Homeopathy is everywhere!

[SteveGrenard]

NARRATOR: So Horizon decided to take up Randi's challenge. We gathered experts from some of Britain's leading scientific institutions to help us repeat Ennis's experiments. Under the most rigorous of conditions they'll see whether they can find any evidence for the memory of water. We brought James Randi over from the United States to witness the experiment and we came to the world's most august scientific institution, the Royal Society. The Vice-President of the Society, Professor John Enderby, agreed to oversee the experiment for us...

The first stage is to prepare the homeopathic dilutions. We came to the laboratories of University College London where Professor Peter Mobbs agreed to produce them for us. He's going to make a homeopathic solution of histamine by repeatedly diluting one drop of solution into 99 drops of water...

For comparison we also need control tubes, tubes that have never had histamine in them. For these Peter starts with plain water...

This stage dilutes the solutions down to one in 100 - that's 1C. We now have 10 tubes. Half are just water diluted with more water, the control tubes, half are histamine diluted in water. These are all shaken, the crucial homeopathic step. Now he dilutes each of the tubes again, to 2C. Then to 3C, all the way to 5C...

Then we asked Professor of Electrical Engineering, Hugh Griffiths, to randomly relabel each of our 10 tubes. Now only he has the code for which tubes contain the homeopathic dilutions and which tubes contain water...

Next the time-consuming task of taking these solutions down to true homeopathic levels. UCL scientist Rachel Pearson takes each of the tubes and dilutes them down further - to 6C. That's one drop in 20 swimming pools. To 12C - a drop in the Atlantic. Then to 15C - one drop in all the world's oceans. The tubes have now been diluted one million million million million million times. Some are taken even further down, to 18C. Every tube, whether it contains histamine or water, goes through exactly the same procedure. To guard against any possibility of fraud, Professor Enderby himself recodes every single tube. The result is 40 tubes none of which should contain any molecules of histamine at all. Conventional science says they are all identical, but if Madeleine Ennis is right her methods should tell which ones contain the real homeopathic dilutions. Now we repeat Ennis's procedure. We take a drop of water from each of the tubes and add a sample of living human cells. Then it's time for Wayne Turnbull at Guys Hospital, to analyse the cells to see whether the homeopathic water has had any effect. He'll be using the most sophisticated system available: a flow cytometer...

But to be absolutely rigorous we asked a second scientist, Marian Macey at the Royal London Hospital, to perform the analysis in parallel. Our two labs get to work. Using a flow cytometer they measure how many of the cells are being activated by the different test solutions...

Now at last it's time to break the code. On hand to analyse the results is statistician Martin Bland...

The results are just what you'd expect by chance. A statistical analysis confirms it. The homeopathic water hasn't had any effect.

From the Horizon transcript.

Thanks for ferreting out these descriptions from the transcript. There is a problem with the preparation of both the homeopathic and control (water) solutions. I wonder if there is a reason the term "plain water" is used instead of distilled or preferably triple dstilled water. In addition was this plain water also used to make the homeopathic diutions? It would seem so. I see problems here.

Was this preparer experienced in this field? It would seem he has no special expertise in the area of preparaing homeopathic solutions as well as water solutions to be used as controls. Or perhaps the vagaries of the transcript which is NOT a scientific paper, is not peer reviewed and simply and inadequately describes the precise procedures and preparations employed.
Who can say?

Tai -- you are awarded two laughing dogs for your post....

 

[SteveGrenard]

Not being able to read Russian, I have not been able to investigate this and no, I do not know who they are. The Defense Intelligence Agency comissioned a study on Eastern bloc work in the fields of subtle energies confirming that the Russians have aways been interested in this area. I will try and find that reference for you which is in English and is now declassified.

 

[BTox]

The fact that you cannot fathom, etc., is irrelevant to the scientific question of homeopathy being effective.

These things need to be scientifically tested. [/B]

No it is not irrelevant when the effectiveness of homeopathy is simply not possible.

Homeopathy has been scientifically tested. It does not work.

 

[SteveGrenard]

It has been scientifically tested and also has been shown to work.

Therefore your statement is without qualification. There are studies which are both pro and con as to whether it works. I have endeavored to provide that for you If you enter homepathy in Medline you will get back 103 citations, both pro and con, as well; these are only of studies in journals which Medline indexes. There are others as well.

 

[JamesM]

I wonder if there is a reason the term "plain water" is used instead of distilled or preferably triple dstilled water. In addition was this plain water also used to make the homeopathic diutions? It would seem so. I see problems here.

The transcript confirms that distilled water was used to prepare the homeopathic solutions:

NARRATOR: The first stage is to prepare the homeopathic dilutions. We came to the laboratories of University College London where Professor Peter Mobbs agreed to produce them for us. He's going to make a homeopathic solution of histamine by repeatedly diluting one drop of solution into 99 drops of water.

PETER MOBBS: OK, now I'm transferring the histamine into 9.9mmls of distilled water and then we'll discard the tip.

Emphasis mine (I've always wanted to type that).
It seems inconceivable to me that distilled water was not used for the controls also, but as you say, it's impossible for us to know with certainty, based on the loose terminology of the transcript.

 

[BTox]

In response to laments that there are no controlled studies worthy of whatever (e.g. unable to fathom, etc), the following is from the Memroial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (NYC) website:

Yes, there are several out of the more than 100 that show a subjective positive effect. And if you actually read those few positive studies, you find them to be poorly designed and/or conducted.

There are several studies published this year testing the effectiveness of homeopathy. Do a search of pubmed and read them.

 

[BTox]

It has been scientifically tested and also has been shown to work.

Therefore your statement is without qualification. There are studies which are both pro and con as to whether it works. I have endeavored to provide that for you If you enter homepathy in Medline you will get back 103 citations, both pro and con, as well; these are only of studies in journals which Medline indexes. There are others as well.

You don't seem to be getting this. Well controlled studies demonstrate it does not work. My work involves clinical research. I can devise a study to show plain water will have a statistically significant effect.

 

[SteveGrenard]

botox: I can devise a study to show plain water will have a statistically significant effect.

Herein lies the problem. How do you know plain water is homeopathically, er, plain? I guess also if you can do what you say above, we can start comparing your water against every drug in the materia medica and find, statistically, that they are no better or no worse or does therapeutic endpoint have to then come into play?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Why should I comment on something that is irrelevant to the point I was making i.e. that your statement "Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures" was and is wrong?

I pointed out things that made your reference not science related, despite your claim otherwise.

Do you not understand that those very constraints (that I posted twice and you didn't respond to, twice) make it not science, but some form of edutainment (at the very most)? My prediction is that you'll probably ignore them again, or someone else will post answers for you to bail you out.

How is imposing constraints to cater to studio audiences and the television stations going to help with a scientific study? Let me break them down one by one so you can clearly see, since you are obviously having trouble:

"the experiment must be interesting enough to hold the public's attention"

OOps, so much for any experiment that is considered boring and/or requires a lot of busy work or isn't considered interesting by the TV folks. All we can study now are flashy things that hold peoples' attentions.

"the experiment must work on live TV"

This eliminates a LARGE percentage right there, as many scientific experiments take a much longer time than half an hour or an hour, and could require much complicated lab equipment, overnight analysis, etc.

"the experiment must be comprehensible by a lay audience"

Uh oh, now we can only do experiments that the average viewer can understand. No big words, keep it simple. Don't show any formulas that are past 9th grade knowledge.

"viewers must be able to take part from home and report results over the phone"

So now we can only do experiments that people can recreate at home (presumably without scientific lab equipment. Then, these people are reporting their results. Could these people be lying? Deluded? Cheating? Fibbing? Erroneously interpreting the results? We are just taking their word of their results.

"the conclusion must be ready before the end of the 30 minute programme."

So our experiments have to be fast too! Gee, this might allow for sloppy work.

 

[T'ai Chi]

the effectiveness of homeopathy is simply not possible.

Homeopathy has been scientifically tested. It does not work.

Unfortunately for your opinion, there are studies that suggest otherwise.

p<.05 means something.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Who remembers Mister Wizard? You have to be over 30? 40? and watching it here in the U.S. His demonstrations and experiments meets all of Darat's criteria:

fast
easy to perform
kids at home could join in with common household items
and chemicals (no bombmaking was allowed)
the whole shebang wrapped up in 30 mins including a
chalkboard explanation

We can bring back Mister Wizard to test homeopathy on TV!!!

 

[BTox]

botox: I can devise a study to show plain water will have a statistically significant effect.

Herein lies the problem. How do you know plain water is homeopathically, er, plain? I guess also if you can do what you say above, we can start comparing your water against every drug in the materia medica and find, statistically, that they are no better or no worse or does therapeutic endpoint have to then come into play?

I'm not talking about homeopathic remedies. One can devise a study to show statistical signficance with any inert substance. This is why there are guidelines for clinical design that must be followed to get ethical drugs approved. And why what you call "drugs" in the materia medica (I call placebos) have not shown efficacy in such studies.

 

[BTox]

Unfortunately for your opinion, there are studies that suggest otherwise.

p<.05 means something.

Yes, it means statistical significance. It does not mean clinical significance. And it does not mean statistical significance in a properly designed clinical trial. There is a huge difference there, if you knew anything about the subject.

Do you know anything about chemistry and biochemistry? Do you honestly believe that diluting a substance until no molecules remain in the solution makes it a potent drug? I can't believe there is anyone here that believes in such obvious tripe...

 

[T'ai Chi]

Yes, it means statistical significance. It does not mean clinical significance. And it does not mean statistical significance in a properly designed clinical trial. There is a huge difference there, if you knew anything about the subject.

Do you know anything about chemistry and biochemistry? Do you honestly believe that diluting a substance until no molecules remain in the solution makes it a potent drug? I can't believe there is anyone here that believes in such obvious tripe...

BTox, you've questioned my knowledge about about statistics, clinical trials, and asked if I knew anything about chemistry, and biochemistry. Getting further and further away from the issue I see.

p<.05, implies that we should look into the matter further. There is something there, a true effect, or errors. You just brush things aside as if all significance reported on alternative medicine, are obviously errors.

In fact, despite your claims otherwise, there are well designed clinical trials that report significance in homeopathy.

My knowledge of chemistry is irrelevant. What I "believe" or know about molecules and dilution is not the point. What is the point, is testing homeopathy in a scientific manner to really know for certain.

 

[BTox]

BTox, you've questioned my knowledge about about statistics, clinical trials, and asked if I knew anything about chemistry, and biochemistry. Getting further and further away from the issue I see.

No, it is precisely the point. Because simple laws of chemistry and physics preclude the possibility that homeopathy is clinically effective other than placebo effect. Statistics and clinical trial design can be used to show a significant effect with a completely inert substance.

p<.05, implies that we should look into the matter further. There is something there, a true effect, or errors. You just brush things aside as if all significance reported on alternative medicine, are obviously errors.

Yes, you are right. It implies looking further with better designed studies. This has been done. Nothing but placebo effect is found.

In fact, despite your claims otherwise, there are well designed clinical trials that report significance in homeopathy.

Really? Cite them, please. I haven't seen one.

My knowledge of chemistry is irrelevant. What I "believe" or know about molecules and dilution is not the point. What is the point, is testing homeopathy in a scientific manner to really know for certain.

Once again, it has been tested scientifically. Look at the most recent clinical trials. Aand knowledge of chemistry is relevant. If you had some, you wouldn't be touting such nonsense.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Because simple laws of chemistry and physics preclude the possibility that homeopathy is clinically effective other than placebo effect.

Absurd. There may be some "law" you don't know about. There may be other reasons for these effects that would be worth exploring. There might be suggestive results, but saying 'nothing there' any not exploring, could lead to a big miss in terms of discovering something wonderful.

Really? Cite them, please. I haven't seen one.

They've been posted here, I think, but they are somewhere on the Internet for sure. I'm not required to do you any favors. You don't want to see evidence anyway, considering you've already made up your mind that the "laws of chemistry and physics preclude the possibility that homeopathy is clinically effective". You've already made up your mind.

Aand knowledge of chemistry is relevant. If you had some, you wouldn't be touting such nonsense.

I'm not pro-homeopathy, but I am pro science. I don't care how impossible something seems; we must test it and test it and test it and explore the results all in a scientific manner.

 

[BTox]

Absurd. There may be some "law" you don't know about. There may be other reasons for these effects that would be worth exploring. There might be suggestive results, but saying 'nothing there' any not exploring, could lead to a big miss in terms of discovering something wonderful.[/B]

Ridiculous. The laws are well established and concretely proven. You are looking for some magical reason for efficacy. It does not exist.

They've been posted here, I think, but they are somewhere on the Internet for sure. I'm not required to do you any favors. You don't want to see evidence anyway, considering you've already made up your mind that the "laws of chemistry and physics preclude the possibility that homeopathy is clinically effective". You've already made up your mind.[/B]

More rubbish. I've read the clinical studies. You claim they exist because someone told you or you want to believe.

I'm not pro-homeopathy, but I am pro science. I don't care how impossible something seems; we must test it and test it and test it and explore the results all in a scientific manner. [/B]

Pro-science? Are you joking? Homeopathy has been tested and tested. It does not work. It never did. It never will. Sheesh...

 

[SteveGrenard]

Can QP explain homeopathy?

BoTox I have a question regarding your comment that only the placebo effect has been shown as operative in homeppathic trials. How exacty does one determine the placebo effect if the active ingredient is a homeopathic remedy and the control or pacebo is pure water? If the patient/subject reports a favorable response with the water, I would agree with the assesment this is a placebo effect. But if the subject reports a response to the homeopathic substance, what is this? It would be "opinion" that the effect, if it occurs, is placebo.

Also on the subject of no molecules left after diluting many times, I would agree with that so long as the dilution goes a notch past Avogadro's limit... 6.02 x 10 to the 23rd. However Avogadro's limit and law does not apply to atoms and subatomic particles, of which there are 6 hadrons or quarks. This clearly begs the question as to whether or not quantum physics principles
can explain homeopathy ............

You argue that there is not one single molecule of material substance left in a high potency homeopathic remedy. That is true ...there are no MOLECULES left. But, this doesn't mean there are no particles left. I recall eading that it would take a volume of water that could fill the entire sphere of the earth to
displace such particles from even the smallest dose of a homeopathuc remedy. In short it would be impossible.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Can QP explain homeopathy?

In response to laments that there are no controlled studies worthy of whatever (e.g. unable to fathom, etc), the following is from the Memroial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (NYC) website:

http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/11571.cfm?RecordID=533&tab=HC

LITERATURE SUMMARY AND CRITIQUE

Over 100 clinical trials of homeopathic preparations are published. Several report statistically significant effects of homeopathic preparations, but subjective endpoints are often used. A handful of meta-analyses and systematic reviews find insufficient evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy, although Linde et al (1997) conclude that its clinical effects cannot be completely attributed to placebo effect.
(6) (7) (8) (9) (12) (14) (15)

Ehhh...Steve, why don't you ever read what you post? What, in the above, points to positive evidence of homeopathy? It says very clearly that in those reports with significant effects, subjective endpoints were often used. There is insufficient evidence of the efficacy of homeopathy.

Guess what Linde et al say?

"The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic."
(Emphasis mine)
National Center for Biotechnology Information

Not good, huh? Whatever showed up in Linde et al's does not work on clinical conditions. Whatever it may be, it doesn't cure anything.

You have a habit of rushing out and post the first reference you find, Steve. Unfortunately, your references never hold up to scrutiny. You are a piss-poor researcher, Steve.

Try again. So far, no controlled studies have shown that homeopathy works.

Herein lies the problem. How do you know plain water is homeopathically, er, plain? I guess also if you can do what you say above, we can start comparing your water against every drug in the materia medica and find, statistically, that they are no better or no worse or does therapeutic endpoint have to then come into play?

Well, how do you know the plain water those who claim a positive effect was homeopathically, er, plain? If you raise doubt about this here, you should also raise doubt about it there.

Also on the subject of no molecules left after diluting many times, I would agree with that so long as the dilution goes a notch past Avogadro's limit... 6.02 x 10 to the 23rd. However Avogadro's limit and law does not apply to atoms and subatomic particles, of which there are 6 hadrons or quarks. This clearly begs the question as to whether or not quantum physics principles can explain homeopathy ............

You argue that there is not one single molecule of material substance left in a high potency homeopathic remedy. That is true ...there are no MOLECULES left. But, this doesn't mean there are no particles left. I recall eading that it would take a volume of water that could fill the entire sphere of the earth to
displace such particles from even the smallest dose of a homeopathuc remedy. In short it would be impossible.

Steve, you have just presented yourself as someone completely without any knowledge of chemistry or homeopathy.

Listen carefully, OK?

A molecule is composed of various atoms. E.g. a salt molecule consists of one natrium (Na) atom and one chlorine (Cl) atom. However, the Na and Cl does not split when dissolved in water. You don't have the Na atom in one end of the container and the Cl in the other.

You know what happens when pure Na is dipped in water, Steve? It goes BOOM, because the pure Na reacts with the water, producing pure hydrogen, which is extremely flammable. Tried it myself, proximity not recommendable.

So, do we see this BOOM, when we dissolve NaCl in water? No. Ergo, the Na atom does not leave the Cl atom. Ergo, you cannot find "particles" in a solution like that.

When you dissolve duck liver in water (a very common homeopathic cure), what "duck liver particle" do you imagine would be left in the dilution?

As for homeopathy - well, your analogy about the earth is not that far off. But the homeopathic dilutions are actually that "thin". It is amazing how fast the number of molecules (not "particles"!) drop with each dilution. The math is easy, you should be able to do it yourself. Or use a calculator. Ergo, not impossible at all.

Oh, you still have some unanswered questions hanging over your head. Perhaps you should go back to school first.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Ridiculous. The laws are well established and concretely proven. You are looking for some magical reason for efficacy. It does not exist.

We must examine things through science. Gee, I wonder why Randi participated in a test of homeopathy? Gee, I wonder why he just doesn't say 'the laws are well established, it is impossible' as you do? Gee, I wonder why there are respectable scientists who are out there testing it? Hmm, perhaps you don't know as much as you think you do.

I've read the clinical studies. You claim they exist because someone told you or you want to believe.

Hardly. You apparently don't want to perform simple searces.

Homeopathy has been tested and tested. It does not work. It never did. It never will.

You can't predict the future. If there is any thing even seemingly worthwhile about homeopathy, science will be investigating it to see if anything is actually there.

I dislike your philosophy of 'it never will'. You aren't in any position to say what will or will not happen with any more certaintly than I am. Science will decide though, and that is the tool that we must use instead of our opinions.

http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/case/cas_evid.html