Explain how homeopathy is better for:

[Benguin]

Mass existing : Existing in so many people. Well distributed means widespread.

OK fine.

Now please explain how that is proof of anything at all.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

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,

I'm not letting you off the hook on this one. You have been asked absolutely what the outcome would be if a patient presnted to a homeopath with the symptoms of Addison's disease, but without the diagnosis having been made. Homeopaths are not allowed to enquire into diagnosis, they treat symptoms with homeopathic remedies. Addison's is rapidly fatal unless it is treated absolutey specifically with conventional medicine to correct the deficiency.

It is completely irrelevant to this whether homeopathy might, in theory, work for other diseases. It is also completely irrelevant whether real medicine is incomplete in it ability to treat all disease, it can prevent Addison's patients from dying.

So, what would the homeopath do when presented with a paient displaying that list of symptoms? What would the Tissue Salts fantasist do? What would be the outcome?

 

[Rolfe]

My God, I had a phone call this morning from work (it's my weekend off, I'm on my way to a barbecue, whoopee!), about a suspect Addison's. Not a clear-cut set of results, what to do, Saturday morning and all? TREAT IT!! A spot of fludrocortisone and dexmethasone and some i/v saline won't hurt in the short term even if it's something else, but it will definitely save the dog's life if it is Addison's. Worry about getting a definite diagnosis next week.

That's how urgent it is. If the owners had taken that pooch to a homoeopath, what hope? (Well, in this country, being as it was an animal, they'd have had to use a homoeopathic real vet at worst, so one sort of hopes the residual brain might have been engaged.)

The tragic thing is, if an Addison's patient dies in these circumstances it's likely the diagnosis will never be made, and nobody will ever realise that the death was entirely preventable. The homoeopath will have some soft-soap story, and that will be the end of it.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

All right, let's just repeat this again for Kumar, and any other passing homoeopaths who have the guts to get involved.

Let's just give a little more detail to flesh out this patient. She's a 35 year old woman, married with an eight-year-old daughter. She is taking the contraceptive pill but no other medication. She was generally well until about two months previously when she began to feel unusually fatigued, and developed unexplained stomach upsets. On presentation the following symptom picture was elicited.<ul>[*]Weakness - extreme
[*]Fatigue - muscle weakness
[*]Unintentional weight loss
[*]Nausea
[*]Vomiting
[*]Chronic diarrhea
[*]Loss of appetite
[*]Darkening of the skin - skin color, patchy<ul>[*]Unnaturally dark color in some locations[*]Paleness may also occur[/list][*]Mouth lesions on the inside of a cheek (buccal mucosa) - pigmentation
[*]Slow, sluggish, lethargic movement
[*]Changes in the blood pressure or heart rate
[*]Salt craving[/list]What would be the homoeopathic approach to handling such a case?

(Good grief, I'm tempted to re-register at H'pathy as a homoeopath seeking help with just such a case and see what they say. I've never tried real trolling before, but this one's tempting!)

OK, off you go. It's as real a situation as any other. Homoeopaths of the world, how do you treat this patient?

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

BSM, Rolfe, better put your case on homeopathic sites--bit honestly. You may get the awnser. Any case require Physical examination in person. Moreover, homeopathy do not treat the disease but treat the person & every case is differant to them. Reg; working of homeopathy/TRS, several people's experiance is a big proof. Why, you all or anyone interested to know it-- do a survey at homeopathic clinics as asked several times. Reg; its science-- homeopathic community may not be interested in showing its science & if science want to satisfy itself or want to degrade it than they have to conduct their own research for the existing concepts. Alike, so many similar concepts will also be cleared to them. If Science is offending it, then they have to prove it (a court working). One or two in house experiments can't make a judgement. They have to go on finding the reasonings till it still exist or it dies in itself.

JUST DON'T REPEAT IT.

 

[Kumar]

OK fine.

Now please explain how that is proof of anything at all.

Just go to court room & see how they take & accept physical evidances.

 

[Benguin]

Oh get real please.

If I went to court and tried to suggest "I must be innocent of this crime because everybody thinks I am" I'd be laughed out. I might even be held in contempt.

Try and give me an example that works.

And don't move the target. I questioned your claim that having lots of people believe something means it must be true.

That is not logical. You'd present yourself much better if you just admitted it was a fallacious argument and withdrew it.

 

[Kumar]

Oh get real please.

If I went to court and tried to suggest "I must be innocent of this crime because everybody thinks I am" I'd be laughed out. I might even be held in contempt.

Try and give me an example that works.

And don't move the target. I questioned your claim that having lots of people believe something means it must be true.

That is not logical. You'd present yourself much better if you just admitted it was a fallacious argument and withdrew it.

Benguin,

"It means that you accept it that it (homeopathy) is a system existing in mass & widespread public since long to their satisfaction by their experiances & observations which justify this system. However it could not be yet proved by science within their current capabilities. IS it okay?"

 

[Z]

Ah, yes... the old '50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong' argument.

Millions believe all sorts of nonsense. Doesn't make any of it true.

 

[Benguin]

Benguin,

"It means that you accept it that it (homeopathy) is a system existing in mass & widespread public since long to their satisfaction by their experiances & observations which justify this system. However it could not be yet proved by science within their current capabilities. IS it okay?"

That is a statement of fact.
1. I accept homeopathy is widespread and popular.

You go on to imply there this because of people's personal experience with it. I doubt that is the reason it is popular with a large number of people, as the vast majority don't understand it (or conventional medicine) as well as even you or I do.

But that is a diversion ... it is still argumentum ad populum

However it could not be yet proved by science within their current capabilities. IS it okay?

That presupposes one day it will, which is an opinion and not fact. It is also entirely prejudicial and faith-based.

But back on what challenged you about; Trying to claim something works based on the "evidence" a number of people believe it works is flawed.

Tell me if you agree or disagree.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Benguin,

"It means that you accept it that it (homeopathy) is a system existing in mass & widespread public since long to their satisfaction by their experiances & observations which justify this system. However it could not be yet proved by science within their current capabilities. IS it okay?"

Kumar go to your room and don't come out until you have got rid of this silly notion.

Don't make me say "AZTECS" again.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Hi Prester - what, no welcome back party for me?

Listen, I just took a quick glance at your questions and will give them a shot but we are leaving for an impromtu trip for a few days so if you may not hear from me before the 5th. I let you know this because I know if I didn't answer within hours of your post - the bashing would most certainly start about me avoiding the questions.

Also - I will answer according to my beliefs but I do not speak for any other homeopath other than myself.

Hey it looks like you are back!:
Barb
Silver Member



Joined: 11 Aug. 03
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 391 Posted: 03 July 04 at 06:23 | IP Logged

.... So how about answering some of our questions?

I personally interested in how a homeopath would even diagnose, much less treat a teenager with hypertrophic cardiomyopahy. Do homeopaths even have stethoscopes? Or even know how to use one?

 

[Barbrae]

Not really back - will post after the 5th as I mentioned. Just took a sec to check in at hpathy - no time to devote here - will do next week as mentioned b4

 

[Kumar]

That is a statement of fact.
1. I accept homeopathy is widespread and popular.

You go on to imply there this because of people's personal experience with it. I doubt that is the reason it is popular with a large number of people, as the vast majority don't understand it (or conventional medicine) as well as even you or I do.

But that is a diversion ... it is still argumentum ad populum



That presupposes one day it will, which is an opinion and not fact. It is also entirely prejudicial and faith-based.

But back on what challenged you about; Trying to claim something works based on the "evidence" a number of people believe it works is flawed.

Tell me if you agree or disagree.

Benguin, Good you accept the fact that homeopathy is widespread and popular. Whatever is there the essence of creditability of any system lies in ' it shows required effects to patients' & they may not be interested in knowing the science of their medicines/remedies. If it satisfy them--it has credit & if it not or react adversely--means no credit or discredit. Success & failures can be in every system as nothing is ABSOLUTE, but how successes & failures results --is a matter of concern.

AS NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE, WE MAY AVOID CONTRADICTIONS.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Whatever is there the essence of creditability of any system lies in ' it shows required effects to patients'

Aztecs!

 

[Kumar]

Aztecs!

Aztecs???

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Aztecs???

Work it out and tell us.

 

[Benguin]

Benguin, Good you accept the fact that homeopathy is widespread and popular.

How could I question the fact lots of people believe in it? That doesn't mean anything towards its efficacy ... hence the Aztecs comment made by others.

Many, many aztecs believed that keeping the sun moving and shining depended on sacrificing people on the steps of their temples. Do you accept that the large number of people (the majority in their society) believing in this, meant it must be true ... at least then?

There are still many people out there believing things we know are not true, flat earth, hollow earth, animism etc.

A greater proportion of people believe and accept the allopathic model over the homeopathic model, by your logic that makes allopathy true and homeopathy false (as they are fundamental contradictory). Here, again, I give you the benefit ... the argument is false, the number of people supporting a system indicates only it's popularity, not it's efficacy.

Whatever is there the essence of creditability of any system lies in ' it shows required effects to patients' & they may not be interested in knowing the science of their medicines/remedies.

Maybe I'm understanding your meaning differently to the stubbly primate. I think you are saying credibility should be based on success. I agree. I do not agree that is the same is popularity. I see (still) no evidence of homeopathy providing help over and above placebos and, therefore, the popularity is not based on measured reality, any more than prayer or alien abductions.

And no, the inability of science to explain how something works, if it works is not factor. Note: IF it works.

If it satisfy them--it has credit & if it not or react adversely--means no credit or discredit. Success & failures can be in every system as nothing is ABSOLUTE, but how successes & failures results --is a matter of concern.

Hence the placebo debate.

 

[Benguin]

Work it out and tell us.

Oh, sorry ... well lets hope I got it wrong and he can google and critique me!

Have a banana on me.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Maybe I'm understanding your meaning differently to the stubbly primate. I think you are saying credibility should be based on success. I agree. I do not agree that is the same is popularity.

No. Kumar's definition of success is the subjectively experiences 'success' that results in its popularity, not success as properly measured. So his 'success' argument is equivalent to his popularity argument.