Originally posted by Bicnarok
Some forms of this medicine work, in some cases faster and better than modern "brute force medicine". Because instead of just getting rid of the symtoms or the pain, they get the to the core of the ailment.I speak from experience, not only mine🙂
I guess if the core of the aliment is actually that your chakras are misaligned or that the resonant harmonics of your brain have changed...
Actually no, homeopathy would still be water and you would still be screwed.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Homeopathic remedies don't "contain" anything but water. Natural ingredients including minerals may be the starting point and lend their name to the product, but after being homeopathized no matter what they put in to start, it is not there in the end product.
So, in other words, I'm right, you're wrong, and you have a very shitty way of admitting you're wrong.
I hate you in the mouth! pissed
Originally posted by §P0oONY
You're wrong... Homeopathy uses water... Just water...From the Same Wikipedia page...
No, what it says is that I'm right.
Homeopathy doesn't only water, at all. That'd defeat the whole point behind homeopathy. That same portion you quoted agrees with me. 😬
If either of you were correct, then the homeopaths would have better luck using awesomely purified water. 😐 😐 😐 😐 😐
Homeopathy uses water that at some point in the dilution process had something in it, but no longer does. However, they believe the water retains a "memory" of the substance within it, that can cure the harm done by that substance.
The quote Spoony gave agrees with him and me, by showing how after dilution none of the original remains, and what we do have is simply water.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Homeopathy uses water that at some point in the dilution process had something in it, but no longer does. However, they believe the water retains a "memory" of the substance within it, that can cure the harm done by that substance.The quote Spoony gave agrees with him and me, by showing how after dilution none of the original remains, and what we do have is simply water.
Well, we know that that is not true, at all. That's to goal, sure, but it is definitely not true at all.
In other words, what I said.
How many gallons of water would it take to dilute something down to 1 molecule in a solution that started out with 10% "solvent", again? Exactly. 👆
This is why I say I'm right. It's merely word semantics, at this point, but my original point was the most correct. Further "amendments" to things that have been said are really taking up sapce as we both know what it really is. I'd just like to make sure that everyone here is fully aware that homeopathy is NOT just water and the remedies do very much indeed contain those items I said they did...and then some.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, we know that that is not true, at all. That's to goal, sure, but it is definitely not true at all.In other words, what I said.
How many gallons of water would it take to dilute something down to 1 molecule in a solution that started out with 10% "solvent", again? Exactly. 👆
This is why I say I'm right. It's merely word semantics, at this point, but my original point was the most correct. Further "amendments" to things that have been said are really taking up sapce as we both know what it really is. I'd just like to make sure that everyone here is fully aware that homeopathy is NOT just water and the remedies do very much indeed contain those items I said they did...and then some.
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, this is quite simply not correct. The studies that were posted ALL showed that none of the original substance remains, and that they were chemically indistinguishable from pure water, without any remaining. EVER double blind study posted has supported that view, NONE have supported your view that there are actual substances. Even your own quotes you posted did not show that there is still ingredients post dilution.
No, that is quite simply correct.
Every one of your posts has started with a "you're incorrect" and then you go on to agree with me. facepalm
Homeopathic remedies contain shit like animal, crystals, poisons, etc. That IS correct. Correct, correct, correct, correct. No matter what you say, that is correct. How many times does that have to be posted? You even agree with me, you just refuse to say it, directly. 😬
Originally posted by Bardock42
16.481.148.300.000.000.000.000*0.1*x//x = solvent molecules/gallon
I think
Thanks for proving my point. 👆
Originally posted by King Kandy
Spoony posted studies and they all showed that Homeopathic solutions are water, and that tests have shown they are absolutely no different at all from regular distilled water. You haven't posted any studies that contradict that. So I win.
😆 😆 😆 😆
(Seriously, I thought you post was legitimately funny.)
Okay, you win.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Is it fair to warn someone because they "fail at basic logic"?
No, but one, I didn't warn him. And two, that's what the other part about trolling was about. His comments are pretty clearly just being difficult for the sake of it.
Removing a few words from their context usually creates about 90% of forum disagreements.
Originally posted by Parmaniac
http://www.youtube.com/user/inimalistThat's your channel?
yes
Originally posted by Digi
Seems like you're trolling dadudemon. Or you fail at basic logic. Either way, cut it out or you'll be warned, and try to actually support your claims if you want to be taken seriously.
IMO, I'm correct and you and others are being willfully ignorant as it's very fundamentally easy to understand why I'm right. On top of that, Bardock more than proved my point and I re-quoted him to further illustrate what I was more or less getting at.
For the last damn time, the remedies are NOT just water. The final solution might be close, but the damn remedies contain what I said they do in the first stages until they are worked down to almost complete water (yes, the whole thing is called the remedy and the "remedy" recipes call for certain bullshit to make it)...and even then, they still contain portions of what they started with: lest you are trying to argue that we have a astronomical amount of water to make those dilutions?
Originally posted by Digi
No, but one, I didn't warn him. And two, that's what the other part about trolling was about. His comments are pretty clearly just being difficult for the sake of it.Removing a few words from their context usually creates about 90% of forum disagreements.
Why isn't KK being difficult? He basically said, "I don't agree" and then proceeded to post, multiple times, my very same points. You don't see me calling him a troll. facepalm IMO, KK was being difficult and it was pissing me off, that's why I dropped it, many posts ago.
Originally posted by dadudemon
IMO, I'm correct and you and others are being willfully ignorant as it's very fundamentally easy to understand why I'm right. On top of that, Bardock more than proved my point and I re-quoted him to further illustrate what I was more or less getting at.For the last damn time, the remedies are NOT just water. The final solution might be close, but the damn remedies contain what I said they do in the first stages until they are worked down to almost complete water (yes, the whole thing is called the remedy and the "remedy" recipes call for certain bullshit to make it)...and even then, they still contain portions of what they started with: lest you are trying to argue that we have a astronomical amount of water to make those dilutions?
If your comments are serious, then fine. The repetitious "I'm right, I'm right I'm right....etc. etc." and similar comments smacked of devolving into "Ya-huh, nuh-uh" debating just to be contentious, and is what triggered my suggestion.
As it is, I think both sides here are just looking at different sides of the same facts. The final substance is scientifically indistinguishable from water. Thus their assertions. The substance still theoretically contains infinitesimal amounts of the original substance. Thus your assertions. But, let me ask you this, can we both agree that the affect of homeopathic remedies is no different than just water? Because, really, the makeup of the substances shouldn't eb the concern. Their affects (or lack thereof) should be.
Originally posted by Digi
If your comments are serious, then fine. The repetitious "I'm right, I'm right I'm right....etc. etc." and similar comments smacked of devolving into "Ya-huh, nuh-uh" debating just to be contentious, and is what triggered my suggestion.As it is, I think both sides here are just looking at different sides of the same facts. The final substance is scientifically indistinguishable from water. Thus their assertions. The substance still theoretically contains infinitesimal amounts of the original substance. Thus your assertions. But, let me ask you this, can we both agree that the affect of homeopathic remedies is no different than just water? Because, really, the makeup of the substances shouldn't eb the concern. Their affects (or lack thereof) should be.
I agree with all of the above and it's sort of my point.
Originally posted by dadudemon
How many gallons of water would it take to dilute something down to 1 molecule in a solution that started out with 10% "solvent", again? Exactly. 👆This is why I say I'm right. It's merely word semantics, at this point, but my original point was the most correct. Further "amendments" to things that have been said are really taking up sapce as we both know what it really is.
See?