Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

does homeopathy work?

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by kayveeh
    You may know more in one thing but can't in all. Moreover you think you know much about homeopathy, but I tell you unless you have faith and respect in it, you can't know a single word of it, because then you can observe and experiance it suitable. Car is a modern thing, but natural vehicle as horse or walking on own foot, need no engine. Your car can fail, petrol can e over but natural transport system never fail till death. You can change some nature, but noone canstop nature to ultimate come in to its balance.
    Kayvee, even your analogies suck. First of all, tell me this: Are you really, really unable to see the deep irony in YOU of all people claiming that I must know all about homeopathy to form an opinion? YOU who are constantly forming an opinion about science, in spite of the fact that you know and understand less than the average primary school pupil??

    Kayvee, if I cannot talk about homeoapthy, how on earth do you imagine that you can talk about science?

    Now for your crappy analogy: Do I need to know all about horse-riding when I notice that the horse has only three legs?

    No, I don't need faith and respect to understand a single word. I do need faith to believe it works, however, and I don't.

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

    Comment


    • #77
      When such discussions are possible how you occasionaly tel me to study science and contadict me, that I don't know science? Either you don't comment or consider my mentioning also valid--to be justified.
      Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
      Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by kayveeh
        When such discussions are possible how you occasionaly tel me to study science and contadict me, that I don't know science?
        Because no matter how many times you are told to study science, you don't.
        All you do is stumble around and find fancy words.

        Either you don't comment or consider my mentioning also valid--to be justified.
        No.

        I ought to ignore you, though.

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

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by MRC_Hans
          Because no matter how many times you are told to study science, you don't.
          All you do is stumble around and find fancy words.No.

          I ought to ignore you, though.

          Hans

          Same I am feeling and doing, mostly.
          Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
          Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

          Comment


          • #80
            as usual, there is truth, indeed fact, in kv's apparent naivete, and ignorance in hans' erudition, and there is the necessity to inquire in each direction, if sense is to be made of either, instead of the usual nonsense that characterizes the so-called debate.

            those who believe in one god and those who believe in many, as kv states, can both be right, if their opinions are based on different perceptions (which invariably they must be) or on different definitions. the question of definition, i suppose, actually opens up the possibility that both groups are correct, as well as the third group, the atheists, being correct. in that sense, then, we are dealing with perceptual relativity, and apparent disagreements must then be understood as, in fact, representing confusion rather than disagreement. in this regard, jocce is dead wrong.

            in fact, it is this reality that accounts for a good deal of the heat and disagreement in any principled debate. people think the other person is speaking nonsense - when in fact they are only using different terminology, or describing the leg of the elephant instead of the trunk. not always by any means, but very often. 50% of the time, if you want a number. plus or minus 50%, of course

            this can only be resolved by a willingness on both sides to drop the pretense of possessing a privileged frame of reference, and, correspondingly, of diligently working to understand things from the other pov - which means definitions as well as organization of percepts.

            even faith enters into it, because faith is in everything (if we move from a strict adherence to a spiritual context for 'faith'): the skeptic, though he protests violently, believes his methods produce objective results - that is to say, he has faith in the efficacy of his methodology, and in the rationalizations upon which he rests his faith.

            parents and teachers often complain that their ADHD child is really malingering, lazy, or manipulative, because whilst they are 'unable' to remember their math facts, they know every batting average in the major leagues.

            the resolution of this apparent problem, is also the resolution to about 50% (plus or minus 50%) of the disagreements between skeptics and homeopaths, or any other odd pairing you can mention: simply put, the child is interested in baseball, and un-interested in mathematics. in short, motivation generates interest and concentration. sooo, people ...

            if you have faith in statistics, you will be more interested in it, and will pursue its explanatory capabilities to the fullest, finding all manner of processes at work to explain things that, to the unitiated (and uninterested) appear to undermine the veracity of computational testimony. and, when a homeopath puts his homeopathic expertise to the task of explaining a clinical interpretation that appears insubstantial to the uninitiated, he is doing the exact same thing. but in the first instance, the clinician is likely to accuse the statistician of hypocrisy, and in the second, the statistician is likely to accuse the clinician of hedging.

            the fact is, both may be right or wrong in the individual instance, and too frequently, neither is willing or able or even aware of the necessity to step outside their own skin to take a wider view.

            it's a pity. especially, i would say, when the inherent bias that directs so much of this **** is so eminently insupportable, except by hubris, self-destructive pride.

            bach
            "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


            Comment


            • #81
              bwv11, are you suggesting (by expansion) that "homeopathy works" and "homeopathy doesn't work" are both correct, based on different people's definition of "working"?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by moopet
                bwv11, are you suggesting (by expansion) that "homeopathy works" and "homeopathy doesn't work" are both correct, based on different people's definition of "working"?
                sure ... i'm ok with that. however, your question reflects a problem in formulating my comments, which i was aware of and pretty much anticipated having to clarify at some point, so i do appreciate that you have brought this up.

                first: i think the first point is to clarify that i am suggesting that disagreements must be analyzed on an individual, case by case basis. further, that in any particular case (any particular disagreement), opinons that appear to be contradictory and mutually exclusive, may resolve to questions of nomenclature or perspective and the like. this happens all the time, but in the nature of things is very difficult to identify clearly: after all, if two people are using different terms to describe the same things, but don't realize it, then clarifying the terminological confusion is a process that rests on using existing terminology to clarify confusions in existing terminology ... if you can imagine how that might cause confusion itself.

                in therapy sessions i see this all the time, with couples and families. people argue vehemently without realizing they are saying the same things. it takes a great deal of work to get them to disengage from the emotional entanglements (pretty much comparable to 'bias') that interfere with clarity of communications.

                second: in a practical sense, sometimes homeopathy works, and sometimes it doesn't. this might be due to incompetence of the prescriber; or intractibility of the 'disease;' or interference from unrecognized 'confounders...' etc.

                third: but the key element, highlighted by your question, is whether homeopathy "works" ... in principle. in other words, assuming for argument that it is a fact that homeopathic remedies are efficacious against disease, which also implies just by extension, that subavogadrean physics (as i would frame it) still has some surprises in store for us, then we would have to conclude that, no, only the opinion that 'homeopathy works' is correct. although, in that instance, it would probably be better to say that 'homeopathy is an efficacious treatment,' recognizing that no treatment is 100% successful 100% of the time, for a variety of reasons.

                or, more basically, your question could be re-framed to this: are homeopathic remedies really medicines, or just sugar pills? in response to that question, and given the assumption (for the sake of argument) that homeopathy is a real medical intervention, then only the people who say "yes" are correct.

                in other words, at that point, we have 'controlled for' problems of communication and conceptual confusion, so that we can discuss, more directly, what is really "true" in an absolute sense, that is, apart from the distortions of 'reality' introduced by our relativistic points of view.

                does that help?

                bach
                "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


                Comment


                • #83
                  bach,

                  Doesn't it looks that skeptics behaviour is alike; two teams are playing very well in a play ground but one pro a team says that, "my team is really/only playing, other not".

                  However, to neutral people or people with sport's man sprit, it looks alike that both are well playing. Who is right?

                  "Nothing may be absolute and complete, so anything may be dependent or substitute of others"

                  I don't mind in changing above words, if skeptics and pro people can agree absolutely on that, their pro-system/understanding is "absolute and complete".

                  Will/can they??
                  Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
                  Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by kayveeh
                    bach,

                    Doesn't it looks that skeptics behaviour is alike; two teams are playing very well in a play ground but one pro a team says that, "my team is really/only playing, other not".

                    However, to neutral people or people with sport's man sprit, it looks alike that both are well playing. Who is right?

                    "Nothing may be absolute and complete, so anything may be dependent or substitute of others"

                    I don't mind in changing above words, if skeptics and pro people can agree absolutely on that, their pro-system/understanding is "absolute and complete".

                    Will/can they??
                    Two teams are playing. One team claims to be able to score hoops by throwing the ball over the back of their head with their eyes shut. They miss, but when they turn around and see the ball rolling on the ground they shout, "hey! It went in!"

                    The other team actually watch the ball.
                    People on the first team claim that the second team's eyesight is not 20/20, or that quantum fluctuations and solar flares and the moon being in uranus mean that what they saw wasn't necessarily what everyone else on the side of the field saw.

                    Wicked analogy. Keep 'em coming.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      moopet -

                      did you miss my response, which appeared just before kv's? or just not had time to respond yet?

                      anyway, just bumping this up just in case ...
                      "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


                      Comment


                      • #86
                        How does homeopathy works?

                        Homeopathic medicines stimulate your body's homeostatic mechanism so your body heals itself by dealing with the sources of your symptoms. This stimulus assists your system in clearing itself of any expressions of imbalance. The homoeopath physician gives you a medicine which matches your symptoms as you experience them, and which takes into account you as a person - your individual characteristics emotionally as well as physically.
                        Here's an example of how this works. Think of your "natural regulator" as your internal temperature gauge. If you go outside and it is very hot, your body will recognize it is too hot and begin to perspire. Your homeostatic mechanism is producing a symptom - perspiration - in an effort to cool down the body. If you go outside and it is very cold, the symptom is shivering. Your homeostatic mechanism is trying to warm the body up by shivering to produce heat.
                        Think about the last time you were shivering. You could not control it, and you did not stop until you were warm. It is the same way with homeopathic medicines. If you are ill and your body is showing symptoms, the symptoms will not disappear until the source of the symptoms has disappeared.
                        Homeopathic medicine’s main action is through taste buds, esophageal canal, stomach and intestine (part of immune system), even through nasal and skin area, and in response to antigenic attack on body very specific antibodies are released which destroys the antigenicity of the organisms and there is no drug resistance as such, because own defense systems comes into action each time there is an attack of organisms.
                        Homoeopathic action begins as the medicine touches the moist surface of tongue from where it directly goes into circulation of a huge network of nerves which is spread like miles in the body system, nerves are spread like electric wires in the body and from the tongue or olfactory nerves it reaches to a very specific point of weakness in immune system and starts correcting or boosting or strengthening it. Likewise you can imagine how accurate the potency and wavelength of the homoeopathic drug, each of which carries a very specific WAVELENGTH and identity and can enter the weak points of a diseased individual in matter of microseconds when the drug and the disease is matched accurately!!! So wrong medicine does not bring about any cure, and is mere waste of effort.
                        More details at HOW DOES HOMEOPATHY WORK? - Homeopathic Research, Physical, Clinical Research
                        http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Though it's a time consuming process to treat anything with the help of homepathy medicines..But, yes, it does help people. I have myself seen the results..In India soon, ayurveda, unani, siddha and homeopathy will be brought under the universal health insurance scheme as the Centre has drafted a national policy for AYUSH. The policy aims at focusing on the need for creation of infrastructure, research facilities and regulation to streamline AYUSH.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X