On Homeopathy
- Thread starter timokay
- Start date
- Status
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Thank you, buffon!
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
No, I lose patience with you ignoramouses who refuse to examine the evidence that is the whole of homeopathy and sit high and mighty with your billions of dollars supporting a system of medicine that even Dr. Koop said was "broken and irrepairable."
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Now, I will not speak to those people since I have said my piece to all of them.
WellCookedFetus, do you really not know where to look for case reports and explanations?
The old journals have statistics.
Do you need titles?
WellCookedFetus, do you really not know where to look for case reports and explanations?
The old journals have statistics.
Do you need titles?
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Persol,
The medicines that cure all of those diseases are listed under them in the Repertory to the Homeopathic Materia Medica.
Ignorant of that, though, aren't you?
Okay, http://homeoint.org/books/kentrep/index.htm
The medicines that cure all of those diseases are listed under them in the Repertory to the Homeopathic Materia Medica.
Ignorant of that, though, aren't you?
Okay, http://homeoint.org/books/kentrep/index.htm
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
BTox,
Because I've witnessed over 100 of the murders you people engage in.
You, sir, are 100% evil, and allopathy is going to do us all a favor and remove you.
By the way, be sure to get embalmed, for we want your etheric pattern to remain intact.
Because I've witnessed over 100 of the murders you people engage in.
You, sir, are 100% evil, and allopathy is going to do us all a favor and remove you.
By the way, be sure to get embalmed, for we want your etheric pattern to remain intact.
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
That's it for my dealing with those fools.
Somebody else I will answer who wants to know about homeopathy or wants to help us resolve a 200-year-old mystery.
WellCookedFetus, try the ZKH at Karl F. Haug Verlag.
The CLASSICAL HOMOEOPATHY QUARTERLY was the English translation of it.
Old journals:
Hahnemannian Monthly
North American Journal of Homeopathy
The [Cincinnati] Medical Advance.
THE ORGANON
HOMEOTHERAPY
THE HOMEOPATHIC RECORDER
Transactions of the INTERNATIONAL HAHNEMANNIAN ASSOCIATION
GERMAN JOURNAL OF HOMEOPATHY
Stapf's ARCHIVES fur HOMOEOPATHY
Try those for starters.
Here's some online, but they are a hodge-podge of papers by high-potency pseudo-homeopaths and Hahnemannians.
http://www.homeoint.org/hompath/articles/index.htm
http://homeoint.org/books/
Somebody else I will answer who wants to know about homeopathy or wants to help us resolve a 200-year-old mystery.
WellCookedFetus, try the ZKH at Karl F. Haug Verlag.
The CLASSICAL HOMOEOPATHY QUARTERLY was the English translation of it.
Old journals:
Hahnemannian Monthly
North American Journal of Homeopathy
The [Cincinnati] Medical Advance.
THE ORGANON
HOMEOTHERAPY
THE HOMEOPATHIC RECORDER
Transactions of the INTERNATIONAL HAHNEMANNIAN ASSOCIATION
GERMAN JOURNAL OF HOMEOPATHY
Stapf's ARCHIVES fur HOMOEOPATHY
Try those for starters.
Here's some online, but they are a hodge-podge of papers by high-potency pseudo-homeopaths and Hahnemannians.
http://www.homeoint.org/hompath/articles/index.htm
http://homeoint.org/books/
Last edited:
Hahnemannian
If you want to prove your point you have to present the evidence, everything else you have done is an argument fallacy!
Thank you, give use a while to look through these or better yet mention specific case studies.
If you want to prove your point you have to present the evidence, everything else you have done is an argument fallacy!
Thank you, give use a while to look through these or better yet mention specific case studies.
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
WellCookedFetus,
I am going backward in these posts looking for things I missed, and I see this one from you:
I have told you till I am blue in the face that the proof is in the cases.
The entire history of homeopathy is provings installed in the materia medica, cures in published case reports (allopathic medicine does not engage in case reports for obvious reasons) and the explanations of how to test and verify the evidence in the instructions within the ORGANON OF MEDICINE.
What is with you people that you presume that evidence exists in an allopathic form?
You all test drugs against diseases.
We cannot do that because homeopathy is not applied against diseases but for patients.
One of the reasons we are able to make them well is because we do not make that fundamental mistake of allopathic medicine.
Drugs cannot be prescribed against diseases because cases with nothing but the common symptoms of diagnostic categories exist nowhere in the world.
We prescribe on the uncommon symptoms.
Some practical examples of medicine known to be needed by historical figures due to psychological elements of their cases may help.
Hitler, the megalomaniac, needed Anacardium orientale in potency.
Clinton, the falanderer (sp?), needs Lycopodium in potency.
Reagan, the indignant tyrant, needs Staphysagria in potency.
Mike Tyson, the criminal, needs Belladonna in potency.
Diane Keeton, the hysterical but charmingly loving woman, needs Ignatia in potency.
Bette Middler, the very loud-mouthed and rather simpleminded but sweet woman anyone would love to have as a sister, needs Hyocyamus in potency.
Lincoln, the brilliant and wise statesman, probably needed Phosophorus in potency.
There are many such examples.
On the other hand, if you ask us which medicine personalities like Michael Keeton need, we cannot be sure since he does not have psychological indications, just Parkinson's that we cured before it was named that.
This goes on and on.
I am going backward in these posts looking for things I missed, and I see this one from you:
I have told you till I am blue in the face that the proof is in the cases.
The entire history of homeopathy is provings installed in the materia medica, cures in published case reports (allopathic medicine does not engage in case reports for obvious reasons) and the explanations of how to test and verify the evidence in the instructions within the ORGANON OF MEDICINE.
What is with you people that you presume that evidence exists in an allopathic form?
You all test drugs against diseases.
We cannot do that because homeopathy is not applied against diseases but for patients.
One of the reasons we are able to make them well is because we do not make that fundamental mistake of allopathic medicine.
Drugs cannot be prescribed against diseases because cases with nothing but the common symptoms of diagnostic categories exist nowhere in the world.
We prescribe on the uncommon symptoms.
Some practical examples of medicine known to be needed by historical figures due to psychological elements of their cases may help.
Hitler, the megalomaniac, needed Anacardium orientale in potency.
Clinton, the falanderer (sp?), needs Lycopodium in potency.
Reagan, the indignant tyrant, needs Staphysagria in potency.
Mike Tyson, the criminal, needs Belladonna in potency.
Diane Keeton, the hysterical but charmingly loving woman, needs Ignatia in potency.
Bette Middler, the very loud-mouthed and rather simpleminded but sweet woman anyone would love to have as a sister, needs Hyocyamus in potency.
Lincoln, the brilliant and wise statesman, probably needed Phosophorus in potency.
There are many such examples.
On the other hand, if you ask us which medicine personalities like Michael Keeton need, we cannot be sure since he does not have psychological indications, just Parkinson's that we cured before it was named that.
This goes on and on.
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Ever the ignorant one, aren't you?
OOps!
Promised to ignore you.
That came from going back throught he postings and addressing those I missed.
Last edited:
You can tell me all want tell your blue in the face, but you still refused to provide the evidence. I look at the links your provide and found them very difficult to find any evidence, so guess what I look my self: I ran a search on google for "homeopathy evidence" and a found information far better then anything you provide! Now look at me I going to hand to you almost on a fucking silver plate evidence for you to place against us.
http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/case/cas_evid.html
Look trial studies proving homeopathy statically valid over placebo! This is what I call evidence can you provide more like this? (Need to baby you because you still don't understand what we consider valid evidence and what we consider circumstantial ranting)
http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/case/cas_evid.html
Look trial studies proving homeopathy statically valid over placebo! This is what I call evidence can you provide more like this? (Need to baby you because you still don't understand what we consider valid evidence and what we consider circumstantial ranting)
Probably all any sane person needs to read about Homeopathy is right here.
More, http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html
More, http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
I forget that people do not know homeopathic history.
This is the gist of it.
Hahneman gained command first of the epidemic diseases that destroyed hope generation after generation, one at a time as they arose.
Then he turned his attention to the endemic scourges of syphillis and gonorrhea and cured them too.
He essentially had specifics for these diseases because he had only a few drugs with which to choose from: 99 by the time he died.
Some of them required three to five drugs per epidemics, but they essentially amounted to specifics due to lesser numbers of medicines than we have today, which number over 2500.
All of these today have about 25 times as many drugs as Hahnemann used, and the specificity per cases have gone up while the specificity per diseases has gone down due to these large numbers of available drugs in our times.
He then turned his attention to the chronic diseases he had been encountering all along.
His logic was that an infectious agent must be behind these too, for all other diseases he had cured were contagious with what he hypothesized as "an incredibly small brood of little animals."
He thus hypothesized that psora was an unknown or unidentified little beastie responsible for all other chronic diseases -- and here I correct myself since syphillis and gonorrhea transcend their infectious nature and manifest as chronic diseases, as does TB and some others.
We happen to not look at them this way so much, for the infectious nature of them puts them in that class.
Hahnemann felt that psora in the singular was the cause of all chronic diseases in the plural.
He thus set about trying to find the specific or few specifics like he had discovered for the other diseases.
He failed and realized that the number of medicines for chronic diseases would endlessly rise because these are not fixed diseases like infectious illnesses.
That is how it began.
We cured epidemics and people and doctors flocked to us.
Just a few Hahnemannians around the world did this.
Most of the doctors never proceeded past allopathic constructs, for they simply prescribed for epidemic diseases as we told them; i.e., they were never able to handle other cases.
So the number of low-potency pseudo-homeopaths numbered about 15,000 in the U.S. by the turn of the 19th century.
That was about one-quarter of all U.S. physicians.
All the while, there were about 300-400 high-potency pseudo-homeopaths (students is a good word for them) and a few legitimate Hahnemannians, perhaps 20-30 in 1880.
Our medical schools and hospitals grew in number as these demands for homeopathy rose.
We had 23 medical schools and 150 hospitals, major clinics and assylums for the insane and TB patients by the time the FLEXNOR REPORT was issued in 1910.
By that time, all of the Hahnemannians had died without having been replaced.
The high-potency pseudo-homeopaths never realized they were not Hahnemannians, just as today they claim to be classical homeopaths all over the internet and popular literature.
Within three years, all of our schools save two and all of our hospitals, etc., fell into allopathic hands, because the philanthropists of the time used the FLEXNOR REPORT for the allocation of their funds in order to add prestige to their robber-baron names.
Homeopathy got bypassed, and allopathic medicine gained total control of world medicine.
Homeopathy survived in legitimate, Hahnemannian form in Germany amongst a few and rose to what it is now with more Hahnemannians alive today than at any other time in history.
But we are still the smallest minority in history.
That's about the gist of it.
Hahnemann Hospital in Philly was ours.
All of the other schools and hospitals, etc., however, changed names and became lost to history beyond the memories of living people.
But the historical record is in tact.
And our case records in the journals are also.
Read about this history most accurately in DIVIDED LEGACY, Vols. III & IV.
This is the gist of it.
Hahneman gained command first of the epidemic diseases that destroyed hope generation after generation, one at a time as they arose.
Then he turned his attention to the endemic scourges of syphillis and gonorrhea and cured them too.
He essentially had specifics for these diseases because he had only a few drugs with which to choose from: 99 by the time he died.
Some of them required three to five drugs per epidemics, but they essentially amounted to specifics due to lesser numbers of medicines than we have today, which number over 2500.
All of these today have about 25 times as many drugs as Hahnemann used, and the specificity per cases have gone up while the specificity per diseases has gone down due to these large numbers of available drugs in our times.
He then turned his attention to the chronic diseases he had been encountering all along.
His logic was that an infectious agent must be behind these too, for all other diseases he had cured were contagious with what he hypothesized as "an incredibly small brood of little animals."
He thus hypothesized that psora was an unknown or unidentified little beastie responsible for all other chronic diseases -- and here I correct myself since syphillis and gonorrhea transcend their infectious nature and manifest as chronic diseases, as does TB and some others.
We happen to not look at them this way so much, for the infectious nature of them puts them in that class.
Hahnemann felt that psora in the singular was the cause of all chronic diseases in the plural.
He thus set about trying to find the specific or few specifics like he had discovered for the other diseases.
He failed and realized that the number of medicines for chronic diseases would endlessly rise because these are not fixed diseases like infectious illnesses.
That is how it began.
We cured epidemics and people and doctors flocked to us.
Just a few Hahnemannians around the world did this.
Most of the doctors never proceeded past allopathic constructs, for they simply prescribed for epidemic diseases as we told them; i.e., they were never able to handle other cases.
So the number of low-potency pseudo-homeopaths numbered about 15,000 in the U.S. by the turn of the 19th century.
That was about one-quarter of all U.S. physicians.
All the while, there were about 300-400 high-potency pseudo-homeopaths (students is a good word for them) and a few legitimate Hahnemannians, perhaps 20-30 in 1880.
Our medical schools and hospitals grew in number as these demands for homeopathy rose.
We had 23 medical schools and 150 hospitals, major clinics and assylums for the insane and TB patients by the time the FLEXNOR REPORT was issued in 1910.
By that time, all of the Hahnemannians had died without having been replaced.
The high-potency pseudo-homeopaths never realized they were not Hahnemannians, just as today they claim to be classical homeopaths all over the internet and popular literature.
Within three years, all of our schools save two and all of our hospitals, etc., fell into allopathic hands, because the philanthropists of the time used the FLEXNOR REPORT for the allocation of their funds in order to add prestige to their robber-baron names.
Homeopathy got bypassed, and allopathic medicine gained total control of world medicine.
Homeopathy survived in legitimate, Hahnemannian form in Germany amongst a few and rose to what it is now with more Hahnemannians alive today than at any other time in history.
But we are still the smallest minority in history.
That's about the gist of it.
Hahnemann Hospital in Philly was ours.
All of the other schools and hospitals, etc., however, changed names and became lost to history beyond the memories of living people.
But the historical record is in tact.
And our case records in the journals are also.
Read about this history most accurately in DIVIDED LEGACY, Vols. III & IV.
Last edited:
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
WellCookedFetus,
I am not an experimental scientist and do not like it much.
I am a physician who engages in applied science.
Those studies you supplied are from LPHs mostly, so they are meaningless to Hahnemannians.
The evidence of placebo effect being nonsense is easily proven by doing a high-potency self-proving, so I do not even bother with such studies.
And the nonsense of that notion is readily supplied by the fact that we cure infants, animals and the unconscious, who could not possibly be subject to placebo effects.
There is lots of information like that, though.
But I am a purist.
They come from people we do not recognize, and they make assertions and engage in tests that in no way validate actual homeopathy.
We are so few and so poor compared with one trillion dollars spent on medicine in Usa every year (10-13% of the GNP) that we might as well be mice.
But the historical record of our cures are the only thing that really matters since what you are asking for are evidences of drugs that have been proven effective against various diseases.
We don't prescribe that way, though.
We prescribe the drug the person needs.
All of the diseases in the chronic class have been cured by hundreds of drugs, so there is no way to supply what you are asking for.
It is what I try to say when I explain that disease-diagnostic categories are constituted of common symptoms, but homeotherapeutics finds the one medicine a person needs according to the few strange, rare and peculiar or uncommon symptoms.
One of them will have been cured by an average of less than 25 drugs because they are rare symptoms.
A second one crossed with that list of medicines reduces the list of possible medicines down to fewer, and a third uncommon symptom usually brings down the list of possible drugs to between one and five usually.
We then read materia medica to find the one that matches most accurately with the case symptoms.
That medicine, assuming we did everything accurately, will cure that person.
Is about that simple.
So a name of a disease is meaningless to us, and the symptoms that constitute that disease are even dismissed from consideration since hundreds of drugs have cured them.
Is that clear?
It is so foreign to our usual way of thinking of diseases that it I forget how best to explain it without seeing people's reactions on their face.
I am not an experimental scientist and do not like it much.
I am a physician who engages in applied science.
Those studies you supplied are from LPHs mostly, so they are meaningless to Hahnemannians.
The evidence of placebo effect being nonsense is easily proven by doing a high-potency self-proving, so I do not even bother with such studies.
And the nonsense of that notion is readily supplied by the fact that we cure infants, animals and the unconscious, who could not possibly be subject to placebo effects.
There is lots of information like that, though.
But I am a purist.
They come from people we do not recognize, and they make assertions and engage in tests that in no way validate actual homeopathy.
We are so few and so poor compared with one trillion dollars spent on medicine in Usa every year (10-13% of the GNP) that we might as well be mice.
But the historical record of our cures are the only thing that really matters since what you are asking for are evidences of drugs that have been proven effective against various diseases.
We don't prescribe that way, though.
We prescribe the drug the person needs.
All of the diseases in the chronic class have been cured by hundreds of drugs, so there is no way to supply what you are asking for.
It is what I try to say when I explain that disease-diagnostic categories are constituted of common symptoms, but homeotherapeutics finds the one medicine a person needs according to the few strange, rare and peculiar or uncommon symptoms.
One of them will have been cured by an average of less than 25 drugs because they are rare symptoms.
A second one crossed with that list of medicines reduces the list of possible medicines down to fewer, and a third uncommon symptom usually brings down the list of possible drugs to between one and five usually.
We then read materia medica to find the one that matches most accurately with the case symptoms.
That medicine, assuming we did everything accurately, will cure that person.
Is about that simple.
So a name of a disease is meaningless to us, and the symptoms that constitute that disease are even dismissed from consideration since hundreds of drugs have cured them.
Is that clear?
It is so foreign to our usual way of thinking of diseases that it I forget how best to explain it without seeing people's reactions on their face.
Last edited:
So can your provide evidence for these claims and your purist beleif?
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Repo Man,
Oscillococcinum is not a legitimate homeopathic medicine.
It is a bizarre product of the horrible French homeopathy.
There are more low-potency pseudo-homeopaths per capita in France than in any country in the world unless India.
France has 50,000 of them, and an estimated 300,000 exit in India.
Oscillococcinum is a combination medicine.
No proving has ever been produced on it.
A French pharmaceutical firm produced it for cure-all benefits for colds, flus and whatnot.
It is not a legitimate homeopathic medicine.
You cannot be thinking that you will easily find legitimate homeopathy on the web when I tell you that they outnumber us 10,000 to one.
The most outspoken group, however, are the high-potency pseudo-homeopaths (HPHs) of today, for they have charge of piles and piles of schools that all teach nothing but their adulterated form of homeopathy.
It is not nearly as bad as low-potency pseudo-homeopathy (LPH), which is not in any way homeopathy, for the HPHs make only eight fundamental but important mistakes.
But please do not be thinking that Oscillococcinum represents homeopathy.
Here is a list of books online: http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/index.shtml
---------
I just read that allopathic clap trap.
You will, however, be astonished to know how our potentization proceeds.
12c is subAvogradrean assuming one mole in tincture, for we dilute that 1:100 12 times.
Next up in the Kentian scale is 30c, then as follows: 200c, 1M (1000c), 10M, 100M, 500M, MM and MMM.
Astronomically dilute is right, but I am telling you that there is a mystery involved because these medicines that should NOT have effect do and you can prove it any day of the week to yourself by engaging in a high-potency self-proving.
Oscillococcinum is not a legitimate homeopathic medicine.
It is a bizarre product of the horrible French homeopathy.
There are more low-potency pseudo-homeopaths per capita in France than in any country in the world unless India.
France has 50,000 of them, and an estimated 300,000 exit in India.
Oscillococcinum is a combination medicine.
No proving has ever been produced on it.
A French pharmaceutical firm produced it for cure-all benefits for colds, flus and whatnot.
It is not a legitimate homeopathic medicine.
You cannot be thinking that you will easily find legitimate homeopathy on the web when I tell you that they outnumber us 10,000 to one.
The most outspoken group, however, are the high-potency pseudo-homeopaths (HPHs) of today, for they have charge of piles and piles of schools that all teach nothing but their adulterated form of homeopathy.
It is not nearly as bad as low-potency pseudo-homeopathy (LPH), which is not in any way homeopathy, for the HPHs make only eight fundamental but important mistakes.
But please do not be thinking that Oscillococcinum represents homeopathy.
Here is a list of books online: http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/index.shtml
---------
I just read that allopathic clap trap.
You will, however, be astonished to know how our potentization proceeds.
12c is subAvogradrean assuming one mole in tincture, for we dilute that 1:100 12 times.
Next up in the Kentian scale is 30c, then as follows: 200c, 1M (1000c), 10M, 100M, 500M, MM and MMM.
Astronomically dilute is right, but I am telling you that there is a mystery involved because these medicines that should NOT have effect do and you can prove it any day of the week to yourself by engaging in a high-potency self-proving.
Last edited:
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
WellCookedFetus:
Like what?
Our evidence is in the case reports and our cures.
Damn difficult to cure too.
Like what?
Our evidence is in the case reports and our cures.
Damn difficult to cure too.
I'm not going to bait the barking dog anymore.
Han, you may be a perfectly nice fellow. But your condemnation of "fake" Homeopaths is much like hearing a psychic denounce "fake" psychics.
Empirical evidence is all we have for determining the truth or falsehood of any claim.
Hahnemann lived before Pasteur, and his germ theory. Everyone prior to Pasteur was playing a guessing game with disease.
Pasteur's work has withstood the test of time.
Bertrand Russell said it best; "When someone maintains that the Moon is made of green cheese, you don't argue with them; you feel sorry for them."
Han, you may be a perfectly nice fellow. But your condemnation of "fake" Homeopaths is much like hearing a psychic denounce "fake" psychics.
Empirical evidence is all we have for determining the truth or falsehood of any claim.
Hahnemann lived before Pasteur, and his germ theory. Everyone prior to Pasteur was playing a guessing game with disease.
Pasteur's work has withstood the test of time.
Bertrand Russell said it best; "When someone maintains that the Moon is made of green cheese, you don't argue with them; you feel sorry for them."
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Repo Man,
Okay, but, for the record, here's Hahnemann denouncing first the high-potency pseudo-homeopaths for failing to be able to discern characteristic/uncommon symptoms and prescribing from the repertory (only two of their eight fundamental mistakes) and denouncing low-potency pseudo-homeopaths for prescribing according to names of diseases in allopathic fashion:
Okay, but, for the record, here's Hahnemann denouncing first the high-potency pseudo-homeopaths for failing to be able to discern characteristic/uncommon symptoms and prescribing from the repertory (only two of their eight fundamental mistakes) and denouncing low-potency pseudo-homeopaths for prescribing according to names of diseases in allopathic fashion:
Last edited:
That not evidence that hearsay, you can say what ever you want but can your reference this, can you give us a link, does it compare to placebo? Is it statistically valid? Is it double blind?
- Status