Homoeopathy article from Penn State

So if the Ennis study was so good and if you believe that it was not flawed, why have the results not been replicated?

because the 2004 Ennis study was so thorough and so time consuming and so expensive and so recent, that's why.

the Horizon Show was a hatchet job, performed by some buffoon homeopath. the time and expense and diligence was a mere fraction of what went into the Ennis study.

as i said before, homeopaths are an ignorant lot.
 
Last edited:
5 years ago isn't all that recent in scientific circles. 5 years later, the Pons/Fleischmann experiment still hadn't been replicated either, not for lack of trying.
 
5 years ago isn't all that recent in scientific circles. 5 years later, the Pons/Fleischmann experiment still hadn't been replicated either, not for lack of trying.

actually, the basophil study has been successfully done before. the 2004 study was done to put the issue away. ennis was a lifelong disbeliever in the whole water memory theory. the findings shocked her.

maybe at some later point i will dig up the prior successful studies.

at any rate, the whole polar molecules have memory theory is gaining steam. only the most resistant denialists can continue to bury their heads after thoroughly investigating the data.
 
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1qrg658q501j124/

in fact i think this was one of them. it was conducted in the 90's.

so the ennis study wasn't the 1st blinded study. it was however the most thorough.

any credible scientist without bias is going to read it and be impressed at the level of care and diligence that went into it.

why is this so darned scary anyway?
 
Last edited:
5 years ago isn't all that recent in scientific circles. 5 years later, the Pons/Fleischmann experiment still hadn't been replicated either, not for lack of trying.

replication in 1999 also



As well as specific allergens, there are also non-specific stimuli which provoke the degranulation of all basophils. These include the antiserum, anti-IgE. Benveniste's group claimed that degranulation can be triggered by anti-IgE dilutions far into the ultramolecular range, however, these results proved irreproducible in the hands of two independent groups. Although Benveniste himself has moved on, the affair cast a long shadow over in vitro research in homeopathy. A recent publication, however, may mark the end of the sorry chapter. With a research group including many of Benveniste's former collaborators, this latest experiment using HBDT measured the inhibition of degranulation by high dilutions of histamine. Experiments were conducted in parallel at four independent laboratories and the pooled results yielded a total of 772 valid data points[1]. The presentation of the paper was low key, but the authors suggest that the method is being developed further using flow cytometry. Although more work is still required, it seems that the Benveniste affair may yet have a happy ending.

Reference
1. Belon P et al. Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: results of a European multi-centre trial. Inflamm. Res. 48 S1: 517-518. 1999.
 
Dr Harriet Hall wrote a very good critique of homeopathy in eSkeptic. Here's a relevant section:



So if you're asking me what the specific methodological flaws were in the Ennis study, the answer is "I don't know". I haven't studied the report or the protocol in detail, and I'm not likely to. But the fact that the results have not been successfully replicated in any other studies strongly suggests that there is some flaw.

So if the Ennis study was so good and if you believe that it was not flawed, why have the results not been replicated?

Here is one unsuccessful attempt to replicate it:

http://www.vfk.ch/infos/fachliteratur/Baumgartner/Guggisberg2005.pdf
 
seems that in 2005 another study showing positive results for water memory

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=9e8e1f990e969e1555ee65eac16a51e7



Background

Histamine is known to elicit a negative feedback effect on anti-IgE and allergen-induced basophil activation. A series of experiments performed between 1981 and 1995 using a manual method showed biological activity of highly diluted histamine. Most of the experiments used histermine in the range 10−30 (15C)–10−36 M (18C). These results were confirmed by automated flow cytometry, but this method is based on the selection of basophils by anti-IgE and analysis of basophil activation by anti-CD 63, showing significant but relatively low inhibition (approximately 14%), insufficient to convince the scientific community of the reality of the phenomenon.

Results

Histamine 10−4 M (2C) and histamine 10−32 M (16C) were capable of inhibiting both IgE-dependent (anti-IgE) and IgE-independent (fMLP) basophil activation. The percentage inhibition depended on the activation marker used. The highest inhibition for histamine dilution 16C was observed with CD 203c (38%, P<0.001), approximately half the inhibition observed with histamine 2C (73%).
Conclusion

These new flow cytometric protocols confirmed that high dilutions of histamine may inhibit basophil activation and that the inhibitory effect is not restricted to IgE-dependent activation. The use of CD 203c instead of CD 63 increased the magnitude of the response.
 
I said the Benveniste study was not blinded. I hadn't considered the Ennis study until you brought it up.
I have to apologise to meow. I thought you were referring to the Benveniste study when you were actually referring to the Ennis one. A lot of my comments in this thread (like "deeply flawed") referred to the Benveniste study, even after you had referred to the Ennis one. I had not made the distinction between the two.

Meow, since you appear to be a supporter of homeopathy, can you tell me if there is any way that a properly-prepared homeopathic remedy can be distinguished from a non-homeopathic substance such as water or improperly prepared homeopathy?
 
I have to apologise to meow. I thought you were referring to the Benveniste study when you were actually referring to the Ennis one. A lot of my comments in this thread (like "deeply flawed") referred to the Benveniste study, even after you had referred to the Ennis one. I had not made the distinction between the two.

Meow, since you appear to be a supporter of homeopathy, can you tell me if there is any way that a properly-prepared homeopathic remedy can be distinguished from a non-homeopathic substance such as water or improperly prepared homeopathy?

i support the theory that water has a memory of some sort. --or is able to capture the solute and store it. some frequency or energy resonates within the solution even after the original solute has been diluted far out of existence.

there are many studies that support this. see below

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15594862

Here we thus show that successive dilutions and succussions can permanently alter the physico-chemical properties of the water solvent. The nature of the phenomena here described still remains unexplained, nevertheless some significant experimental results were obtained.
Revue / Journal Title
Journal of thermal analysis and calorimetry ISSN 1388-6150




i believe a properly prepared ultra dilute lithium solution can easily be identified from a control using thermoluminescense.... see below

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=0dd37a60a935ce27e1ac6ccc41b2ef1c

Ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride (10−30 gcm−3) have been irradiated by X- and γ-rays at 77 K, then progressively rewarmed to room temperature. During that phase, their thermoluminescence has been studied and it was found that, despite their dilution beyond the Avogadro number, the emitted light was specific of the original salts dissolved initially.




http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3817

Aware of homeopaths' claims that patterns of hydrogen bonds can survive successive dilutions, Rey decided to test samples that had been diluted down to a notional 10-30 grams per cubic centimetre - way beyond the point when any ions of the original substance could remain. "We thought it would be of interest to challenge the theory," he says.

Each dilution was made according to a strict protocol, and vigorously stirred at each stage, as homeopaths do. When Rey compared the ultra-dilute lithium and sodium chloride solutions with pure water that had been through the same process, the difference in their thermoluminescence peaks compared with pure water was still there (see graph).

"Much to our surprise, the thermoluminescence glows of the three systems were substantially different," he says. He believes the result proves that the networks of hydrogen bonds in the samples were different.
 
Last edited:
not entirely unsuccessful from what i read so far. the dilutions at 10 (-22) proved to be highly significant.

i find it interesting that they said, "several studies have shown significant effects...."

all of those plus this one showing some success...leads one to believe this is all very real indeed.

Actually, they say (my bolding):

In contrast to former studies (Table 3), no large effect
of highly diluted histamine solutions
on anti-IgE
induced basophil degranulation as assessed by CD63
up-regulation can be found in our data under these
conditions. But notably, even with this rigid protocol
we found one minor, but statistically significant,
inhibitory effect at a histamine dilution of
10−22 M, when compared to the effect of water
‘‘diluted’’ to 10−22 M. However, when the same
data were compared a posteriori to other reasonable
controls, statistical significance was lost. One
may argue, that statistical significance was reached
only because the standard deviation of the inhibition
within this dilution level (10−22 M)

How you get "highly significant" and "very real indeed" out of that is a mystery to me.
 
Last edited:
Actually, they say (my bolding):

How you get "highly significant" and "very real indeed" out of that is a mystery to me.

p<.018 at the 10 (-22) dilution, call it what you will.

the experiment leaves me wondering.... why for example do they only use one single donor when for instance the 2004 study and all the others used many many donors?

i don't have the time to tear it apart.

when i look at the work of the homeopaths i see so much inconsistency in their results. this is far far from an exact science. it isn't chemistry they are dealing with. a simple matter of mixing in an enzyme and watching it go to work. rather something far less exact.

inconsistant results would not shock me in the least.

next time use more than one donor and make the study larger.

probably financially hampered.
 
...it was blinded far far far far beyond almost any other study that i can remember.
Oh, we're doing that sort of evidence today; I thought you might have actually quoted the bit from the paper where it said all the studies were double/triple blinded - silly Yuri :blush:

So, to continue with the 'logique de jour' - no, no, the study was very very very very very flawed (I think you'll find 5 verys beat 4 fars) :p

Yuri.

ps I usually find that if a study is double blinded the workers are so pleased with themselves it will be mentioned in the abstract and often even in the title. The fact that it hasn't been mentioned in this abstract probably means it wasn't done... but that's probably very reductionist, not to say Newtonian of me.
 
ps I usually find that if a study is double blinded the workers are so pleased with themselves it will be mentioned in the abstract and often even in the title. The fact that it hasn't been mentioned in this abstract probably means it wasn't done... but that's probably very reductionist, not to say Newtonian of me.

it was blinded.

how about a bet?

a 3 month self ban to the loser
 
Last edited:
it was blinded.

how about a bet?

a 3 month self ban to the loser
I know it was blinded, I read it in the abstract. Blinded (single blinded) isn't good enough. I would like you to quote the bit of the paper where it says the trials included were double (or triple) blinded please.

How about another bet - you prove that memory of water or homeopathy is valid and the jref gives you a million dollars.

Yuri
 
I know it was blinded, I read it in the abstract. Blinded (single blinded) isn't good enough. I would like you to quote the bit of the paper where it says the trials included were double (or triple) blinded please.

How about another bet - you prove that memory of water or homeopathy is valid and the jref gives you a million dollars.

Yuri


easily proven, however, as randi once said, "never play another man's game." as he most certainly sabotages the experiment during the preliminary stage. he is allowed to do that according to the rules he spells out.


easily proven via....



http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=0dd37a60a935ce27e1ac6ccc41b2ef1c

Abstract

Ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride (10−30 gcm−3) have been irradiated by X- and γ-rays at 77 K, then progressively rewarmed to room temperature. During that phase, their thermoluminescence has been studied and it was found that, despite their dilution beyond the Avogadro number, the emitted light was specific of the original salts dissolved initially.
 
Last edited:
meow said:
easily proven, however, as randi once said, "never play another man's game." as he most certainly sabotages the experiment during the preliminary stage. he is allowed to do that according to the rules he spells out.

That explains a lot.
 
I know it was blinded, I read it in the abstract. Blinded (single blinded) isn't good enough. I would like you to quote the bit of the paper where it says the trials included were double (or triple) blinded please.
Yuri

maybe you are confused.

basophils were being experimented on, not humans. the researchers were blinded.

if the basophils were "people" then you would blind them and the experiment would now be called double blinded.
 

Back
Top Bottom