Quote:
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans
OK, I'll bite.......
Let me start by noting that while I realize that "allopathy" is the term homeopaths like to use about conventional medicine (CM), it is a misnomer. "Allopathy", as defined by Samuel Hahnemann, denotes a method that works by inducing symptoms that are neither oppsite to, nor similar to the symptoms of the disease. Since CM does not seek to work by inducing symptoms at all, "allopathy" is not a proper term.
This is incorrect. Conventional medicine (CM) basically seeks to remove the cause for the disease, including the correction of a body malfunction. There is absolutely no basis for the claim that the disease must come back after some time. In fact, long-term follow up, which is widely used in CM, confirms that permanent cure can be obtained for many diseases.
If CM cannot cure, it will seek the next best option, namely to alleviate symptoms. In this case it is still not correct that the disease comes back, because it never went away. Except in special cases, alleviation of symptoms is not considered a cure in CM.
There is no basis for the claim that the intensity of the disease is increased by palliative treatment. It may progress due to the lack of effective treatment, but not because of the palliative treatment.
This is an unsupported claim. Even the few clinical trials of homeopathy that do appear to show a positive result only show a reduction in symptoms. Likewise with the many case stories available. There exists no long-term follow-up on homeopathic treatment.
Actually, since homeopathic doctrine doctrine does not acknowledge the existence of any root causes apart from disturbances in a speculative 'vital force', there is no basis for the claim that homeopathy addresses root causes.
This is invalid as a general statement. Many CM drugs work together with the body and produces active improvement. There are some treatments that are quite radical and will cause temporary and/or permanent damages. Those are, however, used for diseases that would otherwise be fatal.
|
Unsupported claim.
This is incorrect. First of all, modern, properly prescribed antibiotics are selectively targetting disease bacteria. Secondly, there is nothing to suggest that the use of antibiotics has any direct impact on the immune system.
There are other problems with antibiotics you might address, but the ones you mention are not relevant.
Not only is this an unsupported claim, but it is contrary to homeopathic doctrine:
a) Homeopathic doctrine does not acknowledge an immune system, and it does not claim that remedies influence such a system. According to homeopathic doctrine, remedies affect some 'vital force' (also unconfirmed), creating in it symptoms that mimick and replace those of the disease.
b) Remedies may have an effect on the digestive system, if that is mentioned in their rubrics.
While overmedication is obviously a problem, it has nothing to do with CM as a principle. Since CM physicians are generally much more thoroughly educated than homeopathic parctitioners, it is unlikely that faulty medication should be less prevalent in homeopathic practice. In fact, a large part of case stories confirm that homeopathic practitioners often prescribe several different remedies before they find one to which they ascribe a cure.
This is called development.
Most homeopathic medicines are not only in minute doses, they are in non-existent doses. While homeopathic doctrine maintains that some effect of the mother tincture remains in the remedy, this has never been confirmed experimentally, and there exists no known physical mechanism that can support the claim.
This is called lack of development. Despite this long history of use, the efficacy of homeopathic remedies still lacks confirmation.
The holistic outlook is one of homeopathy's obvious strengths. However, the picture is far from what you describe, above.
First, modern CM practitioners are certainly not unaware that the patient should be treated as a whole. Time constraints may often prevent practitoners from devoting sufficient time for each consultation, but that is another story. If homeopathy were to act as a mainstream practice, the same problem of time/cost constraints would apply.
Second, the idea that homeopathic practitioners are always devoting long and thorough consultations with each patient is very naive. In fact, many practitioners prescribe remedies based on only a very cursory examination. Some even prescribe or suggest remedies based on a short description on the internet.
This is provably wrong. While some diseases do indeed involve the whole person, this is not a general rule. Many diseases are indeed located in a specific organ or function, and a cure of that organ or function will provide a cure of the patient.
Hans[/quote]
Allo means opposite. Allopathic medicine acts opposite to the nature of diasese.
In very few diseaes, there is pemanent cure in allopathy.
Antibiotics kills flora as well as bad bacteria. It can not distingush the two.
THE POST-ANTIBIOTIC AGE
Homeopathy supports immune system by aiding it, not suppressing it like in allopathy due to antibiotics.
overmedication is resulting in world wide deaths , and you say it as development.
Deaths due to side effects:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125683.900?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19125683.900[/font]
I'm From the Government I'm Here to Help » Death by Doctor
A new physician may took more than an hour in case taking, but an experienced physiican can find the similum in few minutes. Experience pays.
Allopathy is obessed with individual organs. Let's see what your text says
Gray`s anatomy text; it says :“Unfortunately and perhaps particularly in the medical sphere, the compartmentalisation of anatomy into several disciplines or subjects – with attendant titles, individual chairs and even separated depts.—tends towards disintegration.”