Posted by: Kash Farooq | October 24, 2010

Weird Homeopathy – Neptunium muriaticum

Homeopathic neptunium, or “Much Ado About Placebo”

A guest post by Rob Hinkley.

Traces of neptunium have been found in uranium minerals like this sample

Traces of neptunium have been found in uranium minerals like this sample.

Homeopathic neptunium chloride, or “neptunium muriaticum” as the homeopaths’ alternative naming scheme calls it, can be bought from Helios pharmacy. Like any good homeopathic remedy it has been “proved”*, and The Homeopathic Proving Of Neptunium Muriaticum is available for download as a smart looking PDF. It starts encouragingly with the authors telling us they made every effort to be rigorous and achieve scientific validity:

We, therefore, chose to use the remarkably complete and detailed method given by J. Sherr to study the remedy which is the subject of this proving. As we are required to observe the criteria which give this type of study scientific validity, in particular the double blind principle and the use of placebo along with the active product, we also thought it desirable to try, insofar as possible, to attain a degree of compatibility with tests used by the pharmaceutical industry. Perhaps this type of approach will make it possible to bridge the gap between these two seemingly irreconcilable worlds.

So far so good. 20 people were recruited, of whom 5 took placebo pills and 15 a homeopathic preparation of neptunium chloride. 5 of them received a “7C” dilution which would still contain molecules of the active ingredient. The authors devote sections 1, 2 and 3 of the proving to telling us correctly that neptunium is an artificial radioactive metal closely related to plutonium and of unknown toxicity. We can only hope they’d closely thought through the implications – and had an ethical review conducted – of dispensing it to 5 test subjects who hadn’t been told what they were being given. They don’t tell us they did this, but we can hope.

Oddly for an effort to be rigorous and achieve scientific validity we then have 3 whole pages telling us about the mythological and astrological properties of Neptune. This is relevant because neptunium, the element being rigorously tested, was named after the planet Neptune, which in turn was named after the ancient god. And how better to determine the medical effects a radioactive metal is likely to have on patients than Greek and Roman myths and the duration of the Age of Pisces? I assure you I am not making this up.

The bulk of the document of course consists of the symptoms reported by the participants (or some of them, more on that later). Every itch, pain, odd dream or noteworthy bout of gas which together somehow enable homeopaths to decide which afflictions this remedy can treat. After the authors pull this data together they conclude:

As was the case with Plutonium, Neptunium seems to be a faithful homeopathic reflection of the mythological god and of the astrological symbol.

Which seems, to be charitable… odd. Any association between neptunium and the mythological / astrological Neptune is solely down to an accident of what name the element was given. If instead of calling it “neptunium” the chemists had named if “venusium” after the planet Venus it would have had totally different mythical and astrological associations. If it had instead been named “newtonium” in honour of Isaac Newton it would lack any such association. If by some calamity it had been named “formbium” after George Formby it might have some lamentable pop culture associations with banjos and cheeky-chappy music hall comedy. Regardless, it would be the same thing, with the same effects on people.

The Placebo Question

I said that the experiences of only some of the participants are given in detail. The people who took the placebo, well… I’ll let the authors explain from page 14:

Our first surprise on reading the proving notebooks was to note that not only did most of the people receiving placebo manifest symptoms, but also that these symptoms were similar to those experienced by the provers who received the active product. Admittedly, overall they manifested with less intensity and were less richly detailed, especially as regards the mental sphere. In addition, they appeared almost immediately after the doses were taken and had a tendency to disappear more quickly. However, the fact remains that the provers who received the placebo unquestionably expressed the proving symptoms of the remedy …

One might almost consider this consistent with the placebo and active pills being the same, and that both had no real effect. But the authors are made of stronger stuff and give no hint that this thought ever crossed their minds. Instead they suggest that the effect of the active pills somehow leaked out of their bottles, travelled through the intervening space and the walls of the placebos’ containers and somehow imbued the placebo with whatever property the active pills have. Really. Taking up where we left them before:

… consequently, a question arises concerning the transmission of information from a dose tube imbued with an active substance to another that does not contain the active substance. In the absence of an answer, we will simply relate the facts: following a double error with packaging and shipping, the laboratory that manufactured the remedies placed the 120 doses in the same package, without separating the placebo from the active product. In addition, an error in the address on the package caused it to be sent back to the shipper before finally being sent to the recipient. Thus, the placebo doses and those containing the active product were in contact with one another for upwards of ten days. Aware of the error that had already been made, we did not try to store them separately before sending them onto the provers, which meant they were in contact with one another for another week.

Hats off. To explain an apparent failure of one kind of magic they have hypothesised a whole new kind of magic and set William of Ockham spinning in his grave. But why are the experiences of the placebo-takers not included in the report? Again, I’ll let the authors explain:

However, in the interests of scientific rigor, we did not include in the following list the symptoms experienced by the provers who received placebo.

Right. Because excluding all the details of one of the surprising observations you made is almost the definition of “scientific rigour”.

This claimed ability of homeopathic remedies to somehow transmit themselves through space into their neighbours could have implications beyond the placebos having the same effect as the real homeopathic neptunium pills. Some homeopathic pharmacies sell travel or first aid kits in which several remedies are close together. Homeopathic remedies are also often stored close to one another on pharmacy shelves. If they can reach out and alter their neighbours then the possibility of cross-contamination arises. Will the Nux Vom interfere with the Nat Mur which in turn is infusing its homeopathy rays into a nearby Belladonna? This could cause chaos.

I will leave the last words to the authors, describing the people likely to derive most benefit from the medicine tested in this rigorous and scientifically valid study:

Neptunium muriaticum will be particularly suitable for persons who evade reality and take refuge in illusion

* That’s “proved” in the homeopaths’ alternative naming scheme, which does not mean that anything’s actually been proved in the normally accepted sense of the word.

Rob Hinkley writes software for a living and sometimes looks at pseudoscience for fun and a sinking feeling of sick despair. He very occaisonally posts stuff at semiskimmed dot net.


  1. Superb blog post!

    The mind boggles. I’m not sure what’s worse; that these folk are so stupid that they believe what they’re writing, or that they’re so dishonest the make up such bullshit to sell sugar pill to stupid people.

  2. You’re right, the “proving” is an absolute hoot. One of the authors describes himself as “Astrologer and researcher in homeopathy” – well, his idiocy is fully potentized! These people are so unaware that they don’t realise how pathetic that looks.

    I like the way that for scientific rigour they ignored the placebo results, but never seemed to consider producing a new set of their bottles of water without the contamination.

    And they write “… following a double error with packaging and shipping …”. For heaven’s sake, these clowns can’t even write addresses and stick on stamps properly! And they are allowed to get near sick people? Whoa!!!

    Applying their “homeopathic magic transmitted through glass” philosophy, if you go to a homeopathic pharmacy and the constipation remedies are stored next to the diarrhoea remedies, the effect on you is a complete lottery, as you don’t know what type of water you’re getting. Oh no, the danger!

  3. I am the author of the Neptunium muriaticum proving and found your site by chance. I could rapidly understand that your goal is deny what you don’t know or understand. You are acting as barbarians do: first mocking what seems odd to you, then looking at your mates and laughing loudly.

    Now my answers:

    1) I have made the comparison between the results of the proving and the mythology AFTER the proving was done. I just noticed that, if you read carefully the proving, a relationship can be made between the name of the substance and this of the mythological god. It’s a simple fact that any honest person can state.
    You can say: “and what if another name would have been given to this radioactive metal?” but it won’t change this fact.
    This name was given to the new discovered metal, not another one, and the proving results are these I transcribed, not others. Sorry, facts are sometimes annoying.
    There is a French proverb: “if my aunt would have balls, it would be my uncle”. Clear, isn’t it?

    2) Placebo: what we noticed objectively was that the placebo symptoms and the symptoms brought by potentized granules were alike, not exactly the same (please read carefully what I wrote). I just gave a possible explanation of this phenomenon, not a demonstration because I don’t know the reason.
    But one thing is clear: the information seemed to be transferred from potentized granules to blank granules (placebo), not to granules impregnated with another diluted substance. So your comparison with the bottles contained in a first-aid box is not valid.

    My proving was made in 1999 and published in 2003, 8 years ago. Since that time some clinical cases were published by homeopaths in the homeopathic literature worldwide. This means that some patients were cured thanks to this particular remedy and the work done by the 30 people or so who participated to the proving.

    So you can laugh further loudly, it won’t change anything. But my job changed the life of the persons who were cured by the remedy, and the life of these who will be cured by it in the future.

    Didier Lustig

    • There’s another gem here: ” the information seemed to be transferred from potentized granules to blank granules (placebo), not to granules impregnated with another diluted substance. So your comparison with the bottles contained in a first-aid box is not valid.”

      I guess they were not the best placebos for the job, then. In future work you should use granules potentized with homeopathically diluted nothing, some particular thing which has been shown to to have no effect on human health (or plants/animals/lice etc), but which can block the transfer of information from other granules. Good luck finding such a substance though, since it seems from what I’ve read that every possible form of ‘nothing’ can be ‘proven’ to have some useful effect using the procedures followed by homeopaths.

      Another application for homeopathically potentized ‘nothing’: it could be used at the ends of homeopathy racks, or in packing materials, as a barrier to prevent accidental information transfer.

  4. Didier, a simple question for you:

    If you think your “experiment” was compromised by the Neptunium pills transmitting their magic powers to the placebo pills through magic-power-transferring waves, then why didn’t you repeat the experiment using a fresh batch of placebo pills?

    • This kind of test has already be done by teams In the US ans Europe. I just want no notify that I’m not the first one who conducts homeopathic provings in the world. Just type “homeopathic proving” on the Net!

      • That is the fallacy known as “begging the question”. The issue is ont whether others conduct provings, but whether the proving process as documented by you has any objective merit whatsoever.

        And no, it has no objective merit. It is risible.

  5. Why include a ‘Placebo’ arm to the proving if you then exclude the results?

    If you thought that the test reagents had been compromised, wouldn’t it have been more sensible (not to mention scientific) to have repeated the proving with new and presumably unaffected samples?

    Even your statement that because clinical cases have been published in homeopathic literature this ‘proves’ that the therapy has cured any patient is placing anecdote above evidence.

    Is it any wonder that homeopaths are accused of merely aping science, rather than practicing it?

  6. Whilst there is no doubt that the omission of the placebo is odd, I’m more interested in the apparent ability of the properties of this remedy to be transfered from place to place – could this be evidence of teleportation on a homeopathic scale?

    Now, my high energy spatio-temperal particle physics is a bit rusty, but is it possible the succussion process caused some sort of inverted anti-graviton ripple within the remedy that transferred the properties of the remedy via some sort of tachyon-quantum cascade?

    Can any career phyicians comment?

  7. Dear Mr Lustig,
    I can assure you I am not mocking what seems odd to me because I do not know or understand it. I am commenting – with a hint of mockery – on something which seems perfectly silly to me. The more I learn of homeopathy, and the better I understand the claims made for it, the sillier and more baseless it appears.

    I wish you success in your future homeopathic and astrological researches.

    • Dear Mister Hinkley,

      I respect your opinion, but just can regret that you didn’t experience homeopathy by yourself. I didn’t come to homeopathy by conviction, but by personal experience: it cured me several times, and particularly cured a bad autoimmune disease for which the official medicine was inefficient.
      I kindly advise you to listen to Nobel Prize Pr Luc Montagnier (HIV discoverer), who said a few years ago at a seminar in Italy about Benveniste’s works: “the problem with the majority of scientists is that say that what they don’t understand does not exist”. Who could claim Pr. Montagnier is not a scientist?
      Life taught me modesty, I know I can’t know everything but I can recognize obvious facts. Homeopathy has always been a medicine of experience, not resulting from a theoritical reasonment. It doesn’t obey to statistics because it is a medicine of the individual, not of masses, it is a question of point of view. Whatever you may think, homeopathy is a reality with plenty of unanswered questions, but still a reality.

      Thank you for your wishes, be sure I will continue my research both in homeopathy and astrology.

      • I’m curious why you assume that I haven’t personally experienced homeopathy.

      • In this case, you certainly had an unsatisfactory experience, and this is not because of homeopathy, but of the homeopath who treated you, or even because of a possible bad faith from your side… Homeoptahy is not a science, but a medicine.

        More generally, I’m astonished by the narrow-mindedness of the contributors to this blog and the violence of the tone used. There is not only a total ignorance of the subject, it’s bases, practice and results, but an evident incapacity to imagine a different way of thinking and acting in relation to a pure rationalist point a view. I call this obscurantism.

      • “[unsatisfactory experience] is not because of homeopathy, but of the homeopath who treated you, or even because of a possible bad faith from your side”
        Bravo, Didier. I am impressed by your willingness to blame your fellow properly qualified and appropriately registered practitioners, or the patient himself, for a treatment not working. Do you not concede it might have been that the homeopaths were well-meaning people who sold me pills which couldn’t possibly have done anything because they had nothing in them?

        “Homeoptahy is not a science, but a medicine.”
        It is neither.

      • You are a hopeless case, God bless you.

      • Thanks, Didier. How very holistic of you.

  8. This really indicates, once again, that homeopathy is an information phenomenon, not a chemical phenomenon. Other indications of this are a friend of mine (sorry to be anecdotal) who kindly gave me a homeopathic remedy for something and then said that if I ran out, I was to write the name of the remedy on a piece of paper and stand a glass of water on it for some time, and then the properties of the remedy would be transferred to the water.

    As an information phenomenon, homeopathy works well I think. There is of course one other name for information-based medicine, and that is placebo. I’ve often wondered what would happen if one were to harness the placebo effect by creating a set of remedies which were honestly described as placebo, but using different words so that one’s subconscious was fooled into believing there was medicine and so invoking the body’s many natural healing mechanisms. Well, as soon as I heard the glass of water story I realised it had been done already. The fact that the authors of this paper were so quick to invoke novel information-based explanations for their observations, is wholly consistent with this.

    To that one can add the rather baffling response above to the skeptics’ bafflement about the naming of the element (“if my aunt had balls it [sic] would be my uncle”). Since homeopathy is wholly, and only, an information phenomenon and not a chemical one, the naming of the element by some scientist, being information, is a valid part of the whole process. No wonder we skeptics “just don’t get it”.


  10. I was just reacquainting myself with the proving PDF…

    The dichotomy between the phrases:

    “we also thought it desirable to try, insofar as possible, to attain a degree of compatibility with tests used by the pharmaceutical industry.”


    “I was told that the solution in question was from a French source and was of “medium concentration” as regards the proportion of neptunium and hydrochloric acid.”

    – would be absolutely hilarious if we weren’t talking about a radioactive compound with a half-life (for Np-237) of over 2 million years. Medium concentration anyone?

    How did you dispose of the excess lower potency preparations, Mr Lustig?

    • Deart Sir, I don’t see any kind of dichotomy:
      – we tried to have a certain comptability with the pharmaceutical trials by using placebo and double blind test
      – the medium concentration of Np 237 is about the material used : it was a solution of neptunium chloride and the concentration of neptunium was average (I can’t be more precise) , but still very radioactive. The dilutions up to 6C were made in the lab of nuclear physics, not in my kitchen.

      • Mr Lustig,

        The astounding lack of precision in your phrase “the concentration of neptunium was average” is cause for concern. What is average concentration? 1µM? 1mM? 1M?

        What is “very radioactive”? Np-237 (the dominant isotope, as I am sure you are aware) has a specific activity of 0.00071 Ci/g. 4.2ml of a 1M solution would contain about a gram of Np-237. That’s (0.00071x(3.7e10)) ~ 26million disintegrations per second.

        The Lifetime Cancer Mortality Risk factor for 1pCi of Np 237 is 5.8e-11 for ingestion (

        Your 1g of Np-237 (*if* that’s what you started with, it might have been more, might have been less. YOU DON’T KNOW!) might have contained enough Np-237 to increase that risk to (0.00071/1e-12 x 5.8e-11) = 0.04.
        A 1 in 25 chance of developing a fatal cancer. That is NOT an acceptable risk, by any stretch of the imagination.

        The dilutions involved (10e-12, basically) in the proving do mitigate some of these effects, but you are putting peoples lives at risk due to your ignorance here. These ‘provers’ should be grateful you are a homeopath and not a naturopath.

        The fact that you have not measured and quantified these is a massive cause for concern, and COMPLETELY AT ODDS (hence dichotomy) with the endless form filling, fact checking and precision required by both the pharmaceutical and nuclear industries.

        From what you describe, I suspect that you have breached multiple French national and international safety regulations pertaining to the handling of radioactive materials.

      • … and I’ve not even mentioned the possibility that the Np-237, produced in a nuclear reactor, has trace contaminants of various isotopes which have a much much higher specific activity, and are much much more dangerous.

      • Not responding to the suggestion that you may have broken law pertaining to the handling of nuclear materials, but happy to trade platitudes regarding homeopathy? Priorities?

  11. “If my aunt had balls he would be my uncle.” I actually spat out my coffee I was laughing so much…

  12. […] Além disso, muitas vezes denominam como científico testes que claramente não o são. Veja-se, por exemplo, este caso. […]

  13. You know what else? It seems to me the entire issue of the former-Nobel-winning research (hi, Dana!) and the quantum woo and nanoboobules or klutzrates or cubic iceboxes or water memory or whatever is just utterly moot. Even if we posit there is such stuff in the universe, it won’t matter a thing until you have a way to actually have A SINGLE DAMN CLUE what is going on so you can apply it. Hint: you have to do real science.

    This computer contains millions of transistors which are designed around quantum-level effects. The reason it’s a working computer, is not just because there’s ‘quantum stuff’ arranged in it, and engineers believe it works, but because countless hours of diligent research were spent on REAL research experimenting, measuring and quantifying the effects of different transistor designs so that the detailed behaviour is sufficiently well known to be applied and controlled in manufacturable devices.
    By contrast, here we have a homeopath, intending also to advance understanding, but making up ideas about ‘information transfer’, and limiting the effect of this hypothetical as convenient to his needs, and basically discarding his own negative results on the basis of that, and calling it a day’s work? It’s like I called up Fedex and asked why a package was not delivered, and they said “Well, we have a theory that entire packages sometimes quantum-jump to other planets. Yup. Or something. I’m sorry if you don’t understand quantum stuff. Too bad, stop bugging me, I’m late for lunch”.

    I suppose there are those would argue I’m wrong; that their woo is so hot that you don’t need to understand it, it can apply itself automatically and specifically, based on the homeopath simply transferring his good vibes as he happily hands you an invoice. Umm, maybe you could get a job teaching at Hogwarts if you believe that.

    If engineering was done like homeopathy, aircraft would be horse-drawn carriages with wooden wings on them, and ‘flight attendants’ telling you the whole time about what a lovely day it was for flying, and please fasten your seatbelt until we reach altitude. Care for an in-flight magazine? No, the ground is thousands of feet away, you wouldn’t understand. Did I mention we’ve never had any engine failures?

  14. To quote Pauli, this is ‘not even wrong’.
    I actually found it very amusing. That last sentence to top it all off made me laugh out loud.
    And then the comment of Didier Lustig to a non-believer: ‘you are a hopeless case’.
    I stop laughing though when I consider the money and health wasted by ill people that need a real treatment that works and that fall prey to this kind of medieval nonsense.

  15. For those interested in real science I suggest looking into the work of Dr. Rustum Roy, materials scientist at University of Pennsylvania, Dr. William Tiller, materials scientist and Prof. emeritus at Stanford University, and also the work of bioengineer Dr. Gerald Pollack at University of Washington.

    • christina

      Can you summarise what they say about homeopathy?

  16. As a chemist I would like to point somethings out.

    Many metals will absorb onto the surface of glass vials. The problem becomes an issue when the chemical concentration becomes low then the ion exchange sites on the surface of the glass are able to absorb (or release) metal ions.

    While neptunium(V) will not be likely to bind with the same vigor as plutonium(IV) this effect might still have had an effect.

    The neptunium may have vanished from the water at a much more early stage than the homopaths thought it did.

    Also what about the metals from the surface of the glass. One of the people I used to work with once put superpure nitric acid in a brand new volumetric flask, he left it overnight and in the morning by ICPMS he detected far higher than just a homopathic concentration of uranium.

    Perhapes in future the homopaths should use polyethene bottles which have been washed many times with superpure nitric acid (1 M), Normally when I am doing ICPOES (ppm) and ICPMS (ppb) I only wash plastic bottles five times but I am not sure for this supertrace work how many times they should wash out their bottles with acid.

    While I do not normally wash out the small 17 and 50 ml ICP vials with acid I know for supertrace work you should wash them yourself before use.

    Also perhapes they should consider adding some metal binding agent such as citrate / citric acid (lemon juice) to make sure that their metals remain in solution rather than absorbing onto every surface. Maybe the binding of the metal to citrate might stop the water forming a memory of the solute.

    • With plastic containers, you will get problems with plasticizers etc leaching into the solution. I observe these comopunds with a mass spectrometer in virtually all samples that I handle, they are ubiqitous. I think Homeopaths should realize that you cannot accurately make and store such dilute solutions and expect them to remain ‘pure’ water.

  17. I have a background in scientific research, – and I love to read a well executed homeopathic proving. It is great for homeopathy that J. Sherr’s proving method is more used nowadays. The best provings however are those who meet the requirements for qualitative research.

    Still, homeopathy is not accepted by scientists and will never be because scientists dogmatically reject any proves of homeopathic effects, even when these effects have been obtained by obeying scientific protocols AND can be explained by nanoscale structures. (Look it up, and then check out the meaning of the word dogmatically – it does not by any means benefit true science).

    So tell me, why should homeopathy follow rigorous scientific quantitative methods as long as the provings are governed by a protocol which serves it’s purpose? (Although I do agree that the proving of Neptunium Mur should have included the placebo results. There was no need to exclude these).

    Many provings of new interesting substances have been performed during the past decade, but little is known for clinical use. When I come across a good proving of an interesting substance, I will collect every single bit of information about the substance and sometimes this will include name related mythology and other “weird” stuff. Nowadays I’m looking into butterflies and moth remedies, and I read everything I find about the particular insect’s physical biology, habitat, habits, life, and I collect information about it’s feeding plants and their chemical properties. Even the insect’s scientific names are examined by mythology. This is “structural information” to me and it may give additional clues to the potential use of the remedy, – and I learn a lot on the way.

    I read the proving of Neptunium Mur about a year ago, and based on the prover’s information I came to a different conclusion than the authors about the use of this remedy. I identified areas of interest related to my own background in a particular field and I suspect their conclusion was based too much on the referred mythology .. which of course indicates that homeopathic provings still have a way to go before they will obtain a good enough standard – for the use in homeopathy. Not science.

    • So, Vilde, what makes a “well executed homeopathic proving”?

      • Thank you Vilde for your support on this forum! To tell the truth, I often felt very alone here.
        Just a detail: the placebo symptoms (= symptoms reported by placebo provers) were NOT included in the proving, but I kept them apart. What happened was that the verum information passed on the placebo, due to the fact that all doses (verum + placebo) were contained in the same box but arranged separately. This is a fact many proving directors experienced at that time!
        Concerning the conclusion I drew form the proving, I fully understand that you could have another understanding of the remedy and that is fine (I would be very interested to know it), since just the symptoms reported by the provers really count.
        As you may imagine, I am a friend of Jeremy Sherr who taught me how to make hahnemannian provings (I made the translation of his book “Dynamics and Methodology of homeopathic provings” into French).
        DIdier Lustig, Paris

      • Even if you consider homeopathy and proving to be absurd and nonsense – which is why you are here in the first place – the subject of a proving would still make an interesting qualitative research proposal let’s say for a thesis in social/ human science. (Yes, it would). I like reading a proving which meets the requirements of qualitative research methods. (Very few do). A good design would prevent a faulty analysis of the data material (valid EVEN if the subject is a proving – check out qualitative research methods).

        In addition, the substance should be unknown to the provers, it should ideally also be unknown to the master prover, the sample of provers should be larger than a handful of people and if possible, some of the provers should be new to proving and homeopathy. This is of course because I believe that homeopathy is more than just water, or sugar (or hokum). Anyway, the standard here is the usefulness for homeopathy, not science.

      • Didier, I really appreciate the work you and your colleges have done. The great thing about a proving like this one is that everyone, even a “lay” person like myself have access to it and may read it and see if the remedy is of interest. What striked me the most when I read the proving of Neptunium Mur was what appeared to me to be a clear theme of anxious versus secure attachment feelings, dreams and behaviors reported from several of the provers (probably related to the mur /chlor anion).

        I read “want of secure attachment” into the provers descriptions. This was my interpretation of the report. The descriptions are in many ways close to Bowlbys Attachment Theory which is the dominant theory today in the study of infant/ toddler behavior and in the fields of infant and child mental health and treatment.

        An anxious attachment in the early years may result in an emotional split and lack of integration which in these individuals will show as a particular vagueness and confusion. It will also result in fear of exploring the world and may be related to the theme of flow (=safety) and blocks which were also reported. It would be interesting to know what your experiences so far have revealed about Nept Mur.


%d bloggers like this: