Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Hans says:
Guess what, pal?
I do not care if you believe it or not!
Please say goodbye now.
Guess what, pal?
I do not care if you believe it or not!
Please say goodbye now.
On Homeopathy
- Thread starter timokay
- Start date
- Status
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Hans says:
This is a little better, Hans.
You are, however, making some fundamental mistakes worth correcting without derision.
We recognize diagnostic categories, just like allopaths.
Those things are conveniences, i.e., ways of imparting lots of symptoms by invoking just one word or term.
They are, however, identifications of nothing more than the statistical abstractions they represent since the only symptoms so identified are the ones that large numbers of people have in common: common symptoms.
Everybody has uncommon symptoms, though, too, and those are the ones that permit us to isolate the medicine that person needs.
Those common symptoms do not lead to a single drug, i.e., they do not lead to an unambiguous prescription, but uncommon symptoms do.
We don't really care what causes it unless that causative agent or influence also appears in the case as a sustaining cause of disease.
Such causes extend far beyond mere pathogens and have to be removed before we can see the accurate disease picture without such interfering factors.
Allopathic drugs ALL act as these interferring factors because they 1) suppress natural symptoms and 2) produce artificial symptoms called side effects of their toxicity.
Allopathic drugs thus have to go.
That's very difficult in our times, for most people are addicted to them, and we often receive such patients and have to do the best we can under the circumstances.
The pathogenic cause of a disease has nothing to do with homeotherapeutics, for it sets in motion disease processes but does not indicate a single drug for cure because the processes include those common symptoms AND uncommon symptoms.
Only the uncommon symptoms will indicate a curative medicine, so the cause is irrelevant.
That's why we have symptom rubrics in the repertory for the various diseases by name.
Those permit us to know which drugs have been curative of that disease, but that listing does not of itself indicate any drug over another one, for the uncommon symptoms permitted earlier homeopaths to cure those diseases.
That's how we always do it.
The fact that a drug has cured a disease means nothing, for potentially any drug can be called for in a given case.
----------
When we pass from infectious diseases into the hyper-realm of chronic diseases, we will hopefully get you to see why these uncommon symptoms are so important, for no causes are involved in them.
Disease Entity Theory brought allopathic medicine to the paradigm of Disease Mechanism Theory and now to DNA Theory.
But none of them are providing, nor will they ever provide, the means for individualization with ultramolecular drugs.
When we look into chronic disease, we often see that these are cases in which the organism is going hay wire itself.
Nothing physical is causative of it; if a pathogen is behind it, that becomes an infectious case.
For example, cytomegalavirus (CMV) is indicated in a very large and expanding percentage of cases of restinosis.
(For those who do not know this word, it means recurrent coronary blockage and thus recurrent angioplasties.)
CMV in heart disease thus splits that category about in the middle with half of the cases being classed as chronic in nature and half as infectious.
It makes no practical difference to us which classification it falls into, for we treat all cases the same way, but it shows that such pathogenic causes serve to identify infectious from chronic diseases.
----------
The disordered or no-longer integral etheric pattern seems to be indicated as the key feature of all cases.
Hahnemann called it the vital force, but etheric pattern is much more scientific since we are in a world recognizing lots of non-physical particles and energies.
In infectious diseases, the disordered etheric pattern would be the key because it permitted infection as well as being the hindrence to restored health.
In chronic diseases, the disordered etheric pattern would be the key because the symptoms are the only way for us to know how to restore lost health.
I said the same thing in both cases.
We really look at it about like this, for it appears that the only way to understand what ultramolecular drugs could be doing in curative prescriptions is restoring the etheric pattern to its optimal state.
Restated, lost health is lost health no matter how it occured, and homeotherapeutics shows us how to restore it.
What actually happens is still a mystery, but we know how to do it because natural laws guide us like a compass.
Tim and I are looking for an explanation of homeopathic pharmacology, for that seems to be resolvable in our times and may lead to other findings.
----------
The deviations or disorderings of cellular mechanisms are always going to be nothing but effects of a systemic process.
Allopaths are thus incapable of even addressing, let alone curing, these cases because they are stuck in the notion of a proximate cause when none will ever be found and wouldn't do any good anyway since no prescription from it will be unambiguous nor will chemical drugs be able to precipitate the four Laws of Cure.
These are totally insoluble problems with allopathic medicine.
The only way to cure diseases has been through Hahnemannian homeotherapeutics and clearly will be the only way forever since natural laws exist permitting us to gain command over disease phenomena.
I am not saying this is easy.
That is hardly the case when we deal with patients, but it is the way Hahnemannians have cured diseases.
----------
I thought of another recent example in a case of an uncommon symptom you might find more helpful.
After asking an elderly gentleman with heart disease about his position during sleep, he told me that he sleeps on his sides because he gets dizzy if he lays on his back.
Ignoring that I almost did not learn this pivotally important symptom because he did not think it significant, there is no physiological mechanism to explain this, and that tends to be a good criteria to be able to identify them.
We thus look up that symptom and find a list of drugs that have produced it in the healthy and cured it in the sick:
http://homeoint.org/books/kentrep/kent0100.htm#P101
VERTIGO [while] lying, back, on (K101): alum., anan., merc-sul., merc., mur-ac., nux-v., puls., sil., sulph.
If you find three of those in a case, you are going to be able to find the medicine the person needs.
For this reason, Constantine Hering considered the equilateral triangle to represent homeopathy, inside of which he wanted these words written: By This Sign We Conquer.
----------
Irregardless, uncommon or characteristic symptoms are strange, rare and peculiar.
The person who is curable will have them; the incurable person will not, because we can't find the drug that will cure the person without them.
Happily, most people have these.
Most often what happens in the cases of the elderly today is that their cases are very complicated by allopathic medicine, so we cannot readily identify which medicine they need.
Then some crisis occurs and allopathic medicine regains total control over the case and the person then dies.
The homeopaths of the 19th century did not have such problems because they had patients for life without allopathic complications.
Those patients presented problems that challenged the skills of the homeopath, and it mostly happened that a missed prescription failed the patient, who then died.
Here is where modern allopathy today has a place.
They should be there as a safety valve for us, like antibiotics, but no further.
That ain't going to happen till they understand their inferior position to us.
----------
By the way, anybody who wants to blaim a homeopath for missing a prescription should first try to do it.
This is all the more tragic because it's very difficult to come to Hahnemannian status, and there are lots of people in HPH misleading others and setting them lose as graduates before they're actually ready.
Mostly one comes to Hahnemannian status by simply discerning that there are mistakes made by others.
So Hahnemannians are historically very few people in the world at any given time.
----------
We will thus name the case the same way allopaths do, but our prescription will have nothing to do with the name of the disease.
I hope that is helpful.
This is a little better, Hans.
You are, however, making some fundamental mistakes worth correcting without derision.
We recognize diagnostic categories, just like allopaths.
Those things are conveniences, i.e., ways of imparting lots of symptoms by invoking just one word or term.
They are, however, identifications of nothing more than the statistical abstractions they represent since the only symptoms so identified are the ones that large numbers of people have in common: common symptoms.
Everybody has uncommon symptoms, though, too, and those are the ones that permit us to isolate the medicine that person needs.
Those common symptoms do not lead to a single drug, i.e., they do not lead to an unambiguous prescription, but uncommon symptoms do.
We don't really care what causes it unless that causative agent or influence also appears in the case as a sustaining cause of disease.
Such causes extend far beyond mere pathogens and have to be removed before we can see the accurate disease picture without such interfering factors.
Allopathic drugs ALL act as these interferring factors because they 1) suppress natural symptoms and 2) produce artificial symptoms called side effects of their toxicity.
Allopathic drugs thus have to go.
That's very difficult in our times, for most people are addicted to them, and we often receive such patients and have to do the best we can under the circumstances.
The pathogenic cause of a disease has nothing to do with homeotherapeutics, for it sets in motion disease processes but does not indicate a single drug for cure because the processes include those common symptoms AND uncommon symptoms.
Only the uncommon symptoms will indicate a curative medicine, so the cause is irrelevant.
That's why we have symptom rubrics in the repertory for the various diseases by name.
Those permit us to know which drugs have been curative of that disease, but that listing does not of itself indicate any drug over another one, for the uncommon symptoms permitted earlier homeopaths to cure those diseases.
That's how we always do it.
The fact that a drug has cured a disease means nothing, for potentially any drug can be called for in a given case.
----------
When we pass from infectious diseases into the hyper-realm of chronic diseases, we will hopefully get you to see why these uncommon symptoms are so important, for no causes are involved in them.
Disease Entity Theory brought allopathic medicine to the paradigm of Disease Mechanism Theory and now to DNA Theory.
But none of them are providing, nor will they ever provide, the means for individualization with ultramolecular drugs.
When we look into chronic disease, we often see that these are cases in which the organism is going hay wire itself.
Nothing physical is causative of it; if a pathogen is behind it, that becomes an infectious case.
For example, cytomegalavirus (CMV) is indicated in a very large and expanding percentage of cases of restinosis.
(For those who do not know this word, it means recurrent coronary blockage and thus recurrent angioplasties.)
CMV in heart disease thus splits that category about in the middle with half of the cases being classed as chronic in nature and half as infectious.
It makes no practical difference to us which classification it falls into, for we treat all cases the same way, but it shows that such pathogenic causes serve to identify infectious from chronic diseases.
----------
The disordered or no-longer integral etheric pattern seems to be indicated as the key feature of all cases.
Hahnemann called it the vital force, but etheric pattern is much more scientific since we are in a world recognizing lots of non-physical particles and energies.
In infectious diseases, the disordered etheric pattern would be the key because it permitted infection as well as being the hindrence to restored health.
In chronic diseases, the disordered etheric pattern would be the key because the symptoms are the only way for us to know how to restore lost health.
I said the same thing in both cases.
We really look at it about like this, for it appears that the only way to understand what ultramolecular drugs could be doing in curative prescriptions is restoring the etheric pattern to its optimal state.
Restated, lost health is lost health no matter how it occured, and homeotherapeutics shows us how to restore it.
What actually happens is still a mystery, but we know how to do it because natural laws guide us like a compass.
Tim and I are looking for an explanation of homeopathic pharmacology, for that seems to be resolvable in our times and may lead to other findings.
----------
The deviations or disorderings of cellular mechanisms are always going to be nothing but effects of a systemic process.
Allopaths are thus incapable of even addressing, let alone curing, these cases because they are stuck in the notion of a proximate cause when none will ever be found and wouldn't do any good anyway since no prescription from it will be unambiguous nor will chemical drugs be able to precipitate the four Laws of Cure.
These are totally insoluble problems with allopathic medicine.
The only way to cure diseases has been through Hahnemannian homeotherapeutics and clearly will be the only way forever since natural laws exist permitting us to gain command over disease phenomena.
I am not saying this is easy.
That is hardly the case when we deal with patients, but it is the way Hahnemannians have cured diseases.
----------
I thought of another recent example in a case of an uncommon symptom you might find more helpful.
After asking an elderly gentleman with heart disease about his position during sleep, he told me that he sleeps on his sides because he gets dizzy if he lays on his back.
Ignoring that I almost did not learn this pivotally important symptom because he did not think it significant, there is no physiological mechanism to explain this, and that tends to be a good criteria to be able to identify them.
We thus look up that symptom and find a list of drugs that have produced it in the healthy and cured it in the sick:
http://homeoint.org/books/kentrep/kent0100.htm#P101
VERTIGO [while] lying, back, on (K101): alum., anan., merc-sul., merc., mur-ac., nux-v., puls., sil., sulph.
If you find three of those in a case, you are going to be able to find the medicine the person needs.
For this reason, Constantine Hering considered the equilateral triangle to represent homeopathy, inside of which he wanted these words written: By This Sign We Conquer.
----------
Irregardless, uncommon or characteristic symptoms are strange, rare and peculiar.
The person who is curable will have them; the incurable person will not, because we can't find the drug that will cure the person without them.
Happily, most people have these.
Most often what happens in the cases of the elderly today is that their cases are very complicated by allopathic medicine, so we cannot readily identify which medicine they need.
Then some crisis occurs and allopathic medicine regains total control over the case and the person then dies.
The homeopaths of the 19th century did not have such problems because they had patients for life without allopathic complications.
Those patients presented problems that challenged the skills of the homeopath, and it mostly happened that a missed prescription failed the patient, who then died.
Here is where modern allopathy today has a place.
They should be there as a safety valve for us, like antibiotics, but no further.
That ain't going to happen till they understand their inferior position to us.
----------
By the way, anybody who wants to blaim a homeopath for missing a prescription should first try to do it.
This is all the more tragic because it's very difficult to come to Hahnemannian status, and there are lots of people in HPH misleading others and setting them lose as graduates before they're actually ready.
Mostly one comes to Hahnemannian status by simply discerning that there are mistakes made by others.
So Hahnemannians are historically very few people in the world at any given time.
----------
We will thus name the case the same way allopaths do, but our prescription will have nothing to do with the name of the disease.
I hope that is helpful.
Last edited:
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Persol proves him or herself a fascist, and I thought it would be dramatic to hi-lite it:
1st Law of Karma: The home is inviolate.
But fascists don't know about such things, do you?
I'd cut off your head for just saying that.
Your kind need to go back to Hell and stay there this time.
1st Law of Karma: The home is inviolate.
But fascists don't know about such things, do you?
I'd cut off your head for just saying that.
Your kind need to go back to Hell and stay there this time.
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Tim asks:
No, I have no such statistics.
Lots of my patients come and go anyway.
One of the reasons for that is because I live close to a university where lots of Indian students come.
They all know and like homeopathy, so I get lots of patients from them, but they leave for parts unknown.
Besides, such Indian patients are young and are emotionally tempered on the whole, so they're usually just in need of banal prescriptions.
The deaths of my patients have all occured in allopathic hands.
The man thus assumes several things that make his notion impossible.
Besides, I reject the idea that longevity is a measure of therapeutic effectiveness.
Allopathy prolongs life but does not make qualitative differences in health.
We do that, but how do you measure qualitative differences in health?
Patients can rate such things, but how could a rating of qualitative differences in health by an allopathic patient mean anything since he will not have anything to compare it to?
All of my patients prefer my therapeutics.
I don't need any further verifications.
Neither do I understand why these guys think I am trying to prove anything.
I never said any such thing.
I've only answered questions or addressed their remarks.
If they don't like them, so what!
The cases allopaths can't handle, which are most of them, I can.
If the guys here want to prove homeopathy is or isn't effective, do it.
I could care less since it won't have anything to do with what I do or that of my colleagues.
Nobody has been beating down their doors asking anything of them.
They don't ask us anything.
Neither am I interested in their investigations since, as I have repeatedly pointed out, they are fundamentally incapable of testing homeopathy in an allopathic way.
I don't understand why none of them seems to be able to grasp this, but I'm getting really tired of repeatedly stating it.
I have this forming vision of the faces of the guys here: it's a brick wall.
I've never seen faces made of brick before.
No, I have no such statistics.
Lots of my patients come and go anyway.
One of the reasons for that is because I live close to a university where lots of Indian students come.
They all know and like homeopathy, so I get lots of patients from them, but they leave for parts unknown.
Besides, such Indian patients are young and are emotionally tempered on the whole, so they're usually just in need of banal prescriptions.
The deaths of my patients have all occured in allopathic hands.
The man thus assumes several things that make his notion impossible.
Besides, I reject the idea that longevity is a measure of therapeutic effectiveness.
Allopathy prolongs life but does not make qualitative differences in health.
We do that, but how do you measure qualitative differences in health?
Patients can rate such things, but how could a rating of qualitative differences in health by an allopathic patient mean anything since he will not have anything to compare it to?
All of my patients prefer my therapeutics.
I don't need any further verifications.
Neither do I understand why these guys think I am trying to prove anything.
I never said any such thing.
I've only answered questions or addressed their remarks.
If they don't like them, so what!
The cases allopaths can't handle, which are most of them, I can.
If the guys here want to prove homeopathy is or isn't effective, do it.
I could care less since it won't have anything to do with what I do or that of my colleagues.
Nobody has been beating down their doors asking anything of them.
They don't ask us anything.
Neither am I interested in their investigations since, as I have repeatedly pointed out, they are fundamentally incapable of testing homeopathy in an allopathic way.
I don't understand why none of them seems to be able to grasp this, but I'm getting really tired of repeatedly stating it.
I have this forming vision of the faces of the guys here: it's a brick wall.
I've never seen faces made of brick before.
You don't seem to be getting this through your thick skull. We have seen all the proof we need that homeopathy is not effective. We know for a fact that the 10 "natural laws" are nothing more than rantings of an ignorant, backward fool from the 18th century. You are the one claiming effectiveness, we want to see your evidence. It is readily apparent that it does not exist.
Of course you and your "colleagues" couldn't care less. That is the case with all health frauds. They know full well there are enough ignorant, uneducated and/or mentally ill people in this world to prey on and make a living.
It will be a wonderful day when all health fraud, including homeopathy, is deemed illegal by the U.S. government, and its despicable pracitioners thrown in prison for their crimes.
Thank you, BTox! Vey interesting reading. So Homeopathic are exempted from FDA medical regulations because it is considered to have no effect. And so much also for the claim that it has been suppressed; actually, it has been carefully considered and found uninteresting. I wonder who has eggs on his face now
Hans
And to Hahnemanniac, who apparantly thinks (thinks?? Oh, well ) that the more he can seem to insult other people in his posts, the more people will be convinced of his wisdom:
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:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Didn't you just accuse ME of third grade reading skills? Im sorry to disturb you with facts, but you interpretation is the exact opposite of what I said. A diabetes patient (here assuming diabetes type 1, as type 2 is more complex) will be free of symptoms provided insulin regulation is sufficiently good. Far from all patients achive this as it requires a big effort of the patient, nevertheless, even not perfectly regulated patients live to a ripe age with little or no long-term effects and die from reasons unrelated to diabetes.
*snipped, some insults and the like *
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!
Oh, yes you did. A lot of times. For instance you claimed that a mercury preparation could cure syphilis. Do I have to find it or are you able to read your own posts?
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.
Yes, BTox gave me the reference, thanks. I see it dismisses homeopathy as harmless (and useless).
*snip*
Hans opens his big mouth yet again, quoting me and then again making a fool of himself:
*snip*
The trial you quoted was from testing of low-potency pseudo-homeopathy, so don't be suggesting it wasn't.
Better adjust your glasses, I did not quote any trial. I referred to a quote from somebody else.
Would you please hereafter be quiet?
Have to disappoint you there: No.
You don't know anything about homeopathy and are very annoying.
Well, I get to know more and more. And the more I know, the more annoying I suspect you'll find me. Live with it.
Hans
) that the more he can seem to insult other people in his posts, the more people will be convinced of his wisdom: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:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Didn't you just accuse ME of third grade reading skills? Im sorry to disturb you with facts, but you interpretation is the exact opposite of what I said. A diabetes patient (here assuming diabetes type 1, as type 2 is more complex) will be free of symptoms provided insulin regulation is sufficiently good. Far from all patients achive this as it requires a big effort of the patient, nevertheless, even not perfectly regulated patients live to a ripe age with little or no long-term effects and die from reasons unrelated to diabetes.
*snipped, some insults and the like *
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!
Oh, yes you did. A lot of times. For instance you claimed that a mercury preparation could cure syphilis. Do I have to find it or are you able to read your own posts?
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.
Yes, BTox gave me the reference, thanks. I see it dismisses homeopathy as harmless (and useless).
*snip*
Hans opens his big mouth yet again, quoting me and then again making a fool of himself:
*snip*
The trial you quoted was from testing of low-potency pseudo-homeopathy, so don't be suggesting it wasn't.
Better adjust your glasses, I did not quote any trial. I referred to a quote from somebody else.
Would you please hereafter be quiet?
Have to disappoint you there: No.
You don't know anything about homeopathy and are very annoying.
Well, I get to know more and more. And the more I know, the more annoying I suspect you'll find me. Live with it.
Hans
No they don't! Do you have any evindece on this?
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
You're really annoying with such a little brain and big mouth.
Not every patient with an allopathically incurable disease is curable, and not every prescription we make with these tragic cases are accurate enough to cure them.
Mostly they're incurable due to being disordered cases by allopathic medicine masking and changing their natural symptoms and engrafting onto them artificial symptoms called drug side effects, for it is impossible to determine what medicine they therefore need, and it is impossible to determine what effect their allopathic drugs will have once we do hit their simillimum.
Allopathic drugs make people incurable, and your mere opinions do not change this tragic reality.
You really annoy me, sir.
Would you please go away, for you are not helpful and have nothing worthwhile to contribute here.
hey you annoy him thats a good start BTox
Looking in the mirror again aren’t you Hahnemannian?
Looking in the mirror again aren’t you Hahnemannian?
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Hans asks about a case I reported on:
It was headed that way for nearly four years after I got the case when given up for dead and headed for a fourth heart attack in five months, and then allopaths finally killed the man because they wouldn't stop interferring in the case and I couldn't get him to have them do an angiogram since he was clearly a victim of cytomegalavirus.
He stayed on their drugs all along, and I couldn't tell which of his often-changing symptoms were real and which were artificial from their drugs.
He thus had another heart attack nearly four years later and died under their care in a hospital.
Their drugs weren't doing anything good, and there was no reason for half of them.
Allopaths are killers, and I'd gladly off their heads if anybody else was squeemish about it.
It was headed that way for nearly four years after I got the case when given up for dead and headed for a fourth heart attack in five months, and then allopaths finally killed the man because they wouldn't stop interferring in the case and I couldn't get him to have them do an angiogram since he was clearly a victim of cytomegalavirus.
He stayed on their drugs all along, and I couldn't tell which of his often-changing symptoms were real and which were artificial from their drugs.
He thus had another heart attack nearly four years later and died under their care in a hospital.
Their drugs weren't doing anything good, and there was no reason for half of them.
Allopaths are killers, and I'd gladly off their heads if anybody else was squeemish about it.
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Yeah, I wish you'd study those passages.
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
There aren't very many, but I could tell from the trial reports that no Hahnemann would have been involved in them.
As I've told you before, the high-potency pseudo-homeopaths (HPHs) in the Vithoulkas school of thought (GVs) fancy calling themselves classical homeopaths, and allopaths can't tell LPH, HPHs and Hahnemannians apart, so all such claims are a priori bogus since we don't take part in allopathic trials.
To whit, all allopathic claims that homeopathy has been tested per their erroneous assumptions about health, disease, therapeutics, the nature of existence and the nature of the universe are simply false.
So please cease holding that it's been done when that's simply impossible.
And I think I can generally speak for all Hahnemannians by saying that we don't mind if you disparage LPHs and HPHs because we do too.
So you lost him, but blame allopaths. Mmmmokay. Four years is a long time, especially for a seriously ill, elderly patient. Can't it be done faster? I saw a homeopath determine which medicine some patients needed just by hearing about their symptoms.
Hans
- Status