flimflam – plenty of reason to be antagonistic, have you seen the antagonism directed at homeopaths and homeopathy? Your ‘why am I not surprised’ just took you into the antagonism zone. Why should I put up with it?

However you were showing signs of asking non-baited questions so although I have no time to answer more questions today, will be back.

But, everybody, please can we restrict these discussions to the Organon. There is ample squabbling space on my other blog.

Anyway, thanks for the response. I’m just interested to see the degree of clarity with which a single homoeopath can express their take on the role and efficacy of homoeopathy. One very valid criticism of homoeopathy is that it doesn’t have internal consistency i.e., there are fundamental differences between homoeopaths in terms of how they make remedies, how they treat people, what they will treat people for and how they think the treament works. One problem that’s very relevant to this discussion is the variation in the degree to which homoeopaths adhere to Hahnemann’s writings and to which they believe that they constitute immutable truths.

I have to say that in general, in this type of discussion, the lack of clarity is usually a problem for homoeopaths rather than those criticising homoeopathy. Quite often homoeopaths use terms (e.g., vital force) for which even they can’t provide a coherent description. Often discussions go on and on over some issue and it finally emerges that the homoeopath involved has been using their own non-standard definition of a crucial and specific term (e.g., “placebo”).

I’m not going to ask for specific definitions because I don’t want to string the discussion out along those lines. I would be interested in you expanding on a couple of points though”

“There is a large overlap but there is a portion which homeopathy can do which conventional can’t… and there is a portion which conventional can that homeopathy can’t… No-one has defined it conclusively and it always depends on the patient’s case anyway.”

If it depends on the patient’s case (whether homoeopathy or conventional medicine will be more effective), are you able to determine in advance, on a case by case basis, which type of treatment that would be most effective, independent of the condition that the patient has. If it’s more subtle than simply what type of problem the patient has i.e., accidents are always treated conventionally, psych problems are always treated with homoeopathy, then are there any indications in the nature of the patient themselves, independent of their condition, that suggest that they will respond better to homoeopathy than conventional treatment?

“Should homoeopathy be used as a front-line NHS treatment? Yes in many cases where pharmaceuticals have not been used so far.”

If by “pharmaceuticals” you mean conventional (non-homoeopathic) medication, are you saying that homoeopathy is less effective if its use is preceded by the use of conventional medicine? If so, do you have a notion of why this might be?

It sounds like the title of a degree level essay to me (having studied homeopathy to degree level, and having a degree anyway before that). I expect you would like a completely definitive list, and will want to discuss each item ad infinitum and frankly given your ‘why am I not surprised’ attitude you can whistle for it, sonny. You sceptics need to learn that your approaches are insulting and unlikely to be conducive to good communication. I ain’t gonna spend an hour or two defining this for you.

Briefly:

What is the place for homoeopathic medicine in relationship to conventional medicine? It is like a Venn diagram where there a two sets partially overlapping. There is a large overlap but there is a portion which homeopathy can do which conventional can’t (e.g. psychiatric states, diseases with no efficacious treatment e.g. CFS) and there is a portion which conventional can that homeopathy can’t (accidents, surgical repair, resus). No-one has defined it conclusively and it always depends on the patient’s case anyway.

If there was integrated medicine now wouldn’t that be powerful!

For what range of problems is it applicable? Many. I have given some idea of when it isn’t before. Otherwise: Infectious diseases, childhood infectious diseases, straightforward pregnancy/childbirth/gynae issues, usual childhood growth and development issues, infectious conditions, skin conditions, dysfunction of the organs (too much, too little whatever), mental states.

Are there any maladies for which homoeopathy alone is effective? Many. Many of the complaints now being prescribed antibiotics or steriods or taking regular over-the-counter medicines would resolve completely with homeopathy.

Should homoeopathy be used as a front-line NHS treatment? Yes in many cases where pharmaceuticals have not been used so far. Where drugs have been used long-term e.g. steroids it is not always in the patient’s interest to come off them, or when they are literally keeping someone alive.

‘I think it would be useful for you to express clearly what you believe the efficacy and limits of homoeopathy to be.’ I think you need to rephrase this, possibly to: ‘It would be useful to me/us if you would express clearly what you believe the efficacy and limits of homeopathy to be.’ My blog posting referred to above covers it

‘You are developing a habit of ignoring awkward questions.’ I think we’ve established that the questions were unclear, if they were questions at all.

I appreciate you are now going to ask for further definitions but as I said I’m not prepared to spend the time to have it thrown back in my face…..

That’s up to Plebian, not me.

“Oh no, you have changed YOUR stance: it wasn’t a question then, it was a ‘criticism’.”

It was both. The criticism (or at least my understanding of it) was that you change your stance on homoeopathy according to the audience and strength of opposing argument. The (related) question was “What is your stance on homoeopathy? I think you’ve given an answer to that, but not one that’s terribly clear: “there’s a place for both” is hardly specific. What is the place for homoeopathic medicine in relationship to conventional medicine? For what range of problems is it applicable? Are there any maladies for which homoeopathy alone is effective? Should homoeopathy be used as a front-line NHS treatment?

My reason for repeating (and rephrasing) Plebian’s question (and his criticism) was that I believed you had either missed it or were wilfully ignoring it, and I think it would be useful for you to express clearly what you believe the efficacy and limits of homoeopathy to be. You are developing a habit of ignoring awkward questions.

” ‘you argue that homoeopathy is a universal panacea and can cure everything from a runny nose to rabies’. No, I haven’t.”

True, my apologies. I was a bit free with my rephrasing. The phrase Plebian used was “great healer”.

Oh no, you have changed YOUR stance: it wasn’t a question then, it was a ‘criticism’.

‘you argue that homoeopathy is a universal panacea and can cure everything from a runny nose to rabies’. No, I haven’t.

‘if your audience is less receptive then you argue that, ok homoeopathy can’t cure everything, but should be used on all those conditions that are self-limiting and fall through the gaps in the NHS.’ No.. My argument was that there is a place for both conventional and homeopathic medicine and the ‘can’t cure everything’ was related to surgery and emergency conditions.

Ok this is turning into an argument based on you putting words into my mouth, another skeptic method, and when we get to the point of ‘oh yes you did’, ‘oh no I didn’t', I say goodbye.

Here is one: ‘Can you attest to another idea/theory which follows this pattern?’ No I can’t. Why can’t it be the first? Is there a rule against it somewhere?

These are two statements:

‘This is a ‘getting the best out of the worst’ situation. [Is there something wrong with that?] You are postulating homeopathy as a treatment to be sought if your ailment falls between the cracks in the NHS and/or conventional, evidence based medicine.’

{That is an important distinction, if everyone were treated to the one-on-one, long consultation of the alt.med fraternity, many people of the type ‘they just weren’t listening to me/tried everything/no one cares’ would not need to turn to alternatives, regardless of the particular (“allopathic”) treatments received.}

I disagree. I listen to my mother-in-law quite extensively quite often. I sent her a remedy last week. She rang me in surprise to tell me that after a couple of days her sciatica was completely better (after having previously visited the doctor with no joy and having put up with it for several months). The previous conversations had no effect at all.

‘You need to pick a stance and stick with it.’ Do I? Is there a rule about this as well? Oh yes, in the world of sceptics you have to have ‘an argument’, the trouble is they tend to be linear. So Plebian is asking for ‘my argument’ it’s not clear to him. Now I get it , I’m not talking ’scepticese’, I’ve long suspected that science is a language and its speakers come from another country.

‘Either Homeopathy is the great healer you have claimed it is (through extensive anecdotes), or it is a complimentary therapy to be used only when all else fails (eg for palliative care and self limiting conditions).’ It’s not either/or it’s all of those but does have its limits (see below).

‘The key is that this position on Homeopathy is malleable to fit the situation, [audience, or strength of opposing argument].’ Apart from the bit in brackets, EUREKA you have mostly ‘got it!’. Homeopathy can heal, or contribute to the healing of many ’situations’. Of course I wouldn’t advise ONLY using homepathy to mend a broken leg, restart a heart, perform a blood transfusion and several other surgical situations, but PARTICULARLY for many everyday complaints ‘dogging’ people’s health day in day out homeopathy offers help.

Having said all that, I do think that Plebian is quite a pussycat compared to some of the rottweilers here.

Meow.

You’ve done a lot of mocking H4H, but you’ve actually completely dodged the point (and in fact you’ve rather reinforced your appearance of sitting on the fence). The question that plebian put to you still requires an answer: What is your stance? Should homoeopathy be a first-line treatment on the NHS or is it only suitable for those conditions which evidence based medicine has insufficient treatment?

‘Semantics here methinks. Using the word ‘refine’ rather than reject and ‘disprove’ rather than discredit shows more plainly what is happening. But sceptics don’t use those words, tell them will you?

‘You are postulating homeopathy as a treatment to be sought if your ailment falls between the cracks in the NHS and/or conventional, evidence based medicine.’ The cracks are VERY WIDE, there are plenty of people whose ailments have been ‘explained away’ very nicely and are putting up with them as best they can, having been told there is no treatment for them. You just don’t seem to be aware of this state of affairs.

‘Either…blah blah…or…’ I’m afraid there is too much ‘either or’ with sceptics they don’t seem to be able to do simple Venn Diagrams where there can be overlaps or (well I never!) things which exist outside the set.

Well done for finding the fault with the pun – you are a true sceptic – congratulations! May it bring you much joy and contentment.