Gas Discharge Visualization Evaluation of Ultramolecular Doses of Homeopathic Medicines Under
Blinded, Controlled Conditions
IRIS R. BELL, M.D., M.D. (H.), Ph.D.,1–9 DANIEL A. LEWIS II, B.S.,2,10
AUDREY J. BROOKS, Ph.D.,2,5 SABRINA E. LEWIS, B.A.,2,5
and GARY E. SCHWARTZ, Ph.D.2–5,6,7,11
ABSTRACT
Objectives: To determine the feasibility of using a computerized biophysical method, gas discharge visualization (GDV), to differentiate ultramolecular doses of homeopathic remedies from solvent controls and from each other.
Design: Blinded, randomized assessment of four split samples each of 30c potencies of three homeopathic remedies from different kingdoms, for example, Natrum muriaticum (mineral), Pulsatilla (plant), and Lachesis (animal), dissolved in a 20% alcohol-water solvent versus two different control solutions (that is, solvent with untreated lactose/sucrose pellets and unsuccussed solvent alone).
Procedures: GDV measurements, involving application of a brief electrical impulse at four different voltage levels, were performed over 10 successive images on each of 10 drops from each bottle (total 400 images per test solution per voltage). The dependent variables were the quantified
image characteristics of the liquid drops (form coefficient, area, and brightness) from the resultant burst of electron-ion emission and optical radiation in the visual and ultraviolet ranges.
Results: The procedure generated measurable images at the two highest voltage levels. At 17 kV, the remedies exhibited overall lower image parameter values compared with solvents (significant for Pulsatilla and Lachesis), as well as differences from solvents in fluctuations over repeated
images (exposures to the same voltage). At 24 kV, other patterns emerged, with individual remedies showing higher or lower image parameters compared with other remedies and the solvent controls.
Conclusions: GDV technology may provide an electromagnetic probe into the properties of homeopathic remedies as distinguished from solvent controls. However, the present findings also highlight the need for additional research to evaluate factors that may affect reproducibility of results.
INTRODUCTION
Homeopathy is a 200-year-old system of
complementary and alternative medicine
(CAM) used worldwide (Jacobs et al., 1998;
Kaul, 1996; Merrell and Shalts, 2002). Although
there are many schools of clinical thought in
terms of how to select and administer homeopathic
medicines (remedies), the preparation of
the medicines themselves is generally standardized
and detailed in references such as the
Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States.
This field of CAM has stimulated much debate
over its validity as a clinical intervention, in
part because of the controversial nature of its
medicines (Vandenbroucke, 1997; Vandenbroucke
and de Craen, 2001).
Preparation of homeopathic medicines begins
with selection of a specific animal, mineral,
or plant substance, which is then alcoholextracted,
dissolved, and/or crushed with lactose
(milk sugar) (Ullman, 2002). The resultant
material undergoes a process of serial dilutions
in particular ratios (e.g., 1/10, 1/100, or
1/50,000 of source material to distilled water
solvent) and multiple succussions (vigorous
shaking). Most homeopathic medicines include
alcohol (ethanol) in the water as a stabilizer for
longer shelf life. The final solution is often
poured or sprayed over lactose or lactose/sucrose
pellets, which are then dried and packaged
in small vials commercially for transport
and ease of use. It is also common for clinicians
to recommend dissolving the pellets in water
and administering the water solution in daily
teaspoon or tablespoon doses for therapeutic
benefit, especially in hypersensitive patients or
those taking conventional drugs that might
otherwise slow remedy response (De Schepper,
1999).
Skeptics point out that doses (potencies)
greater than 12c (10224 dilution factor) have no
molecules of the original source material remaining
in the solvent (Avogadro’s number is
6 3 10223). They therefore theorize that any
clinical, animal, or in vitro observations suggesting
an effect of homeopathy beyond those
of an inert placebo could not occur as a result
of the agent’s capacity to exert specific drug–
receptor effects (Moerman and Jonas, 2002;
Vandenbroucke, 1997; Walach and Jonas, 2002).
Homeopaths, on the other hand, consider the
higher potencies beyond Avogadro’s number to
exert stronger and longer lasting effects than do
lower potencies. Hundreds of published case reports
in homeopathic journals and books claim
short-term and long-term therapeutic benefits
for mental, emotional, and physical pathology
from treatment with high potencies of specific
remedies (e.g., collected homeopathic reference
sources from www.kenthomeopathic.com or
www.wholehealthnow.com).
Apart from theory or clinical anecdotes, the
empirical data on animal, cellular, plant, and in
vitro preparations indicate that homeopathic
remedies in ultramolecular dilutions can exert
measurable effects on biologic systems and
subsystems (Bellavite and Signorini, 2002;
Endler and Schulte, 1994; Jonas et al., 2001; Ruiz
et al., 1999; Ruiz-Vega et al., 2000; Schulte and
Endler, 1998; Sukul et al., 2000; Sukul et al.,
1986, 1999; van Wijk and Wiegant, 1994). Some
preclinical studies also support the hypothesis
that higher potencies exert effects for longer periods
of time than do lower potencies (Sukul et
al., 1986). Current models for the nature of
remedies largely focus on the possibility of persistent
structural modifications in the solvent’s
molecular organization (e.g., a form of water
clusters) (Anick, 1999; Bellavite and Signorini,
2002). One calorimetric study provided indirect
evidence supporting a water cluster theory.
That is, mixing a 12c remedy preparation (involving
both dilution and succussion) with a
basic solution released significantly more heat
(i.e., presumably disrupting order in the test solution)
than with a diluted control solution
(Elia and Niccoli, 1999).
Despite some positive, even multicenter,
studies (Belon et al., 1999; Schulte and Endler,
1998), clinical and preclinical research in homeopathy
has been hampered by inconsistent results
and problems in reproducibility (Bellavite
and Signoini, 2002; Linde et al., 1994, 1997;
Walach, 2000; Walach and Jonas, 2002). Efforts
to demonstrate unique signals from homeopathic
remedies using methods well-known in
conventional physical science (e.g., nuclear
magnetic resonance [NMR], infrared, or Raman
spectroscopy), also result in variability from ex26
BELL ET AL.
Eperiment to experiment (Aabel et al., 2001;
Bellavite and Signorini, 2002; Milgrom et al.,
2001). Thus, it is becoming increasingly important
to look for novel but objective methods
that may advance understanding of the nature
of homeopathic medicines, including possible
reasons for outcome variability.
Recently, Korotkov and Kovotkin (2001) and
others in Russia have developed a computerized
image processing technique as an objective
biophysical method to measure replicable
evidence of internal status and/or subtle energies
in living organisms and various liquids, including
homeopathic remedies (Jerman et al.,
1999). The technique, termed gas discharge visualization
(GDV), is a means of characterizing
the nonlinear gas discharge image formation
around objects subjected to a brief, strong electromagnetic
field. GDV reportedly measures
phenomena similar to those of Kirlian photography,
but offers quantitative advantages over
the more limited and variable qualitative assessment
possible with the original Kirlian technique.
Previous studies have shown that GDV can
differentiate reliably between drops of different
electrolyte solutions (sodium or potassium
alkali) and distilled water (Korotkov
and Korotkin, 2001) or between ultramolecular
homeopathic potencies of potassium iodide
and distilled water (Jerman et al., 1999).
Moreover, homeopathy also falls into the
broad CAM category of “energy medicine,”
an area in which electromagnetic energies
may modulate or interact with healing signals
(Oschman, 2000). If so, then the effects of the
GDV electrical impulses themselves during
the measurement process might provide a
probe into the properties of homeopathic
remedies. The purpose of the present study
was to replicate and extend prior GDV research
by (1) comparing ultramolecular 30c
potencies of three commercially prepared
homeopathic remedies widely used in clinical
practice (from mineral, plant, and animal
sources) with alcohol-water solvent controls
and (2) examining the effects of exposure of
each homeopathic remedy sample to repeated
electromagnetic impulses as part of the GDV
measurement process.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Materials
A Food and Drug Administration-regulated
homeopathic pharmacy (Hahnemann Laboratories,
San Rafael, CA) prepared split samples
of five different test solutions in 16 ounce,
amber-colored bottles (total, 10 bottles). Four of
the solutions derived from five #35 lactose/
sucrose pellets (ratio of sugars, respectively,
20%/80% 6 10%) dissolved in a 20% alcohol
(ethanol in glass bottles, from AAPER Alcohol,
Shelbyville, KY)-distilled water solution (water
prepared on site at Hahnemann Laboratories
with a glass still [Barenstead]). The three solutions
(total, 6 bottles) that contained the dissolved
remedy-treated pellets were Natrum
muriaticum (mineral: sodium chloride) 30c,
Pulsatilla (plant: windflower) 30c, and Lachesis
(animal: Bushmaster snake venom) 30c. The
fourth solution contained only dissolved plain
lactose/sucrose pellets without remedy, shaken
briefly but not succussed after the pellets dissolved.
The fifth solution consisted of untreated,
unsuccussed 20% alcohol-distilled water
solvent alone. Of note, a given 30c remedy
potency dose is diluted at (1/100)30 or 10260
and succussed 30 3 20 or 600 times during the
manufacturing process. Succussions for remedy
preparation are performed with a semiautomated
mechanical system that mimics hand
succussions but standardizes each stroke
(www.Hahnemannlabs.com/preparation.html).
All bottles were uniquely number coded and
shipped together by overnight courier in the
same box to the University of Arizona with no
information other than the numbers as to specific
bottle contents. Until the code was broken,
Hahnemann Laboratories maintained, at their
site, the code list matching remedy types to
their original bottle numbers. At the university,
a research assistant not involved in obtaining
the GDV images split the contents of each of
the 10 bottles (using 5-mL latex-free Terumo
[Somerset, NJ] syringes) between two new 60-
mL amber-colored bottles with 33-mm polyseal
black caps (E.D. Luce, Signal Hill, CA), labeled
each bottle with a new, unique 3-digit random
number code (total bottles, 20), and randomized
the order of the bottles for testing.
GAS DISCHARGE IMAGES
The unique random numbers identifying
each of the 20 test bottles were generated using
a random number table (Myers and
Hansen, 1993). Bottles were then assigned a sequential
slot (1–20) as ordered by the value of
their randomly assigned number. This series
was then rerandomized a second time to establish
the actual order in which the bottles
would be tested, using www.randomizer.org.
This procedure thus generated 4 bottles each of
5 different agents (Natrum muriaticum, Pulsatilla,
Lachesis, Solvent with plain pellets, Solvent
alone without pellets) and enabled bottle
order randomization and blinding of members
of the university research team throughout
data acquisition and processing. The GDV
model used in these experiments was manufactured
in late 1998 from Kirlionics Technologies
International, St. Petersburg, Russia (www.
gdvonline.com). The research assistant who
operated the GDV had received prior in-person
instruction from the equipment’s developer,
Dr. Korotkov.
Procedures
Technical details of GDV image acquisition
are documented in previous publications
(Bundzen et al., 2002; Korotkov and Korotkin,
2001). Briefly, the equipment sends a standardized
brief high-voltage, high-frequency electrical
impulse to a drop of liquid to generate a twodimensional
gas discharge image whose
characteristics reveal information about the
properties of the test solution. The drop hangs
3 mm above the top surface of an optical glass
plate. Below the plate, the equipment’s optical
system uses a charge coupled device camera and
digitizes the image data using a videoblaster for
analysis with a personal computer using GDV
proprietary software. Each train has a duration
0.5 seconds of triangle 10 ms electrical impulses
of specific amplitude (range 1, 13.4 kV; range 2,
15 kV; range 3, 17 kV; range 4, 24 kV), steep rate
106 V/s, and repetition frequency of 103 Hz. The
train is applied to the metal grid at the bottom
surface of the glass plate, generating an electromagnetic
field around each drop. The resultant
data represent a burst of electron-ion emission
and optical radiation light quanta in the visual
and ultraviolet range.
In the present study, one research assistant
took all of the GDV images and cleaned the raw
data for electrode artifact from all bottles before
the identifying number codes were broken
for final statistical analysis. The process was
done in the same off-campus laboratory room
at an average room temperature of 66.3°F, between
November 2001 and January 2002. The
GDV was allowed to warm up for 15 minutes
prior to taking the first images in a given session.
GDV testing involved taking a series of 10
successive images of each of 10 drops per bottle
of each test solution (n 5 40 drops per test
solution) at a given electrical impulse range.
The drops of solution (average 0.024 mL per
drop) hung suspended from an initially filled
1-mL latex-free syringe (Exelint International,
Los Angeles, CA) used specifically for liquids
analysis in GDV.
A new 1-mL syringe of a given bottle’s contents
was used to supply the 10 drops for tests
at each of the four voltage amplitude ranges
(i.e., 4 separate 1-mL syringe samples, supplying
10 drops per syringe per voltage range).
The camera lens was wiped with an alcohol
prep pad after completion of each set of drops
for a given range.
Outcome measures
The image of each drop is called a GDVgram.
Cleaning of the raw data involves visual
inspection and removal of pixels from electrode-derived
artifact, located distant from the
central image in the periphery of the field surrounding
the true image. The software utilizes
nonlinear mathematical algorithms to process
the image after removal of electrode artifact.
The primary GDV image parameters analyzed
for this study included: form coefficient (fractality),
mean image area, and image brightness.
Form coefficient assesses the fractality of the
outer contour of the image (from chaos theory,
a dimension with a noninteger value, a geometric
pattern that has similarity at every scale
or level of analysis) in the gas discharge
process. Notably, chaotic systems exhibit in
their dynamics a marked sensitivity to initial
conditions that can result in large divergence
of findings over repeated measurements.
Full text: 2003 Bell et al JACM Homeopathy
GDV Evaluation of Ultramolecular Doses of Homeopathic Medicines