Bach:
So, again: How do we distinguish a homeopathic drug from placebo? :razz:

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Mr.Hans,

Just take care. You can be blamed for not followed the instructions. If you want to check, just follow the instructions.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

one thing that distinguishes you, hans, is that you responded, apparently, to the 'goading.' others have been told the same thing just as persistently, but hid their heads in the sand. i assume these 'goadings' had an effect on you, but their usual effect on "your type" (pardon) is to stiffen your (their) resistance. you appear influenced by your curiosity and honesty to a greater degree than usual - and i count that an asset.

now, hans, this is the kind of thing you do that is just careless reading: i was trying to pay you a compliment. i think the idea of doing a self-proving is an "uncomfortable idea," an experience or a source of information that is alien to your usual mode of functioning, and which every medical researcher i have seen previously has assiduoulsy avoided. this is, i was trying to say, an asset: you do not avoid uncomfortable ideas! so you can just say, 'thanks.'
i'm rather satisfied that, over the years, i have looked in the face uncomfortable and even disagreeable ideas, and ended incorporating them, or some portion of them, into my view of things. i won't say i do it every time. i won't say i lack strong opinions, convictions. i won't say one should ALWAYS venture to explore 'uncomfortable' or 'alien' ideas, but as a general thing, the willingness ought to be there. its hard to judge, when someone says 'no,' whether its because they have 'good' reason, or are just being stubborn - as i think most or all researchers have been when confronted with this same question, falling back on convenient and trite rationalizations to avoid the experience.

i accuse them of this because, in this situation, they have ostensibly been seeking out information about homeopathy, ostensibly interested in 'proving' or disproving its claims, yet operate on a set of impenetrable preconceptions. to your credit, you risk a lot, in terms of pre-held convictions, in order to explore your subject.

unless you are not curious at all, and in fact are just being goaded. in which case, call my office for an appointment! even so, this still leaves you 'open' to the compliment that you are willing to accept a challenge at least to make a point.

again, good luck in your proving.

bach

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Oh Lord, here we go again!

Seems like this is going to be an IMPOTENT proving and thread like all the other discussions by these people.

Divina remind me not to give in to temptation again!

[ 17. December 2003, 09:42: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Kayveeh:

Yeah, but WHICH instructions? Hahnemann's? Hahnemannian444's? Leelas'? ....?

Seems that no matter what I do, it will be said that I didn't follow instructions .

Bach:

Mmmm, yes, I am aware of your compliments. So, after much bashing, you give me a pat on the shoulder and I'm happy again? I do appreciate your willingness to change your view on me, but apart from these ups and downs, we don't seem to get anywhere, do we?

Leela and Bach:

"Good luck in your proving" "This seems to become an IMPOTENT" prooving"

So, a proving is only a proving if it produces the result you expect? Hmmm...

I just made a proving. It was more or less according to the different instructions I have been given, and the descriptions I have read in a number of websites, but now I suddenly haven't done it after all??

The only one who has come up with a reasonable reply is Kayveeh: "Not all medicines work on all people". Fair enough, so apparantly Ars does not work on me. What now? Which do you suggest I try next (at £4.50 plus postage)? There must be SOME sure-fire things in your inventory??

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Well-
I would like to have answers to the following questions:

Who produced the remedy?
Was it anyway scanned, x-rayed etc?
Who wittnesed this experiment?
Video evidence? etc.

You know-- for someone who claims to work as a scientist you atempt is pretty poor.--
We would need a bit more evidence to even look into that.

but we could do an experiment--
You come over here and we both make up a remedy by hand to the 30C potency, and then you take that according to the proving instructions over here under supervision-- you know sometimes some of those effects can be pretty nasty-- and then you will have first hand knowledge.

Are you coming over?

I want to pass on previous experiences with Mrc_ Hans, that he chickens out, and is not interested in first hand experience-- but maybe this time???

Let us see---

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

follow leela's directions. i'd assumed you were going to do that, i hope you do. you're so close.

it is probably prudent to answer hans W's questions - he asks as many as you guys ask of us when you hear a case report, which is probably fair turnabout - but i'm inclined to accept your report one way or the other if you follow leela's direction, and i'm inclined to accept your honesty in reporting. if it's negative, it will go in the hopper, "anomolies requiring further explanation," as i don't expect even you would expect me to throw out all prior conviction based on one new experience: but a failure with leela's method would be significant. i'm open to new data - just don't expect me to flip flop on considered opinion as freuently as i do in my opinion of you!!

btw, to repeat, my 'emotional energy' directed at you is only more dramatic, not different in kind, than the smugness you visit upon me and the rest of this homeopathic community. we're really on a level playing field, there.

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Hans W.:

This was a double experiment:

Of course I was curious to see what happened when I took this preparation. As it turned out, it seems nothing happened.

Secondly, I was very curious to see how this community would react to it. As it turned out, most of you simply moved the goal-posts.

I have to admit that neither surprises me - much.

Hans

[ 17. December 2003, 13:04: Message edited by: MRC_Hans ]

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Not to mention he conveniently left out a very important step--having his full case taken BEFORE taking any remedy.

And then he knows what the remedy is, too.

These oversights wouldn't happen in a real proving.

Pretty poor process, as Hans W. noted above.

My money's on the very strong possibility that Hans BSA is "doing a proving" just to write about how it didn't have any effect on him...when he didn't actually do the proving, as we all know.

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung

CCH: Ahh, another move of the goal posts. Now I have to have my case taken first. Nobody mentioned this earlier.

And no blinding? Just when did you become a proponent of blinding? Nobody mentioned this earlier. Anyhow, I would have no idea which of the hundred-odd symptoms listed under Ars to expect. Seems that everything counts.

Edited to add: So my knowing the name of the drug ruins the test, but not Leela listing what I am supposed to feel? Mmmmm ....

And anyhow I am lying ? Well, I guess you will have to take my word, just as I will have to take yours on your anecdoticals.

Funny thing is, I have not made any conclusion at all, based on this. Because, as I have said earlier, the subjective observations of a single person have no evidence value. I'm not going to change that standpoint just because my personal subjective observations happen to support my view.

But your reactions have sure been interesting to watch.

Hans

[ 17. December 2003, 14:36: Message edited by: MRC_Hans ]

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>