Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

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

  • Thank, I will.

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

    Comment


    • Fortschritte der Medizin (German) meaning Medical Progress (English)

      Treatment of pollinosis with Galphimia Glauca 4X (1983)
      http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

      Comment


      • The Austro-British Philosopher Sir Karl popper is well known for his contributions to the philosphical underpinnings of all science. He demanded from every science that it be verifyable and falsifiable.

        In this strict sense, neither allopathy nor homeopathy are scientific. You cannot reproduce all relevant variables that have potentially a large influence on the outcome of a medical experiment simply because you can't perform the same therapy on the exact same patient being in the exact same state s/he was before treatment.

        Therefore we are not dealing with a science in the strict sense of the word.

        If you relax the strict condition and ask, "which of the two is approximating science more closely", I would say that homeopathy and allopathy are on par in this respect. There isn't much difference here. But, at the same time, I want to stress that this question of "being scientific" is, in my opinion, irrelevant.


        -- Chris.
        ------------------------------------------------
        Chris Kurz
        If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
        "Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ckurz7000 View Post
          The Austro-British Philosopher Sir Karl popper is well known for his contributions to the philosphical underpinnings of all science. He demanded from every science that it be verifyable and falsifiable.

          In this strict sense, neither allopathy nor homeopathy are scientific. You cannot reproduce all relevant variables that have potentially a large influence on the outcome of a medical experiment simply because you can't perform the same therapy on the exact same patient being in the exact same state s/he was before treatment.

          Therefore we are not dealing with a science in the strict sense of the word.

          If you relax the strict condition and ask, "which of the two is approximating science more closely", I would say that homeopathy and allopathy are on par in this respect. There isn't much difference here. But, at the same time, I want to stress that this question of "being scientific" is, in my opinion, irrelevant.


          -- Chris.
          Hello Chris
          Congratulations on your book.
          I have read the excerpts of the book on google books.
          I agreed with you that quality should matter over quantity.
          That's why I am proponent of stopping all certificate and diploma courses in homeopathy medicine and should have only medical degree course in homeopathy not less than 5 years.
          Standardisation of homeopathy education is the key

          Regards
          Nancy
          http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

          Comment


          • HNO (German) (SpringerLink Verlag)

            Homeopathy in acute rhino-sinusitis (2007)
            http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ckurz7000 View Post
              The Austro-British Philosopher Sir Karl popper is well known for his contributions to the philosphical underpinnings of all science. He demanded from every science that it be verifyable and falsifiable.

              In this strict sense, neither allopathy nor homeopathy are scientific. You cannot reproduce all relevant variables that have potentially a large influence on the outcome of a medical experiment simply because you can't perform the same therapy on the exact same patient being in the exact same state s/he was before treatment.

              Therefore we are not dealing with a science in the strict sense of the word.
              I'm sorry, but I think you are wrong. Very little would be science if we should adhere literally to Popper, probably not even math. (Can you verifiy that PI has an infinite number of decimals?)

              Science works with evidence. The more conclusive and comprehensive the evidence, the stronger the claim. Science is a method, not a result.

              If you relax the strict condition and ask, "which of the two is approximating science more closely", I would say that homeopathy and allopathy are on par in this respect. There isn't much difference here.
              I am curious to know how you get to this conclusion? Now, if we were to view the conditions in Hahnemann's era, I would be inclined to agree with you, I might even give homeopathy a point up for consistent methodology, but much has happened since. (I am here assuming that 'allopathy' refers to modern medicine).

              If you peruse this thread, you will note that large parts of it consist of Nancy Malik posting links to trial reports and other science papers which, to varying degree, appear to support homeopathy. If I were to play that game (don't worry, I won't) and post links to papers in support of modern medicine, I could post tens of thousands of such links.

              So if we were to compare sheer weight of evidence, there is not even a contest.

              This might be said to be irrelevant, except, of course, for the fact that homeopathy and 'allopathy' are mutually exclusive. One paradigm must be false.

              But, at the same time, I want to stress that this question of "being scientific" is, in my opinion, irrelevant.
              So, what DO you consider relevant when judging the merits of a medical system?

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

              Comment


              • Homeopathy is not exclusive and can be used along with conventional and other complementary medical treatments. Certain drugs such as anti-hyper-tensive, drugs for cardiac or diabetic disorders need to be continued even with Homeopathic medicines. Others, such as anti-biotics should not be discontinued before completing the course and resorting to homeopathy medicine. This is why it is so important to consult a homeopath physician as they will be able to advise you on how to reduce your conventional medicine in a sage way.
                http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                Comment


                • e-newspaper on homeopathy

                  Read, Re-tweet and Subscribe to The daily e-newspaper on health & homeopathic medicine
                  The Dr. Nancy Malik Daily, #homeopathy
                  Your story will appear in this paper if u tweet #homeopathy

                  The Dr. Nancy Malik Daily
                  The homeopaths Daily

                  http://paper.li/DrNancyMalik/~list...
                  The Dr. Nancy Malik Daily, #homeopathy //english
                  Google Translate //spanish
                  Google Translate //german
                  Google Translate //french
                  Google Translate //portugese
                  Google Translate //Japanese

                  The Dr. Nancy Malik Daily, all articles
                  http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
                    Homeopathy is not exclusive and can be used along with conventional and other complementary medical treatments. Certain drugs such as anti-hyper-tensive, drugs for cardiac or diabetic disorders need to be continued even with Homeopathic medicines. Others, such as anti-biotics should not be discontinued before completing the course and resorting to homeopathy medicine. This is why it is so important to consult a homeopath physician as they will be able to advise you on how to reduce your conventional medicine in a sage way.
                    Homeopathy and 'allopathy' are logically exclusive, because they build on fundamentally different views on how the body functions and what causes disease.

                    However, it is certainly a good thing that you don't join those homeopaths who try to make patients stop using conventional meds. As a supplementary treatment, homeopathy is, at worst, harmless.

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

                    Comment


                    • Homeopathy (Elseiver)

                      Double-blind Placebo-controlled homeopathic patho-genetic trials (2006) FULL TEXT
                      http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                      Comment


                      • And back to spamming. Bye, Nancy.

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

                        Comment


                        • You keep on posting anti-homeopathy spams. In the mean time I am posting research papers on homeopathy

                          Homoeopathic Links (Theime)

                          Usefulness of the Homeopathic Medicines in Furunculosis (2010) //Hepar sulphuris, Antimonium crudum, Sulphur and Calcarea carbonica for boils
                          http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                            I'm sorry, but I think you are wrong. Very little would be science if we should adhere literally to Popper, probably not even math. (Can you verifiy that PI has an infinite number of decimals?)
                            Yes, you can prove that PI is an irrational number with an infinite number of decimal places.

                            And yes again on the the observation that very few areas of interest qualify as science in the strict sense. But it bears considering the consequences of this definition: something like medicine is NOT a science! Things like the application of statistics even become questionable in the medical context because statistics only strictly apply to REPEATABLE events. And no treatment is repeatable.

                            Science works with evidence. The more conclusive and comprehensive the evidence, the stronger the claim. Science is a method, not a result.
                            I agree. But what's the meaning of evidence if you can't repeat the claim made by somebody else because the phenomena observed are in principle not repeatable. That's the very situation medicine is in.

                            And homeopathy isn't better off than conventional medicine in this particular respect, either. But it makes me smile if a member of the established allopathic medicine accuses homeopathy of being "unscientific". They should abstain from throwing stones while sitting in a glass house themselves.

                            So if we were to compare sheer weight of evidence, there is not even a contest.
                            Not so. Quantity does not signify quality. And we have to be very careful what we regard as "evidence" in a scientific world.

                            This might be said to be irrelevant, except, of course, for the fact that homeopathy and 'allopathy' are mutually exclusive. One paradigm must be false.
                            Why do you say so?

                            So, what DO you consider relevant when judging the merits of a medical system?
                            That's a very relevant and extremely important question to which entirely too little thought has been given.

                            I don't want to write a book on this (yet) but I can tell you one thing I don't particularly consider very important in judging the merits of a therapeutic system: being "scientific".

                            There are other standards, measures and merits that are much more important than striving for something that's not even applicable much less relevant.

                            -- Chris.
                            ------------------------------------------------
                            Chris Kurz
                            If you like my posts, you might also like my book:
                            "Imagine Homeopathy -- a book of experiments, images and metaphors"

                            Comment


                            • How To Use Homeopathy To Treat Depression And Anxiety?

                              Homeopathic remedies can provide a fast, lasting cure for depression. Part of the reason these natural remedies are so effective is that they match your personality and individual symptoms. Homeopaths have discovered the alternative medicine can be used to treat depression and anxiety


                              Homeopathy Sydney - effective homeopathic remedies that work

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ckurz7000 View Post
                                Yes, you can prove that PI is an irrational number with an infinite number of decimal places.

                                And yes again on the the observation that very few areas of interest qualify as science in the strict sense. But it bears considering the consequences of this definition: something like medicine is NOT a science! Things like the application of statistics even become questionable in the medical context because statistics only strictly apply to REPEATABLE events. And no treatment is repeatable.



                                I agree. But what's the meaning of evidence if you can't repeat the claim made by somebody else because the phenomena observed are in principle not repeatable. That's the very situation medicine is in.

                                And homeopathy isn't better off than conventional medicine in this particular respect, either. But it makes me smile if a member of the established allopathic medicine accuses homeopathy of being "unscientific". They should abstain from throwing stones while sitting in a glass house themselves.

                                Not so. Quantity does not signify quality. And we have to be very careful what we regard as "evidence" in a scientific world.

                                Why do you say so?

                                That's a very relevant and extremely important question to which entirely too little thought has been given.

                                I don't want to write a book on this (yet) but I can tell you one thing I don't particularly consider very important in judging the merits of a therapeutic system: being "scientific".

                                There are other standards, measures and merits that are much more important than striving for something that's not even applicable much less relevant.

                                -- Chris.
                                Allopathy is concerned with quantitiy whereas homeopathy is concerned with quality

                                Homeopathy improving Quality of life

                                Homeopathic medical practice (2005) FULL TEXT // (Chronic) Disease severity and quality of life demonstrated marked and sustained improvements following homeopathic treatment in 3981 patients for 2 years
                                BioMed Central | Full text | How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment? - Results from a long term observational study (2008) FULL TEXT //Disease severity & QoL of life increases following homeopathy treatment
                                http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X