The above is a link to the discussion that took place about the contents of
this letter.  Not every word written was placed at the above linked page
and pointer location.  Not everyone participating was quoted.  I, Dan Kettler,
inserted a few comments on the web page.


Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:45:16 -0700 (MST)

Received:  7 Nov 2000 05:45:21 -0000
Received: from (

Received: (from
 by (queuemail) id FM9HBAYZ; Tue, 07 Nov 2000 00:43:32 EST



Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 21:48:54 -0800

Message-ID: <>

From: "John R. Benneth" <>

Mr. Randi:

There's still the issue of this offer you made me almost two years ago to
come up with a method that would prove homeopathy  . . . a method that
would provide the user with the ability to select a homeopathic remedy
from controls.

After making my own experiments and examining the literature for the
experiments of others, I can safely say that I have come up with numerous
methods which fall into two different categories of mechanical  and
biological measures.

I am surprised that you and your colleagues were not aware of these
tests for homeopathic solutions. Anyone could have found this information
by simply asking the right people the right questions.

The one method , though, that I am presently presenting to you and
others who believe that these methods did not exist is the dielectric
stress test. It has been done using a modified galvanometer and also
using a 50KW dielectric stress tester.

I have chosen the dielectric stress test for serially agitated
dilutes, i.e. homeopathic remedies, because it has been used in a double
blind trial, the results published,  the method reproduced and the
results published.

In other words, what you and many others have claimed to be
impossible, I am claiming not only can be done, but already has been done
. .repeatedly . .  exhaustively.

I challenge you now to make good on your offer and investigate the
physical reality of homeopathic remedies.

Certainly we can't expect science to be played as a game or a
popularity contest. Your challenge was made in the spirit of  scientific
rationalism. Either we must accept the efforts of the eight men of three
different nationalities who have conducted the dielectric stress test on
homeopathic remedies and published the results as being unassailable
proof that there is a physical specificity to homeopathic remedies that
differentiates them from their non-potentized vehicles, or it is
incumbent upon us to move for further investigation and replication of
known tests.

If the action of homeopathic remedies can be seen on plants, such as
in Kolisko's work and on animals, such as we see in the work of Stearns
and Stark, if reactions can be measured biochemcially as is seen in the
work of Boyd and Persson, what other proof do we need to corroborate the
claims of government and university funded studies that homeopthic
remedies are not placeboes?

Here's an alteration of the Schick test, here's a demonstration that
homeopathic remedies can immunize, here a report that they have
thermograp[hic indices. The evidence is becoming voluminous. We have
repeated reports now that homeopathic solutions can be identified using
nuclear magentic responance. Look at the masterful work of Rolland Conte
and his interdisciplianry team.

And what about my simple designs for measuring the action of
homeopathic remedies on yeast and seeds? You go into into the schools,
Mr. Randi. I've seen pictures of you working with young people,
challenging them to think rationally. Well, then, here are simply tests
that can I have designed that youngsters can use to show the effects of
homeopathic solutions on plants using simple items such as Dixie cups,
bottles and balloons.

In the face of this evidence and this test that nows lies under your
noses, the ball is in the court of the non-believer to show us how it is,
if these reports are false,  that so many people can be reporting the
same evidence, as we have seen in just this one measure . . the
dielectric stress test.
Best regards,

John Benneth