Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
WellCookedFetus says:
If you mean "Drunken stupor" that appears under your icon, it fits you perfectly.
If you mean "Drunken stupor" that appears under your icon, it fits you perfectly.
On Homeopathy
- Thread starter timokay
- Start date
- Status
You mean “Hahnemannian” as in total crapulent lying delusional idiot it fits you perfectly
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
We now continue with our analysis and critique of the ignorant remarks by a learned Ph.D., who tells your sons and daughters these lies in academia and for which any civilized society would off his head or at least exile him:
None of these substances are used in toxic amounts.
It turns out that every substance in the universe has medicinal effects.
How they entered the homeopathic materia medica and pharmacopia are, however, matters of history.
And some of them came from the allopathic pharmacopia that were used IN TOXIC doses!
Others were used by herbal medicine also IN TOXIC doses!
What a very stupid man.
By the way, his usage of the "D4" nomenclature indicates that he is quoting French homeopaths.
I already said above that no country in the world has more low-potency pseudo-homeopaths than France, so this just indicates how ignorant and stupid the quoting author is, mister BTox (short for bovine toxin, right?).
None of these substances are used in toxic amounts.
It turns out that every substance in the universe has medicinal effects.
How they entered the homeopathic materia medica and pharmacopia are, however, matters of history.
And some of them came from the allopathic pharmacopia that were used IN TOXIC doses!
Others were used by herbal medicine also IN TOXIC doses!
What a very stupid man.
By the way, his usage of the "D4" nomenclature indicates that he is quoting French homeopaths.
I already said above that no country in the world has more low-potency pseudo-homeopaths than France, so this just indicates how ignorant and stupid the quoting author is, mister BTox (short for bovine toxin, right?).
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
WellCookedFetus says:
No, I meant that "Drunken stupor" under your icon fits you perfectly, sir.
You can shut up now, sir.
No, I meant that "Drunken stupor" under your icon fits you perfectly, sir.
You can shut up now, sir.
Last edited:
Oh ya you moronic chimpanzee, and your mother is soooo fat, when she went to the beach Greenpeace tried to drag her ass back in the water!
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Continuing with our quoting and analysis of the excellently allopathic paper quoted by one of the other dumb arses here, named BTox -- short for bovine toxin, right? -- we next find a real goodie:
We do not prescribe for an individual symptoms, sir.
Then he says they "tested remedies on themselves" but then said that they ate "various plant, animal, and mineral substances."
Lie, lie, lie!
These substances are all prepared homeopathically as potentized medicines, sir!
You should eat some unpotentized arsenic, though; I'm sure nobody would mind.
We do not prescribe for an individual symptoms, sir.
Then he says they "tested remedies on themselves" but then said that they ate "various plant, animal, and mineral substances."
Lie, lie, lie!
These substances are all prepared homeopathically as potentized medicines, sir!
You should eat some unpotentized arsenic, though; I'm sure nobody would mind.
Last edited:
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
WellCookedFetus is still drunk and proving how brain dead he chronically is, proven by this witty retort:
Well, goodie.
Guess you're still looking in the mirror, eh?
Ah, no; you must have thrown up when you did that.
Which remaining brain cell did that come from anyway?
Well, goodie.
Guess you're still looking in the mirror, eh?
Ah, no; you must have thrown up when you did that.
Which remaining brain cell did that come from anyway?
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
We again pick up with our Ph.D. hero quoted by Mr. BTox (short for bovine toxin, right?):
Yes, that's one of the Puls. symptoms, one of over 1000.
Pulsatilla is, incidentally, needed by very effeminate women and is often seen called for in the effeminate men who're the female part of male homosexuality.
We can actually cure homosexuality.
Step right up, WellCookedFetus; we'll fix ya right up.
Yes, that's one of the Puls. symptoms, one of over 1000.
Pulsatilla is, incidentally, needed by very effeminate women and is often seen called for in the effeminate men who're the female part of male homosexuality.
We can actually cure homosexuality.
Step right up, WellCookedFetus; we'll fix ya right up.
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Our analysis of the wonderfully ignorant thesis by our hero with the Ph.D., quoted by the other ignoramous named BTox, continues:
Yes, and they were Hahnemannians too.
That means they have integrity and were very accurate observers too.
Guess you wouldn't know anything about those yet, but you'll learn in the third grade about such things.
And one could not "anticipate a certain reaction or exaggerate some symptom" if they knew nothing about the substance, given that they proved new medicines all of their lives, could they?
You two wear Bullwinkle heads most of the time, don't you?
Yes, and they were Hahnemannians too.
That means they have integrity and were very accurate observers too.
Guess you wouldn't know anything about those yet, but you'll learn in the third grade about such things.
And one could not "anticipate a certain reaction or exaggerate some symptom" if they knew nothing about the substance, given that they proved new medicines all of their lives, could they?
You two wear Bullwinkle heads most of the time, don't you?
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Next we find:
Yes, and modern provings are blinded too.
Your ignorant point is what?
Yes, and modern provings are blinded too.
Your ignorant point is what?
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Another goodie follows the last one:
Okay, but you are still talking about reprobates without accurate observation.
The proving coordinator in homeopathy does not have to be blinded but characteristically is.
Happy now, fool?
Okay, but you are still talking about reprobates without accurate observation.
The proving coordinator in homeopathy does not have to be blinded but characteristically is.
Happy now, fool?
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Next, our Ph.D. hero says:
Gee, golly.
I wonder what his point is here.
----------
Nope, "did the prover..."
Remember, this is experimental work; patients only appear in clinical work.
But I guess you guys don't know anything about how to actually cure because you never actually apply science, right?
Oh, well, that's just a small slip of ignorance anyway.
Gee, golly.
I wonder what his point is here.
----------
Nope, "did the prover..."
Remember, this is experimental work; patients only appear in clinical work.
But I guess you guys don't know anything about how to actually cure because you never actually apply science, right?
Oh, well, that's just a small slip of ignorance anyway.
Last edited:
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Here's a really good allopathic statement of abject ignorance about medicine itself:
Diseases can only make themselves known to our senses by symptoms, but I guess it takes a physician to know this.
Actually, that's not true, for all of my patients know this and all down through history have also.
Guess it is only the allopathically ignorant fools who don't yet know this basic fact of medicine.
Oh well, although it's not news, it's nice to have such updates confiming that the ignorance of allopathy continues.
Our Ph.D. fool is fun.
Diseases can only make themselves known to our senses by symptoms, but I guess it takes a physician to know this.
Actually, that's not true, for all of my patients know this and all down through history have also.
Guess it is only the allopathically ignorant fools who don't yet know this basic fact of medicine.
Oh well, although it's not news, it's nice to have such updates confiming that the ignorance of allopathy continues.
Our Ph.D. fool is fun.
I see you fellows have been busy while I was sleeping. OK, here goes (cut, pasted, and snipped to my heart's content):
First Tim. You seem a bit more ..uhh.. balanced than Hahn; at least I haven't seen you wish death upon anybody yet. I think you got your quote tags out of phase in your post, but I'll try to address it:
--------------------------------------
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.
How do you propose that scientists should "give thought" to Hahnemann's works when they are told that it cannot be tested and a met by by a barrakge of lies and allegation about medical science. Quite the contrary, isn't it about time (213 years) that proponents od homeopathy gave some thought to scientific methods and started to do some testing?
Since I still want to be polite to you, I shall refrain from commenting on your "systematic guessing".
*snip* and because this happens, the coordinating function itself may be the cause (i.e., actually be "the disease"). Hahnemann called this an "untuning".
Try to get to grips with this: We (where "we" refers to proponents of modern medicine) will not accept century old authorities on medicine. You might say that this is because of the horrific record of past centuries of allopathic medicine, and so be it, but we simply have no reason to take ANYBODY's word for the superiority of their ideas. We insist on hard evidence.
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.
In short: Your argument is gone. You argued against a distributed immune system by saying that this could hardly explain how a stronger disease replaced a weaker, and you now acknowledge that it does not. Thank you.
My approach is to see things from Hahnemann's perspective.
*snip*
That is your choice, but I do not.
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??
Yes, one disease will often occupy the immune system to a degree where it cannot deal with other, concurrent diseases. We call this sequela, e.g. laryngitis or pneumonia following a bad case of flu. This only invalidates your argument further.
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.
Yet, Albert has proposed treatment for a number of named people he hasn't even met.
*snip*
"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.
*snipped references to a lot of sources *
Clusters are speculative, and anyway could not convey that level of informations. The speculative clusters only consist of a few molecules which can only be configured in a limited number of ways. They are not supposed to be a very stable phenomenon and they do not change the chemical properties of water. In short: You are grasping at straws.[/b]
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.
Is this what you call systematic guessing?
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."
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not seen before? What do you mean by that? If water forms clusters, then it has always done that. Then it retains memory of all the substances it has (at least recently) been in contact with (one shudders at the thought).
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.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You made a statement above: "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' ".
This is testable. It will not show that homeopathic drugs are useful, but it will at least show if they have an effect at all:
Choose a homeopathic drug that is supposed to give a measurable symptom, say, feever, and make a DBPC (double-blind placebo-controlled) test. That will be simple, relatively cheap, and pose minimal risk to test persons. And if you get a positive result, I can assure you that the medical profession will not be able to ignore you.
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?"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better yes, but from what? There must be an agreed starting point...Science does not recognize the Homeopath's concerns about the experiment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frankly, I think youare just evading here. Surely we can find a disease that you can agree is a disease. How about hypertension? Millions of people have this symptom, and in about 60% of the cases no cause can be found.
Does homeopathy propose a treatment for that? In that case we have a test:
Patients with mild hypertension are in little or no danger if treatment is postponed for a few months. The condition is objectively measurable, a prime candidate for a DBPC test.
Think of the fame, think of the vindication, think of the earning potential. What ARE you waiting for???
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.
If there are no adverse symptoms it is not a disease, and science certainly does not claim it is. Our bodies are crawling with micro-organisms, especially the digestive tracht. Some of them are even very benificial.
*snipped more references to Hahnemann's works *
Now do you understand my motivations?
Frankly, no.
* long snip*
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.
Do you call unfounded slander a refreshing hit back? Why not hit back in a way that would really send modern medicine reeling? By actually proving that homeopathy works.
*snip*
Kindly present some evidence against Hahnemann's Homeopathy. Even experiments on Modern Homeopathy are clearly flawed because the Scientist simply does not understand Homeopathy.
Get this: It is not the duty of science to disprove your thesis. You present a thesis, you are obliged to supply the evidence.
You know the invisible unicorn argument? It goes like this:
Me: I have an invisible unicorn in my garden.
You: That is nonsense, there is no such thing as invisible unicorns!
Me: Well, disprove it then.
You cannot ask anybody to prove a negative. The failure of others to disprove YOUR thesis does not vindicate it. The only thing that can vindicate your thesis is evidence supplied by YOU.
Notice that I am not asking you to disprove allopathy (although Albert is trying hard to do just that).
* snipped a number of statements saying that homeopathy does work. *
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independent evidence. YOU believe in Hahnemann's statements, but I don't. Why should I? The world is full of fairie tales, why should I believe this one? If it is so efficient, why will you not demonstrate it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until some people in the Scientific community looks seriously at Homeopathy, as you appear to be doing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm afraid you get me wrong. If you can prove it works, I shall accept it with no reservations, but my present position is that it is just another quack theory. I am a skeptic, however, and this means that ANY position I hold is subject to change, given adequate evidence.
Tim: Unfortunately, virtually all of them do more harm than good. It depends on which medicine we are talking about.
*snip*
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not saying that Modern Medicine does more harm than good, but in MANY CASES it does so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical science has made its share of the blunders, but to say that is does more harm than good is an insult to the many hard-working scientists and practitioners whose foremost goal is to help other people. And it is untrue.
Hans
First Tim. You seem a bit more ..uhh.. balanced than Hahn; at least I haven't seen you wish death upon anybody yet. I think you got your quote tags out of phase in your post, but I'll try to address it:
--------------------------------------
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.
How do you propose that scientists should "give thought" to Hahnemann's works when they are told that it cannot be tested and a met by by a barrakge of lies and allegation about medical science. Quite the contrary, isn't it about time (213 years) that proponents od homeopathy gave some thought to scientific methods and started to do some testing?
Since I still want to be polite to you, I shall refrain from commenting on your "systematic guessing".
*snip* and because this happens, the coordinating function itself may be the cause (i.e., actually be "the disease"). Hahnemann called this an "untuning".
Try to get to grips with this: We (where "we" refers to proponents of modern medicine) will not accept century old authorities on medicine. You might say that this is because of the horrific record of past centuries of allopathic medicine, and so be it, but we simply have no reason to take ANYBODY's word for the superiority of their ideas. We insist on hard evidence.
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.
In short: Your argument is gone. You argued against a distributed immune system by saying that this could hardly explain how a stronger disease replaced a weaker, and you now acknowledge that it does not. Thank you.
My approach is to see things from Hahnemann's perspective.
*snip*
That is your choice, but I do not.
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??
Yes, one disease will often occupy the immune system to a degree where it cannot deal with other, concurrent diseases. We call this sequela, e.g. laryngitis or pneumonia following a bad case of flu. This only invalidates your argument further.
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.
Yet, Albert has proposed treatment for a number of named people he hasn't even met.
*snip*
"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.
*snipped references to a lot of sources *
Clusters are speculative, and anyway could not convey that level of informations. The speculative clusters only consist of a few molecules which can only be configured in a limited number of ways. They are not supposed to be a very stable phenomenon and they do not change the chemical properties of water. In short: You are grasping at straws.[/b]
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.
Is this what you call systematic guessing?
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."
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not seen before? What do you mean by that? If water forms clusters, then it has always done that. Then it retains memory of all the substances it has (at least recently) been in contact with (one shudders at the thought).
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.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You made a statement above: "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' ".
This is testable. It will not show that homeopathic drugs are useful, but it will at least show if they have an effect at all:
Choose a homeopathic drug that is supposed to give a measurable symptom, say, feever, and make a DBPC (double-blind placebo-controlled) test. That will be simple, relatively cheap, and pose minimal risk to test persons. And if you get a positive result, I can assure you that the medical profession will not be able to ignore you.
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?"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better yes, but from what? There must be an agreed starting point...Science does not recognize the Homeopath's concerns about the experiment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frankly, I think youare just evading here. Surely we can find a disease that you can agree is a disease. How about hypertension? Millions of people have this symptom, and in about 60% of the cases no cause can be found.
Does homeopathy propose a treatment for that? In that case we have a test:
Patients with mild hypertension are in little or no danger if treatment is postponed for a few months. The condition is objectively measurable, a prime candidate for a DBPC test.
Think of the fame, think of the vindication, think of the earning potential. What ARE you waiting for???
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.
If there are no adverse symptoms it is not a disease, and science certainly does not claim it is. Our bodies are crawling with micro-organisms, especially the digestive tracht. Some of them are even very benificial.
*snipped more references to Hahnemann's works *
Now do you understand my motivations?
Frankly, no.
* long snip*
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.
Do you call unfounded slander a refreshing hit back? Why not hit back in a way that would really send modern medicine reeling? By actually proving that homeopathy works.
*snip*
Kindly present some evidence against Hahnemann's Homeopathy. Even experiments on Modern Homeopathy are clearly flawed because the Scientist simply does not understand Homeopathy.
Get this: It is not the duty of science to disprove your thesis. You present a thesis, you are obliged to supply the evidence.
You know the invisible unicorn argument? It goes like this:
Me: I have an invisible unicorn in my garden.
You: That is nonsense, there is no such thing as invisible unicorns!
Me: Well, disprove it then.
You cannot ask anybody to prove a negative. The failure of others to disprove YOUR thesis does not vindicate it. The only thing that can vindicate your thesis is evidence supplied by YOU.
Notice that I am not asking you to disprove allopathy (although Albert is trying hard to do just that).
* snipped a number of statements saying that homeopathy does work. *
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independent evidence. YOU believe in Hahnemann's statements, but I don't. Why should I? The world is full of fairie tales, why should I believe this one? If it is so efficient, why will you not demonstrate it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until some people in the Scientific community looks seriously at Homeopathy, as you appear to be doing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm afraid you get me wrong. If you can prove it works, I shall accept it with no reservations, but my present position is that it is just another quack theory. I am a skeptic, however, and this means that ANY position I hold is subject to change, given adequate evidence.
Tim: Unfortunately, virtually all of them do more harm than good. It depends on which medicine we are talking about.
*snip*
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not saying that Modern Medicine does more harm than good, but in MANY CASES it does so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical science has made its share of the blunders, but to say that is does more harm than good is an insult to the many hard-working scientists and practitioners whose foremost goal is to help other people. And it is untrue.
Hans
Now for Hahnemannian:
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.
Don't be ridiculous! I am attacking your position, and I have at no point attempted to hide this. It is not up to you to make demands. You have come to a debate forum, so expect debate. You can choose to ignore me, but that will only weaken your position. I might have been inclined to let you off easy, but after your latest personal attacs, that is not going to happen. I shall be contesting your every argument here, no holds barred.
I do not profess to have knowledge about homeopathy, quite the contrary, I am asking you questions about it. And you are largely evading and obfusciating instead of answering them.
----------
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?
It is of value because it can be proved to work. Apparantly unlike homeopathy.
*snip *
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.
Evidence? --- I'd better elaborate: Anecdotical tales printed in Hahnemann's books about patient's records over a century ago does NOT constitute evidence. Not just because we are not inclined to believe one word of it, but because no verification is possible.
*snip*
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.
This is blatant nonsense. I'm sure some people in the medical industry would just love to have such a monopoly (there exist people who will do anything for money), but it does not work that way. The industry has no real control over practitioners nor governments, and there are thousands of independant researchers. There is NO way a viable methodology could be suppressed for any amount of time. You are simply evading because deep down you know that homeopathy will fail objective tests.
* snipped more rants about how persecired homeopatics is *
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Till such time as you produce some verifiable evidence, I shall be forced to conclude that you are indeed very much mistaken.
*snip*
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.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes on Homoeopathic Practice in Obstetric Cases
Royal E.S. Hayes, M.D.,
THE [Cincinnati] MEDICAL ADVANCE
Vol. 15 (1907)
*snip*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A case story from 1907 (!), about obstretic complications. It is heavily interspierced with propagandistic statements about homeopathy, showing the practitioner's firm belief in that regimen.
The course of events and outcome of the case are unremarkable, but not surprisingly, the practitioner sees it as a result of homepathic medicine.
It is a subjective and unverifiable account, its evidence value on par with anecdotes.
If this be the charecter of all your evidences, I am not surprised that it has been dismissed by the scientific community.
Next post.
Hans says:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Let ME get away with it?? It is YOU who has repeatedly stated that tests could not be applied, why I have insisted that they could. Are you totally crazy?
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.
You said it could not be tested. There is nothing allopathic about DBPC testing; the principles are used in all disciplines of science. But this protocol is just my suggestion. If you can suggest some other protocol that will provide an objective result, then by all means do so.
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.
But so far you have only provided anecdotical evidence of this.
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.
It adheres to laws made by its own proponents; great!
* big snip*
If anything else arises from invoking the word science in relation to homeopathy, it escapes me at the moment
What arises for me is the notion that we use fundamentally different definitions of the word "science".
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.
Don't be ridiculous! I am attacking your position, and I have at no point attempted to hide this. It is not up to you to make demands. You have come to a debate forum, so expect debate. You can choose to ignore me, but that will only weaken your position. I might have been inclined to let you off easy, but after your latest personal attacs, that is not going to happen. I shall be contesting your every argument here, no holds barred.
I do not profess to have knowledge about homeopathy, quite the contrary, I am asking you questions about it. And you are largely evading and obfusciating instead of answering them.
----------
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?
It is of value because it can be proved to work. Apparantly unlike homeopathy.
*snip *
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.
Evidence? --- I'd better elaborate: Anecdotical tales printed in Hahnemann's books about patient's records over a century ago does NOT constitute evidence. Not just because we are not inclined to believe one word of it, but because no verification is possible.
*snip*
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.
This is blatant nonsense. I'm sure some people in the medical industry would just love to have such a monopoly (there exist people who will do anything for money), but it does not work that way. The industry has no real control over practitioners nor governments, and there are thousands of independant researchers. There is NO way a viable methodology could be suppressed for any amount of time. You are simply evading because deep down you know that homeopathy will fail objective tests.
* snipped more rants about how persecired homeopatics is *
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Till such time as you produce some verifiable evidence, I shall be forced to conclude that you are indeed very much mistaken.
*snip*
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.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes on Homoeopathic Practice in Obstetric Cases
Royal E.S. Hayes, M.D.,
THE [Cincinnati] MEDICAL ADVANCE
Vol. 15 (1907)
*snip*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A case story from 1907 (!), about obstretic complications. It is heavily interspierced with propagandistic statements about homeopathy, showing the practitioner's firm belief in that regimen.
The course of events and outcome of the case are unremarkable, but not surprisingly, the practitioner sees it as a result of homepathic medicine.
It is a subjective and unverifiable account, its evidence value on par with anecdotes.
If this be the charecter of all your evidences, I am not surprised that it has been dismissed by the scientific community.
Next post.
Hans says:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Let ME get away with it?? It is YOU who has repeatedly stated that tests could not be applied, why I have insisted that they could. Are you totally crazy?
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.
You said it could not be tested. There is nothing allopathic about DBPC testing; the principles are used in all disciplines of science. But this protocol is just my suggestion. If you can suggest some other protocol that will provide an objective result, then by all means do so.
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.
But so far you have only provided anecdotical evidence of this.
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.
It adheres to laws made by its own proponents; great!
* big snip*
If anything else arises from invoking the word science in relation to homeopathy, it escapes me at the moment
What arises for me is the notion that we use fundamentally different definitions of the word "science".
Hans
Btox,
"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."
Kindly tell me when it was disproven? ..and by whom? It's the first I've heard of it. But you, having a degree, are obviously a person of integrity and one who bases his beliefs on facts - otherwise they are just prejudices.
"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".
It remains to be seen - just one of the possible carriers of the Homeopathic signal.
"Nonsense. I have personally tried several different "remedies" at low and high potency. No effects whatsoever."
Tried? One dose? Several remedies, selected randomly, is not enough.
I have challenged several people and thereby exposed their level of commitment to this issue because they do not accept the challenge: Obtain Bryonia 6c from your Chemist(Boots) or Drugstore...Nelson's is the best brand name. Take 2 tablets every two hours between meals. Shortly after the second of third dose you will begin to feel symptoms. If not, continue with a fourth dose. Discontinue dosing when the symptoms appear. It will wear off after a day or two.
"Nothing about homeopathy makes the least bit of sense from a biochemical standpoint."
That only means it is DIFFERENT.
"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."
Offensive. "Not a single case". More than 200 years of cases extensively documented in Homeopathic literature. Science not wanting to read it - I "find that odd".
You are just a very prejudiced and uninformed person, and I will not be replying to any more of your pathetic and predictable posts.
"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."
Kindly tell me when it was disproven? ..and by whom? It's the first I've heard of it. But you, having a degree, are obviously a person of integrity and one who bases his beliefs on facts - otherwise they are just prejudices.
"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".
It remains to be seen - just one of the possible carriers of the Homeopathic signal.
"Nonsense. I have personally tried several different "remedies" at low and high potency. No effects whatsoever."
Tried? One dose? Several remedies, selected randomly, is not enough.
I have challenged several people and thereby exposed their level of commitment to this issue because they do not accept the challenge: Obtain Bryonia 6c from your Chemist(Boots) or Drugstore...Nelson's is the best brand name. Take 2 tablets every two hours between meals. Shortly after the second of third dose you will begin to feel symptoms. If not, continue with a fourth dose. Discontinue dosing when the symptoms appear. It will wear off after a day or two.
"Nothing about homeopathy makes the least bit of sense from a biochemical standpoint."
That only means it is DIFFERENT.
"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."
Offensive. "Not a single case". More than 200 years of cases extensively documented in Homeopathic literature. Science not wanting to read it - I "find that odd".
You are just a very prejudiced and uninformed person, and I will not be replying to any more of your pathetic and predictable posts.
More Hahnemannian:
However, I see what your problem is: You feel that the case stories published by Hahnemann (and probably others) are evidence. I have to tell you they are not. Even if we were to believe every word in them, they prove only that somebody had some disease and got well. They do not prove that homeopathy made them well.
Let me give you an example: John had a wart. He went to the witch doctor for help. The witch doctor gave him a yellow powder and told him to put a little of this under his pillow each evening. After two months of this, John's wart went away.
Now, did the witch doctor cure him?
So back to business: Sure you have provided some evidence. We REJECT your evidence as inconclusive. If you want us to consider homeopathy, you must produce some evidence that is objective and verifiable.
If you produce such evidence THEN we will have to examine and verify it.
Do you understand what I am saying?
Hans
It does not matter how many times you repeat it, you are still wrong. It is always and will always be the duty of the proponent t oproduce evidence.
However, I see what your problem is: You feel that the case stories published by Hahnemann (and probably others) are evidence. I have to tell you they are not. Even if we were to believe every word in them, they prove only that somebody had some disease and got well. They do not prove that homeopathy made them well.
Let me give you an example: John had a wart. He went to the witch doctor for help. The witch doctor gave him a yellow powder and told him to put a little of this under his pillow each evening. After two months of this, John's wart went away.
Now, did the witch doctor cure him?
So back to business: Sure you have provided some evidence. We REJECT your evidence as inconclusive. If you want us to consider homeopathy, you must produce some evidence that is objective and verifiable.
If you produce such evidence THEN we will have to examine and verify it.
Do you understand what I am saying?
Hans
More:
Folks,
Here is the impassable wall that allopaths and allopathic proponents in the natural sciences errect about homeopathy:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect that your "documentation" will turn out to be little more than anecdotes, but you have the opportunity to prove me wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They call our clinical evidence "anecdotal."
Like it or not, that is the term for accounts that cannot be verified. All of the accounts you have cited so far are written by long-dead people about other long-dead people. How do you propose to verify those accounts?
They are just words on paper. Hence "anecdotical".
*snip*
Hans says:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is interesting that you get "offended" by criticism, but you do not hold youself too good to call others liars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfair criticism, yes, like calling our cures of ALL unnecessary human and animal suffering "anecdotal" and thus a priori dismissing it just because your assumptions about health, disease, therapeutics, the nature of existence and the nature of the universe are a series of half-truths and lies.
This is not the reason I dismiss it. I dismiss it because it cannot be verified.
Who cares if you dismiss it?
You seem to do. Why else the foaming rage?
*snipped: Hahnemannian again repeatedly accuses allopaths of being liars.*
I listed the 10 natural Laws of Medicine and got this initial response from Hans:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are here presenting a circular argument: Allopathy is not right because it is not homeopathy which is why it is wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is wrong because it is wrong and demonstrates it every day by not being able to cure or even properly understand the phenomena of their field.
Repeated circular argument. Thank you for proving my point.
* snipped: Long rant including karma and other esotheric subjects. Apparantly Hahnemannian believes in most everything *
Hans says and asks:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"?).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You had better cool it with the insults, man.
Why? Can't you take what you are giving? Bleak.
*snip*
For instance, one of the first tests of homeopathy is a high-potency self-proving?
Who is keeping you from doing so?
Ehhh, what is high-potency self-proving? And what does it prove?
*snip*
Hans says:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that right?
Your school sold bloodletting and calomelization for 2600 years.
No. Earlier medical schools sold all kinds of mumbo-jumbo because they had not discovered the scientific method. MY school works by scientific testing. We do not market products unless we can prove that it works, in fact we are not even allowed to.
YOUR school sells unsupported 18th century remedies.
Hans says:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know how homeopathic medicines enter the the homeopathic pharmacopia and materia medica.
Doubted.
I will be submitting one in about a year.
I doubt that you have the slightest idea how that happens.
No doubt you mean how allopathics enter the environment of allopathic medical practice.
Exactly. I don't give a hoot about how it enters the homeopathic system. YOU are whining about not being recignized by the medical establishment and I am telling you how you could be. This is entirely hypothetical, of course, since it would require your medicines to work
We do not care since they will forever be skull-and-crossbones drugs from the Dark Ages.
Translation: We will not attempt this because we will surely fail.
You can document their properties all you want; it does not affect homeotherapeutics for allopaths to eternally engage in this process at the expense of human life.
Translation: Don't disturb us with facts.
Stay deluded that curative benefits ensure from allopathic medicine; we do not care.
Translation: If you prefer medicine that works, there is little we can do about it.
You will be searching for cures till the end of time.
Ahhh, yes agreed. And we will keep finding them.
*snip*
Hans says to my remarks:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analgesics are not disease cures, are they?
According to a resident homeopath, they are: "No sypton, no disease"
And homone-replacement therapies are not either, are they?
See above. Plus some hormone therapies are cures, e.g. growth hormone.
I do not know what you mean by protein replacement but assume you're talking about RNA-synthesis processes.
Insulin comes to mind. And no, it is not a cure, but it still saves lives.
We do not care about effete therapies.
Neither do we. Therefore we reject homeopathy.
Hans says to my remark:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Me:] Unfortunately, almost all patients today are so allopathically brainwashed that only my long-term patients avoid them unless necessary.
[Hans:] I'm relieved to hear that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a sin, and I'm losing patience with you.
Can you define a sin, sir?
Since you used the word, you can define it, I'm sure.
Hans
Finally:
Hans asks to my remark:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Me:] 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,
[Hans:] Antibiotics are not perfect, but what are those MORE serious diseases?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of them, it seems.
What is that supposed to mean?
Asthma is, however, well demonstrated from allopathy itself as being an iatrogenic disease in a great majority of cases.
In the majority of cases? References, please. And we were talking about antibiotics. Last time I looked, asthma was not a typical side effect of antibiotics.
Are you going to say it isn't?
Seems I did
Hans says to my remark:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Me:] for the Laws of Cure demonstrate what we say is true.
[Hans:] No, your own doctrines do not demonstrate anything. You are effectively saying: "What I say is true because I have said it is true".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, natural laws prove our assertions.
That is what I have been asking you about RIGHT from the start: Which natural laws are supporting your thesis AT ALL?
Ahh, wait! You are talking about those you people invented yourselves? I'm afraid they don't count. At least till you can provide some evidence for them.
Have lost patience with you, sir.
byeeeeeeeeee
Unfortunately for you, I have not lost patience yet, so you will continue to hear from me. If you do not reply, that is your choice. I will not miss having to read through your drivel.
Hans
Hans asks to my remark:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Me:] 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,
[Hans:] Antibiotics are not perfect, but what are those MORE serious diseases?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of them, it seems.
What is that supposed to mean?
Asthma is, however, well demonstrated from allopathy itself as being an iatrogenic disease in a great majority of cases.
In the majority of cases? References, please. And we were talking about antibiotics. Last time I looked, asthma was not a typical side effect of antibiotics.
Are you going to say it isn't?
Seems I did
Hans says to my remark:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Me:] for the Laws of Cure demonstrate what we say is true.
[Hans:] No, your own doctrines do not demonstrate anything. You are effectively saying: "What I say is true because I have said it is true".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, natural laws prove our assertions.
That is what I have been asking you about RIGHT from the start: Which natural laws are supporting your thesis AT ALL?
Ahh, wait! You are talking about those you people invented yourselves? I'm afraid they don't count. At least till you can provide some evidence for them.
Have lost patience with you, sir.
byeeeeeeeeee
Unfortunately for you, I have not lost patience yet, so you will continue to hear from me. If you do not reply, that is your choice. I will not miss having to read through your drivel.
Hans
Hans,
Pasting things together like this makes them look like a contradiction. In the first quote, I refer to "medicines"...in the second to "Modern Medicine".
Tim: Unfortunately, virtually all of them do more harm than good. It depends on which medicine we are talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim: I am not saying that Modern Medicine does more harm than good, but in MANY CASES it does so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THEREFORE, YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD, AND MADE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
Hans: Medical science has made its share of the blunders, but to say that is does more harm than good is an insult to the many hard-working scientists and practitioners whose foremost goal is to help other people. And it is untrue.
Many MEDICINES, and not MEDICAL SCIENCE, do more harm than good.
Hans: "to say that is does more harm than good is an insult to the many hard-working scientists and practitioners whose foremost goal is to help other people. "
Substitute "homeopaths" for "scientists" above to understand the other viewpoint. Homeopaths are people too.
"wish(ing) death upon anybody" is only Albert's way of saying he likes you.
"How do you propose that scientists should "give thought" to Hahnemann's works when they are told that it cannot be tested "
You have to walk before you can run. Science must be prepared to step over the fence into Homeopathy for a while and study it before any testing can be considered.
"isn't it about time (213 years) that proponents of homeopathy gave some thought to scientific methods and started to do some testing?"
So, it's up to Homeopathy to devise, and then to do, SCIENTIFIC testing is it? They are not trained in Scientific method...know nothing about it.
So, who wants this to happen?
Apparently, only independent people like me, and Albert too, who would like to see millions with chronic diseases cured.
You mentioned Syphilis in the previous post to me:
Re. Syphilis and Sycosis (gonorrhoea)..two of the first chronic diseases completely cured by Hahnemann. "Psora" was his name for all other chronic diseases. If any of these diseases co-exist in the patient, they must be eradicated in sequence - syphilis, sycosis, psora.
Summary: "Even syphilis, which on account of its easy curability yields to the smallest dose of the best preparation of mercury, and sycosis, which on account of the slight difficulty in its cure through a few doses of thuja and nitric acid in alternation, only pass into a tedious malady difficult to cure when they are complicated with psora."
Hans: "Since I still want to be polite to you, I shall refrain from commenting on your "systematic guessing".
Feel free. You obviously have little experience of problem solving. There is actually a profession that deals with this. The proposals I am making are based on Hahnemann's detailed observations during his 53 years of work on his system of Medicine. If you were actually aware of this work you may see how the proposal fits a significant number of the facts.
Hans: "We insist on hard evidence."
In a nutshell, the problem discussed above.
Hans: "In short: Your argument is gone. You argued against a distributed immune system by saying that this could hardly explain how a stronger disease replaced a weaker, and you now acknowledge that it does not. Thank you."
You're a disappointment. My objective is to develop the best logical model from the observations made, not to make a cast-iron model at the first attempt. It is not an "argument", but a proposal or model that will evolve. Many people, i.e. 100% of Scientists, do not understand the methodology of systems analysis...thinks it's a boxing match where they have to keep throwing punches.
Maybe you should go back to bed again for a few hours.
I DID NOT argue against a distributed immune system, but that it has somewhere a coordinated controlling component.
Hans: "Yes, one disease will often occupy the immune system to a degree where it cannot deal with other, concurrent diseases. We call this sequela, e.g. laryngitis or pneumonia following a bad case of flu. This only invalidates your argument further."
"This is a Heavyweight Championship bout between Han in the white corner and Tim in the red corner".
.....Round one to Hans.
So, you are saying that two or three diseases CAN all process unobstructed in the body at the same time, except in the above cases? If so, can you point me to some literature relating to this? I have searched far and wide.
Hans: "Not seen before? What do you mean by that? If water forms clusters, then it has always done that."
Not seen means not measured. This is nothing to do with "systematic guessing" - just research I am still looking into...again you jump to conclusions (1). without reading my words carefully AND 2). assume this is an "argument" or boxing match.
Pasting things together like this makes them look like a contradiction. In the first quote, I refer to "medicines"...in the second to "Modern Medicine".
Tim: Unfortunately, virtually all of them do more harm than good. It depends on which medicine we are talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim: I am not saying that Modern Medicine does more harm than good, but in MANY CASES it does so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THEREFORE, YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD, AND MADE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
Hans: Medical science has made its share of the blunders, but to say that is does more harm than good is an insult to the many hard-working scientists and practitioners whose foremost goal is to help other people. And it is untrue.
Many MEDICINES, and not MEDICAL SCIENCE, do more harm than good.
Hans: "to say that is does more harm than good is an insult to the many hard-working scientists and practitioners whose foremost goal is to help other people. "
Substitute "homeopaths" for "scientists" above to understand the other viewpoint. Homeopaths are people too.
"wish(ing) death upon anybody" is only Albert's way of saying he likes you.
"How do you propose that scientists should "give thought" to Hahnemann's works when they are told that it cannot be tested "
You have to walk before you can run. Science must be prepared to step over the fence into Homeopathy for a while and study it before any testing can be considered.
"isn't it about time (213 years) that proponents of homeopathy gave some thought to scientific methods and started to do some testing?"
So, it's up to Homeopathy to devise, and then to do, SCIENTIFIC testing is it? They are not trained in Scientific method...know nothing about it.
So, who wants this to happen?
Apparently, only independent people like me, and Albert too, who would like to see millions with chronic diseases cured.
You mentioned Syphilis in the previous post to me:
Re. Syphilis and Sycosis (gonorrhoea)..two of the first chronic diseases completely cured by Hahnemann. "Psora" was his name for all other chronic diseases. If any of these diseases co-exist in the patient, they must be eradicated in sequence - syphilis, sycosis, psora.
Summary: "Even syphilis, which on account of its easy curability yields to the smallest dose of the best preparation of mercury, and sycosis, which on account of the slight difficulty in its cure through a few doses of thuja and nitric acid in alternation, only pass into a tedious malady difficult to cure when they are complicated with psora."
Hans: "Since I still want to be polite to you, I shall refrain from commenting on your "systematic guessing".
Feel free. You obviously have little experience of problem solving. There is actually a profession that deals with this. The proposals I am making are based on Hahnemann's detailed observations during his 53 years of work on his system of Medicine. If you were actually aware of this work you may see how the proposal fits a significant number of the facts.
Hans: "We insist on hard evidence."
In a nutshell, the problem discussed above.
Hans: "In short: Your argument is gone. You argued against a distributed immune system by saying that this could hardly explain how a stronger disease replaced a weaker, and you now acknowledge that it does not. Thank you."
You're a disappointment. My objective is to develop the best logical model from the observations made, not to make a cast-iron model at the first attempt. It is not an "argument", but a proposal or model that will evolve. Many people, i.e. 100% of Scientists, do not understand the methodology of systems analysis...thinks it's a boxing match where they have to keep throwing punches.
Maybe you should go back to bed again for a few hours.
I DID NOT argue against a distributed immune system, but that it has somewhere a coordinated controlling component.
Hans: "Yes, one disease will often occupy the immune system to a degree where it cannot deal with other, concurrent diseases. We call this sequela, e.g. laryngitis or pneumonia following a bad case of flu. This only invalidates your argument further."
"This is a Heavyweight Championship bout between Han in the white corner and Tim in the red corner".
.....Round one to Hans.
So, you are saying that two or three diseases CAN all process unobstructed in the body at the same time, except in the above cases? If so, can you point me to some literature relating to this? I have searched far and wide.
Hans: "Not seen before? What do you mean by that? If water forms clusters, then it has always done that."
Not seen means not measured. This is nothing to do with "systematic guessing" - just research I am still looking into...again you jump to conclusions (1). without reading my words carefully AND 2). assume this is an "argument" or boxing match.
- Status