Talk:Arndt–Schulz rule

Relevance
This article used to end with the sentence "For results, see works by Agatha Christie." I assume it is referring to the novelist who wrote large numbers of murder mysteries. I don't see the relevance, so I'm removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.27.31 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 February 2007‎

Biogenetic ground rule
84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * title "The dose makes the medicine" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359644606001164 "There are investigators who consider the Arndt–Schulz rule to be a biogenetic ground rule applicable to all biological systems. This principle of nature deserves careful consideration in pharmacology and toxicology."

Notability
The notability of the Ardt-Schulz rule is currently under review by Wikipedia editors. Though this is no longer considered a fundamental law, this postulate has historical notability as a prevailing theory during the very early years of what is now regarded as pharmacology. This significance is examined in several pharmacological texts by noted scholars in the field (see references in my recent edits to the article). scientia ad populem (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm removing the tags. Can you also make use of the citation anonymously given above? – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the article. The Agatha Cristie "reference" appears to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, and doesn't warrant inclusion as an authoritative source; I'd say that was rightly removed. The other reference gives an interesting historical treatment of hormesis in general, and spends some time examining the Arndt-Schulz rule as one of many formal observations of this phenomenon. I think it would be of interest to any who want to know more about it. I will incorporate it into the article.- Scientia ad populem (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Misquotation of a source
There is a misquotation of a source referring to the IR spectroscopy of OH bond from water worded as hydrogen bond dynamics required for water memory (Benveniste concept) in connection to disproving the topic of the article. The text of source does not support such wording, it refers to the timescale of observation of the OH frequency. A rephrasing is at least necessary according to text of the source. The text of the source has nothing to do with the topic of the article.--5.15.53.44 (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The mentioned source has been removed due to misquotation and the lack of explicit mentioning of the topic of the article.

Someone who may consider that the source has been removed without thorough justification is asked to familiarize himself to the full text of the source.--5.15.53.44 (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you 5.15.53.44 for making this point. While the reference in question does not specifically refute the Arndt-Schulz rule, it does make two relevant contributions to the discussion of water memory in this section. First, the authors report a novel method to enhance the temporal resolution of IR spectroscopic measurements of OH stretching vibrations in H2O (the timescale mentioned above). Second, they use this higher resolution method to make the important observation that "loss of memory of persistent correlations in water structure" occurs within 50 x 10-15 seconds. The reference was included to show that, using the highest resolution available, energy redistribution among hydrogen bonds in water is very rapid. Thus the idea proposed by Benveniste, that solutes are able to permanently alter hydrogen bond structure in water after their removal, is very unlikely. It is relevant in this section of the article for providing an interesting example of empirical research that may be used to question the water memory hypothesis mentioned here. Other examples may be found and are welcomed. I propose keeping the reference, perhaps with more careful wording in the article about why it was included.- Scientia ad populem (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The reference in dispute is: .- Scientia ad populem (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)