Icy claim that water has memory

Rolfe said:
Xanta, we know that you believe rather a lot of things, probably up to and including the tooth fairy, but how about some evidence for that statement?

I've already posted the links to show that Hahnemann's originally-reported symptomas for cinchona bark were exclusive to him, probably a hypersensitivity reaction, and are not recorded in anyone else taking the stuff. I have also posted links to the abstracts of the only five published studies where the authors tried to demonstrate that 30C preparations of homoeopathic substances gave any discernible symptoms at all in groups of "provers" - all negative, of course. Don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about, you've viciously attacked these studies in the past and (vainly) tried to discredit them.

Nobody has ever published a controlled "proving" of cinchona at any dilution at all. So how about less of the blind assertions that every piece of homoeopathic folklore you happen to hear is true, and a bit more evidence?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I've wondered about that Hahnemann story. Given that his experience appears to be unique and given our experience of dealing with homeopathic members of a lottery winners' club over-interpreting unusual coincidences, isn't it more likely that the saintly Sam took his cinchona then promptly came down with the 'flu or other feverish lurgy and simply ascribed his symptoms to the cinchona, thereby establishing not just homeopathy but also the tradition for post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacious thinking that his disciples have stuck to rigidly for over 200 years.

edited to add:

p.s. Ironically the sceptical voices that have pointed out the possibility that he suffered an idiosyncratic reaction were also unreasonably asserting a causal relation.

Whatever really happened and whether there really was a causal link, what is certain is that his experience has nothing to do with the usual response to cinchona, which completely undermines the story as a basis for homeopathy.
 
Donks said:
According to Xanta the original study was done in 99, and has been replicated twice since.
Click to expand...
But seems remarkably coy about providing any references.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
I've wondered about that Hahnemann story. Given that his experience appears to be unique and given our experience of dealing with homeopathic members of a lottery winners' club over-interpreting unusual coincidences, isn't it more likely that the saintly Sam took his cinchona then promptly came down with the 'flu or other feverish lurgy and simply ascribed his symptoms to the cinchona, thereby establishing not just homeopathy but also the tradition for post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacious thinking that his disciples have stuck to rigidly for over 200 years.

edited to add:

p.s. Ironically the sceptical voices that have pointed out the possibility that he suffered an idiosyncratic reaction were also unreasonably asserting a causal relation.

Whatever really happened and whether there really was a causal link, what is certain is that his experience has nothing to do with the usual response to cinchona, which completely undermines the story as a basis for homeopathy.
Click to expand...
In order to determine the effects of a substance in the organism the homeopath probers ingest sizeable quantities, so it causality is possible.
 
SGT said:
In order to determine the effects of a substance in the organism the homeopath probers ingest sizeable quantities, so it causality is possible.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "sizeable quantities"?
 
SGT said:
In order to determine the effects of a substance in the organism the homeopath probers ingest sizeable quantities, so it causality is possible.
Click to expand...
Originally, Hahnemann used significant doses of crude substance for his "provings". So the cinchona story probably is true, in the sense that he did try (for whatever reason) a significant amount of the stuff and subsequently suffered the described symptoms. Whether tis was due to an abnormal reaction or there was only a coincidal connection, we'll obviously never know.

It was only after a number of proving sessions with crude substance had had some serious adverse effects that H started to dilute.

IMHO, what happened next was that he found that no matter how much he diluted, his test subjects, who were especially sensitive individuals asked to specifically look for symptoms and report everything they experienced, kept reporting effects. Instead of concluding that their experiences were subjective, he concluded that the effect persisted, in spite of dilution.

Hans
 
Huntsman said:
Case 1:
Patient presents with symptoms of Mercury Poisoning. Mercury produces the same set of symptoms. Give patient Mercury...like does not cure like.

Case 2:
Patient presents with Rattlesnake bite. Snake venom produces the same symptoms. Give patient more venom...like does not cure like.

You can continue this all day. Give more flu virus to a flu sufferer, give more dust to a coal miner, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum.

What you think is really irrelevant. See my answer to your second statement. Somehow, the act of diluting and succusing is supposed to "reverse" the effects of the substance. Yet, water memory would mean that the effects would be closer to identical when compared with the original substance. This research provides yet another nail in the homeopathic coffin*.

[
Click to expand...

huntsman,

there is much evidence that SADs will act in a like cure like manner. even the basophil/histamine studies show that this is occurring. read the paper and you will see that it is discussed (histamine release results in a feedback which results in a shutting down of further release)


you seem to be building faulty arguements.

ex., ------------- man is whacked over head with shovel. man goes to emergency room. doctor whacks man over head with hammer. patient dies. conclusion: like does NOT cure like.

this is ridiculous.







===================

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11737881

CONCLUSIONS: Both Cad Sulph-30 and 200 were able to combat cadmium induced genotoxic effects in mice and that combined pre- and post-feeding mode of administration was found to be most effective in reducing the genotoxic effect of CdCl2 followed by the post-feeding mode.

====================

Biologische Medizin/Heft 1/February 2004

Professor Karen Nieber, head of the institute for pharmacy at Leipzig University, set about proving that homeopathy does not work and at the most can be explained by the so-called placebo effect. It was whilst looking for a test arrangement which totally excluded any placebo effect that she came up with the following idea: she placed a rat intestines in a nutrient solution and fixed it using organic threads to a sensor in order to measure the reduction of the intestines through contraction. She then added a stimulant to the nutrient solution, which caused a strong contraction of the rat intestines.
Professor Karen Nieber, as a pharmacologist, expected that the treatment with a homeopathic agent with a potenz above C12 would have no effect against the enterospasms, since there are no more active agents present above this potenz. In Leipzig they then added Belladonna D90 to the nutrient solution with the rat intestines cramped through the stimulant they had added and lo and behold, the enterospasms ceased immediately, the measuring device registered the relaxation of the intestines.

=====================================

The research proves that homeopathic dilutions of Belladonna do have an influence on the motility of the gastrointestinal system. Influence is apparent in ACh- and SP-induced contractions. Contractions triggered by other kinds of signals (histamine on H1-receptors, K+-depolarisation) are not influenced by homeopathic Belladonna. This tells us, that Belladonna apparently does not have effect on the smooth muscle itself, but on the nerval mechanisms of communication.
The effect of the high potencies of Belladonna cannot be due to the effects of the material substance of Belladonna. It is possible, that by the processes of homeopathic potentization, structure and dynamics of the liquid vehicle of the medicine are modified leading to a physico-chemiclal influence on mechanisms of communication. Biologische Medizin/Heft 1/February 2004


===================================

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/3/7

Ameliorating effect of microdoses of a potentized homeopathic drug, Arsenicum Album, on arsenic-induced toxicity in mice

===================================


=======================================
http://www.entretiens-internationaux.mc/cambar.htm
Conclusion
The presentation of the results obtained in our laboratory for more than 12 years has been divided into two chronological and methodological parts, considering previous in vivo and recent in vitro experiments.
We have shown, in vivo in rodents, that high dilutions of mercury can significantly reduce the death rate induced by toxic doses of the same metal. Thus, the death rate of mice intoxicated with high doses of mercury was markedly reduced by a 7 day pretreatment with 10-30 M concentrations of that metal. For example, the death rate following a single injection of 5 mg/kg HgCl2 was 73.4% in control, 50% for those pretreated with 10-18 M and only 26.7% for those pretreated with 10-30 M.
We found the same profile of response with our in vitro model in which 10-30 and 10-40 M dilutions provided a fair protection against cadmium induced cytotoxicity in renal tubular cell cultures. Similar results have recently been described for high dilutions of thymulin (Bastide et al., 1987), bursin (Youbicier-Simo et al.., 1993) and silica (Oberbaum et al.., 1992).
 .
======================================.



http://rheumatology.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/short/keh111v1

Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo
I. R. Bell 1*, D. A. Lewis II 2, A. J. Brooks 3, G. E. Schwartz 4, S. E. Lewis 2, B. T. Walsh 5, and C. M. Baldwin 6
1 Program in Integrative Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Psychiatry, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; The Mel and Enid Zuckerman Arizona College of Public Health at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA2 Saybrook Graduate School and Research Institute, San Francisco, California, USA3 Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA4 Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Neurology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA5 Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA6 Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Arizona Respiratory Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; The Mel and Enid Zuckerman Arizona College of Public Health at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
* Corresponding author. E-mail: IBELL@U.ARIZONA.EDU.
Received 9 July 2003 ; accepted 12 November 2003
Abstract

Results. Fifty-three people completed the treatment protocol. Participants on active treatment showed significantly greater improvements in tender point count and tender point pain, quality of life, global health and a trend toward less depression compared with those on placebo.
Conclusions.
This study replicates . and extends a previous 1-month placebo-controlled crossover study in fibromyalgia that pre-screened for only one homeopathic remedy. Using a broad selection of remedies and the flexible LM dose (1/50 000 dilution factor) series, the present study demonstrated that individualized homeopathy is significantly better than placebo in lessening tender point pain and improving the quali
 
Oaf...

Not a faulty argument...a logically necessary one. We aren't discussing other studies at this point, just this one. If the "memory" of water causes it to mimic the effects of the original substance, then why does this "mimiced" form have radically different properties? You are correct in stating it is ridiculous, though. That was my point. If water has a memory, and mimics a substance that was previously disolved iin it, then this mimic form would have properties similar to the original substance. The entire idea that SADs have differing effects is directly contrary to the results of this experiment. The mimiced form should have properties identical to the original..thus, the SAD form of mercury should have properties identical to mercury (or partially identical...not diametrically opposing). If you can still detect the substance in water after the substance has supposedly been diluted away, then this implies that the mimicry has properties identical to the original.

I'm not the one building faulty arguments. You have taken a single study and built it up far beyond what it actually stated. Not to mention that you try to combine its results (water mimics molecules of solute) with one that is directly contradictory to it (solutes diluted away act in a manner opposite to the original substance).

You are selectively picking and choosing which parts of the research you want to accept, only highlighting those that support your pre-concieved belief (homeopathy works) and ignoring the logical consequences should both of these studies be correct (the mimicry should have properties similar to the original substance).

In regards to the histamine study, that is not an example of like cures like...that's an example of self-limiting feedback loops. That dfoes not, in any sense, "cure" histamine release. That provides a limit to the level fo histamine that will be released. Add histamine to someone suffering a reaction, and you simply reach that level sooner...not lower the levels.
 
huntsman,

you seem to be all over the place and to try and figure out what your exact points are would be too time consuming.

all i know is that there is good evidence out there that polar solvents are able to capture "SOMETHING" from the solutes that they are succussed and diluted with.

i have no idea what it is nor does anyone else. maybe the solution starts to resonate at a different frequency, maybe the electrons start doing something a bit different.

I have no idea but i do know that something is going on.

you people can continue to take every study that comes along and hurl all kinds of unfounded criticisms at it -- you have that right.

your beliefs are like an addiction.
 
Olaf/QII said:
huntsman,

you seem to be all over the place and to try and figure out what your exact points are would be too time consuming.
Click to expand...

My points are basic logical extensions of two conflicting studies.
all i know is that there is good evidence out there that polar solvents are able to capture "SOMETHING" from the solutes that they are succussed and diluted with.
Click to expand...
Good is debateable, but I'm willing to concede that point for argument's sake.
i have no idea what it is nor does anyone else. maybe the solution starts to resonate at a different frequency, maybe the electrons start doing something a bit different.
Click to expand...
Evidence that solutions resonate at all? Evidence for electron movement different than that predicted by quantum mechanics? Here is where you go far beyond anything the research suggests, completely unfounded assertions (and other assertions that, if true, would contradict known science).
I have no idea but i do know that something is going on.

you people can continue to take every study that comes along and hurl all kinds of unfounded criticisms at it -- you have that right.
Click to expand...
Unfounded? You claim to not even understand my arguments, yet you are able to say they are unfounded? My argument is not all over the place, is is directed and focused on a particular aspect of your supposed evidences. The fact that you can't follow the relatively simple chain of logic does not make it unfounded. Unless you can point out specific flaws in the reasoning process and the logic I've used to reach my conclusion, you have no basis to call this criticism unfounded.
your beliefs are like an addiction.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm addicted to reality; regardless of whether reality agrees with my personal beliefs or not.

Let's simplify the reasoning a bit:

Premise A: Thermoluminescence is a result of particular chemical properties inherent in the structure and composition of a substance (i.e.-salt reacts like salt to thermoluminescence...nothing else acts like salt unles sit's composition, structure, and reactions are identical to salt).

Premise B: Water shows thermoluminescent traces of the original solute long after it should have been diluted out of existence (according to current theory), thus indicating that water "remembers" or "mimics" the solute.

Conclusion C (from A+B): If nothing reacts like salt except salt-like substances, then this "remembered" molecule in the water is a salt-like substance.

Premise D: Homeopathy claims that a diluted substance will cure the same symptoms the original substance produces (chinoa produces malaria-like symptoms, so it's homeopathic version treats malaria, for example).

Conclusion E-Case 1: If homeopathic solutions use the water memory effect described by Ray, et. al., it directly contradicts conclusion C, the "remembered" molecule should act like the original. Thus indicating the basophil study is wrong.

Conclusion E-Case 2: Homeopathic solutions act as claimed by homeopaths, thus indicating that the thermoluminescence study is flawed (otherwise, the emmory effect should swamp any other effects that might be postulated, as it did in this study).

Either way, you've shot down one of your own studies.
 
Huntsman said:
My points are basic logical extensions of two conflicting studies.

Good is debateable, but I'm willing to concede that point for argument's sake.

Evidence that solutions resonate at all? Evidence for electron movement different than that predicted by quantum mechanics? Here is where you go far beyond anything the research suggests, completely unfounded assertions (and other assertions that, if true, would contradict known science).

Unfounded? You claim to not even understand my arguments, yet you are able to say they are unfounded? My argument is not all over the place, is is directed and focused on a particular aspect of your supposed evidences. The fact that you can't follow the relatively simple chain of logic does not make it unfounded. Unless you can point out specific flaws in the reasoning process and the logic I've used to reach my conclusion, you have no basis to call this criticism unfounded.


Yes, I'm addicted to reality; regardless of whether reality agrees with my personal beliefs or not.

Let's simplify the reasoning a bit:

Premise A: Thermoluminescence is a result of particular chemical properties inherent in the structure and composition of a substance (i.e.-salt reacts like salt to thermoluminescence...nothing else acts like salt unles sit's composition, structure, and reactions are identical to salt).

Premise B: Water shows thermoluminescent traces of the original solute long after it should have been diluted out of existence (according to current theory), thus indicating that water "remembers" or "mimics" the solute.

Conclusion C (from A+B): If nothing reacts like salt except salt-like substances, then this "remembered" molecule in the water is a salt-like substance.

Premise D: Homeopathy claims that a diluted substance will cure the same symptoms the original substance produces (chinoa produces malaria-like symptoms, so it's homeopathic version treats malaria, for example).

Conclusion E-Case 1: If homeopathic solutions use the water memory effect described by Ray, et. al., it directly contradicts conclusion C, the "remembered" molecule should act like the original. Thus indicating the basophil study is wrong.




Let us examine if this is the ACTUAL case. First of all I think it is incorrect for anyone to assume that the "remembered molecule" will act EXACTLY like the original.

The basophil study actually PROVES that the "ghost histamine water" does indeed act like the original. I do not have the paper on me but Zaaydragon brought up a similar point which i successfully refuted. 1ST, DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE PAPER IN FRONT OF YOU?

--------------"............Histamine itself can inhibit the further
degranulation of the basophil by acting on H2 receptors [1, 2]. "

this sentence is from page 1 i believe. this is the key to explaining why you have things mixed up.

the researchers did indeed find that the diluted histamine INHIBITED the basophils --- thus proving that like acts on like or more correctly "same acts on same" (isopathy not homeopathy)

the researchers also tried the same experiment with a histamine analogue ---- histi-DINE. It did not work at all --thus it is specific to histamine.



Conclusion E-Case 2: Homeopathic solutions act as claimed by homeopaths, thus indicating that the thermoluminescence study is flawed (otherwise, the emmory effect should swamp any other effects that might be postulated, as it did in this study).

Either way, you've shot down one of your own studies.
Click to expand...


.
 
Huntsman said:
Conclusion E-Case 2: Homeopathic solutions act as claimed by homeopaths, thus indicating that the thermoluminescence study is flawed (otherwise, the emmory effect should swamp any other effects that might be postulated, as it did in this study).

.
Click to expand...
You need to reword this because I do not understand what you are saying.

especially this:

"otherwise, the memory effect should swamp any other effects that might be postulated, as it did in this study"

What is going to swamp what?
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
I've wondered about that Hahnemann story. Given that his experience appears to be unique and given our experience of dealing with homeopathic members of a lottery winners' club over-interpreting unusual coincidences, isn't it more likely that the saintly Sam took his cinchona then promptly came down with the 'flu or other feverish lurgy and simply ascribed his symptoms to the cinchona, thereby establishing not just homeopathy but also the tradition for post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacious thinking that his disciples have stuck to rigidly for over 200 years.

edited to add:

p.s. Ironically the sceptical voices that have pointed out the possibility that he suffered an idiosyncratic reaction were also unreasonably asserting a causal relation.

Whatever really happened and whether there really was a causal link, what is certain is that his experience has nothing to do with the usual response to cinchona, which completely undermines the story as a basis for homeopathy.
Click to expand...
Here is the article about Hahnemann's idiosyncratic reaction, so you can read it and come to your own conclusions. I believe that Hahnemann stated he tried the cinchona bark several times and got the same reaction each time, and Thomas assumed that this account was truthful. However, whether or not Thomas is right about the allergic reaction, we do know for a fact that the vast majority of people who have taken cinchona bark have not experienced anything like what Hahnemann reported. And this was well known as far back as the 1840s.
Originally posted by SGT
In order to determine the effects of a substance in the organism the homeopath probers ingest sizeable quantities, so it causality is possible.
Click to expand...
Not so.

Although many explanations of homoeopathic theory for the general public (including some of those written by homoeopaths) do state that provings are done on material quantities of the relevant substance, this simply isn't the case. Provings are done on the magic content-free sugar pills, and have been since the days of Hahnemann - it was he who declared that the 30C preparation was the one to use for provings (though I've come across 200C in modern provings too). And it's really just as well, considering the sort of things they like to prove - like the blood of an AIDS patient....

If you want to see the real (sorry, surreal) lunacy that is the homoeopathic proving, look at this little lot! (Page wasn't there when I looked right now, but it is usually accessible.) The supreme irony is that this was the reference given to Badly Shaved Monkey when he asked a homeopath to show him an example of the "rigorous, double-blinded, scientific" provings being done in modern times.

Rolfe.
 
Olaf/QII said:
Huntsman?
Click to expand...
Your behaviour is rather unpleasant sometimes Olaf.

People do go and do other things in their own time other than respond to your posts.

I'm sure Huntsman will get back to you when he has a chance. Calm down.

And it's rather ugly how you get all eager and pushy when you think you've made a great point in a post and want a response, yet you are rather more quiet when people ask you for a response to a question you don't want to answer.

For example we're still waiting to hear a response to Patnray's questions:
Please provide evidence for these two claims:

40% of British MDs will refer their patients to a homeopath.

The reason they do so is because they believe it is capable of solving their patients chronic problems.
Click to expand...
Olaf?
 
Let me try it even simplier.

The basis of homeopathy is that a substance which causes a certain symptom pattern, when processed into an SAD, will then cure that same symptom pattern.

The studies posted (if they are correct) suggest that an SAD has properties identical to that of the original solute.

Thus, the effects of giving an SAD should be identical or very similar to the effects of giving the original solute.

Therefore, these studies have shot holes in the claims of homeopaths, namely:

1. Homeopathic remedies are side-effect free (only true if the original substance is side-effect free).

2. The diluted substance will cure symptoms that are produced because of the original substance (it should have the same effect of adding more of the original).

3. Provings can produce symptoms unrelated to the original substance (also shot out of the water...homeopathic mrcury should act just like or very similar to mercury).

And I'm sure there are more. Essentially these studies, even if correct, do not do anything to prove the efficiency or claimed mode of action of homeopathy. Indeed, they tend to show that homeopathic provings are worthless, that homeopathic treatment causes further harm to those treated, and that homeopathy has the same side effects as any other medical treatment.

That clear enough?
 
Huntsman said:
Let me try it even simplier.

The basis of homeopathy is that a substance which causes a certain symptom pattern, when processed into an SAD, will then cure that same symptom

That clear enough?
Click to expand...

1st --- why does it take so long for these pages to load?

2nd--- i need to know if you have come to the realization that the 2 studies (Rey and the basophil/histamine) do NOT contradict each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom