Understanding homeopathy

[Barbrae]

Okay, Barb... In reference to this part of the Organon:
http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/30.html and tell us if homeopathy was able to distinguish between gonorrhea, syphilis or a yeast infection.

If a woman comes to a homeopath and complains of "internal itching" do you even consider the possibility of a yeast infection versus gonorrhea or syphilis?

In the past 200 years what advances has homeopathy had in treating gonorrhea or syphilis? Which is better homeopathy or antibiotics for these two venereal disease?

In the past 15 years I have noted that the medication for yeast infections has improved... From a one week of treatment that you could only get with a doctor's prescription to being able to walk into my local pharmacy's feminine product row and picking medication that I only need to use for one day.

So what does the Organon have to say about yeast infections... which from my personal experience causes me the most "internal itching".

Not sure what you nmean by "can homeopathy distinguish between gonorrhea, syph or yeats infection?"

Yes, I would consider a yeats infection if the symptoms indicated.

In the past 200 year the only advances would be the addition of remedies used in treatment.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

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

Yeah, why let a little thing called logic stand in the way of what you believe? Or science? Or critical thinking?

"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable." H.L. Mencken

 

[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.

I was giving this some thought. You know I have saidn many times I think conventional medicine is necessary, in fact that I am grateful for it's advances. But I am also VERYaware that it is a practice that it FAR from perfect. Now, you guys give lip service to that fact - I have heard you say that "no one claims modern medicine is perfect" but the minute someone critisizes it they are blasted.

You know, if it weren't for people like me - people unwilling to accept the status quo with dangerous practices (of which there are many) then we would still be living as we were 200 years ago. If no one demanded change, nothing would have changed. It is people like me who blow the whistle on unsafe medical practices, unsafe drugs, and ineffective treatments that cause safer practices to be sought after.

You guys can continue to defend you medicne and turn a blind eye to it's many flaws, not me. Does that make me "anti-allopathy" nope, not at all. YOu know I am an American and I am against the war in Iraq - against Mr. Bush, and because of that I am considered unamerican, not so - I love my country and it is because I want what is better for it that I am against this war. Just like I love any healing art that is safe and effective and it is becuase I desire healing for all those who are sick that I will strive for better treatments. If that means I call conventional medicine on the carpet for it's failings then so be it. It doesn't make a ranting lunatic against medicine, it makes me soemone you folks should be thankful for.

 

[Barbrae]

Yeah, why let a little thing called logic stand in the way of what you believe? Or science? Or critical thinking?

"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable." H.L. Mencken

So, logic, critical thinking and science would say that because of one anecdotal story I should change my views? Hmmm, if that's your logic then I have many many anecdotal stories for you about sucessful homeopathic treatment - are you now a believer?

 

[Lisa Simpson]

So, logic, critical thinking and science would say that because of one anecdotal story I should change my views? Hmmm, if that's your logic then I have many many anecdotal stories for you about sucessful homeopathic treatment - are you now a believer?

No, but combine Rolfe's story with tons of science and studies that show homeopathy has no effect plus maybe just a smidgen of critical thinking on your part and you will become a believer. A believer that homeopathy is bunk. Except that would throw your whole faith system for a loop, wouldn't it?

 

[Barbrae]

A believer that homeopathy is bunk. Except that would throw your whole faith system for a loop, wouldn't it?

No, no, not my whole faith system, just a tiny smidgen of it.

what would logic and critical thinking say about someone (moi) with ulcerative colitis trying conventional meds for years with NO relief but many side effects. Would logic tell you that conventional medicine is the only "proven" method so even if it isn't working it is logical to keep risking serious side effects and suffering with no reliefe because it is what you are suposed to do? That's not a rhetorical question BTW - what would a critical thinker do? See, I think it is highly illogical to continue with something that has been ineffective for years simply because it is "conventional".

 

[Zep]

Barb, pointing out the faults in the other guy's car doesn't make your car run any better. Same with your medical practices. We all know and agree that conventional medicine has very occasionally been wrong and sometimes disasterously (and no doubt we can chat about that for hours), but that means bugger all when we are talking about homeopathy here in particular. So, for the time being, let's stick to that one subject.

And here's the homeopaths' problem: In the 200 years since Hanhemann sort of invented it, homeopathy has not EVER demonstrated any real efficacy at all. This HAS been tested quite a few times in many places, and the results are quite clear and consistent. No effect beyond placebo effect; no discernable differences, even down to the atomic level, between ultra-molar remedies and plain old water; no technical explanation that conforms with real life, or even sounds vaguely sensible.

THIS is the subject at hand: How does one take seriously a medical practice that is based solely on belief, and with no discernable difference from simply being told you will get better? One that has no demonstrable scientific or even common-sense basis? One that is indistinguishable from wishful thinking and mumbo-jumbo?

And I would suggest you reconsider carefully before you use arguments about how many people "believe" it works as "proof" - that simply doesn't fly. You can go join Kumar in the dummies corner if you persist with that.

 

[PixyMisa]

No, no, not my whole faith system, just a tiny smidgen of it.

what would logic and critical thinking say about someone (moi) with ulcerative colitis trying conventional meds for years with NO relief but many side effects. Would logic tell you that conventional medicine is the only "proven" method

Not logic alone, but logic and information would tell us exactly that.

Conventional medicine is a body of medical techniques that have been studied and tested and found to work.

Alternative medicine is comprised ot two categories: Medicines and techniques that have not yet been properly tested and which may work (though this category is rapidly shrinking); and medicines and techniques that have been properly tested and found not to work.

Homeopathy has been properly tested. It does not work.

so even if it isn't working it is logical to keep risking serious side effects and suffering with no reliefe because it is what you are suposed to do?

If a medical treatment is proving ineffective and may cause serious side effects, you should consult a specialist.

Conventional medicine cannot cure every disease or treat every condition. But neither does it insist on particular treatments without good reason.

That's not a rhetorical question BTW - what would a critical thinker do?

Seek the advice of someone with specialist knowledge.

See, I think it is highly illogical to continue with something that has been ineffective for years simply because it is "conventional".

And likewise it is highly illogical to continue with something that has never once been effective simply because it is "alternative".

 

[Kumar]

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.

Internet search can provide tons of material. Pakistan, India, ...may be few contries. Check by "homeopathic colleges" homeopaths, homeopathic clinics, homeopathic goverment agecies...so on.

I could find two in just one shot:-

The Government of India after having recognised the need of systematic research for the development of Indian System of Medicine and Homoeopathy in the country, established the Central Council for Research in Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy in 1969. This composite Council undertook systematic research in Ayurveda, Siddha , Unani Medicine, Yoga, Nature cure and Homoeopathy and continued to do so till 1978,when it was dissolved to pave way for the formation of four independent Research Councils, one each for Ayurveda and Siddha, Unani Medicine, Yoga and Nature Cure, and Homoeopathy.
http://ccrhindia.org/historyofccrh.htm

For 18 years after the creation of Pakistan, homeopathy was practiced widely but remained officially unrecognized. In 1965, the Government passed an act under which homeopathy and the indigenous herbal systems of medicine were regulated. Homeopaths wishing to continue their practice were assessed by a Government nominated Board of Senior homeopaths. All practitioners with sufficient experience and knowledge of the system were formally registered and allowed to continue their practice.



This Board of Homeopathic System of Medicine working under the Ministry of Health, was, in 1982, renamed the National Council for Homeopathy. This council is now responsible for conducting examinations, approving new homeopathic colleges, and registering practitioners.
http://www.wholehealthnow.com/homeopathy_pro/pakistan.html

http://www.wholehealthnow.com/cgi-local/directory/hhn-directory.cgi

 

[Chris Haynes]

Not sure what you nmean by "can homeopathy distinguish between gonorrhea, syph or yeats infection?"

Yes, I would consider a yeats infection if the symptoms indicated.

In the past 200 year the only advances would be the addition of remedies used in treatment.

Would those be homeopathic treatments or real medical treatments?

And do you mean a "yeast" infection or one brought on by reading to many poems by William Yeats, like "Leda and the Swan" (funny I was just reminded of a reading of that one in college)?

And why would you consider a "yeats" infection if it is NOT in the Organon... neither the medical condition nor the poet.

Editted to add: What do you REALLY do if you get a yeast infection. Self-prescribe something indicated by reading the Organon, or run to your local pharmacy and pick up a One or Three Day Treatment package.

 

[Gavinimurthy]

You don't believe homeopathy works.

We personally are convinced it works, after using it .Likewise, there are millions.

Why do you people take so much trouble to convince us that it doesn't work? We will not be put off by any thing you say.

Homeopathy is spreading very fast, and it is an undeniable fact.

No therapy will last this long,if people don't get benefitted. How long did blood letting last?

There are millions, who are afraid of the side effects of the modern medicine, who come to homeopathy to give it a try, and stick to it.

As long as, the crippling side effects of modern medicines can't be stopped, this exodus to homeopathy will continue, however hard you may try to stop it's progress.

Regarding all this talk about 'evidence' ,science has not progressed enough to explain how homeopathy works.
One day it will.

Murthy

 

[PixyMisa]

You don't believe homeopathy works.

This is only because it doesn't work.

We personally are convinced it works, after using it

You are convinced. You are also wrong.

Likewise, there are millions.

Millions are wrong then. This is hardly unusual.

Why do you people take so much trouble to convince us that it doesn't work?

Because it doesn't work.

We will not be put off by any thing you say.

In other words, you are wilfully ignorant?

Homeopathy is spreading very fast, and it is an undeniable fact.

It may be spreading. It still doesn't work.

No therapy will last this long,if people don't get benefitted.

It will if the people are like you.

How long did blood letting last?

Around 3000 years. It was originally practiced by the ancient Egyptians.

There are millions, who are afraid of the side effects of the modern medicine, who come to homeopathy to give it a try, and stick to it.

Perhaps this is true. It in no way validates any of your claims.

As long as, the crippling side effects of modern medicines can't be stopped this exodus to homeopathy will continue, however hard you may try to stop it's progress.

And people will get sick and die.

Regarding all this talk about 'evidence' ,science has not progressed enough to explain how homeopathy works.

Homeopathy doesn't work. That's the whole problem. It's like trying to explain how pigs migrate between Mars and the Moon every summer.

 

[Carn]

Welcome back Murthy!

Homeopathy is spreading very fast, and it is an undeniable fact.

I do not deny it, but i would be still interested, how you know this?
Do you mean everywhere or where you live?
At least for germany i can say, that homeopathy has been spreading past 10 years, but not very fast.

No therapy will last this long,if people don't get benefitted. How long did blood letting last?

Depending upon defintion of "blood letting", but the first to propose the idea, that illness can be healed by reducing a surplus of the 4 body fluids, was some ancient greek guy around 3rd century before christ, blood letting was still practiced early 19th century.
So blood letting did last roughly 2100 years.
Which proves that your statement "No therapy will last long,..." is wrong.
(Edited to add: seems i'm wrong, the greeks imported it from egypt, but whether 2000 or 3000 years hardly matters, your stement is still wrong.)
Care to adjust it?

Regarding all this talk about 'evidence' ,science has not progressed enough to explain how homeopathy works.
One day it will.

Murthy

There is a nice scientific explanation for all the effects observed in homeopathy, so science has progressed far enough to explain, what you observe in homeopathy.
Show that the explantion does not fit the facts and homeopathy might get credit after all.

Carn

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

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.

Barb, what you fail to appreciate is the word I have emphasised above.

The example Rolfe has cited is just that, an example. We have looked quite hard and disputed with you lot over months and have never come across anything that contradicts this example.

What we do have is people like you with their claims of personal miracles, but we know quite a lot of those tales seem to depend on a rather shaky grasp of the sequence of events and they all crumble when placed under scrutiny. What we also know is that if you try to gather a group of such people and try to create these miracles to order as you claim to be able to do then we find that sugar and water are able to do just as well as your remedies.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Everthing else has already been dealt with nicely, so I'll just have an extra look at this one:

*snip*

Homeopathy is spreading very fast, and it is an undeniable fact.

*snip*
Murthy

So, is that a qualifier? Then, let me remind you that terrorism is also spreading very fast. Do you still consider it a qualifier?

Also, I doubt this is true. Homeopathy is not spreading much in the western world where people have access to real medicine. The only places where I see it having any widespread support is countries like India and Pakistan, and you must excuse me, but I don't exactly see that as a recommendation. Both countries have a health care system that is at a very, shall we say, nascent state, at least for the common populace.

Oh, and welcome back. I hope this is not just a hit and run visit, but that you will be honorable enough to stay and address the replies.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

So, is that a qualifier? Then, let me remind you that terrorism is also spreading very fast. Do you still consider it a qualifier?

Why it can't be in view of natural, nature's balance or inherant sense? Were wars, snatching each others territories....etc. not there since our evolutions/older times?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Why it can't be in view of natural, nature's balance or inherant sense? Were wars, snatching each others territories....etc. not there since our evolutions/older times?

Yes it can, and yes it were. Terrorism and war are natural things. So is murder, so is rape. So, do you think we should consider it good?

Hans

 

[PixyMisa]

Why it can't be in view of natural, nature's balance or inherant sense?

Every advance of the human race has been a matter of pushing back nature's balance.

Fire.
Tool-making.
Farming.
Towns.
Bread.
Cloth.
Boats.
Houses.

In nature's balance, even money I'd be dead by now. Instead, I'm looking at another 40 or 50 years, maybe more.

 

[Kumar]

Yes it can, and yes it were. Terrorism and war are natural things. So is murder, so is rape. So, do you think we should consider it good?

Hans

Do all these not happen in nature or are/were happening in nature?

Pixy,

Personal feeling & interest, addictions etc. is bit differant than overall/nature's reality.

 

[PixyMisa]

Personal feeling & interest, addictions etc. is bit differant than overall/nature's reality.

Personal feeling and interest? Addictions?

What are you talking about?

Nature's balance doesn't include fire, tools, clothes, houses, farms, any of that stuff that we depend on to survive. Nature's balance means dead people. Is that what you want?