From: nrlfs1.nrl.navy.mil (Judy Karpen)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Homeopathy redux
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:33:15 GMT
Organization: NRL

This subject doesn't really have much relevance to nutrition (more to do with
alternative medicine, eh?), but I couldn't resist another posting on it.

Remember the flap in Nature over Benveniste's "research" on superdilutions
(can't remember the word used, but it was the type of extreme dilution --- way past 
1/Avogadro's number --- typical of homeopathic treatments)?  For those who missed this 
pathetic sequence of events, I'll give a short summary (relying on my feeble memory, 
alas), because it was really funny/sad. Makes cold fusion look good, sort of. 

Jacques Benveniste (aka B. from now on) claims to have measured significant effects of 
dilutions of order 1.0e-120 (yes, that's 1 part in 1 with 120 zeros after it!). The 
chemical being diluted was some agent that would induce degranulation in cells --- 
something that had an observable physiological effect evident even with his 
superdiluted mixture. His explanation was that the water retained a memory of the 
dissolved agent molecules, since there clearly weren't any molecules left in the final
solution. For a while he tried to get the results published in Nature, but referees 
bounced it because the results were so unphysical. Then Nature finally published it 
with reluctance, starting a major conflagration. Next, the Amazing Randi, Walter 
Stewart of NIH (one of the Baltimore scandal investigators), and others got into the 
act to see whether Benveniste's methodology, etc. was kosher (figurative, not literal).
Several interesting facts emerged. (1) The investigative team devised a double-blind 
experiment which, when carried out in B.'s lab, showed no effect. (2) The error 
distribution reported for the original experiment was too good to be true (a sure sign 
of data tampering). (3) Best of all, they caught B. redhanded trying to tamper with the
protocol for the double-blind experiment (i.e., the "key" used to decode the various 
blind tests). 

B. may not be playing with a full deck; I read an article (in a CSICOP book I think) 
which contained quotes from B. indicating that he considers himself the world's premier
scientist, etc. Furthermore, B.'s research was sponsored mostly by a huge French company 
which makes homeopathic products, so the obvious question of conflict of interest rears 
its ugly head. I'm not trying to bash the French, but homeopathy has a huge following 
there (can't remember exact figures but it's scary), which helped make this whole sorry 
affair into a nationalistic fight as well. If I remember correctly, even the French 
gov't. got into the act by defending B. beyond the call of duty (or common sense), 
perhaps because Nature is a British publication (perfide Albion? ;-} ). In the end, I'd 
venture that this episode further discredited homeopathy in the minds of those who 
weren't convinced in the first place, and (should have) placed doubts in the minds of 
believers, at least those who ascribe to basic logic and ethics. 
------------------------------
Afterword:
It's been interesting reading this newsgroup, because there's a clear delineation between
the proponents of the scientific method and others, I don't know quite what to call them.
The two groups barely speak the same language, and (as a result) don't communicate very 
well.  As a "hard" scientist by profession (and therefore in the first category), I'll 
always be glad to see alternative therapies given rigorous tests. If the results are 
statistically significant and replicable, that therapy should be taken as seriously as 
other, equally well-tested medical therapies (maybe this deserves a smiley...). It's 
unfortunate that prejudice, economics, etc. have prevented good, extensive testing of 
many possibly worthwhile therapies. Believe me, I am as disappointed as many of you in 
the present state of medical research/knowledge in a number of fields. However, lack of 
existing testing alone doesn't justify resorting to illogic and purely anecdotal "proof". 
In addition, attempts to fool people into believing in such therapies by fraudulent 
"research" and phony/exaggerated credentials only harms the credibility of the subject of
the research. BTW, what is this about expecting the *critics* of a particular alternative
therapy to do the proper tests?  That ain't how science, or funding agencies, work: 
rather, it was YOUR idea, YOU prove it (properly).

If you've made it this far, thanks for your patience. Hope you enjoy this quote I picked 
up from Yetiv's book (many thanks for telling us about this, Michelle Dick and Steve 
Dyer?):  "We should have our minds open, but not so open that your brains fall out 
(Allen Ross Anderson, eminent philosopher)." 


Judy Karpen
karpen@nrlfs1.nrl.navy.mil            "pushing back the frontiers of science..."
                                       This week's score:   science 1      me 0