MD, PhD, MAE, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

Actually, the article is not entitled ‘Explaining Homeopathy with Quantum Bollocks’, it has the title ‘Explaining Homeopathy with Quantum Electrodynamics’. Its two Italian authors have prestigious affiliations in the world of quantum physics:

  • Independent Researcher
  • Homeopathic Clinic, Bassano del Grappa

What they write must therefore be authorative and important. Let’s have a look; here is the abstract:

Every living organism is an open system operating far from thermodynamic equilibrium and exchanging energy, matter and information with an external environment. These exchanges are performed through non-linear interactions of billions of different biological components, at different levels, from the quantum to the macro-dimensional. The concept of quantum coherence is an inherent property of living cells, used for long-range interactions such as synchronization of cell division processes. There is support from recent advances in quantum biology, which demonstrate that coherence, as a state of order of matter coupled with electromagnetic (EM) fields, is one of the key quantum phenomena supporting life dynamics. Coherent phenomena are well explained by quantum field theory (QFT), a well-established theoretical framework in quantum physics. Water is essential for life, being the medium used by living organisms to carry out various biochemical reactions and playing a fundamental role in coherent phenomena.

Quantum electrodynamics (QED), which is the relativistic QFT of electrodynamics, deals with the interactions between EM fields and matter. QED provides theoretical models and experimental frameworks for the emergence and dynamics of coherent structures, even in living organisms. This article provides a model of multi-level coherence for living organisms in which fractal phase oscillations of water are able to link and regulate a biochemical reaction. A mathematical approach, based on the eigenfunctions of Laplace operator in hyper-structures, is explored as a valuable framework to simulate and explain the oneness dynamics of multi-level coherence in life. The preparation process of a homeopathic medicine is analyzed according to QED principles, thus providing a scientific explanation for the theoretical model of “information transfer” from the substance to the water solution. A subsequent step explores the action of a homeopathic medicine in a living organism according to QED principles and the phase-space attractor’s dynamics.

According to the developed model, all levels of a living organism organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems, whole organism-are characterized by their own specific wave functions, whose phases are perfectly orchestrated in a multi-level coherence oneness. When this multi-level coherence is broken, a disease emerges. An example shows how a homeopathic medicine can bring back a patient from a disease state to a healthy one. In particular, by adopting QED, it is argued that in the preparation of homeopathic medicines, the progressive dilution/succussion processes create the conditions for the emergence of coherence domains (CDs) in the aqueous solution. Those domains code the original substance information (in terms of phase oscillations) and therefore they can transfer said information (by phase resonance) to the multi-level coherent structures of the living organism.

We encourage that QED principles and explanations become embodied in the fundamental teachings of the homeopathic method, thus providing the homeopath with a firm grounding in the practice of rational medicine. Systematic efforts in this direction should include multiple disciplines, such as quantum physics, quantum biology, conventional and homeopathic medicine and psychology.

I hope you agree that this is remarkable, perhaps even unique. The only similar paper I can remember is the one by my good friend Lionel Milgrom which concluded that quantum field theory demonstrates that quantum properties can be physical without being observable. Thus, an underlying similarity in discourse could exist between homeopathy and quantum theory which could be useful for modelling the homeopathic process. This preliminary investigation also suggested that key elements of previous quantum models of the homeopathic process, may become unified within this new QFT-type approach.

As far as I can see, the two authors of the new paper (published in the journal ‘Homeopathy‘) have just revolutionised our understanding of:

  • quantum physics,
  • human physiology,
  • pathophysiology,
  • therapeutics,
  • homeopathy.

Not a mean feast, you must admit.

Alternatively – and I am genuinely uncertain here – the journal ‘Homeopathy’ has just fallen victim of a hilarious spoof.

Please, do tell me which is the case.

32 Responses to Explaining Homeopathy with Quantum Bollocks

  • Ah yes. Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know exactly sod all about Quantum Theory can explain anything and everything.

  • This is clearly a hoax or spoof – along the lines of many others, e.g. Professor John C McLachlan’s Integrative Medicine and the Point of Credulity, BMJ 2010.

    In this, McLachlan claimed he had discovered a homunculus represented on human buttocks and capable of beneficial stimulation by acupuncture at the appropriate ‘point’. The publishers of the BMJ knew it was a false report and spoof, but wanted to expose how credulous some folks are – McLachlan had been invited to talk on his paper at an international conference on ‘integrated medicine’.

    Note the homeopathy article is published just before the first of April!

  • As Professor Jim Al-Khalili has said: “Let me make this very clear: if you think QM allows for homeopathy, psychic phenomena, ESP etc then you’d better take a proper course in QM”.

  • “Independent Researcher”

    Ah, yes. An ‘independent researcher’ is of course far more trustworthy than well-educated experts in the field. After all, said experts are (gasp!) PAID for engaging their knowledge and expertise – and we all know that as soon as people are paid to do something, they will abandon all independence and honesty, and lie and defraud and mislead the rest of the world in order to please the source of their finance. We see this all the time in “vaccine research”.

    You simply can’t trust any paid expert! So it’s far better to rely on unpaid “independent researchers” with a totally independent background – Google Academy usually, and, of course, their own reasoning skills (read: fantasy).

    [/sarcasm]

  • The modern rebirth of vitalism, only differently wrongly explained than in Hahnemann’s time.

    This raises a big problem now:
    In which category should the authors receive a Nobel Prize?

    • In which category should the authors receive a Nobel Prize?

      Literature. As I have been told this very weekend, nothing can be literature unless it is fiction. It seems appropiate too, since fiction does not usually qualify as science ^_^

  • Are we sure that one of the authors is not Alan Sokel under an alias? Or maybe he is both authors?

  • I read the abstract.
    Come to think of it strike the word “read” and replace it with “suffered”.

    Like airflow over a stalling wing, the authors separate from reality with the very first sentence: “Every living organism is an open system operating far from thermodynamic equilibrium”.
    The rest could just as well have been written by a computer program controlled by a random nonsense generator, like this one for example.

    • I followed your link, and I am quite impressed. That site shows how much progress has been made towards the Turing test.

  • I sent on to you people a triple blnded study supporting homeopathy with a link to many more (and not a word out of you), and instead, I note, you dug up some “research” done by fascist nazi thugs almost 100 years ago and felt it merited your attention more…. more impressionistic your motive seems than scientific.

    https://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/scientific-research-in-homeopathy/

    “Scientific Research in Homeopathy: Advances and Challenges

    Triple Blind Randomised Placebo-Controlled Trial, Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis, Evidence-base, Body of Evidence”

  • This is what quantum physics looks like when it has been rewritten observing on the laws of grammar, instead of the laws of physics.

  • huh?

  • I suggest to readers who do not yet know the excellent book by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont: Fashionable Nonsense (1995). In Portuguese:Intellectuals Impostures.

  • I have to say the paper brings to mind the Orch OR thesis of Penrose and Hameroff which is literally mind-boggling positing, as it does, that orchestrated reduction of quantum coherence in microtubules within neurons explains human consciousness. Deepak Chopra is a big fan.

    In the purported homeopathy explanation, decoherence of the “oneness” wave function leads to disease. Orch OR in microtubules relates to space-time geometry, whereas the homeopathy paper relates to electrodynamics.

    I see further speculative potential along these lines pertaining to the strong nuclear force.

    • Penrose won the Nobel Prize in 2020, the only one who has been ridiculed is you and Ernst.

      • And was that Nobel Prize for his Orch OR ideas, Ocean?

        No.

        It wasn’t.

        • Einstein didn’t get the nobel prize for the theory of relativity but it’s one of the most solid theories in physics, what’s your point, Leny?

          • It’s called staying in your lane.

            By your argument, being knowledgeable in one field, you’re knowledgeable in them all.

            Einstein was a genius but would you trust him to perform your heart surgery?

            Oh and his Nobel was “for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.” which certainly covers his work on relativity. But don’t let things like facts get in the way of your fatuous imaginings.

          • Nobody said Einsten was a doctor, nobody. And I don’t see you giving any facts, I just look at you giving personal opinions. Do you do more than comment with hatred and pride? Do you do science?

          • Einstein was very much aware of his limitations, and when offered the presidency of the newly-created state of Israel he had the sense to decline.

            Unfortunately not all Nobel prizewinners are as self-aware.

          • @Ocean: “And I don’t see you giving any facts, I just look at you giving personal opinions.”

            LOL. So not only do you possess zero evidence, you possess zero self-awareness and zero sense of irony too. You terminal bore.

          • “LOL”

            How old are you “has”? 10 years? How many scientific articles have you produced?

          • Ad hominem, you boring, spamming, tool.

  • My understanding is that quantum coherence works only while particles have their states constrained, which requires (among other things) that they interact with very few other particles, so it is impossible for something as big and complex as a cell at room temperature to ever be in a state of quantum coherence. Actually demonstrating quantum coherence across a single cell during cell division would be 1) impossible and 2) Nobel prize winning.
    Just one spot where this seems obvious quantum bollocks or “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” — Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride,

  • I do not see any valid criticism towards the article, the proposal of Manzalini and Galeazzi is quite plausible both theoretically and experimentally. My suspicion is that Ernst and none of the commentators understand the article.

    – The proposal mentioned has nothing to do with Chopra.

    – One of the authors of the article is a telecommunications engineer, much more than Richard Rasker could say, whose training is a technician in medical electronics. Those in telecommunications have sufficient grounds to understand quantum theory, technicians in medical electronics rarely see quantum.

    – The most regrettable comment is Björn Geir’s saying that thermodynamics away from equilibrium is “away from reality”. I suppose Geir believes that Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine was a person “removed from reality”. Geir should share his vast knowledge of quantum theory.

    – Lenny has an attitude that evidently reflects his lack of understanding in the matter. Jim Al Khalili published articles defending quantum biology, which according to many so-called” skeptics ” is nonsense. All I see is that Jim has an opinion on Twitter as a result of his misinformation about the evidence of homeopathy.

    • “I do not see any valid criticism towards the article, the proposal of Manzalini and Galeazzi is quite plausible both theoretically and experimentally.”

      Please. That “paper” is gibbering drivel: a monument of handwaving, ergo “Homeopathy is True”. Sophistry is not evidence. Prolixity is not evidence. It is not our job to disprove their claim: it is theirs. Which they make no effort to do. They’ve formed their conclusion and that’s all they want. The only thing that’s homeopathic is their evidence to back it up.

      “My suspicion is that Ernst and none of the commentators understand the article.”

      Your courtier’s reply isn’t evidence either. Of course, if you are worried that others don’t understand it then you are welcome to explain the paper’s content in lay terms us non-scientists can follow, but I’m going to bet that you don’t either.

      “Jim Al Khalili published articles defending quantum biology, which according to many so-called” skeptics ” is nonsense.”

      Evidence that 1. skeptics call quantum-level biological effects “nonsense”; 2. homeopathy operates by these effects? Let me guess: you don’t have that either. You keep waving your arms that hard, you’re going to take an eye out.

      Meanwhile, real scientists actually test their hypothesis to determine if it has any basis in fact—until then, the Null Hypothesis is in effect. The only thing you homeoquacks test is everyone’s patience, having skipped directly from your “hypothesis” (read: beloved quasireligious flapdoodle) to “That’ll be one billion dollars please.” You are shameless as you are stupid. Get out.

      • It should also go without saying that if Manzalini and Galeazzi’s hypothesis (I’m being generous here) is experimentally testable as Ocean claims, then why the heck have they not tested it themselves? Preferably before publishing, so that they can quietly correct themselves should their own tests prove them wrong.

        Homeopathy’s a billion dollar global industry, so please don’t tell us there isn’t the money to do the research. But since checking their own claims is clearly not their priority, I wonder what is.

        • Hypotheses are put forward and can be published, there is even a journal called Medical Hypothesis. It is very evident that you have no knowledge of how science is produced, you only believe blindly in the science of what you read on Novella’s blog?

          • Ocean,

            Hypotheses are put forward and can be published, there is even a journal called Medical Hypothesis. It is very evident that you have no knowledge of how science is produced,

            I am familiar with the journal Medical Hypotheses since I relative of mine once had a paper published in it. Their policy is to publish almost anything written by virtually anybody. No affiliation with any academic institution is required and there is no peer review process.

      • Nothing you’ve written answers my question or refutes what I’ve said. You’re telling me you don’t understand the article, you want me to explain it to you in “understandable terms” but you say it’s “garbage”?

        There are many examples on the Internet, but I have given you the example of Robert L. Park, a prominent skeptic who denied biophotons, with a simple search you would have found it. Today biophotons are fully accepted and Park made a fool of himself as Rasker and others denying the memory of water.

        How does an experiment with frog cells change that Jim defends quantum biology? Explain ” has ” to me. Is that experiment double-blind like Louis Demangeat’s works? What does Boiron’s earnings have to do with what I asked you? Do you hate that Boiron makes money?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe to new posts

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories