(Extraído de PubMed.com)
ScientificWorldJournal. 2011 Mar 7;11:568-83.
Institute of Complementary Medicine KIKOM, University of Bern, Switzerland. firstname.lastname@example.org
This study investigated the response of arsenic-stressed yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) towards homeopathically potentized Arsenicum album, a duckweed nosode, and gibberellic acid. The three test substances were applied in five potency levels (17x, 18x, 24x, 28x, 30x) and compared to controls (unsuccussed and succussed water) with respect to influencing specific growth parameters. Five independent experiments were evaluated for each test substance. Additionally, five water control experiments were analyzed to investigate the stability of the experimental setup (systematic negative control experiments). All experiments were randomized and blinded. Yeast grew in microplates over a period of 38 h in either potentized substances or water controls with 250 mg/l arsenic(V) added over the entire cultivation period. Yeast's growth kinetics (slope, Et50, and yield) were measured photometrically. The test system exhibited a low coefficient of variation (slope 1.2%, Et50 0.3%, yield 2.7%). Succussed water did not induce any significant differences compared to unsuccussed water. Data from the control and treatment groups were both pooled to increase statistical power. In this study with yeast, no significant effects were found for any outcome parameter or any homeopathic treatment. Since in parallel experiments arsenic-stressed duckweed showed highly significant effects after application of potentized Arsenicum album and duckweed nosode preparations from the same batch as used in the present study, some specific properties of this experimental setup with yeast must be responsible for the lacking response.
- [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]