On Homeopathy

[Hahnemannian]

How do you double-blind cures engaged in according to uncommon symptoms, and how does one ethically justify giving suffering people placebo?

What's the point of double blinding anyway since it is based upon the assumption that a medicine can be prescribed for a disease?

It's one of the ridiculous allopathic conventions with no meaning and purpose when therapeutics is engaged in properly.

That not evidence that hearsay, you can say what ever you want but can your reference this, can you give us a link, does it compare to placebo? Is it statistically valid?

Our literature is case studies and explanations of fine points in methodology plus perfections of the literature.

I am not aware of any Hahnemannian ever wasting their time on any of that allopathic nonsense.

Believe me, our patients are so severely loyal you could not imagine it since we have demonstrated what others call miracles.

We cannot call them that because there is a two-point criteria we cannot claim: miracles must be rare and inexplicable, which they are not.

There are people in HPHs who are eager to engage in such experiments.

We want to know the mechanism of homeopathic pharmacology and cure our patients.

Nothing else matters.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sorry for the late answer (we have a timezone issue). I will reply to you in chronological order, even if this may mean overlapping later posts.

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Hans says, in abject ignorance for which I mean to stick it to him:

(I commented on old age not being a good thing for a medical system)

Absolutely true in vile allopathy, which changes from day to day and has no stable or cumulative therapeutics due to total ignorance of the basic business of medicine.

So you prefer a sytem that has not incorporated the vast mass of new discoveries made in the field during the past century or so. Be that as it may, but it does not really put you in a position to accuse others of ignorance, since you have delibarately chosen to stay ignorant of such new knowledge.

So you are caught here exposing the vile ignorance of the whole of allopathy, for it is the 10 Laws of Medicine -- viz., the four Laws of Therapeutics, the four Laws of Cure, the Law of Chronic Diseases (provided by the Spagyric physicians), and a 10th law general to all therapies whether or not they cure -- that makes homeopathy stable and cumulative and the lack of awareness of them that makes allopathy part of the Dark Ages with exactly those same results they have always had.

I have already pointed out a few of the results achieved by medical science during the 20ht century. Also this you have chosen to ignore. I have asked you what those laws are ,but maybe you are stating them later in this thread.

So, yes, considering that homeopathy is the actual practice of the Science of Medicine and that allopathy still cannot cure, naturally you would say that it's not a good idea to go back in history to show great antiquity and stability plus a cumulative knowledge such that everything every known is still valid since you cannot do it and are supporting a system of medicine that was incredibly still doing bloodletting as late as 1914!

Since homeopathy apparantly eludes testing it dies not qualify as science. You constant claims of the failure of allopathy is beginning to look silly, since several examples of its successes have been pointed out. You begin to look like someone with his fingers in his ears.

Again and again and again, allopathy has absolutely no place in disease therapeutics.

A totally unfounded claim, since (the scientific version of) allopathy continues to score victories in the struggle against disease (to slightly mimick your pompous use of words).

Homeopathy can cure for 1001 reasons, but one of them is that it is NOT murderous and unscientific allopathy.

Still no evidence.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
After I pointed out that homeopathy is not based upon any assumptions, as Hans suggested it was, but instead is based upon the Law of Similars, Hans then said this:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since it has not been backed by evidence, I will take the liberty of terming it "assumption".
-------------------------------------------------------------

That is absolutely not true.

The fact that you have not bothered to look at the clinical history of homeopathy, which is an integral part of the history of medicine, incidentally, simply means that you have no right to make any statement whatsoever about the evidence since your laziness and carelessness about being a scientist is to blame for not investigating the evidence that all of homeopathy is.

All of you guys do this and think you can get away with it, but there is not a single one of you who can claim to be a scientist and say anything deleterious about the evidence that is homeopathy since that is a contradiction in terms given that Hahnemann fulfilled his part of the scientific process by declaring and demonstrating his cures based upon the provings and the Law of Similars (and the other natural Laws of Medicine) and then explained everything about how to verify his findings and do homeotherapeutics in the ORGANON OF MEDICINE.

I have said it before, but I'll repeat it: I will not search out your arguments for you. I will not read volumes to find backing for YOUR claim. YOU made the claim, you present the arguments for it. It is YOU who are the lazy one when you just ask others to find your documentation for you.

So don't think that I will let any of you get away with that lie for even a second.

You are not a scientist, and you prove it by every statement of opposition and doubt about homeopathy, for we have already verified and tested Hahnemann's assertions and findings.

Then for Pete's sake CITE that verification! I am not going to take your word for it. I suspect that your "documentation" will turn out to be little more than anecdotes, but you have the opportunity to prove me wrong.

You're not a scientist, and don't you dare have the audacity to pretend to be so with your stance about homeopathy, for that makes you a liar.

I am not a professional scientist, and I have not said I was. I am, however, thoroughly familiar with the demands for a scientifical investigation.

It is interesting that you get "offended" by criticism, but you do not hold youself too good to call others liars.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Hans then asks:

--------------------------------
What are those laws?
-------------------------------

A. Four Laws of Therapeutics (in this order of importance):

1. The Law of Similars;
2. The Law of the Single Remedy (these are direct cognates, and they are indirect cognates of the next two);
3. The Law of the Single Remedy; and
4. The Law of the Minimum (misnomer) or Optimally Ultramolecular Dose.

B. Four Laws of Cure, also called Hering's Laws:

1. During cure symptoms proceed in the reverse order of occurance (Time);
2. During cure symptoms proceed from center to periphery in these specific forms:
2) During cure symptoms move from within outwards in terms of a four-cone, four-plane, four-octave model of human existence (Space);
3) During cure symptoms move from more important to less important organs (Energy); and
4) During cure symptoms move from above downward (Matter).

C. The Law of Chronic Diseases: Chronic external diseases are cured only by internal medicines, external and internal here also having reference to the four-cone, four-plane, four-octave model of human existence.

D. The last Law of Medicine is one I never remember because it almost never comes up and has little to do with curative therapeutics but instead refers to something that all therapies have in common. Hahnemann spoke about this in small works compiled by a student at the 50th anniversary of his having obtained the right to practice medicine in Saxony and the greater Prusian Empire, which that student had bound and entitled THE LESSER WRITINGS OF SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.

Without the Laws of Therapeutics, which allopathy will forever suffer, no cure can occur and for more than one reason.

The Laws of Cure are really just the converse of pathological progressions, so it should be that everyone had noticed them; however, that is a far-flung notion since no other therapy is aware of any of them.

The Law of Chronic Diseases states why all allopathic therapies suppress diseases and hopelessly disorder them to the point of rapidly making all of its patients totally incurable, for allopathic therapies do not follow that Law of Medicine either.

You are here presenting a circular argument: Allopathy is not right because it is not homeopathy which is why it is wrong.

So your "laws" are simply part of homeopathic dogma. I see they contain a lot of medieval mumbo-jumbo (WTF is "the four-cone, four-plane, four-octave model of human existence"?).

--- Well, thanks for listing them anyway.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
In both instances where Hans, the allopath or supporter of allopathy, says:

------------------------------
More assumptions
------------------------------


That is untrue.

These are not assumptions.

However, it is becoming clear that I assumed you're interested in knowing how to cure instead of engaging in sophistries, presumptions and outright falsehoods to dismiss homeopathy.

Such people haven't got a leg to stand on, and they certainly deserve their destined iatrogenic death in allopathic hands since they would withold homeopathy from others out of misguided sincerity on the order of a crime.

I am truly sorry that this offends you, but in MY vocabulary, an undocumented statement is an assumption.

Yes, you may call me an allopath if you wish, since I work in the medical industry. As such, I am interested in curing, in fact I make a living that way. Obviously, people would not be buying our merchandize if we could not document to them that it works.

Your constant whining about homeopathy being suppressed does not impress me in the least since I happen to know how new medicines get approved: You document their efficiacy and file for approval (you also have to document the production process, but I actually dont think you would have much trouble with that).

If you can provide documentation of the efficiacy of a homeopathic drug, then there is no power in the world than can keep you from getting it into the Pharmacopaedia. You do not have to explain why it works (we have a lot of drugs around where we do not fully understand why they work).

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Hans asks:

(You do wise to acknowledge antibiotics)

I most certainly have by pointing out that bacterial diseases are the ONLY diseases allopathy can claim credit in.

I noticed you claimed that. You claiming it does not make it right, though. A few words: Analgesics, hormones, protein replacement.

However, the fact remains that the only way to truly cure any disease without sequal diseases is via homeotherapeutics.

Another unfounded claim.

I like antibiotics as a nice safety valve should I fail to find the person's simillimum when suffering with a bacterial disease.

Unfortunately, almost all patients today are so allopathically brainwashed that only my long-term patients avoid them unless necessary.

I'm relieved to hear that.

Antibiotics are responsible for lots of more serious diseases, we do not care one whit if allopathically brainwashed/indoctrined/conditioned and "educated" people hold otherwise,

Antibiotics are not perfect, but what are those MORE serious diseases?

for the Laws of Cure demonstrate what we say is true.

No, your own doctrines do not demonstrate anything. You are effectively saying: "What I say is true because I have said it is true".

And you say you want evidence and yet are not in the slightest bit informed of that evidence?

If I knew the evidence, I would not be asking for it.

Tell us more lies.

For somebody who writes pages of unfounded claims, you are awfully quick in accusing others of lying.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But how do you explain that a drug that kills bacteria can cure diseases?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because that's not what it does.

It only gets rid of a causative agent, but cure is something far more than that.

Uhhh, sure. Sometimes stopping an infection does not constitute "cure" because the infection has caused irreversible damages. What else is new?

You people do not see your patient's sufferings in an historical context,

Ehrr, no we do not. We see them in the present.

and that's one of the reasons why any involvement with allopaths leads to death

I have been trying to be diplomatic so far, but I can only find one expression for the above statement: A blatant lie.

since that is precisely what allopathy does precisely because it DOES NOT CURE and makes no claims to doing so, and rightly so.

Depends on what you mean by "cure".

The well-known but poorly understood progressions of diseases in the clinical record of allopathy demonstrates this premise.

You people just ignore these things.

Why?

Generally we ignore it because it is nonsense, but you are privileged: You have my attention for the time being.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Hans then says:

-----------------------------
Many drugs are found "by accident",
-------------------------------------

That's not true either.

The therapeutic effects of ALL allopathic drugs are found by accident.

You people just stumble along and claim to be scientific medicine, which is an obscene lie.

Either you are very ignorant, or you are lying. This may well have been true a century ago, but most modern drugs are the result of dedicated research.

Your statement is a bit ironic, since you have earlied told about how Hahnemann just tried out 1000 substances in healthy persons and then noted their effects. Then he made up a theory to fit his observations. Talk about "accidential" findings.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Youck! I am slumping several replies together here to save posts:

Here is my remark and Hans' response:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Me:] I say this knowing that the whole of allopathic pharmacology assigns specific target sites for all of its drugs; however, you had better be ready to admit that these are all total assumptions since those pharmacognostic scientists would have otherwise been able to design at least one drug based upon Receptor-Site Theory.

[Hans:] No, the effect of scientific drugs are not assumptions, thet are validated by testing. I do not understand the rest of your statement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, this is a tough one for you guys, for you accept a great many mechanisms of diseases and drugs relating to Receptor-Site Theory.

However, if that theory were true, then the knowledge claimed for it would have permitted allopathic phamaceutical firms to have designed at least one drug over the last 50 years they have been trying based upon that theory.

Therefore, we are surely permitted to say that the theory is wrong and the assumptions about receptor sites in diseases and drug actions are somehow wrong.

I am not sufficiently into receptor site research to comment this in detail, but the fact that a theory is currently unproductive is not cause to dismiss it. In that case we would have to dismiss most of our present theories in astronomy, since few of them have been confirmed physically.

Mind you, that I am fully aware that this strips from you everything about your doctine of disease and drug mechanism,

You are contradicting yourself here: Since you say that RST has not yet produced any drug (and I do not know if this is true), obviously, allopathy cannot be founded on that. And it isn't.

which replaced disease-entity theory and is presently being replaced by DNA theory as merely another in an endless line of allopathic theories about the proximate cause of diseases.

Modern science is not based on dogma. You are just listing a row of concurrent theories. There is nothing in scinece that says that several theories cannot coexist.

This is one of the reasons that Hahnemann and Hahnemannians totally dismiss notions about disease causes,

Self-contradiction again: You earlier acknowledged bacterial infections as disease causants.

for it never other than effects no matter what level of the cellular apparatus is proceed to, for you are still talking about the physical organism in a being that obviously also exists as an Etheric being or death would not find everything physical still there at death.

Not understood.

Receptor-Site Theory is one of the most elegant of allopathic constructs and one very difficult to wholly dismiss as useless due to all of the effort exerted to substantiate it, but the fact remains that at least one drug would have been designed were Receptor-Site Theory a valid explanation for diseases and chemical-drug actions.

Again, RST is just one more concurrent theory and not in any way the basis for all medical science.


I said and then you remarked:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Me:] whereas I hold that because we use ultramolecular, subAvogadrean drugs, we're forced to think in terms of the etheric pattern of organism and drug for scientific explanations of phenomena.

[Hans:] I do not understand the last part of your statement.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, we live in a time in which physicists have inadvertently verified the existence of the Ether or Etheric Plane of existence by having over 20 synonyms for it and major manifestations of it.

They have accumulated these over the last century but have principally admitted to them in the last 20 years in the form of virtual particles and the vacuum energy of empty space.

Non sequiteur. You are pulling things out of the air.

Newton had no problem with the Etherial Medium, but physicists dismissed the Ether with developments in electromagnetism, quantum mechanics and then Einstein's work.

But note that Einstein provided a synonyms for the Ether called the cosmological constant.

The Ether goes in and out of fashion currently, but there is nothing mysterious or supernatural about the scientific version of ether, it is just one explanation of observed data.

DeBroglie had his subquantic medium.

We have quintessence from String Theory to explain matter in black holes, and this construct describes etheric particles.

These examples go on to over 20 in number.

It is important because homeopaths have been demonstrating the existence of the Ether with subAvogadrean, ultramolecular, etheric drugs for our entire history.

Not exactly. They have been postulating it in order to explain otherwise inexplicable parts of their thesis. Inventing a phenomenon to fill a hole in your theory is not the same as demonstrating its existence.

These cannot have any other explanation than being etheric medicines.

That is one reason why they are dismissed. Even the possible finding of an ether will not in itself vindicate your thesis. You will still have to prove that it has the effect you claim it has.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I am willing to take you word for it that you master these procedures, but can you prove that they work?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have not said I've mastered them.

I generally fail to make mistakes as I did earlier in my life as a high-potency pseudo-homeopath, but that is a long ways from mastering them.

It's damn hard to do it even marginally well, and that's why we're willing to exhaustively explain such things to others looking into it up to those we call high-potency pseudo-homeopaths, for it is the lack of mistakes that mostly defines Hahnemannians.

Mmmm, lack of mistakes? I'll refrain from commenting on that.

That doesn't mean I don't make mistakes in therapeutic decisions, but I at least recognize them and correct them.

P.P. Wells, whom I quoted above (I think at this site) said it took him 25 years to get it right.

I will be in my 26th year of homeopathy later this year, and I can honestly say I finally understand that statement.

----------

All homeopathic cures prove that it works.

Actually not. You need to prove that it was the treatment that effected the cure.

There are tens of thousands of published case studies.

Are you shure they are not anecdotes?

You can prove it to yourself too.


Hans says:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, speculations lead nowhere, evidence does.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fine, so what's keeping you from examining and then testing the evidence?

YOU make the claim, YOU provide the evidence.

213 years is a bit late, isn't it?

Yes, one can only wonder why you have not made it any farther during all that time if homeopathy is even half as effective as you claim.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

More posts lumped together, I am also beginning to snip out things I hope are of secondary importance:

I made this statement and Hans replied thusly:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Me:] In short, diseases arise from both directions of causes and effects, and they exist in both levels of being.

[Hans:]The last sentence does not seem tto make sense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Diseases arise from both the physical and Etheric levels of being, and they exist in both realms too.

Speculative...

The form they take on as disease agents and influences physically include pathogens, vaccines (including the foreign proteins that come with them), free radicals, nutritional deficiencies, recreational drugs, allopathic drugs and others causes that escape me at the moment.

Now, do you or do you not acknowledge external causes for diseases?

The psychological level of disease causes exist as stress, grief, injustices, untoward emotions, anxiety, guilt, fear, brainwashing/hypnosis and other particulars that all point to a disordering of the etheric pattern such that it is no longer integral.

So diseases clearly arise from both directions of being and exist in them as manifest by symptoms of a purely physical nature and symptoms that are purely mental and emotional in nature.

This requires the premise that emotions are non-physical in nature. Obviously, the jury is still out on that.

One of the apparent keys to cure is reaching the etheric level with ultramolecular drugs *snip*

Setting that level in order, rather than killing the microbe, is apparently how homeopathic cures of infectious diseases arises.

*snip*

These are advanced concepts that remain in the realm of theory.

In the realm of speculation, actually

We're wanting to know if they're valid or in what way they need to be modified, for they stand up in logic and empirical evaluations, but actual mechanisms are wanted.

It is enough that we know these things as absolutes per the Laws of Medicine, but we would still hope that some day will provide us with further explanations.

Then why are you so opposed to experiments?

*snip*
Characteristically, allopaths and those involved in the natural science dismiss such constructs, but we are living in a time in which non-physical particles are accepted in physics, so it is not us but allopaths and school scientists who are out of touch when they dismiss these notions.

There are no non-phisical particles. They are not all matter, but physical they are.

*snip*

Then you said about the succussion element of homeopathic pharmacology:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I left it out intentionally, for simplicity. I am sorry that this seems to have been the important part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand.

It is incomprehensible that such a simple thing as merely shaking half-full vials of serial dilutions produces these medicines.

Well, here we agree. Totally incomprehensible.

Tim and I are interested in finding lost research to explain it or people who can point out what we may not understand.

How about making new research instead?

It is truly astonishing that something so simple makes our drugs uniquely curative given that the Law of Similars requires an optimally ultramolecular potency such that cure finally holds.

*snip*
That's why Hahnemann's Art. 142 of the ORGANON is so important: http://homeopathyhome.com/reference...on/organon.html

Sorry, but you cannot document Hahnemanns words by Hahnemann's words.

Hans then says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you cannot answer the question then?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I responded to what you said by correcting it.

Do you see a question here:
*snip*

I see you asked it next:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I believe you. But my question was: Provided some memory mechanism DOES exist, how is the water supposed to know which of the multitude of compounds it has been exposed to it should remember? Any water sample will have been exposed to innumerable substances over time, how is the right one selected?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My explanation suffices me, but we do not yet actually know.

OK, fair enough.

My explanation is that each substance is composed of uniquely arranged atoms and subatomic particles, and every physical particle has an etheric counterpart which for some unknown reason and by some unknown mechanism orients the water molecules into apparently unique water crystals or ice at temperature that thus permit them to act etherically by holding space physically after their chemicals have been diluted.

But we don't actually know any of this yet.

Want to help us figure it out?

Sure. As I have already said, I can design test protocols. I do that for a living.

Allopathic medicine wastes billions of dollars on research every year with nothing but hoped-for results some day, some decade, some century down the road; whereas homeopathy cures and only wants to know some mysteries.

There you go again. I have already mentioned a few of the achievements of medical science. Frankly, I think your continued ignoring it makes you look silly, but thats just me.

These mysteries are not of our making; allopathy medicine holds a total cartel of world medicine and refuses to go away even though it has never worked and cannot work since only the ultramolecular simillimum permits one command over diseases.

This is nonsense, and I think you know it. Even if there is some thruth in the "cartel" idea, this has been so for less than 30 years. What has kept homeopathy from gaining recognition in the 183 years preceding that? And what keeps you from proving its efficiacy now and forcing a recognition?

No, we don't know how this happens, and that is why Tim and I are here.

Somebody must know something that could unlock this secret.

It has to be in 1) electromagnetism of solutions, and 2) polymerization or crystalization of water and alcohol molecules.

Neither. If such mechanisms existed, they would have been discovered by mainstream science long ago.

Hans says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ultramolecular" is an assumed function. You have no evidence that such a state exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'd say that's true, and we are unlikely to ever be able to objectively prove it since no physical apparatus can detect etheric substance since the one is invisible to the other given a higher atomic nutational rate of the subatomic particles on the Etheric level called etheric particles.

However, lots of things in chemistry and physics are unprovable and yet accepted by virtue of their effects, so we will probably be dealing with this level of proof.

I have no problem with proving the effect first and then worry about the "how" later.

Irregardless, we know that subAvogadrean drugs cure.

No "we" do not. Proof, man!

We want to know how the pharmacology works, for this seem possible of penetration now that we have actual photographs from Shiu Yin Lo.

If you don't like the work ultramolecular, what do you suggest since etheric drugs is far more appropriate?

If you do not know, I prefer the words "we don't know".


I said and then Hans says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Me:] That is the mystery: these drugs should NOT have effect but do.

Want to help us figure it out?

[Hans:] Well, if you can prove that they do, I'm sure lots of people will be interested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is one of the most pitiful demonstrations of the pseudo-science involved in so-called tests of homeopathy, for there is one and only one way in which to thoroughly prove to oneself that these ultramolecular substances do have effects, but not a single one of these people who call themselve scientists have ever engaged in these tests.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? YOU (homepathists) make the claim, YOU provide the evidence. What is so difficult about that? After all, medical science is not asking you to test their theories.

Rather, those who have know and want to help us, like Tim.

But show me another as insightful as Tim.

Doesn't it strike you as a bit pitiful and pathetic that in all the world there is one bloke in chemistry who has tested homeopathy by high-potency self-proving?

Moreover, this is but the core of the problem of school scientists asking for evidence when homeopathy is nothing but evidence, and they fail to examine the evidence and then test it as they are supposed to before they have any right to any opinion about homeopathy.

But none of them do this.

Might I suggest this is because your test methods are not repeatable?

Again, again, again, and again, Hahnemann fulfilled his part of the responsibilities as a scientist by reporting on his findings and then telling the world how to test and verify his evidence by writing the ORGANON OF MEDICINE.

Why have none of you people read this book and than done what you're supposed to have done as scientists?

And how do you dare have any opinion whatsoever on homeopathy without having even read the evidence that is the whole of homeopathy?

Read the books and journals and you'll see the evidence.

The provings are recorded in the materia medica of Hahnemann and a few others.

The case studies are in the journals and some of the books.

And the explanations of how it is done is in the ORGANON.

What is the problem here?

The problem is that nobody seems to want to do your homework. Publish one, just one, double-blind placebo-controlled study that shows that homeopathy works, and see what happens. What is the problem in that?

Hans:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I have seen Shiu Yin Lo's photos, but obviously, they could be anything. He has not published any protocol for obtainnig those pictures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What?

It is not even a little coincidental to you that James H. Stephenson, M.D., hypothesized on polymerization of the water and alcohol molecules being the mechanism of homeopathic pharmacology, and then Shiu Yin Lo accidentally produced photos of succussed high dilutions while doing totally unrelated research in the private industry?

Coincidal is the word.

You think that nanometer-sized ice at room temperature from succussed high dilutions "could be anything?'

Would you care to explain that?

I sayd that Lo's photos could be anything. I have no documentaion that they are what he claims them to be. But I can tell you that they are not nanometer-sized; since they were made by an optical microscope, they must be several orders of magnitude larger than that.

And if you have seen his photos, that means you have seen them in his book, where he most certainly did publish protocols for obtaining those pictures.

Is this an attempt to lie?

I have seen them on the internet. He (or somebody else)published them there too.

If it is, I am going to call you a liar! and worse!

All things considered, you'd best hold back on the strong words.

Hans says:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is where we debate, this is where you present your evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sir, I was asking Tim to tell you have to read the thread that started this for us at homeopathyhome.

I would be quoting myself.

And it is a long dialogue.

If you are not interested, that's fine.

What are we about here then?

Hans says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References are fine, indeed commendable, but I will not run around everywhere to gather YOUR arguments for you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are not going to gather and read the evidence, what point is there in proceeding here since that is your responsibility, not mine?

Again, no. You make the claims, you present the evidence. This is a general rule of debate. You don't see me directing you to read the tons of evidence from medical science.

You people have yet to fulfill your half of the scientific responsibilties that Hahnemann fulfilled in 1810.

Who is a bit late, us or you?

You.

I said and Hans responded:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Me:] Rationalist allopathy is a kind of quasi-militaristic approach that arose out of Western medicine's emphasis upon the natural sciences, which thus ignored the herbalists.

[Hans:] Yes, modern medicine is very militant about proof. Prove your claims and you're in, fail to prove them, and you're out. Good for the patients, you know. Keeps the snake oil out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is not what I said; I said that allopathic medicine is quasi-militaristic in its approach to cases.

It wants to kill!

That is crap. Your constant attacks on the opposition only shows that you have no arguments for your own position.

*snipped: More unfounded assertions about modern medicine **

As for the evidence, I have said it enough times for you to have heard it.

If you refuse to examine the evidence, there is no reason to talk to you since I have done as much as I can in trying to explain things to you.

I acknowledge that you have taken a lot of trouble to answer me and I thank you for that.

But I will not help those who refuse to help themselves unless they are my patients.

Remember, YOU are the one asking for help (according to yourself).

Hans says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does this vindicate homeopathy? It is not very interesting how the state of medicine was in 1914. If you haven't noticed, quite a few things has happened since.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, then I will spell it out for you.

Nothing has changed in effects.

You people engaged in barbaric practices for 2600 known years of Western medicine and then suddenly got religion you deemed scientific medicine; however, the father of scientific medicine, as you call it, was the world champion of bloodletting as late as 1914.

Since 1914, Albert, SINCE then. Actually, I wouldn't mind saying since about 1918. Lotsa snake oil in mainstream medicine before that.

Now, go backwards for 120 years and see how homeopathy had to put up with you guys doing bloodletting and calomelization plus all of the other vile mineral drugs you prescribed while homeopaths engaged in 25th-century medicine at this rate.

Interesting proposition. So since medicine was such a pushover during those 120 years, what were homeopaths doing? Sitting on their hands. If they had an efficient regimen, they should have had no trouble cleaning the table.

Incidentally, the effect of calomelization (mercuous oxidatum or the black oxide of mercury) was to sluff off all of the epithelial cells from the mouth to the anus, effectively rendering the person unable to either digest or assimilate nutrients.

You people have a horrendous history, and I am not going to let you get away with cavilerly ignoring it.

Who is ignoring? I recently visited our local medical museum. People really has to be strong to be sick back then . But again, if homeopaths had a clean and efficient method of curing practically anything, how come they manged to get themselves ignored for 120 years?

Your buddies murdered George Washington, pal, and they actually published the case report in pride.

Google "death of George Washington."

The man simply needed homeopathic Aconite in a single dose of 30c.

They murdered him!

Seems they got Abraham Lincoln too, actually.

This is the same thing that happens today.

The means have changed, but the effects are absolutely the same.

Allopathic medicine does nothing but create diseases and premature deaths.

This is where you are wrong. I have already asked you: Where is smallpox, plague, polio, etc. Why are people no longer invariably dying from diabetes, pneumonia, syphilis? Why has out life expectancy doubled? .. And you accuse ME of lying?

If you hold otherwise, I guarantee you that it is your destiny to learn this firsthand.

I avoid allopaths like they are the plague, for I would just as soon cut off their heads if they do not want to know how to cure.

Nothing is different; it just looks like it: they still kill all of their patients and in just as ghastly horrible and agonally premature a state.

Lies and allegations. And you know it.

Allopathic medicine is not meant for civilized men or even animals.

One of the people frequently quoted by allopathic adherents is Oliver Wendel Holmes.

I have a goodie from him that collapses all of their misrepresentations of his thought: "The world would be best served if all of the [allopathic] drugs were dumped into the ocean."

Close but this is accurate: The world would be best served if all of the allopathic drugs and doctors were dumped into the ocean.

I do hope for you that you are never taken seriously ill.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Hans lastly said to a mere two paragraphs he wrote I had to correct ad nosium because he doesn't know the slightest thing about homeopathy:

I am trying to learn, but you are not being very helpful.

Wrongo!

The natural Laws of Medicine make homeopathy simultaneously the oldest and yet most modern and eternally stable and cumulative system of medicine that is via the same three-point criteria of chemistry and physics the actual Science of Medicine.

Says you.

Compared to the murderous nature of modern medicine it is 25th-Century Medicine.

Says you.

I have have enough of you, sir.

I could say the same, but I'm a patient man.

You are a total waste of time and are very much due your ghastly agonal, horrendously horrible and very premature iatrogenic death in allopathic hands after years of iatrogenic suffering by them, and I very much hope it is well underway and you are not in this world tomorrow.

Ahh, at least I consider myself fortunate that I will never have to rely on you for cure.

This is the rest of your ridiculous statements I only began to correct:


You can shut up now and hopefully exit this life sooner than later since everything out of your mouth is designed to create iatrogenic diseases and deaths.

We can all pray that you return to whatever hell you came from and are resonant with and that it happens by tomorrow.

But I will not be hereafter wasting my time with you and most certainly will not be having patience with many more at this site if they prove to be like you.

I, however, will not stop questioning your statements. But if you will relieve me of more going through pages of drivelly "replies" and admit defeat by ignoring me, I shall only be grateful.

Remember, be sure to follow all of your advice and get dead soon, okay?

Be shure NEVER to post in the JREF ( http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/ )forum, where wishing death upon others is a banning offence. And with your inability to argue your position you would soon be driven to that by the host of knowledgeably and trained debaters resident there, between whom I am but a humble apprentice.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
WellCookedFetus,

I am going backward in these posts looking for things I missed, and I see this one from you:



I have told you till I am blue in the face that the proof is in the cases.

The entire history of homeopathy is provings installed in the materia medica, cures in published case reports (allopathic medicine does not engage in case reports for obvious reasons) and the explanations of how to test and verify the evidence in the instructions within the ORGANON OF MEDICINE.

What is with you people that you presume that evidence exists in an allopathic form?

You all test drugs against diseases.

We cannot do that because homeopathy is not applied against diseases but for patients.

One of the reasons we are able to make them well is because we do not make that fundamental mistake of allopathic medicine.

Drugs cannot be prescribed against diseases because cases with nothing but the common symptoms of diagnostic categories exist nowhere in the world.

We prescribe on the uncommon symptoms.

Some practical examples of medicine known to be needed by historical figures due to psychological elements of their cases may help.

Hitler, the megalomaniac, needed Anacardium orientale in potency.
Clinton, the falanderer (sp?), needs Lycopodium in potency.
Reagan, the indignant tyrant, needs Staphysagria in potency.
Mike Tyson, the criminal, needs Belladonna in potency.
Diane Keeton, the hysterical but charmingly loving woman, needs Ignatia in potency.
Bette Middler, the very loud-mouthed and rather simpleminded but sweet woman anyone would love to have as a sister, needs Hyocyamus in potency.
Lincoln, the brilliant and wise statesman, probably needed Phosophorus in potency.
There are many such examples.

On the other hand, if you ask us which medicine personalities like Michael Keeton need, we cannot be sure since he does not have psychological indications, just Parkinson's that we cured before it was named that.

This goes on and on.

Har, har, har. Earlier you claimed that homeopathic treatment required careful examination by the practitioner, you mentioned hours of careful personal interrogation. And yet you now propose to prescribe drugs to people you haven't even met, and whose "symptoms" you only know by hearsay. What a great practitioner you are!

You know, Hahnemannian, that is one problem when talking as much as you do and mainkg such sweeping statements: You inevitably end up contradicting yourself.

Hans

 

[ElectricFetus]

Hahnemannian,

LOL, you got to be kidding me, I gave your research that tested homeopathy now all I ask is that you find similar research that verifies what ever it is that you want to prove to us. You have two groups one that you give placebo to and one that you treat with whatever means you call homeopathy, you though should not be aware nor the patient to which persons gets the placebo (double blind), This test is justified in proving that homeopathy is a valid treatment and not just a waste of peoples time and even lives. Why can’t you give me this evidence, this is only evidence I will except, in fact the only evidence science will except, anything else is bull shit. I ask you to stop ranting and give me evidence, give me links, show me proof, but you haven't, you just blaber on and on about things that we can simple not beleive you one because you don't back it up with proof.

 

[timokay]

Hans,

Tim: This whole issue is still being debated and the "disease management centre" is just a proposal. We don't have the answers yet - I have not been studying Homeopathy for long; started with Hahnemann's books, from which logical models have been proposed (using my background in Medical Science/Systems Analysis).

Hans: "So, you are merely guessing? However, whatever it is, why should we have a built-in function to make us ill??"

Re. "guessing", it is about time some serious thought was given by the scientists to Hahnemann's work, if they are interested in helping millions of people with "incurable" chronic diseases, AND THEY SHOULD BE. I am a trained and experienced Systems Analyst and my systematic "guessing" is the way problems are solved.

Re. "built-in" function to make us ill, that is not what I am saying. It is just a "logical" entity at the moment...to explain the large number of observations made by Hahnemann...that a co-ordinating function of the immune system is becoming DETACHED from immune system activities...and because this happens, the coordinating function itself may be the cause (i.e., actually be "the disease"). Hahnemann called this an "untuning".

Tim: Hahnemann makes a point about how one disease affects another in the same patient...the stronger one sets aside or suspends the weaker...but how could this suspension be coordinated, with the immune system involving billions of cells and so much of the body?

Hans: "This is not correct. You can have several diseases at the same time. This is sometimes called a syndrome. The idea that the stronger disease suspends the weaker comes from simple attention focus: If you have a strong symptom, you will not notice a light one, but that does not mean it has gone away."

Very good. Yes, attention focus...and the weaker disease has certainly not gone away, it is certainly active in the body - for some reason it is far enough into the background for the stronger disease to reveal its characteristic symptom pattern unclouded by the weaker disease.

My approach is to see things from Hahnemann's perspective. He gathers up every conceivable symptom/sign/manifestation of the patient's illness and then matches this "totality" to the very well documented "total symptom pattern" of each homeopathic medicine. He is helped greatly in the task of medicine selection by symptoms particular or "peculiar" to this disease, but must gather up all he can from the patient anyway so he doesn't miss any of these particularly important symptoms. Since symptoms were the whole world of his medical system, it is not unreasonable for him to see this as a "suspension" of the weaker disease. He never claimed that it had gone away.

I think we should seriously consider that some suppression of the weaker disease(s) may well be occurring, since the management and processing of multiple diseases surely poses problems to the immune system (crossed wires) - multiple diseases sharing the same resources??

Tim: "It COULD be accomplished by the diffuse immune system, but I suspect that the Brain coordinates. It doesn't really matter where it is logically, at this stage, just that it must exist. If you look in scienceforums.net (click on "forums" and select forum ==> "General Science, topic "Not Science, we are told") you will see latest posts from Albert and I. "

Hans: "No. The way to conduct a debate is by presenting your arguments. I will not search for it all over the place. Cut and paste if you will, but present your arguments here."

OK, We are still researching this whole subject..no clear answers, only the firm belief in Hahnemann's remarkable work.

Tim: "Yes, Albert can explain how important the procedure is for gathering all symptoms from the patient. The first consultation can take up to 2 hours, I understand, and the doctor has to be very observant."

Hans: "That's nice, but experience shows that you cannot reliably make a diagnosis by asking the patient what is wrong. Several disorders have very weak and diffuse symptoms, e.g. hypertension."

Tim: The information is gathered in a special way, with certain symptoms, e.g., mental, considered more important than others when it comes to medicine selection. Any experienced Homeopath would certainly suspect the diffuse symptoms of hypertension, though his terminology would be different. ALL symptoms would be recorded and entered into the process.

RE. The "memory" aspect of it, I believe the medicine molecules affect the shape of the water/ethanol polymers or clusters formed during the succussion steps. There is evidence for this going back to 1975, which seems to be based on Stephenson's Hypothesis.

Hans: "There is no such thing as water polymers. If you have evidence, please present it."

"Clusters" is a much better word. At the time of Stephenson's work in the 50's and 60's, this terminology has changed. He could not prove his theory. The significant work was done in the 70's and later.

I would like to present the evidence but it is not Online. I would also say that this is an area I have not yet researched in detail. Some references below, (some original papers are on order):

In the search, I have noted correlations between independent works on the nature of the medicines; Stephenson's Hypothesis and related work by Luu VIHN, & Mlle L. BARDET (RAMAN-laser studies) in France in 1975; Physicist Lo in 1996; and Geckeler & Samal in 2001. ALL seem to describing a similar phenomenon in these solutions judging by their descriptions of its properties...e.g., clustering of water molecules, stable up to 120 degrees C, destroyed by ultrasound, unstable in sunlight. Also, rate of potency development depends on the history of the solution...ironically the more dilute it is to begin with, (and wait at least three minutes between succussion steps) the more the potency develops. This correlates with Hahnemann's Q-potency preparation procedure.

Ref THORSON'S Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Homoeopathy, Pg188/446.

Shape-specific clustering is thought to occur in water-ethanol leaving an "impress", a clustering of water molecules of a kind which is unique for each medicine.

My position is that the originals of the above Vihn, Lo and Geckeler et al. papers must be obtained.

1) Here are subsets of Lo's papers,
http://pecan.srv.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/dst/www/ATG/lo-iestru.html

http://pecan.srv.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/dst/www/ATG/lo-ice.html

2). Samal & Geckeler Ref: Unexpected solute aggregation in water on dilution, Chem. Commun. 21 (2001) 2224-2225.

Some accumulated evidence for Homeopathy (though not "Scientific").
http://www.marius.net/research.html

Tim: "It is difficult to know what the body's immune system makes of these strange crystals/clusters..they quickly dissolve away..but apparently trigger an immune response of some kind before that, and the resulting symptom patterns. Either they act in this way on the immune system or they act more directly on the brain.
Anyone can go into a drugstore/chemist and buy one of these medicines and try them..they will produce symptoms..showing them not to be the "just nothing" Medical Science claims, in its ignorance. "

Hans: "Ahh! This is a thing that could easily be tested."

Hans, that is the $64,000 question. I am now ploughing thru' latest immunology textbooks to suggest a way. It seems unlikely that these clusters could survive long enough to trigger an immune response. But, they are certainly something the immune system has never seen before, could upset something.

Tim: You mean "Scientifically" testable. They have been tested thousands of times within Homeopathy for the last 213 years. Before Science can test Homeopathy, it should understand something about it.

Hans: Not at all. A scientific test can disclose an effect even if the causal mechanism is unknown. This is the beauty of the scientific method. If Homeopathy can affect a disease, it can be proven in a double-blind placebo-controlled test. If a Homeopathic drug causes a symptom, it can be proven in such a test. This has nothing to do with belief or understanding.

Interesting. You're the man Albert and I have been looking for. What if the symptoms produced by the medicine are only "perceived"...Hundreds of very predictable symptoms/effects/manifestations when a certain medicine is taken. Try one yourself and see. I'll send you a sealed pack..within 4 hours of taking them you will get symptoms...feeling is believing.

You write: "If Homeopathy can affect a disease"...oops! we're in "what is a disease?" territory again, where is the controlled starting point? see below.

Tim: Homeopathy and Medical Science are like chalk and cheese. They are completely separate disciplines, don't even agree on what a "disease" is.

Hans: "But I assume we can agree that if the patient gets better, then the treatment has an effect?"

Better yes, but from what? There must be an agreed starting point...Science does not recognize the Homeopath's concerns about the experiment.

Tim: Science says its a disease agent, of course, which invades the body, and is eradicated. But, IS IT A DISEASE if it doesn't even produce symptoms? We get infected every day, don't know about it because the immune system destroys it without us knowing.

Hans: "Ahh, so you do acknowledge that the immune system fights infections to keep us from illness?"

Of course. I have a degree in Physiology & Biochemistry.

Tim: Homeopathy identifies diseases by the symptom patterns they produce...no symptoms, no disease.

Hans: A very dangerous philosophy, since several diseases have very benign symptoms, if any at all, in the beginning. Examples are hypertension, type 2 diabetes, syphilis.

At the beginning..precisely. Hahnemann was very well aware of all these chronic conditions and how they developed...spent 12 long years alone, studying and curing them..succeeded in all cases. Altho' he knew nothing about any of the chemical processes of the body, nor the cause of many diseases, he could discover the truth by relentless experimentation and careful observation - spent 53 years of his life on his medical system; perfected and fully documented before his death.

Ref. "The Chronic Diseases" by Samuel Hahnemann.
Now do you understand my motivations?

http://homeoint.org/books/hahchrdi/index.htm

Tim: And, the disease agent itself is rarely the problem...it should have been eradicated without symptoms...symptoms mean there is a problem with the immune system...THAT is the "dis-ease" - the fault in the immune system of this particular person.

Hans: "What is your evidence for this claim? Several infectious agents produce consistent disease symptoms, even if they are later eradicated by the immune system."

I am seeing the problem from Hahnemann's point of view and trying to reconcile it with my Science background. I am prepared to accept some "feeling under the weather" symptoms when we become infected, but that is not illness.

"Several infectious agents produce consistent disease symptoms...".

Yes, there are exceptions like some viral diseases or epidemics that pose particular stresses EVEN on the healthy immune system. And these do indeed usually have common symptoms in people. But, in all the rest, symptom presentation means some weakness in the immune system. In these cases, it is extremely rare for two people whose symptoms result from an infection by the same disease agent, to present the same symptom pattern. The disease agent only reveals a weakness in their immune systems...the actually weakness could be 100's of things, which is very particular to that patient, as revealed by a unique "total symptom pattern".

So, the Homeopathic Medicine is always chosen based on "this particular patient's immune system fault", not any disease agent. The immune system should have dealt with it without difficulties. Medical Science and Homeopathy don't get on well together at all because of major differences like this. The dominant system wins only because it is the dominant system. I think it refreshing for a Homeopath like Albert to actually hit back - not many do. Science says their whole life's work is phony, and the treatment at best a Placebo Effect.

I support Hahnemann's classical homeopathy - I don't know enough about Modern Homeopathy to form an opinion.

Hans: Well, it is not pleasant to be told that, but that is what evidence points at. And I'm afraid that medical science is more concerned by the welfare of patients than by the feelings of homeopaths.

Kindly present some evidence against Hahnemann's Homeopathy. Even experiments on Modern Homeopathy are clearly flawed because the Scientist simply does not understand Homeopathy.

Tim: Although I have a Science background, I see a great deal of injustice (lies) w.r.t. Science's views of Homeopathy, and these should be corrected.

Hans: What injustices? Evidence? What keeps homeopaths from documenting their claims, if they can?

About 80 years ago, Homeopathy was crushed by Medical Science. A political move. Do you want to see some? Yet, Hahnemann cured virtually every sick person he saw; and the chronic diseases in particular - just what Medical Science has a problem with today.

Re. Evidence : Homeopathy has over 200 years of evidence, documented in its Journals, Materia Medica, Repertories, etc.

Tim: Homeopathy CAN cure these conditions by the correct way, by helping the body's own defences to deal with it - resolve it completely. The body uses a complicated hierarchy of cascading processes, evolved over many millions of years, to deal with disease - strategies that deal with the WHOLE disease, ie., and all symptoms associated with it...and then restore the tissue homeostasis. It's a very complicated sequence/cycle of events. If you step in somewhere in that hierarchy and suppress a symptom, e.g., fever, that is no solution to the problem - let the underlying problem be dealt with by the above...don't complicate the whole process.t Hahnemann displays anger on almost every page of his books because of the damage done to sick people by this meddling - very much harder to cure - but he succeeded. Medicine should work WITH the natural hierarchy/cycle of healing, not AGAINST it. Going against it is futile anyway - it will resist and fight you all the way...the patient will have to pay later for any temporary improvements.

Hans: Please, support your claims with evidence.

My evidence is the life's work of Samuel Hahnemann, the success of Homeopaths, the documentation in the Homoeopathic Journals.
What kind of Scientific "disease" do you want me to address?

Hans: In some cases, it is the only path open to us at present (e.g. diabetes).

Until some people in the Scientific community looks seriously at Homeopathy, as you appear to be doing.

Tim: Unfortunately, virtually all of them do more harm than good. It depends on which medicine we are talking about. Initially, it may seem to help symptoms...but there is often a heavy price to pay later.

Hans: If medical science "does more harm than good", please explain how it has been so successful in battling a long row of diseases (I mentioned a few earlier), and why is it that populations with good coverage of modern medicine have life expectancies around 80 years, whereas populations which do not have access to such medicine have life expectancies of about half that figure?

I am not saying that Modern Medicine does more harm than good, but in MANY CASES it does so.

 

[Quasi]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
How do you double-blind cures engaged in according to uncommon symptoms, and how does one ethically justify giving suffering people placebo?

What's the point of double blinding anyway since it is based upon the assumption that a medicine can be prescribed for a disease?

It's one of the stupid allopathic conventions with no meaning and purpose when therapeutics is engaged in properly.

There are people in HPHs who are eager to engage in such experiments.

We want to know the mechanism of homeopathic pharmacology and cure our patients.

Hahn,

I will throw the gauntlet down here-
Take 10 acute diabetics (severe diabetes,) and treat them with homeopathy alone. No blood sugar monitoring and no restrictive diet etc. See what happens over a 5 year period. There, is that hard? Simply compare your observations with that of the well documented results of standard medicine. What is the problem with this test, other than perhaps a small patient pool? Or try the same thing with terminal cancer patients, maybe cancer kids? According to you cancer does not exist, and is a big lie. Well Hahn? While you could not publish the data, 10 dead bodies in your office would sure convince people of Homeopathy's worthlessness. On the other hand, if they lived healthy lives you could be the next big thing in medicine, and would probably be one step away from the Nobel in Medicine. Why the excuses?

 

[BTox]

Originally posted by timokay
OK, We are still researching this whole subject..no clear answers, only the firm belief in Hahnemann's remarkable work.

What is remarkable about Hahnemann's work? It was disproven and is nothing but fiction. What is remarkable is that anyone still believes in it in this day and age.

Originally posted by timokay
I am now ploughing thru' latest immunology textbooks to suggest a way. It seems unlikely that these clusters could survive long enough to trigger an immune response. But, they are certainly something the immune system has never seen before, could upset something.

These "clusters" do not exist, even if they did, they are still just water and would not evoke any immune response, nor any other physiological activity.

Originally posted by timokay
Interesting. You're the man Albert and I have been looking for. What if the symptoms produced by the medicine are only "perceived"...Hundreds of very predictable symptoms/effects/manifestations when a certain medicine is taken. Try one yourself and see. I'll send you a sealed pack..within 4 hours of taking them you will get symptoms...feeling is believing.

Nonsense. I have personally tried several different "remedies" at low and high potency. No effects whatsoever.

Originally posted by timokay
Of course. I have a degree in Physiology & Biochemistry.

I also have a degree in biochemistry. Nothing about homeopathy makes the least bit of sense from a biochemical standpoint. Do you not remember what you learned?

Originally posted by timokay
At the beginning..precisely. Hahnemann was very well aware of all these chronic conditions and how they developed...spent 12 long years alone, studying and curing them..succeeded in all cases. Altho' he knew nothing about any of the chemical processes of the body, nor the cause of many diseases, he could discover the truth by relentless experimentation and careful observation - spent 53 years of his life on his medical system; perfected and fully documented before his death.

Ref. "The Chronic Diseases" by Samuel Hahnemann.
Now do you understand my motivations?

AND..

About 80 years ago, Homeopathy was crushed by Medical Science. A political move. Do you want to see some? Yet, Hahnemann cured virtually every sick person he saw; and the chronic diseases in particular - just what Medical Science has a problem with today.

Re. Evidence : Homeopathy has over 200 years of evidence, documented in its Journals, Materia Medica, Repertories, etc.

AND...

My evidence is the life's work of Samuel Hahnemann, the success of Homeopaths, the documentation in the Homoeopathic Journals.
What kind of Scientific "disease" do you want me to address?

So believe all these "cures" because Hahnemann said so? What kind of proof is that? Where is the "success of Homeopaths" that you report? Have you personally seen someone cured by homeopathy and no other treatment? It would be very simple for homeopaths to prove their treatments are effective. Yet after 200 years, not a single case has been documented. Don't you find that odd? By the way, I find it very hard to believe that you have any scientific education whatsoever.

 

[Hahnemannian]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Sorry for the late answer (we have a timezone issue). I will reply to you in chronological order, even if this may mean overlapping later posts.


Hans

This will be the third chance I take with you.

The next first hint of disinterest in homeopathy and yet attacking it from what you have more than proven is absolute ignorance of it and I will ignore you again.

And this is not carte blanc for the others here I have ignored for the same reasons.

----------

Okay, there is a vast amount of information obtained about the biochemical level of being involved in diseases and chemical pharmacology -- agreed.

However, of what value is that information in therapeutics since you are still talking about pathology as known to allopathic medicine, which has nothing to do with pure, legitimate, scientific, substantiated, stable and cumulative (take your pick) therapeutics based upon the four Laws of Therapeutics, as P.P. Wells attempted to point out in the above reference?

That is to say, pathology in today's world does not refer to the "study of suffering" -- meaning of diseases in general and of symptoms in particular, as it should were it linguistically legitimized -- but instead to nothing more than the study of tissue changes of disease-diagnostic categories and thus of nothing more than common symptoms and the ultimate results of disease process best prevented (by homeopathically prescribing for those patients, not for their diseases, on the basis of their still-discernable uncommon symptoms when they were curable) decades before they ultimate in those thousands of essentially incurable abominations of effete, therapeutically incompetent allopathic therapies, which only make patients incurable by suppressing their symptoms and complicating their natural diseases with incomprehensibly confounded iatrogenic ("physician-induced") diseases that we cannot possibly penetrate and cure except over very long periods of time and with lots of luck.

When presented with patients diagnosed with incurable diseases who have not been so complicated, we have repeatedly demonstrated that there is no such thing as an incurable disease.

The inescapable conclusion -- remembering that we have been finding this from the very beginning and that today's eleborate and vastly more complete allopathic knowledge from the natural sciences is still facing the same incurability in about 99% of diseases and is still producing incurable patients by the billions -- is therefore that this knowledge does not give us anything more than greater precision in prognosis, not in therapeutics.

But we already know these things, sir, for the four Laws of Therapeutics permit us to precipitate the four Laws of Cure, and we can immediately tell from such curative reactions or relative failures of optimal cure from our efforts how curable a patient is, and this is FAR more precise than any allopathic parameters based upon numbers provided by chemistry and physics as superimposed upon diagnosis and pathology.

But we want access to that diagnositic equipment.

Who said we didn't?

You people in allopathic medicine maintain a monopoly over it via dominance of the socio-economic realm of medicine in our times because the insurance companies only pay your kind for your effete therapies and thus forever push up the cost of health care because you cannot cure.

Does this endless spiral in medical costs make any sense?

Of course not!

The allopathic pharmaceutical companies want to maintain this dominance of world medicine through allopathic therapies; however, if those few people who're really in charge of it would realize the benefits of health and productive efficiency resultant in degrees of health known to homeopaths, they'd shift their efforts to other industries and let us have our proper place at the core of medicinal therapeutics.

The longevity would then actually rise toward 120 and then 144 years and beyond where it belongs, and people would not live in stress.

John D. Rockefeller inexplicably permitted his wealth to be used to socio-economically destroy homeopathic medicine despite the fact that he maintained homeotherapeutics as his primary therapy his long life.

Why do these people do these things? We don't know.

The notion of the function of existence only generally occurs to people late in life within our societies because they distract us with acquisitiveness and the opportunities to procede in the acquisition of wealth and station.

This is absurd.

None of the status quo of our societies should remain, and allopathic medicine in diseases is one of the first major ones destined to soon go the way of the dodo bird since it does not cure and never will be able to.

Sir, that information you refer to is of no value in therapeutics, only in pathology and thus only in prognosis, which we do not require since we can already prognosticate with far more precision than allopathic medicine thanks to the universe-wide absolutes called the four Laws of Cure.

So, of what value is all of that information?

I am all ears.

 

[Hahnemannian]

Hans says:

I have already pointed out a few of the results achieved by medical science during the 20ht century. Also this you have chosen to ignore.

Unless I am very much mistakened, allopathy has not produced any results we had already achieved with our little globules.

In parturition and obstetrics in general, which is one of the advances you specifically mentioned, we stand alone with cures, and the now-famous C-sections only testify to no allopathic medicinal means of correcting malposition of the fetus that kills both mother and presenting organism for an incoming Soul.

One of the reasons for our rapid rise in popularity within 19th-Century America and Europe was our therapeutics on women and children, and thus came the unabated loyalty of mothers no matter how ignorant and allopathic the husbands remained.

The same calculus existed for priests, for they despise deaths as much as us.

Similarly, the intelligentia of America generally adhered to homeopathy, witness Mark Twain as the most famous exponent of homeopathy and the most famous name in the 19th century.

These people did not adhere to homeopathy for no reason.

The following is just one of many papers on the subject, to mention nothing of the case reports underlying such statements of fact, and it is from a then-elderly high-potency pseudo-homeopath, not from a Hahnemannian.

Notes on Homoeopathic Practice in Obstetric Cases

Royal E.S. Hayes, M.D.,

THE [Cincinnati] MEDICAL ADVANCE

Vol. 15 (1907)




The great advantage of homoeopathic prescribing during the pregnant period and at confinement is well known among those who have so prescribed. The pregnant woman is especially susceptible to homœopathic treatment. I have observed that more permanent good is often accomplished during pregnancy than is apparent at the time; a more marked increase of vigor being noted later on.

In parturition the homœopathic remedy promotes normal innervation, thereby imparting natural activity to the physical organism and appreciably to the special mechanism involved in the process of labor, concentrating the expelling and resisting forces in the proper directions. Normal innervation also controls the processes which [that] continue after labor. The homœopathic remedy[,] therefore, is the most effective agent for promoting reasonably quick, safe, and more or less comfortable delivery and the most efficient prophylactic of complications. How often we see the weak, irregular or abnormal pains changing to even and comparatively comfortable contractions after applying the subtle force of the similar remedy. The woman often says: “Doctor, that medicine makes the pains harder but they are easier to bear than before.” And often we may see this though she may not remark it. There is a very visible effect of the contact of drug and human forces in these cases. The well-selected remedy solves many problems.

The writer has seen one case of transverse presentation spontaneously corrected after exhibition of the indicated remedy. The remedy in this case was one which [that] has other credits to the same effect in this mishap, viz., Pulsatilla. Herein is a point of interest. This remedy was not prescribed because it has a reputation for regulating these misplaced forces. It was prescribed because the patient had the characteristic [uncommon, strange, rare and peculiar] anxiety, restlessness, tearfulness, and respiratory oppression. Those symptoms more closely represent the disorder than the changed physical conditions. Why? The answer is simple. Because they are nearer to the origin of the forces at work."

Everyone knows that all vital processes are carried on through the exertion of a force projected within the organism. The same laws must govern the vital energy as any other [not true]. Therefore, the nearer the curative force (by virtue of its supraphysical quality, and by virtue also of its inherent likeness to the perverted state of the vital force) can be applied to the origin of the wrong direction of force in the patient, the more general, the more pervasive, the resultant changes. This applies in a more striking and visible manner to the condition of the mechanism of labor than in ordinary cases. The only point of logical dispute can be in regard to local impediments outside the potential possibilities of the vital force. These we are willing to leave to surgery.

One would not usually open a door by thrusting a bar into the key-hole. It is much better to use that small instrument which has the notches so accurately adjusted that it removes the opposing forces at their origin of attack without noise, destruction or effort. In the case of our Irish lady[,] would it not have been just as well to have reduced the displacement by manual means? Certainly that would be better than leave the parts to their own destruction. It would show bad judgment to wait long for the action of a remedy in an extreme case like this. But it could not have been accomplished without some little damage, bruising or even shock. Besides, that would not overcome the more invisible misadjustment [maladjustment] of force[,] which was at work in the spirit of the person. The misrepresentation was undoubtedly due to wrong direction of resisting or expelling forces; this to irregular exertion of motor nervous energy and this in turn to certain deflection of the vital force. To have reduced the presentation manually would have overcome the immediate local gross effect but could not have prevented other manifestations of the same perversion of central energy. As long as that persisted she would be in danger of other complications or disorder. Happily[,] the whole condition in this case was amenable to the action of the remedy.

In another case[,] a woman was delivered of a vigorous child without the aid of medicine. After waiting for a time for the placenta to be delivered[,] we found that we were encountering a case of hour-glass contraction, retained placenta and hemorrhage[,] which was serious enough to give rise to the hope that it would not continue long, to say the least. It was clearly the duty of the physician in this case to remove the placenta. Now, if the patient can be made to remove the disorder by means of her own forces[,] we prefer that it shall be done in most cases. This woman was thin, scrawny, pale and pinched looking. In this respect[,] she greatly resembled her mother who was present at the time. The discharged blood was black and clotted. It was not alarming in amount but was evidently weakening. There were paroxysms of severe cutting pain in one side of the uterus and the distorted shape of that organ could be distinctly felt. These were the only guiding symptoms observed [R.E.S. Hayes was a HPH], and the writer had never prescribed Secale before. But he believe that a dose of that remedy would right the trouble[,] which it did promptly so that the patient said she never got along so well after a labor as she did after this one. [Note that he gave absolutely no reasons for this prescription and certainly did not engage in any materia medica searches let alone any repertorization; he essentially just said that he felt or intuited the medicine’s homeopathicity, which HPHs commonly say.] A headache of several years’ standing disappeared, and there was mammary activity sufficient to nurse the baby six or seven months, which she had not been able to do with her other three children.

Here was a woman of a pronounced constitutional type, her mother possessing the same. The symptoms at the emergency were in with her constitutional makeup. [Here is another mistake of HPHs, for this goes along with their notion of remedy essences and the synonyms for that in his time, and with their erroneous notions of miasmatic layers of diseases.] Undoubtedly[,] they were a sign and result of the direction in which the organic energy had been and was being modified through deflection of the vital force [pithy expression]. Why should not a medicine – a force – which has in its own manifestation of energy the same affinity of adjustment as that existing in the perverted vital energy of the patient be able to balance the perverting force allowing the vital force to resume its original course undisturbed? [Again, he is strong on clichés, which are another characteristic of HPHs.]

All this is well known to Homoeopathicians[,] but it would seem as though these simple principles of the application of force to the sensitive animal organism might be more generally appreciated.

 

[BTox]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian
You people in allopathic medicine maintain a monopoly over it via dominance of the socio-economic realm of medicine in our times because the insurance companies only pay your kind for your effete therapies and thus forever push up the cost of health care because you cannot cure.

Does this endless spiral in medical costs make any sense?

Of course not!

The allopathic pharmaceutical companies want to maintain this dominance of world medicine through allopathic therapies; however, if those few people who're really in charge of it would realize the benefits of health and productive efficiency resultant in degrees of health known to homeopaths, they'd shift their efforts to other industries and let us have our proper place at the core of medicinal therapeutics.

Ah, the pitiful vast medical/pharmaceutical conspiracy excuse. Ask yourself one simple question: in this day of instant global information via satellite tv, radio and internet, would not the discovery of a completely different medical system that is more effective than conventional medicine be the story of the century? If there was a single documented case of a cure of a chronic disease (or any other for that matter) from homeopathy, wouldn't journalists be scrambling to confirm and break this biggest story of all time to the world? Of course they would. The fact that they haven't offers more proof than all the homeopathic rantings and ravings printed over the last 200 years that homeopathy is a 100% ineffective medical treatment system, and it's practitioners, simply frauds.

 

[BTox]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian


Some practical examples of medicine known to be needed by historical figures due to psychological elements of their cases may help.

Hitler, the megalomaniac, needed Anacardium orientale in potency.
Clinton, the falanderer (sp?), needs Lycopodium in potency.
Reagan, the indignant tyrant, needs Staphysagria in potency.
Mike Tyson, the criminal, needs Belladonna in potency.
Diane Keeton, the hysterical but charmingly loving woman, needs Ignatia in potency.
Bette Middler, the very loud-mouthed and rather simpleminded but sweet woman anyone would love to have as a sister, needs Hyocyamus in potency.
Lincoln, the brilliant and wise statesman, probably needed Phosophorus in potency.
There are many such examples.

So once again, what is the treatment for:

Hahnemannian, paranoid schizophrenic?

"Among the symptoms of Schizophrenia are: Delusions -- These are thoughts that are not real. For instance, paranoid delusions are when a person thinks everyone is out to harm them, even loved ones. Distorted thinking -- This is an inability to think straight, or make sense out of the events going on around the sufferer.

Hallucinations -- This is hearing or seeing things that are not real. As many as 75 percent of sufferers hear voices at some point. Emotionlessness -- This is when a sufferer loses the ability to express emotions.

For people to be diagnosed schizophrenic, they must show at least two different types of symptoms over a six-month period of time.

When sufferers begin to show symptoms, their behavior changes dramatically. Once outgoing and personable, they may become emotionless and antisocial.

Other warning signs that a person may be suffering from schiophrenia include:

Poor personal hygiene
Depression
Rigid stubbornness
Dropping out of activities
Drug or alcohol abuse
Unexpected hostility
Bizarre behavior
Decline in academic or athletic interests
Inappropriate response "

 

[Hahnemannian]

Hans says:

Since homeopathy apparantly eludes testing it does not qualify as science

I'm not going to let you get away with that assertion, for it is not in the slightest bit true.

Several points arise here.

First, nobody said that it does not lend itself to testing, only that testing per allopathic parameters and assumptions is impossible for the many reasons already stated.

Indeed, homeopathy is nothing but evidence from experimental and applied science, for the provings (prufung means "test or trial") are experiments and the cures are the application of the science.

--------

Secondly, not only is homeopathy scientific, it is a PURE science in that its 10 natural Laws of Medicine make it the actual Science of Medicine.

In the beginning of virtually every chemistry and physics textbook, indeed, in the beginning of most science books is found the three-point criteria of pure sciences:

1. The existence of natural laws that are
2. Absolutely verifiable and
3. Provide predictability, viz., a reasonably and relatively precise predictability of the phenomena being observed, dealt with or precipitated.

Allopathic medicine has been saying it is looking for these natural Laws of Medicine for hundreds of years.

Our response: uh ha; you bet; we have some swamp land and desertous property to sell to anybody who believes that.

----------

Science as you mean it refers to testing via scientific method.

Scientific method is the methodology whereby an hypothesis is put forward to either explain some observed phenomenon or phenomena or which otherwise provides some beneficial activity (e.g., medicinal therapeutics), which hypothesis/assumption(s)/notion(s), etc., is tested and then either confirmed or refined to further test the refined hypothesis.

Allopathic medicine readily lends itself to scientific method due to the idea that disease-diagnostic categories can be treated/cured by specific drugs FOR those disease, which is an illusion of allopathy, for NOBODY has only the common symptoms of those diagnoses and thus nothing more than a statistical abstraction is being tested.

Homeopathy in its pure form (i.e., Hahnemannian homeopathy) does not make this fundamental mistake about health, disease and therapeutics or any other mistakes involving the other two basic subjects of medicine: the nature of existence and the nature of the universe.

But scientists do not have to make this very basic mistake about medicine; they choose to.

However, all evidence from their conditioned-reflex brain reactions in word-association tests reveal that they do this due to brainwashing/conditioning/indoctrination and the so-called "education" based upon basic half-truths and lies involving allopathic constructs and assumptions about those five primary subjects of medicine.

So it is not our mistake that all school scientists in the natural sciences and all allopaths are wrong; it's their fault.

Scientific method and double blinding can, however, be used to test whether or not a homeopath is competent enough to know if the drug s/he prescribed was replaced by a placebo.

Hahnemannians would never run afoul of these tests, but low-potency pseudo-homeopaths (LPHs) always would and high-potency pseudo-homeopaths (HPHs) usually would fail such tests.

Personally, I would like to see them discredited, for they are NOT homeopaths (at most, they're students) and should shut up.

---------

If anything else arises from invoking the word science in relation to homeopathy, it escapes me at the moment.