Do homeopathic remedies contain measurable quantities of the "medicine"?

[KUMAR5]

Sure. Here's a well controlled study of homeopathic treatment for warts.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/189547

Conclusion: "There was no significant difference in efficacy between pure placebo and the homeopathic remedy in the context of this study."

Yhanks. However I concern it from this study.
"ResultsNine of 30 subjects in the homeopathy group and 7 of 30 subjects in the placebo group experienced at least 50% reduction in area occupied by warts"

It sugfests homeopathic treatments was not nil but worked netter than placebo. Oniously these standards may not match with modern meds in view of difference in nature of agents and side effects related yo agents. Moreover it was also taken to study impact of lunar phase which should had limited the time for study So if longer time as par normal homeopathic treatments would had given, results should had inproved.

 

[Write4U]

And many remedies are 30C or above, with even the founder of homeopathy advocating for 30C or higher.

And there's the crux. The founder intended Homeopathy to be a medical system based on the belief that the body can cure itself. Those who practice it use tiny amounts of natural substances, like plants and minerals. They believe these stimulate the healing process.

The body does have many defenses, not the least those provided by symbiotic bacteria. What are low-fat milk pro-biotics vs whole milk probiotics. One might argue it is an honest attempt at minimalism, by removing undesirable fat from the otherwise beneficial product.

You cannot lay the quackery at the doorstep of the original serious effort to produce some inexpensive herbal remedies for relatively minor indispositions. Garlic used to be a homeopathic medicine, until it was removed from the list of recognized medicines.

I already qualified my attempt to defend the founder's motives in a prior post. I guess that was ignored. I am well aware of the terrible abuses and scams with non-regulated "medicines", but those scams are not exclusive to useless homeopathic medicines.

When I see people take 20-30 prescription drugs twice a day I seriously wonder who is practising quackery. When I see penicillin being sold for 300 dollars p/mo, because the manufacturer has a monopoly on the product and has long since recovered their original R & D expenses and are just raking in the vulgar profits in the US, I wonder how many people have died from Diabetes because they had no access to penicillin at all.

You can get US manufactured drugs for half price in Canada, but you are forbidden to bring them in on the premise that these drugs have not been tested by a US approved testing facility. Think about the implication contained in that justification.

You are taking the most extreme position of total dismissal, whereas I am trying to be objective and see some merit in the "original" proposition of using herbal extracts as having potential medicinal values.
At what point does any herbal medicine become a scam?

Just because it advocates a minimalist approach as opposed to a maximalist approach, does not automatically exclude it from a sincere effort to develop naturally based products. How many people have become addicted or even died from physician prescibed overdoses? No one raises much fuss about that "common practice".

Bear in mind that the underlying premise you think exists in homeopathy of the homeostasis effect, of the body being able to heal itself, is not itself homeopathy.

It is if you consider homeostasis effect can and does produce homeopathic responses within the human microbiome. A minimally sufficient biochemical adjustment to maintain a healthy homeostatic balance.

Again I am not defending quackery of any kind. Too little is bad, too much is bad, too expensive is bad, too exclusive is bad. Anything with "too" attached to it is usually bad
OTOH, "just enough" is usually preferable to almost all other medical intervention.

 

[KUMAR5]

Nonsense. You have not justified it at all. You have offered 5 reasons why other molecules may exist other than pure water, but this does not justify that homeopathy works any better than a placebo.
You have failed to address the issues raised against the 5 ways you mentioned, 3 of which are for molecules of non-active-ingredient (e.g. glass or "normal polutions in water", which raises the question of just what is supposedly providing the remedy (glass, pollution, or the supposed active ingredient?), and again that is a question you have failed to answer.
For actual active ingredient, you have offered no justification, just a testable hypothesis. Provide us with the research that shows there is active ingredient in a homeopathic remedy.

I think, no one had asked these questions earlier. Moreover these asre six justifications nor 5 I originally mentioned. I added one more justification after few posts of that post in a reply to James. Further, active substance will be attached with shedded particles of glass and Silica based Silicea is one of the most prominiet( somewhat common) remedy in homeopathy. So it will have effects affects as a whole in remedy. So the pollution in water. However, I meant to justify other molecules than just H2O in remedy so that it can not be considered as plain water. So pn testing, all these molecules should be apparent.
Furthur If theoritically, other molecules are justified than it become duty of science to whom major govt funds are allotted to measure measure quantity of these molecules and tell accordingly. Homeopaths are satisfied due to their practical observations and experiance so do not need it.

I note also that you have restricted your claims to only the relatively impotent low-dilution (i.e. low-C, eg 12C) remedies. 12C is the greatest dilution at which one can mathematically reasonably expect one molecule of active ingredient in the remedy, but 12C is a low potency remedy, with even Hahneman, the founder of Homeopathy, advocating 30C or higher.

No all potencies lower and above 12C are in use in real practice. This was one criteria of justifying real molecular presence upto 12C even by scientific calculation without adsorption etc.

Further, the point you made about moledules clinging to the vial walls is well understood, and is actually used in the preparation of homeopathic remedies: i.e. the active ingredient is added to the vial in a 1:100 proportion with water. The vial is emptied, with the molecules clinging to the walls deemed sufficient to act as the solution to which a further 100x of water is added. This gives a 2C solution. The vial emptied, and the solution clinging to the walls deemed sufficient for the next batch, etc. This is the "Korsakovian method" of preparation.
The molecules adhering to the vial wall will become more and more water molecules, the higher the C, in the same proportion as the rest of the liquid. If you are somehow claiming that the active ingredient clings to the wall more than water, such that despite going through the process many times the stubborn active ingredient still refuses to let go, then how do you explain that it suddenly decides to detach itself to leave the bottle at any point, e.g. when the patient consumes the contents? Why would it not simply continue to cling to the wall? You can't have it both ways: either it clings to the wall and never lets go, or the proportion of active ingredient clinging to the walls is in the same proportion as the rest of the solution. In which case anything above 12C means you're highly unlikely to get even a single molecule of active ingredient.
If you fill an olympic size swimming pool with a 15C solution - so none of the molecules that "stick to the sides of the bottles" - one would need to drink 1% of it to have a 63% chance of drinking a single molecule of the active ingredient. That's c.25 tonnes of water. And you think a small vial of it will contain a molecule? Oh, that's right, the active molecules know when someone is wanting to ingest them, so only then do they detach from the wall. Got it.
There are plenty of issues left which you are failing to address.
Basic points that do not justify what you think they do, and which have numerous issues that you are failing to address.
It is up to you to acknowledge the science and maths, or keep trolling with your head buried in the sand.

No molecules will remain adsorbed to glass walls beyond normal dilution calculation. Just paint a bottle inside and wash it many many times. See when full paint is removed. My personal experiance of Syrup also confirmed it that smell of syrup remained in bottle even after more than 100 washings whereas it should have gone just after 12 washings as per science calculation. Try at home. Simple.

 

[billvon]

It sugfests homeopathic treatments was not nil but worked netter than placebo.

That's well within random error.

 

[Sarkus]

And there's the crux. The founder intended Homeopathy to be a medical system based on the belief that the body can cure itself. Those who practice it use tiny amounts of natural substances, like plants and minerals. They believe these stimulate the healing process.

The practice of Homeostasis is not homeopathy. While the aim might be the same, the path of homeopathy involves 2 things: 1, the notion of "like cures like" - i.e. what causes X in a healthy person can cure a person suffering from X; 2, the notion that the more dilute a remedy is, the more potent it is. These are the specific fundamentals as set out by the founder. Whether homoepathy is an approach designed to promote homeostasis or not is, frankly, irrelevant. And if you continue to defend homeopathy on the grounds of homeostasis, you are simply being irrelevant.

The body does have many defenses, not the least those provided by symbiotic bacteria. What are low-fat milk pro-biotics vs whole milk probiotics. One might argue it is an honest attempt at minimalism, by removing undesirable fat from the otherwise beneficial product.

Irrelevant.

You cannot lay the quackery at the doorstep of the original serious effort to produce some inexpensive herbal remedies for relatively minor indispositions.

The 2 fundamentals of homeopathy are both questionable, and other than utilising herbal/natural ingredients is not the same as providing herbal remedies. As above, if you continue to defend homeopathy as if it is simply providing "inexpensive herbal remedies" then you completely misunderstand what homeopathy is, and any points you make will continue to be irrelevant.

Garlic used to be a homeopathic medicine, until it was removed from the list of recognized medicines.

No, garlic used to be a natural remedy. Please try to understand the difference.
Homeopathy is not the same as just "natural remedy" and "homeostasis". If you fail to include the two fundamentals outlines above, you're not talking about homeopathy.

I already qualified my attempt to defend the founder's motives in a prior post. I guess that was ignored.

It was read, and deemed irrelevant because you do not understand the fundamentals of homeopathy that set it apart from just an effort at promoting homeostasis or the creation of natural remedies. I.e. you're not defending homeopathy.

I am well aware of the terrible abuses and scams with non-regulated "medicines", but those scams are not exclusive to useless homeopathic medicines.

Irrelevant. Whether or not such scams are exclusive to homeopathy or not is beside the point. If Joe Bloggs robs a store, does that make it okay for you to rob a store?

When I see people take 20-30 prescription drugs twice a day I seriously wonder who is practising quackery. When I see penicillin being sold for 300 dollars p/mo, because the manufacturer has a monopoly on the product and has long since recovered their original R & D expenses and are just raking in the vulgar profits in the US, I wonder how many people have died from Diabetes because they had no access to penicillin at all.

You can get US manufactured drugs for half price in Canada, but you are forbidden to bring them in on the premise that these drugs have not been tested by a US approved testing facility. Think about the implication contained in that justification.

All irrelevant.

You are taking the most extreme position of total dismissal, whereas I am trying to be objective and see some merit in the "original" proposition of using herbal extracts as having potential medicinal values.
At what point does any herbal medicine become a scam?

Again, for hopefully the last time: homeopathy is not herbal medicine. If you can't be bothered to look up what homeopathy is, and the fundamentals it is based on, then you're not worth the time responding to in future on this matter. Seriously. If you continue to equate homeopathy to what it is not, and argue against that strawman, you deserve being ignored on the matter.

Just because it advocates a minimalist approach as opposed to a maximalist approach, does not automatically exclude it from a sincere effort to develop naturally based products. How many people have become addicted or even died from physician prescibed overdoses? No one raises much fuss about that "common practice".

Irrelevant.

It is if you consider homeostasis effect can and does produce homeopathic responses within the human microbiome.

What, exactly, is a "homeopathic response"?

A minimally sufficient biochemical adjustment to maintain a healthy homeostatic balance.

Noone disputes that. But you're not talking about homeopathy but instead about the practice of maintaining homeostasis. Homeopathy is far more than that, specifically the 2 fundamentals I have outlined for you above. Those fundamentals are what are being questioned, and considered quackery.
But your choice: continue to raise and argue against your strawmen and be ignored, or start actually discussing what the topic is about.

Again I am not defending quackery of any kind.

Have a read of the fundamentals of homeopathy, then come back to this thread.

Too little is bad, too much is bad, too expensive is bad, too exclusive is bad. Anything with "too" attached to it is usually bad
OTOH, "just enough" is usually preferable to almost all other medical intervention.

So, let's stick to the actual topic of the thread, shall we?
At what point in the "C" rating used within homeopathy do you think there is insufficient active ingredient within a remedy? Bear in mind that the founder advocated 30C. And to be clear: 30C means that there is 1 molecule of ingredient per 10^60 molecules of water. A 12C solution will have 1 molecule within, roughly, 1 mole of water (c.18ml). Is that sufficient, in your view? Or do you think that remedies such as Oscillococcinum at 200C still contain sufficient active ingredient?
Note, this only addresses one of the 2 fundamentals upon which homeopathy is based. We haven't even begun to discuss whether the notion of "like cures like" has any basis in science.

 

[Sarkus]

Moreover these asre six justifications nor 5 I originally mentioned. I added one more justification after few posts of that post in a reply to James. Further, active substance will be attached with shedded particles of glass and Silica based Silicea is one of the most prominiet( somewhat common) remedy in homeopathy. So it will have effects affects as a whole in remedy.

You really are grasping at straws. You're now advocating there not being any of the active ingredient being sold, but other "active ingredients" (i.e. silica). So selling a 30C remedy of belladonna (quite a common remedy) is actually a remedy containing silica. As, presumably, would every other remedy where mathematically there isn't going to be any of the prescribed active ingredient.
Chalk this up as another scam, shall we.

So the pollution in water.

Yes, pollution, where the expected quantity of the sold "active ingredient" is swamped by any and every other particle of "pollution" in the water used. Yet, somehow, that single molecule (assuming there is one to be found) of the prescribed "active ingredient" magically has an effect while all the others are... ignored?

However, I meant to justify other molecules than just H2O in remedy so that it can not be considered as plain water. So pn testing, all these molecules should be apparent.

We're not disputing that there may be other molecules in the water. The thread topic is whether there is any of the "medicine" - i.e. the active ingredient - in the remedy. So you can go on and on and on about there being all these other non-H2O molecules, but you're not actually addressing the issue: are there any molecules of the active ingredient?

Furthur If theoritically, other molecules are justified than it become duty of science to whom major govt funds are allotted to measure measure quantity of these molecules and tell accordingly. Homeopaths are satisfied due to their practical observations and experiance so do not need it.

No all potencies lower and above 12C are in use in real practice. This was one criteria of justifying real molecular presence upto 12C even by scientific calculation without adsorption etc.

Then you're only talking about what even the founder of homeopathy described as low potency remedies. He advocated 30C or higher.
Are there going to be molecules in a low-C solution? Far more likely than a high-C solution, for sure. That is not disputed. At 12C you're mathematically likely to get 1 molecule of "active ingredient" in c.1 mole of water (c.18ml).
But if you want to limit your defense to just the low-C remedies, are you admitting that the higher-C remedies, those above 12C, for example, have no active ingredient?

No molecules will remain adsorbed to glass walls beyond normal dilution calculation. Just paint a bottle inside and wash it many many times. See when full paint is removed. My personal experiance of Syrup also confirmed it that smell of syrup remained in bottle even after more than 100 washings whereas it should have gone just after 12 washings as per science calculation. Try at home. Simple.

You're obviously not sterilising your bottles. Normal "washing" will not cleanse a bottle sufficiently - including of smell, and if you're preparing homeopathic remedies using unsterilised equipment...???
As for the active ingredient remaining absorbed to glass, I outlined the flaw in this argument above: either it clings, along with water molecules, in the same proportion as the rest of the liquid (which you claim is not the case) or you are advocating the active ingredient clinging to the glass wall more than water, yet somehow not clinging when the medicine is taken out of the bottle to be ingested. Do you think the active ingredient somehow knows when to detach from the glass? Or do you think that if, after 100 washes, it has not detached, then it is unlikely to detach on the 101?
Furthermore, as explained, one of the methods of preparing the homeopathic remedies uses the molecules clinging to the walls as sufficient to create the next batch. E.g. mix 1ml of active ingredient with 100ml of water. Empty container. The molecules clinging to the walls is c.1ml and so just add 100ml of water. Mix. Empty bottle. The molecules clinging to the walls is again 1ml, so just add 100ml of water. Mix. Empty bottle. Repeat etc. This assumes that the active ingredient sticks to the wall in the same proportion as the rest of the solution.
Another method is to continually pass water through the vial of active ingredient, which again assumes the active ingredient sticks to the walls in the same proportion.
So you're going to have to actually justify your claim here, rather than continue to wave your (unsterilised) hands around.

 

[exchemist]

Oh. What then, pray tell is it designed to do. What is the 'purpose" of "homeopathic medicine"

Once again;

What exactly is homeopathic medicine?

https://www.webmd.com/balance/what-is-homeopathy

Should I believe the official medical interpretation or your colloquial interpretation?

Its purpose is to cure disease, I presume.

Your link states that homeopathy works by triggering the body's own defences. That's not homeostasis.

Next, you'll be telling us it's something to do with homosexuality.

 

[exchemist]

And you call yourself a chemist? When was the last time you read a book on modern bio-chemistry?

What do you know about quorum sensing?

Let me just hint about the state of science on the subject.

Quorum sensing

Description

I call myself an ex-chemist. Quorum sensing is not chemistry.

And nor does it have anything to do with the thread topic. Again.

 

[Write4U]

At what point in the "C" rating used within homeopathy do you think there is insufficient active ingredient within a remedy? Bear in mind that the founder advocated 30C. And to be clear: 30C means that there is 1 molecule of ingredient per 10^60 molecules of water. A 12C solution will have 1 molecule within, roughly, 1 mole of water (c.18ml). Is that sufficient, in your view? Or do you think that remedies such as Oscillococcinum at 200C still contain sufficient active ingredient?

I have no clue, except that apparently any 12C or 30 C is measurable in homeopathic solutions. That answers the OP question.
As to effectiveness, I am not a chemist but I know that even very small amounts of chemicals can have powerful effects. From what I have read it is clear that homeostatic pills and potions are suspect as to effectiveness.

One thing I did not know is that the founder advocated these extreme diluted measurements. However if he had been correct in his assumption of bacterial infection, he would have been incorrect in reducing dosages of a chemical autoinducer. Quorum sensing requires an increased presence of autoinducers to trigger a response in bacteria (perhaps even in viruses).

In that case altering the autoinducer signature prevents the bacteria from acquiring virulence. This is what Bonnie Bassler is workig on.

As to Oscillococcinum, the French chemist working with this stuff thought it was effective against Flu bacteria, which is a category error. Flu is a viral infection, although there is some evidence that even viruses communicate via quorum sensing (release of auto-inducers).

 

[Write4U]

Your link states that homeopathy works by triggering the body's own de[fences. That's not homeostasis.

What Is Homeopathy?

Homeopathy is a medical system based on the belief that the body can cure itself. Those who practice it use tiny amounts of natural substances, like plants and minerals. They believe these stimulate the healing process.

What is Homeostasis?

Homeostasis Definition

Homeostasis definition in biology is the ability or tendency of the body or a cell to seek and maintain a condition of equilibrium – a stable internal environment — as it deals with external changes. It makes use of feedback controls and other regulatory mechanisms in order to maintain a constant internal environment. It can be construed as a skill of a living organism in its effort to stay within the optimal range despite the fluctuating environmental conditions.

Ability to heal ?

Thus, in the biological context, the word homeostasis entails multifarious physiological mechanisms in order to sustain and stabilize the functional, normal status of an organism.

https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/homeostasis

Seems that does also include quorum sensing. i.e. chemical communication via chemical autoinducers.

 

[Write4U]

Quorum sensing is not chemistry.

Oh yes it is. Quorum sensing is the name given to chemical communication between bacteria and possibly even viruses.
It allows for coordinated triggering of virulence. But can also be used to block the receptors with false chemical "keys", preventing the coordinated triggering of virulence.

Moreover, the human biome also employs quorum sensing as part of its homeostatic toolkit.

Seems to me a perfect tool for homeopathy. Maybe "homeo-empathy"?......

 

[exchemist]

What Is Homeopathy?


What is Homeostasis?

Homeostasis Definition
Ability to heal ? https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/homeostasis

Seems that does also include quorum sensing. i.e. chemical communication via chemical autoinducers.

No. Homeostasis is not the ability to heal.

 

[exchemist]

Oh yes it is. Quorum sensing is the name given to chemical communication between bacteria and possibly even viruses.
It allows for coordinated triggering of virulence. But can also be used to block the receptors with false chemical "keys", preventing the coordinated triggering of virulence.

So it's biology.

 

[Write4U]

So it's biology.

Bio-chemistry? Pharmacy?

Pharmacy
Description

Pharmacy is the clinical health science that links medical science with chemistry and it is charged with the discovery, production, disposal, safe and effective use, and control of medications and drugs. Wikipedia

No. Homeostasis is not the ability to heal.

I'll let this speak for itself.

Microbial Activities and Intestinal Homeostasis: A Delicate Balance Between Health and Disease
Christina L. Ohland1 and Christian Jobin1,2,∗
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract

The concept that the intestinal microbiota modulates numerous physiologic processes, including immune development and function, nutrition and metabolism, and pathogen exclusion, is relatively well established in the scientific community. The molecular mechanisms driving these various effects and the events leading to the establishment of a “healthy” microbiome are slowly emerging.

This review brings into focus important aspects of microbial/host interactions in the intestine and discusses key molecular mechanisms controlling health and disease states. We discuss the evidence of how microbes interact with the host and one another and their impact on intestinal homeostasis.

Keywords: Bacterial Communication, Bowel Disease, Host-Microbe Interactions, Inflammatory, Microbiome

Abbreviations used in this paper:

AMP, antimicrobial peptides; CD, Crohn’s disease; CDI, contact-dependent growth inhibition; GI, gastrointestinal; HGT, horizontal gene transfer; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; MAMP, microbe-associated molecular pattern; QS, quorum sensing; SCFA, short-chain fatty acids; SFB, segmented filamentous bacteria; T6SS, type VI secretion system; UC, ulcerative colitis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4339954/

 

[exchemist]

Bio-chemistry? Pharmacy?

Pharmacy
Description


I'll let this speak for itself.

Microbial Activities and Intestinal Homeostasis: A Delicate Balance Between Health and Disease
Christina L. Ohland1 and Christian Jobin1,2,∗
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract


Abbreviations used in this paper:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4339954/

This is what you get when you subcontract the working of your mind to the internet.

 

[KUMAR5]

That's well within random error.

Things made for their own convinience to discredit others. Therefore I say such studies are not valid for homeooathy.

 

[KUMAR5]

You really are grasping at straws. You're now advocating there not being any of the active ingredient being sold, but other "active ingredients" (i.e. silica). So selling a 30C remedy of belladonna (quite a common remedy) is actually a remedy containing silica. As, presumably, would every other remedy where mathematically there isn't going to be any of the prescribed active ingredient.
Chalk this up as another scam, shall we.
Yes, pollution, where the expected quantity of the sold "active ingredient" is swamped by any and every other particle of "pollution" in the water used. Yet, somehow, that single molecule (assuming there is one to be found) of the prescribed "active ingredient" magically has an effect while all the others are... ignored?
We're not disputing that there may be other molecules in the water. The thread topic is whether there is any of the "medicine" - i.e. the active ingredient - in the remedy. So you can go on and on and on about there being all these other non-H2O m

In yoúr own odd perceottion, you seem to be just looking one point out of six points. Just read all six points again and be aware that few of those also cover active substsnces. Moreover you are also not understsnding ehat I meant from this discussion. One major point was also to justify that homeooathic remedies are not just water but also contain other molecules. Do healthy discussions with positive attitude towards homeooathy, you will start understanding.

 

[origin]

Things made for their own convinience to discredit others. Therefore I say such studies are not valid for homeooathy.

So it can't be tested, you just have to believe it works. Yeah, that's great...

 

[Write4U]

This is what you get when you subcontract the working of your mind to the internet.

So, you are saying that homeostasis has nothing to do with bio-chemistry?

See, my reasoning relies on this article.

Homeopathy - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Introduction and Historical Development

Homeopathy is more than 200 years old, used by tens of thousands of physicians and over 500 million people worldwide, making it one of the most popular forms of integrated medicine (Bell & Schwartz 2013). It is based on the concept of ‘treating like with like’ (in Latin, similia similibus curentur).

Homeopathic treatment aims to stimulate and direct the body’s self-healing capacity by triggering a reaction. The body reacts to stimuli which have physiological effects (drugs or toxins) by attempting to maintain homeostasis (a stable internal environment). Homeopathy makes therapeutic use of this effect (Fig. 23.13).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/homeopathy

As to rates of dilution and composition of the remedies, I have no clue. It is the general logic of the concept that seems reasonable to me.

As to malpractice, that can be found everywhere and is not peculiar to homeopathy . I'll concede that perhaps it lends itself more easily to deceit.

 

[KUMAR5]

So it can't be tested, you just have to believe it works. Yeah, that's great...

Why not. Practical observation is best test to justify their working. Many modern meds are also in oractice just on observation basis.