The German ‘TAZ’ recently reported about an interesting homeopathic research project. Here I have translated a few excerpts for you:
The title of the research project at the University of Oldenburg is unspectacular: ‘Microbiological investigation of the maturation process of mother tinctures’. However, the sponsor and the word ‘mother tincture’ make you wonder. The project, which ran from 2016 to 2023, investigated the microbiome of various medicinal plants that are used to produce ‘mother tinctures’. These are the undiluted starting materials for homeopathic remedies. The project was financed and largely controlled by the homeopathy company Wala … According to the German Medical Association, homeopathy is generally incompatible with rational medicine and medical ethics. So why is a state university researching ‘mother tinctures’?
The person responsible is marine biologist Meinhard Simon … a member of the university’s Commission for Good Scientific Practice since 2020 and is therefore responsible for ensuring compliance with scientific standards. Prior to that, he was Chairman of the Ethics Committee for ten years. Meinhard Simon describes questions about ethical aspects of the collaboration with Wala as ‘pointless’. When asked, he explained that current studies do indeed prove the effectiveness of homeopathy. Publications and press articles stating otherwise are ‘one-sided’ and ‘tendentious’.
For years, he has used his position to give homeopathy a scientific veneer. He has co-authored several studies on the subject, supported by homeopathic companies and lobby groups. If he and his colleagues are unable to prove an effect despite funding from the homeopathy industry, they simply blame the study design for the failure, as in a 2011 study, and remain in line with the funders, despite their own data. Simon and colleagues assume ‘force-like (immaterial) resonance effects’ of homeopathy. In other words: magic.
In the past, Wala has funded a lobbyist who has publicly denounced scientists and journalists who have criticised homeopathy and warned of its risks. Among them was Edzard Ernst who said of the university’s collaboration with Wala: ‘I take a rather critical view, especially when it’s a company whose advertising misleads customers.’
‘As a basic researcher in microbiology, I believe that cooperation projects with a company like Wala are not only justifiable in terms of medical ethics, but also important and in keeping with the times,’ explains Simon. He himself is a member of a lobby group for alternative medicine, which is part of the Wala-affiliated ‘Foundation for Integrative Medicine & Pharmacy’. Among other things, it campaigns for the treatment of cancer with mistletoe.
When asked, the University of Oldenburg explained that it saw no reason to judge Simon’s research as negative and referred to his good reputation. It does not answer questions about Wala’s dubious methods or how Simon’s relaxed relationship with science can be reconciled with his role as a guardian of scientific rigour and ethics.
______________________________
Prof Simon’s papers on homeopathy include the following:
Development of a test system for homeopathic preparations using impaired duckweed (Lemna gibba L.).
Effects of potentised substances on growth rate of the water plant Lemna gibba L.
Duckweed (Lemna gibba L.) as a test organism for homeopathic potencies.
_________________________________
All of this seems to beg the following question: should Simon be adnitted to my ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME?
I think the answe is a clear YES!
So, welcome, Prof. Meinhard Simon, you are in excellent company:
- Richard C. Niemtzow (acupuncture)
- Helmut Kiene (anthroposophical medicine)
- Helge Franke (osteopathy, Germany)
- Tery Oleson (acupressure , US)
- Jorge Vas (acupuncture, Spain)
- Wane Jonas (homeopathy, US)
- Harald Walach (various SCAMs, Germany)
- Andreas Michalsen ( various SCAMs, Germany)
- Jennifer Jacobs (homeopath, US)
- Jenise Pellow (homeopath, South Africa)
- Adrian White (acupuncturist, UK)
- Michael Frass (homeopath, Austria)
- Jens Behnke (research officer, Germany)
- John Weeks (editor of JCAM, US)
- Deepak Chopra (entrepreneur, US)
- Cheryl Hawk (chiropractor, US)
- David Peters (osteopathy, homeopathy, UK)
- Nicola Robinson (TCM, UK)
- Peter Fisher (homeopathy, UK)
- Simon Mills (herbal medicine, UK)
- Gustav Dobos (various SCAMs, Germany)
- Claudia Witt (homeopathy, Germany/Switzerland)
- George Lewith (acupuncture, UK)
- John Licciardone (osteopathy, US)
20 Responses to Yet another researcher of homeopathy joins my ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
So the whole mess began in 2007 or earlier, and the common base is always the same: the abuse of duckweed, an innocent plant, for messing up laboratory experiments.
So the question is: How do Simon and Baumgartner mess up the experiments? There seems to be a simple trick, but nobody detects it.
Looks like Meinhard Simon helped Baumgartner to get titles, and in the end a professorship. But this is only a part of the rope team. Meinhard Simon himself profits from these tricks, because with these fake proves, that “homeopathy works”, as boosts, he can push his other activities. Will be interesting to scrutinize his other rope work and other “studies”.
@ama:
Back in 2019, I asked myself similar questions as did you, namely where Baumgartner and his co-authours went wrong.
For fun and as a plant biologist myself, I started digging quite deep into several of his papers and began writing a critical analysis of Baumgartner´s work with a focus on two papers, i.e. the Scherr et al. 2009 paper and Majewsky et al. 2014.
Because more important things happened since 2020, I never finished this little project of mine and during the pandemic, I lost interest in Baumgarner´s work. At present, I am not planning to finish it.
If Prof. Ernst approves, I can post an excerpt dealing with the Scherr et al 2009 paper here in the comment section (would be ca. 1 DinA4 page of the 9 that i wrote back then…).
I don´t want to spam this blog and some of what I wrote is rather technical, so if EE is not interested and/or thinks that this is not the place, that´s fine.
My idea was quite simple. In one of articles about Baumgartner’s “work” one sees a cabinet with IIRC Erlenmeyers in it. Since the liquids in the Erlenmeyers are well-known, what else is there, that could make a difference?
The cabinet has is a steel construction with glass walls and glass panels. The plants are green plants, so they need light. What about light and reflections? What about placing the Erlenmeyers with the wanted results to a better exposure of light? This can be done quite easily.
Later someone, it was claimed, cooked the same experiment to prove/check the results. He repeated the results, it was claimed.
Now, THAT is a bang. How can one get the results with a test setup, which does not work!? I guess that “they”, who made the proof, had the very same idea about the trick with the light, or it was a collaboration with Baumgartner. Baumgartner is a physicist. So he knows about light and reflection.
I guess it is a magician trick. The audience sees it, but is deluded.
If you place a glass cabinet in an empty room, and there is light shining from above, the light hits the plants in the Erlenmeyers. But all the rest of the light radiates into the room – and it lost.
Place other things into the room, creating reflecting surfaces, will reflect the light, which otherwise would be lost, into the cabinet, raising the light input there. Carefully placing the outside elements and the Erlenmeyers will easily give you what you want: zones with projectable higher output.
No, ama, you are on a wrong track, it´s not that simple.
They claim that they randomized the order of the beakers in their setup, so light effects should be controlled for. The main problems have to do with cherry picking, the statistical evaluation and the interpretation of the results imo.
@Edzard, I will post my evalutation as a follow up comment to this one,
if you think it is too long or too technical, please delete it.
The team of Dr. Stephan Baumgartner regularly publishes research results that seem to indicate that chemical substances in very high, “homeopathic” dilutions can effectively trigger cellular responses. However, the concept of homeopathy contradicts several central findings of natural sciences and if it would be valid, this would necessitate a paradigm shift in physics, chemistry and biology.
One of the test objects of Dr. Baumgartner is Lemna gibba, a small plant commonly known as duckweed, and with the first authors Claudia Scherr, Tim Jäger and Vera Majewsky, Baumgartner´s team has published several articles in peer-reviewed journals about this research.
Critical review of the publication from Claudia Scherr et al. (2009)
Before addressing the results of this work, it is worth noting that curiously, the article was published more than five years after the laboratory experiments had been conducted. This is very uncommon, because scientist, in general, tend to publish interesting results as fast as possible, while still having access to the original laboratory equipment, data and experimental material. The delay of a publication can have different reasons. For example, data analysis of complex experiments can be time-consuming. Furthermore, reviewers sometimes demand additional experiments during the peer-review process. However, these issues are usually addressed within a couple of weeks, so the extraordinarily long intermission in this study seems very odd and should have been addressed.
The main aim of this study was to investigate if highly diluted substances can elicit any (positive or negative) effect on plant growth. For this purpose, duckweed plants were exposed to highly diluted samples prepared from gibberellic acid, kinetin, argentum nitricum, or lemna minor.
Gibberellic acid (GA) and kinetin are plant hormones that have, amongst other activities, been shown to be involved in regulating plant cell growth. Argentum nitricum is commonly known as silver nitrate (AgNO3), an inorganic and (depending on the concentration) toxic chemical substance. Lemna minor is the scientific name for the common duckweed, a plant species closely related to Lemna gibba, the duckweed used as a test organism.
For each of the four test substances, five to six individual potency experiments (PE) were conducted. In each PE, 17 different, decimal dilutions (14x-30x) were investigated, each dilution represented by 5 beakers. Experiments with pure water (SNC) were included to assess system stability.
As a main result, small fluctuations (below 3%) of plant growth over the 7-day growth period could be detected in the dilution series of all samples (SNC and all tested samples).
Of the four test substances, the authors interpreted the results from the GA-dilutions as most meaningful. Here, ca. half of the dilution series appeared to show slightly below average plant growth, whereas the other half appeared to show slightly above average growth.
Since no regular patterns were observable, the growth fluctuations did not seem to be correlated to the dilution factors. As an example, the plants from dilution 15x showed slightly below average growth (ca. -2%), the plants from dilution 16x slightly above (ca. +2%), and the plants from dilution 17x, again, slightly below (ca. -2%) average growth.
After statistical analysis, most of the observed effects were labelled “not significant” by the authors. Only for six of the samples with apparently reduced growth, the small differences were labelled as “statistically significant”. These dilutions were 15x, 17x, 18x, 21x, 23x, and 24x.
The authors put very strong emphasis on the label “statistically significant” and seem to overrate the value of this term vastly. In my opinion, however, the most reprehensible aspect of the work is the uncritical and biased interpretation and discussion of the results. When discussing the GA results, the authors immediately jump to the conclusion that “(…) the aquatic plant Lemna gibba reacted to some homeopathic potencies of gibberellic acid”.
They therefore claim to have shown a direct causal connection between the homeopathic preparation and the small growth differences observed in some of the samples. It is, however, not reasonable to base such conclusions on the arbitrary threshold for statistical significance, especially since approx. half of the dilutions showed higher growth values, whereas the other half showed lower values (all within the small range of below 3%, compared to the experimental mean).
In the discussion, the authors did not assess their results critically or provide any explanation regarding the potential mechanism by which the homeopathic dilutions could have influenced duckweed growth. This lack of critical evaluation and interpretation reveals an obvious bias of the authors in favor of homeopathy.
Two main issues that the authors did not critically discuss are:
i. One of the core principles of homeopathy is that dilution (“potentisation”) increases the potency of a substance, but no correlation was detectable between the apparent growth effect and the dilution factor. As pointed out before, growth rates from plants cultivated in GA dilutions “15x” and “17x” appeared slightly reduced, whereas plants grown in dilution “16x” appeared to have slightly increased growth. Instead on an explanation, the values from the “16x” dilution were labelled as not significant and simply omitted from further discussion. This is very odd, because the absolute effect size (+ ca. 2%) of dilution “16x” was very similar to the effect sizes observed in the “15x” and “17x” dilutions (- ca. 2%).
ii. How can the plants sense a homeopathic GA-signal, if very few or even no molecules are present in the dilution?
Furthermore, for a critical discussion, it would have been indispensable to also consider publications from outside of the realm of homeopathy, which was not done by the authors.
Conclusions
In general, the differences in plant growth described in this work appeared to be of random nature. No correlation between dilution factor and effect direction or effect size could be established.
A major flaw of the work is that statistical significance is vastly overrated to the point where values that do not pass the p-value threshold are completely ignored. However, as American Statistical Association clearly points out: ”Scientific conclusions (…) should not be based only on whether a p-value passes a specific threshold” (2).
A further major issue of the work of Baumgartner´s group is an obvious bias in terms of result interpretation in favor of the notion that homeopathy is effective. According to the scientific consensus, highly diluted substances (diluted to a degree that few or even no molecule of the original substance remains) cannot exert any specific effect on a biological organism. It should be pointed out that even Baumgartner and coworkers failed to reproduce the original findings in a later work, but despite of this failure remained convinced that homeopathic dilutions cause an effect on plant growth (3).
Independent reproducibility is a key requirement for scientific evidence and if it fails, the rational consequence should be to conclude that the original hypothesis under investigation does not to be valid. In contrast, the number one priority for Baumgartner et al. seems to be that the results must fit into the framework that homeopathy is effective.
To conclude, the work of Baumgartner and coworkers does not provide any convincing evidence that homeopathy can affect plant growth.
References
1) Scherr, C., Simon, M., Spranger, J., Baumgartner S. (2009) Effects of potentised substances on growth rate of the water plant Lemna gibba L. Complement Ther Med. 17(2): 63-70. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2008.10.004.
2) Wasserstein, R. L. & Lazar, N. A. (2016) The ASA’s Statement on p-Values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician 70:2, 129-133, doi: 10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
3) Majewsky, V., Scherr, C., Arlt, S.P., Kiener, J., Frrokaj, K., Schindler, T., Klocke, P., Baumgartner, S. (2014) Reproducibility of effects of homeopathically potentised gibberellic acid on the growth of Lemna gibba L. in a randomised and blinded bioassay. Homeopathy. 103(2): 113-126. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2013.12.004.
Homoeopathy seems to be progressing in leaps and bounds thanks to all this research coming out year after year.
Curious how it convinces nobody other than homeopaths.
Curious how none of them have been able to provide robust, independently replicated research demonstrating the effectiveness of any single homeopathic remedy.
Curious how homeopaths remain only as objects of ridicule.
Over 200 years of being laughed at by science, Mutus. When will you halfwits ever learn?
Yet medical doctors are taking up the study and practice of Homoeopathy in droves, just look at all the doctors graduating from The International Academy of Homeopathy run by professor George Vithoulkas on the Greek island of Alonissos. They are not “halfwits” they are highly educated medical doctors from Europe and around the world. I’m beginning to think that the only halfwit around here is you Lenny.
Any evidence to support that assertion, Mutus? Vithoulkas’ courses in mutual delusion seem to be aimed at homeopaths. I see no sign that your imagined “droves” of medics are passing through his doors.
Around 100,000 doctors graduate each year in Europe. The number visiting George’s academy represent a vanishingly small percentage of that number, Mutus. Your delusions of significance are laughable.
And nobody is being trained at Gorgeous George’s scam house at the moment. Why?
How curious that the miracle of homeopathy isn’t able to overcome this. Why isn’t George addressing the problem directly with some of his marvelous medicine?
All this handwaving and whataboutery, Mutus. It’s all you’ve got. Not a shred of credible evidence to back up your pathetic bloviating, same as every brain-dead homeopathy freak that pitches up on this platform spouting their pompous bumwash. Run along now. You’re just making a bigger fool of yourself with every post you make.
@Lenny
Simple: the less people are trained at Charlatan Colleges such as Vithoulkas’s, the more potent homeopathy overall becomes.
Evidence??
Richard made a claim without providing any evidence the other day so why should I ?
Here, let me make another claim without providing any evidence, Homoeopathy works and it works very well.
How do you like them apples Lenny?
Back in your box.
Mutus the brutus
I can make claims free of evidence too. Here is one: “Witch doctors are better than homeopaths”
Here is another claim: “Mutus is a chicken and his/her opinions are worth less than chicken shi*t” for which there is ample evidence available:
https://edzardernst.com/2024/08/homeopathy-for-treating-uterine-fibroids-a-comprehensive-review-turns-out-to-be-a-comprehensive-example-of-how-to-comprehensively-mislead-with-comprehensively-dishonest-research/#comment-153195
https://edzardernst.com/2024/08/homeopathy-for-treating-uterine-fibroids-a-comprehensive-review-turns-out-to-be-a-comprehensive-example-of-how-to-comprehensively-mislead-with-comprehensively-dishonest-research/#comment-153135
What do you say Mutus? Are you going to run away like a chicken again? Or are you going to make another worthless & evidence-free claim? Either way you embarrass yourself, Mutus the stultus pullum.
Oh dear, Mutus. Is that the best you can do?
I’ll make a claim. You’re an insignificant, scientifically-ignorant halfwit.
Can I evidence it?
Yes.
QED. Are you going to continue demonstrating your foolishness?
Honest Ape you are late to the party again, why do you keep doing that? You keep making the same old evidence-less claim that I have been running away, I haven’t run away from anything. You seriously need help with this delusion of yours, I hear there are many Homoeopathic drugs that can help with delusions.
Dear Mutus the stultus pullum,
It appears you are not only stupid but selectively blind as well. I provided evidence for why I am calling you a chicken, you are choosing to ignore it and accuse me of making evidence-less claims. On the other hand, if you scroll to one of your comments listed above, you said this:
It seems you are a hypocrite with delusions of grandeur regarding homeopathy. You for sure need help with your delusions, however homeopathic remedies are worthless. I hear there are many remedies available that a witch doctor can use to cure delusions. I know a very good witch doctor who can help you. Let me know if you are interested, I am happy to DM his address. Just an FYI, he only accepts payment in chickens, but I doubt that would be a problem for you😆
I’ve had just about enough of your nonsense Honest Ape please consider seeking help from your friendly neighbourhood Homoeopath you really need it.
Mutus the stultus pullum,
You had enough? Are you giving up on me, buddy? I am only getting started. Although, I shouldn’t be surprised, you are staying true to the name I gave you 🐔🐔🐔
Nope, I never give up. You say I run away which I clearly don’t. You’ve brought nothing to the table except dishonesty and embarrassment for yourself. Henceforth, you shall be known as Dishonest Ape.
You are hilariously delusional, Mutus! Evidence of your chicken-ish activities was very evident and was pointed out in my earlier posts. You refuse to accept or refute the evidence and outright claim that none was provided. That’s very Trumpian of you.
Yours truly,
“Dis”honest Ape
@Mutus Bellator
You mean this handful of RCTs per year, most of which come up negative at that?
Sorry, but the qualification ‘pathetic’ does not even begin to describe the state or amount of homeopathy ‘research’.