Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2009 17:53:13 +0100, Martin
wrote:

Only if water retains its purported homeopathic qualities after
passing through both its non-liquid states *and* also retains those
qualities in the presence of contaminents. I have no idea what
homeopaths have to say on that subject, but I suspect that they would
say that the act of passing through a gasseous state and condensing
back to distilled water destroys all homeopathic properties it may
have had, and that homeopathic qualities are destroyed if the water is
contaminated by substances other than extremely low amounts of the
homeopathic material.

It's not just low amounts, it's zero amounts. The quantity is well below
the Avogadro limit.

The homeopathic substance has not disappeared, so its molecules must
be distributed throughout at least *some* of the bottles filled from a
batch.

But *if* there is any merit at all in homeopathy - and I'm extremely
scepticle that there is - then it is probably due to some unknown and
as yet undetectable subatomic change that occurs within the water
molecules themselves as a result of their exposure to the substance
rather than the physical presence of the substance itself, so the fact
that none of the substance whatsoever is present in a particular
sample does not prove that the claim must be false.

Just as there is a change to the subatomic structure of a luminous
material that has been exposed to light in the recent past that makes
it different to the exact same material that has not had such
exposure, or a hard disk drive that contains data is different to a
hard disk drive that does not contain data in a way that cannot be
discovered by any change to its chemical makeup. In those cases the
subatomic changes create effects that are easily measurable by other
means - but a person relying only on a chemical analysis would
conclude that no change has taken place, just as a bottle of
homeopathic water appears to be no different in chemical composition
to a bottle of distilled water.

As for the reasoning that such a tiny amount of a substance could not
possibly make any significant changes - consider how less than a
1/1000th second exposure to quite dim light will make changes to a
photographic film that are undetectable until it is made to undergo
specific chemical reactions.


You don't think they keep all these quintillion little bottles do you?

Think what a 30C dilution actually means. Start with a 1 mole solution.
One drop of ingredient in 100 drops of water 10^-2 molear strength. Take
one drop from that and dilute with 100 drops of water 10^-4 molar
strength. Repeat and you're down to 10^-60 molar strength.

Avogadro's number is 10^23.

No, there is no original content left when you get down to these levels
of dilution. 10^23*10^-60

Citizen Jimserac wrote:

Which is why we have peer reviewed science and journals and a
community of experts.

So why don't homeopaths ****ing publish in them then? Idiot!


Shut up or put up.

Citizen Jimserac

On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:17:48 +0100, Martin
wrote:

You don't think they keep all these quintillion little bottles do you?

Think what a 30C dilution actually means. Start with a 1 mole solution.
One drop of ingredient in 100 drops of water 10^-2 molear strength. Take
one drop from that and dilute with 100 drops of water 10^-4 molar
strength. Repeat and you're down to 10^-60 molar strength.

Avogadro's number is 10^23.

No, there is no original content left when you get down to these levels
of dilution. 10^23*10^-60

You have failed to understand what I said. I stated that there does
not necessarily *need* to be even a single molecule of the substance
in the water in order for the water to be changed at the subatomic
level in a way that is as yet unknown. I gave examples of such
subatomic changes in other substances.

I am *not* saying that that is what happens, I am just saying that the
fact that no molecules of the active substance exists in the sample is
not conclusive proof that it cannot have had any effect on the water.

--
Cynic

Strange that so many advocate SOYA,to which Monsanto holds the PATENT
rights.
SOYA after cotton seed cake is the number two GM crop.
Notice the use of the term:number two:.
Yes it is shit:-))

On May 22, 2:17*pm, "graham" wrote:
"Judith in France" wrote in ...
On May 21, 5:02 pm, Judith in France
wrote:



On May 21, 2:46 pm, "graham" wrote:

"Judith in France" wrote in
...
On May 21, 10:44 am, Martin wrote:

On Thu, 21 May 2009 02:18:42 -0700 (PDT), Judith in France

wrote:
On May 20, 10:01 pm, Martin wrote:
Delta wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:41:55 +0100, Martin wrote:

David wrote:

[1]http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound,
Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.

[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the
decrease
of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation.

On May 21, 5:01*pm, moghouse wrote:
On May 21, 1:45*pm, Judith in France
wrote:



On May 21, 10:44*am, Martin wrote:

On Thu, 21 May 2009 02:18:42 -0700 (PDT), Judith in France

wrote:
On May 20, 10:01*pm, Martin wrote:
Delta wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:41:55 +0100, Martin wrote:

David wrote:

[1]http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.

[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation.
Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.

[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament,
Brussels, June 12, 2007
None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded trials.
Don't ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?

shit... are rats that clever now you need to do double blind research on
them....?

No, it's to stop bias in the researcher. It's the same with homeopathy
studies, when the researchers 'know' what the results should be, then
they see the results they expect. If they are blinded then the so-called
science is shown up for what it is, a total scam.

What kind of scientist 'publishes' findings through the press and the EU
parliament? If the science can't stand up to peer review it isn't science.

Spot on Martin; there is a procedure to go through to have a
scientific paper published to show and prove your results. *It goes to
2 independent scientists, anywhere in the World *who work in the same
field for their opinion; this is the start of the procedure. *In the
paper all their methods have to be described and prove how they work;
if something new is shown that seems unlikely, the scientist who has
been asked to referee the paper will carry out exactly the same
experiments as described by the writer to determine results.

According to an article in the Guardian, a well known Dutch publisher of
scientific papers has accepted money to publish what looks like a peer reviewed
scientific paper for the pharmaceutical industry.
--

Martin

My husband was offered many lucrative deals by the Pharmaceutical
Industry; he simply was not interested *Furthermore a peer review on
it's own won't stand, hence 2 referees are required and in some cases
a third.

Rather like a football match between Man. United and Chelsea.

LOL

Judith