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

[Sarkus]

Conclusion
This thread remains quite informative for new understanding about how those who believe in homeopathy will do everything they can to ignore what doesn't support their case. So thanks to all.
It is concluded that there is a chronic stupidity held by some for thinking that the more potent homeopathic dilutions contain any active ingredient. No justification for the molecular presence of actual active ingredient in the dilutions has been provided, only for the presence of other non-water molecules (such as natural pollutants etc), which is not disputed. Instead the "believer" simply returns to their claim of having provided "6 justifications" despite repeated efforts to show why their thinking is flawed. The "believer" fails to address those flaws, and thus confirms, repeatedly, that they are a Troll.
The next thing the "believer" does is remove homeopathy from the remit of science, and claim that all scientific studies of homeopathy are flawed as they are not "individualised", and that the studies did not give remedies in the manner given in practice. What the "believer" fails to realise is that this therefore suggests that the efficacy in homeopathy is not in the remedy but in the "making the patient feel special", or "bedside manner" of the practitioner, which would go some way toward explaining why homeopathy works no better than a placebo. This will be lost on the "believer" because it does not paint homeopathy in a positive light. They will ignore the point, and likely just point to their "6 justifications" again, or again argue why science is not how homeopathy should be examined.
The "believer" will also point to studies that appear to show the efficacy of the homeopathic remedies, although they won't have the necessary controls in place to show whether or not the efficacy is superior or not to that of a placebo. But, because these studies show an efficacy, the "believer" will claim these studies to be appropriately done. The "believer" will likely also point to studies that show a negative outcome as being "inappropriately done".
The "believer" will thereby attempt to put homeopathy outside of that which can show it to work no better then placebo, and due to the lack of active ingredient (to which they will continue to bleat back to their "6 justifications") that homeopathy is nothing but placebo.
However, disliking this conclusion when it is reached by some, the "believer" will try to argue that the efficacy being due to a stimulus response must mean that it is not a placebo. Alas, this starts from the false premise that there is any active ingredient with which to provide said stimulus (to which the "believer" might start to head down the pathological water science route to come up with a further explanation beyond their flawed "6 justification"), but also does not address the issue that the remedies work no better than a placebo. This will be lost on the "believer".
In fact any argument against homeopathy will simply not be addressed by the "believer", such is their strong tendency toward dishonest and Troll-like behaviour.
Hope you will agree on it.

Thanks.

 

[Sarkus]

You always misunderstood me. Either side, I post, you contradict me. Leave it and contribute positively. Best is looking both side equally and arrive at a balanced or rational decision. Equanimity.

"2 + 2 = 5"
No, 2+2 = 4
"Waaah, you always contradict me! Leave it and contribute positively. Best is looking both side equally and arrive at a balanced or rational decision. Equanimity."

Your desired approach is favoured by crackpots who know they have no actual argument of their own, and who are unable to respond to the arguments against their position. I have no doubt you're also close to playing the Galileo Gambit again. You really do homeopathy no favours at all with your dishonest approach.

 

[KUMAR5]

"2 + 2 = 5"
No, 2+2 = 4
"Waaah, you always contradict me! Leave it and contribute positively. Best is looking both side equally and arrive at a balanced or rational decision. Equanimity."

Your desired approach is favoured by crackpots who know they have no actual argument of their own, and who are unable to respond to the arguments against their position. I have no doubt you're also close to playing the Galileo Gambit again. You really do homeopathy no favours at all with your dishonest approach.

No not with dishonest approach but by justified approach. It is quite clear...you see or not...is your problem.

 

[KUMAR5]

Finally, in view of above conclusion and legal status of homeopathy, it should also be like harming the people by degrading or discouragingg it in public as if harming thevpeople. Some posters adviced that it should not be prefered on open foruns or in gerenal public. So pls take care accordingly.

 

[Sarkus]

It is quite clear...you see or not...is your problem.

The problem really is quite clear: you're a dishonest troll: you have failed to engage honestly, and you simply repeat your mantra "6 justifications", despite the flaws previously advised to you.

Finally, in view of above conclusion and legal status of homeopathy, it should also be like harming the people by degrading or discouragingg it in public as if harming thevpeople.

It is also legal to drink alcohol in most countries. So your point is fallacious: an appeal to legality (the "oh, it's legal therefore it must be doing okay / doing good!" argument).

Some posters adviced that it should not be prefered on open foruns or in gerenal public. So pls take care accordingly.

People can waste their money on whatever they want, as long as they're not harming others and it is legal. If they want to spend money on something that is no better than placebo, sure, they should be allowed to. But governments should not expect to have to help fund it, and it should not be promoted as anything other than what can be proven about it: i.e. that there is no active ingredient in the so-called potent high-dilution, and that it works no better than placebo.
See, that's why homeopathy isn't illegal per se: taking small pills of water (albeit with small amounts of naturally occurring pollution, such as can be found in tap water) has never harmed anyone. However, false advertising is illegal. And homeopathy that makes unproven claims, such as you are doing, is dangerous.
Not being illegal is not the same as being beneficial.

 

[KUMAR5]

The problem really is quite clear: you're a dishonest troll: you have failed to engage honestly, and you simply repeat your mantra "6 justifications", despite the flaws previously advised to you.
It is also legal to drink alcohol in most countries. So your point is fallacious: an appeal to legality (the "oh, it's legal therefore it must be doing okay / doing good!" argument).
People can waste their money on whatever they want...

No reality is that instead of so many justifications, studies tests, practical experisnced etc given in this thread you are so dishonest and troll that you sttill deny all these and stubborn on your odd perceotions. Now it lloks not just an idiocy but also jave some intentional odd interest or a mallacious intendent behind it.
Legality as a healing system and leagality for drinking alchhol is absoluteky different like earth and sky. Your comparing a healing system with alcohol drinking, itself show your dishonest abd mallacious intent. Just leave it abd agree on Conclusion. Avoud harming gernal public at open forum.

 

[Sarkus]

The more you write the more your dishonesty is evident. Or maybe it's just that a coherent argument is well beyond you? Whichever it is, I'll leave you to your stupidity, dishonesty, and Trollish ways. You never know, maybe you'll drink some tap water and be miraculously cured of such behaviour.

 

[KUMAR5]

The more you write the more your dishonesty is evident. Or maybe it's just that a coherent argument is well beyond you? Whichever it is, I'll leave you to your stupidity, dishonesty, and Trollish ways. You never know, maybe you'll drink some tap water and be miraculously cured of such behaviour.

Why you are telling all your qualities to me? Nothing can change you so better just enjoy your home which is defectlect with just pros no cons. Although nothing is here without pros and cons but few are so selfish that they tend to find cons of others but not of their hones though no home is absolute and complete perféct ,Let us see where we shall land after say 50 to 100 years by following too much unnaturality. One we are facing now by severe fear of nuke war.

 

[Sarkus]

There is nothing selfish by trying to explain reality to someone who is as deaf to it as you are. But you not only ignore the science ("oh, if it gives negative result it can't have been done properly!"), you not only ignore the flaws in your "justifications", but you also post irrelevant nonsense, now seeming once again (despite having this error of yours pointed out to you previously) to equate homeopathy to natural remedies (rather than being the unscientific subset thereof), which is a fallacy on your part. Oh, and comment about fear of nuclear war, really just confirms your crackpottery, I'm afraid. It's certainly not relevant to the thread (maybe you want to re-read the thread title?).
Care to try again, this time making some sense, maybe a coherent argument or two, and without it being irrelevant?

 

[KUMAR5]

There is nothing selfish by trying to explain reality to someone who is as deaf to it as you are. But you not only ignore the science ("oh, if it gives negative result it can't have been done properly!"), you not only ignore the?

You are trying to ignore reality with varuous clear jaustifications given in this thread. If it is not due to any selfish interest, sorry to say then it will just be idiocy.

So better, avoid misguiding the people. Prefer whatever you like but do not insist or influence others to follow you. Homeoosthy has sufficisnt justification and science as well.

 

[exchemist]

You are trying to ignore reality with varuous clear jaustifications given in this thread. If it is not due to any selfish interest, sorry to say then it will just be idiocy.

So better, avoid misguiding the people. Prefer whatever you like but do not insist or influence others to follow you. Homeoosthy has sufficisnt justification and science as well.

You are just a stupid troll. Time to stop reading any more of your rubbish.

.....[click].......

 

[KUMAR5]

You are just a stupid troll. Time to stop reading any more of your rubbish.

.....[click].......

Obiously since I am not going with you, your perception, your liking and with your agenda. Last time a request. avoid to be misguided and misguiding the people esp now. Sorry.

 

[KUMAR5]

If anyone still doubt 6 justifications given in this thread he can check these by these simple home experiments. Our taste and smelling senses are quite senstive othereise you can also take help of a sniffing dog.
Exp 1: Take some highly scented syrup bottle. Empity its syrup in other container. Then give it a simple one wash. Then just fill it with water. Keep for some time than throw the water. Fill it again and throw. Repeat it 13 times. You can also give some hard shaks. Now at 13th step, keep water in same bottle, shake vigariously and wait for one day. Then taste n smell that water for some slight smell or taste. If there, ist and 2nd justification about adsorption and desorotion is proved.
Exp 2: keep drinking water in 3 different bottles. Ist of glass, 2nd of PET n 3 rd of steel. One day later, feel the difference in taste and smell of water in different bottle. If different, my 3rd justification sbout shedded glass particles of glass is oroved
Exp 3: procure distilled water from 3 sources. Taste these. If you sense differentky
these, my 4th justification about waterand env pollution is proved.
Exo 4. Take a glass of water. Dissolve 2 tsp sugar in it. Keep it for 15 miniutes. Thenempity half of its water in other container. Then taste these solutions seprstely at same time. If one is sensed more sweet other less. My 5th snd 6th justifications about non homogeneous and dhifting ertor are proved.
Still I am not maintaining 1:99 ration and tsking more water.
Try.

 

[Sarkus]

Exp 1: Take some highly scented syrup bottle. Empity its syrup in other container. Then give it a simpke one wash. Then just fill it with water.

That's not how remedies are prepared. You are arguing a strawman.

Keep for some time than throw the water. Fill it again and throw. Repeat it 13 times. You can also give some hard shaking. Now at 13th step, keep water in same bottle, shake vigariously and wait for one day. Then taste n smell that water for some slight smell or taste. If there, ist and 2nd justification about adsorption and desorotion is proved.

No, they're not proved. You're deliberately arguing a strawman. That is dishonest of you.

Exp 2: keep drinking water in 3 different bottles. Ist of glass, 2nd of PET n 3 rd of steel. One day later, feel the difference in taste and smell of water in different bottle. If different, my 3rd justification sbout shedded glass particles of glass is oroved

For hopefully the last time: the presence of non-water molecules is not disputed! As explained to you, the issue is about the level of active ingredient, not simply about non-water molecules. If in doubt - write down the thread title, and tell me exactly how this "justification" of yours explains how there is actual active ingredient, rather than just contamination from the container.
FFS... your continued pushing this as a justification is outright dishonesty, if not simple stupidity on your part.

Exp 3: procure distilled water from 3 sources. Taste these. If you sense differentky
these, my 4th justification about water n env pollution is proved.

Again, noone disputes non-water molecules. Read the fucking thread title, you dishonest troll!

Exo 4. Take a glass of water. Dissolve 2 tsp sugar in it. Keep it for 15 miniutes. Then rmpity half of its water in other contsiner. Then taste these solutions seprstely at same time. If one is sensed more sweet other less. My 5th snd 6th justifications about non homogeneous and dhifting ertor are proved.
Try.

WTF??? You once again have no idea how homeopathic solutions are made, and are arguing a strawman.
There is no keeping things for 15 minutes. There is vigoros shaking, or constant water flow, precisely to avoid what you are referring to.

So stop being a dishonest troll. Learn about that which you're trying to defend. And read the fucking thread title! Your "justifications" are clearly and demonstrably nothing of the sort, for reasons given time and time again, and dishonestly ignored by you.

Obiously since I am not going with you, your perception, your liking and with your agenda.

It is nothing to do with that, you odious little pimple. You are trolling, and engaging dishonestly. That is why.
While this sub-forum is for pseudo-science (of which homeopathy rightfully belongs) it doesn't mean you can be the odious dishonest troll that you are being.

Last time a request. avoid to be misguided and misguiding the people esp now. Sorry.

The only people misguiding people are those who claim homeopathy works better than placebo, or that high-dilution remedies contain any active ingredient (such that the patient is merely taking a placebo). That puts you among those who are themselves misguided, while misguiding others.

 

[KUMAR5]

That's not how remedies are prepared. You are arguing a strawman.

Yes but I just mentioned that for your convenience shake. Though extent of dilution is overshooted by it but you can opt homeopathic wsy of dilution and potentization. It will give still better outcome since dilution will be lesser.

]o, they're not proved. You're deliberately arguing a strawman. That is dishonest of you.
For hopefully the last time: the presence of non-water molecules is not disputed! As explained to you, the issue is about the level of active ingredient, not simply about non-water molecules. If in doubt - write down the thread title, and tell me exactly how this "justification" of yours explains how there is actual active ingredient, rather than just contamination from the container.

If no dispute sbout presence of other molecules than water than matter is over. They are active molecules or not or their level is sufficient or not is a different issue. However it is justified because of observsnce of efficacy as I justified in this thread. Sence ss I told remedies have a collective effect fróm whstever they contain. Potentization or dynamic or individualization of molecules effect also make all its content directly sensed and effect so all will be taken into considerstion. Say eg. You take strawberry or banana milk shake. You feel it quite refresing and energetic different from just taking strawberry ir banana fruit. You use fruits, milk, sugar, water and ice yo make these milk dhakes. It dies not mean except fruits, milk, sugar, water and ice have no role in milk shakes and in their qualities. So all things need yo be considered for their collective effect in ehatever form you use that.
When other molecules in remedues and their efficacy are justified, these are real stimuli snd have real stimulus response not fake, so can not be taken as just placebo. Many types of effects are possible. As I told a dot on your laptop screen can enhance your concentration power and physiological activity much more than looking whole screen. So stimulation of ohysiological activities by low dose is a reality.

I think your other points are also covered in sense of above reply so avoiding over writing.
Do not be so impulsive to conclude too early even with odd or abusing words. Mouth is not meant for shit excretion.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes but I just mentioned that for your convenience shake.

So you admit your "justification" is not an actual justification addressing the thread title, but instead some strawman you have concocted. Good. I'm glad we're getting somewhere, and you're starting to admit your dishonesty.

If no dispute sbout presence of other molecules than water than matter is over.

It was never a "matter". It was understood and accepted from the getgo. The thread, if you are able to read, is about active ingredient, not other pollutant molecules in the water. So again, you argued a strawman as if it was a justification when it was not.
Are you sensing a trend in your so-called "justifications" yet?

They are active molecules or not or their level is sufficient or not is a different issue.

It is. In fact the first of those is what this thread is about - specifically whether there is any measurable quantities of the active ingredient. So once again you confirm that you simply provided "justification" for a strawman, and nothing to do with the actual thread. Thanks. We are indeed making progress.

However it is justified because of observsnce of efficacy as I justified in this thread.

It's nothing to do with efficacy. If you are accepting (as you have done above) that your "justification" is nothing to do with the level of active molecules, how can it be justification for the observance of efficacy?
Unless you're acknowledging that the efficacy of a homeopathic remedy has nothing to do with the active ingredient? If that is the case then, as I explained to you many posts and many pages ago, the marketing of homeopathy, the notion of "like cures like" is a known falsehood. Further, if the level of active ingredient is irrelevant, you're just relying on the water, pure or otherwise. Which is unremarkably why the efficacy of homeopathy is no better than placebo (which is most often itself just water).
So either way you want to spin it, your "justification" is nothing of the sort.

Sence ss I told remedies have a collective effect fróm whstever they contain. Potentization or dynamic or individualization of molecules effect also make all its content directly sensed and effect so all will be taken into considerstion. Say eg. You take strawberry or banana milk shake. You feel it quite refresing and energetic different from just taking strawberry ir banana fruit. You use fruits, milk, sugar, water and ice yo make these milk dhakes. It dies not mean except fruits, milk, sugar, water and ice have no role in milk shakes and in their qualities. So all things need yo be considered for their collective effect in ehatever form you use that.

So you confirm, yet again, that you haven't provided any actual justification for there being active ingredient in the remedy. Thanks. Progress!!

But now you're trying to say that it is not the single (or less) molecule of active ingredient in the remedy, but the remedy as a whole: the mostly water, the small quantity of natural pollution, or silica from the glass etc, that is the "remedy"? Again, all you're doing is explaining why it works no better than placebo, as the placebo contains those exact same things - just without those molecules of active ingredient that may or may not even exist in the homeopathic version of the remedy.
Further, you'll need to provide some literature, some support for your nonsense here: that homeopathic remedies rely for their efficacy on not just the (non-existent) active ingredient but on all the other non-water molecules to be found in the remedy. Remember, silica (glass shards etc) will be found in every placebo, every glass of water that someone drinks. So they get that, and likely all the other pollutants on a daily basis and in a quantity that swamps anything to be found in homeopathic remedy.

When other molecules in remedues and their efficacy are justified, these are real stimuli snd have real stimulus response not fake, so can not be taken as just placebo. Many types of effects are possible. As I told a dot on your laptop screen can enhance your concentration power and physiological activity much more than looking whole screen. So stimulation of ohysiological activities by low dose is a reality.

When there's a dot on a computer screen, there is an actual dot on the screen. You're supposedly trying to justify why there is any "dot" (active ingredient) in the homeopathic remedy. At the moment you have provided nothing but justification for pollution, which doesn't do anything to differentiate a homeopathic remedy from tap water.
So, again, you're arguing a strawman.

I think your other points are also covered in sense of above reply so avoiding over writing.

Your above reply is laughable, although we're making progress in that you finally seem to admit that you haven't actually provided justification for there being any active ingredient. I'm sure that now you realise what you have written you will try to backtrack, as you have really done nothing but explain why homeopathic remedies work no better than placebo (hint: because what they contain is no different from the placebo)

Do not be so impulsive to conclude too early even with odd or abusing words.

There is no impulsion to conclude early. The conclusion I, and science, have reached on homeopathy is one reached after looking at the logic, and studies performed: there is zero convincing evidence that it works any better than placebo, and that beyond 12C solutions you're unlikely to find even a single molecule of active ingredient (which doesn't even start to address how much of an active ingredient is required to cause an actual reaction in the body) to the point where you have more chance in guessing correctly 400 times in a row a random number between 0 and 9 than there is of having a single molecule in the remedy.

Mouth is not meant for shit excretion.

Given everything you have written in this forum is a demonstrable pile of metaphorical excrement, perhaps you should heed your own advice?

But, hey, you've made progress in your latest post, at least: finally admitting your justifications are nothing of the sort regarding the level of active ingredient, and that you have simply been arguing against strawmen. Time will tell if this sudden burst of honesty on your part survives longer than one of your arguments.

 

[KUMAR5]

Simply whole remedy, whatever is given is actuve substance like milk shake as a whole. Now I have no time to attend your trolling superfluous long posts with dishonest and misguiding intent. I shall remain firm on 6 justifications and on conclusion. So good bye here. Do not waste mine and your time in further posting in this thread.

 

[Sarkus]

The thing about a milkshake is that the ingredients are listed and exist in the milkshake. If a homeopathic remedy of X contains no actual X then that is fraud, is it not?
You know it should. I know it should. Yet you, for whatever bizarre reasons known only to yourself, feel you need to defend what you know can not be defended. And that is part of what makes you dishonest.
The only one wasting your time is you, by posting crap in this thread. Unfortunately for you it has been pointed out to you, you have been called out on it, and you have no actual rational response. Even now you simply ignore the counterarguments and just repeat your mantra "6 justifications". You are laughable. You clearly have delusions of intelligence, but you are so out of your depth here it's no longer funny.

Go away, dishonest little troll. Go and annoy a site that doesn't care that you speak bollocks. On this site you have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found sorely wanting.

 

[Write4U]

In an attempt to further confuse the issue, I found this cousin of homeopathy, namely homeosophia.

HOMEOSOPHIA AND HOMEOPATHY

Homeosophia and homeopathy are two different
approaches using, most of the time, the same tools.

Homeosophia is really an attempt to create a
Christian therapeutic approach using the tools of
homeopathy but in a different way.

Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy had a deep
hatred for Christ. On the opposite, we do believe that a life
without Christ cannot ever lead to health, no matter how we
define it.

https://numerique.banq.qc.ca/patrimoine/details/52327/2748562

Whoopeeee!

 

[KUMAR5]

In an attempt to further confuse the issue, I found this cousin of homeopathy, namely homeosophia.

HOMEOSOPHIA AND HOMEOPATHY

https://numerique.banq.qc.ca/patrimoine/details/52327/2748562

Whoopeeee

It is not available on google search.
Basic sense or logic behind many so called alternative systems should just be low dose stimulation of physiological activities to high dose inhibition of these in homeopathic, hormesis or otherwise manner. Many time I try it:
When I get waterly discharge abnormality from anywhere, nose, saliva, sweat or urine or is over emotional, i just put 1 2 grain of grounded common salt in mouth and shake it vigariously with saliva It is felt skight salty taste. It get absorbed soon snd no salt taste is felt. Then I spit out that sakiva. Akternatively, i put 3-4 such salt grains on my pulse side of left wrist and rub it by putting some plain water on these grains. I repeat it 5-6 times just by putting more water not more salt grsins. To my surprise, my above oroblems are corrected immediately. This probably suggest, low dose of salt is just sensed not ingested and effect in manner of low dose effect.

I am bit comfirtable now by avouding pulling skin from the hair habit of some without understsnding sense and logic behind anything told in other way. Relaxed.