Minutus

This appeared in the Guardian today.
Regards

Soroush

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 46,00.html

'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated
Homeopathy should not be labelled a fraud. Those who study water know the
critics are wrong, says Rustum Roy

Wednesday December 19, 2007
The Guardian

Ben Goldacre excoriates the practice of homeopathy (A kind of magic?
, November
16). For the record, I have never studied or held a position for, or
against, the clinical effectiveness of homeopathy. However, I am a materials
chemist who has written one of the most cited papers in materials science,
on aqueous solutions.
Having recently studied the extraordinary biological properties of
ultradilute aquasols (water with one part per million of solid particles)
and written a long review on the structure of water, I accidentally also
discovered a new social disease, "homeophobia" - that is, a phobic reaction
(mainly by scientists) to the word "homeopathy", the virulence of which is
exemplified by Goldacre.
A major bugaboo for "homeophobes" is the concept that a solution where the
solute is extremely diluted (beyond Avogadro's number) absolutely cannot,
they believe, be any different from the original solvent. Hence homeopathy
must be a fraud. This has been the anti-homeopathy crowd's trump card for
more than 100 years.
But let us turn to scientists who specialise in water's properties. Prof
Martin Chaplin of London's South Bank University, a leading expert on the
(molecular) structure of water, says: "Too often the final argument used
against the memory of water concept is simply 'I don't believe it' ... Such
unscientific rhetoric is heard from the otherwise sensible scientists, with
a narrow view of the subject and without any examination or appreciation of
the full body of evidence, and reflects badly on them."
As it happens, there is agreement among all those who have studied liquid
water that it is, in fact, the critics, who are totally wrong. Proof?
Diamond is the planet's hardest material; graphite one of the softest. They
are absolutely identical in composition, and they can be interconverted in a
millisecond with zero change of composition.
Prof Eugene Stanley of Boston University, the leading expert on the physics
of water, has catalogued 64 highly anomalous property changes in pure water.
According to the first law of materials science, that means that there must
be the same large number of different structures in liquid water - what he
called "polymorphism" of water. This year Prof Chaplin, in the journal
Homeopathy, discussed in detail how water could retain a "memory".
But the main thrust of Goldacre's argument is the role of the "placebo
effect". Yes, this works. And, yes, it is without doubt present in every
homeopathic intervention; but it is far more powerfully present in orthodox
medical pills because they are advertised so widely in billion-dollar
campaigns.
Goldacre is accurate in pointing out the high rates of positive v negative
outcomes in many of the homeopathy studies. But there are enormous
discrepancies in any set of randomised controlled trials on the same
orthodox pills.
Does Goldacre seriously suggest that a homeopathy paper with a positive
outcome would be treated fairly in any mainstream journal?
· Rustum Roy is Evan Pugh professor of the solid state, and research
professor of materials at Arizona State University rroy@psu.edu

hey sorush,
looks like you have at least 2 people taking up your challenge
in the comments to this article.
keep us informed
tanya

Hi Tania
I am amazed at the venom that these 'pro' homoeopathy articles generate in these guys.
I need help to draw up the protocol to satisfy all angles. So please colleagues forward ideas (not remedy suggestions) - I need to cover the medical , safety and ethical aspects.
Ayupmyduck2 has established contact with me to set up a blog.

Regards

Soroush

i dont know if you saw my comments to that article.
one of the points i made was their need to support
the economics of allopathy. i also referred to their
thinking as flat earth medicine, referring to the title
of tim dooley's introductory book on homeopathy. let's
see what wrath these comments bring.
you are right, these guys venom is totally pathological
in my book. in such a case, one must always look beneath
the surface to see what it is that they need to protect.
i hope that my comments to them acheived that point.
there was a 2nd person who said they would take up the challenge.
did you get that person's name/address?
tanya

In case anyone wants to read Roy's original paper, here it is. I think he makes a very eloquent argument for the plausibility of a change in the structure of water through succussions, regardless of the content of the water.
http://www.rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf
Helen

Remember the article here?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 46,00.html
'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated
"Homeopathy should not be labelled a fraud. Those who study water know the critics are wrong, says Rustum Roy "
The original paper can be found here.
http://www.rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf
My husband, who is a physical chemist, finally got a chance to review Rustum Roy's paper. This is what he said.
He said it sounds like the incoherent ramblings of an extremely senile scientist--probably with some level of Alzheimer's would be his guess. There are parts of the paper that demonstrate expert knowledge in glass and ceramics, but it is all strung together incoherently with the structure of water. (What has glass got to do with water structure? By Roy's account in some parts of the paper, water structure changes simply from touching glass!) Roy uses a lot of technical terms incorrectly, such as talking about an instrument to analyze water, when it only analyzes solids. Sometimes Roy just speaks complete nonsense, such as making a distinction between H2O and OH2 (huh?). My husband said Star Trek technobabble has more scientific integrity than this paper. He said he doesn't say that to make fun of Roy, because the man is obviously seriously ill. Roy's former competence as a scientist can be seen in the parts that do make sense, but the man must be 90 years old (60 teaching at Penn State) and has just lost it.

Then he said, "Make sure you don't use this paper to support homeopathy, cause it will only hurt homeopathy's credibility."

I am just sharing his opinion, for what it's worth.
Helen

Dear Helen,

With all due respect to your husband - and I am not a physical chemist - but I have read Roy's work and heard him speak - he is certainly known for pushing the envelope in terms of scientific theory - imho the kind of independent thinker we need in days of bought and paid for science and researchers fearing original thought.

I was surprised to read your husband's suggestion that the paper sounds like the
" incoherent ramblings of an extremely senile scientist--probably with some level of Alzheimer's" - since no less than 3 co-authors who certainly have ALL their mental faculties and are well respected research scientists - are prepared to put their names to these same "incoherent ramblings".

What seems obvious to a homeopath will sound crazy to someone not versed in homeopathic philosophy.
I seem to remember reading your husband's take on the possible science behind homeopathy, in a previous posting on this list and had the same reaction to it - we are at a point in the evolution of science - in particular physical chemistry - when what we thought was absolute needs to be rewritten so that the 'Avogadro's Number is Everything Brigade' (like Prof Colqhoun et al) can move on.

I understand your motivation, but I don't think your posting helpful to our cause.

Roy by the way is 83 years old and hail and hearty as far as I can tell.

Regards,

Carol

Carol Boyce MCh, CCH, RSHom(NA)

helen,
Having taken the time to watch and listen to the debate
sponsored at the U of Conn this past Fall, I must note that
Dr. Roy sounded quite coherent and clear and with a sense of
humor that so many who take themselves all too seriously lack.
I am left with the feeling that your husband has fallen into
the black hole of the religion of science that needs to
castigate anything that is new, different, and flies in the
face of the current mythology.
With all due respect to your husband, I need to raise the
critical questioning about his belief in the so-called
scientific method. This week alone I read an interview with
a scientist who has quite the FDA over their fraudulent science.
This was a science that he, with all good intent, supported for
over 10 yrs. It was a science that no one dared to question for
fear of losing their positions, fame and income despite the bogus
results that were being put forth. So, pardon my questioning a
'professional' scientist and his interpretation of a system that
has long proven itself successful where allopathy is not.
tanya

Sorry about that last post. Hit the send button by accident.
>
My husband has never posted on this list. All opinions about the science of homeopathy expressed before on this list were mine and mine alone.
As you guys know, we are using homeopathy for our son. And not only for our son, but for our entire family. We use homeopathy almost exclusively, to the point where we have canceled family coverage for our health insurance. We are very well versed in homeopathic philosophy. We do not know as much as you guys, but we know the major tenets well enough. I spend much of my free time reading Kent's and various Materia Medicas.
My husband and I speculate about the possible mechanisms for homeopathy all the time. He is by no means closed minded about homeopathy. He just finds Roy's paper inconsistent and flawed, for all the reasons I had outlined.
Well, I didn't want to start a debate or offend anyone. I just wanted to offer his opinion, for what it's worth.
Best,
Helen

>

Just to clarify, my husband wasn't interpreting or challenging homeopathy.
He likes and uses homeopathy. He was interpreting Roy's paper, which he
feels detracts from homeopathy's credibility.

Helen