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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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 correct address is NewScientist.com, not NetScientist, but it won’t help - the article is only mentioned on the website, for the full text you have to buy the magazine.
Personally, I’d say it sounds like it might be statistical fluke due to an insufficiently large test data set, time will tell.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 )
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.
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:
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.
I should have been more specific. The site is NOT a homeopathy site. Look at 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?
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.
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?
)