Re: Immunology And Homeopathy. 4. Clinical Studies?Part 2



Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:93f8f494-2efe-4828-860c-fbcb8e7b6186@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 18, 8:52 am, schu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Schultz) wrote:
In article <14e8683a-5dbd-4f8c-aa51-695d5e00b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

: The presumption that we know all there is to know about
: ANYTHING is arrogant and foolish. The classical physicists of the
: 19th century held this view shortly before Einstein disabused them of
: their foolish complacency, quite similar to yours.

It's interesting how the people who make the most noise about "critical
thinking" are the ones who are most prone to committing logical fallacies.
Just because our certainty that any given belief is a fact is less than
100%, that does not automatically mean that the certainty is 0%. The
process of science is generally understood to be one that gives us an
increasingly good understanding of universal truths. This is in contrast
to your anti-scientific philosophy that holds that all beliefs about the
universe are equally likely to be true.

There are some things that are not well-understood, and there are some things
that are sufficiently well-understood that they might as well be treated
as facts. Your statement that classical physicists of the 19th century held
the view that they knew everything about dynamics is at best oversimplified.
Newtonian dynamics succeeded in explaining many things -- but there were
things that were known well before Einstein showed up to be problematic
for classical physics (some of which led to the development of relativity).
I suggest that you do some research on, say, Mach. I also suggest that
you learn something about the history and philosophy of science before you
make any more uninformed statements about the history and philosophy of
science.

That matter is made of atoms is a statement that can be made with effectively
100% certainty. That solutions consist of atoms, ions, or molecules of
solute interacting with molecules of solvent is a statement that can be made
with effectively 100% certainty. So far, every experiment that might
disprove the hypothesis that solvation is a process that occurs on the
picosecond timescale has failed to do so. Since the process of solvation
is well-enough understood that it can explain every observation that has
thus far been made, it is up to you to propose an alternative. The starting
point would be for you to come up with a better explanation for what happens
when a solution is diluted than the currently accepted one. Your hypothesis
will need to explain *every* observation thus far made *and* make at least
one testable prediction that will differentiate it from the currently
held one. Good luck.

:> :> : But, as we know from modern physics, exact measurability
:> :> : and exact observability become impossible at the atomic level.
:>
:> :> This statement is so wrong that if there were an Olymic competition in
:> :> wrongness, you would be banned for having taken wrongness-enhancing drugs.
:
: But you fail to say exactly why it is wrong hence yielding me the point.

Does that mean that every time you fail to answer an objection to one
of your pet theories, you are yielding the point? (Here's an example of
a testable prediction: you will avoid giving a "yes" or "no" answer to
that "yes" or "no" question.)

:> : You know the drill. You know the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
:> : You know what happens when you attempt to "measure" the position
:> : of an electron. You know that only a probability density can
:> : describe the "position" of the electron.

:> I suggest that you take a look at some of the atomic spectroscopy tables
:> available at the NIST website. You will discover that it is possible to
:> measure -- and observe -- atomic spectra to any arbitrary precision (the
:> limitation is the equipment, not the number being measured). I also
:> suggest that you look up terms such as "Atomic Force Microscopy" or
:> "Field Ion Microscopy."

: OK, thanks, I'll take a look -

Yeah, sure.

: but I was, of course, referring to the impossibility of calculating or
: measuring the exact position of an electron which as we know from
: Quantum physics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle cannot be done
: other than to describe its position somewhere within a certain region of
: space according to a certain probability.

This statement is totally wrong. What the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
states is that it is not possible to know *simultaneously* the position
*and* the momentum of *any* object to arbitrary precision. That does not
mean that we cannot make accurate measurements at the atomic level. Indeed,
I don't see how a Quantum Cascade Laser would work if it were not possible
to localize an electron.

: Take a look at any standard textbook on Quantum Mechanics.

Why don't you provide a quote from us from a standard textbook on QM that
states that exact measurements are not possible at the atomic level?

: If you assert that Atomic spectra CAN locate the position of electrons
: exactly, then this is news to me, I'd love to know more about your theory.

That wasn't your claim. I suggest that you reread what it was that you
did claim.

:> : Saying I'm wrong is worthless. You have to say why.

:> Why should I waste my time? You are not going to make any effort to
:> understand my explanation in any case.

: Well, you've expended time responding to almost every
: single post I've posted here. Why not make it worthwhile?

It's worthwhile enough to point out to those people who are educable (a
category that does not, alas, include you) that you are spouting nonsense.
They will be clever enough to figure it out on their own.

:> Without reasons or explanations, your statement is worthless. It's also
:> wrong. Name *one* discovery in physics that has had *any* impact on
:> the basis of standard medicine.
:
: Name one discovery? There are MANY MANY discoveries in physics that
: had great impact on the basis of standard medicine.
: Try X-rays for starters.

Are you suggesting that before Roentgen first took an X-ray photograph,
no one knew that the skeleton was made of bones? Or are you suggesting
that the connection of the bones was not known until the advent of X-rays?
As far as I can tell, the development of X-rays had little impact on
the *basis* of standard medicine.

: I'm not sure why you refer to it as "the
:> 19th century basis," since much of the basis of modern medicine was
:> developed in the 20th century.

: Whoops! (Charlie Chan) Contradiction please...
: you just asked me to name one discovery of physics
: that had any impact on the basis of standard medicine - but
: now you tell me that much of that basis was developed
: in the 20th century - duh, that means physics!!!

No, it means things like genetics (which despite Mendel is basically a
20th century discovery), the understanding of how proteins work, the
development of antibiotics, and even the discovery of vitamins (and the
impact that that had on the understanding of nutrition) are 20th century
discoveries.

: X-rays, nuclear medicine, MRI's ... etc..

These are improved techniques for diagnosis, but have done little to
affect the *basis* of modern biology. I consider the notion that the
nervous system transmits signals along neurons to be a basic notion. Which
parts of the brain are active during performance of a particular task is,
IMO, a secondary notion -- and modern techniques for investigating the
issue, such as functional MRI and PET, are just extensions of earlier
albeit cruder methods.

:> You might want to remind us of the date
:> on which the structure of DNA was finally solved, for example.

: I'll remind you that the discovery was made possible
: by X-ray crystalography, i.e. PHYSICS.

Actually, it was made *easier* by X-ray crystallography. That DNA was
involved in the transmission of genetic information was known without
the X-ray crystallographs; Pauling almost solved the structure without them.

:> : I happen to think you have good objections but
:> : getting you to say them is like pulling teeth.

:> You keep telling me that I have good objections, but you neither alter your
:> own opinions in the face of them nor make any attempt to refute them.
:> Some of us reach an obvious conclusion -- several obvious conclusions,
:> actually -- from that observation.

: You keep responding but don't provide any information.
: Several of US reach an obvious conclusion -- several obvious
: conclusions actually -- from THAT observation.


The following quote from this link:
http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,72

is from the article
The Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Solutions - New Scientific
Evidence for Homeopathic Microdoses
by Dana Ullman.

"Two Italian professors of chemistry, Vittorio Elia and Marcella
Niccoli measured the amount of heat emanating from plain double-
distilled water and compared that with double-distilled water in which
a substance was placed. Both the control water and the treated water
underwent consecutive dilution between one to thirty times, with
vigorous shaking in-between each dilution, which represents the common
pharmacological method in which homeopathic medicines are made.

The researchers conducted over 500 experiments, approximately half of
which were made with double-distilled water that was mixed with a
specific acid and base substance and half were in the control group of
only double-distilled water. The researchers found that 92% of the
test solutions with the added acid or base substance had higher than
expected heat emanating from them (sodium chloride was one of the salt
substances and a type of vinegar was one of the acid substances
tested).

Dr. Vittorio Elia, the lead researcher, asserted, "We are setting the
basis for a new science: the physics-chemistry of homeopathic water.
These results make for a strong support to the hypothesis of the
existence of a memory of water."

"This study confirms that there is something there in homeopathic
water," affirmed Dana Ullman, MPH, author of Homeopathy A-Z and
Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines. "It should now be known
that physicians and scientists who assume that there is nothing in
homeopathic medicines are showing their own ignorance of the
scientific literature."

Dr. Elia noted, "Although more investigations have been done on water
than on any other liquid, there still remains uncertainty about
details of its structure. This experiment will hopefully give a deeper
insight into the nature of this extraordinary substance."

Ullman added, "Submarines communicate with their base and other
submarines using very low frequencies. Perhaps information is best
imparted through water in low or homeopathic doses, and considering
the high percentage of the body that is water, homeopathic medicines
may be one of the important delivery systems for pharmacology agents
in the new century."

The authors of this study also reference to work of Dr. Shui-Yin Lo
who conducted some fascinating research. Lo found that substances that
were sequentially diluted in double-distilled water at least six times
and then shaken in-between will create water clusters or ice crystals
("IE crystals") that maintain an electrical field and that do not melt
in room temperature water.

Research conducted by 10 different professors in varying scientific
fields have tested the biological effects of these IE crystals and
have found remarkable effects. Benjamin Bonavida, PhD., professor and
former head of UCLA's department of immunology and microbiology, found
a two- to a hundred-fold increase in cytokines (mediators of immune
function that protect against infection and tumor growth). Selim
Senkan, PhD., head of UCLA's department of chemical engineering, found
that IE crystals placed as a gas fuel additive reduce carbon deposits
on engine piston tops. Various auto emissions have also been reduced
from the IE crystals."

quoted from
The Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Solutions - New Scientific
Evidence for Homeopathic Microdoses
by Dana Ullman,
at the following
Homeopathy Educational Services Link
http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,72


Citizen Jimserac



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Immunology And Homeopathy. 4. Clinical Studies?Part 2
    ... for classical physics. ... had great impact on the basis of standard medicine. ... distilled water and compared that with double-distilled water in which ... Homeopathy Educational Services Link ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Homeopathy is based on ether technology
    ... remedies is by mixing a little of the physical substance in some distilled ... distilled water and repeat the process. ... Homeopathy is also classified as vibrational medicine, ... This is the new physics which has been written out of school text books. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Materials Scientist BLASTS Anti-Homeopathists
    ... It has no relationship to the "memory of water", ... Homeopathy has ENOUGH problems in the supposed mechanisms of how it ... its crystalline structure, I hesitate to mention ... I have already found a presentation on the "Science of Whole Person ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: The Structure of Water and Homeopathy
    ... to the atomic and molecular levels in liquid water. ... Roy explains that X-ray Diffraction methods ... Is that enough arrangements for you because ... aspect of homeopathy we come up against improbability after improbability. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Physics News Update Number 689, June 21, 2004
    ... Physics News Update Number 689, June 21, 2004 ... Nanotube Water ... Nanotube water, a one-dimensional form of water consisting of a ... Physics News Update is a digest of physics news items arising from ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading