Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

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

  • Similibus
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MRC_Hans
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • MRC_Hans
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • moopet
    replied
    [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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gina
    replied
    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. .................................................. ."

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X