On Homeopathy

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

some references

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

 

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?

 

Hi Tim.

I'll first post some responses.

----------

Goofyfish, this is not true except for allopathy:

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

WellCookedFetus, you said:

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.

 

WellCookedFetus, you then said:

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.

 

WellCookedFetus, you finally said:

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.

 

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