Homeopathy does work

[Rolfe]

Rolfe,

There is no harm in checking any aspect instead of just doing TTTT or TTT. No one knows, what may click in dark. You have made so many & too much theories & changes--only specialists can only tell specifically. So it is better to check with specialists.

Now, what about alcohol & lactose?

Checking on the structure of water doesn't require a "specialist" - any school child who has understood his or her basic chemistry lessons will be able to tell you that one.

So, who do you consider a "specialist" anyway, when you reject the knowledge offered to you by the many posters on this forum who have advanced degrees in chemistry, biochemistry and molecular biology? For example, with a PhD in biochemistry, why am I not a "specialist"?

And what about alcohol and lactose? Which alcohol did you have in mind? (Geni will tell you how pure it's possible to get any particular compound.) Everything you seem to be asking about is there with easy explanations in the basic textbooks we've often told you about. If you won't take the trouble to read or get educated, why should we waste time explaining the energetics of isomerisation to you?

Rolfe.

 

[Donks]

If you won't take the trouble to read or get educated, why should we waste time explaining the energetics of isomerisation to you?

Rolfe.

Because he's foing it for the good of mankind! If it wasn't for your vested interests you'd see that. Oh, and there is no contradiction in advocating, at the same time, the search for treatments and the elimiation of all treatments to weed out the "unfit".

 

[Kumar]

You misunderstand, Kumar. I know most of your answers, but I am not going to waste time explaining them to you unless you show you have learnt sufficient knowledge to understand them. Rolfe made that mistake over a year ago and we would both be idiots to repeat that mistake now.

You don't even understand what and atom or a molecule is so there is no point in answering higher level questions. What little interest was served in answering your questions to satisfy my enjoyment of getting my explanations organised has now been exhausted. So, I'll give simple answers to simple questions and you have to show that you understand those answers before proceeding.

If you want to make progress then explain why;

"Somewhat alike H2O>>OH2"

" O2+H2O= H2O3 or HO+H2O
H2O3+H2O=H4O4 or HO+H2O
H4O4+H2O=H6O5...
.......so on."

and

"1M H2O, 1M HOH, IM OHH or .1M H2O, 1.9M HOH, 1MOHH"

are so misconceived.

When a person don't understand difference betwwen an example & real & he/she alwayas point out examples as real--no one can/should interact with him/her. Your claim of knowing the awnsers or not, if is a fake claim or real, I can't say unless I see those. To awnser me or not is your choice & interest--so act accordingly.

 

[Kumar]

Hey, Kumar, supposing I claim that I can tell in advance whether a tossed coin will come up heads or tails. I say that I will state "head" or "tail" before the coin is tossed, then the person testing me tosses the coin and we see whether or not I was right.

Supposing I was right "30-50% of the time", do you think Mr. Randi would give me the million dollars?

(Actually, if I was as bad as 30% consistently, maybe I could make a case!)

Rolfe.

Idiots should know these calculations before committing/posing accordingly.

 

[Donks]

Idiots should know these calculations before committing/posing accordingly.

YES! Which is exactly why you are being asked.

 

[Kumar]

Checking on the structure of water doesn't require a "specialist" - any school child who has understood his or her basic chemistry lessons will be able to tell you that one.

So, who do you consider a "specialist" anyway, when you reject the knowledge offered to you by the many posters on this forum who have advanced degrees in chemistry, biochemistry and molecular biology? For example, with a PhD in biochemistry, why am I not a "specialist"?

And what about alcohol and lactose? Which alcohol did you have in mind? (Geni will tell you how pure it's possible to get any particular compound.) Everything you seem to be asking about is there with easy explanations in the basic textbooks we've often told you about. If you won't take the trouble to read or get educated, why should we waste time explaining the energetics of isomerisation to you?

Rolfe.

Ok, can you tell any geomatrical change in inter ot intra molecules of a laticce of water, alcohol or lactose effected by potentisation process? Refer;

In structural isomers, the atoms and functional groups are joined together in different ways, as in the example of propyl alcohol above. This group includes chain isomerism whereby hydrocarbon chains have variable amounts of branching; position isomerism which deals with the position of a functional group on a chain; and functional group isomerism in which one functional group is split up into different ones.

In stereoisomers the bond structure is the same, but the geometrical positioning of atoms and functional groups in space differs. This class includes optical isomerism where different isomers are mirror-images of each other, and geometric isomerism where functional groups at the end of a chain can be twisted in different ways.

While structural isomers typically have different chemical properties, stereoisomers behave identically in most chemical reactions. Enzymes however can distinguish between different stereoisomers of a compound, and organisms often prefer one stereoisomer over the other. Some stereoisomers also differ in the way they rotate polarized light.

There also exist topological isomers called topoisomers. Molecules with topoisomers include catenanes and DNA. Topoisomerase enzymes can knot DNA and thus change its topology.

In nuclear physics, isomers are excited states of atomic nuclei; see nuclear isomer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomers

 

[Kumar]

YES! Which is exactly why you are being asked.

YES! What has been indicated to me, as possible, previously.

But people just say prize can be so easy to win just by 30-50% positive results but run away when their turn comes to materalize it. You don't know the previous commitments made in this regard.

 

[Donks]

YES! What has been indicated to me, as possible, previously.

But people just say prize can be so easy to win just by 30-50% positive results but run away when their turn comes to materalize it. You don't know the previous commitments made in this regard.

I'm sure it was your brilliance that finally caused Vikram to put you on ignore for your "exemplary ignorance in even school-level mathematics." Or maybe it was questions like "Why 9 vials of plain water and 1 vial of a homeopathic dilution of a drug? Why it is not equal numbers of blank remedies & real remedies in each set?"

 

[Rolfe]

Ok, can you tell any geomatrical change in inter ot intra molecules of a laticce of water, alcohol or lactose effected by potentisation process? Refer;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomers

Funnily enough, I don't need to look up Wikipedia to find out what an isomer is.

I can tell you that nothing of that sort occurs due to shaking or grinding, no matter how vigorous. As you have been told many times, the most that will happen to the substance is that it will get very slightly warmer. Give it up.

Interesting how Mas was at one stage trying to portray succussion as such a gentle agitation that it was quite conceivable mixing of the solution would not be uniform, but Kumar wants so much energy that major chemical reactions can occur!

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Funnily enough, I don't need to look up Wikipedia to find out what an isomer is.

I can tell you that nothing of that sort occurs due to shaking or grinding, no matter how vigorous. As you have been told many times, the most that will happen to the substance is that it will get very slightly warmer. Give it up.

Interesting how Mas was at one stage trying to portray succussion as such a gentle agitation that it was quite conceivable mixing of the solution would not be uniform, but Kumar wants so much energy that major chemical reactions can occur!

Rolfe.

When we grind/triturate any substance, there should be no doubt that it is powdered & bigger lattice/crystal become smaller particles. That also changes the shape. But I want to know possility of any inter or intra-molecular geomatrical changes in lattice of carriers due to trituration or succussion.

 

[Rolfe]

But I want to know possility of any inter or intra-molecular geomatrical changes in lattice of carriers due to trituration or succussion.

NONE. AT. ALL.



Rolfe.

 

[clarsct]

Ok, normally I don't do this. But I'm bored today.

Yes, usually grinding things makes them into smaller particles. This is a physical change, not a chemical one. I learned this in grade school science class.

The probability of any chemical change in the substance is so low as to make the probability of a molecule of solute in a 30C solution seem huge by comparison.

Isn't isomerization quantifiable by group theory? I would love to see Kumar's head explode while trying to comprehend matrice algebra.

Sorry, I'll go now. Rolfe is exquisitely more qualified than I, and obviously Donks has a bit more patience.

Carry on!

 

[Donks]

Sorry, I'll go now. Rolfe is exquisitely more qualified than I, and obviously Donks has a bit more patience.

Carry on!

Ha! My patience with Kumar finally ran out, what was it, one or 2 days ago. So you just demonstrated you have more patience with Kumar than me.

 

[Kumar]

I'm sure it was your brilliance that finally caused Vikram to put you on ignore for your "exemplary ignorance in even school-level mathematics." Or maybe it was questions like "Why 9 vials of plain water and 1 vial of a homeopathic dilution of a drug? Why it is not equal numbers of blank remedies & real remedies in each set?"

If he would have added/contributrd anything to my knowledge, I would have cared. But Why should I? When he says 30-50% possibilities, tests should be simple.

 

[clarsct]

Ha! My patience with Kumar finally ran out, what was it, one or 2 days ago. So you just demonstrated you have more patience with Kumar than me.

Chuckle...you have more exposure. I haven't replied to him in weeks. It's like radiation. I have had a lower dose due to distance and time exposed...

 

[Donks]

If he would have added/contributrd anything to my knowledge, I would have cared. But Why should I? When he says 30-50% possibilities, tests should be simple.

You should care when people try to offer you help. Vikram offered you a protocol for homeopathy. If you cared, you'd try to understand it.

 

[Kumar]

Donks,

No some people just try to justify themselves or to their pro-systems, not to contribute anything.

 

[Rolfe]

No some people just try to justify themselves or to their pro-systems, not to contribute anything.

I don't think I've ever met anyone quite so resolutely determined not to take in anything contrary to their pre-set beliefs. It's really quite uncanny.

Kumar, the statistics of Vikram's protocol were such that passing it would be (subject to JREF approval) sufficient to pass the JREF preliminary test. If you were really interested, you'd try to think about it and understand why.

But no, you just instinctively realise that this is beyond your capabilities, and suggest an alternative in which a pass is achievable simply by chance. Which, funnily enough, wouldn't win you anything.

Either try to understand the statistics for yourself, or accept what is told to you by those who do. Or find yourself on even more ignore lists.

By the way, Vikram, while debating with that idiot Michael Anda about the GSIC, Kramer confirmed that for a simple yes/no determination, 9 correct out of 10 would be acceptable for the preliminary phase. So if he sticks by that, the same would presumably apply to a yes/no identification of a potentised remedy.

My own preferred protocol, for simplicity, would be for the applicant to state what remedy they wanted, then to be given either that or a placebo, in whatever quantity they stipulated. Then they can do what they like to tell if they've been given the real thing or not. Repeat ten times - it can be the same remedy each time, or different ones, and the method used (proving, trial on selected patients, NMR, mass spectroscopy, whatever) can be the same or different every time. Just get it right 9 times, and you've passed the preliminary.

Given that from the claims they make, any homoeopath should be able to do this with the greatest of ease, you can only wonder why they're not queueing up.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

I don't think I've ever met anyone quite so resolutely determined not to take in anything contrary to their pre-set beliefs. It's really quite uncanny.

Kumar, the statistics of Vikram's protocol were such that passing it would be (subject to JREF approval) sufficient to pass the JREF preliminary test. If you were really interested, you'd try to think about it and understand why.

But no, you just instinctively realise that this is beyond your capabilities, and suggest an alternative in which a pass is achievable simply by chance. Which, funnily enough, wouldn't win you anything.

Either try to understand the statistics for yourself, or accept what is told to you by those who do. Or find yourself on even more ignore lists.

By the way, Vikram, while debating with that idiot Michael Anda about the GSIC, Kramer confirmed that for a simple yes/no determination, 9 correct out of 10 would be acceptable for the preliminary phase. So if he sticks by that, the same would presumably apply to a yes/no identification of a potentised remedy.

My own preferred protocol, for simplicity, would be for the applicant to state what remedy they wanted, then to be given either that or a placebo, in whatever quantity they stipulated. Then they can do what they like to tell if they've been given the real thing or not. Repeat ten times - it can be the same remedy each time, or different ones, and the method used (proving, trial on selected patients, NMR, mass spectroscopy, whatever) can be the same or different every time. Just get it right 9 times, and you've passed the preliminary.

Given that from the claims they make, any homoeopath should be able to do this with the greatest of ease, you can only wonder why they're not queueing up.

Rolfe.

Rolfe,

As I discussed previously, these remedies are very delicate & can be effective, if you open your mouth completely to these with belief & hunger. When you insist repeated tests from same remedy at a given time, 2nd remedy dose may not be as effective or show symptoms as 1st dose is showing(refer law of minimum dose). Furthur repeated applications in blank or remedy may loose hunger, belief or 'open the mouth effect'. Just consider cephalic phase effect, it may dimnish by repeated/excess foods. I have mentioned many scientific laws, whose words also justify that effects are not similar in repeated/excess dose. Moreover some homeopathic effects can be bit 'skocking type effects' which may be lost if person previously knows/experianced it recently. So repeatitions, excess doses, more remedies/blanks ratios than 1:1 ratio etc. can mislead the real results.

But I don't think that 1:1 ratio with 30-50% positive verbal reports can not be acceptable for the prize, because this can also be treated as 'by chance'. But since it was indicated during THESE DISCUSSIONS & still got me exicited, I reacted accordingly.

Then, it tells that:
Due to less preferances, means, supports etc. are given to "other systems", those may not have so much dicipilined/tuned results/theories as modern systems can have. So their 30 to 50% positives or in ratio, these are supported in comparisn to modern systems, should/can be treated as valid. BUT????

 

[Rolfe]

When you insist repeated tests from same remedy at a given time, 2nd remedy dose may not be as effective or show symptoms as 1st dose is showing(refer law of minimum dose). Furthur repeated applications in blank or remedy may loose hunger, belief or 'open the mouth effect'.

And just where did I suggest that you had to do repeated tests on the same remedy, or do the tests at a set time, or indeed that the ratio of real remedies to blanks wasn't 50-50?

Your pathetic stream of excuses for the self-evident fact that your pet remedies do absolutely nothing is simply embarrassing.

Rolfe.