Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

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

  • Originally posted by kayveeh View Post
    Yes, then why we need to satisfy skeptics in homeopathy?

    Healing by energy manipulation & by odd chemicals are two basis. When healing is attributed to placebo and skeptics can have better placebo effect in strict evidance based agents, because they have enhanced faith in these(somewhat blind faith). If they remain doubtful, they may not get placebo benefits. I can't say if CONMed have real effects or real effects+side effects or real effects+side effects+enhanced placebo. Obiously, this can result into better apparent effects due to either or all of these in strict studies. Whereas it may not be likely in case of homeopathy i.e. real effects+side effects+placebo.
    I don't think we need to satisfy skeptics. What we or majority of us are actually doing is interacting with online public in which skeptics also contribute their view. Ditto for them too. We both are using each other in communicating with online public and both of us claim victory in putting our views to them. Skeptics put brakes for new customers to get in to folds of homeopathy as well as generates keen interests about homeopathy in public. So marketing budget is minimal in homeopathy compared to ConMed. Skeptics to some extent contribute to that.

    Placebo effect size same in conventional & homeopathy medicine (2010) FULL TEXT
    http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
      I don't think we need to satisfy skeptics. What we or majority of us are actually doing is interacting with online public in which skeptics also contribute their view. Ditto for them too. We both are using each other in communicating with online public and both of us claim victory in putting our views to them. Skeptics put brakes for new customers to get in to folds of homeopathy as well as generates keen interests about homeopathy in public. So marketing budget is minimal in homeopathy compared to ConMed. Skeptics to some extent contribute to that.

      Placebo effect size same in conventional & homeopathy medicine (2010) FULL TEXT
      I think then, you would like to see it:-

      Homeopathy Petition
      Homeopathy Petition - JREF Forum
      Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
      Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

      Comment


      • They are doing their bit. We are doing our. It's all information warfare.

        You also need to see this petition

        Avaaz - EU: Save Herbal Medicine!
        http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

        Comment


        • Most likely, in view of least adversities related to homeopathic remedies, science is not yet become absolute & final in its understandings and people at mass endorssing the effects from homeopathic remedies, it should not be possible for them to harm homeopathy. Still if we can make homeopathy in two parts--one with apperant molecular presence (justifying effects by low dose stimulation & high dose inhibition--hormesis) and 2nd, higher potencies where molecular/information presence is yet unclear in science but live evidances(patients) are there in mass, it may help substancially in long term.
          Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
          Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

          Comment


          • Originally posted by kayveeh View Post
            Most likely, in view of least adversities related to homeopathic remedies, science is not yet become absolute & final in its understandings and people at mass endorssing the effects from homeopathic remedies, it should not be possible for them to harm homeopathy. Still if we can make homeopathy in two parts--one with apperant molecular presence (justifying effects by low dose stimulation & high dose inhibition--hormesis) and 2nd, higher potencies where molecular/information presence is yet unclear in science but live evidances(patients) are there in mass, it may help substancially in long term.
            I agree. In fact majority of homeopaths use both low (less than avogadro) and high (above avogadro) potecies. Skeptics focus on high potencies because they argue about presence of ingredients.
            http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
              I agree. In fact majority of homeopaths use both low (less than avogadro) and high (above avogadro) potecies. Skeptics focus on high potencies because they argue about presence of ingredients.
              This is just a focus point, because it is such an obvious problem. I have also hightlighted the other points where homeopathy collides with contemporary knowledge of how the body functions and of what causes diseases. You know this because you have answered some of my posts.

              It is a straight lie that homeopathy is held to higher standards than conmed. Quite the opposite, in fact, since homeopathy is tolerated by authorities in most countries, even though no proof of efficacy exists. - Something conmed would never get away with.

              All skeptics ask is that homeopathy (and other alternative medicine) proves its efficacy to standards that are comparable to those of conventional meds.

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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by kayveeh View Post
                Do you agree that energy travel to different levels, can be a primary reason to flow/wind & pressure?
                Is that not what I told you, a couple of posts ago?

                It is really hard to answer questions when you can't understand simple replies.

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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
                  I agree. In fact majority of homeopaths use both low (less than avogadro) and high (above avogadro) potecies. Skeptics focus on high potencies because they argue about presence of ingredients.
                  As such, will it not be better to divide homeopathy in two parts. Suppose if anything very odd(though look difficult in view of science is not yet absolute & final) happen, at least one part still remains. Low dose stimulation & high dose inhibition(hormesis) is scientifically understood concept, so can't be denied, if low dose(molecular presence) is scientifically justified. Efficacy well exist in people at mass in most part of world since long back. Though it is different that, due to nature of remedies(with least apparent side/adverse/toxic effects), their effects can't be so apparent as from modern medicines. Can't say, if remedies give real effects+least apparent adverse effects(aggravations)+placebo whereas modern medicines real effects+ more apperent adverse effects+placebo.
                  Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
                  Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    Is that not what I told you, a couple of posts ago?

                    It is really hard to answer questions when you can't understand simple replies.

                    Hans
                    That is not so simple. So you can reply, if no undue stress to you.
                    Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
                    Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

                    Comment


                    • Interdisciplinary Sciences: Life Sciences (SpringerLink)
                      Electromagnetic properties of highly-diluted biological samples (2009) FULL TEXT
                      // Prof. (Dr.) Luc Montagnier, Nobel Laureate for discovering HIV Virus. Potentised bacteria and virus DNA emits electromagnetic signals (low frequency radio waves) at 5C and 6C potencies and forms nano-structures. The radio waves affected water molecules, and the water molecules remembered and emitted radio waves.
                      http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
                        Interdisciplinary Sciences: Life Sciences (SpringerLink)
                        Electromagnetic properties of highly-diluted biological samples (2009) FULL TEXT
                        // Prof. (Dr.) Luc Montagnier, Nobel Laureate for discovering HIV Virus. Potentised bacteria and virus DNA emits electromagnetic signals (low frequency radio waves) at 5C and 6C potencies and forms nano-structures. The radio waves affected water molecules, and the water molecules remembered and emitted radio waves.
                        If it wasn't for the fine credentials of these researchers, I would dismiss it as ridiculous. Fortunately, however, scientists with finer credentials than mine do just that. Also, it is pointed out that even if the results are bonafide, they don't support homeopathy.

                        Reference: Luc Montagnier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                        (BTW, I'n a little puzzled that you can always find the articles that seem pro homeopathy, but you can never find the debunkings, Nancy )

                        For myself, since electromagnetics are my speciality, let me point out a few things about this research:

                        1) The experimental set-up is extremely noinse sensitive. In fact it seems that they use the noise as signal input. This is very unprofessional and highly error-prone. Basically you can measure whatever you like on a noise input.

                        2) The frequencies they cite as some kind of resonance are virtually impossible as such; the frequencies are far too low. For any object to exhibit electromagnetic resonance, it must have a physical size that has some connection with the resonating wavelenght, but the wavelenghts of the cited frequencies are high in the kilometer range, so it is impossible that a resonance effect can exist from a microscopic object. Whatever they measure, it is not resonance from anything in a small test-tube.

                        3) There is no mentioning of blinding. This suggests that the researchers were aware what they were measuring on, and since the test set-up is extremely sensitive (even the position of persons near the test equipment will influence the result), they could very easily be fooling themselves.

                        Those were my technical comments. I will then add that the publishing can hardly be called peer-reviewed, since Dr. Luc Montagnier is responsible editor of the publication. I also notice that as (at least partly) as a result of the controversy sparked by this research, the good Dr. has retreated to a Chinese research institution where he "hopes for more open minds".

                        - I don't think he will be disappointed, since the Chinese are not too particular about what they they call research. OTOH, homeopathy does not have much following there.

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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by kayveeh View Post
                          That is not so simple. So you can reply, if no undue stress to you.
                          I answered it, several posts ago.

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

                          Comment


                          • Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier on homeopathy


                            Dr. Luc Montagnier, the French virologist who won the Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering the AIDS virus, takes Homeopathy seriously and has surprised the scientific community by saying, "High Dilutions of something are not nothing..."


                            Dana Ullman: Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize Winner, Takes Homeopathy Seriously


                            Interdisci*plinary Sciences: Life Sciences (SpringerL*ink)

                            Electromag*netic signals are produced by aqueous nanostruct*ures derived from bacterial DNA Sequences (2009)
                            http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/down...ticSignals.pdf //
                            Potentis*ed bacteria and virus DNA emits electromag*netic signals (low frequency radio waves) at 5C and 6C potencies and forms nano-struc*tures. The radio waves affected water molecules, and the water molecules remembered and emitted radio waves.

                            Luc Montagnier*’s paper published in Interdisci*plinary Sciences is discussed by Institute of Science in Society http://www*.i-sis.org*.uk/homeop*athicSigna*lsFromDNA.*php

                            as well as by Dr. Rachel Roberts at Society of Homeopaths (Europe)
                            http://www*.homeopath*y-soh.org/*whats-new/*research/d*ocuments/M*ontagnieri*nplainEngl*ish.pdf

                            Nobel Prize winner reports effects of homeopathic dilutions
                            Nobel Prize winner reports effects of homeopathic dilutions — European Committee for Homeopathy

                            Nobel Prize Winner does homeopathic study; with supportive findings.
                            Classical Medicine Journal - the Classical Medicine Journal - Nobel Prize Winner does homeopathic study; with supportivefindings.


                            Nobel laureate Montagnier says homeopathy medicine is "real" phenomenon & Benveniste is today's Galileo
                            http://www*.thaihomeo*pathy.com/*index.php/*th/2009-08*-31-14-58-*04/39-news*/97-nobel-*laureate-m*ontagnier-*takes-home*opathy-ser*iously

                            Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier escapes intellectu*al terrorism and gets funding from china

                            “they are afraid to publish it because of the intellectu**al terror from people who don't understand it."
                            This is what Montagnier said. It shows intellectu*al terror the so-called science puts up on homeopathy and homeopaths
                            http://www*.extraordi*narymedici*ne.org/201*1/01/14/in*tellectual*-terrorism*-in-scienc*e/
                            http://joh*nbenneth.w*ordpress.c*om/2011/01*/22/nobel-*laureate-c*onfirms-ho*meopathy-e*scapes-ter*rorism/

                            French News Online
                            France’s Luc Montagnier: Water has a Memory French News Online Newsroom


                            http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                            Comment


                            • I can see you decided to ignore the comments that Luc Montagnier's research on this is strongly disputed, and that it does not support homeopathy anyway.

                              I have already commented.

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

                              Comment


                              • The links provided speaks volumes of Nobel laureate Dr. Luc Mountaginer's works on homeopathy.
                                http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X