Explain how homeopathy is better for:

So you're changing your mind? Homoeopathy can treat Addison's disease, can it? Even though it's a deficiency which requires supplementation?

Pick a story and stick to it, Kumar!

Now, we've established, from the link you yourself provided, that a person with Addison's disease will die if they don't get their medicine (supplementation, call it what you will).

Will a homoeopathic (or tissue salt) remedy prevent them from dying if that is prescribed instead? Has this ever happened?











No of course it hasn't.
 
Kumar said:
Simple awnser. If correct remedy is selected then it will not leave side/adverse/toxic effects in you.
Click to expand...

By that logic, if I drink a glass of spring water, it will cure any or all of those diseases. After all, it's the rare person that would suffer any adverse effect from drinking a glass of water.

Therefore, spring water must be the correct remedy for all the diseases listed above.

Wait, aren't homeopathic concoctions...never mind.
 
Rolfe,

There can be somenthing like TREATMENT and/or CURE.

TO AVOID CONTRADICTIONS & MAINTAIN RELATIONS I SHALL JUST AVOID & IGNORE ' OTHERWISE TALKS'.
 
Kumar said:
There can be somenthing like TREATMENT and/or CURE.

TO AVOID CONTRADICTIONS & MAINTAIN RELATIONS I SHALL JUST AVOID & IGNORE ' OTHERWISE TALKS'.
Click to expand...
Do you mean that to avoid answering difficult questions, you will ignore them?

This thread is asking homoeopaths, among which you seem to count yourself, to explain why homoeopathy is better than real medicine for a number of conditions. Including Addison's disease.

First you said that homoeopathy would not produce side effects. We have been asking whether or not it would cure the disease or at least save the patient from dying, but you will not answer that.

First you declare that is is a deficiency disease, which needs supplementation, and so cannot be treated by homoeopathy.

This is fine so far as it goes, but given that you now agree that there are diseases homoeopathy can't treat, including life-threatening ones, we become concerned to assure ourselves that homoeopaths can actually recognise these and send the patients to where they will be given proper treatment.

We repeat back to you the list of symptoms of Addison's disease from a site you yourself referenced (which looks uncannily like a homoeopathic case-taking!), and ask what advice a homoeopath would give to a patient presenting like this. Bearing in mind that the same site makes it clear that without treatment by real medicine this patient will certainly die, and probably very soon, but that with real medicine they can expect to live a normal life.

Given that you said homoeopathy cannot treat a deficiency, we were rather expecting that you might show us how a homoeopath would determine that this was such a case, and send the patient to a real doctor.

No, you changed your mind and said that you'd read in a book somewhere that there is a homoeopthic or tissue salts remedy for Addison's disease.

Make up your mind, Kumar. This is the subject of the thread. How is homoeopathy better than real medicine for things like Addison's disease? Ignoring awkward questions is not a response.

To recap. Addison's disease is a condition with rather vague symptoms. It can and will cause death, sudden death in fact. On the other hand, conventional treatment gives a sufferer a very good chance of leading a normal life. (Yes, the treatment is not a cure, it "manages" the disease, but so successfully that you just have to take a few pills every day and get on with your life.)

Can homoeopathy do as well as this? Can it do better than this?

Would an Addison's sufferer who went to a homoeopath:
  1. Be completely cured of the disease
  2. Be given permanent treatment that would allow them to live a normal life
  3. Be sent to a real doctor to get real treatment
  4. Be given magic sugar pills which do nothing, and die a week later?[/list=1]If I've missed an option, please feel free to point it out. However, this is the real question. If you won't answer it, we know what to think.

    Rolfe.
 
Kumar said:
About cure: Is this disease is curable? (Ref: previous posting)
Click to expand...
I've told you. Keep taking the tablets and live a normal life. Stop taking the tablets and you'll die.

How would a homoeopath deal with a case of Addison's disease. Presenting with the symptoms listed?

Rolfe.
 
I think he will also do similarily. Will try to control some imbalances with homeopathic remedies or will prescribe replacement tablets.
 
Kumar said:
I think he will also do similarily. Will try to control some imbalances with homeopathic remedies or will prescribe replacement tablets.
Click to expand...
Cue laffing dog


:dl:
 
Kumar said:
I think he will also do similarily. Will try to control some imbalances with homeopathic remedies or will prescribe replacement tablets.
Click to expand...
Kumar, have you the slightest shred of evidence that homoeopathic remedies can prevent the death of a patient with Addison's disease? If you developed these symptoms, and suspected that's what might be cause, would you be comfortable trusing your life to homoeopathic remedies? Given what it says on the web page you referenced?

"Replacement tablets." Kumar, the "allopathic" tablets that Addison's patients need to keep them alive are prescription-only. Homoeopaths do not have the right to prescribe such things. Only real doctors can do that. (Anyway, saying that a homoepath would prescribe real medicine isn't exactly much of an answer to the question, how is homoeopathy as good as or better than real medicine!)

So, what will a homoeopath do when a patient presenting with that list of symptoms turns up in his consulting room? Remember, homoeopaths are trained to match symptoms to remedies, not to diagnose the cause of disease, and they do not have the right to prescribe hydrocortisone or fludrocortisone.

Rolfe.
 
I thought these are like insulin-- a replacement alike supplements( both may not be exactly medicine) & what it makes a differanct when a doctor can use a replacement or a supplement instead of medicine.

MOREOVER, MY PERSONAL THINKING IS THAT AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY LIKE THAT: NO SYSTEM MAY BE AN ABSOLUTE/COMPLETE SYSTEM IN ITSELF. ALL DIFFERANT SYSTEMS MAY BE HAVING SOME OF ITS SPECIALITIES & DEFECTS. SO, FOR COMPLETE/BETTER CURE ALL/MOST OR SEVERAL SYSTEMS MAY, WILL HAVE TO JOIN HANDS.
 
Kumar said:
ALL DIFFERANT SYSTEMS MAY BE HAVING SOME OF ITS SPECIALITIES & DEFECTS. SO, FOR COMPLETE/BETTER CURE ALL/MOST OR SEVERAL SYSTEMS MAY, WILL HAVE TO JOIN HANDS.
Click to expand...

It's a nice idea, and may be true in some respects. However when you refer to homeopathy in this way (or your tissue salt theories) they actually fundamentally contradict other systems, in this case conventional medicine.

For a start the two methodologies will not be able to agree on a diagnosis.

Rolfe helped you with this by starting from a position of diagnosed patient and fully describing the condition, symptoms etc.

The real question (as I see it) is how you would handle a patient presenting with symptoms like this, especially if they have not seen an ordinary doctor. Would you;
a) recognise the condition.
b) strongly advise (direct) the patient to obtain conventional medical help.
c) understand you are responsible for their welfare, as failure to do (a) or (b) will certainly result in the patient dying.
 
Kumar said:
I thought these are like insulin-- a replacement alike supplements( both may not be exactly medicine) & what it makes a differanct when a doctor can use a replacement or a supplement instead of medicine.

MOREOVER, MY PERSONAL THINKING IS THAT AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY LIKE THAT: NO SYSTEM MAY BE AN ABSOLUTE/COMPLETE SYSTEM IN ITSELF. ALL DIFFERANT SYSTEMS MAY BE HAVING SOME OF ITS SPECIALITIES & DEFECTS. SO, FOR COMPLETE/BETTER CURE ALL/MOST OR SEVERAL SYSTEMS MAY, WILL HAVE TO JOIN HANDS.
Click to expand...
Insulin, fludrocortisone, thyroxine and so on may be replacing things the body is lacking, but they are medicines by any accepted definition of the term, and the conditions caused by their absence are diseases.

Stop shouting.

Kumar, if you want to say that homoeopathy can do nothing for these diseases and "allopathic" medicine should be used, fine. Say so. We agree with you!

Which raises two other questions.

The slightly off-topic one which I've hinted at, how would a homoeopath know that the patient needed one of these drugs, and so needed to be told to go to someone who was allowed to prescribe them?

And back on topic, look again at the list of conditions Hydrogen Cyanide listed in the first post and tell us whether you think homoeopathy is better than real medicine for any of them, if so why?

Rolfe.

(By the way, Kumar, there's a litle problem with the bit where you shout. Real medicine is only interested in what works. It's not a philosophical system beyond the philosophy of find out what's wrong and use any rational means to fix it. So if something is actually proved to work, it becomes part of real medicine.)
 
Rolfe,

HOW YOU SAY I AM SHOUTING. I MAY BE TELLING BIT BOLDLY.:D Every therapy has got its own specilities & defects. You can't say that modren science or other therapy ALONE, is absolute or complete. Many things may be possible in CMS but some other things may be only/also be possible in other systems with additional benefits. Why we don't try to take benefits of all for the all? About homeopathy, I am bit started suspecting that this community may not be willing to expose complete details (instead observed & existing in mass) with a fear of CMS hijecking it (as seen in some other). Moreover, it is not well attended like allopathy with so much involvements of Govt. & private agencies, otherwise replacements, supplements, surgery etc.(exept medicines with harsh & toxic chemicals whose substitute in homeopathy could be possible) in a bit refined way, would have been a part of it.
 
Every therapy has got its own specilities & defects. You can't say that modren science or other therapy ALONE, is absolute or complete.

The difference is that the limitations and benefits of a mainstream medical treatment modality are well-known. I take Nexium, for example, and I know that Nexium can't cure cancer or a heart defect. I know it should help treat reflux disease and relieve those symptoms. I know that it can cause certain digestive and abdominal side effects. These are well-defined. It is up to the individual to determine whether the possible side effects are worth the benefit the treatment will bring.

I know that if I wanted to further control my reflux, I need to do other things, like eat properly and exercise. I know that if Nexium by itself fails, that there may be other options to cure reflux if I feel the risks of those treatments outweight the benefits.

If someone wants to use an alternative remedy on top of mainstream treatment for a medical condition, then go ahead. But then you can't turn around if the patient gets better and claim that the alternative remedy was the reason for the improvement, because you don't know for sure.
 
Frankly, I also feel it is bit scattered & unorganized AND so standardization & other possibilities should be taken up with just equinalent involvements because it is a Mass existing, well distributed, observed & experianced system. All scientific possibilities, whatever can be possible should be properly studied.
 
Mass existing : Existing in so many people. Well distributed means widespread.
 
Kumar said:
You can't say that modren science or other therapy ALONE, is absolute or complete. Many things may be possible in CMS but some other things may be only/also be possible in other systems with additional benefits. Why we don't try to take benefits of all for the all?

About homeopathy, I am bit started suspecting that this community may not be willing to expose complete details (instead observed & existing in mass) with a fear of CMS hijecking it (as seen in some other). Moreover, it is not well attended like allopathy with so much involvements of Govt. & private agencies, otherwise replacements, supplements, surgery etc.(exept medicines with harsh & toxic chemicals whose substitute in homeopathy could be possible) in a bit refined way, would have been a part of it.
Click to expand...
Modern science of course does not have all the answers. Some things are not yet known. Some things may indeed never be known. However, the very essence of modern science is that it takes "benefits" (or truth) wherever that is to be found. The uncomfortable fact is that there is no benefit and no truth in homoeopathy to be taken.

Kumar glibly states that it could be possible to substitute "harsh chemicals" with homoeopathy. But he has absolutely no idea which "harsh chemicals" he's talking about, or what homoeopathic methods.

I also think he's saying that we're holding out on him because we don't want homoeopathy to be understood and so incorporated into real medicine. :confused: Because it would be a threat to real medicine? :confused:

Kumar, we're right back to "prove it works". Just show that there is any reproducible effect in homoeopathy, any credible evidence that these content-free remedies do anything at all. That's what this thread is about. Name a disease that can be better treated by homoeopathy than by real medicine (apart from hypochondria!) and explain your evidence for this.

You've said nothing about this at all, apart to take the specific disease I picked out of the list to press you on and concede that for this type of disease, real medicine is better.

You've just made sweeping generalisations, and declared blindly that you think homoeopathy ought to be able to treat some things. But we're back to the lack of evidence.

And now I return you to Kumar, who is going to tell us that when so many people believe that homoeopathy works it cannot be doubted, so we should all go away and research it.

No, Kumar, first prove it works. For anything. (Except hypochondria, which we concede.)

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom