In homeopathic basic research, the question as to the most adequate test systems and apt methodology is still open. This investigation examined the hypothesis that more complex organisms show stronger reactions to homeopathic remedies than less complex ones. We compared two Arsenic (As5+) stressed bioassays with duckweed (Lemna gibba, a multi-cellular autotrophic organism) and yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae, a single-cellular heterotrophic organism) regarding their response to homeopathic preparations [1]. For duckweed, growth rates of leaf area and leaf number were evaluated. For yeast, growth kinetics were determined by measuring slope, yield and Et50 (point in time when yield was half maximum) of the sigmoid growth curve. The experiments with duckweed and yeast were performed in parallel (same day, same location and identical homeopathic preparations). After screening 17 substances, three homeopathic preparations (Arsenicum album, nosode, gibberellic acid) were chosen for repeated experimental series [2]. Five independent experiments were conducted for each remedy with both organisms in parallel. Potency levels used were in the range of 17x–33x for duckweed and 17x–30x for yeast. To control for test system stability, systematic negative control experiments were conducted over the complete experimentation period. All experiments were blinded and randomized. The systematic negative control experiments did not yield any significant effects. Application of potentized Arsenicum album in the duckweed bioassay yielded the largest effects compared to water controls without remedies for the parameters leaf area and leaf number (p
Background: Experimental research on the effects of treatments with homeopathic preparations on plants was last reviewed in 1990. Aims: The objective was to compile a systematic literature review on plant bioassays in homeopathic basic research using predefined criteria. Methods: Literature search was carried out on publications that reported experiments with homeopathic preparations on whole plants, seeds, plant parts or cells from 1920 to 2010, in healthy, abiotically or biotically stressed conditions. Outcomes had to be measured by established state-of-the-art procedures and statistically evaluated. Using a Manuscript Information Score (MIS) those publications were identified that provided sufficient information for proper interpretation (MIS > 5). Further evaluation focused on the use of adequate controls to investigate specific effects of homeopathic preparations and on the use of systematic negative control experiments to ensure proper system performance. Results: A total of 157 publications with plants were identified [1–3]. The 157 publications described a total of 167 experimental studies. 84 studies included statistics and 48 had a MIS > 5 allowing proper interpretation. 29 studies were identified with adequate controls to identify specific effects of homeopathic preparations, reporting significant effects of decimal and centesimal homeopathic potencies, including dilution levels beyond Avogadro’s number. Studies that tested series of consecutive potency levels reported a non-linear and discontinuous relation between effect and potency level. There were many individual studies with diverse methods and very few replication trials. 10 studies reported use of systematic negative control experiments, yielding evidence for the stability of the experimental set-up. Conclusions: Plant models appear to be a useful approach to investigate basic research questions on homeopathic preparations, but more independent replication trials and systematic research are needed. Systematic negative control experiments should be implemented on a routine basis to exclude false-positive and false-negative results.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.