Featured Download
Speak Like a CEO
This chapter describes ten helpful actions and behaviors that will bring you...
Content provided in partnership with
Sceptic's tests support homoeopathy. Now the challenge for scientists
Independent, The (London), Aug 19, 2004 by Steve Connor Science Editor
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.
- Most Popular Articles in News
- The Ten Best Laptop bags
- Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market
- GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD
- Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...
- THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY
- More »
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.
