On Homeopathy

[timokay]

This topic discusses the raging Homeopathy debate. Hahnemann wrote books 200 years ago on a medical system that must have worked for him to have known so much about disease and how to cure it - he extended his own life to more than three times the life expectancy for someone born in 1755. His books are so rational and flawless, it is impossible to believe that this is anything other than a valid medical system.

Everyone feels they have the right to dismiss Homeopathy, though how could they know. They want Scientific proof but do not want to contribute to discussions on how to find that particular kind of proof.

I am not a homeopath, have no financial interest, just know that, after carefully studying his books, Hahnemann cured chronic diseases, considered incurable today, that affect millions in Britain and 10's of millions in the USA. I hope I can tempt Homeopath Albert into this debate.

Please ask any basic questions to get up to speed on this debate.
Tim K.

[goofyfish]

Originally posted by timokay
This topic discusses the raging Homeopathy debate. Hahnemann wrote books 200 years ago on a medical system that must have worked for him to have known so much about disease and how to cure it - he extended his own life to more than three times the life expectancy for someone born in 1755. Although he lived almost twice what is considered the average age for the period, you must remember that the “average” is affected by a very high infant and youth mortality rate caused by poor sanitation and infectious disease. Quite a number of people lived into there 80’s – Hahnemann was not necessarily unique in that respect.
His books are so rational and flawless, it is impossible to believe that this is anything other than a valid medical system.

Everyone feels they have the right to dismiss Homeopathy, though how could they know. They want Scientific proof but do not want to contribute to discussions on how to find that particular kind of proof.You find that proof by double-blind testing. This is truly the only good way to prove that a certain health care treatment is effective. I have not seen where the efficacy of homeopathy has been proven in this manner. You might kick off the discussion with why you believe his texts are “flawless”.

:m: Peace.

[timokay]

SOME DETAILS FROM ANOTHER POST OF MINE:

Just because something is difficult to prove, that doesn't mean Scientists should just turn their noses up at it. There is a Scientific problem to be solved, so it should be seriously addressed.

I refer to Classical Homeopathy.

The bizarre nature of its mechanism is astonishing, but it is still rational. A German doctor noticed that many substances prepared in the right way produce "symptom patterns" in people.
These medicines are acting, I firmly believe, on the Brain's Homeostatic Centre.

Dr Hahnemann simply threw over 1000 test substances at the Brain (using healthy people as subjects) and carefully recorded the responses, to understand the mechanism of this Homeostatic centre...and he actually solved the problem of disease by associating "specific symptom patterns" with "specific faults" in the Homeostatic centre.

He discovered a principle: how diseases behave when they exist simultaneously in a patient...one will always dominate, the other suspended. The brain has an instinctual memory of each disease type (i.e. what to do when signals from the immune system indicate such-and-such a disease). When diseases are of a very similar kind, the instinctual memory does not have the resolution to distinguish between them...can be fooled into thinking there is just one disease.

The patient is sick because the Homeostatic centre has a fault, and NOTHING to do with any disease agent (which has merely exposed the fault).

So, by selecting a medicine with exactly the same symptoms as that exhibited by the sick person, the Homeostatic Control system is fooled by the medicine, believing it to be the same disease as the natural disease, but stronger so it takes it over. But what it does in processing terms is completing the failed processing of that natural disease, forcing it past the fault and then everything resolves.

My point is, there is a Scientific problem to be solved here but no branch of Science claiming it. Will give some more details on how it works, if anyone interested. It's a mechanism that seems better understood by logicians than by anyone else. Tim

[420Joey]

Its an art of curing founded on resemblances, allopathy is too a bit to weird a system.

Can you provide links so I can read more about it, my knowledge on this system is very minimal.

[timokay]

www.homeopathyhome.com (http://www.homeopathyhome.com)

Go to the reference library on the above site, i.e.,

http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/

and select: "Organon online".

The ORGANON of medicine written by Hahnemann (who founded Homeopathy) is the best place to start, though the best translation of it is not online.

Heavy going, so ask specific questions. Tim

[ElectricFetus]

Explain Classical Homeopathy, because from what I know it seems quit illogical and dubious. How can a poison diluted so many times that it will pass for distilled water do anything at all?

[phlogistician]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by timokay

... on the Brain's Homeostatic Centre.

He discovered a principle: how diseases behave when they exist simultaneously in a patient...one will always dominate, the other suspended.

The patient is sick because the Homeostatic centre has a fault, and NOTHING to do with any disease agent (which has merely exposed the fault).

{/QUOTE]

1, All ilnesses are psychosomatic then? Of course not.

2, Afraid not, people can and do suffer from multiple illnesses or diseases at the same time, and nothing is ever 'suspended'.

3, Psychosomatic illnesses again. So Lung cancer is all in the mind is it?

I think you need to explain yourself more clearly.

[Hahnemannian]

Hi Tim.

I'll first post some responses.

----------

Goofyfish, this is not true except for allopathy: You find that proof by double-blind testing. This is truly the only good way to prove that a certain health care treatment is effective.

What do homeopaths need with double-blind testing?

Those people have no Laws of Therapeutics and they lie to each other because allopathy is big business; whereas we do have those natural laws governing what we do, and we don't lie to our colleagues.

A whole series of erroneous assumptions underlie the notion that people have to be double-blinded, and they expose the fact that allopathic medicine is based upon nothing but erroneous assumptions that of course result in wrong conclusions in the form of ineffective therapies.

----------

I haven't yet found a website of Hahnemannian homeopathy, so I would rather not lend such support.

I posted at homeopathyhome.com, but that does not make it a Hahnemannian site.

----------

WellCookedFetus, that's what we'd like to know too.

That it does has been good enough for 213 years, but we have all wanted to know how that happens.

I have my favorite speculation/hypothesis, which is as an esoteric end involving the Ether and non-physical particles, and Tim has taken up championing the physical explanation. I think both are going to turn out as halves of a whole explanation, for physics is currently using 20(+) synonyms for and major manifestations of the Ether without accepting it, and there must be some understandable mechanism by which our medicines pass from physical substances into etheric drugs.

We are fishing for people with big heads for science who're well read and may know of findings that have gotten buried or who simply figure it out.

Water crystalization or polymerization at room temperature must be part of it, and Shiu Yin Lo seems to have captured photographs of this with an electron microscope.

We don't know how. How do you think that could happen since it obviously does?

----------

Phlogistian,

Please be careful with the word psychosomatic, for it is a word with no clear meaning and could just as easily mean psychic AND somatic.

Tim is relatively new to homeopathy, but I have been inside it for 25 years come the end of this year.

I think what he may have been meaning to emphasize is that causative agents of diseases, when they exist, which is rare, is just half of a puzzle; for the other half is an environment/organism that allows it to propagate.

Is that what you meant, Tim?

[ElectricFetus]

Welcome Hahnemannian,

I think the Placebo effect is far more likely then your theory. This explains also why it does not work in double blind testing, which by the way you have presented no evidence on why it is wrong in your Begging the Question fallacy.

[Hahnemannian]

No, in fact, the placebo effect is 100% impossible, because you cannot get a placebo effect from infants and children, animals or the unconscious, not to mention in vitro evidence.

Tim, post that site with the elaborate suggestion about water molecules acting as enzymes or something.

[ElectricFetus]

Really you have evidence on that? Was it compared to a control?

Water crystalization or polymerization at room temperature must be part of it, and Shiu Yin Lo seems to have captured photographs of this with an electron microscope.

Nanoscopic level this a quit possible do to random chance of molecular motion. Also many additives will catalysis the processes even at room temperature. Still without a reference I don’t know the details of what your talking about.

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus, Greetings!

What are you going to test about homeopathy and how?

Answer that and I will show you the erroneous assumptions involved in testing homeopathy within allopathic parameters.

[ElectricFetus]

I don't need a greetings, but thanks anyways.

Test if it works of course: have a disease, we test a homeopathy treatment on that disease as well a control and placebo to compare to, we gauge the results. This is how all allopathic or Logical medicine has been tested, this is the way science works by scientific method (hypothesis, verify, theorize), if your treatment can not be tested as such then it is not creditable scientifically, your treatment cannot be proven or disproved if it cannot be tested and verified, period.

[Hahnemannian]

Okay, here we have our first problem and one so far insurmountable because the allopathically minded fools insist their definition of diseases is valid even though it obviously isn't since they have no cures for any viral, chronic or psychiatric cases.

When people try to guage homeopathy on the basis of such ignorantly stupid and arguably assinine basic assumptions that are obviously totally wrong, no wonder they find nothing.

So tell me if you know what's wrong with the allopathic basis of pathology.

Then tell me why pathology has absolutely nothing to do with therapeutics and we quickly enter into insoluble problems, because 1) allopathy is obviously just self-admitted quackery and should be totally banned from human contact, just as Oliver Wendel Holmes said, and 2) they have all five basic assumptions about medicine totally wrong and thus also all of their conclusions (i.e., therapeutic procedures and results) understandably wrong and effete.

You cannot compare apples with oranges.

Moreover, there is a VERY central difference between pure sciences like homeopathy, physics and chemistry and those "studies of" (i.e., those "ologies") that merely apply scientific method, for that is totally meaningless if one engages scientific method with erroneous assumptions about health, disease, therapeutics, the nature of existence and the nature of the universe.

Again, how can homeopathy be tested in the allopathic way when their model is irrepairably broken and so arcaic and ignorant that it should be permanently banned from civilization as a capitol offense since people have the basic right to life, health and sanity, all of which allopathic medicine strips away?

Still, not only how but what are you going to test homeopathy in?

[ElectricFetus]

We have treatments and cures for viral, chronic and psychiatric diseases, you also left our bacterial and zoonotic infections. Though we do not have cures or a full understand of all of diseases we have learn and developed greatly over last few hundred years. Despite the fact Allopathic medicine had done so many great things from the extinction of small pox to organ transplants, from antibiotics to gene therapy, you calm its quackery, lies, erroneous and a fares of human history, without placing any evidence of your own in a blatant Begging the Question and Objective Ad Hominem fallacies.

By the way if the scientific method for testing is not adequate what is?

[Nasor]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
What do homeopaths need with double-blind testing?

Those people have no Laws of Therapeutics and they lie to each other because allopathy is big business; whereas we do have those natural laws governing what we do, and we don't lie to our colleagues.

A whole series of erroneous assumptions underlie the notion that people have to be double-blinded, and they expose the fact that allopathic medicine is based upon nothing but erroneous assumptions that of course result in wrong conclusions in the form of ineffective therapies.This claim is just pathetic. Double blind testing only indicates one thing; whether or not a treatment is effective. It doesn't have anything to do with what kind of treatment it is or how the treatment works. If homeopathy was really effective in treating disease, homoeopathists would welcome double blind studies.

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus, you said: We have treatments and cures for viral, chronic and psychiatric diseases, you also left our bacterial and zoonotic infections.

I didn't say treatments, I said cures; and there are absolutely no cures for any viral, chronic or psychiatric cases in allopathy.

Cutting someone's head off if they have a headache is a treatment, but cures are special and adhere to four natural laws which allopathy is intrinsically incapable of precipitating.

And I thus left out bacterial diseases because we will provisionally grant that they're cures even though they aren't.

Also, bacterial diseases are largely self-limited and do our organisms good by producing antibodies and thus some true immunity never provided by that insanity called vaccines.

But bacterial infections are perhaps only 1% of cases.

That therapeutic incompetent makes allopaths quacks, just as we have always said, so I don't know what the problem is.

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus, you then said: Though we do not have cures or a full understand of all of diseases we have learn and developed greatly over last few hundred years.

Understanding diseases in allopathic terms has NOTHING to do with curative therapeutics, only with pathology.

And if you want to claim knowledge of diseases by allopaths over several hundred years as if it is something important, explain why they still cannot cure and incredibly were still doing bloodletting as late as 1914 in the person of no less than Sir Wm. Osler, the man who ruled Rationalist allopathy from about 1880-1920 and who coined the term "scientific medicine" in the 1880s.

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus, you finally said: Despite the fact Allopathic medicine had done so many great things from the extinction of small pox to organ transplants, from antibiotics to gene therapy, you calm its quackery, lies, erroneous and a fares of human history, without placing any evidence of your own in a blatant Begging the Question and Objective Ad Hominem fallacies.
The extinction of smallpox is a lie, and the vaccines had absolutely nothing to do with its near disappearance.

Allopaths are skillful liars.

When it comes to the diseases for which they provide fools with vaccinations, they change the names of them to distort the statistics.

Monkeypox is clinically identical to smallpox, and it seems to be the missing figures.

-----------

Organ transplants are not part of medicine, they are surgical procedures, and they most certainly are not cures.

-----------

Antibiotics were an accidental discovery, so please do not hail such accidental discoveres by people who daily demonstrate that they are nothing but quacks and killers.

------------

Gene therepy will provide us nothing but another suppressively and disordering allopathic therapy, never cures because they will have nothing to do with cures, only predispositions.

------------

Without placing any evidence of our own before the world?

Get real!

That is a total lie.

Hahnemann fulfilled his part of the responsibilities of scientists when he provided all of the information necessary to apply homeopathy when he published the ORGANON OF MEDICINE.

It then became the responsibilities of others to test those findings.

That was in 1810.

So for 197 years scientists have been making that total lie and getting away with it.

Well, it just ain't true.

We have been telling you blokes how to do it since the beginning, remembering that you guys were doing bloodletting clear into 1914, but you have never once tested it.

That is an allopathic lie that we have never provided evidence.

Allopaths refuse to test it, and the evidence indicates that you refuse to do so because you all know that you and your system will go the way of the do do bird if you ever did.

----------

"blatant Begging the Question and Objective Ad Hominem fallacies"

If you need to speak Moon talk to impress someone else, find them, because the fact remains that you are foolishly supporting a system of medicine that's total self-admitted quackery due to it being a therapeutically incompetent system, and supporting members applying it that are self-admitted quacks.

That's just dumb.

Plus, they are guilty of mass murder, and you thereby become complicit in their crimes.

Is that really something you want to do?

Do you really want to join your allopathic buddies on the gallows when these societies finally listen to those fools tell us they are therapeutic incompetents, quacks, who of course cannot do anything but kill their patients?

Not too smart, pal.

I suggest you rethink that view.

----------

And I noticed that you ignored everything important that I said in that initial posting.

Very interesting.

[MRC_Hans]

Interesting. Mmmokay, this has gotten very broad with lots of accusations which do not really seem to pertain to the discussion.

Could we sum up?

The purpose of any medical treatment is to cure disease, or, failing that, to eliminate or alleviate the effects of the disease.

Now, to find out if some treatment does that, we seem to need to test it. This test seems to be the same no matter if the treatment is homeopatic, snake oil, or a product of the modern medical industry:

1) Find patients with the disease in question.
2) Apply treatment.
3) Find out if the patients got better.

Especially in stage #3 there are a number of caveats:
- Placebo effect (patients feel better without objectively being better)
- Reporting bias (Patients report feeling better to please the doctor, or the opposite)
- Interpretation bias (persons interpreting results may not be totally objective)

All these kinds of "noise" are effectively eliminated by the double-blind placebo control method. Neither patients nor testers know which patients had the substance under test till results are collected and interpreted.

Thus the double-blind test has nothing to do with HOW the treatment is supposed to function. It just shows the effect of the treatment, therefore, I do not understand how you can consider it irrelevant for homeopatic treatments, Hahnemannian. Perhaps you could explain?

Hans

[ElectricFetus]

Hahnemannian,

True we have nothing that stop virii we do have preventative measure such a vaccines, and ant-viral be we do have cures for many chronic or psychiatric diseases. Just because allopathic medicine is not perfect does not mean is not superior; please tell me how holistic medicine has cured the above at a high success rate.

A fallacy is a event in a arguement which is a failure of logic and is wrong.
Begging the Question fallacy
1. Claim A is made
2. Claim is true because it must be true.

for example:

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

or

H: Homeopathy is great,
F: why?
H: Because it is and I'll present no evidence on it.

Objective Ad Hominem fallacy:
1. Claim A is made
2. Person B attacks the nature of Claim A but provides no evidence against it.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

for example:
"Then tell me why pathology has absolutely nothing to do with therapeutics and we quickly enter into insoluble problems, because 1) allopathy is obviously just self-admitted quackery and should be totally banned from human contact, just as Oliver Wendel Holmes said, and 2) they have all five basic assumptions about medicine totally wrong and thus also all of their conclusions (i.e., therapeutic procedures and results) understandably wrong and effete."

But the biggest fallacy on this thread is the Burden of Proof fallacy, you see this thread is on homeopathy, how does homeopathy work? This is not “all the little flaws and oddities of allopathic medicine” thread. If you want I will make multiple post long counter arguments against your claims on allopathic medicine but I have a life and don’t have the time for that right now, but that’s not the problem the problem is you first need to explain to us how homeopathy works and how successful it is. The burden of proof here is on Homeopathy not allopathic medicine.

[river-wind]

"Unlike smallpox, monkeypox causes swollen lymph nodes. The incubation period for monkeypox is about 12 days..."
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/monkeypox/factsheet.htm


http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/monkeypox/vaccineqa.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/monkeypox/factsheet2.htm



while similar, they are not the same.

[ElectricFetus]

monkey pox is also a genetically distinct species and is far less fatal then small pox, but that’s off topic the topic is the nature of Homeopathy.

[timokay]

MRC Hans,

Now, to find out if some treatment does that, we seem to need to test it. This test seems to be the same no matter if the treatment is homeopatic, snake oil, or a product of the modern medical industry:

1) Find patients with the disease in question.
2) Apply treatment.
3) Find out if the patients got better.

Especially in stage #3 there are a number of caveats:
- Placebo effect (patients feel better without objectively being better)
- Reporting bias (Patients report feeling better to please the doctor, or the opposite)
- Interpretation bias (persons interpreting results may not be totally objective)

All these kinds of "noise" are effectively eliminated by the double-blind placebo control method. Neither patients nor testers know which patients had the substance under test till results are collected and interpreted.


The main problem is the definition of the term "the disease".
In Homeopathy, the "disease" is not the disease-agent but a failure of "disease management" in the body, since this system should be able to overcome ALL disease, without symptoms. And there are a very large number of possibly faults in this system. So, how can there be a "control" starting point?

[ElectricFetus]

The control are people with similar symptoms or the same disease. We try to cure the disease in the experimental group with our treatment that we are testing. Depending on how the experimental group compares to the control we can determine if the treatment works, does nothing or is harmful.

Homeopathy is based of the body healing all problems, how do they deal with genetic diseases? The bodies natural state in these cases may even be fatal.

[timokay]

Mr Fetus,
Homeopathy is based of the body healing all problems, how do they deal with genetic diseases? The bodies natural state in these cases may even be fatal.


Anybody who makes it through early childhood could not possibly have a significant genetic disease fault in their "disease management".

[ElectricFetus]

Hahahha lets give classic example here: Thalassemia major (beta) life span without treatment average about 25 years, only treatment is blood transfusion and bone marrow transplants. The problem is 2 defective copies of hemoglobin beta gene (there are 4 copies total) explain to me how holistic medicine can cure this disease?

[timokay]

The control are people with similar symptoms or the same disease. We try to cure the disease in the experimental group with our treatment that we are testing.

CONTROL? That is still the devil of a problem. We are all genetically different, with the possibility of 1000's of subtle differences and weaknesses in our "disease management".

In homeopathy, the "patient" is treated, not the "disease agent" which may or may not be responsible for the symptom presentation in the patient. The DISEASE does not exist in homeopathy unless you mean the fault in the patient's disease management.

Dr Hahnemann once said, "There are no diseases, but sick people."

You said "similar symptoms", but in homeopathy, symptoms include every single kind of effect or manifestation of the illness..can run into 1000's for each patient, carefully gathered by the doctor before being matched to the most appropriate of nearly 3,000 tested Homeopathic medicines.

The medicine manipulates the fault in the patient's disease management such that it is able to use its many resources to overcome the disease (and it does have resources to eradicate ALL disease).

[ElectricFetus]

and that the probelm with homopathy many disease are in fact cause by a agent and it true the everyone is didfrent o ne indivdial level that way some treatment work on only some of the people. again i aks how does homopathy cure disease please give examples

see you tonight bye

[timokay]

Mr Fetus,

Re. Thalassemia major and other extremely rare genetic conditions that don't get you as a fetus or as a baby.

These are to be excluded from the ALL list. There are 100's of chronic conditions affecting many millions of people that Homeopathy CAN cure.

With Thal. major, Homeopathy could certainly help the patient by pushing the homeostatic processes as far as is possible. The long-term prospects with this treatment are unknown for these unfortunate people.

We should be focusing on the masses who CAN BE helped, where conventional medicine has failed.

[ElectricFetus]

so homeopathy is limited then? also what is the success rate of homeopathy, especial compared to allopathic medicine.

[timokay]

Mr Fetus,

Disease Management

(Instead of the Immune System, the term "Disease Management" (DM) will be used in this discussion because there is believed to be a centre in the Brain which works together with the immune system to manage diseases).

The Healthy person's DM has the resources to heal virtually all disease conditions, and do so even before symptoms present, with the person being completely unaware of the disease. In very rare circumstances, e.g., plague, the Healthy DM may become overwhelmed and symptoms present, temporarily. In this case, one remedy would likely be the the best choice for all those suffering, at least initially. (If complications occur in some of the patients, this is an indication of some weakness in DM.)

For the vast majority of diseases, which would normally be easily conquered by the Healthy DM, the disease agent itself is very rarely the problem to be addressed, but only highlights the kind of weakness in the patient's DM. That is why the Homeopath "treats the patient, not the disease agent", i.e., he is targeting the fault in DM rather than the disease agent itself. So, the "disease" IS the fault in the patient's DM, not the "disease agent".

When Hahnemann cured acute disease conditions, (i.e., where DM was overwhelmed or in a weakened state), he noted that there was often some other underlying weakness in the DM of certain patients. When such patients become infected with disease agents, due to an inherited condition, the disease is not properly managed and remains unresolved in the patient. Over the years, this inherited weakness causes the accumulation of unresolved diseases in the patient, who becomes a "chronic disease" patient. His condition usually declines over a period of years until death, unless he can be treated effectively.

The chronic disease patient shows a symptom pattern which reveals the nature of the most prominent of these diseases, which the doctor then treats Homeopathically. When this disease resolves through the disappearance of many of its symptoms, the doctor re-evaluates the totality of symptoms, and chooses the most appropriate medicine for these symptoms. This process of re-evaluation is repeated until the patient has fully recovered.

The treatment is like a "backing out", or reversal, of the accumulated diseases, one by one.

Because the choice of medicine depends on "totality of symptoms", which guide the doctor to the choice of medicine, it is as though the Brain Centre which produces the symptoms, can only process one disease at a time, starting with the most serious. When this disease is cured, the next most serious disease presents itself through its symptom pattern. So, although there may be several diseases in the body, the Brain Centre only reveals the most serious one at any one time.

The well-chosen Homeopathic medicine is guiding, or pushing, the body's own healing processes in the right way, compensating for the fault in the patient's DM. The result is COMPLETE healing, because the body already has the resources to resolve virtually all disease.

Normally, with Homeopathic medicines, it is not possible to hurry healing processes, but only to guide them to completion. But, Hahnemann found a way to accelerate the cure of many chronic diseases, so long as some skin symptom(s) remains visible (which is often the case in the chronic diseases he treated). He would simply give many more doses, and at more frequent intervals, of the well-chosen medicine and continue with these as long as the skin symptom(s) persists. This dramatically shortened the recovery time.
So, the chronic diseases are not the result of an infective agent but are a weakness of genetic origin. In a healthy person, DM has no problems in maintaining homeostasis, promptly extinguishing any disease - a system which evolved into its almost perfect state over many millions of years.

However, being perfect is not the rule of genetics - continuous genetic variation of individuals is essential for the species to adapt to environmental stresses, and many individuals are sacrificed for that overall goal. In all our cells are 40,000 genes, each having between 2 and 200 operational versions. The combination of genes we are dealt make us unique. The DNA of these genes is translated into proteins which make and manage the 4 trillion cells of our bodies and define who we are.

The variation of genes at each generation makes us all different in constitution; we are all genetic experiments to test our suitability to the world as it is today. This is measured by whether or not we pass our genes on to the next generation. People have chronic diseases of genetic origin because their "total genetic variations" have proceeded to a level at which some metabolic or physical process of the body, such as DM, is not fully functional, AND which cannot be fully compensated for by Homeostatic mechanisms. Such weaknesses or faults in DM are exposed by specific infectious agents, causing chronic diseases.

To heal diseases such as cancer or AIDS, spending billions researching the pathology is a complete waste of time and money. The body ALREADY has the resources to resolve virtually all disease - the fact that these diseases arose at all is a reflection of some weakness in the body's disease management...if the diseases do not resolve when the patient's lifestyle is improved and all exciting factors removed, then the problem must be of genetic origin, in DM, and can be compensated for. It may be a genetic defect in a single transmitter used by Disease Management, making it less efficient. If it were anything more serious than this, then the patient would not have survived beyond early childhood.

Homeopathic medicines compensate for this particular weakness in DM, making it fully functional again, and able to use all its resources to eliminate virtually all diseases. Correct management involves a cascade of activities in the body's control systems, according to instinctual memory instructions. NO Cancer drug will ever be effective unless it acts at the top of this hierarchy of healing processes, because otherwise it will be acting against these processes.

[timokay]

Mr Fetus,

so homeopathy is limited then? also what is the success rate of homeopathy, especial compared to allopathic medicine.



Hahnemann very rarely failed with any disease. If they were hours away from death he would likely fail. Success rate has never been considered because conventional medicine does not recognise Homeopathy...it is not a contender worthy of comparison. About 90 years ago, especially in the USA, Homeopathy became the victim of a witchhunt.

Virtually all the Homeopathy hospitals were shut down. 30 years before that, Homeopathy stood above conventional medicine.

That's history. The problem today is that there are now the means to properly establish Homeopathy's mechanism and then use it to help millions (10's of millions in the USA) with many common "incurable" chronic conditions such as MS, Fibromyalgia, CFS, IBS and many many more which Homeopathy knocks on the head.

It won't happen until there is a revolution. The dominant medical system and all its supporters will always prefer to maintain the current arrangement of suppressing Homeopathy...there is too much at stake. Homeopathic medicine are dirt cheap. Hahnemann always gave them freely to his patients...got himself run out of town twice...had to resettle his family in other cities...two of his children were murdered. He was putting the pharmacies out of business.

[timokay]

Mr Fetus,

and that the probelm with homopathy many disease are in fact cause by a agent and it true the everyone is didfrent o ne indivdial level that way some treatment work on only some of the people. again i aks how does homopathy cure disease please give examples

Yes, there IS a disease agent involved but the point is, what agent? All we have to go on are a collection of symptoms the patient has (unless we have deliberately infected him).

But, the body should have resolved the disease agent without symptoms even appearing, as would happen with 99.9% of the population, who get infected with all kinds of things every single day and are unaware of it because they are resolved without presentation of symptoms, standard practice.

And if we were to try to address "a specific known disease", even then we have a problem because if several people have THAT DISEASE, and produce symptoms as a result of it (due to a fault in DM), it does not mean that they will all present the same symptom pattern (although this will usually be the case in epidemics).

Homeopathy treats the particular fault in each particular patient's DM, never a disease agent (which only highlighted the problem).

[ElectricFetus]

I most cases the agent can actually be extracted (such a viral, bacterial, Zoonotic, ect) and identified empirically. Many infectious disease of the such are not in anyway easily immune to, they can and do out match the human immune system in the majority of the human populations. Stopping what’s causing the illness and your treat the person. tell me how the homeopathy treat a bacterial infection?

[eburacum45]

The reason why the idea behind homeopathy is so unlikely is the dilution process- effectively it is one drop of effective agent in a solar system worth of water.
the impurities in the water would be a quadrillion times more concentrated than the introduced effective agent, so the effects of the impurities should be more noticable.
some of these impurities will be effective agents themselves
especially if the solution is made in a homeopathic clinic.
(don't tell me the vessels and the buildings are clean- have they been sluiced out with a solar system worth of water?)
this means any homeopathic preparation is just as likely to contain a different effective agent against any other illness
as it is the one you want.
well, that's no good as a treatment- it is obviously utter complete nonsense. (sorry)


__________________
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

[Hahnemannian]

MRC Hans—

Everything you say here is wrong, and they all stem from the five basic assumptions of medicine that allopathy has totally wrong and is part of why they cannot cure:

[QUOTE]Now, to find out if some treatment does that, we seem to need to test it. This test seems to be the same no matter if the treatment is homeopatic, snake oil, or a product of the modern medical industry:

1) Find patients with the disease in question.
2) Apply treatment.
3) Find out if the patients got better. [/ QUOTE]

There is, indeed, only one test of curative therapeutic effects, but you obviously don't yet know it and instead invoke the allopathic model despite the fact that it's pointless/useless, ridiculous, ignorant and based upon some of the erroneous assumptions that surrounds and pervades allopathic medicine.

That test is against the Law of Similars in provings (prufung = "test or trial").

Your test doesn't accomplish anything but feed the evil allopathic death machine with fuel in the form of an endless accumulation of information they don’t know what to do with, so why do it in that way and feed that monster of unnecessary suffering and death?

The five basic assumptions of medicine are about health, disease, therapeutics, the nature of existence and the nature of the universe.

You've adopted/accepted an allopathic model, based on errors in those five basic subjects of medicine, that doesn't work and yet you want to sustain it.

Would you care to explain that?

Assuming you posted because you want to know where you are wrong in order to be able to defend your views, I cannot tell your views of health, the nature of existence or the nature of the universe from what you said, but your views of disease and therapeutics makes them all allopathic, and those are somewhat easy to explain.

To refer to “the disease” means that you believe diseases can be named such that it has something to do with therapeutics, but that is wrong.

It's a common mistake too, for most people are allopathically conditioned to such constructs, which is readily apparent in their terminology and reactions to words (hence, word-association tests) because those constructs cannot be defended either logically or experientially and that leaves them having been adopted only via brainwashing, conditioning, indoctrination or by what is also called “education,” because they all refer to accepting information from external sources by certain similar techniques of thought manipulation rather than one arriving at conclusions based upon sound assumptions tested both logically and experientially.

Specifically, diseases as diagnostic categories do not actually exist in the world, for they are a statistical abstraction based solely upon the symptoms that large numbers of people have in common, called the common symptoms, but all actual patients also have the all-important uncommon symptoms that solely lead to an unambiguous remedy diagnosis or prescription.

Hence, nobody has ONLY those common symptoms, so those disease-diagnostic categories do, indeed, have nothing to do anything that actually exists.

Allopaths cannot determine a remedy diagnosis (“to thoroughly know” something) because they don’t understand the nature of therapeutics since they are, in turn, stuck on the notion of mechanisms of diseases and drugs at the level of cellular biology, which erroneous assumptions exist because Rationalist allopathy developed out of and relies upon the natural sciences that indicate reductionism and mechanism are basic features of causes and effects.

These things are true as regards pathology, but they do not have anything to do with therapeutics, for another set of natural laws governs that as the four Laws of Therapeutics with the Law of Similars in the center.

It is incredible to us how scientists en masse can ignore these other natural laws when it is supposed to be what they're searching for intrinsic of being scientists.

Again, this notion of causes and effects in the mechanism of cells presupposes that causes of disease have something to do with therapeutics, but nobody can tell you why that's so, and they forget that causes are irrelevant once diseases make themselves manifest as system-wide disorders even if they appear to be local, for such local disorders cannot arise unless there is a system-wide breakdown in homeostasis that allows for ever-lowering homeostasis until death finally supervenes.

Stipulated, causes of diseases are relevant unless they take the position of sustaining causes, in which case their removal doesn't mitigate other than irritant causes at that stage.

A simple example is bunions and calouses from poorly fitting or structured shoes and/or jobs that keep one on their feet all day long.

Removal of a proximate cause can prevent diseases, and removal of a sustaining cause can allow a homeopathic prescription -- i.e., a medicine homeopathic to the case, in this usage not referring to homeopathic medicines in the generic sense, which of course can be used in an allopathic way according to mere disease names – to act properly since sustaining causes of disease are also disease agents and influences, just as are also proximate causes of diseases.

In the simple case of poorly fitting shoes or being on one’s feet all day long, these things can eventuate into disease states affecting one generally as well as locally/particularly, for they can be debilitating to the point of making walking tiresome to the person, not just painful to their feet.

Other examples easily exist to demonstrate that the allopathic mania about causes are fruitless and always will be pointless searches since the attributed causes of diseases discovered by allopaths down through history have always later on ended up being mere effects.

Moreover, given a proper understanding of the nature of existence and the nature of the universe, any cause of disease in the physical world, unless it be a pathogen (ignoring immune-system immaturity, dysfunction and full compromise) or something that’s avoidable (like well-fitting shoes and work not requiring one to be on their feet all day long), will always be an effect of cause at the Ætheric level of existence.

In short, causes of diseases can precipitate from either direction.

This is where allopathic Minds dissociate, for the mere mention of the Ether for some reason gets your back hairs up, despite the fact that Newton had no trouble with higher planes of existence since he coined the term ”Ætherial Medium.”

Here we enter into the fact that physicists, while historically being total mechanists inanely opposed to higher planes of being due to it smacking of religion (showing how little scientists understand religion as a series of illegitimate doctrines of legitimate religious philosophies) have inadvertently proven the existence of the Æther over the last 20 years and given us over twenty synonyms of it and major manifestations of the Ætheric Plane of existence or 2nd nutational octave of existence.

I shall first name some of the synonyms: virtual particles, tachyons, deltrons, the vacuum energy of empty space, quintessence from string theory, Einstein’s cosmological constant and DeBroglie’s subquantic medium; now some major manifestations of it: Chiu’s neutrino flux, H.C. Dudley’s neutrino sea, blackbody radiation and cosmic microwave background radiation.

I don’t carry around a list of them but wish I did at time like this, for there are lots more.

But I think that suffices for this posting for at least a week.


Tim and I are here looking for help to resolve a major mystery in homeopathy.

Our drugs should not have effect but do, and we want to know if a scientific mechanism can be discovered from people with big brains either being familiar with findings that have been shelved about water chemistry or simply because they spot the explanation.

Homeopathic pharmacology produces subAvogadrean drugs.

We call them ultramolecular drugs, and I call them etheric medicines.

These things should not have effects but do.

Tim and I have two opposite approaches to this enigma.

His is in search of the mechanism, likely involving electromagnetism and water chemistry.

My part of it is more esoteric since the result is subAvogadrean medicines that requires an explanation after the mechanism has been established, for that explanation is just speculation till we know something has happened that can be proven.

Anybody know of any lost or shelved literature on water chemistry or electromagnetism that could explain why vigorous shaking of serial dilutions could make homeopathic potencies medicinal?

This is a very old mystery.

I hope somebody here has some ideas.

We will hang out a while and answer whatever questions you have about homeopathy while hoping somebody knows something important we are unaware of.

Thank you.

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus says:

Hahnemannian,

True we have nothing that stop virii we do have preventative measure such a vaccines, and ant-viral be we do have cures for many chronic or psychiatric diseases. Just because allopathic medicine is not perfect does not mean is not superior; please tell me how holistic medicine has cured the above at a high success rate.


First of all, vaccines as a preventative are a lie, and they actually produce diseases not only immediately but long term.

Anti-viral drugs are a farse; there's no such thing yet.

And, I repeat, there are also no allopathic cures for any chronic or psychiatric cases, and this is not kept quiet about either; they merely get away with naming hundreds or perhaps even thousands of chronic diseases as "incurable" without telling us that they all are.

Next, homeopathy is the only holistic therapy, it is NOT part of the so-called "alternative therapies," for those are all part of what is traditionally classed as Empiricist allopathy, while modern is traditionally part of Rationalist allopathy.

You will discern this from Article 52 of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE (http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html), and then take that fact to Harris Coulter's DIVIDED LEGACY, Vol. III, and realize that our historian seems to have not read that passage, for he insists as part of his thesis for that work and others that homeopathy IS part of the "Empirical medical tradition."

Not true.

That said, Hahnemannian homeopaths are surrounded by low-potency pseudo-homeopaths in the approximate ratio of 1:10,000 and by high-potency pseudo-homeopaths in the approximate ratio of 1:100.

Hahnemannian homeopathy has cured all diseases in exactly the same way: via the Law of Similars.

It is a natural law, and it seems to be part of the fabric of space from Creation for this very purpose.

You will find how in the ORGANON OF MEDICINE.

Key in on Article 153.

----------

Then you said:

the problem is you first need to explain to us how homeopathy works and how successful it is. The burden of proof here is on Homeopathy not allopathic medicine.

But that's already been done, and nearly 200 years ago too, in the ORGANON OF MEDICINE.

The fact that allopaths have not examined it and tested it is more than well known.

The subsequent evidence is all of our clinical verification of the method.

If you want to give us some of that multi-billions of dollars every year wasted on allopathic research, we'll see if it can be established via experimental science.

But I point out that homeopathy is applied science, not experimental science, and it is the actual SCIENCE OF MEDICINE due to its 10 Laws of Medicine, so there are very easy ways to prove homeopathy, the first being high-potency self-provings to establish the verity of homeopathic pharmacology.

Why have none of the people who have supposedly tested homeopathy NEVER engaged in this sole test of homeopathy?

[Hahnemannian]

River-wind says:

"Unlike smallpox, monkeypox causes swollen lymph nodes. The incubation period for monkeypox is about 12 days..."

I'm willing to provisionally accept that, for the source of the notion was Walene James's quoting of somebody else I don't presently recall.

The issue of smallpox is problematic for anti-vaccination arguments, but the fact is that epidemics come and go, and Thomas McKeown established with graphs from mortality tables in THE ROLE OF MEDICINE that vaccines are NOT responsible for the disappearance of any disease and, in fact, cause rises in their incidence.

The long-term issues of vaccines are seen in homeotherapeutics, for the time-element of Hering's Law of Cure well establishes that many cases have their origins in vaccines.

Vaccines are 100% evil, and we will not budge on this no matter how we may occassionally mess up our arguments as I did by attempting to explain the disappearance of smallpox to changing the name.

I will look into your references, and I will expect them to be accurate, but the fact remains that epidemics come and go and vaccines have never been established to be responsible for their disappearance.

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus says:

The control are people with similar symptoms or the same disease.

There's no such thing; nobody has ever had or will ever have the same symptoms or the same disease.

That is an allopathic falacy.

Even the relatively fixed diseases called childhood diseases vary with time in their common symptoms, but every case is forever unique due to its uncommon symptoms and the unique manifestations of them.

They just look similar.

I understand that allopathic Minds cannot conceive of this, but it is true, and Hahnemann was the first person who noticed this.

You will find that repeated several times in THE LESSER WRITINGS OF SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus says:

Homeopathy is based of the body healing all problems, how do they deal with genetic diseases? The bodies natural state in these cases may even be fatal.

I failed to address that in an above quoting, but I thankfully see Tim addressed it a bit.

Genetic diseases are a modern term.

They assume that something is inevitable, but that's wrong.

Something triggers them, and we find that this something is the same as with all diseases.

Some shock appears to underlie these collapses in health, whereby a restored but lowered homeostatis sets the stage for the onset of progressively more serious illness or illnesses.

But genetic diseases are still just predispositions, not sentences of inevitability.

We have cured all diseases so far.

They change the names of them and obscure the picture, but we have still cured them all.

Any mere glance at Kent's REPERTORY will give one a hit of this, for those medicines do not enter the repertory under symptom rubrics unless at least three cures establish its connection.

http://homeoint.org/books/kentrep/index.htm

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus asks:

Hahahha lets give classic example here: Thalassemia major (beta) life span without treatment average about 25 years, only treatment is blood transfusion and bone marrow transplants. The problem is 2 defective copies of hemoglobin beta gene (there are 4 copies total) explain to me how holistic medicine can cure this disease?

You have not presented any homeopathic indications, just a name of a disease with its basic common symptoms.

The answer to the question is that we treat all diseases in the exact same way, and that appears to be sufficient for all cases.

You are ignoring the fact that a set of natural laws underlies homeotherapeutics, and they are the Laws of Medicine.

This is not a small thing.

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus asks:

again i aks how does homopathy cure disease please give examples

Okay, I'll post two good examples because I have them transcribed to floppy discs.

----------------

The first one is of diabetes cured in the Way-Back Machine:

"Diabetes Mellitis

"John F. Miller, M.D.

"THE [Cincinnati] MEDICAL ADVANCE, 1886

"republished

"THE HOMEOPATHIC HERITAGE [Delhi], Dec. 1983, pp. 579-81




"May 9, 1877, W_______, aged 55 years. Involuntary urination, on stooping or walking. Acrid leucorrhoea. Sandy sediment in urine. Pain in sacrum. Psoriasis palmaris. Pruritus vulva. Acidity; Flatulence. Vertigo on going down. Neuralgic pain from right side of neck up over the right ear and right eye down right side of nose. Frequent micturition. Pressure at epigastrium. Eructations; empty, weak feeling at pit of stomach. Ringing, singing, roaring in ears. Snapping in head; head light, dizzy on looking up. Pruritus better by application of cold water. Head confused. Eczematous eruption on vulva and about anus. Stinging nodules under the skin about pedunda. The above symptoms were partially relieved by Sulphur, Lycopodium, Sepia, etc., during almost four years. The patient had complained of thirst more or less during most of the time.

"March, 1881: The thirst increased and became constant and intense. The pruritus, that had been relieved somewhat at times, became very distressing preventing sleep. The eruption extended to above the pubes, down the thighs, and around nates; a raw, easily bleeding, denuded, burning surface. Frequent and profuse urination. Head hollow. Constipation; stools, small balls. The quantity of urine passed was about four quarts in 24 hours. Specific gravity 1040. The usual test found sugar in large quantity.

"April 5: The patient received Tarantula CM, one dose.

"April 19: Snapping in head. Thirst, less constant. Itching less, but still distressing. S.L. [i.e., Sacrum lactis or sugar/placebo.]

"May 10: Constipation; stools, like bullets. Urine, three quarts. Specific gravity 1034. Itching worse. Tarantula CM, 5 doses, one every night.

"May 17: Itching and thirst better. Urine two and one-half qt. Specific gravity 1028. S.L.

"June 7: Two quarts urine. Specific gravity 1028. Head, light. Thirst. Tarentula CM, 5 doses, one every night.

"June 21: Head, light. Itching intolerable. S.G. 1025. Urine passed 1½ quarts. S.L.

"Aug. 30: S.G. 1030. Headache and snapping in head. Thirst. Tarentula 5 doses.

"Oct. 12: Sp.G. 1033. Headache and snapping in head. Thirst. Tarantula 5 doses.

"Dec. 11: Thirst comes on at 10 A.M. Tarantula CM, 5 doses.

"Jan. 9, 1882: Tarantula CM, 5 doses.

"Jan. 19: Involuntary urination. Head, hollow. Thirst at 10 A.M. Tarentula CM, in water, every three hours until six doses are taken.

"Jan. 24: Head confounded, light. Uring [Urine] 1½ quarts. S.G. 1022.

"March 13, 1883 [next year]: Urine 2 quarts. S.G. 1022. Dribbling of urine on walking. No itching or thirst. S.L.

"May 28: Itching. Tarantula CM, one dose.

"Nov. 30: Pain in upper left arm and shoulder. Abdomen distended. Pain in occiput on awaking. Head, light. Snapping in head. Lyco. CM, one dose.

"Jan. 10, 1884: Abdomen enlarged, ascites. An allopathic physician diagnosed ovarian tumor and urged an immediate operation. Faint epigastrium. Head, light. Brown urine. Empty eructations. Phos. CM, one dose.

"June 24: Better, generally. S.L.

"Sep. 11: Red sand. Light head. Phos MM, one dose.

"Oct. 4: Red sand. Head light. Abdomen does not increase. S.L.

"Oct. 20: Urine brown. Head, light. Empty eructations. Phos. MM/1.

"Nov. 11: Weak epigastrium; red sand; brown urine. Phos. MM/1.

"Dec. 8: All symptoms better for a time; now same. Phos. MM/1.

"Jan. 9, 1885: Not so much ascites; other symptoms same. Phos. MM/1.

"June 10: The abdomen still somewhat enlarged. Has had no symptoms of diabetes for 2 years. The S.G. and quantity of urine normal. The pruritus and eczema all gone.

"This lady has had the care of a sick husband for the last three years, who died of cancer of the face a few weeks ago. The last six months of his distressing disease, she was his devoted nurse, attending to his wants day and night. Still there has been no return of the disease."

--------------

The next one is a contemporary case from about 20 years ago:


Homoeopathy and Herniated Lumbar Disks

by K.-H. Gypser

CLASSICAL HOMOEOPATHY QUARTERLY

Vol. 4 (1991), No. 1

Karl F. Haug Verlag (Publishers)



Summary
Two cases of herniated intervertebral disk diagnosed by means of computer topography (CAT scan) demonstrate the value of homoeopathic treatment even for this type of pathology. Both patients received Kali iodatum and Sepia. Aside from describing the process of repertorization in search of the simile, the author alludes briefly to the problem of the repetition of remedies.

Keywords
Herniated disk – Kali iodatum – Sepia – repetition of remedy



The practitioner often encounters herniated lumbar disks under the guise of sciatic- nerve pathology. Regular therapy usually prescribes heat treatment initially,* bed rest on a hard surface (with traction if indicated) and analgesic drugs as well as mild tranquilizers. After improvement sets in, massage, whirlpool and exercises designed for the spine are applied. Frequent recurrences or cauda-equina syndrome are considered indications for surgery.
The following case histories shall demonstrate that, contrary to the regular approach based on the methodology of the natural sciences bent on dealing with the causal connections [which can help us prevent such cases but have nothing to do with therapeutics], homoeopathy offers alternative treatment possibilities through the careful attention it pays to the patient's immediate disease phenomena [i.e., his/her symptoms,] which alone determine the remedy selection.

Case 1

The 38-year-old female patient, I.T., has been suffering from right-sided sciatica for the past five months. Periods of tolerable pain alternate with times of considerable suffering. There has been no indication of noticeable improvement, and the patient came to consult on 4 August 1986 during an episode of renewed exacerbation.
Her condition had been carefully diagnosed by a number of allopathic colleagues. The following results from computer tomography were available: segment L5/S1 showed evidence of a medio-lateral protrusion to the right with slight-to-moderate caudal compression. The therapeutic recommendations ranged from injections of analgesic drugs to three weeks of bed rest with traction and eventual surgical intervention. The patient, however, rejected these well-intentioned recommendations. She still remembered very well the extraordinary relief obtained for a number of chronic complaints when she was under the care of a skilled homoeopathic physician. This doctor is practicing at a great distance from her current residence. Her condition not permitting her to travel very far, she was nevertheless willing to give homoeopathy another chance by consulting closer to home.

The following symptoms had originally appeared after she slipped on the ice and fell:
Pain, extending from the lumbo-sacral area (where it is relatively mild), across the right buttock down to the right hollow of the knee and the region of the right inguinal region.
The pain is particularly severe at night, awakening the patient and forcing her to rise and walk about to get some relief.
In addition, the symptoms are aggravated by sneezing, sitting and lying.

Repeated solicitations to get her to relate any further complaints that might have occurred at the beginning or that might be present during the current attack brought forth no other symptoms.
The selection of the simile thus had to be made entirely on the spontaneous report. In the absence of any striking symptoms that might have weighed more heavily and could have been considered as leading symptoms, Kent's Repertory was consulted to determine what remedies corresponded to the greatest number of revealed symptoms. This procedure is warranted by a remark by Hahnemann, who stated that the appropriate remedy is the one that "covers the greatest number of the complaints at hand.”1)

Repertorization
Pain, lower limbs, sciatica, right (K1067): carb s., chel., chin s., coloc., dios., lach., lyc., phyt., plan., sep., tell.
Sciatica, < [worse or aggravated at] night (K 1067): arg n., ars., bell., cham., coff., coloc., ferr., ferr-ar., gels., gnaph., hyper., indg., iris, kali bi., kali i., led., merc., mez., nux v. pall., phyt., plb., puls., thus t, sep., staph., syph., tell., verat., zinc.
Sciatica, < lying (K 1068): coloc., fort., gnaph., kali-i., meny., nat m., ruts, sep., tell., valer.
Sciatica < sitting (K 1068): am m., berb., bry., coloc., dios., ferr., indg., iris, kali bi., kali i., lach., lyc., lyss., meny., merc., ruta., sep., staph., valer.
Sciatica < sneezing (K 1068): sep., tell.
Sciatica > [better or ameliorated by or while] walking (K 1069): agar., am m., caps., coc c., ferr., indg., kali-bi., kall i., kali p., lyc., ph-ac., rhus t., ruta, sep., syph., valer.
The most frequently represented remedies are: Colocynthis (4x), Ferrum (4x), Kali iodatum (4x), Sepia (6x) and Tellurium (4x).

Materia-medica Comparison
The work that has been most helpful to me when doing materia-medica comparisons for patients with sciatica is Hering’s Guiding Symptoms (Chapters "Neck and back" and "Lower limbs") in which the concept of “sciatica” stemming from clinical experience is frequently mentioned.

Colocynthis
"Violent…pains, from sacrum along course of sciatic nerve, behind great trochanter of r. leg, down as far as knee, can neither lie, sit nor walk…Ischias." (GS IV, p. 382)
“Pain passing down outside of I. leg...paroxysms < at nigh....Sciatica." (ibid.)
"Continuous drawing pains in r., also in l. hip; lying, sitting, standing and walking are all painful; she can find no comfortable position, especially at night and in bed; walking difficult.…Ischias." (ibid., p. 380)

Ferrum
"Remitting pains; < in night...by continued motion and walking about, pain gradually becomes milder….Sciatica" (GS V., p. 285)
“...tearing pains with violent stitching from the hip joint down as far as to the tibia and sole of foot...during the day, the pain does not allow him to step on it, but walking ameliorates it. It is worst in the evening after lying down, he must get up and walk about in order to alleviate the pain..." (RA II, p. 134, No. 209)

Kalium iodatum
“Pain > by walking and flexing leg; < from standing, sitting or lying in bed. Sciatica." (GS VI, p. 436)
“Tearing in r. thigh and knee, awakens him at night, < lying on affected side or back. Sciatica." (ibid.)
“Awakened at night at eleven, extremely painful tearing in the right thigh down to the knee, subsiding after lying on the good side; however, lying on the painful side and on the back was intolerable." (HT III, p. 49, No. 243)
“...pains in r. thigh and leg; a darting from [the] point where sciatic nerve leaves pelvis...to...heel; motion at first painful, is after a moment more bearable... < at night, not able to remain in bed; pain in thigh, leg and knee joint, excruciating when lying down, eliciting screams..." (GS VI, p. 435 436)

Sepia
"Severe tearing pains in l. thigh; along course of sciatic nerve, pain extending to calf of leg and toes, pain 3 to 5 am...she cannot remain in bed, gets up and walks about room sobbing.…Sciatica." (GS IX, p. 336)
"Severe tearing from the hip joint to the foot, at night, hindering sleep." (EN VIII, p. 643, No. 1717)
"Pains in hips and thighs, extending to near the knees." (ibid., p. 644, No. 1731)
"While sitting, the posterior thigh muscles are very painful." (CK V., p. 221, No. 1254)

Tellurium
"Pain in sacrum passing into r. thigh.…Sciatica." (GS X, p. 271)
"Sciatica of r. side; < when lying on affected side." (ibid.)

Selection of Remedy
Even though Colocynthis has several similar symptoms, it lacks the amelioration while walking. Contrary to the patient's complaints, the Colocynthis symptoms are aggravated from walking, as can be seen in the above-mentioned texts, but also in the following: "Pains in the lower extremities increase until noon, so as to be frequently troublesome in walking" (EN III, p. 498, No. 894). "Severe pain in r. leg, compelling him to lie quietly in one place; slightest attempt at motion causes great pain..." (GS IV, p. 382). "The right thigh is painful only on walking" (CK III, p. 172, No. 212). On the basis of these findings, Colocynthis was excluded from the selection.
Ferrum was also excluded, because it has only the aggravation at night and on lying down – which does not necessarily mean "while lying" – and the amelioration from walking. Tellurium, for which no references except those for right-sided sciatica and the aggravation while lying could be found, was also eliminated from the group under consideration. The stipulation "< when lying on affected side" furthermore speaks against the prescription of Tellurium.
Without the knowledge that Sepia had alleviated the patient’s complaints on previous occasions, the choice would have fallen on Kali iodatum. However [not knowing this], I let myself be swayed and gave one pellet of Sepia (Schmidt-Nagel).

Course of Treatment
As the course of treatment shows, the pain at night was somewhat relieved but, in general, no marked amelioration could be noted. On the contrary: eight days later, the patient reported the sensation as if the affected parts were inflamed, and lying on the affected right side had now also become painful.
Since Kali iodatum also covers this latest, newly occurring symptom, Kali-i. M, one pellet (Schmidt Nagel) was now administered and the mistake thus corrected. From that day on, the patient improved continuously, and within a few days she was able to tend to her daily chores. In the past approximately 4½ years, she has not had any recurrence of her problems.

Remarks
It is interesting to note in this that case the remedy covering all the symptoms used for the repertorization (Sepia) turned out not to be the simile. Thus, to rely exclusively on a purely numerical correspondence and to circumvent the materia-medica comparison can easily lead to failure.
It was furthermore noted that entries in Kent’s Repertory are frequently missing in our standard works such as Allen's Encyclopedia and Hering’s Guiding Symptoms. This naturally raises the question as to whether the above-mentioned sources are incomplete in this respect, or whether Kent’s Repertory contains mistakes made by him or one of the numerous precursors whose publications he incorporated in his work. It illustrates once more how important it is for the practitioner to consult a reliable materia medica, one that is based on the primary sources.

Case 2

The 32-year-old male patient, J.S., initially consulted in June 1988. He was suffering from a recurrence of the sciatica first experienced in 1982. The diagnosis of protrusion of disks L4/5 [is that accurate?] and L5/S1 with medio-lateral herniation had been established by a number of colleagues in private practice, as well as by CAT scan carried out by the orthopedic department in one of our university hospitals. Anti inflammatory and analgesic drugs had been prescribed and fango [mud packs and baths], massage and therapeutic exercise were applied, all to no avail. The complaints got continuously worse and surgical intervention was being contemplated. Having repeatedly heard unfavorable reports about such operations, the patient wished to avoid these drastic measures.

He presented the following symptoms:

Boring pains in the lumbo-sacral region, extending through the right leg into the heel;
< stooping;
< coughing;
< sneezing;
< in the morning after rising, > 1 1½ hours later;
< pressing at stool;
the modalities are especially pronounced here;
< sitting;
< lying, especially at night;
< walking [actually, that’s > walking; the published case report has a typographical error here shown by the repertorization saying so and instead listing the medicines found at > walking or better/amelioriated by walking rather than < walking, so we have corrected it as well as that mistaken page number there to 1066 rather than 1069];
awakens at night with stitching pain in lumbar region when turning in bed;
night sweats about neck and chest since the beginning of this recurrence.
Aside from an allergy to the sun and inflammation of the eyes in the spring, the patient appeared to have no further symptoms.

Repertorization
The repertorization was based on the clear modalities that characterized the situation and not on [rather than on] the "explainable" [or common, expected] aggravations from stooping, coughing, sneezing and pressing at stool that frequently accompany herniated-disk pathologies.
Sciatica > walking (K 1069, actually K 1066): agar., am m., coc c., ferr., indg., kali-bi., kali-i., kali p., lyc., ph-ac., rhus t., ruta, sep., syph., valer.
Sciatica < sitting (K 1068): Am-m. ferr., indg., kali bi., kali i., lyc., ruta., sep., valer., etc.
Sciatica < lying (K 1068): Ferr., kali-i., ruta, sep., valer., etc.

Materia-medica Comparison
Ferrum
"Remitting pains; < in night...by continued motion and walking about, pain gradually becomes milder.…Sciatica." (GS V, p. 285)
“…tearing pains with violent stitching from the hip joint down as far as to the tibia and sole of foot…during the day, the pain does not allow him to step on it, but walking ameliorates it. It is worst in the evening after lying down, he must get up and walk about in order to alleviate the pain..." (RA II, p. 134, No. 209)

Kali iodatum
"At night violent pain in the small of the back so that she could not lie quietly anywhere." (HT III, p. 48, No. 213)
"Violent pain In reply to: the small of the back all night long, like bruised, so that she did not know in what position to lie." (ibid., No. 215)
"Continuous pain in the small of the back, almost like bruised, especially while sitting in a stooped position." (ibid., No. 214)
"Frequent sharp stitching in the small of the back while sitting." (ibid., No. 217)
"Awakened at night at eleven, extremely painful tearing in the right thigh down to the knee, subsiding by lying on the good side; however, lying on the painful side and on the back was intolerable." (ibid., p. 49, No. 243)
“…pains in r. thigh and leg; a darting from point where sciatic nerve leaves pelvis...to...heel; motion at first painful, is after a moment more bearable... < at night, not able to remain in bed; pain in thigh, leg and knee joint, excruciating when lying down, eliciting screams..." (GS VI, p. 435 436)
"Pain > walking… < from...sitting or lying in bed. Sciatica.” (ibid., p. 436)
"Tearing in r. thigh and knee, awakens him at night, < lying on affected side or back. Sciatica." (ibid., p. 436)

Ruta
"Severe pressure in small of back... < by moving about..." (GS IX, p. 144)
"Stitches in small of back when sitting, stooping..." (ibid.)
"Sciatica; pain... < sitting or lying down." (ibid., p. 145)
"A digging [pain or sensation]...in the lumbar region, just above the small of the back, while sitting...[and] on walking, it continues for some time, gradually disappearing; it returns while standing still and while sitting." (EN VIII, p. 438, No. 244)

Sepia
"Back pain only while sitting, even when sitting only briefly." (CK V, p. 216, No. 1117)
"On stooping, suddenly severe pain in back..." (ibid., No. 1122)
"While sitting, the muscles in back of the thigh are very painful." (ibid., p.221, No. 7254)
"In small of back pain…by > by walking." GS IX, p. 334)
"Stitches in back when coughing." (ibid.)
"Throbbing in small of back...sitting...on turning in bed...a pain catches her there as if something were going to break." (ibid., p. 335)
"Pains in small of back...cannot lie on l. side or upon back..." (ibid.)
"Severe tearing pains in l. thigh; along course of sciatic nerve, pain extending to calf of leg and toes, pain 3 to 5 a.m.... she cannot remain in bed, gets up and walks about room sobbing.…Sciatica." (GS IX, p. 336)
"At night, cold sweat on chest, back and thighs." (CK V, p. 238, No. 1645)

Valeriana
“Violent drawing, darting, jerking pains in limbs... < sitting; > from motion; strained feeling in lumbar region; lumbago." (GS X, p. 388)
"Sciatica of r. side..." (ibid., p. 389)
"Intense pain in the left lumbar region above the hip...worse when standing, and especially when sitting, than when walking." (EN X, p. 66, No. 253)

Remedy Selection
Although Ferrum has the aggravation at night and while lying – but it lists it as "after lying down" – and the amelioration from walking, no other similarities to the patient's symptoms are recorded that would speak for it.
Valeriana must also be eliminated, since other than the modalities > walking and < sitting, it has no symptoms corresponding to the patient's complaints.
Ruta, however, can be looked at more closely: in addition to the amelioration from walking about, the aggravation while sitting and lying (although the original states "lying down"), it includes the aggravation of the pain in the small of the back on stooping. However, these correspondences cannot compete with those of Kali iodatum and Sepia.
Kali iodatum and Sepia both have > walking, < lying, < sitting. In addition, Sepia is characterized by pains in the small of the back on coughing, on turning around in bed and by night sweats on the chest. Contrary to Ruta (and Sepia), Kali iodatum has sciatica on the right side, which appeared to me to be more important than the more trivial aggravation from stooping.
The choice thus had to fall either on Kali iodatum or Sepia. Although Sepia seemed to be clearly indicated, I nevertheless had some doubts, since the Sepia back pains from coughing certainly are not unusual in patients with herniated disks and since the nightly sweats on the chest had been recorded by the prover as cold sweats and had also occurred on the back and thighs.
[paragraph] Although it did not completely cover the picture, Kali iodatum M, one pellet (Schmidt Nagel) was administered. If this prescription can be excused at all, it is because all the above factors had to be examined in great haste dictated by the lack of time on this particularly busy day in my practice.

Course of Treatment
The patient felt considerable relief in the days following the administration of the remedy, especially at night while lying. There was no longer any pain on pressing at stool. When the symptoms recurred without any noticeable modification two weeks later, Kali iodatum XM, one pellet (Schmidt Nagel) was given, but it produced no positive results.
Five days later, the condition had returned to that observed at the beginning of treatment and now, Sepia LM, one pellet (Schmidt Nagel) was prescribed. On the following day, the patient had a dramatic aggravation – to the point where he wept from the pains. It was not possible to evaluate the situation clearly since, against my recommendations, he had performed some labor that required stooping. Was this a case of primary aggravation, or had the disk pathology been exacerbated by the recent overexertion of the back?
In order to not neglect [correction of or to precipitate] any possible further damage, the patient was admitted to the neurological unit of a hospital where he was given the same analgesic drug he had received before starting homoeopathic treatment and which at that time had brought him minimal relief. However, at present it produced not the slightest relief within the expected time of action. On the basis of the previously diagnosed findings and the urgency of the situation, surgical intervention was scheduled for the following day; but the patient was by then completely free of pain! Greatly astounded and not quite believing in the belated effect of their drugs that had formerly brought the patient little relief and none on the previous day, the physicians encouraged him to “provoke” his pain by the appropriate motions so that the operation could take place as scheduled. [Medical ethics were called into question there.] However, the pain refused to return and the patient left the hospital unscathed and returned to work. To this day, he has remained free of pain despite the sometimes vigorous strain put on his back, which the remodeling of his home requires.

Remarks
It could be argued that this cure following an initial, primary aggravation was not a "pure" effect of Sepia. But the fact that the analgesic drug had been administered previously without satisfactory results speaks against this argument. After all, why should this medication have had a more favorable result at a time when the situation was considerably worse than on the previous occasions, and why would it have had such a beneficial effect after such an unusual lapse of time and of such permanent duration? Furthermore, analgesic drugs are at best capable of alleviating pain for short periods of time, but they are not known to be able to bring about a curative effect.
Considered in the light of the dogmas that have been established according to some remarks by Kent, the repetition of Kali iodatum after "only" two weeks might be considered an incorrect procedure. However, this whole contention collapses once we realize that what Kent has said about the duration of the effects of individual, one glass,** high-potency remedies of his scale was not meant to establish any laws but was based merely on observations he had made in his practice. His findings are to be understood as suggestions that never excluded exceptions. Let us not forget that Kent was making these pronouncements in his capacity as teacher of students at the Postgraduate School of Homoeopathics in Philadelphia, [i.e.,] that these students were already physicians who had become interested in homoeopathy. Consequently, they were beginners who needed such oversimplifications. According to Hahnemann and Kent, repetition must be guided solely by the patient’s condition.

Epilogue
These two cases were singled out for several reasons. First, they demonstrate that it is well worth while to attempt homoeopathic treatment in cases where regular physicians often recommend surgery. In addition, both patients presented in many respects a similar symptomatology which, in the final analysis, nevertheless [nonetheless] required different remedies. Furthermore, Kali iodatum was prescribed in both cases, and this fact might serve as an incentive to study this rarely used remedy. It is also timely to stop exclusively reporting cures achieved without complications, for we all encounter those in our practice. Such reporting might give beginners the impression that healing should always proceed in a perfect manner.
Some might have liked to see radiological confirmation of how (and if) the individual herniated disks had changed, since this would be cogent "proof" of the effectiveness of homoeopathy. However, even the regular physicians do not "prove" with X rays any healings herniated disks attained by conservative measures, but they are content with the mere clinical evidence of absence of complaints. From the standpoint of ethics, physicians are furthermore obligated to spare the patient any diagnostic procedures that would constitute additional physical or financial burdens.




Note
1) RA II, p. 37 cf. ORG VI, § 147

Bibliography
Allen, T.F. The Encyclopedia of Pure Materia Medica. I X. Philadelphia 1875 79. [EN]
Hahnemann, S. Die Chronischen Krankheiten, Bd. III. 2. Aufl. Dusseldorf 1837 (11828). [CK]
Hahmemann, S. Reine Arzneimittellehre. Bd. II. Nachdr. Ulm 1955 (31833). [RA]
Hartlaub, C.G.C. u. C.F. Tricks Reine Arzneimit- tellehre. Bd. III. Leipzig 1831.[HT]
Hering, C. The Guiding Symptoms of Our Materia Medica. Vol. I X. Philadelphia 1879 91. [GS]
Kent, J. T. Repertory of the Homoeopathic Mate ria Medica. 2nd Ind. Repr. Calcutta 1973 (11897 99). [K]


Klaus Henning Gypser, M.D., Wassenacher Str. 23, 5471 Glees, Federal Republic of Germany

(Translated from the German by Hela Michot Dietrich, Ph.D., D.Hom., State University of New York at Binghamton, USA)




Editor’s Notes

*I changed this passage because it didn’t make sense to me. It said, “Regular therapy usually prescribes initial heat treatment” but now says “…prescribes heat treatment initially.” It would have had to be hyphenated as “initial-heat treatment,” but I have no idea what that means. I therefore suspect he meant to say how I’ve changed it. Am trying to get with Dr. Gypser to check this, but it is left as changed in the meantime for the above reasons.

**What he calls “individual, one-glass, high-potency remedies” must refer to potencies out of the same bottle. I recommend changing that to: “individual, same-lot, same-manufacturer, high-potency remedies.”

-----------

Amazing or what?

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus asks:

so homeopathy is limited then? also what is the success rate of homeopathy, especial compared to allopathic medicine.

We have not yet found there to be any incurable diseases.

[Hahnemannian]

Tim, wow:

Hahnemann always gave them freely to his patients...got himself run out of town twice...had to resettle his family in other cities...two of his children were murdered. He was putting the pharmacies out of business.

Hahnemann was run out of EVERY place he settled, even before he pronounced about homeopathy, because he denounced all power structures.

But you are right that the main power structure that attacked Hahnemann and homeopathy the most is the same one in power today, for they rule and make profit at the expense of human health: the allopathic pharmaceutical companies.

They again will not be permitted to murder people at will, and we can see already that this tide is inevitable; homeopathy will come to its proper station in time without being able to be stopped, for we can see everywhere that people are sick of allopathic medicine and of being sick and seeing their loved ones die in allopathic hands a ghastly agonal, horrendously horrible, premature iatrogenic death after years of iatrogenic suffering.

It's now inevitable.

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus says:

Stopping what’s causing the illness and your treat the person. tell me how the homeopathy treat a bacterial infection?

That's not true.

Attacking a pathogen is NOT treating the person; in fact, that's ridiculous.

That quasi-militaristic approach of allopathy will only create diseases!

And I want to point out that allopathic exponents always key in on infectious diseases, where a cogent disease agent is involved.

They want to interject that approach of attacking an invading organism into chronic diseases and psychiatric cases, but that's 100% impossible, for the organism is essentially attacking itself via dysfunction in chronic and psychiatric cases.

Moreover, that notion of killing the pathogen ignores the environment of the organism that permits a pathogen to flourish.

Healthy organisms function properly and handle pathogens automatically.

------------

All diseases are treated the same way: you discern the uncommon symptoms and match up the medicine with that symptom similarity.

When done properly, which is extremely difficult, that will isolate out one medicine as more similar than any other.

The other ones of close similarity are called the simile, with which cases can be zig zagged to cure, but the one most similar medicine or simillimum ("thing most similar") permits us to gain total command over diseases.

It is about that simple.

Are you ready to read the ORGANON yet?

[Hahnemannian]

eburacum45 says:

well, that's no good as a treatment- it is obviously utter complete nonsense. (sorry)

Your mere opinion is meaningless and not a scientific statement.

A priori assumptions (meaning those from general principles or assumptions to particular facts or conclusions) have always been used against homeopathy, but they are NOT facts.

Please look into it and keep your mere opinions out of it since we are dealing with difficult mysteries in need of resolving that extend far beyond such initial doubts from mere theoretical speculations, even though they are understandable.

The medicines are today just as valid for the same symptoms as when initially introduced into the homeopathic materia medica, so your assertion is wrong.

Please do a high-potency self-proving and then form an opinion.

We want some help.

[Redrover]

Now when some people propose incorrect theories about relativity in the Physics & Math forum, it's relatively harmless, but when we talk about medicine and homeopathy, it becomes much more dangerous.

I remember a court case in Alberta a few years ago about a young boy who had cancer. His parents decided to rely on homeopathy but child services wanted to force him to have chemotherapy. The case went all the way to the supreme court where the parents finally won. They went to Mexico to undertake their homeopathy and the boy finally died of his cancer. His death might have been preventable if only his parents had been a bit more responsible and had listend to their doctors.

All I am saying is that homeopathic therapies are dangerous. If you don't treat you illnesses and instead rely on homeopathy or crystals or whatever, you can die. There are enougth tragic deaths in our world today, we don't need the stupid and preventable deaths too.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian



We have not yet found there to be any incurable diseases. Some documentation of that would be nice. You could document some pople being cured of AIDS and liver cancer by homeopathic treatment, just for starters. No anecdotes, please ;)

Hans

[timokay]

Hans,

May I butt in Albert. The patient with aids will be carefully assessed for his/her total symptom pattern, and the appropriate H. medicine will be chosen. This medicine directs the healing processes in the right way to resolve the disease.

There are reports of many people in Africa who do not get AIDS at all...therefore the body's disease management system does has the potential to deal with it.

[timokay]

Mr Fetus,

Stopping what’s causing the illness and your treat the person. tell me how the homeopathy treat a bacterial infection?


Over many millions of years, the body has developed strategies to deal with all diseases - it HAD to. And they are supposed to work EVERY TIME without symptoms.

Homeopathy does not directly treat a bacterial infection, but it directs "disease management" at the highest level (in the brain) to the appropriate strategy for this problem....DM is at fault or overwhelmed and needs some guidance.

So, homeopathy treats a bacterial infection by directing DM.

[ElectricFetus]

Hahnemannian,

I sorry but I have a life and don't have the time to read through all those post, if you could summarize it or wait a couple of more days for my reply.

timokay,

Over billions of years infectious disease have learned to counter the immune system, they had to, infecting organisms and spreading from one critter to another is there only means of survival. The human immune system is nowhere near invincible, it fights back almost all of the time at its best performance and no treatment is going it enhance that. Vaccines teach the immune system what an infectious disease looks like ahead of time so the immune system will destroy it immediately, Antibiotics and antiviral kill or slow the reproduction of the infectious agent giving the immune system a better chance of finishing it off, allopathic medicine does not ignore the body it is still the most critical element.

[Repo Man]

WCF, how dare you try to impose requirements such as empirical evidence and repeatability on the proponents of Homeopathy?

Free of the tyranny of facts and evidence, like all religious true believers, they will believe what they want.

If Homeopathy were effective, it would have been proven to be so by now. But then come the conspiracy theories, etc.

[timokay]

Fetus,

The human immune system is nowhere near invincible, it fights back almost all of the time at its best performance and no treatment is going it enhance that.

Why do these bugs keep hitting the same people all the time?

[ElectricFetus]

what the flu, malaria, hepititis, mesles, ect hit the same people over and over again? Maybe that is not lacks of medical values but do to bad habits and poor living conditions?

[timokay]

Fetus,

I mean when several people are exposed to a given disease agent, it is the same ones each time that get the bad symptoms.

[ElectricFetus]

what do you mean, When other people get the flu, I get the flu everyone seem to get infected, some people have immunity already to that strain some don't.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by timokay
Hans,

May I butt in Albert. The patient with aids will be carefully assessed for his/her total symptom pattern, and the appropriate H. medicine will be chosen. This medicine directs the healing processes in the right way to resolve the disease.

There are reports of many people in Africa who do not get AIDS at all...therefore the body's disease management system does has the potential to deal with it. Oh? Then why are they not being treated by the thousands? This is CRAP. People die from AIDS.

Yes, there seem to be some people who are immune to HIV. How is this an argument for H. ? We know pretty well how the immune system functions.

Hans

[timokay]

Hans,

Oh? Then why are they not being treated by the thousands? This is CRAP. People die from AIDS.

Yes, there seem to be some people who are immune to HIV. How is this an argument for H. ? We know pretty well how the immune system functions.


For a start, millions of people dying from aids could have been saved if the drug companies didn't want to make a mint from the dying.

HOW COULD THEY BE IMMUNE TO HIV? By magic? Because they have something in their constitution to combat it. Their body defences can deal with it. That is exactly how Homeopathy works - by mobilising the body defences to a level at which these diseases can be overcome.

Why are they not being treated by the thousands? Because Homeopathy is a suppressed medical system. You cannot even find Hahnemann's books on the shelf of any library in Britain...you can order them from a Library store, but they won't leave them on the shelf for anyone to discover them by chance.

Homeopathy is NOT ACCEPTED by the dominant medical system. PERIOD. NO REASON GIVEN. If you read the Organon of Medicine by Hahnemann you will see why...but the fact remains that Homeopathy works VERY well.

[timokay]

Hans,

In Homeopathy, SYMPTOMS are the tools of the trade. Conventional Medicine does not accept the "provings", where all symptoms associated with each drug are written down.

So, Homeopathy cannot be accepted, even if it does cure virtually all disease.

Please read this:

http://www.homeoint.org/cazalet/nash/symptom.htm

[timokay]

Link Above:
http://www.homeoint.org/cazalet/nash/symptom.htm

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by timokay
Hans,

For a start, millions of people dying from aids could have been saved if the drug companies didn't want to make a mint from the dying.

Ye olde "evil capitalists don't want it" answer. There is some thruth in it since the medical industry is very profit oriented (like all industries), however, what would keep governments of countries like South Africa from using homeopathic remedies?

HOW COULD THEY BE IMMUNE TO HIV? By magic? Because they have something in their constitution to combat it. Their body defences can deal with it. That is exactly how Homeopathy works - by mobilising the body defences to a level at which these diseases can be overcome.

They became immune through their normal immunity system. The special thing about the HIV virus is that it is able to mutate so quickly that it overcomes most people's immune response system. Evidently, some have a system that is able to keep up. There is nothing wrong with the theory of a treatment that boosts the immune system, but you need to document that it works. And, this statement of yours seems to contradict Hahnemannian's claim that infectious agents are not the cause of disease.

Why are they not being treated by the thousands? Because Homeopathy is a suppressed medical system. You cannot even find Hahnemann's books on the shelf of any library in Britain...you can order them from a Library store, but they won't leave them on the shelf for anyone to discover them by chance.

This is nonsense. If there was a regimen with documented effect on a broad scale of diseases, it could not be suppressed. Actually, the medical industries would be crowding to get it. Just think of the earning potential!

Homeopathy is NOT ACCEPTED by the dominant medical system. PERIOD. NO REASON GIVEN. If you read the Organon of Medicine by Hahnemann you will see why...but the fact remains that Homeopathy works VERY well.

Homeopathy is not accepted by the medical profession because:

- The effect has not been documented

- The theory behind it does not make sense in the light of present knowledge of medicine and physics.

Please, please, point to DOCUMENTATION for your claim that homeopathy "works very well".

Hans

[timokay]

Hans,

... however, what would keep governments of countries like South Africa from using homeopathic remedies?


Homeopathy does not have worldwide acceptance...it is a suppressed medical system (though it was the FIRST successful medical system), beaten down by Medical Science for no good reason I can see. They give superficial reasons to please the general public. But what about all the sick people?


They became immune through their normal immunity system. The special thing about the HIV virus is that it is able to mutate so quickly that it overcomes most people's immune response system. Evidently, some have a system that is able to keep up. There is nothing wrong with the theory of a treatment that boosts the immune system, but you need to document that it works. And, this statement of yours seems to contradict Hahnemannian's claim that infectious agents are not the cause of disease.


Where is this claim, please?

"..but you need to document that it works."

There are 213 years of detailed documentation on Homeopathy.
This does not reside in the Scientific world, therefore it cannot be considered?

ME: You cannot even find Hahnemann's books on the shelf of any library in Britain...you can order them from a Library store, but they won't leave them on the shelf for anyone to discover them by chance.

YOU: This is nonsense. If there was a regimen with documented effect on a broad scale of diseases, it could not be suppressed. Actually, the medical industries would be crowding to get it. Just think of the earning potential!


Just the opposite. These medicines are dirt cheap to make. NOW! consider the earning potential, and therefore the "reverse" motivation.

There certainly IS ...a regimen with documented effect...FULL DOCUMENTATION going back 213 years.

Homeopathy is not accepted by the medical profession because:

- The effect has not been documented

- The theory behind it does not make sense in the light of present knowledge of medicine and physics.

Please, please, point to DOCUMENTATION for your claim that homeopathy "works very well".

I shall, but probably not as nearly as effectively as Albert, so I shall ask him to contribute.
Really, if you are interested, make the effort to read The Organon of Medicine by Hahnemann. I am writing a "Scientific-looking" version for people who might make the effort to understand this medical system. I have a degree in Physiology and Biochemistry, and made the effort myself.

[timokay]

Hans,

The three major works of Hahnemann are
1. Organon of Medicine, 2. Chronic Diseases, and 3.The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. Here are the first two, though the translation of these online versions is not the best.

Refer to 6th Edition not 5th Edition. The Organon is divided into 291 numbered Articles (or Para's).

http://www.homeoint.org/books/hahorgan/

http://homeoint.org/books/hahchrdi/index.htm

[ElectricFetus]

Does that documentation compare to a control and placebo? The problem with homeopathy is that it claims (or those here claim) its cannot be tested allopathically, I it can not be tested logically then there is no proof that it works.

[timokay]

Fetus,

Good to see you out of your jar for a change.
Well, I'll be blowed! Shucks, I dunno...I'm getting lost with this stuff.

I have a Science degree, and I've studied Homeopathy in some detail for a Scientist. I can see no flaws whatsoever.

The big-wigs in power will not accept the "subjective" symptoms of Homeopathy. At the moment, I can only interpret Homeopathy as "to do with things beyond the Scientifically known immune system, at present".

The patients recover, remarkably so, but that is not enough for Science.

When Science's study of the immune system reaches the point of identifying unknown control substances the immune system uses to manage diseases, these should correlate in structure with the long-chained water-ethanol polymers of homeopathy, AND the specific symptom patterns associated with them.

I still think the Brain is the main component of this "unknown level" of immune system/disease control.

I am not yet at the point of translating this study into a formal Scientific double-blind placebo-controlled study. But, no Scientist has ever tested Hahnemannian Homeopathy - the only one I can vouch for, because that is as far as I have got.

[ElectricFetus]

No you don't understand what I’m getting at: show me evidence that it works, we don't need to know how or why just show us that it works. so far all you have provided is nothing. Just give us a case study of it working statically valid with control or placebo as well has 3rd party corroboration and we will have to believe no matter how crazy or scamy it sounds!

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by timokay
Hans,

Homeopathy does not have worldwide acceptance...it is a suppressed medical system (though it was the FIRST successful medical system), beaten down by Medical Science for no good reason I can see. They give superficial reasons to please the general public. But what about all the sick people?

Can't you see for yourself how naive that statement is? There are countries out there that depend on whitch doctors for part of their public health system. They would love a cheap super medicine. There are millions of medical practitioners all over the world who are dedicated to curing people and who dont give a d*mn about the establishment, don't you think some of them would blow the whistle?

Where is this claim, please?

Maybe I misunderstood him.

"..but you need to document that it works."

There are 213 years of detailed documentation on Homeopathy.
This does not reside in the Scientific world, therefore it cannot be considered?

And we all know the state of medical science 213 years ago :rolleyes: . Documentation means proof of efficiacy.

Just the opposite. These medicines are dirt cheap to make. NOW! consider the earning potential, and therefore the "reverse" motivation.

With very few exceptions, ALL medicines are dirt cheap to make. It is the research to secure efficiacy and to maintain product quality that costs. Belive me: The medical industry would make money on these products (if they worked).

There certainly IS ...a regimen with documented effect...FULL DOCUMENTATION going back 213 years.

Back with leaches and enemas, no doubt.
Honestly, present day medical establishment might be viewed as some closed clan, but just 100 years ago, there was no zillion dollar industry, no establishment. How come doctors and pharmacists back then, who composed and produced most drugs themselves, did not grasp this opportunity? How far are you willing to stretch your conspiracy theory??

I shall, but probably not as nearly as effectively as Albert, so I shall ask him to contribute.
Really, if you are interested, make the effort to read The Organon of Medicine by Hahnemann. I am writing a "Scientific-looking" version for people who might make the effort to understand this medical system. I have a degree in Physiology and Biochemistry, and made the effort myself.

"SCIENTIFIC-LOOKING"?????????? You just gave yourself away! There is no such thing as scientific-looking, except for frauds. Either it is scientific or it isn't, period.

If you have such degrees, I should not need to explain to you how a scientific study has to be designed.
[/B]

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by timokay
Hans,

The three major works of Hahnemann are
1. Organon of Medicine, 2. Chronic Diseases, and 3.The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. Here are the first two, though the translation of these online versions is not the best.

Refer to 6th Edition not 5th Edition. The Organon is divided into 291 numbered Articles (or Para's).

http://www.homeoint.org/books/hahorgan/

http://homeoint.org/books/hahchrdi/index.htm No, sorry. I am not going to read through several books on your subject. And books written and published by proponents are not that interesting. Anything can be written in a book.

Where are the scientifically designed, peer-reviewed study reports?

Quite apart from the principle, I am wondering: The idea is to expose the patient to minute amounts of various substances, but the homeopathic dilution process actually dilutes the preparation to a point where there may not be a single atom of the active ingredient left in the sample. How is it supposed to have an effect, then?

Hans

[timokay]

Hans,

Please tell me which MRC you are a member of?
This issue is not something that can be sewn up in five minutes. It would help to know your field. By 213 years, I mean 213 years of accumulated evidence.

Fetus: Re. Scientific test evidence, I cannot give a simple answer at this stage because I am still working thru' large volumes of information. There's a big problem here.

[eburacum45]

Not only can it not work, but it cannot even work in the way that homeopathy proponents imagine;
the active ingredients are so diluted that there would not be a single molecule of the ingredient in an entire swimming pool of solution;
if there is one molecule of any other active ingredient that will surely have a much greater effect than the absent ingredient that has been removed by dilution.

Since these solutions are made in a homeopathic clinic, the solutions are very likely to contain one active ingredient or another as an impurity;
it may possibly be the one you are after, but the odds are against it.
Homeopathy seems to consist of treating people with randomly selected impurities in pure water- there is no other realistic way of looking at it.
I am sorry, but it is complete garbage.

[timokay]

eburacum45,

Imagine you are 40 years of age, but trapped in Kindergarten for the last 35 years, and the kids keep coming up to you and asking "What is the fourth letter of the alphabet?"..or the Fifth word, or sixth..sometimes seventh...how would you feel?

I am not a Homeopath, but beginning to know how they feel.

Everybody makes up their minds on Homeopathy with very slender knowledge indeed. I am not obliged to explain it to you or take part in the inevitable does/doesn't work debate.

If you ask me how the Homeopathic signal gets thru' I will provide some significant evidence, but I am under no obligation.

I KNOW Homeopathy is in every way as rigorous and rational as any Scientific discipline because I have studied it.
It is not up to the Homeopaths to prove it Scientifically.

There is a complicated problem here, but it will be solved soon.
There's a chalk and cheese difference between the two medical systems but that is only an obstacle to be overcome.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by timokay
Hans,

Please tell me which MRC you are a member of?
This issue is not something that can be sewn up in five minutes. It would help to know your field. By 213 years, I mean 213 years of accumulated evidence.

Fetus: Re. Scientific test evidence, I cannot give a simple answer at this stage because I am still working thru' large volumes of information. There's a big problem here.

My MRC handle is an old combat flight simulator handle and not relevant for this. I use it because a lot of people know me by that handle.

If you do not mean 213 consecutive years, what DO you mean? 213 people for one year???

I agree there is a big problem here: Homepathy cannot be checked scientifically because it does not work. If it worked, it could be checked, simple as that.

Now for the techie question: How does a non-existent ingredient in water have an effect?

Hans

[timokay]

Funny chap, Hans. Not a Member of the Royal College of anything. Never mind.

I won't be explaining anything to you about Homeopathy because that is not why Albert and I are visiting this forum.

We're looking for people to contribute something to the resolution of the question. No doubt in our minds about the truth here, so don't hold your breath.

Just fishing for useful people in as many forums as poss.

[ElectricFetus]

So you two are trollers? There may be no doubt in your minds but there is doubt in mine and others here, this forum is about learning and teaching, you don't seem to want to learn and you also don't want to teach, instead you seem to just want to find people that will go with what you say without questioning it. All I have been asking for is proof that it works: give me a statically valid experiment with a control and/or placebo, that’s all. Is that so hard to ask?

[timokay]

Look fetus, before you wave that stick again, there is a puzzle here. There are two medical systems that are totally different from eachother in every way.

There is a wealth of info on Homeopathy Journals/research papers/post grad studies/materia medica/repertories...a whole detailed discipline with all the trimmings.

What YOU and everyone here wants is for Homeopathy to step outside its discipline into another discipline, see the world Medical Science sees it, then provide Scientific proof of Homeopathy.

That may seem reasonable from your side of the fence, but though I am from your side of the fence, I crossed over for a couple of months to try to see the other view...and I DO SEE THAT VIEW.

The only way to progress is for more people like you to have an open mind, take a step back and see the other viewpoint, which is in every way rational and disciplined.

You say: "give me a statically valid experiment with a control and/or placebo, that’s all. Is that so hard to ask?"

It IS so hard to ask until difficulties are sorted out. If you are prepared to take part in resolvong those difficulties then say so.

But the outlook will need to change...if that happens, you may be surprised what Homeopathy can do for virtually all "incurable" chronic diseases...beaten by simple logic.

[ElectricFetus]

Ok look I have a open mind, every things is possible nothing impossible. The problem here is you claim homeopathy is beyond logic because it not right to the make logical evidence for its validity (testing, prove, ect) this is the problem because without proof how are we to know if it works and if the concept is valid and sound? All it remains is a simple possibility.

How hard could it be: simply take patients taking homeopathy based treatments and compare them to patients taking allopathic treatments and others treatments or lack of. The disease can be varying so that it can compensate for allopathic and homeopathic deferring version of defining disease.

[Quasi]

Gee Hahn,

Where to begin? First, the incidence of disease does not increase with vaccination. The guy you quote simply showed that reporting of the disease increased with better monitoring. This is the same nonsense CAM practitioners use for breast cancer. But a woman's chance of dying, of all causes of death before age 65 is only 1.5% for BC. Pretty small number isn't it? Why? Because of better monitoring, the numbers of women diagnosed is higher, not that the cases or incidence is actually higher. Same nonsense. Since we are talking about statistics and not some extremely vague holistic healing, just look up the facts. Also, many of your posts are self contradictory- you claim that no diseases have the same symptoms ever, yet you say they look the same??!? And you omit that standard therapies have the same effect in virtually all cases of similar simptoms for many diseases and conditions- you cannot say the same for homeopathy, because the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the US does not include specific treatments for specific conditions or even symptoms. Or are you suggesting like chiropractors that we are never healthy? Further, simple clinical studies as published in 1847 by Dr. Holmes (Dean of Harvard Medical School) run with homeopathic doctors has shown conclusively that homeopathy does not work. I will agree with you that bleeding and humors etc. was nonsense- this was also tested and eliminated. Why are you so ignorant of the clinical failures of homeopathy? What about the Horizons tests? What about the 1930's trials done in Germany? What about the everyday failure of homeopathy? Can you answer any of the questions raised by Homeopathy's failure in public, open tests? I put it to you that Homeopathy is actually "allopathic" that is, it only treats the thinnest veneer of the symptoms via the placebo effect. Please do not respond with anything but facts please- explanations, not excuses.

[BTox]

Originally posted by timokay
Look fetus, before you wave that stick again, there is a puzzle here. There are two medical systems that are totally different from eachother in every way.


There's your major mistake number one. There is only one medical system, that including all treatments that are effective and safe. Anyone that starts harping on "allopathy" vs "homeopathy" is only raising a red herring. Homeopathy is not included for a very simple reason - it doesn't work - never did, never will. Practitioners in the late 1800s soon realized their patients were dying, and the entire house of cards thankfully collapsed as modern medical procedures and treatments were developed and refined.

If you truly believe in this nonsense, you are either being duped or deluded, or more likely a combination of both.

[Hahnemannian]

Greetings All!

I haven't kept up here and find I've been beligerent.

Apologies to all for that.

In an attempt to catch up to your nice interest and good questions, I first find something from Redrover to respond to:

They went to Mexico to undertake their homeopathy and the boy finally died of his cancer. His death might have been preventable if only his parents had been a bit more responsible and had listend to their doctors.

All I am saying is that homeopathic therapies are dangerous. If you don't treat you illnesses and instead rely on homeopathy or crystals or whatever, you can die. There are enougth tragic deaths in our world today, we don't need the stupid and preventable deaths too.

I notice some things here.

First, there aren't any legitimate homeopaths in Mexico; in fact, there aren't even any high-potency pseudo-homeopaths there.

I have a feeling you are talking about laetril treatment.

This is a very deep-seated error, if I have sussed it correctly, for it assumes that homeopathy is part of the alternative therapies, but those are just part of Empiricist (rather than Rationalist) allopathy.

In Article 52 of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE
(http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html), Hahnemann made very clear that "there are only two principal therapies: the homeopathic...and the allopathic" approaches.

I find an hourglass diagram functions handily to envision the Structure of Medicine in five basic groups.

Hahnemannian Homeopathy is all alone in the top bulb due to our 10 natural Laws of Medicine making it the actual Science of Medicine with astonishingly effective and yet extraordinarily safe medicines and a clinical history not even remotely matched by any other therapy.

Allopathy sits in the bottom bulb, but it is split into two historical traditions called Rationalist and Empiricist allopathy, today called modern medicine and the alternative therapies.

Homeopathy has two false forms.

One is low-potency pseudo-homeopathy (LPH), which is just allopathic medicine with homeopathic drugs.

These guys thus sit in the lower bulb somewhere difused in the confusion of hydra-headed allopathic medicine.

Then there is a line along the inside edge of the upper bulb that creates a small area within the upper bulb but separated from Hahnemannian homeopathy.

I put high-potency pseudo-homeopathy (HPH) there because they only make eight fundamental mistakes instead of doing everything wrong like LPHs.

HPHs today claim to be classical homeopaths and earlier claimed to be Hahnemannians, but that's just a fallow claim since they are easily identified by their mistakes virtually every time they say something.

Still, these are actual homeopaths, just not very good ones and kind of on the level of "bunglers" as Hahnemann called them; and they get results, only not as often as they should nor as effectively as they could, for they cannot quite grasp what homeotherapeutics is.

Most of the websites and literature we find today are representations of HPH.

There are and always have been about 10,000 LPHs for every one Hahnemannian, and I estimate 100 HPHs for every Hahnemannian.

That should suffice for a fundamental explanation.

Homeopathy has nothing whatsoever to do with any chemical therapy, including herbal medicine, for we use ultramolecular drugs in single doses over relatively long periods of time due to the curative powers of accurately chosen medicines with command over diseases.

Therefore, I doubt that you mean the child was taken to Mexico for homeotherapeutics, but I instead supect you have made this common and understandable error of thinking of homeopathy as a kind of catch-all term for the alternative therapies, which it is not.

I hope that is clear.

Again, if they took the boy to Mexico for homeotherapeutics, as you say, he would not have had a chance since there are no Hahnemannians or even any HPHs there.

----------

As for the boy possibly having had a chance with allopathic medicine as a cancer patient, that's a pretty shabby assertion when they still have zero cures of it.

I know they make claims to the contrary, but we are dealing with a criteria of cure exceeding one you will encounter elsewhere.

Allopaths ignore the four Laws of Therapeutics as well as the four Laws of Cure, so they can never know up from down in their course of treatment and usually force diseases into hyper-complicated and disordered states due to intervening when they need to leave cases alone.

Allopathy is intrinsically incapable of precipitating the four Laws of Cure without the ultramolecular ("beyond-molecules") simillimum ("thing most similar") that arise from the four Laws of Cure, but the organism has innate healing functions that need to be recognized that they completly ignore.

It is one of the most elegant facets of homeopathic philosophy that suggests that these ultramolecular drugs could only reach an etheric level of being and thereby could only set the organism aright to cure itself, just as it should have done had something not gone wrong along the course of living.

So these things happen during any therapy, irregardless of the therapeutic effects and for unknown reasons.

But they always aggressively pursue their course of treatment in a very quasi-militaristic manner of attacking invading organisms, whereas chronic diseases are invariably issues where the organism is essentially destroying itself in immune-system disorder or some system-wide or systemic disorder.

That's a totally wrong approach and will forever preclude allopathy from being able to cure.

Therefore, the suggestion that the child might have been saved by allopathic medicine is specious at best.

They prolong agonal life to an agonal death, and that's about all they do.

You may ask further about this very controvertial issues we view as an absolute fact, and I will try to address them if that is insufficient, but I hope that is somewhat helpful if not complete enough yet.

------------

No, homeopathic therapies are not really dangerous.

They could not be totally safe and still be medicinal, for medicines are by definition sick-making or toxicological substances, but they are beyond your wildest imaginings of safety since only closely matching medicines have any real effect on a sick person.

I think, however, what you mean is that it is recklous to engage in presumably unproven therapies when proven ones are readily available.

That is the allopathic claim, of course, but it is false to say that they have any cures of any viral, chronic or psychiatric cases since they readily admit they do not every day without the average person perceiving it due to the way it is admitted.

Just ask which chronic disease is curable, though, and that's the answer you'll get from honest allopathic physicians and adjuncts.

Very sad for them too, for I am convinced that only God or Higher Beings can create the physician and nurse's heart.

Why they then ignore how to cure is a tragic question we have been asking for 213 years.

And as for homeopathy being unproven, nothing could be further from the truth.

Hahnemann first gained command over the raging epidemic diseases that dessimated the world.

The historical record is clear about this for anyone who chooses to look.

Then he addressed and gained command over syphillis and gonorrhea, for they were endemic across continents.

He then proceded to the chronic diseases and ran into a wall that was unexpected since all other diseases had been infectious and responded curatively to either a single drug or a handful of the 99 he eventually discovered.

We have over 2500 now.

He thought that chronic diseases would be found to stem from an ancient skin disease like leprosy, and he named the theoretical primary infectious agent of all chronic diseases psora.

This theory failed, though.

What he did, however, discover was that the drugs he was developing still permitted him command over these diseases as soon as he tested them and learned their pathogenic (literally "suffering-originating") effects from drug trials called provings. (German prufung means "test or trial.")

So even though he failed to find a single medicine for psora in hopes of treating all chronic diseases, he still had command over these more insidious illnesses too.

What has happened in homeotherapeutics since then is that the number of medicines has accumulated such that we now have on average about 25-50 drugs for each of the fixed infectious diseases (smallpox, chickenpox, scarlet fever, cholera, etc.) and hundreds for each of the other classifications generally called chronic diseases.

Psychiatric cases are really just chronic diseases with a mental focus, for they are also long-term and without a tendency to spontaneous recovery or to being self-limited like infectious diseases when the organism is functioning well.

Therefore, the assertion that homeopathy is an unproven therapy is 100% wrong too.

However, to reinforce what you say, homeopathy is an extremely skill-intensive activity; i.e., it is not the drugs that do it, it is the application of them according to natural laws and profound principles that permits us to cure.

Not very many people do it correctly, so it today is a matter of becoming well informed about homeopathy to be able to choose an effective therapist, for there are not any real criteria guaranteeing it.

That will change over my lifetime, though, so that your children and their children will be far better off than we are.

I hope to some day be associated with a legitimate Hahnemannian homeopathic medical school, but we do not have any money.

Allopathy wastes billions of dollars every year on research and trillions on therapies.

What do they show for it?

Ziltch!

They need to give it to us; we will show the world how to cure.

Problem is, though, that they will not listen to us.

I am at several websites like this, and few are receptive to homeopathy while most are antagonistic.

That is incomprehensible to me, and the worst one is the BBC site.

They seem to not want to know how to cure and instead love pure sophistries.

Allopathy is a truly bizare and ghoulish subject to me.

-----------

I don't use crystals, pal, and I find that rather insulting.

However, given my beligerant demeanor prior to this, it is ignored.

------------

I think that suffices for your understandable concerns for me to move on to others I have spotted on just a quick perusal of the postings since I was last here.

I hope it helps you and others with some issues that may exist about medicine.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by timokay
Funny chap, Hans. Not a Member of the Royal College of anything. Never mind.

Ehhh? Would that make me more interesting if I were? Mmokay. Well, sorry to disappoint you there.

I won't be explaining anything to you about Homeopathy because that is not why Albert and I are visiting this forum.

Ahh, you do not want to argue your position. And you call me a funny chap?

We're looking for people to contribute something to the resolution of the question. No doubt in our minds about the truth here, so don't hold your breath.

And asking for documentation is not contributing to resolution? I see.

Just fishing for useful people in as many forums as poss.

Recruiting unquestioning believers? Don't worry, there's plenty of those out there.

On a serious note: So you come in here, on a debating forum, swing around a lot of unfounded claims, and when a few simple questions are asked, you run behind your smoke screen. Very convincing indeed. Looking back over the thread, I find you have not answered ONE single question. Nothing but evations.

Hans

[Hahnemannian]

MRC Hans says:

We have not yet found there to be any incurable diseases.

Some documentation of that would be nice. You could document some pople being cured of AIDS and liver cancer by homeopathic treatment, just for starters. No anecdotes, please

Hans

Homeopathy is nothing but evidence, experimental in the form of the provings that form into the homeopathic materia medica ("materials of medicine") and applied evidence in the form of our clinical cures of millions over centuries.

Why do you people always say this?

The literature is not hidden from anyone.

Why don't you go look for them yourself?

It is easy to ask questions, you know, and neither I nor any other Hahnemannian are walking indexes of cases studies.

I will, however, tell you that we face a group of very serious problems with lots of modern cases, for they are almost invariably made incurable by allopathic interventions and we almost never get these cases first.

Besides this, we are looking as skyrocketing chronic diseases precisely because allopathic medicine is totally incompetent to cure them, which by definition makes them quacks.

Why aren't these people cured decades earlier?

Why don't you people ever ask this of allopathic physicians?

What rationale justifies permitting diseases to advance for decade after decade without cure?

Why is allopathic medicine even in existence when they are 100% therapeutically incompetent except with largely self-limited bacterial infections with antibiotics, which diseases we cure just as easily and quicker too.

Nice safety valve, though, with antibiotics should we not find the necessary medicine in rare cases of these usually banal diseases.

As for AIDS, this is an outrageous issue.

It seems to be a totally iatrogenic illness; i.e., it is apparently a totally "physician-induced" disease.

The subject is far too extensive to go into here, but I can almost guarantee that HIV has absolutely nothing to do with this tragic issue of allopaths having created it and many other incurable diseases in their hands.

Moreover, and I repeat it, these cases are usually totally spoiled and made incurable before we ever see them.

But I recapitulate it; when we have had fair shots at these diseases, we have never found any of them incurable.

Does that sound more reasonable to you?

As for case studies, go first to the ZKH published by Karl F. Haug Verlag/Publishers in Heidelberg.

That is probably the most important homeopathic medical journal ever published.

It is almost exclusively Hahnemannian homeopathy, and I cannot nearly say that about any other down through history because they are usually sprinkled with questionable papers.

The five-volume English translation of the ZKH was the CLASSICAL HOMOEOPATHY QUARTERLY.

And here are some links to papers some guys have started to put online:

http://www.homeoint.org/hompath/articles/index.htm

http://homeoint.org/books/

This does not mean that they are all reliable papers, because the people running most of the websites are well-meaning but still just high-potency pseudo-homeopaths who cannot generally tell legitimate from illegitimate homeopath since they are half and half themselves.

Still, you will find powerfully important papers at those two links.

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus (funny man),

I noticed several repetitions of the general question of how it is done.

All cases are dealt with the same way, because we are operating with a natural law that is absolute and unfailing when precipitated correctly.

That's the skill.

Done absolutely correctly gets one the simillimum or "thing most similar" with which total command over a disease arises.

Those few medicines that are close to the simillimum but not the most similar drug class as the simile.

They permit us to zig zag a case to cure with several drugs, instead of with one, over a longer period of time.

The other drugs completely dissimilar have no effect at all.

The way it's done is to isolate out the uncommon symptoms and track down the simillimum by crossing the lists of medicines after those symptoms rubrics, for those lists will be small due to the symptom being strange, rare and peculiar.

Therefore three or more uncommon symptoms crossed with another will reduce perhaps 25-50 listed in the first symptom rubric of an uncommon symptom down to perhaps ten.

Then another cross with another uncommon symptom will often reduce that number of medicines listed in all three uncommon symptom rubrics down to usually one to five drugs.

If we've done everything properly, our materia medica search for verbatim matches is usually or at least often fruitful with the one medicine that will truly cure the person.

Here's a link to Kent's REPERTORY for you to get a look see at what I mean:

http://homeoint.org/books/kentrep/index.htm

And here's a link to Hering's GUIDING SYMPTOMS OF OUR MATERIA MEDICA:

http://homeoint.org/hering/index.htm

Here's a link to lots of books online:

http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/books_online.shtml

Sounds simple, but it's really very difficult to avoid mistakes, and allopathy is child's play compared with homeotherapeutics.

I hope that helped.

[Hahnemannian]

MRC Hans,

I see a tough exchange here:

Just fishing for useful people in as many forums as poss. Recruiting unquestioning believers? Don't worry, there's plenty of those out there.

No, homeopathy neither asks for nor requires blind belief.

In fact, opinions and belief have ziltch to do with homeopathy.

It is ever so easy to prove it to yourself anyway by taking a high-potency drug and doing a self-proving, so belief is a non-issue in homeopathy.

What good could unquestioning believers do anyone but cause them to lean on us anyway?

If you want to join the Hahnemannian ranks, good luck, pal.

I have very few real colleagues.

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus,

OOps!

You said this, and I hold it is wrong:

The human immune system is nowhere near invincible, it fights back almost all of the time at its best performance and no treatment is going it enhance that.

It seems to be quite what health is all about, which is what homeopathy produces.

The object of a therapy is to not need any drugs and therefore have no diseases that can only manifest themselves to our senses by symptoms.

So it does seem to be that making the organism optimally healthy is exactly what homeopathy does.

Fancy, huh?

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus,

You said this:

Vaccines teach the immune system what an infectious disease looks like ahead of time so the immune system will destroy it immediately,
That's the theory, but it doesn't work.

The claims for vaccines are almost all totally vacuous.

If mine is an opinion, voice them one at a time and I'll see if I am correct.

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus, you next said this:

Antibiotics and antiviral kill or slow the reproduction of the infectious agent giving the immune system a better chance of finishing it off, allopathic medicine does not ignore the body it is still the most critical element.
Antiviral drugs are a fantasy.

I can't let you say something that doesn't exist.

There are no cures for viral diseases because antivirals don't work.

I will, however, suggest that it is reasonable for allopathic medicine to eventually come up with an effective class of drugs for viruses as antibiotics are, if we admit that provisionally instead of giving off our steam with details about them being immunosuppressive and heavily abused drugs that end up creating problems because they aren't real cures.

Still, viruses are an actual class of disease agents with target sites that should some day respond to some approach, not the one you're propounding, though.

I cannot recall what approach I heard over the last ten years that sounded promising, but it did impress me.

I figured that more would be heard about it, but I should have learned by now to not take anything of that nature for granted.

Still, you'll have to admit that was a mistake since there are no cures for viruses yet in allopathic medicines.

We, on the other hand, cure the person and that always works when we do it right.

It is to us very bizarre that allopathy attacks beasties instead of creating health.

Very quasi-militaristic and backward as well as warped.

[Hahnemannian]

Repo man:

WCF, how dare you try to impose requirements such as empirical evidence and repeatability on the proponents of Homeopathy?

Free of the tyranny of facts and evidence, like all religious true believers, they will believe what they want.

If Homeopathy were effective, it would have been proven to be so by now. But then come the conspiracy theories, etc.

Sir, homeopathy is nothing but evidence from beginning to end.

You haven't looked.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Greetings All!

I haven't kept up here and find I've been beligerent.

Apologies to all for that.

No worries. Anybody trying to make a skeptic debate around internet forums is thoroughly accostumed to that.

In an attempt to catch up to your nice interest and good questions, I first find something from Redrover to respond to:



I notice some things here.

First, there aren't any legitimate homeopaths in Mexico; in fact, there aren't even any high-potency pseudo-homeopaths there.

I have a feeling you are talking about laetril treatment.

Ahh, so when examples are found about homeopathy not working, it is not real homeopathy? I think I see where this is leading.

This is a very deep-seated error, if I have sussed it correctly, for it assumes that homeopathy is part of the alternative therapies, but those are just part of Empiricist (rather than Rationalist) allopathy.

Well, perhaps you should explain a little about the principles of real homeopathy, so we can see the difference.

In Article 52 of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE
(http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html), Hahnemann made very clear that "there are only two principal therapies: the homeopathic...and the allopathic" approaches.

I find an hourglass diagram functions handily to envision the Structure of Medicine in five basic groups.

Hahnemannian Homeopathy is all alone in the top bulb due to our 10 natural Laws of Medicine making it the actual Science of Medicine with astonishingly effective and yet extraordinarily safe medicines and a clinical history not even remotely matched by any other therapy.

Again, the World eagerly awaits some documentation of this wonderful regimen.

Allopathy sits in the bottom bulb, but it is split into two historical traditions called Rationalist and Empiricist allopathy, today called modern medicine and the alternative therapies.

Since the dictionary definition for "allopathy" basically covers anything that is not homeopathy, this is hardly a profound relevation.

Homeopathy has two false forms.

One is low-potency pseudo-homeopathy (LPH), which is just allopathic medicine with homeopathic drugs.

These guys thus sit in the lower bulb somewhere difused in the confusion of hydra-headed allopathic medicine.

Ehr, no. The distinction between allopathy and homeopathy is that homeopathy strives to give a treatment that has the same effect on the body as the disease, wheras allopathy does not. So those regimens are homeopathic per definition. Even if you don't like them, they are in your end of the spectrum.

Then there is a line along the inside edge of the upper bulb that creates a small area within the upper bulb but separated from Hahnemannian homeopathy.

I put high-potency pseudo-homeopathy (HPH) there because they only make eight fundamental mistakes instead of doing everything wrong like LPHs.

HPHs today claim to be classical homeopaths and earlier claimed to be Hahnemannians, but that's just a fallow claim since they are easily identified by their mistakes virtually every time they say something.

Translation: They disagree with your team.

Still, these are actual homeopaths, just not very good ones and kind of on the level of "bunglers" as Hahnemann called them; and they get results, only not as often as they should nor as effectively as they could, for they cannot quite grasp what homeotherapeutics is.

Most of the websites and literature we find today are representations of HPH.

There are and always have been about 10,000 LPHs for every one Hahnemannian, and I estimate 100 HPHs for every Hahnemannian.

The chosen few. A word of warning here: The practice of denouncing anybody who does not line up to your particular version of truth could leave you awfully lonely.

That should suffice for a fundamental explanation.

I'm sorry, but it does not. What suffices is some evidence that the thing works. That is really all that matters, pationts are not interested in ideology, they are interested in getting well.

Homeopathy has nothing whatsoever to do with any chemical therapy, including herbal medicine, for we use ultramolecular drugs in single doses over relatively long periods of time due to the curative powers of accurately chosen medicines with command over diseases.

Therefore, I doubt that you mean the child was taken to Mexico for homeotherapeutics, but I instead supect you have made this common and understandable error of thinking of homeopathy as a kind of catch-all term for the alternative therapies, which it is not.

Perhaps the unfortunate child did not have a relatively long period. Childhood cancers tend to be rather fast acting.

I hope that is clear.

Again, if they took the boy to Mexico for homeotherapeutics, as you say, he would not have had a chance since there are no Hahnemannians or even any HPHs there.

Well, nobody can require you to answer for others. So where is there some documentation that REAL homeopathics work?

----------

As for the boy possibly having had a chance with allopathic medicine as a cancer patient, that's a pretty shabby assertion when they still have zero cures of it.

I know they make claims to the contrary, but we are dealing with a criteria of cure exceeding one you will encounter elsewhere.

So people getting well is not covered by your definition of "cure". Well, that could explain a few things. Pray tell us, what IS your definition of "cure".

Allopaths ignore the four Laws of Therapeutics as well as the four Laws of Cure, so they can never know up from down in their course of treatment and usually force diseases into hyper-complicated and disordered states due to intervening when they need to leave cases alone.

I'm sorry, I'm ignorant of those laws. Would you mind listing them for my enlightment, so I can know what you are talking about?

Allopathy is intrinsically incapable of precipitating the four Laws of Cure without the ultramolecular ("beyond-molecules") simillimum ("thing most similar") that arise from the four Laws of Cure, but the organism has innate healing functions that need to be recognized that they completly ignore.

Also, I have to ask you to explain "ultramolecular"; I know of a number of realms beyond molecules (atoms and various elementary and quantum particles), which of these are you referring to?

It is one of the most elegant facets of homeopathic philosophy that suggests that these ultramolecular drugs could only reach an etheric level of being and thereby could only set the organism aright to cure itself, just as it should have done had something not gone wrong along the course of living.

A little complex, this statement. Are you saying that at worst it does no harm?

So these things happen during any therapy, irregardless of the therapeutic effects and for unknown reasons.

If they happen, that is.

But they always aggressively pursue their course of treatment in a very quasi-militaristic manner of attacking invading organisms, whereas chronic diseases are invariably issues where the organism is essentially destroying itself in immune-system disorder or some system-wide or systemic disorder.

That's a totally wrong approach and will forever preclude allopathy from being able to cure.

Interesting. Then to what cause do you attribute facts like the following:

- Infectuous diseases stopped by antibiotics?

- Diabetes symptoms alleviated by Insulin?

- Life expectancy in the western world doubling during the last century?

(Just to pick a few).

Therefore, the suggestion that the child might have been saved by allopathic medicine is specious at best.

Sinse it did not happen, it remains speculative. Statistically, however, it is a sound statement.

They prolong agonal life to an agonal death, and that's about all they do.

You may ask further about this very controvertial issues we view as an absolute fact, and I will try to address them if that is insufficient, but I hope that is somewhat helpful if not complete enough yet.

Actually, your opinion about allopathic regimens is at best marginally relevant to this discussion. What IS relevant is some evidence for your claims for the efficiacy of homeopatic regimens. We are still awaiting this.

------------

No, homeopathic therapies are not really dangerous.

They could not be totally safe and still be medicinal, for medicines are by definition sick-making or toxicological substances, but they are beyond your wildest imaginings of safety since only closely matching medicines have any real effect on a sick person.

I would heartily agree that the therapies in themselves are very unlikely to be harmful at all. Except perhaps to your economy.

I think, however, what you mean is that it is recklous to engage in presumably unproven therapies when proven ones are readily available.

Like, if you have two bridges ahead of you, and you know one is safe and leads to the other side, which one will you choose?

That is the allopathic claim, of course, but it is false to say that they have any cures of any viral, chronic or psychiatric cases since they readily admit they do not every day without the average person perceiving it due to the way it is admitted.

So, not having a cure for EVERY disease in your view invalidates modern medicine for ANY disease?

Just ask which chronic disease is curable, though, and that's the answer you'll get from honest allopathic physicians and adjuncts.

Since a chronic disease is per definition a disease for which no treatment exists, the reply is foreseeable.

Very sad for them too, for I am convinced that only God or Higher Beings can create the physician and nurse's heart.

I'm afraid your religions beliefs are beside the point at hand.

Why they then ignore how to cure is a tragic question we have been asking for 213 years.

Perhaps you can explain those 213 years for me (your friend ignored this question): Is that supposed to mean since AD1790?

And as for homeopathy being unproven, nothing could be further from the truth.

Hahnemann first gained command over the raging epidemic diseases that dessimated the world.

The historical record is clear about this for anyone who chooses to look.

OK. Where do I look?

Then he addressed and gained command over syphillis and gonorrhea, for they were endemic across continents.

Ohh? I thought that was done by antibiotics. When was it he "gained command" over those diseases?"

He then proceded to the chronic diseases and ran into a wall that was unexpected since all other diseases had been infectious and responded curatively to either a single drug or a handful of the 99 he eventually discovered.

We have over 2500 now.

He thought that chronic diseases would be found to stem from an ancient skin disease like leprosy, and he named the theoretical primary infectious agent of all chronic diseases psora.

This theory failed, though.

What he did, however, discover was that the drugs he was developing still permitted him command over these diseases as soon as he tested them and learned their pathogenic (literally "suffering-originating") effects from drug trials called provings. (German prufung means "test or trial.")

So even though he failed to find a single medicine for psora in hopes of treating all chronic diseases, he still had command over these more insidious illnesses too.

But those diseases are still around. Why?

What has happened in homeotherapeutics since then is that the number of medicines has accumulated such that we now have on average about 25-50 drugs for each of the fixed infectious diseases (smallpox, chickenpox, scarlet fever, cholera, etc.) and hundreds for each of the other classifications generally called chronic diseases.

Psychiatric cases are really just chronic diseases with a mental focus, for they are also long-term and without a tendency to spontaneous recovery or to being self-limited like infectious diseases when the organism is functioning well.

Therefore, the assertion that homeopathy is an unproven therapy is 100% wrong too.

I am very sorry, but I am not willing to take your word for that. Do you have any useful evidence?

However, to reinforce what you say, homeopathy is an extremely skill-intensive activity; i.e., it is not the drugs that do it, it is the application of them according to natural laws and profound principles that permits us to cure.

Not very many people do it correctly, so it today is a matter of becoming well informed about homeopathy to be able to choose an effective therapist, for there are not any real criteria guaranteeing it.

It is NOT the medicines??? Now I'm lost. Then what is it?

That will change over my lifetime, though, so that your children and their children will be far better off than we are.

I hope to some day be associated with a legitimate Hahnemannian homeopathic medical school, but we do not have any money.

If you have effective cures for even a few serious diseases, money is not a problem. If you provide the cures, I'm willing to find the funding.

Allopathy wastes billions of dollars every year on research and trillions on therapies.

What do they show for it?

Ziltch!

Do you seriously claim that modern medicine has not produced any results? No improvements in public health? No epedemic diseases concoured? No cronic diseases having symptoms and long-term effects alleviated?

Three examples:

Polio
Smallpox
Diabetes

Please, can we be real here?

They need to give it to us; we will show the world how to cure.

Problem is, though, that they will not listen to us.

I am at several websites like this, and few are receptive to homeopathy while most are antagonistic.

That is incomprehensible to me, and the worst one is the BBC site.

They seem to not want to know how to cure and instead love pure sophistries.

Quite the contrary! They want to KNOW how to cure, and you are either unable or unwilling to tell them.

Allopathy is a truly bizare and ghoulish subject to me.

Really? Now it is far from me to wish a disease on you, but SHOULD you ever be so unfortunate as to incur a disease like e. g. diabetes, I would be very interested to know your choice if treatment.

-----------

I don't use crystals, pal, and I find that rather insulting.

However, given my beligerant demeanor prior to this, it is ignored.

However, for the time being, you have not produced more tangible evidence for your belief that the crystal people have for theirs.

------------

I think that suffices for your understandable concerns for me to move on to others I have spotted on just a quick perusal of the postings since I was last here.

I hope it helps you and others with some issues that may exist about medicine.

Speaking strictly for myself, it has certainly helped me clarifying my view on your belief system. I am afraid, however, that my conclusions are not what you would wish for.

Hans

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus, you said:

what do you mean, When other people get the flu, I get the flu everyone seem to get infected, some people have immunity already to that strain some don't.
I think you're stuck in the back reaches of the immune system.

Try thinking of phagocytes first.

That is where the first lines of immune defense really exist.

And I guess you wouldn't believe me when I say that I haven't been sick with an infectious disease in 20 years, right?

(Knock on woooood!)

[Hahnemannian]

MRC Hans says:

Oh? Then why are they not being treated by the thousands? This is CRAP. People die from AIDS.
Got thousands of extra Hahnemannians lieing around somewhere I don't know about?

I think that's crapola too.

It ain't that difficult if I can do it.

And, like I said, I believe that it is pretty clear that AIDS is an iatrogenic illness with nothing to do with HIV, but I know this is a nowhere issue since people who're convinced about the HIV-AIDS connection are somehow vehement just due to authoritative pronouncements even though it is some of the shabbiest science in history.

[Hahnemannian]

Hans,

Do you think that a government or anyone else would know how to do homeotherapeutics?

what would keep governments of countries like South Africa from using homeopathic remedies?

When have you ever found other than sophistries and machinations in lawyers and beurocrats?

And do you think that there are only going to be a few medicines for AIDS?

Try hundreds.

[Hahnemannian]

MRC Hans:

They became immune through their normal immunity system. The special thing about the HIV virus is that it is able to mutate so quickly that it overcomes most people's immune response system. Evidently, some have a system that is able to keep up.

It's called being pleomorphic.

Dr. Robert Strecker says there are millions of AIDS viruses.

That's a mighty peculiar stance for a system of medicine sold on infectious diseases having single-mode causes.

I really dislike this subject because the thing makes absolutely no sense to me in any of its elements, and yet people who are sold on allopathic medicine somehow make it a sort of sacred cow.

It's not an epidemic and yet it's claimed to be.

There's no evidence for a link between HIV and AIDS and yet it's claimed there is.

These things go on endlessly, and it is a small illness.

The numbers in Africa are absolutely meaningless since children get aid only if they say their parents died of AIDS.

It's a 100% bogus subject and a mania typical of allopathic medicine.

Lots of vaccines are implicated in it.

Allopathic drugs are implicated in it.

Pesticides are implicated in it.

Nitrite inhalents of gay men are implicated in it.

The allopathic model requires an identified cause, but the cause is meaningless to cure, so why waste all of that time on it?

Why, it means trillions of dollars in a vaccine.

Absurd is the view I take about all things allopathic.

It is a totally broken and irrepairable system that died long ago in the Dark Ages and is principally what keeps us in the tail end of the Dark Ages.

I for one will be happen when allopathy in diseases finally dissolves into the nothingness it is and is removed from humanity as a scourge.

[Hahnemannian]

Hans, you said:

Well, perhaps you should explain a little about the principles of real homeopathy, so we can see the difference.

And what exactly is keeping you from reading the ORGANON OF MEDICINE?

Are you saying you have an opinion about something you have absolutely no knowledge about?

Want to spin that one by me once more?

----------

Again, the World eagerly awaits some documentation of this wonderful regimen.

What's keeping you people from looking at the millions of pages?

If you were the slightest bit interested in removing unnecessary suffering, wouldn't it be reasonable for us to assume you demonstrate sincerity about it and fulfill your responsibilities as Hahnemann fulfilled his when he produced the ORGANON in no less than six editions?

What's keeping you people from examinging homeopathy for 213 years?

Doesn't that seem a little disingenous of you?

Who believes somebody who makes a statement like that?

And why can't any of you people be scientists like you say you are?

What is the problem?

-----------


These guys thus sit in the lower bulb somewhere difused in the confusion of hydra-headed allopathic medicine.

Ehr, no. The distinction between allopathy and homeopathy is that homeopathy strives to give a treatment that has the same effect on the body as the disease, wheras allopathy does not. So those regimens are homeopathic per definition. Even if you don't like them, they are in your end of the spectrum.




First of all, it says no such thing.

Next, prescribing homeopathics in allopathic ways is just allopathy, period.

And, no, they are allopathic homeopathy, not homeopathy in any way, shape or form.

Are you going to try to tell me I'm wrong about my own expertise?

How do you plan on doing that when you are demonstrating no knowledge whatsoever about the subject?

Moreover, why should I entertain this conversation any longer with such elements at work in it?

I'll wait for this answer.

[Hahnemannian]

Hans, you again make a mistake:

HPHs today claim to be classical homeopaths and earlier claimed to be Hahnemannians, but that's just a fallow claim since they are easily identified by their mistakes virtually every time they say something.

Translation: They disagree with your team.

No, you don't need to translate it; I said it clearly: they make eight mistakes.

[Hahnemannian]

Hans, are you wanting to defend pseudo-homeopathy when you have so far demonstrated zero understanding about homeopathy?

The chosen few. A word of warning here: The practice of denouncing anybody who does not line up to your particular version of truth could leave you awfully lonely.

And, once again, why should I speak to you if you are not in the slightest bit interested in the means of cure we have demonstrated over 213 years and based upon no less than the Laws of Medicine you can easily demonstrate actually exist?

Who said it was otherwise than lonely being a Hahnemannian?

What three criteria, sir, define a pure science, and how many are there?

I am testing your knowledge of science.

[Hahnemannian]

Hans,

Again, what is keeping you from fulfilling your responsibilities as a scientist and testing Hahnemann's findings after 213 years?

Is this your idea of how scientific progress occurs?

You sit there and do nothing?

I'm sorry, but it does not. What suffices is some evidence that the thing works. That is really all that matters, pationts are not interested in ideology, they are interested in getting well.

Did you even read what you last wrote?

Why do you think homeopathic patients are so extraordinarily loyal?

[Hahnemannian]

Hans:

Well, nobody can require you to answer for others. So where is there some documentation that REAL homeopathics work?

I've answered that already.

Are you even remotely interested in this?

I am here to help you.

If you are not wanting to know anything, we are done

[Hahnemannian]

Polio
Smallpox
Diabetes


Thomas McKeown proved your assertion a 100% fraud.

I have read some of your further remarks.

You clearly are just wasting my time.

We are done.

[Hahnemannian]

Hans,

Speaking strictly for myself, it has certainly helped me clarifying my view on your belief system. I am afraid, however, that my conclusions are not what you would wish for.

Opinions are meaningless.

And it doesn't matter anyway since allopathy has a fixed destiny for you.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Thomas McKeown proved your assertion a 100% fraud.

I have read some of your further remarks.

You clearly are just wasting my time.

We are done. If you are unable to argue your point better, we are indeed wasting our time.

I have asked a long row of concise questions, you have declined to answer any of them. So be it.

Opinions are meaningless.

Yours or mine?

And it doesn't matter anyway since allopathy has a fixed destiny for you.

Another weird claim.

Hans

[Quasi]

Allright Hahnemann, Organon of Med. is online:

"1. The physicians high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed."

"2. His mission is not to construct systems ... (or to find the cause of disease.)"

I agree with "1." but strongly disagree with "2." And this is just the beginning of the book! I couldnt make heads or tails of the rest of the rubbish, it uses such vague terminology it looks like some bible passages, or Nostradamus predictions.
So physicians should not bother to look into the causes of disease? Like malaria comes from mosquitoes, AIDS is transmitted sexually, or smoking causes lung cancer? I suspect Hahnemann was the Deepac Chopra of his time- not one original thought. You should read "Homeopathy and its Kindred Delusions" by oliver Wendall Holmes- he proved Hahn. stole the original idea from an Irishman.

[ElectricFetus]

Hahnemannian,

Do us all a favor and make your statements in few or one post (try using the edit button instead of the reply button) do you expect me to get back to you on everything you said, if you do I advice you try a more compact style of arguing.

Ok here are some thing I want you to explain to me: first how is it that vaccines are a lie and don't work, I don't see anyone with small pox do you? What happen to polio as well?

Also thanks for the how its done part but I am more interested in what are the results: if you could come up with the validity studies I have been asking for that would be great.

Also making the “organism optimum healthy” is the dream of allopathic medicine as well, fancy that? Killing the “beasties” first is because they are the cause of the illness, stop them and you cure the person, I know this concept is hard for you to understand but it has been proven over centuries to be effective. Observe, hypothesis, experiment theorizes: the result of this philosophy may sometime go beyond logic (take relativity for example: who knew time was a variable rather then a constant?) or even be radically different then expected but the answer is the truth, no ifs and or buts about it, if it has gone through this process thousand of time over the chances are this it is the correct answer or close to it.

Antivirals do work though limited, again studies on AIDS cases testing antivirals show that they do reduce the severity of the disease over placebo, the effects are limited though because the antiviral attack the virii production and mutate strains are immune, disrupters such as AntiRNA or complementary mRNA strain interference is still under testing. Again this subject is about homeopathy not allopathic medicine, allopathic medicine is not perfect but you cannot claim that because of this homeopathy is superior, you have yet to place proven evidence showing homeopathy even works.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian


Homeopathy is nothing but evidence, experimental in the form of the provings that form into the homeopathic materia medica ("materials of medicine") and applied evidence in the form of our clinical cures of millions over centuries.


Clinical cures of millions? That's a flat out lie. There are only two possible outcomes when a person with a life-threatening condition is "treated" solely with homeopathy: 1) their condition self-resolves or 2) they die.

Originally posted by Hahnemannian

I will, however, tell you that we face a group of very serious problems with lots of modern cases, for they are almost invariably made incurable by allopathic interventions and we almost never get these cases first.



If homeopathy was truly effective, why would "allopathic" interventions make something incurable?

Originally posted by Hahnemannian


Why is allopathic medicine even in existence when they are 100% therapeutically incompetent except with largely self-limited bacterial infections with antibiotics, which diseases we cure just as easily and quicker too.


Another lie. Name any bacterial infection that can be cured with homeopathy and show the evidence that anyone has been cured. Of course you can't, and you won't. You see, this is why homeopathy was discredited more than 100 years ago. Maybe you never got the news...

Originally posted by Hahnemannian


The subject is far too extensive to go into here, but I can almost guarantee that HIV has absolutely nothing to do with this tragic issue of allopaths having created it and many other incurable diseases in their hands.

More completely unsubstantiated hogwash. HIV has nothing to do with AIDs? Try injecting yourself with the virus and see what happens...

[Hahnemannian]

Quasi,

Do you want me to address your questions?

Hans is argumentative and too allopathically indoctrinated to understand my answers, and he insulted me too many times too, so I would give you some attention.

The first thing you would appear to need is something on the fact that pathology and therapeutics have absolutely nothing to do with each other, even in infectious diseases since causes are irrelevant to finding the curative homeopathic medicine that alone will cure.

If not, I have lots better things to do.

I'll watch this site for a couple of days.

[Hahnemannian]

BTox,

Iatrogenic cases are wholly unknowns.

The person's natural disease is 1) disordered by allopathic drugs and 2) the allopathic drugs have lots of side effects.

They are generally incurable cases after about 7-10 years of constant allopathic therapeutics.

And if you doubt our cures of millions, you obviously know nothing about medical history, so why do you doubt it?

[Hahnemannian]

BTox,

You're only showing yourself totally unfamiliar with medical literature by making these kinds of remarks:

Another lie. Name any bacterial infection that can be cured with homeopathy and show the evidence that anyone has been cured. Of course you can't, and you won't. You see, this is why homeopathy was discredited more than 100 years ago. Maybe you never got the news...

They all are.

It doesn't make any difference what the name of the disease is anyway, nor what the causative agent is either.

How do you people with absolutely no knowledge, and I mean ZERO knowledge of homeopathy, feel you are in any position to have an opinion about any issue in medicine?

[Hahnemannian]

BTox,

All allopathic literature is throw-away literature, but I am more than well informed about that hogwash.

There is not a single piece of evidence showing that HIV has anything to do with AIDS.

There are scores of problems with the notions anyway.

Do you, for instance, think it is an epidemic?

Do you know the connections to it with the Hepatitis B vaccination?

Do you know why gay men are prone to it?

Do you know why smallpox vaccination is linked to it?

Do you know why it is so pleomorphic?

Do you know when AIDS was first identified?

Please, you people haven't got a leg to stand on.

Allopathic medicine is total quackery, too.

Why do you insist upon defending a system of medicine that admits to total therapeutic incompetence in all viral, chronic and psychiatric cases?

If you want to argue, I have nothing to say to people with an allopathic death in their destiny because you can't expect another to care about you if you don't.

So, you then become another person not worth listening or responding to if you refuse to be a scientist.

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus,

It is not possible to do as you asked because you all ask questions that require about tens times as much space to answer as ask.

So I will only answer this part of your posting there until you ask me to respond to more of it.

To whit, you said:

vaccines are a lie and don't work, I don't see anyone with small pox do you? What happen to polio as well?

Okay, Thomas McKeown's graphs have been indisputable for 30 years, and that covers about a dozen of the subjects.

They are cultured on animal proteins.

Those animal proteins are shot into us.

Our organisms cannot handle foreign proteins any more than cloning can work.

Those foreign proteins would have to be sources of diseases and genetic mutations of all sorts, single-handedly making vaccines a mass genetic experiment from Hell.

Vaccines cannot be killed because they are not alive, so it is a lie to suggest there are such things as live and killed viruses.

When taken to task for that, clever allopathic sophists said they are actually "denatured."

Being denatured is a meaningless term in relation to viral DNA and RNA, so they said the protein coat is denatured.

Fine, exactly what part of the protein coat of viruses is supposed to be dangerous, guys?

Geez, does the sophistry ever end with allopaths?

They are shot into us in the musculature.

There is no worse place for an immune response to be initiated, for it is properly begun where the immune system first encounters pathogens, i.e., with the phagocytes.

The organism is in no position to deal with millions or billions of viruses shot into its cells.

The messing they do with viruses seems to have something to do with the partial and temporary immunity they seem to produce.

The whole of receptor-site theory is a bunch of whooy or allopaths would have been able to design at least one drug after 50 years of trying.

The accidents with vaccinations are unending and so numerous that the outrageous claim that they do more good than harm should be an executionable or exilable offense.

Or better, the person who makes such a statement should have their children's arms and legs amputated, they should have acid poured on them, their immune systems should be intentionally disordered and whatnot to permanently shut them up as vile devils.

I don't carry around a list, but that should be about 20 major flaws.

Is that not enough?

As for as smallpox and polio, epidemics come and go and nobody knows why.

Polio is in the water supplies.

That means we are all protected.

Smallpox is one I don't really know enough to pronounce about.

It seems that the suggestion that it is actually being called monkeypox, given that allopaths cunning change the names and intentionally misdiagnose such infections to keep the statistics down, apparently doesn't hold water.

But I'm not a virologist.

It is quite enough that I am a Hahnemannian since it is a few dozen times more difficult to cure than do anything else, thank you very much.

If you people want validity studies, go to the Hahnemannians and do them yourselves.

We do not have any money to waste like allopathic medicine does by the billions annually just on stupidly useless studies.

Validity studies?

The homeopathic case record is overwhelming.

Why do none of your people ever study the evidence?

This is 213 years now.

What is the problem?

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus,

You then said, and I will go this farther here till you ask for more:

Killing the “beasties” first is because they are the cause of the illness, stop them and you cure the person,

I will not disclaim the nice safety valve provided by antibiotics, but they are 1) now mostly only self-limited diseases since viruses took their place, they are 2) just a small portion of diseases anyway, and 3) causative agents have absolutely nothing to do with all other diseases, i.e., with chronic diseases.

Shall I post a master Hahnemannian on the irrelevance of pathology to therapeutics?

I am not making any sense to anybody here, so I am pretty much getting ready to exit as a failure to find any help with our investigation on homeopathic parmacology and a failure to explain homeopathy to anyone.

Argh...

Want that article?

I posted two already and got zero recognition, so that means this site is hopeless.

Fine.

We're happy curing and you are to not.

Who can care if you don't?

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus,

I do not understand what problem all of you have with our case reports.

Hahnemann put all of the information in the ORGANON for people to test his findings and cures.

We proved it.

You guys haven't even tested it.

What outrageous notion causes any of you to believe that we have to demonstrate proof more than millions of cures over 213 years?

What planet did that form of science develop on?

On this one, we recognize the existence of natural laws creating pure sciences.

Scientific method utilized to test erroneous assumptions will only ever produce erroneous conclusions.

What is it with all of you people that you still don't realize that that is one of the several primary reason allopathic medicine hasn't been able to cure and never will be?

It is pretty obvious to us that wrong assumptions about health, disease, therapeutics, the nature of existence and the nature of the universe will eternally flaw any conclusions.

Why is this not obvious to any of you?

If you don't care, how can we?

[Prester John]

I will not disclaim the nice safety valve provided by antibiotics, but they are 1) now mostly only self-limited diseases since viruses took their place, they are 2) just a small portion of diseases anyway, and 3) causative agents have absolutely nothing to do with all other diseases, i.e., with chronic diseases."

Absolute Rubbish Hahnemannian.

Back your statement with evidence.

Bacterial infections are a major cause of mortality, and increasing due to antimicrobial resistance. define chronic diseases, there are many caused by bacteria, eg TB.

"I am not making any sense to anybody here"

You said it.

[Hahnemannian]

What follows is a paper by a master Hahnemannian homeopathic physician, one of perhaps 10-15 in history, on the irrelevance of pathology to therapeutics.

How anybody could possibly have any problems with such papers is totally incomprehensible to us, but I will attempt to address any issues that arise from it:

What Constitutes a Scientific Prescription?

P.P. Wells, M.D.

THE HAHNEMANNIAN MONTHLY, 1867

reprinted

THE HOMEOPATHIC HERITAGE (Delhi)

Vol. 8, No. 1, Jan. 1983, pp. 3-9



Editor's Introduction:

This article by Dr. Wells is in reply to some writer's article which appeared under the title given above. That writer had enumerated four elements of what he thought could be a scientific prescription. These four points have been referred to and reproduced in italics with the serial number in the text of Dr. Wells' comments. The word “writer” referred to in this article refers to that writer and not to Dr. Wells. (S.P.K.)



In this time, when the word “scientific” carries in it so great a force and charm to so many minds, we should prefer the question in this form: What constitutes a prescription Scientific? Prescription, as a duty, is only related to the “science of therapeutics.” It is “scientific” only when, and just in proportion as, it is in accord with this “science.” The prescription is “scientific’' when it has been made in compliance with the requirements of the law of similars. All prescriptions otherwise made, i.e., all into the basis of which elements have been omitted or excluded which this law requires, are by these facts made “Unscientific.”

Then the subject is resolved into the answer to this other question -- what does the law which underlies therapeutics require in a prescription? It requires that all knowable phenomena of a sickness shall have their counterpart in the record of the agent the prescription presents for its cure. This faithfully complied with, and neither law nor the cure require anything more or beyond this. This prescription is scientific, and no other is, whatever of other sciences remotely related to that of therapeutics may have been lugged in as helps in the process of its make up. Indeed, it is but too often the case that the more these have been brought into the discharge of this duty the more “unscientific” has been the prescription, and unsatisfactory the result. Simple compliance with law gives to the sick the “scientific” prescription which alone is adequate to the speediest and safest cure the case admits of, and this without the interference of any accessories whatever.

The writer gives four peculiarities which, as he understands it, constitutes a scientific prescription. They are as follows:

1. A remedy or remedial measure which antidotes, or neutralizes, or counteracts the cause.

It is a sufficient reply to this that many prescriptions are necessitated, where the prescriber is ignorant of the “cause” of the sickness he is expected to cure. And then, further, it is the effects of the cause he is to cure and not the cause. Now in prescribing for a case Migraine. What does the prescriber know of the cause of this? It is wholly beyond his reach oftener than otherwise, and he is only concerned with the sufferings this cause has produced. And by strict compliance with the demands of law he may hope to cure its pains with no reference whatever to “antidoting,” “neutralizing,” or “counteracting” the cause of which he knows nothing, and this just as certainly as if he knew all about it. But it is not to be denied that there are cases of sickness where a true knowledge of the cause may help the prescriber greatly in his search for his specific. A knowledge of this, when it can be had, is never to be despised or neglected, though a prescription may be a compliance with new demands of law without this, and therefore be a “scientific prescription.”
In illustration of the writer's idea of the importance of a knowledge of the cause of sickness, after naming many different causes of these, he says:

“Are we to treat morbid states resulting from such diversified causes upon the one undeviating principle or method, that of their symptomological similar? Dolor, calor, and rubor may appear in some phase of the disease resulting from every cause specified, and shall pain, heat and redness form the basis of a prescription, whatever their origin, or whatever organ or tissue they may involve?”

This would look a little as if the writer had very imperfectly comprehended the scope of our law, or when writing the above was for the time unmindful of its requirements. Has he met many cases for treatment composed only of the three elements he has instanced? These three elements are often met, but they do not often compose all the symptoms of a case, hence they are but a part of the facts which are to be accepted as the basis for a “specific prescription,” and presumably if this writer will give the other symptoms of his case their proper place, with these three, in the basis of his clinical prescriptions, and then deal with the whole as the law requires, he will find less of occasion for criticism, and none for dissatisfaction with the results of his treatment. It is not easy, before the problem of a specific, or “scientific prescription,” which we take to be the same thing, to say what importance can attach to his diverse causation, as elements in this problem, unless these different causes produce different effects. Nor what to these different effects, unless the difference is perceptible to the prescriber. Nor how this difference can appear otherwise than in the symptoms. So that, after all, the talk of the importance of causation as a controlling factor in specific prescribing (or “scientific”) we are forced back on the totality of the symptoms for all knowledge we can possibly have of the effects of different causations in producing morbid states of functions or tissues. If different causes produce identical effects, then the specific for these is in the one drug. If the effects of different causes are not identical, the specific is pointed out by the differences in their actions. The totality of these decides the question of specificity, and also the “scientific” character of the prescription founded on it. And this totality will prove as sure a guide to this knowledge as it is to that of the single specific, which homoeopathy presents as our only guide. With this knowledge, however, we are to accept all the effects of whatever cause, or we are never to come to this knowledge, without which, indeed a successful prescription may be possible, but then it is never “scientific,” but only a fortunate blunder.
The writer's second elements in a “Scientific prescription” he gives in these words:

2. A remedy or remedial measure which harmonizes with the natural principles involved, be they mechanical, chemical or dynamical.

With this there may be no complaint. But with the illustrations given us his idea of this proper relationship, and of this as opposed to, or in any way an addition to, or improvement of, the directions of our law for dealing with the sicknesses resulting from varied causations, we should object. And first -- of his abscess -- of his overloaded stomach, etc.

Where there are mechanical conditions, the law is, treat with chemical means. [I should point out that Indian homeopaths have discovered that homeotherapeutics are astonishingly curative in snake bites, which is more than expected and seems to have only been possible to have been learned in a snake-infested environment like India.] There is nothing different from this in our law of therapeutics, or in any intelligent advocacy of this law. That this should be assumed by implication reminds one somewhat of the old-time opposition to a practice based on the totality of the symptoms, which represented this practice as though it pretended to reduce fractures and dislocations by powders and pellets. The “natural principles involved” in all cases of sickness outside the circle which embraces those of chemical and mechanical origin are dynamic in their nature, and are best dealt with by means which are of a similar nature. [That means homeopathically for all diseases.] To resort to these for the relief of mechanical conditions can only be the act of a professional idiot. [However, I point out that parturition is a largely mechanical procedure where we have command of the situation, as is herniated disks which we also command, and other seemingly purely mechanical problems also respond to correct homeopathy.] In this it would be on the same plane of intelligence as that which would resort to chemical means for the relief of dynamic conditions. [That is to say, allopathy has no place in diseases.] In dealing with the results of chemical causes [i.e., poisonings], only chemical means are in place [but remember what I just said about snake-bite cases in India], while the cause continues to act chemically. After this action has ceased, the case is to have the dynamic remedy, which has in its record facts which are most like those dynamic results, which remain to be cured after the cessation of the chemical action of the cause.

The writer under his second head has spoken plainly and well of the microbes as causes of diseased action, and of treatment based on their supposed character as causes. To his utterances on these subjects intelligent men may safely say, amen!

The third peculiarity of a “scientific prescription” is given by the writer in these words:

3. A remedy or remedial measure which fulfills the indications of the pathological condition.

Of course this is not to be left out of a prescription which is intended to be “scientific.” But what is this “pathological condition,” anyway, and how is it to be discovered? It is talked of much, and much insisted on as a necessary element in therapeutic problems, but oftener than otherwise with no very clear idea of what this really is, or of its true place in clinical duties. It is not always clear, so it would seem, to those who talk most, and most earnestly of pathology, its “states” and “conditions,” that the “science” of therapeutics is one thing and that of pathology another [emphasis mine]. And that, strictly regarded, the relations of the two are only remote, if indeed they are not independent of each other, though both enter into, and are parts, in all clinical duties. The “science” of therapeutics is that which teaches how to come to a knowledge of the specific remedy for a case of sickness. The law which underlies this “science,” and which is the only known and sure guide in its practical application, requires the comparison of two known factors in every case of sickness to be cured, that the demanded similarity of each to the other may be ascertained before it will accept the one as the curative of the other, and the pathological condition is not one of these factors [emphasis mine]. This is a necessity in the case, because the law requires known factors for its demanded comparison, and the pathological condition is often largely, and always more or less, a matter of guessing.

The pathological “condition” is a supposed condition of internal parts which are not and cannot be seen. Why is this “condition,” then, supposed to be thus or thus? Why, indeed, but because certain perceptible phenomena are supposed to be indicative of this. These perceptible phenomena (symptoms) are all there is known about it and these the “science” of therapeutics claims as its own, and uses them, and by this use constitutes any presumptions founded on them “scientific.” Pathology only uses these as a basis for guessing and therefore just so far as these guesses have entered into the making of a “presumption,” they have made it, of necessity, “un-scientific.” The guesses of the pathologist have no place with the factors therapeutics accepts as helps in its practical application [emphasis mine]. The intelligent pathologist uses his guesses, founded on symptoms, to help his judgment in deciding as to the curability of his case and in forecasting its probable future. If he brings them at all into the duty of selecting the specific curative (making a “scientific prescription”), he violates, by so doing, the law, obedience to which alone can constitute any prescription “scientific.

The science of pathology has its place with the sciences the physician should know, but knowing this is not all there is of it, and if he does not know also where and when it is to find its appropriate place and use in practical duties, it is of no earthly value to him, talk of it and boast of it as much as he will. And in search for, and discovery of, the specific for a given case of sickness, this has no place [emphasis mine]. Its only place in clinical duties is in the prognosis of the case, and is not, and never can be, rightly brought into the question of selecting its specific curative. These facts, we think, dispose effectually of our author's third element of a “scientific prescription.” And then his attempts to illustrate the necessity of a recognition of this “condition” of “scientific prescribing” are so many evidences that he has wholly failed to comprehend the first principles of homeopathic philosophy. He gives several symptoms of Calcarea carb. and says:

“They are given as characteristic indications for the administration of the remedy”; and that “one reputable author advises its use upon these indications in ninety named diseases, which involves probably, every tissue and organ of the body, every function, diseases acute and chronic, toxic and benign, organic and functional, and those representing exaltation and depression indiscriminately.”

Just so. While we would again remind our author that homeopathy demands that which is most like all the symptoms of a case, to constitute any member of materia medica its curative, and therefore its selection a fulfillment of whatever pertains to a “scientific prescription,” we would advise him, in any case where he finds the symptoms he has given, to carefully consider Calcarea before he selects another remedy in its place, and only to do this after he has found some other remedy more like the demanded totality than is Calcarea. If, after such examination he finds the Calcarea the most like, he can give it with the utmost confidence, and expect a successful result with it. And further: The remedy will act out its own nature in restoring sick forces, and in doing this, if its actions be really most like those of the morbid process, it will cure asking few or no questions as to “causes” or “pathological conditions,” because this is law that it shall do so. The difficulty with this writer in understanding homeopathic law and philosophy is his notions of “causes” or ”pathological conditions,” with which true “scientific,” i.e., homeopathic “prescribing” has so small concern, seems to get between his vision and the demands of law, so that they are very imperfectly seen and comprehended. The Calcarea will care nothing for the names of these ninety diseases to which he has alluded, but only whether its actions be more like the morbid phenomena which characterize them, however caused, or whatever the pathological condition, than is that of any other drug. If this be so, then Calcarea is curative of one and all of them by reason of this fact.

Our much-loved and honored Carroll Dunham gave the true definition of pathology when he declared it to be “science of symptoms.” This our author has quoted, but he seems to have failed to apprehend the scope of this definition, which effectually disposes of his third element in his “scientific prescription,” where he seems to present his “pathological condition” as a necessary element, to be added to the proper consideration of the symptoms of a case, to constitute any prescription for its cure “scientific.” Presumably preconceived notions of the much-talked-of “causes and conditions” obscured his vision, as we have already suggested.

His fourth element which he gives as necessary to a “scientific prescription” was evidently intended to cover all possible grounds, not already considered, under the treatment of his three preceding ones. It is given in these words:
4. ”A remedy or remedial measure which characteristically fulfills the law of similars, as regards all subjective and objective signs, organic affinities, order of progression, and primary and secondary manifestations of both disease and drug.”

This seems an example of an effort to load down the simplicity of our law of therapeutics with considerations of which it has no need, and which can in no wise be helps to it in the duty of prescribing. It is but another of the many utterances we have heard from thoughtful men, who could not be content with its sole requirement of likeness to the “totality of the symptoms.” There must be something more to give “scientific” character to prescriptions, and the “scientific” they would have. It is not enough that the remedy chosen proves curative, which it certainly will, if it be most like this totality -- it must also be “scientific” to satisfy our pride. We say satisfy our pride, because we can see no other end gained by incorporating into the process of finding the specific curative, considerations of other questions, or sciences, not included in this totality. These outside considerations only obscure the light which discloses the true curative, and in no way or time do they, or can they, contribute aught to its discovery.

It is not denied, and should not be forgotten, that when the prescriber enters the sick room there should go with him a knowledge of many sciences, and that he may have use for either, or all of them before he leaves it. And this consideration gives opportunity for the remark, that clinical duties and the duty of finding the specific curative are not interchangeable terms [emphasis mine]. The one may involve a knowledge of etiology, pathology, diagnosis, prognosis, sanitation, etc.; the other, a knowledge of the “totality of the symptoms,” and of the remedy, the record of the actions of which on the organism is most like this “totality.” To attempt to combine aught of knowledge of these other sciences with that the law requires for the discovery of the curative, is only to introduce confusion where the God-given law only deals successfully with plainest simplicity. Keep this distinction clear in the mind, and much confusion is saved.

What our author seems to have forgotten in that after “profound studies” Hahnemann, fearless among the learned and 'scientific” of his generation, would cure the results of the action of the discovered causes of disease, based his prescriptions on a knowledge of the “totality of the symptoms,” and not on any pathological conditions supposed to have resulted from these causes. And his record of cures will stand through all time with that of those who have cured most, safest and speediest of those prescribed for -- and this because his prescriptions were par excellence “Scientific.”





Pheneas Parkhurst (P.P.) Wells was somewhere around 60 when he wrote this.

He likewise lived into his 90s and was also one of the last Hahnemannians for a very long time.

[Hahnemannian]

Preston John,

TB is an infectious disease, not a chronic one.

I understand the point, though, for syphyllis and gonorrhea also have stages that allopaths categorize meaninglessly in our opinions.

I believe Hahnemann's definition was simply that chronic diseases are those which continue long term with no tendency to recover.

Since you are not interested in this stuff, have nothing to contribute to our search here and also insulted me, I'll consider this wasted effort and will ignore you hereafter.

[ElectricFetus]

Scientific method utilized to test erroneous assumptions will only ever produce erroneous conclusions

What kind of crap is that? Any erroneous assumption or hypothesis comes up with negative result proving the hypothesis wrong. So if I believe water falls up and tested it, I would discover that water does indeed fall up? I did not know one could change reality to make ones false ideas correct? I should try that some time.

Again I would like you to present the evidence no claim to it. Again you only present evidence (or some kind of circumstantial evidence) that allopathic medicine is wrong. No that not the issue the issue is proof of Homeopathic medicine working! Please give us that!

[BTox]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
BTox,

Iatrogenic cases are wholly unknowns.

The person's natural disease is 1) disordered by allopathic drugs and 2) the allopathic drugs have lots of side effects.

They are generally incurable cases after about 7-10 years of constant allopathic therapeutics.

Completely nonsensical answer. By what mechanism do "allopathic" drugs "disorder a person? And why cannot side effects of these drugs be treated by homeopathy?

QUOTE]Originally posted by Hahnemannian
And if you doubt our cures of millions, you obviously know nothing about medical history, so why do you doubt it? [/QUOTE]

Excellent suggestion. Do read the medical history, it is quite clear, and paints a picture that is 180 degrees from the fantasy you have deluded yourself into. Homeopathy is a fraud, its practitioners are by definition, quacks. Their true purpose is to scam hard-earned money from the pockets of the ignorant and misinformed.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
BTox,

All allopathic literature is throw-away literature, but I am more than well informed about that hogwash.

I suppose it is throw-away only to someone without the intelligence to understand it and who would rather believe in a "treatment" philosophy that is complete fantasy.


Originally posted by Hahnemannian

There is not a single piece of evidence showing that HIV has anything to do with AIDS.

Wrong, there are reams of well-documented evidence that HIV causes AIDs. You must be thinking of homeopathy, which of course does not have a single piece of evidence showing it is effective against any malady.


QUOTE]Originally posted by Hahnemannian

Allopathic medicine is total quackery, too. [/QUOTE]

Too? Ah, so you admit that homeopathy is total quackery. Congratulations, you are learning something here!


QUOTE]Originally posted by Hahnemannian

So, you then become another person not worth listening or responding to if you refuse to be a scientist. [/QUOTE]

Ha ha! In fact I am a scientist by profession, and have been so for more than 20 years. But I wouldn't expect a quack that believes in homeopathy to know anything about science, as science has long ago disproven every tenet of the absurd and worthless system of homeopathy.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
.

It is pretty obvious to us that wrong assumptions about health, disease, therapeutics, the nature of existence and the nature of the universe will eternally flaw any conclusions.



You've concisely pointed the incorrect knowledge base of homeopathy believers and practitioners... thank you!

[Prester John]

Dictionary defintition of chronic:

Of long duration; continuing: chronic money problems.
Lasting for a long period of time or marked by frequent recurrence, as certain diseases: chronic colitis.
Subject to a habit or pattern of behavior for a long time: a chronic liar.


TB is a chronic disease. It is caused by a bacteria, so it can also be decribed as an infectious disease.


I also notice you totally ignore my correct points re your statement:
"I will not disclaim the nice safety valve provided by antibiotics, but they are 1) now mostly only self-limited diseases since viruses took their place, they are 2) just a small portion of diseases anyway, and 3) causative agents have absolutely nothing to do with all other diseases, i.e., with chronic diseases."

This is still rubbish, you have not been able to defend this statement. provide proof. Thats what science is about. nothing more or less. back your statements up with evidence. Please note i have chosen this single statement of all the rubbish you have said as i can quickly acquire refuting evidence for anything you say.


As a side note i read a desrcription of homepathic medicines in a book today (some american publication, huge book), it said : "Homeopathic remidies are among the safest known to medicine" LOL yeah water is generally regarded as safe.

apologies for any sarcasm but quacks are quacks.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Quasi,

Do you want me to address your questions?

Address any questions, Albert. But to do that you have to provide answers.

Hans is argumentative and too allopathically indoctrinated to understand my answers, and he insulted me too many times too, so I would give you some attention.

Ohhh, yes. I see this is a very bad thing: We have a discussion and I present arguments; I do apologize. And I insulted you by asking questions you apparantly could not answer. How terribly unfair of me!

The first thing you would appear to need is something on the fact that pathology and therapeutics have absolutely nothing to do with each other, even in infectious diseases since causes are irrelevant to finding the curative homeopathic medicine that alone will cure.

Restating your unfounded dogmas is not contributing to a debate.

If not, I have lots better things to do.

Like what?

I'll watch this site for a couple of days.

Great. I will make a summary of our "discussion" so far then. Stay tuned, heheheh.

Hans

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus, you quoted me saying, "Scientific method utilized to test erroneous assumptions will only ever produce erroneous conclusions."

You then said:

What kind of crap is that? Any erroneous assumption or hypothesis comes up with negative result proving the hypothesis wrong.

Not if everybody is allopathically indoctrinated and accepts the erroneous assumptions as valid, which is precisely what always happens in allopathic research.

The naming of diseases per diagnostic categories is purely allopathic, but all disease-diagnostic categories are nothing more than statistical abstractions based upon the common symptoms and as such do not actually exist.

I am quite aware that this is unknown to you, so I will further explain since you continue to call for evidence of that kind when I tell you that we don't have anything but evidence precipitated from experimental and clinical application of the Law of Similars.

Common symptoms are those that large numbers of people have in common, and these form into convenient but therapeutically useless disease-diagnostic categories.

In addition to those therapeutically useless common symptoms, every curable sick person also has uncommon symptoms.

Those are the ones we almost exclusively use.

To ask us to supply evidence in which we prescribed a drug for a disease is absurd, but you all constantly do that.

There is no such evidence except from ignoramouses called low-potency pseudo-homeopaths (LPHs) or allopathic homeopaths.

They are all over the place but are NOT homeopaths.

So your assumptions that diseases can be named per the common symptoms and categorized per that allopathic premise is totally erroneous.

What kind of evidence do you want other than the kind we have supplied from the beginning?

If you ask for research based upon the erroneous assumption that a drug can be specific for a disease, which I believe you guys always mean, you will be asking us for the ridiculously ignorant and foolishly allopathic that we have long since transcended many centuries ago.

Why do you think allopathic medicine doesn't work anyway?

One of the reasons is that it is based upon nothing but erroneous assumptions in the five primary subjects of medicine; another is that they do not have the means of cure exclusive of ultramolecular drugs; and another is that they do not have the four Laws of Therapeutics or any of the 10 Laws of Medicine.

So who is talking about crap now that you know your basic assumptions about diseases are totally erroneous?

This is a major step in understanding homeopathy.

You will either make it or not; most don't.

[Hahnemannian]

BTox says:

Homeopathy is a fraud, its practitioners are by definition, quacks.

Wrongo!

Allopathic medicine is almost totally therapeutically incompetent; it is totally effete and they are therapeutically incompetent in ALL viral diseases, in ALL chronic diseases and in ALL psychiatric cases.

Thus, contrary to your brainwashed delusions, which you just demonstrated by a totally illogical conclusion, allopathic medicine is total quackery.

Then you made the ridiculously false assertion, which of course is based upon ZERO knowledge of homeopathy, that:

Ha ha! In fact I am a scientist by profession, and have been so for more than 20 years. But I wouldn't expect a quack that believes in homeopathy to know anything about science, as science has long ago disproven every tenet of the absurd and worthless system of homeopathy.

Well, good for you.

I have been doing Hahnemannian homeopathy for 25 years, and homeopathy is the legitimate Science of Medicine because we have not, like all of you, ignored the 10 Laws of Medicine.

So my 25 years as a Hahnemannian outranks your 20 years as a fool wasting money and exhibiting sophistries at all turns something like 10,000:1, doesn't it?

Your system still can't cure, and it never will be able to cure, you stupid people really need to finally shut up and quit misleading others.

Don't you supporters of self-admitted quackery and mass murder in allopathy have any conscience?

I said I would not be arguing with you again, and I mean it now.

You are destined for a well-deserved iatrogenic death in allopathic hands and don't seem to care.

So be it.

Byeeee

[ElectricFetus]

So your telling me that because allopathic medicine doctrine is flawed and yet the research they do shows it valid it still must be flawed? Again that present the same problem I was talking about: One can believe water runs up, but you could not pull off any experiment proving that. Allopathic medicine has managed to cure many diseases, it has characterized viri and bacteria and link them to disease and treatments, how can you claim all this is erroneous? It works and thus proven.

The evidence I have been asking for is simple proof that homeopathy works, I don't care how it works or its procedures of classification, you can't provide that evidence can you? Just show me patients that are cured by homeopathy and show me how many they attempted to cure with homeopathy, that does not put requirement on there symptom types does it?

[MRC_Hans]

Since Hahnemannian seems more inclined to spew out allegations than
actually backing up his claims, I think it is in order to sum up
a bit on this debate. This is what I get so far:

(I hope to be corrected, if I got some facts wrong)

Definitions

Homepathy: Literally meaning "Same Disease", Homeopathy is based on
the assumption that most (if not all) diseases are caused by an internal
malfunction in the organism; a "disease management center" has been
mentioned. The Homeopathic regimen then consists of putting right this
body function by "training" it with substances that are known to give
similar symptomms as the ones observed in the patient.

Homeopathic medicines are prepeared by a dilution process where a so-
lution of the active ingredient is diluted over a series of steps, to
a point where it theoretically is non-existent in the preparation.
Some sort of "trans-molecular" effect is cited to make the preparation
still potent after the active ingredient has been diluted away.

Allopathy: Defined as threatment using substances with effects diffe-
rent from the symptoms of the disease, Allopathy is basially anything
that is not Homeopathy. However, for this discussion, I am only inte-
rested in the form of Allopathy that can be termed scientific medicine.

The basic idea of scientific medicine is that diseases have causes,
internal or external, and to treat a disease, it is preferably to
remove the cause. In cases where the cause cannot be removed, either
because it is unknown or because no regimen exists, scientific medicine
will attempt to alleviate symptoms.

I have a number of difficulties with the Homeopathic theory:

1) What is the purpose of this "disease management center"? It seems
only to make us ill. If it is the cause of all our illnesses, why
wasn't it eliminated by evolution?

2) How can one be shure that the correct symptoms are used for selecting
medicine, humans are notoriously inaccurate at reporting symptoms?

3) What is the supposed mechanism for the ability of the medicine to
"remember" the active ingredient, and how is this mechanism able to
know which ingredient to "remember", after all, any sample of water
has been in contact with countless substances?

4) I do not understand why Homeopathy is claimed to be untestable. It
is claimed to have a nobjective effect, and if this is the case, then
it must be testable.

In this debate, if we can call it a debate, Hahnemannian has made a
number of claims about Allopathy. I am here assuming that he is mainly
referring to the form of Allopathy that I refer to as scientific
medicine. His main claim is that it is unable to cure anything at all.

This opens a few questions, which I have already posed earlier, but which
have all been ignored. If scientific medicine is worthless than how do
you propose to explain that:

1) It has found the causes of and managed to eradicate or strongly reduce
the incidence of a number of diseases, e. g. Smallpox, Plague, Typhoid
Feever, Diftery, Polio, Tuberculosis, Leprocy, Syphilis.

2) Where some of the dieases mentioned in #1 are still widespread in some
parts of the World, this invariably coincides with lack of access to
medicines.

3) A number of diseases cannot (currently) be cured, but in many cases
scientific medicine has succeded to alleviate the symptoms, in some
cases to a degree where patients lead lives that are largely unaffec-
ted by the disease. Examples: Diabetes, depression, some forms of
epilepsy, several forms of hormone disorders.

4) Scientific medicine can be and is tested for efficiacy.

Instead of your constant attacks on anybody and everybody, it would be
constructive if you would deign to adress some of the questions above.
After all, this IS a debate forum.

Hans

[timokay]

Oops! Hans,

You seem to have come up with an amalgamation of what Albert and I wrote independently. We have our own perspectives on the problem, respect our differences while the search is on,....whose to say which version is more correct at this stage? I am just coming up with theories which then evolve.

I think the brain has a significant controlling influence.

(Must go for a while)

[timokay]

Hans,

Some answers. I have been away from this forum...note that Fetus has gone back into his jar.
(The person you call "Hahnemannian" is Albert.)




I have a number of difficulties with the Homeopathic theory:

1) What is the purpose of this "disease management center"? It seems
only to make us ill. If it is the cause of all our illnesses, why
wasn't it eliminated by evolution?


This whole issue is still being debated and the "disease management center" is just a proposal. We don't have the answers yet - I have not been studying Homeopathy for long, started with Hahnemann's books, from which logical models have been proposed (using my background in Medical Science/Systems Analysis).

Hahnemann makes a point about how one disease affects another in the same patient...the stronger suspends the weaker...but how could this be coordinated, with the immune system involving billions of cells and so much of the body?

It COULD be accomplished by the diffuse immune system, but I suspect that the Brain coordinates. It doesn't really matter where it is logically, at this stage, just that it must exist. If you look in scienceforums.net (click on "forums" and select forum ==> "General Science, topic "Not Science, we are told") you will see latest posts from Albert and I.


2) How can one be shure that the correct symptoms are used for selecting
medicine, humans are notoriously inaccurate at reporting symptoms?

Yes, Albert can explain how important the procedure is for gathering all symptoms from the patient. The first consultation can take up to 2 hours, I understand, and the doctor has to be very observant.
The information is gathered in a special way, with certain symptoms considered more important than others when it comes to medicine selection.


3) What is the supposed mechanism for the ability of the medicine to
"remember" the active ingredient, and how is this mechanism able to
know which ingredient to "remember", after all, any sample of water
has been in contact with countless substances?

I think Albert and I are coming closer together on our opinions about the actual nature of the medicines (again see scienceforums.net).

RE. The "memory" aspect of it, I believe the medicine molecules affect the shape of the water/ethanol polymers or clusters formed during the succussion steps. There is evidence for this going back to 1975, which seems to be based on Stephenson's Hypothesis.
It is difficult to know what the body's immune system makes of these strange crystals/clusters..they quickly dissolve away..but apparently trigger an immune response of some kind before that, and the resulting symptom patterns. Either they act in this way on the immune system or they act more directly on the brain.
Anyone can go into a drugstore/chemist and buy one of these medicines and try them..they will produce symptoms..showing them not to be the "just nothing" Medical Science claims, in its ignorance.


4) I do not understand why Homeopathy is claimed to be untestable. It is claimed to have a nobjective effect, and if this is the case, then
it must be testable.

You mean "Scientifically" testable. They have been tested thousands of times within Homeopathy for the last 213 years.
Before Science can test Homeopathy, it should understand something about it.

Homeopathy and Medical Science are like chalk and cheese. They are completely separate disciplines, don't even agree on what a "disease" is. Science says its a disease agent, of course, which invades the body, and is eradicated. But, IS IT A DISEASE if it doesn't even produce symptoms? We get infected every day, don't know about it because the immune system destroys it without us knowing.

Homeopathy identifies diseases by the symptom patterns they produce...no symptoms, no disese.
And, the disease agent itself is rarely the problem...it should have been eradicated without symptoms...symptoms mean there is a problem with the immune system...THAT is the "dis-ease" - the fault in the immune system of this particular person.


In this debate, if we can call it a debate, Hahnemannian has made a number of claims about Allopathy. I am here assuming that he is mainly
referring to the form of Allopathy that I refer to as scientific
medicine. His main claim is that it is unable to cure anything at all.


Albert (Hahnemannian) sits on one side of the fence, Medical Science on the other...they don't get on well together. I think it refreshing for a Homeopath to actually hit back - not many do, though they are justified. Science says their whole life's work is nothing more than a PLACEBO EFFECT.

Although I have a Science background, I see a great deal of injustice (lies) w.r.t. Science's views of Homeopathy, and these should be corrected.


This opens a few questions, which I have already posed earlier, but which
have all been ignored. If scientific medicine is worthless than how do
you propose to explain that:

1) It has found the causes of and managed to eradicate or strongly reduce
the incidence of a number of diseases, e. g. Smallpox, Plague, Typhoid
Feever, Diftery, Polio, Tuberculosis, Leprocy, Syphilis.

2) Where some of the dieases mentioned in #1 are still widespread in some
parts of the World, this invariably coincides with lack of access to
medicines.

3) A number of diseases cannot (currently) be cured, but in many cases
scientific medicine has succeded to alleviate the symptoms, in some
cases to a degree where patients lead lives that are largely unaffec-
ted by the disease. Examples: Diabetes, depression, some forms of
epilepsy, several forms of hormone disorders.

Homeopathy CAN cure these conditions by the correct way, by helping the body's own defences to deal with it - resolve it completely. The body uses a complicated hierarchy of cascading processes, evolved over many millions of years, to deal with disease- the WHOLE disease, ie., ALL symptoms associated with it.

Suppressing some symptoms of the disease is only a partial fix, obstructs the natural processes mentioned above, (and is usually destructive because it works AGAINST these processes).


4) Scientific medicine can be and is tested for efficiacy.

Unfortunately, virtually all of them do more harm than good. It depends on which medicine we are talking about. Initially, it may seem to help symptoms...but there is often a heavy price to pay later.

[ElectricFetus]

timokay,

My combat statues has nothing to do with you, it’s a matter of other specific post on this forum.

Ok if homeopathy cannot be tested with logic please show us how it is tested and the result.

[timokay]

Fetus,

My combat statues has nothing to do with you, it’s a matter of other specific post on this forum.

Ok if homeopathy cannot be tested with logic please show us how it is tested and the result.

Of course it can be tested with logic.

You mean "Scientifically tested". That is something for the Scientist to work out since it's their field.

The problem is that, in Homeopathy, there are potentially as many "dis-eses" as there are people...since we are all different genetically and live differing life-styles.

Homeopathy treats the patient, not what science calls the disease. This makes for problems when deciding on a controlled starting point. How do know the status of each patient...("looks healthy to me" is inadmissable to Homeopathy as all people have a history of diseases as well as their genetic/environmental differences). You wouldn't know 'til you see the first responses to treatment. Then it's too late, as far as Scientific testing is concerned.

There is one thing Albert and I have discussed...Spinal injuries. The fact that MRI is so good these days, you could scan the patient before and after Homeopathy has resolved the patients symptoms to see what Homeopathy did. With a mechanical problem like this, the only way for the painful episodes to end is the removal of that nerve compression. A pretty foolproof way of confirming MRI as it removes the subjective element of having to believe the patient.

Later.

[ElectricFetus]

Do you have the evidence on spinal injuries treatments with homeopathy?

Like I aware of homeopathy broad range of diagnostic approach what I want is simple evidence that it works and so far you people have provided nothing.

[Quasi]

Hahn,

You have contradicted your own belief system- Hahnemann, M.D. claims in "The Organon of Medicine" in section 2, that it is not the role of a physician to investigate or theorize systems of the body or the causes of disease. In other words, there are only symptoms, and there are no bactera or viruses. So according to your own "Bible" of truth, Hahnemann cannot claim to cure syphillus or any other disease because according to his own admonition they do not exist. Here is where Hahnemann rationalizes, resorts to personal attacks, and leaves out critical data which completely deystroys his silly belief system. He cannot, and will not discuss "Homeopathy and its Kindred Delusions" by Oliver Wendall Holmes, M.D., Dean of Harvard Medical School because the conclusions are obvious- Homeopathy does not work. Or there are the Horizons tests done recently, the list goes on and on.
Its always the same, AIDS deniers, Bigfoot enthusiasts, etc. the same propaganda over and over. Get a new act Hahnemann, its growing old.

[Hahnemannian]

Thank you, Hans.

This is more helpful, for I often seem to assume a great deal is understood about homeopathy and therefore sometimes provide explanations a little too advanced for many.

I will therefore correct these mistakes and then take your questions, for I was going to go back through this discussion to see if I missed any.

This will be easier.

----------

I quote you and then correct them:

Homepathy: Literally meaning "Same Disease",

No, it literally means "similar suffering."

Homo = same; homeo = similar.

Pathy = suffering, which in medicine refers to diseases in general and symptoms in particular since diseases can only make themselves known to our senses by symptoms, but pathy literally means suffering.

And this is very important to understand, for all allopathic therapies assume that diseases can be categorized according to disease-diagnostic categories -- remembering that diagnosis literally means "to thoroughly know" something -- which means per the symptoms common to large numbers of people; however, that is an artificial and unreal or statistically abstract view of diseases since NO curable patient has only those common symptoms and ALL curable patients have the highly individualizing, differential UNCOMMON symptoms with which Hahnemannian homeopaths and some high-potency pseudo-homeopaths (HPHs) determine a remedy diagnosis or prescription for a person, not for a disease.

This is a basic premise of homeopathy that separates it from all other therapies, including the so-called holistic or alternative therapies (that's a farse), which are actually just part of the Empiricist half of allopathy while so-called modern medicine (that's also a farse) is historically part of the Rationalist school of allopathy.

Both of those are seen throughout history, but homeopathy appears to precede both of them in that it is also seen as -- in addition to Spagyric medicine in Europe from the 5th through 17th centuries -- Hermetic medicine in ancient Egypt and some unknown form of homeopathy in ancient India as witnessed by the four Laws of Therapeutics (and thus the rest by extention) being seen within the BHAGWAT PURANA of the ancient Rama Empire or what academics are calling the Harappan Culture of the Indus Valley, both cultures appearing on the historical scene without a period of progress and thus obviously coming from somewhere else already civilized.

---------

Homeopathy is based on the assumption that...

No, it's not based upon any assumptions; it's based upon the natural Law of Similars, which, like all natural laws, is part of the fabric of space and has been in existence since Creation as an absolute for the cure of unnecessary human and animal suffering always only awaiting rediscovery by an astute individual like C.F.S. Hahnemann.

If you want to refer to basic assumptions of homeopathy, you cannot say that homeopathy is based upon any of them, for it is based upon the 10 absolute natural Laws of Medidine that allopaths only vainly say they search for but constantly demonstrate that is a lie since we have been offering them these for 213 years.

----------

Homeopathy is based on
the [corrected: One of the] assumption[s of homeopathy is] that most (if not all) diseases are caused by an internal
malfunction in the organism; a "disease management center" has been
mentioned.

Maybe, kinda sorta.

Causes of disease are pretty much dismissed as assumptions in homeopathy, and we observe that everywhere except in infectious diseases these causes are going to be mere effects since all evidence has pointed to a disordered or no-longer-integral vital force or etheric pattern for chronic diseases, which in homeopathy means all others.

Indeed, the "acute diseases," by which Hahnemann meant what we today call infectious illnesses, all require something akin to the foregoing disordered organizational level of the organism, because they all necessitate an immune system that is either immature (as in the case of children), dysfunctional (allopathic medicine seems to do this with all therapies) or fully compromised (dito allopathy's iatrogenic influences when their therapies are applied long-term and especially when with the aggressively "heroic" forms of it).

Hahnemann put forward your synopsis of disease origins at Article 201 of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE -- http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html -- because allopaths and homeopaths both kept asking him this question. Most advanced homeopaths, however, prefer to define diseases in a generic way by terms like diseases are altered health or is a dynamic disordering of health.

But we will acquiesce to it arising from an internal malfunction so long as you mean what we do by "internal" and "external," which will be unlikely since allopathic medicine in today's form arose from the natural sciences and thus from reductionistic, methodistic, mechanistic, materialistic, biochemical and pathophysiological observations about causes and effects that thus have intrinsic limitations and are strewn with a great many doctrinal assumptions that, except for antibiotics (which were a total accident, mind you), have not yet proven effective constructs, namely, Receptor-Site Theory.

I say this knowing that the whole of allopathic pharmacology assigns specific target sites for all of its drugs; however, you had better be ready to admit that these are all total assumptions since those pharmacognostic scientists would have otherwise been able to design at least one drug based upon Receptor-Site Theory.

And, as for a "disease-management center" in the brain, Tim came up with that.

Nobody I know of or have ever read have been inclined to assign any particular place in the physical organism as a major or the major center for disease management.

It's a fancy notion, but I am not sure our understanding of neurology can support it.

It would stand to reason that some sort of thing like that exists, but nobody in homeopathy I am aware of has ever put forward that hypothesis.

Am seriously interested in what you think of Tim's notions, for he has clearly given a great deal of thought to them; whereas I hold that because we use ultramolecular, subAvogadrean drugs, we're forced to think in terms of the etheric pattern of organism and drug for scientific explanations of phenomena.

You clearly wouldn't like my explanations, but such explanations are meaningless as far as cures are concerned anyway, and I know how to do Hahnemannian homeotherapeutics.

----------

The Homeopathic regimen then consists of putting right this
body function by "training" it with substances that are known to give
similar symptomms as the ones observed in the patient.

That's not a classical/Hahnemannian explanation of the mechanism.

Hahnemann observed that similar drugs cure and most similar drugs cure best and fastest.

For individual patients, these class as a great many drugs each called the simile compared with one simillimum ("thing most similar").

With the simile, we zig zag cases to cure over a much longer period of time compared with the simillimum; and in serious cases, the simile simply won't do, which is one of the reasons it is vitally important to make no mistakes and thus prescribe according to Hahnemannian precepts since Hahnemann apparently did settle all of the issues of homeotherapeutics, as we have repeatedly found over these subsequent decades since 1843.

Likewise, although Tim has demonstrated that it seems to be quite difficult to tell exactly what Hahnemann meant by terms like vital force, vital principle of life, dynamic nature of disease and of medicines, "dynamis" and the like, it is not classical for homeopaths to refer to diseases and the human organism as being purely physical.

We have always been dynamists, meaning physicians in the middle of the schism of materialists on the one side and vitalists on the other.

In short, diseases arise from both directions of causes and effects, and they exist in both levels of being.

I hope that is not confusing, for it is something of a prideful notion with us that we hold a sciento-philosophic balance between purely materialistic and purely esoteric constructs seen in other therapies, i.e., Rationalist and Empiricist allopathy and low- and high-potency pseudo-homeopathy (LPH & HPH).

----------

Homeopathic medicines are prepeared by a dilution process where a solution of the active ingredient is diluted over a series of steps, to a point where it theoretically is non-existent in the preparation.


No, these are succussed high dilutions.

You left out the critical part, for mere dilution gets nothing medicinal.

Indeed, it is part of the mystery Tim and I are out scouring scientific sites looking for possible explanations, for potentization or dynamization in homeopathy simply refers to that vigorous aggitation of half-full vials.

Hahnemann specifically directed they be slammed against the back of a leather book a set number of times, but we have long since developed succussion machines to do this strident or aggressive shaking of half-full vials.

Call a homeopathic pharmacy and ask them to let you hear a potentization machine.

It's really not much different from the aggitation machines seen in paint stores, although we control the number of succussions delivered to solutions.

As for saying that they are "diluted . . . to a point where it [the crude substance in the original tincture] is theoretically non-existent in the preparation," we actually almost exclusively use only such subAvogrean drugs in the c-potencies, while the Q-scale of potencies (quinquaginta-millesimal or so-called Millesimal potencies, LMs) settle all potency issues and begin in so-called "tangible doses" until they become ultramolecular at about the 4th step, called out as Q4.

That is the mystery: these drugs should NOT have effect but do.

Want to help us figure it out?

It's a big ole long mystery, but Tim and I feel it's worth a look at again since Shiu Yin Lo's photos show something is definitely at work in succussed high dilutions to form apparently unique crystals of water and/or alcohol on a nanometer scale AT ROOM TEMPERATURE.

Tim, tell them how to read where this started with us at homeopathyhome.com, for I tire of it.

----------

Some sort of "trans-molecular" effect is cited to make the preparation
still potent after the active ingredient has been diluted away.


Yes, "trans" is also a viable prefex, but tradition has it as ultramolecular drugs for about 100 years.

--------

Allopathy: Defined as threatment using substances with effects different from the symptoms of the disease.

Kinda sorta.

Allopathy literally means "contrary or other suffering."

It refers to the fact that all other therapies base their therapeutic approaches upon other than the Law of Similars or symptom similarity and in one way or another upon the doctrine of contraries as traditionally manifested back into the HIPPOCRATIC CORPUS and beyond.

There are two basic kinds of allopathic therapies, though, and it is good to remember this.

Rationalist allopathy is a kind of quasi-militaristic approach that arose out of Western medicine's emphasis upon the natural sciences, which thus ignored the herbalists.

The doctrine of the proximate cause does yoemen's service in Rationalist allopathy.

Empiricist allopathy is a healing strategem in which the healing power of nature and notions of toxicity and being in balance are constantly invoked.

But they all view diseases in the same manner, no matter how slightly differently; i.e., per disease-diagnostic categories.

They are all, indeed, allopathic.

This is succinctly stated at Article 52 of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE: http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html.

----------

However, for this discussion, I am only inte-
rested in the form of Allopathy that can be termed scientific medicine.


That's Rationalist allopathy, which we usually just call allopathy since the Empiricist spectrum is such a small group in the alternative therapies.

And I would like to point out who coined that designation, "scientific medicine."

No less than Sir William Osler, M.D., gave us the term scientific medicine.

That is the gentleman who was the demagogue of allopathic medicine from about 1880-1920.

But get this: he was still advocating and applying bloodletting as late as 1914!

Geeeeeze!

See what we mean by occasionally calling homeopathy 25th-century medicine when we see such outrageous monstrosity all throughout allopathic history.

-------

ahbeback

[Quasi]

Originally posted by timokay
Fetus,



Of course it can be tested with logic.

You mean "Scientifically tested". That is something for the Scientist to work out since it's their field.

The problem is that, in Homeopathy, there are potentially as many "dis-eses" as there are people...since we are all different genetically and live differing life-styles.

Homeopathy treats the patient, not what science calls the disease. This makes for problems when deciding on a controlled starting point. How do know the status of each patient...("looks healthy to me" is inadmissable to Homeopathy as all people have a history of diseases as well as their genetic/environmental differences). You wouldn't know 'til you see the first responses to treatment. Then it's too late, as far as Scientific testing is concerned.

There is one thing Albert and I have discussed...Spinal injuries. The fact that MRI is so good these days, you could scan the patient before and after Homeopathy has resolved the patients symptoms to see what Homeopathy did. With a mechanical problem like this, the only way for the painful episodes to end is the removal of that nerve compression. A pretty foolproof way of confirming MRI as it removes the subjective element of having to believe the patient.

Later.

Alternatively, you could simply track the health of say 500 individuals using only homeopathic medicine for say 20 to 30 years. Compare these statistics to a control group who do not use homeopathy. You should see the same results as those for Christian Scientists, 5 times higher mortality for women, 7 times higher for men.

Also, I fail to see how Homeopathy treats "the patient." There are no positive results yet after over 200 years, where standard medicine can cure many forms of cancer, prevent smallpox, measles, treat lethal bacterial infections and has dramatically increased our lifespan. This is well documented. So where is the data to back up your beliefs?

[Quasi]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
[B]

This is a basic premise of homeopathy that separates it from all other therapies, including the so-called holistic or alternative therapies (that's a farse), which are actually just part of the Empiricist half of allopathy while so-called modern medicine (that's also a farse) is historically part of the Rationalist school of allopathy.

Here Hahnemann is attacking reality based medicine using no evidence whatsoever. In propaganda this is called the "straw man fallacy" He is making modern medicine into a man of straw so he can strike it down in front of you and make his argument look good. Good job Hahnemann, you sure are ignorant of standard medicine.


No, it's not based upon any assumptions; it's based upon the natural Law of Similars, which, like all natural laws, is part of the fabric of space and has been in existence since Creation as an absolute for the cure of unnecessary human and animal suffering always only awaiting rediscovery by an astute individual like C.F.S. Hahnemann.

If you want to refer to basic assumptions of homeopathy, you cannot say that homeopathy is based upon any of them, for it is based upon the 10 absolute natural Laws of Medidine that allopaths only vainly say they search for but constantly demonstrate that is a lie since we have been offering them these for 213 years.


Here Hahnemann astutely demonstrates the "Begging the Question" logical fallacy. He believes the way things are now are the same as they have always been. This is classical static thinking of delusional individuals. He assumes that suffering in any way is bad- this is foolish because pain is a very important indicator something is wrong, like when you cut yourself, or you fracture a bone. If you keep on going you will further the fracture, making it much worse. So he is begging the question here - Doesn't pain have some useful function?


Maybe, kinda sorta.

Causes of disease are pretty much dismissed as assumptions in homeopathy, and we observe that everywhere except in infectious diseases these causes are going to be mere effects since all evidence has pointed to a disordered or no-longer-integral vital force or etheric pattern for chronic diseases, which in homeopathy means all others.

OK, here you admit to infection as the cause of some diseases- but what is transmitted Hahn? Any guesses? Psychic energy perhaps? Whats under the microscope then? And what does "these causes are going to be mere effects" mean? Why haven't homeopaths demonstrated "vital energy" here you are merely assuming its existence. This sounds a lot like the chi/meridian theory to me.


Indeed, the "acute diseases," by which Hahnemann meant what we today call infectious illnesses, all require something akin to the foregoing disordered organizational level of the organism, because they all necessitate an immune system that is either immature (as in the case of children), dysfunctional (allopathic medicine seems to do this with all therapies) or fully compromised (dito allopathy's iatrogenic influences when their therapies are applied long-term and especially when with the aggressively "heroic" forms of it).

Here Hahn is just completely wrong. There is, in fact an immune system. The cells can be seen clearly under a microscope and through dissection, it can be seen as a lymphatic circulatory system fully integrated into the blood circular system. Yes, when you have a communicable disease, there is an immune response, but treatments may or may not be directed against the disease. The treatment may be worse than the disease, so treating the symptoms is a far more helpful, and your immune system can then finish off the microorganism. Here also Hahnemann is promoting a silly notion that iatrogenic (something to do with medical errors) are much greater than what is known. The web sites listed under iatrogenic promote whacky, unsupported ideas such that mercury amalgam fillings cause alzheimers disease, and that over 100,000 people die every year in standard hospitals due to error. These misplaced facts are shameless promotion of medical fraud and have no basis whatsoever.


Hahnemann put forward your synopsis of disease origins at Article 201 of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE -- http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html -- because allopaths and homeopaths both kept asking him this question. Most advanced homeopaths, however, prefer to define diseases in a generic way by terms like diseases are altered health or is a dynamic disordering of health.

But we will acquiesce to it arising from an internal malfunction so long as you mean what we do by "internal" and "external," which will be unlikely since allopathic medicine in today's form arose from the natural sciences and thus from reductionistic, methodistic, mechanistic, materialistic, biochemical and pathophysiological observations about causes and effects that thus have intrinsic limitations and are strewn with a great many doctrinal assumptions that, except for antibiotics (which were a total accident, mind you), have not yet proven effective constructs, namely, Receptor-Site Theory.

I enirely agree with much of what you say here- but, unfortunately you left out 1) rhGH, a treatment for Crohn's disease and drawfism is based on the hGH receptor to release IGF-1, and 2) Atropene is based on the acetylcholinesterase enzyme which binds to a receptor in the muscle tissue. Atropene interferes with pesticide and chemical weapons action in the receptor site on AChE, preventing death. Every US soldier carries a shot of this life saving medicine. I suppose its all for show though right Hahn? rhGH is made by Genentech in San Francisco Hahn, just look it up. Yes, modern medicine is derived from objective research, and not on vague, nonsensical logical flaws like homeopathy.


I say this knowing that the whole of allopathic pharmacology assigns specific target sites for all of its drugs; however, you had better be ready to admit that these are all total assumptions since those pharmacognostic scientists would have otherwise been able to design at least one drug based upon Receptor-Site Theory.


See above.


In short, diseases arise from both directions of causes and effects, and they exist in both levels of being.

I hope that is not confusing, for it is something of a prideful notion with us that we hold a sciento-philosophic balance between purely materialistic and purely esoteric constructs seen in other therapies, i.e., Rationalist and Empiricist allopathy and low- and high-potency pseudo-homeopathy (LPH & HPH).

--------

No, these are succussed high dilutions.

You left out the critical part, for mere dilution gets nothing medicinal.

Indeed, it is part of the mystery Tim and I are out scouring scientific sites looking for possible explanations, for potentization or dynamization in homeopathy simply refers to that vigorous aggitation of half-full vials.

Hahnemann specifically directed they be slammed against the back of a leather book a set number of times, but we have long since developed succussion machines to do this strident or aggressive shaking of half-full vials.

Call a homeopathic pharmacy and ask them to let you hear a potentization machine.

It's really not much different from the aggitation machines seen in paint stores, although we control the number of succussions delivered to solutions.

As for saying that they are "diluted . . . to a point where it [the crude substance in the original tincture] is theoretically non-existent in the preparation," we actually almost exclusively use only such subAvogrean drugs in the c-potencies, while the Q-scale of potencies (quinquaginta-millesimal or so-called Millesimal potencies, LMs) settle all potency issues and begin in so-called "tangible doses" until they become ultramolecular at about the 4th step, called out as Q4.

That is the mystery: these drugs should NOT have effect but do.

Want to help us figure it out?

It's a big ole long mystery, but Tim and I feel it's worth a look at again since Shiu Yin Lo's photos show something is definitely at work in succussed high dilutions to form apparently unique crystals of water and/or alcohol on a nanometer scale AT ROOM TEMPERATURE.

Tim, tell them how to read where this started with us at homeopathyhome.com, for I tire of it.

----------



Yes, "trans" is also a viable prefex, but tradition has it as ultramolecular drugs for about 100 years.

--------



So disease arises from both causes and effects. Huh? Isnt the cause of the disease the cause? If the effects were there, the disease would have already been caused.
Also, just because something is being done- like shaking- does not mean it is useful. Every test of homeopathy under conditions which control for cheating has been negative.

Kinda sorta.

Allopathy literally means "contrary or other suffering.

It refers to the fact that all other therapies base their therapeutic approaches upon other than the Law of Similars or symptom similarity and in one way or another upon the doctrine of contraries as traditionally manifested back into the HIPPOCRATIC CORPUS and beyond.

There are two basic kinds of allopathic therapies, though, and it is good to remember this.

Rationalist allopathy is a kind of quasi-militaristic approach that arose out of Western medicine's emphasis upon the natural sciences, which thus ignored the herbalists.

The doctrine of the proximate cause does yoemen's service in Rationalist allopathy.

Empiricist allopathy is a healing strategem in which the healing power of nature and notions of toxicity and being in balance are constantly invoked.

But they all view diseases in the same manner, no matter how slightly differently; i.e., per disease-diagnostic categories.

They are all, indeed, allopathic.


Here Hahnemann goes on to create a false belief that there are contradicting and antagonistic sects in standard medicine. There are not- science follows a simple principle, that is to test for falsifiability. Medicine is tested under controlled conditions to prevent bias and cheating. So studies are designed "blind" so that the physician does not know what they are giving the patient, nor does the patient know either. In this way the results can be evaluated. In Homeopathy, this simple design has shown it to be indistinguishable from a shot of regular water. This is why Hahnemann must discredit fair testing, because Homeopaths must cheat and distort the truth to continue to sell the most expensive bottled water in the world.

I find it strange that Hahnemann does not support other "holistic" healers. Is this common in UK? Here in the US, it seems they all flock together despite their totally exclusive healing claims.

[ElectricFetus]

Thank you Quasi,

I have been pointing out fallacies too much on other post thought I would scale back and focus on one or two major problems (like their constant lack of providing evidence!!!) now with people like you around I don’t need to worry about being called an ass or "dam its fetus and his fallacy again…”

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by timokay
Hans,

Some answers.

Ahh, at last. Thank you!

I have been away from this forum...note that Fetus has gone back into his jar.
(The person you call "Hahnemannian" is Albert.)

Yes, I noticed as much.

This whole issue is still being debated and the "disease management center" is just a proposal. We don't have the answers yet - I have not been studying Homeopathy for long, started with Hahnemann's books, from which logical models have been proposed (using my background in Medical Science/Systems Analysis).

So, you are merely guessing? However, whatever it is, why should we have a built-in function to make us ill??

Hahnemann makes a point about how one disease affects another in the same patient...the stronger suspends the weaker...but how could this be coordinated, with the immune system involving billions of cells and so much of the body?

This is not correct. You can have several diseases at the same time. This is sometimes called a syndrome. The idea that the stronger disease suspends the weaker comes from simple attention focus: If you have a strong symptom, you will not notice a light one, but that does not mean it has gone away.

It COULD be accomplished by the diffuse immune system, but I suspect that the Brain coordinates. It doesn't really matter where it is logically, at this stage, just that it must exist. If you look in scienceforums.net (click on "forums" and select forum ==> "General Science, topic "Not Science, we are told") you will see latest posts from Albert and I.

No. The way to conduct a debate is by presenting your arguments. I will not search for it all over the place. Cut and paste if you will, but present your arguments here.

Yes, Albert can explain how important the procedure is for gathering all symptoms from the patient. The first consultation can take up to 2 hours, I understand, and the doctor has to be very observant.

That's nice, but experience shows that you cannot reliably make a diagnosis by asking the patient what is wrong. Several disorders have very weak and diffuse symptoms, e.g. hypertension.

The information is gathered in a special way, with certain symptoms considered more important than others when it comes to medicine selection.

I think Albert and I are coming closer together on our opinions about the actual nature of the medicines (again see scienceforums.net).

Good for you.

RE. The "memory" aspect of it, I believe the medicine molecules affect the shape of the water/ethanol polymers or clusters formed during the succussion steps. There is evidence for this going back to 1975, which seems to be based on Stephenson's Hypothesis.

There is no such thing as water polymers. If you have evidence, please present it.

It is difficult to know what the body's immune system makes of these strange crystals/clusters..they quickly dissolve away..but apparently trigger an immune response of some kind before that, and the resulting symptom patterns. Either they act in this way on the immune system or they act more directly on the brain.
Anyone can go into a drugstore/chemist and buy one of these medicines and try them..they will produce symptoms..showing them not to be the "just nothing" Medical Science claims, in its ignorance.

Ahh! This is a thing that could easily be tested.

You mean "Scientifically" testable. They have been tested thousands of times within Homeopathy for the last 213 years.
Before Science can test Homeopathy, it should understand something about it.

Not at all. A scientific test can disclose an effect even if the causal mechanism is unknown. This is the beauty of the scientific method. If Homeopathy can affect a disease, it can be proven in a double-blind placebo-controlled test. If a Homeopathic drug causes a symptom, it can be proven in such a test. This has nothing to do with belief or understanding.

Homeopathy and Medical Science are like chalk and cheese. They are completely separate disciplines, don't even agree on what a "disease" is.

But I assume we can agree that if the patient gets better, then the treatment has an effect?

Science says its a disease agent, of course, which invades the body, and is eradicated. But, IS IT A DISEASE if it doesn't even produce symptoms? We get infected every day, don't know about it because the immune system destroys it without us knowing.

Ahh, so you do acknowledge that the immune system fights infections to keep us from illness?

Homeopathy identifies diseases by the symptom patterns they produce...no symptoms, no disese.

A very dangerous philosophy, since several diseases have very benign symptoms, if any at all, in the beginning. Examples are hypertension, type 2 diabetes, syphilis.

And, the disease agent itself is rarely the problem...it should have been eradicated without symptoms...symptoms mean there is a problem with the immune system...THAT is the "dis-ease" - the fault in the immune system of this particular person.

What is your evidence for this claim? Several infectious agents produce consistent disease symptoms, even if they are later eradicated by the immune system.

Albert (Hahnemannian) sits on one side of the fence, Medical Science on the other...they don't get on well together. I think it refreshing for a Homeopath to actually hit back - not many do, though they are justified. Science says their whole life's work is nothing more than a PLACEBO EFFECT.

Well, it is not pleasant to be told that, but that is what evidence points at. And I'm afraid that medical science is more concerned by the welfare of patients than by the feelings of homeopaths.

Although I have a Science background, I see a great deal of injustice (lies) w.r.t. Science's views of Homeopathy, and these should be corrected.

What injustices? Evidence? What keeps homeopaths from documenting their claims, if they can?

Homeopathy CAN cure these conditions by the correct way, by helping the body's own defences to deal with it - resolve it completely. The body uses a complicated hierarchy of cascading processes, evolved over many millions of years, to deal with disease- the WHOLE disease, ie., ALL symptoms associated with it.

Please, support your claims with evidence.

Suppressing some symptoms of the disease is only a partial fix, obstructs the natural processes mentioned above, (and is usually destructive because it works AGAINST these processes).

In some cases, it is the only path open to us at present (e.g. diabetes).

Unfortunately, virtually all of them do more harm than good. It depends on which medicine we are talking about. Initially, it may seem to help symptoms...but there is often a heavy price to pay later.

If medical science "does more harm than good", please explain how it has been so successful in battling a long row of diseases (I mentioned a few earlier), and why is it that populations with good coverage of modern medicine have life expectancies around 80 years, whereas populations which do not have access to such medicine have life expectancies of about half that figure?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Thank you, Hans.

This is more helpful, for I often seem to assume a great deal is understood about homeopathy and therefore sometimes provide explanations a little too advanced for many.

I will therefore correct these mistakes and then take your questions, for I was going to go back through this discussion to see if I missed any.

This will be easier.

----------

I quote you and then correct them:



No, it literally means "similar suffering."

Homo = same; homeo = similar.

Pathy = suffering, which in medicine refers to diseases in general and symptoms in particular since diseases can only make themselves known to our senses by symptoms, but pathy literally means suffering.

I dont see any fundamental difference here, but have it your way.

And this is very important to understand, for all allopathic therapies assume that diseases can be categorized according to disease-diagnostic categories -- remembering that diagnosis literally means "to thoroughly know" something -- which means per the symptoms common to large numbers of people; however, that is an artificial and unreal or statistically abstract view of diseases since NO curable patient has only those common symptoms and ALL curable patients have the highly individualizing, differential UNCOMMON symptoms with which Hahnemannian homeopaths and some high-potency pseudo-homeopaths (HPHs) determine a remedy diagnosis or prescription for a person, not for a disease.

Things would be much simpler if you could just explain and suppoer homeopathy, instead of mixing it with your constant attacks on allopathy, especially as those attacks constantly reveal your limited knowledge of same. Also, even if you could discredit medical science, this would not be evidence for homeopathy.

This is a basic premise of homeopathy that separates it from all other therapies, including the so-called holistic or alternative therapies (that's a farse), which are actually just part of the Empiricist half of allopathy while so-called modern medicine (that's also a farse) is historically part of the Rationalist school of allopathy.

Yes, as I noted, allopathy is anything that is not homeopathy.

Both of those are seen throughout history, but homeopathy appears to precede both of them in that it is also seen as -- in addition to Spagyric medicine in Europe from the 5th through 17th centuries -- Hermetic medicine in ancient Egypt and some unknown form of homeopathy in ancient India as witnessed by the four Laws of Therapeutics (and thus the rest by extention) being seen within the BHAGWAT PURANA of the ancient Rama Empire or what academics are calling the Harappan Culture of the Indus Valley, both cultures appearing on the historical scene without a period of progress and thus obviously coming from somewhere else already civilized.

Great age is not exactly a recommendation in the medical business.


No, it's not based upon any assumptions; it's based upon the natural Law of Similars, which, like all natural laws, is part of the fabric of space and has been in existence since Creation as an absolute for the cure of unnecessary human and animal suffering always only awaiting rediscovery by an astute individual like C.F.S. Hahnemann.

Since it has not been backed by evidence, I will take the liberty of terming it "assumption".

If you want to refer to basic assumptions of homeopathy, you cannot say that homeopathy is based upon any of them, for it is based upon the 10 absolute natural Laws of Medidine that allopaths only vainly say they search for but constantly demonstrate that is a lie since we have been offering them these for 213 years.

What are those laws?


Maybe, kinda sorta.

Causes of disease are pretty much dismissed as assumptions in homeopathy, and we observe that everywhere except in infectious diseases these causes are going to be mere effects since all evidence has pointed to a disordered or no-longer-integral vital force or etheric pattern for chronic diseases, which in homeopathy means all others.

More assumptions

Indeed, the "acute diseases," by which Hahnemann meant what we today call infectious illnesses, all require something akin to the foregoing disordered organizational level of the organism, because they all necessitate an immune system that is either immature (as in the case of children), dysfunctional (allopathic medicine seems to do this with all therapies) or fully compromised (dito allopathy's iatrogenic influences when their therapies are applied long-term and especially when with the aggressively "heroic" forms of it).

More assumptions

Hahnemann put forward your synopsis of disease origins at Article 201 of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE -- http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html -- because allopaths and homeopaths both kept asking him this question. Most advanced homeopaths, however, prefer to define diseases in a generic way by terms like diseases are altered health or is a dynamic disordering of health.

But we will acquiesce to it arising from an internal malfunction so long as you mean what we do by "internal" and "external," which will be unlikely since allopathic medicine in today's form arose from the natural sciences and thus from reductionistic, methodistic, mechanistic, materialistic, biochemical and pathophysiological observations about causes and effects that thus have intrinsic limitations and are strewn with a great many doctrinal assumptions that, except for antibiotics (which were a total accident, mind you), have not yet proven effective constructs, namely, Receptor-Site Theory.

Still more assumptions. You do wise to acknowledge antibiotics, since you would be in grave trouble dismissing them. But how do you explain that a drug that kills bacteria can cure diseases? This seems contradict homeopathic doctrine. Many drugs are found "by accident", however, scientific testing proves their effect and puts them to use.

I say this knowing that the whole of allopathic pharmacology assigns specific target sites for all of its drugs; however, you had better be ready to admit that these are all total assumptions since those pharmacognostic scientists would have otherwise been able to design at least one drug based upon Receptor-Site Theory.

No, the effect of scientific drugs are not assumptions, thet are validated by testing. I do not understand the rest of your statement.

And, as for a "disease-management center" in the brain, Tim came up with that.

Nobody I know of or have ever read have been inclined to assign any particular place in the physical organism as a major or the major center for disease management.

It's a fancy notion, but I am not sure our understanding of neurology can support it.

It would stand to reason that some sort of thing like that exists, but nobody in homeopathy I am aware of has ever put forward that hypothesis.

Well, you'll have to sort that out among yourselves, but obviously some sort of mechanism is assumed to exist, and the question still stands: What is the purpose of such a mechanism?

Am seriously interested in what you think of Tim's notions, for he has clearly given a great deal of thought to them; whereas I hold that because we use ultramolecular, subAvogadrean drugs, we're forced to think in terms of the etheric pattern of organism and drug for scientific explanations of phenomena.

I do not understand the last part of your statement.

You clearly wouldn't like my explanations, but such explanations are meaningless as far as cures are concerned anyway, and I know how to do Hahnemannian homeotherapeutics.

True. If your explanations are meaningless, I will not like them. Yes, I am willing to take you word for it that you master these procedures, but can you prove that they work?


That's not a classical/Hahnemannian explanation of the mechanism.

Hahnemann observed that similar drugs cure and most similar drugs cure best and fastest.

For individual patients, these class as a great many drugs each called the simile compared with one simillimum ("thing most similar").

With the simile, we zig zag cases to cure over a much longer period of time compared with the simillimum; and in serious cases, the simile simply won't do, which is one of the reasons it is vitally important to make no mistakes and thus prescribe according to Hahnemannian precepts since Hahnemann apparently did settle all of the issues of homeotherapeutics, as we have repeatedly found over these subsequent decades since 1843.

Again, speculations lead nowhere, evidence does.

Likewise, although Tim has demonstrated that it seems to be quite difficult to tell exactly what Hahnemann meant by terms like vital force, vital principle of life, dynamic nature of disease and of medicines, "dynamis" and the like, it is not classical for homeopaths to refer to diseases and the human organism as being purely physical.

We have always been dynamists, meaning physicians in the middle of the schism of materialists on the one side and vitalists on the other.

In short, diseases arise from both directions of causes and effects, and they exist in both levels of being.

The last sentence does not seem tto make sense.

I hope that is not confusing, for it is something of a prideful notion with us that we hold a sciento-philosophic balance between purely materialistic and purely esoteric constructs seen in other therapies, i.e., Rationalist and Empiricist allopathy and low- and high-potency pseudo-homeopathy (LPH & HPH).

??

No, these are succussed high dilutions.

You left out the critical part, for mere dilution gets nothing medicinal.

I left it out intentionally, for simplicity. I am sorry that this seems to have been the important part.

Indeed, it is part of the mystery Tim and I are out scouring scientific sites looking for possible explanations, for potentization or dynamization in homeopathy simply refers to that vigorous aggitation of half-full vials.

So you cannot answer the question then?

Hahnemann specifically directed they be slammed against the back of a leather book a set number of times, but we have long since developed succussion machines to do this strident or aggressive shaking of half-full vials.

Call a homeopathic pharmacy and ask them to let you hear a potentization machine.

Oh, I believe you. But my question was: Provided some memory mechanism DOES exist, how is the water supposed to know which of the multitude of compounds it has been exposed to it should remember? Any water sample will have been exposed to innumerable substances over time, how is the right one selected?

It's really not much different from the aggitation machines seen in paint stores, although we control the number of succussions delivered to solutions.

As for saying that they are "diluted . . . to a point where it [the crude substance in the original tincture] is theoretically non-existent in the preparation," we actually almost exclusively use only such subAvogrean drugs in the c-potencies, while the Q-scale of potencies (quinquaginta-millesimal or so-called Millesimal potencies, LMs) settle all potency issues and begin in so-called "tangible doses" until they become ultramolecular at about the 4th step, called out as Q4.

"Ultramolecular" is an assumed function. You have no evidence that such a state exists.

That is the mystery: these drugs should NOT have effect but do.

Want to help us figure it out?

Well, if you can prove that they do, I'm sure lots of people will be interested.

It's a big ole long mystery, but Tim and I feel it's worth a look at again since Shiu Yin Lo's photos show something is definitely at work in succussed high dilutions to form apparently unique crystals of water and/or alcohol on a nanometer scale AT ROOM TEMPERATURE.

Yes, I have seen Shiu Yin Lo's photos, but obviously, they could be anything. He has not published any protocol for obtainnig those pictures.

Tim, tell them how to read where this started with us at homeopathyhome.com, for I tire of it.

This is where we debate, this is where you present your evidence. References are fine, indeed commendable, but I will not run around everywhere to gather YOUR arguments for you. Let me put this in another way: There exists literally TONS of literature presenting evidence for medical science. I do not just ask you to read through it, since you could not do that in a lifetime.

Yes, "trans" is also a viable prefex, but tradition has it as ultramolecular drugs for about 100 years.

Kinda sorta.

Allopathy literally means "contrary or other suffering."

It refers to the fact that all other therapies base their therapeutic approaches upon other than the Law of Similars or symptom similarity and in one way or another upon the doctrine of contraries as traditionally manifested back into the HIPPOCRATIC CORPUS and beyond.

There are two basic kinds of allopathic therapies, though, and it is good to remember this.

Rationalist allopathy is a kind of quasi-militaristic approach that arose out of Western medicine's emphasis upon the natural sciences, which thus ignored the herbalists.

Yes, modern medicine is very militant about proof. Prove your claims and you're in, fail to prove them, and you're out. Good for the patients, you know. Keeps the snake oil out.

The doctrine of the proximate cause does yoemen's service in Rationalist allopathy.

Empiricist allopathy is a healing strategem in which the healing power of nature and notions of toxicity and being in balance are constantly invoked.

But they all view diseases in the same manner, no matter how slightly differently; i.e., per disease-diagnostic categories.

They are all, indeed, allopathic.

This is succinctly stated at Article 52 of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE: http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html.

That's Rationalist allopathy, which we usually just call allopathy since the Empiricist spectrum is such a small group in the alternative therapies.

And I would like to point out who coined that designation, "scientific medicine."

No less than Sir William Osler, M.D., gave us the term scientific medicine.

That is the gentleman who was the demagogue of allopathic medicine from about 1880-1920.

But get this: he was still advocating and applying bloodletting as late as 1914!

Geeeeeze!

How does this vindicate homeopathy? It is not very interesting how the state of medicine was in 1914. If you haven't noticed, quite a few things has happened since.

See what we mean by occasionally calling homeopathy 25th-century medicine when we see such outrageous monstrosity all throughout allopathic history.

No, I do not. No matter what others do or do not, homeopathy is still 18th century medicine.

-------

ahbeback [/B]

Hans

[Hahnemannian]

Hans said:

I dont see any fundamental difference here, but have it your way.

Okay, then, I'll explain it since it is VERY important.

Homo-pathy (not homeopathy), as you would have it be the same thing, refers to something IDENTICAL used to cure.

A famous example is the class of drugs in homeopathy called nosodes.

Nosodes are pathological tissues that have been potentized.

There are a great many of them.

When these were introduced by low-potency pseudo-homeopaths (LPHs, i.e., allopathic homeopaths, who outnumber us about 10,000 to one), Hahnemannians were all opposed to their usage because they were assininely prescribed for people with those diseases from which the tissues were extracted and homeopathically potentized.

LPHs still do this, but Hahnemannians have since made the best of a bad thing by proving these substances till we now know their homeopathic indications; i.e., they generally entered the homeopathic pharmacopia and materia medica without having undergone homeopathic proving (prufung means "test or trial") from idiotic LPHs trying to find one of their stupid shortcuts because they do everything wrong and are in no way homeopaths nor is what they do in any way, shape or form homeotherapeutics.

Incidentally, the so-called tests of homeopathy have all been from these fools, so only somebody who knows absolutely nothing correct about homeopathy ever says it has been tested, and that is an inescapable fact.

So homopathy refers to what is classically called Isopathy.

Koch was, I believe, famous amongst LPHs for saying that Isopathy was similar to what he was doing with his evil vaccinations.

Isopathy is not homeopathy, so this is VERY important that you not make light of it.

Mark that I took you at your word that you're interested in knowing what is and is not homeopathy, so I hope you do not frequently do this since I previously ignored you but have given you another chance.

Tim and I are here looking for help, but I will answer your questions while I can.

[Hahnemannian]

Hans next says:

Things would be much simpler if you could just explain and suppoer homeopathy, instead of mixing it with your constant attacks on allopathy, especially as those attacks constantly reveal your limited knowledge of same. Also, even if you could discredit medical science, this would not be evidence for homeopathy.

Wao, pal!

You made an incorrect statement; I corrected it.

If you didn't want me to stipulate a major difference between homeopathy and allopathy, then you should not have made that mistake, right?

If you think it is not important to point out one of the chief differences in the therapeutics of allopathy and homeopathy, then why the interest here?

And I know allopathy quite well.

If you are going to suggest that all allopathic therapies do not rely upon a disease diagnosis, then you are the one who knows nothing about allopathy.

It's a ridiculous practice too, for pathology has absolutely nothing to do with therapeutics given that curative therapeutics is based upon the four Laws of Therapeutics.

Also, even if you could discredit medical science, this would not be evidence for homeopathy.

Well, we have a situation of a worldwide cartel by a system of medicine that admits to therapeutic incompetence in all but bacterial diseases, which are a minor fraction of all cases and are largely self-limited diseases in our times; so, what exactly is incorrect about pointing the absurdity that allopathy has absolutely NO place in disease therapeutics, and by their own admission to being quacks practicing quackery?

How about a sense of social justice?

Allopaths kill all of their patients.

So let's take them at their word about being therapeutically incompetent and therefore guilty of at least manslaughter in all of their cases, okay?

I'd off their heads in a second to stop the mass murder, pal!

[MRC_Hans]

Sure, I wanted to know what homeopathy is about. But most of all, I wanted to know if you had any evidence that it works. I'm still waiting for that.

Yes I agree that allopathic methods rely on diagnosis (I am here excluding certain more exotic schools that are really neither allopathic nor homeopatic).

You are looking for help? Well, I can help you design an experiment that will prove or disprove the efficiacy of homeopathy......

Hans

[Hahnemannian]

Hans says, in abject ignorance for which I mean to stick it to him:

Great age is not exactly a recommendation in the medical business.

Absolutely true in vile allopathy, which changes from day to day and has no stable or cumulative therapeutics due to total ignorance of the basic business of medicine.

So you are caught here exposing the vile ignorance of the whole of allopathy, for it is the 10 Laws of Medicine -- viz., the four Laws of Therapeutics, the four Laws of Cure, the Law of Chronic Diseases (provided by the Spagyric physicians), and a 10th law general to all therapies whether or not they cure -- that makes homeopathy stable and cumulative and the lack of awareness of them that makes allopathy part of the Dark Ages with exactly those same results they have always had.

So, yes, considering that homeopathy is the actual practice of the Science of Medicine and that allopathy still cannot cure, naturally you would say that it's not a good idea to go back in history to show great antiquity and stability plus a cumulative knowledge such that everything every known is still valid since you cannot do it and are supporting a system of medicine that was incredibly still doing bloodletting as late as 1914!

Again and again and again, allopathy has absolutely no place in disease therapeutics.

Homeopathy can cure for 1001 reasons, but one of them is that it is NOT murderous and unscientific allopathy.

[Hahnemannian]

After I pointed out that homeopathy is not based upon any assumptions, as Hans suggested it was, but instead is based upon the Law of Similars, Hans then said this:

Since it has not been backed by evidence, I will take the liberty of terming it "assumption".

That is absolutely not true.

The fact that you have not bothered to look at the clinical history of homeopathy, which is an integral part of the history of medicine, incidentally, simply means that you have no right to make any statement whatsoever about the evidence since your laziness and carelessness about being a scientist is to blame for not investigating the evidence that all of homeopathy is.

All of you guys do this and think you can get away with it, but there is not a single one of you who can claim to be a scientist and say anything deleterious about the evidence that is homeopathy since that is a contradiction in terms given that Hahnemann fulfilled his part of the scientific process by declaring and demonstrating his cures based upon the provings and the Law of Similars (and the other natural Laws of Medicine) and then explained everything about how to verify his findings and do homeotherapeutics in the ORGANON OF MEDICINE.

So don't think that I will let any of you get away with that lie for even a second.

You are not a scientist, and you prove it by every statement of opposition and doubt about homeopathy, for we have already verified and tested Hahnemann's assertions and findings.

You're not a scientist, and don't you dare have the audacity to pretend to be so with your stance about homeopathy, for that makes you a liar.

[Hahnemannian]

Hans then asks:

What are those laws?

A. Four Laws of Therapeutics (in this order of importance):

1. The Law of Similars;
2. The Law of the Single Remedy (these are direct cognates, and they are indirect cognates of the next two);
3. The Law of the Single Remedy; and
4. The Law of the Minimum (misnomer) or Optimally Ultramolecular Dose.

B. Four Laws of Cure, also called Hering's Laws:

1. During cure symptoms proceed in the reverse order of occurance (Time);
2. During cure symptoms proceed from center to periphery in these specific forms:
2) During cure symptoms move from within outwards in terms of a four-cone, four-plane, four-octave model of human existence (Space);
3) During cure symptoms move from more important to less important organs (Energy); and
4) During cure symptoms move from above downward (Matter).

C. The Law of Chronic Diseases: Chronic external diseases are cured only by internal medicines, external and internal here also having reference to the four-cone, four-plane, four-octave model of human existence.

D. The last Law of Medicine is one I never remember because it almost never comes up and has little to do with curative therapeutics but instead refers to something that all therapies have in common. Hahnemann spoke about this in small works compiled by a student at the 50th anniversary of his having obtained the right to practice medicine in Saxony and the greater Prusian Empire, which that student had bound and entitled THE LESSER WRITINGS OF SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.

Without the Laws of Therapeutics, which allopathy will forever suffer, no cure can occur and for more than one reason.

The Laws of Cure are really just the converse of pathological progressions, so it should be that everyone had noticed them; however, that is a far-flung notion since no other therapy is aware of any of them.

The Law of Chronic Diseases states why all allopathic therapies suppress diseases and hopelessly disorder them to the point of rapidly making all of its patients totally incurable, for allopathic therapies do not follow that Law of Medicine either.

[Hahnemannian]

In both instances where Hans, the allopath or supporter of allopathy, says:

More assumptions

That is untrue.

These are not assumptions.

However, it is becoming clear that I assumed you're interested in knowing how to cure instead of engaging in sophistries, presumptions and outright falsehoods to dismiss homeopathy.

Such people haven't got a leg to stand on, and they certainly deserve their destined iatrogenic death in allopathic hands since they would withold homeopathy from others out of misguided sincerity on the order of a crime.

[Hahnemannian]

Hans asks:

Still more assumptions. You do wise to acknowledge antibiotics,

I most certainly have by pointing out that bacterial diseases are the ONLY diseases allopathy can claim credit in.

However, the fact remains that the only way to truly cure any disease without sequal diseases is via homeotherapeutics.

I like antibiotics as a nice safety valve should I fail to find the person's simillimum when suffering with a bacterial disease.

Unfortunately, almost all patients today are so allopathically brainwashed that only my long-term patients avoid them unless necessary.

Antibiotics are responsible for lots of more serious diseases, we do not care one whit if allopathically brainwashed/indoctrined/conditioned and "educated" people hold otherwise, for the Laws of Cure demonstrate what we say is true.

And you say you want evidence and yet are not in the slightest bit informed of that evidence?

Tell us more lies.

But how do you explain that a drug that kills bacteria can cure diseases?

Because that's not what it does.

It only gets rid of a causative agent, but cure is something far more than that.

You people do not see your patient's sufferings in an historical context, and that's one of the reasons why any involvement with allopaths leads to death since that is precisely what allopathy does precisely because it DOES NOT CURE and makes no claims to doing so, and rightly so.

The well-known but poorly understood progressions of diseases in the clinical record of allopathy demonstrates this premise.

You people just ignore these things.

Why?

[Hahnemannian]

Hans then says:

Many drugs are found "by accident",

That's not true either.

The therapeutic effects of ALL allopathic drugs are found by accident.

You people just stumble along and claim to be scientific medicine, which is an obscene lie.

[Hahnemannian]

Here is my remark and Hans' response:

[Me:] I say this knowing that the whole of allopathic pharmacology assigns specific target sites for all of its drugs; however, you had better be ready to admit that these are all total assumptions since those pharmacognostic scientists would have otherwise been able to design at least one drug based upon Receptor-Site Theory.

[Hans:] No, the effect of scientific drugs are not assumptions, thet are validated by testing. I do not understand the rest of your statement.


Okay, this is a tough one for you guys, for you accept a great many mechanisms of diseases and drugs relating to Receptor-Site Theory.

However, if that theory were true, then the knowledge claimed for it would have permitted allopathic phamaceutical firms to have designed at least one drug over the last 50 years they have been trying based upon that theory.

Therefore, we are surely permitted to say that the theory is wrong and the assumptions about receptor sites in diseases and drug actions are somehow wrong.

Mind you, that I am fully aware that this strips from you everything about your doctine of disease and drug mechanism, which replaced disease-entity theory and is presently being replaced by DNA theory as merely another in an endless line of allopathic theories about the proximate cause of diseases.

This is one of the reasons that Hahnemann and Hahnemannians totally dismiss notions about disease causes, for it never other than effects no matter what level of the cellular apparatus is proceed to, for you are still talking about the physical organism in a being that obviously also exists as an Etheric being or death would not find everything physical still there at death.

Receptor-Site Theory is one of the most elegant of allopathic constructs and one very difficult to wholly dismiss as useless due to all of the effort exerted to substantiate it, but the fact remains that at least one drug would have been designed were Receptor-Site Theory a valid explanation for diseases and chemical-drug actions.

[Hahnemannian]

I said and then you remarked:

[Me:] whereas I hold that because we use ultramolecular, subAvogadrean drugs, we're forced to think in terms of the etheric pattern of organism and drug for scientific explanations of phenomena.

[Hans:] I do not understand the last part of your statement.



Yeah, we live in a time in which physicists have inadvertently verified the existence of the Ether or Etheric Plane of existence by having over 20 synonyms for it and major manifestations of it.

They have accumulated these over the last century but have principally admitted to them in the last 20 years in the form of virtual particles and the vacuum energy of empty space.

Newton had no problem with the Etherial Medium, but physicists dismissed the Ether with developments in electromagnetism, quantum mechanics and then Einstein's work.

But note that Einstein provided a synonyms for the Ether called the cosmological constant.

DeBroglie had his subquantic medium.

We have quintessence from String Theory to explain matter in black holes, and this construct describes etheric particles.

These examples go on to over 20 in number.

It is important because homeopaths have been demonstrating the existence of the Ether with subAvogadrean, ultramolecular, etheric drugs for our entire history.

These cannot have any other explanation than being etheric medicines.

[Hahnemannian]

Yes, I am willing to take you word for it that you master these procedures, but can you prove that they work?

I have not said I've mastered them.

I generally fail to make mistakes as I did earlier in my life as a high-potency pseudo-homeopath, but that is a long ways from mastering them.

It's damn hard to do it even marginally well, and that's why we're willing to exhaustively explain such things to others looking into it up to those we call high-potency pseudo-homeopaths, for it is the lack of mistakes that mostly defines Hahnemannians.

That doesn't mean I don't make mistakes in therapeutic decisions, but I at least recognize them and correct them.

P.P. Wells, whom I quoted above (I think at this site) said it took him 25 years to get it right.

I will be in my 26th year of homeopathy later this year, and I can honestly say I finally understand that statement.

----------

All homeopathic cures prove that it works.

There are tens of thousands of published case studies.

You can prove it to yourself too.

[Hahnemannian]

Hans says:

Again, speculations lead nowhere, evidence does.

Fine, so what's keeping you from examining and then testing the evidence?

213 years is a bit late, isn't it?

[ElectricFetus]

We would love to examine the evidence if you would provide it.

[Hahnemannian]

I made this statement and Hans replied thusly:

[Me:] In short, diseases arise from both directions of causes and effects, and they exist in both levels of being.

[Hans:]The last sentence does not seem tto make sense.


Diseases arise from both the physical and Etheric levels of being, and they exist in both realms too.

The form they take on as disease agents and influences physically include pathogens, vaccines (including the foreign proteins that come with them), free radicals, nutritional deficiencies, recreational drugs, allopathic drugs and others causes that escape me at the moment.

The psychological level of disease causes exist as stress, grief, injustices, untoward emotions, anxiety, guilt, fear, brainwashing/hypnosis and other particulars that all point to a disordering of the etheric pattern such that it is no longer integral.

So diseases clearly arise from both directions of being and exist in them as manifest by symptoms of a purely physical nature and symptoms that are purely mental and emotional in nature.

One of the apparent keys to cure is reaching the etheric level with ultramolecular drugs precisely suited to individual patients, for setting that level of being in order provides command over all diseases.

For instance, pathogens can push the physical organism to the limits of endurance, which in turn disorders the etheric pattern that is essentially constructed of the etheric particles of all of the subatomic particles comprising our physical organism.

Setting that level in order, rather than killing the microbe, is apparently how homeopathic cures of infectious diseases arises.

Many arguments in allopathic medicine are striving to do this in relation to strengthening the physical organism, but that does not work when a pathogen is at work in the organism, so the etheric pattern needs to be corrected and thereby strengthened.

These are advanced concepts that remain in the realm of theory.

We're wanting to know if they're valid or in what way they need to be modified, for they stand up in logic and empirical evaluations, but actual mechanisms are wanted.

It is enough that we know these things as absolutes per the Laws of Medicine, but we would still hope that some day will provide us with further explanations.

Unfortunately, we will probably never have knowledge of the mechanisms involved in homeotherapeutics because these are ultramolecular drugs that thus act at the Etheric level of existence, and no physical apparatus can detect etheric substance.

Characteristically, allopaths and those involved in the natural science dismiss such constructs, but we are living in a time in which non-physical particles are accepted in physics, so it is not us but allopaths and school scientists who are out of touch when they dismiss these notions.

It will take you guys time to absorb this issues, so it understood when you dismiss them out of skepticism; and we would not expect anything else of those who would "prove all things," as Hahnemann repeated admonished and voiced advice from his father.

[Hahnemannian]

Then you said about the succussion element of homeopathic pharmacology:

I left it out intentionally, for simplicity. I am sorry that this seems to have been the important part.

I understand.

It is incomprehensible that such a simple thing as merely shaking half-full vials of serial dilutions produces these medicines.

Tim and I are interested in finding lost research to explain it or people who can point out what we may not understand.

It is truly astonishing that something so simple makes our drugs uniquely curative given that the Law of Similars requires an optimally ultramolecular potency such that cure finally holds.

You can't leave this part out, but I understand why you might want to since the issue of the subAvogadrean dilutions is tough enough in itself.

I don't remember how I got around that initially, but I am sure I engaged in high-potency self-provings early on and thus had no doubts like others.

That's why Hahnemann's Art. 142 of the ORGANON is so important: http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html

[Hahnemannian]

Hans then says:

So you cannot answer the question then?

I responded to what you said by correcting it.

Do you see a question here:

Homeopathic medicines are prepeared by a dilution process where a so-
lution of the active ingredient is diluted over a series of steps, to
a point where it theoretically is non-existent in the preparation.
Some sort of "trans-molecular" effect is cited to make the preparation
still potent after the active ingredient has been diluted away.


If you do, tell me what it is and I will answer it if I can.

----------

I see you asked it next:

Oh, I believe you. But my question was: Provided some memory mechanism DOES exist, how is the water supposed to know which of the multitude of compounds it has been exposed to it should remember? Any water sample will have been exposed to innumerable substances over time, how is the right one selected?

My explanation suffices me, but we do not yet actually know.

My explanation is that each substance is composed of uniquely arranged atoms and subatomic particles, and every physical particle has an etheric counterpart which for some unknown reason and by some unknown mechanism orients the water molecules into apparently unique water crystals or ice at temperature that thus permit them to act etherically by holding space physically after their chemicals have been diluted.

But we don't actually know any of this yet.

Want to help us figure it out?

Allopathic medicine wastes billions of dollars on research every year with nothing but hoped-for results some day, some decade, some century down the road; whereas homeopathy cures and only wants to know some mysteries.

These mysteries are not of our making; allopathy medicine holds a total cartel of world medicine and refuses to go away even though it has never worked and cannot work since only the ultramolecular simillimum permits one command over diseases.

No, we don't know how this happens, and that is why Tim and I are here.

Somebody must know something that could unlock this secret.

It has to be in 1) electromagnetism of solutions, and 2) polymerization or crystalization of water and alcohol molecules.

[Hahnemannian]

Hans says:

"Ultramolecular" is an assumed function. You have no evidence that such a state exists.

I'd say that's true, and we are unlikely to ever be able to objectively prove it since no physical apparatus can detect etheric substance since the one is invisible to the other given a higher atomic nutational rate of the subatomic particles on the Etheric level called etheric particles.

However, lots of things in chemistry and physics are unprovable and yet accepted by virtue of their effects, so we will probably be dealing with this level of proof.

Irregardless, we know that subAvogadrean drugs cure.

We want to know how the pharmacology works, for this seem possible of penetration now that we have actual photographs from Shiu Yin Lo.

If you don't like the work ultramolecular, what do you suggest since etheric drugs is far more appropriate?

[Hahnemannian]

I said and then Hans says:

[Me:] That is the mystery: these drugs should NOT have effect but do.

Want to help us figure it out?

[Hans:] Well, if you can prove that they do, I'm sure lots of people will be interested.

Here is one of the most pitiful demonstrations of the pseudo-science involved in so-called tests of homeopathy, for there is one and only one way in which to thoroughly prove to oneself that these ultramolecular substances do have effects, but not a single one of these people who call themselve scientists have ever engaged in these tests.

Rather, those who have know and want to help us, like Tim.

But show me another as insightful as Tim.

Doesn't it strike you as a bit pitiful and pathetic that in all the world there is one bloke in chemistry who has tested homeopathy by high-potency self-proving?

Moreover, this is but the core of the problem of school scientists asking for evidence when homeopathy is nothing but evidence, and they fail to examine the evidence and then test it as they are supposed to before they have any right to any opinion about homeopathy.

But none of them do this.

Again, again, again, and again, Hahnemann fulfilled his part of the responsibilities as a scientist by reporting on his findings and then telling the world how to test and verify his evidence by writing the ORGANON OF MEDICINE.

Why have none of you people read this book and than done what you're supposed to have done as scientists?

And how do you dare have any opinion whatsoever on homeopathy without having even read the evidence that is the whole of homeopathy?

Read the books and journals and you'll see the evidence.

The provings are recorded in the materia medica of Hahnemann and a few others.

The case studies are in the journals and some of the books.

And the explanations of how it is done is in the ORGANON.

What is the problem here?

[Hahnemannian]

Hans:

Yes, I have seen Shiu Yin Lo's photos, but obviously, they could be anything. He has not published any protocol for obtainnig those pictures.

What?

It is not even a little coincidental to you that James H. Stephenson, M.D., hypothesized on polymerization of the water and alcohol molecules being the mechanism of homeopathic pharmacology, and then Shiu Yin Lo accidentally produced photos of succussed high dilutions while doing totally unrelated research in the private industry?

You think that nanometer-sized ice at room temperature from succussed high dilutions "could be anything?'

Would you care to explain that?

And if you have seen his photos, that means you have seen them in his book, where he most certainly did publish protocols for obtaining those pictures.

Is this an attempt to lie?

If it is, I am going to call you a liar! and worse!

[Hahnemannian]

Hans says:

This is where we debate, this is where you present your evidence.

Sir, I was asking Tim to tell you have to read the thread that started this for us at homeopathyhome.

I would be quoting myself.

And it is a long dialogue.

If you are not interested, that's fine.

What are we about here then?

[Hahnemannian]

Hans says:

References are fine, indeed commendable, but I will not run around everywhere to gather YOUR arguments for you.

If you are not going to gather and read the evidence, what point is there in proceeding here since that is your responsibility, not mine?

You people have yet to fulfill your half of the scientific responsibilties that Hahnemann fulfilled in 1810.

Who is a bit late, us or you?

[Hahnemannian]

I said and Hans responded:

[Me:] Rationalist allopathy is a kind of quasi-militaristic approach that arose out of Western medicine's emphasis upon the natural sciences, which thus ignored the herbalists.

[Hans:] Yes, modern medicine is very militant about proof. Prove your claims and you're in, fail to prove them, and you're out. Good for the patients, you know. Keeps the snake oil out.


That is not what I said; I said that allopathic medicine is quasi-militaristic in its approach to cases.

It wants to kill!

Well, guess what, it manages to kill bugs and people really efficiently.

That approach does not work in chronic diseases because the organism essentially attacks itself in them.

That is one of the insoluble problems with allopathic medicine that will never be solved, for they are Rationalist allopathy and can never modify it and be allopathy.

And if they modify to Empiricst allopathy, they will still be hamstrung with insoluble problems.

But it is a fact that modern medicine approaches therapeutics like military Minds, which is about as primitive and insane as human beings can get and remain a power structure.

----------

As for the evidence, I have said it enough times for you to have heard it.

If you refuse to examine the evidence, there is no reason to talk to you since I have done as much as I can in trying to explain things to you.

But I will not help those who refuse to help themselves unless they are my patients.

[Hahnemannian]

Hans says:

How does this vindicate homeopathy? It is not very interesting how the state of medicine was in 1914. If you haven't noticed, quite a few things has happened since.

Okay, then I will spell it out for you.

Nothing has changed in effects.

You people engaged in barbaric practices for 2600 known years of Western medicine and then suddenly got religion you deemed scientific medicine; however, the father of scientific medicine, as you call it, was the world champion of bloodletting as late as 1914.

Now, go backwards for 120 years and see how homeopathy had to put up with you guys doing bloodletting and calomelization plus all of the other vile mineral drugs you prescribed while homeopaths engaged in 25th-century medicine at this rate.

Incidentally, the effect of calomelization (mercuous oxidatum or the black oxide of mercury) was to sluff off all of the epithelial cells from the mouth to the anus, effectively rendering the person unable to either digest or assimilate nutrients.

You people have a horrendous history, and I am not going to let you get away with cavilerly ignoring it.

Your buddies murdered George Washington, pal, and they actually published the case report in pride.

Google "death of George Washington."

The man simply needed homeopathic Aconite in a single dose of 30c.

They murdered him!

This is the same thing that happens today.

The means have changed, but the effects are absolutely the same.

Allopathic medicine does nothing but create diseases and premature deaths.

If you hold otherwise, I guarantee you that it is your destiny to learn this firsthand.

I avoid allopaths like they are the plague, for I would just as soon cut off their heads if they do not want to know how to cure.

Nothing is different; it just looks like it: they still kill all of their patients and in just as ghastly horrible and agonally premature a state.

Allopathic medicine is not meant for civilized men or even animals.

One of the people frequently quoted by allopathic adherents is Oliver Wendel Holmes.

I have a goodie from him that collapses all of their misrepresentations of his thought: "The world would be best served if all of the [allopathic] drugs were dumped into the ocean."

Close but this is accurate: The world would be best served if all of the allopathic drugs and doctors were dumped into the ocean.

[ElectricFetus]

Hahnemannian,

You refuse to give use evidence on homeopathy, I'm not going to listen to any of this circumstantial evidence you spout in nearly endless post one after another, until you can provide clear proof homeopathy benefiting patients.

[Persol]

Very simple here. Show that homeopathy is more beneficial than standard medicine. If you can't do that, then their is no point in believing that it is better for us.

Funny how homepathy has been around so long, but the life expectancy went up as scientific medicine became more widespread.

[Hahnemannian]

Hans lastly said to a mere two paragraphs he wrote I had to correct ad nosium because he doesn't know the slightest thing about homeopathy:

No, I do not. No matter what others do or do not, homeopathy is still 18th century medicine.

Wrongo!

The natural Laws of Medicine make homeopathy simultaneously the oldest and yet most modern and eternally stable and cumulative system of medicine that is via the same three-point criteria of chemistry and physics the actual Science of Medicine.

Compared to the murderous nature of modern medicine it is 25th-Century Medicine.

I have have enough of you, sir.

You are a total waste of time and are very much due your ghastly agonal, horrendously horrible and very premature iatrogenic death in allopathic hands after years of iatrogenic suffering by them, and I very much hope it is well underway and you are not in this world tomorrow.

----------

This is the rest of your ridiculous statements I only began to correct:

The basic idea of scientific medicine is that diseases have causes, internal or external, and to treat a disease, it is preferably to
remove the cause. [The cause has absolutely nothing to do with the case once the disease process has been initiated. If the causative agent remains to be a disease-sustaining agent, it is to be removed as such, but removing the cause has absolutely nothing to do with curing, period! That is precisely why you quacks can only handle bacterial disease. You are total quacks! and you're vile killers who should be executed en masse to stop the mass murder. Fortunately, Karmic Laws permit us to wait patiently till the courts are composed of other than fools more ignorant than allopaths.] In cases where the cause cannot be removed, either
because it is unknown or because no regimen exists, scientific medicine
will attempt to alleviate symptoms.

[Attempt away, but you always only kill your patients while we cure, and that's the fact you will never be able to escape, you vile quack!] I have a number of difficulties with the Homeopathic theory [and you do not know ANYTHING accurate about it, so spit in the wind, fool! Same effect] :

1) What is the purpose of this "disease management center"? It seems
only to make us ill. If it is the cause of all our illnesses, why
wasn't it eliminated by evolution?

[Tim, you're on with this ignorant and dangeous fool.]

2) How can one be shure that the correct symptoms are used for selecting
medicine, humans are notoriously inaccurate at reporting symptoms?

[Well, read the ORGANON, fool! Of course, I have said that repeatedly, though, haven't I?]

3) What is the supposed mechanism for the ability of the medicine to
"remember" the active ingredient, and how is this mechanism able to
know which ingredient to "remember", after all, any sample of water
has been in contact with countless substances?

[We don't know, but it is irrelevant since it obviously happens, but you would know that if you weren't so ignorant, right?]

4) I do not understand why Homeopathy is claimed to be untestable. It
is claimed to have a nobjective effect, and if this is the case, then
it must be testable.

[I therefore repeat, you are ignorant! We treat patients based upon their uncommon symptoms, NOT upon their common symptoms per disease-diagnostic categories. You are so incredibly brainwashed that you cannot even hear things when they are repeatedly stated and restated. You are a very stupid man to be so brainwashed, and that's a fact.]

In this debate, if we can call it a debate, Hahnemannian has made a
number of claims about Allopathy. I am here assuming that he is mainly
referring to the form of Allopathy that I refer to as scientific
medicine. His main claim is that it is unable to cure anything at all.

This opens a few questions, which I have already posed earlier, but which
have all been ignored. If scientific medicine is worthless than how do
you propose to explain that:

1) It has found the causes of and managed to eradicate or strongly reduce
the incidence of a number of diseases, e. g. Smallpox, Plague, Typhoid
Feever, Diftery, Polio, Tuberculosis, Leprocy, Syphilis.

[Lies! Thomas McKeown proved these lies too. So don't be thinking you can get away with such a blatant lie. Very stupid again.]

2) Where some of the dieases mentioned in #1 are still widespread in some
parts of the World, this invariably coincides with lack of access to
medicines.

[No, absolutely untrue. It coincides with the causes of these diseases:

1. Poor sewage (no pipes out);
2. Unclean water (no pipes in);
3. Poor hygenic measure personally and societally; and
4. Poor diets, just as got rid of them in the rest, just Thomas McKeown showed with mortality tables and introduction of vaccines, which did absolutely nothing but make more people sick, and that is a fact, you ignorant man.]

3) A number of diseases cannot (currently) be cured [by allopathy, nothing but bacterial cures can be claimed, which is pitiful and pathetic and abject quackery, dumb man], but in many cases
scientific medicine has succeded to alleviate the symptoms, in some
cases to a degree where patients lead lives that are largely unaffec-
ted by the disease. [But they create diseases that allopaths are perfectly aware of but choose to ignore because it makes them all killers.] Examples: Diabetes [replacement therapy, not a cure and it makes no difference in the longevity of patients, but insulin-dependent patients are guaranteed to die a ghastly horrible convulsive death after a year of dialysis following years of allopathic torture], depression [absurd! allopathic psychiatry manufactures madness], some forms of
epilepsy [and we cure all of them, while they only vacuously claim mild eliviation of "some forms"], several forms of hormone disorders [which you guys of course create, and that is a hollow claim anyway, just like all of the rest].

4) Scientific medicine can be and is tested for efficiacy [because it is based upon erroneous assumptions with which scientific method is abused, e.g., that diseases can be named and that diseases can be prescribed FOR them rather than for patients -- very ignorant].

Instead of your constant attacks on anybody and everybody, it would be
constructive if you would deign to adress some of the questions above [I did but you are obviously too ignorant to hear them, too brainwashed too].
After all, this IS a debate forum [and we came here looking for help, but you are not a scientist and refuse to act like one].

[You are a true waste of space, pal. I would bet money that you are either an allopathic physician or a fool involved in the natural sciences who becomes incredibly stupid by ignoring the 10 Laws of Medicine.]

Hans

You can shut up now and hopefully exit this life sooner than later since everything out of your mouth is designed to create iatrogenic diseases and deaths.

We can all pray that you return to whatever hell you came from and are resonant with and that it happens by tomorrow.

But I will not be hereafter wasting my time with you and most certainly will not be having patience with many more at this site if they prove to be like you.

Remember, be sure to follow all of your advice and get dead soon, okay?

[Persol]

I ask again, show that homeopathy is more beneficial than standard medicine. If you can't do that, then their is no point in believing that it is better for us.

[Hahnemannian]

You are looking for help? Well, I can help you design an experiment that will prove or disprove the efficiacy of homeopathy......

I am all ears.

I dearly want to further demonstrate that you know nothing about homeopathy from your own mouth.

Let's hear it, pal.

[Hahnemannian]

Persol says:

I ask again, show that homeopathy is more beneficial than standard medicine. If you can't do that, then their is no point in believing that it is better for us.

What can I care about what people believe beyond telling them they do not have to go down the road of death of allopathy?

Do whatever you want.

There are too many of you doing that already, but we cannot change it.

Besides, insurance companies require that you die that way, so do it.

[Hahnemannian]

Funny how homepathy has been around so long, but the life expectancy went up as scientific medicine became more widespread.

Life expectancy went up due to causes that have nothing to do with allopathic therapeutics.

[Persol]

Odd, I don't remember seeing any treatments for bacterial infections, heart disease, cancer, mortal wounds, etc etc.
Lets see... in 1885, top leading causes of death were:
1. TB
2. Pneumonia
3. Heart disease
4. Malarial diseases
5. Dysentery
6. Accidents
7. Typhoid
8. Prematurity
9. The Flu
10. Child birth

Now 1, 2, 5, 7, and 9 are treated very well today. The chances of being killed by them are slim to none.

Heart disease death rised slightly, but decreased with the advent of bypasses and medicines.

Prematurity is very livable now, as is dangerous child birth.

Hmmm... modern medicine works on 8/10 of the old top leading killers. Seems to work to me.

What can I care about what people believe beyond telling them they do not have to go down the road of death of allopathy?
Well obviously you do care, because you are arguing about it. Very simply, if homeopathy works, then there is no reason for you not to be able to show us statistical evidence of that. If you can't then I just have to assume you don't have any, and I have a better chance of surviving with modern medicine.

[ElectricFetus]

We want evidence of homeopathy working, No more stalling!

[BTox]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian

Allopathic medicine is almost totally therapeutically incompetent; it is totally effete and they are therapeutically incompetent in ALL viral diseases, in ALL chronic diseases and in ALL psychiatric cases.

Endlessly regurgitating such nonsensical claptrap does not make it true. This comment, like everything else you spew, is completely contradicted by the volumes of clinical trials and in vivo and in vitro experimental studies. You are once again confusing real medicine with the worthless fraud of homeopathy, a system that has not cured a single person, nor can it ever. Thankfully, this atrocity will soon be extinct, as science continues to prove beyond any doubt its total lack of efficacy.

Originally posted by Hahnemannian


I have been doing Hahnemannian homeopathy for 25 years, and homeopathy is the legitimate Science of Medicine because we have not, like all of you, ignored the 10 Laws of Medicine.

So my 25 years as a Hahnemannian outranks your 20 years as a fool wasting money and exhibiting sophistries at all turns something like 10,000:1, doesn't it?

So you admit to being a health fraud and snake oil salesman for over 25 years? Yes, I agree, your experience outranks, in the categories of foolishness and wasted money, my 20 + years in legitimate life sciences by easily 10,000:1. I suppose that besides defrauding the ignorant, the uneducated, and preying on the hopeless, homeopathy also teaches well in the art of lies and deception without remorse.

Originally posted by Hahnemannian


I said I would not be arguing with you again, and I mean it now.

I will not let despicable charlatans off so easily. If you are looking for more suckers to scam go elsewhere, no one is buyiing your ludicrous and desultory arguments here.


Originally posted by Hahnemannian


You are destined for a well-deserved iatrogenic death in allopathic hands and don't seem to care.


What a horrid comment from a self-proclaimed "physician"! By the way, that's a very effective selling point for homeopathy to wish death on another human being. You continue to prove that homeopathy is an abomination and that its practitioners truly do not care about helping or curing anyone, only to dupe ignorant people and to perpetuate the biggest health fraud in human history.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Hans then asks:



A. Four Laws of Therapeutics (in this order of importance):

1. The Law of Similars;
2. The Law of the Single Remedy (these are direct cognates, and they are indirect cognates of the next two);
3. The Law of the Single Remedy; and
4. The Law of the Minimum (misnomer) or Optimally Ultramolecular Dose.

B. Four Laws of Cure, also called Hering's Laws:

1. During cure symptoms proceed in the reverse order of occurance (Time);
2. During cure symptoms proceed from center to periphery in these specific forms:
2) During cure symptoms move from within outwards in terms of a four-cone, four-plane, four-octave model of human existence (Space);
3) During cure symptoms move from more important to less important organs (Energy); and
4) During cure symptoms move from above downward (Matter).

C. The Law of Chronic Diseases: Chronic external diseases are cured only by internal medicines, external and internal here also having reference to the four-cone, four-plane, four-octave model of human existence.

D. The last Law of Medicine is one I never remember because it almost never comes up and has little to do with curative therapeutics but instead refers to something that all therapies have in common. Hahnemann spoke about this in small works compiled by a student at the 50th anniversary of his having obtained the right to practice medicine in Saxony and the greater Prusian Empire, which that student had bound and entitled THE LESSER WRITINGS OF SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.



What a pity. All these "laws" are nothing more than figments of your imagination and have no basis whatsoever in fact.

It is odd that you claim that homeopathy can cure psychiatric conditions, yet you appear to suffer from serious delusions, if not outright hallucination. How can anyone expect homeopathy to cure anything when it cannot even cure yourself?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian

Yeah, we live in a time in which physicists have inadvertently verified the existence of the Ether or Etheric Plane of existence by having over 20 synonyms for it and major manifestations of it....

It is important because homeopaths have been demonstrating the existence of the Ether with subAvogadrean, ultramolecular, etheric drugs for our entire history.

These cannot have any other explanation than being etheric medicines.

More complete nonsense. Physicists have proven nothing of the kind, nor have the verified any of the properties of homeopathic "medicines". In fact, they prove conclusively they are nothing but water, and act as such in the body.

[Hahnemannian]

Said WellCookedFetus:

We want evidence of homeopathy working, No more stalling!

Then do a homeopathic self-proving of a high potency.

What kind of evidence do you want?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian

Now, go backwards for 120 years and see how homeopathy had to put up with you guys doing bloodletting and calomelization plus all of the other vile mineral drugs you prescribed while homeopaths engaged in 25th-century medicine at this rate.


Once again history fails you. Homeopathy died 100 years ago, and continue to engage in archaic 19th century buffoonery.


Originally posted by Hahnemannian


The man simply needed homeopathic Aconite in a single dose of 30c.


Ridiculous. That "remedy", like all others, would have done absolutely nothing.

[Hahnemannian]

TB
2. Pneumonia
3. Heart disease
4. Malarial diseases
5. Dysentery
6. Accidents
7. Typhoid
8. Prematurity
9. The Flu
10. Child birth


Good list; typically presumptuous and typically allopathic.

While allopathy was engaging in bloodletting, we cured TB, Pneumonia, heart disease, malaria, dysentery, typhoid and the flu; accidents, prematurity and child birth are NOT diseases, are they?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian

You are a total waste of time and are very much due your ghastly agonal, horrendously horrible and very premature iatrogenic death in allopathic hands after years of iatrogenic suffering by them, and I very much hope it is well underway and you are not in this world tomorrow.

You can shut up now and hopefully exit this life sooner than later since everything out of your mouth is designed to create iatrogenic diseases and deaths.

We can all pray that you return to whatever hell you came from and are resonant with and that it happens by tomorrow.

Remember, be sure to follow all of your advice and get dead soon, okay?

Yet another example of this homeopath wishing a quick and painful death on someone that does not agree with him. Proof positive that homeopathy is a pox on humanity, a menace to all society, and its pracititioners are nothing but dangerous psychopaths.

[Hahnemannian]

Very simply, if homeopathy works, then there is no reason for you not to be able to show us statistical evidence of that.

Unless you're brain dead and cannot read.

The 19th-century literature is full of statistics of the efficacy and lower insurance premiums for homeopathic patients, whether or not they were those of LPHs, HPHs or Hahnemannians.

Don't any of you people know anything about medical history?

The FLEXNOR REPORT (1910) destroyed American homeopathy and this was where it was king.

We are just regrouping.

I know nothing about present-day statistics.

You are the ones with the billions of dollars to waste on such statistics.

Give us some of that money and we'll conduct research productive of statistics.

That is so assinine.

[ElectricFetus]

Hahnemannian,

What kind of evidence do I want?, have you not been reading my last 10 post??? I want proof that homeopathy works! You refuse to give us this evidence, REFUSE!

[BTox]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
While allopathy was engaging in bloodletting, we cured TB, Pneumonia, heart disease, malaria, dysentery, typhoid and the flu; accidents, prematurity and child birth are NOT diseases, are they?

More lies, homeopathy has cured nothing of the kind.

[Hahnemannian]

shut up BTox

You support allopathic medicine.

Thank God allopathic killers are going to do you good, sir.

[BTox]

Crawl back into your hole, quack!

[Hahnemannian]

Once again history fails you. Homeopathy died 100 years ago, and continue to engage in archaic 19th century buffoonery.

DIVIDED LEGACY: A HISTORY OF THE SCHISM IN MEDICAL THOUGHT, Vols. III & IV, you ignorant buffoon!

[ElectricFetus]

Hahnemannian,

There is no proof he is not lying, and I believe him!, because you must know secretly that there is no proof why else would you not be willing to give it to us, just go on and on about how horrible allopathic medicine is without giving any evidence to the effectiveness of homeopathy.

[Hahnemannian]

BTox proves his abject ignorance again and again.

Read the case report on George Washington's death by your buddies in murderous allopathy, then go to a materia medica online and read on Aconite, you very ignorant man.

Hering's Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica.

Now be quite, please.

[Hahnemannian]

What a horrid comment from a self-proclaimed "physician"!

You are an evil man who would lead the sheep to the wolves.

You need to get dead.

[Moderators, I regret saying this to these fools. He quoted this. Please remove them unless you want others to see such things. I am a firm believer in reincarnation due to having had a near-death experience at age 16 in 1971, so I have no problem wishing another person have to try again sooner than later when they create for themselve nothing but negative karma ("carryover") in virtually everything they think, say and do, as these supporters of allopathy do. So I am not opposed to leaving it up is you aren't; however, I would question the logic of it against the Golden Rule. And if you think my wish for those evil men to suffer an iatrogenic death for supporting allopathic medicine, what better good could one wish for someone so mislead than to get a good look at how wrong they are and to do so sooner than later so that they do not accumulate negative karma to untoward degrees that they can only choose a life next time of some starving African child?]

[Hahnemannian]

More complete nonsense. Physicists have proven nothing of the kind, nor have the verified any of the properties of homeopathic "medicines". In fact, they prove conclusively they are nothing but water, and act as such in the body.

More abject ignorance.

What are virtual particles, fool?

What is the vacuum energy of empty space, you ignorant buffoon?

[Persol]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Good list; typically presumptuous and typically allopathic.
Leading causes of death. Doesn't matter what your form of medicine you practice. Numbers speak for themselves.

While allopathy was engaging in bloodletting, we cured TB, Pneumonia, heart disease, malaria, dysentery, typhoid and the flu
Please show me this evidence.

accidents, prematurity and child birth are NOT diseases, are they?
I never said they were. I did say they used to be leading causes of death. Each are now much more survivable with modern medicine. The simple question was to show how you're brand of healing heals these things, and to prove it.

As yet, you are just dancing around in circles.

[Hahnemannian]

Yet another example of this homeopath wishing a quick and painful death on someone that does not agree with him

No, fool, on those who ignorantly support quackery and advice people to entertain in it.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
You are an evil man who would lead the sheep to the wolves.

You need to get dead.

Yes, I am evil and you are the one wishing death on people. Is this the "cure" you keep blathering about? Death? Now it makes sense as it is the only possible outcome when one tries to treat disease with shaken water!

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus:

I want proof that homeopathy works! You refuse to give us this evidence, REFUSE!

Homeopathy is nothing but evidence.

What is keeping you from looking it up?

I have supplied two cases here.

Have you not seen them?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian

What is the vacuum energy of empty space, you ignorant bafoon?

The term is "buffoon". Do you know anything at all? I'm convinced you're not a homeopath, but just some stupid kid playing games. How could anyone claiming to be a health care provider, even a quack such as a homeopath, be so completely wrong-minded, vicious and hateful?

[Hahnemannian]

BTox,

Yes, I am evil and you are the one wishing death on people.

No, not on people, on you, you ghoul.

[ElectricFetus]

Where? show me this evidence!

[Hahnemannian]

BTox,

Proof positive that homeopathy is a pox on humanity, a menace to all society, and its pracititioners are nothing but dangerous psychopaths.

It is a matter of social justice.

If you support murderous allopathy, which admits to no cures, then you have a fixed destiny due to being complicit in their crimes.

Fortunately, your destiny is sealed; I only wish it come sooner than later.

[Persol]

Ok, I have a feeling someone is getting banned soon.

[Persol]

Until then, everyone please stop talking to this idiot.

It is more than clear to anybody that he has no actual knowledge, and is pulling this all off websites.

[BTox]

Well Hahnemanniac, you've done well here. I'm sure after reading your posts people will be beating your door down to hear your wonderful advice and experience your warm and caring bedside manner. Get ready for the barrage! hee hee!

[Hahnemannian]

WellCoolkedFetus,


Where? show me this evidence!

Do I have to name literature for you?

Is it not enough that there have been hundreds of homeopathic medical journals in which the case reports have appeared?

Are you all so lazy that you not only do not read the ORGANON or any of the materia medica but do not even know how to search for old homeopathic medical journals?

[Hahnemannian]

BTox,


Well Hahnemanniac, you've done well here. I'm sure after reading your posts people will be beating your door down to hear your wonderful advice and experience your warm and caring bedside manner. Get ready for the barrage! hee hee

I know your kind very well.

I have seen your kind for many years.

You pretend to be scientist and get away with it while never demonstrating it where homeopathy is concerned, and you are totally brainwashed to all of the constructs of allopathic medicine, which is nothing but quackery, and yet you support it anyway.

tic toc...

You have a fixed destiny.

[Hahnemannian]

Persol,

It is more than clear to anybody that he has no actual knowledge, and is pulling this all off websites

You do not have to demonstrate that you cannot read, it is very apparent.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Persol
Until then, everyone please stop talking to this idiot.

It is more than clear to anybody that he has no actual knowledge, and is pulling this all off websites.

Yes, it is obviously a hoax. Or a lunatic.

[Hahnemannian]

The term is "buffoon".

Thank you, buffon!

[Hahnemannian]

Yes, it is obviously a hoax. Or a lunatic.

No, I lose patience with you ignoramouses who refuse to examine the evidence that is the whole of homeopathy and sit high and mighty with your billions of dollars supporting a system of medicine that even Dr. Koop said was "broken and irrepairable."

[Hahnemannian]

Now, I will not speak to those people since I have said my piece to all of them.

WellCookedFetus, do you really not know where to look for case reports and explanations?

The old journals have statistics.

Do you need titles?

[Hahnemannian]

Persol,

While allopathy was engaging in bloodletting, we cured TB, Pneumonia, heart disease, malaria, dysentery, typhoid and the flu

The medicines that cure all of those diseases are listed under them in the Repertory to the Homeopathic Materia Medica.

Ignorant of that, though, aren't you?

Okay, http://homeoint.org/books/kentrep/index.htm

[Hahnemannian]

BTox,

How could anyone claiming to be a health care provider, even a quack such as a homeopath, be so completely wrong-minded, vicious and hateful?

Because I've witnessed over 100 of the murders you people engage in.

You, sir, are 100% evil, and allopathy is going to do us all a favor and remove you.

By the way, be sure to get embalmed, for we want your etheric pattern to remain intact.

[Hahnemannian]

That's it for my dealing with those fools.

Somebody else I will answer who wants to know about homeopathy or wants to help us resolve a 200-year-old mystery.

WellCookedFetus, try the ZKH at Karl F. Haug Verlag.

The CLASSICAL HOMOEOPATHY QUARTERLY was the English translation of it.

Old journals:

Hahnemannian Monthly
North American Journal of Homeopathy
The [Cincinnati] Medical Advance.
THE ORGANON
HOMEOTHERAPY
THE HOMEOPATHIC RECORDER
Transactions of the INTERNATIONAL HAHNEMANNIAN ASSOCIATION
GERMAN JOURNAL OF HOMEOPATHY
Stapf's ARCHIVES fur HOMOEOPATHY


Try those for starters.

Here's some online, but they are a hodge-podge of papers by high-potency pseudo-homeopaths and Hahnemannians.

http://www.homeoint.org/hompath/articles/index.htm

http://homeoint.org/books/

[ElectricFetus]

Hahnemannian

If you want to prove your point you have to present the evidence, everything else you have done is an argument fallacy!
Thank you, give use a while to look through these or better yet mention specific case studies.

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus,

I am going backward in these posts looking for things I missed, and I see this one from you:

There is no proof he is not lying, and I believe him!, because you must know secretly that there is no proof why else would you not be willing to give it to us, just go on and on about how horrible allopathic medicine is without giving any evidence to the effectiveness of homeopathy.


I have told you till I am blue in the face that the proof is in the cases.

The entire history of homeopathy is provings installed in the materia medica, cures in published case reports (allopathic medicine does not engage in case reports for obvious reasons) and the explanations of how to test and verify the evidence in the instructions within the ORGANON OF MEDICINE.

What is with you people that you presume that evidence exists in an allopathic form?

You all test drugs against diseases.

We cannot do that because homeopathy is not applied against diseases but for patients.

One of the reasons we are able to make them well is because we do not make that fundamental mistake of allopathic medicine.

Drugs cannot be prescribed against diseases because cases with nothing but the common symptoms of diagnostic categories exist nowhere in the world.

We prescribe on the uncommon symptoms.

Some practical examples of medicine known to be needed by historical figures due to psychological elements of their cases may help.

Hitler, the megalomaniac, needed Anacardium orientale in potency.
Clinton, the falanderer (sp?), needs Lycopodium in potency.
Reagan, the indignant tyrant, needs Staphysagria in potency.
Mike Tyson, the criminal, needs Belladonna in potency.
Diane Keeton, the hysterical but charmingly loving woman, needs Ignatia in potency.
Bette Middler, the very loud-mouthed and rather simpleminded but sweet woman anyone would love to have as a sister, needs Hyocyamus in potency.
Lincoln, the brilliant and wise statesman, probably needed Phosophorus in potency.
There are many such examples.

On the other hand, if you ask us which medicine personalities like Michael Keeton need, we cannot be sure since he does not have psychological indications, just Parkinson's that we cured before it was named that.

This goes on and on.

[Hahnemannian]

Originally posted by BTox
More lies, homeopathy has cured nothing of the kind.

Ever the ignorant one, aren't you?

OOps!

Promised to ignore you.

That came from going back throught he postings and addressing those I missed.

[ElectricFetus]

You can tell me all want tell your blue in the face, but you still refused to provide the evidence. I look at the links your provide and found them very difficult to find any evidence, so guess what I look my self: I ran a search on google for "homeopathy evidence" and a found information far better then anything you provide! Now look at me I going to hand to you almost on a fucking silver plate evidence for you to place against us.

http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/case/cas_evid.html
Look trial studies proving homeopathy statically valid over placebo! This is what I call evidence can you provide more like this? (Need to baby you because you still don't understand what we consider valid evidence and what we consider circumstantial ranting)

[Repo Man]

Probably all any sane person needs to read about Homeopathy is right here.

Oscillococcinum, a 200C product "for the relief of colds and flu-like symptoms," involves "dilutions" that are even more far-fetched. Its "active ingredient" is prepared by incubating small amounts of a freshly killed duck's liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant solution is then filtered, freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly diluted, and impregnated into sugar granules. If a single molecule of the duck's heart or liver were to survive the dilution, its concentration would be 1 in 100200. This huge number, which has 400 zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). In its February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird "the $20-million duck."

More, http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html

[Hahnemannian]

I forget that people do not know homeopathic history.

This is the gist of it.

Hahneman gained command first of the epidemic diseases that destroyed hope generation after generation, one at a time as they arose.

Then he turned his attention to the endemic scourges of syphillis and gonorrhea and cured them too.

He essentially had specifics for these diseases because he had only a few drugs with which to choose from: 99 by the time he died.

Some of them required three to five drugs per epidemics, but they essentially amounted to specifics due to lesser numbers of medicines than we have today, which number over 2500.

All of these today have about 25 times as many drugs as Hahnemann used, and the specificity per cases have gone up while the specificity per diseases has gone down due to these large numbers of available drugs in our times.

He then turned his attention to the chronic diseases he had been encountering all along.

His logic was that an infectious agent must be behind these too, for all other diseases he had cured were contagious with what he hypothesized as "an incredibly small brood of little animals."

He thus hypothesized that psora was an unknown or unidentified little beastie responsible for all other chronic diseases -- and here I correct myself since syphillis and gonorrhea transcend their infectious nature and manifest as chronic diseases, as does TB and some others.

We happen to not look at them this way so much, for the infectious nature of them puts them in that class.

Hahnemann felt that psora in the singular was the cause of all chronic diseases in the plural.

He thus set about trying to find the specific or few specifics like he had discovered for the other diseases.

He failed and realized that the number of medicines for chronic diseases would endlessly rise because these are not fixed diseases like infectious illnesses.

That is how it began.

We cured epidemics and people and doctors flocked to us.

Just a few Hahnemannians around the world did this.

Most of the doctors never proceeded past allopathic constructs, for they simply prescribed for epidemic diseases as we told them; i.e., they were never able to handle other cases.

So the number of low-potency pseudo-homeopaths numbered about 15,000 in the U.S. by the turn of the 19th century.

That was about one-quarter of all U.S. physicians.

All the while, there were about 300-400 high-potency pseudo-homeopaths (students is a good word for them) and a few legitimate Hahnemannians, perhaps 20-30 in 1880.

Our medical schools and hospitals grew in number as these demands for homeopathy rose.

We had 23 medical schools and 150 hospitals, major clinics and assylums for the insane and TB patients by the time the FLEXNOR REPORT was issued in 1910.

By that time, all of the Hahnemannians had died without having been replaced.

The high-potency pseudo-homeopaths never realized they were not Hahnemannians, just as today they claim to be classical homeopaths all over the internet and popular literature.

Within three years, all of our schools save two and all of our hospitals, etc., fell into allopathic hands, because the philanthropists of the time used the FLEXNOR REPORT for the allocation of their funds in order to add prestige to their robber-baron names.

Homeopathy got bypassed, and allopathic medicine gained total control of world medicine.

Homeopathy survived in legitimate, Hahnemannian form in Germany amongst a few and rose to what it is now with more Hahnemannians alive today than at any other time in history.

But we are still the smallest minority in history.

That's about the gist of it.

Hahnemann Hospital in Philly was ours.

All of the other schools and hospitals, etc., however, changed names and became lost to history beyond the memories of living people.

But the historical record is in tact.

And our case records in the journals are also.

Read about this history most accurately in DIVIDED LEGACY, Vols. III & IV.

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus,

I am not an experimental scientist and do not like it much.

I am a physician who engages in applied science.

Those studies you supplied are from LPHs mostly, so they are meaningless to Hahnemannians.

The evidence of placebo effect being nonsense is easily proven by doing a high-potency self-proving, so I do not even bother with such studies.

And the nonsense of that notion is readily supplied by the fact that we cure infants, animals and the unconscious, who could not possibly be subject to placebo effects.

There is lots of information like that, though.

But I am a purist.

They come from people we do not recognize, and they make assertions and engage in tests that in no way validate actual homeopathy.

We are so few and so poor compared with one trillion dollars spent on medicine in Usa every year (10-13% of the GNP) that we might as well be mice.

But the historical record of our cures are the only thing that really matters since what you are asking for are evidences of drugs that have been proven effective against various diseases.

We don't prescribe that way, though.

We prescribe the drug the person needs.

All of the diseases in the chronic class have been cured by hundreds of drugs, so there is no way to supply what you are asking for.

It is what I try to say when I explain that disease-diagnostic categories are constituted of common symptoms, but homeotherapeutics finds the one medicine a person needs according to the few strange, rare and peculiar or uncommon symptoms.

One of them will have been cured by an average of less than 25 drugs because they are rare symptoms.

A second one crossed with that list of medicines reduces the list of possible medicines down to fewer, and a third uncommon symptom usually brings down the list of possible drugs to between one and five usually.

We then read materia medica to find the one that matches most accurately with the case symptoms.

That medicine, assuming we did everything accurately, will cure that person.

Is about that simple.

So a name of a disease is meaningless to us, and the symptoms that constitute that disease are even dismissed from consideration since hundreds of drugs have cured them.

Is that clear?

It is so foreign to our usual way of thinking of diseases that it I forget how best to explain it without seeing people's reactions on their face.

[ElectricFetus]

So can your provide evidence for these claims and your purist beleif?

[Hahnemannian]

Repo Man,

Oscillococcinum is not a legitimate homeopathic medicine.

It is a bizarre product of the horrible French homeopathy.

There are more low-potency pseudo-homeopaths per capita in France than in any country in the world unless India.

France has 50,000 of them, and an estimated 300,000 exit in India.

Oscillococcinum is a combination medicine.

No proving has ever been produced on it.

A French pharmaceutical firm produced it for cure-all benefits for colds, flus and whatnot.

It is not a legitimate homeopathic medicine.

You cannot be thinking that you will easily find legitimate homeopathy on the web when I tell you that they outnumber us 10,000 to one.

The most outspoken group, however, are the high-potency pseudo-homeopaths (HPHs) of today, for they have charge of piles and piles of schools that all teach nothing but their adulterated form of homeopathy.

It is not nearly as bad as low-potency pseudo-homeopathy (LPH), which is not in any way homeopathy, for the HPHs make only eight fundamental but important mistakes.

But please do not be thinking that Oscillococcinum represents homeopathy.

Here is a list of books online: http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/index.shtml

---------

I just read that allopathic clap trap.

You will, however, be astonished to know how our potentization proceeds.

12c is subAvogradrean assuming one mole in tincture, for we dilute that 1:100 12 times.

Next up in the Kentian scale is 30c, then as follows: 200c, 1M (1000c), 10M, 100M, 500M, MM and MMM.

Astronomically dilute is right, but I am telling you that there is a mystery involved because these medicines that should NOT have effect do and you can prove it any day of the week to yourself by engaging in a high-potency self-proving.

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus:

So can your provide evidence for these claims and your purist beleif?

Like what?

Our evidence is in the case reports and our cures.

Damn difficult to cure too.

[Repo Man]

I'm not going to bait the barking dog anymore.

Han, you may be a perfectly nice fellow. But your condemnation of "fake" Homeopaths is much like hearing a psychic denounce "fake" psychics.

Empirical evidence is all we have for determining the truth or falsehood of any claim.

Hahnemann lived before Pasteur, and his germ theory. Everyone prior to Pasteur was playing a guessing game with disease.

Pasteur's work has withstood the test of time.

Bertrand Russell said it best; "When someone maintains that the Moon is made of green cheese, you don't argue with them; you feel sorry for them."

[Hahnemannian]

Repo Man,

Okay, but, for the record, here's Hahnemann denouncing first the high-potency pseudo-homeopaths for failing to be able to discern characteristic/uncommon symptoms and prescribing from the repertory (only two of their eight fundamental mistakes) and denouncing low-potency pseudo-homeopaths for prescribing according to names of diseases in allopathic fashion:

“As to the second chief error in the cure of chronic diseases (the unhomoeopathic choice of the medicine) the homoeopathic beginner (many, I am sorry to say, remain such beginners their life long) sins chiefly through inexactness, lack of earnestness and through love of ease.

“With the great conscientiousness which should be shown in the restoration of a human life endangered by sickness more than in anything else, the homoeopath, if he would act in a manner worthy of his calling, should investigate first the whole state of the patient, the internal cause as far as it is remembered, and the cause of the continuance of the ailment, his mode of life, his quality as to mind, soul and body, together with all his symptoms (see directions in Organon), and then he should carefully find out in the work on Chronic Diseases as well as in the work on Materia Medica Pura a remedy covering in similarity, as far as possible, all the moments [?], or at least the most striking and peculiar ones, with its own peculiar symptoms; and for this purpose he should not be satisfied with any of the existing repertories – a carelessness only too frequent; for these books are only intended to give light hints as to one or another remedy that might be selected, but they can never dispense him from making the research at the first fountain heads [i.e., the provings]. He who does not take the trouble of treading this path in all critical and complicated diseases, and, indeed, with all patience and intelligence, but contents himself with the vague hints of the repertories in the choice of a remedy, and who thus quickly dispatches one patient after the other, does not deserve the honorable title of a genuine homoeopath, but is rather to be called a bungler, who on that account has continually to change his remedies until the patient loses patience; and as his ailments have of course only been aggravated he must leave this aggravator of diseases, whereby the art itself suffers discredit instead of the unworthy disciple of art.

“This disgraceful love of ease (in the calling which demands the most conscientious care) often induces such would-be homoeopaths to give their medicines merely from the (often problematic) statement of their use (ab usu in morbis) which are enumerated in the introductions to the medicines, a method which is altogether faulty and strongly savors of allopathy, as these statements usually only give a few symptoms. They should only serve as a confirmation of a choice made according to the pure actions of the medicines; but never to determine the selection of a remedy which can cure only when used according to the exact similitude of its homoeopathic symptoms. There are, we are sorry to say, even authors who advise following this empiric pathway of error!”

(The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and their Homoeopathic Cure, Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., translated from the 2nd enlarged German edition of 1835 by professor Louis H. Tafel, 1896.)

[ElectricFetus]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
WellCookedFetus:

Like what?

Our evidence is in the case reports and our cures.

Damn difficult to cure too.

That not evidence that hearsay, you can say what ever you want but can your reference this, can you give us a link, does it compare to placebo? Is it statistically valid? Is it double blind?

[Hahnemannian]

How do you double-blind cures engaged in according to uncommon symptoms, and how does one ethically justify giving suffering people placebo?

What's the point of double blinding anyway since it is based upon the assumption that a medicine can be prescribed for a disease?

It's one of the ridiculous allopathic conventions with no meaning and purpose when therapeutics is engaged in properly.

That not evidence that hearsay, you can say what ever you want but can your reference this, can you give us a link, does it compare to placebo? Is it statistically valid?

Our literature is case studies and explanations of fine points in methodology plus perfections of the literature.

I am not aware of any Hahnemannian ever wasting their time on any of that allopathic nonsense.

Believe me, our patients are so severely loyal you could not imagine it since we have demonstrated what others call miracles.

We cannot call them that because there is a two-point criteria we cannot claim: miracles must be rare and inexplicable, which they are not.

There are people in HPHs who are eager to engage in such experiments.

We want to know the mechanism of homeopathic pharmacology and cure our patients.

Nothing else matters.

[MRC_Hans]

Sorry for the late answer (we have a timezone issue). I will reply to you in chronological order, even if this may mean overlapping later posts.

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Hans says, in abject ignorance for which I mean to stick it to him:

(I commented on old age not being a good thing for a medical system)

Absolutely true in vile allopathy, which changes from day to day and has no stable or cumulative therapeutics due to total ignorance of the basic business of medicine.

So you prefer a sytem that has not incorporated the vast mass of new discoveries made in the field during the past century or so. Be that as it may, but it does not really put you in a position to accuse others of ignorance, since you have delibarately chosen to stay ignorant of such new knowledge.

So you are caught here exposing the vile ignorance of the whole of allopathy, for it is the 10 Laws of Medicine -- viz., the four Laws of Therapeutics, the four Laws of Cure, the Law of Chronic Diseases (provided by the Spagyric physicians), and a 10th law general to all therapies whether or not they cure -- that makes homeopathy stable and cumulative and the lack of awareness of them that makes allopathy part of the Dark Ages with exactly those same results they have always had.

I have already pointed out a few of the results achieved by medical science during the 20ht century. Also this you have chosen to ignore. I have asked you what those laws are ,but maybe you are stating them later in this thread.

So, yes, considering that homeopathy is the actual practice of the Science of Medicine and that allopathy still cannot cure, naturally you would say that it's not a good idea to go back in history to show great antiquity and stability plus a cumulative knowledge such that everything every known is still valid since you cannot do it and are supporting a system of medicine that was incredibly still doing bloodletting as late as 1914!

Since homeopathy apparantly eludes testing it dies not qualify as science. You constant claims of the failure of allopathy is beginning to look silly, since several examples of its successes have been pointed out. You begin to look like someone with his fingers in his ears.

Again and again and again, allopathy has absolutely no place in disease therapeutics.

A totally unfounded claim, since (the scientific version of) allopathy continues to score victories in the struggle against disease (to slightly mimick your pompous use of words).

Homeopathy can cure for 1001 reasons, but one of them is that it is NOT murderous and unscientific allopathy.

Still no evidence.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
After I pointed out that homeopathy is not based upon any assumptions, as Hans suggested it was, but instead is based upon the Law of Similars, Hans then said this:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since it has not been backed by evidence, I will take the liberty of terming it "assumption".
-------------------------------------------------------------

That is absolutely not true.

The fact that you have not bothered to look at the clinical history of homeopathy, which is an integral part of the history of medicine, incidentally, simply means that you have no right to make any statement whatsoever about the evidence since your laziness and carelessness about being a scientist is to blame for not investigating the evidence that all of homeopathy is.

All of you guys do this and think you can get away with it, but there is not a single one of you who can claim to be a scientist and say anything deleterious about the evidence that is homeopathy since that is a contradiction in terms given that Hahnemann fulfilled his part of the scientific process by declaring and demonstrating his cures based upon the provings and the Law of Similars (and the other natural Laws of Medicine) and then explained everything about how to verify his findings and do homeotherapeutics in the ORGANON OF MEDICINE.

[b]I have said it before, but I'll repeat it: I will not search out your arguments for you. I will not read volumes to find backing for YOUR claim. YOU made the claim, you present the arguments for it. It is YOU who are the lazy one when you just ask others to find your documentation for you.

So don't think that I will let any of you get away with that lie for even a second.

You are not a scientist, and you prove it by every statement of opposition and doubt about homeopathy, for we have already verified and tested Hahnemann's assertions and findings.

Then for Pete's sake CITE that verification! I am not going to take your word for it. I suspect that your "documentation" will turn out to be little more than anecdotes, but you have the opportunity to prove me wrong.

You're not a scientist, and don't you dare have the audacity to pretend to be so with your stance about homeopathy, for that makes you a liar.

I am not a professional scientist, and I have not said I was. I am, however, thoroughly familiar with the demands for a scientifical investigation.

It is interesting that you get "offended" by criticism, but you do not hold youself too good to call others liars.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Hans then asks:

--------------------------------
What are those laws?
-------------------------------

A. Four Laws of Therapeutics (in this order of importance):

1. The Law of Similars;
2. The Law of the Single Remedy (these are direct cognates, and they are indirect cognates of the next two);
3. The Law of the Single Remedy; and
4. The Law of the Minimum (misnomer) or Optimally Ultramolecular Dose.

B. Four Laws of Cure, also called Hering's Laws:

1. During cure symptoms proceed in the reverse order of occurance (Time);
2. During cure symptoms proceed from center to periphery in these specific forms:
2) During cure symptoms move from within outwards in terms of a four-cone, four-plane, four-octave model of human existence (Space);
3) During cure symptoms move from more important to less important organs (Energy); and
4) During cure symptoms move from above downward (Matter).

C. The Law of Chronic Diseases: Chronic external diseases are cured only by internal medicines, external and internal here also having reference to the four-cone, four-plane, four-octave model of human existence.

D. The last Law of Medicine is one I never remember because it almost never comes up and has little to do with curative therapeutics but instead refers to something that all therapies have in common. Hahnemann spoke about this in small works compiled by a student at the 50th anniversary of his having obtained the right to practice medicine in Saxony and the greater Prusian Empire, which that student had bound and entitled THE LESSER WRITINGS OF SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.

Without the Laws of Therapeutics, which allopathy will forever suffer, no cure can occur and for more than one reason.

The Laws of Cure are really just the converse of pathological progressions, so it should be that everyone had noticed them; however, that is a far-flung notion since no other therapy is aware of any of them.

The Law of Chronic Diseases states why all allopathic therapies suppress diseases and hopelessly disorder them to the point of rapidly making all of its patients totally incurable, for allopathic therapies do not follow that Law of Medicine either.

You are here presenting a circular argument: Allopathy is not right because it is not homeopathy which is why it is wrong.

So your "laws" are simply part of homeopathic dogma. I see they contain a lot of medieval mumbo-jumbo (WTF is "the four-cone, four-plane, four-octave model of human existence"?).

--- Well, thanks for listing them anyway.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
In both instances where Hans, the allopath or supporter of allopathy, says:

------------------------------
More assumptions
------------------------------


That is untrue.

These are not assumptions.

However, it is becoming clear that I assumed you're interested in knowing how to cure instead of engaging in sophistries, presumptions and outright falsehoods to dismiss homeopathy.

Such people haven't got a leg to stand on, and they certainly deserve their destined iatrogenic death in allopathic hands since they would withold homeopathy from others out of misguided sincerity on the order of a crime.

I am truly sorry that this offends you, but in MY vocabulary, an undocumented statement is an assumption.

Yes, you may call me an allopath if you wish, since I work in the medical industry. As such, I am interested in curing, in fact I make a living that way. Obviously, people would not be buying our merchandize if we could not document to them that it works.

Your constant whining about homeopathy being suppressed does not impress me in the least since I happen to know how new medicines get approved: You document their efficiacy and file for approval (you also have to document the production process, but I actually dont think you would have much trouble with that).

If you can provide documentation of the efficiacy of a homeopathic drug, then there is no power in the world than can keep you from getting it into the Pharmacopaedia. You do not have to explain why it works (we have a lot of drugs around where we do not fully understand why they work).

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Hans asks:

(You do wise to acknowledge antibiotics)

I most certainly have by pointing out that bacterial diseases are the ONLY diseases allopathy can claim credit in.

I noticed you claimed that. You claiming it does not make it right, though. A few words: Analgesics, hormones, protein replacement.

However, the fact remains that the only way to truly cure any disease without sequal diseases is via homeotherapeutics.

Another unfounded claim.

I like antibiotics as a nice safety valve should I fail to find the person's simillimum when suffering with a bacterial disease.

Unfortunately, almost all patients today are so allopathically brainwashed that only my long-term patients avoid them unless necessary.

I'm relieved to hear that.

Antibiotics are responsible for lots of more serious diseases, we do not care one whit if allopathically brainwashed/indoctrined/conditioned and "educated" people hold otherwise,

Antibiotics are not perfect, but what are those MORE serious diseases?

for the Laws of Cure demonstrate what we say is true.

No, your own doctrines do not demonstrate anything. You are effectively saying: "What I say is true because I have said it is true".

And you say you want evidence and yet are not in the slightest bit informed of that evidence?

If I knew the evidence, I would not be asking for it.

Tell us more lies.

For somebody who writes pages of unfounded claims, you are awfully quick in accusing others of lying.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But how do you explain that a drug that kills bacteria can cure diseases?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because that's not what it does.

It only gets rid of a causative agent, but cure is something far more than that.

Uhhh, sure. Sometimes stopping an infection does not constitute "cure" because the infection has caused irreversible damages. What else is new?

You people do not see your patient's sufferings in an historical context,

Ehrr, no we do not. We see them in the present.

and that's one of the reasons why any involvement with allopaths leads to death

I have been trying to be diplomatic so far, but I can only find one expression for the above statement: A blatant lie.

since that is precisely what allopathy does precisely because it DOES NOT CURE and makes no claims to doing so, and rightly so.

Depends on what you mean by "cure".

The well-known but poorly understood progressions of diseases in the clinical record of allopathy demonstrates this premise.

You people just ignore these things.

Why?

Generally we ignore it because it is nonsense, but you are privileged: You have my attention for the time being.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Hans then says:

-----------------------------
Many drugs are found "by accident",
-------------------------------------

That's not true either.

The therapeutic effects of ALL allopathic drugs are found by accident.

You people just stumble along and claim to be scientific medicine, which is an obscene lie. Either you are very ignorant, or you are lying. This may well have been true a century ago, but most modern drugs are the result of dedicated research.

Your statement is a bit ironic, since you have earlied told about how Hahnemann just tried out 1000 substances in healthy persons and then noted their effects. Then he made up a theory to fit his observations. Talk about "accidential" findings.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Youck! I am slumping several replies together here to save posts:

Here is my remark and Hans' response:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Me:] I say this knowing that the whole of allopathic pharmacology assigns specific target sites for all of its drugs; however, you had better be ready to admit that these are all total assumptions since those pharmacognostic scientists would have otherwise been able to design at least one drug based upon Receptor-Site Theory.

[Hans:] No, the effect of scientific drugs are not assumptions, thet are validated by testing. I do not understand the rest of your statement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, this is a tough one for you guys, for you accept a great many mechanisms of diseases and drugs relating to Receptor-Site Theory.

However, if that theory were true, then the knowledge claimed for it would have permitted allopathic phamaceutical firms to have designed at least one drug over the last 50 years they have been trying based upon that theory.

Therefore, we are surely permitted to say that the theory is wrong and the assumptions about receptor sites in diseases and drug actions are somehow wrong.

I am not sufficiently into receptor site research to comment this in detail, but the fact that a theory is currently unproductive is not cause to dismiss it. In that case we would have to dismiss most of our present theories in astronomy, since few of them have been confirmed physically.

Mind you, that I am fully aware that this strips from you everything about your doctine of disease and drug mechanism,

You are contradicting yourself here: Since you say that RST has not yet produced any drug (and I do not know if this is true), obviously, allopathy cannot be founded on that. And it isn't.

which replaced disease-entity theory and is presently being replaced by DNA theory as merely another in an endless line of allopathic theories about the proximate cause of diseases.

Modern science is not based on dogma. You are just listing a row of concurrent theories. There is nothing in scinece that says that several theories cannot coexist.

This is one of the reasons that Hahnemann and Hahnemannians totally dismiss notions about disease causes,

Self-contradiction again: You earlier acknowledged bacterial infections as disease causants.

for it never other than effects no matter what level of the cellular apparatus is proceed to, for you are still talking about the physical organism in a being that obviously also exists as an Etheric being or death would not find everything physical still there at death.

Not understood.

Receptor-Site Theory is one of the most elegant of allopathic constructs and one very difficult to wholly dismiss as useless due to all of the effort exerted to substantiate it, but the fact remains that at least one drug would have been designed were Receptor-Site Theory a valid explanation for diseases and chemical-drug actions.

Again, RST is just one more concurrent theory and not in any way the basis for all medical science.


I said and then you remarked:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Me:] whereas I hold that because we use ultramolecular, subAvogadrean drugs, we're forced to think in terms of the etheric pattern of organism and drug for scientific explanations of phenomena.

[Hans:] I do not understand the last part of your statement.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, we live in a time in which physicists have inadvertently verified the existence of the Ether or Etheric Plane of existence by having over 20 synonyms for it and major manifestations of it.

They have accumulated these over the last century but have principally admitted to them in the last 20 years in the form of virtual particles and the vacuum energy of empty space.

Non sequiteur. You are pulling things out of the air.

Newton had no problem with the Etherial Medium, but physicists dismissed the Ether with developments in electromagnetism, quantum mechanics and then Einstein's work.

But note that Einstein provided a synonyms for the Ether called the cosmological constant.

The Ether goes in and out of fashion currently, but there is nothing mysterious or supernatural about the scientific version of ether, it is just one explanation of observed data.

DeBroglie had his subquantic medium.

We have quintessence from String Theory to explain matter in black holes, and this construct describes etheric particles.

These examples go on to over 20 in number.

It is important because homeopaths have been demonstrating the existence of the Ether with subAvogadrean, ultramolecular, etheric drugs for our entire history.

Not exactly. They have been postulating it in order to explain otherwise inexplicable parts of their thesis. Inventing a phenomenon to fill a hole in your theory is not the same as demonstrating its existence.

These cannot have any other explanation than being etheric medicines.

That is one reason why they are dismissed. Even the possible finding of an ether will not in itself vindicate your thesis. You will still have to prove that it has the effect you claim it has.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I am willing to take you word for it that you master these procedures, but can you prove that they work?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have not said I've mastered them.

I generally fail to make mistakes as I did earlier in my life as a high-potency pseudo-homeopath, but that is a long ways from mastering them.

It's damn hard to do it even marginally well, and that's why we're willing to exhaustively explain such things to others looking into it up to those we call high-potency pseudo-homeopaths, for it is the lack of mistakes that mostly defines Hahnemannians.

Mmmm, lack of mistakes? I'll refrain from commenting on that.

That doesn't mean I don't make mistakes in therapeutic decisions, but I at least recognize them and correct them.

P.P. Wells, whom I quoted above (I think at this site) said it took him 25 years to get it right.

I will be in my 26th year of homeopathy later this year, and I can honestly say I finally understand that statement.

----------

All homeopathic cures prove that it works.

Actually not. You need to prove that it was the treatment that effected the cure.

There are tens of thousands of published case studies.

Are you shure they are not anecdotes?

You can prove it to yourself too.


Hans says:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, speculations lead nowhere, evidence does.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fine, so what's keeping you from examining and then testing the evidence?

YOU make the claim, YOU provide the evidence.

213 years is a bit late, isn't it?

Yes, one can only wonder why you have not made it any farther during all that time if homeopathy is even half as effective as you claim.




Hans

[MRC_Hans]

More posts lumped together, I am also beginning to snip out things I hope are of secondary importance:

I made this statement and Hans replied thusly:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Me:] In short, diseases arise from both directions of causes and effects, and they exist in both levels of being.

[Hans:]The last sentence does not seem tto make sense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Diseases arise from both the physical and Etheric levels of being, and they exist in both realms too.

Speculative...

The form they take on as disease agents and influences physically include pathogens, vaccines (including the foreign proteins that come with them), free radicals, nutritional deficiencies, recreational drugs, allopathic drugs and others causes that escape me at the moment.

Now, do you or do you not acknowledge external causes for diseases?

The psychological level of disease causes exist as stress, grief, injustices, untoward emotions, anxiety, guilt, fear, brainwashing/hypnosis and other particulars that all point to a disordering of the etheric pattern such that it is no longer integral.

So diseases clearly arise from both directions of being and exist in them as manifest by symptoms of a purely physical nature and symptoms that are purely mental and emotional in nature.

This requires the premise that emotions are non-physical in nature. Obviously, the jury is still out on that.

One of the apparent keys to cure is reaching the etheric level with ultramolecular drugs *snip*

Setting that level in order, rather than killing the microbe, is apparently how homeopathic cures of infectious diseases arises.

*snip*

These are advanced concepts that remain in the realm of theory.

In the realm of speculation, actually

We're wanting to know if they're valid or in what way they need to be modified, for they stand up in logic and empirical evaluations, but actual mechanisms are wanted.

It is enough that we know these things as absolutes per the Laws of Medicine, but we would still hope that some day will provide us with further explanations.

Then why are you so opposed to experiments?

*snip*
Characteristically, allopaths and those involved in the natural science dismiss such constructs, but we are living in a time in which non-physical particles are accepted in physics, so it is not us but allopaths and school scientists who are out of touch when they dismiss these notions.

There are no non-phisical particles. They are not all matter, but physical they are.

*snip*

Then you said about the succussion element of homeopathic pharmacology:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I left it out intentionally, for simplicity. I am sorry that this seems to have been the important part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand.

It is incomprehensible that such a simple thing as merely shaking half-full vials of serial dilutions produces these medicines.

Well, here we agree. Totally incomprehensible.

Tim and I are interested in finding lost research to explain it or people who can point out what we may not understand.

How about making new research instead?

It is truly astonishing that something so simple makes our drugs uniquely curative given that the Law of Similars requires an optimally ultramolecular potency such that cure finally holds.

*snip*
That's why Hahnemann's Art. 142 of the ORGANON is so important: http://homeopathyhome.com/reference...on/organon.html

Sorry, but you cannot document Hahnemanns words by Hahnemann's words.

Hans then says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you cannot answer the question then?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I responded to what you said by correcting it.

Do you see a question here:
*snip*

I see you asked it next:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I believe you. But my question was: Provided some memory mechanism DOES exist, how is the water supposed to know which of the multitude of compounds it has been exposed to it should remember? Any water sample will have been exposed to innumerable substances over time, how is the right one selected?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My explanation suffices me, but we do not yet actually know.

OK, fair enough.

My explanation is that each substance is composed of uniquely arranged atoms and subatomic particles, and every physical particle has an etheric counterpart which for some unknown reason and by some unknown mechanism orients the water molecules into apparently unique water crystals or ice at temperature that thus permit them to act etherically by holding space physically after their chemicals have been diluted.

But we don't actually know any of this yet.

Want to help us figure it out?

Sure. As I have already said, I can design test protocols. I do that for a living.

Allopathic medicine wastes billions of dollars on research every year with nothing but hoped-for results some day, some decade, some century down the road; whereas homeopathy cures and only wants to know some mysteries.

There you go again. I have already mentioned a few of the achievements of medical science. Frankly, I think your continued ignoring it makes you look silly, but thats just me.

These mysteries are not of our making; allopathy medicine holds a total cartel of world medicine and refuses to go away even though it has never worked and cannot work since only the ultramolecular simillimum permits one command over diseases.

This is nonsense, and I think you know it. Even if there is some thruth in the "cartel" idea, this has been so for less than 30 years. What has kept homeopathy from gaining recognition in the 183 years preceding that? And what keeps you from proving its efficiacy now and forcing a recognition?

No, we don't know how this happens, and that is why Tim and I are here.

Somebody must know something that could unlock this secret.

It has to be in 1) electromagnetism of solutions, and 2) polymerization or crystalization of water and alcohol molecules.

Neither. If such mechanisms existed, they would have been discovered by mainstream science long ago.

Hans says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ultramolecular" is an assumed function. You have no evidence that such a state exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'd say that's true, and we are unlikely to ever be able to objectively prove it since no physical apparatus can detect etheric substance since the one is invisible to the other given a higher atomic nutational rate of the subatomic particles on the Etheric level called etheric particles.

However, lots of things in chemistry and physics are unprovable and yet accepted by virtue of their effects, so we will probably be dealing with this level of proof.

I have no problem with proving the effect first and then worry about the "how" later.

Irregardless, we know that subAvogadrean drugs cure.

No "we" do not. Proof, man!

We want to know how the pharmacology works, for this seem possible of penetration now that we have actual photographs from Shiu Yin Lo.

If you don't like the work ultramolecular, what do you suggest since etheric drugs is far more appropriate?

If you do not know, I prefer the words "we don't know".


I said and then Hans says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Me:] That is the mystery: these drugs should NOT have effect but do.

Want to help us figure it out?

[Hans:] Well, if you can prove that they do, I'm sure lots of people will be interested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is one of the most pitiful demonstrations of the pseudo-science involved in so-called tests of homeopathy, for there is one and only one way in which to thoroughly prove to oneself that these ultramolecular substances do have effects, but not a single one of these people who call themselve scientists have ever engaged in these tests.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? YOU (homepathists) make the claim, YOU provide the evidence. What is so difficult about that? After all, medical science is not asking you to test their theories.

Rather, those who have know and want to help us, like Tim.

But show me another as insightful as Tim.

Doesn't it strike you as a bit pitiful and pathetic that in all the world there is one bloke in chemistry who has tested homeopathy by high-potency self-proving?

Moreover, this is but the core of the problem of school scientists asking for evidence when homeopathy is nothing but evidence, and they fail to examine the evidence and then test it as they are supposed to before they have any right to any opinion about homeopathy.

But none of them do this.

Might I suggest this is because your test methods are not repeatable?

Again, again, again, and again, Hahnemann fulfilled his part of the responsibilities as a scientist by reporting on his findings and then telling the world how to test and verify his evidence by writing the ORGANON OF MEDICINE.

Why have none of you people read this book and than done what you're supposed to have done as scientists?

And how do you dare have any opinion whatsoever on homeopathy without having even read the evidence that is the whole of homeopathy?

Read the books and journals and you'll see the evidence.

The provings are recorded in the materia medica of Hahnemann and a few others.

The case studies are in the journals and some of the books.

And the explanations of how it is done is in the ORGANON.

What is the problem here?

The problem is that nobody seems to want to do your homework. Publish one, just one, double-blind placebo-controlled study that shows that homeopathy works, and see what happens. What is the problem in that?

Hans:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I have seen Shiu Yin Lo's photos, but obviously, they could be anything. He has not published any protocol for obtainnig those pictures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What?

It is not even a little coincidental to you that James H. Stephenson, M.D., hypothesized on polymerization of the water and alcohol molecules being the mechanism of homeopathic pharmacology, and then Shiu Yin Lo accidentally produced photos of succussed high dilutions while doing totally unrelated research in the private industry?

Coincidal is the word.

You think that nanometer-sized ice at room temperature from succussed high dilutions "could be anything?'

Would you care to explain that?

I sayd that Lo's photos could be anything. I have no documentaion that they are what he claims them to be. But I can tell you that they are not nanometer-sized; since they were made by an optical microscope, they must be several orders of magnitude larger than that.

And if you have seen his photos, that means you have seen them in his book, where he most certainly did publish protocols for obtaining those pictures.

Is this an attempt to lie?

I have seen them on the internet. He (or somebody else)published them there too.

If it is, I am going to call you a liar! and worse!

All things considered, you'd best hold back on the strong words.

Hans says:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is where we debate, this is where you present your evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sir, I was asking Tim to tell you have to read the thread that started this for us at homeopathyhome.

I would be quoting myself.

And it is a long dialogue.

If you are not interested, that's fine.

What are we about here then?

Hans says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References are fine, indeed commendable, but I will not run around everywhere to gather YOUR arguments for you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are not going to gather and read the evidence, what point is there in proceeding here since that is your responsibility, not mine?

Again, no. You make the claims, you present the evidence. This is a general rule of debate. You don't see me directing you to read the tons of evidence from medical science.

You people have yet to fulfill your half of the scientific responsibilties that Hahnemann fulfilled in 1810.

Who is a bit late, us or you?

You.

I said and Hans responded:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Me:] Rationalist allopathy is a kind of quasi-militaristic approach that arose out of Western medicine's emphasis upon the natural sciences, which thus ignored the herbalists.

[Hans:] Yes, modern medicine is very militant about proof. Prove your claims and you're in, fail to prove them, and you're out. Good for the patients, you know. Keeps the snake oil out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is not what I said; I said that allopathic medicine is quasi-militaristic in its approach to cases.

It wants to kill!

That is crap. Your constant attacks on the opposition only shows that you have no arguments for your own position.

*snipped: More unfounded assertions about modern medicine **

As for the evidence, I have said it enough times for you to have heard it.

If you refuse to examine the evidence, there is no reason to talk to you since I have done as much as I can in trying to explain things to you.

I acknowledge that you have taken a lot of trouble to answer me and I thank you for that.

But I will not help those who refuse to help themselves unless they are my patients.

Remember, YOU are the one asking for help (according to yourself).

Hans says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does this vindicate homeopathy? It is not very interesting how the state of medicine was in 1914. If you haven't noticed, quite a few things has happened since.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, then I will spell it out for you.

Nothing has changed in effects.

You people engaged in barbaric practices for 2600 known years of Western medicine and then suddenly got religion you deemed scientific medicine; however, the father of scientific medicine, as you call it, was the world champion of bloodletting as late as 1914.

Since 1914, Albert, SINCE then. Actually, I wouldn't mind saying since about 1918. Lotsa snake oil in mainstream medicine before that.

Now, go backwards for 120 years and see how homeopathy had to put up with you guys doing bloodletting and calomelization plus all of the other vile mineral drugs you prescribed while homeopaths engaged in 25th-century medicine at this rate.

Interesting proposition. So since medicine was such a pushover during those 120 years, what were homeopaths doing? Sitting on their hands. If they had an efficient regimen, they should have had no trouble cleaning the table.

Incidentally, the effect of calomelization (mercuous oxidatum or the black oxide of mercury) was to sluff off all of the epithelial cells from the mouth to the anus, effectively rendering the person unable to either digest or assimilate nutrients.

You people have a horrendous history, and I am not going to let you get away with cavilerly ignoring it.

Who is ignoring? I recently visited our local medical museum. People really has to be strong to be sick back then :eek: . But again, if homeopaths had a clean and efficient method of curing practically anything, how come they manged to get themselves ignored for 120 years?

Your buddies murdered George Washington, pal, and they actually published the case report in pride.

Google "death of George Washington."

The man simply needed homeopathic Aconite in a single dose of 30c.

They murdered him!

Seems they got Abraham Lincoln too, actually.

This is the same thing that happens today.

The means have changed, but the effects are absolutely the same.

Allopathic medicine does nothing but create diseases and premature deaths.

This is where you are wrong. I have already asked you: Where is smallpox, plague, polio, etc. Why are people no longer invariably dying from diabetes, pneumonia, syphilis? Why has out life expectancy doubled? .. And you accuse ME of lying?

If you hold otherwise, I guarantee you that it is your destiny to learn this firsthand.

I avoid allopaths like they are the plague, for I would just as soon cut off their heads if they do not want to know how to cure.

Nothing is different; it just looks like it: they still kill all of their patients and in just as ghastly horrible and agonally premature a state.

Lies and allegations. And you know it.

Allopathic medicine is not meant for civilized men or even animals.

One of the people frequently quoted by allopathic adherents is Oliver Wendel Holmes.

I have a goodie from him that collapses all of their misrepresentations of his thought: "The world would be best served if all of the [allopathic] drugs were dumped into the ocean."

Close but this is accurate: The world would be best served if all of the allopathic drugs and doctors were dumped into the ocean.

I do hope for you that you are never taken seriously ill.




Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Hans lastly said to a mere two paragraphs he wrote I had to correct ad nosium because he doesn't know the slightest thing about homeopathy:

I am trying to learn, but you are not being very helpful.

Wrongo!

The natural Laws of Medicine make homeopathy simultaneously the oldest and yet most modern and eternally stable and cumulative system of medicine that is via the same three-point criteria of chemistry and physics the actual Science of Medicine.

Says you.

Compared to the murderous nature of modern medicine it is 25th-Century Medicine.

Says you.

I have have enough of you, sir.

I could say the same, but I'm a patient man.

You are a total waste of time and are very much due your ghastly agonal, horrendously horrible and very premature iatrogenic death in allopathic hands after years of iatrogenic suffering by them, and I very much hope it is well underway and you are not in this world tomorrow.

Ahh, at least I consider myself fortunate that I will never have to rely on you for cure.

This is the rest of your ridiculous statements I only began to correct:


You can shut up now and hopefully exit this life sooner than later since everything out of your mouth is designed to create iatrogenic diseases and deaths.

We can all pray that you return to whatever hell you came from and are resonant with and that it happens by tomorrow.

But I will not be hereafter wasting my time with you and most certainly will not be having patience with many more at this site if they prove to be like you.

I, however, will not stop questioning your statements. But if you will relieve me of more going through pages of drivelly "replies" and admit defeat by ignoring me, I shall only be grateful.

Remember, be sure to follow all of your advice and get dead soon, okay?

Be shure NEVER to post in the JREF ( http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/ )forum, where wishing death upon others is a banning offence. And with your inability to argue your position you would soon be driven to that by the host of knowledgeably and trained debaters resident there, between whom I am but a humble apprentice.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
WellCookedFetus,

I am going backward in these posts looking for things I missed, and I see this one from you:



I have told you till I am blue in the face that the proof is in the cases.

The entire history of homeopathy is provings installed in the materia medica, cures in published case reports (allopathic medicine does not engage in case reports for obvious reasons) and the explanations of how to test and verify the evidence in the instructions within the ORGANON OF MEDICINE.

What is with you people that you presume that evidence exists in an allopathic form?

You all test drugs against diseases.

We cannot do that because homeopathy is not applied against diseases but for patients.

One of the reasons we are able to make them well is because we do not make that fundamental mistake of allopathic medicine.

Drugs cannot be prescribed against diseases because cases with nothing but the common symptoms of diagnostic categories exist nowhere in the world.

We prescribe on the uncommon symptoms.

Some practical examples of medicine known to be needed by historical figures due to psychological elements of their cases may help.

Hitler, the megalomaniac, needed Anacardium orientale in potency.
Clinton, the falanderer (sp?), needs Lycopodium in potency.
Reagan, the indignant tyrant, needs Staphysagria in potency.
Mike Tyson, the criminal, needs Belladonna in potency.
Diane Keeton, the hysterical but charmingly loving woman, needs Ignatia in potency.
Bette Middler, the very loud-mouthed and rather simpleminded but sweet woman anyone would love to have as a sister, needs Hyocyamus in potency.
Lincoln, the brilliant and wise statesman, probably needed Phosophorus in potency.
There are many such examples.

On the other hand, if you ask us which medicine personalities like Michael Keeton need, we cannot be sure since he does not have psychological indications, just Parkinson's that we cured before it was named that.

This goes on and on. Har, har, har. Earlier you claimed that homeopathic treatment required careful examination by the practitioner, you mentioned hours of careful personal interrogation. And yet you now propose to prescribe drugs to people you haven't even met, and whose "symptoms" you only know by hearsay. What a great practitioner you are!

You know, Hahnemannian, that is one problem when talking as much as you do and mainkg such sweeping statements: You inevitably end up contradicting yourself.

Hans

[ElectricFetus]

Hahnemannian,

LOL, you got to be kidding me, I gave your research that tested homeopathy now all I ask is that you find similar research that verifies what ever it is that you want to prove to us. You have two groups one that you give placebo to and one that you treat with whatever means you call homeopathy, you though should not be aware nor the patient to which persons gets the placebo (double blind), This test is justified in proving that homeopathy is a valid treatment and not just a waste of peoples time and even lives. Why can’t you give me this evidence, this is only evidence I will except, in fact the only evidence science will except, anything else is bull shit. I ask you to stop ranting and give me evidence, give me links, show me proof, but you haven't, you just blaber on and on about things that we can simple not beleive you one because you don't back it up with proof.

[timokay]

Hans,

Tim: This whole issue is still being debated and the "disease management centre" is just a proposal. We don't have the answers yet - I have not been studying Homeopathy for long; started with Hahnemann's books, from which logical models have been proposed (using my background in Medical Science/Systems Analysis).

Hans: "So, you are merely guessing? However, whatever it is, why should we have a built-in function to make us ill??"


Re. "guessing", it is about time some serious thought was given by the scientists to Hahnemann's work, if they are interested in helping millions of people with "incurable" chronic diseases, AND THEY SHOULD BE. I am a trained and experienced Systems Analyst and my systematic "guessing" is the way problems are solved.

Re. "built-in" function to make us ill, that is not what I am saying. It is just a "logical" entity at the moment...to explain the large number of observations made by Hahnemann...that a co-ordinating function of the immune system is becoming DETACHED from immune system activities...and because this happens, the coordinating function itself may be the cause (i.e., actually be "the disease"). Hahnemann called this an "untuning".

Tim: Hahnemann makes a point about how one disease affects another in the same patient...the stronger one sets aside or suspends the weaker...but how could this suspension be coordinated, with the immune system involving billions of cells and so much of the body?

Hans: "This is not correct. You can have several diseases at the same time. This is sometimes called a syndrome. The idea that the stronger disease suspends the weaker comes from simple attention focus: If you have a strong symptom, you will not notice a light one, but that does not mean it has gone away."

Very good. Yes, attention focus...and the weaker disease has certainly not gone away, it is certainly active in the body - for some reason it is far enough into the background for the stronger disease to reveal its characteristic symptom pattern unclouded by the weaker disease.

My approach is to see things from Hahnemann's perspective. He gathers up every conceivable symptom/sign/manifestation of the patient's illness and then matches this "totality" to the very well documented "total symptom pattern" of each homeopathic medicine. He is helped greatly in the task of medicine selection by symptoms particular or "peculiar" to this disease, but must gather up all he can from the patient anyway so he doesn't miss any of these particularly important symptoms. Since symptoms were the whole world of his medical system, it is not unreasonable for him to see this as a "suspension" of the weaker disease. He never claimed that it had gone away.

I think we should seriously consider that some suppression of the weaker disease(s) may well be occurring, since the management and processing of multiple diseases surely poses problems to the immune system (crossed wires) - multiple diseases sharing the same resources??

Tim: "It COULD be accomplished by the diffuse immune system, but I suspect that the Brain coordinates. It doesn't really matter where it is logically, at this stage, just that it must exist. If you look in scienceforums.net (click on "forums" and select forum ==> "General Science, topic "Not Science, we are told") you will see latest posts from Albert and I. "

Hans: "No. The way to conduct a debate is by presenting your arguments. I will not search for it all over the place. Cut and paste if you will, but present your arguments here."


OK, We are still researching this whole subject..no clear answers, only the firm belief in Hahnemann's remarkable work.

Tim: "Yes, Albert can explain how important the procedure is for gathering all symptoms from the patient. The first consultation can take up to 2 hours, I understand, and the doctor has to be very observant."

Hans: "That's nice, but experience shows that you cannot reliably make a diagnosis by asking the patient what is wrong. Several disorders have very weak and diffuse symptoms, e.g. hypertension."

Tim: The information is gathered in a special way, with certain symptoms, e.g., mental, considered more important than others when it comes to medicine selection. Any experienced Homeopath would certainly suspect the diffuse symptoms of hypertension, though his terminology would be different. ALL symptoms would be recorded and entered into the process.

RE. The "memory" aspect of it, I believe the medicine molecules affect the shape of the water/ethanol polymers or clusters formed during the succussion steps. There is evidence for this going back to 1975, which seems to be based on Stephenson's Hypothesis.

Hans: "There is no such thing as water polymers. If you have evidence, please present it."

"Clusters" is a much better word. At the time of Stephenson's work in the 50's and 60's, this terminology has changed. He could not prove his theory. The significant work was done in the 70's and later.

I would like to present the evidence but it is not Online. I would also say that this is an area I have not yet researched in detail. Some references below, (some original papers are on order):

In the search, I have noted correlations between independent works on the nature of the medicines; Stephenson's Hypothesis and related work by Luu VIHN, & Mlle L. BARDET (RAMAN-laser studies) in France in 1975; Physicist Lo in 1996; and Geckeler & Samal in 2001. ALL seem to describing a similar phenomenon in these solutions judging by their descriptions of its properties...e.g., clustering of water molecules, stable up to 120 degrees C, destroyed by ultrasound, unstable in sunlight. Also, rate of potency development depends on the history of the solution...ironically the more dilute it is to begin with, (and wait at least three minutes between succussion steps) the more the potency develops. This correlates with Hahnemann's Q-potency preparation procedure.

Ref THORSON'S Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Homoeopathy, Pg188/446.

Shape-specific clustering is thought to occur in water-ethanol leaving an "impress", a clustering of water molecules of a kind which is unique for each medicine.

My position is that the originals of the above Vihn, Lo and Geckeler et al. papers must be obtained.

1) Here are subsets of Lo's papers,
http://pecan.srv.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/dst/www/ATG/lo-iestru.html

http://pecan.srv.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/dst/www/ATG/lo-ice.html

2). Samal & Geckeler Ref: Unexpected solute aggregation in water on dilution, Chem. Commun. 21 (2001) 2224-2225.

Some accumulated evidence for Homeopathy (though not "Scientific").
http://www.marius.net/research.html


Tim: "It is difficult to know what the body's immune system makes of these strange crystals/clusters..they quickly dissolve away..but apparently trigger an immune response of some kind before that, and the resulting symptom patterns. Either they act in this way on the immune system or they act more directly on the brain.
Anyone can go into a drugstore/chemist and buy one of these medicines and try them..they will produce symptoms..showing them not to be the "just nothing" Medical Science claims, in its ignorance. "

Hans: "Ahh! This is a thing that could easily be tested."

Hans, that is the $64,000 question. I am now ploughing thru' latest immunology textbooks to suggest a way. It seems unlikely that these clusters could survive long enough to trigger an immune response. But, they are certainly something the immune system has never seen before, could upset something.

Tim: You mean "Scientifically" testable. They have been tested thousands of times within Homeopathy for the last 213 years. Before Science can test Homeopathy, it should understand something about it.

Hans: Not at all. A scientific test can disclose an effect even if the causal mechanism is unknown. This is the beauty of the scientific method. If Homeopathy can affect a disease, it can be proven in a double-blind placebo-controlled test. If a Homeopathic drug causes a symptom, it can be proven in such a test. This has nothing to do with belief or understanding.

Interesting. You're the man Albert and I have been looking for. What if the symptoms produced by the medicine are only "perceived"...Hundreds of very predictable symptoms/effects/manifestations when a certain medicine is taken. Try one yourself and see. I'll send you a sealed pack..within 4 hours of taking them you will get symptoms...feeling is believing.

You write: "If Homeopathy can affect a disease"...oops! we're in "what is a disease?" territory again, where is the controlled starting point? see below.

Tim: Homeopathy and Medical Science are like chalk and cheese. They are completely separate disciplines, don't even agree on what a "disease" is.

Hans: "But I assume we can agree that if the patient gets better, then the treatment has an effect?"

Better yes, but from what? There must be an agreed starting point...Science does not recognize the Homeopath's concerns about the experiment.

Tim: Science says its a disease agent, of course, which invades the body, and is eradicated. But, IS IT A DISEASE if it doesn't even produce symptoms? We get infected every day, don't know about it because the immune system destroys it without us knowing.

Hans: "Ahh, so you do acknowledge that the immune system fights infections to keep us from illness?"

Of course. I have a degree in Physiology & Biochemistry.

Tim: Homeopathy identifies diseases by the symptom patterns they produce...no symptoms, no disease.

Hans: A very dangerous philosophy, since several diseases have very benign symptoms, if any at all, in the beginning. Examples are hypertension, type 2 diabetes, syphilis.

At the beginning..precisely. Hahnemann was very well aware of all these chronic conditions and how they developed...spent 12 long years alone, studying and curing them..succeeded in all cases. Altho' he knew nothing about any of the chemical processes of the body, nor the cause of many diseases, he could discover the truth by relentless experimentation and careful observation - spent 53 years of his life on his medical system; perfected and fully documented before his death.

Ref. "The Chronic Diseases" by Samuel Hahnemann.
Now do you understand my motivations?

http://homeoint.org/books/hahchrdi/index.htm

Tim: And, the disease agent itself is rarely the problem...it should have been eradicated without symptoms...symptoms mean there is a problem with the immune system...THAT is the "dis-ease" - the fault in the immune system of this particular person.

Hans: "What is your evidence for this claim? Several infectious agents produce consistent disease symptoms, even if they are later eradicated by the immune system."

I am seeing the problem from Hahnemann's point of view and trying to reconcile it with my Science background. I am prepared to accept some "feeling under the weather" symptoms when we become infected, but that is not illness.

"Several infectious agents produce consistent disease symptoms...".

Yes, there are exceptions like some viral diseases or epidemics that pose particular stresses EVEN on the healthy immune system. And these do indeed usually have common symptoms in people. But, in all the rest, symptom presentation means some weakness in the immune system. In these cases, it is extremely rare for two people whose symptoms result from an infection by the same disease agent, to present the same symptom pattern. The disease agent only reveals a weakness in their immune systems...the actually weakness could be 100's of things, which is very particular to that patient, as revealed by a unique "total symptom pattern".

So, the Homeopathic Medicine is always chosen based on "this particular patient's immune system fault", not any disease agent. The immune system should have dealt with it without difficulties. Medical Science and Homeopathy don't get on well together at all because of major differences like this. The dominant system wins only because it is the dominant system. I think it refreshing for a Homeopath like Albert to actually hit back - not many do. Science says their whole life's work is phony, and the treatment at best a Placebo Effect.

I support Hahnemann's classical homeopathy - I don't know enough about Modern Homeopathy to form an opinion.

Hans: Well, it is not pleasant to be told that, but that is what evidence points at. And I'm afraid that medical science is more concerned by the welfare of patients than by the feelings of homeopaths.

Kindly present some evidence against Hahnemann's Homeopathy. Even experiments on Modern Homeopathy are clearly flawed because the Scientist simply does not understand Homeopathy.

Tim: Although I have a Science background, I see a great deal of injustice (lies) w.r.t. Science's views of Homeopathy, and these should be corrected.

Hans: What injustices? Evidence? What keeps homeopaths from documenting their claims, if they can?

About 80 years ago, Homeopathy was crushed by Medical Science. A political move. Do you want to see some? Yet, Hahnemann cured virtually every sick person he saw; and the chronic diseases in particular - just what Medical Science has a problem with today.

Re. Evidence : Homeopathy has over 200 years of evidence, documented in its Journals, Materia Medica, Repertories, etc.

Tim: Homeopathy CAN cure these conditions by the correct way, by helping the body's own defences to deal with it - resolve it completely. The body uses a complicated hierarchy of cascading processes, evolved over many millions of years, to deal with disease - strategies that deal with the WHOLE disease, ie., and all symptoms associated with it...and then restore the tissue homeostasis. It's a very complicated sequence/cycle of events. If you step in somewhere in that hierarchy and suppress a symptom, e.g., fever, that is no solution to the problem - let the underlying problem be dealt with by the above...don't complicate the whole process.t Hahnemann displays anger on almost every page of his books because of the damage done to sick people by this meddling - very much harder to cure - but he succeeded. Medicine should work WITH the natural hierarchy/cycle of healing, not AGAINST it. Going against it is futile anyway - it will resist and fight you all the way...the patient will have to pay later for any temporary improvements.

Hans: Please, support your claims with evidence.

My evidence is the life's work of Samuel Hahnemann, the success of Homeopaths, the documentation in the Homoeopathic Journals.
What kind of Scientific "disease" do you want me to address?

Hans: In some cases, it is the only path open to us at present (e.g. diabetes).

Until some people in the Scientific community looks seriously at Homeopathy, as you appear to be doing.

Tim: Unfortunately, virtually all of them do more harm than good. It depends on which medicine we are talking about. Initially, it may seem to help symptoms...but there is often a heavy price to pay later.

Hans: If medical science "does more harm than good", please explain how it has been so successful in battling a long row of diseases (I mentioned a few earlier), and why is it that populations with good coverage of modern medicine have life expectancies around 80 years, whereas populations which do not have access to such medicine have life expectancies of about half that figure?

I am not saying that Modern Medicine does more harm than good, but in MANY CASES it does so.

[Quasi]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
How do you double-blind cures engaged in according to uncommon symptoms, and how does one ethically justify giving suffering people placebo?

What's the point of double blinding anyway since it is based upon the assumption that a medicine can be prescribed for a disease?

It's one of the stupid allopathic conventions with no meaning and purpose when therapeutics is engaged in properly.

There are people in HPHs who are eager to engage in such experiments.

We want to know the mechanism of homeopathic pharmacology and cure our patients.



Hahn,

I will throw the gauntlet down here-
Take 10 acute diabetics (severe diabetes,) and treat them with homeopathy alone. No blood sugar monitoring and no restrictive diet etc. See what happens over a 5 year period. There, is that hard? Simply compare your observations with that of the well documented results of standard medicine. What is the problem with this test, other than perhaps a small patient pool? Or try the same thing with terminal cancer patients, maybe cancer kids? According to you cancer does not exist, and is a big lie. Well Hahn? While you could not publish the data, 10 dead bodies in your office would sure convince people of Homeopathy's worthlessness. On the other hand, if they lived healthy lives you could be the next big thing in medicine, and would probably be one step away from the Nobel in Medicine. Why the excuses?

[BTox]

Originally posted by timokay
OK, We are still researching this whole subject..no clear answers, only the firm belief in Hahnemann's remarkable work.


What is remarkable about Hahnemann's work? It was disproven and is nothing but fiction. What is remarkable is that anyone still believes in it in this day and age.


Originally posted by timokay
I am now ploughing thru' latest immunology textbooks to suggest a way. It seems unlikely that these clusters could survive long enough to trigger an immune response. But, they are certainly something the immune system has never seen before, could upset something.



These "clusters" do not exist, even if they did, they are still just water and would not evoke any immune response, nor any other physiological activity.

Originally posted by timokay
Interesting. You're the man Albert and I have been looking for. What if the symptoms produced by the medicine are only "perceived"...Hundreds of very predictable symptoms/effects/manifestations when a certain medicine is taken. Try one yourself and see. I'll send you a sealed pack..within 4 hours of taking them you will get symptoms...feeling is believing.




Nonsense. I have personally tried several different "remedies" at low and high potency. No effects whatsoever.

Originally posted by timokay
Of course. I have a degree in Physiology & Biochemistry.



I also have a degree in biochemistry. Nothing about homeopathy makes the least bit of sense from a biochemical standpoint. Do you not remember what you learned?


Originally posted by timokay
At the beginning..precisely. Hahnemann was very well aware of all these chronic conditions and how they developed...spent 12 long years alone, studying and curing them..succeeded in all cases. Altho' he knew nothing about any of the chemical processes of the body, nor the cause of many diseases, he could discover the truth by relentless experimentation and careful observation - spent 53 years of his life on his medical system; perfected and fully documented before his death.

Ref. "The Chronic Diseases" by Samuel Hahnemann.
Now do you understand my motivations?

AND..

About 80 years ago, Homeopathy was crushed by Medical Science. A political move. Do you want to see some? Yet, Hahnemann cured virtually every sick person he saw; and the chronic diseases in particular - just what Medical Science has a problem with today.

Re. Evidence : Homeopathy has over 200 years of evidence, documented in its Journals, Materia Medica, Repertories, etc.

AND...

My evidence is the life's work of Samuel Hahnemann, the success of Homeopaths, the documentation in the Homoeopathic Journals.
What kind of Scientific "disease" do you want me to address?




So believe all these "cures" because Hahnemann said so? What kind of proof is that? Where is the "success of Homeopaths" that you report? Have you personally seen someone cured by homeopathy and no other treatment? It would be very simple for homeopaths to prove their treatments are effective. Yet after 200 years, not a single case has been documented. Don't you find that odd? By the way, I find it very hard to believe that you have any scientific education whatsoever.

[Hahnemannian]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Sorry for the late answer (we have a timezone issue). I will reply to you in chronological order, even if this may mean overlapping later posts.


Hans

This will be the third chance I take with you.

The next first hint of disinterest in homeopathy and yet attacking it from what you have more than proven is absolute ignorance of it and I will ignore you again.

And this is not carte blanc for the others here I have ignored for the same reasons.

----------

Okay, there is a vast amount of information obtained about the biochemical level of being involved in diseases and chemical pharmacology -- agreed.

However, of what value is that information in therapeutics since you are still talking about pathology as known to allopathic medicine, which has nothing to do with pure, legitimate, scientific, substantiated, stable and cumulative (take your pick) therapeutics based upon the four Laws of Therapeutics, as P.P. Wells attempted to point out in the above reference?

That is to say, pathology in today's world does not refer to the "study of suffering" -- meaning of diseases in general and of symptoms in particular, as it should were it linguistically legitimized -- but instead to nothing more than the study of tissue changes of disease-diagnostic categories and thus of nothing more than common symptoms and the ultimate results of disease process best prevented (by homeopathically prescribing for those patients, not for their diseases, on the basis of their still-discernable uncommon symptoms when they were curable) decades before they ultimate in those thousands of essentially incurable abominations of effete, therapeutically incompetent allopathic therapies, which only make patients incurable by suppressing their symptoms and complicating their natural diseases with incomprehensibly confounded iatrogenic ("physician-induced") diseases that we cannot possibly penetrate and cure except over very long periods of time and with lots of luck.

When presented with patients diagnosed with incurable diseases who have not been so complicated, we have repeatedly demonstrated that there is no such thing as an incurable disease.

The inescapable conclusion -- remembering that we have been finding this from the very beginning and that today's eleborate and vastly more complete allopathic knowledge from the natural sciences is still facing the same incurability in about 99% of diseases and is still producing incurable patients by the billions -- is therefore that this knowledge does not give us anything more than greater precision in prognosis, not in therapeutics.

But we already know these things, sir, for the four Laws of Therapeutics permit us to precipitate the four Laws of Cure, and we can immediately tell from such curative reactions or relative failures of optimal cure from our efforts how curable a patient is, and this is FAR more precise than any allopathic parameters based upon numbers provided by chemistry and physics as superimposed upon diagnosis and pathology.

But we want access to that diagnositic equipment.

Who said we didn't?

You people in allopathic medicine maintain a monopoly over it via dominance of the socio-economic realm of medicine in our times because the insurance companies only pay your kind for your effete therapies and thus forever push up the cost of health care because you cannot cure.

Does this endless spiral in medical costs make any sense?

Of course not!

The allopathic pharmaceutical companies want to maintain this dominance of world medicine through allopathic therapies; however, if those few people who're really in charge of it would realize the benefits of health and productive efficiency resultant in degrees of health known to homeopaths, they'd shift their efforts to other industries and let us have our proper place at the core of medicinal therapeutics.

The longevity would then actually rise toward 120 and then 144 years and beyond where it belongs, and people would not live in stress.

John D. Rockefeller inexplicably permitted his wealth to be used to socio-economically destroy homeopathic medicine despite the fact that he maintained homeotherapeutics as his primary therapy his long life.

Why do these people do these things? We don't know.

The notion of the function of existence only generally occurs to people late in life within our societies because they distract us with acquisitiveness and the opportunities to procede in the acquisition of wealth and station.

This is absurd.

None of the status quo of our societies should remain, and allopathic medicine in diseases is one of the first major ones destined to soon go the way of the dodo bird since it does not cure and never will be able to.

Sir, that information you refer to is of no value in therapeutics, only in pathology and thus only in prognosis, which we do not require since we can already prognosticate with far more precision than allopathic medicine thanks to the universe-wide absolutes called the four Laws of Cure.

So, of what value is all of that information?

I am all ears.

[Hahnemannian]

Hans says:

I have already pointed out a few of the results achieved by medical science during the 20ht century. Also this you have chosen to ignore.

Unless I am very much mistakened, allopathy has not produced any results we had already achieved with our little globules.

In parturition and obstetrics in general, which is one of the advances you specifically mentioned, we stand alone with cures, and the now-famous C-sections only testify to no allopathic medicinal means of correcting malposition of the fetus that kills both mother and presenting organism for an incoming Soul.

One of the reasons for our rapid rise in popularity within 19th-Century America and Europe was our therapeutics on women and children, and thus came the unabated loyalty of mothers no matter how ignorant and allopathic the husbands remained.

The same calculus existed for priests, for they despise deaths as much as us.

Similarly, the intelligentia of America generally adhered to homeopathy, witness Mark Twain as the most famous exponent of homeopathy and the most famous name in the 19th century.

These people did not adhere to homeopathy for no reason.

The following is just one of many papers on the subject, to mention nothing of the case reports underlying such statements of fact, and it is from a then-elderly high-potency pseudo-homeopath, not from a Hahnemannian.

Notes on Homoeopathic Practice in Obstetric Cases

Royal E.S. Hayes, M.D.,

THE [Cincinnati] MEDICAL ADVANCE

Vol. 15 (1907)




The great advantage of homoeopathic prescribing during the pregnant period and at confinement is well known among those who have so prescribed. The pregnant woman is especially susceptible to homœopathic treatment. I have observed that more permanent good is often accomplished during pregnancy than is apparent at the time; a more marked increase of vigor being noted later on.

In parturition the homœopathic remedy promotes normal innervation, thereby imparting natural activity to the physical organism and appreciably to the special mechanism involved in the process of labor, concentrating the expelling and resisting forces in the proper directions. Normal innervation also controls the processes which [that] continue after labor. The homœopathic remedy[,] therefore, is the most effective agent for promoting reasonably quick, safe, and more or less comfortable delivery and the most efficient prophylactic of complications. How often we see the weak, irregular or abnormal pains changing to even and comparatively comfortable contractions after applying the subtle force of the similar remedy. The woman often says: “Doctor, that medicine makes the pains harder but they are easier to bear than before.” And often we may see this though she may not remark it. There is a very visible effect of the contact of drug and human forces in these cases. The well-selected remedy solves many problems.

The writer has seen one case of transverse presentation spontaneously corrected after exhibition of the indicated remedy. The remedy in this case was one which [that] has other credits to the same effect in this mishap, viz., Pulsatilla. Herein is a point of interest. This remedy was not prescribed because it has a reputation for regulating these misplaced forces. It was prescribed because the patient had the characteristic [uncommon, strange, rare and peculiar] anxiety, restlessness, tearfulness, and respiratory oppression. Those symptoms more closely represent the disorder than the changed physical conditions. Why? The answer is simple. Because they are nearer to the origin of the forces at work."

Everyone knows that all vital processes are carried on through the exertion of a force projected within the organism. The same laws must govern the vital energy as any other [not true]. Therefore, the nearer the curative force (by virtue of its supraphysical quality, and by virtue also of its inherent likeness to the perverted state of the vital force) can be applied to the origin of the wrong direction of force in the patient, the more general, the more pervasive, the resultant changes. This applies in a more striking and visible manner to the condition of the mechanism of labor than in ordinary cases. The only point of logical dispute can be in regard to local impediments outside the potential possibilities of the vital force. These we are willing to leave to surgery.

One would not usually open a door by thrusting a bar into the key-hole. It is much better to use that small instrument which has the notches so accurately adjusted that it removes the opposing forces at their origin of attack without noise, destruction or effort. In the case of our Irish lady[,] would it not have been just as well to have reduced the displacement by manual means? Certainly that would be better than leave the parts to their own destruction. It would show bad judgment to wait long for the action of a remedy in an extreme case like this. But it could not have been accomplished without some little damage, bruising or even shock. Besides, that would not overcome the more invisible misadjustment [maladjustment] of force[,] which was at work in the spirit of the person. The misrepresentation was undoubtedly due to wrong direction of resisting or expelling forces; this to irregular exertion of motor nervous energy and this in turn to certain deflection of the vital force. To have reduced the presentation manually would have overcome the immediate local gross effect but could not have prevented other manifestations of the same perversion of central energy. As long as that persisted she would be in danger of other complications or disorder. Happily[,] the whole condition in this case was amenable to the action of the remedy.

In another case[,] a woman was delivered of a vigorous child without the aid of medicine. After waiting for a time for the placenta to be delivered[,] we found that we were encountering a case of hour-glass contraction, retained placenta and hemorrhage[,] which was serious enough to give rise to the hope that it would not continue long, to say the least. It was clearly the duty of the physician in this case to remove the placenta. Now, if the patient can be made to remove the disorder by means of her own forces[,] we prefer that it shall be done in most cases. This woman was thin, scrawny, pale and pinched looking. In this respect[,] she greatly resembled her mother who was present at the time. The discharged blood was black and clotted. It was not alarming in amount but was evidently weakening. There were paroxysms of severe cutting pain in one side of the uterus and the distorted shape of that organ could be distinctly felt. These were the only guiding symptoms observed [R.E.S. Hayes was a HPH], and the writer had never prescribed Secale before. But he believe that a dose of that remedy would right the trouble[,] which it did promptly so that the patient said she never got along so well after a labor as she did after this one. [Note that he gave absolutely no reasons for this prescription and certainly did not engage in any materia medica searches let alone any repertorization; he essentially just said that he felt or intuited the medicine’s homeopathicity, which HPHs commonly say.] A headache of several years’ standing disappeared, and there was mammary activity sufficient to nurse the baby six or seven months, which she had not been able to do with her other three children.

Here was a woman of a pronounced constitutional type, her mother possessing the same. The symptoms at the emergency were in with her constitutional makeup. [Here is another mistake of HPHs, for this goes along with their notion of remedy essences and the synonyms for that in his time, and with their erroneous notions of miasmatic layers of diseases.] Undoubtedly[,] they were a sign and result of the direction in which the organic energy had been and was being modified through deflection of the vital force [pithy expression]. Why should not a medicine – a force – which has in its own manifestation of energy the same affinity of adjustment as that existing in the perverted vital energy of the patient be able to balance the perverting force allowing the vital force to resume its original course undisturbed? [Again, he is strong on clichés, which are another characteristic of HPHs.]

All this is well known to Homoeopathicians[,] but it would seem as though these simple principles of the application of force to the sensitive animal organism might be more generally appreciated.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
You people in allopathic medicine maintain a monopoly over it via dominance of the socio-economic realm of medicine in our times because the insurance companies only pay your kind for your effete therapies and thus forever push up the cost of health care because you cannot cure.

Does this endless spiral in medical costs make any sense?

Of course not!

The allopathic pharmaceutical companies want to maintain this dominance of world medicine through allopathic therapies; however, if those few people who're really in charge of it would realize the benefits of health and productive efficiency resultant in degrees of health known to homeopaths, they'd shift their efforts to other industries and let us have our proper place at the core of medicinal therapeutics.



Ah, the pitiful vast medical/pharmaceutical conspiracy excuse. Ask yourself one simple question: in this day of instant global information via satellite tv, radio and internet, would not the discovery of a completely different medical system that is more effective than conventional medicine be the story of the century? If there was a single documented case of a cure of a chronic disease (or any other for that matter) from homeopathy, wouldn't journalists be scrambling to confirm and break this biggest story of all time to the world? Of course they would. The fact that they haven't offers more proof than all the homeopathic rantings and ravings printed over the last 200 years that homeopathy is a 100% ineffective medical treatment system, and it's practitioners, simply frauds.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian


Some practical examples of medicine known to be needed by historical figures due to psychological elements of their cases may help.

Hitler, the megalomaniac, needed Anacardium orientale in potency.
Clinton, the falanderer (sp?), needs Lycopodium in potency.
Reagan, the indignant tyrant, needs Staphysagria in potency.
Mike Tyson, the criminal, needs Belladonna in potency.
Diane Keeton, the hysterical but charmingly loving woman, needs Ignatia in potency.
Bette Middler, the very loud-mouthed and rather simpleminded but sweet woman anyone would love to have as a sister, needs Hyocyamus in potency.
Lincoln, the brilliant and wise statesman, probably needed Phosophorus in potency.
There are many such examples.



So once again, what is the treatment for:

Hahnemannian, paranoid schizophrenic?

"Among the symptoms of Schizophrenia are: Delusions -- These are thoughts that are not real. For instance, paranoid delusions are when a person thinks everyone is out to harm them, even loved ones. Distorted thinking -- This is an inability to think straight, or make sense out of the events going on around the sufferer.

Hallucinations -- This is hearing or seeing things that are not real. As many as 75 percent of sufferers hear voices at some point. Emotionlessness -- This is when a sufferer loses the ability to express emotions.

For people to be diagnosed schizophrenic, they must show at least two different types of symptoms over a six-month period of time.

When sufferers begin to show symptoms, their behavior changes dramatically. Once outgoing and personable, they may become emotionless and antisocial.

Other warning signs that a person may be suffering from schiophrenia include:

Poor personal hygiene
Depression
Rigid stubbornness
Dropping out of activities
Drug or alcohol abuse
Unexpected hostility
Bizarre behavior
Decline in academic or athletic interests
Inappropriate response "

[Hahnemannian]

Hans says:

Since homeopathy apparantly eludes testing it does not qualify as science

I'm not going to let you get away with that assertion, for it is not in the slightest bit true.

Several points arise here.

First, nobody said that it does not lend itself to testing, only that testing per allopathic parameters and assumptions is impossible for the many reasons already stated.

Indeed, homeopathy is nothing but evidence from experimental and applied science, for the provings (prufung means "test or trial") are experiments and the cures are the application of the science.

--------

Secondly, not only is homeopathy scientific, it is a PURE science in that its 10 natural Laws of Medicine make it the actual Science of Medicine.

In the beginning of virtually every chemistry and physics textbook, indeed, in the beginning of most science books is found the three-point criteria of pure sciences:

1. The existence of natural laws that are
2. Absolutely verifiable and
3. Provide predictability, viz., a reasonably and relatively precise predictability of the phenomena being observed, dealt with or precipitated.

Allopathic medicine has been saying it is looking for these natural Laws of Medicine for hundreds of years.

Our response: uh ha; you bet; we have some swamp land and desertous property to sell to anybody who believes that.

----------

Science as you mean it refers to testing via scientific method.

Scientific method is the methodology whereby an hypothesis is put forward to either explain some observed phenomenon or phenomena or which otherwise provides some beneficial activity (e.g., medicinal therapeutics), which hypothesis/assumption(s)/notion(s), etc., is tested and then either confirmed or refined to further test the refined hypothesis.

Allopathic medicine readily lends itself to scientific method due to the idea that disease-diagnostic categories can be treated/cured by specific drugs FOR those disease, which is an illusion of allopathy, for NOBODY has only the common symptoms of those diagnoses and thus nothing more than a statistical abstraction is being tested.

Homeopathy in its pure form (i.e., Hahnemannian homeopathy) does not make this fundamental mistake about health, disease and therapeutics or any other mistakes involving the other two basic subjects of medicine: the nature of existence and the nature of the universe.

But scientists do not have to make this very basic mistake about medicine; they choose to.

However, all evidence from their conditioned-reflex brain reactions in word-association tests reveal that they do this due to brainwashing/conditioning/indoctrination and the so-called "education" based upon basic half-truths and lies involving allopathic constructs and assumptions about those five primary subjects of medicine.

So it is not our mistake that all school scientists in the natural sciences and all allopaths are wrong; it's their fault.

Scientific method and double blinding can, however, be used to test whether or not a homeopath is competent enough to know if the drug s/he prescribed was replaced by a placebo.

Hahnemannians would never run afoul of these tests, but low-potency pseudo-homeopaths (LPHs) always would and high-potency pseudo-homeopaths (HPHs) usually would fail such tests.

Personally, I would like to see them discredited, for they are NOT homeopaths (at most, they're students) and should shut up.

---------

If anything else arises from invoking the word science in relation to homeopathy, it escapes me at the moment.

[ElectricFetus]

Allopathic testing follows logic and the scientific method (Observe , Hypothesis, Test, Theorize) if it can not be tested in this means then it can never be proven, period.

[Persol]

Explain where the 10 laws came from. If it is science, then it must be based on something.

[Hahnemannian]

WellCookedFetus,

You said:

Allopathic testing follows logic and the scientific method (Observe , Hypothesis, Test, Theorize) if it can not be tested in this means then it can never be proven, period.

That's not true, for the only real test of any therapy is if it cures, and legitimate homeopathy has singularly passed this test in all diseases since we are the only ones who have never found any disease incurable.

I have told you repeatedly that the evidence proving homeopathy is in our case reports and clinical record; the provings are the experimental data that's contained in the materia medica that contain those provings; and the means of testing homeopathy's experimental and operative evidence is contained in the ORGANON OF MEDICINE, most especially the Sixth Edition translated by Jost Kunzli, M.D, Peter Pendleton and Alain Naude, M.D.

[ElectricFetus]

and that what logical testing is all about see if it cures. so far you have shown me no such thing, all you do is make claims and put up individual cases were someone claims it cured someone with out the proof to back it up that it can work reproducible.

[Hahnemannian]

Originally posted by Persol
Explain where the 10 laws came from. If it is science, then it must be based on something.

The 10 natural Laws of Medicine are part of the very fabric of space as absolutes across the universe, just like all natural laws, and they were installed there by Providence from the beginning of Creation, so God (the Elohim or Celestial Host or whoever one conceives of as God or the Absolute) is the source of them.

Who knows where the four fundamental forces come from, five if one admits to the Ether and its forces?

Hahnemann rediscovered them, but they were known to the Hermetic physicians of ancient Egypt, to the unknown homeopaths of ancient India and to the Spagyric physicians of Europe from the 6th through the 17th centuries.

"...then it must be based on something?"

Is that English?

I don't speak Moon talk.

[Hahnemannian]

Hans,

You said:

You constant claims of the failure of allopathy is beginning to look silly, since several examples of its successes have been pointed out.

If you like and prefer allopathic therapeutics, nobody is stopping you, and the insurance companies certainly want to pay for all of those bills and will readily turn a blind eye on the sufferings and diseases they engender since they are all stupid people.

[Hahnemannian]

Hans says to my response to something he said:

[Me:] Again and again and again, allopathy has absolutely no place in disease therapeutics.

A totally unfounded claim, since (the scientific version of) allopathy continues to score victories in the struggle against disease (to slightly mimick your pompous use of words).


Fine with me; let them cut you open and feed you cytotoxic drugs till they kill you with therapies that they admit do NOT cure.

Nobody is keeping you or anyone else from making those death-precipitating decisions, and the whole of the allopathic monster is hoping that your kind of people will keep feeding them your money and bodies.

[Hahnemannian]

Hans says to my remark:

[Me:] Homeopathy can cure for 1001 reasons, but one of them is that it is NOT murderous and unscientific allopathy.

[Hans:] Still no evidence.


And who is keeping you from examining that evidence?

It is not hidden and is written in language that the average person could understand.

Your excuse for not examining the homeopathic evidence is now what?

[Hahnemannian]

Here is a typically unscientific statement made by Hans and others of his kind:

[b]I have said it before, but I'll repeat it: I will not search out your arguments for you. I will not read volumes to find backing for YOUR claim. YOU made the claim, you present the arguments for it. It is YOU who are the lazy one when you just ask others to find your documentation for you.

It is your responsibility to test the findings, not ours; and it is your laziness keeping you from doing so, not ours.

This has been going on for 213 years too, so that is absurd in the extreme.

Besides, I am here answering questions, not providing evidence; I am here looking for help to resolve the enigma of homeopathic pharmacology.

If you do not like my answers but refuse to investigate the evidence, how is that other than a demonstration that you and your kind are not scientists when it obviously does demonstrate nothing but that?

[Hahnemannian]

Folks,

Here is the impassable wall that allopaths and allopathic proponents in the natural sciences errect about homeopathy:

I suspect that your "documentation" will turn out to be little more than anecdotes, but you have the opportunity to prove me wrong.

They call our clinical evidence "anecdotal."

Fine, then go off to the allopaths.

They await you with open arms and pocket books waiting to get rich doing you good.