by Paul wrote:Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:Homeopathy uses some dilutions which are serially-agitated ultramolecular and some which are not. Homeopath Physicians use potencies below as well as above 12c
For example Antimony 6X for pro-coagulatory effect in bleeding disorder
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19295225 (2009)
But homoeopaths make the same claim for both solutions that defy Avogardo's constant and those that don't, that they work by some 'magic' that comes from succussion.
Some solutions defy Avogadro's constant, and in the absence of any coherent explanation of HOW they could work in the human body, then the placebo effect is the best explanation we have for any perceived efficacy. You have listed, in a previous post, about half a dozen possible ways that the solution might "remember" the active ingredient, but as yet, no-one has provided any form of conclusive or reliable evidence that any of these ideas are any more than speculative straw-grasping.
Those solutions that don't quite defy Avogadro are just as useless, the chances of even one molecule of the active ingredient reaching a pill are just too small, so again, the only plausible explanation we have is placebo.
Those solutions that have potencies of 6C or lower, may have just enough trace material left in the pills for the human body to detect something and so can work in just the same way as minute doses of real medicines, so have nothing to do with the ridiculous claims of homoeopathy regarding succussion.
And so what if Darwin actually had taken homoeopathy seriously? Would that somehow change the laws of physics and chemistry? Or does it indicate that Darwin, or any other 19th century scientist, could have been wrong or fooled about something?
Much of what we know now, was not known then. Avogadro's constant wasn't accurately defined until the early 20th century. Until then it was possible that many eminent scientists could have been fooled by homoeopathy (but many weren't from the very start). Once 6.022)×1023 was derived, the claims of ultra high dilutions having some healing property were then clearly nothing more than bunk, and homoeopathy has been on the back foot ever since, its supporters desperately scrabbling around, looking for an explanation that they won't find, rather than just admit that they are wrong.
Regarding the Osler quote, which you forgot that you had already admitted was wrong, it was me that contacted the Osler club. I didn't bother posting anything back here as you had disappeared, and I was already satisfied for myself that Osler was in no way a supporter of homoeopathy, and that Ullman is a duplicitous quote miner who's scribblings can't be trusted by any critical thinker.
However, I'll post the following from an email that I received from one of the club's members. I'll leave it unattributed (as I haven't sought permission to publish anything) and I don't care if you believe it is genuine or not, but it might be of interest to some of the real scientists here.WO comments on the study of homoeopathy in a general way in License to Practice (Journal of the American Medical Association May 11,1889 but this does not yield his opinion. However in Teaching and Thinking (McGill Medical School, October 1, 1894) in the second section dealing with his long-standing aversion to over-prescribing and multiple medication use he states:
"And now that the pharmacists have cloaked even the most nauseous remedies, the temptation is to use medicine on every occasion, and I fear we may return to that state of polypharmacy, the emancipation from which has been the sole gift of Hahnemann and his followers to the race".
WO also discussed Hahnemann and homeopathy in Medicine in the Nineteenth Century (Johns Hopkins Historical Club, January ,1901 and also published apparently in the New York Sun) again without comment on his opinion of efficacy.
My general feeling is that Osler saw no value in homeopathy save as an improvement on polypharmacy! WO himself (and many of his admirers, past and present) held Oliver Wendell Holmes in high esteem.
You may care to read OWH's Medical Essays (Riverside, Cambridge and printed by H O Houghton and Company 1861, 1862 and 1883) in which the first delightful essay is based on two lectures given by him to the Boston Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge and is entitled "Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions".
Best wishes
Homeopathic medicines which are diluted beyond avogadro i.e. 12C/24X and beyond still contains measurable amounts of the starting material
Dr. Prashant S Chikramane from Indian Institiute of Technology-Bombay showed
Homeopathic dilutions beyond 12C retains fine nano-particles of original starting substance
http://bit.ly/edUwqd
All homeopathic medicines below as well as above 12C/24X are prepared in the same way i.e. potentisation.
Dana Ulman says, "homeopathy and energy medicines would not lead to the "throwing out" of conventional physics and chemisty but EXTENDS our knowledge of them. Just as quantum physics does not disprove Newtonian physics but extends its predictive abilities when evaluating extremely large AND extremely small systems, homeopathy extends our knowledge of and respect for extremely small phenomena."
Dr. Samuel Hahnemann was himself an M.D. in conventional medicine. Most of the research done in early part of homeopathy were done by conventional physicians. They were the converts. One eminent Scientist and physicians who supported homeopathy in the early part of growth of homeopathy was Charles Frederick Menninger, M.D.
Effect of Serial-agitated high dilutions of homeopathic medicines
http://www.nonlinearbiomedphys.com/content/3/1/10 (2009) //bi-phase action, in vitro & in vivo
http://lkm.fri.uni-lj.si/xaigor/slo/zna ... mental.htm (1999) //kali Iodidie
Regarding e-mail from Osler society which you claim, is the 'general feeling' of e-mail sender. It no way substantiate that osler was not in favour of homeopathy medicine. Until you come up with credible proof, it is not accepted.
