Understanding homeopathy

[SezMe]

That is why, homeopathic pharmacies, has devised fool proof

You want the definition of an oxymoron? Just combine in one sentence "homeopathic pharmacies" and "fool proof"

Carry on ....

 

[Kumar]

It is not necessary that anything should harm also along with giving effects. Morning walks can give only good effects without any harm. Moreover, it can be differancited by ordinary walks.

 

[MRC_Hans]

That will certainly depend on WHERE you take your morning walk .

Slightly more seriously, that is nonsense, Kumar. A morning walk has a number of effects on you, and some are potentially harmful: Getting run over, getting mugged, tripping and breaking a leg, catching a cold, breating polluted air, etc. etc.

Hans

 

[Gavinimurthy]

Homeopaths may not always 'zero on' the correct medicine for the patient, as the process of selecting the medicine is very complex.

Most of the times despite careful selection, it may not fit the patient totally, but, may be a close call.In such cases it can do whatever good it can.

If the medicine is totally of the target, it won't do anything.

If the medicine fits exactly, that is where you get aggravations, and that is an indication that the patient is on recovery path.

Now, as to the question, as why can't we mix all remedies and administer, the simple is answer is we don't know what will be the effect.

As told many times, medicines are proved singly, and as such to match the symptoms, a single medicine is to be selected.That is why classical homeopathy discourages 'combinations.'

Murthy

 

[MRC_Hans]

Murthy, the explanation for mixing makes sense. I have heard it before, and obviously, within homeopathic doctrine, you have to use remedies as they have been proved.

The more basic problem is, of course, that all you write is speculation. In reality, you are unable to show that a remedy will have a certain effect. You are shrouding this in a lot of double-talk about individualisation, about the noble art of making an exact match, but all that just amounts to an impenetrable layer of noise.

The bottom line is that you are not able to distinguish the effect of taking a remedy from random noise. Thus, you can never know if what happens to the patient is the result of taking a remedy or is simply what would have happened anyway.

Allow me an analogy: If I were to predict the result of rolling a die, and I predict that you will get a number between 1 and 6 (incl), then I will be right all the time, but you cannot know whether I actually predict anything.

Likewise, you predict that IF you find the right remedy, and IF the patient is sensitive to that remedy, and IF there are no antidotes in action, then the patient will, after some unspecified time, recover. In other words, your prediction is essentially: "The patient will recover at some time, or else he won't."

See what I mean?

Hans

 

[Zep]

Homeopaths may not always 'zero on' the correct medicine for the patient, as the process of selecting the medicine is very complex.

Most of the times despite careful selection, it may not fit the patient totally, but, may be a close call.In such cases it can do whatever good it can.

If the medicine is totally of the target, it won't do anything.

If the medicine fits exactly, that is where you get aggravations, and that is an indication that the patient is on recovery path.

Now, as to the question, as why can't we mix all remedies and administer, the simple is answer is we don't know what will be the effect.

As told many times, medicines are proved singly, and as such to match the symptoms, a single medicine is to be selected.That is why classical homeopathy discourages 'combinations.'

Murthy

What you say here is all completely contradictory. On one hand you are saying that the wrong remedy won't hurt, and on the other hand you are saying it will hurt because you "don't know" what it will do if mixed with other remedies. At the worst case, according to you, mixed remedies will NEVER harm patients because NO remedies ever harm patients. Isn't that what you just told us above?

Or are you now going to say that mixed remedies WILL harm patients? Because you don't know what they will do together? Well, that raises a serious question about "proving" and the lack of homeopathic research. And it's this: Over the last 200 years, why have homeopaths NEVER used "proving" of mixtures of remedies? At least just the commonest mixtures two remedies together? You just told us "the simple is answer is we don't know what will be the effect [of mixing remedies]". Why not?

Incidentally, Murthy, while mixing remedies is "discouraged", you will find that there are very few homeopaths who use single remedies on their own. You have told us that remedies often take a week or more to "work", and yet you know we can easily find numerous examples of homeopaths trying one remedy one day, a different one the next, and another the day after that. And numerous examples of mixed remedies.

So here you are saying that homeopaths don't know what mixing remedies will do, and yet they do it to real live patients practically all the time for everything. Do you seriously think that is responsible of them to experiment on their patients blindly like that?

 

[Kumar]

That will certainly depend on WHERE you take your morning walk .

Slightly more seriously, that is nonsense, Kumar. A morning walk has a number of effects on you, and some are potentially harmful: Getting run over, getting mugged, tripping and breaking a leg, catching a cold, breating polluted air, etc. etc.

Hans

In other sense you mean, getting aggravation, getting proving symptoms, alcohol effect, lactose intollerance effect, bloog sugar increasing effect, broken bottle piece ingestion possibilities,overhydration...etc. You have forgetton some, possibilty of falling trees on you, Tsumani, snake bites, thorns, tight shoe problems...etc.

 

[Gavinimurthy]

I agree there are many so called homeopaths doing things which they are not supposed to do, and there is lot of discussion in homeopathy forums also, on this particular aspect.

As on now, homeopathy is a theory, which is yet to be proved, by today's standard methods of verification.But, in the right hands, it is proving to be effective.

It is not a placebo effect. It may look to be so for skeptics, but, the so called, anectodal evidence, as you call it, is so overwhelming that, you can't ignore it.

Murthy

 

[Kumar]

I agree there are many so called homeopaths doing things which they are not supposed to do, and there is lot of discussion in homeopathy forums also, on this particular aspect.

As on now, homeopathy is a theory, which is yet to be proved, by today's standard methods of verification.But, in the right hands, it is proving to be effective.

It is not a placebo effect. It may look to be so for skeptics, but, the so called, anectodal evidence, as you call it, is so overwhelming that, you can't ignore it.

Murthy

Murthy, good conclusion. Everyone knows it but still we continue & ultimetely land into somewhat same conclusion. We can remember here, Dr.Bhatia's reply before sometime at hapthy. Bye.

 

[PixyMisa]

As on now, homeopathy is a theory, which is yet to be proved, by today's standard methods of verification.

Nonsense.

It has been shown by standard methods of verification to be completely baseless, utterly ineffective, totally useless, and all around entirely nonsensical.

But, in the right hands, it is proving to be effective.

No it isn't.

It is not a placebo effect.

Yes it is.

It may look to be so for skeptics, but, the so called, anectodal evidence, as you call it, is so overwhelming that, you can't ignore it.

Anecdotal evidence is stories. That's all it is.

We have actual lab tests showing that homeopathy doesn't do anything. Nothing at all. Which is perfectly consistent with the entire body of science, whereas homeopathy's claims are inconsistent with the entire body of science.

For all your stories, homeopathy has never once been demonstrated to do anything.

For all your claims of its effectiveness, India has some of the worst healthcare statistics in the world.

You have stated yourself that homeopathy practices in total ignorance. You can't tell the remedies apart, you don't know what effect they'll have, you have no idea what effect you might get if two remedies are mixed.

Well, I can tell you.

Homeopathic remedies do nothing. Mixing them does nothing. Mixing up the labels doesn't matter, because the remedies do nothing. And that's because it's all water.

As has been demonstrated in actual tests... Something homepathic practicioners seem desperate to avoid.

 

[Zep]

I agree there are many so called homeopaths doing , and there is lot of discussion in homeopathy forums also, on this particular aspect.

As on now, homeopathy is a theory, which is yet to be proved, by today's standard methods of verification.But, in the right hands, it is proving to be effective.

Murthy, do you understand at all how these two paragraphs are completely contradictory to each other? How they show clearly how patently self-deluded and wrong homeopaths actually are? No? Then let me explain:

1) You admit that many homeopaths do "things which they are not supposed to do". That is, it is BAD homeopathic practice for them to mix remedies, or run them too close together, for example.

2) And yet you are trying to tell us that homeopathy as medicine still works - "in the right hands, it is proving to be effective".

The only conclusion you can draw from these two comments is that "bad" homeopathy works! And if "bad" works as well as "good" homeopathy, why are you even bothering to discuss it on homeopathy forums?

More to the point, if "bad" homeopathy, which includes mixing remedies at the same time, works as well as good homeopathy, I get back to asking you AGAIN why my original suggestion won't work:

Why don't homeopaths mix one drop of EVERY remedy they have in one bottle and give that to EVERY patient for EVERY disease? A "universal homeopathic remedy" for curing every disease for every patient. Because all the remedies in the mixture that "work" will make the patient better from any disease they have, and any that don't "work" will do nothing to the patient.

It is not a placebo effect. It may look to be so for skeptics, but, the so called, anectodal evidence, as you call it, is so overwhelming that, you can't ignore it.

Murthy

Murthy, it doesn't matter who looks at the results. It looks exactly the same as placebo effect for skeptics, policemen, priests, astronauts, politicians, the man in the moon...and homeopaths. All objective evidence available to date says that homeopathy produces the same level of results as the placebo effect, both positive and negative.

And I'd like YOU to explain to US what YOU think "anecdotal evidence" is. Can you do that for us?

Incidentally, homeopathy has had 200 years to "prove" itself. We think it was about time that something along that line was forthcoming. All allopathic medical procedures prove themselves VERY quickly if they actually do work - only a few years or maybe a decade. 200 years seems more than enough time for homeopathy to do the same, don't you?


[edit: spelink]

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Homeopaths may not always 'zero on' the correct medicine for the patient, as the process of selecting the medicine is very complex.

Most of the times despite careful selection, it may not fit the patient totally, but, may be a close call.In such cases it can do whatever good it can.

If the medicine is totally of the target, it won't do anything.

If the medicine fits exactly, that is where you get aggravations, and that is an indication that the patient is on recovery path.

Or to put it another way,

You are a True Believer.

You say that you would only question your True Belief if your own practical experiences contradicted that Belief. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, homeopathy has been neatly honed over the years so as never to allow daily experience to contradict the core tenets. As Geni has said, it is a system of excuses masquerading as medicine.

In other words, homeopathy has eveolved precisely so as to make learning from experience impossible.

The case Sarah presented of supposed endometriosis shows how she cannot learn from her case experience. What I mean is that, regardless of the true facts of that case, the way she has presented it reveals that she cannot learn anything useful from what she is practising.

The fact that you refuse to accept objective evidence outside the scope of your own experience confirms your status as a True Believer.

Real medicine learns. Real medicine accepts that the interpretation of individual experiences may contradict reality. Homeopaths do not learn because they cannot accept evidence that contradicts their interpretations of their experiences.

I've been a bit naughty and copied that passage from the "Barb" thread, but it is here it belongs because it is the appropriate counterpoint to your windy blether.