OMG .. the Homeopaths are Coming!!!

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]

Your Darwin nonsense is meaningless because it does not say what the salt was. Can you determine the concentration? Is there even information to suggest whether or not after dissolving the material Darwin applied the entire dissolved material or not?

No matter what happened back then it hardly matters since that compares the practice then with the practice now. It has no application other than a historical anecdote of limited applicability.

The problem is that the evidence supporting homeopathy is limited to a few early trials. I have only found 1 study. That study did not show a strong result. Can you show us even 1 study supporting homeopathy?

[Kevin Kane]

From the book:

"about the one-twenty-millionth of a grain, is sufficient to cause the tentacle bearing this gland to bend to the centre of the leaf. In this experiment, owing to the presence of the water of crystallisation, less than the one-thirty-millionth of a grain of the efficient elements could have been absorbed."


It's unknown how much is actually absorbed, if any, but the reasoning is that the crystal structure of the ammonium phosphate already had water in it, and so: 1/30,000,000 of a grain is all that's possible to absorb.

And considering that we now know the plant is only reacting to the active ingredient, the nitrogen in the ammonium phosphate salt (H12-N3-O4-P), a fraction of the fraction of a grain of ammonium salt, which itself, is ridiculously diluted in water and applied in tiny droplets.

SOUNDS LIKE HOMEOPATHIC DILUTIONS TO ME!

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]

Can you show us even 1 study supporting homeopathy?

[Nostradamus]

In your post by Kevin Kane on Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:48 am you mention some information from Darwin.
In your post by Kevin Kane on Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:12 am you make some calculations.
In your post by Kevin Kane on Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:30 am you relate back to the Darwin material.

Here's the simple problem. A solution is made by taking a material and placing it into a solvent. You make all of these calculations based on what? You select a volume, yet nowhere are you ever given the volume of the solvent used by Darwin. This was amazingly obvious to me, and it should have been to anyone with a basic education that the problem could not be solved. Yet you began to pull numbers out of thin air to produce a numerical solution to an undefined problem. It is conceivable that you forgot to post the rest of the information that Darwin had written, but forgot to do so. Is that it? Please show us where Darwin wrote about the amount of solvent he used.

[Kevin Kane]

I've posted the relevant material. We are on the internets. The information is easily searchable. It's available to everyone. And I remember saying I'm not a research assistant. Oh yeah, I'm repeating myself.

It should be easy to apply logic to the situation.

The plant is not merely responding to nitrogen, it's responding to tiny, rapid flucuations in relative nitrogen levels; an insect signature. The plant is carnivorous and is reacting to bug meat.

[Nostradamus]

[Kevin Kane]

Darwin gave a volume

"The reader will best realise this degree of dilution by remembering that 5,000 ounces would more than fill a thirty-one gallon cask or barrel and that to this large body of water one grain of the salt was added – only half a drachm or thirty minims of the solution poured over the leaf."

Imperial gallons are larger than US gallons.
1/2 drachm = roughly 1/4th teaspoon.

Darwin describes various application methods, from droplets to full leaf immersions.

thigmotropism = touch sensitive movement
chemotropism = chemical sensitive movement

N and P are essential for the plant, and exist in insects and ammonium phosphate.


Skeptics need to forget about their irrational mental programming towards homeopathy.

[Nostradamus]

Thanks for finally providing the information. All this demonstrates is that some materials can produce a response even in small quantities. Regardless of that it is evidently clear that this solution is NOT as dilute as homeopathic medicines, not even close. Furthermore, the solution was not produced in manner consistent with homeopathic protocols. Finally, it should be clear that Darwin did not believe in homeopathy.

To connect Darwin to homeopathy is grasping at straws.

Homeopathy supporters need to understand that their beliefs are irrational and have not been proven. That goes for both efficacy and mechanism.

[Kevin Kane]

[Nostradamus]

[Kevin Kane]

[Nostradamus]