On Homeopathy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Hahnemannian
*snip*
Hahnemann explained it in the ORGANON from having observed that when two similar diseases meet in an organism (e.g., smallpox and cowpox), the stronger one annhilates the weaker one.

Observations show that this is not universally true. It may happen in certain cases, for instance if the body's response to the stronger disease also works on the weaker one, then, obviously, the weaker disease may succumb first.

So it may be true for related diseases, that is, infectuous diseases where the causative agents are very similar, like two types of pox, but mostly a patient can very well have several diseases.

I see a caveat here though, in relation to our discussions: Allopathic medicine recognize discrete diseases, like flu and laryngitis, where we claim that the first one is caused by a virus, the latter by bacteria. However, the way I understand you, since homeopathics do not recognize individual diseases like that, you would look at the total symptom complex for that particular patient.

So what is apples for me might be oranges for you. In other words, an allopathic will say that the patient has flu and laryngitis (i.e. two diseases), thereas a homeopath will say that the patient has this set of symptoms (i.e. one disease). And in that context, with the way homeopatics view a disease, it may be proper to say that the stronger disease replaces the weaker one.

Hans
 
Hans,

Hans: Tim, I really don't know what to think of you. You seem honest and sincere, yet you keep slipping away like a wet soap. But I am going to assume that you are truly seeking information, and so am I. The reason I got nasty with Albert.. well, if you cannot see the reason from his posts, I don't think I can explain it to you. Enough said, you need not comment this.

Tim: Yes, I do slip away to many other forums, but consider you to be a good poster.

My biggest concern is the one about Hahnemann saying one disease dominates and presents its symptoms, while the other disease(s) fall into the background, symptom-wise.

Their symptoms ARE being suppressed. That's what Hahnemann said, and illustrated with about a dozen examples. What have you to say to that?

This question is closely related to the Law of Similars, because Hahnemann said the Homeopathic medicine annihilated the disease by a similar mechanism.


Hans: Also, you claim that Homeopathic drugs taken on their own (by a healthy person, I assume) produce symptoms. This is even easier to test.

Tim: Yes, it doesn't mean they have any curative effects, just that they do produce symptoms. This test would be the easiest of all.

Hans: If the predicted effect for Bryonia 6c is objectively measurable, fine. I do think 20+20 test subjects is a bit low. The difference would have to be quite marked to be statistically significant. A pro statistics expert can figure out the ideal number when you state what is the predicted effect, but I'd expect something to the tune of 100+100.

Tim: "Objectively measurable" might be a problem...certainly unmistakable symptoms felt by the patient..is that okay? Or they must be measured with an instrument of some kind?

THAT IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT STATEMENT - THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE I HAVE SEEN.

This is the approach of all modern science, or rather, one of them.

1) You have a thesis (A causes B), so you test it, and if it turnd out to be true, you set out discovering why. Especially in medical science this is productive; after all, the patient does not care why the treatment works, as long as it works.

2) Based on a putative causal effect (given our knowledge of A it should cause B), you make a prediction and design a test to verify (or reject) it.

We are talking about both types here.

About the case stories in your next post:

These are old stories that cannot be confirmed. We cannot know if the diagnosis was correct, we cannot know if the patient was really cured or relapsed later. All the participants are long dead, no independent records exist (I presume). I know you trust Hahnemann 100%, but this trust is entirely belief-based and is of no use to others. I'm sorry, but such accounts, while interesting in a historical perspective, have zero scientific value. To be completely blunt: The story could be pure fabrication. I'm not saying that it is, but understand that nobody can risk patient's health on such things.

Tim: We cannot just cast this work aside. Hahnemann's books are the truth - verified for nearly 200 years by Homeopaths all over the world. It is all true as far as Homeopaths are concerned (in their separate medical world).

Hans
 
Tim,
We cannot just cast this work aside. Hahnemann's books are the truth - verified for nearly 200 years by Homeopaths all over the world. It is all true as far as Homeopaths are concerned (in their separate medical world).
As I've stated before, it would be failry easy for a homepathic practicioner to keep a list of when all his 'patients' died. From this you get an average life span. He should even have how long their symptoms last (days sick).

Then compared to this modern medicine. The stats for modern medicine are made readily available to anybody who wants them. I can find NO statistics for homeopathy... therefore I moust assume that:
1) Information is not kept
2) They are bad, and nobody wants them released

With either 1 or 2, you are running into problems. With #1, you have problems with people taking cures which are for some reason deadly (diabetics come to mind). You will never realize 'hey, he gets sick when I give him this'. If it is #2, well then it's even more obvious not to trust homepathy.

If I'm going to put my life in someone's hands, it is going to be somebody that can prove to me that their cure works. Homeopathy has not demonstrated this.

For this reason I also support legislation which takes the choose of homeopathy out of a parents hands when the situation is life and death. The child has the right to be treated, and until someone can demonstrate that homepathy is actually a treatment I am against it.
 
Persol,

As I've stated before, it would be failry easy for a homepathic practicioner to keep a list of when all his 'patients' died. From this you get an average life span.

That is something Hahnemann never did, as far as I know - keep statistics like that.

I don't know how the Homeopath would know when they died, because this info is only available to the dominant medical system. Coroners informing Homeopaths? Don't think so.

And a Homeopath would never be called in an emergency, except in Hahnemann's day...Homeopathy became the dominant medical system.

The stats for modern medicine are made readily available to anybody who wants them. I can find NO statistics for homeopathy...

As I said, Homeopathy is just not in the picture, as far all the institutions connected with the (dominant) medical profession are concerned. Homeopathy has no statistics in Britain, officially available to the public (as far as I know)...probably the same in the U.S.

Albert?

The task at hand is to try to provide the evidence you want, and Homeopathy needs, to gain widespread acceptability.

Tim..(Back Sunday)
 
Originally posted by Hahnemannian
I said that we have yet to find a disease incurable.

What don't you understand about that?

I see this poor fake, phony and fraud is still here for more punishment.

So if every disease is curable, does that not make it 100% of all diseases are curable? Or are you really that dense?

Of course the fact is no diseases are curable via homeopathy, because it is a completely ineffective placebo modality. But everyone here knows that already!
 
Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Gee, golly, I know all of the legitimate classical/Hahnemannian homeopaths in the world, and guess what, dumb ars?

T'ain't nuna dem knows nuttin 'bout no trial.

You're therefore quoting another liar or ignorant fool probably to your excessive degree too.


Well, either there are only a handful of "legitimate" classical/Hahnemannian homeopaths (of course legitimate and homeopath is an oxymoron) in the world, or you are a liar. Most likely both are true!
 
Originally posted by Hahnemannian

How many doses, at what potency, how many globules at a time from what pharmacy and what drug(s)?

It was 20 years ago, I don't remember exactly which ones, but I know we tried some around 10C and others in the M range. No symptoms, no reactions, nothing, nada, zippo. As would be expected from sugar pills.

So let us know exactly which ones we should buy, where, how much we should take. I'll take as many as you want, I'd gladly eat 100 at a time... I'm not lactose intolerant so I have nothing to worry about!
 
Originally posted by timokay
]Tim: We cannot just cast this work aside. Hahnemann's books are the truth - verified for nearly 200 years by Homeopaths all over the world. It is all true as far as Homeopaths are concerned (in their separate medical world).

Hogwash. Hahnemann's books are fantasy. Complete fiction. No one, and I mean no one, has been able to reproduce any of the cures, let alone alleviation of symptoms. Why can't you get this simple fact, natural law if you will, through your head?
 
Originally posted by timokay
That is something Hahnemann never did, as far as I know - keep statistics like that. I don't know how the Homeopath would know when they died, because this info is only available to the dominant medical system. Coroners informing Homeopaths? Don't think so.
You claim this is 200 years old. Statistics were kept back then. Up until recently a homopath would know because of the 'small town mentality'. Nowadays he'd know because the rest of the family (children/spouse) would still need a doctor. The fact that the parent/spuse died would come out.

As I said, Homeopathy is just not in the picture, as far all the institutions connected with the (dominant) medical profession are concerned.

You have to ask why. If I have a friend who is cured of all his illnesses, I'm going to his doctor. Why would people switch away from homeopathy if it was so damn good?

Homeopathy has no statistics in Britain, officially available to the public (as far as I know)...probably the same in the U.S.

The only statistics are the ones done in studies. We can not help if homeopaths don't feel like keeping records. If they don't keep records, they have no basis to claim that their method is better, as it isn't based on anything.

The task at hand is to try to provide the evidence you want, and Homeopathy needs, to gain widespread acceptability.

Good. I'm glad you agree that it isn't there. I just find it difficult to believe in a system that has never critiqued itself.
 
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I simply wont bother to read through allyour drivel to find the quote, espsically as you just acknowledged that I was right. Could you specify which law you are talking about? I'd like to read it. Especially the part that excludes you from FDA scrutiny. You see, if you claim that homepathic preparations have effect on a named disease (which you have done repeatedly here), then by FDA rules, it is a drug, and FDA rules apply. So I'd be very interested in those statutes.

Hans

Hans,

In the U.S., homeopathy is essentially treated as a food supplement. FDA concluded in the 1930s that homeopathic "remedies", although not effective, at least were not harmful as they were nothing but lactose or water/alcohol solutions. And they can only be used for self-limiting conditions of little health consequence (like colds and such).

Here's a webpage from FDA that describes the regulation and current status:

fda homeopathic regulation
 
And an excelent quote from that page:
Even professionals who practice homeopathy warn that nothing in medicine--either conventional or alternative--is absolute. "I'm not saying we can cure everyone [with homeopathy]," says Jacobs.
 
Look I can predict Hahnemannian reply: "your all lying butt eating idiots with not brains, nothing you say is true or right, only I am right and your all wrong. Stupid ignoramuses”

The true fool is himself because he say nothing to prove us wrong just goes on reaffirming to him self his delusional belief.
 
Last edited:
Hahnemanniac, here's another chance for you to prove your case, thanks to our friend with the $1,000,000. Come on now, you're so convinced this crap actually works (or so you say), the only way you are going to convert anyone is to actually prove it. Here's your big chance...

"In the UK, The Guardian newspaper continues to make excellent sense by looking into and reporting various items of pseudoscience. This item, they tell us, appeared on a website with timely advice for anyone traveling with homeopathic remedies:


"Try not to put homeopathic remedies through airport security x-rays as it will render their healing properties less effective." You should also "pack them well away from strong-smelling substances, i.e. essential oils, perfume, after-shave, toothpaste etc."
And bull droppings, probably. From the Society of Homeopaths' leaflet series: "You can protect them by using a lightweight lead-lined bag of the type sold for photographic films, or carrying them in your pocket." The Guardian asks, "Please send your bad science to bad.science@guardian.co.uk"

I've got something better on homeopathy than this latest clown-material. In trying to arrange tests of homeopathic products in the past, we've been warned that if a homeopathic preparation has been shipped by air at above a certain altitude, the qualities of the material will be negated due to cosmic influences. Asking whether all their output is thus shipped by sea or land, we of course received no responses.

But this gives us a really simplified way of designing and carrying out a test of these materials! It's been tricky working out how to perform this simple inquiry: can the applicant differentiate between homeopathic and non-homeopathic materials? We'll accept positive results and the determination can be done by any means: chemical, physical, optical, biological (in vivo or in vitro), using infrared, ultraviolet, polarized, high-intensity, or pulsed light, conductivity or electrochemical means, Tarot cards, or a crystal ball. Now, in view of this newest technological breakthrough — which says that x-rays will lessen the homeopathic qualities — and assuming that a very heavy dose of x-ray treatment would effectively cancel out any such qualities — I propose that a control batch of water (bottles of already-packaged product, exposed to heavy x-rays) be mixed with non-radiated samples, and presented to an applicant, to be sorted out.

The loud silence you hear is the response…..

Yes, I thought of the possible residual radiation. There are ways around that…. "



homeopathy test
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Look I can predict Hahnemannian reply: "your all lying butt eating idiots with not brains, nothing you say is true or right, only I am right and your all wrong. Stupid ignoramuses”

The true fool is himself because he say nothing to prove us wrong just goes on reaffirming to him self his delusional belief.

WCF - great sign. line. Though you forgot to add " this may hurt but remember, it works 100% of the time!"
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
No they don't annihilate each other. Why would giving a substance that cause similar symptoms to the disease instead just multiply the symptoms in the patient?

Yes, they do IF they are similar enough.

We don't yet know why it happens, but the emperical Laws of Medicine are absolutes.

The trick is properly precipitating them, for there is only one medicine that can be the simillimum ("thing most similar"), and only it will have the capacity of precipitating the four Laws of Cure in a sustained way.

The multiple medicines that are only close in similarity, which we call the simile, are ones with which we zig zag cases to cure and over a much longer period of time.

They seem to demonstrate that the Law of Similars is sometimes forgiving of our lack of precision.

The application of the Law of Similars has convolutions like this that are not easily understood by newcomers.

George Vithoulkas gave a very interesting explanation of it by observing that the physics Principle of Resonance seems to be another manifestation of the force(s) involved in the Law of Similars; however, that's the only one I can think of at the moment.

People down through history have given many such examples of similar phenomena, but these are buried in the old literature.
 
Hans responded to a remark by me pointing out how an insulin-dependent diabetic not having thirst would be an uncommon symptom by saying this:

Not if his insulin is well-regulated. In that case he does not have ANY symptoms.

Well, gee, golly, so an allopathic proponent holds that the cause of NO THIRST in an insulin-dependent diabetic would be poorly regulated insulin, stating that having thirst is common for insulin-dependent diabetics and implying that it is all right, and that it is a good idea to be on insulin for the rest of one's life even though it does NOT increase the life expectancy of such patients and despite the fact that the inescapable destinies of such unfortunates is a year on dialysis and then a convulsive death that is finally ended by allopaths killing them in front of their family.

What a wonderful system of medicine, huh?

We have lots of people defending it.

Anybody have any idea what is wrong with their brains, for there are certainly a lot of stupid people in and supportive of allopathic medicine.

The best solution I can think of is a 100-psi slamm of a sledge hammer to their occipital lobes.
 
Hans let dribble out of his mouth yet another stupid statement misrepresentive of homeopathy and what I said (is there no end to such idiocy):

You see, if you claim that homepathic preparations have effect on a named disease (which you have done repeatedly here), then by FDA rules, it is a drug, and FDA rules apply. So I'd be very interested in those statutes.

We do NOT claim any such thing, you stupid idiot!

Homeopathic drugs treat PEOPLE; allopathic medicines treat diseases.

Go have a love affair with your precious diseases for a gazillion years while we cure PEOPLE, fool!

Food and Drug Act of 1960, I believe.
 
Hans says to an explanation by me:

[Me:] Hence, thirtlessness would be an uncommon symptom.

Three of them can lead right to the simillimum ("thing most similar").

It is about that simple.

Think you could do that, though?



[Hans:] Doesn't sound too complex. Still don't see how it can cure anything.

Good thing the universe doesn't require your understanding to function, isn't it?
 
Hans opens his big mouth yet again, quoting me and then again making a fool of himself:

[Me:] Gee, golly, I know all of the legitimate classical/Hahnemannian homeopaths in the world, and guess what, dumb ars?

T'ain't nuna dem knows nuttin 'bout no trial.

You're therefore quoting another liar or ignorant fool probably to your excessive degree too.



[Hans:] You have said that it is all in the books of Hahnemann. So what is to stop an expert from following the books, even if he is not known by the community of "legitimate classical/Hahnemannian homeopaths"?

Well, gee, "an expert," huh?

Ain't no experts in low-potency pseudo-homeopathy, dummy.

--------------

Then his crooked brain spews forth yet another example after again quoting me:

[Me:] And what is meant by following "traditional routines of homeopathic diagnosis and prescription?"

What's that?



[Hans:] Thats what is in Hahnemanns books, isn't it? It's what you have been rambling about thru 23 pages here.

The trial you quoted was from testing of low-potency pseudo-homeopathy, so don't be suggesting it wasn't.

Would you please hereafter be quiet?

You don't know anything about homeopathy and are very annoying.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top