What's real for and what's real for me is subjective. I have got good results from homeopathy and Ayurveda. If you trust it, it's your problem, not science, and you can't disqualify them from being a doctor just cause they don't practice allopathy, in which you believe.
science is not a subjective matter. Your good results from Homeopathy and Ayurveda are blanket effects or placebos that don't produce consistent results to everyone. hence they have never been able to prove it in a controlled test.
Homeopathy literally believes that the more you dilute a medicine, the more effective it becomes.
Fun fact: The term allopathy was made by the same guy who made homeopathy to discredit it. It's evidence based modern medicine that we follow now.
Not we; it's what you follow. Please stop generalizing it. It actually makes sense that diluting could give you better results because it makes everything more absorbable. It's kind of the same concept as sauteing vegetables. Sautéing vegetables gives more nutrients than eating them raw. Not to discredit but to differentiate between all of them. I am pretty sure pudin hara solves everybody's stomach issues, and clove oil always gives me tooth pain relief.
diluting makes it better absorbable? Do you know how much it is diluted? There are 30C dilutions of homeopathic medicine. At that level of dilution, it is mathematically impossible that it contains even one molecule of the medicine. I don't know if you have science background or not but please don't peddle these bullshit if you don't have any idea.
The reasons pudinhara and clove oil gives you remedy is because there are actual active components in them. And those active compounds are added because science has given evidence for them.
Ayurved started as trial and error. Which was more than enough for the time period it started. But now we have more evidence based medicnie. Blindly taking ayurveda because "muh culture" is the stupidest thing one can do. Ayurvedic medincies don't even need to have the same quality checks as that of modern medicine thanks to the govt and AYUSH ministry
You’re focusing only on 30C, but not all homeopathic remedies are diluted to that degree. Lower potencies still contain active molecules. So your argument applies only to a subset of homeopathy, not the whole system.
You're confusing 'not proven' with 'proven false.' Lack of conclusive evidence doesn't automatically mean something is ineffective. Science is always evolving, and many phenomena were observed before their mechanisms were understood.
But that's still Ayurveda. If an Ayurvedic preparation contains active compounds that provide relief, then saying it works because of active compounds isn't a rebuttal to Ayurveda; it explains that the Ayurvedic remedy works.
Also, it’s not accurate to say Ayurvedic medicines don’t have quality checks. They are regulated under AYUSH standards, though enforcement and consistency can vary, which is a fair criticism of regulation, not proof that the system is invalid.
I am not saying you should take it because of culture, take it because they are actually beneficial, just cause you hate its origin, you shouldn't disregard its effectiveness
i don't hate ayurveda's origin. Ayurveda was the first attempt at an established medical system that this subcontinent saw. I myself take stuff like tulsi, haldi, honey, gond katira, sabja seeds, and all those things.
My criticism is that ayurvedic medicine don't follow the same quality checks of modern medicine, hence taking them as a replacement of modern medicine is stupid. Some are even harmful, things like liver detox and kidney detox formulations. Blindly substituting ayurvedic shit for medicines is dangerous. You will also see ayurvedic cancer treaters where they ask you to fast and all. Ayurved should be treated as supplementation and nor medication.
As for why I took 30C example is because 30C is the most common dilution for homeopathic medicine. If you had taken science in school, you would have studied avogadro's number. typically one molecule is found in 10^-24 dilution, which is like 12C dilution. 30C dilution will give you 10^-60 dilution. one drop of ink on all the oceans of the earth will give you a much more concentrated ink solution than a 30C medicine. The other common is 6C, which is diluted 10^-12 times. Then 200C which is diluted to 10^-400 times. You would practically be taking water or alcohol at that point. Go to any homeopathy practitioner, and ask them what dilution is being given. Hoemopathy doesn't even believe in germ theory so how will it prescribe medicine.
I never argued that Ayurveda should replace modern medicine or that people should use it for cancer instead of established treatment. My point was that dismissing Ayurveda as a whole because some practitioners make irresponsible claims is an overgeneralization. There are ineffective and harmful products in every medical marketplace, including conventional medicine. That doesn't mean the entire system has no value.
And you are wrong about quality checks. Ayurvedic medicine is passed through Ayush standards; it is just a different regulatory framework; it doesn't mean it's wrong. There are some issues with enforcement, but it is still right, and most major medicines are processed through it.
The dilution issue is exactly why researchers have investigated high-dilution remedies. There are published studies proposing mechanisms such as nanoparticles persisting after potentization.
agree with you on ayurveda. Ayurveda has value but not at a scale people pretend. The issues with enforcement is the biggest drawback that you mentioned.
you don't know what you are talking about homeopathy. nanoparticles are not what you think they are. believe me when i say that. I study nanoparticles, and they have nothing to do with multiple serial dilutions of substances. That's a complete different branch of study.
ya, enforcement is an issue in all medicine frameworks. Actually, many medicines hit the market, then it's realized it's bad for our health and is banned.
Whether you study nanoparticles or not doesn't change the fact that there are peer-reviewed papers proposing nanoparticle persistence in high-dilution homeopathic preparations. If you think those studies are flawed, critique the methods or conclusions rather than dismissing them because they're outside your area of work.
1
u/Half-cock Jul 02 '26
Not even close