"Molecularly Imprinted Chromatography" fails to distinguish homeopatic remedy from placebo.

It was sensation when Dr. J. Beneviste reported alleged experimental biological evidence of the water memory effect (E. Dayenas et al. Nature 333, 816-818, 1988; https://doi.org/10.1038/333816a0). These experiments have never been reproduced in controlled conditions, however. Instead, the hypothesis that water can be imprinted with the memory of past solutes was ruled out (J. Maddox et al. Nature 334, 287-290, 1988; https://doi.org/10.1038/334287a0). At present, so-called "molecular imprinting" is a technology of preparing polymer matrices as affinity-based analyte separation media (J. Haginaka J. Sep. Sci. 32, 1548-1565, 2009). By analogy, one can assume that the water/ethanol mixture used for manufacturing homeopatic remedies might comprise "molecular imprints" of drug molecules, which were formed in "potentization". If so, then a LC experiment involving homeopatic solution of a drug vs. analogously made placebo solution applied as mobile phases should demonstrate a faster elution (lesser retention) of the drug. We elaborated a UHPLC procedure to obtain measurable retention times for aconitine with a mobile phase of ca. 15% v/v of ethanol in water. This was accomplished with the use of a 3 × 50 mm, 2.7 micron column Poroshel 120 EC-18 (Agilent) and 0.1% of formic acid added to the eluent. A reference UHPLC experiments were done with an ad hoc made 15% v/v ethanol/water mobile phase. The following retention times were found: 15.61 min for Aconitum CH30, 16.14 min for placebo (both from Apteka Homeopatyczna Pod Wagą, Syców, Poland), whereas it was 11.84 and 11.68 min for the eluent not subjected to potentization. We determined by GC that the actual concentrations of ethanol in the eleuents were: 17.78, 17.34, 18.56 and 18.56% v/v, respectively. As a matter of fact, the homeopatic solution appeared to have a lesser affinity for the drug than the placebo. Anyway, bearing in mind a normal linear decrease of retention with ethanol concentration, one cannot recognize 0.52 min difference between Aconitum CH30 and placebo as meaningful. Hence, "molecular imprints" of aconitine in homeopatic remedy are unlikely. Still, the experimental approach proposed can further be tested also with regards to the claimed "molecular imprints" on the HPLC stationary phase polymers. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.