I'm sorry, manioberoi, this was originally only meant for JG, but you are now talking so much nonsense, that I can't both be diplomatic, and address it too, so let's talk straight (you are welcome to do the same, I can take it):
A proving can not be replicated - because a proving is not cut and dried as a conventional medicine trial is.
This goes directly against conventinal homeopathic doctrine. Hahnemann says (Organon of Medicine, version6. My emphasis):
§ 32
But it is quite otherwise with the artificial morbific agents which we term medicines. Every real medicine, namely, acts at all times, under all circumstances, on every living human being, and produces in him its peculiar symptoms (distinctly perceptible, if the dose be large enough), so that evidently every living human organism is liable to be affected, and, as it were, inoculated with the medicinal disease at all times, and absolutely (unconditionally), which, as before said, is by no means the case with the natural diseases.
Are you constructing your private version of homeopathy, or are you just making smoke to get around the unpleasant question of testing?
I can see now why some would find it extremely hard to believe that homeopathy works.
Only now? Well certainly, your explanations don't help any. What you are essentially describing is a totally random function. I think that is even unfair to homeopathy; while it is based on faulty reasoning, homeopathy is quite systematic and retains a good inner logic.
I really think you are doing your case a great disfavor.
They are looking for conventional medical answers from a homeopathic medicine - that is most of the time not a medicine as such (in terms of physical molecules) - it is a mere device (a black box) which signals the release of a mechanism (another black box) which leads to either:
-a cure,
-a suppression,
-an aggravation or
-no effect whatsoever;
and which of these will actually occur can not be foretold with any degree of certainty in advance.
So you are saying that, even after taking the case and carefully selecting a remedy, the outcome of homeopathic treatment is totally unpredictable. How does this result differ from not giving any treatment at all?
The homeopath is required to soldier on with the next and the next and the next & c remedy - good homeopaths hit on the right remedy in 1 or 2 attempts, others may even require 9 to 10 attempts to hit on the right remedy - oh! and more than one right remedies would be required. Which of the diseases of the set of diseases repertorised will be cured first and which last can also not be foretold.
Nevertheless the overall health would improve and pathologies will fall off one by one over 3 to 6 months, at times longer.
Isn't this exactly what will also happen, if you give no treatment at all? After all, the human body has the ability to, sooner or later, rid itself of most diseases, given enough time.
Let me clarify that I am NOT a proponent of homeopathy per se - rather I am a proponent of ALL systems of healthcare that can justify the confidence of the public in their ability to cure.
Fervently defending homeopathy is a strange action for one who claims not to be a proponent, but let that rest. I am
also a proponent of ALL systems that
can justify the confidence in their ability to cure.
So, how do you suggest that homeopathy commences
to justify the confidence that some people have in it?
A homeopathic proving can NOT be replicated - see my earlier posts. It would be impossible.
Hahnemann, and most homeopaths I have met disagree with you. However, if it is indeed so, then how do you select a similum?
Let me once again clarify that I am NOT a proponent of homeopathy per se - rather I am a proponent of ALL systems of healthcare that can justify the confidence of the public in their ability to cure.
You know, your posts are quite wordy enough even without you writing things twice
.
If I were to meet with a serious accident I would be foolish to seek homeopathic treatment (other than as a supplementary support) - conventional medicine is the way to go.
I agree. And even not as a supplementary support.
But for cancer (except certain cancers where conventional medicine has exhibited very high percentage of cures - not 5 or 10 years of deathly survival but CURE) I would ordinarily seek out homeopathic cure (sorry, treatment) alongwith naturopathy, ayurveda & c - certainly NOT some of the chemotherapy treatments having poor cure rates); also depending on the specifics, some radiation therapy, gene therapy whenever it is approved.
Where is the documentation for the efficacy of the alternative methods you mention? You know, how do they
justify your conficence in them
?
First and foremost most people resort in the first instance to conventional medicine - very few to ALL other systems.
Well, yes. Most people are not dumb.
Homeopathy is the most sought after next only to systems recognised by conventional medicine - this when 99 percent of those seeking the homeopathic treatment have no idea WHATSOEVER how it works - some homeopaths have some ideas, but are not in a position to prove it.
So when a homeopath is saying "this works", but cannot support it with evidence, then how is that different from lying?
Neither do most of them attempt to explain how it works and mostly do not reveal the name of the remedy. Normally people turn to homeopathy only when they find no relief (or even worsening due to toxicity) with the conventional drugs.
Yes, when desperate enough, some people will try
anything. Tell me, do you think it is alright to sell desperate people something you cannot prove works (and the effect of which, by your own admission above, is indistinguishable from randomness)?
Having said that I REPEAT that homeopathy works. Two "anecdotal" instances:
*snip*
There are many more such cases - they would also be discounted on grounds of "anecdotal" or for being published in some "obscure" journal of complementary, alternate & c medicine.
No reason to put anecdotical in quotation marks, because that is the proper term. Do I need to explain to you, again, why anecdotical accounts have no proof value?
There certainly are homeopaths who do not believe that homeopathic remedies work and so cases of giving conventional drugs would obviously be found off and on. This in no way detracts from the efficacy of homeopathy in the right hands and for the right purposes.
Well, you are right. The fact that some irresponsible quacks practice homeopathy does not, in itself, detract from homeopathy. However, since you admit that results are totally unpredictable, please tell me, how do a patient distinguish between a quack and a responsible homeopath?
Just for the record the WATER POTENCIES work much much better than the SUGAR PILLS, so if any serious trials are carried out this be kept in view.
How do you know this? Manioberoi, you just told us that provings cannot be replicated, and that treatment results cannot be predicted. Then how can you know that water potencies work better than sugar pills?
Hans
