Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

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

  • Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
    Ahh, and on this:




    ...Which I assume is from the article above.

    He lost no choleric patient, and many recovered??? What happened to the rest? Those that neither died ("I lost the patient" is a common MD euphemism from "this patient died from me") nor recovered? I mean, cholera is a self-limiting condition, with some mortality, so we should assume that if no patients were lost, then all recovered.

    Hans
    I was just glossing over that and presuming it to be something to do with the way people used language back then.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by moopet View Post
      Leaving aside for a moment what he means by none vs. many, are you saying that in this instance a single remedy was used to cure all the patients? Sounds like this would be repeatable in a RDBPCT, because Korsakov didn't need to do any of that individualisation you were saying was all-important?

      Can you clear this up?
      The use of Specifics in Classical Homeopathy is legitimate in the treatment of epidemic diseases. Epidemic diseases seem to disturb the health in a uniform way, regardless of the particular sensitivities of the individual. Therefore, there is less need for individualisation in epidemics.

      In the 1918 'flu epidemic, the specific medicine was Gelsemium.

      In the 1830 cholera epidemic, Hahnemann identified the specific medicines without ever having seen a case of the disease. They were Camphor, Cuprum Met. and Veratrum Album.
      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


      • Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
        A long tearful story about the alleged prosecution of homeopathy. Where is me handkerchief??

        Seriously, if you have derived your statistical information from that source, please point to the exact place (page) where it is. I couldn't find it on a cursory look, and I have neither the time nor the stomack to read through the whole article.

        Hans
        You have asked for statistical and clinical surveys in support of homeopathy and requested references.

        You have been provided with a comprehensive, well-referenced thesis detailing the precise statistics for the treatment of cholera (a comprehensive clinical survey) and you can't even be bothered to read it? Once again you attempt to dismiss valid evidence with flippant remarks. Being dismissive of the evidence does not negate the evidence itself Mr Hans. It simply makes the individual appear arrogant and foolish.

        It is becoming obvious, Mr Hans, that you are one of those people that continues to insist he is right long after he has been unequivocally proved wrong. Is there any point in continuing to debate this with you?

        Q: If statistical/ clinical evidence is good enough to justify mass immunisation, especially considering the current concerns of some of the medical community regarding this practice - why isn't the same considered valid in relation to homeopathy?

        Address the question please, 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


        • From "Homeopathic Drug Pictures, by M.L. Tyler, ISBN 0 85032 021 6, 1995, Preface (page xv):

          Moreover that Homœopathy can successfully combat a disease never seen, but whose symptoms are known, was abundantly proved by statistics, which poured in from all parts of the world when cholera, described by Hahnemann as "that mysterious and murderous pest" was "rushing on Europe in 1830". He prepared his followers to deal with it, with what success the following statistics, amoun many others, exemplify. His chief remedies were camphor, for the early stages; very frequently repeated, "till consciousness, rest and sleep return, and he is saved".

          Camphor poisoning displays all the symptoms of early cholera. "In the second and more difficult stage of clonic spasmodic character, with vomiting, purging and excessively painful cramp in calves, etc., if Camphor has not helped in fifteen minutes give Cuprum, in potency, every hour or half-our; or, where there are excessive vomiting, excessive purging, excessive cold sweats the remedy is Veratrum alb."

          We read, inter alia, "Cholera came first by way of Russia. The Russian Consul General reported results from Homœopathic treatment in Russia in 1830-1. Of 70 cases treated in two places, all were cured. And of 1,270 cases, 1,162 were cured and only 108 died. (The allopathic mortality in Russia was 60-70 percent.)"[1]

          Dr. Wiled, an allopathic surgeon (Ed. Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medicine), in his Austria, its Literary, Scientific and Medical Treatments, wrote: "Upon comparing the report made of the treatment of cholera in the Homœopathic Hospital at Vienna with that of the other hospitals a the same time, it appears that while two-thirds of those treated homœopathically were cured, two-thirds of those treated by the other hospitals died. This extraordinary result led Count Kolowrat, Minister of the Interior, to repeal the law relative to the practice of Homœopathy.[1]

          A Dr. Perrussel (South of France) attended the poor villagers who have been suffering from sweating sickness and from cholera. His mortality under (homœopathic) treatment was 5 to 7 percent. ; the allopathic mortality here was 90 percent.[2]

          In Guatemala in 1854, a Baptist missionary was given ten days imprisonment by a coroner. His real offence was curing, by gratuitous administration of homœopathic medicines, a large proportion of cholera patients, when the hospital treatment did not cure one.

          In 1854 Cholera broke out violently round our, then, London Hospital, whose 25 beds were devoted to the treatment of cholera and choleraic diarrhoea. Returns give 61 cases of cholera with 10 deaths, and 341 cases of choleraic diarrhoea with 1 death. While, besides the cases treated in hospital or 1,200 bottles of Camphor were given to the poor who flocked in crowds to get them.

          Detailed returns had to be made by all hospitals and practitioners as to treatment and results in cholera. When these were presented to Parliament the homœopathic statistics were missing; were demanded, and had to be produced. The excuse was embodied in the following resolution of the Medical body concerned:

          "Resolved that by introducing the returns of homœopathic practitioners, they would not only compromise the value and utility of their average cure, as deduced from the operation of know remedies, but they would give an unjustifiable sanction to an empirical practice alike opposed to the maintenance of truth and to the progress of science." – British Journal of Homœopathy, xiii., p. 466.

          But, the most brilliant cholera work was done by D. Rubini in the Naples epidemic of 1854-5. With camphor alone he treated in the R. Albergo dei Poveri 225 cases of cholera without a single death, and 166 soldiers of the 3rd Swiss Regiment with the same success. "Spirits of Camphor", in consequence, for many years –probably still- has borne his name.
          Bradford Logic of Figures. States, p. 137. "The aggregate statistics of results of allopathic treatment of cholera in Europe and America a mortality of over 40 per cent. ; statistics of homœopathic treatment a mortality of less than 9 per cent."

          1. - Bradford's Logic of Figures (1900).
          2. - British Journal of Homœopathy 1854, pp. 521, 686.
          Last edited by Similibus; 1st October 2008, 06:05 PM. Reason: Reference to footnote missing
          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


          • Originally posted by Similibus View Post
            The use of Specifics in Classical Homeopathy is legitimate in the treatment of epidemic diseases. Epidemic diseases seem to disturb the health in a uniform way, regardless of the particular sensitivities of the individual. Therefore, there is less need for individualisation in epidemics.

            In the 1918 'flu epidemic, the specific medicine was Gelsemium.

            In the 1830 cholera epidemic, Hahnemann identified the specific medicines without ever having seen a case of the disease. They were Camphor, Cuprum Met. and Veratrum Album.
            So something uniform, like, say, infecting patients with rhinovirus sprayed up the nose would be treatable with a specific remedy?
            It could be an RDBPCT, right?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by moopet View Post
              So something uniform, like, say, infecting patients with rhinovirus sprayed up the nose would be treatable with a specific remedy?
              It could be an RDBPCT, right?
              Rhinoviruses are a major cause of the common cold according to allopathic doctrine (but not according to homeopathic doctrine). A cold is an acute disease and is not the same as a true epidemic disease. We have hundreds of medicines to treat common colds, differentiated by the characteristic symptoms. However, if a common cold is doing the rounds - most cases of that particular cold will respond to a specific remedy (specific to that particular cold, not to common colds in general). The most useful homeopathic medicine this year is likely to be of no use at all next year.

              I am preparing a post in response to MRC_Hans's previous nitpicks where I will briefly discuss causation according to homeopathic doctrine. It is another area where homeopathy has a much more comprehensive persepective than allopathic theory. In acute disease the most significant thing to determine in terms of selecting the similar medicine, is it's 'exciting cause'. This can be fluctuating temperatures, wet weather, a sudden chill, etc.

              To the homeopath, the cause of a cold is not considered to be a rhinovirus, as the homeopath is more concerned with what made the patient susceptible to the rhinovirus in the first place. If colds were caused by rhinoviruses, as allopathy mistakenly believes, then everyone who came into contact with the virus would develop the cold. This would mean, for example, that if one child in a school developed a cold then the whole school should eventually contract the cold as the virus is spread around. This is clearly not the case. Susceptibility plays a big part.

              Incidentally, medical science only recently discovered that catching a chill can result in symptoms of a cold. They conducted an experiment where they made the subjects sit with their feet in buckets of cold water for hours on end. This groundbreaking science was reported on the 6 o'clock news a year or so ago. Until this experiment they had maintained that colds are caused solely by the transmission of germs. After the experiment they mumbled something about how catching a chill can make the blood vessels contract, restricting blood flow and possibly compromising the WBCs ability move around the body and fight the infection.

              This a classic example of modern science lagging far behind common knowledge. My Grandmother, and her mother too, knew that catching a chill could give one a cold - that's why she always cautioned me to wear a hat in cold weather. The very fact that we call it a 'cold' suggests that we have known this ever since we developed a word for it. Medical science only 'discovered' it within the last year or so. Ah well, such is modern medical science.

              Nice idea though.
              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


              • Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                Rhinoviruses are a major cause of the common cold according to allopathic doctrine (but not according to homeopathic doctrine).
                Are you claiming that administering rhinovirus nasally would not infect the patient? Because it's certainly been done. What would be the result of this according to homeopathy? (see below)
                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                A cold is an acute disease and is not the same as a true epidemic disease.
                Do you mean something by "epidemic" other than its pervasiveness? Other than is meant by normal understanding of the word? If it's administered by doctors to patients, what's the difference?
                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                We have hundreds of medicines to treat common colds, differentiated by the characteristic symptoms. However, if a common cold is doing the rounds - most cases of that particular cold will respond to a specific remedy (specific to that particular cold, not to common colds in general). The most useful homeopathic medicine this year is likely to be of no use at all next year.
                So infect some patients all with the same virus. Figure out which of your remedies you think cures the cold. Infect more patients. Test with placebo and verum.
                How can this be a problem?
                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                I am preparing a post in response to MRC_Hans's previous nitpicks where I will briefly discuss causation according to homeopathic doctrine. It is another area where homeopathy has a much more comprehensive persepective than allopathic theory. In acute disease the most significant thing to determine in terms of selecting the similar medicine, is it's 'exciting cause'. This can be fluctuating temperatures, wet weather, a sudden chill, etc.

                To the homeopath, the cause of a cold is not considered to be a rhinovirus, as the homeopath is more concerned with what made the patient susceptible to the rhinovirus in the first place. If colds were caused by rhinoviruses, as allopathy mistakenly believes, then everyone who came into contact with the virus would develop the cold.
                Seems to work that way under lab conditions, certainly.
                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                This would mean, for example, that if one child in a school developed a cold then the whole school should eventually contract the cold as the virus is spread around. This is clearly not the case. Susceptibility plays a big part.
                I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a controlled trial. I don't care is Wendy in the playground doesn't catch a cold off Peter. Obviously in everyday life some people have full or partial immunity, some have more or less exposure time, etc. Please stay in the context of testing.
                Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                Nice idea though.
                Tell me what's wrong with it without contradicting yourself.

                Comment


                • O.K.

                  I do not consider a common cold to be an epidemic disease. I consider it to be an acute disease, which is different, and negates the use of Specifics. I'm not even sure if conventional medicine would consider a cold to be an epidemic disease, would it?

                  You are making the assumption that the particular strain of rhinovirus is responsible for producing the particular symptom syndrome of the cold. The strain of virus does not determine particular symptoms or we would be able to prescribe a medicine based on the particular strain of virus. The particular symptoms are determined by the current susceptibility of the patient, which is more likely to have been influenced by recent weather, than by the particular strain of rhinovirus present.

                  Aphhorism 5 of The Organon: "In addition, it will help the phisician to bring about a cure if he can determine the most probable exciting cause in an acute disease..."

                  I would know which group of medicines to consider if a cold was brought on by catching a sudden chill, or by getting drenched in a downpour, or from exposure to fluctuating temperatures (e.g. current autumn weather). I would not have a clue how to approach the homeopathic treatment of a cold that was artificially induced by spraying rhinovirus up a person's nose. In fact, I would consider it to be quite a challenge and I would not be very hopeful of a cure - the prognosis for homeopathic treatment would be extremely poor IMO.

                  What is it that you want to test Moopet? If you are looking for evidence that a hyper-dilute medicine can have a specific effect there are suggestions I could make - but this would not be a test of homeopathy. It would be a test of a Specific Hyper-Dilute Medicine. To test homeopathy the medicine must be prescribed according to the Principles of Homeopathy, or it is not homeopathy. There is no getting away from this small but important distinction.

                  If you would like to test a Specific Hyper-Dilute Medicine, you could give a single dose of Sulphur 30c to every baby that develops eczema within 3 months of an immunisation. More than 60% would show a measurable response within a few weeks of taking the medicine (my estimate), providing no previous treatment had been given. If those that responded were given Sulphur 30c at weekly intervals for 4 weeks, >80% would show a definitive response (my estimate), although you would be likely to see some severe aggravations.

                  The approach you are looking for is a prescription based on aetiology. This is where symptoms develop subsequent to a specific event that poses a definite shock to the system. Where it is absolutely clear that the shock was the cause of the symptoms, homeopaths will often give an aetiological specific - a prescription specific to the cause. There are usually only a handful of medicines that address a specific aetiological shock. In my opinion, this would be your best approach for testing a Specific Hyper-Dilute Medicine through RDBPCT's.
                  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


                  • Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    Probably not. It does, however, respond to a number of factors beside medical treatment.
                    Please give examples.

                    Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    In principle, yes. The big question is: How do you "see that it cures?"
                    Well, when a patient with eczema takes a homeopathic medicine and the eczema goes away, for example.

                    Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    Nice explanation. Not quite in accordance with original Hanemannian doctrine, though. You have left out the vital principle, the notion that disease must allways be a malfunction of the vital principle,[1] and the implication that the body can only holde one disease at a time.[2]

                    This omission is perhaps wise, since contemporary knowledge of how the body functions,[3] and of what causes diseases[4] massively contradicts the Hahnemannian notion.
                    1. Science is slowly catching up with Hahnemann and confirming his work. You like the explanation because it is was presented to you in language you can understand - keeping it on a level, so to speak. It is by no means definitive nor comprehensive. You are still in the Dark Ages, remember?

                    Actually the negative feedback systems involved in homeostasis are a physiological confirmation that the Law of Similars is the Curative Principle in Medicine. To correct you, they are in accordance with this Law although they are not the only example of it. Of course, the processes involved in health, disease and cure are a great deal more complex than this. I am happy to discuss any aspect of homeopathy with you, but let's take things one step at a time.

                    2. There is no implication that the body can hold only one disease at a time. There is recognition of the fact that the body cannot hold two similar diseases at the same time.

                    3. Contemporary knowledge of how the body functions is still very much in it's infancy, despite our best efforts. If we can fill a single library with our current knowledge, we could fill a city of libraries with what is still to learn.

                    4. Knowledge of what causes disease is another is another area where homeopathy has a much more comprehensive perspective than allopathy. Homeopathy recognises that there are usually several factors involved in causation, and not just one. which is prevailing view in allopathy (germ theory).

                    This is best addressed in a separate post.

                    Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    Also, of course, you say that the medicine is "extremely dilute". That is, for most of the remedies used in practical, classical homeopathy, a gross understatement; according to anything we know about physics, they are diluted out of existence.
                    My point here is that physics obviously needs to re-evaluate it's perspective. If just one hyper-dilute homeopathic medicine cures an illness (e.g. cholera) in just one case, we have strong evidence that a hyper-dilute medicine has an effect. But when tens of thousands of cases have been published by medically qualified practitioners, we have sufficient evidence to throw our current understanding of physics in to question. Just because science cannot explain how homeopathy works does not mean that it cannot possibly work. It can just as easily mean that our current understanding of physics needs to be updated.


                    Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    Unfortunately, the omission also kills the internal logic that did after all exist in Hahnemann's explanation: The basic flaw is that your medicine mimicks, not the effects of the disease, but the body's reactions to it. For instance, when the patient runs a fever, it is not an effect of the disease; it is the body's countermeasure against the disease. Now, if your medicine mimicks that symptom (I'm aware that few remedies address fever, it is just an example) it is really countering the body's method of fighting the disease.
                    You are missing the essential point that the symptoms themselves are the disease to all intents and purposes. If there are no symptoms how do we know we have a disease? The symptoms are all that need to be removed to return the sick person back to health. The fever is both an effect of the disease and part of the body's reaction to it. If there was no disease there would be no fever - the disease is the cause - the fever is an effect. As the homeopathic medicine produces similar symptoms in the healthy person, it is not counteracting the body's method of fighting the disease - it is intensifying and assisting the body's natural response to the disease, stimulating it along the lines it is has already chosen, working with the body's own natural intelligence, and supporting it's efforts. The direct opposite of what you have suggested.


                    Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    And to a certain degree, he was right.
                    I wonder if we will look at the practices of immunisation (injecting 6 week old babies with various deadly toxins and attenuated viruses) and chemotherapy (infusing a person with [mostly] heavy metals to the limit of their physical tolerance, with the aim of making the body so toxic that it's functions start to shut down) in a similar way in another 100 years time?



                    Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    Actually, I have not seen any of his biographers claim that he lived a meagre living. Do you have a reference for this?
                    Tedious nitpicking Mr Hans. It is hardly a significant point in the overall discussion, now is it? Tedious, tedious, tedious. Why do want a reference for this insignificant piece of trivia? If you are going to insist that I provide references for every insignificant fact, I shall insist that you do the same. It is, in fact, correct - go read your biographies again!

                    Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    Not quite true. Since long before Hypocrates, the law of similars and the law of opposites have been among the hypotheses in circulation.
                    Tedious nitpicking Mr Hans: "In the fifth century BC[E] Hippocrates (c.470-400 BC[E]), the 'father of medicine', wrote that there were two methods of healing: by 'contraries' and by 'similars'..." Reference: The Complete Homeopathy Handbook: A Guide to Everyday Healthcare by Miranda Castro, Macmillan Publishers, 1990, page 3.

                    Now please provide a reference from "before the time of Hippocrates" supporting your above comment (yawn).



                    Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    Yes, this is one of the intriguing anecdotes of homeopathy. You see, attempts to replicate it have always failed: Neither Perivian Bark, nor what was later discovered to be the active substance in it, quinine, will give symptoms like malaria when given to healthy persons.

                    So why did Hahnemann report such symptoms? Well, we shall never know, but several possibilities exist:

                    1) He was allergic to some substance in the preparation he took.
                    2) The preparation he had happened to contain some foreign substance that caused his symptoms.
                    3) His taking the substance happened to coincide with some infection causing the observed symptoms.
                    4) He *gasp* made the story up after the fact.

                    As you can see, whatever the explanation, one of the cornerstones of Hahnemann's basic theory turns out to be nonexistent.
                    At last- A valid criticism! The most likely explanation is:

                    5) Hahnemann had a personal medical history of malarial fever and consequently would have had an increased susceptibility to Chinchona (Peruvian Bark).



                    Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    Often? Already retreating, ehh? Now if homeopathic doctrine is true, this has to be a universal principle! "Often" is simply not good enough.
                    It is your understanding of homeopathic doctrine that is at fault here, not homeopathic doctrine itself. Homeopathic Doctrine states that a medicine that is capable of causing a specific symptom syndrome in the healthy will cure the exact same symptom syndrome occurring naturally in a person that is sick.

                    It does NOT state that a medicine that is capable of curing a specific symptom syndrome in a person who is sick will always cause the exact same symptom syndrome when given to the healthy. This, quite frankly, would be ridiculous, especially in terms of the polychrests, which have many uses. You simply have it the wrong way around.



                    Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    Unfortunately, satisfying himself is not good enough. Neither is your capitalisation of words. To declare something a natural law based on a few experiments is not good science. It wasn't good science in Hahenmann's time, either.
                    Once again, the best you can come up with is a dismissive remark that is entirely incorrect. Hahnemann did not declare the Law of Similars a natural law based on the outcome of only a few experiments. He declared it a natural law after thousands of experiments confirmed it consistently. It has since been confirmed by millions of experiments conducted by homeopaths around the world over the last 200 years or so.

                    Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    Which was just the same as his contemporary practioners, whom he detested so much, did: Try some medicine on the patients, and if they survived, he chalked it up as another victory for his principle. That had gone on for millienna, nothing new there.
                    Another tedious, dismissive, incorrect comment. Do you have anything of value to contribute to this discussion? How else was he to test his theories? At least he went to the trouble of testing his medicines on the healthy first to ascertain their effects (which had never been thought of by anyone in history before him), of prescribing them according to clearly comprehensible principles (The Law of Similars), of prescribing them as single medicines so that he could assess what they were doing (instead of noxious combinations of lethal poisons prescribed with no idea as to their effects) and gave consideration as to the minimum dose required (as opposed to 'the more the better').



                    Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    No. You are making this up. Hahnemann does not describe anything about a specific limit, and with good reason: We are here talking about a common dose-dependent pharmacologic effect, and the point where a dilution has no observable effect will vary widely from substance to substance.
                    More tedious nitpicking. I said I wasn't entirely sure I had all my facts straight. I wrote that part of the post from memory in less than two minutes. I believe it is generally correct and tells the story concisely. There is a great deal more to the story. It shows that Hahnemann did not develop his theories out of thin air.

                    Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    Oh, the big mystery ritual, "succussion"! How come you never say "violent shaking"? Perhaps it takes too much magic out of it? It is not so mysterious why he did that: That is standard procedure when you want to mix something. Especially as some of the substances he experimented with are not really soluble in water: Of course he had to shake them well.
                    Until Hahnemann developed this method many of these substances were considered insoluble in water. The method Hahnemann developed for making mercury soluble is still used to this day. It is a testimony to his competence as a chemist. Succussion is the correct term.



                    Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    Exactly! Even Hahnemann himself acknowledged this. Why is it we still need to discuss this matter with some homeopaths (present company, apparantly, not included)?
                    I am not aware of any homeopath who claims otherwise.

                    Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    Yeah, and this is where he left the path of science: When the facts did not support his theory, he invented an ad-hoc hypothesis.
                    You forgot to add 'according to current scientific understanding'. None of Hahnemann's positive theories have been disproved.

                    Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    Excuse me? You are not sure you have all your facts straight, but you still proceed to declare something "the Pure Science of Medical Therapeutics"? ... And YOU talk about credibility???
                    See above. This part of the post is biographical and illustrates that Hahnemann did not develop his theories out of thin air - I am making it clear that it is a biographical story and may not be 100% factually correct. It discusses the development of Hahnemann's thinking and some of the experiments that he conducted to test his theories. It has only a cursory relevance to the pure science that is contained within homeopathy itself. This science is being discussed as the thread develops, and there is a great deal more science to discuss - we have hardly begun. We could cover more ground more quickly if you would check your facts before making criticisms - too many of them are of minor relevance and wholly incorrect.

                    I am flattered that you consider me to be such a great authority on homeopathy that my fallible opinion reflects on the science itself. I am still very much a student of homeopathy - I am continually looking for ways to develop my understanding of its principles and practice. However, I assure you Mr Hans, that homeopathy IS the Science of Medical Therapeutics - the science which makes sense of the processes involved in health, disease and cure, the branch of knowledge or study relating to the administering of medicines for the cure of disease, which has systematically arranged the relevant facts or truths involved in the development of it's defining principles, and importantly, which demonstrates the operation of general Laws.

                    Q: Does allopathy meet with this definition of a Pure Medical Science?

                    Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                    Please explain: Why should I give you any credibility at all?
                    You have yet to provide a valid criticism for any of my main points. You do not seem to have a main point. I have defended homeopathy from your petty criticisms. You have failed to defend allopathy from my valid criticisms. I am in the process of establishing that homeopathy meets with the definition of a pure science. You have not attempted to show that allopathy meets with any definition of science at all. I am contributing well-developed, cohesive arguments to the discussion. You have contributed very little of value. I can accept that occasionally I might be wrong. You have yet to concede a single point. I have addressed your questions. You have deliberately evaded mine.
                    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


                    • Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                      I wish I could say the same about your answer.
                      Flippant. Dismissive. Childish (lacks wit).

                      Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                      Excuse me? Is gravity not easy to measure?? Surely you joke? Not all known forces are easy to measure, but gravity is by far the easiest. We have been measuring it since prehistoric times (on an instrument called a scale).
                      You are either much cleverer than I thought, Mr Hans, or spectacularly dense. Just how would you go about measuring - lets say for example - the moon's gravitational pull, with a set of weighing scales? Please provide references to back up your claim that prehistoric man was able to do this.

                      Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                      Oh, fine, we seem to have gotten religion out of it. But, not mystical? This is something we cannot measure, cannot observe, cannot know exists, still you claim it is not mystical?
                      I can measure Vital Force, I can observe it, I know that it exists - it is not mystical to me. You, however, are still in the Dark Ages, remember? For you, the Earth is flat, and the Sun is God and Vital Force is mystical.


                      Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                      Ahh, so "Vital Force" is simply another expression for biochemistry? OK, fine! We have a comprehensive knowledge about that. Not perfect, but extremely comprehensive.
                      Biochemistry explains the physiological processes of life but it doesn't explain what motivates them.

                      Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                      Oh, nonsense! Science has investigated it at great lenght, and it would take you years to read up on it, but there is no need. As long as you define "Vital Force" as "what distinguishes living from dead", we are solidly on scientific ground.
                      That is not my definition. There are many ways of distinguishing the living from the dead - a heartbeat, for example.

                      If science really has investigated these things extensively, please provide us with some references or links. Many on this forum would be extremely interested to read them.

                      Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                      Well, here is the catch: Your definition, above, does NOT support homeopathic doctrine.
                      Now I would be interested here if I thought I might learn something. Somehow, I'm doubtful. Please enlighten me, Mr Hans (having first made sure that you have not got it backwards like so many times before). Where is the discrepancy?
                      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


                      • Causation

                        Originally posted by MRC_Hans View Post
                        Nice explanation. Not quite in accordance with original Hanemannian doctrine, though. You have left out the vital principle, the notion that disease must allways be a malfunction of the vital principle, and the implication that the body can only holde one disease at a time.

                        This omission is perhaps wise, since contemporary knowledge of how the body functions, and of what causes diseases massively contradicts the Hahnemannian notion.
                        Knowledge of what causes disease is another is another area where homeopathy has a much more comprehensive perspective than allopathy. Homeopathy recognises that there are usually several factors involved in causation, and not just one. which is the prevailing view in allopathic medicine and the target of most if their treatments (germ theory).


                        Let us continue with the example of cholera:

                        "In cholera, for example, admitting the existence and presence of the bacilli as one causative factor, We still have to reckon with sanitary, atmospheric and telluric conditions; with economic and social conditions and habits of life; with means and modes of transportation and intercommunication between individuals and communities; with individual physical, mental and emotional states, etc., all of which are essential factors, in some combination, in determining and modifying the susceptibility of individuals to the bacilli; for without some combination of these factors the bacilli are impotent and, the disease would never occur, Each of these factors is a cause at least equal in rank with the bacilli, and any successful, method of treatment must be able to meet all the conditions arising from any existing combination of the causes.

                        This may seem like an impossible requirement, but experience proves that homœopathy, with a mortality record in cholera as low as four per cent and less, against a record as high as seventy per cent under other forms of treatment, is able to meet it. The secret of this, success is that homœopathy does not direct its efforts primarily or solely to the destruction of the proximate physical cause of the disease (the micro-organism), but against the disease itself; that is, the morbid vital process as manifested by the symptoms...

                        ...Thus diphtheria, may be prevalent in a community, and the specific micro-organisms (Klebs-Lœffler bacilli) of that disease be present in the throats of many healthy individuals; but if those individuals have a high or sufficient resistance to the action of the bacilli, and are not therefore susceptible to infection, they destroy the bacilli and escape the disease. The necessary combination of positive facts and conditions does not exist for them.

                        The power of the bacilli or other infectious agents is always relative and conditional, never absolute, as many are led to believe. The bacilli, therefore are not the sole cause of the disease, but only one possible factor in a group or combination of causes or conditions, all of which must exist and act together before the disease can follow."

                        Reference: The Genius of Homeopathy: Lectures and Essays on Homeopathic Philosophy by Stuart Close, B. Jain Publishers 1996, pages 268-269.


                        And in support of this:

                        "In 1893 Koch was sent by the German government on a special mission to India to study Asiatic cholera. He discovered and was able to demonstrate the presence, in the intestines of cholera patients, of a spiral, threadlike bacterium which readily breaks up, into little curved segments like a comma, each less than 1/10,000, of an inch in length. These microscopical living organisms multiply with great rapidity and swarm by the million in the intestines of such patients. Koch showed that they can be cultivated artificially in dilute gelatine broth and obtained in spoonfuls. He also showed that cholera could be produced in animals by administering to them a pure, concentrated culture of these germs, although it was only done with great difficulty after many experiments. He therefore held that the germs were the cause of cholera.

                        Other investigators, however, for a time failed to duplicate his results and refused to accept Koch's conclusion. Pettenkofer, of Munich, who did not believe that the comma bacillus was the effective cause of cholera, to prove his contention, bravely swallowed a whole spoonful of the cultivated germs. His assistants did the same and none suffered any ill effect, This somewhat spectacular demonstration did not impress others, however, many of whom realized that it must be necessary for the human intestine to be in a favorable or susceptible condition, an unhealthy condition, for the bacillus to thrive and multiply in it.

                        A little later Metchnikoff of Paris repeated Pettenkofer's experiment. He swallowed a cultivated mass of the bacilli on three successive days and bad no injurious result. Others in his laboratory did the same with the result of only a slight intestinal disturbance. But of a dozen who thus put the matter to the proof in the Pasteur Institute, one individual acquired an attack of the Indian cholera which very nearly caused his death. That put an end to such experiments and conclusively demonstrated that Koch's comma bacillus is really capable of producing true cholera, when right conditions exist.

                        Reference: The Genius of Homeopathy: Lectures and Essays on Homeopathic Philosophy by Stuart Close, B. Jain Publishers 1996, page 68.
                        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


                        • Similibus, if you're going to complain that people are nit-picking when they ask you to back up what you class as insignificant trivia, it seems logical to suggest you simply don't come out with it in the first place. It obviously has no benefit to the discussion.

                          The last few comments regarding testing Vital Force and gravity seem to be particularly bizarre, with different standards coming into play and seemingly circular logic.

                          Also, just a note to say I'm not going to be able to post so much so often since I'm starting a new job in (checks watch) 1h2m.

                          Comment


                          • I have no objection to valid, justifiable, relevant criticisms of the arguments I have presented- the discussion would be richer for it. What I object to, and will continue to object to, is petty, insignificant criticisms of minor, inconsequential statements that have little bearing on the wider points that are being discussed. Criticism, only for criticism's sake. Especially when these criticisms and attempts at contradictions are, on the whole, entirely incorrect.

                            If criticising a minor, supporting point brings down the main argument, then it is valid and I welcome it. But asking for a reference to a biography in relation to Hahnemann's income? How is that relevant to anything we have discussed?

                            "Hahnemann's financial situation deteriorated still further. The arrival of their fourth daughter, Caroline, who was delicate like the rest of their children, was an added burden in their struggle against poverty...With no access to library facilities, he had no alternative but to work in the single in room occupied by the whole family. To avoid the often noisy distractions of the children, most of his writing was done when they were asleep...he would work by candlelight in a corner of the ill-heated room, behind a curtain until four or five o'clock in the morning..."

                            And later

                            "After toiling all day at his task of translating works for the press, he frequently assisted his brave-hearted wife to wash the family clothes at night and as they were unable to purchase soap they employed raw potatoes for this purpose. The quantity of bread he was able to earn by his writing for his large family was so small that he had to weigh out to each an equal portion..."

                            Reference: Samuel Hahnemann: His Life and Times by Trevor M. Cook, 1993, ISBN: 0 9522282 0 3, page 56.

                            So I have defended my statement and established that Hahnemann was hard-up for a while. How is that relevant to the discussion? It is not. Was the criticism valid? It was not. Was it correct? It was not. What was the point of it? I can't see one.

                            Let us hear what you have to say regarding Vital Foce and Gravitational Force. I will admit that I understand Homeopathy better than I understand physics. Please justify your statement.

                            My point is that life is a natural Force, like gravity is a natural Force, and that, as far as I am aware, physics does not recognise it as such and has never investigated it, or at least has not been able to reach satisfactory conclusions in relation to it. Why is conventional science opposed to it? Is it because it considers Vital Force to be related to God and not science? This perspective is inaccurate and cannot be justified. Life is a natural Force - that's obvious isn't it?

                            Vital Force is the natural force that relates to living and dying, to health and disease - that's quite an important one. Why is science so disinterested in it? Perhaps it is because the branch of science that would be responsible for investigating Vital Force is Medical Science - and medical science is dominated by pharmaceutical medicine - and a full recognition and understanding of this force would mean the end of pharamacuetical medicine's dominance. So it has never been fully acknowledged, and mankind continues to suffer because the science that cures disease is not generally known, except by homeopaths.

                            If you value science, you should be extremely angry about this!


                            Good luck with your new job!
                            Last edited by Similibus; 2nd October 2008, 06:18 PM. Reason: Changed 'Allopathy' for 'pharamacuetical medicine'.
                            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


                            • Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                              You have asked for statistical and clinical surveys in support of homeopathy and requested references.

                              You have been provided with a comprehensive, well-referenced thesis detailing the precise statistics for the treatment of cholera (a comprehensive clinical survey) and you can't even be bothered to read it? Once again you attempt to dismiss valid evidence with flippant remarks. Being dismissive of the evidence does not negate the evidence itself Mr Hans. It simply makes the individual appear arrogant and foolish.
                              I did not dismiss the evidence, I asked where it was. I am (maybe naively) assuming that since you earlier posted some definite numbers (in the form of two percentages) you hat taken those numbers from some source. In other words, I assume that you know precisely where they are to be found. Surely it is not too much to ask that you disclose their whereabouts, instead of asking me to refind them in a fairly large publisation?

                              The reading of the entire publication may be interesting and enlightening, but asking me to do so is not the proper way to provide a reference.

                              It is becoming obvious, Mr Hans, that you are one of those people that continues to insist he is right long after he has been unequivocally proved wrong. Is there any point in continuing to debate this with you?
                              You haven't proved me wrong.

                              Q: If statistical/ clinical evidence is good enough to justify mass immunisation, especially considering the current concerns of some of the medical community regarding this practice - why isn't the same considered valid in relation to homeopathy?

                              Address the question please, Mr Hans.
                              It would be equally valid for homeopathy. But statistics of equal quality do not exist for homeopathy.

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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Similibus View Post
                                From "Homeopathic Drug Pictures, by M.L. Tyler, ISBN 0 85032 021 6, 1995, Preface (page xv):
                                Now, that is a proper way to present a reference, thank you!

                                Now, let's see:

                                Moreover that Homœopathy can successfully combat a disease never seen, but whose symptoms are known, was abundantly proved by statistics, which poured in from all parts of the world when cholera, described by Hahnemann as "that mysterious and murderous pest" was "rushing on Europe in 1830". He prepared his followers to deal with it, with what success the following statistics, amoun many others, exemplify. His chief remedies were camphor, for the early stages; very frequently repeated, "till consciousness, rest and sleep return, and he is saved".
                                1830? How come most evidence presented for homepathy is from the 19th century?

                                We read, inter alia, "Cholera came first by way of Russia. The Russian Consul General reported results from Homœopathic treatment in Russia in 1830-1. Of 70 cases treated in two places, all were cured. And of 1,270 cases, 1,162 were cured and only 108 died. (The allopathic mortality in Russia was 60-70 percent.)"[1]
                                We can now calculate the mortality from what was 1,340 cases: 8%.
                                I am of course assuming that the numbers given can be verified from original hospital records, if need be.

                                The allopathic mortality still misses any references.

                                Dr. Wiled, an allopathic surgeon (Ed. Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medicine), in his Austria, its Literary, Scientific and Medical Treatments, wrote: "Upon comparing the report made of the treatment of cholera in the Homœopathic Hospital at Vienna with that of the other hospitals a the same time, it appears that while two-thirds of those treated homœopathically were cured, two-thirds of those treated by the other hospitals died. This extraordinary result led Count Kolowrat, Minister of the Interior, to repeal the law relative to the practice of Homœopathy.[1]
                                Let us assume that the figures from the Vienna hospital can be verified. However, "other hospitals" is rather loose, I'm sure you will agree.

                                A Dr. Perrussel (South of France) attended the poor villagers who have been suffering from sweating sickness and from cholera. His mortality under (homœopathic) treatment was 5 to 7 percent. ; the allopathic mortality here was 90 percent.[2]
                                Useless information. This is a typical anecdote.

                                But, the most brilliant cholera work was done by D. Rubini in the Naples epidemic of 1854-5. With camphor alone he treated in the R. Albergo dei Poveri 225 cases of cholera without a single death, and 166 soldiers of the 3rd Swiss Regiment with the same success. "Spirits of Camphor", in consequence, for many years –probably still- has borne his name.
                                Bradford Logic of Figures. States, p. 137. "The aggregate statistics of results of allopathic treatment of cholera in Europe and America a mortality of over 40 per cent. ; statistics of homœopathic treatment a mortality of less than 9 per cent."

                                1. - Bradford's Logic of Figures (1900).
                                2. - British Journal of Homœopathy 1854, pp. 521, 686.
                                Ahh, there was your source for your "The aggregate statistics, ... etc" . Unfortunately, your reference ... well, lacks a reference. But, we can already see that your source was written by a homeoapth. How do I know? Well only homeopaths call conventional medicine "allopathy".
                                ...
                                And sure enough, the biography of Thomas L. Bradford
                                confirms this.

                                Still data from the 19th century.

                                There is a nice story about cholera treatment in that era. Stay tuned .

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X