40 replies to this topic

[joeser]

There was a similar post regarding pupil dilation to which I responded. Basically, dilation of the pupils is for the purpose of examining the retina and inner eye structures. It adversely affects the eye's ability to focus and that's no help for visual observations.

[pretyro]

The advice above non-withstanding (its all good, BTW), homeopathy is utter and total nonsense. It is based on the disproven and physically impossible idea that water has "memory", and that diseases can be cured by diluting the "cause" of the disease near-infinitely in water - e.g. the "memory" of what was in the water before it was diluted out of existence somehow cures the condition...but only if you shake (succuss) the water just right at each dilution.

 

A 6X homeopathic dilution of the product shown earlier means the starting solution was diluted 1:100 six times, or in other words, was diluted 1-in-1 million.

     And in those instances where the dilution is >12x (100-12 ) the water that was originally present is diluted away.  Sometimes the dilution is as great as 20x  to 60 x (100-20 to 100-60 ) where any solute has been diluted out and as well as any water that had ever interacted with solute.  For a homeopathic effect to occur then the water memory would need to be catalytic – have the ability to transfer its memory to other water molecules in the absence of solute.  This would appear to be perhaps unlikely, at least to me.

 

     Moreover, the water used for performing the dilutions is never somehow “neutralized” of any memory it may have had initially.  If water had a memory and could transfer its memory catalytically to other water molecules, it would seem reasonable to use “memory free” water for the diluent.  That is, any water used for dilution would contain a collection of memories of each molecule.  Some water molecules might retain the memory of the flesh of a dinosaur, the mucus of a Hagfish, or the tears of a newborn.  Since the provenance of the water used in an experiment is unknown (albeit an ancient source or the recent product of the oxidation of carbohydrates), experimentally, it would be best to neutralize such water memory of the diluent before preparing a homeopathic medicine.  

 

     We should suggest that homeopaths use freshly oxidized hydrogen (hence, memory free) as a water source for the diluent, but let’s not encourage them.  Heck, Cavendish had discovered that burning hydrogen produced water years before homeopathic medicines were conceived.
 

[Keith Rivich]

It's slightly more complicated than that. This disclaimer must go on certain products. The FDA having a (stupid) policy to not evaluate certain categories of products doesn't automatically preclude them from being worthwhile products. For example, you'll find that disclaimer on any multi-vitamin or legitimate dietary supplement, and yet it's a good idea for most or all people to take a daily multivitamin and some people may want to or even need to take various other dietary supplements.

 

Unfortunately, this disclaimer is more representative of the US governments failure to do their job to regulate industries that need to be regulated, not a statement about individual products. If you want to take a daily multi-vitamin, you will not find a product without this disclaimer. If your doctor wants you to supplement such-and-such in your diet, you will likely run into the same thing. As is often the case, there is no shortage of unscrupulous individuals, including anyone selling homeopathic "remedies," willing to take advantages of the government's unwillingness to regulate much of anything.

I can link to many studies that show multi-vitamins don't work. Same with dietary supplements. If the FDA were allowed to test these products...I am sure the Supplement Industry would not be very happy. 

[JoeFaz]

I can link to many studies that show multi-vitamins don't work. Same with dietary supplements. If the FDA were allowed to test these products...I am sure the Supplement Industry would not be very happy.

"Dietary supplements" includes things like calcium and iron. Things that are universally understood to be essential and that "work" and which can reasonably be lacking in a diet for various reasons...

[Keith Rivich]

There is a lot of evidence iron supplements work as advertised, to alleviate certain conditions. Calcium supplements, on the other hand, is a mixed bag with most studies showing no effectiveness for preventing bone disease. Calcium in foods, yes. Calcium supplements, no.

[Jon Isaacs]

There is a lot of evidence iron supplements work as advertised, to alleviate certain conditions. Calcium supplements, on the other hand, is a mixed bag with most studies showing no effectiveness for preventing bone disease. Calcium in foods, yes. Calcium supplements, no.

 

 

In any event... Natural dilation of the pupils is rapid and safe.  As has been said several times, dark adaptation is not about your pupil diameter, it's about the photo-chemical processes involving Rhodopsin.   

 

There is a small advantage to having large dilated pupils but the vast majority of observing is done at a smaller exit pupils... 

 

Jon

[TOMDEY]

Interesting other affective --- the placebo effect... which is (somewhat ironically) ~real~ in that e.g. you are convinced that you must be able to see more because someone has convinced you that he does, with others chiming in affirmatively. Without naming names --- a midnight observing session with an experienced observing friend, at my trusty old 29-incher, enjoying little fuzzies under very good conditions. We had sifted our way down to some really challenging ones, near the limit of detectability or even beyond. Some arcane target he wanted to look at, but with uncertain coordinates. I pointed in roughly the right spot --- but intentionally off the mark and on a blank region with only a few dim stars. He scales the ladder and quickly descends, logging in his notebook that he saw it just fine. We were both fatigued and dawn was approaching, so closed up and went down for an early breakfast.

 

I often sketch little naked eye star fields and then post-check to confirm/deny my observation. I most often have some false positives in there as well as missing some that I "should" have seen. Never quite figured that out... but it's a sobering and informative exercise.    Tom

 

Pla·ce·bo ef·fect

/pləˈsēbō əˈfekt/
noun

a beneficial effect produced by a placebo drug or treatment, which cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, and must therefore be due to the patient's belief in that treatment. ~

 

PS: That was actually affirmation effect. The funny thing about plain vanilla placebos is that you have to believe to enjoy the effect. This often helps with things like pain relief etc. that typically have a strong psychological component involved.

Edited by TOMDEY, 07 June 2025 - 08:04 AM.

[EmDrive2821]

Size Isn’t Everything…

 

While pharmacologic dilating agents will maintain a large diameter pupil under all lighting conditions, they will not maintain dark adaptation.


For those with older eyes who experience pharmacologic dilation, there can be some negative effects. 

• Typically with aging we observe some level of cataract development.  Usually (not always) in this case the quality of vision is better with a smaller pupil.  The smaller pupil reduces some of the negative visual effects of nuclear sclerosis.  It can also help with depth of field (if the pupil is small enough).  Of course any significant visual axis infringement by cataract development negates all of this.
• One additional caveat is the potential effect of any corneal issue, which can negatively impact the quality of vision as more peripheral cornea is engaged when there is pharmacologic dilation. 

Modern dilating agents typically come in two general forms. 

• The most impactful form is anticholenergic (cholinergic antagonist), which blocks the iris sphincter muscle.
• The second type of dilating agent is the adrenergic agonist, which stimulates the iris dilator muscle.

Typically both an anticholenergic antagonist and an adrenergic agonist are used in combination to create an effective dilation.

 

Knowing the biochemistry involved here allows for one to be creative and possibly develop rudimentary agents out of existing OTC medications.  This is something that should not be considered because of multiple potential problems which might lead to harm.

 

If one wants to try this, I suggest that one consult their eye care provider and arrange to run a trial.  

• Commonly used dilating agents, such as Tropicamide 1%, keep the pupils dilated for about 4 to 6 hours.
• Cyclopentolate 1% can maintain dilation for about 12 to 24 hours.

Remember, as Starman 1 pointed out in Post #10, that any ophthalmic cholenergic antagonist will also act upon the ciliary musculature (cycloplegia) and block accommodation, making reading glasses or multifocals necessary for most everyone.  

 

I think that while all of this is interesting, except for some unusual conditions or goals, most will find that the effects of dilation/cycloplegia will negatively outweigh leaving things alone.

 

Gary

[davidgmd]

I wouldn’t take it.

  
Not so much because pharmacologic dilation is more likely to reduce the quality of your view. Your peripheral cornea and lens add unwanted aberration. Ever try looking at the stars or street lights or headlights when your pupils were dilated for an eye exam? Not a pretty picture.
 
Not so much because of the potential that dilation could cause problems. It can, even in rare cases bad problems like acute angle closure glaucoma which can lead to blindness. But at “6X” homeopathic concentrations there isn’t enough belladonna to do anything. That’s shy homeopathic medications have zero effect other than a placebo effect. There isn’t enough active ingredient to do anything, and the hocus-pocus explanations homeopaths offer to explain therffects are pseudoscience.

  
The reason I wouldn’t do it is because homeopathic eye drops are not subject to the same rigorous requirements for sterility as prescription drugs or OTC drops made by large reputable firms. There have been several cases of eye drops made by small companies that caused serious eye infections, leading to recalls and cases of blindness over the past year or two.

  
It’s not the negligible amount of the “active” ingredient that is supposed to be in homeopathic eye drops that scares me (unless they mess up the dilution and include too much - no outside authority is checking). It’s the bacteria, other organisms, and contaminants that shouldn’t be in there at all that worry me.

[ChristianG]

It is based on the disproven and physically impossible idea that water has "memory", and that diseases can be cured by diluting the "cause" of the disease near-infinitely in water (...)

I know of one exception: drinking sea water causes dehydration, but diluting it in pure water 100:1 twelve times is a good remedy for dehydration!!! Who would have known?

 

--Christian

[archival]

Although the OP's replies to some of the replies sounds more like one of those people seeking not so much advice but independent justification for their own decision, I will say this.

 

If you want to pour water into your eyes then feel free to do so.

 

Indeed, any true homeopathic tincture should be purer than the tapwater you can get if I guess your home country correctly.  Even in countries with good tapwater there are additives, but tapwater isn't homeopathic.  By definition homeopathic treatments no longer contain the purported active ingredient, just some supernatural essence of it.

 

As a result of this it is remarkable that people will prefer a homeopathic route over a vaccination route using ironic reasoning, except I suppose that a vaccine still has some of the active ingredient in it, where as a homeopathic tincture will not.  However that would lead to the assumption that antivaxer homeopathic users are aware, deep down, that it is only water.

 

If you've ever had your pupils dilated, say to have your optician or more likely ophtamologist (or their machines) be more able to get a good look at your entire retina edge to edge then you should be aware of the following.  Irrespective of any observing improvement for objects effectively at infinity you will likely end up head butting your eyepiece and will most certainly not be able to look at your star charts, read or write your notes, see your iphone or laptop screen, or do anything related to such things.

 

Also, don't get exit pupil and eye relief mixed, they interact to counter each others benefits at times and are magnification, and thus eypiece out lens aperture, related too.

 

Finally, homeopathy is pure pseudoscience and pseudoscience is not science, if only by definition.

 

That is not a belief.  Scientific studies with full methodology, including blind control, show no evidence for homeopathic treatments having any therapeutic effect.

 

As for Placebo, what has an Italian tenor got to do with anything?

[EmDrive2821]

Homeopathy, (18th century) is based on 2 fundamental principles:

• Law of Similars, the foundational principle of Homeopathy. It is that “like cures like.”  It postulates that a substance that can produce symptoms in a healthy person, can also cure similar symptoms in a sick person.  A diluted substance that causes symptoms in a healthy person, can stimulate the “vital force” to heal similar symptoms in sick person.
• Law of Minimum Dose: Homeopathic remedies are highly diluted, sometimes almost undetectable. The belief is that as a substance is diluted and shaken vigorously, therapeutic powers are intensified, while its potential for toxicity minimized, making it safe without side effects.

From an armchair perspective these concepts seem interesting.  Unfortunately, this 18th century conceptual construct is not always consistent with the current principles of medical science today.  How would one treat cancer ? Infection ? depression ? arthritis ? asthma ? 

 

Is there an Application for a Homeopathic approach ?

Now let us examine Allergy desensitization therapy.  There are some similarities, however the homeopathic approach is not supported by extensive peer reviewed research and strict regulation. 

 

EXAMPLE
“Impact of a homeopathic medication on upper respiratory tract infections in COPD patients: Results of an observational, prospective study (EXOXILO)”  Respiratory Medicine,  2019 Jan:146:96-105.  doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2018.11.011. 

https://pubmed.ncbi....ov/30665525/The

 

There may be a case for adjunct palliative or curative homeopathic remedies, but more peer reviewed, case specific studies and more rigorous standardization for manufacture are required.

 

Homeopathic “Remedies” are not subject to

• the rigorous FDA approval process, that Prescription and OTC medications undergo.
• rigorous clinical trials to prove effectiveness and safety.

FDA concerns about homeopathic remedy quality and safety include potentially hazardous active ingredients, variations in dosing, product quality and contamination.  In essence homeopathic products don’t undergo the independent extensive peer reviewed testing for quality, safety  and efficacy that Rx and OTC medications undergo.  These same concerns have been repeatedly raised by the regulatory authorities in the UK and Australia.

 

“Homeopathic Products”.  U S Food a& Drug Administration

 

https://www.fda.gov/...pathic-products

 

Sometimes people confuse homeopathic with holistic healthcare.  They are two very different mode of practice.

 

Gary

.

[davidgmd]

If you want to pour water into your eyes then feel free to do so.

   
While I agree with everything else in your post, I do have one caution even with this, though I realize you wrote it in jest.  
 
Tap water is not sterile. It’s extremely unlikely that an infection would arise from normal daily use, but using tap water for cleaning and storage of contact lenses significantly increases the risk of a serious corneal infection. One more reason daily disposable contacts are a better choice.

[areyoukiddingme]

https://www.youtube....h?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

[luxo II]

Guys you wont persuade anyone who doesn't grasp the difference between a belief vs objective, evidence-based science nor what is, or is not, a credible source of information.

 

This is why so many trust influencers and sources such as Facebook/X for advice. Even Dr Google would be better, but AI has messed that up.

Edited by luxo II, 10 June 2025 - 05:34 AM.

[vintageair]

I would suggest that since this stuff is available over the counter, rather than submit a query for opinions and spend half a day reading them just buy the stuff, try it and give us all a hands on report.