Hello, I just arrived here, and I'm a skeptic. I think this is the most honest way to introduce myself.

Cheers, Hans

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

Welcome!Honest! Please also mention other good qualities.

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

Objective, I hope. Looking for facts. I met a couple of homeopaths in another forum, but what could have been an interesting debate turned into mud-wrestling because of some of the participants.

I find the concepts of homeopathy interesting, and I am working on a (skeptical, to be sure) review of the Organon of Medicine. I will publish this review in due time, but I hope to learn some more and, hopefully get a better understanding of some concepts, so I thought this might be the place.

Hans

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

Before arguing and debating theory, you might consider using some acute and first aid remedies first.

Dear Mr. Hans,

Your review will be intresting. In the meantime, can you mention something more about your review.

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

Hans, Skepticism is definitely healthy, but most especially when one keeps an open mind to different paradigms of thought. Question everything. EVERYTHING. (that's what brought me to homeopathy.....questioning some of the idiocy of conventional medical therapies and treatments...).

You do understand homeopathy is a completely different paradigm in thinking, as regards, health, disease and many other things, right?

Perhaps you could tell us what you know of...:
a) disease
b) health
c) the differences between the rationale used in allopathic medicine and homeopathic medicine. (hint: empiricism and rationalism. which one applies which and why?)

...so we know what point-of-view you are working from. Hopefully we can meet somewhere in the middle and close any gaps (if any).

If you are genuine - many people here will answer questions to the best of their ability (and not everyone agrees on various things). If, otoh, you just want to argue -- you'll find people will stop answering questions. So, if you have an open mind - and really want to learn...ask away.

I think if you ask most homeopaths here, they will all tell you that at some point or another, they too were skeptical that it worked. I was. I became convinced through education and practical experience - not only with humans, but also animals and small children. That's the short of it.

Best wishes,
Lisa

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

Lisa:
I am basically here to gather information, but of course I am interested in debate. Wherever people of different opinions meet, there is basis for debate. I must admit that my experiences with debating proponents of homeopathy are not good. Those I have met elsewhere tended to descend into mud-throwing. I am pretty sure not through any of my fault. Hopefully this will go better.

Yes, I know that homeopathy views health and disease in different way.

To your direct questions:

What I know of disease comes from working in the medical industry for many years (I'm an engineer, not a med. education). My view of disease is based on the findings of modern medicine.

Health. Health is of course basically absence of disease. The definition of "a healthy person" is not easy to make, however.

Allopathy/homeopathy. This is a complex question.

The term "allopathy", as defined by most dictionaries, really fits anything that is not homeopathy.

However, the way Hahnemann used it, it refers to a practice that attempts to treat diseases by inducing various symptoms that are non-similar to those of the disease. Under this definition, modern medicine is not allopathy, because, although modern medicines may cause various symptoms, the goal of it is not to cause symptoms at all, but to target disease causes.

I see this as the basic difference between homeopathy and modern medicine:

Homeopathy views diseases as symptoms. According to Hahnemann, the sole manifestation of disease is a set of symptoms. Conversely, although I have not seen Hahnemann express this in words, health must be be defined as absence of symptoms.

Modern medicine views diseases as causes. According to modern medicine, the true manifestation of disease is the presence of a cause. Conversely, health can be viewed as the absence of a disease cause. Symptoms are used for diagnosis and for defining if some vector is a disease vector or not.

Of course, there is a branch of modern medicine that addresses symptoms. In cases where disease causes are unknown or untreatable, there is palliative treatment. And where disease cause is well understood, but in itself uncorrectable, there are replacement therapies.

Hans

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

Hi Hans,
I'll participate as time allows, okay :

This didn't answer my question. And, modern medicine's definition of disease is not the only view of disease.

Can you define disease?

If you read § 72 (Org of Med) onwards - there you will find a sober account of disease states. It begins by defining acute disease - then the various chronic states - onward from there. A lot of it is not inimical with conventional understanding. It just expands on what they know.

It is very important to understand this clearly for there to be a foundation of sober and clear communication between you and homeopaths.

Otherwise, you'll find you are talking apples while we talk oranges.


I want to be very clear here.

I know you said 'health is the absence of disease' which isn't strictly incorrect -- but, I want to make a finer distinction: Health is not an absence of symptoms!

In other words, health is not necessarily present just because someone has no symptoms.

One cannot automatically assume a patient is healthy just because, for example, they never get flu’s or colds! (homeopaths raise their eyebrows big time when patients never get colds or flu’s! It's a sign of something much more insidious going on in the organism)

Health is when an organism (human or animal) is able to overcome (recover from) morbific influences (illness) and recover its 'equilibrium'. In other words, healthy people are able to handle 'knocks' in their life and recover without much ado -- this includes colds, flu’s, trauma, grief, etc.

When a disease is not overcome fairly easily with the return of a vigorous state, then you can say that a person isn't healthy -- e.g., they aren't able to fight off a cold, get over a trauma or grief, overcome a flu without it going into a chronic state and/or possibly leading to death in some cases.

First - let's stick with Hahnemann's definition of allopath. He was talking about conventional medical doctors during his time. That's what I refer too when I use the term allopath. Or, we can use Conventional Drs if you like. Makes no difference to me. But, allopath is much easier.

Yes, it is a difficult question. But what I asked is: do you understand the difference in the ways of thinking - between allopathic (conventional medicine) and homeopathic medicine? If you don't, I would suggest you educate yourself on this, because it will explain a LOT. In fact, if you are to truly grasp homeopathy - and in order to make a fair and factual critique of homeopathy - you MUST understand the difference between Rationalism and Empiricism. Hint: The difference between Inductive reasoning and Deductive reasoning.

The hint isn't enough; so you will have to venture into to this or it's moot to discuss it much further.

This isn't correct - it isn't what Hahnemann said. You've simply misunderstood. That's okay. I'll try to explain the best way I can and maybe someone else will jump in and expand or sharpen up my explanation. And, this is a very large subject, so I will try to keep it simple so as not to get too lengthy.

Allopaths do not give medicines in order to produce non-similar symptoms. Although, I guess I can see how you might interpret the text that way.

Allopaths aim to get rid of disease by using something opposite and overpowering. They do not treat by symptom similarity (like homeopaths do). In fact, what they do is suppress disease by targeting the symptoms - and mostly without regard to what else is going on in the patient.

Completely opposite ends of the spectrum. One uses the law of similars and the other tries to oppose disease.

Homeopathy looks at the overall state of a patient - taking into account everything that is present when the patient isn't well - and is seeking treatment. So, if a patient comes in with an ailment - and is unusually calm since the onset of this ailment (whereas they are normally high strung) - the homeopath would take all that into account when selecting the medicine. (I'm keeping it simple folks)

Allopaths compartmentalise everything. They would not consider or lend any importance to any connection between the ailment/chief-complaint (e.g. broken bone, or some chronic complaint)- and any other changes within the state of the patient - e.g. demeanour/temperament/disposition or other symptoms in another part of the body. The fact that the patient is eerily calm and lost his appetite since this ailment (when otherwise high strung and a voracious eater), is lost to the allopath in respect to his choice of therapy or medicine. He doesn't make these connections in the overall state of the patient in relation to his treatment choice.

Homeopathic medicines, when correctly chosen (big topic and very complex) stimulate the body’s immune system. Like jump-starting a car with a weak battery.

While,

Allopathic medicine (antibiotics, etc) opposes the disease/symptoms; kills all in its path while hoping the organism isn't too greatly overpowered.

Allopaths aim to get rid of [suppress] symptoms - with most diseases.
They think, generally speaking, if they simply suppress symptoms, that they are curing the patient - or in some cases, soothing the patient with no great harm. This is not true. Simply removing/suppressing symptoms is not getting at the root or cause of the problem. Instead, it causes greater harm because the underlying state is still there -- and now it’s altered - and more insidious (dangerous).
E.g. topically treat eczema (corticosteriods, etc) and if 'successful', you will see a great majority of these very patients present with asthma later. This happens all the time and has not gone unnoticed in conventional circles. But they don’t know what to do with this observation.

The loss of those [very important] observable symptoms means they cannot accurately assess the state of the patient. Sometimes they cry cure because of a now absence of symptoms - while other times 'time will tell', and yet, other times 'lets see how it goes' after various treatments for various ailments.

They do not understand the gravity of this point. And, often the disease comes back later --- or -- another disease-state arises, that a homeopath would recognise as just a varied form of the previous disease-state which was suppressed. An allopath would simply think the patient is now sick again, with a new disease.

By their very training they lack an understanding of what cure is. It's not merely the removal of symptoms. For example: Only recently, have some allopaths renounced using cough suppressants -- realising that it's 'better out than in', that colds resolve quicker, and without higher incidences of turning chronic (i.e. pneumonia from the use of the suppressants).

It's not quite that simple. Disease is a derangement of the vital force. If you don't like the use of the term 'vital force', then I can reword it: Disease is a derangement of the immune system. Or in simple lay terms: disease results from a weakened immune system.

Disease is only detectable by signs and symptoms expressed by the organism (patient, vital force - however you want to term it).

Diseases are causes of what?
Symptoms?

Symptoms are the outward expression by the person, of the disease (disturbance) within.

This makes my point above about the definition of health.

Health is not an absence of symptoms.

Health is the body's ability to cope and resolve illness when it strikes.

Yes, this is what allopaths do. They compartmentalise disease into 'vectors' and then name them. It's based upon common symptoms expressed and observed.

Homeopaths also consider the common symptoms, only we look deeper and take it a little further so we can get to the root of the problem and stimulate the immune system to cope better. If we pigeonhole ourselves into a box (using disease names), then we are doing the same thing as an allopath. That's why it's important to understand about peculiar symptoms that are unique to people when they fall ill with a common disease (such as measles).

What is this branch?

We also give palliative treatment in certain types of cases, but palliation is not our aim. Cure is in most cases that present to us.

Anyway, look, it's a very complex subject.
But, if you truly want to make a fair and thorough critique of homeopathy, keep up the study.

Because, in order to critique it you'll have to understand it first .

I'll participate as time allows.

Best wishes,
Lisa

[ 04. October 2003, 06:20: Message edited by: LisaAnnan ]

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

Hello Hans

Wow Lisa really enjoyed reading your post- keep it going!
I would like to reitterate david's suggestion and say to you- try it before you do anything !

You see, us Homeopaths have actually tried conventional medicine - that's why we are homeopaths!!!

Hi Hoppitt,

I'm pooped .

Hans - you could try homeopathy for yourself. But, it's not always easy to select the remedy. You can come here and ask for help but beware that you'll probably get dozens of suggestions.
And, if you see no results, it will be because the selection of the remedy isn't correct. And, you'd probably see homeopaths get into a debate over the correct remedy . Par for the course.

Hoppitt, this is why I didn't jump in and say 'use it to see for yourself'. Coz, I don't think it's that easy to find the right remedy all the time - especially for lay people. If after one failure - some people chalk it up to the failing of homeopathy, when it's the prescriber who failed. Who knows - maybe he'd be lucky and have a really obvious acute....

Like Hoppitt said, we've all used conventional medicine before and that is precisely why we are homeopaths now .

[ 03. October 2003, 19:23: Message edited by: LisaAnnan ]

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham