Hi batakali,
Sorry I'm coming to this late--comments below:

On Jan 10, 2008, at 1:31 PM, homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com wrote:

>
> I am a bit puzzled now. it is early days in my learning about
> homepathy.
>
> On the hilter threads, people have quite rightly pointed out that it is
> not homeopathic for hitler to haven taken nux. vom. and bellad. every
> day.

Actually there were several issues in that story, one being that it was
"every day"--for nine years! Which is way, way beyond any reasonable
timeframe for the homeopathic process. Another is that this procedure
was continued while he also followed regimen of "heavy drugs", and more
importantly, while he grew sicker and sicker in various ways,
eventually ending in suicide. That again is utterly inconsistent with
the homeopathic process, which would dictate that if the patient is not
improving, you must *change your approach*.

> This is because homeopathic remedies have long term effects unlike
> allopathic drugs which just relieve symptoms.

How long-term the effects are will depend on various things, including
the potency, and also including just how the remedy relates to the
*particular* case. E.g. same remedy and same potency may act for
months in one person, but only minutes in another. The homeopath would
have an idea of what type of response to expect in a given case, but
even so one couldn't be certain, until seeing what happened.
>
> But in the fibromyalgia trial above. Patients took their LMpotencies
> every day throughout the trial.

Usually LMs do not *need* to be taken every day, and for that reason it
would not usually be ideal to do it every day, but many LM users do it
this way, and usually it can work alright. So again, the issue with
the Hitler story was less because he took it (actually them) daily, and
more because it continued for such a very long time, despite his
obvious deterioration.

> And the trial was a cross-over trial so that verum and placebo swapped
> half way through. Surely, the first people on homeopathy would have
> continued to gain from it even on placebo?

It is true that in *some* cases a single dose of even a low LM potency
(or any potency) can act for weeks or months, and yes, in that case it
would have *appeared* that the patient was continuing to recover
"spontaneously" (or inexplicably), or due to "placebo response", when
in fact it was a long-running remedy response. That would be somewhat
unusual, tho, as *usually* a single dose of LM would act anywhere
between a day and a week--at least this is what I *gather* is more
common with LMs; my experience with them is limited.

> Were the people doing the research real homeopaths? Did this
> make the results wrong?

(I haven't read the fibromyalgia trial yet; perhaps I'll have more
comment when I do.)
Best,
Shannon
>
> Can anyone help explain?
>
>
> --
> batakali
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> batakali's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/members/batakali.html
> View this thread: @ gimpy: proof of homeopathy
>
>