Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

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

  • Susceptibility and Causation

    Originally posted by moopet View Post
    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.
    It is impossible to deny the fact that, neither the virus nor the susceptibility in isolation will result in the manifestation of the disease. Both are essential factors. Both have equal value as causes. In terms of bacterial and (as a concession) viral infections, can we not agree that 'exposure to the disease agent while in a susceptible state' would be the most complete definition of the cause?

    Of course, where no infective agent is present, such as in chronic arthritis or multiple sclerosis, pharmaceutical medicine is somewhat at a loss in terms of formulating an effective method treatment. However in homeopathy, the true Science of Medical Therapeutics, the methodology is the same - our medicines target the susceptible state of the patient, and so the identification of a specific physical cause for the disease is not an essential factor in determining the outcome of the treatment.

    Originally posted by moopet View Post
    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".
    In this example, unlike the one above, exposure to the virus was the catalyst that triggered the development of disease symptoms. The susceptibility was the constant and exposure to the virus was the exciting cause. However, it is not correct to say that the susceptibility was due to a 'lack of vaccination'. The susceptibility to the disease exists, because the island population has not had contact with the virus before, and the natural state of susceptibility could not have been updated or modified.

    While the trigger here was 'exposure to the virus while in a susceptible state', one could argue that a therapy directed at destroying the virus, is of little benefit to the population of the island as whole. Unless the state of susceptibility is addressed by the medicine, the islanders will be susceptible to the virus the next time they are exposed. A truly effective therapy addresses the susceptible state of the island population, so that they can continue to be exposed to the virus without developing symptoms of the disease. This is the basic theory behind immunisation, a kind of perversion of homeopathic principles, perverse because immunisation modifies susceptibility in a negative way, prohibiting a natural immune response, and compromising the general health of the island population as a whole. Only homeopathy, the true science of medical therapeutics, can positively affect the susceptible state of the Vital Force and offer a true and natural immunity from the disease.

    A brief look at epidemiology is an interesting and relevant digression. Viruses somehow cross over from the animal kingdom by evolving into a form that can affect humans. Initially these diseases tend to devastate populations. Initially, everyone is susceptible. Gradually, usually over generations, those that recover naturally from the disease confer immunity to their offspring - the susceptibility of the population is modified until, what was once a deadly disease, becomes rendered relatively harmless, usually only manifesting as a mild childhood illness, as part of the natural development of the immune system.

    Originally posted by moopet View Post
    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.
    I agree that the factors capable of modifying a person's susceptibility are many. A chill, a broken nights sleep, getting caught in a downpour, becoming overheated, grief, shock, loneliness, disappointed love, to name but a few. But what about diseases where no physical causative factor can be identified, such as chronic arthritis? Here the susceptibility to the disease is the only remaining factor, seeing as the symptoms are not caused by viruses or bacteria. What would you consider to be the cause in this instance?

    Eczema is an even better example. Acute exacerbations of the chronic condition are generally accepted to be related to 'stress'. The cause of the acute exacerbation could well be attributed to becoming overheated, grief, shock, loneliness, disappointed love, etc. Here we see evidence that susceptibility has indeed been modified by such factors, which can justifiably be identified as the cause of the exacerbation, if not the cause of chronic condition itself (which is usually a chronic miasm).
    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
      It is impossible to deny the fact that, neither the virus nor the susceptibility in isolation will result in the manifestation of the disease. Both are essential factors. Both have equal value as causes. In terms of bacterial and (as a concession) viral infections, can we not agree that 'exposure to the disease agent while in a susceptible state' would be the most complete definition of the cause?
      This is absolutely untrue with certain diseases. Take ebola as an extreme example. If you come into contact with the ebola virus no matter what your condition, you will contract the disease and you have a very high chance of dying. With certain diseases susceptibility plays a role but the virus or bacteria is always the cause.

      Originally posted by Similibus View Post
      Of course, where no infective agent is present, such as in chronic arthritis or multiple sclerosis, pharmaceutical medicine is somewhat at a loss in terms of formulating an effective method treatment. However in homeopathy, the true Science of Medical Therapeutics, the methodology is the same - our medicines target the susceptible state of the patient, and so the identification of a specific physical cause for the disease is not an essential factor in determining the outcome of the treatment.
      So does homeopathy to regrow the cartilage in peoples hands? That's ridiculous. Susceptibility to arthritis depends in part on genetics, do you propose that your water tablets can modify their genes?

      Originally posted by Similibus View Post
      This is the basic theory behind immunisation, a kind of perversion of homeopathic principles, perverse because immunisation modifies susceptibility in a negative way, prohibiting a natural immune response, and compromising the general health of the island population as a whole.
      Immunization in no way negatively impacts the bodies ability to fight disease. Immunizations simple teach the body the most effective way of eradicating a disease by allowing your body to "practice" on a weakened form of the disease. Immunizations work with the body's natural methods of fighting disease.


      Originally posted by Similibus View Post
      Only homeopathy, the true science of medical therapeutics, can positively affect the susceptible state of the Vital Force and offer a true and natural immunity from the disease.
      Could you explain what exactly homeopathy does that affects the "Vital Force" in a positive way? And vaccinations also offer a natural immunity by using the virus and your body together.


      Originally posted by Similibus View Post
      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 difference is gravity actually produces measurable movement and forces on an object. Homeopathy's "Vital Force" could have passed as an argument 100 years ago, maybe even 50. Now you have to ignore much of current science to accept it. The rest of the world has moved forward, adjusted it's views as we learn new things. Why is homeopathy so stubborn in that it can't be modified and improved upon to meet modern scientific understanding?
      "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
      Ralph Waldo Emerson

      Originally posted by Similibus View Post
      Vital Force is the natural force that relates to living and dying, to health and disease - that's quite an important one. Why is science so disinterested in it? Perhaps it is because the branch of science that would be responsible for investigating Vital Force is Medical Science - and medical science is dominated by pharmaceutical medicine - and a full recognition and understanding of this force would mean the end of pharamacuetical medicine's dominance. So it has never been fully acknowledged, and mankind continues to suffer because the science that cures disease is not generally known, except by homeopaths.
      I am curious, would you consider a virus to possess vital force? It is essentially RNA encased in protein. It can not reproduce without coming into contact with a cell. It's protein shell tricks the cell into accepting the RNA and producing more viruses. Does this piece of protein, with it's ribonucleic acid, qualify as "life" possessing a special force.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Elena Zagrebelnaya View Post
        Hans,

        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'm sure many homeopaths give their patients sound and healthy advice. So do many conventional doctors. This is, however, irrelevant to the discussion of the science of the medical systems themselves.

        But to use my (admittedly already strained) analogy a little more: You can tell people to watch out for stones, you can give them helmets, or whatnot, but the effective solution is to remeove the stone-thrower.

        That other stone throwers may appear is beside the point.

        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.
        While you talk to your father, get him to explain to you how like can cure like (as a universal principle, we all know there are special cases, e.g. certain allergies).

        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?
        It's OK, I can read enough French to understand the quote. What I meant is that it has not been repeated later. In other words, Hahnemann is the only source for this claim.

        As for homeopathic provings, think of this:

        According to Hahnemann, provings should be conducted on "sensitive, irritable persons". These persons are to be put on a diet without spices, alcohol, etc. They are to be given the remedy at regular intervals, and they should devote their time to noting any symptoms.

        Any symptoms are carefully recorded, after which the master prover will go through them and judge which ones should be recorded as caused by the remedy.

        ....Yes, quite honestly, using this method, I believe you will be able to record practically any symptom you like from any "remedy" you like, including plain water. And sure enough, in many modern provings where they include a couple of placebo testees, it is usually impossible to tell the placebo group from the verum group.

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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Similibus View Post
          It is impossible to deny the fact that, neither the virus nor the susceptibility in isolation will result in the manifestation of the disease. Both are essential factors. Both have equal value as causes. In terms of bacterial and (as a concession) viral infections, can we not agree that 'exposure to the disease agent while in a susceptible state' would be the most complete definition of the cause?
          No. Definitely not. I really think you are smart enough to understand this: There is a causative chain here, and it begins with the infectuous agent. If there is no infectuous agent, there is no disease, period. If the infectuous agent is present, then the next steps in the chain come into play: Susceptibility, immune resistance, etc.

          However, the root cause is the infectuous agent.

          I can understand your reluctance to admit this, because it makes things considerably more difficult for homeopathic doctrine, but there is no way around it.

          Of course, where no infective agent is present, such as in chronic arthritis or multiple sclerosis, pharmaceutical medicine is somewhat at a loss in terms of formulating an effective method treatment.
          I should be careful in noting definitive diseases, as we have found biological agents in the most surprising places, but of coure not all diseases are due to an infectuous agent, and to be sure, those without that are the most difficult to address.

          However in homeopathy, the true Science of Medical Therapeutics, the methodology is the same - our medicines target the susceptible state of the patient, and so the identification of a specific physical cause for the disease is not an essential factor in determining the outcome of the treatment.
          I would not boast about the ignorance about disease causes in homeopathy, if I were you.

          And anyway, allow me to remind you that the topic of this discussion is the scientific validity of homeopathy. Repeating your unsupported mantras is only weakening your position.

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

          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.
            No.

            I agree - where there is susceptibility but no virus there is no disease. This is equally true, where the virus exists without susceptibility.
            Simple logic should tell you why you are wrong: How can we even talk about susceptibility if the virus does not exist? In principle, the virus is also the cause of the susceptibility (or lack thereof).

            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'.
            No.

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Similibus View Post
              - 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.
              No.

              - 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.
              Now is the time for the Cholera story:

              First of all, it is important to remember that for many diseases, especially epidemic disease, it is quite normal that the mortality is higher in hospitalized patients, than non-hospitalized.

              Are the hospitals then bad for the patients? No, that does not follow. The simple explanation is that only the serious cases get hospitalized. All the light cases are treatred at home or are not treated at all.

              However, during the cholera epidemics of the 19th century, some hospitals WERE actually killing people! You see, a lot of doctors were using the newly discovered acetylic acid to treat patients (a different, and more harmless, version of this substance later formed the basis for a common type of painkiller). The drug gave some immidiate relief, lowered the patients' fever, but it played havoc with their intestines, and, as was later realized, increased the mortality.

              So we have an early medical scandal, here. Strangely, this is not one that homeopaths usually jump on when making examples of how bad "allopathy" is. Perhaps because it takes most of the air out of homeopathy's own success with cholera.

              - 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'].
              WOW, I'm suddenly an authority? However, you forgot to mention what I ALSO said: It is impossible to show cause from a single case.

              - 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.
              No. The clinical survey (if we are to be charitable and call such ancient records that) shows that homeopathic hospitals recorded a lower mortality rate. It does not show that the homeopathic treatment was the cause.

              We already know, see above, that the conventional treatment was faulty, but there is also the question of whether the patient groups were comparable. Ordinary hospitals had to take all patients presented to them, the quality of hospitals of the time was low, and serious cases from the poorest part of society (and they were poorer than we can readily imagine today) were crammed into them, seriously overfilling them during such epidemics.

              In contrast, homeopathic hospitals were privately run, took paying patients, and even if may also have accepted poorer people, they could limit their intake to match their capacity.

              - 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.
              Confirmed by anecdotical accounts?! Surely you are joking?

              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%.*
              Yes, when compared with Aspirin for this kind of diseases, homeopathy comes out in favor. But then so does plain water.
              Either all statistics are assumed valid, or all are to be questioned!
              All evidence is always to be questioned.

              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.
              My friend, have no worry: You provide evidence for homeopathy that lives up to the standards for conventional medicine, and I shall believe you. .... The standards of the 21th century, that is.

              I do assume you are aware that we are currently in the 21st century, right?

              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?
              Well, if you could actually produce the databases for this, it might be interesting. But I fear they did not use that much in the early 19th century.

              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. .... yada yada
              Similibus, I have an idea: Whatever you think about it, the fact remains that all this has failed to convince the establishment for two centuries, so I think it is safe to assume that it never will. You may find this to be a great injustice, but so is life.

              How about we forget all those century old stories, and concentrate on the present and on the future? What will you do TODAY to vindicate homeopathy?

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

              Comment


              • Put up or Shhh

                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                Now is the time for the Cholera story: First of all, it is important to remember that for many diseases, especially epidemic disease, it is quite normal that the mortality is higher in hospitalized patients, than non-hospitalized......Are the hospitals then bad for the patients? ........The simple explanation is that only the serious cases get hospitalized.

                The much heralded cholera story! Excuse me if I don’t fall off my seat. You have said nothing that you have not said already. I had hoped we could move on. Everything above is equally true for homeopathic hospitals.


                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                However, during the cholera epidemics of the 19th century, some hospitals WERE actually killing people! You see, a lot of doctors were using the newly discovered acetylic acid to treat patients (a different, and more harmless, version of this substance later formed the basis for a common type of painkiller). The drug gave some immidiate relief, lowered the patients' fever, but it played havoc with their intestines, and, as was later realized, increased the mortality.
                A suppression of symptoms resulting in the death of the patient? Homeopaths have always maintained that this is one of the dangers of the allopathic approach. Have you read Hahnemann’s Chronic diseases? You are corroborating Hahnemann’s theory!!!


                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                So we have an early medical scandal, here. Strangely, this is not one that homeopaths usually jump on when making examples of how bad "allopathy" is. Perhaps because it takes most of the air out of homeopathy's own success with cholera.
                The fact that the allopathic hospitals were harming their patients has little bearing on how well the homeopathic hospitals were benefiting theirs! Natural mortality from cholera was around 50%. Mortality under homeopathic treatment was around 4% - a definite, significant, beneficial effect from hyper-dilute homeopathic medicines. The statistics suggest that if everybody had had access to homeopathic treatment, over 90% of those killed by the disease would have survived.


                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                … The clinical survey (if we are to be charitable and call such ancient records that) shows that homeopathic hospitals recorded a lower mortality rate.It does not show that the homeopathic treatment was the cause.
                You can apply this argument to any medical treatment or drug trial. If you take this view, every piece of medical research ever conducted is inconclusive – including RDBPCTs.

                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                there is also the question of whether the patient groups were comparable. Ordinary hospitals had to take all patients presented to them, the quality of hospitals of the time was low, and serious cases from the poorest part of society (and they were poorer than we can readily imagine today) were crammed into them, seriously overfilling them during such epidemics.
                This might explain why mortality rates were higher in allopathic hospitals. It does not negate the outstanding success of the treatment in homeopathic hospitals.

                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                Yes, when compared with Aspirin for this kind of diseases, homeopathy comes out in favor. But then so does plain water.
                You seem to be saying once again, that pharmaceutical medicine was contributing to the high mortality rates in allopathic hospitals? Is this another medical scandal? Are we seeing a pattern emerging here? Your point seems to be corroborated by the homeopaths of 1918, who noted that most of the patients, who died under homeopathic treatment, had previously been given aspirin by an allopathic doctor.

                However, we do not need to compare homeopathic treatment with pharmaceutical treatment, which I accept may be a little unfair, given that pharmaceutical medicines may have been contributing to the high mortality rates. We only need to compare it with natural mortality rates to show that homeopathy had a measurable and beneficial effect.

                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                My friend, have no worry: You provide evidence for homeopathy that lives up to the standards for conventional medicine, and I shall believe you. .... The standards of the 21th century, that is.
                I shall hold you to that.

                Exactly how does this evidence not live up to 21st century standards?

                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                I do assume you are aware that we are currently in the 21st century, right?
                Homeopathy did not exist in the 18th century. I have presented evidence from the 19th century and the 20th century. The 21st century is only 8 years young, but promises to produce sufficient evidence for homeopathy to make you eat your own words, along with a large helping of humble pie.

                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                Similibus, I have an idea: Whatever you think about it, the fact remains that all this has failed to convince the establishment for two centuries, so I think it is safe to assume that it never will. You may find this to be a great injustice, but so is life.
                The establishment that you are referring to, is almost entirely made up of people associated with pharmaceutical companies, and practitioners of pharmaceutical medicine. By definition, they are not likely to be the most impartial of communities when it comes to homeopathy. In fact, Mr Hans – you seem to be quite representative of this community – flatly refusing to accept valid evidence for homeopathy while making desperate attempts to discredit it, if only as a psychological defence for your own blinkered belief system.

                Your position is becoming increasingly like that of a person in denial, rather than one of scientific objectivity. I need not remind you, that you have the right to your own opinion but not to your own facts. The statistics, whether you like them or not, are the facts - regardless of what slant you try to put on them.

                I have given you a very simple way to compare the evidence in support of homeopathy with a practice currently sanctioned by the ‘establishment’. All that you need do, is provide some comparable evidence in support of the introduction and widespread use of the DPT vaccine.

                That shouldn’t be so hard to do, should it? I mean, the American government wouldn’t have made it mandatory for all eight week old babies to have the vaccine, without some considerable evidence in support of it’s safety and efficacy, would they? Likewise, the British government couldn’t recommend the same, without a considerable amount of research, surely?

                As the saying goes Mr Hans - it is time for you to ‘Put-up or shut-up’.
                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


                • Sim posted:"pharmaceutical medicine-
                  In fact, Mr Hans – you seem to be quite representative of this community – flatly refusing to accept valid evidence for homeopathy while making desperate attempts to discredit it................................................ ...................................."

                  "Your position is becoming increasingly like that of a person in denial, rather than one of scientific objectivity. I need not remind you, that you have the right to your own opinion but not to your own facts. The statistics, whether you like them or not, are the facts - regardless of what slant you try to put on them.............................."



                  Posted By Hans Himself;
                  Originally Posted by Gina
                  *snip*
                  Lets not forget Hans works for a Drug company(correct me if I am wrong Hans),this taints your thinking,......................................... ..............

                  Hans:
                  "Yes, I work for a drug company. And you are a homeopath. .................................................. ."
                  "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

                  Comment


                  • [quote=Similibus;81422]You can apply this argument to any medical treatment or drug trial. If you take this view, every piece of medical research ever conducted is inconclusive – including RDBPCTs.
                    [quote]
                    Not really. A controlled trial will account for other factors. It will account for whether one hospital is draughty and another is warm. All sorts of things. In such an open system... just NO.
                    Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                    You seem to be saying once again, that pharmaceutical medicine was contributing to the high mortality rates in allopathic hospitals? Is this another medical scandal? Are we seeing a pattern emerging here? Your point seems to be corroborated by the homeopaths of 1918
                    (...)
                    Seriously, medicine was pretty bad until fairly recently. 21st century. Repeat it with me, 21st century.
                    Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                    Exactly how does this evidence not live up to 21st century standards?
                    Because it's anecdotal, loose, uncontrolled and generally meaningless. If you made a trial like that today you'd be laughed at.
                    Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                    (...)flatly refusing to accept valid evidence for homeopathy while making desperate attempts to discredit it, if only as a psychological defence for your own blinkered belief system.
                    Do you accept that from an outside viewpoint that describes homeopaths perfectly?
                    Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                    I have given you a very simple way to compare the evidence in support of homeopathy(...)
                    I've come up with a few suggestions myself. If there's a danger of them showing homeopathy under a nice harsh medical light, then for some reason you claim they're not viable.
                    Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                    ‘Put-up or shut-up’.
                    I'm finding it increasingly difficult to carry on a discussion here. I'm losing my objectivity. I try to be logical, but some of the things that people come out with are so circular and contradictory that if it was a real-life conversation I'd probably be waving my arms around and saying, "why don't you get it?" which doesn't help.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                      The much heralded cholera story! Excuse me if I don’t fall off my seat. You have said nothing that you have not said already. I had hoped we could move on. Everything above is equally true for homeopathic hospitals.
                      No, that was not the "cholera story"; it comes below, as you have obviously noted. And it is not "much heralded"; I previously mentioned it exactly once. Your constant attempts to put me in a bad light are pathetic and only serve as an attempt to cover your lack of real arguments.

                      A suppression of symptoms resulting in the death of the patient? Homeopaths have always maintained that this is one of the dangers of the allopathic approach. Have you read Hahnemann’s Chronic diseases? You are corroborating Hahnemann’s theory!!!
                      Yes, homeopaths are always presenting this straw man. However, it is not the purpose of modern medicine to suppress symptoms, that is only done as a last resort, or concurrently with treatment of the disease cause, to alleviate suffering.

                      However, it is a constant source of irony to see homeopaths say this, since as we all know, and you have acknowledged yourself, according to homeopathic doctrine, a disease IS symptoms only. So, considering this is your position, how exactly is it wrong for a medicine to address symptoms?

                      The fact that the allopathic hospitals were harming their patients has little bearing on how well the homeopathic hospitals were benefiting theirs! Natural mortality from cholera was around 50%. Mortality under homeopathic treatment was around 4% - a definite, significant, beneficial effect from hyper-dilute homeopathic medicines. The statistics suggest that if everybody had had access to homeopathic treatment, over 90% of those killed by the disease would have survived.
                      (my bolding)

                      Suggest, perhaps. However, as I noted, the patients in homeopathic hospitals may not be representative of the population at large. Since homeopathic hospitals were, and are, private institutions with little or no public financing, it follows that they must have been charging most of their patients. This will have excluded most of the large portion of the population that lived on or below the existence minimum in that era. And of course, we must expect that exactly among the poorest, a disease like cholera would reap the greatest portion of its victims.

                      Now, in my country, homeopathy has never had any significance, but during a great cholera epidemic during the 18th century (and I MEAN the 18th, this time), there were two groups of patiants: The poorer people, who stayed in the city, and the affluent, who fled to the country, where they had summer resorts or wealthy friends and relatives. And sure enough, the mortality rates perfectly resemble those you list.

                      You can apply this argument to any medical treatment or drug trial. If you take this view, every piece of medical research ever conducted is inconclusive – including RDBPCTs.
                      No. Every single result must be evaluated on its own qualities.

                      This might explain why mortality rates were higher in allopathic hospitals. It does not negate the outstanding success of the treatment in homeopathic hospitals.
                      See above.

                      You seem to be saying once again, that pharmaceutical medicine was contributing to the high mortality rates in allopathic hospitals? Is this another medical scandal? Are we seeing a pattern emerging here? Your point seems to be corroborated by the homeopaths of 1918, who noted that most of the patients, who died under homeopathic treatment, had previously been given aspirin by an allopathic doctor.
                      Yes, that is what I say. You could call it a scandal, or you could call it lack of knowledge. The difference is that in a scandal, we should assume that the perpetrators knew better, and still did wrong for some reason (usually profit).

                      In the cholera/aspirin case, the doctors thought they did the best they could, in an era where medicine was almost entirely empirical.

                      We only need to compare it with natural mortality rates to show that homeopathy had a measurable and beneficial effect.
                      No, as explained we cannot know if it was the homeopathic treatment that made the difference.

                      I shall hold you to that.

                      Exactly how does this evidence not live up to 21st century standards?
                      List the rules under which the data was collected, the demographic groups, the times, the names of the practitioners who collected the data, the inclusion criteria, the statistical formulas used, the confounder list, the validity evaluation. Then we can talk again.

                      Homeopathy did not exist in the 18th century. I have presented evidence from the 19th century and the 20th century.
                      I could not find the place where I wrote 18th century, but if I did, I apologize for the typo.

                      All the evidence you have presented is at least 90 years old. Some much older. That was the point, but you know that.

                      The 21st century is only 8 years young, but promises to produce sufficient evidence for homeopathy to make you eat your own words, along with a large helping of humble pie.
                      Humble pie? Not at all. I would welcome a proof of homeopathy, and I would rush out the get a new and better job. You see, I'm in a unique position: I have a knowledge of BOTH homeopathy, and the pharmaceutical industry. Not a lot of people have that, so if homeopathy is vindicated, folks like me will be in great demand .

                      The establishment that you are referring to, is almost entirely made up of people associated with pharmaceutical companies, and practitioners of pharmaceutical medicine. By definition, they are not likely to be the most impartial of communities when it comes to homeopathy.
                      Probably not, but exactly who are impartial on this? The homeopaths??

                      Why is it that you (and Gina and most other homeopaths) keep accusing US of being impartial but seem to be unable to see that this accusation flies right in your own faces??

                      The statistics, whether you like them or not, are the facts - regardless of what slant you try to put on them.
                      My friend, if you think that statistics can be readily taken as facts, you are very naive. Statistics is one of the easiests ways to be misled. However, properly used, it is a very useful tool.

                      I have given you a very simple way to compare the evidence in support of homeopathy with a practice currently sanctioned by the ‘establishment’. All that you need do, is provide some comparable evidence in support of the introduction and widespread use of the DPT vaccine.
                      How is the evidence for vaccine relevant to the evidence for homeopathy? Let us say, for the sake of argument, that we find that some vaccines are promoted on a useless and false basis (I would ny be seriously surprised ig such a case could be found), will that vidicate homeopathy in any way? Is your honest proved by your neighbour being proved a thief? Not at all.

                      That shouldn’t be so hard to do, should it? I mean, the American government wouldn’t have made it mandatory for all eight week old babies to have the vaccine, without some considerable evidence in support of it’s safety and efficacy, would they? Likewise, the British government couldn’t recommend the same, without a considerable amount of research, surely?
                      I think not. After all, what should be their motivation for showelling billions of bucks into vaccination if somebody hadn't shown them a pretty convincing business case?

                      As the saying goes Mr Hans - it is time for you to ‘Put-up or shut-up’.
                      Why should I "put up"? I haven't promoted vaccination. You keep referring to it for some reason. If you want to know the scientific support for vaccination, go look for it; I'm sure it is out there, but why should I do your homework for you?

                      Hans
                      Last edited by MRC_Hans; 8th October 2008, 09:59 AM. Reason: Typos
                      You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gina View Post
                        Posted By Hans Himself;
                        Originally Posted by Gina
                        *snip*
                        Lets not forget Hans works for a Drug company(correct me if I am wrong Hans),this taints your thinking,......................................... ..............

                        Hans:
                        "Yes, I work for a drug company. And you are a homeopath. .................................................. ."
                        You conviniently left out the rest of my post:

                        Originally posted by Hans
                        Yes, I work for a drug company. And you are a homeopath. Seems to put us even.

                        ... Or does it? Please provide a reference to where I have ever posted anything in specific support of my company or the medicnes we produce.
                        Hans
                        You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                          And anyway, allow me to remind you that the topic of this discussion is the scientific validity of homeopathy. Repeating your unsupported mantras is only weakening your position.
                          The question that we are debating is 'Which is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?' You have a habit a of correcting me with incorrect corrections, Mr Hans.

                          The question is a comparative one.

                          At present, any objective person reading this thread would have to conclude that only homeopathy has any science involved, because no suggestion of science within pharmaceutical medicine has been made on this thread, nor any evidence in support of it. You have questioned the evidence I have provided in support of homeopathy. Without the presentation of some objective evidence for comparison, your criticisms are nothing more than hot air. Where is the evidence, Mr Hans? Where are your references?

                          I have asked for some evidence in support of the DPT vaccine as a comparison. Given the nature of the question we are debating - my request is not unreasonable. I could present you with this evidence, but if it is less than satisfactory, you are likely to criticise any evidence I present as 'selective'. Of course, if you cannot find evidence in support of the DPT vaccine, that is of comparable or superior quality to the evidence I have provided in support of homeopathy, just say so and we can move on.

                          I have made clear, that while I am interested in an objective, intelligent debate of this question, I have little interest in a pointless exchange of views. Unless you have something of value to contribute to the debate, other than your own unsubstantiated opinions, I see little point in your continued participation. I am not interested in your opinions Mr Hans - where is your evidence? Put up or shut up - so we can move on with the debate.
                          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
                            At present, any objective person reading this thread would have to conclude that only homeopathy has any science involved
                            I think we should try it. Get a friend who doesn't know much about science and ask them to read it. I think that's one of the most ridiculous things that's been said so far.

                            Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                            I could present you with this evidence, but if it is less than satisfactory, you are likely to criticise any evidence I present as 'selective'.
                            So you could provide evidence but it wouldn't be any good, and you'd get upset when this was pointed out, even though you know the "evidence" is worthless?

                            ...what? That doesn't make sense, even for this thread.

                            Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                            I am interested in an objective, intelligent debate of this question
                            If that was true, how come you continue to repeat claims that have been knocked down, and how come you don't accept the possibility of being wrong?

                            Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                            Unless you have something of value to contribute to the debate, other than your own unsubstantiated opinions (...)
                            But you're describing your own position.

                            ...what?


                            Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                            where is your evidence?
                            Seriously...

                            ...what?

                            You have failed to come out with anything remotely resembling evidence for homeopathy.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by moopet View Post
                              I think we should try it. Get a friend who doesn't know much about science and ask them to read it. I think that's one of the most ridiculous things that's been said so far.
                              Q: How does pharmaceutical medicine qualify as a science? How does it show the operation of general Laws? What are they?


                              Originally posted by moopet View Post
                              So you could provide evidence but it wouldn't be any good, and you'd get upset when this was pointed out, even though you know the "evidence" is worthless?

                              ...what? That doesn't make sense, even for this thread.
                              I meant I could produce evidence for the DPT vaccine for comparision - but it would be pointless.


                              Originally posted by moopet View Post
                              If that was true, how come you continue to repeat claims that have been knocked down, and how come you don't accept the possibility of being wrong?
                              Which claims exactly?

                              Originally posted by moopet View Post
                              You have failed to come out with anything remotely resembling evidence for homeopathy.
                              That remains to be seen. Why don't you post some evidence in support of the introduction of the DPT vaccine so that we can make a comparison?
                              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
                                Q: How does pharmaceutical medicine qualify as a science? How does it show the operation of general Laws? What are they?
                                What do you mean by Laws with a capital L? Not something scientific, anyway, so what? And, please note: we have covered this nonsense.

                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                                Which claims exactly?
                                The same old stuff:
                                * there is evidence, it's not anecdotal, here it is: (link to something anecdotal or too vague to be useful)
                                * homeopathy is great, ra, ra. We don't need no steenking evidence
                                * you can't use rdbpcts for homeopathy except when the outcome is positive because the controls are too loose
                                * you can't use one specific homeopathic for the treatment of one specific disease, except when the outcome is positive because there are no controls
                                * conventional medicine is poison! ra!
                                * etc, etc, etc ad nauseum

                                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                                Shall I repeat it?
                                If you repeat anything, it'll still be unscientific. If you produce something new, who knows.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X