Explain how homeopathy is better for:

[Psiload]

24X and 12C

Thank you. Am I correct in assuming that no "conventional drug" exceeds this limit, despite The National Center for Homeopathy's claim to the contrary?

I know for a fact that many, many homeopathic "remedies" far exceed this limit. Some of the most "powerful" ones as a matter of fact.

 

[geni]

Thank you. Am I correct in assuming that no "conventional drug" exceeds this limit, despite The National Center for Homeopathy's claim to the contrary?

Almost certianly

 

[LostAngeles]

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

Watch as She-With-An-Eleven-Average-in-High-School-Honors-Chemistry produces an answer, Kumar.

Avogadro's Number (along with Schrodinger's Wave Equation) is not my friend. It's 6.022*10^-23, I believe, though the exponent might be wrong.

Doesn't it involve gas molecules and pressure?

I was going to say molarity, because of the topic here, but I was pretty sure it's gas molecules. I am aware it's a limit of some kind... Maybe it is molarity and molecules. It's gotta be if the homeopaths keep bringing it up.

Saturation limit?

 

[Rolfe]

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

Not exactly.

Schüssler thought he found twelve different salts when he attempted to analyse "human ash" in about 1870. This was just about the time when this sort of analytical science was beginning to emerge, and the methods were very crude and approximate. Modern analytical methods have corrected the measurements made at that time, and relegated them to historical interest only.

Except for Schüssler's stuff, because he used his results as the basis for an imaginative system of pseudomedicine. And as we all know only too well, imaginative systems of pseudomedicine tend to hang in there even when they are founded on sand (literally, in this case).

Kumar was asked many times at the beginning whether there were graveclothes or coffins or whatever involved in this ash, but no answer. He has also been asked to explain the inclusion of one thing which is not a constituent of the normal body (silica) and the omission of a good number of important trace elements such as magnesium and copper and cobalt and so on. No coherent answer on that either.

These "twelve salts" have as much relation to what is now known about the composition of the body as these early cosmological maps with the heavens at the top and hell at the bottom have to do with NASA.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Almost certianly

You can lose the "almost".

Where do the homoeopaths say that some conventional medicines exceed this dilution? That's nonsense.

However, the homoeopaths have produced "potentised" versions of most conventional drugs and may prescribe them in this form. I think the law recognises that "30C prednisolone" doesn't have to be regulated in the same way as real prednisolone, seeing and the former doesn't actually contain any prednisolone.

Rolfe.

 

[Psiload]

You can lose the "almost".

Where do the homoeopaths say that some conventional medicines exceed this dilution? That's nonsense.

However, the homoeopaths have produced "potentised" versions of most conventional drugs and may prescribe them in this form. I think the law recognises that "30C prednisolone" doesn't have to be regulated in the same way as real prednisolone, seeing and the former doesn't actually contain any prednisolone.

Rolfe.

In case you missed it in my post above.

From:

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

Mechanism:

How does homeopathy work?

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.

The NHC or National Center for Homeopathy states their mission as such:

Our mission at the National Center for Homeopathy is to promote health through homeopathy. By providing general education to the public about homeopathy, and specific education to homeopaths, we help to make homeopathy available throughout the United States.

If by "providing general education" they mean "blatantly lying through their teeth" then I'd say they're doing a bang up job of it. Amazing how the homeopaths do a better job of stripping themselves of credibility than any of their most eloquent, and adament critics could ever hope to.

 

[Zep]

Watch as She-With-An-Eleven-Average-in-High-School-Honors-Chemistry produces an answer, Kumar.

Avogadro's Number (along with Schrodinger's Wave Equation) is not my friend. It's 6.022*10^-23, I believe, though the exponent might be wrong.

Doesn't it involve gas molecules and pressure?

I was going to say molarity, because of the topic here, but I was pretty sure it's gas molecules. I am aware it's a limit of some kind... Maybe it is molarity and molecules. It's gotta be if the homeopaths keep bringing it up.

Saturation limit?

Well, the exponent IS wrong, but you have enough right digits sorta in the right place. And you are on the right track with the relevance too.

But please, no more prompting from the peanut-gallery. This is one for Kumar to answer.

Kumar???

 

[Rolfe]

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.

Sorry - I had read that, but didn't realise it was what you were talking about.

It seems that quite a few of the OTC homoeopathic remedies do have molecules of "remedy" in them. However, even on that front you'll also see a lot of 30C and stuff like that on the shelves.

Also, reading the homoeopathy forums, I can't off-hand ever remember anyone using or recommending a molecule-containing potency. They seem to favour the really wacko dilutions like 10M and stuff like that (and no, I don't mean 10 molar, it's something like a 10 <SUP>-20,000</SUP> dilution.

Fact is, the vast bulk of their stock-in-trade is molecule-free, and they preach that the more dilute the more potent. So they can hardly turn round and say that because a few relatively "low-potency" preparations do have molecules then the entire Avogadro's number thing is irrelevant!

The lowest potency (most concentrated) remedy I've ever seen is 1 ppm (6X). Yes I suppose some very specific modern drugs are active at that concentration (sorry, it's late, not going to do the sums). And their point is?

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Schüssler thought he found twelve different salts when he attempted to analyse "human ash" in about 1870. This was just about the time when this sort of analytical science was beginning to emerge, and the methods were very crude and approximate. Modern analytical methods have corrected the measurements made at that time, and relegated them to historical interest only.

Rolfe, All tissue salts presented by Dr.Schüssler still hold good. However, these are now just translated in their elemental/ionic form( can't say it deviated us from some knowledge). Silicon as silicic acid is present in our body. You can't say that Newton's law of motion is now a historical interest only. It is still valid. Few concepts remain firm & always valid which are of absolute nature, but other fake type ends in itself, with the time & those only remains for historical interest only. If any thing is said in Latin & we didn't translated in English--it does not mean, Latin has no importance.

Instead of pulling the skin from the hairs, just try to take & give whatever you can take & give--only for the gain but don't discussf empity side of a glass filled with half of water OR just dark side of a Day. Current system also may have several contradictions, half empity portion or dark side & comments & skeptic types of talks suitable for just pulling the skin can be very much possible. But it will be just for the spoiling of your brain & relations not for making these healthy.

I shall participate accordingly.

 

[MRC_Hans]

See? He CAN write good English.

Hans

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe, All tissue salts presented by Dr.Schüssler still hold good.

Nonsense. The analysis he could do was so crude that it's pretty meaningless in modern terms. Just because some observers in the fields of astronomy and physics were able to formulate valid theories and concepts in the 18th centuries doesn't mean that biological measurements made using the very crude 19th century methods are inevitably right. Schüssler's findings have been totally superseded by modern analytical methods which look at the actual compounds present in the living organism.

Silicon as silicic acid is present in our body.

References, please? That any silica-containing compound is actually involved in the normal functioning of the body rather than just being there because it has been ingested?

Kumar, if you can't accept that the scientific method is only interested in discovering the truth, and that the reason we reject your tissue salts is that 100 years of painstaking research has shown that the body simply doesn't work the way you seem to want it to, then you'll never be any wiser.

Yes, real medicine should take and is taking those parts of homoeopathy which are worth learning about. Those are the parts where you pay a lot of attention to the patient, make then feel valued, and support them psychologically. Shaken-up solutions of practically nothing are not worth considering further, and I'm just sorry you're so closed-minded you can't see this.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

One thing you are forgetting that presence of salts in ash--was an indication for selecting the specific remedies. Symptoms & effects produced by them are based on provings & observations backed by Dr.Sch.'s studies & brillient mind. Detailed reading of the subject as insisted will give you real understanding on the subject.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe,

One thing you are forgetting that presence of salts in ash--was an indication for selecting the specific remedies. Symptoms & effects produced by them are based on provings & observations backed by Dr.Sch.'s studies & brillient mind. Detailed reading of the subject as insisted will give you real understanding on the subject.

OK, that's it.

I've studied biochemistry (that's the real science of biochemistry) for 25 years. I do have some understanding of how the body works. And it doesn't work in any way that would allow Dr. Schüssler's remedies to have any effect.

Kumar hasn't even posted one sentence here to explain why he thinks these tissue salts have anything going for them. No, he just believes any piece of nonsense written about them (and does he believe all the rest of the alt-med nonsense on the Internet too?), and while apparently dismissing anything we tell him that doesn't accord with the way he wants the universe to be, he tells us to go and read all about it.

Kumar, why don't you at least tell us why you're so keen on this stuff?

But anyway, if the antique Dr. Schüssler had such a brilliant mind, and all the findings of modern science count for nothing, then fine. Off you go and post on a tissue remedies forum.

Me, I'm content to know what was done in the late 19th century in a historical sense, and to put this into context with what we have discovered since.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

I think I have clarified it in 'Inflamatory diseases & Stomach acidity ' topic now. Just read & understand.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe,

..... Just read & understand.

This is getting insulting.

Particularly coming from someone who has been repeatedly urged to read the most basic scientific textbooks, but who prefers not to bother.

Goodbye, Kumar.

 

[Deetee]

Kumar, over the last few months I have seen you come to these forums with your questions, and despite their evident incongruity you have been treated with tolerance and courtesy.
People like Rolfe have patiently tried to educate and explain things, yet you are steadfast in your denial. It is not the fault of the "teachers" - they have tried very hard, so i conclude the problem is you.
If your intransigence is so utterly complete, why on earth do you persist in coming to this forum to ask your questions? You know you will never get the answers you want or bother to try and understand anything.
Go away.

 

[Barbrae]

NH

Perhaps you could also explain why your fellow homeopath Barb recommends taking the antibiotics, much though it seems to gall her to admit it;

http://homeopathyforums.hpathy.com//forum_posts.asp?TID=1681

BadShavedMonkey at Hpathy is not me, by the way, but is presumably the same merry japester who has used the JREF names of a number of people to post trolling posts at Hpathy.

(If the link is broken it will mean that their Thought police have deleted it, but I've saved a copy that I can post here if necessary)

Hi my dear BSM - It's me Barb, have you all missed me??? I actually replied to this comment you made on Hpathy (had to re-register here) and asked you a question but alas, no answer from you, perhaps it was deleted before you got to read it? ANyway - you said you saved a copy of the post so can you post it all and then please give any reason whatsoever as to why you would claim that it "galled" me to recommend the antibiotics? You know me, can't stand it when people make stuff up about me. Now, if you are still interested in why I would recommend antibiotics I'd be happy to tell ya. In fact, if ya ever have a question for me about what I do feel free to ask me, rather than ask another homeopath to try to explain my motives.

hugs and kisses
barb

 

[Corallinus]

Rolfe,

Do you want a medal then?!!!!

 

[Prester John]

Barb said:

if ya ever have a question for me about what I do feel free to ask me,

Well okay then how about these:

1. Why do the effects of homeopathy, which are quite considerable when described anecdotally, dissapear when testing is performed under controlled conditions ?

2. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that "like cures like" is a natural law?

3. Exactly how does the solvent's "memory" of the active ingredient become selective, to somehow erase the intimate contact it has had with possibly millions of other compounds in its history and since the dilution process is supposed to dilute out the undesirable parts of the remedy's effects, and potentise the desirable parts, how does the remedy know which is which?

4. How is information stored in water? It's no good just saying that unexpected processes occur in solvents they must store energy and information in a completely faithful and stable manner?

5. How does the memory of water apply when the final remedy is dried onto a lactose pill?

6. How come you can prescribe for animals when you don't "prove" the remedies on animals?

7. Provings are demonstrably nonsense. In the vast majority no attention at all is paid to using controls. So it is vanishingly unlikely that many remedies in use today have the effects claimed for them in provings even if there was some validity behind the principles of homeopathy so that some remedies might truly work. So how come homeopaths using all the dodgy remedies claim success in using them? Doesn't the existence of this mass of defective remedies (even if we cannot identify them from a notional set of valid remedies) completely undermine the homeopaths' claims to make valid inferences from their much-vaunted 'clinical evidence'?

8. What can homeopathy not cure? How do these diseases differ absolutely from all the things they say it can cure. Can it cure genetic diseases?

9. What are the limits of homeopaths' credulity? Are there any alt med therapies they do not believe in? If there are really wild and weird things they do not believe in then please can they explain the rationale for making that distinction?

10. The Randi Challenge Special Question:
Is there any way to tell if a preparation is different from plain water or other solvent? Please do so and earn $1M (and no this is not a single dollar diluted homeopathically

From here:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40064&pagenumber=1

I await your responces with anticipation.

(btw these are the 10 questions that the intellectually challenged homeopaths at hpathy decided to work out the answers to some months ago but have been unable to.)

 

[Prester John]

Rolfe,

Do you want a medal then?!!!!

Feel free to help out Barb btw Corallinus.