Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

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

  • It seems the discussion has degenerated to the level of the playground.

    I'm out.
    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 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


      • Originally posted by Similibus View Post
        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.
        In principle, you are right. I could, of course, easily swing the scales with a few hundred references to scientific reports for conventional medicine (I have none for "allopathy", I have no idea of the status of "allopathy" in this century, and I frankly don't give a d***).

        However, I will give you the chance to supply something, anything, of any substance, in support of homeopathy. And by that, I don't mean a bunch of anecdotes or a couple of unsupported percentages, all from a century or more ago. If you need inspiration, look over my last ten or so posts. Every time you see a questionmark (?), it is a question to you. You could start by addressing some of those questions.

        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.
        Maybe not unreasonable. OTOH, not particularly relevant. After all, we are discussing principles here; we are discussing the methodolgy, and you have already acknowledged that such research exists. Whether each of us find the actual results satisfactory is really besiede the point. What matters is that the scientific method is used, and even Gina's mindless slander proves that.

        So, most respecfully, sir, I suggest that you are far behind.

        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.
        There is not a single trial or report of homeopathy, that has ever been presented to me, which is even remotely on par with even the humblest pharmacological studies, methodolgy-wise. The few I have seen that had a reasonably good structure used ridiculously small samples.

        I am not interested in your opinions Mr Hans - where is your evidence?
        Yet you seem to think that I am interested in YOUR unsupported opinions.

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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Similibus View Post
          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.
          "It has been established"? How exactly has that been established? You are voicing your opinion, here.

          - 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.
          Believe? Believe??

          - 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?
          No, that is not clear from the statistics. I have explained to you why it is not clear from the statistics. I have pointed out some of the more serious confounders inherent in the statistics. Add the this the fact that you have been unable to provide ANY verificative references for your statistics, I think we can safely say that you are not contributing to the debate by repeating your claim.

          [MRC_Hans agreed with this 'in principle'].
          And repeating your misrepresentation of what I have agreed with is, quite frankly, intelectually dishonest.

          *DELETED: Further mindless repetition of things that have already been discussed*
          Yes, I think it is a good idea that you back out. You have evidently reached the end of your ability to contribute.

          But at least you gave it a good try. That is more than one can say of some other people here.

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

          Comment


          • You don't seem to get it Mr Hans. Your attempts to rubbish the evidence that I have provided in support of homeopathy mean nothing, until you provide some evidence of your own so that a comparison can be made.

            Evidence in support of the DPT vaccine would be ideal, because it is likely to be from a comparable time history, and relates to a comparable (epidemic) disease. I am sure you will agree that this would be a more objective, scientific method, by which we can assess the quality of the evidence provided for homeopathy. Why are you being so resistant to this comparison being made? Is it because an objective comparison would show that the evidence for homeopathy is of an acceptable standard?

            Once again I say to you - put up some evidence of your own for comparison, or stop rubbishing the evidence in support homeopathy! Your opinion means nothing!!!

            Put up or shut up Mr Hans.
            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


            • To clarify: the term 'allopathy' refers specifically to 'pharmaceutical medicine'.
              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


              • *Sigh*. Similibus, the evidence you have supplied for homeopathy IS rubbish. You have supplied a couple of percentages, all from a century ago. As support for the percentage claim, you supplied a couple of survival figures (which calculated to a different, if similar, percentage for homeopathic hospitals). You call that statistical evidence. I call it rubbish.

                You now demand that I supply evidence for a medicine of your choice. Actually, you will realize that I can, of course, make whatever choice I will to support my claim. However, to humor you, I have looked up DPT vaccine. (You could easily have done the same if you were really interested.)

                Science Links Japan | Research on the improvement in DPT vaccine. Research from the pharmaceutical side. (3). Local reactions of DPT vaccine. (Ministry of Health and Welfare S).
                Children's Vaccines: Research on the Risks for Children and Possible Neurological Consequences
                Third Annual Conference on Vaccine Research Abstracts
                http://www.who.int/vaccine_research/...n/GVRF2002.pdf
                Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Vaccine - DPT Vaccine Summary Report | CureHunter
                All the Virology on the WWW - Vaccines
                Pertussis vaccine research in the Rijks Instituut ...[Arch Roum Pathol Exp Microbiol. 1968] - PubMed Result
                DPT Vaccines - Studies advance knowledge in DPT vaccines research


                Have fun!

                Hans

                PS: Lest you get carried away, remember that the topic of this discussion is the scientific levels of conventional meds versus homeopathy. What you may think about the research carries out is a different discussion.
                You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                  To clarify: the term 'allopathy' refers specifically to 'pharmaceutical medicine'.
                  No. The therm allopathy was mainly introduced by Hahnemann and refers to a method of medicine that attempts to cure by introducing symptoms that are different from (or unrelated to) the symptoms of the disease. Other terms were 'antipathy' which seeks to introduce symptoms that are the opposite of those of the disease, and, of course homeopathy, which seeks to work by introducing symptoms that are similar to those of the disease.

                  Note that all these systems concentrate on symptoms. Both the symptoms of the disease, and those caused by the medicine. However, modern, conventional medicine, or pharmaceutical medicne, does not attempt to work on symptoms, or by causing symptoms. Instead, it seeks to work by addressing, in whatever manner practical, the cause of the disease, of if that is impossible, to palliate by addressing the cause of the discomfort.

                  Therefore, the term 'allopathy' was maybe appropriate for the mainstream medicine of Hahnemann's era, but it is now an archaic and quite frankly derogative term.

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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    Therefore, the term 'allopathy' was maybe appropriate for the mainstream medicine of Hahnemann's era, but it is now an archaic and quite frankly derogative term.
                    I agree with your statement completely - it reflects badly on homeopaths that we have tended to use the word 'allopathy' as a derogatory term. The modern homeopathic community tends to use this term to refer to pharmaceutical medicine in general, although I also agree that this is now archaic terminology, with negative connotations for pharmaceutical medicine, and is a term best dropped by the homeopathic profession.

                    However, I still think it is correct to say, that for the purposes of this discussion, the use of the term allopathy in the OP and thread title, was intended to refer specifically to 'pharmaceutical medicine'.

                    Kind regards
                    Sim
                    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
                      *snip*
                      However, I still think it is correct to say, that for the purposes of this discussion, the use of the term allopathy in the OP and thread title, was intended to refer specifically to 'pharmaceutical medicine'.

                      Kind regards
                      Sim
                      Ahh, yes, I also took it as such. Otherwise, I might simply have answered: "I think they are equally unscientific" .

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

                      Comment


                      • Ok - I'm bored of this now. Maybe it is because I use a mac - but I couldn't find a shred of evidence in support of the DPT vaccine (that I didn't have to pay for) in any of the links you provided. The evidence you should be providing for comparison is evidence in support of the introduction of the DPT vaccine, and not research that paharmacuetical companies have conducted since concerns have been raised about the vaccines safety! However, I did find some evidence in one of your links in support of those concerns!

                        I asked for evidence in support of the introdiction of the DPT vaccine because of it's suitability for comparison. Mass immunisation with this vaccine was a practice sanctioned by the scientific community for many years without any RDBPCTs ever having been conducted. I am curious to know what evidence was used to support it's widespread use, and how this compares with the evidence in support of homeopathy.

                        Have you got anything useful or relevant Mr Hans?
                        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


                        • Quite frankly, I think you are a bit slow here, Similibus. I have provided you with a few selected links out of 35,900 hits from a Google search for 'DPT vaccine research'

                          Are you still trying to claim that conventional medicine is unscientific?

                          You are interested in the requirements for approval of a new drug (including vaccines)?

                          That requires a rather complex answer, but you could start with the "356" form:

                          http://www.fda.gov/opacom/morechoice...rms/356Hes.pdf

                          It contains references to a lot of standards and regulations that you need to look up, if you want to get an idea of what you would need to supply to get a new drug approved.

                          You may not want to do this, but I suggest another approach then: Take the 356 form and the homeopathic remedy of your choice and see how many of the items in the form that you can fill out, providing proper references.

                          The approval procedure for DPT vaccine? That was introduced some 40 years ago, so I don't expect we can find anything online. It doesn't matter. It wouldn't even mater if it wasn't properly approved, the point is that strict scientific requirements have been implemented as of today and are enforced.

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

                          Comment


                          • Oh, about access to some of the sites: I may have an access you don't have (working in the pharma industry and all that ). Sorry about that.

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

                            Comment


                            • Science is the Discovery of the Laws of Nature.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by faustian View Post
                                Science is the Discovery of the Laws of Nature.
                                Well hello there. I like a good introductory declamation.
                                Tell us more!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X