• 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.

Homeopathy, again!

Meme101

New Blood
M
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
5
My first major post here so please bear with me.

Allthough I am a major sceptic in the true sense of the word I am always cautious to not let my scepticism result in me "missing" something. Homeopathy crops up again and again as something I need to reconsider and I want to get a few views on the following:

A chemist called Rey, conducted experiments based on thermoluminescence, whereby he picked up the exact same substances in above 10C homeopathic dilutions as in the actual samples at normal dilutions.

There are the experiments of Professor Madeleine Ennis, where motor cells of rats were subjected to a toxin, causing it to severely contract. When an above 10C homeopathic preperation of Belladonna (apparently the medicine of choice for poison), were administered, the contractions seized.

In all the negative press on homeopathy I read about the dilution aspect (ie Avogadro's number). When one makes off the above on face value it would be that as we cannot find one molecule of the proposed substance in the homeopathic preperation, it therefore cannot work.

Can it not be that we know too little about the "quantum" properties of water to be able to come up with a viable scientific explanation? I am also cautious about pseudoscientific mumblings where you use the word quantum and a fringe "science" in one sentence, but the experimental proofs I found so far does show that there is more than what meets the eye.

Please don't respond by telling me that since the scientists mentioned did not head James Randi's $1m challenge they do not have actual proof. I would appreciate a bit more intellectual interaction on this matter.
 
(word of advice: to be taken seriously, try to avoid starting with "I'm a skeptic" followed by the exact same arguments used by woos)

Meme101 said:
but the experimental proofs I found so far does show that there is more than what meets the eye.
Click to expand...

Funny, all the experimental proofs that aren't fraught with methodological problems found that there is not more than meets the eye.

If you wish, provide us links to these experiments you speak of so that we can look at their protocol, data analysis and such.
 
Meme101 said:
A chemist called Rey, conducted experiments based on thermoluminescence, whereby he picked up the exact same substances in above 10C homeopathic dilutions as in the actual samples at normal dilutions.
Click to expand...
Citation please.

Meme101 said:
There are the experiments of Professor Madeleine Ennis
Click to expand...
...which could not be replicated.

Meme101 said:
Can it not be that we know too little about the "quantum" properties of water to be able to come up with a viable scientific explanation?
Click to expand...
You first have to establish that there is anything to explain.
 
fls said:
Have the results been replicated?

Linda
Click to expand...
May I add- independently and competently replicated. Many years ago Benveniste replicated his work on dilution, as did a few other labs that promote homeopathy. However, Benveniste was unable to replicate the results with skeptics watching. Homeopathic research is fraught with incompetence, and fraud.

As for quantum mechanics, unless you become a chemical physicist you will never have use for the quantum effects found at the molecular level in water (okay, a microwave oven works on one such principle). There is a fool (Lionel Milgrom) who writes extensively on quantum homeopathy without a shred of evidence http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/06/your_friday_dose_of_woo_its_no.php . Milgrom assumes that homeopathy works, and assumes the explanation is found in QM, without a shred of evidence for either assumption. He has a fertile imagination.

This is true of all the people who invoke QM (e.g., Chopra). I taught rudimentary QM in university courses on Introductory Chemistry, I have literally forgotten more that Chopra will ever know.
 
Meme, the theory that shaking water can somehow alter its properties on a quantum level sort of sounds possible, but first someone has to prove that it happens. The simplest possible test I can think of is distinguishing potentized water from ordinary water. So far as I can tell, no one has done this.

The Rey paper.
 
Meme101 said:
Can it not be that we know too little about the "quantum" properties of water to be able to come up with a viable scientific explanation?
Click to expand...
Surely we will learn more about the "quantum properties of water," but homeopathy requires that these properties be able to replicate the effects of any substance dissolved in the water, even though none of that substance is any longer present, while still retaining the usual properties of water.

I don't think so.

~~ Paul
 
Meme101 said:
Homeopathy crops up again and again as something I need to reconsider and I want to get a few views on the following:

A chemist called Rey, conducted experiments based on thermoluminescence, whereby he picked up the exact same substances in above 10C homeopathic dilutions as in the actual samples at normal dilutions.

There are the experiments of Professor Madeleine Ennis, where motor cells of rats were subjected to a toxin, causing it to severely contract. When an above 10C homeopathic preperation of Belladonna (apparently the medicine of choice for poison), were administered, the contractions seized.
Click to expand...


I'd worry about whether homoeopathy works before worrying about its lack of any currently plausible mechanism.
 
Ennis has been very quiet of late. I don't know if she has even tried to develop or repeat her groundbreaking work.

Not wishing to cast aspersions or spread scurrilous rumours, but I'd heard that one of Benveniste's researchers (one that was particularly successful at getting positive results) went to work for Madeline Ennis, where he repeated his success. I have looked in vain for much confirmation of this.... anyone know more?

Meme101, it is difficult to just dismiss homeopathy, when it's adherents can come up with peer reviewed papers like those from Ennis and Rey. But as I understand it, it is statistically likely that some experiment, somewhere in the world, will occasionally give a positive result, even if the effect it is measuring is not real. To prove that the effect is real, the experiment needs to be repeated, it needs to be repeatable, and it needs to be refined, by other, independent researchers. As far as I know, Benveniste, Ennis and Rey's work has not been successfully repeated at all.

Why?
 
I'm guessing since "quantum" refers to things that only happen below the size of the atom that our self-proclaimed "major sceptic" Meme101 thinks mixing and shaking water can split the atom?
 
Woos love to use "quantum" as a prefix because no one understands it fully. The human mind boggles at the very large or the very small, especially the real yet outlandish phenomena these worlds incorporate. The subatomic world is only knowable through mathematics. These mathematics deal with energy transitions and states, not macro effects like "water memory" or any other such nonsense. I sure wish the woos would leave this area of physics alone!
 
Here's a problem: how do those who scientifically test homeopathy (and those who make the medicines, for that matter) know that the water they are using is uncontaminated from other homeopathic dilutions?

Water, we are told, has a memory for anything that has been diluted in it. This memory is incredibly robust, since the more you dilute, the stronger it gets. But the water you use for the diluting must come from somewhere: how do you know that this water has no memories?
 
I will dismiss all the "nice" replies (its like calling magic, quantum) and get straight to some answers.

ChristineR thanks for the link to the Rey paper. I know I need more studying on the matter before I can decide but I am trying to use this forums knowledge base to further that education. So please bear with me. I am not trying to pull a fast one on you.

With quantum properties of water I was trying to say that maybe we do not yet know all there is to know. I am not imposing that not knowing all should now be treated with things where we cannot proof any of it. Just asking if we should not be cautious to fell judgement when we do not know all yet.

And this brings me to my next question: Are all you sceptics of homeopathy sure that there is nothing scientific about it that we have not yet discovered? Are the scientific principals at play in homeopathy all been 100% verified or do we still have room for improvement on some knowledge level that we apply to dismissing homeopathy? Like maybe still not fully understand the properties of liquids etc?

I do in my absolute minimal knowledge of quantum physics disagree with Slimething when he said:
These mathematics deal with energy transitions and states, not macro effects like "water memory" or any other such nonsense
These energy trasitions and states will be able to influence another energy system surely. The proponents of homeopathy will quickly jump on this argument as state that the water's "energy" is entangled in the water molecules or something to that extend.
 
Meme101 said:
I will dismiss all the "nice" replies (its like calling magic, quantum) and get straight to some answers.

ChristineR thanks for the link to the Rey paper. I know I need more studying on the matter before I can decide but I am trying to use this forums knowledge base to further that education. So please bear with me. I am not trying to pull a fast one on you.

With quantum properties of water I was trying to say that maybe we do not yet know all there is to know. I am not imposing that not knowing all should now be treated with things where we cannot proof any of it. Just asking if we should not be cautious to fell judgement when we do not know all yet.

And this brings me to my next question: Are all you sceptics of homeopathy sure that there is nothing scientific about it that we have not yet discovered? Are the scientific principals at play in homeopathy all been 100% verified or do we still have room for improvement on some knowledge level that we apply to dismissing homeopathy? Like maybe still not fully understand the properties of liquids etc?

I do in my absolute minimal knowledge of quantum physics disagree with Slimething when he said:
These mathematics deal with energy transitions and states, not macro effects like "water memory" or any other such nonsense
These energy trasitions and states will be able to influence another energy system surely. The proponents of homeopathy will quickly jump on this argument as state that the water's "energy" is entangled in the water molecules or something to that extend.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can come up with some sort of system for perturbing the quantum states of the water molecules and creating water with different properties.

No such changes are predicted in the theory, but you can always create one by introducing an unknown force. You don't even need a force. You can just say that under some mysterious circumstance the state of the water is altered. Then you could work backwards to find a force that alters the water that way.

But there is no experimental data to work with. There are perhaps half a dozen studies on homeopathy that show a positive effect and are not so badly designed as to be useless. Some of these studies were later shown to have subtle problems, and some were never replicated, meaning it was just a lucky fluke.

If you had some sort of consistent, measurable effect in homeopathic experiments a theorist could start guessing at things that might be awry in the quantum math. He could introduce random alterations into the equations and look and see if his alteration matched the experimental data. Then if he had a match he could ask himself what sort of phenomenon could alter the data in this way.

This kind of thing happens everyday in particle physics. It's not outrageous.

But there is no evidence that there is a homeopathic effect to match, so there's nothing to do.

Let me give you a more concrete example. Let's say the theorist is trying to devise a formula which predicts what a 3C dilution will act like compared to a 6X dilution. These are both 1 to 1,000,000 dilutions, and chemistry predicts that they will be identical. What does homeopathy predict? My understanding is that a 6X is supposed to be much weaker than a 3C. How much weaker? If I came up with a theory that predicted that 3C was twice as powerful as 6X, would my theory be tenable?

I could speculate that chanting in the light of the moon will alter this unknown quantum property of water molecules, or that playing 78 rpm recordings of Dixie will do it. Why would I look for a theoretical model of how these things change water when no one except me believes that they will change water?

First, convince me homeopathy does something, then speculate on what sort of unknown principle of physics might do it.
 
Meme101 said:
I do in my absolute minimal knowledge of quantum physics disagree with Slimething when he said:
These mathematics deal with energy transitions and states, not macro effects like "water memory" or any other such nonsense
These energy trasitions and states will be able to influence another energy system surely. The proponents of homeopathy will quickly jump on this argument as state that the water's "energy" is entangled in the water molecules or something to that extend.
Click to expand...
Disagreeing with Slimething's statement only proves that you have an absolute minimum knowledge of quantum mechanics.

If you take a glass of water and look at a single water molecule, you'll see it moving, and therefore it will have some kinetic energy. There are slightly different forms of kinetic energy at the molecular level- translational (how fast it's moving as a whole), rotational, and vibrational. Quantum mechanics says that the amount of energy that the molecule has (in each of its forms) has only certian allowed values- generally, some whole number multiple of some constant.

But there's nothing mystical, spiritual, or mysterious about this energy- it's the same kind of kinetic energy that you have when you're running around, or a rock has when it's tumbling downhill.

We can measure the total amount of such energy in a glass of water. Actually, what we can most easily measure is the average kinetic energy of all the water molecules in the glass- pop in a thermometer, because that's what temperature is a measure of. If you "energize" the water by increasing the "quantum energy" of the water, all you're doing is heating it up.

Note that this is an average- not all the molecules have the same energy (look up "Boltzmann distribution"), and they're contantly transferring energy from one molecule to another. If you "energize" one molecule by any means, it loses that energy very quickly.

That energy does not, in case you are wondering, carry any information with it.
 
Meme101 said:
And this brings me to my next question: Are all you sceptics of homeopathy sure that there is nothing scientific about it that we have not yet discovered? Are the scientific principals at play in homeopathy all been 100% verified or do we still have room for improvement on some knowledge level that we apply to dismissing homeopathy? Like maybe still not fully understand the properties of liquids etc?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's all very lovely, but why would we bother worrying about this until someone actually demonstrates that homeopathic remedies do anything at all? How about putting them through safety and efficacy trials like pharmaceutical companies do?

~~ Paul
 
Just to add 2 cents, Rey's paper reported a solid-state phenomenon; it was not a solution phenomenon. He hypothesized that what he was seeing related to the structure of water, but did not test that hypothesis by recording the equivalent spectra of salts that are water-structure breakers. Finally, all his experimental results could be invalidated by contamination; it wouldn't have taken a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom