Renal Failure thread, just for Sarah-I

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

So, homeopathy can't cure renal failure.

Why the limitation? There is nothing homeopathy's approach to illness that can possibly exclude renal failure. Patient presents with excessive thirst. Pallor. Muscle aches. GI upset etc.

Now, just why can't this patient be successfully treated with a well-chosen remedy to "cure" the problem?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Waiting.

[Kumar]

In your language, just tell whether it isArteriosclerosis/ Athrosclerosis , fatty degenaration, necrosis, auto-immunity or otherwise based?

[Deetee]

Kumar - you are not being holistic enough. It should be sufficient that one has renal failure - does the cause really make a difference to the homeopathic approach?

If it does, then Sarah can indicate to us how, and we can clarify the problem accordingly.

Like BSM, I would love to know the homeopathic view.

BSM, is there some "list" somewhere of things homeopathy cannot cure, or do they just make it up as they go along? (I suspect the latter)

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Kumar
In your language, just tell whether it isArteriosclerosis/ Athrosclerosis , fatty degenaration, necrosis, auto-immunity or otherwise based?

Homeopathy can't get into that level of diagnosis as the system doesn't recognise it. It can only work on what BSM described, ie observable symptoms.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Deetee
Kumar - you are not being holistic enough. It should be sufficient that one has renal failure - does the cause really make a difference to the homeopathic approach?


They don't even need to know it's renal failure. Given that the basic homeopathic technique is just an interview without blood tests or physical examination real physical data should be superfluous. renal failure is an "allopathic diagnosis" in their terms. They are meant only to be concerned with matching symptoms to remedy and they claim all their great successes by doing just that. Just because you and I know more about laboratory medicine than they do doesn't stop them pretending to treat all sorts of diseases that would have altered blood biochemstry or haematology.

Also remember that their entire repertoire of treatments is derived from provings. I will bet you Randi's $1M that no proving has ever shown a hom remedy to produce increase in urea and creatinine.

So, all they should need is my list of symptoms. You or I can then sit on the sidelines and laugh at them when U&C are unaltered by treatment. The next step is to laugh even more when they claim to treat renal failure and we ask for evidence that the physical renal pathology has been resolved. Again, as hoommoepah

Originally posted by Deetee
BSM, is there some "list" somewhere of things homeopathy cannot cure, or do they just make it up as they go along? (I suspect the latter)

More than once I've seen it said they cannot unscramble and egg i.e. undo gross physical damage and pathology. The problem with that is that historically they have claimed to cure patients with all sorts of symptoms that by modern medicine's knowledge would certainly have had gross pathological changes. So, really this is a claim raised by modern homeopaths to sidle away from the obviousness of their failure to "cure" anything other than imaginary problems. However, their predecessors would have had no problems because they simply would not have known that gross pathology existed.

The other problem is that they cannot specify how much pathology is too much, so it gives them an infinitely flexible excuse- no you can't regrown and amputated limb, yes you can make bones regrow, yes we could treat muscular weakness and thirst, no we can't reverse the death of pancreatic B-cells in Type 1 diabetes, except some of us claim we can cure Type 1 diabetes, no we can't "cure" cancer, there are these amazing Indian homoepaths who can cure cancer etc etc.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Still waiting for Sarah to turn up.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Just checked at Hpathy. Sarah-I has a post with today's date and is part of a cluster default-timed in the wee small hours. I think they are on an American time zone by default so that means she's active this morning and still avoiding us.

Barb seems not to love us any more either.

Is there an impatient and drumming fingers smiley?

[Rolfe]

A whole thread, just for you Sarah! And you haven't contributed a word. How ungrateful.

Rolfe.

[BillC]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Patient presents with excessive thirst. Isn't this the one symptom homeopathy's magic water could relieve?

[Dr Adequate]

Actually, the magic water often comes in tablet form... which is just one of the many things which makes homeopathy look very very silly.

[BillC]

My apologies if this starts to derail the thread, but it looks like Sarah-I may be a no-show anyway.

Exactly how do they claim to get from the potenticised (is that a word?) solution to something they can present in tablet form? How does one dry water?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by BillC
My apologies if this starts to derail the thread, but it looks like Sarah-I may be a no-show anyway.

Exactly how do they claim to get from the potenticised (is that a word?) solution to something they can present in tablet form? How does one dry water?

Hey, this thread is for Sarah. Start your own darn thread.
Tangent-instigator.

[Sarah-I]

If there is permanent damage to the kidneys, then homeopathy will not help at all. No remedy can bring back function that is not there. Basically, in this case, care would be palliative with dialysis of some kind and conventional medications to control blood pressure and such like.

However, if there is some residual organ function left, then homeopathic treatment would consist of giving the patient an organ support remedy specifically designed for the kidneys. These would be remedies given in a Mother Tincture and would normally be given as 10 drops of MT in water to be taken TDS. Possible remedies would include Berberris and Sarsparilla, which are good kidney remedies. Some homeopaths would prescribe the organ support remedy for 2 months and after two months would give a constitutional remedy. However, other homeopaths like to give the organ support remedy in conjunction with the constitutional remedy. The method completely depends on the homeopath.

This kind of prescribing is very popular in France and other European countries. The French use a lot of Organ Drainage remedies, as they are referred to there. These are very low potency remedies and are either given in an X potency or a Mother Tincture on a daily basis, also in conjunction with constitutional treatment.

In conclusion then, if kidney function has been lost, then nothing can be done homeopathically. However, if the kidneys are still functioning, however small the function is, then homeopathy could help by prescribing in the way that I have mentioned above. This can all be verified with blood tests for Urea and Creatinnine.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
If there is permanent damage to the kidneys, then homeopathy will not help at all. No remedy can bring back function that is not there. Basically, in this case, care would be palliative with dialysis of some kind and conventional medications to control blood pressure and such like.

(snipped) However, other homeopaths like to give the organ support remedy in conjunction with the constitutional remedy. The method completely depends on the homeopath.

(snipped)

In conclusion then, if kidney function has been lost, then nothing can be done homeopathically. However, if the kidneys are still functioning, however small the function is, then homeopathy could help by prescribing in the way that I have mentioned above. This can all be verified with blood tests for Urea and Creatinnine.

Huh?
And what's this about "method depends on the homeopath?" Does this mean the homeopath can decide what is to be done? Are there no general guidelines that have to be followed to treat someone? Does this also include factors such as septicemia, genetic predisposition, kidney stones, and hypertension?

I admit. I am ver lost.

[flume]

Originally posted by Sarah-I: However, if there is some residual organ function left, then homeopathic treatment would consist of giving the patient an organ support remedy specifically designed for the kidneys. These would be remedies given in a Mother Tincture and would normally be given as 10 drops of MT in water to be taken TDS. Possible remedies would include Berberris and Sarsparilla, which are good kidney remedies.It seems that the amount of material in the mother tincture would be in the range of amounts given as herbal remedies. So there is an overlap between homeopathy and herbal treatments? Interesting that several herbal websites discussing sarsparilla say it can cause kidney damage.

[Sarah-I]

No. It is up to the homeopath to decide whether they give the Mother Tincture organ support remedy either before or at the same time as the consitutional remedy. This is all.

Basically, an organ support remedy given as a mother tincture will help support and strengthen the organ. If the organ is strengthened, then a constitutional remedy will work better. The consitutional remedy is then given on susceptibility and the rest. On the totality of symptoms.

[Zombified]

Sarah, would this homeopathic procedure apply to animals with renal failure as well?

[Sarah-I]

I'm not sure, as I don't treat animals with homeopathic remedies, only humans, with the one exception to this being my own animals.

[Zombified]

Do you own a cat? Progressive, chronic renal failure is a common problem in older cats.

[Prester John]

Actually the question was why can't homeopathy cure renal failure. This was not answered. We know it can't cure renal failure. WHY NOT?

Reread Sarahs answer, the question was dodged.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Prester John
Actually the question was why can't homeopathy cure renal failure. This was not answered. We know it can't cure renal failure. WHY NOT?

Reread Sarahs answer, the question was dodged.

Well it was glossed over. It does imply that renal failure can be prevented or kidney health can be maintained with homeopathy, and I suppose I was looking for how that worked.
sorry

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Patient presents with excessive thirst. Pallor. Muscle aches. GI upset etc.

Now, just why can't this patient be successfully treated with a well-chosen remedy to "cure" the problem? Re-read BSM's opening post. The presenting signs.

In an earlier post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870620804#post1870620804) Sarah definied homoeopathy as "a well-established and complete system of medicine." This really does imply that there's nothing it can't do, which is of course contradicted by what Sarah has just said. At the very least it implies that it can do everything that can be done, and that there's no need for any other approach to treatment. Again contradicted by Sarah's posts here. (Also by Sarah's espousal of things like head-rubbing, but there you go.)

So, let's get back to basics. Stop thinking about "renal failure", in the context of a real diagnosis made by real medicine, and real medical treatment like haemodialysis which the "complete" system of homoeopathy somehow unaccountably fails to encompass. Homoeopathy seen simply as a little extra something given on top of the essential treatment real medicine is administering is a bit of a cop-out, don't you think?

I mean, this "complete" system shouldn't be looked as simply as an add-on to allopathy, should it (Sarah, dear, please correct me if I'm wrong about this).

Supposing the patient BSM described has done what Snoopy/Elaine constantly urges everyone to do, and has consulted his homoeopath first. What is the homoeopath going to do? Sarah, supposing you had someone come to you with that list of symptoms, what would you do?

Would you declare that this was a pulsatilla case or a berberis case or whatever flavour of magic sugar took your fancy, and get on with it, or would you tell the patient to go and see a real doctor who would be able to do the necessary tests to find out what was actually wrong?

You see where this falls down? Homoeopathy alone can't even know that the patient is in renal failure, it can only see the cluster of symptoms. So either you declare that you can treat these symptoms, or you have to turn to allopathy for a diagnosis. Exactly what Hahnemann said shouldn't be done, by the way.

So much for the complete system of medicine.

Now, the question was, why can't you cure a patient with that collection of symptoms, and at what point do you realise this and tell the poor bugger to go to a proper doctor?

Rolfe.

[Suezoled]

Ah Rolfe... I love it when you talk medically-logical. Very very sexy.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I was meaning to add to this thread to point out how Sarah had dodged the real question, but I see Rolfe has done it for me.

So, Sarah, address the question truly to the principles of homeopathy, not some version of homeopathy invented by you as an optional add-on to real medicine.

Here's the opening words again;

"So, homeopathy can't cure renal failure.

Why the limitation? There is nothing homeopathy's approach to illness that can possibly exclude renal failure. Patient presents with excessive thirst. Pallor. Muscle aches. GI upset etc.

Now, just why can't this patient be successfully treated with a well-chosen remedy to "cure" the problem?"

Now remember, I know this patient really does have renal failure in my awful narrow allopathic way, but you don't. This patient has just slumped down in a chair in your consulting room and reeled off a list of symptoms just like every other patient.

This is not a "case of renal failure", that's my language. This patient is Rhus Tox (insert randomly chosen remedy) in your language. If the patient isRhus Tox and you have chosen the simillimum the patient will be cured. That's homeopathy.

Seems funny that you shy away from this problem because you know you daren't say anything else yet you are quite happy to volunteer for a rattlesnake bite to be cured by homeopathy. Maybe you are thinking of a very special kind of rattlesnake whose bite doesn't cause irreversible pathology.

Now, just in case your little butterfly mind has missed the main question again about a patient presenting with signs that actually relate to undiscovered renal failure, I'll repeat it;

"Now, just why can't this patient be successfully treated with a well-chosen remedy to "cure" the problem?"

[exarch]

OK, since Sarah isn't answering, I'll answer it for her. Sarah, if you think that what I'm writing is wrong, please explain why.

Homeopathy can only cure illnesses and afflictions that will heal all by themseves without treatment.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by exarch
OK, since Sarah isn't answering, I'll answer it for her. Sarah, if you think that what I'm writing is wrong, please explain why.

Homeopathy can only cure illnesses and afflictions that will heal all by themseves without treatment.

No, completely wrong. They also claim success when nothing has got better but they have flim-flammed the patient into thinking they have got better- remember the examples I posted recently from Shirley Reichsman at Hpathy saying how often the paients say they feel better while what they call the "physicals" are no different. Of course they were incapable of drawing th eobvious conclusion.

[Sarah-I]

THIS STATEMENT IS TOTALLY INCORRECT.

In cases of renal failure where the pathological damage to the kidneys is so severe that they are not working at all, then NO MEDICATION at all will bring back the function that has been lost. No medication means either allopathic medication or homeopathy. However, in this case, homeopathic remedies can be very useful it helping the side effects of renal failure such as itching, pain - all physical complaints that homeopathy can most definitely help.

Where the kidneys still have some function, then homeopathy can help with this most definitely.

There are case reports in the Journal of the Society of Homeopaths where one of the Indian homeopaths, Dr F Master has had success in treating cases of renal failure. He treated one case in a woman and used an LM potency and he took blood tests both before and after treatment that showed a fall in her creatininne levels.

There is also a case in the same journal where a patient with PKD was cured with just one remedy, steadily ascending up the potency scale as needed. This was the constitutional remedy and only this remedy was given. A TOTAL CURE WAS ACHIEVED FOR A PHYSICAL DISEASE.

Also, when I talked about treating the patient with organ support remedies in Mother Tincture in conjunction with the consitutional remedy, this is practiced the world over by many many homeopaths. It is a well known practice and lots of the Euopean homeopaths, in France and other places, as well as the Indian homeopaths practice in this way.

One of my tutors at University has been practicing as a homeopath for the last 30 years. He has also been teaching it for many years too and he describes himself as a classical homeopath, but does treat some of his patients with the appropriately selected Mother Tincture to give as an organ support remedy for about 2 months before giving a constitutional remedy, in patients where he feels that this is appropriate and he has had very good success with this treatment. He had one patient that he treated with heart problems and he decided to give him CRATEGEOUS MT, 10 drops daily, TDS for a 2 month period. This patient was on a lot of conventional meds before coming and by the end of the 2 month period was able to reduce these meds significantly and had improved greatly. After this 2 month period, he was given the appropriate constitutional remedy that worked extremely well too. I have a feeling that he was able to stop all his allopathic meds totally following this.

Another case where the appropriate remedies have helped PHYSICAL PROBLEMS.

Homeopathy treats physical problems too and not just emotional problems and there is very good success in treating these physical problems that actually do resolve very well with the right remedy.

So YES, renal failure can be treated homeopathically successfully, however, as I said at the beginning of this post, IF THE PATHOLOLGY IS TOO GREAT AND THERE IS NO RENAL FUNCTION LEFT AT ALL, THEN NOTHING WILL BE ABLE TO RESTORE THIS LOST FUNCTION, NOT EVEN CONVENTIONAL MEDS WILL DO THIS. THE BEST THAT CAN BE HOPED FOR IS THAT SYMPTOMS WILL BE CONTROLLED AND OF COURSE, A PATIENT WOULD NEED SOME KIND OF INTERVENTION SUCH AS HAEMODIALYSIS, CAPD OR A TRANSPLANT IF APPLICABLE.


THIS TOPIC IS NOW CLOSED.

[Rolfe]

Sorry, Sarah. You can't close a thread, only the mods can do that. And the mods here aren't like the cowardly lot over on H'pathy, and they don't close topics as soon as they get embarrassing for homoeopathy. No, indeedy.

So, while nobody can force you to contribute, or even to return to the forum, the discussion may continue as long as anyone feels there's something they want to discuss.

And I'd like to discuss how you know that homoeopathy can do any of the things you claim it can do, when you can't even figure a way to tell an actual remedy from the stock carrier material.

I'd also like to know how you can describe homoeopathy as a "complete" system of medicine, when it manifestly can't help patients who can be very much helped by real medicine.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
THIS STATEMENT IS TOTALLY INCORRECT.

In cases of renal failure where the pathological damage to the kidneys is so severe that they are not working at all, then NO MEDICATION at all will bring back the function that has been lost.

You are not answering the question that has been posed. You are not allowed in the given example to know whether or not the patient really does have renal failure. You are being placed in exactly the position of Hahnemann and his contemporaries and successors. All you have is a patient with a set of symptoms. They claimed to cure patients as a matter of routine. How can that possibly be true when you and I know full well that many patients really would have had irreversible underlying pathology?

If homeopathy cannot cure irreversible pathology then many old case histories have to be complete lies or misrepresentations.

Where the kidneys still have some function, then homeopathy can help with this most definitely.



See questions below.

There is also a case in the same journal where a patient with PKD was cured with just one remedy, steadily ascending up the potency scale as needed. This was the constitutional remedy and only this remedy was given. A TOTAL CURE WAS ACHIEVED FOR A PHYSICAL DISEASE.

What? That would be PKD would it, as in Polycystic Kidney Disease. A disease characterised by irreversible pathological changes. You see a problem with that at all at all?

We await with baited breath the paper in Nature where the defective gene is proven to have been rewritten thanks to homeopathy.

unsubstantiatable and pointless anecdote

Another case where the appropriate remedies have helped PHYSICAL PROBLEMS.

So YES, renal failure can be treated homeopathically successfully, however, as I said at the beginning of this post, IF THE PATHOLOLGY IS TOO GREAT AND THERE IS NO RENAL FUNCTION LEFT AT ALL, THEN NOTHING WILL BE ABLE TO RESTORE THIS LOST FUNCTION

1. How much irreversible renal pathology is present when you are claiming that homeopathy can treat renal failure successfully?

2. How many renal patients have zero renal function? Do they have zero functional nephrons?

3. How many nephrons have to die before homoepathy stops working?

4. Now, remind me, why is it we get worried about people lacking in medical training fiddling about with serious medicine?


NOT EVEN CONVENTIONAL MEDS WILL DO THIS.

err...we didn't say it could. You're the one with the allegedly "complete" system of medicine

THIS TOPIC IS NOW CLOSED.

No it ain't. You can either address these problems and begin to realise where you are going wrong or be pilloried in your absence.

That slavering sound you can hear is Rolfe getting ready to pounce on the topic of renal functional testing and its relation to pathology.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Here you go, Sarah, just in case you need a reminder of basic homeopathic principles, helpful Wim has just created a thread at Hpathy pointing at this link;

http://homeoint.org/books2/kentwhat/Kentintus.htm

"The homoeopathic physician has no remedy for the name of a disease.
Â_Â_Â_ Â_Homoeopathy is an exact science. It is based upon a natural law, and the true physician must prescribe in accordance with this law of nature.
Â_Â_Â_ Â_Homoeopathy has no specific for any disease by name, but it has a true specific for each individual case of disease.
Â_Â_Â_ Â_That is, Homoeopathy does not treat fever, or any other disease, in the abstract, but applies medicine to the individual personality in that condition which produces or causes fever.
Â_Â_Â_ Â_To apply the homoeopathic remedy properly that condition of the individual patient must be known by the voice of nature speaking through symptoms.
Â_Â_Â_ Â_The beneficent Creator has ordained that every diseased condition shall be made known by certain symptoms, and whenever that same condition is present that same set of symptoms will also be present.
Â_Â_Â_ Â_Certain symptoms are always present in any given disease ; these point alone to the name of the disease.
Â_Â_Â_ Â_In every given disease there is another class of symptoms peculiar to the individual and differing in some way from those of other cases of the same disease ; these symptoms show the individual characteristics of the patient and point unerringly to the curative homoeopathic remedy.
Â_Â_Â_ Â_When these symptoms peculiar to the individual patient are known the homoeopathic remedy can be selected that will surely cure every curable disease, whether the disease be tumors, morbid growths, cancer or other skin diseases, or any form of chronic or acute disease peculiar to man, woman or child."

I do like that little bit of hedging in the last paragraph- "cure every curable disease", which contradicts the opening lines where we are told that homeopathy doesn't treat diseases it treats patients as symptom clusters, which precludes you or the writer using thta get-out clause.

I just love it when we need to teach you about your own area of alleged expertise.

So, off you go, homoepathically correct answers please.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
That slavering sound you can hear is Rolfe getting ready to pounce on the topic of renal functional testing and its relation to pathology. OK, I'll bite.Originally posted by Sarah-I
In conclusion then, if kidney function has been lost, then nothing can be done homeopathically. However, if the kidneys are still functioning, however small the function is, then homeopathy could help by prescribing in the way that I have mentioned above. This can all be verified with blood tests for Urea and Creatinnine. If any homoeopath thinks that using homoeopathy alone, renal function can be significantly and measurably improved, I'm happy to offer to do the urea and creatinine tests free for as long as it takes to verify this.

But Sarah, you do have to specify what percentage of nephrons have to be lost before homoeopathy will no longer work.

I also want to know how you handle this type of patient, when he comes to you de novo. This patient is a fervent homoeopathy believer. He's convinced homoeopathy cured his acne when he was a teenager, he believed your puff about homoeopathy being a "complete" system of medicine, and Snoopy's hype about how everyone should see a homoeopath first because allopathy will "poison, mutilate, burn and relieve him of his life's savings".

He comes to you, trusting your propaganda, and very reluctant to go anywhere near an "allopath". He has the symptoms BSM described above.

Do you behave as a homoeopath, repertorise the symptoms and prescribe a homoeopathic remedy? Or do you behave as an allopath, think, "this patient may be in renal failure and in need of real medicine," and frogmarch him to a real doctor?

Remember, haemodialysis may not cure the disease, but it is capable of giving a fair quality of life almost indefinitely. And real medicine can replace the destroyed nephrons, by means of a kidney transplant. How do you handle this case?

Rolfe.

PS. The contented sigh you hear is Rolfe about to leave for a reading group meeting in Portslade. But I'll be back!

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

One little piece of elaboration for you-

When you are in renal failure are the remaining nephrons (if any- you still need to tell us that):-

1. functioning as well as in a normal kidney
2. functioning about half as well as in a normal kidney
3. functioning better than in a normal kidney
4. not functioning at all?

[exarch]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved MonkeyOriginally posted by exarch
OK, since Sarah isn't answering, I'll answer it for her. Sarah, if you think that what I'm writing is wrong, please explain why.

Homeopathy can only cure illnesses and afflictions that will heal all by themseves without treatment.No, completely wrong. They also claim success when nothing has got better but they have flim-flammed the patient into thinking they have got better- remember the examples I posted recently from Shirley Reichsman at Hpathy saying how often the paients say they feel better while what they call the "physicals" are no different. Of course they were incapable of drawing th eobvious conclusion.I don't disagree with you BSM, but my statement wasn't meant to be all inclusive, I was just trying to get Sarah to agree (or disagree) to my interpretation of her statement.

By the way, since she hasn't disagreed, I take this to mean that she agrees with my interpretation.

See, this works better than having to wait for them to answer your questions, you just give them the answers and ask whether they agree :)

[Benguin]

Right I'll bite as well ... based on BSMs post.

I have glomurelonephritis, a condition more difficult to spell than understand. All it means is a non-specific kidney disfunction with a few symptoms. Mainly (in my case) inflammed kidneys and microscopic haematuria.

My only awareness of it is temporarily concerned doctors and the fact insurance companies won't touch me with a barge pole.

Conventional medicine has nothing to offer me at this stage, even a biopsy is considered to be more risky than the possible benefits that the diagnostic procedure might result in (though it depends on the consultant you consult).

There we have it. Microscopic haematuria. I've a number of other silly conditions which seem unrelated, but feel free to PM me for a list.

Suggest a Homeo remedy and I'll try it. I'll get a series of before and after tests, if someone medical here designs the procedure.

And I've genuine a motive ... my prognosis is not an optimistic one. So come on Sarah, convert me.

[Rolfe]

Sorry to hear that, Benguin. (And this guy was surprised they called him in for a flu vaccination???)

If this was an animal case, I'd use the urine protein/creatinine ratio to monitor. Quite a variable feast, but if you got a long enough baseline it could be done. Nice one, because the samples can be obtained non-invasively.

Hmmm, have we a runner here?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
There are case reports in the Journal of the Society of Homeopaths where one of the Indian homeopaths, Dr F Master has had success in treating cases of renal failure. He treated one case in a woman and used an LM potency and he took blood tests both before and after treatment that showed a fall in her creatininne levels.

There is also a case in the same journal where a patient with PKD was cured with just one remedy, steadily ascending up the potency scale as needed. This was the constitutional remedy and only this remedy was given. A TOTAL CURE WAS ACHIEVED FOR A PHYSICAL DISEASE.Sorry, missed this bit.

Excuse me, one blood test before and one blood test after "treatment"? Er, have you any idea how inadequate a level of monitoring this would be? Two things. One, if the patient had acute renal failure, then it's perfectly possible that recovery would be beginning spontaneously, and so of course the creatinine would fall anyway. Two, if this was a chronic case, then the creatinine wouldn't fall significantly and permanently all on its own. Nevertheless, it's extremely rare to get exactly the same result from two consecutive samples. Almost inevitably, the second will be either higher or lower, and in an essentially stable state you have a 50% chance of lower.

So, in the chronic situation, if you tell me that the patient's creatinine was 350 +/- 15 µmol/l before treatment, and this fell to 200 +/- 10 µmol/l after treatment, each figure being the mean of at least five daily samples, then I'm listening. However, if you tell me that the result was 354 µmol/l on a single sample before treatment and 348 µmol/l on a single sample after treatment, then you've said nothing.

Does this give you any insight at all as to why your pathetic anecdotes are so useless? (And that's even before you start dredging out things you just "have a feeling" about.)

Now, about the PCK case. Do you understand that this disease destroys nephrons just as comprehensively as other forms of kidney failure? So why do you think homoeopathy could cure that particular one?

In this case, SHOW ME THE PICTURES. The cysts are extremely easy to see on ultrasound scans. So, let's hear about the after-treatment scans that showed normal, cyst-free kidneys, to document this "TOTAL CURE".

Or stop telling fairy stories.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by exarch
I don't disagree with you BSM, but my statement wasn't meant to be all inclusive, I was just trying to get Sarah to agree (or disagree) to my interpretation of her statement.See, this works better than having to wait for them to answer your questions, you just give them the answers and ask whether they agree :)

I see what you mean.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

The more I think about it, the more obvious it is that this thread is a lovely example of how knowledgeacquired haphazardly on the fringes of people who really do know what they are talking about is no substitute for a proper ground-up education. So, Sarah has learned some buzz words through contact with doctors but has no real understanding of the relationships between something like creatinine concentration in the blood, which is used as a rather poor indicator of impaired renal function, and the underlying functional and pathological lesions.

It's exactly the same with Kumar, of course, trying to enter a scientific discussion at a relatively high level when none of the basic concepts have been put in place.

However, this is all just passing the time until Sarah returns to answer the questions she has been given. She's even had time to go and look up the right answers, I wonder whether she will be able to reproduce them with evidence of genuine understanding.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Well, Sarah has read Wim's link

http://homeopathyforums.hpathy.com//forum_posts.asp?TID=2399&PN=1

I wonder whether she has learned anything from it.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
THIS STATEMENT IS TOTALLY INCORRECT.

In cases of renal failure where the pathological damage to the kidneys is so severe that they are not working at all, then NO MEDICATION at all will bring back the function that has been lost ... <snip>> ... YES, renal failure can be treated homeopathically successfully, however, as I said at the beginning of this post, IF THE PATHOLOLGY IS TOO GREAT AND THERE IS NO RENAL FUNCTION LEFT AT ALL, THEN NOTHING WILL BE ABLE TO RESTORE THIS LOST FUNCTION, NOT EVEN CONVENTIONAL MEDS WILL DO THIS. THE BEST THAT CAN BE HOPED FOR IS THAT SYMPTOMS WILL BE CONTROLLED AND OF COURSE, A PATIENT WOULD NEED SOME KIND OF INTERVENTION SUCH AS HAEMODIALYSIS, CAPD OR A TRANSPLANT IF APPLICABLE.


Given in the homeopathic system of measurement you are only meant to identify and treat symptoms, not engage in or entertain detailed allopathic diagnostics there is BIG problem here.

How can you tell from simple observable symptoms how much kidney function remains, whether it is deteriorating, whether it truly is permanent damage or whether it is temporary malfunction?

Remember, even sending peoples' urine off for blood/protein analyses is breaking Hahnemann's rules. In other words, stick to what this hilarious pseudo-medical (http://homeoint.org/books2/kentwhat/Kentintus.htm#18) bedside manner for idiots guide tells you.

How do you know whether you can help BEFORE the post mortem?


THIS TOPIC IS NOW CLOSED.

Yeah, like YOU WISH IT IS.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
We await with baited breath the paper in Nature where the defective gene is proven to have been rewritten thanks to homeopathy.

Sorry, Rolfe, I did mean bated breath!

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Sarah

Do you stand by what you say here;

"Structural damage to the kidneys can be caused by Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD). This is a genetically inherited condition where the kidneys are full of cysts that can rupture. The kidneys enlarge because of these causing haematuria and a lot of pain. This can lead to renal failure, but not always. One homeopath told me that some years ago, he cured a man of PKD completely with his chronic remedy. "

Why have we not seen this world-shattering finding of the cure of a genetic disease by homeopathy reported somewhere respectable?

"I am going to conduct some research into homeopathy and Chronic Renal Failure and wondered if any homeopath had treated this successfully? By successfully, I mean an improvement in blood figures following the remedy, a reduction in serum creatinnine and urea levels?"

Did you get anywhere with that? Will we be able to see the results?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Sarah

While you're at it, I'd like you to explain why you said the following;

"There is an Indian doctor who has several cases of chronic renal failure that he has treated with homeopathy. He uses both the indicated constitutional remedy in conjunction with organ support remedies to boost the kidneys and some of his patients have been able to stop dialysis due to this treatment. Blood tests have shown the significant drop in serum creatinnine levels too"

Where is the published reporting of these blood biochemistry results?

You also said this;

" I have a friend who is a homeopath in India who has a lot of experience working with chronic renal failure and I have e-mailed him and asked him to send me some examples of his work generally and some of his cases."

So, where are those cases?

I also love this brilliant demonstration of how badly you understand the need for proper controls in medical trials;

" O, this is where your argument falls down - take two groups and give one group the indicated and correct homepathic remedy and they will recover within 24 hours. Do not treat the other group and it will take them a lot longer to recover."

Sheer genius.

Aren't you glad that the illuminati have archived a lot of the rubbish you homeopaths spout so we can track what you say and hold you to account for it??!!

[Rolfe]

"Structural damage to the kidneys can be caused by Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD). This is a genetically inherited condition where the kidneys are full of cysts that can rupture. The kidneys enlarge because of these causing haematuria and a lot of pain. This can lead to renal failure, but not always. One homeopath told me that some years ago, he cured a man of PKD completely with his chronic remedy. "And where, please, can we find the ultrasound pictures (or I'll settle for CAT scans) documenting the "complete" disappearance of the cysts?

Rolfe.

[Prester John]

Re Benguin + Homeopathy.

Just a random thought but is micro haematuria a valid homeopathic symptom? By definition the amount of blood is so small you can't see it with the naked eye. If you can see it then its macro :). However if you use a microscope you can see the red cells. How does that fit in ?

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Prester John
Re Benguin + Homeopathy.

Just a random thought but is micro haematuria a valid homeopathic symptom? By definition the amount of blood is so small you can't see it with the naked eye. If you can see it then its macro :). However if you use a microscope you can see the red cells. How does that fit in ?

Sounds like I'm a perfect candidate for a trial. Hey Sarah, Woo me up baby.

" O, this is where your argument falls down - take two groups and give one group the indicated and correct homepathic remedy and they will recover within 24 hours. Do not treat the other group and it will take them a lot longer to recover."

The hairy knuckle dragger might have his reservations about that being a properly controlled study, reservations or not I'd be very surprised if you manage that scenario without actually cheating.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Benguin
The hairy knuckle dragger might have his reservations about that being a properly controlled study, reservations or not I'd be very surprised if you manage that scenario without actually cheating.

Isn't it a great quote, it's like the one of Bach's about how he was surprised that homeopathic remedies even did as well as placebo in trials. Both he and Sarah reveal by their statements such a fundamental misconception of what controlled experiments are for that you don't know how to begin.

Now, don't forget that Bach repeatedly claims to be fully conversant with statistical methods (e.g. http://homeopathyforums.hpathy.com//forum_posts.asp?TID=2393&PN=1). The interesting thing is that if you set him and Sarah down with a book of t-values I'll bet they could calculate some probability values. But what they absolutely lack is any qualititative understanding of what statistical analysis really means. So their views of the scientific method are the human embodiment of GIGO.

[exarch]

Originally posted by BenguinOriginally posted by Sarah-I
O, this is where your argument falls down - take two groups and give one group the indicated and correct homepathic remedy and they will recover within 24 hours. Do not treat the other group and it will take them a lot longer to recover.The hairy knuckle dragger might have his reservations about that being a properly controlled study, reservations or not I'd be very surprised if you manage that scenario without actually cheating.The big irony being that this is EXACTLY what we've been proposing they try since day one.
Perhaps it never occured to them to try this since they never realized this is the point where we already expect/know homeopathy to fail miserably.
Perhaps all this time they've been wondering what the heck it was we were trying to test?

Actually, that's can't be it, we've made it pretty clear we were highly skeptical of homeopathy doing anything at all.
I remember even SUGGESTING homeopathy might not work was a reason for banning on the otherhealth and h'pathy message boards.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
But what they absolutely lack is any qualititative understanding of what statistical analysis really means. So their views of the scientific method are the human embodiment of GIGO.

Few of them ever manage to break out of a stream of evidence-by-anecdote, and the ones that do just seem to wave about ropy meta-studies.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Benguin
Few of them ever manage to break out of a stream of evidence-by-anecdote, and the ones that do just seem to wave about ropy meta-studies.

As someone posted recently, they just don't "get" how to think analytically so they just carry on with a vague mish-mash of opinions. Now, when it comes to whether you prefer Merlot to Cabernet Sauvignon (or my current problem is Speckled Hen vs Bombardier) having a woolly opinion is good enough, but with medical science, truth, or a very good approximation of it, can be revealed by careful thinking and you have to be prepared to accept that the truth may contradict your gut-feeling.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
... but with medical science, truth, ... can be revealed by careful thinking ....

Read the wrong way that sounds very Kumar you know ... :p

They are all living in a solpsistic reality where even gravity is a matter of opinion. We are presenting arguments as true, false, unknown and then a series of probabilities and risks. All this for the benefit of people who will happily dispute 1+1=2 when it challenges a pre-conceived notion they have.

And Pinot Noir trounces both yours. But not as well as a good island malt.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Benguin
They are all living in a solpsistic reality where even gravity is a matter of opinion. We are presenting arguments as true, false, unknown and then a series of probabilities and risks. All this for the benefit of people who will happily dispute 1+1=2 when it challenges a pre-conceived notion they have.Indeed. Gravity, it's only a theory you know :rolleyes:

[Benguin]

Originally posted by exarch
Indeed. Gravity, it's only a theory you know :rolleyes:

Rather usefully, the National Geographic defined what scientists mean by theory in their last edition (the editorial bit).

When scientists say "theory," they mean a statement based on observation or experimentation that explains facets of the observable world so well that it becomes accepted as fact. They do not mean an idea created out of thin air, nor do they mean an unsubstantiated belief.


This bit is from the article online ...
That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.

NG Article on Darwin (http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/index.html)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Bump.

Gotta keep this thread visible to Sarah.