Presentiment or entanglement?

G.T. Lewith; Sarah Brien; Michael E. Hyland

doi:10.1016/j.homp.2005.02.005

Homeopathy, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Homeopathy 2005; 94(02): 92-95
DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2005.02.005

Debate: Entanglement and Homeopathy

Presentiment or entanglement?

An alternative explanation for apparent entanglement in provings

Autoren

G.T. Lewith

¹University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton, Hants S017 1BJ, UK
Sarah Brien

¹University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton, Hants S017 1BJ, UK
Michael E. Hyland

²School of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Portland Square, Plymouth, Devon PL4 8AA, UK

Abstract

A number of authors have recently discussed the possible role entanglement in homeopathy. Walach et al have published a homeopathic proving which they interpreted as demonstrating entanglement between placebo and verum groups in a proving. The lack of a ‘run-in’ period was a weakness of this trial.

We present further results of our proving of Belladonna which show that subjects who reported symptoms during the placebo run-in period (‘presentiment provers’) were more likely to report symptoms during the treatment period. This data suggests and the observations of Walach et al may be explicable by conventional mechanisms including differential reporting and constitutional type

Keywords

proving - entanglement - presentiment provers - Belladonna

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Walach H., Sherr J., Schneider R., Shabi R., Bond A., Rieberer G. Homeopathic proving symptoms: result of a local, non-local or placebo process? A blinded, placebo-controlled pilot study. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 179-185.
2 Goodyear K., Lewith G.T. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of homoeopathic proving for Belladonna C30. J Roy Soc Med 1998; 91: 579-582.
3 Brien S., Lewith G.T., Bryant T. Ultramolecular homoeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled proving trial of Belladonna C30. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2003; 56: 562-568.
4 Lewith G.T., Hyland M.E. Oscillatory effects in a homeopathic clinical trial: an explanation using complexity theory, and implications for clinical practice. Br Hom J 2002; 91: 145-149.
5 Milgrom L.R. Patient–practitioner–remedy (PPR) entanglement: a qualitative, non-local metaphor for homeopathy based on quantum theory. Homeopathy 2002; 91: 239-248.
6 Milgrom L.R. Patient–practitioner–remedy (PPR) entanglement: extending the metaphor for homeopathy using molecular quantum theory, Part II. Homeopathy 2003; 92: 35-43.
7 Milgrom L.R. Patient–practitioner–remedy (PPR) entanglement, Part III. Homeopathy 2003; 92: 152-160.
8 Hyland M.E. Extended network generalised entanglement theory: therapeutic mechanisms and empirical predictions. J Altern Complement Med 2003; 9: 919-936.
9 Atmanspacher H., Romer H., Walach H. Weak quantum theory: complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond. Found Phys 2002; 32: 379-406.
10 Walach H. Magin of signs: a non-local interpretation of homeopathy. Br Hom J 2000; 89: 127-140.
11 Hyland M.E. A brief guide to extended network entanglement theory. Forsch Komplementarmed 2003; 10: 201-206.
12 Hyland M.E. Emergent entanglement theory, love and being. J Holistic Healthcare 2004; 1: 24-29.
13 Hyland M.E. Does a form of ‘entanglement’ between people explain healing? An examination of hypotheses and methodology. Complement Ther Med 2004; 12 (04) 198-208.
14 Walach H. Entanglement model of homeopathy as an example of generalized entanglement predicted by weak quantum theory. Forsch Komplementarmed 2003; 10: 192-200.
15 Pennebaker J.W. The Psychology of Symptoms. New York: Springer; 1982
16 Raeside J.R. Report on a proving of Selenium. Br Hom J 1961; 50: 215-225.
17 Sherr J. The Dynamics and Methodology of Homoeopathic Provings. West Malvern: Dynamis Books; 1994