I agree with the site you quote in that the presence of a molecule dissolved in water will affect the structure of the surrounding water molecules.
Ok, so if one is to make a homeopathic solution you first start with a solution with some (modest) amount of solute (which will affect the structure of the water) and then sequentially dilute it until there is very little (or no) solute remaining. So far, so good ? My point is that when you remove the solute from the water (in the dilution…) the water will regain the structure of “normal” water (that never had the solute in it) extremely quickly. So yes, the relevant measurement is how long water retains memory of a previous structure (which is equivalent to how long it takes to relax to a new structure).
First, I’m sorry if my “homeopathy can’t work,” chant offended. It was intended as a tongue in cheek remark, not a substantive argument. Much has been made of that remark in this thread, however, so I hereby disavow it and forbid any further reference to it. Violate my decree and face the not insignificant wrath of the choosy one.
Now that that’s off my chest…
I’m really an open-minded guy at heart, dylan_73. I’d like nothing more than to see the development of a new arm of the modern pharmacopeia built entirely around holistic medicines–if they work, that is.
Proving these medicines work to a skeptical audience should, in my view, require a two-pronged approach: convincingly demonstrate that these medications are more effective than placebo in a randomized, double-blinded trial and develop a plausible mechanism explaining the effect of these medications. IMHO, neither of these have been accomplished.
And I don’t really hold the lack of convincing evidence that homeopathic remedies work against them. Many useful conventional medications exert only small effects on the diseases they are used to treat. Therapeutic benefits with these medications are only observed in large, carefully controlled studies. Such studies could emerge with homeopathic remedies, who knows?
The problem I have is with the proposed mechanism: I find it nonsensical. Saying that ordered structure within water may last longer than a nanosecond or two does not refute DATA that this does not occur.
All of the discussion about water’s supposed ability to retain information is well and good, but it sort of misses the point in real life. Even if we allowed the homeopaths this point simply on their say so, they would still need to explain why so many homeopathic remedies are packaged as PILLS. Here in Germany, homeopathic remedies are very popular. I have rarely seen one in liquid form. They are almost always in the form of small “balls” (kügelchen in German.) These things are about the size of saccharin balls, if you remember them from years ago.
So, if we grant the homeopaths that water has a “memory,” then we are going to have to grant this same “memory” to whatever inert substance (or substances) is being used in the pills.
Come on folks, an unproved claim for one substance (water) gets transferred to other substances (neutral base for pills.) No hard evidence for the claim for water, and I am supposed to believe it works for other things as well? No way, Jose.
That said, homeopathy covers a great range of dilutions and some of the “active” ingredients have definite effects (belladonna, anyone?) so I can see where there is the possibility that the stuff might do something for (or to) your health. I just have a serious problem with:
(a.) The way homeopathy is supposed to work.
(b.) The lack of studies that prove its safety and efficiency.
(c.) The general quackiness of homeopathy proponents.
(c.) is based on my experiences here in Germany. My wife once worked for a doctor (honest, an MD with a regular practice) who would prescribe homeopathic remedies by sitting in front of the patient with a homepathy catalog and a pendulum. He would go down the list of remedies with the finger of his right hand, and when the pendulum in his left started to swing he would prescribe the remedy that his right hand was pointing at. No joke.
Oh, and about herbal remedies. The doctors here are all enamored of the “it’s a natural product so it is completely safe” crap. Every time one of them says that I want to ask them if they would then recommend that their patients eat a salad with deadly nightshade, or smoke hash, or maybe take a swig of rattlesnake poison. Natural doesn’t mean safe.
choosybegger: OK, I agree with you then. Despite my defence of the “structured water” thing, I just made it up not realising that it was the “proper” explanation.
However,
I’m unable to find these data. spacevacuum’s article says “We have studied the equilibration dynamics of liquid water and alcohols following a local deposition of energy.” (italics mine). This is not the same thing.
This suggests water returns to the previous state after the deposition of energy. It doesn’t seem to have any bearing on what the previous state was, or how that may be affected by the solute.
However, I can’t read the article since I’m not a member…maybe spacevacuum could help out here?
I’ll accept the data when I see them. (I’ve tried searching for something appropriate, but I get hundreds of irrelevant links, or “science” pages with UFOs on them!)
Personally, I suspect lestrange has the right of it, and that any effects are more down to herbal remedies than anything else.
Well, that’s all very well, guys, but the experiment that started the OP can’t very well be due to herbal remedies (unless you are accusing them of simply lying through their teeth).
The experiment will replicate or it won’t. If it doesn’t, no huhu; we can go back to telling homeopath jokes. (How many homeopaths does it take to change a light bulb? Ten million, but you have to dilute them down to one before it actually has an effect…)
If it replicates, we (science) have some work to do, and proposing silly theories in advance of our facts isn’t the way to go about it. We will need to figure out what can establish the effect, what can extinguish it, and then start proposing silly theories. I mean, this is a pretty fundamental hole in what we now believe, and parroting what is in the homeopathic texts may or may not be a good idea.
Getting back to the OP, “well into the homeopathic range” is a very broad statement. Homeopathic dilutions vary from actually quite readily measureable dilutions of the original “tincture” into dilutions that equate to “one drop of original tincture in an olympic sized swimming pool.” Without the dilution being specified, discussion of the results is pretty much pointless. If the dilution was of the “olympic sized pool” type, then the results are significant for homeopathy (even though the effect was NOT reversed by the dilution.) If the dilution was of measurable proportions, then it is nothing more than proof that the histamine has effects at lower concentrations than previously thought.
Sadly, we have a lack of proof and facts to deal with here.
(I’ve tried searching for something appropriate, but I get hundreds of irrelevant links, or “science” pages with UFOs on them!)