First evidence of Beauvais’ hypothesis in a plant model

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.
• 2 Beauvais F.A. quantum-like model of homeopathy clinical trials: importance of in situ randomization and unblinding. Homeopathy 102 2013; 106-113.
• 3 Walach H. Magic of signs: a non-local interpretation of homeopathy. Br Hom J 89 2000; 127-140.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 8 Atmanspacher H., Römer H., Walach H. Weak quantum theory; complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond. Found Phys 32 2002; 379-406.
• 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.
• 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.
• 11 Fisher P. Local, entangled or both?. Editorial Homeopathy 102 2013; 85-86.
• 12 Almirantis Y. Homeopathy – at the edge between tradition and modern science: remedies as carriers of significance. Homeopathy 102 2013; 114-122.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 16 Taiz L., Zeiger E. Plant physiology. 4th edn 2006. Sunderland.
• 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.
• 18 Maute C. Homöopathie für Pflanzen (Homeopathy for plants), Friedrichshafen. 2011.
• 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.
• 20 International Seed Testing Association: Rules for seed testing, chapter 5, the germination test, Document OGM13–05, 21–27. Edition 2014.
• 21 International Seed Testing Association: Rules for seed testing, annex to chapter 7, seed health testing methods, Document OGM13–05, 29–65. Edition 2014.
• 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.
• 23 Heß D. Pflanzenphysiologie (Physiology of plants). Stuttgart 11th edn 2008.
• 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.