James Randi and Prof. Rich Dawkins have something in common. They both have a vested interest in promoting themselves for financial gain - whether or not their science is good or bad.
Randi knows homeopathy works, but by being a supporter of the skeptics camp and by demanding trial conditions which are hard to produce, he gets lots of exposure whilst effectively protecting his 1 million dollars.
Dawkins ditto.
He's not interested in science. He's only interested in selling books.
What's amazing to me is that homeopathy managed to become a debatable subject. How it got to the point of being sold along side actual pharmaceuticals is beyond me.
@jugarnaut40 It's now being used at the top rate cancer clinic in the US, MD Anderon in Houston, to CURE CANCER! Visit their web site if you don't believe it.
Rather than TALK about Darwin's experiment (which happened loooong ago and Darwin published no scientific papers on it), why don't you repeat it and demonstrate it once and for all?
I was waiting the whole time to see you perform the test yourself instead of asking us to do it. If it's so easy to perform, why don' t you just do it and collect your $1000000 from Randi?
For all we know the plant reacts to the water whether or not contaminated, or it's just more sensitive to the contaminant than we could imagine. This does not mean the human body is as sensitive to foreign substanses. Our noses for one are not as sensitive as that of dogs. This video proved nothing and brought to light no facts.
Get your green line back posting videos about drugs (legal and illegal ones), football, porn and other kind of bs like most of these brainwashed society likes.
Darwin's experiment was not Homeopathy. There was no testing of "like cures like", there was no serial dilution (which I have been vehemently told by Homeopathic practicers, is a necessity) & as the salt concentration was reduced, the effect decreased & eventually disappeared, in breach of the homeopathic principle that the more dilute, the more potent the "medicine".
Darwin never believed Homeopathy was effective & modern studies & meta analyses show it to be no better than placebo.
If there was anything to homeopathy then it would be in use in every hospital in the world. But it's not, because it doesn't work. And the reason that it doesn't work is because it is based on a ridiculous load of nonsense.
@mikefromwa I'ts being used at MD Anderson, the nation's top cancer clinic. It's growing at 30% a year in India. There are five homeopathi hospitals in the UK. The CUbans use it to fight epidemics. The reason it not more popular in capitalist countries is because they can't patent the medicine andmake a trillion dolalrs off suckers like you.
"& yes, there are many tests & methods of detection for homeopathics, 6 different types of biochemical tests for hpathy & 10 methods of detection, such as NMR & FTIR spectroscopy."
WITT: "The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—–A systematic review of
the literature"
BECKER WITT: "Quality Assessment of Physical Research in Homeopathy" CLAUDIA BECKER-WITT, M.D.
ROY: "The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy"
PATHAK: "Ruta 6 selectively induces cell death in brain cancer cells but proliferation in normal peripheral blood lymphocytes" Int J Oncol. 2003;23(4):975-982.
Homeopathy is only popular is America. This is because conventional healthcare costs so much in the states. They take a placebo because they can't afford real medicine.
Here in the UK, medical care is free. We get life saving treatment from highly skilled, qualified doctors. Do yourself a favour America. Stop buying homeopathic medicine from snake oil merchants. And get nationalised heatlhcare instead.
How many times did you mention showing the difference between plain water and a homeopathic solution? God I was getting tired of that. And then you didn't do it! You didn't even show how Darwin did it.
If this is so simple, why haven't you won the million dollars yet? Randi loves a simple, straightforward demonstration.
Bottom line, homeopathy is bunk. Darwin never believed in it and I see no evidence that he demonstrated that it works.
Of course, one expects lies from quacks. No surprise here.
@Astrobrant2 Randi doesn't love a simple straight forward demosntration, if he did he would have contracted for one long ago. Read the rule to the Million Dollar Challenge. He's never signed it because its not a legal offer.
Watch attorney Victor Zammit's analysis of the MDC. Put dispostion of the million in the hands of an inependent thrid paqrty or court of law and see what happens.
There is a lot of talk about trying this experiment and about it proving homeopathy. But for one thing, I have an understanding that homeopathy is strictly for very large dilutions, I've heard claims of 1 in 10^20 and in another case 1 in 10^23. This would be between 10C and 12C. The solution in this experiment is 6C. Imagine the dilution suggested is the original, and then dilute that by the method suggested for 6C and that's 12C! yet again a big difference. 6:51 Ad Hominem by the way.
@IppatsuTensei88 WHen you talk about ad hominem are you speaking of Randi's comment that I'm an idiot and a criminal?
THe dilutions are only theoretical. Past 6C they're so small its hardly worth making a comparison, you're still faced with eplaining how it is that one particle in a million can affet biolgoical action.
One of the core tenets of science is that experiments must be reproducible. If you could perform a reproducible experiment involving homeopathic materials then you would be eligible to win Randi's $1,000,000 challenge. If this was true over one hundred years ago it would be true today. So the next step is up to you. Prove you are right and you can claim the prize. I have a feeling that you won't.
The truly amazing discovery i found in this video is the shoe caddy behind the speaker's head. Imagine all the shoes you could put into that caddy. I bet Charles Darwin could totally use one of those (so far, my research strongly favors this hypothesis).
@fosgad 1 letter is reprinted in the vid. Darwin was sick for years with an ailment that disappeared after homeopathic treatment.
One grain of ammonia salt was added to 30 gals H2O & then only 1/2 dram of THAT was POURED OVER A LEAF. Do the math. Half a teaspoon of water from 30 gals. treated with a grain of am.salt is an infinitessimally small amount of ammonia, 1/20,000,000: by my calcs equal to an HPUS 7X or 8X . . LESS than what is used in in many FDA reg'd h'pathic products.
@KehoeDeclan Yes, the same for juries, democracy & free market enterprise. Just because its argumentum ad populum doesn't mean its wrong. Beliefs are established through a variety of means, pers. experience being the most powerful. & yes, there are many tests & methods of detection for homeopathics, 6 different types of biochemical tests for hpathy & 10 methods of detection, such as NMR & FTIR spectroscopy. Clinical reports are overwhelming. It's alt. 'cause they want you to buy their Avandia!
I find it hard to trust anyone with a candy cane in their breast pocket.
Also, using evidence that is 135 years old and nothing else, seems to be clutching at straws?
If you can point me to a full clinical trial with scientific controls & full analysis which accounts for outliers and the placebo effect and there's still a measurable effect from homeopathic treatment, your point would be more valid.
Science wants to better humanity, if homeopathy worked, it would have a mainstream following.
Homoeopathic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: evaluation by double-blind clinical therapeutic trial. Gibson: ". . significant improvement in subjective pain, articular index, stiffness& grip strength in those patients receiving homoeopathic remedies . . no significant change in the patients who received placebo."
There are many clinical studies like this one. The WHO says homeopathy is now 2nd only to Chinese medicine in # of users.
@Saturnous Let me get this straight: You're claiming to have disproved homeopathy by pouring Coca Cola on a Sundew plant? You should get the Nobel prize for stupidity. Somebody get a stretcher. No wonder homeopthy has grown so much in popularity.
The plant is called Drosera Rotundifolia, or just Drosera or sundew, and it is actually also a homeopathic remedy for respiratory problems and whoopping-cough e.g. i.e. if you eat the plant you would be helped by the remedy ;)
"Physics defying"? What a ridiculous comment - there is not one thing, NOT ONE, that in any way shape or form "defies physics". Here's a challenge - demonstrate it.
@SierraBravoOneNiner Of course it can defy physics, observed phenoms have routinely deifed physics throughout the ages and have all been dismissed, because there was no PHYSICal eplanation at the time, and the spetrards ranted and raved against the heresy until someone came along and explained it to them. Google Anagnostatos GS. Small water clusters (clathrates) in the preparation process of homeopathy. 1994.
@Bandershot Sir, they are dismissed because they are not science. The work of Anagnostatos, where it is quoted in any scientific paper - I leave out references to those "journals" which include articles on alien abduction and the "laying on of hands" in health care - all refer to Anagnostatos idea as a hypothesis. This is a clear indication that the evidence is not in. One would have thought that in 16 years since this idea was first touted, some other evidence would have surfaced?
@SierraBravoOneNiner Anagnostatos isn't the 1st to postul;ate hydrates as the op mech. Barnard postulated hydrogen bonding in water clusters re: to homeopathic solutions; knowledge of small water clusters was seen by early chemists like Davy & Farraday. Clathrates aren't new to science. More recently Prof's Roy & Hoover of Penn State,Tiller of Stanford, Bell of UofAriz, have confirmed structural theories for hpathics, as have others. i.e. Demangeats NMR study and Montagniers DNA.
"Acute Otitis Media in Children: A Comparison of Conventional and Homeopathic Treatment" Biomedical Therapy, 60,4,1997:113-116
Osteoarthritic Pain: A Comparison of Homeopathy and Acetaminophen
American Journal of Pain Management, 1998;8:89-91
Homeopathic vs. Conventional Treatment of Vertigo: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Clinical Study Archives of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery, August, 1998, 124:879-885
If you can prove Homeopathy then why don't you take James Randi's million dollars? The obvious answer is because you can't prove it because it's all nonsense. Even if Darwin believed in Homeopathy, that doesn't mean it works. Homeopathy cannot be tested and proven under controlled scientific conditions.
@GGGeoff If you were informed on this subject you'd know that I did take it. And if it's nonsense, then why does it work on plants and animals? Why has not one true meta analysis ever confirmed the skeptard claim that it's a palcebo? If its nonsense why have countless MDs used it for 200 years, indexed it & are still using it? Why are top scientists & Nobel laureates not agreeing with you, i.e. Profs Josephson, Montagnier, Roy, Tiller, Bell, Hoover, Baumgartner, Witt et al at major universities?
@Bandershot I don't think I understood ur first sentence. Are u telling me that u DID take James Randi's million dollars? Please explain this 2 me. As far as it working on plants and animals, I want 2 know the conditions under which it worked. If the solution was deluted 5 times, then there is still something left. If it was deluted 25 times, there is nothing but water and it wouldn't have any impact. Nobel credentials don't have much weight when the commitee admits their awards are political.
@GGGeoff My apologies. What I meant to write was that I took the challenge.
There have been numerous studies on plants, much of the work has been done at Italian universities. For example:
"Statistical analysis of the effect of high dilutions of arsenic in a large dataset from a wheat germination model" Brizzi M, Nani D, Peruzzi M, Betti L. Dipartimento di Scienze statistiche, University of Bologna, Italy Br Homeopath J. 2000 Apr;89(2):63-7
There's a major flaw of Homeopathy..... There's an infinite amount diluted materials in water. If Homeopathy works, then you should just be able to just drink water and cure everything that would ever cause you sickness. Seriously, that's just fucking stupid.
@Deathyman Rather than just dimissing YOURSELF as "fucking stupid", why don't you take a moment to analyze it? Where are you getting your information? From a failed magician? What is it that you DON'T know? Why are you shooting from the lip, when you could be asking qjuestions? You only have 500 letters here to to frame your statement before the world. Why are you wasting them on presumtptions instead of using them on questions? Why is it top scientists don't share your prejudicial view?
Is that all you can say? "Why don't you ask questions?!" It's kind of redundant.
What you're arguing is the closed minded point of view, attempting to portray me as unimaginative and ignorant. Because in my statement, it's an honest flaw that makes perfect sense. There is a diluted amount of every substance in the world in our water, in some places there are more than others. Wouldn't this mean that we could simply drink water and be healthy with Homeopathic methods? Why would this not work?
@Deathyman You are indeed ignorant, but you certainly aren't unimaginative. All your silly hypotheses are unreferenced, from nothing more than your imagination. What you failed to consider is that the "memory" of water can be erased, by UV, heat, freezing, evaporation and magneticc fields, and so homeopathics won't work if they're left out in the sun for a few minutes. Hydrogen bonds in clathrates can exist over great lengths of time, like at the bottom of the sea, away from UV.
@Bandershot I'm sorry, what Scientific Theory is this that you're talking about? No need to be so cryptic about your modern chemistry of water. Please share with us this "memory" you referenced. Nigger
@Deathyman Are you signing your name or calling names? Anagnostatos explains it best. Google Anagnostatos GS. "Small water clusters (clathates) in the preparation process of Homeopathy." In: Endler PC, Schulte J, editors. Ultra High Dilution: Physiology and Physics. Dordrecht (Nederland): Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1994. 121-128
Google Roy et al "The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy" Mat. Res. Innovations 9:4, 577-608, (2005)
@Bandershot I think I'm done with this, I looked at a few of your sources and it's worse than a Creationist "source". What your homeopathic studies should do is publish their hypothesis and theories to a scientific medical journal to be peer-reviewed and that way the whole world can be convinced of the truth of Homeopathy. Oh, that's right! I forgot that they can't do that, there's a global scientific CONSPIRACY against Homeopathy.
@Deathyman Sorry to pop your bubble, but studies have been published in "scientific medical journals", such as the AMA, BMJ & Lancet, or ones such as this: K.H.Friese,S.Kruse,H.Moeller "Acute Otitis Media in Children: A Comparison of Conventional and Homeopathic Treatment" Biomedical Therapy, 60,4,1997:113-116. Google it, read it for yourself. & this:
"Osteoarthritic Pain: A Comparison of Homeopathy and Acetaminophen"
@Deathyman TILLER: On Chemical Medicine, Thermodynamics, and Homeopathy; Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Towards understanding molecular mechanisms of action of homeopathic drugs: an overview; Smith R, Boericke GW: Modern instrumentation for the evaluation of homeopathic drug structure.
J Am Inst Homeopath 1966, 59:263-280; Effects of High Dilutions of Cymbopogon winterianus Jowitt (citronella) on the Germination and Growth of Seedlings of Sida rhombifolia
So Darwin showed that those plants can distinguish pure water from water containing one grain of salt per 140 litres. That's still a much greater concentration than you find in homeopathic solutions (in fact, the prescribed solution still contains about 10^18 atoms of salt). So what is your point?
Also, have you done the experiment you proposed? Kinda odd you left out the one piece of information that could have been of actual relevance.
@ASKaPHYSICIST Yes, I've tried it using am. carb. 12c , but it was too early in the season for the plant to react. But I've experimented on seeds, yeast, got amazing results. There's now what's called agrohomeopathy, the use of homeopathics on plants for disease, stimulate growth, even control pests. There's NO DOUBT on this side that it works on plants, animals, humans. Problem is yours. See Kaviraj. "Homeopathy for Plants." other books, articles by others. Also univ. studies.
@Bandershot I'm sure you have 'no doubt' that it works. it wouldn't work if you did. Placebo effect ... a wonderful thing.
I don't really need to ask a physicist about Homoeopathy though if there aren't any modern controlled double-blind trials to show that it actually works, do I?
@ASKaPHYSICIST Ah! Ernst's response to the Linde meta, "Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews," in which 1/3 are HIS OWN, dismisses the major metas except Cucherat, exclude biological studies, is ignorant of the physical and says nothing of the biochemical. No true meta analysis has EVER concluded placebo. Shang was a hoax, yet Ernst depends on it to conclude placebo. Google this: Johnson, Boon, Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07 Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?
@ASKaPHYSICIST Look, I can understand that without a physico-chemical explanaiton of it, you have to conlcude placebo, error or bias in reports on the action of homeopathics. But the problem is, the placebo hypothesis doesn't make any sense either, there no proof for placebo, & the complaint of error & bias can be said of all reports. Routinely, what I have seen, is all criticism of it is based on a fallacy, like the notion that it can't be explained in orthodox chemical terms.
Anagnostatos GS. Small water clusters (clathates) in the preparation process of Homeopathy. In: Endler PC, Schulte J, editors. Ultra High Dilution: Physiology and Physics. Dordrecht (Nederland): Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1994. 121-128.
Anagnostatos is a nuclear physicist. I suggest you follow the advice of your pseudonym. Contact Prof Rustum Roy at Penn State. Ask him. Physicists are taking a 2nd look through suprmolecular chemistry.
That plants can detect trace amounts of chemicals is irrelevant.
The paranormal claim of homeopathy is that dilution that statistically will not contain any molecules of the active substance will have an effect.
Showing the plant reacting to that big a dilution (repeatedly) should win the prize. Showing that a plant can detect minute traces of something isn't outside of common science and hence not paranormal.
@jedfa987 We now have an orthodox explanation using known chemical terms for the molecular structure of homeopathic remedies. They contain clathrates, a kind of aqueous polymer, or gas hydrate. Google it. Like most sketpards you'll want to argue with this, even though its been proven biochemically and biologically as well. Clathrates are described in supramolecular chemistry.
Yeah right. Callling me a "skeptard" which I can only assume is shorthand for a "skeptic retard" is really going to motivate me.
Where did I insult you in my post to provoke such a thing?
And if you have an "orthodox explanation" then it isn't paranorma, right? And hence doesn't qualify for said prize. Though don't bother answering given your first words to me required you to insult me for no apparent reason I'm really not interested in anything you have to say.
@jedfa987 The entire argument against homeopathy is an insult, and you're repeating it.. The avg. skeptard simply shoots from the lip with his own prefabricated assumptions that are based on nothing more than the insults of other skeptards. WHen you are shown the science to back up a claim, you malign it without ever showing any of your own. All you have is your stupid opinion. No wonder the world is always writhing in pain, it's full of people like Randi and his followers, like you.
Except I didn't argue against homeopathy. I argued that the fact that plants can detect minute traces of some chemical is not paranormal and hence irrelevant to that million dollar paranormal challenge.
And cathrates aren't an explanation anyway, you don't have enough atoms for even one atom to be present in the sample. But even if you think it does, then surely that makes is non-paranormal and hence irrelevant anyway?
@jedfa987 How do you know? Instead of asking questions, you keep arguing, so the discussion never gets off the ground. Its always about who's the dummy and abuse. Google this:
1994 Anagnostatos GS. Small water clusters (clathates) in the preparation process of Homeopathy. In: Endler PC, Schulte J, editors. Ultra High Dilution: Physiology and Physics. Dordrecht (Nederland): Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1994. 121-128.
Anagnostatos is a nuclear physicist. Who are you? Another skeptard!
Gjust gives me a couple of articles that reference that article. So that doesn't help..
The discussion doesn't get of the ground not because I'm a skeptic, but because I don't care about the topic area very much. In either direction. If you have a mechanism then it's not paranormal anyway, is my only point.
And please show where I said anyone was a "dummy" and handed out any "abuse". I see plenty of that from you directed to me.
Thank you Bandershot for simple experimental proof that can not be argued with. That, (after all) is the purpose of a well designed experiment. We have to remember James Randi is magician and card trickster. He made his living like any entertainer in his field calculating the odds and believing only in his trained ability to deceive with trickery. His video footage portrays a smug man who really has not understood the seven principles of homeopathy (which he mistakenly calls the four facts).
BUT, the concentrations talked about: 1 grain of the compound in 31 gallons of water is FAR more concentrated than many modern homeopathic remedies used--which would have concentrations closer to 1 grain of compound in a pool of water as big as the solar system!
That some biologic systems can detect very small numbers of molecules is no proof that homeopathy works. The best proof would be double blind clinical trials. When those are carefully done, no homeopathic response is shown.
@GetMeThere1 Of course that means you reserve the right to say what is "carefully done" even though you've never done one yourself.
Homeopathic vs Conventional Treatment of Vertigo A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Study Michael Weiser, MBC; Wolfgang Strösser, MD, MBC; Peter Klein, MS Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:879-885. (AMA journal) Google it. One of many "carefully done" tests for homeopathy. If you have a higher standard, show it to us.
@Bandershot : I can only say--it isn't convincing people. A recent large metastudy, however, has demonstrated no effect from homeopathy therapy--how do you explain that?
@GetMeThere1 What do you mean it isn't convincing people? According to the WHO, homeopathy is now the second most used medicine on the planet, while your brand of overpriced, toxic astroturfed crap has sunk to fourth place! LOL.
Scofield, Kleijnen, Linde etc., no true meta analysis has ever concluded homeopathy is placebo . . you're probably referring to Shang, which turned out to be another skeptard hoax, refused to even name the studies it reviewed!
@Bandershot : Oh please. Let's not pretend that people are using homeopathy because they've read research papers and decided it works! You're simply psychologically unable to confront the fact that MANY literate people are NOT resistant to seeing evidence for homeopathy working--but that evidence doesn't exist in substantial quantity/quality to convince thinking people. That's a very SIMPLE, HONEST, STRAIGHTFORWARD fact that you seem unable to process.
@GetMeThere1 Good point < people aren't using it based on science reports, they're using it based on their own experience of it. I don't know of any proponent of homeopathy who hasn't seen or felt it work on them. What you and all other detractors are using is a "rationalist" argument that requires derision of the evidence to work, i.e. you have to think that in order to believe it works, people have to "stop thinking." But evidence exists for hpathy empirically AND rationally.
@Bandershot : Right, and those wanting to know what their day will be like use astrology based on their experience of it--as do those you use mediums, based on their experience of talking to their dead relatives. We know very well that people can have poor judgement "based on their experience," and that only objective trials are a useful way to make reliable determinations. Few are convinced of efficacy from the objective trials of homeopathy.
@GetMeThere1 If I made similar comparisons about compound medicines I'd be accused of a straw man argument. MD's don't use astrology in the practice of medicine, but they use homeopathy. There aren't astrology hospitals, but there are homeopathic ones. It's used more than what you're implying. So why should anyone believe your assertions when you don't cite anything? If you're not pseudoscientist, cite something to prove your opinion..
@Bandershot : I make no assertions other than I see no evidence for homeopathy working--and I'm not blind. It's my reasonable and rational opinion that if it worked there would be no problem in having ABUNDANT, double-blind evidence that it works.
You know very well that whether it may be "used more than what you're implying" doesn't prove anything about efficacy--since you yourself imply that at least some aspects of often-used modern medicine are ineffective.
@GetMeThere1 So you have no cites. You demand RCTs for verum, but can show none for placebo. What a hypocrite! You say you haven't seen evidence for it working. You haven't looked! You're trying to slip in the very thing what you deny me, my evidence, asif your lack of evidence invalidates mine? How do you reference the null hypothesis with empirical evidence when your basic opposition rests on what you insist is reason?
@Bandershot Many people are convinced by islam, many people are convinced by christianity and many people are convinced by many other religions. But that doesnt mean they are right! People are like "I prayed for rain and it rained therefore my god is real!". Conincidences and warm fuzzy feelings are what seem to convince our pattern seeking fickle brains.
@RentTheSpokeMan I might be more likely to agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that homeoapthy hasn't been entirely dismissed by the material sciences. There are now several indices for the action of the supramolecular materials used in homeopathy: Biochemical; biological (plants, microbes, animals) and phyical; (NMR, dielectric stress, Rmaan lasers). This is addtion to the huge concordant empriacal database acquired by physicians over 200 years.
@GetMeThere1 You're trying to measure these things in compound chemistry. This is complex chemistry, the active substances are hydrogen bonded gas hydrates, or host clathrates that imitate the guest moelcule. Plants react dramatically to these non-molecular chemical complexes. There are now books on it and there have been universtiy level studies. It's just too hard for most people like yourself to believe at first, until they've seen it work.
@Bandershot : "You're trying to measure these things in...." No, I'm trying to evaluate your proposed experiment. In doing so, I determine that the concentrations you provide for the experiment are FAR different from the concentrations used in homeopathy. From that I conclude that your proposed experiment wouldn't tell me anything about homeopathy--contrary to your claim that it would. Ever heard the phrase "apples and oranges?"
@GetMeThere1 Fist thing you should do is try to develop your opinions based on something more than reading your own comments and what you think can't work. What you'll just from just reading other comments, that much to rationalist chagrin what you imply has already been done. i.e. sundews have reacted to dilutes of ammonia carbonicum above Avogadro, and agrohomeopathy studies at the universtiy level have confirmed supramolecular action on other plants.
@Bandershot : I don't particularly have many opinions--well, other than the obvious one that many people are clearly deluded about many things.
The first thing YOU should do is learn to discern the difference between the ability to conjure up a few hopeful RATIONALIZATIONS for something you want to be true vs actual EVIDENCE that a thing is true.
@ilduce565 No, in fact, agrohomeopathy is becoming a field unto itself. I'm in daily contact now with the world's leading authority on it. There are now books and pub's studies on the subject, easy experiemnts you can rep yourself. You simply have taken a hostile attiude without first being aware of the proofs, which are biological (plants and animals), biochemical, physical and clinical.
I'm not familiar with the sun dew experiment, however if it's true, it only testifies to how precisely our bodies can detect substances in minute quantities. However, homeopathic sleep medicine is an outrageously dilute solution of CAFFEINE to the point where, not only is there no active substance (in the case of the sun dew experiment, this would be true and the flower would not react), but caffeine would not serve to help anyone with sleep problems.
@Richy15251 WHy don't you go and study this a little more before you comment on it and make yourself look foolish to future generations, or even to yourself? Doesn'tthat make sense? It would certainly save you time.
@Bandershot why don't you ask yourself why there is no scientific evidence for Homeopathy, or even why such debate around a 'scientific practice'. The Sun dew experiment had concentrations well within Avogadro's limit. According to homeopathy, the more dilute the solution, the more potent. Try the same experiment with dilutions of anywhere between 20c and 1500c. The sun dew experiment is not evidence for homeopathy.
@Richy15251 It has been tried with higher dilutes and worked. And you seem to think that this is the only test for homeopathy. There are dozens of tests for hoemoapthy. Its affects have been seen on plants, animals and biochemically. WHat you'r showing is prejudice. It makes it very diffiult for you to accept evidence to is contrary to it.
According to your description of the experiment with the sundew plant : Would not a stronger (more diluted) drop have a even stronger effect on the plant? If it does not isn't that a proof that the plant reacts to the chemical instead of the vibrations "remembered" by the water?!
If you are so sure you can prove this go and take the $1million challenge - Get some friends with you and the media and I bet James will agree to test you again!!
@Slurfs Homeopathy has been proven ad nauseam. Randi refuses my calls & there's no way he's going to put homeopathy to a real test. If he was interested in it he would have done it long ago, and not one by BBC TV producers, but by Belon or Roy, or Conte, Demangeat, Jonas, Ennis, etc. or he would have simply accepted their peer reviewed tests as proof and awarded his million. He's never tested anyone and never will.
@Bandershot ok so if that's the case sue James Randi and get the million + some extra stuff. If there is enough solid evidence for the court you got nothing to loose at all. In fact you would do the humanity a great favor to prove this once and for all!
If you in fact can prove this and convince the court - best of luck and my deepest respect for doing so! If you can't prove it then I'm sorry but you are nothing but a liar (no offence).
@Slurfs Sue him for what? He's never contracted with me or anybody for anything, and his challenge says he has to agree on a "protocol." He never has, not with me, exept tosay that an RCT to idnetify verum against placebo would take the money. What attorney would take the case? There's no need for me to lie about this. Randi should confirm alltht I've said here. Why not call him yourself and ask him why he hasn't put my claim to the test?
@Bandershot Well first of all you did not even bothered to answer my first question. The only answer to my question was that Homeopathy has been proven according to you. Now I may be a skeptic but that does not mean that I'm not open to the fact that there might be things not understood by science yet. Can you point out what specific points in this protocol he won't agree with you on? Is it claims that can't be scientifically or statistically verified?! JREF accepts statistically proofs as well.
@Slurfs Why is it do you think that all you "skeptics" end up being such hypocrites? Do you represent JREF or Randi? You write as if you do. But read the Challenge. You don't. So what makes you think you're such an authority on this subject that you can unequivocally state what somebody else (Randi) will accept? Randi hasn't agreed to anything with me except to say that ID of verum would win the prize. But that's not true.
@Bandershot First of all. I may disagree with you but I am not necessary working against you just for the record. However I feel you are working against me since you still avoid answering my questions. By answering my questions not only I would be more convinced by your claims but a lot of others as well.
The most important question is that all water that exists must at some point in history been in contact with virtually all kind of materials - Why isn't ordinary tapwater just as good?!
@Slurfs I've already answered this question repeatedly. NEVER do I remember it making a difference with any of you jerks. You never say "thank you for your time," you just move on to another point to argue over. And if I'm so stupid, why is it that you're asking me to answer your questions for you? If you have a problem with this, why aren't you bugging the FDA? They regulate it, not me. I'll show you. Let's see how you respond when I do answer your question in the next commentary cont
@Bandershot First of all why are you insinuating that I have called you stupid? I have not done that. I would appreciate if you could please keep this discussion on a bit more adult and civilized level. I am having trouble understanding why homeopathy works and I am simply asking for you to educate me on this subject. So far I can't see that you have answered any of my questions but I will be looking forward to your answers. Please calm down Sir - I don't have anything personal against you (yet)
@Slurfs The question is, "all water that exists must at some point in history been in contact with virtually all kind of materials - Why isn't ordinary tapwater just as good?!" 1st, it hasn't proven to be. So empircally it's irrelevant. However, we do know that homeopathic remedies lose their punch when not fixed with non-polarized media or when exposed to UV, heat and cold, presumably because of disintegration of the clathrates that distinguish remedies from plain H2O.
"The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy" Rustum Roy, W.A. Tiller, Iris Bell, M. R. Hoover Materials Research Innovations 9:4, 577-608, (2005)
1994 Ultra High Dilutions Physiology and Physics
P.C. Endler and J. Schulte : SMALL WATER CLUSTERS (CLATHRATES) IN THE
PREPARATION PROCESS OF HOMEOPATHY G.S. Anagnostatos.
1998 "High dilution effects on cells and integrated systems" P. Marotta: On the Structure of High Dilutions According to the Clathrate Model G.S. Anagnostatos
2008 July 26 Journal of Molecular Liquids: "NMR water proton relaxation in unheated and heated ultrahigh aqueous dilutions of histamine: Evidence for an air-dependent supramolecular organization of water"
@Slurfs Hi and thanks. There will probably be some interesting reading here. But before I study this more I noticed that all these links are found on homeopathyeurope's site. Not sure if this is just because they collect that data or because they "own" it. If this can be verified from third parties and the documentation is not controversial e.g. the science can be proven in practice it should be quite interesting. Lots of luck - I need to read through those documents - see you later!
@Slurfs See what I mean? You just can't let it go, can you? I give you what you thought didn't exist, and instead of thanking me for my efforts of finding some very scattered research, you have to still express your suspicions of it, based on nothing more than that the mere LINKS to the repoduced studiesare to be found on on one webste. What a jerk you are. You're no different from the rest of the phony skeptics. YO9u'r enot here for the science, you're here to puff yourself up.
@Bandershot First of all I did thank you for your efforts and again I have to ask you to please keep this dialog on a more adult level. You are right in that I won't be easily convinced that homeopathy works but honestly what is wrong with that? The reason I am skeptical to the material provided is that it *seem* to have a common source of origin e.g. it *might* be biased and/or fake. However I DON'T KNOW this yet and I never gave an impression that I did. So please Sir be reasonable here!
@Slurfs You flaming ingrate. Have you stopped for a moment to ask yourself whats in this for Benneth except frustration? I can show you proof from a Nobel laureate and you'll impugn that, find another flaw or something wrong with it, just as you've done here, rather than simply appreciate the effort andmove on. Do you always crtiicize anything anyone ever does for you? So how about if I block you and save all of us any future pain?
@Slurfs Using NMR measures Conte says: "When preparations stored in transparent bottles are exposed to 10 minutes of sunlight, their relaxation times T2 are indentical to that observed for the diluent" p. 93, "Theory of High Dilutions and experimental aspects," Rolland R. Conte et al. Polytechnica, Paris 1996
They also measured the effects of heat, ultrasound, magneitc fields and gravitation on the remedy. p. 94-108
@Ivence Technically dilutions below 12c are sold as homeopathic . . Randi has never set this limit, to my knowledge. But other tests, phsyical, biolgical and biochemical by reputable scientists have. There have been extgensive studies of homeopathic on what with Ars. 45X, and others. How do you explain that?
@Bandershot The JREF million dollar challenge is set up to test the supernatural, which dilutions below 12c are not. They don't need to have criteria explaining how spoon benders aren't allowed to use magnets and mind readers aren't allowed to hire a private investigator as part of their demonstration, it's just kind of assumed. As for the 45x tests...link please?
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. One dram of the darwinian solution would have about 12.9 trillion molecules of ammonium carbonate. How does a plant reacting to a fairly salty solution (by biological standards) have anything at all to do with proving or disproving homeopathy? I used 96g/mole for ammonium carbonate(NH4)2CO3, 15.43 grains/g,116.35 L/barrel, 3.7ml/dram. Thanks for your response.
@racemate1960 Darwin had enough experience and exposure to homeopathy to understand the level of dilution, or he certainly wouldn't have expressed so much amazement about it. 2ndly, gthe test has been conducted using dilutions above the molar limit.
I stumbled across this and I had to raise a quick point. A dilution of 6C is, in scientific nomenclature a dilution of 1 part in 10^12, or 1 in 1,000,000,000. Now this is a really trace amount, but it is well within molar limits (Avogadro limit is 1 in 10^23, which isn't crossed until you reach dilutions of 12C or higher).
@Ivence Yeah, so what? What if you discovered that the molecular concentration doesn't have anything to do with it, that the answer is in supramolecular chemistry? Google gas hydrates, clathrates, then look at Anagnostatos' description of the process. Anagnostatos GS. "Small water clusters (clathrates) in the preparation process of homeopathy."
Hm. I´m sorry, but i can not agree that the fact that one particular chemical might affect one certain breed of plant is proof of homeopathy (hence HP) working in a medical way.
From my own experience i say that HP doesn´t work, having tried a few cures and gotten no result whatsoever. I have also witnessed several friends trying it and getting no result.
That being said, i have made no clinical studdies, so i might be wrong. So colour me an openminded skeptic.
@BigSwede7403 Okay, fair enough. You're at least not being abusive, which is what most critics of homeopathy do. Now let me you ask you a question: Would you walk into a pharmacy that had 3,000 different drugs in it and without any training pick what you thought would work for you? You say it didn't work, but there are other people who say it saved their lives, but none that I know of treated themselves.
If the only way you can get respect for homeopathy is by claiming reputable scientists use it, then why not listen to what reputable scientists today say about it. People like you slag science off, yet still hold it as a benchmark to use to vindicate your particular field of nonsense. This makes no sense. Science is good when used to back up your claims, but bad in every other respect? Either you're a master troll or a massive prick, both ways you fail.
@Damn6Deal6Done6 I find it to be a bigger problem to commuicate with people about this without them getting offensive based on their assumptions, which are wrong. It's sad. You say why not listen to what reputable scientists say about it, and I have, the most, such as Rustum Roy, WIlliam Tiller, Brian Josephson, Luc Montagnier, Gary Schwartz, Iris Bell, Rick Hoover, Rolland Conte, Witt Baumgartner et al . .Google their names and h omeopathy to see what I mean.
Poor Gordonzo! Here's another proof of h. coming from the wonderful world of plants (in this case chestnut trees).
Trees lining the boulevards of The Hague have been attacked by bleeding canker and leaf-moth larvae, destroying bark and leaves. "You can't spray any kind of toxic chemicals in these public areas, so homeopathics are perfect for the job. The use of a h. spray to combat bleeding canker infection and pest infestation has so far yielded positive results....the trial's been running
all the plant experiment proves is that uve found a working dilutiion of the chemical. Try proving the 4 rules of homeopathy then i will start to listen to you
Don't you think its interesting, to say the least, or ironic, or perhaps more accurately put, hypocritical, that you would imply a higher standard for proof in your comment after opening it with a prejudicial condemnation? The problem is not that homeopathy doesn't work, the problem is your bigotry. To make the point, google: "Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells" Reports like this don't make people like you just look like fools, they make you look evil.
Ha ha. The fact that you swallowed a bloody thesaurus doesnt support your arguement here.
My point is.....and can you please answer this and this only.............
The plant experiment, that u use to argue many of the debates listed below, is nothing more than a suggestion that u have just found a working dilution is it not? Thats all i'm saying.
If you really wanted to prove one of the theories of homeopathy, then you shoud quantify the reaction of the plant some how, and expose the plant to different dilutions of the drug. If your theories are correct in your plant model, you should get a more dramatic response the more dilute your reagent is. That is all i'm saying.
Please do not avoid answering my question by picking problems with my english or saying i'm prejudiced.Just answer the question i asked.
There's nothing wrong with your English, my friend, it's your approach to the problem. There's more to this than you think there is, there are dozens of plant studies, just as there are dozens of biochmeical studies. Everything you're suggesting has already been done, many times. Do some research. Then you may want to remove yourcomments, lest they remain as testimony to your callousness of the misery of others and the progress made to help them, progress you ridicule.
Oh for the love of God (who I dont believe in by the way). Will you please answer the question!!!
Do you think Darwin did a bloody dose response expt or not!!!??? If not then hes just found a working concentration of the drug. This experiment thus has nothing to do with homeopathy.
Who are we to decide what concentration of a particular ligand is high or low!!??
Please answer the damn question before I scream. I am interested in this subject and would like an answer.
You're GOING to scream? What do you think you've been doing? If you're going to be a skeptic, then be a skeptic and shut up, quit being so judgmental about everyone but yourself. You seem to think you're this wonderfully intelligent, independent thinker, who never contradicts himself, abides only by logic and reason, and believes only what "science" can explain. But as any reasoning mind can see prima facie, by your own words, you can't even properly state the question. You're a hypocrite.
Stop attackin me and answer the following question. This is the same question i've been asking for a while:
Did Darwin explore the effects of changing the concentration of his ligand on the plant? Can we see the results?
Thats all I want to know. I am not being judgemental I just want to learn more about the subject. You really dont know anythiing about me. I havent attacked u. So please just answer the question.
Gordonzo- I'm surry, but we're going to have to discontinue this "discussion." I'm more interesting in helping people than I am in arguing with them, or being the target of their insults. SO if you want some help with your mental illness, I suggest you find another homeopath.
I'm sorry I dont understand. I have just asked one simple question. Reading back, I cant really find any examples of me insulting you. Ok first 'rubbish' comment was below the line. And I shuddnt have said the thing about me speaking several languages. I apologise for both of these.
My problem is u cant post a video like this and not xpect to discuss the subject . You are, after all, an ambassador to your science now are you not? Just show me a dose response curve. Thats all I want to see.
Look at what you're saying. First you say you don't understand, then you indicate that you do; you say you can't find examples of you insluting me, and then you provide yourself with some. Insutlting me is all you're trying to do. And then you say all you want is "a dose response curve." No you don't. You want to go on arguing about this forever at my expense, impressing yourself you're somebody important. The web is full of info about homeopathy. Use it, study it. Learn something.
The first dose response study I can thinnk of it the work at the University of Bolgna on wheat seedlings. Some doses stunted growth, others stimulated. Google it. ABsgtracts are on PUBMED. If you have trouble finding it, let me know and I'll dig up the title of the study.
This is all quite fascinating. But...according to an online critique, Darwin's observed Sundew effect still didn't involve genuine, high-potency, (non-existent) homeopathic levels of amonia salts in his "high-dilution" water solutions. Randi would probably have no problem admitting that even the tiniest , trace presence of the substance could cause an effect in some biological systems. It's only when there is no theoretical particles left in a solution that skepticism feels justified.
ladster3-You're wrong about the level of diution. One grain of ammonia salt was added to 30 gals H2O and then only 1/2 dram of THAT was POURED OVER A LEAF! Do the math! Half a teaspoon of water from 30 gals. treated with a grain of am.salt is an infinitessimally small amount of ammonia, 1/20,000,000: by my calcs equal to an HPUS 7X or 8X . . LESS than what is used in in many FDA reg'd h'pathic products!
And ladster3, what about other botanical tests that now show the action of homeopathics on other plants? You're wasting your time while in denial of the literature. Not only does a scan of the lit. reveal 44 pub'd botanical trials that show hpathic action, but there are now 6 different types of replicated biochemical tests in over 60 pub's, such as the Belon multicentered trials. Try to first learn something about the subject before you start lecturing others on it.
This isn't about determining Homeopathic solutions from water, this is about determining the medicinal effectiveness of homeopathic solutions on actual human symptoms compared to current medical trends.
The challenge is to prove that homeopathic 'medicine' is equally as effective as current medicine for the same ailment.
So I guess you have the million dollars from Randi now ? or........
Darwin's experiement did not use homeopathic dilutions. Oh yes, and he obviously proved at the same time time that succussion is absolutely unnecessary.
This would only be a test if the experimenter makes the dilutions himself and uses a double blind technique. Testing a drop of water against a drop of a liquid from a bottle bought from a chemist is not a test at all! Neither is it a test of homoeopathy rather than the sensitivity of sundews. To test homoeopathy would require testing distilled water against distilled water "containing" a really high dilution such that there are no molecules of the poison in the water at all.
A nastic test of a 10-23 homeopathic from a chemist is a valid test of that product, just as is a 10-23 of your own making. If homeopathic solutions are "placebos" as critics have claimed, then it would be impossible for a 10-23 solution to trigger any nastic action. So how is it that it reportedly does? The current theory is that the homeopathic molecule is a clathrate, a supramolecular hydrate, like ice, formed out of hydrogen bonded water molecules. Google these terms for more info
@MartinJWillett And how would you construct a _double_ blind test with a plant?
You could take 100 plants (fresh) give 50 of them placebo and 50 of them the remedy. Then if the test person dispensing either placebo or the remedy chosen at random and he/she doesn't know what is what, that would be a single blind wouldn't it?
Willett thinks that if he does the test himself he might try to cheat and fool himself by mixing up a more concentrated batch of ammonia and then swtiching it for the homepoathic solution while he's sleep walking. Or maybe he thinks the picture of Randi in the thumbna
James Randi and Prof. Rich Dawkins have something in common. They both have a vested interest in promoting themselves for financial gain - whether or not their science is good or bad.
Randi knows homeopathy works, but by being a supporter of the skeptics camp and by demanding trial conditions which are hard to produce, he gets lots of exposure whilst effectively protecting his 1 million dollars.
Dawkins ditto.
He's not interested in science. He's only interested in selling books.
pianoplayeruk 5 months ago
What's amazing to me is that homeopathy managed to become a debatable subject. How it got to the point of being sold along side actual pharmaceuticals is beyond me.
jugarnaut40 6 months ago 3
@jugarnaut40 It's now being used at the top rate cancer clinic in the US, MD Anderon in Houston, to CURE CANCER! Visit their web site if you don't believe it.
Bandershot 4 months ago
LOL u wear a suit for a youtube video??
PhatPat0420 6 months ago
@PhatPat0420 These are my pajamas. I normally wear a tux to work.
Bandershot 4 months ago
Rather than TALK about Darwin's experiment (which happened loooong ago and Darwin published no scientific papers on it), why don't you repeat it and demonstrate it once and for all?
xxxlilxjayxxx 6 months ago
I was waiting the whole time to see you perform the test yourself instead of asking us to do it. If it's so easy to perform, why don' t you just do it and collect your $1000000 from Randi?
yasumotonoboru 7 months ago
So if I dissolve 1 grain of caffeine into 32 gallons of water and take one drop of this solution it will help me get to sleep at night?
Didn't think so...
DrSpooglemon 8 months ago
Is there a homeopathic remedy that can give me those 10 minutes of my life back? (OK, I admit it, I'm lying....I skipped ahead a few times)
dog1dog2 8 months ago
For all we know the plant reacts to the water whether or not contaminated, or it's just more sensitive to the contaminant than we could imagine. This does not mean the human body is as sensitive to foreign substanses. Our noses for one are not as sensitive as that of dogs. This video proved nothing and brought to light no facts.
therealkakkamakkara 8 months ago
So are you actually going to prove Randi wrong and collect the prize?
Or are you going to sprout nonsense.
You are right in one thing in that you don't really know anything and it's an article of faith.
franktbird 8 months ago
Another example of logical fallacy, argument from authority.
Deevs82 8 months ago
Why. Dont. You. Just. PROVE. I would. US$ 1 mi could help me a lot.
kcnirva 8 months ago
Hm, a 10 minute video about a simple experiment that can be done for about $20, but no experiment to be seen.
I wonder why that is.
McHrozni 9 months ago
If Homeopathy is true, give up medicine, find some scientists with laboratory space and win the Nobel Prize for Physics.
Kruezoraxe 9 months ago
@Kruezoraxe What good would that do me?
Bandershot 4 months ago
Get your green line back posting videos about drugs (legal and illegal ones), football, porn and other kind of bs like most of these brainwashed society likes.
fkoff99 10 months ago
Darwin's experiment was not Homeopathy. There was no testing of "like cures like", there was no serial dilution (which I have been vehemently told by Homeopathic practicers, is a necessity) & as the salt concentration was reduced, the effect decreased & eventually disappeared, in breach of the homeopathic principle that the more dilute, the more potent the "medicine".
Darwin never believed Homeopathy was effective & modern studies & meta analyses show it to be no better than placebo.
tvsinesperanto 10 months ago
If there was anything to homeopathy then it would be in use in every hospital in the world. But it's not, because it doesn't work. And the reason that it doesn't work is because it is based on a ridiculous load of nonsense.
mikefromwa 10 months ago
@mikefromwa I'ts being used at MD Anderson, the nation's top cancer clinic. It's growing at 30% a year in India. There are five homeopathi hospitals in the UK. The CUbans use it to fight epidemics. The reason it not more popular in capitalist countries is because they can't patent the medicine andmake a trillion dolalrs off suckers like you.
Bandershot 4 months ago
@Bandershot Hey it seems like you're really onto something here! You should totally take James Randi up on his $1 mil challenge! You're a shoe in!
dsze4446 10 months ago
"& yes, there are many tests & methods of detection for homeopathics, 6 different types of biochemical tests for hpathy & 10 methods of detection, such as NMR & FTIR spectroscopy."
Citation needed.
VannahWilson 10 months ago
@VannahWilson
WITT: "The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—–A systematic review of
the literature"
BECKER WITT: "Quality Assessment of Physical Research in Homeopathy" CLAUDIA BECKER-WITT, M.D.
ROY: "The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy"
PATHAK: "Ruta 6 selectively induces cell death in brain cancer cells but proliferation in normal peripheral blood lymphocytes" Int J Oncol. 2003;23(4):975-982.
Bandershot 4 months ago
Homeopathy is only popular is America. This is because conventional healthcare costs so much in the states. They take a placebo because they can't afford real medicine.
Here in the UK, medical care is free. We get life saving treatment from highly skilled, qualified doctors. Do yourself a favour America. Stop buying homeopathic medicine from snake oil merchants. And get nationalised heatlhcare instead.
soundslave 11 months ago 4
@soundslave No, it's not true that "homeopathy is only popular in America." It is more popular in India and Europe and is grwoing at 30% a year.
Bandershot 4 months ago
How many times did you mention showing the difference between plain water and a homeopathic solution? God I was getting tired of that. And then you didn't do it! You didn't even show how Darwin did it.
If this is so simple, why haven't you won the million dollars yet? Randi loves a simple, straightforward demonstration.
Bottom line, homeopathy is bunk. Darwin never believed in it and I see no evidence that he demonstrated that it works.
Of course, one expects lies from quacks. No surprise here.
Astrobrant2 11 months ago 9
@Astrobrant2 Randi doesn't love a simple straight forward demosntration, if he did he would have contracted for one long ago. Read the rule to the Million Dollar Challenge. He's never signed it because its not a legal offer.
Watch attorney Victor Zammit's analysis of the MDC. Put dispostion of the million in the hands of an inependent thrid paqrty or court of law and see what happens.
Bandershot 4 months ago
There is a lot of talk about trying this experiment and about it proving homeopathy. But for one thing, I have an understanding that homeopathy is strictly for very large dilutions, I've heard claims of 1 in 10^20 and in another case 1 in 10^23. This would be between 10C and 12C. The solution in this experiment is 6C. Imagine the dilution suggested is the original, and then dilute that by the method suggested for 6C and that's 12C! yet again a big difference. 6:51 Ad Hominem by the way.
IppatsuTensei88 11 months ago
@IppatsuTensei88 WHen you talk about ad hominem are you speaking of Randi's comment that I'm an idiot and a criminal?
THe dilutions are only theoretical. Past 6C they're so small its hardly worth making a comparison, you're still faced with eplaining how it is that one particle in a million can affet biolgoical action.
Bandershot 4 months ago
One of the core tenets of science is that experiments must be reproducible. If you could perform a reproducible experiment involving homeopathic materials then you would be eligible to win Randi's $1,000,000 challenge. If this was true over one hundred years ago it would be true today. So the next step is up to you. Prove you are right and you can claim the prize. I have a feeling that you won't.
subductionzone 11 months ago
Darwin didn't even know that molecules existed the same way we understand them now.
Hell he thought that animal cells were just little specs with no internal structure at all.
RippDrive 11 months ago
"The Internet is a wonderful thing. It allows you check stuff, like the claims of quacks, in a way that was not possible just a few years ago."
tikielvis 11 months ago
The truly amazing discovery i found in this video is the shoe caddy behind the speaker's head. Imagine all the shoes you could put into that caddy. I bet Charles Darwin could totally use one of those (so far, my research strongly favors this hypothesis).
TheDonaUpShow 11 months ago
there is a huge difference between herbal remedies and homeopathy. It drives me nuts that people conflate the two.
smibbo 11 months ago
one grain of salt in 5000 ounce is not enough diluted, it would not have any effect iaw homeopathy
sokklei 11 months ago
Interesting, but seeing as homeopathic medicine has never worked for me, I think I'll stick with real medicine.
drmoonrat 11 months ago
Did you bother to read the letters?
darwinproject .ac.uk /entry-1352
Darwin never believed in homeopathy but was taking it because where he was working a Dr Gully was giving it to him.
Darwin did do experiments using salts on Sundrew but never to the levels of dilution that homeopaths use.
Darwin never suggested the experiments were homeopathic. He believed more in the water cure than homeopathy.
Read all the letters you can. There intreasting.
fosgad 1 year ago 29
@fosgad 1 letter is reprinted in the vid. Darwin was sick for years with an ailment that disappeared after homeopathic treatment.
One grain of ammonia salt was added to 30 gals H2O & then only 1/2 dram of THAT was POURED OVER A LEAF. Do the math. Half a teaspoon of water from 30 gals. treated with a grain of am.salt is an infinitessimally small amount of ammonia, 1/20,000,000: by my calcs equal to an HPUS 7X or 8X . . LESS than what is used in in many FDA reg'd h'pathic products.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@KehoeDeclan Yes, the same for juries, democracy & free market enterprise. Just because its argumentum ad populum doesn't mean its wrong. Beliefs are established through a variety of means, pers. experience being the most powerful. & yes, there are many tests & methods of detection for homeopathics, 6 different types of biochemical tests for hpathy & 10 methods of detection, such as NMR & FTIR spectroscopy. Clinical reports are overwhelming. It's alt. 'cause they want you to buy their Avandia!
Bandershot 1 year ago
I find it hard to trust anyone with a candy cane in their breast pocket.
Also, using evidence that is 135 years old and nothing else, seems to be clutching at straws?
If you can point me to a full clinical trial with scientific controls & full analysis which accounts for outliers and the placebo effect and there's still a measurable effect from homeopathic treatment, your point would be more valid.
Science wants to better humanity, if homeopathy worked, it would have a mainstream following.
KehoeDeclan 1 year ago 47
@KehoeDeclan Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1980 May; 9(5): 453–459.
Homoeopathic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: evaluation by double-blind clinical therapeutic trial. Gibson: ". . significant improvement in subjective pain, articular index, stiffness& grip strength in those patients receiving homoeopathic remedies . . no significant change in the patients who received placebo."
There are many clinical studies like this one. The WHO says homeopathy is now 2nd only to Chinese medicine in # of users.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot And thank you for the link.
KehoeDeclan 1 year ago
@Saturnous Let me get this straight: You're claiming to have disproved homeopathy by pouring Coca Cola on a Sundew plant? You should get the Nobel prize for stupidity. Somebody get a stretcher. No wonder homeopthy has grown so much in popularity.
Bandershot 1 year ago
The plant is called Drosera Rotundifolia, or just Drosera or sundew, and it is actually also a homeopathic remedy for respiratory problems and whoopping-cough e.g. i.e. if you eat the plant you would be helped by the remedy ;)
Hardicwilix 1 year ago
Ammonium Carb 6C will contain actual molecules of Ammonium Carb though.
Also - did you do a control with same diluent but no ammonium carb?
docdcb 1 year ago 3
The Sundew plant will react to anything that touches it - a drop of water is many hundreds of times the force needed to trigger the tentacle action.
timbernerslee 1 year ago 3
@timbernerslee No, that's not true. Otherwise rain wouldclose it up, as well as debris. Sundews have the ability to "smell" their prey.
Bandershot 1 year ago
"Physics defying"? What a ridiculous comment - there is not one thing, NOT ONE, that in any way shape or form "defies physics". Here's a challenge - demonstrate it.
SierraBravoOneNiner 1 year ago 67
@SierraBravoOneNiner Of course it can defy physics, observed phenoms have routinely deifed physics throughout the ages and have all been dismissed, because there was no PHYSICal eplanation at the time, and the spetrards ranted and raved against the heresy until someone came along and explained it to them. Google Anagnostatos GS. Small water clusters (clathrates) in the preparation process of homeopathy. 1994.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Sir, they are dismissed because they are not science. The work of Anagnostatos, where it is quoted in any scientific paper - I leave out references to those "journals" which include articles on alien abduction and the "laying on of hands" in health care - all refer to Anagnostatos idea as a hypothesis. This is a clear indication that the evidence is not in. One would have thought that in 16 years since this idea was first touted, some other evidence would have surfaced?
SierraBravoOneNiner 1 year ago 17
@SierraBravoOneNiner Anagnostatos isn't the 1st to postul;ate hydrates as the op mech. Barnard postulated hydrogen bonding in water clusters re: to homeopathic solutions; knowledge of small water clusters was seen by early chemists like Davy & Farraday. Clathrates aren't new to science. More recently Prof's Roy & Hoover of Penn State,Tiller of Stanford, Bell of UofAriz, have confirmed structural theories for hpathics, as have others. i.e. Demangeats NMR study and Montagniers DNA.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@SierraBravoOneNiner
"Acute Otitis Media in Children: A Comparison of Conventional and Homeopathic Treatment" Biomedical Therapy, 60,4,1997:113-116
Osteoarthritic Pain: A Comparison of Homeopathy and Acetaminophen
American Journal of Pain Management, 1998;8:89-91
Homeopathic vs. Conventional Treatment of Vertigo: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Clinical Study Archives of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery, August, 1998, 124:879-885
These & many prove you're wrong.
Bandershot 1 year ago
If you can prove Homeopathy then why don't you take James Randi's million dollars? The obvious answer is because you can't prove it because it's all nonsense. Even if Darwin believed in Homeopathy, that doesn't mean it works. Homeopathy cannot be tested and proven under controlled scientific conditions.
GGGeoff 1 year ago
@GGGeoff If you were informed on this subject you'd know that I did take it. And if it's nonsense, then why does it work on plants and animals? Why has not one true meta analysis ever confirmed the skeptard claim that it's a palcebo? If its nonsense why have countless MDs used it for 200 years, indexed it & are still using it? Why are top scientists & Nobel laureates not agreeing with you, i.e. Profs Josephson, Montagnier, Roy, Tiller, Bell, Hoover, Baumgartner, Witt et al at major universities?
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot I don't think I understood ur first sentence. Are u telling me that u DID take James Randi's million dollars? Please explain this 2 me. As far as it working on plants and animals, I want 2 know the conditions under which it worked. If the solution was deluted 5 times, then there is still something left. If it was deluted 25 times, there is nothing but water and it wouldn't have any impact. Nobel credentials don't have much weight when the commitee admits their awards are political.
GGGeoff 1 year ago 2
@GGGeoff My apologies. What I meant to write was that I took the challenge.
There have been numerous studies on plants, much of the work has been done at Italian universities. For example:
"Statistical analysis of the effect of high dilutions of arsenic in a large dataset from a wheat germination model" Brizzi M, Nani D, Peruzzi M, Betti L. Dipartimento di Scienze statistiche, University of Bologna, Italy Br Homeopath J. 2000 Apr;89(2):63-7
Bandershot 1 year ago
There's a major flaw of Homeopathy..... There's an infinite amount diluted materials in water. If Homeopathy works, then you should just be able to just drink water and cure everything that would ever cause you sickness. Seriously, that's just fucking stupid.
Deathyman 1 year ago
@Deathyman Rather than just dimissing YOURSELF as "fucking stupid", why don't you take a moment to analyze it? Where are you getting your information? From a failed magician? What is it that you DON'T know? Why are you shooting from the lip, when you could be asking qjuestions? You only have 500 letters here to to frame your statement before the world. Why are you wasting them on presumtptions instead of using them on questions? Why is it top scientists don't share your prejudicial view?
Bandershot 1 year ago
Is that all you can say? "Why don't you ask questions?!" It's kind of redundant.
What you're arguing is the closed minded point of view, attempting to portray me as unimaginative and ignorant. Because in my statement, it's an honest flaw that makes perfect sense. There is a diluted amount of every substance in the world in our water, in some places there are more than others. Wouldn't this mean that we could simply drink water and be healthy with Homeopathic methods? Why would this not work?
Deathyman 1 year ago
@Deathyman You are indeed ignorant, but you certainly aren't unimaginative. All your silly hypotheses are unreferenced, from nothing more than your imagination. What you failed to consider is that the "memory" of water can be erased, by UV, heat, freezing, evaporation and magneticc fields, and so homeopathics won't work if they're left out in the sun for a few minutes. Hydrogen bonds in clathrates can exist over great lengths of time, like at the bottom of the sea, away from UV.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot I'm sorry, what Scientific Theory is this that you're talking about? No need to be so cryptic about your modern chemistry of water. Please share with us this "memory" you referenced. Nigger
Deathyman 1 year ago
@Deathyman Are you signing your name or calling names? Anagnostatos explains it best. Google Anagnostatos GS. "Small water clusters (clathates) in the preparation process of Homeopathy." In: Endler PC, Schulte J, editors. Ultra High Dilution: Physiology and Physics. Dordrecht (Nederland): Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1994. 121-128
Google Roy et al "The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy" Mat. Res. Innovations 9:4, 577-608, (2005)
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot I think I'm done with this, I looked at a few of your sources and it's worse than a Creationist "source". What your homeopathic studies should do is publish their hypothesis and theories to a scientific medical journal to be peer-reviewed and that way the whole world can be convinced of the truth of Homeopathy. Oh, that's right! I forgot that they can't do that, there's a global scientific CONSPIRACY against Homeopathy.
Deathyman 1 year ago
@Deathyman Sorry to pop your bubble, but studies have been published in "scientific medical journals", such as the AMA, BMJ & Lancet, or ones such as this: K.H.Friese,S.Kruse,H.Moeller "Acute Otitis Media in Children: A Comparison of Conventional and Homeopathic Treatment" Biomedical Therapy, 60,4,1997:113-116. Google it, read it for yourself. & this:
"Osteoarthritic Pain: A Comparison of Homeopathy and Acetaminophen"
American Journal of Pain Management, 1998;8:89-91
You want to see more?
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Yes I in fact do. Nigger.
Deathyman 1 year ago
@Deathyman TILLER: On Chemical Medicine, Thermodynamics, and Homeopathy; Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Towards understanding molecular mechanisms of action of homeopathic drugs: an overview; Smith R, Boericke GW: Modern instrumentation for the evaluation of homeopathic drug structure.
J Am Inst Homeopath 1966, 59:263-280; Effects of High Dilutions of Cymbopogon winterianus Jowitt (citronella) on the Germination and Growth of Seedlings of Sida rhombifolia
Bandershot 1 year ago
Hic rhodos, hic salta.
Methelin 1 year ago
So Darwin showed that those plants can distinguish pure water from water containing one grain of salt per 140 litres. That's still a much greater concentration than you find in homeopathic solutions (in fact, the prescribed solution still contains about 10^18 atoms of salt). So what is your point?
Also, have you done the experiment you proposed? Kinda odd you left out the one piece of information that could have been of actual relevance.
ASKaPHYSICIST 1 year ago
@ASKaPHYSICIST Yes, I've tried it using am. carb. 12c , but it was too early in the season for the plant to react. But I've experimented on seeds, yeast, got amazing results. There's now what's called agrohomeopathy, the use of homeopathics on plants for disease, stimulate growth, even control pests. There's NO DOUBT on this side that it works on plants, animals, humans. Problem is yours. See Kaviraj. "Homeopathy for Plants." other books, articles by others. Also univ. studies.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot I'm sure you have 'no doubt' that it works. it wouldn't work if you did. Placebo effect ... a wonderful thing.
I don't really need to ask a physicist about Homoeopathy though if there aren't any modern controlled double-blind trials to show that it actually works, do I?
uuuuuu.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874503/?tool=pmcentrez
ASKaPHYSICIST 1 year ago
@ASKaPHYSICIST Ah! Ernst's response to the Linde meta, "Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews," in which 1/3 are HIS OWN, dismisses the major metas except Cucherat, exclude biological studies, is ignorant of the physical and says nothing of the biochemical. No true meta analysis has EVER concluded placebo. Shang was a hoax, yet Ernst depends on it to conclude placebo. Google this: Johnson, Boon, Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07 Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?
Bandershot 1 year ago
@ASKaPHYSICIST Look, I can understand that without a physico-chemical explanaiton of it, you have to conlcude placebo, error or bias in reports on the action of homeopathics. But the problem is, the placebo hypothesis doesn't make any sense either, there no proof for placebo, & the complaint of error & bias can be said of all reports. Routinely, what I have seen, is all criticism of it is based on a fallacy, like the notion that it can't be explained in orthodox chemical terms.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@ASKaPHYSICIST Google the article below,
Anagnostatos GS. Small water clusters (clathates) in the preparation process of Homeopathy. In: Endler PC, Schulte J, editors. Ultra High Dilution: Physiology and Physics. Dordrecht (Nederland): Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1994. 121-128.
Anagnostatos is a nuclear physicist. I suggest you follow the advice of your pseudonym. Contact Prof Rustum Roy at Penn State. Ask him. Physicists are taking a 2nd look through suprmolecular chemistry.
Bandershot 1 year ago
That plants can detect trace amounts of chemicals is irrelevant.
The paranormal claim of homeopathy is that dilution that statistically will not contain any molecules of the active substance will have an effect.
Showing the plant reacting to that big a dilution (repeatedly) should win the prize. Showing that a plant can detect minute traces of something isn't outside of common science and hence not paranormal.
jedfa987 1 year ago
@jedfa987 We now have an orthodox explanation using known chemical terms for the molecular structure of homeopathic remedies. They contain clathrates, a kind of aqueous polymer, or gas hydrate. Google it. Like most sketpards you'll want to argue with this, even though its been proven biochemically and biologically as well. Clathrates are described in supramolecular chemistry.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
Yeah right. Callling me a "skeptard" which I can only assume is shorthand for a "skeptic retard" is really going to motivate me.
Where did I insult you in my post to provoke such a thing?
And if you have an "orthodox explanation" then it isn't paranorma, right? And hence doesn't qualify for said prize. Though don't bother answering given your first words to me required you to insult me for no apparent reason I'm really not interested in anything you have to say.
jedfa987 1 year ago
@jedfa987 The entire argument against homeopathy is an insult, and you're repeating it.. The avg. skeptard simply shoots from the lip with his own prefabricated assumptions that are based on nothing more than the insults of other skeptards. WHen you are shown the science to back up a claim, you malign it without ever showing any of your own. All you have is your stupid opinion. No wonder the world is always writhing in pain, it's full of people like Randi and his followers, like you.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
Except I didn't argue against homeopathy. I argued that the fact that plants can detect minute traces of some chemical is not paranormal and hence irrelevant to that million dollar paranormal challenge.
And cathrates aren't an explanation anyway, you don't have enough atoms for even one atom to be present in the sample. But even if you think it does, then surely that makes is non-paranormal and hence irrelevant anyway?
jedfa987 1 year ago
@jedfa987 How do you know? Instead of asking questions, you keep arguing, so the discussion never gets off the ground. Its always about who's the dummy and abuse. Google this:
1994 Anagnostatos GS. Small water clusters (clathates) in the preparation process of Homeopathy. In: Endler PC, Schulte J, editors. Ultra High Dilution: Physiology and Physics. Dordrecht (Nederland): Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1994. 121-128.
Anagnostatos is a nuclear physicist. Who are you? Another skeptard!
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot
Gjust gives me a couple of articles that reference that article. So that doesn't help..
The discussion doesn't get of the ground not because I'm a skeptic, but because I don't care about the topic area very much. In either direction. If you have a mechanism then it's not paranormal anyway, is my only point.
And please show where I said anyone was a "dummy" and handed out any "abuse". I see plenty of that from you directed to me.
jedfa987 1 year ago
Thank you Bandershot for simple experimental proof that can not be argued with. That, (after all) is the purpose of a well designed experiment. We have to remember James Randi is magician and card trickster. He made his living like any entertainer in his field calculating the odds and believing only in his trained ability to deceive with trickery. His video footage portrays a smug man who really has not understood the seven principles of homeopathy (which he mistakenly calls the four facts).
SorbieSky 1 year ago
BUT, the concentrations talked about: 1 grain of the compound in 31 gallons of water is FAR more concentrated than many modern homeopathic remedies used--which would have concentrations closer to 1 grain of compound in a pool of water as big as the solar system!
That some biologic systems can detect very small numbers of molecules is no proof that homeopathy works. The best proof would be double blind clinical trials. When those are carefully done, no homeopathic response is shown.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 Of course that means you reserve the right to say what is "carefully done" even though you've never done one yourself.
Homeopathic vs Conventional Treatment of Vertigo A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Study Michael Weiser, MBC; Wolfgang Strösser, MD, MBC; Peter Klein, MS Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:879-885. (AMA journal) Google it. One of many "carefully done" tests for homeopathy. If you have a higher standard, show it to us.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot : I can only say--it isn't convincing people. A recent large metastudy, however, has demonstrated no effect from homeopathy therapy--how do you explain that?
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 What do you mean it isn't convincing people? According to the WHO, homeopathy is now the second most used medicine on the planet, while your brand of overpriced, toxic astroturfed crap has sunk to fourth place! LOL.
Scofield, Kleijnen, Linde etc., no true meta analysis has ever concluded homeopathy is placebo . . you're probably referring to Shang, which turned out to be another skeptard hoax, refused to even name the studies it reviewed!
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot : Oh please. Let's not pretend that people are using homeopathy because they've read research papers and decided it works! You're simply psychologically unable to confront the fact that MANY literate people are NOT resistant to seeing evidence for homeopathy working--but that evidence doesn't exist in substantial quantity/quality to convince thinking people. That's a very SIMPLE, HONEST, STRAIGHTFORWARD fact that you seem unable to process.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 Good point < people aren't using it based on science reports, they're using it based on their own experience of it. I don't know of any proponent of homeopathy who hasn't seen or felt it work on them. What you and all other detractors are using is a "rationalist" argument that requires derision of the evidence to work, i.e. you have to think that in order to believe it works, people have to "stop thinking." But evidence exists for hpathy empirically AND rationally.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot : Right, and those wanting to know what their day will be like use astrology based on their experience of it--as do those you use mediums, based on their experience of talking to their dead relatives. We know very well that people can have poor judgement "based on their experience," and that only objective trials are a useful way to make reliable determinations. Few are convinced of efficacy from the objective trials of homeopathy.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 If I made similar comparisons about compound medicines I'd be accused of a straw man argument. MD's don't use astrology in the practice of medicine, but they use homeopathy. There aren't astrology hospitals, but there are homeopathic ones. It's used more than what you're implying. So why should anyone believe your assertions when you don't cite anything? If you're not pseudoscientist, cite something to prove your opinion..
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot : I make no assertions other than I see no evidence for homeopathy working--and I'm not blind. It's my reasonable and rational opinion that if it worked there would be no problem in having ABUNDANT, double-blind evidence that it works.
You know very well that whether it may be "used more than what you're implying" doesn't prove anything about efficacy--since you yourself imply that at least some aspects of often-used modern medicine are ineffective.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 So you have no cites. You demand RCTs for verum, but can show none for placebo. What a hypocrite! You say you haven't seen evidence for it working. You haven't looked! You're trying to slip in the very thing what you deny me, my evidence, asif your lack of evidence invalidates mine? How do you reference the null hypothesis with empirical evidence when your basic opposition rests on what you insist is reason?
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Many people are convinced by islam, many people are convinced by christianity and many people are convinced by many other religions. But that doesnt mean they are right! People are like "I prayed for rain and it rained therefore my god is real!". Conincidences and warm fuzzy feelings are what seem to convince our pattern seeking fickle brains.
RentTheSpokeMan 1 year ago
@RentTheSpokeMan I might be more likely to agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that homeoapthy hasn't been entirely dismissed by the material sciences. There are now several indices for the action of the supramolecular materials used in homeopathy: Biochemical; biological (plants, microbes, animals) and phyical; (NMR, dielectric stress, Rmaan lasers). This is addtion to the huge concordant empriacal database acquired by physicians over 200 years.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 You're trying to measure these things in compound chemistry. This is complex chemistry, the active substances are hydrogen bonded gas hydrates, or host clathrates that imitate the guest moelcule. Plants react dramatically to these non-molecular chemical complexes. There are now books on it and there have been universtiy level studies. It's just too hard for most people like yourself to believe at first, until they've seen it work.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot : "You're trying to measure these things in...." No, I'm trying to evaluate your proposed experiment. In doing so, I determine that the concentrations you provide for the experiment are FAR different from the concentrations used in homeopathy. From that I conclude that your proposed experiment wouldn't tell me anything about homeopathy--contrary to your claim that it would. Ever heard the phrase "apples and oranges?"
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 Fist thing you should do is try to develop your opinions based on something more than reading your own comments and what you think can't work. What you'll just from just reading other comments, that much to rationalist chagrin what you imply has already been done. i.e. sundews have reacted to dilutes of ammonia carbonicum above Avogadro, and agrohomeopathy studies at the universtiy level have confirmed supramolecular action on other plants.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot : I don't particularly have many opinions--well, other than the obvious one that many people are clearly deluded about many things.
The first thing YOU should do is learn to discern the difference between the ability to conjure up a few hopeful RATIONALIZATIONS for something you want to be true vs actual EVIDENCE that a thing is true.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
really? one type of experiment on one type of plant and you claim homeopathy works.
ilduce565 1 year ago
@ilduce565 No, in fact, agrohomeopathy is becoming a field unto itself. I'm in daily contact now with the world's leading authority on it. There are now books and pub's studies on the subject, easy experiemnts you can rep yourself. You simply have taken a hostile attiude without first being aware of the proofs, which are biological (plants and animals), biochemical, physical and clinical.
Bandershot 1 year ago
if you subjected homeopathic sleep medicine to scientific testing, the conclusions would be quite one sided.
Richy15251 1 year ago
I'm not familiar with the sun dew experiment, however if it's true, it only testifies to how precisely our bodies can detect substances in minute quantities. However, homeopathic sleep medicine is an outrageously dilute solution of CAFFEINE to the point where, not only is there no active substance (in the case of the sun dew experiment, this would be true and the flower would not react), but caffeine would not serve to help anyone with sleep problems.
Richy15251 1 year ago
@Richy15251 WHy don't you go and study this a little more before you comment on it and make yourself look foolish to future generations, or even to yourself? Doesn'tthat make sense? It would certainly save you time.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot why don't you ask yourself why there is no scientific evidence for Homeopathy, or even why such debate around a 'scientific practice'. The Sun dew experiment had concentrations well within Avogadro's limit. According to homeopathy, the more dilute the solution, the more potent. Try the same experiment with dilutions of anywhere between 20c and 1500c. The sun dew experiment is not evidence for homeopathy.
Richy15251 1 year ago
@Richy15251 It has been tried with higher dilutes and worked. And you seem to think that this is the only test for homeopathy. There are dozens of tests for hoemoapthy. Its affects have been seen on plants, animals and biochemically. WHat you'r showing is prejudice. It makes it very diffiult for you to accept evidence to is contrary to it.
Bandershot 1 year ago
According to your description of the experiment with the sundew plant : Would not a stronger (more diluted) drop have a even stronger effect on the plant? If it does not isn't that a proof that the plant reacts to the chemical instead of the vibrations "remembered" by the water?!
If you are so sure you can prove this go and take the $1million challenge - Get some friends with you and the media and I bet James will agree to test you again!!
Slurfs 1 year ago
@Slurfs Homeopathy has been proven ad nauseam. Randi refuses my calls & there's no way he's going to put homeopathy to a real test. If he was interested in it he would have done it long ago, and not one by BBC TV producers, but by Belon or Roy, or Conte, Demangeat, Jonas, Ennis, etc. or he would have simply accepted their peer reviewed tests as proof and awarded his million. He's never tested anyone and never will.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot ok so if that's the case sue James Randi and get the million + some extra stuff. If there is enough solid evidence for the court you got nothing to loose at all. In fact you would do the humanity a great favor to prove this once and for all!
If you in fact can prove this and convince the court - best of luck and my deepest respect for doing so! If you can't prove it then I'm sorry but you are nothing but a liar (no offence).
Slurfs 1 year ago
@Slurfs Sue him for what? He's never contracted with me or anybody for anything, and his challenge says he has to agree on a "protocol." He never has, not with me, exept tosay that an RCT to idnetify verum against placebo would take the money. What attorney would take the case? There's no need for me to lie about this. Randi should confirm alltht I've said here. Why not call him yourself and ask him why he hasn't put my claim to the test?
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Well first of all you did not even bothered to answer my first question. The only answer to my question was that Homeopathy has been proven according to you. Now I may be a skeptic but that does not mean that I'm not open to the fact that there might be things not understood by science yet. Can you point out what specific points in this protocol he won't agree with you on? Is it claims that can't be scientifically or statistically verified?! JREF accepts statistically proofs as well.
Slurfs 1 year ago
@Slurfs Why is it do you think that all you "skeptics" end up being such hypocrites? Do you represent JREF or Randi? You write as if you do. But read the Challenge. You don't. So what makes you think you're such an authority on this subject that you can unequivocally state what somebody else (Randi) will accept? Randi hasn't agreed to anything with me except to say that ID of verum would win the prize. But that's not true.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot First of all. I may disagree with you but I am not necessary working against you just for the record. However I feel you are working against me since you still avoid answering my questions. By answering my questions not only I would be more convinced by your claims but a lot of others as well.
The most important question is that all water that exists must at some point in history been in contact with virtually all kind of materials - Why isn't ordinary tapwater just as good?!
Slurfs 1 year ago
@Slurfs I've already answered this question repeatedly. NEVER do I remember it making a difference with any of you jerks. You never say "thank you for your time," you just move on to another point to argue over. And if I'm so stupid, why is it that you're asking me to answer your questions for you? If you have a problem with this, why aren't you bugging the FDA? They regulate it, not me. I'll show you. Let's see how you respond when I do answer your question in the next commentary cont
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot First of all why are you insinuating that I have called you stupid? I have not done that. I would appreciate if you could please keep this discussion on a bit more adult and civilized level. I am having trouble understanding why homeopathy works and I am simply asking for you to educate me on this subject. So far I can't see that you have answered any of my questions but I will be looking forward to your answers. Please calm down Sir - I don't have anything personal against you (yet)
Slurfs 1 year ago
@Slurfs The question is, "all water that exists must at some point in history been in contact with virtually all kind of materials - Why isn't ordinary tapwater just as good?!" 1st, it hasn't proven to be. So empircally it's irrelevant. However, we do know that homeopathic remedies lose their punch when not fixed with non-polarized media or when exposed to UV, heat and cold, presumably because of disintegration of the clathrates that distinguish remedies from plain H2O.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Ok fine - Thanks for you answer. Can you please point me to some source that verify your claim? Thanks in advance.
Slurfs 1 year ago
@Slurfs
"The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy" Rustum Roy, W.A. Tiller, Iris Bell, M. R. Hoover Materials Research Innovations 9:4, 577-608, (2005)
1994 Ultra High Dilutions Physiology and Physics
P.C. Endler and J. Schulte : SMALL WATER CLUSTERS (CLATHRATES) IN THE
PREPARATION PROCESS OF HOMEOPATHY G.S. Anagnostatos.
(continued)
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Slurfs
1998 "High dilution effects on cells and integrated systems" P. Marotta: On the Structure of High Dilutions According to the Clathrate Model G.S. Anagnostatos
2008 July 26 Journal of Molecular Liquids: "NMR water proton relaxation in unheated and heated ultrahigh aqueous dilutions of histamine: Evidence for an air-dependent supramolecular organization of water"
Jean-Louis Demangeat
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Slurfs Demangeat: "Nanosized bubbles have been identified in liquid water which are stabilized by traces of ions and tend to associate in fractal
clusters, that scatter light. Removal of gases suppresses the small-angle
laser-light scattering by water. Radiofrequency(rf)-treatment has
been shown to induce formation of arrays of stable (hours) nanobubbles
in water and aqueous solutions" cont.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Slurfs Demangeat cont. "degassing of the treated water erases all
the effects, and rf-treatment has no effect on degassed water (see [31] for
review). The gas–water interface of the nanobubbles is hydrophobic, and
therefore the water molecules may form clathrate shells with an
“icelike” structure around the nanobubbles."
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Slurfs [N.F. Bunkin, F.W. Bunkin, Sov. Phys. JETP 74 (1992) 271–278.
N.F. Bunkin, A.V. Lobeyev, JETP Lett. 58 (1993) 94–100.
N.F. Bunkin, A.V. Lobeyev, O.I. Vinogradova, T.G. Movchan, A.I. Kuklin, JETP Lett. 62 (1995) 685–688.
O.I. Vinogradova, N.F. Bunkin, N.V. Churaev, O.A. Kiseleva, A.V. Lobeyev, B.W.
Ninham, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 173 (1995) 443–447.
cont.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Slurfs
N.F. Bunkin, A.V. Lobeyev, Phys. Lett., A 229 (1997) 327–333.
Y. Katsir, L. Miller, Y. Aharonov, E.B. Jacob, J. Electrochem. Soc. 154 (2007)
D249–D259.
M. Colic, D. Morse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 2465–2468.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Slurfs Hi and thanks. There will probably be some interesting reading here. But before I study this more I noticed that all these links are found on homeopathyeurope's site. Not sure if this is just because they collect that data or because they "own" it. If this can be verified from third parties and the documentation is not controversial e.g. the science can be proven in practice it should be quite interesting. Lots of luck - I need to read through those documents - see you later!
Slurfs 1 year ago
@Slurfs See what I mean? You just can't let it go, can you? I give you what you thought didn't exist, and instead of thanking me for my efforts of finding some very scattered research, you have to still express your suspicions of it, based on nothing more than that the mere LINKS to the repoduced studiesare to be found on on one webste. What a jerk you are. You're no different from the rest of the phony skeptics. YO9u'r enot here for the science, you're here to puff yourself up.
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot First of all I did thank you for your efforts and again I have to ask you to please keep this dialog on a more adult level. You are right in that I won't be easily convinced that homeopathy works but honestly what is wrong with that? The reason I am skeptical to the material provided is that it *seem* to have a common source of origin e.g. it *might* be biased and/or fake. However I DON'T KNOW this yet and I never gave an impression that I did. So please Sir be reasonable here!
Slurfs 1 year ago
@Slurfs You flaming ingrate. Have you stopped for a moment to ask yourself whats in this for Benneth except frustration? I can show you proof from a Nobel laureate and you'll impugn that, find another flaw or something wrong with it, just as you've done here, rather than simply appreciate the effort andmove on. Do you always crtiicize anything anyone ever does for you? So how about if I block you and save all of us any future pain?
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Slurfs Using NMR measures Conte says: "When preparations stored in transparent bottles are exposed to 10 minutes of sunlight, their relaxation times T2 are indentical to that observed for the diluent" p. 93, "Theory of High Dilutions and experimental aspects," Rolland R. Conte et al. Polytechnica, Paris 1996
They also measured the effects of heat, ultrasound, magneitc fields and gravitation on the remedy. p. 94-108
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Ivence Technically dilutions below 12c are sold as homeopathic . . Randi has never set this limit, to my knowledge. But other tests, phsyical, biolgical and biochemical by reputable scientists have. There have been extgensive studies of homeopathic on what with Ars. 45X, and others. How do you explain that?
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot The JREF million dollar challenge is set up to test the supernatural, which dilutions below 12c are not. They don't need to have criteria explaining how spoon benders aren't allowed to use magnets and mind readers aren't allowed to hire a private investigator as part of their demonstration, it's just kind of assumed. As for the 45x tests...link please?
Ivence 1 year ago
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. One dram of the darwinian solution would have about 12.9 trillion molecules of ammonium carbonate. How does a plant reacting to a fairly salty solution (by biological standards) have anything at all to do with proving or disproving homeopathy? I used 96g/mole for ammonium carbonate(NH4)2CO3, 15.43 grains/g,116.35 L/barrel, 3.7ml/dram. Thanks for your response.
racemate1960 1 year ago 2
@racemate1960 Darwin had enough experience and exposure to homeopathy to understand the level of dilution, or he certainly wouldn't have expressed so much amazement about it. 2ndly, gthe test has been conducted using dilutions above the molar limit.
Bandershot 1 year ago
I stumbled across this and I had to raise a quick point. A dilution of 6C is, in scientific nomenclature a dilution of 1 part in 10^12, or 1 in 1,000,000,000. Now this is a really trace amount, but it is well within molar limits (Avogadro limit is 1 in 10^23, which isn't crossed until you reach dilutions of 12C or higher).
Ivence 1 year ago
@Ivence Yeah, so what? What if you discovered that the molecular concentration doesn't have anything to do with it, that the answer is in supramolecular chemistry? Google gas hydrates, clathrates, then look at Anagnostatos' description of the process. Anagnostatos GS. "Small water clusters (clathrates) in the preparation process of homeopathy."
Bandershot 1 year ago
Hm. I´m sorry, but i can not agree that the fact that one particular chemical might affect one certain breed of plant is proof of homeopathy (hence HP) working in a medical way.
From my own experience i say that HP doesn´t work, having tried a few cures and gotten no result whatsoever. I have also witnessed several friends trying it and getting no result.
That being said, i have made no clinical studdies, so i might be wrong. So colour me an openminded skeptic.
BigSwede7403 1 year ago
@BigSwede7403 Okay, fair enough. You're at least not being abusive, which is what most critics of homeopathy do. Now let me you ask you a question: Would you walk into a pharmacy that had 3,000 different drugs in it and without any training pick what you thought would work for you? You say it didn't work, but there are other people who say it saved their lives, but none that I know of treated themselves.
Bandershot 1 year ago
If the only way you can get respect for homeopathy is by claiming reputable scientists use it, then why not listen to what reputable scientists today say about it. People like you slag science off, yet still hold it as a benchmark to use to vindicate your particular field of nonsense. This makes no sense. Science is good when used to back up your claims, but bad in every other respect? Either you're a master troll or a massive prick, both ways you fail.
Damn6Deal6Done6 1 year ago
@Damn6Deal6Done6 I find it to be a bigger problem to commuicate with people about this without them getting offensive based on their assumptions, which are wrong. It's sad. You say why not listen to what reputable scientists say about it, and I have, the most, such as Rustum Roy, WIlliam Tiller, Brian Josephson, Luc Montagnier, Gary Schwartz, Iris Bell, Rick Hoover, Rolland Conte, Witt Baumgartner et al . .Google their names and h omeopathy to see what I mean.
Bandershot 1 year ago
What reason did Randi give for not accepting the test of Homeopathic solution on these plants against the same water that hasn't been treated?
genco21 1 year ago
@genco21 He didn't and he won't
Bandershot 1 year ago
@Bandershot Yeah, that sounds like a solid story...
Bebopopotamus 1 year ago
@genco21 Themilliondollar question. WHy don't you ask him?
Bandershot 1 year ago
Poor Gordonzo! Here's another proof of h. coming from the wonderful world of plants (in this case chestnut trees).
Trees lining the boulevards of The Hague have been attacked by bleeding canker and leaf-moth larvae, destroying bark and leaves. "You can't spray any kind of toxic chemicals in these public areas, so homeopathics are perfect for the job. The use of a h. spray to combat bleeding canker infection and pest infestation has so far yielded positive results....the trial's been running
den151redbank 1 year ago
for two years and is showing very good results."
Everyone loves chestnut trees. No one wants to lose even one. Thank you, Dr. Hahnemann!
den151redbank 1 year ago
Sorry!!!? I dont really understand what your arguement is, who your arguement is with and what is your opinion?
Gordonzo17 1 year ago
this is rubbish.
all the plant experiment proves is that uve found a working dilutiion of the chemical. Try proving the 4 rules of homeopathy then i will start to listen to you
Gordonzo17 1 year ago
Don't you think its interesting, to say the least, or ironic, or perhaps more accurately put, hypocritical, that you would imply a higher standard for proof in your comment after opening it with a prejudicial condemnation? The problem is not that homeopathy doesn't work, the problem is your bigotry. To make the point, google: "Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells" Reports like this don't make people like you just look like fools, they make you look evil.
Bandershot 1 year ago
Ha ha. The fact that you swallowed a bloody thesaurus doesnt support your arguement here.
My point is.....and can you please answer this and this only.............
The plant experiment, that u use to argue many of the debates listed below, is nothing more than a suggestion that u have just found a working dilution is it not? Thats all i'm saying.
Gordonzo17 1 year ago
....cont from my last post
If you really wanted to prove one of the theories of homeopathy, then you shoud quantify the reaction of the plant some how, and expose the plant to different dilutions of the drug. If your theories are correct in your plant model, you should get a more dramatic response the more dilute your reagent is. That is all i'm saying.
Please do not avoid answering my question by picking problems with my english or saying i'm prejudiced.Just answer the question i asked.
Gordonzo17 1 year ago
There's nothing wrong with your English, my friend, it's your approach to the problem. There's more to this than you think there is, there are dozens of plant studies, just as there are dozens of biochmeical studies. Everything you're suggesting has already been done, many times. Do some research. Then you may want to remove yourcomments, lest they remain as testimony to your callousness of the misery of others and the progress made to help them, progress you ridicule.
Bandershot 1 year ago
Oh for the love of God (who I dont believe in by the way). Will you please answer the question!!!
Do you think Darwin did a bloody dose response expt or not!!!??? If not then hes just found a working concentration of the drug. This experiment thus has nothing to do with homeopathy.
Who are we to decide what concentration of a particular ligand is high or low!!??
Please answer the damn question before I scream. I am interested in this subject and would like an answer.
Gordonzo17 1 year ago
You're GOING to scream? What do you think you've been doing? If you're going to be a skeptic, then be a skeptic and shut up, quit being so judgmental about everyone but yourself. You seem to think you're this wonderfully intelligent, independent thinker, who never contradicts himself, abides only by logic and reason, and believes only what "science" can explain. But as any reasoning mind can see prima facie, by your own words, you can't even properly state the question. You're a hypocrite.
Bandershot 1 year ago
Sorry.
Look I cant follow this.
Stop attackin me and answer the following question. This is the same question i've been asking for a while:
Did Darwin explore the effects of changing the concentration of his ligand on the plant? Can we see the results?
Thats all I want to know. I am not being judgemental I just want to learn more about the subject. You really dont know anythiing about me. I havent attacked u. So please just answer the question.
Gordonzo17 1 year ago
and i'm sure i properly stated the question in my last post didnt I!!!???
I'll do a quote:
'Do you think Darwin did a bloody dose response expt or not!!!???'
Did u not understand that? I can speak a number of different languages if you want me to translate.
Kind regards
DR Gordonzo
Gordonzo17 1 year ago
Gordonzo- I'm surry, but we're going to have to discontinue this "discussion." I'm more interesting in helping people than I am in arguing with them, or being the target of their insults. SO if you want some help with your mental illness, I suggest you find another homeopath.
Bandershot 1 year ago
I'm sorry I dont understand. I have just asked one simple question. Reading back, I cant really find any examples of me insulting you. Ok first 'rubbish' comment was below the line. And I shuddnt have said the thing about me speaking several languages. I apologise for both of these.
My problem is u cant post a video like this and not xpect to discuss the subject . You are, after all, an ambassador to your science now are you not? Just show me a dose response curve. Thats all I want to see.
Gordonzo17 1 year ago
Look at what you're saying. First you say you don't understand, then you indicate that you do; you say you can't find examples of you insluting me, and then you provide yourself with some. Insutlting me is all you're trying to do. And then you say all you want is "a dose response curve." No you don't. You want to go on arguing about this forever at my expense, impressing yourself you're somebody important. The web is full of info about homeopathy. Use it, study it. Learn something.
Bandershot 1 year ago
The first dose response study I can thinnk of it the work at the University of Bolgna on wheat seedlings. Some doses stunted growth, others stimulated. Google it. ABsgtracts are on PUBMED. If you have trouble finding it, let me know and I'll dig up the title of the study.
Bandershot 1 year ago
"....working dilution of the chemical...." Yes, the homeopathy spray is a working dilution that has been serially diluted and succussed.
The chestnut trees prove homeopathy works, and, of course, according to homeopathic principles. After all, the spray IS homeopathic.
den151redbank 1 year ago
This is all quite fascinating. But...according to an online critique, Darwin's observed Sundew effect still didn't involve genuine, high-potency, (non-existent) homeopathic levels of amonia salts in his "high-dilution" water solutions. Randi would probably have no problem admitting that even the tiniest , trace presence of the substance could cause an effect in some biological systems. It's only when there is no theoretical particles left in a solution that skepticism feels justified.
ladster3 1 year ago
ladster3-You're wrong about the level of diution. One grain of ammonia salt was added to 30 gals H2O and then only 1/2 dram of THAT was POURED OVER A LEAF! Do the math! Half a teaspoon of water from 30 gals. treated with a grain of am.salt is an infinitessimally small amount of ammonia, 1/20,000,000: by my calcs equal to an HPUS 7X or 8X . . LESS than what is used in in many FDA reg'd h'pathic products!
Bandershot 1 year ago
And ladster3, what about other botanical tests that now show the action of homeopathics on other plants? You're wasting your time while in denial of the literature. Not only does a scan of the lit. reveal 44 pub'd botanical trials that show hpathic action, but there are now 6 different types of replicated biochemical tests in over 60 pub's, such as the Belon multicentered trials. Try to first learn something about the subject before you start lecturing others on it.
Bandershot 1 year ago
Hearsay.
This isn't about determining Homeopathic solutions from water, this is about determining the medicinal effectiveness of homeopathic solutions on actual human symptoms compared to current medical trends.
The challenge is to prove that homeopathic 'medicine' is equally as effective as current medicine for the same ailment.
saintjinn 1 year ago
So I guess you have the million dollars from Randi now ? or........
Darwin's experiement did not use homeopathic dilutions. Oh yes, and he obviously proved at the same time time that succussion is absolutely unnecessary.
skulptor 1 year ago
This would only be a test if the experimenter makes the dilutions himself and uses a double blind technique. Testing a drop of water against a drop of a liquid from a bottle bought from a chemist is not a test at all! Neither is it a test of homoeopathy rather than the sensitivity of sundews. To test homoeopathy would require testing distilled water against distilled water "containing" a really high dilution such that there are no molecules of the poison in the water at all.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
A nastic test of a 10-23 homeopathic from a chemist is a valid test of that product, just as is a 10-23 of your own making. If homeopathic solutions are "placebos" as critics have claimed, then it would be impossible for a 10-23 solution to trigger any nastic action. So how is it that it reportedly does? The current theory is that the homeopathic molecule is a clathrate, a supramolecular hydrate, like ice, formed out of hydrogen bonded water molecules. Google these terms for more info
Bandershot 2 years ago
@MartinJWillett And how would you construct a _double_ blind test with a plant?
You could take 100 plants (fresh) give 50 of them placebo and 50 of them the remedy. Then if the test person dispensing either placebo or the remedy chosen at random and he/she doesn't know what is what, that would be a single blind wouldn't it?
olavius2 2 years ago
Willett thinks that if he does the test himself he might try to cheat and fool himself by mixing up a more concentrated batch of ammonia and then swtiching it for the homepoathic solution while he's sleep walking. Or maybe he thinks the picture of Randi in the thumbna