Episode Two - Homeopathy
I think it was Chrissi that mentioned this?
There was mention of the electo-magnetic connection to homeopathy. That was referencing this paper[1] by Luc Montagnier[2]. There's a number of issues I have with Homeopaths making this claim;
- It's not related to homeopathy at all. Read the conclusion
- The paper lacks any rigor. The methods used are described in an almost dismissive manner.
- The paper has many post hoc, ergo, proptor hoc fallacies
- The paper dismisses several thousand years of scientific advancement by assuming an anthropocentric view of the universe.
- The journal it's published in is too new to have built a reputation (second issue, lead study)
- Montagnier is on the board of editors for the journal, which does nothing to support the study and brings down the reputation of the journal.
- The time from submission to publication (2 days) was exceptionally quick, which does nothing to boost the journals reputation as there was insufficient time for effective peer-review.
While it is true that Luc is a Nobel Prize winner[3], it seems he is no longer taken seriously by the scientific community. In fact, he's been nominated for an iGNobel Prize[4], which is significant. If he wins he'll be the first person on the planet to have both a Nobel Prize and an iGNobel Prize.
The story gets even more bizarre. The device[5] that is used to make the measurements (in the paper) is currently at the center of a legal battle[6] between Luc and the devices inventor. Both have patent claims on it although these are likely to be dismissed. The patent examiner seemed suitably entertained and had this rather scathing assessment[7];
The invention is based on phenomena which contradict the fundamental principle of physics and of chemistry, i.e. the existence of biological or effect without an active molecule and no explanation or theoretical basis makes it impossible at the current time to explain the results obtained.
[1] http://lucmontagnierfoundation.org/montagnier/article-26-electromagnetic...
[2] http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/nz-skeptics-invite-homeopaths-join-campai... - I initially posted this information on Voxy.
[3] http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2008/montagnier-le...
[4] http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montagni...
[5] http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=WO&NR=200... (pdf)
[6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4959505/Man-who-...
[7] http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wads.jsp?IA=FR2006002735&LANGUAGE=EN&ID=id0... (pdf) - objections start on page 8, quote is from page 10.
I would like to point out that showing a method by which homeopathy might hypothetically work is a question largely independent of whether or not it does actually work.
Consider for homeopathy to be right you wouldn't just have to show it worked, not only that water had a 'memory' but also that succusing (sp?) did something and that for some reason the 'memory' of something like your symptoms was for some reason helpful.
As a related example I was talking to a friend once about science and he is for the most part very rational but then I mentioned that a way had been devised for blinding acupuncture trials and acupuncture seemed easily explainable as placebo. He immediately jumped to saying things like 'no it works by nerves... ' etc. That is he had a hypothesis about why it might work. However all the hypotheses about action are meaningless if the treatment itself doesn't work.