Yesterday, it has been reported that Indian scientists found the mode of action of homeopathic remedies. This is the newspaper article:

And this seems to be the abstract of the actual paper:

Homeopathic medicines contain ultra-low concentrations of metal and compounds, and it is challenging to classify homeopathic potencies using modern characterization tools. This work presents a novel experimental tool for classifying various homeopathic medicines under a low-frequency generated electromagnetic (EM) fields. A custom-built primary coil is used for generating EM fields at different excitation frequencies. The potentized test samples were prepared at decimal dilution scale of Ferrum with α‑lactose monohydrate and exhibited significant and distinct induced EM responses in the second sensing coil. The measured responses decrease logarithmically due to reducing Ferrum concentration. The resolution improved in higher potencies from 0.03 µV at 300 Hz to 0.24 µV at 4.8 kHz. Different compounds of homeopathic medicines were also investigated to produce distinct induced EM characteristics. These results were correlated with Raman spectroscopy, impedance analyser, and FT-IR analysis. The experimental investigation confirmed the classification of potencies and the technique developed to detect ultra-low metallic concentrations.

I might be a bit slow on the uptake – but I don’t see how this investigation proves anything. Perhaps someone can explain it to me?

55 Responses to A breakthrough in understanding how homeopathy works!?!?

  • The most worrying aspect of this report is that the The Times F India thought it is worthy of front page news.

    What percentage of other TTFI news pieces are so misguided?


      The Times of India, also known by its abbreviation TOI, is an Indian English-language daily newspaper and digital news media owned and managed by The Times Group. It is the third-largest newspaper in India by circulation and largest selling English-language daily in the world. It is the oldest English-language newspaper in India, and the second-oldest Indian newspaper still in circulation, with its first edition published in 1838. It is nicknamed as “The Old Lady of Bori Bunder”, and is an Indian “newspaper of record”.

      TOI has been criticised for being the first to institutionalise the practice of paid news in India, where politicians, businessmen, corporations and celebrities can pay the newspaper and its journalists would carry the desired news for the payer.The newspaper offers prominence with which the paid news is placed and the page on which it is displayed based on the amount of the payment. According to this practice, a payment plan assures a news feature and ensures positive coverage to the payer.

  • Fret not, professor. I’m sure Dana will be along very soon to explain it all to us all in great scientific detail…

  • Elsevier, eh? Wonder who the peer reviewers were?

  • Confirmation bias, anyone? “I’ve developed a machine that can show the expected results even though I don’t understand the readings or know how to interpret them.” What I don’t like, beyond the obvious, is that Elsevier published the finding. Does Elsevier publish SCAM and other woo-woo under the promotion by ‘scientific organizations’?

  • The full paper can be read here.

  • I would be in shock and would need a dose of ultra diluted Arnica is there was anything in this paper. Homeopathy continues to grow at grass roots level with all users like me now fully aware of the dilutions and scientific implausability but using it anyway. We don’t now need research to confirm homeopathy. Drs can ignore homeopathy if they chose, in fact the whole medical system can ignore it as most of us users dont care.
    So this research or any other homeopathic research is interesting to the likes of me but it doesnt really matter. Even if there was something in this paper then it would take years for repeated studies to confirm anything. Then there is the not so small matter of a mechanism to explain the homeopathic dilution process.- More decades.
    The homeopathic community is ever growing at grass roots level happy to fund it all for themselves. We are not going to wait decades or even forever for approval from researchers and the medical profession.
    I just use homeopathy and dont care why or how it works or doesnt work. I have assumed homeopathy as some sort of unified theory of magic and quantum flapdoodle. Adding electromagnestism into my transendental speculations would be a tough challenge anyway. Thanks though to Edzard for posting about this and I look forward to any further comments from him and from those with qualified opinions on this paper.

  • Homeopathy articles always remind me of this old joke:

    Did you hear about the homeopathy patient who forgot to take his meds & died of an overdose?

  • As if doctors in Bhopal of all places didn’t have more urgent concerns.

  • I wonder how well this would work if done within an orgone generator? Of course, I suppose one would need to place it all underneath a suitable pyramid made of, say, unobtainium.

  • Cool, so even when you don’t know shit or shinola about a subject, this doesn’t stop your arrogance of presumed knowledge and your silly efforts at humor that is simply a weak alternative to intelligence.

    One of these days (soon), some people HERE will realize the deep value of nanomedicines…and you’ll laugh at how thick-headed you were for so long.

    Ok, you can now go back to throwing your ad homs at me (because that is all that you have).

    • @Dana Ullman

      One of these days (soon), some people HERE will realize the deep value of nanomedicines

      Ah, so we can finally forget about the Huge Mistake that was homeopathy, and instead use ‘nanomedicines’ that do actually work? That would be about time! Thank you for this great news!

    • Hey Dana

      We’re all aware of the deep value of nanomedicines. Homeopathy isn’t nanomedicine, though. Not an opinion. A proven fact. If it were nanomedicine, how come there’s nothing about it in any nanomedicine journals? Why not try to get one of your pieces published in a high-impact nanomedicine journal, Dana? Show everybody where they’ve been going wrong.

      Calling you a fool isn’t an ad hom, Dana. It’s an empirical statement of evidenced fact.

      Your continued histrionic flailing is an object only of amusement as you endlessly fail to convince anyone of anything apart from your own stupidity.

    • Ah, predictable that the bluffer D.Ullman would appear (though he’s very ready to block and ignore elsewhere), with the usual fallacy-laden drivel (moaning about ad homs in a post containing… ad homs).

      You apparently don’t know shit about homeopathy. Anybody who does knows your attempt to term it ‘nanomedicine’ is crud. Or you do actually know this… which makes you a bluffer.

    • Ah! Dana… can I assume you do know about this subject, then?

      If so, can you say what the magnetic and electric components of the electromagnetic field the test samples were subjected to were? Ideally in SI units but I’ll let you off with Imperial if that’s all you have.

      Oh, and how did they protect against stray electric fields? How effective was their shielding?

    • And so, there is not a single real critique of this article here. THAT alone speaks volumes.

      Of an additional interest is that the same thing happened when Edzard published a summary of TWO of my articles published in peer-reviewed conventional journals:

      Lots of ad homs and hand wavering and attempted humor…but no real critique. Thanx for the LOVE!

      • You must have missed my comments, Dana: there was vital information missing from that paper:

        What are the magnetic and electric components of the electromagnetic field the test samples were subjected to? Ideally in SI units but I’ll let you off with Imperial if that’s all you have.

        Oh, and how did they protect against stray electric fields? How effective was their shielding?

        If you don’t know why that information is vital or understand what I’m asking, then I can explain it to you in layman’s terms if you wish.

        • Alan

          You should know by now that Dana has very selective reading skills with the ability to ignore or forget anything which disproves the bumwash he spouts.

        • @Alan Henness
          The water-shaking clowns left out most of the essential information about the setup, e.g. the dimensions and parameters of the coils used (number of windings, inductance, air gap, coupling factor), excitation coil currents (more important than voltages, especially in air coils), the type of sensing probe and lots of other technical stuff. All they say is that their ‘indigenously developed’ excitation coil had a 300 ohm impedance – but failed to specify at what frequency – and that the sensing probe was supplied by a company named Aaronia AG.

          If I (electronics engineer) would draw up my technical reports this way, I would be out of a job within mere days.

          • “All they say is that their ‘indigenously developed’ excitation coil had a 300 ohm impedance – but failed to specify at what frequency”

            The paper is full of such howlers. It’s a cringeworthy, internally inconsistent, cobbling together of the disparate pseudosciences in its references; having methodology that is sufficiently ill‑defined to prevent replication of the ‘experiment’.

            What a crock!

          • Indeed, Richard. Hence my questions to the homeopathy expert here amongst us…

            The experimental setup was incpmpetent to say the least and (as a fellow electronics engineer) had any engineer who worked for me (I was R&D Manager for a large multi-national electronics company for a decade) had produced such shoddy work, I would have had things to say…

            Never mind, though, I’m sure Dana will be able to provide all the necessary details.

  • The Role of Early Bioelectric Signals in the Regeneration of Planarian Anterior/Posterior Polarity

    Apparently there is a very subtle bioelectric signalling that controls the conversion of stem cells. This is a third method of inheritance beyond genetic and epigenetic inheritance. A scientific group was able to create double-headed planeria that would pass that trait on to their off-spring, even though there was no change in the genes or epigenetics of the organisms. This along with the subtle emf signal in highly dilute homeopathic remedies might explain the mechanism of homeopathy.

  • OK, after getting access to the full article, thanks to Pete Attkins, here are some pertinent comments.

    [final abstract] “Homeopathic medicines contain ultra-low concentrations of metal and compounds …”

    Most homeopathic preparations do not contain any metals or metal compounds; they contain nothing except water or sugar. Any metals present are contaminants.

    “Different potencies of Homeopathic medicine Ferrum Metallicum (FM-1X to FM-6X) …”

    So basically what these people built was a metal detector for ferromagnetic compounds – in this case metallic iron. This has nothing to do with homeopathy, and everything with electromagnetism.

    “The results not only provide scientific evidence to easily classify the homeopathic medicine potency …”

    This is nonsense, as the results are only valid for ferromagnetic metals in (homeopathically speaking) huge concentrations of at least one part per million (6X). The results are completely useless for any other dilutions.

    “… but,[sic] also helps to understand the science behind the curative action in terms of photon emission of homeopathic medicines.”

    This is meaningless pseudoscientific babble.

    “Hahnemann put forward the idea, if a substance is capable of generating an artificial disease in a healthy person, that substance should also be able to cure a similar disease in a sick person. Later, Hahnemann proposed this principle of similarity as pre-scientific evidence or support for his theory.”

    This is a wonderful example of circular reasoning: Hahnemann dreamed up the idea of ‘like cures like’, then elevated this 100% imaginary principle to a ‘theory’ and even ‘law’ (of similars) – and then claims that his principle of ‘like cures like’ is evidence for the validity of his ‘law’. Yup, and I can float up in the air by pulling myself up by my own shoelaces.

    “Since these drug substances were not tested for treating disease by pathological names, the law of similarity was not accepted by the scientists of modern medicine … In addition, despite the popularity of homeopathy, it has come into conflict with science and modern medicine, due to a lack of experimental evidence of the science behind the action of homeopathic remedies and the non-clarity of its healing mechanism.”

    And here we have a rare instance of sanity in this otherwise deeply flawed declaration of belief in magic.

    “Since potencies are the key to homeopathic medicine and it has an important role to play in curing diseases ..”

    Beyond 12C (Avogadro’s number), those ‘potencies’ are purely imaginary concepts. There is no difference at all between, say, 30C and 200C. There is also no evidence that they cure diseases.

    “Recently, it was proposed that homeopathic medicines may produce the electromagnetic signal or signature of a natural substance that was used to prepare the serially diluted homeopathic potencies[21][22]”

    There is no evidence for this mechanism at all, except those two deeply flawed referenced ‘studies’ (no blinding whatsoever, horrible methodology, very high chance of bias). Substances do not produce any electromagnetic signal or signature of their own, except thermal radiation – because emitting electromagnetic signals would violate the law of conservation of energy.
    Substances can show signatures when exposed to electromagnetic excitation or other types of radiation – but only when actually present. There is no evidence that homeopathic dilutions 12C+ show any such signatures (and certainly not dilutions of table salt).

    ” It has also been reported that diseases change the electromagnetic properties of the diseased cells, tissues, and organs …”

    This is a pseudoscientific assertion for which no evidence at all exists. It is also how ‘bioresonance’ con artists defraud their victims.

    “… and the electromagnetic signal that generates from these homeopathic potencies either provokes the body’s defense to act or cancels the pathological frequency causing illness in the body”

    This is more pseudoscientific babble without any actual evidence.

    “However, due to the highly diluted nature of homeopathic potency, the probability of finding even a single molecule of the starting source material in the final homeopathic solution (dilution ratio ~ 10^-30) tends to zero, it is very difficult to detect electromagnetic wave or magnetic photon in such solutions.”

    Let’s just say that it is fundamentally impossible. And oh, ‘magnetic photons’ are a purely imaginary concept so far.

    “These [silica nanoparticles] may act by modulating the biological function of the allostatic stress response network and evoke biphasic actions on living systems via organism-dependent adaptive and endogenously amplified effects which finally improve systemic resilience”

    More pseudoscientific homeobabble to obfuscate the fact that these people have no idea what they’re talking about, and can’t prove that their dilutions have any effects to begin with.

    “Moreover, at high potency (beyond 12C) homeopathic medicines don’t even have traces of the starting materials, but, they may still cure diseases.”

    This is an untruth (a.k.a. lie). There is no evidence at all that any homeopathic preparation 12C+ has any repeatable effects.

    “To support the working concept, a quantum electrodynamics mechanism based on the existence of ice-like structures called coherent domains (CD) in water at room temperature was proposed.”

    Ah, it appears that we’re entering the ‘quantum phase space’ now.

    “Homeopathic medicine can be thought of as an entangled state between the medicine, original substance, and patient’s symptomology.”

    Any quantum physicist can explain that entanglement and many other quantum phenomena only work for elementary particles, not for macroscopic objects. This is in other words more ludicrous, pseudoscientific homeobabble.

    “Montagnier et al. have shown that some of the bacterial and viral DNA sequences induce low-frequency electromagnetic waves in high aqueous water solutions and they measured the electromagnetic signals in water decimal dilutions of DNA.”

    Montaigner is a good example of Nobel disease, i.e. a scientist who completely lost their marbles at a later age.

    “In most of the reported mechanisms, the electromagnetic wave and magnetic field have played a huge role, but the origin of magnetism/electromagnetic wave has not been reported till date …”

    … because no scientist ever managed to replicate Montaigner’s observations. These signals simply don’t exist.

    “Significant changes in the magnetic field were detected in the lower and higher potencies of the same medicine …”

    … but only if that ‘medicine’ is metallic iron.

    [Results and Discussion]”It is worth pointing out that the base α‑lactose monohydrate used in the preparation of homeopathic medicine does not exhibit any magnetic property.”

    Well, what a surprise: lactose is not ferromagnetic! And these buffoons consider themselves ‘scientists’ … this is almost depressing.

    “Despite the absence of magnetic property of homeopathic medicine, the generation of the output voltage at a certain resonance frequency shows that homeopathic medicine has a healing mechanism associated with it.”

    This is a complete and utter non-sequitur. The fact that electromagnetic energy unexpectedly passed from one magnetic coil to another only tells us that these people don’t have any practical knowledge of electromagnetic systems (and in particular its intricacies and imperfections compared to the theoretical models), NOT that there is any special homeopathic process or mechanism at play.

    Even though there’s more wrong, I’ll leave it at this. This ‘paper’ is an utter disgrace, and Elsevier should be deeply ashamed for a) publishing and b) asking money for this pseudoscientific drivel from a couple of Believers in magic. In fact, I almost feel tempted to take steps to try and have it retracted, as its contents doesn’t even comply with the journal’s general subject content.

    • thanks for this considerable effort in wading through BS.

      • Ah well, I consider it an amusing pastime, much like those dumb ‘shoot ’em up’ computer games.

        However I do think more people should speak out against this kind of rubbish being published by the likes of Elsevier, as it contributes to poisoning real science with pseudoscientific nonsense.

        (P.S.: it appears that moderation approval is still pending, probably because of the amount of quoted text in italics)

  • It is SO interesting that a certain person at this website has asked me many times for a reference to a laboratory that can detect homeopathic medicines…and yet, all of a sudden, this person has become stone-silent.

    Hmmmm. Wow, this is so predictable.

    And what’s interesting too is that all of the members of this cult have also become stone-silent.

    Thank you for this admission of guilt.

    • I think that your last bit of logic has just left your brain, Dana.

      • ChatGPT gives more consistent (and logical) answers than Dana. I vote that we should give the software Dana’s MPH and CCH. She can do more with it. 🙂

        • I asked ChatGPT, “Does homeopathy work?” and got this reply:

          The scientific community is skeptical of homeopathy’s effectiveness, as there is no convincing evidence that it works beyond the placebo effect. Many studies have found that homeopathic remedies are no more effective than a placebo, and that any perceived benefits are likely due to the placebo effect or other factors such as the natural healing process or the therapeutic relationship between the patient and practitioner.

          Although homeopathy has been practiced for over two centuries, there is little scientific evidence to support its effectiveness. The majority of scientific studies on homeopathy have found it to be no more effective than a placebo. In addition, there is no scientific basis for the idea that diluting a substance increases its potency or that water has a “memory” of the original substance.

          While some people may find relief from homeopathic remedies, it is important to note that any perceived benefits are likely due to placebo effects or other non-specific effects, rather than the specific properties of the remedy itself. As with any form of medical treatment, it is important to consult with a qualified healthcare provider before using homeopathy or any other alternative treatment.

          • I then asked, “Why is Dana Ullman wrong about homeopathy?”:

            Dana Ullman’s views on homeopathy are considered by many in the scientific and medical communities to be scientifically unsound and not supported by empirical evidence. While Ullman has been a vocal proponent of homeopathy and has written extensively about its history and principles, his claims about the efficacy of homeopathy are not supported by scientific research.

            Numerous studies have found that homeopathic remedies are no more effective than a placebo, and any perceived benefits are likely due to the placebo effect or other factors such as the natural healing process or the therapeutic relationship between the patient and practitioner. Moreover, the basic principles of homeopathy contradict well-established scientific principles, such as the dose-response relationship and the importance of empirical evidence in evaluating treatment efficacy.

            Therefore, while Ullman’s advocacy for homeopathy has helped raise awareness about this alternative form of medicine, his claims about its efficacy are not supported by scientific evidence and are not accepted by mainstream medical professionals. It is important for individuals to carefully evaluate the evidence before deciding to use any alternative medicine or treatment.

    • @Dana Ullman
      It appears that you failed to read the preprint (or the full paper, should you have access to it), otherwise you would have noticed that these people only performed their ‘research’ with metallic iron in perfectly detectable concentrations (1 part per million and higher).

      In other words: they reinvented the metal detector – some 160 years after the fact.

      No, no need to thank me; we all know you have this little reading problem, and that’s nothing to be ashamed of. We’re all here to help you understand things when the need arises – such as now.

      • Correction:

        that these people only performed their ‘research’ with metallic iron …

        … and a handful of other metals.

    • Dana

      It is SO interesting that, despite being asked many times, you have been unable to provide the name of the laboratory which would be able to distinguish water from homeopathic water. You once mumbled about some labs in India, but were not specific.

      This is because you’re a brass-necked inconsequential bullshitter. Evidenced statement of objective fact, Dana. Not an ad hom.

      Strange that you’re seemingly unable to read the posts demolishing this piece of garbage which purports to be research.

  • I just realized that people here have a new strategy for attacking research that just happens to have a positive result for homeopathy…and that is to spew racism! It is astronishing how many people here mentioned that research from India “cannot be trusted.” Hmmm, and yet, whenever researchers from India publish studies or articles that are critical of homeopathy, I cannot remember a single time that someone here said that this person from India “cannot be trusted.”

    Thanx for showing your true colors (or lack of them!).

    • “spew racism” what a stupid comment, Dana!
      “research from India “cannot be trusted” – no, I showed you evidence that Indian research in homeopathy is nearly always positive []; even YOU should realize that this is a different statement.

      • There are plenty of studies from India on homeopathy that do not show statistical significance…and unless you can show quantitative evidence for your assertions, your statements should be deemed to be racist until proven otherwise. The ball is now in your court.

        Your reference to 31 cherry-picked article stand firmly in JELLO, not firm ground. And the fact that you selected certain studies and case reports makes your assertion very laughable because most research on all subjects tend to show positive results (you, of all people, know this fact). Further, the purpose of case reports is generally to discuss an unusual treatment and a “successful” result. Further, although I have no reviewed all of the case reports cited, I will predict that many of these case reports included reference to the prescription of some homeopathic medicines that did NOT have a successful effect BUT a later prescription was effective.

        Once again, a mixture of sloppy research and racism is a bad combo for scientific understanding.

        • Dana, we all know you are a bit soft in your head, but I did not know HOW soft.
          This is quantitative, unselected data, and this is how I generated it:
          “I searched Medline for ‘homeopathy, study, India’. This resulted in 101 hits. Of these 101 articles, 31 contained data published by Indian authors providing evidence at least vaguely related to the effectiveness of homeopathy. I decided to include these in my analysis. Below I quote first the title of each paper followed by (in brackets) the sentence from the 31 abstracts that best describes the direction of the results.”

          • Bullshit…even worse, you’ve got Elephant shit here!

            Isn’t it convenient that you reviewed 101 listed studies but then selected 31 that fit your “criteria.”

            I just did the same thing…and here’s a listing of the 1st 13 references listed under the SAME listings you requested: homeopathy, study, India…at PubMed…and I’m quoting here some of the studys’ conclusions, several of which provide NEGATIVE results and most of which acknowledge the need for more research to make definitive results.

            Homeopathic supplements sold as “Immune Boosters” (IBs) potentially cause the worsening of preexisting liver disease. Responsible dissemination of scientifically validated, evidence-based medical health information from regulatory bodies and media may help ameliorate this modifiable liver health burden.

            Conclusion: The study has shown a comparative evaluation of the potential of several plant-derived MTs and HMs to affect CaCx cell line survival in vitro (through cytotoxicity and free radical scavenging) and their theoretical molecular targets in silico for the first time. Data demonstrated that MTs of BA and BV are likely to be the most potent HMs that strongly inhibited CaCx growth and have a strong anti-HPV phytochemical constitution.

            The nanoemulsion with plant extract showed anti-adherence and anti-biofilm activity and hence can be used as a potent anticariogenic mouthwash.

            ​”​Conclusion: Owing to failure in detecting a statistically significant effect for the primary outcome and in recruiting a sufficient number of participants, our trial remained inconclusive.”

            In this review and docking analysis, we bring an outline of scientific evidence concerning the neuroprotective actions of embelin, still, further research is required for its prospective as a chief compound in clinical approaches.

            Conclusion: Homeopathic potentization generated NPs of platinum in ultra-dilutions. NPs in potencies of Platina showed platinum in EDS and PtO2 in SAED. Importantly, control samples of alcohol did not show the presence of particles under DLS or HRTEM.

            Conclusion: Improvements in the outcome measures were statistically non-significantly greater in the IHMs group than in the placebos group, with small effect sizes. A different trial design and prescribing approach might work better in future trials.

            Conclusion: The study suggests homeopathy may be an effective adjunct to standard care for treating moderate and severe COVID-19 patients. More rigorous, including double-blinded, studies should be performed to confirm or refute these initial findings.

            Conclusion: The findings suggest that Ars has significant anti-proliferative and apoptotic potential against breast cancer cells. Further studies are required to elucidate the mechanism by which Ars exerts its effect in the in vivo setting.

            BUSTED again with questionable assertions, cherry-picked evidence, and bullshit conclusions.

            I won’t even congratulate you for a “nice try.”

          • that’s what one does in science: one defines criteria and then analyses.
            you should learn some science Dana!

          • “I just did the same thing”
            you can only do that, if you are able to time-travel and go back to the day I ran my Medline searches.

          • Oh…and how convenient that you list 31 studies without a hyperlink so that someone/anyone who verify (or not) your “scholarship.” How convenient, indeed.

            In comparison, I have provided such links…and once again, convenienetly enough, you haven’t commented on the “evidence” that I provided that thoroughly disproved your thesis about the “bad” scientific reporting from an entire country of researchers (India).

            Until you prove otherwise, you have instead proven your decision to utilize RACIST accusations rather than any other strategy for analysis.

            Shame on you…and shame on every reader at this website whose SILENCE confirms their complicity with such shameful behavior…and are therefore guilty as its author.

            Peace out…

          • “Until you prove otherwise, you have instead proven your decision to utilize RACIST accusations…”
            I find this most comforting, Dana.
            Coming from you who gets just about everything wrong, it must mean that I am not a bit racist.

        • Hi Dana! Glad you’re still here.

          Any thoughts n my earlier questions?

          You must have missed my comments, Dana: there was vital information missing from that paper:

          What are the magnetic and electric components of the electromagnetic field the test samples were subjected to? Ideally in SI units but I’ll let you off with Imperial if that’s all you have.

          Oh, and how did they protect against stray electric fields? How effective was their shielding?

          If you don’t know why that information is vital or understand what I’m asking, then I can explain it to you in layman’s terms if you wish.

    • You are unable to see the contradiction in that response. Perhaps you ought to have slept on it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog 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.