The last letter from Jacques Benveniste to 15,000 homeopaths, June 2003.

He received three replies....

I’ve 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
Email: jbenveniste@digibio.com Website: www.digibio.com

Director: Dr. J. Benveniste

Clamart, June 2003

Dear colleagues,

I’m addressing you directly, the practitioners and users of homeopathy. Indeed, until now I’ve been unable to convince homeopathic companies of the vital importance of promoting high-level fundamental and clinical research to ensure the future of our discipline. As we all know, no practice aimed at improving human well-being can remain purely empirical; it must also objectively validate its results.

The core problem facing homeopathy—one that, if not resolved quickly, will jeopardize its future—is its isolation from the scientific world. There are very few modern studies published in top-tier clinical journals (practically none in French), and above all, there is no physical theory that can justify any biological activity in the absence of molecules. The foundational dogma of biology is the molecule; regardless of any clinical results, they won’t be taken seriously—and with some bad faith—until some physical phenomenon can explain this alleged activity. For homeopathy to be respected within the medical community, not just within its own closed circle, we must publish results showing what actually acts at high dilutions (we now know it’s a low-frequency electromagnetic signal), and this must be done in high-quality scientific journals.

This is difficult but possible. The laboratory I headed, Inserm U200, which was shut down later on account of “heresy,” produced four articles in such journals between 1987 and 1991, including one on “Apis Mellifica” in the bastion of conservatism, the Paris Academy of Sciences. http://www.digibio.com/cgi-bin/node.pl?lg=fr&nd=n4 This requires a research policy involving funding—modest compared to conventional pharmaceutical firms—and the involvement of highly qualified scientists. Yet, in the 15 years since I accidentally entered this field of research, nothing of the sort has happened.

First paradox: because my results support one of homeopathy’s core principles, I’ve been attacked by ultra-orthodox members, and my research resources have been cut off. Since 1989, I’ve received no significant financial support from the homeopathic “community.”

Second paradox: homeopathy needs fundamental research far more than conventional pharmacology, which already possesses scientifically validated data, even if not all of it is correct. Only defining its physical basis can protect homeopathy from slow but inevitable strangulation by health authorities. The passivity of the global homeopathic community, which refuses to make the necessary effort to secure medical and scientific respectability, is suicidal. This abandonment is objectively advantageous for its opponents.

And this is despite the fact that homeopathy is an electromagnetic medicine ahead of conventional medicine (what a waste that the world ignores it!!) and that it’s now possible to advance it using modern research methods.

The failure of “homeopathy researchers”—who flock to conferences, symposia, and research groups, but not where homeopathy truly needs them, i.e., scientific and medical journals—has left our team, unwillingly, almost alone on the front lines. The stakes are clear: if our results are recognized, homeopathy will enter the realm of “normal” science. Equal dialogue can then be established with scientific, medical, administrative, and political authorities. The confrontations will end, and homeopathy can develop beyond its current framework. Our opponents know this, and they keep attacking. If lack of resources leads to our collective defeat, their weapon of mass destruction—“See, there are no credible results”—will prove fatal for homeopathy.

Those who profit from selling homeopathic products yet fund no research seem unaware of these stakes. Therefore, I’m directly asking for your contributions to a research fund—at least equivalent to one consultation per year. More, obviously, for those willing and able to commit themselves further to this crucial battle.

Please send these contributions to: Digital Biology Laboratory.

Moreover, some of your clients or friends wish to help research. It should be possible to encourage them to support homeopathy rather than dominant themes like genetics, molecular biology, or chemotherapy, whose results aren’t exactly obvious...

If many of you get involved, major scientific advances should occur within 3–5 years: definition of the signal present in homeopathic dilutions, physical characterization of water carrying homeopathic information, electromagnetic signals emitted by living organisms, human biomagnetism, etc. See www.digibio.com

As for clinical research in homeopathy, it won’t be conducted by allopathic doctors, much less in university hospitals. And can we really blame them? “Italy will manage on its own.” But solutions exist: they allow those in direct contact with patients to band together, form networks, and share protocols and results. If we find the necessary financial and human resources, we must create a homeopathy research agency to methodologically advise practitioners so they can draw upon their vast clinical material to conduct quality research. This is a very practical approach, grounded in reality, quite different from those national or European expert committees from which homeopathy has gained nothing thus far. Here too, outside the base level, you hold the key to solutions.

I count on you, just as I believe you can count on the determination of the Digital Biology Laboratory team to succeed in this exhilarating scientific and medical adventure.

Warm regards,

Dr. J. Benveniste

Vox clamat in deserto. Conversely, I found a very important 8-page dossier in the November 2004 issue of Sciences et Avenir, dedicated to the Boiron brothers’ work and the homeopathy movement, illustrated with large color photographs. No mention of Jacques Benveniste in this article. On page 18, there’s an interview with Philippe Belon, research director at Boiron, who “multiplies studies to overcome resistance to homeopathy.” Not a word from him about Jacques Benveniste or his work. Nothing...

A few pages later, the magazine featured a half-column titled “Jacques Benveniste has died.”

Shocking. I can’t understand how Boiron, the current director, didn’t send the magazine a letter requesting publication, paying tribute to Jacques’s work—or even his sacrifice. I would have done so. But I’m not Boiron. I believe there comes a point when diplomacy, pragmatism, and commercial imperatives must give way to humanity, integrity, and justice.

But it’s still not too late to take this step.

Back to page dedicated to Jacques Benveniste

Back to News Back to Guide Back to Home Page

Number of views of this page since November 29, 2004: