Discussion in 'Chemistry' started by Kumar, Nov 18, 2015.
Just for relevant information about low dose affects.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Science continues. One way that science progresses is by rejecting failed ideas, like homeopathy.
Thanks. Now only adsorption consideration is left.
What part of 'clinical tests of homeopathy proves it does not work' do you not understand?
That has nothing to do with what I said. I said that you should be able to test whether the silica in the glass is adsorbing "something" or not: Make your homeopathic concoction in a vessel containing silica and in another vessel that doesn't contain silica. If the concoction has the same effect in the vessel that doesn't contain silica, then the silica has nothing to do with it.
Have homeopaths done such a test?
I don't know if he means fumed silica ; which is sometime used as a thickening agent . If is laying on bottom of a glass with water it may adsorb some chemicals .
That would be even easier to test.
Hormesis and Radiation Hormesis can indicate about the mechanism of working by lower material and energetic doses. However lower material or energetic dose( relevant molecular or spectrum information) in homeopathic higer potencies is needed to be better understood. For that only, I am checking various possibilties. One molecular or spectrum presence is justified, it will be quite easy to go ahead. Moreover, collecting data from homeopathic clinics all over the world can serve a purpose of "live evidances" and tell about its positive affects. In view of its limitations, it may not be possible to prove it in DBPC studies at part to conventional medicines.
It is true, if other containers do not adsorb. Whereas these are too much variations in getting specific medical effects from remedies. Probably, this may be a reason to get variations in effects and to unclarities about its efficacy..
"The most familiar, and historically the oldest, types of glass are based on the chemical compound silica (silicon dioxide), the primary constituent of sand
Hormesis has nothing to do with homeopathy. Hormesis is essentially building up an immunity to a toxin or radiation by low doses, which is completely different than homeopathy voodoo.
Let me add to your personal data base on glass SiO2 Quartz, fire polished glass which will not be water wettable , glass depending on the ratio of SiO2 to N2O
But pardon me , would you repeat as what is the final purpose in regard to silica?
I simply concerned with adsorption possibilty on glass bottle walls. I suspect, it is due to presence of Silica in glass of bottles.
Toxicity is relevant to quantity not to quality of any substance. Hence any substance can be treated as a dose and hormesis is a dose response phenomenon characterized by a low dose stimulation, high dose inhibition(of physiological activities). Homeopathy also claim to work via arranging derranged Vtal force in order. But I personally feel, esp homegenous substances to our body, low doses of homeopathy simply creates an extreme n false impression of defficiency to our neurological system enabling stimulation of physiological activities for those deffeciencies.
"Vital force" is a totally bogus concept.
Simply name change. Manipulating immune/defence response in science language. Hormesis consider it as:-
But I personally feel homeopathic remedies are just meant to increase senstization by low doses. These may give Homeostatic, Immunogenic, Antigenic, Anti-suppressive, allergic(?) etc. type of effects depending upon the type of remedy used.
However you dress it up, homeopathy is hocus-pocus with no basis in science. The best it can possibly achieve is via a placebo effect - which could be obtained by other means. Pretending that it has real medical efficacy is dangerous nonsense.
No, its mass presence creates doubts. At the most, if live evidances or people's experiances have no value in science, it can be regarded as a system beyond the current understandings of science. Still, it has both pros, cons and limitations like other systems.
Anyway, leave it. It is never ending discussions of no use. Let me concentrate on OP.
What about the chances of passing of a substance in more steps of dilutions of a less soluble substance in water or more concentrated substance in water than more soluble and more concentrate substance?
No, I've had it with your silly and interminable questions now.
Separate names with a comma.