What is paranormal in Homeopathy

[MRC_Hans]

This seems to be merely another evasion, by moving the goal posts.

You know, it started as: "Just do a proving of a remedy of your own choice and you will know how homeopathy works."

So some of us did. Nothing happened.

So then it was: "You need to take it for a loong time."

So some did. Nothing happened.

So then it was: "You have to read the Organon of Medicine".

So we did. No enlightment that way.

So now it is: "You need to take a four-year course".

Enough is enough.

(and I'm even leaving out some of the more absurd demands, like Hans Weitbrecht suggesting that a group of skeptics took 10gram doses of X1 Arsenicum, Belladonna, Nitricum acidum, Secale cornutum, or Agaricus.)

Hans

 

[Donks]

Becuase you were willing to know how does homeopathy work?

You started with "Because" which led me to believe you were answering me. But then you strung a bunch of words that didn't actually answer my question, they would answer a question like "Why did I take a homeopathy course?" And the, to top it all off you ended with an interrogation sign. So you obviously weren't answering my question, you were trying to divert attention. Why?

 

[Homeo Man]

Why would I need to take 4 years of a course to be able to win the million rupees?

because. It was you who desired to know. "how does homeopathy work?"

 

[steenkh]

because. It was you who desired to know. "how does homeopathy work?"

Why should we want to know how homoeopathy works, when we already know that it does not work? Or can you point us to a valid scientific study that shows that it works?

It is the homoeopaths that come with an outrageous claim, so they should have the burden of proof, not us.

 

[Donks]

because. It was you who desired to know. "how does homeopathy work?"

You seem to be unable to answer my question. You can stop trying now.

 

[marcchem]

Vested interest! Vested interest! Nyah-nyah, I'm not listening. Vested interest!

Just kidding Cool post, welcome to the fray!

--Terry.

Terry:

Actually its "Neener-neerer-neerer" with a raspberry on top. Get with the program! Thanks fot he welcome, been too busy doing work to have time for relaxing.

Marc

 

[marcchem]

which proof? working of below 18x or above 18x?

Dr. MAS:

Well, since I'm a chemist who works in the Pharma industry, you shouldn't be surprised if I ask "how about both"?

Remember, we have no issue with something being extremely potent AS LONG AS something is really there. As in "I can prove it using modern analytical techniques and bio-assays." Many compounds can have an effect on cell growth and reproduction at very low concentrations, I doubt you will find many people arguing that point. You don't seem to recognize that effectiveness will reach a peak at a certain concentration then will decrease as concentration decreases. Its up to you to answer the many questions practically the whole JREF board it seems has asked you . . .

I used to do cell-based assay work at a previous job which involved a cancer cell line with standard 96 well plates. I checked probably over a thousand compounds and crude extracts from marine natural sources. For some strange reason, I never saw more cancer cells killed as we diluted the sample from well to well, care to offer an explanation?

As for the above 18C dilutions (I'd prefer sticking with one notation, by the way, so I don't get confused - its bad enough that I might just need to take a class Homeopathic Mumbo-Jumbo 101), you seem to think something is still there - do you have any evidence other than people thinking they got better? Maybe a few peer reviewed papers to look up? Thanks!

Oh, by the way, try reading up on Avogadro's number, you seem to have a problem with understanding it is a numerical constant. Just for fun, lets see if you can give us a correct definition. It shouldn't be too hard, I'm assuming you know about www.google.com. Try "I'm feeling lucky today!"

Marc (not a doctor in real life nor on TV, just annoyed like one)

 

[marcchem]

Oh OH OH, paranormal defination is still not clear. Your forum pages say, it is very difficult to define. What is paranormal in homeopathy is still not clear

Dr. MAS:

There are 2 answers to your question, please pay attention:
1) Most people here believe the is nothing paranormal about Homeopathy because Homeopathy isn't real. Its like asking whether Santa Claus is paranormal, its an illogical question because it makes an incorrect assumption. So far you haven't said anythin to refute this belief;
2) If Homeopathy really did exist and perform as advertised, then a case could be made that it is "paranormal" because it would violate our current understanding on how to treat illnesses in humans. Of course, there is the little problem of proof, which leads us back to #1

So, Dr. MAS, got any evidence?

Note we aren't looking for anecdotes or assurances from some "authority." I'm quite familiar with the Placebo effect and spontaneous remission, thanks for asking. Let's try something I could take to a CEO of a fairly large Pharma firm (who as an aside has more real degrees than you do) and convince him to spend ten of millions for further research. I hear you have a cure for AIDs, that would do nicely for a start . . .

Marc

P.S. Going to answer anyone's questions? Just thought I'd ask.

 

[Non-Sense Homeopath]

Then this very simple you prove this statement "homeopathy is paranormal" and win one million rs. which his club is offering under the control of court stamp papers. Go ahead.

 

[steenkh]

Then this very simple you prove this statement "homeopathy is paranormal" and win one million rs. which his club is offering under the control of court stamp papers. Go ahead.

You know that we have already in the other thread explained that it is only the theory of homoeopathy that is paranormal. The practise follows the normal rules of physics, because no effect can be seen.

One does not need to have a fancy degree to show that homoeopathic theory is paranormal in the sense that it cannot be explained by physics. We have given countless examples of this in these threads, but you homoeopaths choose to ignore this by claiming that we need years of experience in homoeopathy or at least a Nobel prize or two under our belt before we are qualified to query homoeopathy.

Even the laughable prize that Dr. MAS has presented can only be won if you are a scholar backed by a number of universities, and the jury consists of convinced homoeopaths who have to rule against their own profession if the prize should ever be awarded. So Dr. MAS has pretty much ensured that nobody will ever win this prize.

Compare this to the JREF prize: Everybody can win the prize, they need not to be backed by any institutions, the parties conducting the test are independent and have no money at stake, and there is no judging: the result must be self-evident and agreed upon before the test.

If you homoeopathy is not paranormal, you can easily go and collect this prize. For instance, just prove in any way you want that there is a difference between a homoeopathic watery solution and pure water, and the money is yours.

Let us see a similar simple test from Dr. MAS, and we will go collect the money. Why does he want to keep his money by demanding university degrees and backing? Is he that unsure of his own position?

 

[Rolfe]

As for the above 18C dilutions (I'd prefer sticking with one notation, by the way, so I don't get confused - its bad enough that I might just need to take a class Homeopathic Mumbo-Jumbo 101), you seem to think something is still there -

I think you do need to get it straight.

The X series dilutes by a factor of 10 each time, the C series by a factor of 100. This makes quite a difference to the point at which Avogadro's limit is reached - 12 in the case of the C series, but 24 in the case of the X series. Therefore, 18C would be expected to have no solvent molecules in it, while 18X may well have a low concentration of the mother tincture.

Dr. Mas and his mates/socks seem to have a bit of a confusion between the concept of the presence of some molecules of the mother tincture, and the remedy "working". We state categorically that ultramolar (beyond Avogadro's limit) preparations have nothing in them but the stock solvent, thereofre there isn't even the theoretical possibility of anything having any effect. The "low-potency" (paradoxically the more concentrated) preparations are a slightly different matter. Because they contain some molecular presence we concede a theoretical possibility that there may be some pharmacological activity there. Mas seems to interpret that as an admission that they "work".

Not at all. First, they are still so dilute that the chances of there being enough of anything to do anything noticeable aren't high, and second, we see no evidence at all that these random tinctures of various plants and stuff actually do produce these miracle cures that you keep claiming.

The real difference is that if an effect was observed of one of these low-potency preparations, it would not necessarily be paranormal. It would merely be an example of herbal medicine. We don't in any way concede that there are such effects, in fact we observe none, but we simply remark that discussion of this aspect is outwith the strict confines of the paranormal challenge.

However, we note that in fact the vast majority of the preparations used by professional homoepaths are quite silly dilutions (30C seems to be considered "intermediate potency" and 200C is often encountered). Therefore, I personally would quite like to shelve the question of the weak plant tinctures of 18X or 6X or whatever, and concentrate on the nonsense-statements being made for the content-free "miracle cures".

Rolfe.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Then this very simple you prove this statement "homeopathy is paranormal" and win one million rs. which his club is offering under the control of court stamp papers. Go ahead.

Wellcome to my ignore list. You have shown yourself to be an uninteresting troll (or more likely, a sockpuppet troll).

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Excellent sum-up, Rolfe .

Read and memorize, MAS.

(I have decided to drop the "Dr", until such time as Mr. MAS does something to merit such a title in my book)

Hans

 

[Ashles]

Then this very simple you prove this statement "homeopathy is paranormal" and win one million rs. which his club is offering under the control of court stamp papers. Go ahead.

As has been explained to you....

The only person who could feasibly win the homeopathic One Million Rupees challenge is basically a homeopath, by actually getting homeopathy to work. That would be a paranormal event and would thus demonstrate that homeopathy is paranormal.

Of course if they can do then they would be better off applying for the One Million Dollar challenge.

Does it genuinely not strike you in any way strange that a Homeopathic Organisation has decide to create a challenge for anyone to demonstrate that homeopathy acually works?

If any homeopath can actually make homeopathy work they win the NCHPakistan One Million Rupees!

Still, on the plus side, it looks like your money is safe.

 

[wahrheit]

*snip* The real difference is that if an effect was observed of one of these low-potency preparations, it would not necessarily be paranormal. It would merely be an example of herbal medicine. *snip*

Which reminds me of a widespread misconception when talking to people who say they use homeopathy. Almost everyone of them speaks of it as "natural", "herbal", "complementary", "gentle" etc.

None of them, which I talked to about homeopathy, actually knew what homeopathy is.

And regarding the "herbal" stuff, they completely ignore that an endless number of real pharmaceutical remedies (the bad bad pills from the chemical factory) were nothing but the result of studying plants, herbs etc., picking the best stuff from it (or synthesizing it) but trying to avoid the plant's other substances not needed for the remedy (or even causing unwanted side-effects). Oh, I forgot: A synthesized substance is bad by definition, seems to be a similar logic they use when saying that regular salt from the supermarket is chemical crap whereas some dirty (and expensive) chunks of Himalaya-salt are "natural" salt. When you ask them to tell you how the human body is supposed to know the difference between NaCl and NaCl, they don't answer.

All this "herbal = good, gentle, little to none side-effect" thinking is so silly when you consider that some of the most poisonous substances on this planet come from plants, and that effect is a matter of concentration of substances. But as we know, many people just don't care about concentration, dilution etc. of ingredients in medicine.

 

[marcchem]

I think you do need to get it straight.

The X series dilutes by a factor of 10 each time, the C series by a factor of 100. This makes quite a difference to the point at which Avogadro's limit is reached - 12 in the case of the C series, but 24 in the case of the X series. Therefore, 18C would be expected to have no solvent molecules in it, while 18X may well have a low concentration of the mother tincture.

Dr. Mas and his mates/socks seem to have a bit of a confusion between the concept of the presence of some molecules of the mother tincture, and the remedy "working". We state categorically that ultramolar (beyond Avogadro's limit) preparations have nothing in them but the stock solvent, thereofre there isn't even the theoretical possibility of anything having any effect. The "low-potency" (paradoxically the more concentrated) preparations are a slightly different matter. Because they contain some molecular presence we concede a theoretical possibility that there may be some pharmacological activity there. Mas seems to interpret that as an admission that they "work".

Not at all. First, they are still so dilute that the chances of there being enough of anything to do anything noticeable aren't high, and second, we see no evidence at all that these random tinctures of various plants and stuff actually do produce these miracle cures that you keep claiming.

The real difference is that if an effect was observed of one of these low-potency preparations, it would not necessarily be paranormal. It would merely be an example of herbal medicine. We don't in any way concede that there are such effects, in fact we observe none, but we simply remark that discussion of this aspect is outwith the strict confines of the paranormal challenge.

However, we note that in fact the vast majority of the preparations used by professional homoepaths are quite silly dilutions (30C seems to be considered "intermediate potency" and 200C is often encountered). Therefore, I personally would quite like to shelve the question of the weak plant tinctures of 18X or 6X or whatever, and concentrate on the nonsense-statements being made for the content-free "miracle cures".

Rolfe.

Rolfe:

Sorry if I came across as confused, thats normal for me!

I am aware of all of this and I certainly wasn't making any claims for any "18X" or whatever. I couldn't remember off the top of my head what "X" and "C" stood for (I was assuming X=2 fold dilution and C = 10 fold), so I chose to play it safe.

I used to do natural products research at Scripps Inst. of Oceanography with some of the brightest people I've ever met. Hopefully I'm not embarrassing them by opening my big mouth . . .

Marc

 

[marcchem]

Which reminds me of a widespread misconception when talking to people who say they use homeopathy. Almost everyone of them speaks of it as "natural", "herbal", "complementary", "gentle" etc.

None of them, which I talked to about homeopathy, actually knew what homeopathy is.

And regarding the "herbal" stuff, they completely ignore that an endless number of real pharmaceutical remedies (the bad bad pills from the chemical factory) were nothing but the result of studying plants, herbs etc., picking the best stuff from it (or synthesizing it) but trying to avoid the plant's other substances not needed for the remedy (or even causing unwanted side-effects). Oh, I forgot: A synthesized substance is bad by definition, seems to be a similar logic they use when saying that regular salt from the supermarket is chemical crap whereas some dirty (and expensive) chunks of Himalaya-salt are "natural" salt. When you ask them to tell you how the human body is supposed to know the difference between NaCl and NaCl, they don't answer.

All this "herbal = good, gentle, little to none side-effect" thinking is so silly when you consider that some of the most poisonous substances on this planet come from plants, and that effect is a matter of concentration of substances. But as we know, many people just don't care about concentration, dilution etc. of ingredients in medicine.

To add to this (If I might be rude for a moment):

I'm always amazed that people will happily swallow pills with "natural" herbal contents and yet will get pissed when they look at the contents listings for a medication or even a food product. I remember asking one whole foods fanatic I ran into who was raving about natural vs. synthetic if he even knew what was in that herbal remedy. When he showed me the label I asked him "Do you know what chemicals each plant is composed of?" He just wandered off muttering under his breath. Plants (and animals for that matter) are composed of thousands, maybe tens of thousands of compounds. Talk about drug-drug interactions . . .

The great thing about medicines is quality control - we known exactly what is in each of those pills and take great care to be sure that we can accurately describe side effects and possible issues to patients. No company likes to pull a major product off the shelves because they missed something. A part of my job is to help with quality control- identifying impurities from various reactions and trying to help devise ways to remove them. Its a very hard task, one that Mother Nature doesn't have to worry about.

If "natural" remedies had to go through the same processes that a "synthetic" medicinal remedy had to, I'd bet over 95% would dissappear. They would have too many safety issues and it would be too complex to list each possible biologically active compound in something like a plant leaf. Not to mention the quality control issue.

Marc

 

[Mojo]

I was assuming X=2 fold dilution and C = 10 fold

I assume the abbreviations X and C come from the Roman numerals for 10 and 100 (Roman numerals give things such an air of antiquity and authority, don't they? ).

 

[Kumar]

Originally posted by marcchem
To add to this (If I might be rude for a moment):

I'm always amazed that people will happily swallow pills with "natural" herbal contents and yet will get pissed when they look at the contents listings for a medication or even a food product. I remember asking one whole foods fanatic I ran into who was raving about natural vs. synthetic if he even knew what was in that herbal remedy. When he showed me the label I asked him "Do you know what chemicals each plant is composed of?" He just wandered off muttering under his breath. Plants (and animals for that matter) are composed of thousands, maybe tens of thousands of compounds. Talk about drug-drug interactions . . .

It is due to that these are "natural". We may be knowing or adapted/habitual to natural/herbal remedies. Anyway their pharmacological & toxicological knowledge is maintained in prescriptions--if any.

The great thing about medicines is quality control - we known exactly what is in each of those pills and take great care to be sure that we can accurately describe side effects and possible issues to patients. No company likes to pull a major product off the shelves because they missed something. A part of my job is to help with quality control- identifying impurities from various reactions and trying to help devise ways to remove them. Its a very hard task, one that Mother Nature doesn't have to worry about.

Because these are "synthetic" so "not natural" & we may not be enolved, adapted or habituated to these. So their unknown effects are to be strictly controled, researched, tested or studied--in advance. Still some practical & time testings can be lacking on their introductions.

If "natural" remedies had to go through the same processes that a "synthetic" medicinal remedy had to, I'd bet over 95% would dissappear. They would have too many safety issues and it would be too complex to list each possible biologically active compound in something like a plant leaf. Not to mention the quality control issue.


I doubt it. First, why sugar or sugar cane juice type natural substances are needed to be strictly controlled. Do you want to control sugar..because it is harmful to a diabetic? Secondly, no one can be given licence to kill--so all are taking care accordingly. Strict controls, tests & studies may be meant for 'substances with much adversities', synthetic, unnatural or NEW, not for 'substances with least/no/mormal adversities, natural, anciently used. If all type of healing substances are needed to be strictly controlled then all our inputs, food or otherwise should also be needed to be strictly controlled.

I think you are talking somewhat that, if police/deptts check every house they may find 95% irregularities. ???

 

[Mojo]

I doubt it. First, why sugar or sugar cane juice type natural substances are needed to be strictly controlled. Do you want to control sugar..because it is harmful to a diabetic? Secondly, no one can be given licence to kill--so all are taking care accordingly. Strict controls, tests & studies may be meant for 'substances with much adversities', synthetic, unnatural or NEW, not for 'substances with least/no/mormal adversities, natural, anciently used.

Nobody is suggesting that the supply of sugar (apart from in the form of homeopathic pills, of course ) or other foostuffs needs to be controlled, even if some people do need to control their diet. But substances with pharmacological effects are by their very nature hazardous, so need to be properly tested to ensure that their benefits outweigh the risks, and licenced as medicines so that the use of them can be regulated and controlled. This is true whether the substance is synthetic or natural in origin. Many naturally occurring substances are highly toxic.