Homeopathy - Interesting claims!

[legolas]

I came across a couple of videos on Homeopathy. I don't believe in it and this explanation might help some to get convinced as to why!! and to some who believed an eye-opener!! :) I by default open thread in Fight club :D
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U&feature=related
Here, you can see a beautiful explanation of the absurdness in homeopathy with respect to Avagadro's number where diluting 10^30 times means that the possibility of at least 1 molecule of the original substance being present is less than 1!!! :) This is medicine!! :D

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3Z1QFZcnAi4&feature=related
Here, there is another investigation performed by BBC HOrizon to claim the 1 million dollar prize money to prove if Homeopathy has some truth into it and Horizon fails!!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8KbLHii8M2A&feature=related

Of course many of you might be familiar with this... Richard Dawkins the well known Atheist in his documentary explains his views.

However, here, in the international debate on Homeopathy, they have shown to have provided some evidence regarding the fact that the dilution now doesn't actually result in the effects from the fact that "Water has memory".... but the STRUCTURE of WATER is itself changed:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=W2rIsMSn21Y

Ok, if water has memory, then it has also memory of urine, sh*t, and lots and lots of other impurities it has gone through before becoming distilled!!! But, assuming that is not the claim... even if structure of water is changed... it also means that the water which is used for dilution of ordinary chemicals to obtain specific normalities or molarities would also have the typical V shaped sp2 hybridised molecule of water to change the structure differently which means the whole science which predicts every intermediate compound step by step is wrong!! why? because the structure of water is no more the same?? :O

Also, from the Richard Dawkins' link, you can see the difference in the basic ideology when they claim "Like cures like" and the most funniest of all "Dilution is the solution"!! :)

How long are we going to believe this bullsh*t??

And even if it is true, why wouldn't they sue the people then for claiming it otherwise? People sue for the most weirdest and absurd reasons after all, especially in the US! :)

[karnivore]

I by default open thread in Fight club
Thats one less job for the moderators. :)

How long are we going to believe this bullsh*t??
As long as some of us don't surgically remove that gullible bone.

And even if it is true, why wouldn't they sue the people then for claiming it otherwise? People sue for the most weirdest and absurd reasons after all, especially in the US!
They know it that their case won't stand in the Court. Just look what happened to Micheal Behe with the evolution case. This has been a huge eye opener for all woo lovers.

[legolas]

Yeap!! Totally!!

[mediator]

I just came across this troll thread where the wise @OP instead of posting it in the science/God thread created a new thread. Have mercy on the mysql of the forum n stop belittling science like that! :D

"So many people get cured. Science can't explain it and so I'll keep null-ing my senses".

But neways, ur cry fall negligibly on those who have taken the homeopathic treatment like me and got cured! Futile n some desperate efforts, may be to get some attention .... posting it as a separate thread?? Much of it has already been discussed there. How forgetful!


And even if it is true, why wouldn't they sue the people then for claiming it otherwise? People sue for the most weirdest and absurd reasons after all, especially in the US!
Yeah, those, the crew,director,producer,graphics designers and the actors in apollo moon-hoax-mission, the laughable materialists who treat theories as facts? ! ;)


What a thread......developed my abs!

[praka123]

I believe homeopathy is effective.infact I have myself experienced it. :)

[NucleusKore]

I don't think ANY traditional system of medicine can be discounted here, be it Ayurveda, Homoepathy, Siddha or Unani. What is important is to know the strength and weaknesses of each. For example, have you seen anyone with a heart attack going for any of the above I just mentioned? But many people with asthma have claimed benefit. I personally haven't tried any of them, and don't intend to unless it's really required.

[Hrithan2020]

I don't think ANY traditional system of medicine can be discounted here, be it Ayurveda, Homoepathy, Siddha or Unani. What is important is to know the strength and weaknesses of each. For example, have you seen anyone with a heart attack going for any of the above I just mentioned? But many people with asthma have claimed benefit. I personally haven't tried any of them, and don't intend to unless it's really required.

Exactly,I have personally experienced the positive effects of Ayurveda and Homeopathy.Remember,there was a time when acupuncture was believed to be BS by all modern practitioners,but is now finding acceptance in many parts of the world.The explanations may sound weak(what the heck do they mean by water thingy,possibly bcoz they haven't properly understood it,but are following a tried & tested treatments?),but it does have positive effect in many cases.

[legolas]

It depends on how much you are able to believe when the doctor claims that it will work. Have you ever asked your Homeopathy doctor how it works?? and got a satisfying answer?? All I heard is, "This is what has worked before with other patients since 200 years" :p

I just came across this troll thread where the wise @OP instead of posting it in the science/God thread created a new thread. Have mercy on the mysql of the forum n stop belittling science like that! :D
I am still wondering how this thread is even remotely related to Science/God thread while some people start off-topic posts in other threads and start writing pages to the extent that they get *cough* mesmerized enough to believe its their thread itself!

[mediator]

It depends on how much you are able to believe when the doctor claims that it will work. Have you ever asked your Homeopathy doctor how it works?? and got a satisfying answer?? All I heard is, "This is what has worked before with other patients since 200 years"
Atleast something that is working for 200 yrs is far better, then something which is having plethora of side effects......n they say one is getting cured!


I am still wondering how this thread remotely related to Science/God thread while some people start off-topic posts in other threads and start writing pages to the extent that they get *cough* mesmerized enough to believe its their thread itself!
Simply coz science can't explain how homeopathy works n to add we already had a huge debate over it including u. But some people are desperate to seek attention! The systems that have been working for 200 yrs without much side effects, are being ridiculed and those which causes plenty of side effects are termed as "scientific"?? Then IMO, our "modern science" is in very nascent stages and need to form some more theories and redo itself like it has been doing in the past to actually understand "how" it all works. Meanwhile the materialists brigade and "blind followers" can watch the show and talk of only those things which lie within the scope of what science can explain : "what,why and how". Science hasn't been able to describe the universe itself. So I think they can put a cellotape on their mouth, mute themselves on matters regarding universe, stop treating the theories as facts and talk of more "observable" cases like that of earth.

Its again a case where the "blind followers" have scientific exposure but not the scientific outlook.

So look at ur statement....

How long are we going to believe this bullsh*t??

U really are something! :)
Even the animals heal their wounds by licking on it even when they don't know "scientifically : how, why" that saliva has healing properties. So how do they know saliva helps? :)

But funny indeed that the scientific minds are actually still exploring it whereas the science "blind followers" are terming it is as crap and pleading/crying instead.

[karnivore]

Even the animals heal their wounds by licking on it even when they don't know "scientifically : how, why" that saliva has healing properties. So how do they know saliva helps?The answer lies in the genes. They don't know half the things they do. They just follow the rule written in their genes. Like cats and dogs eating grass, whenever they are sick, even though grass is not part of their diet. Why ? Because they follow genes.:rolleyes:

Now, how is following genetic signature same as homeopathy working ?

But funny indeed that the scientific minds are actually still exploring it whereas the science "blind followers" are terming it is as crap and pleading/crying instead.There are people, who are indeed exploring all kinds of bunk. I, of course, do not know of any scientific mind, who is worth his/her salt and is exploring any such bunk, without some ulterior motive. But then again, what do I know ?

Simply coz science can't explain how homeopathy works....Really, science does not know it ? Hmm....lets see.

In 2005, The Lancet, conducted a study of 150 alleged studies that claimed Homeopathy works. They zeroed in on 110 of those studies (40 were canceled for various reasons) and guess what they found. That homeopathy is nothing more than PLACEBO. :D [DOWNLOAD the PDF (http://www.farmaciasfrancesco.it/Lancet_Omeopatia.pdf)]. Some excerpts..
Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.
I guess those morons at The Lancet are "blind followers" who do have scientific exposure but not scientific outlook, the patent of which is held by....(HINT: not me or @legolas):D

Atleast something that is working for 200 yrs is far better, then something which is having plethora of side effects......n they say one is getting cured!
Yup, its working all right, but only in the minds of the believers. But, really, is it any wonder that homeopathy does not have side-effects. To have a side-effect it has to have an effect first. :D

Next time you need a hernia to operate or an appendix to remove or a blocked artery to clear or a kidney to clean, I would love to see who you go to. Modern medicine or homeopathy ?

[Don't take it personally. I sincerely hope you do not have to visit any doctor at any time of your life, whether for yourself or anybody else. Just chill]

[hullap]

yes, i believe in it,
and my father is a half a homeopathy doctor (he hasn't opened a clinic)
and i believe in homeopathy
once i got chiken pox and with homeopathy i got rid of it in 3-4 days :)

[karnivore]

^^ Eh ? Call it coincidence but right now i am actually convalescing from chicken pox (14th day). Care to explain how you were cured in 3-4 days. Did all the boils appear and burst in 3-4 days ? Did your itch go away in 3-4 days ? Did your scabs fall off in 3-4 days ? What is it that you mean by "i got rid of it in 3-4 days".

Please explain.

[eggman]

I myself has experienced the power of homeopathy , when I was a kid. So I really don't think placebo effect had worked on me!!!! Anyway, I will always believe in homeopathy since It cured my tonsils problem in 6 months which other medicine couldn't do in 3+ years!!

[legolas]

Even the animals heal their wounds by licking on it even when they don't know "scientifically : how, why" that saliva has healing properties. So how do they know saliva helps?

The height of ignorance: comparing nature's ideals to that of the so-called invention by an obsessive guy who paralyzed himself by blindly "over-dosing" it! :p, that "dilution will increase the healing effect because of the MEMORY of WATER..." while it has the so-called memory only WHEN homeopathy people dilute it :D and not when the water is running down the stream and collecting that many dirt and microorganisms live in it! :p OMG OMG!!!

To others:
Watch this: Scroll to around 8:09 minutes and watch...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wq6gT4vDUWs&feature=related
and continue with this...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PcbnR8VVcWk&feature=related
Especially around 1:15 seconds :)

[hullap]

^^ Eh ? Call it coincidence but right now i am actually convalescing from chicken pox (14th day). Care to explain how you were cured in 3-4 days. Did all the boils appear and burst in 3-4 days ? Did your itch go away in 3-4 days ? Did your scabs fall off in 3-4 days ? What is it that you mean by "i got rid of it in 3-4 days".

Please explain.
hmm
sry i cant explain, coz when i had chicken pox i was quite young, but i quite surely remember that it lasted no more then 3-4 days
ill ask my father and be back:)

[karnivore]

I myself has experienced the power of homeopathy , when I was a kid. So I really don't think placebo effect had worked on me!!!! Anyway, I will always believe in homeopathy since It cured my tonsils problem in 6 months which other medicine couldn't do in 3+ years!!
I too have tonsil problem, not septic one. When I was a kid (about 9 yrs old) I was diagnosed with streptococcal infection, a real nasty one. I remember when I was infected with those germs my parents tried a lot of alternative medicines, from ayurveda to homeopathy. Needless to say, none worked. I had to go through the entire grind called allopathy. :confused:

So, if you can elaborate what you mean by that, particularly what kind of tonsil infection you had, or if it was something chronic or did you continue with your allopathic medicines along with homeopathic ones, or how old you were, or did the tonsil problem recur etc., I will be much obliged. :)

Placebo works in the most "mysterious" ways imaginable. So it is probably not wise to say that it did not work in your case. Given the fact that other medicines were not curing your problem, there was enough ground for placebo to work. :)

hmm
sry i cant explain, coz when i had chicken pox i was quite young, but i quite surely remember that it lasted no more then 3-4 days
ill ask my father and be back
OK. But do come back. :)

[mediator]

The answer lies in the genes. They don't know half the things they do. They just follow the rule written in their genes. Like cats and dogs eating grass, whenever they are sick, even though grass is not part of their diet. Why ? Because they follow genes.
And u follow urs with this funny explanation? I asked if they know if saliva has any medicinal benefits, the scientific "how and why" and u say "They follow genes"? :D
Even if some scientists had told me such a reason, it wud have sounded utterly rubbish to me. They could have used water like humans, but instead they lick. Convenient way to put it up, the things that u can't explain and say "they follow genes"!



Now, how is following genetic signature same as homeopathy working ?

I was talking about practicality if u didn't understand it. Homeopathy is very much practical and the science needs progress if it can't explore this wonderful field.


There are people, who are indeed exploring all kinds of bunk. I, of course, do not know of any scientific mind, who is worth his/her salt and is exploring any such bunk, without some ulterior motive. But then again, what do I know ?
U know nothing, but just need to follow the "herd instinct", have the scientific exposure instead of making ur expert opinions. Its fine if u don't have any scientific outlook, just "follow the genes" like u said. :oops:


Really, science does not know it ? Hmm....lets see.

In 2005, The Lancet, conducted a study of 150 alleged studies that claimed Homeopathy works. They zeroed in on 110 of those studies (40 were canceled for various reasons) and guess what they found. That homeopathy is nothing more than PLACEBO. [DOWNLOAD the PDF]. Some excerpts..
Ah the placebo.
http://www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=783847&postcount=522

Ur old habit of repeating hasn't gone yet. :)
One of the brigade members desperately creates a new waste thread seeking attention and another thinks repeating wud be a good idea!

Another instance where science needs to remodify it seems where the blind followers think placebos are gold standards!



How Scientific Is Modern Medicine?

Mahatma Gandhi was once asked by a reporter what he thought about Western civilization, and in light of the uncivilized treatment by the British government of his nonviolent actions, he immediately replied, "Western civilization? Yes, it is a good idea." Likewise, if he were asked what he thought about "scientific medicine," he would probably have replied in a similar manner.

The idea of scientific medicine is a great one, but is modern medicine truly, or even adequately, "scientific"?

Modern medicine uses the double-blind and placebo-controlled trial as the gold standard by which effectiveness of a treatment is determined. On the surface, this scientific method is very reasonable. However, serious problems in these studies are widely acknowledged by academics but remain unknown to the general public. Fundamental questions about the meaning of the word "efficacy" are rarely, if ever, raised.

For instance, just because a drug treatment seems to eliminate a specific symptom doesn't necessarily mean that it is "effective." In fact, getting rid of a specific symptom can be the bad news. Aspirin may lower your fever, but physiologists recognize that fever is an important defense of the body in its efforts to fight infection. Painkilling drugs may eliminate the acute pain in the short term, but because these drugs do not influence the underlying cause of the discomfort, they do not really heal the person, and worse, they can lead to physical and psychological dependency, addiction, tolerance, and increased heart disease. Sleep-inducing drugs may lead you to fall asleep, but they do not lead to refreshed sleep, and these drugs ultimately tend to aggravate the cycle of insomnia and fatigue. Uncertainty remains for the long-term safety and efficacy of many modern drugs for common ailments, despite the high hopes and sincere expectations from the medical community and the rest of us for greater certainty.

The bottom line to scientific research is that a scientist can set up a study that shows the guise of efficacy. In other words, a drug may be effective for a very limited period of time and afterwards cause various serious symptoms. For example, a very popular anti-anxiety drug called Xanax was shown to reduce panic attacks during a two-month experiment, but once the person tries to reduce or stop the medication, panic attacks can increase 300-400 percent ( Consumer Reports , 1993).Would as many patients take this drug if they knew this fact, and based on what standard can anyone honestly say that this drug is "effective"?

To get FDA approval to market a drug, most of the studies for psychiatric conditions last only six weeks (Angell, 2004, 112). In view of the fact that most people take anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medicines for many years, how can anyone consider these short-term studies scientifically valid? What is so little known and so sobering is that research to date has found that placebos were 80 percent as effective as the drugs-with fewer side effects (Angell, 2004, 113).

Marcia Angell,MD, author of the powerful book The Truth about Drug Companies , said it plainly and directly: "Trials can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens all the time" (Angell, 2004, 95). Conventional drugs used today are so new that there is very little longterm research on them. There are good reasons why the vast majority of modern drugs that were used just a couple of decades ago are not prescribed any more: They don't work as well as previously assumed, and/or they cause more harm than good.

Sadly and strangely, physicians do not see that there is something fundamentally wrong with the present medical model. Instead, once an old drug is found to be ineffective or dangerous, doctors and drug companies simply assert the "scientifically proven" efficacy of a new drug. Despite this recurrent pattern, doctors are prescribing drugs at record-breaking rates:


In 2005 the volume of prescription drugs sold in the U.S. was equal to 12.3 drugs for every man, woman, and child in that year alone (compared to 1994, when 7.9 prescription drugs per year were on average purchased by every American). (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2006)


According to a 2005 study, 44 percent of all Americans take at least one prescription drug and 17 percent take three or more prescription drugs (This number increased 40 percent between 1994 and 2000). ( Medscape , 2005)

The extremely high numbers listed above are considerably higher if one adds in the over-the-counter drugs that doctors recommend or that patients take on their own.When a patient takes more than one drug at a time, the research conducted on each of the drugs individually becomes virtually meaningless. Considering how many people take two or more drugs together raises serious doubts about the scientific ground on which physicians stand (except in those few instances when a multiple-drug protocol has been tested, as has occurred with some drugs in the treatment of people with AIDS).

One might hope that the American public would greatly benefit from receiving the "best" and certainly most expensive care that modern medicine has to offer. However, this simply isn't true. In fact, the following statistics powerfully state the real limitations of what the "best"medical care provides:


According to 2006 data, the infant mortality rate in the United States was ranked twenty-first in the world, worse than South Korea and Greece and only slightly better than Poland.


Data from 2006 also showed that the life expectancy rate in the United States was ranked seventeenth in the world, tied with Cyprus and only slightly ahead of Albania. (InfoPlease, 2007)

One of the largest drug companies in the world is GlaxoSmithKline. It was therefore a bit shocking, but not surprising, when Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics, acknowledged that "The vast majority of drugs -- more than 90 percent -- only work in 30 percent or 50 percent of the people" (Connor, 2003). The public is not frequently given this degree of honesty.

Understanding and Rewriting History

Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. -- George Orwell, author of 1984

History provides us with a tremendously diverse body of evidence about our past, but ultimately, only a small portion of history is told in our history books. The interpretation of our past and the select use of certain historical facts and figures taint our understanding of what really happened.

Historians commonly remark that whichever country wins a war or whichever worldview dominates another, the history is told through that country's perspective or that dominant point of view. This is certainly true in the history of medicine. For instance, medical historians commonly have portrayed conventional medical practice of the past as barbaric, dangerous, and old-fashioned, and yet they have asserted that today's medical care is at the apex of "scientific medicine." The assertion that today's medical care is "proven" is a consistently repeated mantra.

History also tends to portray those who lose a war and who represent a minority point of view as having less than positive attributes. For instance, those physicians practicing medicine differently than the orthodox medical practice might be called cranks, crackpots, and quacks. Such name-calling is a wonderfully clever way to trivialize potentially valuable contributions, whether or not one understands what these contributions really are.

Besides name-calling, practitioners of the conventional and dominating paradigm often spin facts to make the strong and solid features of a minority practice into something strange and weird. The fact that homeopaths use smaller doses than used in orthodox medicine has been portrayed as homeopathy using "wimpy" doses that theoretically could not have any physiological effect. Accusations that homeopathic medicines could not possibly have any effect are made without knowledge, experience, or humility, and such accusations simply become evidence of the accuser's unscientific attitude and his or her ignorance of the diverse body of basic scientific work on the effects of nanodoses of certain substances in specific situations.

The fact that homeopaths have used their medicines for more than 200 years is spun as evidence that this system of medicine has not "progressed." Another interpretation here is that the same homeopathic medicines used 200 years ago are still used today, along with hundreds of new ones, primarily because the old ones still work. The art of using homeopathic medicines is that they are not prescribed for a localized disease but for a syndrome or pattern of symptoms of which the localized disease is a part.

The fact that homeopaths interview a patient to discover his or her unique symptoms has been spun to make homeopathy seem like a quirky system that revels in inane facts about a patient. However, the detailed symptoms and characteristics of the patient that homeopaths collect may seem inane only to people who are not familiar with the unique and critical nature of these individualizing features of each person. Homeopathy provides a sophisticated method by which a patient's characteristics are applied to selecting and prescribing the most effective homeopathic medicine.




Yup, its working all right, but only in the minds of the believers. But, really, is it any wonder that homeopathy does not have side-effects. To have a side-effect it has to have an effect first.

Next time you need a hernia to operate or an appendix to remove or a blocked artery to clear or a kidney to clean, I would love to see who you go to. Modern medicine or homeopathy ?


And I agree u can beat Cyrus Barocha! I am not neither saying homeopathy is perfect for all the cases coz I don't know what all cases can be there, nor I am saying scientific medicines guarantee 100% cure. But again it depends upon the situation.


Remember the line by Will Rogers, or at least attributed to him? "The trouble with most people is not that they don't know much, but they know so much that isn't true." This statement came back to me when I read the two letters to the editor critical of homeopathy published in AMERICAN DRUGGIST.

Those letters also reminded me of an incident a while back where a neighborhood physician came into my pharmacy and, noticing the various homeopathic products on the counter, asked me: "Why do you sell these things? They don't work."

For a moment, I thought that perhaps he had tried some homeopathic product and found it ineffective, or perhaps he had told some patients to try them and they found them ineffective. So I asked him, "Why do you say that?"

His answer was forthright: "My friend, another doctor, told me they don't work." That was it! So much for scientific, probing inquiry. It turned out that neither he nor his friend the doctor had ever read -- let alone studied -- anything about homeopathy.

Perhaps homeopathy's skeptics are critical because there is no "rational" explanation as to how homeopathic remedies work. But I am sure these same critics are familiar with "The Pharmacological Basis Of Therapeutics" by Goodman and Gilman. Goodman has written, "There are few drugs, if any, for which we know the basic mechanism of action. Drug action is not drug effect. The effect results from the action of the drug." Regarding the use of nitroglycerin, Gilman writes: "The mode of action of nitrates to relieve typical angina is not fully understood."

Does it bother pharmacists who criticize homeopathy that the authors of one of the world's most popular pharmacology texts do not understand how many prescription drugs work? Yet these critics of homeopathy always rush to ask "But how does it work"?

Perhaps critics question the dilutions. Back in 1943, Alexander Fleming's experiments with penicillin showed that at dilutions of 1: 100,000,000 -- and even weaker -- streptococcal activity was affected. The amount of active thyroid we have in our bodies must be somewhere in that range also. But homeopathy does not concern itself with quantity of remedy, only the qualities of remedy.

The word "homeopathy" comes from the Greek words "homeo" and "pathos", meaning "similar" and "suffering". From the time that Samuel Hahnemann coined the word, 200 years ago, homeopathy has been maligned, and vilified, and homeopaths have been charged as liars and frauds. All this in spite of 200 years of therapeutic successes.

Over his lifetime, Hahnemann wrote or translated more than 5,000 pages of text, while at the same time maintaining a medical practice or teaching. He spent years of studying ancient texts and his generous dividend was found in the writings of Hippocrates. Written more than 2,200 yeas earlier were the words: "Through the like, disease is produced, and through the application of the like, is is cured."

In other words, a substance that causes a particular symptom or set of symptoms will also treat them. Like cures like. For more than five years -- with the help of medical students and friends -- Hahnemann tested his remedies and developed the principles that remain intact today.

In 1810 when he published his "Organon of Medicine", he presented to the world a new audacious notion of healing called homeopathy. His opening words were: "The physician's highest and only mission is to make sick people healthy, to cure. The highest ideal of cure is the rapid, gentle, and permanent restoration of health in the shortest, most reliable, least harmful way, according to easily comprehensible principles."

What Hahnemann did was to propose remedies -- free from all harmful effects -- as agents of cure. He offered objectivity, simplicity, originality, and independence in an era of medical arrogance and brutality.

Homeopathy is structured on a distinct set of principles that recognize an innate healing capacity which all people have. It is this energy that promotes, protects, and initiates our defensive mechanisms in response to adverse conditions. It then controls and guides the natural healing process. Homeopathy calls this energy the "vital force". Without this vital force, there is no sensation, no function, no self-preservation, no life. It is the vital force that is the agent of cure.

Medicine, on the other hand, is not and cannot be, the healing curative agent. In fact, as we know, many modern medicines can actually retard healing and alter the nature of the disease to make it more difficult to treat, if not to add further injury as well. The current damage from use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone causes in excess of 10,000 deaths a year. And overall, iatrogenic disease (caused by medical treatments) is responsible for as many as 140,000 deaths a years.

What our bodies need are the favorable conditions to affirm their restorative powers, which through negligence or indifference, has created an environment for disease to flourish. Healing -- the natural restoration of health and body integrity -- is a normal process and its success depends upon the removal of the energy-disturbing elements. It is, in the Taoist sense, that when the body cures itself and becomes well again, it is then in a state of balance and harmony with nature. Indeed, 4,600 years ago, the Chinese medical text Nei Ching, noted "the root of the way of life, of birth and of change; is chi (energy)". And 500 years ago, Paracelsus said the same thing. "Our own nature is itself our physician, which is to say, it has in itself what it needs."

In 1800 Samuel Hahnemann wrote: "In a considerable portion of disease, it would be better for the patients if all medicines were abandoned." Fifty years later, Oliver Wendell Holmes, M.D., voiced the same sentiments. The poet, novelist, father of the famous jurist, and professor of Medicine at Harvard, addressed the Massachusetts Medical Society: "I believe that if the whole Materia Medica as now used, could be sunk to the bottom of the sea, it would be all the better for mankind, and all the worse for the fishes." A surprisingly harsh assessment for the medicines of the day, considering Holmes was at the same time one of homeopathy's most bitter foes.

Even still, by the mid-19th century, homeopathy had much success. For example, homeopaths treated cholera successfully, long before it was known that the actual cause was a microbe. During the 19th century, there were seven severe epidemics in America, the most serious in 1832. The death rates of people treated without homeopathy were five times those of the homeopaths.

In 1854, the British Parliament authorized the London Board of Health to appoint a commission to see which treatments were best for cholera victims. They found "regular" hospitals had a death rate of 54 percent; the homeopathic hospital's death rate was 16 percent.

In 1832, some 50 years before Robert Koch isolated the cholera bacillus, Hahnemann wrote that cholera is "a swarm of infinite small invisible living organisms hostile to human life". Even today, it is difficult to appreciate the magnitude of this prediction. What Hahnemann treated was not "cholera" but headache, malaise, diarrhea, anorexia, icy coldness of the body, convulsions, staring eyes, sunken face, etc. These symptoms pointed to the correct therapy.

The critics choose to ignore the successes. They would prefer that homeopathy just go away, to be thought of as some fossilized remnant of medical heresy now extinct. Too bad. It exists, is grows -- and in some areas -- even flourishes. In France, one quarter of all pharmacies arc homeopathic. In England, half of all physicians either use or recommend homeopathy; the British Royal Family has used homeopathic physicians exclusively since the 1830s.

In 1811, Hahnemann answered his critics this way: "It is infinitely easier to contradict than to investigate, infinitely easier to mock at realities and to present them is a distorted light by twisting and falsifying, than to sacrifice one's whole life to tireless and conscientious investigation of truth, by faithful observation of the nature of things in the most careful experiments and to the unprejudiced employment of their results for the good of mankind."

A monument in Paris honoring Hahnemann, erected in 1900, bears these words of his: "Non Inutilus Vixi" or "I have not lived in vain". The words are appropriate; he gave the world a safe and effective healing modality. We are all indebted to him.

The critics choose to ignore the successes. They would prefer that homeopathy just go away, to be thought of as some fossilized remnant of medical heresy now extinct. Too bad. It exists, is grows -- and in some areas -- even flourishes. In France, one quarter of all pharmacies arc homeopathic. In England, half of all physicians either use or recommend homeopathy; the British Royal Family has used homeopathic physicians exclusively since the 1830s.

In 1811, Hahnemann answered his critics this way: "It is infinitely easier to contradict than to investigate, infinitely easier to mock at realities and to present them is a distorted light by twisting and falsifying, than to sacrifice one's whole life to tireless and conscientious investigation of truth, by faithful observation of the nature of things in the most careful experiments and to the unprejudiced employment of their results for the good of mankind."

A monument in Paris honoring Hahnemann, erected in 1900, bears these words of his: "Non Inutilus Vixi" or "I have not lived in vain". The words are appropriate; he gave the world a safe and effective healing modality. We are all indebted to him.

U need to remove the "placebo" stamp from ur forehead to develop "some" scientific outlook. For any scientific soul if one thing is successful and defies any standard, then that standard needs to be looked upon again, but "critics chose to ignore the success". :neutral:.

U have been telling me books to read from the past few debates. So don't mind if I do the same. Read the "Brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking to actually understand "how" science progresses and how it has been doing so. Its ok still, if u "follow the genes", but all u need to know is "how" science progresses. So r u done with that "placebo" cry now?



The height of ignorance: comparing nature's ideals to that of the so-called invention by an obsessive guy who paralyzed himself by blindly "over-dosing" it! , that "dilution will increase the healing effect because of the MEMORY of WATER..." while it has the so-called memory only WHEN homeopathy people dilute it and not when the water is running down the stream and collecting that many dirt and microorganisms live in it! OMG OMG!!!

U proved it in the science/god thread and yet u prove it again that u don't read anything that one replies and simply like to troll all the way. May I refresh ur memory that it was an accident?
http://www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=787533&postcount=565.

I find it hard to digest how the materialists can even live in their narrow minded world which is narrowed even further due to lack of scientific mindset. Such kinda "gene following" is gonna lead to most obvious and eventual detruction of the human intelligence. :D Keep repeating!

[legolas]

:) here it goes :p
I can not explain better than this (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AkviziEhByIC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=Homeopathy+claims+&source=web&ots=yC791eY95R&sig=q501jEA_eHjPa91qVAi4Ow__wuQ&hl=en#PPA138,M1) to those people who require drilling their brain to connote one's view... !!

[mediator]

WTH, The page u linked actually supports what i said, that "They shudn't be avoided"! :D

And the materialist brigade here already terms it as crap/bullsheet.

How long are we going to believe this bullsh*t??

And don't worry bt the "safety" coz I understand the "principle of minimum dosage"! I wud rather see the success, like in my case, than ridiculing it. :)

[legolas]

WTH, The page u linked actually supports what i said, that "They shudn't be avoided"! :D
For a person who constantly whines over other people's supposed inability to read links... you seem to constantly surprise me! :p

Eyes on the price!!! :p
http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/5889/omgyb4.th.jpg (http://img124.imageshack.us/my.php?image=omgyb4.jpg)

Do you comprehend now??? How more needy can you be?? :o

[mediator]

I wud say "ROFL"! U r actually more talented than ur other brigade member present here.

U posted 4. "Scientific Questionable therapies" the point of which has indeed been debated over. Repeatitions wont help u neways. U underlined the last line ".......we would not recommend using scientific questionable therapies", but u forgot to underline the initial clause that says "However until the evidence is available.....".

Isn't the history of success counted as an evidence other than the "explanation"? This statement or any other doesn't imply that "Its bullsheet" neways!!

But neways, one of the lines says, 'Scientific Questionable therapies can be ineffective or even harmful', the next says 'none of the starting material is left in the final solution', so hows it harmful?? U r putting homeopathy as if it falls under the extreme case i.e harmful, to be saying that it is not recommended. And the final line in ur red underlining says, ""However until the evidence is available we would not recommend using scientific questionable therapies"? Why shudn't we, if scientifically they r inert? Another line says, "The proposed explanation of why something works may be wrong, yet the therapy itself may have some usefulness via some 'unknown' mechanism".


So instead of linking articles which only tell to be cautious, its better to use ur own brain sometimes!


"The death rates of people treated without homeopathy were five times those of the homeopaths.

In 1854, the British Parliament authorized the London Board of Health to appoint a commission to see which treatments were best for cholera victims. They found "regular" hospitals had a death rate of 54 percent; the homeopathic hospital's death rate was 16 percent."....previous post!

What do u recommend regular hospitals or the homeopathic ones?
I have been cured by homepoathy and many others likewise. So take my friendly advise and keep ur unnecessary whining & the troll thread to urself that its "bullsheeet"! "Comprehend" what scientific souls are saying. No where they r saying that it is "bullsheet"! It seems the critics, are ignoring the successes again. :oops:

I wonder how much u'll repeat this time.

[karnivore]

And I thought you will be inundating this post of yours with crticism of the that Lancet article. (And now this comment will result in a frenzy of google search) Anyway...

And u follow urs with this funny explanation? I asked if they know if saliva has any medicinal benefits, the scientific "how and why" and u say "They follow genes"?
Even if some scientists had told me such a reason, it wud have sounded utterly rubbish to me. They could have used water like humans, but instead they lick. Convenient way to put it up, the things that u can't explain and say "they follow genes"!Priceless.

Last attempt. Animals do not know that their saliva has therapeutic value. They don't lick to heal their wounds. They lick because of their reflex mechanism. It is the same reason, why we scratch when there is an itch, or feel repulsed by something vile. Its the reflex mechanism that makes these animals do what they do. That reflex mechanism is the code embedded in the genes. Two things need to be mentioned here. The saliva became therapeutic in the course of evolution and the reflex mechanism is a matter of research and part of it is undertaken under cognitive science.

What next. Do I have to explain this in terms of specific DNA as well. Well in that case, I gladly give up.

Homeopathy is very much practical ....Good joke. :D:D. Anyway, other than, "i was cured in so and so days" or "working for 200 years, hence true", anymore evidence ?

U know nothing...Man, is that frustration or what ?

... but just need to follow the "herd instinct", have the scientific exposure instead of making ur expert opinions. Its fine if u don't have any scientific outlook, just "follow the genes" like u said.EH ? Open your eyes. That flag belongs to your tribe. Now don't tell me you are colour blind as well.:D

Ah the placebo.
http://www.thinkdigit.com/forum/show...&postcount=522 (http://www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=783847&postcount=522)That looooooong quote says a lot of things - that allopathy is evil and homeopathy is well, almost divine. It just does not say one small thing. Why is homeopathy NOT placebo ? :D

Another instance where science needs to remodify it seems where the blind followers think placebos are gold standards! *YAWN*

And I agree u can beat Cyrus Barocha! I am not neither saying homeopathy is perfect for all the cases coz I don't know what all cases can be there, nor I am saying scientific medicines guarantee 100% cure. But again it depends upon the situation.Really ? Aha. I was under the impression that homeopathy has answers for evey disease under the sun. (http://www.hpathy.com/diseases/)

But what do i know.

U need to remove the "placebo" stamp from ur forehead to develop "some" scientific outlook. For any scientific soul if one thing is successful and defies any standard, then that standard needs to be looked upon again, but "critics chose to ignore the success".

U have been telling me books to read from the past few debates. So don't mind if I do the same. Read the "Brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking to actually understand "how" science progresses and how it has been doing so. Its ok still, if u "follow the genes", but all u need to know is "how" science progresses. So r u done with that "placebo" cry now?First, i would wonder what relevance do data belonging to mid 19th century have in early 21st century. Oh i get it. They don't have any more data to pin against modern medicine, as opposed to fledgling medical science.

Second, it is the "success" of homeopathy that is the suspect, not the proof. It is this "success" that is explained by scientists as PLACEBO. Darn, this stamp is not coming off.

Third, "Brief History of Time" is sadly, gathering dust in one of my bookshelves. But thank doG, at least you have read ONE book of science. I have tears in my eyes. :D

Such kinda "gene following" is gonna lead to most obvious and eventual detruction of the human intelligence....and it has happened to one person, at least. [HINT: not me or @ legolas]:D

A little humour:
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/homeopathy.gif

[legolas]

I wud say "ROFL"! U r actually more talented than ur other brigade member present here.
:)

U posted 4. "Scientific Questionable therapies" the point of which has indeed been debated over. Repetitions wont help u neways. U underlined the last line ".......we would not recommend using scientific questionable therapies", but u forgot to underline the initial clause that says "However until the evidence is available.....".
Ok, let me try to get through your head once more. It seems that I can propose a theorem about getting things into your head = impossible!! :p (with this much of evidence)

1) Until evidence is available...
2) We would not recommend using "Scientific Questionable Theories"

Homeopathy -> Scientific Questionable Theory (STILL)
So, if you had basic knowledge of very simple logic and acceptable English language skills to tie the knots... you would understand from the first line of the second paragraph which says "Homeopathy is not only unproven but also remains Scientific Questionable technique because of its theory"

Isn't the history of success counted as an evidence other than the "explanation"? This statement or any other doesn't imply that "Its bullsheet" neways!!
Ok, seriously, NO, its NOT!! because, the doctors themselves dont know why they prescribe what they prescribe. There is no separate license to practise Homeopathy (at least not as strict as allopathy) and the norms are not stringent demanding accuracy and awareness. No body knows if it has affected any other way!!! :o *tired*

But neways, one of the lines says, 'Scientific Questionable therapies can be ineffective or even harmful', the next says 'none of the starting material is left in the final solution', so hows it harmful?? U r putting homeopathy as if it falls under the extreme case i.e harmful, to be saying that it is not recommended.

Seriously, why do you have that much difficulty understanding English???
1) Scientific questionable theories "IN GENERAL" can be dangerous or harmful.
2) none of the starting material is left in final solution -> "NOT GENERAL" -> in case of Homeopathy!!! :| *uff*

And the final line in ur red underlining says, ""However until the evidence is available we would not recommend using scientific questionable therapies"? Why shudn't we, if scientifically they r inert? Another line says, "The proposed explanation of why something works may be wrong, yet the therapy itself may have some usefulness via some 'unknown' mechanism".
Why shouldn't we... Did you read the line you " " before that??? OMG!!!
some usefulness... may -> that is what should be found if it wanted to prove itself to be a real science and not just paying taxes in millions to fund in order to prepare a solution of water in small bottles and making a mockery of yourself...
Has anyone... "Any ONE" who has been able to explain why it works??? other than the superficial philosophical crap "Like cures like" "Water has memory (which also implies that water should have memory of all the impurities it comes across (for which you dodge everytime without answering or even providing your innumerous links only to claim later that we dint read it ).

So quit quibbling over the fact that your sheet-talk is mere ranting and find peace with your spirituality or if not try taking your homeopathy chill-pill :p

So instead of linking articles which only tell to be cautious, its better to use ur own brain sometimes!
Words of wisdom from the Mega-giga-googolplex linker! :p :p

So, if you think something is better, its because you never would have heard about it or read about it or speak about it... but you without any first hand knowledge will start thinking about it (Using your Brain) and then you will conclude. (you providing innumerous links during your awful lot of off-topic posts in the Science/God discussion is mere ranting then??? :p :p how contradicting and needy to prove a no-point situation!! :lol: )

And if others point the links, guys... stop linking and start using your brain :p

ha ha ha! :)

[mediator]

Ok, let me try to get through your head once more. It seems that I can propose a theorem about getting things into your head = impossible!! (with this much of evidence)

1) Until evidence is available...
2) We would not recommend using "Scientific Questionable Theories"

Homeopathy -> Scientific Questionable Theory (STILL)
So, if you had basic knowledge of very simple logic and acceptable English language skills to tie the knots... you would understand from the first line of the second paragraph which says "Homeopathy is not only unproven but also remains Scientific Questionable technique because of its theory"

You seem to be quite sarcastic. I myself said homeopathy is "unproven" in the eye of science. Its seems u like to skip the earlier posts and then say "other person didn't comprehend well"? Didn't I already tell that the point of this, i.e 'Scientific Questionable technique', has indeed been debated over in the science/god thread? One suffering from aphasia, another from alzhiemers......u seem to be having both!

I have been saying it countless no. of times that its unproven from the start and that science has not been able to explain homepathy and u say I cannot get this into my head that its unproven. U r really cute! :D


Ok, seriously, NO, its NOT!! because, the doctors themselves dont know why they prescribe what they prescribe. There is no separate license to practise Homeopathy (at least not as strict as allopathy) and the norms are not stringent demanding accuracy and awareness. No body knows if it has affected any other way!!! *tired*

Again has been debated! I'm also tired of your incessant trolls!



Seriously, why do you have that much difficulty understanding English???
1) Scientific questionable theories "IN GENERAL" can be dangerous or harmful.
2) none of the starting material is left in final solution -> "NOT GENERAL" -> in case of Homeopathy!!! *uff*

Deja Vu! U r actually going the path that ur other brigade member chose.
M : Its scientifically unproven
K/L : Can't u get it in ur head, that it unproven
M : Thats what i said
K/L : .....goes to delve into scientific details
M : Thats what I said science has not been able to explain it.

U need to have a certain aptitude marked with some memory to really "understand English". U seem to lacking both along with a sceintific outlook.


Why shouldn't we... Did you read the line you " " before that??? OMG!!!
some usefulness... may -> that is what should be found if it wanted to prove itself to be a real science and not just paying taxes in millions to fund in order to prepare a solution of water in small bottles and making a mockery of yourself...
Has anyone... "Any ONE" who has been able to explain why it works??? other than the superficial philosophical crap "Like cures like" "Water has memory (which also implies that water should have memory of all the impurities it comes across (for which you dodge everytime without answering or even providing your innumerous links only to claim later that we dint read it ).

So quit quibbling over the fact that your sheet-talk is mere ranting and find peace with your spirituality or if not try taking your homeopathy chill-pill

Yeah, I read the line and also that science treats it as inert. So whats wrong in taking an inert substance? Ur logic is flawed right in front of ur own eyes and when u chose to ignore the success all along, well then u actually "make a mockery" of........again an instance where materialism takes a toll on behaviour & intelligence of a person and m looking forward for science to explain it, i.e such kinda behaviour where a person doesn't know what he is saying.

The bold part again sets a perfect example of the narrow mindedness of the materialists. And bt the memory of water, its still a theory set by science explorers, not by homeopaths! Again treating theories as facts? U r quite entertaining! So reading a link is not enough, one needs to have some intelligence to actually understand it and when u undertsand it, it actually diminishes the chances of u forgetting the subject and what has been read/debated. :)


Words of wisdom from the Mega-giga-googolplex linker!

So, if you think something is better, its because you never would have heard about it or read about it or speak about it... but you without any first hand knowledge will start thinking about it (Using your Brain) and then you will conclude. (you providing innumerous links during your awful lot of off-topic posts in the Science/God discussion is mere ranting then??? how contradicting and needy to prove a no-point situation!! )

And if others point the links, guys... stop linking and start using your brain

ha ha ha!

Let me see, we have a materialist brigade here that
1. Ignores the success that has been prevailing for 200 yrs and rather likes to talk of unproven scenario.
2. Talks of "observable universe" on the basis of "hypothetical" terms like dark matter, dark energy and "theories" like big bang (unproven), out of bounds of any physical testabilty, as if all of these are "facts".
3. Ridicules the systems that have been working for 200 yrs without much side effects and talk of those which cause plenty of side effects as "scientific".
4. Talks about standards when it has been acknowledged that the successful homeopathy actually defies those standards. Instead scientifically looking upon that standards again like it shud be and like the science has been doing from the start, ridicules this successful field.
5. A few samples call it bullsheet/crap/garbage, where the actual sceintific souls are still exploring it.

Look whose telling to use brain. :D


So, if you think something is better, its because you never would have heard about it or read about it or speak about it... but you without any first hand knowledge will start thinking about it (Using your Brain) and then you will conclude. (you providing innumerous links during your awful lot of off-topic posts in the Science/God discussion is mere ranting then??? how contradicting and needy to prove a no-point situation!! )

And if others point the links, guys... stop linking and start using your brain

ha ha ha!

Thanks for ur sagely advice n please "confine it" to urself n ur brigade members or it might start depleting intelligence from the face of earth.


Last attempt. Animals do not know that their saliva has therapeutic value. They don't lick to heal their wounds. They lick because of their reflex mechanism. It is the same reason, why we scratch when there is an itch, or feel repulsed by something vile. Its the reflex mechanism that makes these animals do what they do. That reflex mechanism is the code embedded in the genes. Two things need to be mentioned here. The saliva became therapeutic in the course of evolution and the reflex mechanism is a matter of research and part of it is undertaken under cognitive science.

What next. Do I have to explain this in terms of specific DNA as well. Well in that case, I gladly give up.

The "reflex" argument is still better. But had a good laugh on the "follow the genes" part. Neways, I hope u know the very basic definition of "reflexes".
Scientists say, it is to 'clean the wounds', some say its because saliva has healing properties, a few others argue its "instinctive" behaviour. So yes googling told me a lot. How does their attempts to clean the wounds translate to a reflex?? Plethora of surmises? Yes, u can give up.


Good joke. . Anyway, other than, "i was cured in so and so days" or "working for 200 years, hence true", anymore evidence ?

Still lesser than big bang, dark matter, dark whateva and all the fancy names and fill in the blanks, science hasn't been able to explain. Seems like u don't appreciate the history of success very well.

The rest of ur post seems to be a "gene following/reflex" :D and a mere reflection of the very purpose of this thread!


Third, "Brief History of Time" is sadly, gathering dust in one of my bookshelves.

I understand the reality must be quite hard 4 u.


So again, its not bullsheet. It seems the "herd instinct" is also getting corrupt now and a few followers are finding themselves in a clueless situation, not having the intuition or intelligence to put themselves back to their path! :)

Mods : U can close this troll thread, which is nuthing but repeatition of what the materialists have debated in science/god thread!

[legolas]

You seem to be quite sarcastic. One suffering from aphasia, another from alzhiemers......u seem to be having both!
And you are not! :p you surprise me every time!!

I have been saying it countless no. of times that its unproven from the start and that science has not been able to explain homepathy
:D :D Ok, for the nth time, let Homeopathy "doctors" explain to "Science" people the logic or science or the facts behind it "convincingly". The head of Homeopathy association in UK says "I don't know how it works, no body knows!!" :) Mr. Mediator here says the so called documented evidence of 1854 is all that matters! :p As a guy who used brain and relies to an acceptable level on logic.. I prefer to believe his words!! :p

Deja Vu! U r actually going the path that ur other brigade member chose.
M : Its scientifically unproven
K/L : Can't u get it in ur head, that it unproven
M : Thats what i said
K/L : .....goes to delve into scientific details
M : Thats what I said science has not been able to explain it.
U need to have a certain aptitude marked with some memory to really "understand English". U seem to lacking both along with a sceintific outlook.

wasted attempt.

And abt the memory of water, its still a theory set by science explorers, not by homeopaths! Again treating theories as facts? U r quite entertaining! So reading a link is not enough, one needs to have some intelligence to actually understand it and when u undertsand it, it actually diminishes the chances of u forgetting the subject and what has been read/debated. :)
:) Yes, I also came to know the scientist "Jacques Benveniste" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste) who conducted the experiment was funded by the French Homeopathy association!!! :p another desperate effort to rule out the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry :)


Let me see, we have a materialist brigade here that
1. Ignores the success that has been prevailing for 200 yrs and rather likes to talk of unproven scenario.
While no body knows what were the side effects... "No Side effects" are just assumed like the "Homeopathy" theory itself.. Oh wait... they don't even know how it works, then how can they claim about side effects! :D

2. Talks of "observable universe" on the basis of "hypothetical" terms like dark matter, dark energy and "theories" like big bang (unproven), out of bounds of any physical testabilty, as if all of these are "facts".
off-topic (and for your information you seem to troll on this for ever yourself)

3. Ridicules the systems that have been working for 200 yrs without much side effects and talk of those which cause plenty of side effects as "scientific".
The person who is desperate knows it will work and can be convinced it will. Not something like.. "See, I am prescribing this.. now this might work... why it works if it works.. no body knows including me... but let's see" :p ha ha ha

4. Talks about standards when it has been acknowledged that the successful homeopathy actually defies those standards. Instead scientifically looking upon that standards again like it shud be and like the science has been doing from the start, ridicules this successful field.
5. A few samples call it bullsheet/crap/garbage, where the actual sceintific souls are still exploring it.
there is nothing to explore by scientific people for the concept or the base itself is just "bullsheet"... :p It is up for the Homeopaths to establish their firmness with something other than non-documented 1854 fact sheet :D

Thanks for ur sagely advice n please "confine it" to urself n ur brigade members or it might start depleting intelligence from the face of earth.

@Karnivore: The "reflex" argument is still better. But had a good laugh on the "follow the genes" part. Neways, I hope u know the very basic definition of "reflexes".
Scientists say, it is to 'clean the wounds', some say its because saliva has healing properties, a few others argue its "instinctive" behaviour.
:o So, when "Water has memory" was published in Nature (with homeopathy institutions funding) its just a theory (you said it)...but when not the scientists...but "Some say" that "it has healing properties" we have to take it as a fact and you start quibbling over this "fact" and argue over Homeopathy.

So, let me get this straight. What are your arguments
1) It has been for 200 years and its non-documented. So, 1854.. this happened, they resuced... Homeopaths were heroes... BELIEVE!!! Dont worry about how it works...
2) Science has flaws... you believe it.. so why not Homeopathy???
Well... Science tries to explain and unravel the mystery while Homeopaths get millions of dollars and still have stagnated research and continue to loot people over such a stupid baseless argument working on mere placebo.

Mods : U can close this troll thread, which is nuthing but repeatition of what the materialists have debated in science/god thread!
Its you who are trolling with same 2 points given above. If you don't have anything else to continue on... "YOU" must stop posting and refrain from requesting the mods for the post I have started to close. The discussion is no flaming and the content is not against the rules. So, stop posting if you have nothing useful to say. Otherwise, quit ranting to the mods.

[mediator]

What a waste! U need to have fresh fruit juice to repair ur leftover thinking process! Funny how u r repeating everything now n u think I'll do the same. :D

Its better to read the science/god thread, instead of asking the same questions to gather up ur lost memory, than creating a troll thread. Materialists are really entertaining! http://www.smileyhut.com/eat_drink/cheers1.gif Have mercy on the mods!

[karnivore]

A new forum record. @mediator takes 6 posts to invoke “big bang, dark matter, dark whateva”, in a thread that is not even remotely discussing those. And it took him an amazing 6 posts to diagnose our disease a la, Aphasia (his favourite) and Alzheimer (his neo-favourite). :smile:

Tut tut, @mediator, you should not be standing so close to the mirror.:D

Now lets see……
But had a good laugh on the "follow the genes" part Why am I not surprised ? Newborns laugh at anything and everything they perceive to be funny. It is hardly a news.:rolleyes:
How does their attempts to clean the wounds translate to a reflex?? Don’t bother. Your aphasia is coming in the way. :rolleyes:
Seems like u don't appreciate the history of success very well. First prove that homeopathy’s “success” is anything that can’t be replicated by a sugar pill mixed in pure distilled water, I will gladly accept that “success”. Till then…..I will remain a skeptic. ;)
I understand the reality must be quite hard 4 u. If you had actually bothered to turn a few pages, your asinine remarks on “big bang, dark matter, dark whateva” would not have adorned every thread. So go turn the pages. :)
So again, its not bullsheet. It seems the "herd instinct" is also getting corrupt now and a few followers are finding themselves in a clueless situation, not having the intuition or intelligence to put themselves back to their path! There you go again. That tribe is yours, mate. Our tribe wins Nobel. Yours bite dust. ;-)
I myself said homeopathy is "unproven" in the eye of science….I have been saying it countless no. of times that its unproven from the start and that science has not been able to explain homeopathy… PLACEBO, remember. You have not yet given a reasoning, with evidence of course, that it is not so. Science claimed it to be PLACEBO and then proved it. Now if you reject that, you have to prove that it something more than PLACEBO.

M: Homeopathy works, I don’t know how, nobody knows how, science does not know how – but it works.
K/L: Prove that it works.
M: 200yrs of success, how dare you discount that.
K/L: Prove its success rate is better than placebo.
M: I told you, it is an extraordinary piece of knowledge, which only Hannimen’s fertile brain understood, but not the entire community of science in all 200 yrs.

K/L, at this point are diagnosed with Aphasia and/or Alzheimer, by M, while standing in front of his favourite cracked mirror. :)
And bt the memory of water, its still a theory set by science explorers, not by homeopaths! Again treating theories as facts? WOW !!! I have never seen a person who is so proud of his ignorance.

BTW, are you then accepting that homeopaths are NOT “science explorers”. Finally, we have been shouting from the roof top, for so long, that homeopaths are woo-mongers and now the confirmation from a homeopath fan, who has, apparently, the most open minded scientific outlook.

Give me a tissue, this thread is making me cry for so many times.
1. Ignores the success that has been prevailing for 200 yrs and rather likes to talk of unproven scenario. Once again, prove that the “success” is nothing more than PLACEBO. Come on, how hard can that be.
2. Talks of "observable universe" on the basis of "hypothetical" terms like dark matter, dark energy and "theories" like big bang (unproven), out of bounds of any physical testabilty, as if all of these are "facts". Yes, this is central to solving the mystery of homeopathy. Solve big bang etc. and voila, you have solved homeopathy. :D
3. Ridicules the systems that have been working for 200 yrs without much side effects and talk of those which cause plenty of side effects as "scientific". First prove that is has “effects”. :rolleyes:
4. Talks about standards when it has been acknowledged that the successful homeopathy actually defies those standards. Instead scientifically looking upon that standards again like it shud be and like the science has been doing from the start, ridicules this successful field. Yup, those standards need revision. For what ? To accommodate a method, that does not even recognize bacteriology and excludes it from their curriculum. Genius.
5. A few samples call it bullsheet/crap/garbage, where the actual sceintific souls are still exploring it. Your aphasia is getting worse. Someone who ridicules “science explorers”, while desperately trying to disassociate Homeopathy from “memory of water”, is, two lines hence, full of expectations from these “scientific souls”. My humble suggestion is:
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/thum_774747c0bf6fcb882.jpg
Mods : U can close this troll thread, which is nuthing but repeatition of what the materialists have debated in science/god thread! Golden rule of mediatorland, the thread where thy king posts, becomes his.

[legolas]

Golden rule of mediatorland, the thread where thy king posts, becomes his.
:) good one! :p

What a waste! U need to have fresh fruit juice to repair ur leftover thinking process! Funny how u r repeating everything now n u think I'll do the same. :D


Believe me, I am trying to do exactly the opposite!! :p Because we don't have to try to make you do that! :)

[mediator]

A new forum record. @mediator takes 6 posts to invoke “big bang, dark matter, dark whateva”, in a thread that is not even remotely discussing those. And it took him an amazing 6 posts to diagnose our disease a la, Aphasia (his favourite) and Alzheimer (his neo-favourite).

This thread as anyone can see is just an extension of the science/god thread, where one comes in whines homeopathy is bullsheet, links a page to prove his point and finds himself in a clueless situation and then comes his brigade member thinking his voice wud be heard with his famous repetition technique!


First prove that homeopathy’s “success” is anything that can’t be replicated by a sugar pill mixed in pure distilled water, I will gladly accept that “success”. Till then…..I will remain a skeptic.

Quite ironic for a guy who believes in big bang and dark whateva and tells "Till then....will remain skeptic"! U really like to joke around don't u? :)


If you had actually bothered to turn a few pages, your asinine remarks on “big bang, dark matter, dark whateva” would not have adorned every thread. So go turn the pages.

LOL, the member of the repeatition brigade is telling to turn pages! Does that brain of urs even grasp anything?


There you go again. That tribe is yours, mate. Our tribe wins Nobel. Yours bite dust.

Again a good laugh! U r saying "our" tribe like u actually know what the leader of ur tribe does. Yes, he wins nobel prize, but doesn't discounts anything like the puny blind followers of the tribe, neither he calls em "bullsheet/garbage" or wateva similar term resides in ur limited dictionary! Besides I already requested not to degrade and put me in ur category thinking that I actually "blindly follow" some tribe!! I'm only saying science can't explain everything and not disregarding homeopathy on the other hand.

Funny how materialists hallucinate n imagine things everytime. Having a hardtime to understand where u stand in ur tribe? Just "Follow the genes".:D


PLACEBO, remember. You have not yet given a reasoning, with evidence of course, that it is not so. Science claimed it to be PLACEBO and then proved it. Now if you reject that, you have to prove that it something more than PLACEBO.

Ah yes the placebo (http://www.nefha.com/Newswire/Back_issues/newswire_2005_09_15_1.htm) and we shud have randomised trials (http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/csArticles/articles/000000/000060.htm)!

According to classical homeopathy, each remedy should be tailored to the individual; because of this, homeopathy may not always fit well with traditional scientific methodology

I wonder how many times I have to show it to u and tell about the principle behind homeopathy! I shud have asked it before, but can u even comprehend the statement in bold? Materialism surely takes a toll on ones reasoning and memory! :oops:


K/L, at this point are diagnosed with Aphasia and/or Alzheimer, by

No it seems "schizophrenia" struck them in between or they did an overdose with psychedelic drugs, that they r assuming that they "are diagnosed"!


WOW !!! I have never seen a person who is so proud of his ignorance.

BTW, are you then accepting that homeopaths are NOT “science explorers”. Finally, we have been shouting from the roof top, for so long, that homeopaths are woo-mongers and now the confirmation from a homeopath fan, who has, apparently, the most open minded scientific outlook.

Give me a tissue, this thread is making me cry for so many times.

Another lapse in the electrical turbulence inside that blind and hollow brain! I'm not accepting what u "assumed". Homeopaths may be science explorers as well, just like a scientist can be a theist! Understand what it means. And finally, u have been proving about ur mental disorders time and time again!

And I agree this thread is indeed making u cry! Thanks to ur brigade member.... :D


First prove that is has “effects”.

Critics say homeopathic effects on "animals and babies" (who r ignorant bt homeopathy) are due to love and care. Well I didn't know babies are not loved & cared for otherwise!! First the critics whine on the basis of flawed trials and then give such an absurd reasoning!! To add a few materialists seperated from their herd ask for its effects! :D


Your aphasia is getting worse. Someone who ridicules “science explorers”, while desperately trying to disassociate Homeopathy from “memory of water”, is, two lines hence, full of expectations from these “scientific souls”.

I don't ridicule the "science explorers", but the "blind followers". Having trouble all this month to understand such a simple thing?


Golden rule of mediatorland, the thread where thy king posts, becomes his.

O' Great keyboard commando, the circumstances of the "tribe" aren't that bad I hope! King? Self nominated, psychedelic drug addict? :D

So joke and entertain me more. What abs, I already developed 8 packs! :D

[karnivore]

For a moment I was worried that our link-O-maniac was not providing any link. But not anymore.
This thread as anyone can see is just an extension of the science/god thread, where one comes in whines homeopathy is bullsheet, links a page to prove his point and finds himself in a clueless situation and then comes his brigade member thinking his voice wud be heard with his famous repetition technique! Errr…..*scratch*, if you say so.:confused:
Quite ironic for a guy who believes in big bang and dark whateva and tells "Till then....will remain skeptic"! U really like to joke around don't u? Aha…that is mediator-speak for, “I have not read the book that I suggested others to”. A classic case of Dyslexia ? :(
LOL, the member of the repeatition brigade is telling to turn pages! Does that brain of urs even grasp anything? Convinced. Its aphasia with dyslexia. :(
Again a good laugh! U r saying "our" tribe like u actually know what the leader of ur tribe does. Yes, he wins nobel prize, but doesn't discounts anything like the puny blind followers of the tribe, neither he calls em "bullsheet/garbage" or wateva similar term resides in ur limited dictionary! Besides I already requested not to degrade and put me in ur category thinking that I actually "blindly follow" some tribe!! I'm only saying science can't explain everything and not disregarding homeopathy on the other hand. O yes I know my leader. Just had breakfast with him. A scrambled homeopathy, sunny side down, a couple of spiritual breads and a cup of herbal tea, with two teaspoon of woo. Healthy breakfast I must say. You should try once. Darn. What am I saying. You have that everyday.:D

Yes, you did request me to do something, but I figured that every loony says that he is not a loony.:!:
Funny how materialists hallucinate n imagine things everytime. Having a hardtime to understand where u stand in ur tribe? Just "Follow the genes". I am following my genes. Don’t you worry about that. First figure out *scratch* what genes you have *cough*, that you are having such a hard time recognizing your tribe.:)
No it seems "schizophrenia" struck them in between or they did an overdose with psychedelic drugs, that they r assuming that they "are diagnosed"! Told you not to stand so close to that mirror.:D
Another lapse in the electrical turbulence inside that blind and hollow brain! Decide. Do I have a brain or not. If my brain is hollow, how can it possibly have electrical turbulence. Oh I get it. Just as water has memory. Oh I am so special. *weapy*, *weapy*:)
I'm not accepting what u "assumed". Homeopaths may be science explorers as well….. So the following in bold….
…its still a theory set by science explorers, not by homeopaths!
….means “Homeopaths may be science explorers as well”. They say that one learns till the last breath. I am learning - How to put a lousy spin.:D

I told you to put it down. Naughty naughty.

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/doglaugh.gif
…homeopathic effects on "animals and babies”… Can you please elaborate on this.
I don't ridicule the "science explorers", but the "blind followers". Having trouble all this month to understand such a simple thing? Lets analyze the following two quotes.
…its still a theory set by science explorers, not by homeopaths!
..the actual sceintific souls are still exploring it.
So, as long as “science explorers”, who were, BTW, funded by French Homeopathic Company, Boiron, come up with absurd theories, they are not Homeopaths. But as soon as someone comes up with something that fits the custom made theory of Homeopathy, they are “scientific souls”.:rolleyes:

Point taken.

Now about the links.

The links were given in response to PLACEBO. The links turned out to be two of the hundreds of lame attempts at criticizing that Lancet article. Still, the question remains unresolved as to why homeopathy is nothing more than PLACEBO.

The principal, criticism, among other frivolous ones, is that homeopathy is highly individualized and hence a generalized study can’t yield an effective result. (A lame attempt to fly under radar ?)

The study itself says:
The average study size was similar for the two groups, with a median of around 65 participants. Overall, study size ranged from ten to 1573 participants. Among homoeopathy trials 48 (44%) concerned clinical homoeopathy, 35 (32%) complex homoeopathy, 18 (16%) classical homoeopathy, and eight (7%) isopathy. For the remaining trial, the nature of the homoeopathic intervention was unclear.

There goes the “no individualization” quack-quack.

The SOH, says, “..standard assessment criteria are insufficient to gauge ‘high quality’ in homeopathy trials.” Oh, of course, we are above science, so no “standard assessment criteria” will ever be enough for us. We are so above science that we do not recognize bacteriology. Yep, convinced.

O' Great keyboard commando
Hey, i actually like it. I like it so much, that I have put it as my user title. Thank you :cool:

So joke and entertain me more. What abs, I already developed 8 packs! OK, this is rich. His “High”ness has developed 8 packs just by LOLing.

Someone please call an ambulance……or else I will the first person in the history of mankind, who will be amused to death. :D:D:D

Once again: Put that Hookah down, dude. You are too high to be near your keyboard.

[mediator]

ROFL, that u still didn't understand the article. What chickenpox taking a toll on that hollow upper shell of urs clouded by materialism?? :oops:

Here's the $1 MILLION challenge from me : Grow up if u can! :D

But neways, for all those who want to take a break from this troll thread, Here's a more serious discussion (http://www.otherhealth.com/research-scientific-validity-homeopathy/6082-homeopathy-mere-placebo-2.html), instead of reading the troll skeptics who don't even know how homeopathy works and then talk of randomized trials. :oops:

[karnivore]

What chickenpox taking a toll on that hollow upper shell of urs clouded by materialism??

Come on. Show some integrity. You contradict yourself in the same sentence.

How can anything effect something hollow. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[mediator]

So u agree its hollow, but guess its filled with some "dark matter"! :D

[karnivore]

So u agree its hollow, but guess its filled with some "dark matter"! :D
Nah, i did not say that. You say its hollow, and then go on to say its effected. So i was confused.I guess Biology and Physics in mediatorland is different from the rest of the world.:D

BTW, so you agree there is "Dark Matter":D

But neways, for all those who want to take a break from this troll thread, Here's a more serious discussion (http://www.otherhealth.com/research-scientific-validity-homeopathy/6082-homeopathy-mere-placebo-2.html),
Comming from someone who once declared:
I really don't give any importance to forums as source!!
Oh I forgot, in mediatorland, thy king is the rule.:D

Hypocrisy or Alzheimer ? Decide for yourself:D

[mediator]

WTH, Another lapse in ur comprehension? :oops:
Where did I ask to treat the link I gave, "as source"? All I said was some "serious discussion (http://www.otherhealth.com/research-scientific-validity-homeopathy/6082-homeopathy-mere-placebo-2.html)" is going on and that interested ones can check it out instead of this troll thread! I bet everyone must have developed atleast 6 packs from ur jokes.

"Hypocrisy or alzheimers?" come on, don't hallucinate again or is it ur "reflex" doing so or perhaps "gene following"?? :)

No wonder u haven't been able to gather even an iota of understanding bt homeopathy. I see the cloud of materialism in that hollow shell getting intense! Scary......:oops:

It seems chicken pox is really taking a huge there mentally/physically, so take care and get better soon! :)

Mods : U can close this thread now

[karnivore]

Where did I ask to treat the link I gave, "as source"? All I said was some "serious discussion (http://www.otherhealth.com/research-scientific-validity-homeopathy/6082-homeopathy-mere-placebo-2.html)" is going on and that interested ones can check it out instead of this troll thread!So, since you never SPECIFICALLY ASK us to treat the links you give "as source", we should never consider them "as source" ? Fine, no problem, we, as it is, don't. But then why do you get worked up when people don't visit your links ? Yet another HYPOCRISY ? :D

Guys, His "High"ness has given us carte blanch to treat his links as, NOT SOURCE, until he asks us to consider them "as source". So any link he provides can now be safely ignored.:D

Poor kid. Can't even give a proper spin to his HYPOCRISY.:D

P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C. [Notice that funny taste in your mouth. Its your foot.]

I bet everyone must have developed atleast 6 packs from ur jokes.May be i should charge them all. They are saving a lot of money in terms of gym fee. :D I will become rich, man.

"Hypocrisy or alzheimers?" come on, don't hallucinate again or is it ur "reflex" doing so or perhaps "gene following"??Put it down, dude. That hookah will kill ya.:)

No wonder u haven't been able to gather even an iota of understanding bt homeopathy.I wonder if homeopaths understand their own trade.:D

Mods : U can close this thread nowThe king has spoken, once again.:D

[mediator]

Get well soon! :)

[karnivore]

^^ So kind. Thank You :)