# The homeopaths may win **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 24, 2001, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374 "2001-05-24T09:52:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Harry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f6c823/32.png) [@Harry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harry)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/21 "2001-05-25T12:50:19Z")
> [@](#): > > All four centers found that the ultra-dilute solutions inhibited histamine release from the basophils, and three out of the four found that the effect was statistically significant when compared to controls. (Note: there was no label difference between the samples that the labs could distinguish; the test was double blind). Only three of the four centers got statistically significant results. Why? I suspect it was because the effect was very weak. So weak that even a tiny amount of contamination, measurement errors, or bad statistical analysis, could lead to a false positive result. Perhaps the other lab just did a better job, and so found the correct result of nothing. All four centers found that their dilute solutions inhibited histamine release, but one center found that the effect was **not** significant. Since this means ‘no difference’ in statistical terms, that means that their control samples must have **also** inhibited histamine! The tests were supposed to be double-blinded, but three labs did find an effect. How could they know there was an effect if they didn’t know which samples were controls? I conclude that either the facts have not been reported correctly, or this is simply a case of bad science. It wouldn’t be the first time that experimental error has been interpreted as significant data. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/22 "2001-05-25T13:15:49Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Harry_ > \*\*The tests were supposed to be double-blinded, but three labs did find an effect. How could they know there was an effect if they didn’t know which samples were controls? \*\* I think that you’re reading a little bit much into the _wording_ of the OP at the expense of the _meaning._ ---
**Author:** ![choosybeggar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@choosybeggar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choosybeggar)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/23 "2001-05-25T13:25:17Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by Mangetout_ > \*\* > Sorry, I’m not buying into this wholesale dismissal, the only thing that will work is to do what Jonathan Chance suggests, independently repeat the tests, if a solution with no trace of the drug seems to have an effect, test it spectroscopically to see if there’s really no trace. \*\* Look, in the face of very substantial evidence, I’m not unwilling to accept the notion that homeopathic remedies work. Such evidence is as yet, IMHO, unavailable. That the proposed mechanism whereby homeopathic remedies derive their effect is entirely daft, does little to reinforce my committment to maintain an open mind regarding this matter. I don’t know your professional background, **Mangetout** , but 'round here in the physical/biological/medical arena, more of a substance produces a greater effect. And there are non-trivial reasons for this. It’s very difficult to dismiss such a basic concept. ---
**Author:** ![dlb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@dlb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dlb)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/24 "2001-05-25T13:50:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Harry \* > Only three of the four centers got statistically significant results. Why? I suspect it was because the effect was very weak. So weak that even a tiny amount of contamination, measurement errors, or bad statistical analysis, could lead to a false positive result. Perhaps the other lab just did a better job, and so found the correct result of nothing. > > All four centers found that their dilute solutions inhibited histamine release, but one center found that the effect was **not** significant. Since this means ‘no difference’ in statistical terms, that means that their control samples must have **also** inhibited histamine! > > The tests were supposed to be double-blinded, but three labs did find an effect. How could they know there was an effect if they didn’t know which samples were controls? > > I conclude that either the facts have not been reported correctly, or this is simply a case of bad science. It wouldn’t be the first time that experimental error has been interpreted as significant data. I think you’re reading too much into a “Sunday supplement” level reporting of a journal article. We’ll have to wait until the journal article comes out to know for sure; however, unless this professor wants to be a laughingstock (and I suspect the peer review is better than that), she sent the samples in, got the results, and did the statistical analysis herself back at the lab from the pure numbers. I mean, really! Why violate double blind protocols that openly? It would never make it past review. You don’t know what “inhibits” histamine release; you put the stuff in the sample solution and record the histamine that is released by the concentration of cells. There is no way to record “inhibition” per se; “inhibition” is detected by getting statistically significant lower readings in the test samples over controls. It is impossible for controls to inhibit histamine release; they are what you are measuring against (at least, according to my understanding of the procedure). We’ll see how the summer goes. I may have to haunt medical libraries around August… ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/25 "2001-05-25T14:10:36Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by choosybeggar:_ > \*\*Look, in the face of very substantial evidence, I’m not unwilling to accept the notion that homeopathic remedies work. Such evidence is as yet, IMHO, unavailable. > > That the proposed mechanism whereby homeopathic remedies derive their effect is entirely daft, does little to reinforce my committment to maintain an open mind regarding this matter. > > I don’t know your professional background, Mangetout, but 'round here in the physical/biological/medical arena, more of a substance produces a greater effect. And there are non-trivial reasons for this. It’s very difficult to dismiss such a basic concept.\*\* Sure, listen, I’m as sceptical as anyone on this, I don’t particularly _want_ to see homeopathy proven or otherwise, I don’t care, **but** to join in with your little chant of ‘it can’t work’ would be as much blind faith on my part as to say that I believed it was true; I simply haven’t seen the evidence (or noticed the absence of). I have no agenda whatever in this matter. For the record, My profession has very little to do with scientific research, I’m a software developer in the publishing industry (no, **not** books about homeopathy or anything like that) although I am familiar with scientific methods and I think we should hear this out before we throw it out, personally, I expect it will go the way of cold fusion. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/26 "2001-05-25T15:03:21Z")
I still get a “website under construction” page when I try to access the link. The contaminant theory sounds the most suggestive to me. In any event, we are still dealing with one less than convincing trial _outside the human body_. To suggest this verifies homeopathy would be wrong. We have limited amounts of research dollars to test new therapies. While our beloved NIH is testing some types of alternative medicine, it is not feasible to throw money at every supposed cure. When the great majority are shown to have no practical value, you can be sure that their proponents will mutter darkly about drug company and government conspiracies, and go right on touting their wonder drugs. In the long run, science will triumph. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/27 "2001-05-25T15:17:01Z")
dlb wrote: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > > Well, a couple of things come to mind. > > > > First, does the fact that extremely dilute histamine solutions have some effect on basophils _in vitro_ (i.e. in a test-tube setting) have any relevance to homeopathy? Is histamine a homeopathic drug? > > Not being a homeopath, I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter; the experiment (if replicated) verifies the homeopathic effect. No. The experiment, if replicated, verifies the **exact opposite** of the homeopathic effect. The Homeopathic effect predicts that a homeopathically-diluted solution of Substance X will have the opposite effect as “normal” concentrations of Substance X. Under “normal,” non-homeopathic laboratory conditions, it is well known that basophils will reduce their histamine output when in the presence of outside histamine. Thus, if the homeopathic effect were real, we would expect to see the basophils **increase** their histamine production when immersed in a homeopathically-diluted solution of histamine. Instead, three out of four of the experiments found that basophils **decreased** their histamine production when immersed in a homeopathically-diluted solution of histamine. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2001, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/28 "2001-05-25T16:00:03Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by tracer:_ > \*\*No. The experiment, if replicated, verifies the exact opposite of the homeopathic effect. > \*\* True, good point. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Jackmannii:_ > **I still get a “website under construction” page when I try to access the link.** The correct address is NewScientist.com, not Ne **t** Scientist, but it won’t help - the article is only mentioned on the website, for the full text you have to buy the magazine. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Jackmannii:_ > **The contaminant theory sounds the most suggestive to me** Personally, I’d say it sounds like it might be statistical fluke due to an insufficiently large test data set, time will tell. ---
**Author:** ![dlb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@dlb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dlb)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2001, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/29 "2001-05-29T10:43:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > No. The experiment, if replicated, verifies the **exact opposite** of the homeopathic effect. > > The Homeopathic effect predicts that a homeopathically-diluted solution of Substance X will have the opposite effect as “normal” concentrations of Substance X. Under “normal,” non-homeopathic laboratory conditions, it is well known that basophils will reduce their histamine output when in the presence of outside histamine. Thus, if the homeopathic effect were real, we would expect to see the basophils **increase** their histamine production when immersed in a homeopathically-diluted solution of histamine. > > Instead, three out of four of the experiments found that basophils **decreased** their histamine production when immersed in a homeopathically-diluted solution of histamine. The “homeopathic effect” I had in mind was the fact that a chemically inert and completely dilute solution has an effect that is different from a control. In fact, if this effect holds up when introduced into the body, the effect would be homeopathic in the sense that homeopathy predicts that very dilute solutions of things that produce the symptoms that you are fighting will cure the symptoms: a very dilute solution of histamine will cause basophils to stop producing histamine, therefore causing an antihistamine effect and eliminating histamine related symptoms (runny nose, red eyes, etc.). I just don’t know if histamine is used by homeopaths as one of their various concoctions. So I believe my statement was correct in both the very general sense in which I meant it and in the specific sense in which you took it. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2001, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/30 "2001-05-29T11:45:46Z")
dlb - Also a good point. ---
**Author:** ![spacevacuum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c57346/32.png) [@spacevacuum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spacevacuum)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2001, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/31 "2001-06-01T18:01:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Mangetout > dylan\_73 Re: ‘structured water’: > Yes, I think this is one of the key areas of thinking behind homeopathy, although I believe that wooly terms like > ‘resonance’ and ‘vibrations’ are also in there somewhere. As choosybeggar pointed out > [@](#): > > That the proposed mechanism whereby homeopathic remedies derive their effect is entirely daft, does little to reinforce my > committment to maintain an open mind regarding this matter. One (of several) reasons mainstream science has been so incredulous of homeopathic claims is the mechanism by which it is meant to work - by the structure of water retaining some memory of what was previously dissolved in it. Water is very dynamic and water molecules reorient _extremely_ quickly. At room temperature, when the structure of liquid water is perturbed, it relaxes in less than a billionth of a second. In fact, the following states that this occurs in under a trillionth of a second (a picosecond (ps) is 10[SUP]-12[/SUP] second): “We have studied the equilibration dynamics of liquid water and alcohols following a local deposition of energy…For water, we find an equilibration time constant of 0.55 +/- 0.05 ps.” (“Ultrafast energy equilibration in hydrogen-bonded liquids”, Lock AJ, Woutersen S, Bakker HJ, JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY A 105 (8): 1238-1243 MAR 1 2001) [http://pubs.acs.org/journals/jpcafh/index.html](http://pubs.acs.org/journals/jpcafh/index.html) and click on “back issues” The most likely reasons for the findings of Prof. Ennis are insufficient sample size or systematic error - the histamine solutions were more concentrated than thought, due to poor technique in dilutions and histamine temporarily sticking to the glass. ---
**Author:** ![lestrange](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/aca169/32.png) [@lestrange](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lestrange)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2001, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/32 "2001-06-02T01:42:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dylan\_73 \* > \*\*Well, I suspect more tests are required… > > Weirdly enough, my gf says that homeopathic medicine worked for her. She tried loads of things to cure her allergy to cats and dogs, but nothing worked: at all. > She was resigned to living with it until eventually a friend persuaded her to try this homeopathy stuff, and it worked in a couple of days…no more sneezing at poor kittens. > > \*\* Grr. Wrote reply. Baby grabbed keyboard. Text disappeared into the ether. Arrgh! Anyway. I have for several years had a WAG about why homeopathy has been so popular, and why so many people have found it effective. First, though, I’ll admit that I’ve never shopped intensively for homeopathic remedies or examined the labels of lots of them, so this is absolutely a WAG and nothing else. Well, okay, it’s an anecdote, too. My sister swore by a homeopathic colic remedy for her two kids. I told her it was impossible, homeopathy doesn’t work, and tried to explain why. She said, “Well, it works.” I read the box she handed me–folks, it was an herbal remedy. The single “homeopathic” ingredient was advertised on the front of the box, but the ingredients list contained five or six herbs. I don’t remember them off the top of my head (this was several years ago) but I recall the impression that one or two of them were things I knew of as tummy calming things, and the others I didn’t know the use of. I think most people here will agree that herbal medicine can have some validity. I was taught that some number of modern medicines are derived from traditional herbal meds. So, my WAG–people find homeopathic medicines effective because they’re not homeopathic–they’re herbal preparations, and some herbal preparations are effective. My impression was bolstered when I discovered that no-one in my family had any idea of how homeopathy purports to work–they all thought that “homeopathy” was just another word for herbal medicine. I assure you that my family is not stupid or uneducated. I’d be willing to bet that this misunderstanding is not uncommon. Just a thought. I’m not sure about my theory about the composition of most homeopathic remedies, but when I go to the health food store next, I think I’ll check it out. ---
**Author:** ![dylan\_73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecccb3/32.png) [@dylan\_73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dylan_73)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2001, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/33 "2001-06-04T09:28:34Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by spacevacuum \* > \*\* > One (of several) reasons mainstream science has been so incredulous of homeopathic claims is the mechanism by which it is meant to work - by the structure of water retaining some memory of what was previously dissolved in it._\* OK. So [this](http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html) site is wrong when it says “Water does store and transmit information, concerning solutes, by means of its hydrogen-bonded network.” ? (NB This doesn’t appear to be a homeopathy site. It’s about water generally) > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by lestrange \* > \*\* > So, my WAG–people find homeopathic medicines effective because they’re not homeopathic–they’re herbal preparations, and some herbal preparations are effective._\* Ahh…I never considered that. I’ve no idea what she took (she just said it was a homeopathic thing). I’ll try and find out. ---
**Author:** ![dylan\_73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecccb3/32.png) [@dylan\_73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dylan_73)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2001, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/34 "2001-06-04T09:37:56Z")
**spacevacuum** : Actually, your quote doesn’t say anything about water not retaining structure. In fact, it says that it _regains_ its structure extremely quickly. I don’t think it backs up your point at all… (Disclaimer: My chemistry education ended at SCE Higher level 🙂 ) ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2001, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/35 "2001-06-04T10:06:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dylan\_73 \* > OK. So [this](http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html) site is wrong when it says “Water does store and transmit information, concerning solutes, by means of its hydrogen-bonded network.” ? > > (NB This doesn’t appear to be a homeopathy site. It’s about water generally) > \*\* Dylan. I think that the site mentioned IS a homeopathy site. I would bet substantial money that the results reported in the OP are either never duplicated or are shown to be the results of contaminants, just my 2 cents worth. I’ve been very anti-homeopathy ever since James Randy and his friends caught the French homeopath pencil-whipping his data to show it worked. Testy. ---
**Author:** ![choosybeggar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@choosybeggar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choosybeggar)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2001, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/36 "2001-06-04T10:15:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dylan\_73 \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by spacevacuum \* > > \*\* > > One (of several) reasons mainstream science has been so incredulous of homeopathic claims is the mechanism by which it is meant to work - by the structure of water retaining some memory of what was previously dissolved in it._\* > > OK. So [this](http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html) site is wrong when it says “Water does store and transmit information, concerning solutes, by means of its hydrogen-bonded network.” ? \*\* I read the article in question and it did little to convince me that the homeopaths have a viable hypothesis. **dylan\_67** , the very next sentence after the one you posted reads: > [@](#): > > Changes to this clustering network brought about by solutes _may_ take some time to re-equilibrate. Italics mine. It’s the re-equilibration that the key issue. This author presents no data that such re-equilibration will occur slowly and even uses the notorious bet-hedger, “may,” to quantify the likelihood of this mechanism. ---
**Author:** ![dylan\_73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecccb3/32.png) [@dylan\_73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dylan_73)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2001, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/37 "2001-06-04T11:27:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Testy \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by dylan\_73 \* > > > > (NB This doesn’t appear to be a homeopathy site. It’s about water generally) > > \*\* > > Dylan. > I think that the site mentioned IS a homeopathy site. I would bet substantial money that the results reported in the OP are either never duplicated or are shown to be the results of contaminants, just my 2 cents worth.\*\* I should have been more specific. The site is NOT a homeopathy site. Look at [http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/](http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/) (just back one dir). It’s about the structure of water generally. Homeopathy got one tiny mention on the whole site. **choosybeggar** : Yeah, but I’m not arguing that homeopathy does work (and neither is the guy I quoted), just that there _may_ be a possible mechanism for it. This is to counter the original, simplistic dismissals given above: “it can’t possibly work because it’s just water”. ps. Why does this font look different? Did I miss a tag somewhere? ---
**Author:** ![dylan\_73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecccb3/32.png) [@dylan\_73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dylan_73)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2001, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/38 "2001-06-04T11:39:31Z")
Re the OP > [@](#): > > E. Davenas, F. Beauvais, J. Amara, M. Oberbaum, B. Robinzon, A. Miadonna, A. Tedeschi, B. Pomeranz, P. Fortner, P. Belon, J. Sainte-Laudy, P. Poltevin and J. Benveniste, Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE, Nature 333 (1988) 816-818. I couldn’t find a way to read this online, but the title suggests that this kind of thing has been done before… > [@](#): > > J. Maddox, J. Randi and W. W. Stewart, ‘High dilution’ experiments a delusion, Nature 334 (1988) 287-290. …and refuted 😉 ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2001, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/39 "2001-06-04T14:48:29Z")
dylan\_73 wrote: > [@](#): > > ps. Why does this font look different? Did I miss a tag somewhere? You’re using a Netscape browser, aren’t you? For some reason, when an {/i} or {/b} code is embedded in the text with NO corresponding {i} or {b} before it, the Netscape browser renders all the subsequent text in the “default” font for the page, which is Times New Roman. Watch: This text does not have a hanging {/b} code before it. \*\*This text does have a hanging {/b} code before it. NOTE: This text will look perfectly normal on MS Internet Explorer. It is ONLY the Netscape browser in which this text will appear in a Times Roman font. ---
**Author:** ![dlb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@dlb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dlb)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2001, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374/40 "2001-06-04T15:36:28Z")
Guys, guys, it’s too soon for these theories. I know the homeopaths are very enamored of their “structure of water” theory, but first the experiment needs to be replicated a few (or a few dozen) times, and then they need to start ringing changes on it (shake it up, expose it to radiation, heat, etc.). **Then** they can start making up theories. If it doesn’t replicate, why bother? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-homeopaths-may-win/66374.md?page=3)