comments invited

[joobz]

I do fluorescence work and know a bit about Raman (at least how it can interference with fluorescence spectroscopy)

Slide 30 presents four graphs, all of Nat Mur. Each graph has three data sets plotted, respectively labelled 6C, 12C and 30C. So far so good. The x-axes are all labelled "Raman shift (cm^-1)" and the y-axes are all labelled "x10^3 intensity (arb[itrary] units)". Fair enough, even though I don't know what these mean.

You send in a wavelength of light and measure the light scattered. If you measure the same wavelength emitted, this is called reliegh scattering and is a purely elastic scatter. Meaning no energy was lost and the compound that was hit functioned solely as a rubber ball in space.

Now consider fluorescence, you excite with one wavelength, and you get a different color back (black light).

Now raman is similar, in action, except it is still a scattering event and not a excitation event. In other words, there is a greater delay in the fluorescence emission (about a few nanoseconds delay) from when you hit it with a photon. Raman scattering has a delayed "emission" in the picosecond range (I think).

Now, if you see a shifting in the light in a raman scatter, that means that some of the photon energy was absorbed by the molecule (due to molecular vibrations). This absorbed energy, decreases the energy of the photon and results in a lower frequency (larger wavelength) light. (I think you can have actually a reverse where the wavelength is smaller than the excitation one, and this would be an anti-stokes shift, but I don't fully get that one).

Anyway, The stokes shift is the difference between the excited light and the scattered light. I believe it is actually independant of the wavelength of excitation, another difference from fluorescence where there are unique absorbtion/emission spectra. Each chemical will have a unique stokes shift due to it's chemical makeup.

As for the Arbitrary units, that's a relative measure based upon the exact method of detection used. In most cases, since there is a very weak signal, you will use a photomultiplier tube, which can directly "count" the number of photons emitted from a sample.
Some machines do not calibrate themselves to exact photon counts, and only output a "arbitrary unit". While other machines can plot out exact photon counts per second (cps).



As an aside, I can be considered a material scientist and state that none of this data can be used to say that they have evidence of polymerized water.
I agree that the uv-vis spectra is completely wrong. And that it is most likely sloppy handling that is the reason. I do not blame the professor for this, since it was most likely a student who performed the studies. However, I would guess that he did not look closely at the results at all.

 

[shpalman]

Now, if you see a shifting in the light in a raman scatter, that means that some of the photon energy was absorbed by the molecule (due to molecular vibrations). This absorbed energy, decreases the energy of the photon and results in a lower frequency (larger wavelength) light. (I think you can have actually a reverse where the wavelength is smaller than the excitation one, and this would be an anti-stokes shift, but I don't fully get that one).

Anyway, The stokes shift is the difference between the excited light and the scattered light. I believe it is actually independant of the wavelength of excitation, another difference from fluorescence where there are unique absorbtion/emission spectra. Each chemical will have a unique stokes shift due to it's chemical makeup.

So basically the Raman spectrum is showing you the vibrational energy levels of the sample - which should, I suppose, be related to what you see in the infrared spectrum. I think there's a subtlety in the use of appropriate excitation frequency and power, because heating the sample may make the bonds slightly longer (due to anharmonicity). There's a transmission IR spectrum of ethanol here but it's hard to see the x-scale - I think that wavenumber is actually increasing towards the left.

Slide number 34 amuses me: it seems to say "we need to take into account recent developments in physics and chemistry but we're ignoring the last couple of hundred years of biology".

 

[shpalman]

Studies using NMR may have been rejected on grounds that microwaves of 400 MHz (used in NMR to probe the sample) or a magnetic field destroy the memory of water. I'd like to hear an homeopath expound then about how the remedies resist ordinary TV broadcasts, also done on this 400 MHz frequency. Or how they fare near a power line.

Or how they cope in an environment at a temperature above millikelvins. A paper which is mentioned towards the end of this presentation cited as "evidence" for the memory effect of water is Del Giudice et. al.. Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 1085 (1988). Remember that the rotational energy levels of water correspond to microwaves. (I've seen this cited in Lionel Milgrom's papers - he consistently spells the first author "Del Guidice".)

 

[Zep]

in any case, zep, in quoting my response to you, you eliminated my formatting. as always, however, my original response clearly distinguished my comments from yours, by boldface type, a procedure that has until now provided no insurmountable obstacles to your ability to read what i have written...

...but the essential point is that poor behavior exists on all sides. i have said this numerous times - i have no problem admitting that homeopaths can behave badly, or formulate or sponsor poorly considered opinions or inadequate research. i also have no trouble acknowledging that i see a number of serious concerns with roy's research. but it seems, even in such a context, i am told in return that i should look in the mirror when i make comments about the skeptics.

i would suggest to you, that you would do better to respond to points made, than to come up with counterpoints that are basically irrelevant: the behavior of homeopaths may be atrocious, but that says nothing about the behavior of skeptics - a situation similar to that obtaining, when a homeopath criticizes conventional medicine in hopes of somehow created a positive case for homeopathy. two different subjects, zep - though related, they each stand on their own. in short, your comments about delivera et al have nothing to do with skeptical trolling.

imo it would represent a step in the right direction, if you simply acknowledge the problem - we don't even have to go into ludicrous routines trying to establish relative levels of guilt in the matter, or to demand a well-formatted List of References. all that is really required is an honest statement of the general case ...

which raises the question again: have you ever been banned from hpathy? if so, what name or names did you go by?

MOVING ON

now, zep, this is the fourth time i have posted my reply to a question you asked a couple of days ago. in the interim, you have taken up an energetic effort to re-focus attention from bad behavior of skeptics to bad behavior of homeopaths. perhaps, now, you will finally address a more substantive question?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/statusicon/post_old.gif[/qimg] Yesterday, 07:29 AM
Originally Posted by Zep [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]

An excellent starting point.

Now here's the next question: How do you propose to ensure that any proof you obtain is sufficiently robust as to be effectively unassailable? What is your criteria for "proof"?

neil replied: you like big questions, huh? ok - i have two standards:

1. comprehensiveness of the evidentiary record (which will differ depending on the type of evidence and the type of research), and

2. independent corroboration (not just replication, but also corroboration by independent means)


​

neil

I shall split this to another, new thread, in order to NOT derail this one further.

And Neil, please, please, PLEASE use the quote function. I have not the time nor patience to try to sort out what you have bolded or not by way of response, instead of using the quote function as normal people do. When you quote text, the bolding and italics etc is lost, so your way is ineffective AND inefficient. People seem to be able to use the quote function OK on homeopathy forums, so doing so here as well would be much appreciated.

Thanks

 

[Rolfe]

So basically the Raman spectrum is showing you the vibrational energy levels of the sample -

Ooh, Ooooh, I told you homoeopathic remedies worked because of their unique vibrational energies!

This proves it!!!!

/woo

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

Sorry, empty post.

You've decided to give homoeopathy another try?

 

[Rolfe]

.... snip explanation ....

As for the Arbitrary units, that's a relative measure based upon the exact method of detection used. In most cases, since there is a very weak signal, you will use a photomultiplier tube, which can directly "count" the number of photons emitted from a sample.
Some machines do not calibrate themselves to exact photon counts, and only output a "arbitrary unit". While other machines can plot out exact photon counts per second (cps).

So are you saying that the data for slide 30 (Nat Mur, in arbitrary units) was produced on a different machine from the data for slide 31 (Nux Vom, cps)?

Is there actually anything at all that can be concluded from what is presented on slides 30 and 31?

As an aside, I can be considered a material scientist and state that none of this data can be used to say that they have evidence of polymerized water.

Well, since all the work in that section of the slideshow relates to ethanol, not water, it would be a bit difficult!

I don't see how he can witter on about water for pages, then suddenly switch to ethanol and not even notice that he's completely changes the subject.

I agree that the uv-vis spectra is completely wrong. And that it is most likely sloppy handling that is the reason. I do not blame the professor for this, since it was most likely a student who performed the studies. However, I would guess that he did not look closely at the results at all.

You think you've found a mindblowingly simple way to differentiate potentised homoeopathic remedies from their ethanol solvent (just measure the OD at 320nm), and even if you don't know this could get you a million bucks you certainly understand the importance of the finding because you're a homoeopathy proponent. And you don't even check??? You just slide four slides of really, really dodgy data (on ethanol) into the middle of a talk on water, and leave it lying around the Internet for the homoeopathy proponents to bust a gut about. Yeah, right.

OK, he's 84. But even so, I do wonder what on earth he was thinking about.

Rolfe.

 

[shpalman]

So are you saying that the data for slide 30 (Nat Mur, in arbitrary units) was produced on a different machine from the data for slide 31 (Nux Vom, cps)?

Slide 30 has the y-axes labelled in thousands of counts per second, whereas slide 31 has them labelled in counts per second but the numbers are of the order of a few thousand - if that makes sense, I think it was all done on the same machine but the axes are just labelled differently.

Is there actually anything at all that can be concluded from what is presented on slides 30 and 31?

I don't know - he seems to be pointing out some small new peaks. Pity we don't get to see the whole spectrum including the ethanol peaks themselves. I'd have expected the ethanol peaks to shift slightly if it formed complexes with the solute - I thought that the main way to interpret Raman spectra is to look at the positions of the peaks (which don't seem to change at all) not their intensities (I'm wrong) but then the only recent experience I have on the subject is this and this - I'm a materials scientist of sorts but of solids not liquids. I don't even know what the stuff dissolved in the ethanol would look like if it were at normal concentrations.

I found a Raman spectrum of ethanol in J. Appl. Phys. though. Now I'm wondering what kind of ethanol is used by the homeopaths - distillation can't get rid of the last few percent of water and the various methods of getting to absolute ethanol may leave behind traces of other chemicals.

 

[joobz]

So basically the Raman spectrum is showing you the vibrational energy levels of the sample - which should, I suppose, be related to what you see in the infrared spectrum.

They are related, but IR reflects total absorbing the energy of a photon and converting it into vibrational energy. Raman is more like a glancing blow, where only a bit of the energy is absorbed during photon collision.

Also, raman is cool because it measures a positive effect (emitted light) vs. a subtractive effect (Absorbtion), which can result in high sensitivity.

 

[joobz]

So are you saying that the data for slide 30 (Nat Mur, in arbitrary units) was produced on a different machine from the data for slide 31 (Nux Vom, cps)?

most likely. Although, machines that can output cps, can also give you data in arbitrary units. To present both is a bit sloppy. Although, if you are only showing peak shifts, the absolute values don't matter. If you are claiming differences in peak height between the two graphs are relavent, that would be completely wrong. You would need some reference sample in both graphs to normalize against to draw any conclusions from peak height.

Is there actually anything at all that can be concluded from what is presented on slides 30 and 31?

I can't conclude anything without knowing more of the procedures used. As of now, it tells me nothing so much that he has different samples with different spectra. whoop-di-do.

Well, since all the work in that section of the slideshow relates to ethanol, not water, it would be a bit difficult!

exactly.

I don't see how he can witter on about water for pages, then suddenly switch to ethanol and not even notice that he's completely changes the subject.

I would be interested to hear his talk and see how he relates the information...

You think you've found a mindblowingly simple way to differentiate potentised homoeopathic remedies from their ethanol solvent (just measure the OD at 320nm), and even if you don't know this could get you a million bucks you certainly understand the importance of the finding because you're a homoeopathy proponent. And you don't even check??? You just slide four slides of really, really dodgy data (on ethanol) into the middle of a talk on water, and leave it lying around the Internet for the homoeopathy proponents to bust a gut about. Yeah, right.

OK, he's 84. But even so, I do wonder what on earth he was thinking about.

Rolfe.

I looked him up on the Pennstate MRI group, which is a highly respected materials institute.
Dr. Roy is a national academy of engineers member, a very prestigous honor. So, in terms of ceramics (which is what his publication record is in), he's the man. But it seems that his work in whole body science is far from reliable. I think this is a case of compartmentalization.

 

[dannagain]

Key Conclusions

• Different potencies can be distinctly distinguished by the UV-VIS and the Raman spectra.

http://www.rustumroy.com/May 16th Webinar.pdf

Murthy

surely you mean Ramen?

i didn't realise his noodliness was into homeopathy

All hail the fsm!

 

[bvw12]

dannagain - no, he meant raman, as he said. but if you wanted oodles of noodles, you've come to the right place.

rolfe - no specific comments on your analyses, except to offer my appreciation for your very considered and (in an entirely positive sense) entertaining contributions.

neil

 

[Rolfe]

Well, we've had the comments. And I have to express some gratitude to Murthy for bringing up the subject, and also to JJM for putting his finger on the problem with the UV spectra. This has stimulated me to look at Roy's stuff, and actually see what all the fuss was about. I might well not have bothered otherwise, but in the light of what is being claimed for Roy's work, it was well worth the trouble.

I found a lecture in several parts, ostensibly about the properties of water. The first part was a rehash of a published paper. This paper explicitly stated that it contained no original data, but was purely speculative work based on other publications. It also contained some very sloppy presentation, including (incredibly) an "argument by Googlefight", and serious mistakes when citing references.

The second part was about the antibacterial properties of silver. Silver is widely used for its antibacterial properties, which are well understood, so the "gee whiz" tone of this was a little surprising. If any of the silver preparations discussed were homoeopathic ones, this was not clear to me from the data presented.

The third part was what all the fuss was about. With no explanation, Roy switched his subject from water to ethanol, a completely different solvent with completely different properties. It just happened, however, to be the solvent used by the homoeopathic manufacturer he got his material from. He launched into the ethanol data with no explanation as to how this had any bearing on his subject, which was water. He presented two slides of UV spectra. The obvious error was the spectrum presented for ethanol, which simply wasn't the UV spectrum of ethanol. The data could only have been produced by something like a dirty cuvette, a dirty sample, or the use of the wrong type of cuvette (or all three). Little or nothing could be read into the spectra of the homoeopathic remedies presented, and in the light of the gross error in the ethanol spectrum the whole lot has to be considered worthless.

He then presented Raman spectra of some homoeopathic preparations. These are incomprehensible to me, and I haven't been much enlightened by anything said about them. They certainly, as they stand, cannot constitute evidence of anything. I really can't imagine that homoeopaths can read these spectra and make valid conclusions from them, when posters here cannot. And when we take into account that the simplest piece of data presented in the section, the UV spectrum of ethanol, is demonstrably very very wrong, then one has to doubt the provenance of the rest.

The final part of the lecture is just an overview of homoeopathy, explaining what it is, and why it would be nice if someone could come up with a plausible mode of action.

The whole thing proves absolutely nothing at all, except that the quality of the work and presentation is dire, and not at all what one would expect of an academic with Roy's apparent background. If what he is claiming is true, then it would be simplicity itself do demonstrate this convincingly, and to describe an experiment that anyone with a UV photometer capable of reading at about 320nm could repeat to satisfy themselves of it. However, once one realises that the "ethanol" spectrum he presents is wrong, then it becomes clear that the whole UV thing is baseless.

I do wonder about this slideshow. If Roy or any of the authors really thinks they have something as novel and groundbreaking as this, why hide the data in a rambling lecture about something else (water) and present it in such an unconvincing manner? Also, why present such sloppy and apparently unchecked data in the first place? If this is for real, it deserves to be properly checked and verified, and to be properly and prominently presented. But if it doesn't check out as real (and I'd bet my house on it not checking out), then it shouldn't be there at all.

I can't shake the suspicion that the authors realise there's nothing really there, but have allowed this poorly presented set of data to go up on the Internet just to give the homoeopathic community something to latch on to.

Rolfe.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

18th July 4.43pm

i expect, though, that it will take me awhile to sort through your lengthy and apparently very thoughtful statements, so i appreciate your patience.

19th July 9.38pm

rolfe - no specific comments on your analyses, except to offer my appreciation for your very considered and (in an entirely positive sense) entertaining contributions.

Is that it?

Rolfe and others carefully demolish yet another of their ventures into science fiction and after over a day of contemplation all Neil can manage is no comment, specific or otherwise.

I am lost for words. And that doesn't happen very often.

 

[Rolfe]

Studies using NMR may have been rejected on grounds that microwaves of 400 MHz (used in NMR to probe the sample) or a magnetic field destroy the memory of water. I'd like to hear an homeopath expound then about how the remedies resist ordinary TV broadcasts, also done on this 400 MHz frequency. Or how they fare near a power line.

I'd still like to see the evidence that magnetic fields inactivate the remedies. Some of them say they do, and some of them say they've never noticed a problem. The only answer I ever got from a homoeopath (about the discrepancy, not how you tell) was first, wasn't it great that there was room for such diversity of opinion (as if we were discussing whether Jane Austin or Charlotte Bronte was the better author!), and second, wasn't it better just to err on the safe side?

Since there is no way to tell whether a remedy is "active" or not, ot even whether it is simply a fake with a label, then they're in real trouble on this one. Of course the successful ones have all kissed the Blarney Stone, so there's always a weasel-out that at least satisfies them that they've answered the question.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Is that it?

Rolfe and others carefully demolish yet another of their ventures into science fiction and after over a day of contemplation all Neil can manage is no comment, specific or otherwise.

I am lost for words. And that doesn't happen very often.

I honestly don't think he understands a word of it. And although the Raman spectroscopy is fairly complex, the UV spectroscopy is simple enough for a child to follow.

He's probably afraid to comment in case he reveals his lack of grasp of what anybody is talking about. But it will be interesting to see if he goes on claiming Roy as evidence for the memory of water (or is it ethanol?), or if he mentions that there's been some discrediting going on when others make that claim.

I suspect, though, that brave Sir Neil, like Brave Sir Dana, is in the process of superciliously running away.

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

I'd still like to see the evidence that magnetic fields inactivate the remedies. Some of them say they do, and some of them say they've never noticed a problem. The only answer I ever got from a homoeopath (about the discrepancy, not how you tell) was first, wasn't it great that there was room for such diversity of opinion, and second, wasn't it better just to err on the safe side?

WHAT!!!

It's "erring on the safe side" to use remedies without having any idea whether or not they'll have any effect?

 

[Zep]

And yet Neil doesn't like it when I don't respond further to his demands for interaction!

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Yep. Definitely the sound of footsteps running off into the far distance beyond the light of reason. I can still see them: fingers stuffed firmly in ears and shouting, "La. La. La. Homeopathy works. La. La. La.", or in Neil's case, la la la homeopathy works la la la

Not an edifying sight.

How about we split another side thread to discuss the psychology behind the false humility and infantilism of arrogating e e cummings choice of typography? Done originally, it begs interesting questions about the structure of written language. Copied, it is just puerile.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Are any of the homeopaths still working or have we broken them all? There certainly seems to be a little pile of busted cogs lying around here.

Do they come with a warranty? I'm sure this comes under "fair wear and tear".