Download PDF
Homeopathy 2017; 106(03): 145-154
DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2017.04.001
Original Paper
Copyright © The Faculty of Homeopathy 2017

Reproducibility of the effects of homeopathically potentised Argentum nitricum on the growth of Lemna gibba L. in a randomised and blinded bioassay

Vera Majewsky
1   Institute of Complementary Medicine, University of Bern, Fabrikstrasse 8, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
3   Clinic for Animal Reproduction, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Königsweg 65 (Haus 27), 14163 Berlin, Germany
,
Claudia Scherr
1   Institute of Complementary Medicine, University of Bern, Fabrikstrasse 8, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
2   Hiscia Institute, Society for Cancer Research, Kirschweg 9, 4144 Arlesheim, Switzerland
,
Claudia Schneider
4   Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, Ackerstrasse, Postfach, 3070 Frick, Switzerland
,
Sebastian Patrick Arlt
3   Clinic for Animal Reproduction, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Königsweg 65 (Haus 27), 14163 Berlin, Germany
,
Stephan Baumgartner
1   Institute of Complementary Medicine, University of Bern, Fabrikstrasse 8, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
2   Hiscia Institute, Society for Cancer Research, Kirschweg 9, 4144 Arlesheim, Switzerland
5   Institute of Integrative Medicine, University of Witten-Herdecke, Gerhard-Kienle-Weg 4, 58313 Herdecke, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Subject Editor:
Further Information

Publication History

Received15 July 2016
revised28 March 2017

accepted06 April 2017

Publication Date:
02 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Background: A previous study reported a significant statistical interaction between experiment date and treatment effect of Argentum nitricum 14x–30x on the growth rate of duckweed (Lemna gibba L.). The aim of the present study was to investigate the stability of the test system and intra-laboratory reproducibility of the effects found.

Methods: Duckweed was treated with A. nitricum potencies (14x–30x) as well as succussed and unsuccussed water controls. The outcome parameter area-related growth rate for day 0–7 was determined by a computerised image analysis system in two series of independent randomised and blinded experiments. Systematic negative control (SNC) experiments were carried out to investigate test system stability. Statistical analysis was performed with full two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and protected Fisher's Least Significant Difference (LSD) test.

Results: In the first repetition series we found a significant treatment effect (p = 0.016), while in the second series no effect was observed. The negative control experiments showed that the experimental system was stable. An a posteriori subgroup analysis concerning gibbosity revealed the importance of this growth state of L. gibba for successful reproduction of the statistically significant interaction in the original study; flat: no interaction (p = 0.762); slight gibbosity: no interaction (p = 0.356); medium gibbosity: significant interaction (p = 0.031), high gibbosity: highly significant interaction (p = 0.005).

Conclusions: With the original study design (disregarding gibbosity status of L. gibba) results of the original study could not be reproduced sensu stricto. We conclude that the growth state gibbosity is crucial for successful reproduction of the original study. Different physiological states of the test organisms used for bioassays for homeopathic basic research must carefully be considered.

Highlights

• Duckweed (Lemna gibba) reacts to potentized Argentum nitricum.

• Gibbosity of L. gibba is crucial for reactivity to potentized preparations.

• Variability is an interesting outcome parameter in homeopathic basic Research.

Keywords

Homeopathy - Plants - Duckweed - Silver nitrate - Reproducibility
 

  • References

  • 1 Baumgartner S. Reproductions and reproducibility in homeopathy: dogma or tool?. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 11: 771-772.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Baumgartner S. The state of basic research on homeopathy. In: Witt C.M., Albrecht H. (eds). New Directions in Homeopathy Research. 2009. Essen: KVC Verlag; 107-130.
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Bellavite P., Ortolani R., Conforti A. Immunology and homeopathy. 3. Experimental studies on animal models. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2006; 3: 171-186.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Betti L., Trebbi G., Majewsky V. et al. Use of homeopathic preparations in phytopathological models and in field trials: a critical review. Homeopathy 2009; 98: 244-266.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Jäger T., Scherr C., Shah D. et al. Use of homeopathic preparations in experimental studies with abiotically stressed plants. Homeopathy 2011; 100: 275-287.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Majewsky V., Arlt S., Shah D. et al. Use of homeopathic preparations in experimental studies with healthy plants. Homeopathy 2009; 98: 228-243.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Witt C.M., Bluth M., Albrecht H. et al. The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies–a systematic review of the literature. Complement Ther Med 2007; 15: 128-138.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Baumgartner S., Guggisberg A.G. Basophilendegranulation, dritter Akt: Homöopathie und Basophilenraktion - weniger klar, als manche das gerne hätten. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd 2005; 12: 49-57.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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
  • 10 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
  • 11 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
  • 12 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: 63-70.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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
  • 14 Endler P.C., 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
  • 15 Baumgartner S., Shah D., Schaller J. et al. Reproducibility of dwarf pea shoot growth stimulation by homeopathic potencies of gibberellic acid. Complement Ther Med 2008; 16: 183-191.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hamman B., Koning G., Him Lok K. Homeopathically prepared gibberellic acid and barley seed germination. Homeopathy 2003; 92: 140-144.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Majewsky V., Scherr C., Arl S.P. 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
  • 18 Pieterse A.H. Physiological, morphological and anatomical aspects of gibbosity in Lemna gibba . Aquat Bot 1975; 1: 333-344.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Clathworthy J.N., Harper J.L. The comparative biology of closely related species living in the same area. 5. Inter- and Intraspecific interference within cultures odf Lemna spp. and Salvinia natans . J Exp Bot 1962; 13: 307-311.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Rejmankova E. The growth of Lemna spp. under natural and seminatural conditions. Leningrad: International Botanic Congress; 1975.
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Rejmankova E. Comparison of Lemna gibba and Lemna minor from the production ecological viewpoint. Aquat Bot 1975; 1: 423-428.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wolek J. A preliminary investigation in interactions (competition, alleopathy) between some species of Lemna, Spirodela and Wolffia . Ber Geobot Inst ETH Zürich 1974; 42: 140-162.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Elzenga J.T.M., De Lange L., Pieterse A.H. Further indications that ethylene is the gibbosity regulator of the Lemna gibba/Lemna minor complex in natural waters. Acta Bot Neerl 1980; 29: 225-229.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Färber E. Ethylene production and overcrowding in Lemnaceae. J Plant Physiol 1986; 124: 379-384.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kandeler R. Überlebensstrategien bei Wasserlinsen. Biol Rundsch 1988; 26: 347-354.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 OECD. Lemna sp. growth inhibition test. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2006.
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Scherr C., Simon M., Spranger J., Baumgartner S. Test system stability and natural variability of a Lemna gibba L. bioassay. PLoS One 2008; 3: e3133.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Stock-Schröer B., Albrecht H., Betti L. et al. Reporting experiments in homeopathic basic research (REHBaR)–a detailed guideline for authors. Homeopathy 2009: 287-298.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Witt C.M., Lüdtke R., Weisshuhn T.E., Quint P., Willich S.N. The role of trace elements in homeopathic preparations and the influence of container material, storage duration, and potentisation. Forsch Komplementarmed 2006; 13: 15-21.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Baumgartner S., Heusser P., Thurneysen A. Methodological standards and problems in preclinical homeopathic potency research. Forsch Komplementarmed 1998; 5: 27-32.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Carmer S.G., Swanson M.R. An evaluation of ten pairwise multiple comparison procedures by Monte Carlo methods. J Am Stat Assoc 1973; 68: 66-74.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Endler P.C., Lüdtke R., Heckmann C. et al. Pretreatment with thyroxin (10−8 parts per weight) enhances a “curative” effect of homeopathically prepared thyroxin (10−13) on lowland frogs. Forsch Komplementarmed 2003; 10: 137-142.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Endler P.C., Pongratz W., van Wijk R., Kastberger G., Haidvogl M. Effects of highly diluted succussed thyroxine on metamorphosis of highland frogs. Berl J Res Homeopathy 1991; 1: 151-160.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Welles S.U., Endler P.C., Scherer-Pongratz W. et al. Pretreatment with thyroxin 10–8 and the effect of homeopathically prepared thyroxin 10–30 on highland frogs – a multi-researcher study. Forsch Komplementarmed 2007; 14: 353-357.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 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 Komplementarmed 2007; 14: 301-305.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 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
  • 37 Hahnemann S. Organon of medicine. 6 edn. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers (P) Ltd.; 1987. 253 p.
    Google Scholar