New Homeopathic Research published in major UK newspaper
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:19 am
Dear Friends of Homeopathy,
Look what happens when real science is conducted...and when quality
journalism reports on it. I sincerely hope that one day you will make up
for the serious ethical and professional journalistic errors you created in
your segment on homeopathy...
The following article was published in one of England's most
respected newspapers by their science editor who previously was a skeptic of
homeopathy.
Of additional interest is that fact that this journalist has
confirmed rumors about the use of homeopathic medicines by Bill Clinton,
Geri Halliwell, and David Beckham!
--Dana Ullman
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/sci ... tory=55290
5
Sceptic's tests support homoeopathy. Now the challenge for scientists is to
repeat it
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
19 August 2004
To some it is the snake oil of the New Age. To others it is a
tried-and-trusted treatment that has been good enough for the likes of Bill
Clinton, the Prince of Wales, Geri Halliwell and David Beckham.
Homoeopathy is big business and getting bigger. Yet there is little if any
evidence to show that it works, and absolutely nothing to justify its
central claim - that highly diluted solutions containing nothing but water
can affect human health.
That is until now. Researchers have just published what could be the first
hard evidence in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that appears to support
the central idea behind homoeopathy.
The scientists, from Britain, France, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands,
have chosen the relatively obscure but respected Inflammation Research to
publish what some call the "holy grail" of homoeopathy.
In summary, the study found that extremely dilute solutions can have a
biological effect. Like homoeopathic remedies, the solutions in the
experiments were so diluted that there was no realistic chance of a single
molecule of the substance remaining in the liquid.
Scientists have likened this to believing in magic. How could something that
was once dissolved in a solution, and can no longer be present in that
solution, still have an effect? The scientists themselves are baffled. "We
are not yet able to propose any theoretical explanation of these findings,"
they write. In showing that high dilutions exert a biological effect, the
findings seem to break the laws of physics. Surely there must be errors in
the experiment; an accusation the scientists reject. "Despite searching for
artefacts, we have been unable to find any," they write.
An editorial in Inflammation Research explains why the journal published
such controversial research: "The authors are unable to explain their
findings but wished to encourage others to investigate this area," it says.
"It is with this spirit of openness that the journal, after submitting the
paper to a rigorous reviewing process, has agreed to publish the paper."
Understandably, the practitioners of homoeopathy have seized on the findings
as vindication. Peter Fisher, of the Royal Homoeopathic Hospital in London
and homoeopath to the Queen, said the findings were nothing short of
groundbreaking. "History may come to view [the study] as a turning point in
the scientific controversy surrounding homoeopathy," Dr Fisher said.
"Of course further repetition is required, but it may be that this
represents the holy grail of basic research in homoeopathy," he said.
There are two central tenets of homoeopathy. The first is that an illness or
malady can be treated by administering tiny amounts of a substance that
might under normal circumstances actually result in similar symptoms -
extract of onion for instance to treat hay fever.
The second belief is that the concentrations have to be really minute, so
minute that the dilutions involved in effect get rid of the substance in
question from the liquid solvent.
Homoeopathic solutions are diluted repeatedly to produce solutions that are
millions of times weaker than they were originally. Often the solutions are
so weak that they are equivalent to dissolving a tiny speck of something in
a volume of water several times greater than all the world's oceans.
Scientifically, this would mean that the chance of just a single molecule of
the homoeopathic remedy being left in the solution is next to nil. Sceptics
say patients might just as well treat themselves with distilled water -
which is cheaper.
Science cannot explain how such highly dilute solutions could have an
effect, that is until the French biologist Jacques Benveniste came along.
Working at his laboratory in Paris, Dr Benveniste formulated the idea that
water retains a "memory" of what has been dissolved in it and that it is
this memory that results in the homoeopathic effect. In 1988 Dr Benveniste
published a study in the journal Nature in support of his water-memory
theory. He claimed his experiments showed that an ultra-dilute solution
exerted a biological effect.
However, the then editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox, had insisted that he
would only agree to publication if he was able to investigate Dr
Benveniste's laboratory procedures. A few weeks later Sir John invited an
American science fraud investigator, Walter Stewart, and a professional
magician and arch sceptic, James Randi, to watch over Dr Benveniste as he
and his team tried to repeat the experiments.
The Nature investigation concluded that Dr Benveniste had failed to
replicate his original study. In subsequent issues of Nature, Dr Benveniste
suffered the professional ignominy of being ridiculed by arguably the most
influential scientific journal in the world.
As a result, the idea of memory water was consigned to the dustbin of
science history, or so it was thought.
France as a country is a keen advocate of homoeopathy and there were many
French scientists who had not given up on the notion of investigating the
phenomenon. Among them was a one-time collaborator of Dr Benveniste called
Philippe Belon, who now works for a French homoeopathy company, Boiron.
Dr Belon, who fell out with Dr Benveniste a long time ago, has investigated
high dilutions for 20 years and although he works for Boiron, and has
himself tried homoeopathic remedies, he insists he is only interested
discovering the truth about the claims.
In the spirit of scientific investigation he organised a collaboration
between four different groups in Europe who all undertook to carry out
identical high dilution experiments at separate places involving separate
teams of scientists.
The British end was run by Professor Madeleine Ennis, an established asthma
researcher at Queen's University of Belfast and an avowed sceptic of all
things homoeopathic.
In fact Professor Ennis became involved in the project in the first place
because she could not accept what some of her scientific colleagues were
saying. "I told people I didn't believe it so they said 'why don't you try
it'," Professor Ennis said.
The dilution experiments they carried out, and now published in Inflammation
Research, involved a substance called histamine which is released by a type
of white blood cell called a basophil. Normally basophils release histamine,
and as levels of histamine rise this exerts a "negative feedback" which
inhibits further release of histamine.
The four teams of scientists tested highly dilute solutions of histamine to
see whether they still exert an effect on basophils in a test tube. At
extreme dilutions, three out of four laboratories found a statistically
significant effect and the fourth found an effect which just fell out of the
typical range for statistical significance.
Professor Ennis emphasised that the research does not prove that homoeopathy
works, nor does it even show that Dr Benveniste was right because he had
used a different test for a high-dilution effect. "The paper didn't test
homoeopathy, it tested high dilutions of histamine. I know what we tested
and I cannot explain the results," said Professor Ennis.
For Dr Belon, however, the research does at least support the basic premise
behind homoeopathy. "Of course it supports it, on the other hand it is not a
demonstration that homoeopathy works," he said.
In whatever ways the latest findings are interpreted, they cannot be
ignored. The experiments were repeated by four different teams using the
same experimental protocol that involved a blind code - the scientists did
not know whether they were working with a high dilution solution or a
control sample of pure water until the code was broken at the end of the
experiment.
When BBC Horizon televised a similar attempt at replicating the same
experiment two years ago, the results were negative but scientists such as
Dr Belon believe this was trial by media rather than science by the
peer-review process.
This time, with a full scientific paper detailing the precise protocol,
anyone can try to replicate the findings - and replication is the essence of
science. Until others repeat the work it will take a lot to convince
sceptics such as James Randi, who has offered $1m to the first person to
prove the scientific basis of homoeopathy.
Mr Randi warns about reading too much in a single scientific paper. "A paper
is a paper is a paper. Don't forget, two scientists wrote a paper, published
in Nature, back in 1974, that endorsed the powers of Uri Geller," he said.
But the homoeopathic gauntlet has been thrown down. The question now is
whether anyone will be brave enough to pick it up.
19 August 2004 11:52
Dana Ullman, MPH
Homeopathic Educational Services
2124 Kittredge St.
Berkeley, CA. 94704
(510)649-0294
(800)359-9051 (orders only in the U.S.)
(510)649-1955 (fax)
mail@homeopathic.com
http://www.homeopathic.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Look what happens when real science is conducted...and when quality
journalism reports on it. I sincerely hope that one day you will make up
for the serious ethical and professional journalistic errors you created in
your segment on homeopathy...
The following article was published in one of England's most
respected newspapers by their science editor who previously was a skeptic of
homeopathy.
Of additional interest is that fact that this journalist has
confirmed rumors about the use of homeopathic medicines by Bill Clinton,
Geri Halliwell, and David Beckham!
--Dana Ullman
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/sci ... tory=55290
5
Sceptic's tests support homoeopathy. Now the challenge for scientists is to
repeat it
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
19 August 2004
To some it is the snake oil of the New Age. To others it is a
tried-and-trusted treatment that has been good enough for the likes of Bill
Clinton, the Prince of Wales, Geri Halliwell and David Beckham.
Homoeopathy is big business and getting bigger. Yet there is little if any
evidence to show that it works, and absolutely nothing to justify its
central claim - that highly diluted solutions containing nothing but water
can affect human health.
That is until now. Researchers have just published what could be the first
hard evidence in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that appears to support
the central idea behind homoeopathy.
The scientists, from Britain, France, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands,
have chosen the relatively obscure but respected Inflammation Research to
publish what some call the "holy grail" of homoeopathy.
In summary, the study found that extremely dilute solutions can have a
biological effect. Like homoeopathic remedies, the solutions in the
experiments were so diluted that there was no realistic chance of a single
molecule of the substance remaining in the liquid.
Scientists have likened this to believing in magic. How could something that
was once dissolved in a solution, and can no longer be present in that
solution, still have an effect? The scientists themselves are baffled. "We
are not yet able to propose any theoretical explanation of these findings,"
they write. In showing that high dilutions exert a biological effect, the
findings seem to break the laws of physics. Surely there must be errors in
the experiment; an accusation the scientists reject. "Despite searching for
artefacts, we have been unable to find any," they write.
An editorial in Inflammation Research explains why the journal published
such controversial research: "The authors are unable to explain their
findings but wished to encourage others to investigate this area," it says.
"It is with this spirit of openness that the journal, after submitting the
paper to a rigorous reviewing process, has agreed to publish the paper."
Understandably, the practitioners of homoeopathy have seized on the findings
as vindication. Peter Fisher, of the Royal Homoeopathic Hospital in London
and homoeopath to the Queen, said the findings were nothing short of
groundbreaking. "History may come to view [the study] as a turning point in
the scientific controversy surrounding homoeopathy," Dr Fisher said.
"Of course further repetition is required, but it may be that this
represents the holy grail of basic research in homoeopathy," he said.
There are two central tenets of homoeopathy. The first is that an illness or
malady can be treated by administering tiny amounts of a substance that
might under normal circumstances actually result in similar symptoms -
extract of onion for instance to treat hay fever.
The second belief is that the concentrations have to be really minute, so
minute that the dilutions involved in effect get rid of the substance in
question from the liquid solvent.
Homoeopathic solutions are diluted repeatedly to produce solutions that are
millions of times weaker than they were originally. Often the solutions are
so weak that they are equivalent to dissolving a tiny speck of something in
a volume of water several times greater than all the world's oceans.
Scientifically, this would mean that the chance of just a single molecule of
the homoeopathic remedy being left in the solution is next to nil. Sceptics
say patients might just as well treat themselves with distilled water -
which is cheaper.
Science cannot explain how such highly dilute solutions could have an
effect, that is until the French biologist Jacques Benveniste came along.
Working at his laboratory in Paris, Dr Benveniste formulated the idea that
water retains a "memory" of what has been dissolved in it and that it is
this memory that results in the homoeopathic effect. In 1988 Dr Benveniste
published a study in the journal Nature in support of his water-memory
theory. He claimed his experiments showed that an ultra-dilute solution
exerted a biological effect.
However, the then editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox, had insisted that he
would only agree to publication if he was able to investigate Dr
Benveniste's laboratory procedures. A few weeks later Sir John invited an
American science fraud investigator, Walter Stewart, and a professional
magician and arch sceptic, James Randi, to watch over Dr Benveniste as he
and his team tried to repeat the experiments.
The Nature investigation concluded that Dr Benveniste had failed to
replicate his original study. In subsequent issues of Nature, Dr Benveniste
suffered the professional ignominy of being ridiculed by arguably the most
influential scientific journal in the world.
As a result, the idea of memory water was consigned to the dustbin of
science history, or so it was thought.
France as a country is a keen advocate of homoeopathy and there were many
French scientists who had not given up on the notion of investigating the
phenomenon. Among them was a one-time collaborator of Dr Benveniste called
Philippe Belon, who now works for a French homoeopathy company, Boiron.
Dr Belon, who fell out with Dr Benveniste a long time ago, has investigated
high dilutions for 20 years and although he works for Boiron, and has
himself tried homoeopathic remedies, he insists he is only interested
discovering the truth about the claims.
In the spirit of scientific investigation he organised a collaboration
between four different groups in Europe who all undertook to carry out
identical high dilution experiments at separate places involving separate
teams of scientists.
The British end was run by Professor Madeleine Ennis, an established asthma
researcher at Queen's University of Belfast and an avowed sceptic of all
things homoeopathic.
In fact Professor Ennis became involved in the project in the first place
because she could not accept what some of her scientific colleagues were
saying. "I told people I didn't believe it so they said 'why don't you try
it'," Professor Ennis said.
The dilution experiments they carried out, and now published in Inflammation
Research, involved a substance called histamine which is released by a type
of white blood cell called a basophil. Normally basophils release histamine,
and as levels of histamine rise this exerts a "negative feedback" which
inhibits further release of histamine.
The four teams of scientists tested highly dilute solutions of histamine to
see whether they still exert an effect on basophils in a test tube. At
extreme dilutions, three out of four laboratories found a statistically
significant effect and the fourth found an effect which just fell out of the
typical range for statistical significance.
Professor Ennis emphasised that the research does not prove that homoeopathy
works, nor does it even show that Dr Benveniste was right because he had
used a different test for a high-dilution effect. "The paper didn't test
homoeopathy, it tested high dilutions of histamine. I know what we tested
and I cannot explain the results," said Professor Ennis.
For Dr Belon, however, the research does at least support the basic premise
behind homoeopathy. "Of course it supports it, on the other hand it is not a
demonstration that homoeopathy works," he said.
In whatever ways the latest findings are interpreted, they cannot be
ignored. The experiments were repeated by four different teams using the
same experimental protocol that involved a blind code - the scientists did
not know whether they were working with a high dilution solution or a
control sample of pure water until the code was broken at the end of the
experiment.
When BBC Horizon televised a similar attempt at replicating the same
experiment two years ago, the results were negative but scientists such as
Dr Belon believe this was trial by media rather than science by the
peer-review process.
This time, with a full scientific paper detailing the precise protocol,
anyone can try to replicate the findings - and replication is the essence of
science. Until others repeat the work it will take a lot to convince
sceptics such as James Randi, who has offered $1m to the first person to
prove the scientific basis of homoeopathy.
Mr Randi warns about reading too much in a single scientific paper. "A paper
is a paper is a paper. Don't forget, two scientists wrote a paper, published
in Nature, back in 1974, that endorsed the powers of Uri Geller," he said.
But the homoeopathic gauntlet has been thrown down. The question now is
whether anyone will be brave enough to pick it up.
19 August 2004 11:52
Dana Ullman, MPH
Homeopathic Educational Services
2124 Kittredge St.
Berkeley, CA. 94704
(510)649-0294
(800)359-9051 (orders only in the U.S.)
(510)649-1955 (fax)
mail@homeopathic.com
http://www.homeopathic.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]