Navigate / search

Quantum Entanglement in Homeopathic Trials?

Most homeopathic studies seek to investigate whether homeopathic treatment can be shown to be effective within accepted methodologies of medicine, biology, chemistry and physics. However, there are theoreticians that argue that traditional research methods are inappropriate or insufficient to assess homeopathy. Calls for employing concepts from quantum physics in support of the ultra-dilution hypothesis, i.e. to counter accusations of relative paucity of positive results from homeopathic treatment in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), are made by several of these theorists, and even from within the community of homeopathic practitioners.

 

British homeopath Lionel Milgrom likes to dazzle his audiences with complex formulas derived from quantum physics to make his points. In a 2005 article1 he examined whether RCTs are redundant for testing the efficacy of homeopathy. He had observed that RCTs had yet to deliver unequivocal results demonstrating on the efficacy (or otherwise) of homeopathic remedies and individualized homeopathic prescribing. He asked if this could be caused by an implicit assumption inherent in RCT methodology that specific effects of a remedy and any nonspecific effects of consultation are independent of each other. He postulated a patient–practitioner–remedy (PPR) entanglement model as a necessary condition of homeopathic therapeutic interaction.

 

Milgrom called for alternatives to RCTs that can take into account possible entangled specific and nonspecific effects during trials of homeopathy. He theorized that since RCTs sometimes deliver positive results for the use of homeopathic remedies, that this may be caused by residual entanglement arising from homeopathic remedy manufacture. He proposed as one possibility that a homeopathic remedy “entails the entangled intention of those involved in its preparation” citing similar arguments by others. As a second option he proposed a surviving residual entanglement from remedy production but, ironically, as the cause of so-called Memory of Water (MoW) effects. Read more

Interview of Professor Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh

Professor Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh
Professor Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh

By Manfred Mueller, MA, DHM, RSHom(NA), CCH

A few years ago, I was asked to be a consultant on the Research Review Committee and the Editorial Committee for an  NIH  educational  grant  on  teaching  complementary  and  alternative  medicine  at  the  Program  on  Integrative Medicine at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC. While working with this group, consisting mostly of medical faculty and staff, I noticed that academic texts on complementary and alternative medicine are written almost exclusively by academicians within conventional medicine — by  authors lacking practical or personal experience with the field they write about. Furthermore,  in the research  articles  I  reviewed  for  the  project,  I  repeatedly  came  across  profound  misrepresentations  of  the  basic homeopathic tenets by established scientists who are writing about homeopathy.

I was pleasantly surprised to read, in 2003, an article on homeopathy by Prof. Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh in the Journal of Molecular  Chemistry  entitled,  “Towards  understanding  molecular  mechanisms  of homeopathy.”  I was impressed  that he actually explained the laboratory technique of potentization in this article, unlike some of his western colleagues who seemed to work  hard  to obscure  the difference  between  simple  dilutions  and potentization.  Here  was  a scientist  who  had thoroughly understood the theoretical principles of homeopathy. He was not only clear about the key questions, but also had the ability to communicate his understanding with clarity and the necessary detail.

Read more