Homeopathy: Rustum Roy drops the bomb
- Thread starter Pipirr
- Start date
If you look a little more, you will see that the lines cross each other (as do the UV spectra). This makes no sense, unless one is looking at noise (either in the spectrometer or the sample prepes.). Looking only at the slides show- the claim is that they are "distinguishable." If one asks about such discrepancies, I expect the reply "that is one of the wonders of homeopathy" ...
In homeopathy, solubility is not a problem. One can simply grind material (mortar and pestle) under a liquid, and decant the liquid for further "dilution." It has been observed that further dilution of solute-free solvent makes no sense.
Baron Samedi
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 476
This is just me, but wouldn't a better comparison to have not just two homeopathic dilutions at 6c, 12c, and 30, but also have a third placebo dilution? As in, start with a mixture of alcohol. Measure (as he's shown in one graph). Now dilute this to 6c. Measure again. Repeat for 12c and 30c. This way we can see the natural variation due to impurities.
Or better yet, double blind the solutions. Person A prepares the base solution of nat mur, num vox, and nothing but alcohol. Label them A, B, and C. Now the "lab" prepares 6c on all three at the same time (so that way the liquid used to dilute the solutions is consistent across the three). Label these as X6, Y6, and Z6. Repeat down to 12 and 30. Now the lab runs the UV specs on the unknown diluted solutions. Repeat this maybe 10 times, so that the measurements aren't just on one batch alone. Plot all 30 curves for each dilution factor.
Does the PPT presentation mention how many samples were used? I could be wrong, but it does look like 1 of each flavor to me.
Rolfe
Adult human female
No, it's not just you!
What he needed were samples of the remedies, and a sample of the otherwise unmanipulated solvent from the same stock bottle, and a sample of that solvent after it had been through all the diluting and succussing, but with no mother tincture added at the beginning. This is the only way to see whether any measured change is dependent on the presence of a mother tincture, or just a result of the manipulation.
It's absolutely vital that the potentised remedies are made from the same stock of solvent as is used for the blanks. I suspect this didn't happen, and this is the reason for the findings. (Caveat, I've only read the first two paragraphs of the actual paper so far, I'm still commenting on the slide show.)
Think about this. You want to do the experiment. How do you get your samples? You can order them from a homoeopathic manufacturer, but then you have to order the controls from them too, and make it very clear that they have to come from the identical stock bottle. (And if you're using the SAD control too, you have to get them to prepare it by their usual method, so that it is comparable.)
What's the snag? If the homoeopathic manufacturer knows what you're up to, it's possible to speculate that they might actually spike the real remedies with something measurable, to achieve positive results and so positive publicity. Now I'm not saying they would really do that, but from the point of view of the researcher, it's not an accusation you really want to leave yourself open to.
Or you could order up all the materials and carefully do all the preparation yourself. With the result that every homoeopath and his mate lines up to explain that since you're a not a homoeopathic manufacturer you did it wrong. And since there is no agreement on what is "right", then this is an accusation that can always be made.
Personally, I'd go with getting everything from the homoeopathic manufacturer, but not by post. I'd explain my intentions, and actually go there and watch the preparation, so that if some nasty sceptic said, hey, maybe the remedies were spiked, I could counter this with a declaration that I'd observed the preparation and no they weren't. Not good enough for Randi, but good enough for a reputable scientific paper.
Actually, you couldn't make that accusation here. It would take more know-how than I believe any homoeopath has to make the remedies come up with a lower absorbance than the stock solvent!
Personally, I'm leaning to the view that the solvent used by the homoeopathic manufacturer was not-too-bad ethanol, and for a control Roy just picked up a bottle labelled "ethanol", not even enquiring if it was spectroscopic grade or not. And it may have had benzene and phenol and all sorts in there.
Oh yes, and where are the repetitions? I'm not listening until I see some precision data from repeated runs, complete with statistics, standard deviations and error bars. And p values as to whether the absorbance data from the different samples were significantly different at a chosen wavelength, measured over multiple assay runs. I'm not seeing that in the slide show, just some squiggly lines.
Rolfe.
What he needed were samples of the remedies, and a sample of the otherwise unmanipulated solvent from the same stock bottle, and a sample of that solvent after it had been through all the diluting and succussing, but with no mother tincture added at the beginning. This is the only way to see whether any measured change is dependent on the presence of a mother tincture, or just a result of the manipulation.
It's absolutely vital that the potentised remedies are made from the same stock of solvent as is used for the blanks. I suspect this didn't happen, and this is the reason for the findings. (Caveat, I've only read the first two paragraphs of the actual paper so far, I'm still commenting on the slide show.)
Think about this. You want to do the experiment. How do you get your samples? You can order them from a homoeopathic manufacturer, but then you have to order the controls from them too, and make it very clear that they have to come from the identical stock bottle. (And if you're using the SAD control too, you have to get them to prepare it by their usual method, so that it is comparable.)
What's the snag? If the homoeopathic manufacturer knows what you're up to, it's possible to speculate that they might actually spike the real remedies with something measurable, to achieve positive results and so positive publicity. Now I'm not saying they would really do that, but from the point of view of the researcher, it's not an accusation you really want to leave yourself open to.
Or you could order up all the materials and carefully do all the preparation yourself. With the result that every homoeopath and his mate lines up to explain that since you're a not a homoeopathic manufacturer you did it wrong. And since there is no agreement on what is "right", then this is an accusation that can always be made.
Personally, I'd go with getting everything from the homoeopathic manufacturer, but not by post. I'd explain my intentions, and actually go there and watch the preparation, so that if some nasty sceptic said, hey, maybe the remedies were spiked, I could counter this with a declaration that I'd observed the preparation and no they weren't. Not good enough for Randi, but good enough for a reputable scientific paper.
Actually, you couldn't make that accusation here. It would take more know-how than I believe any homoeopath has to make the remedies come up with a lower absorbance than the stock solvent!
Personally, I'm leaning to the view that the solvent used by the homoeopathic manufacturer was not-too-bad ethanol, and for a control Roy just picked up a bottle labelled "ethanol", not even enquiring if it was spectroscopic grade or not. And it may have had benzene and phenol and all sorts in there.
Oh yes, and where are the repetitions? I'm not listening until I see some precision data from repeated runs, complete with statistics, standard deviations and error bars. And p values as to whether the absorbance data from the different samples were significantly different at a chosen wavelength, measured over multiple assay runs. I'm not seeing that in the slide show, just some squiggly lines.
Rolfe.
Last edited:
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Actually, that is not unreasonable in the paradigm. The band in question at 320 nm is not actually a transition of molecular ethanol (all electronic transitions in ethanol are higher energy than that) but must be (assuming it is real) attributed to bulk-phase properties. Thus, the claim is that the homoeopathic process has "altered the bulk structure." It's not any different from saying that the spectrum of ice is different from that of liquid water (or, a more fair comparison, that Ice II is different from Ice III).
Well, it is different, in the fact that there is a physical basis for saying that water is different from ice, but the concept is the same. Changing bulk behavior can change spectroscopic properties.
The question here, though, is what is that transition at 320 nm? I went looking the other day but couldn't find a standard UV/Vis spectrum of ethanol or any discussion of it, so don't know if that 320 nm is something that is supposed to be there or just something that Rustom Roy has found. Anybody and their brother can run a UV spectrum of ethanol, have they ever seen it before? In general, spectroscopy studies include band assignments, so if that 320 nm transition is real, someone will have talked about. If no one has talked about it before, then I would be very concerned that it is an artifact.
It's interesting how they dismiss the IR spectroscopy on the grounds it isn't sensitive enough. It is true that UV can be more sensitive in some regards, but while that means it can be more sensitive to bulk structure, it means it is also more sensitive to dilute impurities.
If the blank sample does not come from the same stock solvent as the analyte, then the results are not inconsistent with a dilute impurity in their blank. Seems to me that makes a more reasonable explanation than invoking some unknown magic.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I did the same, and found only statements that ethanol (in spectroscopic grade) was a very good solvent for UV spectroscopy of non-polar solutes because it didn't absorb significantly above - can't remember the exact wavelength, but it was 280 or 250 or thereabouts. Now there's no way you could say that about that trace Roy presents.
I have a textbook somewhere all about this, though as I only ever used aqueous solutions I can't be sure it covers ethanol solutions as well. The trouble is that "somewhere" is in one of the big cardboard boxes in my garage, as I recently moved house, and I'm not sure how to dowse for it. Spectral Analysis of Organic Compounds is the title.
I've just printed out the paper (thanks Pipirr, I owe you one!) and so far it's just the same as the slide show, though I can see there's more detail later. He's banging on about the polar structure of water. Fine, except he's talking rubbish. So why are his experimental results all relating to ethanol, not water? If his theorising is all about water, shouldn't he have done experiments on aqueous solutions? If on the other hand his experimental results all relate to ethanol preparations, shouldn't he be theorising about the polar structure of ethanol? The what???
I've so far seen no sign that he has even thought about what the absorbances he's measuring actually represent in terms of bond structure or whatever. How can an allegedly respected scientist be this dense?
(Actually, what I meant was that I can't see how any homoeopath could have been accused of faking these results by spiking the supplied remedies with something detectable. I don't think any homoeopath would know what to do to a solution to reduce its UV absorbance. Common sense says anyone wanting to jemmy the experiment and hand Roy an unwitting scoop would add something that would increase the absorbance somewhere.)
Rolfe.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
The O-H bond would be polar, I guess. I think there would be a certain amount of hydrogen bonding going on - not as much as in water, obviously.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Yeah, I coudn't really be bothered working out how much of an effect that would introduce. I haven't yet got to the bit in the paper where Roy explains how the water model and the ethanol experiments actually relate to each other. If he ever does!
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Ah, and here we have standard homoeopath approach #2. Express the hope that we leave them in peace to go on defrauding the sick and vulnerable.
Why should we design and fund the experiments to prove what you are selling? Shouldn't the people who are making pots of money from the sugar pills and the shaken water and the bogus vibrational energy do that?
Especially when past experience tells us that however carefully such an experiment is designed, its publication (with inevitable effects equal to placebo) is denounced with "this was not done by a qualifed homoeopath, therefore it is not a valid test of homoeopathy." And this is even said when qualifed homoeopaths were involved in the design and conduct of the experiment, and declared beforehand that it was all completely kosher.
You see, we've been there already.
Rolfe.
PS. You made a tactical error in the preceding post. You have excluded for yourself the option of standard approach no. 1, which is to declare that every sceptic of homoeopathy has no knowledge of homoeopathy, so doesn't know what they're talking about.
Why should we design and fund the experiments to prove what you are selling? Shouldn't the people who are making pots of money from the sugar pills and the shaken water and the bogus vibrational energy do that?
Especially when past experience tells us that however carefully such an experiment is designed, its publication (with inevitable effects equal to placebo) is denounced with "this was not done by a qualifed homoeopath, therefore it is not a valid test of homoeopathy." And this is even said when qualifed homoeopaths were involved in the design and conduct of the experiment, and declared beforehand that it was all completely kosher.
You see, we've been there already.
Rolfe.
PS. You made a tactical error in the preceding post. You have excluded for yourself the option of standard approach no. 1, which is to declare that every sceptic of homoeopathy has no knowledge of homoeopathy, so doesn't know what they're talking about.
Pipirr
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2006
- Messages
- 1,433
Oh, zing!
Seriously, critiques of homeopathic research are essential if homeopathy is ever going to progress. Or be consigned to the trashcan of history where it belongs.
Besides, Dana Ullman (MPH!), America's leading homeopathy proponent, has been nagging at us to critique such research. In fact it was he that first told us this paper was coming out. Dana, if you are reading, this is all for you.
Posts where Dana nags the JREF forum members about lack of adequate critiquing, in no particular order:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2781407&postcount=886
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2776669&postcount=869
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2766109#post2766109
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2684280#post2684280
I know, you are not he. But take the above as evidence that we are "assisting these folks". And at their request, no less.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Done that. Quite happy to help with experimental design. Conducting experiments is kinda pricey.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Geni, sweetheart. Do you have access to a UV spectrophotometer? 20 (oh God, maybe 25!) years ago I could have done this in my lunch break. But now, clinical analysers are so damn sophisticated, you can't just walk up with a cuvette, dial up 320nm, and ask for a reading any more.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Not any more.
Makeing up the samples would take a while if you sucess the remedy yourself.
FWIW benzene which is a known comtaminant of absolute ethonol has a peak at about 320.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Pity. Me neither.
I was really thinking just of getting the ethanol spectrum at least. That's the clear error. If you don't have an accurate blank/control, then you don't have anything.
Benzene sounds about right. I need to dowse in my garage for that spectroscopy textbook.
Rolfe.
PS. Hey, does that mean you got your degree? How'd you get on?
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Are you sure? I did find the spectrum of benzene and it cuts off pretty low. Pi-pi* transitions are longer wavelength then sigma-sigma*, but not that long, I thought.
I did find a paper (Japanese, I think) from 1954 that reports the UV spectrum of ethanol, and the abstract notes that benzene is an impurity in spectro grade ethanol, but I didn't find a benzene transition at 320.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Last edited:
Rolfe is making assumptions, here. Doesn't take much to punch his buttons, aye? Not that I'm trying. I mean, I'm not into activism...but, since it seems many of you are, why don't you somehow support basic research into things such as this. Or, hell, just basic research that isn't prejudiced. The people in any field are human (or maybe not...but that's a different discussion), and so their egos are just as likely to be involved in what they do. I don't support either clan.
Oualawouzou
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2007
- Messages
- 490
Homeopaths have had 200 years to produce data showing their craft works. The best anybody, regardless of its personnal opinion, regardless of what they had at stake, have been able to produce are tests that yield, sometimes, a slightly ambiguous result - which mysteriously disappear in any replication of the experiment.
Pick any other theory that has failed to be supported by any data for 200 years. Why aren't you pushing for more time and money be spent on delving further into them?
How long must homeopathy fail to produce results before you throw in the towel and say "it doesn't work"?