Sucessful trial of homeopathy

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by bvw12
whether the 'case study' is extremely thorough, meeting the highest clinical, academic, and scientific standards, or is sub-par.
....
it would be preferred if people actually read the case studies, and tried to learn how to analyze them clinically.Bach, EVERY SINGLE case study that you appear to be trying, obliquely and without specific references, to point to, is in the "sub-par" category. That is, the stories you seem to put so much store by have very little detail about the patients, and absolutely refuse even to countenance that anything that might be happening was not caused by the homoeopathic treatment.

Now, if you constantly refuse to cite, specifically, even a single example of what you actually mean by a good case study, or show us what you mean by "analysing them clinically" by demonstrating this analysis on your chosen case, you aren't going to progress much further here.

If I'm wrong, if you are talking about case studies other than the ones we've seen and which tend to elicit the "laughing dog" smilie, you need to prove this by giving us an example and showing how to analyse it properly.

Sarah is almost as bad. She refers to cases in her own experience or hearsay, but again with so little detail it's impossible to form any real opinion about what actually might have happened, other than that "on this evidence, there could be many other explanations besides that 'homoeopathy cured'."

And then, even when all this is gone through, one is left with the knowledge that a cherry-picked series of cases, no matter how spectacular, proves very little at all. Everybody in medicine knows that patients occasionally do very much better than expected, or go into remission on their own. The question is, does this happen any more frequently in those treated homoeopathically? If, every time anyone looks, it is impossible to show that the group of people who got their homoeopathic remedy did demonstrably better than a comparable group of people who only thought they got their remedy, then what is there to counter the "coincidental recovery and wishful thinking" hypothesis?

Bach summarily rejects this hypothesis, and yet he can present absolutely no evidence to support this rejection. I really think Psiload summarised the situation admirably.Let me get this straight...

Homeopathy can cure pneumonia and cancer, basically for free, yet there isn't a single accredited university in the United States offering a homeopathy degree?

Homeopathic remedies are powerful enough to defeat cancer, yet they're indistinguishable from sugar cubes and tap water?

Homeopathy cures cancer? Is this generally applicable, or does it only work in Crazytown?Some pretty substantial evidence is required to counter the simple observation that homoeopathy's claims are simply nuts, and the product of delusional thinking. So far, no such evidence has been presented.

Rolfe.

[Hellbound]

Bach,

You misinterpret me. I'll admit that using the word "supports" was simply sloppy writing on my part.

The point I was making is that your courtroom analogy was not, well, analogous. You claimed that skeptics were like lawyers denying that evidence was there. However, even courtrooms have certain standards for what is admissible evidence and what is not.

The homeopathic "evidence" offered so far has been analogous to heresay in the courtroom. Like heresay does not meet the standard of evidence in a court of law, anecdotes and "case studies" in the style you've so far presented do not meet the standards of evidence used in science. The reason for these standards of evidence is because sub-par evidence has led us astray many times in the past. Thus, the foundation of scientific investigation is observation, but that observation needs to be objective, evident, isolated, and repeatable. In other words, the observations should not rely on the observer's interpretations (temperature readings, lab tests, blood pressure, and similar measurements are good, objective data. "He looks sick" or "He feels bad" are subjective, and thus placed at a much lower level). Secondly, they should obvious and based on proven techniques (X-ray images are good, Kirilian aura photographs are not). Third, they must be isolated. If I have a pot of water on the stove and drop a penny in it, and it starts to boil, I might claim that copper makes water boil. The experiment supports that. However, the flaw is that I have not isolated the variable in this instance...I have too much going on at once. THis is part of the reason why medical trials must be based on statisical analysis...there are too many confounding factors in human life to enable one to isolate the differences to a single drug/treatment. Statistically, the treatments should be given to a broad and varied group, and if there is any effect it will show through. Fourth, evidence must be repeatable. Other researchers should be able to set up the same procedures and/or experiments and get the same results.

Real case studies include all of the things others here are asking for...lab tests, objective readings of vital signs, listings of symptoms and clinical signs, all fo these taken over the course of treatment. Patient description and prersentation, confounding factors, outside influences, all of these things are included in a case study. A narrative told in the manner of "He came in, I gave him X as symptoms dictate, and he felt better" does not meet the standards of case study.

Just like in a court of law, where third person accounts are not accepted, likewise in science. There should be hard data, lab results, diagnostic tests, and other evidence that makes a case study worthwhile.

Second, I think you show a great deal of confusion about what a DBPC trial is, and about statistical analysis. If there is any effect, it will show up in a statistical analysis. Period. Basic mathematical laws. If giving X to patient Y makes him better, then examining 100 patients who all got treatment X will show an increased percentage of those who get well compared to patients who got placebo. Even the case studies you talk about will show effects via a statistical analysis. Statistics don't change the data (when done properly), they simply highlight certain aspects of the results. It's simply putting the data through various filters to see how individual results compare.

Likewise, all you arguments against DBPC trials so far have had nothing to do with any failing of the basic DBPC concept, but rather have been arguments against specifics of protocol. A DBPC trial can be conducted utilizing whatever homeopathic techniques you think are necessary, and analysis after the trial will show effects if any are present. You seem to be arguing that 1+1 sometimes equals 3...if this is the case then I will simply bow out of the discussion now, as further argument would be pointless.

I hope this clarifies my earlier brief and imprecise statements, and I also hope it clarifies your misunderstandings of scientific method, DBPC trials, and statistical analysis. There is only one scientific method, although there are many protocols. Also, ANY scientific investigation is amenable to statistical analysis, even psychotherapy. That argument is simply dead in the water...it's double-talking hand-wringing with no real basis, unless you can point to specific reasons that make statistical analysis invalid (other than "It doesn't show results and I just know they're there!").

As a minor point of clarification, when I referred to stories earlier, I was not referring to your analogy, but to your "case studies" that have been, so far, nothing of the sort.

[bvw12]

quote (huntsman): "Third, they must be isolated. If I have a pot of water on the stove and drop a penny in it, and it starts to boil, I might claim that copper makes water boil."

yeah! i mean i've seen that happen, too, ain't it amazin!!?? ;) just jokin', of course. yuk yuk. funny example. thanks.


quote (huntsman): "Likewise, all you arguments against DBPC trials so far have had nothing to do with any failing of the basic DBPC concept, but rather have been arguments against specifics of protocol. A DBPC trial can be conducted utilizing whatever homeopathic techniques you think are necessary, and analysis after the trial will show effects if any are present. You seem to be arguing that 1+1 sometimes equals 3...

I hope this clarifies my earlier brief and imprecise statements, and I also hope it clarifies your misunderstandings of scientific method, DBPC trials, and statistical analysis. There is only one scientific method, although there are many protocols. Also, ANY scientific investigation is amenable to statistical analysis, even psychotherapy."


thanks huntsman and others for careful responses. i choose these remarks from huntsman for focus, but please call me on omissions.

first, a key point, maybe THE key point, in fact, absolutely the key point from my pov, and the arguments i'm trying to put forward: "Likewise, all you arguments against DBPC trials so far have had nothing to do with any failing of the basic DBPC concept, but rather have been arguments against specifics of protocol." in other words, correct, i am challenging design and implementation and definition of terms and interpretation of outcomes and appropriateness of design to measure the object of investigation. folks, i've said it over and over again, i do not, i absolutely do not, question the ability of dbpc - in priniciple - to do everything you say it can do. i know it can, i know it can, i know it can - to paraphrase the little engine that could.

my question is, why doesn't it? and my answer is, because the dbpc is a wonderful instrument that has chalked up an impressive list of victories on behalf of science ... but (imho) has failed miserably to present credible evidence in the instance of homeopathy: that is, the protocols designed around the framework of dbpc have failed miserably. i continue to think that, most probably, trials based on dbpc can in fact measure homeopathy, if properly designed. i have enumerated some of the things i think have screwed up rct's in the past, in the 'scientific validity' thread i linked to before, and i am making efforts to make a more complete statement. but i have tried to be clear in acknowledging strengths of your methodology, and my focus on specific problem areas, as you note. that is, however, all i am criticizing, though i suppose that's enough. i hope, however, we are a little more clear now, why i am here and what points i am trying to clarify. let's not argue about something over which there is simply no argument, ok? i have no beef with dbpc.

just one last point, because i'm a little miffed by your constant insistance that i'm misunderstanding something: i agree, i am not a professional researcher, but my understanding of research methodology is at least adequate for my position, i endeavor to couch my arguments within a frame that i can support with my knowledge base, and i have not made any outstanding gaffes of which i am aware, or which you have succeeded in pointing out - in this regard, please note again, that the ONLY argument i am making is the one about failings of individual dbpc's, or rather of nearly all dbpc's i've seen, in short, of the whole research tradition that's been constructed to date concerning homeopathy. the same errors of design etc, in short, keep being made over and over and over.

i'd like to see the problems avoided in the future, so that accurate measurements (from my pov) can finally be made.

i also agree, btw, that there is only one scientific method, but i think few if any here would really argue the point, that my little trilogy of observation, categorization, and systematization don't fit into the scientific model. if you do, we have a bit of explaining to do m. freud, and darwin, and, yes, i would say hahnemann too.

absolutely, statistics should be applicable to study of homeopathy as anything else. but what i have called clinical analysis should also be applicable, both ways. as i've tried to do, especially at the 'scientific validity' thread in more detail, i think this approach can also be applied to efforts to evaluate the efficacy, as it were, of the specific dbpc protocols under review. imho, the trials i have seen have no more right to be called a 'trial' rather than a 'story,' than do many case studies, in your terms, deserved the title 'study' over 'story.'

but i still reserve the name case 'study,' because it is the appropriate professional usage: you simply accomplish nothing constructive by changing the jargon in debate, other than scoring debating points - mebbe - and insulting the opposition. and so, in that regard, i make my point regarding the equally justified usage of "double blind placebo controlled story," for rhetorical efficacy of argument, but will not indulge in actual usage of that term in the course of the debate. i think it's appropriate for you to do the same, with me or anywhere you happen to go ... errr, visiting.

finally, i continue to side step your demands for specific references of case studies that i personally approve, but will also continue to try to explain why:

it does appear that some of you at least have an idea of what constitutes a case study; a few posts up, rolfe gave a good list of components that could be included.

in this regard, however, i would suggest that it would be beneficial to consider that case studies come in all shapes and sizes, and that they have differing strengths and weaknesses. freud's case studies are monuments of psychological invention in the best sense, distilling years of observation and practice into an extremely literate profile of clinical interpretation, in order to elucidate psychological dynamics from the psychoanalytic pov. the tyler/weir vignettes i linked to (or carn linked to on my behalf, for which i thanked him before and thank him again) are very brief case studies with the specific purpose of clarifying the process of selecting the appropriate remedy for a homeopathic patient; the proffer of lab test results or anything else that would be included in a comprehensive case study report would be extraneous to the purposes of these vignettes. case studies i prepare for consultation purposes to a school, are far less comprehensive that reports i prepare as part of a hospital-based, multi-disciplinary evaluation.

the fact is, that many case studies are meant to be instructive in this sense, and assume a common literature as a foundation to present discussion. assuming the adequacy of method, many case studies intend to illustrate processes, including methods of diagnosis and prescription and follow-up, of homeopathic process per se, and do not include, therefore, the broader based documentation you are seeking. they may be quite adequate, even exemplary, from the pov of communicating information about ongoing treatment of a case, without meeting even in the least bit, your expressed desire for lab evidence etc.

this may with some justice be viewed as reflecting an inadequacy of method. but from the other side, it may be viewed simply as preparing a document appropriate to the intervention at hand. to be sure, diagnosis and also evaluation of outcome may appropriately include lab evidence, if the clinician has reason to believe that aspects of the problem can not be dealt with adequately without such information. but in clinical practice, that is not necessarily a foregone conclusion: in my psychotherapy practice, i will sometimes refuse to see a patient who does not accept my direction to be under psychiatric care, but that demand will be made on the basis of specific risk factors that i cannot adequately address in the context of out-patient psychotherapy; needless to say, not all cases require that level of intervention, and i will not require a psychiatric evaluation of all of my patients, when most of them, on my own assessment, show no need for such a support.

in other words, the case study must be appropriate to the case at hand, and may not need to involve the full scope of instrumentation that can, in context of the full range of 'medical' conditions that are out there, conceivably be of use in some cases. in daily practice, obviously, the judgment of the clinician is the sole criteria for decision making. from that, the 'quality' of subsequent case studies is derived. the clinician, of course, could have been in error, and one way or another, should be willing to concede the possibility. some of my own favorite words, in discussing cases, and even in presenting interpretations to patients, are 'maybe,' 'perhaps,' 'seems to be,' and the like. but that doesn't mean i order a lab test every time someone sneezes. and the presence of alternative explanatory schemes does not, of course, invalidate that explanatory scheme that i determine to be operative at the 'clinical moment,' so to speak.

in short, the case study has to be evaluated at least in part on its merits, in context of the purposes of therapy. and therapy, and the formulation of a case, may be scientific, even if it does not reduce itself in every case to statistics.

that is, of course, inconvenient to the statistician. further, i don't deny the validity nor the importance of your questions, but i have to insist that the 'standardization' of clinical methodology does in fact represent a reasonable variety of scientific 'replicability,' especially when one considers the practical context of most treatment scenarios. a further problem, with homeopathy itself, is simply that it is still such a marginal factor in modern medicine: i think the number is 3,000 homeopaths in the entire usa. geeesh, there have got to be 10 times that number of psychotherapists in my county by itself!

don't forget, the enormous research establishment you represent is supported by an enormous medical establishment. it requires quite a bit more in the way of resources, and willing participants, than you are likely to find in such a small group as homeopaths.


bach

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by bvw12
Lots and lots of words (without many capital letters....)Did somebody say something?

I've been insulted and patronised by Bach on numerous occasions in homoeopathic forums, where it's been impossible to answer honestly because such answers simply incurred a ban, and all one's posts deleted. (This is why it's no good Bach saying things like "go and read the "Why" thread," because even if you could find it, it now contains nothing but disjointed posts by homoeopathic proponents, with all the opposing posts and even all quotes from them deleted.) Here, there is the possibility for better, because not only can we speak freely without being banned, but (unless he starts telling people to kill themselves or posting kiddy porn) Bach can say exactly what he wants to say also. Not only that, Bach's posts here are actually more coherent, more sensible and less patronising than those he is wont to make on the homoeopath forums.

So, how come he still isn't saying anything?

Bach has some other definition of "evidence", different from that held by all those involved in science and research. He thinks he has sufficient knowledge about the subject, enough for him to contradict and insult a bunch of people here with PhDs and similar qualifications. So, he rejects the evidence that we have been happy to show and tell to him, and would be happy to go on showing and telling to him if he were actually listening. And he tells us that his "evidence", that is to his definition of evidence, which is of course more valid than that of all the PhDs etc., is really of far superior quality to ours, and completely trumps ours.

But in spite of repeated exhortations even to give us a single representative example of what he's talking about, he flatly and explicitly refuses actually to produce any of this evidence for our edification. We simply have to take it on trust that Bach is privy to amazing esoteric knowledge that completely over-rides all the negative controlled trials, and the intrinsic silliness of all homoeopathy's claims. But it seems we're not to be alllowed to find out what this is.

This is actually rather disappointing.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by bvw12
absolutely, statistics should be applicable to study of homeopathy as anything else. but what i have called clinical analysis should also be applicable, both ways.

Simply. No. "clinical analysis" just plain doesn't do what you claim it does. it is not an alternative to or a complement of scientifically controlled gathering of data. Your "clinical analysis" is precisley that circular self-referential process that I described previously- it assumes that all the aspects of the case can be made to fit a narrative supplied by a system that is designed purposely to provide a story to suit every outcome. The person trying to measure time with a yardstick is you, old son. The tool you choose does not do the job you claim it to.

If you think you can break out of your circle, consider why homeopathic provings don't work.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870495815&highlight=sherr+AND+fallacy#post1870495815

Wherein you will find 19 logical fallacies to chew on. Acknowledge the self-evident flaws of this basic facet of homeopathy and you will have begun to learn something.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by bvw12

***snip***

a further problem, with homeopathy itself, is simply that it is still such a marginal factor in modern medicine: i think the number is 3,000 homeopaths in the entire usa. geeesh, there have got to be 10 times that number of psychotherapists in my county by itself!

don't forget, the enormous research establishment you represent is supported by an enormous medical establishment. it requires quite a bit more in the way of resources, and willing participants, than you are likely to find in such a small group as homeopaths.


bach This arguement would be valid if homeopathy had only been conceived some short decade or so ago, but this is not the case.

Homeopathy was introduced at a time in which evidence-based medicine was nearly every bit as chaotic and undisciplined as homeopathy. Evidence based medicine hit upon, and embraced RCT methodology, and flourished as a result. Homeopathy resisted RCT methodology, and sealed it's fate as an 'also ran'.

Homeopathy remains a fringe, underresourced, stagnant field of endeavour because this is exactly the lot it has earned for itself.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Psiload
Homeopathy remains a fringe, underresourced, stagnant field of endeavour because this is exactly the lot it has earned for itself. I agree with your entire post, but for one word here. "Under-resourced." Homoeopathy is quite eye-poppingly profitable. The amount of money being made is absolutely staggering.

I first realised this when our friendly local homoepathic vet came to set up an account with my firm. He wouldn't be sending us much in the way of lab samples of course, but he might send the odd one or two. Then he sort of gave it all away. He really only needed a small consulting room, and a waiting room, and that was that. He was converting a tiny shop-unit in a picturesque village, and fortunately, being tiny, it was cheap. There would just be him, and the girl who did his reception duties and answered the phone. And a nice comfy chair or two, and perhaps a potted plant.

Now I know what it costs to rent (or worse, buy) sufficient space to hold a real veterinary practice in this area. It's crippling. And I know what it costs to fill it with the gear you need to do a good (or even just a safe) job - anaesthetic machines and operating tables and ultrasound machines and x-ray machines (and even if you take my advice and use a good professional lab, the lab equipment you need to do the emergency stuff) and comfortable kennels and trained and competent nursing staff and usually at least one other vet so both of you can get the occasional night's sleep between the road accidents and the bloated dogs and the cats with aortic thromboembolism, and of course all these drugs.

You know, these expensive allopathic drugs which cost so much mainly because all the development and licensing costs have to be met by the pharmaceutical companies, who have to turn a profit overall even though a lot of their promising numbers don't actually cut it in the end.

Consider homoeopathy, in contrast. Take any substence, the more exotic-sounding the better these days. Get Helios to "run it up" to whatever potencies you choose. Recruit a bunch of self-obsessed new-age loons and run a "proving" on them. Never yet heard of a proving that didn't provide "evidence" that the substance was a potentially useful homoeopathic remedy. And that's it. No need to apply for a licence, no need to provide all these pesky mountains of data demonstrating safety and efficacy, and subject them to the close and fishy scrutiny of the VMD. No need even to set up a special manufacturing plant. Your initial "mother tincture" will last forever. Just shake and dilute, to taste.

Wim the Woo keeps repeating like a mantra, homoeopathy is cheap and effective. Well, we've discussed the latter, but consider the former. I paid £4.50 for what looked like about a teaspoonful of sugar pellets (and which, according to the label, was exactly that), but also in some mysterious and unspecified way, "30C Belladonna". 80 pills, unaccountably to be taken two at a time (odd, because the homoeopats tend to tell us that a dose is a dose is a dose, no matter how many pills you take). 5.6p per pill. 11.2p per dose. Enormously more expensive than aspirin or paracetamol. In fact, I paid just over 9p per pill for 100 cephalexin tablets the other day, and that's a licensed, POM antibiotic.

Admittedly, there are some very much more expensive licensed drugs. (And of course, if you need other sorts of real medicine like x-rays and lab tests and even surgery, well, that will look high on the bill but then the homoeopath will offer none of that.) But compared to the ordinary OTC preparations, homoeopathic remedies cost a bomb.

And yet they cost peanuts to make and nothing to license.

The homoeopaths have almost no overheads.

Their total bills might seem relatively cheap, but their expenditure is minimal. The percentage profit, as I said, is eyepopping. They get to keep almost all their turnover.

The profits declared by big homoeopathic manufacturers are staggering. And none of that has to go into research, and very little of it does. Homoeopaths pocket the loot, while bleating that they ought to be given public funds to trial the medicines they are already selling to the public. While real pharmaceutical companies have to fund all their own development and licensing costs up-front, and can't sell a single pill until they have approval, and have to absorb all these costs for the drugs that don't make it as far as licensing.

It's been pointed out several times that realistic appraisals of the cost-effectiveness of homoeopathy for the NHS have been resoundingly negative, even ignoring the fact that there's no objective effect. The pills aren't expensive compared to anti-cancer drugs, but then they're not going to replace the anti-cancer drugs are they, and the consultation time is the complete killer. Homoeopaths may see only half a dozen patients a day. A real doctor has to get through that many in an hour. But the medical homoeopath still wants the same (or maybe a bit more) hourly rate, doesn't he?

So less of the under-resourced bit.

They just don't see any point in diverting any of their fat profits to research which can't advance them in any way (as it is, they get to do what they like), and has every prospect of putting a severe crimp in their style.

Hold homoeopathic remedies to the same standards of safety and efficacy as all other pharmaceutical preparations, I say. And let the manufacturers pay for the research needed, just as real drug manufacturers have to.

Then we'll see what the real cost-benefit equation looks like.

Rolfe.

[bvw12]

so many circles. so little time. isn't consensual validation a wonderful thing - at least, it would seem that would be something else you guys could agree on, besides arguing from authority (of your choice), and the pleasures of solipsistic eyeglasses.

what a total waste.

[Jeff Corey]

[i]Originally ...solipsistic eyeglasses. [/B] That's making a spectacle out of yourself,

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by bvw12
so many circles. so little time. isn't consensual validation a wonderful thing - at least, it would seem that would be something else you guys could agree on, besides arguing from authority (of your choice), and the pleasures of solipsistic eyeglasses.

what a total waste.

Those mirror shades you bought were meant to have the mirrors on the outside.

So, at a forum where we can't be banned for asking the questions you can't answer you just go off in a huff. Do your patients know that you find yourself incapable of defending homeopathy? I hope they know less about it than you do or you'll be in trouble. Fortunately there seems to be no shortage of willing dupes so you may continue your low-overhead high profit activities.

Now why am I reminded of my cat who, on several occasions, has shown off his tree-climbing ability by getting onto a branch and rolling around only to fall out of the tree. He then shakes himself off and struts away as if that was what he had always meant to do?

Any time you want to learn about tree-climbing from cats who can do it, just let us know.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

More seriously, though, I think that the revelation that is nearly as interesting as bach's inability to see that what he calls 'clinical evidence' is a system of circular thinking is his explicit refusal to present an iota of that evidence he finds utterly compelling. It's a funny sort of compelling evidence that can't risk being critiqued. The refusal to risk presenting it also adds a level of knowingness to bach's obstinate refusal to deal with the issues properly that raises the familiar spectre of hypocrisy over everything homeopaths say and do- it's not that they are innocently unaware it's nonsense, they either know damn well it is nonsense or engage in such an active process of avoiding difficult subjects that it is morally equivalent to conscious fraud.

[Chris Haynes]

Perhaps it is time for Bach's depressive phase. This may be time when he disappears for days or weeks on end.

Recently my hubby's family have learned how effective homeopathy is effective for bi-polar disorder --- not. The lows still translate as unrelenting fatigue... and the highs cause her to write manic letters and shop online with money she does not have.

Originally posted by bvw12
,,, i think the number is 3,000 homeopaths in the entire usa. geeesh, there have got to be 10 times that number of psychotherapists in my county by itself!
...

Oh, and I wonder WHAT kind of licensing requirements would allow thirty thousand psychotherapists in one county.

Just to let everyone know... mental illness is not a trifle. It is a serious problem, and it affects many families quite seriously. I am sure Bach's family would truly like to see him get real help, with real medicine.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
Perhaps it is time for Bach's depressive phase. This may be time when he disappears for days or weeks on end.


Just to let everyone know... mental illness is not a trifle. It is a serious problem, and it affects many families quite seriously. I am sure Bach's family would truly like to see him get real help, with real medicine.

I think you are going to far with that.
Or how can you prove via a forum, that Bach has a mental illness.

(Ok, i know all people psychotherapists learned the trade to treat themselves, but that is just a joke, no proof.)

Carn

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Do your patients know that you find yourself incapable of defending homeopathy? I hope they know less about it than you do or you'll be in trouble. Fortunately there seems to be no shortage of willing dupes so you may continue your low-overhead high profit activities.This is the second one, explicitly. Remember, Barb stated that she couldn't exclude the possibility that everything she saw happening in her homoeopathy practice was "placebo". However, she didn't care, she wasn't intellectual, and she had no intention whatsoever of reconsidering or re-evaluating her beliefs. She fully intended to carry on taking money from people for whatever it was she was doing.

Honest sort of people, these homoeopaths? (We need a sarcasm smilie.)

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

No Bach, I see.

Let me try something.

Here's a case report, of a real case, as it might be presented to an interested colleague or group of colleagues. As I'm a vet, the patient is a dog.

The patient is a 3-year-old Springer Spaniel spayed female, liver-and-white, 12 kg. She is in full-time employment as a drug-sniffer dog at Gatwick Airport, and lives at home with her handler. She presented dull, unwilling to work, having been sick on two occasions, and eating and drinking very little. This situation had developed gradually over about a week, and her handler reported that she had perhaps been "off colour" for rather longer.

On clinical examination she was pale, with a capillary refill time of 6 seconds. Her heart rate was 60 beats per minute and her pulse volume was poor. Her rectal temperature was 37<SUP>o</SUP>C and her ears and paws felt cold.

Some difficulty was experienced performing a venepuncture, but blood was eventually collected and submitted for biochemistry and haematology. Results were as follows.

Total protein 85 g/l
Albumin 42 g/l
Globulin 43 g/l
Sodium 132 mmol/l
Potassium 8.3 mmol/l
Calcium 2.96 mmol/l
Urea 18.6 mmol/l
Creatinine 125 &micro;mol/l
Glucose 3.8 mmol/l
ALT 82 iu/l
ALP 193 iu/l

PCV 0.37
Hb 12.8 g/100ml
RBC count 5.34x10<SUP>12</SUP>/l
MCV 69.3 fl
MCHC 34.6 g/100ml
Total WBC count 10.8x10<SUP>9</SUP>/l
Neutrophils 4.5x10<SUP>9</SUP>/l
Eosinophils 1.5x10<SUP>9</SUP>/l
Lymphocytes 4.8x10<SUP>9</SUP>/l

Blood film was normal.

An ACTH stimulation test was then performed, with the following results:

Baseline cortisol &lt;28 nmol/l
Post-ACTH cortisol &lt;28 nmol/l

<HR length=90%>
A diagnosis of Addison's disease (hypoadrenocorticism) was made. Initial treatment was 500 ml isotonic saline i/v, with soluble dexamethasone added to the infusion at a dose rate of 2 mg/kg. This infusion was carried out overnight, after which time the patient was much brighter, pallor was much reduced, and capillary refill time was 4 seconds. Heart rate was 90 beats per minute and pulse volume was good. Rectal temoerature was 38<SUP>o</SUP>C.

A biochemistry sample collected at this time produced the following results:

Sodium 141 mmol/l
Potassium 5.6 mmol/l
Urea 8.2 mmol/l
Creatinine 97 &micro;mol/l

It was decided to discharge the patient from hospital.

Maintenance therapy was prescribed: fludrocortisone, 10 &micro;g/kg twice daily; plus prednisolone, 0.2 mg/kg/day. Her handler was also instructed to add table salt to her food at a rate of 2 g/day.

<HR length=90%>
The patient remained clinically well. At her first check-up one week after discharge she was bright and alert. All vital signs were within normal limits.

A biochemistry sample collected at this time produced the following results:

Sodium 146 mmol/l
Potassium 5.1 mmol/l
Urea 6.7 mmol/l
Creatinine 85 &micro;mol/l

Maintenance therapy was maintained at the same dose rates, with checkups scheduled for 1 month, 3 months and then every 6 months indefinitely, to review the situation.

The patient's employers decided to retain her in employment because of the good prognosis. She returned to work one week later and remained clinically well and working well.

All that actually happened. And if it was important, I could tell you the dog's name and introduce you to the vet who treated her and who could produce her detailed case records and even arrange for you to meet the dog.

Now, if a homoeopath came to me with exactly this story, but with the part in the middle (between the lines) substituted by something like "it was decided that this was an eyofnewtium case. Eyeofnewtium was prescribed in appropriate potencies at an appropriate dose schedule...." or some such homoeopathic narrative, and the outcome was similar to this one, I'd be listening.

In fact I'd be bloody astonished. I know what happens when dogs in that condition don't get the regular treatment. They die. It seems quite improbable that even one would recover spontaneously from such a well-documented and definite case of Addison's disease. If the same thing, with this much detail, could be shown to have occurred three or four times (not necessarily with the same remedy), and it could be demonstrated that someone wasn't just inventing the entire tale, I'd be forced to concede that homoeopathy was probably an effective treatment, or at the very least there was clear evidence of an effect marked enough to warrant very serious further investigation.

But we never get this. Vague stories of asserted illnesses with no data to back up the original diagnosis, followed by an alleged "cure" which equally lacks any data to show that recovery really happened.

This is what a case report ought to look like. And even there, I could be accused of truncating some of the data for length. Without this sort of detail, how can we possibly accept that Bach has enough evidence to convince him that the whole thing isn't just moonshine?

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
how can we possibly accept that Bach has enough evidence to convince him that the whole thing isn't just moonshine?


We can't, because all we we have is naive twits like little Sarah who bring to the discussion the intellectual and linguistic power of a 7-year old (with apologies to the parents of 7-year olds).


Originally posted by Sarah-I

There are no untruths told in case studies. There is no point in doing this. Everything is factual and correct.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
One could question the competence of the diagnosis, but even accepting that pneumonia was accurately diagnosed you have remembered, haven't you, the difference between viral and bacterial pneumonia?
As far as homeopaths are concerned, I'm not sure if there actually is a difference. Homeopathy operates by looking at the symptoms exhibited by a particular patient and prescribing a "remedy" appropriate to the symptoms. I'm not sure if the cause of the symptoms would be relevant.
In any case, the germ theory of disease, like the Avogadro number, post-dates Hahnemann and is therefore irrelevant to homeopathy.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Mojo
As far as homeopaths are concerned, I'm not sure if there actually is a difference. Homeopathy operates by looking at the symptoms exhibited by a particular patient and prescribing a "remedy" appropriate to the symptoms. I'm not sure if the cause of the symptoms would be relevant.
In any case, the germ theory of disease, like the Avogadro number, post-dates Hahnemann and is therefore irrelevant to homeopathy.

Agreed, but it matters to little Sarah, who would really have liked to be a doctor and uses the currency of 'allopathic' medicine. In this instance she was tryog to make a rhetorical point about the real power of homeopathy over a nasty dangerous disease like pneumonia, but only succeeded in showing her deep failure to grasp basic medical concepts.

You are right. To a homeopath this case should have been: breathless, tired, blue lips, feels cold, cannot bear to lie down etc etc. and in desperate need of Dogpoopicum 100C or somesuch.

Her mix and match approach is only one among the many idiocies they display.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I don't think anyone has explicitly commented on the contrast between this board when the woos run away and the hom board when sceptics vanish (by being banned). We complain that someone has taken our toy away and it's no fun any more. They express relief that they can get back to comparing their delusional beliefs without nasty insiders intruding with their scary stories of the real world. Now ask me who I think is the more intellectually robust.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Rolfe





But we never get this. Vague stories of asserted illnesses with no data to back up the original diagnosis, followed by an alleged "cure" which equally lacks any data to show that recovery really happened.

This is what a case report ought to look like.

Rolfe.

I do not think any homeopaths will come up with something like you want, so i'll try, though i think you will still call it case story:

http://www.e-hepatitis-c.com/casestudy.htm

It contains at least some information of analysis before and afterwards, though it misses the important info, whether patient recevived some other treatment as well.

There are lot of case studies(in homeopathical sense) on that page sorted by diseases(whch is a bit unhomeopathic), but i didn't find any further, that wouldn't be just a case story in your eyes.

Carn

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Rolfe
No Bach, I see.

Let me try something.

*sniiiip*

Now, if a homoeopath came to me with exactly this story, but with the part in the middle (between the lines) substituted by something like "it was decided that this was an eyofnewtium case. Eyeofnewtium was prescribed in appropriate potencies at an appropriate dose schedule...." or some such homoeopathic narrative, and the outcome was similar to this one, I'd be listening.

*snip*

This is what a case report ought to look like. And even there, I could be accused of truncating some of the data for length. Without this sort of detail, how can we possibly accept that Bach has enough evidence to convince him that the whole thing isn't just moonshine?

Rolfe. Excellent! You are quite right.

Bach (if you're still lurking, which I expect since you never yet failed to raise to a really juicy bait ;)), Sarah, and other homeopaths: THAT is clinical evidence. Let us see some of that.

Hans

[Anders W. Bonde]

I particularly like the scheme shown at the top of the page http://www.e-hepatitis-c.com/casestudy.htm :

1. Pay [through the nose, I'm sure] - 2. Fill in questionnare - 3. Magick water will be delivered.

How does this relate to the 'case study' - no clinical measurements (who did the viral count and measurement of bio data anyway - the homeopath? How does one get a viral count from a questionnaire?), no follow up, no listing of concurrent treatments, no listing of confounding factors. And a single case study does not endorse a whole medicinal regimen - statistics are needed, too.

And Hahnemann would not approve of looking at vira and categories of disease - remember 'true' homeopaths should only consider the symptoms.

What is even more worrying on that particular site is the ISO 9001 certification. The general populace will regard that as an endorsement of homeopathy (whic is exactly what the scammers want it to appear like). All an ISO 9001 certification does is that it certifies that you have in place a procedure that faithfully documents that you produce and sell crap exactly the way your procedures are designed to produce and sell crap, and that if your crap for some reason isn't the standardized crap then you have a system for bringing it back to standard crap - ISO 9001 says nothing about whether the stuff actually has any physiological effects or side effects - althoug IMHO ISO does itself a huge disservice by even considering certifying quacks.

I also find the self-serving promotion of the very plush clinic facilities distasteful - but at least it shows the scammers have money to burn...

And then, of course, there are the usual downright lies and "Hahnemann is God" BS on the "about homeopahty..." page. If a lie is repeated often enough, someone might choose to belive it seems to be the method of these scumbags.

[anecdotal evidence] Homeopaths - not homeopathy - do in fact have a physiological effect on me - they make me sick...[/anedcdotal evidence]

(Edited to add link originally posted by Carn)

[Carn]

Either the poeple running the site i linked are liars, extremly deluded or medicial scince in India is not very great(http://www.e-homoeopathy.com/opinion.htm):

"in spite of homeopathy being a scientifically tested and accepted stream of medicine"

The part about tested is certainly not wrong, just omitting the results, but accepted is a bit suprising.

Carn

[BillyJoe]

We might asw well post this Homoeopathic Case Study (http://www.e-hepatitis-c.com/casestudy.htm)



A 31 years old male patient reported to the clinic with complaints of Hepatitis C since 2 months. He had complaints of aching pain in the right side of the upper abdomen (Right hypochondriac region) since about 2 months. He would experience this pain about twice a week and it would last for a few hours. There was no radiation of the pain. Along with this he also complained of some mild difficulty in breathing and easy fatiguability since last 2 months.

There was a history of an appendicectomy 12 years ago.
His appetite was normal and he had desire for grapes and oranges. Bowel and bladder functions were normal. He could not tolerate excess of heat and would be comfortable in cold climate. Sleep was sound and dreams would usually be forgotten.

He was an engineer by profession and his family included his wife and one son. He had marked anxiety about his illness especially because nothing much was known about the future of a patient with Hepatitis C. He would constantly worry that what would happen to him in future. He was fond of company and would not prefer to remain alone most of the times. He did have some amount of stress related to his job but he said it was manageable. He would occasionally get irritated if things would not function properly as they should and he would vent out his anger by speaking about it to the opposite person.

There was family history of hypertension and diabetes (his mother), renal calculi (his father) and vitiligo (his brother).

He had not received any kind of treatment for Hepatitis C so far.
His reports were as follows in April 2004 when he was diagnosed as Hepatitis C positive:
Hb: 14.5 gms%
WBC: 6900/ cubic cm
N70 L26 E03
Platelets: 2.29 lakhs/cubic cm
Total S. Bilirubin: 2.1
Direct S. Bilirubin: 0.6
SGOT: 12
GGTP: 27
S. Creatinine: 0.9
BUN: 8
HBsAg: Negative
Hepatitis A: Negative
HIV: Negative
Hepatitis C antibodies: Positive

HCV RNA quantification was done in June 2004 before starting homoeopathic treatment and the value was 15,880,753 IU/ml. as seen in the reports below.
Patient was started on homoeopathic treatment based on the above history and was prescribed Phosphorus 200 for a period of 2 months he reported with improvement in the complaints at the end of this period. The treatment was continued for another few months and at the end of 5 months of treatment his HCV RNA quantification was repeated. The count had come down to 1,963,643 IU/ml. (see reports above).

This was a significant drop in the viral load of the patient and at the same time the patient continued to improve with respect to his physical symptoms as well. The treatment was continued as these types of cases are required to have a long-term follow up.


Three points immediately...
(1) Did he receive interferon/ribavirin along with the homoeopathic remedy?
(2) What exactly is Phosphorus 200? (does he mean 200C?)
(3) 20% of Hepatitis C resolves spontaneously.

Any other comments?


BillyJoe

[Capsid]

Originally posted by BillyJoe

Three points immediately...
(1) Did he receive interferon/ribavirin along with the homoeopathic remedy?
(2) What exactly is Phosphorus 200? (does he mean 200C?)
(3) 20% of Hepatitis C resolves spontaneously.

Any other comments?


He did not receive drug therapy, the case notes state that "He had not received any kind of treatment for Hepatitis C so far". The viral load (HCV RNA) can reduce without any medical intervention. This is not evidence that the homoeopathic treatment has done anything.

[Sarah-I]

BSM,

Just for the record, I never wanted to be a doctor at all, which is why I actually became a nurse. I also have a perfectly good knowledge of medicine - I have worked in HDU and on the renal wards performing both haemodialysis and CAPD and caring for transplant patients.

I also know what a clinical case study is and I know the difference between viral and bacterial pneumonia.

This patient told me that they had pneumonia, but although I knew this, I treated the symptoms and not the disease. I do have access to full blood results for the case both before and after treatment. I also have access to x-rays both before and after, so I will write up this case as a clinical case study and we shall then see.

I must get on, as I have a new patient arriving in the next 10 mins, so have to prepare.

[BillyJoe]

Cappy,

Originally posted by Capsid
He did not receive drug therapy, the case notes state that "He had not received any kind of treatment for Hepatitis C so far" This was at presentation, but what about over the following 5 months while he was receiving the homoepathic remedy? Did he forgo the interferon/ribavirin offered by his physician and take his chances with homoeopathy, or did he perhaps try both. Of course, even the homoeopath might not have known. The patient might have kept both practitioners blind to the existence of the other.

Originally posted by Capsid
The viral load (HCV RNA) can reduce without any medical intervention. This is not evidence that the homoeopathic treatment has done anything. That was my point (3).

BJ

[Anders W. Bonde]

To quote Sarah-I: "Just for the record, I never wanted to be a doctor at all..."

followed by

Sarah-I: "I must get on, as I have a new patient arriving in the next 10 mins, so have to prepare."

... and these two remarks are in the same post.

Go figure...

And, Sarah-I, if you really knew what a clinical case study is and will provide in the way of knowledge there is no way you could belive homeopathy does what it purports to do.

You may not want to be a real doctor, but you certainly want to give both us AND your unsuspecting and gullible customers the impression that you are the real McCoy, administering and prescribing medication. You don't fool us, though.

My hunch is that you just couldn't muster what it takes to become a real doctor, so instead you just play the make-it-up-as-we-go-along game that homeopathy is. You are a fraud of the worst kind - knowingly or otherwise.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
I also know what a clinical case study is and I know the difference between viral and bacterial pneumonia.

NHCoraHSarah,

You might, but you ignored the main point, that your case history is of no interest bearing in mind the potential for spontaneous resolution. Strictly speaking it makes no logical difference whether the case was viral or bacterial, it's just that spontaneous recovery of a viral pneumonia would be more likely than for a bacterial pneumonia. In neither case, though, is it logical or reasonable to give the credit to your sugar pills and that is teh point you cannot understand or refuse to admit. You remain a dangerous meddler in either case. at all. at all.

[Capsid]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Cappy,

This was at presentation, but what about over the following 5 months while he was receiving the homoepathic remedy? Did he forgo the interferon/ribavirin offered by his physician and take his chances with homoeopathy, or did he perhaps try both. Of course, even the homoeopath might not have known. The patient might have kept both practitioners blind to the existence of the other.

That was my point (3).

BJ

Yes, agreed. I was just clarifying that you said that HCV infection can resolve spontaneously. In this case it has not resolved.

[Sarah-I]

Anders,

For your information, I did apply for med school at one stage in my life, as I mistakenly thought that was what I wanted. I was offered a place at King's in London, but turned it down. So I did in fact make the grade, but decided that I did not want to.

In my many years of work as a nurse, I have collected a wealth of experience in both HDU and acute and chronic renal.

When I take a homeopathic case, I spend at least 1.5 hours with the patient. I want to know about their mental/emotional symptoms, as well as their general and physical symptoms and past medical history. We use all this information in a different way however. Once I have taken a case, I will fully analyse it and find the most appropriate remedy which I will then give to my client. If I know the remedy straight away, I will give the client the remedy to take there and then. If I need to work on it some more, then I will and will send the remedy to them in the post with full instructions about how to take it.

I practice homeopathy classically and so does Barb, who has also posted here and would also concur.

If I am treating a client and I think they need to see their doctor, then I will tell them that and will tell them to come back and see me afterwards. If I feel I need to write to their doctor, then I will do this with the clients consent. I also ask clients to keep their doctor informed of treatment.

I am a Homeopath and not a doctor and I always tell clients to keep in close contact with their doctors. I am sure that my homeopathic colleagues would agree with what I have said.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
When I take a homeopathic case, I spend at least 1.5 hours with the patient. I want to know about their mental/emotional symptoms, as well as their general and physical symptoms and past medical history.

before I give them Arnica anyway. (Or if not Arnica, one of only about 10 things).

We all know how the scam works, thank you, it's just that we can drink tea cheaper elsewhere (at homepaths' prices, we could take afternoon tea at the Ritz). at all. at all.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
***snip***

I am a Homeopath and not a doctor and I always tell clients to keep in close contact with their doctors. I am sure that my homeopathic colleagues would agree with what I have said.
I am sure that many of them would not.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/homeopath/Theory/FAQ'S/3concepts.html

SUPPRESSION is when medication (or other circumstances) cause the disease state to go deeper into the constitution, worsening overall health.

- Suppression is not (generally) recognised as a problem by allopaths, whereas homeopaths consider it as something to be avoided at all costs. Most allopathic medicine is suppressive.

- Suppression is widespread and homeopathic literature abounds with cases illustrating how a patient's health has deteriorated as a result of allopathic suppression

- Suppression can only be undone with natural medicine like homeopathy
It seems that some of your colleagues feel that M.D. s should be avoided at all costs.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
I am a Homeopath and not a doctor and I always tell clients to keep in close contact with their doctors. I am sure that my homeopathic colleagues would agree with what I have said.
The problem is that they don't.

See this example (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870686560&highlight=criminal+behaviour#post1870686560) where I have cut and pasted advice given in a homeopathic forum that could have been fatal.
These are the sort of people who can give homeopathic advice. Astra2012 could have been responsible fror a death but for the intervention of other more intelligent posters.

There also other examples of people who lose all common sense when homeopathy is involved like the woman I quote further up in that thread:
I have recently started using homeopathics and my 7 month old daughter has a cold which I began using pulsitlla nigricans for after I used the Remedy Finder to figure out what to get for her. She has taken the tablets since yesterday (Nov 9) afternoon. She threw up yesterday afternoon right after the first dose. Then this evening she threw up a watery yellowish substance about a minute after taking the tablets. And then a couple of hours later I gave her another couple of tablets and she threw up her entire dinner almost immediately. Is it possible that she is allergic to it? Or coincidence and she just has a bug along with the cold. I thought I had read somewhere that sometimes if you have the wrong remedy, it gives the person symptoms of the remedy, which I don't know if pulsitilla includes vomiting.

One of the main defences of homeopathy is that, at worst, it's harmless.

Sorry no. When you have people who are committed to believing in it their judgement is clouded.

You may see it only as an add-on to proper medical attention Sarah, and that is fine and your choice to believe, but some people believe in recommending it or using it in the first instance, sometimes actively encouraging people to avoid doctors.
They may not be the majority, but the homeopathic world needs to be far stricter in keeping control of these people (e.g. banning them from its forums for a start).

[Ashles]

In fact on those Homeopathic Forums (http://www.abchomeopathy.com/forums.php) the first post at the moment, entitled "Psychotic Problem" involves someone trying to get treatment for his wife's schizophrenia with homeopathy.

The poor man is probably desperate, but this woman needs proper treatment, not water. It can be a devastating disorder.

Do you see anyone recommending sticking with psychiatrists?
Anyone recommending drug and psychosocial support therapies?

Basically, treatmens that have been shown to work and dramatically improve someone's life?

Converesly, I notice the homeopaths' advice on that forum doesn't even agree with each other.

When we accuse homeopathy of being irresponsible or dangerous, that's the kind of stuff we mean.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
***snip***

I also ask clients to keep their doctor informed of treatment.
What purpose does this serve? Do you think an M.D. will actually take homeopathic treatment into account and adjust their treatment accordingly?

In what manner might they do this? I can't imagine how they might go about doing this.

I know my wife's only reaction to a patient informing her that they are currently taking homeopathic remedies, is to make sure that the patient isn't confusing homeopathic with herbal. If such is not the case, then she tells the patient to continue with whatever homeopathic treatment they see fit, and that's that...

and then she gets back to work.

[Anders W. Bonde]

Ashles, Psiload:

I do not agree with the somewhat apologetic stance that you appear to be supporting, namely that homeopathy may be regarded as merely ineffectual or as an add-on to real treatment. What would be the purpose of a nonb-functional add-on anyway?

SCAM, of which homeopathy is one of the very worst, wastes societal effort and funds, confuses patients, makes the job of real medical professionals more difficult and puts too many ill-informed people at unecessary risk by delaying or countering real treatment.

There should be no excuses for peddling snake oil (or magick water) - if a therapy cannot, or will not, be scientifically proven to be not only reasonably safe, but also reasonably efficient, it should be dropped by a rational society - banned, even, if that's what it takes. End of story.

Though an inevitable, and often beneficial part of any treatment, placebo and Hawthorne effects do not work effectively against most diseases on their own; magick water and other SCAM will not work on informed patients either. Should patients have to be gullible, scientifically illiterate, devoid of critical thinking and/or logically and intellectually impaired in order to expect a treatment to work? I think not!

Maybe I just misenterpreted your posts - it's getting late.



Sarah,

If indeed you deliberately chose to leave any critical thinking skills you might have had at the door and side with the woos instead of sticking 'with the establishment', what was it that made you choose to do so?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
If I am treating a client and I think they need to see their doctor, then I will tell them that and will tell them to come back and see me afterwards.
By this, I assume that you mean the clients whose conditions won't spontaneously resolve themselves, and aren't entirely psychosomatic.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
Ashles, Psiload:

I do not agree with the somewhat apologetic stance that you appear to be supporting, namely that homeopathy may be regarded as merely ineffectual or as an add-on to real treatment. What would be the purpose of a nonb-functional add-on anyway?

SCAM, of which homeopathy is one of the very worst, wastes societal effort and funds, confuses patients, makes the job of real medical professionals more difficult and puts too many ill-informed people at unecessary risk by delaying or countering real treatment.

There should be no excuses for peddling snake oil (or magick water) - if a therapy cannot, or will not, be scientifically proven to be not only reasonably safe, but also reasonably efficient, it should be dropped by a rational society - banned, even, if that's what it takes. End of story.

Though an inevitable, and often beneficial part of any treatment, placebo and Hawthorne effects do not work effectively against most diseases on their own; magick water and other SCAM will not work on informed patients either. Should patients have to be gullible, scientifically illiterate, devoid of critical thinking and/or logically and intellectually impaired in order to expect a treatment to work? I think not!

Maybe I just misenterpreted your posts - it's getting late.



Sarah,

If indeed you deliberately chose to leave any critical thinking skills you might have had at the door and side with the woos instead of sticking 'with the establishment', what was it that made you choose to do so? Yeah... and then we should round all of the homeopaths up, and put 'em in camps!

Seriously, Anders... I think it's sleepy time for Mr. Grouchypants. ;)

As bogus as homeopathy is, overall I think it's one of the more harmless examples of SCAM going around today... water and sugar pills, no biggie really. It beats the herbal stuff that can get you into real trouble, and it's not nearly as dangerous as the purgatives, fasting diets, and colon cleansers that are out there.

As far as the cost to consumers... hey, a fool and his money. If these people weren't spending it on magical sugar pills, they'd be spending it on magnetic fuel savers, psychic readings, or Ponzi schemes.

Maybe it's my perspective... here in America, homeopathy isn't nearly as visible as it seems to be in the U.K. and Europe. I don't think I could find an actual practicing homeopath's office in my area without first having to do some serious searching. You might find chiropractors dabbling in it, but, for the most part, a dedicated homeopath would probably starve to death in most states in the union.

As far as homeopathic schooling... even if you've got the money to burn, you won't find a real university willing to take it off your hands in exchange for something resembling a legitimate degree.

As far as homeopathy impacting the busy schedules of legit. doctors... my wife has been an Ob/Gyn doctor for ten years now, and she only even hears homeopathy mentioned the odd once a month, and since she understands the the principles behind homeopathy, the patients are essentially asking if it's OK to drink water while they're pregnant... a no-brainer.

Homeopaths engaging in consultations with M.D.s? Maybe this happens in your neck of the woods, but it'll snow on the hills of hell before my wife pencils that sort of nonsense into her appointment book.

[geni]

Originally posted by Psiload
Maybe it's my perspective... here in America, homeopathy isn't nearly as visible as it seems to be in the U.K. and Europe. I don't think I could find an actual practicing homeopath's office in my area without first having to do some serious searching. You might find chiropractors dabbling in it, but, for the most part, a dedicated homeopath would probably starve to death in most states in the union.


cheack out the Ullmans some time.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Psiload
As bogus as homeopathy is, overall I think it's one of the more harmless examples of SCAM going around today... water and sugar pills, no biggie really.
No. If someone with a real illness visits a homeopath instead of a proper doctor, they won't get an effective treatment; they'll be fobbed off with the sugar pills.

They could die of a condition that could be treated by proper medicine.

That's about as negative as a result can get.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Mojo
No. If someone with a real illness visits a homeopath instead of a proper doctor, they won't get an effective treatment; they'll be fobbed off with the sugar pills.

They could die of a condition that could be treated by proper medicine.

That's about as negative as a result can get. I don't mean to say that homeopathy gets a pass... sure, the occasional fool will offer themselves up as martyrs to the homeopathic cause, and be honored with a Darwin Award in the process, but as long as the majority of the homeopaths don't cross the line and venture over into raving looney "Evil Allopath"land, they probably won't cause their "patients" to stray far from conventional, evidence-based medicine.

Should we continue to ride the homeopaths like rented mules in an effort to get them to play by the rules, and hold them accountable for the ramifications of their actions? Of course we should.

And we will.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Mojo
No. If someone with a real illness visits a homeopath instead of a proper doctor, they won't get an effective treatment; they'll be fobbed off with the sugar pills.

They could die of a condition that could be treated by proper medicine.

That's about as negative as a result can get. And in Europe they are trying to encourage homoeopathic treatment of animals in "organic" farming, because it has no residues. Thus depriving the animals of effective medicine and seriously jeopardising animal welfare.

Totally oblivious to the fact that IF homoeopathy does what its proponents claim, they have the residue problem of the millennium!

Not harmless.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
We might asw well post this Homoeopathic Case Study (http://www.e-hepatitis-c.com/casestudy.htm)

Three points immediately...
(1) Did he receive interferon/ribavirin along with the homoeopathic remedy?
(2) What exactly is Phosphorus 200? (does he mean 200C?)
(3) 20% of Hepatitis C resolves spontaneously.

Any other comments?Thanks for that, Billy Joe.

Not being a human medic, I won't comment in detail. However, this beautifully illustrates my point. The medics around here have been given enough detail for them to state with certainty that there's nothing there that particularly suggests the homoeopathic treatment did anything.

It's the omission of this degree of detail which makes Bach's "vignettes" (if he would ever reference them) so difficult to discuss. In fact, anything might or might not have happened.

The point about my Addison's case is that there is enough detail there To be certain that the diagnosis was unarguable
To be certain the the condition would not be expected to improve and stay improved without meaningful intervention
To be certain that the patient had indeed improved and stayed improved.The trouble with the homoeopaths' cases (like Billy Joe's one) is that when you get that amount of detail, these three criteria are not met. Therefore, the "narrative" really is almost useless as evidence.

I would agree that this sort of narrative can occasionally be quite compelling if indeed it concerns a condition which really does have a virtually certain progression without treatment, and enough detail is given to demonstrate that this progression was arrested. However, the homoepaths never mess with that sort of case. Instead we get the "well, maybe it was the remedy, but it could easily have been going to happen anyway" scenario.

So you're back to trying to ascertain whether on average the patients who get the remedy have a higher incidence of good outcomes. And hey, guess what? That requires controlled trials, and statistics. Which Bach will have no truck with.

Mexican standoff, anyone?

Rolfe.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by geni
cheack out the Ullmans some time. I'm not blind to the fact that homeopathy is indeed here on the shores of Americas. But the fact is...

-There are no accredited universities that offer a legitimate degree in homeopathy.

-There are no homeopathic hospitals.

-There are very few practitioners solely offering homeopathic services.

-There is vanishingly little insurance reimbursment for homeopathic services.

I've worked in hospitals for the last fifteen years, in all that time, I honestly cannot say I have ever heard homeopathy being seriously discussed by any physician, nurse or administrator.

I won't deny that homeopathy is present in American hospitals in some form or another... but I'd cofidently say that the daily cafeteria menu has a much larger impact on the level of patient care, than any contribution, good or bad, resulting from Dr. Hahnemann's antique delusions.

[Anders W. Bonde]

Psiload,

I may be grumpy – I’ll just have live with that ;)

Our differences of opinion may be due to our locations. In my country, Denmark, homeopathy is big and growing – and in this land of “truth by consensus� virtually no-one is countering it: “Everybody’s got a right to his own opinion, every viewpoint is equally valid, these things aren’t clear cut, intuition is better than science…� and other such perhaps well intended but misplaced nonsense prevails. There are even many, if not hundreds, of real doctors who either turn the blind eye to or actively promote SCAM. Call me grumpy, but IMHO, these doctors should have their licenses to practice withdrawn as they display shockingly poor powers of judgment. The media just plug along for the comfy, profitable ride, without any noticeable criticism of SCAM, astrology, numerology, ‘mediums’, Feng-Shui and whatnot; science, reason and critical thinking doesn’t make good entertainment – unless it can be discredited or ridiculed in less than an hour of prime time.

More fuel on the trend for Instant Gratification, too. Real medicine and science takes time, has side effects and doesn’t always work – Magick water works all the time, almost instantly and with no side effects. Or so the frightened and the impatient are led to believe by impressive looking and sounding ‘certfied’ homeopaths. Ask anyone in the street here, and the likelihood is that the vast majority will tell you that they believe that homeopathy (and reflexology and acupuncture) are well-established, well-documented scientific therapies – and I betcha they are unaware that homeopathy is based on totally wrong and obsolete assumptions and that it requires water with highly selective memory to work. Homeopaths actively promote ignorance. That is NOT harmless.

Where’s the harm in that? Well, for starters it’s a significant contributor to the trend to de-value, even to scorn, science, reason, rational and critical thinking – “every thing goes if you believe it does�. If people aren’t educated properly, they cannot make choices – informed or otherwise. Specifically, homeopaths here promote undocumented herbals and dietary supplements, big time, as well – and more than any other group they have instilled fear of vaccination in the population, with an attendant and significant drop in immunization percentages and reappearance of lethal diseases such as whooping cough. Ask any homeopath here, and they’ll claim that virtually any and every disease is a direct result of vaccination – "vaccination damage" as they call it – and any other ‘evil, allopathic’ treatment. And they do this in underhand, Stalinistic sorts of ways – suppressing criticism and discrediting opponents in any way they can think of. Not getting your kid immunized may be misplaced good intent, but it’s downright stupid, egotistical and NOT harmless – it compromises herd immunity.

The homeopaths are also a boon to some ‘allied’ dentists who score fortunes by replacing amalgam fillings with plastic (not man-made chemistry, I wonder?) on the ill-informed and frightened – frightened by the homeopaths! Apart from wasting their money, it’s painful and more people are AFAIK allergic to plastic fillings than to mercury (although in fairness, the homeopaths do ‘test’ these people beforehand for allergies using such well-proven methods as hair analysis, iridiology, pendulum, quack electronic devices or applied kinesiology:rolleyes: ) – and plastic fillings are generally less durable.

The ‘organic’ and environmentalist wave is riding high here, too, endorsed in particular by parts of the intellectual elite and the ministry of the environment of the previous government, all doing their best, using good intentions towards the environment and the baby seals, of course, to undermine democracy. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us� is their view of the World – and the SCAMmers have really picked up on that, too: ‘Natural’ is good, man-made is bad – no matter what the implications. So by appealing to self-righteous and cuddly, gut-feel, ‘intuitive ethics’, rather than to reason and knowledge, they make anyone who questions their ways look like bad guys wanting to lay the World waste and leave nothing but pollution and GMO to our grand children and the whales. Being actually knowledgeable about something is beginning to become a disqualifying property in the eye of public; "If you are scientifically educated you are probably a part of the Big Pharma Industrial Complex Conspiracy - we don't wanna listen to you"! And clean, magick water can’t possibly do any harm, can it?

Not doing anything is NOT harmless. Humanity’s problems need reason and science, not any old loon's wrong intuition, for their solution – any concession to homeopathy and magical, indifferent thinking is counterproductive to the human cause and it is NOT harmless.

Promoting fear, suspicion and superstition in the population is NOT harmless – it leads to ill-advised, irrational, spur-of-the-moment knee-jerk actions.

If everyone was taught basic science, logic and critical thinking skills – and it needs to be taught, because it isn’t intuitive – SCAM and superstition would eventually take a minor role. I hope.

[Sarah-I]

That must be the biggest pile of tripe and rubbish that I have heard spouted for a long time!!!!

So, Anders, how do you account for the many doctors who also practice as homeopaths then? They have had science training and know how to think logically and still practice homeopathy successfully.

Lastly, a quote from a book that I have just been reading on homeopathy called Crossroads to Cure The Homoeopath's Guide to Second Prescription.

"Homoeopathic treatment gradually unravels the case going back to the beginnings of illness, eliminating symptoms along the way in the reverse order of their appearance, until finally real, lasting health is achieved".

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
So, Anders, how do you account for the many doctors who also practice as homeopaths then?
Fallacious reasoning. 10 billion flies can't be wrong.
They have had science training and know how to think logically and still practice homeopathy successfully.
They are also seen on TV, hawking bogus products. And they are also found writing diet fad books. The fact that they are doctors is no endorsement for homeopathy, and your use of "successfully" clearly is an equivocation. Fallacy after fallacy.
Lastly, a quote from a book that I have just been reading on homeopathy called Crossroads to Cure The Homoeopath's Guide to Second Prescription.

"Homoeopathic treatment gradually unravels the case going back to the beginnings of illness, eliminating symptoms along the way in the reverse order of their appearance, until finally real, lasting health is achieved".
Wow. It is there in black and white? It MUST be true, then!

That was a rather lame post, sarah, riddled with credulity and fallacy.

[MRC_Hans]

Anders, I'm a bit surprised at you saying that homeopathy is big and growing in Denmark. It may be growing, as all alt. meds are currently, but I have certainly not seen anything to indicate it is big. There is hardly more than a score of homeopaths here, and remedies are not exactly taking up a lot of shelf-space in the alternative shops (and those that are there are not even real homeoathic things, for the most part). The only homeopathic hospital we have ever had closed around 1946.

Hans

[Sarah-I]

Mojo,

What you need to realise is that the mind and the body are linked so what happens in one will have an effect on the other and vice versa.

Symptoms that will not resolve spontaneously can still be treated effectively with homeopathy.

Anders,

I have treated quite a few people who have been sceptical of homeopathy at first, but I took their case and gave them a remedy and it still worked.

The last person that I treated who was sceptical was a doctor. Full scientific training and logical thinking abilities. I gave him the indicated remedy after the case analysis and the remedy worked.

Homeopathy is one of those things that you don't need to have a belief in it for it to work and can even be the biggest sceptic out there and if a well indicated remedy is given, then it will still work.

I had two sceptics that I treated that were so impressed with the results that they went onto train as homeopaths themselves through the Faculty of Homeopathy at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital. They are both practicing as homeopaths now in their chosen healthcare fields.

[Sarah-I]

All the legitimate doctors that practice homeopathy can be found on the Faculty of Homeopathy website.

They include people such as David Riley, Peter Fisher, Bob Leckridge, George Lewith and others.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Mojo,

What you need to realise is that the mind and the body are linked
Silly me, there I was wondering how my mind could possibly cause my body to do things e.g. type a post on this forum. Now it turns out that they're connected!
so what happens in one will have an effect on the other and vice versa.

Symptoms that will not resolve spontaneously can still be treated effectively with homeopathy.
Are you really saying that homeopathy works via the mind?

Do I hear the word "placebo"?

[Ashles]

What you need to realise is that the mind and the body are linked so what happens in one will have an effect on the other and vice versa.
This doesn't really mean anything specific. You could be saying that Homeopathy is placebo by that statement. Is that what you mean?

So, Anders, how do you account for the many doctors who also practice as homeopaths then? They have had science training and know how to think logically and still practice homeopathy successfully.
And some are Muslims and some are Christians and some believe in ghosts... Having medical training doesn't mean you can't have beliefs in other things that have no actual evidence.

I'm sure some doctors when presented with untreatable conditions are quite relieved to have 'alternative' treatments to recommend so they have something to say other than "Nothing can be done".
It's a psychological crutch for the patient - it doesn't mean there is any validity to it.

Homeopathy is one of those things that you don't need to have a belief in it for it to work and can even be the biggest sceptic out there and if a well indicated remedy is given, then it will still work.
Well, except when tested in actual reality of course.
Someone may profess to be sceptical but still experience a placebo affect.
And you are obviously aware that many conditions disappear all by themselves?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
All the legitimate doctors that practice homeopathy can be found on the Faculty of Homeopathy website.

They include people such as David Riley, Peter Fisher, Bob Leckridge, George Lewith and others.

So what? This is more fallacious reasoning: appeal to false authority.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
"Homoeopathic treatment gradually unravels the case going back to the beginnings of illness, eliminating symptoms along the way in the reverse order of their appearance, until finally real, lasting health is achieved".
I remember an advert for headache pills (from 20 years ago or so) which used similar ideas.

Headaches, it said, were caused by tension in the neck causing, in turn, pressure in the brain, causing pain. The pills were said to ease the pain, thus reducing the pressure which in turn relieved the tension.

There is, of course, a flaw in the reasoning here...

[Sarah-I]

Homeopathy has effects of both the mind and the body. Remedies have mental/emotional effects and physical effects too.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Homeopathy has effects of both the mind and the body. Remedies have mental/emotional effects and physical effects too.

Bald, and bogus assertions.

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Homeopathy has effects of both the mind and the body. Remedies have mental/emotional effects and physical effects too.

Then, since one of the miasms is for syphilis... it would seem that homeopathy would be the primary means to treat that disease. Is it? One of the symptoms of the final stages of syphilis is severe mental impairments. If homeopathy worked... then no one who contracted it would have to use the antibiotics typically used to treat syphilis.

Also, by that reasoning it would be a good treatment for bi-polar disorder. Yet... there it was in black and white, a letter I saw at a family gathering where a relative was explaining her absense because the homeopathic treatment she resorted to after being released from the psych ward were actually making her feel WORSE. She actually said that the homeopathic remedies were causing her fatigue.

The family discussion later pointed out that the "fatigue" was more than likely a manifestation of a depressive part of her bi-polar disorder. Her parents said she actually felt better after being released from the hospital where she had received standard medications which stabilized her highs and lows. BUT then decided that the homeopathic practioner knew more than the psychiatrist. So she quit the meds, and went back to homeopathy.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

17.40GMT it seems we have another shyly silent little homeopath visitor looking in on us. Gavinimurthy, come on down!

Can someone explain why, if I select his name in the list of users browsing this forum at the front page of the forum that it doesn't lead to a userID page asit does for everyone else?

[Ashles]

Homeopathy has effects of both the mind and the body. Remedies have mental/emotional effects and physical effects too.
It sounds like you don't really know what you're talking about so you are resorting to generic and meaningless statements.

Placebos are mental/emotional effects. They can cause seemingly physical effects.

So you are, in essence, still agreeing Homeopathy is a placebo?

Because if you are trying to say more than this then you need to add some content to your statements.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
17.40GMT it seems we have another shyly silent little homeopath visitor looking in on us. Gavinimurthy, come on down!Well, well, gazumped by BSM again!

Come on in Gavin darling, the water's lovely! And you won't be banned and we won't be banned, so pray state your case without fear or favour.

(Maybe it takes time for the userID profile to come on line?)

Rolfe.

[Anders W. Bonde]

Hans,

Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but, through my wife, I get into quite a lot of contact with both consumers and purveyors of SCAM and New Age philosophies. Quite influential organizations such as 'Vaccinationsforum' and 'VIFAB' are infested by and with homeopaths. 'Vaccinationsforum' carries a great deal of responsibility in spreading fear and lies about vaccination - they are definitely not for 'informed choice' as they say. 'Vaccinationsforum' is chaired by a homeopathic sympathizer and advertize (are sponsored by) homeopaths. 'VIFAB' (Videns Center For Alternativ Behandling (ALT MED knowledge Center)) is funded by tax payers but is merely an affront run by an apologetic collection of gullible doctors and wanna-be SCAM dittos.

'Lægens Bord' (a prime time Danish National TV medical feature) recently allowed a homeopath to present her bunkum unchallenged.

Homeopathy and other SCAM is promoted in the popular press ('ladies and life-style magazines!

'Bioforce' and 'Dr. A. Vogel' OTC hom remedies are sold in MATAS and all 'health food' stores.

Still, I'm just a bit paranoid, I guess.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Homeopathy has effects of both the mind and the body. Remedies have mental/emotional effects and physical effects too.

Careful now!

You're starting to sound a bit like Kumar.

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Homeopathy has effects of both the mind and the body. Remedies have mental/emotional effects and physical effects too.

I hope by now you are realizing that this is a patently rediculous statement.... but I must comment even further (knowing full well that you never answer my messages... still haven't heard why if Hahnemann was so successful with treating the syphilis "miasm"... that his method has never been the standard treatment for syphilis and:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870746898#post1870746898 ).

Have you ever seen an infant with seizures? I have... and it is quite traumatizing for new parents. It first started as a shiver on the morning of his second day of life... and then they started to come more often, lasting longer and with more intensity. By the time the baby arrived at Children's Hospital's emergency department and Infant Intensive Care Unit his seizures were almost constant.

They stopped when he was administered phenobarbitol. And he was seizure free for the entire next year until he was weaned off a phenobarbitol (and only one seizure since... when he was seriously ill with some kind of infection).

What is the homeopathic treatment for seizures? Do you sit and ask the patient or their representatives questions for 90 minutes?

[Carn]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde


Homeopathy and other SCAM is promoted in the popular press ('ladies and life-style magazines!

'Bioforce' and 'Dr. A. Vogel' OTC hom remedies are sold in MATAS and all 'health food' stores.

Still, I'm just a bit paranoid, I guess.

Yes a bit paranoid, in wour long post you described how it will be, if things go on exactly for the next 30 years as they have for the last 15 years(at least i would say that for germany). Especially i agree that there is a strong trend "Natural’ is good, man-made is bad", especially about food, guess why german politicians are batteling gen-food with every trick they have, because their voters want that.

But i realy had a good laugh, when a few days ago, tests showed that eggs from chicken, that are kept the natural way(not caged, not in enclosed buildings, picking their food from normal ground) have 3 times as much dioxin as eggs from caged chicken. With that they even managed to top the limit set this year, by the agricultural ministry for dioxin concentrations by about 20% or so(nothing dangerous, the limit is far belor any harmful concentration). It was especially nice to see how the minister herself(left wing green, constantly talking about pushing back the big industrial food production, promoting local, small, natural production) tried to sail around the question, why the heck their beloved ecological natural produced eggs is so much worse than the ones produced the way, she wants to stop asap.

Fortunately i have 2 partly positive things to mention:

-the press sometimes also targets scam. The biggest german boulevard paper("Bild") has several times in the last months, realy unfriendly stories about a guy called Rath, who proposes treating cancer purely with vitamin pills. Big sad thing about it, is that the paper focused on him because he tried to treat a child that way and the boy died, although real meds thought they had a chance to save him. And the juristic system is also not sleeping, attourneys are preparing to drag him and the parents to court.

-since the conservatives have a majority in the Bundesrat(~what senat is in the US), the ruling social democrats had to, when they wanted to make a healthcare reform, find a compromise with them. None of them did in any way care for the scam problem(conservatives held up the freedom of therapy, social democrats wanted to control the big pharmas more tightly), but they could not find a compromise for a lot of things which had the good side effect, that now only medicaments, that require a prescription, are paid for by insurances. As all the scam does not have side effects officially, prescriptions get no longer payed, while most of the important real medicines, which can have side effects, do still get payed for.




BTW, is it a good method to identify scam medicaments, by simply saying that anything without side effects or harmful effects from too large dosis is scam?

Carn

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
I have treated quite a few people who have been sceptical of homeopathy at first, but I took their case and gave them a remedy and it still worked. If they came to you, a homoeopath, for treatment, they were not sceptical of homoeopathy, whatever they might have said, otherwise they would not have come.

[Gavinimurthy]

Hi everybody

I just logged in.You people are already welcoming me.How come you know in advance?

Any way,thanks for your welcome message.

Murthy

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Hi everybody

I just logged in.You people are already welcoming me.How come you know in advance?


Ah, ha!

It's our amazing pyschic powers. You can't win Randi's $1M because the money's mine already.

So, what are your views on the substantitive issues of this thread?

1. The paper cited in the orginal post.

2. Bach's failure to understand that 'clinical evidence', as he calls it, is no basis for belief in homeopathy.

3. Bach's failure to produce examples of the evidence that he finds so compelling.

4. Sarah's failure to understand why her pneumonia case proves nothing about homeopathy, but does demonstrate her naively simplistic understanding of medicine.

5. Oh, you could also tackle the big piece of homework that the various visiting homeopaths have failed to complete adequately. Try to explain why the inadequacies of homeopathic provings don't ocmpletely undermine your whole art, in other words explain away the 19 specific logical fallacies identified here Provings are rubbish (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870495815&highlight=sherr+AND+fallacy#post1870495815)

Don't forget, that within very wde bounds, you can say anything here and will not be banned and Stalin's airbrush does not operate here.

(edited for typos)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
If they came to you, a homoeopath, for treatment, they were not sceptical of homoeopathy, whatever they might have said, otherwise they would not have come.

Also, if they were capable of being convinced by an n=1 personal experience they were not sceptical within the correct meaning of the term. She could describe them as "mildly dubious but pathetically easily persuaded", but not as "sceptical".

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
"mildly dubious but pathetically easily persuaded" Yes, I think that perfectly characterizes such a person - who always protests that he was "sceptical at first".

[Gavinimurthy]

BSM

I apppreciate the concern you people are showing to educate others about the illogical issues in medicine.

Before I say anything,let me tell you that,I was much more skeptic than you guys here,and used to sneer about homeopathy,using almost similar arguments,you people use.

I am 50 years old,and till my 46th year,I never took any homeopathic medicine,and used to sneer at people,who used to take them.I used to have a medicine chest,containing all sorts of allopathic medicines.

I shall continue.Pl.bear with me.Let me continue at my own pace.

Murthy

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy

Before I say anything,let me tell you that,I was much more skeptic than you guys here,and used to sneer about homeopathy,using almost similar arguments,you people use.


Fine. That leads three ways.

1. What convinced you as an individual?

2. What defeated your arguments against it?

3. What are you answers to the substantive issues I specifed in my previous post?

[Gavinimurthy]

About 4 years back,my daughter and son-in-law came to visit us.She was down with fever,on the second dayof her visit.I wanted to take her to an allopathic doctor,but,my son-in-law was refusing,as he was a staunch believer of homeopathy.

I was furious,and after lot of heated arguments,he finally agreed her to be taken to an allopathic M.D.On our way back home,after the consultation,he asked me why were you so much against homeopathy.I said it is all trash.

He asked me "how can you say that? Did you read any books? Did you understand the philosophy?"

I said no.From whatever I heard there is no medicine,in homeopathic pills,and what is the big thing in reading books of such an illogical subject.

He requested me to read atleast 'Organon' and then discuss with him.He said "I normally don't try to convince skeptics,but since you are a reasonable man,I feel you must read it,and then argue"

I wanted to teach him a lesson in his own language.I wanted to prove to him,by quoting from the same book,he was referring,that it was all rubbish.

I shall continue.

Murthy

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
About 4 years back,my daughter and son-in-law came to visit us.She was down with fever,on the second dayof her visit.I wanted to take her to an allopathic doctor,but,my son-in-law was refusing,as he was a staunch believer of homeopathy.

I was furious,and after lot of heated arguments,he finally agreed her to be taken to an allopathic M.D.On our way back home,after the consultation,he asked me why were you so much against homeopathy.I said it is all trash.

He asked me "how can you say that? Did you read any books? Did you understand the philosophy?"

Philosophy? Homeopathy isn't a philosophy. It is a claimed system of helping people recover from illness there is no philosophy there (if you think there is what is homepathy's view on morals and ethics and does it assume an onbjective shared reality and if so how does it justify this assumption?).


I said no.From whatever I heard there is no medicine,in homeopathic pills,and what is the big thing in reading books of such an illogical subject.


There is nothing in the majority of the pill trust me on this


He requested me to read atleast 'Organon' and then discuss with him.He said "I normally don't try to convince skeptics,but since you are a reasonable man,I feel you must read it,and then argue"


I've read it.


I wanted to teach him a lesson in his own language.I wanted to prove to him,by quoting from the same book,he was referring,that it was all rubbish.

I shall continue.

Murthy [/B]

You know you are not impressing us. We have heard the "I was a sceptic to" a few too many times.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Before I say anything,let me tell you that,I was much more skeptic than you guys here,and used to sneer about homeopathy,using almost similar arguments,you people use. This sentence needs a mild (4 X) homoeopathic remedy. :D

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
About 4 years back,my daughter and son-in-law came to visit us.She was down with fever,on the second dayof her visit.I wanted to take her to an allopathic doctor,but,my son-in-law was refusing,as he was a staunch believer of homeopathy.

I was furious,and after lot of heated arguments,he finally agreed her to be taken to an allopathic M.D.On our way back home,after the consultation,he asked me why were you so much against homeopathy.I said it is all trash.

He asked me "how can you say that? Did you read any books? Did you understand the philosophy?"

I said no.From whatever I heard there is no medicine,in homeopathic pills,and what is the big thing in reading books of such an illogical subject.

He requested me to read atleast 'Organon' and then discuss with him.He said "I normally don't try to convince skeptics,but since you are a reasonable man,I feel you must read it,and then argue"

I wanted to teach him a lesson in his own language.I wanted to prove to him,by quoting from the same book,he was referring,that it was all rubbish.

I shall continue.

Murthy
What a lovely story. I can't wait for part 2.

[Gavinimurthy]

Philosophy

A belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school

The rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics

Any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation

So,Homeopathy is a philosophy.

Yes.Many of the homeopahs were skeptics to begin with.I am one among many.I also know you heard this line before,but that should not deter me from saying a fact.

I am not here to impress any one of you,nor argue with you.I am here to tell 'my' views about homeopathy,not to discredit yours.

So,shall we continue?

Murthy

[BillyJoe]

Gavin,

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Many of the homeopahs were skeptics to begin with.I am one among many. So much of a sceptic that you decided homoeopathy was trash how?.....

...he asked me why were you so much against homeopathy.I said it is all trash.....He asked me "how can you say that? Did you read any books? Did you understand the philosophy?"....I said no.From whatever I heard there is no medicine,in homeopathic pills,and what is the big thing in reading books of such an illogical subject.Face it, Gavin, you did not have a sceptical attitude towards homoeopathy. Dismissive perhaps, but not sceptical (which means deciding after assessing the evidence).

BillyJoe

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
So,shall we continue?


No one is stopping you. Please just get on with presenting your evidence and refutations of the arguments against homeopathy.

I have something I call the meta-post counter. It spins quite rapidly in conversation with homeopathy's advocates. It ticks over every time a post is made to discuss or complain about the terms of the debate instead of just getting on with it.

You know the questions. I'll not waste space repeating them...yet.

Member Name: Gavinimurthy

Your Meta-Post Score = 1

[Gavinimurthy]

My mission is not to convince you people.I know it is impossible.I intend to use this forum, to tell such people to try homeopathy,who are unable to decide,because they hear so much against it here.

I intend to quote my personal experiences with homeopathy,and let people decide on their own,whether it is good or bad.

I will not notice any attempt to digress me,from the goal,I have in mind.

Once again,I repeat,I will continue at my own pace.There is no hurry for me.

Murthy

[BillyJoe]

Murthy's post given the homoeopathy treatment...


My mission is not to convince you people. I know it is impossible. I intend to use this forum to tell such people to try homeopathy who are unable to decide because they hear so much against it here.

I intend to quote my personal experiences with homeopathy and let people decide on their own whether it is good or bad.

I will not notice any attempt to digress me from the goal I have in mind.

Once again, I repeat, I will continue at my own pace. There is no hurry for me.


:)

BJ

[BillyJoe]

A little later...


M m s o i n t o o v n e o p o l . I n w t s m o s b e in e d t us h s f r m t e l s c e p e t r o e p t y w o a e u a l o d c d e a s h y h a o m c g i s t h r .

I n e d t u t y p r o a x e i n e i h h m o a h n e e p e d c d n t e r o n w e h r i s g o r b d

I i l n n t c n t e p o d g e s m r m t e g a I h v i m d
O e g n I e a w l o i e t y w p e T r i n h r f .

[BillyJoe]

Later still...


m e p n d t u s fr t l c p t o p t w a u l d cd a h h o c i t r .

I e t t p o x i e h m a n e e c n e o w h i g r d

I l n c t p d e m m e a h i d
e n e w o et w e r n r f.

[BillyJoe]

Before long there will be nothing of him left....

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Member Name: Gavinimurthy

Your Meta-Post Score = 2

[Gavinimurthy]

To continue...

So,I bought the Organon.(It is so cheap.Around a pound if you order from india)

I found it to be very absorbing.Ofcourse,I have to read some portions twice or thrice,to really comprehend,what is being told.

ORGANON OF MEDICINE

AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.*

* In Hahnemann's manuscript copy, he has a note in French which, translated is as follows:

Medicine as commonly practised (allopathy) knows no treatment except to draw from diseases the injurious materials which are assumed to be their cause. The blood of the patient is made to flow mercilessly by bleedings, leeches, cuppings, scarifications, to diminish an assumed plethora which never exists as in well women a few days before their menses, an accumulation of blood the loss of which is of no appreciable consequence, while the loss of blood with merely assumed plethora destroys life. Medicine as commonly practised seeks to evacuate the contents of the stomach and sweep the intestines clear by the materials assumed to originate diseases.

In order to give a general notion of the treatment of diseases pursued by the old school of medicine (allopathy) it may be observed that it presupposes the existence sometimes of excess of blood (plethora - which is never present), sometimes of morbid matters and acridities; hence it taps off the life's blood and exerts itself either to clear away the imaginary disease-matter or to conduct it elsewhere (by emetics, purgatives, sialogogues, diaphoretics, diuretics, drawing plasters, setons, issues, etc.), in the vain belief that the disease will thereby be weakened and materially eradicated; in place of which the patient's sufferings are thereby increased, and by such and other painful appliances the forces and nutritious juices indispensable to the curative process are abstracted from the organism. It assails the body with large doses of powerful medicines, often repeated in rapid succession for a long time, whose long-enduring, not infrequently frightful effects it knows not, and which it, purposely it would almost seem, makes unrecognisable by the commingling of several such unknown substances in one prescription, and by their long-continued employment it develops in the body new and often ineradicable medicinal diseases. Whenever it can, it employs, in order to keep in favor with its patient,* remedies that immediately suppress and hide the morbid symptoms by opposition (contraria contrariis) for a short time (palliatives), but that leave the cause for these symptoms (the disease itself) strengthened and aggravated. It considers affections on the exterior of the body as purely local and existing there independently, and vainly supposes that it has cured them when it has driven them away by means of external remedies, so that the internal affection is thereby compelled to break out on a nobler and more important part. When it knows not what else to do for the disease which will not yield or which grows worse, the old school of medicine undertakes to change it into something else, it knows not what, by means of an alterative, for example, by the life-undermining calornel, corrosive sublimate and other mercurial preparations in large doses.

* For the same object the experienced allopath delights to invent a fixed name, by preference a Greek one, for the malady, in order to make the patient believe that he has long known this disease as an old acquaintance, and hence is the fitted person to cure it.

It seems that the unhallowed principal business of the old school of medicine (allopathy) is to render incurable if not fatal the majority of diseases, those made chronic through ignorance by continually weakening and tormenting the already debilitated patient by the further addition of new destructive drug diseases. When this pernicious practice has become a habit and one is rendered insensible to the admonitions of conscience, this becomes a very easy business indeed.

And yet for all these mischievous operations the ordinary physician of the old school can assign his reasons, which, however, rest only on foregone conclusions of his books and teachers, and on the authority of this or that distinguished physician of the old school. Even the most opposite and the most senseless modes of treatment find there their defence, their authority - let their disastrous effects speak ever so loudly against them. It is only under the old physician who has been at last gradually convinced, after many years of misdeeds, of the mischievous nature of hi so-called art, and who no longer treats even the severest diseases with anything stronger than plantain water mixed with strawberry syrup (i.e., with nothing), that the smallest number are injured and die.

This non-healing art, which for many centuries has been firmly established in full possession of the power to dispose of the life and death of patients according to its own good will and pleasure, and in that period has shortened the lives of ten times as many human beings as the most destructive wars, and rendered many millions of patients more diseased and wretched than they were originally - this allopathy, I have, in the introduction to the former editions of this book, considered more in detail. Now I shall consider only its exact opposite, the true healing art, discovered by me and now somewhat more perfected. Examples are given to prove that striking cures performed in former times were always due to remedies basically homoeopathic and found by the physician accidentally and contrary to the then prevailing methods of therapeutics.

As regards the latter (homoeopathy) it is quite otherwise. It can easily convince every reflecting person that the diseases of man are not caused by any substance, any acridity, that is to say, any disease-matter, but that they are solely spirit-like (dynamic) derangements of the spirit-like power (the vital principle) that animates the human body. Homoeopathy knows that a cure can only take place by the reaction of the vital force against the rightly chosen remedy that has been ingested, and that the cure will be certain and rapid in proportion to the strength with which the vital force still prevails in the patient. Hence homoeopathy avoids everything in the slightest degree enfeebling,* and as much as possible every excitation of pain, for pain also diminishes the strength, and hence it employs for the cure ONLY those medicines whose power for altering and deranging (dynamically) the health it knows accurately, and from these it selects one whose pathogenetic power (its medicinal disease) is capable of removing the natural disease in question by similarity (simila similibus), and this it administers to the patient in simple form, but in rare and minute doses so small that, without occasioning pain or weakening, they just suffice to remove the natural malady whence this result: that without weakening, injuring or torturing him in the very least, the natural disease is extinguished, and the patient, even whilst he is getting better, gains in strength and thus is cured - an apparently easy but actually troublesome and difficult business, and one requiring much thought, but which restores the patient without suffering in a short time to perfect health, - and thus it is a salutary and blessed business.

* Homoeopathy sheds not a drop of blood, administers no emetics, purgatives, laxatives or diaphoretics, drives off no external affection by external means, prescribes no hot or unknown mineral baths or medicated clysters, applies no Spanish flies or mustard plasters, no setons, no issues, excites no ptyalism, burns not with moxa or red-hot iron to the very bone, and so forth, but gives with its own hand its own preparations of simple uncompounded medicines, which it is accurately acquainted with, never subdues pain by opium, etc.

Thus homoeopathy is a perfectly simple system of medicine, remaining always fixed in its principles as in its practice, which, like the doctrine whereon it is based, if rightly apprehended will be found to be complete (and therefore serviceable). What is clearly pure in doctrine and practice should be self-evident, and all backward sliding to the pernicious routinism of the old school that is as much its antithesis as night is to day, should cease to vaunt itself with the honorable name of Homoeopathy.

SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.
Kothen, March 28, 1833.

You may have to read it slowly,to understand the flowing English,as I call it.

Now,having read such a powerful rebuttal of the allopathic medical practices of those times,it just increased my curiosity to findout,what this 'funny man' is going to tell.
So,I proceeded to read further.

I shall continue

Murthy

[BillyJoe]

The improved homoeopathic version.....
































































regards,
BillyJoe

[Gavinimurthy]

I may have to explain a little bit.

During Hannemann's time,blood letting was so common,that ,even for fevers,it is resorted to.He was the first person,to ridicule it,and imagine the opposition ,this lonely man might have got,when he said this.

So,what happened to the concept of blood letting now?Thanks to Hanemann,people started thinking about it,and even within his life time,there was perceptible change in the thinking of allopaths,atlest regarding blood letting.

Also,during his time the mg.doses we use now,are unheard off,and patients used to be prescribed with massive doses of all sorts of concoctions.He again made people to think in terms of reducing the dosage.

The present day allopathic medicine is no different.If you look at the prescription of an M.D.,even today,no less than 4 medicines are usually prescribed.an antibiotic,to kill the bacteria,an antacid,to prevent possible heartburn from antibiotic,and a couple of vitamins,to help the body,to compensate the inability of the body,to absorb the vitamins from natural food,due to the reduced vitality of the body because of the use of antibiotics.

How many people suffer from weakness and unwanted reactions,after using the medicines,prescribed as above?
Hannemann was against such practices,and he devoted all his life,to look for a sensible alternative,and perfected this wonderful medicinal therapy.

even today,for those people who follow the percepts of Hannemann in letter and spirit,the results are simply amazing.

It is no hearsay,myself and my family are living examples of the wonders this therapy can accomplish,and also a few dozens of my friends,whom I converted to use homeopathy.

I will come back to that later.

Don't be misled by the all the talks about proofs,evidence etc.People laughed when it was told that earth was round.They wanted proof.The proof came much later.Science as on now,may not be in a position,to prove Hannemann's invention.A century from now,it may be possible.

So,read each and every sentence carefully.You will be amazed,at the depth,clarity and coherence with which Hannemann talks.

I shall continue.

Murthy

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
I may have to explain a little bit.

During Hannemann's time,blood letting was so common,that ,even for fevers,it is resorted to.He was the first person,to ridicule it,and imagine the opposition ,this lonely man might have got,when he said this.

So,what happened to the concept of blood letting now?Thanks to Hanemann,people started thinking about it,and even within his life time,there was perceptible change in the thinking of allopaths,atlest regarding blood letting.

Also,during his time the mg.doses we use now,are unheard off,and patients used to be prescribed with massive doses of all sorts of concoctions.He again made people to think in terms of reducing the dosage.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that "allopathy" at the time of Hahnemann was not frequently worse than useless. But "orthodox" medicine has moved on in the last couple of centuries (in contrast to homeopathy).

The present day allopathic medicine is no different.If you look at the prescription of an M.D.,even today,no less than 4 medicines are usually prescribed.an antibiotic,to kill the bacteria,an antacid,to prevent possible heartburn from antibiotic,and a couple of vitamins,to help the body,to compensate the inability of the body,to absorb the vitamins from natural food,due to the reduced vitality of the body because of the use of antibiotics.

How many people suffer from weakness and unwanted reactions,after using the medicines,prescribed as above?
I don't recognise this situation at all. When I visit my doctor, I'm generally prescribed a single drug (in a controlled dose) for a particular condition. I spy Straw Man.

Don't be misled by the all the talks about proofs,evidence etc.People laughed when it was told that earth was round.
And they laughed at Koko the Clown...

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
To continue...

So,I bought the Organon.(It is so cheap.Around a pound if you order from india)

I found it to be very absorbing.
I prefer Andrex. :D

[Gavinimurthy]

The basic difference between allopathy and homeopathy is how it looks at you.

Allopathy recognises you as a sum total of your parts.That is why,you will be treated by an opthalmogist for your eye problem,by a endocronologist for your hormone problem,by a cardiologist for your heart problem,and if you have more money,by sub,sub specialists.

It is not the case with homeopathy.It recognises you as a whole.It treats all the problems together,and,,with such minute doses,that,you get more vitality to fight the disease.You fight the disease.The medicine helps you in making you strong enough to do so.

But,the medicine which helps you to fight your particular problem,may not help another one,with the same problem.That is because,the medicine has to suit your individuality.

A person having fever ,may feel better,if he goes into open air.Anotherone,wants to curl up,and would like to get covered from head to foot.Both are having fever.Homeopathy recognises these differences,and gives different medicines to these two people,even when all laboratory tests,confirm the same diagnosis in both cases.
That is individulisation.

In India,we have homeopathic hospitals even in small towns,and you have to see the rush there to believe.Millions and millions are getting benefitted by homeopathy right now.

Please don't get misled by the arguments of vested interests against homeopathy.The pharmaceutical industry has invested billions of pounds ,and they don't want people to migrate to homeopathy,as they will get ruined,once people taste the sweet success with homeopathy.

I shall continue.

Murthy

[Donks]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The basic difference between allopathy and homeopathy is how it looks at you.

Allopathy recognises you as a sum total of your parts.That is why,you will be treated by an opthalmogist for your eye problem,by a endocronologist for your hormone problem,by a cardiologist for your heart problem,and if you have more money,by sub,sub specialists.

It is not the case with homeopathy.It recognises you as a whole.It treats all the problems together,and,,with such minute doses,that,you get more vitality to fight the disease.You fight the disease.The medicine helps you in making you strong enough to do so.

But,the medicine which helps you to fight your particular problem,may not help another one,with the same problem.That is because,the medicine has to suit your individuality.

A person having fever ,may feel better,if he goes into open air.Anotherone,wants to curl up,and would like to get covered from head to foot.Both are having fever.Homeopathy recognises these differences,and gives different medicines to these two people,even when all laboratory tests,confirm the same diagnosis in both cases.
That is individulisation.

In India,we have homeopathic hospitals even in small towns,and you have to see the rush there to believe.Millions and millions are getting benefitted by homeopathy right now.

Please don't get misled by the arguments of vested interests against homeopathy.The pharmaceutical industry has invested billions of pounds ,and they don't want people to migrate to homeopathy,as they will get ruined,once people taste the sweet success with homeopathy.

I shall continue.

Murthy
Wonderful. Where's your evidence (Cause as a skeptic you should know that's what counts, what you can prove)? Did you conduct DBPC trials? Read articles in peer-reviewed journals? What?

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
I may have to explain a little bit.

During Hannemann's time,blood letting was so common,that ,even for fevers,it is resorted to.He was the first person,to ridicule it,and imagine the opposition ,this lonely man might have got,when he said this.

So,what happened to the concept of blood letting now?Thanks to Hanemann,people started thinking about it,and even within his life time,there was perceptible change in the thinking of allopaths,atlest regarding blood letting.

Nothing to do with Hanemann. It got killed of the increaseing level of scientific knowlage about the body.


Also,during his time the mg.doses we use now,are unheard off,and patients used to be prescribed with massive doses of all sorts of concoctions.He again made people to think in terms of reducing the dosage.


Nope that was down to better drug desighn which goes directly against the whole vital force idea of Hanemann.


The present day allopathic medicine is no different.If you look at the prescription of an M.D.,even today,no less than 4 medicines are usually prescribed.an antibiotic,to kill the bacteria,an antacid,to prevent possible heartburn from antibiotic,and a couple of vitamins,to help the body,to compensate the inability of the body,to absorb the vitamins from natural food,due to the reduced vitality of the body because of the use of antibiotics.

How many people suffer from weakness and unwanted reactions,after using the medicines,prescribed as above?
Hannemann was against such practices,and he devoted all his life,to look for a sensible alternative,and perfected this wonderful medicinal therapy.


How many are cured that is the question. Yes homeopathy doesn't have any side effects (in reality that is agrivations that homeopaths claim exist are quite clearly siade effects).


even today,for those people who follow the percepts of Hannemann in letter and spirit,the results are simply amazing.


Prove it


It is no hearsay,myself and my family are living examples of the wonders this therapy can accomplish,and also a few dozens of my friends,whom I converted to use homeopathy.


Any controls? Thought not


Don't be misled by the all the talks about proofs,evidence etc.People laughed when it was told that earth was round.They wanted proof.The proof came much later.


You know most people whould not describhe 240 BC as much latter.


So,read each and every sentence carefully.You will be amazed,at the depth,clarity and coherence with which Hannemann talks.
[/B]

I have read it. If that is clarity I would hate to se nonsence,

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The basic difference between allopathy and homeopathy is how it looks at you.

Nope the difference between allopathy and homeopathy is that one is a strawman and the other is a form of quackery.


Allopathy recognises you as a sum total of your parts.That is why,you will be treated by an opthalmogist for your eye problem,by a endocronologist for your hormone problem,by a cardiologist for your heart problem,and if you have more money,by sub,sub specialists.

It is not the case with homeopathy.It recognises you as a whole.It treats all the problems together,and,,with such minute doses,that,you get more vitality to fight the disease.You fight the disease.The medicine helps you in making you strong enough to do so.


Evidence?


But,the medicine which helps you to fight your particular problem,may not help another one,with the same problem.That is because,the medicine has to suit your individuality.


Aturnativle homeopaths need an excuse for when the paicent does not undergo a spontainiopus recovery


A person having fever ,may feel better,if he goes into open air.Anotherone,wants to curl up,and would like to get covered from head to foot.Both are having fever.Homeopathy recognises these differences,and gives different medicines to these two people,even when all laboratory tests,confirm the same diagnosis in both cases.
That is individulisation.


No this is messing around with water


In India,we have homeopathic hospitals even in small towns,and you have to see the rush there to believe.Millions and millions are getting benefitted by homeopathy right now.


Homeopaths have always been better at PR I'll give them that.


Please don't get misled by the arguments of vested interests against homeopathy.The pharmaceutical industry has invested billions of pounds ,and they don't want people to migrate to homeopathy,as they will get ruined,once people taste the sweet success with homeopathy.


See my title. The pharmaceutical industry is just a bit player.

[Gavinimurthy]

The evidence is all around you.You don't have to look for it elsewhere.

What did the orthodox 'modern' medicine did to the humanity?people may be living a little longer now,but what is the quality of life.?

Don't you have more cases of ADD, ADHD, Depression, and other serious disorders now,compared to a century back?Why these cases are so rampant in western civilisation,compared to countries like India?

It is because,the western countries,in general are using more and more of these modern medicines,and the disease is being driven deep inside.

Even the longivity,without the quality,is mostly due to the improved hygenic conditions people are living in now,and the role of modern medicine is rather very limited.

It is not important how long you live.It is important how healthy you live.A clear mind,a cheerful approach to life, are the basic necessities to enjoy life.The modern medicine is spoiling the inner happiness of mankind,and making us to live a miserable life.

Homeopathy can change all that.The intilligentia, the salaried,the professional people in India,are slowly recognising the efficacy of homeopathy,and are getting diverted.The poor and the unprevilaged are also,getting beniffitted by it,not because,they know about it,but they find it so inexpensive,and so useful.

I shall continue

Murthy

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Please don't get misled by the arguments of vested interests against homeopathy.The pharmaceutical industry has invested billions of pounds ,and they don't want people to migrate to homeopathy,as they will get ruined,once people taste the sweet success with homeopathy.
Please don't get misled by the arguments of vested interests in favour of homeopathy (and other forms of sCAM).

The sCAM industry makes a lot of money:(from http://www.biomeridian.com/web/cam.htm)
"Total out-of-pocket expenditures relating to CAM therapies in 1997 were estimated at $27 billion"
and they don't want people to migrate to proper medicine, as they will get ruined, once people realise what a load of rubbish homeopathy is.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The evidence is all around you.You don't have to look for it elsewhere.

You've been takeing lessons from ID proponets haven't you. Well I've looked around me any the only evidence that I can see is evidence that I need to tidy my room.


What did the orthodox 'modern' medicine did to the humanity?people may be living a little longer now,but what is the quality of life.?


About 30 years longer and in most places they no longer have to worry about smallpox and polio. The list carries on a long time but I'm feeling lazy


Don't you have more cases of ADD, ADHD, Depression, and other serious disorders now,compared to a century back?Why these cases are so rampant in western civilisation,compared to countries like India?


But are they? How do you know they are not just ignored in India?


It is because,the western countries,in general are using more and more of these modern medicines,and the disease is being driven deep inside.


Evidence?


Even the longivity,without the quality,is mostly due to the improved hygenic conditions people are living in now,and the role of modern medicine is rather very limited.


Vaccination mean anything to you?


It is not important how long you live.It is important how healthy you live.A clear mind,a cheerful approach to life, are the basic necessities to enjoy life.The modern medicine is spoiling the inner happiness of mankind,and making us to live a miserable life.


Can't say I've noticed


Homeopathy can change all that.The intilligentia, the salaried,the professional people in India,are slowly recognising the efficacy of homeopathy,and are getting diverted.The poor and the unprevilaged are also,getting beniffitted by it,not because,they know about it,but they find it so inexpensive,and so useful.


Appeal to populerity logical fallicy.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The evidence is all around you.You don't have to look for it elsewhere.

What did the orthodox 'modern' medicine did to the humanity?people may be living a little longer now,but what is the quality of life.?

Don't you have more cases of ADD, ADHD, Depression, and other serious disorders now,compared to a century back?Why these cases are so rampant in western civilisation,compared to countries like India?

It is because,the western countries,in general are using more and more of these modern medicines,and the disease is being driven deep inside.

Even the longivity,without the quality,is mostly due to the improved hygenic conditions people are living in now,and the role of modern medicine is rather very limited.

It is not important how long you live.It is important how healthy you live.A clear mind,a cheerful approach to life, are the basic necessities to enjoy life.The modern medicine is spoiling the inner happiness of mankind,and making us to live a miserable life.

Homeopathy can change all that.The intilligentia, the salaried,the professional people in India,are slowly recognising the efficacy of homeopathy,and are getting diverted.The poor and the unprevilaged are also,getting beniffitted by it,not because,they know about it,but they find it so inexpensive,and so useful.

I shall continue

Murthy
What is being asked for is evidence that homeopathy works

Attacks on "orthodox 'modern' medicine" are not evidence in favour of homeopathy, even if supported by proper evidence (which, incidentally, yours are not. They're just a series of unsupported assertions).

Please provide evidence that homeopathy works. Otherwise people are likely to infer that you don't have any.

[Gavinimurthy]

My wife was diagnosised with cervical displasia,and all the gynecs,were unanimous in their opinion that,the hysterectomy was overdue,and has to be performed immediately.

I refused,treated her with homeopathy,and,after two years,her pap test is normal.The doctors,who saw her,and her reports previously,couldn't believe it.

She is hale and healthy now,without loosing a part of her body.

Not a single allopathic medicine was used.

Murthy

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
My wife was diagnosised with cervical displasia,and all the gynecs,were unanimous in their opinion that,the hysterectomy was overdue,and has to be performed immediately.

I refused,treated her with homeopathy,and,after two years,her pap test is normal.The doctors,who saw her,and her reports previously,couldn't believe it.

She is hale and healthy now,without loosing a part of her body.

Not a single allopathic medicine was used.

Murthy
How nice, an unsupported anecdote.

But I'm happy for you that your wife's OK.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
My wife was diagnosised with cervical displasia,and all the gynecs,were unanimous in their opinion that,the hysterectomy was overdue,and has to be performed immediately.

I refused,treated her with homeopathy,and,after two years,her pap test is normal.The doctors,who saw her,and her reports previously,couldn't believe it.

She is hale and healthy now,without loosing a part of her body.

Not a single allopathic medicine was used.

Murthy

Can you prove that she would not have got better anyway.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
My wife was diagnosised with cervical displasia,and all the gynecs,were unanimous in their opinion that,the hysterectomy was overdue,and has to be performed immediately.

I refused,treated her with homeopathy,and,after two years,her pap test is normal.The doctors,who saw her,and her reports previously,couldn't believe it.

She is hale and healthy now,without loosing a part of her body.

Not a single allopathic medicine was used.

Murthy I'm glad your wife is well.
However, I'm slightly puzzled by your story - Could you give some more details?

How was cervical dysplasia diagnosed?
What grade was it?
Why was a hysterectomy recommended? - It is not the usual treatment even for severe dysplasia.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
Hans,

*snip*
'Lægens Bord' (a prime time Danish National TV medical feature) recently allowed a homeopath to present her bunkum unchallenged.

*snip* Yeah, saw that. I immidiately sent them an e-mail taking them to task for it. Got nothing but a formal reply, of course.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Welcome, Murthy! Glad to see you finally made it here. Now be prepared for real debate, the kind where you need to present evidence for your claims ;).

Hans

[Gavinimurthy]

Thanks Hans for your welcome.

I had severe pain on walking,,because of calcareous spur in my heels(both of them).I went to a couple of orthopaedics,and they told me there is no other way,except using pain relievers life long.If,the problem becomes unberable,they said surgery is the only option.The spur was confirmed by an x-ray.

I started treating myself with homeopathy.It was a long drawn process,and now,after two years,I am completely free of any pain.

I am telling you my personal experiences with homeopathy.
There are many more I can tell you.

What I request,is give it a fair try.You won't regret it.The only problem is homeopathy can't be mastered that easily,and you have to go to a good homeopath.

Those of you,who are interested,can start learning homeopathy,and start treating yourself,first for minor problems.You may miss a few times,but,if you study and understand the vast literature available,you will succed sooner than later.

That is another advantage with homeopathy.You don't have to be a doctor,to learn it,and practice it for yourself and your family.Anybody,with sound intelligence can learn it,and reap the benifits of it.

to be continued..

Murthy

[Jeff Corey]

Not a shred of evidence yet.
You don't get it, do you?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Those of you,who are interested,can start learning homeopathy,and start treating yourself,first for minor problems.You may miss a few times,but,if you study and understand the vast literature available,you will succed sooner than later.
Translation: eventually you will have a condition from which you spontaneously recover.

Edited to add: If, of course, you don't contract anything fatal in the meantime.

[Rolfe]

Oh dear, this is disappointing. I came by hoping for some real debate, having encountered Murthy on homoeopathic forums and feeling that there was more that might be said if the mods didn't just remove any post that disagreed with him.

However, he seems simply to have swallowed a homoeopathy propaganda tract, and to be regurgitating it piecemeal. Not a single valid point, indeed not a single point of any sort at all. Just unsubstantiated assertions stiched together with superstition and magical thinking.

Murthy, there is one very simple question we'd like you to address. If homoeopathy's effects are so obvious even to the casual observer, why has nobody ever been able to show that more people get better when given homoeopathic treatment than get better all on their own?

One thing you have to realise. The human (and animal) body is a very resilient thing. Lots of things get better without any treatment at all. Even things that are normally regarded as serious sometimes spontaneously clear up. Also, sometimes people are given bad advice by real doctors - as your wife may have been with regard to her cervical smear.

The one thing Hahnemann contributed to the science of medicine was to make doctors realise how many patients get better on their own, and how often interventions are unnecessary and may only be carried out for psychological reasons (to support the patient by making them feel they are being looked after). One major result of this was to demonstrate how many things used in orthodox medicine were actually useless.

Now, we try only to use things which can be demonstrated objectively to have a real effect, and to do substantially more good than harm. We're not perfect yet, but medicine has improved a great deal since the time of Hahnemann and you'll get nowhere by insulting modern doctors by asserting that they practise in any way similarly to doctors 200 years ago. I suppose it's possible that medical practice in India is very substandard, I wouldn't know that, but really, look around here and you simply can't escape the evidence that modern medicine has had an enormously beneficial influence on many, many lives.

Now, some things can be quite difficult to demonstrate for sure that they have an effect. But simple common sense should make it obvious that anything that has the sort of clear-cut, self-evident effect you claim for homoeopathy should be a piece of cake to demonstrate.

Remember, we're not arguing about mechanism of action. We don't actually care about mechanism of action until it's been demonstrated that there's an action there. (We merely note that absence of any possible mechanism of action as supporting data when we observe the absence of any action.)

All homoeopaths have to do is show that of a group of people who were given their prescribed remedy, more were "cured" or reported an improvement than a comparable group who didn't actually get their remedy. What could be simpler? What could possibly be the reason for such a test to fail, given the marked, obvious effects you and others recount.

But these tests do fail.

And of the individual stories, we never find one which where there isn't an equally plausible non-homooepathic explanation - usually that the patient would have got better anyway, or occasionally that the original diagnosis was probably wrong.

So you see, there's no point in just repeating more unconvincing stories. You have to meet the challenges of the failed trials and the inability of homoeopaths to tell a remedy of their choice from the stock carrier material, even for a prize of $1,000,000.

Now, that would be interesting.

Rolfe.

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
...It is not the case with homeopathy.It recognises you as a whole.It treats all the problems together,and,,with such minute doses,that,you get more vitality to fight the disease.You fight the disease.The medicine helps you in making you strong enough to do so.
...

So how exactly would a homeopath diagnose a potentially deadly condition with indeterminent symptoms through a 90 minute conversation... oh, say, something like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy?

Would a homeopath know how to read an echocardiogram or an EKG tape?

What kind of homeopathic remedy is warranted for this genetic heart condition?

(you can search on my user name for previous discussions of this)

And to conitinue...

Hahnemann claimed to find the "miasm" for syphillis. What is the present day homeopathic treatment for syphillis? How does it compare with what modern medicine does for patients with syphilis? What happens when syphillis goes untreated?

(and again, this is a question I have asked before, and have not yet received a satisfactory answer to)

[Anders W. Bonde]

Homeopathy sure ain't science:

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:
Philosophy

A belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school

The rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics

Any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation

So,Homeopathy is a philosophy.


Well, folks, there you have it from Gavinimurthy, no less - black on white: Homeopathy is nothing but a philosophy.

I can only agree. And as with all other bunk philosophies that don't have their feet firmly planted in reality, it's more than useless.

Since nature doesn't give a flying f@rt about philosophy and other human figments of imagination, one can only conclude from Gavinimurthy's assertion that homeopathy has no direct physiological effect - it's all in the mind. Hawthorne and placebo effects are enough to cater for the cases that weren't misdiagnosed to begin with, where other real treatment went unreported, or where the disease just took its natural course. And of course all the fallacies of reasoning and errors of perception on the part of both homeopaths and their victims do thier bit, too.

Thanks for clearing that up, Gavinimurthy.

I don't really see any point in carrying on from here, since, in fairness to Gavinimurthy, we shouldn't really expect a fallacious philosophical position to be backed up by physical, statistical or even logical evidence.

Without psychic powers, I predict that The JREF Million is safe from Gavinimurthy.

[Sarah-I]

Philosophy is part of nature and is also part of homeopathy, however, homeopathy is also a science, as it has physical effects on the body as well as the mind.

Perhaps you should go away and read the book by the Greek homeopath George Vithoulkas called The Science of Homeopathy. You could also do much worse than to read the American Journal of Homeopathic Medicine.

Homeopathy is both a science and an art and as with most things, is based on philosophical principles. When I was studying, we had homeopathic philosophy lectures. This is where we gained our understanding of acute and chronic casetaking, chronic disease and the Miasms, exciting and maintaining causes of dis-ease, how to give remedies, posology and much more.

So yes, homeopathy is based on philosophical principles, but this is a guide to practice, but it is also a science, as we see the physical effects of the remedies on the body and it is also a complete treatment in itself, that takes account of the whole.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Philosophy is part of nature and is also part of homeopathy, however, homeopathy is also a science, as it has physical effects on the body as well as the mind.

Perhaps you should go away and read the book by the Greek homeopath George Vithoulkas called The Science of Homeopathy. You could also do much worse than to read the American Journal of Homeopathic Medicine.

Homeopathy is both a science and an art and as with most things, is based on philosophical principles. When I was studying, we had homeopathic philosophy lectures. This is where we gained our understanding of acute and chronic casetaking, chronic disease and the Miasms, exciting and maintaining causes of dis-ease, how to give remedies, posology and much more.

So yes, homeopathy is based on philosophical principles, but this is a guide to practice, but it is also a science, as we see the physical effects of the remedies on the body and it is also a complete treatment in itself, that takes account of the whole. Is that so? Well, pardon me if I'm slow, but could you explain once again then, why is it that this physical effect cannot be shown? Why is it you cannot distinguish a remedy from stock medium, and much less from another remedy? ... Not to mention not being able to tell one potency from another?

Please explain in simple words, so we humble enginers and scientists can understand it.

Hans

[Rolfe]

This reminds me of a letter I saw in one of the veterinary journals after some homoeopaths had been getting a bit philosophical. It read something like, "Hahnemann, Freud, Jung.... I think they're all disciples of Kant.

"Kant prove a thing even after 200 years."

Rolfe.

[BillyJoe]

Murthy,

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
My wife was diagnosised with cervical displasia,and all the gynecs,were unanimous in their opinion that,the hysterectomy was overdue,and has to be performed immediately.Cervical Dysplasia (or Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia) is of three grades: CIN I, CIN 2 and CIN 3. See here (http://www.ppgg.org/medical/pap_cin.asp)
Did your wife have CIN 1? If so read what the above link has to say about CIN 1....

Since most cases of CIN I go away without treatment, it is acceptable to not treat it. If she had CIN 2, treatment would be recommended but see wat the abvoe link has to say about treatment of CIN 2...

Since most cases of CIN II do not go away on their own, treatment is recommended. CIN II can be treated by freezing the the cervix, called Cryotherapy Note that most cases of CIN 2 don't go away, meaning that some do. So, your wife could have had CIN 2 and still survived without any treatment.
Did your wife have CIN 3. Here is what this link has to say about CIN 3....

Because CIN III is the most severe pre-cancerous change in the cervix, it is important to remove it as completely as possible. Removing the abnormal area with an electric wire loop, called LEEP, is the way most CIN III is treated. Occasionally it is necessary to do a procedure called a Conization, which involves the surgical removal of the abnormal tissue, or to use laser beam treatment But still no mention of hysterectomy.
See here (http://althysterectomy.org/cin.htm) for the indications for hysterectomy...

When CIN involves the deeper portions of the cervical canal and cannot be completely removed with a cervical cone resection (as evidenced by the pathology examination of the removed cone of tissue) hysterectomy is necessary. In other words, your wife would only have been recommended to have a hysterectomy if she had already had a cone resection which had shown incomplete removal of the abnormal tissue.
Can you enlighten us any further about the details of your wife's case?

BillyJoe

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
Homeopathy is both a science and an art and as with most things, is based on philosophical principles.
Let me see...

It's an art, a science and a philosophy?

Hang on, you forgot "religion."

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Mojo
Let me see...

It's an art, a science and a philosophy?

Hang on, you forgot "religion." To be absolutely accurate, it's a branch of Sympathetic Magic (http://www.bartleby.com/196/5.html).

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

If I were to be absolutely accurate about what homeopathy is, I'd probably get suspended. :D

[Anders W. Bonde]

Sarah-I,

Philosophy is as much a part of nature as terrorism and fairytales are a part of nature - in as much as what goes on in human minds is a part of nature.

A 'school' of medicine which has never - ever - managed to provide unbiased and replicable evidence for its bold claims, which does nothing to disprove its own hypotheses and theories, which does not encourage criticism but instead heavily censures it, which makes no effort whatsoever to investigate confounding factors and alternative mechanisms relative to its own theories, and which flatly ignores RDBPCT and other advances in real science, simply cannot call itself a science and expect to be taken seriously. At best, homeopathy can be described as a pseudoscience, but even that is being kind. The appropriate description is quackery.

Asking me to read the Bible or the Queran is likewise not going to provide me or anyone else with proof of gawd's existence. Still, I have actually read your Guru's "Organon" - a wee bit of common sense in tiny drops in a huge ocean (pun intended) of logical fallacies, errors of perception and reasoning, sour grapes against methods of medicine long since extinct and plain old ignorance. And you base a whole philosophy of medicine on that 200+ years old bunkum philosophy?

BTW, as homeopathy is so obviously fantastic, why has real science never - ever - stumbled across its effects or mechanisms, which are also totally unapparent in every other aspect of physical reality outside medicine, and why, in your opinion, has no homeopath ever even been nominated for a Nobel Prize? Why this injustice to the greatest, most efficient, safest and cheapest 'system' of medicine of all?

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
***snip***

What I request,is give it a fair try.You won't regret it.The only problem is homeopathy can't be mastered that easily,and you have to go to a good homeopath.

***snip***

So one has to go to a good homeopath in order for homeopathy to work?

So all of the off-the-shelf/one-size-fits-all homeopathic remedies being offered are worthless?

So there is no such thing as homeopathic first aid?

This is a scam, right?:

http://www.ritecare.com/homeopathic/guide_firstaid.asp

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Mojo
If I were to be absolutely accurate about what homeopathy is, I'd probably get suspended. :D

Now you got your mojo workin'.

[Gavinimurthy]

I am on a dialup,and it is taking ages to load a page.One reason could be the pages are so long.

Anyway,My wife's cervical displacia report is as follows.

Gross: Received cervix biopsy measuring 0.6 cm. All material processed.

Microscopy: Sections show cervical epitheli... with loss of polarity of the epithelial sqamus.There is a disorientation and dysmaturation of the cells in all the layers except stratum basalis.No invasion into stroma present.The later contains lymphocytic infiltrate.

Impression: MODERATE DYSPLASIA,CERVIX

This is the exact report.The date was 1/5/2000.

Murthy

[Gavinimurthy]

The homeopathic first aid is much more effective than allopathy.Infact,you can try it,on your own,with very little guidance.

This is because,in first aid situations,all patients more or less show the same symtoms,and hence individulisation is not necessary.

The need to go to a good homeopath arises in chronic problems.

I suggest ,you try this.In case your skin gets abraded,and there are streaks of blood,just swab the area with a diluted lotion of Calendula mother tincture.No need for any other medication.By next day,you can see granulation and perfect healing.

So,most of the homeopathic first aid suggestions are valid.It is so easy to try them.Why don't some of you try when you have an opportunity?

The proof of the pudding is in eating.

Murthy

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
I suggest ,you try this.In case your skin gets abraded,and there are streaks of blood,just swab the area with a diluted lotion of Calendula mother tincture.No need for any other medication.By next day,you can see granulation and perfect healing.

So this differers from normal how?


The proof of the pudding is in eating.


I tried a self proving no effect.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The homeopathic first aid is much more effective than allopathy.Infact,you can try it,on your own,with very little guidance.

This is because,in first aid situations,all patients more or less show the same symtoms,and hence individulisation is not necessary.

The need to go to a good homeopath arises in chronic problems.

I suggest ,you try this.In case your skin gets abraded,and there are streaks of blood,just swab the area with a diluted lotion of Calendula mother tincture.No need for any other medication.By next day,you can see granulation and perfect healing.

So,most of the homeopathic first aid suggestions are valid.It is so easy to try them.Why don't some of you try when you have an opportunity?

The proof of the pudding is in eating.

Murthy So, not only is unindividualized homeopathic first aid possible, its even more effective than standard medicine.

Question...

Why haven't you claimed your million dollars, and your Nobel prize?

I realize that you won't allow yourself to believe this, but it's as simple as that...

Treat skin abrasions with an homeopathic Calendula tincture, and then treat other skin abrasions with unprepared homeopathic stock. Successfully identify which is which, and collect one million dollars, and accept the undying praise and gratitude of the world.

That's it... that simple. You don't even have to demonstrate that the homeopathic tincture "works". All you have to demonstrate is that it differs from unsuccessed stock tincture. You'll be an instant millionaire.

You will refuse to believe this. Of this, I have no doubt.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
I am on a dialup,and it is taking ages to load a page.One reason could be the pages are so long.

Anyway,My wife's cervical displacia report is as follows.

Gross: Received cervix biopsy measuring 0.6 cm. All material processed.

Microscopy: Sections show cervical epitheli... with loss of polarity of the epithelial sqamus.There is a disorientation and dysmaturation of the cells in all the layers except stratum basalis.No invasion into stroma present.The later contains lymphocytic infiltrate.

Impression: MODERATE DYSPLASIA,CERVIX

This is the exact report.The date was 1/5/2000.

Murthy

I just showed the above to my wife... a board certified Ob/Gyn, fellow ABOG and FACOG.

She said the best course of action would be a LEEP procedure to remove the abnormal cervical tissue. I asked her what the ramifications of leaving the condition untreated might be. She said about 70% of such mild cases of dysplaysia regress on their own. If left untreated, 30% of such cases progress to invasive cancer... a process that may take as long as 10 years.

http://www.womenshealthchannel.com/cervicaldysplasia/index.shtml

In other words... your wife is playing homeopathic Russian roulette with a ten shooter, and there are three bullets in the cylinder.

Just what homeopathy needs... another martyr for the cause.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Moving onwards. The other counter has started ticking over and it's time to report some results

Member Name: Gavinimurthy

Your Meta-Post Score = 2

Your Logical Fallacy Count (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html) = 8

Detailed breakdown follows
1. Anecdotal evidence
2. Argumentum ad antiquitatem
3. Argumentum ad nauseam
4. Argumentum ad numerum
5. Converse accident / Hasty generalization
6. Non causa pro causa (Post hoc ergo propter hoc)
7. Shifting the burden of proof
8. Straw man

[Gavinimurthy]

The recent pap smear test declares everything as normal.

I don't see any danger of cancer,as long as her pap tests are normal.I intend to do it atleast once in an year.

Calendula mother tincture is not succussed.Agreed.

Take Arnica 30,10 minutes apart,whenever you get bruised,and see yourself how fast you get relief.

Give Aconite 30,to anybody who had a severe shock,and see how quickly he comes around.

These are diluted and succussed,as you know.

Just try when you have a chance.

I never read anywhere that calcareous spurs heal on their own.

You won't prove a medicine unless you are sucesptible to it.Only some of the the provers produce symptoms.The proving will not have any effect on the balance.

For more information read

The Science of Homeopathy by Vithoulkus.(Already referred by Sarah)

Murthy

[Ashles]

The proof of the pudding is in eating.

Murthy

Absolutely.

So, to repeat the quetion asked of you and Sarah repeatedly...

Why does such a clear and obviously amazingly easy to use form of 'medicine' providing clear and obvious results not have the ability to do this in actual tests?

You say we could try this tomorrow and it would work, yet when it has been tried in tests it doesn't work.

Why would this be?

People's ability to delude themselves and others is amazing. But whn people start putting their own health, and the health of their loved ones at risk because of beliefs in utterly unproven 'magic' remedies with no grounding in science, then it becomes very concerning.

And I've been to Calcutta, Delhi, Kashmir, Rajasthan... many people I saw there would have been delighted to receive some of our nasty "Western" medicine.

This great myth about happy healthy Indian people running about in the prime of health thanks to mystical ancient/alternative medicine... it isn't actually true.

They have healthy people and sick people like everywhere else. And a damn site more sick people on the streets.
Calcutta is hardly an advert for any kind of healthcare system or standards of living.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The recent pap smear test declares everything as normal.

I don't see any danger of cancer,as long as her pap tests are normal.I intend to do it atleast once in an year.

Calendula mother tincture is not succussed.Agreed.

Take Arnica 30,10 minutes apart,whenever you get bruised,and see yourself how fast you get relief.

An n=1 trial without any controls is meant to prove what exactly


Give Aconite 30,to anybody who had a severe shock,and see how quickly he comes around.



You won't prove a medicine unless you are sucesptible to it.Only some of the the provers produce symptoms.The proving will not have any effect on the balance.


So some remedies would randomly not work on people acording to this logic?


For more information read

The Science of Homeopathy by Vithoulkus.(Already referred by Sarah)

Murthy

Why? Does I include detials of a set of well designed DBPC trials that produced posertive results?

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The recent pap smear test declares everything as normal.

I don't see any danger of cancer,as long as her pap tests are normal.I intend to do it atleast once in an year.

Calendula mother tincture is not succussed.Agreed.

Take Arnica 30,10 minutes apart,whenever you get bruised,and see yourself how fast you get relief.

An n=1 trial without any controls is meant to prove what exactly


You won't prove a medicine unless you are sucesptible to it.Only some of the the provers produce symptoms.The proving will not have any effect on the balance.


So some remedies would randomly not work on people acording to this logic?


For more information read

The Science of Homeopathy by Vithoulkus.(Already referred by Sarah)

Murthy

Why? Does I include detials of a set of well designed DBPC trials that produced posertive results?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Take Arnica 30,10 minutes apart,whenever you get bruised,and see yourself how fast you get relief.
This has already been done, hasn't it?
http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/2/60?ijkey=dac4870eb2224446578e261bf34a82048f84c344&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Psiload
I just showed the above to my wife... a board certified Ob/Gyn, fellow ABOG and FACOG.

She said the best course of action would be a LEEP procedure to remove the abnormal cervical tissue. I asked her what the ramifications of leaving the condition untreated might be. She said about 70% of such mild cases of dysplaysia regress on their own. If left untreated, 30% of such cases progress to invasive cancer... a process that may take as long as 10 years.

http://www.womenshealthchannel.com/cervicaldysplasia/index.shtml

In other words... your wife is playing homeopathic Russian roulette with a ten shooter, and there are three bullets in the cylinder.

Just what homeopathy needs... another martyr for the cause. Psiload, my wife is a nurse colposcopist - who diagnoses and treats benign and pre-cancerous abnormalities of the cervix (she holds a BSCCP/RCOG certificate)*. She confirms what Dr (Mrs) Psiload says - she would recommend a loop exision of the problem cells. A hysterectomy would certainly not be on the agenda.

Gavinmurthy, your wife was lucky - there is a high risk that moderate changes (CIN II) will develop into cervix cancer, I hope she doesn't take the same risk again, should she get another positive smear.


*British Society for Colposcopy and Cevical Pathology/Royal College of Gynaecologists

[KFCA]

Hmmm.

About 15 years ago my husband has what he suspected was a "heel spur, which was confirmed by x-ray. Although it was very painful, the ortheoprdist said that while he could do surgery, he didn't normally recommend it, but rather suggested only an over-the-counter pain reliever & avoiding putting a lot of weight on the affected foot for awhile.

I took about a month, but the pain totally went away for 14 years. About a year ago, the pain came back, though not as strong as before. This time he didn't bother consulting the ortheopedist; just repeated his suggestions of 14 years earlier, plus this time did a little foot massage (rolling a hard ball over the painful area), & within about a week, the pain again was gone & has never returned, at least as of this morning.

The heel spur may (or may not) still exist, but the pain definitely doesn't. I should add that my husband has walked our three dogs over two miles BOTH morning & evening, totally on cement sidewalks, for the past seven years (when he isn't snow skiing), so it's not a matter of him laying around on a lounge chair, "babying" his formerly painful foot these many years.

[Gavinimurthy]

Susceptability is very easy to explain.

When flu is around,not all people will get affected by it.Only a few get it.,eventhough everybody is exposed to the same virus.it is because of susceptibility.

So,you won't prove a medicine unless you have the susceptability to it,just like a virus won't make any difference to you,unless you are susceptable to it.

A symptom of a medicine,recorded in Materia Medica,as having been produced, by a majority of the provers,will get cured by the same medicine,in any person,as his having the symptom,is an indication that he is susceptable to the medicine.

Say, you have a terrible headache,comes regularly in the morning,worse for even movement of eyes,then Bryonia will cure you,as Bryonia has that symptom.Your ability to produce that symptom,means you are susceptable to it.

So.while all provers won't produce symptoms,any body who has the exact symtom of the medicine,will get relieved of it.

Murthy

[Psiload]

Gavinimurthy posted:

The recent pap smear test declares everything as normal.

I don't see any danger of cancer,as long as her pap tests are normal.I intend to do it atleast once in an year.

Lucky her... she dodged a bullet. Good thinking, go back to proven medical techniques.

Calendula mother tincture is not succussed.Agreed.

So it's not homeopathy, it's pharmacology. In that case, I agree, pharmacology can be effective.

Take Arnica 30,10 minutes apart,whenever you get bruised,and see yourself how fast you get relief.

Give Aconite 30,to anybody who had a severe shock,and see how quickly he comes around.

These are diluted and succussed,as you know.

Just try when you have a chance.

But how would I judge efficacy? How am I supposed to know how long it would take for a bruise to heal, or a person to recover from shock if both conditions were left untreated? I have tried homeopathic remedies in the past. I found them to have no effect whatsoever.

I never read anywhere that calcareous spurs heal on their own.

Well then... I guess you should read more:

http://www.foot.com/info/cond_heel_spurs.jsp

The key for the proper treatment of heel spurs is determining what is causing the excessive stretching of the plantar fascia. When the cause is over-pronation (flat feet), an orthotic with rearfoot posting and longitudinal arch support is an effective device to reduce the over-pronation, and allow the condition to heal.

Other common treatments include stretching exercises, losing weight, wearing shoes that have a cushioned heel that absorbs shock, and elevating the heel with the use of a heel cradle, heel cup, or orthotic. Heel cradles and heel cups provide extra comfort and cushion to the heel, and reduce the amount of shock and shear forces experienced from everyday activities.

You won't prove a medicine unless you are sucesptible to it.Only some of the the provers produce symptoms.The proving will not have any effect on the balance.

What do you mean by "susceptible"? Do I have to believe in homeopathy in order for it to work? It sounds like faithhealing to me.

For more information read

The Faith Healers by James Randi

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879755350/103-5233959-0978225

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Moving onwards. The other counter has started ticking over and it's time to report some results

Member Name: Gavinimurthy

Your Meta-Post Score = 2

Your Logical Fallacy Count (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html) = 9

Detailed breakdown follows
1. Anecdotal evidence
2. Argumentum ad antiquitatem
3. Argumentum ad nauseam
4. Argumentum ad numerum
5. Converse accident / Hasty generalization
6. Non causa pro causa (Post hoc ergo propter hoc)
7. Shifting the burden of proof
8. Straw man
9. Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Say, you have a terrible headache,comes regularly in the morning,worse for even movement of eyes,then Bryonia will cure you,as Bryonia has that symptom.Your ability to produce that symptom,means you are susceptable to it.Why do you say this? Is this something from your own experience or are you repeating what others have told you?

Once again, why does this effect not show up in controlled trials (http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band46/b46-7.html)?

This is an intriguing reversal. The study referenced in this report was of individualised homoeopathy, where after consultation and case-taking, the homoeopaths decided on the correct "simillimum" for each individual patient. It is the absence of such individualisation which usually gets blamed for homoeopathic trials showing null effect.

However, this time we have Murthy telling us that a single remedy will be effective for a single symptom, something which homoeopaths usually say is not the case. And when we look at the evidence, it is negative, and it relates to individualised homoeopathy. Maybe that was the mistake here? Instead of individualising the cases, everybody should have been given bryonia?

I repeat, Murthy, what evidence do you have to support your claim about the bryonia?

Rolfe.

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The homeopathic first aid is much more effective than allopathy.Infact,you can try it,on your own,with very little guidance.

This is because,in first aid situations,all patients more or less show the same symtoms,and hence individulisation is not necessary.

The need to go to a good homeopath arises in chronic problems.

I suggest ,you try this.In case your skin gets abraded,and there are streaks of blood,just swab the area with a diluted lotion of Calendula mother tincture.No need for any other medication.By next day,you can see granulation and perfect healing.

So,most of the homeopathic first aid suggestions are valid.It is so easy to try them.Why don't some of you try when you have an opportunity?

The proof of the pudding is in eating.

Murthy

Has homeopathy been shown to be more effective in the areas hit by the tsunami?

A scrape can often lead to tetanus... and how effective is homeopathy against that? Would it have helped the folks who got here:
http://www.newkerala.com/news-daily/news/features.php?action=fullnews&id=61051

Or measles... which type of medicine nipped the start of a measles epidemic in tsunami areas in the bud?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5708/345?ijkey=GS8MSLxG4LBjc&keytype=ref&siteid=sci

Also, India has been hit hard with HIV/AIDS... how effective is homeopathy in dealing with that?
http://w3.whosea.org/en/Section10/Section18/Section348.htm ... the line with India shows them with over 5 million affected...
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/221cb79bf5bfd51f97df1bc654ff4078.htm

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Dragon
Psiload, my wife is a nurse colposcopist - who diagnoses and treats benign and pre-cancerous abnormalities of the cervix (she holds a BSCCP/RCOG certificate)*. She confirms what Dr (Mrs) Psiload says - she would recommend a loop exision of the problem cells. A hysterectomy would certainly not be on the agenda.

Gavinmurthy, your wife was lucky - there is a high risk that moderate changes (CIN II) will develop into cervix cancer, I hope she doesn't take the same risk again, should she get another positive smear.


*British Society for Colposcopy and Cevical Pathology/Royal College of Gynaecologists Anyone else starting to notice a pattern here?

It's not so much Gavin's fascination with homeopathy that's got him and his heading towards disaster, his utter cluelessness, or resistance to evidence-based medicine is the real culprit.

Gavin... if you understood standard medicine even a fraction as well as some homeopathic skeptics on this board understand homeopathy, we might take your arguments a bit more seriously.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Psiload is reading more closely than me. Thanks

Member Name: Gavinimurthy

Your Meta-Post Score = 2

Your Logical Fallacy Count (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html) = 10

Detailed breakdown follows
1. Anecdotal evidence
2. Argumentum ad antiquitatem
3. Argumentum ad nauseam
4. Argumentum ad numerum
5. Converse accident / Hasty generalization
6. Non causa pro causa (Post hoc ergo propter hoc)
7. Shifting the burden of proof
8. Straw man
9. Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion
10. Argumentum ad ignorantiam

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Overall, Gavin you conform perfectly to the Sarah mould of blithely asserting untruths and unprovens.

Do you remember saying "I was much more skeptic than you guys here,and used to sneer about homeopathy,using almost similar arguments,you people use"?

Well where is the evidence? What you have given us so far is parrotting of the homeopaths' wishful thinking and the usual anecdotal rubbish that is more easily explained by chance or misunderstanding on the part of the narrator. Where is your killer argument?

How about showing us your genius responses to the problems I highlighted in homeopathic provings? Provings are at the heart of homeopathy. Once they are shown to be a crock of sh*t you have nothing left. I have given the link before, but here it is again except coincidence and wishful thinking The Idiot's Guide to Provings (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870495815&highlight=sherr+AND+fallacy#post1870495815)

Do you have even the glimmer of an inkling as to why the anecdotes you have trotted out are so unconvincing? Try answering from a sceptical perspective since you claimed to be capable of scepticism. At least just show some ability to think for yourself, please.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Psiload
Anyone else starting to notice a pattern here?

It's not so much Gavin's fascination with homeopathy that's got him and his heading towards disaster, his utter cluelessness, or resistance to evidence-based medicine is the real culprit.

Gavin... if you understood standard medicine even a fraction as well as some homeopathic skeptics on this board understand homeopathy, we might take your arguments a bit more seriously. Absolutely, and the "mix-and-match" appoach is nonsensical even if you buy into homeopathy a system of medicine.

Listen up, Gavin - MODERATE DYSPLASIA DOES NOT CAUSE ANY SYMPTOMS - the only reason your wife knew she had a problem was because of the "allopathic" smear test.
She could have consulted evey homeopath in India and, without that test, they would have been totally clueless that the cervix had potentially pre-cancerous changes.
Thankfully you are trusting the same test, not homeopathy, to tell her that she is clear - I hope it continues to do so.

[Gavinimurthy]

It is correct to say that we should not attempt to remove a single symptom,when a number of symptoms are present. We must find a remedy that covers ideally all the symptoms,or the more important symptoms.

But sometimes,you find a single symptom in acute problems,and in those cases,there is nothing wrong in attempting to cure that single symtom.I cited the example of a recurring headache,everyday,as many people suffer with it,and perhaps,for a majority of them,that is the only symptom.

Murthy



.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

[TapsScreen]Hello, Gavin, are you reading any of the points being made against you? Do you understand why your views are being treated with disdain?[/IsThereAnybodyOutThere?]

Just nod if you can hear me.

[Rolfe]

[whispered aside]
BSM, I think it's a one-way screen. Murthy is here to tell us what he thinks. He has no intention of finding out what we think, or countering any arguments. He just wants to say his piece without interruption.

He must be able to read, because he has answered a couple of questions which didn't require him to challenge his own beliefs. But he has absolutely no intention of allowing actual logic even to penetrate his carapace.

Do you think he's a clone of Sarah?
[/whispered aside]

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Say, you have a terrible headache,comes regularly in the morning,worse for even movement of eyes,then Bryonia will cure you,as Bryonia has that symptom.Let's try this one again.

Murthy, why do you say this? Have you experienced it for yourself, or are you only repeating something you have heard from someone else?

Rolfe.

(Who does have a terrible headache, which does come fairly regularly in the mornings, and isn't even faintly interested in parting with £4.99 for a spoonful of sugar labelled "Bryonia" on the evidence presented so far.)

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Do you think he's a clone of Sarah?

Sorry to intrude into your whispered aside, but I notice that Murthy only appeared here when Kumar said he'd be away for a bit. They both have distinctive (but reasonably easy to fake) posting styles: Murthy doesn't leave a space after punctuation, Kumar posts gibberish (but seems to be able to use better English when it suits him). They may have been demonstrably different people on another forum, of course; have they ever been seen together?

[Gavinimurthy]

My son used to get a throbbing headache,every day morning.The throbbing used to be visible to the eye.He was away from us,in an university,and he used to take daily 2 to 3 pain killers.

When he came home for holidays,he told me about this.I gave him just three doses of Bryonia,and after a gap of a day,followed it up with Nat.mur.

It was four years back,and to this day,he never had that problem again.He is now in U.K.(Liecester) and has a homeopathic kit of about hundred medicines.He gives me a ring,whenever he has some problem,and he gets relieved of it,with homeo medicines.

Murthy

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
My son used to get a throbbing headache,every day morning.The throbbing used to be visible to the eye.He was away from us,in an university,and he used to take daily 2 to 3 pain killers.

When he came home for holidays,he told me about this.I gave him just three doses of Bryonia,and after a gap of a day,followed it up with Nat.mur.

It was four years back,and to this day,he never had that problem again.He is now in U.K.(Liecester) and has a homeopathic kit of about hundred medicines.He gives me a ring,whenever he has some problem,and he gets relieved of it,with homeo medicines.

Murthy

1. An unsubstantiatable anecdote. You've already been shown what happens when potential biases are removed in a study of this exact problem: homeopathy is no better than placebo. So, even if you are telling the complete truth, it is not really feasible for that truth to mean quite what you think it means. So, that's one piece of your compelling evidence in the trash can. Let's move on.

2. Not even using homeopathy properly. In homeopathy's own terms this repeated dosing and combination therapy is disallowed, so you are claiming success when flagrantly breaking homeopathy's own rules. I'll let you work through the implications of this for your own conclusions and homeopathy in general. Just don't forget that the one thing we keep being told is that homeopathy is such a delicate flower that unless its rules are obeyed precisely in any test of it then no positive results can be expected. Yes, I know that contradicts the dramatic personal testimonials, but hey, if you need to make up the rules as you go along then it's your problem not ours. We just find it funny.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Mojo
Sorry to intrude into your whispered aside, but I notice that Murthy only appeared here when Kumar said he'd be away for a bit. They both have distinctive (but reasonably easy to fake) posting styles: Murthy doesn't leave a space after punctuation, Kumar posts gibberish (but seems to be able to use better English when it suits him). They may have been demonstrably different people on another forum, of course; have they ever been seen together? Murthy is a long-time regular on the hpathy forum. We had a conversation there about his problems of registering here. I see no reason to assume he is not a genuine poster.

Hans

[BillyJoe]

Murthy,

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Microscopy: Sections show cervical epitheli... with loss of polarity of the epithelial sqamus.There is a disorientation and dysmaturation of the cells in all the layers except stratum basalis.No invasion into stroma present.The later contains lymphocytic infiltrate.

Impression: MODERATE DYSPLASIA,CERVIX Assuming a grading of mild, moderate and severe, your wife's result of "moderate dysplasia" would, I guess, correspond to CIN 11. I have googled for prognosis of this lesion and found this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8706956&dopt=Abstract)

While reviewing the available prospective follow-up studies on cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), Ostor (1993) found 3529 cases of CIN 1, of which 57% showed regression, persistence was found in 32%, progression to CIN III in 11%, and progression to invasive cancer in 1% of cases. The corresponding figures for CIN II were 43%, 35%, 22%, and 5%, respectively. In other words, there was a 43% chance of your wife's lesion regressing without treatment according to this review.
So, was it the 43% spontaneous regresson rate or was it homoeopathy? And how would you be able to tell?


Which brings us back to your claim that all the gynaecologists recommended hysterectomy.
Firstly, how many gynaecologist did your wife actually see? "All" suggests three or more. Why was it necessary to see more than one gynaecologist? And can you tell us exactly what these gynaecologist said. Why did the recommendations of all these gynaecologists differ from official protocols?


thanks,
BillyJoe

[Gavinimurthy]

I was reluctant to get hysterectomy done.I live in a small town,so I first showed to our local gyaec,then consulted a bigger hospital,and another multi speciality hospital.

Mostly doctors here recommend Hysterectomy for near menopause women,as many of the patients can't afford the cost of successive treatments involved,as and when they become necessary.So,the gyneacs feel,the least expensive,and safest method is hysterectomy.This view is slowly changing.

The 'Modern Medicine' has progressed by leaps and bounds in areas of diagnosis,and surgical interventions.It is for the good of man kind.

If I suspect symptoms of heart attack,I won't wait to look for an appropriate homeopathic remedy,but would insist to be taken to a cardiologist.If I have a block in the arteries,I will definitely go for an angioplasty or by pass.Similarly I don't hesitate to use the newer diagnostic methods.

But,at the same time,if I have a blocked nose,I won't run for a decongestant.I know it will make me worse after the temporary relief.Instead I will depend on Homeopathy.

If I have a chronic backache problem,I will not take pain killers,but will go to a good homeopath,and follow his advice.I know atleast a dozen people,who suffer from chronic backache and got relief only by homeopathy.

So,my views are like this.

Whenever modern medicine is required in life threatening situations,we should take its help.

But,think of homeopathy,when the problem is chronic,and the medication you are getting is only palliative.The most dangerous allopathic medcines,that drive the disease in are,Antidepressents,Steroids,and antibiotics.Pain relievers when used in moderation are less harmful,but they too tend to just palliate.

Since I knew about homeopathy,I never used antibiotics,even for fevers.The fevers get resolved with homeo medicines in two days,maximum.

There are lot of misconceptions about homeopathic dosage.In chronic problems the single dose,and wait and watch approach will give best results.But,for acute problems,multiple doses are a must.This is not a deviation.The Organon itself tells about this.

Again,a single dose ,doesn't mean you just give once,and forget it.You can give two,three doses even in chronic problems,and I will explain sometime later,why it is construed as a single dose only.

Murthy

[BillyJoe]

Murthy,

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
I was reluctant to get hysterectomy done.I live in a small town,so I first showed to our local gyaec,then consulted a bigger hospital,and another multi speciality hospital.

Mostly doctors here recommend Hysterectomy for near menopause women,as many of the patients can't afford the cost of successive treatments involved,as and when they become necessary.So,the gyneacs feel,the least expensive,and safest method is hysterectomy.This view is slowly changing. Am I correct in my interpretation of your post that the hysterectomy was not recommended for the cervical dysplasia but for other reasons?
If so, that puts an entirely different slant on your original little story don't you think.....

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
My wife was diagnosised with cervical displasia,and all the gynecs,were unanimous in their opinion that,the hysterectomy was overdue,and has to be performed immediately. You were implying a severe condition for which immediate surgery was essential. Most of the general population reading this would get the impression that you cured your wife's life-threatening cancer with homoeopathy. In fact I can hear them telling all their friends.....

"The surgeons wanted to cut out his wife's cancer but Murthy cured it with homoeopathy"

Perhaps you might now understand why we are so wary of accepting such reports on face value.

BillyJoe

[Gavinimurthy]

It was a case of displasia.She had a little bleeding on and off,pain in the hip,and legs,and those were the first signs which made me to go to the gyneac in the first place..

A leep,or radiation perhaps would have to be tried first,before thinking of hysterectomy,but,even those procedures mean a lot of discomfort to the patient,and there is no guarantee that,these procedures will cure her.That is why hysterectomy is recommended,which my be a bit premature recommendation.But,that that doesn't make the case less severe.

What I generally find is in families,that depend entirely on homeopathy,except for emergencies,there are less tensions,less disease,and more happiness.

Give it a try with an open mind.You won't regret it.

Murthy

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
My son used to get a throbbing headache,every day morning.The throbbing used to be visible to the eye.He was away from us,in an university,and he used to take daily 2 to 3 pain killers.

When he came home for holidays,he told me about this.I gave him just three doses of Bryonia,and after a gap of a day,followed it up with Nat.mur.

It was four years back,and to this day,he never had that problem again.Is this the only situation you know about where giving Bryonia has been followed by a cessation of the headaches? If so, what makes you think that you can simply declare that for anyone who has such a headache "Bryonia will cure you"?

How many people's headaches would you have to know about which didn't go away after taking Bryonia before you started to think that this advice might be wrong?

As I said, I get headaches like that. If I took Bryonia as you suggested and the headaches didn't go away, how would you explain that?

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The 'Modern Medicine' has progressed by leaps and bounds in areas of diagnosis,and surgical interventions.It is for the good of man kind.

If I suspect symptoms of heart attack,I won't wait to look for an appropriate homeopathic remedy,but would insist to be taken to a cardiologist.If I have a block in the arteries,I will definitely go for an angioplasty or by pass.Similarly I don't hesitate to use the newer diagnostic methods.

But,at the same time,if I have a blocked nose,I won't run for a decongestant.I know it will make me worse after the temporary relief.Instead I will depend on Homeopathy.

If I have a chronic backache problem,I will not take pain killers,but will go to a good homeopath,and follow his advice.I know atleast a dozen people,who suffer from chronic backache and got relief only by homeopathy.
So, basically, if you thought you may have a potentially life-threatening condition you would seek proper treatment.

But if you're dealing with something comparatively trivial that will probably get better of its own accord, such as a blocked nose (I get them occasionally, usually associated with a slight cold, and they go away after a short time without any treatment), or that may have a psychological component, such as backache (no disrespect intended, but pain relief is an area particularly susceptible to the placebo effect) you use homeopathy.

'Nuff said.

[Gavinimurthy]

I gave only few symptoms of Bryonia,just as an example.The details required are much more.To the extant I mentioned,there may be 4 to 5 medicines that will match those symtoms,and further analysis is required to narrow down to the most appropriate medicine.

At what time you get it normally?How long will it last?What do you do to get relieved of it?

What do you feel is the cause? Did you observe any specific exciting causes?

What is the exact location of the ache? Is it over the eyes,over the temples,on the occipit?

What sort of pain is it? Can you describe it?(Throbbing,,tearing etc)

Does the pain start from behind the head and move forward?Or is it localised pain just in the forehead?

What makes it worse?does stooping increase or decrease it?Do you feel relief when you press the area where pain is located?

What makes it better?Do you feel like just lie down in a dark room?Would you like to bandage your head tightly?

This is just a sample.

Based on the response,more info.will be needed.

If it were to be a chronic problem,then lot more details are required as to your personality in general.

One must be true to himself while telling the symptoms,as the remedy depends on what you tell.The more accurate,and the more detailed your description of the problem,the more the chances of finding the correct remedy.

Murthy

[Gavinimurthy]

As already explained,the most dangerous medicines are steroids,antidepressents,and antibiotics.I will not touch the first two,and will be very very cautious in using antibiotics.I will not use them also,except in real emergencies.

All the conditions,that need the above types of medication, respond to homeopathy.Be it typhoid,pnuemonia, depression, chronic physical problems..the name is not important.

Why I call the above dangerous is because,they make you worse,though your problem might be relieved temporarily.The more you use these medicines,the more you are spoiling your health and happiness.

So,please be weary of these crippling medications.Use them ,if you can't avoid,with extreme caution,and to the bearest minimum.

When you feel like,try homeopathy.Go to somebody like Vithoulkus.(Every country will have atleast a few 'Vithoulkuses.') You won't regret it.

Murthy

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The pharmaceutical industry has invested billions of pounds ,and they don't want people to migrate to homeopathy,as they will get ruined,once people taste the sweet success with homeopathy.I just noticed this one. Murthy, the only sweet thing about homoeopathy is the sugar that is the only thing in the pills.

No matter how much money they have invested, if something better and cheaper comes along there is nothing at all the pharmaceutical industry can do about it. In fact this is happening all the time - well, maybe not the cheaper part, usually, but certainly the better part. All that happens is that the pharmaceutical industry starts to manufacture and sell the new stuff.

If homeopathic remedies worked, then that's what pharmaceutical companies would be making. There are companies (such as Boiron) who make homoeopathic remedies and are making a fortune out of them. I don't see anyone suppressing these! In fact they advertise very widely and without restraint - unlike the pharmaceutical companies, who are constrained only to claim for their products what can be objectively proved.

So, Murthy, even supposing the pharmaceutical industry wanted to suppress the great effects of homooepathy, could you hazard a guess about how it's actually managing to do that?

The fact of the matter is that apart from people like you and your friends, who have managed to fool yourselves into thinking that a few coincidental recoveries and badly-transmitted anecdotes show that homoeoapthy works, the entire rest of the world knows perfectly well that only medicines with molecules in them do anything at all, and wisely relies on these.

Rolfe.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
As already explained,the most dangerous medicines are steroids,antidepressents,and antibiotics.I will not touch the first two,and will be very very cautious in using antibiotics.I will not use them also,except in real emergencies.

Really? Last I cheacked the largest number of deaths was probably due top paracetamol and the most toxic was some of the anti cancer drugs.


All the conditions,that need the above types of medication, respond to homeopathy.Be it typhoid,pnuemonia, depression, chronic physical problems..the name is not important.


Evidence? Just one or two well conduted trials. It isn't much to ask


Why I call the above dangerous is because,they make you worse,though your problem might be relieved temporarily.The more you use these medicines,the more you are spoiling your health and happiness.


So why do such a high percentage of homeopaths and their pacients seem to have cronic problems.


So,please be weary of these crippling medications.Use them ,if you can't avoid,with extreme caution,and to the bearest minimum.


Kindly explain any sane and logical reason why I should take medical advice from a random person off the internet who claims to have no medical qualifications.


When you feel like,try homeopathy.Go to somebody like Vithoulkus.(Every country will have atleast a few 'Vithoulkuses.') You won't regret it.

Murthy [/B]

No sorry I'd rather trust my health to a system that has some decent evidence behind it.

Now come on so far you have throw a load of unbacked claims and some week anicdotal evidence at us. Nothing we have not seen before many times. Have you got anything beyond that? You knwo a few well conduted trials if not why not?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rolfe
IThe fact of the matter is that apart from people like you and your friends, who have managed to fool yourselves into thinking that a few coincidental recoveries and badly-transmitted anecdotes show that homoeoapthy works, the entire rest of the world knows perfectly well that only medicines with molecules in them do anything at all, and wisely relies on these.

We're homeopaths. We don't need no stinkin' molecules!

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
all the gynecs,were unanimous in their opinion that,the hysterectomy was overdue,and has to be performed immediately.This was Murthy's first account of the advice given to him by his wife's doctors. I can see no other way of interpreting this than that an emergency hysterectomy was being advised as an essential life-saving procedure.

However, many questions were then asked, and Murthy kindly gave more and better information, all of which added up to the fact that no competent doctor would possibly suggest that a hysterectomy was necessary as an emergency life-saving procedure in this case. Then, several pages later, we have Murthy's revised account of the advice.Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
I was reluctant to get hysterectomy done.I live in a small town,so I first showed to our local gyaec,then consulted a bigger hospital,and another multi speciality hospital.

Mostly doctors here recommend Hysterectomy for near menopause women,as many of the patients can't afford the cost of successive treatments involved,as and when they become necessary.So,the gyneacs feel,the least expensive,and safest method is hysterectomy.This view is slowly changing.This is quite a different story. The advice to have a hysterectomy is now seen almost as a prophylactic suggestion by doctors in an area where follow-up care is poor and/or unaffordable. And both they and Murthy evidently realise that this is not best practice.

Several posters have pointed out that there was a fair chance that a lesion such as that described would go away on its own. And I imagine that Mrs. Murthy's doctors probably knew that too, and in the light of the radical revision of the original tale, I feel somewhat justified in believing that the part about the doctors being "amazed" by the normal follow-up smear was probably a bit of an exaggeration too.

And we've also heard how heel spurs can resolve on their own, and everybody knows that headaches often go away on their own too. A thread seems to run through this - the cervical smear is just a suspect one, but this is exaggerated into "an emergency hysterectomy was necessary to save her life". The heel spurs aren't much more than an annoyance, but these are exaggerated into permanent, incurable, unremitting pain. Thus the positive outcome can more easily be presented as a great triumph for homooepathy.

Murthy seems to be committing the fallacy of thinking that all life's little ailments and inconveniences will be permanent, and progressive, and disabling, unless treated aggressively. Maybe he has had some poor-quality medical advice which has given him this impression, or maybe he's come up with it as his own idea.

It's nonsense. Most of the little, "chronic", things you're talking about, go away on their own. Whether you take a sugar pill or not. If you always take a sugar pill, and then your little complaint usually goes away, well, more "evidence" about how wonderful homoeopathy is. Except that, to misquote a popular cough syrup advertisement, "nothing works as well as homoeopathy".

Murthy is advising us to use real medicine when we have anything serious wrong with us. Quite right too. And to use homoeopathy for the little, "chronic" things. Murthy, we've got better things to do with our money, and I suspect you have too, if the truth be told. You've simply deceived yourself into believing that natural recoveries that happen all the time, to all of us, are caused by these expensive little sugar pills.

Rolfe.

[Gavinimurthy]

After having found out that 'Similia Similibus Curentar" Hannemann first experimented with material doses only.He called them mother tinctures.

Though he was able to provide relief to his patients,he found that some problems are recurring,and sometimes the patients are getting aggravations though for a brief period.

It is a still mystery what made him to think of succussion and dilution,but he experimented with it,and foud that,the aggravations are less severe,when he increased the potency,as he called them.

The principle of 'similia similibus curenter' was vaguely mentioned ,in earlier literature prior to Hanemann also,but his singular contribution is his method of succussion and dilution,which made the medicine,more potent in terms of its homeopathicity,but reduced the chances of unnecessary aggravations.

There are lot of assumptions,that were floated,on how homeo medicines work,despite a single molecue not being present in them.As on now,they are just lot of theories,wthout any proof.

But,the irrefutable fact is they work,and work more gently and more effectively.May be the mystery will be unravelled in about a century's time from now,if not earlier.

Any therapy,which doesn't provide consistent relief,can't survive long.Be it Aurveda,homeopathy,or any other therapy.

what is important is gentle,permanent relief,and not temporary palliation of symptoms.It is immaterial whether you can explain it or not. as long it is helping you, use it.

Let us leave it to the future generations to solve the mystery.There are many cases replete in science,where a theory,which was thought impropable,at the time,it was proposed,was proved later to be a truth.

The example of a round earth is worth repeating.It took many many years to convince people.Till then people thought it was a rubbish idea.May be,in case of homeopathy it is taking a little longer,to prove it.But,it will be proved.You and I may or may on live to see that,but homeopathy lives.

Murthy

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
As already explained,the most dangerous medicines are steroids,antidepressents,and antibiotics.I will not touch the first two,and will be very very cautious in using antibiotics.I will not use them also,except in real emergencies.

All the conditions,that need the above types of medication, respond to homeopathy.Be it typhoid,pnuemonia, depression, chronic physical problems..the name is not important.

Why I call the above dangerous is because, they make you worse,though your problem might be relieved temporarily.The more you use these medicines,the more you are spoiling your health and happiness.

So,please be weary of these crippling medications.Use them ,if you can't avoid,with extreme caution,and to the bearest minimum.

When you feel like,try homeopathy.Go to somebody like Vithoulkus.(Every country will have atleast a few 'Vithoulkuses.') You won't regret it.

Murthy Typhoid? :eek:

Anders... I owe you an apology. You're right, homeopathic delusion is some seriously dangerous stuff.

Gavin... I'm begging you... please confine your magical water fairytales to the treatment of heel spurs and headaches, and leave the serious medical conditions to the real professionals.

Please tell me you wouldn't seriously deny yourself, or your family, immunization or antibiotics in the face of typhoid or other life-threatening diseases?

Open yours eyes and see how modern medicine has dealt with typhoid in the rest of the world. Now look at your own country and look how much luck homeopathy has had in stopping the ravages of this horrible disease.

Homeopathy has had more than enough time to prove itself in India, but it just doesn't work.

http://www.biotech-monitor.nl/2503.htm

The lack of an effective health care system in India is especially acute due to the high incidence of communicable diseases. Between 1988-93, under 5 year mortality rate in India was 122 per 1000 live births, or an estimated 3 million Indian children die under the age of five each year, while an equal number become disabled due to diseases. Effective being the operative word.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Why I call the above dangerous is because,they make you worse,though your problem might be relieved temporarily.The more you use these medicines,the more you are spoiling your health and happiness.Murthy, please explain your reasons for saying this. How do you know these medicines will make you worse, and spoil you health?

I'd prefer not to discuss antidepressants here, because these are a rather unusual area of medicine. However, steroids and antibiotics, used properly, are among the most effective drugs on the planet.

I have to say used properly. Because anything that has an effect is capable of having a bad effect if it is used wrongly. But antibiotics and steroids have saved more lives than anyone can count. But hey, Murthy just knows that they're harmful, because somebody told him!

I think also that Murthy is back-tracking from his excellent advice to see a real doctor if you have something really wrong with you, and is claiming that homoeopathy can cure pneumonia and typhiod. So, can we ask how he knows that? Has he seen many cases of these diseases for himself, or is he once more just repeating what someone else has told him?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
I gave only few symptoms of Bryonia,just as an example.The details required are much more.To the extant I mentioned,there may be 4 to 5 medicines that will match those symtoms,and further analysis is required to narrow down to the most appropriate medicine.

At what time you get it normally?How long will it last?What do you do to get relieved of it?

[snipped long list of boring questions]No, Murthy. You said that anyone with a headache "like that" would be cured if they took Bryonia. In fact, you said it as an example of how it was that individualisation is not always necessary and one-size-fits-all remedies are not a fraud.

But now you change your mind, and individualisation seems to be necessary after all. Which has been shown not to work (http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band46/b46-7.html).

Evasion noted, as Bill would say.

Rolfe.

[Gavinimurthy]

Typhoid and pneumonia are curable by homeopathy.I never attempted this,but,I knew so many qualified homeopathic doctors,who have done this,repeatedly.

Again,I am not dogmatic.If I start treating my wife or childern for fever,with homeopathy,and if I see their condition worsening,it means I am not able to find out the right medicine.

I won't wait for more than two days,and will take them to a hospital.But,fortunately for me,since the last four years,I never had to this.

I am not against antibiotics in toto.What I say is use them if you don't have any alternatives.

But,the case of steroids is different.They will never cure,but only palliate,and will lead to complications.My knowledge of steroids is that they are mostly used for control of diseases like Asthma,eczema etc..

Murthy

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
You were implying a severe condition for which immediate surgery was essential. Most of the general population reading this would get the impression that you cured your wife's life-threatening cancer with homoeopathy. In fact I can hear them telling all their friends.....

"The surgeons wanted to cut out his wife's cancer but Murthy cured it with homoeopathy"

Perhaps you might now understand why we are so wary of accepting such reports on face value.


Thanks for that BillyJoe. This thread should be reserved for posterity as a brilliant example of how an impressive sounding anecdote withers under examination.

Anecdotal evidence is nearly useless for all the good statistical reasons with which we are, and Murthy should be, familiar. But see what happens when you take the anecdote seriously and examine it in its own terms.

1. The severity of the condition was over-represented.

2. A fair amount of hyperbole was added in describing conventional medicine's attitude to the problem.

3. The reasons for the proposed treatment were misrepresented.

Now, Murthy, do you see why, even in its own terms, anecdotal evidence is so shaky. Once you strip away the misconceptions and misrepresentations that usually shroud them the true picture is often very different.

(Edited to add: Once again it seems that homeopathy becomes its own worst enemy if you take seriously the claims of its adherents and pursue them carefully. You can forget about clinical trial data, all you need is to identify its internal inconsistencies to bring their much-vaunted "philsopophy" crashing in little pieces around them. By the way, "Sarah", homeopathy is not a science. Science is a method for finding out how things work. Homeopathy doesn't work so is outside science. Perhaps filing it under Speculative Fiction would be better)

By way of contrast, Rolfe presented has presented us with the example of Addison's disease in which even a single anecdotal report of successful treatment with homeopathy would be taken very seriously because of the well-documented and reliable progression of the disease. Sadly no cases of homeopathic treatment exist. I wonder why.

There is a good example of a well-characterised disease that homeopaths have claimed to "cure" taken from my world of veterinary medicine. Hyperthyroidism in cats (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870403655&highlight=hyperthyroidism#post1870403655) What I like about this one is tha cat had not even got better by any reasonbale objective assessment, but the homeopath just kept shouting "CURE" and hoped everyone would believe him.

(You may notice on that linked page, a poster called Homeoskeptic, that is your fraudulent little friend Sarah, the nice nurse I wouldn't trust to tell me the time of day).

I have another nice little example for you of a medical story from which you may learn something. Everyone else please be patient, some of you may be familiar with this one (unlike another one of our homeopaths, Bach, I can actually keep track of which tedious anecdotes I have reeled out and try to avoid boring the same audience with them repeatedly).

For a number of months I had been suffering numerous daily cardiac irregularities, culminating in a 20second sequence of continuously abnormal heart beats.

I ran an ECG on myself and went off to the doctor. Blood tests were arranged, but following that consultation I have suffered only a momentary episode.

My request to passing homeopaths is to guess what the doctor did to produce this massive improvement.

Think of it like your headache story and find out for yourself how to pick apart an anecdote and how real medical miracles sometimes appear. So, over to you...

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Typhoid and pneumonia are curable by homeopathy.I never attempted this,but,I knew so many qualified homeopathic doctors,who have done this,repeatedly.

Again,I am not dogmatic.If I start treating my wife or childern for fever,with homeopathy,and if I see their condition worsening,it means I am not able to find out the right medicine.

I won't wait for more than two days,and will take them to a hospital.But,fortunately for me,since the last four years,I never had to this.

I am not against antibiotics in toto.What I say is use them if you don't have any alternatives.

But,the case of steroids is different.They will never cure,but only palliate,and will lead to complications.My knowledge of steroids is that they are mostly used for control of diseases like Asthma,eczema etc..

Murthy How do you feel about immunization? Can homeopathy immunize a person against a disease?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy

But,the case of steroids is different.They will never cure,but only palliate,and will lead to complications.My knowledge of steroids is that they are mostly used for control of diseases like Asthma,eczema etc..


Funny you should say that when Rolfe has raised the subject of Addison's disease more than once.

The Big Question is whether you are prepared to learn any lessons from what BillyJoe has taught you.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Looking back at that Hyperthyoidism thread, I wonder whatever happened to olaf?

I think she may be the classic exmaple of the shrill advocate of quack medicine who goes a bit quiet when things go wrong again. Or, as her homeopath doubtless would put it, "I heard no more from her, so she must be cured. Add another to my list of successes. Must water the pot plant and heat up the coffee again or no one else is going to replace her and pay up $450 bucks to spend the morning crying on my shoulder"

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Any therapy,which doesn't provide consistent relief,can't survive long.Be it Aurveda,homeopathy,or any other therapy.
Unless of course the practitioners refuse to accept that diseases go away by themselves. And they decide that any time homeopathy is used and the patient gets better it was the homeopathy that did it.
And they say things like this:
If I start treating my wife or childern for fever,with homeopathy,and if I see their condition worsening,it means I am not able to find out the right medicine.

So patient gets better - it was the homeopathy.
Patient gets worse, you couldn't find the right treatment.

So you admit there is no personal testing you could perform that would show homeopathy as ineffective?

As you have already decided to ignore the results of professional scientific testing, personal testing is all you have and you have diplayed clearly that this is useless as you refuse to allow a scenario in which homeopathy could fail.

I hope some lurkers are reading this and seeing you as a warning.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
But,the irrefutable fact is they work,.... and more effectively.No, Murthy, this is not irrefutable.

We have presented many arguments and much evidence to support the position that they do not work at all. I would say that we had in fact refuted that claim, were it not that we do not seem to have succeeded in refuting it to your satisfaction.

Get this.

HOMOEOPATHIC REMEDIES CONTAIN NOTHING. HOMOEOPATHIC REMEDIES DO NOTHING.

All the effects you think you are seeing are pure imagination, applied to events that would have happened anyway, even without the little sugar pills.

Now, if you have serious evidence that might oppose that statement, tell us about it. But at least think about whether that is what might have happened in each of the cases you have told us about. And please stop insulting our intelligence by parroting the nonsense that your homoeopathic friends have told you. (You have never tried to cure typhoid or pneumonia by homoeopathy, but you believe the homoeopaths when they tell you that they have done so. But on what evidence?)

Murthy, why not try believing the things you are being told here? I had a patient yesterday (yes, Addison's disease again) that would be dead by next week if it were not for steroids. I have far more evidence for this than your homoeopathic friends have for their fairy tales.

Wake up and smell the real medicine.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Rolfe
And please stop insulting our intelligence by parroting the nonsense that your homoeopathic friends have told you. (You have never tried to cure typhoid or pneumonia by homoeopathy, but you believe the homoeopaths when they tell you that they have done so. But on what evidence?)

On the other hand, I do have a very large holding of shares in the Brooklyn Bridge that I am looking to offload to an enthusiastic investor.

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by Psiload
...Homeopathy has had more than enough time to prove itself in India, but it just doesn't work.

http://www.biotech-monitor.nl/2503.htm

Effective being the operative word.

This is perhaps why on the tables here:
http://w3.whosea.org/en/Section10/Section18/Section348.htm ... that India has 5.1 million cases of HIV for of the almost 6.2 million total of SE Asia.

Right... real effective

Oh, and I like the bit about being effective for depression... snork... having had the conversations in our extended family holiday gathering clustered around a letter from a bi-polar relative telling us that homeopathy made her feel WORSE!!! She blamed it for making her feel more fatigued... usually during her depressive phase.

I am going to assume that since I have received no satisfactory answer to any of the following posts:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870746898#post1870746898
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870756822#post1870756822
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870758057#post1870758057
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870759126#post1870759126

.... that Sarah, Bach and Murthy all concede that homeopathy is NOT effective for:
bi-polar disorder, syphilis, controlling of measles, tetanus, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, HIV/AIDS and seizures.

Plus a host of other things mentioned by others.

Homeopathy, in short, is only effective for thing that would get better even if NOTHING is done.

[Physiotherapist]

I found this about homeopathy on this website www.penninghame.com/treatments.html

Homeopathy is based on the principle of "like cures like". Dilute forms of whatever may be inducing problems in a person are prescribed and have been proven to have very powerful healing effects.

Is this correct?

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Physiotherapist
I found this about homeopathy on this website www.penninghame.com/treatments.html



Is this correct? It depends on how you're using the term "correct".

http://skepdic.com/homeo.html

[Ashles]

Homeopathy is based on the principle of "like cures like". Dilute forms of whatever may be inducing problems in a person are prescribed and have been proven to have very powerful healing effects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this correct?
That is what they claim. Also that the more it is diluted the stronger the 'remedy' gets.

And no it is not correct. It doesn't work.

It's almost hard to read it withot laughing except that, as the posters above will almost all vouch, it can do tremendous harm for people to believe this.

On this thread alone you can see someone taking terrible risks with his own wife's health just because he is so emotionally invested in believing that homeopathy works.

He has created a set of 'rules' and 'evidence' that means it is impossible that homeopathy can be shown not to work for him personally. Despite any contrary evidence.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Physiotherapist
I found this about homeopathy on this website www.penninghame.com/treatments.htmlHomeopathy is based on the principle of "like cures like". Dilute forms of whatever may be inducing problems in a person are prescribed and have been proven to have very powerful healing effects.Is this correct? Well, actually, no. Not at all.

The most glaring error is the statement that homoeopathy involves the actual causative agent of the problem or disease. This is not the case. Using the causative agent itself is a related but separate discipline called isopathy. (The way this works is that when the patient given the isopathy appears to be better, success is claimed for homoeopathy, but when they don't, well, that was isopathy, not homoeopathy so it doesn't count.)

Real homoeopathy, however, isn't "same cures same", it is indeed (allegedly) like cures like. So you have to find something which is not the causative agent but which causes similar symptoms. Like, for example, homoeopathic onion is supposed to cure colds and flu because onion causes a runny nose and eyes.

However, this is where it gets really surreal. When they test (or "prove") a substance to see what its effects are, and therefore what conditions it might be expected to "cure", they don't use the actual substance, they use a sort of magic potion that has been prepared by taking a solution of the original substance and diluting it (past Avogadro's number) until there are no molecules left. (This is just as well, as they "prove" some quite poisonous things, including the blood of an AIDS patient.) Thus, even the so-called "provings" are entirely imaginary and have nothing to do with the real effects of the original substance under test. If you want to know more about the irrational lunacy that is the homoeopathic proving, ask BSM for his tutorial.

Then, again the same magic molecule-free potion is used as the "remedy", allegedly curing the same symptoms in the patient as it was reported to have caused in the healthy person.

This would be too silly even to pass off as a joke, were it not for the fact that gullible people like Bach and Sarah and Murthy have succeeded in persuading themselves that the magic potions actually have an effect (though of course it's "gentle" and "kind", so best not expect to much.... except they can cure cancer and pneumonia, only not when anyone is looking....) As we've pointed out, this is all achieved simply by observing whatever happens and then explaining it in terms that the remedy is working, or maybe you haven't hit on the correct remedy yet, or maybe the patient is even experiencing an "aggravation". (A way of explaining things when the patient happens to get worse, a homoeopathic aggravation is something which happens after the remedy has been given, and is not pleasant, but is defined as not being a side effect.)

One of the enduring mysteries of the 21st century is what causes otherwise reasonably educated and not actually mentally subnormal people to fall for this nonsense.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The example of a round earth is worth repeating.It took many many years to convince people.Till then people thought it was a rubbish idea.Would someone care to re-post the information about how long ago it was first recorded that the earth is spherical? And how many people during all the ages have always known this? And how the idea that it was flat was a small local error? This has already been put right in this very thread, hasn't it?

This is typical homoeopath. Spout a complete fallacy as if it had some support for homoeopathy. Then, when it is pointed out that this assertion is not true, just wait a day or two and repeat it as if nobody had ever corrected you.

Murthy, can't you even try for some intellectual honesty?

Rolfe.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Rolfe
***snip***

Wise words

***snip***


Does anyone else remember the first time they encountered the "official" definition of homeopathy? I was like 14 years old and I'd been making the common mistake of assuming the term 'homeopathy' to be a generic term used to describe herbal/alternative medicine. One of my high school teachers... a mechanical drawing teacher, not even a chemistry or physics teacher, explained to me the proper "theory" behind homeopathy. I swear, I thought the guy was yanking my chain. I would've bet my eye teeth that he had just made it up then and there... it sounded that preposterous. I went straight to the library and researched it. I had to walk back into his class and apologize for doubting him.

I lost a big chunk of respect for my elders that day.

btw... the teacher was no fan of homeopathy.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy

Any therapy,which doesn't provide consistent relief,can't survive long.Be it Aurveda,homeopathy,or any other therapy.

Do you have any idea how long blood letting survived?



The example of a round earth is worth repeating.It took many many years to convince people.Till then people thought it was a rubbish idea.May be,in case of homeopathy it is taking a little longer,to prove it.But,it will be proved.You and I may or may on live to see that,but homeopathy lives.

Murthy [/B]

The first reasonabley acuret measurement of the circumfrence of the earth that I know of dates back to 240BC. Aristotle who died in 322BC figured out it's shape.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Psiload
I lost a big chunk of respect for my elders that day.

btw... the teacher was no fan of homeopathy.

Well, if I may, it sounds to me more like you gained respect for that teacher and learned a lesson about the fallacious argument to antiquity.

[Ashles]

Information about how long we have known the earth isn't flat:

Summary by Jeffrey Burton Russell for the American Scientific Affiliation Conference (http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html)

From the essay:
It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat.

I guess Gavinimurthy was just trying to illustrate how he believes anything he is told without checking actual facts.

Nice demonstration Gavin.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Ashles
Information about how long we have known the earth isn't flat:

Summary by Jeffrey Burton Russell for the American Scientific Affiliation Conference (http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html)

From the essay:


I guess Gavinimurthy was just trying to illustrate how he believes anything he is told without checking actual facts.

Nice demonstration Gavin.

Also provides a great illustration of how some people will believe false things, long after those who take the time and effort to educate themselves know better. Teh flat earth idea stuck around with some over 1500 years after it was shown to be false (and there's still some flat earther's today). Homeopathy's 200 years doesn't mean anything, and gives it absolutely zero credibility. In fact, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and state that the longer a theory has been around, the more likely it is to be false. You'd be hard pressed to find a proven scientific theory that had not been updated (based on new evidence) over the last 200 years.

[Physiotherapist]

Thanks for clearing that up. I just thought that homeopathy was herbal stuff I suppose. I had not realised there was absolutely nothing in it quite literally.

How on earth can it cure anything if it contains no molecules?

Does this not mean that all homeopathic practitioners around the world are frauds?

[scotth]

Originally posted by Physiotherapist


How on earth can it cure anything if it contains no molecules?

Does this not mean that all homeopathic practitioners around the world are frauds?

It can't, but they have some crazy belief about the diluting substance retaining a 'memory' of what was in it.

Yes, or at the very least deluded themselves. I guess you aren't technically a fraud if you really believe it yourself.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Physiotherapist
I found this about homeopathy on this website www.penninghame.com/treatments.html



Is this correct?

Rolfe's criticisms are correct, but the background to it makes things even worse for them.

Hahnemann's original derivation of the notion that 'like cures like' was because he suffered a certain symptoms when taking cinchona bark extract as had been used to treat malaria. He supposed that since the bark caused these symptoms and malaria similar symptoms so, bingo, like cures like.

Except that, his reaction was what is known as an idiosyncratic reaction to the drug. (http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/quinine/allergy.html) In other worse, he was almost unique in suffering from it and was wholly wrong to postulate some general principle from that observation.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Physiotherapist
Thanks for clearing that up. I just thought that homeopathy was herbal stuff I suppose. I had not realised there was absolutely nothing in it quite literally.

How on earth can it cure anything if it contains no molecules?
Well, the thing is that Hahnemann didn't know this when he dreamed the idea up, as he pre-dated the Avogadro number. His remedies seemed successful at the time because, having nothing in them, they tended not to actually kill the patient, something that often couldn't be said for the "orthodox" medicine of the time. Patients treated homeopathically were more likely to live long enough to recover spontaneously.

Fortunately, medicine has moved on since then (unlike homeopathy).

When it turned out that the remedies actually had nothing in them, rather than accept the facts homeopaths simply made up more whacky ideas.

[bigred]

.....and when you ask questions about it, you get a lot of "oh you just don't understand enough" and similar tap dances....but no answers. :rolleyes: Learned that the hard way.

The latest homeopathic "expert" and self-proclaimed medical whiz I encountered insisted germs don't cause diseases. At that point I figured there was little point pounding my head against the wall much further.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Physiotherapist
Thanks for clearing that up. I just thought that homeopathy was herbal stuff I suppose. I had not realised there was absolutely nothing in it quite literally.I had a similar experience to Psiload's, I think while I was teaching at University. In spite of teaching veterinary medicine at university level I knew nothing at all about homoeopathy. I remarked ignorantly to someone, "well, you never know, some plants do have active ingredients." I received a pitying explanation of the extent of the dilution involved, which I refused to believe without ten minutes with an electronic calculator (actually, I think pencil and paper is better because you have to put the calulator into exponential mode to deal with the ridiculous numbers and it gets unreal).Originally posted by Physiotherapist
How on earth can it cure anything if it contains no molecules?Well, of course it can't. Everything we know about physiology and medicine is about molecules and shapes of molecules.

However, that doesn't stop the homoeopaths from getting creative. You have the enthusiastic amateurs like Kumar (search for his posts, there is a recent thread which is an absolute treasure in which he speculates about coherent wavelengths of light, but really his batty ideas are too many to list now), and then you have the scientists like Benveniste (digital biology, he believed that there is some sort of electromagnetism involved and claimed to have recorded the information of remedies on CD and to be able to transmit it over the internet), and Milgrom, who simply says the remedy and the patient and the homoeopath are sort of entangled like particles are entangled in quantum mechanics - this is explicitly stated to be a metaphor but it doesn't stop his disciples claiming that he has experimentally proved that quantum theory explains homoeopathy - and it works like that, doncha know, except he's taken three 20-page papers to say it.

I think the Booker Prize judges should look at his work.Originally posted by Physiotherapist
Does this not mean that all homeopathic practitioners around the world are frauds? I can't really speak for the totally dim ones like Murthy and some of his mates. It's possible they might still retain some belief, though the ones who have met us can only have done that by a lot of sticking their fingers in their ears and humming real loud.

However, the ones who have any scientific knowledge at all, can only be functioning by a great deal of cognitive dissonance at best, and more probably knowing fraud. There is, after all, a lot of money in it because the overheads are minuscule compared to those of real medicine, the work is much less hard (nobody calls a homoeopath out to a road accident case at three in the morning), and the patients are remarkably less ready to announce that they will have their lawyer on you when all doesn't go entirely to expectations. A lot of that last is about clever story-telling and management of expectations of course. (BSM has a good story about a homoeopath who was going to help a dog's owners "see through" a nasty skin condition which a real vet could have cleared up in a few days, but which would take many weeks of suffering and homoeopath appointments with the magic sugar pills.)

This is why the current acceptance of homoeopathy by the medical and veterinary authorities outrages us so much. The homoeopaths lie and make outrageous false claims, and their critics are frowned on for being unprofessional if they appear to be criticising colleagues.

The JREF Challenge is a great demonstration. I'm comfortable, I'm low-maintenance, I'm not greedy, but even I would cheerfully crawl barefoot over broken glass to get a chance to win a million bucks for demonstrating something I already know to be a sure thing. And yet not one homoeopath will take up the challenge. They all have some reason for ducking out.

You know what they say, if it ducks like a quack....

Rolfe.

[Gavinimurthy]

You have your own way of looking at things.But,please accept that there are othe ways too.

As I told you in the beginning itself,I am not trying to make you believe in homeopathy.What I am trying to do is to give asmuch information as possible,as to what is homeopathy,what are it's advantages and shortcomings ,and enthuse the uninitiated to try this therapy.

The purpose of my coming here,is to tell the silent onlookers,who read these threads,without participating in them,the efficacy,theory,and philosophy of homeopathy.

Let them decide,what they want to do.You tell your views.I tell mine.Let the people decide.

My personal anectodes are given,just as examples.There are many more ,much more brilliant cures happening everyday,through out the world.Just keep an open eye.I will not bother you any more with my personal issues.

Murthy

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
You have your own way of looking at things.But,please accept that there are othe ways too.

Unless you can show these other ways can produce results as good as mine why should I pay any attention to them. BTW mine wiped out small pox put that probe on titan and created the internet you are using. Match that.


As I told you in the beginning itself,I am not trying to make you believe in homeopathy.What I am trying to do is to give asmuch information as possible,as to what is homeopathy,what are it's advantages and shortcomings ,and enthuse the uninitiated to try this therapy.


How obout giving some usfull information such as properly conducted DBPC studies


The purpose of my coming here,is to tell the silent onlookers,who read these threads,without participating in them,the efficacy,theory,and philosophy of homeopathy.


We you have yet to produce a worthwhile evidence of efficacy and I propbably know much of the theory as well as you do.


Let them decide,what they want to do.You tell your views.I tell mine.Let the people decide.


I prefer to deal with facts. Lets start with these two:

CONCLUSIONS: This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional treatment in primary care.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12668794&dopt=Abstract

CONCLUSION: Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14651731&dopt=Abstract


My personal anectodes are given,just as examples.There are many more ,much more brilliant cures happening everyday,through out the world.Just keep an open eye.I will not bother you any more with my personal issues.

Murthy

Evedence of these "brilliant cures"? How come they don't happen when we apply a few controls?

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
....snip... As I told you in the beginning itself,I am not trying to make you believe in homeopathy.What I am trying to do is to give asmuch information as possible,as to what is homeopathy,what are it's advantages and shortcomings ,and enthuse the uninitiated to try this therapy.

The purpose of my coming here,is to tell the silent onlookers,who read these threads,without participating in them,the efficacy,theory,and philosophy of homeopathy....snip...

So you agree that homeopathy is worthless for:

syphilis
tetanus
bi-polar disorder
hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
seizures
HIV/AIDS
prevention of measles (oh, add mumps, chicken pox, pertussis)

... and anything else that needs more than NOTHING for treatment. Have I got that right?

In short, homeopathy is a perfectly good treatment for any self-limiting condition, and to make money go TO a practioner who is offering nothing from a patient who does not know better.

editted for clarity (I think)

[Gavinimurthy]

The present topic itself is a 'succesful trial of homeopathy'.

More such results will follow as a consequence of this.Pl.wait till then.

Meanwhile, all are welcome to try homeopathy.May be to start with for minor problems.Just try,there is nothing you lose.

The relief will be better than your pain relievers,antacids,and antibiotics.Don't believe all this anti propaganda.

Yes,there is no molecule of the original substance in most of the homeopathic medicines.So,what?The energy is there.Can you see the kinetic energy stored in a dam of water?Simply because,you can't see it,measure it,can we say,it is not there?

Similarly,there is energy stored in homeopathic medicines.How to use it,for our benefit,we will discuss further.

Murthy

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy

Yes,there is no molecule of the original substance in most of the homeopathic medicines.So,what?The energy is there.Can you see the kinetic energy stored in a dam of water?Simply because,you can't see it,measure it,can we say,it is not there?


Perhaps you really haven't noticed the rings being run round you, but here's another one.

You say "Can you see the kinetic energy stored in a dam of water?Simply because,you can't see it,measure it,can we say,it is not there?" Well, it can be measured very easily and that, my scientifically handicapped friend, is precisely the point. The potential energy (try to get your terms right if you want to be taken seriously) can very easily be demonstrated by letting some water out through a hole in the dam and, say, making it turn a turbine and generate electricity to power the computer that allows you to read the fatuous homeopathic propaganda that you spout.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy

You have your own way of looking at things.But,please accept that there are othe ways too.


No. This is not one of those subjects where different viewpoints are valid. You are simply wrong. Unfortunately you have shown yourself incapable of even understanding the arguments against you,but appealing to your own ignorance as proof of the power of homeopathy is not really evidence in its favour.

What you have shown is the rather desperate pattern of simply repeating your nonsensical opinions in the face of a long list of proofs that those opinions are wrong.

Fortunately, the weakness of what you say is so transparent that any intelligent observer finds your views laughable. You make the case against yourself very well. This is not to say that many people don't fall for the pretty stories of the alt. med. frauds, but unfortunately that is more a reflection of the failures of educational systems to impart any reasonable critical faculties in a large percentage of the population.

Let's try one simple question and see whether any vestiges of intellectual honesty lurk behind your facade of homeopathic advocacy. Will you admit that you completely misrepresented the anecdote involving your wife's ob/gyn pathology? Will you admit it and apologise?

(Edited for typo)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The present topic itself is a 'succesful trial of homeopathy'.


We'd not forgotten. We've also not failed to notice your avoidance of any serious discussion of hard evidence. Perhaps you'd like to give us your views on the subject of publication bias and the requirement it imposes for replication of any original finding.

[Gavinimurthy]

The first postulate of Organon.

The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed.1

1 His mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant - whilst sick humanity sighs in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries (to which the name of theoretic medicine is given, and for which special professorships are instituted) we have had quite enough, and it is now high time that all who call themselves physicians should at length cease to deceive suffering mankind with mere talk, and begin now, instead, for once to act, that is, really to help and to cure.

This is how Organon begins.I want to discuss it one by one,because it contains all the answers to the skeptics.

Pl.read with a clear,unbiased mind.

What Hann. is saying is that it is not important to put forward theories,how a disesase is acquired. (the theory that is proposed a few years back,is told to be grossly incorrect,and a new theory comes forward every few years,and even this pitiable state of things is also prodly annnounced as advancement of medicine.)

The physicians only goal should be to cure.

in the subsequent paras,he tells us how to do it.Even a layman can understand this.You don't have to be a genius,to understand Organon.

I invite all interested people,to read these threads,and get benifitted by this great man's wisdom.

We will go at a slow,but steady pace.

Murthy

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Oh, for pity's sake, we're back to quoting the homoepaths' holy book.

Murthy, you need to do some thinking of your own, but admitting you misrepresented one of your Big Anecdotes would be a start.

[Gavinimurthy]

There was no misrepresentation.I was telling the truth.If,the doctors here recomended,hysterectomy,instead of leep,it is not my fault.The fact is that,it was considered serious enough to think of hysterectomy.It was a case of displasia,I never said the word'cancer.'.And the fact is, it is resolved with homeopathy,without any side effects.

Coming back,to Organon,

I don't have to tell the unbiased people,how quickly,the favourite theory of today,falls into disgrace tomorrow,and a new theory sprouts up,with enough regularity,in the field of modern medicine.

Homeopathy is not interested in it.It doesn't need to understand,what is causing the disease.It concentrates only on cure of the patient.

Murthy

[Carn]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy

I don't have to tell the unbiased people,how quickly,the favourite theory of today,falls into disgrace tomorrow,and a new theory sprouts up,with enough regularity,in the field of modern medicine.


This is the big strength of modern medicine and science.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy

Homeopathy is not interested in it.It doesn't need to understand,what is causing the disease.

Murthy

And this is the big weakness of homeopathy.

If you think this is wrong, you have not understood anything.

Carn

(BTW, Hahnemann himself also tried to identify the cause of a disease, someone around here can certainly name the part of organon, where he states something like "after spending 12 years to understand the cause of...". Maybe Hahnemann is no true homeopath?)

[Gavinimurthy]

Is it a strength?

Then what about the millions of people,who suffered ,by using the medicines,procedures, that were made to suit that,now abandoned, old theory?

What is the guarantee that the present theory and present medicines won't be proved to be dangerous at a later day?

Already,there is a big list of banned medicines,whose virtues were sung until recently.unfortunately,though banned in western countries,these medicines are still being sold by the MNCs in India and some other countries.what sort of scruples are these?

Science doesn't mean it has to change everyday.The newton's laws of motion are as relavant today,as it was when it was pronounced.That is science.

Murthy

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
There was no misrepresentation.I was telling the truth.If,the doctors here recomended,hysterectomy,instead of leep,it is not my fault.

Probably not. What it does is give me a creepy feeling; Kumar cites Indian (probably) doctors for routinely prescibing large doses of insulin for initial type 2 diabetes patients, and now this. Is there something with doctors in India, or do we just get the doings of the more idiotic ones filterering through when talking to proponents of homeopathy?

The fact is that,it was considered serious enough to think of hysterectomy.It was a case of displasia,I never said the word'cancer.'.And the fact is, it is resolved with homeopathy,without any side effects.

Or, it resolved without treatment. You cannot know.

Coming back,to Organon,

I don't have to tell the unbiased people,how quickly,the favourite theory of today,falls into disgrace tomorrow,and a new theory sprouts up,with enough regularity,in the field of modern medicine.

This is called getting wiser. Just like we once thought Earth was flat and in the center of the universe, but now we know better.

Homeopathy is not interested in it.

Homeopathy is not interested in getting wiser? It seems not.

It doesn't need to understand,what is causing the disease.It concentrates only on cure of the patient.

Unfortunately, it is necessary to understand what is causing disease in order to cure it.

Murthy, do you have a car? Wether you do or not, would you ask somebody who did not know a thing about the internal workings of a car to repair one? No?

Would you drive in a car where the brakes had just been overhauled by somebody who did not know and did not care how brakes work? No?

What makes you assume you can heal something as complex as the human organism without being interested in how it works?



Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, and on the title of this thread: Yes, it calls the trial successful, because that was how it was presented to me, elsewhere. However, if you care to read the early part of the thread, you will see that serious flaws were found. So serious that even one homeopathic proponent backed away from it.

Hans

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
[B]Is it a strength?

Then what about the millions of people,who suffered ,by using the medicines,procedures, that were made to suit that,now abandoned, old theory?

What is the guarantee that the present theory and present medicines won't be proved to be dangerous at a later day?

Varius averse effect reporting systems


Already,there is a big list of banned medicines,whose virtues were sung until recently.unfortunately,though banned in western countries,these medicines are still being sold by the MNCs in India and some other countries.what sort of scruples are these?


Not that big comparded to the total number


Science doesn't mean it has to change everyday.The newton's laws of motion are as relavant today,as it was when it was pronounced.That is science.


They are still wrong

Anyway it doesn't matter you are committing the false dilema logical fallicy. Whether real medicne works or not has nothing to do with whether homeopathy works or not.

[Gavinimurthy]

That is the beuaty of organon.

It tells us how to treat a disease,even when you don't know,what caused it.It never says,knowing about the disease is not important.If you can,learn all about it.By all means.What it says,is,even if you don't know,the reasons for the disease,there is a way to cure it.

I would like to hear what you people have to say about the plight of millions of unfortunate people, caused by the 'previous' modern medicines ,now banned drugs?

If the modern medicine is so perfect,why so many times,there is a hue and cry,in the same modern circles about the undesirable side effects of once' wonder' drugs?

Murthy

[Carn]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy

What is the guarantee that the present theory and present medicines won't be proved to be dangerous at a later day?


If you see a problem there, you have realy not understood anything about why and how scientific research is done and how this world can be made a better place.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy

Already,there is a big list of banned medicines,whose virtues were sung until recently.unfortunately,though banned in western countries,these medicines are still being sold by the MNCs in India and some other countries.what sort of scruples are these?


Criminals and incompetent politicians are always a big problem, get a competent government.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy

Science doesn't mean it has to change everyday.The newton's laws of motion are as relavant today,as it was when it was pronounced.


No, newton's laws of motion are wrong.
The only reason to use them, is that they are easy to solve.

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy

That is science.


You have not understood science.

Carn

[Gavinimurthy]

When uncomfortable questions are asked,you wriggle out,saying that,it doesn't prove homeopathy works.

I repeat once again.The discussion is for the benefit of the unbiased.Let him ponder over,the facts I am telling about the so called modern medicine.

The whole effort is to 'tell' how homeopathy can help you.Not to 'prove' how it works.we are not interested,in knowing,about what caused a disease.Similarly,we ourselves are not interested in how it works.

Millions of sufferers out there, don't care how a therapy works.They want gentle,permanent relief.we are telling try homeopathy.We will also tell you what makes this therapy much superior to your conventional modern medicine.

Murthy

[Carn]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy

What it says,is,even if you don't know,the reasons for the disease,there is a way to cure it.

Murthy

What makes it a religion:
We do not know, what causes disasters, but certainly there is some invisble underlying force or being, that governs them. We just have to pray and sacrifice to that and it will make things right again.

We do not know what causes diseases, but certainly there is some invisible underlying force or being, that governs them. We must just effect that being by magic pills and things will get good again.


And whenever it doesn't work, it certainly does not mean that the invisible force does not exists, no it only means, that the prayer, sacrifice or magic pill was the wrong one.

Carn

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
That is the beuaty of organon.

It tells us how to treat a disease,even when you don't know,what caused it.It never says,knowing about the disease is not important.If you can,learn all about it.By all means.What it says,is,even if you don't know,the reasons for the disease,there is a way to cure it.

I does not tell you haw to treat anything. It lists a load of 200 year old delusions. Feel free to prove me wrong.


I would like to hear what you people have to say about the plight of millions of unfortunate people, caused by the 'previous' modern medicines ,now banned drugs?


So we make better drugs


If the modern medicine is so perfect,why so many times,there is a hue and cry,in the same modern circles about the undesirable side effects of once' wonder' drugs?

Murthy [/B]

Becuase modern circles contian idiots or to put in another why appeal to authority logical fallicy.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
When uncomfortable questions are asked,you wriggle out,saying that,it doesn't prove homeopathy works.

Nope you are the one who can't cope with uncomfetble questions or indeed any question


I repeat once again.The discussion is for the benefit of the unbiased.Let him ponder over,the facts I am telling about the so called modern medicine.


Since it has been shown that your knowlage on the subject is somewhat limited why should they listen to you


The whole effort is to 'tell' how homeopathy can help you.Not to 'prove' how it works.we are not interested,in knowing,about what caused a disease.Similarly,we ourselves are not interested in how it works.


It can't help you beyond the placebo effect


Millions of sufferers out there, don't care how a therapy works.They want gentle,permanent relief.we are telling try homeopathy.We will also tell you what makes this therapy much superior to your conventional modern medicine.

Murthy [/B]

You lie to them you lie to me. The difference is I know that you are lying. We have wipped an entire illness from the face of the planet. We have taken bacterial infections from a likely death sentance to a minor inconvience. We have caused one of the most leathal virus in existance to pause (ok we haven't beaten HIV yet but we are getting there).

[Gavinimurthy]

"We do not know what causes diseases, but certainly there is some invisible underlying force or being, that governs them. We must just effect that being by magic pills and things will get good again.

And whenever it doesn't work, it certainly does not mean that the invisible force does not exists, no it only means, that the prayer, sacrifice or magic pill was the wrong one."

(read 'homeopathic' instead of 'magic)



At last,a beginning of understanding,though told in a sneering way.

It more or less summarises,the philosophy of homeopathy,minus the sneer.

Murthy

[Gavinimurthy]

That is the point.

You wiped away an entire disesae from the planet,and;behold,now there is Sars,AIDS.

You wipe away,the rheumatism,and you get asthma.

You wipe away,asthma and you get heart trouble.

You wipe away,heart trouble,and you get mental problems.

But,we do the reverse.

We try to bring out the suppressed problems and cure the whole human being.

The how to do it,is what is "Organon".

Murthy

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
At last,a beginning of understanding,though told in a sneering way.

It more or less summarises,the philosophy of homeopathy,minus the sneer.

Murthy

I still prefer my "Homeopathy is a system of excuses masquerading as medicine" which seems to cover most bases.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
That is the point.

You wiped away an entire disesae from the planet,and;behold,now there is Sars,AIDS.

Can you show that the SARS and HIV viruses are in any way related to the small pox virus?


You wipe away,the rheumatism,and you get asthma.


Asthma has been around for years


You wipe away,asthma and you get heart trouble.


Heart trouble is just caused by people not getting killed by other things first.


You wipe away,heart trouble,and you get mental problems.


Evidence?


But,we do the reverse.

You do nothing


We try to bring out the suppressed problems and cure the whole human being.


No you give people suckrose an akwa and claim they get better


The how to do it,is what is "Organon".

Murthy [/B]

A book based on a masive mistake:

http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/quinine/allergy.html

[Gavinimurthy]

O.K.Looks like the protests are becoming less feeble.

We shall continue with postulate 2.

"The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles."

I think everbody will agree to this.

Murthy

[Anders W. Bonde]

Gavinimurthy,

I'm having a hard time deciding whether you are merely uneducated or just stupid. I'm tending towards the impression you are both.

You state that you are not here to try to convince us that homeopathy works as advertised by its proponents. That being so, why do you constantly attempt to persuade us to apply the scam ourselves? Apparently, you are blind to the fact that an uncontrolled trial with n=1 is less than worthless as proof of any medical procedure, let alone a whole 'regimen' of medicine, namely homeopathy.

By dragging out that old dead horse, Hahnemann's 'Organon', you are clearly demonstrating that it has completely escaped your notice that science and medicine has progressed enormously since Hahnmenann. Hahnemann based his fallacious concepts on the extremely limited knowledge available in his day, and which has since been virtually completely replaced by new and more coherent knowledge, which, in turn, is continuously being improved upon using the scientific method, the self-same method that actually allows us to carry on this debate and which, each and every day, uncovers more 'mysteries' about ourselves and our surrounding universe. Being blind to his own fallacies and misconceptions, Hahnemann himself was unable to progress in a scientific manner - perpetuating his fallacies, as you and all his other disciples are doing, mereley keeps a useless status quo intact.

And you are dead wrong (litteraly): Medicinal science must work to find causes of diseases. For one thing, that is how we have been, and are, able to actually totally eradicate some of them (smallpox comes to mind, polio is almost there, if it wasn't for the ignorance of people with your way of thinking, Gavin), for another, even your gawd, Hahnemann, unwittingly accepted this (he was at least not that profoundly stupid and blinkered, unlike some of his disciples), that it is actually imperative to determine the causes of diseases simply in order to be able to distinguish between different diseases displaying similar or identical symptoms. Moreover, your gawd Hahnemann lived in virtually total ignorance about the real causes of diseases (in fairness, so did everybody else did in Hahnemanns time) but that didn't stop him from being intellectually lazy and merely fabricating his own silly notions of 'psora' and 'miasms' as causes to match his mental constructs of 'like cures like', 'provings', 'succsussion' and 'potensizing', rather than putting in a genuine effort to help determine the real causes and mechanisms.

You may expect 'science to prove homeopathy' for you one day. Gavin, if you had cared to study the scientific method and just a teeny portion of the huge body of actually demonstrably useful knowledge accumulated using that method by humankind so far, you would have come to the same (provisional, of course) conclusion as all other rational people that homeopathy belongs in the garbage bin of historical misconceptions, along with astrology, spirits, the geocentric universe, phlogiston etc. Time to move on.

But, then again, why wait another 200 years+, Gavin? Why not just apply for the JREF Million RIGHT NOW and let's arouse scientific interest BIG TIME by witnessing you walk away with the Million. [No, I'm not psychic, but I betcha' Gavin isn't going to collect the Million - he's not even going to make the attempt...]

You are apparently also unable, or unwilling, to grasp the fact that there is no point in proposing a theory for how or why something works when that something has 1. not been shown to work in the fist place, in spite of more than 200 years of (wasted) effort to do so and 2. that same something (homeopathy) has been, and is repeatedly, explainable by well-proven knowledge.

Gavinimurthy, if you expect the fence-sitters to follow you to fairyland, then at least provide evidence that your viewpoints relate to physical reality AND provide evidence that all the countearguments provided here and elsewhere are demonstrably inconsistent with physical reality. You might also want to appear more convincing by actually adressing the counterarguments to your viewpoints, rather than just inserting symmetrical parts of your anatomy into other symmetrical parts of your anatomy whilst humming loudly to yourself. :rolleyes:

To anyone wishing to accuse me of ad hominem: It's not what I am doing here - however, I am deliberately insulting this troll since I am tired of his stuck needle I-don't-want-to-hear-you-but-listen-to-me approach.

In short, Gavinimurthy, you may not be an idiot, but you certainly come across as one.

There - I feel better already...

I also find it poignant that this thread (thanks for keeping the issue of homeoscam 'bumped', Hans) has attracted so many posts and posters - to an extent, I see this as validation of my viewpoint that homeopathy is, and should be, considered by all rational people to be a most serious, dangerous bunk that needs to nibbed in the bud.

I also find it poignant that Sarah-I and Bach have pulled up the collars of their anoraks, put on their sunshades and wide-rimmed hats and quietly sneaked out the rear door when the going got too tough for them.

A lazy, cowardly lot, these homeopathetics.

Psiload - your apology is accepted!:)

PS: Why is it that proponents of homeopathy are so unable or unwilling to punctuate and use upper case correctly?

[Gavinimurthy]

So glad to see such a spirited defence of 'modern medicine'.I don't care about the invectives.

The reference to the number of views is iluminating.I too am logging it.More than 500 views in a day.!!!

What a lovely place to tell about homeopathy.!!

We shall continue,when the heat subsides a little.

Murthy

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
That is the beuaty of organon.

It tells us how to treat a disease,even when you don't know,what caused it.

That would indeed be beautiful, if it did. However, as you may have noticed by now, we don't accept that it does. And you are unable to prove that it does.

It never says,knowing about the disease is not important.If you can,learn all about it.By all means.What it says,is,even if you don't know,the reasons for the disease,there is a way to cure it.

This is wrong, and I'm shure you know that. Hahnemann several times explicitly underlines the futility and vanity in examining deeper causes.

I would like to hear what you people have to say about the plight of millions of unfortunate people, caused by the 'previous' modern medicines ,now banned drugs?

One of the reasons some drugs are banned, and also still sold in some countries, is that the cost-benefit analysis changes.

Let me give you an example: Old-fashioned animal insulin. It is cheap and helps diabetics. However, it has a number of problems:

- Regulation is imprecise
- It gives a weight gain
- Some risk of allergy reactions
- Risk of devloping resisrence

Animal insulin is not banned, but it is hardly used in western countries anymore. It is, however, still widely used in e.g. India and China. Is this cynical sellers? No, it is simply a different cost-benefit calculation. An average worker in India cannot afford modern insuling analogues if he also has to pay his rent and feed his family, but he may be able to afford the cheaper, locally produced animal insulin.

Likewise, suppose you have a drug that helps thousands. Unfortunately, it turns out that for each 100 people it helps, it kills one. Should it be banned? That depends:

- Is there a less dangerous alternative (that is payable)?
- How dangerous is the disease it works against? (if that is a 50% killer, it is still a good trade-off).
- etc.

If the modern medicine is so perfect,

Nobody said it was perfect. We point out that it WORKS.

why so many times,there is a hue and cry,in the same modern circles about the undesirable side effects of once' wonder' drugs?

Because more wants more. We want better and safer drugs all the time. If we have a deadly disease, we are happy if a drug comes that prolongs life. Once we have that, we want one that cures the disease. Once we have that, we want one that has less side-effects.

Hans

[Gavinimurthy]

Postulate 3

"If the physician clearly perceives what is to be cured in diseases, that is to say, in every individual case of disease (knowledge of disease, indication), if he clearly perceives what is curative in medicines, that is to say, in each individual medicine (knowledge of medical powers), and if he knows how to adapt, according to clearly defined principles, what is curative in medicines to what he has discovered to be undoubtedly morbid in the patient, so that the recovery must ensue - to adapt it, as well in respect to the suitability of the medicine most appropriate according to its mode of action to the case before him (choice of the remedy, the medicine indicated), as also in respect to the exact mode of preparation and quantity of it required (proper dose), and the proper period for repeating the dose; - if, finally, he knows the obstacles to recovery in each case and is aware how to remove them, so that the restoration may be permanent, then he understands how to treat judiciously and rationally, and he is a true practitioner of the healing art."

So,the physician should have knoweldge of the disease.Not the name of it,nor the knoweldge of what causes it.He explains later,how to identify,"what is to be cured in a disease."

the doctor should also know "what is curative in medicines'

He should able to choose the most apppropriate medicine

He should know how much medicine is to be used

He should know,when it is to be repeated

He should know what are the probable obstacles to cure,and remove them.

Is there anything objectionable so far?It is as relavant today,as it was 200 years ago.

Murthy

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
"We do not know what causes diseases, but certainly there is some invisible underlying force or being, that governs them. We must just effect that being by magic pills and things will get good again.

And whenever it doesn't work, it certainly does not mean that the invisible force does not exists, no it only means, that the prayer, sacrifice or magic pill was the wrong one."

(read 'homeopathic' instead of 'magic)



At last,a beginning of understanding,though told in a sneering way.

It more or less summarises,the philosophy of homeopathy,minus the sneer.

Murthy Fine! So you acknowledge that homeopahty is a belief-based system?

We seem to be going somewhere for a change.

Or else, I'm being unduly optimistic :rolleyes:.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
O.K.Looks like the protests are becoming less feeble.

We shall continue with postulate 2.

"The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles."

I think everbody will agree to this.

Murthy So, having failed to support postulate 1, you simply move on to 2? That is not the way we work here.

However, I can't see anything wrong with having an ideal like the above.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Postulate 3

"If the physician clearly perceives what is to be cured in diseases, that is to say, in every individual case of disease (knowledge of disease, indication), if he clearly perceives what is curative in medicines, that is to say, in each individual medicine (knowledge of medical powers), and if he knows how to adapt, according to clearly defined principles, what is curative in medicines to what he has discovered to be undoubtedly morbid in the patient, so that the recovery must ensue - to adapt it, as well in respect to the suitability of the medicine most appropriate according to its mode of action to the case before him (choice of the remedy, the medicine indicated), as also in respect to the exact mode of preparation and quantity of it required (proper dose), and the proper period for repeating the dose; - if, finally, he knows the obstacles to recovery in each case and is aware how to remove them, so that the restoration may be permanent, then he understands how to treat judiciously and rationally, and he is a true practitioner of the healing art."

So,the physician should have knoweldge of the disease.Not the name of it,nor the knoweldge of what causes it.He explains later,how to identify,"what is to be cured in a disease."

the doctor should also know "what is curative in medicines'

He should able to choose the most apppropriate medicine

He should know how much medicine is to be used

He should know,when it is to be repeated

He should know what are the probable obstacles to cure,and remove them.

Is there anything objectionable so far?It is as relavant today,as it was 200 years ago.

Murthy [/B]No, ideals are fine. ANn actually those are much older that Hahnemann. Aristotheles basically said the same.

All honest and well-meaning practitioners of any modality go by those ideals (plus a couple more, such as "Strive not to cause damage").

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
So glad to see such a spirited defence of 'modern medicine'.I don't care about the invectives.

Nevertheless, it is irrelevant to the case of homeopathy. Your attacks on modern medicine is just a diversion, and even that is shredded.

The reference to the number of views is iluminating.I too am logging it.More than 500 views in a day.!!!

This is an active forum, and people here just love a good fight. Which we seldom get with homeopaths. You, sir, show promise, however :).

What a lovely place to tell about homeopathy.!!

I hate to tell you this, but not if you are looking for supporters.

We shall continue,when the heat subsides a little.

Subsides? My friend, you have not seen any of the heat yet.

Murthy

Hans

[Gavinimurthy]

To Recap

This is postulate 1.

"The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed."

The explanatory note is omitted.

The explanatory note says,the physician need not concentrate on other areas,to the detriment of this,primary goal.

I don't see anything objectionable in this.

Murthy

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
To Recap

This is postulate 1.

"The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed."

The explanatory note is omitted.

The explanatory note says,the physician need not concentrate on other areas,to the detriment of this,primary goal.

I don't see anything objectionable in this.

Murthy Without the note, it is fairly acceptable, except the "only". The mission of a physician must also be to research. Without that we would still be using which doctor practices. Hahnemann researched too, remember?

However, what is this about omitting what is unacceptable? Going for a short form of the Organon ;)?

Anybody remember "A Day at the Races" With Marx bros.?

"The party of the foist part is hereafter referred to as the party of the foist part."
"Wait! I don't like that part!"
"Well OK, then.." [rrrip!]
"The party of the second part is ....."
...etc.

Hans

[Gavinimurthy]

The entire postulate No.1 is posted earlier,along with the explanatory note.Nothing was omitted.

Under Recap,the main point is emphasised.,since some doubts were expressed about it.

I think the posts are crossing,creating confusion.I will go a bit slow.For a change, my internet is superfast today,but,may be,I have to slow down a bit,to avoid going back and forth again.

Murthy

[Anders W. Bonde]

What a shame that this thread is no longer moving anywhere.

All we are getting from Gavinimurthy is a stuck-needle-one-way-recitation-of-unsupported-claims-combined-with-Gavinimuthy's-fingers-well-and-truly-stuck-in-his -ears-while-humming-loudly.

Folks, Gavinimurthy is a troll. Don't feed the troll.

[Gavinimurthy]

Noun:Troll

(Scandinavian folklore) a supernatural creature (either a dwarf or a giant) that is supposed to live in caves or in the mountains.

Courtesy. Wordweb.Downloadable dictionary,that sits prettily on your taskbar.

Murthy

[Anders W. Bonde]

I rest my case.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Homeopathy is not interested in it.It doesn't need to understand,what is causing the disease.It concentrates only on cure of the patient.Murthy, do you not understand that it is absolutely necessary to understand what is causing a patient's illness before proper treatment can be given?

Let's just return to the situation which caused such an uproar last summer. (This is the original post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870522183#post1870522183).) The list of symptoms is taken directly from a web page cited by Kumar in support of something-or-other.

A woman who is a comitted user of homoeopathy and who believes she has previously been helped by homoeopathic treatment goes to her homoeopath with the following list of symptoms.<ul> Weakness - extreme
Fatigue - muscle weakness
Unintentional weight loss
Nausea
Vomiting
Chronic diarrhea
Loss of appetite
Darkening of the skin - skin color, patchy<ul> Unnaturally dark color in some locations Paleness may also occur[/list] Mouth lesions on the inside of a cheek (buccal mucosa) - pigmentation
Slow, sluggish, lethargic movement
Decreases in the blood pressure and heart rate
Salt craving[/list]Murthy, what do you think would happen next? Do you think it is important to find out what is causing these symptoms?

Rolfe.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
O.K.Looks like the protests are becoming less feeble.

We shall continue with postulate 2.

"The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles."

I think everbody will agree to this.

Murthy

I really don't care one way or ther other how comprehensible the principles are. It shouldn't matter.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
The reference to the number of views is iluminating.I too am logging it.More than 500 views in a day.!!!

What a lovely place to tell about homeopathy.!!



Do we break the truth to him now or latter?

[Carn]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
"We do not know what causes diseases, but certainly there is some invisible underlying force or being, that governs them. We must just effect that being by magic pills and things will get good again.

And whenever it doesn't work, it certainly does not mean that the invisible force does not exists, no it only means, that the prayer, sacrifice or magic pill was the wrong one."

(read 'homeopathic' instead of 'magic)



At last,a beginning of understanding,though told in a sneering way.

It more or less summarises,the philosophy of homeopathy,minus the sneer.

Murthy

Ok, i leave the sneer aside, this sounds interesting, you actually say that my description of homeopathy is more or less correct, i'll got to tell Bach about that.
Maybe we can work something from that.

Now as i wrote above that quoted lines:
"What makes it a religion:
We do not know, what causes disasters, but certainly there is some invisble underlying force or being, that governs them. We just have to pray and sacrifice to that and it will make things right again."

I made this unfriendly comment, to show that i see little differences between homeopathy and religions, both try to influence the world via something, which existance is uncertain(gods, vital force), and both offer reports of events, in which the influencing succeeded, but both have the habit of not being not able to predict what their god/vital force will do and both tend to interpret the results in their favor.

As Hans's already noticed, by stating, that i'm mostly correct, you imply, that homeopathy is a religion.

So please help me, where is the difference between homeopathy and a religion, except for the difference, that homeopathy only offers salvation in this life and only from diseases?

Carn

To Bonde:
What defintion of troll do you have?
If you have this one, http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm, then sorry, gavinimurthy is no troll, since he afaik does not delight in sowing discrod and certainly is not here to insult or hurt anybody and he is actually believing what he is saying(hurts to say that), which certainly is not troll like.
Please do not shout troll, unless it is one, otherwise you are offending him.

[geni]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
Postulate 3

"If the physician clearly perceives what is to be cured in diseases, that is to say, in every individual case of disease (knowledge of disease, indication), if he clearly perceives what is curative in medicines, that is to say, in each individual medicine (knowledge of medical powers), and if he knows how to adapt, according to clearly defined principles, what is curative in medicines to what he has discovered to be undoubtedly morbid in the patient, so that the recovery must ensue - to adapt it, as well in respect to the suitability of the medicine most appropriate according to its mode of action to the case before him (choice of the remedy, the medicine indicated), as also in respect to the exact mode of preparation and quantity of it required (proper dose), and the proper period for repeating the dose; - if, finally, he knows the obstacles to recovery in each case and is aware how to remove them, so that the restoration may be permanent, then he understands how to treat judiciously and rationally, and he is a true practitioner of the healing art."

So,the physician should have knoweldge of the disease.Not the name of it,nor the knoweldge of what causes it.He explains later,how to identify,"what is to be cured in a disease."

the doctor should also know "what is curative in medicines'

He should able to choose the most apppropriate medicine

He should know how much medicine is to be used

He should know,when it is to be repeated

He should know what are the probable obstacles to cure,and remove them.

Is there anything objectionable so far?It is as relavant today,as it was 200 years ago.

Murthy

Not remotely. 200 years ago there was alomst no way to do real research into the causes of illness. Today there is. Two different illnesses can produce the same symptoms. Unless you know about the cause you will never know they are two different illnesses

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by geni
Two different illnesses can produce the same symptoms. Unless you know about the cause you will never know they are two different illnesses This is the absolute centre of the matter. Unless you know the cause of the illness you will not know what to do to treat the patient.

Murthy, consider a woman with the following symptoms going to the homoeopath she has so much trust in.<ul> Weakness - extreme
Fatigue - muscle weakness
Unintentional weight loss
Nausea
Vomiting
Chronic diarrhea
Loss of appetite
Darkening of the skin - skin color, patchy<ul> Unnaturally dark color in some locations Paleness may also occur[/list] Mouth lesions on the inside of a cheek (buccal mucosa) - pigmentation
Slow, sluggish, lethargic movement
Decreases in the blood pressure and heart rate
Salt craving[/list]Murthy, what do you think would happen next? Do you think it is important to find out what is causing these symptoms?

Rolfe.

[Gavinimurthy]

If I were to be that lady I will first go to my homeopath.

If I were to be that homeopath,I will get a complete medical check up done,before prescribing a medicine.

Surprised?

I would understand,that these symptoms,indicate pathological degeneration,and having known the limitations of homeopathy,in reversing pathological changes,I will advise her to visit a regular hospital,after seeing the reports,if they indicate severe pathological changes.

Somewhere in my earlier threads,I said we will discuss about the limitations of homeopathy,also.

If you see the postulate 3,Hann.clearly talks about understanding the disease.Understanding the disease is different from knowing what caused it.It is enough if the physician knows,these may be signs of cancer,thyroid problem,or some other problem,with pathologcal changes.He need not know,whether the cause was x or y bacteria/virus etc..

Murthy

[Gavinimurthy]

""We do not know what causes diseases, but certainly there is some invisible underlying force or being, that governs them. We must just effect that being by magic pills and things will get good again.

And whenever it doesn't work, it certainly does not mean that the invisible force does not exists, no it only means, that the prayer, sacrifice or magic pill was the wrong one."

(read 'homeopathic' instead of 'magic)""



Knowingly or unknowingly,the philosophy of homeopathy was more or less brought out by these two statements.

That underlying invisible force is called' vital force' in homeopathic parlance.

we will come to that shortly,at the appropriate time,when we reach that postulate.We can have a very lively discussion when we reach there.

Murthy

[MRC_Hans]

Reiterating unfounded claims. The "vital force" is another unfounded claim. It may have been alright at Hahnemann's time when preciously little was know about how the body functioned, but there is no room for it now that we know so much more (because we did NOT heed Hahnemann's advice not to look for causes).

While you're at it, get ready to defend "like cures like" as a universal principle. That is, when Rolfe has finished with you (and provided anything is left then ;)).

Hans

[Gavinimurthy]

I will love to discuss.But.please let me come there.:) :)

Murthy

[MRC_Hans]

Take your time, take your time. I'm off for a couple of days and the forum will be down over the week-end for the upgrade. In the meantime, look up the term "falsifyable", you'll need it.

Hans

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
And the fact is, it is resolved with homeopathy,without any side effects.

The fact is that it apparently went away and coincidence is the most likely explanation for that. What you have not grasped is the why anedotes such as your are so useless.

You did misrepresent the thinking behind the medical decision-making. It was not evil modern medicine vs kind homeopathy. It was crappy pragmatic medicine vs doing nothing.

"Mostly doctors here recommend Hysterectomy for near menopause women,as many of the patients can't afford the cost of successive treatments involved,as and when they become necessary.So,the gyneacs feel,the least expensive,and safest method is hysterectomy."

Your wife was was lucky and got away with doing nothing.

[Gavinimurthy]

I too am retiring for the night.Being a holiday,(Our republic day),I was on the net,almost the whole day.Feeling tired.

Good night,friends.See you all tomorrow.:)

Murthy

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Take your time, take your time. I'm off for a couple of days and the forum will be down over the week-end for the upgrade. In the meantime, look up the term "falsifyable", you'll need it.

Hans

Don't you mean "falsifiable"? He could have lost days over that!

(Yeah, yeah, I know. Your English is about a million times better than my Danish ;) )

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy

we will come to that shortly,at the appropriate time,when we reach that postulate.We can have a very lively discussion when we reach there.


Oh, lordy, he thinks he's teaching us. He hasn't even admitted that his grasp of the state of human knowledge is so weak that he still thinks that Newton was literally right instead of an approximation.

Once again we see that the appeal to personal ignorance is a central to the quack's disregard of modern science. They can't understand science and medicine so refuse to accept new findings and retreat back to their book of comforting fiction.

[Anders W. Bonde]

Gavinimurthy,

Are you paying any attention at all?

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy:
we will come to that shortly,at the appropriate time,when we reach that postulate.We can have a very lively discussion when we reach there.

We are not having any discussion. You are not at all addressing the conterarguments to your postulates - you are merely repeating postulates with no evidence to back them up. As you are simply not listening, you are not engaged in a discussion. Yours is a monologue, we've heard all the homeopathic nonsense you reel off by rote ad nauseam.

If you want to engage in debate, please address the devastating criticism levelled at homeopathy at each and every point before you move on to the next point (where you are probably also going to be shot down, BTW)

At least one has to admire Gavinimurthy's bloody-minded tenacity. It's quite Custer-like. One is reminded of the scene in Monty Python's 'Holy Grail' where the Black Night has all his limbs severed, and still he wants to fight, claiming 'tis but a scratch...

No need to parody proponents of homeopathy - they do a more than admirable job at it themselves...

[Chris Haynes]

deleted for double post...

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
Gavinimurthy,

Are you paying any attention at all?



We are not having any discussion. You are not at all addressing the conterarguments to your postulates - you are merely repeating postulates with no evidence to back them up. As you are simply not listening, you are not engaged in a discussion. Yours is a monologue, we've heard all the homeopathic nonsense you reel off by rote ad nauseam.


Actually, it brings to mind "Argument Lessons"

"This isn't an argument!"
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't. An argument isn't the mere gainsaying of what's been said before."
"It can be."
"No it can't!"
....
"Oh! I've had enough!"
"No, you haven't."

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
...
The relief will be better than your pain relievers,antacids,and antibiotics.Don't believe all this anti propaganda....

Please show evidence that homeopathy is better than antibiotics for syphilis and tetanus.

editted because of formatting... which I seem to be having a problem this morning

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
If I were to be that lady I will first go to my homeopath.

If I were to be that homeopath,I will get a complete medical check up done,before prescribing a medicine.

I would understand,that these symptoms,indicate pathological degeneration,and having known the limitations of homeopathy,in reversing pathological changes,I will advise her to visit a regular hospital,after seeing the reports,if they indicate severe pathological changes.Why would any patient go first to a homoeopath, and presumably pay a fee, only to be told to go to see a real doctor? Why not cut out the middle-man?

If you, as a homoeopath, were presented with such a patient, you would "get a complete medical checkup done". At a real hospital. And the reason the hospital would then let you see the patient's reports is...? And you would know what the numbers on these reports mean, how?

So, you can tell from that list of symptoms that there may be a serious illness there. How do you know that? Or is it just because you can spot the obvious trap? What is it about that list of symptoms that makes you think the patient should see a real doctor?
What do you think might happen if the patient does not see a real doctor?
Do you know the name of the disease the patient might have (it's not as if I haven't left you enough clues in this thread, after all)?
Do you know the drug the patient must have for this disease?Your post implies that homoeopathy has limitations. And how. However, it also implies that homoeopaths can all be trusted to recognise real illness and send such patients to a real doctor.

I want to know how I can believe this to be true, given the number of homoeopaths who insist that real medicine does nothing but harm. And I want to know how it is possible that a homoeopath, who doesn't believe in knowing the causes of disease and has no training in medicine, can reliably tell when a patient has a real illness that is beyond the abilities of homoeopathy.

Please answer these questions.

Rolfe.