Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

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

  • #91
    Oh dear. Another homeopath gets lost in personal attacks and hailing of long-dead heroes.

    I'm sorry Similibus, but I've been there one time too many already. Life is too short for that sort of thing.

    If you have any rational arguments, if you find any questions are unanswered, please restate them, in a short, clear manner. Then I'll do my best to address them.

    However, I'm not wading through tons of nonsense trying to extract what you are really trying to say, if anything.

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

    Comment


    • #92
      The people arguing for allopathy on this thread have repeatedly used the argument that homeopathy cannot be accepted until it is scientifically validated. They have argued that the huge volume of anecdotal evidence in support of homeopathy is not acceptable evidence of its efficacy. They have argued that RDBPCTs are the standard by which every medicine must prove its efficacy. MRC_Hans has gone so far as to say that unless a trial is blinded it is not scientific. They have argued this so frequently and so consistently that it is not necessary to provide quotes. It is their main and only argument against the validity of homeopathy.

      Yet...

      -The evidence for the efficacy of vaccines is almost entirely ANECDOTAL.
      -Most vaccines have never been subject to RDBPCTs.
      -Most vaccines have never been subjected to blinded trials.
      -Most vaccines have never been subjected to any kind of trial whatsoever.
      -Most vaccines have never been subjected to studies regarding their long-term effects.
      -Mass immunisation is promoted by the allopathic profession at considerable cost to the tax-payer.
      -Many within the allopathic profession have expressed concerns as to the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
      -Many members of the general public are concerned about the safety of vaccines- the current take-up rate for the measles vaccine in London is around 50%.

      In light of the above statements, it is not unreasonable to request that those arguing for allopathy address this issue in detail in order to justify their previous statements in relation to homeopathy. If they cannot justify their position in relation to mass immunisation their arguments against homeopathy lose all credibilty.
      These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Similibus View Post
        MRC_Hans has gone so far as to say that unless a trial is blinded it is not scientific.
        No I have not. I have said that the established method is a blinded test. There are others, and I have repeatedly said that if homeopaths want to test remedies in a different way, then they can do so, but they must then provide proof of the validity of that method.

        -The evidence for the efficacy of vaccines is almost entirely ANECDOTAL.
        Incorrect. There is a difference between a clinical survey and anecdotical evidence.

        -Most vaccines have never been subject to RDBPCTs.
        That is probably correct, at least for the older types. Their efficacy has still been verified statistically, however.

        -Most vaccines have never been subjected to blinded trials.
        See above.

        -Most vaccines have never been subjected to any kind of trial whatsoever.
        Incorrect. All recognized vaccines have been subjected to tests in the form of clinical surveys and statistical evaluation.

        -Most vaccines have never been subjected to studies regarding their long-term effects.
        Incorrect. Vaccines are subject to long-term follow-up analysis.

        -Mass immunisation is promoted by the allopathic profession at considerable cost to the tax-payer.
        Superficially correct. However, the cost to the taxpayer would be much higher if we were to have a high disease-rate, or if those diseases were to be dealt with in other ways (quarantine, etc). Vaccination is the most cost-effective way to limit contaguous diseases.

        -Many within the allopathic profession have expressed concerns as to the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
        Which contradicts your above statement about lack of follow-up. The medical profession is ALWAYS concerned about long-term effects, and rightly so.

        -Many members of the general public are concerned about the safety of vaccines- the current take-up rate for the measles vaccine in London is around 50%.
        Yes, because scare-mongers like you are having their way. Sooner or later, the polulation will pay the cost of that, in the form of epidemics. When that happens, I advice you to put the greates possible distance between yourself and your earlier statements.

        In an unvaccinated population, the mortality rate from measles is several percent. Will you accept the reponsibility for this?

        In light of the above statements, it is not unreasonable to request that those arguing for allopathy address this issue in detail in order to justify their previous statements in relation to homeopathy. If they cannot justify their position in relation to mass immunisation their arguments against homeopathy lose all credibilty.
        Not unreasonable at all, and it is happening. Now tell me about:

        - Blinded trials of homeopathy
        - Clinical surveys of homeopathy
        - Long-term studies of effects of homeopathy
        - Short- and long-term studies of side effect of homeopathy

        Please provide proper references.

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

        Comment


        • #94
          I must, of course, also provide references for my claims. There are, potentially, several thousand, but below are a few that seem representative:

          Vaccine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
          NEJM -- Safety and Efficacy of an Attenuated Vaccine against Severe Rotavirus Gastroenteritis
          Ugeskrift for Lger - Skoldkoppesygdom og -vaccine
          CDC - Influenza (Flu) | Flu Vaccine Effectiveness: Q & A for Health Professionals
          Journal of Clinical Investigation -- Increased vaccine efficacy against tuberculosis of recombinant Mycobacterium bovis bacille Calmette-Guérin mutants that secrete listeriolysin
          PLoS Medicine - A Randomised, Double-Blind, Controlled Vaccine Efficacy Trial of DNA/MVA ME-TRAP Against Malaria Infection in Gambian Adults
          Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) Vaccine Efficacy Trial Against Cervical Pre-Cancer in Young Adults With GSK Biologicals HPV-16/18 - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov
          Observational study of vaccine efficacy 14 years after trial of hepatitis B vaccination in Gambian children -- Whittle et al. 325 (7364): 569 -- BMJ
          Vaccine Efficacy ag Rotavirus Diarrhoea; Vaccine Given w Routine Childhood Vaccinations in Healthy African Infants - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov
          Pediatric Vaccine Effectiveness Study

          Note that the claim here is that clinical trials and follow-up are indeed performed. The results, and our respective confidence in said results, is a different discussion.

          Hans
          Last edited by MRC_Hans; 25th September 2008, 09:36 AM. Reason: Removed inactive link
          You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

          Comment


          • #95
            Also, a major difference between homeopathic remedies and vaccines has to be that vaccines have a known and demonstrable method of working.
            You can introduce a vaccine experimentally and observe the patient's antibodies before and after, in blinded studies. You can identify which syringe contains placebo and which vaccine based on more than the sticky label.

            Not only that, but it's not based on sympathetic magic. While the vaccine may or may not have some of the actual virus in it, it is targetted to produce an immune response. It's not something that makes a similar symptom, it's something that emulates the underlying cause. Exactly the opposite of one of the homeopath's favourite arguments.

            Comment


            • #96
              To Mrc-Hans,

              Indeed, there are some long-term studies - but they are only related to the particular issue related to the immune events associated with the particular illness that the vaccine is supposed to affect (apart from the fact that I could only spot such studies for the years 1990-2000, that is, this sort of research is really a recent development).
              But such studies do not give any references as to what has happened to the overall state of health of the vaccinated population (vs unvaccinated), they do not include epidemiological data such as total days away from school - if it is about children for example, incidence of other types of diseases, including chronic things such as asthma and eczema, for example, allergies etc.

              Could it be that such clinical surveys are not conducted or at least not disclosed?
              WIth the cholesterol lowering drugs, recently we have seen reports of epidemiological surveys which tell us that while the cholesterol level has been lowered, the total death rate of the user population has not changed for the survey period of 8-15 years compared to a similar group who did not take these drugs (actually, the survey says that the death rate was higher for the lower-cholesterol group - I cannot provide the link as this was published in a Japanese newspaper, and the survey was conducted by one of Japanese Universities in their Medical Department). So while the death-rate from some specific problem might have decreased, another problem appeared "to make up" for this, so the death-rate at least was not improved, at worst - got higher, this point was not quite clear form the newspaper article I have to admit. This does not give an impression of any particular success of the therapy - so my question to Hans is whether this type of medical intervention is really desirable and necessary from his point of view, and how can we know that the same thing is not happening with mass immunisations?

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                No I have not. I have said that the established method is a blinded test. There are others, and I have repeatedly said that if homeopaths want to test remedies in a different way, then they can do so, but they must then provide proof of the validity of that method.
                That is not what you said earlier:

                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                The method (RDBPCT) is designed to show ANY effect of ANY method, as long as it lends itself to blinding.
                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                If it cannot be blided (or otherwise provide a valid reference), then it is NOT a "perfectly good experiment".
                You only rejoined the discussion 5 minutes ago and already you are making U-turns.

                -------------------------------------------
                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                Incorrect. There is a difference between a clinical survey and anecdotical evidence.
                Now you are just playing with words. This is exactly the type of evidence in favour of homeopathy that exists by the library load. I have been arguing that statistical analysis and clinical audit are a far better measure of homeopathy's effectiveness than RDBPCTs? The general response has been that this type of evidence is considered anecdotal and RDBPCTs are the industry standard. if you had bothered to follow the discussion you would have known this. Perhaps you should read the thread before making your next post to save us going over old ground?

                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                That is probably correct, at least for the older types. Their efficacy has still been verified statistically, however.
                Well if you accept statistical evidence for a medicines efficacy you will accept that the following validates homeopathy (please note carefully the use of the words statistical and statistics):

                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                4. The aggregate statistical results for allopathic treatment in the treatment of cholera in Europe and America show a mortality rate of 40%; statistics for homeopathic hospitals show a mortality rate of less than 9%.
                You will, of course, now accept that homeopathy is a scientifically valid therapy proved unequivocally with statistical evidence. Did I mention that there are library loads of statistical evidence in favour of homeopathy? If you will accept this as evidence I will even look up the reference for you.

                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                Incorrect. All recognised vaccines have been subjected to tests in the form of clinical surveys and statistical evaluation.
                So has homeopathy - from day one. There are library loads of exactly this kind of evidence in favour of homeopathy, which the scientific community (and you yourself) have criticised as anecdotal.

                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                Incorrect. Vaccines are subject to long-term follow-up analysis.
                If an adverse reaction to a vaccine is observed more than 3 weeks after the immunisation it is not considered to be related to the vaccine. Is that what you mean by long-term follow-up analysis?

                Or do you mean that long-term follow-up analysis revealed that the MMR vaccine was found not to convey life long immunity (as was claimed by the pharmaceutical companies) but in fact, only gave immunity for 5 years (if that) and so everyone of college age is now having another series of MMR immunisations with a new improved vaccine that does (apparently) give life long immunity. How can the pharmaceutical company be sure of this when they have only been using the vaccine for a few years? Why were they wrong about the last one?


                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                Superficially correct. However, the cost to the taxpayer would be much higher if we were to have a high disease-rate, or if those diseases were to be dealt with in other ways (quarantine, etc). Vaccination is the most cost-effective way to limit contagious diseases.
                Incorrect. Homeopathy is by far the most cost effective way to deal with epidemic diseases. This has been well-established from past statistical analysis of homeopathic hospitals vs allopathic in hospitals in past epidemics such as the 1918 'flu epidemic and the cholera epidemic mentioned above, among others. There are library loads of this kind of data. Would you like me to post some more examples- with references?

                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                The medical profession is ALWAYS concerned about long-term effects, and rightly so.
                You accept then, that a significant number of the medical profession have grave concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                Yes, because scare-mongers like you are having their way. Sooner or later, the polulation will pay the cost of that, in the form of epidemics. When that happens, I advice you to put the greates possible distance between yourself and your earlier statements.
                Scare-monger? Now who is resorting to personal attacks! Well I don't hold much regard for the opinion of an individual who claims to know about science but can't even do basic algebra!

                If there are epidemics it will be because nobody has natural immunity because their immune systems have been crippled by immunisation. If there are epidemics, homeopathy has a proven track record in effectively treating these diseases. Would you like me to provide you with some statistical evidence - no - wait - I just did!

                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                In an unvaccinated population, the mortality rate from measles is several percent. Will you accept the responsibility for this?
                Gladly - if you will accept responsibility for all the damage caused by mass immunisation, including but not limited to, the myriad auto-immune diseases that plague modern societies, such as multiple sclerosis and arthritis (which are now listed on vaccine inserts as a possible consequences of using the vaccine) to mention the tip of a very large iceberg.

                Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                Not unreasonable at all, and it is happening. Now tell me about:

                - Blinded trials of homeopathy [1]
                - Clinical surveys of homeopathy[2]
                - Long-term studies of effects of homeopathy[3]
                - Short- and long-term studies of side effect of homeopathy[4]

                Please provide proper references.
                1. I don't need to. Clinical audit and statistical evidence are a far better measure of homeopathy's efficacy. Lets talk about that instead.

                2. What would you like to know? Dr Ramakrishnan's clinical surveys for the efficacy of his homeopathic treatment for people with cancer? Which cancer are you most interested in?

                Breast Cancer (Pre-plussing method): 190 cases in total out of which 70 were considered viable for treatment (i.e. not in the terminal stage). 40 cases survived 10 years - a success rate of 57%

                Breast Cancer (Plussing method): 380 cases in total out of which 150 were considered viable for treatment. 120 survived 10 years - a success rate of 80%

                Reference: A Homeopathic Approach to Cancer by Dr A.U. Ramakrishnan and Catherine R Coulter, Ninth House Publishing, 2001, page 59.

                3. Dr Ramakrishnan follows his cancer cases up for 10 years.

                4. Now that is funny. You clearly don't have the first idea about homeopathy! It is an utterly pointless question because homeopathic medicines are well known not to have side-effects! Really, to be so ignorant of something and yet so vehemently against it can only be a form of prejudice!

                The type of evidence you are referring to in support of mass immunisation is no different to the overwhelming evidence in support of homeopathy. You have not addressed this issue at all. Why accept clinical surveys and statistical analysis as evidence for mass immunisation if you will not accept the same in support of homeopathy? You still need to address this question or your arguments against homeopathy lose all credibility!
                These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                  I must, of course, also provide references for my claims. There are, potentially, several thousand, but below are a few that seem representative:

                  [LINKS]

                  Note that the claim here is that clinical trials and follow-up are indeed performed. The results, and our respective confidence in said results, is a different discussion.

                  Hans
                  Now you are really clutching at straws! Where are the trials for MMR and DPT - the vaccines that are the most cause for concern?

                  The BCG trial was on mice!!!!!!!
                  One of the websites isn't in English!
                  The Wiki link made no reference to any particular trial!
                  The last link gives no detailed information!
                  I lost interest after that.

                  I especially like the disclaimer at the end. Here is some evidence of some trials that have been conducted though they are not necessarily trustworthy and the results don't really matter! You have taken the proverbial biscuit there Mr Hans!
                  These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by moopet View Post
                    Also, a major difference between homeopathic remedies and vaccines has to be that vaccines have a known and demonstrable method of working.
                    You can introduce a vaccine experimentally and observe the patient's antibodies before and after, in blinded studies. You can identify which syringe contains placebo and which vaccine based on more than the sticky label.

                    Not only that, but it's not based on sympathetic magic. While the vaccine may or may not have some of the actual virus in it, it is targetted to produce an immune response. It's not something that makes a similar symptom, it's something that emulates the underlying cause. Exactly the opposite of one of the homeopath's favourite arguments.
                    No. The point here Moopet is that you have argued all along for RDBPCTs as the standard scientific evaluation of the effectiveness of a medicine and that any medicine can be tested by them. You have argued that statistical analysis and clinical audit, while they have a degree of value, are not sufficient scientific evidence of a medicine's efficacy - for that you insist on RDBPCT's. You have argued that the homeopathic profession's assertion that RDBPCTs are not a suitable measure of homeopathy's efficacy is special pleading. Please don't make me quote you.

                    You really need to address this or your argument against homeopathy loses all credibility.
                    These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

                    Comment


                    • Indeed, there are some long-term studies - but they are only related to the particular issue related to the immune events associated with the particular illness that the vaccine is supposed to affect (apart from the fact that I could only spot such studies for the years 1990-2000, that is, this sort of research is really a recent development).
                      That is one type of studies. After all, that is one of the very relevant things to study. There are older studies, but they are generaly not openly accessable on the internet.

                      But such studies do not give any references as to what has happened to the overall state of health of the vaccinated population (vs unvaccinated), they do not include epidemiological data such as total days away from school - if it is about children for example, incidence of other types of diseases, including chronic things such as asthma and eczema, for example, allergies etc.

                      Could it be that such clinical surveys are not conducted or at least not disclosed?
                      Such studies also exist.

                      WIth the cholesterol lowering drugs, recently we have seen reports of epidemiological surveys which tell us that while the cholesterol level has been lowered, the total death rate of the user population has not changed for the survey period of 8-15 years compared to a similar group who did not take these drugs (actually, the survey says that the death rate was higher for the lower-cholesterol group - I cannot provide the link
                      as this was published in a Japanese newspaper, and the survey was conducted by one of Japanese Universities in their Medical Department).
                      I think that is a simplified view you are expressing. Lowering Cholesterol with drugs is usually only meaningful in connection with some disease which increases the risk from high Cholesterol (e.g. Diabetes).

                      So while the death-rate from some specific problem might have decreased, another problem appeared "to make up" for this, so the death-rate at least was not improved, at worst - got higher, this point was not quite clear form the newspaper article I have to admit. This does not give an impression of any particular success of the therapy - so my question to Hans is whether this type of medical intervention is really desirable and necessary from his point of view, and how can we know that the same thing is not happening with mass immunisations?
                      That is a very complex question. It is certainly interesting, but I think it is outside the scope of the present debate, which is really about whether Conventional medicine rests on a more scientific base than homeopathy.

                      To give a general answer, however, I will say that in today's marketplace, and we must realise that healthcare is a marketplace, you are not likely to get away with supplying a medication with any large scale of public funding without providing substantial proof of cost-effectiveness. Those in charge of paying are under hard pressure to cut costs. So hard that the concern is often going the other way: Is the public sometimes bereft of effective treatments, due to the costs?

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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                        That is not what you said earlier:
                        Methinks your reading comprehension is suffering. I have repeatedly said that while I consider blinded trials the only way, I am open to suggestions for other methods.

                        You only rejoined the discussion 5 minutes ago and already you are making U-turns.
                        Son, I joined this discussion 5 years ago.

                        This is exactly the type of evidence in favour of homeopathy that exists by the library load. I have been arguing that statistical analysis and clinical audit are a far better measure of homeopathy's effectiveness than RDBPCTs? The general response has been that this type of evidence is considered anecdotal and RDBPCTs are the industry standard.
                        There is a fundamental difference between the type of case accounts that exist for homeopathy, and what is considered a clinical record. If there exists a clinical record for homeopathy, I'm not only unaware of it, but homeopaths I have discussed this with for many years have been unable to point to it.

                        If you are not aware of what constitutes a real clinical record, say so, and I'll try to explain it to you.


                        Well if you accept statistical evidence for a medicines efficacy you will accept that the following validates homeopathy (please note carefully the use of the words statistical and statistics):
                        There is a LITTLE more to statistics than just mentioning a couple of percentages, but I think you really know this.

                        You will, of course, now accept that homeopathy is a scientifically valid therapy proved unequivocally with statistical evidence. Did I mention that there are library loads of statistical evidence in favour of homeopathy? If you will accept this as evidence I will even look up the reference for you.
                        If you have some real stastistical evidence (which will be part of a proper clinical record), then I'll be interested in reviewing it.

                        If an adverse reaction to a vaccine is observed more than 3 weeks after the immunisation it is not considered to be related to the vaccine. Is that what you mean by long-term follow-up analysis?
                        No.

                        Or do you mean that long-term follow-up analysis revealed that the MMR vaccine was found not to convey life long immunity (as was claimed by the pharmaceutical companies) but in fact, only gave immunity for 5 years (if that) and so everyone of college age is now having another series of MMR immunisations with a new improved vaccine that does (apparently) give life long immunity.
                        That is more like it, yes.

                        How can the pharmaceutical company be sure of this when they have only been using the vaccine for a few years? Why were they wrong about the last one?
                        It usually takes about ten years to get a drug to the market, so since this one has been on the market for a few years, it will mean that over a decade of clinical experience must exist. But if you want to know the exact answer, I suggest you seek out the approval reports. They will be publicly available.

                        Incorrect. Homeopathy is by far the most cost effective way to deal with epidemic diseases.
                        No. Now, I don't believe homeopathy can cure the diseases in question at all, but even granted it could, it is certainly more cost effective to use a prophylactic vaccination programme than to let people get sick and then treat them, even if the treatment is quite cheap and effective.

                        There are library loads of this kind of data. Would you like me to post some more examples- with references?
                        Sure, go ahead. But, be aware that a reference is not just a link to some paper that makes the same unfounded claim as you do. It must be verifiable data.

                        You accept then, that a significant number of the medical profession have grave concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
                        Now you are the one playing with words. What I am saying is that the medical profession is laways concerned about safety and efficacy, of any medicine.

                        For most types of vaccines, there are no general such concerns, because the safety and efficacy has long since been documented.

                        Scare-monger? Now who is resorting to personal attacks!
                        I'm not attacking your person, I'm attacking your position. Which is that vaccines are dangerous and inefficient.

                        Well I don't hold much regard for the opinion of an individual who claims to know about science but can't even do basic algebra!
                        Neither do I. Are we talking about anyone I know?

                        If there are epidemics it will be because nobody has natural immunity because their immune systems have been crippled by immunisation. If there are epidemics, homeopathy has a proven track record in effectively treating these diseases. Would you like me to provide you with some statistical evidence - no - wait - I just did!
                        Immune system crippled by immunisation? That doen't even make logical sense.

                        No, you mentioned a couple of percentages, without reference, without any support.

                        1. I don't need to. Clinical audit and statistical evidence are a far better measure of homeopathy's efficacy. Lets talk about that instead.
                        Sure, let's. Do you know at all what those words mean?

                        2. What would you like to know? Dr Ramakrishnan's clinical surveys for the efficacy of his homeopathic treatment for people with cancer? Which cancer are you most interested in?
                        Any you can provide some valid evidence for.

                        Breast Cancer (Pre-plussing method): 190 cases in total out of which 70 were considered viable for treatment (i.e. not in the terminal stage). 40 cases survived 10 years - a success rate of 57%

                        Breast Cancer (Plussing method): 380 cases in total out of which 150 were considered viable for treatment. 120 survived 10 years - a success rate of 80%

                        Reference: A Homeopathic Approach to Cancer by Dr A.U. Ramakrishnan and Catherine R Coulter, Ninth House Publishing, 2001, page 59.

                        3. Dr Ramakrishnan follows his cancer cases up for 10 years.
                        I seem to remember these were discussed elsewhere. I'll see if I can find it.

                        4. Now that is funny. You clearly don't have the first idea about homeopathy! It is an utterly pointless question because homeopathic medicines are well known not to have side-effects! Really, to be so ignorant of something and yet so vehemently against it can only be a form of prejudice!
                        I know homeopathy is claimed to be without side effects, but how do you know? Where are your follow-up surveys? Where is your reporting system?

                        .... I can tell you where: Both are non-existent. You claim that there are no side effects, but you have no way of knowing.

                        The type of evidence you are referring to in support of mass immunisation is no different to the overwhelming evidence in support of homeopathy. You have not addressed this issue at all. Why accept clinical surveys and statistical analysis as evidence for mass immunisation if you will not accept the same in support of homeopathy? You still need to address this question or your arguments against homeopathy lose all credibility!
                        I presented a small faction of the evidence. All in formal report form. But I'm beginning to suspect that you don't understand the difference between that and a bunch of anecdotes.


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

                        Comment


                        • A couple of percentages!!!

                          You call "The AGGREGATE STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR THE TREATMENT OF CHOLERA IN EUROPE AND AMERICA" a couple of percentages???

                          Just let me emphasise - that is mortality rates for ALL HOSPITALS IN THE ENTIRE CONTINENT OF EUROPE AND THE WHOLE OF AMERICA!!!

                          And you dismiss that as a couple of percentages! LMAO!!!

                          And you want people to take you seriously as a scientist? Maths really isn't your strong point is it Mr Hans?

                          Address the question please - you are rapidly losing all credibility.
                          These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

                          Comment


                          • I think that it has to be remembered that Homeopathy did and does present a conundrum for all the allopathists and their apologists. Homeopathy grew up within an era where epidemics were raging throughout the western world. How is it then that it has survived? It could only be that it is effective in treatment and prevention of disease. Are all the practitioners of Homeopathy today totally deluded and at best are only seeing a placebo effect?

                            Yeah right! Get real! Such a pointless game does fly in the face of common sense, which apparently I am suffering a lack of.

                            How come all the nay sayers - who at best could only be called theoretical (this is a very polite term for them) practitioners of homeopathy don't get their hands dirty by really studying and applying the art and science of Homeopathy? Could it be that like all critics they can't be bothered or more likely are so unsuited to this way that they must hide within the ironclad walls of of willfulness, hand sitting, doing the opposite of what works and refusing to tolerate any difference?

                            If it works it works, doesn't matter how many papers you look at. Simply put, there is no money in it for the forces of Pharmageddon. They don't give a toss, really they don't. Money and power is their god and they are willing to sacrifice everyone for their personal gain. Put someone on allopathic medication for long enough, get some "side effects" (direct effects) give more medication to control these, ad nauseum, and you have a paying customer for the rest of their now miserable life. If you reckon that this is good medicine then look again, "First do no harm".

                            Miracles are performed every day in the modern medical arena, truly they are, surgery and the A&E departments work wonders, diagnostics are better that ever (it all costs $$$) and yet we dare bring a potent force in practicing Homeopathy to which you cry "sympathetic magic, lies and delusion". Check it out, get a life and make a difference in the time you've been given.

                            Brad

                            Comment


                            • MRC-Hans,

                              Thank you for the answer and I'm glad to note that you are interested in these issues, but you are also right that maybe it's a different topic, so I'll not go on with my questions and comments here and now.

                              One comment, however, I thought I should make - about "cost-effectiveness". Japanese education has been recently assessed from this angle and found cost-effective - but if you could ever interact on the daily basis with the "products" of this education as I do, there is just no way that you would not have started to doubt whether this approach - involving notions such as "market-place" and "cost-effectiveness" etc. - is of any use at all when dealing with any basic human activity, be it healthcare or education or anything else, and that humanity urgently needs to find a different approach to solve its problems of survival - or it won't survive.

                              Comment


                              • Quote by sim:
                                ................................ If there are epidemics, homeopathy has a proven track record in effectively treating these diseases....................................




                                Homeopathy continued to be effective in the treatment of Epidemic
                                Cholera. In 1854 a Cholera Epidemic struck London. This was a
                                historically important epidemic in that it was the first time the
                                medical community was able to trace the outbreak to a source (a public
                                water pump), and when the pump was closed, the epidemic soon ceased.
                                The House of Commons asked for a report about the various methods of
                                treating the epidemic. When the report was issued, the homeopathic
                                figures were not included. The House of Lords asked for an explanation,
                                and it was admitted that if the homeopathic figures were to be included
                                in the report, it would "skew the results." The suppressed report
                                revealed that under allopathic care the mortality was 59.2% while under
                                homeopathic care the mortality was only 9%.

                                It is hard today to comprehend what kind of scourge such an epidemic
                                was. As was seen in the later Flu Epidemic of 1918, one could be
                                healthy in the morning and be dead by evening-- it moved that rapidly.
                                Many books were written about the Homeopathic treatment of Cholera
                                during these times, among them: Cholera and its Homeopathic treatment,
                                F. Humphreys (1849); Homeopathic Treatment of Cholera, B.F. Joslin
                                (1854); Homeopathic Domestic Treatment of Cholera, Biegler (1858);
                                Epidemic Cholera, B. F. Joslin (1885); Asiatic Cholera, Jabez Dake
                                (1886).

                                The success of homeopathic treatment continued with the later cholera
                                epidemics. In the Hamburg epidemic of 1892, allopathic mortality was
                                42%, homeopathic mortality was 15.5% During the 1850s, there were
                                several epidemics of Yellow Fever in the southern states. This disease
                                was eventually found to be transmitted by mosquito. Osler, says that
                                the allopathic mortality from Yellow Fever is between 15-85%. Holcome,
                                a homeopath, reported in 1853 a mortality of 6.43% in Natchez, and Dr.
                                Davis, another homeopath in Natchez, reported 5.73%. In 1878 the
                                mortality in New Orleans was 50% under allopathic care, and 5.6% (in
                                1,945 cases in the same epidemic) with homeopathic care.

                                The two best books on this topic were: Yellow Fever and its Homeopathic
                                Treatment, Holcome, (1856) and The Efficacy of Crotalus Horridus in
                                Yellow Fever, C. Neidhard, (1860).

                                Another epidemic disease which was treatable with homeopathy was
                                Diphtheria. Since the advent of widespread vaccination, it is a disease
                                not often seen in our modern world. Diphtheria appeared periodically,
                                and rarely had the same presentation. It was, therefore, very important
                                for the practitioner to individualize the treatment in each specific
                                case or generalized epidemic. A remedy which had been effective in
                                treating it one year might not be the same remedy needed the next year.
                                "Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X