SCEPTIC'S TESTS SUPPORT HOMOEOPATHY

[Guest guest]

http://www.wnho.net/tests_support_homoeopathy.htm

 

 

SCEPTIC'S TESTS SUPPORT HOMOEOPATHY. NOW THE CHALLENGE FOR SCIENTISTS IS TO

REPEAT ITBy Steve Connor, Science Editor

Appeared in The Independent on 19 August 2004

Web Site: http://www.independent.co.uk

 

 

Posted: 19 Aug 2004

 

This article originally appeared at:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=552905

 

To some it is the snake oil of the New Age. To others it is a tried-and-trusted

treatment that has been good enough for the likes of Bill Clinton, the Prince of

Wales, Geri Halliwell and David Beckham.

Homoeopathy is big business and getting bigger. Yet there is little if any

evidence to show that it works, and absolutely nothing to justify its central

claim - that highly diluted solutions containing nothing but water can affect

human health.

That is until now. Researchers have just published what could be the first hard

evidence in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that appears to support the

central idea behind homoeopathy.

The scientists, from Britain, France, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands, have

chosen the relatively obscure but respected Inflammation Research to publish

what some call the " holy grail " of homoeopathy.

In summary, the study found that extremely dilute solutions can have a

biological effect. Like homoeopathic remedies, the solutions in the experiments

were so diluted that there was no realistic chance of a single molecule of the

substance remaining in the liquid.

Scientists have likened this to believing in magic. How could something that was

once dissolved in a solution, and can no longer be present in that solution,

still have an effect? The scientists themselves are baffled. " We are not yet

able to propose any theoretical explanation of these findings, " they write. In

showing that high dilutions exert a biological effect, the findings seem to

break the laws of physics. Surely there must be errors in the experiment; an

accusation the scientists reject. " Despite searching for artefacts, we have been

unable to find any, " they write.

An editorial in Inflammation Research explains why the journal published such

controversial research: " The authors are unable to explain their findings but

wished to encourage others to investigate this area, " it says. " It is with this

spirit of openness that the journal, after submitting the paper to a rigorous

reviewing process, has agreed to publish the paper. "

Understandably, the practitioners of homoeopathy have seized on the findings as

vindication. Peter Fisher, of the Royal Homoeopathic Hospital in London and

homoeopath to the Queen, said the findings were nothing short of groundbreaking.

" History may come to view [the study] as a turning point in the scientific

controversy surrounding homoeopathy, " Dr Fisher said.

" Of course further repetition is required, but it may be that this represents

the holy grail of basic research in homoeopathy, " he said.

There are two central tenets of homoeopathy. The first is that an illness or

malady can be treated by administering tiny amounts of a substance that might

under normal circumstances actually result in similar symptoms - extract of

onion for instance to treat hay fever.

The second belief is that the concentrations have to be really minute, so minute

that the dilutions involved in effect get rid of the substance in question from

the liquid solvent.

Homoeopathic solutions are diluted repeatedly to produce solutions that are

millions of times weaker than they were originally. Often the solutions are so

weak that they are equivalent to dissolving a tiny speck of something in a

volume of water several times greater than all the world's oceans.

Scientifically, this would mean that the chance of just a single molecule of the

homoeopathic remedy being left in the solution is next to nil. Sceptics say

patients might just as well treat themselves with distilled water - which is

cheaper.

Science cannot explain how such highly dilute solutions could have an effect,

that is until the French biologist Jacques Benveniste came along. Working at his

laboratory in Paris, Dr Benveniste formulated the idea that water retains a

" memory " of what has been dissolved in it and that it is this memory that

results in the homoeopathic effect. In 1988 Dr Benveniste published a study in

the journal Nature in support of his water-memory theory. He claimed his

experiments showed that an ultra-dilute solution exerted a biological effect.

However, the then editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox, had insisted that he would

only agree to publication if he was able to investigate Dr Benveniste's

laboratory procedures. A few weeks later Sir John invited an American science

fraud investigator, Walter Stewart, and a professional magician and arch

sceptic, James Randi, to watch over Dr Benveniste as he and his team tried to

repeat the experiments.

The Nature investigation concluded that Dr Benveniste had failed to replicate

his original study. In subsequent issues of Nature, Dr Benveniste suffered the

professional ignominy of being ridiculed by arguably the most influential

scientific journal in the world.

As a result, the idea of memory water was consigned to the dustbin of science

history, or so it was thought.

France as a country is a keen advocate of homoeopathy and there were many French

scientists who had not given up on the notion of investigating the phenomenon.

Among them was a one-time collaborator of Dr Benveniste called Philippe Belon,

who now works for a French homoeopathy company, Boiron.

Dr Belon, who fell out with Dr Benveniste a long time ago, has investigated high

dilutions for 20 years and although he works for Boiron, and has himself tried

homoeopathic remedies, he insists he is only interested discovering the truth

about the claims.

In the spirit of scientific investigation he organised a collaboration between

four different groups in Europe who all undertook to carry out identical high

dilution experiments at separate places involving separate teams of scientists.

The British end was run by Professor Madeleine Ennis, an established asthma

researcher at Queen's University of Belfast and an avowed sceptic of all things

homoeopathic.

In fact Professor Ennis became involved in the project in the first place

because she could not accept what some of her scientific colleagues were saying.

" I told people I didn't believe it so they said 'why don't you try it', "

Professor Ennis said.

The dilution experiments they carried out, and now published in Inflammation

Research, involved a substance called histamine which is released by a type of

white blood cell called a basophil. Normally basophils release histamine, and as

levels of histamine rise this exerts a " negative feedback " which inhibits

further release of histamine.

The four teams of scientists tested highly dilute solutions of histamine to see

whether they still exert an effect on basophils in a test tube. At extreme

dilutions, three out of four laboratories found a statistically significant

effect and the fourth found an effect which just fell out of the typical range

for statistical significance.

Professor Ennis emphasised that the research does not prove that homoeopathy

works, nor does it even show that Dr Benveniste was right because he had used a

different test for a high-dilution effect. " The paper didn't test homoeopathy,

it tested high dilutions of histamine. I know what we tested and I cannot

explain the results, " said Professor Ennis.

For Dr Belon, however, the research does at least support the basic premise

behind homoeopathy. " Of course it supports it, on the other hand it is not a

demonstration that homoeopathy works, " he said.

In whatever ways the latest findings are interpreted, they cannot be ignored.

The experiments were repeated by four different teams using the same

experimental protocol that involved a blind code - the scientists did not know

whether they were working with a high dilution solution or a control sample of

pure water until the code was broken at the end of the experiment.

When BBC Horizon televised a similar attempt at replicating the same experiment

two years ago, the results were negative but scientists such as Dr Belon believe

this was trial by media rather than science by the peer-review process.

This time, with a full scientific paper detailing the precise protocol, anyone

can try to replicate the findings - and replication is the essence of science.

Until others repeat the work it will take a lot to convince sceptics such as

James Randi, who has offered $1m to the first person to prove the scientific

basis of homoeopathy.

Mr Randi warns about reading too much in a single scientific paper. " A paper is

a paper is a paper. Don't forget, two scientists wrote a paper, published in

Nature, back in 1974, that endorsed the powers of Uri Geller, " he said.

But the homoeopathic gauntlet has been thrown down. The question now is whether

anyone will be brave enough to pick it up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://pets.care2.com/

 

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com

 

" It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. " -- William G. McAdoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Homeopathy works, I'm here to tell you! Chronically it is tailored to each

individual, not several people taking the same remedy, acute short term

several people may use the same remedy... such as Rhus tox for poison ivy .

 

Garden version: pick bugs you don't need/want, place blender with small

onion, couple of cloves garlic, drop of dish detergent, add water. Grind

all together... spray on plants you need to protect... Same species won't

go neat the spot sprayed. not quite really what some would consider

*homeopathic,* but principle is similar...small diluted amount of substance

is very powerful in the long run. Read more about it...NG

 

-

" DitziSis " <mk2967

<alternative_medicine_forum >

Friday, August 20, 2004 10:23 PM

SCEPTIC'S TESTS SUPPORT HOMOEOPATHY

 

 

> http://www.wnho.net/tests_support_homoeopathy.htm

>

>

> SCEPTIC'S TESTS SUPPORT HOMOEOPATHY. NOW THE CHALLENGE FOR SCIENTISTS IS

TO REPEAT ITBy Steve Connor, Science Editor

> Appeared in The Independent on 19 August 2004

> Web Site: http://www.independent.co.uk

>

>

> Posted: 19 Aug 2004

>

> This article originally appeared at:

>

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=55290

5

>

> To some it is the snake oil of the New Age. To others it is a

tried-and-trusted treatment that has been good enough for the likes of Bill

Clinton, the Prince of Wales, Geri Halliwell and David Beckham.

> Homoeopathy is big business and getting bigger. Yet there is little if any

evidence to show that it works, and absolutely nothing to justify its

central claim - that highly diluted solutions containing nothing but water

can affect human health.

> That is until now. Researchers have just published what could be the first

hard evidence in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that appears to support

the central idea behind homoeopathy.

> The scientists, from Britain, France, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands,

have chosen the relatively obscure but respected Inflammation Research to

publish what some call the " holy grail " of homoeopathy.

> In summary, the study found that extremely dilute solutions can have a

biological effect. Like homoeopathic remedies, the solutions in the

experiments were so diluted that there was no realistic chance of a single

molecule of the substance remaining in the liquid.

> Scientists have likened this to believing in magic. How could something

that was once dissolved in a solution, and can no longer be present in that

solution, still have an effect? The scientists themselves are baffled. " We

are not yet able to propose any theoretical explanation of these findings, "

they write. In showing that high dilutions exert a biological effect, the

findings seem to break the laws of physics. Surely there must be errors in

the experiment; an accusation the scientists reject. " Despite searching for

artefacts, we have been unable to find any, " they write.

> An editorial in Inflammation Research explains why the journal published

such controversial research: " The authors are unable to explain their

findings but wished to encourage others to investigate this area, " it says.

" It is with this spirit of openness that the journal, after submitting the

paper to a rigorous reviewing process, has agreed to publish the paper. "

> Understandably, the practitioners of homoeopathy have seized on the

findings as vindication. Peter Fisher, of the Royal Homoeopathic Hospital in

London and homoeopath to the Queen, said the findings were nothing short of

groundbreaking. " History may come to view [the study] as a turning point in

the scientific controversy surrounding homoeopathy, " Dr Fisher said.

> " Of course further repetition is required, but it may be that this

represents the holy grail of basic research in homoeopathy, " he said.

> There are two central tenets of homoeopathy. The first is that an illness

or malady can be treated by administering tiny amounts of a substance that

might under normal circumstances actually result in similar symptoms -

extract of onion for instance to treat hay fever.

> The second belief is that the concentrations have to be really minute, so

minute that the dilutions involved in effect get rid of the substance in

question from the liquid solvent.

> Homoeopathic solutions are diluted repeatedly to produce solutions that

are millions of times weaker than they were originally. Often the solutions

are so weak that they are equivalent to dissolving a tiny speck of something

in a volume of water several times greater than all the world's oceans.

> Scientifically, this would mean that the chance of just a single molecule

of the homoeopathic remedy being left in the solution is next to nil.

Sceptics say patients might just as well treat themselves with distilled

water - which is cheaper.

> Science cannot explain how such highly dilute solutions could have an

effect, that is until the French biologist Jacques Benveniste came along.

Working at his laboratory in Paris, Dr Benveniste formulated the idea that

water retains a " memory " of what has been dissolved in it and that it is

this memory that results in the homoeopathic effect. In 1988 Dr Benveniste

published a study in the journal Nature in support of his water-memory

theory. He claimed his experiments showed that an ultra-dilute solution

exerted a biological effect.

> However, the then editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox, had insisted that he

would only agree to publication if he was able to investigate Dr

Benveniste's laboratory procedures. A few weeks later Sir John invited an

American science fraud investigator, Walter Stewart, and a professional

magician and arch sceptic, James Randi, to watch over Dr Benveniste as he

and his team tried to repeat the experiments.

> The Nature investigation concluded that Dr Benveniste had failed to

replicate his original study. In subsequent issues of Nature, Dr Benveniste

suffered the professional ignominy of being ridiculed by arguably the most

influential scientific journal in the world.

> As a result, the idea of memory water was consigned to the dustbin of

science history, or so it was thought.

> France as a country is a keen advocate of homoeopathy and there were many

French scientists who had not given up on the notion of investigating the

phenomenon. Among them was a one-time collaborator of Dr Benveniste called

Philippe Belon, who now works for a French homoeopathy company, Boiron.

> Dr Belon, who fell out with Dr Benveniste a long time ago, has

investigated high dilutions for 20 years and although he works for Boiron,

and has himself tried homoeopathic remedies, he insists he is only

interested discovering the truth about the claims.

> In the spirit of scientific investigation he organised a collaboration

between four different groups in Europe who all undertook to carry out

identical high dilution experiments at separate places involving separate

teams of scientists.

> The British end was run by Professor Madeleine Ennis, an established

asthma researcher at Queen's University of Belfast and an avowed sceptic of

all things homoeopathic.

> In fact Professor Ennis became involved in the project in the first place

because she could not accept what some of her scientific colleagues were

saying. " I told people I didn't believe it so they said 'why don't you try

it', " Professor Ennis said.

> The dilution experiments they carried out, and now published in

Inflammation Research, involved a substance called histamine which is

released by a type of white blood cell called a basophil. Normally basophils

release histamine, and as levels of histamine rise this exerts a " negative

feedback " which inhibits further release of histamine.

> The four teams of scientists tested highly dilute solutions of histamine

to see whether they still exert an effect on basophils in a test tube. At

extreme dilutions, three out of four laboratories found a statistically

significant effect and the fourth found an effect which just fell out of the

typical range for statistical significance.

> Professor Ennis emphasised that the research does not prove that

homoeopathy works, nor does it even show that Dr Benveniste was right

because he had used a different test for a high-dilution effect. " The paper

didn't test homoeopathy, it tested high dilutions of histamine. I know what

we tested and I cannot explain the results, " said Professor Ennis.

> For Dr Belon, however, the research does at least support the basic

premise behind homoeopathy. " Of course it supports it, on the other hand it

is not a demonstration that homoeopathy works, " he said.

> In whatever ways the latest findings are interpreted, they cannot be

ignored. The experiments were repeated by four different teams using the

same experimental protocol that involved a blind code - the scientists did

not know whether they were working with a high dilution solution or a

control sample of pure water until the code was broken at the end of the

experiment.

> When BBC Horizon televised a similar attempt at replicating the same

experiment two years ago, the results were negative but scientists such as

Dr Belon believe this was trial by media rather than science by the

peer-review process.

> This time, with a full scientific paper detailing the precise protocol,

anyone can try to replicate the findings - and replication is the essence of

science. Until others repeat the work it will take a lot to convince

sceptics such as James Randi, who has offered $1m to the first person to

prove the scientific basis of homoeopathy.

> Mr Randi warns about reading too much in a single scientific paper. " A

paper is a paper is a paper. Don't forget, two scientists wrote a paper,

published in Nature, back in 1974, that endorsed the powers of Uri Geller, "

he said.

> But the homoeopathic gauntlet has been thrown down. The question now is

whether anyone will be brave enough to pick it up.

>