No my 6 justificatioj can sugfest moleculer presence in any higher dikution of directly and indirectly active substsnces(as I justified oreviously) you are just taking a gross sense not a basic sense. Probably, many should had initialky laughed on quantum or sub atomic science from atomic science. Initial laughing or joking or non acceotence can alwsys be there against every new research ehich later acceoted and praised. Normal. Therefore I do not mind.
Do homeopathic remedies contain measurable quantities of the "medicine"?
- Thread starter KUMAR5
- Start date
river:
Saying "maybe there's something on youtube" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.
Can you produce anything from a respectable scientific source? If you cannot, then you can post an apology in your next post to this thread.
If you're going to make controversial claims like that, you need to try to support them. If you cannot, you ought to withdraw the claim and apologise to your readers for your over-reach.
Saying "maybe there's something on youtube" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.
Can you produce anything from a respectable scientific source? If you cannot, then you can post an apology in your next post to this thread.
My example above used a 50% dilution at each step, for the purposes of illustration. With such a dilution, the "half life" of the homeopathic "remedy" in a solution is exactly ONE dilution. If, as would be more realistic, there is a 99:1 dilution at each step, that doesn't affect the basic idea of an exponential diminution of the homepathic substance as more dilutions are done; it only shortens the effective half life to some small fraction of a dilution. The upshot of that is that is makes homepathy even less viable than in my example, which I think was Sarkus's point.
Kumar:
It makes no sense at all to claim that "some quantity should always be maintained". It won't be, unless the homeopaths doing the dilution are completely incompetent at what they are doing.
Is it your claim that all "professional" homeopaths are incompetent?
Kumar:
The principle is the same. If you start with 1 million molcules of homeopathic stuff, then with a 99:1 dilution there will be only 10000 molecules after the 1st dilution, 100 molecules after the second, 1 molecule after the third and almost certainly no molecules after the fourth dilution.
What do you mean by "quality"? It is the claim of homeopathy that as the quantity of homeopathic "active substance" decreases, the "medicine" becomes more effective. That's about quantity. Why would it be any different for poisons, if things really worked the way that homeopathy says they work?
By the same argument, plain drinking water should be having few molecules as trace of any homeopathic substance you care to name. Not lethal to us, nor useful.
I don't think you understand. Molecules of your homeopathic substance are not infinitely divisible. The minimum number of molecules there can be in a water solution is one molecule. Once that is tossed down the sink, no molecules remain.
It makes no sense at all to claim that "some quantity should always be maintained". It won't be, unless the homeopaths doing the dilution are completely incompetent at what they are doing.
Is it your claim that all "professional" homeopaths are incompetent?
If there is no active substance, there is no "effect" to be added to. Stick to the issue: the active ingredient.
Sure. But irrelevant, as we're talking about the active ingredient (or lack thereof).
Irrelevant, as we're talking about the active ingredient (or lack thereof).
And what you mentioned is irrelevant, as we're talking about the active ingredient (or lack thereof).
And your justifications, in so much as they argue for "pollution" or other non-water molecules is irrelevant, as we're talking about the active ingredient (or lack thereof). Calling it "pure water" was to highlight the lack of active ingredient. That there are other non-water molecules is not disputed in practice. But that doesn't mean there are any molecules of active ingredient.
Why are they inappropriate? Why are all studies that test the efficacy of homeopathy that conclude they work no better than placebo "inappropriately done"? Why do you think homeopathy is exempt from the scientific examination that these tests conduct?
Please requote it, providing the link.
Further, it is well within the realms of scientific studies that some will show efficacy beyond that of placebo, and some will show far less efficacy than placebo. The overal meta-analysis, looking at all the studies, shows an efficacy equivalent to placebo.
Ah, so now if the trial doesn't work it's because it wasn't done in the manner of a "competent homeopath". I get it... you're making homeopathy unable to be scientifically tested, so as to avoid having to accept their results.
What water memory experiment are you referring to? If you want to assert that water has memory, you need to provide the evidence. Show how it is even theoretically possible, in light of the contrary evidence, and start from there.
You can give all the logic and justifications for why the price of eggs have gone up. It is the fact that it has nothing to do with the issue at hand (the active ingredient - or lack thereof), the fact that you have been told that it is irrelevant from the outset, and the fact that you just refer back to those same "justifications", that demonstrate you to be a troll.
Sure. Unfortunately I have provided both, neither of which you have managed to overturn.
If you continue to troll, I will likely continue to call you out as one. If you don't wish to be referred to as a troll, perhaps you should rectify your behaviour so as to avoid such.
Up to you, really.
I can say it's crap if it's crap. Trying to use the concept of half-life as a justification is crap, for the reasons given. Constantly bleating that you have given "6 justifications" is crap behaviour. See, I can understand (most of) what you say, and that is why I can call it crap.
No they can not, for the reasons given, and which you have not yet even tried to address. Instead you just repeat that you have given 6 justifications. Remember, we're talking about the active ingredient (or lack thereof) and not merely non-water molecules that may be present.
Ah, the final retreat of the quack: the Galileo Fallacy, or the Galileo Gambit
Well, my main point on the matter of "half-life" was that by you trying to use it, even for illustration, just encourages him to continue to focus on it when it should be shot down in flames from the outset.
Like trying to continue a flawed analogy that, due to his inability to comprehend, will only lead to further confusion and incorrect conclusions at the end.
Remember, we can talk, check and make base of that thing which are prescribled. Here, remedies are prescribed
And effect as a whole so we have to look individual and collective presence and effect from remedues... May those be active and other substances. These are, potentized sctive substances+ Silica from shedded glass oarticles+ normal water and environmental pollution+ H20 molecules. Since homeooathic base low quantities, all these can contribute to collective effect. Therefore also I indicated.
About 7th justification I gave previously, it is personally observed.
We put clove or vardmon in our water bolle for good smell, stetlization and religios purpose. We fill water many time and use it even without washing it. It is observed that clove snd cardomon along with their good smell remained in bottle even after 10 time use. It would had dtayed more but we discarded it considering hygiene. What it suggest? Active substsnces are not homogeneously present in diluted water which may not transfered to discarded part. So more concentration than 1:99 will persist overtiding Abagdro number.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Why should I make the effort? You've already shown yourself to be someone who cannot engage with evidence and reasoned argument.
As they are in scientific studies, which show them to be no more effective than placebo.
Which we do in scientific studies, which show them to be no more effective than placebo.
Ane here your logic falls flat on its face: we are discussing whether or not there are any active ingredient in the remedy, and here you simply assert it.
Whether or not you claim they "can contribute to collective effect" is a separate matter, and one we can happily debunk in due course. At the moment you are singularly failing to justify why there is any active ingredient in the remedy. At the moment you are simply continuing to refer to your "justifications", and ignoring the flaws that have been repeatedly pointed out to you. At the moment, therefore, you are simply being a troll.
No, it hasn't been. Half-life has ****-all to do with homeopathy. Get that into your head once and for all.
I don't think you have a grip on what half-life is, and if you do you certainly don't seem to be able to communicate it, or what you think is its relevance, particularly well.
If you are referring to the process of "potentisation" then refer to it as that, and use it to refer to the process of creating an either 1:10 (X) or 1:100 (C) dilution.
But just drop the notion of "half-life", please!
And you think that this is a scientific test? You think that this somehow constitutes proof of anything other than a smell lingering in an unwashed bottle? If you think this somehow represents the creation of homeopathic remedies then you are rather wide of the mark. Go look up the processes used. Then try to understand why your "experiment" is flawed.
Sure, in a bottle that is not subject to the proper methods of creating homeopathic remedies. Anyone can do crap they think is "science" and come up with meaningless conclusion.
Who is Abagdro? What is Abagdro number??
But hey, let's at least agree that if you are crap at making homeopathic remedies correctly then, yes, there may well be active ingredient left in the remedy. So now your "justification 8" can be that homeopaths don't create their remedies correctly.
I'm done here.
Last edited:
Yes true. I just speculated on half life gtound due to fact that 50% quantities will always be maintained. But since at one dilution, when only one molecule is left and it can not be subdivided furthur, calculation will end there. So this 7th justification is not workable. Thanks.
By decreasing the quantity healing potency increase by stimulation of physiological activities not by its tocicity effect or inhibition of physiological activities. It is biphasic effect.
I therefire took water and water normal contents as one justification. However there can be a difference in effect from a collective effect from a substance and from a specific content in it. Eating a whole orange, being natural and is a foid have different effect than taking Vit C one of its content which ls less natural us not food to us.
Yes this 7 th speculation is not workable because molecules sre nit infinetely divisible but other 6 justifications will still suggest sufficient molecules will remain present in all dilutions.
Sorry then no option is left. Sadly, you may then ignore.
Why scientific inappropriately done and partially cooked studies to be trusted or based for Homeopathy? Their own studies for their home is more vaid If anyone like to visit their home he can be welcomed otherwise can just stay in his home. No force.
Just maintain limits and courtesy. I do not understand what you mean by troll and crap. If these are abuses. Our countrymen maintain limits and courtsey to the maximum possibility so myself. Take care in future.Ane here your logic falls flat on its face: we are discussing whether or not there are any active ingredient in the remedy, and here you simply assert it.
Whether or not you claim they "can contribute to collective effect" is a separate matter, and one we can happily debunk in due course. At the moment you are singularly failing to justify why there is any active ingredient in the remedy. At the moment you are simply continuing to refer to your "justifications", and ignoring the flaws that have been repeatedly pointed out to you. At the moment, therefore, you are simply being a troll.
No, it hasn't been. Half-life has ****-all to do with homeopathy. Get that into your head once and for all.
I don't think you have a grip on what half-life is, and if you do you certainly don't seem to be able to communicate it, or what you think is its relevance, particularly well.
If you are referring to the process of "potentisation" then refer to it as that, and use it to refer to the process of creating an either 1:10 (X) or 1:100 (C) dilution.
But just drop the notion of "half-life", please!
And you think that this is a scientific test? You think that this somehow constitutes proof of anything other than a smell lingering in an unwashed bottle? If you think this somehow represents the creation of homeopathic remedies then you are rather wide of the mark. Go look up the processes used. Then try to understand why your "experiment" is flawed.
Sure, in a bottle that is not subject to the proper methods of creating homeopathic remedies. Anyone can do crap they think is "science" and come up with meaningless conclusion.
Who is Abagdro? What is Abagdro number??
But hey, let's at least agree that if you are crap at making homeopathic remedies correctly then, yes, there may well be active ingredient left in the remedy. So now your "justification 8" can be that homeopaths don't create their remedies correctly.
I'm done here.
Yes half life logic may not work inspite of fact that half quantities are always maintained in its canculation. But since molecules are not infinetely divisible this theory may not work for remedies/dilutions.
But I am firm on other 6 or 7 justifications given by you and there should not be any issue justifying molecular presence in all dilutions. There should also be no issue about their working within their limitations.
It is upto anyone to accept or not or take its benefit or not. No force.
It is bit more technical for me. What it suggest?
"Conclusion: The range of resonance frequencies suggest that the phenomenon might originate from oscillation of dipoles caused by electric field in variously structured and polarised water. Also, there is reasonable evidence that frequencies change with materials and potency."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24050772/#:~:text=Background: Avogadro's Number gives 12c,of nothing but the vehicle.
Also this one:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20471612/
"Conclusion: The range of resonance frequencies suggest that the phenomenon might originate from oscillation of dipoles caused by electric field in variously structured and polarised water. Also, there is reasonable evidence that frequencies change with materials and potency."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24050772/#:~:text=Background: Avogadro's Number gives 12c,of nothing but the vehicle.
Also this one:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20471612/
This stidy will justify 6 justifications given by me are not wrong. Pls read carefully.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29157472/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29157472/
That study does no such thing. Maybe you should read carefully.
It does not assert that there is anything left of the active ingredient, which is the issue being discussed, and which you blatantly ignore in your constant bleating.
The study is about water memory, and the claimed process by which even high-dilution remedies can supposedly affect the patient.
Water having memory does not mean that there is anything other than water in the solution.
Your "justifications" continue to be wrong with regard there being any active ingredient in such remedies. So stop being a troll, and actually address the issue, and address the flaws previously raised in your "justifications".
Furthermore, unless such research and results can be replicated, water memory, despite having no effect on whether homeopathy works better than placebo or not, is just another "pathological water science".
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2010/2010.07287.pdf
It does not assert that there is anything left of the active ingredient, which is the issue being discussed, and which you blatantly ignore in your constant bleating.
The study is about water memory, and the claimed process by which even high-dilution remedies can supposedly affect the patient.
Water having memory does not mean that there is anything other than water in the solution.
Your "justifications" continue to be wrong with regard there being any active ingredient in such remedies. So stop being a troll, and actually address the issue, and address the flaws previously raised in your "justifications".
Furthermore, unless such research and results can be replicated, water memory, despite having no effect on whether homeopathy works better than placebo or not, is just another "pathological water science".
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2010/2010.07287.pdf
Better you read and assess it carefully.
"Conclusion: There is clear evidence that homeopathic solutions cannot be considered as pure water as commonly assumed. Instead, we have evidenced a clear memory effect upon dilution/potentization of a substance (water, lactose, copper, gelsemium) reflected by different rotational correlation times and average H⋯H distances. "
From that study, Link I posted.
It may had taken to justify water memory but in actual molecular presence as per my 6 justification had influenced the test because direct water memory is not possible in lieu of structural change in water molecules. It can be better understood by this analogy.
One starving person tolfd to a technical person that he rember that he have $1000. Other person tested his brain but did not found that amount. He told you are lying. Ist person told no but I do not know where I kept it. Later they found that in a box kept secured. So though he remember money but it does not mean it is in brain. Like it, though memory or imformation was there in remedy solution due to molecular presence but it was not in H2O molecules. It was just mixed with water.
.
And the "memory effect" is with regard WATER. The notion of "pure water as commonly assumed" is with regard the inertness of that "pure water". At no point in the conclusion, or the details of the paper, do they assert that there are molecules of active ingredient.
Or is your comprehension as bad as your writing?
You are completely rewriting the conclusion they have actually reached. That is highly dishonest of you. The very point of the study was to try explore actual "water memory". They think, per their conclusion, that they have demonstrated it. No active ingredient, but that the active ingredient had an affect on the water in the potentised remedy.
It is not "pure water as commonly assumed" because "pure water as commonly assumed" is water that has no effect, no memory aspect to it. They are showing, so they believe, that there is such a memory aspect to it.
Utter garbage.
In homeopathy there is no "later they found that in a box kept secured". That would be something outside of the remedy, not in it.
And what on earth do you mean by "it was not in H2O molecules. It was just mixed with water."????
The claim/idea that homeopaths latch on to with regard water-memory is that being mixed with an active ingredient, the water takes on a structure, or some other property, that is unique to having been mixed with the active ingredient. The water molecules then retain this property, and pass it on when mixed with other water, so that the memory persists through successive dilutions even when there is no longer any active ingredient. It is then this property that acts as the "cure". That, at least, is the idea.
The study you posted aims to show that there are some properties of water that are caused by mixing with the active ingredient and then that those properties of the water survive through successive dilutions.
So no, it doesn't support your "6 justifications".
Further, you are continuing to ignore the criticisms of your justifications. Until you do, and while you simply refer back to them as if they are valid, you continue to be a troll.
And you will be called out for it, troll.
No just understsnd real purpise behind testing of homeopathic remedues. It is to justify information presence other than pure water...whether in state or water memory or due to solution by mix of trace material in water. Ehatever they interpret in study but purpose to of justifying information oresence is confirmed in test. We should be bothered about information presence, may it it be by any mode which is achieved in test. Not remedues can not be treated as plain water. My 6 justifications are the real cause behind this information presence.
Moreover their eorking in their own linitations is also justified by appropriately done study, practical observations and exoerisnces, mine personal observations, live evidances, its longevity, persistsnce and growth, comoetent authorities support vand encoursgementrs etc. And all are in well soread modern well educated and well informed modern people, degree studues, min side effect and cost etc. Just firget inappropriately done non individuakized studues whichvare invalid. Hence No doubt left. So better agree.
Last edited:
Stop being a troll.