What is paranormal in Homeopathy

[sionep]

Um, I think Geni said he knew of some detection system that could detect a single molecule of something, but I can't remember if I believed him. I think not.

Rolfe.

Detection of single molecule is common in nuclear medicine using radioactive trace element or labelled chemical compounds. If this technology can be applied to any homeopath solution, it will definitely tell if any solute molecule is present at all or not.

 

[MRC_Hans]

All this is moot. The FREF challenge is a paranormal challenge. The presense or non-presense of various molecules in homeopathic remedies is not paranormal.

The possible effect on human beings of remedies that contain few or no molecules of active substance is, otoh, paranormal.

Hans

 

[Z]

The FREF challenge is a paranormal challenge.

Is that the Frank Randi Educational Foundation, there, Hans?

 

[Nucular]

All this is moot. The FREF challenge is a paranormal challenge. The presense or non-presense of various molecules in homeopathic remedies is not paranormal.

Well if this is the case, then it needs to be definitively stated that telling the difference, by any means the claimant wishes, between a high-potency (>14C) homeopathic preparation and stock solvent is *not* an acceptable claim for the JREF challenge.

I always thought it was.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Does anyone thinks it's time we started using the term "Big Homeo"?

~~ Paul

 

[steenkh]

Well if this is the case, then it needs to be definitively stated that telling the difference, by any means the claimant wishes, between a high-potency (>14C) homeopathic preparation and stock solvent is *not* an acceptable claim for the JREF challenge.

I always thought it was.

It definitely is. James Randi (of the FREF ) has several times stated that the prize would go to anybody who can prove such a thing. But I do not think he will accept preparation methods like the Korsakov method where poor quality control makes it possible that MT molecules are still left.

 

[geni]

Um, I think Geni said he knew of some detection system that could detect a single molecule of something, but I can't remember if I believed him. I think not.

Rolfe.

Doable through radiotraceing. Doable through use of a transmission electron microscope if you have a very good idea where the the molecule is. Helps if you chose a big molecule.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well if this is the case, then it needs to be definitively stated that telling the difference, by any means the claimant wishes, between a high-potency (>14C) homeopathic preparation and stock solvent is *not* an acceptable claim for the JREF challenge.

I always thought it was.

Let me be clear: There is always a chance that some molecules of whatever substance is in a sample of medium. The challenge would be to distinguish a remedy from blanks. My suggestion for the JREF would be that the blanks were prepared in exactly the same way as the remedy, but sans mother tincture. This way the solution mediums would be certain to be identical, and to distinguish a high potency remedy from the blank medium would indeed be paranormal.

However, Sheikh et al are, in their usual way, trying to smoke-screen the issue by turning it into a trial of whether they can find some molecule in some sample, and that needs not be paranormal. Go out and pour yourself a glass of water, and it will contain millions of molecules of the most surprising substances, including, no doubt, several that are used for homeopathic remedies.

Hans

 

[anor277]

Let me be clear: There is always a chance that some molecules of whatever substance is in a sample of medium. The challenge would be to distinguish a remedy from blanks. My suggestion for the JREF would be that the blanks were prepared in exactly the same way as the remedy, but sans mother tincture. This way the solution mediums would be certain to be identical, and to distinguish a high potency remedy from the blank medium would indeed be paranormal.

However, Sheikh et al are, in their usual way, trying to smoke-screen the issue by turning it into a trial of whether they can find some molecule in some sample, and that needs not be paranormal. Go out and pour yourself a glass of water, and it will contain millions of molecules of the most surprising substances, including, no doubt, several that are used for homeopathic remedies.

Hans

Hans suggestion on differentiating a blank from the homeopathic potency is a good one. Even with doubly distilled water, you could probably detect the presence of the whole periodic table in a sample.

 

[Rolfe]

Too many threads here!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1397924#post1397924

Rolfe.

 

[petre]

Let me be clear: There is always a chance that some molecules of whatever substance is in a sample of medium. The challenge would be to distinguish a remedy from blanks. My suggestion for the JREF would be that the blanks were prepared in exactly the same way as the remedy, but sans mother tincture. This way the solution mediums would be certain to be identical, and to distinguish a high potency remedy from the blank medium would indeed be paranormal.

However, Sheikh et al are, in their usual way, trying to smoke-screen the issue by turning it into a trial of whether they can find some molecule in some sample, and that needs not be paranormal. Go out and pour yourself a glass of water, and it will contain millions of molecules of the most surprising substances, including, no doubt, several that are used for homeopathic remedies.

Hans

Yep, I'm anxiously awaing a reply from Sheikh so I can get started writing a full protocol for him. Just waiting for him to identify one preperation he'd feel comfortable asserting has noticable effect.

Still waiting...

 

[Orb]

Mice?

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but couldn't the effectiveness of the solutions be tested on mice or hamsters? For example, a double blind trial of homeopathic sleeping pills? It seems this whole detecting molecules thing is kind of a silly route to take. And if the JREF can't condone using human participants, animals are a possible alternative. I mean, its not like they'd actually be harmed, and mice are cheap and available. Just a thought.

 

[Nucular]

Let me be clear: There is always a chance that some molecules of whatever substance is in a sample of medium. The challenge would be to distinguish a remedy from blanks. My suggestion for the JREF would be that the blanks were prepared in exactly the same way as the remedy, but sans mother tincture. This way the solution mediums would be certain to be identical, and to distinguish a high potency remedy from the blank medium would indeed be paranormal.

However, Sheikh et al are, in their usual way, trying to smoke-screen the issue by turning it into a trial of whether they can find some molecule in some sample, and that needs not be paranormal. Go out and pour yourself a glass of water, and it will contain millions of molecules of the most surprising substances, including, no doubt, several that are used for homeopathic remedies.

I agree; but if the key thing is to tell the difference between the homeopathic preparation and the stock solvent, and you want to do that by, say, radiotracing as geni suggests, to establish the presence of a molecule contained in one sample which is not in the other - that, presumably, would be acceptable (as Mojo points out on the thread Rolfe linked to), right?

Assuming the procedure had been correctly carried out to start with.

So in actual fact, the presence or non-presence of various molecules could be very important, if telling the difference between the two 'preparations' is acceptable.

 

[Metullus]

I agree; but if the key thing is to tell the difference between the homeopathic preparation and the stock solvent, and you want to do that by, say, radiotracing as geni suggests, to establish the presence of a molecule contained in one sample which is not in the other - that, presumably, would be acceptable (as Mojo points out on the thread Rolfe linked to), right?

Assuming the procedure had been correctly carried out to start with.

So in actual fact, the presence or non-presence of various molecules could be very important, if telling the difference between the two 'preparations' is acceptable.

As I calculate it there is approximately 1 chance in 16,666 that any particular 14C preparation (assuming the succession process is properly done) has even a single molecule from the original MT in it (assuming that the MT contains a mole of, well, something.) If I am right I would expect that it is highly unlikely that any 14C preparation will differ in any way from the solvent. If the 14C preparation and the solvent do not differ then the question of the presence / non-presence is not really an issue - the real question is whether or not the MAS collective can tell the two samples apart regardless of whether there is any of the MT in the 14C preparation.

The trial will in all probability involve distiguishing between two identical solutions.

 

[Rolfe]

Doable through radiotraceing. Doable through use of a transmission electron microscope if you have a very good idea where the the molecule is. Helps if you chose a big molecule.

I understand what you are saying about EM, though I can't see how the homoeos would actually be able to find the molecule, even assuming they had something big enough.

But can you explain to me how you use radiotracing to find a single molecule? How many radioactive decay events are you looking for? What does your label consist of?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but couldn't the effectiveness of the solutions be tested on mice or hamsters? For example, a double blind trial of homeopathic sleeping pills? It seems this whole detecting molecules thing is kind of a silly route to take. And if the JREF can't condone using human participants, animals are a possible alternative. I mean, its not like they'd actually be harmed, and mice are cheap and available. Just a thought.

You have a lot of problems here. First, homoeopathic sleeping remedies are not supposed to send someone to sleep. A homoeopath would treat such a case by doing a full case-taking and finding that person's correct remedy which will put his vital force back on balance, and that should (incidentally) restore normal sleep patterns. Even two human patients might turn out to have two quite different remedies. And no homoeopath would expect either remedy to send someone to sleep.

Second, veterinary homoeopathy is a hugely contentious area, especially as no homoeopathic provings have ever been done on animals. This doesn't prevent vets who have taken leave of their senses from treating animals with homoeopathy, but the theory is made up as they go along. Nobody could possibly expect to apply homoeopathic theory to laboratory mice. Certainly not non-insomniac laboratory mice.

Of course we have those nutty Indians who did something nasty to mice's ears and then dosed them with homoeopathic mercury or something, but that's totally against classic homoeopathic theory, so you'll find that such experiments are only accepted if they seem to show a positive result. As soon as a negative result is produced, the entire protocol becomes invalidated because the whole thing had nothing at all to do with homoeopathy.

Look, all they actually have to do is to see whether or not the preparations produce the expected proving effects, on themselves or on volunteers. This is entirely in accord with homoeopathic theory, and indeed if this test fails the entire basis of homoeopathy crumbles into a pile of ashes. Which is probably why none of them is prepared to give it a try even for a million bucks.

Rolfe.

 

[geni]

But can you explain to me how you use radiotracing to find a single molecule? How many radioactive decay events are you looking for? What does your label consist of?

Rolfe.

A big protein. With pretty much everything labled. Of course you could just chose a flawless dimond and do it by eye.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I agree; but if the key thing is to tell the difference between the homeopathic preparation and the stock solvent, and you want to do that by, say, radiotracing as geni suggests, to establish the presence of a molecule contained in one sample which is not in the other - that, presumably, would be acceptable (as Mojo points out on the thread Rolfe linked to), right?

Assuming the procedure had been correctly carried out to start with.

So in actual fact, the presence or non-presence of various molecules could be very important, if telling the difference between the two 'preparations' is acceptable.

I don't think analyzing for a few molecules is a viable approach at all.

I'll surely regret this, because I'll probably soon see one of these goons claiming that "MRC_Hans has admitted that there are molecules in all potencies", but:

We are talking about Avogadro's number and "no molecules", but all that is mainly an academic exercise. In the real world, it would require ridiculously strict lab procedures to actually produce a sample that did not contain even a single molecule of any substance that has been present in the lab. In fact, I doubt if it can be done.

In any lab, here will be a "noise floor", dependent on the quality of the lab procedures, and below that, you are likely to find loose molecules of any substance that was ever present in the lab, in any sample.

I have seen pictures of a Pakistani homeopathic laboratory. It was an ordinary room in an ordinary building, with a wooden floor, painted walls, and several ordinary doors and windows. The laboratory benches were wooden tables, of the dinner-table type, and on them were a few devices resembling the machine MAS posted a picture of. The picture did not show, but I strongly suspect that their remedies, mother tinctures, dilution medium, and empty vials sit on open shelves somewhere in that, or another, room. In such a setting, I'd estimate the noise floor, or contamination floor, is at several ppm. So at 3C and upwards, their products will more or less be a conglomerate of whatever substance happens to be present in the building at the time.

You see, this is another incongruency of homeopathy, albeit one that is rarely mentioned: The laboratory practices required to produce even medium potencies (no matter whether they are possible or not) which are consistent and clean, would be totally absurd. If you were to convince the FDA that your Bel 12C is indeed unadulterated medium with a single belladonna molecule in it, you would need to have a clean-room setup that would make a semiconductor lab look like a sweat-shop.

And don't get me started on 200C .

Hans

 

[Zep]

Hans, I suspect we sensible people all took this for granted right from the beginning! And I don't know how many times here on this forum we have explained to drive-by homeopaths that the second even ultra-pure water in a sterile glass container is exposed to ultra-clean air, it will still get contaminated significantly with simple elements and chemical compounds at concentrations much higher than even plain old 12C.

And yet we have been told that plain tap-water is sufficient to allow the "homeopathic magic" to work at 200C or even higher potencies!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Just to give justice: The tap water (from Fitness over at the NCH forum) was not for preparing the remedy, it was just the water used to dissolve the pilules of 200C to get a so-called "wet dose".

Hans