Part 2: The Comments
Meet some of the brilliant minds of UK, standing against the lunatics and the PR conmen of the esoteric mafia.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/alternativemedicine/9151606/Homeopathy-biologically-implausible.html#dsq-comments[*quote*]
92 comments
Showing 1-25 of 192 comments
zlop
Yesterday 08:32 PM
DisGusting !! -- Blog is heavily censored
I was making the connection,
Homeopathy and Heavy Metal Chem-trail Geo-engineering
Affecting the the soil and People
(Edited by author 9 hours ago)
Recommend
Report
Guy Chapman
Yesterday 11:49 PM
You forgot Elvis. And alien abductions, those too.
Recommended by 2 people
Recommend
Report
Skadhi_the_Raverner
Yesterday 06:07 PM
Of course homeopathy cannot work, th concept of making an agent stronger by *diluting* it is contrary to both scientific fact and common sense. How did this get NHS funding in the first place?
Recommended by 3 people
Recommend
Report
Guy Chapman
Yesterday 11:53 PM
It got funding through special pleading. It has powerful fans (including the Royal Family, though note they are smart enough to use conventional medicine when they are actually ill). Homeopathy is allowed to be sold only because special rules have been written for it, which ironically would almost certainly not have happened were it not for the fact that the preparations themselves are inert. It is extremely unlikely that any product based on arsenic, belladonna or dog excrement could be legally sold if it actually contained any of these toxic materials.
Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Report
zlop
Yesterday 08:02 PM
Is there a Logical Disconnect,
Perhaps a slight amount (spice in food) has a Positive effect ?
Vaccines can trigger Immune reactions, some Good Some Bad
Recommend
Report
zlop
Yesterday 03:28 PM
To identify the dilute chemical treatment needed,
How do you know that a concentrated solution caused the problem ?
Recommend
Report
Dr.Nancy Malik
Yesterday 01:34 PM
Electromagnetic Signatures to distinguish medicines
Electromagnetic properties of highly-diluted biological samples (2009)
http://www.homeopathyeurope.or...
(Edited by author 16 hours ago)
Recommend
Report
Guy Chapman
Yesterday 04:39 PM
Montagnier's effect has a duration measured in picoseconds. Do you understand what a picosecond is? "Use by... oh, too late".
Montagnier also says his study results cannot be extended to cover the products used in homeopathy.
The only remaining question is why you are still quoting this study even though the two problems above have been pointed out to you on several occasions.
Recommended by 3 people
Recommend
Report
steelclaws
Yesterday 01:49 PM
This Montagnier study has been debunked, and I'm not about to copy/paste an entire debunk, so please read:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicin...
Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Report
lauriej1
Yesterday 10:47 AM
Studies in Hormesis prove that homeopathic remedies have biological effects (just for starters). Materials Science repeatedly proves that homeopathic remedies are not just "water". Ditto for recent experiments at the Indian Institute of Technology.
These propagandist attacks on Homeopathy use the same tired, distorted and false notions every time they're dragged out by Ernst, et al.
Read the last independent UK health technology report for a real eye-opener on how effective conventional medical therapies are -- only 11% have been verified as actually being effective. The concept of evidence-based medicine is still on the "wish list". It does not exist. Most medical associations aren't bold or arrogant enough to make the types of claims media mouthpieces are for exactly how effective these drug treatments really are.
Patients who use Homeopathy demographically are people with higher education and income levels. They tend to turn to Homeopathy when conventional medical treatments have failed them. This tempest in a teapot about poor patients being misled or delaying mainstream treatment is a far cry from reality.
Recommended by 6 people
Recommend
Report
zlop
Yesterday 03:35 PM
Just the tip of the Ice Berg ??
"Iatrogenic Disease: The 3rd Most Fatal Disease in the USA"
Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Report
steelclaws
Yesterday 03:44 PM
Ah, the Lazarou study again.
"CONCLUSION:
Meta-analysis was invalid because of heterogeneity of the
studies. Most of these studies did not report the data needed for
incidence calculations. The methodology used was seriously flawed, and
no conclusions regarding ADR incidence rates in the hospitalized
population in the United States should be made on the basis of the
original meta-analysis."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/...
Recommended by 2 people
Recommend
Report
zlop
Yesterday 04:09 PM
Good listen here
Effects of Dormant Virus, fragmented DNA
http://holyhormones.com/global...
Recommend
Report
Dr.Nancy Malik
Yesterday 11:55 AM
Arndt and Schulz also experimented on yeast with Merc, cor., Iodine, Bromium and Salicylic acid and showed that in the weak doses these substances increase the multiplication of yeasts, yet strong doses kill them.Ref: A.C.Dutta, Homoeopathy in the Light of Modern Science, 4th ed., B. Jain Publishers
Recommended by 2 people
Recommend
Report
zlop
Today 01:02 AM
People were experimented upon
tumors and cancers resulted
"Merck Vaccination Dangers - YouTube"
Recommend
Report
lauriej1
Yesterday 12:13 PM
Thanks, Nancy. This quite recent study reported in the Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine is quite impressive:
http://www.jcimjournal.com/en/...
It's paradoxical that just as these insane attacks on Homeopathy are occurring that some of the most significant research is surfacing.
Aude Sapere!
Recommended by 4 people
Recommend
Report
Guy Chapman
Yesterday 04:50 PM
It is interesting that you dismiss as "insane" views which are clearly expressed in entirely rational terms.
We have good evidence that the placebo effect exists, good evidence that observer bias exists, and good evidence that in tests where bias is eliminated, homeopathy performs as the placebo effect would predict.
Given those facts, repeatably documented in multiple independent data sets, it is absolutely sane to question why one would instead hypothesise a whole series of effects none of which have ever been objectively proven to exist, in order to support a theory of disease and cure which has never been proven to be correct. In fact it might be fair to question the sanity of those who insist on attacking as insane those who point out these simple and well established facts.
Recommended by 3 people
Recommend
Report
lauriej1
Yesterday 05:54 PM
You don't have "good evidence" you have opinion and conjecture that has a bias towards the negative. Homeopathic theory has been proven over its 200 year history to be superior to allopathic theory. And in all those 200 years the principles of Homeopathy have never changed. Allopathic theories come and go and still tend to do more harm than good -- with the exception of emergency trauma care by specially trained emergency teams with specialized technology (not to be found in your GPs office).
Perhaps we should implement the system that's in place in China -- no cure, no payment. Then let's see what happens to mainstream medical industry income... Right now the mainstream medical industry puts itself first, not patients.
(Edited by author 11 hours ago)
Recommended by 3 people
Recommend
Report
Guy Chapman
Today 12:13 AM
No, I have good evidence, some of it even compiled by homeopaths.
But do tell me: what have you got that even approaches the degree of certainty that surrounds quantum physics, just one of the fields that refutes homeopathy? I looked up the Nobel prizes given for quantum physics but lost count because it seems to be most of the physics prizes in the last century.
I couldn't find any Nobel prizes for validating any element of homeopathy, perhaps you could clear that up too, starting with similia which was identified as lacking proof during Hahnemann's lifetime and as far as I can tell that has never been fixed.
Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Report
steelclaws
Yesterday 11:15 PM
Homeopathic theory has not been proven with it's 200 years history, since anecdotes are not data. I've already dealt with the quality of homeopathic research, and it is not convincing the least. The fact remains that the more rigorously conducted the studies are, the less efficacy they show for homeopathy.
And since you believe in homeopathy, would you kindly point me to a properly documented - not anecdotal - case of a non-self-limiting condition being cured by homeopathy alone?
As for medical theories, the germ theory is as close to truth as anything in science can be.
There is also the little problem that in order for homeopathy to work, everything we know about physics, biology and chemistry would need to be wrong - and that obviously is not the case. Or you would not be using your computer.
Recommend
Report
zlop
Yesterday 10:25 PM
"Homeopathic theory has been proven over its 200 year history" ""
"Meaning of the first incompleteness theorem ... there are true statements expressible in its language that are unprovable"
Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Report
Guy Chapman
Today 12:14 AM
There are indeed. There are also true statements that are provable, such as: homeopathy is claptrap.
Recommended by 2 people
Recommend
Report
zlop
Today 01:10 AM
What is there to it ?
Negative ions, Coffey, Beer, Aromatherapy can cheer you up
Recommend
Report
Dr.Nancy Malik
Yesterday 12:49 PM
thank you lauriej for reporting the chinese journal.
Hahneman's father used to call tell him 'Aude Sapare' which means 'Dare to be wise' for those not knowing
(Edited by author 17 hours ago)
Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Report
Guy Chapman
Yesterday 03:21 PM
Three things Hanhemann said:
1. A disease can be cured by the application of a substance that causes symptoms similar tot hose of the disease.
2. A remedy becomes more potent the more it is diluted.
3. 7/8 of all disease is caused by psora (itch).
Not one of these has any basis in fact. There has never been, at any time, any credible generalised proof of any one of these three founding principles of homeopathy, and the third is so self-evidently wrong that even most homeopaths now quietly ignore it.
Here's another interesting fact. The well documented claims that "homeopathy works for me" can be explained in one of two ways:
1. Disease can be cured by something that causes similar symptoms; the cure becomes stronger the more it is diluted; that substances possess a new form of energy not observed by science; that the diluted substance leaves an energy imprint on the water or alcohol because of the special way it's shaken; that this special way of shaking uniquely causes this effect, whereas the normal agitation of water in rivers and so on does not; that this applies to all the various different versions of the special way of shaking, but not to rivers or any other form of agitation; that this energy imprint can then be transferred ot an intermediate such as a sugar pill; that it can then be transferred to the body; that it there interacts with the vital energy of the body, although this vital energy has never been observed by science and no anatomical structures exist to support its existence; that this interaction will then cure the individual, with different remedy pictures for the same illness in different individuals, and with different remedies for (say) left knee versus right knee pain, although there is no objective anatomical difference between the two.
2. All observed facts are consistent with the null hypothesis of placebo effect plus observer bias.
Obviously "Dr" Malik (who is not a medical doctor) prefers the former interpretation, despite the fact that not one single part of it can be verified by any objective test, however sensitive.
Scientists are more likely to accept the latter explanation as (a) both placebo effect and observer bias are well known and objectively verifiable phenomena and (b) this interpretation, unlike the former, is also consistent with all other knowledge. For example, if homeopathy is right then the science that underpins lasers, GPS and mobile telephony is not just wrong but spectacularly wrong.
It should be noted that if one single experiment existed which unambiguously refuted the null hypothesis, the debate would be over. In 200 years no such experiment has been proposed, and in fact no experimental validation of the fundamental "laws" of homeopathy exists.
Homeopaths say this is because their field is not amenable to scientific testing, although they willingly adopt the trappings of science in publishing studies which unfortunately uniformly show serious methodological flaws; once the flaws are controlled out we find that even homeopaths prove that the "medicines" are inert.
Meanwhile science is quite content with the more prosaic explanation which is consistent with what we know about human biology, physiology, chemistry and of course all that tiresome physics which proves that effective dilutions at homeopathic levels are impossible.
(Edited by author 14 hours ago)
[*/quote*]
[*quote*]
Showing 26-50 of 192 comments
lauriej1
Yesterday 06:21 PM
You are not going to precis the scope of Homeopathy with that kind of interpretation.
Maybe because there's no anatomical difference between either side of the body surgeons commit errors by operating on the wrong side (happens more than you think)...
Here's the deal, Guy... as convenient and profitable as it is to assume that named disease states like arthritis are exactly the same in every individual (which is the theory of conventional medicine which has never been conclusively established) Homeopathy takes the approach that individuals express symptoms in varying ways. Holistic systems of medicine, like Homeopathy and TCM, look at the symptomatology of the whole patient.
Now, if conventional medicine were so scientifically knowledgeable, precise and correct they would not only be able to cure arthritis, by knowing what caused it they would be able to prevent it. Well they can't do either. Homeopathy and TCM can not only cure arthritis but head it off at the pass. Obviously holistic medicine "knows" something the mainstream doesn't.
Any physicist will tell you that we are more energy than matter. Energy informs matter, not the other way around. The strictly anatomical/chemical interpretation of biological organisms is obviously wrong. You can measure the number and quantity of chemical elements in the simplest of organisms, let's say a worm. I defy you to mix them all in a bucket and produce one, let alone one that's alive.
If you have no life force, perhaps you're a zombie... And if Frankenscience has its way, now with genetically modified animals, maybe those apocalyptic movies are looking more prophetic by the minute.
Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Report
Guy Chapman
Today 12:17 AM
You have (as usual for homeopathy proponents) entirely missed the point.
Homeopathy requires a long chain of suppositions every single one of which is either unproven or refuted by empirical science.
The alternative, placebo effect, can easily be verified by empirical science.
Occam's Razor is an extremely reliable tool for separating truth from bullshit. Do not multiply hypotheses. So I won't, I will go with the explanation that is prosaic, consistent with all other branches of knowledge, and borne out by the few experiments carried out by homeopaths that are actually honest.
Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Report
steelclaws
Yesterday 11:09 AM
Hormesis is low-dose, not no-dose, so it's not homeopathy. I know Dana Ullman likes to confuse the two, but he's simply wrong about it.
Yes, I read Nancy Malik's claims how homeopathic remedies can be differentiated from each other, but she did not offer any evidence, nor did she say which dilution levels were involved.
The faults present in conventional medicine simply do not make homeopathy work, it's an unrelated issue.
What demographic uses homeopathic remedies is also irrelevant to its efficacy, since anecdotes still do not equal data.
Recommended by 3 people
Recommend
Report
lauriej1
Yesterday 12:06 PM
Homeopathy is not "no-dose", that's simply your incorrect assumption. Dana Ullman is not the one who's confused. Perhaps if you obtain a Master's degree in Public Health you'll have the educational tools to make the distinction.
No one has suggested that faults in mainstream medicine make homepathy work -- that's another misconception you seem to have. Issues like mechanism of action and proof of efficacy are related, since attacks on Homeopathy almost always rely on false claims that conventional medicine is 100% backed by irrefutable evidence of both. Hardly. Nor does it come with iron-clad money-back guarantees.
The demographics show that Homeopathic patients are not poor, misled, ignorant peons who are being conned out of their money, which is another false claim made by pseudoskeptics claiming to have public protection as their motive (even though they haven't been endorsed or appointed by anyone we'd take seriously).
Recommended by 3 people
Recommend
Report
Guy Chapman
Yesterday 04:34 PM
The majority of homeopathy is indeed no dose. A 4C dilution has already passed the level of impurities permissible in laboratory water used for highly sensitive electrochemistry experiments, and this water cannot be kept in glass because the glass leaches impurities into the water.
I am not aware of any homeopaths who use ISO3696 grade water. I am not aware of any objective test that can unequivocally demonstrate the difference between any two homeopathic preparations at dilutions beyond 4C.
There is nothing "pseudoskeptic" about insisting on empirically verifiable fact rather than belief. You are quite welcome to say that you *believe* hoemopathy works, in the same way that reiki masters and faith healers *believe* their interventions work, but you are not entitled to claim that it *does* work because the simple fact is that there is not one single experiment that unambiguously refutes the null hypothesis of placebo effect plus observer bias - if such an experiment existed we would not even have this debate.
The debate exists only because there is no reason to believe homeopathy should work, no known way it could work, and no objective evidence it does work beyond placebo.
Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Report
lauriej1
Yesterday 06:44 PM
Your argument frankly doesn't hold water... Materials Science proved your line of thinking wrong a long time ago.
I have not said I "believe" Homeopathy works, I have empirical and clinical knowledge/proof that it does based on solid investigation and personal experience. Homeopathy is a system of medicine, however pseudoskeptics misleadingly try to equate it with subjects that are not systems of medicine. Nice try, no cigar.
Nice that more patients can research the evidence for conventional medical treatments to determine whether they want to take the risk or not, and evaluate the evidence for Homeopathy for themselves.
Hint: they're not reading scepticblogs for medical advice.
Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Report
steelclaws
Yesterday 12:22 PM
Beyond 12C dilution homeopathy is no-dose, since there are no active ingredients left, as per Avogardo's number.
Excuse me, it was not I who wrote about faults in conventional medicine in their defense of homeopathy. Let me quote: "Read the last independent UK health technology report for a real
eye-opener on how effective conventional medical therapies are -- only
11% have been verified as actually being effective." What would the relevancy be here? Just because A is not verified, it does not follow that B would be. Moreover, it's not a claim I have made - even though 11% verified is better than 0% verified.
I've stated before in these comments that the mechanism is less important than actual efficacy. After all, it took a long time before the mechanism how aspirin works was discovered, but its effects could be shown in RCT. This is not the case with homeopathy.
The demographics are still totally irrelevant to clinical efficacy of homeopathy, and could not interest me less. I do not recall making the claim that homeopathic patients are poor mislead peons, so kindly address that comment to someone who actually made the claim.
Recommended by 2 people
Recommend
Report
lauriej1
Yesterday 01:29 PM
Materials Science and nano-particle studies verify that over 12C it's not "just water". Serial dilution and succussion are necessary to create the effect, not just plain dilution. We are not merely going to rely on Avogadro's number as if that's the be-all. Homeopathy is more than just simplified basic chemistry -- trying to reduce it to that is just being facile.
There are a plethora of studies that show in vivo and in vitro biological effects of homeopathic remedies -- that people wish to express opinions about various aspects of them is beside the point. We can do this all day about pharmaceutical trials and anything else in research as well. Claiming that there are "no studies" is complete nonsense, yet pseudoskeptics do it every time the subject comes up. For the record, until recently nobody published negative outcomes from research. The trials for Homeopathy have either been mostly positive or occasionally inconclusive.
The issue is that detractors of Homeopathy are guilty of using deceptive logic in employing double standards, moving the goal posts etc.
The Arndt-Schultz law indicates that microdoses stimulate, medium doses suppress and large doses kill. Conventional drugs use medium doses to suppress symptoms. Homeopathy uses microdoses of substances to stimulate the body to heal itself. Conventional drugs are incapable of curing chronic illness, yet Homeopathy has been curing chronic illness for 2 centuries.
So far no one has disproved that Homeopathy works, there is just a group of media mouthpieces who consistently express pathological doubt.
Recommended by 3 people
Recommend
Report
steelclaws
Yesterday 01:47 PM
I've presented critique about the material sciences paper and the nanoparticle paper Nancy Malik linked to. Please read those. I know about succussion - it should be obvious by now that I'm very familiar with homeopathy, including provings.
Ad hominems will get you nowhere. That plethora of studies are far too often - I''ve read a lot of them - done with very small sample, often no control group and no placebo arm, which renders them practically useless. What I would like to see is a study done to gold standard, triple-blinded and with a 2000+ sample, comparable control group and proper placebo in place. This is most definitely not beside the point, since low-quality studies provide poor or nonexistent evidence.
The first ever randomized double-blinded study was conducted in 1835 in Nuremberg on homeopathy. It failed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
I see, the old hoary chestnut about conventional medicine just suppressing symptoms. Unfortunately for that claim, penicillin will cure pneumonia even if the patient is in coma, but homeopathy appears to work only when they're conscious.
Would you kindly point out which goalposts I have moved?
There's nothing pathological about being doubtful about a modality that has only low quality studies and/or studies with serious methodological flaws to back its claims.
Recommended by 2 people
Recommend
Report
Dr.Nancy Malik
Yesterday 11:58 AM
Here's the paper for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectroscopy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (2008)
Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Report
steelclaws
Yesterday 12:12 PM
Of course 3C and 4C would differ from each other, and they're well below the 12C limit, so that means that they are detectable since both have active ingredients left. What is this paper supposed therefore to prove?
Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Report
Dr.Nancy Malik
Yesterday 12:47 PM
what you have to say now for this where disnguish is made for a 30c potency which is higher than 12c
study uses Ultra-Violet–Visible (UV–VIS) spectroscopy
The defining role of structure including epitaxy in the plausability of homeopathy (2007)
https://docs.google.com/file/d...
// distinguishes Nux vomica and Natrum muriaticum from one another and within a given medicine, the 6c, 12c, and 30c potencies
Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Report
steelclaws
Yesterday 01:13 PM
From the article: "We note that at very low signal levels, instrument noise coupled with
artificial computer generated sensitivity can produce data that are not
reliable. Hence we operate the instruments in the sensitivity ranges in
which we sacrifice some precision for reproducibility."
Raman spectra, because they're very sensitive to contamination, absolutely have to be interpreted with great care, and are normally run through a computer treatment for it. The authors do not use this computer treatment, and clearly use the instrument outside of its known range of sensitivity. This is just fiddling with the instrument until they can find noise - not actual spectra - which supports their hypothesis. How this got past peer review is beyond me.
If they are trying to present a new analytical technique, then they must show a validation for it - and there is nothing about that in the paper.
Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Report
Dr.Nancy Malik
Yesterday 10:38 AM
To distinguish one homeopathy medicine from another (3 techniques)
A. Spectroscopy: It is the study of interaction between matter and radiated energy i.e. how a substance absorbs, emits or scatters electromagnetic radiation
1. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy
2. Electromagnetic Signatures
3. Ultra-Violet–Visible (UV–VIS) spectroscopy
4. Raman Laser Spectroscopy
B. Thermo-luminescence: The amount of light produced by a sample when it is heated (due to the release of stored energy) can be measured.
C. Physiological variability in human body
Recommend
Report
ROFLCOPTERY
Yesterday 04:26 PM
Are you suggesting that the techniques are successful in distinguishing different medicines?
It looks like in that study they've gone beyond the sensitivity of the techniques that they've employed.
Recommend
Report
zlop
Yesterday 09:22 AM
Chemicals can cause profound effects
One that comes to mind is the ancient Chinese practice of
giving heavy metals to a sick patient -- Patient felt well, then died
Recommend
Report
henriette
Yesterday 01:52 AM
The link below is to a report by the Swiss Government - HTA/ Health Technology Assessment: Homeopathy in Healthcare - Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Cost.
Let's hope the NHS doesn't throw the baby out with the bath water!!
See:
http://www.springer.com/medici...
Recommended by 2 people
Recommend
Report
Dr.Nancy Malik
Yesterday 08:29 AM
Switzerland
2006: The Swiss Federal Office for Public Health issued a report to the government of Switzerland which concluded that “the effectiveness of homeopathy can be supported by clinical evidence, and professional and adequate application be regarded as safe”
Ref:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
Recommended by 4 people
Recommend
Report
steelclaws
Yesterday 08:47 AM
I'll need the full text paper, since this abstract does not name the papers used in the analysis.
Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Report
zlop
03/19/2012 10:31 PM
"cured through exposure to a diluted form of the
substance that caused their symptoms"
The symptoms are an indication that the exposure has
already caused a misdirection of biological activity.
Why would more of the same cause a lessening ?
Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Report
Dr.Nancy Malik
Yesterday 08:33 AM
Law of minimum dose: Less is More
According to H. A. Roberts, the law of minimum dosage could be summarised from the fundamentalLaw of Least Action, formulated byMoreau de Maupertius, the French mathematician in 1744, which states.
"The quantity of action necessary to affect any change in nature is the least possible; the decisive amount is always a minimum, an infinitesimal"
Recommended by 2 people
Recommend
Report
zlop
Yesterday 09:09 AM
System will try to use an extra variable to minimize internal energy
Such as a stream flowing downhill -- or the Atmosphere moving CO2 to Warmth, to Maximize Cooling
The minimal dose theory is to elicit an over reaction
and reverse the caused fault ?
Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Report
steelclaws
Yesterday 08:45 AM
There's the little problem of Avogardo's number, which makes sure that no homeopathic remedy beyond 12C can have a single molecule left. Even a dosage of 1 molecule per bottle is not "minimum" dosage, it's nonexistent dosage.
Hahnemann himself was aware of this problem, as he wrote in September 13th 1829 to Dr Schreiber: "Es muss ein Ende geben, es kann nicht bis ins Unendliche weitergehen." (Translated: There must be a limit to it, it cannot go on to infinity.) He was talking about homeopathic dilutions.
Recommended by 2 people
Recommend
Report
Dr.Nancy Malik
Yesterday 08:54 AM
Medicines beyond 12C retains nano-grams of fine nano-particles of original starting material (2010)
http://bit.ly/edUwqd Recommended by 3 people
Recommend
Report
steelclaws
Yesterday 09:02 AM
From the Chikramane paper: "The residues of Cuprum met, Stannum met, and Zincum met were acidified
to solubilize the particles of their respective starting metals by
addition of concentrated nitric acid. Similarly, aqua regia
(concentrated nitric acid and concentrated hydrochloric acid in the
ratio 1:3) was added to residues of Aurum met, Argentum met, and
Platinum met."
Any chemistry major can tell you that concentrated nitric acid is notorious for heavy metal impurities, it can have 10ppm heavy metal impurities.
The authors seem not to be aware - and certainly there is no indication that they tested for it - that also the water used in the dilutions can have contaminants. Unless that kind of testing is done to both the water and concentrated nitric acid used in the experiment, I'm more likely to think the particles were contaminants.
[*/quote*]