answers to questions

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Please accept my fulsome apology.

What was your question back then btw ?

Well apologised Don, you were a little too rough on Barb, but you were not entirely wrong. The thread definitely seems to have got derailed onto other issues, leaving behind the demolition rubble of Barb's answers. After MRC_Hans put up his response to your answers you seem to gone straight back to the meta-discussion of the circumstances surrounding people calling each other names and your not liking Rolfe's Sig Line. That does look pretty much like misdirection.

Barb, I don't see any evidence of you actually considering the points made that show your answers to be unsatisfactory. Do you wish to reconsider any of those answers in the light of the counter-arguments?

 

[Barbrae]

After MRC_Hans put up his response to your answers you seem to gone straight back to the meta-discussion of the circumstances surrounding people calling each other names and your not liking Rolfe's Sig Line. That does look pretty much like misdirection.

Friend, after page one the only time I brought up rolfes sig was in response to her. How exactly is that misdirecting?

You guys never seem to realize that I am one person, with a life, who can't possible reply to everything tossed at me - add that with the past 4 days or so that the board was crappping out and again to reiterate, I do have a life so of course things will go unanswered, how could they not. Now, if you folks would like to elect one individual to represent you all that I could converse with I would probably have an easier time addressing questions, until then, it is very easy for you to say I am avoiding, misdirecting, hiding, whatever which is bull. I have spent a lot of time here to answer questions knowing full well my answers would be "unacceptable" but I don't intentionally avoid or misdirect or hide. Perhaps other homeopaths have here in the past, but i don't and it ticks me off that you all reach for that little dig whenever I don't reply to something. Tell me, How could I possibly have the time or even desire to reply to everythign posted to me by about 10 different people?

I haven't even had the time to post my own dang quesiton. Sheesh

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Friend, after page one the only time I brought up rolfes sig was in response to her. How exactly is that misdirecting?

You guys never seem to realize that I am one person, with a life, who can't possible reply to everything tossed at me - add that with the past 4 days or so that the board was crappping out and again to reiterate, I do have a life so of course things will go unanswered, how could they not. Now, if you folks would like to elect one individual to represent you all that I could converse with I would probably have an easier time addressing questions, until then, it is very easy for you to say I am avoiding, misdirecting, hiding, whatever which is bull. I have spent a lot of time here to answer questions knowing full well my answers would be "unacceptable" but I don't intentionally avoid or misdirect or hide. Perhaps other homeopaths have here in the past, but i don't and it ticks me off that you all reach for that little dig whenever I don't reply to something. Tell me, How could I possibly have the time or even desire to reply to everythign posted to me by about 10 different people?

I haven't even had the time to post my own dang quesiton. Sheesh

OK. But we seem to be having another exchange now about the issue of how to discuss not discussing the issues. I directed your attention back to Hans reply to your answers to see if we can pick things up from there because from that point onwards there has been no substantive addressing of the issues barring a futile detour into plants.

Your life and the board technical problems have not prevented you from keeping on popping up to debate the use of the word "allopath" with Rolfe or other assorted side issues. You have, by a brief count made 63 posts in 7 days since Hans put up his responses. Fine, let's not call it misdirection, let's call it allowing the tread to be redailed at the expense of it's main subject, a subject I may remind you, you created yourself.

As far as I can see progress stopped completely about the time I said;

" So, we come down to it. Your personal subjective experience vetoes all else. Are you claiming infallibility and perfect objectivity?"

Though that faith is rather undermined by the statements that began;

" WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA, I have never treated my child with homeopathy for an illness that was lifethreatening."

After that, no real effort at the main issues, though I might find it german at this point to suggest that the post of which I just gave you a partial quote is sufficient to show you that your position is fatally internally contradictory: you believe homeopathy works, but won't trust it when something serious occurs.

I think all any of us are trying to do is to get you to think about what you believe, whether or not that reflection is sufficient to make you alter those beliefs is in your hands.

 

[The Don]

Trying to analyse Barbrae's answers. I Have paraphrased them (perhaps unfairly) to make this post a managable length.

Answer 1: It's difficult to test homoeopathy because it may take a while to get the right remedy. Yet many healers get instantaneous results. It also smacks of "we keep trying different remedies until the patient either gets better of their own accord, wanders off bored (in which case claim cure) or is convinced that they are cured". This explanation doesn't really wash when you consider that may trials last months. Are you really saying that it often takes much longer than that to come up with a treatment ?

Answer 2: Like cures like but it's not a natural law. Two similar diseases cannot co-exist "Like cures like" has yet to be demonstrated except by some torturous wordplay. Two similar diseases can co-exist unless of course you define similar as "cannot co-exist" (the no true Scotsman argument)

Answer 3: Don't know how it works, maybe all substances work I guess one of my problems is how does the water know which substance (out of the thousands) to potentise ? If all substances in the water were contributing then to the first few orders of approximation all substances would produce the same result (bacause 9,999 out of the 10,000 substances in the water woudl be identical).

Answer 4: I don't know how water stores information but it does Not an answer, it has not been shown to do so

Answer 5: Lactose contains the energy from the water If there's energy you should be able to measure it - we cannot. How does the water "know" which of the 10,000 substances to store as energy and which to leave alone ?

Answer 6: We recommend, animal testing is unethical, we learn by example You do realise that some animals are physiologically very different ? I seem to remember that Penicillin kills hamsters stone dead. Just because something is safe for humans doesn't mean it's safe for animals. So what it comes back to is "we keep stuffing them full of remedy until they get better of their own accord.

Answer 7: Question unitelligible

Answer 8: (some) Genetic diseases can be cured it depends on the disease This is a perfect test for the effectiveness of homoeopathy. Carry out a genetic test, show the genetic flaw, administer the remedy, demonstrate the absence of the genetic flaw. Are you sure that some genetic diseases can be cured ?

Answer 9: I believe what I believe, I have seen homoeopathy work Good on you, many people in the alternative group believe in everything. Are you sure you haven't been mistaking cures for either the placebo effect or people just getting better (as my old Gran used to say "A cold gets better in 7 days with medicine - a week without")

Answer 10: I'll try but I'm not very good Get your excuses in ahead of time


Thank you for your honest attempt to provide answers, it's certainly far more than any of your colleages have been rpepared to do and please accept once again my heartfelt apologies for my unpardonable brusqueness and rudeness earlier.

Your answers however are almost all of the "I don't know how but it works" kind. That isn't proof, it's faith ad weaseling out on the "There's so many cures so little time in a test" doesn't sit well with the claims of cures.

 

[Barbrae]

OK. But we seem to be having another exchange now about the issue of how to discuss not discussing the issues. I directed your attention back to Hans reply to your answers to see if we can pick things up from there because from that point onwards there has been no substantive addressing of the issues barring a futile detour into plants.

Your life and the board technical problems have not prevented you from keeping on popping up to debate the use of the word "allopath" with Rolfe or other assorted side issues. You have, by a brief count made 63 posts in 7 days since Hans put up his responses. Fine, let's not call it misdirection, let's call it allowing the tread to be redailed at the expense of it's main subject, a subject I may remind you, you created yourself.

As far as I can see progress stopped completely about the time I said;

" So, we come down to it. Your personal subjective experience vetoes all else. Are you claiming infallibility and perfect objectivity?"

Though that faith is rather undermined by the statements that began;

" WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA, I have never treated my child with homeopathy for an illness that was lifethreatening."

After that, no real effort at the main issues, though I might find it german at this point to suggest that the post of which I just gave you a partial quote is sufficient to show you that your position is fatally internally contradictory: you believe homeopathy works, but won't trust it when something serious occurs.

I think all any of us are trying to do is to get you to think about what you believe, whether or not that reflection is sufficient to make you alter those beliefs is in your hands.

First of all - I didn't create this subject BSM - you folks did, you requested an answer to some questions and I supplied, to the best of my ability, my answers. I also made it clear from the beginning that I was not interested in a debate and that my belief in homeopathy is based largely on experience, not studies.

"debating" the word allopath took a few minutes at most, a lot less time than would be required to address the issues raised by Hans. I think it is clear that I have issues with sarcasm, nastiness, unfair treatment, etc thrown at me and will reply to comments made by people that fit those categories - so if you want me to make time for the other posts, let's stop the crap that is slung.

Regarding you ststement that I believe homeopathy works but won't trust it with something lifethreatening, you are correct,in a way. I do trust that if my child was having a severe asthma attack that if given the correct remedy at the correct potency it would stop the attack - I do not trust myself as a prescriber to find said remedy in the short amount of time most emergencies have - I aslo made that clear before. It's not homeopathy I do not trust it is myself, or another homeopath I do not trust.

Do you really think I haven't thought about what I believe? That is just so patronizing. I have given years of thought to homeopathy. I am not the fool you seem to think I am.

If youwant to repost the questions you'd like answered that Hans posted I'll try to address them.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Do you really think I haven't thought about what I believe?

I don't know. What I do know is that if someoe asked me a similar level of question aouth the basics of real medicine or science I could given a reasoned answer without much pause for thought in a matter of a few minutes.

If you are not here for a debate then I am unclear what these exchanges constitute.

Anyway, I shall wait and see whether the thought you say you have given to homeopathy enables you to reply to Hans (page 2, as you have already pointed out) or Don (the post just above yours), pausing only to point out yet another statement of religious faith unsupported by evidence "I do trust that if my child was having a severe asthma attack that if given the correct remedy at the correct potency it would stop the attack". One can believe a great many untrue things provided they are not put to the test the security blanket is pulled away.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Do you really think I haven't thought about what I believe? That is just so patronizing. I have given years of thought to homeopathy. I am not the fool you seem to think I am.

I will also add that the way not to be thought a fool generally is to show an ability not to exhibit foolish thought, so it is rather in the hands of the one who perceives that to be thought of themselves. The same goes for being patronised. You can only be patronised if you already perceive yourself to be in the inferior position, the way not to feel patronised is to produce superior arguments.

Anyway this is all derailing to the main issue, which is picking up from where your answers left off. And while I am also happy that you deigned to produce answers, which is more than can be said for most homeopaths, they don't count for much if they are not capable of being defended.

 

[exarch]

Or to expand on BSM's comments:

You responded to the questions in a way that makes sense to you, and you feel you've adequately answered the problems and contradictions brought forward. However, from our point of view, you've just skirted the issues, and no real answers have come forward except: "I believe it works", why?: " because I've seen something which I thought was homeopathy having an effect", while at the same time admitting that you don't think anyone is qualified enough to take on a life threatening desease with homeopathic remedies only. Your miracle cure is only a miracle cure when you hear others speaking about it, but when it comes right down to it, you have no certainty, and you definitely have some doubts when it comes to your own health and that of your children and patients.

So do you think ChaChaHeels and Albert are gambling with peoples lives by denying them basic medical care for serious problems, or do you think they are doing the right thing?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

So do you think ChaChaHeels and Albert are gambling with peoples lives by denying them basic medical care for serious problems, or do you think they are doing the right thing?

Don't forget Snoopy "First, get thee to a homeopath" Lewis.