Methinks your reading comprehension is suffering. I have repeatedly said that while I consider blinded trials the only way, I am open to suggestions for other methods.

Son, I joined this discussion 5 years ago.

There is a fundamental difference between the type of case accounts that exist for homeopathy, and what is considered a clinical record. If there exists a clinical record for homeopathy, I'm not only unaware of it, but homeopaths I have discussed this with for many years have been unable to point to it.

If you are not aware of what constitutes a real clinical record, say so, and I'll try to explain it to you.


There is a LITTLE more to statistics than just mentioning a couple of percentages, but I think you really know this.

If you have some real stastistical evidence (which will be part of a proper clinical record), then I'll be interested in reviewing it.

No.

That is more like it, yes.

It usually takes about ten years to get a drug to the market, so since this one has been on the market for a few years, it will mean that over a decade of clinical experience must exist. But if you want to know the exact answer, I suggest you seek out the approval reports. They will be publicly available.

No. Now, I don't believe homeopathy can cure the diseases in question at all, but even granted it could, it is certainly more cost effective to use a prophylactic vaccination programme than to let people get sick and then treat them, even if the treatment is quite cheap and effective.

Sure, go ahead. But, be aware that a reference is not just a link to some paper that makes the same unfounded claim as you do. It must be verifiable data.

Now you are the one playing with words. What I am saying is that the medical profession is laways concerned about safety and efficacy, of any medicine.

For most types of vaccines, there are no general such concerns, because the safety and efficacy has long since been documented.

I'm not attacking your person, I'm attacking your position. Which is that vaccines are dangerous and inefficient.

Neither do I. Are we talking about anyone I know?

Immune system crippled by immunisation? That doen't even make logical sense.

No, you mentioned a couple of percentages, without reference, without any support.

Sure, let's. Do you know at all what those words mean?

Any you can provide some valid evidence for.

I seem to remember these were discussed elsewhere. I'll see if I can find it.

I know homeopathy is claimed to be without side effects, but how do you know? Where are your follow-up surveys? Where is your reporting system?

.... I can tell you where: Both are non-existent. You claim that there are no side effects, but you have no way of knowing.

I presented a small faction of the evidence. All in formal report form. But I'm beginning to suspect that you don't understand the difference between that and a bunch of anecdotes.


Hans

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

A couple of percentages!!!

You call "The AGGREGATE STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR THE TREATMENT OF CHOLERA IN EUROPE AND AMERICA" a couple of percentages???

Just let me emphasise - that is mortality rates for ALL HOSPITALS IN THE ENTIRE CONTINENT OF EUROPE AND THE WHOLE OF AMERICA!!!

And you dismiss that as a couple of percentages! LMAO!!!

And you want people to take you seriously as a scientist? Maths really isn't your strong point is it Mr Hans?

Address the question please - you are rapidly losing all credibility.

__________________
These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

I think that it has to be remembered that Homeopathy did and does present a conundrum for all the allopathists and their apologists. Homeopathy grew up within an era where epidemics were raging throughout the western world. How is it then that it has survived? It could only be that it is effective in treatment and prevention of disease. Are all the practitioners of Homeopathy today totally deluded and at best are only seeing a placebo effect?

Yeah right! Get real! Such a pointless game does fly in the face of common sense, which apparently I am suffering a lack of.

How come all the nay sayers - who at best could only be called theoretical (this is a very polite term for them) practitioners of homeopathy don't get their hands dirty by really studying and applying the art and science of Homeopathy? Could it be that like all critics they can't be bothered or more likely are so unsuited to this way that they must hide within the ironclad walls of of willfulness, hand sitting, doing the opposite of what works and refusing to tolerate any difference?

If it works it works, doesn't matter how many papers you look at. Simply put, there is no money in it for the forces of Pharmageddon. They don't give a toss, really they don't. Money and power is their god and they are willing to sacrifice everyone for their personal gain. Put someone on allopathic medication for long enough, get some "side effects" (direct effects) give more medication to control these, ad nauseum, and you have a paying customer for the rest of their now miserable life. If you reckon that this is good medicine then look again, "First do no harm".

Miracles are performed every day in the modern medical arena, truly they are, surgery and the A&E departments work wonders, diagnostics are better that ever (it all costs $$$) and yet we dare bring a potent force in practicing Homeopathy to which you cry "sympathetic magic, lies and delusion". Check it out, get a life and make a difference in the time you've been given.

Brad

MRC-Hans,

Thank you for the answer and I'm glad to note that you are interested in these issues, but you are also right that maybe it's a different topic, so I'll not go on with my questions and comments here and now.

One comment, however, I thought I should make - about "cost-effectiveness". Japanese education has been recently assessed from this angle and found cost-effective - but if you could ever interact on the daily basis with the "products" of this education as I do, there is just no way that you would not have started to doubt whether this approach - involving notions such as "market-place" and "cost-effectiveness" etc. - is of any use at all when dealing with any basic human activity, be it healthcare or education or anything else, and that humanity urgently needs to find a different approach to solve its problems of survival - or it won't survive.

Quote by sim:
................................ If there are epidemics, homeopathy has a proven track record in effectively treating these diseases....................................




Homeopathy continued to be effective in the treatment of Epidemic
Cholera. In 1854 a Cholera Epidemic struck London. This was a
historically important epidemic in that it was the first time the
medical community was able to trace the outbreak to a source (a public
water pump), and when the pump was closed, the epidemic soon ceased.
The House of Commons asked for a report about the various methods of
treating the epidemic. When the report was issued, the homeopathic
figures were not included. The House of Lords asked for an explanation,
and it was admitted that if the homeopathic figures were to be included
in the report, it would "skew the results." The suppressed report
revealed that under allopathic care the mortality was 59.2% while under
homeopathic care the mortality was only 9%.

It is hard today to comprehend what kind of scourge such an epidemic
was. As was seen in the later Flu Epidemic of 1918, one could be
healthy in the morning and be dead by evening-- it moved that rapidly.
Many books were written about the Homeopathic treatment of Cholera
during these times, among them: Cholera and its Homeopathic treatment,
F. Humphreys (1849); Homeopathic Treatment of Cholera, B.F. Joslin
(1854); Homeopathic Domestic Treatment of Cholera, Biegler (1858);
Epidemic Cholera, B. F. Joslin (1885); Asiatic Cholera, Jabez Dake
(1886).

The success of homeopathic treatment continued with the later cholera
epidemics. In the Hamburg epidemic of 1892, allopathic mortality was
42%, homeopathic mortality was 15.5% During the 1850s, there were
several epidemics of Yellow Fever in the southern states. This disease
was eventually found to be transmitted by mosquito. Osler, says that
the allopathic mortality from Yellow Fever is between 15-85%. Holcome,
a homeopath, reported in 1853 a mortality of 6.43% in Natchez, and Dr.
Davis, another homeopath in Natchez, reported 5.73%. In 1878 the
mortality in New Orleans was 50% under allopathic care, and 5.6% (in
1,945 cases in the same epidemic) with homeopathic care.

The two best books on this topic were: Yellow Fever and its Homeopathic
Treatment, Holcome, (1856) and The Efficacy of Crotalus Horridus in
Yellow Fever, C. Neidhard, (1860).

Another epidemic disease which was treatable with homeopathy was
Diphtheria. Since the advent of widespread vaccination, it is a disease
not often seen in our modern world. Diphtheria appeared periodically,
and rarely had the same presentation. It was, therefore, very important
for the practitioner to individualize the treatment in each specific
case or generalized epidemic. A remedy which had been effective in
treating it one year might not be the same remedy needed the next year.

__________________
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

Perhaps the most recent use of homeopathy in a major epidemic was during
the Influenza Pandemic of 1918. The Journal of the American Institute
for Homeopathy, May, 1921, had a long article about the use of
homeopathy in the flu epidemic. Dr. T A McCann, from Dayton, Ohio
reported that 24,000 cases of flu treated allopathically had a mortality
rate of 28.2% while 26,000 cases of flu treated homeopathically had a
mortality rate of 1.05%. This last figure was supported by Dean W.A.
Pearson of Philadelphia (Hahnemann College) who collected 26,795 cases
of flu treated with homeopathy with the above result.

The most common remedy used was Gelsemium, with occasional cases needing
Bryonia and Eupatorium reported. Dr. Herbert A. Roberts from Derby,
CT, said that 30 physicians in Connecticut responded to his request for
data. They reported 6,602 cases with 55 deaths, which is less than 1%.
Dr. Roberts was working as a physician on a troop ship during WWI. He
had 81 cases of flu on the way over to Europe. He reported, "All
recovered and were landed. Every man received homeopathic treatment. One
ship lost 31 on the way."

Closer to our present time, there were the Polio epidemics in the
mid-1950s. Dr. Alonzo Shadman, a homeopath in the Boston area,
emphasized that until *actual paralysis* was observed, it was hard to
distinguish the prodromal symptoms of Polio from those of the common
cold-- and he treated many "summer colds" during the time. Were they
incipient polio? No one can tell.

Dr. Francisco Eizayaga or Argentina, tells of a polio epidemic in
Buenos Aires in 1957, where the symptoms of the epidemic resembled those
of the remedy Lathyrus sativa. The homeopathic doctors and pharmacies
prescribed Lathyrus 30c as a prophylactic, and "thousands of doses" were
distributed. "Nobody registered a case of contagion."
Eizayaga points out that in other epidemics of polio, Gelsemium was the
indicated remedy-- emphasizing, again, the need for individualization.

Homeopathy has been very effective in treating many of the epidemics
during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Why the successes are not
better known is a subject for conjecture. It could be that, like the
physician quoted below, most would rather not see the ineffectiveness of
the conventional therapeutics nor accept the efficacy of homeopathy.
From "Homeopathy In Influenza-A Chorus Of Fifty In Harmony" by W. A.
Dewey, MD (Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, May 1921):

One physician in a Pittsburgh hospital asked a nurse if she knew
anything better than what he was doing, because he was losing many
cases. "Yes, Doctor, stop aspirin and go down to a homeopathic
pharmacy, and get homeopathic remedies." The Doctor replied: "But that
is homeopathy." "I know it, but the homeopathic doctors for whom I have
nursed have not lost a single case."--W. F. Edmundson, MD, Pittsburgh.

--

__________________
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

When the House of Lords challenged the Board of Health about suppressing these figures, the Board explained... "The figures would give sanction to a practice opposed to the maintenance of truth and the progress of science."

So they told a Whopping Great Big Lie in order to 'maintain the truth' and manipulated the statistics for the sake of the progress of science!

Love it!

__________________
These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I seem to no longer be getting emails telling me when someone's replied.
We have a slight problem though - your comment above was directed to me saying two things, and you seem to be ignoring one of them.

One was that you can see clinical statistical results in a population before and after the vaccine is used, which we seem to both agree (from slightly different viewpoints) is good but not conclusive evidence.

The other was that you can inject someone and tell whether they have received verum or placebo afterwards by checking antibodies. This is a simple procedure which can be blinded, and will produce pretty damn conclusive evidence that the drug is doing *something* and that it actually *exists*.

I'm not sure what your point is Moopet - are you now changing your opinion that the only truly scientific way to measure a medicine's efficacy is through RDBPCT's?

What is your opinion on the above examples, posted by Gina? Results for homeopathic treatment of epidemic diseases, with a frighteningly high mortality rate, is pretty impressive isn't it? Look at the fear that still exists regarding the 1918 'flu epidemic - look at the scare-mongering in recent times in relation to bird 'flu and the comparisons that have been made with the 1918 epidemic. Look at the mortality rates (<1%) in homeopathic hospitals. Compare that to mortality rates for allopathic hospitals or for no treatment at all. Does that not convince you that homeopathic treatment does 'something' at least, even if you do not understand how a hyper-dilute medicine can have a measurable effect?

You keep using the word 'magic' in relation to homeopathic medicines. Here is quote from Arthur C Clarke (I believe):

"Any sufficiently advanced technology will seem like magic to a primitive people", or something like that anyway.

This is not intended as an insult, but simply to demonstrate the fact that, just because science does not yet have an explanation for how homeopathy works, it does not necessarily follow that it cannot possibly work. You yourself have commented that science is constantly improving it's understanding of the world and that things that were previously considered facts (the earth is flat) are often found to be entirely wrong as our understanding of the world deepens, and so the science books are re-written.

When there is such an overwhelming abundance of convincing evidence in favour of homeopathy, such as in the examples above, is it not likely that our current understanding of the relationship between matter and energy needs updating?

Vital Energy is that which either a) is generated by living things or b) generates living things, depending on your belief system. It really isn't that different to other types of energy, such as radiation or electricity. Conventional science has never investigated it because it has always considered it to be within the domain of the Church and consequently not to do with science - to do faith not fact if you like, not to mention the fact that the Church has been extremely powerful up until recent times.

This is probably the first time in history when we can openly investigate this Energy scientifically. Why is no-one doing it? It is undeniable that this energy exists. Children have it in abundance, the elderly do not, and the dead have none at all. It is something different to the human Spirit and Soul. It is Vital Energy. Life Energy. Conventional Science in general knows nothing about it - it has never even looked at it. Why not? It has fully investigated all other known forms of energy in our Universe!

Hahnemann's work is the only known scientific investigation into Vital Energy, and it's influence in health, disease and cure. When our Vital Energy becomes disturbed through various stresses we develop symptoms of disease. As disease is essentially a disturbance of this Life Energy, it requires a 'dynamic' medicine to correct the disturbance in order to cure the disease - hence the need for hyper-dilute medicines. Ever heard of someone dying of a broken heart? This is clearly not due to a physical cause.

Homeopathy is the Pure Science of Medical Therapeutics (the science which governs the administering of medicines in order to cure disease). I would love to tell you more about this science, if you are interested to know more. Why don't you ask some questions and I will do my best to answer them?

I hope you appreciate that I am letting you off the hook by allowing the discussion to move on, but only because I believe you are sincere (unlike MRC_Hans). It isn't easy to change one's view of the world- it can only happen slowly over time. There was once a time when people couldn't see how the Earth could be a sphere - obviously they were looking at it and could clearly see that it was flat. But spherical it is and humankind has had to change its perspective on this - a paradigm shift.

Homeopathy works. It is the true Science of Medical Therapeutics and, like it or not, humankind will eventually have to change it's perspective. I hope it is sooner rather than later, for the sake of mankind, and for the sake of our fragile existence on this ailing planet.

Regards
Sim

__________________
These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

I can't think how I can make my position any clearer without just repeating the same things again.
No opinion on anything Gina writes, or rather doesn't write. Everything she posts is pasted from other forum posts by other people with no thought of her own. Half of them stop in the middle of the argument or are dead links or in other languages. If you have a nugget you've extracted, post it and I will take a look.
No. But it does indicate that the methods used are worth investigating further.
I remember the quote, it's a popular one, and good one. I see your point, and I haven't seen anyone use that argument before.
Homeopathy has never pretended to be an advanced technology.
For instance, while showing a stone-age man a television would probably impress him, televisions weren't made up by someone working in a cave, and supported by cavemen who were convinced that while they didn't know how it worked, it just did. All attempts to describe the method by which homeopathy is supposed to work are struggling, at best. Water memory isn't viable, there are no vital forces which have been discovered...
What I'm obviously not saying is that it's impossible for us to discover, in years to come, a viable method for homeopathy to work. A technology to support it.
I am saying that's not here now, and we shouldn't wast time trying to make a TV before we can show it works on electricity (homeopathic laws) and not steam (placebo).
Are you saying, for example (not ignoring the rest of your comments, just picking out the one challenge) that stress is not physiological?
I have only the preliminary questions to ask: How can you prove that it works, what evidence is there, what is the method of operation, where is the science, can you show that a vital force exists, etc. If we ever get past those, I don't know.
I don't want to sidetrack this any further either, but why do you think MRC_Hans is not sincere?

Let me take a moment to explain my position here:
I think the position of a lot of skeptics is simply 'screw homeopathy'. I lean that way myself depending on how bad the threads get. But I like the conversation, mostly, and I am curious as to why people defend it in the face of conventional medicine/science and I like to keep track of what's going on in this tiny part of the world. I don't know which politicians are in charge at any time but I like the things I like. So this is a hobby.
If homeopathy could prove itself to my satisfaction - which probably means proving it to the satisfaction of most of the scientific establishment - then I wouldn't be unhappy that I had been skeptical of it. I also wouldn't be upset that it was true. It would mean re-evaluating a lot of modern science and could lead to all sorts of exciting advances. For making my lifetime more interesting and a more fun time to live in, it'd be great if it was true. But I don't expect it to be because it looks just like pseudoscience.