• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Benveniste - again!

Asolepius

Graduate Poster
Asolepius
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
1,150
I can't seem to find the Lancet reference for Benveniste's original in vitro paper on the 'memory of water', or the subsequent retraction by the journal. The Lancet site only goes back to 1996 and PubMed is also incomplete. Can anyone help?
 
Do you mean his original paper in Nature?

Benveniste J, Ducot B, Spira A.
Memory of water revisited.
Nature. 1994 Aug 4;370(6488):322.
 
Deetee said:
Do you mean his original paper in Nature?

Benveniste J, Ducot B, Spira A.
Memory of water revisited.
Nature. 1994 Aug 4;370(6488):322.
Click to expand...

No I mean the 1988 Lancet paper. He continued to fight a rearguard action after the Lancet retracted it.
 
Do you have the actual reference- date/volume? I'll see if our medical library stocks it.
 
Deetee said:
Do you have the actual reference- date/volume? I'll see if our medical library stocks it.
Click to expand...

Ah, this is the problem, I have seen the paper referred to here and elsewhere but can never get the full reference. there's a long report which James Randi has reviewed here. Sorry, it was 1986 not 88.
 
There's nothing on Medline, EMBASE or AMED for 1986 but there is this from 1988:

Controlled clinical trial of homeopathy in postoperative ileus.
Mayaux-M-J, Guihard-Moscato-M-L, Schwartz-D, Benveniste-J, Coquin-Y, Crapanne-J-B, Poitevin-B, Rodary-M, Chevrel-J-P, Mollet-M.
Lancet, 1988, Vol/Iss/Pg. 1/8584 (528-529)

Is that what you where looking for?
 
Camillus said:
There's nothing on Medline, EMBASE or AMED for 1986 but there is this from 1988:

Controlled clinical trial of homeopathy in postoperative ileus.
Mayaux-M-J, Guihard-Moscato-M-L, Schwartz-D, Benveniste-J, Coquin-Y, Crapanne-J-B, Poitevin-B, Rodary-M, Chevrel-J-P, Mollet-M.
Lancet, 1988, Vol/Iss/Pg. 1/8584 (528-529)

Is that what you where looking for?
Click to expand...

No, I've seen that one. It's a clinical trial, whereas I'm looking for the in vitro (ie lab) study which was featured on BBC Horizon and subsequently rubbished.
 
Are you sure it wasn't this one from Nature, 1988?

Davenas, Benveniste et al. Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE. Nature 333, Jun 1988.

Here's the follow up by Randi, et al:

Maddox J, Randi J, Stewart WW. "High-dilution" experiments a delusion. Nature 334: 287-290, 1988.

Response by Benveniste:

Benveniste J. Dr Jacques Benveniste replies. Nature 334: 291, 1988.

Response by Metzger and Dreskin:

Metzger H, Dreskin SC. Only the smile is left. Nature 334: 375, 1988.

And then this one from Lancet:

Benveniste J. Publicity and controversial data. The Lancet ii: 944, 1990.
 
zakur said:
Are you sure it wasn't this one from Nature, 1988?

Davenas, Benveniste et al. Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE. Nature 333, Jun 1988.

SNIP

And then this one from Lancet:

Benveniste J. Publicity and controversial data. The Lancet ii: 944, 1990.
Click to expand...
Well it could be - I was just following various citations which said it was Lancet, but they may be wrong. It will do any way - many thanks!
 
Les Rose said:

Well it could be - I was just following various citations which said it was Lancet, but they may be wrong. It will do any way - many thanks!
Click to expand...

I've just looked at the Nature citation and Benveniste is not listed as an author, although he might be one of the 'et als'. Presumably as head of dept he was right at the end of a very long list!
 
Les Rose said:


I've just looked at the Nature citation and Benveniste is not listed as an author, although he might be one of the 'et als'. Presumably as head of dept he was right at the end of a very long list!
Click to expand...

Les,

Yes, you've got your Lancets and Natures muddled. It was Nature and its editor John Maddox that got embroiled in this. So, I'm sure thet citation you've just been given must be the right one.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:


Les,

Yes, you've got your Lancets and Natures muddled. It was Nature and its editor John Maddox that got embroiled in this. So, I'm sure thet citation you've just been given must be the right one.
Click to expand...

Yes I am sure you are right. The report on this site got them muddled though! Many thanks to you and others for your help.
 
Rolfe said:
I don't know if the paper is accessible through PubMed, but Benveniste himself has posted the whole thing on his web site.

snip
Rolfe.
Click to expand...
Thanks - confirms authorship, although it looks rather like an edited version. The abstract is on PubMed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom