How homeopathy does work? - 4 Years of DHMS course.

[Miss DD]

(I am assuming you mean "are there diseases that can be cured with modern medicine").
Yes.

After reading your answer in "YES", I am convince that you have reached at point of no return. Just to oppose homeopathy you even denied the role of that medicine in 1x (a crude substance) ? ie. Anything which will be discussed with reference to homeopathy you will oppose. Miss DD

 

[flume]

After reading your answer in "YES", I am convince that you have reached at point of no return. Just to oppose homeopathy you even denied the role of that medicine in 1x (a crude substance) ?

I think there is still a misunderstanding. Could you reread some of the posts on 7/11 and 7/12? I don't think anyone meant to say that no substance at 1X could have an effect. I think they said that it depends on the substance, and it depends on what condition the homeopaths meant to treat.

[ ie. Anything which will be discussed with reference to homeopathy you will oppose.

I do not think any of the skeptics here expect to be convinced that homeopathy can work, especially at high dilutions. And I do not think any of the homeopaths think they can be convinced that homeopathy does not work. All we can expect from this discussion is to make it clear at what point we disagree. I think that is interesting, even if no one's mind is completely changed. I don't think people will say things they think are false just to oppose homeopathy.

(They might say insulting things, but that seems to be the way it goes on this forum.)

Edited to add: Sorry to hear that you will stop posting, Miss DD.

 

[H'ethetheth]

After reading your answer in "YES", I am convince that you have reached at point of no return. Just to oppose homeopathy you even denied the role of that medicine in 1x (a crude substance) ? ie. Anything which will be discussed with reference to homeopathy you will oppose. Miss DD

Sigh...

(1) Crude substance does not equal medicine.
(2) Physiological effect does not equal cure.

If I drink alcohol diluted in water, this will have a physiological effect. However if I have malaria, it will not cure the malaria.

If I have a hangover the next morning, I can have a glass of 1X aspirin solution. This may have a phisiological effect which cures some of the headache, but does not cure my malaria.

If I drink a 1X botulinum toxin solution, I will be physiologically affected, and die shortly after (arguably curing my malaria).

(...and the headache)

 

[Donks]

After reading your answer in "YES", I am convince that you have reached at point of no return. Just to oppose homeopathy you even denied the role of that medicine in 1x (a crude substance) ? ie. Anything which will be discussed with reference to homeopathy you will oppose. Miss DD

Somehow I knew this would be your response.
"Hey look! You answered 'yes' to this question, but 'no' to a completey different question that, even if it has been explained 5 times, we still choose to misinterpret!"

 

[Mouthfire]

Miss DD,

There is a clear difference between a substance having an effect on the body at 1X, and a substance curing a disease at 1X.

For instance, I could claim Gummi Bears ingested at 1X cured my arthritis. That would be WRONG (obviously).

I could claim that it has an effect on the body at 1X (true statement), but in order to show that it "cured" my arthritis, you'd have to do more than just state it on the internet and expect people to believe it.

 

[Mojo]

Just to oppose homeopathy you even denied the role of that medicine in 1x (a crude substance)

Repeating this porkie in pretty colours will not make it true. It is a perfectly simple matter for anyone reading this to go back up the thread and see exactly what the question actually was. Just in case anyone has trouble doing this, here's a link to it.

As you can see if you actually read the question, it does not ask "can medicines work at 1x?" It asks "if a homeopath claimed to have cured something, would you accept this?"

These are not the same question.

Note also the statement by BSM quoted by Sheikh in that post:

Around 1X to 3X. Biological effects may happen, but a cure based on homeopathic principles is unlikely to be one of them, not least because "like cures like" is a fiction.

 

[Mojo]

Not also the response from Hans, directly below the question:

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Do you not read the posts we make?

If a homeopath claims that some remedies in 1X or 3X have some effect on the body then we might agree, depending on which remedy it is. If it is Belladonna, sure it will have an effect, but if it is Nat Mur, or Sulph, then, no, it probably has no effect.

We have not even STARTED to discuss cure.

And, from the next post:

Originally posted by Zep
You MUST understand that even with measureable quantities of substance in a remedy, that does NOT automatically mean it will cure anything at all.

And, indeed, Rolfe's reply to the same question:

originally posted by Rolfe
No, I will not accept it. I need to know what was the illness he claims to have cured, and what was the substance he cured it with.

We agree that a 1X or 3X preparation might have an appreciable effect on the body, depending on the substance involved. But if it's an inert substance, then it will still have no effect.

However, we point out that "having an effect on the body" is not the same as curing disease.

 

[Mouthfire]

I really do hope that this is a communication issue, because otherwise it would imply that these Pakistani homeopaths would accept "this substance cures this disease" without any proof or evidence whatsoever.

I refuse to believe that any person can be that gullible....

 

[Donks]

I really do hope that this is a communication issue, because otherwise it would imply that these Pakistani homeopaths would accept "this substance cures this disease" without any proof or evidence whatsoever.

I refuse to believe that any person can be that gullible....

Hmmm, you must not follow the same threads I do. Homeopaths are more than likely to accept homeopathic claims without evidence. Kumar is perfectly willing to accept any claim without evidence, as long as it has been around for a while or he can find enough kooks that believe in it as well. Then there are the non-homeopaths, bunches and bunches of woos and kooks willing to take any clame without any support, as long as it fits their world view.

 

[Mouthfire]

Hmmm, you must not follow the same threads I do. Homeopaths are more than likely to accept homeopathic claims without evidence. Kumar is perfectly willing to accept any claim without evidence, as long as it has been around for a while or he can find enough kooks that believe in it as well. Then there are the non-homeopaths, bunches and bunches of woos and kooks willing to take any clame without any support, as long as it fits their world view.

Heheh... no, I've been around... I guess I'm just the eternal optimist

 

[flume]

If we talk about using a 1X dose of a homeopathic remedy, haven't we moved away from the ideas of homeopathy? Aren't we then talking about an herbal remedy?

But I think we could agree that an herbal preparation of digitalis or a 1x (maybe even more dilute) homeopathic preparation of digitalis, or a medical drug related to digitalis would all have effects on the heart and the body. It would not be a cure exactly, but it would be a physiological effect that could be used to treat a heart condition, depending on the actual amounts of active ingredients extracted from the leaves.

Is this the kind of agreement the homeopaths are looking for in this discussion?

 

[Donks]

Is this the kind of agreement the homeopaths are looking for in this discussion?

That doesn't seem to be the case. The agreement they seem to be looking for is:
Homeopath: "Do you agree that dillutions under Avogadro's limit may have physiological effects?"
Skeptic: "Yes."
Homeopath: "Then you accept the claim that homeopaths can cure with a 6x remedy of Belladona."

 

[Hawk one]

(Hawk one, if Miss DD meant modern medicine, rather than a literal historical definition of allopathy, what would your answer be?)

Flume: Like Donks, I was in fact 99% certain she was equaling allopathy with modern medicine, because that's a standard trademark of the homeopaths. In that case, my answer is pretty much equal to yours: Modern medicine mainly treats the illness (either temporarily or permanently, depending on a myriad of factors), and when a product is found on the pharmacy shelves, one can be reasonably certain that the product will do what's advertised. (At least that's how I read your post.)

So why did I answer like I did? Simple. My main point was to just show Miss DD, the straightforward fact that allopathy does not equal modern medicine. Since I deem it likely she's been told this beforehand, I'm not surprised she didn't nswer my post, because she simply couldn't answer it honestly without admitting she was ignorant about this, or she was dishonestly putting in the term "allopathy" to describe modern medicine.

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

PROTEST: LAST POST AT THIS FORUM

No, this is not the matter of min-understanding or language issue. From the begining, it was all your point that a medicine which does not have any molecule according to av/law cannot have any effect, when I tappered down the medicine from non-existance to existance potency 18c then you again denied. When I again tappered down from 18c to 12c you denied. When it was lastly reduced to 1x you denied. When it was asked forget the similia principle just suppose a medicine is in 1x can have any effect? You even denied. When it was asked by MISS DD, suppose that medicine is allopathy you all replied "YES". I think, we should stop this discussion now.

 

[Donks]

Re: PROTEST: LAST POST AT THIS FORUM

PROTEST: LAST POST AT THIS FORUM

Hissy fit time, huh?

No, this is not the matter of min-understanding or language issue. From the begining, it was all your point that a medicine which does not have any molecule according to av/law cannot have any effect

That was one of our points. It is the main point for potencies without enough molecules to have a physiological effect. It is not relevant for low potencies, where a physiological effect is present.

when I tappered down the medicine from non-existance to existance potency 18c then you again denied.

18C is still ultra-dilute.

When I again tappered down from 18c to 12c you denied.

12C is right at the Avogadro limit. While presence may be detected in the lab, a person will likely not be affected.

When it was lastly reduced to 1x you denied.

Not true. Our response was to ask what illness and what remedy was to be used. Our claim is that an effect can be there, but that a remedy based on homeopathic principles will most likely not cure, even at 1x.

When it was asked forget the similia principle just suppose a medicine is in 1x can have any effect?

That is not what you asked. You asked " If a homeopath claim that he has cured something with 1x or 3x then will you accept? irrespective of principles. We are talking on materilistic ground." Our response was "what illness, what substance."

You even denied.

We answered the question posed. If that was not the question you had in mind, it's your fault.

When it was asked by MISS DD, suppose that medicine is allopathy you all replied "YES". I think, we should stop this discussion now.

I too think we should stop the discussion. It gets tiresome when all you guys can do is lie and play word games.

 

[Hawk one]

Re: PROTEST: LAST POST AT THIS FORUM

When it was asked by MISS DD, suppose that medicine is allopathy you all replied "YES". I think, we should stop this discussion now.

No, that is not what miss DD asked. Sheesh, you are exposed time and again as to keep twisting the questions your fellow homeopaths ask, and you still keep doing this? Sheesh!

What miss DD asked was the following:

Can any allopathic medicine cure any disease? "YES" or "No"

This question does not mean "is medicine allopathy?". It means "Can allopathic medicine cure any disease?"

And while you're at it, you should read my answer again. I clearly stated that if it was indeed allopathic remedies (as opposed to modern medical treatment, which you damn well know does not equate allopathic treatment), then the answer was NO. And if you read Donks' answer before mine, he says "yes" to that modern medical treatment works. He doesn't say yes to that allopathy works, and neither does anyone else.

If you homeopaths would at least be so honest as to stop calling modern medicine for allopathy and catching up on how allopathy as a treatment principle was abandonded two centuries ago, then perhaps you may have a discussion going. But since you're incapable of admitting even this obvious fact, it will still continue to be only one side that provides relevant evidence to this discussion. And no, that's not the homeopaths.

 

[Mouthfire]

Re: PROTEST: LAST POST AT THIS FORUM

No, this is not the matter of min-understanding or language issue. From the begining, it was all your point that a medicine which does not have any molecule according to av/law cannot have any effect, when I tappered down the medicine from non-existance to existance potency 18c then you again denied. When I again tappered down from 18c to 12c you denied. When it was lastly reduced to 1x you denied. When it was asked forget the similia principle just suppose a medicine is in 1x can have any effect? You even denied. When it was asked by MISS DD, suppose that medicine is allopathy you all replied "YES". I think, we should stop this discussion now.

I agree with Donks, this really is rather ridiculous....

Sheikh, I challenge you to point out where anyone said that a substance at 1x does not have an effect on the body. What you said was:

If a homeopath claim that he has cured something with 1x or 3x then will you accept? irrespective of principles. We are talking on materilistic ground.

If you can't tell the difference between having an effect on the body, and having a curing effect, I really have to doubt your intelligence....

 

[Mojo]

Re: Re: PROTEST: LAST POST AT THIS FORUM

I agree with Donks, this really is rather ridiculous....

Sheikh, I challenge you to point out where anyone said that a substance at 1x does not have an effect on the body. What you said was:

If a homeopath claim that he has cured something with 1x or 3x then will you accept? irrespective of principles. We are talking on materilistic ground.

If you can't tell the difference between having an effect on the body, and having a curing effect, I really have to doubt your intelligence....

Actually, it may be the word "claim" in Shaky's question that's important here...

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

Re: Re: PROTEST: LAST POST AT THIS FORUM

Sheikh, I challenge you to point out where anyone said that a substance at 1x does not have an effect on the body. What you said was:

If a homeopath claim that he has cured something with 1x or 3x then will you accept? irrespective of principles. We are talking on materilistic ground.

If you can't tell the difference between having an effect on the body, and having a curing effect, I really have to doubt your intelligence....

And, in fact, nobody gave the answer that the MAS collective are claiming was given. All the answers given were reasoned explanations as to why this sort of claim would not be accepted.