• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Homeopathic tablets

MRC_Hans said:
I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. If that is true, I suggest you shange your MD.

Hans
Tis true Hans - well, the fist Gastro I saw back in my teens did put me on the worst diet you should be on for UC - course he didn't do any tests to see if I had IBD or anything - just said I have a nervous tummy! It's not one MD Hans - it's my experience with all that I have had. It's a different paradigm - one of tests and drugs - that's about it.

No other doc has given me any lifestyle or diet advice - ever.

I remember faking being sick to get out of school and my mom taking me to the doctor and him putting me on antibiotics cause my "glands were swollen" or "her throat looks red".
 
MRC_Hans said:
Basically, that is not correct, Kumar. We favor systems that have evidence showing for them and reject systems that have not. In practice, this does generally mean that we accept conventional systems and reject "alternative" ones, but this is only because of their respective evidence backing.

A lot of alternative medicines are in fact accepted and recognized by science. A considerable fraction of mainstream medicines, especially among the older ones, started out as alternative meds. They were discovered to work and added to the array of conventional medicines. Those that didn't make it are still alternative.

If you buy into the oft-told tale that "science does not want to touch alternative methods" for this and that reason, you are naive. There is big money to be made on effective drugs, and pharmaceutical companies don't give a hoot about the origin of their drugs, as long as they sell.

I can guarantee you that your homeopathic remedies, tissue salts, and whatever HAVE been tested. The only reason it does not now say "Bayer", or something like it, on that label is that they found it uninteresting.

Hans



Kumar said:


Mr.Hans,

It is ok. It depends on 'what science can test as of now' & accept those which is ok in their sense. Can we take it granted that whatever CMS accept or clear by thier so much testings, conventionals or alternatives--are 'THEIR ABSOLUTES'?

Moreover, whatever CMS could not yet test/know, but are alike 'ABSOLUTES' in/of other systems can't be straightaway rejected?
Mr. Hans,

Sorry, I will try to make it clear. I meant:

It is ok. It depends on 'what science can test as of now' & accept those which is ok in their sense.

Can we take it granted that whatever CMS accept or clear by thier so much testings, conventionals or alternatives--are alike 'THEIR ABSOLUTES'?

Moreover, whatever CMS could not yet test/know, but are alike 'ABSOLUTES' in/of other systems can't be straightaway rejected?

It means that whatever CMS accept after so much testings are still not considered as absolutes/perfect of them & whatever are considered alike 'absolutes' of other alt. systems but couldn't yet be tested--can't we rejected straightway as CMS anticipate continuity in research, possibilities, improvements, additions or rejections. In short nothing is absolute in CMS theory--even rejection by not finding under current testing technologies because they still expect better testing in future.

I hope it is clear now.
 
Sarah-I said:
...HC,

As I said before, you will not find any research on the miasms. You will find plenty of things about miasms in homeopathic text books. Hahnemann's Organon for one and then his Chronic Diseases, the Theoretical Part. Other homeopaths have written widely on this, such as Sankaran and J H Allen The Chromic Miasms.

No... you said:
Sarah-I said:
.Perhaps the only material that you will find on the miasms would be in the homeopathic literature and also Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases, the Theoretical Part.....

Which implies that the homeopathic JOURNALS that are indexed would be included as part of "homeopathic journals".

It makes absolutely NO sense that if miasms were such an important part of homeopathy, that there would be so little published material in the homeopathic journals. Especially in the 200 years since Hahnemann's first proposed his "theories"... and what he called his "laws" (which seemed to skip the first step from hypothesis and went straight into "law", without even taking the time to see if the were really "natural laws", much less even connected to any kind of experimental verification).

Sarah-I said:
...
As I also said before, the miasms do relate to sepecific diseases with Psora, being the itch of scabies, Sycosis referring to gonorrhoea and syphilis referring to syphilis. There is also the Tubercular miasm, which results from both Psora and Syphilis together and this is related to the disease of TB.

So, the further research that has shown the REAL causes of venereal disease do not have an affect on the supposed "miasms" of these "psora"?

Oh, and those of TB?

Which is really interesting... PLEASE tell our county health department that homeopathy is much much better than conventional medication. Right now the treatment for TB requires several months on very expensive antibiotics... They want to incarcerate a patient who is refusing to follow the treatment and is infecting other people:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/187506_tb23.html?searchpagefrom=1&searchdiff=9

PLEASE... help the King County Public Health Department deal with the upsurge in tuberculosis. Educate them on the facts about the miasms that cause TB, and what can be done about it!


Sarah-I said:
...It is my view that the miasms can be seen as a useful framework to be used in case analysis. When a chronic case is taken it is analysed before possible remedies are identified. As case is also analysed miasmatically too to see whether symptoms fit into patterns.

It would be more helpful if you could find some proof less than five decades old that miasms actually exist.




PS: Bonus points to those who use my correct initials. Thanks.
 
Zombified said:
Hey, neighbor! (I'm somewhere out Fall City/Issaquah way...)

Well, it is a BIG county! I'm close to the university, but I am not at all associated with it --- except that I make sure I know when the football games are so that I don't get caught in traffic!

I just took a look at the page on TB for the county, King County seems to have almost HALF of all TB cases in the country. They could sure use some wisdom in dealing with it!
 
Hey, Sarah,

My unanswered questions to you are really beginning to build up here. Perhaps I can disabuse you of the notion that I will forget about them or that you and your friends can bury them in the thread?

Your story holds about as much water as water holds memory, sarah. Perhaps you'd like to explain your tale of medical woe a bit more?
 
Sarah-I said:
Rolfe,

I would go and see my homeopath first and then if I did need to go and see my doctor, then I would do so.

I would expect any well trained lay homeopath to be able to spot 'red flag' symptoms. When you first start the consultation, a homeopath will ask you what your presenting complaint is and you would be questioned about this in detail, with questoins such as how long have you had it for, when did it first start, where is the location of any pain, is there anything that makes it better or worse and things such as this and also a lot more and a lot more in depth too.

I would also expect a homeopath to be able to carry out a simple physical exam if necessary, such as taking blood pressure, listening to the heart and lungs, looking in the ears and down the throat and taking the pulse.

If a homeopath had any concerns after this, they do not mess about, but in an emergency would refer a patient straight to the nearest A and E department or would tell a patient to go and see their doctor and then come back for another consultation at a later date. They would also send a letter to the patient's GP, with their permission of course, informing them of their concerns and findings on both their questioning and examination.

Does that answer your question well enough?
Well, yes and no. (Sorry, this may be repeating things now being discussed on the other thread, so it might be better to take this over there.)

This is assuming that someone with no medical qualifications is capable of spotting the sometimes subtle signs of life-threatening disease, knowing what they imply, and will then recommend or insist that the patient seek real medical help. Forgive me if I'm not wholly convinced.

First, there are no training or competence standards for homoeopaths, so we don't know that any individual has any medical knowledge at all. Second, medical training is long and rigorous. Does homoeopathic training really offer an equivalent education? Do homoeopathic courses really offer guidance on how to spot danger signs which ought to be referred to real medicine? Difficult to believe when the whole ethos of homoeopathy seems to be one of denigrating real medicine and denying that it can be beneficial - indeed, many homoeopaths actively criticise "allopathic" drugs as being poisonous.

So no, I don't think I would trust a lay homoeopath to know his or her limitations - cetainly not the ones who declare that medicine is based on a faulty premise, poisons and mutilates its victims, and has never helped anyone.

It's nice to hear that both you and Barb (who did finally address the question) would seek real medical help or advise that a patient seek real medical help, in appropriate circumstances. However, that is very much contrary to the attitudes we see on the homoeopathy boards. It seems that there, any suggestion that a patient might benefit from actual medicine is grounds for banning the poster and deleting all their posts. So we don't entirely have a meeting of minds I'm afraid.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:

It seems that there, any suggestion that a patient might benefit from actual medicine is grounds for banning the poster and deleting all their posts. So we don't entirely have a meeting of minds I'm afraid.

Rolfe.

Only if the one suggesting it is from Randiland. You folks did that to yourselves. You can't abuse a forum repeatedly and then expetc to be taken seriously.

I posted on Alphonses thread that Miss Sarah needed to see a vet for actual testing and treatment if it turned out she did have thyroid disease. my post was not deleted - not was I banned.

I have also seen Snoopy recommend a client seek allopathic diagnosis and treatment in cases too.
 
Barbrae said:
Only if the one suggesting it is from Randiland. You folks did that to yourselves. You can't abuse a forum repeatedly and then expetc to be taken seriously.

Abuse by asking pertinent questions? Insta-ban everybody associated with a forum because of whatever "abuses" you perceived from other members of that forum? Riiiiiight.
 
BillHoyt said:
Abuse by asking pertinent questions? Insta-ban everybody associated with a forum because of whatever "abuses" you perceived from other members of that forum? Riiiiiight.

Uh, Duh Bill - no not abuse by asking pertinent questions but by immature antics like the "wanna vote" spectacle and like the "let's go and attack Hpathy" threads. Or are you too think to understand the difference?? Riiiiiiiiiight.
 
Barbrae said:
You can't abuse a forum repeatedly and then expetc to be taken seriously.
Would you please point out where I (that's me, personally) abused the H'pathy forum? I never pretended to be anything or anyone I wasn't, I never told a single untruth, and I believe I remained polite. My posts on the Sarah thread were intended to do nothing other than get help for a cat who was suffering quite needlessly. The whole business on the Addison's thread was started by Naturalhealth, not by me. I didn't force Snoopy to give dangerous advice to the hypothetical patient, you know, nor did I set any trap.

Actually, the Addison's posts haven't been deleted, and the "Rolfie" persona was only banned because she pleaded with Alphonse to seek real medical care for her cat. Why was that, do you think?

What did I do or say that justified deleting all the true and helpful information I posted about the options for real treatment for hyperthyroidism?

Rolfe.
 
Barbrae said:
Uh, Duh Bill - no not abuse by asking pertinent questions but by immature antics like the "wanna vote" spectacle and like the "let's go and attack Hpathy" threads. Or are you too think to understand the difference?? Riiiiiiiiiight.
I'm certainly "too think" to accept bullsh when I read it, and this is bullsh. On the basis of some handful of JREFers (perhaps) doing this, h'pathy excludes from the get-go, other JREFers just because they are from JREF?

Do you know how many waves of quacks, cranks, homeoquacks, and fundies we've suffered through so far? And here you are, on JREF, free to express yourself.
 
BillHoyt said:
I'm certainly "too think" to accept bullsh when I read it, and this is bullsh. On the basis of some handful of JREFers (perhaps) doing this, h'pathy excludes from the get-go, other JREFers just because they are from JREF?

Do you know how many waves of quacks, cranks, homeoquacks, and fundies we've suffered through so far? And here you are, on JREF, free to express yourself.

Bill - I am here to defend homeopathy not screw around with your polls or your board in any matter - PLUS and this is the kicker - I came here becaue you folks kept whining about how no homeopath will come and answer your questions - I came because I was requested to come. And yep, guilty by association for the Randiland citizens - but again, you did it yourselves.

I love the way you guys whine and complain about the homeopaths not coming here because they are afraid to answer questions or whatever but in the next breath you complain that you have had to suffer through them - hypocrite.
 
Barbrae said:


I love the way you guys whine and complain about the homeopaths not coming here because they are afraid to answer questions or whatever but in the next breath you complain that you have had to suffer through them - hypocrite.

Except as long as I have been hanging out here, you are the lone, sole, sane homeopath poster. There's been:

Homeoskeptic--liar and sock
Corralinus-HS's sock
Olaf-of the 100,000 European MD's can't be wrong fame
QII-Olaf's sock
Kumar-incomprehensible at best

We suffer with the trolls and the fools who won't listen.
 
Barbrae said:
...the fist Gastro I saw back in my teens did put me on the worst diet you should be on for UC - course he didn't do any tests to see if I had IBD or anything - just said I have a nervous tummy! It's not one MD Hans - it's my experience with all that I have had. It's a different paradigm - one of tests and drugs - that's about it.

No other doc has given me any lifestyle or diet advice - ever.

I remember faking being sick to get out of school and my mom taking me to the doctor and him putting me on antibiotics cause my "glands were swollen" or "her throat looks red".

Barbrae

I'm sorry for the bad experiences you've had with doctors and specialists. Perhaps my own experiences might give you cause to hope for better.

A few years ago I went through a period of stomach pain and weight loss. Because the onset of the pain was so gradual, I acclimatised and it took me a long time to see a doctor about it. He took one look at me and was on the phone to a specialist friend of his, who I saw within a couple of weeks.

At the first consultation, the specialist started by asking me to tell him about myself. At first I wasn't quite sure what sort of detail he wanted, but after about 10-15 minutes he had enough to be going on with. We then spent the next 10 minutes discussing possible diagnoses - he thought it was either Coeliac or Crohn's. He arranged for blood tests and a gastroscopy within a fortnight.

A month after that I had a scope up the other end, and a fairly firm diagnosis of Crohn's. This was confirmed a couple of months later after a small bowel series (?name - X-rays plus some disgusting liquid to drink which showed up in the X-rays).

My specialist and I discussed available treatments, suggesting which tablets to use in the short, medium and long term. Within a few months the pain was largely gone, and the weight started to return.

I had a relapse a couple of years ago, but this got me referred to another specialist, and a trial of a new drug to treat Crohn's.

So not only have I had very positive, interactive experiences with specialists, I'm also taking part in a randomised double-blind trial to test the new drug's efficacy.
 
Sarah-I said:
...However, the miasms do relate to actual diseases, with Psora, also known as the 'itch' relating to scabies, Sycosis being gonorrhoea and Syphilis being Syphilis. ....

Here is an interesting thing... the "miasms relate to actual diseases" bit. One of those diseases being syphilis, which has historically been a terrifying disease. It has caused blindness, tumors on bones, skin and organs, and insanity.... usually after years of not being treated. Not a pretty sight.

So here it is that Hahnemann discovered the "miasm" called "Syphilis" related to this dread disease --- what was his success in treating it?

Well... lets take a look at a summery of its control:
http://sti.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/77/3/214

hmmmm... no mention of miasms, homeopathy or the great discoveries of Hahnemann in any of it. Is this an oversight by the authors of the review on the historical control of syphilis?

If there is some data on the reduction of syphilis due to homeopathic treatment... please share. I did find on PubMed this paper mentioning homeopathy and syphilis:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15139093 ... BUT it is talking about "inherited" diseases, which in relation to syphilis make no sense. Syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease... the only ones who inherit it are babies born to infected mothers --- and they often suffer terrible consequenses. See:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdsyph.htm
 

Back
Top Bottom