Homeopathy: Rustum Roy drops the bomb

[sts60]

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),

Um, no. I used to work in an epitaxy lab. In any meaningful sense, epitaxy is about the growth of solids materials, in particular crystalline thin-film structures. Liquid water does not have this kind of order. Is this guy really supposed to be a materials scientist?

Commenting on the special issue, Professor Chaplin said: “Science has a lot more to discover about such effects and how they might relate to homeopathy. It is unjustified to dismiss homeopathy, as some scientists do, just because we don’t have a full understanding of how it works.”

"It is unjustified to dismiss [ astrology | throwing people in the water to determine their guilt or innocence | foretelling via goat entrails | my lucky socks ] just because we don't have a full understanding of how it works."

"In his overview he is critical of the “unscientific rhetoric” of some scientists who reject the memory of water concept “with a narrow view of the subject and without any examination or appreciation of the full body of evidence.”

See, that's the problem, doc. They have looked at the full body of evidence. You're the one who wants to throw out physics and chemistry in favor of ever-fainter glimmers in the noise of instruments built by real scientists.

You've had two centuries to come up with something. Give it up.

 

[PixyMisa]

Just on Martin Chaplin - his name appeared in Roy's previous article, so I looked him up. He has a website with a ton of information on the structure of water, including several hundred bibliographical entries... Only one of which (that I could see) references an experimental study, and that one doesn't support his claims.

To call his work "entirely speculative" would be kind.

 

[JJM]

I've got the paper...
I particularly love this passage (my comments in brackets):

{snip} Hence we operate the instruments in the sensitivity ranges in which we sacrifice some precision for reproducibility. [translation: we thinker with the instruments until they give us noise we like] {snip}

the Kemist

While I agree with your translation (i.e., I think that is what they did), Roy's statement is even more bizarre because precision is reproducibility.

 

[Dragon]

...

See, that's the problem, doc. They have looked at the full body of evidence. You're the one who wants to throw out physics and chemistry in favor of ever-fainter glimmers in the noise of instruments built by real scientists.

You've had two centuries to come up with something. Give it up.

Echoes of Blondlot and Benveniste. Déjà vu all over again ...

 

[tracer]

The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy

Manju Lata Rao, Rustum Roy, Iris R. Bell and Richard Hoover

... the fourth author's name is Dick Hoover?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

While I agree with your translation (i.e., I think that is what they did), Roy's statement is even more bizarre because precision is reproducibility.

I suspect he's forgotten that precision and accuracy are different things.

 

[geni]

No results from FTIR? FTIR data can be quite hard to fiddle.

 

[Pipirr]

No results from FTIR? FTIR data can be quite hard to fiddle.

They tried. They failed.

The results show that such
materials can be easily distinguished from the pure
solvent, and from each other, by the use of UV–VIS
(ultraviolet–visual) and Raman spectroscopy, but
Fourier transformed infra red (FTIR) spectroscopy
proved insensitive to these differences.

And:

FTIR Spectra (not shown
here) from all the samples of Nat mur and Nux vom
overlap neatly, clearly signifying that FTIR is not the
most sensitive technique for analyzing the subtle
structural differences in these types of samples.

 

[Rolfe]

While I agree with your translation (i.e., I think that is what they did), Roy's statement is even more bizarre because precision is reproducibility.

Who do they get to scrutinise these manuscripts anyway? The window cleaner?

Rolfe.

 

[JJM]

Who do they get to scrutinise these manuscripts anyway? The window cleaner?

Rolfe.

Actually, window-cleaning is a demanding job. They have to avoid leaving an annoying streak on your window, while not spending hours wiping one window.

By comparison, the homeopaths that "referee" these articles have it easy.

 

[Zep]

Forgive me, chemist-people and research scientists, but isn't spectrography based on the principle that there ARE specific molecules of test compound in existance that give the peaks in the readings? That is, regardless of the mix of compounds, ethanol always produces peak(s) at certain point(s) due to the fact that they ARE molecules of ethanol.

If so, wouldn't the results that the "homeopathic" ethanol lost its spectra peaks mean that there is no ethanol in that test mix at all? That means it is actually another compound altogether, or that it was a very shoddy test run.

The obvious conclusion I would come to is that Rustrum simply failed to maintain strict sterility and separation when he did the ethanol testing. IF he actually did the ethanol testing. So is that not a reasonable conclusion from the data?

Or have I missed something here...

 

[anor277]

Just to echo Rolfe's and Zep's comments, laboratory ethanol is a strange beastie. Absolute, pure alcohol, after rigorous drying, becomes 95% alcohol after exposure to air (it sucks up air-borne moisture). Because of statutory controls on the supply of "drinkable" alcohol, it is rare to use this in the lab.

What is generally used in the lab is IMS, industrial methylated spirits, that is regular ethanol that has been "denatured" by the addition of benzene, phenol, methanol, and other things, so that if you drink it, it would send you blind.

All of the aromatic denaturants, (benzene and the phenol) have significant absorptions in the UV, and this could be the signal that Rolfe claims is not characteristic of ethanol. At any rate different batches of IMS have different quantities of denaturant. Years ago, my old profs used to add water and lemon cordial to IMS that had not been significantly methylated (i.e. "denatured") for an instant party.

I don't know of course what solvent Roy used; anyone can make a mistake, but I would like a clear description of his source of ethanol and how he treated it.

 

[Pipirr]

I don't know of course what solvent Roy used; anyone can make a mistake, but I would like a clear description of his source of ethanol and how he treated it.

No clear description given in the paper (see post 20). Presumably, and that's a big presumption, all the ethanol was handled and provided by Hahnemann Laboratories. In fact all that is stated is that the lab prepared Nux vom and Nat mur samples for them, and then sent them by overnight courier. There's no mention that they also sent in a blank sample of the same ethanol used in the succussions.

Did Roy's group use their own ethanol as a control, and not one provided by Hahnemann Lab's?

 

[Mojo]

Forgive me, chemist-people and research scientists, but isn't spectrography based on the principle that there ARE specific molecules of test compound in existance that give the peaks in the readings? That is, regardless of the mix of compounds, ethanol always produces peak(s) at certain point(s) due to the fact that they ARE molecules of ethanol.

If so, wouldn't the results that the "homeopathic" ethanol lost its spectra peaks mean that there is no ethanol in that test mix at all? That means it is actually another compound altogether, or that it was a very shoddy test run.

The obvious conclusion I would come to is that Rustrum simply failed to maintain strict sterility and separation when he did the ethanol testing. IF he actually did the ethanol testing. So is that not a reasonable conclusion from the data?

I assume the claim is that the spectra are different because the structure of the ethanol has been subtly altered in some way (perhaps by changes in the hydrogen bonding between molecules making bonds more or less polar?). The other explanations you mention are at least as plausible.

 

[anor277]

No clear description given in the paper (see post 20). Presumably, and that's a big presumption, all the ethanol was handled and provided by Hahnemann Laboratories. In fact all that is stated is that the lab prepared Nux vom and Nat mur samples for them, and then sent them by overnight courier. There's no mention that they also sent in a blank sample of the same ethanol used in the succussions.

Did Roy's group use their own ethanol as a control, and not one provided by Hahnemann Lab's?

I've yet to read the paper, but as you say, a control sample of ethyl alcohol would be key. I don't know what nux vom is either (something to avoid); regarding nat mur, it is a fact that sodium chloride has next to no solubility in 95% ethyl alcohol (it is a standard undergraduate expt to prepare solutions of sodium chloride, bromide, iodide, and then add a squirt of alcohol - and out come the crystals of what?). So what is the actual procedure in making nat mur in ethyl alcohol? The likelihood of contamination by something is very high.

 

[shpalman]

I see Milgrom is still talking about "macro-entanglement" as if it's an actual mechanism rather than a metaphor.

At least he gets the units of Planck's constant right this time, even if he still can't spell the names of Del Giudice, Gribbin or Auyang.

The article by Teixeira explains clearly why it's all a pair of dingo's kidneys anyway.

 

[shpalman]

I don't know what nux vom is either (something to avoid)

It's the tree from which we get noted rat poison and murder weapon strychnine.

 

[Mojo]

...it is a fact that sodium chloride has next to no solubility in 95% ethyl alcohol...

A member of the chemistry department at my uni was reckoned to be the world's leading authority on the behaviour of ionic solutes in non-polar solvents...

 

[Baron Samedi]

I'm looking at the PDF/PPT file, and I have a question. Does anyone know why the graphs on slide 31 show nux vom in descending order (6c highest, then 12c, then 30c), yet on page 30 the nat mur sample goes from 12c to 30c to 6c? Did Roy try to explain that in the non-powerpoint paper?

 

[Rolfe]

I assume the claim is that the spectra are different because the structure of the ethanol has been subtly altered in some way (perhaps by changes in the hydrogen bonding between molecules making bonds more or less polar?). The other explanations you mention are at least as plausible.

As far as I can make out, there is no claim at all. He just presents the spectra and notes that they are different. Why they might be different seems not to have entered anyone's head.

Having said that, I'm going by the slide show, not the paper. I'll have a look at the paper at lunchtime.

The point about ethanol as a solvent for UV spectroscopy is that it doesn't absorb significantly above about 280nm. If you start using some preparation with additives that do absorb above 280nm, you've rather destroyed the point of the whole thing. Which doesn't mean that isn't exactly what has happened.

Rolfe.