I was just glossing over that and presuming it to be something to do with the way people used language back then.

The use of Specifics in Classical Homeopathy is legitimate in the treatment of epidemic diseases. Epidemic diseases seem to disturb the health in a uniform way, regardless of the particular sensitivities of the individual. Therefore, there is less need for individualisation in epidemics.

In the 1918 'flu epidemic, the specific medicine was Gelsemium.

In the 1830 cholera epidemic, Hahnemann identified the specific medicines without ever having seen a case of the disease. They were Camphor, Cuprum Met. and Veratrum Album.

__________________
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.

You have asked for statistical and clinical surveys in support of homeopathy and requested references.

You have been provided with a comprehensive, well-referenced thesis detailing the precise statistics for the treatment of cholera (a comprehensive clinical survey) and you can't even be bothered to read it? Once again you attempt to dismiss valid evidence with flippant remarks. Being dismissive of the evidence does not negate the evidence itself Mr Hans. It simply makes the individual appear arrogant and foolish.

It is becoming obvious, Mr Hans, that you are one of those people that continues to insist he is right long after he has been unequivocally proved wrong. Is there any point in continuing to debate this with you?

Q: If statistical/ clinical evidence is good enough to justify mass immunisation, especially considering the current concerns of some of the medical community regarding this practice - why isn't the same considered valid in relation to homeopathy?

Address the question please, Mr Hans.

__________________
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.

From "Homeopathic Drug Pictures, by M.L. Tyler, ISBN 0 85032 021 6, 1995, Preface (page xv):

Moreover that Homœopathy can successfully combat a disease never seen, but whose symptoms are known, was abundantly proved by statistics, which poured in from all parts of the world when cholera, described by Hahnemann as "that mysterious and murderous pest" was "rushing on Europe in 1830". He prepared his followers to deal with it, with what success the following statistics, amoun many others, exemplify. His chief remedies were camphor, for the early stages; very frequently repeated, "till consciousness, rest and sleep return, and he is saved".

Camphor poisoning displays all the symptoms of early cholera. "In the second and more difficult stage of clonic spasmodic character, with vomiting, purging and excessively painful cramp in calves, etc., if Camphor has not helped in fifteen minutes give Cuprum, in potency, every hour or half-our; or, where there are excessive vomiting, excessive purging, excessive cold sweats the remedy is Veratrum alb."

We read, inter alia, "Cholera came first by way of Russia. The Russian Consul General reported results from Homœopathic treatment in Russia in 1830-1. Of 70 cases treated in two places, all were cured. And of 1,270 cases, 1,162 were cured and only 108 died. (The allopathic mortality in Russia was 60-70 percent.)"[1]

Dr. Wiled, an allopathic surgeon (Ed. Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medicine), in his Austria, its Literary, Scientific and Medical Treatments, wrote: "Upon comparing the report made of the treatment of cholera in the Homœopathic Hospital at Vienna with that of the other hospitals a the same time, it appears that while two-thirds of those treated homœopathically were cured, two-thirds of those treated by the other hospitals died. This extraordinary result led Count Kolowrat, Minister of the Interior, to repeal the law relative to the practice of Homœopathy.[1]

A Dr. Perrussel (South of France) attended the poor villagers who have been suffering from sweating sickness and from cholera. His mortality under (homœopathic) treatment was 5 to 7 percent. ; the allopathic mortality here was 90 percent.[2]

In Guatemala in 1854, a Baptist missionary was given ten days imprisonment by a coroner. His real offence was curing, by gratuitous administration of homœopathic medicines, a large proportion of cholera patients, when the hospital treatment did not cure one.

In 1854 Cholera broke out violently round our, then, London Hospital, whose 25 beds were devoted to the treatment of cholera and choleraic diarrhoea. Returns give 61 cases of cholera with 10 deaths, and 341 cases of choleraic diarrhoea with 1 death. While, besides the cases treated in hospital or 1,200 bottles of Camphor were given to the poor who flocked in crowds to get them.

Detailed returns had to be made by all hospitals and practitioners as to treatment and results in cholera. When these were presented to Parliament the homœopathic statistics were missing; were demanded, and had to be produced. The excuse was embodied in the following resolution of the Medical body concerned:

"Resolved that by introducing the returns of homœopathic practitioners, they would not only compromise the value and utility of their average cure, as deduced from the operation of know remedies, but they would give an unjustifiable sanction to an empirical practice alike opposed to the maintenance of truth and to the progress of science." – British Journal of Homœopathy, xiii., p. 466.

But, the most brilliant cholera work was done by D. Rubini in the Naples epidemic of 1854-5. With camphor alone he treated in the R. Albergo dei Poveri 225 cases of cholera without a single death, and 166 soldiers of the 3rd Swiss Regiment with the same success. "Spirits of Camphor", in consequence, for many years –probably still- has borne his name.
Bradford Logic of Figures. States, p. 137. "The aggregate statistics of results of allopathic treatment of cholera in Europe and America a mortality of over 40 per cent. ; statistics of homœopathic treatment a mortality of less than 9 per cent."

1. - Bradford's Logic of Figures (1900).
2. - British Journal of Homœopathy 1854, pp. 521, 686.

__________________
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.

So something uniform, like, say, infecting patients with rhinovirus sprayed up the nose would be treatable with a specific remedy?
It could be an RDBPCT, right?

Rhinoviruses are a major cause of the common cold according to allopathic doctrine (but not according to homeopathic doctrine). A cold is an acute disease and is not the same as a true epidemic disease. We have hundreds of medicines to treat common colds, differentiated by the characteristic symptoms. However, if a common cold is doing the rounds - most cases of that particular cold will respond to a specific remedy (specific to that particular cold, not to common colds in general). The most useful homeopathic medicine this year is likely to be of no use at all next year.

I am preparing a post in response to MRC_Hans's previous nitpicks where I will briefly discuss causation according to homeopathic doctrine. It is another area where homeopathy has a much more comprehensive persepective than allopathic theory. In acute disease the most significant thing to determine in terms of selecting the similar medicine, is it's 'exciting cause'. This can be fluctuating temperatures, wet weather, a sudden chill, etc.

To the homeopath, the cause of a cold is not considered to be a rhinovirus, as the homeopath is more concerned with what made the patient susceptible to the rhinovirus in the first place. If colds were caused by rhinoviruses, as allopathy mistakenly believes, then everyone who came into contact with the virus would develop the cold. This would mean, for example, that if one child in a school developed a cold then the whole school should eventually contract the cold as the virus is spread around. This is clearly not the case. Susceptibility plays a big part.

Incidentally, medical science only recently discovered that catching a chill can result in symptoms of a cold. They conducted an experiment where they made the subjects sit with their feet in buckets of cold water for hours on end. This groundbreaking science was reported on the 6 o'clock news a year or so ago. Until this experiment they had maintained that colds are caused solely by the transmission of germs. After the experiment they mumbled something about how catching a chill can make the blood vessels contract, restricting blood flow and possibly compromising the WBCs ability move around the body and fight the infection.

This a classic example of modern science lagging far behind common knowledge. My Grandmother, and her mother too, knew that catching a chill could give one a cold - that's why she always cautioned me to wear a hat in cold weather. The very fact that we call it a 'cold' suggests that we have known this ever since we developed a word for it. Medical science only 'discovered' it within the last year or so. Ah well, such is modern medical science.

Nice idea though.

__________________
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.

Are you claiming that administering rhinovirus nasally would not infect the patient? Because it's certainly been done. What would be the result of this according to homeopathy? (see below)
Do you mean something by "epidemic" other than its pervasiveness? Other than is meant by normal understanding of the word? If it's administered by doctors to patients, what's the difference?
So infect some patients all with the same virus. Figure out which of your remedies you think cures the cold. Infect more patients. Test with placebo and verum.
How can this be a problem?
Seems to work that way under lab conditions, certainly.
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a controlled trial. I don't care is Wendy in the playground doesn't catch a cold off Peter. Obviously in everyday life some people have full or partial immunity, some have more or less exposure time, etc. Please stay in the context of testing.
Tell me what's wrong with it without contradicting yourself.

O.K.

I do not consider a common cold to be an epidemic disease. I consider it to be an acute disease, which is different, and negates the use of Specifics. I'm not even sure if conventional medicine would consider a cold to be an epidemic disease, would it?

You are making the assumption that the particular strain of rhinovirus is responsible for producing the particular symptom syndrome of the cold. The strain of virus does not determine particular symptoms or we would be able to prescribe a medicine based on the particular strain of virus. The particular symptoms are determined by the current susceptibility of the patient, which is more likely to have been influenced by recent weather, than by the particular strain of rhinovirus present.

Aphhorism 5 of The Organon: "In addition, it will help the phisician to bring about a cure if he can determine the most probable exciting cause in an acute disease..."

I would know which group of medicines to consider if a cold was brought on by catching a sudden chill, or by getting drenched in a downpour, or from exposure to fluctuating temperatures (e.g. current autumn weather). I would not have a clue how to approach the homeopathic treatment of a cold that was artificially induced by spraying rhinovirus up a person's nose. In fact, I would consider it to be quite a challenge and I would not be very hopeful of a cure - the prognosis for homeopathic treatment would be extremely poor IMO.

What is it that you want to test Moopet? If you are looking for evidence that a hyper-dilute medicine can have a specific effect there are suggestions I could make - but this would not be a test of homeopathy. It would be a test of a Specific Hyper-Dilute Medicine. To test homeopathy the medicine must be prescribed according to the Principles of Homeopathy, or it is not homeopathy. There is no getting away from this small but important distinction.

If you would like to test a Specific Hyper-Dilute Medicine, you could give a single dose of Sulphur 30c to every baby that develops eczema within 3 months of an immunisation. More than 60% would show a measurable response within a few weeks of taking the medicine (my estimate), providing no previous treatment had been given. If those that responded were given Sulphur 30c at weekly intervals for 4 weeks, >80% would show a definitive response (my estimate), although you would be likely to see some severe aggravations.

The approach you are looking for is a prescription based on aetiology. This is where symptoms develop subsequent to a specific event that poses a definite shock to the system. Where it is absolutely clear that the shock was the cause of the symptoms, homeopaths will often give an aetiological specific - a prescription specific to the cause. There are usually only a handful of medicines that address a specific aetiological shock. In my opinion, this would be your best approach for testing a Specific Hyper-Dilute Medicine through RDBPCT's.

__________________
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.

Please give examples.

Well, when a patient with eczema takes a homeopathic medicine and the eczema goes away, for example.

1. Science is slowly catching up with Hahnemann and confirming his work. You like the explanation because it is was presented to you in language you can understand - keeping it on a level, so to speak. It is by no means definitive nor comprehensive. You are still in the Dark Ages, remember?

Actually the negative feedback systems involved in homeostasis are a physiological confirmation that the Law of Similars is the Curative Principle in Medicine. To correct you, they are in accordance with this Law although they are not the only example of it. Of course, the processes involved in health, disease and cure are a great deal more complex than this. I am happy to discuss any aspect of homeopathy with you, but let's take things one step at a time.

2. There is no implication that the body can hold only one disease at a time. There is recognition of the fact that the body cannot hold two similar diseases at the same time.

3. Contemporary knowledge of how the body functions is still very much in it's infancy, despite our best efforts. If we can fill a single library with our current knowledge, we could fill a city of libraries with what is still to learn.

4. Knowledge of what causes disease is another is another area where homeopathy has a much more comprehensive perspective than allopathy. Homeopathy recognises that there are usually several factors involved in causation, and not just one. which is prevailing view in allopathy (germ theory).

This is best addressed in a separate post.

My point here is that physics obviously needs to re-evaluate it's perspective. If just one hyper-dilute homeopathic medicine cures an illness (e.g. cholera) in just one case, we have strong evidence that a hyper-dilute medicine has an effect. But when tens of thousands of cases have been published by medically qualified practitioners, we have sufficient evidence to throw our current understanding of physics in to question. Just because science cannot explain how homeopathy works does not mean that it cannot possibly work. It can just as easily mean that our current understanding of physics needs to be updated.


You are missing the essential point that the symptoms themselves are the disease to all intents and purposes. If there are no symptoms how do we know we have a disease? The symptoms are all that need to be removed to return the sick person back to health. The fever is both an effect of the disease and part of the body's reaction to it. If there was no disease there would be no fever - the disease is the cause - the fever is an effect. As the homeopathic medicine produces similar symptoms in the healthy person, it is not counteracting the body's method of fighting the disease - it is intensifying and assisting the body's natural response to the disease, stimulating it along the lines it is has already chosen, working with the body's own natural intelligence, and supporting it's efforts. The direct opposite of what you have suggested.


I wonder if we will look at the practices of immunisation (injecting 6 week old babies with various deadly toxins and attenuated viruses) and chemotherapy (infusing a person with [mostly] heavy metals to the limit of their physical tolerance, with the aim of making the body so toxic that it's functions start to shut down) in a similar way in another 100 years time?



Tedious nitpicking Mr Hans. It is hardly a significant point in the overall discussion, now is it? Tedious, tedious, tedious. Why do want a reference for this insignificant piece of trivia? If you are going to insist that I provide references for every insignificant fact, I shall insist that you do the same. It is, in fact, correct - go read your biographies again!

Tedious nitpicking Mr Hans: "In the fifth century BC[E] Hippocrates (c.470-400 BC[E]), the 'father of medicine', wrote that there were two methods of healing: by 'contraries' and by 'similars'..." Reference: The Complete Homeopathy Handbook: A Guide to Everyday Healthcare by Miranda Castro, Macmillan Publishers, 1990, page 3.

Now please provide a reference from "before the time of Hippocrates" supporting your above comment (yawn).



At last- A valid criticism! The most likely explanation is:

5) Hahnemann had a personal medical history of malarial fever and consequently would have had an increased susceptibility to Chinchona (Peruvian Bark).



It is your understanding of homeopathic doctrine that is at fault here, not homeopathic doctrine itself. Homeopathic Doctrine states that a medicine that is capable of causing a specific symptom syndrome in the healthy will cure the exact same symptom syndrome occurring naturally in a person that is sick.

It does NOT state that a medicine that is capable of curing a specific symptom syndrome in a person who is sick will always cause the exact same symptom syndrome when given to the healthy. This, quite frankly, would be ridiculous, especially in terms of the polychrests, which have many uses. You simply have it the wrong way around.



Once again, the best you can come up with is a dismissive remark that is entirely incorrect. Hahnemann did not declare the Law of Similars a natural law based on the outcome of only a few experiments. He declared it a natural law after thousands of experiments confirmed it consistently. It has since been confirmed by millions of experiments conducted by homeopaths around the world over the last 200 years or so.

Another tedious, dismissive, incorrect comment. Do you have anything of value to contribute to this discussion? How else was he to test his theories? At least he went to the trouble of testing his medicines on the healthy first to ascertain their effects (which had never been thought of by anyone in history before him), of prescribing them according to clearly comprehensible principles (The Law of Similars), of prescribing them as single medicines so that he could assess what they were doing (instead of noxious combinations of lethal poisons prescribed with no idea as to their effects) and gave consideration as to the minimum dose required (as opposed to 'the more the better').



More tedious nitpicking. I said I wasn't entirely sure I had all my facts straight. I wrote that part of the post from memory in less than two minutes. I believe it is generally correct and tells the story concisely. There is a great deal more to the story. It shows that Hahnemann did not develop his theories out of thin air.

Until Hahnemann developed this method many of these substances were considered insoluble in water. The method Hahnemann developed for making mercury soluble is still used to this day. It is a testimony to his competence as a chemist. Succussion is the correct term.



I am not aware of any homeopath who claims otherwise.

You forgot to add 'according to current scientific understanding'. None of Hahnemann's positive theories have been disproved.

See above. This part of the post is biographical and illustrates that Hahnemann did not develop his theories out of thin air - I am making it clear that it is a biographical story and may not be 100% factually correct. It discusses the development of Hahnemann's thinking and some of the experiments that he conducted to test his theories. It has only a cursory relevance to the pure science that is contained within homeopathy itself. This science is being discussed as the thread develops, and there is a great deal more science to discuss - we have hardly begun. We could cover more ground more quickly if you would check your facts before making criticisms - too many of them are of minor relevance and wholly incorrect.

I am flattered that you consider me to be such a great authority on homeopathy that my fallible opinion reflects on the science itself. I am still very much a student of homeopathy - I am continually looking for ways to develop my understanding of its principles and practice. However, I assure you Mr Hans, that homeopathy IS the Science of Medical Therapeutics - the science which makes sense of the processes involved in health, disease and cure, the branch of knowledge or study relating to the administering of medicines for the cure of disease, which has systematically arranged the relevant facts or truths involved in the development of it's defining principles, and importantly, which demonstrates the operation of general Laws.

Q: Does allopathy meet with this definition of a Pure Medical Science?

You have yet to provide a valid criticism for any of my main points. You do not seem to have a main point. I have defended homeopathy from your petty criticisms. You have failed to defend allopathy from my valid criticisms. I am in the process of establishing that homeopathy meets with the definition of a pure science. You have not attempted to show that allopathy meets with any definition of science at all. I am contributing well-developed, cohesive arguments to the discussion. You have contributed very little of value. I can accept that occasionally I might be wrong. You have yet to concede a single point. I have addressed your questions. You have deliberately evaded mine.

__________________
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.

Flippant. Dismissive. Childish (lacks wit).

You are either much cleverer than I thought, Mr Hans, or spectacularly dense. Just how would you go about measuring - lets say for example - the moon's gravitational pull, with a set of weighing scales? Please provide references to back up your claim that prehistoric man was able to do this.

I can measure Vital Force, I can observe it, I know that it exists - it is not mystical to me. You, however, are still in the Dark Ages, remember? For you, the Earth is flat, and the Sun is God and Vital Force is mystical.


Biochemistry explains the physiological processes of life but it doesn't explain what motivates them.

That is not my definition. There are many ways of distinguishing the living from the dead - a heartbeat, for example.

If science really has investigated these things extensively, please provide us with some references or links. Many on this forum would be extremely interested to read them.

Now I would be interested here if I thought I might learn something. Somehow, I'm doubtful. Please enlighten me, Mr Hans (having first made sure that you have not got it backwards like so many times before). Where is the discrepancy?

__________________
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.