'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated

[Carol Boyce]

Dear Helen,

Not offended this end - and sorry if I wasn't clear - I know your husband has not posted personally - I meant that you had referred to him and his scientific training in your own posting - about scientific evidence, back sometime in October. I also know that you use homeopathy.

I might not have bothered to respond had your husband reported via you, that in his scientific opinion, he found Roy's paper "inconsistent and flawed" - I reacted to his suggestion that Roy is "extremely senile" and the paper "incoherent ramblings". If I were him/you, before posting such a dramatic description, I might have wondered first about the co-authors and their standing in the scientific community and then, again with all due respect to your husband and his training, I might have wondered if the parts of the paper I found difficult might be new ideas worth further investigating.

There was also his recommendation that we should not use Roy's paper as support for homeopathy. Homeopaths in general accept that we are still ahead of science, and as a result, it will be some time before mainstream science is even willing to look at the questions that homeopathy raises. To say something is implausible is not a scientific conclusion, as it is currently bandied about in the popular press, it is a barrier to independent thinking (maybe read my recent article "Science Catches up with Homeopathy" for other papers along the same lines as Roy et al's.)

In science today, I see the definition of anecdotal evidence being conveniently expanded to include anything that is not the double blind placebo controlled trial - if only any number of pharmaceutical drugs currently in use had been independently tested and held to that same standard. Homeopathy has 200 years of pure empirical science at it's back, which one day will count for something.

I believe we should be critical and questioning ourselves - but we should also know that whatever the scientific explanation for the mechanism of homeopathy - it will not, by definition, come from within mainstream thinking.

So not asking for a debate at all - but if you post a criticism in the swingeing terms in which your husband described Rustum Roy, you must expect some responses.

Best regards,

Carol

Carol Boyce MCH, CCH, RSHom(NA)

[Helen Tucker]

>

We wondered about that too. He can speculate (are they senile too?), but
has no idea why they would put their names to the paper. I think, though,
it is telling that this paper was not published in real journal. The
system's not perfect, but it does provide some double-checking that more
than just the authors think it is suitable for publication.



The new ideas aren't the problem. It is the inconsistencies. For example,
according to my husband's interpretations, Roy says the structure of water
is influenced MORE by what type of glass the water is placed in, and how
much force is in the succussions, than the substance the remedy is made of.
This is inconsistent with homeopathic principles. Another inconsistency is
that, if Roy is correct in his paper, the change in the structure of water
is very temporary after the succussions (the truth be told, less than a
second). Yet remedies from the 1800's are still being used, as I understand
it. So again, his ideas are inconsistent with what we know about
homeopathy.



Yes, because it doesn't make sense to him, either scientifically or
homeopathically.



But my husband is NOT saying homeopathy is scientifically implausible. I
feel I have to make this very clear: this is not a criticism of the
scientific plausibility or validity of homeopathy. It is a criticism of
Roy's paper, and ONLY his paper.

>

Of course. All responses are welcome. We take no offense either.

Helen

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Helen
I disagree with you and your husband. I think Roy's work is the break-through we have been waiting for.
I think your husband - what ever the level of his qualifications may be - may have COMPLETELY mis-understood Prof Roy and his colleagues. I guess this is because although he may be a physical chemist, he is not a Material specialist, nor does he have the experience or access to the equipment to replicate the observations of Prof Roy et al. The authors are in fact
[Rustum Roy1, W.A. Tiller2, Iris Bell3, M. R. Hoover4
1 Evan Pugh Professor of the Solid State, Emeritus, and Founding Director of the Materials Research Laboratory at Penn State (rroy@psu.edu).

2 Professor Emeritus and former Department Chair of Materials Science, Stanford University.

3 Professor of Medicine, Psychiatry, Family and Community Medicine, and Public Health, Director of Research, Program in Integrative Medicine, University of Arizona (ibell@u.arizona.edu).

4 Assistant Professor, Materials Research Institute, Penn State]

When I first read that you are considering the above to senile, the first thought that went through my mind was that Helen's husband and possibly herself have been at the Sherry bottle. Three of them are high Ranking researchers of MATERIAL STRUCTURES.

On the point of writing the formula of water as H2O and OH2 (which makes no difference at all). In fact the system used in France is slightly different to that in UK and US. Where as we would write Hydrochloric acid as HCl, they write it as ClH - but to the wise, it is all but the same.

In any case, Prof Roy states
" The importance of the structural similarity of SiO2 and OH2 is very relevant to the structure of the latter as well as to the probability of epitaxy in controlling at least the region contiguous to the silicate glass surfaces of many common containers."
The paper on PURPOSE has written the formula of water as OH2 so that its similarity to SiO2 can be shown.
The term structure is used as in all materials research to designate the 3D arrangement of atoms or molecules.
Prof Roy is a material scientist - there are few of them around and the work he is representing is only weeks old and 'state of the art'. In the same way that each branch of science has its own jargon, I am not surprised if your husband has had difficulty in understanding some of the terms used.
What Prof Roy states is that the STRUCTURE of something is very important and not its composition. It is by this that he shows that when you are talking at Homoeopathic dilutions, the effect of the original material has changed the structure of water - in the way is large clusters interact. So chemically, it has remained the same, but structurally it has changed. This is why he used the example of Graphite and Diamond - In terms of composition, they are both mainly carbon. But in terms of STRUCTURE, they are different and therefore have different physical and in deed homeopathic properties. (Compare ADAMAS to GRAPH)
So far, the analysis of Homoeopathic remedies has been limited on the composition of the solution.
Noting that we are dealing with ULTRA DILUTE substances, up to now it has not been possible to measure the changes that Prof Roy is talking about. But we know for sure that the power and force succussion makes a difference and here Roy is showing that difference.
In fact Prof Roy is suggesting his technique should be used as a QUALITY CONTROL tool so that the same remedy - say Nat-m 200C is made to the same standard from all pharmacies -
It is observation that is central to the practise of homoeopathy. NOT THEORY.
To be fair to both sides, please let your husband put his remarks in to the format of a proper set of scientific questions and I will then forward them to Prof Roy for him to respond.

Regards

Soroush

[Helen Tucker]

He has a PhD in physical chemistry. He has worked as both a university professor and a research scientist and is well published in his field.

That is possible. But to be fair, the paper itself was very confusing. I posted it to another discussion list I am on, and everyone walked away thinking succussions were NOT necessary for the structure of water to change.

In this paper, Roy et al did not do any original research to replicate. It is an essay referencing existing literature and Google.
I will ask my husband if he has the time to ask Roy questions for a response. Thanks for the invitation._
Helen

[Irene de Villiers]

helensan@att.net wrote:

And he is expert in diagnosing Alzheimer's from scientific literature
written by the sufferer?

I just read more than half of the 32 page paper - thanks for providing
the reference - and as someone who HAS studied physical chemistry, and
who assesses scientific articles for validity and value daily - I find
it well written. It would benefit by an introductory addition simply
because it is 32 pages of detail - summarizing what it covered and where
in the article (IMO) - however it is presented with care, and lots of
evidence for each step of each argument made, is given with good
references and good photographs so one can see for oneself, some very
appropriate structural issues.

So let's see what you (or your hubby) specifically find a problem:
[Pity you did not quote a single line to suggest it was in any way
inappropriate or senile etc!]
He explains this particularly well in fact. Glass has a molecular
structure that is extremely similar to that of water (and that's quite
something, as water has an especially unique structure). Also he
explains glass has been extensively studied both in liquid and solid
state (in terms of its structure) - so that comparing whether water
follows the same behavior, makes perfect sense.
The details that follow, show how carefully research started with
glass techniques for structural investigation and went on to water -
borrowing similar techniques from those known to work in liquid state on
glass. Makes perfect sense to me!
I did not see where he said this (did he?), perhaps it is at the end of
the paper I did not read yet. However - Nothing strange about this.
As with most materials at molecular level, glass is mostly space, and
even though the movement is infinitesimal to our way of thinking - you
can push on any substance (no matter how solid) and it will move under
the pressure to a small extent. That movement provides for structural
change (gee how is that a surprise?) and that is explained in detail
already (in the part I read).
I found no such thing in his paper. Instead I found that he takes a lot
of trouble to define what instrument is used where and how - and what
its limits are - also he goes further and explains how to avoid
confusion from terminology due to the different use of the same term
(and he defines how between physical chemists and materials scientists).
Essentially they work at different levels of detail. He also references
well, who did what in which discipline.
What instrument are you referring to?
If you mean a TEM (transmission electron microscope) I have used one
extensively myself and it indeed can give the kind of photos he published.
Be specific please - the paper certainly is clear and specific!
It's heavy reading for someone unfamiliar with the terms and science
area references - especially since (as he says) it is interdisciplinary
and most people know the terms from one discipline rather than several.
But it DOES explain a step at a time very well I consider, and he does
define any terms that would not be familiar to someone with a modicum of
science study behind them.
He made no such distinction. Perhaps your hubby just glanced at the
paper without properly absorbing what it was about?
The only place where water is referred to as OH2 did not suggest any
differentiation from water as H20 - it was used in conjunction with
stressing the similarity in *physical* molecular structure between SiO2
and OH2 which is right up front (page 1), actual words:
"The importance of the structural similarity of SiO2 and OH2 is very
relevant to the structure of the latter ....."
It makes sense to write OH2 here instead of H2O in order to directly
compare structural similarity. Anyone who has seen a diagram of a water
molecule and a silicone molecule can then visualize what he is talking
about.
With all due respect, then maybe he should stick to Star Trek.
I saw no scientific integrity in the criticism levelled.

It seems to me appropriate if someone wants to criticize the paper in
question that they do so with specifics and not vague accusations of
senility. In my experience, the latter usually are offered by those who
can't find a specific to criticize - and/or those who do not understand
enough or take time enough, to follow what is being said.
I disagree, and have reasons:

Firstly - The paper was not written to support homeopathy. It states
right up front why it was written: "This paper provides an
interdisciplinary base of information on the structure of liquid water."
(Interdisciplinary as it uses materials science and physical chemistry
approaches and integrates the research from them - even incorporating
TEM work, which used to be used only in biological sciences. Few people
studied all the relevant disciplines involved in the study of water
structure. So it's quite impressive and helpful to see it all in one
place, even if it only covers what was done by the time of writing.
(There is subsequent research which adds to this, and also prior
research such as the Nobel prize in 1994 for the discovery that very
dilute solutions of water have clumping properties.)

It also says:
"This paper does not deal in any way with, and has no bearing whatsoever
on, the clinical efficacy of any homeopathic remedy."

"However, it does definitively demolish the objection against
homeopathy, when such is based on the wholly incorrect claim that since
there is no difference in composition between a remedy and the pure
water used, there can be no differences at all between them......."

"The burden of proof on critics of homeopathy is to establish that the
structure of the processed remedy is not different from the original
solvent."

This is all part of the intro and makes perfect sense to me.
With respect, your husband's comments have so far not produced any valid
criticism.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Helen Tucker]

No. That is why it is a guess and not a diagnosis.



I didn't know there was any interest. My intent was simply to warn folks
what one scientist thought, and leave it at that. I'll put together a more
specific list since you are asking.

\

Right... but isn't that inconsistent with homeopathy? If merely touching
glass changes the structure of water, and the structure of water is more
important than composition, then shouldn't the type of glass used when
succussing be a factor in how the remedy works? I understand the main
factor in distinguishing one remedy from another to be the solute in the
dilution--not the type of glass the solution was diluted in.

On the other discussion list, the debate after reading Roy's paper was:
what exactly changes the structure of water, according to Roy? Is it merely
touching glass, is it the solute, is it insanely high amounts of pressure,
is it epitaxy, or is it succussions? Are succussions even required? One
person who read the paper thought Roy clearly did not think succussions are
required to change the structure of water; one other person thought Roy
wobbled back and forth between whether succussions are required or not.
Something that is as important to the thesis of the paper as "what changes
the structure of water" should be more clearly written, not subject to
readers guessing.



The distinction is that he used H2O all the time, even when discussing it in
relation to SiO2 in the rest of the paper. And then in the one spot on page
1, he says OH2. First, he doesn't explain why he changes to OH2. One
assumes it is to stress the similarity, but without any explanation, he
doesn't actually *make* the emphasis, does he?. (It is sloppy writing to
simply let the reader make assumptions on why you change notations.) Why
doesn't he use OH2 ever again even when comparing with SiO2? Just seems
like some sort of slip up. (If you want a list of all the sentences in
which he mentions both H2O and SiO2 in the same breath, I can provide it,
but you can peruse through and find them yourself just as easily.) Anyway,
it isn't a big point. It was just an example off the top of my head of the
irregularities my husband listed.



I didn't mean to be vague; I meant to be brief. I didn't know people were
going to be this interested.

I'll work on a list of specific objections. It is a long paper, so give me
a little time to enumerate the big ones.

When I first read the paper, I thought it was very eloquent--at least the
parts I understood were. So I understand why people would think it was a
good paper. My husband says there are good parts as well, just isolated and
unrelated to the rest of the paper.

Best,
Helen

[Helen Tucker]

This is my husband's response:
----------------

Helen,
If someone actually reads this guy's paper and wants to make a point that can be argued, I'll respond (i.e. localized GPa pressured generated in a succussed bottle). I can't respond to "Prof. Roy is awesome and your husband sucks." "Sucks," after all, is very subjective. Maybe he's right, but that doesn't make the paper any better.
Dave

----------------

However, as I told Irene, I will make a specific list of the major criticisms and post them here. I hope that would satisfy your request.
Best,
Helen

[Irene de Villiers]

helensan@att.net wrote:

I finished reading the paper - and nowhere does it say that!
On the contrary - he suggests that if anything, any particles of glass
that got into the succussion, then (quote) "the influence of these
nano-fragments may really lie in the fact that they could serve as
nucleating sites for particular water clusters."

In fact his article clearly demonstrates the phenomenon of epitaxy.
(quote: "Epitaxy is the transmission of structural information from the
surface (hence epi) of one material (usually a crystalline solid) to
another (usually but not always a liquid)."

Since epitaxy is specifically what homeopathic remedies are about - this
is very relevant. The article shows that there is something that induces
the water clusters of different structure to form in a remedy - and one
factor is that succussion develops unevenly shaped "nanobubbles" -
bubbles so small they are at the colloidal size that stay suspended.
They are a potential nucleus for memory from whatever substance was
present....as he puts it "which also can form a nucleus for gathering
changed structure".
As he states:
"In this paper we have shown that a possible key as far as changing the
structure of water is concerned, is the pressure, and nano-bubbles
generated in the succussion process."
The article points out that succussion of dilute remedy with original
substance has a different result than succussion of water by itself and
also different from dilute water with substance but no succussion. He
stresses the need to differentiate these in research:
As he puts it:
"It is important to emphasize that the proper control solutions include
not only untreated, unsuccussed solvent, but also succussed solvent
without the initial addition of any remedy source materials to address
possible artifacts generated by the shaking of the liquid per se
within the test container itself. Obviously chemical contamination from
the container material could itself serve as a “remedy”."
He does not say that either.
He shows that in some experiments, which he describes, changes measured
were temporary. In others they were not. It does not show that using the
methods in homeopathy, anything is temporary.
I see no criticism of the paper - the only examples you listed are not
valid and do not represent what the paper actually says at all.
It's quite possible the paper could be reworded a bit more clearly still
- so can any paper - but it's really not bad considering all the
technical terms needed to explain something unfamiliar.

It's a bit like expecting a "scientist" to read the Organon through
quickly and understand it in depth first try. Did anyone manage that in
an evening?
May I ask - how long did your hubby spend? I spent a couple hours and
saw a lot of benefit, and certainly none of the criticism levelled so
far had validity.

A statement that a piece of research showed "plausibility" of something
- is valid fact. This was the only statement visa vis glass containers
affecting the contents. So what if glass affects the contents near it?
It is not appropriate to leave out aspects of related research because
you think they might not be in favour of homeopathy. Good research shows
ALL of what's known and the conditions under which it was discovered.

I commend this piece for including a wide selection of research, some
useful to homeopathy, some that is interesting but is not directly
helpful to homeopathy - but IS helpful to the stated subject of the
article. It is a good point in my book to see all of what he could find
and not just a prejudiced subset. There was no finding that went against
the principles of homeopathy however. Not that I saw!

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Helen
What an awful response!
Why does your husband says we think your husband Dave "Sucks"? I would never use that term?
Look forward to rcving your/Dave's list of technical question to be replied to by Prof Roy.

Regards

Soroush

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi all,
I haven't caught up reading yet, but want to say--
Is this specifically with reference to homeopathic remedies, or more
generally?
Because *generally* speaking, of course it is not required; we know
that it's changed by freezing etc., and according to Prof. Emoto's
photos also by the printed word (speaking of really odd, and where have
we heard something like that before? )

Part of the reason for various specific instructions in homeopathy are
*not* because that's "the only way to do it", but simply for sake of
consistency and predictability (somewhat, anyway). I hope this isn't a
complete non-sequitur...
Shannon