 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> I really wonder whether the people who make this stuff really do believe
> in it, or whether they are just laughing at all the idiots giving them
> lots of money for tap water?
My guess would be that both types of people exist. The interesting
question is in what proportions they exist...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/23/2010 4:17 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
> Homeopathy is innocuous. Believing it works is the danger. :-)
>
Precisely!
BTW, Nice to meet you in person!
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/24/2010 1:12 AM, Stephen wrote:
>
>> I find the notion that a medicine becomes stronger as it gets diluted a
>> rather strange one.
>>
>
> The same way a brain gets stronger the less you use it.
>
Um ... Atrophy much? ;)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/23/2010 4:29 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
> Believing it works for others, especially your children, is criminal.
>
It should be. Reminds me of a time when we purchased a teething remedy
for our son that was highly recommended by just about everyone. It never
seemed to do the job as well as the topical anesthetic product we also
used (Orajel). I got curious about active ingredients, that's when I
noticed things like belladona, and some such with a 10X after it. After
reading that I remarked that he probably felt better temporarily because
it was a sugar pill, and sweet tasting things will calm a baby for a
moment (They used a glucose-coated pacifier when they did the neural
hearing check before releasing him from the hospital after they were
born to keep him drowsy so the brain activity would be at a minimum.
Worked a treat!)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:39:58 +0100, TC wrote:
>> ThatÂ’s called the placebo effect. :-) And that can work.
>
> Exactly what I was trying to say. ;-)
>
> I find the notion that a medicine becomes stronger as it gets diluted a
> rather strange one.
Especially when it's diluted to less than 1 part per *the entire
solution*.
I think Darren had pointed to a couple of videos by James Randi about
homeopathy that talked about this crazy concept.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I find the notion that a medicine becomes stronger as it gets diluted a
>> rather strange one.
>
> Especially when it's diluted to less than 1 part per *the entire
> solution*.
I thought the idea is that "3 parts per million" means that if you had a
million gallons of the stuff, it would contain 3 gallows of whatever?
The fact that you have less than one gallon of the liquid doesn't mean
there's nothing in it.
Having a liquid so dilute that the quantum nature of the atom becomes
significant *does*, however...
> I think Darren had pointed to a couple of videos by James Randi about
> homeopathy that talked about this crazy concept.
I did see a bit of Horizon where they took some Aspirin or something and
diluted it to homeopathic levels, and then did a (small) double-blind
randomised trial and found... about 0.02% difference between the two
groups. In the wrong direction. But then, for the size of study they
used, this is mere sampling noise.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:40:16 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> I find the notion that a medicine becomes stronger as it gets diluted
>>> a rather strange one.
>>
>> Especially when it's diluted to less than 1 part per *the entire
>> solution*.
>
> I thought the idea is that "3 parts per million" means that if you had a
> million gallons of the stuff, it would contain 3 gallows of whatever?
> The fact that you have less than one gallon of the liquid doesn't mean
> there's nothing in it.
>
> Having a liquid so dilute that the quantum nature of the atom becomes
> significant *does*, however...
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.
>> I think Darren had pointed to a couple of videos by James Randi about
>> homeopathy that talked about this crazy concept.
>
> I did see a bit of Horizon where they took some Aspirin or something and
> diluted it to homeopathic levels, and then did a (small) double-blind
> randomised trial and found... about 0.02% difference between the two
> groups. In the wrong direction. But then, for the size of study they
> used, this is mere sampling noise.
I'd heard about that, yep.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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.
Well, I'm guessing that water that has almost no benzene in it is fairly
healthy, yeah... But that's some pretty simplistic reasoning.
Obligatory XKCD quote:
http://xkcd.com/641/
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, I'm guessing that water that has almost no benzene in it is fairly
> healthy, yeah... But that's some pretty simplistic reasoning.
Warp is quite right, as ever. He is just trying to emulate the reasoning
behind homeopathy.
As far as I could follow the topic on wikipedia, the whole thing has quite a
lot of occultism in it. Dilution is just the physical side of preparation of
medicines, the stuff has to be "dynamized" by the ritual shaking of
waterbottles and so on.
It is as sound a concept as that of Victor Schauberger's "natural flows"
(supposedly able to create anything from free energy to anti-gravity to
healing medicine) or the theory that water has a memory. I find it
astonishing what people actually can believe in...
Apart from this all: the strangest thing is the (scientifically proven)
effect of a placebo - it is strange that it actually works. If you just
really, truely and completey believe that a thing will work it can cure you:
be it homeopathy, accupuncture (here I see at least in some cases a physical
reason that might work - the needles blocking nerves >might< have effects -
though I am sceptical), faith healing, imbibing water at Lourdes or sleeping
below a pyramid.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
