Bad Effects of Allopathic Medicines?

[Dr. A Sheikh]

No, but you've proven yourself to be unable to answer a single question about homeopathy.

I think, we have answered all your questions. Is there anything, we missed, point out again. if you have anyother question you can ask freely. We will provide you the answers.

 

[Donks]

No, you can't identify without proof. Let me check your IQ, could you tell me how many incarnations MRC_Hans is using at NCH Forum?

Anybody hear some quacking? Oh, it must be yet another homeoquack refusing to answer questions about homeopathy. So he moved from Mojo to Hans, how... evasive.

ARE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS OUR ARGUMENTS OR NOT, DR. HOMEOQUACK?

 

[Bronze Dog]

Dr. A. S., facts are facts, and who presents them is of relatively little importance. Show us verifiable facts that support the efficacy of homeopathy.

 

[Donks]

I think, we have answered all your questions. Is there anything, we missed, point out again. if you have anyother question you can ask freely. We will provide you the answers.

You can start by explaining what is wrong with this and .this.

 

[Darat]

Everything you have just said is incorrect.

That is untrue. Are you saying that you never said “through case taking and case analysis"? There is a post I could link to if you wish to see my evidence of why I say you posted those words.

That is just one example of why your statement "Everything you have just said is incorrect" is untrue.

I think I have just told you that when and if I have to write to doctors I tell them that their patients are undergoing homeopathic treatment.

And I asked did you or do you tell the Doctors that the customer you are selling your remedies to is being used as one of your experimental subjects?

As I also said, they are my clients, but I do still have PATIENTS when I go and work on the wards, which I do from time to time, so that I can keep up my registration.

In this thread you originally referred to your customers for your homeopathic remedies as "patients".

By Sarah-I

...snip...

Firstly, I never ever tell my patients that homeopathy can or will cure them. That is blatantly misleading.

...snip...

It was only when I pointed out that they were not patients that you retracted this misleading wording.

I have not and do not intend to make any comments about whatever else you do to earn money unless it directly relates to your homeopathic customers. I am mostly interested in understanding how someone (such as you) can be so unethical as to use unproven treatments on people and also to experiment on people with treatments of unknown effectiveness.

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Dr. A. S., facts are facts, and who presents them is of relatively little importance. Show us verifiable facts that support the efficacy of homeopathy.

You please show us, it has no efficacy.

 

[Bronze Dog]

You please show us, it has no efficacy.

Fallacy: Shifting burden of proof.

 

[Donks]

You please show us, it has no efficacy.

And homeoquack tries not-so-skillfully the old shifting the burden of proof maneuver! And it fails!

 

[Mouthfire]

Blah...

You know, it's funny... I see this behavior all the time in forum posters who've been thoroughly beaten and know it. It's odd, though, cause A Sheikh's only been here a few days....

Oh well... the homeo collective really must be running out of ammo....

 

[Donks]

Oh well... the homeo collective really must be running out of ammo....

Wait a minute... they had ammo to begin with?

 

[Bronze Dog]

Wait a minute... they had ammo to begin with?

You read my mind! You must be psychic!

 

[Sarah-I]

Darat,

Because homeopathy is not ineffective or unproven.

Remedies undergo provings and are then listed in the many materia medicas that exist today. Some of these being Kent, Clarke, Boerike, Murphy, Phatak, Vermeulen, Tyler and many more.

 

[Rolfe]

Because homeopathy is not ineffective or unproven.

Remedies undergo provings and are then listed in the many materia medicas that exist today. Some of these being Kent, Clarke, Boerike, Murphy, Phatak, Vermeulen, Tyler and many more.

Is this the "fallacy of homonyms"? (If I've got that right - two different definitions of the same word being treated as if they were the same, like when Kumar defines "natural" as "in accordance with the moral law".)

A homoeopathic "proving" refers to the non-blinded and subjective testing of a remedy on volunteers to see what kooky symptomas they will dream up. From the German "Prüfung", meaning test or trial. Although from the same root, it doesn't mean that anything has been "proved" in the usual English sense of the term.

This is the fallacy used by many homoeopaths to declare to the unsuspecting and innocent public that "homoeopathic remedies are well proven". Dishonest, deceitful lies.

Now Sarah dear, we know that there are only five published papers detailing blinded provings of homoeopathic remedies, and we know that all five of them completely failed to show that the provers taking the remedy experienced anything different from the control group. Implying that the provings published by homoeopaths are anything more than the self-obsessed ravings of a bunch of kooks who take themselves far too seriously is dishonest and deceitful.

Rolfe.

 

[Ashles]

Is this the "fallacy of homonyms"? (If I've got that right - two different definitions of the same word being treated as if they were the same, like when Kumar defines "natural" as "in accordance with the moral law".)

A homoeopathic "proving" refers to the non-blinded and subjective testing of a remedy on volunteers to see what kooky symptomas they will dream up. From the German "Prüfung", meaning test or trial. Although from the same root, it doesn't mean that anything has been "proved" in the usual English sense of the term.

This is the fallacy used by many homoeopaths to declare to the unsuspecting and innocent public that "homoeopathic remedies are well proven". Dishonest, deceitful lies.

Interesting point.

This is why many people do not undertand the expression "The exception that proves the rule".
It means prove as in 'to test'.
It is merely the exception that tests the rule.

Also 'see The proof of the pudding is in the eating' and 'proving ground'.

The more I read about homeopathy the more I come to understand why something with so little evidence for it has been accepted by so many people.
The misinformation surrounding it is quite amazing, and most people can't be bothered to find out the truth.

And also there is rather a lot of money invested in keeping the industry going.

You'd really think that such an amazing method of curing all illnesses would be clamouring to be tested all the time.

You'd think that wouldn't you.

 

[Mojo]

I give all my clients a full explanation of homeopathy when they arrive for their initial consultation.

That's nice. Perhaps you could post it here?

 

[Mojo]

Mojo can't prove that....... This means there are so many real things which are existing in the world but we can't prove that??????

You mean if the ip of mojo "here at jref forum" is same as it is at nch forum then it is mojo otherwise it is not? ........ You ar so senseless.... Is this your scientific approach?

Do you mean, if ip are different then that is not mojo? are you sure is this the criteria to verify someone status?

Can you prove that if ip of mojo at jref forum is not same as nch forum then it is not mojo?

The important fact here is, of course, that Mr. MAS, Sheikh, Homeoman, Non-Sense Homeopath, Qureshi and any of the rest of the MAS collective I've forgotten to mention by name would rather waste time with this sort of nonsense than get involved in any kind of discussion of homeopathy.

This is because they are fully aware that their claims are totally unsupported, and because by attempting to discuss it here they merely reveal their almost total ignorance of medicine, biology and chemistry, and their inability to perform even the simplest piece of arithmetic.

Homeopathy is nonsense and these people know it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You are wrong. If you feel you are not wrong, you can prove it. Can you prove it? you are not the same member?

It does not matter if he is or not. Members on both forums are protected by privacy rules. That is, whethere you like it or not, the way of internet forums: You have to take posters on their face value. If somebody says he is not posting under a certain handle on a certain forum, you simply have to take his word for it, period.

Edited to add: And I notice you also question my identity at the NCH forum. How many incarnations do I have there? Well count for yourself (no need to post whatever result you get, I am totally uninterested).

Hans

 

[Darat]

Darat,

Because homeopathy is not ineffective or unproven.

I am only using the information you supplied.

You stated that you know the treatments you use work because of the experiments you have ran on your customers.

Although it is a bit of a side track from the issue I am interested in can you please supply the references to the clinical trails that prove the effectiveness of the treatments you use?

Remedies undergo provings and are then listed in the many materia medicas that exist today. Some of these being Kent, Clarke, Boerike, Murphy, Phatak, Vermeulen, Tyler and many more.

Yet your claim is that you know how effective the treatments that you use as a result of your experiments, plus you have also stated that you don’t believe in (or at least some i.e. hayfever) off-the-shelf homeopathic remedies so why do you believe in the reference works you quote above? Do you have access to the references for the clinical studies used by the compilers of the above reference works to asses the effectiveness of a given treatment? Or did you run a series of cross-checking experiments using your customers against the “referenced” provings?

Also as another aside can you please tell me which clinical studies you used to be able to conclude that an off-the-shelf hayfever homeopathic remedy is not effective? Or do you know this because of an experiment you undertook using your customers?

 

[Nucular]

No, you can't identify without proof. Let me check your IQ, could you tell me how many incarnations MRC_Hans is using at NCH Forum?

Sheikh,

You're derailing on purpose, and everyone can see.

If you want to try to figure out which people, if any, post on both this and the NCH boards, start a new thread called something like "which people, if any, post on both this and the NCH boards?". I suggest you put it under Humour.

If you want to try to demonstrate that not everything can be proven, then say so - you'll find agreement here.

But if you want to say, as I suspect you're trying, "because Mojo can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is not the same poster called Mojo on the NCH board, then we don't have to provide any evidence or explanation of homeopathy, you just have to believe us", say so explicitly and see how people respond.

If you want to educate us as to how homeopathy works, or provide evidence that it does work, please go ahead.

If what you want to do here is none of the above, please tell us what you are doing here.

 

[Sarah-I]

Rolfe,

Homeopathic provings are blinded.

Darat,

Yes, the materia medicas that I use are fully referenced.

I don't think that the off the shelf remedies are a good idea. If it is the incorrect remedy that someone takes, then it will not work and is not homeopathic.

I have said it before and I will say it again, if someone wants to use homeopathy, they should go and see a fully qualified and experienced homeopath.

Mojo,

What I say to my clients is between me and them and will stay that way. Have you never heard of confidentiality?