• CONTEST ALERT - Experience the power of DDR5 memory with Kingston Click for details

Homeopathy - Interesting claims!

Status
Not open for further replies.

legolas

Padawan
I came across a couple of videos on Homeopathy. I don't believe in it and this explanation might help some to get convinced as to why!! and to some who believed an eye-opener!! :) I by default open thread in Fight club :D
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U&feature=related
Here, you can see a beautiful explanation of the absurdness in homeopathy with respect to Avagadro's number where diluting 10^30 times means that the possibility of at least 1 molecule of the original substance being present is less than 1!!! :) This is medicine!! :D

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3Z1QFZcnAi4&feature=related
Here, there is another investigation performed by BBC HOrizon to claim the 1 million dollar prize money to prove if Homeopathy has some truth into it and Horizon fails!!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8KbLHii8M2A&feature=related

Of course many of you might be familiar with this... Richard Dawkins the well known Atheist in his documentary explains his views.

However, here, in the international debate on Homeopathy, they have shown to have provided some evidence regarding the fact that the dilution now doesn't actually result in the effects from the fact that "Water has memory".... but the STRUCTURE of WATER is itself changed:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=W2rIsMSn21Y

Ok, if water has memory, then it has also memory of urine, sh*t, and lots and lots of other impurities it has gone through before becoming distilled!!! But, assuming that is not the claim... even if structure of water is changed... it also means that the water which is used for dilution of ordinary chemicals to obtain specific normalities or molarities would also have the typical V shaped sp2 hybridised molecule of water to change the structure differently which means the whole science which predicts every intermediate compound step by step is wrong!! why? because the structure of water is no more the same?? :O

Also, from the Richard Dawkins' link, you can see the difference in the basic ideology when they claim "Like cures like" and the most funniest of all "Dilution is the solution"!! :)

How long are we going to believe this bullsh*t??

And even if it is true, why wouldn't they sue the people then for claiming it otherwise? People sue for the most weirdest and absurd reasons after all, especially in the US! :)
 

karnivore

in your face..
I by default open thread in Fight club
Thats one less job for the moderators. :)

How long are we going to believe this bullsh*t??
As long as some of us don't surgically remove that gullible bone.

And even if it is true, why wouldn't they sue the people then for claiming it otherwise? People sue for the most weirdest and absurd reasons after all, especially in the US!
They know it that their case won't stand in the Court. Just look what happened to Micheal Behe with the evolution case. This has been a huge eye opener for all woo lovers.
 

mediator

Technomancer
I just came across this troll thread where the wise @OP instead of posting it in the science/God thread created a new thread. Have mercy on the mysql of the forum n stop belittling science like that! :D

"So many people get cured. Science can't explain it and so I'll keep null-ing my senses".

But neways, ur cry fall negligibly on those who have taken the homeopathic treatment like me and got cured! Futile n some desperate efforts, may be to get some attention .... posting it as a separate thread?? Much of it has already been discussed there. How forgetful!

And even if it is true, why wouldn't they sue the people then for claiming it otherwise? People sue for the most weirdest and absurd reasons after all, especially in the US!
Yeah, those, the crew,director,producer,graphics designers and the actors in apollo moon-hoax-mission, the laughable materialists who treat theories as facts? ! ;)


What a thread......developed my abs!
 
Last edited:

NucleusKore

TheSaint
I don't think ANY traditional system of medicine can be discounted here, be it Ayurveda, Homoepathy, Siddha or Unani. What is important is to know the strength and weaknesses of each. For example, have you seen anyone with a heart attack going for any of the above I just mentioned? But many people with asthma have claimed benefit. I personally haven't tried any of them, and don't intend to unless it's really required.
 

Hrithan2020

In the zone
I don't think ANY traditional system of medicine can be discounted here, be it Ayurveda, Homoepathy, Siddha or Unani. What is important is to know the strength and weaknesses of each. For example, have you seen anyone with a heart attack going for any of the above I just mentioned? But many people with asthma have claimed benefit. I personally haven't tried any of them, and don't intend to unless it's really required.

Exactly,I have personally experienced the positive effects of Ayurveda and Homeopathy.Remember,there was a time when acupuncture was believed to be BS by all modern practitioners,but is now finding acceptance in many parts of the world.The explanations may sound weak(what the heck do they mean by water thingy,possibly bcoz they haven't properly understood it,but are following a tried & tested treatments?),but it does have positive effect in many cases.
 
OP
L

legolas

Padawan
It depends on how much you are able to believe when the doctor claims that it will work. Have you ever asked your Homeopathy doctor how it works?? and got a satisfying answer?? All I heard is, "This is what has worked before with other patients since 200 years" :p

I just came across this troll thread where the wise @OP instead of posting it in the science/God thread created a new thread. Have mercy on the mysql of the forum n stop belittling science like that! :D
I am still wondering how this thread is even remotely related to Science/God thread while some people start off-topic posts in other threads and start writing pages to the extent that they get *cough* mesmerized enough to believe its their thread itself!
 
Last edited:

mediator

Technomancer
It depends on how much you are able to believe when the doctor claims that it will work. Have you ever asked your Homeopathy doctor how it works?? and got a satisfying answer?? All I heard is, "This is what has worked before with other patients since 200 years"
Atleast something that is working for 200 yrs is far better, then something which is having plethora of side effects......n they say one is getting cured!

I am still wondering how this thread remotely related to Science/God thread while some people start off-topic posts in other threads and start writing pages to the extent that they get *cough* mesmerized enough to believe its their thread itself!
Simply coz science can't explain how homeopathy works n to add we already had a huge debate over it including u. But some people are desperate to seek attention! The systems that have been working for 200 yrs without much side effects, are being ridiculed and those which causes plenty of side effects are termed as "scientific"?? Then IMO, our "modern science" is in very nascent stages and need to form some more theories and redo itself like it has been doing in the past to actually understand "how" it all works. Meanwhile the materialists brigade and "blind followers" can watch the show and talk of only those things which lie within the scope of what science can explain : "what,why and how". Science hasn't been able to describe the universe itself. So I think they can put a cellotape on their mouth, mute themselves on matters regarding universe, stop treating the theories as facts and talk of more "observable" cases like that of earth.

Its again a case where the "blind followers" have scientific exposure but not the scientific outlook.

So look at ur statement....
legolas said:
How long are we going to believe this bullsh*t??
U really are something! :)
Even the animals heal their wounds by licking on it even when they don't know "scientifically : how, why" that saliva has healing properties. So how do they know saliva helps? :)

But funny indeed that the scientific minds are actually still exploring it whereas the science "blind followers" are terming it is as crap and pleading/crying instead.
 
Last edited:

karnivore

in your face..
Even the animals heal their wounds by licking on it even when they don't know "scientifically : how, why" that saliva has healing properties. So how do they know saliva helps?
The answer lies in the genes. They don't know half the things they do. They just follow the rule written in their genes. Like cats and dogs eating grass, whenever they are sick, even though grass is not part of their diet. Why ? Because they follow genes.:rolleyes:

Now, how is following genetic signature same as homeopathy working ?

But funny indeed that the scientific minds are actually still exploring it whereas the science "blind followers" are terming it is as crap and pleading/crying instead.
There are people, who are indeed exploring all kinds of bunk. I, of course, do not know of any scientific mind, who is worth his/her salt and is exploring any such bunk, without some ulterior motive. But then again, what do I know ?

Simply coz science can't explain how homeopathy works....
Really, science does not know it ? Hmm....lets see.

In 2005, The Lancet, conducted a study of 150 alleged studies that claimed Homeopathy works. They zeroed in on 110 of those studies (40 were canceled for various reasons) and guess what they found. That homeopathy is nothing more than PLACEBO. :D [DOWNLOAD the PDF]. Some excerpts..
The Lancet said:
Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.
I guess those morons at The Lancet are "blind followers" who do have scientific exposure but not scientific outlook, the patent of which is held by....(HINT: not me or @legolas):D

Atleast something that is working for 200 yrs is far better, then something which is having plethora of side effects......n they say one is getting cured!

Yup, its working all right, but only in the minds of the believers. But, really, is it any wonder that homeopathy does not have side-effects. To have a side-effect it has to have an effect first. :D

Next time you need a hernia to operate or an appendix to remove or a blocked artery to clear or a kidney to clean, I would love to see who you go to. Modern medicine or homeopathy ?

[Don't take it personally. I sincerely hope you do not have to visit any doctor at any time of your life, whether for yourself or anybody else. Just chill]
 

hullap

Cyborg Agent
yes, i believe in it,
and my father is a half a homeopathy doctor (he hasn't opened a clinic)
and i believe in homeopathy
once i got chiken pox and with homeopathy i got rid of it in 3-4 days :)
 

karnivore

in your face..
^^ Eh ? Call it coincidence but right now i am actually convalescing from chicken pox (14th day). Care to explain how you were cured in 3-4 days. Did all the boils appear and burst in 3-4 days ? Did your itch go away in 3-4 days ? Did your scabs fall off in 3-4 days ? What is it that you mean by "i got rid of it in 3-4 days".

Please explain.
 
Last edited:

eggman

I have Yolks not Brains!
I myself has experienced the power of homeopathy , when I was a kid. So I really don't think placebo effect had worked on me!!!! Anyway, I will always believe in homeopathy since It cured my tonsils problem in 6 months which other medicine couldn't do in 3+ years!!
 
OP
L

legolas

Padawan
Even the animals heal their wounds by licking on it even when they don't know "scientifically : how, why" that saliva has healing properties. So how do they know saliva helps?

The height of ignorance: comparing nature's ideals to that of the so-called invention by an obsessive guy who paralyzed himself by blindly "over-dosing" it! :p, that "dilution will increase the healing effect because of the MEMORY of WATER..." while it has the so-called memory only WHEN homeopathy people dilute it :D and not when the water is running down the stream and collecting that many dirt and microorganisms live in it! :p OMG OMG!!!

To others:
Watch this: Scroll to around 8:09 minutes and watch...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wq6gT4vDUWs&feature=related
and continue with this...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PcbnR8VVcWk&feature=related
Especially around 1:15 seconds :)
 
Last edited:

hullap

Cyborg Agent
^^ Eh ? Call it coincidence but right now i am actually convalescing from chicken pox (14th day). Care to explain how you were cured in 3-4 days. Did all the boils appear and burst in 3-4 days ? Did your itch go away in 3-4 days ? Did your scabs fall off in 3-4 days ? What is it that you mean by "i got rid of it in 3-4 days".

Please explain.
hmm
sry i cant explain, coz when i had chicken pox i was quite young, but i quite surely remember that it lasted no more then 3-4 days
ill ask my father and be back:)
 

karnivore

in your face..
I myself has experienced the power of homeopathy , when I was a kid. So I really don't think placebo effect had worked on me!!!! Anyway, I will always believe in homeopathy since It cured my tonsils problem in 6 months which other medicine couldn't do in 3+ years!!
I too have tonsil problem, not septic one. When I was a kid (about 9 yrs old) I was diagnosed with streptococcal infection, a real nasty one. I remember when I was infected with those germs my parents tried a lot of alternative medicines, from ayurveda to homeopathy. Needless to say, none worked. I had to go through the entire grind called allopathy. :confused:

So, if you can elaborate what you mean by that, particularly what kind of tonsil infection you had, or if it was something chronic or did you continue with your allopathic medicines along with homeopathic ones, or how old you were, or did the tonsil problem recur etc., I will be much obliged. :)

Placebo works in the most "mysterious" ways imaginable. So it is probably not wise to say that it did not work in your case. Given the fact that other medicines were not curing your problem, there was enough ground for placebo to work. :)

hullap said:
hmm
sry i cant explain, coz when i had chicken pox i was quite young, but i quite surely remember that it lasted no more then 3-4 days
ill ask my father and be back
OK. But do come back. :)
 

mediator

Technomancer
karnivore said:
The answer lies in the genes. They don't know half the things they do. They just follow the rule written in their genes. Like cats and dogs eating grass, whenever they are sick, even though grass is not part of their diet. Why ? Because they follow genes.
And u follow urs with this funny explanation? I asked if they know if saliva has any medicinal benefits, the scientific "how and why" and u say "They follow genes"? :D
Even if some scientists had told me such a reason, it wud have sounded utterly rubbish to me. They could have used water like humans, but instead they lick. Convenient way to put it up, the things that u can't explain and say "they follow genes"!

karnivore said:
Now, how is following genetic signature same as homeopathy working ?
I was talking about practicality if u didn't understand it. Homeopathy is very much practical and the science needs progress if it can't explore this wonderful field.

karnivore said:
There are people, who are indeed exploring all kinds of bunk. I, of course, do not know of any scientific mind, who is worth his/her salt and is exploring any such bunk, without some ulterior motive. But then again, what do I know ?
U know nothing, but just need to follow the "herd instinct", have the scientific exposure instead of making ur expert opinions. Its fine if u don't have any scientific outlook, just "follow the genes" like u said. :oops:

karnivore said:
Really, science does not know it ? Hmm....lets see.

In 2005, The Lancet, conducted a study of 150 alleged studies that claimed Homeopathy works. They zeroed in on 110 of those studies (40 were canceled for various reasons) and guess what they found. That homeopathy is nothing more than PLACEBO. [DOWNLOAD the PDF]. Some excerpts..
Ah the placebo.
http://www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=783847&postcount=522

Ur old habit of repeating hasn't gone yet. :)
One of the brigade members desperately creates a new waste thread seeking attention and another thinks repeating wud be a good idea!

Another instance where science needs to remodify it seems where the blind followers think placebos are gold standards!


science_god_thread said:
How Scientific Is Modern Medicine?

Mahatma Gandhi was once asked by a reporter what he thought about Western civilization, and in light of the uncivilized treatment by the British government of his nonviolent actions, he immediately replied, "Western civilization? Yes, it is a good idea." Likewise, if he were asked what he thought about "scientific medicine," he would probably have replied in a similar manner.

The idea of scientific medicine is a great one, but is modern medicine truly, or even adequately, "scientific"?

Modern medicine uses the double-blind and placebo-controlled trial as the gold standard by which effectiveness of a treatment is determined. On the surface, this scientific method is very reasonable. However, serious problems in these studies are widely acknowledged by academics but remain unknown to the general public. Fundamental questions about the meaning of the word "efficacy" are rarely, if ever, raised.

For instance, just because a drug treatment seems to eliminate a specific symptom doesn't necessarily mean that it is "effective." In fact, getting rid of a specific symptom can be the bad news. Aspirin may lower your fever, but physiologists recognize that fever is an important defense of the body in its efforts to fight infection. Painkilling drugs may eliminate the acute pain in the short term, but because these drugs do not influence the underlying cause of the discomfort, they do not really heal the person, and worse, they can lead to physical and psychological dependency, addiction, tolerance, and increased heart disease. Sleep-inducing drugs may lead you to fall asleep, but they do not lead to refreshed sleep, and these drugs ultimately tend to aggravate the cycle of insomnia and fatigue. Uncertainty remains for the long-term safety and efficacy of many modern drugs for common ailments, despite the high hopes and sincere expectations from the medical community and the rest of us for greater certainty.


The bottom line to scientific research is that a scientist can set up a study that shows the guise of efficacy. In other words, a drug may be effective for a very limited period of time and afterwards cause various serious symptoms. For example, a very popular anti-anxiety drug called Xanax was shown to reduce panic attacks during a two-month experiment, but once the person tries to reduce or stop the medication, panic attacks can increase 300-400 percent ( Consumer Reports , 1993).Would as many patients take this drug if they knew this fact, and based on what standard can anyone honestly say that this drug is "effective"?

To get FDA approval to market a drug, most of the studies for psychiatric conditions last only six weeks (Angell, 2004, 112). In view of the fact that most people take anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medicines for many years, how can anyone consider these short-term studies scientifically valid? What is so little known and so sobering is that research to date has found that placebos were 80 percent as effective as the drugs-with fewer side effects (Angell, 2004, 113).

Marcia Angell,MD, author of the powerful book The Truth about Drug Companies , said it plainly and directly: "Trials can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens all the time" (Angell, 2004, 95). Conventional drugs used today are so new that there is very little longterm research on them. There are good reasons why the vast majority of modern drugs that were used just a couple of decades ago are not prescribed any more: They don't work as well as previously assumed, and/or they cause more harm than good.

Sadly and strangely, physicians do not see that there is something fundamentally wrong with the present medical model. Instead, once an old drug is found to be ineffective or dangerous, doctors and drug companies simply assert the "scientifically proven" efficacy of a new drug. Despite this recurrent pattern, doctors are prescribing drugs at record-breaking rates:


In 2005 the volume of prescription drugs sold in the U.S. was equal to 12.3 drugs for every man, woman, and child in that year alone (compared to 1994, when 7.9 prescription drugs per year were on average purchased by every American). (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2006)


According to a 2005 study, 44 percent of all Americans take at least one prescription drug and 17 percent take three or more prescription drugs (This number increased 40 percent between 1994 and 2000). ( Medscape , 2005)

The extremely high numbers listed above are considerably higher if one adds in the over-the-counter drugs that doctors recommend or that patients take on their own.When a patient takes more than one drug at a time, the research conducted on each of the drugs individually becomes virtually meaningless. Considering how many people take two or more drugs together raises serious doubts about the scientific ground on which physicians stand (except in those few instances when a multiple-drug protocol has been tested, as has occurred with some drugs in the treatment of people with AIDS).

One might hope that the American public would greatly benefit from receiving the "best" and certainly most expensive care that modern medicine has to offer. However, this simply isn't true. In fact, the following statistics powerfully state the real limitations of what the "best"medical care provides:


According to 2006 data, the infant mortality rate in the United States was ranked twenty-first in the world, worse than South Korea and Greece and only slightly better than Poland.


Data from 2006 also showed that the life expectancy rate in the United States was ranked seventeenth in the world, tied with Cyprus and only slightly ahead of Albania. (InfoPlease, 2007)

One of the largest drug companies in the world is GlaxoSmithKline. It was therefore a bit shocking, but not surprising, when Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics, acknowledged that "The vast majority of drugs -- more than 90 percent -- only work in 30 percent or 50 percent of the people" (Connor, 2003). The public is not frequently given this degree of honesty.

Understanding and Rewriting History

Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. -- George Orwell, author of 1984

History provides us with a tremendously diverse body of evidence about our past, but ultimately, only a small portion of history is told in our history books. The interpretation of our past and the select use of certain historical facts and figures taint our understanding of what really happened.

Historians commonly remark that whichever country wins a war or whichever worldview dominates another, the history is told through that country's perspective or that dominant point of view. This is certainly true in the history of medicine. For instance, medical historians commonly have portrayed conventional medical practice of the past as barbaric, dangerous, and old-fashioned, and yet they have asserted that today's medical care is at the apex of "scientific medicine." The assertion that today's medical care is "proven" is a consistently repeated mantra.

History also tends to portray those who lose a war and who represent a minority point of view as having less than positive attributes. For instance, those physicians practicing medicine differently than the orthodox medical practice might be called cranks, crackpots, and quacks. Such name-calling is a wonderfully clever way to trivialize potentially valuable contributions, whether or not one understands what these contributions really are.

Besides name-calling, practitioners of the conventional and dominating paradigm often spin facts to make the strong and solid features of a minority practice into something strange and weird. The fact that homeopaths use smaller doses than used in orthodox medicine has been portrayed as homeopathy using "wimpy" doses that theoretically could not have any physiological effect. Accusations that homeopathic medicines could not possibly have any effect are made without knowledge, experience, or humility, and such accusations simply become evidence of the accuser's unscientific attitude and his or her ignorance of the diverse body of basic scientific work on the effects of nanodoses of certain substances in specific situations.

The fact that homeopaths have used their medicines for more than 200 years is spun as evidence that this system of medicine has not "progressed." Another interpretation here is that the same homeopathic medicines used 200 years ago are still used today, along with hundreds of new ones, primarily because the old ones still work. The art of using homeopathic medicines is that they are not prescribed for a localized disease but for a syndrome or pattern of symptoms of which the localized disease is a part.

The fact that homeopaths interview a patient to discover his or her unique symptoms has been spun to make homeopathy seem like a quirky system that revels in inane facts about a patient. However, the detailed symptoms and characteristics of the patient that homeopaths collect may seem inane only to people who are not familiar with the unique and critical nature of these individualizing features of each person. Homeopathy provides a sophisticated method by which a patient's characteristics are applied to selecting and prescribing the most effective homeopathic medicine.


karnivore said:
Yup, its working all right, but only in the minds of the believers. But, really, is it any wonder that homeopathy does not have side-effects. To have a side-effect it has to have an effect first.

Next time you need a hernia to operate or an appendix to remove or a blocked artery to clear or a kidney to clean, I would love to see who you go to. Modern medicine or homeopathy ?
And I agree u can beat Cyrus Barocha! I am not neither saying homeopathy is perfect for all the cases coz I don't know what all cases can be there, nor I am saying scientific medicines guarantee 100% cure. But again it depends upon the situation.

science_god_thread said:
Remember the line by Will Rogers, or at least attributed to him? "The trouble with most people is not that they don't know much, but they know so much that isn't true." This statement came back to me when I read the two letters to the editor critical of homeopathy published in AMERICAN DRUGGIST.

Those letters also reminded me of an incident a while back where a neighborhood physician came into my pharmacy and, noticing the various homeopathic products on the counter, asked me: "Why do you sell these things? They don't work."

For a moment, I thought that perhaps he had tried some homeopathic product and found it ineffective, or perhaps he had told some patients to try them and they found them ineffective. So I asked him, "Why do you say that?"

His answer was forthright: "My friend, another doctor, told me they don't work." That was it! So much for scientific, probing inquiry. It turned out that neither he nor his friend the doctor had ever read -- let alone studied -- anything about homeopathy.

Perhaps homeopathy's skeptics are critical because there is no "rational" explanation as to how homeopathic remedies work. But I am sure these same critics are familiar with "The Pharmacological Basis Of Therapeutics" by Goodman and Gilman. Goodman has written, "There are few drugs, if any, for which we know the basic mechanism of action. Drug action is not drug effect. The effect results from the action of the drug." Regarding the use of nitroglycerin, Gilman writes: "The mode of action of nitrates to relieve typical angina is not fully understood."

Does it bother pharmacists who criticize homeopathy that the authors of one of the world's most popular pharmacology texts do not understand how many prescription drugs work? Yet these critics of homeopathy always rush to ask "But how does it work"?

Perhaps critics question the dilutions. Back in 1943, Alexander Fleming's experiments with penicillin showed that at dilutions of 1: 100,000,000 -- and even weaker -- streptococcal activity was affected. The amount of active thyroid we have in our bodies must be somewhere in that range also. But homeopathy does not concern itself with quantity of remedy, only the qualities of remedy.

The word "homeopathy" comes from the Greek words "homeo" and "pathos", meaning "similar" and "suffering". From the time that Samuel Hahnemann coined the word, 200 years ago, homeopathy has been maligned, and vilified, and homeopaths have been charged as liars and frauds. All this in spite of 200 years of therapeutic successes.

Over his lifetime, Hahnemann wrote or translated more than 5,000 pages of text, while at the same time maintaining a medical practice or teaching. He spent years of studying ancient texts and his generous dividend was found in the writings of Hippocrates. Written more than 2,200 yeas earlier were the words: "Through the like, disease is produced, and through the application of the like, is is cured."

In other words, a substance that causes a particular symptom or set of symptoms will also treat them. Like cures like. For more than five years -- with the help of medical students and friends -- Hahnemann tested his remedies and developed the principles that remain intact today.

In 1810 when he published his "Organon of Medicine", he presented to the world a new audacious notion of healing called homeopathy. His opening words were: "The physician's highest and only mission is to make sick people healthy, to cure. The highest ideal of cure is the rapid, gentle, and permanent restoration of health in the shortest, most reliable, least harmful way, according to easily comprehensible principles."

What Hahnemann did was to propose remedies -- free from all harmful effects -- as agents of cure. He offered objectivity, simplicity, originality, and independence in an era of medical arrogance and brutality.

Homeopathy is structured on a distinct set of principles that recognize an innate healing capacity which all people have. It is this energy that promotes, protects, and initiates our defensive mechanisms in response to adverse conditions. It then controls and guides the natural healing process. Homeopathy calls this energy the "vital force". Without this vital force, there is no sensation, no function, no self-preservation, no life. It is the vital force that is the agent of cure.

Medicine, on the other hand, is not and cannot be, the healing curative agent. In fact, as we know, many modern medicines can actually retard healing and alter the nature of the disease to make it more difficult to treat, if not to add further injury as well. The current damage from use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone causes in excess of 10,000 deaths a year. And overall, iatrogenic disease (caused by medical treatments) is responsible for as many as 140,000 deaths a years.

What our bodies need are the favorable conditions to affirm their restorative powers, which through negligence or indifference, has created an environment for disease to flourish. Healing -- the natural restoration of health and body integrity -- is a normal process and its success depends upon the removal of the energy-disturbing elements. It is, in the Taoist sense, that when the body cures itself and becomes well again, it is then in a state of balance and harmony with nature. Indeed, 4,600 years ago, the Chinese medical text Nei Ching, noted "the root of the way of life, of birth and of change; is chi (energy)". And 500 years ago, Paracelsus said the same thing. "Our own nature is itself our physician, which is to say, it has in itself what it needs."

In 1800 Samuel Hahnemann wrote: "In a considerable portion of disease, it would be better for the patients if all medicines were abandoned." Fifty years later, Oliver Wendell Holmes, M.D., voiced the same sentiments. The poet, novelist, father of the famous jurist, and professor of Medicine at Harvard, addressed the Massachusetts Medical Society: "I believe that if the whole Materia Medica as now used, could be sunk to the bottom of the sea, it would be all the better for mankind, and all the worse for the fishes." A surprisingly harsh assessment for the medicines of the day, considering Holmes was at the same time one of homeopathy's most bitter foes.

Even still, by the mid-19th century, homeopathy had much success. For example, homeopaths treated cholera successfully, long before it was known that the actual cause was a microbe. During the 19th century, there were seven severe epidemics in America, the most serious in 1832. The death rates of people treated without homeopathy were five times those of the homeopaths.

In 1854, the British Parliament authorized the London Board of Health to appoint a commission to see which treatments were best for cholera victims. They found "regular" hospitals had a death rate of 54 percent; the homeopathic hospital's death rate was 16 percent.


In 1832, some 50 years before Robert Koch isolated the cholera bacillus, Hahnemann wrote that cholera is "a swarm of infinite small invisible living organisms hostile to human life". Even today, it is difficult to appreciate the magnitude of this prediction. What Hahnemann treated was not "cholera" but headache, malaise, diarrhea, anorexia, icy coldness of the body, convulsions, staring eyes, sunken face, etc. These symptoms pointed to the correct therapy.

The critics choose to ignore the successes. They would prefer that homeopathy just go away, to be thought of as some fossilized remnant of medical heresy now extinct. Too bad. It exists, is grows -- and in some areas -- even flourishes. In France, one quarter of all pharmacies arc homeopathic. In England, half of all physicians either use or recommend homeopathy; the British Royal Family has used homeopathic physicians exclusively since the 1830s.

In 1811, Hahnemann answered his critics this way: "It is infinitely easier to contradict than to investigate, infinitely easier to mock at realities and to present them is a distorted light by twisting and falsifying, than to sacrifice one's whole life to tireless and conscientious investigation of truth, by faithful observation of the nature of things in the most careful experiments and to the unprejudiced employment of their results for the good of mankind."

A monument in Paris honoring Hahnemann, erected in 1900, bears these words of his: "Non Inutilus Vixi" or "I have not lived in vain". The words are appropriate; he gave the world a safe and effective healing modality. We are all indebted to him.

The critics choose to ignore the successes. They would prefer that homeopathy just go away, to be thought of as some fossilized remnant of medical heresy now extinct. Too bad. It exists, is grows -- and in some areas -- even flourishes. In France, one quarter of all pharmacies arc homeopathic. In England, half of all physicians either use or recommend homeopathy; the British Royal Family has used homeopathic physicians exclusively since the 1830s.

In 1811, Hahnemann answered his critics this way: "It is infinitely easier to contradict than to investigate, infinitely easier to mock at realities and to present them is a distorted light by twisting and falsifying, than to sacrifice one's whole life to tireless and conscientious investigation of truth, by faithful observation of the nature of things in the most careful experiments and to the unprejudiced employment of their results for the good of mankind."

A monument in Paris honoring Hahnemann, erected in 1900, bears these words of his: "Non Inutilus Vixi" or "I have not lived in vain". The words are appropriate; he gave the world a safe and effective healing modality. We are all indebted to him.
U need to remove the "placebo" stamp from ur forehead to develop "some" scientific outlook. For any scientific soul if one thing is successful and defies any standard, then that standard needs to be looked upon again, but "critics chose to ignore the success". :neutral:.

U have been telling me books to read from the past few debates. So don't mind if I do the same. Read the "Brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking to actually understand "how" science progresses and how it has been doing so. Its ok still, if u "follow the genes", but all u need to know is "how" science progresses. So r u done with that "placebo" cry now?


legolas said:
The height of ignorance: comparing nature's ideals to that of the so-called invention by an obsessive guy who paralyzed himself by blindly "over-dosing" it! , that "dilution will increase the healing effect because of the MEMORY of WATER..." while it has the so-called memory only WHEN homeopathy people dilute it and not when the water is running down the stream and collecting that many dirt and microorganisms live in it! OMG OMG!!!
U proved it in the science/god thread and yet u prove it again that u don't read anything that one replies and simply like to troll all the way. May I refresh ur memory that it was an accident?
http://www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=787533&postcount=565.

I find it hard to digest how the materialists can even live in their narrow minded world which is narrowed even further due to lack of scientific mindset. Such kinda "gene following" is gonna lead to most obvious and eventual detruction of the human intelligence. :D Keep repeating!
 
Last edited:

mediator

Technomancer
WTH, The page u linked actually supports what i said, that "They shudn't be avoided"! :D

And the materialist brigade here already terms it as crap/bullsheet.
legolas said:
How long are we going to believe this bullsh*t??
And don't worry bt the "safety" coz I understand the "principle of minimum dosage"! I wud rather see the success, like in my case, than ridiculing it. :)
 
OP
L

legolas

Padawan
WTH, The page u linked actually supports what i said, that "They shudn't be avoided"! :D
For a person who constantly whines over other people's supposed inability to read links... you seem to constantly surprise me! :p

Eyes on the price!!! :p


Do you comprehend now??? How more needy can you be?? :eek:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom