Debunker proves homoeopathy right

I am a New Scientist addict. I find it fascinating to read articles that challenge my understanding of the world around me, and debunk commonly held notions.

A recent article was titled "13 things that do not make sense". Everyone`s heard the argument about how according to the laws of aerodynamics, the bumblebee should not be able to fly.

Well, this is an exploration of 13 other science mysteries that shouldn`t work the way they demonstrably do. While no one ever really understood the laws of aerodynamics and how they affect the bumblebee, these laws are even more opaque to the man in the street.

However, if someone with an enquiring intellect and a quiet office feels like wading through the scientific gobbledygook to get to the crux of each mystery, the Wow Factor can be quite rewarding.

There was a couple that I had no hope of comprehending. Unfortunately the tangible realities of super-energised cosmic rays and tetraneutrons eluded me. Why can`t rays above the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit originate from anywhere other than our universe? Beats me. Why is it not possible for four neutrons to be bound together in a certain way? No idea.

These mysteries are not of the spine-tingling weird variety. Nor do they provide easy solutions for everyday puzzles that have bothered me for some time (like running hot water over a sticky jam jar lid).

Among the 13 listed mysteries was one that drew my attention, and this was a study done to debunk homoeopathy once and for all.

Georgina Guedes, Editor, ITWeb Brainstorm

But among the 13 listed mysteries was one that drew my attention, and this was a study done to debunk homoeopathy once and for all. Now I am a staunch defender of homoeopathy. To paraphrase the amateur art critic`s defence: "I don`t know much about medicine, but I know what works for me." And homoeopathy does.

I don`t know why it does. All scientific explanations of why it should have eluded me, and Madeleine Ennis, a pharmacologist at Queen`s University in Belfast, was until recently its strongest detractor.

The New Scientist article explains that she felt that homoeopathic practices of mixing a substance with water until no trace of the original substance could reasonably be found could have no pharmacological effect. She set out to prove it in her laboratory.

Much to her extreme surprise, the tests she ran that had ultra-dilute solutions of histamines introduced to the white blood cells involved in inflammation showed that the white blood cells responded in exactly the same way as if actual histamine had been introduced.

The implication is that the original substance somehow leaves some kind of imprint on the water molecules so that the ultra-dilute solution still carries the characteristics of the original, without it being present. This is what homoeopaths have been saying for years.

Ennis was not happy with her findings. Grudgingly, she admitted: "We are unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to encourage others to study the phenomenon."

The reason for her chagrin? If the results turn out to be correct, she explains, the profound implications are that we may have to rewrite physics and chemistry.