Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

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

  • Originally posted by chiongguo View Post
    You are a devious one Hans. The last time I engaged you I knew you were disingenuous, has no integrity and just a downright bully. You would ascribe meanings that suited you, change the baseline of discussion, create distractions and appeal to silly little authority.

    We all know that HOMOEOPATHIC DILUTION will NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT on those who are healthy. Homoeopathic remedies are based on sensitivity of the patients. This sensitivity to the remedy is a result of the disease state of the patient.

    And then using Boericke's PROVING to create distrust and confusion in homoeopathy. PROVING is done using MATERIAL DOSAGE and NOT HOMOEOPATHIC DILUTION.

    You knew this very well and yet chose to obfuscate and befuddle the discussion.
    I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. Even in Hahnemann's time, some provings were done using high potencies, and today, it is more the norm than the exception.

    (Personal attacks ignored.)

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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by chiongguo View Post
      Attacks on conventional meds are not irrelevant. In fact it went into the heart of the foundation and basis of your questioning of homoeopathy. You are trying to judge homoeopathy based on a failed paradigm and continually require homoeopathy to play by the rules of such a failed paradigm.
      That is basically a valid point. Since homeopathy works from a completely different paradigm, it should be judged from that. The reason people like me suggest to use trials based on conventional medicine is that this is all we have, currently.

      You might also take this up with Nancy, since all the trials she is referencing are using this method, or are at least attempting to do so.

      However, if you prefer to set up a homeopathic test paradigm, by all means do so. I must tell you, though, that if you intend to build it on anecdoticals and hearsay, I'm gonna give you a rough time, even if I restrict myself to pointing out the inconsistencies.

      Randomised, double-blind trials - the so-called gold standard , had long lost its shine. Anyone, within the scientific community, worth its salt will know that scientific method is blind and its findings and pronouncements are at best tentative.
      Simply not true. RDBT is not the final word in medicine and cannot cope with all types of treatments, but it is certainly the work-horse of medical research, and will probably continue to be, in the foreseable future.

      Look at how treatment protocol in conventional medicine changed over the years and you will get a pretty good idea of the failure of this paradigm.
      I often meet this argument (in fact, most homeopaths routinely trot it out). "Conventional medicine keeps changing methods, so it can be no good." ..... Tell me, if you drive a car, is it a Ford Model T? Is the computer you are using right now a 1980 vintage CPM machine? If you were to travel by air, would you be happy to come to the airport and be asked to board a DC3?

      Modern medicine keeps changing because we are constantly finding new and generally better methods. The Ford T was an excellent car for its era, but for serious transportation, few would prefer it today.

      The path of RDBT is filled with the corpses and sufferings of much of mankind who had put its faith and trust in such an approach.
      This is not in accordance with reality. Modern medicine has done wonders for mankind.

      But this is still irrelevant for discussing homeopathy.

      Validity of homoeopathy rests on two very fundamental laws of nature :

      a. The law of similars
      b. Principle of minimum dose.
      The problem is that these are not fundamental laws of nature, or at the very least, proof of this is still pending. Hahnemann was fond of declaring his ideas to be laws of nature, but that does not make it true.

      However, I will be glad to discuss these basic principles, rather than the usual descent into anecdoticals, low quality reports, and general mud-slinging, if you are ready for it. It will also be highly relevant for the basic topic of this thread.

      So, please:

      Provide evidence for the 'law of similars' being a law of nature.

      Define what you mean by 'minimum dose' (we can hardly disagree on the the notion of not overdosing).


      The law of similars had been adequately proven and the establishment of Arndt Schultz Law provided homoeopathy with a firm foundation.
      It is good tone in discussions like this to provide references, but I can, of course, do my own Googling:

      Arndt-Schulz rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      From that:

      Arndt-Schulz rule or Schulz' law is a claimed law concerning the effects of pharmaca or poisons in various concentrations. It states that:

      For every substance, small doses stimulate, moderate doses inhibit, large doses kill.
      That is to say, highly diluted pharmaca or poisons enhance life processes, while strong concentrations may inhibit these processes and even terminate them.


      The rule was named after Hugo Paul Friedrich Schulz and Rudolf Arndt. The latter originally formulated it in 1888. However, the exceptions to the rule are so numerous that it can not be considered a general law. For instance, many paralysing substances have no exciting effect in weak doses, and what constitutes a weak, medium or strong stimulus is highly individual, as pointed out by Arndt himself.

      The rule is no longer cited in modern pharmacology texts, having been supplanted by the theory of hormesis.
      So first of all, as you can see, the scientific status of the Arndt-Schulz rule hardly merits calling it a fundamental law of nature.

      Secondly, the Arndt-Schulz rule deals with dose-responsiveness of medicines. I fail to see how this supports the law of similars at all. The law of similars claims that a given disease can be cured by a medicine that gives a similar symptom profile. The effects explored by Arndt and Schulz are simple allopathic effects and they make no pharmacologic claims.

      I have no references to proofs of the principle of minimum dose. Perhaps someone could fill in the blank.
      You should begin with a definition. If you define 'minimum dose' as the least dose that can give the desired effect, then I hardly think we can disagree.

      In conclusion if RDBT do not have a leg to stand on than all of Hans criticism has no basis.
      Incorrect. I do not criticise homeopathy for not being able to pass a RDBT. I criticise it for lacking evidence and basis in the laws of physics. I do suggest to verify this by RDBT, but I'm open for other methods, provided they are validated in some way.

      (Note: It is not in any way a provocation that I spell homeopathy the way I do. At least in Europe, both spellings are considered valid, so I prefer to save an 'o'.)

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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
        Suppression is the stopping of any physiological activity or the stopping of visible signs of illness. Dr. Hahnemann was of the view that suppressing symptoms disables the organism’s innate healing mechanism and drives the disease deeper and so the patient develops a more chronic disease at a later stage. Therefore, the body should be stimulated to encourage its natural healing process.
        I basically agree with your definition of suppression. I also agree that suppression in most cases does not lead to cure.

        Hahnemann's view is not supported by facts, at least not as a general rule. In many diseases, suppression has no effect on the course of the disease as such and in some cases will even support, if not actually initiate, cure.

        The idea that suppression will drive a disease 'deeper' and turn it into a chronical disease is simplistic. In some diseases, suppression will make the disease worse, and this can lead to chronic conditions, but in general it is naive to suppose that a worse version of a disease is a chonical version. Usually, chronical conditions have a different pathology.

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

        Comment


        • law of similars

          Law of similars (1796): Like cures like

          This law First published in
          “An essay on a new principle for ascertaining the curative powers of drugs & some examinations of the previous principle.”, Hufeland's Journal of Practical Medicine, 1796, volume-II, parts 3 & 4, pages 391-439 & 465-561.

          It states that Disease can be cured by a medicinal substance given in micro doses that produces similar symptoms in health people when given in large doses.
          In simple words, the medicine can cure when given in micro doses what it can cause in large doses.
          http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
            Law of similars (1796): Like cures like

            This law First published in
            “An essay on a new principle for ascertaining the curative powers of drugs & some examinations of the previous principle.”, Hufeland's Journal of Practical Medicine, 1796, volume-II, parts 3 & 4, pages 391-439 & 465-561.

            It states that Disease can be cured by a medicinal substance given in micro doses that produces similar symptoms in health people when given in large doses.
            In simple words, the medicine can cure when given in micro doses what it can cause in large doses.
            What else, invented in 1796, do you use these days, Nancy?

            There has been a number of such notions in the history of medicine:

            Substances with a name similar to the disease could cure it.
            Substances that looked similar to some characteristic of the disrease could cure it.
            Substances that gave symptoms like those of the disease could cure it.
            etc.....

            They all originate from a time when little was understood about biology and pathology, and unless they can be supported by evidence and modern understanding, they are of little value.

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

            Comment


            • The idea/concept of ‘law of similars’ had first been mentioned by Hippocrates, then by P.A. Paracelsus, and later by others.The medical maxim of Hippocrates is being followed in homeopathy. Hippocrates said, “By similar things a disease is produced and through the application of the like it is cured”.
              http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
                The idea/concept of ‘law of similars’ had first been mentioned by Hippocrates, then by P.A. Paracelsus, and later by others.The medical maxim of Hippocrates is being followed in homeopathy. Hippocrates said, “By similar things a disease is produced and through the application of the like it is cured”.
                And when did Hippocrates live?

                Oh, yeah around 400BC....

                Great source for medical science, Nancy!

                How about ancient Egypt? Maybe they had some great ideas too?

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

                Comment


                • law of similars

                  The application of the Law of Similars is found in chemistry, and immunology. For example, a basic principle of solvent chemistry states that a substance will be a solvent to another substance when it has a similar type of molecular bond. It has to be either similarly polar or similarly apolar, and then like will dissolve like. Immunology applies the Law of Similars to activate antibody responses with small doses of a similar substance that will evoke the allergic symptoms.
                  http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
                    The application of the Law of Similars is found in chemistry, and immunology. For example, a basic principle of solvent chemistry states that a substance will be a solvent to another substance when it has a similar type of molecular bond. It has to be either similarly polar or similarly apolar, and then like will dissolve like. Immunology applies the Law of Similars to activate antibody responses with small doses of a similar substance that will evoke the allergic symptoms.
                    You can't extend chemical similarity to symptom similarity. Homeopathy deals with symptoms, not chemistry, remember?

                    No immunology does not apply the law of similars. Where it uses something like that, it uses the same substances, which is, at best isopathy, and Hahnemann denounces that in unmistakeable terms.

                    Also, you have to stick to your own dogma; according to homeopathy, there is no such thing as pathogens, and there is no immune system. There is only the vital force.

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

                    Comment


                    • Treatment of disease by high potency of potentised identical disease product is known as Isopathy

                      Homeopathy strengthens the immune system by building resistance to sickness and enhancing the disease fighting ability of our system because it works with the body's natural defenses and doesn't suppress symptoms.
                      http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
                        Treatment of disease by high potency of potentised identical disease product is known as Isopathy
                        Yeah, that was what I said. And according to Hahnemann, Isopathy is not good, except that for some reason, he acknowledges vaccination.

                        Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
                        Homeopathy strengthens the immune system by building resistance to sickness and enhancing the disease fighting ability of our system because it works with the body's natural defenses and doesn't suppress symptoms.
                        That is what some modern homeopaths claim, yes, but it is a totally unfounded claim.

                        ....

                        Don't get me wrong, Nancy; I appreciate that you are debating, instead of spamming links. But we still disagree.

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

                        Comment


                        • Law of similar in conventional medicine

                          a. Ritalin is an amphetamine (psycho-stimulant, a substance that would normally cause hyperactivity) chemically identical to cocaine. Conventional medicine gives this "stimulant" to treat hyperactivity in children

                          b. Radiation to treat people with cancer (radiation causes cancer)

                          c. The vaccines in conventional medicine is derived from Law of Similars
                          “Why would a patient swallow a poison because he is ill, or take that which would make a well man sick." L.F. Kebler, M.D.
                          http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
                            Law of similar in conventional medicine

                            a. Ritalin is an amphetamine (psycho-stimulant, a substance that would normally cause hyperactivity) chemically identical to cocaine. Conventional medicine gives this "stimulant" to treat hyperactivity in children

                            b. Radiation to treat people with cancer (radiation causes cancer)

                            c. The vaccines in conventional medicine is derived from Law of Similars
                            “Why would a patient swallow a poison because he is ill, or take that which would make a well man sick." L.F. Kebler, M.D.
                            a: Hormesis. Well-known dose-dependent response.

                            b: That is too silly. Next you will say that they use scalpels to operate in case of knife-wounds.

                            c: We just agreed that vaccination is, at best, isopathy.

                            Nancy, of course we can dig up examples where there seems to be some 'law of similar', but that's not the point: Homeopathy requires a universal law of similars, based on symptoms. Vaccines are obviously not based on symptoms, and other ideas about stimulating immune response founder on the fact that symptoms are not what triggers immune response. In fact it is very often the other way around.

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

                            Comment


                            • Arndt-Schultz Law (1887)

                              The law of minimum dose got verified by Arndt-Schultz law. This pharmacological principle was concurrently discovered by two separate researchers, Rudolf Arndt, a homeopath physician and Hugo Schultz (German), a conventional scientist
                              http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                              Comment


                              • Arndt-Schultz law

                                Arndt-Schultz law:

                                This law states that, 'Minimal (minute: below its toxicity threshold) doses (weak stimuli) of a drug stimulate (increases physiological activity), medium doses inhibit or suppress and large doses (strong stimuli) abolish/destroy cellular activity.'
                                http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X