More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Dana Ullman]

Hey Delusions de Grandeur...
That's very interesting. I'm sure that water is not the only memory storage device in nature.
As for Bridgman's book...I mis-named it. It is THE PHYSICS OF HIGH PRESSURE.
The good news about our dialogue here is that several of you have publically stated that you will consider homeopathy as valid if there is some technology that can differentiate one homeopathic medicine from another, even at post-Avogadro number doses. Cool...because THIS is the subject of Rustum Roy's forthcoming article. I previously gave a link to a webcast discussion of this new research. Did anyone out there get a chance to hear/see it?
As for airport scanners...as I previously said, there is no hard evidence that it creates any problem. However, because some homeopaths prefer to be conservative (that's right!), they prefer to avoid things that may neutralize their medicines, especially since there's no every day easy-to-access technology that will tell them whether or not their medicines have been neutralized or not (Roy discusses several technologies, not just one, that measure homeopathics).
As for Monkey...I do not know about those machines, and I do not comment on things about which I do not know.
By the way, I find it interesting that you folks feel comfortable referring to studies in the alternative medicine peer-review literature when it is a "negative" study, but when they publish a "positive" study, you call these same journals "quack literature." Hmmmm.
I'm waiting for someone to report on the research of Stephan Baumgartner, PhD. His research on plants using beyond Avogadro number doses is very provocative.
Rolfe...which study(s) did you read here? Do you really mean to say that none of his work, including his review of basic science replication trials, was unconvincing? It is easy not to see when you close your eyes.

 

[Pipirr]

The good news about our dialogue here is that several of you have publically stated that you will consider homeopathy as valid if there is some technology that can differentiate one homeopathic medicine from another, even at post-Avogadro number doses. Cool...because THIS is the subject of Rustum Roy's forthcoming article. I previously gave a link to a webcast discussion of this new research. Did anyone out there get a chance to hear/see it?

If there is such a technology, it would be very, very interesting indeed. However, it would not necessarily add validity to homeopathy as a system of medicine. For that, there needs to be good clinical evidence. Still, I will await Rustum Roy's forthcoming article with interest. And of course skepticism...

I'm waiting for someone to report on the research of Stephan Baumgartner, PhD. His research on plants using beyond Avogadro number doses is very provocative.

Yes, it is provocative. I'll take a look, but I don't think I can access the content of the German journals. The following sentence, from one of the abstracts, was a good start:

Independent replications of preclinical investigations of homeopathic potencies are rare. However, they are a necessary tool to determine the relevant factors modulating the effects of homeopathic potencies in preclinical systems.

Not that experiments on wheat seedlings validate homeopathy as a system of medicine, of course. But the desire to replicate studies is commendable.

 

[Chris Haynes]

...The good news about our dialogue here is that several of you have publically stated that you will consider homeopathy as valid if there is some technology that can differentiate one homeopathic medicine from another, even at post-Avogadro number doses. Cool...because THIS is the subject of Rustum Roy's forthcoming article. I previously gave a link to a webcast discussion of this new research.

Cool... can you post of a link of the actual verification of this research. Because, well... webcasts are not exactly indexed at www.pubmed.gov.

...
By the way, I find it interesting that you folks feel comfortable referring to studies in the alternative medicine peer-review literature when it is a "negative" study, but when they publish a "positive" study, you call these same journals "quack literature." Hmmmm.
I'm waiting for someone to report on the research of Stephan Baumgartner, PhD. His research on plants using beyond Avogadro number doses is very provocative.

Actually I'm waiting for you to answer MY questions! I am beginning to think you put me on "ignore".

Oh, good grief... citing Stephan Baumgartner is now really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Putting "baumgartner s" into www.pubmed.gov brings up several cites that he is not the primary author on!...

For instance: No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators. A general adoption of succussed controls, randomization and blinding would strengthen the evidence of future experiments.

The rest are at best could be call "reaching for a conclusion we really wanted", and not even in a second rate journal.

Now do a better job of answering this veterinarian's question!

...
So, I return to your clinical evidence base;

4. Can you tell us whether either of these machines works?

http://www.bio-resonance.com/elybra.htm

http://www.remedydevices.com/voice.htm

Bear in mind that the users of these machines rely on exactly the same anecdotal experience and fallacious post hoc reasoning that every other homeopath does. Are the homeopaths who use these machines right or wrong in thinking they work?

It's a very simple question and capable of a single-word answer.

I'll give you a new question just so you can show how well you understand the interpretation of clinical trial data;

9. I set a p-value for significance of 0.05 and run 100 trials. In no trial is the test substance distinguishable from the control. How many trials can I expect to show an apparent "effect" from my test substance?

And at least attempt this long unemployed aerospace engineer's questions!

You first!!!

...
Now answer some questions:

1) One of the "miasms" Hahnemann was claiming to cure was syphilis. What was his success in curing syphilis two hundred years ago? What is the standard of care for treating the actual bacterial disease known as syphilis? How effective would modern homeopathy be with actual syphilis?

2) Cardiac conditions are another big killer of Americans... so your magic potions should work great for them also. My oldest son as a genetic condition known as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with obstruction. He presently takes the beta-blockers (Atenolol) to reduce the pressure on his already damaged mitral valve. My question is how would your homeopathic treatment be better for him than Atenolol?

3) Also, how does your Masters in Public Health (MPH) give any credibility? Does this mean you have actually learned the value of sewage disposal, clean water supplies, pest control in food preparation areas, and vaccines? Are you the one who shows up in a disaster area (flood, hurricane, earthquake, etc) giving out homeopathic remedies instead of clean water, toilet facilities and vaccines for tetanus?

4) In what way does duck bits diluted to something impossible to do on this planet actually supposed to work?

5) What is Avogadro's Number and why would it be important in a discussion on homeopathy?

6) Who, where and when have Rey's thermoluminescence study ever been replicated?

7) What does 10^-9 mean, and does it have anything to do with homeopathy?

8) Why is this sentence in FDA regulations pertaining to homeopathy: "Homeopathic products intended solely for self-limiting disease conditions amenable to self-diagnosis (of symptoms) and treatment may be marketed OTC. Homeopathic products offered for conditions not amenable to OTC use must be marketed as prescription products. "

9) Which leads to this question: Do you have prescribing privileges? Can you actually practice medicine with your vaulted Masters in Public Health?

...It is easy not to see when you close your eyes.

Actually, I am pretty sure my eyes are open. I am willing to believe if you would actually answer the questions I posted above (which have been posted to you several times).

All we really need to "open our eyes" is if you can tell the difference between 30C Natrum Mur and 30C something else. What could be simpler? Take one bottle of a homeopathic remedy and differentiate between another... You can do it! Go for it, and win big bucks!

That has got to be better than trolling the blogosphere looking for negativity towards homeopathy!

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

As for airport scanners...as I previously said, there is no hard evidence that it creates any problem. However, because some homeopaths prefer to be conservative (that's right!), they prefer to avoid things that may neutralize their medicines, especially since there's no every day easy-to-access technology that will tell them whether or not their medicines have been neutralized or not (Roy discusses several technologies, not just one, that measure homeopathics).

No. That's being extremely disingenuous. Many homeopaths absolutely asser that the X-ray scanners (along with a whole host of other things) neutralise their remedies. This is not being conservative about a possibvle effect. It is an absolute assertion of an effect accepted as fact.

There is no "hard" evidence. Very funny. There is no hard evidence for anything in homeopathy.

Once again, I need to point out that the fundamental issue is not whether X-rays do affect homeopathic remedies, though it is frankly pathetic that this, along with everything else about homeopathy, has not been subjected to the simple tests that would resolve the question, but that homeopaths assert diametrically opposite and mutuallly contradictory things based on their "clinical experience" and you cannot see a problem with that. What is most appalling is that you do not, or claim you do not, see any problem with this.

Try this as a quote;

http://www.homeowatch.org/policy/screening.html

"Never allow your remedies to be X-rayed (airport entries). Never place your remedies on or within 3 feet of equipment that radiates a strong magnetic field (T.V., microwave, magnets). Any electrical writing, outlet or switch will have a weak magnetic field, and remedies should be located 6 or more inches away. Homeopathic remedies possess dynamic electromagnetic fields of varying amplitude, depending on their potencies. These fields become distorted and unpredictable when strongly affected by other magnetic fieldsNever allow your remedies to be X-rayed (airport entries). Never place your remedies on or within 3 feet of equipment that radiates a strong magnetic field (T.V., microwave, magnets). Any electrical writing, outlet or switch will have a weak magnetic field, and remedies should be located 6 or more inches away. Homeopathic remedies possess dynamic electromagnetic fields of varying amplitude, depending on their potencies. These fields become distorted and unpredictable when strongly affected by other magnetic fields"

Butu

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/homeopathy_emergency_kit_gina.htm

"x-ray airport scanners do no harm to the remedies. "

Yet;

http://www.soak.com/topic/homeopathy/article/tshow/51177/storage+of+homeopathic+remedies

" An airport x-ray scan at security check points will reverse the effects of a remedy, too, so keep them in a pocket instead of luggage. "

That's the great thing about homeopathy, you can just make up new rules as you go along and no one can say you are wrong to do so. I wish the rest of medicine worked like that. Drug development would be so simple and cheap.

As for Monkey...I do not know about those machines, and I do not comment on things about which I do not know.

So must make exactly the same point all over again. It really isn't all that relevant how these boxes of electrical bits claim to work. I am asking you repeatedly to affirm whether you accept, at face value, the clinical experience of homeopaths who use them, because that is exactly parallel with the only evidence you have for any of your claims for homeopathy. This is not even an issue of nasty sceptics being horrible about your fictitious medicines, this is asking you for your opinion about your own people who use exactly the same methods of assessment that you do and indeed exactly the same methods your guru Hahnemann did. If you can't accept their clinical experience then you have you have a serious problem with the entire body of homeopathic clinical experience. So, I ask again, do you accept their clinical experience or not?

i.e.;

4. Can you tell us whether either of these machines works?

http://www.bio-resonance.com/elybra.htm

http://www.remedydevices.com/voice.htm

Bear in mind that the users of these machines rely on exactly the same anecdotal experience and fallacious post hoc reasoning that every other homeopath does. Are the homeopaths who use these machines right or wrong in thinking they work?

It's a very simple question and capable of a single-word answer.

You also missed the new question that would be very useful for establishing your credibility when you comment on clinical trials.

9. I set a p-value for significance of 0.05 and run 100 trials. In no trial is the test substance distinguishable from the control. How many trials can I expect to show an apparent "effect" from my test substance?

 

[kieran]

Oohhhh, there is so much of this that is just gagging for the comment: "Back at ya!" ... which to choose .... mmmmm .... I'll take this one ...

It is easy not to see when you close your eyes.

Please stop fannying around on the fringes of observability and explain all the ridiculous anomalies regarding homoeopathy that have been pointed out to you in the past 5 or 6 pages. I'm not asking for a obscure reference to a weak study, or speculation as to how your fantasies may or may not work. Just explain why, if this thing works as you say it does, its results cannot be distinguished from pure water? There should be a mountain of peer reviewed and repeatable studies that mean that this issue is no longer in doubt ... but there are not ... but there are not ... but there are not ...

That is the crux of the matter. Without being able to settle on an answer that allows us to move on, then everything else is just pointless speculation.

People are selling this crap and other poor sods are putting their faith in it, sometimes with serious consequences (as they should be seeking real medical care as soon as possible). All this while you insist on piffling on about ideas that are so far to the edge of your fantasy world that it borders on the irrelevant ...

For instance, if we start to meander down your water "memory" route ...

• 
  If water has a "memory", is it also intelligent? Is it clever and selective? How does it only remember the bits we hope it remembers? Why isn't all natural water extremely poisonous as it has all come into contact with toxins and probably contains traces of these? How do you actually purify water for homoeopathic medicines, how do you check you have completely wiped its "memory"?

But I'm not keen on heading off on that particular tangent, it is only a smoke-screen to distract for the glaringly obvious issue you seem to be "closing your eyes" to, so I'll say it again as your attention seems to stray back to, and indeed always focus on, the pointless stuff too easily ...

Just explain why, if this thing works as you say it does, its results cannot be distinguished from pure water?

 

[Michael C]

As for airport scanners...as I previously said, there is no hard evidence that it creates any problem. However, because some homeopaths prefer to be conservative (that's right!), they prefer to avoid things that may neutralize their medicines, [...]

Homeopaths, having absolutely no knowledge if airport scanners have any effect on the remedies, decide that they might have an effect. I fear that the shaking up of the pills in the container while I'm walking, the pollution in the air that come into contact with the pills each time I open the container, the plastic of the container, the radiation produced by my mobile phone and the fact that I drank peppermint tea could all possibly destroy the effect of the remedies. How can the homeopaths reassure me?

...especially since there's no every day easy-to-access technology that will tell them whether or not their medicines have been neutralized or not (Roy discusses several technologies, not just one, that measure homeopathics).

That's easy. I can discuss them too: it doesn't mean that they work. But if Roy has access to a technology that actually measures homeopathics, he can win a million dollars. And that would be just the beginning. So I'll wait for that.

 

[Rolfe]

Finally, please remember that homeopathic manufacturers use a double-distilled water.

Because homeopaths have always used a double-distilled water, ....

OK, let's concentrate on something very simple.

Please demonstrate that Hahnemann, the inventor/discoverer of the entire homoeopathic method, who carried out all the seminal work in the subject and whose findings and provings are still the bedrock of modern practice, used double-distilled water.

[You know what this reminds me of? A similar thread where another homoeopath (Sarah-I I think) was asked why all water isn't just hoaching with the memories of everything it ever came into contact with, and she blustered that homoeopaths always used something ultra-pure called "nuclear water". Nobody could discover what the hell "nuclear water" actually was. In the end she was asked the question about whether Hahnemann had access to this "nuclear water", and if he used it, at which point she backed down to say that Hahnemann had just used "pure spring water", and that was just fine, you didn't have to use "nuclear water" at all.]

You know where this is going, don't you? Hahnemann didn't use double-distilled water. The question of water remembering its past lives apparently didn't even occur to him. So, if double-distilled water is now so necessary, why? If this is true, does that not invalidate everything Hahnemann thought he discovered? And thus the entire bedrock of homoeopathy is fatally undermined.

Which brings us back to that basic question once again. How do you tell the difference between a properly prepared remedy and an improperly prepared one? Whether it's the question of the source of the water used for the dilutions, or possible exposure to inactivating forces, or the validity of non-standard methods of preparation such as grafting or computerised machines, how can anyone make any statement at all concerning these points if there is no way to distinguish an active remedy from an inactive one?

We hear weird and wonderful theories about how water has this amazing memory, but they seem to be made up to order and altered at will whenever an awkward question is posed (such as the sudden need for some special sort of water that Hahnemann most definitely didn't use being discovered whenever the matter of the past lives of water is raised). The fact is that it is simplicity itself for anyone with the right equipment to tell a written-on CD from a blank, or a CD of the Nutcracker Suite from a CD of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik.

BSM quoted an assetion from a homoeopath that:

Homeopathic remedies possess dynamic electromagnetic fields of varying amplitude, depending on their potencies.

OK, how does this person know this? Such fields should be capable of being detected and measured, and these measurements used to distinguish a real remedy from a chemically-identical non-remedy. Has this person actually measured these fields? Has anyone? Answer, no. The idea of "dynamic electromagnetic fields" has simply been invented as a means of impressing and convincing the uncritical.

Homoeopaths do it all the time. You, James, are doing it, though you seem to have the sense to couch your ideas as speculations rather than statements of hard fact.

Roy may talk a fine talk, but he hasn't demonstrated zip as far as any sort of property possessed by a routinely-prepared homoeopathic remedy is concerned. Let alone addressed the question of how such a property might influence a biological system, and how it chimes in with "like cures like".

.... there's no every day easy-to-access technology that will tell them whether or not their medicines have been neutralized or not....

News flash. There's no technology of this sort at all, no matter how sophisticated or esoteric, so that is a very disingenuous statement. If one were to be discovered and demonstrated then that would be a different matter, but I'm with Michael C. When it happens, show me. Oh yes and don't forget to show the JREF as well, for a million dollars.

Alternatively, you could produce a well-controlled and well-blinded clinical study that really does show a clinical effect of homoeopathic remedies (as opposed to the positive effects we all know are to be gained from the "therapeutic consultation"). I'm tired of looking at unblinded, anecdotal and partisan studies that simply don't show anything beyond coincidental recovery and wishful thinking. I'm past even describing them as poorly-designed, because no group of people could be that dim so consistently for so long. It's quite clear that homoeopathic studies are being deliberately designed to highlight the effects of the therapeutic consultation, and/or to allow a data-dredge to find some significance, somewhere, that can be positively spun.

These are the problems. With a method which is even as we speak being used to treat real people with real diseases, people who are being assured that this will "cure" them. With no real evidence that the remedies do anything at all, no way to tell a remedy from a non-remedy, and no idea as to any possible mode of action.

All you have is speculation, maybes, and a helluva lot invested in these flaky and barely relevant maunderings of people like this Roy character.

How much are you making a year from "treating" people? How confidently do you assure them that your methods are valid and robust?

I think it's despicable.

Rolfe.

 

[Lothian]

If there is such a technology, it would be very, very interesting indeed. However, it would not necessarily add validity to homeopathy as a system of medicine. For that, there needs to be good clinical evidence.

This is the key to convincing people.

Even if water had a memory, even if you could tell two different C30 doses apart it does not validate homeopathy. Legs and wings share an evolutionary predecessor, and bats are mammals. That doesn’t mean that pigs can fly.

Never mind wasting time on crappy glass chips or Benveniste’s promising, Willy Wonka, results on electronic transmission of homeopathic medicines via a phone line. Show us your flying pig.

Name one homeopathic medicine with sub Avogadro dilution that constantly beats placebo in trials. Just one.

 

[Cuddles]

In contrast, the NEW SCIENTIST commonly reports on high quality basic science research on homeopathy. I encourage you all to go to newscientist.com and read the variety of articles (not all positive!) that they've published over the years. Be brave because you're going to get humble (humilty is one of the highest qualities of a good scientist). We can all benefit from it.

I agree. Everyone should read New Scientist on homeopathy. Let's have a quick look at the search results shall we?

2007 - nothing.
2006 - 2 articles, both critical of homeopathy.
2005 - 2 articles, one critical and the other just saying Ennis' work has not been explained or replicated.
2004 - nothing.
2003 - 2 articles, one reporting a test in mice but with a skeptical bent, the other reporting on water memory, but also skeptical of it.
2002 - 1 book review, skeptical. 1 article, reporting problems with the Horizon trial but saying nothing about homeopathy itself.
2001 - 2 articles, one in favour of homeopathy, the other noncommital.
2000 - nothing.
1999 - nothing.
1998 - a failed lawsuit by Beneviste, but nothing on homeopathy itself.
1997 - 1 article, critical of homeopathy.

Note: I have not counted interviews and opinion pieces.

So, the news magazine (not journal) that you claim supports you so much has in fact had an average of 1 article per year on homeopahty in the last decade, all except one of which were not in favour of homeopathy. Most of those that were not actually critical were simply reporting results that were published elsewhere rather than actually saying anything themselves. And this is your idea of what will humble us? It seems that it is you that needs to do more research.

 

[malbui]

So, the news magazine (not journal) that you claim supports you so much has in fact had an average of 1 article per year on homeopahty in the last decade, all except one of which were not in favour of homeopathy. Most of those that were not actually critical were simply reporting results that were published elsewhere rather than actually saying anything themselves. And this is your idea of what will humble us? It seems that it is you that needs to do more research.

Ah, but this is homeopathic science reporting. One positive word among thirty million is much more powerful than lots of reports all saying good things.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Rustum Roy's latest(?) from his web-site:

http://www.rustumroy.com/Silver water paper MRI vol 11 is 1.pdf

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

A lesson in MORAL BANKRUPTCY?

Let us suppose that I have a marvellous machine, a black box that I say can make antibiotics just by my typing in the name of the drug on a keyboard or saying the name into a little microphone. All I need to do is put a bottle of sugar tablets in the appropriate slot and out comes the bottle all prepped with its antibiotics. Now, I don't bother showing that the machine does what I say it does, I don't bother to explain any of the principles said to lie behind its operation and I don't bother about whether I can do quality control on my treated tablets to see if they do what I say they do.

I make a lot of money selling both the machines and also my "antibiotic" tablets to poor people and poor countries as treatments for serious and life-threatening diseases. If people still die, I will sugggest they probably 'asked' the machine for the wrong antibiotic, or possibly got the tablets too close to an X-ray scanner or had sucked an ExtraStrong mint, because it is well know that these will neutralise the subtle chemistry in the tablets.

A kindly homeopath, gently polishing his halo and adopting his most beatifically saintly smile, asks a famous doctor, who is well known for making public statements about medicine, whether it is reasonable for antiobiotics to be made in this way and whether we should believe the supposed stories of successful treatments using the tablets made by my machine. But, that doctor says he has no idea and couldn't possibly comment on whether this was a reasonable way for people to obtain treatment. He also gives no indication that such machines or their medicines should be put through any form of testing to see whether they work before being sold to the gullible sick. In short he finds himself unable to make any comment at all.

What would be our opinions of such a doctor?

Do we think that all medicines should be allowed to be made by unaccountable and unregulated people using devices that cannot be demonstrated that they work?

On a completely unrelated subject, "James" has still not answered some rather important questions;

4. Can you tell us whether either of these machines works?

http://www.bio-resonance.com/elybra.htm

http://www.remedydevices.com/voice.htm

Bear in mind that the users of these machines rely on exactly the same anecdotal experience and fallacious post hoc reasoning that every other homeopath does. Are the homeopaths who use these machines right or wrong in thinking they work?

It's a very simple question and capable of a single-word answer.

You also missed the new question that would be very useful for establishing your credibility when you comment on clinical trials.

9. I set a p-value for significance of 0.05 and run 100 trials. In no trial is the test substance distinguishable from the control. How many trials can I expect to show an apparent "effect" from my test substance?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Rustum Roy's latest(?) from his web-site:

http://www.rustumroy.com/Silver water paper MRI vol 11 is 1.pdf

These aren't even "ultra-dilute" in the sense implied by homeopaths, the concentrations employed were 10-30ppm, i.e. 10-30uM, which is well up in the range of conventional pharmaceuticals.

I don't think I've dropped a whole load of decimal points here, but someone please correct me if I'm beiong a bit slow today.

Drugs are often administered in the mg/kg range, which is 1 in a 1-million dilution in the body by weight, i.e uM final concentrations for MW=1. But bearing in mind that most drug substances have quite high molecular weights the actual molarity of the concentrations achieved in the body can be very small indeed. This is chemistry and pharmacy not homeopathic solutions and is irrelevant to what we are discussing. Are his other papers irrelevant for similar reasons? (As well as being irrelevant because most remedies are taken as lactose tablets and 'grafting' allegedly is an effective way to make remedies and and silly boxes of electronics are allegedly able to make remedies.....)


As I said, I may be being a bit slow here so please feel free to pitch in and correct me.

 

[Lothian]

BSM I think that you may have wrongly concluded that these machines have not been tested and shown to work. See below.

How do I know if the gadget really works?

Answer

If you can dowse with a pendulum ask it, "Does the Voice Potentiser work"?
If you cannot please ask someone to dowse the question for you.

 

[Pipirr]

This comment, from the introduction of Rustum Roy's paper, is disingenuous.

Further support for the obvious safety of
consuming metallic silver (AgO) is in the worldwide
consumption of (so-called) silver colloids, often made at
home in primitive electrochemical cells by probably
some millions of citizens, again with no ill effects.

People with argyria would strenuously disagree; the risk of producing silver compounds, other than colloids, in a primitive home made apparatus, is definitely there.

 

[Pipirr]

These aren't even "ultra-dilute" in the sense implied by homeopaths, the concentrations employed were 10-30ppm, i.e. 10-30uM, which is well up in the range of conventional pharmaceuticals.

And well in the detectable concentration range. Silver concentrations were determined using ICP analysis, so no major breakthrough there.

This is not a paper on detecting the memory of compounds in water diluted beyond Avogadro's number.

Oh, when will Hahnemann be proven right?

 

[steenkh]

I could not help but notice that NO ONE (!) has asserted that Wayne Turnbull's experiment on basophils for Horizon or 20/20 was good science (mind you, anyone who does must or should also have some expertise in working with basophils...but sure, you are welcome and even encouraged to ask other experts).

The irony is that all the objections homoeopaths have about the basophil studies would never have occurred if the results had been positive. If Randi had had to cough up with the million dollars, homoeopaths all over the world would have exulted and nobody would have pointed out that there were serious flaws in the experiments.

Anyway, it seems that nobody are replicating the original basophil experiments anymore. How can that be?

And the other homeo-friendly experiments, like the ones that allegedly shows that water can have memory also seem to be unreproduceable ... well, well!

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

This comment, from the introduction of Rustum Roy's paper, is disingenuous.




People with argyria would strenuously disagree; the risk of producing silver compounds, other than colloids, in a primitive home made apparatus, is definitely there.

It is a strangely informal piece for something that is supposed to be a scientific paper.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

The irony is that all the objections homoeopaths have about the basophil studies would never have occurred if the results had been positive. If Randi had had to cough up with the million dollars, homoeopaths all over the world would have exulted and nobody would have pointed out that there were serious flaws in the experiments.

Anyway, it seems that nobody are replicating the original basophil experiments anymore. How can that be?

And the other homeo-friendly experiments, like the ones that allegedly shows that water can have memory also seem to be unreproduceable ... well, well!

While we're on the subject of bizarrely fragile and corruptible experimental models, some readers may not have come across this, so I am including a link to it;

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteD...be=229441&ProduktNr=224242&filename=72211.pdf

I'm struggling to remember, while on this subject, who was the homeopathic researcher who had a widely touted study that won a prize but then the host institution smelled a rat and withdrew the prize and investigated the authors for fiddling their results? I think it was Austrian.

 

[Rolfe]

It is a strangely informal piece for something that is supposed to be a scientific paper.

Just what I was thinking. The gushing fan-boy attitude and the frank advocacy of the wondrous benefits of what he's studying don't belong in a serious paper by a mile. What was that journal he claimed had accepted it, and who publishes it anyway? If it's really a reputable journal I'd bet a fair bit that it wasn't accepted in that form. I mean, anybody can produce slick pdfs these days, and it isn't an actual journal-page pdf.

And the fact that some silver preparations are excellent antiseptics is hardly news.

Rolfe.