1,800 Studies Later, Scientists Conclude Homeopathy Doesn’t Work

Mojo said:
You have provided no evidence that homoeopathic remedies have "least side effects" while still actually having effects. The only reason that homoeopathic remedies have "least side effects" is that they have been diluted so much that they have no effects of any kind.
Click to expand...

Ok as you can see.:o
 
MRC_Hans said:
Kumar why is it that you discard science because it is not A&F, but you believe homeopathy because proof against it is not A&F.

Is that equianimous?

If science has to be A&F, then homeopathy must, too.

Hans
Click to expand...
Sorry you asked A&F so replying acc.

Equanimity will suggest neither science nor homeopathy is yet A&F and to achieve it should be their ultimate goal. No problem. Happy?:thumbsup:
 
MRC_Hans said:
Ehr, no. "Peculiar and different" comes from Hahnemann. The expressions are a little strange, probably because they were translated from Hahneman's somewhat old-fashioned and formal German language. We must remember, that he wrote his books in around AD 1800.

What Hahnemann means is that one should look for distinct and characteristic symptoms, both in "provings" and when "taking" a case *). This was to avoid having all substances and diseases characterized by "Nose, slight sniffle" and "Ass, some itch".

- And, of course, it adds a nice air of mystery to the whole business. :p


Hans

*)
Proving: Trying a substance on healthy test persons and recording any symptoms presumably caused by the substance.

"Taking" a case: The individualized investigation recording all symptoms of a patient. Hahnemann prescribes a very extensive procedure, often taking hours. Few modern homeopaths do this, and Hahnemann would blow several fuses if he knew that these days homeopathic products are often sold OTC.
Click to expand...

First, It was left: Dr Hahn. sdn't/can't be knowing about that no molecule can be present in any potency since I thing Avogadro constant come into practical application after his death.

Honestly, I feel we can't get a 100% healthy person from then to now. Probably all have some kind of inhibition due to altered environmental changes of most physiological activities and specific relevant symptoms become apparent to some extent on application of low dose stimuli i.e on proving. More apparent on application on a real patient depending on the magnitude of his disease. I think, addictions, not taking addicting substance 1/2 days and permanently leaving that, bring withdrawl or other symptoms may be somewhat similar.
 
Kumar said:
Sorry you asked A&F so replying acc.

Equanimity will suggest neither science nor homeopathy is yet A&F and to achieve it should be their ultimate goal. No problem. Happy?:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

No because as has been pointed out a trillion, billion, gazillion times, A&F is a pointless figment of your imagination.

But kudos on distinguishing between science (yay real) and homeopathy (boo bunkum).

It's a start.
 
Last edited:
Kumar said:
First, It was left: Dr Hahn. sdn't/can't be knowing about that no molecule can be present in any potency since I thing Avogadro constant come into practical application after his death.
Click to expand...
If he had he probably would have walked away, and you would need to find a real job.
Kumar said:
Honestly, I feel we can't get a 100% healthy person from then to now. Probably all have some kind of inhibition due to altered environmental changes of most physiological activities and specific relevant symptoms become apparent to some extent on application of low dose stimuli i.e on proving. More apparent on application on a real patient depending on the magnitude of his disease. I think, addictions, not taking addicting substance 1/2 days and permanently leaving that, bring withdrawl or other symptoms may be somewhat similar.
Click to expand...
Er wut?
 
Kumar said:
Sorry you asked A&F so replying acc.

Equanimity will suggest neither science nor homeopathy is yet A&F and to achieve it should be their ultimate goal. No problem. Happy?:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

It is Ok.

No, I don't agree. That is the reason I dislike the A&F talk: Nothing can be A&F in its entirety.

Hans
 
steenkh said:
Good point. In order to have a side effect it must have an main effect. If there is no effect at all, it does not make sense to talk of side effects.
Click to expand...

Not necessary. Normal food intake or other normal exposures may show effects but not side effects.
 
MRC_Hans said:
It is not a drug if it has no effect. It is a sugar pill.

anyway, if it amazes you so much, why don't you read up on relevant legislation?

(Ah, wait. I know why)

Hans
Click to expand...

Why legislation can't be changed if science or logic justify indirect side effects?
 
Kumar said:
First, It was left: Dr Hahn. sdn't/can't be knowing about that no molecule can be present in any potency since I thing Avogadro constant come into practical application after his death.
Click to expand...

Hahnemann did acknowledge that his remedies might not contain any molecules. He assumed that some essence was left.

Honestly, I feel we can't get a 100% healthy person from then to now. Probably all have some kind of inhibition due to altered environmental changes of most physiological activities and specific relevant symptoms become apparent to some extent on application of low dose stimuli i.e on proving. More apparent on application on a real patient depending on the magnitude of his disease. I think, addictions, not taking addicting substance 1/2 days and permanently leaving that, bring withdrawl or other symptoms may be somewhat similar.
Click to expand...

No. The problem is that the recorded proving symptoms have little to do with the know pharmacological effects of the substances. Salt does not cause Nat Mur symptoms, sulphur does not cause Sulph symptoms, etc, etc.

You can't just assume the pharmacological effect from either a small or big dose. There is no connection.

Don't take my word for it, look in a Materia Medica for yourself. There are several online.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Hahnemann did acknowledge that his remedies might not contain any molecules. He assumed that some essence was left.



No. The problem is that the recorded proving symptoms have little to do with the know pharmacological effects of the substances. Salt does not cause Nat Mur symptoms, sulphur does not cause Sulph symptoms, etc, etc.

You can't just assume the pharmacological effect from either a small or big dose. There is no connection.

Don't take my word for it, look in a Materia Medica for yourself. There are several online.

Hans
Click to expand...

Problem is that, some remedies are single biochemical other as mixed. Some are homogenous other is hetrogenous. This make apparent differences. We don't know which substance in a mixed chemical remedy do9 what. They take it bit a gernalized but not specific effect. If you will compare Kitchen salt with Nat Mur you may get lot of relevance eg body water related but you may not get it with mixed type organic+inorganic chemicals comoposed remedy. So the variations and uncertainities. Like to horse, you can improve his running by offering love and also by hunter. But you can't relate love(homogenous) and hunter(hetrogenous) similarily.
 
Kumar said:
Problem is that, some remedies are single biochemical other as mixed. Some are homogenous other is hetrogenous. This make apparent differences. We don't know which substance in a mixed chemical remedy do9 what. They take it bit a gernalized but not specific effect. If you will compare Kitchen salt with Nat Mur you may get lot of relevance eg body water related but you may not get it with mixed type organic+inorganic chemicals comoposed remedy. So the variations and uncertainities. Like to horse, you can improve his running by offering love and also by hunter. But you can't relate love(homogenous) and hunter(hetrogenous) similarily.
Click to expand...

Yes, remedies are all from salt to complex organic compounds. Point is the same, however.

Hans
 
H'ethetheth said:
I don't know about where you live, but here in Germany it's extremely difficult to get a health insurance plan that doesn't cover homeopathic remedies. That is, I'm paying for the habits of idiots, and I'm not sure I can do anything about it.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should ask the administrator of the site Krankenkassen.DE to update that page. As it is now, you can only look for a Krankenkasse (public health insurer) that does cover homeopathy, not for one that does NOT cover it.

Also, that page says that coverage of purely homeopathy is forbidden for public insurers, but many do offer coverage of "integrated treatment", but it's clear as mud to me what the practical difference is.

MRC_Hans said:
Well, the thing is, insurance companies sell what people buy. If enough people want insurance against being run down by a stampede of elephants while walking down Kurfürstendamm, insurance companies will sell that. They don't give a damn about science.

And, homeopathy is nice, cheap, and relatively harmless, so the covering probably only costs you a few cents extra.
Click to expand...
In a time with rising health costs, you'd think that insurers would want to shave off every penny of their premiums to stay competitive. That accounts also for the German public health insurance, if it's still like it was when I lived there in the 90s: I had to join a "Kasse", a public health insurer, and had (at least) the choice between the local general one, which set its rate at ca. 13% of your gross wage, back then, and the Techniker (only open for people with a technical job) which set its rate at ca. 9% of your gross wage.

But as you say, costs for homeopathy are (fortunately) very low, even in Germany where I'd have thought it would be quite popular. According to Der Spiegel on 13 July 2010, on total public health costs of 170 billion Euro, the expenditure for homeopathy was only 9 million, i.e., 0.06%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom