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 4 of 4 [48 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
Mr. Natural-Health
science forum beginner

Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ? Reply with quote

cathyb wrote:
Doc John wrote:
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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

Are you a naturally born retard? What exactly is your problem? Unable
to concentrate for more than 5 minutes?

I was posing a serious academic / historical question, here.

The term "homeopathy" was coined by Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) and
first appeared in print in 1807.

I was referring to _Treatise on the Effects of Coffee_ (23 pages),
written in 1803 by Samuel Hahnemann, translated by William LaMartine
Breyfogle in 1824.

And, to Hahnemann's _Organon der Heilkunst_ (1810) which explains the
theory of homeopathic medicine. This book talked about both "vital
powers" and the importance of preserving "vital fluids."

So, for the mentally challenged on these ngs, Hahnemann's position on
coffee predated his development of homeopathy. And, thus, homeopathy
could in fact be based on a very scientific basis namely an effective
treatment for coffee addiction.

Again for the mentally challenged on these ngs, Coffee was beginning to
be viewed as a poison. The basis for the coffee poison theory of
Hahnemann, Kellogg, and many others was that caffeine, isolated in
1820, was an alkaloid which was viewed by these people to be in the
same class of drugs as opium.

Ergo, the coffee connection could ultimately have been responsible for
dietary reform in the USA, for those of you with half a brain. And,
that the popular 19th century sexual prohibition against the
consumption of coffee and tea as a stimulant/caffeine that excited
sexual activity; can in fact be ultimately traced back to homeopathy.

I realize that this theory is too much for A-Hole Science Geeks like

Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) was responsible for the 19th century
prohibition against against coffee and tea. And, the so-called reason
was that they excited sexual activity which resulted in the loss of
vital fluids (ie, Hahnemann's _Organon der Heilkunst_).

You have my condolences. You are nothing but a brain dead moron.

Just thought that you might want to be reminded once again.
Back to top
science forum beginner

Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ? Reply with quote

"The Bad Homeopath" <mark@be-spoke.com> wrote in message
It's always nice to be recognised...

Of course... One guy thought it was MY page, but I deferred and explained
that you were studying through a mailorder program.


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

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
science forum beginner

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:40 am    Post subject: Re: Homeopathy - was The Lancet lying to us ? Reply with quote

HCN wrote:

"NotImportant" <chiongguo@gmail.com> wrote in message

HCN wrote:
"ship" <shiphen@gmail.com> wrote in message

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

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

Miasm in

I think, and I'm guessing, that you were confused between the
disease syphillis and the symptoms exhibited that are similar to
syphillis. People who have syphillis miasm tended to have boils, pus
etc. when their vital force is weakened or is diseased at various parts
of the body.

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

and that of tuberculosis.

Yes of course. But he went on to prove the efficacy of the
substance albeit in a much lower dosage. He found by progressively
reducing the concentration the potencies actually went up. So what
exactly is your point ?

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

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

I never said that syphillis is a virus. But which part of what I

had said about homoeopathic modality that you find objectionable, other
than the low potencies ?

Granted that there is no active ingredient in many of the
homoeopathic remedies but this doesn't stop homoeopathic physicians
from using physiological dosage as well. But this is very rare and
unnecessary. Indeed homoeopathic medicine, as conceived by hahneman,
did not exclude allopathic remedy. He openly acknowledged that in many
situations allopathic medicine do have a part to play.

Consider the opinion of Dr.Von Grauvogi who wrote in 1845 in the
preface of a homoeopathic medicine textbook - "If homoeopathy should
seek to treat all cases and every case simply and solely according to
the law of similarity, it would fall into the same error as allopathy.
Hence, these sciences are no contrasts in the sense of opposition, but
rather complements of each other".


...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:

I'm afraid I can't download this short movie clip. The server was
serving it up in drips.
But 2 observation came to mind. The first is that you shouldn't take
such trivials as a reflection of the efficacy homoeopathic medicine.
The medicine being tested could actually be allopathic medicine but
because it failed someone decided to plaster the homoeopathic label on
to it.

Secondly homoeopathy medicine seldom talk about prevention of a
particular symptom. However I have read some studies by RECENT
researchers who are thinking of using the similia principles to PREVENT
a set of disease symptoms. They found some success in mice, I think.
But this is NOT homoeopathy. It's someone trying to make some quick
buck from the rising popularity of this treatment modality.

However if homoeopathic remedy was used and as you had claimed
that there's no active ingredient in the preparation then there's
actually no side-effects as had been portrayed in the movie(glean from
the title). So think a bit first before accepting and concluding.

and to see what happens to real folks who followed the homeopath for
prevention of malaria:

The editor of this article was being dishonest and delibrately


Ledum palustre - is used as a CURE and not as a prevention.
Malaria officinalis - again this is a CURE and not a prevention.

Check up any good material medicina.

If these are the basis of your antagonism towards homoeopathy then
I truly feel sorry for you and you should do well to follow your own
advice to me. I love science and the many wonderful discoveries it had
found and for that reason I used to follow their development closely
through various journals. But what I have found also over the years are
the fraud and deception that are perpetuated in the name of science
that are motivated by big profits from big companies. Science and the
reporting mechanism have been corrupted to influence the general
population. While there's an inherent self-checking mechanism it takes
a long time and a lot of money for such fraud and deception to be found
and detected. When you do not have money you will go no where.
Helicobacter pylori bacteria is a good case in point.

Again if you understand homoeopathy treatment modality at all you
will know that it doesn't treat pathology but symptomology. And it is
NOT only symptoms from the disease that is used. The process of
uncovering the right remedy is a time-consuming one where the totality
of symptoms from mental, physical (whole body), emotional are used as
well as the aggravations and ameliorations of symptoms are considered.
It is the totality of symptoms that points us to the right remedy.

If you look under diarrhoea in a repertory you will find about 2
or 3 pages of symptoms that you have to consider before a particular
remedy can be prescribed. Allopathy will just prescribe an
anti-diarrhoea pill or medicine. Homoeopathy cures while allopathy

Now perhaps you know why homoeopaths don't make much money Cool.


Also, for your reading pleasure: http://www.badhomeopath.com/

There are of course badhomoeopaths as there are badallopaths. So
what is your point ? Are you now accepting that homopathic modality
is a valid modality ?

One thing seem clear to me in just a short exploration into this
healing art is that I have found a number of books and websites whereby
remedies are prescribed according to disease rather than symptoms and
this will inevitably become like allopathic big business. The cure rate
will also go down dramatically.

Hahnemann did say that prescribing according to disease can be
considered during emergencies but for most others the time needed to
understand the patients is a very important part of the homoepathic
physicians responsibility.
Back to top

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 4 [48 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:06 am | 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: 0.1528s ][ Queries: 14 (0.1305s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]