Science of Homeopathy-how you count?

[Kumar]

Hello,

Science of Homeopathy is denied or contradicted for that, no molecules other than of carriers (water, alcohol or lactose) can be present in higher potencies considering molecules of starting active substances are diluted out during preparation of remedies in view of Avogadro’s Law.

How people are counting?

Have people taken into account, impacts due to microbiological populations already present or falling as airborne microbes or growing, in the oucome/s at every step during the process of potentization?

Best wishes.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

The success of homeopathy--if any--is due to the placebo effect. If those "medications" actually contained a significant concentration of the substance they are alleged to contain, many of them would be dangerous for many patients.

 

[one_raven]

The success of homeopathy--if any--is due to the placebo effect. If those "medications" actually contained a significant concentration of the substance they are alleged to contain, many of them would be dangerous for many patients.

But I think he was asking about the possibilty that perhaps the base (or something in the base) is affected somehow, and even though the poison is diluted to the point of non-existence, the base could remain affected/altered by the interraction.

 

[Read-Only]

But I think he was asking about the possibilty that perhaps the base (or something in the base) is affected somehow, and even though the poison is diluted to the point of non-existence, the base could remain affected/altered by the interraction.

Yes, I think that's his question also. But the odds of some off-chance reaction between almost nothing and another almost nothing seems about like betting on a blizzard in Cuba during July.

 

[one_raven]

Yes, I think that's his question also. But the odds of some off-chance reaction between almost nothing and another almost nothing seems about like betting on a blizzard in Cuba during July.

I tend to agree, but I have been surprised before.

 

[Kumar]

Hello,

Welcome!!

Homeopathy is considered as placbo. This can be considered due to non-molecular presence of active substance beyond certain potencies in consideration of Avogadro’s Law. As such these are just considered as water, alcohol or lactose(three carriers), nothing else. Homeopaths aurges about some energetic impring on carries which is incositent to scientific current understandings.

However, as such, only molecular presense is made as isuue. But there can be micro-biological preasence and pollution during preparations of remedies. As microbes are very much adaptive and quick muliplying, they or their derivative, specifically modified as per mixture on biotechnolgy's line, can also influence final outcome. Such microbiological impacts and derivatives(modified protiens, virluence factors, toxins or other discharges released or decomposed from dead microbes) can serve a basis of molecular presence in final remedies.

So my question remains;

While checking molecular presence in higher potencies of substances other than carriers molecules, whether we have accounted such substances added due to some microbiological impacts during preparation of remedies?

Following links can be relevant;

Contamination of distilled water with free and bound amino acids and with microbes has been overlooked in most laboratories. Unless special precautions are taken, distilled water will be contaminated with air borne microbes, probably psuedomonads, which multiply in water of conductivity quality. Amino acids and proteins that may be found in the water therefore presumably are derived from these airborne organisms.
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/6/687

Biotechnology means any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotechnology

If such molecular presence is acceptable than one part about science of homeopathic remedies..molecular presence will be justified.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

If such molecular presence is acceptable than one part about science of homeopathic remedies..molecular presence will be justified.

But those are not the molecules which are claimed to have the curative properties. Those would be classified as "impurities" in any chemical engineering process. Patients would probably be reluctant to buy the product if they suspected it contained these molecules.

The more I learn about homeopathy, the more I am convinced that it is a pseudoscience. To knowingly heal patients with the placebo effect is simply the practice of psychology. But to depend on the interaction of impurities, especially biological rather than chemical impurities, without identifying them or informing the patient, is not scientific medicine.

 

[river-wind]

If the idea that the dilution agent was effected by the original active agent were valid, then the container, the air, the sweat and tremors of the homeopath practitioner, and the contaminants that were in the diluting agent before being distilled, would all have similar effects on the final solution, rendering the effect of the one "active" agent null and void.


Hahnemann's legacy in modern medicine is the method of studying each patient as a whole; not just looking at the direct symptom at hand, but at the mental state, prior conditions, etc. Of attempting to deconstruct the illness to a set of symptoms that could be considered and treated as an external agent, as opposed to "bad blood" that needed to be released from the body (a theory still prevalent in his day).

The ideas that like cures like, or that symptoms of one illness subside when another manifests itself, or that diluting an active agent to the point of non-presence somehow allows the imparting of vibration or energy on that dilute solution have all been shown false.

 

[Atom]

The tests are very contradictory.

Because normal tablets made me a bit drowsy I tried homeopathy as a last resort for hay fever and was sceptical about the whole thing. The first few days the hay fever got worse and I threw the tablets in a dustbin. However, it improved and I phoned up the specialist who reminded me that it would take a few days to kick in.

I completed the course and the allergy improved but wasn't cured totally. My suggestion was for more tablets so I could get rid of the allergy totally but it was fairly obvious, despite more courses, that homeopathy was NOT a cure for anything..in my personal anecdote.

Possibly it alleviates the symptoms..it did in my case anyway. I dunno why and I don't care but i can rule out the placebo effect because I took them by rote..i just wanted to get the £20 fee for the consultation back by not throwing away the perceived remedy.

 

[river-wind]

Herbal remedies are often mislabeled "homeopathic". Was your treatment a tincture of herbal source, or was it actually diluted in the classical Homeopathic way?

Might the symptoms have gone away without taking anything? Did other people see a similar drop in seasonal allergies during the same time frame?

 

[guthrie]

homeopathy is a pile of pants. There is no evidence of it doing anything beyond the placebo effect.

 

[Nasor]

Has it ever been shown to work in double-blind clinical studies? If it has, then there is clearly something going on there (even if we don’t understand it or can’t explain it). If it doesn’t, then there’s clearly nothing to talk about.

Kumar, this is your cue to give a few peer-reviewed references showing that homeopathy works.

 

[Kumar]

But those are not the molecules which are claimed to have the curative properties. Those would be classified as "impurities" in any chemical engineering process. Patients would probably be reluctant to buy the product if they suspected it contained these molecules.

The more I learn about homeopathy, the more I am convinced that it is a pseudoscience. To knowingly heal patients with the placebo effect is simply the practice of psychology. But to depend on the interaction of impurities, especially biological rather than chemical impurities, without identifying them or informing the patient, is not scientific medicine.

How we got pencillin and how it effective?

Inspite of decomposed bodies or derivatives of biological population can be present, still those will be in much diluted state due to potentization process of mixing 1:100/10 at every step and doing in some protected room. Moreover, applying mechanical stress by shaking and grinding(triturating), can keep those minimum.

Anyway, I want to know, can microbiological activities be possible during potentization process by mixing solutions at many steps? If yes, how it is accounted for?

There is a isopathical consideration in homeopathy;

"Nosodes: This is a homeopathic remedy made from diseased tissue or bodily secretions rather than from a plant or animal. Taken like a homeopathic immunization to build up an immune response against a specific disease. Nosodes are often named for the disease present in the material they were made from, such as the flu nosode.
www.cedarvale.net/information/medicalterms.htm"

 

[Kumar]

If the idea that the dilution agent was effected by the original active agent were valid, then the container, the air, the sweat and tremors of the homeopath practitioner, and the contaminants that were in the diluting agent before being distilled, would all have similar effects on the final solution, rendering the effect of the one "active" agent null and void.

Therefore I am trying to look other side of coin...microbiological basis.

Look;

"Nosode: This is a homeopathic remedy made from diseased tissue or bodily secretions rather than from a plant or animal. Taken like a homeopathic immunization to build up an immune response against a specific disease. Nosodes are often named for the disease present in the material they were made from, such as the flu nosode."
www.cedarvale.net/information/medicalterms.htm

Hahnemann's legacy in modern medicine is the method of studying each patient as a whole; not just looking at the direct symptom at hand, but at the mental state, prior conditions, etc. Of attempting to deconstruct the illness to a set of symptoms that could be considered and treated as an external agent, as opposed to "bad blood" that needed to be released from the body (a theory still prevalent in his day).

The ideas that like cures like, or that symptoms of one illness subside when another manifests itself, or that diluting an active agent to the point of non-presence somehow allows the imparting of vibration or energy on that dilute solution have all been shown false.

Individuality and constitutional consideration can be valid.

 

[Kumar]

homeopathy is a pile of pants. There is no evidence of it doing anything beyond the placebo effect.

As indicated, these are delicate/gentle, deep and natural effects. As such, these may remain hidden or show variations depending on individual senstivity and suceptibilty. As such, body should be able to overpower or override, if it unlike these or due to dysfaith in these. Recently, there is a study, which tell about physical basis of "placebo...reward expectations, some dopamine release in brain. As such belief, neutral, no belief and dysbelief can effect such physical basis resuting interpreting naturality/liking and unnaturality/ disliking, gaining or losing such physical basis impacting on efficacy on application of remedies. This can also be thought about other CAMs.

 

[Kumar]

Has it ever been shown to work in double-blind clinical studies? If it has, then there is clearly something going on there (even if we don’t understand it or can’t explain it). If it doesn’t, then there’s clearly nothing to talk about.

Kumar, this is your cue to give a few peer-reviewed references showing that homeopathy works.

I think variable and inconsistent outcomes are measured and noted (not absolute nothing) in line of scientific guidelines for study. Still, different systems can be differently studied. There are considerations of physical basis of belief/dysbelief, individuality, constitution, delicate, gentle, deep and natural effects(as per my last post). So variations and inconsistency can be possible. Moreover, anything positive is noted, it is rejected on placebo, non-molecular presence, long term effects basis etc.

Still, lot of people on this side observe and experiance positive outcome with least adversities since long back resuting science to continue evaluating it.

If microbiological basis is valid(logically looks possible), one side i.e. physical basis of stimuli can be cleared.

 

[Kumar]

The tests are very contradictory.

Because normal tablets made me a bit drowsy I tried homeopathy as a last resort for hay fever and was sceptical about the whole thing. The first few days the hay fever got worse and I threw the tablets in a dustbin. However, it improved and I phoned up the specialist who reminded me that it would take a few days to kick in.

I completed the course and the allergy improved but wasn't cured totally. My suggestion was for more tablets so I could get rid of the allergy totally but it was fairly obvious, despite more courses, that homeopathy was NOT a cure for anything..in my personal anecdote.

Possibly it alleviates the symptoms..it did in my case anyway. I dunno why and I don't care but i can rule out the placebo effect because I took them by rote..i just wanted to get the £20 fee for the consultation back by not throwing away the perceived remedy.

Variations can be possible due to dysbelief, delicate, deep and natural effects, mistakes in expressing the case and follow-up irregularities, misprescriptions etc. Still, you have noted something.

 

[Nasor]

I think variable and inconsistent outcomes are measured and noted (not absolute nothing) in line of scientific guidelines for study. Still, different systems can be differently studied. There are considerations of physical basis of belief/dysbelief, individuality, constitution, delicate, gentle, deep and natural effects(as per my last post). So variations and inconsistency can be possible. Moreover, anything positive is noted, it is rejected on placebo, non-molecular presence, long term effects basis etc.

Those are exactly the sorts of things that a double-blind study compensates for.

 

[Kumar]

Those are exactly the sorts of things that a double-blind study compensates for.

Yes, but when a drug is quite delicate and body's choice dependant(natural), belief's or dysbelief's physical basis dependant, Individuality or specific constitutional dependant, how can you expect consistent and comparable results?

Anyway, in this topic, I am trying to understand physical basis in homeopathic remedies due to microbiological and biotechnical's impacts during preparation process?

 

[Read-Only]

Yes, but when a drug is quite delicate and body's choice dependant(natural), belief's or dysbelief's physical basis dependant, Individuality or specific constitutional dependant, how can you expect consistent and comparable results?

Anyway, in this topic, I am trying to understand physical basis in homeopathic remedies due to microbiological and biotechnical's impacts during preparation process?

Your entire line of questioning appear to be centered on the accidental inclusion of some unknown biological agent(s). Quackery aside for the moment, hoping for some medical cure from THAT sort of thing should be enough to scare off any halfway rational person!!!!! Cure by accident??? By some unknown biological contaminant??? Please!!!!!