|
|
|
|
Alexander1304
Skeptic Friend
75 Posts |
 Posted - 02/03/2012 : 10:27:15
|
Hello all,
Its me again with the weird thing.
I've seen discussion/analysis over Internet about Benveniste/Ennis experiments and others(Rey,Montagnier).So I was satisfied that this topic was pretty much covered by skeptic community.
But recently I came across one article,and it puzzled me with its conclusions.
The article say to reproduce Benveniste using some new technology.The experiment was done at one lab in Slovenia by professor of theoretical biology Igor Jerman,full text is here(2006):
http://www.homoeotimes.com/archive/aut_ignor.htm
I just copy first point of his conclusion:
"1.The memory of water is a real phenomenon that deserves full scientific attention. The dogmatism of scientific establishment is untenable and deeply unscientific."
I repsonally have a mixed feelings here.
On the one hand,argument presented by professor of biology based on experiment,and is not covered by skeptical community so far
On the other hand,unlike the works of Benveniste,Ennis,Rey and Mintagnier,this work never mentioned in any scientific media so far,only on one Homeopathic website.
As I told ,I'm very gullible person,but I tried to learn something,and before jumping to any conclusion I think valid questions are:
Was similar experiment done by any other researchers and produced similar result?
Was this test double-blind?
And my personal impression that author doesn't hold neutral position,but biased in favour of Homeopathy.
Also reading article sometimes I got feeling that it borders New Age/Pseudoscience.
And maybe this could be counter point from BBC(2008):
"Could water really have a memory":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7505286.stm
"First of all, it is worth noting that there have been many attempts to reproduce Benveniste's experiments - occasionally there are positive results, but they are neither consistent nor convincing, and in any case these are countered by several negative results."
Anyway,Jerman's experiment so far remains"untracked" by skeptical community and I'm m confused.
Any thoughts will be appreciated
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2012 : 11:01:32 [Permalink]
|
This is a review article, summarizing other papers, and so doesn't include many details in terms of methods, so without finding the original papers it's not possible to critique how these experiments were done. It'd be fascinating to see how they used "computerised electrophotography of corona discharge around water drops" to come up with an objective metric with which to determine the success or failure of their experiments.
Of course, since Jerman published his evidence for the utility of succussion in an acupuncture journal (why would anyone think that the editors/reviewers there would have the expertise necessary to properly assess a paper full of "electrophotography" results of various chemical solutions?), it is unlikely to be persuasive. In fact, the review paper references not only an acupuncture journal, but a couple web sites and some other homeopathy journals. Not real compelling.
Really, lots of crappy papers get published in lots of crappy journals every year. It's only when woo gets published in journals like Nature or Science (or, as in Benevitse's case, the Journal of Immunology) that skeptics take much notice, because otherwise there simply wouldn't be enough time to pay attention to it all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Alexander1304
Skeptic Friend
75 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2012 : 11:12:30 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks,Dave W,so I think we agree that from just this paper there is no point to jump to any conclusions.And I think You make grerat point by saying that only when woo is published in serious journals,skeptics have time to respond,othervise it just go unnoticed |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2012 : 11:44:17 [Permalink]
|
I went looking for "Instrumental measurements of different homeopathic dilutions of potassium iodide in water" to see if it contains a description of the whole corona-discharge thing, but was unable to find a full-text copy online for free.
However, Jerman's website has a description:After capturing the images they are passed to a computer where they are processed and analyzed partly by standard and partly by specially developed software. The features of corona discharge patterns are expressed through a suitable set of parameters that are obtained and compared by computer analysis. The parameters express the most important angular, radial and overall characteristics of each image. Sounds interesting...The differences between treated and control water are then qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated. Well, the word "qualitatively" just ruins the whole thing, doesn't it?The significance of the results is statistically tested. All the statistical tests in the world won't turn a subjective opinion into science. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Alexander1304
Skeptic Friend
75 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2012 : 11:52:12 [Permalink]
|
It would be interesting to send group of neutral researchers to this lab to perform proper double-blind test and to see what happens.When other researchers tested Benveniste and Ennis,the resluts were negative,althought Benveniste is still the hero of Homeopathy.Because it is another problem to make conclusion from Jerman's study - he is not neutral,but pro-Homepopathy.
Nobel-Prize winner Luc Montagnier also published something in 2009 in support of "water memory" but moved to China to continue his research,to "escape intellectual terror",to his words.So far nothing interesting was heard from hims since then.
Dave W,from the start of Jerman's website: "At the present time throughout the world a growing amount of evidence is being accumulated that water is able to store imprints of various influences to which it is exposed (the so-called memory of water)."
Really?I see that Jerman's links are all about late 90's.Wikipeadia about Benveniste ends this way:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste)
"The idea of "water memory" remains controversial and is not generally accepted by scientists."
I'm familiar with Louis Rey,but even Benveniste was skeptical about his results.Then Luc Montagnier,but last time he was heard is 2009.
I name them becase they at least were published in New Scientist |
| Edited by - Alexander1304 on 02/03/2012 12:10:22 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2012 : 13:19:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Alexander1304
It would be interesting to send group of neutral researchers to this lab to perform proper double-blind test and to see what happens.When other researchers tested Benveniste and Ennis,the resluts were negative,althought Benveniste is still the hero of Homeopathy. |
(emphasis above mine)
And there you have it. Homeopathy is the realm for True Believers(tm). Just like vaccine-causes-autism crowd. In any religious movement, there are a lot of people who deperately cling to their beliefs. Even if clear evidence show they are wrong, or when a "high priest" is shown to be a fraud, they rally in defence instead of re-evaluating their own position.
It doesn't matter if their name is Benveniste, Andrew Wakefield, or Bernardo Álvarez
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Alexander1304
Skeptic Friend
75 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2012 : 13:26:04 [Permalink]
|
| Just on other thread I got message with the link,pointing that Dr.Igor Jerman is the member of editor board for the book promoting Astrology as Science.Somewhat telling,I'd say... |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Water memory..again?
