How positive research results supporting homeopathy can be obfuscated…

Here is a study I was reading today:

Original Research Papers

Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation

P. Belon 1, J. Cumps 2, M. Ennis 3, P. F. Mannaioni 4, M. Roberfroid 5, J. Sainte-Laudy 6, F. A. C. Wiegant 7

© Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2004

Inflammation Research

Inflamm. res. 53 (2004) 181–188

What it is about is doing a test involving the use of histamine to inhibit basophil activation.

Here is what is said in the Introduction:

Human basophils play a key role in allergic diseases. Activation of basophils via cross-linking of membrane bound IgE induces fusion of the cytoplasmic granules with the plasma membrane and the subsequent release of potent mediators including histamine. Histamine itself can inhibit the further degranulation of the basophil by acting on H2 receptors [1, 2]. A series of investigations, mainly by one group, has demonstrated that high dilutions of histamine are also capable of inhibiting basophil degranulation.

So what I get from this introduction is something like this:

Basophils are involved in allergy reactions — the do something to bring on allergy symptoms. The way they do that is that an antibody (IgE antibody, which is the one that allergic people produce) has combined with the cell and makes it do its basophil thing. One of the main things is releasing histamine which causes a big reaction in the tissues.

However, if histamine is already out there it prevents more of the basophil action — sort of sounds like a feedback system, doesn’t it?

Then they go on:

Although a biological action of ultra high dilutions has been shown, this is extremely controversial [5 – 8]. Indeed the paper published by Benveniste and colleagues in 1988 sparked a series of letters and investigations of various degrees of seriousness [7–15]. This group suggested that high dilutions of anti-IgE were able to stimulate human basophils. Ovelgönne et al. and Hirst et al. attempted to repeat these experiments but found no evidence for any periodic or polynomial change of degranulation as a function of anti-IgE dilution [7, 8]. The results did, however, contain a source of variation that could not be explained [8].

So now they are telling us why they are doing this study. The prior work that Benveniste did, that caused so much upset, was a similar study using basophils, etc., only they did it with a different angle, using highly diluted antibody (actually diluted and succussed but the critics like to leave the succussion part off because just dilution sounds so silly). They found the highly diluted antibody caused the basophils to be triggered and to release their stuff. (We might remember that many laboratories duplicated this work. I don’t remember how many, I want to say 6?).

However some other group said they did it as well and could find no evidence for “any periodic or polynomial change” of the basophil effect. What the hell does that mean?

Periodic I assume means some kind of variation related to the dilution of the antibody. I looked up “polynomial” in the dictionary and it gives this definition:

an expression of more than two algebraic terms, esp. the sum of several terms that contain different powers of the same variable(s).

So what the hell does this mean? Best I can come  up with is that the research group reported they could not find some sort of correlation, even a mathematical one, related to the Benveniste dilution/succussion studies. It sort of implies a criticism doesn’t it? But why? I mean if there is no correlation then that means there is no correlation, right? Is there some sort of law that says there has to be a mathematical formula for an observation to be real? Maybe there is one but we don’t know it yet.

So then they say:

Our experiments began in the early 80’s and were initially based on examination of the activity of histamine dilutions on basophil activation measured by alcian blue staining. The first series of studies used specific allergen and leukocytes taken from allergic subjects and thereafter we employed anti- IgE. These data obtained between 1981–1994 [16–20] demonstrated inhibition of basophil activation by histamine dilutions which were always in the same dilution range (between 10–6 and 10–8 and 10–30 to 10–34 theoretical molar concentrations). The inhibition by histamine was reversed by an H2 receptor antagonist (cimetidine) and a structural analogue such as histidine showed no effect [21].

Whew! OK. Since the 1980′s they have been doing some studies of this. They used a test that stained the basophils which was the way they determined if the cells had discharged or not. Presumably the dye showed granules or something. The first tests they did involved mixing what they thought was the thing causing the allergy in a person (the allergen) and white blood cells from people with allergies. They mixed the two together and added diluted histamine to see what would happen. They apparently had an effect from the diluted histamine even in dilutions as high as 10 to the 34th dilution (they don’t say if they did succussion, presumably they did it like Benveniste). Well, a 10 to the 34th dilution is equivalent to a remedy potency of histamine of 17c, not super high but high enough that it is beyond any physical substance being present. If you remember that Avogadro’s number is the number of molecules of histamine in a (more or less) quart of water (or whatever) and that number is 10 to the 23rd molecules being present, then a dilution to 10-34 is way beyond that. How far beyond? Well, 34-23 = 11, which is then a dilution beyond the last molecule of histamine done 11 more times (assuming a 1:10 dilution). Pretty darn likely there is no more histamine around (unless one really sticky molecule somehow hung on!).

So you can see why they say:

Given the controversial nature of these results, a multi-centre blind investigation of the inhibition of basophil degranulation by high dilutions of histamine was performed. In order to further investigate the effect, using a flow cytometric assay of basophil activation, further studies were performed in three of the participating laboratories. Part of this work has been published in the form of refereed extended abstracts [21–23].

They start out saying what they found out before is controversial (well, hey! it is not always predictable what you are going to find). Having been in science myself I can tell you what this means. “Controversial” means that some people just don’t like the results. Tough noodles, guys, that is the way science comes down.

Anyway, they are going to really go for it now. A “multi-centre” investigation means they are going to do the experiments in more than one laboratory. Presumably this reduces cheating or maybe some particular investigator from controlling it with their mind. That it is spelled “centre” instead of “center” means this is really high level stuff.

Then they use a new assay method, the “flow cytometric assay”. I have no idea what this is, but sounds really impressive. I mean it is flowing…

I think “cytometric” must mean that they are counting the cells so maybe the cell broth is flowing through some sort of counting apparatus? I like it.

Then they finish up by letting us know that what they have already published was “refereed”. What does this mean? Well, means they got some other people to agree with them, that their studies were done OK. This is important because we all know that there can’t be anything new found in science that others will not agree with, right? I mean what if you were the ONLY ONE! Like maybe Einstein, or Galileo or one of those radicals.

Anyway, I digress…

So then they do their study, get some of the same effects, tell us how terribly careful they were this time (had the solution prepared someone else and had the people preparing wearing eye patches — oops! I mean “blinded” so they didn’t know what they were preparing, and so on. They go on to justify the “flow” way of evaluating, how people were trained to be accurate and so on — actually quite impressive. They were able to see positive effects in multiple laboratories and they put the conclusions (and, yes, there are detailed tables and charts if you want to study them) like this:

It is clear from Figure 1 that ultra-high dilutions of histamine inhibit basophil activation (CD63) without any dose-response relationship. It is equally clear from Figure 4 that high dilutions of histamine inhibit the immunological release of histamine without any dose-response relationship.

Did you get it? They are saying YES the high dilutions DID have action on the cells. This is amazing, isn’t it? But they put it in a way that you would hardly notice it. Like when you read it, sort of seems like they are saying they couldn’t really show any dose relationship, like that is the point of the sentence. I think that means they could not correlate the effect with what dilution they used BUT THERE WAS STILL AN EFFECT SEEN ANYWAY. Wouldn’t you think they would really get excited about this?

Well, to my eye they are actually embarrassed by it because they take the trouble to sort of justify what they found. Usually in a scientific report the beginning of it will have the history so to speak, the work that others have done that leads up to this. In this report they actually insert the positive results of others in the Discussion part, at the end. Odd, and not typical but I think because they are trying to say “See, we’re sorry we got these results but these other guys did first…”).

Here is what they put in:

Other biological models have examined the effects of high dilutions:

– Doutremepuich and co-workers [6, 31, 32, 33] demonstrated that, in the rat, high dilutions of aspirin (15 C 10–30 g/l) have pro-aggregant and prothrombotic activity. They showed that the effect of an injection of 100 mg/kg aspirin is totally inhibited by the extemporaneous injec- tion of aspirin 15 C.

– Jonas and co-workers [34] demonstrated that preincubation of neuronal cells with high dilutions of glutamate (10–22 and 10–30 g/L) protects against subsequent exposure to toxic levels of glutamate. High dilutions of cycloheximde (10–27 M) also protected against the effects of glutamate exposure [35].

– Using a radioactive tracer method high dilutions of As2O3 (10–14 g/l) enhanced the elimination of orally administered arsenious anhydride [36].

So they are saying that other studies showed similar results with highly “diluted” substances:

1. diluted aspirin affected clotting.

2. diluted glutamate protected nerve cells from damage from toxic doses of the same (isopathy).

3. diluted cyclohexamide also protected nerve cells from toxic doses of glutamate (I don’t know why but that is not the  point).

4. diluted arsenic enhanced elimination of arsenic when (rats?) poisoned by mouth with it.

So they are trying to say they are not alone in this. Still they bury the results as much as they can. When you read it, however, they do say that they had positive results, even dramatic results, in all 3 laboratories.

They do have the gumption to say they can’t explain it (doesn’t matter that we homeopaths can cause we’re wrong, right?)

We are not yet able to propose any theoretical explanation of these findings. Despite searching for artefacts, we have been unable to find any. Taking into account the ultralow concentration of molecules in such dilutions, we hypothesize that biological information must come from solvent which is pure water in our experiments. Thus we have investigated not only biological models but also physical models.

They are buying into the whole fictitious “water structure” model as a way of sneaking around it. I mean why not just say they don’t have the slightest idea how to explain it from their understanding of biology and chemistry? They go on to quote some of the “water structure” ideas. This unfortunately is being promulgated in the homeopathic community and I predict it will backfire — badly. Why? There may be changes in water, could be, but a side effect and irrelevant.

Why do I say that? Simply because if this is how remedies act (through restructuring water) then water is necessary in the preparation of remedies. This has been well shown not to be the case, therefore water is not the necessary ingredient.

Evidence?

1. Trituration = remedies made without water, in milk powder.

2. Benveniste’s experiments = remedies made into potency with no water whatsoever. He used two kinds of alcohol.

3. Experiments reported by Hahnemann (1836 if I remember right) in which 1 dry medicated pellet added to 13,500 dry unmedicated pellets, the whole lot shaken together and the remedy potency transferred to all the pellets.

That these 3 examples show ipso facto that water is not necessary means that water is not necessary in making remedies. Therefore, it is not the way in which the information is transferred or carried to the patient.

I pointed this out in the lecture. In discussion afterwards with the homeopath sitting next to me, he said that even if this is not the way remedies act it may be convincing to non-homepaths — hardly a reason to spread the error to my mind.

Anyway, I digress. In this paper, the authors are reluctantly grabbing the water ship as it leaves the harbor. I mean, by God, it can’t be something that is not physical, right? If it were then those damn homeopaths would be right and there are people that would rather die than have homeopaths be right.

The last paragraph in the paper:

The findings presented in this paper suggest that high dilutions may indeed exert an effect on cellular activity. We are however unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to encourage others to investigate this phenomenon. On the basis of previous results, we plan to test with the flow cytometric technique the effect of other agents such as H1 agonists and antagonists and autocoïds.

Don’t you love it? I understand this because I used to be in academia and write papers like this. You can’t say “WE FOUND THAT HIGH DILUTIONS HAVE BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY, LIKE IN HOMEOPATHY!” No, you have to tone it down. You say “the findings in this paper suggest…” Do you get it? They didn’t do it — THE FINDINGS DID IT! Those damn findings.

Not only that but they “may” indeed exert an effect. Duh! What did your experiment show? Did the flow counter say “maybe”? But this is the way you are supposed to write scientific papers. No one actually did the work, the findings came out on their own, and what they tell you may or may not be correct — I mean who am I to say, the lowly scientist.

Anyway, they are plunging ahead with more studies.

Will be interesting.

The Attacks on Homeopathy and the Lack of Intelligence

This article that follows is a very reasonable discussion of the current trend towards attacking homeopathic medicine and making fun of it. Worth reading. I have made comments in it myself, to share my thoughts. My comments in bold and blue.

Homeopathy and Dr. James Le Fanu: if this is a witch hunt, help me find my torch … In describing the BMA’s recent vote against homeopathy on the NHS as a “witch hunt”, Dr. James Le Fanu has misunderstood the nature of evidence-based medicine, writes Martin Robbins. Dr. Le Fanu is confused by the sudden interest in attacking homeopathy, after the BMA voted to stop providing it on the NHS, and cites two possible reasons for it.

It could, he suggests, be a cunning NHS PR stunt to divert attention from other criticism. Or it could be part of a devilish conspiracy by the medical establishment to seize some prime property in London. As someone involved in these attacks I can offer a third reason, one that seems to have escaped the doctor – ordinary people are fed up with the absurd sight of taxpayers’ money being wasted on magical pills from the 18th century. – UK Telegraph/ Martin Robbins

Dominant Social Theme: Homeopathy is witchery.

This article is first showing us some of the criticism against homeopathy before discussing it in a balanced and reasonable way.

I would like to point out that the attacks cited above (which are typical) are not intelligent. Here is what I mean:

1. The first thing said is that this doctor would like to join the ranks of those against homeopathy and carry a torch — which implies the burning of witches. In other words, he wants to destroy it. But this is not intelligent because no reason or facts are given, just he doesn’t like it. Not liking something (as we all know) is subjective and has nothing to do with facts of intelligence.

2. The second part, the suggestion that this is “magical” and also “science of the 18th century” is also not intelligent for these reasons.

a) to say something is magic is a judgment which shows the person saying it does not understand it and means nothing more. For example, if we went back 100 years and showed someone a cell phone they would use the word “magic” (or worse ones), yet obviously they just don’t understand what a cell phone is. So using this word actually reflects a lack of understanding of the critic. Again, not a reflection of their intelligence.

b) to criticize it as 18th century science is also not intelligent because it has no meaning. It is implied that it is out of date but actually much of science that we  use and consider true is older than that. For example, Newton’s findings are still relevant today and apply to our daily lives. This is also true for understanding the relationship between electricity and magnetism (18th century), the periodic table of the elements, engineering and on and on — all discoveries of some time ago that even though it dates back to that time, are all considering still accurate and useful. So to say that homeopathy is “wrong” because it dates back to the 18th century is unintelligent.

The writer now goes on to give a more fair and balanced perspective on this issue.

Free-market Analysis: It should be fairly clear to most who patronize the “alternative” media that there is a vast divide as regards health care and medicine. Many writers, speakers and researchers in the alternative ‘Net media find mainstream medicine no more convincing than mainstream science or mainstream economics, and for many of the same reasons. Here at the Bell, we would gladly admit that homeopathy makes no discernable sense; yet we are not apt to discard it as a potential treatment just because we don’t understand it.

The excellent point is made that mainstream medicine is no more convincing. That is exactly the reason that many turn to homeopathy. If mainstream medicine was so logical, reliable, reproducible, EFFECTIVE, then we would not turn to other methods. An obvious point glossed over by critics. It is actually those of us on the front lines of medical practice that are best qualified to say that the mainstream methods are really not that great.

Of course, this is generally a kind of dominant social theme in the early 21st century: “If it is not scientifically comprehensible and proven in double-blind tests, then it is mere superstition.” Of course we would like to make the point that double-blind tests, especially those conducted with fairly limited numbers of people over fairly limited time periods may not amount to much more than superstitious rituals themselves. Anyone who keeps track of the drugs launched after “double blind test confirmations,” only to then be recalled years later by Big Pharma, should surely be aware that such tests raise as many questions as they are intended to answer.

This again is often ignored, that the use of medicines based on double-blind studies in the past often turn out not to be reliable or even “living up” to the suggestion they would be effective. Double-blind is not an especially useful method of determining reliability of medicines.

It is not just double-blind tests, of course, that are questionable. We have been privileged to analyze Western cultural, military, sociopolitical and intellectual assertions over these past few years and in conducting our due diligence we have often been shocked by how often fundamental verities often resemble promotions more than reality. We suppose we should not be surprised, for by now we have concluded that virtually every aspect and facet of Western existence has been tuned to advance the interests of a small circle of incomprehensibly wealthy families and individuals. And yet we do remain repetitively astonished.

In science for instance, there is every indication that Einstein’s gravitational ideology is coming undone and that the “electronic universe” theory may provide a far more cogent explanation for physical science than what is being examined today. But you will hardly find a word about this in the mainstream press, which is constantly filled with wonder by elements of “big science,” which continue to produce little while costing much.

There is much going on in physics, as suggested here, that is behind the scenes and actually is quite different than what is usually promulgated. Just this week, scientists found that the size of atom protons is smaller than they thought. Does it matter? Here is what is said in one of the new’s stories:

_____________________________

Smaller Proton a “Significant Shake-up”

The proton finding won’t impact most people’s daily lives. But if it proves correct, it means something fundamental is wrong in particle physics.

It’s possible the smaller proton means the Rydberg constant hasn’t been correctly measured. This value describes the way light gets emitted from various elements—a key component of spectroscopy, which is used, for instance, to tell which kinds of elements exist in galaxies and the vast interstellar gas-and-dust clouds called nebulae. Or, if the Rydberg constant is correct, the smaller size of a proton could mean the equations in QED theory will fail to work. (QED = quantum electrodynamics)

“It is a significant shakeup and could mean a complete rethink of QED, potentially opening the door to a new theory,” said Jeff Flowers, a scientist with the National Physical Laboratory in the U.K., who wasn’t involved with the experiment.

_____________________________

In politics, the West’s regulatory democracy is ascendant, though there is little proof that regulations are at all effective in the long run or that, if effective, they produce the results that are desired. There are fundamental economic principles explaining clearly that regulations cannot function otherwise but as price fixes that manipulate the margins and thus distort the entire economy – subtracting from the quality of life whatever “perceived benefits” they may add to general welfare and safety.

In economics, mercantilist central-banking provides the basis for the world’s major economies though there is no evidence that human beings can in any feasible way set the price and quantity money without causing major financial crises. When the crises indeed do take place, central banks are sometimes blamed (at least a little bit, these days) for the carnage – as they should be – but the system continues onward, as if its dysfunction were not evident and the logic not discredited.

In literature and art, the symptoms of manipulation are everywhere. Throughout the 20th century, classical reading lists (the “canon”) were compiled, but anyone analyzing them without bias would soon see that that these lists included hardly any free-market thinkers and writers and were almost entirely socialist and “leveling” in nature. Art, meanwhile, has wandered into a sterile cul-de-sac that celebrates shock value, corporatism and giganticism over expressions of the human spirit and the aching beauty of past masterpieces.

Education seems lacking at every level, from public school through advanced scholarship. Children in the West are presented with ever-more dumbed-down curricula while the halls of higher learning are swamped by political correctness and general misinformation. The entire history of Western culture is routinely misrepresented at all levels of education, with little attention paid to real causation of important scientific, social and military events, even as certain individuals and groups are celebrated because they are politically correct.

What is startling, when one takes a step back, is that the 20th and now the 21st century seem to provide a kind of fish bowl of misinformation within which most happily swim, never knowing any better. It is in fact the Internet that has allowed us to exit this vast fishbowl and to take a step back to see how thoroughly Western society has been diminished.

There is, unfortunately, a pattern to it all. At every level of the West’s descent into a kind of ineluctable ignorance one finds busy agents of the power elite, beavering away to insure that the decline continues. The impulse, almost always, is to impress upon the naïve, the trusting, the young and the old, the halt and the healthy, that a handful of authorities, peopled by a select few individuals, are equipped to take life-decisions for all.

This is indeed the animating impulse of the 20th and now the 21st century. The power elite has left no stone unturned, no aspect of life untouched. Anywhere that one looks, the pattern is there if one wishes to see. Individualism is downgraded; Misesian human action is not to be considered and “experts” are celebrated for the vastness and costliness (the sophistries and sophistication) of their solutions.

Returning to medicine and homeopathy, we see the same forces at work. Bigness is celebrated. Experts are created and quoted via the same process that has created all the other questionable competencies. Health care and the provision of medicine is increasingly concentrated in the hands of Big Pharma which is in turn controlled by the elite. Hospitals and medical care, meanwhile, are increasingly socialized and subject to government control even though there is no evidence that care can be better provided by the public rather than the private sector.

Those who damn homeopathy and other non-pharmaceutical solutions, do so within the context mentioned above. So much is manipulated, coerced and entirely falsified. Indeed, it becomes highly ironic that authorities and experts, submerged in this system, pop up to point fingers at alternative medicine and health care, as if their own atmospheres were any less murky.

The medical establishment, worshipping zealously at the altar of the “double-blind,” has raised questions about vitamins, homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture. But we would argue the track record of Western scientific endeavor of the past 100 years has been increasingly traduced by money power and therefore any protests must be seen within the context of a larger agenda of command and control.

Again, we do not know if homeopathy works, or why it might work. But the treatment and its medicines have been around for at least a century now and enjoy significant support. Likewise, there is plenty of apocryphal evidence that vitamins, above and beyond what is found in food, are very important to ongoing health. Acupuncture, recently, was apparently found to have some sort of scientific validity, so presumably it will be attacked less. But generally, the idea that any expert functioning within the environs of the West as it is today, has ascended to a level of unimpeachable integrity, is fairly and increasingly risible.

Conclusion: The Internet has truly provided us with a space capsule. As we soar above the West, we can see clearly how the culture and society have become distorted by power-elite dominant social themes. These fear-based promotions touch every aspect of our lives. Until they are eradicated or at least reduced in impact, we must be very careful to judge reality for ourselves. Whether it is homeopathy or anything else, we should attempt to see things as they are rather than as we are instructed they should be. It is the only way to escape from the fishbowl.

———————————————–

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010070810922/health-and-education/the-heck-with-homeopathy.html

Starting a blog!

This is just started so I have set about learning how to use it. I will start by just posting thoughts and observations that come up during my day working in this area. Mostly what I do during the day is advise in general terms in animal care, consult with veterinarians, administrate forums, prepare teaching material, plan and organize seminars. During this I run into a variety of interesting things so may just start putting them up here.

Feeding grains to dogs and cats.

Since the last edition of our book was published there has been a strong movement towards feeding dogs and cats primarily meat and bones. Along with this, the strange idea has been put forth that grains are harmful or poisonous. Likely this is an exaggeration of the concept that grains in large amounts are not the optimal diet. The situation is more complex, however, than most realize.

The first question is if grains are not good for animals. The short answer is that grains are well accepted by animals if they are properly prepared. By this, I mean that the animal digestive tract is shorter than the human so the grains must be well cooked to be digestible.

Well, then, are they are in some way harmful? They are not if the quality is good. By “quality” we are meaning that the grains are complete, not just “leftovers” from milling. Also they need to be fresh, not rancid or spoiled. One would assume this is obvious but the fact is that commercial pet foods can use the leftovers and rejects from the production of human foods – the spoiled, contaminated, nutritionally inadequate floor sweepings – as their source of grains. Much of the concern about the harmful effect of grains in food for animals is because of the poor quality grain used in many commercial foods. The formula is like this:

Poor quality grain in commercial food = diminished health in animals = avoidance of grain based commercial foods = all grains are bad.

You can see that the first 3 steps make sense but the last conclusion does not as it is not taking into account that the health problems seen in animals has to do with the quality of the ingredient rather than the nature of it, e.g. that it is from grains.

Research into animal nutrition as cited in “Nutrient Requirements for Dogs” and “Nutrient Requirements for Cats” published by the Subcommittee on Dog Nutrition and Cat Nutrition by the National Research Council (about as reliable as one is going to find outside of the industry) reports that growing dogs fed a diet of up to 62% starch (which is an unusually simple carbohydrate, grains being much more complete) were able to digest 84% of the starch and use it for growth and energy. Even more significant these puppies had no apparent health effects from such a diet, growing the same as the group fed no carbohydrates.

Cats have been shown to be able to digest over 96% of starch fed to them.

There is more to this topic we have to consider but we will pick that up in the next posting if there is interest.