Changes

The Medical Faculty of Marburg University, in magazine Ärzteblatt dated March 3, 1993, declared homoeopathy a false doctrine: Its mechanism of action was a deception of the patient, enforced by self-deception on the part of the therapist.

The Medical Faculty of Marburg University, in magazine Ärzteblatt dated March 3, 1993, declared homoeopathy a false doctrine: Its mechanism of action was a deception of the patient, enforced by self-deception on the part of the therapist.

==Pseudo-scientific explanation approaches==

==Pseudo-scientific explanatory approaches==

The homoeopathy is not plausible from the scientific view: It contradicts the logic, the laws of nature and medical knowledge of the past and presence. High potencies after D23 or C12 do not contain any molecule of the raw material. How shall drops which only consist of solvents operate? There is no water memory which could take "information".

The homoeopathy is not plausible from the scientific view: It contradicts logic, the laws of nature, and medical knowledge past and present. High potencies of D23 or C12 or more do not contain any molecule of raw material. How are drops supposed to work which only consist of solvents? There is no water memory which could assimilate "information".

It is not meaningful in the scientific medicine to explain the operation of methods which can not provide the slightest effectiveness proof. The question about the active principle of the homoeopathy is completely senseless as long as there are no indications that homoeopathy develops an effect at all. All attempts at explanation of the homoeopathy are not founded therefore scientifically and will be able to do as classified pseudo-scientifically.

Within the framework of scientific medicine, it is not reasonable to explain the functionality of methods which are not in a position to prove their efficacy. Any exploration of mechanisms of action in homoeopathy are not reasonable as long as their is no indication of homoeopathy having any efficacy in the first place. Therefore, all attempts at explaining homoeopathy are scientifically unfounded and must be classified as pseudo-science.

This, however, does not stop homoeopaths from thinking up working mechanisms to the homoeopathy and publishing these. The span width reaches the pseudo-scientific re-interpretation of quantum mechanical and atom physical knowledge (see of animistic ideas of spirit animated matter in which the potentization releases the positive spirits (also vibrations) of the substances: Quantum mysticism.

This, however, does not stop homoeopaths from thinking up working mechanisms to the homoeopathy and publishing these. The span width reaches the pseudo-scientific re-interpretation of quantum mechanical and atom physical knowledge (see of animistic ideas of spirit animated matter in which the potentization releases the positive spirits (also vibrations) of the substances: Quantum mysticism.

The water memory, which Jacques Benveniste thought to have found, is often quoted as evidence. It is clear at the latest since 1995 that Benvenistes results are not comprehensible. It is nevertheless claimed furthermore that high potencies would contain information, although neither one can find information carriers nor a code is conceivable. So it is not surprising that the last "evidence" which is celebrated as a breakthrough proved also wrong and intolerable with rat intestines at the university Leipzig. An extensive appreciation of this pseudo research at the university Leipzig is found here: '''add source'''[4]. Whatever information the structure of the water contains in the conception of the supporters, it would have to be transferred also to the sugar pills on which the drop of the homoeopathic water is laid on. The memory of the water would have to "survive" in a way the ingestion and absorption through the gastrointestinal system in the body and the transport by the blood up to the tissue. Biologists have neither found a "water memory" nor discovered homoeopathic signals or receptors, still something which could plausibly serve as a receptor for water structures.

The water memory, which Jacques Benveniste thought to have found, is often quoted as evidence. It is clear at the latest since 1995 that Benvenistes results are not comprehensible. It is nevertheless claimed furthermore that high potencies would contain information, although neither one can find information carriers nor a code is conceivable. So it is not surprising that the last "evidence" which is celebrated as a breakthrough proved also wrong and intolerable with rat intestines at the university Leipzig. An extensive appreciation of this pseudo research at the university Leipzig is found here: '''add source'''[4]. Whatever information the structure of the water contains in the conception of the supporters, it would have to be transferred also to the sugar pills on which the drop of the homoeopathic water is laid on. The memory of the water would have to "survive" in a way the ingestion and absorption through the gastrointestinal system in the body and the transport by the blood up to the tissue. Biologists have neither found a "water memory" nor discovered homoeopathic signals or receptors, still something which could plausibly serve as a receptor for water structures.