Explain how homeopathy is better for:

Kumar said:
It is just a limit of atomic/molecular presence not of energy which is E=mc^2. Moreover, CPE is not beyond Avogadro's limit.

"HIGHER POTENCIES INITIATES COMMON CPE & HUNGER/NEED OF ANY SUBSTANCE DECIDE WHAT & WHICH TO CURE".
Click to expand...
Wrong. Read the question & try again.
 
Kumar,

I'm terribly sorry to say this but just because something is posted repeatedly does not make it true. Just because something is posted in capital letters does not make it true.

The question you were asked, and which you have failed to answer was:
Please list ten solid facts about homeopathy that the overwhelming majority of homeopaths will agree are true.
Click to expand...
Do you care to do this or are you more concerned with ranting about your current theory that CPE is the mechanism by which something which has not been demonstrated to work, works.

If it is the latter you may wish to discuss it on one of the other threads you have started on the subject.
 
Kumar said:
Quasi,

I think members here said that they can't teach biochemistry, physiology etc. to me in this forum. It was bit practical & therefore, I started reading myself & will ask ony those questions which are not clear in studying it. I think you can also do that. Just search google, 'Homeopathy' you will find so many sites. You may also refer:
Click to expand...

Kumar,

Please explain why homeopaths believe: "Our body contains twelve inorganic elements." From one of your links. If they are referring to biochemistry, and more specifically the periodic table of elements, then the body, by direct examination for elemental analysis even in the blood has many more than just 12 inorganic elements. The blood contains the usual CHOPSN, but it also has calcium, mercury, iron, gold, silver, zinc, argon, copper, and many more trace elements and minerals. This is clearly wrong from a biochemical standpoint. Can you defend this belief with any elemental analysis data?
Further, in the links you provided, Hahnemann stated in the very beginning of the Organon that you should not theorize as to how the body works nor the cause of disease, but he then went back on his word without updating the Organon and claimed homeopathy can cure smallpox and scarlet fever. Is it not convenient that these two diseases are very unlikely to be tested at this time? Surely homeopaths can make some simple testable claims like for acute insulin dependent diabetes (allopathic terminology here.) Why is it that Hahnemann himself converted over to using allopathic terminology if merely describing the symptoms and curing all diseases worked?
Maybe you have not taken into account the flaws in the homeopaths subjective, non quantitative observations. All I saw were a lot of testimonials, and virtually all of them from the 1800's. Not very good references. Although I did find some of the links quite informative especially the mineral cures which I was unaware of.
 
Zep, HC,

No, it is right.

Don,

Pls read the quote to which the awnser belongs:-

"Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide


Dear sir... please explain what Avogadro's Number is... and think about why the skeptics keep bringing it up. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Quasi said:
You are asking questions similar to as I was asking about biochemestry etc. just by one point reading. Better you study the whole system in full. However I inform you about tissue salts:-

Please explain why homeopaths believe: "Our body contains twelve inorganic elements."

These are twelve major tissue salts (not elements) found on analysis of human ash.

From one of your links. If they are referring to biochemistry, and more specifically the periodic table of elements, then the body, by direct examination for elemental analysis even in the blood has many more than just 12 inorganic elements. The blood contains the usual CHOPSN, but it also has calcium, mercury, iron, gold, silver, zinc, argon, copper, and many more trace elements and minerals. This is clearly wrong from a biochemical standpoint. Can you defend this belief with any elemental analysis data?

If you see the chemical composition of human's body, total nos of elements covered by these 12 tissue salts will be about 97% of all elements in percentage of their presence. It may mean that these may be capable of handling 97% of our functional problems & balance 3% could be possible by itself if 97% is covered (although 97% is also a prominent figure). In some other later books about 40 tissue salts are covered ( almost all elements). However, in 12 tissue salts, I am bit trying to find-- why Nitrogen is not given importance as not there no where.

HS may clarify your 2nd point in a better way. However there is substancial influence & terminologies of allopathy in homeopathy because introducers & pursuers of homeopathy were mostly MD level doctors.
Click to expand...
 
Kumar, I have not specifically read texts on "the theory" of homeopathy. I don't wish to resort to your ingenious suggestion of "google for homeopathy" and read all the hits either - I have a life to lead.
(should you not also exhort us to google for "homoeopathy?" ...oh... never mind).
So perhaps you could tell me:

What are the 12 salts- what is their specific chemical composition?
Where did the nitrogen go?
 
Calcium fluoride
Calcium phosphate
Calcium sulphate
Iron phosphate
Potassium chloride
Potassium phosphate
Potassium sulphate
Magnesium phosphate
Sodium chloride
Sodium phosphate
Sodium sulphate
Silica

Thats all you need and B@ll@cks to 100 years of Bichemistry :p
 
PS, you may also have to add lactose & normal contaminations to this list. Can you think & give some logical understanding that: Why Nitrogen is not there in these remedies. However, Kali Sulph.( Potassium sulphate base) is indicated for some Nitogen type imbalances as Uremia.
 
Kumar said:
Zep, HC,

No, it is right.

Don,

Pls read the quote to which the awnser belongs:-

"Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide


Dear sir... please explain what Avogadro's Number is... and think about why the skeptics keep bringing it up. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
No, you are completely and utterly WRONG.

Again. One more time for the dummy.

What is Avogadro's Number, and why is it important to homeopathy?

Big hint: Try putting "Avogadro's Number" into Google - it will tell you the answer VERY quickly.
 
Kumar said:
PS, you may also have to add lactose & normal contaminations to this list. Can you think & give some logical understanding that: Why Nitrogen is not there in these remedies. However, Kali Sulph.( Potassium sulphate base) is indicated for some Nitogen type imbalances as Uremia.
Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)

Because its a 200 year old fantasy with no basis in the real world?
 
Kumar said:
Opposing any mass existing & well distributed system since long, can be just due to vested interests, ignorances or foolishness but not on the technicalities, because today's public can't be so fool/illitrate as you thought.
Click to expand...

Galileo opposed the "mass existing & well distributed system" that believed that the Sun went round the Earth. I don't know whether he fully understood the philosophical and theological reasons why heliocentrism had to be true. He did know enough of the technicalities of the heliocentrical system to find the points where it conflicted with evidence that was readily obtained in the real world. He was right. The superstitious minds of the medieval RC church were wrong.

Are you getting this?

You don't need to know every technicality of an erroneous belief system. What you need is to identify points at which it is in fatal contradiction either internally or with the real world. Tissue Salt therapy and Homeopathy have be shown to you mutliple times to contain these fatal errors.

The honest and reasonable response to this for someone whose faith is based on effects "experianced by him" is to look again at those experiences with fresh insight? Are you capable of doing that?

"So just follow nature best law for the survival, maintainance & balance i.e. ' Live & let live '"

Should Galileo have 'Live and let live' his intellectual opponents? The last 500 years will have been wasted if we give in to attitudes like yours.

The whole world view you espouse is inherently medieval. You need to lose your deferential mentality, the authorities you have placed your faith in are either out-dated or mendacious. You need to lose your presumptuous reliance on your subjective experience when it is easily shown to be at odds with the real world.
 
Kumar said:
Zep, HC,

No, it is right.

Don,

Pls read the quote to which the awnser belongs:-

"Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide


Dear sir... please explain what Avogadro's Number is... and think about why the skeptics keep bringing it up. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

Avogadro's Number is an actual NUMBER! Tell us what it is (and it came about several decades before Einstein was born, so it has nothing to do with E=mc^2 ). Explain what it significance is to homeopathy.

Try again.
 
Hydrogen Cyanide said:


Avogadro's Number is an actual NUMBER! Tell us what it is (and it came about several decades before Einstein was born, so it has nothing to do with E=mc^2 ). Explain what it significance is to homeopathy.

Try again.
Click to expand...
I was curious, Kumar's indecipherable squirming aside, how do homeopaths respond to Avogardo's Number?

I did a quick google, and it seems they(as per usual) revert to lies and evasion:

http://www.homeopathic.org/mechanism.htm

Much is made in the press about how homeopathic remedies are diluted, sometimes beyond the point at which there is no statistically probable remnant of the original substance. That point is known as Avogadro's number, in honor of the scientist who developed this theory. Skeptics question how a substance with "nothing there" can have an effect on the human body. NCH does wish to point out that the vast majority of commercially viable homeopathic products are not diluted beyond Avogadro's number and that, in a large percentage of conventional drugs the active ingredient is in similarly minute proportion to the vehicle carrying it. Therefor, NCH posits that dilution is not in-and-of-itself a contradiction to accepted science.
Click to expand...
No shame... :nope: These people have no shame.

***edited to add this question...***

What dilution level represents the threshold of Avogardo's Number?
 
Originally posted by Kumar: Can you think & give some logical understanding that: Why Nitrogen is not there in these remedies.
Click to expand...
Kumar, I'll tell you what I think, however it would be better if it were confirmed by a chemist. I think that when the body tissue is burned to ash (leaving behind various minerals) the nitrogen is released as a gas along with the CO2. (nitrous oxide or nitric oxide???) If Schussler only counted the elements remaining in the ash, then he would have missed anything that became a gas on combustion.

(He must have known there was nitrogen in cells though, as well as carbon, so I have no idea what his thinking was.)
 
Avogadro's number is very basic chemistry, and anyone who wants to study biological systems would want to understand concentration.

I'd like to point out that the tissue salts are apparently NOT normally prescribed at extreme dilutions. A normal dilution is 6X, which means there would be a microgram of the actual substance in a gram of remedy. (If a pill weighed 100 mg, it would contain .1 microgram of the celll salt mineral.)
 
flume said:
Kumar, I'll tell you what I think, however it would be better if it were confirmed by a chemist. I think that when the body tissue is burned to ash (leaving behind various minerals) the nitrogen is released as a gas along with the CO2. (nitrous oxide or nitric oxide???) If Schussler only counted the elements remaining in the ash, then he would have missed anything that became a gas on combustion.

(He must have known there was nitrogen in cells though, as well as carbon, so I have no idea what his thinking was.)
Click to expand...

flume,

You are right in understanding it. Actually he had made this system based on inorganic constituents of body which he could find on ash analysis. I think now also, inorganic constituents of plant origin food & substances are analysed by ash analysis but on elemental basis not on salt basis(I can't say it is good or bad).

By considering, lactose as a constituent of remedy (which I cant say he considered or not) Carbon, Hydrogen & Oxygen (although Hydrogen & Oxygen are also covered in raw remedy's substances) are also covered in remedies as lactose is also got potentized. But Nitrogen is no where covered. By this it looks he has given importance to only inorganic constituents of body & treated organic one just as structural.

Thanks for the calculation/tablet but something other than quantity is also have some importance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom