• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Understanding homeopathy

Kumar said:
Zep, carn,

Apart from this, I also believe in concepts which are or made "absolute".

That the Organon cannot distinguish between bacteria, viruses or fungi? That all sorts of maladies are actually just manifestations of a couple of psoras?

hmmmm... http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/30.html
? 80

Incalculably greater and more important than the two chronic miasms just named, however, is the chronic miasm of psora, which, while those two reveal their specific internal dyscrasia, the one by the venereal chancre, the other by the cauliflower-like growths, does also, after the completion of the internal infection of the whole organism, announce by a peculiar cutaneous eruption, sometimes consisting only of a few vesicles accompanied by intolerable voluptuous tickling itching (and a peculiar odor), the monstrous internal chronic miasm - the psora, the only real fundamental cause and producer of all the other numerous, I may say innumerable, forms of disease1, which, under the names of nervous debility, hysteria, hypochondriasis, mania, melancholia, imbecility, madness, epilepsy and convulsions of all sorts, softening of the bones (rachitis), scoliosis and cyphosis, caries, cancer, fungus nematodes, neoplasms, gout, haemorrhoids, jaundice, cyanosis, dropsy, amenorrhoea, haemorrhage from the stomach, nose, lungs, bladder and womb, of asthma and ulceration of the lungs, of impotence and barrenness, of megrim, deafness, cataract, amaurosis, urinary calculus, paralysis, defects of the senses and pains of thousands of kinds, etc., figure in systematic works on pathology as peculiar, independent diseases.

Now this is really silly.

There seem to be some very serious logical leaps in this paragraph. Itchiness has taken on a whole new stature here!

Editted for spelling -- and since some of this is starting to make sense, I guess it is time for me to go to bed!
 
Kumar said:
Absolute means free from imperfection to which no furthur change is possible, final... When you say nothing can be absolute in science & everything remains open to new research & possibility(ref. my topic absolote...)---everything still remains 'possibily unclear' & open for furthur possibilities.
So far so good.
I consider TRS as absolute because it runs parellel to our body's biochemistry & can remain "absolute" till our body chemistry remains same in constituents.
This part I don't agree with, at all. You consider a system, which can present no verifiable evidence of its effectiveness, to be perfect. It is based on the remaining componets after burning a body to ashes. It does not take into account the way anything in a living body actually works.
Question for you, is there any evidence that would make you doubt the absoluteness of TRS?
 
Gavini,

Frankly, while giving full respect to Dr.Hahn. for collecting & introducing some specific natural healing substances & systems(may be more appropriate than others) from so many & so many types(alike several coloured stones from all type of stones), but I am bit doubtful & confused on some aspects as mentioned by him. I also respect any knowledge introduced by anyone, primarily. Inspite of some doubts & confusions(negatives) his positives can be in majority, therefore one can respect him/his work. It can be a service to humanity if we can discuss those 'may be negative points' & either accept or correct/clear those by "sober & materialistic discussions".

I think you may be, previously, knowing possibility 'type of discussions' here so you should not be discouraged. Instead, just try to satisfy all inspite adversities as we are dealing with yet unclear aspect & so opposite side.

I have some doubts & confusions, which I indicted previously. You may discuss same here if feel suitable.

Thanks & best wishes.
 
Donks said:
What do you mean by "absolute"? Which concepts are "absolute"?
I have the horrible feeling that what Kumar means by this is that Homeopathy Works and never mind the evidence.
 
Murthy[/i] I am quitting. Murthy [/QUOTE][QUOTE][i]Originally posted by geni said:
Wimp. I posted on your boards untill I was banned.
But it probably didn't take very long, did it?:D
 
Donks said:
So far so good.

This part I don't agree with, at all. You consider a system, which can present no verifiable evidence of its effectiveness, to be perfect. It is based on the remaining componets after burning a body to ashes. It does not take into account the way anything in a living body actually works.


GOD is also said to be "ABSOLUTE". To whom also, WE(may be except me or alike me:D) couldn't yet understand instead said to be omni-present. It looks we are not entitled(except...:D) to know ABSOLUTE things in current age. Otherwise how we will be balanced???

Question for you, is there any evidence that would make you doubt the absoluteness of TRS?

I doubt & can succeed in everything if under confusion to SOME. I tried to doubt same for this system but always failed(honestly). I couldn't change any mentioning except relating some mentioning with the change/need of the time. I therefore consider it as " absolute". This can be just my observation & experiance but since these resembles somewhat our prime 95% elements or with our bio-chemistry, I strongly feel these as "absolute".
 
Mojo said:
I have the horrible feeling that what Kumar means by this is that Homeopathy Works and never mind the evidence.

Can't evidances(scientific) be changed/wrong? Are these "absolute"?
 
Kumar said:
GOD is also said to be "ABSOLUTE". To whom also, WE(may be except me or alike me:D) couldn't yet understand instead said to be omni-present. It looks we are not entitled(except...:D) to know ABSOLUTE things in current age. Otherwise how we will be balanced???
God is a mythological figure. No evidence. I don't believe in it. I don't even want to know what your definition of "balanced" is.
I doubt & can succeed in everything if under confusion to SOME. I tried to doubt same for this system but always failed(honestly). I couldn't change any mentioning except relating some mentioning with the change/need of the time. I therefore consider it as " absolute". This can be just my observation & experiance but since these resembles somewhat our prime 95% elements or with our bio-chemistry, I strongly feel these as "absolute".
Ok then, I don't know why I even asked. I already knew there was no way you'd change your mind. I guess I'll keep replying for the entertainment value only.
 
Donks said:
God is a mythological figure. No evidence. I don't believe in it. I don't even want to know what your definition of "balanced" is.

Ok then, I don't know why I even asked. I already knew there was no way you'd change your mind. I guess I'll keep replying for the entertainment value only.

Nothing is there as you are feeling/finding(honestly). If anyone/anythig can change my mind, I do accept & thanks for that openly because I want to gain knowledge not just talking, entertainment, trolling or for some vested interests. My only vested interest is just exchange of knowledges. It is all at the cost of my time which is really important.
 
Mojo said:
I have the horrible feeling that what Kumar means by this is that Homeopathy Works and never mind the evidence.
No, but these can be primary & secondary considerations.;)
 
Kumar said:
Can't evidances(scientific) be changed/wrong? Are these "absolute"?
Evidence is evidence. It's just observations of how things are. The conclusions that are drawn from it are, of course, not absolute, and may need to be changed if other (better) evidence comes to light, but this does not change the original evidence. It just changes the way we interpret it.
 
Mojo said:
But it probably didn't take very long, did it?:D
Actually, at one point he had one of the highest post counts on that forum, and posted for a long time before the "management" started a clampdown.

Rolfe.
 
I think Kumar's basic attitude is that because science keeps trying to improve and refine its techniques and knowledge, this is an admission of imperfection. But his ludicrous "tissue remedies" obsession doesn't try to improve (indeed doesn't even try to validate itself), therefore it is already perfect, therefore superior to the scientific method.

Unarguable, when you look at it that way, really! :D

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Actually, at one point he had one of the highest post counts on that forum, and posted for a long time before the "management" started a clampdown.

Rolfe.
I stand corrected. I'm comparatively new to this internet thingy.
 
Mojo said:
Evidence is evidence. It's just observations of how things are. The conclusions that are drawn from it are, of course, not absolute, and may need to be changed if other (better) evidence comes to light, but this does not change the original evidence. It just changes the way we interpret it.

I shall wait when you will change your opinion about homeopathy. It will certainly happen.
This may be a step towards it.
 
Hmmmm... adverse events with homeopathy:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15532700 ?

So, what happens when "internal itching" is left untreated?

Fortunately, syphilis and gonorrhea are much less common than they used to be -- but are on the upswing (possibly cyclical). BUT... yeast infections also cause internal itching and are much more common (and for me, caused me to spend a night in the hospital with what I thought were labor pains... it turned out that was caused by the yeast infection that I was planning to treat that evening, quite aggravating -- the child was born 2 weeks later).

If a woman got a yeast infection and decided to skip the pharmacy aisle with the now ONE-day treatments (yay!!! it used to be a full week... science progresses), and decided to take a homeopathic remedy instead: How long would it be before relief? Or would the condition be more aggravated?

Would the homeopathic hospital be able to tell her she had a yeast infection... or try to combine it with gonorrhea and syphilis because that is what the Organon says? Would the patient be happy or aggravated in being told she had a venereal disease by the homoeopathic hospital because the Organon did not include yeast infections in its list for "internal itching"?
 
Kumar,

Kumar said:
This may be a step towards it.
There do not seem to be any controls! What a surprise!!
In other words, there is no way of telling whether the homoeopathic treatments caused these side-effects or whether they would have occurred anyway. Now, if there had have been a control group and the effects occurred in the treated group but not the control group and provided the control group was randomly selected and provided the assessment were double blind......but, hey, we're talking homoeopathy here!!!

BillyJoe
 
geni said:
...
Wimp. I posted on your boards untill I was banned.

Not only was I banned after a couple of postings... BUT they still send me spam like emails to my hotmail account.



And none who have come over here have yet to answer my questions satisfactorily. Now that I have looked stuff up in the Organon... I have even MORE questions -- and they are still being ignored.
 
Hydrogen Cyanide said:
Not only was I banned after a couple of postings... BUT they still send me spam like emails to my hotmail account.

They probably do to mine but since mine died months ago it doesn't bother me.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom