SUBSCRIBE TO OUR DAILY RSS FEED!
Facebook
Date posted: May 5, 2013

‘Digital Biology’ Of Benveniste- The Bible Of Pseudo-science and Quackery Under Label Of Homeopathy

Chandran K C 

Proponents of all those ‘modern’ ENERGY MEDICINE models and practices of homeopathy and CAM, amounting to sheer occults such as ‘vibrations’, ‘resonance’,  ‘wave theory’, ‘frequencies’, ‘EM signals’, ‘bio-photons’, ‘bio-magnetism’, ‘distance healing’, ‘hair transmission’, ‘photo transmission’, ‘PC resonance remedies’, ‘paper remedies’, ‘water remedies’, ‘mp3 remedies’, ‘radionics’, ‘reflexology’, ‘meditation proving’, ‘trituration proving’, etc etc  seek their solace of ‘scientific’ foundation in the ‘DIGITAL BIOLOGY’ of BENVENISTE. It is almost like a BIBLE to them. In my opinion, the REDUCTIONIST and PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC speculations of benveniste, which he called ‘Digital Biology’, is  actually the ‘MOTHER OF QUACKERY’ in homeopathy as well as everything known as CAM practices.

Jacques Benveniste(1935–2004), who was once a famous and respected French immunologist, published a research paper in Nature magazine in the year 1988. This paper and the subsequent controversies which shook the world of science, were incidents which roused great interest as far as Homoeopathy was concerned. It was through this article that the idea of ‘molecular memory of water’ became a subject of discussion in the world of science. But an influential section of scientists took a stand that ideas put forward by Benveniste were nothing but nonsense. Heated controversies followed, which have not subsided yet, even after 22 years. The accusation raised by his enemies was that Benveniste could not prove his arguments in the controlled experiments overseen by experts appointed by Nature. Benvenistse had later put on record that he was a made a scapegoat, and subjected to ‘inhuman revenge and character assassination’ from the part of representatives of official science.

In his original paper, Beneveniste claimed that he could observe in his experiments that human basophil degranulation can be triggered by very dilute aqueous solutions of anti- IgE antiserum. Using the molecular weight of immunoglobulins and Avogadro’s number, he calculated that less than one molecule of antibody is present in the assay when anti-IgE antiserum is diluted to 1 x 1014(corresponding to 2.2 x 10-20 M). But in the experiments he reported, he could detect significant basophil degranulation down to the 1x l0120 dilution. Specific effects have also been triggered by highly diluted agents in other in vitro and in vivo biological systems, but he consented that it still remained unexplained. He pointed to the possibility of biological effects in the physical absence of molecules. He argued that the entities supporting this ‘meta-molecular’ biology can only be explored by physical investigation of agitation causing interaction between the original molecules and water, thus yielding activity capable of specifically imitating the native molecules, though any such hypothesis is unsubstantiated at present.

He suspected that the molecular memory of the antibodies which was imprinted in water during dilution is responsible for this peculiar phenomenon. But the sad part of this story is that he failed to prove his arguments in the repeated experiments which were conducted in an atmosphere of absolute hostility, under the supervision of experts who were inimical to him, whose sole aim was to disprove him.

If we carefully examine the story of Benevenite’s failure, we would understand that it was not his basic observations that failed, but his interpretations of those observations. It led to submitting himself to experiments which were doomed to fail. Firstly, his argument that the drugs so diluted to the extent of making it impossible to contain a single molecule, can interfere in biological processes exactly mimicking the basic drug substance was a wrong and exaggerated interpretation of results of his original experiments. This inaccurate interpretation of the phenomena he observed, led him to agree to subject himself to inappropriate experiments, obviously designed to defeat him. He failed to understand that the molecular memory of the drug substances is imprinted into water in a negative direction, in complementary configuration. Put in another way, drug molecules will be imprinted in water not as exact configurational duplicates, but as negative complements, and hence, they cannot mimic the original drug molecules in biological processes.

Failure to understand the exact process of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING involved in the observed phenomenon of WATER MEMORY was a great mistake, that cost heavy to him. His conclusion that the ‘imprinted water’ interferes in biochemical processes exactly SIMILAR to the original molecules used for imprinting proved to be immature. He failed to comprehend the exact mechanism of molecular imprinting in water, and design his experiments accordingly. Had he understood the real mechanism of molecular imprinting, he would have been conscious about the UNSTABLE behavior of hydration shells in water, and would have taken necessary precautions, before subjecting himself to a controlled experiment. He could have devised some techniques to ensure the stability of hydration shells, such as using alcohol-water mixture instead of pure water, as done in homeopathic potentization.

He tried to explain it as ‘water memory’ that can mimic the original molecules. Actually, molecular imprints never can ‘mimic’ original molecules. They can only ‘complement’ and bind to original molecules and deactivate them by configurational affinity. If drug molecules are considered ‘keys’, ‘mimics’ should act as ‘duplicate keys’. But ‘molecular imprints’ act as ‘artificial keyholes’ for those ‘keys’ and ‘similar ‘keys. This point is very important. If we forget this point, we cannot logically explain ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘similia similibus curentur’.

If beneviste could have perceived the concept of ‘molecular imprints’ acting not as ‘duplicate keys’ but as ‘artificial keyholes’, he would have designed his experiments accordingly, so that he can prove that ‘molecular imprints’ can ‘antidote’ or ‘deactivate’ original molecules, thereby preventing them from interacting with biological molecules. Since ‘anti- IgE antiserum’ contains natural ligands of enzymes involved in human basophil de-granulation, ‘molecular imprints’ of anti- IgE antiserum cannot be prevent their natural interaction. We should not forget that ‘molecular imprints’ cannot interfere in the interaction between biological targets and their natural ligands. In the absence of this understanding, the experiments of beneveniste were wrongly designed, and were inevitably bound to fail.

‘Molecular imprints’ can prevent only ‘off-target’ actions of biological ligands. For example, we use potentized thyroid extract, which contain molecular imprints of various thyroid hormones having specific roles in metabolism. Potentized thyroid extract never interferes in the natural biological actions of thyroid hormones. But those molecular imprints can rectify the pathological conditions caused by ‘off-target’ bindings of thyroid hormones, especially in situations of hyperthyroidism. This is applicable to all potentized hormone remedies. They never interfere in normal biological actions of those hormones. Reason behind this phenomenon is related with the dynamics of molecular interactions. Interactions between natural targets and their ligands involves two factors: configurational affinity and charge affinity. But interactions of ‘molecular imprints’ and their ‘ligands’ involves ‘configurational affinity’ only, without any charge affinity.

BENVENISTE’s failure to understand ‘water memory’ in its MOLECULAR IMPRINTING perspective gradually led him to more and more absurd theories, which finally led to DIGITAL BIOLOGY, and then into setting up a business of preparing and marketing of what he called DIGIBIO products.

I am reproducing here Benveniste’s article on ‘UNDERSTANDING DIGITAL BIOLOGY’:
“Explaining digital biology is impossible without explaining its principle. The purpose of this text is not to report experimental results. Rather, it tries to explain to laymen, in the simplest terms, this radically new approach to biology. We hope it will be useful to all, scientists or not, who find it hard to “make the leap”. Indeed, is it possible to believe that the specific activity of biologically-active molecules (e.g. histamine, caffeine, nicotine, adrenalin), not to mention the immunological signature of a virus or bacterium can be recorded and digitized using a computer sound card, just like an ordinary sound? Imagine the perplexity of Archimedes confronted with a telephone, and being told that by using it he could be heard on the other side of the world, were we not to explain the nature of sound waves or their translation into electromagnetism.”

“Life depends on signals exchanged among molecules. For example, when you get angry, adrenalin “tells” its receptor, and it alone (as a faithful molecule, it talks to no other) to make your heart beat faster, to contract superficial blood vessels, etc.. In biology, the words “molecular signal” are used very often. Yet, if you ask even the most eminent biologists what the physical nature of this signal is, they seem not even to understand the question, and stare at you wide-eyed. In fact, they’ve cooked up a rigorously Cartesian physics all their own, as far removed as possible from the realities of contemporary physics, according to which simple contact (Descarte’s laws of impact, quickly disproved by Huygens) between two coalescent structures creates energy, thus constituting an exchange of information. For many years, I believed and recited this catechism without realizing its absurdity, just as mankind did not realize the absurdity of the belief that the sun circles the earth.”

“The truth, based on facts, is very simple. It does not require any “collapse of the physical or chemical worlds.” That molecules vibrate, we have known for decades. Every atom of every molecule and every intermolecular bond – the bridge that links the atoms – emits a group of specific frequencies. Specific frequencies of simple or complex molecules are detected at distances of billions of light-years, thanks to radio-telescopes. Biophysicists describe these frequencies as an essential physical characteristic of matter, but biologists do not consider that electromagnetic waves can play a role in molecular functions themselves. We cannot find the words “frequency” or “signal” (in the physical sense of the term) in any treatise on molecular interactions in biology, not to speak of the term “electromagnetic,” use of which would be – at least in France – a cause for excommunication of any offending biologist by the scientific Papal Office.”

“Like Archimedes, I would have liked to have had a brilliant idea in my bathtub: “Eureka, the vibrations of molecules don’t exist for them to dance the salsa at a Saturday night ball; vibrations are the tools of their trade, which allow them to send instructions to the next molecule down the line in the cascade of events which govern biological functions, and probably, to a large extent, chemical ones as well.” Unfortunately, this was not the case. I followed a purely experimental approach. After eight years of research, around 1991, my experiments showed that we could transfer specific molecular signals by using an amplifier and electromagnetic coils. In July, 1995, I recorded and replayed these signals using a multimedia computer. A computer sound card only records frequencies up to about 20,000 Hz. In the course of several thousand experiments, we have led receptors (specific to simple or complex molecules) to “believe” that they are in the presence of their favorite molecules by playing the recorded frequencies of those molecules. In order to arrive at this result, two operations are necessary: 1) record the activity of the substance on a computer; 2) “replay” it to a biological system. sensitive to the same substance. Therefore, there is every reason to think that when a molecule itself is in the presence of its receptor, it does the same thing: it emits frequencies which the receptor is capable of recognizing.”

“Which means that: A molecular signal can be efficiently represented by a spectrum of frequencies between 20Hz and 20,000 Hz, the same range as the human voice or music. For several hundred thousand years, human beings have been relating sound frequencies to a biological mechanism: the emotions. The signal to start a love affair is not given by a resounding rendition of the Marseillaise under our new flame’s balcony. Neither was Brahms’ lullaby played for soldiers charging out of the trenches. Composers of background music for supermarkets or elevators are practicing neuropsychology without knowing it. High-pitched rapid sounds engender lightness of spirit, high-pitched slow sounds, sweetness, sounds both deep and rapid awaken the fighting spirit, while deep, slow sounds invoke serious emotions, sadness and mourning. These are fundamentally cerebral physico-chemical phenomena, triggered by defined frequencies. We do nothing more than this when we transmit pre-recorded molecular activities to biological systems.”

“Biological systems function like radio sets, by coresonance. If you tune a receiver to 92.6 Mhz, you tune in Radio-This, because the receiver and the transmitter vibrate at the same frequency. If we change the setting a little to, say, 92.7, we no longer receive Radio-This, but Radio-That instead.”

“These advances in understanding the inmost mechanism of molecular recognition and signaling do not overturn the science of biology, and even less those of physics and chemistry. We have taken nothing away from classic descriptions, but only taken a step forward by adding to the present body of knowledge. This is the normal course of scientific progress, and there is no reason for it to provoke imprecations and anathema.”

“We can now understand how millions of biological molecules can communicate (at the speed of light), each with its own corresponding molecule, and it alone, the basic requirement for the functioning of biological systems – and why minute chemical modifications produce considerable functional consequences, something “structural” biologists are at a loss to explain. In deciding that only structures can have an action, biologists find themselves in a pre-Newtonian world where the movement of celestial bodies is described by Ptolemy in terms of epicycles. Hence the inability of contemporary biology to provide answers to the major pathologies of the end of this century (my article in Le Monde, May 22, 1996, which has not been challenged to date). The passage from the rigid biology of structures to one of information traveling at the speed of light can be accomplished without a “revolution.” Contrary to what is stupidly claimed by scientific gossips, recording the activity of molecules no more implies denying their existence (after all, molecule-specific electromagnetic messages must come from specific molecules) than it does denying the law of mass action, according to which the effect is directly proportional to the number of molecules. One might as well expect a singer to disappear by recording his voice! In other words, we eliminate neither the light-switch nor the light bulb; we only say that a wire with a current of electrons connects the two. We are not in another, electromagnetic world which we are substituting for the old molecular world. We capture, copy, transfer – and soon will modify – electromagnetic signals emitted by molecules in the course of their normal functioning.”

“What about water in all this? It is the vehicle for information. This cannot be avoided, since there are 10,000 water molecules in the human body for every molecule of protein. There is no problem with this either; a submarine communicates with its base via low-frequency electromagnetic waves, not with megahertz frequencies, which do not penetrate water. We have recently completed very simple experiments showing that a molecule at a normally active concentration does not work in a medium devoid of water. Adding water is not enough to restore activity; it must be “informed.” In other words, when molecules trigger a biological effect, they are not directly transmitting the signal. The final job is done by perimolecular water which relays and possibly amplifies the signal. Sound is not directly created by a compact disc. The latter carries data which is audible only after being amplified by an electronic system.”

“The “memory of water?” It is more mysterious, but no more so than the fact that a compound formed from two gases should be liquid at normal temperature and pressure, and dilate as it cools. Coherent domains with laser-like properties have been described in water (E. del Giudice, G. Preparata, G. Vitiello (1988) ‘Water as a free electric dipole laser’, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61:1085-1088). More recently, a unique type of stable (non-melting) ice crystal that maintains an electrical field has been identified and characterized in water (Shui-Yin Lo, Angela Lo, Li Wen Chong, et al., (1996) ‘Physical properties of water with IE structures’, Modern Physics Letters B, 10,19:921-930.) Truly, unemployment should not be a worry for physicists! Nonetheless, water has not been our subject of investigation for a long time. What interests us now is not the nature of the magnetic medium and how it functions, but the message recorded in it, which can be copied and transmitted. In the light of our experimental results, we are confident in our belief that we have elucidated the physical nature of the molecular signal. The principle is as simple as exploding a mixture of air and gasoline, but the consequences are enormous.”

“We present them in detail elsewhere. Here is a summary: At the present time, the only way to identify a molecule is to carry a sample, most often obtained invasively or even destructively, to a laboratory. With the digital method, we dispose of a signal which can be instantly transmitted and analyzed at the other end of the world by classic means of telecommunication. Using this method, the detection of toxic substances, proteins (antigens, antibodies, prions) or molecular complexes (parasites, bacteria, viruses, abnormal cells) should become possible without physical sampling. It is noteworthy that no in vivo detection methods of prions presently exists, with well-known epidemiological and economic consequences. As far as the detection of antigens and antibodies is concerned, it represents a considerable share of the activity of clinical biology laboratories. Moreover, some results seem to indicate that these methods should be applicable to the chemical industry and to environmental surveillance, e.g. to detecting, at a distance, micro-organisms or products from genetically modified plants.”

“Completion of these projects would have immense consequences on medical diagnostic procedures and the agro-food industry, with huge technological and commercial impact.”

“A final question: why are scientists so opposed to the evolution of science? Is it to defend their piece of turf? Why, in the name of intangible dogmas, which the history of science has shown to be so often ephemeral, do they reject advances which represent progress for their discipline? Do these advances appear to threaten their all-too-fragile certitudes? Such questions are not just philosophical, because these people are respected counselors, advisers to political and industrial decision-makers. They orient – most often by hampering – new applications flowing from scientific progress. I don’t know where these mental blocks come from, but they are, in theory at least, irreconcilable with a scientist’s function. Here is a quote (translated from the French edition of Encyclopedia Universalis, taken from the article on Mechanism) which shows, alas, that those blocks are eternal: We have a good example of the dilemma of “mechanism” in the Cartesians’ opposition to the Newtonian world-view, which they felt completely called into question the new science and pushed scientific thinking back to a level beneath what “mechanism” had already achieved. The problem is, for Descartes, that movement is only possible if there is contact and impulsive force; action at a distance – attraction, as Fontenelle was to say – can only mean a return to a physics of sympathetic motion and occult attributes. In this way, they do not engage Newton in a scientific controversy; they disqualify him for obscurantism. Thus the French scientific community resisted Newtonian theory for a long time, or would prefer to ignore it. But “mechanism,” which is an obstacle to scientific progress, remains blocked. No doubt, Newton is less an opponent of “mechanism” than he is the proposer, by provoking a total break, of another model of physical mechanics in which movements other than those produced by impulsion become possible.”

“Four centuries later, we hear the same words: “there must be molecules” (François Jacob) – that is, contact, forceful impulsion – according to our sages of science, still frozen in the Cartesian mechanistic dogma: the same denial of action at a distance, and the same accusations of a return to obscurantism. Descartes versus Newton. We’re in good company_ January 8, 1998; mod. June 14, 1998- J. Benveniste- LABORATOIRE DE BIOLOGIE NUMERIQUE.”

Beneveniste’s works DIGITAL BIOLOGY culminated in a 1997 paper claiming that this effect could be transmitted over phone lines. This culminated in two additional papers in 1999 and another on remote-transmission in 2000.

WIKIPEDIA says:  “US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) asked Dr. Wayne Jonas, homeopath and then director of the US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, to organize an attempt at independently replicating the claimed results. An independent test of the 2000 remote-transmission experiment was carried out in the USA by a team funded by the US Department of Defense. Using the same experimental devices and setup as the Benveniste team, they failed to find any effect when running the experiment. Several positive results were noted, but only when a particular one of Benveniste’s researchers was running the equipment. Benveniste admitted to having noticed this himself, and offered a variety of reasons to explain away what appeared to be another example of experimenter effect. The experiment is also notable for the way it attempted to avoid the confrontational nature of the earlier Maddox test. The study implemented “A social and communication management process that was capable of dealing with conflicting interpersonal dynamics among vested parties in the research effort.” One of Benveniste’s machines was used, and, in the design and pilot project phase in 2001, Benveniste and other members of his DigiBio lab participated as consultants. Interviews at the time indicated study participants were satisfied with the way the study was being conducted. In the end, the authors reported in the FASEB Journal in 2006 that “Our team found no replicable effects from digital signals”.

According to BENVENISTE, he is bringing a ‘revolution’ in biology. Essence of this ‘revolution’ is that he reduces the whole complex molecular interactions involved in biological process into EXCHANGE OF SIGNALS between molecules. He says: “”Life depends on signals exchanged among molecules”. This reductionist idea works as the foundation of his whole ‘science’ of DIGITAL BIOLOGY. He even ridicules the community of biological scientists by this statement: “If you ask even the most eminent biologists what the physical nature of this signal is, they seem not even to understand the question, and stare at you wide-eyed”.

Benveiste’s statement “when you get angry, adrenalin “tells” its receptor, and it alone (as a faithful molecule, it talks to no other) to make your heart beat faster, to contract superficial blood vessels, etc” clearly demonstrates that this ‘prominent’ biological scientist lacks some essential basics of scientific knowledge.

Anybody having a minimum working knowledge  of protein chemistry and kinetics of bio-molecular interactions know HOW adrenalin “tells’ its receptors ” to “make your heart beat faster, to contract superficial blood vessels, etc”. According to BENEVENISTE, it happens through “EM signals’ of passed to “adrenaline to its receptors”from a “DISTANCE”. He should have understood, adrenaline molecules never “talk’ to its receptors from a “distance’ as he imagines, but they have to come close together and BIND to the appropriate BINDING SITES of receptor proteins in capacity of their CONFIGURATIONAL affinity and CHARGE affinity for passing the “signals”. Benveniste and his disciples should update themselves with the basics of signal-receptor, ligand-target, substrate-enzyme, antigen-antibody interactions, before making theories about RESONANCE OF EM SIGNALS as the model of bio-molecular interactions. They should also revise their lessons about kinetics of molecular inhibitions and re-activations involved in pathology, drug actions and cure. No biological ligand interacts and “exchanges information” with its target from a “distance” without coming close together and binding to appropriate sites. According to BENVENISTE, this basic scientific understanding of kinetics bio-molecular interactions are mere “absurdity, just as mankind did not realize the absurdity of the belief that the sun circles the earth!”

Nobody will disagree with BENVENISTE on his statement: “every atom of every molecule and every intermolecular bond – the bridge that links the atoms – emits a group of specific frequencies- specific frequencies of simple or complex molecules are detected at distances of billions of light-years, thanks to radio-telescopes- biophysicists describe these frequencies as an essential physical characteristic of matter”. But the problem arises when he REDUCES all particles, atoms, molecules, organisms, objects, celestial bodies and EVERYTHING into their VIBRATIONS, disregarding their STRUCTURE and MATERIAL COMPOSITION. Actually, benveniste forgot  the fact that VIBRATIONS represent only ONE aspect of MATTER- it does not represent the WHOLE aspects of matter. For him, VIBRATIONS of an atom, molecule, object, organism or human being can do ALL the works of those THINGS even their absence! VIBRATIONS of benveniste will do ALL jobs and interactions of BENVENISTE! With his flawed REDUCTIONIST views of VIBRATIONS, benveniste fell into gutters of absurd pseudo-scientific speculations, which he called DIGITAL BIOLOGY.

According to BENVENISTE, atoms communicate with other atoms from a DISTENCE, by ‘resonance of frequencies’ of their specific ‘vibrations’. Molecules communicate, organisms communicate, celestial bodies COMMUNICATE from any ‘DISTANCE’, if their ‘frequencies’ are in ‘resonance’! Infectious agents produce diseases by their vibrations acting from any DISTANCE on our body through resonance! DRUGS can ‘communicate’ with our body from a DISTANCE, through resonance and CURE! Perhaps, food articles may nourish us through resonance, because, ‘vibrations’ represent the objects!

BENVENISTE’s theories of DIGITAL BIOLOGY overnight became very popular and dear to all those who propagate and practice ENERGY MEDICINE and CAM, as they expected it to be very useful in making their practices appear as SCIENTIFIC. CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHS welcomed it with much enthusiasm, since it provided a seemingly ‘SCIENTIFIC’ explanation for their beloved VITAL FORCE and DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY, for which they were desperately groping in the darkness for centuries. Now, every OCCULT and WOODOO could be ‘SCIENTIFICALLY’ be explained in terms of ‘vibrations’ and ‘resonance’! Homeopathic drugs are ‘vibrations’, and they act by ‘resonance’!! Vibrations could be RECORDED as MP3 files on DIGITAL MEDIUM and played to patients to produce ‘miraculous’ CURES! Any homeopathic drug in any potency could be instantly ‘prepared’ by recording ‘vibrations’ into water or sugar pills using RADIONICS machines, without bothering about any DRUG SUBSTANCES! ‘VIBRATIONS’ of diseases such as HIV or BIRD FLU are ‘recorded’ into water and marketed worldwide as ‘PC resonance medicines’ by some ‘prominent international homeopaths’ to amass wealth of billions! He claims to collect all ‘information’ about a disease in his computer, synthesizes specific ‘vibrations’ of that disease using a computer program, and then ‘records’ it on digital media or water. His ‘medicines’ for HIV and BIRD FLU are available for downloading to your computer from his website by paying a few dollars. VIBRATIONS of homeopathic drugs could be ‘transmitted’ to patients in remote corners of the world, using their photographs, hair, blood, nail or other BODY WASTES as ‘transmission antennas”

Even there is an ‘institution’ in India, where ‘distant drug transmission though hair’ is ‘taught’ to young homeopathic graduates qualified from regular colleges! These ‘institutions’ are run by people having high influence among official academic community, and they conduct SEMINARS on ‘hair transmission’ method, hosted in co-operation with official professional organizations!

There are ‘self-proclaimed’ ‘homeopaths’ using RADIONICS machines in their day-to-day practice to ‘prepare’ medicines from NOTHINGNESS, by ‘imprinting’ pre-stored ‘vibrations’ of any drug in any potency they want, into plain water or sugar pills- ANY DRUG, ANY POTENCY!  It is most distressing to know that some homeopathy ‘schools’ in UK and US even ‘teach’ their students on how to use these devices, as part of their curriculum.

A message I recently received from one of homeopath friends – a teacher at a Homeopathy school- from BELFAST, UNITED KINGDOM, demonstrates this grave situation as follows:

“I was wondering, and I hope you can forgive the intrusion, what is your personal view on the use of radionics machines in the preparation of homeopathic remedies? It is something I am very uncomfortable with indeed but find myself in a situation where I am having to face the issue head on as one has been introduced to the school pharmacy where I teach.

Unfortunately, it is being used to prepare remedies for the student clinic, needless to say, no clients have shown any improvement since its introduction. I fear it is a deeply flawed financial decision and little can be learned at a teaching clinic if remedies are ineffectual. This is obviously just my own opinion, so I am making sure that it is circumstance and not my own bias that makes me uncomfortable with the situation. Un-medicated pilules are placed in the machine, and a dial is moved to the correlating remedy and potency, apparently the frequency of the medicine is imprinted onto the un-medicated pillules which are then given to the waiting client.

The manufacturer of the machine identifies and replicates the exact frequency of each remedy, in each potency, and duplicates it with a frequency on the radionics machine. I think it is all made to sound convincing to the unquestioning mind or the open impressionable minds of students, but I am unconvinced, and very uncomfortable with it. Even if this method did work, and I don’t believe it does, the frequency being used is artificial.
The idea is that no raw samples are needed, no substances need be collected and prepared in the traditional way , the frequency needs only to be duplicated by the machine.

I don’t think I am a dismissive or narrow minded person but the fact that nobody is getting better speaks volumes to me. Unfortunately it is the director of our school who is the biggest advocate of them, quite likely getting some sort of financial incentive for his enthusiasm. I think I will have to resign my job as I cannot possibly be associated with a school which teaches potential new homeopaths that this is a way forward”.

“Nobody is getting better” using ‘medicines’ prepared by RADIONICS MACHINES- but the business continues to thrive! That could be explained only by the clever art of money-making and marketing!

If it is possible as BENEVISTE theorized, that “the specific activity of biologically-active molecules (e.g. histamine, caffeine, nicotine, adrenalin), not to mention the immunological signature of a virus or bacterium can be recorded and digitized using a computer sound card, just like an ordinary sound”, and transmitted through telephone, CDs, radio or internet, and other digital media, and if by playing those DIGITAL SIGNATURES can produce the effects on human beings exactly similar to those of ORIGINAL SUBSTANCE, its implications will be beyond imagination. We could FEED millions in starvation around the globe, using NOTHING but ‘vibrations’ of nourishing food articles recorded into water or digital media!  We could kill people by ‘transmitting’ DIGITAL SIGNATURE of CYANIDE POISON through a mere phone call? Terrorists could operate without guns and bombs, using digital signatures of deadly poisons, or HIV like infectious agents? Wars between countries could be waged using DIGITAL SIGNATURES of BIOLOGICAL and CHEMICAL DRUGS? If BENVENISTE is right, nobody will be starving, nobody will be safe in that illusionaary world of DIGITAL SIGNATURE!

We cannot deny one thing for sure- Jacques Benveniste, with his DIGITAL BIOLOGY, has indeed brought a GREAT REVOLUTION! A pseudo-scientific revolution that keeps practitioners of all OCCULT arts high and cheering!

Chandran K C
Email: similimum@gmail.com
Website: www.dialecticalhomeopathy.com

Comments

1. Comments will be moderated. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name, to   avoid rejection.
2. Comments that are abusive, personal, incendiary or irrelevant cannot be published.
3. Please write complete sentences. Do not type comments in all capital letters, or in all   lower case letters, or using abbreviated text. (example: u cannot substitute for you, d is not   'the', n is not 'and')


*

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.