homeopathy criticisms

[davidsmith73]

i seem to remember an exchange regarding a flaw in the Ellis homeopathy experiments that was going to be revealed at the meeting. I think it was Claus Larsen who mentioned it ? Can someone fill me in ?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
i seem to remember an exchange regarding a flaw in the Ellis homeopathy experiments that was going to be revealed at the meeting. I think it was Claus Larsen who mentioned it ? Can someone fill me in ? Isn’t that “Ennis”? Those experiments were repeated (unsuccessfully – ie they were not repeated ;) ), in the Horizon program. Perhaps that’s what you were thinking of?

The presentation by Chip Denmam at the AM exposed the flaws in Benveniste’s more recent experiments, not Ennis’. Benveniste was claiming that if water is exposed to electromagnetic radiation at roughly 22KHz, it becomes “informed water” that is biologically active. In other words, the homeopathic signal can be digitized and sent by email if necessary, and then inserted into a clean water sample to make a new homeopathic solution. Denman’s team replicated the experiments with better controls and the effect disappeared.

You can apparently see a video on Benveniste’s site (www.digibio.com), although I haven't yet looked at it myself.

[Dogwood]

Tell 'em the punchline Richard!

[RichardR]

Originally posted by mark tidwell
Tell 'em the punchline Richard! Pretty soon, the “memory” of water will be forgotten.

(Was that it?)

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by RichardR
Isn’t that “Ennis”? Those experiments were repeated (unsuccessfully – ie they were not repeated ;) ), in the Horizon program. Perhaps that’s what you were thinking of?

The presentation by Chip Denmam at the AM exposed the flaws in Benveniste’s more recent experiments, not Ennis’. Benveniste was claiming that if water is exposed to electromagnetic radiation at roughly 22KHz, it becomes “informed water” that is biologically active. In other words, the homeopathic signal can be digitized and sent by email if necessary, and then inserted into a clean water sample to make a new homeopathic solution. Denman’s team replicated the experiments with better controls and the effect disappeared.

You can apparently see a video on Benveniste’s site (www.digibio.com), although I haven't yet looked at it myself.


Sorry I did mean Ennis. I remember someone here saying that the Ennis experiments were flawed somehow but that they were not going to reveal the flaw until after the AM so as not to spoil it. Maybe they or I meant the Benveniste experiments.

So what controls were missing from the Benveniste experiments mentioned here ?

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by RichardR
(Was that it?)

The electronic file, or recorded signal of the homeopathic solution, (the one that you could transmit by e-mail and then play into water to recreate it) was 100% identical to the pure water control solution.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
So what controls were missing from the Benveniste experiments mentioned here ? The experiment was designed so that a robot lined up the different samples for testing. Denham’s team noticed that several of the samples had the exact same time/date stamp on them in the computer. When he investigated this he found that a member of Benveniste’s team had manually intervened, on several occasions, to place additional samples for testing. This team member (Jamal), had already been noted by Benveniste as having “better results” than the others. (Benveniste said Jamal “enhanced” the effect while other team members “inhibited” it.) Where Jamal had not intervened there were few anomalies. Where he had intervened, five out of seven experiments had anomalies.

The term “Jamal effect” was apparently used by Benveniste to describe this mystical success of Jamal’s experiments. The cause of the Jamal effect is unknown, but it is telling IMO that Benveniste thought he was on to something here (something to do with Jamal having better “vibrations”), rather than considering that the experiment had been compromised.

Denham also noted that problems with the data (ie no positive results), were characterized by Benveniste as being “problems with the device” (ie errors in measurement).

Denham’s team ran the experiment many times with Benveniste’s team absent, and without any unplanned changes in protocol. No anomalies were found.