On Homeopathy

WellCookedFetus, you quoted me saying, "Scientific method utilized to test erroneous assumptions will only ever produce erroneous conclusions."

You then said:

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

BTox says:

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:

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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)

 

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

---------

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.

----------

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.

----------

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).

----------

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.

--------

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.

----------

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

 

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?

 

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

See above.

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.

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.

 

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…”

 

Hans

 

Hans

 

Hans said:

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.

 

Hans next says:

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.

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!

 

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

 

Hans says, in abject ignorance for which I mean to stick it to him:

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.