As usual, you give evidence of deliberate ignorance.

I have given you the ONLY valid test - on the healthy. On the sick you cannot evaluate anything but a little relief, which even if it does something, is NULLIFIED by the side effects.

The RCT is indeed invented by Hahnemann for the ONLY VALID test there is - on the healthy.

Anyone knows that like is cured by like. If you freeze your toes, the ONLY thing that unfreezes them without any danger is to rub them with snow. Any smith, baker or cook knows that to avoid burns and blisters, you hold the burnt part under the warm water. They are never subject to burns, because they know what to do.


And you have as usual, avoided to answer my question or to refute anything. Ad hominem? You admit you do not know how homoeopathy is tested. With each answer you only show you do not understand anything I say nor do you understand anything about homoeopathy because you admit yourself you are ignorant. If then you keep making stupid comments and display proudly how ignorant you are, there is no ad hominem - you have "ad hominemed" yourself. Don't blame me for being stupid.

None of your answers have any validity - you have not done anything to show you are scientific.

The case for efficacy of ConMed is non-existent as both JAMA and BMJ prove. (note ConMed is already showing that pharmaceutical quackery is a con). Follow your own advise and find out it is not as rosy as you paint it.

And the RCT as conducted by allopathy is only the general standard for allopathy. It does not apply to homoeopathy, because we have INDIVIDUALISED medicine, which is the dream of allopathy. ConMed has only general treatment, because their diagnosis is not refined enough and the RCT as they have distorted it is also not refined enough to allow for individualised treatment. In fact, it is so gross and useless that many trials have to be abandoned, because too many people DIE.

You call that scientific? Poor man! You do not know what is ethical and what is not. Poisoning the patient with medicines that cause side effects is unethical, regardless the fact that it is the only thing you have. Testing on the sick is unethical. You say you cannot determine how else a medicine works. Shows you what poor scientists those allopaths are.

We have a safe test - on the healthy volunteer. We also know EXACTLY what a remedy can cure and what not, reason why we can individualise treatment and then have 100% efficacy.

You say that the few successes we have are anecdotal and then say in the same breath that allopathy with but 5% efficacy is not anecdotal. Make up your mind. If 5% efficacy is not anecdotal then 100% efficacy in homoeopathy is ABSOLUTELY NOT ANECDOTAL. Allopathy is a FAILURE and the convictions of Big Pharma in the courts is attestation of proof of FAILURE, not of success.

We shall turn the tables and now demand that all your ConMed is prescribed according to our standards. After all, we have many more medicines than allopathy and have therefore done more testing and are thus more scientific. We can pinpoint exactly what medicine to use in each case. Allopathy can only TRY to do something and in most cases FAILS, as we can read in the papers regularly and the court cases for convictions prove.

But it is useless to talk to you. You refuse to learn, to read and to study. So I shall no longer waste my time with someone WHO IS AN IGNORAMUS BY HIS OWN ADMISSION. AND WHO REFUSES TO LEARN BY HIS OWN ADMISSION. YOU ARE A STUPID FOOL BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.

You have lost the debate from page one and are simply a masochist and a glutton for punishment. Go somewhere else with your inane drivel. They may accommodate stupidity - I am through with you.

__________________
Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.

Provings? Don't make me laugh. What does a proving show? It shows that a certain substance gives certain symptoms, surprise! We all knew that. How do you test the effect on disease?

I have not read all of Hahnemann's books, but in the Organon of Medicine, he neither mentions controls, randomisation, nor blinding.

No. There are certain instances where like cures like, but it is very far from a universal principle.

If you have true frost-bite, good luck with that procedure.

Even if the first part were true, the second is certainly not. I have worked with workplace safety, and those professions are high on the list of burn accidents.

You have a very special definition of 'scientific'.


Suit yourself. You are obviously incapable of sensible debate and prefer to rave and shout. That is indeed a waste of time.

I can only express my gratitude for being free of your ravings.

I shall, however, pass by from time to time, if someone should desire a sensible debate.

Hans

__________________
You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Organized By: Liga Medicorum Homoeopathic Internationalis (LMHI)
Collaborators: Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India
Sponsors: Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India

Introduction to the World Homeopathic Congress 2011

Mission: To provide an international forum to homeopaths, homeopathic societies and researchers who are interested in the development of science of homeopathy.

__________________
http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

In 1790, he discovered principle of similar when he found that drug which was known to be curative actually produces those very symptoms when given to a healthy person. He said, “Substances which arouse a kind of fever extinguish the types of intermittent fevers”. But the principle was published in 1796.

Ref: JMS Schmidt, Josef M. Die philosophischen Vorstellungen Samuel Hahnemanns bei der Begründung der Homöopathie (bis zum Organon der rationellen Heilkunde, 1810). München: Sonntag, p. 29, 1990.

__________________
http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

Yes, I know. Unfortunately, he was mistaken. If he had taken a scientific approach, he would have discovered his mistake. Instead, he declared it a 'natural law' and built the whole edifice of homoeopathy upon it.

One of Hahnemann's observations was the when he took an extract of the bark of the cinchona tree, he had fever symptoms. Since that extract was used as a remedy against malaria, he took this as a support for the like cures like thesis.

Unfortunately, fever symptoms are not a normal effect of cinchona extract. Whether Hahnemann used a contaminated extract, was allergic to it, or simply happened to run a fever, we shall never know. At any rate, this cornerstone of his theories rests on a mistake.

Quinine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hans

__________________
You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Google will discontinue 'knol' on 1 May 2012. The knol owners/authors are given a choice to migrate to wordpress.com which I did. The wordpress.com has abundantly better features for professional writers.

From 15 Feb 2012 onwards, the viewers would be automatically redirected from the google knol page to the following wordpress pages

Articles on Homeopathy: Articles – Science-based Homeopathy

Homeopathy Explained: Homeopathy Explained – Science-based Homeopathy

FAQ&A on Homeopathy: FAQ&A on Homeopathy – Science-based Homeopathy

Scientific research in Homeopathy: Scientific Research in Homeopathy – Science-based Homeopathy

Status of Homeopathy around the World: Status of Homeopathy – Science-based Homeopathy

How Homeopathy Works? How homeopathy works? – Science-based Homeopathy

Iron Deficient Anemia: Anemia – Science-based Homeopathy

__________________
http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

I think they’re both; see the definition of medicine as the science and art of healing. Allopathic and Homeopathy both cure right? Hence those two are scientific.LOL

__________________
springhill group news

First of all, science is a METHOD (the best possible method developed by humans so far) to test if something does what it claims to do.

Science is not connected to neither homeopathy nor allopathy, but should be used to examine if what they claim is closer to the truth or should be discarded. All medicine developed should go through thorough scientific evaluation, with RCTs (Randomized controlled trials, with blinded researches and placebo controls).

Homeopathic medicine is considered alternative medicine, but regardless, it should go through the same scientific evaluations as other medicine. If the homeopath potion says to cure acne, ulcers, cancer etc etc this should be evaluated as all other drugs in WELL CONDUCTED scientific trials. Now, many meta analyses have been conducted to test this, and as some mentioned in this thread ; "the Lancet only used its analyses on 8 of the trials and ignored all the other ones".. well if "all the other" trials were not well conducted this is a smart thing to do! Also, just because orthodox medicine is not called alternative medicine, does not mean that a lot of that which was once alternative has never been accepted, on the contrary a lot has been accepted and is today called orthodox medicine.

Bloodletting (which has been discarded as a common medical practice) was used for centuries, but that does not mean it was correct or by any means good! (just to use this to counter the argument that anything that has been used for ages is good).

Also, just because something is "natural" does not mean it is healthy or does not have side effects. In addition, a lot of regular medicine is made out of natural herbs, but synthesized and filtered so the negative sideeffects can be dampened.

Now, what do you get when you buy a homeopathic remedy? Water. Maybe with some sugar? But plain old water! Yes, they have contained some sort of herb before the herb was removed, and the water distilled so much as to be blended with water the same about of the volume of the Earth (this sounds crazy, but it is true in mathematical tearms with the C dilutions). Now, how can people use lots of money to buy plain water with a fancy name on the bottle? (of course it has a placebo effect which can be powerful on many psychological driven diseases, and this is a real effect). Well, homeopaths claim that the water will remember the molecules of the herb (or substance that was inside the water) because it is shaken in a special way.. OK, for me this sounds very comical, but still these are homeopaths own explanations. AND deserves scientifically conducted tests to see if they are efficacious. But just one question, why doesn't the water remember all the poo, pee, sewer other herbs, minerals from earthquakes under the sea etc etc, the water is as we all know a renewal source of energy, it is always there.. ?

I am a proponent of a balanced healthy diet and lifestyle, and very interested in reading about all sorts of treatments, normal or alternative. But farmost am I interested in finding out what ACTUALLY works with good scientific evaluations, many replications and preferrably by organizations such as the Cochrane collaboration (they dont have any personal interests in either regular medicine or alternative).

Whether something cures or not has nothing directly to do with science. If a herb exctract can cure a disease (as some can), then it can cure that disease, whether it has been examined scientifically or not.

What makes a medical system scientific is its use of scientific methods to evaluate the effects of its treatments.

For conventional medicine (that homeopaths call allopathy), scientific methods have been thorughly incorporated on all steps. A century ago, there was very little science in any medical system, some research was conducted, but it was mainly trial and error: You tried out the medicine on sick or healthy persons (often on both), observed and recorded the results, and made an evaluation of the effects.

During the 20th century, mainstream medicine gradually incorporated the scientific method, to get away from the subjective evaluation. Also, medical research ensured a vastly increased understanding of how the body functions, disease mehanics, and how medicines influence all that.

Today, we almost never rely on just trying out things. Instead, disease mechanisms (pathology) are carefuly studied, we then find out which substances should effect an improvement, and armed with that knowledge, we set out to obtain that substance and find a suitable way to administer it. Finally, when the medicine is being developed, we conduct objective tests to see if it worls as expected, and we try to map any side effects.

.....

Homeopathy was 'invented' 200 years ago, and in concordance with the methods of its time, it consisted of trial and error, and subjective evaluation. None of this has changed since. What gives homeopathy a scent of science is that it builds on a central thesis of pathology: The idea of the vital principle, theory of infinitessimals, and that like cures like.

Unfortunately, every single premise of homeopathy has since been proved to be faulty:

There is no such thing as the vital principle.

Infinitessimal doses won't work; all known medicines are dose-dependent.

Except for a few special cases, like does not cure like.

Finally, we now know that the dilutions most used in homeopathy leave not the slightest trace of active substance in the remedy, and, in spite of desperate searching, homeopaths have not found a sensible explanation for how any medical properties could be retained in high potency remedies.

Nancy has been spamming this thread with internet links, some of which point to experiments that appear to support homeopathy in various ways, but all of these experiments have been shown to be either faudulent, poorly designed and/or conducted, inconclusive, or, at best, impossible to reproduce.

Hans

__________________
You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

MRC Hans, It's about freedom of choice not links.

You, or for the matter of fact anyone, can choose any medicine when fall i ll
Opinion Polls – Science-based Homeopathy

Thanks and Regards

__________________
http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/