On Homeopathy
- Thread starter timokay
- Start date
- Status
Hahnemannian,
You know what the ultimate state of pathetic is? Its a Homeopathy doctor that comes here and waste hours of his life everyday making claims that none of us will ever accept and reduced to childish name calling when prompted to.
You know what the ultimate state of pathetic is? Its a Homeopathy doctor that comes here and waste hours of his life everyday making claims that none of us will ever accept and reduced to childish name calling when prompted to.
Originally posted by timokay
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".
If you talk about warous quack medicines, I can only agree. However, I assumed we were explusively discussing Homeopathy contra 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.
Fine, we have no issue there, then
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.
Fine, I can accept that. I am sure there are serious people there who are genuinely working to help people. However, this makes their reluctance to test for efficiacy even more incomprehensible.
"wish(ing) death upon anybody" is only Albert's way of saying he likes you.
Ahh, I see. Well, don't worry, I shall not hold it against him (it might, however, influence slightly my tone of communication).
"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.
Again, Homepaths are making the claim. They have the burden of proof. What keeps them from "stepping over the fence" and do the testing the scientific way?
"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.
Turn that upside down: Scientist are not trained in Homeopathic methods. Anyhow it does not require training. You can get somebody with scientific training to design the test.
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.
Wouldn't we all?
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."
Most prefer a shot of antibiotics, though. Earlier doctors used mercury, but the side-effects were bad. Not as bad as the disease, though.
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.
Yeah, and that happens to be the profession I am in. But the first prequisite is to realize that there is a problem, and you do not seem to.
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.
Books by long dead people about other long dead people do not constitute hard evidence.
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.
Translation: "I will go on fabulating instead of devicing a conclusive test."
Maybe you should go back to bed again for a few hours.
Timezones, you know....
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.
I'm not sure what you mean. There exists all sorts of relationships between diseases. The most common is when one disease weakens the immune system and opens the way for opportunistic infections. Measles and its many possible complications are a well-known example. Another, even more grim, is of course AIDS.
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.
You said "not seen by the immune system". If water forms clusters, then our immune system has seen them, and does every time we dring water.
It is hard to have a meaningful debate without excanging a few punches.
Hans
I think from your rejection of Scientific methodology Hahnemannian, you demonstrate your lack of understanding of science. Scientific method does not have any hidden aims or prejudices. It is not owned by anyone, not manipulated by anyone and has no secret adjenda. It is merely a means whereby cause and effects can be proved.
If you doubt scientific methodology i suggest you defocus your eyes, and look at the first item you see. A MONITOR. This is undoubtably connected to a COMPUTER. These are products of science. I suggest that these should be adequate proof for the reliability of science.
Modern medicine is based on scientific methodology. procedures, drugs intereventions are shown to work, are proved to work, with a wealth of evidence to back up each claim. This evidence is debated, refined and redebated until a consensus or near consensus is reached. It is a very succesful method.
What has homeopathy got to suggest that it works? Nothing.
Maybe you could take some of your homeopathetic cures to the Congo next time they get a viral outbreak. See how succesfull they are. This could provide a Darwin entry!
edited to add (please note that many real doctors do indeed fly to these areas to help the population, through the application of modern medicine techniques the spread of these viral diseases is very much reduced and many lives are saved. I think a homeopath in that situation would be a danger to himself and those around)
If you doubt scientific methodology i suggest you defocus your eyes, and look at the first item you see. A MONITOR. This is undoubtably connected to a COMPUTER. These are products of science. I suggest that these should be adequate proof for the reliability of science.
Modern medicine is based on scientific methodology. procedures, drugs intereventions are shown to work, are proved to work, with a wealth of evidence to back up each claim. This evidence is debated, refined and redebated until a consensus or near consensus is reached. It is a very succesful method.
What has homeopathy got to suggest that it works? Nothing.
Maybe you could take some of your homeopathetic cures to the Congo next time they get a viral outbreak. See how succesfull they are. This could provide a Darwin entry!
edited to add (please note that many real doctors do indeed fly to these areas to help the population, through the application of modern medicine techniques the spread of these viral diseases is very much reduced and many lives are saved. I think a homeopath in that situation would be a danger to himself and those around)
Last edited:
He won a Darwin award last year, sorry your to late.
Hans: "Translation: "I will go on fabulating instead of devicing a conclusive test."
It is "fabulating" to you, "developing models" to me.
A good model is the precursor of possible "conclusive tests". I have a spinal model that may yield a conclusive test, if you're interested.
Is there a simple "in vitro" test for the initiation/activation of the immune response - just the triggering of it?
Could test Homeopathic solutions for positive activation. ("Dendritic cells and T-cells interact to initiate an immune response".)
Hans: "I'm not sure what you mean. There exists all sorts of relationships between diseases. The most common is when one disease weakens the immune system and opens the way for opportunistic infections."
What I mean is the cascading processes during disease. E.g., Do the cytokines produced in response to disease agent 1 have specificity in their actions to disease 1, and act completely independently from the cytokines produced by simultaneous disease 2? (Do all the cytokines know which disease they belong to?)
Is there no conflict whatsoever between duplicate cells/molecules and activities of these diseases, going on in the lymphatic/blood systems, thymus, bone marrow, etc.?
Hahnemann, thru' tireless experimentation, found that one disease dominates and presents its symptoms. I know you have answered that, but Hahhnemann said the symptoms of the second disease do not express themselves at all while disease 1 is processed.
Hans: "However, this makes their reluctance to test for efficiacy even more incomprehensible."
Are they reluctant? Who Scientifically tests something?
Hans: "Turn that upside down: Scientist are not trained in Homeopathic methods. Anyhow it does not require training. You can get somebody with scientific training to design the test."
CATCH 22.
Hans: "Most prefer a shot of antibiotics, though. Earlier doctors used mercury, but the side-effects were bad. Not as bad as the disease, though."
One dose of Homeopathic mercury is 100% effective and causes no side-effects. Not many antibiotics around 200 years ago.
Tim
It is "fabulating" to you, "developing models" to me.
A good model is the precursor of possible "conclusive tests". I have a spinal model that may yield a conclusive test, if you're interested.
Is there a simple "in vitro" test for the initiation/activation of the immune response - just the triggering of it?
Could test Homeopathic solutions for positive activation. ("Dendritic cells and T-cells interact to initiate an immune response".)
Hans: "I'm not sure what you mean. There exists all sorts of relationships between diseases. The most common is when one disease weakens the immune system and opens the way for opportunistic infections."
What I mean is the cascading processes during disease. E.g., Do the cytokines produced in response to disease agent 1 have specificity in their actions to disease 1, and act completely independently from the cytokines produced by simultaneous disease 2? (Do all the cytokines know which disease they belong to?)
Is there no conflict whatsoever between duplicate cells/molecules and activities of these diseases, going on in the lymphatic/blood systems, thymus, bone marrow, etc.?
Hahnemann, thru' tireless experimentation, found that one disease dominates and presents its symptoms. I know you have answered that, but Hahhnemann said the symptoms of the second disease do not express themselves at all while disease 1 is processed.
Hans: "However, this makes their reluctance to test for efficiacy even more incomprehensible."
Are they reluctant? Who Scientifically tests something?
Hans: "Turn that upside down: Scientist are not trained in Homeopathic methods. Anyhow it does not require training. You can get somebody with scientific training to design the test."
CATCH 22.
Hans: "Most prefer a shot of antibiotics, though. Earlier doctors used mercury, but the side-effects were bad. Not as bad as the disease, though."
One dose of Homeopathic mercury is 100% effective and causes no side-effects. Not many antibiotics around 200 years ago.
Tim
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Hans says:
How?
How?
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Hans says:
Natural laws are made in Nature, and that is why they're called natural laws.
Natural laws are made in Nature, and that is why they're called natural laws.
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Hans says:
No, I don't begin to understand your sophistries.
And, since you asked me such a stupid question after all of that recurring nonsense of pseudo-science pretending to be scientific views, I will ask you if it is not yet obvious to you why the typically agonal, horrible and premature iatrogenic death in allopathic hands is going to much deserved by you and your allopathically indoctrinated kind?
No, I don't begin to understand your sophistries.
And, since you asked me such a stupid question after all of that recurring nonsense of pseudo-science pretending to be scientific views, I will ask you if it is not yet obvious to you why the typically agonal, horrible and premature iatrogenic death in allopathic hands is going to much deserved by you and your allopathically indoctrinated kind?
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Hans presents an incredibly bozo statement here:
The sophistries and machinations of allopathy and its proponents never cease to amaze me.
The sophistries and machinations of allopathy and its proponents never cease to amaze me.
I think I know what the problem here is: Hahnemannian is stuck in a perpetual begging the question fallacy: Hahnemannian proclaims his views are right, when we ask why he says because they are, when we ask for evidence he skillfully ignores that question, when we tell him his views are wrong he proclaims to have given us the evidence and that we are blind, when we ask him to give evidence of this evidence he proclaims that his views are right because they are right, so repeats... Not to mention all the ad hominums and other fallacies.
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Hans replies to my remark and question:
1. SubAvogadrean potencies are called high potencies because the low-potency pseudo-homeopaths always reject(ed) them for the same ignorantly unscientific reasons allopathic proponents do and have.
2. They prove two things: 1) that subAvogadrean potencies, which your kind ignorantly and unscientifically claim are inert and innocuous, are neither and are active medicines; and 2) that they produce the very symptoms with which the drug that's proved have been utilized to cure the millions of patients they have for 213 years.
Now ask me what those assinine questions demonstrate about you and your allopathic kind since it is a commonly repeated question that you all ignore when answered since it shows we always say.
1. SubAvogadrean potencies are called high potencies because the low-potency pseudo-homeopaths always reject(ed) them for the same ignorantly unscientific reasons allopathic proponents do and have.
2. They prove two things: 1) that subAvogadrean potencies, which your kind ignorantly and unscientifically claim are inert and innocuous, are neither and are active medicines; and 2) that they produce the very symptoms with which the drug that's proved have been utilized to cure the millions of patients they have for 213 years.
Now ask me what those assinine questions demonstrate about you and your allopathic kind since it is a commonly repeated question that you all ignore when answered since it shows we always say.
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
WellCookedFetus,
You are the ones who refuse to act like scientists and claim you are.
So what is keeping you from engaging in a high-potency self-proving?
And by what reasoning do you have the right to an opinion on things that you constantly demonstrate total ignorance?
You can start getting drunk again, sir.
It is honestly more fun to deal with you when you're in a better state of Mind than when you're sober.
You are the ones who refuse to act like scientists and claim you are.
So what is keeping you from engaging in a high-potency self-proving?
And by what reasoning do you have the right to an opinion on things that you constantly demonstrate total ignorance?
You can start getting drunk again, sir.
It is honestly more fun to deal with you when you're in a better state of Mind than when you're sober.
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
OOps!
I see I added three zeros to two million annual iatrogenic deaths in Usa.
Oh well, I can at least edit my posting of it, and that does not let the allopathic proponents off the hook for mass murder either.
I see I added three zeros to two million annual iatrogenic deaths in Usa.
Oh well, I can at least edit my posting of it, and that does not let the allopathic proponents off the hook for mass murder either.
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Hans says:
The people who did bloodletting are part of the medical tradition of Rationalist allopathy that modern medicine is, sir.
It wasn't "earlier medical schools" of thought who did that; it was the one you espouse!
And scientific method was provided by Galileo and a contemporary who got credit for his wonderful introduction, but you claim that this wonderful system called allopathy has been engaging in science for how long now?
When will this start too?
Natural laws play what roll in science?
And when will allopaths start applying the Science of Medicine via the 10 Laws of Medicine?
After how many more millions of unnecessary iatrogenic maimings deaths?
The people who did bloodletting are part of the medical tradition of Rationalist allopathy that modern medicine is, sir.
It wasn't "earlier medical schools" of thought who did that; it was the one you espouse!
And scientific method was provided by Galileo and a contemporary who got credit for his wonderful introduction, but you claim that this wonderful system called allopathy has been engaging in science for how long now?
When will this start too?
Natural laws play what roll in science?
And when will allopaths start applying the Science of Medicine via the 10 Laws of Medicine?
After how many more millions of unnecessary iatrogenic maimings deaths?
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Hans says:
The only people ignorant enough to make such a statement are those who are ignorant about everything called homeopathy.
These are as viable today as when first introduced and will be forever because they are applied via unchanging natural laws.
"Unsupported" is, however, a wonderfully descriptive word to describe the endless number of drugs and procedures used and then discarded by allopaths in the eternal gyrations of changes in therapy they write off to foolishness like "scientific progress" when what they really mean by that euphism is that they have NO cures!
The only people ignorant enough to make such a statement are those who are ignorant about everything called homeopathy.
These are as viable today as when first introduced and will be forever because they are applied via unchanging natural laws.
"Unsupported" is, however, a wonderfully descriptive word to describe the endless number of drugs and procedures used and then discarded by allopaths in the eternal gyrations of changes in therapy they write off to foolishness like "scientific progress" when what they really mean by that euphism is that they have NO cures!
I think I have been acting very scientific (will sober) you have yet to show evidence of what is unscientific about are questions and problems with homeopathy.
Explain this to me would you?
the same right that you have to an opinion to allopathic medicine that you constantly demonstrate total ignorance and prejudice of.
Hahnemannian
Registered Senior Member
Hans says:
Very typically unethical.
And how would you test homeotherapeutics in this condition?
And then how would it measure against allopathic therapeutics since they are not even remotely similar but are in fact diametrically opposite?
Very typically unethical.
And how would you test homeotherapeutics in this condition?
And then how would it measure against allopathic therapeutics since they are not even remotely similar but are in fact diametrically opposite?
Hans,
Re. SYPHILIS: Page 90 of "The Chronic Diseases":
"In this first simple state and simple cure, when the chancre (or the bubo) is still present, and there is no complication with a developed psora, no prominent chronic ailment from a psoric origin (usually there is none such with young, lively persons), and with latent psora syphilis combines as little as sycosis - in this first state it needs ONLY ONE little dose of the best mercurial remedy, in order to cure thoroughly and forever the whole syphilis with its chancre, within fourteen days. In a few days after taking such a dose of mercury, the chancre (without any external application) becomes a clean sore with a little mild pus, and heals of itself - as a convincing proof, that the venereal malady is also fully extinguished within; and it does not leave behind the least scar, or the least spot, showing any other color than the other healthy skin. But the chancre, which is not treated with external application, would never heal, if the internal syphilis had not been already annihilated and extinguished by the dose of mercury; for so long as it exists in its place, it is the natural and unmistakable proof of even the least remainder of an existing syphilis.
I have, indeed in the second edition of the first part of Materia Medica Pura (Dresden, 1822), described the preparation of the pure semi-oxide of mercury, and I still consider this to be one of the most excellent anti-syphilitic medicines; but it is difficult to prepare it in sufficient purity. In order, therefore, to reach this wished for goal in a still simpler manner, free from all detours, and yet just as perfectly (for in the preparation of medicines we cannot proceed in too simple a manner), it is best to proceed in the way given below, so that one grain of quite pure running quick-silver is triturated three times, with 100 grains of sugar of milk each time, up to the millionth attenuation, in three hours, and one grain of this third trituration is dissolved, and then potentized through twenty-seven diluting phials up to (x) the decillionth degree, as is taught at the end of this volume, with respect to the dynamization of the other dry medicines.
I formerly used the billionth dynamization (ii) of this preparation in I, 2 or 3 fine pellets moistened with this dilution, as a dose, and this was done successfully for such cures; although the preparation of the higher potencies (iv, vi, viii), and finally the decillionth potency (x), show some advantages, in their quick, penetrating and yet mild action for this purpose; but in cases where a second or third dose (however seldom needed) should be found necessary, a lower potency may then be taken.
-----< Page - 91 >-----
Just as the continued presence of the chancre (or the bubo) during the cure shows the continued presence of syphilis, so when the chancre (and the bubo) heal merely from the internally applied mercury, without any addition of a remedy used for the local symptom, and yet this disappears without leaving any trace of its former presence; it is incontrovertibly sure, that also every trace of the internal syphilis was extinguished at the moment of the completion of the cure of the chancre or the bubo."
Re. SYPHILIS: Page 90 of "The Chronic Diseases":
"In this first simple state and simple cure, when the chancre (or the bubo) is still present, and there is no complication with a developed psora, no prominent chronic ailment from a psoric origin (usually there is none such with young, lively persons), and with latent psora syphilis combines as little as sycosis - in this first state it needs ONLY ONE little dose of the best mercurial remedy, in order to cure thoroughly and forever the whole syphilis with its chancre, within fourteen days. In a few days after taking such a dose of mercury, the chancre (without any external application) becomes a clean sore with a little mild pus, and heals of itself - as a convincing proof, that the venereal malady is also fully extinguished within; and it does not leave behind the least scar, or the least spot, showing any other color than the other healthy skin. But the chancre, which is not treated with external application, would never heal, if the internal syphilis had not been already annihilated and extinguished by the dose of mercury; for so long as it exists in its place, it is the natural and unmistakable proof of even the least remainder of an existing syphilis.
I have, indeed in the second edition of the first part of Materia Medica Pura (Dresden, 1822), described the preparation of the pure semi-oxide of mercury, and I still consider this to be one of the most excellent anti-syphilitic medicines; but it is difficult to prepare it in sufficient purity. In order, therefore, to reach this wished for goal in a still simpler manner, free from all detours, and yet just as perfectly (for in the preparation of medicines we cannot proceed in too simple a manner), it is best to proceed in the way given below, so that one grain of quite pure running quick-silver is triturated three times, with 100 grains of sugar of milk each time, up to the millionth attenuation, in three hours, and one grain of this third trituration is dissolved, and then potentized through twenty-seven diluting phials up to (x) the decillionth degree, as is taught at the end of this volume, with respect to the dynamization of the other dry medicines.
I formerly used the billionth dynamization (ii) of this preparation in I, 2 or 3 fine pellets moistened with this dilution, as a dose, and this was done successfully for such cures; although the preparation of the higher potencies (iv, vi, viii), and finally the decillionth potency (x), show some advantages, in their quick, penetrating and yet mild action for this purpose; but in cases where a second or third dose (however seldom needed) should be found necessary, a lower potency may then be taken.
-----< Page - 91 >-----
Just as the continued presence of the chancre (or the bubo) during the cure shows the continued presence of syphilis, so when the chancre (and the bubo) heal merely from the internally applied mercury, without any addition of a remedy used for the local symptom, and yet this disappears without leaving any trace of its former presence; it is incontrovertibly sure, that also every trace of the internal syphilis was extinguished at the moment of the completion of the cure of the chancre or the bubo."
- Status