On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:03:21 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> That was the point Randi was making - some of the dilutions that were
>> being advertised were less than one molecule per 6x10^23 atoms of water
>> - or, as he also described < one molecule of caffeine (or whatever) per
>> *more atoms of water than would fit in the space provided in the
>> packaging*.  IOW, it wasn't a *diluted* solution, it was to the point
>> of placing odds on one molecule being even *in* the container, and
>> those odds weren't particularly good.
> 
>   Remember that the active ingredient is something that *causes* the
> symptoms, not something that *cures* them (for example in a homeopatic
> sleeping pill the active ingredient is usually caffeine). Hence taking
> this ingredient *away* from the water likewise takes the *symptoms* away
> from the person. The more of it you take away, the more effective the
> stuff is. It makes perfect sense.

It's a load of codswallop.  If I titrate caffeine to the point there's 
none left in solution in the water, the water is *no different* than 
taking water that's never been near caffeine.  It is chemically the 
*same*.

And thus would have the same effect as drinking an ordinary glass of 
water.

Jim

Post a reply to this message