Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

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

  • Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
    How many allopathic drugs of yesterday can be found on the chemists’ shelves today? They all had their day, and their alluring names have faded into oblivion (because they are declared ineffective or dangerous), only to be replaced by newer drugs. Now you can judge yourself how scientific allopathy is?
    That is, obviously, a sign of science: New knowledge is constantly sought and implemented.

    Tell, me Nancy: Do you see a lot of Ford T models driving around? Yet, the T model was an excellent car, for its time. Now, of course, we have something better.

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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
      That is, obviously, a sign of science: New knowledge is constantly sought and implemented.
      With wrong basic assumptions (including definitions) underlying all of the wrong conclusions you guys endlessly come to, and with your conclusions being based upon 70 years of admissions of having only 10% knowledge of human physiology, only dangerously ignorant and selfish fools motivated by self-aggrandizement do anything. And yet, you guys eternally make life-and-death decisions on this basis, and you get filthy rich doing it, too. The five admissions I've repeatedly exposed from your own statements just get ignored.

      One of them is that you admit to having no cures for any viral infections, any chronic diseases and any psychiatric maladies. That's 99.99% of all deadly illnesses in industrialized societies. You have no cures, and yet you call it scientific advancement. That's a perspective that belongs in Hell, sir.

      Advancement in science obviously requires that you get your basic assumptions correct. We're still waiting for you guys to get one correct 220 years later in relation to homeopathy and many thousands of years later in relation to the three previous forms of homeopathy.

      You guys can't make a single accurate statement about medicine. Whole libraries are full of your demonstrated idiocy that's ever changing but never advancing to the purpose of medicine. We've told you how to do it, and yet you arrogantly believe you have a correct approach to the issues of cure even though there's no evidence for such arrogance. These are simple directions, too. You simply ignore us, obviously because you'd all be executed or exiled as mass murderers and self-admitted quacks, etc., if you ever tested homeopathy in the only way it can be tested without the knowledge necessary to prescribe. All medical schools teach abject quackery, and yet everyone accepts it. That's crazy, and it's going to destroy your Souls!

      Therefore, you guys obviously need new brains. Hurry along.
      Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
      www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa and www.Google+.com/AlbertHahnemannian.com and www.Tumblr.com.AlbertHahnemannian.com and
      http://www.cityevents.tv/Cetah444

      Comment


      • Hi Albert.

        Originally posted by Hahnemannian444 View Post
        With wrong basic assumptions (including definitions) underlying all of the wrong conclusions you guys endlessly come to, and with your conclusions being based upon 70 years of admissions of having only 10% knowledge of human physiology, only dangerously ignorant and selfish fools motivated by self-aggrandizement do anything.
        Well, I think the 10% is getting a bit outdated, as in 25 years outdated, still it is better than the 0% that Samuel Hahnemann not only admitted to but told everybody they had no business investigating further.

        So conventional medicine has worked for 70 years on (at least) 10% knowledge, while homeopaths have been working for 220 years on 0% knowledge of human physiology.

        Pot, meet kettle.

        And yet, you guys eternally make life-and-death decisions on this basis, and you get filthy rich doing it, too.
        Well, the life and death decisions have to be made, so I believe in making them based on the best available knowledge. About money, are you aware that compared to the following, homeopathy is at least as profitable a business as conventional meds?

        One of them is that you admit to having no cures for any viral infections,
        Outdated. We do treat viral infections now, admittedly with varying success.

        any chronic diseases
        Since part of the definition of a chronic disease is that it does not respond to treatment, it more or less follows that we can't treat it. However, a number of former chronic diseases are now treatable.

        and any psychiatric maladies.
        That will come as a surprise to the many doctors busy treating psychiatric diseases. And to their patients.

        That's 99.99% of all deadly illnesses in industrialized societies.
        No. In case you haven't noticed, the life expectancy has grown steadily and is still growing. Of course, every time a cure is found for a dangerous disease, you could strike it from the list of deadly diseases, and thus get your 99.99% right, although I then wonder what the last 0.01% are dying from.

        You have no cures, and yet you call it scientific advancement. That's a perspective that belongs in Hell, sir.
        It certainly belongs in hell, and I hope it stays there. It has no relevance for the real world, that's for sure.

        *snip*
        self-admitted quacks, etc.,
        And now you are through raving about conventional meds, will you admit that this in no way what so ever vindicates homeopathy?

        Prove that homeopathy can do better, and we can talk.

        if you ever tested homeopathy in the only way it can be tested without the knowledge necessary to prescribe.
        Please enlighten me: How can we test homeopathy, in a scientific way? Details are encouraged.

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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
          So conventional medicine has worked for 70 years on (at least) 10% knowledge, while homeopaths have been working for 220 years on 0% knowledge of human physiology.

          Please enlighten me: How can we test homeopathy, in a scientific way? Details are encouraged.

          Hans
          Physiology and Homeopathy
          Scientists Woolpart and Waddington has scientifically proved that in human body there exists 4 different paths of supply of food called nutritive gradients or animal growth axis, which makes the essential constitutents of food flow. All these gradients flow from above downwards, from more important organs to less important organs, from center to periphery, from inside out.
          We test homeopathy in the same way it is being done for allopathy for dilutions below 24X/12C
          http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
            Physiology and Homeopathy
            Scientists Woolpart and Waddington has scientifically proved that in human body there exists 4 different paths of supply of food called nutritive gradients or animal growth axis, which makes the essential constitutents of food flow. All these gradients flow from above downwards, from more important organs to less important organs, from center to periphery, from inside out.
            We test homeopathy in the same way it is being done for allopathy for dilutions below 24X/12C
            1) Reference to that scientific test?

            2) What has this to do with homeopathy?

            3) No, you don't test homeopathy in the same way, not even for low potencies.

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

            Comment


            • 2) This is in accordance with hering's law

              Hering’s law of five directions/progress of cure (1845): This law states that during the course of treatment the cure progresses from above downwards, from within outwards, center to periphery, from more important organ to less important one, in reverse order of coming of the symptoms
              http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
                2) This is in accordance with hering's law

                Hering’s law of five directions/progress of cure (1845): This law states that during the course of treatment the cure progresses from above downwards, from within outwards, center to periphery, from more important organ to less important one, in reverse order of coming of the symptoms
                No, that does not follow. According to your own statement, the paper by Woolpart and Waddington is about the path of nutrition. This cannot be taken as proof that disease cure follows a similar path, and in no way supports supports homeopathic doctrine.

                Also, the notion that less important organs are placed lower and more peripherally does not make any sense. For instance, how can you determine the relative importance of the liver and kidney?

                How about my questions #1 and #3?

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

                Comment


                • Hering's law

                  from above (top of the body) downwards (bottom)

                  from more important organ (wisdom of the body heals those most vital to life first) to less important one

                  in reverse order of coming of the symptoms (symptoms disappear in the reverse order of their appearance i.e. First In Last Out, so old symptoms might resurface).

                  Reference to #1:
                  Dr. Praful Vijaykar, Predictive Homeopathy, Part II Theory of Acutes, PREDICTIVEHOMOEOPATHY doc
                  http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                  Comment


                  • Yes, yes, I know Hering's 'law'. I ask, what is the evidence for this? Even if there is evidence that nutrition is distributed in a similar manner (and you have yet to provide a reference to that), it is not evidence that disease and cure works in the same way.

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

                    Comment


                    • Regarding Hering's law

                      Immunologists claim that the body has the capacity to “remember” every “assault” on the system that it has ever reacted to, and this process confirms that capacity

                      Reference:
                      Dr. Andrew Lockie, Encyclopaedia of Homeopathy, Dorling Kindersley publisher, 2006 edition, pp. 19., Encyclopedia of Homeopathy (ebook) - Design - di?n ?àn dành cho ng??i yêu thi?t k?, ?? h?a
                      http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                      Comment


                      • Sorry, but no. We actually know how the immune system remembers, and it has nothing to do with Hering''s 'law' or homeopathy.

                        Really, Nancy, I have actually studied this at some length, and trust me, there IS no scientific (I mean REAL scientific) support for homeopathy. There is a lot of speculation, and a lot of so-called 'laws', but science it is not.

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

                        Comment


                        • physics behind homeopathy

                          The Physics of Homeopathy
                          The Physical Basis of Homeopathy
                          http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
                            No. Nothing but technobabble.

                            Nancy, if you are going to take up argument by Google here also, I'm not going to waste more time on this.

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

                            Comment


                            • Let's talk serious business

                              Homeopathy gives DBRCT to the world

                              World’s first DBRPCT was conducted in 1835 by a homeopath physician Johann Jacob Reuter, James Lind Library :: Die Homoöopathischen Kochsalzversuche zu Nürnberg. [The homeopathic salt trials in Nuremberg], :: Articles
                              http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
                                Let's talk serious business

                                Homeopathy gives DBRCT to the world

                                World’s first DBRPCT was conducted in 1835 by a homeopath physician Johann Jacob Reuter, James Lind Library :: Die Homoöopathischen Kochsalzversuche zu Nürnberg. [The homeopathic salt trials in Nuremberg], :: Articles
                                Yes, let's talk serious business, like: Did you not read it, or did you hope I wouldn't?

                                Sure, that seems to have been a fairly good protocol, except of course for the setting: The local tavern is perhaps not the best place to conduct scientific experiments, not even in 1835.

                                Then frankly, the result yield was ridiculous; 8 responders out of 100 would cause any scientist to reject the result, because with such a poor response, all kinds of bias may come in.

                                Finally, the result pre-empted all subsequent double blind trials of homeopathy: It was negative.

                                So, let's examine your claim again:

                                Homeopathy gives DBRCT to the world
                                - Ehr, no. The main designer was apparantly Mr. George Löhner, who was an ardent skeptic.

                                - And the trial, for whatever the result was worth, showed homeopathy to have no effect.

                                So, I suggest we rephrase your heading:

                                "Homeopathy fails its first DBRCT, in 1835!"

                                Is that serious enough business for you?

                                Actually, Nancy, couldn't you try a a little bit harder? This one was almost too easy.

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X