Homeopathy- Is it really against Science?

[drgsrinivas]

Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of Homeopathy, set out its principles about 200 years ago. But these principles have eluded any logic, and the scientific community have discarded them as senseless. It survived these many long years only because of the anecdotal success stories. Unfortunately theses claims could not be consistently reproduced and hence many have labelled homeopathy as witchcraft.

Principles 'against' the Science:

1. The Law of Similars: The symptoms produced by giving large doses of a drug can be cured by giving the same drug in small doses. (Like cured by the like). Modern Medicine, though not convinced, has kept its cool on this principle because it appeared that it could be remotely possible.

2. The Dilution Principle: This is the one that has caused the most controversy and storm. It states that the potency of a homeopathic drug increases as it gets more diluted. All homeopathic remedies are diluted and succused a number of times to increase their potency. According to the concept of Avogadro' number, most homeopathic remedies are nothing but water. The active ingradient being diluted so much that none of its molecules could be present in most homeopathic preparations.

Simple to Complex:

Analyse the following examples-

1. Let’s imagine ‘food’ as a drug. If we give excess food to a healthy person, he or she develops a disease called ‘obesity’. Now if we give the same food in very small doses, it will cure the obesity. So the same drug i.e. ‘food’ if given in larger doses (than required) causes disease but when given in smaller doses can cure the same.

2. Now let’s take the example of hypernatremia (increased concentration of sodium in the blood). If we give large 'doses' of salt to a healthy person, he will develop hypernatremia. We can treat this condition by 'giving' the salt in very small doses until the sodium concentration comes down to the normal level. So, again here, a drug (salt) in excess doses is causing a disease that is cured by giving the same in very small doses.

In summery, the 2 fundamental principles of Homeopathy, which looked highly impossible, could be very much true!!!

1) Like cured by the like: Hypernatremia is cured by giving low salt

2) Small doses are more effective or powerful than large doses of a drug: The lower the dose of salt we give, the more effective it becomes in curing the hypernatremia.

3. A different scenario: Now let’s take the case of arsenic poisoning. Can we treat this condition by giving small doses of arsenic? Probably not. Because the body’s requirement for arsenic is almost zero, any amount of arsenic could only add to the toxicity.

If we have to give something to treat this condition, one logical option would be to give ‘plain water’ with zero arsenic. Do no harm policy! (In due course the body might get rid of the excess arsenic in its own way!)

Or else we have to imagine a hypothetical state of ‘negative arsenic solution’ in which the concentration of arsenic would be less than the zero!!! This negative solution of arsenic will obviously be more effective than the ‘plain water therapy’ in treating the arsenic poisoning. Also the more is its negativity; the more will be its efficacy.

So if at all there is a state of negative concentration or negative solution, then Homeopathy can be true.

What appears against science need not actually be. There could be fundamental flaws in what we presume as science.

Illiterate and the scientist:

If a scientist tells an illiterate country man that there is iron in the water he drinks every day, the illiterate will laugh at the scientist’s ‘madness’. To him iron is a hard metal that exists as rods, bolts and nuts etc only. If the scientist is true, the illiterate thinks he must be able to see at least small rods, nuts or bolts in the water.

If the country man is open minded, he can be enlightened and made to understand how the hard metal is ultimately made up of atoms and molecules and how these particles could be present in the water.

But if he is adamant about his stance, there is nothing one can do and no amount of scientific proof or evidence will convince him to his satisfaction that iron could be present in water. Despite his ignorance, we can’t under estimate his level of scientific knowledge because he knows much more than a toddler or a jungle man can grasp.

Many homeopathic physicians and patients have appreciated the effects of homeopathic remedies over the last 2 centuries, and they believe that the active substance does exist in some form in the ultra diluted homeopathic solutions.

But the scientist who is blinded by his own knowledge doesn’t believe this and hence not keen to explore homeopathy at all. To him a substance can only be said to exist in a solution if he can find its atoms or molecules (Like the illiterate country man who thinks iron means only rods, nuts and bolts).

One needs an open mind when exploring new concepts. If we think our knowledge is ultimate, then we become blinded by the same.

Atom as energy system:

Many think that an atom is nothing but a set of electrons revolving around the nucleus made up of protons and neutrons. It is like saying that the solar system is nothing but the Sun and the 8 planets revolving around it.
Can we ignore the various satellites, asteroids and the dust and most importantly the Energy that fills the solar system? Can the scientists say that a similar architecture doesn’t exist in an Atom? Solar system, atoms or molecules must be viewed as Energy systems and not as mere conglomerations of physical matter.

Size of an Atom:

Is it definite? Is there a definite border between the Atom and its surroundings? After years of debate, the scientists have decided that Pluto is not within the solar family. It is obviously an arbitrary demarcation in the watershed zone and it is difficult to imagine that the solar system has a definite border. It probably merges with its surroundings imperceptibly. The same is likely to be true with the atom.

The size of an Atom is likely to be influenced by its surroundings. It probably will contract and expand depending on whether or not there are similar particles around it.

Imagine that there is just one Atom in the entire space. What happens to it? The Atom will expand indefinitely. (It may still behave as the original Atom because the Energy pattern of the system as a whole is likely to remain unchanged) The Atom unwinds itself and finally merges with the ultimate Energy from which it is made of. If there is more of this Energy (derived from adding more and more of the same Atoms), the Energy ‘organises back’ or ‘rewinds’ to form the original Atoms.

Every substance will be in ‘dynamic equilibrium’ with the ultimate Energy state. When a substance is in rarity, it disintegrates towards this Energy state and when it is in plenty, the equilibrium point shifts the other way.

[kedo1981]

Yes it is

[Professor Yaffle]

Blah

Still doesn't work though.

[learner]

Someone eats too much food (not a drug) gets fat ( not a disease) Decrease food (calorie controlled diet) and they lose weight. The mind boggles.

[paximperium]

Nothing beats homeopathic apologetics. Nice cut and paste.

1. Let’s imagine ‘food’ as a drug. If we give excess food to a healthy person, he or she develops a disease called ‘obesity’. Now if we give the same food in very small doses, it will cure the obesity. So the same drug i.e. ‘food’ if given in larger doses (than required) causes disease but when given in smaller doses can cure the same.
False premise and absurd logic.


2. Now let’s take the example of hypernatremia (increased concentration of sodium in the blood). If we give large 'doses' of salt to a healthy person, he will develop hypernatremia. We can treat this condition by 'giving' the salt in very small doses until the sodium concentration comes down to the normal level. So, again here, a drug (salt) in excess doses is causing a disease that is cured by giving the same in very small doses.
False. Hypernatremia is very seldom caused by massive salt intake. It is more commonly caused by dehydration and hypernatremia is cured by drinking water, not giving small amounts of salt.


In summery, the 2 fundamental principles of Homeopathy, which looked highly impossible, could be very much true!!!
Wow its like magic!!!...oh wait, it isn't true...never mind.


1) Like cured by the like: Hypernatremia is cured by giving low salt
Nope. Hypernatremia is cured by treating the underlying cause of hypernatremia ie. dehydration.


2) Small doses are more effective or powerful than large doses of a drug: The lower the dose of salt we give, the more effective it becomes in curing the hypernatremia.
Nope because plain old water works even better and the primary treatment of hypernatremia is to give Normal Saline Solution


3. A different scenario: Now let’s take the case of arsenic poisoning. Can we treat this condition by giving small doses of arsenic? Probably not. Because the body’s requirement for arsenic is almost zero, any amount of arsenic could only add to the toxicity.
Ahhhh...the escape and special pleading begins.


If we have to give something to treat this condition, one logical option would be to give ‘plain water’ with zero arsenic. Do no harm policy! (In due course the body might get rid of the excess arsenic in its own way!)
False again. Water can be harmful. Arsenic is treated with a chelating agent. Your lack of action leads to harm.


Or else we have to imagine a hypothetical state of ‘negative arsenic solution’ in which the concentration of arsenic would be less than the zero!!! This negative solution of arsenic will obviously be more effective than the ‘plain water therapy’ in treating the arsenic poisoning. Also the more is its negativity; the more will be its efficacy.
Yes, its called BAL, a heavy metal chelating agent.


So if at all there is a state of negative concentration or negative solution, then Homeopathy can be true.
Wow...no.


What appears against science need not actually be. There could be fundamental flaws in what we presume as science.

Illiterate and the scientist:
Thus begins the ad homs, straw man and special pleading and other irrelevant garbage.


If a scientist tells an illiterate country man that there is iron in the water he drinks every day, the illiterate will laugh at the scientist’s ‘madness’.
<Snip>
But the scientist who is blinded by his own knowledge doesn’t believe this and hence not keen to explore homeopathy at all. To him a substance can only be said to exist in a solution if he can find its atoms or molecules (Like the illiterate country man who thinks iron means only rods, nuts and bolts).

Wow, what a big Special Pleading Straw Man you have there?


One needs an open mind when exploring new concepts.
Wow. Nice another nice straw man...oh by the way, how are you and your open mind?

If we think our knowledge is ultimate, then we become blinded by the same.
Hahahahahahahaha...the absurd irony and hypocrisy...


Atom as energy system:

Oh yeah, lets use the proper Definition of Energy.
Energy=Work(W)=Force(F)XDistance(D)

Lets place a game and replace all your "energy" with the proper definition and see if it makes sense.


<snip>
Every substance will be in ‘dynamic equilibrium’ with the ultimate Energy state. When a substance is in rarity, it disintegrates towards this Energy state and when it is in plenty, the equilibrium point shifts the other way.
Thanks for sharing a completely new form of unfounded form of pseudo-physics with no evidence and a rather retarded understanding of physics.

[cwalner]

[QUOTE=drgsrinivas;4006029]Size of an Atom:

Is it definite? Is there a definite border between the Atom and its surroundings? After years of debate, the scientists have decided that Pluto is not within the solar family. It is obviously an arbitrary demarcation in the watershed zone and it is difficult to imagine that the solar system has a definite border. It probably merges with its surroundings imperceptibly. The same is likely to be true with the atom.
[\QUOTE]

nice try, but no scientest ever said that Pluto was not within the solar family. They merely downgraded it from a planet to a planetoid. Scientists also know of many objects that are in the solar family but have such eccentric orbits that they travel much further from the sun than Pluto ever does (most well known example is Haley's comet). Therefore the reclassification of Pluto had no effect on how far out the solar system extends.

[fls]

Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of Homeopathy, set out its principles about 200 years ago. But these principles have eluded any logic, and the scientific community have discarded them as senseless. It survived these many long years only because of the anecdotal success stories. Unfortunately theses claims could not be consistently reproduced and hence many have labelled homeopathy as witchcraft.

Principles 'against' the Science:

1. The Law of Similars: The symptoms produced by giving large doses of a drug can be cured by giving the same drug in small doses. (Like cured by the like). Modern Medicine, though not convinced, has kept its cool on this principle because it appeared that it could be remotely possible.

2. The Dilution Principle: This is the one that has caused the most controversy and storm. It states that the potency of a homeopathic drug increases as it gets more diluted. All homeopathic remedies are diluted and succused a number of times to increase their potency. According to the concept of Avogadro' number, most homeopathic remedies are nothing but water. The active ingradient being diluted so much that none of its molecules could be present in most homeopathic preparations.

Simple to Complex:

Analyse the following examples-

1. Let’s imagine ‘food’ as a drug. If we give excess food to a healthy person, he or she develops a disease called ‘obesity’. Now if we give the same food in very small doses, it will cure the obesity. So the same drug i.e. ‘food’ if given in larger doses (than required) causes disease but when given in smaller doses can cure the same.

2. Now let’s take the example of hypernatremia (increased concentration of sodium in the blood). If we give large 'doses' of salt to a healthy person, he will develop hypernatremia. We can treat this condition by 'giving' the salt in very small doses until the sodium concentration comes down to the normal level. So, again here, a drug (salt) in excess doses is causing a disease that is cured by giving the same in very small doses.

In summery, the 2 fundamental principles of Homeopathy, which looked highly impossible, could be very much true!!!

1) Like cured by the like: Hypernatremia is cured by giving low salt

2) Small doses are more effective or powerful than large doses of a drug: The lower the dose of salt we give, the more effective it becomes in curing the hypernatremia.

3. A different scenario: Now let’s take the case of arsenic poisoning. Can we treat this condition by giving small doses of arsenic? Probably not. Because the body’s requirement for arsenic is almost zero, any amount of arsenic could only add to the toxicity.

If we have to give something to treat this condition, one logical option would be to give ‘plain water’ with zero arsenic. Do no harm policy! (In due course the body might get rid of the excess arsenic in its own way!)

Or else we have to imagine a hypothetical state of ‘negative arsenic solution’ in which the concentration of arsenic would be less than the zero!!! This negative solution of arsenic will obviously be more effective than the ‘plain water therapy’ in treating the arsenic poisoning. Also the more is its negativity; the more will be its efficacy.

So if at all there is a state of negative concentration or negative solution, then Homeopathy can be true.

What appears against science need not actually be. There could be fundamental flaws in what we presume as science.

Illiterate and the scientist:

If a scientist tells an illiterate country man that there is iron in the water he drinks every day, the illiterate will laugh at the scientist’s ‘madness’. To him iron is a hard metal that exists as rods, bolts and nuts etc only. If the scientist is true, the illiterate thinks he must be able to see at least small rods, nuts or bolts in the water.

If the country man is open minded, he can be enlightened and made to understand how the hard metal is ultimately made up of atoms and molecules and how these particles could be present in the water.

But if he is adamant about his stance, there is nothing one can do and no amount of scientific proof or evidence will convince him to his satisfaction that iron could be present in water. Despite his ignorance, we can’t under estimate his level of scientific knowledge because he knows much more than a toddler or a jungle man can grasp.

Many homeopathic physicians and patients have appreciated the effects of homeopathic remedies over the last 2 centuries, and they believe that the active substance does exist in some form in the ultra diluted homeopathic solutions.

But the scientist who is blinded by his own knowledge doesn’t believe this and hence not keen to explore homeopathy at all. To him a substance can only be said to exist in a solution if he can find its atoms or molecules (Like the illiterate country man who thinks iron means only rods, nuts and bolts).

One needs an open mind when exploring new concepts. If we think our knowledge is ultimate, then we become blinded by the same.

Atom as energy system:

Many think that an atom is nothing but a set of electrons revolving around the nucleus made up of protons and neutrons. It is like saying that the solar system is nothing but the Sun and the 8 planets revolving around it.
Can we ignore the various satellites, asteroids and the dust and most importantly the Energy that fills the solar system? Can the scientists say that a similar architecture doesn’t exist in an Atom? Solar system, atoms or molecules must be viewed as Energy systems and not as mere conglomerations of physical matter.

Size of an Atom:

Is it definite? Is there a definite border between the Atom and its surroundings? After years of debate, the scientists have decided that Pluto is not within the solar family. It is obviously an arbitrary demarcation in the watershed zone and it is difficult to imagine that the solar system has a definite border. It probably merges with its surroundings imperceptibly. The same is likely to be true with the atom.

The size of an Atom is likely to be influenced by its surroundings. It probably will contract and expand depending on whether or not there are similar particles around it.

Imagine that there is just one Atom in the entire space. What happens to it? The Atom will expand indefinitely. (It may still behave as the original Atom because the Energy pattern of the system as a whole is likely to remain unchanged) The Atom unwinds itself and finally merges with the ultimate Energy from which it is made of. If there is more of this Energy (derived from adding more and more of the same Atoms), the Energy ‘organises back’ or ‘rewinds’ to form the original Atoms.

Every substance will be in ‘dynamic equilibrium’ with the ultimate Energy state. When a substance is in rarity, it disintegrates towards this Energy state and when it is in plenty, the equilibrium point shifts the other way.

Character count, 6860 with spaces.

Homeopathy is a placebo.

Character count, 24 with spaces.

According to Occam's razor, I win.

Linda

[In My Spare Time]

3 pages of single spaced hand waving, yet somehow it remains nothing but water and when studied it remains exactly as effective as nothing but water. Perhaps all the analogies and such would be unnecessary if the author realized that it simply doesn't work. Knowing that it doesn't reduces the need for figuring out why it does after all.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. :jaw-dropp

[Twiler]

Red - Is it really green?

Throughout history there have been numerous people who have been unable to distinguish between red and green. These people have been often referred to as being 'colour-blind'. But could it be that it is we who are blind? What seems like regular perception could actually be a crazed drug trip!

Principles 'against' revised colour theory:

1. The Law of Minorities: As there are generally less people who perceive colours this way, it is tempting to think that the majority must be right. But many times in history the majority has been shown to be wrong. Modern ColourSeeingPeople might be inclined to consider the possibility that the minority are actually correct.

2. The ElectroMagneticBendiness principle: This is the one that has caused the most controversy and storm. As red light and green light are positioned differently in the electromagnetic spectrum, it doesn't seem possible that they can be identical.

Simple to complex:

Analyse the following examples-

1. Let's look at an object, then drink 5 bottles of vodka. Doesn't the object appear different? So, the appearance of objects can change.

2. Now let’s take the example of a man looking at a red ball. Beat him around the head with a stick, then ask if the ball is green. In most cases, after a few iterations, he will agree that the ball is green. So, we prove that red is green.

In wintery, the 2 fundamental principles of revised colour theory, which looked highly impossible, could be very much true!!!

1) Red is green: RED IS GREEN!!

2) Red is green?: Red is green!

3. A different scenario: Now let’s take the case of purple. Could red be purple? Probably not. Because purple already contains red.

(I'm tired. Wrapping up: )

[anti-intellectual stuff about scientists]

[inaccurate analogy]

[Ysidro]

Red - Is it really green?

Throughout history there have been numerous people who have been unable to distinguish between red and green. These people have been often referred to as being 'colour-blind'. But could it be that it is we who are blind? What seems like regular perception could actually be a crazed drug trip!

Principles 'against' revised colour theory:

1. The Law of Minorities: As there are generally less people who perceive colours this way, it is tempting to think that the majority must be right. But many times in history the majority has been shown to be wrong. Modern ColourSeeingPeople might be inclined to consider the possibility that the minority are actually correct.

2. The ElectroMagneticBendiness principle: This is the one that has caused the most controversy and storm. As red light and green light are positioned differently in the electromagnetic spectrum, it doesn't seem possible that they can be identical.

Simple to complex:

Analyse the following examples-

1. Let's look at an object, then drink 5 bottles of vodka. Doesn't the object appear different? So, the appearance of objects can change.

2. Now let’s take the example of a man looking at a red ball. Beat him around the head with a stick, then ask if the ball is green. In most cases, after a few iterations, he will agree that the ball is green. So, we prove that red is green.

In wintery, the 2 fundamental principles of revised colour theory, which looked highly impossible, could be very much true!!!

1) Red is green: RED IS GREEN!!

2) Red is green?: Red is green!

3. A different scenario: Now let’s take the case of purple. Could red be purple? Probably not. Because purple already contains red.

(I'm tired. Wrapping up: )

[anti-intellectual stuff about scientists]

[inaccurate analogy]

Wow, only 24 posts and you've already been nominated!

And as for the OP, the answer is "yes."

[Aitch]

OK. I suffer from hypercalcuria which, along with some iffy tubules in my kidneys (quite common apparently) makes me prone to kidney stones. In fact I've had three major ones; the largest was big enough (1 by 1.5mm) to need urgent lithotripsy to shatter it as it was compromising the peristalsis in the relevant ureter which could cause the kidney to shut down. And the renal colics weren't fun either. :(

So what were my choices?

1. Go the the hospital to see a specialist (who has in depth knowledge of the various physical and biochemical processes to do with the kidneys) and end up on a low salt diet and potassium citrate (to control the chemical balance in my widdle) and bendroflumethiazide (to keep my kidneys flushed). It took a couple of years to fine tune the diet/drugs but I have been stone/colic free for over five years and my widdle-calcium level is finally down to normal. Free on the NHS, £8 a quarter for the drugs.

2. Go to someone (who's read a book by a long dead German) the principle of whose treatment will be, basically, "well, a stone looks a bit like chalk so we'll grind up some chalk and give you some water that almost, but not quite, contains some of it.". Cost? Several hundred pounds probably. And I would probably end up down by at least one kidney.

Guess which one I went for? Yep, the one that isn't obvious horse ****.

End of anecdote.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Just a few points:

"The Law of Similars," is straight out of Sir James George Frazer, "The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion." Are you saying that magic should work. too?
__________

Every drop of water on the planet is geological. There is no, "new," water. Hence, every drop of water has, at one time or another, been in contact with every thing existing on the planet, and hence contains homeopathic doses of everything, right?

Why is something recently introduced, then diluted down to the point that there's nothing left of it different in effectiveness than something introduced just slightly before, geologically speaking, and diluted down to the point that there's nothing left of it?
__________

If you give a fat person homeopathic doses of food, he develops another disease: Starved to death.
__________

Hypernatremia is, in fact, caused by homeopathic doses of water! It's dehydration.
__________

The treatment for internal arsenic poisoning is the introduction of a chelating agent to scavenge the arsenic from the system, not, "flush with water." That's for external contact. There is no, "state of negative concentration," that will act against arsenic poisoning.
__________

The illiterate and the scientist: You're saying that the illiterate is stubborn and will not see the facts.

Science is all about seeing facts. All you have to do is SHOW him some.

No such, "facts," exist for homeopathy.

Homeopathy fails to perform better than a placebo in all controlled testing. Can't I pay less, get a jelly bean, and get identical results... with the jelly bean tasting good?

One needs to keep an open mind. One does not need to keep it SO open that one's brains fall out.
__________

Drawing an analogy between an atom and a solar system is just... I dunno... sophomoric... and demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the natures of both atom and solar system. Planets move in a pretty much fixed orbit. Electrons move pretty much randomly within a more or less spherical shell.

...and no, there aren't smaller bits of iron floating around between the electrons and nucleus of an iron atom, and the protons, neutrons and electrons that make up iron are the same as those that make up... mmm... plutonium, but for their binding energies. If it were otherwise, fission and fusion devices wouldn't work.
__________

Pluto is most definitely, "within the solar family." It just doesn't match the current definition of a planet. It's a, "Pluton," now.
__________

Atoms change, "size," by having less or more stuff (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nucleon) in their nucleus. This is not changed by proximity with other atoms.
__________

Atoms do not , "expand indefinitely," to fill the available space, nor do they spontaneously, "unwind," themselves.

The protons and neutrons cling together because of specific forces (http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node216.html), and the electrons hang around because they like the protons.
__________

If substances is in rarity disintegrate, there would be no gold. If substances in plenty's equilibrium point shifts the other way, the entire crust of the planet would be metallic aluminum.
__________

...and... oh... just... etc. etc. etc.

[sol invictus]

One needs an open mind when exploring new concepts. If we think our knowledge is ultimate, then we become blinded by the same.

That is an excellent point. Part of keeping an open mind is being willing to accept evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

For example:


Imagine that there is just one Atom in the entire space. What happens to it? The Atom will expand indefinitely.

Like many of your other statements, this is in direct contradiction with the results of tens of thousands of careful experiments carried out over the last century. Is your mind open enough to accept that you might be wrong?

[Aquila]

I think that one of the reasons that homeopathy has remained so popular during the past 50 years, in England at least, is that the former Queen Mother used to use it, especially for her hubby, and had some prominent homeopaths (maybe even Hahneman himself, but not sure) hanging around the palace. The British public probably thought that if H.R.H. uses it, I will too. So it might be not only be a placebo affect, but an example of mass-psychological suggestion.

The analogy between homeopathy and food (large quantities and small quantities) is not a good one, because we have left out the will-power factor. With homeopathy, once we have swallowed the pill, we hand over all our faith/belief/trust in its effectiveness to our subconscious mind, which, according to some theories, is what really causes the healing. With dieting on the other hand, it is not so simple. To accept smaller quantities of food is not as simple as swallowing a pill. We have to have control and will power, which come from our self - conscious mind, and this has to be maintained over a long period of time.

[Madalch]

Every drop of water on the planet is geological. There is no, "new," water. Hence, every drop of water has, at one time or another, been in contact with every thing existing on the planet, and hence contains homeopathic doses of everything, right?

Untrue. Water can easily be formed by the reaction of oxides or carbonates with acids, or by the combustion of hydrogen-containing compounds.

Drawing an analogy between an atom and a solar system is just... I dunno... sophomoric... and demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the natures of both atom and solar system. Planets move in a pretty much fixed orbit. Electrons move pretty much randomly within a more or less spherical shell.Electrons aren't so much "moving randomly around" as they are spread out over a mathematically-defined volume of space. They don't have a precisely defined location, because they are as much wave as they are particle.

The analogy I like is peanut butter on toast. You don't have a couple of peanuts moving rapidly and more or less randomly around on the surface of the bread. You have peanut material spread out over a defined area. You cannot determine where the peanut is at any given moment, because it isn't.

But yeah, absolutely nothing like a planet. If solar systems were like atoms, I'd hate to be on a planet in a d-orbital. And I'd want the universe to be cold and dark so that I wouldn't be afraid of the solar system reaching an excited state or becoming ionized.

[Aquila]

Just to correct what I said before about the Queen Mother and Hahmeman possibly knowing each other - impossible as he died in 1843 and she wasn't born until 1900, but her family does have German connections, which might a link in the connection;

[pgwenthold]

Electrons aren't so much "moving randomly around" as they are spread out over a mathematically-defined volume of space.


Not a mathematically defined space. Over all space. It's just that their probability function is more dense in some areas. But even then, I wouldn't call it all that much "mathematically defined" space (remember, orbital representations are density plots with arbitrary probability cutoffs; make the probability cutoff smaller, the orbital gets larger. Make the probability cutoff sufficiently small, and the orbital covers all space (except for a couple of nodal planes).




But yeah, absolutely nothing like a planet. If solar systems were like atoms, I'd hate to be on a planet in a d-orbital.

Oh come on, the ride on a dz^2 orbital would be awesome!

[JoeTheJuggler]

Looks like a troll. I don't see any response by the OP.

By the way, you "treat" obesity by not eating as much food as normal and/or increasing exercise to burn more calories than you consume.

To follow the logic of the OP on this one, you'd have to give small amounts of food in addition to the huge amounts of food the person is already eating for it to be a homeopathic type of treatment.

Or is there something in homeopathy that says you eliminate all other intake besides the homeopathic remedy during treatment?

[Madalch]

Not a mathematically defined space.

Sure it is- what defines an orbital apart from the dread Schroedinger Eq'n?

[Ashles]

Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of Homeopathy, set out its principles about 200 years ago. But these principles have eluded any logic, and the scientific community have discarded them as senseless. It survived these many long years only because of the anecdotal success stories. Unfortunately theses claims could not be consistently reproduced and hence many have labelled homeopathy as witchcraft.
No they haven't - they have labelled it as something that doesn't actually work when tested properly.

Many think that an atom is nothing but a set of electrons revolving around the nucleus made up of protons and neutrons. It is like saying that the solar system is nothing but the Sun and the 8 planets revolving around it.
I didn't think anyone used the old "Solar system like atom" analogy any more because it is so wildly incomparable.

And this example of it is inconsistent and bizarre even by its own wonky internal 'logic'. The OP really is arguing with himself over weird opinions he imagines others have.

It's strangely like watching a man punch himself repeatedly in the balls shouting "Take that!"

[pgwenthold]

Sure it is- what defines an orbital apart from the dread Schroedinger Eq'n?

That's a mathematically defined _density_ (well, psi^2 that is).

For any system, you can calculate the value of the wave function at any point in space (including on the other side of the universe), and it will be non-zero (except for in the nodes, as I noted). It is very, very tiny, but non-zero nonetheless.

[paximperium]

Looks like a troll. I don't see any response by the OP.

It actually sounds like a true believer who wrote an essay that he/she believed was brain stomping-ly profound.

He/she probably was using this as a test run of their apologetics...sadly, this kind of logic actually works...throw in a few anecdotes, argument from authority and plain lies, and some will buy this garbage.

[logical muse]

Despite his ignorance, we can’t under estimate his level of scientific knowledge because he knows much more than a toddler or a jungle man can grasp.
What have you got against jungle men?

[Rolfe]

Just to correct what I said before about the Queen Mother and Hahmeman possibly knowing each other - impossible as he died in 1843 and she wasn't born until 1900, but her family does have German connections, which might a link in the connection;


You're just a few generations out. It was Queen Victoria who started it, and she was probably influenced by Hahnemann in person, if not actually "treated" by him. It seems to be hereditary.

See my thesis that Frazer's Golden Bough chapters on "Homoeopathic Magic" (referred to above by Gagglenash) were intended as a go at Hahnemann, while refraining from actually mentioning homoeopathic medicine in order not to annoy Her Majesty. The choice of label for that class of magic was entirely Frazer's - the word was coined by Hahnemann and until Frazer had only been used in the context of homoeopathic medicine. Then Frazer calmly picks it up and uses it to describe all sorts of looney primitive supersitions (cure for jaundice, paint the patient yellow then wash it off....), without once bringing up Hahnemann at all.

Nice one. He did something very similar in a different context, which rather supports my suggestion, but I've forgotten the relevance.

Rolfe.

[drgsrinivas]

Someone eats too much food (not a drug) gets fat ( not a disease) Decrease food (calorie controlled diet) and they lose weight. The mind boggles.
Obesity and starvation are diseases and dietary intervention is a therapeutic modality.
But I only asked you to imagine. Reasoning based on common sense is what I have used.

[drkitten]

Obesity and starvation are diseases

Except that they aren't.

Aside from this minor problem that completely invalidates your analogy,.... the analogy is mediocre.


But I only asked you to imagine. Reasoning based on common sense is what I have used.

... and I suggest you use reasoning based on evidence instead. Common sense is often wrong, which is why magicians manage to fool you.

[paximperium]

Obesity and starvation are diseases and dietary intervention is a therapeutic modality.
Certain FORMS of Obesities are diseases and dietary intervention does little as a therapeutic modality hence so gastric bypass surgery and a host of other medical treatments.
Either way, your analogy was false and your premise irrelevant to your argument.


But I only asked you to imagine.
I can imagine that magic creates glowing mushrooms that cures AIDS but in no way is it true or even based in reality.


Reasoning based on common sense is what I have used.
No. You are using dogma based on an outdated and flawed philosophy to justify your un-evidenced belief.

[Darat]

...snip...

False. Hypernatremia is very seldom caused by massive salt intake. It is more commonly caused by dehydration and hypernatremia is cured by drinking water, not giving small amounts of salt.


...snip...

So a disease that is treatable by a homoeopathic cure... and you claim it doesn't work!

[Mojo]

1. Let’s imagine ‘food’ as a drug. If we give excess food to a healthy person, he or she develops a disease called ‘obesity’. Now if we give the same food in very small doses, it will cure the obesity. So the same drug i.e. ‘food’ if given in larger doses (than required) causes disease but when given in smaller doses can cure the same.


What you're suggesting is not giving doses of something that would cause similar symptoms: you're giving less of what has, in excess, caused the condition. This is not "like cures like"; it's the very opposite.

What causes obesity, in your example, is excess food. If you want to treat it with "like cures like", you need to give small additional amounts of excess food, not remove excess food from the diet.

[Mojo]

On the other hand, I can see a diet that allows people to carry on eating as usual, but with a few extra snacks between meals, being wildly popular. It would just involve telling a few untruths about whether it works.

I think I'll call it The Pork Pie DietTM.

[blutoski]

What causes obesity, in your example, is excess food. If you want to treat it with "like cures like", you need to give small additional amounts of excess food, not remove excess food from the diet.

Not just small amounts, but infinitesimally small amounts, diluted beyond detection, and succussed by a professional.

From what we know about obesity, if we put a person on a diet that is calorie neutral + infinitesmally small dose of excess calories, they will not lose weight, but will maintain weight.

Alternatively, if we indulge in the assumption that it's necessary to ignore the 'excess' part of it, but just put the patient on an homeopathic diet of inifinitesmally diluted calories, they will certainly die of starvation.



The other huge disanalogy is that homeopaths don't actually advise giving a patient a diluted exposure to the actual causitive agent in the first place. eg: when a patient has a fever caused by bacterial infection, no homeopath administers a dilution of the pathogen - the homeopath attempts to combat the fever by a dilution of something that causes symptoms that resemble fever (such as chili seeds, which cause sweats).

So, the analogy for obesity would be that the homeopath would find something that causes bloating - a symptom that resembles obesity - and administer a diluted nostrum of this substance. My consultation with a homeopath colleague indicates that the homeopathic remedy for obesity depends on what part of the body the patient wishes to reduce, but the most common is diluted Ammonium Muriaticum. For serious general obesity, a more potent dilution of Calcarea Carbonica is indicated. This latter treatment goes back to Hannehan himself.



So, my question for drgsrinivas is:

Given that Hannehan himself insists that the examples you raise in your analogies are contrary to the principles of homeopathy, and since you think they're actually scientifically valid, what is your opinion on whether homeopathy is consistent with science?

[Leftus]

If one were to eat food in the same proportions that one takes homeopathic medicine, one would be dead. A sure fire cure for obesity to be certain.

Then again if homeopathy worked, wouldn't the caloric value increase and that would make you fatter?

[dudalb]

I would not be surpised if Bill Maher jumps on the Homeopathy bandwagon. It fits in with some of the Medical Woo he has promoted on his show. ..particularly his comtempt for Medicine and Drugs in general.

[tyr_13]

But I only asked you to imagine. Reasoning based on common sense is what I have used.

You have used reasoning based on false analogies and a false data. Your reasoning isn't sound on most any level, it only sounds reasonable if you ignore the meat of it or don't understand the principles you are talking about. It is like someone thinking they are using logic by saying, "therefore," and, "thus," but leaving out the actual logic.

[Twiler]

Obesity and starvation are diseases and dietary intervention is a therapeutic modality.
But I only asked you to imagine. Reasoning based on common sense is what I have used.

You asked me to imagine and I imagined your irrelevance.

[Crundy]

Simple question for the homeopathist: Why isn't tap water the most powerful drug in the world?

Sorry to use the easy argument, but the stupidity of homeopaths annoys me greatly. Talking crap about 'molecule memory' and other scientific-sounding things they have no idea about. If they were as good at science as they say they are, they wouldn't be homeopaths.

[dudalb]

If there is a more blatent form of Quackery then Homeopathy, I have yet to see it.

[blutoski]

You have used reasoning based on false analogies and a false data. Your reasoning isn't sound on most any level, it only sounds reasonable if you ignore the meat of it or don't understand the principles you are talking about. It is like someone thinking they are using logic by saying, "therefore," and, "thus," but leaving out the actual logic.

Generating arguments with [face validity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_validity)] is a core strategy of the [sophist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism)].

Science asks for the investigator to move beyond mere face validity and into testability.

[Crundy]

Seriously though, how is this any different than me claiming that drinking Crundy's p**s will cure your arthritis? There's no scientific evidence for either, and I'm sure I could get some anecdotes from people to prove that drinking my wee will cure you.

By the way, if anyone wants to buy a sample of my miracle p**s, please send a cheque for $1,000 to Crundy, PO Box 7w47, London. Thanks.

But seriously, why are we still humoring this troll?
YHBT.

[Traveler Steve]

...
1. Let's look at an object, then drink 5 bottles of vodka. Doesn't the object appear different? So, the appearance of objects can change.


I think after drinking 5 bottles of vodka, trying to discern the identity of an object other than the hard floor meeting your face would be a million-dollar achievement!

As for homeopathy, woo and nonsense.

[paximperium]

I think after drinking 5 bottles of vodka, trying to discern the identity of an object other than the hard floor meeting your face would be a million-dollar achievement!

As for homeopathy, woo and nonsense.

Well, I guess one cure for drunkenness is to drink watered down drinks and then shake it real hard...but then cocktails still make me tipsy.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

It's strangely like watching a man punch himself repeatedly in the balls shouting "Take that!"
Ah yes, the old "straw testicles" fallacy.

Yuri

[drgsrinivas]

We can write volumes on hypernatremia and its management. But just eat 1kg of salt and then come back. Then we can discuss more if you are still alive without developing hypernatremia.

According to Homeopathy, a drug in large doses causes a disease and the same is cured by giving the drug in small doses.

It is as simple as doing additions and subtractions.

In hypernatremia (with or without dehydration), there is excess sodium in the body relative to water. One has to treat this with a hypotonic solution. The more dilute the sodium, the more effective it will be in correcting the hypernatremia.

Giving small dose of salt means giving more dilute solution. Let it be normal saline, half normal saline or just free water (0% saline i.e. 5% dextrose in practice).

A negative solution (-1% or -2% saline), if at all one exists, will be even more effective than free water in reversing the hypernatremia state.

If you can’t understand this simple mathematics, there is no point in going further to discuss about the negative solutions and the physics behind it.

Coming to your BAL, again volumes can be written about arsenic poisoning in Allopathy but this wasn’t my aim.

[drgsrinivas]

[QUOTE=drgsrinivas;4006029]Size of an Atom:

Is it definite? Is there a definite border between the Atom and its surroundings? After years of debate, the scientists have decided that Pluto is not within the solar family. It is obviously an arbitrary demarcation in the watershed zone and it is difficult to imagine that the solar system has a definite border. It probably merges with its surroundings imperceptibly. The same is likely to be true with the atom.
[\QUOTE]

nice try, but no scientest ever said that Pluto was not within the solar family. They merely downgraded it from a planet to a planetoid. Scientists also know of many objects that are in the solar family but have such eccentric orbits that they travel much further from the sun than Pluto ever does (most well known example is Haley's comet). Therefore the reclassification of Pluto had no effect on how far out the solar system extends.
I realise that my statement with regards to Pluto is wrong. My apologies for this and thanks for pointing this out.

But this doesn’t stop me from raising same questions.

1) Is there a definite border that sharply demarcates an atom or the solar system from their surroundings?
2) What lies in the ‘empty space’ of the atom? Is it really empty? Can any one prove beyond doubt that there is no Energy in this ‘empty space’?
3) What happens to an atom if there is just one in the entire space? Does it remain the same or does it ‘disintegrate’ into the ultimate Energy?

[drgsrinivas]

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. :jaw-dropp
Perfect expression of idiocy, intolerance and extremism

[Giggywig]

Before the thread goes 75 pages of fanciful theories about how homeopathy works, how about you produce some evidence that homeopathy works? You can talk all you want about the space between atoms and ultimate energies, but if there is no actual effect there is no point.

[fls]

We can write volumes on hypernatremia and its management. But just eat 1kg of salt and then come back. Then we can discuss more if you are still alive without developing hypernatremia.

According to Homeopathy, a drug in large doses causes a disease and the same is cured by giving the drug in small doses.

It is as simple as doing additions and subtractions.

In hypernatremia (with or without dehydration), there is excess sodium in the body relative to water. One has to treat this with a hypotonic solution. The more dilute the sodium, the more effective it will be in correcting the hypernatremia.

Giving small dose of salt means giving more dilute solution. Let it be normal saline, half normal saline or just free water (0% saline i.e. 5% dextrose in practice).

A negative solution (-1% or -2% saline), if at all one exists, will be even more effective than free water in reversing the hypernatremia state.

If you can’t understand this simple mathematics, there is no point in going further to discuss about the negative solutions and the physics behind it.

Coming to your BAL, again volumes can be written about arsenic poisoning in Allopathy but this wasn’t my aim.

It seems that you actually expect to be taken seriously. Why?

You have several fatal flaws in your support of homeopathy.

First, you have misunderstood the law of similars. As has already been pointed out, "similars" does not refer to a causal agent, but rather to a similarity in physical and mental characteristics. Homeopathy does not recognize a condition called "hypernatremia", rather it recognizes a person with thirst and lightheadedness. The choice of a therapeutic agent would then be something like amitryptylline.

Second, what is relevant in your example is the solvent, which is never of a type (alcohol, lactose pill) and amount (a few drops of water) that would treat hypernatremia.

Third, there is no such thing as a negative solution, so invoking it as an explanation provides no addition information.

Linda

[PixyMisa]

A negative solution (-1% or -2% saline), if at all one exists, will be even more effective than free water in reversing the hypernatremia state.
Your first post was perhaps the dumbest thing I'd ever heard, but now you've topped even that.

A remarkable accomplishment, sir. Absolutely remarkable.

[sol invictus]

Perfect expression of idiocy, intolerance and extremism

Stop whining. Why in the world should we be nice to someone peddling fake medical remedies to the sick? You're part of a long line of despicable snake-oil salesmen stretching back centuries. In the US we have a major government agency whose mission (not always accomplished) is to protect the public from people like you.

If you can't take the heat, get out.

[Twiler]

According to Homeopathy, a drug in large doses causes a disease and the same is cured by giving the drug in small doses.

It is as simple as doing additions and subtractions.

If it was that simple wouldn't a large amount of salt be BETTER than a small amount?

I don't think you understand the difference between deductive reasoning and dogma.

Scientific testing has shown that homeopathy doesn't work, and there is no scientific reason it should work.

In an attempt to find some common ground: What medical science do you AGREE with?

[drgsrinivas]

If it was that simple wouldn't a large amount of salt be BETTER than a small amount?

I don't think you understand the difference between deductive reasoning and dogma.

Scientific testing has shown that homeopathy doesn't work, and there is no scientific reason it should work.

In an attempt to find some common ground: What medical science do you AGREE with?
How do allopathic drugs work? The answer is we don’t know. Even for the most studied drug or event in the body, there is always a point after which we don’t know what happens next. So, just because we don’t know how the homeopathic drugs work, it is unacceptable not to believe in homeopathy.

Of course there is statistical evidence that allopathic drugs work. But this is not so with Homeopathic drugs. The reasons could be:

1) We don’t completely understand the science of Homeopathy, so it can not be applied correctly in practice. Meteorological predictions were worse than educated guess in the past but the scientists didn’t discard Meteorology as a false science. Homeopathy need not be discarded for lack of statistical power, it could just mean that we haven’t yet fully understood its science and hence not been applied correctly.
2) Quality control for homeopathic drugs is impossible with the existing technology
3) Inadequate matching- Homeopathy probably works in only dedicated centres where the remedy is individually and ‘freshly’ prepared after correct matching. The homeopathic remedies can’t be simply ‘prescribed’.

[blutoski]

According to Homeopathy, a drug in large doses causes a disease and the same is cured by giving the drug in small doses.

I think this is the failed key assumption... this is not what homeopathy is based on.

The principle is to find a substance that causes similar symptoms, and administer a nostrum of this substance diluted beyond detectable levels. It is an example of a medical modality that is just uninterested in determining the cause of an illness, but is focussed on treating the symptoms instead.

And even those rogue homeopaths who do have been contaminated by the allopathic approach of treating the underlying condition do not seem to be interested in what science says about these root causes. They are treating imaginary underlying conditions. Again, with the example of obesity: homeopathy teaches that obesity is caused by an excess of bodily fluids, and the remedies are based on substances known to cause fluid retention, phlegm production, and so on. They explicitly exclude overeating as a cause of obesity. Which is to say: they reject the science on this issue, preferring a 200-year-old mystical belief.

Please address my specific example regarding the treatment for obesity: homeopaths do not believe it is caused by overeating, and do not treat it by administering small amounts of food.

In the case of hypernatraemia, all my homeopathic reference books say explicitly that hypernatraemia cannot be treated by any homeopathic means, but only with conventional medicine (carbamazepine or sodium valproate, if the patient is siezing, otherwise oral water).

[tyr_13]

How do allopathic drugs work? The answer is we don’t know. Even for the most studied drug or event in the body, there is always a point after which we don’t know what happens next. So, just because we don’t know how the homeopathic drugs work, it is unacceptable not to believe in homeopathy.

Of course there is statistical evidence that allopathic drugs work. But this is not so with Homeopathic drugs. The reasons could be:



You forgot the biggest reason, and in spite of your numerical labeling, I'll call this reason A.

A.) IT DOESN'T WORK.

That is why it is unreasonable to believe in homeopathy. It has been tested soundly over and over again and failed. None of the reasons you sight are valid because they simply aren't true. To say that it is reasonable to believe in homeopathy because it isn't testable by technology is simply put, dumb. That isn't reasoning, or logic or common sense, or critical thinking. It is magical thinking or religious thinking. Your argument has no place in medicine.

[Tubbythin]

How do allopathic drugs work? The answer is we don’t know. Even for the most studied drug or event in the body, there is always a point after which we don’t know what happens next. So, just because we don’t know how the homeopathic drugs work, it is unacceptable not to believe in homeopathy.
But its not just because we don't know how it does work. Its because we know it doesn't work.


Of course there is statistical evidence that allopathic drugs work. But this is not so with Homeopathic drugs. The reasons could be:

<snip: lazy comparison to <meterology>

So in other words you've just confirmed to us that we don't know how it would work and we have no evidence it does work. As people keep telling you!

Its a bit like me saying I've invented a new toaster that doesn't require electricity. There's just one problems with it. I have no idea how it works.
Oh yes, and the toast I get out of it is still cold, white and bendy and looks and tastes like ordinary bread. But I still think I have a marvelous new toaster.

[PixyMisa]

How do allopathic drugs work? The answer is we don’t know. Even for the most studied drug or event in the body, there is always a point after which we don’t know what happens next.
No. No there isn't.

We don't know every detail of the biochemical pathways of most drugs - but for many, we do.

So, just because we don’t know how the homeopathic drugs work, it is unacceptable not to believe in homeopathy.
Wrong again.

You forget - conveniently - that there are two strikes against homeopathy, not just one.

First, it is physically impossible for homeopathy to work.
Second, it doesn't work.


Of course there is statistical evidence that allopathic drugs work.
Like, for example, the fact that they work.

But this is not so with Homeopathic drugs.
The first correct statement you have made so far.

The reasons could be:

1) We don’t completely understand the science of Homeopathy, so it can not be applied correctly in practice. Meteorological predictions were worse than educated guess in the past but the scientists didn’t discard Meteorology as a false science. Homeopathy need not be discarded for lack of statistical power, it could just mean that we haven’t yet fully understood its science and hence not been applied correctly.
There is no science of homeopathy.

2) Quality control for homeopathic drugs is impossible with the existing technology
There is no quality control in homeopathy.

3) Inadequate matching- Homeopathy probably works in only dedicated centres where the remedy is individually and ‘freshly’ prepared after correct matching. The homeopathic remedies can’t be simply ‘prescribed’.
Since this doesn't happen, by your own admission, homeopathy doesn't work, and all homepaths are frauds.

Oh, and you've left out the fourth possibility.

[drgsrinivas]

It seems that you actually expect to be taken seriously. Why?

You have several fatal flaws in your support of homeopathy.

First, you have misunderstood the law of similars. As has already been pointed out, "similars" does not refer to a causal agent, but rather to a similarity in physical and mental characteristics. Homeopathy does not recognize a condition called "hypernatremia", rather it recognizes a person with thirst and lightheadedness. The choice of a therapeutic agent would then be something like amitryptylline.

Second, what is relevant in your example is the solvent, which is never of a type (alcohol, lactose pill) and amount (a few drops of water) that would treat hypernatremia.

Third, there is no such thing as a negative solution, so invoking it as an explanation provides no addition information.

Linda
I suggest you read about the history and priciples of Homeopathy (once again if already read).

There was no such thing called computer, internet, matter energy conservation theory, second law of thermodynamics, atomic table in the past, but they are now. Almost every theory begins with an assumption or hypothesis and not with experimental evidence.

[Mojo]

According to Homeopathy, a drug in large doses causes a disease and the same is cured by giving the drug in small doses.


Wrong.

According to the "law of similars", a condition can be cured by a remedy that would produce the same symptoms in a healthy person as the symptoms exhibited by the patient. It's nothing to do with the actual cause of the condition.

I suggest you read Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine. You will find that he recommends conducting provings using potentised remedies at 30C (see aphorism 128 (http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/38.html#128), for example). That is not by any measure a "large dose".

ETA: Blutoski put it much better.

[Twiler]

I suggest you read about the history and priciples of Homeopathy (once again if already read).

There was no such thing called computer, internet, matter energy conservation theory, second law of thermodynamics, atomic table in the past, but they are now. Almost every theory begins with an assumption or hypothesis and not with experimental evidence.

I'm reasonably sure the second law of thermodynamics has always existed as a physical law.

Actually, some theories start with evidence contradicting an existing theory. And stop when experimentation fails to produce positive results, as in this case.

Are you saying that homeopathy cannot be judged by scientific principles? If so, then why should it be treated with any more respect than faith healing?

[fls]

I suggest you read about the history and priciples of Homeopathy (once again if already read).

I am already familiar with the history and principles of homeopathy. Please address the specific points that have been made.

There was no such thing called computer, internet, matter energy conservation theory, second law of thermodynamics, atomic table in the past, but they are now. Almost every theory begins with an assumption or hypothesis and not with experimental evidence.

First, you have it backwards. Almost every theory begins with empirical observations from which a hypothesis is formed and tested (excluding physics during the last 100 years which includes theories derived from principles (e.g. Lorenz invariance)).

Second, homeopathy is based on the same pattern of observation leading to assumptions leading to testing. Now that we know that the usual course of events plus expectation (i.e. 'placebo effect') lead to the same test results that we see from homeopathy, we can see that the assumption that homeopathy has any specific effect is wrong.

Linda

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Perfect expression of idiocy, intolerance and extremism

Not at all. It is a response to a post that shows a complete lack of understanding of science and logic.

Other posters in this thread have pointed this out to you at great length. I cannot be bothered.

:eye-poppi

[sol invictus]

There was no such thing called computer, internet, matter energy conservation theory, second law of thermodynamics, atomic table in the past, but they are now. Almost every theory begins with an assumption or hypothesis and not with experimental evidence.

That's a good sample of concentrated stupid. Would diluting it many times make it more potent?

[JJM]

{snip}

But this doesn’t stop me from raising same questions.

1) Is there a definite border that sharply demarcates an atom or the solar system from their surroundings?
2) What lies in the ‘empty space’ of the atom? Is it really empty? Can any one prove beyond doubt that there is no Energy in this ‘empty space’?
3) What happens to an atom if there is just one in the entire space? Does it remain the same or does it ‘disintegrate’ into the ultimate Energy?4) What is that stuff in the corner of your eye when you wake up? I mean, I rub it and rub it, and it doesn't go away.
5) How high is the sky?
6) Why does one's house burn up when it burns down?

7) How do those six questions relate to homeopathy?
Ooh ooh ooh, I know the answer to #7- pick me ... pick me!
-"Okay, what is the answer?"
"They are entirely irrelevant to homeopathy!"
-"You win today's ice-cream cone!"
"Is it dipped in sprinkles?"
-"Yes; but you won't see them because they are homeopathic."

[Stout]

Wow..that was he better part of an hour to get through this thread.

I can't say I have anything to add as I'm still in the process of learning about Homeopathy as I've only recently come to regard this as harmful. I used to think of it as akin to a spa treatment where the "customer" seeks out a "treatment" but what they're really looking for is a larger degree of personal attention than they expect from an allopath.

That, and it's something "mysterious" to beak off about in the coffee shop.

blutoski, I found your comment about Homeopathy not recognising over eating as a cause of obesity intriguing in a "they can't really be that stupid, can they? " kind of way so i went a-googling and came up with this.

http://www.homeopathictreatment4u.com/obesity.html

Here we have a Homeopath offering to treat obesity in the conventional manner we all know works ( anecdote. an obese buddy of mine lost 130 pounds over the past year through diet and exercise, no woo involved ) plus the application of "the remedies"

Is the guy who owns the website in the above link an exception to the rule where he uses techniques proven to work and merely embellishes these treatments with the woo ?

I'm not trying to be an apologist here, I've just never known anybody who's subjected themselves to this type of "healing" so it's really one of those online topics of interest that I want to be able to at least sound like I know what I'm talking about should it ever confront me.

[ladyattis]

I think actually James Randi himself discussed this issue in a public show. I think you can find a copy of it on youtube too.

[Dave_46]

How do allopathic drugs work? The answer is we don’t know.<snip>

What are "allopathic drugs", or are you using "allopathic" as a cheap insult to evidence based medicine?

The answer is not that medical science doesn't know, just that you apparently do not.

1) We don’t completely understand the science of Homeopathy<snip>


Bolded is an oxymoron.

[paximperium]

Doesn't anyone find it ironic that skeptics and anti-homeopathy know more about homeopathy and its concepts than a so-called homeopathic believer...and this doesn't even cover the tangential drivel that is being slung about by ignorance.

[Mojo]

Doesn't anyone find it ironic that skeptics and anti-homeopathy know more about homeopathy and its concepts than a so-called homeopathic believer...and this doesn't even cover the tangential drivel that is being slung about by ignorance.


It's all SOP for homoeopathy - see, for example, their claims that it is "holistic" and deals with the causes of disease, when in fact the entire treatment is based entirely on the symptoms, and causes (other than imaginary ones such as miasms) are never addressed.

[paximperium]

We can write volumes on hypernatremia and its management. But just eat 1kg of salt and then come back. Then we can discuss more if you are still alive without developing hypernatremia.
Let's do an equivalency test, why don't you drink 10 gallons of homeopathic water first and then come back?


According to Homeopathy, a drug in large doses causes a disease and the same is cured by giving the drug in small doses.

It is as simple as doing additions and subtractions.
False. You don't even know what homeopathy is. You are not giving drugs in small doses. You are giving drugs in molecular ie. sub-molar doses.


In hypernatremia (with or without dehydration), there is excess sodium in the body relative to water. One has to treat this with a hypotonic solution. The more dilute the sodium, the more effective it will be in correcting the hypernatremia.
Completely true. What does this have to do with homeopathy?


Giving small dose of salt means giving more dilute solution. Let it be normal saline, half normal saline or just free water (0% saline i.e. 5% dextrose in practice).
Good point but this still has absolutely nothing to do with homeopathy. Just be careful with the rate of correction, you wouldn't want to cause cerebral edema.


A negative solution (-1% or -2% saline), if at all one exists, will be even more effective than free water in reversing the hypernatremia state.
Since this doesn't exist, we will just have to make do with diuretics, hemodialysis and a whole bunch of other scientific modalities.


If you can’t understand this simple mathematics, there is no point in going further to discuss about the negative solutions and the physics behind it.

Oooooooh, please do tell. I have never heard of a "negative solution". My college level physics and chemistry is a bit rusty but I can always pull out a few biochem books I have lying around.


Coming to your BAL, again volumes can be written about arsenic poisoning in Allopathy but this wasn’t my aim.
Of course it isn't hence you make some claim about it without any backing and run away when called on it...what was your aim again?

[paximperium]

[QUOTE=cwalner;4006165]
1) Is there a definite border that sharply demarcates an atom or the solar system from their surroundings?
The border of the solar system is hemmed in by the Termination shock where the solar wind is stopped by the surrounding cosmic wind. It is a changing border.


2) What lies in the ‘empty space’ of the atom? Is it really empty?
Yes as in no mass.


Can any one prove beyond doubt that there is no Energy in this ‘empty space’?
Yes.


3) What happens to an atom if there is just one in the entire space? Does it remain the same or does it ‘disintegrate’ into the ultimate Energy?
"Ultimate Energy"? Energy=W=FD
Let see if it makes sense "Ultimate Work" yeah...didn't think so.

I wonder at times what happens when a Unicorn meets a pixie...does it disintegrate into happy dust?

[Madalch]

Oooooooh, please do tell. I have never heard of a "negative solution". My college level physics and chemistry is a bit rusty but I can always pull out a few biochem books I have lying around.

Nobody has heard of such a thing- the OP is merely postulating such a possibility.

It would be easy enough to test, though- make a 5% solution of NaCl, mix an aliquot of it with the same volume of water, and mix another aliquot of it with a homeopathic preparation that is proposed to be -2% or -.5%. Measure the sodium concentrations by atomic absorption.

I haven't looked at AA in many years, but I seem to recall it's accurate to parts per million, so if -2% isn't available, we could test to see if the preparation is even -0.000 2 % by starting with a 5 ppm (0.000 5%) solution of salt.

Getting a lab to test the samples would be cheap. Getting a qualified chemist to make the dilutions (particularly if they were blinded as "Solution A" and "Solution B" as needed, for the distilled water and negatonic solutions) would be simple- I've got a few first year students who could manage that easily enough. If there's a real difference between the sodium concentrations of the two solutions, you could take Randi's million dollars easily.

[Madalch]

I wonder at times what happens when a Unicorn meets a pixie...does it disintegrate into happy dust?
Actually, no- I've read about what happens when this occurs, but I can't link to such a website from this forum. It violates the NSFW rules.

[paximperium]

How do allopathic drugs work? The answer is we don’t know.
Really? That must mean all those pharmacists, biochemist and toxicologist have been wasting their time. Your ignorance is astounding.


Even for the most studied drug or event in the body, there is always a point after which we don’t know what happens next.
So?


So, just because we don’t know how the homeopathic drugs work, it is unacceptable not to believe in homeopathy.
An equivocation fallacy. Seen that used last week by a Creationists.
Let's take YOUR logic stepwise. Drugs work, we have a biochemical pathway and we see an effect BUT we don't know how biochem pathway X-986543 works THEREFORE Homeopathy is real.
Perhaps you'll see how retarded that really is.


Of course there is statistical evidence that allopathic drugs work. But this is not so with Homeopathic drugs.
Wow a truth!!! Amazing.

Let the Special Pleading begin.

1) We don’t completely understand the science of Homeopathy, so it can not be applied correctly in practice. Meteorological predictions were worse than educated guess in the past but the scientists didn’t discard Meteorology as a false science. Homeopathy need not be discarded for lack of statistical power, it could just mean that we haven’t yet fully understood its science and hence not been applied correctly.
Wow another equivocation fallacy. Let me translate, "Homeopathy doesn't work like we intend it to work because we don't know how it works therefore it is real but cannot be measured by science."


2) Quality control for homeopathic drugs is impossible with the existing technology
Be very very very very clear. What are the EXACT QA standards and what technology is needed to enact those standards?


3) Inadequate matching- Homeopathy probably works in only dedicated centres where the remedy is individually and ‘freshly’ prepared after correct matching. The homeopathic remedies can’t be simply ‘prescribed’.
Translation: Homeopathy doesn't work unless we get to pick our patients with the best chance for it to work.

[cyborg]

Almost every theory begins with an assumption or hypothesis and not with experimental evidence.

Well no actually.

Mostly something unexpected happens and most people jump to the first conclusion they can formulate for why it happened.

Don't need to conjure up an explanation to explain things you don't know happen.

[sanguine]

How do allopathic drugs work? The answer is we don’t know. Even for the most studied drug or event in the body, there is always a point after which we don’t know what happens next.

The cholesterol level in your blood is controlled through a combination of homeostatic mechanisms within your cells (where cholesterol is produced) and the amount of cholesterol brought in through your diet. The homeostatic control occurs via a cholesterol sensing system that has been characterized in great detail that controls baseline flow of materials into the cholesterol biosynthetic pathways.

The class of drugs known as "statins" inhibit the enzymatic activity of HMG-CoA reductase, a key enzyme early on in the cholesterol pathway. By inhibiting flow through this enzyme, they inhibit cholesterol production in your cells. Your cells then fulfill their need for cholesterol by scavenging it from the bloodstream, reducing the level of cholesterol in your bloodstream.

There. Free example. I could even go into (far) more detail if you'd like. In fact, I could point to peer-reviewed experimental papers I authored on the topic.

That's one of many evidence-based medications with clearly defined mechanisms of action. Of course, you don't have to know how they work to use them, as long as you've done double-blinded clinical trials to show that they (1) work and (2) are safe, but in many cases, we know in great, great detail how modern medications work.

(I mean, it's even easier with most antibiotics. I picked a somewhat complex worked example because it was a field I did some research in.)

[Mojo]

2) Quality control for homeopathic drugs is impossible with the existing technology


Indeed: see, for example, the evidence given by Kate Chatfield of the "Research Ethics Committee" of the Society of Homeopaths, and module leader of the now cancelled homoeopathic degree course at UCLan, to the House of Lords select committee on science and technology (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/lduncorr/s&ti210207.pdf):

Q538 Lord Broers: I have a simple, technical question about homeopathy and drugs. Is it possible to distinguish between homeopathic drugs after they have been diluted? Is there any means of distinguishing one from the other?

Ms Chatfield: Only by the label.

[Ysidro]

We can write volumes on hypernatremia and its management. But just eat 1kg of salt and then come back. Then we can discuss more if you are still alive without developing hypernatremia.

According to Homeopathy, a drug in large doses causes a disease and the same is cured by giving the drug in small doses.

It is as simple as doing additions and subtractions.

In hypernatremia (with or without dehydration), there is excess sodium in the body relative to water. One has to treat this with a hypotonic solution. The more dilute the sodium, the more effective it will be in correcting the hypernatremia.

Giving small dose of salt means giving more dilute solution. Let it be normal saline, half normal saline or just free water (0% saline i.e. 5% dextrose in practice).

A negative solution (-1% or -2% saline), if at all one exists, will be even more effective than free water in reversing the hypernatremia state.

If you can’t understand this simple mathematics, there is no point in going further to discuss about the negative solutions and the physics behind it.

Coming to your BAL, again volumes can be written about arsenic poisoning in Allopathy but this wasn’t my aim.

1) Giving a large amount of a substance and giving a small amount of the same is not "as simple as doing additions and subtractions." Rather, it's additions and additions of smaller amounts. How you get "smaller amounts = subtraction" I'll never know!

2) How the in the sam hill would a NEGATIVE saline solution exist? Is there some weird dimensional portal that sucks out saline from our universe into a saline difficient one? What color is the sky in that world? Is that where the lost socks end up?

3) Don't talk about other's abilities at maths until you get addition and subtraction straightened out.

[Stout]

2) How the in the sam hill would a NEGATIVE saline solution exist? Is there some weird dimensional portal that sucks out saline from our universe into a saline difficient one? What color is the sky in that world? Is that where the lost socks end up?
.

I'm actually embarrassed to say how much time I spent researching negative solutions. I found nothing useful

So I take it this whole idea should be flushed ?

[Pup]

Giving small dose of salt means giving more dilute solution. Let it be normal saline, half normal saline or just free water (0% saline i.e. 5% dextrose in practice).

I love that analogy about how homeopathy works. I think homeopaths should use it as an example more often.

The reason I like it is that after such a long build-up, it winds down to the inevitable conclusion: Plain water works just as well, if not better, than a homeopathic solution of the substance.

Couldn't have said it better myself. :D

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I love that analogy about how homeopathy works. I think homeopaths should use it as an example more often.

The reason I like it is that after such a long build-up, it winds down to the inevitable conclusion: Plain water works just as well, if not better, than a homeopathic solution of the substance.

Couldn't have said it better myself. :D

Isn't this just carrying homeopathy to its logical conclusion? Plain water has a much higher "potentiation" than any homeopathic "remedy" and thus should be much more effective? :D

[cwalner]

Isn't this just carrying homeopathy to its logical conclusion? Plain water has a much higher "potentiation" than any homeopathic "remedy" and thus should be much more effective? :D

You mean that I have been taking nearly a gallon of the most effective and broad based homeopathic treatment known every day? I guess the only reason I still have a weak heart as that the allopathic drugs that I take to manage my heart condition must be interfering with the residual energy in my homeopathic treatments. :boxedin:

[Elizabeth I]

I suggest you read about the history and priciples of Homeopathy (once again if already read).

There was no such thing called computer, internet, matter energy conservation theory, second law of thermodynamics, atomic table in the past, but they are now. Almost every theory begins with an assumption or hypothesis and not with experimental evidence.

Somebody already pointed out that the second law of thermodynamics has pretty much been with us since the start.

I'll just add that "The periodic table of the chemical elements is a tabular method of displaying the chemical elements. Although precursors to this table exist, its invention is generally credited to Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table_of_the_elements)

While Samuel Hahnemann's theories did predate the formal exposition of the periodic table, the periodic table is by no means a recent development, unless you're thinking in terms of geological time.

[UnrepentantSinner]

drgsrinivas,

Can you just explain one thing to me - why the succussing?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

drgsrinivas,

Can you just explain one thing to me - why the succussing?

Homeopathy does not succeed without succuss? Or with it either. :D

[Aitch]

Homeopathy does not succeed without succuss? Or with it either. :D

Oh, I thought it was "homeopathy doesn't work without suckers." Silly me. ;)

[Ron_Tomkins]

Red - Is it really green?

Throughout history there have been numerous people who have been unable to distinguish between red and green. These people have been often referred to as being 'colour-blind'. But could it be that it is we who are blind? What seems like regular perception could actually be a crazed drug trip!

Principles 'against' revised colour theory:

1. The Law of Minorities: As there are generally less people who perceive colours this way, it is tempting to think that the majority must be right. But many times in history the majority has been shown to be wrong. Modern ColourSeeingPeople might be inclined to consider the possibility that the minority are actually correct.

2. The ElectroMagneticBendiness principle: This is the one that has caused the most controversy and storm. As red light and green light are positioned differently in the electromagnetic spectrum, it doesn't seem possible that they can be identical.

Simple to complex:

Analyse the following examples-

1. Let's look at an object, then drink 5 bottles of vodka. Doesn't the object appear different? So, the appearance of objects can change.

2. Now let’s take the example of a man looking at a red ball. Beat him around the head with a stick, then ask if the ball is green. In most cases, after a few iterations, he will agree that the ball is green. So, we prove that red is green.

In wintery, the 2 fundamental principles of revised colour theory, which looked highly impossible, could be very much true!!!

1) Red is green: RED IS GREEN!!

2) Red is green?: Red is green!

3. A different scenario: Now let’s take the case of purple. Could red be purple? Probably not. Because purple already contains red.

(I'm tired. Wrapping up: )

[anti-intellectual stuff about scientists]

[inaccurate analogy]


Yes. Yes. Yes, this sounds like great logic!!!!

In Orwell's 1984, that is :)

[Kuko 4000]

drgsrinivas, I sincerely hope you learn something important regarding homeopathy and the real world during your stay on this forum. This thread is a good starting point, I hope you have the dignity to be honest, especially to yourself. All the best.

[drgsrinivas]

Stop whining. Why in the world should we be nice to someone peddling fake medical remedies to the sick? You're part of a long line of despicable snake-oil salesmen stretching back centuries. In the US we have a major government agency whose mission (not always accomplished) is to protect the public from people like you.

If you can't take the heat, get out.
Hats off to your kindness and support to a man who resorted to ugly personal abuse. I thought only a religious extremist can offer this much of blind support to their crowd.

[drgsrinivas]

1) Giving a large amount of a substance and giving a small amount of the same is not "as simple as doing additions and subtractions." Rather, it's additions and additions of smaller amounts. How you get "smaller amounts = subtraction" I'll never know!

2) How the in the sam hill would a NEGATIVE saline solution exist? Is there some weird dimensional portal that sucks out saline from our universe into a saline difficient one? What color is the sky in that world? Is that where the lost socks end up?

3) Don't talk about other's abilities at maths until you get addition and subtraction straightened out.
Imagine you have 5 L of body fluid with substance ‘X’ normally at 10 meq/L concentration. Because you gulped large quantities of this ‘X’, its concentration in your body fluid went up to 20 meq/L. How will you get rid of this?

1) If you do nothing, your kidneys might excrete the excess in say about 1month.

2) Alternatively you can drink 5 L of water containing 5meq/L of substance ‘X’ over a couple of days. This will bring down the level to 12.5 meq/L

3) Another option would be to drink 5 L of plain water (with 0 meq of substance ‘X’). This will straight away bring down the level to normalcy i.e. 10 meq/L

4) Or you can drink just 1ml of a solution ‘containing’ -50 meq/mL of substance ‘X’ (I wouldn’t expect you to believe in the existence of this negative solution state at this moment)

Do you understand the subtraction bit now? (Don’t ask me if have to do few multiplications and divisions in the process).


Unfortunately, you have got an even difficult puzzle to solve: We traditionally know only 4 dimensions- length, width, breadth and time. But there seem to be at least 10 or even up to 26 dimensions according to superstring theory. Can you find in which Universe?

[paximperium]

Hats off to your kindness and support to a man who resorted to ugly personal abuse. I thought only a religious extremist can offer this much of blind support to their crowd.

Stop whining. Either support your beliefs and ideas or stop acting like a persecuted whimp.

Why must Creationists and woo mongerers always fall back to the whining and persecution complex? Pathetic.

[paximperium]

Imagine you have 5 L of body fluid with substance ‘X’ normally at 10 meq/L concentration. Because you gulped large quantities of this ‘X’, its concentration in your body fluid went up to 20 meq/L. How will you get rid of this?


1) If you do nothing, your kidneys might excrete the excess in say about 1month.
Please clearly state what substance takes 1 month to be excreted by the kidneys that your following so-called explanations will correct.


2) Alternatively you can drink 5 L of water containing 5meq/L of substance ‘X’ over a couple of days. This will bring down the level to 12.5 meq/L

3) Another option would be to drink 5 L of plain water (with 0 meq of substance ‘X’). This will straight away bring down the level to normalcy i.e. 10 meq/L

Depends. Is the substance being "diluted" water soluble, fat soluble, a metabolite, etc.? Please clearly tell use what sort of pharmacodymamics you are trying to use since renal or hepatic clearance tends to be rather different.


4) Or you can drink just 1ml of a solution ‘containing’ -50 meq/mL of substance ‘X’ (I wouldn’t expect you to believe in the existence of this negative solution state at this moment)
Sure but since such a nagative substance does not exist, your explanation is still irrelevant.


Unfortunately, you have got an even difficult puzzle to solve: We traditionally know only 4 dimensions- length, width, breadth and time. But there seem to be at least 10 or even up to 26 dimensions according to superstring theory. Can you find in which Universe?
Still irrelevant. Our inability to explain EVERYTHING in the cosmos is not evidence for your made up "negative" solution and pseudo-physics.

[drgsrinivas]

When Hahnemann consumed large doses of cinchona bark he developed high fever resembling malaria. His symptoms got better when he took the same in very small doses. He repeated this experiment with many of his friends and was surprised by the same finding. The more the dilution of the concoction, the more effective it was in alleviating the symptoms. Homeopathy is true until this point only.

There after Homeopathy went completely in the wrong direction- provings, identifying the drug pictures and the practice of matching

Matching is the main drawback of Homeopathy and is responsible its frequent failures. Matching can never be perfect considering the number and variety of symptoms a drug can produce in individuals, and the infinite permutations and combinations of symptoms.

Rather than using matching, homeopaths must make use of the etiologic, pathologic and biochemical features of a disease in selecting and preparing the remedy.

Examples:

Highly diluted malarial antigens to treat malaria
Highly diluted HIV antigens to treat HIV infection
Highly diluted tumor antigens to treat cancers
Highly diluted cholera toxin to treat cholera
Highly diluted tetanus and polio toxins to treat tetanus and polio

Highly diluted potassium to treat hyperkalemia and so on.

In fact some homeopaths have already been using this sort of practice.

These highly diluted homeopathic remedies behave like negative solutions and hence can neutralise the corresponding disease states. Their potency depends on their negativity.

The argument that homeopathic remedies do not have any toxicity or side effects is also only partly correct. For example, homeopathic preparation of potassium can lead to hypokalemia.

Homeopathy is an incompletely understood science until now and hence not been applied correctly.

It doesn’t matter if hypernatremia is not mentioned in Homeopathy. I am actually an allopathic doctor and I know very little about the actual practice of Homeopathy. I am only interested in discussing the scientific feasibility of homeopathic principles that have razed so much storm.

[drkitten]

4) Or you can drink just 1ml of a solution ‘containing’ -50 meq/mL of substance ‘X’ (I wouldn’t expect you to believe in the existence of this negative solution state at this moment) [/

Do you understand the subtraction bit now?

No. And you very precisely nailed the reason I don't.

Since I not only "don't believe in the existence of this negative solution state," but I actively believe that such a state is physiochemically impossible (there's no such thing as a negative atom), I consider your "subtraction" to be nonsensical. It's not even possible to prepare such a "negative solution" using anti-matter, because the anti-solute would react with the solvent.

Now, there are substances that will actively remove other substances from solution. If you have too much calcium in a solution, then pouring a solution of sodium carbonate will cause the sodium to displace the calcium and precipitate the excess calcium out. Carbon monoxide will differentially replace oxygen in the blood because it binds more tightly to hemoglobin. At a more sophisticated level, this is what chelating agents do in vivo, so you can use a chelating agent to remove excess arsenic from the body. Similarly, insulin will act as an anti-glucose substance. But there's a big difference between a glucose antagonist and negative glucose.

[Jeff Corey]

... I am actually an allopathic doctor and I know very little about the actual practice of Homeopathy. I am only interested in discussing the scientific feasibility of homeopathic principles that have razed so much storm.
There is no such thing as an "allopathic doctor", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopathic_medicine and how do you "raze a storm"? Here's a meteorlogical phenomenon that is potentially dangerous and you can tear it down?

[fls]

It doesn’t matter if hypernatremia is not mentioned in Homeopathy. I am actually an allopathic doctor and I know very little about the actual practice of Homeopathy. I am only interested in discussing the scientific feasibility of homeopathic principles that have razed so much storm.

I call shenanigans. You are not a doctor if you can utter utter nonsense such as this:

"Imagine you have 5 L of body fluid with substance ‘X’ normally at 10 meq/L concentration. Because you gulped large quantities of this ‘X’, its concentration in your body fluid went up to 20 meq/L. How will you get rid of this?

1) If you do nothing, your kidneys might excrete the excess in say about 1month.

2) Alternatively you can drink 5 L of water containing 5meq/L of substance ‘X’ over a couple of days. This will bring down the level to 12.5 meq/L

3) Another option would be to drink 5 L of plain water (with 0 meq of substance ‘X’). This will straight away bring down the level to normalcy i.e. 10 meq/L"

Linda

[paximperium]

When Hahnemann consumed large doses of cinchona bark he developed high fever resembling malaria. His symptoms got better when he took the same in very small doses. He repeated this experiment with many of his friends and was surprised by the same finding. The more the dilution of the concoction, the more effective it was in alleviating the symptoms. Homeopathy is true until this point only.
Of course it is. Cinchona bark is essentially a type of quinine. Overdoses of quinine rarely causes fevers but it can cause skin flushing and in people with allergies to it, it can definitely cause fevers. So taking smaller and smaller doses of it doesn't cause an overdose or lead to an allergic reaction...yeah...suuuure....I see how smart Hahnemann was.

Rather than using matching, homeopaths must make use of the etiologic, pathologic and biochemical features of a disease in selecting and preparing the remedy.

Examples:

Highly diluted malarial antigens to treat malaria
Highly diluted HIV antigens to treat HIV infection
Highly diluted tumor antigens to treat cancers
Highly diluted cholera toxin to treat cholera
Highly diluted tetanus and polio toxins to treat tetanus and polio

Highly diluted potassium to treat hyperkalemia and so on.

In fact some homeopaths have already been using this sort of practice.

And this is the reason we despise you homeopaths. You are a threat to the life and health of people.


These highly diluted homeopathic remedies behave like negative solutions and hence can neutralise the corresponding disease states. Their potency depends on their negativity.
You keep saying this repeatedly as if it would automatically make it true.


The argument that homeopathic remedies do not have any toxicity or side effects is also only partly correct. For example, homeopathic preparation of potassium can lead to hypokalemia.
Prove it. Drinking water or taking a sugar pill doesn't normally cause it, so please present some evidence to support this claim.


Homeopathy is an incompletely understood science until now and hence not been applied correctly.
Hahahahahaha...oh the irony.


It doesn’t matter if hypernatremia is not mentioned in Homeopathy. I am actually an allopathic doctor and I know very little about the actual practice of Homeopathy. I am only interested in discussing the scientific feasibility of homeopathic principles that have razed so much storm.
Really? You seem very oblivious to science and even how medicine works. Where did you graduate from, what is your specialty and board certification?

Why must these woomongerer always back track and claim that "oooh I'm just a skeptic and not really a believer and am just asking questions."?

[Jeff Corey]

So far, three posters responded to the red flag "allopathic doctor". Our BS detectors seem to have caught a speaker of lies.

[Stout]

What, specifically, is wrong with the term "allopathic doctor" ?

I googled the term and found several references but they all seemed to be CAM sites.

Is it incorrect ? or is medical doctor ( one who practices allopathic medicine ) the correct term ?

[Jeff Corey]

From the link in Post 94. "Allopathic medicine and allopathy (from Greek ἄλλος, állos, other, different + πάϑος, páthos, suffering) are terms coined by Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy. Originally intended as a characterization of standard medicine in the early 19th century, these terms were rejected by mainstream physicians and quickly acquired negative overtones. In the United States the term "allopathic" has been used in contexts not related to homeopathy,[1] but it has never been accepted by the medical establishment, and is not a label that such individuals apply to themselves.[2][3]"

[Hellbound]

The argument that homeopathic remedies do not have any toxicity or side effects is also only partly correct. For example, homeopathic preparation of potassium can lead to hypokalemia.

Bull[rule8].

Show me ONE documented case where this cause and effect chain was established. With this simple experiment right here, you have just overturned moddern physics and medicine. This is a Nobel prize, as well as Randi's million dollars.

So why haven't we seen it?

Because it doesn't happen.

You are lying.

If you're willing to pay for the solutions and the testing, I propose the following:

1. Order as many vials of whatever 6X or higher homeopathic preparations of potassium you would like froma Homeopathic supplier. I'd suggest about a dozen very high solutions, say 10,000 C or something. Your choice.

2. Because quality control doesn't exist in any reasonable form at many homepathic supply comanies, I will NOT drink these until a sample from each vial is tested and shown to be nothing but water.

3. I will down EVERY VIAL as FAST AS I POSSIBLY CAN.

4. Wait, say, 6 hours for me to develop hypokalemia. We can keep medical personell on site, or I can drink the vials in the hospital emergency room. If I do develop hypokalemia, well, I'll sign over my home deed (current market value $114,000) to you. If I'm not dead and, as will happen, I do not contract any symptoms of hypokalemia, You will, in turn, pay me $114,000.

Sound like a plan? Or will you make up some excuse why it won't work, or why you can't do it? If homeopathy works, you have nothing to worry about. I'm sure one of the lawyers on the board would even be happy to assist us in writing up a legal contract, with appropriate modifiers to make sure you are released of any liability that you might use as an excuse.

Or will you, as I predict, come up with an excuse why you don't need an extra $114,000? Heck, even with a poor market, you can get $90,000 for it, at least, above and beyond realty costs.

By the way, this statement you made earlier:
Let it be normal saline, half normal saline or just free water (0% saline i.e. 5% dextrose in practice).
Pretty much tells me you're clueless as to real medicine. Dextrose <> Saline, in theory or in practice.

[fishbait]

From U.S Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics website: (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm)
There are two types of physicians: M.D.—Doctor of Medicine—and D.O.—Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. M.D.s also are known as allopathic physicians.

[fls]

From U.S Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics website: (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm)

I think the point is that none of us regular doctors go around announcing ourselves as "allopathic doctors".

Linda

[Pixel42]

ttp://www.hans-egebo.dk/skeptic/Homeopathy%20article.htm

To cure, one needs medicines, and as homeopathy basically only recognizes symptoms, which are interpreted them as disturbances in the functioning of the vital force, it follows logically that medicines must be substances that are somehow able to affect the vital force, causing some kind of symptoms to emerge. Elaborating on this train of logic, Hahnemann divided medicines into three groups:

1) Antipathic; medicines that cause effects that are opposite of those of the disease.

2) Homeopathic; medicines that cause effects similar to those of the disease.

3) Allopathic; medicines that cause effects that are neither similar, nor opposite to those of the disease.

[...]

Allopathy. This is an expression homeopaths often use for conventional medicine. It is a total misnomer, as modern medicine does not attempt to induce symptoms at all, but works from a totally different paradigm.

[sol invictus]

double post

[sol invictus]

Hats off to your kindness and support to a man who resorted to ugly personal abuse. I thought only a religious extremist can offer this much of blind support to their crowd.

More whining. I have never suffered fools lightly, and I'm not about to start now. You either:

1) believe what you are saying and practice medicine according to the principles you stated here, in which case you are a menace and should be stripped of whatever credentials you may have and maybe be jailed; or

2) don't believe what you are saying, in which case you're either a lying hypocrite or just another internet troll.

So which is it?

[paximperium]

Pretty much tells me you're clueless as to real medicine. Dextrose <> Saline, in theory or in practice.
This guy is full of it.

Well there is D5W(Dextrose 5% Water) but we seldom use it to correct hypernatremia since it would severely drop the sodium level too quickly and not to mention the osmols are also detrimental to cell life hence we don't directly infuse water into people's veins.

We do have D5W, D25W, D50W, D5NS, NSS, 1/2NSS and 1/4NS and even 2NSS...you can get a whole range of other weird concentrations that the pharmacy can mix up but that's for the Nephrologists to play around with...acid-base physiology confuses me. As already mentioned, hypernatremia is often caused by dehydration, medication and rarely a few hormonal endocrine abnormalities and perhaps the occasional sea water drinker/salt eater type who tend to have psych problems(but we usually see the opposite in those patients).

[paximperium]

I think the point is that none of us regular doctors go around announcing ourselves as "allopathic doctors".

Linda

Well, this guy could be a Naturopathic "Doctor"...he seems to have the intelligence and education of one.

PS: If you think I'm being harsh to the so called NDs, I've talked to a few and they are moronic threats to society.

[Madalch]

Imagine you have 5 L of body fluid with substance ‘X’ normally at 10 meq/L concentration. Because you gulped large quantities of this ‘X’, its concentration in your body fluid went up to 20 meq/L. How will you get rid of this?

Yeah, we get the idea. But we also realize that this is a hypothetical. You can believe all you want that a negative concentration is possible. It would certainly be easy enough to test if you had access to a technician with an AA spectrometer or other concentration-determining device.

Until such a thing is tested and the possibility is proven, then all your arguments about homeopathy are mere hand-waving, and deserve to be ignored the first time, and scorned the second. Come back when you wish to discuss the ways of testing this, instead of assuming that the possibility is solid enough to build your castle on.

Unfortunately, you have got an even difficult puzzle to solve: We traditionally know only 4 dimensions- length, width, breadth and time. But there seem to be at least 10 or even up to 26 dimensions according to superstring theory. Can you find in which Universe?
If you can show that string theory is somehow relevant to this discussion in some way other than a vague "There are more things in Heaven and Earth" way, then I might devote some thought to the issue.

[Ashles]

I am actually an allopathic doctor and I know very little about the actual practice of Homeopathy. I am only interested in discussing the scientific feasibility of homeopathic principles that have razed so much storm.
Well, if you are a doctor, why do you not find the overwhelming body of evidence that shows no effect beyond placebo to be not compelling?
Did you not read the Lancet's meta-analysis?
What do you feel is left to discuss when there is no evidence there is even an effect to explain?

Secondly, when discussing the scientific feasibility, why, as a doctor, do you not think that the fact it breaks three known mechanisms of accepted scientific knowledge is not an issue?
Like does not cure like (and please don't compare vaccines to homeopathy or we'll know that you are no more a doctor than Kermit the Forg)
Water does not have 'memory'
Repeated dilution does not make an effect of an active ingredient stronger

Thirdly, the 'storm' is quite simple. Many people, for various reasons (money, delusion, misunderstanding of cause and effect, confirmation bias, emotional attachment, mistaken belief that historical weight adds validity, mistaken belief that anecdotal evidence has weight etc.) believe Homeopathy works and are very vocal on the subject.
Many other people (i.e. people who have actually read around the subject scientifically) are aware there is no evidence that such an effect exists and therefore feel rather strongly that it should not in any way be considered a real healthcare treatment.

[Hellbound]

<Good stuff>

Yeah, I was an Army medic and EMT for quite some time (over 12 years). For us, Dextrose was to be used for head injuries because of swelling issues. I can't recall it being the optimal choice for anything else.

My main point was him trying to equate saline with dextrose, which was, well, just plain wrong :)

Actually, I seem to recall dextrose being used in some cases concerning pregancy or pre-mature labor? Am I mis-remembering that? As a military medic, we didn't do too much pre-natal care :)

[xinit]

All I ask for proof is a very simple test. Let's see a large group take part in a blinded, placebo controlled study. Just one.

If any homeopathic remedy can work in such a case, then maybe it's not against science. OR let's do a head to head, non-blinded test with malaria prevention with Homeopathic Witch Doctors taking their preparations, and Real Doctors taking theirs. Then we'll all go on a nice walk through a room loaded with infectious mosquitoes and see who gets sick.

Until it's testable and reproducible, it remains nothing more than a magic potion prescribed by witch doctors to the credulous.

[sanguine]

I'm just curious about the protocol for making a negative solution.

Could you please elaborate, in detail? A negative saline solution would be easy enough. I have both purified water and ACS-graded sodium chloride over in the lab, and would be happy to attempt the preparation.*



*Although I'm not sure if one actually uses NaCl to make a negative NaCl solution. I hope the protocol will clear that up.

[SkeptiChick]

I'm just curious about the protocol for making a negative solution.

Could you please elaborate, in detail? A negative saline solution would be easy enough. I have both purified water and ACS-graded sodium chloride over in the lab, and would be happy to attempt the preparation.*



*Although I'm not sure if one actually uses NaCl to make a negative NaCl solution. I hope the protocol will clear that up.I've been curious about that too.

How, exactly, does one make a solution that has less than 0% of something?

[Aitch]

The 'negative solution' idea sounds to me like someone with no real scientific knowledge has seen/skimmed an article on positive/negative doping in semiconducters and tried to inappropriately shoehorn the concept into biochemistry. Possibly in an attempt to replace some previous, debunked pseudo-science.

Just my opinion, like.

[Crundy]

If you're willing to pay for the solutions and the testing, I propose the following:

1. Order as many vials of whatever 6X or higher homeopathic preparations of potassium you would like froma Homeopathic supplier. I'd suggest about a dozen very high solutions, say 10,000 C or something. Your choice.

2. Because quality control doesn't exist in any reasonable form at many homepathic supply comanies, I will NOT drink these until a sample from each vial is tested and shown to be nothing but water.

3. I will down EVERY VIAL as FAST AS I POSSIBLY CAN.

4. Wait, say, 6 hours for me to develop hypokalemia. We can keep medical personell on site, or I can drink the vials in the hospital emergency room. If I do develop hypokalemia, well, I'll sign over my home deed (current market value $114,000) to you. If I'm not dead and, as will happen, I do not contract any symptoms of hypokalemia, You will, in turn, pay me $114,000.

Sound like a plan? Or will you make up some excuse why it won't work, or why you can't do it? If homeopathy works, you have nothing to worry about. I'm sure one of the lawyers on the board would even be happy to assist us in writing up a legal contract, with appropriate modifiers to make sure you are released of any liability that you might use as an excuse.

Or will you, as I predict, come up with an excuse why you don't need an extra $114,000? Heck, even with a poor market, you can get $90,000 for it, at least, above and beyond realty costs.

Are you up for this, drgsrinivas?

[jdc324]

Rob at semiskimmed did a homeopathy chllange once on Lycopodium: http://semiskimmed.net/22.html#lycopodiumchallenge

Also covered on teh Bad Science forums: http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3990&start=0

Inspired by a homeopath commenting on the Quackometer blog: http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/12/homeopathic-revolution-by-dana-ullman.html#c2981504761631555292

I don't want to ruin the ending for anyone, but he posted again a week later and apparently the homeopathic treatments... ...did absolutely nothing.

[Acleron]

Yeah, we get the idea. But we also realize that this is a hypothetical. You can believe all you want that a negative concentration is possible. It would certainly be easy enough to test if you had access to a technician with an AA spectrometer or other concentration-determining device.

Yes, you could use a simple uv/vis absorption spectrophotometer, if the material absorbs light in that region. It would lead to a rather startling result. As the concentration becomes negative, light would be emitted! Hey, that's free energy, not. :eek:

[xinit]

3. I will down EVERY VIAL as FAST AS I POSSIBLY CAN.


You know that your lack of faith will be enough to disrupt the remedies from working, right?

Seriously, though, I would imagine that your only real risk in drinking 10 L of remedies would be hyperhydration...

[Wildy]

k just 1ml of a solution ‘containing’ -50 meq/mL of substance ‘X’ (I wouldn’t expect you to believe in the existence of this negative solution state at this moment)

I believe that sanguine already asked the question that I wanted to ask:

I'm just curious about the protocol for making a negative solution.

But I would also like to know what mechanism would allow for negative solutions?

[Hellbound]

You know that your lack of faith will be enough to disrupt the remedies from working, right?

Seriously, though, I would imagine that your only real risk in drinking 10 L of remedies would be hyperhydration...

I'll keep a few salt packets on hand :)

[paximperium]

I'll keep a few salt packets on hand :)

Are you sure it is worth putting your bladder through such a work out?

[Hellbound]

Are you sure it is worth putting your bladder through such a work out?

Quite frankly, I don't expect the challenge to be taken up.

However, if we can agree to a protocol, and have proper legal documentation drawn up, sure, I can do that.

[Crundy]

For what? The one homeopath you are addressing will claim it failed because of [insert dumb reason here], and every other homeopath will ignore the results of the experiment.

[paximperium]

Sacrifice Your Bladder For Science

[Hellbound]

For what? The one homeopath you are addressing will claim it failed because of [insert dumb reason here], and every other homeopath will ignore the results of the experiment.

Really, I don't care what he claims, or what other homeopaths think (in regards to this test, ina nay case). This is why I plan to have a legal document drawn up, so when the test fails, I get $114,000 to pay off my house :)

If, as I expect, he fails to show up here again and take up the challenge, then I will have shown that his belief in homeopathy is, most likely, lip service. He knows the test will fail, and thus will refuse the challenge for whatever reason.

[xinit]

If, as I expect, he fails to show up here again and take up the challenge, then I will have shown that his belief in homeopathy is, most likely, lip service. He knows the test will fail, and thus will refuse the challenge for whatever reason.

When it comes right down to it, it's almost like they don't want to trust their own 'medicine'...

I still want one homeopath who's willing to do a simple Malaria exposure....

[tyr_13]

Really, I don't care what he claims, or what other homeopaths think (in regards to this test, ina nay case). This is why I plan to have a legal document drawn up, so when the test fails, I get $114,000 to pay off my house :)

If, as I expect, he fails to show up here again and take up the challenge, then I will have shown that his belief in homeopathy is, most likely, lip service. He knows the test will fail, and thus will refuse the challenge for whatever reason.

Didn't he say that he isn't a homoepath? I mean, I don't believe he is really a doctor but I'm not sure it is needed to direct a challenge at him.

[PixyMisa]

I've been curious about that too.

How, exactly, does one make a solution that has less than 0% of something?
Clearly, you either start with less than no water and dissolve a positive amount of the solute in it, or start with less than no solute and dissolve it in a positive amount of water.

It's basic stuff; should have been covered in your Utter Nonsense 101 course.

[drkitten]

Didn't he say that he isn't a homoepath?

He did.

We are, however, under no obligation to believe it. His use of the word "allopath" is a flare-lit tipoff; almost no one who isn't deeply steeped in homeopathy uses that word. Whether he's a practicing homeopathic witch-doctor or merely a fellow-traveler is almost irrelevant; I'm not a physician, but I would be happy to accept a $100,000 bet that a suitably chosen modern medicine demonstrably does what it says it can do on the label.

[SkeptiChick]

Clearly, you either start with less than no water and dissolve a positive amount of the solute in it, or start with less than no solute and dissolve it in a positive amount of water.

It's basic stuff; should have been covered in your Utter Nonsense 101 course.I knew I should have paid more attention in that class instead of sleeping through it! :p

[Baron Samedi]

I've been curious about that too.

How, exactly, does one make a solution that has less than 0% of something?

Easy peasy. For example, yesterday I had 5 birds in my back yard. Today, I had none. Therefore, a "solution" of 1 hungry cat per back yard is equal to -5 birds per back yard. Ergo, homeopathy works!

On that note, I also have some great real estate for sale in Florida, limited time offer! It has to be sold by a Nigerian prince for a discount, but shhh, don't tell anybody, it's top secret.

[SkeptiChick]

Easy peasy. For example, yesterday I had 5 birds in my back yard. Today, I had none. Therefore, a "solution" of 1 hungry cat per back yard is equal to -5 birds per back yard. Ergo, homeopathy works!

On that note, I also have some great real estate for sale in Florida, limited time offer! It has to be sold by a Nigerian prince for a discount, but shhh, don't tell anybody, it's top secret.Ohhhh! Just like one spray can of Raid is equal to -100,000 ants! :cool:

[Baron Samedi]

Ohhhh! Just like one spray can of Raid is equal to -100,000 ants! :cool:

Exactly! Just remember to keep an open mind so as you can expand your horizons, and anything is possible! And feel free to throw in the word "quantum" in every day conversation. If you do that, it must be scientific.

[NobbyNobbs]

...these principles have eluded any logic...It survived these many long years only because of the anecdotal success stories. Unfortunately these claims could not be consistently reproduced...


You answered your own question in the first paragraph.

[NobbyNobbs]

I'll keep a few salt packets on hand :)


Wouldn't the homeopathic remedy for hyperhyrdration be either a few grains of dry dirt, or, according to the OP, a few drops of water diluted in...um...water?

[Crundy]

It would be interesting to find out what test would prove to a homeopath that homeopathy doesn't work. Nothing, I'm guessing. We've tried scientific fact, double blind trials, and in vitro studies such as the Horizon experiment. Nothing.

As someone else mentioned, what we should do is infect a homeopath with a delayed, fatal pathogen, and let them cure themselves using homeopathic remedies alone. Self solving problem.

[xinit]

As someone else mentioned, what we should do is infect a homeopath with a delayed, fatal pathogen, and let them cure themselves using homeopathic remedies alone. Self solving problem.

People tell me that my proposed Malaria test would be unethical.

I can't imagine that it's as unethical as continuing to tell people that homeopathy works...

[sanguine]

People tell me that my proposed Malaria test would be unethical.

I can't imagine that it's as unethical as continuing to tell people that homeopathy works...

As long as you define a period in which the homeopathic methods are intended to work, and then institute conventional malaria treatment afterward, and the volunteers give informed consent, the malaria trial is not intrinsically unethical.

[tyr_13]

He did.

We are, however, under no obligation to believe it. His use of the word "allopath" is a flare-lit tipoff; almost no one who isn't deeply steeped in homeopathy uses that word. Whether he's a practicing homeopathic witch-doctor or merely a fellow-traveler is almost irrelevant; I'm not a physician, but I would be happy to accept a $100,000 bet that a suitably chosen modern medicine demonstrably does what it says it can do on the label.

True, but I fear it just seems like another, 'skeptics on attack' thing that leaves a bad taste in so many people's mouths. It is also not needed to break down reasoning, which we already have done. Personally, I think we should be happy that someone came in here with 'support' for homeopathy because it gives us the chance to systemically dismiss the claims. If we keep talking about challenges and get really 'mean' to people who come in with claims and support for the stuff we are skeptical in, many of those people won't come around as much.

[blutoski]

When Hahnemann consumed large doses of cinchona bark he developed high fever resembling malaria. His symptoms got better when he took the same in very small doses. He repeated this experiment with many of his friends and was surprised by the same finding. The more the dilution of the concoction, the more effective it was in alleviating the symptoms.

Did he make an effort to distinguish between improvement caused by homeopathic remedy with a diluted quantity of the toxin vs improvement caused by stopping taking the toxin? ie: could his improvement have been caused by simply reducing his exposure, and would taking none have been even better than a dilution?



Homeopathy is true until this point only.

?

[Rolfe]

When Hahnemann consumed large doses of cinchona bark he developed high fever resembling malaria. His symptoms got better when he took the same in very small doses. He repeated this experiment with many of his friends and was surprised by the same finding. The more the dilution of the concoction, the more effective it was in alleviating the symptoms. Homeopathy is true until this point only.

There after Homeopathy went completely in the wrong direction- provings, identifying the drug pictures and the practice of matching

Matching is the main drawback of Homeopathy and is responsible its frequent failures. Matching can never be perfect considering the number and variety of symptoms a drug can produce in individuals, and the infinite permutations and combinations of symptoms.

Rather than using matching, homeopaths must make use of the etiologic, pathologic and biochemical features of a disease in selecting and preparing the remedy.


I'm sure someone else mentioned the idiosyncratic reaction Hahnemann seems to have had to the cinchona bark, and the fact that it was probably an allergy. Never mind that for now.

Homoeopathy has two main tenets. The first one postulated by Hahnemann was the "like cures like" part. Note, this was never "same cures same". Cinchona bark cures malaria, not Plasmodium falciparum cures malaria.

However, it was real cinchona bark. The statement that "the more the dilution of the concoction, the more effective it was in alleviating the symptoms" is completely wrong, when applied to this stage in the progress. Hahnemann began by using finite quantities of his remedies, sometimes quite large quantities, with no thought of dilution at all.

He practised in this way for some time. The main problem he found was that the remedies he was giving people were often extremely toxic, such as arsenic and sulphuric acid, and they were doing more harm to the patients than the original diseases. I believe he killed a few people.

It was in order to get over this difficulty that he devised the second main tenet, the doctrine of "potentisation". He asserted that repeated diluting (with shaking) of the remedy eliminated the toxic potential (well, of course it would), but at the same time preserved the pure essence of the beneficial effects (this is where the magical thinking crept in).

Thus, drgsrinivas is entirely wrong as regards the history and practice of homoeopathy. The concept that the remedy is something which produces symptoms similar to the patient's actual symptoms, but is not itself the causative agent, is absolutely fundamental. More fundamental in fact than the potentisation process.

What is being proposed here is really nothing to do with homoeopathy, even including the concept of "negative solutions" or whatever. If the tenet of the proposition is that the actual causative agent is used in potentised form as the remedy, that is isopathy. Isopathy is scorned by some homoeopaths and practised by some others in a limited sort of way. But it isn't homoeopathy.

Almost all homoeopathy relates to the doctrine of similars. Thus, it has no relation at all to what is being discussed here. Any alleged positive effects of homoeopathy are entirely irrelevant to discussion of what it basically a branch of isopathy.

We seem in fact to be talking about something completely different from what any of us, or indeed any homoeopath, would recognise as homoeopathy. Perhaps we should label it "drgsrinivas-isopathy" and take it from there. Discussion might be simpler.

Rolfe.

[Sherman Bay]

Examples:

Highly diluted malarial antigens to treat malaria
Highly diluted HIV antigens to treat HIV infection
Highly diluted tumor antigens to treat cancers
Highly diluted cholera toxin to treat cholera
Highly diluted tetanus and polio toxins to treat tetanus and polio

Highly diluted potassium to treat hyperkalemia and so on.Never mind that you don't know how these work or if they work at all. "Highly diluted" may be appropriate for some medical treatments, but THERE IS NO MEDICINE IN THE MEDICINE if it is homeopathic. Something diluted past a certain point has nothing in the bottle except inert materials and solutes. Now you will have to explain why NOTHING can cure something, and how certain nothings can cure some somethings, but not other somethings. And with NOT A MOLECULE of the original substance to test or detect, how can we tell what substance was there originally? There's not a single instrument in the world's best chemistry lab that can do that.

There's simply no possible logic to this scheme, only fraud and delusion. I invite you to prove me wrong, and the million dollars is still available for a limited time, so hurry up.

[drgsrinivas]

The process of serial dilution and succussion results in the formation of a negative solution. I can explain how.

But many have not understood the simpler part- Homeopathy is feasible if there is a state of negative concentration. The problem is mainly their hardcore anti homeopathic attitude. Or else it may be that people got used to accept only theories with complex mathematical equations and not those based on simple reasoning.

I am ready to take up the test to prove the existence of negative concentration state. In fact you don’t need to come to me all the way; you can do the experiment in your own lab with help from a chemist and a homeopath.

Protocol is simple- Follow the serial dilution and succussion method of preparation of any homeopathic remedy. You can mix that with a solution of known strength and measure its concentration.

[SkeptiChick]

The process of serial dilution and succussion results in the formation of a negative solution. I can explain how.
Then please do so. I, for one, am chomping at the bit to find out how to do this.

[xinit]

Homeopathy is feasible if there is a state of negative concentration.

For someone who states that they are not a homeopath, you sure have the doubletalk down pat...

What do you mean by a negative solution? If we're making a remedy with iron, are you talking about a solution that has a non-positive amount of iron atoms; like -1 mol/L?

[tyr_13]

But many have not understood the simpler part- Homeopathy is feasible if there is a state of negative concentration. The problem is mainly their hardcore anti homeopathic attitude. Or else it may be that people got used to accept only theories with complex mathematical equations and not those based on simple reasoning.



Did I miss something? When did your simple reasoning show something? Wasn't simple reasoning used to take down your claim several times over?

Oooo, logic! Homeopathy is feasible (A) IF there is a state of negative concentration (B). Seeing as B is false, that leaves you with...nothing again.

The process you describe would be diluting, not a negative solution. The main problem is you don't understand basic physics. One doesn't need a hardcore anti-homeopathic attitude to see that.

[sanguine]

Protocol is simple- Follow the serial dilution and succussion method of preparation of any homeopathic remedy. You can mix that with a solution of known strength and measure its concentration.

So the assertion is that if I say, start with a one molar NaCl solution (~58 grams of crystalline NaCl into a liter of purified water) and then serially dilute that solution over and over again, it will at some point become a "negative" solution?

What fold dilution should be used for the serial dilutions, and how many times?

Following that dilution, what is the assay that is used to "measure its concentration"? Is the suggestion that you add the final diluted product to a known concentration of the same solution and then measure that concentration? I read that as:

Start with 1 M NaCl solution
Serially dilute that solution to some degree
Add the final serial dilution product to some amount of 1M NaCl
Measure final concentration

Presumably, then the final concentration of NaCl in the combined solutions would be expected to be somehow lower than expected?

For example, a positive result would be:

Serially dilute NaCl solution to effective zero concentration
Add 500 mL of that dilution to 500 mL of 1 M NaCl
Final concentration is significantly less than 0.5 M NaCl

Is that the assertion, and a reasonable assay?

[PixyMisa]

The process of serial dilution and succussion results in the formation of a negative solution. I can explain how.
We're listening.

But many have not understood the simpler part- Homeopathy is feasible if there is a state of negative concentration.
Remember, there are two strikes against homeopathy. 1: Can't work. 2: Doesn't work. Even if you manage to dispose of one problem, you must still address the other.

The problem is mainly their hardcore anti homeopathic attitude.
You mean, we disallow the impossible?

Or else it may be that people got used to accept only theories with complex mathematical equations and not those based on simple reasoning.
You mean, we also disallow the nonsensical?

I am ready to take up the test to prove the existence of negative concentration state.
We're still listening.

In fact you don’t need to come to me all the way; you can do the experiment in your own lab with help from a chemist and a homeopath.
What's the homeopath needed for? Oh, never mind, still listening.

Protocol is simple- Follow the serial dilution and succussion method of preparation of any homeopathic remedy. You can mix that with a solution of known strength and measure its concentration.
Fail.

[Wildy]

Exactly! Just remember to keep an open mind so as you can expand your horizons, and anything is possible! And feel free to throw in the word "quantum" in every day conversation. If you do that, it must be scientific.

That's so quantum. You know I can't believe how quantum that is.

The process of serial dilution and succussion results in the formation of a negative solution. I can explain how.

But many have not understood the simpler part- Homeopathy is feasible if there is a state of negative concentration. The problem is mainly their hardcore anti homeopathic attitude. Or else it may be that people got used to accept only theories with complex mathematical equations and not those based on simple reasoning.

I am ready to take up the test to prove the existence of negative concentration state. In fact you don’t need to come to me all the way; you can do the experiment in your own lab with help from a chemist and a homeopath.

Protocol is simple- Follow the serial dilution and succussion method of preparation of any homeopathic remedy. You can mix that with a solution of known strength and measure its concentration.

Can you at least show this theoretically? I mean if I start with a 1M solution of NaCl, then how would I go about diluting it to -1M?

And what is there to stop me from filling up a glass of pure water and claiming that it has a -1M solution of NaCl?

[sanguine]

you can do the experiment in your own lab with help from a chemist and a homeopath.

I actually missed this on my first readthrough. I figure I can do it with help from me, since I'm a competent chemist. What's the homeopath for?

[Mojo]

The process of serial dilution and succussion results in the formation of a negative solution. I can explain how.


Let me guess: antimatter?

[TheDaver]

I actually missed this on my first readthrough. I figure I can do it with help from me, since I'm a competent chemist. What's the homeopath for?
To empty the garbage pails and turn the lights off when you leave.

[Crundy]

I'll ask drgsrinivas again:

What test would convince you that homeopathy doesn't work?

For me if someone told me that, for example, paracetamol (acetamionophen) does not stop headaches, initially I would not believe them. If a controlled double-blind trial showed that paracetamol was not statistically significantly more effective than placebo at alleviating headache symptoms then I would change my mind and conclude that paracetamol is not effective for headaches. What test would make you change your mind about homeopathy?

[Baron Samedi]

The process of serial dilution and succussion results in the formation of a negative solution. I can explain how.

The process of serial dilution and succussion is not a simple matter of addition and subtraction, but multiplication. Your series is much easier to calculate that way.

[paximperium]

Somehow...everyone seems to be still waiting...it's like the Big Foot guys hoax anouncement...we're being strung along and still waiting.

[Twiler]

The process of serial dilution and succussion results in the formation of a negative solution. I can explain how.

But many have not understood the simpler part- Homeopathy is feasible if there is a state of negative concentration. The problem is mainly their hardcore anti homeopathic attitude. Or else it may be that people got used to accept only theories with complex mathematical equations and not those based on simple reasoning.

[snip]

Does anyone know what happens when two anti-intellectuals with opposing viewpoints come into contact? Do they just shout at each other until they lose their voices?

drgsrinivas, it only seems like simple reasoning to you because it's actually dogma. To all of us it seems like nonsense.

[xinit]

To empty the garbage pails and turn the lights off when you leave.

Pfft... the homeopath would tell you that a full garbage can is really a small amount of garbage, and to wait for more garbage to appear for it to become a smaller amount. If only you would discard your allopathic concepts of sanitation and be open minded.

Oh, and he'd steal your lightbulbs, because illumination is bad for his cause.

[Hellbound]

So, no mention of my offer to give you a house?

As I expected.

Heck, I'll do the same wager based on your "negative solution" idea. It'll be a bit trickier, as we'll have to define protocols and find a third-party chemist and homeopath.

I'd suggest doing a test where:

1. We have the chemist make (or purchase from a known, reputable supply store) 10 equal volume bottles of, say, 5M NaCl solution.
2. Your homeopath makes 5 equal volume bottles of "negative solution". He also makes 5 bottles (same volume as the "negative" solutions) that are nothing but stock solvent (i.e.-the water he started with, not mixed, not succussed).
3. Both sets of bottles are given to a neutral third party, who will mix each NaCl solution with one of the homeopaths solutions, all into identical containers marked only with a number (1 through 10). The third party then returns the solutions.
4. You identify the 5 bottles that were mixed with your "negative" solution.
5. We then check your answers with our neutral third party.
6. You pay me the amount agreed when you epically fail, or I sign over my house to you if everything we know about the world (and have built up over the last hundred years) is wrong, and there really is no rational, logical, underlying reality to the universe.

How's that sound?

[Stout]

I'm sure someone else mentioned the idiosyncratic reaction Hahnemann seems to have had to the cinchona bark, and the fact that it was probably an allergy. Never mind that for now.

Homoeopathy has two main tenets. The first one postulated by Hahnemann was the "like cures like" part. Note, this was never "same cures same". Cinchona bark cures malaria, not Plasmodium falciparum cures malaria.

However, it was real cinchona bark. The statement that "the more the dilution of the concoction, the more effective it was in alleviating the symptoms" is completely wrong, when applied to this stage in the progress. Hahnemann began by using finite quantities of his remedies, sometimes quite large quantities, with no thought of dilution at all.

He practised in this way for some time. The main problem he found was that the remedies he was giving people were often extremely toxic, such as arsenic and sulphuric acid, and they were doing more harm to the patients than the original diseases. I believe he killed a few people.

It was in order to get over this difficulty that he devised the second main tenet, the doctrine of "potentisation". He asserted that repeated diluting (with shaking) of the remedy eliminated the toxic potential (well, of course it would), but at the same time preserved the pure essence of the beneficial effects (this is where the magical thinking crept in).

Thus, drgsrinivas is entirely wrong as regards the history and practice of homoeopathy. The concept that the remedy is something which produces symptoms similar to the patient's actual symptoms, but is not itself the causative agent, is absolutely fundamental. More fundamental in fact than the potentisation process.

What is being proposed here is really nothing to do with homoeopathy, even including the concept of "negative solutions" or whatever. If the tenet of the proposition is that the actual causative agent is used in potentised form as the remedy, that is isopathy. Isopathy is scorned by some homoeopaths and practised by some others in a limited sort of way. But it isn't homoeopathy.

Almost all homoeopathy relates to the doctrine of similars. Thus, it has no relation at all to what is being discussed here. Any alleged positive effects of homoeopathy are entirely irrelevant to discussion of what it basically a branch of isopathy.

We seem in fact to be talking about something completely different from what any of us, or indeed any homoeopath, would recognise as homoeopathy. Perhaps we should label it "drgsrinivas-isopathy" and take it from there. Discussion might be simpler.

Rolfe.

Thanks for the clarification Rolfe.

I've got to add, the whole concept of negative solutions is something I've never come across in any of my readings of homeopathy.

just thinking out loud here...but might this whole negative solutions thing be more of a Dr. Emoto type thing where "the energy" of the water is somehow affected by the addition and subsequent removal of solutes.

I asked my chem teacher neighbour about negative solutions as discussed in this thread, ans he slowly backed away from me....

I'm reading this whole same cures same as vaccination, but way too late in the game.

[steenkh]

I'm reading this whole same cures same as vaccination, but way too late in the game.
"Same cures same" has nothing to do with vaccination. First of all, in homoeopathy, the "same cures same" is based on finding something that produces the same symptoms, but is not actually the same as the illness. Besides, homoeopathy uses dilutions so small that it is actually of no interest what active ingredient they started with because that ingredient has been diluted away into nothingness. Real (though somewhat fraudulent) homoeopaths find that if they need more remedy than they have available, it works just as well to top off the bottle with more of the solvent. This is consistent with the theory that homoeopathy does not actually work.

In vaccination, there is actual measurable active ingredients present, and they are based on the actual disease vector, though in a diluted form. And as you pointed out, vaccination only works before the patient is infected, not afterwards. Using more solvent instead of active ingredients in a vaccine will not produce a workable vaccine, consistent with the theory that vaccines really work.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Deleted post

[tyr_13]

Now I know why the original challenge was issued.

As for a negative solution, it couldn't be using anti-matter because mixing a negative solution with anything would causes an explosion as a massive amount of energy is released. Of course if a negative solution was anti-matter it would just explode by reacting with the other matter in the solution (water). So it would have to be a suspensions of the postulated negative matter that annihilates normal matter without the thermal release. Of course this would have to be 'magical' negative matter that doesn't annihilate the water it is suspended in, and that only destroys specific bad things in the human body or another solution...

Yeah, it all comes back to the fact that you can't have a negative solution. If somehow you managed that, you shouldn't be talking about it on some forum, but giving it to physicists. And good rock, don't give it to a human to drink if it destroys ANY matter!

[Stout]

hi steenkh...yes, i was working on the assumption that a homeopathic solution would have *some* trace of an active ingredient in it and generated that comparison based on the "examples" give by drgsrinivas.

The cinchona bark story I found too weird to equate to much more than " I like it when it I stop banging my head against the wall, it feels good to stop" So if I take something that makes me sick, and I effectively stop taking it, I'll stop being sick. OK

I'm much more comfortable with the like cures like idea. At leas I find it more understandable than the parallels I was drawing between same/same and vaccination.

So if same cures same is indeed isopathy, then I'll refer to it as that and if isopathy is only a *small* part of homeopathy then I'll digest that knowledge too

I'm not trying to be any sort of apologist here, just trying to understand just what it is that homeopaths are trying to sell.

[Hellbound]

Now I know why the original challenge was issued.

As for a negative solution, it couldn't be using anti-matter because mixing a negative solution with anything would causes an explosion as a massive amount of energy is released. Of course if a negative solution was anti-matter it would just explode by reacting with the other matter in the solution (water). So it would have to be a suspensions of the postulated negative matter that annihilates normal matter without the thermal release. Of course this would have to be 'magical' negative matter that doesn't annihilate the water it is suspended in, and that only destroys specific bad things in the human body or another solution...

Yeah, it all comes back to the fact that you can't have a negative solution. If somehow you managed that, you shouldn't be talking about it on some forum, but giving it to physicists. And good rock, don't give it to a human to drink if it destroys ANY matter!

Aha! So homeopathy proves the existence of "exotic matter" (matter with a negative nergy density)!

Do you realize what this means?!

WE CAN STABALIZE WORMHOLES WITH HOMEOPATHIC SOLUTIONS!!!!!

We just discovered faster-than-light travel AND time travel!

Screw the homeopaths, I thought of it, so it's my idea. Someone point me to the nearest patent office!

:rolleyes:

:D

[xinit]

WE CAN STABALIZE WORMHOLES WITH HOMEOPATHIC SOLUTIONS!!!!!

:jaw-dropp

Quick! Get CERN on the phone!

[Hellbound]

:jaw-dropp

Quick! Get CERN on the phone!

*dialing*

Ring ring!

Ring ring!

*click*

"We're sorry, but becuase of an inter-dimensional rift opened when we circulated the beam, we are unable to answer your call at this time. Please select from our automated menu for additional optons: If you are the last surviving space marine from your unit, please press one. If you are an amazingly skilled new employee caught in the interdimensional rift, please press two. If you are a cartoon character playing up the end of the universe for cheap laughs, please press 3. If you are an alien zombie created by the beings pouring from the rift, please press 4. If you are a SciFi channel executive seeking movie rights, please press 5."

[Rolfe]

Something diluted past a certain point has nothing in the bottle except inert materials and solutes.


You meant solvents, didn't you? Just clarifying.

Rolfe.

[Stout]

So then...

If I were to seek treatment for my hay fever from a Homeopath I should expect a like treating like, which would have the Homeopath giving me a solution of something that makes my nose run and my eyes water...like teargas.

But under same treats same ( isopathy ) I would expect the isopath to treat me with a solution of the allergen that's causing my distress...like ragweed.

[Rolfe]

The cinchona bark story I found too weird to equate to much more than " I like it when it I stop banging my head against the wall, it feels good to stop" So if I take something that makes me sick, and I effectively stop taking it, I'll stop being sick. OK.


The cinchona bark story is quite an interesting one.

Hahnemann was originally a doctor who practised along the lines of fresh air and exercise will be better for you than purging and blood-letting. So far so good. However, this pill-and-potion-free system wasn't very lucrative, and he took to translating medical books into German to supplement his income.

He was translating a very famous book by a very famous Scottish chemist [William Cullen's 1789 Materia Medica, I just checked up] when he came across the assertion that cinchona bark was a cure for malaria because of its astringent action on the stomach. Hahnemann pondered this statement, in the light of the fact that there were other substances which had an even more astringent action on the stomach which didn't seem to be cures for malaria. Surely this reasoning was wrong, he decided.

Still so far so good. The reasoning was wrong, and Hahnemann was right to be sceptical. The reason cinchona bark is a cure for malaria is that it contains quinine, which is toxic to the protozoal causative agent of malaria, Plasmodium falciparum. However, Hahnemann had no way of coming to the correct conclusion at that time.

He decided to investigate, and in the course of his investigations he acquired some cinchona bark, which he self-administered, although he was not at that time suffering from malaria. He recorded a reaction to the bark, which was apparently repeatable, but it is not one that was reported by anyone else who took the stuff. It has been speculated that Hahnemann had a hypersensitivity reaction to the remedy - which was naturally far from pure.

However, he decided that this reaction of his was similar to the symptoms of malaria. He then asserted that the reason cinchona bark cured malaria was that it produced the signs of malaria in healthy subjects. He then asserted that this is how all successful treatments work - every successful treatment produces the symptoms of the disease against which it is effective in healthy subjects.

He then finished off this disastrous train of false reasoning by asserting that any substance at all is a sure-fire cure for any disease which shows symptoms similar to the signs that substance produces in healthy people. (Thus, arsenic is a cure for gastroenteritis.)

He then set about curing people by dosing them with finite quantities of substances known to cause their symptoms in healthy people. Arsenic and sulphuric acid included.

All this long before the dilution and succussion stuff was dreamed up, as a way to get round the slight problem that in its original form, similia similibus curantur was frequently worse than the original disease.

The provings and the likes and dislikes of the subjects and the constitutional remedies and the miasms all came later, as did the progression to conducting the provings (as well as the treatments) with ultra-dilute preparations.

The train of "logic" has a certain morbid fascination. As train wrecks go, it has had pretty widespread effects. But how we get from there to negative concentrations, I have no clue.

I await enlightenment with bated breath.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

So then...

If I were to seek treatment for my hay fever from a Homeopath I should expect a like treating like, which would have the Homeopath giving me a solution of something that makes my nose run and my eyes water...like teargas.

But under same treats same ( isopathy ) I would expect the isopath to treat me with a solution of the allergen that's causing my distress...like ragweed.


Got it in one. In fact, what a homoeopath would give you for hay fever is probably onion (or allium cepa, as they prefer to call it). This is a favourite example used by homoeopaths who are trying to sound rational, and they very carefully avoid telling you that the analogy of onion making your eyes water is a false one, because homoeopathic provings are not done on the raw remedy, but on ultra-dilute solutions of the raw remedy.

Isopathy, on the other hand, would give you an ultra-dilute solution of pollen. Google almost anything by David Reilly and/or Morag Taylor.

Rolfe.

[paximperium]

The cinchona bark story is quite an intersing one.

<snip>

I await enlightenment with bated breath.

Rolfe.
Thanks for the history lesson. Learned something new today.

So do you know, why did homeopathy become so popular? Was it because so much medicine at that time was basically quackery or fatal?

[Rolfe]

Thanks for the history lesson. Learned something new today.

So do you know, why did homeopathy become so popular? Was it because so much medicine at that time was basically quackery or fatal?


Damn you! You quoted my typo before I fixed it!

Basically yes. Being treated with sugar pills by a sympathetic doctor who encourages rest, fresh air and a good diet is a lot better for self-limiting illnesses than purging and blood-letting. And a lot pleasanter while being administered, too.

Rolfe.

[Stout]

Thanks Rolfe..in googling Homeopathic provings ( still trying to figure out what this term means ) I came across a list of journals, all 19th century, that indicate Homeopathy was a lot more "global" than I first assumed.

Of course, onion makes more sense than my tear gas example..

I can see the appeal this type of treatment would have when faced with option like...leeches.

I too am curious about is enduring popularity. I can't say I know anybody who'd gone this route IRL, or even talked about considering it, however a quick check of the local yellow pages ( Victoria, BC Canada ) lists at least 10 Homeopathic business making it more "popular" than I first imagined.

[Rolfe]

I think it has a lot to do with the practitioners' confident claims of "cure". If you've got a chronic, non-fatal, relapsing condition, then someone who confidently says he can cure you, or even "help" you, is likely to be more popular than someone who tells it like it is (as doctors are ethically bound to do these days), and evaluates your condition objectively.

One of the commonest methods of practice for homoeopaths seems to be to declare confidently that the patient is indeed a lot better. Many people actually believe this sort of assertion even in the face of no objective change in their overall condition, and even repeat it to their friends. (This works even better in veterinary medicine, actually. The owner is persuaded by the homoeopath to interpret the animal's clinical and behavioural signs in a more positive light, and hey presto.)

In conditions that tend to wax and wane, then of course every improvement is claimed as a success of the treatment. And of course with the homoeopathic theory of aggravations, every relapse is an aggravation, and that is also a sign that the treatment is working. You can keep this sort of patient on a string for a long time in that way.

There was a joke floating around at one time - "How are you?" "I don't feel well at all but my homoeopath assures me I'm doing great!"

Of course, they also take the credit for spontaneous remissions. While a doctor might tell a patient that the problem will eventually go away on its own, a homoeopath will play the usual game, then when the inevitable happens, this is a great triumph for homoeoapthy. Most of the word-of-mouth "miracle cures" are of this variety. I know one guy who is absolutely adamant that his homoeopath cured him of acne - when he was in his mid-thirties!

Rolfe.

[Jeff Corey]

...I can see the appeal this type of treatment would have when faced with option like...leeches...

Ahem...http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2004/504_leech.html

[Stout]

The confident claims of cure makes sense, especially when dealing with a chronic condition that "allopathic" medicine has pretty much told you that you'll have to live with.

Up thread, I posted a link to a homeopathic clinic that I found when I was looking into the statement " homeopathy doesn't recognise obesity as a condition" where a Homeopath was describing his method of treatment for obesity. His tack was to integrate Homeopathy with what we all know and love as being simple common sense, like diet and exercise.

So if we combine the two, confidence and "support" ( granted this guy might be an exception to the rule ) I think we have a pretty good case of why Homeopathy has maintained it's popularity. Then there's the whole "mysterious" component, and the appeal to antiquity.

In my last post I said "about 10" local practitioners, the about meaning specifically that a couple dealt with veterinary medicine and I was hesitant to include those in the total. Would I be off the mark if I said something like " homeopathic veterinary medicine is as much about treating the owner as it is about treating the animal" ? My reasoning is thinking that your average cat isn't going to care about Homeopathy's claims.

Yes, aggravations, the recurrence of symptoms. Good thing I checked this term out as my initial guess as to what this means was way off the mark ( I was thinking things that cause recurring symptoms ) Out of curiosity I was wondering just how much it would cost me to dose myself with a Homeopathic remedy for my hayfever, which is the only chronic illness I have, so my plan is to stop by a Homeopathic,,,errrrrr, pharmacy and check it out. thinking, that if I started now, there's no way I'd know if the treatment actually worked until, say next May. How much money would I be spending on a "cure" over the winter ?

I'm far too cheap to cough up the 200 dollars that a practicing Homeopath wants to charge for an initial consultation, likewise with the 75 for follow up visits.

Truth be known, as I get older, my hayfever has become less of a problem. Back when I was in my 20s I pretty much lived on antihistamines for two months of the year, and now that I'm in my forties, I take maybe two pills a year. Had I seeked out Homeopathic treatment "back then" there's a good chance I might actually "believe" in it today:eye-poppi rather than thanking FSM that the condition pretty much went away of it's own accord.

I'm temped to draw some sort of comparisons between Homeopaths and "life coaches" with obvious differences of course.

If I were to seek Homeopathic treatment for an emergency acute condition, like gallstones ( which I had years ago ) would a Homeopath refuse my case and direct me to the nearest emergency ward , or would s/he try to treat me with water and sugar pills ?

[richardm]

If I were to seek Homeopathic treatment for an emergency acute condition, like gallstones ( which I had years ago ) would a Homeopath refuse my case and direct me to the nearest emergency ward , or would s/he try to treat me with water and sugar pills ?

It probably depends on whether they recognised it as being a serious condition or not. One would hope they would recognise something serious but since they often have no medical training I wouldn't count on it. See Rolfe's signature for an example.

[jdc324]

I believe that sanguine already asked the question that I wanted to ask:



But I would also like to know what mechanism would allow for negative solutions?

That really is an interesting question. I look forward to seeing what the answer is.

[pgwenthold]

OK, I realize the whole "negative solution" thing is folly, but come on, I can't even get started on the stupid thing? What does that even mean?

Yes, there are lots of ways to describe solution concentrations, but whatever approach you use, you have to have a very clear description of what it means. You can talk about % concentration, but then you have to specify whether that is v/v, or w/v, or w/w, and you can worry about whether it is with respect to solvent or solution, or whatever. Regardless, there are meanings for the terms. For example, you can say that a solution is 3% v/v, meaning it refers to a concentration of 3 ml of solute in 100 ml of solution (or solvent or whatever you define). The point being that when I say a 3% solution, I can describe exactly what is 3% of something else.

So now, a negative solution. If you claim something is -3%, what does that mean? Where does the negative come from? -3% means -3 parts in 100. What do the -, the 3, and the 100 refer to?

[Mojo]

His tack was to integrate Homeopathy with what we all know and love as being simple common sense, like diet and exercise.


Ah yes, "integrative medicine": give the patient homoeopathy alongside treatments that actually work, and then attribute some or all of the resulting improvement to the homoeopathy via the post hoc fallacy.

[Wildy]

Something tells me we aren't going to learn about negative solutions any time soon...

[Acleron]

Something tells me we aren't going to learn about negative solutions any time soon...

And I thought we were going to learn something new.

[Elizabeth I]

Nominated:

*dialing*

Ring ring!

Ring ring!

*click*

"We're sorry, but becuase of an inter-dimensional rift opened when we circulated the beam, we are unable to answer your call at this time. Please select from our automated menu for additional optons: If you are the last surviving space marine from your unit, please press one. If you are an amazingly skilled new employee caught in the interdimensional rift, please press two. If you are a cartoon character playing up the end of the universe for cheap laughs, please press 3. If you are an alien zombie created by the beings pouring from the rift, please press 4. If you are a SciFi channel executive seeking movie rights, please press 5."

[xinit]

Ooo... LHC web cams to share with all the paranoid types out there... Thanks, Bad Astronomer...

http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html

[Stout]

richardm..I was trying to get some sort of idea as to how opposed to western ( read evidence based ) medicine Homeopathy was. I was hoping that a Homeopath would at least have the sense to recognise a life threatening condition that Homeopathy doesn't stand a chance of treating and make the appropriate referrals. " Hey, it looks like you have a burst appendix, go to the emergency room NOW ) That sort of thing.

Mojo, Yes, integrative medicine. My point being are the Homeopathic remedies an add on, if you will to what we identify as healthy living.

Yesterday, i did a small experiment. I went to a "dispensary" advertising Homeopathic remedies and I use the term dispensary because they sold all sorts of "other remedies" too. I approached the counter with the story that i was looking to self prescribe a Homeopathic remedy to treat my chronic hay fever, the only chronic condition I have, and "a friend" had recommended going the Homeopathic route.

I said that a treatment involving onions had been suggested, and he said "no" I didn't want onion, I wanted http://http://www.homeocan.ca/DATA/PRODUIT/63_en.pdf this product to treat the symptoms as well as another "immune boosting" concoction to help treat the underlying "causes"

When i asked just how effective these preparations were when compared to the over the counter antihistamines I usually take, he responded with......... " The antihistamines are faster and more effective, in fact there's no evidence that Homeopathic treatments actually work"....Why do people use them ? I asked, and he responded with " it's a personal preference, some people prefer natural products"

This isn't something I was expecting, TBH, I was a little disappointed, as I'd been expecting a sales pitch.

Finding nothing 'controversial" there, I went to a second dispensary and saw that I actually knew the person working behind the counter, so I just browsed around and made idle chit chat, thinking that my relationship to the staff person might somehow corrupt the data.

Sometimes I wish I wasn't too cheap to actually want to cough up the 200 or so dollars to consult with a Homeopath over my "illness" so I'll keep working this angle to see if someone does actually try to sell me on a "miracle cure"

[SkeptiChick]

richardm..I was trying to get some sort of idea as to how opposed to western ( read evidence based ) medicine Homeopathy was. I was hoping that a Homeopath would at least have the sense to recognise a life threatening condition that Homeopathy doesn't stand a chance of treating and make the appropriate referrals. " Hey, it looks like you have a burst appendix, go to the emergency room NOW ) That sort of thing.

Mojo, Yes, integrative medicine. My point being are the Homeopathic remedies an add on, if you will to what we identify as healthy living.

Yesterday, i did a small experiment. I went to a "dispensary" advertising Homeopathic remedies and I use the term dispensary because they sold all sorts of "other remedies" too. I approached the counter with the story that i was looking to self prescribe a Homeopathic remedy to treat my chronic hay fever, the only chronic condition I have, and "a friend" had recommended going the Homeopathic route.

I said that a treatment involving onions had been suggested, and he said "no" I didn't want onion, I wanted http://http://www.homeocan.ca/DATA/PRODUIT/63_en.pdf this product to treat the symptoms as well as another "immune boosting" concoction to help treat the underlying "causes"

When i asked just how effective these preparations were when compared to the over the counter antihistamines I usually take, he responded with......... " The antihistamines are faster and more effective, in fact there's no evidence that Homeopathic treatments actually work"....Why do people use them ? I asked, and he responded with " it's a personal preference, some people prefer natural products"

This isn't something I was expecting, TBH, I was a little disappointed, as I'd been expecting a sales pitch.

Finding nothing 'controversial" there, I went to a second dispensary and saw that I actually knew the person working behind the counter, so I just browsed around and made idle chit chat, thinking that my relationship to the staff person might somehow corrupt the data.

Sometimes I wish I wasn't too cheap to actually want to cough up the 200 or so dollars to consult with a Homeopath over my "illness" so I'll keep working this angle to see if someone does actually try to sell me on a "miracle cure"If you want someone to try and sell you on a homeopathic product, you may consider searching out a "natural foods" or other "organic products" store instead of a conventional dispensary. You know, the stores that are generally staffed by, and cater to, the "hippie" and "new age" population.

There are several not too far from where I live, and I've even had random customers (not even sales staff) interject themselves into my transactions, telling me how "x natural product" is "so much better" than the modern medicine I was purchasing.

[Mojo]

I was trying to get some sort of idea as to how opposed to western ( read evidence based ) medicine Homeopathy was.


You will find that a high proportion of homoeopaths are anti-vaccination. You will find homoeopaths claiming that homoeopathy cam prevent malaria (at least until they get caught (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5178122.stm)). You will find them (and proponents of other types of CAM) talking about side effects of "Western" medicine and iatrogenic illness. you will find them claiming that "Western" medicine makes matters worse by "suppressing" symptoms, and claiming that while "Western" medicine only treats the symptoms, homoeopathy treats the causes of disease (ignoring the fact that homoeopathy actually considers nothing but symptoms). You will find homoeopathy described (http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/) as "a complete system of medicine". I think it's safe to say that there are significant numbers of homoeopaths who are opposed to real medicine.

For example check out the views of forum member "Homeoproofer" on what he terms "schoolmedicine".

[Stout]

Hi SkeptiChick

The second place I went to, mentioned in my above post and the one where I knew the person behind the counter, was one of those new age/herbal/hippy/you're gonna get sick and die if you don't buy all this stuff kind of places. I'll try again hoping there's someone different behind the counter.

I figure it'll take me a week to actually get to the places listed in the yellow pages, but yes, I'm specifically looking for people ( other customers included ) to tell me that "allopathic" medicine is bad.

Otherwise, I'll be unable to treat Homeopathy as anything other than one of those things where people are acting on their own beliefs that something "old" and "natural" is somehow better than something man made and "synthetic" I understand the attitude behind wanting a "natural" cure, and the belief that it's somehow better than real medicine, but I want to be told this by someone who has a their interests, as well as mine as part of the equation.

Mojo...I made it half way through Homeoproofer's thread, and I'll continue reading it over the next few days. I've got to say, that given my problems understanding what he has to say I'd classify him as a believer who is mostly relying on the placebo effect to prove ( proof? ) his assertions. He was way out of his league in that thread.

I read the What's the Harm link, and those cases where people have died while undergoing CAM treatment look like people who've pretty much been given the kiss of death ( i.e. told their condition was terminal ) by evidence based medicine, and sought out CAM treatment as a last ditch effort.

Who, knows, I might do the same were I in that position. My mother did , a friend of mine's wife did...both were non woo.

I'm liking the Malaria angle and I'll include that in my "quest" for a "natural" cure as i really am planning on going to a malarial high risk area next January. I've taken the once-a-week drugs before, with no side effects and my back up plan is ( and was ) the as-soon-as-there's-an outbreak-I'm-on-a-plane-outta-there plan.

Most things I'm reading about Homeopathy are UK based, maybe things are different around here ( Victoria BC Canada ) but this place is reputed to be a mecca for things like alternative spirituality. FSM knows, I run into a fair amount of woo IRL but most of it seems to be harmless and more ego driven than anything else.

[Sherman Bay]

Something diluted past a certain point has nothing in the bottle except inert materials and solutes.You meant solvents, didn't you? Just clarifying.Yes I did, and thanks for clarifying.The process of serial dilution and succussion results in the formation of a negative solution. I can explain how. I'm still waiting for that explanation. Somehow I just can't wrap my mind around this and don't see the math. If you start with no ingredient in a solution (0%), how do you get less than no ingredient? Extract something that isn't there to get less than none?

I must have slept thru that lecture in algebra class.

[xinit]

Most things I'm reading about Homeopathy are UK based, maybe things are different around here ( Victoria BC Canada ) but this place is reputed to be a mecca for things like alternative spirituality. FSM knows, I run into a fair amount of woo IRL but most of it seems to be harmless and more ego driven than anything else.

Maybe Victoria isn't as bad as Vancouver; I've had nasty run-ins with a handful of naturopaths who were trying to sell a bunch of people on an expensive cleanse / colonic program. They had no trouble claiming that it would cure people of whatever ails them.

Maybe they've cleaned themselves up in the past two years, but I have my doubts. We'll see what they're like next summer when I move back to Van.

[Baron Samedi]

Most things I'm reading about Homeopathy are UK based, maybe things are different around here ( Victoria BC Canada ) but this place is reputed to be a mecca for things like alternative spirituality. FSM knows, I run into a fair amount of woo IRL but most of it seems to be harmless and more ego driven than anything else.

Try visiting Saltspring Island, especially for their Saturday markets (if they're still running so late in the year). Worse comes to worse, you just end up with a nice trip to the island. :)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Hi SkeptiChick

The second place I went to, mentioned in my above post and the one where I knew the person behind the counter, was one of those new age/herbal/hippy/you're gonna get sick and die if you don't buy all this stuff kind of places. I'll try again hoping there's someone different behind the counter.

I figure it'll take me a week to actually get to the places listed in the yellow pages, but yes, I'm specifically looking for people ( other customers included ) to tell me that "allopathic" medicine is bad.

Otherwise, I'll be unable to treat Homeopathy as anything other than one of those things where people are acting on their own beliefs that something "old" and "natural" is somehow better than something man made and "synthetic" I understand the attitude behind wanting a "natural" cure, and the belief that it's somehow better than real medicine, but I want to be told this by someone who has a their interests, as well as mine as part of the equation.

Mojo...I made it half way through Homeoproofer's thread, and I'll continue reading it over the next few days. I've got to say, that given my problems understanding what he has to say I'd classify him as a believer who is mostly relying on the placebo effect to prove ( proof? ) his assertions. He was way out of his league in that thread.

I read the What's the Harm link, and those cases where people have died while undergoing CAM treatment look like people who've pretty much been given the kiss of death ( i.e. told their condition was terminal ) by evidence based medicine, and sought out CAM treatment as a last ditch effort.

Who, knows, I might do the same were I in that position. My mother did , a friend of mine's wife did...both were non woo.

I'm liking the Malaria angle and I'll include that in my "quest" for a "natural" cure as i really am planning on going to a malarial high risk area next January. I've taken the once-a-week drugs before, with no side effects and my back up plan is ( and was ) the as-soon-as-there's-an outbreak-I'm-on-a-plane-outta-there plan.

Most things I'm reading about Homeopathy are UK based, maybe things are different around here ( Victoria BC Canada ) but this place is reputed to be a mecca for things like alternative spirituality. FSM knows, I run into a fair amount of woo IRL but most of it seems to be harmless and more ego driven than anything else.

You should check out this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4005943#post4005943

[Stout]

Hi xinit

Naturopaths are people I'm also unfamiliar with and this afternoon, I'm going to try and sort out their relationship with Homeopaths...Are they pretty much the same thing ? The only anecdote I've heard IRL re Naturopaths had something to do with magnets being able to change the length of a patients leg...( ni, I'm not making that up )

My mother visited a Naturopath before she died five years ago. After her death, I found all "the stuff" and since she left the price tags on, I added up the amount she spent to about $300....Calms Fortes...umm, Hey, I may just have some of this stuff still around, lemme check, hang on.

Nope..tossed it all..but I thought I'd kept that bottle of red stuff as it had potential to be an excellent mix with tequila.

Colonics ??? Weren't those guys actually killing people back in the '80s, resulting in a FDA ban on the sale of all home colonic kits ? I've never had one, but I have had amoebic dysentery....

Baron Samedi... I hear you on the Saltspring Island thing and it looks like this is going to be an ongoing "research project" on my behalf, so I'll put it on the list. Ditto for attending any woo type events as well as visiting the shops.

I don't want to come off sounding like a skeptic to these guys, I'd rather market myself as "curious" based on information from a friend...yada yada, all the while crossing my fingers hoping to hear confirmation that these guys are truly against science.

Gord_in_Toronto...Thanks for the thread link. I thought all the hype around C-51 sounded "fishy" and I know several people who bought into that hype. These were all normal people with good heads on their shoulders who, after a little bit of conversation, readily agreed that we were talking about an industry in need of some sort of consumer protection regulation.

Step right up people and bask in the opportunity to purchase Dr. Stouts miraculous cancer curing lawn clippings....

Would/should I go to jail for peddling such cowspoo ?

[xinit]

Naturopaths are people I'm also unfamiliar with and this afternoon, I'm going to try and sort out their relationship with Homeopaths...Are they pretty much the same thing ? The only anecdote I've heard IRL re Naturopaths had something to do with magnets being able to change the length of a patients leg...( ni, I'm not making that up )

I've done a bit of research on Naturopaths. They're kind of an all inclusive center of quackery, with a heavy focus on Homeopathy and Traditional Chinese Medicine. This is based on my investigation of one school's program that is heavily based in Homeopathy. I have links to the SCNM college calendar and other interesting things in my blog entry http://foo.ca/wp/2008/05/07/healing-the-natural-way/

Naturpaths work with magnets, acupuncture, energy healing, reiki, homeopathy, TCM, iridology, reflexology, and plenty of other things, depending on their own personal beliefs and what the consumer wants.

Colonics ??? Weren't those guys actually killing people back in the '80s, resulting in a FDA ban on the sale of all home colonic kits ? I've never had one, but I have had amoebic dysentery....

Yeah, but you can walk into a number of places in Canada and pay someone wearing a lab coat to stick something in your butt... Death is something that happens to Someone Else.

I also have a short essay with a bit of math to try to find the elusive molecule of active ingredient in a Very Powerful Homeopathic remedy... I learned how much water a globe a light year in diameter can hold, at least. http://www.skepticaldog.com/wp/2007/07/02/diluting-homeopathy/

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If you want to research the whole Alternative Medicine thing you could do no better than to start with:
http://www.quackwatch.org/

It analyzes all the "modalities". Remember that the "Alternative" in Alternative Medicine means alternative to reality. :D

[Stout]

Hi xinit

Thanks for the link and your blog seems to support my thinking that people are drawn to CAM for the additional personal attention they receive from these practitioners. I think I likened it to a spa treatment, but that was the gist of it.

It's understandable and once we throw in all this power of the mind ( like the placebo effect ) maybe just knowing that your health provider "cares" is a big part of the draw.

I personally an not into that whole scene, sure I want my doctor to care ( TBH I don't have a doctor, I use walk in clinics ) and I want them to deliver "the news" and get out the door as fast as they want to deliver the news and get me out the door. I don't do spas either.

So a naturopath is a "jack of all woo" practitioner? That's about what I had imagined. I've done limited reading on the topic mostly by researching a topic and being led to a naturopathic website. I tend to scan these sited rather quickly and move on to more appropriate information.

The last time was when a friend of mine went to Hawaii ( the big island ) and lived in one of these intentional communities ( read, she was a slave on a farm ) and people there were coming down with staph infections. When i asked her how they were treating these infections, she was rather elusive and cited things like diet as a means of control. I say elusive because she's woo, I'm skeptic and since we're friends, it's best to avoid arguments.

She ended up simply leaving the island as her way of avoiding these infections, and went to Kauai instead.

I'm one of these guys who never travels without a course of Cipro on me....

Gord...Quackwatch, one of my favourite medical sites that I use for looking up specifics.

[drgsrinivas]

How does a solute exist in a negative solution?

The simplest analogy is – how does one survive in a negative financial state or bankruptcy? One has to barrow from the affluent neighbour.

[paximperium]

How does a solute exist in a negative solution?

The simplest analogy is – how does one survive in a negative financial state or bankruptcy? One has to barrow from the affluent neighbour.

Ahhhh...great point.

So Homeopathy's pseudo-science borrows the prestige from science and medicine by using pseudo-medical jargon to survive.

Thanks for the insight.

[drgsrinivas]

Like wise the solute (in the ultradilute homeopathic solution) can barrow itself (its building blocks) from the solvent. The solvent ‘remembers’ this loan and gets ‘repaid’ when the solute is in excess.

[drgsrinivas]

How can the solute be reproduced from the solvent?

It’s like disentangling the fibres (energy pattern) of a fabric (solvent) and then weaving them differently to form a new type (solute)

[paximperium]

Like wise the solute (in the ultradilute homeopathic solution) can barrow itself (its building blocks) from the solvent. The solvent ‘remembers’ this loan and gets ‘repaid’ when the solute is in excess.

Explain the mechanism of action for this "remembering" and "repaying" process by the solvent and the solute.

[drgsrinivas]

Matter is nothing but condensed Energy

Atoms and molecules must be viewed as energy systems and not as pure physical systems or conglomeration of physical particles.

Different atoms represent different patterns of condensation of the same Energy.

The so called fundamental particles are obviously not fundamental as they must be made of something more fundamental. The search for fundamental particles will continue indefinitely until we realise the Ultimate Energy from which all the matter is made.

[Professor Yaffle]

If you have a negative salt solution and then you add some salt to it, is there now less salt in the solution than the amount you added to it?

[fls]

Like wise the solute (in the ultradilute homeopathic solution) can barrow itself (its building blocks) from the solvent. The solvent ‘remembers’ this loan and gets ‘repaid’ when the solute is in excess.

A consequence of this idea would be that adding a solute to this negative solvent would result in less of the solute being present than was added. How do you explain the observation that this doesn't happen?

Linda

[steenkh]

Like wise the solute (in the ultradilute homeopathic solution) can barrow itself (its building blocks) from the solvent. The solvent ‘remembers’ this loan and gets ‘repaid’ when the solute is in excess.

How can the solute be reproduced from the solvent?

It’s like disentangling the fibres (energy pattern) of a fabric (solvent) and then weaving them differently to form a new type (solute)
Nice analogies, but nothing to suggest that they are even remotely correct. You are making up a hypothesis to explain something that has already been shown not to exist. You have a great imagination, though.

[steenkh]

The so called fundamental particles are obviously not fundamental as they must be made of something more fundamental. The search for fundamental particles will continue indefinitely until we realise the Ultimate Energy from which all the matter is made.
You are obviously much wiser than all the world's physicists who are still fumbling in the dark. When can we expect to see the paper published?

[MRC_Hans]

We can write volumes on hypernatremia and its management. But just eat 1kg of salt and then come back. Then we can discuss more if you are still alive without developing hypernatremia.
Suggesting suicide to people is against forum rules, but I assume iti was unintentional, so I won't report you.


According to Homeopathy, a drug in large doses causes a disease and the same is cured by giving the drug in small doses.


Actually, no. That is isopathy.


It is as simple as doing additions and subtractions.


No.

In hypernatremia (with or without dehydration), there is excess sodium in the body relative to water. One has to treat this with a hypotonic solution. The more dilute the sodium, the more effective it will be in correcting the hypernatremia.

Are you serious? The cure is NO salt. Any amount of salt, no matter how small, will add to to the problem, in principle. I know you would actually give a light saline solution, but that is for different reasons. It is the water that provides the cure. So, no homeopathy there.


A negative solution (-1% or -2% saline), if at all one exists, will be even more effective than free water in reversing the hypernatremia state.


A negative solution? :eek::rolleyes::p

If you can’t understand this simple mathematics, there is no point in going further to discuss about the negative solutions and the physics behind it.

You are the one who apparantly doesn't understand simple math. There is no such thing as a negative percentage. It does not exist.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Matter is nothing but condensed Energy

Atoms and molecules must be viewed as energy systems and not as pure physical systems or conglomeration of physical particles.

Different atoms represent different patterns of condensation of the same Energy.

The so called fundamental particles are obviously not fundamental as they must be made of something more fundamental. The search for fundamental particles will continue indefinitely until we realise the Ultimate Energy from which all the matter is made.

No.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Like wise the solute (in the ultradilute homeopathic solution) can barrow itself (its building blocks) from the solvent. The solvent ‘remembers’ this loan and gets ‘repaid’ when the solute is in excess.

Complete nonsense.

Hans

[Acleron]

Like wise the solute (in the ultradilute homeopathic solution) can barrow itself (its building blocks) from the solvent. The solvent ‘remembers’ this loan and gets ‘repaid’ when the solute is in excess.

OP Title: Homeopathy - Is it really against Science?

The evidence is in and the answer is yes.

[Crundy]

Like wise the solute (in the ultradilute homeopathic solution) can barrow itself (its building blocks) from the solvent. The solvent ‘remembers’ this loan and gets ‘repaid’ when the solute is in excess.

It looks like the credit crunch is having an influence on drgsrinivas' nonsense as well...

What happens if the solute doesn't repay the loan? Does the solvent send in the bailiffs? Does the solvent's economy go into recession?

[Mojo]

How does a solute exist in a negative solution?

The simplest analogy is – how does one survive in a negative financial state or bankruptcy? One has to barrow from the affluent neighbour.

Like wise the solute (in the ultradilute homeopathic solution) can barrow itself (its building blocks) from the solvent. The solvent ‘remembers’ this loan and gets ‘repaid’ when the solute is in excess.

This could explain why although (as the likes of Dana Ullman are so fond of telling us) homoeopathy appeared to work in the 19th century, it no longer works. There must have been some sort of homoeopathic credit crunch around the late 1890s, which led to the mortgages of all the negative solutions being called in. Hence homoeopathic remedies are no longer solvent.

[drgsrinivas]

How does a solute exist in a negative solution?

The simplest analogy is – how does one survive in a negative financial state or bankruptcy? One has to barrow from the affluent neighbour.

Like wise the solute can barrow itself (its building blocks) from the solvent. The solvent ‘remembers’ this loan and gets ‘repaid’ when the solute is in excess.

How can the solute be reproduced from the solvent? It’s like disentangling the fibres (energy pattern) of a fabric (solvent) and then weaving them differently to form a new type (solute)

Energy model vs. Physical model of Atom
Matter is nothing but condensed Energy.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2718248e371de01f0b.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13963)

Atoms and molecules must be viewed as energy systems and not as pure physical systems or conglomeration of physical particles.

Different atoms represent different patterns of condensation of the same Energy.

The so called fundamental particles are obviously not fundamental as they must be made of something more fundamental. The search for fundamental particles will continue indefinitely until we realise the Ultimate Energy from which all the matter is made.

Absolute Equilibrium:

As I have already mentioned, if there is just one atom in the entire universe, the energy pattern of atom disperses through out and at the infinity it disintegrates into the ultimate Energy. (A some what similar situation exists in the super dilute homeopathic solution)

If the universe ‘shrinks’, the original atom will be ‘created’ again because the overall energy pattern of the system will remain the same.

So matter is in a state of equilibrium with the ultimate Energy.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2718248e371f8b7419.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13964)


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2718248e3720fb88b2.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13965)


The process of serial dilution and succussion will help achieve homogenisation of the solute in the solution and establish the state of absolute equilibrium between the solute and the solvent via the common Energy bridge.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2718248e372213db0c.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13966)


If we apply Le Chatelier’s principle, the solute which is in rarity can be reproduced from the solvent which is in plenty.

Negative solution and Memory of Water:

As the Energy condenses and organises into physical matter, we can expect the process to go via multiple intermediate states.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2718248e37230e708e.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13967)

This path of creation of matter will be infinitely long for any given substance.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2718248e3723f123c5.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13968)


Any two substances in nature, if ‘traced’ backwards, will have some common initial substrates because of their common origin from the ultimate Energy.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2718248e372513393d.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13969)


As the solvent gets converted into the solute via the common substrates, the unshared substrates (Substrates 3 and 4) accumulate in the solution. These ‘labile’ substrates are responsible for the memory of water and negativity of the solution. They also resist the conversion of solvent into the solute beyond a certain degree of negativity.

[Madalch]

drgsinivas

You have postulated the existence of solutions with negative concentrations. We have discussed the possibility of testing such solutions to see if they actually contain such concentrations.

Until you have done these tests, there is no point in hypothesizing about how these solutions might work, or coming up with analogies to explain them. Do the tests. There is nothing to be discussed until these tests are done. Until you do them, all your handwaving is no better than spamming.

It’s like disentangling the fibres (energy pattern) of a fabric (solvent) and then weaving them differently to form a new type (solute)
No, it's like raaa-haay-haaain on yer wedding day! And it won't be anything else until you get thee to a lab and do the tests.

[Madalch]

Ignore this- the post was so good the computer decided to put it up twice....

[Crundy]

Honestly, occams razor must have reached critical mass with this thread.

[Wildy]

How does a solute exist in a negative solution?

Proper answer: it doesn't.

The simplest analogy is – how does one survive in a negative financial state or bankruptcy? One has to barrow from the affluent neighbour.

And that is a poor analogy. You are comparing atoms, molecules and solutions, real things, to money, which is an abstract concept. Money does not exist since all it is, is a medium for trade. In reality the pieces of paper or metal that we use as money is worthless unless you have someone who will accept the paper/metal at face value.

Like wise the solute can barrow itself (its building blocks) from the solvent. The solvent ‘remembers’ this loan and gets ‘repaid’ when the solute is in excess.

Sorry?

This makes no sense.

How can the solute be reproduced from the solvent? It’s like disentangling the fibres (energy pattern) of a fabric (solvent) and then weaving them differently to form a new type (solute)

This sounds like you've tried to read up on reaction mechanisms and completely failed to understand what they actually are.

Energy model vs. Physical model of Atom
Matter is nothing but condensed Energy.

So matter is nothing but the condensed ability to do work?

Atoms and molecules must be viewed as energy systems and not as pure physical systems or conglomeration of physical particles.

According to whom? Or are you creating this assumption so your "theory" will work?

Different atoms represent different patterns of condensation of the same Energy.

Right...

The so called fundamental particles are obviously not fundamental as they must be made of something more fundamental. The search for fundamental particles will continue indefinitely until we realise the Ultimate Energy from which all the matter is made.

Sorry. This means nothing to me. All that I can think of is how exactly do you know that there must be something more fundamental and not something so out there that not even pseudoscientists could have seen it coming?

As I have already mentioned, if there is just one atom in the entire universe, the energy pattern of atom disperses through out and at the infinity it disintegrates into the ultimate Energy. (A some what similar situation exists in the super dilute homeopathic solution)

Sorry?

If the universe ‘shrinks’, the original atom will be ‘created’ again because the overall energy pattern of the system will remain the same.

So matter is in a state of equilibrium with the ultimate Energy.

What exactly is this ultimate ability to do work?

The process of serial dilution and succussion will help achieve homogenisation of the solute in the solution and establish the state of absolute equilibrium between the solute and the solvent via the common Energy bridge.

So does making a solution without serial dilution and mixing it really well.

If we apply Le Chatelier’s principle, the solute which is in rarity can be reproduced from the solvent which is in plenty.

Err... no it doesn't. Le Chatelier's principle states that a change in concentration, volume, pressure or temperature the equilibrium will shift to counteract that change.

If there isn't a reaction going on then the principle won't apply.

Negative solution and Memory of Water:

As the Energy condenses and organises into physical matter, we can expect the process to go via multiple intermediate states.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2718248e37230e708e.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13967)

This path of creation of matter will be infinitely long for any given substance.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2718248e3723f123c5.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13968)

Thank you for listing these states. It really makes it so much easier to understand.

Oh wait, no it doesn't. What are these substrates, or are they another abstract concept?

Any two substances in nature, if ‘traced’ backwards, will have some common initial substrates because of their common origin from the ultimate Energy.

Huh?

As the solvent gets converted into the solute via the common substrates, the unshared substrates (Substrates 3 and 4) accumulate in the solution. These ‘labile’ substrates are responsible for the memory of water and negativity of the solution. They also resist the conversion of solvent into the solute beyond a certain degree of negativity.

Huh?

You know, it might be because I'm writing this at 3:17 AM, or that I don't know my particle physics as well as I should, but it seems to me that you haven't actually explained how exactly you can get negative solutions.

You seem to have taken a bunch of scientific concepts and created a bunch of what seems to me is babble based on a lack of understanding of these concepts.

[steenkh]

As the solvent gets converted into the solute via the common substrates, the unshared substrates (Substrates 3 and 4) accumulate in the solution. These ‘labile’ substrates are responsible for the memory of water and negativity of the solution. They also resist the conversion of solvent into the solute beyond a certain degree of negativity.
Forget about the Million Dollar Challenge and jump straight to the Nobel Prize! Simple experiments adding positive and negative solutions should establish you as one of the world's finest scientists!

[paximperium]

Replace drgsrinivas's infantile use of "Energy" with the proper definition:
Energy=Work=ForcexDistance

and see how ridiculous his little essay sounds.

[Mashuna]

I think I must have a negative sock in my washing machine.

[Hellbound]

Still no word on accepting my challenge, I see.

Now, I know the housing market is in a slump, but still, it's a house. Just for labelling some bottles.

Ah well, can't say I'm suprised.

[xinit]

Now I know where my money goes... it seems I have a negative bank account, and it's sapping my savings.

[Sherman Bay]

drgsrinivas, anyone can make up stuff, and even expand on the germ of a postulate to create an entire system that is logically, internally consistent. It may even sound scientific because it uses typical science terms. But until it can be proven that the postulate is true, or even likely to be true, it's just so much hot air. It's pure fantasy.

That's all you have, absolute fantasy. The purest, most fantastical fantasy. It's all in your head.

As children, we make up stuff all the time. But most of us outgrow it and enter the world of reality, where we are forced to live. Join us -- it's a great place to be.

[SkeptiChick]

I'm still waiting on the instructions for how to make a "negative solution."

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'm still waiting on the instructions for how to make a "negative solution."

1. Provide mortgages to people who can't afford to pay them back.

2. Wait a few years.

This simple two-step process has been shown to produce solutions of at least -700 billion in potency.

[SkeptiChick]

1. Provide mortgages to people who can't afford to pay them back.

2. Wait a few years.

This simple two-step process has been shown to produce solutions of at least -700 billion in potency.
lol. Okay, so Washington Mutual was homeopathic. :p

[Acleron]

lol. Okay, so Washington Mutual was homeopathic. :p

Was there anything different in their intellect?

[Crundy]

Was there anything different in their intellect?

Their intelligence was just as diluted.

[Stout]

I think I must have a negative sock in my washing machine.

Yes...and i have a positive sock in mine so the only explanation is that your sock was transmorgified into pure energy, whipped around the universe for several microseconds and remanifested itself in physical form in my dryer.

OK, I gotta confess something here, I went all woo with science when I was a fist year university student. I glommed onto that E=MC^2 idea and, not only did I briefly entertain the idea that I was a " energy/light being temporarily inhabiting physical form" ( please stop laughing :D ) but I actually managed to calculate my own personal wavelength just so I could "prove what frequency I was vibrating on )

It was mind blowing stuff....man, especially when I related it to whatever Carlos Castaneda book I was reading at the time...plus the Dancing Wu Li Masters, Plus the Tao of Physics..

Science and spirituality became one...like wow.

Then i figured out it was either bogus or irrelevant and physical matter was going to behave like physical matter regardless of how I wished it to behave.

[pgwenthold]

So one of the fun things to think about are the consequences of looney suggestions, such as "negative concentrations." For example, consider the spectroscopy of "negative concentration" solutions. Recall Beer's Law, which says A = abc, where a is the molar absorptivity, b is the path length, and A is the absorbance, which is just log (1/T) (T = transmittance). If concentration is negative, what it means is that T > 1, which means more radiation comes out than comes in.

So here's a great implication of a "negative concentration": it creates photons.

Basically, if a solution of X absorbs a given wavelength, then a negative solution of X will emit at that wavelength.

Now, if the solution is giving off more energy than is being added. it will cool. Since a negative solution must always be emitting, it will spontaneously freeze - or at least cool until it is no longer a negative solution.

Consequently, a negative concentration cannot exist at thermal equilibrium.

[Stout]

Hi. pgwenthold..

I'm having trouble understanding your idea about the solution naturally freezing. I know it was written in jest, but I got to thinking that if I exposed a solution to a certain wavelength , in a spectrophotometer, wouldn't it eventually boil ?

So I'm thinking now, that since I never saw any liquid boil in a spectrophotometer when I used one in the chem lab, and, you, know, sort of left it on and went for coffee, that the negative solution might not actually freeze because the energy it's emitting is being replaced through absorption from the ambient environment.

I propose, that a negative energy solution can be marketed as a free energy device, with the solution acting as some sort of conduit for "the energy" that, when you apply a little woospeak, just might be marketable as a handy environmentally responsible "battery life enhancer" for cell phones, laptops and such.

It would probably sell well in little pyramid shaped bottles:rolleyes: