Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
This link;
http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/media/2020_milgrom_to_turnbull.php
reveals an interesting whinge from Lionel Milgrom about the BBC Horizon protocol that debunked the claims made for Madeleine Ennis' basophils-histamine experiment.
I won't rehash all the history now, the interesting point is what the link reveals about Milgrom's shaky understanding of chemistry and lab practice, while at the same time he is keen to rely on his own authority as a lab chemist.
In essence, he claims that inaccuracy in measuring the original stock solution from which a homeopathic dilution was then created invalidates the potencies thus created.
This is bizarre and plainly wrong. He appears to have no inkling of the nature of the propagation of errors in serial dilutions. The error made in making the initial stock solution pales into insignificance compared with the errors created by the multiple repeated dilutions down to homeopathic dilutions.
"Let us assume, that having acquired this histamine solution of for all intents and purposes, highly inaccurate concentration, the further dilutions and succussions were carried out correctly (certainly, from what John and I saw, this would seem to be a reasonable assumption). This now means that the same inaccuracies have been transferred to the dilutions. Thus, a 15c dilution actually isn't. John runs a highly respected homeopathic pharmacy and I am absolutely certain that such inaccuracies in potency would never pass muster in his establishment"
His correspondent, Wayne Turnbull, replied;
"Even if there is an error of 20% in the initial 1C dilution, the critical part of the serial dilution process is the accuracy and precision of that repeated dilution"
We have commented previously at JREF that the nature of homeopathic dilutions renders the labelling of potencies as 18C or 200C as highly misleading. This is true even if they were done under analytical lab conditions, but we also know that many dilutions are doe simply by dumping the contents and adding more solvent to the empty but wet vial.
In any case even if "concentrations" are not quite they are supposed to be, it hardly matters for the point of principle whether an 18C dilution is out by 10%, 100% or even 100-fold.
It's almost sad that this link is to Dana Ullman's site and the exchange between Milgrom and Turnbull is presented as victory to Milgrom, instead of an embarrassment.
We've previously heard dark mutterings about how the Horizon programme's recreation of Ennis' experiments was flawed, but if this the extent of their concerns I'm not really impressed! Methinks they doth complain too much.
http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/media/2020_milgrom_to_turnbull.php
reveals an interesting whinge from Lionel Milgrom about the BBC Horizon protocol that debunked the claims made for Madeleine Ennis' basophils-histamine experiment.
I won't rehash all the history now, the interesting point is what the link reveals about Milgrom's shaky understanding of chemistry and lab practice, while at the same time he is keen to rely on his own authority as a lab chemist.
In essence, he claims that inaccuracy in measuring the original stock solution from which a homeopathic dilution was then created invalidates the potencies thus created.
This is bizarre and plainly wrong. He appears to have no inkling of the nature of the propagation of errors in serial dilutions. The error made in making the initial stock solution pales into insignificance compared with the errors created by the multiple repeated dilutions down to homeopathic dilutions.
"Let us assume, that having acquired this histamine solution of for all intents and purposes, highly inaccurate concentration, the further dilutions and succussions were carried out correctly (certainly, from what John and I saw, this would seem to be a reasonable assumption). This now means that the same inaccuracies have been transferred to the dilutions. Thus, a 15c dilution actually isn't. John runs a highly respected homeopathic pharmacy and I am absolutely certain that such inaccuracies in potency would never pass muster in his establishment"
His correspondent, Wayne Turnbull, replied;
"Even if there is an error of 20% in the initial 1C dilution, the critical part of the serial dilution process is the accuracy and precision of that repeated dilution"
We have commented previously at JREF that the nature of homeopathic dilutions renders the labelling of potencies as 18C or 200C as highly misleading. This is true even if they were done under analytical lab conditions, but we also know that many dilutions are doe simply by dumping the contents and adding more solvent to the empty but wet vial.
In any case even if "concentrations" are not quite they are supposed to be, it hardly matters for the point of principle whether an 18C dilution is out by 10%, 100% or even 100-fold.
It's almost sad that this link is to Dana Ullman's site and the exchange between Milgrom and Turnbull is presented as victory to Milgrom, instead of an embarrassment.
We've previously heard dark mutterings about how the Horizon programme's recreation of Ennis' experiments was flawed, but if this the extent of their concerns I'm not really impressed! Methinks they doth complain too much.
