Do homeopathic remedies contain measurable quantities of the "medicine"?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by KUMAR5, Jan 15, 2022.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,543
    There's no research on water memory. There has been research in the past that knocks the concept on the head, though. Here is a link to a paper that, among other things, points out that water molecules reorientate themselves from any given configuration within 50 femtoseconds: https://skepticalinquirer.org/2011/05/the-memory-of-water/

    I have previously drawn this to river's attention (in the era before I had him permanently on Ignore), on another forum. He's too dim and prejudiced to remember that, I expect.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It's all cock, kept going by the opportunity it presents for charlatans to prey on gullible people's health anxieties and sell them plain water at vast prices.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,407
    Why do you state homeopathy uses 1:99 ratio, and then talk about 50% being always maintained??? 1% is maintained. 1%. Not 50%. Stop confusing yourself with the idea of 50%.

    Toxicity is irrelevant.
    Tap water has so much pollution in it that an extra molecule of an "active substance" would be unnoticeable. Similarly in pure water, which although has less pollution still has significant amounts compared to the level of "active substance". Furthermore the mouth and body have so many trace elements and compounds that single molecules of any substance will just be overwhelmed in terms of ever having an effect.

    You really don't understand how half-life works, clearly. If you dilute something, even in half each time, you get to a point where there will, on average, be none of the original substance. The maths and logic show this irrefutably.
    No they won't, for the reasons already given, repeatedly, and which you simply ignore. Address the points raised about your so-called "justifications", or PLEASE STOP TROLLING.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,407
    Yeah, there is. I'm not saying that it's well supported or that its conclusions are in any way robust, but people seem to still be researching the notion, and every now and then will throw a paper out...
    e.g.
    https://www.resonancescience.org/blog/Scientists-Show-That Water-Has-Memory
    https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=89620
    Selling water at vast prices has been around since the 80s/90s... just look at bottled water on supermarket shelves! I guess they should be marketed as "Bulk Naturally-Random and Mixed Homeopathic Remedies", or something like that, given the pollution in them that must surely be curing everyone of something!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,543
    Haha, but this Haramein guy (your 1st link) is a crank that already has his own entry in Rationalwiki: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nassim_Haramein , while the second is a "paper" in a SCIRP "journal" - that appears on Beall's List of potentially predatory and pay-to-publish junk sausage machines.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So when I say there is no research on water memory, what I meant was no serious research reported in recognised journals, i.e. no proper science.

    There are plenty of YouPube videos, I have no doubt............
     
    Sarkus likes this.
  8. KUMAR5 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Why can't it happen? You look a thing from different and theoritical point of view instead of right and oractical Pov, you notice it different If testing by competent measuring technology would had been orefered, difference in lieu of menory would had been easily traced. But probably they opted most convenient theoritical basis as suited yo them.
     
  9. KUMAR5 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Research can and should go on till an understanding become absolute and complete. Till then, that will remain in process sonewhat partially cooked. Quite obious.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    No, I often can't.

    The care you take with what you write here gives one a good indication of the care you take with your 'research' - i.e. none at all. You can not be bothered to take the extra half second that would be required to write intelligibly, nor can you be bothered to do any research at all (beyond watching TV of course.)
     
    exchemist likes this.
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,543
    Obious? Odious?
     
  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,407
    Why can't what happen??
    "right and oractical [sic] Pov" shows it to be no better than placebo, which is quite unsurprising given that that is what is peddled. And the "different and theoritical [sic]" point of view is rather irrefutable maths and logic.
    What measuring technology do you think is "competent"? Any that conclude homeopathy works??
    No, they generally opt for the most objective method that they can, that removes as much doubt or interpretation as possible, without bias to a preferential outcome. And in doing so they reach the conclusion that homeopathy is no better than placebo.
    That's the "right and practical" point of view.
     
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,407
    Eh? The 6 "justifications" you previously gave were in response to whether or not there is any "active ingredient" in a homeopathic remedy. None of your "justifications" held up to scrutiny, for reasons already given multiple times, and which you still continue to ignore, preferring to simple bleat that you have offered "6 justifications".
    Noone disputes that there are likely molecules other than water in the remedies, some of the "justifications" you give are indeed justifications for such molecules. But, for the umpteenth time, the issue is not whether there are any non-water molecules in the remedy, but whether there are any molecules of the active ingredient.
    Now if you can't stick to that, and if you continue to igore the obvious flaws in your "justifications", you will be treated for the Troll you demonstrate yourself to be.

    As for "water memory testing"... how do you propose to test for something that hasn't been shown to exist, and for which there is strong evidence is impossible? Describe this "water memory testing", please. Or, politely, stop trolling.
     
  14. KUMAR5 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    .ok i shall take extra care by treating you as formal. i was just considering you as more natural.
     
  15. KUMAR5 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Thanks. You have good grasping power so could understand real sense behind my words. Sense is more important than formality.
     
  16. KUMAR5 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    [QUOTE="Sarkus, post: 3692515, member: 18418" ,]

    Whatever that van test snd tell which molecules exist in a solution. Justifying working will be secondary step.
    ,
    Trust can not be a critetia for it. We should know the full details...whether checked theoritically or practically. As far as I can see there appear just be a theoritical conclusion because it is not possible remedues are just pure zH2O.
     
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,407
    odious
    /ˈəʊdɪəs/

    adjective

    adjective: odious
    extremely unpleasant; repulsive.
    "a pretty odious character"
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,543
    Yes, but you talk wall to wall crap and, just to make it harder, you garble your spelling and syntax as well.
     
  19. KUMAR5 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Okay. Henceforth I shall try to be more formal. Meanwhile, pls try to manage and understsnd me and my words. Thanks.
     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,407
    ????
    Trust? Who mentioned "trust"?
    For the last time: it is accepted that remedies are not "pure water" - as there will always be contaminants/pollution. The issue is whether there is any active ingredient! Now stick to that, and not your strawman!
    Yes - it is entirely possible that there is no active ingredient in the remedy. This is a very well understood aspect of homeopathy.
    Sure, people can prepare dilutions incorrectly that result in there being molecules in even high-dilution remedies, but I sincerely hope you're not arguing your position on the basis of those incorrectly preparing remedies?? Otherwise, in a 12C or higher solution, you need to drink rather a significant amount of the remedy to have a chance of drinking just one molecule of active ingredient. This is the maths and logic of the preparation of homeopathic remedies. You can offer any number of "justifications" for why there might be, but so far all you have done is limited your scope to very low potency remedies (6C or under) or offer justification for the presence of non-water molecules, not for the presence of active ingredient.
     
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,407
    We mostly understand your words (the odd exception, as noted in my post above). And mostly your words are full of crap. Just like what you're trying to defend.
     
  22. KUMAR5 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Few concepts exist in med system. These are catalysts, adjuents, supplementry , environmental effects etc. Something which is not real active substance but can still add to effect. We can feel some difference in taste and effect by drinking water from a glass bottle , from a plastic bottle and from a steel bottle. Shedded particles, temp etc may give some additional or collective effects. Therefire I mentioned that. Moreover my purpose was to show oresence of other moleculer than just of H2O..active or non active so that you do not call remedues as water. It is fullfilled by these 6 justifications at least theoritically.
    About their working, you simply are making base of inappropriately done studues so are invalud. One oroperly done and balid study I quoted quoted previously shown efficacy. DPBC studies for remedies should be undertsken at par to what a competent homeopath prescribe to real patients.. individualized symptomatic, long term neing effects and side effects are less apoarent, with placebo(psycho. Motivation being more natural etc.
    Water memory experimentvwas not done oroperly and appear to be just a theoritical conclusion.
    If I repeatedly say yes with logic and justifications, declare me a troll, saying no repeatedly wiithout logic and justification should make you bigger troll. Not so? So avoud crossing li. Also avoud repeatitions again. Tks
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2022
  23. KUMAR5 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    How it can be both ways, crap and just like I am trying to defend? You can say one sided but not crap.
     

Share This Page