Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by timokay, Jul 31, 2003.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
Separate names with a comma.