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

That's the nocebo effect. If you give someone distilled water and tell them it's a very powerful drug that will cure them but will have serious side effects, a large percentage will experience serious side effects.

Again, that's pretty much the definition of placebo.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But when real active substance based agents are given to achieve specific effects then it eill not be olacebo. Sane hapoen in prescribing homeooathic remedues.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is an methedological error. Same Homeopathic remedy can not be given to a group. It should be individualized. Non individuakized studies are not applicable for homeopathic remedies since these have different nature snd different prescribing protocols. In short, these can only be given exactly st par to these sre prescribed in homeooathic clinics by comoetent homeopsthas. Moreover since these have minimum apoarent side effects, expression of patients to their effects will be different than modern meds. So justification to confirm effectiveness eill also be different or lesser expressed. Therefore I alwsys ask to collect live evidances by visiting many homeopsthic clinic's, those who eho really need evidances.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So homeopathic concoctions are really nothing but water and they can't be tested, but they work great because some people say they work.

 

No millon can say they work in their personal experisnce. Regular scientific study is not applicable on these real practical experiance or study based on real practical experisnce is applicable on these. All the studies for these conducted at par to modern medicines are inapptopriate in this sense so can be taken as fake.

 

If I give you 10ml of pure water and you get the same positive outcome as 10ml of pure water that just happens to have 1 molecule of "active ingredient", then the 1 molecule of "active ingredient" is, logically, irrelevant to the positive outcome. Meta-analysis of studies on homeopathy have shown that homeopathic remedies are no more effective than the placebo effect. Thus the "active ingredient" appears to be irrelevant, and homeopathy only works due to the placebo effect. This is the logic of the situation.
Just because the homeopathic remedies contain something other than pure water does not mean that it is not simply working by the placebo effect.

That is true of placebos. Which is why there is known to be such thing as the placebo effect: because, for some people, placebos work.

So you think that homeopathy can't be studied by science? You think we can't test the efficacy of homeopathic remedies compared to the placebo-effect? You don't think double-blind experiments are appropriate??

You're just trolling, I'm afraid. "Wah! Waah! Science says homeopathy doesn't work any better than the placebo-effect. Waah! Let's just say that science can't test it properly! Then we can discount all scientific conclusions about it and continue to believe in it! Waaah!"

 

Correct! You can determine that by a controlled double blind clinical trial. If the clinical trial shows an improvement, then you can say that the treatment has a specific effect.

Homeopathic remedies have failed every such trial.

No problem. Have a homeopath prepare individual remedies for each person. Then have a researcher randomly replace half of them with distilled water. Then run the trial. If both groups see the same outcome, then it's 100% placebo effect.

Then homeopathy is religion, not medicine.

 

First bot just one molecule. We need to measure it.
2nd, Btw, how science or anyone can measure placebo?
In view of different nature of agents, these can only ne studied on real patients on individualized and long term basis say eg for 6 months to 2 years. Now say you want to study 100 patients but wabt to give real agent to 50 and fake to other 50 to test placebo. My big question is, hiow can you keep 50 poacebo group patients without giving any real meds for long say 6 months to 2 yesrs? Will it nit be illegal and unethical?
I think it can not be possible by regular scientific studies. One need to survey resl patients under treatment of competent homeopaths in their clinics. Homeopathic remedies are not such type who can shiw effects or toxic effects on all even on non patients on non individualized basis. Show me any study which is studied on individualized basus exactly as par to real prescriptions.

 

It is to be done by science people because homeopsths are already satisfied for the effects, hapoy and floridhing. Those who are unsatisfied need to study these in right way.
2nd when science already gave their conclusion that hom renedues are just placeno, means they should had been already well studied these. Then show me few studies which are done on individualized basis exactly at par to real prescriptions by comoetent homeopaths. I doubt that these exist.
3rd, as per my last post, real patients sre need to be studied even in ppacebo gtoup. How can we keep placebo group patients without any meds for say eg 6 months to 2 years? Will it not be illegal and unethical? Yes it will be. Then how studies sre conducted?

 

So homeopathy is a religion and has nothing to do with actual science. I can buy that.

Correct. They have studied these.

Also correct. Such studies do not compare remedies to other remedies; they compare remedies to placebos. That's the gold standard for tests, because that removes all the confounding factors.

Nope. because the medications tested are unknowns. It would be just as unethical to give all participants ineffective or dangerous medications as it would be to give them all placebos.

In cases where there is a significant improvement shown by the drug, and the disease it is curing is significant (i.e. cancer or COVID) then often the test IS stopped early and the control group given the investigation treatment as well.

 

No all is not valid for homeooathic remedies as per various justifications given by me. No use just to say, yes or no, this and that, if or but. Thanks for the one sided discussions.

 

You mean measure the number of molecules? Why? The more potent homepathic remedies (e.g. 200C) mathematically will have only one molecule of active ingredient in more molecules than in the entire universe. Take any 10ml of that, for example, and mathematically you are pretty sure of getting zero molecules of active ingredient in the administered remedy.
This is homeopathy.

You mean identify it, or "measure" it such that it can be objectively quantified?
If you merely mean identify it, you merely need to look at any double-blind study. You could also Google the term and see what that brings you.

That rather depends on the nature of the ailment, does it not? If the ailment can be cured in a matter of weeks, why the need for assessment any longer??
E.g. Oscillococcinum - a 200C remedy for flu-like symptoms. If the patient still needs to be seen on a "long term basis" then I would suggest that the homeopathic "doctor" is extending treatment beyond any actual need (presumably for financial gain?).

First, I've explained above how the notion of "6 months to 2 years" is false.
Second, it is only unethical to withhold treatment if a proven cure/remedy is available. The trials into homeopathy continue precisely because their efficacy is unproven. By doing the clinical trial involving placebos, as all new drugs should ultimately go through, it was established that homeopathy works no better than the placebo-effect.

And you'd be wrong. Now, if homeopathy was proven to work beyond mere placebo, yes, it would be unethical to test v. placebo by withholding that drug from half the test-group. But it hasn't been proven. And the meta-analysis of studies to date shows that homeopathy does not work beyond the placebo-effect.

Just look at any clinical trial. E.g. the Covid vaccines. In each of the studies, half were given the active vaccine, half given saline solution. The patients would have all gone through exactly the same process but would not have known whether they were getting the drug or saline. Saline is the placebo. Thus you can compare the efficacy of the active drug v placebo.

Homeopathy, in terms of the efficacy of the actual drug, is a sham. What it does offer is a means of delivering the placebo effect.

 

Routinely practiced DB studies in science are not valid to study homeopathic remedies unless these are of very low potencies in view of difference in nature of its agents. Sun can not be studied with Moon. Yes someone perceived just by shape and white light and is in dark can claim Moon is Sun. But who has [recital experience of both can tell the difference by feeling heat, brightness, daytime etc. Like it. homeopaths have practical experience and not in dart so can tell the right entity. Come out of dark, have/observe practical experiance, leave perception and theoretical basis, you will definately change yoir mind and perception. Good luck.

You do understand. Homeopaths prescribe on individual basis not on disease basis and tend to remove disease upto its roots. It is not just symptomatic treatmment. A;; diseases can have some deep rooted problems not just apparent problem though some acute remedies are offered but ultimate treatment is long term.

Anyway, I feel I can not satisfy you since you have built up an odd preception and negative approach based on odd studies and theoritical basis and ignoring practical basis, no use to discuss just you and me, this and that, if or buts etc.

Main purpose of this topic subject was to show stimuli/ information/molecular presence in homeopathic dilutions which is well fulfilled by my six justifications given previoiusly. so it is over now.

 

Then homeopathic remedies are not valid when it comes to treating disease.

 

Yes in moden science theoritical also home but not in practical experiance which is most valid. Whole issue was to justify information/molecular presence in homooathic remedues which was a miss or wekness of science previously but same is now justified in this topic. So no issue is left except to translate it in science language. This topic does not cover to justify effectiveness of dikutiobs still I indicated few basic points. It is upto anyone to benefit from these or remain devoid of these. Simply if too much unsatisfied and is curious he can exoerisnce or observe these practically by visiting few competent homeopsths. No othereises.

 

Nonsense. You have not justified it at all. You have offered 5 reasons why other molecules may exist other than pure water, but this does not justify that homeopathy works any better than a placebo.
You have failed to address the issues raised against the 5 ways you mentioned, 3 of which are for molecules of non-active-ingredient (e.g. glass or "normal polutions in water", which raises the question of just what is supposedly providing the remedy (glass, pollution, or the supposed active ingredient?), and again that is a question you have failed to answer.
For actual active ingredient, you have offered no justification, just a testable hypothesis. Provide us with the research that shows there is active ingredient in a homeopathic remedy.
I note also that you have restricted your claims to only the relatively impotent low-dilution (i.e. low-C, eg 12C) remedies. 12C is the greatest dilution at which one can mathematically reasonably expect one molecule of active ingredient in the remedy, but 12C is a low potency remedy, with even Hahneman, the founder of Homeopathy, advocating 30C or higher.
Further, the point you made about moledules clinging to the vial walls is well understood, and is actually used in the preparation of homeopathic remedies: i.e. the active ingredient is added to the vial in a 1:100 proportion with water. The vial is emptied, with the molecules clinging to the walls deemed sufficient to act as the solution to which a further 100x of water is added. This gives a 2C solution. The vial emptied, and the solution clinging to the walls deemed sufficient for the next batch, etc. This is the "Korsakovian method" of preparation.
The molecules adhering to the vial wall will become more and more water molecules, the higher the C, in the same proportion as the rest of the liquid. If you are somehow claiming that the active ingredient clings to the wall more than water, such that despite going through the process many times the stubborn active ingredient still refuses to let go, then how do you explain that it suddenly decides to detach itself to leave the bottle at any point, e.g. when the patient consumes the contents? Why would it not simply continue to cling to the wall? You can't have it both ways: either it clings to the wall and never lets go, or the proportion of active ingredient clinging to the walls is in the same proportion as the rest of the solution. In which case anything above 12C means you're highly unlikely to get even a single molecule of active ingredient.
If you fill an olympic size swimming pool with a 15C solution - so none of the molecules that "stick to the sides of the bottles" - one would need to drink 1% of it to have a 63% chance of drinking a single molecule of the active ingredient. That's c.25 tonnes of water. And you think a small vial of it will contain a molecule? Oh, that's right, the active molecules know when someone is wanting to ingest them, so only then do they detach from the wall. Got it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There are plenty of issues left which you are failing to address.

Basic points that do not justify what you think they do, and which have numerous issues that you are failing to address.

It is up to you to acknowledge the science and maths, or keep trolling with your head buried in the sand.

 

Well, strictly speaking they're as valid as a placebo, which is shown to have some efficacy.

 

Nonsense. DB studies are valid, despite your protestations, and have shown them to be no more effective than a placebo. Which is not entirely surprising.

If there is no active ingredient in the actual remedy, all you're actually explaining here is that homeopaths have a certain patter with which to sell the placebo effect upon which their "remedies" are based. They can dress it up in any number of ways, with any amount of mumbo-jumbo, so-called "experience". But snake-oil salesmen are still snake-oil salesmen.

More evidence, then, that the effect of the "remedies" are nothing but placebo, and homeopathy nothing but a scam, I'm afraid. Perhaps you're also confusing homeopathy with psychotherapy?

The practical basis shows that the homeopathic remedies are nothing but water, and they work no better than the placebo effect. That is the science and the pracitcal basis. Sure, you can take individual cases and go "Look! It works!" but you can do that for the placebo as well.
You believe in it, which is great for you. I'm sure many people around the world believe in it. But then many people also believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, ghosts, ET visitation, and many other things with no basis in science.

Your "justifications" are anything but, and you have failed to address the issues raised with them. Are you going to, or are you just going to continue to whinge about how you think science can't test homeopathy?

 

You can't test homeopathic remedies because they require magic to work and science science has yet to accurately test magic

 

I really dislike these elitist blanket prejudicial statements. Native tribes have used natural remedies for thousands of years. Some medicine men have an equivalent knowledge of natural medicines than any modern doctor.

Let's not forget that vaccination against viruses is a homeopathic remedy.
Are we just dismissing that some 70 % of all medicine is based on natural resources.

https://news.mongabay.com/2007/03/70-of-new-drugs-come-from-mother-nature/

You may want to consider these facts and try to figure out how we are going to deal with the human biome.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/new...project-defines-normal-bacterial-makeup-body#

Of course we can test homeopathic remedies if we wanted to. It is what we do with all artificial drugs and remedies. Are you declaring that there are potential medicinal molecules we cannot test? Really?

You may want to take a peek at bacterial "quorum sensing" and learn how we can speak their language.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01100/full#