Talk:Arsenicum album

Impossibility
The article shows this: "When properly prepared, however, the extreme dilutions, typically to at least 1 in 1024, or 12C in homeopathic notation, mean that it is extremely statistically unlikely that any pill contains even a molecule of the original arsenic used."

While I can understand very well what is meant here, technically it is impossible. If a certain amount of arsenic trioxide goes into the solution, about the same amount should come into the batch of pills that has been produced from that solution. There can be some loss in the recipients & containers used for the solution, but not in such a way that zero arsenic molecules are left in the resulting product. Also the expression "extremely statistically unlikely" is somewhat strange, a statistic is never extreme, one is an objective expression, the other a subjective one... Either it is extremely unlikely, or it is statistically unlikely, never both. The term(s) "(un)likely" is in my opinion something that in no way should be combined with the word "statistically". A statistic should be scientific exact and correct and leave nothing (un)likely. Only the (inexact) interpretation of a certain statistic can be likely or unlikely.

I think it should be more correctly expressed as for instance: "statistically most pills contain zero molecules of the original arsenic used, some might contain a single molecule"

But someone more at home in chemistry should calculate it to make a statistic first, if we want the information to be correct. Currently the best we can say is: "most likely the majority of pills will not contain even a single molecule of the origina arsenic used, a small amount may contain a single or very few molecules". (I hope that is, otherwise, one or a few pills contain all of the arsenic trioxide, but that's properly covered by the expression "when properly prepared"). Aszazin (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with this, and I implemented a very similar wording. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Dilution removes arsenic???
The first sentence of the article describes Arsenicum album as "a solution prepared by diluting aqueous arsenic trioxide generally until there is little or no arsenic remaining in the solution." It cites a reference that makes no such claim, and I have removed it, substituting instead a Citation Needed template preceded by a Dubious one. But still — diluting As2O3 until there's only a molecule or two left? Wouldn't that make this stuff just… diluent? Why bother even adding the arsenic trioxide in the first place? Save a lot of time and effort and just pour some water in a jar. If this is one of the 15 most important remedies in homeopathy, I can't imagine what magickal miracles are in the other 14.

Seriously, though, the entire article is a waste of disk space. None of this garbage about asymptotic dilutions and people with similar body shapes and personalities having similar diseases belongs on Wikipedia. DadOfBeanAndBug (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

All homeopatic solutions suffer the same problem. If it was possible to dilute it to the point that the "structure" remembers the original solution, then alcoholics would take 1 mL of vodka and dilute it to 10 cubic meters. And then, this diluted vodka should get them drunk, just the same as the original vodka. No: Dilution does not remove arsenic, but when you bring it to 10^-10, it is already at the levels that naturally occur in nature, levels that are below detection limits of the instruments, levels that are shown they are not harmful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:343:8001:503E:D0D1:559B:B794:7256 (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Research Studies Section
The "Research studies" section seems to deviate from the topic and delve into the writer's personal bias. If studies specifically conducted on this solution are or have been questioned as being deficient, that is, of course, worth noting here; however, this section serves little more purpose than to attack the credibility of homeopathy in general, which detracts from the article's topic as well as overall neutrality. Any question surrounding the efficacy of homeopathy or homeopathic methods in general should be addressed on/in the Homeopathy article, not here. Alex1453 02:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

If a self-proclaimed "scientist" who is infamous for making unscientific claims such as, say, the earth is flat, claims he has found a miracle cure for Covid-19, it is perfectly sensible, and required even, to mention the scientist's lack of credibility in the wikipedia page for the said miracle cure. It is perfectly acceptable to point out the lack of credibility of homeopathy here the same reason. Context is always very important. GradmiralThrawn (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)