This leads to the second objection to homeopathy: “Homeopathy cannot work because there is nothing in it. Homeopathic remedies are so much potentised and thereby diluted that they don’t contain molecules anymore of the original substance”.
There are several arguments against this objection
This objection cannot reason the experience away. A real scientist adapts his theory to the experiments and not the other way around. And that is what the adversaries are doing when they say “homeopathy cannot work because there is nothing in it”.
Conventional medicines are based on chemical reactions in the body. In contrast, homeopathic remedies can best be seen as “information” medicines. The information is transferred from the original substance by the process of shaking the remedy at every step of potentisation. The carrier (water or lactose base) is imprinted with the information of the original substance. One can compare this information aspect with computer discs. Homeopathic remedies are chemically all the same, as are computer discs, but the information they carry is very different and that is what causes the effect. The information the disc carries is very diverse, ranging from the music of Bach to photos of the family, from the movie Avatar to a software program, just as the homeopathic remedy can carry infinitely diverse information.
That homeopathic remedies are not “just” water has been shown in many experiments.
Rey showed that potentised water contains information similar to that of the original substance.
Lo showed that ice has many anomalous states.
Chikramane showed that homeopathic potencies retain nanoparticles of the original substance.
Wolf showed that potencies are different from water.
Czerlinski showed that water contains domains of structures following the regional substance.
Roy showed that water can contain information.
The problem is as stated above a paradoxical conflict between theory and experiment. This can be seen very explicitly in the lecture of Vandenbroecke who states: One cannot set simply state: “there is a RCT, a type A evidence so we have to follow that, because that leads directly to the acceptance of homeopathy. Accepting that an unendless dilution can be effective leads to the rejection of a whole system of chemical and physical insights that supports more than just medicine. that price is too high. So we sty with that dogma and prefer to stay critical to the facts.”
Vandenbroecke, an epidemiologist and adversary of homeopathy, makes the mistake of adapting the experiment to the theory. But a scientist has to adapt the theory to the experiment.
Secondly his conclusion that it “leads to the rejection of a whole system of chemical and physical insights” is incorrect. It is only needed to add something to the system of chemical and physical insights: information.
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed. This knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men.