The ABC Homeopathy Forum
hoeopathy is hit and trial with mostly misses Page 2 of 4
This is just a forum. Assume posts are not from medical professionals.
I have a number of serious issues with the major post posted yesterday.
A number of the references are from the British Homeopathic Journal. This is a free magazine to people who belong to a certain organisation. Cost of the organisation varies between 20 195 pounds (Ref http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/faculty/fac_lev.html). At that price, they cannot afford to have very good quality control.
As for the dignitaries, I would have expected many more names. Most (or all) have not have any science equalisations and are well known for other reasons, mostly sport. As one other person has pointed out the list may not be accurate.
One other paragraph was interesting The Washington Post (April 28. 1983) reported That The number of PHYSICIANS PRACTICING HOMEOPATHY DOUBLED FROM 1980 TO 1983. This would be true if the number went up from one to two.
As for the magazine Homoeopathica cited as a reference in the above post, it costs $5 New Zealand each on subscription (http://www.homoeopathica.org.nz/ajournal.html ). Again, they would not be able to have good quality control.
There are many ways of learning about a subject. I have done enough study to reach certain conclusions about homeopathy. I understand what it is, how it works and why it works. This is a lot more than what people who practice it claim.
In conclusion, you will need to do a lot better than this. I strongly suspect that you cannot do better than copy stuff from the Internet and post it as your own.
A number of the references are from the British Homeopathic Journal. This is a free magazine to people who belong to a certain organisation. Cost of the organisation varies between 20 195 pounds (Ref http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/faculty/fac_lev.html). At that price, they cannot afford to have very good quality control.
As for the dignitaries, I would have expected many more names. Most (or all) have not have any science equalisations and are well known for other reasons, mostly sport. As one other person has pointed out the list may not be accurate.
One other paragraph was interesting The Washington Post (April 28. 1983) reported That The number of PHYSICIANS PRACTICING HOMEOPATHY DOUBLED FROM 1980 TO 1983. This would be true if the number went up from one to two.
As for the magazine Homoeopathica cited as a reference in the above post, it costs $5 New Zealand each on subscription (http://www.homoeopathica.org.nz/ajournal.html ). Again, they would not be able to have good quality control.
There are many ways of learning about a subject. I have done enough study to reach certain conclusions about homeopathy. I understand what it is, how it works and why it works. This is a lot more than what people who practice it claim.
In conclusion, you will need to do a lot better than this. I strongly suspect that you cannot do better than copy stuff from the Internet and post it as your own.
robot last decade
robot, the last paragraph of your post is ad hominum. Please confine your arguments to the topic, without attacking other members personaly.
Thank You.
Thank You.
♡ moderator last decade
To Robot,
You have mentioned that you have found out how homeopathy works by doing research.
Iam sure that you would be kind enough to share that knowledge and conclusions here in this forum.
You have mentioned that you have found out how homeopathy works by doing research.
Iam sure that you would be kind enough to share that knowledge and conclusions here in this forum.
Daniel Iype last decade
Anil, you need to actually read the references you found before you cite them. You need to take into account the quality of the studies, the methods used, and the quality of the results they obtained, before you can actually propound their subsequent claims. This is what 'research' actually means when it comes to providing evidence.
Just so you know, scientists are super-critical of ALL research in this way, not just selected topics. Honestly, homeopathy is being treated no differently than any other discipline when scientists come to examine any of its claims. Robot has already pointed out how easy it is for the unscrupulous to cast insignificant facts in a completely different light by being 'flexible with the truth' when it comes to reporting. Why? To try to take in suckers...
So do you now understand WHY critical research of any references is necessary before citing them?
Just so you know, scientists are super-critical of ALL research in this way, not just selected topics. Honestly, homeopathy is being treated no differently than any other discipline when scientists come to examine any of its claims. Robot has already pointed out how easy it is for the unscrupulous to cast insignificant facts in a completely different light by being 'flexible with the truth' when it comes to reporting. Why? To try to take in suckers...
So do you now understand WHY critical research of any references is necessary before citing them?
ZepOz last decade
Almost 15 years ago, Prof 9Dr) R.R.Sharma who at PGIMER, Chandigarh, a reputed allopathy hospital and rsearching into nuclear medicines and related subjects, wrote a book explaning scientific significance of homeopathy. I read that book once and do not remember it correctly but it did explained why despite avagadro's law, homeopathy medicines retain some qualities of original medicine/element/chemical. He perhaps said shaking the dilutions result in transfer of these properties that atoms have. later he also came out with certain theories on atoms and the way physics worked but established physicists rebuked him for challenging acceptable principles. he retired sometime in 90s.
i question last decade
Dear All,
In the quest of our knowledge for the truth, it seems ,all of us are trying to put some efforts to come to certain conclusions,about whether homeopathy is scientific or not.In this process , some of us tend to become biased in favour or against homeopathy. Some of us want to convey & show that they are more intelligent & knowledgeable, missing the point, that our common goal is to arrive at truth about homeopathy.Some of us are putting their personal comments in quite a bad taste..To me one thing is totally convincing , that who so ever is posting here, in favour or against homeopathy is certainly associated with Homeopathy, in one way or other..Therefore it is our collective responsibility to conclude ,whether homeopathy is scientific or not.Let us be open to the facts( It include me as well). In the mean time, all of us know that millions of patients, many Doctors,common masses, will continue using homeopathic medicines, because of their personal choice , irrespective of our debate here, about homeopathy being scientific or not .
In the quest of our knowledge for the truth, it seems ,all of us are trying to put some efforts to come to certain conclusions,about whether homeopathy is scientific or not.In this process , some of us tend to become biased in favour or against homeopathy. Some of us want to convey & show that they are more intelligent & knowledgeable, missing the point, that our common goal is to arrive at truth about homeopathy.Some of us are putting their personal comments in quite a bad taste..To me one thing is totally convincing , that who so ever is posting here, in favour or against homeopathy is certainly associated with Homeopathy, in one way or other..Therefore it is our collective responsibility to conclude ,whether homeopathy is scientific or not.Let us be open to the facts( It include me as well). In the mean time, all of us know that millions of patients, many Doctors,common masses, will continue using homeopathic medicines, because of their personal choice , irrespective of our debate here, about homeopathy being scientific or not .
sbahl last decade
I think where the debate tends to break down is in what needs to be proved. Homeopathy, to be what it professes to be (a universal therapeutic principle), only needs to be proved once. The fundamental concepts are like cures like and the infinitesimal potentized dose. Homeopathy is not like being a little pregnant. Either it works or it doesnt. If it does work, then it is a matter of fine-tuning how it is used. For instance, gelsemium can cure the common cold as easily as it can influenza provided that the person is exhibiting a gelsemium range of symptoms. It isnt necessary to prove gelsemiums efficacy with respect to both the cold and the flu once gelsemiums reach has been demonstrated.
It is because allopathy has no universal therapeutic principle that double blind test after double blind test becomes important to establish efficacy of each new application of each allopathic drug. Not so with homeopathy. We do, however, have to assign a level of credibility as to whether the homeopathic materia medicas have correctly characterized the remedies. When self-prescribing, I feel most comfortable with the remedies that have been around for a very long time and have an extensive clinical track record. Homeopathic provings (whereby symptoms associated with a particular remedy are identified) may warrant repeating in a more structured setting, but that is not the same as the double blind test that allopathic applications need. They are both science, but radically different and require different approaches.
It is because allopathy has no universal therapeutic principle that double blind test after double blind test becomes important to establish efficacy of each new application of each allopathic drug. Not so with homeopathy. We do, however, have to assign a level of credibility as to whether the homeopathic materia medicas have correctly characterized the remedies. When self-prescribing, I feel most comfortable with the remedies that have been around for a very long time and have an extensive clinical track record. Homeopathic provings (whereby symptoms associated with a particular remedy are identified) may warrant repeating in a more structured setting, but that is not the same as the double blind test that allopathic applications need. They are both science, but radically different and require different approaches.
Daisy43 last decade
To Robot,
As you mentioned in an earlier post,
'... There are many ways of learning about a subject. I have done enough study to reach certain conclusions about homeopathy. I understand what it is, how it works and why it works. This is a lot more than what people who practice it claim....'
would you be kind enough to share those knowledge and conclusions here in this forum ?
As you mentioned in an earlier post,
'... There are many ways of learning about a subject. I have done enough study to reach certain conclusions about homeopathy. I understand what it is, how it works and why it works. This is a lot more than what people who practice it claim....'
would you be kind enough to share those knowledge and conclusions here in this forum ?
Daniel Iype last decade
Homeopathy does have an effect on people. See and understand this for once such effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo.
Also, a person who goes to an authority figure and is allowed to talk for 30-60 minutes about their problems and then told by that person that they will get better is going a long way to feeling better.
Here is a question for you. A sick person comes to you. You prescribe a medicine to them. They go away and are never seen again. Was the treatment a success?
A Homomorphic drug has been diluted so much that nothing of the original substance is left. Any non-living substance like a pill is made up of molecules, nothing more. What is in there can be measured. So, if something has been diluted so far that nothing is left then what it cannot have an effect.
If someone came to you and told you that everything you know was fake, how much evidence would you need before you accepted what he said as true?
Also, a person who goes to an authority figure and is allowed to talk for 30-60 minutes about their problems and then told by that person that they will get better is going a long way to feeling better.
Here is a question for you. A sick person comes to you. You prescribe a medicine to them. They go away and are never seen again. Was the treatment a success?
A Homomorphic drug has been diluted so much that nothing of the original substance is left. Any non-living substance like a pill is made up of molecules, nothing more. What is in there can be measured. So, if something has been diluted so far that nothing is left then what it cannot have an effect.
If someone came to you and told you that everything you know was fake, how much evidence would you need before you accepted what he said as true?
robot last decade
To Robot,
Thanx for the reply. But it is said that infants and animals are also treated succesfuly with homeopathic medicines. In these cases it must be something more than placebo effect.
From the above post i could understand that you dont believe in Homeopathy and considers it a fake science.
But one thing which intrigues me is that , after you have concluded from your studies that homeopathy is a fakery, why you are spending your valuable time in a forum based on bogus medicine ?
Thanx for the reply. But it is said that infants and animals are also treated succesfuly with homeopathic medicines. In these cases it must be something more than placebo effect.
From the above post i could understand that you dont believe in Homeopathy and considers it a fake science.
But one thing which intrigues me is that , after you have concluded from your studies that homeopathy is a fakery, why you are spending your valuable time in a forum based on bogus medicine ?
Daniel Iype last decade
I enjoy posting here. Maybe I can make you a better homeopath.
If someone wants to observe an effect, they will, even if it does not exist. That is why double blind testing is so important. Also, independent people must review everything. This is true for everything, including me in my job. This process has picked up many mistakes.
If someone wants to observe an effect, they will, even if it does not exist. That is why double blind testing is so important. Also, independent people must review everything. This is true for everything, including me in my job. This process has picked up many mistakes.
robot last decade
Robot-
your theoretical arguments can't explain homeopathy's success with people like myself. I tried everything for my eczema, allopathic treatment for over 30 years, then holistic (non-homeopathic) treatments for several years. I literally cannot even recall everything I tried (no lasting success in the case of allopathic, and only limited success with holistic). I tried homeopathy only recently, believing it only to be placebo. when i tried it, I didn't believe it would work. within a week, my eczema was improving. (and it has not stopped). Moreover, the remedy chosen acted in ways I could not have foreseen. for example, for two nights, I had a an asthma attack. I had not had such an attack since childhood. This was the remedy acting just as homeopathic theory predicts, but I didn't know it until later.
people in my office are amazed at how good my skin looks now, and so am I. If placebo was going to happen for me, why did it not work with the other hundreds of treatments of tried, many of which I had high hopes on (unlike homeopathy).
your comment 'If someone wants to observe an effect, they will, even if it does not exist' really struck me. you obviously have never suffered from a long term chronic illness which suddenly goes away. I think most people are intelligent enough to realize that there has been a real change. besides, I'm not the only on who sees it, people comment on my improved appearance all the time, which isn't surprising since I looked like a leper only two months ago but now pass as normal. Frankly its a bit insulting for you to suggest that I have been duped.
John
your theoretical arguments can't explain homeopathy's success with people like myself. I tried everything for my eczema, allopathic treatment for over 30 years, then holistic (non-homeopathic) treatments for several years. I literally cannot even recall everything I tried (no lasting success in the case of allopathic, and only limited success with holistic). I tried homeopathy only recently, believing it only to be placebo. when i tried it, I didn't believe it would work. within a week, my eczema was improving. (and it has not stopped). Moreover, the remedy chosen acted in ways I could not have foreseen. for example, for two nights, I had a an asthma attack. I had not had such an attack since childhood. This was the remedy acting just as homeopathic theory predicts, but I didn't know it until later.
people in my office are amazed at how good my skin looks now, and so am I. If placebo was going to happen for me, why did it not work with the other hundreds of treatments of tried, many of which I had high hopes on (unlike homeopathy).
your comment 'If someone wants to observe an effect, they will, even if it does not exist' really struck me. you obviously have never suffered from a long term chronic illness which suddenly goes away. I think most people are intelligent enough to realize that there has been a real change. besides, I'm not the only on who sees it, people comment on my improved appearance all the time, which isn't surprising since I looked like a leper only two months ago but now pass as normal. Frankly its a bit insulting for you to suggest that I have been duped.
John
john34 last decade
John, I think most people, at least in Western society, come to homeopathy in desperation and still as skeptics but with nothing left to lose because NOTHING has helped them to date. If it were no more than placebo, it should work no better than all those other years of treatment.
Until we can see with our OWN lying eyes that homeopathy is real, it is very difficult to accept.
robot and others can do all the reading they want. It won't sway them at all until it is close and personal.
Until we can see with our OWN lying eyes that homeopathy is real, it is very difficult to accept.
robot and others can do all the reading they want. It won't sway them at all until it is close and personal.
Daisy43 last decade
Daisy-
Sadly, you are probably correct. The problem here, of course, is that many are dissuaded from trying homeopathy because of all the so called scientific proof that it can't or doesn't work. a real crime. thanfully, homeopathy is speading through word of mouth. for the this reason, I will always be willing to relate my own experience. be cause I know better.
John
Sadly, you are probably correct. The problem here, of course, is that many are dissuaded from trying homeopathy because of all the so called scientific proof that it can't or doesn't work. a real crime. thanfully, homeopathy is speading through word of mouth. for the this reason, I will always be willing to relate my own experience. be cause I know better.
John
john34 last decade
I do not think that homeopathy works through placebo affect. It does work in some cases and to different degree. What I find difficult to digest is homeopaths concluding that persons whom they treat and stop coming to them after a while as been cured. This is true for lot many alternate therapies. I know an amaeture man giving medicines mostly herbal to cuire cancer and claiming that his success in treating very serious cases of cancer has been 50 per cent. What type of cancer he treats, he says all type. Why he has not published any pape, he sAys there is no forum to prove his claim. Has he done a follow up-he says that patients not returning to him is a proof of his success. Even he must have cured some patients atleast.
What I detest is homeopathy being projected as magic remedy which it is not. Nor is allopathy. The moment you talk about any persistent illness and speak about ongoing allopathy tratment, you get a suggestion'have you tried homeopathy?' That too from persons who for their own severe problems at that very time are taking allopathy medicine.
Actually, it happens when allopathy does not provide lasting cure that patients begin hoping to find a better cure somewhere. So not only homeopathy but auyrveda, accupressure, accupuncture, magnetotherapy and what not comes into picture as does witchcraft and faithhealing.
Again it is wrong to say homeopahy has no sideaffects. It can have. I wa sreading a mail here which says how alfaalfa triggered lupus symptoms.
I strongly believe that since allopathy is generally in hands of brilliant lot, it will be nice to see top students opting for homeopathy too so that there is more debate within the field to improve its effectiveness. Als, homeopaths must avoid being too secretive, as ayurveda doctors do. It is a known fact that many ayurveda doctors in India these dAys prescribe allopathy medicines and claim it as a right. Similarly, there were allegations that some homeopaths were using steroids to show instant results. Again i won't say that allopathy does not have bad elements. But the way effort is put on in establising effectivenes sof a medicine or procedure of an allopathy treatmet, is found lacking in homeopathy and ayurveda. You can not blame it on lack of resources or lack of government support alone.
Personally I have a mixed experience with jomeopathy. Imnfact, sometimes I find even for normal problems like infection in intestine or sinus and cough if these become acute, I normally begin with allopathy and then add homeopathy and sometimes ayurveda also to completely get rid of these. In many cases, homepathy alone does not work-homeopaths many times like to know what diagnosis allopaths have found before starting their own medication. Allopaths also indulge in hit and trial but then they make public conclusions. Homeopathy these days is accompanied wth more sweeping statements which in long term will seriously affect its growth making it shallow. ffort should be to redce misses in hit and trial methods.
What I detest is homeopathy being projected as magic remedy which it is not. Nor is allopathy. The moment you talk about any persistent illness and speak about ongoing allopathy tratment, you get a suggestion'have you tried homeopathy?' That too from persons who for their own severe problems at that very time are taking allopathy medicine.
Actually, it happens when allopathy does not provide lasting cure that patients begin hoping to find a better cure somewhere. So not only homeopathy but auyrveda, accupressure, accupuncture, magnetotherapy and what not comes into picture as does witchcraft and faithhealing.
Again it is wrong to say homeopahy has no sideaffects. It can have. I wa sreading a mail here which says how alfaalfa triggered lupus symptoms.
I strongly believe that since allopathy is generally in hands of brilliant lot, it will be nice to see top students opting for homeopathy too so that there is more debate within the field to improve its effectiveness. Als, homeopaths must avoid being too secretive, as ayurveda doctors do. It is a known fact that many ayurveda doctors in India these dAys prescribe allopathy medicines and claim it as a right. Similarly, there were allegations that some homeopaths were using steroids to show instant results. Again i won't say that allopathy does not have bad elements. But the way effort is put on in establising effectivenes sof a medicine or procedure of an allopathy treatmet, is found lacking in homeopathy and ayurveda. You can not blame it on lack of resources or lack of government support alone.
Personally I have a mixed experience with jomeopathy. Imnfact, sometimes I find even for normal problems like infection in intestine or sinus and cough if these become acute, I normally begin with allopathy and then add homeopathy and sometimes ayurveda also to completely get rid of these. In many cases, homepathy alone does not work-homeopaths many times like to know what diagnosis allopaths have found before starting their own medication. Allopaths also indulge in hit and trial but then they make public conclusions. Homeopathy these days is accompanied wth more sweeping statements which in long term will seriously affect its growth making it shallow. ffort should be to redce misses in hit and trial methods.
i question last decade
I have been sent the following papers, and think they might be useful to this debate:
http://www.medscimonit.com/pub/vol_11/no_12/8209.pdf
http://www.medscimonit.com/pub/vol_13/no_1/9827.pdf
I will refrain from adding my personal opinion on the debate.
http://www.medscimonit.com/pub/vol_11/no_12/8209.pdf
http://www.medscimonit.com/pub/vol_13/no_1/9827.pdf
I will refrain from adding my personal opinion on the debate.
♡ moderator last decade
Mr. Question-
I have to admit that I have a good bit of anger of the fact that I ignored homeopathy for so long due to the fact that so many in the scientific community belittle homeopathy as a fraud. Having experienced the power of homeopathy, I now say i feel let down by so called scientists who declare that homeopathy does not work, when what they really should be saying is, we don't understand how it works or if it works. or more importantly, for failing to discover how it works, and refine the system. No doubt homeopathy could be made more effective, more simple to determine the correct remedy. more remedies could be discovered. the billions that are wasted on drug research (for the sake of profits), compared to the paltry sums that are probably spent on homeopathic remedies... its simply a crime of monumental proportions.
John
I have to admit that I have a good bit of anger of the fact that I ignored homeopathy for so long due to the fact that so many in the scientific community belittle homeopathy as a fraud. Having experienced the power of homeopathy, I now say i feel let down by so called scientists who declare that homeopathy does not work, when what they really should be saying is, we don't understand how it works or if it works. or more importantly, for failing to discover how it works, and refine the system. No doubt homeopathy could be made more effective, more simple to determine the correct remedy. more remedies could be discovered. the billions that are wasted on drug research (for the sake of profits), compared to the paltry sums that are probably spent on homeopathic remedies... its simply a crime of monumental proportions.
John
john34 last decade
If a fraction of the billions spent on allopathic research is spent on reproving homeopathic polychrests on the present generation, the benefits to the mankind would be immense.
I wish someday, people like Bill Gates will take interest in Homeopathy...
Murthy
I wish someday, people like Bill Gates will take interest in Homeopathy...
Murthy
♡ gavinimurthy last decade
I just had a preliminary glance at the links given by Simon.Very interesting papers.
I will come back after reading thoroughly.
I recommend that all the people who are interested in this debate read them.
Murthy
I will come back after reading thoroughly.
I recommend that all the people who are interested in this debate read them.
Murthy
♡ gavinimurthy last decade
I have just read the two papers referenced above in full.
Question: Does any think they can find the major and basic error the author makes, on which he bases his subsequent arguments? It's really quite obvious...
Question: Does any think they can find the major and basic error the author makes, on which he bases his subsequent arguments? It's really quite obvious...
ZepOz last decade
John,
The scientific community does NOT belittle homeopathy as a fraud at all. You seem to want to continue to believe this is the case, but it is not. Honestly.
The reality is that the scientific community has yet to be presented with convincing first-class evidence that it works. Please be aware, though, there is no deadline for this after which no further discussion will be entered into or whatever. Science waits continually for any proof that stands up to regular scrutiny for any claims, no matter how outrageous. Sometimes some of them are real...
Accordingly, I and many others have actively encouraged homeopaths to design and execute full-scale scientific testing of homeopathic practices with a view to actually finding and providing that final convincing evidence. And we continue to do so. A nine-year-old girl has run a valid science experiment that has met this standard and been written up, so it is not like testing homeopathy is a complicated task beyond anyone here.
The problem we seem to run into, however, is that the quality of proof acceptable to homeopaths is considerable less than that acceptable to science. Often decried as 'raising the bar', I reiterate that the bar has never been raised at all, just that the attempts seen so far have fallen well short.
So what I hope to bring to any discussion here is NOT condemnation of homeopathy or homepaths. Instead, I hope I can give an awareness of what real scientific testing is about, and the level of reasoning and effort required to 'pass the test'. And until this happens, science will continue to remain unconvinced.
So is there anyone who believes they can meet this challenge?
The scientific community does NOT belittle homeopathy as a fraud at all. You seem to want to continue to believe this is the case, but it is not. Honestly.
The reality is that the scientific community has yet to be presented with convincing first-class evidence that it works. Please be aware, though, there is no deadline for this after which no further discussion will be entered into or whatever. Science waits continually for any proof that stands up to regular scrutiny for any claims, no matter how outrageous. Sometimes some of them are real...
Accordingly, I and many others have actively encouraged homeopaths to design and execute full-scale scientific testing of homeopathic practices with a view to actually finding and providing that final convincing evidence. And we continue to do so. A nine-year-old girl has run a valid science experiment that has met this standard and been written up, so it is not like testing homeopathy is a complicated task beyond anyone here.
The problem we seem to run into, however, is that the quality of proof acceptable to homeopaths is considerable less than that acceptable to science. Often decried as 'raising the bar', I reiterate that the bar has never been raised at all, just that the attempts seen so far have fallen well short.
So what I hope to bring to any discussion here is NOT condemnation of homeopathy or homepaths. Instead, I hope I can give an awareness of what real scientific testing is about, and the level of reasoning and effort required to 'pass the test'. And until this happens, science will continue to remain unconvinced.
So is there anyone who believes they can meet this challenge?
ZepOz last decade
There is no need for homeopathy to 'pass any test' imposed by people who do not understand what are its basic paradigms.It invariably passes the ultimate test of any healing modality and that is the 'test of the clinic' when in the hands of a competent homeopath.
Word of mouth is a most powerful force and ultimately it will prevail over the collective might of the entrenched interests which people like you keep voicing ad nauseum.Internet is a powerful tool in spreading this 'word of mouth' quicker and on a global scale.
I invite all the people who have benefitted from homeopathy to come forward on this and other homeopathic forums and share their experiences to inspire the others.
Now talking of mistakes, dear Zep keeps making one mistake ever since he has hit these shores and that mistake is the assumption of being Mr. Knowall.Putting himself in the judge's chair totaly uninvited and unappointed by any one on this forum.Then making statements like 'I encourage....' and so on. Such arrogance does not suit a person who claims to be a scientist.May i know who is this 'I'?Are we dealing with a great scientist or just an also ran posing as a scientist.What are his academic credentials to assume such a supercilious tone?
Besides what does one do with the science of a person who a priori assumes that homeopathy is like waving of hands to make aeroplanes land?A very unscientific approach indeed.
Rajiv
Word of mouth is a most powerful force and ultimately it will prevail over the collective might of the entrenched interests which people like you keep voicing ad nauseum.Internet is a powerful tool in spreading this 'word of mouth' quicker and on a global scale.
I invite all the people who have benefitted from homeopathy to come forward on this and other homeopathic forums and share their experiences to inspire the others.
Now talking of mistakes, dear Zep keeps making one mistake ever since he has hit these shores and that mistake is the assumption of being Mr. Knowall.Putting himself in the judge's chair totaly uninvited and unappointed by any one on this forum.Then making statements like 'I encourage....' and so on. Such arrogance does not suit a person who claims to be a scientist.May i know who is this 'I'?Are we dealing with a great scientist or just an also ran posing as a scientist.What are his academic credentials to assume such a supercilious tone?
Besides what does one do with the science of a person who a priori assumes that homeopathy is like waving of hands to make aeroplanes land?A very unscientific approach indeed.
Rajiv
♡ rajivprasad last decade
One poster put up three links to PDF documents. I read the start of one. Then gave up when I realised that the authors got the basics wrong. There is a short but heading What is wrong with the Placebo? Anyone who read and understood the link I posted above on the Placebo would soon work out how bad it is. There is nothing unknown or mysterious about the placebo. If something cannot do better than a placebo then you might as well give them a sugar pill. It will be much cheaper to do so.
There is another paragraph on the ever changing truths of conventional medicine. They argue that because scientists change their minds about what is happening it is something wrong with science. First off there are no truths in science. If you want truths go to religion. What changes in science is only around the edges. It actually shows how strong science is. If scientists admit they made a mistake, they correct it and carry on. Science is self-correcting. If a scientist says that they have performed an experiment and got certain results then other scientists try the same experiment. If they come up with the same results then the results are confirmed. However, if they all come up with different results from the original experiment then they know that an error has occurred. One such experiment is cold nuclear fission.
By the way, has anyone read the link I gave about the Placebo? If so what did you think?
There is another paragraph on the ever changing truths of conventional medicine. They argue that because scientists change their minds about what is happening it is something wrong with science. First off there are no truths in science. If you want truths go to religion. What changes in science is only around the edges. It actually shows how strong science is. If scientists admit they made a mistake, they correct it and carry on. Science is self-correcting. If a scientist says that they have performed an experiment and got certain results then other scientists try the same experiment. If they come up with the same results then the results are confirmed. However, if they all come up with different results from the original experiment then they know that an error has occurred. One such experiment is cold nuclear fission.
By the way, has anyone read the link I gave about the Placebo? If so what did you think?
robot last decade
Sorry ZepoZ I gave a maajor clue as to what the answer to your question is.
I am sure others can expand on it.
I am sure others can expand on it.
robot last decade
I have just read john34s from yesterday. Actually, I do know something about eczema, having had it for many years since childhood. There is one thing about eczema. It does tend to go away on its own. You tried several different treatments. What would have happened if it had gone away during one of those treatments?
You also mention you had an asthma attack which you say is due to your homeopathic treatment working. This I think is very funny. You take a homeopathic treatment. If the condition gets better, that is due to the treatment working. If it gets worse that again is due to the treatment working. If nothing happens, either more time is needed (look up the self confidence thread going on now in this forum) or the treatment can be changed. Have I made an error in my logic?
You also mention you had an asthma attack which you say is due to your homeopathic treatment working. This I think is very funny. You take a homeopathic treatment. If the condition gets better, that is due to the treatment working. If it gets worse that again is due to the treatment working. If nothing happens, either more time is needed (look up the self confidence thread going on now in this forum) or the treatment can be changed. Have I made an error in my logic?
robot last decade
To post a reply, you must first LOG ON or Register
Important
Information given in this forum is given by way of exchange of views only, and those views are not necessarily those of ABC Homeopathy. It is not to be treated as a medical diagnosis or prescription, and should not be used as a substitute for a consultation with a qualified homeopath or physician. It is possible that advice given here may be dangerous, and you should make your own checks that it is safe. If symptoms persist, seek professional medical attention. Bear in mind that even minor symptoms can be a sign of a more serious underlying condition, and a timely diagnosis by your doctor could save your life.