Are there plausible scientific explanations for how homeopathic medicines can work? Dana Ullman’s dialogue with ChatGPT!

Asked on August 20, 2025

I WAS TOLD:

NOTE: Skeptics of homeopathy commonly assert that homeopathic medicines are just “placebo,” despite the fact that there are now over 500 clinical trials published in peer review medical journals, most of which show therapeutic benefits from the homeopathic treatment. Many of these studies have been published in the best medical journals in the world, including The Lancet, British Medical Journal, Pediatrics, European Journal of Pediatrics, Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal, The Oncologist, Cancer, Chest, Rheumatology, PlosOne, and many others.

Another huge body of solid evidence for the significant benefits from homeopathic medicine come from history. Homeopathy became particularly popular in the 19th century primarily because homeopathic patients experienced such positive results during the worst epidemics of that century, including cholera, typhoid fever, yellow fever, scarlet fever, pneumonia, and others. The death rate from these serious infectious diseases was typically two to eight times (!) higher in the conventional medical hospitals than in the homeopathic hospitals.

Ultimately, skeptics of homeopathy (falsely) contend that homeopathic medicines are just too small or non-existent to have any obvious physiological effects…and further, they (falsely) contend that there are no known explanations for how these nanodoses can have any effect.

Well…this dialog with ChatGPT proves them wrong…see for yourself.

One final note before beginning this conversation, please know that some of the explanations for how homeopathic medicines work is technical, and some readers may not understand some of this information. Please feel free to ask whatever AI you use to help you better understand what is being said below.

Yes — several plausible hypotheses have been proposed to explain how homeopathic medicines might work, though none are universally accepted in mainstream science. The central challenge is that homeopathy often uses remedies diluted beyond Avogadro’s number (meaning no measurable molecules of the original substance are expected to remain), which clashes with conventional pharmacology. Still, researchers from physics, chemistry, and biology have suggested possible mechanisms. Here are some of the main ones:

---

1. Nanoparticles and Residual Material

• Some studies suggest that ultradiluted remedies are not completely “nothing”: trace amounts of nanoparticles or silica from glass vials may remain.

• These could, in theory, act as biological signals at very low doses, triggering effects in the body.

• A 2010 study by Chikramane et al. found measurable nanoparticles of gold and other source materials even in remedies diluted beyond 10^−30.

(Additional note, NOT from ChatGPT: It is widely known that nanoparticles of gold become magnetic. Further, there are many other substances that develop a magnetic field after the substance has water swirled around it in a similar way that homeopathic medicines are made in a double-distilled water. For more details, readers are encouraged to ask their AI: Do gold nanoparticles develop magnetism? And how about other substances?

Ultimately, these magnetic field are so weak that they will not have much biological effect, EXCEPT on those living systems (such as humans and animals) who have symptoms that are similar with (or that “resonate with”) the medicinal substance in nanodoses!.)

---

2. Water Structure / “Memory of Water”

• Water molecules form complex, dynamic hydrogen-bonded networks.

• Proponents suggest that the process of serial dilution and vigorous shaking (“succussion”) may imprint structural or electromagnetic patterns in the solvent.

• These altered structures could hypothetically influence biological systems, even without the original molecules present.

• Critics argue that such structuring is fleeting, but some physicists and chemists have studied long-lived water clusters under certain conditions.

---

3. Electromagnetic / Quantum Hypotheses

• Some researchers propose that homeopathic remedies emit ultra-weak electromagnetic signals, detectable by sensitive equipment, which could interact with biological systems.

• Others invoke quantum concepts (coherence, entanglement, field effects), suggesting remedies might work more like “information medicine” than chemical medicine.

• These are highly speculative and controversial, since clear experimental evidence is lacking.

---

4. Biological Amplification / Hormesis

• Hormesis is the phenomenon where very low doses of a substance can have paradoxical, beneficial effects, opposite to high-dose effects (seen in toxicology, radiation biology, etc.).

• Homeopathic dilutions might trigger adaptive or self-regulating responses in the body via hormetic mechanisms.

• Unlike water memory theories, this explanation assumes some material remains at low dilutions (e.g. 6C, 12C), not the highest potencies.

---

5. Epigenetic or Signal-Triggering Mechanisms

• Some suggest remedies may act as weak stressors or “signals” that nudge the body’s regulatory systems (nervous, immune, or endocrine) to correct themselves.

• In this view, the medicine doesn’t act directly like a drug but instead stimulates the body’s innate healing processes.

---

6. Placebo and Contextual Healing

• Even if remedies have no direct pharmacological action, the therapeutic encounter in homeopathy is often long, empathetic, and individualized.

• Placebo responses, expectation, and doctor–patient interaction are powerful modulators of symptoms, immune function, and even neurochemistry.

• Most conventional scientists consider this the main explanation, though homeopaths argue it cannot account for all observed effects (including in animals and infants).

---

✅ In summary:
There are plausible theoretical models — nanoparticles, water structuring, electromagnetic fields, hormesis, and systems-biology signaling — but none have been definitively proven. The scientific debate continues because results are inconsistent, and many of the proposed mechanisms challenge established physics and chemistry.

ChatGPT was then asked: Does the above analysis include this review of research on the mechanism of action of homeopathic medicines: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8207273/

(I didn’t mention it, but this link is to MY review of research on the mechanism of action of homeopathic medicines, as published in the journal Dose Response, a multi-disciplinary scientific journal that specializes in “hormesis,” that is, the exploration of the power of extremely small doses of specific substances on specific biological systems)

ChatGPT said:

You're referring to the review “Exploring Possible Mechanisms of Hormesis and Homeopathy in the Light of Nanopharmacology and Ultra-High Dilutions” (Dana Ullman, Dose Response, 2021; PMCID: PMC8207273)

Key Contributions from Ullman 2021 Review (PMC8207273) Great—here’s a tight deep-dive into the nanoparticle–exclusion-zone (EZ)–hormesis model you flagged, plus what the best recent evidence does (and doesn’t) show.

What the model proposes (in one line)

Homeopathic preparations contain nanoparticles (NPs) of the source material; during succussion they acquire a shell of EZ/structured water that stabilizes “information,” and—when matched by similars—these NP–EZ “packages” trigger hormetic adaptive signaling in the organism. PMC

---

1) Nanoparticles in ultra-high dilutions

Claim: Even beyond Avogadro, measurable particles remain and could act as signals.

• Early anchor: Chikramane et al. reported metal-derived nanoparticles in high potencies using electron microscopy/analytical methods. PubMed

• Recent follow-ups: A 2024 study used nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) across multiple substances, comparing dynamized remedies vs matched controls (including container controls); it found particles at potencies up to 30cH (10⁻⁶⁰) with container material (glass vs PET) influencing background counts. This strengthens “there’s something physical there,” while also underscoring contamination and control issues. PMC

Where this stands: Evidence that particles persist is suggestive and growing, but composition, reproducibility across labs, and rigorous negative controls (beyond container effects) remain the key gaps to close. PMC

---

2) Exclusion-zone (EZ) / structured water around nanoparticles

Claim: Succussion yields long-lived interfacial water structures forming an EZ shell around NPs, which could stabilize signals.

• State of the science: EZ-like phenomena near hydrophilic surfaces have been reported by several groups, but the underlying structure and theory are debated; critical reviews document replication of certain exclusion effects while disputing strong claims about a new “phase.” PMC

• Implication for remedies: The Ullman review frames NP + interfacial/EZ water as a composite that could extend “memory” beyond transient bulk-water structuring. This is conceptually plausible given interfacial water behavior in general, but direct demonstration that homeopathic processing creates biologically specific, stable NP–EZ shells is not yet shown. PMC+1

---

3) Hormesis as the biological bridge

Claim: NP–EZ “signals” trigger biphasic, low-dose adaptive responses (hormesis), aligning with the “like treats like” principle.

• Independent strength: Hormesis is well-documented across biology; recent mechanistic reviews highlight sensor pathways (e.g., NRF2, MAPK, NF-κB, mTOR) orchestrating low-dose stress adaptation. PubMedNature

• Fit to homeopathy: Hormesis makes low-dose effects credible—especially for material potencies—but does not by itself explain ultramolecular potencies unless the NP–EZ hypothesis supplies the “material” carrier at vanishing concentrations. PMC

---

4) How strong is the integrated model—right now?

• Best-supported piece: Hormesis (independent of homeopathy) is solid. PubMedNature

• Emerging/partial: Nanoparticles in high potencies—multiple positive reports, improving methods, but control/reproducibility questions persist. PubMedPMC

• Most uncertain: Specific EZ “information shells” that carry remedy-specific bioactivity—hypothesized, with EZ phenomena partly replicated but no consensus on structure/duration or remedy specificity. PMC

---

5) What would convincingly test this model?

Here’s a practical, falsifiable checklist labs could run:

1. Blinded multi-lab NP characterization

   • Independent preparation per pharmacopeia; glass vs PET vs quartz; inline particle-free water.

   • Orthogonal analytics (NTA, DLS, TEM/SEM-EDS, single-particle ICP-MS).

   • Pre-registered protocols + shared reference materials.
     Goal: Show consistent presence & composition of source-derived NPs distinct from controls. PMC

2. Interfacial water mapping on the same samples

   • Surface-sensitive probes (AFM, IR/Raman, NMR relaxation) to detect stable interfacial layers on remedy NPs vs controls.

   • Time-course stability (hours→weeks) at storage temps.
     Goal: Demonstrate NP-specific interfacial structuring not seen in matched controls. PMC

3. Mechanistic bioassays with pathway readouts

   • Use cell systems with NRF2-reporters (and other hormetic sensors).

   • Compare: remedy vs potentized solvent control vs simple dilution vs sham-succussed control.

   • Confirm biphasic dose–response and pathway causality (e.g., NRF2 knockdown blocks effect).
     Goal: Tie specific adaptive pathways to remedy exposure in a way controls cannot mimic. PubMed

4. Encoded specificity tests (“similars”)

   • Parallel remedies from different source drugs tested against matched vs mismatched stress models.

   • If “similars” is real, expect differential effects aligned with the challenge agent, not generic NP effects.
     Goal: Move beyond “something happens” to information specificity.

5. Physical→biological linkage

   • Correlate NP size/chemistry + interfacial metrics with hormetic response amplitude across batches.
     Goal: Dose–structure–activity relationships that predict biology from physics.

---

6) Bottom line for the Ullman 2021 framework

• It usefully unifies three ideas—NPs, interfacial/EZ water, and hormesis—into a single, testable narrative. PMC

• Today’s evidence: promising for NPs, mixed but interesting for EZ phenomena, strong for hormesis (in general). The integrated, remedy-specific NP–EZ–hormesis mechanism remains hypothetical pending multi-lab, preregistered demonstrations that decisively outpace rigorous controls. PMC+1Nature

Based on THIS very complimentary review of my article, I invite readers to read it HERE!

BIO:

DANA ULLMAN, MPH, CCH, received his Bachelor’s degree (1975) and his masters in public health from UC Berkeley (1978). UC Berkeley’s alumni magazine published a feature interview with Dana Ullman here.

He is one of America’s leading advocates for homeopathy. He has authored 10 books, including The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy, Homeopathy A-Z, Homeopathic Medicines for Children and Infants, Discovering Homeopathy, and (the best-selling) Everybody’s Guide to Homeopathic Medicines (with Stephen Cummings, MD). Dana also created an e-course How to Use a Homeopathic Medicine Kit which integrates 80 short videos with his famous ebook that is a continually growing resource to 500+ clinical studies published in peer-review medical journals testing homeopathic medicines. This ebook is entitled Evidence Based Homeopathic Family Medicine.

Dana Ullman has also authored chapters on homeopathic medicine that included in medical textbooks published by Oxford University Press, the American Academy of Pain Management, and Mosby.

He is the founder of Homeopathic Educational Services, also known as www.homeopathic.com, America’s leading resource center for homeopathic books, tapes, medicines, software, and e-courses. Homeopathic Educational Services has co-published over 40 books on homeopathy with North Atlantic Books.

Dana previously wrote a regular column for the popular website, www.huffingtonpost.com (to access these articles, click HERE!)