SezMe
post-pre-born
I agree with this ... if you include my underscored emphasis! It is, however, his mission to interweave scientifically tested ... blah, blah.Gavinimurthy said:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Understanding homeopathy
- Thread starter Gavinimurthy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- homeopathy
Rolfe
Adult human female
I'll go with that.SezMe said:
Rolfe.
H3LL
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,963
Not having a clue what organon was (I thought maybe a little heard of Womble) and Lisa's link didn't work for me, a quick google got me these interesting links.
The Rise and Fall of Homeopathy
Homeopathy: Report of the
Australian Committee of Inquiry (1977)
A nice overview. I'm sure there are more but they helped me know what you are talking about.
I'll go back to lurking now...maybe.
The Rise and Fall of Homeopathy
Homeopathy: Report of the
Australian Committee of Inquiry (1977)
A nice overview. I'm sure there are more but they helped me know what you are talking about.
I'll go back to lurking now...maybe.
Gavinimurthy
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 155
The operative word was "empty speculations."
During and prior to Hahnemann, the medicinal theories were based on pure speculation.It was the order of the day,that new theories were brought out,every now and then,and there used to be bitter fights,among the proponents of these theories.
If you read his explanation,in the light of the situation,prevailing in his time,it is no wonder, that he is so fedup,with the arguments and counterarguments of the traditional medicine.
What he said is" stop these unsupported theories,and start treating patients."
Murthy
During and prior to Hahnemann, the medicinal theories were based on pure speculation.It was the order of the day,that new theories were brought out,every now and then,and there used to be bitter fights,among the proponents of these theories.
If you read his explanation,in the light of the situation,prevailing in his time,it is no wonder, that he is so fedup,with the arguments and counterarguments of the traditional medicine.
What he said is" stop these unsupported theories,and start treating patients."
Murthy
Gavinimurthy
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 155
"Medicine in the 18th century lacked specific therapies for all but a very few conditions and treatments were based on the symptoms the patient presented. For the most part, the treatments were violent. Psychopathic patients were beaten, emetics and purging were common, and the success of bleeding and counter-irritation was measured by the pain the patient experienced. The last straw to Hahnemann was the death of Kaiser Leopold II of Austria, who died after four episodes of blood letting. This was allopathy, the treatment by opposites, at its most violent. To attempt to exsanguinate a patient after prolonged diarrhea in the face of repeated failure forced him to seek a more humane approach."
"Hahnemann made two considerable contributions to modern medicine: firstly, he brought moderation to the practice of using massive doses of drugs at a time when the vogue in medicine was to push dosage to the limits of toxicity; secondly, he strongly advocated the use of single drugs and was strongly opposed to the use of the complex mixtures which were then a feature of pharmacopoeias.
Hahnemann's views were widely promulgated, and were espoused especially in the United States. In Britain, there was initially strong opposition from the orthodox medical establishment, but the empirical success of homoeopathic physicians at the time of a cholera epidemic, and royal patronage, finally won the day and allowed the establishment of homoeopathy in Britain."
Excerpts from the report of Australia"n Committee of Inquiry (1977) : Courtesy H3LL..
Murthy
"Hahnemann made two considerable contributions to modern medicine: firstly, he brought moderation to the practice of using massive doses of drugs at a time when the vogue in medicine was to push dosage to the limits of toxicity; secondly, he strongly advocated the use of single drugs and was strongly opposed to the use of the complex mixtures which were then a feature of pharmacopoeias.
Hahnemann's views were widely promulgated, and were espoused especially in the United States. In Britain, there was initially strong opposition from the orthodox medical establishment, but the empirical success of homoeopathic physicians at the time of a cholera epidemic, and royal patronage, finally won the day and allowed the establishment of homoeopathy in Britain."
Excerpts from the report of Australia"n Committee of Inquiry (1977) : Courtesy H3LL..
Murthy
Gavin, talk about your tunnel-vision, my man! Are you TRYING to avoid the obvious??
Just one example - same reference, last section:
You might also read and note carefully all the parts of that report that echo what has been said here numerous times about the complete lack of scientific support for homeopathy, and it's counter-intuitive premises.
Just one example - same reference, last section:
You might also read and note carefully all the parts of that report that echo what has been said here numerous times about the complete lack of scientific support for homeopathy, and it's counter-intuitive premises.
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
it's good to see that with this thread, Murthy has attracted some of his audience of lurkers to post and we should be grateful that they have stopped laughing at homeopathy for long enough to be able to submit posts and pour even more scorn on it.
Well done, Murthy, your public service to the understanding of homeopathy is being recognised.
Well done, Murthy, your public service to the understanding of homeopathy is being recognised.
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
Gavinimurthy said:
Such as?
His invention of a mythical "vital force" that is adversely affected by speculative influences called "miasms" that we now know to be proxies for the things that real medicine has subsequently shown to be the causes of disease.
Gavinimurthy said:
But he himself brought new theories. How can one say that his theory is right & other theories are wrong esp. which are mass existing. Every theory can have both good & bad points & if one opposes other theories & support ONLY his theory--it may be just thought as selfishness, overestimation of self, proud, ambition or otherwise. I do not find it correct if anyone being human just favour himself as GOD because GOD might have not given all & absolute knowledge to ONE human unless he himself is GOD(which is also bit doubtful considering three GODs). I also think that Dr.Hahn.'s work was needed to be edited or pruned in consideration of excesses of theories, remedies etc. collected by just ONE HUMAN which looks to be beyond the capacity of ONE MIND. He has collected several colour stones among various stones but probably he has not selected true GEMS from those colour stones which probably Dr.Sch. had done thereafter.
Theories (actually, hypotheses) are tested in experiments to see if they have any validity. Homeopathy has been tested, and so far the results are negative.Kumar said:
Gibberish.
More Gibberish. Modern medicine, and scientific knowledge in general, does not depend on one human. It is the accumulated knowledge of generations of scientists, each generation building upon the last, or correcting it. How much has Homeopathy changed since Dr H? Or tissue salts since Dr. S?
Yet acount for placebo and the effect vanishes.Kumar said:
Nope. All the other stuff about god and whatnot, that part was the guibberish.
If a theory or system is shown to be ineffective experimentally, it must be corrected. A theory tha remains static despite evidence that it is wrong is worthless.
"The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed."
I read this as meaning a physician should not try to prevent disease. Is this why homeopathic supporters seem synonymous with the anti-vaccine brigade?
Is Hahnemann really advocating that a doctor should not try to prevent disease but may only deal with someone once they have become ill?
I read this as meaning a physician should not try to prevent disease. Is this why homeopathic supporters seem synonymous with the anti-vaccine brigade?
Is Hahnemann really advocating that a doctor should not try to prevent disease but may only deal with someone once they have become ill?
Well, I'm no expert in homeopathy, but it seems to me that according to homeopathy you can't prevent diseases.Darat said:
If you are healthy, or "in balance", there is nothing to do. Of course, I could be completely wrong, and probably am.
Where are you getting the 85% from? What contributes the other 15%? Do you thnk that if placebo produces the effects attributed to homeopathy, then homeopathy is a treatment worth keeping?Kumar said:
If there was an effect, do you think it would show on a double blind, placebo cotrolled study or not? If not, why do you think the effect of homeopathy would not show on a DBPC study?
Gavinimurthy
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 155
The report gave a very good summary of the traditional medicine,during hahnemann's time.That's why I quoted it.
What we have to see is whether the way he reacted,is justifiable,in those circumstances or not.
Regarding the recommendations of the committee:
It has no relevance to the contents of the first postulate.Pl.remeber that I made myself very clear,in the beginning itself,that I will limit my discussion,to the postulate,being discussed.
We will cross the bridge when we come to it.What is the hurry?
Pl.remember that,during his time,what are being discussed are 'empty' theories,and unverified speculations regarding the cause of the disease.
You people want proof for everything,and when Hahnemann was also telling the same thing,and asking people to desist from 'empty' theories and speculations,and concentrate on curing the patient,you try to pounce upon him.
What sort of logic is this?
Don't try to show your knoweldge of homeopathy,and of the idiosyncrasies of Hannemann,at this stage.He may be wrong,in making certain statements.I too will join you in criticising him,when we come to that.
But,as far as the first postulate is concerned,I see nothing wrong with it,given the conditions of traditional medicine, during his time.
Murthy
What we have to see is whether the way he reacted,is justifiable,in those circumstances or not.
Regarding the recommendations of the committee:
It has no relevance to the contents of the first postulate.Pl.remeber that I made myself very clear,in the beginning itself,that I will limit my discussion,to the postulate,being discussed.
We will cross the bridge when we come to it.What is the hurry?
Pl.remember that,during his time,what are being discussed are 'empty' theories,and unverified speculations regarding the cause of the disease.
You people want proof for everything,and when Hahnemann was also telling the same thing,and asking people to desist from 'empty' theories and speculations,and concentrate on curing the patient,you try to pounce upon him.
What sort of logic is this?
Don't try to show your knoweldge of homeopathy,and of the idiosyncrasies of Hannemann,at this stage.He may be wrong,in making certain statements.I too will join you in criticising him,when we come to that.
But,as far as the first postulate is concerned,I see nothing wrong with it,given the conditions of traditional medicine, during his time.
Murthy
Rolfe
Adult human female
This is an interesting point.Gavinimurthy said:
Murthy, what you describe is perhaps a reasonably fair view of the situation existing 200 years ago. The conventional medicine of the time wasn't very effective and a lot of people had some very peculiar ideas. Indeed, as that very selective quote from the Australian document shows, sometimes doing nothing (i.e. homoeopathic treatment) was better for the patients than what the conventional doctors were inclined to do.
However, you cannot defend the practice of homoeopathy today by looking at the situation 200 years ago. Whether or not the speculations Hahnemann was referring to were empty or not, the fact remains that in the time since then a lot of hypothesising and testing of hypotheses has gone on, which isn't empty at all.
Are you really trying to maintain that these 200 year old remarks have the slightest relevance in the 21st century, when "speculation" has led to the discovery of the root causes of so many diseases, and has therefore enabled effective treatment to be instituted? For example, if you contracted cholera now, you'd have a far better chance of survival if you followed modern medical advice than if you simply took a magic homoeopathy potion.
How the homoeopathic approach compared to the bleeding, purging and leeching approach is of no more than historical interest nowadays. Nowadays the alternative to homoeopathy isn't that, it is properly researched and scientifically based antibiotics and drugs targeted very precisely at the cause of the disease. Like the insulin I referred to earlier.
Would you care to comment on the real world as it is today?
Rolfe.
Donks said:Where are you getting the 85% from? What contributes the other 15%? Do you thnk that if placebo produces the effects attributed to homeopathy, then homeopathy is a treatment worth keeping?
I pursue & Wish to be treated myself(atleast for 85% of my problems) just by so called "placebo effect". Is it not more natural, much beneficial & worth considering?
If there was an effect, do you think it would show on a double blind, placebo cotrolled study or not? If not, why do you think the effect of homeopathy would not show on a DBPC study?
There can be differance in poisioning & slow poisioning. Homeopathic effects can be long term & so can be confused with placebo effects. Whatever is there many patients taking homeopathic treatments find & experiance its effects. Survey of homeopathic clinics/patients can clear it.