Understanding homeopathy

[Darat]

...snip..

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?

Or it includes all the above and nuclear weapons, Elvis Presley, neon lights and the internet.

Either way Kumar's (apparent) point doesn’t make any sense.

 

[steenkh]

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

Not even the homoeopaths can show that it works (you know, by double blind, controlled tests), so why should science consider how it works?

It has always wondered me that homoeopaths are so sure of themselves, but apparently have not enough faith to conduct proper testing of their remedies. How come? Surely, a double blind test is not against the rules of homoeopathy?

 

[Carn]

Or it includes all the above and nuclear weapons, Elvis Presley, neon lights and the internet.

Either way Kumar's (apparent) point doesn’t make any sense.

It makes sense in a religious/spiritual way:
Whoever or whatever(general life principle?) created or runs this universe has an idea how we should behave. For some reasons this something is unable or unwilling to snip its fingers and make it the way it wants. Therefore some sort of mechanisms and indirect help from us mortals is needed to bring the world back to that state that something wants it to be. As we stupid little humans cannot understand half of what is going on, it is of course useless in trying to understand what exact goal is pursued or even partial goals.

E.g. the terrorists and the conunterreactions help changing the world into something better, maybe by forcing a bit more equalness between different nations, as US needs the help of others and this will help the rise of a democratic interaction between nations.

E.g. the holocaust, ruanda,... were necessary, so that mankind finally has the chance to learn to leave ridculous hatred behind them.

E.g. is a gift first discovered by Hahnemann, that allows, if it is throughfully used, to shift the health towards this "natural" state "intended" by that something.

(I'm trying to guess here Kumars opinion, as he seems to be unable to communicate it himself.)

But even then this opinion doesn't make much sense, any supernatural being, that isn't capable of a bit more direct and sensible interaction should bugger off.

Carn

 

[Kumar]

Thanks for indication. Since God/nature is said to be the creater of everything, all things can be natural. But there can be some negative & some positive aspects of nature, which tends to keep it in balance. If we are more towards positive side--negative things can be treated as positives in 'balancing' sense & vice-versa.

Can we assess/imagine without any addiction/vested interest that whether we are on positive or negative side or in balance of nature as of now?

 

[Rolfe]

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.

How much detail do you want? I know Richard Edwards personally, and I have spoken to him (perhaps "listened to him" would be a better description!) on the phone about the incident. I also know the homoeopath involved personally. He just happens to be one of the veterinary homoeopaths about whom Wim was so keen to start a "tribute thread" in praise of his enormous contributions to the cause of homoeopathy. In fact, he just happens to be the very person who devised and advocated the homoeopathic régime that was so spectacularly not working in the case of Alphonse's cat.

So, we have first-hand testimony that one of your greatest heroes is a fraud. What makes you so sure any of the rest of them are any better? The point about this story is that it supports exactly all the points we have been making about showcasing the coincidental recoveries while quietly forgetting about the less positive cases, and the brainwashing of people into thinking that homoeopathy has made a difference when in reality there has been no change in the patient's condition. Oh, and the point about the obscene profit margins on the magic sugar pills was one I have also pointed out now and again.

Really, no comment at all?

Barb, I seriously don't understand your attitude. Richard said he came from a sceptical point of view. But he was open-minded enough to listen to the case presented by the homoeopaths, and apparently he believed them. This is what you are always urging us to do. But when Richard does it, he's a fool to be taken in?

Remember, Richard wasn't intending to become a practising homoeopath himself. The deal was that his practice bought the homoeopathic practice, and took on the three homoeopaths working there as employees so that they would go on working as before. No different from, say, buying a small avian practice and keeping on the bird expert as an employee. Richard simply believed the tale the homoeopaths spun him, supported by all those dubious references that can be made to look relatively impressive to the unwary, and acted on the assumption that homoeopathy was as valid a branch of veterinary medicine as bird medicine.

Richard now realises that he was lied to and made a fool of. He bitterly regrets the whole incident. But who is the villain there? The innocent who believed the plausible lies, or the liars? You ask us to be open-minded, but when someone behaves in just the way you want, you then sneer at him for being a gullible fool?

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Carn,

Don't we replace/add bitter things on more sweatnesses as in diabetes?

 

[PixyMisa]

Can we assess/imagine without any addiction/vested interest that whether we are on positive or negative side or in balance of nature as of now?

No, because the question is, once again, meaningless.

 

[Carn]

Not even the homoeopaths can show that it works (you know, by double blind, controlled tests), so why should science consider how it works?

It has always wondered me that homoeopaths are so sure of themselves, but apparently have not enough faith to conduct proper testing of their remedies. How come? Surely, a double blind test is not against the rules of homoeopathy?

It is, unless it is perfectly following homeopathic standards better than most homeopaths can and also detects small long term changes. Also it must not be build around a conventional disease picture, you cannot simply make a test with type 1 diabetes patient.
And there must not be any antidotes be present even in a few test persons. Failing any of these the test is without meaning and irrelevant.
At least that is what i get from long discussions with Bach, added a bit sarcasm on his words.

He told me that the following test would not convince him of remedy being no different from placebo, in case it is negative for homeopathy (easy to do, just needs the consent of every human living or being born next 300 years):

"-train enough homeopaths
-wipe out/stop all treatment worldwide, that is applied in situations, where also homeopathy should help.
-only a limited number of people are allowed to produce remedies, those are sealed away in bunkers for the rest of their live, half the produced stuff will be no remedy, just pure water,...
-every human is randomly assigned to real or placebo and gets a number
-people only use medicine with the corresponding number, no one uses medicines of someone else

-wait 300 years

Then derive from the numbers who got placebo and whi real. Look at life expectancy, if real group lives more than 1-2 months longer, than placebo group, hurra, homeopathy works. If not homeopathy does not work(in case of non working, one could already stop, if a lot of "defeated" diseases start going around again.)"

Now i never designed any medical DBPC and therefore have no good idea, what beginner mistakes are in that test design, but i'm absolutely unable to understand why it would not prove or disprove homeopathy beyond any reasonable doubt.

Kumar, Gavinimurthy do you have an idea?

Bach only said, that he has seen to many screwed DBPCs to change his opinion because of such one
.
Carn

 

[Carn]

Thanks for indication. Since God/nature is said to be the creater of everything, all things can be natural. But there can be some negative & some positive aspects of nature, which tends to keep it in balance. If we are more towards positive side--negative things can be treated as positives in 'balancing' sense & vice-versa.

Can we assess/imagine without any addiction/vested interest that whether we are on positive or negative side or in balance of nature as of now?

Does that mean that my description of your position is not far from your real position?

Carn

 

[Mojo]

Surely, a double blind test is not against the rules of homoeopathy?

Actually, it does seem to be against the rules. The reasoning seems to be that because double blind testing shows homeopathy doesn't work, there must be something wrong with double blind testing.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

No, Kumar: I asked a question. Now it is your turn to answer, not to ask a new question. Terrorism, war, murder, rape etc. are natural things for humans, we seem to agree. Now, MY question to YOU was: Do you think those things are good, then?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

Read some of my relevant threads & postings here or there & find the awnser. Do some reseach, I leave it on you to find the awnser Mr.Hans. It will be so simple for you.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Read some of my relevant threads & postings here or there & find the awnser. Do some reseach, I leave it on you to find the awnser Mr.Hans. It will be so simple for you.

You are SO pathetic.

Hans

 

[Rolfe]

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.

Barb, you have to consider the context in which you say this. There have been threads on this forum dealing with problems and disasters in real medicine. The Vioxx disaster was under discussion recently, and it can be discussed again if you want. Or if you want to start a thread about your disappointing experience in looking for an answer to your intestinal problems, feel free.

The reason you feel you get "blasted" is that you don't do that. Instead, every time homoeopathy is under discussion (which usually means under threat), you dive away from the subject on the card, which is homoeopathy and its lack of effectiveness, and start banging on about side-effects of real drugs and the poor showing in addressing Crohn's disease.

To paraphrase Zep, the fact that my car occasionally gets a puncture is of no relevance to any discussion about why your car won't start at all.

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. ....

Don't flatter yourself. Everyone involved in medicine is aware of the need for care, the need to keep re-evaluating best practice, and the need to watch out for sharks (yes, some of what you believe about pharmaceutical companies is no doubt true - just not all of it and not all companies). There are some fairly stringent regulatory controls in place. And I see not the slightest sign that the alternative medicine complainers have contributed anything at all to this.

Consider the current Vioxx affair. Seems to be quite a serious failure of drug safety control procedures. However, the problems were picked up by regular large-scale systematic research - you know, the sort of research homoeopaths reject, because it always shows that their remedies don't work.

Standing on the sidelines whining isn't a very constructive position any way you slice it.

And I note Murthy has started on about side-effects again. One, his position is massively over-stated. Most drugs taken by most people most of the time do not cause significant side-effects. This is another area where homoeopaths can do significant harm. Remember Alphonse and her cat again? The poor cat was suffering dreadfully from advanced thyrotoxicosis, for which there is a licensed and effective treatment. And like all licensed medicines, there is a list of possible side-effects to be found, if you go looking. Wim didn't just post that (indeed, when I posted the verbatim text, it was deleted, and only Wim's own grossly exaggerated version allowed to stand as "information"), he posted his own overblown and frankly scaremongering version.

I very much doubt that he has ever met a cat on that treatment. In contrast, I sign out a dozen or more lab reports every day of follow-up tests monitoring cats on this treatment. The vast majority are doing very well with no problems. (I posted that information, along with a few short case-report examples - twice - and that was also deleted - twice.) However, Wim was very much concerned to persuade Alphonse not to give her cat this treatment, even to the point of suggesting that it would be better to let the cat die than to take the risk of using something so harmful!

I find this attitude simply astonishing. I agree, Barb, that you were not supporting Wim at that point, but can you not see that both yours and Murthy's attitude of blowing up and exaggerating the dangers of real medicine can create serious problems when you frighten people (and their pets) away from treatment they really need?

Two, what about the dangerous side-effects of homoeopathy? OK, I don't believe they exist. Because I don't believe homoeopathic remedies have any effect at all, good or bad. But if you do believe that they have an effect, you can't exclude the possibility of bad effects.

And when we read your forums, and the homoeopathic literature, we find all sorts of nasty things happening to people after they have taken a homoeopathic remedy. And it is frequently accepted that these events are indeed caused by the remedy. They're called aggravations and healing crises and things like that. So where do we find the systematic studies of these side-effects?

Well, we don't. So we can't point to them in the way you can point to all the statutory drug safety publications and shout "look, it's dangerous, don't take it!" But by your own standards, it might be. Might be far more dangerous than Vioxx, even, for all you know.

Isn't it wonderful what you can get away with when you don't do any testing, but just say what you think will sound best at the time?

Rolfe.

 

[geni]

How much detail do you want? I know Richard Edwards personally, and I have spoken to him (perhaps "listened to him" would be a better description!) on the phone about the incident. I also know the homoeopath involved personally. He just happens to be one of the veterinary homoeopaths about whom Wim was so keen to start a "tribute thread" in praise of his enormous contributions to the cause of homoeopathy. In fact, he just happens to be the very person who devised and advocated the homoeopathic régime that was so spectacularly not working in the case of Alphonse's cat.

Do the original practice records still exist in some form?

 

[Rolfe]

Do the original practice records still exist in some form?

I would imagine so. However, Richard has now severed all connection with the homoeopaths, who are back working independently again. So unless he did a lot of heavy-duty photocopying during the time he was involved with them, I don't suppose we've much chance of seeing any of it.

Rolfe.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

That either you are getting the wrong treatment, or there is no treatment for your disease. Unless, of course, the alternative to no relief is something more sinister. I don't know about yours, but there are diseases where the best we can do is halt or delay progress.

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?

See above, but also: No, why shouldn't you try whatever you thought worked? So did you try homeopathy? Did THAT help?

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".

I think it is highly illogical to continue promiting something that has never been shown to work, just because it is alternative (I think somebody already said that).

Hans

 

[Terry]

Don't we replace/add bitter things on more sweatnesses as in diabetes?

No. I was told I had to balance my carbohydrate intake against other factors such as exercise, oral meds, insulin (if needed) and so on. No one said anything about what stuff tastes like. Just about its carbohydrate content.

At least to my palate, brown rice and potatoes (which form a large part of my carbo intake) are neither sweet nor bitter.

--Terry.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

No. I was told I had to balance my carbohydrate intake against other factors such as exercise, oral meds, insulin (if needed) and so on. No one said anything about what stuff tastes like. Just about its carbohydrate content.

At least to my palate, brown rice and potatoes (which form a large part of my carbo intake) are neither sweet nor bitter.

--Terry.

Yeah, when I was briefly diabetic, that's what I was told too. I didn't have to take any meds, I just had to balance my carb intake and exercise.

 

[Chris Haynes]

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....

How about an attempt at answering the question I posed in regards to this part of the Organon:
http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/30.html. Here it is again as I posted it on the 5th of February (so you've had several days to think about 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"?

Editted for a slight format change.