Dear Gimpy,

I was, I must admit, taken somewhat aback by the passion of your most
recent post--the one in which you listed for us all your two-fold
(three-fold really, but who's counting?) objection to homeopathy.
Because of your posts, I also took some time to read your blog.

I have, in recent weeks, become interested in what is being written
about homeopathy, both pro and con, in the UK. Even though I live in
far-away Connecticut where your writings have had no impact, I am
interested because I have a rather passionate response to homeopathy
myself, excepting, of course, the fact that I am in favor of it with
a fervor that matches your indignation.

I have also been reading Ben Goldacre's writings, both in the press
(I can never remember the names of your newspapers, so I won't risk
getting it wrong--but The Guardian, is it?) and in his own excellent
blog, "Bad Science." I find Goldacre to be an excellent writer and
wit, with a keen eye for observation. Further, I find that I often
agree with much of what he writes on many different subjects, most
especially his firm belief that less medicine often equals good
medicine.

When it comes to your writing, I can't help but find it inferior to
his. First in that you seek to hide behind your "Gimpy" persona--
perhaps the term means something different in the UK than it does
here. Goldacre does not. Nor do I in my books. I can't help but
always take with a rather huge grain of salt anything that is written
by anyone who will not or can not stand behind his/her words by using
his or her own name. Second in that you make such sweeping
statements as " I believe homeopaths are dangerously arrogant in
their beliefs and utterly incapable of proper regulation." This,
along with much else that you have written along the same lines, is
akin to racist or other highly charged, bigoted comments. In using
them, you seem more interested in eliciting an emotion rather than an
intellectual response. You might likely respond that you are, in
making these comments, speaking to the homeopathic community in
general. But consider this: when you say that you do not agree with
homeopathy, that you think it quackery of foolishness, I say all well
and good. Believe what you think best, what you have concluded in
your own life. But when, based upon the simple fact that you
disagree with my/our beliefs, you feel you have a special insight
that allows you to conclude that we are arrogant or that we are
"playing at science and medicine" you move from a position of debate
into a place in which you set yourself up as a person capable of
judging not only the quality of our methods but also the motivations
of our hearts and minds. The homeopathic community is made up of
many individuals of may sorts and types, in many parts of the world.
To lump us into one arrogant mold is to reveal your own nature more
than our own.

I do not think myself arrogant, nor do I think myself stupid, foolish
or easily manipulated or led. I have taken the last three decades of
my life and dedicated them to a study of the healing process, how it
takes place and how it can best be stimulated and encouraged. This
study has lead me to believe that homeopathy is a tool for healing.
It is something that I have experienced too often in my own life to
have much interest in what the Lancet has to say on the subject.
Indeed, in that, with each new generation, one supposedly scientific
study comes along to disprove another that was held for years as
established fact, it think it high time that we faced the simple fact
that the word science itself refers to a mode of exploration and not
to the fact that everything that needed exploration has been fully
mapped.

For all that has been brought into the light of understanding in this
world, much still remains in darkness. And for all that the
scientific method can guide us toward, there are still many aspects
of life that stand outside the scientific.

Wrangling such as ours is nothing new. It certainly dates back to
Moleschott's phosphor and reflects the struggle between those who
remained Vitalists and those who broke ranks to grab hold of
Materialism back around 1850. No doubt it dates back further still,
perhaps to Hippocrates and this "twin streams" of medical treatment.
All through medical history, each side of this debate has claimed the
scientific high ground, and each has insisted that the other has been
responsible for the untimely deaths of millions of innocents.

So in our present debate, there is nothing new. Each side is still
claiming the Newtonian high ground, although that "equal and opposite
reaction" certainly seems to give homeopathy the edge, at least in my
opinion.

Nor is there, unfortunately, anything new in either of the opposing
sides--homeopathic and allopathic--trying to remove the other from
the conversation. As each side has any number of zealots, who are
quite convinced of the dangers that the other presents to the sweaty
and suffering masses, there are always those who want to drive the
others into the sea. And so it goes in the UK today. Those who
would drive homeopathy into the sea unite around the battle cry that
homeopathy is dangerous because it does nothing, has no medicinal
impact. Because of this, of course, it is not toxic and cannot cause
harm, so they add the addendum that, because of their foolish belief
in homeopathy, the sweaty and suffering delay real (read: allopathic)
treatment and therefore die horribly. Those who would drive
allopathy into the sea counter with the fact that allopathic medicine
is in no way harmless, and is, instead, toxic in its nature and that
it directly kills those same sweaty and suffering. And yet, somehow,
in spite of it all, humanity continues to reproduce to the point that
it now threatens the planet itself.

Isn't it about time that we simply offer those sweaty and suffering
masses information on the two basic methods of treatment, those that
work against the symptoms associated with illness and those that work
with them and the reasons behind each approach and then allowed the
patients to decide for themselves? Sweaty and suffering as they may
be, they not only have the right to have all forms of medical
treatment available to them--whether you yourself want them to or
not--and the right to choose the method that works best for them,
individual by individual, family by family. Such is the structure of
a healthy, mature society.

As I have taken the time to read and think about your arguments,
Gimpy, I hope that you will do the same for mine. Read any of my
books on the subject of homeopathy--perhaps the most recent, "The
Healing Engima." You can get it at Amazon.

Yours in Similarity,

--Vinton McCabe

Vinton, if you write your books as well as you've written this, they'll be a real pleasure to read. I'll go and take a look on Amazon.

Christine
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com
info not found on mainstream websites!
www.homoeopathyclassical.com
Samuel Hahmenmann's teachings

www.flickr.com/photos/pandeva/collections/
See my pictures - ENJOY!

----- Original Message -----
From: Vinton McCabe
To: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 4:30 PM
Subject: [H] Gimpy, Blogs and All


Dear Gimpy,

I was, I must admit, taken somewhat aback by the passion of your most
recent post--the one in which you listed for us all your two-fold
(three-fold really, but who's counting?) objection to homeopathy.
Because of your posts, I also took some time to read your blog.

Thank you for your considered comments Mr McCabe. I will now comment on them to the best of my ability. Apologies in advance for what will be a length post.
Well I would make no claims about the quality of my writing and fully accept it is not one of my strong points. I think it is fair to say that Goldacre is often paid for his writing, a reasonable indicator of quality, while I receive no money for my blog (not even from big pharma).

I do regret slightly choosing that particular moniker and may change my identity at some point in the future. However, I do think the virtues of anonymity outweigh the drawbacks. While I am anonymous it means that my ideas must be attacked rather than my profession or actions. I am a big believer in the concept that it is ideas that are important, not the individuals behind them. This is why I prefer to take cover behind a pseudonym.
Well I think the arrogance of homeopaths is typified by the complete failure of them to accept the possibility that homeopathy does not work. It is very easy to design experiments with a possible outcome showing a failure of homeopathy to work but homeopaths won't carry out these experiments or won't acknowledge negative results when they are carried out. It seems that nothing can convince a homeopath that homeopathy does not work any better than a placebo. This is arrogance. This leads to the belief of some, possibly most, homeopaths that it can substitute for conventional medicine in the case of serious disease and that homeoprophylaxis is effective.
I resent the accusation that it is akin to racism or bigotry because it is the ideas and actions I attack. Rarely the individuals and only if they are behaving stupidly dangerously. Unlike humanity, not all modes of healthcare are created equal. Science is not democratic, it relies on evidence to prove or disprove theories and does not tolerate wishful thinking for long.
It's not simply a case of disagreeing with your beliefs. It is that science and healthcare should not be based on belief or on prejudice but on evidence. Objective evidence. Not the subjective interpretation of anecdote that homeopathy seems to solely rely upon. The human mind is capable of wonderful acts of self deception and these have to be avoided when investigating matters of science. This isn't a philosophical debate outside the realm of science as you are trying to paint it. This is a debate about whether or not homeopathy works once you strip subjectivity from investigations and the weight of evidence so far says that it does not work. For homeopathy to work its proponents have to create mystical, if not mythical, properties of water, and flatly reject current biochemical explanations of disease. Have you not heard the phrase 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'? If homeopathy did work then frankly it would be wonderful. Disease could be prevented and treated for minimal costs, scientists would have tremendous fun redefining theories and homeopaths could bask in the satisfaction of knowing that they had provided a great gift to humanity. Sadly wanting something to be so does not make it so and healthcare is constrained by rising costs, the slow progression of knowledge and the deadly Darwinian evolution of antibiotic resistance.

AND the pharmaceutical companies will ensure this will never be the case, not because it lacks scientific evidence, but because they will lose millions and all their power. NO WAY will they allow that, and for that reason and that reason only THEIR SCIENTISTS are going to "prove" no matter what that homeopathy cannot work.

Christine
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com
info not found on mainstream websites!
www.homoeopathyclassical.com
Samuel Hahmenmann's teachings

www.flickr.com/photos/pandeva/collections/
See my pictures - ENJOY!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If homeopathy did work then frankly it would be wonderful. Disease could
be prevented and treated for minimal costs, scientists would have
tremendous fun redefining theories and homeopaths could bask in the
satisfaction of knowing that they had provided a great gift to humanity.

--
gimpyblog
------------------------------------------------------------------------
gimpyblog's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/members/gimpyblog.html
View this thread: Gimpy, Blogs and All

Christine, I know you are trying to rationalise your beliefs by invoking the existence of a grand conspiracy but there is no conspiracy, it is your beliefs that need rethought. Scientific findings are written up in papers and submitted to journals so their veracity can be assessed by the judgement of their peers. If there was a conspiracy it would be rapidly exposed unless you are suggesting that the hundreds of thousands of scientists who publish in respectable journals are part of a conspiracy? I don't know why you flat out reject the rationality of science but I urge you to open your mind to the explanations of science.

This is too funny. You obviously have never published in a scientific
journal. [I have published in them and I have served as an editor - so I do
know a little something of this.] Yes peer review is a wonderful thing.
However, those peers chosen to do reviews are chosen by the journal
editors. Reviewers who do not agree with the editors 'judgement' or 'point
of view' may be ignored and more 'peers' are found to do more reviews - at
times excellent papers are simply rejected without explanation. I'm not
big on 'conspiricy theories', but if you define consipracy as a controling
financial interest that governs who gets grants and research funding, who
is hired and fired by universities, who gets published, and who gets
degrees - then I suggest you go visit an major university - and follow the
funding.


If there was a conspiracy it would be
> rapidly exposed unless you are suggesting that the hundreds of thousands
> of scientists who publish in respectable journals are part of a
> conspiracy? I don't know why you flat out reject the rationality of
> science but I urge you to open your mind to the explanations of science.
>

Hello Gimpy:

I too have been following your posts with much interest. Pseudonym or not, you express yourself well and I enjoyed your dissection -- although not your dismissal -- of homeopathy, as you read it, of being unreliable and untrue.

I have been privately studying homeopathy for 25 years now and have witnessed what the current medical establishment might call "miracles". True, it is often hard to explain to laypeople or scientists alike, how or why it does work, I must admit.

But to dismiss this as akin to being archaic or unworthy of further consideration is a huge mistake. I've spoken to several physicians who after years of practice, discover homeopathy and end up studying and practicing it, discarding their previous career or using homeopathy as a valuable adjunct to their current private practices. In fact George Vithoulkas' school in Athens is I believe based on this premise - he teaches medical doctors who wants to practice homeopathy. If you want to witness some class sessions you can do so by viewing some video clips on his excellent website: www.vithoulkas.com His students, by the way, are physicians from around the world.

When friends ask me why I am so enamoured of homeopathy and to explain how it works, I tell them my understanding of the physics and what you might consider the "ethereal" nature of homeopathy is very limited. But this is what I do tell them: that there have been more converts to homeopathy by two single remedies than any others I can think of: Arnica (generally physical trauma of any kind - acute or chronic) and Rhus Tox, which I feel suits many people's (not all) arthritic complaints - even serious rheumatic or osteoarthritis.

My own mother suffered for 8 years with OA, severe enough to warrant a customized brace on each arm at bedtime so her hands and fingers wouldn't permantly curl inwards. She was on daily doses of Celebrex for that many years and it had ceased to do its work with increasing doses. I gave her one dose of Rhus Tox (I'll omit the potency since it's very individualized) and her arthritis was gone - never to have returned these last 7 years and she is now 73 years of age and pain free.

So as you are a skeptic, just please remember our community down the road when you are looking for alleviatation of whatever illness, pain, emotional or mental afflication that may enter your life, and after you have exhausted the current drug regimen in whatever therapeutic class is out there at the time. We'll point you in the right directions, help you find a homeopath and to generally support you in your struggle. Hopefully of course, it will never come to that.


Martha
Brampton, Ontario, Canada



Gimpy said:

that down the line> Objective evidence. Not the subjective interpretation of> anecdote that homeopathy seems to solely rely upon. The human mind is> capable of wonderful acts of self deception and these have to be avoided> when investigating matters of science. This isn't a philosophical> debate outside the realm of science as you are trying to paint it. This> is a debate about whether or not homeopathy works once you strip> subjectivity from investigations and the weight of evidence so far says> that it does not work. For homeopathy to work its proponents have to> create mystical, if not mythical, properties of water, and flatly reject> current biochemical explanations of disease. Have you not heard the> phrase 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'? If> homeopathy did work then frankly it would be wonderful. Disease could> be prevented and treated for minimal costs, scientists would have> tremendous fun redefining theories and homeopaths could bask in the> satisfaction of knowing that they had provided a great gift to humanity.> Sadly wanting something to be so does not make it so and healthcare is> constrained by rising costs, the slow progression of knowledge and the> deadly Darwinian evolution of antibiotic resistance.> > > -- > gimpyblog> ------------------------------------------------------------------------> gimpyblog's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/member.php?userid=11449> View this thread: http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=9262> >

gimpyblog,

On Dec 30, 2007, at 11:48 AM, homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com wrote:

> you wrote: I do think the virtues
> of anonymity outweigh the drawbacks. While I am anonymous it means
> that
> my ideas must be attacked rather than my profession or actions. I am a
> big believer in the concept that it is ideas that are important, not
> the
> individuals behind them. This is why I prefer to take cover behind a
> pseudonym.

That's reasonable. But then make sure you are giving fair treatment to
the ideas--not only to the ones whose "pedigree" you approve of. Such
as--

you wrote:
> Well I think the arrogance of homeopaths is typified by the complete
> failure of them to accept the possibility that homeopathy does not
> work.

That's silly.
Why would anyone spend years learning and practicing something that
isn't working? Why would parents such as myself take our kids and
spouses and selves in for treatment that isn't working? You aren't
giving us credit for being rational...

What about the arrogance of people such as yourself, who are failing to
accept the possibility that homeopathy *does* work? *Have* you given
any serious consideration to that possibility?

Again, I am waiting for you to look at the three cases I sent, and
comment.

> It is very easy to design experiments with a possible outcome showing a
> failure of homeopathy to work but homeopaths won't carry out these
> experiments or won't acknowledge negative results when they are carried
> out.

?? (amused) Well yes, it is easy enough to design a test to show that
something does not work. *Everything* has conditions under which it
will not work: Homeopathy will not work if the chosen remedy is wrong;
or if it is given wrongly; or if it has been incorrectly handled and is
inactive; or if the potency is inappropriate. Etc. If one's goal is
to "prove" that it doesn't work, and if one is offering said "proof" to
people who lack the training to evaluate the trial properly, it can
seem compelling...

Allopathy won't work under similar circumstances. (And note that the
definitions of "work" are significantly different.

So is that the goal, to show that it "doesn't work"? A mouth doesn't
work if it is taped shut. But is that really what we're after, to find
a "failure of homeopathy to work"? Wouldn't it be better to find out
whether, and when, and how, and to what degree, it DOES work? Like,
rather than unplugging the toaster, announcing, "There, I told you
those things don't work!" and throwing it out, wouldn't it be better to
just plug it in? (Unless one's goal is simply to get rid of the
toaster.)

The way you can "plug in" homeopathy, is by setting aside your desire
to see it "not work", and examine the evidence. Talk to people who use
it, and ask them *why*. As them for examples.

> It seems that nothing can convince a homeopath that homeopathy
> does not work any better than a placebo.

Uh, yeah. That's because theory does not carry as much weight as
experience.

> This is arrogance.

? (amused again!) So any time someone refuses to agree with you,
they are arrogant? :-)

And are *you* equally arrogant for failing to believe *us*, when we
tell you that it *does* work? Great, let's all be Arrogant together!
It's so much easier than just laying out experiences and examining
them! (Hopefully you'll comment on the cases I sent at some point. If
you want more cases, many more can be sent to you, and we can direct
you at numerous books and websites. "Impossible Cure" is a nice one
about a child's "impossible" recovery via homeopathy from autism,
written by his mother...)

> This leads to the belief of some, possibly most, homeopaths that it
> can substitute
> for conventional medicine in the case of serious disease

Oh, I would definitely say "most". I'm tempted to say "all", but I try
to avoid speaking in absolutes.

That's because it can. Again, why not ask for some *cases* where
homeopathy was "subustitute[d] for conventional medicine in the case of
serious disease"? And why not go all-out, and ask for cases where such
was done and the results FAR SURPASSED what would have been expected
from conventional treatment? The literature and practice of homeopathy
is absolutely crammed with examples.

GB, I'm curious, have you read *any* of the writings of homeopaths that
describe these things? There are many, both historical and current.
Would you like references?

> and that homeoprophylaxis is effective.

I think I will not pursue arguing that particular point; but I suggest
again that you look up Isaac Golden's work on the subject.

[...]

> [... S]cience and healthcare should not be based on belief or on
> prejudice but
> on evidence. Objective evidence.

Yeah, we have a lot of that, but you haven't read it, and don't like
what it's saying...
You're being *quite* selective in which "evidence" you consider
worthy...

> Not the subjective interpretation of anecdote

We have plenty that's very objective too; plenty that's documented with
lab results, photos and videos and etc. Would that help?

One you might enjoy looking at is on www.drmitra.net, the website of
an Indian homeopath. He has a couple of (very brief) video cases of a
homeopathic cure of psoriasis, shown very clearly on a little video.
It's under his heading "links".

> that homeopathy seems to solely rely upon.

You don't know *what* homeopathy relies on, since you have not taken
the time to investigate it. We learn how to use remedies, by seeing
how they *work*.

> The human mind is capable of wonderful acts of self deception and
> these have to be avoided when investigating matters of science.

Yes indeed! So take up the challenge, and truly investigate, not just
repeating other people's dogma. Until you do that--and do it
honestly--you are just shooting hot air.

> This isn't a philosophical
> debate outside the realm of science as you are trying to paint it.
> This
> is a debate about whether or not homeopathy works once you strip
> subjectivity from investigations and the weight of evidence so far says
> that it does not work.

No, the "weight of evidence" says that it *does* work.
As far as studies, different ones say different things. There are many
that do indeed say that "homeopathy works"; have you truly not *seen*
any of these, or are you just choosing to assume that those are the
ones that are biased? Do you *want* to read studies that show
homeopathy in a positive light, or do you want to just keep repeating
what your fellow naysayers are spouting? Do you want to *know* whether
it works, or do you want to just keep clinging to the uninformed limb
you're hanging off of? (pardon my mixed metaphor)

> For homeopathy to work its proponents have to
> create mystical, if not mythical, properties of water,

Oh my, no. It *worked* long before any of that came up.
Some people do think we should quit trying to *explain* it for now, tho!

> and flatly reject current biochemical explanations of disease.

?? What are you referring to?

> Have you not heard the
> phrase 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'? If
> homeopathy did work then frankly it would be wonderful.

Yep, it is wonderful. If only you knew...

> Disease could be prevented and treated for minimal costs,

Yep.
And yet, it would probably never "take over" and become "the
mainstream", for a variety of reasons. Not enough homeopaths, for one
thing. But also, not everybody wants to work that way, either from the
healer's end (it certainly doesn't pay as well) or from the patient's.
For instance, my husband's family is crammed with people who just want
to take their prescribed drugs, eat their junk food and party on,
sigh... My father's family is crammed with surgeries and joint
replacements, and they all *looooove* their doctors! Homeopathy
requires a different approach, and appeals to different people.

So hey, what trouble are *we* causing the likes for *you*, anyway? Who
died and made you head of the playground, hm?

> scientists would have tremendous fun redefining theories

Oh, that will never end, with or without homeopathy. It's what
scientists *do*, look for things they don't understand! :-)

> and homeopaths could bask in the satisfaction of knowing that they had
> provided a great gift to humanity.

LOL! Whatever.
I've long been basking in the satisfaction of knowing I've provided a
happier, healthier childhood to my kids, and the satisfaction of
knowing that I'm happier and healthier than I would have been...

> Sadly wanting something to be so does not make it so

Right again.
So if you want to *know* whether homeopathy works, you have some
reading ahead of you. Let us know if you want referrals to books.

> and healthcare is constrained by rising costs, the slow progression of
> knowledge and the deadly Darwinian evolution of antibiotic resistance.

Uh, yeah! They could use our help, frankly--and sadly, we at times
need theirs too. None of us--no person, no method, no "camp"--is or
will be prepared to handle everything that will be coming down the
pipeline. (Tho some of us come closer than others.) Which is another
reason that it seems really insane do be doing a "first train out of
Dodge" number of poor li'l ol' homeopaths, doing nobody any harm, and
frankly doing a whole lot of good here and there.

Shannon

I DON'T reject the rationality of science. I am very glad we have it. I reject FRAUDULENT SCIENCE. Some of the writings in the journals are not written by the scientists themselves. I'll see if I can find some more info on that; I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere. Neither am I suggesting anything is a conspiracy - you are using that word, not me. What I am saying is the method used by scientists to determine what might constitute as "scientific evidence" is not going to work in some cases, because this world involves more than just the laws of science, and even science doesn't know all there is to know, and many times we have seen so-called scientific evidence being disproved many years down the line - SO SCIENCE doesn't have the perfect system, yet, for determining what is possible and what isn't in every case.

I'm sure you'll learn something from the following:

http://www.quantec.ch/english/biocom...y_quantec.html

Sensational study of University of Leipzig

Karen Nieber, a professor of pharmacology, merely wanted to prove that homeopathy doesn't work. She argued that with potencies higher than X 23 not a single molecule of the original tincture could possibly be present, mathematically speaking, and that no pharmacological effect would be possible.



In the search for an experimental setup in which any possible placebo effect can be ruled out, she had a brilliant idea: she put a rat's intestine in a fluid culture medium and used organic threads to fix it to a sensor so that she could measure any shortening of the intestine caused by cramps. Then she added a stimulant (atropine) to the fluid culture medium to produce severe cramps in the rat's intestine. The intestine shrank and the scales showed a strong traction.

When she then added belladonna X 90 to the culture medium, the intestine relaxed and the scales showed less traction. This proved that homeopathy is effective in the absence of any material substances - and in 2003 she won the € 10,000 Hans Heinrich Reckeweg award. Click here to read more about studies that confirm the efficacy of homoeopathic treatments.

The connection to QUANTEC

QUANTEC too works with the homeopathic principle, which concerns more the transmission of information than material substances. And with QUANTEC we have been able to demonstrate several times that it really works.





Christine
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com
info not found on mainstream websites!
www.homoeopathyclassical.com
Samuel Hahmenmann's teachings

www.flickr.com/photos/pandeva/collections/
See my pictures - ENJOY!

----- Original Message -----
From: homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com
To: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 6:38 PM
Subject: [H] Re: Gimpy, Blogs and All



> AND the pharmaceutical companies will ensure this will never be the
> case, not because it lacks scientific evidence, but because they will
> lose millions and all their power. NO WAY will they allow that, and for
> that reason and that reason only THEIR SCIENTISTS are going to "prove"
> no matter what that homeopathy cannot work.

Christine, I know you are trying to rationalise your beliefs by
invoking the existence of a grand conspiracy but there is no conspiracy,
it is your beliefs that need rethought. Scientific findings are written
up in papers and submitted to journals so their veracity can be assessed
by the judgement of their peers. If there was a conspiracy it would be
rapidly exposed unless you are suggesting that the hundreds of thousands
of scientists who publish in respectable journals are part of a
conspiracy? I don't know why you flat out reject the rationality of
science but I urge you to open your mind to the explanations of science.


--
gimpyblog
------------------------------------------------------------------------
gimpyblog's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/members/gimpyblog.html
View this thread: Gimpy, Blogs and All

From: Dogs on Holiday-UK
To: homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: [H] Re: Gimpy, Blogs and All


I DON'T reject the rationality of science. I am very glad we have it. I reject FRAUDULENT SCIENCE. Some of the writings in the journals are not written by the scientists themselves. I'll see if I can find some more info on that; I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere. Neither am I suggesting anything is a conspiracy - you are using that word, not me. What I am saying is the method used by scientists to determine what might constitute as "scientific evidence" is not going to work in some cases, because this world involves more than just the laws of science, and even science doesn't know all there is to know, and many times we have seen so-called scientific evidence being disproved many years down the line - SO SCIENCE doesn't have the perfect system, yet, for determining what is possible and what isn't in every case.

I'm sure you'll learn something from the following:

http://www.quantec.ch/english/biocom...y_quantec.html

Sensational study of University of Leipzig

Karen Nieber, a professor of pharmacology, merely wanted to prove that homeopathy doesn't work. She argued that with potencies higher than X 23 not a single molecule of the original tincture could possibly be present, mathematically speaking, and that no pharmacological effect would be possible.



In the search for an experimental setup in which any possible placebo effect can be ruled out, she had a brilliant idea: she put a rat's intestine in a fluid culture medium and used organic threads to fix it to a sensor so that she could measure any shortening of the intestine caused by cramps. Then she added a stimulant (atropine) to the fluid culture medium to produce severe cramps in the rat's intestine. The intestine shrank and the scales showed a strong traction.

When she then added belladonna X 90 to the culture medium, the intestine relaxed and the scales showed less traction. This proved that homeopathy is effective in the absence of any material substances - and in 2003 she won the € 10,000 Hans Heinrich Reckeweg award. Click here to read more about studies that confirm the efficacy of homoeopathic treatments.

The connection to QUANTEC

QUANTEC too works with the homeopathic principle, which concerns more the transmission of information than material substances. And with QUANTEC we have been able to demonstrate several times that it really works.





Christine
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com
info not found on mainstream websites!
www.homoeopathyclassical.com
Samuel Hahmenmann's teachings

www.flickr.com/photos/pandeva/collections/
See my pictures - ENJOY!

----- Original Message -----
From: homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com
To: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 6:38 PM
Subject: [H] Re: Gimpy, Blogs and All



> AND the pharmaceutical companies will ensure this will never be the
> case, not because it lacks scientific evidence, but because they will
> lose millions and all their power. NO WAY will they allow that, and for
> that reason and that reason only THEIR SCIENTISTS are going to "prove"
> no matter what that homeopathy cannot work.

Christine, I know you are trying to rationalise your beliefs by
invoking the existence of a grand conspiracy but there is no conspiracy,
it is your beliefs that need rethought. Scientific findings are written
up in papers and submitted to journals so their veracity can be assessed
by the judgement of their peers. If there was a conspiracy it would be
rapidly exposed unless you are suggesting that the hundreds of thousands
of scientists who publish in respectable journals are part of a
conspiracy? I don't know why you flat out reject the rationality of
science but I urge you to open your mind to the explanations of science.


--
gimpyblog
------------------------------------------------------------------------
gimpyblog's Profile: http://www.otherhealth.com/members/gimpyblog.html
View this thread: Gimpy, Blogs and All