Understanding homeopathy

[Donks]

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?

So you pulled the 85% out of your a... out of thin air. Is it ok if I make up statistics too?

IThere 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.

I didn't ask about poisons. I asked if the effect of homeopathy should show up on a DBPC study or not, and why. Care to answer the question?

 

[Kumar]

This is an interesting point.

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.

Why we insist on change, if a theory/healing substance is still persisting & working? Pesistance, carry forward or time testing of anything can be taken as a step towards " absoluteness". Should we not accept, favour, pursue & progress "absoluteness"? You know several medicines still fails & so banned on practical applications inspite of all type of perfect & advanced testings. I couldn't yet find any "absolute modern medicine" or atleast persisted since long as orther healing substances persisted. WHY SO???

 

[Kumar]

So you pulled the 85% out of your a... out of thin air. Is it ok if I make up statistics too?

I just remember Mr.Hans has indicated somewhat like it in other forum.

I didn't ask about poisons. I asked if the effect of homeopathy should show up on a DBPC study or not, and why. Care to answer the question?

Suppose a patient taking homeopathic medicine is cured in say 6 months, in a year or in several years, will you consider it as a homeopathic effect or not? What will you consider, if DBPC studies are conducted on 6 monthly or yearly basis in acccordance with homeopathic theory? Frankly, I think so much & systematic studies are not yet conducted/needed by homeopathic community & 'not considered as "conventional" by goverment & big agencies. But it can be on the way looking at its response which may be creating SOME FEAR SO OPPOSITIONS.

 

[Donks]

I just remember Mr.Hans has indicated somewhat like it in other forum.

Give me a link so I can go and see if I can figure out what you meant.

Suppose a patient taking homeopathic medicine is cured in say 6 months, in a year or in several years, will you consider it as a homeopathic effect or not? What do you say, if DBPC studies are conducted on 6 monthly or yearly basis in acccordance with homeopathic theory or not? Frankly, I think so much & systematic studies are not yet conducted/needed by homeopathic community due to 'not considered as "conventional" by goverment & big agencies, but it can be on the way.

You are still avoiding the question. Plus, aren't some homeopathic cures supposed to work almost instantaneously?

 

[BillyJoe]

Rolfe,

The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed.

By this definition, that patient's disease was cured.

BillyJoe

 

[MRC_Hans]

The report gave a very good summary of the traditional medicine,during hahnemann's time.That's why I quoted it.

Yet is was from these initial bumbling attempts that modern medicine sprang. At Hahnemann's time, physicians might have been groping in the dark, but they did not give up, they did not stop searching, instead they developed steadily better methods.


What we have to see is whether the way he reacted,is justifiable,in those circumstances or not.

It is not very interesting if it was justifiable. None of Hahnemann's justified wrath against other practitioners serves to justify his own methods and theories.

Your focus on that is just the usual diversion usd by homeopaths: Trying to turn the discussion into a discussion about conventional medicine. That discussion, interesting as it might be in itself, is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the discussion of homeopathy.

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.

What is the purpose of discussing one postulate, taken out of context?

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.

If the medical community had followed Hahnemann's recomendations, the state of medical science would STILL be as it was 200 years ago. Fortunately, it did not.

Thus, the first postulate, including the foot-note, is DISMISSED. Time has shown it to be FALSE.

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?

Straw-man. We "pounce upon" the notion that disease causes should not be sought. Hahnemann denounced all speculation as empty, but how could he? Only after doing research can you tell which are empty and which are not. The big irony of it all is that research has shown Hahnemann's speculations to be the empty ones!

*snip*

But,as far as the first postulate is concerned,I see nothing wrong with it,given the conditions of traditional medicine, during his time.

Yes, it is wrong. Hahnemann is discouraging research, he is advocating that the physician should cure, but he proposes to rom him of nay tools to do so, except exactly ... empty speculation.
Murthy

Hans

 

[Kumar]

Give me a link so I can go and see if I can figure out what you meant.

You can try it at;
http://otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=3322&highlight=placebo+effect

You are still avoiding the question. Plus, aren't some homeopathic cures supposed to work almost instantaneously?
Some patients (even myself) noticed it. But it can't be taken as applicable in all cases as "individuality" is there in homeopathic theory. Anyway, I think more & advanced studies as per its theory are still needed to be conducted in view of its mass existance.

 

[MRC_Hans]

So you pulled the 85% out of your a... out of thin air. Is it ok if I make up statistics too?

I just remember Mr.Hans has indicated somewhat like it in other forum.

*snip*

No, I have not. I once answered one of your questions with a guesstimate on the ratios of patients who might have "some" benefit from the placebo effect, in different disease classes.

YOU then, in your usual way, misinterpreted the figures in your own private way and came up with some figure. I don't think it was 85% at the time, but it doesn't matter, since you were adding up apples and oranges.

So, yes, it is a thin air figure.

Hans

 

[Zep]

One thing is becoming clear to me on this subject: We have two homeopaths here in this thread, and neither of them seems to be able to demonstrate an understanding of homeopathy at all (i.e. the topic of this thread). So far, the skeptics have provided all the definitions and explanations of homeopathy...why is that? Would it be anything to do with the process of research that goes along with being skeptical, perhaps...? Or is it that homeopaths are not bothered by, or even scared by, research?

 

[Rolfe]

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?

Translated, this means that you want to take no treatment, but just to relax and hope that whatever you have will go away on its own. Because that's all "placebo" is, you know.

Not good if you have something which isn't going to go away on its own.

The reason that nobody will say anything is "absolute" in medicine, in the way you mean it, is that however effective anything is, we always hope and strive to improve. If you think it's better never to try to improve, then I don't think you will find many to agree with you.

Rolfe.

 

[geni]

One thing is becoming clear to me on this subject: We have two homeopaths here in this thread, and neither of them seems to be able to demonstrate an understanding of homeopathy at all (i.e. the topic of this thread). So far, the skeptics have provided all the definitions and explanations of homeopathy...why is that? Would it be anything to do with the process of research that goes along with being skeptical, perhaps...? Or is it that homeopaths are not bothered by, or even scared by, research?

The other reason is the sceptics don't have to waste time beliving the stuff.

 

[Ashles]

Why aren't homeopaths immortal?

If they aren't interested in the cause of medical problems (obviously it's not important), and they can solve any problems with their dilutions, why do homeopaths die?

I raise this as I think it is actually pertinant to Postulate 1.

If, as homeopaths will no doubt explain, there are some things that homeopathy can't heal, then how do they know which or why?

Why the big criticism of medical research?

 

[Kumar]

Rolfe, I left 15% for your system.

"The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed."

Murty,

Since this issue is raised here, I would like you to mention definition of "health", "cure", "disease" & "suppressions" in homeopathic sense.

 

[MESchlum]

So you pulled the 85% out of your a... out of thin air. Is it ok if I make up statistics too?

Absolutely not. It is a well known fact that exactly 87% of all statisitics are made up. I you begin to make some up, the ratio may change

 

[patnray]

Gavin: So, if I understand your position on the first postulate it is this: The physician’s responsibility is to provide patients with effective treatments. In the note that follows Hahnemann is denouncing contemporary practices that subjected patients to horrific procedures based on unproven speculations about the cause of disease. He is not denouncing research into the true causes of disease.

Is that correct?

I have no problem with the first postulate when interpreted this way.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

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.

"His mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism,"

OK let's play this game. If we answer only and precisely in the terms used in that quote, he is right. "empty speculations" are worthless.

Please define for us "empty speculation"

Now let's see whether Hahnemann manages to refrain from "interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses"

Ooh, it's so exciting. I can't wait for the next thrilling instalment.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Definitions:

Provings = System of empty speculation and empty hypotheses
Homeopathy = System of empty speculation and empty hypotheses
Case- taking = System of empty speculation and empty hypotheses
Like cures like = Empty speculation and empty hypotheses
Effects of 'succussion' = Empty speculation and empty hypotheses
Effects of 'provings' = Empty speculation and empty hypotheses
Potensizing by dilution = Empty speculation and empty hypotheses

Hahnemann was not only ignorant and arrogant, he was also a hypocrite.

 

[Anders]

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

So your advice to me is that I should read the Oragonoa instead of my new 2004 Cell biology book, and if a question on the exam would be about the immune system, I should answer that virus does not cause sickness and bacteria does not cause infection followed by inflammation, but that an imbalance in the life-force cause the infection?!? Man, would I flunk the exam!

Bah, the Oragononnoonon is a just a historic curiosity, at best valid for historians of medical history. Otherwise, it ranks in same league as the recipe for worm-lotion for treatment of leprosy…

 

[Capsid]

Postulate 1

"The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed.

I can think of an instance where a cure may not be desired, this being Thalassemia which affords some protection against malaria.

Are there other examples?

 

[Zep]

Postulate 1

"The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed."

Basic question that needs to be answered comprehensively FIRST: How does a homeopath know when a person is sick?

As has been mentioned above, not all diseases present with visible or discernable symptoms, i.e. the person dos not even know they are sick. (Homeopathic answer: There is nothing wrong with them if they have no symptoms.)

And again, as mentioned above, many sicknesses present with similar if not identical symptoms, so how do you distinguish between diseases? DOES a homeopath distinguish between diseases? (Homeopathic answer: No. Each patient is "individualised", so they get different remedies based on how the patient saya they feel, not on any consistent disease identification.)