Homeopathy scientific research digital biology electromagnetic medicine
Jacques Benveniste's last letter to 15,000 Homeopaths, June 2003.
He had received three replies....
I have colored certain passages.
DIGITAL BIOLOGY LABORATORY
32 rue des Carnets, 92140 Clamart, France
Tel. +33.(0)1.46.01.58.40 - Fax +33.(0)1.46.31.02.77
Mailto: jbenveniste@digibio.com Web: www.digibio.com
Director: Dr J. Benveniste
Clamart, June 2003
Dear colleagues,
I am addressing you directly, the practitioners and users of homeopathy.
Indeed, I have so far been unable to convince the homeopathic firms of the vital importance of promoting high-level fundamental and clinical research to ensure the future of the discipline. Yet it is well known: no practice intended to improve the lot of mankind can remain exclusively empirical. It must objectify its results.
Now, the central problem of homeopathy which, if not resolved quickly, compromises its future, is its isolation from the scientific world: there are very few modern studies in high-level clinical journals (practically none in French) and above all no physical theory justifies biological activity in the absence of molecules. The founding dogma of biology is the molecule, and whatever the clinical results, they will not be taken into consideration - with a certain bad faith -
as long as no physical phenomenon explains this alleged activity.
For homeopathy to be respected in the medical world, not only in the closed world of homeopathy, results must be published showing the nature of what acts at high dilution (we now know this, a low-frequency electromagnetic signal) and this in high-level scientific journals.
It is difficult but possible. The laboratory that I headed, Inserm U200, closed since for heresy, produced between 1987 and 1991 four articles in such journals, including, on "Apis Mellifica", in the temple of conservatism, the Academy of Sciences of Paris. http://www.digibio.com/cgi-bin/node.pl?lg=fr&nd=n4
This requires a research policy involving funding, modest compared with classical pharmaceutical firms, and the contribution of high-level scientists. Yet, in the 15 years since I fortuitously entered this research theme, this has not happened.
First paradox: because my results support one of the principles of homeopathy, I am attacked by the ultra-orthodox and my research means have been eliminated.
Yet, I have not received significant financial support from the homeopathic "community" since 1989.
Second paradox: homeopathy has far more need of fundamental research than classical pharmacology, which has scientifically validated data, even if not all of it is correct. Only the definition of its physical bases can protect homeopathy from a slow but inexorable strangulation by the health authorities. The passivity of the world homeopathic community which does not consent to the necessary effort to ensure, bis repetita..., medical and scientific respectability, is suicidal. This abandonment is the objective ally of its adversaries.
And this while homeopathy is an electromagnetic medicine ahead of classical medicine (what a waste that the world ignores it!!) and it is now possible to make it evolve thanks to the methods of modern research.
The failure of homeopathy "researchers", who flock to congresses, conferences and other research groups, but not where homeopathy needs it, the scientific and medical journals, has left our team, nolens plus than volens, virtually alone on the front line.
The stakes are clear: if our results are recognized, homeopathy will enter the fold of "normal" science. A dialogue of equals can be established with the scientific, medical, administrative and political authorities. We will see the end of confrontations and homeopathy will be able to develop beyond its current framework. Our adversaries know this, who do not cease their attacks. If the lack of means caused our common defeat, the "you see there are no credible results" will be their weapon of mass destruction, fatal for homeopathy.
Those who profit from the sale of homeopathic products and finance no research seem unaware of these stakes.
I therefore directly solicit your contribution to a research fund for at least the equivalent of one consultation per year. More, obviously, for those who wish and can commit better to this crucial battle.
Thank you for sending these contributions to the order of: Laboratoire de Biologie Numérique.
Furthermore, some of your clients or friends want to help research. It must be possible to encourage them to support homeopathy rather than the dominant themes: genetics, molecular biology, chemotherapy, whose results are not... obvious.
If many of you mobilize, important scientific advances should take place before 3-5 years, for example, definition of the signal contained in homeopathic dilutions, physical characterization of the water carrying homeopathic information, electromagnetic signals of the components of living beings, human biomagnetism, etc. See www.digibio.com
As for clinical research in homeopathy, it will not be done by allopathic doctors, even less in university hospitals. Besides, can they be blamed? "Italia fara da se". Yet solutions exist, which allow those in contact with the patient to regroup, establish networks, share protocols and results. If we find the financial and human means, a homeopathy research agency will have to be created, methodologically advising practitioners so that they draw from their considerable clinical "material" what is needed to develop quality research. A very operational approach, in contact with reality, quite different from these committees of experts, national or European, from which homeopathy has so far drawn no benefit. Here too, outside the base, you, no solution.
I count on you as, I believe, you can count on the determination of the team of the Digital Biology Laboratory to carry out this exhilarating scientific and medical adventure.
Yours cordially.
Dr. J. Benveniste
DIGITAL BIOLOGY LABORATORY
32 rue des Carnets, 92140 Clamart, France
Tel. +33.(0)1.46.01.58.40 - Fax +33.(0)1.46.31.02.77
Mailto: jbenveniste@digibio.com Web: www.digibio.com
Director: Dr J. Benveniste
Clamart, June 2003
Dear colleagues,
I am addressing you directly, the practitioners and users of homeopathy.
Indeed, I have so far been unable to convince the homeopathic firms of the vital importance of promoting high-level fundamental and clinical research to ensure the future of the discipline. Yet it is well known: no practice intended to improve the lot of mankind can remain exclusively empirical. It must objectify its results.
Now, the central problem of homeopathy which, if not resolved quickly, compromises its future, is its isolation from the scientific world: there are very few modern studies in high-level clinical journals (practically none in French) and above all no physical theory justifies biological activity in the absence of molecules. The founding dogma of biology is the molecule, and whatever the clinical results, they will not be taken into consideration - with a certain bad faith -
as long as no physical phenomenon explains this alleged activity.
For homeopathy to be respected in the medical world, not only in the closed world of homeopathy, results must be published showing the nature of what acts at high dilution (we now know this, a low-frequency electromagnetic signal) and this in high-level scientific journals.
It is difficult but possible. The laboratory that I headed, Inserm U200, closed since for heresy, produced between 1987 and 1991 four articles in such journals, including, on "Apis Mellifica", in the temple of conservatism, the Academy of Sciences of Paris. http://www.digibio.com/cgi-bin/node.pl?lg=fr&nd=n4
This requires a research policy involving funding, modest compared with classical pharmaceutical firms, and the contribution of high-level scientists. Yet, in the 15 years since I fortuitously entered this research theme, this has not happened.
First paradox: because my results support one of the principles of homeopathy, I am attacked by the ultra-orthodox and my research means have been eliminated.
Yet, I have not received significant financial support from the homeopathic "community" since 1989.
Second paradox: homeopathy has far more need of fundamental research than classical pharmacology, which has scientifically validated data, even if not all of it is correct. Only the definition of its physical bases can protect homeopathy from a slow but inexorable strangulation by the health authorities. The passivity of the world homeopathic community which does not consent to the necessary effort to ensure, bis repetita..., medical and scientific respectability, is suicidal. This abandonment is the objective ally of its adversaries.
And this while homeopathy is an electromagnetic medicine ahead of classical medicine (what a waste that the world ignores it!!) and it is now possible to make it evolve thanks to the methods of modern research.
The failure of homeopathy "researchers", who flock to congresses, conferences and other research groups, but not where homeopathy needs it, the scientific and medical journals, has left our team, nolens plus than volens, virtually alone on the front line.
The stakes are clear: if our results are recognized, homeopathy will enter the fold of "normal" science. A dialogue of equals can be established with the scientific, medical, administrative and political authorities. We will see the end of confrontations and homeopathy will be able to develop beyond its current framework. Our adversaries know this, who do not cease their attacks. If the lack of means caused our common defeat, the "you see there are no credible results" will be their weapon of mass destruction, fatal for homeopathy.
Those who profit from the sale of homeopathic products and finance no research seem unaware of these stakes.
I therefore directly solicit your contribution to a research fund for at least the equivalent of one consultation per year. More, obviously, for those who wish and can commit better to this crucial battle.
Thank you for sending these contributions to the order of: Laboratoire de Biologie Numérique.
Furthermore, some of your clients or friends want to help research. It must be possible to encourage them to support homeopathy rather than the dominant themes: genetics, molecular biology, chemotherapy, whose results are not... obvious.
If many of you mobilize, important scientific advances should take place before 3-5 years, for example, definition of the signal contained in homeopathic dilutions, physical characterization of the water carrying homeopathic information, electromagnetic signals of the components of living beings, human biomagnetism, etc. See www.digibio.com
As for clinical research in homeopathy, it will not be done by allopathic doctors, even less in university hospitals. Besides, can they be blamed? "Italia fara da se". Yet solutions exist, which allow those in contact with the patient to regroup, establish networks, share protocols and results. If we find the financial and human means, a homeopathy research agency will have to be created, methodologically advising practitioners so that they draw from their considerable clinical "material" what is needed to develop quality research. A very operational approach, in contact with reality, quite different from these committees of experts, national or European, from which homeopathy has so far drawn no benefit. Here too, outside the base, you, no solution.
I count on you as, I believe, you can count on the determination of the team of the Digital Biology Laboratory to carry out this exhilarating scientific and medical adventure.
Yours cordially.
Dr. J. Benveniste
Vox clamat in deserto. On the opposite, I found a very important 8-page dossier, in the Sciences et Avenir of November 2004, devoted to the work of the Boiron brothers and to the homeopathic movement, illustrated with large color photographs. No mention of Jacques Benveniste in this paper. Page 18, an interview with Philippe Belon, research director at Boiron who "multiplies studies to overcome the reluctance toward homeopathy". In his mouth, not a word about Jacques Benveniste and his work. Nothing....
A few pages further on, in the magazine, a half-column "Jacques Benveniste is dead".
Shocking. I do not understand how Boiron, the current director, did not send the magazine a letter with "please insert", paying tribute to Jacques's work, I would even say more, his sacrifice. I, I would have done it. But I am not Boiron. I consider that there is a moment when diplomacy, pragmatism and commercial imperatives must give way before humanity, integrity and justice.
But it is always time to take this step Back to Guide Back to Home page
Number of visits to this page since November 29, 2004: