Homeopathic migraine relief
- Thread starter Lisa Simpson
- Start date
-
- Tags
- homeopathy migraine relief
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1532
Bizarre chemical discovery gives homeopathic hint
19:00 07 November 2001
A team in South Korea has discovered a whole new dimension to just about the simplest chemical reaction in the book - what happens when you dissolve a substance in water and then add more water.
Conventional wisdom says that the dissolved molecules simply spread further and further apart as a solution is diluted. But two chemists have found that some do the opposite: they clump together, first as clusters of molecules, then as bigger aggregates of those clusters. Far from drifting apart from their neighbours, they got closer together.
What he discovered was a phenomenon new to chemistry. "When he diluted the solution, the size of the fullerene particles increased," says Geckeler. "It was completely counterintuitive," he says
==================================
your waterfall example is not the same thing as what occurs in the lab.
(a certain person has claimed that this study did not hold up in replication. this is not true. a portugese (sp?) researcher used a different protocol (NMR) to arrive at different conclusions. NMR has been shown to be a poor choice for this type of observation)
Bizarre chemical discovery gives homeopathic hint
19:00 07 November 2001
A team in South Korea has discovered a whole new dimension to just about the simplest chemical reaction in the book - what happens when you dissolve a substance in water and then add more water.
Conventional wisdom says that the dissolved molecules simply spread further and further apart as a solution is diluted. But two chemists have found that some do the opposite: they clump together, first as clusters of molecules, then as bigger aggregates of those clusters. Far from drifting apart from their neighbours, they got closer together.
What he discovered was a phenomenon new to chemistry. "When he diluted the solution, the size of the fullerene particles increased," says Geckeler. "It was completely counterintuitive," he says
==================================
your waterfall example is not the same thing as what occurs in the lab.
(a certain person has claimed that this study did not hold up in replication. this is not true. a portugese (sp?) researcher used a different protocol (NMR) to arrive at different conclusions. NMR has been shown to be a poor choice for this type of observation)
As this is a thread on homeopathy (and I didn't name the other thread very well) I was just wondering if anyone had any comments or opinions on the pro-homeopathic stance of netdoctor.co.uk ?
Oleron said:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/4/15
"if there was one iota of truth in the water memory theory your bodily functions would fail to operate immediately. There would simply be no way for your body to filter out competing reactions."
Once again, no where in nature do we find a process of repeated succussion and dilution. therefore our bodies are never subjected to this unless we consume some of this manmade water.
--and when a person does consume it, the effect is rather gentle. it sounds like you might be overexaggerating what might really happen.
if you look at the basophil studies you will see that the effects are not overly dramatic.
Oh. So every time it rains anywhere, water in the form of raindrops just settle gently on the ground without splashing about (succussion). And at the same time they fail to dilute anything that is already there - swamps, ponds, creeks, rivers, lakes and oceans, for example (dilution).Olaf/QII said:
Selective amnesia??? I'm sure a 30C NaCl remedy can fix that for you!
[ETA:] Yes, the basophil studies are so not overly dramatic that they fail to have a dose/response curve at all. It's sort of like...well, put simply, that their response has nothing at all to do with any homeopathic remedy at ANY dilution. Hmmmm... Back to the drawing board, perhaps?
Oleron
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Messages
- 940
Thanks for the link to the NMR study, Olaf. I used to do a wee bit of NMR myself, back in the old days, and water tended to "drown out" the NMR signal if it was present in a sample. The study mentions they pre-saturated the signal on the water to see what else was in there. This works the NMR machines hard so I'm not surprised about the large number of spurious peaks they found. Mind you, neither were the researchers, to their credit.
The study shows clearly that water clustering is not a long-lived effect. As such, it rules out this option as a mechanism for homeopathy. Although I really couldn't imagine how this would work anyway. Oh well, back to the drawing board!
So what else might be causing your homeopathic effects? The study mentions isotopic patterning, chaos theory and coherence as competing theories.
Isotopic patterning - don't know anything about it.
Chaos theory - weak excuse for an explanation.
Coherence - Ah, we might be onto something here. This idea depends on 2 factors. Firstly the dilution "clumping" idea that you have touched on already - the idea that at extreme dilutions molecules of solute aggregate in clumps.
Secondly that this leads to quantum coherent domains - the collective vibrations of the water molecules in the coherent domain eventually become phase-locked to the fluctuations of the global electromagnetic field. In this way, long-lasting, stable oscillations could be maintained in the water.
OK, I wondered when the Q-word would be rolled out.
Let us assume that coherence operates exactly as speculated. How does that support homeopathy? It is nothing to do with succussion and dilution, the basis of homeopathy, for a start. Secondly, even if the water molecules are vibrating at the same level as the original solute (whatever that means!), how does this affect the chemical properties of the water? It doesn't. At all.
So, we're back where we started. Whatever effect homeopathy has, it is absolutely nothing to do with the chemistry of water.
Forget chemistry, it just gets in the way. Quantum fluctuations and energy fields are the way to go. Far more interesting than boring old chemical reactions.
I feel better now, knowing that homeopathy is good old-fashioned woo after all.
The study shows clearly that water clustering is not a long-lived effect. As such, it rules out this option as a mechanism for homeopathy. Although I really couldn't imagine how this would work anyway. Oh well, back to the drawing board!
So what else might be causing your homeopathic effects? The study mentions isotopic patterning, chaos theory and coherence as competing theories.
Isotopic patterning - don't know anything about it.
Chaos theory - weak excuse for an explanation.
Coherence - Ah, we might be onto something here. This idea depends on 2 factors. Firstly the dilution "clumping" idea that you have touched on already - the idea that at extreme dilutions molecules of solute aggregate in clumps.
Secondly that this leads to quantum coherent domains - the collective vibrations of the water molecules in the coherent domain eventually become phase-locked to the fluctuations of the global electromagnetic field. In this way, long-lasting, stable oscillations could be maintained in the water.
OK, I wondered when the Q-word would be rolled out.
Let us assume that coherence operates exactly as speculated. How does that support homeopathy? It is nothing to do with succussion and dilution, the basis of homeopathy, for a start. Secondly, even if the water molecules are vibrating at the same level as the original solute (whatever that means!), how does this affect the chemical properties of the water? It doesn't. At all.
So, we're back where we started. Whatever effect homeopathy has, it is absolutely nothing to do with the chemistry of water.
Forget chemistry, it just gets in the way. Quantum fluctuations and energy fields are the way to go. Far more interesting than boring old chemical reactions.
I feel better now, knowing that homeopathy is good old-fashioned woo after all.
Oleron said:
http://www.springerlink.com/app/hom...al,16,86;linkingpublicationresults,1:102948,1
Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry
Publisher: Springer Science+Business Media B.V., Formerly Kluwer Academic Publishers B.V.
ISSN: 1388-6150 (Paper) 1572-8943 (Online)
DOI: 10.1023/B:JTAN.0000027178.11665.8f
Issue: Volume 75, Number 3
Date: January 2004
Pages: 815 - 836
New Physico-Chemical Properties of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions
V. Elia1 and M. Niccoli1
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.
==================================
dilutions to 10 (-24) (do not be fooled by the abstract that states 10 (-5) --- this was the starting point of their measurements.)
SOMETHING STRANGE IS GOING ON WITH RESPECT TO ULTRADILUTE SOLUTIONS AND I AM HERE TO PRESENT IT TO YOU.
THE MENTALLY UNSTABLE AND THE DISHONEST WILL NEVER GET IT BUT I BELIEVE THERE ARE A FEW PEOPLE HERE WHO HAVE JUST ENOUGH OBJECtivity that eventually they will catch on.
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
Olaf/QII said:
Which word in that quote tells me that the authors have over-interpeted their data without any need to read the paper?
Oleron
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Messages
- 940
(raises hand excitedly)
I know this one!
What I want to know is how they controlled the experiment. Normally you would have a control sample which you would treat in the same way as the real sample, blind to which one was which.
But if you dilute and succuss the control in the same way as the sample (which, by definition, you would HAVE to do to ensure that impurities aren't causing the effect), how can you say that the physical process of succussion and dilution are causing the effect?
Surely the control would show the effect as well?
Ah, but the control never got any solute in the first place - it was diluted with water. But according to Benveniste, the solute is unimportant and the effect of a solute can be transmitted via email! So how do they "shield" the control?
We're into a whole new branch of imaginary chemistry here. There are so many possible sources of error here that it makes my head spin.
It reminds me of a trick played on undergrad chemists, years ago. We would ask them to measure out a gram of powder on a super sensitive balance, as best they could.
We didn't tell them the powder was silica, fresh from the oven. They would measure out the powder to around a gram and start to note the exact reading on the balance. By the time they noted it down, it had increased slightly. They would rub out their reading and put the new one. The reading increased again and again, frustrating the poor students until they gave up.
The reason is that dried silica absorbs water from the atmosphere and gets heavier as it sits on the balance. It is supposed to make the students think about the physical factors and experimental errors involved in chemistry and how important it is to have sensible controls.
You didn't just say 'silica', did you? You didn't just mention something interesting about it, did you? Or are you trying to summon Kumar on purpose?Oleron said:
/We need an "Summon Kumar" car like they have an "Summon Bevets" card over at fark.
//Invoke to summon. Forgot my terminology.
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
Oleron said:
Well, I was going to leave it hanging until Xanta decided to offer an answer, but in case things get derailed, or Xanta is too frit to try it, the word is "permanent".
By whatever means that study was peformed, I'll betcha there is no way they could declare any finding of apparent difference between test water and control water to be literally permanent. Just ask yourself what controls they would have needed and how long would they have had to monitor the samples to declare that result fairly.
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
Olaf/QII said:
And you remind me of someone wearing blinkers and unable to determine the difference between reliable data and fluff.
How are the bowels these days?
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
By the way, Xanta, does it never occur to you to wonder why all these ground-breaking papers you trawl up never appear in journals like Nature or Science where they would be subjected to the highest level of scrutineering? Remember, if any of these studies was literally true very large parts of physics and chemistry would be wrong so if the studies were as solid as you think they would find an instant place in the most important journals. I have scrutineered for journals and know that at the lower end of the quality spectrum stuff does slip through simply because it's not important enough to give it the really hard challenges that more serious and important work warrants. At the low quality end of the spectrum, the end of the pool you are wading in, work gets published because it is merely OK and not obviously rubbish, publication does not set its results in stone as a permanent (that word again) truth.
As ever, it is replication, especially independent replication with better and tighter controls that sorts the wheat from the chaff.
As ever, it is replication, especially independent replication with better and tighter controls that sorts the wheat from the chaff.
Rolfe
Adult human female
[raises hand excitedly]Badly Shaved Monkey said:
Please, sir, I got it! (Pretty lame, as I didn't actually answer the post at the time...)
There a few woo-words there, "succussion" is equivalent to saying "we're doing homoeopathy, actually", and "physico-chemical properties" has a nice ring to it but doesn't actually say much, but inded, the word "permanently" absolutely proves over-interpretation.
This is the guy who hasn't yet tried his method blind, as far as we know? Right?
Rolfe.