Moleculer Side of Homeopathy?

[Pixel42]

When Hahneman made up homeopathy it was not yet known that dilutions as weak as the ones he was using would not contain any of the original tincture because the nature of molecules had not yet been discovered. So it was not that unreasonable to assume that you could dilute as many times as you liked and still have something more than the solvent left. It was the discoveries about molecules that put paid to any idea of there being a scientific basis to the claims for homeopathy and moved it firmly into "magic potion" territory.

So no, there is no "Molecular Side of Homeopathy". The very existence of molecules is a piece of evidence against it.

 

[Norman Alexander]

When Hahneman made up homeopathy it was not yet known that dilutions as weak as the ones he was using would not contain any of the original tincture because the nature of molecules had not yet been discovered. So it was not that unreasonable to assume that you could dilute as many times as you liked and still have something more than the solvent left. It was the discoveries about molecules that put paid to any idea of there being a scientific basis to the claims for homeopathy and moved it firmly into "magic potion" territory.

So no, there is no "Molecular Side of Homeopathy". The very existence of molecules is a piece of evidence against it.

This happened at about the same time. When confronted with the evidence that his self-vaunted homeopathy was tosh, Hahnemann had a giant hissy-fit and rewrote his major tome to say that he was right all along because he was being persecuted by his "enemies" who just wanted to take over his medical business. He called them "allopaths", a term he invented that was as inaccurate as it was irrelevant.

 

[Mojo]

Pls provide specific evidences that homeopathy fail to work by using molecular remedies, as I anticipated(lower potencies and K method used).

There is no good evidence that any subtype of homoeopathy works. If you want to claim that some type does, it is up to you to present evidence for it. You can't reverse the burden of proof.

 

[Donn]

You can't reverse the burden of proof.

But he sure can burden the reverse of proof.

 

[Kumar]

When Hahneman made up homeopathy it was not yet known that dilutions as weak as the ones he was using would not contain any of the original tincture because the nature of molecules had not yet been discovered. So it was not that unreasonable to assume that you could dilute as many times as you liked and still have something more than the solvent left. It was the discoveries about molecules that put paid to any idea of there being a scientific basis to the claims for homeopathy and moved it firmly into "magic potion" territory.

So no, there is no "Molecular Side of Homeopathy". The very existence of molecules is a piece of evidence against it.

Whether potencies below 12C or 24X are not suggested in homeopathy and and considered as homeopathic healing agents?

Moreover I want to base current or updated understandings. Whatever was previous that was just a past and not A&F, may or may not be valid today.

 

[Kumar]

There is no good evidence that any subtype of homoeopathy works. If you want to claim that some type does, it is up to you to present evidence for it. You can't reverse the burden of proof.

No you are claiming homeopathy in any way don't work. Scientific presence of information in remedies remained a big issue(like memory of water). But when I am justifying molecular/information presence, still you are saying these also not work. Therefore the burden of proof for ineffectiveness of remedies with molecular presence is on you. Please provide.

 

[Kid Eager]

No you are claiming homeopathy in any way don't work. Scientific presence of information in remedies remained a big issue(like memory of water). But when I am justifying molecular/information presence, still you are saying these also not work. Therefore the burden of proof for ineffectiveness of remedies with molecular presence is on you. Please provide.

Memory of water was disproven ages ago.

Nice try on attempting to reverse the burden of proof, but not working.

This whole thread is another tedious attempt to back-construct an excuse for believing homoepathy works, despite it failing any and all impartial testing and being based on a flawed premise to start with.

 

[Norman Alexander]

No you are claiming homeopathy in any way don't work. Scientific presence of information in remedies remained a big issue(like memory of water). But when I am justifying molecular/information presence, still you are saying these also not work. Therefore the burden of proof for ineffectiveness of remedies with molecular presence is on you. Please provide.

I suspect what Kumar may be trying to say is about homeopathic remedies that are not high-dilution but low-dilution. That is, between 1X and about 14X in homeopath speak. Where molecules may still be present.

Kumar, these are what the rest of the world calls either "very weak tea" or "polluted water". Depending on the pollutant, they might have a good or bad effect. But most likely they will have no effect, I.e. they will be inert and harmless. But you do know this is exactly the thing Hahnemann would call isopathy, OK?

And again, it is not up to us to prove homeopathy does not work. It is up to homeopaths to prove it does. That's how medical testing works for all medicines. Homeopathy gets no special favours.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

How do you expect to "...discuss about posible [sic] science..." when you can't even understand the most basic of information.

My 8yr old great-niece understands the difference between milli and mega

Better would had been that you had told accordingly. I requested to be positive.

OK, Kumar, let's review.

Without being asked, you quoted yourself making an astoundingly ignorant statement. Furthermore, your ignorance was pointed out when you did it the first time

=abaddon;11229149]It suggests that you do not know SI notation.

which you acknowledged

Ok you can tell, what volt that link suggest about resting and action potential?

So, having acknowledged that your original statement showed that you are fundamentally ignorant about the basic notation used in science, which suggests that you have little or no actual scientific knowledge, you then trotted out the same bit of misunderstanding, and apparently expected us to swallow it because you "requested to be positive". In the name of "being positive" I will not go into a detailed analysis of your statement, except to mention that it would include terms like "arrogant" and "delusional".

Compared to what he might have said, EHocking was being positive.

 

[Kumar]

I suspect what Kumar may be trying to say is about homeopathic remedies that are not high-dilution but low-dilution. That is, between 1X and about 14X in homeopath speak. Where molecules may still be present.

For the time being, I am considering upto 12C and 24X potencies and higher ones in which molecular presence may be possible due to separation of adsorbed molecules on walls of glass vials esp when same vial is used for every step of potentization process.

Kumar, these are what the rest of the world calls either "very weak tea" or "polluted water". Depending on the pollutant, they might have a good or bad effect. But most likely they will have no effect, I.e. they will be inert and harmless. But you do know this is exactly the thing Hahnemann would call isopathy, OK?

No. Biphasic effect--high dose inhibition and low dose stimulation of physiological activities concept exist in science. I am not very sure, the way potentization process is practiced, if it bring some different or additional effects than just dilution effect. However anticipation and observation of effects of sub-molecular higher potencies can suggest that some different type or additional effects should also be present in every potentized remedy.

And again, it is not up to us to prove homeopathy does not work. It is up to homeopaths to prove it does. That's how medical testing works for all medicines. Homeopathy gets no special favours.

To know science of any system having mass presence, it is duty of science people to know its science to whom this duty and most means to do that are given.

 

[Kumar]

OK, Kumar, let's review.

Without being asked, you quoted yourself making an astoundingly ignorant statement. Furthermore, your ignorance was pointed out when you did it the first time



which you acknowledged



So, having acknowledged that your original statement showed that you are fundamentally ignorant about the basic notation used in science, which suggests that you have little or no actual scientific knowledge, you then trotted out the same bit of misunderstanding, and apparently expected us to swallow it because you "requested to be positive". In the name of "being positive" I will not go into a detailed analysis of your statement, except to mention that it would include terms like "arrogant" and "delusional".

Compared to what he might have said, EHocking was being positive.

Whatever. You can just correct, add and contribute ignoring my odds to be positive. If MV, mV, MeV, meV etc make difference, it is bit odd in look.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Whatever. You can just correct, add and contribute ignoring my odds to be positive. If MV, mV, MeV, meV etc make difference, it is bit odd in look.

Kumar, are you truly unaware of what you are saying? I mean, it would explain a lot. The difference between mV and MV, a factor of 1 billion, is the difference between 10C and 19C concentrations, or between 19C and 28C. To say that this makes no difference is to admit that homeopathy does not work, since changes in concentration have no effect.

I've got to hand it to you, I rarely run across someone so eager to declare that he is wrong. Good show, Kumar.

You see, I can be positive, if only you give me the chance.

 

[Kumar]

OK, Kumar, let's review.

Without being asked, you quoted yourself making an astoundingly ignorant statement. Furthermore, your ignorance was pointed out when you did it the first time


.

Ok, henceforth I shall refer this link:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units

 

[Kumar]

Wow.
Two posts back to back that contradict each other.

and then

How do you expect to "...discuss about posible [sic] science..." when you can't even understand the most basic of information.

My 8yr old great-niece understands the difference between milli and mega

Sorry, you was right. I taken otherwise. M or m though look small but big difference.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Sorry, you was right. I taken otherwise. M or m though look small but big difference.

Kumar, it's good of you to admit your mistake, but that does not change things. M or m do indeed look small, but make a big difference. The fact that you did not understand the difference in the first place establishes that, when it comes to science, you know far less than you wish to pretend to. This, in turn, means that your attempts to claim scientific validity for homeopathy are shown to be, well, pathetic. You clearly know little about science, and this establishes that your arguments are not based in (physical) reality.

For instance, the fact that you could not distinguish between mV and MV in measuring action potential shows definitively that you have no idea what action potential is, let alone how it is measured or what its effects are. Yet you pretended (at least by implication) that you did. This is not honest argument, and if you will not argue honestly you will not have much effect when you complain that you asked for "positive".

Ignorance is not, in principle, A & F, but if you will not learn your condition will not change.

 

[sackett]

But he sure can burden the reverse of proof.

Ban this man.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sorry, you was right. I taken otherwise. M or m though look small but big difference.

The problem is that you just read 70 million volts, and did not think twice about it.

Hans

 

[Cat Not Included]

I've begun collecting mice for the experiment. What homeo-pathically treatable condition will we inflict upon them to test this?

Dehydration.

 

[Ladewig]

I really thought that my knowledge of homeopathy was complete enough that it would be impossible for me to encounter something that would surprise me.

Carcinosin (derived from cancerous tissues, specifically breast cancer)

Following the link gave me:

People who benefit most from Carcinosin are those who are introverted, extremely sympathetic and touchy during their childhood. This type of children usually holds back their emotions, loathe being censured or scolded and can become offended easily. When they attain puberty, such children may often find it hard to restrict their sexual emotions. When they grow into adults, they have a propensity to be obsessive and habitually turn out to be workaholics, incessantly driving themselves to the limits. They may possibly have an intense yearning for traveling as well as thrill. Their desire for profound contentment may result in fatigue as well as ailments.​

As far as I am concerned Homeopathy's silliness just went from 18C to 19C.

 

[Reality Check]

No. Biphasic effect--high dose inhibition and low dose stimulation of physiological activities concept exist in science....

Kumar, repeating a fantasy about a "biphasic effect" does not make it exist !
Citing the definition of "biphasic effect" makes it exist.
Citing the literature on "biphasic effect" makes it exist.