Equation for dilluting a substance too much?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I was watching one of Randi's seminars and he mentioned some equation dealing with hemeopathy,He said that you can only dilute a substance into water so much before the chances of one molecule existing in the water of the origonal substance was 1 and 10 or something like that...

What is the equation called? What is it?

[BillC]

There's no equation as such that I'm aware of, however you might be thinking of the Avogadro Limit, which is the limit at which there should only be one molecule of active substance remaining in the solvent.

If the homeopath starts with a one molar solution, s/he will have 6.025E+23 molecules per litre of solvent. Each successive 'succussion' (dilution stage) will divide this number by 100 (for each C potency). Hence after 11 succussions, you can expect around 6.02E+23/(100^11) = 60 molecules remaining per litre. One more succussion, and there's a 60/100 = 60% chance of a single molecule left in your C12 preparation. Any further dilutions obviously only result in a (rapidly decreasing) probability of any molecules remaining.

[anor277]

I was watching one of Randi's seminars and he mentioned some equation dealing with hemeopathy,He said that you can only dilute a substance into water so much before the chances of one molecule existing in the water of the origonal substance was 1 and 10 or something like that...

What is the equation called? What is it?

To echo the previous poster, Avogadro's number is defined as the number of carbon atoms in 12.01 g carbon; it is known to high precision and is the link between the macroscopic world (grams, pounds, ounces) and the world of atoms and molecules. I believe in the high potency regime some homeopathic dilutions are the equivalent of one particle in cubic light year volumes of solvents. At this level the mass of substance in solution is less than the mass of fundamental particles such as the electron (i.e. there is no substance in solution).

[Zep]

It's worse than that, actually. Some homeopathic remedies are diluted to 1000C level, designated "M", and then to the 1000M level ("MM" obviously). That's some friggin' huge number - 10^(10^(10^3)), I think.

But there's a problem. Let's look at quarks, the smallest atomic unit. And consider the size of the known universe. If we filled the known universe with quarks closest packed, i.e. with no space between them as there usually is, there would still be many many orders of magnitude fewer quarks than the above number.

And yet...homeopaths continue to claim "there is something there!"

:dl:

[Kumar]

Those may not consider homeopathic remedies as atomic/molecular efect of active substances but energetic( by vital force) in higher potencies. Btw, What is the limit, when no force/photons or their effect can be there?

[Donks]

Those may not consider homeopathic remedies as atomic/molecular efect of active substances but energetic( by vital force) in higher potencies. Btw, What is the limit, when no force/photons or their effect can be there?
Care to demonstrate this "vital force"? Oh, and the limit has already been stated in this thread. Read it.

[Kumar]

Care to demonstrate this "vital force"? Oh, and the limit has already been stated in this thread. Read it.

Research pendancy alike to know in science "prime force for all forces".

Still what is the calculation of limit of existance on fundamental forces on dilution/potentization?

[Donks]

Research pendancy alike to know in science "prime force for all forces".
What research?
Still what is the calculation of limit of existance on fundamental forces on dilution/potentization?
Did you read the thread? Because it got answered already. In the first 2 posts.

[Art Vandelay]

Hence after 11 succussions, you can expect around 6.02E+23/(100^11) = 60 molecules remaining per litre. One more succussion, and there's a 60/100 = 60% chance of a single molecule left in your C12 preparation. Any further dilutions obviously only result in a (rapidly decreasing) probability of any molecules remaining.Actually, the probability of there not being at any molecule at all is about e^-.6 or 55%, so there's about a 45% chance that there's one or more molecule.

[Kumar]

What research?

Did you read the thread? Because it got answered already. In the first 2 posts.

Science of vital force couldn't yet be known, but people are trying to know its science. Alike, we couldn't yet know "prime force/source for all forces".

I am talking about limit of energetic presence( i.e. presence of any force or its effect),not just molecular presence.

[Donks]

Science of vital force couldn't yet be known, but people are trying to know its science. Alike, we couldn't yet know "prime force/source for all forces".
What people?
I am talking about limit of energetic presence( i.e. presence of any force or its effect),not just molecular presence.
Are you claiming that substances have an effect even when not present?

[Kumar]

What people?

.

Are you claiming that substances have an effect even when not present?

Most want to understand, science of "prime force/God etc." Many are trying. Refer Religion...forum.

Not claiming, but observations & experiances of homeopathic community consisting mass.....people indicate it in this favour i.e. presence of some forces or effect of forces resembling to claimed proving effects of any remedy is there in remedies. Rest science has to find out/understand in their language.

Let us talk something new/dynamic, to talk/continue/get. :D

[burrahobbit]

Kumar probably believes in the "Force" a la Star Wars. As far as I know, only the Jedi were researching it. (and weren't very good at it)

[Donks]

Most want to understand, science of "prime force/God etc." Many are trying. Refer Religion...forum.
Feel free to link to the relevant posts or threads.
Not claiming
So you are not claiming it? Are you willing to defend it then? Cause if not, then I see no reason to discuss it.
but observations & experiances of homeopathic community consisting mass.....people indicate it in this favour i.e. presence of some forces or effect of forces resembling to claimed proving effects of any remedy is there in remedies.
Let these homeopaths come here and defend it then. Let them present their evidence. Cause if nobody here presents evidence or defends the claim, I see no reason to discuss it.
Rest science has to find out/understand in their language.
Homeopathy has been weighed, homeopathy have been measured, and homeopathy have been found wanting.
Let us talk something new/dynamic, to talk/continue/get.
Fine, got any topic in mind? Any claim you wish to defend?

[Kumar]

How/why should I trust/base on modern evidances, till......? Why then ,to go for modern evidances instead of practical observations & experiances in mass & well distributed people since long of its community.

[Donks]

How/why should I trust/base on modern evidances, till......?
Because it is a method that has been shown to produce repeatable, accurate results.
Why then ,to go for modern evidances instead of practical observations & experiances in mass & well distributed people since long of its community.
Because anecdotal evidence is unreliable, as has been explained to you countless times. But since you make no claims, there is no point in discussing, right?
Do you make any claims regarding the topic of this thread? Any claims regarding mollecular presence in ultradilute homeopathic remedies?

[Kumar]

Because it is a method that has been shown to produce repeatable, accurate results.

If so repeatable & accurate, Why these then got altered? Why these or some not yet persisted/made absolute?

[b]Because anecdotal evidence is unreliable, as has been explained to you countless times. But since you make no claims, there is no point in discussing, right?[/quote]

Is it a rule/law that whatever is as per science should/can only exist/valid? What about your claims on which you can't stick for long? I can't claim for non-absolute aspects as you claim?

Do you make any claims regarding the topic of this thread? Any claims regarding mollecular presence in ultradilute homeopathic remedies?

Yes, molecules of active substances may not be present in very higher potencies? (may; because if some one escapes probabilty).:)

[David Swidler]

There are people who claim that the primordial soup was tomato. But I'm not here to defend the claim. I just wanted to let everybody know, 'cause I'm so generous.

As an aside, we all know that's not true. It's clear it was either pumpkin or [consults numerology chart...] minestrone.

[Donks]

If so repeatable & accurate, Why these then got altered?
Because it's a best available method, not a perfect method. If something better comes along, or if an unexplained observation is made, science evolves.
Why these or some not yet persisted/made absolute?
because it is recognized that a newer, better theory or a new observation can be made at any time.
Is it a rule/law that whatever is as per science should/can only exist/valid?
I believe I addressed this same question on the other thread. Would you like a link?
What about your claims on which you can't stick for long?
Which claims of mine do you refer to?
I can't claim for non-absolute aspects as you claim?
You can claim whatever you want, just be sure that we will ask for evidence to support your claims. And if you try to pull your "I make no claims" crap again, I will not discuss the matter. You can't have it both ways, either you back up your claims with evidence, or you make no claims.
Yes, molecules of active substances may not be present in very higher potencies? (may; because if some one escapes probabilty).
Yes, that is exactly right. In higher potencies it becomes extremely unlikely that there are any molecules of the active substance present. Well done.

[geni]

I was watching one of Randi's seminars and he mentioned some equation dealing with hemeopathy,He said that you can only dilute a substance into water so much before the chances of one molecule existing in the water of the origonal substance was 1 and 10 or something like that...

What is the equation called? What is it?


http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Homeopathy#Discussion

[Rolfe]

This "energy", you know, the "subtle energy" in those remedies that gets all upset if the patient is given any steroid medication (but doesn't seem to mind all the natural steroids sloshing around everybody's body), how is it measured? What units are used? Does it obey the laws of thermodynamics?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Sorry, double post.

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

The Problem of Evidence
The principle evidence-base of homeopathy is the case records of individual patients. These are interpreted on the basis that all changes in the patient that occur after a remedy has been taken are caused by that remedy. This includes both improvements, deteriorations (called "aggravations"), and changes in the range of symptoms shown. This means that from within the belief system, homeopathy is unfalsifiable. Its tools have been described as a narrative method that accompanies all eventualities with a story to explain those changes in homeopathic terms.
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Homeopathy#Discussion )link provided by geni)

There can be difference in trial at home & trial at competitor's place esp when competitor's substances & views are used in decisions.

Rolfe, :)

[Donks]

There can be difference in trial at home & trial at competitor's place esp when competitor's substances & views are used in decisions.
May I suggest you read that quote you posted once again? It says nothing regarding differences in the location of the trials. It just means that homeopathy is a non-scientific belief system, since it allows no evidence to falsify it. Any positive event is seen as a benefit from the treatment. Any negative event is seen as the treatment working. This is the problem with the kind of surveys you prefer, there are no controls and the surveyor decides the results beforehand.
Oh, and you may want to look at the concept of invariance with regards to physics. What you are claiming is that the laws of physics are not translation invariant. You'll have to show why. Or alternatively, you'll have to show how every single study that doesn't find a positive result for homeopathy is biased and/or faked. Even those done by homeopaths themselves.

[Art Vandelay]

Not that it's exactly my business, but I'm curious, Kumar: what's your native language?

[Kumar]

May I suggest you read that quote you posted once again? It says nothing regarding differences in the location of the trials. It just means that homeopathy is a non-scientific belief system, since it allows no evidence to falsify it. Any positive event is seen as a benefit from the treatment. Any negative event is seen as the treatment working. This is the problem with the kind of surveys you prefer, there are no controls and the surveyor decides the results beforehand.
Oh, and you may want to look at the concept of invariance with regards to physics. What you are claiming is that the laws of physics are not translation invariant. You'll have to show why. Or alternatively, you'll have to show how every single study that doesn't find a positive result for homeopathy is biased and/or faked. Even those done by homeopaths themselves.

No, I usually oppose oppositions on any mass existing in well distributed..knowledge whether C or P, but may want to clear my dynamic thought prococations/irritations in those, if feel/find so. I do respect all knowledges & hard work done by many in those--so want their progress or existance. As indicated, I wait for any unclearity in those, till it is clear or die naturally. That I can do for both C & P--embed in your minds. Under routine irritating discussions on provakations something different can happen naturally, but that may be a acute stage may the reality or chronic. I feel/find myself quite justified to every & all, but still, it can be just my feeling/finding/constitution--so may be towards both way.:D

[Kumar]

Not that it's exactly my business, but I'm curious, Kumar: what's your native language?

Hi, not english, Asian.:D

[Donks]

No, I usually oppose oppositions on any mass existing in well distributed..knowledge whether C or P, but may want to clear my dynamic thought prococations/irritations in those, if feel/find so.
No, you are looking for a way to weasel out of the repeated failure by homeopathy to produce positive results in controlled trials.
I do respect all knowledges & hard work done by many in those--so want their progress or existance.
Like hell you do.
As indicated, I wait for any unclearity in those, till it is clear or die naturally.
Homeopathy should have died naturally already. It is people keeping it on life support, even when it was born acephallic, that prevent that. It's 200 years old, it produces no verifiable effects, let it die.
That I can do for both C & P--embed in your minds. Under routine irritating discussions on provakations something different can happen naturally, but that may be a acute stage may the reality or chronic. I feel/find myself quite justified to every & all, but still, it can be just my feeling/finding/constitution--so may be towards both way.
Hmm, yeah... this part I can't parse.

[Kumar]

This "energy", you know, the "subtle energy" in those remedies that gets all upset if the patient is given any steroid medication (but doesn't seem to mind all the natural steroids sloshing around everybody's body), how is it measured? What units are used? Does it obey the laws of thermodynamics?

Rolfe.

Be careful, being a doctor, you should be understanding differenciating/toxic effects can be in quantity may not be in quality. You said "subtle energy" at one hand and "somewhat toxic indirectly" on the other hand--bit contradictary.

[Kumar]

No, you are looking for a way to weasel out of the repeated failure by homeopathy to produce positive results in controlled trials.

Like hell you do.

Homeopathy should have died naturally already. It is people keeping it on life support, even when it was born acephallic, that prevent that. It's 200 years old, it produces no verifiable effects, let it die.

Hmm, yeah... this part I can't parse.

I indicated some reasons on Asthma study of so thought failure, which you are unable to find out...was not difficult to search. Pls defet me on those grounds. You can present any of your study with full details for my critical investigations. There can be something misunderstood/missed. If not agree, that there could have been something but misunderstood/missed.:)

By 200 year old, it may means persitent, stable, going near to absolute?

[Donks]

I indicated some reasons on Asthma study of so thought failure, which you are unable to find out...was not difficult to search. Pls defet me on those grounds.
I didn't say I was unable to find out. I asked you to provide a link. You refused, so I have to assume you didn't actually want to discuss it. If now you do, provide a link. I will not go looking for your evidence for you.
You can present any of your study with full details for my critical investigations.
Your "critical" investigations leave much to be desired.
There can be something misunderstood/missed. If not agree, that there could have been something but misunderstood/missed.
No, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. In the other thread you claimed that the scientific method can't evaluate homeopathy. Here you claim it can. Obviously you are lying either here or there.
By 200 year old, it may means persitent, stable, going near to absolute?
Nope, I mean obsolete, useless, worthless, arcane, meaningless, irrelevant. Don't try putting words in my mouth. It's incredibly similar to your "I think" statements, you are always wrong.

[Kumar]

I didn't say I was unable to find out. I asked you to provide a link. You refused, so I have to assume you didn't actually want to discuss it. If now you do, provide a link. I will not go looking for your evidence for you.

Your "critical" investigations leave much to be desired.

No, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. In the other thread you claimed that the scientific method can't evaluate homeopathy. Here you claim it can. Obviously you are lying either here or there.

Nope, I mean obsolete, useless, worthless, arcane, meaningless, irrelevant. Don't try putting words in my mouth. It's incredibly similar to your "I think" statements, you are always wrong.

Bad trial or bad luck, you couldn't find that. Those were recent discussions.Take help of others avoiding esp. Rolfe.:)

In short, Pains by swords/modern-arms can supress/overpower, pains by needles. :)

[Donks]

Bad trial or bad luck, you couldn't find.
More like "I didn't search for it." What part of "I will not go looking for your evidence for you" did you not understand? If you claim this study shows something regarding homeopathy, link to it.
Those were recent discussions.Take help of others avoiding eas/ Rolfe.
I should avoid Rolfe? Why? She seems like a perfectly nice lady.
In short, Pains by swords/modern arms can supress pains by needles.
So in short, you have noting but gibberish to offer. How novel.

[burrahobbit]

One thing the thread proves is that it is impossible to cure a belief in homeopathy. Kumar, if you have no data to support your view, why talk about proof. Just say " I believe it with no regard to the evidence or lack thereof"

It then becomes a religion and not a science and therefore leaves this particular forum.

BTW Art Vandelay I tried transliterating Kumars statements into both Hindi and Tamil(both Indian languages). Absence of sense continued.

[MRC_Hans]

I think Kumar is in Tailand.

Hans

[Rolfe]

I should avoid Rolfe? Why? She seems like a perfectly nice lady.Kumar means that I know what study he's talking about. It's an excellent study that shows individualised homoeopathy to have no effect. Geni mentioned it, and I provided a link to the abstract just to rub Kumar's face in it.

He appears not even to have read the abstract. All he did was say, well, there may be errors in the study, the people who did the study might have been biassed. (The chief reseracher in the group interned at a homoeopathic hospital and trained as a homoeopath. He now believes homoeopathy to be totally worthless, but that doesn't mean he's ignorant about it. Quite the contrary.)

Anyway, if Kumar wants to put forward any actual, reasoned criticism of the study (as opposed to, "I don't like the result so I'm going to assert that it's faulty and biassed), then maybe he can link back to the abstract for us. As you said, Donks, why should we do all the work for him.

Kumar, you can't find anything concrete to criticise in that study.

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

Anyway, if Kumar wants to put forward any actual, reasoned criticism of the study ... :rolleyes: That'll be the day.

The thing is that finally, after 200 years, homeopathy seems to be coming under serious fire. After hiding under that stone for ages, the heat is mounting. Another "widely accepted since long" fallacy is beginning to bite the dust.

As can expected, the reactions are desparate. Just look at the homeopathy forums: Some argue for trying to discredit "allopathy", Pakistani homeopaths move for not referring patients to surgeons that are not pro homeopathy, all the ancient strawmen are summoned, the long-dead horses are flogged yet again, etc, etc. Interestingly, not one of them suggests that they hurry up and prove that homeopathy works. Go figure :rolleyes:.

Kumar, your emperor has no clothes :roll:.

Hans

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

It takes lot of time & brain to study not just read a study in full dynamically & contradict. You may be having such time. I have put my points by such studying once & don't want to repeat unless you also understand & contradict on my points, point by point. I know you know where is that/those posts. Still furthur to try dynamically & as a regards to you people, I am stll ready to comment on any study, which you consider as best on homeopathic effects, which you may present to me in full, to study it dynamically, even though it may waste my time which could be utilized for other good dynamic thioughts. Best. :)

[Blue Bubble]

:rolleyes: That'll be the day.

The thing is that finally, after 200 years, homeopathy seems to be coming under serious fire. After hiding under that stone for ages, the heat is mounting. Another "widely accepted since long" fallacy is beginning to bite the dust.
Hans

Hans is absolutely right on this. I think we really are witnessing the death of homeopathy - about time too.

It's going to get very interesting over the next couple of years (that's my prediction for how long it will take for the corpse to twitch and twitch before it finally dilutes and succusses itself into oblivion).

[MRC_Hans]

It takes lot of time & brain to study not just read a study in full dynamically & contradict.

And, since you elsewhere tell us that you spend 10 hours daily at the computer, we know it is not the time you are lacking ;).

You may be having such time.

No, Kumar. She has the brains.

I have put my points by such studying once & don't want to repeat unless you also understand & contradict on my points, point by point. I know you know where is that/those posts.

Translation: I am too lazy to try seriously, and anyway it's way over my head.

Still furthur to try dynamically & as a regards to you people, I am stll ready to comment on any study, which you consider as best on homeopathic effects, which you may present to me in full, to study it dynamically,

Translation: But if you will do some more of my homework for me, I'm always ready to misinterpret it and twist it beyond recognition.

even though it may waste my time which could be utilized for other good dynamic thioughts. Best. :)

Translation: Although I much prefer just to shoot silly ideas into space without any interference.


Hans :nope::rolleyes::nope:

[Kumar]

[QUOTE=Donks;1283247]I didn't say I was unable to find out. I asked you to provide a link. You refused, so I have to assume you didn't actually want to discuss it. If now you do, provide a link. I will not go looking for your evidence for you.[/b]

Bit contradictory.

Your "critical" investigations leave much to be desired.

If you want ro gain knowledges, unbiased.

No, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. In the other thread you claimed that the scientific method can't evaluate homeopathy. Here you claim it can. Obviously you are lying either here or there.

I think you misunderstood/misinterpreted my post.

Nope, I mean obsolete, useless, worthless, arcane, meaningless, irrelevant. Don't try putting words in my mouth. It's incredibly similar to your "I think" statements, you are always wrong.

Pls avoid absolute words, it is still existing legally in many countries with great success. How then it can be as you claimed somewhat absolutely. Do you say "old can't be gold". Why people gold or other precious but older items instead of stainless steel or any other new metal/stone etc. Are those olderones also obsolete etc.....

[Kumar]

:rolleyes: That'll be the day.

The thing is that finally, after 200 years, homeopathy seems to be coming under serious fire. After hiding under that stone for ages, the heat is mounting. Another "widely accepted since long" fallacy is beginning to bite the dust.

As can expected, the reactions are desparate. Just look at the homeopathy forums: Some argue for trying to discredit "allopathy", Pakistani homeopaths move for not referring patients to surgeons that are not pro homeopathy, all the ancient strawmen are summoned, the long-dead horses are flogged yet again, etc, etc. Interestingly, not one of them suggests that they hurry up and prove that homeopathy works. Go figure :rolleyes:.

Kumar, your emperor has no clothes :roll:.

Hans

Public have to speak, might can be right, entitled system can exist better for commons, emperor may not has cloth....still body(natural) is there. :roll:

[Kumar]

And, since you elsewhere tell us that you spend 10 hours daily at the computer, we know it is not the time you are lacking ;).

Then what? Even 1000 years may not be sufficient for some. My homelife becoming very bad for.... If time is there I can utilize there.



No, Kumar. She has the brains.

Yes, therefore I want her involvements.



Translation: I am too lazy to try seriously, and anyway it's way over my head.



Translation: But if you will do some more of my homework for me, I'm always ready to misinterpret it and twist it beyond recognition.



Translation: Although I much prefer just to shoot silly ideas into space without any interference.


Hans :nope::rolleyes::nope:

Sorry, as this post was addressed to Rolfe, she can translate it. She has brain. :)

[MRC_Hans]

Then what? Even 1000 years may not be sufficient for some.
A rare moment of self-recognition, congratulations.

Translation: I am too lazy to try seriously, and anyway it's way over my head.

Translation: But if you will do some more of my homework for me, I'm always ready to misinterpret it and twist it beyond recognition.

Translation: Although I much prefer just to shoot silly ideas into space without any interference.


Sorry, as this post was addressed to Rolfe, she can translate it. She has brain. :)She certainly has. But I'm the resident Kumarese specialist.

...At your service ;).

Hans

[Kumar]

A rare moment of self-recognition, congratulations.

She certainly has. But I'm the resident Kumarese specialist.

...At your service ;).

Hans

Thanks, then awnser dynamically. ;)

[Mojo]

Pls avoid absolute words, it is still existing legally in many countries with great success. No. It exists legally with no success beyond that expected for a placebo.

Kumar, whether homoeopathy is legal or not has no bearing on whether it works. Governments cannot change the way things work through legislation. If something doesn't work, a government cannot make it work by passing laws. To quote Chief Justice Brennan in Rout v. Hutchinson (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/hca/transcripts/1996/C102/1.html): This Court does not have any jurisdiction over the laws of mathematics and physics. This applies just as much to the laws of chemistry, biology and medicine.

[MRC_Hans]

Thanks, then awnser dynamically. ;)I can assure you my awnsers are very dynamically :rolleyes:.

Hans

[Donks]

Kumar means that I know what study he's talking about. It's an excellent study that shows individualised homoeopathy to have no effect. Geni mentioned it, and I provided a link to the abstract just to rub Kumar's face in it.

...snip...

Rolfe.
Actually I have a pretty good idea which study Kumar meant. I just didn't feel like looking for it. If he wants to use it as evidence, he better link to it.

Oh... And I also knew exactly what Kumar meant... I was just tossing out a compliment...

[Rolfe]

This "energy", you know, the "subtle energy" in those remedies that gets all upset if the patient is given any steroid medication (but doesn't seem to mind all the natural steroids sloshing around everybody's body), how is it measured? What units are used? Does it obey the laws of thermodynamics?

Rolfe.
Be careful, being a doctor, you should be understanding differenciating/toxic effects can be in quantity may not be in quality. You said "subtle energy" at one hand and "somewhat toxic indirectly" on the other hand--bit contradictary.First, let me explain where the "subtle energy" quote came from. It is part of the explanation given in a book by two homoeopathic vets for why (they believe) homoeopathy doesn't work if real medicine is given at the same time.There is little doubt that most orthodox drugs impede the action of homeopathic remedies. This is not surprising when one considers that the action of most of these medicines is in direct contradiction to that of homeopathy; anything which suppresses a reaction of the body will act counter to homeopathy, and considering the subtle energetic nature of homeopathic medicine it is only logical that such powerful drugs as corticosteroids and NSAIDs will antidote its effects.Now, the first question I want answered about this is, what is this "subtle energy". How is it measured? In what units? And how does it behave in respect of the laws of thermodynamics? Since there is precisely zero chance I can get the book's authors to answer me, I ask the question here.

Not getting an answer, apparently.

"Somewhat toxic indirectly"? Where did I say that, Kumar? What was I referring to? Doesn't sound like the sort of thing I might say. So, prove I said it, please, and show what the comment was referring to. It's not polite to attribute quotes to people when they in fact have said no such thing. "Be careful."

Now the other thing I'd like to ask the authors of that book is, if corticosteroids antidote the effects of this "subtle energy", how can it ever have any effect on a living organism? Given that every living organism is pretty much awash with endogenous corticosteroids.

Rolfe.

[Donks]

Bit contradictory.
Nope, no contradiction there. If you want to discuss a study or, even worse, use it as evidence, you damn well better link to it.
If you want ro gain knowledges, unbiased.
You haven't gained any knowledge since you first came here...
I think you misunderstood/misinterpreted my post.
Which one, the one you claim that this study backs you up in some way, thus showing that homeopathy can be examing using the scientific method, or the one where you said that homeopathy coudn't be examined using the scientific method?
Pls avoid absolute words, it is still existing legally in many countries with great success.
Define success. If you define it as "effectiveness in treating illness", then provide evidence. If you define it as "effectiveness in taking money from ill people" then I accept your assertion.
How then it can be as you claimed somewhat absolutely. Do you say "old can't be gold". Why people gold or other precious but older items instead of stainless steel or any other new metal/stone etc. Are those olderones also obsolete etc.....
I didn't say "old can't be gold", I said homeopathy is arcane, obsolete, worthless, useless, and a couple of other terms I forgot. Plus, you seem to have missed the point of my original line. Homeopathy is 200 years old and stil produces no verifiable positive results. The damning part here is that it produces no verifiable positive results.

[Mojo]

Now the other thing I'd like to ask the authors of that book is, if corticosteroids antidote the effects of this "subtle energy", how can it ever have any effect on a living organism? Given that every living organism is pretty much awash with endogenous corticosteroids. Ah, well, the endogenous corticosteroids are happy natural corticosteroids full of positive energies, whereas the ones given as treatments are NASTY EVIL CHEMICALS! Look, even the allopaths admit that they are "drugs" and we all know drugs are bad for you, don't we! :rolleyes: :D

[Rolfe]

Rolfe,

It takes lot of time & brain to study not just read a study in full dynamically & contradict. You may be having such time. I have put my points by such studying once & don't want to repeat ....I don't believe you even read the paper. You simply realised you didn't like the conclusions and declared that it was probably biassed. If you have anything further to say, then say it. Otherwise we know what to think.

I repeat what I have concluded from the study. The patients were treated exactly as homoeopaths like to treat patients. They did all the history-taking and the remedy-matching, and they were allowed to individualise as much as they liked. More than one homoeopath was involved, so it wasn't just a case of one incompetent individual. The homoeopaths taking part conferred occasionally to ensure that each of them agreed that the others were approaching the cases in a porper manner. No problems were reported.

The blinding was extraordinarily secure, involving a solicitor who had no idea of the identities of anyone sending out the randomised remedies/placebos. The scoring of the patients' condition after the trial was as objective as possible.

And there was no difference between the group who got their carefully individualised remedies and the group who didn't.

What about this do you have a problem with, Kumar?

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
What about this do you have a problem with, Kumar?

Rolfe.
Vested interests?
Bit undynamic thinking?
Pls avoud absolute words?
Still existing legally?
All people can't be wrong since long?
Kabunglestoff?
Blibbledroot?

...Just trying to help there, Kumar :dio:.

Hans

[Kumar]

No. It exists legally with no success beyond that expected for a placebo.

Kumar, whether homoeopathy is legal or not has no bearing on whether it works. Governments cannot change the way things work through legislation. If something doesn't work, a government cannot make it work by passing laws. To quote Chief Justice Brennan in Rout v. Hutchinson (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/hca/transcripts/1996/C102/1.html): This applies just as much to the laws of chemistry, biology and medicine.

you are concerned with the operation of mathematical and physical rules. That is, no doubt, a matter of great importance. This Court does not have any jurisdiction over the laws of mathematics and physics

Mojo, above from your link. It is about maths & physics. These are atleast having some fixed theories & calculations. Moreover, these can be different in different countries & mass people withness is there, to prove it. So any govenment/authority, who made it legal should be having these firm bases or live evidances as witnesses. On other side, if we say your type of evidances are non-absolute( not free from perfections, can change/discarded as per new findings), those can be treated as weak evidances.

Moreover, why one would like to involve unnecessary.

Anyway it is one's choice/luck, so I don't want to say more & get bad thoughts for trying good.

ETA.

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

"Be careful..."

I become...

Sorry, there is some language problem. I have taken meaning of your post as, "How steriods can effect "subtle energy" in remedies when natural steriods are used in preparing these. I thought you, indicated something in response of my remarks on asthma study. This topic/current discussions were also alike it, so it happened. Anyway you meant differently, so my mistake in understanding due to language problem.

Now my thought about your questions are, natural steroids in our body may not be imbalanced/excess/accumulated normally, but these can be excess at any time if taken exogenously. As yet, homeopathic subtle energy couldn't be known by science, so can't be measured in units may be as "prime force of all forces couldn't yet be known in science, but is observed & experianced by its community in mass.

I hope, it will clear.

[Kumar]

I can assure you my awnsers are very dynamically :rolleyes:.

Hans

Thanks, but Playing table tennis in lawn tennis ground or on billiard table or contradicting other systems directly may not be the dynamism, but can be FIGHT. There can be some other means.

Btw, since you studied "other subtle energy based systems" to much, can these make people alike "Adam's or Eve's" constitution as per their theory?

Understand it dynamically & tell me what... unabling me to know your dynamics understanding capability?

[Rolfe]

As yet, homeopathic subtle energy couldn't be known by science, so can't be measured in units may be as "prime force of all forces couldn't yet be known in science, ....So, why should anyone trust their health to this nonexistent phenomenon?

Oh yes, experienced in mass. No, you really do have to face the fact that it is possible to fool a great many people for a great deal of the time. It really is possible for large numbers of people to be mistaken.

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

Thanks, but Playing table tennis in lawn tennis ground or on billiard table or contradicting other systems directly may not be the dynamism, but can be FIGHT. There can be some other means.

Btw, since you studied "other subtle energy based systems" to much, can these make people alike "Adam's or Eve's" constitution as per their theory?

Understand it dynamically & tell me what... unabling me to know your dynamics understanding capability?Even I can't decypher this one.

Kumar, you excuse yourself with language problems. If you feel you have language problems, why do you keep using weird metaphors, self-invented abbreviations, private definitions, etc. etc? If you really care to make yourself understood, write in simple, short sentences, using standard definitions of words.

...And forget about using poetic metaphors.

...And don't use slashes.

...AND DO proof-read your posts; the very least you can do is take the trouble to correct simple typing errors.



......But I suppose the veil of ambiguity serves your purpose well :rolleyes:.

Hans

[Rolfe]

I think that "lawn tennis" is his metaphor for the patient survey sort of test (mass existing and well distributed since long....), and that's the game he wants to set up and play. He is annoyed and believes we are spoiling for a fight when instead we try to play the controlled blinded trial game ("table tennis"?) on his lawn tennis court.

Sorry Kumar, that's not how it works around here.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

I think that "lawn tennis" is his metaphor for the patient survey sort of test I though it was his oblique way of objecting to the game of Mornington Crescent going on in the Hyperinsulinemia/Diabetes thread.

[Rolfe]

Well, that works too.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Homeopathy#Discussion

Ooh, I like that. I'll bet it was written by someone both intelligent and attractive, and also blessed with a gracious hirsuteness. ;)

[Rolfe]

And maybe even simian?

Rolfe.