BenvenisteCorrespondenceedited v12 18JUNE2017

The American Physical Society and Jacques Benvenistes Experiment
On Electromagnetically Activated Water and the Puzzle of the Biological Signal
Opening the archive of the E-mail correspondence (1999-2004)
Brian Josephson* and Jrme Benveniste**

*
Cavendish Lab, Cambridge University, UK
**
Association Jacques Benveniste pour la Recherche, France, association@jacques-benvensite.org
Prologue
In the Benveniste page on Wikipedia ( HYPERLINK

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste), as
of July 27, 2014, one can read in the paragraph entitled Josephson and the APS:
Benveniste gained the public support[10] of Brian Josephson, a Nobel physicist with a
reputation for openness to paranormal claims. Time magazine reported in 1999 that, in
response to skepticism from physicist Robert Park, Josephson had challenged the American
Physical Society (APS) to oversee a replication by Benveniste, using "a randomized double-
blind test", of his claimed ability to transfer the characteristics of homeopathically diluted
water over the Internet. The APS accepted and offered to cover the costs of the test, and
Benveniste wrote "fine by us" in his DigiBio NewsLetter in response to Randi's offer to throw
in the $1 million challenge prize-money if the test succeeded. However, Randi in his
Commentary notes that Benveniste and Josephson did not follow up on their challenge.
The purpose of this paper is to document what actually took place. Journalists and others
interested in obtaining access to the full originals of the emails in the correspondence can
write to either Brian Josephson or Jrme Benveniste (one of Jacques sons), for
verification, so long as they agree to not release them. The impetus for this paper came
from a request of a student who is a skeptic of homeopathy who nevertheless finds water
memory science of interest, whose desire is that frontier science not be illegitimately
marginalized.
Introduction
The story of this thread of emails exchanged between April 1999 and 26 September 2004, a few
days before Jacques Benveniste passed away, can be summarized as follows. Brian Josephson made
a proposal to Robert Park of the American Physical Society (APS) to witness the replication of
Jacques Benvenistes experiment on digital transmission of biological signals. Josephson wrote to
Park: "All that is needed is to arrange for various signals to be applied via a coil to samples of water
as done in the transmission experiments, and then ask Benveniste and his collaborators to determine
using their tests which water received which signal."
Robert Park accepted. The difficulty first of all was that getting reliable results required high skill
levels. So the idea of APS doing its own investigation didnt really work out. Then the problem of
operator dependence surfaced, and this was never really sorted out. It seemed that the person doing
the experiment influences the experiment in some way (see Jacques Benvenistes last email for
details and further findings). Some laboratories confirmed the claims but others didnt. Our own
contact, Mr X (who does not wish to be named), was one of those who got inconclusive results, and
is still trying.
One problem seems to have been that Park confided in Randi, who wrote tauntingly to Jacques.
That led him Jacques to be highly suspicious as to what was going on. This is expressed in Jacques
email of 23 Apr 1999 15:45, where he quotes Randi quoting Josephson.
Funding Who was providing the funding for this set of experiments? Was is the JREF? Benveniste
became very distrusting of JR and his method.
The purpose of the correspondence is to provide the context for the following statement: Randi
also offered to throw in the long-standing $1 million prize for any positive demonstration of the
paranormal, to which Benveniste replied: "Fine to us." HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-21"[21] in his
DigiBio NewsLetter. However, Randi later noted that Benveniste and Josephson did not follow up on
their challenge, mocking their silence on the topic as if they were missing persons. HYPERLINK \l
"cite_note-22"[22]
Josephson estimates that when (and if) Benveniste said this, he was unaware of the (repelling,
deterring, unethical) conditions attached to entry. There are several indicators of egregious
deception on the part of Randi, prior to this incident and after it, that are enough to give anybody
considering entering his challenge second thoughts. See, for more on this, the Appendix to this
document.
So Benveniste may have been in favour of a proper investigation, but likely became increasingly
reluctant as facts like these impressed themselves upon him. It seems Park had persuaded the APS
to fund a test, and the discussion moved on to what exactly that test should be. Benveniste was
very concerned that it should be something that could not be derailed by the experimenters not
doing the experiment properly.
"No experiment is reproducible if one does so with sufficient incompetence." (Emilio Del Giudice)
Jacques Benveniste wrote to Brian Josephson, on 23 April 1999 15:43:36 BST:
Anyhow, we have never done any such thing as treating a hundred tubes in the same time
and this is not only physically impossible since we have to use a biological system to
check the activity of each tube but also very contradictory with our principle which is to
minimize the amount of tubes investigated in the same time.
The experiment to be done is much simpler: After a suitable place has been
decided where to perform the experiments, we will go there as we did in your
[Josephsons] lab, with all the necessary equipment. We will show the technique and
train a technician, say for one day. After we are certain that the method is mastered, we
will let them do the experiment all by themselves. In two-three days of work, with enough
blood supply, they can easily do about ten such experiments which, given the Iarge
differences between the control and active signal, will be largely enough to reach the
usual significance in biology. Needless to say this must be done in a neutral laboratory,
without any excitement and paraphernalia typical of skeptics people. This experiment
can be easily repeated in other laboratories in various countries.
Maddox accepted the paper in June 88 after 2 yrs discussion and abruptly
published it 15 days later, to the condition that he would come to the lab and
examine the data. I accepted. Why did he come after publication?
Now I believe he engineered the whole thing so as to definitely kill

"pseudo-science". You have to get the bird out of the bush to shoot it...
In the ancient time, it was called "put somebody to the [pillory]", as an
example for all to see.
Jacques Benveniste was against Randis idea of a publicly disseminated protocole.
> What is the situation about circulating (a) the protocol (b) the report. > Randi is keen on
the protocol being distributed. No, the protocol will only be distributed to those who
agree to sign the agreement. We will put the agreement on the web (perhaps a special
newsletter) end of this month or end of August, depending on Didiers possibilities [should
we explain who he is?]. You may foresee the problem: Randi urging all the gang to send
e-mail stating "we have tried it, doesn't work...".
The Agreement:
I wish to participate to the heparin signal experiments. I shall strictly follow the protocol
provided by the Digital Biology Laboratory, call upon the DBL (Dr Benveniste) in case of
technical difficulty, and keep methods and results confidential until a common publication
under DBL leadership.
What follows seems to be the letter where he renounced the special demo in favour of regular
science. Brian Josephson thinks he had come to regard APS collaboration as unproductive:
Long time, no talk. I hope you are OK. The method for assessing plasma coagulation is
stable now since end of July. This last month, we have diffused the technique among
friendly nearby researchers so as to detect the bugs that appears when untrained people try
to follow a written protocol. The technique has been very easily reproduced in a lab in Lyon,
but people have difficulties to follow exactly the protocol. We are now asking these labs to
detect blind files. This should be done within the next two weeks. If evrtg OK, we will start a
larger replicating process. You will find herewith the introductory letter with an example
of what we obtain in routine. You may want to start discussing with your colleague biologist
his possibilities related to the equipment, mainly a microplate reader. You have the amplifier
and the coil. We may ship you a new more powerful coil. As I believe I wrote you, I do
not intend to launch a special demo for the APS or any other group. The method will be
running in the months to come in several labs in continental Europe and in the USA.
Anybody who will want to see or do it will go to these places and then report. As you
see, we do things at our pace. This is too important to mess it up with unduly haste. We
have been stricken by the ease with which people foreign to our lab did replicate the
method. So, we are optimistic evrtg will be fine. OK Brian, we will send you the protocol.
On the top of this we will send you a few data by regular mail that should interest you
since they show quite clearly an interference of some persons with the biological
system. Creating new molecules, here an anticoagulant, out of plastic, simply by
shooting signals (nonspecific such as water signal, or specific with the heparin signal) is a
great idea that could well explain all our data. Moreover, all plastics and even glass are
endowed with the same miraculous power. But please ask this person not to tell anybody
around. This would immediately ruin all chemical industry, making chemical synthesis and
genetic engineering immediately obsolete. The stock market will collapse... We will be as
rich as Bill, or gunned down. Well Brian, enough irony. Let's do the experiment and have
it work first, and publish it. Then all hypotheses will be discussed publicly. If something as
extra-ordinary as the above hypothesis is demonstrated, fine.

Then there was some business about defamation in Le Monde:
Dear Brian, I am now in vacation. I will ask my sec to mail me the exact words from
the trio, translate them and send them to you so that you can judge by yourself. Anyhow,
the defamation law, at least in France but I guess it's the same in the UK, does not ask for a
clear statement: "he has committed a fraud". It's enough to insinuate and they have done
much more than insinuating. Defamation was utterly clear for all legal consultants. To
answer your remark of your 2nd message, I have decided to go as far as I can for three
reasons: 1) being condemned will be very humiliating for these men who act like thugs
since years and not only with me. There are largely responsible for the dismal state of the
French biology. Just as a reminder, the same state, as compared to British-American biology,
as the BA trains compared to the TGV :-)). 2) It is the only chance for me to recover the fine
from my lawyer insurance. 3) It does not take any of my time, just a letter to my lawyer.
However, I would understand that you would disagree with position.
Jacques Benveniste gradually moved towards the automated approach:
Thanks for sending me copies of your correspondence with Randi & Park. I can see that
you are not in vacation or traveling. I therefore wonder if you received the mail I sent you
on July 12. I send it again here. Let me know what you think of these developments. I didn't
receive any answer from the Sheffield lab either. The second machine should be in early
September. However our latest results indicate that we will have to [build] a shield around
the machine since it appears to be as sensitive to external influence as the manual
technique. Your answers are well taken. As we told you before, we had decided to
"export" the method only after replication in three prototype labs. One was done
flawlessly. Clear but scattered data have been obtained in 3 other labs. It is not "difficult", it
is plainly impossible to obtain a close and long lasting collaboration with other scientists.
They have to understand the potential importance of these new advances, which is already
difficult given the fact that science, and especially biology, has become the routine
application of technological means to defined problems. They have to devote time to a
project foreign to them. And, when difficulties occur, they cannot understand why it "does
not work all the time" as Maddox put it, since in their pseudo research activities, things do
work al the time. Plus a Damocles sword upon them, that is being branded "heretics" and
lose their grant and position... This made us realize that we had no chance to simply go to
a lab, demonstrate the technique and leave to see the local people reproduce it, as if it
were to count blood cells on a smear. They will fail and start screaming that the [whole]
thing does not work. Hence the importance of the automate which alleviates most of the
technical problems.
And later, on 15 June 2002 14:40:25 BST Jacques Benveniste wrote to Brian Josephson:
Dear Brian, Time has come to keep you posted with the latest developments. We
have been financed in the fall of 2001 by an US agency to replicate the expts there. They
bought an automate and paid for the trips and stay. The expts, automatically blinded by the
computer, were performed there by us end of Oct and we received the provisional report
only now. The significance of the anticoagulant signal over control is below 0.0001!! They
raise petty questions about the randomization but the main question is still pending: these
expts were only positive when Jamal was present. That the expts were done by the machine
(in the presence of Jamal) or by Jamal by hand did not change the outcome. Up to now,
we have found a second "positiver", an MD in Lyon. The Americans have not found one but
we are not sure whether or not they were persistent enough in this respect. On another
hand, we have a second system in the lab, the bacteria detection test, which seems much
less sensitive to external influence, who knows why. So we could offer you two
possibilities, if you are still interested in this endeavour. 1) We could bring to your lab the
necessary apparatus and biological products so as to give you the possibility to record
them and send the files blind to us. This is what I did several years ago (see poster
"Transatlantic transfer..." on our site) but we will do it now with a much improved
technology. Since you record at your lab, there is no way for us to guess the nature of the
signal other than replaying it to the relevant biological system. Once we have set up the
recording process, the method is as simple as it can be; 2) we could bring an automate,
train somebody in your lab, and leave it for you to try and detect the local equivalent of
Jamal. This is indeed a marvellous tool to detect and study mind/matter interaction. The
first option would be nominal, just travel whereas the second option would cost 40,000 to
buy and fix an automate. Anyhow we cannot at present finance the latter since we are
totally broke. We still hope that some means can be found. Any sponsor around who is
tired of giving money to mainstream biology or to the America's cup? So what could be
envisioned is that Didier and myself would come by car to Cambridge with the machinery,
which is not bulky. In one day we can record 2 different types of activities, a thrombin
inhibitor, to be tested in the lab with the automate and a bacteria to be detected in our
lab. Since I (JB) should be expelled out of my lab Sept 1st, at the time of my
administrative retirement, the ideal situation would be to have done and hopefully
succeeded the expt before, so as to give me some leverage with the director of Inserm. Yet,
I am leaving tomorrow to June 24 to Seattle to meet some putative finance people and we
are doing the same with Didier in Geneva July 3-5. This would leave us Monday July 8th to
Wednesday 10. So: 1) what is your feeling about the experiment? 2) Are these dates
possible for you or shall we push this to end of August, beginning of
September? Obviously the final challenge is to understand what Jamal and the like emit.
We know that this influence is blocked by mumetal, not copper nor aluminum.... If we
master this step, then digital biology will become routine, as it is in our lab when Jamal
performs well, which, in passing, is not always the case. It's a question of financial and
technical means. Cooperation with a specialized lab or industry would greatly shorten the
delay before mastering the technology. But as in the hen/egg case, we need first to show
that the basic method is valid. Let us know what you think of all this.
Later again, in a message to Dr Makris on 17 September 2002 22:33:12 BST:
Hello after all this long time of silence. You will find in the next msg a letter that I sent
in June [Dr. A.]
to the colleagues in Cambridge, one of them being Prof. Josephson. The letter explains
what happened since 2 yrs and the unexpected (and fascinating) problem we are
encountering: direct evidence, provided by an automatic analyser, of the influence of human
beings on the experimental result. This is real beyond doubt in the electronic transmission
of the molecular function. We have even scattered evidence that this influence might
intervene in "normal" biology. Too scattered to eliminate experimental artefacts. We're
now in a catch-22 situation. We have some leads on what we should do to investigate and
then replicate the operator effect, which should insure full repeatability to the experiments.
But we don't have the financial means to start these experiments. To get these means we
have to show that the experiments work most of the time.... (In passing this type of
situation is not reserved to us. It largely explains why science, under the cover of
technological progress, is at idle, since no research outside of the party line will get any
support by mainstream science.) So we decided to reverse the logic. We will go to the
collaborative labs with the equipment necessary to record and several closed vials of
antithrombin (water as control), e.coli with staphylococcus as control (all bacteria formalized),
will show you how to record, will then record with you several vials in the open, will then
leave the room and let you record and code the files. The recordings will be sent to Clamart
by e-mail and we should then be able to tell which is which. This is a remake of the 1996
experiment whose description is found in our site as a poster "Tansatlantic transfer....". A
remake with much improved methodology. We intended at first to do the expt early
September. But then we asked: "what if the recording was also influenced by the operator?".
We don't have the answer yet and this is why we have postponed the expt. It must be
realised that since we are 2 researchers and 2 bench workers to run such an endeavor
which would necessitate a group of at least 20 people (5,000 in the drug industry :-) ), we
are very busy trying to chase grants and investors and contracts (in "classical" inflammation)
to keep the lab afloat. We're now shooting end of October. We will keep you
posted. Please let me know if you are still interested in participating in these
experiments. I understand [Dr. A] has contacted you. The other putative labs are one in
Cambridge (Dr Tai-Ping Fan) and one at Imperial College in London. I am cc-ing this e-
mail to all implicated participants including Dr Morgan.
Then there was an exchange regarding the Horizon Heretics programme:
Dear Colleagues, I learn today with utter astonishment that there has been an
"experiment" done as part of this program under the responsibility of the BBC group, with
the participation (can anyone believe this?) of Mr Randi. I was never told that my presence
will be associated with that of this individual. I consider this as a betrayal of my good faith
and it is flabbergasting to me that Nathan Williams who seemed to act as a honest
journalist, could finally behave in such a way which is so contrary to professional ethics. I
received the BBC group almost as friends, spent an awful lot of time with them and they
didn't dare to tell what they had in mind? Being cautious about this, I asked at first to
Williams who was participating in the program. This man was never mentioned. Shocking!!
Besides, it should not even be necessary to stress that ONE experiment (positive or
negative) means absolutely nothing in this context, especially in view of the fact that I
repeatedly showed to the BBC group that results could be dependent on the local
environment (these are not physical molecules but their electromagnetic copies). Who's
pulling the strings I don't know but what's sure is that the same string pullers show no
intention to make a TV show on the 500+ gene therapy trials with no results at all and how
many deaths and billions spent. They concentrate on ONE failed experiments in an attempt
to nullify the eight times international groups have replicated my data, basically the same as
that in the "Ennis" experiment ten tears later. This strategy was used against me in 1988,
where after 3 experiments succeeded (2 blind), they "blinded" (but not for them) a 4th one
that was sabotaged and failed. How come anybody could be naive enough to participate in
such a masquerade 14 years after??? Nevertheless, I hereby forcefully demand to
Williams to postpone the show. Peter and Mark please find the e-mail of the highest
authority at the BBC2, send it to me and/or directly forward my mail. I DO NOT WANT MY
IMAGE ON THE SAME PROGRAM AS THAT PERSON JR, is this clear enough? And should
the show be aired, I will take all judiciary actions to correct any damage to my professional
status. I always won my disputes or trials in which this person was implicated, in England, in
France and very recently in Italy against a main daily newspaper. I am alerting my lawyer in
London. The BBC MUST stop the show for the time being, organize a private show of
the program, after which we should be allowed to air our comment in response to anything
which seems biased, scientifically unsound and/or offending. Does anybody there still knows
the meaning of "fair play? To answer your PS question: the experiment was partly done
by us, that is we prepared and counted the cells. But 1) "they" decided to increase the load
of work over the limit of what was possible in one day, especially because one of the
counters, Francis Beauvais had sight difficulties. 2) they insisted in participating in the filling
of the plates where basophils are counted, the hemocytometers. Stewart did it, under the
pretext that he knew how to work on the bench. I was fuming but constantly blackmailed
by the threat of an article in Nature saying "Benveniste threw us out when we attempted to
strictly control the experiment". While Stewart, most of the time screaming hysterically, was
clumsily filling the plates, Randi was playing tricks getting the attention of the whole lab
over clocks hands moving by themselves. Further, Beauvais failed completely but Elisabeth
Davenas had good results. Only the 4 controls were erratic, which never happened,
nullifying the results. The experiment was not blind: they knew the code. No comment
needed, I guess.
Horizon needed to have their own magician on board...

No. They couldn't have such intention because they are active participants to the plot.
Suffice to look at their site with the huge Randi photo. Randi the godfather of BBC
horizon!!! How far down will they go? This is a quote of a mail I rcvd this morning: "The
actual programme was certainly biased but you, yourself came over fine, in my opinion.
However I do understand that you would never agree to participate in a programme
including Randi or any other circus performer. Nor would I or any self-respecting scientist.
This is why they had to be sneaky about it. Alas, the BBC (perhaps once the finest
broadcasting service in the world) has lowered itself to these sort of tactics...". Nothing
to add. I don't know what the group of homeopaths will do. They are remarkably naive and
poorly responsive. I intend to send an article to the Guardian. Maybe you could do the
same??? Or obtain a show on Channel 4? Now, Brian, let's think a bit. OK, ONE
experiment did not work clearly indicating that all others, where positive results were seen,
were wrong. What does this mean? One, and only one of 2 things: either 1) all persons
(professors, researchers, technicians...) in the 8 labs around the world who have replicated
my data, including those who, in the paneuropean study, have done 3,600 tests blind, are
crooks, serial frauders, including obviously Ennis who must be charged for second offense.
This must be clearly stated by the BBC team, since it's the logical consequence of their
"experiment". Or 2) there is some as yet undiscovered influence that favors positive results.
In this case, Randi has ascertained the "paranormal" and deserves the $1M
prize. Something wrong in this reasoning?
And then Nature fiddling the scientific process:
Dear Brian, I admire your persistence. Certainly the SOS, the Saint Office Scientifique
(Science Holy Office) will not let your opinion known. But they might soon be forced to.
A number of news may change the picture. 1) I recently sold the licence of the 7 patents
I hold on digital biology to a Californian company for 1 million USD paid in...15 years. The
lesson is that once again the European ultra-orthodoxes has given the US industry the
chance to exploit at its profit an European discovery, which is the major paradigmatic
change in biology since ???. Centuries maybe. 2) The main factor that prevented me
from making a widespread demonstration of the effect of biological digital signals is the
fact that native water is unable to support such activity. It needs to be "formatted" and, up
to now, the process was unfit for widespread usage. Since a few weeks I have developed a
purely electronic mechanism that does the job. We're in the process of showing that
anybody can now do the full expt anywhere. 3) If this goal is attained I intend to renew
the project of replication on a large scale. I may have a method that is simpler to use than
the coagulation, which I may still export to the Sheffield or Imperial college lab, and if
somebody is willing to do it, Cambridge. Nothing to do now (except spreading the news
of the licence sale. To Lionel Milgrom???). I'll come back in a week or
so. Cheers. Jacques
On 3 May 2004 Brian Josephson wrote to Nature:
Dear Sir, Almost certainly Nature will refuse to publish any letter detailing the flaws in
the Maddox, Stewart and Randi paper referred to recently in glowing terms by David Vaux
(Nature Correspondence, 22 April 2004). In a different branch of the universe, where
'rocking the establishment boat' were permitted, one would write in making the following
points: (i) the authors were not biologists and, rather obviously from indications the
article (e.g. their astonishment at the fact that the work was funded by a drug company),
knew very little about the realities of biological research. The claim by the authors that that
didn't matter, as they felt confident they could still sniff out problems despite being
biologically challenged, is suspect since Benveniste may have had things to say in regard to
the criticisms that an experimental biologist would have understood, but which passed over
the heads of the authors. Having decided that their original hypothesis (fraud) was not the
explanation, they should have co-opted a biologist into their team, rather than relying on
their own limited experience. (ii) it is curious, or might one say remiss, that the authors
suggest counting errors as an important contribution to the fluctuations observed but do
not show the magnitude of the errors in comparison with, say, the fluctuations shown in
fig.1 (and on a more trivial level, they are also remiss in not linking most of the figures to
the places in the text where they are discussed, by references in the text). (iii) it is again
remiss, and would probably under normal circumstances have resulted in the article being
thrown out by a referee, that they consider no alternatives to their preferred hypothesis, viz.
that the fact that the counting was not done blind was an important factor, and simply
state it as a fact. The amount of data they present in support of their preferred hypothesis
is woefully insufficient. (iv) the scientifically responsible behaviour would, in any event,
have been not to rush into print with condemnation of this kind, but draw attention to the
criticisms and make suggestions for improvements in the experimental arrangements. Of
course all know (some of us at least) that Maddox had personal reasons for being so hostile
to homeopathy, which seem to have coloured his scientific judgements. Yours
sincerely, (Prof.) Brian Josephson
And then Jacques Benveniste wrote this last email:
Please excuse me for not answering your mail of June 21. Problem is that I was awaiting
to get some definitive results before doing it. Then the vacation time came and my health
has not been very good... In fact I am entering the hospital tomorrow to undergo a heart
surgery (replacement of the aortic valve). Evrtg should be alright but this will knock me out
for at least 3-4 weeks. I have made interesting progresses but this has not yet solved the
problem. You remember that, in order for the anticoagulation system to work (the other
one, detection of antigens works in all situation) Jamal has to precondition the water by
putting the tube in his pocket for several hours. Given the fact that we know he emits EMFs,
I decided to play different frequencies to water for the same time length, using a coil. No
result. One day I decided that after all, the best way to diffuse frequencies is to use a
loudspeaker. Bingo! The water was working without preconditioning by Jamal. Water is
changed by exposure to sound and keep this change for several hours. It was at this time
that I wrote you the letter below. But I had to see if anybody could then work with this
system. Another tech in the lab did 2 positive expts, went on vacation and since, nothing.
Therefore even if Jamal does not need the pantomime of the water, he is still adding
something else that remains to be determined. Then I changed the recording process.
This time we don't need any preconditioning, Jamal or sound. I am not sure that the other
tech will then be able to do the trick. This is where we are now. Something different. I
have known an American, Lee Lozenge, who claims he has a "microclustered water" that
does wonder. By contrast with many others he is trying to do some clinical work and has
some blind studies. He is going next week to Cambridge and asked if he could meet you. I
said I will just tell you. Feel free to meet him. He certainly is an honest person. But you are
not obliged to do so in any way. I should be fully operational end of October but
behind my computer around the 15-20.
The operation did not work out so well In fact the operation worked out well said the surgeon,
but the patient died in the hospital.
ANNEX: Summary of emails
(NDLR: JB2 tags the text I (JB2) have added, also, one who did not want his name in this document
has been replaced with the pseudonym [Dr. A.]).
Date: 5 April 1999 15:29:40 BST

From: Brian Josephson - To: Robert Park - Cc: Jacques Benveniste
Brian Josephson asks whether the APS would want to be identified with Park's unwarranted
attacks on Benveniste, refer to his talk at the Cavendish and the contrary open-mindedness of
the lab.
Date: 6 April 1999 18:04:09 BST

From: Josephson - To: Park - Cc: Benveniste
Brian Josephson further suggests the claims be tested
JB2: Josephson further suggests the claims be tested by someone else who has the signal files
stored on a laptop and applies them randomly so that the Clamart team do not know which
signal each tube received and is asking Park to set up arrangement for such test
Date: 18 April 1999 21:44:48 BST

From: Park - To: Josephson
Park agrees, after discussion with APS, suggests '100 samples of water', etc.
JB2: Park agrees, after discussion with APS, suggests '100 samples of water', and informs that
the APS would be delighted to be a sponsor of the test and asks Josephson to develop a
protocol.
Date: 19 April 1999 19:07:13 BST

From: Josephson - To: Park - Cc: Jerome I. Friedman
100 trials too many? Need to exclude fanatics, problem of persuading people all is OK; criticism
of Maddox article in Nature
JB2: Josephson says 100 trials are too many in regard to time consuming and hard to find
observers and asks who will provide the water so the experiments are done properly. He will
negotiate with Benveniste for details.
Date: 21 April 1999 15:43:04 BST

From: Park - To: Josephson - Cc: Jerome I. Friedman
More discussion of details
JB2: Parks asks how many trials would Josephson suggest? Park suggests to limit the observers
who have not taken a public position on the issue and the observers from both sides be
appointed by appropriate scientific organizations. Park agrees to supply pure water, which
would be evaluated by Benveniste.
Date: 21 April 1999 18:37:32 BST

From: Josephson To: Park
How much evidence is needed, details of fanatics
JB2: Josephson responds some points raised by Park from the precedent email in regard to the
number of trials, the *fanatics* and who should do the experiments, giving many examples
from his point of view and agrees the observers from both sides be appointed by appropriate
scientific organizations.
Date: 23 April 1999 15:43:36 BST

From: Benveniste To Josephson Cc: Didier Guillonnet
Problem of variability, does not like news spreading to Time
JB2: Benveniste answers some Josephsons questions from msg to Guillonnet about the number
of trials and says its too soon for the EPS experiment and gives explanation why and wonders
about the news being spread too quickly. Benveniste asks Josephson to describe without too
many detail what can be done with APS.
Date: 23 April 1999 15:45:58 BST

From: Benveniste To: Josephson
He quotes letter from Randi which itself quotes from Josephsons letter to Park, who evidently
has been leaking.
JB2: Benveniste quotes letter from Randi which itself quotes from Josephsons letter to Park,
who evidently has been leaking.
Date: 23 April 1999 21:02:09 BST
From: Park - To: Josephson
Agrees to 20 samples with 100% accuracy. Is this realistic? [my comment] though it seems
the FASEB article which I quoted earlier claimed that.
JB2: Park asks for 20 samples be treated in two different ways with 100% accuracy saying the
result will speak clearly, agrees that the observers will not render a judgement and asks
Josephson to agree that Benvenistes people will *assess* rather than *judge*. Park demands
clarification about the observers and suggests that Friedman appoints 3 observers and
Josephsons side would appoint 3 also.
Date: 24 April 1999 11:39:00 BST

I report J's assertion that the 100% figure may be unattainable because of problems keeping
plasma in good condition.
JB2: Josephson explains to Park how the tests will be done, gives him more information about
who should or shouldnt be observer, reports Benvenistes assertion that 100% figure may be
unattainable because of problems keeping plasma in good condition and re-agrees with Parks
suggestion about the observers and adds *though perhaps France should be involved also*.
Date: 24 April 1999 12:32:24 BST

I report J's view that 10 should be enough owing to large magnitude of effect
JB2: Josephson reports Benvenistes own proposal: Training needs to be done and 10 tests
should be enough and must be done in a neutral laboratory, without any excitement and
paraphernalia typical of skeptics people and this experiment can be easily repeated in other
laboratories in various countries.
Date: 24 April 1999 18:37:17 BST

He describes a range of approaches, including the plasma method, still concerned with
reliability
JB2: Josephson makes some observations (2) about the proposal with APS, Benveniste agrees
on the first 2 points and describes a range of approaches, including the plasma method and
gives 2 reasons about doing all this replication stuff allright, at gunpoint, but it is strictly
unlawful. [what is unlawful, using a gun or using plasma? The latter was considered unsafe without
appropriate precautions]
Date: 25 April 1999 17:21:53 BST

From: Josephson To Benveniste
I emphasise need for good statistics
JB2: Josephson informs Benveniste the attached document (abbreviated compte-rendu of this
Saga) didnt make it down the wire but is aware the paper has been accepted, thoughts about
APS accepting a method that does not work all the time and ask for Benveniste to give
statistics relating to the reliability
Date: 26 April 1999 12:33:54 BST

From: Josephson To Park
I suggest we need to give J. time to sort out variability problem
JB2: Josephson suggests to Park that Benveniste needs time to sort out variability problem,
gives Park information about 5 systems in Benveniste lab detecting memory of water effects
and that Benveniste raised question about how the investigation would be funded and how
that can be done.
Date: 27 April 1999 15:41:07 BST

From: Park To Josephson Cc: Friedman
He indicates misunderstanding of how the digital signal method works, and says he does not
wish to be involved with 'biological effects'
JB2: Park indicates his misunderstanding on how the digital signal method works, and says he
does not wish to be involved with 'biological effects' but with the memory hypothesis, which is
the sort of test that physicists would feel comfortable with and is there some more detailed
description of Benveniste's work on digititized information from homeopathic solutions and
concerning the details of how the signals are detected and applied to other solutions.
Date: 4 May 1999 02:07:00 BST

From: Park To: Josephson Cc: Beverly Rubik, Guillonnet, Benveniste, Friedman
Says B should be involved, or if test fails he'll say it wasn't done right
JB2: Parks wants Benveniste to be involved with the tests, agrees that the tests should focus on
memory and not on the efficacy of the medication. Hes somewhat surprised that Benveniste
mentioned the funding and is asking if he can meet Benveniste in Albuquerque, New Mexico in
June if Benveniste agrees.
Date: May 3, 1999 05/03/99 12:27PM

From: Josephson - to Park
I criticise a rather dubious article by Park in Skeptical Inquirer, and suggest Hirst paper might
actually support memory of water
Josephson criticises a rather dubious article by Park in Skeptical Inquirer, and suggests Hirst
paper might actually support memory of water
Date: 4 May 1999 12:59:09 BST

Attempt to reconcile, hope they can get together in ABQ
Josephson attempts to reconcile the 2 parties and explains why Benveniste didnt want to be
part of the tests, thinking the test will have more credibility if he is not involved, and clarifies
Benveniste didnt ask him to inquire about the funding but has concern about it.
Date: 12 May 1999 22:54:07 BST

Reports steps towards reproducibility, expresses annoyance that Time article focussed on
homeopathy
JB2: Benveniste informs Josephson about his health problem and expresses his annoyance that
Time article focused on homeopathy which is isolating them from the scientific circles which is
exactly the contrary of his tactics and intends to send them an explanatory note.
Date: 17 May 1999 06:52:05 BST

From: Marcello Truzzi To: Benveniste and Josephson
Sends What's New column where Park reports on (lack of) progress. J. objects strongly to term
homeopathist
JB2: Truzzi sends to Benveniste and Josephson What's New column where Park reports on (lack
of) progress. Benveniste objects strongly to term homeopathist.
Date: 17 May 1999 09:18:06 BST

From: Benveniste To: Park, Josephson, Truzzi, Guillonnet, John T. Butters
JB2: Benveniste warning to all those involved in the APT trial. Really upset about being called
an *Homeopathist* and explains that this is aimed at confining his research into a ghetto. He
also comments on Leon Jaroffs article in Time Magazine. A bon entendeur, salut.
Date: 17 May 1999 12:27:36 BST

From: Benveniste To: Josephson Cc: Park, Truzzi, Guillonnet, Butters
Jokes about 'double-blind'
JB2: Benveniste jokes about *double-blind* and tells Josephson at the end if the result is wrong
the blame will be put on them.
Date: 17/05/1999 12:02 +0100

From: Josephson To: (same as above)
JB2: Josephson notes that it is inappropriate to call Benveniste a homeopathist and clarifies
double-blind.
Date: 17 May 1999 18:38:58 BST

From: Truzzi To Benveniste Cc: Josephson<truzzi@toast.net>
Truzzi tries to calm J. down
JB2: Truzzi tries to calm down Benveniste and explains why he needs to be associated with
*homeopathy* and tells Benveniste makes a big mistake in seeking to totally dissociate himself
from that arena and wishes Benveniste didnt send the previous letter and gives reason why.
Date: 18 May 1999 16:03:32 BST

From: Josephson To: Benveniste Cc: Park and Guillonnet
I ask, why the fuss?
JB2: Josephson asks Benveniste whats wrong with Parks comments apart from the description
of himself as a homeopathist and joins What's New extract from Benveniste in 1988 in Nature.
Date: 19 May 1999 12:26:39 BST

From: Josephson To: Benveniste Cc: Parks, Truzzi and Guillonnet" <bdj10@cam.ac.uk>
I enquire about the different techniques
JB2: Josephson asks clarification about the FSEB 97 paper and thinks Benvenistes research has
moved on from one phenomenon (high-dilution) to another (biological signal). Thinks people
have taken Benvenistes *moving on* as meaning he has moved on to more reliable techniques
rather than any sense of having stopped experimenting with high dilution.
Date: 19 May 1999 21:38:58 BST

From: Josephson To: Benveniste Cc: Guillonnet
Quoting email from J. (not available) where he explains possible problem with tubes influencing
each other, and that activation can be via signal or highly diluted substance
JB2: Josephson quotes email from Benveniste (not available) where he explains possible
problem with tubes influencing each other, and that activation can be via signal or highly
diluted substance, tells Benveniste all involved would prefer a test where the signals were
applied to water, not plasma and informs Benveniste he is not sure he can sort this muddle out
before leaving for Japan.
Date: 20 May 1999 13:29:01 BST

From: Josephson To: Benveniste Cc: Park and Guillonnet
I refer (confusingly) to the two types of expt., and question of how many expts. need to be
done
JB2: Josephson refers to the 2 types of test and explains why Benveniste cannot dissociate
himself from the high-dilution and if he does he needs to withdraw from the claims and asks
Benveniste how many runs need to be done.
Date: 20 May 1999 19:36:23 BST

From: Park To: Josephson
Park wants to focus on memory of water, not high dilution. In 4 raises question that I'm not
clear about -- maybe there is confusion as to which is which. Hopes can 'keep this on track'
JB2: Park wants to focus on memory of water, not high dilution. In paragraph 4 raises question
that Josephson not clear about -- maybe there is confusion as to which is which. Hopes he can
'keep this on track'. Park informs Josephson he will write directly to Benveniste and hope they
can meet in Albuquerque.
Date: 20 May 1999 20:27:59 BST

Details discussed. Re previous 4, I said then that I was unclear what this was.
JB2: Josephson responds to Park previous email, still waiting and see how reliable it is claimed
to be when the method is finalized and informs Park of Benveniste answer about: So how do
you feel about this as an approximation to the protocol? Is there anything you think may need
changing? Benveniste: Now, no. But we are still working on several steps of this experiment. So
the final protocol might not be exactly the same but the overall picture should not change
much.
Date: 14 June 1999 11:53:22 BST

From: Josephson To: Benveniste Cc: Truzzi
This seems to be discussion of some document by Randi
JB2: Discussion of some document transferred by Randi to Benveniste which on June 13th,
1999 discusses it with Josephson back and forth.
Date: 25 June 1999 15:49:33 BST

From: Josephson To: John Benneth Cc: Syd Baumel, Mark O'Leary and Benveniste
Benneth seems to want Park to look at his yeast expt. Randi seems to be trying to muscle in on
the Jacques-APS collaboration
JB2: Josephson responds to correspondence between Benneth and Randi, Benneth seems to
want Park to look at his yeast expt. Randi seems to be trying to muscle in on the Benveniste-
APS and confirm they have no arrangement with Randi, only with Park, and Park has confirmed
that the APS investigation has nothing whatever to do with the JREF prize.
Date: 2 July 1999 14:28:38 BST

Progress of various methods. Indicates preference to having other labs reproduce, rather than
a 'circus'. Mentions the fact that one operator is more successful than another
JB2: Benveniste informs Josephson the progression of various methods. Indicates preference to
having other labs reproduce, rather than a 'circus'. Mentions the fact that one operator is more
successful than another (refer to letter of July 1st, 1999 from Benveniste, copy will be sent to
Truzzi.
Date: June 30, 1999
Summarises state of research. Again mentions operator-dependence, and his wish to have
proper research rather than 'stage performance'. Says 3 labs are ready to go
JB2: Benveniste summarises to Josephson the state of research and again mentions operator-
dependence, and his wish to have proper research rather than 'stage performance'. Says 3 labs
are ready to go.
Date: 2 July 1999 16:24:50 BST

From: Benveniste To: Josephson Cc: Guillonnet
JB2: Slight modification of the letter, correction of few errors as wavelength expressed in nM
(nanomolar) instead of nm (nanometers) and copy sent to Park and Truzzi.
Date: 2 and 4 July 1999 16:55:18 BST

From: James Randi To: Josephson and Park
From: Josephson To: Randi and Park
Two typical rants from Randi
JB2: Josephson answers two typical rants from Randi in connection with Benneths posting
saying he is a minor actor in all this and Josephson questioning Randis motives as *twisting*
the evidence in some way, and pursuit of the highly-anticipated test of Benveniste claims with
APS.
July 1999
From : Benveniste To : Josephson
Jacques sends his protocol for the test: send signals to water, use coagulation of heparin to test
activity
Date: 15 July 1999 20:19:10 BST

Reports success at Columbia
JB2: Benveniste reports to Josephson success at Columbia from one of his former students last
week and attached are the operating procedure. In two parts. The text and the figures but
Josephson didnt receive the figures. Informs Josephson that Milton Wainwright, the
bacteriologist from Sheffield was at the lab that day and [tom?] to learn the E. coli technique.
So, the two methods might be available in or around his place. Asks Josephson if has any
reaction from Truzzi.
Date: 16 July 1999 12:29:16 BST

From: Josephson To: Benveniste
JB2: Josephson informs Benveniste he has the paper "Effect of heparin signals on plasma
coagulation". informs Benveniste Truzzi needs to reformat before sending it out.
Date: 16 July 1999 18:45:03 BST

From: Josephson To: Park, Randi, Truzzi, Philip Henry Montgomery Campbell, Baumel and Charles
Seife
Cc: Benveniste
Report success to one and all
JB2: Josephson reports to all parties that Benveniste has now produced a detailed protocol for
the coagulation experiment, that the blind experiments done in the period June 24 - July 14
1999 with 56 readings taken on 14 occasions yielded 54 out of 56 correct results (p=5.9^-14
according to the Student t-test), that the experiment has been replicated successfully at
Columbia University and gives the result overall, and that a person at Sheffield University is
currently being trained to find out if this can also be replicated and not sure to how the APS
official investigation might be carried out
Date: 17 July 1999 09:14:11 BST

Sheffield has got involved but can't do anything for months
JB2: Benveniste ask Josephson to send a corrective sentence to the group about the identity of
the lab and informs of some delay in the experiment. Benveniste informs Josephson of a new
edited version of the protocol only in the formatting nothing has changed. Copy of the well
formatted protocol.
Date: 17 July 1999 11:24:37 BST

From: Benveniste To: karfors. Guillonnet, flafonta, Antonio Menchero Fernndez, Norma Ridi,
Wayne Jonas, modier, Truzzi, Wei Hsueh, albited, superoxide, Denis Payre, jlbrunet, P. Bellavite,
eskinazi, Benveniste, Jean-Pierre Cazenave and Albert Dahlberg
JB2: Benveniste sends new formatted protocol to all involved persons.
Date: 17 July 1999 15:19:04 BST

Point of detail
JB2: Benveniste answers some point of detail to Josephson and informs Josephson that the
protocol will only be distributed to those who agree to sign the agreement and they will put
the agreement on the web (perhaps a special newsletter) end of this month or end of August
and copy of the agreement attached in the email. Attached also letter dated September 1999
about the start of the international replication of recording and transfer of the molecular signal.
Date: 1 October 1999 18:17:17 BST

Says is not going to work with APS (clearly wants experts to do the test)
JB2: Benveniste informs Josephson of news about the method for assessing plasma coagulation
and also informs he does not intend to launch a special demo for APS or any other group. The
method will be running in the months to come in several labs in continental Europe and in the
USA. Anybody who will want to see or do it will go to these places and then report. He doesnt
want to mess it up with undue haste so they are doing things one step at a time at his
laboratory. Benveniste reports he has been stricken by the ease with which people foreign to
his lab did replicate the method, giving the team optimism that everything will work out well.

Maybe expt. can't be done in UK (health and safety constraints)
JB2: Josephson answers some point of Benvenistes previous email: 1) possibility of doing this
in the UK at this point are low as it uses sheep plasma it needs to go through an ethics
committee but maybe someone can do the version being planned by Wainwright with whom he
has been in contact. PS from Josephson: It may be useful to have the APS promised
'verification' available to fall back on, just in case publication is refused to everyone who is
successful. One gathers that exactly this is the current situation with cold fusion experiments.

From: Josephson To: Park, Dan Drasin, Truzzi, Campbell, Baumel, Seife, Greg Winter Cc:
Benveniste
Report J. is suggesting APS visit lab where expt. is being done
JB2: Josephson reports to some colleagues about a number of people in Europe and in the US
who have now successfully replicated the Benveniste work and the importance of following
Benvenistes protocol to have the optimal chance of success and the comment of Benveniste
about APS: once the method is running in an American lab, they can go there and do it.

Winter interested in bacteria/penicillin expt.
JB2: Josephson informs Benveniste that Greg Winter is interested in bacteria/penicillin

experiment that Wainwright is doing and Winter wonders about videocameras etc. needed.

From: Benveniste To: Josephson Cc: Guillonnet and Winter
But penicillin expt. is much more difficult (technically)
JB2: Benveniste answers to the previous email about Winters request about the video camera
and explains the coagulation method.
Date: 4 November 1999 19:06:01 GMT

asks how we are doing
JB2: Benveniste informs Josephson they are ready to send protocol for plasma coagulation and
asks how the situation on his side. Biologist ready to do it? Benveniste waiting for answer.

Cambridge experts say there are problems, J. disputes this, says let's get on
JB2: Josephson answers Benveniste about biologist ready to do it? Cambridge experts say
there are problem and asks Benveniste to still send the protocol. Benveniste will send the
protocol and says Lets do the experiment. Protocol attached with all annexes, results of the
experiments also.
Date: 18 December 1999 23:12:39 GMT
JB2: Benveniste answers email Dec. 18, 22H24 from Josephson saying latest version is 2-d old
(attached) 10 tests have been done and informs that the other labs are slow and not easy to
have people working just for the fame and glory and will call Josephson next week.
I ask, where are the papers on the successful replications
JB2 : Josephson asks for papers on the successful replications, Benveniste answers he sent it
back w/o the attachments and Josephson sent copies to Winter and Berridge, Winter in going
to be in Australia for sabbatical and he didnt have any news from Berridge and wonder why
there aren't any papers on successful replications
yet.
Date: 24 January 2000 19:46:35 GMT

From: Josephson To: Eldon Byrd Cc: Uri Beller, Park and Benveniste
Response to query
JB2: Byrd is asking if Josephson has issued a challenge to the APS. Josephson responds that
Benveniste prefers peer-reviewed scientific publications and that Josephsons challenge to APS
is to investigate the situation properly, after having criticised Benveniste strongly.
Date: 12 July 2000 18:05:53 BST

Delay is because of getting ready to automate
JB2: Benveniste informs Josephson what he plans to do in weeks and months to come and that
is confidential and gives 2 reasons why he has not done great efforts to spread the method and
asks what Josephson thinks about it, tells Josephson he received a very interesting proposal
from a laboratory in Sheffield, UK. Photo attached of the machine (automate)
Date: 11 August 2000 12:44:34 BST

From: Josephson To: Randi Cc: Park, Benneth Bcc: Benveniste
Suggest Randi be patient, why not try Benneth's expt. in the meantime
JB2: Josephson answers Randi letter and asks him and Park to be patient as that is
*extraordinary claims which demand extraordinary evidence* and thats take time and suggests
him why not try Benneths experiment in the meantime.
Date: 12 August 2000 10:57:52 BST

From: Josephson To: Park - Bcc: Benveniste
Agree with Park that delay is regrettable
JB2: Josephson answers Parks letter of August 12, 2000 saying he is surprised after he met
with Benveniste in Albuquerque more than a year ago and thought the new test was about to
be ready, so Josephson agrees that delay is regrettable and explains why
Date: 12 August 2000 21:26:59 BST

From: Josephson To: Randi Cc: Park
Explain to Randi that it was my challenge to the APS, not J's
Date: 13 August 2000 09:57:44 BST

Technical difficulties make replication not easy; not all attempting labs have got good results
JB2: Benveniste wonders if Josephson received his mail from July 12 and waits for his
comments. Tells he doesnt have any answer from the Sheffeld lab either and he should
received the 2nd [2nd?] machine in September and will need to build a shield around it and
explains the problems they have using it.
Date: 13 August 2000 22:24:29 BST

I did get letter but was busy
Date: 16 August 2000 18:44:55 BST

Winter might do experiment; practical application of biological signal in cookery?

Date: 15 September 2000 11:20:31 BST
From: Josephson To: Benneth Cc: Gary E Schwartz, The Proving, Benveniste, Winston Wu, Randi,
Park, Wayne Jonas and Andy Bormeth
Benneth unhelpful?

succussion might help? Fyenman's theory of liquid He relevant?
Date: 15 June 2002 14:40:25 BST

pushes to complete expt. before retirement, do it in Cambridge
JB2: Benveniste informs Josephson the latest development, tells they have been financed in the
2001 fall by an US agency, bought an automate and US paid for the trips and stay, they did
expt in Oct and just received the provisional report, the experiments were only positive when
Jamal was present. Offers 2 possibilities to Josephson if he is still interested: 1) bring to his lab
whats necessary and he can send the files blind to Benveniste or 2) brings an automate, trains
somebody and lets his lab do it and would like to do it before his retirement in Sept. 1st.
Waiting for answer.
Date: 15 June 2002 16:03:17 BST

[Dr. A.] and Fan might do expt. (I've written to them to ask what if anything did happen).
Mackay found no pattern in signal.
JB2: Josephson informs Benveniste got no response from the relevant people from last
Benvenistes emails. Tells Tai Ping Fan and [Dr. A] might do the experiment. Gives him their
emails and propose to get together on the project to decide what is best. Mackay found no
pattern in signal.
Date: 16 June 2002 13:56:27 BST

From: Benveniste To: Josephson Cc: [Dr. A], Tai Ping Fan and Guillonnet
it seems J. didn't like my initiative; and says in view of operator sensitivity operators need to be
screened
JB2: Benveniste quite surprised by Josephsons last mail about [Dr. A.]and Tai Ping as they were
not on the *waiting list* and never had nothing from them about wanting to participate to that
specific experiment and they will need to be trained, and not happy that [Dr. A.] ?? recordings
and material and this cannot be without a mutual agreement, including secrecy agreement
Date: 16 June 2002 15:50:40 BST

From: Benveniste To Josephson Cc: Guillonnet
would like me to participate, is OK with [Dr. A.] and Fan cooperating
JB2: Benveniste asks Josephson if he still wants to be involved and agrees for the cooperation
of [Dr. A.] and Tai Ping
Date: 17 June 2002 20:30:32 BST

From: [Dr. A.] To: Benveniste Cc: Josephson
indicates willingness to participate
JB2: [Dr. A.] explains his interest in the matter to Benveniste and why he didnt get in touch
and as Benveniste not happy for him to conduct an experiment he did suggestions how he can
help with the experiment..
Date: 8 July 2002 09:43:06 BST

From: Benveniste To: [Dr. A.] and Josephson Cc: Guillonnet
Discusses procedure, says (optimistically?) 3 labs interested in UK
JB2: Benveniste tells [Dr. A.] he is willing to collaborate with him and explains how they will
do it and that they have 3 labs in cooperation: One in Cambridge, One in London and hope
Sheffield is still interested and he might be available in the 2nnd or 3rd week of September.
Benveniste asks Josephson what he thinks about that.
Date: 9 July 2002 17:54:44 BST

From: Josephson To: Benveniste Cc: [Dr. A.] and Guillonnet
I am 'supportive' rather than cooperative

Date: 9 July 2002 21:08:13 BST
From: Tai Ping To: Benveniste Cc: [Dr. A.] , Josephson and Guillonnet
Tai Ping says he is interested

From: Benveniste To: Dr Makris Cc: Josephson, Tai Ping, [Dr.
A.],100327.2426@compuserve.com [email addresses should not be visible], Chris Toumazou and
Guillonnet
financial problems, suggests procedure
JB2: Benveniste will send in the next email letter sent in June to Cambridge explaining what
happened in the last 2 years and problems he has to face. Tells they are in a catch 22 about
finance funding and how they will proceed instead because of it and that should be done in
October.

From: Jacques Benveniste
Subject: Homeopathy
To: Sunday Times (STLETTERS@TELEGRAPH.CO.UK)
Objects to Sunday Times article about Horizon programme (insufficient number of trials)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 21:24:23 -0000

From: Robert Matthews - To: Benveniste Subject: Re: New scientist article
Matthews sends text of his supportive article (re Ennis replication) for New Scientist

From: Benveniste To: Sunday Times (STLETTERS@TELEGRAPH.CO.)
JB2: Benveniste resends letter to the Editor and asks them to replace the one received
previously
Date: 3 May 2004 14:26:48 BST

From: Josephson To: Nature Cc: Benveniste
Ccriticises item published in Nature Correspondence. Here's the relevant extract
When properly described, error bars can be very revealing. In their analysis of the experiments and
methods used by Jacques Benveniste to study homeopathy, John Maddox and colleagues illustrated
how much information can be gained if one knows how to interpret errors correctly ( HYPERLINK
"http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/334287a0" Nature 334, 287290; 198810.1038/334287a0).

Ffinal letter, referring to health problems. Had been trying a range of options to improve
reliability
The Engagement form to be signed by participating experimenters :
ENGAGEMENT
Je dsire participer aux expriences sur le signal hparine. Je mengage respecter strictement le
protocole, informer le Laboratoire de Biologie Numrique (Dr Benveniste) en cas de difficult
technique, et garder confidentiels les mthodes et rsultats jusqu une publication commune sous
la direction du LBN.
I wish to participate to the heparin signal experiments. I shall strictly follow the protocol provided by
the Digital Biology Laboratory, call upon the DBL (Dr Benveniste) in case of technical difficulty, and
keep methods and results confidential until a common publication under DBL leadership.
Nom (name) Prnom (first name) Ad(d)ress(e) Date
Signature
Appendix 1: Deception from opponents of

related research, and further support from
articles
As follows (all of the links are as accessed July 27, 2014):
The homeopath John Benneth offered to enter the prize and Randi produced an excuse to
declare him inadmissible. Some extended commentary on this incident is available in the
following 2 links:
HYPERLINK
"http://www.scienceofhomeopathy.com/challenge.html" http://www.scienceofhomeopathy.com
/challenge.html
HYPERLINK "http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/randis-million-dollar-
challenge/"http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/randis-million-dollar-challenge/ - this, by a
blogger who has spent much time, and garnered much flack, for attempting to confront the
organized skepticism movement on some of their dirty tricks. Here he discusses the
Benneth case, but his overview goes beyond that in scope.
Madeline Ennis was, like Benveniste, a tester of water memory, though according to the
New Scientist, with her experiments she "set out to prove once and for all that homeopathy
was bunkum." (SOURCE: "13 Things That Do Not Make Sense" New Scientist (2491): 30.
March 19, 2005. "4. Belfast Homeopathy Results" - available online at HYPERLINK \l
".U8elN_ldWSo"http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-
not-make-sense.html?page=2#.U8elN_ldWSo)
Much to her surprise, Ennis got positive results. Moreover, according to that New Scientist
article, her
results were replicated in four labs. Ennis in 2010 noted, Certainly there appears to be
some evidence
for an effect - albeit small in some cases - with the high dilutions in several different
laboratories using
the flow cytometric methodologies.: HYPERLINK
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2012917" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/201291
7
However, the full impact of these results has not been felt due to the obfuscatory tactics of
the James Randi Educational Foundation. In an email to the activist Dana Ullman, Ennis
revealed in detail how the James Randi Educational Foundation, in their alleged test in the
BBC Horizon show Homeopathy: The Test, did not follow the same protocol as the Ennis
experiment HYPERLINK
"http://www.homeopathic.com/Articles/Media_reports/Email_from_Professor_Ennis_on_the_s
pecific_d.html"http://www.homeopathic.com/Articles/Media_reports/Email_from_Professor_En
nis_on_the_specific_d.html
Luc Montagnier, in his related work, is attracting uncalled for heat by the guardians of
orthodoxy, partially because of the intellectual atmosphere the tactics by Randi and his
cohorts have generated. Montagniers comments on this line of research are well worth
reading: HYPERLINK
"http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6012/1732.summary?sa_campaign=Email/toc/24-
December-
2010/10.1126/science.330.6012.1732" http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6012/1732.su
mmary?sa_campaign=Email/toc/24-December-2010/10.1126/science.330.6012.1732
Finally, Benveniste himself had personal, very negative prior experience with Randi - his
argument that the antagonistic conclusions of John Maddox were unjustified, can be seen in
Nature, Vol. 334, July 28, 1988, p. 291.
Regarding this, Josephsons letter published in the Independent can be seen at

HYPERLINK "http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/letter-molecular-memory-
1082227.html"http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/letter-molecular-memory-
1082227.html
HYPERLINK "http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/water.memory/comment2.html"
and Milgroms article can be seen at
HYPERLINK "http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/science-the-memory-of-
molecules-1081528.html"http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/science-the-
memory-of-molecules-1081528.html
And in light of the above, some might find rule number 8 of the James Randi million dollar
challenge to be somewhat concerning - it reads - By accepting this Challenge, the
Applicant waives any and all claims against James Randi, the JREF, the JREF's employees,
officers, directors, and any other person. This waiver includes, but is not limited to,
injury, accident, and damage of any kind, including damage and/or loss of a physical,
emotional, financial, and/or professional nature. Notwithstanding anything else in this
paragraph, should the Claimant pass the Formal Test, the Claimant does not waive any
claims against the JREF that might be necessary to enforce payment of the Prize.:
HYPERLINK "http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-
application.html"http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-
application.html - (emphasis added)
HYPERLINK "http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/water.memory/milgrom.html"
A commentary countering a priori objections to water memory is useful as a

preliminary item for readers to digest prior to pursuing the rest of this paper - as one of us
(Brian Josephson) likes to say, The idea that water can have a memory can be readily refuted
by any one of a number of easily understood, wrong arguments. The commentary is here
(accessed July 27, 2014): HYPERLINK
"http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1422061" http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1422061
The most sympatic overviews, like Linde K et al, Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo
effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet. 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):834-43.,
merely conclude The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that
the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found
insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single
clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and
systematic.
(their open minded perspective is validated if we consider the rebuttal to the negative Shang meta-
analysis - Ldtke R. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set
of analyzed trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Dec;61(12):1197-204. - for other attacks on the Shang
meta-analysis, see Bell, I.R. All evidence is equal, but some evidence is more equal than others:
can logic prevail over emotion in the homeopathy debate?. J Altern Complement
Med. 2005; 11: 763769Frass, M., Schuster, E., Muchitsch, I. et al. Bias in the trial and reporting of
trials of homeopathy: a fundamental breakdown in peer review and standards?. J Altern
Complement Med. 2005; 11: 780782Kienle, H. Failure to exclude false negative bias: a
fundamental flaw in the trial of Shang, et al. J Altern Complement Med. 2005; 11: 783Peters, D.,
Shang et al.Carelessness, collusion, or conspiracy?. J Altern Complement Med. 2005; 11: 779780 -
see also: HYPERLINK
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1375230/" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art
icles/PMC1375230/)
There are some individual studies that provide interesting results like Jacobs J et al., Treatment of
acute childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine: a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua.
Pediatrics. 1994 May;93(5):719-25. The statistically significant decrease in the duration of diarrhea in
the treatment group suggests that homeopathic treatment might be useful in acute childhood diarrhea.
Further study of this treatment deserves consideration.
Jacobs J et al. Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three
randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2003 Mar;22(3):229-34., concludes, The
results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of
acute childhood diarrhea and suggest that larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to
ensure adequate statistical power. Homeopathy should be considered for use as an adjunct to oral
rehydration for this illness.Also there is the article HYPERLINK
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Frass
M%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=15764779" Frass M et al. Influence of potassium
dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients. Chest. 2005 Mar;127(3):936-41., which
concludes These data suggest that potentized (diluted and vigorously shaken) potassium dichromate
may help to decrease the amount of stringy tracheal secretions in COPD patients.
The article HYPERLINK "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Bell
IR%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=14734789" Bell IR et al, Improved clinical status in
fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo.
HYPERLINK "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14734789" Rheumatology (Oxford). 2004
May;43(5):577-82, concluded, This study replicates and extends a previous 1-month placebo-controlled
crossover study in fibromyalgia that pre-screened for only one homeopathic remedy. Using a broad selection of
remedies and the flexible LM dose (1/50,000 dilution factor) series, the present study demonstrated that
individualized homeopathy is significantly better than placebo in lessening tender point pain and improving the
quality of life and global health of persons with fibromyalgia.
A very interesting article is Weiser M et al. Homeopathic vs conventional treatment of vertigo: a
randomized double-blind controlled clinical study. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998
Aug;124(8):879-85., which concluded, Concerning the main efficacy variable, therapeutic equivalence
between the homeopathic remedy and betahistine could be shown with statistical significance (confirmative
analysis). Both remedies reduced the frequency, duration, and intensity of vertigo attacks during a 6-week
treatment period. Also, vertigo-specific complaints were significantly reduced in both treatment groups.
The article Friese KH et al., [Homeopathy in acute rhinosinusitis: a double-blind, placebo controlled
study shows the efficiency and tolerability of a homeopathic combination remedy]. HNO. 2007
Apr;55(4):271-7., The homeopathic product allows an effective and tolerable treatment of acute rhinosinusitis.
Hill N et al., The efficacy of Prrrikweg gel in the treatment of insect bites: a double-blind, placebo-
controlled clinical trial., Pharm World Sci. 1996 Jan;18(1):35-41., Testing erythema development by
comparing the ratio T(0)/T (mean, after-bite gel) and the ratio T(0)/T (mean, placebo gel) gave a two-tailed p =
0.098(95% Cl, -0.031-0.361) in favour of the after-bite gel. There was not a statistically significant difference
between the itch relief provided by the two treatments (two-tailed p = 0.424; 95 percent Cl, -0.541-0.191). The
correlation between itching and erythema was significant (r = 0.46; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS. There are
strong indications that the homeopathic after-bite gel reduces erythema development following mosquito bites.
The homeopathic mother tinctures of Echinacea angustifolia DC., Ledum palustre L., Urtica urens L. as well as
the Hamamelis extract in this gel, whether alone or in combination, are the biologically active ingredients. The
homeopathic after-bite gel was not demonstrated to relieve itching; however, based on the correlation between
erythema and itching, an effect on itching is not inconceivable.
Rostock M et al. Classical homeopathy in the treatment of cancer patients--a prospective observational
study of two independent cohorts. BMC Cancer. 2011 Jan 17;11:19. concluded, In our prospective
study, we observed an improvement of quality of life as well as a tendency of fatigue
symptoms to decrease in cancer patients under complementary homeopathic treatment. It
would take considerably larger samples to find matched pairs suitable for comparison in order
to establish a definite causal relation between these effects and homeopathic treatment.
In HYPERLINK "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Seeley
BM%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=16415448" Seeley BM et al., Effect of homeopathic
Arnica montana on bruising in face-lifts: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled
clinical trial., Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2006 Jan-Feb;8(1):54-9., we find that Patients taking perioperative
homeopathic A. montana exhibited less ecchymosis, and that difference was statistically significant (P<.05) on
2 of the 4 postoperative data points evaluated.
Ldtke R et al., [A meta-analysis of homeopathic treatment of pollinosis with Galphimia glauca]., Wien
Med Wochenschr. 1997;147(14):323-7., concluded, Relative frequency and relative risk for showing
noticeable and soothing relief in ocular symptoms as assessed by the patient. The overall rate of improved
eye-symptoms is about 1.25 (CI: 1.09 to 1.43) times higher in the verum than in the placebo group. Verum
success rate is estimated by 79.3% (CI: 74.1% to 85.0%). Across the single studies the results were highly
comparable except for the study run in 1985. A significant superiority of Galphimia glauca over placebo is
demonstrated. Estimates of verum success rates are comparable with those of conventional antihistaminics,
but no side effects occurred. As not all of the single studies were analyzed by intention to treat analysis the
results may be biased.
Barnes J et al, Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis., J Clin Gastroenterol. 1997
Dec;25(4):628-33., concluded, Meta-analyses of studies comparing homeopathic remedies < 12C with
placebo indicated a statistically significant (p < 0.05) WMD in favor of homeopathy on the time to first flatus.
Excluding methodologically weak trials did not substantially change any of the results. There is evidence that
homeopathic treatment can reduce the duration of ileus after abdominal or gynecologic surgery. However,
several caveats preclude a definitive judgment. These results should form the basis of a randomized controlled
trial to resolve the issue.
Ferley JP et al, A controlled evaluation of a homoeopathic preparation in the treatment of influenza-like
syndromes., Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1989 Mar;27(3):329-35., concluded, The proportion of cases who
recovered within 48 h of treatment was greater among the active drug group than among the placebo group
(17.1% against 10.3%, P = 0.03). 5. The result cannot be explained given our present state of knowledge, but it
calls for further rigorously designed clinical studies.
Oberbaum M et al., A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the homeopathic medication TRAUMEEL S
in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing stem cell transplantation.,
Cancer. 2001 Aug 1;92(3):684-90., concluded, This study indicates that TRAUMEEL S may reduce
significantly the severity and duration of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing bone marrow
transplantation.
Teut M et al, Homeopathic treatment of elderly patients--a prospective observational study with follow-
up over a two year period., BMC Geriatr. 2010 Feb 22;10:10, concluded, The severity of disease showed
marked and sustained improvements under homeopathic treatment, but this did not lead to an improvement of
quality of life. Our findings might indicate that homeopathic medical therapy may play a beneficial role in the
long-term care of older adults with chronic diseases and studies on comparative effectiveness are needed to
evaluate this hypothesis.
Witt CM et al., How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment?--
Results from a long term observational study., BMC Public Health. 2008 Dec 17;8:413., concluded,
Patients who seek homeopathic treatment are likely to improve considerably. These effects persist for as long
as 8 years.
However, ske.pticism is inspired not by a priori factors, but the weak status of current claims as noted by
Weatherley-Jones E et al, A randomised, controlled, triple-blind trial of the efficacy of homeopathic
treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome., HYPERLINK
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15016577" J Psychosom Res. 2004 Feb;56(2):189-97. , which
concluded, There is weak but equivocal evidence that the effects of homeopathic medicine are superior to
placebo. Results also suggest that there may be nonspecific benefits from the homeopathic consultation.
Further studies are needed to determine whether these differences hold in larger samples.
Likewise, in Davidson JR et al, Homeopathic treatments in psychiatry: a systematic review of randomized
placebo-controlled studies., J Clin Psychiatry. 2011 Jun;72(6):795-805., the conclusion reads, The database
on studies of homeopathy and placebo in psychiatry is very limited, but results do not preclude the possibility of
some benefit.
And in Mathie RT, Homeopathic Oscillococcinum() for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-
like illness., Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12:CD001957., the conclusion reads, There is
insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum()
in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness. Our findings do not rule
out the possibility that Oscillococcinum() could have a clinically useful treatment effect but,
given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. There was no
evidence of clinically important harms due to Oscillococcinum().
After reviewing all of this, it is instructive to compare the attitude of the West to that of the Indian Government
on the subject: HYPERLINK
"http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=32445" http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=32445
Further research on Water Memory:
- Electromagnetic Signals are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA
Sequences ; Luc Montagnier, Jamal Assa, Stphane Ferris, Jean-Luc Montagnier, Claude Lavallee.
Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1 : 81-90
- Electromagnetic detection of HIV DNA in the blood of AIDS patients treated by antiretroviral
therapy. Luc Montagnier, Jamal Assa, Claude Lavallee, Mireille Mbamy, Joseph Varon, Henri Chenal.
Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1 : 245-253
- DNA Waves and Water, Luc Montagnier ; J. Aissa ; E. del Giudice ; C. Lavallee ; A. Tedeschi
and G. Vitiello. Journal HYPERLINK "http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/science-the-
memory-of-molecules-1081528.html"http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/science-
the-memory-of-molecules-1081528.htmlof Physics, 2011 J. Phys. : Conf. Ser. Volume 306 012007
Water Remembers? Homeopathy Explained?
New research suggests water remembers what has been dissolved in it, even after dilution beyond the point where no
molecule of the original substances could remain. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reports.
For more than a century, practitioners of homeopathy have used highly diluted solutions of medicinal substances to treat
diseases. Some substances are diluted way beyond the point at which no trace of the original substances could remain. It
is as though the water has retained memory of the departed molecules. This has aroused a great deal of scepticism within
the conventional medical and scientific community. To this day, homeopathic is used as a term of derision, to indicate
something imagined that has no reality.
But a series of recent discoveries in the conventional scientific community is making people think again.
First, there were the South Korean chemists who discovered two years ago that molecules dissolved in water clump
together as they get more diluted (see SiS 15), which was totally unexpected; and further more, the size of the clumps
depends on the history of dilution, making a mockery of the laws of chemistry.
Now, physicist Louis Rey in Lausanne, Switzerland, has published a paper in the mainstream journal, Physica A,
describing experiments that suggest water does have a memory of molecules that have been diluted away, as can be
demonstrated by a relatively new physical technique that measures thermoluminescence.
In this technique, the material is activated by irradiation at low temperature, with UV, X-rays, electron beams, or other
high-energy sub-atomic particles. This causes electrons to come loose from the atoms and molecules, creating electron-
hole pairs that become separated and trapped at different energy levels.
Then, when the irradiated material is warmed up, it releases the absorbed energy and the trapped electrons and holes
come together and recombine. This causes the release of a characteristic glow of light, peaking at different temperatures
depending on the magnitude of the separation between electron and hole.
As a general rule, the phenomenon is observed in crystals with an ordered arrangement of atoms and molecules, but it is
also seen in disordered materials such as glasses. In this mechanism, imperfections in the atomic/molecular lattice are
considered to be the sites at which luminescence appears.
Rey decided to use the technique to investigate water, starting with heavy water or deuterium oxide thats been frozen into
ice at a temperature of 77K. The absolute temperature scale (degree K, after Lord Kelvin) is used in science. (The zero
degree K is equivalent to 273 C, and deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen which is twice as heavy as hydrogen).
As the ice warms up, a first peak of luminescence appears near 120K, and a second peak near 166 K. Heavy water gives
a much stronger signal than water. In both cases, samples that were not irradiated gave no signals at all.
For both water and heavy water, the relative intensity of the thermoluminescence depends on the irradiation dose. There
has been a suggestion that peak 2 comes from the hydrogen-bonded network within ice, whereas peak 1 comes from the
individual molecules. This was confirmed by looking at a totally different material that is known to present strong hydrogen
bonds, which showed a similar glow in the peak 2 region, but nothing in peak 1.
Rey then investigated what would happen when he dissolved some chemicals in the water and diluted it in steps of one
hundred fold with vigorous stirring (as in the preparation of homeopathic remedies), until he reached a concentration of 10
to the power -30 g per centilitre, and compare that to the control that has not had any chemical dissolved in it and diluted
in the same way.
The samples were frozen and activated with irradiation as usual.
Much to his surprise, when lithium chloride, LiCl, a chemical that would be expected to break hydrogen bonds between
water molecules was added, and then diluted away, the thermoluminescent glow became reduced, but the reduction of
peak 2 was greater relative to peak 1. Sodium chloride, NaCl, had the same effect albeit to a lesser degree.
It appears, therefore, that substances like LiCl and NaCl can modify the hydrogen-bonded network of water, and that this
modification remains even when the molecules have been diluted away.
The fact that this memory remains, in spite of, or because of vigorous stirring or shaking at successive dilutions, indicates
that the memory is by no means static, but depends on a dynamic process, perhaps a collective quantum excitation of
water molecules that has a high degree of stability (see "The strangeness of water and homeopathic memory", SiS 15).
Source
Rey L. Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride. Physica A 2003, 323, 67-74.
HYPERLINK http://www.i-sis.org.uk/WaterRemembers.php
Brian Josephson and Jrme Benveniste

BenvenisteCorrespondenceedited v12 18JUNE2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BenvenisteCorrespondenceedited v12 18JUNE2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The American Physical Society and Jacques Benvenistes Experiment

On Electromagnetically Activated Water and the Puzzle of the Biological Signal

Opening the archive of the E-mail correspondence (1999-2004)

Brian Josephson* and Jrme Benveniste**

In the Benveniste page on Wikipedia ( HYPERLINK

Jacques Benveniste wrote to Brian Josephson, on 23 April 1999 15:43:36 BST:

Now I believe he engineered the whole thing so as to definitely kill

Jacques Benveniste was against Randis idea of a publicly disseminated protocole.

Horizon needed to have their own magician on board...

Date: 5 April 1999 15:29:40 BST

Date: 6 April 1999 18:04:09 BST

Brian Josephson further suggests the claims be tested

Date: 18 April 1999 21:44:48 BST

Date: 19 April 1999 19:07:13 BST

Date: 21 April 1999 15:43:04 BST

More discussion of details

Date: 21 April 1999 18:37:32 BST

How much evidence is needed, details of fanatics

Date: 23 April 1999 15:43:36 BST

Problem of variability, does not like news spreading to Time

Date: 23 April 1999 15:45:58 BST

Date: 24 April 1999 11:39:00 BST

Date: 24 April 1999 12:32:24 BST

Date: 24 April 1999 18:37:17 BST

Date: 25 April 1999 17:21:53 BST

I emphasise need for good statistics

Date: 26 April 1999 12:33:54 BST

I suggest we need to give J. time to sort out variability problem

Date: 27 April 1999 15:41:07 BST

Date: 4 May 1999 02:07:00 BST

Date: May 3, 1999 05/03/99 12:27PM

Date: 4 May 1999 12:59:09 BST

Attempt to reconcile, hope they can get together in ABQ

Date: 12 May 1999 22:54:07 BST

Date: 17 May 1999 06:52:05 BST

Date: 17 May 1999 09:18:06 BST

Date: 17 May 1999 12:27:36 BST

Jokes about 'double-blind'

Date: 17/05/1999 12:02 +0100

Date: 17 May 1999 18:38:58 BST

Truzzi tries to calm J. down

Date: 18 May 1999 16:03:32 BST

I ask, why the fuss?

Date: 19 May 1999 12:26:39 BST

Date: 19 May 1999 21:38:58 BST

Date: 20 May 1999 13:29:01 BST

Date: 20 May 1999 19:36:23 BST

Date: 20 May 1999 20:27:59 BST

Date: 14 June 1999 11:53:22 BST

This seems to be discussion of some document by Randi

Date: 25 June 1999 15:49:33 BST

Date: 2 July 1999 14:28:38 BST

Date: 2 July 1999 16:24:50 BST

Date: 2 and 4 July 1999 16:55:18 BST

Two typical rants from Randi

Date: 15 July 1999 20:19:10 BST

Reports success at Columbia

Date: 16 July 1999 12:29:16 BST

Date: 16 July 1999 18:45:03 BST

Report success to one and all

Date: 17 July 1999 09:14:11 BST

Sheffield has got involved but can't do anything for months

Date: 17 July 1999 11:24:37 BST