OK.
Kayveeh:
I do not know any patients who visit homeopaths. I think you yourself, and others here, will be better equipped to answer your questions.
David (my replies in bold):
Quote:
Are you aware of any limitations which exist with double-blind placebo controlled testing?
Several. The most important is that not all regimens are suitable for application of placebo. Accupunkture is a good example.
In the case of homeopathy, when assing efficiacy, the difference in the homepathic definition of disease, as compared to that of scientific medicine, is an obstacle, although, in my opinion, one that can be overcome.
Finally, DBPC test is solely suited to find objective differences between groups. Much of disease treatment is subjective.
Also, one has to realize that DBPC protocols are quite complex, and hence, expensive. Especially the need for stastistically significant sizes of groups.
'Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.'--True or false?
No simple answer. As already mentioned, part of disease control is subjective; a person who feels well, even when objectively not, is better off in terms of life quality than a person who is objectively healthy, but feeling ill. Such circumstances are ill suited for stastistical alalysis.
In your opinion, are there any limitations to the left brain's ability to analyze?
We are not masters over which part of our brain we use. In principle, there is no limit to our ability to analyze. The limit lies in our ability to get useful results from analysis.
'The predominance of mind is no more than a stage in the evolution of consciousness'--True or false?
If I understand the question right, my working assumption is that this is true.
Do you feel there are any inherent prejudices with respect to what is or is not accepted as part of medical practice? (Although this includes homeopathy, the question is not limited to that issue alone).
There certainly are, but I do not see these as a real obstacle to vindication of alternative regimens, should they prove valid. Numerous people with backgrounds in conventional medicine study and use alternative regimens, including homeopathy.
What limitations, if any, do you perceive in conventional medical practice?
Apart from the already mentioned prejudices, Manly two:
1) Legal responsibility; if a doctor uses a recognized method and fails, there is less risk of legal consequences than if a non-recognized method fails.
2) Economical. Apart from the problem mentioned in #1, use of non-conventinal methods are economically more risky, albeit not neccessarily less profitable.
Is it your opinion that most of what is practiced in conventional medicine is supported by research?
Certainly.
What is your opinion about how conventional medicine will view its current practices in 20 years? How about in 50 years? 100 years?
Within the last century, conventional medicine has become predominantly research-based. Future research is bound to make us wiser. In that context, some present practices will in the future seem primitive, even faulty. It will, however, be acknowledged as lack of knowledge, not incompetence.
Have the indications for homeopathic sulphur, lycopodium, pulsatilla, sepia, calcarea carbonica, hepar sulphuricum, etc., etc., etc., substantially changed in 200 years?
Accoding to my knowledge not. The question, in my opinion, is whether those indications are based on fact.
Apart from the emergence of antibiotic-resistant organisms (hmm. . .) are the common diseases significantly different compared to 200 years ago?
Apart also from emergence of new diseases, no. The possibilities for treatment, and the understanding of causes for diseases have, however, changed dramatically (for the better  )
Is a person who has little or no formal training in homeopathy able to competently discuss controversies which exist within homeopathic practice itself?
For the principal questions of objectivity, basis in verifiable facts, etc. I think so. Whatever our belief system, we live in the same reality. I also notice that persons, who may be well educated in homeopathy, but evidently not in scientific medicine, do not hesitate to discuss the latter.
Just as the Zen master demonstrated to the student that one must empty their cup before they can begin understanding, I had to let go of my pre-conceived ideas and egocentric opinions before I could begin to grasp homeopathy. I saw you make the point elsewhere that the principles of homeopathy are easy to understand. On the surface, perhaps, but in reality, it takes years of disciplined study to achieve some degree of competency. In my opinion, far too many people are prepared to launch their opinions about homeopathy without due training or experience.
Within my paradigms, the world we live in is observable and knowable. Facts and objective knowledge remain the same, no matter which path we follow to reach them.
I truly wish you could be witness to the nearly daily experiences I'm privileged to have in my practice. These experiences are why leaving conventional practice, losing benefits and more than 50% of salary, losing nearly all the support of former colleagues, and patiently and repeatedly answering 'critiques' (which all homeopaths have heard many times over) has been a small, small price to pay in return. In my experience, there are huge rewards to be had by swimming against the current. No, homeopathy doesn't solve every problem, but a few of us have some understanding of the placebo effect, and have enough experience to recognize when there's something else at work.
(The italicised part of the statement) Unless you can objectively define the limitations of placebo effect, you cannot make that statement.
|
Hans
__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>
|