Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Homeopathy 2021; 110(02): 122-131
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1718743
Original Research Article

Effects of Homeopathic Preparations of Mercurius corrosivus on the Growth Rate of Moderately Mercury-Stressed Duckweed Lemna gibba L

Tim Jäger   †
1   Institute of Integrative Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten/Herdecke, Germany
,
Sandra Würtenberger
2   Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, Hevert-Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG, Nussbaum, Germany
,
Stephan Baumgartner
1   Institute of Integrative Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten/Herdecke, Germany
3   Society for Cancer Research, Hiscia Institute, Arlesheim, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations Funding This investigation was funded by institutional resources and by a grant from Förderverein Komplementärmedizinische Forschung, Arlesheim, Switzerland.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background A bioassay with severely mercury-stressed duckweed (Lemna gibba L.) had revealed growth-inhibiting effects of homeopathically potentised mercury(II) chloride (Mercurius corrosivus, Merc-c.). We hypothesised that effects of potentised preparations are dependent on the stress level of the organisms used in the bioassay. The aim of the present investigation was to examine the response of duckweed to potentised Merc-c. at a lower stress level.

Methods Duckweed was moderately stressed with 2.5 mg/L mercury(II) chloride for 48 hours. Afterwards plants grew in either Merc-c. (seven different potency levels, 24x–30x) or water controls (unsuccussed or succussed water) for 7 days. Growth rates of the frond (leaf) area were determined using a computerised image-analysis system for day 0–3 and 3–7. Three independent experiments with potentised Merc-c. and three systematic negative control experiments were performed. All experiments were randomised and blinded.

Results Unsuccussed and succussed water did not significantly differ in their effects on duckweed growth rate. The systematic negative control experiments did not yield any significant effects, thus providing evidence for the stability of the experimental system. Data from the two control groups and the seven treatment groups (Merc-c. 24x–30x) were each pooled to increase statistical power. Duckweed growth rates for day 3–7 were enhanced (p < 0.05) after application of Merc-c. compared with the controls. Growth rates for day 0–3 were not influenced by the homeopathic preparations.

Conclusions Moderately mercury-stressed Lemna gibba L. yielded evidence of growth-enhancing specific effects of Merc-c. 24x–30x in the second observation period (day 3–7). This observation is complementary to previous experiments with severely mercury-stressed duckweed, in which a decrease in growth was observed in the first observation period (day 0–3). We hypothesise that the differing results are associated with the level of stress intensity (moderate vs. severe).

Keywords

Lemna gibba L. - duckweed - stress level - mercury - Mercurius corrosivus

Highlights

• Moderately mercury-stressed Lemna gibba L. yielded evidence of growth-enhancing specific effects of Merc-c. 24x to 30x.


• This observation is complementary to previous experiments with severely mercury-stressed duckweed, in which a growth decrease was observed.


• We hypothesise that the differing results are associated with the level of stress intensity (moderate vs. severe).


† Deceased March 1, 2019.




Publication History

Received: 03 July 2020

Accepted: 24 August 2020

Article published online:
10 March 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 WHO global report on traditional and complementary medicine 2019. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Posadzki P, Watson LK, Alotaibi A, Ernst E. Prevalence of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by patients/consumers in the UK: systematic review of surveys. Clin Med (Lond) 2013; 13: 126-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Klein SD, Torchetti L, Frei-Erb M, Wolf U. Usage of complementary medicine in Switzerland: results of the Swiss Health Survey 2012 and Development Since 2007. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0141985
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Schmidt JM. New approaches within the history and theory of medicine and their relevance for homeopathy. Homeopathy 2014; 103: 153-159
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kienle GS, Albonico HU, Baars E, Hamre HJ, Zimmermann P, Kiene H. Anthroposophic medicine: an integrative medical system originating in Europe. Glob Adv Health Med 2013; 2: 20-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sun DZ, Li SD, Liu Y, Zhang Y, Mei R, Yang MH. Differences in the origin of philosophy between Chinese medicine and Western medicine: exploration of the holistic advantages of Chinese medicine. Chin J Integr Med 2013; 19: 706-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Yu W, Ma M, Chen X. et al. Traditional Chinese Medicine and Constitutional Medicine in China, Japan and Korea: a comparative study. Am J Chin Med 2017; 45: 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Grimes DR. Proposed mechanisms for homeopathy are physically impossible. Focus Altern Complement Ther 2012; 17: 149-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sehon S, Stanley D. Evidence and simplicity: why we should reject homeopathy. J Eval Clin Pract 2010; 16: 276-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Smith K. Against homeopathy—a utilitarian perspective. Bioethics 2012; 26: 398-409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Baumgartner S. The state of basic research in homeopathy. In: Witt C, Albrecht H. eds. New Directions in Homeopathy Research—Advice from an Interdisciplinary Conference. Essen: KVC-Verlag; 2009: 107-130
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Endler P, Thieves K, Reich C. et al. Repetitions of fundamental research models for homeopathically prepared dilutions beyond 10(-23): a bibliometric study. Homeopathy 2010; 99: 25-36
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Endler PC, Bellavite P, Bonamin L, Jäger T, Mazon S. Replications of fundamental research models in ultra high dilutions 1994 and 2015—update on a bibliometric study. Homeopathy 2015; 104: 234-245
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Betti L, Brizzi M, Nani D, Peruzzi M. Effect of high dilutions of Arsenicum album on wheat seedlings from seed poisoned with the same substance. Br Homeopath J 1997; 86: 86-89
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Binder M, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen A. The effects of a 45x potency of Arsenicum album on wheat seedling growth—a reproduction trial. Forsch-Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd 2005; 12: 284-291
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Brizzi M, Lazzarato L, Nani D, Borghini F, Peruzzi M, Betti L. A biostatistical insight into the As(2)O(3) high dilution effects on the rate and variability of wheat seedling growth. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd 2005; 12: 277-283
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lahnstein L, Binder M, Thurneysen A. et al. Isopathic treatment effects of Arsenicum album 45x on wheat seedling growth—further reproduction trials. Homeopathy 2009; 98: 198-207
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Baumgartner S. Reproductions and reproducibility in homeopathy: dogma or tool?. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 11: 771-772
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nani D, Brizzi M, Lazzarato L, Betti L. The role of variability in evaluating ultra high dilution effects: considerations based on plant model experiments. Forsch Komplement Med 2007; 14: 301-305
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Majewsky V, Scherr C, Schneider C, Arlt SP, Baumgartner S. Reproducibility of the effects of homeopathically potentised Argentum nitricum on the growth of Lemna gibba L. in a randomised and blinded bioassay. Homeopathy 2017; 106: 145-154
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Jäger T, Würtenberger S, Baumgartner S. Effects of homeopathic preparations of Mercurius corrosivus on the growth rate of severely mercury-stressed Duckweed Lemna gibba L. Homeopathy 2019; 108: 128-138
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 ISO 20079:2005 Water quality. Determination of the Toxic Effect of Water Constituents and Waste Water on Duckweed (Lemna minor)—duckweed Growth Inhibition Test. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO); 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Biological test method: test for measuring the inhibition of growth using the freshwater macrophyte, Lemna minor . Method Development and Applications Section, Environmental Technology Centre, Environment Canada, Ottawa. 2006
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 OCSPP 850.4400: Aquatic Plant Toxicity Test Using Lemna spp. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Washington: 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Scherr C, Simon M, Spranger J, Baumgartner S. Effects of potentised substances on growth rate of the water plant Lemna gibba L. Complement Ther Med 2009; 17 (02) 63-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Jäger T, Scherr C, Simon M, Heusser P, Baumgartner S. Effects of homeopathic Arsenicum album, nosode, and gibberellic acid preparations on the growth rate of arsenic-impaired duckweed (Lemna gibba L.). ScientificWorldJournal 2010; 10: 2112-2129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Majewsky V, Scherr C, Arlt SP. et al. Reproducibility of effects of homeopathically potentised gibberellic acid on the growth of Lemna gibba L. in a randomised and blinded bioassay. Homeopathy 2014; 103: 113-126
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Scherr C, Simon M, Spranger J, Baumgartner S. Duckweed (Lemna gibba L.) as a test organism for homeopathic potencies. J Altern Complement Med 2007; 13: 931-937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Jäger T, Scherr C, Simon M, Heusser P, Baumgartner S. Development of a test system for homeopathic preparations using impaired duckweed (Lemna gibba L.). J Altern Complement Med 2011; 17: 315-323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Baumgartner S, Heusser P, Thurneysen S. Methodological standards and problems in preclinical homoeopathic potency research. Forsch Komplementarmed 1998; 5: 27-32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Carmer SG, Swanson MR. An evaluation of ten pairwise multiple comparison procedures by monte Carlo methods. J Am Stat Assoc 1973; 68: 66-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ücker A, Baumgartner S, Sokol A, Huber R, Doesburg P, Jäger T. Systematic review of plant-based homeopathic basic research: an update. Homeopathy 2018; 107: 115-129
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Witt CM, Lüdtke R, Weisshuhn TER, Quint P, Willich SN. The role of trace elements in homeopathic preparations and the influence of container material, storage duration, and potentisation. Forsch Komplement Med 2006; 13: 15-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ives JA, Moffett JR, Arun P. et al. Enzyme stabilization by glass-derived silicates in glass-exposed aqueous solutions. Homeopathy 2010; 99: 15-24
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Baumgartner S, Thurneysen A, Heusser P. Growth stimulation of dwarf peas (Pisum sativum L.) through homeopathic potencies of plant growth substances. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd 2004; 11: 281-292
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Scherr C, Baumgartner S, Spranger J, Simon M. Effects of potentised substances on growth kinetics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Forsch Komplement Med 2006; 13: 298-306
    PubMedGoogle Scholar