Are low homeopathic dilutions safe?

bruto said:
An apt subject here since in another thread the question of what constitutes a "tu quoque" fallacy has come up.

It's true that a remedy that does nothing is better than a remedy that does harm. But it does not make the nothing something.
Click to expand...

Harm is relative as well. Taking a "remedy" for fever that does not reduce fever puts the patient at risk from the fever.
 
Giordano said:
I don't think so. But we are arguing about the mechanism by which some people fantasize a non-drug works, when it doesn't work at all. It's not even present in the final diluted produce.
Click to expand...


Yes, but it's "the final diluted produce", not the raw substance that the remedy is made from, that is claimed to cause the symptoms.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Oh, how long time since we had any homeopaths posting here. Where have they all gone?
Click to expand...

Perhaps our Google ratings for homoeopathy are not as high as they once were?

But why do homoeopathic pharmacies produce low-dilution remedies at all when it is more economical, safer, and reputedly more effective to use high dilutions?
 
steenkh said:
Perhaps our Google ratings for homoeopathy are not as high as they once were?

But why do homoeopathic pharmacies produce low-dilution remedies at all when it is more economical, safer, and reputedly more effective to use high dilutions?
Click to expand...

I assume because their customers want them. Also, when they are constuents in mixed medicines (not kosher homeopathy, obviously) the concentrations are really low.

Finally, the vast majority of homeopathic remedies are based on harmless of nearly harmless substances.

Hans
 
bruto said:
True enough, but one can make a distinction insofar as the harm is in the use, not the thing used.
Click to expand...

Not really. The product is marketed as a safe and effective remedy for, in the example, fever. A person purchases it for the purpose the label indicates it is effective against. The product does nothing to alleviate the fever and the patient suffers convulsions due to fever. Was harm done? Quite definitely. What caused the harm? Not the patient, and while the product itself did no direct harm, the erroneous and self serving declaration by the manufacturer led the patient to eschew other products that would have actually curbed the fever.
In a law suit the drug itself is not sued, the manufacturer is sued. If its a product that caused direct harm that is the basis of the suit but in this case the manufacturer is sued because the product is marketed as a remedy but has no effect and, in the case of many homeopathic concoctions, has no rigorous research to back the claim.
If Pfizer markets a drug and that drug is found to cause increase risk of heart attack they are sued. It is unconscionable that a drug causes more harm than good yet marketed simply to make money for Pfizer. However, if one markets sugar water to alleviate fever knowing there is no basis for the claim then the only reason to market it is to make money. Its just as unconscionable to market this as it was for Pfizer but for some unfathomable justification , many people will give the homeopathic manufacturer a pass. Why?
IMNSHO all homeopathic concoctions should be required to have a warning label , the size of cigarette warning labels, indicating that there is no scientifically valid research to back the claims made for its effectiveness.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Not really. The product is marketed as a safe and effective remedy for, in the example, fever. A person purchases it for the purpose the label indicates it is effective against. The product does nothing to alleviate the fever and the patient suffers convulsions due to fever. Was harm done? Quite definitely. What caused the harm? Not the patient, and while the product itself did no direct harm, the erroneous and self serving declaration by the manufacturer led the patient to eschew other products that would have actually curbed the fever.
In a law suit the drug itself is not sued, the manufacturer is sued. If its a product that caused direct harm that is the basis of the suit but in this case the manufacturer is sued because the product is marketed as a remedy but has no effect and, in the case of many homeopathic concoctions, has no rigorous research to back the claim.
If Pfizer markets a drug and that drug is found to cause increase risk of heart attack they are sued. It is unconscionable that a drug causes more harm than good yet marketed simply to make money for Pfizer. However, if one markets sugar water to alleviate fever knowing there is no basis for the claim then the only reason to market it is to make money. Its just as unconscionable to market this as it was for Pfizer but for some unfathomable justification , many people will give the homeopathic manufacturer a pass. Why?
IMNSHO all homeopathic concoctions should be required to have a warning label , the size of cigarette warning labels, indicating that there is no scientifically valid research to back the claims made for its effectiveness.
Click to expand...
I fully agree, but the dispute here is just semantic. If you prescribe water wrong and it kills the patient, the action is dangerous, the prescription is dangerous, the prescriber a crook or a fool, etc. etc., but the water is not inherently dangerous. That's all. Water is a dangerous drug only in the context of a drug. You don't need a warning label on the fire hose.

I agree that homeopathic drugs should have a disclaimer label only in so far as I agree that there should be such a thing at all. I would rather see a big red label saying "don't take this crap."
 
bruto said:
I fully agree, but the dispute here is just semantic. If you prescribe water wrong and it kills the patient, the action is dangerous, the prescription is dangerous, the prescriber a crook or a fool, etc. etc., but the water is not inherently dangerous. That's all. Water is a dangerous drug only in the context of a drug. You don't need a warning label on the fire hose.
Click to expand...
That's a case of mis-application of the 'drug'. The prescriber is at fault. For instance if a patient comes into emergency suffering exhaustion and general malaise and informs the doctor he/she has been receiving hemodialysis treatments. If the doctor then instructs the nurse to start an IV and pump in a litre of saline solution per hour, that is going to cause harm, perhaps even kill the patient. ( this btw, did happen to a person I knew. He refused treatment from that doctor and called his brother in and had him drive him two hours to another hospital. The original emerg doc had refused to call and consult with a nephrologist because it was Sunday) It would be a good prescription for someone with a fever and dehydration, but not for someone who cannot control internal fluid levels.

I agree that homeopathic drugs should have a disclaimer label only in so far as I agree that there should be such a thing at all. I would rather see a big red label saying "don't take this crap."
Click to expand...
I would support that. However, given that it would simply play into the paranoia of big pharma/big medicine perhaps a better plain language warning would be :
"This crap will at best do nothing to help you, and at worst it will kill you. Take at your own risk dumbass"
 
Last edited:
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
Actually could someone with competence in electrochemistry please follow Mojo's link and comment.
Click to expand...

So, I once again earnestly request you to provide proper scientific explanations for the following contradictions in science
i) how electrodes generates emf when placed in distilled water without any chemical reaction.
ii) how ions are conducted to even neutral electrodes
iii) how water retains electrical charge.
Click to expand...

ad i) What kind of electrodes?
Chemically identical electrodes do not generate emf when placed in water, destilled or not.
Electrodes with different electrochemical potential will generate emf if placed in a conductive medium (electrolyte). Even the best destilled water has some conductive ability (because there is no practical way of making totally pure water).

ad ii) Ions are conducted wherever there is an electrical potential. The composition of the electrode is irrelevant.

ad iii) Water does not retain electrical charge. A body of water can act as a condenser plate if it is insulated from the other plate and the plates such arranged can retain an electrical charge, but it has nothing to do with the water.

Hans
 
Last edited:
Hellbound said:
Just out of curiosity, isn't "neutral electrode" a contradiction in terms?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. An electrode can be electrochemically neutral (a necessity in some processes) and it can be connected to zero potential (and it can, of course be both).

Hans
 
Hellbound said:
Just out of curiosity, isn't "neutral electrode" a contradiction in terms?
Click to expand...

MRC_Hans said:
No, not at all. An electrode can be electrochemically neutral (a necessity in some processes) and it can be connected to zero potential (and it can, of course be both).

Hans
Click to expand...

Yes,it depends on which aspect of the electrode you are referring to when calling it "neutral".
If it is at the same potential as the other electrode then yes some ions, present in the electrolyte, may flow to it but not net flow will occur between it and the other electrode, which will see the same number flow to it.

If its conductive but electrochemically neutral and the other electrode is not then ion flow to the other electrode will induce a potential difference between the electrodes..

Also seems to me that even pure water will conduct slightly due to its arrangement of the hydrogen atoms, ie. both being on the same side of the oxygen atom. Its been a very long time since chem101 though.
 
Last edited:
Anyhow, these questions seem to be ye olde Kumaresque fallacy: If science is not Absolute and Final, i.e. knows everything, then any silly claim has merit.

This is nonsense. It is just as with conventional meds, as I noted above:

It matters not what science knows or doesn't know. It matters what you can produce evidence for. If you cannot produce evidence for your claim, then it has no merit, no matter what else is known.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
I assume because their customers want them.
Click to expand...
Do the customers really care, or read the declaration of contents?

Also, when they are constuents in mixed medicines (not kosher homeopathy, obviously) the concentrations are really low.

Finally, the vast majority of homeopathic remedies are based on harmless of nearly harmless substances.
Click to expand...
Yes it is no doubt still harmless, but I still think it is economically more beneficial to go for higher dilutions.

Actually, I was thinking more about what homoeopathic theory claims about low dilutions. Are they regarded as "milder", and hence more "safe" to put into over-the-counter remedies which are not prescribed by a "qualified" homoeopath?

I was quite surprised by the Boiron promotional video, because it seems they make fresh mother tinctures all the time, and that strikes me as being economically silly. If they did not always throw out 99% of their preparations, they would have supplies lasting to the end of the millenniuml
 
steenkh said:
Do the customers really care, or read the declaration of contents?


Yes it is no doubt still harmless, but I still think it is economically more beneficial to go for higher dilutions.

Actually, I was thinking more about what homoeopathic theory claims about low dilutions. Are they regarded as "milder", and hence more "safe" to put into over-the-counter remedies which are not prescribed by a "qualified" homoeopath?

I was quite surprised by the Boiron promotional video, because it seems they make fresh mother tinctures all the time, and that strikes me as being economically silly. If they did not always throw out 99% of their preparations, they would have supplies lasting to the end of the millenniuml
Click to expand...

I think Boiron and modern homeopaths are playing a game of make-belive.

They pretend it works, and they pretend it is made in a wewy wewy scientific way.

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom