*** Science Or God? ***

[mediator]

If I dilute say a 32N (normality) of HCN (hydrogen cyanide) by a million times, say, a ppm (parts per million), then will become so strong that if I drink it, I will die??

The reason I didn't answer it becoz ur posts are becoming more childish over time. I'm not a homeopath myself, but it seems u still haven't understood that homeopathy employs the use of poisons also to cure.
Use of snake poison
*homeopathykate.com/

As regarding the big bang theory, you must also have read about "pulsating theory" in the same context, and you must have also read about, "corpuscular theory of light", "huygen's wave theory", "Quantum theory's dual nature of light". These are theories which suggest how the concept came into existence and which is the most satisfying explanation for the current concept.

Sire, we are not interested in the "most satisfying" explanation that it expanded and then contracted, "where when how??". Like I asked science doesn't reveal boundaries, it doesn't explain universe, it doesn't know what lies beyond universe. Are there more universes like this one?? Simply puttng, it really doesn't know what universe is!! But we still see it in our textbooks that universe is this and that, it has this and that!!

So now that u know that textbooks contain stories and theories, u tried to fix attention that they are "most satisfying"?? But still they r theories. I didn't know that laws which theroretically were defined as "universal,absolute etc" can be practically "limited" at the same time and now we have people arguing that some of the theories r most satisfying. Let me ask, do u really understand what a theory is?? Even things like "dark matter", "dark energy" are "most satisfying" to make things work out.

"That law is not well
understood and only seems to hold for closed systems, just like the law of entropy." : scientist/reviewer of final theory on law of conservation of mass-energy!!

I am not questioning the concept of homeopathy regarding the guy's imagination of how the drugs become stronger when diluted, as much as stupid it appears to me, science would have welcomed if it contains proper argument. Please please please make a note of this!!!
The only strong point of homeopathy you have is that, for certain ailments, homeopathy has better statistics than allopathy. Would this be a convincing argument if you advertise this to people with all the other mentioned facts about homeopathy too. Do you think people will believe this??? honestly?
So, please stop comparing scientific concepts which still claim only as the best understanding to science so far and which always welcomes better theories in those regards as a counter-argument for homeopathy. That is not my argument at all. I hoped you understood about this. But I am sorry, I don't think you did. Did you understand now??

If u r telling me to be real, then u shud know that people really do not know what is homepathy and if it a science or not. They really don't know "how" the scientific medicines are developed and if they r tested on "animals" also. People generally take medicine on doctor's prescription and as a faith that doctor is correct. Doctor on the other hand monitors his patient. If the patient doesn't improve like he wanted then he gives him something else. So was the previous medicine ineffective?? This is what many people percieve to be!!

So please take a look in the reality. If I mentioned patients, that homepathy is a success, it has been used for 100s of years etc and explaining that science is still researching on it, then most will certainly look towards its success. On the other hand if u tell a scientificically tested medicine has huge side effects, has a history of causing deaths, some are tested on animals to develop medicine for humans, then u can certainly guess what the patient will think!

And I'm repeating this for another zth time that I'm not comparing, but simply telling from the start that science has not been able to explain homepathy yet and if the critics like to call it a crap, then they shud look towards reality a lil bit more. I'm certainly not calling science a "joke", that wud be silly of me. So don't get ur blood pressure high and it wud be wise to see things in a more real ways.

That is why I said, just as if alcohol was invented today it would be declared illegal just as ecstasy is NOW (in spite of the fact that the number of deaths produced by alcohol consumption is 100s of thousands in the UK itself, based on a BBC documentary, where as in the UK, ecstasy based deaths are only 1. Alcohol is placed on the 4th most harmful drug with cigarettes at 9th and ecstasy at 18 (with 20 being the least harmful and 1 being most harmful).

If u like to go by such statistics, then only u can help urself and not even "modern science" can help u coz like I linked even "poisons" can be used to cure.

Similarly, if a similar concept (as homeopathy) was to be introduced today, with these claims of "internal or vital energy" and claims based on "statistics" ( even though they wouldn't have any coz they would be just introducing), the people are gotten in awareness by the media that much now-a-days that they will start questioning its claim. Homeopathy's only strong point and its sustainence comes from the fact that it was introduced long time back when people did not question its validity.

Again a repeat. It has passed through the age when most of the laws and theories were being formulated. Interested scientists have researched a lot, but still haven't come to a conclusion. Some have even formed theories.

*myweb.tiscali.co.uk/dakini/plants-0.1/plant-kingdom.html

I hope what I am arguing against is made clear enough so that you dont start comparing that homeopathy was better with the deaths in cholera being 19% during a calamity bla bla... because the vaccination by which most harmful diseases are cured as in, small pox, measles, polio and many other (which I am not aware of) and the lives the so called "modern science" has saved is innumerable. This is what is called the outcome of understanding. So, stop quoting numbers and start claiming its validity.

If thats what u call "outcome of understanding" then why r there so many deaths taken place with the use of many modern medicine?? I wonder why r u making me repeat again n again....do u have have nuthing else to say now??

My comment was based on the documentary "The Enemies of Reason Part 2" year 2007 by Richard Dawkins where he monitors a Chief doctor of Homeopathy in the UK where he questions a patient and then prescribes NaCl for her Knee pain and when Richard Dawkins asks him "how can NaCl cure her knee pain, and even if it does, why can't she herself have the common salt? on what basis do you prescribe this?", the chief doctor replied "The truth is no one knows, I don't know it." I don't have to refer any site after hearing this!! Would you?

Homeopathy, if u really have any idea, works on laws of similars and hence about similar symptoms and conditions. U define poison as something that can harm or kill someone. But how does homeopathy use even a poison to cure?? It doesn't believe in concentration, but dilution. And if modern science can't find that out then I think it needs another remodification to form another set of theories, laws to fit/justify itself!!

I don't know about you, but, rather than saying, God created the world in 7 days, which is flawed in 2 ways,
1) Ridiculing God's power by saying he needs 7 days to create it
2) Asking the question, who created God?
Philosophy or better put religion explains, God just created it. Again, I don't know about you, but, it just doesn't convince me.
I find a better explanation from science offers, if not, a hope that a better explanation will be offered.

Are my repeated request to read having any effect on u?? First I put that only as a link, then I put it as a para where @kalpik honoured me for the biggest post title . May be we shud honour u with "reluctant to read" title!!

I haven’t read The Final Theory, but from whatever I could gather (from reviews and articles), author seems to have used situations where phenomena do not appeal to common sense to debunk modern physics. That is plain puerile. It seems like he’s using argument from personal incredulity to debunk modern physics. Common sense would tell you wrong things many times. Some centuries ago, common sense would've told people that the earth was flat. Then, common sense would've also told people that the earth was at the centre of the Universe. Some time back, common sense would’ve told me (and I’m sure many others) that when you invert a glass filled with water covered by a paper, the water will fall to the ground, or that when you lie on a bed of nails, you’d be pierced through. But science tells otherwise, with reasons. Common sense told many people some years ago that it was a miracle that Ganesha statues drank milk, but science gave them a rational explanation as to why it happens. If you put an argument from common sense, I can prove 1=2 using flawed algebra or calculus, but people can find that it fits with common sense (heck, i've befuddled my engineering classmates).

Atleast u have the guts to admit u didn't read something. But neways I too didn't believe in the milk episode and thats whats all is written in the previous post of mine. Please take a look.

Coming to dark matter, well, from whatever I know of the concept of dark matter and dark energy from watching some programmes on NatGeo and the Discovery Channel, I’ll try to explain it vaguely here. The concepts of dark matter and dark energy were propounded to explain deficiencies in mass and energy because of various equations and observed facts, differences in calculated and observed values (if I’m not wrong). And from what I’ve read, these “hypothetical” concepts do indeed fit and explain things scientifically (and mathematically).

@srivirus: I wud request u to give a little more thought on what u post. And thats what modern science has been doing, it has invented hypothetical terms to make things work out. I hope u read my whole post from the start and not just the part I quote on u.

If you feel that something hypothetical like dark matter is being forced into the picture and is a flaw, I’ll give you an instance where a flaw in calculation and observation actually explained a process (of course, I would not be able to explain dark energy here, because I’m no theoretical physicist and I have not studied it, nor can I associate myself with its studies, hehe, its being done by some of the brightest minds on this planet, I have only read articles and seen TV shows on it). But, a defect (as you would put it) on these lines was used to explain radioactive processes like nuclear fission. The formation of energy from nuclear fission is explained as conversion of mass into energy. Something that was explained in my Standard 12 physics I’ll put here:

In the textbook, the explanation was something like: there was a difference in the observed and calculated mass of the heavy atom and the byproducts of fission. I’ll try to explain it here (please bear)

If A is the mass number (sum of neutrons and protons) of a radioactive isotope, and if Z is it’s atomic number (number of electrons or protons), then the total mass of the atom would be:
M = Z(mp + me) + (A - Z)mn
here, mp, me and mn represent mass of proton, electron and neutron respectively.

The mass should’ve been the same before and after fission. But after the process of fission, a deficiency in mass, termed mass defect (Δm), was observed, i.e., the mass of the original atom and the byproducts were not equal. But Einstein’s theory came to the rescue here. When the mass-energy equation E = mc² was applied here, it explained the conversion of the mass defect into energy (I think gamma rays). This was actually observed and proved through experiments. The mass defect here was used to explain binding energy in the atom (basically, its explaining the nuclear force which binds the electrons, protons and neutrons together in the atom). And it accounts for the large amounts of energy released during fission. At least that’s what my tiny brain can explain.

What u explained about energy and mass isn't new to me. Science is trying to explain something practical, something that holds true using hypothetical terms to make things work out. Similar is the case with homeopathy. There is no explanation, but principles and methods. And it works!! Will u find it "not crap" if I insert some hypthetical terms. There r theories being put forward already. My continuing further in this post with u will bring nuthing new.

PS: It might be a while before I make a post on this thread again, because I’ll be damn busy for the next couple of weeks. I got a project to complete and I got about a little over two weeks to do it (procrastination again, you see), and the reason I’ll be using the net will mostly be for literature for my project. So until next time, take care

Don't let this discussion ruin ur work. Take ur time. But I wud really find it nice and kind if u read all of my post+the links 'I' put forward+the links 'u' put forward!!

 

[legolas]

@Mediator, I think we should restrain from btiching about one others potentiality in reading/writing towards an argument and start replying the arguments. Otherwise, this is never going to end. But first, in order to respond to your reply,
I read all the links you gave including the 1908 snake pdf which was letter to the editor explaining that the press made false prejudice against the venom treatment, and the other which again explains homeopathy as "like heals like".

1) regarding your first point reg. snake venom, i read here that Hering paralyzed himself later (which is what I am against) with repeated use and its side effects. I would like you to read that to see the side effects of a "Natural medicine". Also, reg. my actual question, you still dint answer and it certainly does not require a homeopathy and a high school chemistry would be sufficient, unless you don't believe in it. Either ways, just as an answer to my question, it is impossible to get stronger by diluting.
2) Reg. your we are not interested in the "most satisfying"..... reply,
Well, Science explains to the best it can. And there are not yet better convincing theories, and what more do you expect? Its already said, its the most convincing theory available and therefore there are also many other theories being considered by other professors who consider this as crap. you are demanding science to give a perfect answer the first time the concept is introduced, which you and I both know is lame.
3) The answer reg. God's power and stuff was to @Kiran_tech_mania and I don't understand really what the fuzz is all about with your reply? I know you are a "spiritual atheist" and it wasn't for you, if you had seen my reply targetting him.
4)

My comment was based on the documentary "The Enemies of Reason Part 2" year 2007 by Richard Dawkins where he monitors a Chief doctor of Homeopathy in the UK where he questions a patient and then prescribes NaCl for her Knee pain and when Richard Dawkins asks him "how can NaCl cure her knee pain, and even if it does, why can't she herself have the common salt? on what basis do you prescribe this?", the chief doctor replied "The truth is no one knows, I don't know it." I don't have to refer any site after hearing this!! Would you?

Homeopathy, if u really have any idea, works on laws of similars and hence about similar symptoms and conditions. U define poison as something that can harm or kill someone. But how does homeopathy use even a poison to cure?? It doesn't believe in concentration, but dilution. And if modern science can't find that out then I think it needs another remodification to form another set of theories, laws to fit/justify itself!!

Was this an intended answer for the quote? This was in response to my quote "the doctor doesn't know it himself" for which I quoted the documentary. And it is true. He doesn't. You can check it out yourself. But I don't understand the premise on your reply reg. Venom and law of similars, for the doctor not being able to explain why he prescribed a medicine. So, again I tell, the doctor himself dint know and he is the chief of medicine in the UK homeopathy.

Ok now I try to rephrase my arguments as concise as possible.
1) The principle by which the venom which is claimed to cure came into existence. He trying it on himself and then getting paralyzed. He did not understand how it works, and it was a measure of desperation. It is this which I disapprove of.
2) It also has side effects, the Lachesis, from the website I linked, and so, I think its not entirely true to base an argument that Scientific medicines alone have side effects and homeopathy doesn't.
3) This is the most important question I would like you to answer as concise as possible. Its hypothetical. I try to explain my point as best as possible. Its very simple question to which I propose to ask further questions after you respond.
IF, again IF (only), there is a new claim of another medicine/field to be more effective than homeopathy and allopathy both, but the inventor has the same issues as homeopathy in explaining entirely scientifically (say, the concept is something like dilution), how do you think we must accept or nix aside his theory? or on what grounds should we allow the hypothesis to be tested to prove its value? or How would he want to validate the claims of his theory? thank you!
4) I accept all the claims you put forth reg. Science's inability to explain what the universe is and so on. But, the thing is Science itself agrees, the theories are not the entire answers and that is why the research goes on. But Homeopathy claims its the best and alternative to allopathy, yes, it does and points out allopathy's side effects. But, it doesn't cure every disease too. What I am trying to say is, comparing two concepts based on imagination where 1 is entirely harmless and can only give you good results (if the theory is proved), and on the other hand, a similar unproven theory which claims to have no side effects (while I myself read it has) and practising on human lives with such claims -> its not really a valid comparison.

 

[mediator]

@Mediator, I think we should restrain from btiching about one others potentiality in reading/writing towards an argument and start replying the arguments. Otherwise, this is never going to end.

Finally!

1) regarding your first point reg. snake venom, i read here that Hering paralyzed himself later (which is what I am against) with repeated use and its side effects. I would like you to read that to see the side effects of a "Natural medicine". Also, reg. my actual question, you still dint answer and it certainly does not require a homeopathy and a high school chemistry would be sufficient, unless you don't believe in it. Either ways, just as an answer to my question, it is impossible to get stronger by diluting.

First ur question. I wud like to ask u are there any boundaries to universe? Are there more universes like this one?? Do u know the answer?

Thats why I said I'm not a homepath and that even poison cud be used to cure. Homeopathy tells it gets stronger upon dilution. But if u take and treat upon using the prinicples behind "modern science", then u can ofcors it can get stronger on concentration. U shud be now knowing that homeopathy is not like "modern science" where a medicine is used to supress the disease. But the body's own healing process is improved. There's a certain difference that u shud know.

But neways It seems u took the para/link in wrong context

In homeopathic terms, fresh L. mutus venom was "proved" as a remedy by Constantine Hering around 1830. Although born in what is now Germany, Hering is considered to be the founder of American homeopathy. In 1827 he went to Surinam, South America, to conduct biological research for his government. In experimenting with lachesis venom in an attempt to find a homeopathic inoculation for smallpox, he accidentally poisoned himself with a small amount of venom. This led him to his "proof" that lachesis was a homeopathic remedy. Ever the curious scientist, Hering later [size=+2]accidentally paralyzed[/size] his right side by [size=+1]continuing to test higher and higher doses of lachesis on himself.[/size]

It wud be nice to know how it was "accidently". He might have done something wrong?? These kinds of accidents are quite common in "modern medicine" too.
I hope u know that in any field be it medicine,surgery or operation anything can go wrong even a simple mistake. e.g Its always recommended not to use the same needle after its use. It shud be thrown away. There have been cases in INDIA where a patient caught AIDS within the hospital itself. Reason? The doctor used an already "used" needle; A small mistake in chataract operations can even blind u permanently.

Neways for the development of modern medicine many clones are sacrificed, animals killed. I don't see u raising ur voice against them.

The Law of Similars

The principle that like shall be cured by like, or Similia similibus curantur. This principle, recognized by physicians and philosophers since ancient times, became the basis of Hahnemann's formulation of the homeopathic doctrine: the proper remedy for a patient's disease is that substance that is capable of producing, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those from which the patient suffers.

In other words, a substance produces symptoms of illness in a well person when administered in large doses; if we administer the same substance in minute quantities, it will cure the disease in a sick person. Hahnemann suggested that this is because nature will not allow two similar diseases to exist in the body at the same time. Thus homeopaths will introduce a similar artificial disease into the body which will push the original one out. The dose is small so that there is no danger of any long term side effects.

The Principle of Minimum Dose

This principle states that extreme dilution enhances the curative properties of a substance, while eliminating any possible side effects. This is just the reverse of conventional drug philosophy where a minimum dose is required for effect. Starting from the conventional dose, as we decrease the concentration (or increase the dilution), the medicine become less and less efficient. But below a threshold, the medicine start getting potent again. Homeopaths uses this region of potency.

Whole Person Prescribing

A homeopath studies the whole person. Characteristics such as their temperament, personality, emotional and physical responses when prescribing a remedy, etc. are studied. So, a homeopath may treat different persons exhibiting the same symptom differently. (For example, two persons exhibiting flu like symptoms may get two different medication from the homeopath based on the appraisal of the mind body constitution.)

Laws of Cure

There are three laws of cure, They are:
bullet A remedy starts at the top of the body and works downward
bullet A remedy works from within the body outward, and from major to minor organs
bullet Symptoms clear in reverse order of appearance.

Application of the three principles of cure means that you will feel better emotionally before you will feel better physically.

Source

2) Reg. your we are not interested in the "most satisfying"..... reply,
Well, Science explains to the best it can. And there are not yet better convincing theories, and what more do you expect? Its already said, its the most convincing theory available and therefore there are also many other theories being considered by other professors who consider this as crap. you are demanding science to give a perfect answer the first time the concept is introduced, which you and I both know is lame.

Do u mean saying something like "more realistic theory" like it has been known now that the laws which r supposed to be "universal,absolute" can be limited also and hence "limited laws"?? First time, but it seems it has been quite a time now.

Was this an intended answer for the quote? This was in response to my quote "the doctor doesn't know it himself" for which I quoted the documentary. And it is true. He doesn't. You can check it out yourself. But I don't understand the premise on your reply reg. Venom and law of similars, for the doctor not being able to explain why he prescribed a medicine. So, again I tell, the doctor himself dint know and he is the chief of medicine in the UK homeopathy.

My answer was intended to question modern science not homeopathy. Since accupressure, homeopathy all have their own principles and methods I won't question them in the light of something that has its own different approach.

In the light of accupuncture I can question how do the yin-yang balance if a "modern medicine causes huge side effects for which another set of medicines are to be taken". It certainly doesn't improve upon ur "vital force" either as stated by homeopathy.

2) It also has side effects, the Lachesis, from the website I linked, and so, I think its not entirely true to base an argument that Scientific medicines alone have side effects and homeopathy doesn't.

I don't understand why r u going nuts. Simply tell u haven't understood homeopathy or its principles yet.

Side Effects

When taken in the recommended dilute form, no side effects have been reported. However, concentrated quantities of the venom cause paralysis and hemorrhaging, and can be fatal.

Is it hard to understand that homeopathy recommends the use of dilute form and tells itself that the medicine becomes strong in dilute form?? Gosh, Do I have to repeat 3-4 full fledged pages again just for u now or to bold lines even in a 3 line quote??

3) This is the most important question I would like you to answer as concise as possible. Its hypothetical. I try to explain my point as best as possible. Its very simple question to which I propose to ask further questions after you respond.
IF, again IF (only), there is a new claim of another medicine/field to be more effective than homeopathy and allopathy both, but the inventor has the same issues as homeopathy in explaining entirely scientifically (say, the concept is something like dilution), how do you think we must accept or nix aside his theory? or on what grounds should we allow the hypothesis to be tested to prove its value? or How would he want to validate the claims of his theory? thank you!

All the these alternative medicines that science rejects have their own principles, their own base, their own understanding. Its on this base that they flourish and get success. I won't simply reject them becoz our so called "modern science", which is changing itself, modifying to its needs, forming theories and "limited laws", rejects them. Again I repeated this. So thank you!!

4) I accept all the claims you put forth reg. Science's inability to explain what the universe is and so on. But, the thing is Science itself agrees, the theories are not the entire answers and that is why the research goes on. But Homeopathy claims its the best and alternative to allopathy, yes, it does and points out allopathy's side effects. But, it doesn't cure every disease too. What I am trying to say is, comparing two concepts based on imagination where 1 is entirely harmless and can only give you good results (if the theory is proved), and on the other hand, a similar unproven theory which claims to have no side effects (while I myself read it has) and practising on human lives with such claims -> its not really a valid comparison.

Yes modern science tells that the theories aren't the entire answers and yet to explain those theories it is bringing more n more hypothetical terms and equations and speculating on the missing ingredients and then modifying itself to its likes with "limited laws" in place. On the other hand we have scientificically rejected alternative-medicines which atleast have their own static principles and their base.

I think this is for a few people here. I wud like to repeat again.. science and spirituality are 2 different fields and u cannot measure everything with the instrument of science. Like it is said in the article, "Our physical senses can guide us, but they can also fool us. We can imagine a rope to be a snake from some distance and so on....". I wud like people to ponder on this!!

 

[legolas]

Finally

Only your word seems so. But you have littered with sarcasm through out the post. Lets continue it that way!

All the these alternative medicines that science rejects have their own principles, their own base, their own understanding. Its on this base that they flourish and get success. I won't simply reject them becoz our so called "modern science", which is changing itself, modifying to its needs, forming theories and "limited laws", rejects them. Again I repeated this. So thank you!! in response to 3)

IF, again IF (only), there is a new claim of another medicine/field to be more effective than homeopathy and allopathy both, but the inventor has the same issues as homeopathy in explaining entirely scientifically (say, the concept is something like dilution), how do you think we must accept or nix aside his theory? or on what grounds should we allow the hypothesis to be tested to prove its value? or How would he want to validate the claims of his theory? thank you!

Could you kindly answer these questions? or are you saying you would accept to whatever their claim is or however they wanted to prove it? rather than answering superficially using your vital energies as homeopathy does.

 

[mediator]

If thats the question then I believe the "new claim" shud satisfy its principles/methods. The methods shud be well thought of, pondered in depth and shud be successful so as to turn the heads of the masses. To validate it we shud use its own precise principles/methods and not done half-heartedly just to rebuke it.

 

[legolas]

you mean they should explain to people that, this is the theory. It has not been tested yet. And, it works in the principle of <superficial term supplied here, like internal energy or external atmospheric balance or unlike heals unlike> and we couldn't tell you the working of the drug as to how it does coz is not known. And we need volunteers to prove my principle so that this medicine will be proven superior to the 200+ year old homeopathy even!! ???

 

[mediator]

Why do u say its a theory? Its a principle. Can u explain to person who knows a language A in another language B?
The principles are well defined and methods are outright clear!! The success of homeopathy isn't the testing on random guinea pigs whose life is useless, but their success on humans who have taken it.

Allopathic medicines are often tested only on animals. The testings for cosmetics
on animals can be to such detriment to the animals, we see products promising their
ingredients have not been tested on animals. Many of the drugs and other over-the-counter
medicines used daily by people have no actual proof of effectiveness. We also see drugs
taken off the market when, as they are used by people, they are found to be dangerous-
remember the heart damage done to Phen-Fen patients.

By contrast, each Homeopathic remedy has had documented Provings done on humans.
Healthy humans agree to take a substance and have their symptoms recorded. This shows
also the safety of Homeopathy, when even test subjects suffer no ill effects after the testing is over.

May I also remind u that the patient is under close examination and patients whose overall condition consisting of emotions, physical responsess,personality differ but not the symptoms may be given different treatment.


Don't mind but ur questions speak that u really haven't known homeopathy yet. And the hypothetical terms we discussed I guess aren't less superficial then what u r talkin bt.

Over-dosing is in sharp contrast to homeopathy. Here are some factors to consider:
1) Homeopathy uses highly diluted substances. Remedies are given in minute amounts.
Homeopathy alternately dilutes and succusses/shakes substances to make a potency.
The results are alternative medicines that operate on a vibrational not chemical level in the body.
That is, there is no fluoride in Calcarea Fluoride, there is no mercury in Mercurius Vivus.
Dosing is according to the principle of using the smallest amount needed to repel blockages to health.
That is the magic of the minimum dose.

2) You can't overdose with homeopathy.
There is not a whole molecule of a substance left in a homeopathic remedy, so no poisoning is possible.
Homeopathic remedies are so diluted that taking 3 tablets or 10 tablets at one time is still considered 1 dose.
Even if a child accidently gets to a bottle and swallows the contents, of say Belladonna 30C, a call to the
poison control center is NOT in order, because the homeopathic remedy is NOT a poison.
Homeopathy strengthens the body's ability to heal. I liken homeopathic remedies to how magnets work.
Like repels like. As a homeopathic remedy repels a block to health, the body is then able to take over
and heal.

3) Homeopathic remedies are prepared as a safe FDA regulated medicine. Homeopathic medicines
do not contains toxic or poisonous substances.
Take Calcarea Fluoride as an example of safe homeopathy versus toxic over-the-counter drugs.
Fluoride can help calcium bond to the surface of teeth and bones. Fluoride can help reduce frequency
and severity of tooth decay and strengthen the bones.
You have 2 sources: safe homeopathy Calcarea Fluoride or toxic fluoride compounds found in toothpastes
and fluoridated water. Hydrofluosilicic acid is a corrosive chemical derived from toxic gases produced in the
manufacture of phosphoric acid and phosphate fertilizers; it contains lead, mercury, arsenic, and is the
toxic byproduct most used for water fluoridation in the United States.

*www.elixirs.com/principles.cfm

 

[legolas]

hahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Why do you say its a theory, its a principle
hahahaaaaaa and here we are now playing mumbo-jumbo from the man who is delirious and out-of-superficial-gobbledygook.
Its a theory because its what the inventor thinks is happening. Nobody knows its happening that way or not, as you love to quote "the big bang theory, not "big bang principle". He accidentally took the venom and it cured him. He starts giving others coz it cured him, only to be paralyzed out of utter ignorance and obsessiveness and resulting in detrimental effects, again, paralyzing him, because he wouldn't use his brain and based facts on empirical evidence.
Can u explain to person who knows a language A in another language B?
Are you telling that a doctor can't explain a patient just because he wouldn't understand? Bull siht!! Well, even if it were the case, try explaining to ones who know about it and they ask it, then we get the reply I don't know it, no body knows! Isn't that awesome!

Now, who is desperate?? but, I am really blowing into deaf ears, that is for sure, yet I try. The thing is, I am not at all questioning the results of homeopathy, even though I personally don't conclude it as a medicine, for your innumerate links and statistics may have been/are true. Its the means they employed to get this claim into practice by trying on subjects without definitive proof that bothers me. Its alright it turned out good. But, if it hadn't, then you will be one of those who laments over the lugubrious outcome a non-scientific fictional medicine has tormented!!

 

[karnivore]

^^ Let go dude. Its not worth it.

 

[mediator]

Its a theory because its what the inventor thinks is happening. Nobody knows its happening that way or not, as you love to quote "the big bang theory, not "big bang principle". He accidentally took the venom and it cured him. He starts giving others coz it cured him, only to be paralyzed out of utter ignorance and obsessiveness and resulting in detrimental effects, again, paralyzing him, because he wouldn't use his brain and based facts on empirical evidence.

U r wrong. Its a theory becoz science simply can't "explain" it of why it happens. Homeopaths on the other hand have been practising the methods marked by certain principles. Big Bang on the other hand is simply a theory because thats what scientists speculate to be. They don't have any physical evidence if the universe was concentrated at t=0. If it was there, then what was before that?

However, there are mysteries of the universe that are not explained by the Big Bang model alone. For example, a region of the universe 12 billion lightyears distant in one direction appears little different than a region 12 billion lightyears distant in the opposite direction. But since the universe is 'only' around 13.7 billion years old, it would appear these regions could never have been causally connected. How, then, can they be so similar? Alan Guth's 1981 theory of cosmic inflation, a short, sudden burst of extreme exponential expansion in the very early universe, provided an explanation for this horizon problem and several of the features unaccounted for by the original Big Bang model. The successor to Guth's original theory has found some circumstantial support, but it is not yet nearly as well supported as the Big Bang model.

So u see to rescue one one theory, another one came into existence which is not well supported itself.

Nobel Prize physicist Hannes Alfven considered the Big Bang to be a scientific myth devised to explain creation.[56] He held that "There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago" [1]. Alfvén and colleagues proposed the Alfvén-Klein model as an alternative cosmological theory.

Other astronomers, such as Halton Arp or Sir Fred Hoyle, are also known for their rejection of the Big Bang theory. Hoyle, one of the most vocal critics of the theory, was also ironically responsible for coining the term "Big Bang". The theory had previously been known as the "Dynamic Evolving Model", but Hoyle referred to it as the "Big Bang" in a series of radio presentations on different scientific topics. Hoyle was also a co-creator the Steady State theory, which was meant as an alternative to the Big Bang, along with fellow scientists Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold.

Source

Can u explain to person who knows a language A in another language B?
Are you telling that a doctor can't explain a patient just because he wouldn't understand? Bull siht!! Well, even if it were the case, try explaining to ones who know about it and they ask it, then we get the reply I don't know it, no body knows! Isn't that awesome!

I think u r trying to deviate what I said. Homeopathy has its own principles and methods. If u tell anyone after makin him learn the term "vita force" then ofcors he will understand. Atleast homeopathy goes constant for him. Like chinese coined the term "yin-yang" to practise accupuncture, same is the case with homeopathy. The fields are practised and the effects known. If not, then they r tested atleast/proved in a humane fashion. On the other hand we have "modern science", which has coined a lot of "hypothetical" terms for what? To explain theories? And to explain those theories another garbage of theories are being put on. Do these theories have any physical evidence, if it is true or if it works? If it started, then where's the end? "How and why" will it end?? What actually is universe? Science tells earth has north and south poles. Do these poles exist in universe also? What if universe is also rotating?

I hope its quite clear to u. Homepathy has its own principles and methods and it works. On the other hand "modern science" doesn't even have physical evidences in many cases but simply putting up its own hypothetical terms and more set of theories to fill the missing blanks.

I can also question beyond of ur little understandings of what are the fundamental particles, why do the charge exist on them, why do the fundamental particles exist in the first place?? What is the driving force behind all of it? Can u give me the "what, how and why" of all of it?? U might answer some questions. If u do, then u question the "what,why and how" of that solution. Here's an interesting read.

Scientists tell a person is dead if he has no pulse and heart beat stops. So do the INDIAN yogis get second life after they do their practice of pausing the heart beat for considerable amount of time?? There is a lot to question and a lot that cannot be explained with our limited science. Even to explain many things it forms theories and hypothetical and fill in the blanks that it encounters with another set of theories and terms not supported by physical evidence but observation, making the whole episode look like a story.

So @legolas, pease understamd what theories are. It certainly saves u from looking well, "not dumb"!
Like I said homeopathy and modern science are different where both have their own approach and terminology!! Whereas homoepathy is being seen as successful, humane way of treatment, on the other hand many scientific remedies are seen has harsh, full of side effects and even casuing deaths.

If u still don't understand then listen to @karnivore atleast. Ur limited scope of understanding and ten inclusion of pathetic terms like "fart" and then "hahaha" is only making me feel sympathetic. I know u can do much more than that. U just need to try!! How dare I critice science?

 

[legolas]

Ok, here we go again.
1) chinese have the yin-yang theory/principle/concept/philosophy.
2) homeopathy is based on vital energy theory/principle/concept/philosophy.
3) Modern science can not explain everything.
4) Big bang theory is just a theory.

again, I have no problems and am not arguing this. I have no interest in these. However, I would like to insert 1 concern here. Which is, Comparing a moral issue in claiming lives of humans (read below why I tell this) with that of a scientific theory that does no harm but letting imagination lead its way to a conclusion is not really a comparison, it doesn't cost or isn't immoral. People are given the liberty to think, but before acting their thoughts on others are expected to be extremely precise and sure about what they are doing so that it doesn't intentionally or unintentionally harm others So claiming scientists who are at liberty to think to doctors who have the moral obligation to save lives is pointless and baseless.

But that is not my question. So, ergo...
Do you accept the method adopted in testing with the humans FIRST HAND (the time it was invented) while the principle/theory/concept/philosophy was not known as to why or how it works, for ex: the guy who got paralyzed, you can understand he was obsessed with it for trying heavier doses.. it is obvious. because it (supposedly) cured him, he declared that its a cure. Would you accept testing stuffs on humans (again, I am sorry for the animals, but when it comes to survival between us or them, you and I are not going to say, save the animals), under those claims at that time when the drug was yet to be tested. Even if its claimed to have worked on him, do you think, say, the venom medicine should be immediately administered by taking his word for granted and then over years observe people for side effects and then thankfully claiming its safe. Do you accept this premise of working? Would you participate yourself in a similar claim from some other medicine, say, as I hypothetically told in the above posts were to be introduced? I would not. Assuming every drug came by accident even, claiming its true and starting to test on humans and observing the side effects is just treating them as "guinea pigs" is what I feel, really. And are you telling me, not even 1 of those drugs which were detected by accident or really by concept but while testing on humans for side effects really had some and so stopped on the others??? Not even 1 in the whole of 200 years?? I just need the answer to these 2 questions. And please, answer to these questions alone. Its a simple yes or no, but I know its going to be longer than that.

And regarding the "fart" and "hahahaaa", I already mentioned, your senses are not tuned to appreciate a sense of humor or subtle sarcasm. You should probably nix them aside. They are for the ones who do appreciate some humor while reading.

^^ Let go dude. Its not worth it.

Probably yes.

 

[mediator]

3) Modern science can not explain everything.

Many things!=everything...seems u need to meditate on the difference first.

But that is not my question. So, ergo...
Do you accept the method adopted in testing with the humans FIRST HAND (the time it was invented) while the principle/theory/concept/philosophy was not known as to why or how it works, for ex: the guy who got paralyzed, you can understand he was obsessed with it for trying heavier doses.. it is obvious. because it (supposedly) cured him, he declared that its a cure. Would you accept testing stuffs on humans (again, I am sorry for the animals, but when it comes to survival between us or them, you and I are not going to say, save the animals), under those claims at that time when the drug was yet to be tested

U can't overdose with homeopathy. Its against its principles. The methods of testing for homeopathy are known to be harmless. The dilution is such that if u take 10 tablets at one time, then is still considered 1 dose. I dunno why he tried heavier doses or what the "accident" was. If he had intentionally taken it or increased the dose then it wudn't have been termed as an "accident".

Regarding animals, I wud vote for them and may test the medicine on the corrupt politicians instead if the need arises.

Do you accept this premise of working? Would you participate yourself in a similar claim from some other medicine, say, as I hypothetically told in the above posts were to be introduced? I would not.

Why not?..as per the reply to the question u put (in prev. post).

By contrast, each Homeopathic remedy has had documented Provings done on humans.
Healthy humans agree to take a substance and have their symptoms recorded. This shows
also the safety of Homeopathy, when even test subjects suffer no ill effects after the testing is over.

Neways ur questions are more like : Wud u like to be an astronaught after witnessing the episode of Kalpana Chawla?? I can ask plenty of questions like that where a medicine failed and tests killed many. I think u r diggin deeper into morality now which is quite degraded as far as modern science and modern medicines are concerned!

And regarding the "fart" and "hahahaaa", I already mentioned, your senses are not tuned to appreciate a sense of humor or subtle sarcasm. You should probably nix them aside. They are for the ones who do appreciate some humor while reading.

U call that sense of humor? Then sorry to tell that u really need to develop some to understand what humour is! The terminology that u have been using simply reflect ur personality and character and most importantly speak how 'broadminded' u r.

 

[legolas]

3) Modern science can not explain everything.

Many things!=everything...seems u need to meditate on the difference first.

What did I say wrong here? Modern science doesn't explain everything and it can not, even you have given many explanations... Many things is definitely not equal to everything. What is your problem??? Are you reading at all??? for the person who quibbles that others don't read the links!! Come on.

Wud u like to be an astronaught after witnessing the episode of Kalpana Chawla??

The only thing is that both Kalpana Chawla and NASA/the mission people know the risks... while the "guinea pigs" are guaranteed cure while they are monitored and observed for side effects.

1) Regarding animals, I wud vote for them and may test the medicine on the corrupt politicians instead if the need arises.
2) Why not?..as per the reply to the question u put (in prev. post).

Thank you, I respect your answers here which is exactly which is going to put a full stop to this session. The point is I differ in opinion in these regards. So, now that we have settled our differences, we know why you support and I dont, regarding Homeopathy. Hope you got what I am trying to say, we are not going to sway from our points of view here. I am glad we sorted it out.

And no comments reg. the sense of humor. I assume we differ there too! I hope there would be no more heat discussions in this particular regard between us. Thank you for your arguments and take it easy!!!

 

[mediator]

The session was already stalled. We were merely repeating!! But neways I hope u took it all lightly and only pondered over the relevant discussion like I did.

 

[legolas]

yeah, its true. But at least I came to know definitively where we differed. I was trying to pin point it... finally I was able to convince myself.
Sure, no hard feelings!

 

[karnivore]

In 1954, Einstein wrote a letter to Eric Gutkind, where he clarifies his view on "GOD".

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Read more here or here
Now, this will either douse the fire or fuel it some more.

DISCLAIMER: Legitimacy of the letter is yet not established.

 

[Faun]

^^what was Newton's view ?
Btw Einstein is overrated.

 

[legolas]

Btw Einstein is overrated.

says Pauli's 4th cousin

 

[karnivore]

^^what was Newton's view ?

He thought he was one of the "chosen" ones to decipher Biblical scripture. He even predicted that world will end "no sooner than 2060 A.D". Jury, however, is still out. Whether he was playing to the gallery or genuinely loved to delude himself, is a matter of debate.

says Pauli's 4th cousin

1st, 2nd and 3rd cousins are....

 

[Faun]

friggin campers