Science of Homeopathy-how you count?

What about other type of microorganisms, fungi etc.? How they can impact? As iceaura indicated in my other topic. I think, pencillin also.
 
to: kumar re no: 34

(I dont seem to be able to quote your reply but it was no. 34.)
You dont answer any of my questions. Instead you obfuscate with utter baloney.
Try clearly answering my points one by one or dont bother replying to me with drivel.
 
What controls are there in the factories that make the pills? How are the pills made and by who? What quantities of (say) onion (cold remedy), are bought in, where from and in what form? How is it diluted to the required infinitesimal value? What quality control is in place?

What if I said 'Hey these pills are not what they claim to be" How could anyone find out? What forensic lab could check it where not even one molecule of the desired substance is present?

They could just sell blank chalk pills and what the hell.

What if someone secretly shuffled the pills in the hom.prac. cupboard? Would results change?

However, many people claim to feel a lot better after hom. treatment. Thats got to be good.
The irony is that you have to believe in it for it to work. If it helps then ok.
BUT..
Theres a homeopathic hospital in my home town. Homeopathic anaesthetic anyone?

Just consider:

Pollutions and contaminations of substances and lives, can be possible, may be somewhat more then other big labs of modern medicies in least harmess quantity.

Possibility of part of contaminants as a expression/part of real effects is not much thought resuting oversights.

Current science may not yet become "absolute and final" but in process of it. So miss, weaknesses, future modification and additions to current status can be possible.

People in mass all over the world do endorss benefits with least adversities.

You may comment now, considering above.
 
Many thanks. Still I feel, basis to find science of information presence seems to be wrong.

Wrong in what way? If there is a microbial presence, it should be detectable, no? The pubmed article you linked to suggested there may be some unknown hits; has there been any follow-up studies to that?

How would the solution have any predicable microbiological presence if the active ingredient is due to contamination w/ environmental factors?

Wouldn't the result be drastically different depending on who, where, or in what room they created the mixture in?
 
river-wind,

I think I am the first to think about it considering other imposibilities. So studies, considering this aspect specifically are not yet done. I am trying to consider something relevant from modified or specific microbes,live, dead or decomposed and their derivatices, discharges, secretions, primary and secondary metabolites. By modified i meant meant, specifically affected by exposure to undiluted active substance to dilutions in initial steps, when presence of active substances are there.
 
I think that is a good area to study. How would you identify or isolate those biological materials? Once isolated, how would you identify the modification caused by the initial active substance?
 
That studing people should try. It can be a problem to identify intact and relevant organic substances. Still this consideration can remain pending for research, till then non-presence of origional substance can't be make base for no efficacy.
 
That studing people should try. It can be a problem to identify intact and relevant organic substances. Still this consideration can remain pending for research, till then non-presence of origional substance can't be make base for no efficacy.

I've been thinking about this for a while now. Considering that all kinds of biological agents are EVERYWHERE that people are present, how can you possibly think there might be some biological agent present in these so-called "medicines" that aren't already present around everyone anyway? The human skin is covered in a zoo of biologicals. They are in the air that we breathe, in the water we drink, on everything we touch. We're literaly BATHED in them every moment of every single day.

The whole concept you've presented here is totally invalid on that single point alone. It borders on being a completely absurd notion.
 
Read-one,

You are missing possible behaviour change and modification of microbes due to exposure to specific mixture/s during initial stages. Furthur much diluted effect may make then odd(unnatural) to body.
 
Can anyone here please provide me with a definition of what you understand as homeopathy?
Reading this thread I have an unnerving feeling that it's something else than I've had in mind.
 
Indeed, that is a common mis-use of the term. Herbal remedies and homeopathy are both alternative therapies, but they are distinct in both theory and practice.
 
The tests are very contradictory.

Because normal tablets made me a bit drowsy I tried homeopathy as a last resort for hay fever and was sceptical about the whole thing. The first few days the hay fever got worse and I threw the tablets in a dustbin. However, it improved and I phoned up the specialist who reminded me that it would take a few days to kick in.

I completed the course and the allergy improved but wasn't cured totally. My suggestion was for more tablets so I could get rid of the allergy totally but it was fairly obvious, despite more courses, that homeopathy was NOT a cure for anything..in my personal anecdote.

Possibly it alleviates the symptoms..it did in my case anyway. I dunno why and I don't care but i can rule out the placebo effect because I took them by rote..i just wanted to get the £20 fee for the consultation back by not throwing away the perceived remedy.
Hay fever: A constitutional weakness traced back to gout. Psoric. A seasonal reaction to high levels of pollen in the air, and asthma. It's really a chronic condition but most people treat it like it's an acute condition.

Hay fever is brought on in the fall and is supposed to be caused by the patient's over-sensitiveness to irritants that develop about that time; sometimes it is attributed to the hay that is curing in the fields at that time, sometimes to the different weeds that grow up then. Such patients have often been able to ferret out the thing that they are susceptible to. But psora is at the bottom of all these troubles.
 
I don't doubt you. But for every single one like you, there are dozens, if not hundreds, for whom it did nothing. And that seems to clearly put it in the psychosomatic realm. Actual good medicine has the opposite results - only a few failures compared to positive results. And I think that says it all. :)
No system of mediicne is 100% perfect.

Placebo effect is equally there in allopathy.

Why don't you focus on living testimonails , around 500 million people worldwide who have been benefited from homeopathy
 
Just consider:

Pollutions and contaminations of substances and lives, can be possible, may be somewhat more then other big labs of modern medicies in least harmess quantity.

Possibility of part of contaminants as a expression/part of real effects is not much thought resuting oversights.

Current science may not yet become "absolute and final" but in process of it. So miss, weaknesses, future modification and additions to current status can be possible.

People in mass all over the world do endorss benefits with least adversities.

You may comment now, considering above.
the therapeutic ratio ( dose for “effective” treatment/Dose for harmful effects) is massively/extremely high for homeopathy. And the good effects of homeopathy are far larger then allopathy's side effects. So homeopathy follow the Hippocratic Oath… “first, do no harm.”
 
I have successfully treated my hayfever with homeopathy; plus my 18 month old son's eczema cleared up after homeopathic treatment after initially worsening ( which I was warned about, but persevered) and it has never come back.
 
Back
Top