FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics
Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4 [48 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Author Message
Vakker
science forum beginner


Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:37 am    Post subject: Re: Florence Nightingale on Homeopathy Reply with quote

tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1152305998.131898.70840@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
"Homeopathy has introduced one essential amelioration in the practice
of physic by amateur females; for its rules are excellent, its
physicking comparatively harmless-

If a "comparatively harmless" but ineffectual treatment (such as the
'psychic surgery' that was so recently practiced in the Philippines)
delays or replaces a treatment which has demonstrable effectiveness
(such as real surgery), is it truly harmless?

I ask because I have had several traumatic injuries (i.e. deep cuts,
bone fractures) in my life which would not have been responsive to
homeopathic treatments, but which would have been far worse had I not
obtained surgical treatment.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

It sounds like you have a bone in your head. Is that the one you
fractured?




>
Back to top
Vakker
science forum beginner


Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:40 am    Post subject: Re: Florence Nightingale on Homeopathy Reply with quote

tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1152365826.892206.293660@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Doc John wrote:

A true tragedy, I am sure. But, I truly believe that Florence
Nightingale died a long time ago.

?????


Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

My condolences for you living in such a hick town. :(

An ad hominem attack (albeit a gently facetious one)...
A diversion - a rhetorical device to cover for the lack of a revelant
counterargument.
Your concession has been noted.


You're sounding more like a twit all the time. You did fracture that
bone in your head after all, didn't you?
Quote:

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Back to top
Vakker
science forum beginner


Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:18 am    Post subject: Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ? Reply with quote

Peter Moran <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message news:44acaef9$0$22268$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Quote:

"ship" <shiphen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152142911.872659.229720@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Peter Moran wrote:
"HonestMED" <philtaylor98052@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152138598.709745.36410@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

RE: Homeopathy

There are powerful economic forces that have a vested interest in
promoting the idea that homeopathy doesn't work. We here at Honest
Medicine (http://honestmed.com) promote honesty and ethics in health
care, and we support homeopathy as well as alternative medicines that
work. Doctors and dishonest pharmaceutical companies want more to
profit from disease than cure it. This can only change as patients are
educated to take responsibility for their own health care, and we want
to provide resources to make that possible.
--Phil Taylor, Admin
HonestMED.com

There can be true honesty and truly ethical behaviour when it is accepted
by
all that inert, inactive treatments can satisfy many of the demands
that
the present day public place upon medical services, but with serious
limitations when it comes to serious or disabling diseases. Scientific
opinion is always tentaive and often approximate, but it has never been
wrong about so much all at the one time.

The public, in general, doesn't care much either way, but scientists,
medical practitioners, and those interested in the advancement of
medicine
and that it should not be hindered by any wastage of resources, should.

We could then move on to more important practical and ethical questions
such
as the proper place of such methods within medicine. There are NO
unresolved scientific issues, although it suits the promoters of these
methods to pretend that it is all just a "normal scientific
controversy".


If you think these words through carefully "inert, inactive
treatments"
you will find that the rest of your arguments are a given.
But how would you define your words?

All the key question remain unresolved, and we
are suddenly going round in circles. If the treaments are genuinely
having no effect then yes they are inert and inactive. But this is
what is being debated. ARE the treaments inert and inactive.
You are assuming the answer before you start.

Not at all. We understand fairly well what inert treatments, placebos,
sham treatments, whjatever you want to call them can do and what they can't
do. Most of the time, when a placebo is prescribed and a beneficial
effect is claimed, there has been no significant effect on the symptoms and
certainly not on any disease process. The condition would have improved
anyway and/or there are reporting biases by either the subordinated patient
or the practitioner enthusiast. When placebos are compared to no
treatment at all you get are minor effects on symptoms such as pain.
Here is part of the evidence ----

Is the Placebo Powerless?- An Analysis of Clinical Trials Comparing Placebo
with No Treatment

Asbjorn Hrobjartsson, M.D., and Peter C. Gotzsche, M.D.



ABSTRACT

Background Placebo treatments have been reported to help patients with many
diseases, but the quality of the evidence supporting this finding has not
been rigorously evaluated.

Methods We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials in which
patients were randomly assigned to either placebo or no treatment. A placebo
could be pharmacologic (e.g., a tablet), physical (e.g., a manipulation), or
psychological (e.g., a conversation).

Results We identified 130 trials that met our inclusion criteria. After the
exclusion of 16 trials without relevant data on outcomes, there were 32 with
binary outcomes (involving 3795 patients, with a median of 51 patients per
trial) and 82 with continuous outcomes (involving 4730 patients, with a
median of 27 patients per trial). As compared with no treatment, placebo had
no significant effect on binary outcomes, regardless of whether these
outcomes were subjective or objective. For the trials with continuous
outcomes, placebo had a beneficial effect, but the effect decreased with
increasing sample size, indicating a possible bias related to the effects of
small trials. The pooled standardized mean difference was significant for
the trials with subjective outcomes but not for those with objective
outcomes. In 27 trials involving the treatment of pain, placebo had a
beneficial effect, as indicated by a reduction in the intensity of pain of
6.5 mm on a 100-mm visual-analogue scale.

Conclusions We found little evidence in general that placebos had powerful
clinical effects. Although placebos had no significant effects on objective
or binary outcomes, they had possible small benefits in studies with
continuous subjective outcomes and for the treatment of pain. Outside the
setting of clinical trials, there is no justification for the use of
placebos.


I happen to agree with the "alternative" writer Kapchuk (sp?) that there
may under certain circumstances be "enhanced" placebo effects for
psychological reasons, or through the provision of a "hook" that offers the
patient an acceptable basis on which to cease sickness behaviour. I think
that may explain some of the more dramatic testimonials of symptom relief
from alternatives such as homeopathy. For this reason I am prepared to
allow that under some circumstances they may have a place in medicine. I
do insist that as science they are a dead issue. Only alternaitve
practitioners, and journalists, and even some scientific journals wanting
to maintain circulation want to create the impression that there is any
ongoing scientific controversy as to whether these agents have any intrinsic
activity .

The few positive trials and even the "eighty per cent of my patients get
better" claims are readily explained by existing knowledge about clinical
trials and the biases that afflict the enthusiastic practitioner. Here is
some of the evidence that you probably have not seen.

1. Schmerz. 2005; [Epub ahead of print]
[Do physicians overestimate effects of acupuncture treatment?] [Article in
German]

Lungenhausen M, Endres HG, Kukuk P, Schaub C, Maier C, Zenz M.

Abteilung fur Schmerztherapie, Klinik fur Anasthesiologie,

Intensiv- und Schmerztherapie der Berufsgenossenschaftlichen Kliniken
Bergmannsheil Bochum, .

BACKGROUND: Physicians' ratings about their patients' pain prove to be
invalid compared to patients' ratings. This is especially true if pain
rating acts as an indicator for therapy outcome. The aim of this study was
to compare physicians' and patients' ratings of pain relief following
acupuncture and to identify correlations between patient characteristics and
potential miscalibrations.PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional study
291 pain patients with gonarthrosis or chronic low back pain and their
attending physicians were asked to give their rating of patients' pain
relief following acupuncture. Patients were interviewed by telephone, and
doctors responded to

questionnaires.RESULTS: The proportion of false-positive physicians' ratings
was 81% referring to patients without self-reported benefit from
acupuncture. Just every fifth patient without pain relief was correctly
classified by his physician. There was no correlation between patients'
characteristics and false-positive ratings of physicians.CONCLUSIONS:
Evaluation of treatment in daily medical routine should be primarily based
on information provided by patients.

Roberts, A. H., D. G. Kewman, L. Mercier, and M. Hovell. 1993. The power of
nonspecific effects in healing: Implications for psychosocial and biological
treatments. Clinical Psychology Review 13:375-391.

" ABSTRACT. We evaluate the hypothesis that the power of nonspecific effects
may account for as much as two thirds of successful treatment outcomes when
both the healer and the patient believe in the efficacy of a treatment.

Five medical and surgical treatments, once considered to be efficacious by
their proponents but no longer considered effective based upon controlled
trials, were selected according to strict inclusion criteria. A search of
the English literature was conducted for all studies published for each
treatment area. The results of those studies were categorized where
possible, into excellent, good, and poor outcomes. For these five treatments
combined 40 % excellent, 30 % good, and 30 % poor results were reported by
proponents. We conclude that, under conditions of heightened expectations
the power of nonspecific effects far exceeds that commonly reported in the
literature. The implications of these results in evaluating the relative
efficacy of biological and psychosocial treatments is discussed."

Okay yes, so much for your opinions... Fine we know where you stand.

But, please! What about the original article?!
Have you actually, carefully read the whole thing?


Yes I have. There are a lot of unsubstantiated assertions and
misrepresentations of the facts. For example it may be true that in some of
the meta analyses of the clinical trials of homeopathy some very positive
trials have been excluded, but that is on the grounds of trial quality. It
has been well proven that the better the quality of trial of homeopathy (and
acupuncture) the more likely it is to be negative and vice versa. For
example simple loss of effective blinding causes a 14% increase in positive
results.

Remember most of these trials incolve homeopaths seeking vindication for
homeopathy, and they have at least as powerful motives to get positive
results as anyone has to debunk homeopathy, which is no threat whatsoever to
proper medicine. For example, I am sure English doctors, who are paid
via a capitation system, are only too happy if the homeopaths want to take
some of their workload off them, - they just don't want to have to listen
to the scientific claims or silly assertions that they want to suppress
homeopathy for personal gain, or to have funds diverted from renal
tranplants or cancer centres when there are already extremely long waiting
lists for the treatment od seriously ill patients.

Homeopaths also choose to test homeopathy out on conditions that they think
they get exceptional results with. The negative trials should be given
more weight. on those grounds alone.

Peter Moran


I'm not sure what you are trying to say by yourself,.......and/or by the abstract you've copied and pasted here. You're just rambling...rambling...rambling...! For instance, since when have you believed in a treatment's efficaciousness based upon purely anecdotal evidence such as a patient's merely feeling better which you've always heretofore maintained as not being scientifically sound (therefore worthless in assessing a treatment according to what you've said before), yet in the above abstract it states.....

CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of treatment in daily medical routine should be primarily based on information provided by patients.

Do you or do you not now believe in anecdotal evidence and if you do, since when have you changed your mind and why, or more likely you just believe in a patient's testimony only inasmuch as it backs up what you would regard as "sound silence" which in your case would be only double blind studies recognized by pharma sponsored medical journals.

vakker.
Back to top
vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.
science forum beginner


Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:06 am    Post subject: Re: Florence Nightingale on Homeopathy Reply with quote

Pre-FDA many traditional remedies (both European and AmerIndian)
were listed in the US Dispensatory, precursor to USP, US Pharmacopoieia

There was immense "snake oil" at the time, but some good remedies were
no doubt thrown out with the bad.

Many herbal remedies may work but have unpredictable dosages.

In the 1950s, the ability of pharmacists to give
"behind the counter" drugs was seriously curtailed;
but this still exists in many countries.

- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Reagan Mozart Pindus BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Yellary Clinton & Yellalot Spitzer: Nasty Together]
Back to top
vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.
science forum beginner


Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:08 am    Post subject: Re: Florence Nightingale on Homeopathy Reply with quote

*+-An ad hominem attack (albeit a gently facetious one)...

Learn the difference between ad_hominem and ad_personam.

Ad Hominem is a reference to general knowledge.
("Everyone knows that..")

Ad Personam is attacking the argument by attacking its bearer



- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Reagan Mozart Pindus BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Yellary Clinton & Yellalot Spitzer: Nasty Together]
Back to top
tadchem
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 1348

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Florence Nightingale on Homeopathy Reply with quote

vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
Quote:
*+-An ad hominem attack (albeit a gently facetious one)...

Learn the difference between ad_hominem and ad_personam.

Ad Hominem is a reference to general knowledge.
("Everyone knows that..")

Wrong:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
"A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant
personal premisses about his opponent."
The "Everyone knows that..." fallacy is known as the argumentum ad
populum
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html
although it may also be classified as an argumentum ad verecundiam
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

Quote:
Ad Personam is attacking the argument by attacking its bearer

Partially correct.
The personal attack on the opponent is in general an ad hominem attack.
The ad personam attack is merely a specific sub-type of the ad hominem
attack, one which is specifically abusive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Other subtypes of the ad hominem attack are the "Ad hominem
circumstantial" which 'poisons the well be attempting to disqualify the
opponents opinions as biased, and the "ad hominem tu quoque" which
irrelevantly refers to hypocrisy.

The persistence of these fallacies is a testament to their
effectiveness as rhetorical devices in spite of their fallacious
nature.

The general ignorance of their nature (let alone their detailed
taxonomy) is a testament to the fact that most of us (vainly) consider
ourselves more than competent at logic despite our ignorance of the
subject. Even people who couldn't understand a proof of the Pythagorean
Theorem somehow consider themselves skilled at logic.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Back to top
NotImportant
science forum beginner


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:16 am    Post subject: Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ? Reply with quote

HCN wrote:
Quote:
"ship" <shiphen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152128595.145854.169200@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Hi

Please excuse the cross-posting. But I recall a rather long and
VITRIOLIC discussion about homeopathy that I started in these
newsgroups back in 2003.
...

Just answer this question:

When Hahnemann created homeopathy in Germany about 200 years ago he had
deduced a few "miasms". One of these miasms is the "syphillis miasm"... So
please tell me which remedy is better for the syphillis disease which is an
upswing in some urban areas... A specific homeopathic remedy (which one?) or
antibiotics?

Syphillis miasm doesn't mean the disease syphillis. Miasm in

homoeopathy refers to the inherent disease tendency of the individual
from birth and this would generally cause the person to have certain
chronic ailment in his life. Each miasm type is characterised by
certain personality type. For example those with syphillis miasm will
have the following personality type :

"Syphlitic Miasm: strong pessimistic view on life, cannot
modify what is wrong, give-up, destroy, no point in trying to adjust,
sudden impulsive violence directed at himself or others, dictational
rigid ideas. Mental paralysis, mentally dull, suicidal, stupid,
stubborn, and homicidal."

Homoeopathic medicine first started when Hanneman discovered the
similarity of symptons between quinone(sp?) and that of tuberculosis.
And yet such a disease that is caused by a bacteria could be cured by
homoepathic remedy of quinone that is supposedly so diluted that it has
no active ingredient in it.

Homoepathy do not kill the bug directly. It builds up the vital
force within the body and allow it to take care of itself. It is for
this reason that it has little or no side effects if it is done
properly.

Consider the following 3 allopathic physicians who were
themselves very condemnatory towards homoeopathic medicine but later
had high regard for it.

a. Dr.Constantine hering - He was commissioned by his lecturer
Dr.Rossi to write a thesis to condemn homoeopathy. He became its
ardent supporter after a careful study of this system of healing. He
became known as the father of homoeopathy in the US.

b. Dr.James Compton Burnett who was a brilliant student and his
professor of anatomy had advised him not to ruin his promising career
in allopathic medicine by going into homoeopathy. The reason he went in
to homoeopathy was what he saw in one section of the children's ward.
The percentage of death he saw in children treated allopathically was
high whereas those in the homoepathic wing became convalescent and went
home in a few days. When his professor advised him he replied "he could
not buy worldly honours at the cost of his conscience."

c. Dr.Mahendralal Sirkar. He was the vice-president of the
British Medical Association (Bengal Branch) and he had denounced
homoeopathy as quackery and yet he saw how easily Babu Rajendral Dutta,
a lay practitioner without any high sounding titles were able to cure
many diseases. He started looking into the homoeopathy and decided one
day to give up his lucrative allopatic practice. The BMA imposed a
boycott on him and in his reply he said, "Truth must be told, and truth
must be acted upon." He became a towering giant of homoeopathy in
India.

We must understand these folks are no ordinary fools we find on the
street or in the internet. They examplify integrity and conscient in
the midst of selfishness and narrow vested interests. Their intellect
were some of the finest in their class. The difference between them and
the others was what was in their heart.





> Also, for your reading pleasure: http://www.badhomeopath.com/
Back to top
HCN
science forum beginner


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:07 am    Post subject: Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ? Reply with quote

"NotImportant" <chiongguo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153279018.625426.181730@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

HCN wrote:
"ship" <shiphen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152128595.145854.169200@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

....> Syphillis miasm doesn't mean the disease syphillis.


Actually it did when Hahnemann described it (I read it in the Organon).

Miasm in
Quote:
homoeopathy refers to the inherent disease tendency of the individual
from birth and this would generally cause the person to have certain
chronic ailment in his life. Each miasm type is characterised by
certain personality type. For example those with syphillis miasm will
have the following personality type :

"Syphlitic Miasm: strong pessimistic view on life, cannot
modify what is wrong, give-up, destroy, no point in trying to adjust,
sudden impulsive violence directed at himself or others, dictational
rigid ideas. Mental paralysis, mentally dull, suicidal, stupid,
stubborn, and homicidal."

Homoeopathic medicine first started when Hanneman discovered the
similarity of symptons between quinone(sp?)

No... he only "discovered" it because he had an allergic reaction to
quinine:
http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/quinine/allergy.html

and that of tuberculosis.
Quote:
And yet such a disease that is caused by a bacteria could be cured by
homoepathic remedy of quinone that is supposedly so diluted that it has
no active ingredient in it.

Homoepathy do not kill the bug directly. It builds up the vital
force within the body and allow it to take care of itself. It is for
this reason that it has little or no side effects if it is done
properly.

No it does not... especially since syphillis is NOT a virus. It has little
or no side effects because it has NO ACTIVE ingredients.

Quote:

....snip anecdotes...


Quote:
We must understand these folks are no ordinary fools we find on the
street or in the internet. They examplify integrity and conscient in
the midst of selfishness and narrow vested interests. Their intellect
were some of the finest in their class. The difference between them and
the others was what was in their heart.

If you had a heart you would learn more about what homeopathy really is and
learn what real medicine is, especially if you were one of these folks
tested about preventive meds for malaria:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1UJ_qGZ24k

and to see what happens to real folks who followed the homeopath for
prevention of malaria:
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=11082104


Quote:





Also, for your reading pleasure: http://www.badhomeopath.com/
Back to top
NotImportant
science forum beginner


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:14 am    Post subject: Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ? Reply with quote

Peter Moran wrote:
Quote:
"ship" <shiphen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152128595.145854.169200@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...


Does coffee ever get stronger for anyone if they keep diluting and shaking
it? Why not? (no mystical answers or resort to otherwise unevidenced
hypotheses, please - you are claiming this would be acceptable science, if
it were not for unwarranted medical biases)

Science is blind, if you don't already know. If I put a
thermometer into a cup of water all we can measure is the temperature.
We will have no idea what the pH value is. If you use your tongue to
know if there's any "coffee taste" left in the highly diluted coffee
then you will only get what your tongue can tell you.

Consider the following study -
http://www.rense.com/general70/microwaved.htm. While this was a
high-school experiment I had read 2 references both independent
double-blind study on similar effects (I don't have the book with me
now and I don't have the time to search further on the internet). What
was in the water that had killed the plant ? "Scientifically" both are
the same but I can bet you that the "energy signature" of both are
different. When I first read of this what occured to me then was
POSSIBLY the internal energy representation were different. We must
understand that the internal energy of the water molecules can be
manifested as the frequency of vibration (square) and the amplitude.
What I believe happened was that the microwaved water has very high
frequency vibration and low amplitude and therefore it somehow affected
the ability of nutrients to be absorbed by the plant.

There's also the possibility of water molecules "sticking
together" (Dr.Masaru Emato-www.hado.net). But of course you will think
of this as an explanation from the twilight zone Cool.

Many things that we use daily could not be explained by science
and yet it happens and yet we use many of them. The next time you visit
your allopathic medicine make sure they are not using any homoeopathic
preparations because without you or even your physician knowing it they
are actually using it. Here are some examples - digitalis in heart
failure, amphetamine in hyper kinetic behaviour of children, silver
nitrate for purulent conjunctivitis, sulphur for itchy skin, skin
rashes or eruptions, 2% sulphur for acne, seborrhoeic dermatitis,
pityriasis capitis, the list goes on and on.

It is known in allopathy , though not explained, that
pharyngitis may lead to kidney disorder(streptococcal sorethroat
leading to acute nephritis). However in TCM or ayurveda modal of the
body there is a ready explanation and homoeopathy has a ready cure for
it.

You will be surprised that the pain in your joints may actually
has the cure in the stomach.
I had precisely such a condition and NO ALLOPATHIC doctor could find
the reason for the disease and all they could do is to prescribe pain
killer or one specialist even prescribed steroid(I refused to take it
sensing deep within that he didn't know what he was doing). When I
visited an ayurvedic doctor in India , by chance because the tour took
me there, I told him about the pain in my finger and he asked me if I
have this or that or that and then he told me that the cure is to be
found in your stomach and small intestine. He prescribed some salt
pills and it WORKED.

I paid RS145/= for it and the specialist I saw together with
tests(which showed NOTHING) and medicine came to a hefty S$250/=
(equivalent to RS5500/=).

If we don't know science one should be very careful in using it
and must acknowledge our ignorance. Knowledge blinds as often as it
reveals and we must know what it reveals and what it blinds before we
could use it wisely and intelligently. We have to understand that
reality and the world around us manifests itself and operate in a way
that is far richer, deeper and wider than the models built up by
science allow us to believe.

My background, for your info is in the science.
Back to top
Rich11
science forum beginner


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:32 am    Post subject: Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ? Reply with quote

"HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bZmdnRCl7YhsMiDZnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Quote:

"NotImportant" <chiongguo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153279018.625426.181730@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

HCN wrote:
"ship" <shiphen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152128595.145854.169200@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

...> Syphillis miasm doesn't mean the disease syphillis.

Actually it did when Hahnemann described it (I read it in the Organon).

Miasm in
homoeopathy refers to the inherent disease tendency of the individual
from birth and this would generally cause the person to have certain
chronic ailment in his life. Each miasm type is characterised by
certain personality type. For example those with syphillis miasm will
have the following personality type :

"Syphlitic Miasm: strong pessimistic view on life, cannot
modify what is wrong, give-up, destroy, no point in trying to adjust,
sudden impulsive violence directed at himself or others, dictational
rigid ideas. Mental paralysis, mentally dull, suicidal, stupid,
stubborn, and homicidal."

Homoeopathic medicine first started when Hanneman discovered the
similarity of symptons between quinone(sp?)

No... he only "discovered" it because he had an allergic reaction to
quinine:
http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/quinine/allergy.html

and that of tuberculosis.
And yet such a disease that is caused by a bacteria could be cured by
homoepathic remedy of quinone that is supposedly so diluted that it has
no active ingredient in it.

Homoepathy do not kill the bug directly. It builds up the vital
force within the body and allow it to take care of itself. It is for
this reason that it has little or no side effects if it is done
properly.

No it does not... especially since syphillis is NOT a virus. It has
little or no side effects because it has NO ACTIVE ingredients.


...snip anecdotes...

We must understand these folks are no ordinary fools we find on the
street or in the internet. They examplify integrity and conscient in
the midst of selfishness and narrow vested interests. Their intellect
were some of the finest in their class. The difference between them and
the others was what was in their heart.

If you had a heart you would learn more about what homeopathy really is
and learn what real medicine is, especially if you were one of these folks
tested about preventive meds for malaria:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1UJ_qGZ24k

and to see what happens to real folks who followed the homeopath for
prevention of malaria:
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=11082104

Speaking of syphilis and malaria, before antibiotics malaria was used as a
treatment for syphilis. The prolonged high fevers killed the syphilis
bacteria, and if the patient survived the malaria, the syphilis was
sometimes cured. An even more common syphilis treatment was mercury, an
element familiar to readers of this newsgroup. Arsenic was used as well.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/
Back to top
The Bad Homeopath
science forum beginner


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:09 am    Post subject: Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ? Reply with quote

It's always nice to be recognised...

Do you ever get the feeling that this big scientist "conspiracy" to
"withhold truth from the masses" because homeopathy "knows things
science can't possibly know" is getting a bit thin now? Doesn't it bear
more than an uncanny resemblance to 9/11 or UFO or hollow earth
conspiracies?

In all my research, I have asked many, many homeopaths HOW it works and
I have received many, many answers. It seems that after 200 years, even
you don't know how it works.

If you asked 10,000 doctors (real doctors) how aspirin works, I can
guarantee you'll get 10,000 identical replies - not so for homeopathy.

If you can't figure out how it works after 200 years, if it's supposed
benefits, when empirically tested come out as nothing but a placebo
effect, and you can't even agree on it's mechanisms, short of invoking
mysterious "energies" or "life forces" that can't be measured, then
maybe it's time to get the strop out on Occam's Razor, because it sure
needs sharpening.

I recently took the Society of Homeopaths to task over some blatent
lies (yes, LIES) in their press releases and factsheets that they
issue. They replied with "Well, we know it works" and attached a short
list of scientific papers that showed some sort of effect.

I looked them up.

Every one - EVERY ONE was a questionnaire or a non blinded study,
conducted over a period of years, often by the same researchers and
their "stunning" conclusions were usually so statistically
insignificant that they had to inflate the use of language to get any
sort of response at all.

One of the papers had the audacity to claim that homeopathy helped
people get better after they had been discharged from hospitals where
they had received both mainstream and alternative medicines as part of
their treatment. The fact that these people had also recieved REAL
medicine seemed to escape the authors, as they attributed these cures
entirely to the homeopathy.

If this is the best, the absolute best that homeopaths can retort with
in the face of scientific scrutiny, then I'm afraid it's a dead duck,
it just doesn't realise it yet.

HCN wrote :

> Also, for your reading pleasure: http://www.badhomeopath.com/
Back to top
Mr. Natural-Health
science forum beginner


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:47 am    Post subject: Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ? Reply with quote

Anybody seriously interested in homeopathy should move to India.

See the bottom of this trend chart for a break down by country.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=Homeopathy+&ctab=1&geo=all&date=all
Nobody in the USA is interested. And, even in England interest is
almost non-existent.

Just thought that you might want to know.
Back to top
The Bad Homeopath
science forum beginner


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Everything is Homeopathic? (was Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ?) Reply with quote

Put simply, no.

If you dilute something to 12C, then there is a chance you will find 1
molecule of the original remedy in the dilution.

Since most dilutions go to at least 30C or in some cases 200C, you
would have no chance of finding a molecule of the original remedy in
your tablet, pillule, etc.

Here's a point that homeopaths constantly evade:

to get to a real, proper, correctly diluted 30C dilution, you will need
to use in the region of 1x10^60 molecules of water. This doesn't sound
that much really. Until you realise that, in the Earth itself - the
whole Earth, there are only 1x10^51 molecules of EVERYTHING.

To make some of these dilutions properly, you would need more water
than the entire planet contains.


2 wrote:
Quote:
Help me understand something, possibly two things.

First, does homeopathy involve just a molecule of the original substance?

Second, there is a statistical wonder in this: "If you empty a bottle of
wine to the middle of an ocean, then at any time later fill a second clean
container of the same amount of sea water, then the likelihood of the second
containing at least one molecule of the wine is near 100%"

If both questions answer with Yes, then everything is homeopathic! In fact,
we are breathing the same molecules of air that our ancient preconscious
ancestors and everyone since have breathed.
Back to top
Mr. Natural-Health
science forum beginner


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:06 am    Post subject: Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ? Reply with quote

I came across some credible information that diet reform started from
homeopathy. And, that the physics of homeopathy came from Samuel
Hahnemann's position against coffee. His method of using more and more
dilution was an effective method of breaking coffee/caffeine addiction.

His _Organon der Heilkunst_ was all about preventing the lost of vital
fluids. Stimulants, like coffee, promoted sex. And, sex was bad
because it wasted vital bodily fluids. Which in a convoluted way was
responsible for diet reform.

So, people who eat a plant based diet in the Western world have Samuel
Hahnemann to thank.

While this theory is about as preposterous a yarn as I have heard, it
rings true in many respects.

Just thought that you might not want to be too quick to knock Samuel
Hahnemann's theory for treating coffee/caffeine addiction.
Back to top
cathyb
science forum beginner


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:27 am    Post subject: Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ? Reply with quote

Doc John wrote:
Quote:
I came across some credible information that diet reform started from
homeopathy. And, that the physics of homeopathy

Do describe the physics of homeopathy. Everyone likes a laugh.

Quote:
came from Samuel
Hahnemann's position against coffee. His method of using more and more
dilution was an effective method of breaking coffee/caffeine addiction.

So you're saying that to get people off a caffeine addiction you use
less and less caffeine? Which would imply that the less caffeine you
use, the smaller the effect. Which contradicts the principles of
homeopathy.

Quote:

His _Organon der Heilkunst_ was all about preventing the lost of vital
fluids. Stimulants, like coffee, promoted sex. And, sex was bad
because it wasted vital bodily fluids. Which in a convoluted way was
responsible for diet reform.

So, people who eat a plant based diet in the Western world have Samuel
Hahnemann to thank.

You're aware that you just said absolutely nothing that made any sense?

Quote:

While this theory is about as preposterous a yarn

Gosh, you just said at the beginning of your post that "I came across
some credible information " Now you say it's preposterous.


Quote:
as I have heard, it
rings true in many respects.

Why?

Quote:

Just thought that you might not want to be too quick to knock Samuel
Hahnemann's theory for treating coffee/caffeine addiction.

Which, as you've described it, has nothing to do with homeopathy.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4 [48 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:36 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ? BreastImplantAwareness.or Physics 0 Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:31 pm
No new posts JSH: Lying about the distributive property jstevh@msn.com Math 14 Sun May 21, 2006 2:01 am
No new posts Homeopathy - not only works, but over 6 years does so bet... ship New Theories 11 Fri Dec 16, 2005 2:19 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0512s ][ Queries: 14 (0.0032s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]