By ultra dilution, you also get no delivery. This is absurd beyond absurdity. Reduce allopathic (fine choice of terms by the homeopathic industry, BTW) dosage and hey! presto! Less drugs.
Which one is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?
- Thread starter Dr. Nancy Malik
- Start date
By ultra dilution, you also get no delivery. This is absurd beyond absurdity. Reduce allopathic (fine choice of terms by the homeopathic industry, BTW) dosage and hey! presto! Less drugs.
Thank you for defining science for me. Now all you have to do is proce your poinbt as any scientist would be expected to do. For a start, explain how it has been determined that water has a memory.
A correct diagnosis is essential in any form of treatment. I hope the vital informtion was passed on to other doctors who failed to diagnose the disorder.
As for your " cure", I believe it would be irresponsibleto treat someone with any medical condition without the treatment having been shown to be effective in double-blind trials. I would make an exception in the case of anyone who had a terminal illness and who was willingto be a guinea pig.
I have a patient, a lady whose Hb has fallen to 4, and a very low iron reserves. By the time she reached her 7th month of pregnancy her Hb was above 12. The treatment started two months before getting pregnant. There are no dearth of medicines in homeopathy.
I sprained my ankle badly in college. I spent the next couple of days avoiding classes and playing video games and in about 3 days I was healthy again. It is obvious that playing video games heals sprained ankles.
~Raithere
My "cure" is real regardless of your emphasis. I am curious, if you compare homeopathy and mainstream medicine, which one has a higher ratio of misdiagnosis, deaths and malpractice vs cures?
Interesting consideration.
EBM (let's be really off the charts and give it a 50/50 chance) = 1/2
Homeopathy (we'll ignore for the moment that it can't diagnose anything, of course it can't cure anything either) = 0/0
Any questions?
~Raithere
Lets see some statistics.
Think statistics and you will have your answer.
Okay. Statistically speaking how much of the effect of mainstream medicine is due to the placebo effect?
Can you please answer my question concerning how it has been scientifically established that water has a memory. You remember saying homeopathe is a science ?
All you are offering at the moment is anecdoital evidence. How many people have been " treated" who did not respond. How do you explain in scientific terms the response you claim you got ? The chemistry involved ?
There is no dearth of herbs and whatnots. So what ? What is your point.
Please stop avoiding the issue and answer my questions if you wish to be taken seriously. You are the one claiming homeopathy has a scientific basis. Les's have some evidence !
Best guess about one third , if we exclude treatments such as surgery.
I don't agree. I KNOW that whiskey works wonders, even when it's diluted with water.
Your results may seem quite real (and obviously I wish you well in your own quest for wellness), but on average homeopathy represents placebo medication, for the obvious reasons:
SAM, I would prefer to confine my discussion to exchanges woth Dr (?) Malik who , after all, is an expert and a practitioner. I shall read your posts with interest but I shall not respond. As far as I'm concerned the ball is in Nancy Malik's court.
So, let's hear from you Nancy !
So, let's hear from you Nancy !
Or does it? Does statistically significant equal biologically significant? A 5% increase in muscle mass for example may not be statistically significant, but you'd have to take steroids and pump iron to attain it. Most people get so wound up in the tools of the trade that they forget that the tools are limited. And this is a weird approach to take in clinical trials where intra and inter individual variation is so high as to mask many effects. I've seen scientists talk about a 40 point difference in blood glucose as "negligible" because they cannot comprehend that biology is not statistics. Its also a reflection of their restricted worldview. To give an example: I know a research student who was testing the possible therapeutic effects of a compound in a cancer model. His results showed that although there was a trend, the effects were not statistically significant. Now because this was a smart Chinese boy, he went on to examine why some of the subjects did not show a treatment effect. And found a mutation that makes the subjects unresponsive to the treatment. But this kind of thinking is very rare among scientists.