Book Bib ID 634476
Author Dingle, Peter

Description 1995.
xv, 185 leaves : ill. ; 30 cm.

Notes Thesis submitted to the School of Biological and Environmental Sciences.

Thesis (PhD)–Murdoch University, 1995.

Bibliography: leaves 151-170.

Subjects Formaldehyde – Environmental aspects. | Formaldehyde – Toxicology. | Indoor air pollution.

I recommend not to equate the – hoped – effect of ultra-diluted remedies with homeopathy in this simple way. The reason is twofold. At first there ARE homeopathic remedies that not so ultra-diluted and possibly still contain molecules of the “active ingredient”. The second is that the system of homeopathy is much more than using ultra-diluted remedies. Its other main point is the simile rule. And that is at least as unscientific than the dilution rule.
.

Time-by-time we will see “positive” studies about biological, biophysical effects of ultra-diluted solutions and no-one will be able to explain those. That is the life of doing experiments. If there would be a real scientific theory behind it, one would be able to adjust the experiment and finally figure out if the positive results are real results or artifacts. But here the simile effect and other rules of homeopathy do not help. Who knows why this remedy works and the other does not. Are they doing those type of trials? Why do the effect does not follow a clear pattern related to the degree of dilution?
.

If one would like to use these type of experiments as proof of homeopathy, he does not only have to show that there is an effect. The effect should follow the rules of homeopathy. Otherwise the effect is indistinguishable of a potential error in the setup – even if possibly will never know what that error was.
.

A respected physicist spent many years with the sophistication of the Michelson-Morley experiment and finally he came up with a clear, statistically positive result! Speed of light was different in different directions. Does that mean that special relativity is void and there is ether? No! It was most probably an artifact, an error in the experiment, but no-one know what it could be. That was an anomaly.
.

This is the same as with the “proofs” of acupuncture when using needles causes release of adenozin or endofins etc. It is NOT the proof of acupuncture as acupuncture is not ONLY puncturing needles anywhere anyhow. It should be placed into specific locations and in specific depth. Thus those positive results could mean something and they might even be relevant in some cases, but they are clearly not proof of acupuncture itself.
.

In the same way these experiments are either artifacts or really proofs that ultra-diluted remedies could have effects. It can not be decided. But we could have good guesses based on our general knowledge. It is most probably an artifact. It is not our duty to find the error in the experiment. It is the duty of the advocates of homeopathy to prove that these results are relevant in the aspect of homeopathy. Because it is not at all clear for me. The results does not follow the patterns that are predicted by the rules of homeopathy – plus they contradict with all known chemical, physical knowledge.
.

Do not give them a high ball to simply denying these results. These experiments shows something. They show the same for 30 years. There was no progress at all.