Merged: Memory of Water Proven

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

The poster currently known as meow (Xanta) has been spamming the forum with oft-repeated pro-homoeopathy abstracts since early 2004. Or maybe I should say that someone with exactly the same material stored on her clipboard and exactly the same posting style has been doing that under successive identities since then. Complete with the "p<0.0001" in big red letters at the end. She's been concentrating on Ennis, Elia and Rey since early 2005.

Look at this thread, and the sig line in particular. Note also the challenge (a little way down) to sceptics to wager their children's lives against the possibility that they might be wrong. After a bit, you start to wish she would change the record.

Actually, she's got worse. Early incarnations were capable of some actual discussion. I think this is the first one to offer no support for the spammed abstracts at all. The repeated "meow meow" I think is an indication that she doesn't even intend to try, now. She's had her backside handed to her a few times too often I suspect. (Or rather, this poster with the identical material on her clipboard has, of course.)

The threads can still be useful and informative. It's just that trying to educate Xanta is about as rewarding as trying to teach the proverbial pig to sing.

Rolfe.

If it's a sock then it should be reported.

[Rolfe]

Has been. With supporting detail. However, it's been over three years since the last appearance of the same text. The forum has been through some changes and quite a lot of people change their ISP or computer or whatever in that time. So, let's just say that once again we have someone with the very same stuff on her clipboard as five previous identities, three of whom were formally identified as being socks (and one of whom was banned).

Some people need to get a life. (Probably including the people who will search old threads for this. )

Rolfe.

[meow]

what is it about permanent that you people don't understand?



http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15594862

New physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
ELIA V. (1) ; NICCOLI M. (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Chemistry, University ' Federico II'of Naples, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, via Cintia, 80126 Naples, ITALIE
Résumé / Abstract
The 'extremely diluted solutions' are anomalous solutions obtained through the iteration of two processes: a dilution 1:100 in mass and a succussion. The iteration is repeated until extreme dilutions are reached (less than 1.10-5 mol kg-1) to the point that we may call the resulting solution an extremely diluted solution, namely the composition of the solution is identical to that of the solvent used (e.g. twice distilled water). We conducted thermodynamic and transport measurements of the solutions and of the interaction of those solutions with acids or bases. The purpose of this study is to obtain information about the influence of successive dilutions and succussions on the water structure of the solutions under study. We measured the heats of mixing of acid or basic solutions with such 'extremely diluted solutions', their electrical conductivity and pH, comparing with the analogous heats of mixing, electrical conductivity and pH of the solvent. We found some relevant exothermic excess heats of mixing, higher electrical conductivity and pH than those of the untreated solvent. The measurements show a good correlation between independent physico-chemical parameters. Care was taken to take into account the effect of chemical impurities deriving from the glass containers. Here we thus show that successive dilutions and succussions can p-e-r-m-a-n-e-n-t-l-y alter the physico-chemical properties of the water solvent. The nature of the phenomena here described still remains unexplained, nevertheless some significant experimental results were obtained.
Revue / Journal Title
Journal of thermal analysis and calorimetry ISSN 1388-6150
Source / Source
2004, vol. 75, no3, pp. 815-836 [22 page(s) (article)] (32 ref.)

[Madalch]

It's not the word "permanently" we don't understand, it's why you keep repeating it when we've explained why it shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Giggywig]

Originally Posted by Madalch

It's not the word "permanently" we don't understand, it's why you keep repeating it when we've explained why it shouldn't be taken seriously.

Oh, we understand that too. It's because thinking about such things leads to the conclusion that homeopathy doesn't actually work. We can't have that kind of thinking here...

[sanguine]

Originally Posted by meow

what is it about permanent that you people don't understand?

Putting aside the issues the articles you cite tend to have, why aren't you deeply troubled by the idea that water can be altered permanently by contact with small molecules? In my scientific career, I have used water solutions that contained:

Radioactive materials
Neurotoxins
Lethal protease inhibitors
Carcinogens
Mutagens
Developmentally disabling organometallic compounds

These materials are then processed to remove the toxic components from the water, and the water is reintroduced into our water supply (via the ocean).

If water has memory, then aren't you terrified that hundreds of thousands of researchers have imparted the memory of neurotoxins, carcinogens, and mutagens into all the water in the entire world? And we're the responsible ones who've actually tried to purify stuff out. After all, people in less regulated nations sometimes just dump toxins straight into the ocean.

Even aside from human interventions, microorganisms frequently blast neurotoxins out into the water around them, and they've been doing this longer than humans have existed. How, then, is the ocean not a homeopathic toxic threat to us all?

(Or, alternately, a homeopathic panacea. I admit to being unclear on how this is meant to work. Either way, I grew up going to the beach every day each summer, and I have neither been neuropoisoned nor made immune to poison, so something clearly is hinky with the homeopathic nature of the ocean.)

So what is it about permanent that you don't understand?

[paximperium]

So meow as you have been asked repeatedly but have refused or been unable to answer:
How many dilutions does it take before water memory dissipates?
How long does water hold its memory?
How many memories can it hold at any one time?
Why isn't some water more toxic than others because they are less dilute?
Why do most homeopathic solution use ALCOHOL instead of water?
Why don't people regularly get a physiologic response by drinking tap water?
How does this memory interact with human physiology?

[Giggywig]

Originally Posted by sanguine

Putting aside the issues the articles you cite tend to have, why aren't you deeply troubled by the idea that water can be altered permanently by contact with small molecules? In my scientific career, I have used water solutions that contained:

Radioactive materials
Neurotoxins
Lethal protease inhibitors
Carcinogens
Mutagens
Developmentally disabling organometallic compounds

These materials are then processed to remove the toxic components from the water, and the water is reintroduced into our water supply (via the ocean).

If water has memory, then aren't you terrified that hundreds of thousands of researchers have imparted the memory of neurotoxins, carcinogens, and mutagens into all the water in the entire world? And we're the responsible ones who've actually tried to purify stuff out. After all, people in less regulated nations sometimes just dump toxins straight into the ocean.

Even aside from human interventions, microorganisms frequently blast neurotoxins out into the water around them, and they've been doing this longer than humans have existed. How, then, is the ocean not a homeopathic toxic threat to us all?

(Or, alternately, a homeopathic panacea. I admit to being unclear on how this is meant to work. Either way, I grew up going to the beach every day each summer, and I have neither been neuropoisoned nor made immune to poison, so something clearly is hinky with the homeopathic nature of the ocean.)

So what is it about permanent that you don't understand?

Oh but don't you see? By diluting all those substances, what you are doing is actually making all the water worldwide be the CURE for radiation poisoning, cancer, etc. That's why nobody gets sick anymore...

[sanguine]

Originally Posted by Giggywig

Oh but don't you see? By diluting all those substances, what you are doing is actually making all the water worldwide be the CURE for radiation poisoning, cancer, etc. That's why nobody gets sick anymore...

Hey, I covered that. That's why I wonder why I'm not immune to all poisons and illnesses now, having frequently exposed myself to, you know, water.

[Giggywig]

Originally Posted by sanguine

Hey, I covered that. That's why I wonder why I'm not immune to all poisons and illnesses now, having frequently exposed myself to, you know, water.

tl;dr

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by meow

what is it about permanent that you people don't understand?

Sounds like religious talk to me.

Paul

[RandomJSF]

Originally Posted by meow

what is it about permanent that you people don't understand?

snip...

Here we thus show that successive dilutions and succussions can p-e-r-m-a-n-e-n-t-l-y alter the physico-chemical properties of the water solvent.

..snip.

I perfectly understand the idea of a permanent change. However, just because this paper says it is demonstrating a permanent change, does not make it true. The result has to be REPEATABLE, by ANY researcher with access to the proper equipment and methods.

This experiment does not seem to have stood up to that test, nor has it stood up to the test of even following proper procedure to begin with.

Furthermore, the very idea that simply by repeatedly striking the prepared "remedy" x number of times, a change on the atomic level is affected onto the water goes against even the basic rules of chemistry that I learned in high school. And a change on the atomic level seems to be what is going on, according to homoeopaths who claim that the succussion is affecting the hydrogen bonds (unless I'm reading something wrong, in which case I would love to be corrected. Molecular change? High school chemistry was about a decade ago for me.)

My own private research into this subject has turned up no data made available by homoeopaths regarding the mechanism that affects this change when the water is succussed. Everything I've read seems to point out that the known laws of chemistry speak AGAINST such changes being able to occur. So until someone can explain the mechanism behind the change that succussion supposedly imparts upon the water, and can prove this in a scientific (and therefore repeatable) manner, I see no reason to begin believing in the efficacy of homoeopathic remedies.

~~ Random

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by paximperium

So meow as you have been asked repeatedly but have refused or been unable to answer:
How many dilutions does it take before water memory dissipates?
How long does water hold its memory?
How many memories can it hold at any one time?
Why isn't some water more toxic than others because they are less dilute?
Why do most homeopathic solution use ALCOHOL instead of water?
Why don't people regularly get a physiologic response by drinking tap water?
How does this memory interact with human physiology?

Bridgekeeper: What... is your name?
Sir Lancelot: My name is Sir Lancelot of Camelot.
Bridgekeeper: What... is your quest?
Sir Lancelot: To seek the Holy Grail.
Bridgekeeper: What... is your favourite colour?
Sir Lancelot: Blue.
Bridgekeeper: Go on. Off you go.

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by RandomJSF

I perfectly understand the idea of a permanent change. However, just because this paper says it is demonstrating a permanent change, does not make it true. The result has to be REPEATABLE, by ANY researcher with access to the proper equipment and methods.

This experiment does not seem to have stood up to that test, nor has it stood up to the test of even following proper procedure to begin with.

Furthermore, the very idea that simply by repeatedly striking the prepared "remedy" x number of times, a change on the atomic level is affected onto the water goes against even the basic rules of chemistry that I learned in high school. And a change on the atomic level seems to be what is going on, according to homoeopaths who claim that the succussion is affecting the hydrogen bonds (unless I'm reading something wrong, in which case I would love to be corrected. Molecular change? High school chemistry was about a decade ago for me.)

My own private research into this subject has turned up no data made available by homoeopaths regarding the mechanism that affects this change when the water is succussed. Everything I've read seems to point out that the known laws of chemistry speak AGAINST such changes being able to occur. So until someone can explain the mechanism behind the change that succussion supposedly imparts upon the water, and can prove this in a scientific (and therefore repeatable) manner, I see no reason to begin believing in the efficacy of homoeopathic remedies.

~~ Random

Nominated (in a very small amount)

[sanguine]

Originally Posted by RandomJSF

Furthermore, the very idea that simply by repeatedly striking the prepared "remedy" x number of times, a change on the atomic level is affected onto the water goes against even the basic rules of chemistry that I learned in high school. And a change on the atomic level seems to be what is going on, according to homoeopaths who claim that the succussion is affecting the hydrogen bonds (unless I'm reading something wrong, in which case I would love to be corrected. Molecular change? High school chemistry was about a decade ago for me.)

For the hydrogen-bonding argument, I'd call it molecular change, since we're talking about the connections between molecules. Atomic change I'd reserve for alchemy (and, you know, nuclear reactions).

Note that many of the pro-homeo papers, including many that our persistent believer has cited, dispense entirely with the succussion notion. The basophil paper I reviewed asserts that it uses simple serial dilutions. The thermoluminescence paper asserts it uses vigorous shaking, but not the specific technique of succussion.

The hydrogen-bond-change argument is rank nonsense, especially in the thermoluminescence case, since H-bonds are continually broken and reformed all the time. Honestly, if hydrogen bonds were that vigorously persistent over time, we'd be screwed, since the two chains in our DNA double helix are held together via hydrogen bonding, and one imagines bonds that can survive the conversion to ice and back (for example) wouldn't be nearly as happy about being yanked apart as our DNA is when it comes time to replicate.

[anor277]

Originally Posted by sanguine

.................The thermoluminescence paper asserts it uses vigorous shaking, but not the specific technique of succussion.

The hydrogen-bond-change argument is rank nonsense, especially in the thermoluminescence case, since H-bonds are continually broken and reformed all the time.............

The Rey paper was of course a solid state phenomenon and purported to measure a signal due to heavy water structure engendered by "ghost" dilutions of NaCl and LiCl. As far as I know this work has never been cited by a relevant subsequent publication (i.e. one in which the measurement was repeated and the thermoluminescence of ghost dilutions of a water structure breaker, say tetramethylammonium chloride, was measured). In the original experiment too, contamination must have been a considerable experimental risk, which is probably why this work has yet to be reproduced.

[Rolfe]

Absurdly complicated unstable experimental setups prone to noise generation. And suddenly, "PROVEN!!!" "p<0.0001!!!!!"

Independent replication, dude. Independent replication.

(Oh sorry, the Rao/Roy stuff wasn't absurdly complicated at all. It was just absurdly obviously wrong. And so is not going to be the subject of said independent replication, not this century and not ever.)

Rolfe.

[RandomJSF]

Originally Posted by sanguine

For the hydrogen-bonding argument, I'd call it molecular change, since we're talking about the connections between molecules. Atomic change I'd reserve for alchemy (and, you know, nuclear reactions).

Note that many of the pro-homeo papers, including many that our persistent believer has cited, dispense entirely with the succussion notion. The basophil paper I reviewed asserts that it uses simple serial dilutions. The thermoluminescence paper asserts it uses vigorous shaking, but not the specific technique of succussion.

The hydrogen-bond-change argument is rank nonsense, especially in the thermoluminescence case, since H-bonds are continually broken and reformed all the time. Honestly, if hydrogen bonds were that vigorously persistent over time, we'd be screwed, since the two chains in our DNA double helix are held together via hydrogen bonding, and one imagines bonds that can survive the conversion to ice and back (for example) wouldn't be nearly as happy about being yanked apart as our DNA is when it comes time to replicate.

Ah, thank you for the clarification. I see where I made my mistake. The notion I had in my head was what you describe as molecular change, I was simply applying the wrong terminology.

~~ Random

[RandomJSF]

A thought occurred to me on my drive into work tonight concerning the idea of the serial dilution of homoeopathic remedies, and I'm not sure what to make of it.

Let's assume, to simplify this following point, that we are tossing out the idea of succussion of the remedy (as per the basophil study referenced by sanguine). Let us furthermore assume that we accept the idea of being able to create, say, the initial 1X potency remedy per the homoeopathic process (starting with a mother tincture, and so on).

So, at this point, with all those assumptions in place, let us assume that we have a 1X potency remedy of, for the sake of example, sulfur (I am naming a chemical at random, here). This remedy has already been diluted from the original mother tincture by a factor of ten times, assuming that what I've read about the naming convention of the different homoeopathic remedies is correct.

So, if we believe the tenets of homoeopathy, we now have a sample of water which has been "altered" to have a memory of the original chemical present in the mother tincture. That is to say, any single drop of this "remedy" retains the chemical "memory" of having been a sulfur solution.

To make the 2X potency, we then take a sample of that 1X potency and dilute it using the proper process so that it is now the further-diluted 2X potency (which I believe is, what, ten times more diluted than the 1X remedy?).

What I utterly fail to understand is the leap in logic that homoeopathy now makes. Even assuming that I believe that the 1X remedy contains water which has a "memory" of sulfur, homoeopathy insists that this further diluted 2X remedy acts as if it contains MORE sulfur.

Everything I've read (so far) on the process of creating homoeopathic remedies states that the water undergoes a physical change when it accepts the "memory" of the original mother tincture, and that in successive dilutions, the sample of remedy from, say, the 1X remedy copies this "memory" into the newly added water to make up the 2X remedy.

I simply fail to understand how this is supposed to make the remedy more potent. I could see them claiming that they could effectively reproduce the original remedy by "copying" its water-memory into other samples of water, but as for serial dilution actually enhancing the potency...

That's the part that, at least to me, makes the absolute LEAST amount of sense out of all of this.

[meow]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Absurdly complicated unstable experimental setups prone to noise generation. And suddenly, "PROVEN!!!" "p<0.0001!!!!!"

Independent replication, dude. Independent replication.

(Oh sorry, the Rao/Roy stuff wasn't absurdly complicated at all. It was just absurdly obviously wrong. And so is not going to be the subject of said independent replication, not this century and not ever.)

Rolfe.

nonsense and you know it.

[athon]

Originally Posted by meow

nonsense and you know it.

At last, it speaks truth!

The paper is a load of nonsense, and yup...Rolfe knows it.

Pity you can't actually show where it isn't nonsense. Say, why not just post it up again! Oh, and can you make the word 'permanently' orange this time?

Athon

[RandomJSF]

Originally Posted by meow

nonsense and you know it.

It doesn't seem, to me, to be in good form to assume what another person knows, and then to presume to tell them what they think. It's not a good arguing point.

Nor is simply stating that someone's post is nonsense without expounding upon why it is nonsense. Almost every serious reply to your posts, meow, has provided supporting documentation or information or, at the very least, an opinion with more depth than a simple declaration of "nonsense".

We are not necessarily asking you to agree with our position and it's supporting evidence, but your steadfast refusal to even accept the very existence of such evidence -- or to even admit that it's possible that the documentation you have provided is flawed -- is exasperating.

If you can't be bothered to even admit the existence of evidence which refutes the documentation that you have provided so far, then we, as the skeptic community here, are unfortunately reduced to dismantling your method of debate.

So far, you've not conducted yourself in a manner befitting of ANY forum of serious debate. All you are achieving is the further erosion of your platform.

~~ Random

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by meow

New physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions

Pubmed entry
I would have thought, almost 5 years later, there would have been some progress made from this supposed finding, but the listed related articles don't suggest any new discoveries, nor are any listed scientific medical journals, they're all Homeopathy or AltMed.
this article seems to allude to some progress and there's a full text version availible.

If anyone is inclined, can you give me the homeopathic version of the full text?

[sanguine]

Originally Posted by RandomJSF

We are not necessarily asking you to agree with our position and it's supporting evidence, but your steadfast refusal to even accept the very existence of such evidence -- or to even admit that it's possible that the documentation you have provided is flawed -- is exasperating.

I've been taking it as a tacit acknowledgement of my correctness that I haven't been replied to directly yet.

[meow]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Meow, did you know that I originally looked into homeopathy because I was genuinely interested to see if there was something there?

Do you know who convinced me there was not??

Hans

no who?


1: Homeopathy. 2007 Jul;96(3):163-9.Click here to read Links
The 'Memory of Water': an almost deciphered enigma. Dissipative structures in extremely dilute aqueous solutions.
Elia V, Napoli E, Germano R.

Dipto. di Chimica, Universitŕ Federico II di Napoli, Complesso Universitario di Monte S.Angelo, via Cintia, 80126 Napoli, Italy. elia@chemistry.unina.it

In the last decade, we have investigated from the physicochemical point of view, whether water prepared by the procedures of homeopathic medicine (leading inexorably to systems without any molecule different from the solvent) results in water different from the initial water? The answer, unexpectedly, but strongly supported by many experimental results is positive. We used well-established physicochemical techniques: flux calorimetry, conductometry, pHmetry and galvanic cell electrodes potential. Unexpectedly the physicochemical parameters evolve in time. The water solvent exhibits large changes in measurable physicochemical properties as a function of its history, the solute previously dissolved, and time. In particular we found evidence of two new phenomena, both totally unpredicted, in homeopathic dilutions: the presence of a maximum in the measured physicochemical parameters vs sample age, and their dependence on the volume in which the dilution is stored. These new experimental results strongly suggest the presence of an extended and 'ordered' dynamics involving liquid water molecules.

PMID: 17678812 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17678812?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez. Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.P ubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedreviews&l ogdbfrom=pubmed

[meow]

Permanent physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions of homeopathic medicines.
Elia V, Baiano S, Duro I, Napoli E, Niccoli M, Nonatelli L.

Department of Chemistry, University Federico II of Naples, Complesso, Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, via Cintia 80126, Naples, Italy. elia@chemistry.unina.it

The purpose of this study was to obtain information about the influence of successive dilutions and succussions on the water structure. 'Extremely diluted solutions' (EDS) are solutions obtained through the iteration of two processes: dilution in stages of 1:100 and succussion, typically used in homeopathic medicine. The iteration is repeated until extreme dilutions are reached, so that the chemical composition of the solution is identical to that of the solvent. Nine different preparations, were studied from the 3cH to 30cH (Hahnemannian Centesimal Dilution). Four of those were without the active principle (potentized water). Two different active principles were used: Arsenicum sulphuratum rubrum (ASR), As4S4, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4D). The solvents were: a solution of sodium bicarbonate and of silicic acid at 5 x 10(-5) M (mol/l) each, and solutions of sodium bicarbonate 5 x 10(-5), 7.5 x 10(-5) and 10 x 10(-5) M (mol/l) in double-distilled water. The containers were Pyrex glass to avoid the release of alkaline oxide and silica from the walls. Conductivity measurements of the solutions were carried out as a function of the age of the potencies. We found increases of electrical conductivity compared to untreated solvent. Successive dilution and succussion can permanently alter the physico-chemical properties of the aqueous solvent. But we also detected changes in physio-chemical parameters with time. This has not previously been reported. The modification of the solvent could provide an important support to the validity of homeopathic medicine, that employs 'medicines without molecules'. The nature of the phenomena here described remains still unexplained, nevertheless some significant experimental results were obtained.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

[Hokulele]

That wasn't orange.


ETA: OK, that was clever. For the posters who didn't see the previous post before meow's edit, "permanently" was purple. Now it is orange.

[RandomJSF]

Originally Posted by sanguine

I've been taking it as a tacit acknowledgement of my correctness that I haven't been replied to directly yet.

That is quite possibly the case. It is also possible that meow simply can't yet glean any particular sentence(s) out of your posts which she can arbitrarily dismiss as nonsense, or alternatively re-quote her documentation against in a weak attempt at a refutation.

I suppose I should wish that I were so lucky, but she did express confusion at the wording of a particular sentence of mine earlier, so that's a wish whose time has come and past.

Then again, my meager contributions to this discussion have finally managed to break me out of my shell enough to bring my post count up to fifty (after over a year of being here), so I suppose I should thank meow for giving me something entertaining to do in my downtime at work.

~~ Random

[meow]

http://content.karger.com/produktedb...1159/000087968

Originalarbeit · Original Article

A Biostatistical Insight into the As2O3 High Dilution Effects on the Rate and Variability of Wheat Seedling Growth
M. Brizzia; L. Lazzaratob; D. Nanic; F. Borghinid; M. Peruzzic; L. Bettib

aDepartment of Statistical Sciences, Bologna University, bDepartment of Agro-Environmental Science and Technology, Bologna University, cItalian Anthroposophical Medical Group, Milan, dDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Chieti-Pescara University, Italy

Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd 2005;12:277-283
(DOI: 10.1159/000087968)

goto top of page Summary

Background: Most criticism of homeopathy concerns the lack of scientific bases and theoretical models. Fundamental research could make important contributions to our understanding of the mechanisms of action of homeopathic treatments. Plant-based bioassays are suitable for basic research - lacking the placebo effect and ensuring large data samples for structured statistical analyses. Objective: The aim of this study was to reproduce a previous experiment on the effects of arsenic trioxide (As2O3) high dilutions on wheat seedling growth in order to verify whether the same significant results could be obtained working in a different place and with a different experimental team. A further goal was to investigate high dilution effects on variability. Material and Methods: A structured experiment was performed blind over 9 weeks, using wheat seeds previously stressed with a sublethal dose of As2O3. The seeds were then treated with either potentized As2O3 (5x, 15x, 25x, 35x, 45x), potentized water (equivalent potencies) or diluted As2O3 (10-5, 10-15, 10-25, 10-35, 10-45). The working variable was the stem length, measured after 4, 5, 6 and 7 days. Results: Some potencies (As2O3 45x and H2O 45x) induced a relevant increase in seedling growth and/or a variability decrease. Diluted As2O3 did not induce any significant results. Conclusions: Confirmation of a significant stimulating effect on seedling growth and a significant decrease of variability was obtained with ultra-high dilutions at the 45x potency. The model of wheat germination and growth has been confirmed to be a good tool for basic research in homeopathy.

[RandomJSF]

Bolding in the following quotes are mine, for emphasis:

Originally Posted by meow

The answer, unexpectedly, but strongly supported by many experimental results is positive.

Originally Posted by meow

These new experimental results strongly suggest the presence of an extended and 'ordered' dynamics involving liquid water molecules.

You are failing to acknowledge one of the points that I, and many others here, have been attempting to make. Let's assume for a moment that the errors and faults contained within the documented studies that you are AGAIN quoting do not exist. There would still be the problem that results strongly supported or strongly suggested by the experiments, as your documentation states, is not good enough.

For this to be PROOF of the memory of water, we would need the research to conclusively demonstrate the results. Strong suggestions are not enough to satisfy the burden of PROOF.

If your documentation could conclusively demonstrate, without error, the memory of water, science would have no choice but to accept those findings. Even if multiple repeated studies following the same method, done by independent researchers in independent laboratories, could all provide even just strong evidence, that would be enough for the memory of water to be a valid, accepted scientific theory.

But so far, neither you, nor any of my own personal research, have presented anything other than a handful of examples of studies claiming to show evidence of the memory of water.

Compare that to the MOUNTAINS of data made available by chemists worldwide that all point to the impossibility of water having a "memory".

It is INCREDIBLY unusual, in the world of scientific inquiry, for as well-established science as that of chemistry to be completely overturned, which is exactly what proof of the memory of water would do. Yes, science has and will continue to frequently provide evidence which alters or adds on to parts of an existing branch of science; take, for example, the addition of relativity to the science of physics, and furthermore the addition of quantum theory after that. Both of those theories EXPANDED on what we knew, but they did not completely reconstruct an entire field of science. Newtonian physics are still perfectly valid for non-supermassive, standard velocity objects, despite relativity and quantum theory.

But the research you are quoting would overturn almost all of known chemistry, and for us to accept that, you will need to show far more conclusive evidence than you have so far provided.

Or are likely to be able to provide.

[sanguine]

Originally Posted by meow

Italian Anthroposophical Medical Group

The sheer number of cited papers from Italy would make me despair more for Italian biomedical research, except that I know many fine and legitimate researchers from the University of Florence who would be a little insulted by that despair.

But then, they don't have an Anthroposophy department in Florence.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Meow,

Instead of spamming us with the entire abstract and the crazy coding, could you just post a link and cite the part you think is germane?

[RandomJSF]

I would appreciate it if any of the skeptics here with a greater background in the scientific method would correct any incorrect assertions that I make below, if there are any. Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by meow

Objective: The aim of this study was to reproduce a previous experiment on the effects of arsenic trioxide (As2O3) high dilutions on wheat seedling growth in order to verify whether the same significant results could be obtained working in a different place and with a different experimental team.

A single repeated experiment does not constitute proof. Furthermore, where is the information on the previous experiment? What were the conclusions of said experiment?

Originally Posted by meow

Material and Methods: A structured experiment was performed blind over 9 weeks, using wheat seeds previously stressed with a sublethal dose of As2O3. The seeds were then treated with either potentized As2O3 (5x, 15x, 25x, 35x, 45x), potentized water (equivalent potencies) or diluted As2O3 (10-5, 10-15, 10-25, 10-35, 10-45). The working variable was the stem length, measured after 4, 5, 6 and 7 days. Results: Some potencies (As2O3 45x and H2O 45x) induced a relevant increase in seedling growth and/or a variability decrease. Diluted As2O3 did not induce any significant results.

Here I will confess a certain amount of ignorance in regards to homoeopathy. Perhaps someone here will take the time to educate me: What, exactly, is potentized water? Is that, literally, a serial dilution of water into more water? If I'm understanding that correctly, that is essentially stating that the memory of water itself is being imprinted onto still more water. Is the goal to make water more... watery? And if you start with pure water to begin with, how can the water become even more pure?

Also, from reading what you copied here, meow, I do not see where a control substance was used. By control, I mean plain, unadulterated, non-potentized water. I also do not see where a control set of seeds were used, meaning seeds that had not been "stressed" with previous applications of As203.

Without using a quantifiable control group, and a control substance, I find it rather diificult to appreciate the results of the experiment. As it stands, we're left to judge the effects of potentized As203, potentized water, and a (presumably) standard chemical solution of As203. Assuming that the seedlings were only supplied with the above solutions as their source of water, it is not at all surprising to see that the two "potentized" remedies offered a greater effect on seedling growth than the chemical solution of As203. On one hand, you have what I maintain to be effectively pure water (both the remedies of As203 and water), while on the other hand you have an organic poison. I wouldn't need to perform a study to guess the results of that.

As for why the lesser "potencies" of As203 and water remedies had no appreciable effect while 45X As203 and water did, assuming that it wasn't error, then I do not find that so easy to explain. Perhaps someone here with a better pool of knowledge to draw from will explain it.

Originally Posted by meow

Conclusions: Confirmation of a significant stimulating effect on seedling growth and a significant decrease of variability was obtained with ultra-high dilutions at the 45x potency.

Again, without control group data, I cannot accept that finding as presented.

Originally Posted by meow

The model of wheat germination and growth has been confirmed to be a good tool for basic research in homeopathy.

How has this been confirmed as a good tool for basic research in homeopathy? What experiments have been carried out that show this to be a valid approach to proving the efficacy of homoeopathic remedies?

Yet again, without a control group of unadulterated seeds supplied with unadulterated water, how are we to determine the effect of any of the solutions applied in this study versus the effect of plain water?

Finally, I bring up the point, again, that this evidence, if it can so be called, flies in the face of the most basic laws of chemistry. You will need masses of large-scale supporting data to overturn such accepted and WIDELY proven science.

~~ Random

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by meow

nonsense and you know it.

And I love you too sweetie.

(Yes, Rao and Roy's work is nonsense, and we all know it.)

Guys, this is probably one of the finest examples of pure trolling it has ever been my privilege to witness. I think we should give meow/Xanta proper credit for her efforts.

Rolfe.

[skbuncks]

Originally Posted by RandomJSF

snip....

Here I will confess a certain amount of ignorance in regards to homoeopathy. Perhaps someone here will take the time to educate me: What, exactly, is potentized water? Is that, literally, a serial dilution of water into more water? Yes. If I'm understanding that correctly, that is essentially stating that the memory of water itself is being imprinted onto still more water. Is the goal to make water more... watery? And if you start with pure water to begin with, how can the water become even more pure?

The goal is to make a water control group which has been potentized in the same manner as the 'active' homoeopathic solution. Presumably, you can then differentiate between effects caused by potentization water and those caused by the memory of As2O2.

Without using a quantifiable control group, and a control substance, I find it rather diificult to appreciate the results of the experiment. As it stands, we're left to judge the effects of potentized As203, potentized water, and a (presumably) standard chemical solution of As203. Assuming that the seedlings were only supplied with the above solutions as their source of water, it is not at all surprising to see that the two "potentized" remedies offered a greater effect on seedling growth than the chemical solution of As203. On one hand, you have what I maintain to be effectively pure water (both the remedies of As203 and water), while on the other hand you have an organic poison. I wouldn't need to perform a study to guess the results of that.

If you apply homoeopathic principles to the three solutions tested you have a highly potent 45X As2O3 solution, a potentized water solution which contains no As2O3, and should therefore have no effect, and a highly dilute As2O3 solution (in fact of the same dilution as the 45X As2O3 but not 'potentized'). So what the results actually show is that potentized 45X As2O3 is no different than potentized water i.e. the memory of As2O3 has had NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. (see meow I can use colours too, that must mean its true). Quite how this is evidence in favour of homeopathy is beyond me
...snip
~~ Random

skb

[RandomJSF]

Thanks, skb. That's pretty much exactly what I was thinking. I still feel that a control group using normal, unadulterated water would be necessary, not to mention repeating the entire series of tests with unadulterated seeds.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Guys, this is probably one of the finest examples of pure trolling it has ever been my privilege to witness. I think we should give meow/Xanta proper credit for her efforts.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree on that point. I've been avoiding calling troll for the sake of having a reason to continue the debate, if it can be so called... But I suppose that if meow is, in fact, a troll, then this isn't a serious debate to begin with, and thus I don't need a serious reason to continue.

It does beg the question as to why some of us insist on keeping this up. Even if we assume meow to be the genuine article, I know the odds against swaying the opinion of even the average Joe, and the chances of swaying someone so deeply entrenched in their beliefs as meow would appear to be are extremely remote.

So perhaps this is simply a good way to stretch the intellect, to exercise the mind, if you will. I know it's been good experience for me, having to debate a point from the position of pure logic alone.

Unfortunately, it's now the end of my work night. Hooray for graveyard shifts. So, I'll be bowing out of this for the time being. If this thread stays active, I hope to see you all on the flipside for more entertainment.

Ciao for now.

~~ Random

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by meow

Permanent physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions of homeopathic medicines.
Elia V, Baiano S, Duro I, Napoli E, Niccoli M, Nonatelli L.

Department of Chemistry, University Federico II of Naples, Complesso, Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, via Cintia 80126, Naples, Italy. elia@chemistry.unina.it

The purpose of this study was to obtain information about the influence of successive dilutions and succussions on the water structure. 'Extremely diluted solutions' (EDS) are solutions obtained through the iteration of two processes: dilution in stages of 1:100 and succussion, typically used in homeopathic medicine. The iteration is repeated until extreme dilutions are reached, so that the chemical composition of the solution is identical to that of the solvent. Nine different preparations, were studied from the 3cH to 30cH (Hahnemannian Centesimal Dilution). Four of those were without the active principle (potentized water). Two different active principles were used: Arsenicum sulphuratum rubrum (ASR), As4S4, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4D). The solvents were: a solution of sodium bicarbonate and of silicic acid at 5 x 10(-5) M (mol/l) each, and solutions of sodium bicarbonate 5 x 10(-5), 7.5 x 10(-5) and 10 x 10(-5) M (mol/l) in double-distilled water. The containers were Pyrex glass to avoid the release of alkaline oxide and silica from the walls. Conductivity measurements of the solutions were carried out as a function of the age of the potencies. We found increases of electrical conductivity compared to untreated solvent. Successive dilution and succussion can permanently alter the physico-chemical properties of the aqueous solvent. But we also detected changes in physio-chemical parameters with time. This has not previously been reported. The modification of the solvent could provide an important support to the validity of homeopathic medicine, that employs 'medicines without molecules'. The nature of the phenomena here described remains still unexplained, nevertheless some significant experimental results were obtained.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C.
Brien S, Lewith G, Bryant T.

Complementary Medicine Research Unit, University of Southampton, Royal South Hants Hospital, Brintons Terrace, Southampton SO14 0YG, UK. s.brien@soton.ac.uk

AIMS: To investigate if ultramolecular homeopathy has any clinical effects. This was assessed using the proving of the homeopathic remedy Belladonna given at an ultramolecular dose (30C), as a model. A proving states that when a homeopathic remedy is given to a healthy person, they will experience symptomatic effects specific to that remedy. If ultramolecular doses are clinically active, the Belladonna 30C group should experience more true Belladonna proving symptoms than the placebo group. METHODS: Healthy subjects (n = 253), aged 18-30 years, took part in this double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled study. Total study duration was 4 weeks. Subjects were randomized before 1 week placebo run-in. They received 2 weeks of treatment intervention (Belladonna 30C or placebo) and were followed up for 1 week. Subjects recorded any symptoms experienced during the total study period on a daily basis using a structured questionnaire. Symptom diaries were analysed blind to determine if each subject had proved or not (based on predefined criteria). The main outcome was the proportion of subjects who had proved in each treatment group. RESULTS: No significant group differences in proving rates were observed [Belladonna provers N = 14 (13.9%); placebo provers N = 15 (14.3%); mean difference -0.4%, 95% confidence interval -9.3, 10.1] based on intention to treat analysis. Primary outcome was not affected by seasonality or the individual's attitude to complementary medicine. CONCLUSION: Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14651731

Isn't this fun!

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by RandomJSF

It does beg the question as to why some of us insist on keeping this up. Even if we assume meow to be the genuine article, I know the odds against swaying the opinion of even the average Joe, and the chances of swaying someone so deeply entrenched in their beliefs as meow would appear to be are extremely remote.

It has the utility of educating the lurkers here as to the proper scientific method, how to criticize and analyze a paper, to show how inane and downright stupid homeopathy has become and to show the complete and utter delusion of a true believer.

It is also fun to pick on such a bad and dishonest troll and not feel one ounce of guilt.

[paximperium]

Mojo...why are you trying to blind me and give me a seizure at the same time?

[paiute]

Originally Posted by meow

A Biostatistical Insight into the As2O3 High Dilution Effects on the Rate and Variability of Wheat Seedling Growth
M. Brizzia; L. Lazzaratob; D. Nanic; F. Borghinid; M. Peruzzic; L. Bettib.

Two things:

1. This forum is read by many people who have advanced degrees in the several sciences, myself included. We read papers like that cited above with the same mixture of amusement and pity that we feel when reading naughty limericks on a bathroom stall.

2. This memory of water - surely you realize that the pharmaceutical and biotech industries are highly-competitive, multibillion dollar efforts dependent on the chemistry of molecules in water. If there were any aspect of chemistry in water that was based on any kind of memory, these guys would be all over it. Yet, they are not. See my Rule 8 neutered sig for an appropriate assessment of that.