homeopathy

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think it may be an edited reprint that they scanned, rather than the original 1849 edition. There might be a foreword or something that was written later and is still under copyright.

[StringJunky]

After following Cap'n Refsmmat's links and reading the quote below....

 

In Hahnemann's words:

 

The thirtieth (dilution) thus progressively prepared would give a fraction almost impossible to be expressed in numbers. It becomes uncommonly evident that the material part by means of such dynamization (development of its true, inner medicinal essence) will ultimately dissolve into its individual spirit-like, (conceptual) essence. In its crude state therefore, it may be considered to consist really only of this underdeveloped conceptual essence.

I went to investigate the original quote in Google Books....

 

http://books.google.com/books?btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=consist+really+only+of+this+underdeveloped+conceptual+essence

 

then got the following...

 

Sorry, this page's content is restricted

Limited preview

 

Inside you see "Copyrighted material" and a few blocks of pages missing.

 

Wtf? Anything older than a hundred years is public domain and I never saw Google Books do that with any other public domain books -- especially older than the 1900s.

 

This is the full version i think:

 

http://celticboar.com/texts/organon.pdf

[Baby Astronaut]

I think it may be an edited reprint that they scanned, rather than the original 1849 edition. There might be a foreword or something that was written later and is still under copyright.

Nice catch.

 

The 1895 edition has fewer pages (178 total) and the 1901 edition has more pages (304 total), compared to the original 239 pages, but neither edition has anything from the phrase quoted on Creighton University's website in what's supposed to be Hahnemann's own words. There's a search bar on the left of each Google book (to search within it).

 

The university's text...

 

In Hahnemann's words:

 

The thirtieth (dilution) thus progressively prepared would give a fraction almost impossible to be expressed in numbers. It becomes uncommonly evident that the material part by means of such dynamization (development of its true, inner medicinal essence) will ultimately dissolve into its individual spirit-like, (conceptual) essence. In its crude state therefore, it may be considered to consist really only of this underdeveloped conceptual essence.

 

(Organon § 270, 6th ed.)

I suspect the 1895 book might be the sixth edition, as inside the book says "Translated from the fith edition" and goes on to speak about editions 1-5 below that.

 

And if so, it's the book as referenced at the university's website.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This is the full version i think:

 

http://celticboar.com/texts/organon.pdf

Ok, strangely it's there

 

Wow, an old alternative/complimentary medicine book that, humorously, references old medical concepts such as "vital force" -- that was mainstream in the author's time

Edited February 2, 2010 by Baby Astronaut
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

[/url]

Wow, an old alternative/complimentary medicine book that, humorously, references old medical concepts such as "vital force

" -- that was mainstream in the author's time

Not too surprising considering that in the late 1800s we didn't yet have the technology to recognize between real science and things that don't work.

 

Homeopathy was considered a medical concept, along with other concepts we consider totally bogus today, now that we have the tools to measure them better.

[John Cuthber]

Homeopathy is total nonsense; then again, so were many "therapies" at that time.

Since it was a lot less dangerous than, for example, blood letting or purging, Hahnemann's patients were probably better off than most.

 

Now we know better and we should dump homeopathy along with the other bogus treatments.

(I await a meta analysis that shows that homeopathy only works for Scorpios)

[Baby Astronaut]

What's interesting to me is not homeopathy or any modern equivalent type of alternative or compliment to mainstream, rather it's the similar underlaying philosophy of treating the cause of symptoms rather than just one individual symptom.

 

I don't care so much if homeopathy or whatever is totally bunk, it's just interesting how the other bunk medicinal practices from the < 1800s evolved beyond their quacky and naive origins, yet their competition became refined, established, and funded.

 

Why interesting?

 

Skimming through the homeopathy book, it was surreal to view all the quackery of pre-1900s medical disciplines through the filter of 21st century hindsight. Yet I also found very interesting that homeopathy's philosophical competition would eventually become the most profitable if advanced: treat the symptoms, and if the cause remains, profits for life.

 

Headache? Take a pill. Overweight? Drink this. Mental problems? Adds to the stock in your bathroom cabinet. Etc.

 

Still, prevention and total curing has gotten its due attention/research in critical areas (heart-unhealthy lifestyles, pathogens). Yet it's taken a back seat in many other areas.

 

It "sickens" me a tad when viewing the full bathroom cabinet of many people. I fully support/recommend taking medication in emergency situations or for critical and potentially damaging effects, as it's a smart way to look out for your health. Modern technology is often awesome, but it's profitable too -- and not all the technology is awesome. Some of it's just a quick profit fix that supports a dirty habit by profiteers.

 

Other times it's unnecessary, merely a convenience. For example, I take novocain for a dental work and tooth extraction, but refuse the pain meds. And I do it for the principle of it. Also I've gone nearly 15 years without even a sniffle. No headaches, coughs, vomiting, nothing. When before that I didn't go a few months without runny noses, body shivers, lots of phlegm, etc. I've learned to take care of myself better.

 

All I'm really saying is that not enough research (priority) is given to how a person can nudge their body defenses into an optimal state to better help prevent disease, and to more quickly adapt once you do fall victim. But I'm sure plenty of research will go into biogenetic tinkering to do the same, except artificially on a continual and profitable timetable.

 

Symptoms medicine, and the pathogen killers, and the last resort of direct surgery, were all given the money for research/advancement that the "whole body" and "root/habitual causes" philosophies from the 1800s weren't. Before that, homeopathy and other "medicines" from that day were on a level playing field: all such disciplines were utterly, totally, astoundingly non-scientific. Yet each had different underlying philosophies in their approach. However, one's potential for generating long-term profits likely got it the funding to develop into a mature, scientifically-respected field. I wonder if the other could've developed likewise given the same chance.

 

Imagine a different reality, where another scientifically-based method of treating illness had developed -- to us it'd be a modern landscape that's unrecognizable -- and its scientists were refusing to consider looking into the equivalent of our medical know-how, because what had survived until then was only the bogus precursors to our current know-how.

 

And it's not wrong for those scientists to beware claims without evidence, that such an equivalent to our medical know-how might yield benefits if explored. But much is lost if the scientists close their minds at least to the possibility, simply because its roots are mostly filled with quackery -- no different than the roots from which current, scientifically based medical knowledge emerged.

[mooeypoo]

What's interesting to me is not homeopathy or any modern equivalent type of alternative or compliment to mainstream, rather it's the similar underlaying philosophy of treating the cause of symptoms rather than just one individual symptom.

I think you should separate good doctors and bad doctors in today's medicine. The purpose of medicine today is to deal with the cause and not the symptoms. The reality is that many doctors (specially in a hospital) don't have the time to delve into the problem and give out medicines that treat symptoms.

 

That's not the *purpose* of mainstream medicine today, though.

 

I don't care so much if homeopathy or whatever is totally bunk, it's just interesting how the other bunk medicinal practices from the < 1800s evolved beyond their quacky and naive origins, yet their competition became refined, established, and funded.

 

But isn't that the way most of science works? Before astronomy, space observation involved astrology -- until astrology was shown to be totally irrelevant and unhelpful, at which point astronomy split off into a mainstream practice while astrology remained an unsupported pseudoscience.

 

That's the point.. science is about improvement.

 

Why interesting?

 

Skimming through the homeopathy book, it was surreal to view all the quackery of pre-1900s medical disciplines through the filter of 21st century hindsight. Yet I also found very interesting that homeopathy's philosophical competition would eventually become the most profitable if advanced: treat the symptoms, and if the cause remains, profits for life.

Yeah, a lot of pseudoscience relies on that to make money.

 

Sadly, a lot of modern medicine *BUSINESS* relies on that, too. That's not to say real medicine is only about that (it's absolutely not), but the businesses that are behind the medicines tend to be, which makes our job that much harder when advocating for the benefits of modern medicine.

 

Still, prevention and total curing has gotten its due attention/research in critical areas (heart-unhealthy lifestyles, pathogens). Yet it's taken a back seat in many other areas.

I think it took more of a back seat in the media and in people's minds and less so in actual science research.

 

It "sickens" me a tad when viewing the full bathroom cabinet of many people. I fully support/recommend taking medication in emergency situations or for critical and potentially damaging effects, as it's a smart way to look out for your health. Modern technology is often awesome, but it's profitable too -- and not all the technology is awesome. Some of it's just a quick profit fix that supports a dirty habit by profiteers.

I completely agree, but I don't think it's totally because of modern medicine or technology. It's more about the capitalist nature of modern companies. This exists in other countries, but in a lesser degree, at least I can talk of my own origin (Israel, which tends to follow more of a European approach). It's a mix of many things (consumer protection, government oversight, good medical coverage, education, etc etc) but you don't see as much a "rush for drugs" in Israel as you do in America. Also, it's by far not even CLOSE to being as expensive to go to a doctor in Israel as it is in America. That might be partially the cause.

 

My point, though, is that there are many more reasons than 'just' modern technology for our current predicament with the 'rush' for drugs. Pseudoscientists take advantage of it by making the consumer feel like he is the only one they are treating, or giving him a treatment that is supposedly "perfectly adapted" to his body (even when that isn't true). Most of the time it's more about psychology than it is about any sort of technological advancements.

 

And the drugs companies want a share of the profits, and when they oversight is limited, they reign with whatever method they see fit to lure you to use their drugs.

 

~moo

[Baby Astronaut]

I think you should separate good doctors and bad doctors in today's medicine.

Yeah, of course. Spot on.

 

But isn't that the way most of science works? Before astronomy, space observation involved astrology -- until astrology was shown to be totally irrelevant and unhelpful, at which point astronomy split off into a mainstream practice while astrology remained an unsupported pseudoscience.

Yeah, a lot of pseudoscience relies on that to make money.

Pseudoscientists take advantage of it by making the consumer feel like he is the only one they are treating, or giving him a treatment that is supposedly "perfectly adapted" to his body (even when that isn't true).

Understand I'm not suggesting further investigation or testing of homeopathy or such. Rather, my point is to explore further study and research into the disciplines of prevention and optimizing the body's defenses: eating habits, short and long term benefits of exercise, reinforcing or helping protect specific areas of your body systems with commonly available foods/plants, etc.

 

Imagine a lot of today's preventative disciplines stuck at the level where it's still tainted by poor "alternative" origins, just like today's medical advances had its origins in blood-letting and whatnot. I think a lot of scientists allow their judgment to be clouded for the potential development and effectiveness of the preventive disciplines.

 

Much like ArjanD was judging the entire field of psychiatry based off the "dark ages" (1935 ) pseudoscience of lobotomy -- and other more recent practices.

 

note: Cap'n Refsmmat, do you have (university's) access to studies related to effects on the liver by Silymarin (Milk Thistle) or Dandelion Root, effects on the heart by garlic, the supposed optimal balance of amino acids for protein in the quinoa grain (pg 7), and the effects by flavonoids in vegetable and fruits on cancer prevention?

 

I'd really like to see the data and results from official/trustworthy studies.

 

This exists in other countries, but in a lesser degree, at least I can talk of my own origin (Israel, which tends to follow more of a European approach). It's a mix of many things (consumer protection, government oversight, good medical coverage, education, etc etc) but you don't see as much a "rush for drugs" in Israel as you do in America. Also, it's by far not even CLOSE to being as expensive to go to a doctor in Israel as it is in America.

How very interesting

Edited February 3, 2010 by Baby Astronaut

[UnderwoodDudleywood]

Can anyone tell me if the premise of this article makes sense? I do not have a chemistry background and am not scientifically educated enough to know. I'm not asking about the validity of homeopathy in general, just whether this idea of ions remaining after dilution makes sense as a possible mechanism of action if homeopathy were presumed to work, as a given.

 

https://johnbenneth.wordpress.com/2016/01/15/chemistry-of-homeopathy-and-the-fda/

 

Thank you to anyone who takes the time to help me interpret this.

[John Cuthber]

"The solute in a homeopathic drug is not molecular because it’s been ionized"

Plenty of ions are molecules

"and there are tests that prove it.

But, as I said, it isn't relevant.

"All of the extreme controversy over whether or not the homeopathic remedy is placebo or verum, whether or not these materials are medically effective, and all of these phony money offers to “prove homeopathy”, conveniently avoid this simple, demonstrable fact"

Because it's irrelevant.

"a fact that separates homeopathy from fiction: the solute in highly diluted solutions used as homeopathic drugs is ionized"

Many (or most) drugs are ionised.

"and can be physically detected by conventional chemical analysis."
No.

It can't be detected in these "preparations" because it's simply not threer. They started off with not much,and then by repeated dilution, they threw it away.

 

"Students and professors of electrochemistry should be well aware of this elementary principle of molecular dissociation, that as the solute presumably decreases and thins out, its molar conductivity increases to an asymptote and evidence of the solute persists in the solvent despite an apparent infinite number of dilutions."
My word! something that's actually true- but irrelevant.

 

"Why or how the solute persists in infinite dilution is not clear,"

Oh yes it is; the maths was worked out about a hundred years ago.

"ut strange as it may seem to the zenophobic, it does so, no matter how dilute it is in serial dilutions."

No, once you throw it away,it's just not there to have a defined degree of ionisation.

It's like saying that if you have ten oranges and one of them is peeled you can say that 10% are peeled.

Butiif you have no oranges, what is the ratio of peeled to unpeeled ones?

 

Sorry, but at this point I'm bored

There is practically nothing in that article that is meaningful or correct.

It is all utter bollocks.

[UnderwoodDudleywood]

Thank you John!

 

So are you saying that when the dilutions get to the point beyond Avogadro, the lack of molecules also means that there will no longer be any associated measurable electrically charged ions? (Other than what you would normally find in water I mean.)

 

Please don't underestimate my scientific ignorance!

[John Cuthber]

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if you count pollen grains, sugar molecules, ions or whatever..

Once you have diluted stuff down to the point where you have (statistically) one 1 in a million chance that there's even 1 left, it doesn't matter if it was an ion or not.

 

It's just water; exactly the same as it came out of the tap..

It's not" science" really. It's common sense.

The only thing science ads is saying that you can't have half a molecule (or, half an ion).

[EdEarl]

I saw this article on the BBC website

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8489019.stm

 

I've personally never tried homeopathic remidies before....I was wondering if anyone hear has actually used them and what they think.

Two homeopathic remedies that work well are peppermint oil (a great decongestant), and oil of clove (a good analgesic for tooth ache). Some others exist, for example heroin. A predecessor of aspirin is powdered willow bark and leaves, and I believe some other modern medicines have their roots in homeopathy. A recent study found ground cumin helped people loose weight; perhaps another study will confirm that result. However, sometimes subsequent studies do not confirm. One must be careful, because unscrupulous venders abound.

[Strange]

Two homeopathic remedies that work well are peppermint oil (a great decongestant), and oil of clove (a good analgesic for tooth ache). Some others exist, for example heroin. A predecessor of aspirin is powdered willow bark and leaves, and I believe some other modern medicines have their roots in homeopathy. A recent study found ground cumin helped people loose weight; perhaps another study will confirm that result. However, sometimes subsequent studies do not confirm. One must be careful, because unscrupulous venders abound.

 

Are you confusing herbal with homeopathic?

[UnderwoodDudleywood]

Thanks again John. I'm sorry to be such a dunce, but this whole business of "infinite dilution" then, is irrelevant as an explanation for potential mechanism of homeopathic action? (Again, if we presuppose that it does have an "action", as a hypothetical scenario.)

 

So it seems to me that what the article is saying is that these ions become separated from the molecules during the early dilution stages, and then with subsequent dilutions the molecules become so rare as to eventually be considered absent, but the separated ions persist regardless of number of dilutions. Am I misunderstanding what he wrote, or am I understanding him correctly but his science is wrong, or am I understanding correctly and his science is correct but it still ends up being meaningless in the context of homeopathy?

 

I'm not trying to be sneaky or play devil's advocate or anything. I really appreciate your responses.

 

Thank you also EdEarl, but we are talking about something quite different than normal herbalism.

Edited January 26, 2016 by UnderwoodDudleywood

[Strange]

So it seems to me that what the article is saying is that these ions become separated from the molecules during the early dilution stages, and then with subsequent dilutions the molecules become so rare as to eventually be considered absent, but the separated ions persist regardless of number of dilutions.

 

The thing is that an ion is simply an atom or molecule that has lost (or gained) one or more electrons. They are not separate from the molecules. So as the number of molecules decrease so does the number of ions.

 

The mention of molar conductivity is just a mathematical trick; this value is inversely proportional to the number of ions. So, as the number of ions decreases to zero the molar conductivity becomes infinitely large.

[EdEarl]

 

Are you confusing herbal with homeopathic?

Yes, I have been.

[UnderwoodDudleywood]

Ok, thank you Strange, I think I get it now, that was a very clear explanation!

 

Thank you again everyone who helped me out by having a look at that article!