Hello, Can you please comment on the possibility of working logic of homeopathic remedies as per the mentioning in following link? I want to just check for any scientific possibilty somewhat in this manner. http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=2791 Best wishes.
There is no way that there is any science behind homeopathy besides the famous placebo effect. Many homeopatic preparations don't even contain a single molecule of the supposedly active substance. Let believers believe but don't try to mix faith with logic. The text on the link page is just rubbish (to put it nicely).
Omnignost, thanks for comments. Do you agree that the effect is there of homeopathic remedies even though it is placebo? I have given a link which have taken care of presence & non presence of molecules of sopposedly active substances & the presented theory there, is not based on faith but may be on logic/science, which I want to check. Can you please bit explain it ,that how the text on the link page is just rubbish?
I am citing from the link: " Potentised remedies may be working on exothermic & endothermic energies/chemical reactions or disassociation & association of molecules & ions on applications". Comment 1: This is just mumbo jumbo taken from a physical chemistry textbook without understanding. Comment 2: Let's take it apart piece by piece: Potentised means dilution i Homeopath-speak. This is stupid. Every glas of water on this planet would be letally potentised by now by this reasoning. Nerve impulses are not triggered by endo- or exothermic reactions, they are triggered by differences in ion concentrations. The most well known example being stopping the heart by injection of potassium chloride solution. A very high concentration, that is! Small cncentrations of ions have no effect on nerve cells. The association dissociation cant take place because there is only water in the the preparations. Forget about this! Homeopathy is ignorace at best.
Omnignost, thanks again. Suppose one is given light electric shock or some heat is applied or some weak acid is put or pinched on his hand (means any electrical, thermal, chemical or mechnical stumuli is applied)--will it not trigger the nerve impulse. Homeopathic remedies are normally potentised in two types, one is by trituration with lactose in 1:10 proportion(X potencies) & other is by succussion with water/alcohol in 1:100 proportion( C potencies). Upto 12C or 24X it is molecular & above it it is sub-molecular related to its active substance. But it remains allways molecular related to water/alcohol or lactose & some contaminations which all are also got potentised during potentizatin process. If we can anticipate that these all types of remedies are dissassociated or chemically reacted on application in mouth or across the mucus membrane after their absorption & so can cause exo-endo thermic effects which can create some stimulation to nerves or otherwise then it can indicate working logic of homeopathic remedies. This effect can also be one type of Sublingual or buccal mucosa absorption as mentioned at: http://www.musclemass.com/sublingual.html So pls try to comment under these considerations. Regards.
If you believe in this in a religious way there are no arguments that can convince you. The scientific way s to have an open but sceptic attitude until evidence or good theoretical arguments are shown. Here we have neither. I give it one final shot but if you really want to understand this, start with a physical chemistry textbook! The stimulation of your hand occurs via activation of various sensory cells. They react to different things depending on their specialization. Temperature, touch etc. the nerve impulse is the end result of this stimulation. An electric shock gives a direct nerve stimulation but iit has nothing to do with extremely diluted aqueous solutions. What yo call molecular is often a long way from being active. Most drugs have 50% receptor occupancy at a concentration of 1 nM. This is 6 e18 molecules/ L. It then takes a couple of seconds for the drugs and receptors to associate. Let's decrease the concentration by a million to 1 fM, still high in homeopathic terms. The association process would then take a million seconds! 11 days. The exothermicity at this concentration can not be measured and would dissipate in less than a picosecond. Drug design is my job and I guarantee you that I know these things.
Thanks. I am not taking it in religious way otherwise I would have not discussed here in this way. I am trying to understand it as I felt & experianced its effects. If presented logic is not possible then what can you say about their working i.e. not in view of active substances least presence but in view of 1. Moleculer remedies along with potentised carriers(lactose,alcohol,water) & contaminations(silica/silicon is main). 2. Non molecular higher potencies along with carriers & contaminations mixed in them.
Omnignost, Placebo "effect"-- it means you agree that effects are there. Every therapy even modren can be considered as " with this effect". If we have more faith in current system then this can also be said as more PE dependent.
I saw a documentary on homeopathy, and the placebo-effect was discussed there. Appearantly this has been investigated: that research team could not prove that homeopathy was merely a placebo effect (there was no significant difference between the placebo & homeopathically threated groups). That does not mean that homeopathy actually works ofcourse, there hasn't been any proof that either Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
Kumar, you have repeatedly cited Omnignost's phrase "placebo effect" as if that meant that it worked. Do you not understand the phrase "placebo effect"? It means that the results were no different than if the subjects were given no medication at all but weren't told that. It is well known that some people will say, and even believe, that they experienced relief from a symptom just because they thought they were supposed to. THAT is what "placebo effect" means. Saying that there was "nothing more than placebo effect" means precisely that the medication does not work!
Kumar, you say you want to investigate it scientifically. Then you insist on being convinced that it doesn't work. This is the antithesis of scientific method. It is up to proponents of homeopathy to prove that it does work, not of the scientific medical community to prove that it does not. Since the proponents of homeopathy haven't been able to prove that it works, they resort to attacking science in general. Omnignost's posts covered it well.
Thanks for 'as usual' comments. Role of placebo effect can be with every system. More we have faith in any system more can be the so called placebo effect. Just read: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994996 I just reffered a theory which is bit differant. If you see no essence in this theory, we will try other theories till mass public believe it or find the effects.
There was a BBC Horizons documentary a couple of years ago in which they determined, conclusively, that homeopathy was complete nonsense. A foregone concluision, you might say, but at least they got scientific evidence. This test was performed in an attempt to get James Randi's million-dollar prize, so the people conducting the test were well-motivated for it to result in a confirmation of the effectiveness of homeopathy.
his is a silly way to conduct this thread. I heard an MD once discussing the placebo effect and how a patient suffered a predictable relapse once the DR. had convinced the patient "it was alll in her head". Omnignost seems to enjoy some kind of condescending pleasure at the manner he downgrades something that works and it is not a mere statitistical anomoly. If you assert the bias that chemistry is the "all" and the psychic, the voodo, the placebo aen't anything, how do you scientifically dispute the observations especially the ones of which you are totally unaware? I sense iin reading your comments that the worlds of intuiton, psychic phenomena and nonlocal force structures are jokes you use to belittle those who take a different view on the forces in the world that have affect on observed phenomena. If you do not accept the reality of nonlocal force structures then it is you on the fringes of science and rational thopught. If you do accept the nonlocal force exchanges as intrinsic to natural phenmomena affecting and even defining observed reality then you believe in voodoo. I would like your assesment of a fundamental model of the mind. After all we have all been in vestigating our own for some time now. What is the mind? Is it a series of pulses in the brain? A computer? Is the mind a self contained provcess whose acces is restricted to the one with th emind?. Are brains and other body parts antenna for the exchange of nonlocal forces? Should someone with a mental orientation similar to that of the "little train that could" be educated to a reality that someone endeavoring to climbing mountains effiiently should restrict herself to the development of muscles in the body? Excuse the venting, but I only respond in kind and you are much more psychologically driven in your response than manners more as an objective rationalist. But this is only one observation.
AD1, It is as usual. I don't understand how so many educated people follow the so called 'Nonsenses'. Do we still have lot of fool/illitrate people around us?
This is getting curiouser and curiouser. The burden of proof always lies with the person who proposes a theory. You never prove theories, it is just taht after while they seem extremely likely,like relativity or QM. I do indeed think that the worlds of intuition are psychic phenomena are products of sloppy thinking and should be exposed as such. The non-local forces I don't know what it is but it is, as I know you are aware of, an obvious phenomenon of non-locality in for example the two-slit experiment. Maybe we should start a new thread on the nature of the mind. It is, of course, only a chemical computer. No-indications of anything else.
Kumar, I am not sure if I have explained this to your satisfaction. It seems that we got a little sidetracked in the last post. The placebo effect is slightly more than nothing. If you investigate the effect of an antidepressant drug for axample. Just asking depressed people how they feel and having them fill in questionaires improves their life so much that it is often difficult to tell the effect of a drug. And belief IS important. It is just that it is not due to the ocasional homeopathic molecule you might encounter.
My last post was in reply to AD1. I have given a referance above, about placebo effect which is possible with every system. It looks a "energy push" may be required to get this effect- which can be of specific or common/overall in nature. Pls look at new postings in the link I provided in my first posting.
