Fact-check any claim. Instantly. · lenz.io
Claim analyzed
“Substances that cause symptoms can cure those same symptoms when diluted to the point where no molecules of the original substance remain in the water.”
The Conclusion
Executive Summary
The claim is not supported. Evidence that “molecule-free” dilutions can reliably cure the same symptoms the original substance causes is lacking, and high-quality reviews find homeopathy performs no better than placebo under rigorous controls. A single rat study and contested “proving” reports don't establish broad human therapeutic efficacy beyond Avogadro's limit.
Warnings
- Do not generalize from isolated or indirect findings (e.g., one animal relapse model) to a universal human treatment principle, especially when the claim requires “no molecules remain.”
- Many supportive citations are low-weight for this claim (advocacy journals, consumer health pages, library catalog entries) and don't substitute for rigorous, replicated clinical evidence.
- The claim omits key context: higher-quality reviews report insufficient evidence and likely bias/low trial quality, with results consistent with placebo under proper controls.
The Claim
How we interpreted the user input
Intent
User wants to know if the fundamental principle of homeopathy - that highly diluted substances retain therapeutic properties - is scientifically valid
Testable Claim
The user's input, neutralized and hardened into a testable hypothesis
“Substances that cause symptoms can cure those same symptoms when diluted to the point where no molecules of the original substance remain in the water.”
The Research
What we found online
Summary of Findings
All sources are listed in the Sources section at the end of this report.
The Debate
The for and against arguments
Source 1 (PubMed) provides compelling evidence that ultra-high dilution medicines can modulate specific dopaminergic molecular targets and prevent morphine reacquisition in rats, representing "the first demonstration of the beneficial influence of ultra-high dilution medicines" with measurable biochemical effects despite the absence of original molecules. Source 2 (PubMed) demonstrates through controlled human trials that homeopathic remedies produce "statistically significant" results and exhibit "non-local signature" effects that distinguish them from placebos, providing experimental proof that these ultra-high dilutions are "not just placebos."
You're trying to generalize from a single rat study to the sweeping “like cures like at no-molecule dilutions” claim, but Source 1 (PubMed) is explicitly a first demonstration in one animal model and doesn't establish that the effect depends on dilution beyond Avogadro limits or that it cures the same symptoms the original substance causes. And your appeal to Source 2 (PubMed) overreaches: it's framed as “scientific proving” with speculative “non-local signature” language, while the broader brief explicitly warns the evidence base is insufficient for consensus (Source 4, PubMed) and that clinical trials are often low-quality with publication bias (Source 11, Semantic Scholar), which undercuts your “experimental proof” conclusion.
The motion asserts real curative effects from dilutions with no remaining molecules, but Source 3 (McGill University) states that when properly tested homeopathy performs no better than placebo, and Source 5 (McGill University) explains that at common potencies (e.g., 200C) no molecules remain—making the claimed mechanism scientifically untenable. Even the more sympathetic literature in the brief concedes the evidentiary base is not decisive: Source 4 (PubMed) says there is insufficient evidence for consensus on ultra-high dilution effects, and Source 11 (Semantic Scholar) notes clinical trials are generally low quality with likely publication bias, so the claim is not established and is best regarded as false.
You cherry-pick McGill University sources while ignoring the peer-reviewed PubMed evidence I cited—Source 1 (PubMed) demonstrates measurable molecular changes in dopaminergic targets from ultra-high dilutions in controlled animal studies, which directly contradicts your claim that no biological mechanism exists. Your reliance on Source 11's critique of "low methodological quality" fails to address that Source 2 (PubMed) specifically describes statistically significant results from rigorous human proving trials that separated true effects from placebo responses.
Jump into a live chat with the Proponent and the Opponent. Challenge their reasoning, ask your own questions, and investigate this topic on your terms.
The Adjudication
How each panelist evaluated the evidence and arguments
The most reliable, independent sources in the pool are the university-based critical reviews from McGill (Sources 3 and 5) and the cautious scholarly assessments indexed on PubMed/Semantic Scholar (Sources 4 and 11), which collectively state that when properly controlled homeopathy performs no better than placebo and that evidence for ultra-high dilutions is insufficient for scientific consensus; the supportive items are either narrow/indirect (Source 1 is a single animal study not establishing the broad “like cures like beyond Avogadro” claim), outdated/low-level or methodologically contested (Source 2), or come from venues with higher risk of advocacy bias (Source 10) or non-primary/unclear evidentiary status (Source 6, 7, 9). Based on what the highest-quality sources here say, the sweeping atomic claim that no-molecule dilutions can cure the same symptoms the original substance causes is not supported and is best rated false.
The pro side infers the atomic claim (“like cures like” at beyond-Avogadro dilutions with no molecules) from evidence that at most suggests some ultra-high-dilution preparations showed effects in a specific rat relapse model (Source 1, PubMed) and that “provings”/symptom reports can be statistically significant (Source 2, PubMed), but neither source logically establishes the key scope elements: that no molecules remain, that the effect is reliably therapeutic in humans, or that the remedy cures the same symptoms it causes (the 'like cures like' principle). Given the explicit cautions that evidence is insufficient for consensus (Source 4, PubMed) and that clinical-trial evidence is positive but not definitive due to low quality/publication bias (Source 11, Semantic Scholar), the claim is not logically established and is best judged false on the provided record.
The claim omits that the “like cures like” principle and efficacy at beyond-Avogadro dilutions are not established by the cited supportive studies: Source 1 (PubMed, 2025 rat model) is a narrow, first-in-model finding that does not show the remedy cures the same symptoms the original substance causes or that effects require dilutions with no molecules, while broader assessments in the pool emphasize lack of consensus and methodological/publication-bias concerns (Source 4, PubMed; Source 11, Semantic Scholar) and that controlled testing finds no better-than-placebo effects (Source 3 and 5, McGill). With full context, the sweeping statement that such molecule-free dilutions can cure the same symptoms is not supported and gives a misleading overall impression, so it is effectively false.
Adjudication Summary
All three axes converged at 2/10. The Source Auditor weighted the most independent, higher-quality summaries (e.g., McGill critiques; cautious PubMed-indexed reviews) over advocacy-leaning or indirect sources, finding no solid clinical support. The Logic Examiner found scope overreach: narrow animal/“proving” findings don't logically imply universal human cures at no-molecule dilutions or validate “like cures like.” The Context Analyst noted missing framing: broader controlled-trial evidence and mechanistic plausibility arguments point to placebo-level effects and insufficient consensus.
Consensus
Sources
Sources used in the analysis
Lucky claim checks from the library
- Mostly “A single night of 3-4 hours of sleep has detrimental effects on health.”
- Mostly “The cheetah is the fastest land animal.”
- False “Stretching before exercise prevents muscle soreness and injuries.”