Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

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

  • Originally posted by Kaviraj View Post
    Well, that's all you got?

    Go figure.....
    No, that is not all I have got.

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

    Comment


    • Hans, you are a fool - there is no doubt about it. You do not even understand scientific testing.

      You demand homoeopathy is tested like allopathy.

      Ok, let us turn that around and demand allopathy to be tested homoeopathically. I bet you disapprove.

      You should know that the real test is to compare performance of the 2 systems.

      Let us take a condition like Rheumatism.
      The test is how homoeopathy performs in providing relief and how allopathic medicine does it.

      Each and every time, homoeopathy will win, as it also does in all major epidemics. See leptospirosis in Cuba, Dengue fever in Brazil and India and our historical records. We never lose more than 16%, while allopathy in EVERY EPIDEMIC loses 40 - 60%.

      So to the unbiased observer, homoeopathy is always more scientific than allopathic pharmaceutical quackery.

      Now whaddaya say, smartypants?
      Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Kaviraj View Post
        Hans, you are a fool - there is no doubt about it. You do not even understand scientific testing.
        Really? Well, educate me. How is scientific testing done?

        You demand homoeopathy is tested like allopathy.
        No. I demand that it documents its efficacy. If you can find other ways of reliably doing that, fine!

        Ok, let us turn that around and demand allopathy to be tested homoeopathically. I bet you disapprove.
        I don't know. How DO you test something homoeopathically? I'm afraid racking up anecdotes doesn't cut it.

        You should know that the real test is to compare performance of the 2 systems.
        Uhh, excuse me, but that is the test I am proposing. You know, double blind, controlled test. ... Or did you have some other kind of comparison in mind?

        Let us take a condition like Rheumatism.
        The test is how homoeopathy performs in providing relief and how allopathic medicine does it.
        That is a possibility. Which of the many kinds of Rheumatism do you have in mind?
        BTW, I thought homoeopathy was about cure, not relief?

        Each and every time, homoeopathy will win, as it also does in all major epidemics. See leptospirosis in Cuba, Dengue fever in Brazil and India and our historical records. We never lose more than 16%, while allopathy in EVERY EPIDEMIC loses 40 - 60%.
        And you can point to documentation for this, of course?

        So to the unbiased observer, homoeopathy is always more scientific than allopathic pharmaceutical quackery.

        Now whaddaya say, smartypants?
        I say, grow up.

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

        Comment


        • Well Hans, if you go to the point by point analysis, let us see how much of your arguments are valid. For you have given no evidence from your side how many cures or even how many people have had relief from allopathic quackery.

          Originally Posted by Kaviraj
          Hans, you are a fool - there is no doubt about it. You do not even understand scientific testing.
          Really? Well, educate me. How is scientific testing done?

          Quote:
          You demand homoeopathy is tested like allopathy.
          "No. I demand that it documents its efficacy. If you can find other ways of reliably doing that, fine!"

          You lie. You demand an allopathic RCT to apply to homoeopathy. That is testing it like homoeopathy? It is not. It is testing it like allopathy. Don't obfuscate, and be at least honest.

          It is documented in all homoeopathic materia medicas. They are the result of testing on the healthy - scientific, because there is no disease to interfere with the medicine's action.

          Medicines become only medicines if they are capable of affecting the health. Each individual medicine has its own specific characteristics. We have recorded those in double blind randomly controlled experiments. Homoeopathy is the ORIGINATOR of the RCT, for your information. This is real science. You talk quackery experiments with unethical tests on the sick. Disgraceful. WE set the parameters of scientific testing and not your quackery.

          Quote:
          Ok, let us turn that around and demand allopathy to be tested homoeopathically. I bet you disapprove.
          "I don't know. How DO you test something homoeopathically? I'm afraid racking up anecdotes doesn't cut it."

          "I don't know." you say. That sums it all up. That is precisely my argument. You admit finally you are ignorant. Because you are, you have no argument, because you do not understand the subject matter. Yet you continue to open your big mouth about anecdotes while saying you have no clue. LOL That is the hallmark of the fool. YOU need to grow up and learn some clear scientific thinking.

          I am afraid that allopathy has but 8% of more or less reliable RCTs because in 92% the placebo is not declared or is not even a placebo, but a test comparing medicines. (JAMA) 8% ONLY????? That is anecdotal evidence. BMJ henceforth concluded that none of it is reliable.

          I am also afraid that a 5% efficacy standard for approval of a medicine is also way below par. (FDA standard) 5% ONLY????? That is anecdotal evidence.

          I am furthermore afraid that 11% effect on the disease (besides side effects) is also not sufficient to mark allopathy as evidence-based. (BMJ) 11% ONLY????? That is anecdotal evidence.

          I am most afraid that it is you who is telling the allopathic anecdotes and they are unacceptable.

          Quote:
          You should know that the real test is to compare performance of the 2 systems.
          "Uhh, excuse me, but that is the test I am proposing. You know, double blind, controlled test. ... Or did you have some other kind of comparison in mind?"

          Uhhuhh, excuse me that is NOT the test you are proposing. You demand an allopathic test. You are either deliberately obfuscating as usual, or you ARE really dumb. I vote for the latter.

          I have another kind of comparison in mind indeed, which is not your stupid useless biased double blind.

          Biased because you cannot measure the influence of the disease on the effect of the medicine.

          You therefore have no idea, if what is called side effect, is really such an effect, or is a modification of the disease.

          Since such a test is done with an unknown substance, you can not ascertain anything but vague results. That is not scientific.

          What is scientific is to let each system do its work on its own merits, or the ones it claims to possess. That is scientific testing between systems.

          It is completely unscientific to test systems along the criteria of one system only, which you demand. That is like demanding that ice hockey be played between two teams where one team is equipped with regular dry land hockeysticks and the other ice-hockeysticks. Bullshit, in other words.

          Quote:
          Let us take a condition like Rheumatism.
          The test is how homoeopathy performs in providing relief and how allopathic medicine does it.
          "That is a possibility. Which of the many kinds of Rheumatism do you have in mind?"

          Take your pick.


          "BTW, I thought homoeopathy was about cure, not relief?"

          Haha, smartypants! It is, but since your allopathy is only about treatment and not even about relief, I thought I would be easy on you, because allopathy cannot cure. It can only treat and does a bad job at that as well, causing side effects that then also are "treated" with more side effects producing poisons ad infinitum. Evidence-based, ask any patient how much allopathic polypharmacy he swallows. 13th Century polypharmacy by allopathic quackery.

          So therefore, if only you can bring relief - no side effects, like in homoeopathy - then we shall consider you equal and not before.

          Quote:
          Each and every time, homoeopathy will win, as it also does in all major epidemics. See leptospirosis in Cuba, Dengue fever in Brazil and India and our historical records. We never lose more than 16%, while allopathy in EVERY EPIDEMIC loses 40 - 60%.
          And you can point to documentation for this, of course?

          Yes, of course. Read Bradford's "Logic of Figures". Google it. That is a report on 100 years of epidemics and gives the stats.

          Here is another for you.
          Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice. Forsch Komplementärmed 2006;13(Supplement 21:19-2); DOI: 10.1159/00009358. Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen A, Matthiessen PF: The English translation of the Swiss Health Technology Assessment (HTA) report on Homeopathy will be published in the UK on 30th November 2011.

          Quote:
          So to the unbiased observer, homoeopathy is always more scientific than allopathic pharmaceutical quackery.

          Now whaddaya say, smartypants?
          "I say, grow up."

          I say follow your own advice.

          You admit you are ignorant, thus having both feet in your mouth and have consequently no legs to stand on.
          So we leave it to the unprejudiced observer to decide who is the fool and who knows what he is talking about. I am sure it will be decided in favour of homoeopathy.
          Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kaviraj View Post
            Well Hans, if you go to the point by point analysis, let us see how much of your arguments are valid. For you have given no evidence from your side how many cures or even how many people have had relief from allopathic quackery.
            I invite you to read scientific journals and books. The case for efficacy of conventional medicine is not something you can sum up en a few dozen lines.


            You lie. You demand an allopathic RCT to apply to homoeopathy. That is testing it like homoeopathy? It is not. It is testing it like allopathy. Don't obfuscate, and be at least honest.
            No. I do indeed suggest RCT, because that is the general standard, but I'm open to other methods. The RCT method is entirely independent on modality. All it really does is compare groups that have been treated differently. I have yet to get a good explanation for why this should not apply to homoeopathy, but maybe you can give me one?

            It is documented in all homoeopathic materia medicas. They are the result of testing on the healthy - scientific, because there is no disease to interfere with the medicine's action.
            Now you are being, I think intentionally, obtuse. We all know that certain substances cause certain symptoms. This does not prove that:

            1) The same substances will cure any disease.

            2) That extreme dilutions have any effect at all.

            Medicines become only medicines if they are capable of affecting the health.
            Obviously.

            Each individual medicine has its own specific characteristics.
            Obviously.

            We have recorded those in double blind randomly controlled experiments.
            Reference?

            Homoeopathy is the ORIGINATOR of the RCT, for your information. This is real science.
            Really? Then why do you object to my suggesting the use of RCT?

            You talk quackery experiments with unethical tests on the sick. Disgraceful.
            How do you suggest testing if a medicine can cure, if you do not test it on patients? Do we just take your word for it?

            WE set the parameters of scientific testing and not your quackery.
            I'm afraid that takes a bit more than you saying so.

            Ok, let us turn that around and demand allopathy to be tested homoeopathically. I bet you disapprove.

            "I don't know. How DO you test something homoeopathically? I'm afraid racking up anecdotes doesn't cut it."

            "I don't know." you say. That sums it all up. That is precisely my argument. You admit finally you are ignorant.
            No, that is not what I say (and you know it): I say I don't know how you would test conventional medicine homoepathically. Do enlighten me.

            (Ad hominem ignored)

            I am afraid that allopathy has but 8% of more or less reliable RCTs because in 92% the placebo is not declared or is not even a placebo, but a test comparing medicines. (JAMA) 8% ONLY????? That is anecdotal evidence. BMJ henceforth concluded that none of it is reliable.
            Do try to make sense.

            I am also afraid that a 5% efficacy standard for approval of a medicine is also way below par. (FDA standard) 5% ONLY????? That is anecdotal evidence.
            I see that you don't know what 'anecdotical evidence' means.

            I am furthermore afraid that 11% effect on the disease (besides side effects) is also not sufficient to mark allopathy as evidence-based. (BMJ) 11% ONLY????? That is anecdotal evidence.
            And where do the 100% come from? I can assure you that most medicines can document far better rates.

            You should know that the real test is to compare performance of the 2 systems.
            "Uhh, excuse me, but that is the test I am proposing. You know, double blind, controlled test. ... Or did you have some other kind of comparison in mind?"

            Uhhuhh, excuse me that is NOT the test you are proposing. You demand an allopathic test. You are either deliberately obfuscating as usual, or you ARE really dumb. I vote for the latter.
            Straight lies, even. And you are contradicting yourself. what you call 'an allopathic test' is a controlled double blind test, and is what I am proposing. Now make up your mind, will that be useful for homoeopathy, or not?

            If not, which alternative do you suggest.

            I have another kind of comparison in mind indeed, which is not your stupid useless biased double blind.
            Do explain how your test is constructed.

            Biased because you cannot measure the influence of the disease on the effect of the medicine.
            What we want to measure is the effect of the medicine on the disease.

            You therefore have no idea, if what is called side effect, is really such an effect, or is a modification of the disease.
            If the patient gets better, is that an effect or not, in your book?

            That is like demanding that ice hockey be played between two teams where one team is equipped with regular dry land hockeysticks and the other ice-hockeysticks. Bullshit, in other words.
            Don't you think that would be quite good for testing which sticks are the best?

            Quote:
            Let us take a condition like Rheumatism.
            The test is how homoeopathy performs in providing relief and how allopathic medicine does it.
            "That is a possibility. Which of the many kinds of Rheumatism do you have in mind?"

            Take your pick.

            So therefore, if only you can bring relief - no side effects, like in homoeopathy - then we shall consider you equal and not before.
            Well, you would have to provide evidence for your claim as well.

            I think this will suffice, for now.

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

            Comment


            • As usual, you give evidence of deliberate ignorance.

              I have given you the ONLY valid test - on the healthy. On the sick you cannot evaluate anything but a little relief, which even if it does something, is NULLIFIED by the side effects.

              The RCT is indeed invented by Hahnemann for the ONLY VALID test there is - on the healthy.

              Anyone knows that like is cured by like. If you freeze your toes, the ONLY thing that unfreezes them without any danger is to rub them with snow. Any smith, baker or cook knows that to avoid burns and blisters, you hold the burnt part under the warm water. They are never subject to burns, because they know what to do.


              And you have as usual, avoided to answer my question or to refute anything. Ad hominem? You admit you do not know how homoeopathy is tested. With each answer you only show you do not understand anything I say nor do you understand anything about homoeopathy because you admit yourself you are ignorant. If then you keep making stupid comments and display proudly how ignorant you are, there is no ad hominem - you have "ad hominemed" yourself. Don't blame me for being stupid.

              None of your answers have any validity - you have not done anything to show you are scientific.

              The case for efficacy of ConMed is non-existent as both JAMA and BMJ prove. (note ConMed is already showing that pharmaceutical quackery is a con). Follow your own advise and find out it is not as rosy as you paint it.

              And the RCT as conducted by allopathy is only the general standard for allopathy. It does not apply to homoeopathy, because we have INDIVIDUALISED medicine, which is the dream of allopathy. ConMed has only general treatment, because their diagnosis is not refined enough and the RCT as they have distorted it is also not refined enough to allow for individualised treatment. In fact, it is so gross and useless that many trials have to be abandoned, because too many people DIE.

              You call that scientific? Poor man! You do not know what is ethical and what is not. Poisoning the patient with medicines that cause side effects is unethical, regardless the fact that it is the only thing you have. Testing on the sick is unethical. You say you cannot determine how else a medicine works. Shows you what poor scientists those allopaths are.

              We have a safe test - on the healthy volunteer. We also know EXACTLY what a remedy can cure and what not, reason why we can individualise treatment and then have 100% efficacy.

              You say that the few successes we have are anecdotal and then say in the same breath that allopathy with but 5% efficacy is not anecdotal. Make up your mind. If 5% efficacy is not anecdotal then 100% efficacy in homoeopathy is ABSOLUTELY NOT ANECDOTAL. Allopathy is a FAILURE and the convictions of Big Pharma in the courts is attestation of proof of FAILURE, not of success.

              We shall turn the tables and now demand that all your ConMed is prescribed according to our standards. After all, we have many more medicines than allopathy and have therefore done more testing and are thus more scientific. We can pinpoint exactly what medicine to use in each case. Allopathy can only TRY to do something and in most cases FAILS, as we can read in the papers regularly and the court cases for convictions prove.

              But it is useless to talk to you. You refuse to learn, to read and to study. So I shall no longer waste my time with someone WHO IS AN IGNORAMUS BY HIS OWN ADMISSION. AND WHO REFUSES TO LEARN BY HIS OWN ADMISSION. YOU ARE A STUPID FOOL BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.

              You have lost the debate from page one and are simply a masochist and a glutton for punishment. Go somewhere else with your inane drivel. They may accommodate stupidity - I am through with you.
              Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kaviraj View Post
                As usual, you give evidence of deliberate ignorance.

                I have given you the ONLY valid test - on the healthy. On the sick you cannot evaluate anything but a little relief, which even if it does something, is NULLIFIED by the side effects.
                Provings? Don't make me laugh. What does a proving show? It shows that a certain substance gives certain symptoms, surprise! We all knew that. How do you test the effect on disease?

                The RCT is indeed invented by Hahnemann for the ONLY VALID test there is - on the healthy.
                I have not read all of Hahnemann's books, but in the Organon of Medicine, he neither mentions controls, randomisation, nor blinding.

                Anyone knows that like is cured by like.
                No. There are certain instances where like cures like, but it is very far from a universal principle.

                If you freeze your toes, the ONLY thing that unfreezes them without any danger is to rub them with snow.
                If you have true frost-bite, good luck with that procedure.

                Any smith, baker or cook knows that to avoid burns and blisters, you hold the burnt part under the warm water. They are never subject to burns, because they know what to do.
                Even if the first part were true, the second is certainly not. I have worked with workplace safety, and those professions are high on the list of burn accidents.

                None of your answers have any validity - you have not done anything to show you are scientific.
                You have a very special definition of 'scientific'.


                But it is useless to talk to you. You refuse to learn, to read and to study. So I shall no longer waste my time with someone WHO IS AN IGNORAMUS BY HIS OWN ADMISSION. AND WHO REFUSES TO LEARN BY HIS OWN ADMISSION. YOU ARE A STUPID FOOL BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.
                Suit yourself. You are obviously incapable of sensible debate and prefer to rave and shout. That is indeed a waste of time.

                I am through with you.
                I can only express my gratitude for being free of your ravings.

                I shall, however, pass by from time to time, if someone should desire a sensible debate.

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

                Comment


                • World Homeopathi Congress 2011

                  Organized By: Liga Medicorum Homoeopathic Internationalis (LMHI)
                  Collaborators: Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India
                  Sponsors: Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India

                  Introduction to the World Homeopathic Congress 2011

                  Mission: To provide an international forum to homeopaths, homeopathic societies and researchers who are interested in the development of science of homeopathy.
                  http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                  Comment


                  • law of similar

                    In 1790, he discovered principle of similar when he found that drug which was known to be curative actually produces those very symptoms when given to a healthy person. He said, “Substances which arouse a kind of fever extinguish the types of intermittent fevers”. But the principle was published in 1796.

                    Ref: JMS Schmidt, Josef M. Die philosophischen Vorstellungen Samuel Hahnemanns bei der Begründung der Homöopathie (bis zum Organon der rationellen Heilkunde, 1810). München: Sonntag, p. 29, 1990.
                    http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
                      In 1790, he discovered principle of similar when he found that drug which was known to be curative actually produces those very symptoms when given to a healthy person. He said, “Substances which arouse a kind of fever extinguish the types of intermittent fevers”. But the principle was published in 1796.

                      Ref: JMS Schmidt, Josef M. Die philosophischen Vorstellungen Samuel Hahnemanns bei der Begründung der Homöopathie (bis zum Organon der rationellen Heilkunde, 1810). München: Sonntag, p. 29, 1990.
                      Yes, I know. Unfortunately, he was mistaken. If he had taken a scientific approach, he would have discovered his mistake. Instead, he declared it a 'natural law' and built the whole edifice of homoeopathy upon it.

                      One of Hahnemann's observations was the when he took an extract of the bark of the cinchona tree, he had fever symptoms. Since that extract was used as a remedy against malaria, he took this as a support for the like cures like thesis.

                      Unfortunately, fever symptoms are not a normal effect of cinchona extract. Whether Hahnemann used a contaminated extract, was allergic to it, or simply happened to run a fever, we shall never know. At any rate, this cornerstone of his theories rests on a mistake.

                      Quinine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

                      Comment


                      • Transition from google knol to wordpress

                        Google will discontinue 'knol' on 1 May 2012. The knol owners/authors are given a choice to migrate to wordpress.com which I did. The wordpress.com has abundantly better features for professional writers.

                        From 15 Feb 2012 onwards, the viewers would be automatically redirected from the google knol page to the following wordpress pages

                        Articles on Homeopathy: Articles – Science-based Homeopathy

                        Homeopathy Explained: Homeopathy Explained – Science-based Homeopathy

                        FAQ&A on Homeopathy: FAQ&A on Homeopathy – Science-based Homeopathy

                        Scientific research in Homeopathy: Scientific Research in Homeopathy – Science-based Homeopathy

                        Status of Homeopathy around the World: Status of Homeopathy – Science-based Homeopathy

                        How Homeopathy Works? How homeopathy works? – Science-based Homeopathy

                        Iron Deficient Anemia: Anemia – Science-based Homeopathy
                        http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                        Comment


                        • I think they’re both; see the definition of medicine as the science and art of healing. Allopathic and Homeopathy both cure right? Hence those two are scientific.LOL
                          springhill group news

                          Comment


                          • First of all, science is a METHOD (the best possible method developed by humans so far) to test if something does what it claims to do.

                            Science is not connected to neither homeopathy nor allopathy, but should be used to examine if what they claim is closer to the truth or should be discarded. All medicine developed should go through thorough scientific evaluation, with RCTs (Randomized controlled trials, with blinded researches and placebo controls).

                            Homeopathic medicine is considered alternative medicine, but regardless, it should go through the same scientific evaluations as other medicine. If the homeopath potion says to cure acne, ulcers, cancer etc etc this should be evaluated as all other drugs in WELL CONDUCTED scientific trials. Now, many meta analyses have been conducted to test this, and as some mentioned in this thread ; "the Lancet only used its analyses on 8 of the trials and ignored all the other ones".. well if "all the other" trials were not well conducted this is a smart thing to do! Also, just because orthodox medicine is not called alternative medicine, does not mean that a lot of that which was once alternative has never been accepted, on the contrary a lot has been accepted and is today called orthodox medicine.

                            Bloodletting (which has been discarded as a common medical practice) was used for centuries, but that does not mean it was correct or by any means good! (just to use this to counter the argument that anything that has been used for ages is good).

                            Also, just because something is "natural" does not mean it is healthy or does not have side effects. In addition, a lot of regular medicine is made out of natural herbs, but synthesized and filtered so the negative sideeffects can be dampened.

                            Now, what do you get when you buy a homeopathic remedy? Water. Maybe with some sugar? But plain old water! Yes, they have contained some sort of herb before the herb was removed, and the water distilled so much as to be blended with water the same about of the volume of the Earth (this sounds crazy, but it is true in mathematical tearms with the C dilutions). Now, how can people use lots of money to buy plain water with a fancy name on the bottle? (of course it has a placebo effect which can be powerful on many psychological driven diseases, and this is a real effect). Well, homeopaths claim that the water will remember the molecules of the herb (or substance that was inside the water) because it is shaken in a special way.. OK, for me this sounds very comical, but still these are homeopaths own explanations. AND deserves scientifically conducted tests to see if they are efficacious. But just one question, why doesn't the water remember all the poo, pee, sewer other herbs, minerals from earthquakes under the sea etc etc, the water is as we all know a renewal source of energy, it is always there.. ?

                            I am a proponent of a balanced healthy diet and lifestyle, and very interested in reading about all sorts of treatments, normal or alternative. But farmost am I interested in finding out what ACTUALLY works with good scientific evaluations, many replications and preferrably by organizations such as the Cochrane collaboration (they dont have any personal interests in either regular medicine or alternative).

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by timstone View Post
                              I think they’re both; see the definition of medicine as the science and art of healing. Allopathic and Homeopathy both cure right? Hence those two are scientific.LOL
                              Whether something cures or not has nothing directly to do with science. If a herb exctract can cure a disease (as some can), then it can cure that disease, whether it has been examined scientifically or not.

                              What makes a medical system scientific is its use of scientific methods to evaluate the effects of its treatments.

                              For conventional medicine (that homeopaths call allopathy), scientific methods have been thorughly incorporated on all steps. A century ago, there was very little science in any medical system, some research was conducted, but it was mainly trial and error: You tried out the medicine on sick or healthy persons (often on both), observed and recorded the results, and made an evaluation of the effects.

                              During the 20th century, mainstream medicine gradually incorporated the scientific method, to get away from the subjective evaluation. Also, medical research ensured a vastly increased understanding of how the body functions, disease mehanics, and how medicines influence all that.

                              Today, we almost never rely on just trying out things. Instead, disease mechanisms (pathology) are carefuly studied, we then find out which substances should effect an improvement, and armed with that knowledge, we set out to obtain that substance and find a suitable way to administer it. Finally, when the medicine is being developed, we conduct objective tests to see if it worls as expected, and we try to map any side effects.

                              .....

                              Homeopathy was 'invented' 200 years ago, and in concordance with the methods of its time, it consisted of trial and error, and subjective evaluation. None of this has changed since. What gives homeopathy a scent of science is that it builds on a central thesis of pathology: The idea of the vital principle, theory of infinitessimals, and that like cures like.

                              Unfortunately, every single premise of homeopathy has since been proved to be faulty:

                              There is no such thing as the vital principle.

                              Infinitessimal doses won't work; all known medicines are dose-dependent.

                              Except for a few special cases, like does not cure like.

                              Finally, we now know that the dilutions most used in homeopathy leave not the slightest trace of active substance in the remedy, and, in spite of desperate searching, homeopaths have not found a sensible explanation for how any medical properties could be retained in high potency remedies.

                              Nancy has been spamming this thread with internet links, some of which point to experiments that appear to support homeopathy in various ways, but all of these experiments have been shown to be either faudulent, poorly designed and/or conducted, inconclusive, or, at best, impossible to reproduce.

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

                              Comment


                              • MRC Hans, It's about freedom of choice not links.

                                You, or for the matter of fact anyone, can choose any medicine when fall i ll
                                Opinion Polls – Science-based Homeopathy

                                Thanks and Regards
                                http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X