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

Jennifer Jacobs started publishing peer-reviewed papers on homeopathy in the early 1990s. This happens to be around the same time as I did. So, we both have about 30 years of research into homeopathy behind us.

Jennifer just authored a paper entitled “Thirty Years of Homeopathic Research – Lessons Learned“. Here is its abstract:

Conducting double-blind randomized controlled trials is difficult, even in the allopathic medical system. Doing so within the paradigm of classical homeopathy is even more challenging. More than thirty years of experience in carrying out such trials has taught me much about the pitfalls to avoid as well as the factors that can lead to success. The initial steps of putting together a research protocol, securing funding, and obtaining human subjects’ approval can be daunting. After that comes developing questionnaires and surveys, hiring study personnel, and recruitment of subjects. The actual implementation of the research comes with its own set of possible missteps. Sample size determination, entry criteria, as well as type, frequency and duration of treatment are all crucial. Finally, statistical analysis must be performed to a high standard and a manuscript prepared to submit for publication. Even then there can be one or more manuscript revisions to make, based on feedback from reviewers, before a study is actually published. The entire process can take at least two years and is usually much longer.

Mistakes at any one of these steps can damage the outcome, as well as the impact of the study. With examples from my body of research, I will discuss some of the things that I wish I had done differently, as well as those that turned out to be correct. Homeopathic research is held to a much higher standard than conventional trials. Any flaws in study design, implementation, and analysis can be used by critics to negate the results. I am hopeful that the next generation of homeopathic researchers will learn from my experiences and carry on with great success.

Jennifer’s example motivated me to follow suit and contribute some very brief thoughts about my 30 years of homeopathy research and the lessons I have learnt:

  Conducting double-blind randomized controlled trials is difficult in any area of medicine. Yet these types of studies are by far the best way to find out which treatments work and which don’t. Therefore, they need doing, regardless of the obstacles they may pose.

In homeopathy, we now have a large body of such trials. Sadly, not all of them are reliable. Those that are, according to accepted criteria, tend to fail to show that homeopathy works better than a placebo. Understandably, homeopaths are disappointed with this overall result and have made numerous attempts to invalidate it.

The main problem with research into homeopathy is not the research methodology. It is well established for clinical trials and can be easily modified to fit all the demands made by individualised treatment or other pecularities that may apply to homeopathy. The main problem is the homeopath who finds it impossible to accept the truth, namely that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos and any observed benefits of homeopathy are due to non-specific effects such as the empathetic encounter or a placebo response.

The lesson to be learned from the past is that, in medicine, even the most obsessive belief, conviction or wishful thinking will eventually have to give way to the scientific evidence. In the case of homeopathy, this process has taken an extraordinary amount of time and effort but, finally, we are almost there and the writing is on the wall for everyone to see.

Two resumes of 30 years of work, research and experience!

And what a difference between them!

Who do you think gets closer to the truth,

Jennifer or I?

52 Responses to Thirty Years of Homeopathic Research – Lessons Learned

  • We received copies of emails concerning studies “lost in translation”, studies, which we could call “put those studies away before people realize that we messed up”.

    Here is one of those emails. I guess everybody knows who the addressee is. As far as I can see and as far as I understand there a study was made, and then simply disappeared.

    So we have one more problem aside of studies being made: studies being disappeared.

    Which makes me wonder what happened to the money? And what happened with the researchers? As far as I understand they got the money, and the did something with it. But what?

    I mean: This is the “Karl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung”, an honorable institution (or at least the public is made believe).

    How can the results from a study disappear? Don’t the donors of the money have a right to know? And: Don’t all the homeopaths and the homeopathy believers all over the country have the right to know?

    You see, there was this meeting:

    [*QUOTE*]
    ————————————————-
    26. KVC-Forum Homöopathie für FortgeschritteneMülheim an der Ruhr, 27.09.-29.09.2019

    Programm
    […]
    09.45–10.30Uhr: Beate Vajen –Condurango: Tropische Baumrinde gegen Krebs
    […]
    ————————————————-
    [*/QUOTE*]

    The researchers presented their study there. Took them (according to plan) 45 minutes. At least on this invitation, which still is online.

    Why is there such a silence after the study? Why is no paper published? I might even ask if the two researchers were paid NOT to publish the outcome of the study.

    During the last years there were some hints on studies being disappeared. But so far no details were given. In this case we can ask for details. And, if you ask me, there are many questions…

    Being cautious, I searched with Google for

    Vajen Skawran Gonolobus condurango

    and got only one single hit:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573805/

    Done by totally different people, and not in Hanover. And already in 2015.

    Which makes me wonder…

    This is the said email:

    [*QUOTE*]
    ————————————————-
    Prof. Dr. Andreas Michalsen

    X, 2.7.2022

    Sehr geehrter Herr Prof. Michalsen,

    ich wende mich an Se als den Vorstandsvorsitzenden der Karl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung.

    Nachdem laut Unterlagen der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover die Förderung für die auf 2 Jahre befristete Studie “Die Bedeutung des Gonolobus condurango als Histondeacetylaseinhibitor im Brustkrebs” durch die Karl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung bereits Anfang 2019 erfolgt ist [1][2][3], interessiert – nicht nur mich -, was aus dieser Studie geworden ist.

    Liegen bereits erste Ergebnisse vor? Immerhin sind bereits 3 Jahre vergangen.

    Bei Pubmed ist innerhalb der letzten 5 Jahre lediglich eine einzige Studie zu finden:

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33773549/

    Und das ist nicht die der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover.

    Mit freundlichem Gruß

    Z

    [1]
    [*quote*]
    Zeitschrift “MHH-Info” der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover (MHH)
    Heft 1/2019

    IMPRESSUM
    Herausgeber
    Das Präsidium der Medizinischen Hochschule
    Hannover (MHH).
    Der Inhalt namentlich gekennzeichneter
    Beiträge unterliegt nicht der Verantwortung
    der Herausgeber und der Redaktion. Abdruck
    honorarfrei. Redaktionsschluss für die nächste
    Ausgabe ist am 15. März 2019.
    […]

    Die Karl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung bewilligte …

    Dr. med. Beate Vajen und Dr. med. Britta Skawran, Institut für Humangenetik, 82.972 Euro für zwei Jahre für ihr Projekt “Die Bedeutung des Gonolobus condurango als Histondeacetylaseinhibitor im Brustkrebs”.

    Kontakt:
    Alexandra Busch
    Telefon (0511) 532-6772
    [email protected]
    [*/quote*]

    [2]
    https://www.carstens-stiftung.de/artikel/tropische-baumrinde-gegen-brustkrebs.html

    [3]
    https://www.weiterbildung-homoeopathie.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Programm_Forum_26.pdf
    ————————————————-
    [*/QUOTE*]

    For the foreigners to the German language I let the text be translated by deepl.com:

    [*QUOTE*]
    ————————————————-
    Prof Dr Andreas Michalsen

    X, 2.7.2022

    Dear Prof Michalsen,

    I am writing to you as the Chairman of the Board of the Karl and Veronica Carstens Foundation.

    Since, according to documents from Hannover Medical School, the Karl and Veronica Carstens Foundation provided funding for the 2-year study “The importance of Gonolobus condurango as a histone deacetylase inhibitor in breast cancer” at the beginning of 2019 [1][2][3], I am not alone in being interested in what has become of this study.

    Are the first results already available? After all, 3 years have already passed.

    Only one study can be found on Pubmed within the last 5 years:

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33773549/

    And it’s not the one from Hannover Medical School.

    Kind regards

    Z

    [1]
    [*quote*]
    Magazine “MHH-Info” of the Hannover Medical School (MHH)
    Issue 1/2019

    IMPRINT
    Published by
    The Executive Board of the Hannover Medical School
    Hannover Medical School (MHH).
    The content of articles labelled by name
    contributions are not the responsibility of
    of the publishers and editors. Reprint
    free of charge. The editorial deadline for the next
    issue is 15 March 2019.
    […]

    The Karl and Veronica Carstens Foundation approved …

    Dr Beate Vajen and Dr Britta Skawran, Institute of Human Genetics, 82,972 euros for two years for their project “The importance of Gonolobus condurango as a histone deacetylase inhibitor in breast cancer”.

    Contact:
    Alexandra Busch
    Phone (0511) 532-6772
    [email protected]
    [*/quote*]

    [2]
    https://www.carstens-stiftung.de/artikel/tropische-baumrinde-gegen-brustkrebs.html

    [3]
    https://www.weiterbildung-homoeopathie.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Programm_Forum_26.pdf
    ————————————————-
    [*/QUOTE*]

    • I have some experience in this area:
      we once were paid by a commercial firm to conduct a study on their product. the result turned out to be negative. they then tried to stop me publishing it – even with lawyers etc. I ignored all of it and did publish. in the end I was not sued.

  • Jennifer Jacobs is a classic example of the ideologically-blinded lunacy of homeopaths. Her serial abuses of the scientific method have achieved absolutely nothing. She wilfully ignores this.

  • This bit in particular caught my eye:

    Homeopathic research is held to a much higher standard than conventional trials.

    Is that so? They could’ve fooled me, as most homeopathic research is of truly appalling quality, generally ignoring observations and results that don’t support homeopathy’s tenets, while at the same time credulously attributing anything they can to (so far) fully unproven homeopathic mechanisms – and even then failing to actually explain those mechanisms.

    For an example we need look no further than how our esteemed resident homeopath ‘explains’ anything homeopathic up to and including the kitchen sink with ‘nanoparticles’ and ‘nanobubbles’, without ever coming up with an even remotely plausible mechanism how those nanoparticles supposedly interact with living beings (and only if said nanoparticles have been shaken by homeopaths, but never as they naturally occur, even though the shaking makes no difference whatsoever).

    And of course 228 years of homeopathic ‘research’ still has not produced even a single homeopathic preparation 12C+ that shows clear, consistent and repeatable effects.

    • “And of course 228 years of homeopathic ‘research’ still has not produced even a single homeopathic preparation 12C+ that shows clear, consistent and repeatable effects.”

      But that would be linear thinking. That is a no-no.

      Homeopathy is magic.

    • It is very entertaining to read your comments, Richard. Earlier you claimed that those nanoparticles were “magic” and the product of “contamination” or “bad processes”. But the overwhelming number of studies, of which there are more and more, refuting your nonsense, you switch to “there is no plausible theory”. This is what is called stretching the gum (or moving the goalposts), but how far do you think your chewing gum deception can be stretched?

      Other points that cause me to guffaw a lot are your ridiculous assertions:
      1. you claim that the quality of research in homeopathy is “appalling”. Although very amusingly, you never substantiate it. What is known, even from the homeopathic community itself, is that the quality of research needs to be improved because, in general and not “all”, it has been of low quality as in conventional medicine and many areas of science. Curious that you set yourself up as a judge of quality when you literally have not even one publication in a journal, but a book of such poor quality that its publication in Springer can only be explained by your cronyism with Ernst.
      2.You claim that they “ignore the observations that contradict it”, although you don’t give examples or evidence either.Amusingly, it can be shown that “skeptics” do tend to ignore all refutations of their prejudiced beliefs.
      3. In fact, Scientific Reports already has an article (and you know it) explaining how these nanoparticles can act.
      4. Why should nanoparticles be produced “naturally” as they are generated by the method used in homeopathy?It is as if you were to say that automobiles cannot be real because “they are not naturally generated in rocks and mines”.

      Your comments are getting more and more entertaining, I think I will be able to get something out of this.

      • Lots of handwaving and whataboutery there, Sunbead, which I frankly can’t be arsed to refute point-by-point because others have done so previously and exhaustively.

        But what about this statement made by Richard which is fundamental to his post and which, for some unaccountable reason, you decide to ignore and not refute with the evidence you seem so keen on mentioning in your ramblings.

        And of course 228 years of homeopathic ‘research’ still has not produced even a single homeopathic preparation 12C+ that shows clear, consistent and repeatable effects.

        Bring it on, kiddo. We’ve all been there before with similar pompous, high-handed and intellectually-bereft homeoloons. You’re starting a knife-fight whist armed with a toothpick.

      • @Sunbead
        Thank you for you ignorant, arrogant and presumably insulting words, supporting my point in no small way. You certainly behave like a True Homeopath!

        3. In fact, Scientific Reports already has an article (and you know it) explaining how these nanoparticles can act.

        This is a very fine example of the stupidity mentioned above. I extensively explained the huge flaws in that article on multiple occasions (your points 1 and 2). One of which is that they conclude that NanoParticlesDidIt — much like creationists hand-wave away their hugely implausible beliefs with GodDidIt. I shall not go into their flawed research and reasoning again, as you obviously have read (albeit clearly not understood) my comments on it.

        About point 4:

        Why should nanoparticles be produced “naturally” as they are generated by the method used in homeopathy?

        And this once again betrays the homeopath’s utter ignorance about science in general and chemistry in general. ‘Nanoparticles’ are simply particles in the 1 – 100 nanometer size range, and are extremely abundant in our natural world, ourself included.
        Yet homeopaths believe that their nanoparticles are somehow special – just like they believe that their shaken water is somehow special. They are not; there is nothing special about stuff being diluted and shaken – this happens in nature all the time, on every imaginable scale.

        Homeopaths are like 6-year-old children who make ‘witch brew’ with arbitrary stuff found around the garden and the home. The difference being that those 6-year-old children quickly realize that it’s all just play and make-believe, and grow up to later learn about real chemistry, physics and general science – you know, the stuff that works.

        Homeopaths simply refuse to grow up and abandon their silly beliefs. So they keep peddling their completely ineffective pseudoscience and pseudomedicine to the world ad infinitum, all the while pretending to do ‘real science’. Yeah, sure.

        • Mr. Richard:

          So, telling the truth, that you are no expert in science, is “an insult”. Meanwhile, in the same paragraph you insult me and call me a “homeopath”, and call my comment “stupid”. It is too funny and entertaining, to see that like many “skeptic” fanatics you always resort to that “you have already explained”, but your “explanation” are insults, disqualifications to the authors and some gratuitous speculation of which you do not provide data or evidence. Not to mention that as the typical “skeptic” you need to resort to an allusion to religion. I’ll tell you again, I’m an atheist, your manipulative rhetoric tricks don’t work on me.

          You do not need to explain to me what a nanoparticle is, I know the range very well. However, your “explanation” does not refute that nanoparticles have been repeatedly found in homeopathic medicines, which are precisely in the range of 10 to 100 nm. Will you say that the micrographs are manipulated? Your position is now very similar to those who denied the existence of the HIV virus!

          I don’t know what “homeopaths” you are talking about, whoever answers you is not a homeopath.
          The authors of many articles on nanoparticles that you don’t like are not always homeopaths.
          are not always homeopaths, they are almost always chemists. Contrary to what you say, water and other liquids used in homeopathy are very special and very interesting from a chemical and physical (even quantum) point of view.

          And leaving aside your nonsense appealing to fairy tale “witches”, it is visible that more and more scientists who are not homeopaths are interested in investigating the potential properties of “high dilutions”. That Nature as a publisher is allowing more and more articles on this and that there are more scientists who do not feel gagged or embarrassed to talk about it, that there are congresses and that it can be discussed with respect and dialogue is a good development.

          Just imagine that the authors of the article in Scientific Report or one of the many that you have defamed, will end up in the near future winning a Nobel Prize. Not only would you be ridiculed, but you would receive a lot of hate that you and your “skeptic” friends have done so much of in many networks. Fair? That depends on the lens through which you look at it.

          • Oh dear oh dear. More ludicrous handwaving.

            Just imagine that the authors of the article in Scientific Report or one of the many that you have defamed, will end up in the near future winning a Nobel Prize. Not only would you be ridiculed, but you would receive a lot of hate that you and your “skeptic” friends have done so much of in many networks. Fair?

            Homeopathy predates the Nobel prizes by about 100 years, kiddo. Plenty of time for the Nobel committee to have sat up and noticed the goundbreaking “research” that homeopaths have been producing.

            Science has shown homeopathy to be nonsense and its adherents to be blinkered religious zealots. It takes no notice of the ongoing fatuous claims made by the likes of you.

          • @Sunbbbbead
            I already explained in detail what those water-shaking clowns did wrong – several times. Like a good homeopath, you totally ignored this criticism, and merely responded with the familiar mixture of arrogance, ignorance and insults.

            Anyway, the editors of Scientific Reports should be deeply ashamed to accept and publish this propaganda piece from India’s Ministery of Quackery (AYUSH).

          • So for you Richard, everyone who doesn’t agree with you are “homeopaths” and “clowns”. You don’t care if those you call “clowns” have published articles that you would achieve in your life.
            There are no arguments or data from you or Lenny. They always do the same thing. You are real bullies who only know how to insult, defame and put in your delusion that homeopathy “is religion”. As Brian Josephson said, you are real denialists defending a pathological “skepticism”.

      • If nanoparticles would be the agents that are responsible for the alleged effects of homeopathy, how would you explain the alledged effects of substances that do not produce nanoparticles when dissolved in water or alcohol? For example soluble mineral salts like table salt? Of Liquids? Or organic material?

        • Mr. Aust. You know perfectly well that the flasks in which homeopathic medicines are prepared are usually made of glass, which produce silicates and form other biologically active compounds. These form aggregates that are well in the range of nanoparticles. However, these nanoparticles would theoretically be the same regardless of the starting imponderable “solute”. So there the hypothesis of nano particles would have perfectly serious limitations. We have at least two options:

          1. That the imponderables (I’m including only those that are radiated with detectable physical energy and not nonsense like “Berlin Wall” or metaphorical) form aggregates of aqueous nanoparticles, as predicted by the QED theory.

          2. The other is that the imponderables do not form any kind of specific structure, in this case they would have to be discarded from the pharmacopoeias.

          Some studies support option 1, but they need to be replicated and are only limited, as I said, to imponderables with measurable physical energy from the start. This is good because it limits the amount of homeopathic medicines on sale and would force the industry to research medicines with a plausible and solid basis, and polish a lot. This is part of what science does, and a theory based on QED and nanoparticles is not exclusive, it is materialistic and fully consistent with basic scientific concepts, only limited to a spectrum of reality between the frontier of quantum and macroquantics.
          Why oppose this if it can lead to interesting technologies (not only medical) that maybe in 20 or 30 years will be an everyday reality?

          • How interesting. Homeopathic Berlin Wall is “nonsense”?

            But it has been subject to provings. Here’s a page about it. http://www.interhomeopathy.org/berlin_wall

            The level of evidence to support its use is on the same level as that of any other remedy. Are you saying homeopaths are delusional?

          • Technobabble (a portmanteau of technology and babble), also called technospeak,[1] is a type of nonsense that consists of buzzwords, esoteric language, or technical jargon.[2] It is common in science fiction. Or homeopathy. Or more generally SCAM

            QED!

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technobabble

          • @Sunbbbbbead

            imponderables …

            imponderable noun [ C ] formal
            uk /ɪmˈpɒn.dər.ə.bəl/ us /ɪmˈpɑːn.dər.ə.bəl/
            something that cannot be guessed or calculated because it is completely unknown.

            with measurable physical energy

            What ‘physical energy’?
            So you claim that homeopathy “works” because of some completely unknown entity with ‘measurable physical energy’? Rrrrright ….

          • So you are saying, that the source of your nanoparticles ist the wall of the container that the shaking is performed in. If I for once ignore this QED-part, there are a few questions allready:

            (1) If so, then there should be a definite specification of the material the container is made of and its shape – if these specification is not met, then the preparation is useless.

            (2) You should need a definite specification on how this shaking is to be performed, e.g. the speed by which the container hits the cushion, which has to meet specifications as well. If these are not met, then the preparation is useless.

            (3) So if you do (1) or (2) the wrong way, this would yield preparations that do not work. So you should be able to identify the proper way to do the job. If that is the case, why are there so many different ways how the potentisation is performed?

            (4) If your nanoparticles are essentially identical and just get their special effectivity by some structures that the water or alcohol provides, then this solution yields identical particles when the solvent is evaporated after impregnating the sugar. How do you explain the different effects of different starting materials?

            (5) If these nanoparticles are the carrier of the effectiveness, why do you have to throw away 90 or 99 % of them at each potentisation step, just to rebuild them by the next step? Would it not be much easier to control the number of nanoparticles by the number of succussions and that is it?

          • @Norbert Aust
            Some more thoughts: many (most?) commercial manufacturers of homeopathic shaken water use stainless steel containers, not glass.

            Here’s an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEWiXaVu4go
            “10 Jerks of Homeopathic Potency Preparation Faran Homeopathic Pharmacy Lahore”
            (So don’t go complaining that I am the one insulting those people …)

            And from what I know of material sciences, the forces involved in homeopathic shaking are too weak to significantly raise the amount of particles originating from the container walls above what is naturally there already. Only when forces and speeds are high enough for cavitation to occur are significantly more particles dislodged. But unfortunately, cavitation causes glassware to break.

          • @ Richard Basker

            I doubt if you would actually need the forces that cavitation can build up to hit some microscopic particles from a glass wall. Cavitation ist the effect, that water builds steam bubbles in areas of low pressure – below satutration steam pressure to be precise – which implode once the pressure rises again. If this occurs near the wall, then the effect is like a hammer. You are right, just with manual succussion you will not be able to induce such a pressure reduction.

            On the contrary, when the flask or whatever the container is, hits the cushion it decelerates quite rapidly what decelerates the liquid inside – which yields increased static pressure, not reduced as needed for cavitation bubbles to build. But locally increased pressure can apply froces to the container wall that may be sufficient to remove some particles.

            But what you can see here, how a German manufacturer does ist, is not sufficient in any way, especially the method shown from 0:25 onwards (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYziBvx6uQU)

          • Some of your comments have caused me to laugh.

            Lenny, as usual, you always divert the conversation. Can you point out to me where in the Official Pharmacopoeia the Berlin Wall is included? Just tell me the page, if you can’t answer this I will ignore you, since you only know how to use insults and waste time, “dentist”.

            RPG, another one who doesn’t know any better than to use Wikipedia. I didn’t know that using concepts from quantum electrodynamics, one of the most robust theories in physics, were “techno nonsense”. That’s enough for me to know that your level of physics is none.

            Rasker. Impondenrable in homeopathy does not correspond to a dictionary meaning, but you always take things out of context.

            Oh, Norbert, you’re always making up things that nobody said. I mentioned that even without solute it is possible to form nanoparticles from the walls of jars when they are made of glass. Since these are not formed in the presence of laboratory-grade plastic. So this detail that you don’t like, in fact confirms that solute nanoparticles (for example, gold) are real and not artifacts.

            Basic research only explains if homeopathy has the presence of nanoparticles, or as in the case of the Scientific Reports article, links in an interdisciplinary way if they have an effect on cells. It says nothing about its clinical efficacy, but it does say about its physical and biological plausibility.

            The speed and frequency of the succusion is something that is still being investigated, perhaps in the future it will be determined more precisely. Maybe a minimum number will determine some threshold, that would be great. But one would have to investigate if there is a general rule or it depends on the solute.

            The different effects of the solute do not necessarily have to be the same as the initial solute. For example, salt is inert (except as proving) for treatment, but nothing suggests that a nanoparticle by itself is biologically active. This depends on the preclinical research and see whether or not it confirms what homeopaths have observed.

          • @ Sunbbead
            Seems to me, you did not answer any of my questions: You do not provide any of tha specifications utterly needed to assure reproducible results of this succussion process, not even in a preliminary status, if some more research would be required. You did not explain how identical particles could produce different effects, you did not disclose why you have to discard 90 % or 99 % of your nanoparticles with each and every step. And, when you mention quantum electrodynamics, then I would add another question:
            (6) Could you point out to me any paper, containing a Feynman-diagram of the potentisation process?

          • Oh dear, Sunbead.

            Lenny, as usual, you always divert the conversation.

            You’re the one who mentioned Berlin Wall as “nonsense”. I showed that other homeopaths, and not me, disagreed with you. Diverting, much?

            Can you point out to me where in the Official Pharmacopoeia the Berlin Wall is included? Just tell me the page,

            The British Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia dates from 1876, Einstein. Are you saying that every remedy devised since this date is “rubbish”? There’s a lot of homeopaths who will disagree with you.

            if you can’t answer this I will ignore you, since you only know how to use insults and waste time, “dentist”.

            Same as you’ve ignored all the inconvenient facts and questions which demonstrate your wrongness?

            We know homeopaths are blinkered, scientifically-ignorant, dogmatic, inconsequential loons. Thanks for repeatedly confirming the fact.

          • @Sunbbbead

            Impondenrable in homeopathy does not correspond to a dictionary meaning

            Of course it doesn’t. Nothing in homeopathy corresponds to dictionary meanings – or to reality, for that matter. It even has its own type of pig Latin that no-one else uses. All to create the false impression that homeopathy is a sophisticated system of medicine instead of the rather stupid and silly belief that shaking water turns it into a medicine.

            Anyway, I looked up what those water-shaking clowns have to say about ‘imponderable’:

            One of the most intriguing aspects of the Homeopathic Materia Medica is a mysterious group of remedies known as The Imponderables. They fall outside of the standard Animal, Mineral and Plant categories and their very creation defies logic! They are remedies that are energetic in substance as well as name.

            In other words: complete nonsense, again to hide the fact that homeopaths are rather dimwitted believers in magic who make things up out of thin air in order to impress (and bilk) their gullible audience.

          • Reply to Norbert:
            Your comment boils down to that you don’t think those nanoparticles are true. You believe, like Rasker, that nanoparticles of specific solutes are the product of artifacts or noise. With that you proceed to ask other things. Let’s see, I told you that in glass jars as typically used by homeopaths, there is formation of non-specific nanoparticles (in this case of glass that form silicates), but these nanoparticles do not explain in any way the presence of solute nanoparticles that are only present at the beginning. Can you tell me that these may be the product of pollution, there are studies that have detected small levels of pollution when you do not have adequate controls. But in very demanding controls with a high level of hygiene and controlled atmosphere, nanoparticles of specific solutes are still present. Your other questions:
            1. We are talking about nanoparticles, Nobert, not about dry “particles”. Being a retired engineer it amazes me that you are still confusing basic concepts. As I told you, the determination of the different effects is done by preclinical or interdisciplinary research (like the Scientific Reports article), basic research only determines the characterization of nanoparticles and that’s it. Either there is or there is not, period.
            2. Your question that 90 to 99% of particles are “discarded” does not make sense, since you do not present data. Precisely, we know that at high dilutions is when nanoparticles begin to form, so theoretically in the first dilutions there could be some few nanoparticles if they are from non-soluble solutes.
            3. No one has said that there is a Feynmann diagram for potentiation. Potentiation is a macro process and a pharmaceutical technique. The Feynman diagram as you should know is for particles like bosons or fermions or leptomes and particles of that type. In any case, the Feynmann diagram is used as usual, to describe photons (which are a type of bosons). This tells me that you know nothing about the QED used in homeopathy.

            Reply to Lenny:
            You are very entertaining, do you always need to use irony to hide your lack of self-esteem problem or is it the lack of affection at home? Anyway, you haven’t answered me on which page of the Moderna pharmacoepas the “Berlin Wall” is included. And no, that you call me a “homeopath” as an insult or that you call them “fools” is not an argument, but from you, of course, I can never expect more.

            Reply to Rasker:
            And typical of you, you can’t even get through a comment without filling it with insults or your filia with religion. The Latin in homeopathy extends to minerals, the IUPAC may disagree, but it does not alter anything. In botany in general it agrees well. It is practical to use Latin because it allows this language is already a practically dead language and does not change.
            Well, to consider homeopathy “stupid”, the fact is that it still exists, it is practiced all over the world, articles continue to be published and every time of better quality. And the most interesting thing is that most of the arguments that were made in the past have now been refuted. Don’t you remember when about ten years ago groups of “skeptics” claimed that there were no published studies or that homeopaths did not do them or that no Nobel or renowned scientist supported it? Today it is already a myth that “all the best quality studies always give negative results”.
            You can laugh at the imponderable remedies, the fact is that very few pharmacies sell them, the Berlin Wall that worries you so much, is only manufactured by a pharmacy in the United Kingdom and sold on the Internet. In other countries imponderables represent a small percentage, and metaphorical imponderables (like the Berlin Wall or Pluto light or something like that) medical homeopaths practically do not use them. The few practitioners who use metaphorical remedies are usually non-medical or from esoteric circles that combine New Age practices.

          • Seems like your definition of the term ‘nanoparticles’ is somewhat different from mine. Nanoparticles or particles consisting of a small number of atoms or molecules of some matter. What is your understanding? Your rumbling does in fact make no sense to me.
            Data for discarding 90 to 99 % of anything that is in the container: With decimal or centecimal potencies you put only one drop of solution in 10 or 100 drops of solvent respectively. After shaking you take one drop only into the nex step – and discard the other 9 or 99 drops. Source: Any homeopathic textbook, pharmacopoea etc. Enough data?
            It was not me who introduced QED as some means to understand potentisation, remember? So I asked you about the visualisation of this process with tools used in QED.

          • @sunbbbead

            It’s very simple, really: come up with a homeopathic preparation 12C+ that exhibits clear, consistent and repeatable effects.

            As long as you or any other homeopath can’t produce even one (just ONE) such a preparation, you and all other homeopaths can safely be dismissed as complete and utter imbeciles, end of discussion.

          • Norbert:
            In an aqueous solution of, for example, Aurum or it may be Gelsemium, at the beginning there will be a detectable concentration with standard procedures. However, as you just mentioned, you first do a serial dilution and stirring. According to you and your group of “skeptics”, sequential dilutions reach the point at which, by Avogadro’s constant, not a single atom or molecule of the solute should remain. But, studies in homeopathy detect that for several solutes (it cannot be affirmed that all of them, since they would need to be studied one by one) nanoparticles are generated.
            Does this contradict everything we know from chemistry and physics? No! It only adds to our understanding and expands our knowledge of the behavior of serial dilutions when shaken.
            You, in a twisted way, were the one who linked potentiation to Feynmann diagrams. It is like asking a chemist to make a Feynmann diagram of the process of decantation and distillation. It makes no sense. The process of potentization is a technique, what QED helps to understand is the product of that process. Similarly, chemical theory helps to understand what happens after distillation, not the process itself. In any case, it is mechanics that plays a role in potentiation. We know that dynamizations, in a certain limit, do not behave as homogeneous “classical solutions”!

            Rasker:
            I’m not surprised at you, Richard, you have nothing but insults. You never argue anything, I read your book, by the way, and it is of a poor and lousy argumentative quality, not to mention the few quotes and references you handle. That you pretend to condition research because it does not fit your narrow parameters is delusional thinking. Even if there were a single homeopathic that met your request, you would still deny all the evidence because “it seems impossible to you”. Your fixed thinking is based on an immovable doctrine shoved into you by James Randi and company.
            It is very ironic, you in your articles admit that science can and should be questioned, but with homeopathy you don’t want to know. You want to keep it in the same 19th century stage so you can continue to sell the story that it “does not advance”.

          • Lenny to ‘Sunbead’ on Thursday 29 February 2024 at 07:39

            Lots of handwaving and whataboutery there, Sunbead, which I frankly can’t be arsed to refute point-by-point because others have done so previously and exhaustively.

            Bring it on, kiddo. We’ve all been there before with similar pompous, high-handed and intellectually-bereft homeoloons. You’re starting a knife-fight whilst armed with a toothpick.

            ‘Sunbead’ on Monday 04 March 2024 at 20:53

            In an aqueous solution of, for example, Aurum… homeopathy… nanoparticles

            That’s comedy gold 🤣

  • In principle hydrogen bonds in water can form structures that can have a memors.

    But ubfortunately this memory is lost in femtosec (10exp-15 sec) Due to this ultrafast memory loss a homeopathic remedy can not function as a medicinal product.

    The results of the research have been published in NATURE in march 2005.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03383

    • To put this figure into perspective – it was 50 femtosec if I am not mistaken – light travels about 0.015 millimeters in that time. So, imagine, if you would be able to actually see the creation of such waterbonds, at the time this signal reaches your eye these bonds were destroyed and rebuildt more than 30,000 times. And mental signal transmission and processing is is not yet completed at that time, has not even begun.

      • @Norbert Aust
        “And mental signal transmission and processing is is not yet completed at that time, has not even begun.”

        But that is irrelevant. Homeopathy works on a completely different level.

        • Agreed, but I meant the signal processing needed to bring the signal from your retina to the manifestation of the image in your brain.

          • You still did not understand it.

            Homeopathy is MAGIC!

          • Yes. But observing hydrogen bonds – if it was possible – is not.

          • @Norbert Aust

            And you STILL do not understand it. Hydrogen whatever IS IRRELEVANT!

            Homeopathy is magic.

            MAGIC!

            I’m afraid you will never understand THAT.

          • @ama
            🤣

            Homeopathy is magic.

            MAGIC!

            I’m afraid you will never understand THAT.

            Please explain. I promise I will make an effort to understand “MAGIC”.

          • @Björn Geir

            Hahnemann used a magicians’ trick: he made people believe an illusion. The illusion is that shaking and diluting makes his elixirs more powerful. For this illusion he used natural magnetism of iron, and magnetizing.

            His followers used “explanations”, ranging from “memory of water” to “quantum entanglement”. All these “explanations” do noting more than to back up the shaking and diluting, WHICH ALREADY IS A MAGIC TRICK.

            Instead of debunking the WHOLE THING as a magic trick, the skeptics again and again fail to see the truth, and again and again discuss (in their very clumsy and useless way) the secondary tricks, which do nothing but bolster the primary trick.

            Homeopathy is fraud. Hahnemann did nothing else but use magicians’ tricks.

            Hahnemann poisoned his victims. That is all. Since he knew very well, what he did, Hahnemann is nothing but a simple criminal.

          • Please explain the significance to distinguish between ‘Homeopathy does not have any specific effects.’ and ‘Homeopathy is magic.’

          • @Norbert Aust

            I just explained it – and AGAIN you do not understand it. But that was foreseeable…

    • Cowan’s article is correct, the formation of the H bonds is always from femto to pico seconds. But Cowan did research on ultra-pure water. No one in homeopathy uses “ultrapure water”, ultrapure water is not even suitable for human consumption. Cowan didn’t do any dilution of anything, nor are there any solutes. It is absurd that they use that study as a “refutation”. Also, methodologically, it’s just a letter, it’s still correct but it doesn’t say anything about the behavior of high dilutions. Please, Wolfgang, explain how it is that several studies using different methodologies, in different laboratories, in different countries, reach the same conclusion that there are physical chemical changes detectable at high dilutions.

      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33979844/
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167732222010388
      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32615611/
      https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1179/143307511X13109310554445
      https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fchem.2023.1131935/full
      https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00011-009-0044-4

  • Sunbbead

    Ignoring your pathetic attempts at ad homs which appear to be projections rather than accusations

    you haven’t answered me on which page of the Moderna pharmacoepas the “Berlin Wall” is included

    I don’t need to. Your supposed gotcha is merely a No True Sctotsman logical fallacy. Homeopathic Berlin Wall is a remedy which has been subjected to provings which I linked to above and is used by homeopaths. It has as much validity as any other (i.e none whatsoever) You can purchase it from Ainsworths. https://www.ainsworths.com/remedy-store/

    Are you admitting that provings are nonsense? That homeopaths are delusional? You certainly are.

    • Lenny, you are a very funny, I would say too funny. Like any ideologically blinded “skeptical” bigot, you are left with only appeals to casual fallacies that you often don’t understand. The no true scotch fallacy is ridiculous, let’s see how you put it:

      Lenny: “The Berlin Wall is nonsense and an example of the stupidity of homeopaths.”

      Me: “The Berlin Wall is not registered within the official homeopathic pharmacopoeias.”

      Lennny: “All medicines claiming to be homeopathic must be, and so must the Berlin Wall.”

      Me according to Lenny : “Well, the Berlin Wall is not a true homeopathic medicine”.

      Lenny: “The Berlin Wall has been subjected to provings, that’s why it must be homeopathic”.

      Although indeed the Berlin Wall has been subjected to proving, Lenny in his total blindness, does not see that it is not being questioned, but that it is still not part of the Official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia. Lennyn you do not answer the questioning you deflect and create a straw man. The funny thing about this is that the fallacy you apply can be returned to you by showing your circular logic*:

      “Skeptic: “Low potencies such as a 3X cannot be homeopathy because they are not highly diluted.”

      Me: “Homeopathy in low potencies have been used since Hahnemann’s time.”

      “Skeptic”: “Nooo, they can’t be because they are not true homeopathic medicines.”

      *If you ask, this example is really based on comments from “skeptics”. There are many very humorous comments by “skeptics”, even in the books of Ernst, Aust, Gorski, Randi and Grams one can find examples of true “no true scotsman”.

      • I hope that load of incoherent rambling makes sense to you, kid. The disordered thought processes of homeopathy andvocates are always interesting to witness.

      • “but that it is still not part of the Official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia”

        How many preparations are listed in this document? Could you give a comparison to the number of remedies in the market?

        ““Skeptic: “Low potencies such as a 3X cannot be homeopathy because they are not highly diluted.””

        Whoever said this?

      • How about dog-shit as a homeopathy remedy?

  • What you all arguing for? Homeopathy ain’t going anywhere. Homeopaths do what they do and they will continue to do what they do. Why you all getting your knickers in a knot?

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.

Archives
Categories