Homoeopathy article from Penn State

[Rolfe]

Mmmm, citation for the "highly-purified" part?

We had this argument with a homoeopath previously. She insisted that homoeopaths use something called "nuclear grade water" (I think), which she then couldn't define and nobody knew what it was. The implication being that this sort of water magically forgot everything it had previously come in contact with. Eventually she conceded that this wasn't actually necessary. But some homoeopathic manufacturer had told her that's what they used.

I've not been able to discover what Hahnemann used. Except I don't think it was "nuclear grade water" and I very much doubt that it was even "highly purified". In fact, I don't think he used water at all, I think he used alcohol.

Rolfe.

 

[amb]

Mmmm, citation for the "highly-purified" part?

We had this argument with a homoeopath previously. She insisted that homoeopaths use something called "nuclear grade water" (I think), which she then couldn't define and nobody knew what it was. The implication being that this sort of water magically forgot everything it had previously come in contact with. Eventually she conceded that this wasn't actually necessary. But some homoeopathic manufacturer had told her that's what they used.

I've not been able to discover what Hahnemann used. Except I don't think it was "nuclear grade water" and I very much doubt that it was even "highly purified". In fact, I don't think he used water at all, I think he used alcohol.

Rolfe.

 

[JJM]

... We had this argument with a homoeopath previously. She insisted that homoeopaths use something called "nuclear grade water" ...

Rolfe, the homeo mis-typed it. It should be unclear grade water.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

One of the homeopaths here (Dullman I think) kept going on about double distilled water, I think.

 

[Rolfe]

I still think it's funny the way they all go on about the "memory of water" when a lot of homoeopathic manufacturers use alcohol, and I'm fairly sure Hahnemann used alcohol. (Makes sense, since contaminant bacteria are far less likely to grow in ethanol than in water, and when you think about early 19th ventury hygiene practices....)

So whatever esoteric property they're after, it has to be one which primarily exists in ethanol, but which transfers to water without anyone really noticing any difference.

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

I still think it's funny the way they all go on about the "memory of water" when a lot of homoeopathic manufacturers use alcohol, and I'm fairly sure Hahnemann used alcohol.

I think using alcohol is pretty standard apart from for very high potencies. See for example here where they talk about centessimal potencies always being made using 90% alcohol, apart from the remedies produced using the Korsakov method on their machine, which uses a "constant supply of highly purified water".

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think there is a generic problem with all experiments that try to use various highly sensitive measuring methods to detect memory effects in water (spectroscopy, for instance, has the potential to detect a concentration of just a few molecules):

It is virtually impossible to ensure sufficient purity of water to be able to judge homeopathic dilutions, even far below the Avogadro limit.

Here is a nice educational paper on water purity:

http://www.pdhcenter.com/courses/c151/c151content.pdf

As you will find, grade 1 water, which is the purest you can get using commercially available systems has an NaCl equivalent contamination level of 0.02 ppm.

That is 2X10E-8. In homeopathic terms, that corresponds to 4C!

Based on this, it is my position that experimenters who claim to be working with trans-Avogadro potencies do not really have any control over what they are working with. At the very least, a considerable proportion of any sensible protocol should be devoted to describing the methods by which the necessary control is kept over the dilutions.

As it is, any currently existing reports may be written off on one single point: Contamination. If the basic substance was ever in the lab, there is a good probability that it be present in any "dilution" ever produced.

Interestingly, our old friend "Dr. MAS" claimed something like that. Had he known what he was talking about, he might even have had a point .

Also, if you read the article above, you will get an impression of the stringent requirements for laboratory water systems. I wonder how many homeopathic pharmacies can live up to that?

Finally, the article gives you an idea of just how much is actually known about the properties of water. How likely is it that some groundbreaking basic property like memory has been totally overlooked?

Hans

 

[Soapy Sam]

Finally, the article gives you an idea of just how much is actually known about the properties of water. How likely is it that some groundbreaking basic property like memory has been totally overlooked?

Hans

It is absolutely certain, if you choose your point of view bizarrely enough.

 

[Rolfe]

Finally, the article gives you an idea of just how much is actually known about the properties of water. How likely is it that some groundbreaking basic property like memory has been totally overlooked?

Actually, this returns us to the enormous wealth of experience of serial agitated dilution in immunology, and to a lesser extent clinical biochemistry. The method is SOP in immunology for determining the amount of antibody present in a sample, for example. The only difference is that the dilution factor is usually 1:1 rather than 1 in 10 or 1 in 100. (Sometimes an initial dilution of 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 is made to fast-forward to the interesting part, but then successive steps of 1:1 - or 1 in 2 if you like - are used to get the exact answer.

The interesting question is the maximum dilution of the sample that is still capable of complexing with the antigen, something which can be seen with the naked eye or measured with a photometer. The result is expressed as that dilution factor, and the higher the dilution factor the more antibody is there. So you get used to results of 1:8, or 1:128, or 1:8192 and so on. (This is so standard that the alarm code for the lab where I used to work was 8192, on the principle that nobody would forget it and if they did they only had to keep doubling 1 till they remembered.)

In biochemistry a similar method is used to measure very high concentrations of certain analytes, such as enzymes in heart attack patients. You keep on doubling-dilution until you get a reading on the linear part of the standard curve, and then you multiply the result by the dilution factor to obtain the actual concentration.

Of course these methods don't go past Avogadro's limit, but they do get pretty dilute. And you know what? Nobody has ever noticed any unusual or inexplicable behaviour of anything at all.

Rolfe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Any sign of a reply?

None. I even forgot I had sent it. Thanks for bumping the thread. Maybe someone else would like to try?

 

[Mojo]

Probing Question: Does homeopathy work?

Plenty of the usual canards, kicking off with a list of celebs.

Oh, look, here it is again...