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 1 of 4 [48 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Author Message
NotImportant
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:

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

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.

Quote:
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.

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 ?

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.

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".


Quote:

...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


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.

Quote:
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

The editor of this article was being dishonest and delibrately

misleading.

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
suppresses.

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


Quote:

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
HCN
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
news:1153307389.304678.21350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
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.

Hi!



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

cathyb wrote:
Quote:
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
homeopathy.


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.

Why?


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
you.

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
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
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
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: 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 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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4 [48 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3, 4 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:14 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: 0.0434s ][ Queries: 14 (0.0029s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]