The Top Ten Questions Homeopaths can't answer

[The Don]

I'm still very confused about the homoeopathic diagnosis process. On one hand homoeopathy (as I understand it) doesn't address specific medical conditions because they are merely symptoms of lack of balance in the body's energy. On the other hand, homoeopathic remedies are offered for individual conditions.

So what gives ?

[Kumar]

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/MagParticle/Graphics/BarMagField3(small).jpg

What is this? Is it the image of some spritual effect?;)

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Kumar
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/MagParticle/Graphics/BarMagField3(small).jpg

What is this? Is it the image of some spritual effect?;)

Nifty optical illusion. For once you posted something interesting, well done Kumar. I take back most of what I said about you in that private forum no-one's shown you yet ...

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by The Don
I'm still very confused about the homoeopathic diagnosis process. On one hand homoeopathy (as I understand it) doesn't address specific medical conditions because they are merely symptoms of lack of balance in the body's energy. On the other hand, homoeopathic remedies are offered for individual conditions.

So what gives ?

Oh, really, it depends on what's convenient for the homeopath. Of course, if you suffer horribly or even die, then the person you went to wasn't a "real homeopath." How terribly coincidental that when a licensed "homeopath" is wrong about a test, or even hurts or kills a patient, so many others are willing to denounce that homeopath, saying "well it wasn't the real thing." Success, however, means that homeopathy works.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Barb, "I doubt very much that homoeopathy has ever been proven to affect such a pathology." Don't be so dishonest.

It's these careful and subtly misleading 'politician's' answers that rebut the "innocent ignorance" defence.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Benguin
Nifty optical illusion. For once you posted something interesting, well done Kumar. I take back most of what I said about you in that private forum no-one's shown you yet ... Hey, Kumar, you must be running out of free Google searches.

Or did you think that excellent service was for free??

That is not the case; you get about 200 free introductory searches, after that you are charged 15c per search via your ISP.

I think you are running up quite a bill, my friend :eek:!








Hans ;)

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Kumar
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/MagParticle/Graphics/BarMagField3(small).jpg

What is this? Is it the image of some spritual effect?;)

Gee a std. magnetic field.....boring.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Oh, really, it depends on what's convenient for the homeopath. Of course, if you suffer horribly or even die, then the person you went to wasn't a "real homeopath." How terribly coincidental that when a licensed "homeopath" is wrong about a test, or even hurts or kills a patient, so many others are willing to denounce that homeopath, saying "well it wasn't the real thing." Success, however, means that homeopathy works.

Time to get this definition sorted out;

Homeopathy= Anything described as "homeopathic" that is given to a patient before a medical improvement.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Gee a std. magnetic field.....boring. A little way down this page (http://www.circlemakers.org/totc2000.html) there is a nice crop circle of that pattern. Very clever.

Rolfe.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Time to get this definition sorted out;

Homeopathy= Anything described as "homeopathic" that is given to a patient before a medical improvement.

What? even if it was prescribed on the basis of dowsing? or the potion got x-rayed? or pisces was in or uranus? or ... or ... or

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Kumar
Is it the image of some spritual effect?;)

No.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Benguin
What? even if it was prescribed on the basis of dowsing? or the potion got x-rayed? or pisces was in or uranus? or ... or ... or

Yep, it's a definition that really works!

[exarch]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Please show me where I asked this many times - or even a few - or even once? I don't think I ever asked this because I have always known what would convince you.Dammit, English needs a word for the plural form of you, because people keep misunderstanding my posts :mad:

I meant "you" as in "the homeopaths in general", who think we're closed-minded because we don't want to believe in homeopathy without solid evidence. I'm still convinced some people may read this and find what I have to say interesting. Besides the four people still posting on this thread after 7 pages I mean :)

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by exarch
Dammit, English needs a word for the plural form of you, ....If you lived in west central Scotland, you'd know all about "youse". As in "youse yins". Yuk. Actually, I recently heard that used as singular once or twice. Confirming that every plural "you" tends to the singular.

(They probably told you in English class that "you" is technically plural, the singular is "thou". Almost obsolete, going down the road that sees the singular more and more reserved for very special relationships rather than a simple grammatical singular.)

Rolfe.

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by exarch
Dammit, English needs a word for the plural form of you, because people keep misunderstanding my posts :mad:....

Well, on parts of the East Coast of the US... "youse" also works, but in the more Southern areas of the country the plural of "you" is "y'all"... sometimes pronounced "yawl".

Y'all come back now.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Time to get this definition sorted out;

Homeopathy= Anything described as "homeopathic" that is given to a patient before a medical improvement.

I thought that's what I essentially said....

Fine then! Improve on the definition then! See if i care!

[exarch]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
Well, on parts of the East Coast of the US... "youse" also works, but in the more Southern areas of the country the plural of "you" is "y'all"... sometimes pronounced "yawl".

Y'all come back now.Yeeeeehaw!!

Oh, sorry, just getting carried away for a bit :D

[Linguistics rant]
Actually, in Dutch we have several singular forms for "you", one is the standard form, another is slightly more archaic and mostly used in dialect (and can also be used for plural usage), and the last is the polite form, which is simply "U" (capital letter, always) that can also be used for the polite plural. The link with the English "you" is not that hard to spot there ;)
Then there is also a strictly plural form of the standard singular form, which probably evolved from a similar bastardisation of "you all" as the southern "y'all" in the US, except it's only one word and it's been around longer :)

So there we are, at least four different words all meaning "you", where English only has two. Dutch is at least 200% more detailed :p
[/Linguistics rant]

[Benguin]

Rolfe should be able to tell us what they do in Gaelic .... come on ...

[Rolfe]

Well, just to shove this so far OT it'll never return....

In one of the commentaries on Lord of the Rings, Tolkein commented that Westron, which is what the characters are supposed to be speaking most of the time, does have you-familiar and you-formal. So look at the part where Eowyn is asking Aragorn not to go somewhere (Paths of the Dead?). She persistently addresses him as "thou", trying to be familiar, implying making a bit of a pass at him. He resolutely sticks to "you" when he answers her - the brush-off.

But Tolkein didn't mention where the other shoe drops. Near the end, when Aragorn and Arwen are hooked up and Eowyn is telling him about her engagement to Faramir.

"Wish me joy, my Lord."

"I have wished thee joy since first I met thee. It heals my heart to see thee thus in bliss."

Once all the complications are sorted out, he's happy to use the familiar form of address to identify her as a dear friend.

Neat, but it always seems to me to be such a social minefield. I mean, it's so easy to screw up and offend people anyway, without adding one more way. Like at school, a brand new German class was being taught by a student teacher from Germany. He asked them to ask him questions. They hadn't been told about the subtleties, and addressed him as "du". Spectacle of outraged young teacher steaming off to the Head of Modern Languages to complain about the shocking bad manners of the class.

I edited a long parallel universe story on Babylon 5. In English. A German girl started a German translation. She commented she was having to spend quite a lot of time deciding on which form of address characters ought to use. Military conversations were quite easy, but one headache was Sheridan and Delenn. Relationship begins very formally, but - "I have to get them addressing each other as "du" before they actually end up in bed together," said Karin, complicated by the fact that this happened earlier in the Mirror Universe than it did in the TV show.

She said she was trying to follow the German-dubbed TV version, but that didn't always get it right. For example, a video message which was in two parts, began using "Sie", but ended with "I love you." The translators appeared to have twigged by that time, as "ich liebe Sie" somehow doesn't quite cut it, but they didn't go back and change the first part. Well the mirror-author is Welsh, and so has an instinctive feel for this as Welsh apparently does it too, so in the end I think Karin went and asked him.

Come to think of it, there's also a Russian translation, I wonder what they did? It's all Cyrillic to me!

Exarch, how do you cope with such a minefield? It's not just singular and plural, it's all the social niceties.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Oh, just noticed the Gaelic question. Dunno. Gareth says Welsh has familiar and formal forms and I suspect Gaelic does too. But the basic stuff I know was just presented as simple singular (thu) and plural (sibh). Just checked a grammar book. Just says singular and plural. Don't believe a word of it. Probably a ploy to get Sassenachs to make right bloody fools of themselves.

(My great-grandfather apparently sort of let the language lapse, but last I heard there was a group of people working on reviving that particular dialect, so good luck to them.)

Rolfe.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Rolfe

Come to think of it, there's also a Russian translation, I wonder what they did? It's all Cyrillic to me!

Exarch, how do you cope with such a minefield? It's not just singular and plural, it's all the social niceties.

Rolfe.

Yes Russians do have different forms for social niceties, but they don't seem to care as much as some other races if you get it wrong.

Although last month I still nearly managed to get myself into a bit of bother by addressing someone's young daughter rather too informally ....

Romanians had at least three forms of address according to how close you were, and how much respect you conferred to the other person.

Is that a pair of Eos-lettes at the top of the page?

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by exarch
You've asked us many times Barbrae, what would convince us that homeopathy works?

I think it was pretty clear you were referring to me, Barbrae, specifically when you said this.


I'll be back next week - for more fun - don't ya'll miss me too darn much.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Exarch, how do you cope with such a minefield? It's not just singular and plural, it's all the social niceties.Actually, in dutch it's not as hard as it may appear at first glance :D

The "U" form is very formal, and mostly used for formal writing and speach, like job applications and court appearances. By the way, there's also a possessive form "Uw" (also capitalised), basically meaning "yours" which is also used for all the plural forms and the singular dialect. (The "familiar" singular form uses "jou").

The "familiar" form ("je" or "jij", plural "jullie") is nowadays mostly used in informal correspondence like e-mails.
In informal conversation, the dialect form is usually used (Duh!! :D) ("ge" or "gij", plural "gij" or sometimes "gijlie"), but only in Belgium. In Holland they have different dialects of course.
And as you can see, the dialect form is pretty much the same as the familiar form, just pronounced differently.

Anyway, I find it less difficult than the French and all their sexes. Whether you use the male or female form of a possessive depends not on the sexe of the person you're talking about, but of the object they possess.
So you will say crazy sh*t like "her table" because table is female, even if it's owned by a guy :(

Now THAT's a minefield :o

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by exarch
Anyway, I find it less difficult than the French and all their sexes. Whether you use the male or female form of a possessive depends not on the sexe of the person you're talking about, but of the object they possess.
So you will say crazy sh*t like "her table" because table is female, even if it's owned by a guy :(

Now THAT's a minefield :o You know, it took me years to figure out that that was why I found French so difficult. I think if someone had actually explained it in roughly those terms, I might have found it easier to get my head round it.

Even German is more sensible, because the gender of the possessor also matters.

Rolfe.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Regarding the migraine headache - I mean that if migraines are soley caused by the birth control pill and a person simply covers up the migriane by taking meds instead of riding themselves of the obvious maintaining cause then they will only be making matters worse by "covering up" a totally curable problem with soemthing that has serious potential for side effects. This was not a comment of migraine meds in general, rather a comemnt on homeopathically treating a person on a medication that is a maintaing cause of disease.

When I say the migraines are totally curable, I am of course refrencing this hypothetical case where the migraines are indeed caused by the BCP.

Barb, do you honestly believe that only "homeopaths" are capable of making this connection, if one were truly to exist - that a medical doctor cannot, would not, and care not change/alter/reduce/advise to discontinue birth control if a patient presented with new onset migraines after starting OCP (which is what they are more frequently and appropriately abbreviated to, not "BCP")? And, if you believe that you've made such a connection, would you recommend the patient discontinue them without consulting their doctor? Do you believe that all migraines are caused by OCP in women taking them? Do you know what "catamenial" means, and what estrogen's role is in migraine?

I waiting for your answers with 'bated breath.

-TT

[Mojo]

[Bump]

[Rolfe]

I can see why you bumped this Mojo (assuming DG ever gets into this forum area), but it's an old thread and runs to a lot of pages of discussion.

I don't suppose BSM would consider taking the most distilled form of these questions (including points brought up in the discussion) and starting a new thread for our new members?

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I can see why you bumped this Mojo (assuming DG ever gets into this forum area), but it's an old thread and runs to a lot of pages of discussion.

I don't suppose BSM would consider taking the most distilled form of these questions (including points brought up in the discussion) and starting a new thread for our new members?

Rolfe.

Yes, but, Dirk has already started with argument by blatant assertion and unattributed cutting and pasting from corrupt sources, so I think he/she can read this whole thread that we have now helpfully bumped up. Like you said Rolfe, time for an advocate of magic to start from where we are not from where they have only managed to get to.

Dirk? Are you reading this? Time to get with the programme!!

[Mojo]

Yeah, and I'd forgotten that homeopathy used to be discussed in Science &c. rather than General Skepticism.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Mojo
Yeah, and I'd forgotten that homeopathy used to be discussed in Science &c. rather than General Skepticism. Actually, when I first joined the forum, the then-current homoeopathy threads were in General Scepticism and the Paranormal. Which I thought was maybe not so strange anyway. I had an absolutely wonderful fight with Steve Grenard there. (Wonderful because he actually made some attempt to argue rationally, well apart from continually quoting Dana Ullman and insisting that it was all about nano-concentrations so just shut up with all these assertions that there's nothing there, which in the end I countered with the same nano - pico - femto - acto etc sequence that Hans used on the original perpatrator, and a link to "powers of ten", which is so unlike the home life of our own dear Xanta.)

So I don't really mind, to be honest.

By the way, what's the chances that "Dirk Gently" is Xanta again?

Rolfe.

[Perpetual Notion]

Thanks for bumping this thread. It made for interesting reading and I finally saw Barbrae's, philosophy laid out. I will say that it takes either a very confident or a very thick homeopath to join in these forums. I don't know that I would have the courage to face this crew down.

I had been wondering why Third Twin didn't join in and smackdown Kumar from time to time, but now I have my answer. Ah, it's nice to see some things never change in the world.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Rolfe
By the way, what's the chances that "Dirk Gently" is Xanta again?

Rolfe.

Exactly what I thought as soon as we had our first unattributed C&P.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Rolfe

...snip...


By the way, what's the chances that "Dirk Gently" is Xanta again?

Rolfe.

Ah your detective skills were slightly out this time! ;)

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Darat
Ah your detective skills were slightly out this time! ;) Ah, that explains it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57101). I sensed sock there, but wasn't really confident that it was Xanta. The style wasn't right, and the C&Ps weren't Xanta's usual fodder. I also thought that Xanta would be a bit more wary of coming out with "it works on animals" right in front of my and BSM's noses.

Why can't we have just one homoeopath who is prepared to discuss his or her practice and beliefs even semi-rationally? (Well, OK, Barb has her points, but I'd really like someone with a bit more between the ears.)

By the way, what's happening with Non-Sense Homeopath? Do we know yet whether he's just a nut, or if there are nefarious goings-on?

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Darat
Ah your detective skills were slightly out this time! ;)

That's just as well. Xanta was really tiresome.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Rolfe, your PM box is full, but this M is not very P, so I'll just post it here;


Yes, even to say, "I can't explain it, but I believe it works for me" would at least be honest. The evidence that they are dishonest is to be found in their consistent making of big claims then failing to back them up with any argument or evidence whatsoever.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Rolfe, your PM box is full, but this M is not very P, so I'll just post it here;

Yes, even to say, "I can't explain it, but I believe it works for me" would at least be honest. The evidence that they are dishonest is to be found in their consistent making of big claims then failing to back them up with any argument or evidence whatsoever. Sorry, I've now done a bit of a number on the PM box.

Barb seems pretty much to have retreated to that point of view, but then Barb isn't a healthcare professional, or (not to put too fine a point on it) very bright. I still maintain that anyone who managed to get into any of the UK medical or vet schools within the last 50 years must be in about the top 95 percentile of the population, and should have at least passable reasoning skills. That's the sort of person I'd like to debate intensively.

I'd even settle for Mas giving his best shot at explaining what the heck he's on about!

Rolfe.

[Gaga]

Thanks for having resurrected the thread, it was good reading.
And maybe, just maybe, someone will try to answer the 10 questions. (yeah, right)

[Mojo]

Sorry - double post.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Barb seems pretty much to have retreated to that point of view, but then Barb isn't a healthcare professional, or (not to put too fine a point on it) very bright.Don't be too hard on Barb. She's the only homeopath who's been on this forum (at least while I've been lurking or posting here) who has been prepared to have anything like a genuine dialog. And she's certainly the only one who has seemed to make any effort to answer any of the questions that have been put to them.

And at least she's stated that people should always see a proper doctor before going to a homeopath.

[Mojo]

Actually, a triple post!

[Mouthfire]

Great thread... thanks for the bump....

[Perpetual Notion]

Originally posted by Mojo
Don't be too hard on Barb. She's the only homeopath who's been on this forum (at least while I've been lurking or posting here) who has been prepared to have anything like a genuine dialog. And she's certainly the only one who has seemed to make any effort to answer any of the questions that have been put to them.

And at least she's stated that people should always see a proper doctor before going to a homeopath.

Yes, I'll definitely give her that. She does honestly answer questions.

I'm completely shocked to learn that homeopaths don't study anatomy, biology or physiology or any other sciences that would pertain to diagnoses and diseases process. When she said that two similar diseases couldn't exist at the same time, I was blown away. That's simple stuff I learned during my first internship and it's frightening that these folks would be treating people not even knowing the basics of diagnosis and treatment.

[Olaf/QII]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
At davefoc's suggestion, here is a handy edited list to wave in front any any homeopaths you meet.

1. Why do the effects of homeopathy, which are quite considerable when described anecdotally, dissapear when testing is performed under controlled conditions ?

2. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that "like cures like" is a natural law?

3. Exactly how does the solvent's "memory" of the active ingredient become selective, to somehow erase the intimate contact it has had with possibly millions of other compounds in its history and since the dilution process is supposed to dilute out the undesirable parts of the remedy's effects, and potentise the desirable parts, how does the remedy know which is which?

4. How is information stored in water? It's no good just saying that unexpected processes occur in solvents they must store energy and information in a completely faithful and stable manner?

5. How does the memory of water apply when the final remedy is dried onto a lactose pill?

6. How come you can prescribe for animals when you don't "prove" the remedies on animals?

7. Provings are demonstrably nonsense. In the vast majority no attention at all is paid to using controls. So it is vanishingly unlikely that many remedies in use today have the effects claimed for them in provings even if there was some validity behind the principles of homeopathy so that some remedies might truly work. So how come homeopaths using all the dodgy remedies claim success in using them? Doesn't the existence of this mass of defective remedies (even if we cannot identify them from a notional set of valid remedies) completely undermine the homeopaths' claims to make valid inferences from their much-vaunted 'clinical evidence'?

8. What can homeopathy not cure? How do these diseases differ absolutely from all the things they say it can cure. Can it cure genetic diseases?

9. What are the limits of homeopaths' credulity? Are there any alt med therapies they do not believe in? If there are really wild and weird things they do not believe in then please can they explain the rationale for making that distinction?

10. The Randi Challenge Special Question:

Is there any way to tell if a preparation is different from plain water or other solvent? Please do so and earn $1M (and no this is not a single dollar diluted homeopathically




I can give a decent response to every question accept #2 and #6.


Since it is going to take at least an hour and require my full concentration I will make the attempt some time within the next 2 weeks or so.

However, it is an almost guarantee that I will be VAPORIZED, VANISHED, or, BANISHED by then.

Hopefully not as i will enjoy providing reasonable answers that most assuredly will be rejected by everyone here.


-----------------------------------------

Now if you will excuse me I need to get back to.........


http://www.vhan.nl/documents/Rey.thermoluminescence.pdf


http://www.weirdtech.com/sci/memoryofwater.html




http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15105967

2004

Inflamm Res. 2004 Apr;53(5):181-8. Epub 2004 Apr 21. Related Articles, Links

CONCLUSIONS: In 3 different types of experiment, it has been shown that high dilutions of histamine may indeed exert an effect on basophil activity. This activity observed by staining basophils with alcian blue was confirmed by flow cytometry. Inhibition by histamine was reversed by anti-H2 and was not observed with histidine these results being in favour of the specificity of this effect We are however unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to encourage others to investigate this phenomenon.

PMID: 15105967 [PubMed - in process]

[Olaf/QII]

2. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that "like cures like" is a natural law?

I never could get my mind around that one either.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
I can give a decent response to every question accept #2 and #6.


Since it is going to take at least an hour and require my full concentration I will make the attempt some time within the next 2 weeks or so. If you can't answer the point about "like cures like" (#2, which you have just stated you can't answer) then the whole of homeopathy looks like a bit of a crock, seeing as the whole of it relies on "like cures like" as a basic principle.

You'll be claiming that you can't detect "miasms" next...

[Olaf/QII]

Originally posted by Mojo
If you can't answer the point about "like cures like" (#2, which you have just stated you can't answer) then the whole of homeopathy looks like a bit of a crock, seeing as the whole of it relies on "like cures like" as a basic principle.

You'll be claiming that you can't detect "miasms" next...

I certainly never said that i denied it.. all i said was that i never could wrap my mind around it.

i mean -- why is it a natural law?

i really prefer to not even discuss homeopathy because quite frankly it does sound like the biggest load of rubbish ever presented to mankind.

--but that does not necessarily rule something out.


--and in the end through simple extrapolation one might be able to see a mechanism whereby it could theoretically work.

afterall, if a complex molecule like histamine can somehow, someway become encoded into the molecular structure of a polar molecule that it violently intermingles with then why can't just about any molecule do the same. -- and be able to affect a biological system the way the histamine affects the basophil.

sounds like a huge stretch, yet far stranger things have been shown to exist.

it's late, so never mind if this does not make sense.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
i mean -- why is it a natural law?Apparently, it's a "natural law" because homeopaths say it is. :rolleyes: :nope:

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Mojo
Apparently, it's a "natural law" because homeopaths say it is. :rolleyes: :nope:

No, but because, it uses somewhat "natural quantity in natural style" required for any healing in homeopathic sense.

Anti-homeopathic attitude.

I already explained about "like cure like" in other theread.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Kumar
No, but because, it uses somewhat "natural quantity in natural style" required for any healing in homeopathic sense.

Anti-homeopathic attitude.

I already explained about "like cure like" in other theread.
No. You just asserted it. There's a difference.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
i really prefer to not even discuss homeopathyLet's look at the available evidence relating to this assertion.

Assuming that you really aren't any of the other posters you have been accused of being, you have so far posted 120 times in 12 threads. Of these, 6 have the words "homeopathy," "homeopaths" or "homeopathic" in the title.

So 50% of the threads you have posted in (including one you started youself with your first post on the forum) are explicitly about homeopathy.

There is also your "Ultra-dilute Solutions are Bioactive" thread. Why else would you be interested in this, and why do you assert that people feel threatened by what, in the absence of homeopathy, would be a minor scientific curiosity with no current application?

An eighth thread in which you have posted was started by "Dr." MAS, a prominent homeopath hereabouts, and a ninth was one of Kumar's, which usually come down to homeopathy in the end.

If we discount the two threads (one started by you) about your own impending banning (a non-issue if ever there was one), this leaves you with a single post in the "More junk from the BBC" thread.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Donks
No. You just asserted it. There's a difference.

What is that difference?

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Mojo
Let's look at the available evidence relating to this assertion.

Assuming that you really aren't any of the other posters you have been accused of being, you have so far posted 120 times in 12 threads. Of these, 6 have the words "homeopathy," "homeopaths" or "homeopathic" in the title.

So 50% of the threads you have posted in (including one you started youself with your first post on the forum) are explicitly about homeopathy.

There is also your "Ultra-dilute Solutions are Bioactive" thread. Why else would you be interested in this, and why do you assert that people feel threatened by what, in the absence of homeopathy, would be a minor scientific curiosity with no current application?

An eighth thread in which you have posted was started by "Dr." MAS, a prominent homeopath hereabouts, and a ninth was one of Kumar's, which usually come down to homeopathy in the end.

If we discount the two threads (one started by you) about your own impending banning (a non-issue if ever there was one), this leaves you with a single post in the "More junk from the BBC" thread.

Also research & tell, whether your most of posts are anti-homeopathic & biased or not?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Kumar
Also research & tell, whether your most of posts are anti-homeopathic & biased or not?If you want it researched, do it yourself. In any case, I have never claimed that I prefer not to discuss homeopathy.

I take it that "bias" has replaced "vested interests" in you lexicon for the time being.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Kumar
What is that difference?...and this really sums up your problem.

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
I certainly never said that i denied it.. all i said was that i never could wrap my mind around it.

i mean -- why is it a natural law?....

Actually it is NOT a "natural law". Plain and simple.... it is just a wild-@ss guess made up by Hahnemann.

If you still feel that "like versus like", then please go into detail about the experiment and observations that were repeated to get it from a hypothesis to a theory, and finally a "natural law".

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
Actually it is NOT a "natural law". Plain and simple.... it is just a wild-@ss guess made up by Hahnemann.

If you still feel that "like versus like", then please go into detail about the experiment and observations that were repeated to get it from a hypothesis to a theory, and finally a "natural law".

Just a quibble, but it really really bugs me...one of my pet peeves.

Name me ANYTHING in science that has gone from hypothesis to theory and then to law. I can't think of any.

A Law is simply a description of an event/process/phenomena. They shouldn't require much testing, as laws are essentially self-evident. Newton's Laws of gravity simply stated "Gravity attracts mass with a force equal to this." Easy to test. The Laws of thermodynamics simply state what happens in regards to heat energy...no statements about the why or how of it. Laws are regarded as self-evident with experiment, and do not have explnatory components (only predictive).

Oppose this to a hypothesis or theory, which gives an explanation of events. Einstein's relativity was a theory of gravity because it expalined gravity as the curvature of space-time. Quantum Electrodynamics is a theory because it explains how particles interact and why they interact that way (virtual particles, etc), rather than simple observations.

So basically, a Law is purely predictive/descriptive, while a theory is both predictive/descriptive as well as explanatory. Hypothesis can go to theory, but from there only goes to better tested theory. A Law is a Law, and that's pretty much it.

For "like cures like" to be a natural law, then it should be self-evident and hold true in regards to any simple experiment. It is self-evident that this is not a natural law...even if it might apply in specific instances. So first off, there's a misunderstanding going on at the beginning by calling like cures like a law...at best, it might be a theory that applies in specific instances, but it is not a law (as stated...if you can provide evidence of the specific conditions under which it holds true, then you might have "like cures like only in serially diluted nostrums applied to human subjects" as a natural law. I'm not holding my breath.)

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
Actually it is NOT a "natural law". Plain and simple.... it is just a wild-@ss guess made up by Hahnemann.

If you still feel that "like versus like", then please go into detail about the experiment and observations that were repeated to get it from a hypothesis to a theory, and finally a "natural law". Actually, it's a prime example of Sympathetic Magic (http://www.bartleby.com/196/5.html). Like washing yellow paint off a jaundiced person to cure the jaundice. Deep-seated belief of the human psyche. Which really has no bearing on whether it is objectively true or not.

Rolfe.

[Olaf/QII]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Just a quibble, but it really really bugs me...one of my pet peeves.

Name me ANYTHING in science that has gone from hypothesis to theory and then to law. I can't think of any.

A Law is simply a description of an event/process/phenomena. They shouldn't require much testing, as laws are essentially self-evident. Newton's Laws of gravity simply stated "Gravity attracts mass with a force equal to this." Easy to test. The Laws of thermodynamics simply state what happens in regards to heat energy...no statements about the why or how of it. Laws are regarded as self-evident with experiment, and do not have explnatory components (only predictive).

Oppose this to a hypothesis or theory, which gives an explanation of events. Einstein's relativity was a theory of gravity because it expalined gravity as the curvature of space-time. Quantum Electrodynamics is a theory because it explains how particles interact and why they interact that way (virtual particles, etc), rather than simple observations.

So basically, a Law is purely predictive/descriptive, while a theory is both predictive/descriptive as well as explanatory. Hypothesis can go to theory, but from there only goes to better tested theory. A Law is a Law, and that's pretty much it.

For "like cures like" to be a natural law, then it should be self-evident and hold true in regards to any simple experiment. It is self-evident that this is not a natural law...even if it might apply in specific instances. So first off, there's a misunderstanding going on at the beginning by calling like cures like a law...at best, it might be a theory that applies in specific instances, but it is not a law (as stated...if you can provide evidence of the specific conditions under which it holds true, then you might have "like cures like only in serially diluted nostrums applied to human subjects" as a natural law. I'm not holding my breath.)

nice explanation if i don't say so myself.

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Just a quibble, but it really really bugs me...one of my pet peeves.

Name me ANYTHING in science that has gone from hypothesis to theory and then to law. I can't think of any.

A Law is simply a description of an event/process/phenomena. They shouldn't require much testing, as laws are essentially self-evident. Newton's Laws of gravity simply stated "Gravity attracts mass with a force equal to this." Easy to test. The Laws of thermodynamics simply state what happens in regards to heat energy...no statements about the why or how of it. Laws are regarded as self-evident with experiment, and do not have explnatory components (only predictive).
...

Actually they did go through the hypothesis stage... you just have to read up on the history of science. I would suggest Asimov's book on Physics.

Here are some things (and the gravity bit did take a bit of observation and testing). Hmmm... this looks like a good place to start (even Newton's Laws of Physics had a basis in Galileo's hypothises):
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/galileo.html .. and he even modified Kepler's "Law":
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

Also, the laws of thermodynamics where based on the observations of the Carnot cycle:
http://www.thermohistory.com/ ... see more here:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Clausius.html

None of these things were obvious... especially when you start working out the full equations for force and motion. Many people just assume that Newton's Second Law of Motion is F=ma, but it is not (even here is it has been simplified: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html ) It is more precisely that force is the change of momentum, or more precisely as we used in my engineering dynamics classes: F = d(mv)/dt --- this also takes in account the change of mass because of fuel being burned.

Some books that are in my library that should be of interest to you:
_Understanding Physics_ by Asimov, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0880292512/

_The History of the Strength of Materials_ by Timoshenko, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0486611876

and _Thermodynamics_ by Fermi, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/048660361X/ (and despite it being a good book on thermodyamics, I still HATE thermodynamics!! ... oh, I used to be a structural vibration engineer)

[Donks]

Originally posted by Kumar
What is that difference?
Somebody shoot me before I do this... please...

Dammit.

Here goes. The post I believe you are refering to:
What is the problem in "like cures like" in view of physical/reflected effects of any substance &
What are "reflected effects"?
"small stimuli increases physiological activities but big discourages it".
Asserted. You need to show evidence for this.
We can be benefited by small foods but can get digestive problems by excess foods.
Excess of food is better than lack of food, or too little food.
Both are harmful. If someone was to try to get all their nutrients only from what triggers the cephallic phase you love so much, they'd die.
Every or most of our day to day activities indicate that "like" in small quantity or reducing the quantity "cures" to what we have taken the "like" in excess quantity & accumulated in our system.
You are taking a very specific case, dieting, and extending it to all diseases. You are simply asserting that this extension is valid. You need to show evidence for this.
Then the "cephalic phase effect", if we just see, think, taste the sugar but don't ingest it....?
As I said, if someone tried to get all their nutrients only from what can trigger the cephallic phase, they'd die.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
Lots of good info

Well, I'll agree, I was trying to simplify. A hypothesis is what they all start at, but my understanding is that from there, Law and Theory are two seperate roads, the difference being whether it is explanation or description. Theory is not a "lesser" version than Law in science, and in many cases Laws have been replaced/expanded by theory (such as Relativity versus Newton's Gravity).

And by self-evident I don't mean easy to figure out, but that the final formulation is easily tested, without a need for interpretation. For example, Newton's Laws of Motion are relatively easy to test, and the results don't need interpretation. One can easily see that the Force is proportional to mass and acceleration, etc. With a theory, you not only need to show, for example, that the equations are right...but also that they are right for the reasons the theory gives (it has a broader application, I suppose).

My main point was that Theory and Law are not two levels of something, but two different types of thing. Mainly because I'm fed up with hearing the "just a theory" argument spouted over and over when discussing things like Relativity or Evolution.

You are correct, I was not precise enough in my explanation. I was trying to summarize, and perhaps got a bit too short :) Is this explanation better?

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by Huntsman
...snip..
My main point was that Theory and Law are not two levels of something, but two different types of thing. Mainly because I'm fed up with hearing the "just a theory" argument spouted over and over when discussing things like Relativity or Evolution.

You are correct, I was not precise enough in my explanation. I was trying to summarize, and perhaps got a bit too short :) Is this explanation better?

Yes... that makes much more sense.

Especially since the homeopathic "laws" are only claimed to be "natural laws" by homeopaths without any understanding how the gravitational, motion, force and thermodynamics laws came about. They were not just obvious, but many years being discussed, argued and displayed before considered "natural laws".

Also, it seems that one of the basic homepathic laws was based on Hahnemann's misuderstanding of his own symptoms. From http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A954740 (bolding added by me):
What exactly did Hahnemann consume in 1790 and what did it do to him? He took 'four drams of good China', which is equivalent to 400-500 milligrams of quinine, the prescribed therapeutic dose in the past century-and-a-half. After taking it, he became languid and drowsy, which is a sign of hypotension. He felt weak and his head pulsed - a good indication that Hahnemann had a mother of a headache. The redness in his cheeks was most likely a rash. Also, his head palpitated, which meant that his heart was beating irregularly, a sign of ventricular tachycardia. His fingers and feet were cold and trembled. Any good immunology textbook will tell you from these symptoms that what Hahnemann was experiencing was none other than hypersensitivity.

Which meant that Hahnemann's 'like cures like' association between his reaction towards quinine and the symptoms of malaria was a fluke - a lucky coincidence because of his unexpected sensitivity towards the toxicity of quinine. Might things have gone differently for homeopathy had Hahnemann not been allergic to the drug? Or had he developed other reactions towards it?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Helpful bump for NHCoraHSarah

[geni]

how should we rate the answers we've got so far?

[Chris Haynes]

So, it has been a couple of years... have any of these questions been answered?

I know that I seemed to have caused a bit of consternation with my new question: How many sodium and chlorine atoms are in one cubic centimeter of Nat Mur 30C ?

The closest thing I got to an answer was Ullman blithering on about water acting like a CD-rom. Anyone else have better luck?

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Micro Doses MegA Results

[Zep]

Micro Doses MegA ResultsPlease explain in more detail.

Especially, what do you mean by "micro doses"?

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

The potencies of allopathic medicines are very high from homoeopathic point of view. The body do not need to have such crude potencies as this would result in large side effects. Homoeopathy says the disease (in fact symptoms) could be cured in a better way if we subject a diseased body an ultra minute doses of medicine. Those ultra diluted medicines are prepared by a particular method of succsion and potentisation. This is what I mean by minute doses.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Hannemann was an M.D. in allopathic medicine. He was fed up with the side efects of allopathy, and does not agree with its principles.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Homoeopathy healing progress from insights and from such insights a metaphysical model is built up. Because it is metaphysical in nature the part is express in the whole, just as the whole is expressed in the parts (your basic non-linear dynamics). The expressions are many and varied and continue to be valid even as science struggles to understand the parts
Such metaphysical models are not provable in the sense you are referring to i.e. through scientific reductionistic inquiry. Because the moment you reduce to its parts the whole collapses.
The validity of such metaphysical models is founded on its usefulness and its accuracy in determining what is going on within the mind and body.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

I agree with Kumar.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

The potencies of allopathic medicines are very high from homoeopathic point of view. The body do not need to have such crude potencies as this would result in large side effects. Homoeopathy says the disease (in fact symptoms) could be cured in a better way if we subject a diseased body an ultra minute doses of medicine. Those ultra diluted medicines are prepared by a particular method of succsion and potentisation. This is what I mean by minute doses.


So we've gone from micro doses to ultra minute. Since you seem to have trouble explaining micro doses perhaps you could explain "ultra minute".

[steenkh]

Hannemann was an M.D. in allopathic medicine. He was fed up with the side efects of allopathy, and does not agree with its principles.
At the time, medicine was actually deadly to the patients. No treatment (which is what Hahnemann essentially recommended) had higher success rates. Medicine has changed much since then.

[Zep]

I agree with Kumar.Well, there goes any credibility you ever had! :)

[Zep]

The potencies of allopathic medicines are very high from homoeopathic point of view. The body do not need to have such crude potencies as this would result in large side effects. Homoeopathy says the disease (in fact symptoms) could be cured in a better way if we subject a diseased body an ultra minute doses of medicine. Those ultra diluted medicines are prepared by a particular method of succsion and potentisation. This is what I mean by minute doses.No, that's not an explanation at all. It's just hand-waving. How about some numbers or measurements or something.

Here, I'll make it easier for you: I have 2 bottles with remedies in - one is a "micro" dose and the other is "ultra minute". But the labels have fallen off, and I need to know which remedy is which. What is your method finding out which one is which?

[Foolmewunz]

I agree with Kumar.

Say, there's something we don't see every day!



ETA: Curse you, Zep!

[Chris Haynes]

Hannemann was an M.D. in allopathic medicine. He was fed up with the side efects of allopathy, and does not agree with its principles.

Real medicine has changed in the last 200 years. How has homeopathy kept up with reality in the last two centuries?

Edit to add: Give the efficacy of homeopathy versus modern medicine for the following two conditions:

1) syphilis
2) rabies

Provide verifiable evidence that includes real data less than five years old (not century old case reports that Andre Saine is relying on).