Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Greetings All!
I haven't kept up here and find I've been beligerent.
Apologies to all for that.
No worries. Anybody trying to make a skeptic debate around internet forums is thoroughly accostumed to that.
In an attempt to catch up to your nice interest and good questions, I first find something from Redrover to respond to:
I notice some things here.
First, there aren't any legitimate homeopaths in Mexico; in fact, there aren't even any high-potency pseudo-homeopaths there.
I have a feeling you are talking about laetril treatment.
Ahh, so when examples are found about homeopathy not working, it is not real homeopathy? I think I see where this is leading.
This is a very deep-seated error, if I have sussed it correctly, for it assumes that homeopathy is part of the alternative therapies, but those are just part of Empiricist (rather than Rationalist) allopathy.
Well, perhaps you should explain a little about the principles of real homeopathy, so we can see the difference.
In Article 52 of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE
(
http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html), Hahnemann made very clear that "there are only two principal therapies: the homeopathic...and the allopathic" approaches.
I find an hourglass diagram functions handily to envision the Structure of Medicine in five basic groups.
Hahnemannian Homeopathy is all alone in the top bulb due to our 10 natural Laws of Medicine making it the actual Science of Medicine with astonishingly effective and yet extraordinarily safe medicines and a clinical history not even remotely matched by any other therapy.
Again, the World eagerly awaits some documentation of this wonderful regimen.
Allopathy sits in the bottom bulb, but it is split into two historical traditions called Rationalist and Empiricist allopathy, today called modern medicine and the alternative therapies.
Since the dictionary definition for "allopathy" basically covers anything that is not homeopathy, this is hardly a profound relevation.
Homeopathy has two false forms.
One is low-potency pseudo-homeopathy (LPH), which is just allopathic medicine with homeopathic drugs.
These guys thus sit in the lower bulb somewhere difused in the confusion of hydra-headed allopathic medicine.
Ehr, no. The distinction between allopathy and homeopathy is that homeopathy strives to give a treatment that has the same effect on the body as the disease, wheras allopathy does not. So those regimens are homeopathic per definition. Even if you don't like them, they are in your end of the spectrum.
Then there is a line along the inside edge of the upper bulb that creates a small area within the upper bulb but separated from Hahnemannian homeopathy.
I put high-potency pseudo-homeopathy (HPH) there because they only make eight fundamental mistakes instead of doing everything wrong like LPHs.
HPHs today claim to be classical homeopaths and earlier claimed to be Hahnemannians, but that's just a fallow claim since they are easily identified by their mistakes virtually every time they say something.
Translation: They disagree with your team.
Still, these are actual homeopaths, just not very good ones and kind of on the level of "bunglers" as Hahnemann called them; and they get results, only not as often as they should nor as effectively as they could, for they cannot quite grasp what homeotherapeutics is.
Most of the websites and literature we find today are representations of HPH.
There are and always have been about 10,000 LPHs for every one Hahnemannian, and I estimate 100 HPHs for every Hahnemannian.
The chosen few. A word of warning here: The practice of denouncing anybody who does not line up to your particular version of truth could leave you awfully lonely.
That should suffice for a fundamental explanation.
I'm sorry, but it does not. What suffices is some evidence that the thing works. That is really all that matters, pationts are not interested in ideology, they are interested in getting well.
Homeopathy has nothing whatsoever to do with any chemical therapy, including herbal medicine, for we use ultramolecular drugs in single doses over relatively long periods of time due to the curative powers of accurately chosen medicines with command over diseases.
Therefore, I doubt that you mean the child was taken to Mexico for homeotherapeutics, but I instead supect you have made this common and understandable error of thinking of homeopathy as a kind of catch-all term for the alternative therapies, which it is not.
Perhaps the unfortunate child did not have a relatively long period. Childhood cancers tend to be rather fast acting.
I hope that is clear.
Again, if they took the boy to Mexico for homeotherapeutics, as you say, he would not have had a chance since there are no Hahnemannians or even any HPHs there.
Well, nobody can require you to answer for others. So where is there some documentation that REAL homeopathics work?
----------
As for the boy possibly having had a chance with allopathic medicine as a cancer patient, that's a pretty shabby assertion when they still have zero cures of it.
I know they make claims to the contrary, but we are dealing with a criteria of cure exceeding one you will encounter elsewhere.
So people getting well is not covered by your definition of "cure". Well, that could explain a few things. Pray tell us, what IS your definition of "cure".
Allopaths ignore the four Laws of Therapeutics as well as the four Laws of Cure, so they can never know up from down in their course of treatment and usually force diseases into hyper-complicated and disordered states due to intervening when they need to leave cases alone.
I'm sorry, I'm ignorant of those laws. Would you mind listing them for my enlightment, so I can know what you are talking about?
Allopathy is intrinsically incapable of precipitating the four Laws of Cure without the ultramolecular ("beyond-molecules") simillimum ("thing most similar") that arise from the four Laws of Cure, but the organism has innate healing functions that need to be recognized that they completly ignore.
Also, I have to ask you to explain "ultramolecular"; I know of a number of realms beyond molecules (atoms and various elementary and quantum particles), which of these are you referring to?
It is one of the most elegant facets of homeopathic philosophy that suggests that these ultramolecular drugs could only reach an etheric level of being and thereby could only set the organism aright to cure itself, just as it should have done had something not gone wrong along the course of living.
A little complex, this statement. Are you saying that at worst it does no harm?
So these things happen during any therapy, irregardless of the therapeutic effects and for unknown reasons.
If they happen, that is.
But they always aggressively pursue their course of treatment in a very quasi-militaristic manner of attacking invading organisms, whereas chronic diseases are invariably issues where the organism is essentially destroying itself in immune-system disorder or some system-wide or systemic disorder.
That's a totally wrong approach and will forever preclude allopathy from being able to cure.
Interesting. Then to what cause do you attribute facts like the following:
- Infectuous diseases stopped by antibiotics?
- Diabetes symptoms alleviated by Insulin?
- Life expectancy in the western world doubling during the last century?
(Just to pick a few).
Therefore, the suggestion that the child might have been saved by allopathic medicine is specious at best.
Sinse it did not happen, it remains speculative. Statistically, however, it is a sound statement.
They prolong agonal life to an agonal death, and that's about all they do.
You may ask further about this very controvertial issues we view as an absolute fact, and I will try to address them if that is insufficient, but I hope that is somewhat helpful if not complete enough yet.
Actually, your opinion about allopathic regimens is at best marginally relevant to this discussion. What IS relevant is some evidence for your claims for the efficiacy of homeopatic regimens. We are still awaiting this.
------------
No, homeopathic therapies are not really dangerous.
They could not be totally safe and still be medicinal, for medicines are by definition sick-making or toxicological substances, but they are beyond your wildest imaginings of safety since only closely matching medicines have any real effect on a sick person.
I would heartily agree that the therapies in themselves are very unlikely to be harmful at all. Except perhaps to your economy.
I think, however, what you mean is that it is recklous to engage in presumably unproven therapies when proven ones are readily available.
Like, if you have two bridges ahead of you, and you know one is safe and leads to the other side, which one will you choose?
That is the allopathic claim, of course, but it is false to say that they have any cures of any viral, chronic or psychiatric cases since they readily admit they do not every day without the average person perceiving it due to the way it is admitted.
So, not having a cure for EVERY disease in your view invalidates modern medicine for ANY disease?
Just ask which chronic disease is curable, though, and that's the answer you'll get from honest allopathic physicians and adjuncts.
Since a chronic disease is per definition a disease for which no treatment exists, the reply is foreseeable.
Very sad for them too, for I am convinced that only God or Higher Beings can create the physician and nurse's heart.
I'm afraid your religions beliefs are beside the point at hand.
Why they then ignore how to cure is a tragic question we have been asking for 213 years.
Perhaps you can explain those 213 years for me (your friend ignored this question): Is that supposed to mean since AD1790?
And as for homeopathy being unproven, nothing could be further from the truth.
Hahnemann first gained command over the raging epidemic diseases that dessimated the world.
The historical record is clear about this for anyone who chooses to look.
OK. Where do I look?
Then he addressed and gained command over syphillis and gonorrhea, for they were endemic across continents.
Ohh? I thought that was done by antibiotics. When was it he "gained command" over those diseases?"
He then proceded to the chronic diseases and ran into a wall that was unexpected since all other diseases had been infectious and responded curatively to either a single drug or a handful of the 99 he eventually discovered.
We have over 2500 now.
He thought that chronic diseases would be found to stem from an ancient skin disease like leprosy, and he named the theoretical primary infectious agent of all chronic diseases psora.
This theory failed, though.
What he did, however, discover was that the drugs he was developing still permitted him command over these diseases as soon as he tested them and learned their pathogenic (literally "suffering-originating") effects from drug trials called provings. (German prufung means "test or trial.")
So even though he failed to find a single medicine for psora in hopes of treating all chronic diseases, he still had command over these more insidious illnesses too.
But those diseases are still around. Why?
What has happened in homeotherapeutics since then is that the number of medicines has accumulated such that we now have on average about 25-50 drugs for each of the fixed infectious diseases (smallpox, chickenpox, scarlet fever, cholera, etc.) and hundreds for each of the other classifications generally called chronic diseases.
Psychiatric cases are really just chronic diseases with a mental focus, for they are also long-term and without a tendency to spontaneous recovery or to being self-limited like infectious diseases when the organism is functioning well.
Therefore, the assertion that homeopathy is an unproven therapy is 100% wrong too.
I am very sorry, but I am not willing to take your word for that. Do you have any useful evidence?
However, to reinforce what you say, homeopathy is an extremely skill-intensive activity; i.e., it is not the drugs that do it, it is the application of them according to natural laws and profound principles that permits us to cure.
Not very many people do it correctly, so it today is a matter of becoming well informed about homeopathy to be able to choose an effective therapist, for there are not any real criteria guaranteeing it.
It is NOT the medicines??? Now I'm lost. Then what is it?
That will change over my lifetime, though, so that your children and their children will be far better off than we are.
I hope to some day be associated with a legitimate Hahnemannian homeopathic medical school, but we do not have any money.
If you have effective cures for even a few serious diseases, money is not a problem. If you provide the cures, I'm willing to find the funding.
Allopathy wastes billions of dollars every year on research and trillions on therapies.
What do they show for it?
Ziltch!
Do you seriously claim that modern medicine has not produced any results? No improvements in public health? No epedemic diseases concoured? No cronic diseases having symptoms and long-term effects alleviated?
Three examples:
Polio
Smallpox
Diabetes
Please, can we be real here?
They need to give it to us; we will show the world how to cure.
Problem is, though, that they will not listen to us.
I am at several websites like this, and few are receptive to homeopathy while most are antagonistic.
That is incomprehensible to me, and the worst one is the BBC site.
They seem to not want to know how to cure and instead love pure sophistries.
Quite the contrary! They want to KNOW how to cure, and you are either unable or unwilling to tell them.
Allopathy is a truly bizare and ghoulish subject to me.
Really? Now it is far from me to wish a disease on you, but SHOULD you ever be so unfortunate as to incur a disease like e. g. diabetes, I would be very interested to know your choice if treatment.
-----------
I don't use crystals, pal, and I find that rather insulting.
However, given my beligerant demeanor prior to this, it is ignored.
However, for the time being, you have not produced more tangible evidence for your belief that the crystal people have for theirs.
------------
I think that suffices for your understandable concerns for me to move on to others I have spotted on just a quick perusal of the postings since I was last here.
I hope it helps you and others with some issues that may exist about medicine.
Speaking strictly for myself, it has certainly helped me clarifying my view on your belief system. I am afraid, however, that my conclusions are not what you would wish for.
