Icy claim that water has memory

[Hellbound]

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.

Yes, I see that now. My mistake occurred because I simply took you at your word when you stated that the studies supported homeopathy. Obviously, if diluted histamine acts just like regular histamine, then both contradict the tenets of homeopathic practice.

So, yes, I understand that your much-vaunted studies do not support your pet beliefs.

 

[Olaf/QII]

Yes, I see that now. My mistake occurred because I simply took you at your word when you stated that the studies supported homeopathy.

[ i never actually made this claim ]


Obviously, if diluted histamine acts just like regular histamine,

[ not sure that one can make that claim although you seem to be doing so.]


then both contradict the tenets of homeopathic practice.


[only if you continue to make all kinds of assumptions]

.

 

[Olaf/QII]

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.


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

(huntsman, have you figured it out yet that you are incorrect on your claim)


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.

 

[Hellbound]

Olaf,

I have already admitted I was mistaken about the basophil study.

However, that doesn't modify the primary point...in fact, it strengthens the main thrust. This is contradictory to the theory by which homeopathy is practiced. In other words, these studies contradict the claimed effectiveness of homeopathy as it is used in homeopathy clinics. A homeopathic rememdy does not act like the original substance, and most homeopaths consider it to act in an opposing manner (of course, very few homeopaths agree on this either). Also, homeopathy claims benefits far beyond what any original substance is capable of, and these studies show no sign of anything other than a weaker version of what the original substance does anyway (which, as others have mentioned, points to questions of contamination that are, as yet, unadressed).

So, both papers you have been touting as "proof" of or support for homeopathy (and despite your repeated claims to the contrary, you have promoted them as such), actually directly contradict homeopathy as it is practiced.

 

[Ossai]

Olaf/QII
I was going to ask an obvious question, but as I was typing it the answer hit me. You really are that blindingly ignorant.

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.

and

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)

Pretty much shot homeopathy down right there, do not pass GO do not collect $200.

Ossai

 

[Olaf/QII]

Olaf/QII
You really are that blindingly ignorant.

Ossai

Ossai,

Just because the SAD histamine inhibited the basophils it does not mean that it acts E-X-A-C-T-L-Y like histamine. All it means is that in this type of in vitro experiment it inhibited the basophils -- that is all.

I stand by my claim that a SAD will not be E-X-A-C-T-L-Y like the crude substance.

Huntsman seems to continue to ASSUME that this is the supposed case. i hope to be able to convince him otherwise.

i believe that a SAD will act with some degree of variability depending on any number of factors.

 

[Olaf/QII]

Olaf,

I have already admitted I was mistaken about the basophil study.

I am shocked that you admit this.

However, that doesn't modify the primary point...in fact, it strengthens the main thrust. This is contradictory to the theory by which homeopathy is practiced. In other words, these studies contradict the claimed effectiveness of homeopathy as it is used in homeopathy clinics. A homeopathic rememdy does not act like the original substance, and most homeopaths consider it to act in an opposing manner (of course, very few homeopaths agree on this either).

Where are you getting your information? It may not act EXACTLY like the original or crude substance but for some reason or another some of the properties remain in the SAD.

Where do you come up with the claim that "most homeopaths consider it to act in an opposing manner"? My understanding is that "most homeopaths" understand it to act in a "LIKE CURE LIKE" manner. Ex., a "toxic" element might be able to "awaken" the body to make some type of healing response to a "toxic" condition.

This is ALL very basic stuff yet you seem to be very confused as to what the actual situation really is. Maybe Rolfe, hans, or BSM can explain it to you. They think it is all rubbish yet they do understand what the homeopaths are claiming.




Also, homeopathy claims benefits far beyond what any original substance is capable of,

for some odd ball reason yet to be explained this seems to be true. 50,000+ German and 20,000 French MDs are aware of this strange phenomena.

and these studies show no sign of anything other than a weaker version of what the original substance does anyway (which, as others have mentioned, points to questions of contamination that are, as yet, unadressed).

CONTAMINATION? Please!!!

So, both papers you have been touting as "proof" of or support for homeopathy (and despite your repeated claims to the contrary, you have promoted them as such), actually directly contradict homeopathy as it is practiced.

you have quite a vivid imagination Huntsman. your mind is already made up on the issue (so much for objective analysis) and therefore you only see what you want to see.

.

 

[Mojo]

Where do you come up with the claim that "most homeopaths consider it to act in an opposing manner"? My understanding is that "most homeopaths" understand it to act in a "LIKE CURE LIKE" manner. Ex., a "toxic" element might be able to "awaken" the body to make some type of healing response to a "toxic" condition.

Indeed, most (actually, all) homeopaths believe, by definition, that "like cures like." If your high dilutions actually produce the same symptoms as the original substance, this contradicts the basic tenets of homeopathy.

 

[Hellbound]

Indeed, most (actually, all) homeopaths believe, by definition, that "like cures like." If your high dilutions actually produce the same symptoms as the original substance, this contradicts the basic tenets of homeopathy.

Exactly, Thank you, Mojo. I tire quickly of explaining the obvious. Nice to have a bit of back up.

And Oaf,

My mind is made up, but I am willing to change it, should any actual, reliable evidence be found to support homeopathy. I seriously doubt that will happen, but I am open to the possibility, however vanishingly small. Howeve,r the studies you have posted to not support homeopathy, and in fact contradict it in the manner by which it is practiced. Of course, you can rarely get two homeopaths to agree as to the manner by which it should be practiced, but the general "like cures like" idea holds true. This, as Mojo pointed out, is contradicted by the studies you post.

 

[Olaf/QII]

Indeed, most (actually, all) homeopaths believe, by definition, that "like cures like." If your high dilutions actually produce the same symptoms as the original substance, this contradicts the basic tenets of homeopathy.

the theory is that a SAD can be used to closely mimic a disease state. by mimicing it it is able to prod the body into making some type of corrective healing response.

i believe that Ullman has given analogies such as musical instruments. a 'C' note struck on one instrument will reverberate on another.

"In explaining how small doses act, an analogy to music is helpful. It is commonly known that when one plays a "C" note on a piano, other "C" notes reverberate. Even on another piano at the other end of a room, "C" notes still have a hypersensitivity to the "C" resonance. In music theory (and physics) there is a basic principle that two things resonate if and only if they are "similar."

"
ullman

If your high dilutions actually produce the same symptoms as the original substance, this contradicts the basic tenets of homeopathy.

this would refer to a healthy person repeatedly taking a SAD not a sick person.


(mojo and huntsman, just so we are clear on this issue you will need to elaborate on your point in the above quote.)

 

[Olaf/QII]

. Howeve,r the studies you have posted to not support homeopathy, and in fact contradict it in the manner by which it is practiced. .

i am hoping that you are going to tell me exactly what study contradicts and EXACTLY how it contradicts.

a few days ago you tried to claim that the basophil study cotradicted the Rey study --- you then admitted you were mistaken.

then you tried to make some other type of argument that seemed to be based on a wrong assumption.

please try to be very specific about what contradicts what.

 

[MRC_Hans]

the theory is that a SAD can be used to closely mimic a disease state. by mimicing it it is able to prod the body into making some type of corrective healing response.

Whether a SAD (what an unusually appropriate acronym ) or a crude substance is used, the symptom-based like cures like theory is another unsupported cornerstone of homeopathy.

However, the remedy is used to mimick a disease state, it is used to mimick a symptom profile, which is, as we know today, an entirely different thing. Hahnemann claimed that any disease was totally and exclusively characterized by its observable symptoms. We now know that this is wrong.

i believe that Ullman has given analogies such as musical instruments. a 'C' note struck on one instrument will reverberate on another.

Yes, but first of all it is a completely unsupported theory, and secondly it fails to addres the problem that we know that a disease is NOT characterized solely by its symptom profile.

...

this would refer to a healthy person repeatedly taking a SAD not a sick person.

Wrong. The proving profile is IDENTICAL to the profile of the sick person, otherwise, how could you determine a similum? (I am always amazed at having to teach homeopaths homeopathy)

The reason the basophil study will contradict homeopathy if it should out to be reliable is that it shows the effect predicted by the "allopathic" effect of the substance, which is not to be expected within the homeopathic paradigm.

Hans

 

[Hellbound]

Olaf:

See Hans post just above mine. Therein lies the contradiction.

I was mistaken earlier because I had thoguht the basophil study showed an opposing effect for the diluted histamine (in other words, I thought the diluted acted differently than the original substance).

In any case, both studies contradict homeopathy because both studies, if reliable and accurate, predict that SADs have properties (and thus effects) identical to or very similar to the original substance...which is not the effect predicted by homeopathy. In other words, these studies would support the idea that, for example, 100% mercury given to a patient should have the same effects as 20C mercury given to a patient. This is not what is preached or practiced in homeopathy.

As far as assumptions go, can you be specific about what assumptions I seem to be making that are wrong? I've examined my argument, and with the exception of my mistake on the basophil study results I can't see where any assumptions are...it all seems to be a logical path from the study results. As to being more clear in my own argument, between myself and other posters I don't know how much clearer I can be...I'm sorry, but I can't do your thinking for you.

 

[Ossai]

Olaf/QII
I stand by my earlier statement.
You really are that blindingly ignorant.
And for evidence for my position, reference every post you’ve made on this board.

It is apparent you don’t know:
basic chemistry, basic physics, diagnostic medicine, how to properly evaluate a controlled study, how to design a controlled study, statistical analysis, etc.
Again, refer to your previous posts.

At best you’re a self-deluded fool and at worst you’re a deliberate fraud.

Ossai

 

[Olaf/QII]

The reason the basophil study will contradict homeopathy if it should out to be reliable is that it shows the effect predicted by the "allopathic" effect of the substance, which is not to be expected within the homeopathic paradigm.


Hans

The basophil study does not attempt to prove homeopathy. Its main purpose is to show that there is a difference between an ultra-diluted solution and control water. Secondly, it is reflective of an isopathic approach.

Wrong. The proving profile is IDENTICAL to the profile of the sick person, otherwise, how could you determine a similum? (I am always amazed at having to teach homeopaths homeopathy)

Hans

I did not say that this was not the case.

Olaf/QII

I stand by my earlier statement.
You really are that blindingly ignorant.
And for evidence for my position, reference every post you’ve made on this board.

It is apparent you don’t know:
basic chemistry, basic physics, diagnostic medicine, how to properly evaluate a controlled study, how to design a controlled study, statistical analysis, etc.
Again, refer to your previous posts.

At best you’re a self-deluded fool and at worst you’re a deliberate fraud

Ossai

Ossai,

p < .0001

 

[Olaf/QII]

The reason the basophil study will contradict homeopathy if it should out to be reliable is that it shows the effect predicted by the "allopathic" effect of the substance, which is not to be expected within the homeopathic paradigm

Foolishness!

in this particular case the "allopathic" effect happens to mesh with "like cure like".

--and because of that fact you want to discredit homeopathy?????

again, foolishness!

the typical "allopathic" approach is to use some counter measure to achieve some effect ex, ANTI-acid to counter acid or ANTI-histamine to counter histamine.

just because the observed effect (histamine can inhibit further degranulation by acting on H2 receptors) happens to be backed up by an isopathic type of in vitro experiment does not mean that anything is discredited.

what it does is lend support to the idea that like may indeed cure like.

 

[Mojo]

Ossai,

p < .0001

I assume that this is the probability that Ossai's conclusions are wrong.

ETA: Since it was posted immediately under Ossai's conclusions with no other comment.

 

[Anders]

Story from New Scientist



If anyone wants to follow this further, the journal reference is Physica A, 323 (2003), 67-74.

From the article:

Martin Chaplin from London's South Bank University, an expert on water and hydrogen bonding, is not so sure. "Rey's rationale for water memory seems most unlikely," he says. "Most hydrogen bonding in liquid water rearranges when it freezes."


He points out that the two thermoluminescence peaks Rey observed occur around the temperatures where ice is known to undergo transitions between different phases. He suggests that tiny amounts of impurities in the samples, perhaps due to inefficient mixing, could be getting concentrated at the boundaries between different phases in the ice and causing the changes in thermoluminescence.

All spectroscopic methods are vary difficult to use, very error prone and even very skilled chemists sometimes get it wrong.

Amazing: if the effects of ultra dilution is sooooo small that it only turns up at thermoluminescence experiments, not on spectroscopy, not on NMR.

Oh well, I guess I'm not going to sleep tonight wondering if my view of the world just crumbled...

 

[Olaf/QII]

Anders,

M Chapin recanted -- see his website. apparently louis rey did some followup research and showed that the 2nd peak could be cancelled by high pressure.

besides, there was a control and the control water was different than the diluted lithium and sodium. All he was doing was grasping for something to throw doubt on it. it is the same thing that goes on here. Zaaydragon, rolfe, hans, BSM, and many others have all done it and they have all gotten promptly spanked for it.

--and that is because ultradilute solutions are indeed bioactive.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Zaaydragon, rolfe, hans, BSM, and many others have all done it and they have all gotten promptly spanked for it.

Not spanked, just given up with this nonsense because it takes so much longer to analyse the studies you spam this board with than it does for you to dredge them up in the first place. Those I have looked at in detail did not give me any encouragement that the others would be any better.

So, carry on cutting and pasting. It doesn't make what you cut and paste true.