Reads to me as if they’ve screwed up somewhere and then reported something fishy about there experiment “The treatments generally induce a decrease in system variability, as evidenced by the decrease of the index of dependence on experiments (η). It is noteworthy that this decrease is induced also (and even more markedly) by centesimal potencies, which do not act at the first level (hypersensitive response in terms of lesion number). A similar decrease in system variability emerged from a 3000 data point collected in a parallel research performed on the same model and involving treatments with water conditioned by weak microwave radiations.” – i.e. the treatments appeared to have other statistical effects.

Still largely unkooky until the end: “The polarity between the effects observed in a standard plant and in the system, regarded as a whole, recalls the polarity of water accepted in quantum physics as a free electric dipole laser,[37] where the apparent dualism particle/wave is solved by the fundamental equations of relativism.” [!???!!]

…but maybe if they dilute the statistics enough they’ll actually get good at it…

Thanks for the link. I’ll look it up.

This seems to be what the homeopaths put their faith in and what they will disagree about in terms of wrong match of remedy to symptoms (since as Ben suggested, they can’t discuss clinical evidence).

If the whole of homeopathic prescription is based on a small number of people involved in these provings, a ‘poisoning of 100 homeopathy or other students, but done double blind with a placebo or perhaps 2 remedies (2 placebos?) chosen for maximum effect (good or bad, nothing mild or subtle) should yield a result that is significant statistically even if such a small trial would be meaningless with poorly people trying to get well (sorry I don’t know the medical terminology).

I’m no statistician either but I think I’m right in saying that if homeopathic claims are right then we would be looking at a huge and obvious effect rather than the tiny signal to noise ratio in some clinical trials.

The people who do these provings professionally should be able tell their nux vom from their belladonna in this cheap and easily reproduced party trick of a trial?

‘Here are the 100 diaries for 2 weeks before and after the pill was swallowed, did they take A or B? One pill makes you hotter one pill makes you cooler….’

Wouldn’t this settle at least one aspect of the mystery very quickly. Ideal project for schools!

But… if sites like this and David Colquhoun’s arm the sceptical with more info / evidence with which to debunk Woo as they come across it in whatever circles they move in, that can hardly be a bad thing, no?

Re. Patrick Holford, he certainly does seem to be making Ann Walker-esque noises, and he did direct his long threatening letter (demanding an apology and “reserving the right to take further action”) not only to David C(see link posted above by Wilsontown), but also (via cc) to the Holfordwatch crew, to Ben, AND to people (several of them posters here) who have posted comments on DC’s blog or at Holfordwatch agreeing with and sometimes expanding on what DC has written.

For someone so skeptical about homeopathy he was quite nice to Felicity. It reminded me of the situation where an unprepared student is desperately looking for answers and the teacher knows that she does not know them, has pity with her, but nevertheless knows that he has to proceed with the inquiry.

dcscience.net/?p=159

Holford also seems to be hassling people who posted comments at Improbable Science.

look at ms mckeith – her show’s been dropped by C4 and she’s been censured by the mhra and the asa. There is growing public knowledge that her ‘PhD’ is not a ‘real’ PhD.

i have no doubt the if people like prof. colquhoun and holford watch keep challenging holford’s dubious qualifications and scientific inaccuracy then the tipping point will come and he will lose credibility and no longer be the go -to man for GMTV.

Holford (or his staff) appear to take a great interest in sites like holford watch, DC’s pages and this site, so it’s always worth challenging his bad science.

btw if you google “patrick holford” this site is the 2nd page, so clearly a lot of people are tuning in.

I thought the bells, presumably from some nearby clock tower, were very good. Ben: “Would there be anything bad…” DONG! “…about homeopathy being nothing more…” DONG! “…than an extremely effective placebo?” DONG!

Very portentous, but what does it mean? Put me in mind of the stock scene in a western before the big shoot-out.

I.e. maybe statistically for a population the sugar pill and the homeopathy pill are equivalent in inducing the placebo effect, but maybe for a given individual, one is more likely than the other to induce a placebo effect depending on who is administering it.

Hell, maybe my mind is more likely to induce a placebo effect when a sugar pill is presented as a headache cure by a curt Head of Neuroscience at Oxford than by some loving caring monk, and maybe for others it is the reverse.

Come to think of it, is there any record of how the placebo effect differs depending on the perceived status of the person prescribing it (nurse/doctor etc)?

www.dcscience.net/improbable.html#bbc2

..and there is also a bit about how the programme was found officially to have “misled the viewers” here:

www.dcscience.net/improbable.html#bbc4

On the comment about animals and homeopathy, wilsontown has already pointed out the major reason why this is balls (above). Another reason (apart from it being the human who “judges” the animal’s recovery) is that pet animals rather obviously respond to the mood / behaviour of their owners – see “Dog Borstal” for TV examples. So if the owner feels better (because they think Tiddles is looking better), Tiddles will probably perk up, or calm down, or whatever.

NB Apart from working on babies, as has already been observed, this also works for small children. Take it from an owner, or see any number of TV parenting shows.

(and I have changed my nickname to avoid “Dr T” confusion. I hope this works… I have a T.fortunei in the garden, so i thought that would do!)

I gather some of the fundamentalist faithful homeopathists believe that the actual act of prescription and even preparation of the drug are included as sacraments, and the taking of the nostrum completes the arc of trust – so that if a mischievous scientist steals the homeopathy pills and substitutes fakes, the ritual link between homeopharmacist and patient is not disrupted. They are still acting in good faith.