Yes, I have. Fascinating, that Sheldrake. I do not ncessarily agree with all he says, but in general i cn find myself in a lot what he writes about.

Kaviraj.

__________________
Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.

Fascinating, yes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of this lacks any connection to reality. This includes Gina's article (I hope this somewhat remedies any disappointment Gina may have felt when skeptics did not fulfil her prediction of being all over it).

For instance, from Gina's article:

"The homeopathic remedies resonate various frequencies of vibrational energy (bioenergy). "

This may be so, but since we cannot measure, or in any way detect such 'bioenergy' the above sentence, for all its scientific tone, is purely speculative ( = fictional).

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

How so fictional? Simply because you do not know your facts - which you cannot chose by your own admission - here is a small list of PROOF of measurement, with differnt methods. A fool´s set of scales may tilt to one side, but we must carefully investigate what has been put into it.
What ends up as apparent logic and smartypants `gotcha`tactics appears to be too lightweight to sustain.

Here is something for you to chew over.

In chemistry, there is no special technique related to homoeopathy. Microchemistry, chromatography or even capillary spectra can reach the limit of the sensibility around a dilution 10,' or 101 which are very much within the Avogadro's limit.

1.Mrs. Kolisko (1926) made considerable studies on effects of high dilution on young plants' growth.
She demonstrated the action of dilution up to the 60th decimal or even beyond to the 200th decimal. She also observed the rhythmic and sinusoidal curve. Prof. Netien also studied the action of cobalt in homoeopathic dilutions on the breathing of wheat coleoptiles.

2.[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/home/CONFIG%7E1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.jpg[/IMG]Dr. Nebel in 1932 experimented on yeasts, intoxicated by Merc. cor.

3.Arndt and Schulz also experimented on yeast with Merc. cor, Iodine, Bromium and Salicylic acid and showed that in the weak doses these substances increase the multiplication of yeasts, yet strong doses kill them.

4.More recently, Prof. Netien et al studied the action of infinitesimal dilution of Naturm arsenicosum on the growth of yeasts in functions of these dilutions.

5.Dr. Lamasson studied the action of Korsakovian dilutions up to the M on cultures of staphylococcus aurous.

6.Hinsdale showed the inhibitive action of Calendula on staphylococcus.

7.Trying to demonstrate the desensitizing action of Apis mel, Dr. Doneche used white rats injected intra-peritoneal with ovalbumin solution. Apis 3rd centesimal or 5th centesimal injected at the same time as the ovalbumin, and then every one half hour, lessened considerably the edema.

8.J. and M. Telau ,observed that the diluted doses of Thuja disturbed the psychic balance of rats which lose their conditioning.

9.Therefore, the homoeo-scientists mainly concentrated on physical methods. In 1933 Loch built an apparatus named the Microlyometer for the demonstration of the presence of matter in dilutions and to establish the curves of these dilutions.

10.In 1936 W.E. Boyd of Glasgow, published the results of his research made with spectrograph. There the sensibility limit was found to reach only the 7th decimal for Aurum, Arsenicum and China. 7th decimal represents in current language a solution of 1/10,000,000, which is in fact rather a concentrated solution compared to homoeopathic dilution.

11.At about the same time, 0. Lesser and K. Janner published their research with radioactive phosphorus. They found the limit dosages at the 18th decimal (or 9th centesimal) dilution.
[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/home/CONFIG%7E1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image003.jpg[/IMG]
12.Heinz studied the physical action of dilutions using the infrared spectra and stressed on the specific value of succession. Like Gay, he found the rhythm indicating some favorable points in the curve of dilution.

13.In 1948, Wormser and Loch tested several substances from 24X to 30X. They used a photoelectric cell, to measure the intensity and wavelength of these potencies and found measurable changes, of both intensity and wave-length in these substances.

14.In the years 1951-3, Gay and Boiron tested both distilled water and Natrum muriaticum in the 27C potency, for their dielectric constant. They were able to show that the potency of Natrum mur. could be easily selected from among 99 control bottles.

15.Gay and J. Boiron (1951-1952) made a series of studies and gave results obtained with Gay's montage the name 'geography'. However, it was observed, in their delicate measurement certain variations could be produced by the glass solubility or by the use of corks".

16.[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/home/CONFIG%7E1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image004.jpg[/IMG]Physical researches include also those of Dr. Sevaux et al, who checked the unpublished experiments of Mrs. Vojn Radojicie regarding measurements of copper sulphate solution from 1st to 20th decimal potency (10th centesimal). They used bioelectrometer of Vincent.
Although chemical or physical methods were used to trace the presence of matter in dilution, yet it was believed that the link between the matter in dilutions and the activity of these dilutions could be best achieved by biological methods, since by reciprocity these methods enable one to detect the presence of a given substance by the activity of the product under investigation.

17.W.E. Persson studied the influence of micro-doses of Phosphoric acid and Arsenic on the dietetic action of tyrosine. With successive dilutions a sinusoidal curve was found.

18.Various works were also reported to be conducted with high dilutions on the vegetable realm. Of course few are the works that related to homoeopathy and undoubtedly many results need to be confirmed.

19.In recent time the author conducted a good number of experiments on wheat seeds, germinated in distilled water culture grown under the effect of high dilution of some known 'macro' and 'micronutrients' such as Ferrum sulphuricum, 'Cuprum sulphuricum etc. It was found that by post germination treatment of the substances, by dilutions even beyond Avogadro's limit, considerable growth stimulation effect was observed, by peregrination treatment specific disease symptoms in plants were produced. The disease symptoms were found to be more prominent in higher dilution i.e. 1M potency than in lower dilution i.e. 7th potency.
With the discovery of micronutrients, a large number of hitherto obscure plant diseases were identified as micro-nutrient deficiencies. But it became difficult to reconcile how the similar disease symptoms could be developed by the substances in toxic level.

20.[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/home/CONFIG%7E1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image005.jpg[/IMG]Dr. Nebel conducted several experiments on entire living ani-mals. He had been, however, censured for using too few animals. So his experiments have not been duplicated. However, be tried several ap-proaches: a 30th or 200th decimal dilution of mallein injected three weeks after injection of a live culture in the ear of a rabbit produced an intense vasodilatation of the peritumoral vessels while the opposite ear, intact, did not react at all.

21.Arthus studied the action of Calc, fluor in rickets. One per cent of Calc. fluor in 3rd decimal potency prolonged the life of rats as compared with controls submitted to the same rachitogenic diet.

22.Hofmeister studied the action of Pulsatilla on the genital function of the white mice, He however stated that it was not comparable with that of the action of hormones.

23.Dr. Cantegrit tried to show the emphylactic effects of a high dilution of Nux vomica in a guinea pig intoxicated with strychnine

24.Martiny and Pretec studied the anaphylactic phenomena.

25.Dr. Jarricot studied the action of veratrine on the muscular contraction of the frog gastrocnemius and concluded that a 30th Korsakovian dilution favors the work of the muscle. He then studied the action of lberis amara on the isolated heart of frog or tortoise.

26.[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/home/CONFIG%7E1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image007.jpg[/IMG]In 1963, Boericke and Smith tested a 12X potency of Sulphur, with and without succussion. They tested the solvent structure by nuclear magnetic resonance spectrum. They found that there were structural changes in the solvent, as the potency was increased by succussion, while no such change was detected in the controls. They repeated the experient in 1974, with diverse potencies of Sulphur, up to the 30C.

27.In 1966, Stephenson and Brucato tested both distilled water and Mercurius corrosivus, from the 1X to the 33X. They found that the dielectric constant for the controls varied from 5.6 to 6.05. For the homoeopathic potencies it varied from 2.8 to 4.4.

28.In 1975, Young tested Sulphur from 5X to 30X, with controls. He also tested the solvent structure by nuclear magnetic resonance spectrum. He found that there were measurable changes in the spectra at each dilution and succussion. No such changes were observed for the solution without succussion or without Sulphur.

29.In 1976, Boiron and Vinh used Raman Laser Spectoscopy, showing that for the 1C potency of Kali bichromicum the spectrum of alcohol disappears completely, while that for potassium bichromate appears. In Kali bich 1C the ratio of the number of potassium bichromate molecules is 1 to 500. In such a case the light meets 500 more alcohol molecules as those of bichromate, yet the alcohol spectrum does not appear.

30.[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/home/CONFIG%7E1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image008.png[/IMG]Four French researchers developed a method of detection through nuclear magnetic resonance, conducted in the late 80's, which shows specific sinus waves for each potency, as well as a specific sinus wave for the substance used. These latter re-main the same throughout all potencies of that substance, while the sinus wave expressing the potencies, are specific to those potencies. Thus a clear and recognisable scientifically provable frame of reference exists, for each remedy and potency.

31.Raulin, Charles Richet, Gabriel Bertrand and Javillier were first who demonstrated the role of oligoelements, so-called biocatalyst, on the growth of Aspergillus niger or on yeasts (silver, zinc, manganese), and on the laccase activity (manganese). Of course these experiments are not homoeopathic but they are often cited by the, homoeopaths to prove the reality of action of infinitesimal doses.

32.In 1982, Resch, Gutman and Schauer found that dilute sodium chloride solutions revealed an increase in electrical conductivity, by rocking them prior to measurement.

33.In recent time the French biologist Jacques Benveniste published in 'Nature' (1988) a paper titled "Human basophile deregulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against Ig E". The paper created lot of controversy in the scientific circles.

__________________
Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.

Exacly my point! We have no way of detecting those alleged "bioenergy resonances". Therefore any reference to them is pure speculation. Pure speculation = fiction.

How did she observe the rhythmic and sinusoidal curve?

And the results were?

A well-known effect and true for a lot of substances, even plain water.

Which of those studies would you like to discuss in detail?

It did indeed! You see, when proper controls were introduced, the result vanished. Benveniste had been fooled by the observation bias of one of his lab assitants. This so severely damaged his scientific reputation that he never really got over it.

I suggest you research your references a bit.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Ah, Hans,
why don't you follow your own advice?
You quote what suits your paradigm and ignore all the references that prove my point. Nitpicking and cherry-picking what suits your purpose is the hallmark of those that have no arguments. I gave the references, you look up the papers and investigate whether this is true - ALL OF THEM - not just the ones you think prove your point. Don't be opposed through willful ignorance; you are too intelligent to fall for that - or are you really? I have the impression you are, but i could be mistaken. Prove me wrong on that count please.

And if you want, i have a nice analysis of Benveniste's paper - which was attacked not because of any flaws in procedure, but because he claimed that water has memory - which i agree is abject nonsense. Water is a storage medium for information, much like a CD. A CD also has no memory. Water can be wiped of the info by distillation.

Regards,
Kaviraj.

__________________
Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.

Exactly. That is why I invited you to pick a paper to discuss. Otherwise, no matter which of the 33 papers I choose to criticize, you can accuse me of cherry-picking the one that supports my point (by being weak). And, of course, to find and analyze 33 papers is a big workload. Remember, YOU are the one with a point to prove, not I.

So, which paper do you want to discuss? ( ..first. We can take them all if you want, but one at a time)

About Benveniste: I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Benveniste's paper was demolished because on repetition of his experiment, with proper and complete blinding, the results failed to show up. I'm sure the reaction to that in the scietific community was so severe because the claim was so sensational, but that is only fair: The more sensational your result is, the more rigorous should you be in your experiment. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Hans, I have to prove nothing. I already know that your assertion it is illusory is untrue. 30 yrs of experience and 1.5 million clients later i KNOW that it works. You make the assertions about homeopathy, which you do not back up at all. So i throw thus back at you:

"Remember, YOU are the one with a point to prove, not I."

I DID THE RESEARCH ALREADY, NOW YOU DO YOURS. I gave you 33 papers to study, not to cherry-pick and have smartypants answers. Study them, ON THEIR OWN MERITS and not on the ones you arbitrarily apply, then get back to me. See you in a few weeks.

Regards,
Kaviraj.

__________________
Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.

I'm sorry, but that is not the way the world works. You are the one with a claim that defies the laws of physics, not I.

But if you don't want to back it up, suit yourself.

Your heap of mostly ancient papers don't impress anybody.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>