User Tools

Site Tools


en:misc:talk-qa-saine-schwarcz

This is an old revision of the document!


POST-DEBATE QUESTIONS FROM DR. ANDRÉ SAINE TO DR. JOE SCHWARCZ

These questions were posted by Dr. André Saine to Dr. Joe Schwarcz as a follow-up on the Debate held at McGill University on November 27, 2012.

QUESTION 1

When you were asked during the debate a question from the public regarding the placebo effect, “If homeopathic substances are purely psychological placebos, do you think the evidence that they can work in animals and plants has any weight?,” you discussed the case of pets. It is well known that the placebo effect in animals is negligible, but you explained that perception can be biased in a pet’s owner. Now, please explain the role of the placebo effect in the numerous, measurable results obtained experimentally and clinically with homeopathy on measurable aspects, in: in vitro experimentations, experimentations with plants, farm animals (where the owner’s perception does not play a role, such as infertility, stillbirth, weight gain or helmintiasis), infants (again regarding measurable changes in the infants as opposed to qualitative changes), the unconscious persons, and the insane persons?

QUESTION 2

You said in the debate, “I think I’m pretty up to date on science. I’m pretty up to date on the literature. I’ve read all of those papers about the nanoparticles. They have absolutely nothing to do with homeopathy. They have to do with some anomalous findings and some solutions. Virtually all of them have been explained, whether or not its particles dissolving from the glass, or whether it’s an overgrowth of bacteria that were inadvertently introduced. I mean, there are explanations there.” Can you be more precise on the problems encountered in the experiments published in Langmuir by Chikramane et al.1) in 2012 and their cause? In fact, I presented their evidence that there were nanoparticles of starting materials in ultra-molecular preparations (UMPs). How can the presence of these nanoparticles in these UMPs be irrelevant? Are you aware of studies showing the properties often unexpected of nanoparticles?2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Are you aware that the homeopathic preparation process of trituration followed by dilution and succussion is in fact an inexpensive, top down way of manufacturing highly reactive nanoparticles from the original bulk materials?


1) Chikramane PS, Kalita D, Suresh AK, Kane SG, Bellare JR. Why extreme dilutions reach non-zero asymptotes: a nanoparticulate hypothesis based on froth flotation. Langmuir 2012; 28: 15864-15875.
2) Roduner E. Size matters: why nanomaterials are different. Chemical Society Reviews 2006; 35: 583–592.
3) Thierry B, Textor M. Nanomedicine in focus: opportunities and challenges ahead. Biointerphases 2012; 7: 19.
4) Bell IR, Schwartz GE. Adaptive network nanomedicine: an integrated model for homeopathic medicine. Frontiers in Bioscience 2013; S5: 685-708.
5) Paulter M, Brenner S. Nanomedicine: promises and challenges for the future of public health. International Journal of Nanomedicine 2010; 5: 803–809.
6) Bell IR, Koithan M. A model for homeopathic remedy effects: low dose nanoparticles, allostatic cross-adaptation, and time-dependent sensitization in a complex adaptive system. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2012; 12: 191.
7) Bell IR, Schwartz GE, Boyer NN, Koithan M, Brooks AJ. Advances in integrative nanomedicine for improving infectious disease treatment in public health. European Journal of Integrative Medicine xxx (2012) xxx.e1–xxx.e15. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876382012011146
You could leave a comment if you were logged in.
en/misc/talk-qa-saine-schwarcz.1360238111.txt.gz · Last modified: 2013/02/07 11:55 by legatum