http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/anti-homeopathy/

This “paper” is nothing more than a flight of fallacy. It is based on the premise that there is an “active ingredient” in homeopathic “ultramolecular dilutions”. To advance this view the author is prepared to sacrifice the laws of physics, in his own words: “…When I started basic research on homeopathy more than 20 years ago I endeavoured to describe homeopathic potencies according to the laws of physics as far as possible.” The key here is “as far as possible”. In other words, if physics cannot support his belief then it is to be discarded. In doing so the author does not follow the falsificationist methodology that characterises good contemporary science [1]. In fact it could be argued on these grounds alone that what is presented here is not science.

Commenting on the development of his ideas he states: “…This soon led me to the hypothesis of a field being responsible for the homeopathic phenomenon …” This assumes that a phenomenon exists. Having decided that an effect exists and deciding that some sort of field is responsible he continues: “… because of the ability of living organisms to react in a specific way on electromagnetic signals. I concluded that the mechanism of homeopathic effects must be similar to resonances between electromagnetic waves …” This just does not follow and is incredibly woolly. Doubtless subjecting an organism to an electromagnetic (EM) signal (which one? sunlight, microwaves, infrared …) will elicit specific responses (for example: my typically pale skin darkens when subject to an EM signal in the UV range over a suitable period of time). However there is no connection between these measurable and well understood phenomena and any putative homeopathic mechanism. There is no reason why they “must be similar”. (Quite why resonances between EM waves would suggest themselves to the author is a further mystery.) Again, the author is seeking to justify what he already believes.

His handling of data that does not support his views is illuminating. He states: “…The results of the series of experiments that were carried out with a variety of standard physical–chemical methods were disappointing. Almost none of the experiments could reproduce results reported in specialist literature, and for no experimental arrangement could the results be forecast.” This description leaves open a large number of questions. For instance, what was the author trying to reproduce? Is this the specialist homeopathic literature or reputable scientific literature? Negative results may disappoint an investigator on a personal level, but they do allow hypotheses to be falsified. What were they? What did they fail to show?

The author moves on to some more detailed descriptions of NMR measurements. He states: “… the totality of experiments with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) showed a clear tendency in favour of a difference between potencies and their solvent in the water- and OH-portions of the ethanol–water-molecule …” This, of course, is not the same as showing differences between potencies; absolutely essential if homeopathy is to be justified. It is referring to an analytical difference between the test solutions as a group and a reference. Interestingly the abstract from reference 4 states: “… Statistical analysis was applied to succeed in discriminating solutions from their solvents beyond the 10-12 level of dilution. No clear explanation emerged, but post-experiment chemical analysis revealed high amounts (6 ppm) of released silica from the glass material used, with excess in silica-lactose samples, and lower amounts of trace paramagnetic contaminants in highly diluted silica-lactose samples, which could provide a clue.” This indicates that the effects reported are most likely due to contamination. To be objective the author should have reported this, even if he disagreed. A proper scientific paper would have discussed this potential explanation, if only to show why the investigator takes a different view. The implication form the way this paper is cited is that the investigations are in line with the authors view when, in fact, it raises an alternative hypothesis.

It is fascinating that the author has some awareness of the failings in his approach: “…but I realized that looking for effects without having any clue of their significance is hazardous …” Exactly. In fact looking for correlations where the probability of their being a real relationship is low leads to an increased risk of spurious associations [2]. The author’s remedy is, however, bizarre: “… Therefore, I started building models for the ‘Therapeutically Active Ingredient’ (TAI) and it soon became clear that models for the TAI have to have holistic character …” The author is clear that he did not have “.. any clue ..” as to the significance of the effects he was “.. looking for..” How could he build a model based on unknown effects of unknown significance and then base conclusions on their character? How were these models tested, validated or calibrated?

Next we have an unbelievable piece of reasoning. The author introduces a “thought experiment” he calls SBM. This stands for “Sequential Box Model”. The claim is that it illustrates “…that the homeopathic phenomenon can be treated within physics with no consideration of the degree of dilution.” This is a phenomenal claim. How is this wonder arrived at? The author “explains” in Appendix A. A mother tincture is placed in a box (B0). This is placed “…10 times bigger than B0 and already 9/10th full of solvent… “ and shaken, according to homeopathic practise. This is called B1, and the process is though of as repeated until we arrive at some arbitrary box, BN. So far this is a fair description of the homeopathic dilution process. The author then comments: “… If one attempted to conduct this experiment in reality the procedure would come to an end very soon because of the unrealizable dimensions of the boxes.” Yes, this illustrates the physical problem with homeopathic dilution.

Next the amazing statement: “… The higher N grows the less probable is the occurrence of a molecule in a random sample taken out of BN. This means that in BN an additional property has to be present which carries the information of B0. This property has to be non-local.” The first sentence is, of course true. The probability of obtaining a molecule of BN in a random sample actually falls to zero as N increases. This only means a non-local property is required if there is a pre-existing belief that, whilst not present in a sample, the original solute has passed on some (undefined) information into the solvent. In other words, assuming that dilution doesn’t matter and homeopathy works – dilution doesn’t matter and homeopathy works! This is just begging the question. This is a no-thought experiment of breathtaking superficiality and banality. To cite it as an illustration that: “… the homeopathic phenomenon can be treated within physics with no consideration of the degree of dilution.” is just plain false. The argument relies on assuming there is a phenomenon and ignoring physics.

The paper contains more examples of the let’s assume it true and seek to show how this may be type. For example: “…In this context, the existence of a TAI is temporarily assumed as being proven by successful treatment …”
Then it moves to the paranormal: “…Both procedures, however, suggest mind–matter and matter–mind correlations…” This, of course, is non-science and should never have made its way into a journal purporting to contain science.

By this point we are well into quantum-mechanical straw clutching. Odd given the author’s view that: “… it was already known that non-local behaviour can occur in non-quantum systems under certain circumstances.” (No substantiation is provided for this crucial point. I’d really like to see some relevant examples.)

This has been dealt with at length elsewhere [3]. One aspect of the weakening (W) is the removal of Planck’s constant [4], with its annoying consequence of confining quantum physics to small entities or vanishingly small periods of time. The problem is that it represents the restrictions that exist in the natural world. Dispensing with it breaks the link between theory and the natural world. In fact, as Planck’s constant is central to describing the quantisation of energy seen in nature no theory can be justifiably called “quantum” if it is omitted. So perhaps WQT should more properly be called NQT: Non Quantum Theory.

Its proponents in the homeopathic field generally, present WQT as some sort of metaphor [4,5]. This, at least, circumvents the problem of the break with nature. However, for the author: “With WQT, for the first time, special emphasis is placed quantitatively on entanglement as an idea.” No, as it has removed the constraints of nature it can have no quantitative power to explain nature. It does not represent nature; rather it codifies how some would like nature to be.

Hence this paper is just a flight of fallacy. The author believes that homeopathic potencies represent something real and makes his arguments from there. It presents no falsifiable hypotheses; just ad-hoc speculation. The author does not explore other explanations for his NMR evidence, even though one is suggested in a paper he cites.

This work is merely appropriating scientific language, applying it with no reference to how the natural world is seen to behave and offering it as an explanation. This is just “Cargo Cult Science”.[6]

[1] Popper, Karl “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” Basic Books, New York (1959)
[2] Ioannidis JPA, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”, PLoS Medicine Vol. 2, No. 8, e124 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
[3] http://shpalman.livejournal.com/tag/lionel+milgrom
[4] Lionel R. Milgrom “Patient–practitioner–remedy (PPR) entanglement. Part 3. Refining the quantum metaphor for homeopathy”. Homeopathy (2003) 92, 152–160.
[5] Lionel R. Milgrom, “Journeys in The Country of The Blind: Entanglement Theory and The Effects of Blinding on Trials of Homeopathy and Homeopathic Provings” eCAM Advance Access published on March 1, 2007, DOI 10.1093/ecam/nel062. eCAM 4: 7-16.
[6] Feynman, Richard P. “Cargo Cult Science” Engineering and Science, Volume 37:7, June 1974.

Studies on the temperature dependance of diffusion of macromolecules in water show the energy associated with water aggregating around sulphonate anions on polystyrene latex (a model macro molecule) is similar to the latent heat of vapourisation for water.

In other words solvent-solute structures depend strongly on temperature.

If water memory was true then changing the temperature would alter the information.

The model has a glaring flaw, it does not require the water’s memory to be initialised to an assumed “blank” state.

Since the inital conditions are undefined what follows must also be undefined.

Does anyone know how the water’s memory can be initialised?

What would be very interesting would be an experiment that reproducibly demonstrates this.

Otherwise this is not memory but rehashing the various arguments about water structure around solutes that have been doing the rounds for decades.

Bohumil Vybíral & Pavel Voráček

It seems that the authors have some evidence to suggest interesting new rheological properties for weak aqueous solutions of unidentified ions. Hence, my first comment would be that the paper is mis-titled. It would be more accurate to call it: “Long term structural effects in an ionic aqueous solution: autothixotropy and its hysteresis.” Perhaps the title is as it is to help it get into this particular journal and issue?

However I would like to say that the possible phenomenology here is interesting. One of the reasons that I am intereted is that my final year undergraduate (physics) project looked at non-newtonian behaviour seen in used crankcase lubricants. I found hysteresis and shear-thinning behaviour (but not thixotropy) in some samples, though only with high loadings of solid impurities (of the order of 1%, or so, by weight.) So I am well disposed to the possibility of some real physics here.

Reading the paper does raise some questions in my mind:

1. The authors mention that their solution had “..very low concentration of salt ions ..”. I would really want to know what ions at what concentration.

2. Following from 1: Is this changing over time? Is something leaching from the container?

3. I must admit that I find it supprising that: “When a smooth-surfaced cylinder, capable of rotating around its own axis, is used instead of the plate, these phenomena are not observed”. I would think that if we have a shear and time dependant viscosity (Thixotropy) that the skin friction drag of the cylinder would change with the local shear as the cylinder is rotated?

4. I wondered whether the dicussion on “.. freedom of the translative motion of its molecules ..” Is really talking about boundary layer effects?

5. They note that: “The electrical conductivity of entirely fresh water was 5.6 μS/cm, and after five weeks it increased to 30.5 μS/cm at 25 °C. A dependence of the observed water properties on this change was not noted.” This must indicate increasing ionic concentration. They find that their effect depends on the presence of ions in solution. It seems odd that they contend that this measurement does not correlate with the rheological changes.

However, I am not comfortable with some of the commentry on the data that the authors provide:

6. The authors talk about the structural concept of “clustering”. This runs through most of their conclusions. The paper presents rheological measurements on the bulk fluid and thus these data cannot provide any insight into putative structures. For instance: “2. Clusters of water molecules may be destroyed by boiling or intense stirring or shaking..” They can say this of the bulk rheological property they have called “autothixotropy” but they have no evidence that would enable them to comment on the form of any underlying structure.[however, this does rule their observations out as a mechanism that would support homeopathy as the impication is that “succussion” of a preparation would destroy the phenomenon.

7. I am baffled by their observation: “.. Moral: If two different observations seem to be mutually incompatible within the frame of an established theory, the most probable explanation is not that one of the observations is wrong, but that the theory is wrong or at least incomplete, and that the observations merely discovered that it was not self-consistent ..” This does not really fit with what they have found. There is no theoretical problem reconciling the very short coherence time of small (hydrogen bonded) structures within water[1]and their observations that the rheological properties of the bulk fluid changed with time and shear. These fit into two different theoretical frameworks. One is looking specifically at structures within the fluid; their work is concerned with the bulk properties of the fluid.

8. They also conclude that: “5. Water slightly deviates from an ideal Newtonian viscous fluid, because autothixotropy also appears in the form of internal static friction, although very weak.”. This, of course, is misleading. They have shown that deionised water does not deviate from Newtonian behaviour, but a weak aqueous solution of unknown ions does.

There are also some potentially enlightening experiments that could be done to follow up on the measurements. I would suggest that as they have shown that their effect depends on the presence of ions a logical step is to find out what ions they had and in what concentration. Then they could artificailly vary the concentration and see what happens to the autothixotropy.

So, overall, there could well be some interesting new physics here. However, the authors seem to have inserted speculations that make their paper more in tune with ideas around homeopathy and water memory. I am not saying this was deliberate; however the data would have been better served by the use of more precise language.

It is worth stating that this paper has nothing to say about water memory. Their water seems to change in time without any intervention. Hence it is not “remembering” anything. (It’s more like it’s making something up!)

The effect they have measured is a bulk (rheological) property of the fluid. The mesurements have nothing to say about “macroscopic clusters”. This is sheer speculation. They need to directly observe clusters in their test fluid before they can correlate the bulk property with this type of structuring. Afterall, there are many ordinary thixotropic fluids that exhibit this type of phenomenology without such structures. Examples include some paints, ketchups and automotive transmission fluids. [2]

Finally, the paper provides no comfort for appologists for homeopathy. First, by their own admission the hypothesized clusters (certainly the observed “autothixotropic” effect)”.. may be destroyed by ..intense stirring or shaking..” So “succussion” would destroy this mechanism anyway. Second, they demonstrate that the effect depends on a non-zero, non-trivial ionic concentration in the water. Removing the ions removes the effect. So no congruence with the “less is more” philosophy of homeopathy.

Hence its appearance in the special “Memory of Water” issue of Homeopathy is puzzling.

[1] M.L. Cowan et al., Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H2O, Nature 434 (2005), pp. 199–200.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thixotropy#Examples

If your raw material is tap water, then (particularly in London) a few molecules of it will in the recent past have been part of a cup of tea, then body fluids, then urine ……

Alternatively, is there an assertion that deionised water is cleaned of memory? Or do you have to use distilled water as your raw material? Would distilled water remember the characteristics of the condensing vessel?

Actually, is Milgrom trying to say that the ‘efficacy’ of homeopathy is outside of causal mechanisms? I.e. maybe Milgrom acknowledges homeopathy doesn’t ‘work’ ..

I thought that too until I read him carefully. Milgrom is a believer. Here are four citations from his ‘Conspicuous by its Absence’ paper:

[P]ositive results from even the highest standard scientific trials are rejected by those who will not accept homeopathy’s claim that remedies diluted out of molecular existence might have any effect.

It is perhaps sufficient to say that an explanation for the efficacy of highly diluted homeopathic remedies within the ‘local’ paradigm of the molecular sciences, though difficult is not as improbable as homeopathy’s critics claim. .

[S]ome trials of non-individualised homeopathic remedies have generated positive results ..

the positive effects observed in many homeopathic clinical trials

The core of Milgrom’s argumentation is actually old hat dressed up in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (basically: to ‘observe’ is to interfere, e.g. if you ‘observe’ a frog by dissecting it, the frog won’t be the same afterwards): homeopathy won’t work if you start looking at us doing it, RCTs (randomized controlled trials) cramp our style because of the delicate house-of-cards balance between the patient, practitioner and remedy — and yet homeopathic remedies are so powerful that some of these RCTs despite themselves demonstrate the efficacy of the therapy. In those RCTs that ‘work’ we have what Milgrom calls the ‘surviving relic’ of the homeopathic therapeutic process.

RCTs – damned if they work, damned if they don’t.

Alt-med practitioners who would like to reconcile their practice with conventional science will often start with a proveable hypothesis (e.g in homeopathy, the hypothesis that a minute dose has a measurable therapeutic effect). When this is disproved, they are faced with a conflict – they have either to admit that there is no scientific basis to their practice, or else they must replace the disproved theory with an alternative hypothesis.

With time, they will end up with a hypothesis which is unproveable. Hence, in homeopathy, the “memory” of water.

In acupuncture, there is the theory of “intent” which is has been fabricated in order to deny the negative results from double-blind trials – (see for example http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=30416 )

might i suggest that people post their comments here, but also copy them under the specific article they are critiquing? for the milgrom one and the silica issue especially there is a fair amount to be said already.