Reply to Comment on “The Memory of Water: an overview”

Sir,

Paul Wilson[ ¹ ] argues that my overview[ ² ] did not contain evidence of a water memory of relevance to homeopathic treatment. His argument fails on two levels; firstly such an argument was not the primary purpose of my review and secondly, in fairness to its inclusion in the journal ‘Homeopathy’, I did present such an argument (e.g. Table 1, p. 149). Clearly, I was only able to present the available evidence and Wilson's letter does not direct me to any I missed.

The ‘memory of water’ debate has moved away from homeopathy, as evidenced by the recent paper in Nature,[ ³ ] to considering whether water can show any changes in properties due to its processing history. Although I came down heavily in favour of such an effect in my review, there is still much debate within the water research area as to whether such a memory is evident. My paper primarily sets out the currently available evidence for such a memory for water. It should be noted that, although the processing history may involve changes in solutes, as described in my review, these were somewhat unexpected (except in retrospect) and due almost entirely to the particularly unusual properties of liquid water itself. On the basis of the available evidence and in contrast to the view expressed in Wilson's letter, I believe that the presence of such solutes can cause great differences in the biological effects of the water (although again, it was no part in my review to give the evidence for this, which could form a complete paper in itself). However, as an example, a recent paper has shown how tiny concentrations of hydrogen peroxide can have major effects on cellular behaviour;[ ⁴ ] hydrogen peroxide being one of those solutes that arises naturally in even the purest water in concentrations that depend on physical agitation such as succussion.[ ⁵ ]

It is clear from the final paragraph of the letter that its author has his own preconceptions concerning homeopathy and that he was disappointed that I was not able to reinforce these. I should point out, however, that the paper cited in support of these preconceptions[ ⁶ ] does not demonstrate (as stated) ‘that the best-conducted trials show no effect for homeopathic remedies beyond placebo’. Examination of the data in this paper beyond its abstracted ‘Interpretation’ clearly demonstrates the opposite view to that proposed in the ‘Comment’; a fact that I posted on my website[ ⁷ ] within days of its publication and which has been subsequently argued elsewhere.[ ⁸ ]

• References

• 1 Wilson P. Comment on “The Memory of Water: an overview.” Homeopathy 2008.
• 2 Chaplin M.F. The memory of water: an overview. Homeopathy 2007; 96: 143-150.
• 3 Cowan ML, Bruner BD, Huse N, et al. Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H₂O. Nature 2005; 434: 199–202.
• 4 Funk R.S., Krise J.P. Exposure of cells to hydrogen peroxide can increase the intracellular accumulation of drugs. Mol Pharmaceut 2007; 4: 154-159.
• 5 Voeikov V.L. The possible role of active oxygen in the Memory of Water. Homeopathy 2007; 96: 196-201.
• 6 Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005; 366: 726–732.
• 7 Chaplin MF. Homeopathy, ⟨ http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html⟩, accessed on November 7 2007.
• 8 Fisher P. Homeopathy and The Lancet. Evid-based Complement Alternat Med 2006; 3: 145-147.