Science begins to tumble to homeopathy

The previous blog reported on amazing discoveries revealed by Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier.

This blog reports on attempts to debunk them.

Jeff Reimers is a theoretical chemist at the University of Sydney, Australia. Regarding the Montagnier experiments he says, “If the results are correct, these would be the most significant experiments performed in the past 90 years, demanding re-evaluation of the whole conceptual framework of modern chemistry.”

It was the bomb that threatened to destroy conventional “medicine” 200 years ago and so it remains, and as the audience sleeps, the young ingenue of homeopathy, the understudy quietly terrorizes the old diva of allopathic medicine quietly from the wings. She waits to go on.

Time is on her side.

Attempts to defuse the quantum bomb by medical and biological hacks, such as America’s first woman flight surgeon (now retired), Harriet Hall, MD, auguring in, and blustering University of Minnesota Morris biology professor PZ Myers, blowing up in his face, have failed, miserably.

It threatens to breed countless bomblets, grow a million legs walking into every biology and chemistry class, hospital and clinic throughout the world, demanding from them what they cannot provide: Homeopathy.

WARNING: If you are a pseudo scientist, drug company shill, medical hack, RUN, run for your life. Find a new profession. Your old one is headed for the scrap pile.

Opponents like Hall continue to desperately insist that the Montagnier study has nothing to do with homeopathy. Hall is a habitual homeopathy basher for Michael Shermer’s Skeptic Magazine.

She writes, “A recent study is being cited as support for homeopathy. For instance, the Homeopathy World Community website says the ‘Luc Montagnier Foundation Proves Homeopathy Works.’ Hall denies it.

“Nope,” she says, succussing her head side to side. “Sorry, guys, It doesn’t. In fact, its findings are inconsistent with homeopathic theory.”

Nope, sorry Harriet. Denying it doesn’t make it go away. It must be troubling to know anti-homeopathy buffs like Hall to know that homeopathy is now FDA regulated. It sends them into strict denial.

Who wants to break that news to the homeopathy denialists? And the way Montagnier processes his materials is in accord with the FDA regulated manufacture of homeopathic remedies. Aqueous structuring from dilutes is the stated title of the Montagnier study. He states that the filtrates were serially diluted 1 in 10 in medical grade sterile water.

 Aqueous structuring from serial agitated dilutions reported by numerous scientific studies now confirms claims for what constitutes FDA regulated homeopathic medicines and how they are made. So let’s take a closer look at what the denialists are saying:

Hall writes, “Homeopathy postulates effects at most dilutions, with increasing effects as the dilutions become greater. In this study, there were no effects at low dilutions.”

That’s partially right. The lowest dilution did not, but neither did many of the higher ones.

Hall is confused!

She has already stated that Montagnier’s work has nothing to do with homeopathy. If this is true then why is she compelled to point out that because EM emissions at the lowest dilutions were not detected by Montagnier, that this is significant in the case AGAINST homeopathy?

If EM can be detected at any dilution, an this is suspected to be the mechanism for biological action, then why deny it, unless it opens the door wider to the argument? Homeopathic remedies are not used in every dilution strength. Hall admits two things in her criticism of Montagnier: One, high dilutes are structured and two, these structures, at some dilutions, can produce EM signals.

Case closed Harriet, we win again. But Hall desperately continues on:

She writes, “They talk about water structures and polymer formations, but acknowledge that these associations appear to be very short-lived. In this study they found that the effects lasted for several hours, sometimes up to 48 hours – but not longer.

Wow! If Hall were up on her homeopathy hating talking points, she’d be arguing that because of the short duration of the hydrogen bond, liquid aqueous structuring cannot theoretically last any longer than 50 femto seconds. Montagnier blows this all to hell by saying that he was getting a signal from liquid aqueous structuring that lasted as long as two days!

Now here’s a killshot. Hall writes, “Homeopathic remedies are not administered within hours of their preparation. They supposedly remain effective for long periods. Most homeopaths say that homeopathic remedies do not require expiration dates and will remain effective indefinitely as long as they are properly stored.”

That’s right, Harriet. Homeopathic remedies are not administered within hours or days of manufacture, they are kept sometimes for years. In fact, it is said that some of the first homeopathic medicines ever made, those by Hahnemann in his old kit, still work just fine. And there is a reason fo this, why homeopathic remedies last indefinitely. If Hall were up on homeopathic pharmaceutical preparation procedures, she’d know that homeopathic remedies are prepared with ethanol. Ethanol is what keeps liquid aqueous structuring, exemplified in clathrates, from dissipating. If Hall finds this hard to believe, then she should take a look at an international study done by Moscow State University and the University of Cincinnati that confirms ethanol preserves clathrates.

Structurability: A Collective Measure of the Structural Differences in Vodkas

The international team observed differences in hydrogen-bonding strength among vodkas using H NMR, FT-IR, and Raman spectroscopy. Component analysis of the FT-IR and Raman data revealed a water-rich hydrate of composition E·(5.3 ± 0.1) H2O prevalent in both vodka and water-ethanol solutions. They reported that the composition was close to that of a clathrate-hydrate observed at low temperature, implying a cage-like morphology http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf100609c

The team went so far as to suggest that you can taste the difference in clathrate structure. One researcher claims that double Nobel prize winner Linus Pauling believed that clathrates are what give alcohol it narcotic effect.

Poor Harriet Hall. Now she has to add some more names to her blacklist of people to bash for being “unscientific,” including yet another Nobel prize winner, this time a chemist, Linus Pauling, who was the only laureate to win 100% of a Nobel TWICE.

Without preservation by ethanol, internal tension from hydrogen bonding aggregates the clathrate hydrates (the aerogeneous nucleators found in homeopathic solutions) and dissipates their structures. Polar water molecules are self assembling and will order themselves around the guest substance. If self-assembly isn‘t stopped by fixing it with a second medium, such as ethanol, structuring dissipates.

Note the persistence of methanol clathrates in the BP Gulf of Mexico oil disaster. Ethanol separates the aerogeneous aqueous structuring into fixed domains, stopping interference with one another. Montagnier produced biologically active “aqueous nanostructures” through the time honored process of homeopathic medicine, the serial agitated dilution in water, the same process used to create homeopathic remedies. Look at what Montagnier has done: His research on detection of electromagnetic signals in the plasma from patients with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis verifies what we homeopaths have been telling the deaf world of science for years.

What Montagnier found was that the stimulation of the dilute by an electromagnetic background of very low frequency was essential. The background was either produced from natural sources (the Schumann resonances [4] which start at 7.83 Hz) or from artificial sources. Homeopaths such as myself have seized on this study as further proof, from highly credible sources, that homeopathic remedies have distinct supramolecular structural features that emit electromagnetic signals that can affect biological entities. It is also providing further insight into the physics of homeopathy.

Now read how Hall finally caves in on the argument as she contradicts her previous denials, admitting more evidence for homeopathy.

“There were a series of positive effects at high dilutions but the effect size did not increase progressively as the dilution increased. At the highest dilutions, the effect vanished.” That’s right too. In the first part of her critique Hall said the Montagnier study had nothing to do with homeopathy. Now here’s she’s puzzled because “high dilutions,” used both in homeopathic medicine and Montagnier’s experiments, are emitting EM at some frequencies, but not at others. This is concordant from what I’ve seen in other experiments of this kind. The sinusoidal wave is a common graph for results in almost all homeopathic studies, be they physical, in vivo or in vitro. At some dilutions they don’t seem to work, or they produce opposite effects. The wave also seems to be rising as if there is actually a longer secondary wave. Allow me to make a suggestion. As dilutions rise there could be changes in amplitude and frequency.

Note that the most commonly used dilutions in homeopathic remedies sold OTC are 6C (100^6), 12C (100^12) and 30C (100^30). A keen mathematical eye might spot what the relationship is between those three numbers: They fall upon an advanced Fibonacci scale, which mathematically defines the spiral.

John Benneth, self portrait

I’m sure this will be as much a cause of interest for homeopaths as it will be ridicule for people like Hall, Shermer, Myers and Randi, but I’m used to that, and I know that eventually they’re going to suffer either the embarrassment of the same kind of obloquoy they’ve been dishing out, ridicule and ignominy that has caught up with similar critics. For every man who was made famous for his practice of homeopathy a hundred years ago, what man was made famous for his criticism of it? I couldn’t tell you a one.

Likewise I’ll wager that the name of the great homeopath George Vithoulkas, for instance, will outlive that of Harriet Hall. 

THE CLATHRATE, homeopathy's missing link. RNA with solvation shell.

Certainly we can admit that Montagnier is not directly testing the biological effects of these remedies on anything but themselves (the crosstalk experiments), but he is proving the major point of contention in favor of homeopathy, the memory of water, and its biologically specific effects, which Hall has found herself inadvertently accepting. In the next blog, further discussing and complimenting this new insights, I will answer some questions posed by a JBJ reader, raised by the Montagnier experiments.

John Benneth, PG Hom. – London (Hons.)

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

Advertisements

13 comments on “Science begins to tumble to homeopathy

  1. Guy Chapman says:

    Oh John, this is priceless, thank you so much. You sound like Max Planck with the dichotomy between quantum theory and classical Newtonian mechanics! The fact is, homeopathy is a river of science, the premise is self-evident! Your opponent has left you delusions.

    Homeopathy is consistent with the theories that underpin nuclear radiation, lasers, microprocessors, cosmology and many other fields. Hahnemann’s intentions were pure, no need to rebut, other than by us poor fools who think we can actually achieve something by pointing out the delusions of the deluded.

    It was a funny essay, John, in any way you intended. Really.

    Like

  2. Angela Needham RSHom says:

    I would have more respect for this discussion if all participants could show normal courtesy to one another.
    Leaving out the disparaging remarks would also make it easier to comprehend for those of us without the appropriate scientific background. Thank you

    Like

  3. xtaldave says:

    I see it didn’t take long for the insults to begin.

    “Teach me. Are you saying that you have evidence from Hu that the clathrates in Grey Goose vodka weren’t there when Hu opened the bottle, made a brief appearance for the taste test and then evaporated?”

    Evaporated? Not at all – they are always present – but they are transient, in equilibrium, as Hu et al state. Let’s have a little thought experiment.

    I have a solution, in equilibrium. It is made up of 40% X, 40% Y, 20% XY.

    I have a machine than can instantly measure the exact concentrations X, Y and XY.

    If XY, formed by a complex of X and Y, is persistent, stable phenomenon, measuring at any time point with give us the answer: 40% X, 40% Y 20% XY.

    However, if XY is constantly breaking and reforming (i.e. is transient – like what Hu et al state) measuring the concentrations at any given time point will give us the exact same answer 40% X, 40% Y, 20% XY – because as soon as an XY breaks down, another one forms, due to the equilibrium conditions and thermodynamics.

    This is obviously familiar to you as it is high school chemistry.

    As with all things in chemistry & biochemistry, it boils down to thermodynamics and kinetics…

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      The insults are always subtextual from people like you. Your argument is rhetorical and does nothing more than divert fom the point. I cerrtainly haven’t read you compaining about the insults openly cast at me? isn’t it funny that when your ignorance is put on display you whine and complain about it as if its soemthing totally new and oreign. Yet its obvious its the cherry red river that drives your mill.
      You say these forms are transient, as if to say that they serve only to be observed by but are never present to be effective. Once again, the evidence from Hu, who admits Linus Pauling’s observations concur, these entities have a strong enough biological action as experienced in taste, to effect the commercial value of liquor. So you try to dismiss it by poiting out the transient nature of the individual entity. Now let’s have another little thought experiment, professor. The life of a fruit fly is also very short. But does that mean that fruit flies they can’t perpetuate? do you see what you’re trying to do? You’re trying to idiopathize by simpy being rhetorical. It has less to with science than it has to do with your need to reassure yourself that you know something that is relevant, and you apply in a demaning way. But take my friend, basically its the ruloe of the game, isn’t it? You’re doing nothing to explain the phenomenon ecept to dimiss it as a fabriccation of the ignonat. YOu can’teplain Benveniste’s result, so you attack him. You can’t explain Montangier’s results, so you attack him.
      If nonoe of this is true, then how is it that your admissions that LAS is a reciprocating churn comeat the end of your argument, only after you’ve been challenged? ANd realy, h0ow do you even know that the spangling appearance and disappearance of these entities is not an illusion, simply a trick of refraction? Perhaps they only appear to disappear, but in reality are simply twisting and turning, and flashing at you? YOu see, you spend more time trying to disprove the phenomena with your own bits and pieces of your own prejduices about it than you do in fuly explaining yourself.
      You’re not a scientist, you’re a bus driver. I’ve seen a thousand of your kind. You march in a parade. Men like you retard science, you don’t preogress it. You merely sqauwk what you were told by your predecessor. Consider that the next time you’re on your crystalgraphs.

      Like

      • xtaldave says:

        1) “I cerrtainly haven’t read you complaining about the insults openly cast at me? ” – I’m afraid I haven’t read everything you ever wrote, or everything ever written about you John.

        2) “You say these forms are transient, as if to say that they serve only to be observed by but are never present to be effective.” – No I did not – they clearly have an effect but they don’t persist when stuff is diluted away – because they are in equilibrium – by diluting one component away you are shifting the equilibrium point – but you know all this because it is high school chemistry.

        3) “You can’t explain Benveniste’s result, so you attack him. You can’t explain Montangier’s results, so you attack him.” -Sorry, but where did I do that?

        4) “The life of a fruit fly is also very short. But does that mean that fruit flies they can’t perpetuate?” – LOL John! are you really comparing simple molecular structures containing a handful of atoms with complex multicellular lifeforms containing billions of cells, each containing billions of atoms? Really? Because that comparison really doesn’t hold up how, does it?

        5) “You’re not a scientist, you’re a bus driver. I’ve seen a thousand of your kind.” – YOU’VE READ MY WORK? Really John, I’m touched!

        Was it my early work on bacterial toxins that caught your eye (Clostridia are badass – you know sometimes they convert 15% of their mass to toxins – how cool is that? That’s like you transforming your entire leg into into a shotgun or something!) – or was it the paper in Nature where we showed how a cysteine dependant phosphatase actually got more active in oxidising conditions!! (Yeah – I KNOW!! Who’d have though that!) If I’m honest, my favorite paper was the one in Molecular Cell about the tumour suppressor TES regulating cell mobility through dis-regulation of mENA localisation.

        6) “If none of this is true, then how is it that your admissions that LAS is a reciprocating churn come at the end of your argument, only after you’ve been challenged? And realy, how do you even know that the spangling appearance and disappearance of these entities is not an illusion, simply a trick of refraction?” – can you re-arrange these letters into some sentences that actually mean something?

        Like

        • johnbenneth says:

          1.) You’ve made my point, “Crystal Dave.” You haven’t read enough on this subject to be informed about it, and then, given the nature of the Auto-da-fe, expecting you to become informed about it is just about impossible. All you’re doing is throwing mud at me. You’re not trying to explain how homeopathy works, you’re trying to explain how it does not work . . using high school chemistry. You don’t have enough to do, so you think you can pick up a few easy points by supporting the auto da fe. But here’s the point, Dave. You and your colleagues have confused performing for The Amazing Randi with science.

          2.) [“You say these forms are transient, as if to say that they serve only to be observed by but are never present to be effective.” – No I did not – they clearly have an effect but they don’t persist when stuff is diluted away – because they are in equilibrium – by diluting one component away you are shifting the equilibrium point – but you know all this because it is high school chemistry.]

          Again, you’re making my point while your argument is morphing again. You’re now saying idem is transient, but the population is permanent, but of no consequence, because of dilution, and then you snidely refer to “high school chemistry,” as if I should know.

          What you’re fastidiously avoiding is supramolecular chemistry, which you would be educated about if you had got past high school chemistry.

          If your own assertions don’t demand an intransigent dynamic field, another yet unspecified principle within the hydrogen bond network, then what do they reveal? More ignorance? Yes, that’s it! In the face of all these interconnected anomalies you can’t explain within your allopathic paradigm of illusions and lies, to look brilliant, you first have to insist that the rest of us, especially we homeopaths, are ignoramuses.

          It would be the same as saying, look, “humanity is of no consequence because its individuals are not immortal” . . but the enemy of your reason has always been dilution, so that is what you still cling to, that the problem is dilution, and so your assumption, by terms of the auto da fe, is that dilution abrogates the host guest process.

          You are retreating, Crystal Dave. In order to generate supramolecular liquid aqueous structuring, the next assertion of the auto-da-fe is that the unspecified principle . . that you stumbled on when you acknowledged that idem is transient while the field that generates it persists in creating a permanent population . . is that the generative process within the hydrogen bond network is destroyed by the dilution process.

          That makes about as much sense as saying that if you take one hundredth of a cage full of 10,000 rats and set them loose in another cage the same size as the old one, they won’t breed and fill that cage with 10,000 rats. It’s an energy template moving through the pathways of a dynamic field.
          If you still don’t “get it,” study supramolecular chemistry and molecular self assembly.

          3) [“You can’t explain Benveniste’s result, so you attack him. You can’t explain Montagnier’s results, so you attack him.” -Sorry, but where did I do that?]

          My apologies, I didn’t know you were a devotee of the modern Galileo. Nowonder you aren’t using your real name. Have you told nature magazine? Does the Amazing Randi know about this?

          Maybe I‘ve been wrong about you. You wouldn’t know any good crystallographers would you? Somebody who isn’t afraid of being laughed at, preferably retired.

          4.) “The life of a fruit fly is also very short. But does that mean that fruit flies they can’t perpetuate?” – LOL John! are you really comparing simple molecular structures containing a handful of atoms with complex multicellular lifeforms containing billions of cells, each containing billions of atoms? Really? Because that comparison really doesn’t hold up how, does it?

          Yes, Crystal Dave, actually I am. Fruit flies are made up of molecular structures too, you know. But I’ve cocered this in item #1.

          5.) ME: “You’re not a scientist, you’re a bus driver. I’ve seen a thousand of your kind.” –
          YOU: YOU’VE READ MY WORK? Really John, I’m touched!
          ME: I’ve read what you’ve posted here.
          YOU: Was it my early work on bacterial toxins that caught your eye (Clostridia are badass – you know sometimes they convert 15% of their mass to toxins – how cool is that? That’s like you transforming your entire leg into into a shotgun or something!) – or was it the paper in Nature where we showed how a cysteine dependant phosphatase actually got more active in oxidising conditions!! (Yeah – I KNOW!! Who’d have though that!) If I’m honest, my favorite paper was the one in Molecular Cell about the tumour suppressor TES regulating cell mobility through dis-regulation of mENA localisation.
          ME: Like I said, you’re a bus driver. Standard plug and play. Nothing new, just go along to get along.

          6) ME: “If none of this is true, then how is it that your admissions that LAS is a reciprocating churn come at the end of your argument, only after you’ve been challenged? And realy, how do you even know that the spangling appearance and disappearance of these entities is not an illusion, simply a trick of refraction?”
          YOU: – can you re-arrange these letters into some sentences that actually mean something?
          ME: Certainly. Replace spangling with “scintillating.” I covered it in point #1.

          Like

  4. xtaldave says:

    Interesting Ideas, as ever Mr. B.

    FYI – the ethanol in the discussed Hu paper is as far as I can see, within the clathrate (cf. the remedy), and not a structural component of the outer cage. Ethanol, unlike water, only has one free delta+ hydrogen for hydrogen bonding and can therefore only form hydrogen bonding interactions with one other molecule at a time – cage-like structures in pure ethanol are not possible.

    Also – the paper suggests that these structures only form at quite specific H20-Ethanol concentrations – the relative amount of the E•5.33H20 at the ethanol cocnentrations in high grade extra neutral ethanol (your tipple of choice for making MTs, I believe) would be zero (see figure 8 in the Hu et al paper you linked to) and therefore, unless one is making a remedy up in Grey Goose or Smirnoff, the comparison to homeopathy is not valid.

    I should also point out that your image of the RNA solvent shell is not the same as a clathrate – solvent shells are even more transient than clathrates! We crystallographers only see solvent shells because:

    1) we tend to work with samples cooled to -180ºC.
    2) PX is an averaging technique, averaged over many many molecules – and we see a solvent molecule in it’s most preferred conformation – this does not mean that it is the same solvent molecule persisting in the same location for a period of time.

    In addition – the clathrates involved in the BP/Deepwater spill were Methane, not methanol, and comparison of methane to ethanol is even less valid than methanol to ethanol. IIRC, methanol actually inhibits formation of clathrates.

    http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/05/_giant_dome_fails_to_fix_deepw.html

    And finally, a request – can you post a link to the Montagnier work on Arthritis, Parkinson’s etc – I searched pubmed, but only found a paper he was corresponding author on about fermented papaya from 2010 – this doesn’t look at EM signals or agitated serial dilution.

    Cheers,

    D

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      1.) Solvation shell defines clathrate
      2.) Ethanol provides a stabilizing meidum for liquid aquesous structuring (LAS). It is not my assertion that ethanol is an integral internal component of LAS ecept to say that ethanol is the medium that stabilizes it . . around it.
      3.) Look at aerogeneous nucleation
      4.) Please cite from Hu what the specific ethanol H2O percentages must be to accomodate sustained LAS
      5.) “The list of diseases in which EMS have been found (such as Alzheimer, Parkinson, Multiple Sclerosis, various neuropathies, chronic Lyme syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis) indicate clearly that their presence is not limited to diseases known to be of infectious origin: The fact that EMS have been found in diseases not known to be of infectious origin is intriguing, and leads us to seek bacterial or viral factors in these
      diseases.” – DNA waves and water L. Montagnier1,2, J. Aissa2, E. Del Giudice3, C. Lavallee2, A. Tedeschi4, and G. Vitiello5
      1 World Foundation for AIDS research and Prevention (UNESCO), Paris, France
      2 Nanetics Biotecnologies, S.A. 98 rue Albert Calmette, F78350 Jouy-en-Josas, France
      3 IIB, International Institute for Biophotonics, Neuss, Germany
      4 WHITE HB, Milano, Italy
      5 Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Universit`a di Salerno and
      INFN, Gruppo Collegato Salerno, I-84100 Salerno, Italy

      Like

      • xtaldave says:

        1) Clathrate Hydrates are not the same as solvation shells, esp. for biological compounds – see:
        Lipscomb et al, (1996) “Clathrate Hydrates Are Poor Models of Biomolecule Hydration” Biopolymers. Vol. 38, 177-181

        2) I’m not sure there is published evidence of this assertion- but I don’t see how ethanol might accomplish this – given that ethanol’s close chemical relative methanol is an inhibitor of clathrate formation see:
        http://www.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%2520archive/Files/42_2_SAN%2520FRANCISCO_04-97_0516.pdf

        and that ethanol can has only one delta+ hydrogen with which it can form H-bonds – how exactly does ethanol stabilise a clathrate?

        3) Not sure as to the context in which you are referring me to aerogeneous nucleation – can you be more specific?

        4) Well, I would have thought it was pretty clear from fig 8 in Hu et al what concentrations the structured E•5.33H20 exists.

        [E•5.33H2O] is at it’s greatest (25% of total) at an [ethanol] of 25%. The [E•5.33H2O] tails off to zero at [Ethanol] above 80%
        Hu et al state that these are “transient cluster structures”

        5) Cheers for the reference.

        Like

        • johnbenneth says:

          1.) Rhetorical. In “Clathrate Hydrates Are Poor Models of Biomolecule Hydration,” Lipscomb says nothing about “solvation shells.” She is commenting on pentamers, “five member water rings, but from that you EXTRAPOLATE “Clathrate Hydrates are not the same as solvation shells.” I still contend that sovlation shells are synonomous with clathrates until you can give me better definitions of what both are thatdistnguish one from another..
          Liscombe says, “In clathrate hydrate crystal structures, the size hydrogen-bonded water rings is highly constrained to,five members.”
          I don’t think this is true. If H2O’s can form pentamers, then why can’t they form more intricate structures, like dodeca- or icosahedral chains and networks? Look at the models on Chaplin’s water structure website (lsbu.edu).
          I suggest you look up the definition of the word solvation, gas molecule, hydration shell and cage and inclusion molecule. They’re all species of the same liquid aqueous structures that form cages around non H2O gasses and particles. Read up on it some more. Study the literature. The piece you’re reading appears to be aimed at defending the use of chemotherapy in the face of proposed supramolecular treatments and is not admitting more complicated species of liquid aqueous structuring (LAS). However, Lipscombe is still yet another admission of sustained LAS, which others have stated is impossible.
          Science is tumbling to the use of supramolecular chemistry in medicine, i.e. homeopathy.
          2.) We’re not using methanol, and you just admitted Hu, which shows that ethanol preserves LAS. You'[ve aso admitted that you know clathrates forms around methane. Aren’t you contradicitng yourself?
          3.) I’m proposing that in the serial agitation and dilution process, aerogeneous nucleation replaced particle nucleation for the continued propagation of LAS structures and networks.
          4.) Apparently not, as you have yet to state precisely what you caim them to be, and why there has to be such an exact relationship between ethanol and H2O, or even what the “clathrate window” for that distribution to be.

          Like

          • xtaldave says:

            1) 5-membered rings are an integral part of iscoahedral symmetry.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icosahedral_symmetry

            We crystallographers know our molecular symmetry.

            2) Hu does not show that Ethanol preserves LAS. They show that specific forms of water:ethanol clathrates form, but explicitly states that they are transient structures. Please re-check the paper.

            4) Again – please re-read Hu et al – They use Raman Spec to show relative amounts of Ethanol, water and various ethanol:water structures at different ethanol concentrations. This is not something that I am just dreaming up – they go over this in the paper.

            Like

            • johnbenneth says:

              1,) Exactly. and H2O icosahedra are cage like structures, and clathrate is Latin for cage. So what is a solvation shell if it is not technically a clathrate? And I’m glad to hear that you think crystallographers know their molecular symmetry. You certainly aren’t one. How could you be any kind of science major at all when you haven’t even learned how to apply the scientiic method? All you can do is make assertions based on what you have been hypnotized to believe? However, I can’t believe that Lipscombe is the only study you can cite in regards to clathrate hydrates. Read Agnostatos’ Clathrate Model for homeopathy. I’d be interested in reading how it is that you reconcile statements from sources that say liquid aqueous structuring (LAS) is impossible with the numerous synonyms and descriptions of LAS, and examples that show it endures as long as a couple of days without even being fixed by ethanol.

              2.) Why is it that you’re having such a hard time recognizing any report of it proving it or theoretically modeling it when you have only vague idiopathic theory to argue with? Don’t try to dodge a specific question by telling me to re-read the report, let’s hear you defend your belief in LAS transience by quoting what is relevant. I’ve read the report. It says that clathrates are found in vodka and they are biologically significant enough to be distinguishable by taste. So are you now still trying to say that this isn’t proof of the indefinte endurance of clathrates? Who did you learn science from, a hypnotist? How long do you think “transient” is? Are you speaking in femto seconds or in years? Teach me. Are you saying that you have evidence from Hu that the clathrates in Grey Goose vodka weren’t there when Hu opened the bottle, made a brief appearance for the taste test and then evaporated? Or do you think that everyone who reads what you’re writing is so stupid as to believe that?
              3.) Do I need to point out to you how you’ve just contradicted yourself . . again? First you’re implying that they’re too transient to be significant, now you’re asserting the revlevance of their concentrations.

              Like

              • Peter says:

                I want only to note regarding “LAS that endures a couple of days“, that in homeopathy we are used to shake vigorously the bottle with the liquid remedy before taking it.

                Maybe this would be of interest for the scientist that performs the experiments, if by shaking the bottle again the LAS becomes stronger or “reappear” after they had “disappeared“. (sorry for my bad English)

                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