A Question about Mole?

[origin]

No, its mass presence creates doubts.

No doubt about it homeopathy is horse shit.

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.

It is completely understood by science and it is horse shit.

Still, it has both pros, cons and limitations like other systems.

No pros, no cons, no limitations, just bogus horse shit.

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?

Huh?

 

[Kumar]

No doubt about it homeopathy is horse shit.

It is completely understood by science and it is horse shit.

No pros, no cons, no limitations, just bogus horse shit.

Huh?

Not necessary, all who are experiancing it positively, accept your assessment. Moreover science is not yet absolute and final and claimed to be never it will be.

 

[Kumar]

No, I've had it with your silly and interminable questions now.

If we put one small stone in water and go on with homeopathic type of dilutions, it can be continued much more than the mole number consideration. Not so?

 

[origin]

Not necessary, all who are experiancing it positively, accept your assessment. Moreover science is not yet absolute and final and claimed to be never it will be.

Here's the deal, if you want to believe in some voodoo crap like homeopathy that is your business, but don't expect us to join in.

 

[Kumar]

Here's the deal, if you want to believe in some voodoo crap like homeopathy that is your business, but don't expect us to join in.

You are quite right. On a doubing or skeptic mentality we can doubt anything which is not absolute & final. Many healing agents still fail or found quite odd in field/practical applications inspite backed by prolonged and strict scientific studies

 

[Kittamaru]

Mod hat
I think this can be argued out in-thread as to whether or not there is any scientific basis for any of this

 

[exchemist]

Mod hat
I think this can be argued out in-thread as to whether or not there is any scientific basis for any of this

OK, it is very, very simple.

1) Homeopathy contends that the more you dilute a substance, the greater its medicinal effect.

2)It is plain - even to homeopaths - that it is absurd to maintain that fewer molecules have more effect than more of them. For this reason, a variety of notions, such as the solvent - or the container - having a "memory" of the substance have been grasped at.

3) There is no evidence for any of these, nor is any plausible mechanism put forward as to what such a "memory" might consist of, or how it might create a medicinal effect.

4) We do know, however, that there are a lot of gullible, desperate or foolish people in the world, who would, for various reasons of their own, jump at the chance homeopathy might work.

And that is how this practice of charlatans and fools continues to survive, even today.

 

[timojin]

OK, it is very, very simple.

1) Homeopathy contends that the more you dilute a substance, the greater its medicinal effect.
.

Unless he is extracting something from the surface and then he wants to concentrate it afterward and use the concentrated product as new medicine.

 

[exchemist]

Unless he is extracting something from the surface and then he wants to concentrate it afterward and use the concentrated product as new medicine.

That is not what homeopathy does.

 

[Kumar]

OK, it is very, very simple.

1) Homeopathy contends that the more you dilute a substance, the greater its medicinal effect.

A stone dissolved in water mat be less effective than sugar dissolved in water.

2)It is plain - even to homeopaths - that it is absurd to maintain that fewer molecules have more effect than more of them. For this reason, a variety of notions, such as the solvent - or the container - having a "memory" of the substance have been grasped at.

Fasting do have different effect. It is like stimulating neurological system by presenting real or false defficiencies.

3) There is no evidence for any of these, nor is any plausible mechanism put forward as to what such a "memory" might consist of, or how it might create a medicinal effect.

Science is yet to know it. It can be miss or weakness of science because mass presence, live evidances and approved system by many controlling and government agencies do not discard it in dustbin.

4) We do know, however, that there are a lot of gullible, desperate or foolish people in the world, who would, for various reasons of their own, jump at the chance homeopathy might work.

And that is how this practice of charlatans and fools continues to survive, even today.

Nothing in mass presence all over the world and supported by controlling and government agencies can justify above.

 

[origin]

Science is yet to know it. It can be miss or weakness of science because mass presence, live evidances and approved system by many controlling and government agencies do not discard it in dustbin.

Nothing in mass presence all over the world and supported by controlling and government agencies can justify above.

In the discussion of whether or not homeopathy works, the pro-homeopathy faction has finally played the 'goverment conspiracy card'.

So, I think we have run the course on this.