Critiquing Roy's paper

[Helen Tucker]

My husband has decided that he doesn't want to spend his precious vacation
time critiquing Roy's paper. He only gets to spend one week very month or
two with his wife and children, and he doesn't want to "waste" it, so to
speak. So he has written the following summary. When he is on vacation, he
has agreed to explain the other flaws to me in more detail. If there is
still an interest, *I* can spend the time to write them up and post them
next week. He has agreed to look over my critique before I post it.

To summarize, Roy et al didn't do any experiments or make new observations.
He simply presented data from the literature for how the structure of glass
can be changed by several methods, explained how glass is very similar to
water, and extrapolated what glass can do to what water can do. My
husband's main critique is this comparison of glass to water is flawed, and
therefore the extrapolation is flawed. To assume that water structure can
be changed in the same way as that of glass ignores atomic molecular theory;
however, Roy uses atomic molecular theory to defend his data on glass. (If
he wanted to throw out the theory, that is fine. But he can't then turn
around and use the theory to support just the parts he likes.)

Hope this helps. Again, it is just one scientist's opinion. Feel free to
disagree. I am not trying to present it as God's honest truth. However, I
think it is noteworthy that if a scientist who uses Hahnemannian homeopathy
and supports homeopathy can't accept the arguments of the paper, it is
highly unlikely that more skeptical scientists would.

Finally, just a warning to those who might be sensitive: my husband uses
strong language. He doesn't mean any harm--speaking his mind is just the
way he is.

Helen

------Begin forward------------

First, I am a scientist. By this I mean that I am employed as a research
scientist at a national laboratory. I have a Ph.D. in physical chemistry,
and I worked as a university professor for several years prior to and during
my tenure at the national lab. It is my job to apply the scientific method
(observation, hypothesis, experiment, observation) in the process of
discovery and in solving technical problems important to our nation.

Second, I have seen homeopathy successfully applied in curing nasty disease.
My conclusion that homeopathy works is based strictly on personal anecdotal
evidence, and is not supported by science.

Third, science is one method of gaining knowledge and insight, not the only
method, or even the best method. Medicine, for example, is not a science,
and anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke up your ass. Medical
research is based solely on extrapolation of experiments conducted on some
other species we don't mind torturing and killing, or on correlation
(observation). Rarely is a hypothesis posed in medicine, because
experimentation is unethical. If you read a paper that does not involve
experiment, it is not science. To say that research in homeopathic medicine
requires science when allopathic medicine does not is ridiculous.

Why do I not appreciate Prof. Roy's (Roy et. al.) amazing paper?

Prof. Roy and his coauthors begin with the assumption that silica and its
structures can be representative of water and its structures. The
comparison he makes is between silica glass and water liquid. This is
offensive to anyone who has taught physical chemistry because atomic
molecular theory and the periodic nature of elements are ignored.

Although glassy silica can be compared to glassy carbon, neither can be
compared to glassy oxygen compounds (assuming they exist). Both carbon and
silicon are in the same group (4A or 14), but oxygen (group 6A or 16) is
not. Water (H2O) or ozone (O3, the group 6A analogous compound to silica)
could be compared to sulfur compounds (H2S or SO2). Even if you wanted to
ignore the periodic nature of matter, a fair comparison would be silicon
hydride to water (an oxygen hydride). Comparing a hydride of oxygen to an
oxide of silica certainly has no basis in atomic molecular theory, and
demands far more support than Prof. Roy provides in his paper.

With regard to comparing glassy silica to liquid water, it is generally
accepted (statistical mechanics) that different phases of matter exhibit
both physical and chemical dissimilarities. This is especially true of
water. Again comparing silica in a glass phase (considered an amorphous
solid or a separate phase from solid or liquid altogether) to water in a
liquid phase is hardly reasonable.

A better comparison would be to compare silica glass to carbon dioxide glass
(a-carbonia). They are both group 4A oxides in the same physical state.
Unfortunately, this hardly has anything to do with homeopathic remedies,
which, as I understand it, are a mixture of alcohol and water (forming an
azeotropic mixture to some extent). Alcohol water mixtures can have
remarkable physical and chemical differences from pure liquid water.

A more detailed review of the results presented is possible, but hardly
worth my time. There is some interesting and perhaps important speculation
in Prof. Roy's paper, but it is lost amid a sea of irrelevant thought and
analysis. I think of Prof. Roy as rambling and incoherent because the
alternative is not very flattering to those in my profession. I remain
embarrassed that such a paper could be published, and I certainly do not
recommend that anyone who supports the assertion that the practice of
homeopathy is effective reference this work.

I apologize to all those who have taken offense to my acrid and perhaps
unfair assessment of Prof. Roy's work. I am certain that he is a brilliant
man (as evidenced by his knowledge of ceramics in the paper), and I intend
no personal assault. I just don't think he does justice to homeopathy.

David Tucker (Helen's hubby)