Understanding homeopathy

[Chris Haynes]

...However, you are still focusing on the Organon homeopathic bible born in the early 1800s. Even so, this, too, may be a criteria. If the practitioner does not rely upon the Organon, can he or she still be considered a homeopath? What criteria over and above reliance upon the Organon constitutes homeopathy? Was homeopathy frozen in time 200 years ago??

But that was the POINT of Gavin starting this thread. He wanted this discussion to be based SOLELY on the Organon. If you look at the first page you will see that I got in trouble for asking questions that they will not answer.

You said you were taking the place of Gavin, so I asked the same question to you that I did to Gavin a couple of pages back. It was one that was not answered... and I even asked more than once.

But you do bring up very valid points that Bach, Sarah, Barb and Gavinmurthy fail to understand... that homeopathy may have been better than the state of medicine 200 years ago, but while medicine has progressed, homeopathy has been stuck in a time warp.

 

[Mojo]

Question: What is the criteria for separating homeopathic and allopathic remedies? Does food fall into one of these categories or another one? What category does Aloe Vera fall into? Are there other types of treatments to be considered in addition to these?

"Allopathy" doesn't really exist any more; it's a sort of straw man put up by homeopathists to try to discredit evidence-based medicine. It really only reflects on the state of western medicine around 200 years ago, which was based around attempting to balance the "four humours" and generally pretty dire. Homeopathy compared reasonably well with this because its remedies, having no active ingredients, did not actually kill the patient, who might then have the chance to ge better on their own. Western medicine has moved on since then, but homeopathy is unwilling to recognise this, having itself failed to take any account of 200 years of progress.

Anyway, to use the terminology you have used in this query, "allopathic" remedies contain active ingredients, and in most Western countries (certainly in the UK) have to prove effectiveness in properly controlled tests before they can be licenced for use.

Homeopathic remedies, in contrast, contain no active ingredients (the alleged remedy having been diluted past the point where there will literally be none left) and, in the UK at least (I don't know what the situation is in other countries) do not currently get licensed as proper remedies, but can be registered as homeopathic medicines. To quote the MHRA website (http://medicines.mhra.gov.uk/ourwork/licensingmeds/types/homoeopathic.htm)

In order to qualify for registration the products must:

be for oral or external use. This includes all methods of administration with the exception of injections;
be sufficiently dilute to guarantee their safety;
make no therapeutic claims.

Homeopathic remedies have consistently failed to demonstrate efficacy in properly controlled double blind tests.

Food falls into neither category. It's stuff that we eat.

 

[Carn]

However, you are still focusing on the Organon homeopathic bible born in the early 1800s. Even so, this, too, may be a criteria.

I have asked a homeopath several times, whether there is a newer, more up to date version of organon, rewritten by some follower of Hahnemann, but iwas told there is none and no other way to understand homeopathy, than reading and understanding the organon. Which is bad for me, as i do not understand it.
It is also a bit suprising, the content of Newton's 'Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica' has been rewritten in other books hundreds of times in the past 400 years and today the 300 pages or so can be without great information loss be written into 20-30.
No physic student has to read the 'Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica' to understand physics.
But to be a homeopath you have to read a 200 year old book, which on top of a old language and missing the invention of "chapters", is not to be taken serious in some parts(gavin said, negative statements of Hahnemann should not be taken serious).
While this does not prove homeopathy to be wrong, it does prove a lack of professionality of Hahnemann and the homeopathic community, the book that is the foundation of a science or craft and the beginner book has to be as simple as possible, the complicated things can always be published in seperate specialist books and papers. Otherwise you lose half your students in the first year, because they do not understand anything.

If the practitioner does not rely upon the Organon, can he or she still be considered a homeopath?

As i said, i've been told, that organon is the basics one has to understand.

What criteria over and above reliance upon the Organon constitutes homeopathy?

Extensive case taking, by comparing the symptons(some sort of grading was introduced here, by Kent around 1900) to the proving symptons(also some grading here), with an eye for excluding and "necessary" symptoms, selecting a good remedy(there might be several candidates left, then it is nearly irrelevant which you choose).
Never assuming, that there is no remedy for helping this patient, if he doesn't get better, you selected the wrong one, try again, until patient better or runs away or dies.
The skill to create diltutions in the correct way(i don't know, some correct shaking seems to be necessary).

Was homeopathy frozen in time 200 years ago??

I think so, otherwise someone would have written a replacement for the organon with a correction of the mistakes Hanemann did there(homeopaths told me some are in there, but not where).

Carn

 

[Kumar]

Carn,

Reg. Organon; It has not changed for over 200 years probably because, its contents are or are found as "somewhat abosolute". I am not very sure about it but I am much positive about Dr.Sch.'s mentionings under TRS.


Btw, why pro-modern science people don't like "absoluteness or persistance"?

 

[Carn]

Western medicine has moved on since then, but homeopathy is unwilling to recognise this, having itself failed to take any account of 200 years of progress.

That is not correct, this is afaik an open issue among homeopaths.
Some certainly think(gavin?), that conventional medicine is no bettter than 200 years ago, but e.g. Bach said, that in case of a serious acute bacteriological infection(no, don't ask me how homeopaths recognise that), anti biotics are a good to use, till the situation is less serious, then homeopathy is too use.
This is spawned mainly by a division about what exactly homeopathy can cure and how likely a cure is achievable. Some say that acute cases are treatable with homeopathy, some say that conventional treatment of acute cases can be aided by homeopathy and some say homeopathy can mainly treat chronic illness and not acutes.
(After 200 years, they should know it, i guess this is spawned by people reading organon, where Hanemann boasts with quick cure for every ailment, and then when they get more contact with real acute cases, they slowly realize, that Hahnemann exagerrated, but then the next generation is already reading organon/)


Also some admit(Dr.B. from hoemopathic forums, i cannot find the link anymore) that conventional medicine acquired a vast amount of knowledge and diagnosing techniques with humans. Of course they are too stupid to use it wisely. So some homeopaths actually recommend to use conventional diagnose techniques.

Carn

 

[Carn]

Carn,

Btw, why pro-modern science people don't like "absoluteness or persistance"?

Because nature has shown in all areas to be at first look(meaning the first 100 years of research into that field) to be in a certain way, but then suddenly a more closer look gets possible and under that closer look, everything is radically different.

There are no signs, that at any time homeopaths realy tried to look closer(then replacements for organon would have been written, simply to get a more understandable version), so the fact that homeopathy has never changed, indicates, that homeopaths never tried to look closer and therefore homeopathy is no science.

I hope you understand, the fact that a field of sciences discovers new unknown facts every few decades, shows, that at least someone is working scientifically.

Do you think that every single sentence in organon is true?

Carn

 

[Mojo]

originally posted by Kumar
Reg. Organon; It has not changed for over 200 years probably because, its contents are or are found as "somewhat abosolute". I am not very sure about it but I am much positive about Dr.Sch.'s mentionings under TRS.


Btw, why pro-modern science people don't like "absoluteness or persistance"?

The reason that the Organon is considered "somewhat absolute" by homeopathists is that homeopathy is a religion, and the Organon is its holy book. In science, ideas are not absolute, and have to be re-thought and changed if disproved. It's called "learning."

Incidentally, I forgot to mention the reason that homeopathic remedies can't be licensed as proper medicines in the UK. The sole reason is, to quote from the MRHA link I posted above,

owing to difficulties in proving efficacy

i.e. because they don't work. The registration as a "homeopathic medicine" permitted if they don't claim to cure anything and have been diluted to the extent that there's no chance of any actual effect is a sop to the homeopathic industry.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Reg. Organon; It has not changed for over 200 years probably because, its contents are or are found as "somewhat abosolute". I am not very sure about it but I am much positive about Dr.Sch.'s mentionings under TRS.

No, the Organon is VERY far from absolute. I can point out several thins in it that are clearly wrong, plus a number of logical inconsistencies. The reason the Organon hasn't changed is very simple: Hahnemann is dead. His works will never change. Homeopathic practice HAS changed, there are very few classical homeopaths around today.

Btw, why pro-modern science people don't like "absoluteness or persistance"?

We do like it. But we have realized that it is naive to assume anything to be absolute.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

Some certainly think(gavin?), that conventional medicine is no bettter than 200 years ago

No, it wrong to think alike as CM do not favour absoluteness. Moreover, due to involvement of harsh chemicals & need of time & practical testings--CMs are much changed than 200 years back.


Also some admit(Dr.B. from hoemopathic forums, i cannot find the link anymore) that conventional medicine acquired a vast amount of knowledge and diagnosing techniques with humans. Of course they are too stupid to use it wisely. So some homeopaths actually recommend to use conventional diagnose techniques.

It can be mostly true in most cases. But I rather doubt "stupid" word above. Wrong prescriptions can be possible in view of excesses--theories,medicines,brands, patients, healers...etc. Moreover, fear of wrong prescriptions may also be less in view of its conventional, legal & people's preferances. Ignoring Constitutional basis & Individuality can be lacking concepts in its prescriptions. MOM & Aluminium Hydroxide are both antacids but can effect very differantly to differant constitutions.

 

[Kumar]

Mr.Hans, Mojo,

All that can be due to 'convention', addiction, attuning, man-made, weaknesses, misses, vested interests, pro, etc. as in some cases, we see/say glass filled in other as empity--to half filled glass with water.

 

[Carn]

Some certainly think(gavin?), that conventional medicine is no bettter than 200 years ago

No, it wrong to think alike as CM do not favour absoluteness.

Didn't gavin (approximately)say, that steroids are a nasty dangerous stuff, that pushes the disease inwards and makes it only worse?
He said several things, that were in general tone identical to Hanemann's raving about allopathy. But i put a questionmark behind "gavin", because i do not think he belongs to the real extreme homeopaths, but they exist, though they are a minority.

But I rather doubt "stupid" word above.

I worded it bad, Dr.B. said that conventional doctors are not able to make good use of hteir good diagnosing techniques.
Of course, Dr.B. said, that homeopaths are able to make good use of the diagnosises.

Carn

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mr.Hans, Mojo,

All that can be due to 'convention', addiction, attuning, man-made, weaknesses, misses, vested interests, pro, etc. as in some cases, we see/say glass filled in other as empity--to half filled glass with water.

What is he talking about?



Hans

 

[Kumar]

Didn't gavin (approximately)say, that steroids are a nasty dangerous stuff, that pushes the disease inwards and makes it only worse?
He said several things, that were in general tone identical to Hanemann's raving about allopathy. But i put a questionmark behind "gavin", because i do not think he belongs to the real extreme homeopaths, but they exist, though they are a minority.


All may depend upon ingested "quantity" of any substance & constitution/individuality basis of his problem.

I worded it bad, Dr.B. said that conventional doctors are not able to make good use of hteir good diagnosing techniques.
Of course, Dr.B. said, that homeopaths are able to make good use of the diagnosises.

Due to factors as I indicated, mistakes in prescriptions can be possible. It can happen with any system with big magnitude but side/adverse/toxic effects can matter in this respect.

 

[JAK]

...
Due to factors as I indicated, mistakes in prescriptions can be possible. It can happen with any system with big magnitude but side/adverse/toxic effects can matter in this respect.

Thousands of people die in the U.S. from PROPERLY prescribed drugs each year. By virtue of the LD50 rating, all drugs are harmful, or in the words of Paracelsus (1493-1541), "All drugs are poison." U.S. drug dosages are backed off from the LD50 level down to the EF50 level. The drugs are still risky, but the risk is lowered. You might consider this a form of "dilution." Given that the "dilution" issue is "a wash," the remaining issue, and the most serious, appears to be efficacy.

...
Incidentally, I forgot to mention the reason that homeopathic remedies can't be licensed as proper medicines in the UK. The sole reason is, to quote from the MRHA link I posted above,i.e. because they don't work. The registration as a "homeopathic medicine" permitted if they don't claim to cure anything ...

This gets back to the "absolute" issue to which Carn, Hans, Mojo and others responded adroitly. Those who are "pro-science" medicine all "come from Missouri." In other words, show me the proof. I'll believe it's "absolute" when I see it (maybe).

Not being a homeopath, Kumar or one of the other proponents of homeopathy will need to answer this question:

Gavin, Kumar, what proof exists that any homeopathic remedies are successful in restoring health?

 

[Barbrae]

But you do bring up very valid points that Bach, Sarah, Barb and Gavinmurthy fail to understand... that homeopathy may have been better than the state of medicine 200 years ago, but while medicine has progressed, homeopathy has been stuck in a time warp.

Admittedly, I have not read this whole thread so am maybe missing something - but HC, I fully do understand that yes, 200 years ago homeopathy was better than conventional medicine and that homeopathy hasn't changed in those 200 years. What exactly am I failing to understand?

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Admittedly, I have not read this whole thread so am maybe missing something - but HC, I fully do understand that yes, 200 years ago homeopathy was better than conventional medicine and that homeopathy hasn't changed in those 200 years. What exactly am I failing to understand?

The difference between faith and science. Faith is static; science is growing. Homeopathy is faith. Conventional medicine is science.

 

[Rolfe]

By virtue of the LD50 rating, all drugs are harmful, or in the words of Paracelsus (1493-1541), "All drugs are poison."

By virtue of the LD50 rating, everything is poison. There's absolutely nothing at all that won't kill you if given in sufficient quantities. For example, at one time regulations on cosmetics safety required that mice be force-fed lipstick to find out its LD50. Can't remember the actual figure, but basically it got lethal when the quantity required ruptured the stomachs of the mice.

So, citing the fact that an LD50 rating exists to prove that something is poisonous is circular arguing. There is an LD50 for water, if I knew where to find the data. By the same token, it would be possible to derive an LD50 for homoeopathic remedies. Yes, it would be a lot, but it would exist.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I fully do understand that yes, 200 years ago homeopathy was better than conventional medicine....

I think I would dispute that. The thesis is of course that mainstream medicine was doing such harmful things then that doing absolutely nothing at all (which is what homoeopathy is) was a better bet. But was it?

In certain circumstances, yes. You'd be better doing nothing at all to a case of influenza than bleeding or purging the patient. But that wasn't the whole story. Try reading Oliver Wendell Holmes. He was the one who once said that if all the medicines employed by his colleagues were thrown in the sea, so much the better for mankind and so much the worse for the fishes - though he did later say he regretted making such a sweeping statement. That essay is dated 1842, and it's quite obvious that by then homoeopathy had been clearly identified as having no effect, in contrast to mainstream medicine, which was making some progress. Even in the time of Hahnemann, though nobody knew the mode of action, they had cinchona bark which really did cure malaria.

So, on balance in terms of number of cases, who knows. How can you compare a system which sometimes did good and sometimes did harm with a system which all the time did (and does) nothing at all?

Barb, the reason people say you don't understand this is that many homoeopaths (and I think you are among them) can't seem to support homoeopathy without rushing off at a tangent to attack real, effective medicine. This was a much more tenable position 200 years ago, and it often seems that you haven't really worked out the difference.

However, whether mainstream medicine of 200 years ago or real pharmacotherapeutic medicine of the 21st century is good or bad has absolutely zero to do with the question of whether homoeopathic remedies have any physiological effect. The plain fact is that they don't, and saying "but bleeding and purging are bad for you" or "but Vioxx killed 60,000 people" doesn't alter that fact one iota.

Rolfe.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Admittedly, I have not read this whole thread so am maybe missing something - but HC, I fully do understand that yes, 200 years ago homeopathy was better than conventional medicine and that homeopathy hasn't changed in those 200 years. What exactly am I failing to understand?

Perhaps that conventional medicine HAS changed just a triffle in the past 200 years?

Hans

 

[Chris Haynes]

Okay, Barb... In reference to this part of the Organon:
http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/30.html and tell us if homeopathy was able to distinguish between gonorrhea, syphilis or a yeast infection.

If a woman comes to a homeopath and complains of "internal itching" do you even consider the possibility of a yeast infection versus gonorrhea or syphilis?

In the past 200 years what advances has homeopathy had in treating gonorrhea or syphilis? Which is better homeopathy or antibiotics for these two venereal disease?

In the past 15 years I have noted that the medication for yeast infections has improved... From a one week of treatment that you could only get with a doctor's prescription to being able to walk into my local pharmacy's feminine product row and picking medication that I only need to use for one day.

So what does the Organon have to say about yeast infections... which from my personal experience causes me the most "internal itching".