Understanding homeopathy

[MRC_Hans]

Exactly, Rolfe! I have read accounts from what was supposed to be very successful homeopaths, then you find, maybe, 20 cases, ranging over several years (if they are dated at all). Now, obviously, somebody that does homeopathy for a living will treat at least one or two cases per day (even if it is profitable), otherwise he will starve. That means thousands of cases after a few years. So, what is the surprise that a a dozen or two can be presented to look like successes? I am shure i could show that driving drunk increased safety in that way .

Not that people like Kumar will ever understand....

Hans

 

[Mojo]

God may be knowing better about this.

Well, why don't you ask Him about it instead of us?

It is better to keep goods. It can be common--humans/commercial tendencies. We don't show 'considered bad body parts' in open

Are you really advocating concealment of inconvenient results here, Kumar?

 

[Kumar]

Interesting that you should say that...

Kumar, you have much "experience and observations" from lots and lots and LOTS of people here on this forum and from around the world that homeopathy does not and never did work. Ever. Under any circumstances. In fact, there are millions of cases available that prove this is so.

So here's a thing: How many of THESE "mass observings" do you think you will need before YOU accept that as the truth?

Mass & well distributed people (in millions) in most part of world who have observed & experianced it & found as positive accepted & approved by goverments as an approved medical practice. Something more can be there, but I think it should be sufficient.

 

[PixyMisa]

Mass & well distributed people (in millions) in most part of world who have observed & experianced it & found as positive accepted & approved by goverments as an approved medical practice. Something more can be there, but I think it should be sufficient.

No, it's not sufficient and will never be sufficient.

Because homeopathy has been tested, and it does not work.

 

[Ashles]

Mass & well distributed people (in millions) in most part of world who have observed & experianced it & found as positive accepted & approved by goverments as an approved medical practice. Something more can be there, but I think it should be sufficient.

I've always wondered - why do proponents of things like homeopathy, mediums, telekinesis, araus etc. (basically anything paranormal) always feel the need to add wink smileys by their most ridiculous claims.

Is it their way of saying that they really know this is all nonsense?

Kumar this is what you having been saying all along, apparently seriously.
Are you saying that you actually DO understand that, of course, anecdotal evidence is worthless?

If not then what are you trying to say by the smiley? Because we normally use those to indicate not to take our comment seriously.

 

[Kumar]

Ashles,

Actually it is a great tensionful work here & there to post. Just to get some relexation in between or when I think I may won or defeat other who want to defeat me....probably.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Admittedly, I have not read this whole thread so am maybe missing something - but HC, I fully do understand that yes, 200 years ago homeopathy was better than conventional medicine and that homeopathy hasn't changed in those 200 years. What exactly am I failing to understand?

Is that it?

She wanders in and wanders out again without even reading the good stuff.

How about this Barb?

The truth is revealed about a homeopathic business

 

[Chris Haynes]

Is that it?

She wanders in and wanders out again without even reading the good stuff.

...

Well she asked me what I meant... I answered, and she has disapeared again. I even read the blasted paragraph in the Organon about internal itching, and based my question on that!!!

Hellooooo.... anyone out there?

 

[Ashles]

Ashles,

Actually it is a great tensionful work here & there to post. Just to get some relexation in between or when I think I may won or defeat other who want to defeat me....probably.

Oh my word!
So you actually use this smiley when you think you've just defeated someone with your staggering logic?

Then you are really badly using it in the wrong places.
You haven't actualy 'won' or been convincing with a single point you've made yet.

You seem to think "A lot of people believe this works" is actual evidence.

A lot of people believed God made the word in seven days. Now we know otherwise thanks to investigation, testing and, yes, evidence.
What people believe is irrelevant to reality.

Trying to score points with that argument is ridiculous, as has been explained to you about a thousand times.

 

[JAK]

Can I again bring up the case of Richard Edwards' experience?

Mr. Edwards listened sympathetically to the case stories of the homoeopaths. He was persuaded to the point of buying into their practice. However, once he had done that, he had access to the complete, unselected, uncensored case records of all the patients. What he found was that the "successful" ones he'd been told about were the tip of an iceberg of cases which weren't getting better, though in some cases he realised that the owners of the animals concerned had been "brainwashed" into thinking that their pets were better when they weren't.

This is what we find when we look at the complete case records of homoeopaths. No evidence that the remedies have any effect at all. Just selective showcasing of the ones that happened to get better at a convenient time, and pure deception.

Rolfe.

After reading the Edwards linked article, I have fallen over into the skeptical group. Though Edwards' experience is anecdotal and not the result of a comprehensive investigation, his indication of lack of controls and systemic treatments seems to correspond directly with Kumar's and Gavin's responses in this thread.

Further, having governmental support for homeopathy in some countries is not convincing. In fact, it makes me even more suspicious of it.

If homeopathy does have merit, it is clouded by voluminous failings.

As a result, I've learned all I need to learn, and I am outta here.

 

[Zep]

Mass & well distributed people (in millions) in most part of world who have observed & experianced it & found as positive accepted & approved by goverments as an approved medical practice. Something more can be there, but I think it should be sufficient.

1) In which countries is homeopathy "mass & well distributed"? Name them, please. Also, accurately estimate how many people in each country are homeopaths and how many actually use homeopathy.

2) Name ONE government that has officially scientifically tested homeopathy in a reputable research situation, proved that it DOES work, and OFFICIALLY endorses it as viable medicine.

I await your response with interest, Kumar.

 

[Rolfe]

After reading the Edwards linked article, I have fallen over into the skeptical group. Though Edwards' experience is anecdotal and not the result of a comprehensive investigation, his indication of lack of controls and systemic treatments seems to correspond directly with Kumar's and Gavin's responses in this thread.

*

He has no reason at all to be bad-mouthing homoeopathy. He actually put money into the idea that it was valid and viable medicine. But he's also an ethical clinician, and he knows a fraud when he sees it. And has the decency to sever all ties with it (although I believe there are still legal actions on-going), and go public with his findings.

Care to address that little point, Kumar? (Not that I'll notice, my ignore list is my friend....)

As a result, I've learned all I need to learn, and I am outta here.

Oh, don't go! Do stay and talk.....

Rolfe.

 

[Barbrae]

I
Barb, the reason people say you don't understand this is that many homoeopaths (and I think you are among them) can't seem to support homoeopathy without rushing off at a tangent to attack real, effective medicine. This was a much more tenable position 200 years ago, and it often seems that you haven't really worked out the difference.

Rolfe.

Really? Seems you (and HC) are making some very bold assumptions. I still don't get what it was about the portion of HC's post that I apparently fail to understand and HC didn't address it but rather just brought up another point.

I don't rush off on tangents to attack conventional medicine at all, I see the imperfections in it and will not hold back pointing them out but there is a big difference between doing that and rushing off on tangents, no?

 

[Barbrae]

Perhaps that conventional medicine HAS changed just a triffle in the past 200 years?

Hans

That was my point - that I do (and would reckon that most homeopaths would agree) that cenventional med has certainly evolved since "back then".

 

[Barbrae]

HC - what does this have to do with my question about your qoute??

 

[Barbrae]

Well she asked me what I meant... I answered, and she has disapeared again. I even read the blasted paragraph in the Organon about internal itching, and based my question on that!!!

Hellooooo.... anyone out there?

Actually you didn't answer me at all - you chenged the topic.

Oh and Heeeeellllllllooooooo to you to - it has been less than 24 hrs since you posted so please don't pull that attitude again, I have asked a thousand times here that you guys don't do that.

 

[Barbrae]

Is that it?

She wanders in and wanders out again without even reading the good stuff.

How about this Barb?

The truth is revealed about a homeopathic business

I already commented about this on hpathy. Really nothign to say, it's just anectdotal - I thought you guys didn't care about anecdotal stories.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I already commented about this on hpathy.



Yes, you did. You effectively accused the author of lying and that is not a useful or reasonable comment. Frankly, my dear, if there are liars to be found in this debate they are on your side not ours.

Really nothign to say, it's just anectdotal - I thought you guys didn't care about anecdotal stories.

What? What do you mean by that? You can criticise it for being hearsay, though only a fool would choose to disbelieve it. What you don't get to do is disregard it by trying inappropriately to wave your magic wand and say "anecdotal" and hope it will go away.

Let's just pretend for a moment that one of your pet homeopaths, one of the ones Wim keeps citing, was making up most of what he claimed to be his positive results. Doesn't that give you even the slightest pause for thought and make you reflect upon the fact that your alleged system of medicine has no method whatsoever of distinguishing that fiction from the supposedly real effects of homeopathy?

I had bet you would go for the No True Scotsman fallacy as a defence and simply disown the culprit. Instead you don't even seem to understand the problem.

Your stubborn refusal to face the facts is quite remarkable, though it must be quite an asset in your chosen method of defrauding sick people.

The problem is Barb is that we see systematic evidence of lies and half-truths in every piece of evidence advanced to support homeopathy and this case is only one example, or casebook of multiple examples.

 

[Barbrae]

What? What do you mean by that? You can criticise it for being hearsay, though only a fool would choose to disbelieve it. What you don't get to do is disregard it by trying inappropriately to wave your magic wand and say "anecdotal" and hope it will go away.

Why would only a fool choose to disbelieve it? It is a comment by an admitted skeptic - and quite frankly, from what I know of the skeptics I wouldn't put it past them to exaggerate. A reality check, there are many liars in this world and there are just as many from your side of the fence as there are mine.

Now, I actually wasn't calling this fella a liar but rather thinking he wasn't very clever. I mean who makes such a big business purchase of soemthing he is skeptical of? Without any practical or educational experience? Seems stupid to me - doesn't it?

Now, let's say it is totally true and that the homeopaths were blatantly lying to make their practice appear successful whne in fact it wasn't - what would I say? It is horrible, dishonest, terrible - but so what? There are thousands of horrible, dishonest and terribel folks in allopathy and alternative medicine - does this one case prove anything about homeopathy? Nope - just like a case of an allopath who chooses to do unecessary hysterectomies doesn't say a darn thing about allopaths.

 

[Barbrae]

Doesn't that give you even the slightest pause for thought and make you reflect upon the fact that your alleged system of medicine has no method whatsoever of distinguishing that fiction from the supposedly real effects of homeopathy?

I

Of course not, why would the story of one dishonest fella have me change what I know to be true from my own experience.