What is paranormal in Homeopathy

[Olaf/QII]

i have my hard copy of the study on my desk and just now i was flipping through the pages ----ahhh!! what beauty!

The unambiguous graphs clearly showing a marked difference between the control, the ghost sodium chloride, and the lithium chloride.

Clearly if contamination were an issue then we would see something entirely different.

yes, i agree with the physicists looking on who claimed that it is, "TRUSTWORTHY PHYSICS"!


Don't you agree with me that this is exciting? Think of the possibilities. We are pushing through another envelope and into a much more exciting world of possibilities.



[NOTE: pessimists and depressives stay away, this could be quite frightening for you]

 

[delphi_ote]

i have my hard copy of the study on my desk and just now i was flipping through the pages ----ahhh!! what beauty![/COLOR]

Oh yea? I have sitting on my desk a bright pink unicorn, a yeti, two mermaids, and a vampire. ----ahhh!! what B.S.

 

[steenkh]

[NOTE: pessimists and depressives stay away, this could be quite frightening for you]

Why? Maybe I am not a pessimist, but my world view is not shattered by facts. Even though I do not believe in this yet (I'll wait for the confirmations to roll in), I think it is worth studying.

In any case, if we regard these results as genuine, it still has no relevance for homoeopathy, because homoeopathy still has the problem that the healing effect vanishes when testing properly, and there is so much other magical thinking in homoeopathy (such as "like cures like") that it is unlikely to ever be rehabilitated.

 

[patnray]

i have my hard copy of the study on my desk and just now i was flipping through the pages ----ahhh!! what beauty!

The unambiguous graphs clearly showing a marked difference between the control, the ghost sodium chloride, and the lithium chloride.

Good. Then I'm sure you can also see the difference between the original D2O sample (the real control) and ALL the Boiron samples. (Hint: look at the temperature of the peak output of the Boiron samples and the original D2O and H2O samples).

Given that the Boiron samples peak at the same temperature as the H2O sample, not the original D2O sample, I'd be curious and run some other tests on the Boiron samples. Like freezing point, specific gravity, electrical conductivity, and dissolved O2 content, for example. At least I would if I wanted to understand the results.

Also, they show a chart of a 0.1M LiCl sample which is completely flat at the same temperature. I'd be curious and run tests on samples at each dilution step to determine just how dilute the sample must be before the curve becomes non-flat. And I'd run tests with dilution alone, without the shaking. And on samples that were shaken without dilution. At least I would if my goal was to learn the truth.

On the other hand, if my goal was to show some difference in ultra-dilute samples, I'd stop as soon as I found some effect and make no attempt to find any other explanation.

 

[Olaf/QII]

Good. Then I'm sure you can also see the difference between the original D2O sample (the real control) and ALL the Boiron samples. (Hint: look at the temperature of the peak output of the Boiron samples and the original D2O and H2O samples).

Given that the Boiron samples peak at the same temperature as the H2O sample, not the original D2O sample, I'd be curious and run some other tests on the Boiron samples. Like freezing point, specific gravity, electrical conductivity, and dissolved O2 content, for example. At least I would if I wanted to understand the results.

Also, they show a chart of a 0.1M LiCl sample which is completely flat at the same temperature. I'd be curious and run tests on samples at each dilution step to determine just how dilute the sample must be before the curve becomes non-flat. And I'd run tests with dilution alone, without the shaking. And on samples that were shaken without dilution. At least I would if my goal was to learn the truth.

i agree, much more needs to be done.

 

[delphi_ote]

The unambiguous graphs clearly showing a marked difference between the control, the ghost sodium chloride, and the lithium chloride.

Clearly if contamination were an issue then we would see something entirely different.

yes, i agree with the physicists looking on who claimed that it is, "TRUSTWORTHY PHYSICS"!

i agree, much more needs to be done.

I find those two quotes juxtaposed just so quite beautiful. Don't you?

 

[patnray]

i agree, much more needs to be done.

I think you're beginning to see why we are not too excited by this study. All they have so far is some interesting preliminary results. A lot more work needs to be done before they can reach any conclusions.

Then it must be independantly replicated. You will find that people are not rushing to repeat the experiment, though, because at this point there are too many flaws. Most scientists will expect that the results are due to experimental error because they are so far from currently accepted models of chemical systems. People don't like to spend scarce time and money on a project with little chance for success. That could change if they can repeat the results with a more rigorous protocol that clearly rules out the obvious sources of error and address the inconsistencies in their data.

Let us know when that happens...

 

[Olaf/QII]

I.

. You will find that people are not rushing to repeat the experiment, though, because at this point there are too many flaws. ...

No I don't believe that is the reason at all.

I only agree that much more needs to be done --- and soon!

I hate waiting around. I have confidence in the original results.

I would like to know the best way to bring this attention to scientists who have access to this type of technology. Any ideas?

 

[Olaf/QII]

I find those two quotes juxtaposed just so quite beautiful. Don't you?

much more needs to be done so that the skeptics are convinced.

 

[patnray]

I would like to know the best way to bring this attention to scientists who have access to this type of technology. Any ideas?

Get the research published in a widely respected, peer reviewed journal.

 

[Olaf/QII]

Get the research published in a widely respected, peer reviewed journal.

tough to do with so much competition.

 

[patnray]

I only agree that much more needs to be done --- and soon!

Don't be too impatient. In over 200 years homeopathy has yet to prove its basic premises. In 200 years no one has succeeded in distinguishing between a homeopathic preparation and a sample prepared identically without the "mother tincture". All you have so far is the homeopathic equivalent of EVP. A few unrepeatable studies of unstable systems with very low signal to noise ratios...

In the same 200 years scientific medicine has made enormous strides including the germ theory of communicable diseases, an understanding of many metabolic disorders to the molecular level, antibiotics, vaccinations and an incredibly detailed elucidation of the immune system, development of relaible methods for evaluating therapies, and a solid refutation of non-scientific schools of medicine (including allopathy and homeopathy). Scientific medicine has accumulated enough verified (repeatable) facts to fill libraries.

 

[patnray]

tough to do with so much competition.

There is one thing homepathy does not lack: excuses.

 

[Zep]

tough to do with so much competition.

What "competition" would that be for?

Reputable magazine space? Hardly. There's always room in reputable science magazines for breakthroughs in technology - everyone and their dog will want to be in on it first...IF it's genuine, that is.

Laboratory space? I'm sure Boiron have oodles of lab space and money available to get enough positive results down this research track to justify their existence, and their market share, and their advertising budget...IF it's genuine, that is.

The skeptic vote? Easy way to convince a skeptic: Come up with the good solid backed-up evidence to support your case. Not a problem at all for skeptics there...IF it's genuine, that is.

Really, this IS just an excuse for failure to post further supporting evidence, isn't it...

 

[delphi_ote]

much more needs to be done so that the skeptics are convinced.

Right. But this was the study that was supposed to blow my socks off. The unpublished study that I can't look at.

Much work does need to be done, sir. Get cracking.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Don't ask Dr MAS for a gin and tonic, untold mysteries will occur when he does the dilution and swirls his twizzle stick.

"breaking down of molecular structure"!!

You must remember that Allah does not allow Mr. Mas and all the little Masses to consume gin and tonic. Except in 32C form.
You silly infidel person you.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
I would like to know the best way to bring this attention to scientists who have access to this type of technology. Any ideas?

Make an experiment that does not reek a mile away of bias and incompetence. Only, then I predict that it won't show a positive result.

Listen Olaf: Homeopathy and ultra dilutions would be so damn hot and profitable if it could be made to work that the big pharma companies (who don't give a hoot about ideologies as long as it pays) would be trampling each other in order to get at it.

Just think: Simple, repeatable processes, same for ALL remedies. No pesky patents to work around. No nasty side-effects; the whole responsibility for aggravation and proving is on the practitioner. Production costs near zero.

Even without recognition, the homeopathic drug industry currently churns out a billion Euro per annum. Just think of the bucks they could make if they could put an "Approved" stamp on their products.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

.......... I guess it doesn't

Hans

 

[Jocce]

much more needs to be done so that the skeptics are convinced.

As opposed to the gullible part of the population who are willing to believe anything, no matter how flawed it is, as long as it fits their current belief system?

 

[DrDave]

Yar, the reason is, we do not dilute the medicine rather we do potentize the medicine. Please try to understand this term “potentization” from your so-called scientific world.

OK - so you "potentize" rather than dilute.

For a given substance I can measure certain characteristics, e.g. molecular weight, NMR spectra, IR spectra, GC spectra, mass spec, melting point, boiling point, etc, etc, etc. Then I can dissolve it into a solvent, dilute it, shake it, freeze it, thaw it, shake it again, whatever witchery you want to do, remove the solvent and measure the characteristics again.

Guess what - they haven't changed.

You're now going to claim that the chemicals react with the solvent. Well they're only going to do it once (in a suitable amount of solvent), so pick another solvent, or start again with the products of such a reaction. Surely you can foresee the absurdity and won't claim that the molecules will react at every stage of the dilution process? (Actually, don't answer that. I don't know if I want to know the answer)

So - either give up on the potentization, or show us evidence that potentizing changes the molecular structure of a solute - either in solution or after removal from the solution, it's up to you.

(In fact, such evidence would probably qualify for the $1M prize. Tell me how you go about potentizing, and I'll help come up with the protocol so you can claim it)

Dave

 

[Olaf/QII]

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...s0xyib.victoria





New Physico-Chemical Properties of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions
Authors: Elia V.1; Niccoli M.2

Source: Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 2004, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 815-836(22)

Publisher: Kluwer Academic Publishers

< previous article | next article > View Table of Contents

full text options

Abstract:

The extremely diluted solutions are anomalous solutions obtained through the iteration of two processes: a dilution 1:100 in mass and a succussion. The iteration is repeated until extreme dilutions are reached (less than 1·10-5 mol kg-1) to the point that we may call the resulting solution an extremely diluted solution, namely the composition of the solution is identical to that of the solvent used (e.g. twice distilled water). We conducted thermodynamic and transport measurements of the solutions and of the interaction of those solutions with acids or bases. The purpose of this study is to obtain information about the influence of successive dilutions and succussions on the water structure of the solutions under study. We measured the heats of mixing of acid or basic solutions with such extremely diluted solutions, their electrical conductivity and pH, comparing with the analogous heats of mixing, electrical conductivity and pH of the solvent. We found some relevant exothermic excess heats of mixing, higher electrical conductivity and pH than those of the untreated solvent. The measurements show a good correlation between independent physico-chemical parameters. Care was taken to take into account the effect of chemical impurities deriving from the glass containers. Here we thus show that successive dilutions and succussions can permanently alter the physico-chemical properties of the water solvent. The nature of the phenomena here described still remains unexplained, nevertheless some significant experimental results were obtained.
Keywords: solute-solvent interaction; calorimetry; pH; sulutions; conductivity; aqueous solution

Language: Unknown

Document Type: Research article

DOI: 10.1023/B:JTAN.0000027178.11665.8f

Affiliations: 1: Department of Chemistry, University 'Federico II' of Naples, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, via Cintia 80126 Naples, Italy, Email: [email protected] 2: Department of Chemistry, University 'Federico II' of Naples, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, via Cintia 80126 Naples, Italy


__________________