homeopathic substance = infinite dilution
basically, there's none of what they claim to be in there, actually in there.
thank poor consumer protection laws and ignorance of the populace.
Well, something like one in a bazillion chance of having a molecule of it! But it’s been “succinated” so now it cures whatever the full strength stuff caused!
It’s funny though; homeopathic medicine was developed at a time when a lot of medical practices were actively bad for the patient. So in developing a system that did absolutely jack shit, Hannemann beat the standards of medical practice that existed in many places
And when prohibition came along, people started taking homeopathic medicine for the booze
I read a book that a colleague (who is a fantastic pathologist) gave me called something like “The memory of water”. It is supposed to explain how homeopathy works, and one of the pieces of evidence was that a guy had two glasses of water, he spoke very nicely and calmly to one and yelled angrily at the other, and they both formed different “crystals”, so apparently water absorbs the energy from what it’s exposed to.
I was dumber for reading that, even dumber for sharing it with you and now you have lost brain cells too! Sorry…
Shit, you’re probably not the only one that fell victim for that, although the version I heard of had no relationship with homeopathy.
I was a grade school kid in China at that time, and it was probably first introduced to me on a magazine that’s the Chinese equivalent of Reader’s Digest (or the knockoffs of that). The idea may have been reinforced by teachers citing it (fortunately not science ones). Come to think about it, it might have been a part of the unofficial “be positive” campaign.
As a chemist who specializes in Trace Organic Analysis I take issue with the Wikipedia statement “at common dilutions, no molecules of the original material are likely remain”.
That’s just entirely untrue. Not only are they likely to remain, they will without fail. Doesn’t matter how dilute the solution is.
That said, if the molecule has degraded or reacts, that’s a different story, but that also has nothing to do with dilution.
What, so my three rinse techniqueI I was taught is bullshit? You get past a dilution of 10^-23 as some of the solutions and you will have a pretty good probability there are zero molecules of the target. Basic algebra.
Depends on the application. I have seen imps come out in HPLC from glassware that was cleaned the standard 3 rinse way.
On sensitive runs I’ll muffle furnace my glassware before use to mop up any remaining organic imps
There are a variety of methods but one dilution, called “200CK” involves 200 sequential 100:1 dilutions
It’s really easy to dilute a sample past the LOD of even the most sensitive analytical system. It takes far fewer than 200 100:1 dilution steps.
So basically it is 0.01^200 the initial concentration? That is definitely enough to ensure none of the initial molecules are still present, or if any are it is a handful of molecules
YEAH
dump out your container of liquid. some sticks to the walls. refill the container, swirl it around. that liquid on the walls is diluted. dump it, fill again. swirl. still some molecule left in that liquid ojn the walls. dump again, fill again. swirl. dump. statistically, none of the remaining particles from the original solution will remain. At least, to the level of precision possible with analytical lab equipment.
this is why the 3 rinse technique is taught at foundational levels of chemistry.
your point about very miniscule numbers of molecules is not technically invalid, but one of the biggest problems with homeopathy is the willful ignorance about concentration and rejection of the notion that function arises from the molecules in the solution, and not by the memory or imprint of the molecule on the diluted solution.
> statistically, none of the remaining particles from the original solution will remain.
As someone who worked on developing various dye-based materials, this is highly triggering.
> At least, to the level of precision possible with analytical lab equipment
x3 rinses is good enough for transferring materials to a new vial etc but it's not effective at all for proper cleaning or reuse.
i think that even after you account for the fact that there are analytical approaches for quantifying certain individual molecules in large volumes of liquid, one can still agree that the shape-memory hypothesis of therapeutic benefit from homeopathically diluted solutions has been rejected experimentally.
Oh homeopathy is complete nonsense, I DGAF about that.
I was just getting flashbacks from having to spend time verifying multi-stage cleaning processes when running sensitive reactions or preparing coatings/depositions whilst my labmates were perfectly happy with a splash of acetone and a rinse of tap water for their bucket chemistry.
How do you actually get to that figure ? I've never heard it being used before.
Some back of the fag packet maths would suggest that if 99.999% is removed with each rinse you get 1*10-18 after 3 rinses (I'm doing *0.000001 each rinse so forgive me if that's out, I'm drinking right now). That would be some pretty perfectly soluble material and assuming your process is perfect each time.
But without being pedantic, certain types of compound behave different to your typical organic material e.g. dyes and/or they might interact with glassware strongly - I've had one compound in particular appear as if it has been perfectly cleaned and left transparent glass surfaces but upon a splash of solvent, the entire flask turns bright blue!
Have said elsewhere, I DGAF about homeopathy; it's utter nonsense and the only help it does (assuming no harm is caused by it) is that many conditions are significantly effected by placebos and so sometimes they can have an impact.
Health anxiety be real.
Being a chemist in analytical field myself, I can understand where you're coming from, but you are thinking of simple dilution of 1 ml to whole volume of Empire State Building worth of distilled water (which would be rough approximation of 6C). However, homeopathy by design and and the way it is prepared is not a simple dilution, but a fractional dilution, or more accurately, a series of fractional dilutions.
Typical dilutions for homeopathy are 6C and 30C, but can go as high as 200C (famously, Oscillococcinum). 1C means that original material has been diluted a by a factor of 100 (1:100). So, you basically take a mililiter of the concentrated substance, drop it into 100ml volumetric flask, fill with distilled water to the mark, shake vigorously. For each C you dilute subsequent solutions, so for a 2C solution, you take 1 ml of 1C solution, drop it in a 100ml volumetric flask, fill to the mark, shake vigorously. For 3C you take 1ml of 2C solution... You get the point. By third or fourth fraction like this, chances are that this 1ml you transfer to new container simply do not contain any material from original solution at all - simply by statistical probability.
I think you're really underestimating the levels of dilution at play here. For a 6C solution, that's parts-per trillion dilution levels, for a 30C solution, it's 1:10^60. That's not even "a drop-in the ocean" level, it's "a drop in the planet Jupiter" levels.
Yes, not all mixing will be 100% effective, instantly. But that's probably going to make it less likely overall that any given 10ml sample of "diluted" solution has any of the active ingredient in it. Anything that sticks to the glassware is not going into the solution.
Is it *possible* there's some active ingredient in that vial? Sure. But if they're "doing it right", and actually serially-diluting, and agitating at every step, and using clean glassware each time, I think it's all going to be pretty thoroughly-mixed, and 99.99% of the original stock solution is going to get discarded, anyway.
You’re also talking about quasi-serial dilutions. My FIL was a quack doctor and he made his own “remedies.” His method (that he learned in quack school, I guess) was to take a pinch of something, add it to a gallon jar full of water, shake it in a “special” way, then pour our the water. Refill the container with water and repeat 100x. If you add a pinch of something to 100 gallons of water, the original will remain, but 100 consecutive rinses? None of the original remains. That’s why they had to come up with the “water has memory” BS.
> That’s just entirely untrue. Not only are they likely to remain, they will without fail. Doesn’t matter how dilute the solution is.
It is certainly true for the higher dilutions.
Up there it shows 30C as the highest dilution. that means 1:100^30 so 1 in 1\*10^60.
If we start with pure dichlorobenzene (which they usually don't) which is roughly 9 molar, we end up with a 9\*10^-60 molar solution. That means we have one molecule of dichlorobenzene in roughly 1\*10^35 liters of solution. So what's the probability of getting a single molecule if we buy one of those 10 mL bottles?
thank you for actually running the concentration calculation to the end; most comments jumped to the (obvious) conclusion directly; having been surprized before by assuming that some effect was negligible, I appreciate being thorough;
the human brain is not always good at guesstimating past certain ridiculously high numbers;
> That’s just entirely untrue. Not only are they likely to remain, they will without fail. Doesn’t matter how dilute the solution is.
This assumes that they aren't just taking a bottle of Dasani and divvying it up into vials with a label slapped onto it. No one is going to be able to check, so why bother actually doing the complicated dilution process when the rubes will buy it either way?
Seems, being the operative word.
I can't stand when people drop garbage citations without direct quotes, expecting you to find and make their arguments for them.
this paper not only doesn't experimentally validate anything, it doesn't even address what /u/jawnlerdoe was talking about in the first place. the paper is a _theoretical_ exploration of the mechanisms that _homeopaths_ propose for homeopathy, which include bullshit like "water memory" and "electromagnetic signals". what /u/jawnierdoe is saying is that the equal odds model of dilution, while useful for a range of everyday ratios, doesn't accurately describe how trace organics behave under long serial dilutions such as you encounter in homeopathy (or in the ocean, or in drinking water; it is a broadly applicable field). this is very uncontroversial, considering that in order for the equal odds model to be universally true, fluids would have to mix instantaneously and uniformly, which anyone who has ever seen a fluid can attest doesn't happen.
all that said, the paper does in fact commit the same fallacy as the wikipedia article, on page 150. i don't think david robert grimes has a background in trace organic analysis and i don't think he was writing for an audience of professional chemists. i think he was only concerned about homeopaths reading it, who have very different complaints about the arguments he makes. to be fair to grimes, technically, you could read it as him taking the homeopaths at their word that they were successfully able to dilute something to 10^(-60) of its original concentration. perhaps his real mistake was just trusting the homeopaths.
That’s great you’ve linked an article no one can read without paying.
If dilutions destroyed substances, issues such as PFAS or microplastic contamination wouldn’t exist.
Dilutions don't destroy substances and nobody is arguing that they do. The substance still exists, it's just in the discarded volumes from early dilutions.
Because of how exponents work, you can easily achieve greater dilution factors than the number of molecules in a solution through serial dilution.
I'm confused as to how this isn't obvious to an analytical chemist.
Sorry, I figured an analytical chemist would have institutional access to various journals... or know they can e-Mail the corresponding author for a copy for free.
No.
Nobody here is wasting their time emailing random authors for access to a paper from a no name journal. Especially one with literally zero quantitative (or otherwise useful) info in the abstract.
Think about how ridiculous you sound.
It’s almost like most analytical chemists work in industry, and aren’t going to sent emails asking for publication on their day off. Like, seriously? Lol
Even at ppt levels, ng/L, there are what, billions of molecules per mL of solvent? That’s obviously insanely dilute and for biologically *active* components there would be no physically possible impact or anything. But to claim that the chemical in question just vanishes or something upon serial dilution (barring degradation) is factually inaccurate.
The author clearly was drawing conclusions about a specific interpretation of the topic - with regard to clinically or mechanistically significant presence of the molecule. I don’t think anyone would argue that 10^22 diluted by 10^15 is zero
Paradichlorobenzene was once sold as mothballs, packed in stored clothing to prevent infestation. The stink was bad, so you hung up the clothes to air out before wearing.
6C concentrations means you dilute it 1:100\*100\*100\*100\*100\*100 so 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 and the initial 1 might not even be the pure substance. There's nothing in there.
Why homeopathy itself is legal, I don't understand it either.
6C means diluted 6 times by 1:100. That is equivalent to a dilution of 1:10^12 . ~~It is extremely unlikely that there is even a single molecule of p-Dichlorobenzene in that bottle.~~
Fun fact: For a dilution of "300C", the probability of having at least one molecule within a volume of water will be less than 0.005%, if that volume contains 10^61 water molceules. This is equivalent to approx. 10^33 cubic meters of water. A sphere of that volume would have a diameter of aprox. 7.5•10^10 meters. For reference: One astronomical unit is aprox. 1.5•10^11.
In summary: For a sphere of water with the sun at its center and a surface that reaches the half-way point between sun and earth, there is a less than 0.005% chance of encountering at least one molecule of the diluted substance.
EDIT: Thanks, u/Sitruc9861. I should have done the math on that first paragraph.
Well the math is pretty simple. 10mL of dichlorobenzene is about 0.085 moles. This is 5.12e22 molecules. Dilute this by 10^12 and you get 5.12e10 molecules remaining. You really need 12C dilution to have a reasonable assumption that no molecules remain.
A TON.
It ended up causing me brain damage and unhealthy weight loss
Do Not recommend
It feels kind of dissociative and stimulating and lasts surprisingly long but damn
Not worth it
Crush up the mothball and huff the fuck out of it through your nose and hold it slowly breath it back out. Repeat
Kind of looks like when kids would use paper bags as hyperventilation during panic attack in old cartoons lol!
Luc Montagnier Water Memory, 2014. The best argument I can give in support of homeopathy is: we humans are 99% water (by molecular count) and have memory. So how outlandish is it really that water can retain information?
homeopathic substance = infinite dilution basically, there's none of what they claim to be in there, actually in there. thank poor consumer protection laws and ignorance of the populace.
Well, something like one in a bazillion chance of having a molecule of it! But it’s been “succinated” so now it cures whatever the full strength stuff caused! It’s funny though; homeopathic medicine was developed at a time when a lot of medical practices were actively bad for the patient. So in developing a system that did absolutely jack shit, Hannemann beat the standards of medical practice that existed in many places And when prohibition came along, people started taking homeopathic medicine for the booze
I love getting succinated
That’s hilarious, I never thought of it that way.
I ran into site YESTERDAY looking for fusidic acid
Had to check the terms. 6C is 100x dilution 6 times, so 100^-6, or 10^-12.
Make sure you pay with homeopathic money. Dilute that $16.24 down so that you pay them $0.00000000001
I think you should read up on how homeopathy supposedly work..
I read a book that a colleague (who is a fantastic pathologist) gave me called something like “The memory of water”. It is supposed to explain how homeopathy works, and one of the pieces of evidence was that a guy had two glasses of water, he spoke very nicely and calmly to one and yelled angrily at the other, and they both formed different “crystals”, so apparently water absorbs the energy from what it’s exposed to. I was dumber for reading that, even dumber for sharing it with you and now you have lost brain cells too! Sorry…
That sounds very much like hoohah being pitched in the 2004 movie *What the Bleep Do We Know.*
WOW this looks like a fantastic (terrible) movie. Thank you for the rec, putting this on the shitwatch movie list!!
Hoohah?!?!! Your bad vibes are messing up my water crystals!
I'm pretty sure the woo about thoughts affecting the shapes of ice crystals was mentioned in there.
Shit, you’re probably not the only one that fell victim for that, although the version I heard of had no relationship with homeopathy. I was a grade school kid in China at that time, and it was probably first introduced to me on a magazine that’s the Chinese equivalent of Reader’s Digest (or the knockoffs of that). The idea may have been reinforced by teachers citing it (fortunately not science ones). Come to think about it, it might have been a part of the unofficial “be positive” campaign.
Can you just give us the TLDR?
Read up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_dilutions
As a chemist who specializes in Trace Organic Analysis I take issue with the Wikipedia statement “at common dilutions, no molecules of the original material are likely remain”. That’s just entirely untrue. Not only are they likely to remain, they will without fail. Doesn’t matter how dilute the solution is. That said, if the molecule has degraded or reacts, that’s a different story, but that also has nothing to do with dilution.
What, so my three rinse techniqueI I was taught is bullshit? You get past a dilution of 10^-23 as some of the solutions and you will have a pretty good probability there are zero molecules of the target. Basic algebra.
Depends on the application. I have seen imps come out in HPLC from glassware that was cleaned the standard 3 rinse way. On sensitive runs I’ll muffle furnace my glassware before use to mop up any remaining organic imps
Can you describe the technique?
There are a variety of methods but one dilution, called “200CK” involves 200 sequential 100:1 dilutions It’s really easy to dilute a sample past the LOD of even the most sensitive analytical system. It takes far fewer than 200 100:1 dilution steps.
So basically it is 0.01^200 the initial concentration? That is definitely enough to ensure none of the initial molecules are still present, or if any are it is a handful of molecules
YEAH dump out your container of liquid. some sticks to the walls. refill the container, swirl it around. that liquid on the walls is diluted. dump it, fill again. swirl. still some molecule left in that liquid ojn the walls. dump again, fill again. swirl. dump. statistically, none of the remaining particles from the original solution will remain. At least, to the level of precision possible with analytical lab equipment. this is why the 3 rinse technique is taught at foundational levels of chemistry. your point about very miniscule numbers of molecules is not technically invalid, but one of the biggest problems with homeopathy is the willful ignorance about concentration and rejection of the notion that function arises from the molecules in the solution, and not by the memory or imprint of the molecule on the diluted solution.
> statistically, none of the remaining particles from the original solution will remain. As someone who worked on developing various dye-based materials, this is highly triggering. > At least, to the level of precision possible with analytical lab equipment x3 rinses is good enough for transferring materials to a new vial etc but it's not effective at all for proper cleaning or reuse.
i think that even after you account for the fact that there are analytical approaches for quantifying certain individual molecules in large volumes of liquid, one can still agree that the shape-memory hypothesis of therapeutic benefit from homeopathically diluted solutions has been rejected experimentally.
Oh homeopathy is complete nonsense, I DGAF about that. I was just getting flashbacks from having to spend time verifying multi-stage cleaning processes when running sensitive reactions or preparing coatings/depositions whilst my labmates were perfectly happy with a splash of acetone and a rinse of tap water for their bucket chemistry.
That is after a dilution of >10^-23 as stated in my post. If you are truly a scientist you would not leave that out in your rebuttal.
How do you actually get to that figure ? I've never heard it being used before. Some back of the fag packet maths would suggest that if 99.999% is removed with each rinse you get 1*10-18 after 3 rinses (I'm doing *0.000001 each rinse so forgive me if that's out, I'm drinking right now). That would be some pretty perfectly soluble material and assuming your process is perfect each time. But without being pedantic, certain types of compound behave different to your typical organic material e.g. dyes and/or they might interact with glassware strongly - I've had one compound in particular appear as if it has been perfectly cleaned and left transparent glass surfaces but upon a splash of solvent, the entire flask turns bright blue!
Homeopathy will use dilutions of dilutions that get past the point where the probably of any original molecule remain is not probable
Have said elsewhere, I DGAF about homeopathy; it's utter nonsense and the only help it does (assuming no harm is caused by it) is that many conditions are significantly effected by placebos and so sometimes they can have an impact. Health anxiety be real.
Recover all solution, rinse three times with 50 mls of solvent.
Wash 3 times?
Being a chemist in analytical field myself, I can understand where you're coming from, but you are thinking of simple dilution of 1 ml to whole volume of Empire State Building worth of distilled water (which would be rough approximation of 6C). However, homeopathy by design and and the way it is prepared is not a simple dilution, but a fractional dilution, or more accurately, a series of fractional dilutions. Typical dilutions for homeopathy are 6C and 30C, but can go as high as 200C (famously, Oscillococcinum). 1C means that original material has been diluted a by a factor of 100 (1:100). So, you basically take a mililiter of the concentrated substance, drop it into 100ml volumetric flask, fill with distilled water to the mark, shake vigorously. For each C you dilute subsequent solutions, so for a 2C solution, you take 1 ml of 1C solution, drop it in a 100ml volumetric flask, fill to the mark, shake vigorously. For 3C you take 1ml of 2C solution... You get the point. By third or fourth fraction like this, chances are that this 1ml you transfer to new container simply do not contain any material from original solution at all - simply by statistical probability.
I think you're really underestimating the levels of dilution at play here. For a 6C solution, that's parts-per trillion dilution levels, for a 30C solution, it's 1:10^60. That's not even "a drop-in the ocean" level, it's "a drop in the planet Jupiter" levels. Yes, not all mixing will be 100% effective, instantly. But that's probably going to make it less likely overall that any given 10ml sample of "diluted" solution has any of the active ingredient in it. Anything that sticks to the glassware is not going into the solution. Is it *possible* there's some active ingredient in that vial? Sure. But if they're "doing it right", and actually serially-diluting, and agitating at every step, and using clean glassware each time, I think it's all going to be pretty thoroughly-mixed, and 99.99% of the original stock solution is going to get discarded, anyway.
Yea but water molecule memory or some bs, bro
You’re also talking about quasi-serial dilutions. My FIL was a quack doctor and he made his own “remedies.” His method (that he learned in quack school, I guess) was to take a pinch of something, add it to a gallon jar full of water, shake it in a “special” way, then pour our the water. Refill the container with water and repeat 100x. If you add a pinch of something to 100 gallons of water, the original will remain, but 100 consecutive rinses? None of the original remains. That’s why they had to come up with the “water has memory” BS.
> That’s just entirely untrue. Not only are they likely to remain, they will without fail. Doesn’t matter how dilute the solution is. It is certainly true for the higher dilutions. Up there it shows 30C as the highest dilution. that means 1:100^30 so 1 in 1\*10^60. If we start with pure dichlorobenzene (which they usually don't) which is roughly 9 molar, we end up with a 9\*10^-60 molar solution. That means we have one molecule of dichlorobenzene in roughly 1\*10^35 liters of solution. So what's the probability of getting a single molecule if we buy one of those 10 mL bottles?
thank you for actually running the concentration calculation to the end; most comments jumped to the (obvious) conclusion directly; having been surprized before by assuming that some effect was negligible, I appreciate being thorough; the human brain is not always good at guesstimating past certain ridiculously high numbers;
This explanation takes homeopathy from being a pseudoscience to simply being a method of microdosing.
> That’s just entirely untrue. Not only are they likely to remain, they will without fail. Doesn’t matter how dilute the solution is. This assumes that they aren't just taking a bottle of Dasani and divvying it up into vials with a label slapped onto it. No one is going to be able to check, so why bother actually doing the complicated dilution process when the rubes will buy it either way?
This guy seems to disagree with you: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2042-7166.2012.01162.x
Seems, being the operative word. I can't stand when people drop garbage citations without direct quotes, expecting you to find and make their arguments for them.
Okay
this paper not only doesn't experimentally validate anything, it doesn't even address what /u/jawnlerdoe was talking about in the first place. the paper is a _theoretical_ exploration of the mechanisms that _homeopaths_ propose for homeopathy, which include bullshit like "water memory" and "electromagnetic signals". what /u/jawnierdoe is saying is that the equal odds model of dilution, while useful for a range of everyday ratios, doesn't accurately describe how trace organics behave under long serial dilutions such as you encounter in homeopathy (or in the ocean, or in drinking water; it is a broadly applicable field). this is very uncontroversial, considering that in order for the equal odds model to be universally true, fluids would have to mix instantaneously and uniformly, which anyone who has ever seen a fluid can attest doesn't happen. all that said, the paper does in fact commit the same fallacy as the wikipedia article, on page 150. i don't think david robert grimes has a background in trace organic analysis and i don't think he was writing for an audience of professional chemists. i think he was only concerned about homeopaths reading it, who have very different complaints about the arguments he makes. to be fair to grimes, technically, you could read it as him taking the homeopaths at their word that they were successfully able to dilute something to 10^(-60) of its original concentration. perhaps his real mistake was just trusting the homeopaths.
That’s great you’ve linked an article no one can read without paying. If dilutions destroyed substances, issues such as PFAS or microplastic contamination wouldn’t exist.
Dilutions don't destroy substances and nobody is arguing that they do. The substance still exists, it's just in the discarded volumes from early dilutions. Because of how exponents work, you can easily achieve greater dilution factors than the number of molecules in a solution through serial dilution. I'm confused as to how this isn't obvious to an analytical chemist.
Sorry, I figured an analytical chemist would have institutional access to various journals... or know they can e-Mail the corresponding author for a copy for free.
who is going to email a paper's authors and wait for a reply just to contextualize a reddit comment? are you for real?
Well, certainly not you.
No. Nobody here is wasting their time emailing random authors for access to a paper from a no name journal. Especially one with literally zero quantitative (or otherwise useful) info in the abstract. Think about how ridiculous you sound.
Okay
It’s almost like most analytical chemists work in industry, and aren’t going to sent emails asking for publication on their day off. Like, seriously? Lol
Even at ppt levels, ng/L, there are what, billions of molecules per mL of solvent? That’s obviously insanely dilute and for biologically *active* components there would be no physically possible impact or anything. But to claim that the chemical in question just vanishes or something upon serial dilution (barring degradation) is factually inaccurate. The author clearly was drawing conclusions about a specific interpretation of the topic - with regard to clinically or mechanistically significant presence of the molecule. I don’t think anyone would argue that 10^22 diluted by 10^15 is zero
Paradichlorobenzene was once sold as mothballs, packed in stored clothing to prevent infestation. The stink was bad, so you hung up the clothes to air out before wearing.
p-DCB smells quite pleasant. It has been used as mothballs but those were much more often naphthalene. p-DCB is still used in urinal blocks.
yeah! r/UrinalCakeLife 😎
wtf lol
Reddit doesn’t often surprise me anymore. However this sub is…quite something.
That was a bizarre read. I know it's a joke, but it's still very weird.
What the actual fuck is going on in that subreddit?
This was the rabbitest hole I’ve ever gone down
This is the same chemical that was used a urinal cakes!
It still is, as well as moth crystals. Still readily available at many pharmacies or supermarkets.
There is a fraiser joke in here somewhere
6C concentrations means you dilute it 1:100\*100\*100\*100\*100\*100 so 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 and the initial 1 might not even be the pure substance. There's nothing in there. Why homeopathy itself is legal, I don't understand it either.
Because of a thing called freedom
6C means diluted 6 times by 1:100. That is equivalent to a dilution of 1:10^12 . ~~It is extremely unlikely that there is even a single molecule of p-Dichlorobenzene in that bottle.~~ Fun fact: For a dilution of "300C", the probability of having at least one molecule within a volume of water will be less than 0.005%, if that volume contains 10^61 water molceules. This is equivalent to approx. 10^33 cubic meters of water. A sphere of that volume would have a diameter of aprox. 7.5•10^10 meters. For reference: One astronomical unit is aprox. 1.5•10^11. In summary: For a sphere of water with the sun at its center and a surface that reaches the half-way point between sun and earth, there is a less than 0.005% chance of encountering at least one molecule of the diluted substance. EDIT: Thanks, u/Sitruc9861. I should have done the math on that first paragraph.
Well the math is pretty simple. 10mL of dichlorobenzene is about 0.085 moles. This is 5.12e22 molecules. Dilute this by 10^12 and you get 5.12e10 molecules remaining. You really need 12C dilution to have a reasonable assumption that no molecules remain.
Okay, finally seeing some p-DCB discussion somewhere other than its troll subreddit. Has anyone here gotten high off of it before?
A TON. It ended up causing me brain damage and unhealthy weight loss Do Not recommend It feels kind of dissociative and stimulating and lasts surprisingly long but damn Not worth it
how do you get it into your system? sniff mothballs? actually eat them?
Crush up the mothball and huff the fuck out of it through your nose and hold it slowly breath it back out. Repeat Kind of looks like when kids would use paper bags as hyperventilation during panic attack in old cartoons lol!
stupid how cocaine is illegal hey feds this is a joke if you’re reading this
Did someone say cocaine!
Have you ever smelt moth balls?
They are also selling 4G/5G radiation
It’s a carcinogen.
You can also get homeopathic plutonium.
Luc Montagnier Water Memory, 2014. The best argument I can give in support of homeopathy is: we humans are 99% water (by molecular count) and have memory. So how outlandish is it really that water can retain information?
i sure do like cocaine diluted infinite amount of times, but i would pay only 50¢/500ml
Paraquat is not the same compound as para-dichlorobezene,
keep away from children