There has been one reoccurring theme in the meta analysis studies in the last ten years. The higher the quality the study the more likely the effects of homeopathy is equivalent to the placebo effect. The exact opposite of what you would expect if homeopathy works. In all other medical fields that's the way things work. Poor quality studies for anything are more likely to show false positives. So when there is conflicting results you only look at the best.
Research published in 2005 on hydrogen bond network dynamics in water showed that "liquid water essentially loses the memory of persistent correlations in its structure" within fifty millionths of a nanosecond.
source:
Cowan ML, Bruner BD, Huse N, et al (2005). "Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H2O". Nature 434 (7030): 199202.
Does anyone doubt that music exists? Can you show it's physical properties, or only the effects on humans? Do you doubt that it can cause the pulse rate to change?
Amazing that there are so many (especially those still in their teens) that think they know all there is to know in the natural world.
Needless to say, Im not bothered with answering those who dont know me, yet slander & abuse. My conscience is clear :)
Music is sound waves (vibration of the medium - air, water, ..) at audible frequencies. These vibrations are transformed into nerve signals, and our brain interprets these signals. We know and understand how "music" works, even if "music" is not an object/something concrete we can touch and see with our eyes and bend with our hands. If there was something unobservable/unexplainable but still present going on in homeopathy, the effects should still be seen in proper db tests, but they're not.
I don't think anyone has claimed that they know everything there is to know. I certainly don't, and I don't believe for one second that anyone does. Now, some people cling to unproven superstition in order to fill the void of the "unknown", while others (me included) accept that there's a lot we don't know. I'm pretty sure that I won't have all the answers in my lifetime, but I'm perfectly fine with that. Later generations will have answers.. unless science gets hampered by the superstitious.
With that said, science has certainly given homeopathy a chance - I have seen around 70 randomized double-blind placebo trials on humans and animals. Homeopathy fails the vast majority of those, heavily suggesting that the occasional success is nothing but an anomaly. If homeopathy would have something unobservable/unexplainable but still present going on that would differentiate it from placebo, the results would be reversed. As it is, homeopathy is unproven, and thus superstition.
annesash..clever to block personal messages..you must get have received a ton of compliments for selling the world's most expensive water..fucking snake oil saleswoman
This is starting to become a huge problem in America. Headon and Zicam are both homeopathic meds. The number of homeopathic remedies are taking about a larger portion of pharms. It should be called homeopathetic lol
That was my reply to den, regarding anti-depressant research - swept under carpet. Just goes to show, you can put a spin on it however it pays.. I dont doubt that they change brain chemistry. They dont "cure", but they prevent suicide & allow people to function somewhat normally, until the body adjusts as to most drugs. Then they dont work so well. No great mystery bout that.
And here I thought medicine had gotten to the point of actually looking at causes and addressing those, instead of blindly acting against or with symptoms. Seriously, one of the reasons I dislike homeopathy is that it's philosophy is based entirely around symptoms and not anything to do with the actual cause.
Not true. Conversely, it's often those who do the quick 5 - 10 minute consults who fail to seek the cause (guess!), rather than those who spend more time - 1 to 1 1/2 hrs.. that would be the homeopaths.. Speaking as a patient as well as practitioner. Ive been a walking lab rat for much of my life. Wouldnt be here at all if I put my health entirely in the hands of Drs.
I think you misunderstood my point. Medicine can determine the disease from the symptoms, but the actual treatment should be focused on the workings of the source. Conven. medicine targets ways of killing the pathogen after diagnosing the source from symptoms. Homeopathy spends more times with individuals, but less time figuring out how to beat the source and simply copies symptoms instead of directly addressing the source. Going with or against symptoms all the time is foolish and dangerous.
1. Nah, dangerous is when nothing is done. They dont know what to do with after effects of glandular fever, & I had near-anaphylaxis for 5 years. Tried several homeopathics in that time before getting one which is known as having good effect after G.F..
2. Had overnight relief of the swelling of 5 years duration & increasing, & needed a few doses over next copuple years, each time the interval much greater between. Other homeopathics did not affect, & as you know, they look & taste the same. This is not my only experience of homeopathy obviously, but that was 10 years ago now & no return of symptoms.
Pathogens are not the sole root cause of disease, & killing the pathogen does not necessarily "cure". I was told I had labyrinthitis because of a "virus" & "sinus congestion" by a Dr. This is funny. My sinuses had never been clearer, since i had a certain homeopathic, 10 years ago. So much for root cause, sheesh.
Definition of pathogen: Any organism or substance, especially a microorganism, capable of causing disease, such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa or fungi.
By defintion, pathogens are the root cause. I think I understand what you are getting at though (case in point: botulism). However, addressing the source of the disease (even if it is not the source of the source [the bacteria producing the toxin]) is key to stopping the disease and I fail to see how homeopathy does this.
I could write a page to explain this, but you still wouldnt get it. Im not in the business of writing practitioner courses. You will have to do it the long way like the rest. Refer to the books on homeopathic practise available to lay people, eg George Vithoulkas. Doubt anyone here can put several years training & post grad ed into a nutshell for you,, sorry. Try looking at the case on vithoulkas site, of lady with cancer.
Also, conven. doctors can't possibly spend an hour with every patient. There would be people dying in the streets. I appreciate your personal experience with homeopathy, but I've had personal experience with de javu and am unwilling to claim it as science because I know I may have been mistaken on a number of counts. We must be able to divorce our emotions from our judgments less we abandon rationality altogether.
If I relied on emotions/placebo for medicine, I wouldnt have been in danger of suffocation for the better part of 5 years. Ask any of the hundreds of millions who use homeopathy, it's not just for transient headaches & minor sniffles. In my case, I had antihistamine shots & cortisone & they did nothing really. Too far gone. Apart from that, they can be dangerous, on top of already dangerous condition.
Yes, I do keep emotions separate from rational analysis, every day. I think you have an impression that practising homeopaths use the same criteria for judging the action of a particular homeopathic in a patient, as being the same as those who buy over the counter band-aid remedies & judge themselves "better". Do you know that a resolved chronic case may not be published unless it is followed & shown to be so 1 to 2 years later?
Homeopathy uses the symptoms to determine the disease and the medicine needed to treat that disease.
H. addresses EVERY cause of disease from traumatic injury to emotional shock to bacteria, viruses, etc. Knowing the cause of disease is crucial to h. prescribing.
H. does NOT treat the symptoms but rather uses them to identify and treat the disease/injury. H. works by stimulating the immune system to heal the body naturally. That includes all causes including bacteria, etc.
I'm pretty sure if the body is showing symptoms, it already knows it's infected. Homeopathy, by methodology, only focuses on the symptoms. I wonder, if the homeopathic remedy for "traumatic injury" is to induce more internal bleeding or bruising?
I think body doesn't need to take any more damage in those instances.
And again, this is blinding going with the symptoms instead of actually examining the disease and how it functions.
Wrong Wrong Wrong. An ill informed & fanciful view of the training & practise of homeopathy. This site is full of it. Take a look above, you are only exposing your own ignorance. No practitioner is "blindly going with the symptoms".
Personally, I have had the greatest successes where Ive found a particular infection, trauma or other event has been found to precede the onset of chronic conditions of many years duration.
If it's really ill informed, state exactly what homeopathy says instead of alluding to it. If you want to prove me wrong, actually do it instead of simply asserting it.
If you have a genuine interest, there are a tremendous number of excellent text books which describe h. theory and practice in detail. The materia medicas describe the symptoms produced by each substance as shown in provings. The appropriate medicine is chosen according to which substance most closely matches the patient's symptoms and Hippocratic constitution.
Every doctor will acknowledge that conv. med. focuses all its efforts on treating symptoms. H. treats disease not symptoms.
Obviously we disagree with a very fundamental aspect of the direction of homeopathy. It is clear that you are unlikely to change your view and from what I've seen, there doesn't seem to be good evidence of homeopathy. (When it's effects seem to disappear under double blind conditions, it is not promising).
We do disagree about h. You're repeating misinfo. about h. and expecting knowledgeable people to accept it. The skeptic sites aren't telling you that there is a large body of high quality scientific evid. supporting h. That evid. grows every single day from lab/trial work to practical application to an understanding of how h. works.
I agree, from study and personal experience, with the tens of millions of people around the world who testify that h. doesn't just work but works beautifully.
So a 19-year-old repeating misinformation about something he knows nothing about isn't biased? Only people who know and use h. are biased? Where are your years of education, training and experience? How much objective study have you done of ANY form of medicine? I and other posters here have years of experience using and treating with conv. med. and h. That is what we base our conclusions on, and our conclusions are that h. works beautifully with no side effects or iatrogenic diseases.
And there are plenty of people who have had years of training that disagree with you.
Deal and stop getting so worked up about an argument on youtube about what type of pills people take. It's important to think this out, but you take it personally for no reason. I said you were biased because you obviously are. I'm biased to reject things until they make sense. Insulting me (although it's true I don't have experience) does nothing to further your argument.
Do your homework before commenting instead of wasting time rolling your eyes and making accusations of bias. Being ignorant of what you are skepticizing does nothing to further your argument.
Except it's not just an accusation. You have clear bias. You strongly couch yourself to one side of the argument. That's bias by definition. Intelligent design and dousing has a lot of "homework" behind it too, but until they put forward convincing evidence that can withstand double blind conditions (in terms of experiments) I will remain skeptical and you tossing around demands will continue to do nothing. Do your homework on manners.
It's cool. I think the important part [to understanding science] is knowledge of statistics, knowledge of media's dumbing down for people, skepticism, and at least some basic knowledge in the closest related field (in this case chem., but he seems to be claiming nuclear physics).
Um.. no. The reasons I feel he's biased is that he won't even listen to my criticism or why I feel potentiation (or w/e) isn't any different than washing out a test tube with water and why wouldn't water hold the "memory" or negative effects. Would you suggest homeopathy for immune disorders? I'm skeptical. I'm biased against everything until it survives rigorous standards including but not necessarily limited to double blind testing in this situation.
Yeah, likewise. Look at George Vithoulkas' explanation of why the double-blind trials performed by non-homeopaths, by-passing normal homeopathic principles in prescribing. Analogy is - if you prescribe an anti-depressant for an infection, or penicillin for depression, the result will be negative. Add that to prescribing for the disease not the person.. Not to mention prescribing for a few cells in a vial. How does that compare with a whole being? Simple. It doesnt. Who's biased?
If you bother to read any book on homeopathy available to lay-people, you are bound to find something bout considering the cause in the first chapter. Sometimes the cause cannot be found, & it need not always be a hindrance, but in myself it was necessary to consider Glandular Fever as a cause. The h. which resolved all the problems was however, not glandular fever nosode, but another homeopathic which is well known to have good effect for long term consequences of GF, & that is Carcinosinum.
Of course they can. Someone gives you a piece of chicken, and after you've had it, says that it was poisoned although it wasn't and that you will die in 2 hours. You'd probably start imagining all kinds of stuff. A bit contrived example, but anyway. The actual term is accurately 'nocebo'. Likewise, ECCH recommends the use of placebo (nocebo) in order to weed out imaginary headaches and such, because people know that they're supposed to manifest negative effects.
Here's a quote from another study on homeopathic provings:
"Objectives: To develop a test model which allows for testing if homeopathic proving symptoms are caused by placebo or causative mechanisms..."
Well again... If the study is to try tell apart those causative "proving symptoms" from proving symptoms resulting only from placebo, how can the "proving symptoms" in question be negative either way?
Here's a quote from another study on homeopathic provings:
"Objectives: To develop a test model which allows for testing if homeopathic proving symptoms are caused by placebo or causative mechanisms..."
Well again... If the study is to try tell apart those causative "proving symptoms" from proving symptoms resulting only from placebo, how can the "proving symptoms" in question be negative either way?
Meaning of the word symptom in ECCH guidelines is referring to negative symptoms. First of all, you have the context of the act of proving, which is about exploring negative symptoms. Second, Hahnemann (Org § 12) said it best "nothing can be observed that can constitute them medicines or remedies except that power of causing distinct alterations in the state of health of the human body, and particularly in that of the healthy individual, and of exciting in him various definite morbid symptoms".
I got the wrong number previously, it's § 21. The meaning comes from the context of proving, and proving has been defined to look for negative symptoms, and Hahnemann explicitly requires morbid symptoms on healthy people for anything to be considered a medicine.
Plus, it is applicable, because Hahnemann didn't retract it although he certainly had a chance, and there are homeopaths who go by this (ECCH).
".therefore explore the distinctiveness of homeopathic symptoms and placebo symptoms. Participants: 21 healthy homeopathic practitioners note symptoms produced after remedy intake. Interventions: Patients are randomly assigned to receive either (1) Calendula officinalis, (2) Ferrum muriaticum, or (3) placebo. After a seven-day baseline symptoms recording period, proving substances are taken until symptoms occur.
"With regard to the specificity, the Calendula officinalis group displayed more remedy-specific symptoms than placebo. However, in the Ferrum muriaticum group more Calendula symptoms than placebo were also recorded."
This is in line with the sort of prescribing somewhere like nelsons suggests. Their remedies recommend patients take remedies until beneficial reaction occurs.
"The true natural chronic diseases are those that arise from a chronic miasm, when left to themselves, improper treatment, go on to increase, growing worse and torment the patient to the end of his life." - 78 Organon
""A healthy person who takes a 'medicine' (potentised agent) in the process of a proving will come up with symptoms determined by their susceptibility to it.".
Certainly. Some homeopaths believe 90% of the population require calcarea carbonicum. But this doesn't mean they think 90% of people are unhealthy.
Rather that 90% of people's health may be better optimised by calc carb.
You can't explain proving with potensized stuff to work through (generic) health optimization, when "A healthy person who takes a 'medicine' (potentised agent) in the process of a proving will come up with symptoms determined by their susceptibility to it.". Emphasis on "will come up with symptoms".
Maybe we're actually misunderstanding each other here. Your argument was that all homeopaths agree with 'potentization removes negative effects'. Yes, all homeopaths do agree that potentization removes side-effects of the medicine on sick people, but that is not what I'm arguing against. I've been talking about proving here, and in the context of healthy people homeopaths have differing views on whether potentization removes negative effects or brings out the full scale of negative effects.
No. The only way homeopaths would consider potentization to 'bring out negative effects' would be in the context the inducement of an artificial "disease", which the potentized remedies would then cure.
Which essentially means that the only way homeopaths would consider potentization to 'bring out negative effects' would be in the context of a proving, because that's what it is - inducement of an artifical "disease" on healthy people. And this goes directly against 'potentization removes negative effects' being applied to proving as well.
"Which essentially means that the only way homeopaths would consider potentization to 'bring out negative effects' would be in the context of a proving, because that's what it is - inducement of an artifical "disease" on healthy people."
No... all homeopathic remedies are intended to stimulate the body's own healing power. They can't stimulate the body unless it needs to be healed.
For its own special purpose, the homeopathic medical art develops to a formerly unheard of degree the internal, spirit-like medicinal powers of crude substances. It does so by means of a procedure[potentization] which belongs exclusively to it (and which was untried before my time)
....whereby these substances become altogether more than ever indeed, immeasurably penetratingly effective and helpful, even those substances which, in their crude state do not manifest the least medicinal power in the human body.
So the crude substances do not have the least medicinal power (and produce only negative symptoms). The initial provings took place on these substances in their crude states. Therefore only negative symptoms could be recorded.
According to Hahnemann, the process of potentization causes these substances to become immeasurably penetratingly effective and helpful. So says Hahnemann, myself, and every homeopath on the planet. Like the basophil study in your inbox, provings on the potentized remedies can no longer take place on the basis of negative symptoms, because homeopaths dont believe there are any.
Homeopaths don't believe there are any negative symptoms? ECCH: "A healthy person who takes a 'medicine' (potentised agent) in the process of a proving will come up with symptoms determined by their susceptibility to it.". Emphasis on "will come up with symptoms".
Aggravation is only defined for the remedy side (= occurs when the remedy is working), not proving, and does not work in explaining events that occur while proving.
Homeopaths don't believe there are any negative symptoms? ECCH: "A healthy person who takes a 'medicine' (potentised agent) in the process of a proving will come up with symptoms determined by their susceptibility to it.". Emphasis on "will come up with symptoms".
Homeopaths don't believe there are any negative symptoms? ECCH: "A healthy person who takes a 'medicine' (potentised agent) in the process of a proving will come up with symptoms determined by their susceptibility to it.". Emphasis on "will come up with symptoms".
What goes for miasms - how would you prove a cough medicine on a group of healthy people who do not cough? They would see an improvement how - they cough less than not at all?
"how would you prove a cough medicine on a group of healthy people who do not cough? They would see an improvement how - they cough less than not at all?"
Jim, Isopathy in homeopathy or allopathy is to use the causative substance to cure effects of same, e.g. allergens.
The problem with Syn' s comment is that we don't test homeopathics for what they cure, but for what they cause, in the first place. Later we consider if similar conditions are resolved in many provers/patients with that same h'.
"we don't test homeopathics for what they cure, but for what they cause"
Again, the comment you refer to was directed at the GHO claim by JHW, not homeopathic principles in proving. What I was trying to get through was exactly that - you try to figure out what (negative) effects are caused by a certain substance (on healthy people), and GHO doesn't apply in proving. This was also demonstrated in my other comments, which you seem to have missed.
Beg your pardon, yes I have read properly now, but not all of your comments, sorry. It's taken me about a week (or so it seems) of scrolling down the page just to get to this spot, LOL. Thought I could help to clear up. Ok, carry on :)
Please pardon my interruption. We dont "prove" a medicine for a particular ailment, such as cough. Every substance is ffirst tested for what it causes. Seems to be the hardest thing to get through.
That is true, and my example was directed at JHW's statement that proving can be deemed successful if a "generic health optimization" is observed. The point of the cough medicine example was to show that with GHO, you have no way of knowing that something is a cough (or any other) medicine because people who are healthy and do not cough can hardly cough any less. It is as you say - every substance is first tested for what (negative effects) it causes (on healthy people). Thanks for the help.
"Aggravation is only defined for the remedy side (= occurs when the remedy is working), not proving, and does not work in explaining events that occur while proving."
Not true. Aggravation is often a good sign that the remedy *is* working, and homeopaths tend to be quite pleased if it occurs.
Have a look at Bandershot's site. Comment from a lady who specialises in Lyme disease. Talks of aggravations after 10m Lyme nosode in patients before better. Not to mention the long list of studies there.. Then again, Im biased against tests on bits of tissue in vials :)
I looked at his channels (multiple accounts), his videos, his blog, etc, and could not find this comment. Were they randomized double-blind placebo trials? If not, they're of no interest - the results seem to take a turn for the negative as proper controls (RDBP) are in place (to minimize the effect from the researcher(s)), suggesting that the researchers' (un)intentional actions are what make the results positive. There's less of a chance for bias etc in RDBPT for both sides of the argument.
The ~70 RDBP studies I mentioned earlier were all done with real people (2 with animals) and real disease. Not 'tissue in a vial'. All of them are studies published in either medical and h. journals and done by people/groups affiliated and not affiliated with h. Even in the subgroup of studies by h affiliates, the amount of positive results doesn't exceed the amount of negative results. All this from RDBP controls - minimizing the effect of the researcher(s) on the results. Funny. :)
Here's what Randi really said, verbatim: "Further investigation needs to be done. This may sound a little strange coming from me, but if there is any possibility that there's a reality here, I want to know about it - all of humanity wants to know about it.". Even if this test would be declared invalid.. so what? That conclusion would not be proof for h. (try playing the "hi dil. hist. should inhibit by h. rules, and it does, h. works" card and you'll get burned by elementary common sense).
Vithoulkas, who you seem to like parroting, is the source for this "false premise" idea. He also says that "homeopathy must be accepted or rejected on its therapeutic effects alone, not by theory" and all that. Ok, so let's indulge your lord and master even more and talk about how these "therapeutic effects" seem to 1) appear when rigorous controls are not in place and 2) disappear when the bias of the researcher(s) is removed by simply introducting proper RDBP controls to the trial.
Yet again, ignoring the complex biochemical & systemic responses in-vivo. I cant be bothered to argue in vitro testing as a invalid test of homeopathy any more. See my answer to Jim re Histamine symptoms, signs, & conditions affected.
Sorry I barged in now. Feel like Im interrupting a lovers tiff between you & Jim :)
Yet again, ignoring the fact which I've mentioned multiple times already - there are these ~70 RDBP trials (= ALL h. RDBPT in PM as far I can tell), which have been done by both h. affiliates and non-affiliates, all on real, whole humans/animals (2 studies) with real disease. The vast majority of them show no difference in h. to placebo. Even in the studies by h. affiliates, the number of positives does not exceed the number of negatives. This fact can't be beat by excuses or ignoring it. :)
Yes Jim, I am. Qualified since 1995. Went into it because of my own health problems - was a basket case many times over, pretty much since glandular fever at age 14. Family responsibilities & location make it awkward to make it a full time thing, & Im loathe to add "quick money" products, therapies or diagnostic machines which I consider unethical. So, I do it all the more laborious & less profitable way, but Ive had terrific results.
Obviously "whole humans" lab tested here. That's what Im interested in, not in vitro tests of cells, which dont take into account complex biochemical, multi-organ & system responses.
Histamine is not a "big" remedy in homeopathy. People with problems of allergy are more likely helped by other substances. Same goes for potencies of allergens. Not helpful in the long term. I dont bother with them, generally. There are other things that better "fit the picture", so these allergens will always come up low in tests. Isopathy is easy to figure, but not usually the best path in homeopathy.
Why would they prove with potentized stuff, if potentization removes negative effects? After all, in proving you are exploring what kind of negative effects some substance causes on healthy people (so you can determine what positive effects that would have on sick people). They're removing negative effects in order to test negative effects? It makes no sense, until you can admit to yourself that there are homeopaths who do not agree with you in 'potentization removes negative effects'.
" Potentisation increases the potential therapeutic action of remedies. A remedy is homeopathic only by virtue of its ability to produce similar symptoms in the healthy to that of the patient it is prescribed for."
And that doesn't negate their own proving guidelines. Potentisation increases the potential therapeutic action of remedies by allowing the full range negative effects to manifest on healthy people. After all, without a negative effect on the healthy, there is on positive effect on the sick.
"Potentisation increases the potential therapeutic action of remedies by allowing the full range negative effects to manifest on healthy people"
You're actually starting with legitimate points quoted from the page, b4 proceding to tack on your own assumption that negative effects obtain each time.
Once again, do you have a quotation of theirs which confirms what you say?
Yeah... stick a clickable link in my inbox, will you? "Tinyurl bh3utg" means nothing to me.
Unless you can actually quote me the part where ECCH explicitly states proving is done "to explore the negative effects", it just sounds as though you're making the last part up.
Please refer back to my comments about miasm. You might understand the homeopathic concept of health a little more adequately.
"ECCH doesn't define what proving means - and why should they, because Organon already defines what proving means. Are you stupid or just playing one?"
So you can't get the ECCH to back up your rather bizarre notion that proving entails confirming negative symptoms as a matter of necessity, as opposed to the context of priving crude poisons?
Organon says that proving is used to explore negative symptoms on healthy people, and adds that potentization brings out the full range of effects. ECCH recommends proving with multiple potencies, so that when you pick the first potency and see what kind of an effect that has, you go up/down in potency to see if that was already the full range of effects.
"A healthy person who takes a "medicine" (potentised agent) in the process of a proving will come up with symptoms determined by their susceptibility to it."
According to the guidelines listed on the page, I qualify as a healthy person. But I was in the 90% of the population some homeopaths think need calc. carb, and thus experienced improved health after taking it.
Wikipedia notes that the law of similars is the most important in homeopathy.
Holistic online defines this:
"A substance produces symptoms of illness in a well person when administered in large doses; if we administer the same substance in minute quantities, it will cure the disease in a sick person.
I'look forward to the receipt of the link to the page you're quoting from in my inbox, so I can understand why ECCH would wish to contradict homeopathy's most central tenet.
Tinyurl bh3utg contains the same text you would find from the ECCH site through Internet Archive. ECCH says that proving is done with potentized agent, and proving should be done with multiple potencies to fully explore the negative effects. This means that the artificial disease-manifestation is present in the potentized dilution, to cause a deviation on healthy vital force. The law of similars is not broken, you're just trying to force your silly 'potentization removes negative effects'.
In short, ECCH is not breaking and challenging the law of similars. They are breaking and challenging your notion of 'potentization removes negative effects'.
"In short, ECCH is not breaking and challenging the law of similars. They are breaking and challenging your notion of 'potentization removes negative effects'."
My theory would what now? ECCH says that proving is done with potentized agent, and proving should be done with multiple potencies to fully explore the negative effects. Therefore, potentization does not remove negative effects as you claim, and it doesn't challenge the law of similars as you claim.
"ECCH says that proving is done with potentized agent, and proving should be done with multiple potencies to fully explore the negative effects."
No it doesn't. I accept your point it says proving should be done with a potentized agent as I've seen it... but nowhere can I find it mentioning negative effects.
Do you have an actual quotation to back up your claim?
Why would proving guidelines have to mention negative effects, when it should be clear by now to anyone reading that that proving is about finding negative effects? Should they copypaste the full Organon and definitions of words there so you'd understand it? Do you really think ECCH made up their own definition for proving?
Second time actually, and I answered you on the first time. Because homeopaths believe that something that causes A in a healthy person will cure A-like symptoms in a sick person, and this is because the artificial disease-manifestation coming from the 'medicine' should cancel the effects of the actual disease-manifestation on our vital force. They don't think they're causing poisonous side effects to _sick_ people, and I don't think I've ever said they do.
And then? EHHC (European Council of Classical Homeopathy) states that provings are done with the 'potentized agent', and encourages 2-3 different potentization levels for proving. Your argument that all homeopaths agree that potentization removes negative effects is clearly untrue, because there are obviously homeopaths who do not think so. It's absolutely irrelevant what some non-classical sources have to say, you're still not going to be able to argue that all homeopaths agree.
Haha, squirm all you want, but you can't deny the ECCH guidelines to a Hanhemannian proving. If some people in homeopathy disagree with you, then clearly all do not agree with you. Again, everyone can check this out for themselves, tinyurl bh3utg.
This is not an argument anymore, now it's just your denial. :) You said that all homeopaths agree that potentization is used to remove negative effects. All I need to bring that down is to point out one homeopath/one instance that follows the way of the original/classical homeopathy, and I point at ECCH. I don't care about what you have been taught, about what you continue to think, or if any of this makes sense to you. None of that can erase the fact that your argument has been busted.
"By contrast, each Homeopathic remedy has had documented Provings done on humans. Healthy humans agree to take a substance and have their symptoms recorded. This shows
also the safety of Homeopathy, when even test subjects suffer no ill effects after the testing is over."
As I've pointed out numerous times, if potentization did not remove all negative effects of the original materials, the thousands of people who have taken diluted arsenic, gold powder, and snake venom would be very, very ill.
Jim baby :) Potentization removes poisonous effects, those which have long term cumulative or um, permanent & catastrophic consequences. The unpleasant effects during potency provings tend to stay only during the test period, e.g., the headache, fever etc that hahnemann experienced whenever he took chinchona (crude). He would stop for days or a week, & when he resumed to drug, the symptoms would return. Headache & fever = negative effects. Same happens in potency provings.
Ive just looked at a study online, using low dilutions of lung histamine & apis. For one thing the so called "anti histamines" should INHIBIT basophil degranulation.
As the test used low potencies - 3c & 9c, from what I know of European use of these, there can be opposite effects depending on the number. Certain potencies under 12 have different effects - stimulating or inhibiting. Dont know them off top of my head. I only use 30+ myself, & always in vivo, not in vitro :)
Personally, Im just not sold on the idea of testing for complicated human immune/allergic/hormonal/etc response by putting a single hormone in a vial with a few cells.
Nonsense. Organon shows Hahnemann advocated proving with both crude materials (looking for negative effects) and later dilutions (believing potentization to unlock their curative effects).
A proving of histamine dilution is now in your inbox.
Unsurprisingly, it looks for the dilution's curative effects.
RADAR repertory software has total 274 symptoms listed for Histaminum, Jim. None of which would ever be found by playing with some tissue in a vial :(
All? Nope. Tinyurl bh3utg. ECCH guidelines: 'Potentised agent' is taken in proving, and one should test 2-3 different potencies in proving to find out the full range of effects. You say that all homeopaths agree that potentization removes negative effects, and yet, ECCH says that one should indeed use potentized dilutions in proving (finding negative effects in healthy people). This is the classical/Hahnemann way - the full range of negative effects is revealed - not removed - by potentization.
Development of med. power goes hand in hand with § 128 - you can't find the full range and strength of a substance without potentization. To continue, he performs proving at 30 C potency. This allows the substance to display its full powers, and as mentioned, even in proving. There is no development of medicinal power without development of negative effects on healthy people - if the full range of neg. effects would not appear on healthy, he would not know what the full range of med. powers is.
To elaborate: At crude state, substance X causes A on healthy people. At 30 C potency, X would also causes B, C and D on healthy people. Now he knows the full range of effects of X, and has at the the same time determined that X not only cures (symptoms of) A on sick people, but B, C and D as well. Hence, while he is expanding the range of effects on the negative side, he is at the same time expanding the range of effects on the curative side - aka development of medicinal powers.
Again, you are referring to modern homeopathy. The Hahnemann/classical branch goes by the Organon. Modern homeopathy has since changed its view on this, but they can't both be right at the same time. I'm not saying modern homeopathy follows this teaching, but I'm arguing it from the classical POV to expose the controversial views. Please clarify which one (classical, modern) you are advocating, so that the frame of reference is clear.
Let's see what Mr Hahnemann has to say about potentization:
"This remarkable transformation of the properties of natural bodies through the mechanical action of trituration and succussion on their particles (while these particles are diffused in an inert dry or liquid substance) develops the latent dynamic powers previously imperceptible and as it were lying hidden asleep in them. ...
Your argument in this matter stems from the fact that the difference between classical homeopathy and modern homeopathy can't be reconciled. Of course the teachings of classical homeopathy would seem silly to you, but ignoring them and trying to force a modern homeopathy 'understanding' on them doesn't work. Even one homeopathy site says that it's a pretty schizoid relationship. You have to understand that what you claim is not true for other homeopaths and what they claim is not true for you.
These homeopaths are the classical branch, oldskool hardcore. To them, high dilutions are corruption of Hahnemann's work. You can probably guess what they go by. Besides, like Organon § 128 says, potentization allows the substance to display the full range and strength of even the negative effects, not directly cause them (as in a cause-effect relationship). Again, you can't understand and accept this, because you are approaching this with the modern homeopathy mindset.
Investigation of medicinal powers equals proving equals finding negative effects on healthy people. Medicinal powers are not known if the negative effects on healthy people are not known. When you investigate medicinal powers, you investigate what negative effects they bring about in healthy people. Besides, 121-130 all deal with proving. The context clearly indicates all of this, but you choose to ignore it and instead concentrate on one word. If that's not selective, I don't know what is.
"proving equals finding negative effects on healthy people."
You've heard that provings are done to find negative effects. You've not understood this is only relevantwhere the material, rather than diluted, substance is "proved".
Not surprising if you didn't understand priovings were done on crude materials in the first place.
Iadmit I didn't know provings were also done on dilutions. However I've since looked dilution provings up.
They don't look for curative effects, because § 126 states the the experimenters taking the 30 C potentized dilutions mentioned in § 128 must be in good health. There's little point in looking for curative effects on healthy people. They are looking for negative effects (which by the rules of homeopathy then imply curative effects).
How would you notice anything? If you don't have cholera nor cholera-like symptoms , taking a potentized dilution that should fix cholera-like symptoms does.. what? And again, these are all aphorisms related to proving - the requirement for healthy people is for proving, the requirement for the usage of 30 C potency is for proving. In order to examine and determine the medicinal effects of a substance, you must first find the negative effects, and Hahnemann did that at 30 C potency.
In other words, it does what the BBC test would have done had it been a real test of homeopathic principle tests the homeopathic belief that histamine will have a curative effect after dilution.
Lose? I have the Organon on my side, and again, anyone can check what it says about this at any time. Tinyurl blpnx2. You might choose to ignore the teachings in the magnum opus of homeopathy, but you can't make them go away just because they're not convenient for you.
It doesn't matter how selectively you choose to interpret the Organon (as you demonstrated, with numerous quotes out of context). I keep saying that phrase so that people who think for themselves can go and check what is really says, and determine for themselves who is right and who is wrong. This is not about trying to convert you, it's about providing information to people who may have been approached by homeoquacks and may be sitting on the fence. Just say no, people. :)
There has been one reoccurring theme in the meta analysis studies in the last ten years. The higher the quality the study the more likely the effects of homeopathy is equivalent to the placebo effect. The exact opposite of what you would expect if homeopathy works. In all other medical fields that's the way things work. Poor quality studies for anything are more likely to show false positives. So when there is conflicting results you only look at the best.
1skyhand 2 years ago
"If we knew the answers to the questions, we wouldn't bother doing the experiements."
And you would waste your time arguing and discussing that idiotic statement?
Darryld1 2 years ago
Research published in 2005 on hydrogen bond network dynamics in water showed that "liquid water essentially loses the memory of persistent correlations in its structure" within fifty millionths of a nanosecond.
source:
Cowan ML, Bruner BD, Huse N, et al (2005). "Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H2O". Nature 434 (7030): 199202.
BlindfoldedPoet 2 years ago
Does anyone doubt that music exists? Can you show it's physical properties, or only the effects on humans? Do you doubt that it can cause the pulse rate to change?
Amazing that there are so many (especially those still in their teens) that think they know all there is to know in the natural world.
Needless to say, Im not bothered with answering those who dont know me, yet slander & abuse. My conscience is clear :)
annesash 2 years ago
Music is sound waves (vibration of the medium - air, water, ..) at audible frequencies. These vibrations are transformed into nerve signals, and our brain interprets these signals. We know and understand how "music" works, even if "music" is not an object/something concrete we can touch and see with our eyes and bend with our hands. If there was something unobservable/unexplainable but still present going on in homeopathy, the effects should still be seen in proper db tests, but they're not.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
I don't think anyone has claimed that they know everything there is to know. I certainly don't, and I don't believe for one second that anyone does. Now, some people cling to unproven superstition in order to fill the void of the "unknown", while others (me included) accept that there's a lot we don't know. I'm pretty sure that I won't have all the answers in my lifetime, but I'm perfectly fine with that. Later generations will have answers.. unless science gets hampered by the superstitious.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
With that said, science has certainly given homeopathy a chance - I have seen around 70 randomized double-blind placebo trials on humans and animals. Homeopathy fails the vast majority of those, heavily suggesting that the occasional success is nothing but an anomaly. If homeopathy would have something unobservable/unexplainable but still present going on that would differentiate it from placebo, the results would be reversed. As it is, homeopathy is unproven, and thus superstition.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
HomeopaTHETIC....anyone who passed high school chemistry knows that homeopathy is a crock of shit
mapache11 2 years ago
annesash..clever to block personal messages..you must get have received a ton of compliments for selling the world's most expensive water..fucking snake oil saleswoman
mapache11 2 years ago 3
"James Randi explains homeopathy "
watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U
was removed due an infraction of the terms of use? meh what a lost of good comments and a popular video to expose homeospammers.
jotatsu 2 years ago
This is starting to become a huge problem in America. Headon and Zicam are both homeopathic meds. The number of homeopathic remedies are taking about a larger portion of pharms. It should be called homeopathetic lol
axe863 2 years ago
That was my reply to den, regarding anti-depressant research - swept under carpet. Just goes to show, you can put a spin on it however it pays.. I dont doubt that they change brain chemistry. They dont "cure", but they prevent suicide & allow people to function somewhat normally, until the body adjusts as to most drugs. Then they dont work so well. No great mystery bout that.
annesash 2 years ago
And here I thought medicine had gotten to the point of actually looking at causes and addressing those, instead of blindly acting against or with symptoms. Seriously, one of the reasons I dislike homeopathy is that it's philosophy is based entirely around symptoms and not anything to do with the actual cause.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
Not true. Conversely, it's often those who do the quick 5 - 10 minute consults who fail to seek the cause (guess!), rather than those who spend more time - 1 to 1 1/2 hrs.. that would be the homeopaths.. Speaking as a patient as well as practitioner. Ive been a walking lab rat for much of my life. Wouldnt be here at all if I put my health entirely in the hands of Drs.
annesash 2 years ago
I think you misunderstood my point. Medicine can determine the disease from the symptoms, but the actual treatment should be focused on the workings of the source. Conven. medicine targets ways of killing the pathogen after diagnosing the source from symptoms. Homeopathy spends more times with individuals, but less time figuring out how to beat the source and simply copies symptoms instead of directly addressing the source. Going with or against symptoms all the time is foolish and dangerous.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
1. Nah, dangerous is when nothing is done. They dont know what to do with after effects of glandular fever, & I had near-anaphylaxis for 5 years. Tried several homeopathics in that time before getting one which is known as having good effect after G.F..
annesash 2 years ago
2. Had overnight relief of the swelling of 5 years duration & increasing, & needed a few doses over next copuple years, each time the interval much greater between. Other homeopathics did not affect, & as you know, they look & taste the same. This is not my only experience of homeopathy obviously, but that was 10 years ago now & no return of symptoms.
annesash 2 years ago
Pathogens are not the sole root cause of disease, & killing the pathogen does not necessarily "cure". I was told I had labyrinthitis because of a "virus" & "sinus congestion" by a Dr. This is funny. My sinuses had never been clearer, since i had a certain homeopathic, 10 years ago. So much for root cause, sheesh.
annesash 2 years ago
Definition of pathogen: Any organism or substance, especially a microorganism, capable of causing disease, such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa or fungi.
By defintion, pathogens are the root cause. I think I understand what you are getting at though (case in point: botulism). However, addressing the source of the disease (even if it is not the source of the source [the bacteria producing the toxin]) is key to stopping the disease and I fail to see how homeopathy does this.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
I could write a page to explain this, but you still wouldnt get it. Im not in the business of writing practitioner courses. You will have to do it the long way like the rest. Refer to the books on homeopathic practise available to lay people, eg George Vithoulkas. Doubt anyone here can put several years training & post grad ed into a nutshell for you,, sorry. Try looking at the case on vithoulkas site, of lady with cancer.
annesash 2 years ago
Homeopathy is impossible until proven otherwise. You are an idiot.
ScottTheAtheist 2 years ago
Excuse me.. those are your words only, not principles of homeopathy. Do your homework. You really dont know much bout homeopathic practise, do you?
annesash 2 years ago
Also, conven. doctors can't possibly spend an hour with every patient. There would be people dying in the streets. I appreciate your personal experience with homeopathy, but I've had personal experience with de javu and am unwilling to claim it as science because I know I may have been mistaken on a number of counts. We must be able to divorce our emotions from our judgments less we abandon rationality altogether.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
If I relied on emotions/placebo for medicine, I wouldnt have been in danger of suffocation for the better part of 5 years. Ask any of the hundreds of millions who use homeopathy, it's not just for transient headaches & minor sniffles. In my case, I had antihistamine shots & cortisone & they did nothing really. Too far gone. Apart from that, they can be dangerous, on top of already dangerous condition.
annesash 2 years ago
Yes, I do keep emotions separate from rational analysis, every day. I think you have an impression that practising homeopaths use the same criteria for judging the action of a particular homeopathic in a patient, as being the same as those who buy over the counter band-aid remedies & judge themselves "better". Do you know that a resolved chronic case may not be published unless it is followed & shown to be so 1 to 2 years later?
annesash 2 years ago
You are still not addressing the point of homeopathy not actually addressing the cause so much as the symptoms.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
Homeopathy uses the symptoms to determine the disease and the medicine needed to treat that disease.
H. addresses EVERY cause of disease from traumatic injury to emotional shock to bacteria, viruses, etc. Knowing the cause of disease is crucial to h. prescribing.
H. does NOT treat the symptoms but rather uses them to identify and treat the disease/injury. H. works by stimulating the immune system to heal the body naturally. That includes all causes including bacteria, etc.
den151redbank 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure if the body is showing symptoms, it already knows it's infected. Homeopathy, by methodology, only focuses on the symptoms. I wonder, if the homeopathic remedy for "traumatic injury" is to induce more internal bleeding or bruising?
I think body doesn't need to take any more damage in those instances.
And again, this is blinding going with the symptoms instead of actually examining the disease and how it functions.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
It is pointless to talk with you since you persist in your ignorance of h. and clearly have no interest in looking at the evidence with an open mind.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Wrong Wrong Wrong. An ill informed & fanciful view of the training & practise of homeopathy. This site is full of it. Take a look above, you are only exposing your own ignorance. No practitioner is "blindly going with the symptoms".
Personally, I have had the greatest successes where Ive found a particular infection, trauma or other event has been found to precede the onset of chronic conditions of many years duration.
annesash 2 years ago 2
If it's really ill informed, state exactly what homeopathy says instead of alluding to it. If you want to prove me wrong, actually do it instead of simply asserting it.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
If you have a genuine interest, there are a tremendous number of excellent text books which describe h. theory and practice in detail. The materia medicas describe the symptoms produced by each substance as shown in provings. The appropriate medicine is chosen according to which substance most closely matches the patient's symptoms and Hippocratic constitution.
Every doctor will acknowledge that conv. med. focuses all its efforts on treating symptoms. H. treats disease not symptoms.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Obviously we disagree with a very fundamental aspect of the direction of homeopathy. It is clear that you are unlikely to change your view and from what I've seen, there doesn't seem to be good evidence of homeopathy. (When it's effects seem to disappear under double blind conditions, it is not promising).
wightboy12345 2 years ago 2
We do disagree about h. You're repeating misinfo. about h. and expecting knowledgeable people to accept it. The skeptic sites aren't telling you that there is a large body of high quality scientific evid. supporting h. That evid. grows every single day from lab/trial work to practical application to an understanding of how h. works.
I agree, from study and personal experience, with the tens of millions of people around the world who testify that h. doesn't just work but works beautifully.
den151redbank 2 years ago
I'm glad you can look at this issue without bias. *rolls eyes*
wightboy12345 2 years ago 2
So a 19-year-old repeating misinformation about something he knows nothing about isn't biased? Only people who know and use h. are biased? Where are your years of education, training and experience? How much objective study have you done of ANY form of medicine? I and other posters here have years of experience using and treating with conv. med. and h. That is what we base our conclusions on, and our conclusions are that h. works beautifully with no side effects or iatrogenic diseases.
den151redbank 2 years ago
And there are plenty of people who have had years of training that disagree with you.
Deal and stop getting so worked up about an argument on youtube about what type of pills people take. It's important to think this out, but you take it personally for no reason. I said you were biased because you obviously are. I'm biased to reject things until they make sense. Insulting me (although it's true I don't have experience) does nothing to further your argument.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
Do your homework before commenting instead of wasting time rolling your eyes and making accusations of bias. Being ignorant of what you are skepticizing does nothing to further your argument.
den151redbank 2 years ago
Except it's not just an accusation. You have clear bias. You strongly couch yourself to one side of the argument. That's bias by definition. Intelligent design and dousing has a lot of "homework" behind it too, but until they put forward convincing evidence that can withstand double blind conditions (in terms of experiments) I will remain skeptical and you tossing around demands will continue to do nothing. Do your homework on manners.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
I can't believe you people still exist. Scientific ignorance is on the rise
axe863 2 years ago
haha sorry I didnt mean to reply to you but rather to your opponent. Homeopathy is pseduo-science. Keep up the good work !
axe863 2 years ago
It's cool. I think the important part [to understanding science] is knowledge of statistics, knowledge of media's dumbing down for people, skepticism, and at least some basic knowledge in the closest related field (in this case chem., but he seems to be claiming nuclear physics).
wightboy12345 2 years ago
I think its sad that in this day and age ... pseduo-science is flourishing in almost every field.
axe863 2 years ago
Yeah.. everyone who's "not on your side" is biased.. & doesnt every 14, I mean 19 year old think they know everything there is to know? Pfft!
annesash 2 years ago 2
Um.. no. The reasons I feel he's biased is that he won't even listen to my criticism or why I feel potentiation (or w/e) isn't any different than washing out a test tube with water and why wouldn't water hold the "memory" or negative effects. Would you suggest homeopathy for immune disorders? I'm skeptical. I'm biased against everything until it survives rigorous standards including but not necessarily limited to double blind testing in this situation.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
Hear hear Den :) Im giving it a break here a while, got more interesting stuff on ;)
annesash 2 years ago
Yeah, likewise. Look at George Vithoulkas' explanation of why the double-blind trials performed by non-homeopaths, by-passing normal homeopathic principles in prescribing. Analogy is - if you prescribe an anti-depressant for an infection, or penicillin for depression, the result will be negative. Add that to prescribing for the disease not the person.. Not to mention prescribing for a few cells in a vial. How does that compare with a whole being? Simple. It doesnt. Who's biased?
annesash 2 years ago
If you bother to read any book on homeopathy available to lay-people, you are bound to find something bout considering the cause in the first chapter. Sometimes the cause cannot be found, & it need not always be a hindrance, but in myself it was necessary to consider Glandular Fever as a cause. The h. which resolved all the problems was however, not glandular fever nosode, but another homeopathic which is well known to have good effect for long term consequences of GF, & that is Carcinosinum.
annesash 2 years ago
Anyway, it's high time I went to check in on my beloved girlfriend.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Oh no you won't, Internet arguments are more important than girlfriends. :)
synergiaetu 2 years ago
How can negative symptoms be caused by placebo??
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Of course they can. Someone gives you a piece of chicken, and after you've had it, says that it was poisoned although it wasn't and that you will die in 2 hours. You'd probably start imagining all kinds of stuff. A bit contrived example, but anyway. The actual term is accurately 'nocebo'. Likewise, ECCH recommends the use of placebo (nocebo) in order to weed out imaginary headaches and such, because people know that they're supposed to manifest negative effects.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's a quote from another study on homeopathic provings:
"Objectives: To develop a test model which allows for testing if homeopathic proving symptoms are caused by placebo or causative mechanisms..."
Well again... If the study is to try tell apart those causative "proving symptoms" from proving symptoms resulting only from placebo, how can the "proving symptoms" in question be negative either way?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Here's a quote from another study on homeopathic provings:
"Objectives: To develop a test model which allows for testing if homeopathic proving symptoms are caused by placebo or causative mechanisms..."
Well again... If the study is to try tell apart those causative "proving symptoms" from proving symptoms resulting only from placebo, how can the "proving symptoms" in question be negative either way?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Meaning of the word symptom in ECCH guidelines is referring to negative symptoms. First of all, you have the context of the act of proving, which is about exploring negative symptoms. Second, Hahnemann (Org § 12) said it best "nothing can be observed that can constitute them medicines or remedies except that power of causing distinct alterations in the state of health of the human body, and particularly in that of the healthy individual, and of exciting in him various definite morbid symptoms".
synergiaetu 2 years ago
"Meaning of the word symptom in ECCH guidelines is referring to negative symptoms."
Where?
"First of all, you have the context of the act of proving, which is about exploring negative symptoms."
In the days when provings occurred by taking crude materials!!!
No longer applicable after potentization has occurred....
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
I got the wrong number previously, it's § 21. The meaning comes from the context of proving, and proving has been defined to look for negative symptoms, and Hahnemann explicitly requires morbid symptoms on healthy people for anything to be considered a medicine.
Plus, it is applicable, because Hahnemann didn't retract it although he certainly had a chance, and there are homeopaths who go by this (ECCH).
synergiaetu 2 years ago
I looked up 'placebo' while I was there:
"A substance containing no medication and prescribed or given to reinforce a patient's expectation to get well."
So I suppose "placebo symptom" could only mean "a patient reporting themselves well".
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Yes, I suppose it could be thought a re-definition by someone oblivious to its first two meanings....
"symp⋅tom"
noun 1. any phenomenon or circumstance accompanying something and serving as evidence of it.
2. a sign or indication of something.
3. Pathology. a phenomenon that arises from and accompanies a particular disease or disorder and serves as an indication of it.
I'm sure we're both more enlightened than that.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
".therefore explore the distinctiveness of homeopathic symptoms and placebo symptoms. Participants: 21 healthy homeopathic practitioners note symptoms produced after remedy intake. Interventions: Patients are randomly assigned to receive either (1) Calendula officinalis, (2) Ferrum muriaticum, or (3) placebo. After a seven-day baseline symptoms recording period, proving substances are taken until symptoms occur.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
"With regard to the specificity, the Calendula officinalis group displayed more remedy-specific symptoms than placebo. However, in the Ferrum muriaticum group more Calendula symptoms than placebo were also recorded."
This is in line with the sort of prescribing somewhere like nelsons suggests. Their remedies recommend patients take remedies until beneficial reaction occurs.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Ahhh... I get what they mean.
"Symptoms" is being used in an unusual sense here. It just means "results".
I shall forward to your inbox a study whose summary refers to difference between "placebo symptoms" and homeopathic symptoms".
I take it you agree that "placebo symptoms" would be incompatible with "negative effects".
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Redefining words now? How hard can it be to just admit that yes, there are homeopaths that might think a bit differently than I do?
synergiaetu 2 years ago
"Redefining words now?"
Look at the context.
Tell me syn, what is a negative placebo symptom?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
"The true natural chronic diseases are those that arise from a chronic miasm, when left to themselves, improper treatment, go on to increase, growing worse and torment the patient to the end of his life." - 78 Organon
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
""A healthy person who takes a 'medicine' (potentised agent) in the process of a proving will come up with symptoms determined by their susceptibility to it.".
Certainly. Some homeopaths believe 90% of the population require calcarea carbonicum. But this doesn't mean they think 90% of people are unhealthy.
Rather that 90% of people's health may be better optimised by calc carb.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
You can't explain proving with potensized stuff to work through (generic) health optimization, when "A healthy person who takes a 'medicine' (potentised agent) in the process of a proving will come up with symptoms determined by their susceptibility to it.". Emphasis on "will come up with symptoms".
synergiaetu 2 years ago
I think I did.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
You tried, but can't. :) Emphasis on "will come up with symptoms". It doesn't say "might have their health optimized".
synergiaetu 2 years ago
Maybe we're actually misunderstanding each other here. Your argument was that all homeopaths agree with 'potentization removes negative effects'. Yes, all homeopaths do agree that potentization removes side-effects of the medicine on sick people, but that is not what I'm arguing against. I've been talking about proving here, and in the context of healthy people homeopaths have differing views on whether potentization removes negative effects or brings out the full scale of negative effects.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
No. The only way homeopaths would consider potentization to 'bring out negative effects' would be in the context the inducement of an artificial "disease", which the potentized remedies would then cure.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Which essentially means that the only way homeopaths would consider potentization to 'bring out negative effects' would be in the context of a proving, because that's what it is - inducement of an artifical "disease" on healthy people. And this goes directly against 'potentization removes negative effects' being applied to proving as well.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
"Which essentially means that the only way homeopaths would consider potentization to 'bring out negative effects' would be in the context of a proving, because that's what it is - inducement of an artifical "disease" on healthy people."
No... all homeopathic remedies are intended to stimulate the body's own healing power. They can't stimulate the body unless it needs to be healed.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Lets see what the master himself says, shall we?
Organon 269:
For its own special purpose, the homeopathic medical art develops to a formerly unheard of degree the internal, spirit-like medicinal powers of crude substances. It does so by means of a procedure[potentization] which belongs exclusively to it (and which was untried before my time)
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
....whereby these substances become altogether more than ever indeed, immeasurably penetratingly effective and helpful, even those substances which, in their crude state do not manifest the least medicinal power in the human body.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
So the crude substances do not have the least medicinal power (and produce only negative symptoms). The initial provings took place on these substances in their crude states. Therefore only negative symptoms could be recorded.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
According to Hahnemann, the process of potentization causes these substances to become immeasurably penetratingly effective and helpful. So says Hahnemann, myself, and every homeopath on the planet. Like the basophil study in your inbox, provings on the potentized remedies can no longer take place on the basis of negative symptoms, because homeopaths dont believe there are any.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Homeopaths don't believe there are any negative symptoms? ECCH: "A healthy person who takes a 'medicine' (potentised agent) in the process of a proving will come up with symptoms determined by their susceptibility to it.". Emphasis on "will come up with symptoms".
synergiaetu 2 years ago
Yes.
This may be the time to acquaint yourself with the homeopathic concept of "aggravation".
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Aggravation is only defined for the remedy side (= occurs when the remedy is working), not proving, and does not work in explaining events that occur while proving.
Homeopaths don't believe there are any negative symptoms? ECCH: "A healthy person who takes a 'medicine' (potentised agent) in the process of a proving will come up with symptoms determined by their susceptibility to it.". Emphasis on "will come up with symptoms".
synergiaetu 2 years ago
Yes - I quoted that myself to start out with.
I did direct you to the theory of miasms...
Would you like me to give you a concrete example, if you don't understand?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
What I want to you do is explain this away:
Homeopaths don't believe there are any negative symptoms? ECCH: "A healthy person who takes a 'medicine' (potentised agent) in the process of a proving will come up with symptoms determined by their susceptibility to it.". Emphasis on "will come up with symptoms".
What goes for miasms - how would you prove a cough medicine on a group of healthy people who do not cough? They would see an improvement how - they cough less than not at all?
synergiaetu 2 years ago
"how would you prove a cough medicine on a group of healthy people who do not cough? They would see an improvement how - they cough less than not at all?"
There's no such thing as isopathy in homeopathy.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Jim, Isopathy in homeopathy or allopathy is to use the causative substance to cure effects of same, e.g. allergens.
The problem with Syn' s comment is that we don't test homeopathics for what they cure, but for what they cause, in the first place. Later we consider if similar conditions are resolved in many provers/patients with that same h'.
annesash 2 years ago
"we don't test homeopathics for what they cure, but for what they cause"
Again, the comment you refer to was directed at the GHO claim by JHW, not homeopathic principles in proving. What I was trying to get through was exactly that - you try to figure out what (negative) effects are caused by a certain substance (on healthy people), and GHO doesn't apply in proving. This was also demonstrated in my other comments, which you seem to have missed.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
Beg your pardon, yes I have read properly now, but not all of your comments, sorry. It's taken me about a week (or so it seems) of scrolling down the page just to get to this spot, LOL. Thought I could help to clear up. Ok, carry on :)
annesash 2 years ago 3
Please pardon my interruption. We dont "prove" a medicine for a particular ailment, such as cough. Every substance is ffirst tested for what it causes. Seems to be the hardest thing to get through.
annesash 2 years ago
That is true, and my example was directed at JHW's statement that proving can be deemed successful if a "generic health optimization" is observed. The point of the cough medicine example was to show that with GHO, you have no way of knowing that something is a cough (or any other) medicine because people who are healthy and do not cough can hardly cough any less. It is as you say - every substance is first tested for what (negative effects) it causes (on healthy people). Thanks for the help.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
"Aggravation is only defined for the remedy side (= occurs when the remedy is working), not proving, and does not work in explaining events that occur while proving."
Not true. Aggravation is often a good sign that the remedy *is* working, and homeopaths tend to be quite pleased if it occurs.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Have a look at Bandershot's site. Comment from a lady who specialises in Lyme disease. Talks of aggravations after 10m Lyme nosode in patients before better. Not to mention the long list of studies there.. Then again, Im biased against tests on bits of tissue in vials :)
annesash 2 years ago 2
Randi is going to be mortified when he finally realizes how very wrong he is on this subject--award for uncovering 'fraud' or no award!
den151redbank 2 years ago
I looked at his channels (multiple accounts), his videos, his blog, etc, and could not find this comment. Were they randomized double-blind placebo trials? If not, they're of no interest - the results seem to take a turn for the negative as proper controls (RDBP) are in place (to minimize the effect from the researcher(s)), suggesting that the researchers' (un)intentional actions are what make the results positive. There's less of a chance for bias etc in RDBPT for both sides of the argument.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
The ~70 RDBP studies I mentioned earlier were all done with real people (2 with animals) and real disease. Not 'tissue in a vial'. All of them are studies published in either medical and h. journals and done by people/groups affiliated and not affiliated with h. Even in the subgroup of studies by h affiliates, the amount of positive results doesn't exceed the amount of negative results. All this from RDBP controls - minimizing the effect of the researcher(s) on the results. Funny. :)
synergiaetu 2 years ago
Hmm... but Randi pronounces homeopathy a failure because there *were* no aggravations showing up here.
Unless this specific aggravation is a necessary feature in every case of Histaminum, I think he's talking bollocks.
Are you a homeopath Anne?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Here's what Randi really said, verbatim: "Further investigation needs to be done. This may sound a little strange coming from me, but if there is any possibility that there's a reality here, I want to know about it - all of humanity wants to know about it.". Even if this test would be declared invalid.. so what? That conclusion would not be proof for h. (try playing the "hi dil. hist. should inhibit by h. rules, and it does, h. works" card and you'll get burned by elementary common sense).
synergiaetu 2 years ago
Vithoulkas, who you seem to like parroting, is the source for this "false premise" idea. He also says that "homeopathy must be accepted or rejected on its therapeutic effects alone, not by theory" and all that. Ok, so let's indulge your lord and master even more and talk about how these "therapeutic effects" seem to 1) appear when rigorous controls are not in place and 2) disappear when the bias of the researcher(s) is removed by simply introducting proper RDBP controls to the trial.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
Yet again, ignoring the complex biochemical & systemic responses in-vivo. I cant be bothered to argue in vitro testing as a invalid test of homeopathy any more. See my answer to Jim re Histamine symptoms, signs, & conditions affected.
Sorry I barged in now. Feel like Im interrupting a lovers tiff between you & Jim :)
annesash 2 years ago 2
Yet again, ignoring the fact which I've mentioned multiple times already - there are these ~70 RDBP trials (= ALL h. RDBPT in PM as far I can tell), which have been done by both h. affiliates and non-affiliates, all on real, whole humans/animals (2 studies) with real disease. The vast majority of them show no difference in h. to placebo. Even in the studies by h. affiliates, the number of positives does not exceed the number of negatives. This fact can't be beat by excuses or ignoring it. :)
synergiaetu 2 years ago
"Sorry I barged in now. Feel like Im interrupting a lovers tiff between you & Jim :)"
Oh, truly I'm done. He's all yours...
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Yes Jim, I am. Qualified since 1995. Went into it because of my own health problems - was a basket case many times over, pretty much since glandular fever at age 14. Family responsibilities & location make it awkward to make it a full time thing, & Im loathe to add "quick money" products, therapies or diagnostic machines which I consider unethical. So, I do it all the more laborious & less profitable way, but Ive had terrific results.
annesash 2 years ago 2
As for Histaminum, list of symptoms (& signs, diseases etc) in RADAR is total 274. Of those, 2 are "laboratory findings".
Gastric secretions increased, & leukocytes increased.
Obviously "whole humans" lab tested here. That's what Im interested in, not in vitro tests of cells, which dont take into account complex biochemical, multi-organ & system responses.
annesash 2 years ago 3
Histamine is not a "big" remedy in homeopathy. People with problems of allergy are more likely helped by other substances. Same goes for potencies of allergens. Not helpful in the long term. I dont bother with them, generally. There are other things that better "fit the picture", so these allergens will always come up low in tests. Isopathy is easy to figure, but not usually the best path in homeopathy.
annesash 2 years ago 2
Why would they prove with potentized stuff, if potentization removes negative effects? After all, in proving you are exploring what kind of negative effects some substance causes on healthy people (so you can determine what positive effects that would have on sick people). They're removing negative effects in order to test negative effects? It makes no sense, until you can admit to yourself that there are homeopaths who do not agree with you in 'potentization removes negative effects'.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
"Why would they prove with potentized stuff, if potentization removes negative effects?"
Because according to the theory of miasms, anyone in less than perfect health may see improvement with homeopathic remedies.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
" it should be clear by now to anyone reading that that proving is about finding negative effects"
... Do you even understand *why* Hahnemann wanted to discover the negative effects of snake venom in its crude form?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
From ECCH constitution, p.2 section 2.8:
" Potentisation increases the potential therapeutic action of remedies. A remedy is homeopathic only by virtue of its ability to produce similar symptoms in the healthy to that of the patient it is prescribed for."
Heh heh heh....
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
And that doesn't negate their own proving guidelines. Potentisation increases the potential therapeutic action of remedies by allowing the full range negative effects to manifest on healthy people. After all, without a negative effect on the healthy, there is on positive effect on the sick.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
"Potentisation increases the potential therapeutic action of remedies by allowing the full range negative effects to manifest on healthy people"
You're actually starting with legitimate points quoted from the page, b4 proceding to tack on your own assumption that negative effects obtain each time.
Once again, do you have a quotation of theirs which confirms what you say?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Yeah... stick a clickable link in my inbox, will you? "Tinyurl bh3utg" means nothing to me.
Unless you can actually quote me the part where ECCH explicitly states proving is done "to explore the negative effects", it just sounds as though you're making the last part up.
Please refer back to my comments about miasm. You might understand the homeopathic concept of health a little more adequately.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
ECCH doesn't define what proving means - and why should they, because Organon already defines what proving means. Are you stupid or just playing one?
synergiaetu 2 years ago
"ECCH doesn't define what proving means - and why should they, because Organon already defines what proving means. Are you stupid or just playing one?"
So you can't get the ECCH to back up your rather bizarre notion that proving entails confirming negative symptoms as a matter of necessity, as opposed to the context of priving crude poisons?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Organon says that proving is used to explore negative symptoms on healthy people, and adds that potentization brings out the full range of effects. ECCH recommends proving with multiple potencies, so that when you pick the first potency and see what kind of an effect that has, you go up/down in potency to see if that was already the full range of effects.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
From ECCH:
"A healthy person who takes a "medicine" (potentised agent) in the process of a proving will come up with symptoms determined by their susceptibility to it."
According to the guidelines listed on the page, I qualify as a healthy person. But I was in the 90% of the population some homeopaths think need calc. carb, and thus experienced improved health after taking it.
Go back to sleep, syn. ;)
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Wikipedia notes that the law of similars is the most important in homeopathy.
Holistic online defines this:
"A substance produces symptoms of illness in a well person when administered in large doses; if we administer the same substance in minute quantities, it will cure the disease in a sick person.
I'look forward to the receipt of the link to the page you're quoting from in my inbox, so I can understand why ECCH would wish to contradict homeopathy's most central tenet.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Tinyurl bh3utg contains the same text you would find from the ECCH site through Internet Archive. ECCH says that proving is done with potentized agent, and proving should be done with multiple potencies to fully explore the negative effects. This means that the artificial disease-manifestation is present in the potentized dilution, to cause a deviation on healthy vital force. The law of similars is not broken, you're just trying to force your silly 'potentization removes negative effects'.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
In short, ECCH is not breaking and challenging the law of similars. They are breaking and challenging your notion of 'potentization removes negative effects'.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
"In short, ECCH is not breaking and challenging the law of similars. They are breaking and challenging your notion of 'potentization removes negative effects'."
No they aren't, are they?
Your theory would, though.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
My theory would what now? ECCH says that proving is done with potentized agent, and proving should be done with multiple potencies to fully explore the negative effects. Therefore, potentization does not remove negative effects as you claim, and it doesn't challenge the law of similars as you claim.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
"ECCH says that proving is done with potentized agent, and proving should be done with multiple potencies to fully explore the negative effects."
No it doesn't. I accept your point it says proving should be done with a potentized agent as I've seen it... but nowhere can I find it mentioning negative effects.
Do you have an actual quotation to back up your claim?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Why would proving guidelines have to mention negative effects, when it should be clear by now to anyone reading that that proving is about finding negative effects? Should they copypaste the full Organon and definitions of words there so you'd understand it? Do you really think ECCH made up their own definition for proving?
synergiaetu 2 years ago
"Organon says that proving is used to explore negative symptoms on healthy people"... but only in the context of proving crude poisons (123).
Law of Similars - a substance which causes symptoms in crude form will cure them after potentization.
Law of miasms - all but those in perfect health may improve their health.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
For the hundredth time, why would homeopaths prescribe these high dilutions if they thought they caused poisonous side effects?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Second time actually, and I answered you on the first time. Because homeopaths believe that something that causes A in a healthy person will cure A-like symptoms in a sick person, and this is because the artificial disease-manifestation coming from the 'medicine' should cancel the effects of the actual disease-manifestation on our vital force. They don't think they're causing poisonous side effects to _sick_ people, and I don't think I've ever said they do.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
Homeopaths believe someone who naturally manifests symptoms similar to those caused by substance A will be cured by a dilution of substance A.
By your logic, they A would increase their symptoms, because the dilution fails to negate the negative symptoms of A itself.
Could you send me the full URL for this ECCH page, which supposedly defies the first law of homeopathy?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
ECCH page on provings:
"How Understanding Provings offers an Essential Foundation to Successful Patient Care — With a Proving of Alcoholus".
Heh heh heh...
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
From the San Diego Homeopathy website:
"NO HARMFUL SIDE EFFECTS
A special preparation process called potentization refines the medicines to remove any toxic side-effects"
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
And then? EHHC (European Council of Classical Homeopathy) states that provings are done with the 'potentized agent', and encourages 2-3 different potentization levels for proving. Your argument that all homeopaths agree that potentization removes negative effects is clearly untrue, because there are obviously homeopaths who do not think so. It's absolutely irrelevant what some non-classical sources have to say, you're still not going to be able to argue that all homeopaths agree.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
No... all homeopaths agree that potentization removes all negative effects.
The only person insisting provings of dilutions are done to find negative rather than positive effects is you.
The study in your inbox demonstrates differently.
Have you a single example where the proving of dilutions involves verifying on the basis of negative symptoms?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Haha, squirm all you want, but you can't deny the ECCH guidelines to a Hanhemannian proving. If some people in homeopathy disagree with you, then clearly all do not agree with you. Again, everyone can check this out for themselves, tinyurl bh3utg.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
Squirm? I doubt it.
Every homeopath knows that the medicines are free of side effects.
So when Hahnemann claimed potentization unlocked the curative powers of the medicine, he was also claiming that it unlocked *only* curative powers.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
This is not an argument anymore, now it's just your denial. :) You said that all homeopaths agree that potentization is used to remove negative effects. All I need to bring that down is to point out one homeopath/one instance that follows the way of the original/classical homeopathy, and I point at ECCH. I don't care about what you have been taught, about what you continue to think, or if any of this makes sense to you. None of that can erase the fact that your argument has been busted.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
From the Elixirs' website:
"By contrast, each Homeopathic remedy has had documented Provings done on humans. Healthy humans agree to take a substance and have their symptoms recorded. This shows
also the safety of Homeopathy, when even test subjects suffer no ill effects after the testing is over."
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
As I've pointed out numerous times, if potentization did not remove all negative effects of the original materials, the thousands of people who have taken diluted arsenic, gold powder, and snake venom would be very, very ill.
Or dead.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Jim baby :) Potentization removes poisonous effects, those which have long term cumulative or um, permanent & catastrophic consequences. The unpleasant effects during potency provings tend to stay only during the test period, e.g., the headache, fever etc that hahnemann experienced whenever he took chinchona (crude). He would stop for days or a week, & when he resumed to drug, the symptoms would return. Headache & fever = negative effects. Same happens in potency provings.
annesash 2 years ago
"The unpleasant effects during potency provings tend to stay only during the test period"
Ok... so you would be a person to know the definitive answer to this....
Is a failure to cause basophil degranulation cast iron proof that homeopathic anti-histamines are ineffectual?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Ive just looked at a study online, using low dilutions of lung histamine & apis. For one thing the so called "anti histamines" should INHIBIT basophil degranulation.
As the test used low potencies - 3c & 9c, from what I know of European use of these, there can be opposite effects depending on the number. Certain potencies under 12 have different effects - stimulating or inhibiting. Dont know them off top of my head. I only use 30+ myself, & always in vivo, not in vitro :)
annesash 2 years ago
Personally, Im just not sold on the idea of testing for complicated human immune/allergic/hormonal/etc response by putting a single hormone in a vial with a few cells.
annesash 2 years ago
Nonsense. Organon shows Hahnemann advocated proving with both crude materials (looking for negative effects) and later dilutions (believing potentization to unlock their curative effects).
A proving of histamine dilution is now in your inbox.
Unsurprisingly, it looks for the dilution's curative effects.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
RADAR repertory software has total 274 symptoms listed for Histaminum, Jim. None of which would ever be found by playing with some tissue in a vial :(
annesash 2 years ago
All? Nope. Tinyurl bh3utg. ECCH guidelines: 'Potentised agent' is taken in proving, and one should test 2-3 different potencies in proving to find out the full range of effects. You say that all homeopaths agree that potentization removes negative effects, and yet, ECCH says that one should indeed use potentized dilutions in proving (finding negative effects in healthy people). This is the classical/Hahnemann way - the full range of negative effects is revealed - not removed - by potentization.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
Let's consult the online dictionary definition of "medicinal", shall we?
" 1. of, pertaining to, or having the properties of a medicine; CURATIVE;"
hahnemann refers to "potentization" as the development of "medicinal power".
Game, set and match, baby.
Game, set and match.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Development of med. power goes hand in hand with § 128 - you can't find the full range and strength of a substance without potentization. To continue, he performs proving at 30 C potency. This allows the substance to display its full powers, and as mentioned, even in proving. There is no development of medicinal power without development of negative effects on healthy people - if the full range of neg. effects would not appear on healthy, he would not know what the full range of med. powers is.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
To elaborate: At crude state, substance X causes A on healthy people. At 30 C potency, X would also causes B, C and D on healthy people. Now he knows the full range of effects of X, and has at the the same time determined that X not only cures (symptoms of) A on sick people, but B, C and D as well. Hence, while he is expanding the range of effects on the negative side, he is at the same time expanding the range of effects on the curative side - aka development of medicinal powers.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
Sorry syn, this is nonsense.
Homeopaths and skeptics are united in the belief it's impossible for a diluted substance to have a single negative effect.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Again, you are referring to modern homeopathy. The Hahnemann/classical branch goes by the Organon. Modern homeopathy has since changed its view on this, but they can't both be right at the same time. I'm not saying modern homeopathy follows this teaching, but I'm arguing it from the classical POV to expose the controversial views. Please clarify which one (classical, modern) you are advocating, so that the frame of reference is clear.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry syn, this is nonsense.
*All* homeopaths and skeptics are united in the belief it's impossible for a diluted substance to have a single negative effect.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Let's see what Mr Hahnemann has to say about potentization:
"This remarkable transformation of the properties of natural bodies through the mechanical action of trituration and succussion on their particles (while these particles are diffused in an inert dry or liquid substance) develops the latent dynamic powers previously imperceptible and as it were lying hidden asleep in them. ...
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Anyway.....
Synergiaetu, which sentence of (128) are these "negative effects" mentioned in?
I'm straining and I *still* can't find what you are referring to.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Your argument in this matter stems from the fact that the difference between classical homeopathy and modern homeopathy can't be reconciled. Of course the teachings of classical homeopathy would seem silly to you, but ignoring them and trying to force a modern homeopathy 'understanding' on them doesn't work. Even one homeopathy site says that it's a pretty schizoid relationship. You have to understand that what you claim is not true for other homeopaths and what they claim is not true for you.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
"Even one homeopathy site says..."
You've been to a homeopathy site! Good for you. I had no idea your researches were so extensive.
Did you manage to find anyone who agreed with you that potentization causes negative effects while you were there? ;)
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
These homeopaths are the classical branch, oldskool hardcore. To them, high dilutions are corruption of Hahnemann's work. You can probably guess what they go by. Besides, like Organon § 128 says, potentization allows the substance to display the full range and strength of even the negative effects, not directly cause them (as in a cause-effect relationship). Again, you can't understand and accept this, because you are approaching this with the modern homeopathy mindset.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
" like Organon § 128 says, potentization allows the substance to display the full range and strength of even the negative effects"
Gosh... that's funny. I remember (128) referring to "medicinal powers", but I don't recall any mention of "negative effects".
Hmm. Let's google 'organon online' and go to no. 128. I have it in front of me now.
Synergiaetu, which sentence of (128) are these "negative effects" mentioned in?
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Investigation of medicinal powers equals proving equals finding negative effects on healthy people. Medicinal powers are not known if the negative effects on healthy people are not known. When you investigate medicinal powers, you investigate what negative effects they bring about in healthy people. Besides, 121-130 all deal with proving. The context clearly indicates all of this, but you choose to ignore it and instead concentrate on one word. If that's not selective, I don't know what is.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
"proving equals finding negative effects on healthy people."
You've heard that provings are done to find negative effects. You've not understood this is only relevantwhere the material, rather than diluted, substance is "proved".
Not surprising if you didn't understand priovings were done on crude materials in the first place.
Iadmit I didn't know provings were also done on dilutions. However I've since looked dilution provings up.
They look for curative effects only.
;)
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
They don't look for curative effects, because § 126 states the the experimenters taking the 30 C potentized dilutions mentioned in § 128 must be in good health. There's little point in looking for curative effects on healthy people. They are looking for negative effects (which by the rules of homeopathy then imply curative effects).
synergiaetu 2 years ago
"There's little point in looking for curative effects on healthy people."
Whyever not? You'd have a point if one had to be in perfect health to be healthy at all.
According to Hahnemann's theory of miasms, noone is. ;)
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
How would you notice anything? If you don't have cholera nor cholera-like symptoms , taking a potentized dilution that should fix cholera-like symptoms does.. what? And again, these are all aphorisms related to proving - the requirement for healthy people is for proving, the requirement for the usage of 30 C potency is for proving. In order to examine and determine the medicinal effects of a substance, you must first find the negative effects, and Hahnemann did that at 30 C potency.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
So I looked a proving using a dilution up. Scientists testing whether a high dilution of histamine inhibits basophil activation. (It does).
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
In other words, it does what the BBC test would have done had it been a real test of homeopathic principle tests the homeopathic belief that histamine will have a curative effect after dilution.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
Lose? I have the Organon on my side, and again, anyone can check what it says about this at any time. Tinyurl blpnx2. You might choose to ignore the teachings in the magnum opus of homeopathy, but you can't make them go away just because they're not convenient for you.
synergiaetu 2 years ago
"Lose? I have the Organon on my side, and again, anyone can check what it says about this at any time."
I have. Hahnemann would be rolling in his grave if he witnesssed your bizarre failing to understand his greatest work.
JimHewittWhite 2 years ago
It doesn't matter how selectively you choose to interpret the Organon (as you demonstrated, with numerous quotes out of context). I keep saying that phrase so that people who think for themselves can go and check what is really says, and determine for themselves who is right and who is wrong. This is not about trying to convert you, it's about providing information to people who may have been approached by homeoquacks and may be sitting on the fence. Just say no, people. :)
synergiaetu 2 years ago