On Homeopathy

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.

Yours or mine?

Another weird claim.

Hans

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

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

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...

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

BTox,

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

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?

 

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.

 

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:

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?

 

WellCookedFetus,

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

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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:

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

You've concisely pointed the incorrect knowledge base of homeopathy believers and practitioners... thank you!

 

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.

 

Hans