DO SKEPTICS DENY SCIENCE?

Thanks to Journal commentator Guy Chapman, we have evidence for answering that question.
Guy posted a link to an article about water bridges in response to my blog about the same. I showed the eerie demo of a water bridge and the amazing structuring capabilities of water.
Those who are opposed to homeopathy for political reasons have been forced to fight the idea that water structures, as it shows a kind of memory, which leads to a theory for homeopathy.
Like the proverbial camel. Sticking his nose in the tent.
Guy says physorg “explains some of it,” How a water bridge works, that is.
The phsyorg article states, “Much research has been done to uncover the structure of water beyond the H2O scale, which is thought to be responsible for many of water’s unique properties. However, the nature of this structure, governed by hydrogen bonds, is currently unknown.”
This is an interesting statement. It admits a structure to water it says is what give it its unique properties, but in view of a contiguous order such as the water bridge, “the nature this structure unknown.” which is not entirely true.
As you must know, much of the criticism of homeopathy centers on the belief that water can’t structure due to the weak and femto-second range of the hydrogen bond, the only intermolecular force recognized by the pseudoscientists when other forces describe a dynamic aqueous field.
The impossibility of liquid aqueous structuring is contradicted by what anyone can see in the form of surface tension and bubbles, clathrates, water clusters, gas hydrates, inclusion molecules and now the water bridge. The geniuses at physorg are even starting to admit it . . sort of. They must sense, if they do not explicitly know it, that there is a large taboo around water studies. It leads diretly to biological implications that can challenge public policies and control of water. Anyone who has studied this subject knows that it is tightly controlled by what poses as “skepticism.” Anyone who steps out of line in this subject will be attacked. The admission of liquid aqueo0us structuring without qualification is taboo. You are not to do it, you will be punished by ridicule and discreditation if you do. If you are a studdent, you will flunk. if you are an academic, you will lose tenure, funding, academic standing,  or you will be ostaracied. No one willpublish your rap.  With few exceptions, which this blog seeks to reveal, nomatter who you are, if you step out of line you will suffer.

Furthmore, the charge is made here is that denial of structuring can be traced directly to the pharmaceutical interests threatened by homeopathy. Allow me to remind everyone that the argument for homeoapthy is the pro side, the argument against it the con.
Chapman next insists, without citation, that experimentation by Nobel prize winning homeopath Luc Montagnier, author of the highly controversial “Electromagnetic Signals (EMS) Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences,” shows that “in Montagnier’s experiment the effect is extremely short-lived.”

This is the typical vague statement of  the pseudoscience which drives denialism. 
What Montagnier actually says in his EMS DNA study is “It is known from the very early X-ray diffraction studies of DNA, that water molecules are tightly associated with the double helix, and any beginner in molecular biology knows that DNA in water solution forms gels associating a larger number of water molecules.

“Moreover, a number of physical studies have reported that water molecules can form long polymers of dipoles associated by hydrogen bonds (Ruan et al., 2004; Wernet et al., 2004).
However these associations appear to be very shortlived (Cowan et al., 2005). Could they live longer, being self-maintained by the electromagnetic radiations they are emitting as previously postulated by Del Guidice, Preparata and Vitielo (1988)?
“We have studied the decay with time of the capacity of dilutions for emitting EMS, after they have been removed (in mumetal boxes) from exposure to the excitation by the background. This capacity lasts at least several hours, some time up to 48 hours, indicating the relative stability of the nanostructures.”

This is very difficult for the anti-homeopathy crowd to respond to, for Montagnier, in using Benveniste’s patented system of EMS detection, measurement and filtration of liquid aqueous structuring, is clearly identying the electromagnetic and structural indices for the homeopathic remedy. Yet here we are, taking commentary from those who would try to explain it away . .

 Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

Advertisements

12 comments on “DO SKEPTICS DENY SCIENCE?

  1. Kaviraj says:

    Hey Jeff, John dropped some names of modern researechers, but this controversy has been existent since the beginning. As to testing outside of the human realm, to prove that it works, I shall give you a little list, from the begging of the last century to today. In the face of such overwhelming evidence – nothing anecdotal, but scientific – I think you have to either concede or if not, then the obvious conclusion is that you are a paid shill. Your goal is to always distract from the science and become the sleek bookkeeper, who stares himself blind on the numbers and therefore misses the science. That is because you have not learned to think for yourself, as a good education tends to do, or at best you are the product of a diploma mill and would fail if you sought work with me. You know not 10% of the science and so you like all the others fail to understand what you are dealing with.

    So here that list, to satisfy your hunger for numbers. 50 studies to prove your wrong on all counts.

    1. 1902 P.Jousset investigated the effects of silver nitrate up to 25c on mycelium. He found significant results in their weights, finding that the silver
    nitrate stunted growth. (reported by Gabriel Bertrand) “The
    Extraordinary Sensitiveness of Aspergillus
    Niger to Manganese.” Comptes Rendus Academie des Science; 154, 616, 1912
    2. 1906 Boericke and Tafel made an unusual observation of the emanations from a high dilute of radium bromide (30c), to photograph a picture of the outline of a
    key. (Tafel’s Jottings, 1906.)
    3. 1928 JUNKER, Hermann The Effect of Extreme DIlutions on Microorganisms Phluger’s Archiv fur die Gesamte Physiologie, 219, pp 647-672, 1928
    4. 1923 Lilli Kolisko, Physical and Physiological Demonastration of the Effect of the Smallest Entities. Der Kommende Tag, A-G Verlag,
    Stuttgart, 1923 pp. 1-10

    5. 1923 N.P. Krawkow- Demonstrated 15c histamine increased the blood flow in isolated rabbit ears 25% and using 12c microdoses of adrenaline,
    strychnine, histamine and quinine was able to affect the change of
    pigmentation in the isolated skins of frogs. Controls were used. “Beyond
    the Boundary of Sensibility of Living Protoplasm” Zeitschrift fur die
    Gesamte Experimntalle Medizin, 34 pp.279-306

    6. 1925 G. Stearns & M. Stark reported the action of microdilutes on fruit fly tumors. In this fascinating study we see that microdilutes actually
    altered the genetics of their subjects. A
    genetically determined tendency to tumor formation ceased to exist after
    the administration of a microdilution of the tumor itself (isopathy).
    Controls were used. Other microdilutes were used to no effect.
    “Experiments with Homeopathic Potentized Substances Given to
    Dropsophilia Melanogaster with Hereditary Tumors”, The Homeopathic
    Recorder, 40.

    7. 1925 G. Stearns tested microdilutions of salt on guinea pigs and demonstrated adverse affects from 30c to 1000c sodium chloride. He noted loss of
    appetite, aversion for bread, loss of weight, their young poorly
    nourished and scrawny, less active, indifferent, hair less glossy,
    rough, untidy, eyes watery, lack luster. And homeopaths brag that their
    “remedies” (which are actually legal drugs) can do no harm! There were
    16 female control animals, and they all became pregnant, whereas only
    31% of the 48 female experimental animals became pregnant. At the end of
    five months over half, 55% of the experimental animals were dead
    compared to only 35% of the control animals “Experimental Data on One of
    the Fundamental Claims in Homeopathy”, The Journal of the American
    Institute of Homeopathy, 18.

    8. 1927 Karl Konig used microdilutes to experiment on frogs and
    fungi. He discovered that by using dilutions of of lead and silver
    nitrate ranging from 1 to 15c he could cause a premature
    metamorphosis in Rana fusca (common frog tadpoles) or kill
    them or the fungus in the water. Once again here we see that
    homeopathic drugs can have negative organic affects. Controls
    were used and the sinusoidal curve that we see in many
    experiments of diverse measures is first noted here. “On the Effect of
    Extremely Diluted (“Homeopathic”) Metal Salt Solutions on the
    Development and Growth of Tadpoles. Zeitschrift fur die Gesamte Experimentalle Medizin, 34, pp. 279-306

    9. 1929 Vladimir Vondracek repeated Konig’s work, and instead
    of lead and silver nitrate used gold chloride and a different
    species of frog. At 12c he also reported a significant increase in
    the mortality of tadpoles, and also obtained a repetition of the
    sinusoidal curve. “The Mortality of Tadpoles in Ultra Solutions”
    Zeitschrift fur die Gesamte Experimentelle Medizin. 66 pp. 533-538

    10. 1932 George Russell Henshaw discovered a method for influencing serum flocculation in rabbits. Using Bryonia alba and Baptista tinctoria he
    showed a reaction in some of his subjects ”A New Method of Determining
    the Indicated Remedy by a Flocculation Test of the Serum The Journal of
    the American Institute of Homeopathy, 25
    11. 1932 Joseph Roy The Experimental Justification of the Homeopathic Dilution, Le Bulletin Medical, 46, pp. 528-531, 1932
    12. 1936 Boyd, Research on Low Potencies of Homeopathy,
    London, Heinemann
    13. 1938
    Pierre Narodetzki, On the Establishment of a Technique for Studying Homeopathic Doses. Thesis. University of
    Paris, 1938
    14. 1930 Persson, WM enzymes, The Principles of Catalysis in Biochemistry and Homeopathy, J Am. Inst. Hom. 23, pp 1055-1089
    15. 1936 Boyd, Research on Low Potencies of Homeopathy,
    London, Heinemann
    16. 1938 Perrson, WM enzymes, Effeats of Very Small Amounts of Medicamentws and Chemicals on Urease, Diastase and Trypsin, Archives Internatales de Pharmodynamie et de Therapie, 46, pp. 249-267
    17. 1941 PATTERSON & BOYD Potency Action – – A Preliminary Study of the Alteration of the Schick Test by a Homeopathic Potency, The British Homeopathic Journal 31, pp. 301-309
    18. 1941 Boyd, W.E. The action of microdoses of mercuric chloride on diastase Br. Hom J 31:1-28
    19. 1941 Heintz used UV spectra conductivity to make measurements and IR analysis of high dilutes.
    Physikalische Wirkungen hochverdunnter potenzierter Substanzen Naturwissenchaften 29:713-25
    20. 1942 Boyd, W.E. The application of a new biologic heart rate recorder to the study of the action on the frog ehart of small doses of Crataegus, DIgitalis, Strophanthus gratus and of traces doses of Strophanthus sarmentosus Br. Hom J 43:11-23
    21. 1946 Boyd, W.E. “An investigation regarding the aciton on diastase of microdoses of mercuric chloride when prepared with and without mechanical shock” Br. Hom J 36:214-23
    22. 1951 J. Jarricot showed that veratrine sulfate 30c could decrease muscle contraction in frogs, and that Iberis amara in dilutions of 18c to
    118c could slow the heart beat of turtles. The work appeared to be well
    controlled. “The Infinitessimals of Homeopathic Physicians Editions des
    Laboratoires P.H.R,.
    Lyon

    23. 1952 Gay-Boiron , galvonmeter, A Study of the Physics of Dynamization, Edition des Laboratories P.H.R.,
    Lyon
    France,
    24. 1953 Gay/Boiron, galvonometer, ) A Physical Demonstration of the Real Existence of the Homeopathic Remedy, Edition des Laboratories P.H.R.,
    Lyon
    France

    25. 1954 Boyd, W.E. enzymes, “Biochemical and biological evidence of the activity of high potencies” British Homeopathic Journal 44:6-44

    26. 1964 Heintz, polarography, Les “maximums”del la Polarographie et la force electromotrice de mouvement C.R. Seances Academy Sience 1962

    27. 1966 Smith & Boericke, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, Modern instrumentaion for the evaluation of homeopathic drug structure, Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy

    28. 1966 Brucato & Stephenson, 50 KV Alternating Current Dielectric Tester, Dielectric strength testing of homeopathic dilutions of HgCl2, Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy

    29. 1968 Smith & Boericke, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, Changes caused by succussion on N.M.R. patterns and bioassay of
    bradykinin triacetate (BKTA) succussion and dilutions, J Am Inst Hom 1968: 61 197-212

    30. 1972 Heintz, electronic measures, La mesure de l’action de dilutions successives a l’aide, Ann Hom Fr 14:275-84

    31. 1975 Young, Nuclear magnetic resonance studies of succussed solutions J Am Inst Hom 68:8-16

    32. 1975 Luu-D-Vinh, Raman-Laser spectroscopy, Etude des dilutions homeopathiques par effet Raman -Laser

    33. 1977 NOIRET and CLAUDE, Enterobacter cloacae, Lysteria monocytogenes, Streptoccocus bovis, Activitie des diverse dilutions homeopathiques de
    Cuprum sulfuricum sur quelques souches microbiennes, Ann Hom Fr 19:91-109

    34. 1979 Kumar and Jussal, surface tension measurements, A hypothesis on the nature of homeopathic potencies, Br Homeopathic Journal 68: 197-204
    35. 1980 Boiron & Luu-D-Vinh, Raman Laser spectroscopy, Etude de l’actionde la chaleur sur les dilutions hahnemanniennes par spectrometrie raman. Ann Hom Fr 22 (2):113-18

    36. 1982 Jussal, Meera, Dua, & Mishra, measured capacitance, resistance and dielectric dispersion, H-ion concentrations, electrode pontetials using
    an LCR bridge, time domain reflectance spectroscopy, digital pH meter,
    and nonpolarising electrodes. Physical effects on the suspending
    medium by compounds asymptotically infinite dilutions, Hahnemannian
    Gleanings, 3: 114-120

    37. 1983 Jussal, Meera, & Dua Dielectric dispersion of weak alcoholic solutions of
    some drugs at high frequencies using Time Domain Spectroscopy Hahnemannian
    Gleanings, 8: 358-36638. 1983 Jenkins & Jones yeast and wheat seedlings, Comparison of wheat and yeast as in vitro models for investigating homeopathic medicines. British Homeopathic Journal, 72, 3: 143-14739. 1983 Sacks, A.D. nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy,
    Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectroscopy of homeopathic remedies J.
    Holist. Med. 5, 2: 172-177

    40. 1988 De Guidice, E. Preparata, G. Vitello, G. Water as a free electric
    dipole laser Phys. Rev. Lett. 61: 1085-1088

    41. 1988 Davenas, E., F. Beauvais, J. Arnara, M. Oberbaum, B. Robinzon, A. Miadonna, A. Tedeschi, B. Pomeranz, P. Fortner, P. Belon, J. Sainte-Laudy, B.
    Poitevin & J. Benveniste (1988) “Human
    basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE”, Nature, 333(6176):816-18. 42. 1990 Weingartner, O. Nuclear magnetic resonance NMR features
    that relate to homeopathic Sulfur potencies
    Berlin, J. Res. Hom. 1,
    1:61-68

    43. 1992 Demangeat, L., Demangeat, C., Gries, P.,Poitevin, B.,
    Constanstinesco,A. Nuclear magnetic resonance. In this study
    vortexed potencies of Silicea in a concentration of 1.66X 10-5
    to 1.66x 10-29 moll Silicea in 0.9% NaCl were investigate by
    means of NMR. Special attention was to the relaxation times
    T1 and T2 of the hydrogen protons Modifications des temps de
    relaxation RMN a 4 MHz des protons du solvant dans les tres hatures diltuions
    salines de silice/lactose
    44. 1994 Shui-Yin Lo, photo microscopy, (see pictures of Ice Electric, or “homeopathic”
    crystals below) In this unusual and controversial experiment, the Lo
    team, according to Dana Ullman, used an still yet unknown technique to
    actually photograph hydrogen bonding in water, revealing the suggestion
    that homeopathic drugs are a type of liquid crystal ”Anomalous State of
    Ice,” Modern Physics Letters B, 10,19(1996):909-919. See also,
    “Physical Properties of Water with IE Structures,” Modern Physics
    Letters B, 10, 19(1996) : 921-930.
    45. 1996 Conte, Berliocchi, Lasgne and Vernot, nuclear magnetic resonance, infrared,
    beta scintillation, In this amazing little book this interdisciplinary
    French team presents the first nuclear theory for homeopathic drugs.
    According to the authors when matters disappears by dilution and is
    potentized by succussion, it leaves the opposite of the well known super
    dense black hole, what the authors call a WHITE HOLE and discuss a new
    atomic particle, the HYPERPROTON. This investigation they believe
    reveals the first model for the drive of animated matter. In this report
    they evidence the emission of Beta radiation from homeopathic drugs.
    Theory of High Dilutions, Polytechnica,
    Paris
    46. 1997 VAN WIJK and WIEGANT, Using a step down arsenite treatment with 100M or
    300M arsenite followed by an incubation of rat liver cells with lower
    concentrations of 1-10M dilutions, cells were shown to exhibit increased
    sensitivities to low concentrations of sodium arsenite. There was an
    additional increase in the synthesis of protector proteins when low
    concentrations of arsenite were applied to arsenite pretreated cells.
    Stimulation of cellular defence of stressed liver cells by
    subharmful doses of toxicants HomInt R&D Newsletter, 1:/1997: 12-14
    Karlsruhe
    47. 1999 Vittorio Elia and Marcella Niccoli, thermography, “Thermodynamics of Extremely
    Diluted Aqueous Solutions,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
    June, 827:241-248.
    48. 2001 Geckeler, Kurt and Samal, Shashadhar at the Kwangju Institute of Science and Technology in South
    Korea discovered fullerenes, football-shaped buckyball molecules, formed
    aggregates in solution, and when diluted, the size of the fullerene
    particles increased. Cyclodextrin molecules behaved the same way. So did
    the organic molecule sodium guanosine monophosphate, DNA and sodium
    chloride. Dilution made molecules cluster five to 10 times bigger than
    those in the original solutions. Growth was not linear, and depended on
    the original concentration. Geckeler and Samal found that the more
    dilute the solution inthebeginning, the larger the aggregates become,
    and only worked in polar solvents like water, in which one end of the
    molecule has a pronounced positive charge while the other end is
    negative. Chemical Communications, 2001, page 2224; there is no volume
    number NewScientist.com http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1532

    49. 2003 Bell I., Lewis D., Brooks A., Lewis S., Schwartz G. Gas Discharge Visualization Evaluation of Ultramolecular Doses of Homeopathic Medicines Under Blinded, Controlled Conditions. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Volume 9, Number 1, 2003, pp. 25-38.

    50. 2004 Belon, P., J. Cumps, M. Ennis, P.F. Mannaioni, M. Roberfroid, J. Sainte-Laudy, & F.A. Wiegant (2004) “Histamine dilutions modulate basophil
    activation”, Inflammation Research, 53(5):181-8.

    Like

  2. jeff garrington says:

    Kavaraj the Rustrom Roy paper has been examined at length, the result is that it seen as poor science, an example below.
    http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/08/hydra-lives-more-on-homeopathy-theres.html
    Let me illustrate that with reference to Rustum Roy’s paper (Rao et al.), which Martin Chaplin, Dana Ullman (apologies for the gender confusion) and Rustum himself all seem keen that I talk about. I’m all too happy to acknowledge Rustum’s credentials. I have the highest respect for his work, and in fact I once attempted to organize a symposium for a Materials Research Society meeting with him on the ethics of that topic (something that was shamefully declined by the MRS, of which I am otherwise a huge fan, on the grounds that it would arouse too much controversy).

    The paper is hard to evaluate on its own – it indicates that the full details will be published elsewhere. They key experimental claim is that the UV-Vis spectra of different remedies (Natrum muriaticum and Nux vomica) are distinguishable not only from one another but also among the different potencies (6C, 12C, 30C) of remedy. That is surprising if, chemically speaking, the solutions are all ‘identical’ mixtures of 95% ethanol in water. But are they? Who knows. There is no way of evaluating that here. There is no analysis of chemical composition – it looks as though the remedies were simply bought from suppliers and not analysed by any other means than those reported. So I find these to be a really odd set of experiments: in effect, someone hands you a collection of bottles without any clear indication of what’s in them, you conduct spectroscopy on them and find that the spectra are different, and then you conclude, without checking further, that the differences cannot be chemical. If indeed these solutions are all nominally identical ethanol solutions that differ only in the way they have been prepared, these findings are hard to explain. But this paper alone does not make that case – it simply asks us to believe it. One does not have to be a resolute sceptic to demand more information.

    There is a troubling issue, however. In searching around to see what else had been written about this special issue, I came across a comment on Paul Wilson’s web site suggesting that the comparisons shown in Figures 1 and 2 are misleading. In short, the comparisons of spectra of Nat mur and Nux vom in Figure 1 are said to be “representative”. Figure 2, meanwhile, shows the range of variation for 10 preparations of each of these two remedies. But the plot for Nat mur in Figure 1 corresponds to the lowest boundary of the range shown in Figure 2, while the plot for Nux vom corresponds to the uppermost boundary. In other words, Figure 1 shows not representative spectra at all, but the two that are the most different out of all 10 samples. I have checked this suggestion for myself, and found it to be true, at least for the 30C samples. I may simply be misunderstanding something here, but if not, it’s hard not to see this aspect of the paper as very misleading, whatever the explanation for it. Why wasn’t it picked up in peer review?

    I’m not going to comment at any length on the hypotheses put forward in Rao et al., because they aren’t in any way directly connected to the experiments, and so there’s simply no support for them at all in the results. I don’t see for a moment, however, either how these hypotheses can be sustained in their own right, or (less still) how they can explain any physiological effects of the remedies.
    Time for some light of venus I think.

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      I’ve read the Philip Ball piece of local skepticism regarding Roy’s spectroscopy. As it has to follow with such thinking, it doesn’t take into account other tests by other investigators, which are numerous, and focus on two aspects of the test, one on the word “representative” and the other whether or not all remedies had the same vehicle, whether or not the water/ethanol came from the same bottle. Anything’s possible, I suppose, but it seems unlikely that Roy et al would go so far as to say that not only could they distinguish the remedy from the vehicle, but one remedy from another without taking into consideration factors that might influence the outcome of the test. Certainly he just have been aware of the intense prejudcie against homeopathy in the scientific community, he refers to it in his paper on the structure of liquid water.
      And I doubt that the base for the remedies came from different bottles.
      I have done some tests on remedies, and I can tell you that as inexpreeinced as I was, I knew skeptics would look for any difference they could find in the remedies, so I always prepared my controls and active samples from the same inert test stock. These are pharmaceutical grade products that are made from standardized solutions, and for commerical products have to follow FDA guidelines.
      I think what Ball is doing is what most commentators do when cornered by one of these studies, which is to be as critical as possible, look for any possible flaw in the study to get it off their desk. I seriously doubt people who think ofthemselves as scientists want to be assoicatied with a positive review of homeoapthy, unless they’re looking to be decommissioned and spend less time in correspondence and on the phone with their “scientific colleagues.” YOu know, its like leprosy in academic circles.
      I’m sure if what prompted the questions that were raised by Ball and others had been answered, they would have found something else ad absurdum.
      In this case Ball states his occupation is as a “writer.” How is that much better than saying he’s a “talker?” ANd why is it that only positive assertions for homeoapthy require peer review?If you demand extraordinary evidence, then how is homeopathy any more deniable than a moon landing? Maybe that was a hoax too. There have been more people reporting on the pre-clincials for homeopathy than there are for men who walked onthemoon, but I don’t hear you crying aboput that, claing it was studio shoot in fornt of aa green screen.
      Ball doesn’t offer any particular credentials, references or standards for evaluating tests of this kind, when in fact such scoring standards exist and people with better credentials could easily evaluate the test, such as Professor Schaffer of the University of Cincinatti, who conducted a stuy with Moscow State University to study the presence of aqueous struturing (clathrates) in alcohol water mixes. To be fair, why aren’t those called into question? And why couldn’t Ball simply pick up the phone and call Roy, or Chaplin fo that matter, who was friends with Roy. Or why not ask Rao?
      The dichotomy that every homeoapthic critic stumbles upon is the duality of his claim. According to James Randi in exhaustive correspondence with me over a test for his Million Dollar Challenge, it would be enough to simply distingusih the remedy from the vehicle to prove the validity of homeopathy. When I contacted Roy, he encouraged me to use his methods for Randi’s challenge, which was simply to make a binary identification.
      The interpretation made by you, Jeff, is totally unqualified, as have most if not all of your comments been. You say it is poor science. Where does Ball say its poor science? That’s poor reporting.
      If that’s poor science, then what kin of science was it that passed drugs like Lariam, Celbrex or any other number of other patent drugs that have produced egregious side effects, including death? SHould we compare homeopathic drug testing to those drugs?
      The question in physical studies is a simple one: Can you tell the remedy from the base solution from which it was made. Numerous trials have shown that it can.
      Thisis why you’re no longer a credible commentator, Jeff, and a waste of time. We always know what your comments are going to be. There will always be the perception of a flaw in any study that reports on the action of the homeopathic remedy as being intrinsic. Of course you can never know for sure, because you”ll never do as Roy or Benveniste did, which was to use your science to put it to the test, what ever the consequences may be. Neither Roy or Benveniste had anything to lose by finding negative results. Many people who began as harsh critics of homeoapthy, like Benveniste, had to drop those criticisms when they saw it work. Roy is an example of this. As the dean of the American mateiral sciences he had little to gain and much to lose by not being vituperative of homeopathy.
      It has been the same with Hoover, Bell, Schwartz, Montagnier, Josephson, Elia, Anagnostatos, Jonas, Conte, Ennis et al. . all non-homeopaths who have conducted physical tests of homeoapthy and recorded differences between homeapthic solutions and their base.
      It’s easy to sit back in your chair and say it doesn’t work. Any one of the people i’ve named could have doen nothing and said the same, and they would have been blandly nodded at by their colleagues.
      I could have walked away from this at any time and have been much less the worse for wear for it. But i think what drives them is what drives me, a huge body of growing literature on the subject that contradicts what arnchair scientists like yourself so easily say can’t be so.
      You say its poor sceince, but you haven’t said what science is. I just got off the phone with a 76 year old man in Canada who uses homeoapthy and makes an interesting point: He said it used to be medical science was weighed in three categories, listed in order of importance: The observations of the patient, the observations of the doctor, and the results of testing, the latter understandably being the least.
      But obviously in the minds of the skeptics, the first two are of no consideration and the latter will always have aflaw when it omes to homeopathy.

      Like

  3. Kaviraj says:

    And here is another about the structure of water.

    Like

  4. Kaviraj says:

    The memory of water, the proof.

    The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy.
    Rao ML, Roy R, Bell IR, Hoover R.
    The Materials Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA. mur21@psu.edu
    Erratum in:
    Homeopathy. 2007 Oct;96(4):292.
    Comment in:
    Homeopathy. 2008 Jan;97(1):44-5; author reply 45-6.
    Abstract
    The key stumbling block to serious consideration of homeopathy is the presumed “implausibility” of biological activity for homeopathic medicines in which the source material is diluted past Avogadro’s number of molecules. Such an argument relies heavily on the assumptions of elementary chemistry (and biochemistry), in which the material composition of a solution, (dilution factors and ligand-receptor interactions), is the essential consideration. In contrast, materials science focuses on the three-dimensional complex network structure of the condensed phase of water itself, rather than the original solute molecules. The nanoheterogenous structure of water can be determined by interactive phenomena such as epitaxy (the transmission of structural information from the surface of one material to another without the transfer of any matter), temperature-pressure processes during succussion, and formation of colloidal nanobubbles containing gaseous inclusions of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and possibly the remedy source material. Preliminary data obtained using Raman and Ultra-Violet-Visible (UV-VIS) spectroscopy illustrate the ability to distinguish two different homeopathic medicines (Nux vomica and Natrum muriaticum) from one another and to differentiate, within a given medicine, the 6c, 12c, and 30c potencies. Materials science concepts and experimental tools offer a new approach to contemporary science, for making significant advances in the basic science studies of homeopathic medicines.
    PMID: 17678814 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    Like

  5. jeff garrington says:

    The Memory of Water: an overview

    Martin F. Chaplin, a,
    Department of Applied Science, London South Bank University, Borough Road, London, SE1 0AA, UK
    Received 10 May 2007; revised 23 May 2007. Available online 31 July 2007.
    A review of this editorial.
    “Chaplin also addresses a key question: if water can retain a memory of a vanished substance, why isn’t all water pharmaceutically active? He responds, “I do not dispute this argument, but it is of no relevance to the state of known samples of liquid water, where the history concerns just the sample and is not the sum of the individual memories of all the molecules since the beginning of time (indeed individual H2O molecules only have lifetimes of fractions of a second).” How Chaplin reconciles this view with the fact that homeopathy’s use of serial dilutions should constantly be changing that history is never explained. Chaplin then moves away from memory and into structure. His claim is that the active ingredient structures the water, and that structure is somehow retained during dilution. One of the main references cited is a light scattering study on samples of water containing various chemical compounds, all of which aggregate into large-scale domains over the period of several hours, days, or even months. Sounds like evidence, right? Well, yes, except that the concentrations studied are between six and ten percent; this leaves a large gap between these studies and anything related to homeopathy.
    The persistence of the memory of water In the end, water memory and water structure, according to the evidence presented by Chaplin, are anything but self-evident. This seems to weigh on Chaplin’s mind, but instead of strengthening these arguments, he simply proposes other potential ways in which homeopathy might work. He moves on to look at ways in which the active ingredient (or some other random stuff) might be in the final “medicinal product.” These take the form of, for example: silica from the glass, residual material on the glass surface, and (our favorite) aerosol matter. “Although not often recognized, except by microbiologists, such shaking can also produce aerosols saturating the laboratory atmosphere for extended periods and offering a route for the contamination of later dilutions,” he writes.
    This is true, but the question to ask is: did the homeopath wear gloves and a mask? Because if they didn’t, that water probably contains more stuff from the homeopath’s breath than any active ingredient—not a confidence-inspiring thought. It is truly remarkable that Chaplin considers these additions to be possible explanations for water memory, in part because they obviate the need for any of his prior explanations.
    In the end, this overview provides a clear demonstration of tactics used by many practitioners of pseudoscience: make a large number of vaguely scientific arguments in the hope of making the desired conclusion seem inevitable. It is essential to recognize that a disconnected assemblage of weak arguments does not create a single, strong scientific argument.
    John Timmer
    http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2007/09/the-pseudoscience-behind-homeopathy.ars/2

    Like

  6. jeff garrington says:

    Kaviraj, you do realize that there are no molecules of the original substance in the homeopathic water. If you can reference to any paper that shows how many molecules are present, fine, if not look up Avogadro’s principle. Also “Clathrate hydrates, also called gas clathrates, gas hydrates, clathrates, hydrates, are crystalline water-based solids physically resembling ice, in which small non polar molecules (typically gases) are trapped inside “cages” of hydrogen bonded water molecules.” note “physically resembling ice” you I presume use room temperature water. So these clathrates only exist in this interactive state. Without each other they can’t exist. You have ice, which melts. And a homeopathic remedy is water (+flavourings/smells I guess etc.)…so even if we assume the miraculous premise that a homeopath with no access to an industrial lab and no training in chemistry creates a solution capable of forming one of these clathrate hydrates, surely it would only have the magic memory you claim when kept frozen? Because…a water lattice is ice right? So, cold water only has a memory of the last thing in it when it froze?
    Also, “As yet I have seen no credible data for hydrogen-bonded structures in water that persist longer than nanoseconds (except through bonding to other molecules present, such as ions or proteins). Even then, if one accepts for the sake of argument that such an improbable structure might exist, how is it transmitted by dropping the memory-laden water onto a sugar pill, which is then dried and sold as a homeopathic ‘remedy’. And how—details please—would this sugar pill re-constitute the memory? And how would this reconstituted memory, presumably an imprint, a negative, a shadow of the original active ingredient (itself selected by entirely dubious means) interact with the biological target? How would it traverse the cell membrane if the target is an intracellular protein?”
    Also “Chaplin paper cited above (on Aug 9!) by Brian Josephson – Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 7, 861-866 (November 2006) | doi:10.1038/nrm2021.
    I can confirm that it is a perspective article, not a piece of original research. Moreover, though it speaks of water clusters, it discusses no evidence that these are stable structures. Rather, Chaplin reinforces the point made above that, despite their hydrogen bonding capabilities, water molecules are highly dynamic in their interactions with each other and with biological macromolecules, switching partners due to the random collisions driven by thermal energy on timescales of 1-100 picoseconds. To quote a key passage: “unambiguous conformation of the presence of particular water clusters remains elusive”.
    There is nothing in this article to support the contention that this useful biological solvent has any memory properties. Which of course is consistent with the repeated observation that treating people with homeopathy, i.e. water, is no more effective than a placebo.
    Posted by: Stephen Curry Aug 23, 2010 9:24 PM”

    Come on keep up.

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      Wait a second, Garrington, the only authority Curry is citing here is Chaplin, who is regarded as such by Josephson and Roy, and Chaplin speicifically contradicts what Curry claims he says. Martin Chaplin is an Emeritus Professor of Applied Science at London South Bank University. Curry says Chaplin says “unambiguous conformation of the presence of particular water clusters remains elusive”.
      If you had looked up the acutal quote, you might have been a little more circumspect about posting it. It was taken by Curry from an article by Martin Chaplin that blows up in Curry’s face, and here in yours. Read this from the Chaplin article:
      Do we underestimate the importance of water in cell biology?
      Martin Chaplin
      Abstract
      [Liquid water is a highly versatile material. Although it is formed from the tiniest of molecules, it can shape and control biomolecules. The hydrogen-bonding properties of water are crucial to this versatility, as they allow water to execute an intricate three-dimensional ‘ballet’, exchanging partners while retaining complex order and enduring effects. Water can generate small active clusters and macroscopic assemblies, which can both transmit information on different scales.]

      Sounds to me like Chaplin, the world’s best known authority on water phsyics, is confirming what we homeoapths have been saying for two centuries regarding “complex order” “enduring effects,” saying “water can generate small active clusters and macroscopic assemblies, which can both transmit information on different scales.”

      LOL! “Hurry Jeff, think of something to say! You just proved homeopathy . . again, you fool. The homeopaths will have a field day with this!”
      Better get moving! Looks like you’re the one who needs to keep up, Garrington. Oh man, file another one under laugh out loud comedy. CURRY WAS A PLANT!

      Like

  7. Kaviraj says:

    “In particular, did you happen to notice the very next line, that says: “Without the support of the trapped molecules, the lattice structure of hydrate clathrates would collapse into conventional ice crystal structure or liquid water”? Now repeat after me, without the support of the trapped molecules… there is no special clathrate lattice.”

    In particular, are you so ignorant of science that you cannot understand that homoeopathic remedies DO have the “support of trapped molecules”?

    Like

  8. jeff garrington says:

    I go away for a couple of days and come back to find more bluster and evasion from Batman and Robin. However of interest John previously provided a link to a blog, with comments from Brian Josephson and John himself,
    Before we go on its worth reminding ourselves of Brians assessment of Johns grasp of science. “John Benneth is an ‘enthusiast’ for homeopathy, not a scientist, and what he said in the seminar might well have made him (and myself) look foolish. On a number of occasions a failure to understand particular scientific issues was apparent,” Brian Josephson Created: 2010-10-05 19:07 http://www.freezepage.com/1286634368JCMOCPHIDW
    So lets have a look at the blog referenced by John,
    http://blogs.nature.com/im_brooks/2010/07/30/can-we-agree-to-disagree
    “Colquhousn via Brooks says of the hydrogen bonds said to be responsible for the molecular mimicry of aqueous nanostructuring, “these bonds are not only very weak, they are very transient,” therefore too short to hold a form. 
If this so, how does the great Coloquhoun explain clathrate hydrates? 
Clathrate hydrates, also called gas clathrates, gas hydrates, clathrates, hydrates, are crystalline water-based solids physically resembling ice, in which small non polar molecules (typically gases) are trapped inside “cages” of hydrogen bonded water molecules.
So as anyone can see, Colquhoun is wrong about hydrogen bonding. If you don’t believe it, Google it: clathrate hydrates.” Posted by: John Benneth Aug 5, 2010 12:35 AM
    John Benneth, since I don’t know you, I am going to assume genuine ignorance, rather than egregious dumbness, on your part. Did you read beyond the first line of the Wikipedia article on Clathrate Hydrate that you quoted verbatim – without attribution, of course? In particular, did you happen to notice the very next line, that says: “Without the support of the trapped molecules, the lattice structure of hydrate clathrates would collapse into conventional ice crystal structure or liquid water”? Now repeat after me, without the support of the trapped molecules… there is no special clathrate lattice. Posted by: Kausik Datta Aug 5, 2010 2:06 AM
    Seems to show Brian’s assessment of you is correct, “On a number of occasions a failure to understand particular scientific issues was apparent,” Brian Josephson

    Like

  9. Kaviraj says:

    Impossible, Guy, is a word in a fool’s dictionary. You always do what you say John does and you are completely blind to it. Montagnier himself says what John asserts. But of course you know better than Montagnier and have done the experiment yourself, huh?

    You ought to go to a good school and learn proper debate.

    Like

  10. Guy Chapman says:

    You do not appear to understand the point I made. The water bridge is an effect that requires a high potential difference to be maintained. Montagnier’s experiment showed a very short-lived effect. That’s not denying science, that’s just pointing out why are wrong in your uncritical belief that the ability of water to sustain some effects in some conditions, so it can do six impossible things before breakfast.

    Here is an analogy for you. If I say the moon is made of green cheese, and then show you a piece of cheese that is green, I have not proven that the moon is made of green cheese.

    That is what you are doing. You are pointing to experiments which show amazing but short-lived effects under carefully controlled conditions, and asserting that this means you can wash away all of something you’ve decided causes similar symptoms, drop it on a sugar pill, ingest it and thereby cure the disease which causes those symptoms. Even if you could provide cast-iron proof of water memory (which you can’t) you would still not have come close to addressing the evidence gap between homeopathy and any provably valid science.

    Like

What do you think? Question? Answer? Please comment. Your thoughful reply will be appreciated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s