Download PDF
Homeopathy 2016; 105(03): 270-279
DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2016.05.002
Original Paper
Copyright © The Faculty of Homeopathy 2016

First evidence of Beauvais’ hypothesis in a plant model

Karin Thieves
1   Sola Salus, Institute for Homeopathic Research, Vienna, Austria
a   Web: www.homeopathicresearch.eu.
,
Andreas Gleiss
2   Medical University of Vienna, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Intelligent Systems, Vienna, Austria
,
Karl Wilhelm Kratky
3   University of Vienna, Faculty of Physics, Vienna, Austria
,
Michael Frass
4   Medical University of Vienna, Department of Medicine I, Outpatient Unit Homeopathy in Malignant Diseases, Vienna, Austria
5   Scientific Society for Homeopathy, Köthen, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received13 October 2015
revised01 May 2016

accepted18 May 2016

Publication Date:
28 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Introduction: Beauvais presented the application of a so-called ‘quantum-like model of homeopathy’ by introducing the idea of a type of randomization/unblinding which he called ‘in situ’. He predicted that randomized studies based on this type of randomization/unblinding lead to more pronounced effects in placebo controlled randomized homeopathic trials. We designed an experiment regarding wheat germination and stalk length to investigate Beauvais’ idea of ‘in situ randomization/unblinding’ using a homeopathic dilution of sulphur (LM VI) as compared to placebo as well as to water.

Aim and method: The primary aim of this double-blind randomized controlled experiment was to investigate whether there are differences of ‘in situ randomization/unblinding’ vs ‘central randomization/unblinding’ with respect to the effect of a homeopathic substance compared to placebo. The secondary aim of our study was to examine possible differences between the sulphur and the placebo group in the ‘in situ’ arm regarding germination and/or stalk growth of wheat seedlings measured after a seven days exposure. Wheat was treated either with sulphur LM VI, placebo, or water. The wheat grains were placed on glass lids and treatment was performed following the ‘in situ randomization/unblinding’ as well as ‘central randomization/unblinding’ method. Germination was measured and classified into three categories.

Results: Under ‘in situ’ randomization/unblinding the odds of a seed not to germinate is 40% lower if treated with sulphur compared to placebo (p = 0.004). In contrast, these odds are practically equal in the ‘central’ meta-group (OR = 1.01, p = 0.954). Under ‘in situ’ randomization/unblinding the odds of a seed to germinate with a length ≥1 mm is practically equal if treated with sulphur or with placebo (OR = 0.96, p = 0.717). In contrast, these odds are 21% higher under sulphur compared to placebo in the ‘central’ meta-group (OR = 1.21, p = 0.062). In summary, we found a sulphur effect that is significantly different between ‘in situ’ and ‘central’ randomization/unblinding relating to all three stages of germination.

Keywords

Beauvais’ hypothesis - Quantum-like model of homeopathy - Plant model - Wheat - Sulphur - In situ randomization/unblinding - Central randomization/unblinding

 

  • References

  • 1 Stolberg H.O., Norman G., Trop I. Randomized controlled trials. Am J Roentgenol 183 2004; 1539-1544.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Beauvais F.A. quantum-like model of homeopathy clinical trials: importance of in situ randomization and unblinding. Homeopathy 102 2013; 106-113.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Walach H. Magic of signs: a non-local interpretation of homeopathy. Br Hom J 89 2000; 127-140.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Phase shifter in a Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer: simulation. https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/physics/quvis/embed_item_3.php?anim_id=3&file_sys=index visited online on 14 Sep 2015, 3 p.m.
    PubMed
  • 5 Walach H. Kommentar zu Francis Beauvais: Ein quanten-artiges Modell in der klinischen Homöopathie-Forschung (A quantum-like model in clinical homeopathic research). 2013. http://harald-walach.de/2013/12/11/kommentar-zu-francis-beauvais-ein-quanten-artiges-modell-in-der-klinischen-homoeopathie-forschung/ visited online on 14 Sep 2015, 3 p.m.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Milgrom L.R. Journeys in the country of the blind: entanglement theory and the effects of blinding on trials of homeopathy and homeopathic provings. Evid Based Complement Altern Med 4 (01) 2007; 7-16.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Milgrom L.R. “Living is easy with eyes closed…” on blinded RCTs and specific and non-specific effects of complex therapeutic interventions. Eur J Integ Med 6 2014; 552-559.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Atmanspacher H., Römer H., Walach H. Weak quantum theory; complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond. Found Phys 32 2002; 379-406.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Walach H. Entanglement model of homeopathy as an example of generalizsed entanglement predicted by Weak Quantum Theory. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd 10 2003; 192-200.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Milgrom L.R. Toward a topological description of the therapeutic process: part 2. Practitioner and patient perspectives of the ‘‘Journey to Cure’’. J Alt Comp Med 18 2012; 187-199.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Fisher P. Local, entangled or both?. Editorial Homeopathy 102 2013; 85-86.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Almirantis Y. Homeopathy – at the edge between tradition and modern science: remedies as carriers of significance. Homeopathy 102 2013; 114-122.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Börner M. Die Keimfähigkeit von Kulturpflanzensamen: Lagerungszeit, Samengröße, Ursprungsland, Pflanzenfamilie, Inhaltsstoffe und Bestäubungstyp (Germination of cultured plants seeds: Storage time, seed size, country of origin, plant family, constituents and pollination type). Diploma thesis, University Göttingen, Germany 2013.
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Baumgartner S., Shah D., Heusser P., Thurneysen A. Homoeopathic dilutions: is there a potential for application in organic plant production? IFOAM 2000 – The World Grows Organic. In: Alföldi T., Lockeretz W., Niggli U. (eds). Proceedings 13th IFOAM Scientific Conference. 2000. vdf Hochschulverlag; Zürich: 97.
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Betti L., Trebbi G., Nani D. et al. Models with plants, microorganisms and viruses for basic research in homeopathy. Chapter 7. In: Bonamin L.V. (ed). Signals and Images 2008.
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Taiz L., Zeiger E. Plant physiology. 4th edn 2006. Sunderland.
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Farrukh J., Sumaira I. Effect of sucrose induced osmotic stress on callus growth and biochemical aspects of two wheat genotypes. Pak J Bot 40 (04) 2008; 1487.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Maute C. Homöopathie für Pflanzen (Homeopathy for plants), Friedrichshafen. 2011.
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Hofbauer R., Pasching E., Moser D., Frass M. Heparin-binding epidermal growth factor expression in KATO-III cells after Helicobacter pylori stimulation under the influence of strychnos Nux vomica and Calendula officinalis. Homeopathy 99 2010; 177-182.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 International Seed Testing Association: Rules for seed testing, chapter 5, the germination test, Document OGM13–05, 21–27. Edition 2014.
    PubMed
  • 21 International Seed Testing Association: Rules for seed testing, annex to chapter 7, seed health testing methods, Document OGM13–05, 29–65. Edition 2014.
    PubMed
  • 22 Hanus H., Heyland K.U., Keller R. Handbuch des Pflanzenbaues 2, Getreide und Futtergräser (Handbook of crop production, part 2, wheat and forage grasses), Stuttgart. 2008.
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Heß D. Pflanzenphysiologie (Physiology of plants). Stuttgart 11th edn 2008.
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Leick P. Comment on: ‘‘Conspicuous by its absence: the Memory of Water, macro-entanglement, and the possibility of homeopathy” and “The nature of the active ingredient in ultramolecular dilutions.”. Homeopathy 97 2008; 50-51.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar