otherhealth.com  

Go Back   otherhealth.com > Homeopathy > Research and the Scientific Validity of Homeopathy

View Poll Results: Which is more scientific? Homeopathy or Allopathy
Homeoapthy 13 61.90%
Allopathy 3 14.29%
Can't Say 5 23.81%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #501 (permalink)  
Old 24th March 2011, 08:19 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,218
MRC_Hans is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Strictly speaking and according to Popper: no. You can't apply scientific methods outside the field of science PER DEFINITION.
Definitions seldom survive meeting the real world.

Quote:
Because science is defined (and here I agree with you) to be that part of knowledge which can be learned by the application of scientific methods. Scientific methods imply and are based on the repeatability, verifiability and falsifiability of its statements and premises.
OK, fine then. However, a surprising number of scientist will be surprised to know they are not working with science. Astronomers, meteorologists, biologists ....

Quote:
Most knowledge in medicine is not repeatable and therefore not verifiable or falsifiable.
I disagree. Our knowledge in medicine is certainly not absolute, but the say it is not repeatable and verifiable (not to mention falsifiable) is wrong.

Our predictive power in medicine is not 100%, but less will do in the real world.

Quote:
For example: the same medication may act in an unpredictable way and different from time to time.
I cannot say for sure that no such medication exists, but certainly most recognized medicines are pretty predictable.

However, if you insist on your all or nothing approach, perhaps you need to ponder where that leaves homeopathy.

Quote:
Treatment in allopathic medicine is most of the times a trial and error approach. If one medication doesn't work, let's try another one.
Well, the term 'allopathy' really refers to the mainstream medicine practiced in Hahnemann's era, and it was indeed trial and error. So was, in fact ALL medicine systems of the era, certainly including homeopathy.

However, that kind of allopathy does not exist any more. A few medications persist from that time, proven effective by time, but in general modern medicines are backed by objective, repeatable evidence.


Quote:
This is not scientific. Don't get me wrong: there's nothing wrong with trial and error backed by some heuristic knowledge. It's just not a science. Still useful, but not a science.
As an advocate of homeopathy (which I assume you are) you can hardly afford to claim otherwise, since homeopathy is still practiced as trial and arror.

Quote:
As an aside: even though I am a nuclear physicist, I have never understood why it is of such paramount importance for allopoathy or homeopathy to be regarded as "scientific".
For modern medicine it is paramount because it is required of it. It must, in this era, live up to quite rigorous scinetific standards (whether this is science in the Popper way, I will not continue to discuss, since I don't much care) . Why homeopaths are so eager to be scientific, is a bit of a riddle to me, too. I can only suppose they are unawate that the application of scientific methods will be the death of homeopathy.

Quote:
And sometimes I find it funny that allopathy really thinks that it can be. It reminds me of Grimm's fairytale of "The Emperor without Clothes."
Hans Christian Andersen, not Grimm.

Quote:
Let's not go there. First, "cause" is an entirely elusive concept and many times a figment of our imaginations. To prove that A causes B again requires repeatability can strictly only be achieved if you understand the phenomenon in question at all levels. And we don't even begin to understand the underlying effects in medicine.
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. You seem to be under the illusion that we are still in the 19th century. We are not.

Quote:
You can claim this many times over but it won't get more true by repetition. This is simply not true.
See my replies to Nancy.

Hans
__________________
You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
Reply With Quote
  #502 (permalink)  
Old 24th March 2011, 08:34 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,218
MRC_Hans is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
is not an entity. It is dynamic disposition (alteration) in harmony of constitution (due to dis-arrangement of vital force) not just the physio-chemical alteration of tissues.
Thank you, Nancy. And here we clearly see why modern medicine and homepathy are incompatible: Modern medicine does not recognize a 'vital force' as an entitiy which can, in itself, govern health and disease. Likewise, modern medicine does not work by trying to influence the same vital force.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
This is how homeopathy defines health, disease and cure

[SIZE=2]Health is not just merely an absence of disease but a state of equilibrium of the vital force that keeps the constitution of an individual in harmony.
Again a totally different paradigm. Modern medicine sees health as the correct function of the complex of more or less connected processes that makes the body function.

Quote:
Disease is not an entity. It is dynamic disposition (alteration) in harmony of constitution (due to dis-arrangement of vital force) not just the physio-chemical alteration of tissues.
Modern medicine: Disease is the failure of one or several systems in the body to function normally. The cause can be internal or external.

Quote:
Cure (-the single purpose and highest ideal of the medicine) is “the rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, based on easily comprehensible principles” . Cure means the recovery of the state of stability of physiological norms.
Apart from the 'easily comprehensible' part*), there is not discord here, however, the actual methods are very different:

Homeopathy claims that disease can be comprehensively characterized by externally observable symptoms and that addressing these symptoms can revert the disease.

Modern medicine posits that disease must be characterized by the actual biophysical malfunction, basically regardless of symptom manifestation (although observation of symptoms is still one of the diagnostic tools), and that cure requires that the cause for the malfunction is found and addressed.

Obviously, the two systems assume two different modes of the basic functioning of the body.

Hans

*) While no system wants to make things more complex than necessary, modern medicine has been forced to realize that some disease mechanisms and their possible cures are in fact far from easily comprehensible.
__________________
You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
Reply With Quote
  #503 (permalink)  
Old 25th March 2011, 01:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Gurgaon, India
Posts: 253
Dr. Nancy Malik is on a distinguished road
Default

By changing the name from allopathy to conventional to modern medicine does not change the fact that it is not scientific
Reply With Quote
  #504 (permalink)  
Old 28th March 2011, 11:24 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,218
MRC_Hans is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
By changing the name from allopathy to conventional to modern medicine does not change the fact that it is not scientific
The name has nothing to say, but how do you conclude it is not scientific?

And how do you conclude homeopathy is?

Hans
__________________
You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
Reply With Quote
  #505 (permalink)  
Old 30th March 2011, 04:25 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Gurgaon, India
Posts: 253
Dr. Nancy Malik is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
The name has nothing to say, but how do you conclude it is not scientific?

And how do you conclude homeopathy is?

Hans
Evidence of homeopathy is undeniably positive and consistent. It's a human evidence of experience, gathered from a real-world observation in a real-world setting (not in an ideal artificial laboratory) giving real-world solutions.
Reply With Quote
  #506 (permalink)  
Old 30th March 2011, 06:54 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,218
MRC_Hans is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
Evidence of homeopathy is undeniably positive and consistent. It's a human evidence of experience, gathered from a real-world observation in a real-world setting (not in an ideal artificial laboratory) giving real-world solutions.
If that is your definition of scientific truth (I have to disagree, but that is another matter), how do you conclude, by the same definition that 'allopathy' is not scientific?

Hans
__________________
You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
Reply With Quote
  #507 (permalink)  
Old 30th March 2011, 01:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Gurgaon, India
Posts: 253
Dr. Nancy Malik is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
If that is your definition of scientific truth (I have to disagree, but that is another matter), how do you conclude, by the same definition that 'allopathy' is not scientific?

Hans
Millions of deaths due to side effects of allopathy signifies it is not scientific

Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients, April 15, 1998, Lazarou et al. 279 (15): 1200 ? JAMA //adverse drug reactions
BBC NEWS | Wales | South East Wales | Boy, 14, died after acne tablets //clearsil for acne
http://www.deathbymodernmedicine.com/ //a book by Dr. Carolyn Dean MD ND
Reply With Quote
  #508 (permalink)  
Old 31st March 2011, 07:12 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,218
MRC_Hans is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
Millions of deaths due to side effects of allopathy signifies it is not scientific

Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients, April 15, 1998, Lazarou et al. 279 (15): 1200 ? JAMA //adverse drug reactions
BBC NEWS | Wales | South East Wales | Boy, 14, died after acne tablets //clearsil for acne
http://www.deathbymodernmedicine.com/ //a book by Dr. Carolyn Dean MD ND
Millions of deaths would be unacceptable (fortunately, it's a lie), but it wouldn't make it unscientific. The atom bomb is hightly scientific.

Hans
__________________
You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
Reply With Quote
  #509 (permalink)  
Old 31st March 2011, 02:42 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Gurgaon, India
Posts: 253
Dr. Nancy Malik is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Millions of deaths would be unacceptable (fortunately, it's a lie), but it wouldn't make it unscientific. The atom bomb is hightly scientific.

Hans
Yes the deaths due to side effects of ConMed (Conventional Medicine) rans into millions

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125683.900?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19125683.900
http://www.hugesettlements.com/articles/Medical_Malpractice.htm
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080317/full/news.2008.676.html
Reply With Quote
  #510 (permalink)  
Old 1st April 2011, 10:12 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,218
MRC_Hans is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Nancy Malik View Post
Yes the deaths due to side effects of ConMed (Conventional Medicine) rans into millions

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125683.900?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19125683.900
From that article:

Quote:
Imagine the outcry if 500 people in a developed country such as the US or UK died after being given a fake medicine. Then consider that in the early 1990s a similar number of children died of kidney failure in India, Haiti, Bangladesh and Nigeria after taking fake paracetamol syrup contaminated with a toxic solvent. Barely anyone noticed bar their families and a few doctors.
So this is an article about fake and toxic medicine. Not about side effects.

Quote:
http://www.hugesettlements.com/articles/Medical_Malpractice.htm
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080317/full/news.2008.676.html
This is slightly better, but:

Quote:
Of 1,574 deaths, 3% were probably caused by an adverse drug reaction, the authors conclude.
And:

Quote:
The study does not necessarily mean that these patients would still be alive had they not received the drugs that apparently killed them.

“This is only looking at one side of the coin,” says Simon Thomas, a therapeutics expert at Newcastle University, UK. “The kind of drugs that cause haemorrhage actually have large benefits. What the figures don’t pick out is the number of patients with cardiovascular risks who don’t have myocardial infarction or stroke because they are taking aspirin.” Thomas adds he wasn't too surprised by the results.
So, considering that billions of people use conventional meds, (thank you for using the proper expression, btw), the deaths where side effect 'probably play a role' may well be counted in millions. There is only one kind of medicine that is completely harmless: The one with no effect at all.

Hans
__________________
You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Allopathy and Homeopathy often has to work together ! Wim Pets and Animals 2 15th November 2010 07:24 PM
Homeopathy Vs Allopathy j tikari Homeopathy List Discussion 29 31st October 2009 03:09 PM
Allopathy Vs Homeopathy Part II Dr. MAS Homeopathy Discussion 11 24th October 2008 03:07 PM
allopathy and homeopathy the contrasting chart g.tyler Homeopathy List Discussion 0 3rd September 2005 04:17 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:26 AM.



The information contained on OtherHealth.com arises by way of discussion between contributors and should not be treated as a substitute for the advice provided by your own personal physician or other health care professional. None of the contributions on this site are an endorsement by the site owners of any particular product, or a recommendation as to how to treat any particular disease or health-related condition. If you suspect you have a disease or health-related condition of any kind, you should contact your own health care professional immediately. Please read the BB Rules for further details.
Please consult personally with your own health care professional before starting any diet, exercise, supplementation or medication program.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2005-2012 otherhealth.com
For books in the UK visit our sister site Dealpond.com

SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2