Show THAT Homeopathy works

Francine,

The 800 - 1000 symptoms are a problem, yes. But the compiler does not suck on a pencil. Hahnemann's instructions on this are clear enough that a young child could follow. You need to see the Kunzli translated Organon for this crystal clarity.

Have to get some homeopaths to comment on this. I still think you/we are on the right track. Done some yahoo searches - no-one has made a serious attempt at this as far as I can find.

Francine, please resume this issue on the other thread : "Organon of Medicine" because that is where we discussed this yesterday. (I copied these latest posts across to it.)

In the morning I will post details on the Proving procedure as explained by Hahnemann. There is absolutely no reason why this could not be adapted to operate as a DBPC trial.

Tim

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nah, in fact I'm going through the Organon of Medicine. I'll then post my excerpt and comments.

Hans

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well... no. This should be obvious. It will take 1-2 years to record the data of how people feel. It could also take about 1-2 years to record life statistics... if your sample is large enough. You do not have to observe people from birth to death.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

River-wind,

"River : Oh, and this too:
"131: A more robust prover may need ever-increasing doses for several days before any symptoms appear (the symptoms WILL appear, though), they will appear in a mixed up sequence, and symptoms with "alternating type" of primary actions will be indistinguishable from the counteractions of the VP. "

By allowing the individual to increase the doses in this way, you have added another variable tot he equation. What symptoms are then caused by the increase in dosage? This method assumes that all symptoms will occur, but that the individual differences is what determines the dosage needed for them to present. While this is close to accurate, there are also hidden problems with this idea, such as the ED/LD separation level. For a certain drug, the ED will be different for any given individual. So will the LD. However, the LD will not raise at the identical rate as the ED for someone who has resistance to the chemical in question.

Good points. Again, the assumption made that Homeopathic potencies have similar properties to the doses of medicines you are used to.
But there is virtually nothing in them...no side or toxic effects whatsoever. They do not accumulate in the tissues at all. They just trigger something and their gone! Bizarre, I know. A prover doing a medicine proving on consecutive days for 20 days didn't bother Hahnemann at all...nothing to worry about. Each expt was an independent run to him.

I would say that Hahnemann did not even know what you have said above about medicine dosage effects and retention in the tissues. He certainly knew about the toxicity and counteractions which occur with normal medicine doses (what he called "crude doses"), when repeated...it was the reason he gave up Conventional Medicine...they did more harm than good.

In Homeopathy, he focused on minimal doses and potentisation, where the above problems are not encountered at all. Regarding your point about the significance of increasing the dose, in relation to symptoms, Hahnemann obviously did not see this, would certainly have done so if it affected the results obtained (therefore, no significance to your points) so it must again be a property of his medicines. The objective was to bring out all the symptoms of the medicine by increasing doses.....but even the largest dose was less than a trillionth of the kind of doses you are referring to - so toxicity, retention in tissues, side effects, alteration of symptoms with dose, simply do not exist with Homeopathic medicines.

"(112) Medicines taken immoderately (i.e., in crude doses) can have very serious or fatal consequences. This does not occur at the beginning, but at the end with completely opposite symptoms, and is the SECONDARY ACTION or COUNTERACTION by the VF. But, in controlled doses of Homeopathic medicines, the secondary actions are barely noticeable, just enough to re-establish the healthy state."

River : This method does not take into account the build-up of resistance over time, nor does it deal with risk factors associated in simply increasing dosage until an effect occurs.

Tim : Again, no risk factors, no build-up, due to the microscopic amounts. A remarkable delivery method, which living tissue responds very favourably to.

Nothing in the medicines? Anybody can buy a Hom. medicine from chemist/drug store and do a proving on themselves...expected symptoms will certainly come out. Try Bryonia 6c for a quick response.

Tim

 

Canute, Greetings!

At last, somebody to talk to with some brains.

Your research referals are appreciated.

Tim and I are very frustrated with the jokers here and elsewhere with mega-assumptions, all of them wrong, and ZERO knowledge about homeopathy constantly bothering us.

We're looking for people like you who might be able to help us resolve the issue of homeopathic pharmacology.

The idiots we encounter always say nonsense like, "prove that it works first; then we can discuss how."

What total nonsense, and that's a remark made by anybody but a legitimate scientist.

But the fools always come with scientific credentials and big mouths.

You are a breath of fresh air.

Tim and I are convinced it is going to be electromagnetism involved in the process that PROBABLY forces water and alcohol molecules into crystals unique to each medicine.

There doesn't seem to be any other way for this to be happening that I can think of, so we're looking for missing research that's been done over the last 40-50 years that might have gotten filed away and forgotten.

It will be water chemistry, but is should be experiments with succussed high dilutions.

The nature of solutions will, however, possibly play a role here too, for there are strange characteristics of solutions that defy explanation that may come into play.

Ultimately, we are forced to deal with the fact that these are subAvogadrean, ultramolecular, etheric drugs.

I don't care what mechanisms are involved in early stages, these drugs are still medicinal at the point where no molecules are in solution and infinitely thereafter.

It is a major enigma of chemistry and physics destined to pull the rug out from under every sacred cow of materialism and reductionism, for these things are undeniable facts only denied by the extremely ignorant.

All of the idiots here are part of that crowd.

Thank you for saying something.

 

Apologies

I messed up my post. Here it what it should have been.

I though homeopathy had been quite extensively tested. Am I wrong? There seems to be plenty of research going on.

I'm refering to the work of:

- Fritz Popp et al on molecular communication within the body via virtually instantaneous non-local transmission of molecule oscillating frequencies (carried by photons) in the zero point field.

-Benveniste and Northwestern University in Chicago on the signature frequencies of oscillating molecules in our bodies. These, it turns out, can be treated as audio frequencies, recorded, and then used in place of the real molecules to produce the same biological effect on the target material, in the complete and utter absence absence of the original molecules - even when the recording is sent as an email attachment to a laboratory on the other side of the world.)

Kunio Yasue on superradiance in water, the role of water molecules in organising discordant energy into coherent photons. (Popp’s system of communication for molecular oscillations).

D. Reilly on reproducible evidence for homeopathy

Bastide , Demangeat, Youbicier-Simo, Endler et al on high dilution biological effects.

Roberfroid, Ennis et al - who attempted (in labs across France , Belgium, Italy and Holland) to show Benviste's hypothesis regarding water’s tendency to be imprinted by the oscillating fields of molecules within it, colloquially known its 'memory', to be just bad science, and who concluded otherwise. (Ennis "The results compel me to suspend my disbelief and to start searching for rational explanations for our findings").

Double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on asthma, diarrhoea, heart disease, respitory tract sidease, etc. (Reilly, Jacobs, deKlerk, Bloomer, Masters et al) in which 81 of 104 trials showed positive results.

There’s loads of this stuff but I won't go on.

The research suggests that homeopathy works on the on the quantum mechanical ‘field’ level rather than the ‘higher’ emergent levels of chemistry or biology, western medicines or surgery. It has always been claimed to work at some deeeper level of our material structure than these.

It would seem that the above research, and a lot more like it, suggests that it is scientifically feasible that the signature oscillation patterns of certain molecules can be retained and carried by water in the absence of the molecule, and that this oscillation pattern can have the same quantum mechanical and thus biological effect on the body as the presence of the original molecule, but in its absence. It isn’t quite proved yet, but researchers seem to agree that it’s not just perfectly feasible, it’s a useful and scientifically attractive theory.

How did the founders of homeopathy ever come up with such a daft idea when they knew nothing about quantum mechanics, molecular oscillation, field theory and the like? On the face of it it’s a stupid idea, full of strange forces and, well, just plain water. But quantum mechanics hadn’t been invented, they were forced to cpme at it from a different angle.

Could it really be just nonsense, just a wild pre-scientific guess? Could it be just a piece of luck that to this day there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence for it actually working? Most types of quackery were rooted out long ago, but homeopathy still hangs in there.

I assume its founders just tried stuff out and watched what seemed to work. Not very scientific but what else could they do? Somehow they concluded that something was going on that we are only just now, with our state of the art micro-phsyics and cosmology, beginning to realise it isn’t a completely ridiculous conclusion after all, there is a possible mechanism, even if we haven’t yet managed to devise a repeatable scientific experiment to prove its medicinal properties.

Homeopathy has been inherently scientifically implausible since it began, yet despite this many perfectly intelligent people keep insisting that it works. Is it just coincidence that the circumstantial evidence is that it works, and that we have uncovered a plausible physically deterministic explanation of how it might works? The coincidence doesn’t add up to a proof, but I suspect a proof is on its way.

I got into it a bit because my son nearly died aged 8 months (pyloric stenosis) but instantly recovered after two doses of an homeopathic remedy. Could have been coincidence of course, but since then I’ve kept an eye out for relevant research.

Canute (without any axe to grind!)

 

Hahnemannian

I don't know any thing about the details of homeopathy I'm afraid. I'm not even copmpletely convinced by it yet (I'm dithering).

However I am dead certain that there's far more evidence in its favour than against it.

 

Could you share this with us?

 

Actually, you are dead wrong. The evidence against homeopathy is overwhelming, concrete and ironclad. It does not work any better than placebo. End of story. Of course, the quacks that try to make a living bilking people out of their money with worthless treatments will tell you otherwise...

 

I thought I just did. I assume it's all searchable - if not I'll post the actual references.

BTox - Have you got some references to back that claim up?

 

Originally posted by Canute
Fritz Popp et al on molecular communication within the body via virtually instantaneous non-local transmission of molecule oscillating frequencies (carried by photons) in the zero point field
Well, this doesn't relate at all. Fritz Popp did experiments which pointed to radiation being the communication method (which is not instantaneous). More specifically, ultra-violet light. His results showed that low-light emissions are a property of cells. Note that besides this comment being incorrect, the use of the term ZPF is just a buzzword... and doesn't actually add any meaning.

Benveniste...
Ah, the infamous 'memory of water'. May I note that other labs attempted to reproduce his experiment and failed. It turned out that Benveniste simply ignored the data sets which didn't fit his theory. His funds were canceled and lab was closed after this was discovered.
Here's specific tests:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml

At the very least, unreproducible. At the most, a fraud.


Kunio Yasue on superradiance in water, the role of water molecules in organising discordant energy into coherent photons.
I could find no reference to Yasue being related to this research. At most he states that quantum reactions can take place in the brain.

D. Reilly on reproducible evidence for homeopathy
It is quite obvious that the groups used are exteremly small. Another problem is that the placebo was not generated in the same was as the verum. As stated before, there is no reason to think that the effect is not due to the statistical flukes and the presence of other chemicals in the treatment.

Most types of quackery were rooted out long ago, but homeopathy still hangs in there.
Actually all types of quackery are still around. Homeopaths are just more vocal.

I got into it a bit because my son nearly died aged 8 months (pyloric stenosis) but instantly recovered after two doses of an homeopathic remedy. Could have been coincidence of course...
But that's the problem. They have all these supposed 'cures', but there is nothing to seperate them from the individuals who are misdiagnosed or heal themselves (both of which are fairly common with the valve problem). May I ask if it was diagnosed by a doctor... and if so why you did not have the surgery fix it? It is the second most common surgery, and presents no risk. It seems fairly risky to give your baby medicine which you have no reason to trust.

Canute (without any axe to grind!) [/B][/QUOTE]

 

Yeah, so says the professional idiot here.

The VERY ignorant people will tell you what our resident pro just did, but they do this because they know absolutely NOTHING correct about homeopathy from a logical basis because their brains are miswired to allopathic quackery, and they most certainly know absolutely NOTHING correct about homeopathy from an experiential basis because they have never done a high-potency self-proving or lie when they say they have, like our resident expert on lieing and ignorance among the brain-dead morons of the world, mr. BToxic.

 

[/B][/QUOTE] Yeah, much smarter to let a butcher cut on your baby and pay him the cost of a luxury home to do it rather than 0.00000001% of a penny on a homeopathic medicine proven to cure except to the extremely ignorant and biased pseudo-scientists with big mouths and a really good destiny in the hands of their quack buddies.

Maybe we should let their buddies give such idiots a double lobotomy to put us out of their missery, eh?

 

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Yeah, much smarter to let a butcher cut on your baby...
Let's see... the procedure is PROVEN to work and is hardly dangerous. Unless you have a reason as to why to think it won't work, why not do it? The term butcher is just thrown in there due to your bias. Hell, if my local meat butcher had performed this procedure on over 500 baby, and only 2 needed a followup procedure then the local meat butcher would be my guy.

Fortunately, doctors also know about this procedure... and this operation still appears to be the best option.

 

He just shook the half-full vials for dispersal of dilutions and found them more powerful, but he later found that unless he shook them there was no medicinal effect.

Then he stretched it and others went on with the "infintessimal dose."

Really quite amazing how accidents provide such important discoveries.

 

Yeah, to the EXTREMELY ignorant.

Besides, all allopathic therapies are suppressive and disordering of diseases into ever-increasingly complicated chronic diseases.

So assuming you want to torture people and then kill them, you advise allopathic procedures.

Or if you're extremely ignorant of this, then you advise people to sell their houses to pay for something that medicines are made to cure, you very dumb man.

Then too, if you want to promote allopathic medicine, you promote their therapies and admonish against taking a chance on a well-proven and supremely scientific therapy like homeopathy because you're extremely ignorant.

Take your pick, Persol, for you seem to have all three choices.

 

It seems to me that this is a temperamental argument, not a scientific one. The effectiveness of homeopathy hasn't been scientifically proved or disproved as yet. My previous post was just to point out that there is plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument.

 

No, it is even simpler then you make it out to be.

The 'evidence' for homeopathy that has been presented is all either faulty or just plain wrong (as I explained in the last post, although I stopped after researching the first 3 claims took half an hour and were false anyway).

The evidence against homeopathy has been demonstrated again and again. It should tell you something that every attempt at replicating a homeopathic experiment has failed.

 

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Or if you're extremely ignorant of this, then you advise people to sell their houses to pay for something that medicines are made to cure, you very dumb man.
Funny, I thought that's what insurance was for.

Then too, if you want to promote allopathic medicine, you promote their therapies and admonish against taking a chance on a well-proven and supremely scientific therapy like homeopathy because you're extremely ignorant.
Please demonstrate how it is well-proven. My 'attachment' to modern medicine IT being well proven. If you actually have any evidence (which has not already been refuted) I would like to see it.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with temperament.

It is a schism between those who are absolutely certain of the effectiveness of homeotherapeutics because we're experts at it and have PROVEN its clinical efficacy, as opposed to those who know absolutely NOTHING correct about homeopathy and thus advise total quackery, torture and mass murder.

They are the most stupid in creation who open their mouths about something they know NOTHING about.

Stand up and take a bow, guys, for you all have done absolutely nothing but prove yourselves total fools guilty of complicity in mass murder, like the idiots you all are.