• The Canadian suicide provisioner

    From Davey@davey@example.invalid to uk.legal.moderated on Sat May 30 10:23:26 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    Although I have every sympathy for the desire of the victims' families
    for Law to face justice in the UK, I can't help thinking that he will
    likely spend longer in jail in Canada than he would if he were jailed
    in the UK, with our early-release rules.
    --
    Davey.


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Roger Hayter@roger@hayter.org to uk.legal.moderated on Sat May 30 10:15:10 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 30 May 2026 at 10:23:26 BST, "Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote:

    Although I have every sympathy for the desire of the victims' families
    for Law to face justice in the UK, I can't help thinking that he will
    likely spend longer in jail in Canada than he would if he were jailed
    in the UK, with our early-release rules.

    What makes you think that our early release rules are more generous than those in Canada? A quick google suggests they are not.

    In any case, if he were prosecuted in this country it is likely that this
    would only be possible after release in Canada, and his sentence here would be additional.
    --

    Roger Hayter

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Clive Page@usenet@page2.eu to uk.legal.moderated on Sat May 30 12:22:13 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 30/05/2026 11:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
    On 30 May 2026 at 10:23:26 BST, "Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote:

    Although I have every sympathy for the desire of the victims' families
    for Law to face justice in the UK, I can't help thinking that he will
    likely spend longer in jail in Canada than he would if he were jailed
    in the UK, with our early-release rules.

    What makes you think that our early release rules are more generous than those
    in Canada? A quick google suggests they are not.

    In any case, if he were prosecuted in this country it is likely that this would only be possible after release in Canada, and his sentence here would be
    additional.


    I don't see that he has done anything wrong, actually. In this country
    it is no longer a crime to commit suicide so I don't see why anyone
    assisting the process should be deemed to have done something wrong.

    Especially because a law to make assisted suicide legal in specific circumstances was passed by the House of Commons but has failed to
    become law only because of obstruction by the non-elected House of Lords.

    I'm hoping to live for quite a number more years, but if it turns out at
    some point that I'm about to die from some painful disease and that the assisted suicide law still hasn't been passed (and travel to Switzerland
    is impracticable for some reason) then I'll seek out someone like this
    to provide me with the necessary drugs.
    --
    Clive Page


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jon Ribbens@jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu to uk.legal.moderated on Sat May 30 11:36:40 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 2026-05-30, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
    On 30/05/2026 11:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
    On 30 May 2026 at 10:23:26 BST, "Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
    Although I have every sympathy for the desire of the victims' families
    for Law to face justice in the UK, I can't help thinking that he will
    likely spend longer in jail in Canada than he would if he were jailed
    in the UK, with our early-release rules.

    What makes you think that our early release rules are more generous
    than those in Canada? A quick google suggests they are not.

    In any case, if he were prosecuted in this country it is likely that
    this would only be possible after release in Canada, and his sentence
    here would be additional.

    I don't see that he has done anything wrong, actually. In this country
    it is no longer a crime to commit suicide so I don't see why anyone assisting the process should be deemed to have done something wrong.

    Because the Suicide Act 1961 s2 says so...

    Especially because a law to make assisted suicide legal in specific circumstances was passed by the House of Commons but has failed to
    become law only because of obstruction by the non-elected House of Lords.

    I don't think it would have made what this person did less illegal
    even if that law had passed and was retrospectively in force at the
    time.

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Todal@the_todal@icloud.com to uk.legal.moderated on Sat May 30 15:26:31 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 30/05/2026 12:22, Clive Page wrote:
    On 30/05/2026 11:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
    On 30 May 2026 at 10:23:26 BST, "Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote:

    Although I have every sympathy for the desire of the victims' families
    for Law to face justice in the UK, I can't help thinking that he will
    likely spend longer in jail in Canada than he would if he were jailed
    in the UK, with our early-release rules.

    What makes you think that our early release rules are more generous
    than those
    in Canada? A quick google suggests they are not.

    In any case, if he were prosecuted in this country it is likely that this
    would only be possible after release in Canada, and his sentence here
    would be
    additional.


    I don't see that he has done anything wrong, actually.-a In this country
    it is no longer a crime to commit suicide so I don't see why anyone assisting the process should be deemed to have done something wrong.

    Especially because a law to make assisted suicide legal in specific circumstances was passed by the House of Commons but has failed to
    become law only because of obstruction by the non-elected House of Lords.

    I'm hoping to live for quite a number more years, but if it turns out at some point that I'm about to die from some painful disease and that the assisted suicide law still hasn't been passed (and travel to Switzerland
    is impracticable for some reason) then I'll seek out someone like this
    to provide me with the necessary drugs.


    Actually, all you need is the name of the drug that was supplied, and
    our broadcasters and newspapers choose to keep that a secret even though
    many people know, and are aware that it has certain culinary uses that
    make it seem innocuous to supply in the post.

    So there is a separate legal and civil liberties issue: is it right for
    the government and the media to keep this a secret and might it save
    more lives if a loving family member were to see a packet of this stuff
    in their child's bedroom and realise that it is actually a likely
    suicide method?

    A friend of my son's killed himself with this stuff. And I have seen
    other similar accounts in the newspapers: young people under the
    influence of drink or recreational drugs,feeling that life is hopeless, consume this stuff that they ordered weeks or months earlier, then
    realise that it was a terrible mistake and tell their parents and/or
    ring 999. But it is impossible for the medics to save them.

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Adam Funk@a24061a@ducksburg.com to uk.legal.moderated on Mon Jun 1 18:58:52 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 2026-05-30, The Todal wrote:

    On 30/05/2026 12:22, Clive Page wrote:
    On 30/05/2026 11:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
    On 30 May 2026 at 10:23:26 BST, "Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote:

    Although I have every sympathy for the desire of the victims' families >>>> for Law to face justice in the UK, I can't help thinking that he will
    likely spend longer in jail in Canada than he would if he were jailed
    in the UK, with our early-release rules.

    What makes you think that our early release rules are more generous
    than those
    in Canada? A quick google suggests they are not.

    In any case, if he were prosecuted in this country it is likely that this >>> would only be possible after release in Canada, and his sentence here
    would be
    additional.


    I don't see that he has done anything wrong, actually.-a In this country
    it is no longer a crime to commit suicide so I don't see why anyone
    assisting the process should be deemed to have done something wrong.

    Especially because a law to make assisted suicide legal in specific
    circumstances was passed by the House of Commons but has failed to
    become law only because of obstruction by the non-elected House of Lords.

    I'm hoping to live for quite a number more years, but if it turns out at
    some point that I'm about to die from some painful disease and that the
    assisted suicide law still hasn't been passed (and travel to Switzerland
    is impracticable for some reason) then I'll seek out someone like this
    to provide me with the necessary drugs.


    Actually, all you need is the name of the drug that was supplied, and
    our broadcasters and newspapers choose to keep that a secret even though many people know, and are aware that it has certain culinary uses that
    make it seem innocuous to supply in the post.

    So there is a separate legal and civil liberties issue: is it right for
    the government and the media to keep this a secret and might it save
    more lives if a loving family member were to see a packet of this stuff
    in their child's bedroom and realise that it is actually a likely
    suicide method?

    It's named in the Wikipedia article. In any case, there are plenty of potentially lethal substances around in the world, including legal
    decorative garden plants.


    A friend of my son's killed himself with this stuff. And I have seen
    other similar accounts in the newspapers: young people under the
    influence of drink or recreational drugs,feeling that life is hopeless, consume this stuff that they ordered weeks or months earlier, then
    realise that it was a terrible mistake and tell their parents and/or
    ring 999. But it is impossible for the medics to save them.

    I'm sorry to hear that.

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Adam Funk@a24061a@ducksburg.com to uk.legal.moderated on Mon Jun 1 19:05:20 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 2026-05-30, Clive Page wrote:

    On 30/05/2026 11:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
    On 30 May 2026 at 10:23:26 BST, "Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote:

    Although I have every sympathy for the desire of the victims' families
    for Law to face justice in the UK, I can't help thinking that he will
    likely spend longer in jail in Canada than he would if he were jailed
    in the UK, with our early-release rules.

    What makes you think that our early release rules are more generous than those
    in Canada? A quick google suggests they are not.

    In any case, if he were prosecuted in this country it is likely that this
    would only be possible after release in Canada, and his sentence here would be
    additional.


    I don't see that he has done anything wrong, actually. In this country
    it is no longer a crime to commit suicide so I don't see why anyone assisting the process should be deemed to have done something wrong.

    It's still illegal (in the UK) to assist or encourage suicide, still
    (as you point out) without the exception for medically assisted
    dying.

    I think there's a big difference between helping someone you know
    personally (as a friend or relative) or professionally (as a medical professional) who has a case for it, and helping random people off the
    internet while making a profit from it.


    Especially because a law to make assisted suicide legal in specific circumstances was passed by the House of Commons but has failed to
    become law only because of obstruction by the non-elected House of Lords.

    I'm hoping to live for quite a number more years, but if it turns out at some point that I'm about to die from some painful disease and that the assisted suicide law still hasn't been passed (and travel to Switzerland
    is impracticable for some reason) then I'll seek out someone like this
    to provide me with the necessary drugs.

    Dignitas costs (IIRC) -u7000 to -u15k plus travel costs, and the British government still tells friends and family they might be prosecuted for accompanying patients there.

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Roger Hayter@roger@hayter.org to uk.legal.moderated on Mon Jun 1 19:29:49 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 1 Jun 2026 at 18:58:52 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:

    On 2026-05-30, The Todal wrote:

    On 30/05/2026 12:22, Clive Page wrote:
    On 30/05/2026 11:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
    On 30 May 2026 at 10:23:26 BST, "Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote: >>>>
    Although I have every sympathy for the desire of the victims' families >>>>> for Law to face justice in the UK, I can't help thinking that he will >>>>> likely spend longer in jail in Canada than he would if he were jailed >>>>> in the UK, with our early-release rules.

    What makes you think that our early release rules are more generous
    than those
    in Canada? A quick google suggests they are not.

    In any case, if he were prosecuted in this country it is likely that this >>>> would only be possible after release in Canada, and his sentence here
    would be
    additional.


    I don't see that he has done anything wrong, actually. In this country
    it is no longer a crime to commit suicide so I don't see why anyone
    assisting the process should be deemed to have done something wrong.

    Especially because a law to make assisted suicide legal in specific
    circumstances was passed by the House of Commons but has failed to
    become law only because of obstruction by the non-elected House of Lords. >>>
    I'm hoping to live for quite a number more years, but if it turns out at >>> some point that I'm about to die from some painful disease and that the
    assisted suicide law still hasn't been passed (and travel to Switzerland >>> is impracticable for some reason) then I'll seek out someone like this
    to provide me with the necessary drugs.


    Actually, all you need is the name of the drug that was supplied, and
    our broadcasters and newspapers choose to keep that a secret even though
    many people know, and are aware that it has certain culinary uses that
    make it seem innocuous to supply in the post.

    So there is a separate legal and civil liberties issue: is it right for
    the government and the media to keep this a secret and might it save
    more lives if a loving family member were to see a packet of this stuff
    in their child's bedroom and realise that it is actually a likely
    suicide method?

    It's named in the Wikipedia article. In any case, there are plenty of potentially lethal substances around in the world, including legal
    decorative garden plants.

    The problem with herbal medicines generally is that they are pretty
    unreliable. Unless they are assayed for an active ingredient, in which case they are not herbal medicines, just poorly purified drugs.

    snip
    --

    Roger Hayter

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Adam Funk@a24061a@ducksburg.com to uk.legal.moderated on Wed Jun 3 15:53:36 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 2026-06-01, Roger Hayter wrote:

    On 1 Jun 2026 at 18:58:52 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
    On 2026-05-30, The Todal wrote:
    ...
    So there is a separate legal and civil liberties issue: is it right for
    the government and the media to keep this a secret and might it save
    more lives if a loving family member were to see a packet of this stuff
    in their child's bedroom and realise that it is actually a likely
    suicide method?

    It's named in the Wikipedia article. In any case, there are plenty of
    potentially lethal substances around in the world, including legal
    decorative garden plants.

    The problem with herbal medicines generally is that they are pretty unreliable. Unless they are assayed for an active ingredient, in which case they are not herbal medicines, just poorly purified drugs.

    That's definitely true if you're aiming for a specific dose, but for
    the ones I'm thinking of (Digitalis purpurea or Aconitum spp.) it
    would be easy to swallow enough to be sure of a lethal
    effect. (Wikipedia says 1 g of Aconitum plant material is sufficient.)

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Roger Hayter@roger@hayter.org to uk.legal.moderated on Wed Jun 3 15:13:32 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 3 Jun 2026 at 15:53:36 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:

    On 2026-06-01, Roger Hayter wrote:

    On 1 Jun 2026 at 18:58:52 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>> On 2026-05-30, The Todal wrote:
    ...
    So there is a separate legal and civil liberties issue: is it right for >>>> the government and the media to keep this a secret and might it save
    more lives if a loving family member were to see a packet of this stuff >>>> in their child's bedroom and realise that it is actually a likely
    suicide method?

    It's named in the Wikipedia article. In any case, there are plenty of
    potentially lethal substances around in the world, including legal
    decorative garden plants.

    The problem with herbal medicines generally is that they are pretty
    unreliable. Unless they are assayed for an active ingredient, in which case >> they are not herbal medicines, just poorly purified drugs.

    That's definitely true if you're aiming for a specific dose, but for
    the ones I'm thinking of (Digitalis purpurea or Aconitum spp.) it
    would be easy to swallow enough to be sure of a lethal
    effect. (Wikipedia says 1 g of Aconitum plant material is sufficient.)

    You're entitled to believe that if you wish: I don't.
    --

    Roger Hayter

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jeff Layman@Jeff@invalid.invalid to uk.legal.moderated on Wed Jun 3 18:45:17 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 03/06/2026 16:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
    On 3 Jun 2026 at 15:53:36 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:

    On 2026-06-01, Roger Hayter wrote:

    On 1 Jun 2026 at 18:58:52 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>>> On 2026-05-30, The Todal wrote:
    ...
    So there is a separate legal and civil liberties issue: is it right for >>>>> the government and the media to keep this a secret and might it save >>>>> more lives if a loving family member were to see a packet of this stuff >>>>> in their child's bedroom and realise that it is actually a likely
    suicide method?

    It's named in the Wikipedia article. In any case, there are plenty of
    potentially lethal substances around in the world, including legal
    decorative garden plants.

    The problem with herbal medicines generally is that they are pretty
    unreliable. Unless they are assayed for an active ingredient, in which case >>> they are not herbal medicines, just poorly purified drugs.

    That's definitely true if you're aiming for a specific dose, but for
    the ones I'm thinking of (Digitalis purpurea or Aconitum spp.) it
    would be easy to swallow enough to be sure of a lethal
    effect. (Wikipedia says 1 g of Aconitum plant material is sufficient.)

    You're entitled to believe that if you wish: I don't.

    What don't you wish to believe? That herbal medicines are unreliable or
    that digoxin or aconitine aren't lethal in small does?

    Herbal medicines prepared and supplied in the UK are usually carefully controlled. I would be concerned about those imported directly from the
    Asia and sold in ethnic supermarkets.

    I can tell you from experience that it is possible to detect the
    smallest amount of aconitine. As part of a pharmacognosy practical
    during a pharmacy degree we were asked touch the tip of our tongue on a
    small piece of aconite root we had been given. Within seconds the tip of
    my tongue was tingling, and it lasted a few minutes (that was 60 years
    ago; I doubt health'n'safety would allow it these days). I do wonder how anyone can eat aconitum leaves or root without getting a very strange sensation in their mouth, and becoming suspicious of what they were eating.
    --
    Jeff

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Todal@the_todal@icloud.com to uk.legal.moderated on Wed Jun 3 22:04:07 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 03/06/2026 18:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 03/06/2026 16:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
    On 3 Jun 2026 at 15:53:36 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:

    On 2026-06-01, Roger Hayter wrote:

    On 1 Jun 2026 at 18:58:52 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
    wrote:
    On 2026-05-30, The Todal wrote:
    ...
    So there is a separate legal and civil liberties issue: is it
    right for
    the government and the media to keep this a secret and might it save >>>>>> more lives if a loving family member were to see a packet of this >>>>>> stuff
    in their child's bedroom and realise that it is actually a likely
    suicide method?

    It's named in the Wikipedia article. In any case, there are plenty of >>>>> potentially lethal substances around in the world, including legal
    decorative garden plants.

    The problem with herbal medicines generally is that they are pretty
    unreliable. Unless they are assayed for an active ingredient, in
    which case
    they are not herbal medicines, just poorly purified drugs.

    That's definitely true if you're aiming for a specific dose, but for
    the ones I'm thinking of (Digitalis purpurea or Aconitum spp.) it
    would be easy to swallow enough to be sure of a lethal
    effect. (Wikipedia says 1 g of Aconitum plant material is sufficient.)

    You're entitled to believe that if you wish:-a I don't.

    What don't you wish to believe? That herbal medicines are unreliable or
    that digoxin or aconitine aren't lethal in small does?

    Herbal medicines prepared and supplied in the UK are usually carefully controlled. I would be concerned about those imported directly from the
    Asia and sold in ethnic supermarkets.

    I can tell you from experience that it is possible to detect the
    smallest amount of aconitine. As part of a pharmacognosy practical
    during a pharmacy degree we were asked touch the tip of our tongue on a small piece of aconite root we had been given. Within seconds the tip of
    my tongue was tingling, and it lasted a few minutes (that was 60 years
    ago; I doubt health'n'safety would allow it these days). I do wonder how anyone can eat aconitum leaves or root without getting a very strange sensation in their mouth, and becoming suspicious of what they were eating.


    Aconite is one of the most popular homoeopathic remedies, and the way homoeopathic pharmacies prepare their remedies is to triturate the
    active substance and repeatedly dilute it so that, allegedly, this
    releases the potency. Conventional science says that the active
    substance (eg aconite) would not be detectable after this dilution
    process. Are you able to confirm this, or refute it?

    Of course, those who believe in homoeopathy firmly believe that they do
    notice a benefit from these pilules - others might say it's the placebo effect. Many years ago I gave a diabetic friend some homoeopathic
    phloridzin. He claimed that it messed up his blood sugar and he would
    never want to take it again.

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jon Ribbens@jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu to uk.legal.moderated on Thu Jun 4 09:35:48 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 2026-06-03, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
    On 03/06/2026 18:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 03/06/2026 16:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
    On 3 Jun 2026 at 15:53:36 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>>> That's definitely true if you're aiming for a specific dose, but for
    the ones I'm thinking of (Digitalis purpurea or Aconitum spp.) it
    would be easy to swallow enough to be sure of a lethal
    effect. (Wikipedia says 1 g of Aconitum plant material is sufficient.)

    You're entitled to believe that if you wish:-a I don't.

    What don't you wish to believe? That herbal medicines are unreliable or
    that digoxin or aconitine aren't lethal in small does?

    Herbal medicines prepared and supplied in the UK are usually carefully
    controlled. I would be concerned about those imported directly from the
    Asia and sold in ethnic supermarkets.

    I can tell you from experience that it is possible to detect the
    smallest amount of aconitine. As part of a pharmacognosy practical
    during a pharmacy degree we were asked touch the tip of our tongue on a
    small piece of aconite root we had been given. Within seconds the tip of
    my tongue was tingling, and it lasted a few minutes (that was 60 years
    ago; I doubt health'n'safety would allow it these days). I do wonder how
    anyone can eat aconitum leaves or root without getting a very strange
    sensation in their mouth, and becoming suspicious of what they were eating.

    Aconite is one of the most popular homoeopathic remedies, and the way homoeopathic pharmacies prepare their remedies is to triturate the
    active substance and repeatedly dilute it so that, allegedly, this
    releases the potency. Conventional science says that the active
    substance (eg aconite) would not be detectable after this dilution
    process. Are you able to confirm this, or refute it?

    One of the few things you can say in favour of homeopathic remedies
    is that, if correctly prepared, they certainly won't poison you.
    Because they don't contain anything except water. (And presumably
    a few inoffensive inactive ingredients if in pill form.)

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jeff Layman@Jeff@invalid.invalid to uk.legal.moderated on Thu Jun 4 11:12:26 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 03/06/2026 22:04, The Todal wrote:
    On 03/06/2026 18:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 03/06/2026 16:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
    On 3 Jun 2026 at 15:53:36 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>>
    On 2026-06-01, Roger Hayter wrote:

    On 1 Jun 2026 at 18:58:52 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
    wrote:
    On 2026-05-30, The Todal wrote:
    ...
    So there is a separate legal and civil liberties issue: is it
    right for
    the government and the media to keep this a secret and might it save >>>>>>> more lives if a loving family member were to see a packet of this >>>>>>> stuff
    in their child's bedroom and realise that it is actually a likely >>>>>>> suicide method?

    It's named in the Wikipedia article. In any case, there are plenty of >>>>>> potentially lethal substances around in the world, including legal >>>>>> decorative garden plants.

    The problem with herbal medicines generally is that they are pretty
    unreliable. Unless they are assayed for an active ingredient, in
    which case
    they are not herbal medicines, just poorly purified drugs.

    That's definitely true if you're aiming for a specific dose, but for
    the ones I'm thinking of (Digitalis purpurea or Aconitum spp.) it
    would be easy to swallow enough to be sure of a lethal
    effect. (Wikipedia says 1 g of Aconitum plant material is sufficient.)

    You're entitled to believe that if you wish:-a I don't.

    What don't you wish to believe? That herbal medicines are unreliable or
    that digoxin or aconitine aren't lethal in small does?

    Herbal medicines prepared and supplied in the UK are usually carefully
    controlled. I would be concerned about those imported directly from the
    Asia and sold in ethnic supermarkets.

    I can tell you from experience that it is possible to detect the
    smallest amount of aconitine. As part of a pharmacognosy practical
    during a pharmacy degree we were asked touch the tip of our tongue on a
    small piece of aconite root we had been given. Within seconds the tip of
    my tongue was tingling, and it lasted a few minutes (that was 60 years
    ago; I doubt health'n'safety would allow it these days). I do wonder how
    anyone can eat aconitum leaves or root without getting a very strange
    sensation in their mouth, and becoming suspicious of what they were eating. >>

    Aconite is one of the most popular homoeopathic remedies, and the way homoeopathic pharmacies prepare their remedies is to triturate the
    active substance and repeatedly dilute it so that, allegedly, this
    releases the potency. Conventional science says that the active
    substance (eg aconite) would not be detectable after this dilution
    process. Are you able to confirm this, or refute it?

    The simple answer is to confirm it. However, depending on the level of dilution used and the increasing sophistication and sensitivity of
    analytical methods, it might well be possible to detect minute amounts
    of the "active" principle in parts per billion or even parts per trillion.

    Of course, those who believe in homoeopathy firmly believe that they do notice a benefit from these pilules - others might say it's the placebo effect. Many years ago I gave a diabetic friend some homoeopathic
    phloridzin. He claimed that it messed up his blood sugar and he would
    never want to take it again.

    I believe that it's unscientific nonsense. Hahnemann believed in it implicitly, and because of that I don't consider him a charlatan. As you
    note, some consider that it's just a placebo effect. Until only a few
    years ago I had no idea that there are homoeopathic veterinarians! They
    give animals homoeopathic medicines and claim they work without a
    placebo effect, of course. Fairly recent research has looked into this,
    and come up with some interesting explanations as well as relevance to
    human homoeopathy: <https://www.rvc.ac.uk/research/news/general/scientists-at-royal-veterinary-college-show-homeopathy-only-appears-to-work-because-of-perceptual-errors>

    (NB the links at the end of that article to Part 1 and Part 2 do not
    work. It is necessary to access the Vet Record at <https://bvajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?AllField=homoeopathy&SeriesKey=20427670>,
    where there is open access. Unfortunately, the rebuttal at <https://bvajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1136/vr.j4691> ("Veterinary homeopathy: a defence") is not on open access.
    --
    Jeff

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Roger Hayter@roger@hayter.org to uk.legal.moderated on Thu Jun 4 11:15:25 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 4 Jun 2026 at 11:12:26 BST, "Jeff Layman" <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 03/06/2026 22:04, The Todal wrote:
    On 03/06/2026 18:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 03/06/2026 16:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
    On 3 Jun 2026 at 15:53:36 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>>>
    On 2026-06-01, Roger Hayter wrote:

    On 1 Jun 2026 at 18:58:52 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> >>>>>> wrote:
    On 2026-05-30, The Todal wrote:
    ...
    So there is a separate legal and civil liberties issue: is it
    right for
    the government and the media to keep this a secret and might it save >>>>>>>> more lives if a loving family member were to see a packet of this >>>>>>>> stuff
    in their child's bedroom and realise that it is actually a likely >>>>>>>> suicide method?

    It's named in the Wikipedia article. In any case, there are plenty of >>>>>>> potentially lethal substances around in the world, including legal >>>>>>> decorative garden plants.

    The problem with herbal medicines generally is that they are pretty >>>>>> unreliable. Unless they are assayed for an active ingredient, in
    which case
    they are not herbal medicines, just poorly purified drugs.

    That's definitely true if you're aiming for a specific dose, but for >>>>> the ones I'm thinking of (Digitalis purpurea or Aconitum spp.) it
    would be easy to swallow enough to be sure of a lethal
    effect. (Wikipedia says 1 g of Aconitum plant material is sufficient.) >>>>
    You're entitled to believe that if you wish: I don't.

    What don't you wish to believe? That herbal medicines are unreliable or
    that digoxin or aconitine aren't lethal in small does?

    Herbal medicines prepared and supplied in the UK are usually carefully
    controlled. I would be concerned about those imported directly from the
    Asia and sold in ethnic supermarkets.

    I can tell you from experience that it is possible to detect the
    smallest amount of aconitine. As part of a pharmacognosy practical
    during a pharmacy degree we were asked touch the tip of our tongue on a
    small piece of aconite root we had been given. Within seconds the tip of >>> my tongue was tingling, and it lasted a few minutes (that was 60 years
    ago; I doubt health'n'safety would allow it these days). I do wonder how >>> anyone can eat aconitum leaves or root without getting a very strange
    sensation in their mouth, and becoming suspicious of what they were eating. >>>

    Aconite is one of the most popular homoeopathic remedies, and the way
    homoeopathic pharmacies prepare their remedies is to triturate the
    active substance and repeatedly dilute it so that, allegedly, this
    releases the potency. Conventional science says that the active
    substance (eg aconite) would not be detectable after this dilution
    process. Are you able to confirm this, or refute it?

    The simple answer is to confirm it. However, depending on the level of dilution used and the increasing sophistication and sensitivity of
    analytical methods, it might well be possible to detect minute amounts
    of the "active" principle in parts per billion or even parts per trillion.


    Even the most sensitive analysis is not going to work when there is a high probability that there are actually no molecules of the relevant chemical entity in a sample.

    snip
    --

    Roger Hayter

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Clive Page@usenet@page2.eu to uk.legal.moderated on Thu Jun 4 13:51:02 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 04/06/2026 12:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
    On 4 Jun 2026 at 11:12:26 BST, "Jeff Layman" <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 03/06/2026 22:04, The Todal wrote:
    On 03/06/2026 18:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 03/06/2026 16:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
    On 3 Jun 2026 at 15:53:36 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>>>>
    On 2026-06-01, Roger Hayter wrote:

    On 1 Jun 2026 at 18:58:52 BST, "Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
    On 2026-05-30, The Todal wrote:
    ...
    So there is a separate legal and civil liberties issue: is it >>>>>>>>> right for
    the government and the media to keep this a secret and might it save >>>>>>>>> more lives if a loving family member were to see a packet of this >>>>>>>>> stuff
    in their child's bedroom and realise that it is actually a likely >>>>>>>>> suicide method?

    It's named in the Wikipedia article. In any case, there are plenty of >>>>>>>> potentially lethal substances around in the world, including legal >>>>>>>> decorative garden plants.

    The problem with herbal medicines generally is that they are pretty >>>>>>> unreliable. Unless they are assayed for an active ingredient, in >>>>>>> which case
    they are not herbal medicines, just poorly purified drugs.

    That's definitely true if you're aiming for a specific dose, but for >>>>>> the ones I'm thinking of (Digitalis purpurea or Aconitum spp.) it
    would be easy to swallow enough to be sure of a lethal
    effect. (Wikipedia says 1 g of Aconitum plant material is sufficient.) >>>>>
    You're entitled to believe that if you wish: I don't.

    What don't you wish to believe? That herbal medicines are unreliable or >>>> that digoxin or aconitine aren't lethal in small does?

    Herbal medicines prepared and supplied in the UK are usually carefully >>>> controlled. I would be concerned about those imported directly from the >>>> Asia and sold in ethnic supermarkets.

    I can tell you from experience that it is possible to detect the
    smallest amount of aconitine. As part of a pharmacognosy practical
    during a pharmacy degree we were asked touch the tip of our tongue on a >>>> small piece of aconite root we had been given. Within seconds the tip of >>>> my tongue was tingling, and it lasted a few minutes (that was 60 years >>>> ago; I doubt health'n'safety would allow it these days). I do wonder how >>>> anyone can eat aconitum leaves or root without getting a very strange
    sensation in their mouth, and becoming suspicious of what they were eating.


    Aconite is one of the most popular homoeopathic remedies, and the way
    homoeopathic pharmacies prepare their remedies is to triturate the
    active substance and repeatedly dilute it so that, allegedly, this
    releases the potency. Conventional science says that the active
    substance (eg aconite) would not be detectable after this dilution
    process. Are you able to confirm this, or refute it?

    The simple answer is to confirm it. However, depending on the level of
    dilution used and the increasing sophistication and sensitivity of
    analytical methods, it might well be possible to detect minute amounts
    of the "active" principle in parts per billion or even parts per trillion.


    Even the most sensitive analysis is not going to work when there is a high probability that there are actually no molecules of the relevant chemical entity in a sample.

    snip

    But aren't there likely to be a few molecules of almost everything in
    the average sample of tap water?

    I recall an exam question that I encountered many years ago which simply
    said: "It has been claimed that every breath you take contains at least
    a few molecules from the dying breath of Julius Caesar: is this true?".

    After a few minutes of dredging up guesses for various physical
    quantities (Avogadro's number, volume of the human lung, volume of the atmosphere, etc.) I managed to estimate that the number of molecules was
    about 3, so it probably was true. Which I found quite surprising.

    So I doubt if any chemical, no matter how esoteric, doesn't have a
    molecule or two in the average glass of tap water. If so it probably
    contains all possible homeopathic remedies at once. Enjoy.
    --
    Clive Page


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jon Ribbens@jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu to uk.legal.moderated on Thu Jun 4 16:33:50 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 2026-06-04, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
    On 04/06/2026 12:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
    Even the most sensitive analysis is not going to work when there is a high >> probability that there are actually no molecules of the relevant chemical
    entity in a sample.

    snip

    But aren't there likely to be a few molecules of almost everything in
    the average sample of tap water?

    I recall an exam question that I encountered many years ago which simply said: "It has been claimed that every breath you take contains at least
    a few molecules from the dying breath of Julius Caesar: is this true?".

    After a few minutes of dredging up guesses for various physical
    quantities (Avogadro's number, volume of the human lung, volume of the atmosphere, etc.) I managed to estimate that the number of molecules was about 3, so it probably was true. Which I found quite surprising.

    You're considerably underestimating how diluted homeopathic remedies
    are supposed to be. Hahnemann's recommendation was 1 part in 10^60.
    1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

    Apparently this means that a homeopathic pill containing a single
    atom of "active ingredient" would be 150,000,000km in diameter - the
    distance between the Earth and the Sun - and would immediately
    collapse into a black hole under its own gravity.

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Roger Hayter@roger@hayter.org to uk.legal.moderated on Thu Jun 4 16:57:21 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 4 Jun 2026 at 17:33:50 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
    wrote:

    On 2026-06-04, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
    On 04/06/2026 12:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
    Even the most sensitive analysis is not going to work when there is a high >>> probability that there are actually no molecules of the relevant chemical >>> entity in a sample.

    snip

    But aren't there likely to be a few molecules of almost everything in
    the average sample of tap water?

    I recall an exam question that I encountered many years ago which simply
    said: "It has been claimed that every breath you take contains at least
    a few molecules from the dying breath of Julius Caesar: is this true?".

    After a few minutes of dredging up guesses for various physical
    quantities (Avogadro's number, volume of the human lung, volume of the
    atmosphere, etc.) I managed to estimate that the number of molecules was
    about 3, so it probably was true. Which I found quite surprising.

    You're considerably underestimating how diluted homeopathic remedies
    are supposed to be. Hahnemann's recommendation was 1 part in 10^60.
    1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

    Apparently this means that a homeopathic pill containing a single
    atom of "active ingredient" would be 150,000,000km in diameter - the
    distance between the Earth and the Sun - and would immediately
    collapse into a black hole under its own gravity.

    The previous poster's logic, if valid, would mean that quite early in the dilution process the diluent would contain as much of the active ingredient as the current stock solution; and the continuing process meaningless. Which
    about sums up homeopathy.
    --

    Roger Hayter

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From GB@NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid to uk.legal.moderated on Fri Jun 5 18:16:26 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 04/06/2026 17:57, Roger Hayter wrote:

    The previous poster's logic, if valid, would mean that quite early in the dilution process the diluent would contain as much of the active ingredient as
    the current stock solution; and the continuing process meaningless. Which about sums up homeopathy.

    Homeopathy has one thing going for it that has been missed by all the
    posters so far.

    A homeopathic consultation generally lasts a long time. Say, 45 minutes
    to an hour. This gives the patient time to describe their issues in
    detail to a sympathetic listener. That, in itself, can be therapeutic.

    I agree that the remedy that is prescribed is absolute hokum, but I
    think the prescribing process has some merit.

    In addition, the placebo effect is quite strong, although this requires
    a level of belief that I simply cannot achieve.

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From billy bookcase@billy@anon.com to uk.legal.moderated on Fri Jun 5 15:14:38 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated


    "Clive Page" <usenet@page2.eu> wrote in message news:n8fojrFod1iU1@mid.individual.net...
    On 04/06/2026 17:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
    On 2026-06-04, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
    On 04/06/2026 12:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
    Even the most sensitive analysis is not going to work when there is a high >>>> probability that there are actually no molecules of the relevant chemical >>>> entity in a sample.

    snip

    But aren't there likely to be a few molecules of almost everything in
    the average sample of tap water?

    I recall an exam question that I encountered many years ago which simply >>> said: "It has been claimed that every breath you take contains at least >>> a few molecules from the dying breath of Julius Caesar: is this true?".

    After a few minutes of dredging up guesses for various physical
    quantities (Avogadro's number, volume of the human lung, volume of the
    atmosphere, etc.) I managed to estimate that the number of molecules was >>> about 3, so it probably was true. Which I found quite surprising.

    You're considerably underestimating how diluted homeopathic remedies
    are supposed to be. Hahnemann's recommendation was 1 part in 10^60.
    1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

    Apparently this means that a homeopathic pill containing a single
    atom of "active ingredient" would be 150,000,000km in diameter - the
    distance between the Earth and the Sun - and would immediately
    collapse into a black hole under its own gravity.

    No I'm not. Merely guessing that almost every known and unknown chemical, whether originally added and diluted or not, probably has a few molecules in any glass of water even if not deliberately added. Dilution doesn't make any difference, as it's diluted just with water, as I understand it.

    Regardless of how many molecules there are *inside* a glass of water,
    or *inside* a person's lungs , there are immeasurably more molecules
    *outside* of a glass of water; or *outside* of that person's lungs

    Which for the sake of argument, could be said to be a billion, billion,
    billion times, as many.

    So that whatever the probability might be, of a particular molecule
    being inside a particular glass of water or a particular person's
    lungs, there is a billion, billion, billions times as great a
    probability of its being outside,


    bb




    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From billy bookcase@billy@anon.com to uk.legal.moderated on Fri Jun 5 17:49:58 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated


    "Clive Page" <usenet@page2.eu> wrote in message news:n8dalqF9v9mU1@mid.individual.net...

    But aren't there likely to be a few molecules of almost everything in the average sample of tap water?

    I recall an exam question that I encountered many years ago which simply said:
    "It has been claimed that every breath you take contains at least a few molecules from the dying breath of Julius Caesar: is this true?".

    After a few minutes of dredging up guesses for various physical quantities (Avogadro's number, volume of the human lung, volume of the atmosphere, etc.) I managed to estimate that the number of molecules was about 3, so it probably
    was true. Which I found quite surprising.

    But surely isn't this simply a variation of the birthday problem ?

    Namely how many people on average do you need in a room before
    two of them share the same birthday ?

    The answer being 23. As 23 people give 253 possible pairs

    23X22
    ---------
    2

    which is more than half the number of available birthdays which is 365

    Whereas in this case if we assume that both Caesar's last breath and
    our own breath each consist of 1 billion molecules this works out at

    1 billion X 1 billion - 1
    -----------------------------
    2

    possible matching molecules.

    However for any such match to be possible, then that would mean that the
    total number of molecules in the atmosphere should not exceed
    (1 billion X 1 billion - 1) X 2

    Which I rather doubt, somehow.


    bb




    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Clive Page@usenet@page2.eu to uk.legal.moderated on Fri Jun 5 21:45:36 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 05/06/2026 17:49, billy bookcase wrote:
    "Clive Page" <usenet@page2.eu> wrote in message news:n8dalqF9v9mU1@mid.individual.net...

    But aren't there likely to be a few molecules of almost everything in the
    average sample of tap water?

    I recall an exam question that I encountered many years ago which simply said:
    "It has been claimed that every breath you take contains at least a few
    molecules from the dying breath of Julius Caesar: is this true?".

    After a few minutes of dredging up guesses for various physical quantities >> (Avogadro's number, volume of the human lung, volume of the atmosphere, etc.)
    I managed to estimate that the number of molecules was about 3, so it probably
    was true. Which I found quite surprising.

    But surely isn't this simply a variation of the birthday problem ?

    Namely how many people on average do you need in a room before
    two of them share the same birthday ?

    The answer being 23. As 23 people give 253 possible pairs

    23X22
    ---------
    2

    which is more than half the number of available birthdays which is 365

    Whereas in this case if we assume that both Caesar's last breath and
    our own breath each consist of 1 billion molecules this works out at

    1 billion X 1 billion - 1
    -----------------------------
    2

    possible matching molecules.

    However for any such match to be possible, then that would mean that the total number of molecules in the atmosphere should not exceed
    (1 billion X 1 billion - 1) X 2

    Which I rather doubt, somehow.


    bb




    Avogadro's number is considerably bigger than a billion x a billion.
    --
    Clive Page


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Mark Goodge@usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk to uk.legal.moderated on Fri Jun 5 22:36:11 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 18:16:26 +0100, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:

    In addition, the placebo effect is quite strong, although this requires
    a level of belief that I simply cannot achieve.

    Apparently, the placebo effect works even when you know it's a placebo. This may sound bizarre, but it's true. And, equally bizarrely, different coloured placebo tablets or liquids have different levels of the placebo effect for different conditions - some colours "work" better than others, depending on what they are ostensibly treating.

    What that means in practice is that with a tube of Smarties and sufficient willpower, you can self-medicate for practically any illness.

    Mark

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jon Ribbens@jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu to uk.legal.moderated on Fri Jun 5 22:25:11 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 2026-06-05, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
    On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 18:16:26 +0100, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
    In addition, the placebo effect is quite strong, although this requires
    a level of belief that I simply cannot achieve.

    Apparently, the placebo effect works even when you know it's a
    placebo. This may sound bizarre, but it's true. And, equally
    bizarrely, different coloured placebo tablets or liquids have
    different levels of the placebo effect for different conditions
    - some colours "work" better than others, depending on what they
    are ostensibly treating.

    Placebo can clearly also work on animals, who often understand perfectly
    well that you are trying to do something to help them.

    What that means in practice is that with a tube of Smarties and sufficient willpower, you can self-medicate for practically any illness.

    I think it might be better to be given the smarties in a pill bottle
    by a person in a white coat. In America, you will also need to have
    given the person a lot of money.

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Simon Simple@nothanks@nottoday.co.uk to uk.legal.moderated on Fri Jun 5 22:50:18 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 05/06/2026 22:36, Mark Goodge wrote:
    On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 18:16:26 +0100, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:

    In addition, the placebo effect is quite strong, although this requires
    a level of belief that I simply cannot achieve.

    Apparently, the placebo effect works even when you know it's a placebo. This may sound bizarre, but it's true. And, equally bizarrely, different coloured placebo tablets or liquids have different levels of the placebo effect for different conditions - some colours "work" better than others, depending on what they are ostensibly treating.

    What that means in practice is that with a tube of Smarties and sufficient willpower, you can self-medicate for practically any illness.

    Mark


    Only if you paid a lot of money for the Smarties.

    It's like paying loadsa money for, eg, loudspeaker cables. Of course
    they sound better. To you.
    --
    SS


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From billy bookcase@billy@anon.com to uk.legal.moderated on Sat Jun 6 19:48:59 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated


    "Clive Page" <usenet@page2.eu> wrote in message news:n8gqrgFu650U1@mid.individual.net...
    On 05/06/2026 17:49, billy bookcase wrote:
    "Clive Page" <usenet@page2.eu> wrote in message
    news:n8dalqF9v9mU1@mid.individual.net...

    But aren't there likely to be a few molecules of almost everything in the >>> average sample of tap water?

    I recall an exam question that I encountered many years ago which simply >>> said:
    "It has been claimed that every breath you take contains at least a few
    molecules from the dying breath of Julius Caesar: is this true?".

    After a few minutes of dredging up guesses for various physical quantities >>> (Avogadro's number, volume of the human lung, volume of the atmosphere,
    etc.)
    I managed to estimate that the number of molecules was about 3, so it
    probably
    was true. Which I found quite surprising.

    But surely isn't this simply a variation of the birthday problem ?

    Namely how many people on average do you need in a room before
    two of them share the same birthday ?

    The answer being 23. As 23 people give 253 possible pairs

    23X22
    ---------
    2

    which is more than half the number of available birthdays which is 365

    Whereas in this case if we assume that both Caesar's last breath and
    our own breath each consist of 1 billion molecules this works out at

    1 billion X 1 billion - 1
    -----------------------------
    2

    possible matching molecules.

    However for any such match to be possible, then that would mean that the
    total number of molecules in the atmosphere should not exceed
    (1 billion X 1 billion - 1) X 2

    Which I rather doubt, somehow.


    bb




    Avogadro's number is considerably bigger than a billion x a billion.


    You're right of course. As if the ratio of one molecule to one lungful
    is much larger than the ratio of one lungful to the whole of the atmosphere which it presumably is, much larger, then the proposition will be true,


    bb




    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Adam Funk@a24061a@ducksburg.com to uk.legal.moderated on Tue Jun 9 11:10:23 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 2026-06-03, Jeff Layman wrote:

    ...
    I can tell you from experience that it is possible to detect the
    smallest amount of aconitine. As part of a pharmacognosy practical
    during a pharmacy degree we were asked touch the tip of our tongue on a small piece of aconite root we had been given. Within seconds the tip of
    my tongue was tingling, and it lasted a few minutes (that was 60 years
    ago; I doubt health'n'safety would allow it these days). I do wonder how anyone can eat aconitum leaves or root without getting a very strange sensation in their mouth, and becoming suspicious of what they were eating.

    It's considered a good idea to wear gloves when handling the plant,
    because the alkaloids can be absorbed through the skin. I don't think
    there have been known fatalities from this, but gardeners have
    reported less severe symptoms.

    Coincidentally, this was in _New Scientist_ recently:

    Residues on medical equipment reveal that physicians in China over
    600 years ago used aconitine, a highly toxic plant chemical, to
    alleviate pain during surgical procedures
    ...
    Historical texts indicate that Ming dynasty practitioners had
    developed methods to mitigate the toxicity of aconitine, such as
    rCLpreparation with boysrCO urine, soaking in a black soybean
    decoction, vinegar-boiling, detoxifying with mung beans and
    removing the outer skin of the aconite tuberrCY, Zhao and his
    colleagues write.

    <https://www.newscientist.com/article/2527886-earliest-use-of-anaesthetics-uncovered-in-chinese-doctors-tomb/>

    (Don't try this at home, kids).

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Clive Page@usenet@page2.eu to uk.legal.moderated on Fri Jun 5 12:01:10 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 04/06/2026 17:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
    On 2026-06-04, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
    On 04/06/2026 12:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
    Even the most sensitive analysis is not going to work when there is a high >>> probability that there are actually no molecules of the relevant chemical >>> entity in a sample.

    snip

    But aren't there likely to be a few molecules of almost everything in
    the average sample of tap water?

    I recall an exam question that I encountered many years ago which simply
    said: "It has been claimed that every breath you take contains at least
    a few molecules from the dying breath of Julius Caesar: is this true?".

    After a few minutes of dredging up guesses for various physical
    quantities (Avogadro's number, volume of the human lung, volume of the
    atmosphere, etc.) I managed to estimate that the number of molecules was
    about 3, so it probably was true. Which I found quite surprising.

    You're considerably underestimating how diluted homeopathic remedies
    are supposed to be. Hahnemann's recommendation was 1 part in 10^60.
    1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

    Apparently this means that a homeopathic pill containing a single
    atom of "active ingredient" would be 150,000,000km in diameter - the
    distance between the Earth and the Sun - and would immediately
    collapse into a black hole under its own gravity.

    No I'm not. Merely guessing that almost every known and unknown
    chemical, whether originally added and diluted or not, probably has a
    few molecules in any glass of water even if not deliberately added.
    Dilution doesn't make any difference, as it's diluted just with water,
    as I understand it.
    --
    Clive Page


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2