Asolepius
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,150
I just came across this paper which looks convincing. I don't know if there was any follow-up - does anyone know if the work was corroborated?
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
This is effectively the replication of the study that Horizon failed to get to work amid much recrimination.
I think Rolfe knows more, but as I recall, their failure to show a dose-response curve of any sort is a formal objection to its validity.
I think Rolfe knows more, but as I recall, their failure to show a dose-response curve of any sort is a formal objection to its validity.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Sorry, I meant to answer this.
I don't know anything much about Ennis, except that there's something funny going on. She took part in the Horizon broadcast, but came over generally enigmatic. Read the transcript to see what I mean.
Basically she says she was at an immunology meeting when a French researcher (not identified as linked to Benveniste, but probably was) told her about the alleged ability of ultradilute histamine to degranulalte basophils. She claims to have been sceptical, but was persuaded to try it. She also claims to have been astonished by the fact that the result was positive.
The main differences between her protocol and Benveniste's were that she used histamine instead of IgE, and (at least latterly) she used an automated cell counter instead of manual microscopy counting. This latter should have eliminated the observer bias that had been shown to be the cause of Benveniste's calimed positive results. However, she claims the effect was still measurable.
It was her protocol rather than Benveniste's which was used for the actual Horizon test. They found zip, as everybody knows. But she just sat there and looked enigmatic. Subsequently there have been articles on homoeopathic web sites claiming that Ennis found fault with the BBC protocol, and declared that it couldn't possibly have worked. I read one of these, and it included an email allegedly from Ennis herself, saying pretty much that. However, I understand that sceptics who have emailed Ennis asking for clarification of her position have not had a reply.
What I find strange is the apparent lack of desire on Ennis's part to get the matter conclusively settled. She knows that a successful trial of her experiment, under sufficiently controlled conditions, would win the million bucks. So why was she content to let Horizon try it, rather then have a go herself? Once the Horizon trial proved negative, why didn't she invite some of the sceptics to her lab to see if they could figure out what her source of bias was, if any?
I also think it is very peculiar that Ennis has never come out publicly, say in a letter to the Times or a formal protest to the BBC governors, if she believes that the experiment was rigged to fail. Surely a genuine scientist whose work was misrepresented like that wouldn't content herself with private emails to homoeopathic interest groups?
Deepy strange lady, in my opinion.
Rolfe.
I don't know anything much about Ennis, except that there's something funny going on. She took part in the Horizon broadcast, but came over generally enigmatic. Read the transcript to see what I mean.
Basically she says she was at an immunology meeting when a French researcher (not identified as linked to Benveniste, but probably was) told her about the alleged ability of ultradilute histamine to degranulalte basophils. She claims to have been sceptical, but was persuaded to try it. She also claims to have been astonished by the fact that the result was positive.
The main differences between her protocol and Benveniste's were that she used histamine instead of IgE, and (at least latterly) she used an automated cell counter instead of manual microscopy counting. This latter should have eliminated the observer bias that had been shown to be the cause of Benveniste's calimed positive results. However, she claims the effect was still measurable.
It was her protocol rather than Benveniste's which was used for the actual Horizon test. They found zip, as everybody knows. But she just sat there and looked enigmatic. Subsequently there have been articles on homoeopathic web sites claiming that Ennis found fault with the BBC protocol, and declared that it couldn't possibly have worked. I read one of these, and it included an email allegedly from Ennis herself, saying pretty much that. However, I understand that sceptics who have emailed Ennis asking for clarification of her position have not had a reply.
What I find strange is the apparent lack of desire on Ennis's part to get the matter conclusively settled. She knows that a successful trial of her experiment, under sufficiently controlled conditions, would win the million bucks. So why was she content to let Horizon try it, rather then have a go herself? Once the Horizon trial proved negative, why didn't she invite some of the sceptics to her lab to see if they could figure out what her source of bias was, if any?
I also think it is very peculiar that Ennis has never come out publicly, say in a letter to the Times or a formal protest to the BBC governors, if she believes that the experiment was rigged to fail. Surely a genuine scientist whose work was misrepresented like that wouldn't content herself with private emails to homoeopathic interest groups?
Deepy strange lady, in my opinion.
Rolfe.
Asolepius
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,150
Thanks Rolfe - very helpful. Of course I remember the Horizon story but didn't know that Ennis was involved. It's a very valuable lesson in experimental rigour, of which all scientists should take careful note. How much research in orthodox science is tainted by error and bias?
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
Asolepius said:
All of it, of course!! Which is why independent replication is so important. A point the woos always seem to overlook.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Actually, the paper Les referred to is a new one on me. I just noticed this part:
Maybe that's a biassed attitude, after all, if the results are valid it shouldn't matter who's co-ordinating the study or providing the money. But as we know, it was Boiron who funded Benveniste. They once again show that they're keen to get something in print which seems to validate the idea that ultramolar dilutions have some activity. But only by using complicated, convoluted, unstable systems which have a very low signal-to-noise ratio, and even more importantly, using protocols which, if they fail in the end to prove an effect, don't falsify homoeopathy itself. After all, no homoeopaths base their claims on an allegation that ultradilute preparations of some obscure chemicals degranulate basophils. Now, if they were to try to show whether those elusive but vital proving effects really happen or not, they might be in some more difficulty.
This reminds me inexorably of cold fusion. You get a maverick researcher (or two), working somewhat out of his or her field, announcing world-shattering results. Then people try to replicate them. The more people try the less it seems to replicate. Mainstream researchers give up and go back to their day jobs. But a small core of believers remain, convinced that there is a real effect if only they could get the protocol just a little bit better ironed out.
Here of course they have the potential of fat funding from someone like Boiron, who have money to burn, and can afford to throw some around in the expectation that a few significant differences might crop up here or there.
Rolfe.
Now I don't imagine that this implies that Ennis has left Queen's for France, it's likely that the 3-laboratory trial described in the abstract involved her Belfast setup as one of the three. Nevertheless, it's interesting. It shows more clearly her involvement with the homoeopathic establishment, and rather calls into question her claim to be an independent scientist.
Maybe that's a biassed attitude, after all, if the results are valid it shouldn't matter who's co-ordinating the study or providing the money. But as we know, it was Boiron who funded Benveniste. They once again show that they're keen to get something in print which seems to validate the idea that ultramolar dilutions have some activity. But only by using complicated, convoluted, unstable systems which have a very low signal-to-noise ratio, and even more importantly, using protocols which, if they fail in the end to prove an effect, don't falsify homoeopathy itself. After all, no homoeopaths base their claims on an allegation that ultradilute preparations of some obscure chemicals degranulate basophils. Now, if they were to try to show whether those elusive but vital proving effects really happen or not, they might be in some more difficulty.
This reminds me inexorably of cold fusion. You get a maverick researcher (or two), working somewhat out of his or her field, announcing world-shattering results. Then people try to replicate them. The more people try the less it seems to replicate. Mainstream researchers give up and go back to their day jobs. But a small core of believers remain, convinced that there is a real effect if only they could get the protocol just a little bit better ironed out.
Here of course they have the potential of fat funding from someone like Boiron, who have money to burn, and can afford to throw some around in the expectation that a few significant differences might crop up here or there.
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Bump for the person interested in Madeleine Ennis.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
Remember Brian Josephson, the Nobel prize winner who went over to the dark side and claimed paranormal phenomena exist?
I think Ennis is going to pull a Josephson. He has vanished from sight.
So have Pons & Fleischmann. And we don't hear much from Schwartz these days, either...
Pseudoscientists vs Paranormalists
I think Ennis is going to pull a Josephson. He has vanished from sight.
So have Pons & Fleischmann. And we don't hear much from Schwartz these days, either...
Pseudoscientists vs Paranormalists
Independent repetition is scientific validity's bulwark. Until they can duplicate this experiment time and time again with similar results, it's not "Science" but merely an observation that has multiple possibilities as to its cause.
-TT
-TT
CFLarsen said:
Where did he claim "paranormal phenomena exist", Claus?
He's been doing stuff lately, like writing about how a 1/50 event is not considered significant, somehow.
(http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/)
P. Belon1, J. Cumps2, M. Ennis3, P.F. Mannaioni4, M. Roberfroid5, J. Sainte-Laudy6, F.A.C.Wiegant7
1 Boiron, 20 rue de la Libération, 69110 Sainte-Foy-Les-Lyon, France
2 UCL 7369, 73 avenue Emmanuel Mounier, 1220 Brussels, Belgium
3 Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Institute of Clinical Science, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Grosvenor Road, Belfast BT12 6BJ, UK,
etc. etc.
Belon is at Boiron; Ennis is at Queen's in Belfast.
Rolfe said:
I don't know what your definition of skeptical is, but being willing to try something doesn't contradict being skeptical, Rolfe.
Please spare us your views about her. They only get us further from the scientific issues at hand, Rolfe.
CFLarsen said:
Don't pull a 'Kimpatsu' here, Claus.
I'm asking specifically where he said it. An exact article. An exact quote, etc.
I'm not denying he ever said such a thing, I just want you to back up your claim of
"Remember Brian Josephson, the Nobel prize winner who went over to the dark side and claimed paranormal phenomena exist?"