On Homeopathy

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MRC Hans says:

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MRC Hans,

I see a tough exchange here:

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.

 

WellCookedFetus,

OOps!

You said this, and I hold it is wrong:

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?

 

WellCookedFetus,

You said this:

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.

 

WellCookedFetus, you next said this:

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.

 

Repo man:

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

You haven't looked.

 

Hans

 

WellCookedFetus, you said:

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!)

 

MRC Hans says:

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.

 

Hans,

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

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.

 

MRC Hans:

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.

 

Hans, you said:

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?

----------

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?

-----------

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.

 

Hans, you again make a mistake:

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

 

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

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.

 

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?

Did you even read what you last wrote?

Why do you think homeopathic patients are so extraordinarily loyal?

 

Hans:

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

 

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.

 

Hans,

Opinions are meaningless.

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