Senstivity & Health?

[MRC_Hans]

I think it would be good practice to repeat your post at hpathy instead of linking to it (Kayveeh = Kumar).

However:

I was trying to better understand homeopathic terms in logical sense.

OK. Since homeopathy is logically consistent internally (that does not mean it has any connection to reality), I can try to answer according to homeopathic logic.

Altered state of health may be related to altred senstivity and altered senstivity to altered immunity.

In homeopathy, individual sensitivty is accepted, but immunity is not recognized, except as the general ability of the Vital Force to maintain a healthy state. As such, it may be considered equal to sensitivity.

Under modern environment & lifestyle, it may be diffucult to say anyone can be in perfect health esp. when living in a big modern city. As such can we think homeopathic terms as under:-

You should try to live in a medieval city.
Obviously, since homeopathy was 'invented' @ AD1800, and hasn't been seriously revised since, such 'miasms' as might exist in a modern city are not considered in homeopathic doctrine.

1.Acute state:- Increased senstivity & enhanced immune response.

No, homeopathy does not concern itself with 'inner causes'. In fact, searching for inner causes is explicitly discouraged. Homeopathy concerns itself with an altered symptom profile.

2.Chronic state:- Decreased or compromised senstivity & immunity.

No, chronic states in homeopathy is much as in other systems: Long lasting disease.

3.Proving Symptoms:-Mild aggravations due to improved senstivity so immunity due to application of remedy consdering even healthy people can be mildly sick.

A proving symptom is not an aggravation, since a prover must be healthy. The proving symptoms are defined as unusual symptoms observed when healthy, 'sensitive and irritable' persons receive a remedy in sufficient dose.

4. Aggravations:- Feelings due to increased senstivity or due to reversal of senstivity which was previously compromised.

Aggravation is defined as a temporary strengthening of disease symptoms caused by the remedy. Since the remedy should cause the same symptoms as the disease (similum), these symptoms can be expected to temporarily worsen.

5. Healing & cure:- Full Reversal or regaining of senstivity which was previously compromised
senstivity.

No, in homeopathic doctrine, cure is the restoration of the vital force to normal functioning.

For example:- An alcoholic in initial stage of drinking, get lot of senstivity to alcohol even from 1 or 2 servings(somewhat acute state) but can tolerate even 6+ servings at later stage(chronic state). If he is treated with remedies, he may again regain his senstivity to even 1 or 2 servings OR can also leave it(healing & cure).

This has nothing to do with homeopathy.

Please comment.

You need to either consider these things from either a homeopathy POV, or from the view of modern medicine. Homeopathy claims a completely different basic function of the body, health, and disease, so you cannot compare the two.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

I think it would be good practice to repeat your post at hpathy instead of linking to it (Kayveeh = Kumar).

However:



OK. Since homeopathy is logically consistent internally (that does not mean it has any connection to reality), I can try to answer according to homeopathic logic.



In homeopathy, individual sensitivty is accepted, but immunity is not recognized, except as the general ability of the Vital Force to maintain a healthy state. As such, it may be considered equal to sensitivity.



You should try to live in a medieval city.
Obviously, since homeopathy was 'invented' @ AD1800, and hasn't been seriously revised since, such 'miasms' as might exist in a modern city are not considered in homeopathic doctrine.



No, homeopathy does not concern itself with 'inner causes'. In fact, searching for inner causes is explicitly discouraged. Homeopathy concerns itself with an altered symptom profile.



No, chronic states in homeopathy is much as in other systems: Long lasting disease.



A proving symptom is not an aggravation, since a prover must be healthy. The proving symptoms are defined as unusual symptoms observed when healthy, 'sensitive and irritable' persons receive a remedy in sufficient dose.



Aggravation is defined as a temporary strengthening of disease symptoms caused by the remedy. Since the remedy should cause the same symptoms as the disease (similum), these symptoms can be expected to temporarily worsen.



No, in homeopathic doctrine, cure is the restoration of the vital force to normal functioning.



This has nothing to do with homeopathy.



You need to either consider these things from either a homeopathy POV, or from the view of modern medicine. Homeopathy claims a completely different basic function of the body, health, and disease, so you cannot compare the two.

Hans

THANKS. But all that you have told or what homeopathy consider in above, are just name/language change but may not be SENSE change. Body mechanism can make you more painful in actute state but less in chronic states. So when chronic states are reversed, it is likely you start feeling pain which may also attract. immune response. Anyway I don't think any homeopath will tell, but let us wait.

 

[Kumar]

No, you can examine if the claims are accurate. The claims of homoeopathy are not.


I have no idea what you mean by this.

Many issues are different in case of homeopathy to justify it in your(science) strict norms. Such as, delicate & deep effects, individuality, constitutional effects, leasrt adversities etc. It can't be at par in both positive & negative sense.

 

[Mojo]

Moreover Conv.System can be intrested in hijecking scientific athings, so why homeopaths will look on science?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Allow me to translate from Kumarese. It's a bit convoluted so I have paraphrased...

"Since conventional medicine is hogging science research to itself only, why do you think homeopaths look askance at science research?"

Background: It's a very common but mistaken view by homeopaths that scientists won't test homeopathy because they know that it works and to make these results public will upset them and rock their world domination of the medical establishment. That homeopathy has been tested properly many times over with the startlingly obvious and expected (non-)results is dismissed as lies and propaganda from "those nasty establishment scientists trying to keep us down".

It is also one of Kumar's excuses for not testing homoeopathy properly: if homoeopaths can prove it works it will be stolen ("hijacked")by medicine (after all, this is what medicine does - stuff that works becomes part of medicine, stuff that doesn't remains "alternative").

 

[Kumar]

Vested interests & commercial interests are quite common nowadays. You know that medical studies & maintaining other infrastructure is very costly affair. If a student of homeopathy complete doctor's course(equal to medical but just difference in healing agents), he would not want, his system in hyjecked but other system.

 

[MRC_Hans]

THANKS. But all that you have told or what homeopathy consider in above, are just name/language change but may not be SENSE change.

Well, that is what homeopathic doctrine says. If you don't think it makes sense, ... I can only agree with you.

Body mechanism can make you more painful in actute state but less in chronic states.

That is correct.

So when chronic states are reversed, it is likely you start feeling pain

Yes.

which may also attract. immune response.

No, immune response is largely unrelated to pain. And to symptoms in general. Often disease symptoms are the effect of the immune response and not the other way around.

Anyway I don't think any homeopath will tell, but let us wait.

No, in that repect, I notice homeopaths are smarter than skeptics: They generally ignore your posts.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

Well, that is what homeopathic doctrine says. If you don't think it makes sense, ... I can only agree with you.

Yes, but when Dr Hahn. researched, thought differently/dynamically & deviated the practices, how he can resist other to do so? On the contrary he should had encouraged it, so that, probably we could had got much more. Eg. What Dr.Sch. could get.

That is correct.



Yes.




No, immune response is largely unrelated to pain. And to symptoms in general. Often disease symptoms are the effect of the immune response and not the other way around.

Apart from withdrawl from the stimulus of pain, what can be other physiology to it?

No, in that repect, I notice homeopaths are smarter than skeptics: They generally ignore your posts.

Hans

What do you suspect from it?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Vested interests & commercial interests are quite common nowadays. You know that medical studies & maintaining other infrastructure is very costly affair. If a student of homeopathy complete doctor's course(equal to medical but just difference in healing agents), he would not want, his system in hyjecked but other system.

This is blatant nonsense, for several reasons:

- How should the evil pharma industry hijack homeopathy? Most remedies have been around for 150 - 200 years, it is a bit late to patent them.

- Why should a homeopathic practitioner worry if more pharmacies started producing the remedies he uses? Such a thing can only result in more competition and lower prices.

- Why should homeopaths keep struggling against reluctant authorities if they could get scientific justification and join the main business?

- Even those homeopaths who are 'not interested in money' (if such really exist) could have nothing against homeopathy getting a wider following.

- Last, but certainly not least: Homeopathy has been well known for 200 years. If there was a buck to make, what exactly should keep pharma companies from taking it up?

This 'hijack' idea is simply another stupid excuse for not supporting a proper scientific test.

If you and other proponents really, really believe that homeopathy works, you should be clamoring for proper tests.

.... But deep down you all know it doesn't.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, but when Dr Hahn. researched, thought differently/dynamically & deviated the practices, how he can resist other to do so? On the contrary he should had encouraged it, so that, probably we could had got much more. Eg. What Dr.Sch. could get.

I have no idea, but that was his position. It is a little late to ask him why.

Apart from withdrawl from the stimulus of pain, what can be other physiology to it?

I don't understand the question.

What do you suspect from it?

I suspect that homeopaths are used to ignore things they don't understand or don't like. Otherwise they would stop being homeopaths.

Hans

 

[zooterkin]

It is also one of Kumar's excuses for not testing homoeopathy properly: if homoeopaths can prove it works it will be stolen ("hijacked")by medicine (after all, this is what medicine does - stuff that works becomes part of medicine, stuff that doesn't remains "alternative").

Vested interests & commercial interests are quite common nowadays. You know that medical studies & maintaining other infrastructure is very costly affair. If a student of homeopathy complete doctor's course(equal to medical but just difference in healing agents), he would not want, his system in hyjecked but other system.

Did you get your MDC application in yet, Mojo?

Yes, but when Dr Hahn. researched, thought differently/dynamically & deviated the practices, how he can resist other to do so? On the contrary he should had encouraged it, so that, probably we could had got much more. Eg. What Dr.Sch. could get.

I guess Hahn. means Hahnemann, but Dr Sch.? Scholl? Sch... You know who?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Did you get your MDC application in yet, Mojo?



I guess Hahn. means Hahnemann, but Dr Sch.? Scholl? Sch... You know who?

No, it is Dr. Schüssler. He had a theory of cell salts. It is really totally contrary to homeopathy, but for some reason, some people, including Kumar, subscribe to both. Presumably because they have not understood either.

Hans

ETA: Oh, and if predicting Kumar was MDC eligible, this place would be crawling with millionaires.

 

[Kumar]

This is blatant nonsense, for several reasons:

- How should the evil pharma industry hijack homeopathy? Most remedies have been around for 150 - 200 years, it is a bit late to patent them.

- Why should a homeopathic practitioner worry if more pharmacies started producing the remedies he uses? Such a thing can only result in more competition and lower prices.

- Why should homeopaths keep struggling against reluctant authorities if they could get scientific justification and join the main business?

- Even those homeopaths who are 'not interested in money' (if such really exist) could have nothing against homeopathy getting a wider following.

- Last, but certainly not least: Homeopathy has been well known for 200 years. If there was a buck to make, what exactly should keep pharma companies from taking it up?

This 'hijack' idea is simply another stupid excuse for not supporting a proper scientific test.

If you and other proponents really, really believe that homeopathy works, you should be clamoring for proper tests.

.... But deep down you all know it doesn't.

Hans

Will then, not there be more competition due to mushrooming of more & more pharmacies and of its newly encouraged & added practitioners?

But ok, people may get better & diciplined treatments, if it is properly/scientifically regularized.

There should not be more problem in justifying lower potencies of 12 Sch. salts.

 

[Kumar]

I have no idea, but that was his position. It is a little late to ask him why.



I don't understand the question.



I suspect that homeopaths are used to ignore things they don't understand or don't like. Otherwise they would stop being homeopaths.

Hans

Yes.

What is the physiology & pathology of pain? When I pin slightly anywhere on my body, I do feel pain but I also feel that something is getting concentrated/attracted on that point?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Will then, not there be more competition due to mushrooming of more & more pharmacies and of its newly encouraged & added practitioners?

Well, it is the ultimate goal of medicine to make itself redundant.

But ok, people may get better & diciplined treatments, if it is properly/scientifically regularized.

Of course providing that there IS a science to it.

There should not be more problem in justifying lower potencies of 12 Sch. salts.

Yes, because Schüssler salts are not similum, they are basically the opposite.

Hans

 

[Daylightstar]

Yes.

What is the physiology & pathology of pain? When I pin slightly anywhere on my body, I do feel pain but I also feel that something is getting concentrated/attracted on that point?

This is entirely normal. That something is called attention.
Nothing to worry about.

 

[fuelair]

It is also one of Kumar's excuses for not testing homoeopathy properly: if homoeopaths can prove it works it will be stolen ("hijacked")by medicine (after all, this is what medicine does - stuff that works becomes part of medicine, stuff that doesn't remains "alternative").

And, what keeps homeopaths from hiring their own real, fully degreed and certified scientists to run the tesats themselves? If GSK does not expect Merck to check the efficacy of GSK's drug line, how can X-brand Homeopathetics expect some other "lab" to test theirs? Not how it's done.

 

[fuelair]

And, nothing prevents the homeopathetics from going to the FDA and running the required trials under the required conditions to show "does no harm" and "efficacy".

Obviously, they would be a shoe-in for the first! Their problem would be proving even minor efficacy - but, if they did.......

 

[fuelair]

Vested interests & commercial interests are quite common nowadays. You know that medical studies & maintaining other infrastructure is very costly affair. If a student of homeopathy complete doctor's course(equal to medical but just difference in healing agents), he would not want, his system in hyjecked but other system.

It has been that way almost since the beginning of civilazation - that is unlikely to change soon. But, frankly, anyone who chosses to use untested/unproven "cures" - especially one's that are touted as operating in ways chemistry/physics do not allow (or do you believe that the secret cabal selects only certain students to teach the real secrets of chemistry to and all the rest go through life doing things as they were taught and figured out, all of which work according to the rules, procedures, theories and laws they were taught and/or figured out without ever catching on that they were taught wrong) (oh, wait, they can't have been taught wrong if what they do always works yet when they test out the homeopathetic's procedures they NEVER work??) is not working in the light. Hmm. must think on this!!!

 

[Sledge]

Kumar, people die because of homeopathy. They die of illnesses and injuries easily treated by modern, REAL, medicine. Examine this list. Look at all the unnecessary suffering caused. Look at the ages of some of those victims. 17 months, 6 months, 19 months, 11 months... the list goes on. How can you look at that and possibly argue that homeopathy is in any way acceptable?

 

[Fnord]

A mistake.

Yes, belief in Homeopathy is a mistake.

Read my OP, what I specifically mentioned about homeopathgy.

Is that an abbreviation for "Homeopath-thingy"?

As repeated many times, I was just interested to understand in understanding about Altered Sensitivity related to altered immunity, altered health & healing.

Alter a person's sensitivity, and they either feel more pain, feel no pain, or feel the wrong kind of pain.

Alter a person's immunity, and they either become susceptible to disease, or their own immune system will make them sick or kill them.

Altering a person's health yields the same results as altering their immunity, as a larger portion of a person's health depends on their immunity.

Alter their ability to heal, and they die either from too little healing (i.e., hemophilia, immune deficiency syndrome, et cetera), or from too much healing (i.e., hyper-trophic scaring, keloid histopathologically, et cetera).

I just gave a link for convinience sake.

Stating your claims more clearly would greatly enhance the convenience factor.[/quote]

Whatever I posted in other fourm is not in their favor, as it can shake whole theory.

Then be careful of what you post in other forums, since anything you post can be used as reference in a discussion, no matter where it was posted - that's part of Internet use.

Mr MRHans can better understand it.

Then I suggest that you and "Mr MRHans" continue your discussion in private. Not that I think that you should, but that if he is the only one who understands you, then maybe you can learn more effectively through an exchange of PMs.