Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Similibus View Post
    To the homeopath, the cause of a cold is not considered to be a rhinovirus, as the homeopath is more concerned with what made the patient susceptible to the rhinovirus in the first place. If colds were caused by rhinoviruses, as allopathy mistakenly believes, then everyone who came into contact with the virus would develop the cold. This would mean, for example, that if one child in a school developed a cold then the whole school should eventually contract the cold as the virus is spread around. This is clearly not the case. Susceptibility plays a big part.
    Faulty logic. Susceptibility is a factor in getting the cold, but it is still caused by the rhinovirus.

    Incidentally, medical science only recently discovered that catching a chill can result in symptoms of a cold. They conducted an experiment where they made the subjects sit with their feet in buckets of cold water for hours on end. This groundbreaking science was reported on the 6 o'clock news a year or so ago. Until this experiment they had maintained that colds are caused solely by the transmission of germs. After the experiment they mumbled something about how catching a chill can make the blood vessels contract, restricting blood flow and possibly compromising the WBCs ability move around the body and fight the infection.
    In other words, the mechanism for the susceptibility was found. The virus is still required.

    Now, how do we know that the virus is needed? Well there exists plenty of examples of people being shipwrecked, left out on cold weather, etc, etc. They usually don't cantch a cold, even though suffering from hypothermia. Why is that? There was no virus present.

    Hans
    You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Similibus View Post
      What I object to, and will continue to object to, is petty, insignificant criticisms of minor, inconsequential statements that have little bearing on the wider points that are being discussed.
      (...)

      So I have defended my statement and established that Hahnemann was hard-up for a while. How is that relevant to the discussion? It is not. Was the criticism valid? It was not. Was it correct? It was not. What was the point of it? I can't see one.
      My point is that if the statement being criticised is so irrelevant to the discussion, why is it being made in the first place?
      Originally posted by Similibus View Post
      My point is that life is a natural Force, like gravity is a natural Force
      You can't compare Vital Force to Gravitational Force because the former isn't a force. Is that nit-picking? It doesn't push or pull anything.
      If you drop the word "force" and call it an "effect", it's still dodgy.
      Gravity's effect can be observed, there is a sound theory describing it which can be and has been tested and revised.
      If you claim vital force can be observed and tested, for instance in people's health or mortality, I'd point out that likely most of the descriptions of that would also apply to the "vital force" of my car. Which isn't alive.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
        Faulty logic. Susceptibility is a factor in getting the cold, but it is still caused by the rhinovirus.



        In other words, the mechanism for the susceptibility was found. The virus is still required.

        Now, how do we know that the virus is needed? Well there exists plenty of examples of people being shipwrecked, left out on cold weather, etc, etc. They usually don't cantch a cold, even though suffering from hypothermia. Why is that? There was no virus present.

        Hans
        If I may,

        it is still caused by a virus - why do you think that susceptibility is a minor factor, so to say, while the virus is the major factor?
        Can you give figures of how many people in the population have been tested for the rhinovirus without having presented with cold symptoms? That is - they have the virus but do not develop cold?

        -Why is that? THere was no virus present. - You'll agree that it's just a conjecture, has this been verified by actual tests?

        I thought this type of virus was present basically everywhere...

        And I know of a case of mumps which came out completely out of the blue - there were just no cases around the boy who got mumps, not for months before or after, he just could not pick it up from anyone - but, his little brother was just born, and within 2 weeks of that the elder boy had mumps. (You could appreciate this if you knew that Lachesis is one of the typical remedies indicated for this condition and what the Lachesis homeopathic picture is.) Or - he could have caught it from someone who had the virus - but did not develop any symptoms to speak of.
        Last edited by Elena Zagrebelnaya; 2nd October 2008, 11:44 PM. Reason: typos and addition

        Comment


        • In this post, I need to make some double quotes, otherwise the meaning gets lost.

          [Quote:
          Originally Posted by MRC_Hans
          Probably not. It does, however, respond to a number of factors beside medical treatment. (on cholera)]

          Please give examples.
          I already did, but I can repeat them. The outcome od a cholera case depends on cleanliness, nutrition, general case management, the strenght of the victim, and several other things.

          [Quote:
          Originally Posted by MRC_Hans
          In principle, yes. The big question is: How do you "see that it cures?" ]

          Well, when a patient with eczema takes a homeopathic medicine and the eczema goes away, for example.
          And you have never heard of a case where it goes away without any medicine? In fact, eczema is an excellent example of a condition that comes and goes.

          Succession is no proof of causation.

          1. Science is slowly catching up with Hahnemann and confirming his work.
          No.

          You like the explanation because it is was presented to you in language you can understand - keeping it on a level, so to speak. It is by no means definitive nor comprehensive. You are still in the Dark Ages, remember?
          Remember remarks like this next time you accuse ME of being flippant and childish.

          2. There is no implication that the body can hold only one disease at a time.
          Nevertheless this is what Hahnemann claimed.

          There is recognition of the fact that the body cannot hold two similar diseases at the same time.
          That depends on what you mean by "similar". However, in the homeopathic sense, "similar" means giving similar symptoms, and under that definition, you are wrong; I can easily have two diseases that five me a headache and a sore throat at the same time (most flu cases are accompanied with a throat infection).

          3. Contemporary knowledge of how the body functions is still very much in it's infancy, despite our best efforts. If we can fill a single library with our current knowledge, we could fill a city of libraries with what is still to learn.
          Surely, but what we know, we know. This is a fallacy I often see especiallt homeopaths commit: Since we don't know all, we know nothing. But that is false: We may not know what's on the other side of the hill, but that doesn't invalidate our knowledge of this side.

          4. Knowledge of what causes disease is another is another area where homeopathy has a much more comprehensive perspective than allopathy. Homeopathy recognises that there are usually several factors involved in causation, and not just one. which is prevailing view in allopathy (germ theory).
          That is plain silly: Homeopathy hardly addresses disease causes at all.
          In fact it is double silly: Certainly modern medicine recognizes many other disease causes than germs.

          My point here is that physics obviously needs to re-evaluate it's perspective. If just one hyper-dilute homeopathic medicine cures an illness (e.g. cholera) in just one case, we have strong evidence that a hyper-dilute medicine has an effect.
          Well, in principle, that is correct. However, it is impossible to prove causation in one case.

          But when tens of thousands of cases have been published by medically qualified practitioners, we have sufficient evidence to throw our current understanding of physics in to question. Just because science cannot explain how homeopathy works does not mean that it cannot possibly work. It can just as easily mean that our current understanding of physics needs to be updated.
          That is one possibility. The other is that the evidence may not be valid.

          You are missing the essential point that the symptoms themselves are the disease to all intents and purposes. If there are no symptoms how do we know we have a disease? The symptoms are all that need to be removed to return the sick person back to health.
          That is indeed an essential point. ..... In homeopathic doctrine. However, modern science disagrees. We know of many diseases that don't present symptoms in the early stages. In fact this is the case of most infectious diseases. It is called the incubation period.

          The fever is both an effect of the disease and part of the body's reaction to it. If there was no disease there would be no fever - the disease is the cause - the fever is an effect.
          Ehr, that was what I said, but thank you for agreeing. In other words, if you address the feever, you do not address the disease, but its effect.


          As the homeopathic medicine produces similar symptoms in the healthy person, it is not counteracting the body's method of fighting the disease - it is intensifying and assisting the body's natural response to the disease, stimulating it along the lines it is has already chosen, working with the body's own natural intelligence, and supporting it's efforts. The direct opposite of what you have suggested.
          Confusing your own doctrine, here. The homeopathic doctrine is that like cures like. In other words that fever cures fever. Which is wrong, since fever, as you agreed above, is not the disease.

          I wonder if we will look at the practices of immunisation (injecting 6 week old babies with various deadly toxins and attenuated viruses) and chemotherapy (infusing a person with [mostly] heavy metals to the limit of their physical tolerance, with the aim of making the body so toxic that it's functions start to shut down) in a similar way in another 100 years time?
          Apart from your gross misrepresentation of those therapies, yes we might. If we at any time have a much better therapy, we will look at the old ones with reprehension. Just as nobody today (well, very few, at least) looks at a horse carriage as a serious form of long-distance transportation. But at one time it was the hight of travel technology.

          [Quote:
          Originally Posted by MRC_Hans
          Actually, I have not seen any of his biographers claim that he lived a meagre living. Do you have a reference for this?]

          Tedious nitpicking Mr Hans. It is hardly a significant point in the overall discussion, now is it? Tedious, tedious, tedious. Why do want a reference for this insignificant piece of trivia? If you are going to insist that I provide references for every insignificant fact, I shall insist that you do the same. It is, in fact, correct - go read your biographies again!
          Temper, temper! I was merely genuinely interested in the aspects of the life of his interesting man. But no, it is not essential to the discussion.


          (Quote:
          Originally Posted by MRC_Hans
          Not quite true. Since long before Hypocrates, the law of similars and the law of opposites have been among the hypotheses in circulation.]

          Tedious nitpicking Mr Hans: "In the fifth century BC[E] Hippocrates (c.470-400 BC[E]), the 'father of medicine', wrote that there were two methods of healing: by 'contraries' and by 'similars'..." Reference: The Complete Homeopathy Handbook: A Guide to Everyday Healthcare by Miranda Castro, Macmillan Publishers, 1990, page 3.

          Now please provide a reference from "before the time of Hippocrates" supporting your above comment (yawn).
          You are the one nitpicking. The point was the notion (which you hinted) that only these two possibilities existed. That is a false dictonomy.

          [Quote:
          Originally Posted by MRC_Hans
          Yes, this is one of the intriguing anecdotes of homeopathy. You see, attempts to replicate it have always failed: Neither Perivian Bark, nor what was later discovered to be the active substance in it, quinine, will give symptoms like malaria when given to healthy persons.

          So why did Hahnemann report such symptoms? Well, we shall never know, but several possibilities exist:

          1) He was allergic to some substance in the preparation he took.
          2) The preparation he had happened to contain some foreign substance that caused his symptoms.
          3) His taking the substance happened to coincide with some infection causing the observed symptoms.
          4) He *gasp* made the story up after the fact.

          As you can see, whatever the explanation, one of the cornerstones of Hahnemann's basic theory turns out to be nonexistent. ]

          At last- A valid criticism! The most likely explanation is:

          5) Hahnemann had a personal medical history of malarial fever and consequently would have had an increased susceptibility to Chinchona (Peruvian Bark).
          Your explanation does not change the fact that one of the cornerstones of homeopathy is invalidated.

          It is also a very unlikely explanation, since, as I told you, Hahnemann's reaction has never been replicated. However, since quinine has long been the favored treatment for people WITH malaria, it has been given to millions of people with a history of malarial fever. Without any reports of the symptoms reported by Hahnemann.

          [Quote:
          Originally Posted by MRC_Hans
          Often? Already retreating, ehh? Now if homeopathic doctrine is true, this has to be a universal principle! "Often" is simply not good enough.]

          It is your understanding of homeopathic doctrine that is at fault here, not homeopathic doctrine itself. Homeopathic Doctrine states that a medicine that is capable of causing a specific symptom syndrome in the healthy will cure the exact same symptom syndrome occurring naturally in a person that is sick.
          Yes, and for that to work, it obviously has to be a universal principle.

          Once again, the best you can come up with is a dismissive remark that is entirely incorrect. Hahnemann did not declare the Law of Similars a natural law based on the outcome of only a few experiments. He declared it a natural law after thousands of experiments confirmed it consistently.
          Read the OOM. Hahnemann mentions a dozen examples, most of the second-hand. Then he declares it a natural law. But then, Hahnemann was in a habit of declaring ALL his ideas natural laws.

          It has since been confirmed by millions of experiments conducted by homeopaths around the world over the last 200 years or so.
          The documentation is, unfortunately, missing. All we have is anecdotes.

          [Quote:
          Originally Posted by MRC_Hans
          Which was just the same as his contemporary practioners, whom he detested so much, did: Try some medicine on the patients, and if they survived, he chalked it up as another victory for his principle. That had gone on for millienna, nothing new there. ]

          Another tedious, dismissive, incorrect comment. Do you have anything of value to contribute to this discussion? How else was he to test his theories?
          So you agree that this was what he did?

          At least he went to the trouble of testing his medicines on the healthy first to ascertain their effects (which had never been thought of by anyone in history before him), of prescribing them according to clearly comprehensible principles (The Law of Similars), of prescribing them as single medicines so that he could assess what they were doing (instead of noxious combinations of lethal poisons prescribed with no idea as to their effects) and gave consideration as to the minimum dose required (as opposed to 'the more the better').
          Yes, he was a bit of a pioneer in those respects. Not that others had not goen before him, but many practitioners of his era had surprisingly little concern for the safety of their patients.

          More tedious nitpicking.
          Ok, enough of this: You are AT LEAST as bad in nitpicking, just look at how wordy your posts are! But fine, we can cut to the basics, I won't mind. The question is, are you ready for that?

          [Quote:
          Originally Posted by MRC_Hans
          Oh, the big mystery ritual, "succussion"! How come you never say "violent shaking"? Perhaps it takes too much magic out of it? It is not so mysterious why he did that: That is standard procedure when you want to mix something. Especially as some of the substances he experimented with are not really soluble in water: Of course he had to shake them well. ]

          Until Hahnemann developed this method many of these substances were considered insoluble in water. The method Hahnemann developed for making mercury soluble is still used to this day. It is a testimony to his competence as a chemist. Succussion is the correct term.
          Succussion = Shaking hard. If you disagree, please explain, in exact terms, the difference.

          [Quote:
          Originally Posted by MRC_Hans
          Exactly! Even Hahnemann himself acknowledged this. Why is it we still need to discuss this matter with some homeopaths (present company, apparantly, not included)? ]

          I am not aware of any homeopath who claims otherwise.
          No, that was just a side remark, and had nothing to do with this discussion. Iti s just that I have been in endless discussions with other homeopaths about this.


          [Quote:
          Originally Posted by MRC_Hans
          Yeah, and this is where he left the path of science: When the facts did not support his theory, he invented an ad-hoc hypothesis. ]

          You forgot to add 'according to current scientific understanding'. None of Hahnemann's positive theories have been disproved.
          1) Yes, that is exactly the definition of an ad hoc hypothesis: Our present knowledge does not support this, but what if ....

          2) I tend to disagree, but nigative proof is difficult to discuss. More to the point is that none of his theories (what do you mean by "positive theories"?) have been proved.


          However, I assure you Mr Hans, that homeopathy IS the Science of Medical Therapeutics - the science which makes sense of the processes involved in health, disease and cure, the branch of knowledge or study relating to the administering of medicines for the cure of disease, which has systematically arranged the relevant facts or truths involved in the development of it's defining principles, and importantly, which demonstrates the operation of general Laws.
          I know you assure me. I am sorry, but your assurances are not enough. I'm a tedious nitpicker, as you know, and I require evidence. Valid evidence.

          Q: Does allopathy meet with this definition of a Pure Medical Science?
          I have no idea, I know of nobody who practices allopathy, but modern medicine does. Or at least, it strives hard to do.

          [Quote:
          Originally Posted by MRC_Hans
          Excuse me? Is gravity not easy to measure?? Surely you joke? Not all known forces are easy to measure, but gravity is by far the easiest. We have been measuring it since prehistoric times (on an instrument called a scale). ]

          You are either much cleverer than I thought, Mr Hans, or spectacularly dense. Just how would you go about measuring - lets say for example - the moon's gravitational pull, with a set of weighing scales? Please provide references to back up your claim that prehistoric man was able to do this.
          Please provide reference to where I said that prehistoric man could measure the gravitaional pull of the moon.

          Seriously, Similibus, this duscussion would be much more interesting if you refrained from antics such as these.

          I can measure Vital Force, I can observe it, I know that it exists - it is not mystical to me. You, however, are still in the Dark Ages, remember? For you, the Earth is flat, and the Sun is God and Vital Force is mystical.
          More sillyness.

          Biochemistry explains the physiological processes of life but it doesn't explain what motivates them.
          Back into religion, then. Who says something has to motivate them? What motivates gravity?

          [Quote:
          Originally Posted by MRC_Hans
          Oh, nonsense! Science has investigated it at great lenght, and it would take you years to read up on it, but there is no need. As long as you define "Vital Force" as "what distinguishes living from dead", we are solidly on scientific ground. ]

          That is not my definition. There are many ways of distinguishing the living from the dead - a heartbeat, for example.

          If science really has investigated these things extensively, please provide us with some references or links. Many on this forum would be extremely interested to read them.
          Just google "biochemistry".

          [Quote:
          Originally Posted by MRC_Hans
          Well, here is the catch: Your definition, above, does NOT support homeopathic doctrine.]

          Now I would be interested here if I thought I might learn something. Somehow, I'm doubtful. Please enlighten me, Mr Hans (having first made sure that you have not got it backwards like so many times before). Where is the discrepancy?
          I'm always fascinated at how often I need to educate homeopaths on ... homeopathy.

          Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine (you should read it one day):

          § 11 Sixth Edition

          When a person falls ill, it is only this spiritual, self acting (automatic) vital force, everywhere present in his organism, that is primarily deranged by the dynamic 1 influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to life; it is only the vital force, deranged to such an abnormal state, that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations, and incline it to the irregular processes which we call disease; for, as a power invisible in itself, and only cognizable by its effects on the organism, its morbid derangement only makes itself known by the manifestation of disease in the sensations and functions of those parts of the organism exposed to the senses of the observer and physician, that is, by morbid symptoms, and in no other way can it make itself known.
          Your definition of vital force, at least in your previous post (you have now modified your position somewhat) coincides with the biochemical processes the characterize life. That does not coincide with Hahenmann's definition (above) of a singular force that regulates the whole body.

          Hans
          You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Elena Zagrebelnaya View Post
            If I may,
            Of course you may; this is an open debate.

            it is still caused by a virus - why do you think that susceptibility is a minor factor, so to say, while the virus is the major factor?
            It is not a question of major or minor factor. It is a question of the difference between the causative agent and influencing factors.

            Let me use an anlogy (a somewhat silly one, but it works): Let us suppose that you place yourself on an overpass and start dropping stones on the heads of people walking below. Those who get hit will get a headache (or worse). That is caused by the stones. Some will see the stones come and evade them. Maybe some will wear helmets and avoid injury. Also, you will simply miss some.

            Now, the ablitiy to evade, the wearing of helmets, your precision are all factors that influence how each person is affected, but you and your stones remain the cause

            Back to the common cold: In a normal urban environment, we are constantly exposed to some degree to cold virus. Whether we get ill, is determined by a numberof factors: The level of exposure, our immune resistance, whether we have been weakened by being cold or by other things.

            All those factors determine the outcome, but the virus remains the cause.

            So why is this important? It is important in conventional medicine because to provide good therapy, we want to address the causes of diseases, not their representation.

            It is also important when we want to evaluate possible effects of alternative therapies.

            Can you give figures of how many people in the population have been tested for the rhinovirus without having presented with cold symptoms? That is - they have the virus but do not develop cold?
            I could probably find such figures, but they will be high. That is really the point: Because we are nearly always exposed to the virus, but mostly get sick after being weakend by e.g. exposure to cold, it appears that "cold" is caused by freezing.

            -Why is that? THere was no virus present. - You'll agree that it's just a conjecture, has this been verified by actual tests?
            (Of people being exposed to severe cold without catching a "cold") You could call them anecdotes, but they are verifiable. The fact that "common cold" is caused by rhinovirus has been confirmed by experiments.

            I thought this type of virus was present basically everywhere...
            No, it is only present where there are hosts to carry it. It has a very poor ability to survive on its own.

            And I know of a case of mumps which came out completely out of the blue - there were just no cases around the boy who got mumps, not for months before or after, he just could not pick it up from anyone - but, his little brother was just born, and within 2 weeks of that the elder boy had mumps. (You could appreciate this if you knew that Lachesis is one of the typical remedies indicated for this condition and what the Lachesis homeopathic picture is.) Or - he could have caught it from someone who had the virus - but did not develop any symptoms to speak of.
            The latter explanation is the most likely. Mumps will sometimes present very few symptoms, which can easily be overlooked or confused with something else (for instance laryngitis, especially if it coincides with a common cold).

            Also, how can you say for sure that there was no exposure? Do you have a complete account of EVERY person he met, even briefly, during the period? All would take would be someone sneezing next to him in the street.

            Hans
            You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

            Comment


            • Let's see, seems I missed this one:

              Originally posted by Similibus View Post
              If criticising a minor, supporting point brings down the main argument, then it is valid and I welcome it. But asking for a reference to a biography in relation to Hahnemann's income? How is that relevant to anything we have discussed?

              "Hahnemann's financial situation deteriorated still further. *snip*
              Reference: Samuel Hahnemann: His Life and Times by Trevor M. Cook, 1993, ISBN: 0 9522282 0 3, page 56.

              So I have defended my statement and established that Hahnemann was hard-up for a while. How is that relevant to the discussion? It is not. Was the criticism valid? It was not. Was it correct? It was not. What was the point of it? I can't see one.
              There is none. What was your point in bringing up his financial situation in the first place? But thanks for the reference. As I say, I'm simply interested in the history behind homeopathy.

              My point is that life is a natural Force, like gravity is a natural Force, and that, as far as I am aware, physics does not recognise it as such and has never investigated it, or at least has not been able to reach satisfactory conclusions in relation to it. Why is conventional science opposed to it? Is it because it considers Vital Force to be related to God and not science? This perspective is inaccurate and cannot be justified. Life is a natural Force - that's obvious isn't it?
              The point is that as far as we can find out, there is no particular, separate force that determined life/death. If an organism has the necessary, intactly functioning biochemical mechanisms, then it is alive. If not it is dead. There does not seem to be anything that can keep it from being alive, if the biochemistry works. There does not seem to be anything that can keep it alive if the biochemistry does not work.

              There are grey zones between live and dead organisms, and there are parts of the biochemistry that we do not yet understand fully, but we have not observed anything that looks like a discrete "force", the presense of which makes the crucial difference.

              We cannot say for sure that it is not there (it is generally virtually impossible to prove that something does NOT exist), but we observe no signs of it, and we observe no need for it.

              Hans
              You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

              Comment


              • Oh, and:

                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                Knowledge of what causes disease is another is another area where homeopathy has a much more comprehensive perspective than allopathy. Homeopathy recognises that there are usually several factors involved in causation, and not just one. which is the prevailing view in allopathic medicine and the target of most if their treatments (germ theory).
                Not according to Hahnemann. According to him the sole cause is a "deranged vital force".

                And of course, the germ theory is far from the only thing modern medicine has.


                Let us continue with the example of cholera:

                "In cholera, for example, admitting the existence and presence of the bacilli as one causative factor, We still have to reckon with sanitary, atmospheric and telluric conditions; with economic and social conditions and habits of life; with means and modes of transportation and intercommunication between individuals and communities; with individual physical, mental and emotional states, etc., all of which are essential factors, in some combination, in determining and modifying the susceptibility of individuals to the bacilli;
                Ahh, thank you for supporting my point about the many factors determining the outcome of a cholera infection. Now you can surely see why some survival percentages are not enough to evaluate a given medical intervention. We need to take all those other factors into account as well.

                for without some combination of these factors the bacilli are impotent and, the disease would never occur, Each of these factors is a cause at least equal in rank with the bacilli, and any successful, method of treatment must be able to meet all the conditions arising from any existing combination of the causes.
                Read my other post about the difference between the causative agent and factors that affect the outcome.

                The power of the bacilli or other infectious agents is always relative and conditional, never absolute, as many are led to believe.
                Strawman. Who has ever claimed that it was abosolute?

                The bacilli, therefore are not the sole cause of the disease, but only one possible factor in a group or combination of causes or conditions, all of which must exist and act together before the disease can follow."
                Missing the distinction between the cause and outcome factors.

                Why it this important? Because if you want to eradicate a contaguous disease, you MUST address the root cause, which is the infectuous agent. All interventions that only address the outcome factors are symptom treatment and will allow the disease to continue on its course, even if they may alleviate the suffering of many patients.

                Hans
                You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

                Comment


                • Hans,

                  THanks for replying!

                  I will not quote all of your answer - just say that what you call cause, is actually called "causative factor", a sort of trigger, in homeopathy, you've certainly heard about Never Well Sincer type of symptoms, and that if the exact trigger is known this is also taken into account when one looks for a remedy for the person. These are mostly known not from provings, obviously, but from clinical practice. However, with your example, people who do not look before then and notice that there are stones falling and therefore try to avoid being hit somehow - even if you remove one person doing this, - will still be susceptible and get hit as soon as another such person appears, and modern medicine obviously has no way to prevent such "stone throwers" from appearing, while homeopathy works by teaching people to be careful and watch out and know how to protect themselves.


                  I will not argue about rhinovirus, I'll rather ask my father who is a biochemist and microbiologist, and maybe get back to you, and I have also mentioned the same possibility that you stress for the mumps case - someone with very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all, but still carrier of the virus.

                  But I have just found a quote from a work on the life of Hahnemann, although I recall that you did not read French, right? SOrry, it's in French, but it says that he tried Peruvian bark himself, several times, and then he tried it on his family and friends who all have reported basically the same symptoms - why do you continue to say that this experiement of Hahnemann's was never reproduced on any other person? This is not true! You meant, probably, that homeopathic provings are all fake?

                  Here's the quote
                  "Des expériences, minutieusement renouvelées sur lui-même et sur d'autres personnes donnèrent des résultats identiques et constants : tous ressentent les symptômes d'un état fébrile intermittent, analogue à celui que le quinquina guérit. Par déduction logique, Hahnemann fut conduit à énoncer ce principe :

                  " Le quinquina, qui détruit la fièvre, provoque chez le sujet sain les apparences de la fièvre ".
                  "

                  ANd it is from "Samuel Hahnemann, Sa vie Ses Idees" which you can find on the website of Homeopathie International, CHapter 4, somewhere in the middle - it's an html text, and is not formatted to pages.

                  Samuel Hahnemann, sa Vie, ses Ides. par le Dr Georges Thouret.

                  (Sorry, it was chapter 3)

                  Best,

                  Elena
                  Last edited by Elena Zagrebelnaya; 3rd October 2008, 01:05 PM. Reason: addition of the link

                  Comment


                  • Anecdotal Evidence: Conclusion

                    Originally posted by moopet View Post
                    ................Anecdotes have their place. Without anecdotes, people probably wouldn't try testing anything in the first instance. But if anecdotal evidence was appropriate for proving medical interventions worked to any degree of significance, were safe within reasonable tolerances, etc, why do you think that we don't see conventional medicine held to this anecdotal standard?
                    Because it's a poor standard.
                    Let's see:
                    1) Doctors from country X says that it has been curing cancer for years with special leaves.
                    2) Books have been written about how crystals can heal people. Many people believe it and have stories to tell.
                    3) Many people in the population swear that moving their furniture around brings them luck and money. Books have been written about this and many people believe it.
                    4) etc.

                    These are examples of things we don't take on "faith". Anecdotes, regardless of whether a lot of people say they're true are still just stories until they pass some sort of standard.

                    If my friend comes into the room and casually tells me in the course of conversation that she can cure asthma, what should I think? I ask her how, she says using some method untestable by science. I ask her to show me and she says that she's cured loads of people, I shouldn't need to see. I should trust her. We've been friends for years. How can I not trust her?

                    As I tried pointing out to Gina before, if you are prepared to accept one anecdote that homeopathy works, will you accept an anecdote saying it doesn't? How about a thousand? If not, why not? Is anecdotal evidence only good if it favours your hypothesis? Or is it no good at all?
                    It has been established that so-called 'anecdotal evidence' in support of homeopathy is a great deal more reliable and convincing than Moopet first implied.

                    I agree with the opinion: 'for conventional science to accept any new paradigm, especially one that seems to contradict so much of our current understanding of science, the new paradigm must be unequivocally proven to the highest degree of certainty'.


                    In relation to the evidence provided, I would emphasise the following:


                    - If the medicine had been a vaccine, it would be reasonable to believe, that almost every child since 1831 to the present day would have had a dose.

                    - During this epidemic, out of the people who received no treatment at all, approximately 1/2 died. Out of the patients treated in conventional (allopathic) hospitals, as many as 3/4 died. In most homeopathic hospitals - only 1/10 patients died and very often less. The aggregate statistics show that you were ten times more likely to die if you were unlucky enough to get sent to an allopathic hospital, than if you were sent to a homeopathic one.

                    - It is clear from these statistics, that the only people who had any real chance of surviving this devastating illness, were the ones being treated with homeopathic medicines. If you were living in the 1830's during the cholera epidemic, and were unlucky enough to contract the disease, where would you go for treatment?

                    - It has been established that cholera does not respond to placebo. [MRC_Hans has conceded this]

                    - Just one example (one case) of cholera that is considered morbid by a medical doctor, which responds to homeopathic treatment so that the patient is saved, is sufficient evidence to suggest that a hyper-dilute medicine prescribed according to homeopathic principles can have a measurable effect. [MRC_Hans agreed with this 'in principle'].

                    - The clinical survey cited refers to thousands of such cases, many of which were considered morbid, all treated solely with hyper-dilute homeopathic medicines, which which were mostly successful in combating this deadly disease.

                    - The treatment of cholera is but the very small tip of a very large iceberg of evidence in support of homeopathy in the form of clinical records and statistical analyses, confirmed by anecdotal accounts.



                    Here is an extract from "When the flu strikes. Think Homeopathy! Its time has come … " by Sally Tamplin B.Ed (Hons.) DSH, MARH CMT.

                    The flu pandemic of 1918 – 1919 was devastating and it was about as deadly as the Black Death. People who lived through it reported that someone who was up and well in the morning could be dead by the evening. 50 million people died world wide and 548,000 in the USA alone. From information recorded and published by these doctors we know that homeopathy was highly successful and in most cases only one or two homeopathic remedies were needed. They were referred to as the “genus epidemicus” and became known through careful observation of the flu cases that were brought to the attention of the homeopathic community.

                    In an article published in the Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy in 1921 Dean W.A.Pearson of Philadelphia collected 26,795 cases of influenza treated by homeopathic physicians with only a mortality rate of 1.05%, while the average conventional medical approach had a mortality rate of 30%. Dr Frank Wieland of Chicago says that in a plant of 8,000 workers there was only one death, the patients were not drugged with the conventional medicines of the time and no vaccines were used. Most workers were given just one homeopathic remedy, Gelsemium. Dr.T.A Mc Cann from Dayton. Ohio wrote: “I have treated 1,000 cases of influenza. I have the records to show my work. I have no losses. Please give all credit to homeopathy.”Dr.W.F Edmundson of Pittsburg related how one physician in a Pittsburg hospital asked a nurse if she knew anything better than what he was doing, because he was losing so many cases. The nurse replied, “Yes, Doctor, stop aspirin and go down to the homeopathic pharmacy and get homeopathic remedies, as the homeopathic doctors for whom I have nursed have not lost a single case.”1500 cases were reported to the Homeopathic Medical Society of the District of Colombia with only 15 deaths. Recoveries in the National Homoeopathic Hospital were 100%.*

                    *Extracts taken from, “The Faces of Homeopathy, an illustrated history of the first 200 years” by Julian Winston. Great Auk publishing, Tawa, New Zealand.

                    The full article, along with many other articles on the same topic, can be found here: Homeopathy for Influenza


                    Even when provided with referenced clinical surveys and statistical analyses from reputable sources in support of homeopathy, MRC_Hans is still crying "Not good enough!". His attempts to discredit the evidence, by implying that statistics from the nineteenth century are somehow invalid, along with referencing works from ones professional peers, do not stand up to scrutiny.

                    Either all statistics are assumed valid, or all are to be questioned! If all are to be questioned, we have more right to be suspicious of the allopaths claims, seeing as the allopathic doctors of the Board of Health were caught red handed in their attempt to manipulate the statistics. One can sense their shame, at having to admit the inadequacy of allopathic treatment, and the superiority of homeopathy, in the 'proof of the pudding' reality of facing down a deadly epidemic disease.

                    If referencing a work from a professional peer was not permitted, then Einstein would not be permitted to quote Newton and so on. One medical researcher would not be permitted to reference an article by another. This is clearly not the current convention and is another example of an unacceptable standard applied to homeopathy, that is not required of pharmaceutical medicine.

                    Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                    If the scientific community keeps shouting 'not good enough!' every time we present them with evidence in support of homeopathy they will soon lose all credibility!

                    What better evidence than a clinical record and statistical survey, compiled from official government statistics of tens of thousands of hospital cases, from different counties around the world, that is reliable, reputable and referenced?

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

                    Originally posted by moopet View Post
                    As to why your anecdotal examples aren't considered useful, well, the reliability of the source has something to do with it. Anecdotes from impartial outsiders would be more notable.
                    Here is the account of an allopathic medical doctor and self-confessed sceptic of homeopathy, a government official employed by the Board of Health - a very powerful and most reliable example of anecdotal evidence in favour of homeopathy.


                    "At the time of the outbreak, the LHH [London Homeopathic Hospital] was inspected by Dr Macloughlin, one of the medical inspectors appointed by the General Board of Health, who was a sceptic. His report said:

                    “You are aware that I went to your hospital prepossessed against the homœopathic system, that you had in me in your camp an enemy rather than a friend… and I need not tell you that I have taken some pains to make myself acquainted with the rise, progress and medical treatment of cholera, and that I claim for myself some right to be able to recognise the disease, and to know something of what the medical treatment ought to be, and that there may, therefore, be no misapprehension about the cases saw in your hospital, I will add that, all I saw were true cases of cholera, in the various stages of the disease, and that I saw several cases which did well under your treatment which I have no hesitation in saying would have sunk under other. In conclusion I must repeat to you what I have already told you, and what I have told everyone whom I have conversed, that although an allopath by principle, education and practice yet were it the will of Providence to afflict me with cholera, and deprive me of the power of prescribing for myself, I would rather be in the hands of a homœopathic than an allopathic adviser.”


                    More can be found here: Sock horror in homeopathic cholera statistics Laughing my socks off …

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

                    It has been established that there is a great deal of reliable evidence in support of homeopathy in the form of clinical surveys and statistical analyses, provided from reputable sources (medical doctors) from all over the world. My opinion is that the evidence provided is convincing, and proves homeopathy's efficacy beyond all reasonable doubt.

                    In other words, the evidence provided has shown that hyper-dilute medicines prescribed according to homeopathic principles, have had a measurable and beneficial effect, if only in relation to the 1831 cholera-, and the 1918 'flu epidemics.

                    Succinctly, it has been established that homeopathy works.

                    What remains to be established, is whether the the evidence provided proves the validity of homeopathy, to the degree of certainty required by conventional science. A comparison with supporting evidence, for practices already sanctioned by the conventional scientific community, such as mass immunisation with the DPT and MMR triple vaccines, suggests that it does. I am keen to move on to the emerging topics of Causation, Susceptibility and Vital Force. It would not be fair to move on from this topic without offering a final opportunity for the sceptics to respond, before chalking up a few marks on the scoreboard for the homeopaths, and leaving the sceptics still to score.

                    The evidence in support of the continued use of the DPT and MMR triple vaccines consists mainly of clinical surveys, statistical analysis and epidemiological studies. They have not been subjected to extended blinded studies. Mass immunisation with these vaccines is promoted by the allopathic (pharmaceutical) community, although many within this community have expressed concerns, as to the safety and efficacy of vaccines. The general public are so concerned about the safety of vaccines that the current take-up rate for the measles vaccine in London is around 50%.

                    It is now for the sceptics to produce evidence for comparison, in support of the DPT and MMR vaccines. Evidence to support their introduction and their widespread use would be particularly relevant. If the sceptics can provide evidence in support of these vaccines (specifically in support of their initial acceptance by the scientific community) that is clearly superior to the evidence in favour of homeopathy, we can conclude that homeopathy has not been validated to the degree of certainty required by science. If they cannot, we must leave each individual to draw their own conclusions, but I would suggest that the current position of the scientific community (pharmaceutical medicine), which is that homeopathy has not been scientifically validated, cannot be justified, and has not been justifiable for some considerable time.
                    These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

                    Comment


                    • Susceptibility

                      Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                      Faulty logic. Susceptibility is a factor in getting the cold, but it is still caused by the rhinovirus.
                      Both are necessary. There can be no disease without the virus OR the susceptible state. Therefore they have at least equal value as causes.

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

                      Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                      In other words, the mechanism for the susceptibility was found. The virus is still required.
                      The susceptibility is also required.
                      -----------------------------------

                      Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                      Now, how do we know that the virus is needed? Well there exists plenty of examples of people being shipwrecked, left out on cold weather, etc, etc. They usually don't cantch a cold, even though suffering from hypothermia. Why is that? There was no virus present.
                      I agree - where there is susceptibility but no virus there is no disease. This is equally true, where the virus exists without susceptibility.

                      ----------------------------------
                      Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                      I already did, but I can repeat them. The outcome od a cholera case depends on cleanliness, nutrition, general case management, the strenght of the victim, and several other things.
                      These factors would modify the prognosis but I they would not determine the outcome - otherwise medicines would be not be necessary.

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

                      Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                      I could probably find such figures, but they will be high. That is really the point: Because we are nearly always exposed to the virus, but mostly get sick after being weakend by e.g. exposure to cold, it appears that "cold" is caused by freezing.
                      In this example the virus is constant - the 'chill' was the catalyst that triggered the development of cold symptoms. We can trace the causes backwards:

                      1- I have not had a cold for many months, despite almost constant exposure to rhinovirus.
                      2- I recently developed symptoms of a cold caused by
                      3- a proliferation of rhinovirus caused by
                      4- an increased susceptibility to rhinovirus caused by
                      5- catching a chill in cold weather.

                      In this example - the 'chill' (or cold weather) is the highest ranking cause, making all other subsequent events 'outcome factors'.


                      Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                      All interventions that only address the outcome factors are symptom treatment and will allow the disease to continue on its course, even if they may alleviate the suffering of many patients.
                      When the infective agent is reduced but increased susceptibility remains, the condition will recur. This explains why sore throats and ear infections treated with anti-biotics tend to come back again and again.

                      Pharmaceutical therapy only addresses the proximate cause (level 3) but it does not address the preceding causes. Homeopathic medicine antidotes the shock caused by the 'chill' (level 5) returning the susceptibility to normal (level 4) thereby rendering the rhinovirus impotent (level 3) by returning the patient to their former healthy state (level 1).

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

                      Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                      Why it this important? Because if you want to eradicate a contaguous disease, you MUST address the root cause, which is the infectuous agent.
                      The emergence of super-bugs destroys this naive assumption and demonstrates the reckless stupidity of this futile approach.
                      These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                        Both are necessary. There can be no disease without the virus OR the susceptible state. Therefore they have at least equal value as causes.
                        I disagree completely.

                        The virus is the cause. It is a specific thing. Yes, there may be many different viruses.

                        There may be many different factors leading to susceptibility. One might lead to a patient being more susceptible. Others might only lead to this in combination. They are not necessarily specific to the virus in question.

                        If you introduce chicken pox to a small island population who have had no exposure to it at all, they will probably get sick. Due to the virus. Not due to any external factors whatsoever. The susceptibility in this case is "not having been vaccinated"

                        What I'm saying is, that while any number of factors may lead to the patient's greated likelihood of developing the disease on exposure to the virus, the virus is the cause. I cannot see how anything else can be argued.

                        Comment


                        • Can't homeopathy be proved wrong through simple math?


                          1 gram of phosphorus (P) contains 1.947 * 10^22 molecules of phosphorus
                          10 grams of water (H2O) contain 3.348 * 10^23 molecules of water

                          So say your dosage is 2 grams and is diluted by 10 50 times.

                          You have a 2 in 10^27 chance of getting one molecule of phosphorus in your dose. Expressed without exponents that's about a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of one molecule being in your dose. Your chances of being killed by lighting are 1 in 2,320,000.

                          So this basically means your medicine is pure water. Therefore we must conclude the effects of homeopathy can be attributed to the placebo effect, bias bydoctors that want results, or by the healthy benefits of being well hydrated.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by alach11 View Post
                            Can't homeopathy be proved wrong through simple math?
                            (snip)
                            Well, this proves that, barring something unknown to science, homeopathy is impossible. But it's not the point. The point is that homeopaths believe that there is something unknown to science going on, while regular science bods ask for proof - which is about where we got to in this thread.

                            Basically, homeopaths (who will no doubt explain in their own language) put it down to not requiring actual ingredients, but working from the memory of water or from some kind of undetectable essense or "force".

                            They also say that it doesn't matter that we can't tell why it works - it just works and science will have to catch up (see earlier in this thread).

                            This argument doesn't hold much water with scientists who are not persuaded by the evidence for the "it just works" line.

                            Comment


                            • So my response to the topic question would be this:

                              Evidence for Homeopathy:
                              -some studies
                              -hospital cases from 200 years ago
                              -people claiming it helped them

                              Evidence for Allopathy:
                              -tons of studies, many randomized double blind placebo controlled
                              -current examples of it's effectiveness eg smallpox has been completely eliminated through vaccination
                              -people testifying to it's effectiveness
                              -it is in accord with current scientific knowledge

                              Allopathy wins.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by alach11 View Post
                                So my response to the topic question would be this:

                                Evidence for Homeopathy:
                                -some studies
                                -hospital cases from 200 years ago
                                -people claiming it helped them

                                Evidence for Allopathy:
                                -tons of studies, many randomized double blind placebo controlled
                                -current examples of it's effectiveness eg smallpox has been completely eliminated through vaccination
                                -people testifying to it's effectiveness
                                -it is in accord with current scientific knowledge

                                Allopathy wins.
                                Sure. We get this.
                                Have you read the rest of this thread? If you do, could you respond to some of the points raised and help out?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X