Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1354 sci.misc:2133 sci.research:424
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!sunybcs!boulder!pell
From: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc,sci.research
Subject: Re: Strange results in Nature article
Message-ID: <2263@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 26 Jul 88 03:19:07 GMT
References: <10465@lll-winken.llnl.gov> <11063@oberon.USC.EDU>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 61

In article <11063@oberon.USC.EDU> robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes:

[Account of the results on antibody dilution from Beneviste's lab]

>
>I'm not a biologist, but I know something about organic material.  Isn't it
>possible that these antibodies are reproducing themselves in solution? Perhaps

Well...no...that is I doubt it...that is to say, that would break more
rules than the explanation they suggest...but, wouldn't that turn some heads
(actually, it does not fit the data--see below).

>Why don't they try a better test for the presence of these antibodies, if that's
>what they think is actually there.  Or, if it's *changed* the water, use a
>filter which is so small that ONLY water moelcules can go through.
>
>Just some thoughts on not believing the unbelievable.
>=Steve=

Well Steve, you may not be a biologist, but you are a scientist (or you
should be).
Actually, the experiments you suggested were among the controls they did.
You might like to read the paper for yourself, though the writing style makes
it pretty hard going.  
They did pass it through a milipore filter and the activity did come through.
They also ran it over a column and it came out in the void (buffer only)
volume while the antibody would be retained in both cases.
They establish also that sensitivity to heat and freeze- thawing of the dilute
activity is different then that of the starting material (antibodies or
ionophores, which also show the same effect).
The thing having the effect in the dilute solution is NOT the antibody.
As for what it is...the water idea is no less crazy then any other I have
heard or thought of.

In fact, the controls done by these people were about as thorough as
I have ever seen.  And, the experiments were repeated in 6 different labs.
All of the easy "you-missed-this-obvious-point" explanations have been
ruled out.
Two things seem clear:
1.that the paper accurately reports a strange-but-true phenomenon unless there
is a big hoax being perpetrated by the French on the uncivilised portion of the
world;

2.there is almost certainly no hoax.  Beneviste seems to HATE this result.
One gets the impression that he really wishes there was be a simple
explanation.  He is not touting it as some great discovery.  I don't think
he believes it anymore than we do.

Nature is planing a follow-up report in a couple of weeks.  This will be based
on investigations currently being conducted by a group of "experts."
This group includes not only other immunologists but also "The Amazing
Randi" (No joke, they really are sending him).  I rather doubt Beneviste is
sending secret messages to the cells through a radio transmitter, but,
perhaps he can help.  Beneviste is cooperating fully in the investigation
(which is more than Uri Geller ever did).

Oh well, there may be a missed control somewhere, but I doubt it.
If I were of a different religious inclination, I would suggest that this
is God's way of saying to us scientists "Hey, don't get cocky!"

-tony