How Homeopathy/TRS Works??

[Chris Haynes]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumar
HC,

.. JUST SAYING ' NO' HAS no MEANING.

Apparently for you, that is true.

And yes... it is in frustration because you seem so obtuse to all the answers given to you.

Give it up... homeopathy is a sham, a waste and a fraud. If it were not for the self-serving legal wrangling of a congressman (who happened to be a homeopath in addition to being a polititian) in 1938 it would have been erased from American pharmaceutical industry right along with the other snakeoil shams.

It does not work, it will never work... and you can never prove it works because it just does not work.

All hail the beauty of true science!

Let us not forget the true laws of thermodynamics that shall never be broken (unlike the fake laws of homeopathy which were just made up for fun and profit):

1) You can't get something from nothing.

2) You can't even break even.

3) You can't leave the game.

( http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae280.cfm )

Editted for grammar

[Zep]

Kumar,
<center>
HOMEOPATHY
DOES
NOT
WORK.


TISSUE SALTS
DO
NOT
WORK.

Science HAS proven this.
Get over it.</center>

[Kumar]

HC,Zep,

Bit more frustrated.

DOES THE SCIENCE BECOME PERFECT, ABSOLUTE OR FINAL? IF NOT, FUTURE POSSIBILITIES CAN"T BE PREDICTED OR DENIED, IF YES, THEN WE CAN SAY SO, IN SCIENCE ONLY.

[Zep]

Kumar, do you believe in fairies?

[steenkh]

Kumar,

Science is not perfect, but on the other hand, it is not stupid either.

Why should science look for causes when there is no effect?

It has already been proved that homoeopathy does not work. What you can do in order to get your theories moving is to disprove that result. Prove that homoeopathy works!

[Benguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumar
Hello all,

Thanks for the replis. But I just requested for the honest replies. You can just assume/suppose these figures & modified ist Q as under:

1. Whose comments will be more justified-- suppose 10 million people with no experiance of taking treatment of any system comments something about that system OR one million people comments who have personal positive experiances of taking treatment of that system ?

Answer:
It's now Argumentum ad numerum. It is also a fallacy of presupposition, or 'begging the question'. There is assumption integral to your argument already in the question.

Quote:

one million people comments who have personal positive experiances

As I don't accept that the question has no real meaning.

[Kumar]

Quote:

Originally posted by steenkh
Kumar,

Science is not perfect, but on the other hand, it is not stupid either.

Why should science look for causes when there is no effect?

It has already been proved that homoeopathy does not work. What you can do in order to get your theories moving is to disprove that result. Prove that homoeopathy works!

Anyone who is not perfect or absolute CAN be stupid. Show must go on till the science is perfect & so should find the cause in anticipation of million's people experiances etc.

Science can/should only prove anything in science not homeopathy or any other system.

Zep, I believe in true stories.

[The Don]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumar
Zep, I believe in true stories.

That's not exactly true. You believe in stories which back up your point of view. We can produce as many anecdotes as we like which say "homoeopathy and tissue salts didn't work for person X" and you will disregard them on the grounds that (pick at least one)

- The stories are "untrue"
- The people didn't BELIEVE so the cure didn't work
- The samples produced (of failure) are statistically insignificant compared to your successes

[Kumar]

Don, Do you want that I should say that these do not work--just for you inspite I experianced these(TRs) for quite a long time. Will it satisfy you or serve your purpose? However I just like/respect birth/creation not death/destruction, I don't know about you.

[steenkh]

Kumar,

Prove that it works, THEN find out why. If you have all these millions of people who are happy about it, it should not be so difficult proving that it works, right?

[Kumar]

steenkh,

I think I am demanding science to prove it because it is observed & experianced as positive by so many people. Homeopathic clinics are a good source to survey it.

[The Don]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumar
Don, Do you want that I should say that these do not work--just for you inspite I experianced these(TRs) for quite a long time. Will it satisfy you or serve your purpose? However I just like/respect birth/creation not death/destruction, I don't know about you.

In the abscence of objective proof, gathered in a properly conducted clinical trial that TRs "work"...... (and I understand that they have conducted them and found no effect)

The experiences you have had relate to one or more of...

- The person would have got better anyway (without TR)
- The person didn't get better (they just FELT that they did)
- The person was never sick in the first place
- The person was sick but something less critical/chronic

Unless you can produce evidence to the contrary.

I think it potentially VERY dangerous if people are conned into accepting treatment for a serious condition where this treatment has NO evidence of working. What makes this even worse is cases where people have given up perfectly effective treatments in order to take the ineffective ones (and their condition fails to improve or they go on to die - there is evidence of this).

On this and other threads there are examples of diseases/conditions which are fatal but which are easily treated using actual medicine. Recommending anything else instead is tantamount to manslaughter.

[MRC_Hans]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumar
steenkh,

I think I am demanding science to prove it because it is observed & experianced as positive by so many people. Homeopathic clinics are a good source to survey it.

Kumar, this is the basic problem and the reason that you are perhaps being treated a little roughly around here:

You believe that these things work. Fine! Nobody denies you the right to believe that (there is an issue with people who might miss necessary treatment, but let's forget about that for now). In short, believe all you want. But I and a lot of other people do not believe that it works.

You have tried to convince us that it works, but failed. End of story. Still no problem.

The problem is this:

You KNOW that you do not have any arguments that will convice us, and you KNOW that our arguments are not going to convince you, yet you insist on carrying on the debate. This is bl00dy annoying, Kumar. You think you can DEMAND science (and us) to try and investigate your claims, but you have no right to make such demands.

If you want homeopathy and TSR to be investigated scientifically, you have to do it yourself (or get other believers to help you). It is not the duty of anybody else to do it.

Hans

[steenkh]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumar

I think I am demanding science to prove it because it is observed & experianced as positive by so many people. Homeopathic clinics are a good source to survey it.

Science has already done it. It does not work. What now?

In your opinion it should be done over and over again until it gets the result that you like.

[Kumar]

Don, When you will survey the homeopathic clinics you may find that a true homeopath may be keeping all considerations of risky types in his mind. Just read the following quote:

Quote:

"§ 1
The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed."
Our Master states clearly in the preface of second edition of " Organon", second paragraph that Homeopathy is based on past and present experience of experiments of naked eyes. So every time one should not insist on the cardinal principles only. After all " The high and the only mission of a physician is to cure disease, rationally as it is termed. So understand the meaning of the world "rationally". It does not advocate the application of cardinal prenciples every time. Hence mother tinctures are used on it's physiological and toxicological knowledge of the treating Homeopathic physician.

[The Don]

Ah, the "one true homeopath" argument......

How do you respond to the fact that in properly conducted clinical trials, homoeopathy has been shown not to work time and again ?

How could a reputable physician with any concern for his patients' welfare possibly suggest a "remedy" for which there is no reliable evidence of it working ?

Or are you suggesting that homoeopathic "remedies" should only be deployed where there is no effective medical intervention ?

[Kumar]

Quote:

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Kumar, this is the basic problem and the reason that you are perhaps being treated a little roughly around here:

You believe that these things work. Fine! Nobody denies you the right to believe that (there is an issue with people who might miss necessary treatment, but let's forget about that for now). In short, believe all you want. But I and a lot of other people do not believe that it works.

You have tried to convince us that it works, but failed. End of story. Still no problem.

The problem is this:

You KNOW that you do not have any arguments that will convice us, and you KNOW that our arguments are not going to convince you, yet you insist on carrying on the debate. This is bl00dy annoying, Kumar. You think you can DEMAND science (and us) to try and investigate your claims, but you have no right to make such demands.

If you want homeopathy and TSR to be investigated scientifically, you have to do it yourself (or get other believers to help you). It is not the duty of anybody else to do it.

Hans

I FEEL IT TO BE PROPER TO DISCONTINUE THESE DISCUSSIONS IN THIS TOPIC IN CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE QUOTED POSTING OF MR. HANS. LET US SWITCH OVER TO OTHER USEFUL TOPICS.

Thanks for the comments & contributions.

[steenkh]

My head-ache is gone!

(Or was it because I just drank a glass of water? Who knows what might have been in touch with that water once )

[Chris Haynes]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumar
...

Science can/should only prove anything in science not homeopathy or any other system.

Zep, I believe in true stories.

Science is the study and understanding of the world we live in. It is not a seperate "system". I recently picked up book by Isaac Asimov called Understanding Physics which has in the first chapter (as far as I have read at the present) a bit of history of how science began and developed. It would increase your understanding a bit more.

Now to repeat:

All hail the beauty of true science!

Let us not forget the true laws of thermodynamics that shall never be broken (unlike the fake laws of homeopathy which were just made up for fun and profit):

1) You can't get something from nothing.

2) You can't even break even.

3) You can't leave the game.

( http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae280.cfm )

The last one means that you cannot change reality... you cannot create another "system". There is no other reality than the one you live in... and in the reality of the REAL world homeopathy, magic and astrology are imaginary... and do not work.

[Kumar]

The followings can be the ' Tools for understanding the homeopathic mentioned working/effects ':-

1. Physiological (apperant not real or physical) deficiencies of various body substances esp. inorganic ones due to any physiological disorder.

2. Physiological Homeostasis.

3. Curable Disease/disorder.

Note: Physical or real deficiency of any body substance in a supplement, replacement & compliment so can be treated as common tool to all system so not mentioned sepretely.

If you want to understand 'what homeopathy can do?' You may have to first list all the diseases/disorders related to abovementioned tools.

[flume]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumar: 1. Physiological (apperant not real or physical) deficiencies of various body substances esp. inorganic ones due to any physiological disorder.

Could you please reword that first phrase so that it is clear what you mean? I do not know what you mean by "apparent not real or physical". Physiology is a description of real, physical processes, so your phrase is a contradiction. You need to say it in a different way.

In fact, I really don't understand what you mean at all by this post.

[Kumar]

flume, It is bit my understanding. Sugar really deficient in system mean less sugar in system/body-- I mean physical or real, whereas sugar deficient due to dibetes, insulin resistance, insulin deficiency etc. inspite excess/accumulated in system/body is physiological ( apparent) deficiency. You may mention in your language.

[flume]

Okay, I see what you're saying now in that phrase.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Done it!

I've finally worked out what the KumarBot is for.

It's a Scientific Perspective Adjuster, also call a Mis-Direction Device. At its heart is an amazing chipset recently released by the Wootel corporation under the trade name Irrelevant Correlator.

It functions to take trival, but, importantly, not untrue pieces of information and use them as the central core of a completely skewed model of reality.

This morning I entered some data concerning astrophysics and botany into the device and have calculated that daisies evolved to intercept solar photons and protect the outer Solar System from excessive levels of solar radiation.

I have a pre-production model and it is one of these we have been communicating with in recent months. Having ironed out a few teething difficulties in which some medical input failed to result in an answer involving Schussler's Tissure Salts or Homeopathy it will soon be released into the market. It will be available via all good crystal rubbing emporia under the name The Bass 'Ackwards Machine.

I am concerned that the device is not yet fully stable and this should be seen as a beta release. but if Microsoft can do this all the time, why shouldn't Wootel. Certainly users should watch for the Chelation Therapy instability in which data that should yield results that include only Schussler or Homeopathy have recently been contaminated with chelation theory.


Please note the device is fully feng-shui compatible.

Not to be operated under the influence of a scientific education or by persons with an IQ higher than their European shoe size.


Edited to add: Just worked out where the Chelation Therapy Drift was coming from. The Idee Fixe Compensator had become unstable allowing incompatible model schemata to cross-contaminate. I think it's repaired now. Please notify the technical staff at;

misinfo@hahnemann.woo

if further problems arise.

[Kumar]

Just try to understand one concept: 'homeopathy cure a person not a disease' whereas chelation therapy/CMS/others may just treat a disease. TRS may probably, do the both--disease & person, cure & treat.

[Benguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumar
Just try to understand one concept: 'homeopathy cure a person not a disease' whereas chelation therapy/CMS/others may just treat a disease. TRS may do both--disease & person, cure & treat.

Kumar, these are just pretty phrases. Like Holisticism and treating root causes and not symptoms. They're all nice ideas, and conventional medicine aspires to them too, where appropriate.

The reality is Homeopathy cannot by demonstrated to work in theory or in practice, so it really doesn't matter a jot what it is supposed to be, conceptually or otherwise.

[Kumar]

Your mentionings have some value at current status of science. We/science/anyone don't know about the future. Till then let the things run according to the Nature.

[Benguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumar
Your mentionings have some value at current status of science. We/science/anyone don't know about the future. Till then let the things run according to the Nature.

What is the relevance of that?

If homeopathy cannot be proved to work in theory or practice (as I said) then it is not worth considering.

Who knows what wonderful cures and therapies might be discovered in the future? I look forward in awe and anticipation.

They might come from the world of science, or they might come from somewhere else and science will have to go away and think about it for a while .... but understand what that means.

Either a demonstrable, reproducible theory is drawn up and then someone works to apply it. (In other words, from science)

Or, a therapy is found that can demonstrate curative properties in placebo trials and then an explanation must be found (Science goes for a think).

Homeopathy fits neither of those categories. And neither does that TRS stuff.

[Rolfe]

In spite of having him on ignore, I've looked at a few of Kumar's most recent posts. They make no sense whatsoever. He seems to be saying the same two or three things over and over again, and they make no more sense the last time than they did the first.

Science doesn't know everything, so invisible pink unicorns may be the cause of all disease! (Or the cure of all disease, who knows?) Go and think about that. And while you're at it, do a Google search and do all my work for me (sorry, we had that one last November if I remember rightly).

I'm beginning to think that he really is a troll, laughing himself sick at how he has us all conned into thinking he's a naive homoeopathy believer seeking enlightenment, and figuring out just how outrageous he can be before we get wise to him. Boy, do I feel silly for all the time I spent genuinely trying to help him because I stupidly believed he really wanted to learn!

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Since, we have already discussed these things most of the time with no materiastic/creative value--we may ignore/avoid the same for our future discussions.

[The Don]

And he's starting to troll the other forums too. His latest venture is in Politics where I think he's trying to build a case for astrology forming the basis for a legal defence.

[Benguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rolfe
In spite of having him on ignore, I've looked at a few of Kumar's most recent posts. They make no sense whatsoever. He seems to be saying the same two or three things over and over again, and they make no more sense the last time than they did the first.

Well he seems to oscillate between the unintelligible pseudo-scientific theories about how it might work and the 'proof through observation' argument of seeing it work in practice.

He simply switches between them when he gets thoroughly caught out on one.

Having tried to explain argumentum ad populum/numerum to him so many times and in so many ways I'm coming round to the idea of KumarTroll too.

[Prester John]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumar
Your mentionings have some value at current status of science. We/science/anyone don't know about the future. Till then let the things run according to the Nature.

What measure do you use to decide between fantasy and reality? Without personal observation how do you decide between the two?

[Kumar]

Science/unrelated/undesired person may have not yet noted the observations but what about so many educated & inteligent modren world's people--who are experiancing it--positively. Just carry out a survey of homeopathic clinics--that is all & end.

[Prester John]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumar
Science/unrelated/undesired person may have not yet noted the observations but what about so many educated & inteligent modren world's people--who are experiancing it--positively. Just carry out a survey of homeopathic clinics--that is all & end.

Thats not the answer to the question i asked, please state how you decide between fantasy and reality. If you have no personal obsevations of a matter, how then do you decide between fantasy and reality?

[garys_2k]

Time once again for....




































100,000 DOCTORS!!!

[Benguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumar
Just carry out a survey of homeopathic clinics--that is all & end.

Given I, like many other mass-existing and educated persons, believe (or should that be know) homeopathy is a fraud, and these clinics are peddling snake-oil to the desperate and credulous, how is this likely to be a reasonable response?

I contend, for instance, journalists are too lazy to do proper investigation. You would say 'go and ask lots of journalists'

Or you contend, politicians are dishonest when it suits them. I would say 'go and ask lots of politicians'

What is the likelihood of getting an honest or reasonable answer? Given my initial skepticism how is this likely to be persuasive?

It defies belief that you think this is a credible answer in a skeptical forum.

Forget the line completely and, as Prester John suggests, try sticking to answer questions put rather than moving the debate on when it gets tricky.

Prester asked how you decide between fantasy and reality. I want you to answer that too.

[Kumar]

Quote:

Originally posted by Benguin
Given I, like many other mass-existing and educated persons, believe (or should that be know) homeopathy is a fraud, and these clinics are peddling snake-oil to the desperate and credulous, how is this likely to be a reasonable response?

CMS can't be said as fraud or killing people if mass-existing other people say so. However, you meant to declare those educated & current world people who are benefiting from homeopathy--as illitrate, fraud, fool, innocent or otherwise & that is since long. If you can't reach/touch the SUN-- it can't be considered that SUN is not there.

[The Don]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumar
If you can't reach/touch the SUN-- it can't be considered that SUN is not there.

Yes, but there is independent evidence that the sun does in fact exist. Whenever an attept has been made to gather independent evidence of the effectiveness of Homoeopathic "remedies", the effect disappears.

Show me the evidence of peer reviewed, independent double blind trials and I'll believe that homoeopathy works. Anything else is just anecdotal.

[Benguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumar
CMS can't be said as fraud or killing people if mass-existing other people say so.

What is CMS?

And in any case, that is complete nonsense Kumar. There are plenty of things that lots of people believe that;

a) are fraud

and

b) kill people

Do you need me to give examples? I'm sure if you bother to think about it you'll find some of your own. Homeopathy fits both categories neatly, but you can find others if you like. I'll give you a clue that will google nicely; Ponzi had many believe in him, and many still believe in the same stuff when faced with it.

And has been explained to you ad nauseum, there is an important and fundamental difference between the truth and popular opinion.

I did not declare the people you describe as illiterate, or fools or any such thing. People faced with the evidence who refuse to acknowledge homeopathy has no efficacy (such as yourself) may fall into that category, but I don't resort to ad hominems, I stick to provable facts. You'd do well to follow the same method.

Bringing us neatly back to the question you are refusing to are answer how do you decide between fantasy and reality?

Your Sun argument is silly solpsism, by the way.