51–60 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're speaking of classical homeopathy, not practical observation. In practice there are many homeopathic products with varying dilutions, many of which have a meaningful amount of the substance, and therefore the distinct possibility of a biological effect.
Sure, but homeopaths would consider the less diluted ones to be the weaker “medicine”!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> for a while it worked better than "regular" medicine. At least it wouldn't kill you Homeopathy was invented after the discovery of germ theory [1][2]. So not really. And homeopathy has always suffered from an adulteration problem. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy
As an idea sure, but not in practice. Homeopathy was created in 1796, and we still haven’t gotten rid of it. Meanwhile 65 years later https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis The maternal mortality rate dropped from 18% to less than 2%, and he published a book of his findings, Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever, in 1861.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic_controversy_and_c...
Dissecting the hydrogen bond network of water: Charge transfer and nuclear quantum effects[2024]
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads4369
Resonance Character of Hydrogen-bonding Interactions in Water and Other H-bonded Species[2005]
So it's just a numerical simulation with some ML techniques?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mmmm..the question is..who would fund it. And if someone funded it, who would publish it...
Is this a bit? Please state your point clearly instead of conspiratorial innuendo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're speaking of classical homeopathy, not practical observation. In practice there are many homeopathic products with varying dilutions, many of which have a meaningful amount of the substance, and therefore the distinct possibility of a biological effect.
Agree! Someone once told me that homeopathic doctors often put significant amounts of allopathic medicine in their “homeopathic” concoctions. Does wonders for effectiveness! Perpetuating the classical myth in this manner is also great for business! Of course, there are also a number of cases where western “supplements” were caught containing actual prescription medicine, not just natural precursors or such. Same idea…
My comment was strictly in the context of ingredients and isolated labeled products that are used only in the homeopathic space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're speaking of classical homeopathy, not practical observation. In practice there are many homeopathic products with varying dilutions, many of which have a meaningful amount of the substance, and therefore the distinct possibility of a biological effect.
Sure, but homeopaths would consider the less diluted ones to be the weaker “medicine”!
Rightly or wrongly, homeopathic products are considered medicines, not supplements, and people in general are very mindful of spending money on medicines that don't work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no basis to suggest that any product uses this property of water. As for homeopathy, it isn't one thing. The effects, if any, can vary greatly by the substance and the concentration. Some low-dilution products work and many high-dilution products don't. There is such a thing as excessive dilution. Anyone who is painting a simpler picture of it is almost certainly wrong.
If I add water to a glass of whiskey and dilute it, why don't I get twice as drunk?
Let:
A = amount of ethanol
V = initial whiskey volume
W = added water
Initial concentration: c₁ = A / V
After dilution: c₂ = A / (V + W)
If you drink the entire diluted glass: ethanol consumed = c₂(V + W) = A
Intoxication ∝ ethanol consumed
Therefore: drunkenness ∝ A not ∝ (V + W)
Adding water changes concentration, not the total ethanol: A = constant ⇒ drunkenness = constant (ignoring effects of drinking rate).
Similar how you can find human faces in random pixels or rocks.