Re: Avogadro's #, here is your quote cut and pasted, "... Dredge up Avogadro's number from Introductory
Chemistry and you can see that the most powerful homeopathic medications may not have even a single molecule of the active ingredient in a given dose"
You said molecule and probably meant mole. My point exactly is that they are different. How different? 6.02x10 to the 23rd. That is very different. People who do not know what you probably meant could assume by reading verbatim what you wrote that you meant that a solution labeled as "homeopathic" could have less than one molecule of a substance in it. It is counterintuitive because less than one molecule of a compound is really not in the scope of what we are talking about. I mean you no disrespect and if you read exactly verbatim what you wrote, then read this response, you will see what I mean. People who never took chemistry and read what you said could believe that, especially if they know you and think that you are in general an honest guy here. I have not posted here before, so I was merely correcting the factual error. Please do not make this too complicated.
On the molecular level, it may not take much of a substance to effect a physiologic change; that's why some poisons are so deadly, so my point is that "strength" does not imply "better". Would your wife want to suggest or take cranberry juice for "honeymoon cystitis" or would she like to acidify the urine with 6 molar hydrochloric acid?
Anyway, just have an open mind and wait for the study. I would ask you the same question, I asked Wexler, "if the study appeared in the NEJM or another leading medical journal, was well-controlled, had a positive post-article editorial by an authority in the field, etc., would you then accept this as a possibility, or would you dispute it merely on the grounds of the labelling as homeopathic?"
|
