


This is part of the Homeopathy journal club project described here:



In order to fully comprehend its therapeutic mode of action, homeopathy might require both ‘local’ bio-molecular mechanisms, such as memory of water and ‘non-local’ macro-entanglement, such as patient–practitioner–remedy (PPR) descriptions.


Article Outline

Locality, non-locality, and philosophy
Local hypotheses and the memory of water
Non-local hypotheses and macro-entanglement
Quantum theory and homeopathy
Entanglement in the homeopathic process
Conclusion: a therapeutic Uncertainty Principle?


Despite increasingly sterile debates over ‘whether’ homeopathy works,1 the ‘how’ and ‘why’ have yet to be seriously addressed by science. One need not look far to see why.

Formerly a successful allergy researcher,2 Jacques Benveniste spent the last 20 years of his life out of the scientific mainstream because of his fascination with the ‘Memory of Water’.3 Despite democratic appearances, when it comes to dealing with what it considers ‘heretical’ (eg, homeopathy), science can be as narrow-minded, unforgiving, and vicious as any inquisition. Disregarding the burning stakes of peer opprobrium however, some are seeking answers to the question of how homeopathy might be possible.

Two types of hypothetical ‘mechanism’ are under consideration. Labelled ‘local’ and ‘non-local’, they depend, respectively, on conventional scientific positivism,4 or appeal to generalised quantum theoretical concepts of complementarity and entanglement.5 Local hypotheses envisage homeopathic remedies behaving in a way similar to any other medicine, ie, ‘pharmacologically’. The problem is that most homeopathic remedies are diluted out of molecular existence. In order therefore to comply with the causal principles of positivist science, a mechanism has to be envisaged by which some kind of information transfer (usually thought of as electromagnetic) can occur to a molecular substrate (eg, water), via homeopathy’s unique method of remedy production.6 Involving successive iterations of dilution followed by violent agitation collectively known as succussion, it is this information transfer to the solvent which has been called the Memory of Water (MoW).


The purpose of this paper is to review the two types of descriptions of homeopathy’s effects. Then, viewing these different approaches as complementary, not contradictory, and realising that some local explanations are also ‘tarred’ with the brush of entanglement (albeit at the molecular level), to consider how a more complete picture of the homeopathic process might be possible, ultimately leading to new experimental tests.

Locality, non-locality, and philosophy


• The universe is real and things in it exist whether we observe them or not.
• No signal can travel faster than light.

This is very much a ‘common sense’ view of the universe as (a) it defines ‘reality’ as something obviously ‘out there’ separate and independent of us and (b) it is ‘local’ because parts of the universe out of speed of light contact cannot possibly be in communication. For most of the time, this assumption of Local Reality ‘works’: it is an accurate descriptive model of how most things in the universe interact. However, recent quantum physics experiments on photons, electrons, atoms, and even molecules demonstrate beyond doubt that particle interactions result in non-local correlations.8 This means that although there is no signal transfer in the classical sense between these particles, nevertheless, they can be instantaneously ‘connected’ over vast distances and across time itself, a phenomenon known as quantum entanglement.9 It is as if at a deep level, everything in the universe is instantaneously linked together in a vast holistic matter-energy network of interacting fields which transcends ordinary concepts of space and time. And we, composed of trillions of particles are an inseparable part of it: far from what reason seems to tell us.

The three Local Reality points above have been expanded into seven propositions, which are essentially ‘articles of faith’,10:

(2) The universe is understandable, ie, predictable.
(3) What is valid here is valid elsewhere.
(4) The universe is material and not spiritual.
(5) Everything that is physical is observable.
(6) The universe can be described and ascertained mathematically.
(7) Experiment validates theory.


All swans are white.
The creature in front of us is a swan.
The creature is white.
Every swan I have ever seen has been white; Ergo….
The next swan I see will be white.

What this simple example demonstrates is that many of our beliefs are based on extrapolations from observed (past or present) events to situations which are unknown, unobserved, or in the future. It was the 18th century philosopher Hume who pointed out that inductive reasoning is based on custom or habit, and in so far as it predicts the future will resemble the past, cannot actually ‘prove’ anything, for instance the impossibility of a swan being black. Hume also pointed out that the principle of induction cannot itself be proven by induction. The word ‘proof’, in fact, should be applied strictly only when reasoning deductively, as in mathematics. As most science is rooted in inductive logic, if follows that it too is predictive and actually incapable of proving or disproving anything.


So what tends to happen in practice is that the more often a premise’s predictions turn out to are fulfilled, the more it is taken as ‘proof’ that the premise must be true. Eventually, the ‘truth’ of the premise becomes ingrained: it changes from ‘Every swan I have ever seen has been white’ to ‘All swans are white.’ From that moment, black swans are ‘impossible’.

Most people assume that science starts from secure reproducible observations out of which ‘facts’ about the world are distilled, an ideal enshrined in logical positivism. Its core beliefs are that scientific questions can be answered completely objectively; that experiments allow scientists to compare theory directly with facts; and that science is a sure route to ‘truth’. In this respect, it is scientifically established ‘evidence’ that is now supposed to provide the only basis for the ‘facts’ on which medical decisions are to be based, regardless of practitioners’ empirical ‘hands on’ experience and intuition.[12] and [13]


Kant, in the 18th century, pointed out that observation depends on our individual senses, assumptions, and background beliefs.15 He suggested that our picture of the world is structured by a combination of sensory data (‘phenomena’) and fundamental concepts of reason, eg, ‘causation’, that are culturally ‘hardwired’ into our minds. Consequently, we cannot know anything about how the world ‘really is’. Recent interpretations of quantum theory16 take this idea further by suggesting there is no world ‘out there’ separate from and independent of our observation of it. Or even more starkly, information is all there is.

Local hypotheses and the memory of water



Table 1.

Some physical constants for dihydrides of the Group 16 elements

Compound Molar mass (g/mol) Melting point (°C) Boiling point (°C) H2O 18 0 100
H2S 34 −85.5 −59.55
H2Se 81 −65.73 −41.25
H2Te 130 −49 −2

Display Full Size version of this image (19K)

Fig. 1. Molecular models of water: (a) shows a so-called ‘space-filling’ model and a representation of the electronic charge distribution over the water molecule. The green-to-pink envelope represents the distribution of electrical charge within the molecule, biased towards the oxygen atom. In (b), we see the more classical ‘ball and stick’ model. The red ball represents the oxygen atom while the white balls represent hydrogen atoms, the white spheres without inscribed ‘H’s’ are hydrogen-bonded hydrogen atoms from a neighbouring (unseen) water molecule: the short white ‘sticks’ between the balls represent static chemical bonds between hydrogen and oxygen atoms. In (c), we see a representation of how water molecules might loosely bind to each other via hydrogen bonding (the longer white sticks) to form a coherent but short-term structure.20

Adopting a theatrical metaphor, if nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates, lipids and hormones, etc are the principal ‘actors’ in the unfolding biochemical ‘drama’ that is life at the molecular level, then water provides the stage, set, theatre, and direction. From this perspective, it could be that conventional bio-medicine places too much emphasis on bio-molecules at the expense of the solvent in which they perform. Because of individual patterns of electrically charged and neutral atomic constituents, each type of bio-molecule will have associated with it an ever-changing ‘halo’ of loosely bound and interconnected water molecules.19 At the charged sites on each bio-molecule, water molecules will congregate, while few water molecules gather at the neutral sites. Thus, electric fields generated by bio-molecules will be modified and modulated by their surrounding ever-changing but coherent ‘halo’ of water molecules, and this could be transmitted extremely rapidly partly via water’s rapidly switching network of interconnecting hydrogen bonds, throughout the whole solvent and received by other bio-molecules.

There is much about water yet to be discovered, so that even if scientific attention were to shift away from bio-molecules to their aqueous medium, the experimental and theoretical problems would be enormous. For example, within a single cell, there are huge differences in the water content and properties of its various parts, from the jelly-like consistency of the cytoplasm, to the more fluid content of vacuoles. Modelling such diversity is likely to be a computational nightmare.19 However, modelling water itself shows that its molecules can form short-term coherent ‘structures’, whose life is of the order of pico-seconds (10−12 s) similar to icosahedra (Fig. 2) around central cavities that may contain, or may have once contained solute species.20 From here, it is not hard to imagine that such dynamic aqueous ‘structures’ could be the bearers of a ‘memory’ of things once dissolved but now dissolved out.

Display Full Size version of this image (82K)

Fig. 2. Two coherent icosahedral water ‘structures’ formed from dynamic hydrogen bonding between water molecules. These diagrams represent ‘snapshots’ and are not meant to depict long-term chemical structures.20






In quantum physics there is also support for the MoW concept. For example, Smith has for many years argued for electromagnetic coherence and memory effects in water.25 While Del Guidici et al predicted that given a large enough number of water molecules (of the order of 1015–1017, an amount visible to the naked eye), the sum total of all the hydrogen-bonded interactions between the water molecules could, under the right circumstances, lead to a dynamic, rapidly fluctuating yet correlated state where they all resonate together, spontaneously organising themselves into so-called ‘coherent domains’.26 Del Guidice et al went on to show that such dynamic and correlated ‘coherent domains’ could not only be triggered by homeopathy’s potentisation process (ie, serial dilution and strong agitation), but that they would survive removal of all trace of the original dissolved substance. In other words, a possible theoretical mechanism for MoW effects exists and fits neatly with Roy et al‘s conclusions on the importance of solution structure over composition.



It is perhaps sufficient to say that an explanation for the efficacy of highly diluted homeopathic remedies within the ‘local’ paradigm of the molecular sciences, though difficult is not as improbable as homeopathy’s critics claim.

Non-local hypotheses and macro-entanglement

In which case, why bother with quantum theoretical non-local hypotheses? Simply because deterministic local hypotheses could have the effect of confining attention to the medicine as the sole therapeutic agent, at the expense of the perhaps equally important contextual dynamics of the patient–practitioner relationship. Having said that, it is worth pointing out that some local explanations of homeopathy’s effects, eg Del Guidice et al and their concept of ‘coherent domains’ of water molecules moving in some correlated fashion, are strongly suggestive of entanglement at the molecular level.26 Consequently, it is worth remembering that the sections in this paper headed ‘local hypotheses’ and ‘non-local hypotheses’ are not intended to suggest that they are mutually contradictory. On the contrary, it is far more likely that both will be required in order to fully explain homeopathy’s effectiveness: a prediction consistent with the complementary nature of quantum theory.

Biomedicine takes little account of patient individuality or therapeutic context. From this point of view, perhaps the time has come for the discussion of homeopathy (indeed of all therapeutic modalities) to move out of the narrow confines of deterministic biomedicine. Theoretical models need to be developed that more fully encompass and make sense of its experiences, while at the same time not losing sight of the ‘local’ importance of the medicine. But why invoke non-local explanations based in something as seemingly exotic as quantum theory? How could it possibly apply to ‘macroscopic’ objects, especially people? And does not that play right into the hands of sceptics who accuse homeopaths of clutching at ill-understood scientific straws so that they can justify the patently unjustifiable? It is probably worth noting that homeopathy’s sceptics do not have a monopoly on the understanding or indeed misunderstanding of quantum theory. As the Nobel-pzrize winning physicist Richard Feynman once famously remarked, ‘Anyone who thinks they have understood quantum theory has probably got it wrong!’31 For example, a common assumption is that quantum theory and its implications apply only within the confines of particle physics, not in our macroscopic world.

It is true quantum theory’s algebraic language is dominated by an incredibly small number called Planck’s constant (6.626×10−34 J s), commensurate with observations and measurements of events occurring at the sub-atomic through to the molecular domains. However, it turns out that one of the strangest outcomes of quantum theory—the notion of entanglement—need not be size-limited.32 Entanglement is said to occur when the parts of a system are so holistically matched, measurement of one part of the system instantaneously (ie, not limited by the speed of light) provides information about its other parts, regardless of their separation in space and time.9 What is important is whether the elements of the system are correlated (ie, act as one coherent indivisible whole), and whether such a system’s processes can be described using a ‘non-commuting algebra of complementary observables’.33 This means when two separate operations of observation are performed sequentially, the overall result depends on the sequence and what is being measured. This is readily understood when considering a set of operations involved in, say, cooking. Here the operational sequence is paramount, for in a different order, instead of a tasty meal, one is likely to end up with any number of disagreeable and inedible offerings. Expanding on this concept leads to another key idea from quantum theory: complementarity.31



• Complementarity and entanglement are not restricted by a constant like Planck’s constant.
• WQT has no interpretation in terms of probabilities.
• Complementarity and indeterminacy are epistemological in origin not ontological.


Quantum theory and homeopathy


The reason for this is not because of any fault in measurement; it depends on the mathematical language we use to describe those measurements. Thus, measurement of a quantum state, as with any experiment, provides data in the form of what are called real numbers, eg, the numbers we use everyday like 1, 2, −6, π e, 1/2, √2, etc. But because mathematicians and physicists think in many more than four dimensions, they need a much more versatile number system. And in mathematics, the real numbers are seen as a special case of much larger number sets. One of these is called the complex numbers,34 used to fully describe the multi-dimensionality of quantum states in a way that the real numbers cannot. Complex numbers are irreducible aggregates of real numbers and ‘imaginary’ numbers, based on √-1, which cannot be understood in terms of real numbers.


The consequences of the quantum description of reality for our view of the universe are profound. Ultimately it means relinquishing any notion of knowledge of things ‘out there’, ‘in themselves’, separate from our observation of them. We have to come to terms with the unsettling fact that in quantum theory, like the parts of a complex number, the observer and the observed are intimately and irreducibly connected. But what is it about quantum theory that could resonate with homeopathy and other forms of complementary and alternative medicine (CAMs)?


Entanglement in the homeopathic process


Display Full Size version of this image (21K)

Fig. 3. Diagrammatic representation of ‘sequential box’ model. It proposes the theoretical possibility of keeping a constant volume of mother tincture physically present in every potency. MT=mother tincture; 1×=ten times bigger box 9/10ths full of solvent into which MT is poured and succussed, and so on into 2X….NX.37

Walach’s semiotic model combines WQT with two-way entanglement (Fig. 4) between the patient and the remedy,[7b] and [38] while Hyland has developed a two-way patient–practitioner entanglement model called Extended Network Entanglement Theory.39 In the entanglement metaphors I am developing (Fig. 5), three-way patient, practitioner, remedy (PPR) entanglement is considered.7 These are based on ideas derived from Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger three-way entanglement of particles,40 and quantum field theory.41

Display Full Size version of this image (19K)

Fig. 4. Walach’s double entanglement model. Two semiotic processes linked by the Law of Similars. On the left, object=the remedy substance, Rphi; sign=remedy, Rx; meaning=remedy picture, Sx. On the right, object=the patient’s ‘disease’, Dx; sign=the patient’s symptoms, Sx; meaning=the required remedy, Rx.[7b] and [38]

Display Full Size version of this image (67K)

Fig. 5. PPR entanglement represented geometrically. In (a), Walach’s two semiotic triangles for remedy and patient (also wave functions, ψRx and ψPx) are joined by a third for the practitioner ψPr, which are entangled into the PPR ‘state’ represented by ψPPR in (b). The multi-dimensional geometry of this state is represented in (c)–(e) and shows the action of the homeopathic operator Πr in ‘reflecting’ this state (d). But the reflection is not passive: by opening out the polyhedra in (d) and superimposing them, it is seen that the reflecting plane also twists the reflection through 60° (e). The ‘space’ in which these wave functions and ‘operations’ take place is a therapeutic state space created by the homeopathic operator Πr, which also functions within it.[7] and [42]

Here, the homeopathic process is regarded as a set of non-commuting complementary observations made by the practitioner. These are local (observations of the patient) and global (observations of the practitioner’s own inner state, how that fluctuates during the consultation, and the state of the patient–practitioner relationship), resulting in the prescription of an homeopathic medicine. Patient, practitioner, and remedy comprise therefore a three-way entangled therapeutic entity, so that attempting to isolate any of them ‘collapses’ the entangled state,42 represented geometrically in Fig. 5.

In addition, the Vf may be envisaged as observable only from the amount and severity of the observed signs and symptoms it produces. From this, it is possible to construct a mathematical metaphor for the Vf as a multi-dimensional quantised gyroscope (Fig. 6).43 The slower the Vf gyroscope ‘spins’, the less upright it stands against the braking effects of disease: it begins to ‘wobble’, or, in this metaphor, to express symptoms. Conversely, the therapeutic remedy increases the Vf’s spin rate, throwing off the disease. Thus remedies and diseases may be understood as accelerating and braking ‘torques’ acting on the Vf gyroscope.43

Display Full Size version of this image (34K)

Fig. 6. Schematic of the Vf gyroscope: a real gyroscope in 3-D space precesses around the z-axis sweeping out gradually increasing ‘orbits’ in the xy plane. The metaphorical Vf gyroscope precesses in fixed quantised ‘orbits’ as shown and the y and z axes are complex. Symptoms are observed along the real x-axis. Thus, the Vf only ‘appears’ when it expresses symptoms in real space and time, represented by the x-axis in the figure.43

Mathematically, Vf, diseases, and remedies can be represented as ‘wave functions’ (without yet specifying the ‘particles’ involved or ‘interactions’ between them), leading to the prediction that the more potent a remedy, the greater its effect on the Vf. At very low potencies, when a homeopathic medicine is used in a material dose as in conventional medicine, the gyroscopic metaphor approximates in such a way as to deliver predictions about the lack of therapeutic efficacy of highly-diluted homeopathic remedies in line with those of conventional medicine.44


Conclusion: a therapeutic Uncertainty Principle?

One application of the PPR entanglement metaphor I have described is to provide a rationale for why RCTs of homeopathy often return equivocal results.45 It suggests the double blind RCT ‘collapses’ the three-way patient–practitioner–remedy entangled state in a way analogous to that by which observation collapses a particle’s wave function in the Copenhagen Interpretation of orthodox quantum theory.46 Thus, while unobserved, a particle exists in an indeterminate state; its evolution in time expressed as a wave function. Observation causes the wave function to ‘collapse’ to a particle whose complementary position and momentum are related via Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. The profound meaning of this is that the act of observation in part creates that which is observed. Or, even more starkly, “The price of knowledge is the loss of an underlying ontological physical reality”.47 In a similar way, the observational procedure of the RCT may ‘collapse’ the three-way entangled state, leading to the loss of the underlying homeopathic effect, a therapeutic equivalent of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

But some trials of non-individualised homeopathic remedies have generated positive results.45 This could be due to some surviving relic of entanglement from the production process, ironically as a result of a water memory effect. The work of del Guidice et al mentioned earlier, suggested the formation of ‘coherent domains’ within water’s dynamic hydrogen-bonded ‘structure’.26 Such mass correlation over huge numbers of water molecules suggests a form of molecular entanglement.



Another approach might be to set up a therapeutic analogue of the famous Aspect experiments of the 1980s that demonstrated entanglement between photons.8 These experiments depended on the violation of Bell’s Inequalities (our ‘intuition’ based on local realism, makes predictions which differ markedly from those made by quantum mechanics: these predictions are enshrined in Bell’s Inequalities: if they are violated, then the predictions of quantum mechanics, e.g., entanglement, must be true and our intuition wrong). A way forward might be to use the much more general Information Theoretic Bell’s Inequalities—if local realism does not hold, then two systems must carry information inconsistent with the inequalities. The design of suitable experiments is currently being explored.53

In conclusion, what this all seems to be pointing to is that, far from being competing, contradictory explanations, ‘local’ MoW and ‘non-local’ contextually ‘entangled’ effects (like wave-particle duality in orthodox quantum theory) could be complementary and both are necessary in order to make sense of homeopathy’s effects.




1 A. Shang, K. Huwiler-Muntener and L. Narty et al., Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy and allopathy, Lancet 366 (2005), pp. 726–732. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (109 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus






7 (a)H. Walach, Magic of signs, Br Hom J 89 (2000), pp. 127–140. Abstract | PDF (186 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus
(c)L.R. Milgrom, Patient–practitioner–remedy (PPR entanglement, part 4. Towards classification and unification of the different entanglement models for homeopathy, Homp 93 (2004), pp. 34–42. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (197 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus

(b)A. Aspect, P. Granger and R. Roger et al., Experimental realisation of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm gedanken [thought] experiment: a new violation of Bell’s inequalities, Phys Rev Lett 49 (1982), pp. 91–94. Full Text via CrossRef

(c)J.G. Cramer, The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, Rev Mod Phys 58 (1986), pp. 647–687. MathSciNet | Full Text via CrossRef




(b)C.A. Barry, The role of evidence in alternative medicine: contrasting biomedical and anthropological approaches, Soc Sci Med 62 (2006), pp. 2646–2657. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (209 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus






19 I.R. Gould, Computational chemistry: applications to biological systems, Mol Simulation 26 (2001), pp. 73–83. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus



22 A. Hankey, Are we close to a theory of energy medicine?, J Alt Complement Med 10 (2004), pp. 83–86. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus

23 Kleinert H. Gauge Fields in Condensed Matter; Vol. 1. Superflow and Vortex Lines. Singapore: World Scientific; 1989. pp. 1–742.


25 C.W. Smith, Quanta and coherence effects in water and living systems, J Alt Complement Med 10 (2004), pp. 69–78. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus



(a)L. Rey, Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride, Physica A 323 (2003), pp. 67–74. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (306 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus
(b)R. van Wijk, S. Bosman and E.P.A. van Wijk, J Alt Complement Med 12 (2006), pp. 437–443. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus




32 L.J. Landau, Experimental tests of general quantum mechanics, Let Math Phys 14 (1987), pp. 33–40. MathSciNet | Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus




36 D. Gernert, Towards a closed description of observation processes, BioSystems 54 (2000), pp. 165–180. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (155 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus


38 (a)H. Walach, Generalised entanglement: a new theoretical model for understanding the effects of complementary and alternative medicine, J Altern Complement Med 11 (2005), pp. 549–559. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus
(b)H. Walach, Homeopathy as semiotic, Semiotica 83 (1991), pp. 81–85.

39 M.E. Hyland, Extended network generalised entanglement theory: therapeutic mechanisms, empirical predictions, and investigations, J Altern Complement Med 9 (2003), pp. 919–936. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus

40 D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Horne and A. Shimony et al., Bell’s theorem without inequalities, Am J Phys 58 (1990), pp. 1131–1143. MathSciNet

41 L.R. Milgrom, Towards a new model of the homeopathic process based on Quantum Field Theory, Forsch Komplementärmed 13 (2006), pp. 167–173.

42 L.R. Milgrom, Patient–practitioner–remedy (PPR) entanglement, part 3. Refining the quantum metaphor for homeopathy, Homp 92 (2003), pp. 152–160. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (185 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus

43 L.R. Milgrom, ‘Torque-like’ action of remedies and diseases on the vital force, and their consequences for homeopathic treatment, J Altern Complement Med 12 (2006), pp. 915–929. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus



46 N. Bohr, Can a quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Phys Rev 48 (1935), pp. 609–702.

47 H. Stapp, Harnessing science and religion: societal ramifications of the new scientific conception of human beings, Network 76 (2001), pp. 11–12 and references therein.

48 L.R. Milgrom, The sound of two hands clapping: could homeopathy work locally and non-locally?. Homp 94 (2005), pp. 100–104. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (111 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus


50 H. Möllinger, R. Schneider and M. Löffel et al., A double blind randomized homeopathic pathogenic trial with healthy persons: comparing two high potencies, Forsche Komplementarmed 11 (2004), pp. 274–280. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus

51 G. Dominici, P. Bellavite, C. di Stanislao, P. Gulia and G. Pitari, Double-blind placebo-controlled homeopathic pathogenic trials: symptom collection and analysis, Homp 95 (2006), pp. 123–130. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (186 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus

52 L.R. Milgrom, Entanglement, knowledge, and their possible effects on the outcomes of blinded homeopathic provings, J Altern Complement Med 12 (2006), pp. 271–279. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus

53 G.B. Schmid, Much ado about entanglement: a novel approach to test non-local communication via violation of local realism, Forsch Komplementärmed 12 (2005), pp. 206–213.


The Memory of Water


6 Responses

  1. Philippe Leick said,

    August 18, 2007 at 8:54 pm

    I agree with apgaylard that the paper, as well as the previous one by Otto Weingärtner, has some serious problems with its physics.





    – the mathematics of WQT are not used anywhere
    – the analogies to quantum mechanics are not convincing

    I have to add that Milgrom makes life very difficult for the reader since it is not always clear whether a specific model is a metaphor or not. In physics, metaphors are neither a very common nor very convincing kind of argument… for a metaphor to be valid and useful, two systems should be equivalent in some way. Thus, I really cannot see how metaphors (??) like the gyroscope could be applied to people’s (at best!) hypothetical vital force. Some of these metaphors seem more like “free rides” that can be cleverly chosen to back any given claim…

  2. bazvic said,

    August 19, 2007 at 11:04 am






  3. Philippe Leick said,

    August 19, 2007 at 1:58 pm





  4. bazvic said,

    August 19, 2007 at 7:38 pm



    However this just begs more questions.





    As for water memory. It does not exist.



  5. theheff said,

    June 25, 2009 at 2:50 pm


  6. viviennewestwood said,

    December 22, 2010 at 1:20 am

    the vivienne westwood products.