Blogging the Organon

January 28, 2008

29-31: Hahnemann’s Organon of Medicine

Filed under: Hahnemann,homeopathy,homoeopathy,organon — gimpy @ 10:48 am

§ 29 Fifth Edition

As every disease (not strictly belonging to the domain of surgery) depends only on a peculiar morbid derangement of our vital force in sensations and functions, when a homoeopathic cure of the vital force deranged by natural disease is accomplished by the administration of a medicinal agent selected on account of an accurate similarity of symptoms, a somewhat stronger, similar, artificial morbid affection is brought into contact with and, as it were, pushed into the place of the weaker, similar, natural morbid irritation, against which the instinctive vital force, now merely (though in a stronger degree) medicinally diseased, is then compelled to direct an increased amount of energy, but, on account of the shorter duration of the action1 of the medicinal agent that now morbidly affects it, the vital force soon overcomes this, and as it was in the first instance relieved from the natural morbid affection, so it is now at last freed from the substituted artificial (medicinal) one, and hence is enable again to carry on healthily the vital operations of the organism. This highly probable explanation of the process rests on the following axioms.

1 The short duration of the action of the artificial morbific forces, which we term medicines, makes it possible that, although they are stronger than the natural diseases, they can yet be much more easily overcome by the vital force than can the weaker natural diseases, which solely in consequence of the longer, generally lifelong, duration of their action (psora, syphilis, sycosis), can never be vanquished and extinguished by it alone, until the physician affects the vital force in a stronger manner by an agent that produces a disease very similar, but stronger to wit a homœopathic medicine, which, when taken (or smelt), is as it were, forced upon the unintelligent, instinctive vital force, and substituted in the place of the former natural morbid affection, by which means the vital force, and substituted in the place of the former natural morbid affection, by which means the vital force then remains merely medicinally ill, but only for a short time, because the action of the medicine (the time in which the medicinal disease excited by it run its course) does not last long. The cures of diseases of many years’ duration (§ 46), by the occurrence of smallpox and measles (both of which run a course of only a few weeks), are processes of a similar character.

§ 29 Sixth Edition

As every disease (not entirely surgical) consists only in a special, morbid, dynamic alteration of our vital energy (of the principle of life) manifested in sensation and motion, so in every homœopathic cure this principle of life dynamically altered by natural disease is seized through the administration of medicinal potency selected exactly according to symptom-similarity by a somewhat stronger, similar artificial disease-manifestation. By this the feeling of the natural (weaker) dynamic disease-manifestation ceases and disappears. This disease-manifestation no longer exists for the principle of life which is now occupied and governed merely by the stronger, artificial disease-manifestation. This artificial disease-manifestation has soon spent its force and leaves the patient free from disease, cured. The dynamis, thus freed, can now continue to carry life on in health. This most highly probable process rests upon the following propositions.

§ 30 Fifth Edition

The human body appears to admit of being much more powerfully affected in its health by medicines (partly because we have the regulation of the dose in our own power) than by natural morbid stimuli – for natural diseases are cured and overcome by suitable medicines.

§ 30 Sixth Edition

The human body appears to admit of being much more powerfully affected in its health by medicines (partly because we have the regulation of the dose in our own power) than by natural morbid stimuli – for natural diseases are cured and overcome by suitable medicines.1

1 The short duration of the action of the artificial morbific forces, which we term medicines, makes it possible that, although they are stronger than the natural diseases, they can yet be much more easily overcome by the vital force than can the weaker natural diseases, which solely in consequence of the longer, generally lifelong, duration of their action (psora, syphilis, sycosis), can never be vanquished and extinguished by it alone, until the physician affects the vital force in a stronger manner by an agent that produces a disease very similar, but stronger to wit a homœopathic medicine. The cures of diseases of many years’ duration (§ 46), by the occurrence of smallpox and measles (both of which run a course of only a few weeks), are processes of a similar character.

§ 31

The inimical forces, partly psychical, partly physical, to which our terrestrial existence is exposed, which are termed morbific noxious agents, do not possess the power of morbidly deranging the health of man unconditionally1; but we are made ill by them only when our organism is sufficiently disposed and susceptible to attack of the morbific cause that may be present, and to be altered in its health, deranged and made to undergo abnormal sensations and functions – hence they do not produce disease in every one nor at all times.

1 When I call a disease a derangement of man’s state of health, I am far from wishing thereby to give a hyperphysical explanation of the internal nature of disease generally, or of any case of disease in particular. It is only intended by this expression to intimate, what it can be proved diseases are not and cannot be, that they are not mechanical or chemical alterations of material substance of the body, and not dependant on a material morbific substance, but that they are merely spirit-like (conceptual) dynamic derangements of the life.

119 Comments »

  1. “As every disease (not entirely surgical) consists only in a special, morbid, dynamic alteration of our vital energy (of the principle of life) manifested in sensation and motion…”

    Only? Well, there goes the germ theory of disease.

    Comment by Mojo — January 28, 2008 @ 1:09 pm | Reply

  2. “It is only intended by this expression to intimate, what it can be proved diseases are not and cannot be, that they are not mechanical or chemical alterations of material substance of the body, and not dependant on a material morbific substance, but that they are merely spirit-like (conceptual) dynamic derangements of the life.”

    Well, that’s told us!

    Comment by MJ Simpson — January 28, 2008 @ 1:40 pm | Reply

  3. The inimical forces, partly psychical, partly physical, to which our terrestrial existence is exposed, which are termed morbific noxious agents, do not possess the power of morbidly deranging the health of man unconditionally; but we are made ill by them only when our organism is sufficiently disposed and susceptible to attack of the morbific cause that may be present, and to be altered in its health, deranged and made to undergo abnormal sensations and functions – hence they do not produce disease in every one nor at all times.

    Fascinating, this idea is proposed by homeopaths all the time. This must be the original source of this idea. However Hahnemann gives us no evidence to back up his claims, unless it is later on. Who would have thought that homeopathy is based on writings with no evidence behind them, anecdotal or otherwise?

    Comment by gimpy — January 28, 2008 @ 3:13 pm | Reply

  4. ‘homeopathy is based on writings with no evidence behind them, anecdotal or otherwise’ is a FRACT (a fact you would like to be true but isn’t)

    The Organon is a distillation of Hahnemann’s experience and is a text book of principles. He wrote extensively during his life and his evidence is in ‘Chronic Diseases’ where he details his concepts of psora, sycosis and syphilis. There is also a book called ‘Lesser Writings’.

    http://homeoint.org/books/hahchrdi/index.htm

    http://www.minimum.com/b.asp?a=lesser-writings-hahnemann

    Comment by homeopathy4health — January 28, 2008 @ 8:37 pm | Reply

  5. Just took a quick look at ‘Chronic Diseases’ and found Hahnemann offering up as evidence citations by 12th century scholars!

    Comment by M Simpson — January 28, 2008 @ 9:08 pm | Reply

  6. and what is wrong with that exactly? He’s not exactly going to quote Einstein is he?

    Comment by homeopathy4health — January 28, 2008 @ 10:05 pm | Reply

  7. and can we have the reference please?

    Comment by homeopathy4health — January 28, 2008 @ 10:12 pm | Reply

  8. Interesting footnote –

    “It is only intended by this expression to intimate, … that they [diseases] are not mechanical or chemical alterations of material substance of the body, and not dependant on a material morbific substance, but that they are merely spirit-like (conceptual) dynamic derangements of the life.”

    Once again, he is restricting the scope of his theories to those diseases which were not explicable at his time. He specifically excludes from his theories diseases which can be treated by surgery, and diseases which are caused by “morbific substance” which I think means poisons. In section 46 he endorses vaccination.

    These days, we can point to many, many examples of chemical alterations of the body which cause disease. An example might be diabetes, which is caused by improper metabolism of sugar, or gout which is caused by excess levels of urate. I assume that Hahnemann would have supported treatment of these diseases by means of a drug regime which would correct the chemical imbalance.

    Comment by mugsandmoney — January 28, 2008 @ 11:02 pm | Reply

  9. Mojo: “Only? Well, there goes the germ theory of disease.” That went a long time ago. Did you miss it?

    Comment by Ohreally — January 29, 2008 @ 12:06 am | Reply

  10. Gimpy: “Fascinating, this idea is proposed by homeopaths all the time. This must be the original source of this idea. However Hahnemann gives us no evidence to back up his claims, unless it is later on. Who would have thought that homeopathy is based on writings with no evidence behind them, anecdotal or otherwise?” A good reference here is Louis Pasteur (you will have heard of him): “The germ is nothing; the terrain is everything.”
    Personal experience is valuable here too – your own that is, I know you won’t trust mine. When the ‘flu virus is about, does everybody catch it? No, of course not! Ergo “they do not produce disease in every one nor at all times.” Easy isn’t it, when you use a little thought?

    Comment by Ohreally — January 29, 2008 @ 12:13 am | Reply

  11. Mugsandmoney: “Interesting footnote.” It is indeed! The crucial idea is that disease is a process in the living body, but a chemical or mechanical change is a change of state. The former view allows for functional alteration, that is change and development either towards health or to a different expression of disease. Mechanical or chemical change may follow from functional change and as a direct consequence of it, and it may have further consequences, but it is not the disease; the functional disturbance precedes and underlies it, and if that is corrected, then the chemical and mechanical imbalances will be corrected too (though it may take time).

    Comment by Ohreally — January 29, 2008 @ 12:38 am | Reply

  12. Ohreally – please tell me that you’re somebody havng a laugh and trying to make homeopaths look stupid. Please.

    Comment by tom p — January 29, 2008 @ 9:24 am | Reply

  13. Ohreally in comment 10 you’re just repeating a lie.
    All of these dethbed recanting stories (Pasteur, Darwin) have one thing in common – they are lies made up to defend an indefensible position.

    Even if Pasteur had changed his mind, that wouldn’t change the facts, established by science, that we view every day.

    Comment by tom p — January 29, 2008 @ 9:26 am | Reply

  14. Hi Ohreally,

    As far as I can tell, Hahnemann’s homeopathic theory deliberately excludes things for which, in 1810, there was a proved and effective treatment. Since 1810, medical science has come up with a wider range of effective treatments, so you have two ways to respond to this:
    1. Restrict the scope of the theory to diseases for which there is no effective conventional treatment – or
    2. Deny that more modern treatments are effective.

    I think it’s more pragmatic to give conventional medicine its due share of credit and move on, don’t you?

    By the way, I’ve replied to your comments in Organon 10-15. Sorry I took so long to come back on this.

    Comment by mugsandmoney — January 29, 2008 @ 6:41 pm | Reply

  15. More reading material for Ohreally:

    http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781592574988,00.html

    Comment by hcn57 — January 29, 2008 @ 10:59 pm | Reply

  16. Mugsandmoney, Hahnemann had a holistic theory of health and disease, and he attempted to learn from all the knowledge of medicine available to him, successful or unsuccessful. Also there are times when the translation uses forms of English that are confusing to a modern reader used to the imprecision of journalistic writing. You have to be very careful to make sure you understand exactly what is being said, as it easy to jump to conclusions based on preconceptions. Please see my response to your post on Organon 10-15.

    Comment by Ohreally — January 30, 2008 @ 1:12 pm | Reply

  17. Gimpy wrote,

    “‘The inimical forces, partly psychical, partly physical, to which our terrestrial existence is exposed, which are termed morbific noxious agents, do not possess the power of morbidly deranging the health of man unconditionally; but we are made ill by them only when our organism is sufficiently disposed and susceptible to attack of the morbific cause that may be present, and to be altered in its health, deranged and made to undergo abnormal sensations and functions – hence they do not produce disease in every one nor at all times.’

    Fascinating, this idea is proposed by homeopaths all the time.”

    And, of course, when they do they’re attacking a strawman. The germ theory of disease in no way implies that everyone exposed to a pathogen will inevitably develop the disease.

    Comment by Mojo — January 30, 2008 @ 3:47 pm | Reply

  18. So Ohreally, do you have any actual evidence for your attack on Germ Theory other than the lie* about Pasteur’s deathbed conversion?

    *I’m not accusing you of inventing it, just believing and repeating it unquestioningly.

    Comment by tom p — January 30, 2008 @ 3:57 pm | Reply

  19. Ohreally, since you brought up Pasteur, could you answer this question with verifiable documentation please?

    When dealing with rabies, which is the most effective treatment: homeopathy or the treatments developed from Pasteur’s methods?

    Comment by hcn57 — January 30, 2008 @ 11:14 pm | Reply

  20. Ohreally, you seem to acknowledge that Hahnemann’s medical knowledge was limited compared to ours. How do you believe that his theories should be modified in the light of medical developemnts from 1810 to 2008?

    – M&M

    Comment by mugsandmoney — January 31, 2008 @ 1:03 pm | Reply

  21. Not that it matters to Ohreally, but here is an essay on Pasteur’s Last Words:

    http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/pasteur.htm

    Comment by hcn57 — January 31, 2008 @ 9:24 pm | Reply

  22. hcn57 and Tom, it is not that we are saying that Pasteur’s work was concocted. I am not sure why when we quote the famous “death bed”, phrase it evokes such emotion. We are not saying that germs are not part of the disease process. We are saying that it is not the whole story. We know there are micro-organisms that further the disease picture. We are only saying that there are a number of co-factors involved in the susceptibility to the micro-organisms impact. Do we believe HIV is one of the main co-factors of AIDS, yes. When you get a cold, or the flu, or malaria, is it because of a micro-organism? Yes, but like I have said it is not the whole story. There are other factors in why a particular individual is susceptible. We are not trying to discredit Pasteur; we are just saying that the quote is about susceptibility. If the terrain is not vulnerable then the micro-organism has no power to create disease.

    Comment by goodscience — January 31, 2008 @ 10:23 pm | Reply

  23. goodscience – what outpouring of emotion have you seen here? The supposed dethbed confession is a lie, simple as that.
    Germ theory doesn’t preclude other factors, so cheap attempts to discredit it are unnecessary and serve only to make you appear dishonest.

    Comment by tom p — February 1, 2008 @ 9:30 am | Reply

  24. Hi goodscience; please tell us more about the other factors. If at all possible, please try to tell us how your “factors” can be observed, measured, and predicted.

    Comment by mugsandmoney — February 1, 2008 @ 1:19 pm | Reply

  25. WOW Tom, Why so hostile?? In what way have I attempted to discredit Pasteur? I am simply trying to explain what “terrain” means in the quote.
    M&M, I have explained this over and over. When you look at the totality of an individual you will see that there is a vulnerability that existed before the micro-organism came along.

    Comment by goodscience — February 1, 2008 @ 3:00 pm | Reply

  26. goodscience, the point is that Pasteur did not say what you claim he did. However, whatever Pasteur thought is largely irrelevant in this day and age since we have accumulated vastly more data than was available to him when he formulated his theories. And yes, we know that some people have vulnerabilities to infection by certain micro-organisms, these vulnerabilities are a result of lifestyle factors and/or genetics not some mystical concept of energies.

    Comment by gimpy — February 1, 2008 @ 3:05 pm | Reply

  27. Ok, Pasteur may have not said what a number of people claim he did and I agree it is not really the point. The point is that there is truth to the quote, who ever said it. I also never said that one’s vulnerability is “some mystical concept of energies”. But I do know that homeopathy can resolve the vulnerability, thereby reducing the susceptibility to infectious agents.

    Comment by goodscience — February 1, 2008 @ 3:42 pm | Reply

  28. I did not realize that posting an essay showing the Pasteur deathbed quote was fabricated was considered “emotional”.

    Oh, well… on to matters at hand: goodscience, do you have any good science showing the actual effectiveness of homeopathy with rabies? Could you please show how well “homeopathy can resolve the vulnerability, thereby reducing the susceptibility to infectious agents.” in particular with rabies?

    Remember, this is an infectious agent that Pasteur had a particular success with, and his techniques have been refined and improved over the past 150 years. So please compare the effectiveness of homeopathy and modern medicine with rabies, both in prevention and treatment. Also, like anyone who wishes to show good science, please include all verifiable references. Those that are published in journals that are indexed at http://www.pubmed.gov would be preferred.

    Thank you.

    Comment by hcn57 — February 1, 2008 @ 4:31 pm | Reply

  29. ok hcn57……..I’ll get right on it……………and as far as the death bed quote goes, there are other essays which speak to just the opposite.

    Comment by goodscience — February 1, 2008 @ 5:44 pm | Reply

  30. ‘But I do know that homeopathy can resolve the vulnerability, thereby reducing the susceptibility to infectious agents’…and is costs a ‘drop in the ocean’ compared to gene research and therapy.

    Comment by homeopathy4health — February 1, 2008 @ 6:02 pm | Reply

  31. goodscience, do those essays have copies of the biography that is quoted?

    How good is your science? Are you willing to answer my question?

    H4H said “‘But I do know that homeopathy can resolve the vulnerability, thereby reducing the susceptibility to infectious agents’…and is costs a ‘drop in the ocean’ compared to gene research and therapy.”

    Perhaps, but does it actually work? Could you please tell us what evidence you have of it say working on the infectious agent that causes rabies? Please include verifiable evidence. Thank you.

    Comment by hcn57 — February 1, 2008 @ 11:10 pm | Reply

  32. That’s a very apt analogy, h4h. (Let’s dilute it further!)

    Comment by Andrew Taylor — February 1, 2008 @ 11:21 pm | Reply

  33. hcn57, you’re a broken record! I am sorry, but I just do not have the time to do the research you request. IF you are so interested, maybe YOU should do the research! All I am trying to do is have a discussion about the organon.

    Comment by goodscience — February 1, 2008 @ 11:42 pm | Reply

  34. I *know* Andrew ;-), homeopathy is very inexpensive.

    Comment by homeopathy4health — February 2, 2008 @ 12:13 am | Reply

  35. HCN you just don’t understand that there are other realities.

    In goodscience’s reality Pasteur really did say that and homeopathy can resolve the vulnerability, thereby reducing the susceptibility to infectious agents.

    Don’t ask for proof because that proof only exists in goodscience’s reality, not yours.

    What are you, an engineer or something?

    Comment by Bill — February 2, 2008 @ 5:52 am | Reply

  36. goodscience, 33., if you are not prepared to back up statements with evidence then don’t make them. There is little point in arguing with somebody who is not prepared to back up their assertion with evidence.

    Comment by gimpy — February 2, 2008 @ 9:07 am | Reply

  37. OK Gimpy, I thought this was a discussion on the Organon…….

    Comment by goodscience — February 2, 2008 @ 2:33 pm | Reply

  38. goodscience, it is but I am prepared to allow some leeway for tangential discussion. All I am asking, as are others, is that if you are going to make a statement you should be prepared to defend that statement with evidence if necessary.

    Comment by gimpy — February 2, 2008 @ 4:36 pm | Reply

  39. I can’t work out which side Bill is on….there is a lot of truth in what he says.

    Comment by homeopathy4health — February 2, 2008 @ 5:20 pm | Reply

  40. h4h, I am on the side of science.

    Comment by Bill — February 2, 2008 @ 7:08 pm | Reply

  41. Of course I am a broken record, but “goodscience” that is because you have not answered any my questions. You brought up Pasteur, and yet get defensive if his work is compared to Hahnemann.

    Yes, Bill, I am an evil engineer. I like stubstantial evidence to claims. I have even had to check lab reports on structural parts, and rejected some for not following the proper testing procedure. I bet even “good”science and h4h would not like to be in a building or vehicle if the structure’s strength measurements went on the kind of anecdotes they seem to think should work for homeopathy. They should read this:

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=34

    Comment by hcn57 — February 2, 2008 @ 9:47 pm | Reply

  42. Talk about defensive hcn, I do believe Bill is a bit sarcastic and is supporting you!

    Comment by goodscience — February 2, 2008 @ 10:27 pm | Reply

  43. I am totally on your side HCN

    h4h and goodscience, I am trying to imagine your world view.

    Comment by Bill — February 3, 2008 @ 1:45 am | Reply

  44. ‘I am trying to imagine your world view': Excellent Bill, that’s a good start.

    HCN I bet you do lots of testing in engineering, trying out the theory before putting it into practise, why not try homeopathy?

    Comment by homeopathy4health — February 3, 2008 @ 11:21 am | Reply

  45. Then, goodscience, could you do me the kind favor and answer my questions, remembering to use actual good science:

    Could you please show how well “homeopathy can resolve the vulnerability, thereby reducing the susceptibility to infectious agents.” in particular with rabies? Please compare it to the methods that are presently used in modern medicine, the ones that started with Pasteur’s research and have been refined over the past century. And, as always, please show verifiable documentation (like from a journal indexed at http://www.pubmed.gov, here I found a public health notice of people exposed to a rabid kitten and given postexposure prophylaxis (PEP): http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5651a1.htm … do you have something as well documented for homeopathy?).

    Also, be sure to remind us of how much you understand “good” science by giving us an answer to a question that only requires high school level chemistry/algebra knowledge: How many chlorine and sodium atoms are in one cubic centimeter of Nat Mur 30C ?

    Comment by HCN — February 3, 2008 @ 10:53 pm | Reply

  46. HCN

    You will never get an answer because homeopaths live in a parallel universe where anecdote trumps statistics and science is whatever you think it is when you wake up in the morning.

    In this parallel universe a made up story about Pasteur’s death bed is as real as the account written by his son in law.

    Comment by bill — February 4, 2008 @ 2:55 pm | Reply

  47. Have any of you seen the chest study as published at

    http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/127/3/936

    Good science has posted the link on the goodscience blog,and woodchopper said:

    “Now the Chest paper that you published on your blog is interesting and appeared to demonstrate a clear effect.”

    Here is the abstract:

    Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients*
    Michael Frass, MD; Christoph Dielacher, RN; Manfred Linkesch, MD; Christian Endler, PhD; Ilse Muchitsch, PhD; Ernst Schuster, PhD and Alan Kaye, MD

    * From the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Homeopathy (Drs. Frass, Endler, and Muchitsch), Vienna, Austria; II Department of Internal Medicine (Mr. Dielacher and Dr. Linkesch); Department of Medical Computer Sciences (Dr. Schuster), University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; and Department of Anesthesiology (Dr. Kaye), Texas Tech University Lubbock, TX.

    Correspondence to: Michael Frass, MD, Professor of Medicine, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Homeopathy, Duerergasse 4, A 8010 Graz, Austria; e-mail: michael.frass@kabsi.at

    Abstract

    Background: Stringy, tenacious tracheal secretions may prevent extubation in patients weaned from the respirator. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with parallel assignment was performed to assess the influence of sublingually administered potassium dichromate C30 on the amount of tenacious, stringy tracheal secretions in critically ill patients with a history of tobacco use and COPD.

    Methods: In this study, 50 patients breathing spontaneously with continuous positive airway pressure were receiving either potassium dichromate C30 globules (group 1) [Deutsche Homöopathie-Union, Pharmaceutical Company; Karlsruhe, Germany] or placebo (group 2). Five globules were administered twice daily at intervals of 12 h. The amount of tracheal secretions on day 2 after the start of the study as well as the time for successful extubation and length of stay in the ICU were recorded.

    Results: The amount of tracheal secretions was reduced significantly in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Extubation could be performed significantly earlier in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, length of stay was significantly shorter in group 1 (4.20 ± 1.61 days vs 7.68 ± 3.60 days, p < 0.0001 [mean ± SD]).

    Conclusion: These data suggest that potentized (diluted and vigorously shaken) potassium dichromate may help to decrease the amount of stringy tracheal secretions in COPD patients.

    This is the first scientific study of the effect of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions. While the mechanism of potentized (diluted and vigorously shaken) drugs still remains subject to research, several articles describe its clinical usefulness.222324 The effect may be best explained by cybernetics, which means that the information of the homeopathic drug acts consensually on the regulator. Thereby, the body regains its original property to regulate physical parameters.

    Key Words: COPD • double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study • extubation • homeopathy • tracheal secretions

    Comment by GaleG — February 4, 2008 @ 3:14 pm | Reply

  48. The American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) is the world’s largest clinical cardiopulmonary and critical care medical society with 16,600 members in 100 countries. Members include physicians, allied health professionals, and PhDs from the specialties of pulmonology, critical care medicine, thoracic surgery, cardiology, sleep, and other chest-related specialties.

    Founded in 1935, the ACCP works to promote the prevention and treatment of diseases of the chest through leadership, education, research, and communication. To achieve this mission, the ACCP publishes CHEST, delivers clinically focused continuing medical education programs, participates in advocacy issues, and more.

    Comment by GaleG — February 4, 2008 @ 3:57 pm | Reply

  49. Gale, that Chest study was terrible. It had a very small sample size and those in the “placebo” group were less healthy than those getting the homeopathic remedy.

    You can see it dismantled here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/homeopathy_in_thecringeicu_1.php

    and here:
    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3193897#post3193897 (with links to other thread where folks tried to explain to Dana Ullman what was wrong, not like he cares)

    Comment by hcn57 — February 4, 2008 @ 4:33 pm | Reply

  50. Shouldn’t that be Dana “Buy my book” Ullman (who has a new book out) but he is shy and retiring and only mentions it every bloody time.

    Comment by nash — February 4, 2008 @ 7:11 pm | Reply

  51. I think its actually Dana Ullman MPH (Moronic Publisher of Horseshit)

    Comment by John R — February 4, 2008 @ 10:51 pm | Reply

  52. I see clearly now why I do not want to “play” here…..sad to see how far one can descend.

    Comment by GaleG — February 5, 2008 @ 12:11 am | Reply

  53. Gale I apologise if my last comment offended you, I’d had a few drinks before posting yesterday. Dana Ullman is, however, a bit of a figure of ridicule due to his constant appearances on the internet pushing studies, that have shown to be flawed many times, that supposedly support homeopathy. That Chest study is a favorite of his and I think many people here who saw you mention it assumed you’d found it from one of his pages.

    Comment by John R — February 5, 2008 @ 7:57 am | Reply

  54. Oh and my MPH comment was a poor joke about Ullman’s weird obsession with putting his degree letters in his blog comments.

    Comment by John R — February 5, 2008 @ 7:59 am | Reply

  55. Dear John,

    Apology accepted.

    But I am beginning to wonder whether there will ever be a study that would prove to any of you that there is something effective in homeopathy. Even “woodchopper”, whoever that may be, did say to john of woowooblog:

    ““Now the Chest paper that you published on your blog is interesting and appeared to demonstrate a clear effect.”

    Woodchopper? Can you elaborate on your comment?

    Comment by GaleG — February 5, 2008 @ 2:52 pm | Reply

  56. http://woowooscience.com/

    Here is the link:

    Comment by GaleG — February 5, 2008 @ 2:53 pm | Reply

  57. But I am beginning to wonder whether there will ever be a study that would prove to any of you that there is something effective in homeopathy.

    One study? Not a chance. Even if it’s perfectly conducted, a single study showing an effect at the p<0.05 proves nothing if there are 10 or more that don’t (and there are far more than that). That’s what you’d expect to see by chance.

    If on the other hand there were a great many good studies that showed an effect, I’d still doubt it, just because it directly contradicts almost everything else we know about the universe. The odds against homeopathy working, based on the information I have, are so high that even with a p value of 0.00000001 I’d still say it’s a long shot. Bayes’ theorem and all that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. A paper won’t cut it — it would be the easiest thing in the world to invent a bunch of patients and write it up. The odds of a homeopath doing that compared to the odds that water can remember long-gone solutes even after a vigorous shaking are pretty well conclusive as far as I’m concerned. I’d need something I could actually watch to make me believe something that unlikely.

    In any case, most studies of homeopathy done nowadays are badly done by people with obvious vested interests in the results (and those that aren’t never seem to show any effect). Generally I assume the studies are either negative or bad and dismiss them without reading them. I like to think I have an open mind, but I have to draw a line somewhere. Homeopathy has had its chance with me and I think my time would be better spent reading other things.

    Bottom line? No, I don’t think there ever will be “a study that would prove to [me] that there is something effective in homeopathy”, but that’s mostly just because there isn’t anything effective in it (literally, for anything past 12C).

    Comment by Andrew — February 5, 2008 @ 5:24 pm | Reply

  58. Dear Andrew,

    Thanks for your honesty about how you are thinking and feeling about this.

    Comment by GaleG — February 5, 2008 @ 5:28 pm | Reply

  59. Hi Gale,

    since you asked generally of everyone, a single study wouldn’t cut it for me either. However, if there were one excellent and enormous study (we’re talking over 100,000 patients) conducted by proper scientists working hand-in-hand with homeopaths which showed unequivocally that there was a definite effect which couldn’t be accounted for by any other factors, including chance, and if it was then replicated in another large study (at least 10,000) or a number of smaller studies, then I’d accept that there must be something there.

    I put these conditions on what it would take to make me think that it worked because (a) there’s been a load of negative studies, so homeopathy first needs to counter those (rather like starting a 100 metre race 10 metres behind the start line – you need to catch up before you can overtake) and (b) there’s no plausible mechanism by which it could work.
    If (b) could be addressed then I’d accept a lower standard of proof (fewer patients or a less impressive p value).
    As Andrew said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and, without a plausible mechanism of action, homeopathy is one enormous extraordinary claim.

    Comment by tom p — February 5, 2008 @ 6:01 pm | Reply

  60. What numbers are acceptable to scientists to prove a drug’s efficacy? I can’t imagine they do a trial with 1000,000 people before a new drug is released to the public.

    I am just trying to understand the scientific method better.

    Comment by GaleG — February 5, 2008 @ 7:35 pm | Reply

  61. I meant 100,000 people… or 10,000??

    Comment by GaleG — February 5, 2008 @ 7:35 pm | Reply

  62. Yes, but the thing about drug trials is:

    1. when a new drug is developed there is not a large amount of evidence that it doesn’t work, and
    2. there is a plausible mechanism by which drugs work.

    Homeopathy has no plausible mechanism and a whole load of trials which have failed to show an effect. It must therefore provide a higher standard of proof before it will be accepted, just as if I told you that I was 6’6″ tall you might want an emailed photo of me next to a ruler to prove it, but if I told you I was 11’11” tall you probably wouldn’t accept an emailed photo as proof, because your experience tells you that I am almost certainly not 11’11”. I doubt there’s anything I could do that would convince you that I am, especially since turning up at your house wouldn’t cut it — because I’m really not 11’11” tall. That’s the problem homeopathy has: we want a huge amount of proof, and that level of proof is pretty hard to come by unless the thing you’re trying to prove is actually true.

    Comment by Andrew Taylor — February 5, 2008 @ 9:34 pm | Reply

  63. I am really beginning to understand..so this blog is really a veiled attempt to just have a place to discredit homeopathy…as is Gimpy’s…..

    You seem to suggest that we are all brainwashed or deluded…what I am beginning is that you see yourselves as trying to “unbrainwash” us, or save humankind from homeopathy.Is that right?

    Comment by GaleG — February 5, 2008 @ 10:04 pm | Reply

  64. Gale, to understand how scientific studies are done and evaluated, please go to your local library and check out the book “Snake Oil Science” by R. Barker Bausell. Dr. Bausell is a biostatistician who has worked for National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

    It is reviewed here:

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4

    I have no intention of “unbrainwashing” any of you. I just want my questions answered, truthfully and without diversions. My one wish for you is that you take time to understand the mathematics and science behind our questions. Hence, the suggestion of the book by Dr. Bausell.

    Comment by hcn57 — February 5, 2008 @ 11:01 pm | Reply

  65. I don’t get it- you have questions that you want answered, yet you clearly( at least to me) will never accept any attempts- keep shooting them down….

    There are only so many hoops that people are willing to jump through for you, and as you can see, most have left this blog…

    Frankly, I am NOT interested in the math and science..I am a mystic, interested in metaphysics.

    Comment by GaleG — February 5, 2008 @ 11:27 pm | Reply

  66. Gale

    In your mind is believing in homeopathy like believing in God or is it a different kind of belief?
    Serious question. I am not trying to belittle you, but figuring out how you think.

    Comment by Bill — February 5, 2008 @ 11:50 pm | Reply

  67. Dear Bill,

    I do hear your caring.

    I have started my own blog- that will help you understand my passions and my thinking.

    http://www.aspirationofthesoul.com

    I have an entry on Homeopathy under “About Homeopathy: What does homeopathy do within a human being?”

    Comment by GaleG — February 6, 2008 @ 12:23 am | Reply

  68. http://aspirationofthesoul.wordpress.com/ is the correct link.

    Comment by GaleG — February 6, 2008 @ 12:24 am | Reply

  69. Gale
    It appears to me that your belief in homeopathy resembles a spiritual or religious belief rather than a scientific or rational belief.

    Comment by Bill — February 6, 2008 @ 12:55 am | Reply

  70. Could be…….but you see, I believe that we are all spirit, having come here to have a “human” experience so to speak.

    I therefore want my healing to occur firstly on the spiritual side rather than just on the material…though my experience has been that once I get emotional relief, whether through a homeopathic remedy or by prayer and mediation, my physical body eventually reflects that.

    Comment by GaleG — February 6, 2008 @ 1:24 am | Reply

  71. Meditation…time for me to go to bed!

    Comment by rainbow9 — February 6, 2008 @ 2:14 am | Reply

  72. Gale
    there is no point in coming here and trying to argue with these people,
    Your belief in homeopathy is mystical and spiritual and we are trying to understand the Organon from a rational scientific point of view, with reference to the facts as they are known now in the 21st century.

    You won’t convince us and we won’t convince you. It is as simple as that.

    I have no problem with mystic belief as long as it doesn’t interfere with my way of life.
    I want my doctor, however, to be interested in facts.

    Comment by Bill — February 6, 2008 @ 5:11 am | Reply

  73. I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but it seems to me that if you can’t grasp what the vital force is that it is sort of a waste of your time to try to understand the Organon any further….it will NEVER make sense to you.

    I would never want tostop you from seeing a doc who will observe and analyze your “data”: blood tests, microscopic analysis, scans etc….but I maintain that there is something else involved in your healing.

    Please bear with me…. is something from heroesnotzombies, a Scottish doc, on this subject:

    “I often ask medical students to tell me the answer to this – if a patient with a urinary tract infection gives a urine sample which grows bacteria which the lab shows are sensitive to a particular antibiotic and the patient is prescribed that antibiotic, what will the antibiotic do? The ones who don’t think carefully say the antibiotic will cure the infection. It won’t. It’ll kill the bugs. That’s it. The inflamed bladder wall, which might even be bleeding from the effects of the infection will be restored completely by the body’s repair processes. The healing is natural. The antibiotic only removes the offending bug to let the healing system do its job. This might seem like nit-picking, but it isn’t. It involves a profound change in thinking. Doctors aren’t gods. At best they assist healing and all healing is a natural process.”

    I guess I am persisting here because I feel passionately that we are more than machines, and that a completely materialistic approach to healing is misguided. Trust me Bill when I say that you too are a spiritual being having a human experience, and that you are always alive and alive…that what we call death is nothing more that a change in our experience- we will leave these bodies behind, but still be you and me though in a different form- pure, positive energy…

    But Gimpy, it must be time to move onto the next part of the Organon if you are still interested.

    GaleG

    Comment by rainbow9 — February 6, 2008 @ 5:48 am | Reply

  74. GaleG, it is what I have been saying all along. This is not a discussion on the organon. It is tiring to try to explain the effects of homeopathy to people who are completely dogmatic about “science”.
    Bill, you say that homeopathy is Gale’s belief system, but isn’t science your belief system? For some reason you think that homeopathy and facts are mutually exclusive. It is not true…..only in your “belief”.

    Comment by goodscience — February 6, 2008 @ 1:52 pm | Reply

  75. For some reason you think that homeopathy and facts are mutually exclusive. It is not true…..only in your “belief”.

    I’ve never heard anyone say “homeopathy and facts are mutually exclusive” before. That’s rather quaint. Is it the same thing as “homeopathy is false”?

    I don’t think (and I certainly hope not) that anyone here would disagree with the statement “homeopathy either works or it doesn’t”, and if it does* then the ideas it is based on are (probably) facts and otherwise they’re not. If they’re not then yes, I suppose “homeopathy and facts are mutually exclusive”, although it’s still a faintly bizarre way of saying it.

    But either these things are true or they’re false, and it absolutely does not depend on your beliefs — the universe neither knows nor cares what you believe. If you believe that decapitation is non-fatal, that won’t save you when your head’s in a basket.

    I would never want tostop you from seeing a doc who will observe and analyze your “data”: blood tests, microscopic analysis, scans etc….but I maintain that there is something else involved in your healing.

    The point is that when you say “data” (and rather insultingly encapsulate it in little quotes as if it’s not a real thing — this coming from someone who believes in “The Vital Force”) you think of “blood tests, microscopic analysis, scans etc…”, but in fact the word data very often means things like “how many patients survived” or “how long patients took to recover”. I’d have thought you’d noticed that in the Chest paper you posted earlier that’s the kind of data they used. In fact, those kinds of measures are preferred to “blood tests, microscopic analysis, scans etc…” which are (in such studies) considered surrogate outcomes.

    There’s a lot of science concerned with “blood tests, microscopic analysis, scans etc…” but epidemiology and RCTs don’t care what the mechanism of healing is — natural, drug-based, surgical, herbal, mystic, random — it will all be counted and measured. Homeopathy can’t get off the hook by calling itself “mystic”.

    _______________
    *which it doesn’t

    Comment by Andrew — February 6, 2008 @ 2:30 pm | Reply

  76. We’re drifting off into philosophy and metaphysics here

    Homeopathy definitely can’t call itself a science because it doesn’t work by testable hypothesis.

    Its a mixture of received belief (the Organon)and personal revelation there is no science involved at all just mumbo jumbo.

    If you want to believe in it as a belief system like shamanism , well thats okay, I have no problem with that.

    Just don’t pretend it is a system of medicine and don’t try to cure seriously sick people who should see a doctor

    Comment by bill — February 6, 2008 @ 2:55 pm | Reply

  77. The only thing mystical about homeopathy is that we do not have the science to absolutely know why it works, but it DOES work. I have seen it hundreds of times. And Gimpy, I would include evidence but this group would not accept it any way, so why bother!

    Comment by goodscience — February 6, 2008 @ 3:27 pm | Reply

  78. The whole thing is mystical right from the beginning.

    Homeopaths don’t know what evidence is and they don’t understand science.

    Goodscience I can almost guarantee that what you call evidence is anecedote. If you have anything better, bring it on.

    Comment by bill — February 6, 2008 @ 3:58 pm | Reply

  79. goodscience,

    How do you propose to distinguish between valid evidence people won’t accept as such, and plain old invalid evidence? The only way I can see that you could do that would be if you were much smarter than everybody else. Otherwise it would seem likely that the large number of people rejecting the ‘evidence’ probably have good reasons that you can’t see.

    How can you be so sure that’s not what’s happening?

    Comment by Andrew — February 6, 2008 @ 5:17 pm | Reply

  80. If you have looked at Laughing My Socks Off’ blog he/she lists dozens of trials and studies proving the efficacy of homeopathy, all rejected for one reason or another. Iris Bell MD, has researched homeopathy for years and has done studies herself also rejected by “scientists”. I just know Andrew, that no matter how we attempt to prove that homeopathy works none of you will accept it. My hope is that one day you can see it, or better yet experience it for your self. That, my friend, is the only way I believe any of you will admit to its efficacy!

    Comment by goodscience — February 6, 2008 @ 5:33 pm | Reply

  81. goodscience, maybe just maybe scientists know more about science than homeopaths so are better qualified to determine how good data is. Get yourself a science education and see for yourself.

    Comment by gimpy — February 6, 2008 @ 5:40 pm | Reply

  82. Goodscience the solution is simple, if homeopaths produce incontrovertible evidence that homeopathy works people will have no reason to reject it. The studies you mention ‘proving the efficacy of homeopathy’ have had flaws. If there were no flaws then the studies couldn’t be rejected.

    Comment by John R — February 6, 2008 @ 7:28 pm | Reply

  83. goodscience,

    That doesn’t address my question, let alone answer it. We both agree that what homeopaths consider evidence isn’t accepted by scientists. My point is: what makes you so sure you’re right? How many smart, well-qualified people have to reject the evidence before you’ll consider the possibility that they have a point?

    Comment by Andrew Taylor — February 6, 2008 @ 9:43 pm | Reply

  84. GaleG wrote, “something from heroesnotzombies, a Scottish doc, on this subject…”

    There are two flaws in the argument put forward here.

    The first is that heroesnotzombies is conflating two separate things: the infection with a pathogen and the damage that that infection causes.

    The second is that this is employing a strawman argument. Nobody (apart from his more egregiously ignorant students, perhaps) would suggest that antibiotics heal damage, or do anything other than kill the bacteria.

    Comment by Mojo — February 7, 2008 @ 1:24 pm | Reply

  85. “good”science, if you read the book by Dr. Bausell (I have refered to it a few times), you will understand what constitutes good studies versus sub-par studies. The interesting thing is that the better the experiemental design with good blinding, the worse homeopathy performs.

    Here is what you can do to prove homeopathy: Get some cute little bunny rabbits. Infect them all with rabies. Then treat half with homeopathy, and then let the disease take its course with the rest with a placebo.

    By the way, this week a member of our extended family ended up in hospital. She was convinced by someone to use homeopathy instead of her real medications. Turns out that the homoepathy did not work. If you read anger in any of my postings, you will now know why.

    Comment by hcn57 — February 7, 2008 @ 4:06 pm | Reply

  86. Mojo the heresnotzombies quote does nothing to support homeopathy either.

    Comment by tom p — February 7, 2008 @ 4:28 pm | Reply

  87. hcn57, first I want to say I am sorry about your family member who ended up in the hospital, I hope it is not serious. I do not know what the situation is, but if she saw a competent homeopath then the only reason homeopathy did not work is because the remedy chosen was not the correct remedy for her. This is what I think gives you and your colleagues such difficulty in understanding this form of medical science, the remedy chosen needs to be very individualized and most times exact to facilitate resolution of the illness. Your family member’s situation may manifest in a hundred people and each could get a different remedy for the same apparent disease. That is why traditional scientific studies can some times be difficult to conduct.
    Second, I would never test homeopathy by injecting rabbits with rabies.

    Comment by goodscience — February 7, 2008 @ 7:53 pm | Reply

  88. Dear hcn57,

    Listen, my mother ended up in hospital after being treated by her medical doctor…I was angry at the time over that as well. I have spent many years studying how to deal with my strong emotions over things.

    I believe that eople choose their experiences, and manifest on the physical plane what they have been creating for a very long time with their thoughts. We can not ever know why someone ends up choosing sickness over health..it is up to them to do the work. All we can do is send them loving and healing thoughts and prayers.

    You can read more about this at my blog http://www.aspirationofthesoul.wordpress.com if you are interested.

    Comment by rainbow9 — February 7, 2008 @ 9:40 pm | Reply

  89. Good Lord.
    “We can not ever know why someone ends up choosing sickness over health..it is up to them to do the work.”

    We cannot ever know why someone ends up choosing homeopathy over medicine…

    Comment by Bill — February 7, 2008 @ 11:40 pm | Reply

  90. Choosing thoughts that lead to developing symptoms would be more accurate- for example, worrying about getting sick over a long period of time, rather than focusing on wellness.
    This is a big topic that has to be explored and studied.

    Comment by rainbow9 — February 8, 2008 @ 12:22 am | Reply

  91. It has been explored and studied its called psychosomatic illness.

    everybody should read “From Paralysis to Fatigue: A History of Psychosomatic Illness in the Modern Era”: by Edward Shorter.

    Its an eye opener, and you can probably get it at your local public library.

    Comment by Bill — February 8, 2008 @ 2:45 am | Reply

  92. “good”science and rainbow9, you are both clueless idiots (you don’t even get a free pass, because I mentioned my answers would be clouded in anger). You don’t even know what the medical condition is, and yet you are making excuses for homeopathy.

    Next thing you will be saying is that the reason a diabetic died when giving up their insulin for homeopathy was because the homeopath did not try through trial and error the right remedy. Or that the epileptic died because the did not give their full history to the homeopath who talked them out of their anti-seizure meds. Or use some other excuse for kids who have had their hearts go into fibrillation on a sports field skip getting real treatment and go to a homeopath. More excuses for bacterial infections that kill because they were only treated with homeopathy. And even more excuse for asthmatics that died because they gave up their inhalers for homeopathy. Fat lot of good it did for these folks: http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

    Stop being idiots, stop with the excuses and show me the actual SCIENCE! You know the stuff that can be tested with a reasonable probability of actually working. Just because there are bad reactions with real meds, does not mean they don’t work all the time. Much of medicine has to do with the science of statistics. Sometimes real medicines will only work for a certain percentage of people. I know that narcotics cause 10% of the population to become sick to their stomachs (I am one of those, so I avoid pain meds).

    Right now the probability of homeopathy working for anything is at a fat ZERO%, 0.0%. It has been shown that anytime when the experiment is done well with good blinding, homeopathy only works as well as placebo.

    None of you have even attempted to answer my questions. No one has told me how much chlorine and sodium is in one cubic centimeter of Nat Mur 30, even though it would require basic high school chemistry and algebra to find the answer. No one has told me how homeopathy compares with the techniques refined from Pasteur’s methods in the prevention and treatment of rabies. And none of you have given one real good example of homeopathy working for a non-self limiting example, with real references (not century old anecdotes). There has not been one inkling of scientific thought in any of you, including the one who uses the ‘nym “goodscience” (the irony meter is pegged every time you use a keyboard).

    The problem with homeopathy is that it has never been shown to work at any time for anything. There is no real good study to show homeopathy has worked for anything. It does nothing for seizures, heart conditions, bacterial infections, diabetes, asthma, cancer, or anything else. It is a fantasy, and a religion.

    You are all just followers of a false religion.

    Comment by hcn57 — February 8, 2008 @ 5:00 am | Reply

  93. rainbow 9
    “I believe that eople choose their experiences, and manifest on the physical plane what they have been creating for a very long time with their thoughts.”

    In 1997 one of my friends was raped and murdered and her mother was murdered by the same man. I don’t think that they chose this experience on any level. Would you care to explain what they must have been thinking to attract this?

    Do Californians choose to have Earthquakes? Do Florida residents only get hurricanes because they choose to have them? Or could it be to do with physical processes that our hopes and desires can have absolutely no influence on?

    I can accept that things happen despite what I want. It’s raining, wanting it to stop by just really wanting it to stop makes not the blind bit of difference. It will stop when it stops.

    Comment by Nash — February 8, 2008 @ 9:25 am | Reply

  94. Dear Nash,

    The questions you pose are excellent and the same ones I have been asking the last 20 year; the answers are going to be not scientific but metaphysical. I am happy to discuss them here or on my blog…. What I have learned follows here:

    Every thought vibrates, every thought radiates a signal, and every thought attracts a matching signal back- this is called the Law of Attraction.

    It states: “That which is like unto itself is drawn.”

    By this law, you draw to you the essence of whatever you are predominately thinking about.
    So if you are predominately thinking about the things that you desire, your life experiences reflects those things. And, in the same way, if you are predominately thinking about what you do not want, your life experience reflects those things.

    Whatever you are thinking about is like planning a future event. When you are appreciating, you are planning. When you are worrying, you are planning. Worrying is using your imagination to create something you do not want.

    Nothing can occur in your life experience without your invitation of it through your thought.

    Of course your friend and her mother would not have wanted that experience, but it did happen…. thoughts of what you do NOT want still are governed by the Law of Attraction.

    Fear of disaster, reading accounts of murder/rape, watching the telly about these things, and then having a strong emotion like fear and worry about it happening, over time, will have the effect of “that which is like unto itself is drawn.

    This is the same for illness, poverty, any lack- for when you focus your thoughts upon the lack rather than what you really desire, it is the lack that is your dominant thought.

    Your emotions are your guide as to whether you are moving towards that which you truly desire, or away from it. The closer you are to feeling joy, love and appreciation you are going in the right direction, the more fear, grief, anger or despair you feel you are moving away.

    When it rains, I give out thoughts of appreciation, and patience, knowing that it will eventually stop, and the sun will shine……Someone in complete vibrational alignment with Source would be able to stop the rain if that was their strong desire….I am not there yet!

    Did you know that you could have every deadly disease known to man in your body right now, and tomorrow they could be all gone if from one day to the next you leaned how to allow the Energy to flow? How do you get this Energy to flow? Little by little, saying to yourself things like “Nothing is more important than that I feel good. And I’m going to find ways to do so today. I am going to begin my day by meditating and then move through the day finding opportunities to appreciate, to praise,not criticize…etc etc etc.” As you move through the next many days, you will become less and less resistant, and all the things you have been wanting will begin to manifest: good health, lovers,ideal jobs, and wealth.

    Comment by rainbow9 — February 8, 2008 @ 12:14 pm | Reply

  95. goodscience wrote, “I do not know what the situation is, but if she saw a competent homeopath then the only reason homeopathy did not work is because the remedy chosen was not the correct remedy for her.”

    How does this differ from the result of seeing an incompetent homoeopath?

    Comment by Mojo — February 8, 2008 @ 1:04 pm | Reply

  96. hcn57, You may want to get a remedy for all that anger.

    Comment by goodscience — February 8, 2008 @ 1:10 pm | Reply

  97. Hey Mojo, with homeopathy the remedies either work or they do not. There are no side effects. Finding the underlying cause or the core of the disease is difficult at times. Some times the process can be trial and error until the correct remedy is found. Depending on the nature of the disease and the suffering, the time this takes can be hours or weeks. What I meant by an incompetent homeopath is one that would dare suggest that an individual come off their medication until he/she can ascertain that the remedy is now resolving the problem or…………. using remedies in an allopathic way.

    Comment by goodscience — February 8, 2008 @ 1:32 pm | Reply

  98. Dear hcn57,

    Anger is just an emotion, and its function is to tell you where you are in terms of alignment. On an emotional scale, it is better than revenge or hatred, but not as good as worry, or discouragement.In other words, your emotions are your guide as to whether you are allowing your connection to Source, God, whatever you call that place that makes you feel alive and happy.

    The work is to simply reach for a better feeling from where you are, think a thought that brings you relief. So in terms of the discussion here, you are angry about …..people choosing to take a homeopathic remedy, one that you believe could be dangerous to their well-being etc. A better feeling could be worry or pessimism….” I am worried about these people that I care for so much…..I am upset because I don’t understand this homeopathy thing.. I am frustrated because it makes no sense….

    Do you see what I mean? As you move from anger to even a little better feeling, you will feel relief.

    Where do you want to get to?…….. Hopefulness, optimism, happiness, passion, joy,love, appreciation…

    Thoughts like “I may not understand homeopathy, but I can accept that for some people it works well. I am happy that medicine has made so many advances and can help so many people. I am excited that I have had these discussions with so many people on these blogs- it has helped us better understand each other. I love myself, and feel safe that I and others will make wise choices for our health care…. It is wonderful that goodscience,rainbow9 and myself have worked out our differences and have come to a place of love and acceptance.

    Comment by rainbow9 — February 8, 2008 @ 1:34 pm | Reply

  99. Rainbow: “Listen, my mother ended up in hospital after being treated by her medical doctor…I was angry at the time over that as well.”

    Well the reason that the doctor’s treatment didn’t work would be that the remedy chosen was not the correct remedy for her, obviously. Therefore this exonerates the doctor from any possible accusation incompetence, and the therapy from any accusation of inefficacy.

    QED.

    Comment by DT — February 8, 2008 @ 2:09 pm | Reply

  100. rainbow9 re 94

    In April 2006 a tornado hit a street in Manchester. Tornadoes are a very rare occurence in the UK. So rare that I don’t ever worry about one hitting my house. Was the street collectivelly worrying about a tornado, did they want a tornado or did it happen regardless?

    Did Dinosaurs want to become extinct?

    The 2004 boxing day(26th Dec) tsunami. This killed so many because no one was really worrying that a wave of that magnitude could occur. A wave of this size was deemed so unlikely by the countries affected that they declined the chance to build a warning system.

    When I cross the road I don’t get run down because I worry about being knocked down and therefore look where I’m going, not because I’m not thinking about being knocked down. Worrying about things helps me to plan ahead so that don’t happen. This is why I have never been electrocuted, drowned or died in a fire amongst other things.
    When I had my car smash I never worried before hand because like lots of people I thought it could never happen to me.

    Also with your rain example. I really want it to rain today, someone else really doesn’t want it to rain. What happens? Is it a battle of wills?

    The way you have explained the law of attraction above, the only way to not have bad things happen is to not ever think about them, which to me implies a state of mindlessness and abandoning forethought.

    Comment by Nash — February 8, 2008 @ 2:13 pm | Reply

  101. “The way you have explained the law of attraction above, the only way to not have bad things happen is to not ever think about them, which to me implies a state of mindlessness and abandoning forethought.”

    That would explain belief in homeopathy.

    Comment by bill — February 8, 2008 @ 2:20 pm | Reply

  102. goodscience wrote, “I do not know what the situation is, but if she saw a competent homeopath then the only reason homeopathy did not work is because the remedy chosen was not the correct remedy for her.”

    Or,

    Random plain sugar pills are given successively to the patient. These plain pills are labelled according to an irrelevant and arcane belief system held by homeopaths. The words on the labels do not affect the simple fact that the pills are just plain sugar. When the patient reports an improvement, the last sugar pill given is declared the winner and credit is given to the label on its pot. This is homeopathy and you have exactly ZERO evidence to show that this is an incorrect characterisation.

    Comment by BadlyShavedMonkey — February 8, 2008 @ 2:33 pm | Reply

  103. Dear Nash,

    Again, very good and very important questions.

    The answer is that the biggest fear we hold collectively on the planet is… the fear of death and the worry about what happens to us after we “die”.

    I will be discussing this further on my blog.

    Comment by rainbow9 — February 8, 2008 @ 2:47 pm | Reply

  104. rainbow9,

    Your “blame the victim” mentality is insane and offensive, and your belief that it is possible to telepathically control the weather makes me suspect that you’re totally and completely mad.

    You don’t need sugar pills. You need psychiatric help.

    Comment by Andrew — February 8, 2008 @ 3:40 pm | Reply

  105. rainbow9 said:
    “We can not ever know why someone ends up choosing sickness over health..it is up to them to do the work.”

    I find this statement quite inflammatory. You are suggesting that it is sick people’s OWN FAULT that they are ill. It is their CHOICE to be ill! Whilst I might agree that emotional state can influence length of recovery for a given illness, this statement is taking it through to an illogical conclusion. I find it insulting that you suggest it is people’s fault that they get and pressumably die from cancer/AIDS/genetic disorders. When comments like this are thrown into general discourse it shows the ‘woo’ acolytes for the ignorant and deluded people they are.

    rainbow9 said:
    “All we can do is send them loving and healing thoughts and prayers.”

    Not a religion hey? I pray its not.

    [/atheist rant]

    Comment by Plebian — February 8, 2008 @ 4:10 pm | Reply

  106. I am not a homeopath. My comments are not about homeopathy…… I am discussing metaphysics. I hope that clear this up.

    Comment by rainbow9 — February 8, 2008 @ 4:13 pm | Reply

  107. re 103

    Having died once already it is something I don’t fear.

    Comment by Nash — February 8, 2008 @ 4:17 pm | Reply

  108. You may think you’re discussing metaphysics but having lived for 4 years in a house filled with philosophy students, it is quite clear to me that you are not. Or more importantly you are asking metaphysical questions of explicable phenomena. Most people stop this in their teens when they realise that they are not the centre of the universe.
    [/incoherence]

    Comment by Plebian — February 8, 2008 @ 4:26 pm | Reply

  109. Dear Plebian,

    met·a·phys·ics
    n.

    1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy: The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

    I guess this is the context ,especially the nature of reality and relationship between mind and matter, that I am interested in- and yes, it did start in my teens..but I am still interested.

    Comment by GaleG — February 8, 2008 @ 5:23 pm | Reply

  110. rainbow9- others have already done a very good job of demolishing what, I fear, are your entirely serious posts but just for the record ‘vengeance’ is not an emotion. I’m not going to touch the rest of the English you’ve so appallingly mangled in an effort to sound profound but your ‘philosophy’ is offensive and I’d expect something more sophisticated and logical from an 8 year old.

    Sorry, rant over. Just wanted to ask a question- why is it that homeopathic remedies supposedly don’t cause side effects?

    I’m with the scientists on this one so don’t tell me it’s because the pills are inactive but from a homeopath rationale how is it that a pill can affect your body, defeating strong diseases, but have no other apparent effect then the exact one intended?
    According to the like cures like basis if a healthy person take pill A it will produce the symptoms it cures. However homeopaths quite freely talk about having to adjust prescriptions because the right combination hadn’t been arrived at- in such a case surely the ‘wrong’ pill with nothing to cure should have produced symptoms- a side effect?

    Comment by Boredstudent — February 8, 2008 @ 11:01 pm | Reply

  111. So, according to rainbow9, Gloria Thomas chose to die from sepsis.

    I believe my anger is justified when you have wannabe doctors getting in over their heads, and causing harm. Just like the homeopath father of Gloria Thomas, who was so deluded that he skipped the Health Service appointment that would have provided real medical care to his daughter:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/11/a_real_death_by_homeopathy.php

    Anger is justified when silly stupid people make silly stupid statements that excuse the pretend doctor, their sugar pills, and then blame the victim. The stupid, it burns.

    GaleG, I know you hate the idea of actually opening up a book and reading anything that is not in short little lines, but do yourself a favor and read some Oliver Sacks, like “The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat”. That book and some of the others include essays that explore some of those issues. You might accidently learn something.

    Comment by hcn57 — February 9, 2008 @ 1:09 am | Reply

  112. One more time….people over time have habitual thoughts of anger, fear, lack, illness, disaster etc. that MAY show up on the physical level, sometimes many years later.

    They do NOT consciously choose to be ill…but without understanding the mind-body connection, they may fall ill.

    I would NEVER NEVER EVER blame the person- I only have compassion, hence my desire to learn and teach these concepts. It is much easier to clean up one’s thoughts before it shows up on the physical level.

    I maintain that we DO have the choice about what thoughts we habitually choose, and our emotions will tell us whether we are choosing thoughts that are harmonious or not.

    Comment by rainbow9 — February 9, 2008 @ 1:20 am | Reply

  113. rainbow9

    there is a mind/body connection,but its not what you think it is.

    read Edward Shorter’s book.

    Comment by Bill — February 9, 2008 @ 3:17 am | Reply

  114. I thought homeopathy might work, but the amount of furious back-pedaling, misdirection and wandering off into realms of metaphysical BS I have read here, has done more to convince me otherwise. Please do not defend something if you cannot find straight answers.

    Comment by Mini — February 9, 2008 @ 4:29 am | Reply

  115. Rainbow 9, there isn’t a person on the planet who hasn’t had many, many thoughts of anger, fear, lack, illness, disaster etc, nor is there anyone who hasn’t had many, many thoughts of joy, hope, love, warmth, happiness etc. There is no-one who has never, ever been ill although there are people who have been ill their whole lives (genetic conditions which were present in the womb, long before the person had any thoughts of anything).

    Crediting people’s highs and lows to their good and bad thoughts is like crediting them to their left and right hands. We all have them.

    Please don’t take this the wrong way, but this blog is for discussion of the Organon from a 21st century perspective, it’s not for people to talk hippy nonsense.

    Comment by M Simpson — February 9, 2008 @ 11:10 am | Reply

  116. Just so everybody knows rainbow9 is GaleG. Can I urge you all to keep the discussion to the Organon and questions stemming from it (your philosophy may be discussed terms of this debate rainbow9/GaleG). I’m currently putting in 14 hour days at work at the moment so can’t contribute as much as I’d like or moderate so please keep things civil.

    Comment by gimpy — February 9, 2008 @ 11:21 am | Reply

  117. Gimpy, you’re a good guy. I am going to keep my thoughts now on my own blog. I agree that we have gotten of topic here, and I wish you all well.

    Comment by rainbow9 — February 9, 2008 @ 5:40 pm | Reply

  118. Thank you, Gimpy. It is nice to know that the total lack of empathy for the suffering caused by quacks and total level of silly stupidity did not just suddenly increase, that they are from the same incredulous person (who once dared ask us if we had ever had to deal with sick children).

    Comment by HCN — February 9, 2008 @ 8:30 pm | Reply

  119. No deception intended- when I started my blog, I ended up with two accounts, and when I came back to posting here I didn’t originally realize that rainbow9 was replacing GaleG!
    hcn…what can I say…your attacks have been a gift to me- by showing me the contrast of what I did not want, you have helped me to understand more of what I do want. This has nothing to do with homeopathy any more- much bigger for me. I do wish you well.

    Comment by rainbow9 — February 9, 2008 @ 9:45 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: