Understanding homeopathy

[Gavinimurthy]

You are more interested in proving me wrong, rather than understanding homeopathy.

There is no hurry. When you meet a chef, just ask him.

Otherwise, how do I know about this?

Murthy

 

[Donks]

You are more interested in proving me wrong, rather than understanding homeopathy.

There is no hurry. When you meet a chef, just ask him.

Otherwise, how do I know about this?

Murthy

Show us an effect worth looking into, and then we'll try to understand why it's there. No effect? No interest.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

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

Don't be silly. Just take yourself to a homeopath and their "fast gentle cure" will soon have it dropping off.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

There is no hurry. When you meet a chef, just ask him.

Otherwise, how do I know about this?

Because you spoke to a chef who failed to attend a first aid course?

 

[Chris Haynes]

You are more interested in proving me wrong, rather than understanding homeopathy.

There is no hurry. When you meet a chef, just ask him.

Otherwise, how do I know about this?

Murthy

Hey!!! I tried to understand... I asked the same question on the same paragraph of the Organon multiple times, only to have it either ignored or some idiotic half-@ssed answer without any supporting evidence. Which leads me to believe that there is no good answer and homeopathy is just based on empty faith (much like its remedies).

So I am to believe that if a female homeopath experiences "internal itching" she is going to think she has the "syphilis miasm" and will take some sugar pills or water --- INSTEAD of walking into her local pharmacy for a very effective 1 or 3 day vaginal yeast infection remedy. Yikes and OWwww

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Because you spoke to a chef who failed to attend a first aid course?

For my last job, I had to take a food safety course, which also included first aid for minor kitchen mishaps. Homeopathy was not even mentioned, much less recommended.

 

[Chris Haynes]

...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

This has got to be one of the most idiotic things that has been posted on this thread!!! (and worse, I missed it the first time I read it through).

I have one of those people in possession of a hot-glue gun (actually, I have two). I have touched hot glue many times... and cool water works. So tell me WHERE in this advice on using a hot glue gun is holding your hand near the glue gun nozzle?:
http://aquanic.org/publicat/usda_rac/efs/ctsa/clam/hotgluing.htm

Oh, wait... it says this:

A further, simple safety precaution is to keep a five-gallon bucket filled with fresh water near the crafting bench. In the event of an accidental burn from the hot glue gun, pain and tissue damage can be minimized by immediately plunging the affected body part into the water bucket. One experience with a hot plastic burn should be sufficient to convince skeptics of the wisdom of this advice.

I'm placing bets that Murthy has never been near any hot cooking utilsils.

 

[Gavinimurthy]

Perhaps you are aware that the 'opinions' have changed in recent times regarding treatment of burns.

A few years back, it was "rub ice on the affected area."

Now, "no,no, ice will cause blistering,and so many other problems, just plain tap water is enough."

Who knows tomorrow it will be "slightly warm water."

You have new theory and new evidence to suit any proposition. Is it science?


Murthy

 

[Chris Haynes]

...
You have new theory and new evidence to suit any proposition. Is it science?


Murthy

At least I provide references, links and some evidence. Like these:
http://familydoctor.org/638.xml
http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?objectid=63D11647-9116-43EA-8D757FEFDFCD33CB ...

which reference says you put the hand near the heat source?

(by the way, a basic knowledge bit: Water has a high specific heat factor. It draws the heat away from the skin... this property is also why large bodies of water moderate the temperatures in many areas --- actually, once you get to learn science and how one thing affects another, you get to see are cool and fun it is.)

 

[Lisa Simpson]

There's got to be a brave and macho skepdude who is willing to get a couple of small burns in the name of science. Who's game? Anyone? Anyone?

 

[Mojo]

Not me.

 

[Kumar]

(by the way, a basic knowledge bit: Water has a high specific heat factor. It draws the heat away from the skin... this property is also why large bodies of water moderate the temperatures in many areas --- actually, once you get to learn science and how one thing affects another, you get to see are cool and fun it is.)

The bolded letter created interest in me. Can you explain more? Does it indicate effect of differant substances on us through our skin(as stones, metals etc.)?

Table of specific heat capacities of some substances is given on
this link.

 

[KFCA]

Out of curiousity:

H-C cites two articles on burns & their treatment, both of which state NOT to use ice on a burn, but rather cold or cool water.

However, I have in my possession a thick paperback entitled "Take Care of Yourself, The Guide to Health and Medical Self-Care" by James F. Fries, M.D. & Donald M. Vickery, M.D., 5th Edition, 1994, which states. under "Home Treatment": "Apply cold water or ice immediately. This reduces the amount of skin damage caused by the burn...."

Since the subject is common burns, (& not complicated diseases such as cancer or diabetes or such), why does the learning curve take so long on this seemingly ordinary stuff? 1994 wasn't that long ago.

 

[PixyMisa]

Does it indicate effect of differant substances on us through our skin(as stones, metals etc.)?

No.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Perhaps you are aware that the 'opinions' have changed in recent times regarding treatment of burns.

A few years back, it was "rub ice on the affected area."

Now, "no,no, ice will cause blistering,and so many other problems, just plain tap water is enough."

Who knows tomorrow it will be "slightly warm water."

You have new theory and new evidence to suit any proposition. Is it science?


Murthy

Er...hang on just a cotton pickin' minute. You stated your stupid advice about using warm water as established fact, based on a conversation with a chef. Now you're down to "Who knows tomorrow it will be "slightly warm water." ".

Nifty backtracking there, Murthy, but it didn't go unnoticed.

Now, what was that we were saying about dangerous amateurs messing with medical problems?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Now, "no,no, ice will cause blistering,and so many other problems, just plain tap water is enough."

By the way, think about the differences between liquids and solids and consider for a moment why water might be better at drawng the excess heat out of burned tissue even though its temperature is higher than ice.

 

[Gavinimurthy]

I never said' use warm water'. I said keep your hand near a hot source/object.

You didn't comment on 'the changing theories and the evidences ' of your noble 'modern medicine.'

When Ice was used,obviously you people had evidence that it worked.

When plain water is suggested, then obviously agian, you people had evidence that ice is bad.

So, what is the standard of your so called 'evidence'?

What prevents you people to declare again tomorrow that warm water will be better, to heal burns?

Murthy

 

[Gavinimurthy]

Out of curiousity:

H-C cites two articles on burns & their treatment, both of which state NOT to use ice on a burn, but rather cold or cool water.

However, I have in my possession a thick paperback entitled "Take Care of Yourself, The Guide to Health and Medical Self-Care" by James F. Fries, M.D. & Donald M. Vickery, M.D., 5th Edition, 1994, which states. under "Home Treatment": "Apply cold water or ice immediately. This reduces the amount of skin damage caused by the burn...."

Since the subject is common burns, (& not complicated diseases such as cancer or diabetes or such), why does the learning curve take so long on this seemingly ordinary stuff? 1994 wasn't that long ago.

Evidence of your shifting theories.

Should one have faith in whatever the modern gurus say?

Murthy

 

[Gavinimurthy]

BSM

One interesting observation.

You start calling names when ever you are cornered. A peculiar trait different from others. Did you notice?

You can be helped. Try Nux.vomica 200, once in a week, before going to bed.

You will tend to become more calm and serene.

Murthy

P.S: BTW, is there any 'modern medicine' to cure such tendencies?

 

[Darat]

Evidence of your shifting theories.

So nothing in homeopathy has changed in 200 years? Absolutely nothing? You really have faith that one person 200 years ago was able to know everything about all diseases ever known or will be known?

Surely it is good to stop using something if it doesn't work or change it so that it does work? What is the point of using something if it repeatedly fails?

(I understand why some people who push a non-treatment like homeopathy do so, even though it doesn't work since they make a lot of money out of offering a treatment that doesn’t work. I also understand the motivation of "Big Business" that supply homeopathic “remedies”, after all it is an incredibly profitable business and they have a vested interest (i.e. increasing their profit) in promoting homeopathy. Granted I don’t know how they sleep at night but hey that’s “Big Business” executives for you!)

Should one have faith in whatever the modern gurus say?

Murthy

Strange question. One shouldn't have to have "faith" in any treatment. One should be able to find the evidence that something does as it is meant to do, that of course may include some nasty possible side effects. As a slight aside that’s why the recent scandal about COX-2 inhibitors is a scandal and it’s why what the tobacco industry did was a scandal. To withhold information or to not reveal negative results in such a way that prevents someone from making an informed decision is fraudulent and in matters of health should always be a criminal offence.

Back to the point of “faith”. Faith is all a (if any are at least this truthful) "practitioner" of homeopathy has in their “treatments” since they have never been proven to work. Faith is a belief without evidence, and is a quite often a delusion (since the belief held by a faith holder is a false belief contradicted by evidence).


(Edited for doing and formating.)