What is paranormal in Homeopathy

[Ashles]

Ladies, gentlemen, Dr MAS.

We are posting far too much. If we're gonna get any kind of answer out of this woo, we have to not make 50 posts every time he gets asked a question.

I suggest starting a new thread where one person talks to him. Or perhaps his question/answer session is done in private messages with someone, then posted to a forum.

Excellent idea.

Maybe someone could start a new thread solely for Dr MAS where he can outline his explanation of homeopathy.
Maybe that person could recommmend that no-one else post in the thread until Dr MAS posts his explanation.

I'm sure he'd visit a thread like that in a flash.

Oh, hang on...

 

[DavoMan]

I'm just wondering if he's been put off by all the text. I know its made it hard for me to follow the thread at least. Well....that and all the maths.

 

[Ashles]

I'm just wondering if he's been put off by all the text. I know its made it hard for me to follow the thread at least. Well....that and all the maths.

That's why I set up the other thread.

He didn't visit it once.

So I'm guessing it might not be all the text that is preventing Dr MAS from giving us his explanation of how homeopathy works.

What else could it be? Hmmm [strokes chin thoughtfully]...

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

[TapsScreen]Hello? Dr MAS, are you out there[/SqueezesBackDownThePhoneLine]

 

[Ashles]

deleted post

 

[flume]

[TapsScreen]Hello? Dr MAS, are you out there[/SqueezesBackDownThePhoneLine]

Uh.. time zones, Monkey. And he probably doesn't post from home.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm just wondering if he's been put off by all the text. I know its made it hard for me to follow the thread at least. Well....that and all the maths.

The problem is caused by him. He makes some half-baked post, asking a poorly-defined question with no clear point to it, then vanishes, leaving people to speculate about what he means and does he actually have any point at all that he ever plans on making.

If he really wanted to, he could post a clear explanation of what he's actually getting at, and so concentrate the minds wonderfully. But he just wants to be sly and oblique and obscure because he fondly thinks that makes him look clever.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Heck, I'll try it again.

Mas, suppose you start off with an initial preparation containing a substance which has some atom in it of an element other than hydrogen, oxygen and carbon (the atoms in a water/alcohol mixture). There must be a finite number of these atoms, agreed?

When you make your serial dilutions, all that is added is water and alcohol, agreed? Which contain no atoms other than hydrogen, oxygen and carbon, agreed?

So, however you organise it, lets say that you divide the original preparation into ten times as many parts as there were atoms of the element we first thought of. We haven't added any more of these atoms, agreed? And atoms are not split during homoeopathic preparation, agreed?

So, only one tenth of the parts that we now have can possibly have an atom of that element in it, agreed? No matter what compound it is incorporated into? Yes? You with me so far?

Therefore the other nine-tenths of the parts have none of these atoms from the original mother tincture, agreed? No matter what other compounds they might contain, agreed?

So, not all the parts contains any of the original mother tincture. And the further you divide the preparation, the smaller will be the percentage of parts which does, agreed? Until you get to the point where that percentage is infinitesimally small, agreed?

So, this is in essence why we declare that there is none of the original mother tincture in the 30C remedy - or at least any bottle of it we are likely to pick up.

Could you explain where you disagree with this, please? And still maintain that any bottle of a 30C remedy I happen to pick up is expected to "work"?

No matter how you slice it, shorn of the arithmetic, and regardless of any reactions that might take place during the dilution, that's the logic you have to refute.

Carry on....

Rolfe.

 

[marcchem]

Heck, I'll try it again.

Mas, suppose you start off with an initial preparation containing a substance which has some atom in it of an element other than hydrogen, oxygen and carbon (the atoms in a water/alcohol mixture). There must be a finite number of these atoms, agreed?

When you make your serial dilutions, all that is added is water and alcohol, agreed? Which contain no atoms other than hydrogen, oxygen and carbon, agreed?

So, however you organise it, lets say that you divide the original preparation into ten times as many parts as there were atoms of the element we first thought of. We haven't added any more of these atoms, agreed? And atoms are not split during homoeopathic preparation, agreed?

So, only one tenth of the parts that we now have can possibly have an atom of that element in it, agreed? No matter what compound it is incorporated into? Yes? You with me so far?

Therefore the other nine-tenths of the parts have none of these atoms from the original mother tincture, agreed? No matter what other compounds they might contain, agreed?

So, not all the parts contains any of the original mother tincture. And the further you divide the preparation, the smaller will be the percentage of parts which does, agreed? Until you get to the point where that percentage is infinitesimally small, agreed?

So, this is in essence why we declare that there is none of the original mother tincture in the 30C remedy - or at least any bottle of it we are likely to pick up.

Could you explain where you disagree with this, please? And still maintain that any bottle of a 30C remedy I happen to pick up is expected to "work"?

No matter how you slice it, shorn of the arithmetic, and regardless of any reactions that might take place during the dilution, that's the logic you have to refute.

Carry on....

Rolfe.

Sorry for the quote but I thought this deserved repeating . . .

The fundamental problem for homeopathy, as far as I'm concerned, is their total lack of a coherent theory that explains not only WHY it works but (a) makes testable predictions about how to create new remedies AND (b) explains why the process in (a) is superior to Allopathy. Well, and the fact that double blind tests show no greater effect than placebo . . .

If you want to walk down the path I'm guessing Kumar wants to take and "wave the hands and somehow enough good stuff remains", why not cut to the chase and (1) figure out how much that quantity really is and (2) make the solution correctly? I work for a well-known pharmaceutical company doing compound identification for lead discovery. I work with exact concentrations every day and the team I work on religiously follows the biological tests. No mercy, relatively speaking, is given to sloppy procedures and mistakes - we double and triple check EVERYTHING. Then the follow up testers down the line try to shoot our work full of holes. Its the whole "drive the theory into the brick wall" thing.

Trust me, if I let a contaminant get by or become sloppy in doing serial dilutions, it'll get caught. Molecules do not magically get drawn to glass so they can stick through multiple washings and then somehow magically come off right when someone decides to take a swig. I work a LOT with specially prepared silica that have special properties due to the process by which the particles are made. I get to spend a good chunk of time evaluating columns with these materials to determine which ones we will use for purifications and analytical work. I could bore everyone with the theory behind thin layer chromatography and why certain types of compounds will be retained when exposed to a certain mix of solvents but will later begin to elute with a different mix of solvents. Glass does not behave this way, even if it is composed of silica (mostly). Its like saying diamonds and graphite are going to behave the same because they both are composed of carbon.

The "silica" used in chromatography has pores introduced deliberately during manufacture - glass is an amorphous solid that might have surface defects but they aren't the same thing at all. The pores are there to increase surface area for molecules to be attracted to special "binding sites", not to hold a molecule in. I'll skip the theory for now, but the science behind what to attach to treated silica in order to retain certain types of compound while letting others pass on is over 30 years old and has extensive literature. Its quite neat, but then I'm a chemist.

Rolfe (and pretty well much everyone else for that matter, except Kumar) have hit the nail on the head so many times I can't see it anymore. The effect of a compound with medicinal properties increases as the amount increases, period. Well, up to the point where toxicity comes into play but that still confirms the previous point. Decades of double blind tests confirm this, just ask the FDA (oh noes, the evil FDA allopathic overlords!). If we didn't have to do pesky animal testing then toxicology then suitable human dosing THEN phase one through three DBT and then take a chance on long term effects showing up and getting a product pulled from the market, oh like the homeopaths say.

Sorry to make this longer and longer and longer but I'll be happy to answer any questions after class. I'm sure this is where Kumar comes in . . .

Marc

 

[Rolfe]

I work a LOT with specially prepared silica that have special properties due to the process by which the particles are made. I get to spend a good chunk of time evaluating columns with these materials to determine which ones we will use for purifications and analytical work. I could bore everyone with the theory behind thin layer chromatography and why certain types of compounds will be retained when exposed to a certain mix of solvents but will later begin to elute with a different mix of solvents. Glass does not behave this way, even if it is composed of silica (mostly). Its like saying diamonds and graphite are going to behave the same because they both are composed of carbon.

The "silica" used in chromatography has pores introduced deliberately during manufacture - glass is an amorphous solid that might have surface defects but they aren't the same thing at all. The pores are there to increase surface area for molecules to be attracted to special "binding sites", not to hold a molecule in. I'll skip the theory for now, but the science behind what to attach to treated silica in order to retain certain types of compound while letting others pass on is over 30 years old and has extensive literature. Its quite neat, but then I'm a chemist.

Oh, carry on, Marc. A discussion of this aspect is as close as we're likely to get to sense in this thread.

Kumar has posted a picture of a TLC plate at least once and asked for comment, as if he'd just pulled a rabbit out of a hat. Nobody has had the stamina to have a go at him about it. Be my guest....

Rolfe.

 

[marcchem]

Oh, carry on, Marc. A discussion of this aspect is as close as we're likely to get to sense in this thread.

Kumar has posted a picture of a TLC plate at least once and asked for comment, as if he'd just pulled a rabbit out of a hat. Nobody has had the stamina to have a go at him about it. Be my guest....

Rolfe.

Ok with me, but I have a date so it'll be awhile . . . You should ask Kumar if he was sure it was silica on that plate, it might have been an alumina TLC not that it really matters. Unless you are obsessed with "silicic acid", which is another story (yes, it exists, sort of - its just hydrated silicon dioxide. Its used in the oil drilling business among other things.).

Marc

P.S. I'm assuming leaving homework for the class isn't a good idea, Dr. MAS seems to have forgotten to do his.

 

[Homeo Man]

I think, there is some confusion. You can obtain rules by writing a letter at his clinic address. He has no web site.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I think, there is some confusion. You can obtain rules by writing a letter at his clinic address. He has no web site.

Oh, for pity's sake, will you stop wittering about the terms of the discussion and that nonsensical challenge and just answer a simple question. As ever with you people you'll do anything to avoid the real issues.

it looks to me that the Pakistani contingent, MAS, HomeoMan, whoever, can't answer questions about the simple arithmetic of homeopathic dilutions, which is appalling, but not surprising.

Are you sure you are a homeopath not someone posting in the guise of a homeopath deliberately to make them look like deceitful fools?

Ah, well, for what it's worth, let's just repeat one version of the questions you have so abjectly failed to answer.

Wrong? Please go back to the simple questions of arithmetic I gave you some time back. Even if there is a chemical reaction between solvent and solute the atoms of the solute are still present in exactly the same numbers but at 100th the concentration after the first dilution.

If there was a chemical reaction between solvent and solute, the number of solute molecules will be different. But the reaction products will be present at 100th the concentration of the original solute.

You now discard 99/100 of the solution and add the 1 part to 99 parts of solvent.

How many solute atoms and molecules are there after this dilution? You are free to answer on the assumption that all the solute molecules react with solvent, or that none do, or that any intermediate proportion do.

 

[Donks]

Are you sure you are a homeopath not someone posting in the guise of a homeopath deliberately to make them look like deceitful fools?

I'm starting to think that HomeoMan is Kumar.

 

[Dr. MAS]

Badly shaved,

I am following what you are writing.

Give me time.

 

[Kumar]

I'm starting to think that HomeoMan is Kumar.

Do science people also assume? Till date all or most of your assumptions are FAKE as science people are not entitled to assume.

Have you seen quality of equations given by me as example?

Ashles,

Better idea. Dr. Mas is a busy person. He is also a one of the most inteligent & bold person. He is also a much respected person. He is also a much social animal(don't mind Dr.Mas- in sense of humans are also animals). He is also a educated person holding many degrees & credits. Moreover he is also a good, spritual, believer(?), helpfull type person. He also know much about homeopathy by symptoms & science.

Why to make him so engaged & devoid us to get real/required knowledge. Better open a new thread on his any aspect or post & you people only(not Dr.Mas, Homeo Man..) discuss & settle among yorselves first. Then you may post a summary/conclusion in his thread--so that he can atleast read & reply. I faced this problem & got exhauted/frustruted/fed up/devoid...etc. This is my "practical experiance" but anyhow, I could be able to manage so much/most time on many TTTT, DTT, UTT...but got frustrated & confused so become also 'other type or addictive'. I have mentioned few scientific laws somewhat to this effect. "Excess of everything is said to be bad" which can make you addictive & frustrated--telling by my personal experiance. Just give him some rest to read & write. Sorry if otherwise.

 

[Ashles]

[BWhy to make him so engaged & devoid us to get real/required knowledge. Better open a new thread on his any aspect or post & you people only(not Dr.Mas, Homeo Man..) discuss & settle among yorselves first. Then you may post a summary/conclusion in his thread--so that he can atleast read & reply. I faced this problem & got exhauted/frustruted/fed up/devoid...etc. This is my "practical experiance" but anyhow, I could be able to manage so much/most time on many TTTT, DTT, UTT...but got frustrated & confused so become also 'other type or addictive'. I have mentioned few scientific laws somewhat to this effect. "Excess of everything is said to be bad" which can make you addictive & frustrated--telling by my personal experiance. Just give him some rest to read & write. Sorry if otherwise. [/B]

Well he's had since the 15th of April to answer my request for an explanation about how homeopathy works.
How much rest does he need?
Just how busy is his social life?

 

[Rolfe]

Badly shaved,

I am following what you are writing.

Give me time.

Mas, just get on with it. Either explain in your own words exactly what mechanism you are proposing for the persistence of some of the mother tincture in all bottles of a 30C remedy, or explain in what way our explanations of why there isn't any of the mother tincture in the overwhelming majority of these bottles is wrong.

You implied when you came here that you had a complete explanation ready to present. You have been shown many times that there are many well-educated and scientifically-literate people here who will be easily able to understand a valid explanation.

What's stopping you?

Rolfe.

 

[Ashles]

Mas, just get on with it. Either explain in your own words exactly what mechanism you are proposing for the persistence of some of the mother tincture in all bottles of a 30C remedy, or explain in what way our explanations of why there isn't any of the mother tincture in the overwhelming majority of these bottles is wrong.

You implied when you came here that you had a complete explanation ready to present. You have been shown many times that there are many well-educated and scientifically-literate people here who will be easily able to understand a valid explanation.

What's stopping you?

Rolfe.

Dr. MAS, if you need somehere to post your full explanation

May I recommend this thread

I really would like to hear it.

 

[Zep]

Give me time.

I thought you were a double PhD and had all the answers ready at your fingertips except that you thought that we wouldn't understand them if you explained. I thought this was "going back to basics" for you, to the start of your studies in chemistry. So easy, TOO easy for you. You were going to show us all how wrong we were. You were going to show us how the "Probability Law" (which particular one about probability wasn't stated) would prove us all instantly wrong.

So, we wait...








Well, Dr MAS? How long SHOULD we wait? A day? A week? A year? I received clear, knowledgeable, VALID answers to my own chemistry questions here in under 12 hours. You, Dr MAS, seem to have a problem with responding just in a timely fashion, let alone with coherent arguments about homeopathy. So far you have demonstrated you DON'T have a logical understanding of the very subjects you claim shows homeopathy is viable. Not a good spokesperson, are you...