Understanding homeopathy

[Skeptic Ginger]

That rambling section from the homeopathy site on HC's post makes absolutely no sense. Kind of like the emperors clothes, I wonder if people pretend to understand it when in reality it says absolutely nothing.

 

[Chris Haynes]

But it is straight from the homeopath's holy book the "Organon"... If you look at the first message on this thread you'll see that Gavinmurthy wanted to make us all understand homeopathy by using this document as a basis of discussion. So I am just following along.

Also, Hans has a commented version of it here:
http://www.hans-egebo.dk/Skeptic/oom.pdf

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But it is straight from the homeopath's holy book the "Organon"... If you look at the first message on this thread you'll see that Gavinmurthy wanted to make us all understand homeopathy by using this document as a basis of discussion. So I am just following along.

Also, Hans has a commented version of it here:
http://www.hans-egebo.dk/Skeptic/oom.pdf

I'm not complaining that you posted it, unless you are defending it that is. If it makes sense to Hans, perhaps his brain functions differently than mine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry to be a come lately here, I'm sure anything I say would have been said. Anyone who thinks some 100+ year old text of imaginary medicine is still relevant today is a fool. (Sorry, I couldn't find a less insulting word that was still accurate.)

Modern medicine didn't even fully embrace evidence based medicine until the last decade or so. In the 1800s everything was still pretty much just made up stuff not based on observation with the exception of trying to understand gross anatomy through dissection.

 

[bigred]

Modern medicine didn't even fully embrace evidence based medicine until the last decade or so. In the 1800s everything was still pretty much just made up stuff not based on observation with the exception of trying to understand gross anatomy through dissection.

Please tell me you meant the last century or so...

And in fairness, Hanemann (sp) did base his findings on observation; it just turned out that his methods and conclusions were flawed.

 

[Chris Haynes]

I'm not complaining that you posted it, unless you are defending it that is. If it makes sense to Hans, perhaps his brain functions differently than mine.

Actually is does NOT make sense to Hans. His website is a pointed analysis of the idiocy that the Organon represents.

No one in their right mind could defend the Organon.

 

[bigred]

The idea that anyone could sit and watch a cat in that state and not call for help is simply revolting.

If you mean the neighbor, blaming them is grossly unfair, esp. given how "sue happy" our society is now. Be impressed that they called and tried to help at all; many would do nothing (because of that or plain ol apathy). They aren't vets; how was she supposed to know the cat's life was in immediate danger?

If you mean the owner, never mind and right on.

This reminds me of that "animal cops" show on the Animal Planet channel. I find it interesting and yet, as you say, revolting that people would so grossly mistreat an animal.

 

[Rolfe]

If you mean the neighbor, blaming them is grossly unfair, esp. given how "sue happy" our society is now. Be impressed that they called and tried to help at all; many would do nothing (because of that or plain ol apathy). They aren't vets; how was she supposed to know the cat's life was in immediate danger?

If you mean the owner, never mind and right on.

I meant BSM's "healer" client who didn't bring her cat to him until it was moribund. (I don't really blame the neighbour of my own case, it was just one of those things.)

However, I posted that before BSM explained that the "healer's" cat was an outside cat, and there was no evidence that the woman had realised it was ill and done nothing. So, accusation withdrawn.

Rolfe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please tell me you meant the last century or so...

And in fairness, Hanemann (sp) did base his findings on observation; it just turned out that his methods and conclusions were flawed.

No, I meant decades but I'm speaking of the embracing of evidence based medicine in the more pure form it is heading today. There have been many accepted medical practices in use for years that when finally looked at more closely turned out to be wrong.

How long ago did we finally look at tonsillectomies to find they really didn't prevent the disease they were supposed to? Why are medical doctors referring patients to chiropractors? Are doctors that over prescribe antibiotics really looking at the 'evidence'.

I'm not criticizing the writings of 100 years ago, I'm criticizing following those writings today as if they were valid.

Actually, I did criticize the writings as meaningless before I found out how long ago they were written. I take that back but with the caveat the writings still seem meaningless but I am not an expert in either the language of the time, nor the way one might describe the things the guy was describing.

 

[Rolfe]

And in fairness, Hanemann (sp) did base his findings on observation; it just turned out that his methods and conclusions were flawed.

Hahnemann did precious little observation, and a lot of what he observed was flawed. For example, he assumed that his own reaction to cinchona bark would be shared by everyone, when in fact it was idiosyncratic. Most of what he wrote and preached was pure imagination.

Rolfe.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
I'm not criticizing the writings of 100 years ago, I'm criticizing following those writings today as if they were valid.

Exactly! And that was the downfall of Gavinmurthy in the beginning of this thread: He insisted that we judge Hahnemann from the POV of his time. ... Which is, of course, only interesing from a historical POV:

Hans

 

[Gavinimurthy]

Hahnemann did precious little observation, and a lot of what he observed was flawed. For example, he assumed that his own reaction to cinchona bark would be shared by everyone, when in fact it was idiosyncratic. Most of what he wrote and preached was pure imagination.

Rolfe.

It is true that everyone will not prove china.

It doesn't mean that anyone who is having China symptoms can't be cured with it. Infact, everyone who has China symtoms can be cured with it.

The coming out of China symptoms, means he is susceptible to it, and hence, it will cure anybody with those symptoms.

That is why all malaria's can't be cured with China.Some may need nat.mur,some other people may need ipecac.Same malaria disease, will produce different set of symptoms, in different people,and we have to look for the individual's symtoms to choose the medicine.

This why, homeopathy is called both an art and science.

The science part is 'similia similibus curantar.'

The art part is matching the patient's symptoms to the drug.

Hahnemann is way ahead of all you people.

Murthy

 

[Donks]

It is true that everyone will not prove china.

It doesn't mean that anyone who is having China symptoms can't be cured with it. Infact, everyone who has China symtoms can be cured with it.

The coming out of China symptoms, means he is susceptible to it, and hence, it will cure anybody with those symptoms.

That is why all malaria's can't be cured with China.Some may need nat.mur,some other people may need ipecac.Same malaria disease, will produce different set of symptoms, in different people,and we have to look for the individual's symtoms to choose the medicine.

This why, homeopathy is called both an art and science.

The science part is 'similia similibus curantar.'

The art part is matching the patient's symptoms to the drug.

Hahnemann is way ahead of all you people.

Murthy

Is "China" homeospeak for Cinchona?

Is there any evidence of 'similia similibus curantar' in order to make it scientific?

 

[Gavinimurthy]

China and Cinchona are one and the same.

Next time, when your hand comes in contact, with any hot object, don't pour water over it. Keep the affected area, near a somewhat hot object, and see ,how fast you get relief.

In fact, this is the trick , that helps most of the chefs in their kitchens. Ask them.

This is 'Similia similibus Curentar.'

If you are observant enough, you wil have any number of proofs.

Murthy

 

[Donks]

China and Cinchona are one and the same.

Next time, when your hand comes in contact, with any hot object, don't pour water over it. Keep the affected area, near a somewhat hot object, and see ,how fast you get relief.

In fact, this is the trick , that helps most of the chefs in their kitchens. Ask them.

This is 'Similia similibus Curentar.'

If you are observant enough, you wil have any number of proofs.

Murthy

So that's a no on the evidence? Or is all science now to be vetted by chefs?

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
Next time, when your hand comes in contact, with any hot object, don't pour water over it. Keep the affected area, near a somewhat hot object, and see ,how fast you get relief.

In fact, this is the trick , that helps most of the chefs in their kitchens. Ask them.

This is 'Similia similibus Curentar.'

If you are observant enough, you wil have any number of proofs.

Murthy

Now, there has been a lot of serious research on how to treat burns. Murthy, can you think of any particular reason why they would have ended up recommending cold water, if warmth was better?

However, even if it should be true, you are getting the problem wrong: For homeopathy to work 'Similia similibus Curentar' has to be a universa principle. I am shure that if you think about it, you can see that it is not enough that it works in some cases; it must work in ALL cases, otherwise, homeopathy is reduced, at best, to a gamble.

So, even if you point out dozens of situations where 'Similia similibus Curentar' actually works, if we can point out just one case where it doesn't, then the claim is falsified.

Hans

 

[Donks]

As it happens, I burned my finger today while I was frying chorizo for my scrambled eggs. I've ad a bottle of cold water next to me, and when the finger bothers me, I sink it in the water. That relieves the pain pretty well. Just now, I tried putting the area in contact with the power adaptor thingy for my laptop, which is warm but not overly so. I can't stand it with the finger, because it's tender. It doesn't help, it hurts.

While my little anecdotal evidence doesn't disprove a thing, it counterbalances Murthy's anecdotes.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You made your case incurable by using allopathy (cold water). It drove the problem deeper, and to cure it by homeopathy, you will now need a full case taking, stupid.

Hans

 

[Donks]

Well damn it. Damn it all to hell. I'm just cutting the damn thing off.

 

[Stitch]

In fact, this is the trick , that helps most of the chefs in their kitchens. Ask them.

This is 'Similia similibus Curentar.'

Bulls*it. Evidence??? If you want to claim something then fine, but back it up.

Please provide a list of the well know chefs (that we can corroborate) who advocate this method for treating a burn in their kicthens, or admit you are lying, I don't mind either way.