No, because I was generalising, based on what has happened in the past. Say we eradicate flu. Then in a thousand years nobody will have any flu antibodies because they're not useful for survival, and we won't have any flu vaccine either. We'll be vulnerable. Say we live in a more and more polluted world, and become tolerant of more smog, because asthmatics are more likely to die before reaching breeding age. That sort of thing.

I have no idea what you just said.

For those that still believe in 'conventional meds and its 'miraculous cures".......

just one example;
http://www.mercola.com/2005/dec/27/i..._for_merck.htm

Who are you quoting there? And while I'm not going to state my feelings on that case one way or another, I'd like to point out that anyone can find instances of conventional drugs that were distributed against advice or before trials were completed or even in some cases against the evidence. That's the way the world is - it doesn't mean that the science behind conventional medicines is wrong, it just means that some flaw crept in, an accident happened or someone got rich off a scam. That happens in every field where a product is sold. It happens in bottled water, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't buy bottled water *in general*.

As of just a few years ago, the scientific community's near blanket recommendation for prevention of heart disease in post-menopausal women was estrogen replacement therapy. Was that science wrong?

http://www.antibiotics.org
info on cipro

http://www.askapatient.com/viewratin...537&name=cipro

more on cipro from patients

http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/drug.html

article on pharmaceutical drugs

What's the point you're making here? Who cares, in the light of the topic here, whether that "science" was wrong? Science isn't like that, it's not a thing to be shown as right or wrong, it's a method applied to help understand and progress. If later research showed a previously accepted treatment to be ineffective or even detrimental, then a new method would succeed it. It's the "learning" process.

Anyone can make a case against any conventional drug. Anyone can make a website about it, too. Anyone can make accusations. Some people can back them up.

A few points to note: even if everything the anti-vaxers, anti-antibioticers, anti-cough-syrupers, anti-surgeryers and anti-bandagers (for all I know)
says is correct (which is unbelievably improbable) then millions of lives have been and are still being saved by these techniques. Taking a ludicrous example, would you press a big red button that saved 99.99% of your country's people from death by alien invasion? Given that the remaining 0.01% had to be executed? Yes, I said it was a ludicrous example, but it's there to indicate moral responsibilities. Reliance on the second-, third- or nth-most-effective cure for a disease is putting the practitioner on extremely dodgy ground (considering for the moment all side-effects to be equal on average).

Consider what sites there would be on the net if parents of children with bacteriological chest infections had had their treatment witheld? There'd be plenty of "government didn't give my baby what she needed to live!" slogans, wouldn't there?

Its for them those who advocate only for Allopathic Medicines:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees...hgo56145_0.HTM
PLEASE NOTE: The following transcript is a portion of the official hearing
record of the Committee on Government Reform. Additional material pertinent to this transcript may be found on the web site of the committee at
[http://www.house.gov/reform]. Complete hearing records are available for review at the committee offices and also may be purchased at the U.S. Government Printing Office.

__________________
Dr.S.K.Pattnaik,HMD,M.D(Alt.Med),Ph.D
Chairman,Indian Council for Holistic Health Care
http://holihealcouncil.forumup.in/
http://artofhealing.freeforums.org/
http://ichhc.tripod.com/

kayveeh,

You deserve a Nobel Prize in Physics for being able to give a description of the force that is behind the TOE (Theory Of Everything) which you call "prime force-mother of all forces". While reputable Physicists as Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne are still trying to come up with TOE, you have been obviously, thought it out yourself prior to the Physicists mentioned as they are still searching for it. This is wishful thinking. It is completely rubbish, such thing as "prime force-mother of all forces" has got nothing to do with homeopathy. Here are some recommendations to homeopaths.

1) Avoid using the term 'energy' in whatever form or derivatives of the word as you frequently use to mean as an entity outside the laws of Physics. Energy in whatever form (heat, vibration, rotation, translation, kinetic, potential, and so forth) is a defined term in Physics that also subjected to the laws of Physics and not outside Physics.

2) Avoid using the term 'force' in whatever form or derivatives of the word as explained in 1). Force in whatever form is a concept or entity in Physics and therefore subjected to the laws of Physics. There is no such thing as force outside the influence of Physics.

3) Avoid using terms that has nothing to do with homeopathy, such as Quantum Entanglement, Chaos Theory, Bifurcation and Non-linear Dynamics, Theory of Complexity, Discrete Dynamical Systems, etc...

If you avoid using steps 1 to 3 and sticks to what homeopathy is about which is treatment, then you will escape being hammered head-on (straight on) about those concepts, as they are irrelevant in relation to homeopathy. Has anyone been to a medical doctor or a vet somewhere and they mention 'Chaos' or 'Quantum Entanglement’ during diagnosis ? I never had and I believe I never will in my lifetime. If you stay out of the rules in 1 to 3, then you would find yourself debating in realistic things like, does this treatment work for allergy,does it work for flu, etc, etc. Don't even try to bring in those terms listed in steps 1 to 3 in an effort to justify the treatment such as, this treatment works because it sends out vibration to the universe and the universe sends back matching vibration that will cure your asthma. The minute you started talking like this, then you are overstepping the mark into the territory of Physics, and therefore an answer in Physics is replied back to the original poster, which might disappoint you when you find out that Physics disallows some of those outrageous claims.

passkey,

Do you understand of what you are talking about, with such terms as Bosons and Quarks , etc ? Or perhaps you want me to explain them to you ? I believe that you are doing a disservice to the homeopathy community by stepping in to a field which I believe you had no idea of what they are ? What are Quarks and Bosons got to do with homeopathy? This is typical mish-mashing words that you use to make argument for homeopathy that perhaps make it sound philosophically based as well as scientifically based. I do not see what is the relevancy of Quarks and Bosons to homeopathy. You should stay out of crossing to the territory of Physics because you are going to get hammered head-on there either by me or someone else in this forum. You should stick to what you are good at in your practice such as discussing sugar pills for treatment of your homeopathy patients.

By the way, do you know what spins of Bosons & Quarks are ? You can look it up on the internet and if you cannot find one, then post back here so that I can tell you what they are.