proved in that case is that there is some sort of very subtle difference between ordinary shaken water and shaken water in which other substances were diluted some time before. That would be quite interesting, but it doesn’t change the fact that homeopaths are deluded idiots who believe that shaken water evaporated from sugar crumbs is a medicine. It is not.

            Anyway, I’ll dive into his work as well as the details of NMR when I have a couple of weeks off, maybe at the year’s end. I’ll be sure to report my conclusions then.

            … the consistent effects [of homeopathy(?)] have been demonstrated in numerous experiments and research models …

            This is not true. Sure, numerous people have come up with all sorts of homeopathic ‘mechanisms’, often invoking quantum physics or ‘coherent domains’ or ‘nanobubbles’ or other phantasmagorias – but their ‘theory’ alone is usually already completely divorced from reality, and unsupported by any real physics. One of these idiots even claimed that he could detect electromagnetic waves emanating from highly diluted DNA samples using a simple coil, an audio amplifier and an off-the-shelf computer sound card.
            The idea never occurred to him that what he was looking at were simple artefacts from quantized noise – much like Joseph Roy in 1917 never realized that what he saw under his microscope was the Brownian motion of minute gas bubbles and not ‘oscillococci’.

            So please point us to just one experiment that shows clear and consistent effects of a homeopathic dilution of 12C or higher, independently replicated by at least several renowned (groups of) scientists, NOT homeopaths – because the latter can’t be trusted to recognize proper science if it bit them in the arse.

            And oh:

            -So you admit that you have no familiarity with MRI, even though you expect to be an “expert”.

            Please stop lying or putting words in my mouth. As said, I am familiar with NMR (and MRI – and yes, they are different, even though they’re both based on nuclear spin relaxation), but nowhere do I claim that I am an expert.
            From what I can see, Demangeat is an expert in this field, so I will need to get better acquainted with the details myself before I can understand and perhaps criticize his methods and/or his results.

            Anyway, your main aim here appears to be to spread thinly veiled insults and ad-hominems while defending homeopathy, but at no point do you actually engage with particular points of criticism. Which tells me that most likely, you are a homeopath or a fervent believer in homeopathy, but not a scientist at all. So I’ll leave it at this.

          • It seems that Demangeat has succeeded in performing a modern version of the successful early works of Elsie Wright and Frances Griffiths.

          • Mr. Rasker.
            Wow, so you write a book for a reputable publisher, but in your whole book you didn’t know about Demangeat’s works? That’s very strange, Mr. Rasker, and would merit an independent investigation to see how your book passed the quality books. But leaving aside the above, you seem to have some reading and comprehension problem, as in my previous comment I told you quite clearly that Demangeat’s works (and he himself mentions it) do not demonstrate a clinical and biological effect. Why do you answer me with what I answered you?
            Following up on your comment, Mr. Rasker, you get out of control very easily by calling everyone who disagrees with you “idiots”. Anyway, your anger (and it’s not the first time I see you do it) only reflects that you have no objectivity anywhere.

            But let’s answer you. The paper Dr. Demangeat sent you, the 2013 paper, is a review of his own papers and these were rated very high quality in a review by Tournier et al. The review I posted you from 2023 in the Journal of Molecular Liquids, is a review of both Demangeat’s papers and other independent research groups, none of the lead authors of those papers is a “homeopath”, and if any of the co-authors of any of those papers were in no way attacks the results.
            Now, whether there are differences that you call “subtle” is very important, if these differences exist all the claims of the detractors (including those of James Randi and Richard Dawkins) are refuted.

            It is striking that here you just deny without any data in between. As much as you may not like it, there are thousands of experiments in which he has repeatedly confirmed the biological activity of high potencies in biological systems, many of these experiments are of high quality. The only problem before was that due to the wide variability of models there was no “stable” model, but this is not the same as lack of reproducibility. There are now models that have been replicated in several laboratories with sufficient stability to detect effects.

            About your doubts, let me tell you that in globules it has been possible to measure differences also between control and genuine homeopathic, that you do not know the literature is not an excuse. The one you call “idiots” was a Nobel Prize winner, Luc Montagnier, and several of his works have already been replicated even by independent groups in several countries. Again, your ignorance of literature is not an excuse.

            And just because you are familiar with MRI does not make you an expert, which is precisely what I mentioned earlier. The theory of coherent domains, since you mention it, has a good experimental basis. In fact, this theory is usually more supported by physicists and chemists outside of homeopathy than by “homeopaths” themselves. How do I know? Because there are numerous articles in favor of the theory published in decent physics and chemistry journals. Oh, didn’t you know that? If your comment in the future will be like your “fairies in my garden” article, I will really read it but I doubt I will take it seriously, maybe I will let out some good laughs.

            No, Rasker, it is not my intention to spread fallacies or insults, but ironically you are what you have done repeatedly. No Rasker, I am not a “homeopath” or a “believer in homeopathy”. On the Internet there are many “skeptics” on social networks criticizing homeopathy, but most of what they say is a lie, and anyone with a little time reading the literature can prove it. In a medium in which numerous news stories bombard you with “homeopathy is fraud”, “it kills”, “it’s not science but pseudoscience” and encourage the citizen to “verify the information”, it is ironic to say the least that if one has the initiative to get informed one is gradually realizing that anti-homeopathy campaigns spread disinformation. Isn’t that what Ernst and his colleagues wanted the public to do? Well here is an example of what happens if you are looking for information, why limit yourself only to what is said by multiple suspicious accounts on Twitter like that of Andree Dominik (who is obviously not an expert and who strangely lives most of the day talking about the same thing)?

            I am surprised that there is no article of yours in any database, but well I will not make an ad hominem like you. However, since you ask, I have already quoted parts of your book in a work of mine, and I also quote your article on Ernst’s blog “fairies in my garden”. Let me clarify that I have quoted only a few parts because the rest of your book is a repetition of other reviews of “skeptics” in their books.

          • fully that Demangeat publishes his stuff on high delutions not in top science journals such as .Nature’ but in 3rd class SCAM journals like ‘Homeopathy’
            Cite Share

            Could the Olfactory System Be a Target for Homeopathic Remedies as Nanomedicines?
            Courtens F, Demangeat JL, Benabdallah M.
            J Altern Complement Med. 2018 Nov;24(11):1032-1038. doi: 10.1089/acm.2018.0039. Epub 2018 Jun 11.
            PMID: 29889551 Free PMC article.

            Cite Share

            French doctors’ response.
            Poitevin B, Demonceaux A, Jeulin D, Popowski P, Sarembaud A, Guermonprez M, Demangeat JL, Allier JL, Benabdallah M, Colin P, Deswarte D, Gassin F, Rougier G, Tribouillard JM.
            Homeopathy. 2006 Jan;95(1):63-4. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2005.11.015.
            PMID: 16399262 No abstract available.

            Cite Share

            Gas nanobubbles and aqueous nanostructures: the crucial role of dynamization.
            Demangeat JL.
            Homeopathy. 2015 Apr;104(2):101-15. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2015.02.001. Epub 2015 Mar 13.
            PMID: 25869975

            Cite Share

            Nuclear magnetic resonance: let’s consolidate the ground before getting excited!
            Demangeat JL, Poitevin B.
            Br Homeopath J. 2001 Jan;90(1):2-4. doi: 10.1054/homp.1999.0461.
            PMID: 11212084 No abstract available.

            Cite Share

            Effects of potentization.
            Poitevin B, Demangeat JL.
            Br Homeopath J. 2000 Jul;89(3):155-6. doi: 10.1054/homp.1999.0410.
            PMID: 10939772 No abstract available.

            Cite Share

            Nanosized solvent superstructures in ultramolecular aqueous dilutions: twenty years’ research using water proton NMR relaxation.
            Demangeat JL.
            Homeopathy. 2013 Apr;102(2):87-105. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2013.01.001.
            PMID: 23622259

        • Could you give more details of the “Oxford Chem lab” that can do this?
          Maybe in the form:
          LAB NAME

          Then I would be able to send them a sample and they’ll be able tell me what it is.

          • Your request makes no sense, you cannot draw conclusions from “a single sample”. Moreover, for these experiments it is preferable to perform the samples in very controlled environments to avoid contamination.

          • Are you stupid, boy? Do you not understand English?
            I asked you for the contact details of the “Oxford Chem lab” you mentioned. Why do you not answer?

          • Mr. Zebra, your insults only reflect that you are not serious in any way. For some reason I commented to you that your request is pointless, as it is pointless to give you directions because I already know several of your type. Do you want to go harass investigators? Apart from the fact that they would not take seriously requests from a random guy looking to “send them a sample”.

          • Nice dodge, Now. You know your bluff’s been called.

    • @Dana Ullman

      Do certain populations have reduced incidence of certain diseases.

      That question cannot be answered based on just one survey with a couple of hundred respondents, but in general: yes, you will of course also see a lower prevalence of certain conditions in closed communities, for genetic reasons. And because ASD has a strong genetic component, this may cause ASD to be either less or more prevalent in certain of these communities, depending on the prevalence among its original, founding population.

      But with ASD and vaccination, there are quite a few other factors at play. For instance people who do not vaccinate their children also tend to make less use of regular healthcare in other respects. Which means that they tend to show up in diminished numbers in healthcare statistics, including ASD statistics. Then there’s the problem that especially antivaxxers will often deny any signs or even diagnoses of ASD in their children – and this also goes for Amish people, albeit for slightly different reasons:

      “I have met amish children with autism whose parents will not take their child in for testing or therapy. If a person is diagnosed with a disease or disorder the other children’s/siblings prospects for marriage are greatly diminished.”

      On the flipside, ASD etc. is diagnosed in far higher numbers in cognitively challenging, often highly competitive environments, because children with ASD or ADD diagnoses can receive extra help in the course of their education. This will inflate the number of ASD diagnoses – just look at Japan, where the number of ASD diagnoses is among the highest of the world.

      And these are just a few of the problems you will encounter when trying to gauge the prevalence of a tricky, multiform condition such as ASD, which can’t be diagnosed with a simple ‘yes or no’ blood test.

      But one thing is quite certain: ASD incidence has nothing to do with vaccination status. This hypothesized link has been studied ad nauseam over the course of the past decades, with overwhelmingly negative results.

      • I wonder if Barbara O’Neill, pioneering researcher and clinician that she is – she even has a microscope or knows someone with one – ever said anything about vaccination and autism BEFORE the world heard of (struck-off) Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Or is the vaccine-autism thing just another rolling bandwagon she jumped on…….

      • If autism has a genetic component, are you ACTUALLY claiming that autism was as common when I was born (1951) as it is today? Really? For the record, absolutely no child in my neighborhood had autism…and further, no one in my entire high school (of 1,800 kids) had autism.

        It is fun to watch people here try to defend the mainstream (Big Pharma) narrative in such creatively blind ways while trying to claim the upper hand of “science.” Thanx for proving the bankrupcy of modern science.

        • @Dana Ullman

          If autism has a genetic component, are you ACTUALLY claiming that autism was as common when I was born (1951) as it is today?

          To a certain degree, yes. Also see below.

          For the record, absolutely no child in my neighborhood had autism…and further, no one in my entire high school (of 1,800 kids) had autism.

          Interesting how, some 60 years after the fact, you appear to be capable of diagnosing a very tricky condition with shifting diagnostic criteria in a population you only knew as a child – and a condition that you demonstrably know nothing about, at that.

          Anyway, you are wrong. I can say with great confidence that very likely, several kids in your school and your neighbourhood had autism. However, most cases of what is now called ASD would simply not be diagnosed; those kids would were deemed ‘introvert’ or ‘weird’ or even ‘anti-social’ or something like that. How do I know? Simple: I was one of those kids. And any severe cases would of course not end up in a regular school.
          Also note that even today, with a large number of different developmental and behavioural phenomena having been brought under the ASD umbrella, the actual prevalence is maybe 3 per 100 at most. Which means that most children maybe only know one or two other children with ASD. So it’s quite understandable that you can’t recall having known or seen any autistic children in your childhood.

          Also note that the term ‘autism’ was initially (ca. 1945) only used for the most severe cases, and even then, many psychiatrists described it as Kanner’s syndrome. So in a way you are right: 70 years ago, there was no autism to speak of – the word wasn’t widely used in psychiatry until about the 1960’s, and even then only described the more severe cases, with a significant proportion still diagnosed as schizophrenia. Higher-functioning autism wasn’t called autism but Asperger’s syndrome – a term that was only abandoned 10 years ago, in 2013, when it officially became part of ASD.
          Then there’s this: teams of researchers have re-examined old psychiatric patient records (from about 1900 onwards, IIRC), applying modern diagnostic criteria. They found that many of those patients with widely diverging original diagnoses (up to and including ‘idiocy’) would now be diagnosed with ASD/autism.

          So the ‘autism epidemic’ is explained in large part by an increase in diagnoses due to changing diagnostic criteria – not so much by an actual increase in cases.

          Then there’s your curious failure to understand the meaning of ‘genetic component’. It does NOT mean that the condition has 100% genetic causes; there may also be environmental factors at play. But it is an undisputable fact that siblings of someone with ASD have a significantly higher chance of having ASD themselves.
          And even if one or more environmental factors play a role (which still isn’t quite clear), this does NOT automatically mean that vaccines are that factor. Lots of studies have been done, and none of those supports a vaccination-autism link. Please keep in mind that this link was only dreamed up and promulgated by a fraudulent (now ex-)doctor who seriously violated ethical and scientific standards in the course of his ‘research’.

          The fact that you are ignorant about autism and its history, and that my careful and polite explanation appears to have completely missed any cognitive centres in your brain does not so much prove ‘the bankruptcy of modern science’, but rather that you seem to have a truly homeopathic brain.

        • It is good to know that we are in the presence of genius.

          Not only, while in high school, could you diagnose autism accurately, something which took most of us quite a while to learn and the development of decent diagnostic tools to manage, but you had access to certain key papers which were at that time only published in German and not available in the English-speaking world and could accurately translate those German texts. However, I’m a bit miffed that you kept your discoveries to yourself and that the rest of us had to wait for Rutter and his colleagues (one of whom I worked with) to come up with ADOS and ADI-R and the like: that was very poor form. Why did you not publish before Wing, Attwood, Rutter and all the rest? Think of the kudos and regard in which you could be held?

          And I’m pleased to hear that you lived in some class of Utopia which did not need schools for those having (per older terminology) learning disabilities.

          Meanwhile, elsewhere…

    • However, in reading this “fact check,” there is not a single reference to a single study.

      it is so interesting to watch when you say something isn’t true and yet provide a link with NO evidence of it.

      Here’s a link to the AP piece.

      I counted FIVE links to studies in it.

      Dana once again you’re showing you’re a liar.

      Or are you just an idiot who can’t read? Your choice. Either way, it’s why you are utterly without consequence.

      • And isn’t it interesting that the AP “Fact Check” did not link to a single REAL study of autism rates amongst the Amish…while choosing to completely IGNORE the study on THIS precise subject in the respected journal VACCINE:

        What is more interesting is that NO ONE here will still admit that there is a reduced rate of autism in the Amish.

        When people hear use the term “evidence based medicine,” they really mean that they believe in their own “facts”.and you don’t give a fig about real studies…especially Lenny who just pretends to be pro-science. Thanx for the laugh, Lenny!

        • Oh Dana. You are pathetic.

          That study you link to makes no mention of autism. Not one.

          You really need to learn to read you pathetic little man. With every post, all you demonstrate is your own foolishness.

          • Well…it seems that we BOTH screwed up…but the BIG difference here is that I will now admit that my link did not mention autism. BUT the fact of the matter is that YOU countered my claim that the Amish have a reduced rate of autism, and you posted an article that SUPPOSEDLY disproved my claim…but it did NOT!

            And for the record, all of the “fact-checking bullshit” about the Amish cite one study that showed that only 14% of Amish children have not received ANY vaccines…but if you notice, our American public health departments have carefully avoided asking the question: how many FEWER vaccines does the average Amish child get? We ALL know that Amish children receive a LOT fewer vaccines…and THAT is the point here…

    • The resident homeopath wrote:
      “I did not read your article…”
      Maybe the homeopath believes not reading potentiates his dilute wisdom?

  • I noted that the Abstract to which Mr Ullman provided a link above, says:

    “The Amish have lower vaccination rates and higher vaccine-preventable disease rates than the general population [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].”

  • Lenny…

    BULLSHIT! The ONLY study that links to AUTISM says THIS:
    Indeed a 2010 paper from the International Society for Autism Research found autism was less prevalent in Amish communities than the U.S. overall, but that further study was needed to determine how “cultural norms and customs” played a role in the numbers.”

    You got BUSTED! And you’ve proven (again) to be a lying liar and/or just intellectually incompetent.

    And what’s really interesting here is that NOT a single person hear did the simple task of reading the article and noticing the OBVIOUS.

    • Dana

      One day you need to learn how to read.

      Your ridiculous flailing are why you remain the inconsequential figure of ridicule that you are.

      • Put up or shut up. Please show us all which other real study on autism did this “fact check” cite?

        • Go back and read it again, halfwit. Try and learn something for once in your pathetic life. Your previous claims about the piece have been trashed. Maybe try doing your homework on this one as well.

        • Mr Ullman, please tell us all what laboratory can distinguish homeopathic water from other water, which you say “only fools or liars” doubt can be done. Seventy-third time of asking.

          Please tell us all why you told an outrageous lie in this Blog, claiming to have already done so “many times” when you haven’t done so once.

          • Now! anserwed: Some laboratories like the Hagenau Hospital leading by Dr. Louis Demangeat, the Oxford Chem lab by Steven Cartwright, the laboratory in Strasbour by Marc Henry, and the lab leaded by A. Tournier

  • Of the more than 5000 books written by spirits here in Brazil, in just 90 years, there is one that I love: Physiology of the Soul, by the spirit Ramatis. In 8 chapters (68 pages), he reveals how homeopathy works. To a large extent, homeopathy is a spiritual treatment. Hannehman cites the word “spirit” 21 times and “spiritual” 38 times in the sixth edition of “Organon, the Art of Healing.” Excerpt from the book Physiology of the Soul, commenting on the mechanism of action of homeopathic remedies: “When the patient ingests a “high dynamization” dose, with which the homeopathic doctor has successfully adjusted the background medication or elective constitutional dose, the her “vital aura” is covered with a brilliant radioactive cloud, which surrounds her intensely, although it is invisible to the eyes of incarnates.
    energies that are released by the catalytic action of a high homeopathic dose surround the creature up to a distance of three to four inches, in all directions of its vital aura, forming a radiating egg in a metallic, very whitish tone that, in principle, closely resembles to the miniature impact of an atomic bomb. Even at the apex of the human “vital aura”, one perceives at first the
    figure of the suggestive atomic mushroom, although only in the form of transparent radiation, which floats and expands directly from the aqueous vehicle of the homeopathic dose ingested by the patient. As soon as the “chakras” or force centers of the etheric double capture this energy
    free and potentiated and absorbing it through their iridescent vortices, the vibratory lowering of the awakened energy is produced in combination with the homeopathic medicine, making the
    necessary condensation for the intimacy of the physical body. The energy that has been enhanced and freed from the “high dose”
    homeopathic medicine tends to concentrate more quickly in the auric region of the skull, converging vigorously towards the cerebrospinal region and spreading, little by little, through the areas of the brachial, cervical and dorsal nerve plexuses to then reach the solar plexus, in the
    abdominal region, under the influence of this powerful energetic charge, the nervous system actively starts working and restores the metabolism of the weakened endocrine system, operating
    gradually in the lifting and balancing of all disturbed organic functions. The pituitary gland, which is the orchestral conductor of man’s organic cosmos, is then renewed, in conjunction with the epiphysis, constituting the “élan” of the mental and psychic sphere, and
    carrying all the available energies provided by the energetic awakening of the infinitesimal homeopathic dose to the physical body. Under this dynamic assistance, it is then possible to make the necessary corrections and respond urgently to all
    requests aimed at maintaining harmony and human health. The wonderful strength potential that is the perispirit, largely responsible for the balance of the carnal organism, then accelerates its energy production, as soon as it receives the dynamic reinforcement of the high
    homeopathic dynamization. The Divine Mind, as the coordinating principle of all cosmic creation, also manifests itself through the soul of the patient himself, either guiding him regarding the most urgent means to reestablish his harmony and health, or processing
    vital organic exchanges, taking advantage of all available internal forces. Homeopathic therapy awakens the forces of man’s organic cosmos and re-educates the work of the organs
    weakened, putting them in harmonious relationships with their systems
    directors. It is an extraordinarily beneficial action to the human body, constituting the coefficient of forces that are docilely placed under the mental control of the “divine nature” and that operate intelligent movements under the most rigorous etheric scientism.
    transcendental. The impact of infinitesimal energy, which is released from the substance
    energized in a high dose, it then becomes the efficient and powerful help with which divine science assists the weakened body of the human creature. The effect of high homeopathic dynamization on the physical body could be equal to a vigorous magnetic energy pass
    enhanced and continuous action. In reality, as occultists are aware, homeopathic dynamization enhances the very vital soul of the plant, mineral or toxic substance.
    extracted from the animal, which is why it does not harm the organism, but wisely helps it to achieve balance and health with its own strength.”

    • A “wonderful” text: Full of buzzwords, meaningless ramblings and B.S.

      • @RPGNo1
        Exactly what one would expect from a ‘writing spirit’.

        • We are all spirits that write. Having a body that will rot after death does not make us better. The perspective of superior spirits is privileged, which is why they teach us what we have the capacity to understand, whether through books or intuitions in thought. This message is from the spirit Bezerra de Menezes, who was a Brazilian doctor and today leads spiritual surgery teams here in Brazil:

          Towards Medicine of the Spirit

          The higher spiritual plane enthusiastically accompanies all sincere work aimed at bringing spiritual science closer to medical knowledge. Modern medicine, still riddled with the deceptions of materialism, needs urgent and decisive guidance from new knowledge so that it does not perpetuate itself solely in the production of organic comforts, since it still does not know how to base itself on the postulates of the immortal spirit to build true health on human terrain.

          Although it strives in the commendable desire to alleviate man’s suffering, we must admit that all the therapeutic resources developed so far, as long as they have not reached the unquestionable spiritual origin of the illness, are transitory and palliative.

          Believing that life is a random product of matter and ignoring that existence lends itself to divine purposes, medicine today has not yet been able to reach the true nature of human ills.
          Operating erroneously in the field of effects and not causes, one ends up suffering from an impulse that always returns to its place of action, often aggravated, if it is not adequately guided towards the path of healing itself.

          The Greater World watches with regret the expenditure of so many efforts in directions that are still uncertain. Pained to see the noble science lacking the wisdom of vitalism and infected by stubborn materialism, moves resources towards its reform, sowing ideas that address the reality of the spirit. It is urgent to help her with spiritual knowledge, decisively influencing her fruitful commitment to making the stage of being in the spotlight happier and healthier
          earthly. How can we achieve health in the flesh without complying with the imperatives of God’s Law? How can we combat the torments of the body without dominating the evils of the spirit, where everything originates?

          In this context, the lights of spiritualism and homeopathy emerge as essential beacons to illuminate medicine in vogue on Earth. It is essential to convince her that life in matter is a mere stage for the expression of the immortal spirit and that pathological phenomena
          of the flesh have an essential spiritual function in the concert of Creation.
          It is urgent to teach that illness, being a force of the soul, flowing from the inside out, can only be eradicated by an impulse of the same nature. That every action imposing physiological calm on the organic car, without the necessary support of spiritual-energetic balance, is a fleeting achievement, destined for temporary well-being. And that, if the causes persist, the pain will continue to affect the being until he conquers the science of living well.

          Homeopathy, bringing to contemporary knowledge irrefutable evidence of the existence of the vital organism, where subtle imbalances of the spirit are stopped before emerging into illnesses physics, is a science established on Earth to heal the wounds of medical materialism, building the true Medicine of the Spirit. Hahnemann, herald of Christ, was entrusted by Him with such great
          anticipation, of establishing on Earth the pillars of this new medicine, to be in force in the third millennium, substantiating it with concepts of high spiritual reach.

          How can we not bow before the wise lessons of the Meissen missionary, when he proclaims that all human evils find their peremptory origin in the spirit? The messenger correctly told us that disorders of the flesh are mere effects of energetic disturbances, interfering in our perispiritual intimacy. That physical compounds carry formative energies that can be aroused by the ingenious method of dynamization, making them susceptible to acting vigorously in the human psychosphere. And that its use, through the principle of similarity, activates healing reactions in the dynamic unity of being. These are teachings that enchant the medical reasoning of anyone who has already learned about spiritual truths. For this reason, the great voices from beyond, in all times of dissemination of spiritualism, spoke out in favor of the medicine of the similar, highlighting its immense value in providing definitive solutions so that the pathology of the soul finds its true healing path.
          Thus, since Benoit Mure, the famous French doctor, arrived in the Land of Cruzeiro in the nineteenth century, bringing the first spiritist books with his homeopathic bar, both sciences here embraced each other, in obedience to superior designs, using the postulates of the spirit for the benefit of man who suffers on earthly shores.

          Homeopathy, basing its principles on the Corpus Hippocraticum launched so many centuries in advance Ancient Greece, revives and reinvigorates them, solidifying secure foundations for
          the sustenance of Spirit Medicine. Let us rejoice, all of us who seek the truth, as this new medicine, based on the Law of God, is already emerging on the horizon of human knowledge. She is already outlined in homeopathic precepts and will soon be definitively incorporated into the science of the world, as we are certain that the spirit will soon be officially discovered by scientific research in progress on Earth. And then medicine will have to bow before the unequivocal spiritual reality of life, admitting the ascendancy of the immortal soul over all phenomena of the flesh.

          And so we will see the birth of a new medicine on Earth, the Medicine of the Law, establishing a medical practice guided by Divine Wisdom and not by human will. Making the soul its field of research, it will finally understand the ultimate reasons for pain, to act in the realm of spiritual causes, obtaining safe means to definitively eradicate suffering from our inner landscapes.

          While these good days do not arrive, let us take care, in advance, to drink from this divine source of health arising from the fusion of homeopathic and spiritist concepts, collecting in large quantities its luminous precepts capable of healing us, as long as
          conveniently applied in the construction of our destinies.
          With us be the peace of the Lord.

          Bezerra de Menezes

          Medium – Gilson Freire
          Brother Vitor Spiritist Fraternity Group

      • I advise you to re-read the message and your response again in a few years.

  • There is a film about his life while incarnated in his last incarnation, which was here in Brazil, on YouTube, but it is in portuguese:

  • I just stumbled upon this YouTube ‘short’ of Barbara O’Neill. It sounds like gobbledegook to me – is it gobbledegook? I mean, what’s that about sulphur from milk?

    • @DavidB

      I just stumbled upon this YouTube ‘short’ of Barbara O’Neill. It sounds like gobbledegook to me – is it gobbledegook?

      Yup, it definitely is. This crazy woman has no idea what she’s talking about. If milk is unhealthy and/or lacks important nutritious components, then I’d like to know why baby mammals positively seem to thrive on it.

      I don’t know about the sulphur thing, other than that it is only present in milk in very small amounts.
      She’s probably referring to this whole acid/alkaline nonsense and pH woo.

  • Oh shut up. She knows exactly what she’s talking about. You’re nothing but a lackey for the medical establishment and a toady for big pharma. You can f right off. And I don’t care if anybody sees this or not you’re seeing it and that’s all that matters. I don’t care how many letters you have after your name, you’re an idiot. Now why don’t you go suck some more big pharma dick.

  • Your responses to her statements are so ridiculous I couldn’t even read them all. Let’s all take note that ASTRA zENECA have in fact admitted that their vaccine has in fact caused blood clots.
    The other response that irritated me was when you say that Barbara told people not to take their blood thinners after a strike. She said what she would do and did NOT say the woman shouldn’t.
    I had my spleen removed as a child for ITP/ turns out that was a mistake. My dad was misdiagnosed was motor neurons. Astra zeneca have admitted their vaccine causes blood clots. I’m recovering from TSW and if I can help it I will never touch pharmaceuticals again. Doctors make mistakes. Doctors have a very basic education in the whole body. Something that was painfully clear with both my elderly parents when they had comorbidities. It seems doctors cannot see the wood for the trees. I have completely lost faith in doctors, big pharma, government… no one tells the truth. There’s always ulterior motives and I’m sick of being manipulated

  • So that’s Sam, George and Susan to add to the Socklist.

    Why are they bothering?

    • What is a sock list?
      Why are you bothering?
      I have zero respect for Lenny. Lenny is rude and his responses show a lack of emotional maturity
      I’ve stated facts plus my experience. Has Astra Zeneca not just admitted their vaccine causes blood clots?
      Up until a year ago I blindly went along following doctors medical opinions. That has got me and my loved ones no where. There’s no harm in venturing down other avenues and researching and trying alternative medicines/therapies. I don’t know even about Barbara to comment on the validity of everything she is saying. At the same time I don’t believe in the validity of anything the medical profession say either. Funny how most of the areas of nutrition/herbal remedies ‘need’ further research. Try opening your minds boys.
      I’ve remained as polite as I can be but your ‘troll like’ responses appear designed to bait an emotional response.

    • They don’t realise that their contributions do the exact opposite of providing any support for Mrs O’Neill.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.