The Organon of Medicine

[timokay]

My summary of the Organon of Medicine, by Hahnemann.

 

In 1810, twenty years after Hahnemann first began working on his medical system, he published a book to explain the medical system, how to use it and how the body deals with disease. Hahnemann established the truth through a great deal of practical experience and pure experimentation. AFTER THIS, he documented this truth, in his own way, in the Organon of Medicine.

 

The book begins with a conceptual model he devised incorporating all his findings about disease, its cure, and much more.

 

The book consists of 291 "Articles" or "Aphorisms", and references to these numbers are included below. Anyone who is really interested in getting to the bottom of the Homeopathy debate should, at least, make an effort to understand this perspective. My objective was to simply find the truth, whatever it is. And, reading and understanding this book was essential to this task.

 

The words "Symptoms" and "Signs" are synonymous here; every detectable/perceptible manifestation of disease.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

That disease is an entity specific to each patient.

 

That the "totality of perceptible signs" represents the entire extent of the sickness. Looking inside the body for explanations/mechanisms is futile, and unnecessary.

 

(9) The functioning body is not just "chemical".

The living being operates on a "dynamic" principle, called the Vital Principle or Vital Force (VF).

 

(Kuby, Modern Textbook of Immunology, Second Ed, Overview: "The cells and molecules of the immune system act together in an exquisitely adaptable "dynamic" network whose complexity rivals that of the nervous system.")

 

(10) Without the VF everywhere present in the body, the "chemical" organism is unable to maintain itself and therefore dies.

 

(11) When a man falls ill, the VF becomes "untuned" by the "dynamic" influence of the disease agent.

 

(12) The VF then brings about the disagreeable sensations and abnormal functions called disease accessible to the senses of patient and doctor, and which represent the "whole" disease. Conversely, the disappearance of all perceptible deviations from health, means the VF has recovered its normal integrity.

 

(13) Disease, excluding surgical cases, is NOT an entity hidden in the interior of the organism, separate from its living totality,

 

NOR an entity separate from the VF.

 

(14) There is no curable disease that does not announce itself through subjective and objective symptoms.

 

(15) The suffering of the untuned VF and the totality of perceptible symptoms that represent the disease are one and the same. The "chemical" organism and VF are inseparable. The doctor has therefore only to eliminate the "totality of symptoms" to simultaneously restore the VF AND eradicate the disease.

 

(16) Disease agents can only untune the "dynamic" VF in a "dynamic" way. The doctor can only correct the untunement by acting on the VF with medicines which also have "dynamic" actions,

 

BUT only when the "totality of symptoms" have revealed the disease to the carefully observing and enquiring doctor, so that they can be cured.

 

(18) The "totality of symptoms" in each individual case is the only indication guiding to the choice of medicine.

 

Medicines can cure disease only if they possess the power to alter the way a person feels and functions. Indeed, it is ONLY because of this power that they are medicines at all.

 

The "totality of symptoms" associated with each medicine is first carefully studied in the healthy.

 

(22) Substances become medicines because they can arouse certain symptoms and signs which can destroy symptoms/signs which exist in the natural disease of the patient, PROVIDED that the two sets of symptoms closely match, established by pure experiment.

 

Administered properly potentised in small doses, the medicine will rapidly and permanently destroy the totality of symptoms in the patient and therefore the disease.

 

(26) A natural law of Homeopathy: In living organisms, a weaker dynamic affection is permanently extinguished by a stronger one (in this case, the medicine) which, though different in nature, greatly resembles it in expression.

 

(31) Disease agents do not have the absolute power to untune our VF. We fall ill ONLY when susceptible, for whatever reason. So, disease agents do not make everybody sick each time.

 

(32) On the other hand, medicines (conceptually "artificial diseases") affect EVERY person, EVERY time, to bring about its characteristic symptom pattern.

 

(33) The medicine must be both very similar in symptoms to the natural disease AND stronger than it.

 

In this situation, the medicine transfers the untunement of the VF caused by the natural disease to an artificial disease condition, but only when very similar in symptoms to the natural one. The natural disease becomes disengaged or taken over, and extinguished. The medicinal artificial disease, when the body realises there is no disease agent, then quickly wanes leaving only health.

 

(35) Medicines which are not homeopathic will never cure any disease.

 

(38) Two dissimilar diseases meeting in a person will compete such that the stronger will temporarily suppress and suspend the milder one until the stronger disease has run its course. Then, the milder disease reappears, uncured, to express its symptoms.

 

(42) Two similar natural diseases cannot ward off or suspend each other such that one comes back after the disappearance of the most recent. Neither can they coexist in the same organism if they are similar in symptoms and effects. The stronger DESTROYS the weaker.

 

The VF can only become "untuned" by ONE disease at any one time. In this case, the weaker disease is completely extinguished by the stronger...the weaker was only a "dynamic" affection anyway.

 

(54) Allopathy (Convention Medicine, in Hahnemann's time):

 

(A). Allopathy generally uses speculation and scholastic arguments instead of observation of natural phenomena and experimentation.

(B). "Cure" in disease means a material to be expelled.

©. Uses mixed drugs and crude (large) doses.

(D). Maintains its credibility through palliative relief.

 

(63) Every medicine that acts to alter the VF, brings about modifications to health called the PRIMARY ACTION.

 

The primary action is a product of both the medicine and the VF, but mainly the former. The VF is initially passive, and accepts the medicine's action.

 

But later, the VF tends to oppose the influence by the medicine, and this is called the SECONDARY ACTION. And this opposite action usually matches the strength of the medicine's primary action.

 

(66) But small Homeopathic doses produce a primary action which is barely perceptible at all, and the VF's opposite secondary action is the same.

 

(68) The medicine may introduce a slight medicinal disease ALONE in the body, but it is fleeting and mild, and so the VF can easily act on this small disturbance to restore complete cure.

 

(69) Palliative medicines: Exactly the opposite happens in palliative procedures. The doctor chooses medicine with the opposite symptom to the patient's complaining symptom. But, this only hides the patient's symptom from the VF for a while. Palliative medicine cannot supplant the pathologically untuned VF in the organism - it only makes the VF insensible to it by producing a condition completely different from the untunement. And the effects of the palliative soon disappear leaving the natural disease intact.

 

The secondary action of the VF to the palliative worsens the disease symptom it temporarily alleviated. The larger the dose of palliative, the worse this opposite aggravation.

 

(70) Summary of the preceding aphorisms.

 

(71) Summary of the following aphorisms: Human diseases are nothing but groups of symptoms which are destroyed/changed into health by medicinal substances that artificially produce similar disease symptoms. There are THREE questions to the task of curing disease:

 

Q1: How does the doctor ascertain what needs to be known about diseases in order to cure them?

 

Q2: How does he investigate the curative nature of Homeopathic medicines?

 

Q3: How does he apply Homeopathic medicines most effectively to cure diseases?

 

Q1: Aphorisms 72-104: Ascertaining what needs to be known about diseases:

 

Diseases are ACUTE or CHRONIC. Acute diseases are rapid disease processes/untunements of the VF which run their course and end quickly. Chronic diseases, enigmatic initially, dynamically untune the living organism from health gradually in their own characteristic way. The VF can only imperfectly resist. As disease progresses, the VF becomes ever more untuned, until death. These diseases are inherited, i.e., genetic in origin, but are still considered, in nature, to be "dynamic" contagions.

 

(73) Acute diseases are brought on by harmful influences, but are mostly "flare-ups" of a latent chronic disease, which then returns to a dormant state if the flare-up is not too severe, nor long acting.

 

(74) Chronic: Must include all the diseases artificially created by Allopathy, which relentlessly weaken the VF. For example, true local inflammations are cured by Homeopathic medicines that dynamically remove the underlying arterial irritations, yet the Allopathic solution may even result in death.

 

(77) Persistent diseases resulting from avoidable noxious influences that are not chronic, go away on their own when living conditions are improved.

 

(78) True chronic diseases arise from inherited factors, and continue to worsen until death, even in those with robust constitutions and in ideal living conditions. A young person may appear to be healthy, but a chronic disease may be present which remains hidden for years, only to emerge later after stressful events.

 

(79) Three categories of chronic diseases:

 

1. Syphilis, 2. Gonorrhoea (sycosis) are chronic diseases which persist until death if not treated.

 

(80) The third kind is called PSORA, the underlying cause of immeasurable chronic diseases, which I spent 12 years studying. My new medicines, along with those pre-existing, treat all these conditions.

 

(81) Concerns about Allopaths' wrongful naming of diseases, and failure to distinguish between many of them.

 

(82) In chronic disease, as in acute, the doctor must gather all symptoms and signs in each individual case by the same means. This symptom gathering is far more difficult than in acute diseases, as the chronic ones subtly evolve over years.

 

(84-99) The detailed procedure and guidelines for taking the case (to obtain all manifestations of the patient's illness).

 

(100-103) Additional procedure for epidemics.

 

(104) Monitoring of the case.

 

Q2: Aphorisms 105-145: How does the doctor investigate the curative nature of Homeopathic medicines, the tools of Homeopathic cure?

 

Must know the entire pathogenetic action of as many medicines as possible in the healthy so as to increase the choice of satisfactorily matching to natural diseases.

 

(108) Moderate doses of medicines are given experimentally to the healthy to ascertain all manifestations both physically and in the psyche (called a "proving"). Ref. "Force of medicines observed in the healthy human body", 1805. I was the first person to do this, though others have accidentally 'proved' substances, e.g., poisons. This extensive work was a reflection of my faith in the Homeopathic method, the only way to completely cure human disease.

 

(111) These provings convince me that medicinal substances pathologically alter human healthy human bodies ACCORDING TO DEFINITE ETERNAL NATURAL LAWS and that by virtue of these laws, EACH SUBSTANCE CAN PRODUCE THESE SPECIFIC FIXED RELIABLE DISEASE SYMPTOMS THAT ARE CHARACTERISTIC OF IT.

 

(112) Medicines taken immoderately can have very serious or fatal consequences. This does not occur at the beginning but at the end, with completely opposite symptoms, and is the SECONDARY ACTION or COUNTERACTION by the VF. In controlled doses of H. medicines the secondary actions are barely noticeable, just enough to re-establish the healthy state.

 

(113) Narcotics seem to be an exception though in pure experimentation the secondary action is detectable.

 

(115) Alternating action.

 

(116) In medicine provings, some symptoms are seen in many people, and other symptoms much less frequently. This is related to the physical disposition of a few 'sensitive' people. But these symptoms only appear not to be affecting the less sensitive people, because these medicinal symptoms, when associated with a homeopathically chosen medicine, act on ALL sick people with that symptom presentation.

 

118) Every medicine has a unique total pattern of effects, and this must be fully investigated, by pure experiment ("Proving").

 

(121) Medicines have a range of strengths. The stronger are effective in small doses. The milder must be given in larger doses. The weakest ones only reveal their actions when tested on delicate/sensitive healthy people.

 

(124) Each medicine must be taken completely alone on the day it is administered.

 

(126) Provers must be trustworthy and conscientious.

 

(128) Crude medicinal substances do not express all their symptoms nearly as well as when potentised, e.g., to 30c. With these potencies, their virtues are developed to an unbelievable degree.

 

(129) There is remarkable variation in the sensitivity of people to doses. The robust require MUCH larger doses to present symptoms. But, must START with low doses, because you cannot predict who will be robust and who sensitive to this particular medicine.

 

(135) All symptoms associated with a medicine do not appear in all provers... need multiple persons of both sexes for a complete proving.

 

(137) Sensitive persons are the best for obtaining the primary actions (i.e., symptoms) of the medicine before they become clouded by the secondary counteractions of the VF.

 

(143) After many detailed provings, the medicines' characteristics are fully listed in "Materia Medicae".

 

(145) There is a need for more than the 99 available medicines to better treat all chronic diseases, though it is possible to manage with this relatively small number.

 

Q3: Aphorisms 146+: Most effective employment of the Homeopathic medicines for the cure of natural diseases.

 

END OF PART 1 of 2

[timokay]

Organon of Medicine - Part 2

 

Q3: Aphorisms 146+: Most effective employment of the Homeopathic medicines for the cure of natural diseases:

 

(147) Amongst the medicines investigated, the one whose observed symptoms are most similar to the totality of symptoms of a natural disease must be the surest Homeopathic medicine for the disease.

 

(148) The natural disease is NOT a noxious 'substance' residing in, or on, the organism, but a dynamic entity which, acting as if by a kind of infection, upsets the VF in its instinctive control of the entire organism, forcing it to produce disease symptoms.

 

If the VF is made to stop feeling the actions of this "dynamic" entity striving to perpetuate the disorder, e.g., through administration of a Homeopathic medicine which can untune the VF in the most similar way (and more strongly than the natural disease), then the feeling of the natural disease agent becomes lost to the VF. It is annihilated from that moment.

 

In acute diseases, the disease normally resolves in a few hours after the appropriate dose, but if the medicine was not well chosen it takes longer. Selection of the right medicine can be an arduous task.

 

(149) Old Chronic diseases need more time to assess and treat.

 

(153) Among the symptom lists of available medicines, close attention should be paid to the STRIKING or UNUSUAL CHARACTERISTIC SYMPTOMS in the patient because it is these, above all, which must correspond closely to the characteristics of the chosen medicine.

 

(154) The medicine with the greatest number of matching unusual/characteristic symptoms is the most suitable, and a single dose should cure fairly recent acute diseases.

 

In sensitive patients, some mild and temporary aggravation of symptoms may occur, especially if the dose is not sufficiently potentised. This aggravation (otherwise known as the Primary Action of the medicine) is quite common but is a good sign that this single dose will extinguish the acute disease.

 

(161) But, no aggravations are allowed in Old Chronic diseases during their treatment. And, they do not appear if the small doses of the appropriate medicine are increased in potency at each dose (Aph 247).

When this is done, some aggravations may appear only when cure is virtually complete.

 

(162) Sometimes, a natural disease occurs for which no medicine is a particularly good match.

 

(163) However, the closest medicine should be chosen and in very small doses. Some unwanted symptoms (from the medicine) may be expected, but these are mild with such small doses, and they will not hinder a good start towards cure.

 

(164) Even if there are not many matching symptoms between the natural disease and the best-chosen medicine, if the matching symptoms are of the "Unusual" or "Characteristic of the disease" type, cure normally follows. Fortunately, there is very rarely a situation in which a reasonably good medicine cannot be found for a Natural Disease.

 

If the best-chosen medicine is not successful, its effects will at least direct the doctor to a more appropriate one. The doctor assesses the combination of the remaining natural disease symptoms and those added by the less than perfectly homeopathic medicine. With acute disease, in this situation of not having a very well-chosen medicine to work with, there is no need to wait for the medicine to actually complete its action before selecting the next. Again, one dose is normally sufficient to bring the disease to cure, or much closer to cure.

 

If symptoms remain after subsequent medicines, again the totality of symptoms is assessed and the most appropriate medicine chosen.

 

(171) Commonly, more than one medicine will be needed to treat the PSORA chronic diseases. Again, each medicine (called an "anti-psoric") is chosen according to the totality of remaining symptoms after the previous medicine has completed its action.

 

(173) "Defective diseases", usually chronic, have few presenting symptoms, and therefore need a much closer scrutiny by the doctor. With such few symptoms, the best-chosen medicine is not likely to succeed unless the available patient's symptoms happen to be of the "peculiar/characteristic of that medicine" type.

 

But, the medicine will bring out more symptoms, improving the chances of finding the most appropriate medicine from the remaining totality of symptoms. This process is repeated until cure is complete.

 

(186) Surgical cases.

 

(189) No external ailment (which is not due to a particular external injury) exists WITHOUT involving the whole organism.

 

(194-200) Medicines should not be applied externally (e.g., to skin symptoms), neither with acute nor chronic diseases.

 

(203) Destroying skin symptoms with surgery, burning away, caustics, sulphur baths, etc, only WORSENS the internal disease, making it chronic (or more chronic) and very difficult to treat.

 

(206) PSORA Chronic disease treatment: The doctor must first enquire about whether the patient has previously suffered from syphilis or gonorrhoea (sycosis), and FIRST deal with any remnants of these chronic diseases before addressing the symptoms purely associated with the PSORA chronic disease.

 

(209) Understanding the disease picture in PSORA chronic diseases can be a lengthy process. But, again, one must look to match the most unusual/peculiar/characteristic symptoms in the patient with the same in the medicine. "Defective diseases" belong to the PSORA chronic disease category.

 

(212) Mental and emotional symptoms are very important and can be decisive because medicines are always found to have distinctive mental or emotional symptoms.

 

(214) Mental diseases are treated in exactly the same way as physical diseases, matching to the psychic symptoms encountered by healthy persons during the medicine provings.

 

(215) Almost ALL so-called mental or emotional diseases are nothing but physical diseases in which mental symptoms usually increase as the physical symptoms diminish, until the disease mental symptoms reach their most striking state of

defectiveness.

 

 

(216-230) The treatment of Mental & Emotional diseases.

 

(231) Intermittent diseases: Those that recur at definite intervals, OR where disease conditions alternate with each other at indefinite intervals.

 

The latter type all belong to the PSORA Chronic diseases, and therefore to be treated with anti-psoric medicines, unless complicated with syphilis, in which case the anti-psoric must be alternated with an anti-syphilitic medicine (see my book "The Chronic Diseases" for details).

 

(232) Sometimes there are more than two diseases alternating.

 

(235) Intermittent fevers are sporadic and epidemic, and each paroxysm often consists of two alternating phases opposite each other, OR three alternating phases. The chosen medicine, usually not an anti-psoric, should be able to produce the above two or three states in the Healthy person, or at least correspond Homeopathically to the characteristics of the strongest phase/states. But it is preferable to choose the medicine based on the symptom pattern of the patient outside his attacks.

 

(236) The medicine should be administered soon after an attack, when the patient is settled, and the VF is in the best state to accept and be affected by the medicine.

 

(238) A single dose can wipe out several attacks, even restore health, but it is usual to need one dose after each attack, initially. My latest medicines (see 6th Ed.) will allow regular repeating of doses without aggravations. Each successive dose is dynamised with 10 or 12 succussions of the medicine bottle. If there is recurrence of the same fever days later, then the cause is the fever re-asserting itself, which only occurs in marshy districts (malaria and related). In this case, the exciting cause must be removed, by a sojourn in the mountains, for complete cure.

 

(240) If the homeopathic medicine for the intermittent fever does not cure fully, AND it is not related to living in a marshy region, this means a Psora chronic disease is in the background, and an anti-psoric must be used for complete cure.

 

(241) For intermittent fevers in single individuals away from marshy areas, must first treat the fever (e.g., malaria, which is not a chronic disease) with medicines which are not anti-psoric, for several days. If recovery cannot be accomplished with these medicines, it means there is an underlying Psora disease beginning to appear, so an anti-psoric medicine must now be used.

 

(244) Re. Intermittent diseases of marshy areas (malaria, etc.): A young healthy person can become accustomed to it and stay healthy provided his way of life is exactly right. The intermittent fevers endemic to this marshy areas will only affect him if he is a newcomer. But then, ONE, or possibly TWO, minute doses of highly potentised cinchona bark will likely fully restore him to health.

 

But, if full recovery does not occur with cinchona bark, it means that there is an underlying Psora developing a chronic condition that requires anti-psoric medicines for cure. However, if the patient is not too ill and therefore not treated with anti-psorics (i.e., the psora has not developed completely and can return to its latent state), these people soon recover if they move to a dry mountainous region - the fever resolves - but they will NEVER become really healthy without the anti-psoric treatment. (Re. footnote to Aphs 244 & 276.)

 

(245) MEDICINES: The method of using them and regimen when taking them:

 

(246) After a dose of medicine, as long as there is an obvious improvement, no more medicine of any kind must be given, as its action speeds towards completion. This is the frequent pattern with acute diseases.

 

But, if the disease is chronic, a single dose can sometimes accomplish cure, but slowly in 40 to 100 days. The doctor can accelerate this recovery, sometimes down to below 20 days, provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:

 

(1). The medicine is accurately homeopathic, (2). It is highly potentised, dissolved in water, given in suitably small doses, and at optimal time intervals. (3).BUT, the degree of potency of each successive dose must be greater than the preceding dose, or the VF (which is being diverted to this artificial medicinal disease) reacts unfavourably to it, AND to doses given at frequent intervals.

 

But these two problems have been overcome with my new (6th Ed.) method of potentisation (or dynamisation). See footnote of Aph 246.

 

(247) So, it is inadmissible ever to repeat exactly the same dose without modifying it. The VF OPPOSES such identical doses - the other (unwanted) symptoms of the medicine appear. The previous dose had already completed its action on the VF.

 

But, by slightly modifying the potency upwards (Aph 269/270), the sick VF allows itself to be altered further by the same medicine without ill effects.

 

(248) Further procedure on the treatment of chronic diseases.

 

(249) Unhomeopathic selection: overdosing and anti-doting.

 

(252) If a chronic disease does not resolve with anti-psoric treatment, it must be something in the patient's way of life that is causing it, which must be identified and eliminated.

 

(253) In all diseases, the psychic condition and demeanour of the patient is very revealing.

 

(269) MAKING THE MEDICINES : The theory of their mechanism.

 

(270) MAKING THE MEDICINES : The detailed practical preparation procedure.

 

(272) The method of administration: pill on the tongue or dissolved in water.

 

(273-274) A patient should be treated with no more than one medicine at a time. It is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN to give more than one medicine at a time. Re. Quinine example in aph 273.

 

(275) After selection of the best medicine, the correct "smallness" of the dose is very important, for gentle action. Otherwise, there is a danger of harm.

 

(276) Overdosing.

 

(278) Determining the ideal dose: only meticulous observation of the sensitivity of each patient can determine this, IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE.

 

(279) The rule about dose selection:

 

"The dose of a highly-potentised medicine beginning the treatment of a chronic disease cannot be made so small: 1). that it is not stronger than the natural disease, 2). that it cannot at least partially overcome it, 3). that it cannot at least partially extinguish it in the VF, and 4). that it cannot start the process of cure."

 

(284) Other means of medicine administration.

 

END

[Glider]

A lot of text there. Some of it conjectural, a lot of it wildly inacurate, and none of it establishing a position beyond the fact that you are a believer in homeopathy.

 

In short, what's your point? (in one paragraph please).

[Sayonara]

I would have said "twenty words or less" to avoid the possibility of getting an enormous block of text.

[Glider]

You make a very good point.

[timokay]

Glider and Say,

 

That's the problem really. No Scientist ever prepared to take the plunge. (15)

[timokay]

How does a rational discipline such as this gain acceptance in Science? It appears to be a Catch 22 situation, because Homeopaths are not Scientists, cannot Scientifically test it.

 

And the Scientists who test it do it all wrong because they don't understand Homeopathy.

 

"Some of it conjectural, a lot of it wildly inacurate".

 

"some" and "a lot" is hardly "debate" material. Any specifics?

[Sayonara]

We've been through this before.

 

Anybody can test anything scientifically.

 

"Science" is just a method.

[timokay]

Say,

 

Too vague for me. A "Scientific Method" you mean.

 

There has to be mutual understanding of the problem. Scientists must be able to step out of their "scientific method" for a moment to see the unusual features of this problem.

 

And prejudice reigns - thi biggest problem of all, here.

Just misunderstanding.

[Sayonara]

The scientific method is all there is to science. That's it. It's not "a" scientific method, there aren't alternative methods that give as reliable results - there is just the one approach that works.

 

If homeopathy cannot demonstrate results that support your hypothesis when tested using the scientific method (by anyone, I might add), then it's bunkum. End of story.

 

There is no evil alliance of like-minded drone scientists who set out to disprove anything they can, there is no single-bodied "science" establishment that wants to keep out the riff-raff, and there are no extenuating circumstances that justify disregarding logic for one problem and not others.

 

Most importantly - there is no problem so strange or unusual it cannot be broken down into smaller questions that are more easily investigated.

[Glider]

timokay said in post #7 :

How does a rational discipline such as this gain acceptance in Science? It appears to be a Catch 22 situation, because Homeopaths are not Scientists, cannot Scientifically test it.

 

And the Scientists who test it do it all wrong because they don't understand Homeopathy.

You don't have to understand homeopathy to test its claims. The claim 'This intervention will cure that disease' is testable. You don't need to understand the intervention.

 

"Some of it conjectural, a lot of it wildly inacurate".

 

"some" and "a lot" is hardly "debate" material. Any specifics?

 

Many. Point 35 "Medicines which are not homeopathic will never cure any disease." is one (I don't recall the role of homeopathy in the elimination smallpox for example), but as Sayonara points out, we've been here before.

 

I'm still waiting for you to tell me the point of your (very long) post. What point are you trying to make?

[timokay]

The scientific method is all there is to science. That's it. It's not "a" scientific method, there aren't alternative methods that give as reliable results - there is just the one approach that works.

 

If homeopathy cannot demonstrate results that support your hypothesis when tested using the scientific method (by anyone, I might add), then it's bunkum. End of story.

 

OK. There is a step in Homeopathy called the PROVINGS.

Medicines are fully tested for the symptoms they produce in people (possibly over 1,000 symptoms in some medicines). The symptom patterns of over 2,500 medicines have been documented in Materia Medicae, i.e., all symptoms per medicine.

 

The data is then rearranged into indexes displaying each symptom and the medicines associated with it. (This index is called a Repertory). Patient's symptoms are looked up in these books to find the most appropriate medicine.

 

If you look in sciforums, organon thread, page 2, scientific researcher FRANCINE has pointed out the importance of repeating this PROVING task but under Double-blind Placebo-controlled (DBPC) conditions...Then, it will have a scientific foundation? Is that progress?

[timokay]

Also SAY,

 

Homeopaths do not know the scientific method. No training in that area.

 

Tim

[Sayonara]

Undertaking a recreation of the provings under DBPC conditions would indeed give the study a scientific foundation (regardless of the actual results).

However, this would only demonstrate that the expected results (IE, a cure) can be obtained using the remedy in question, and would not validate any conclusions or theories as to the mechanism. Different and more complex studies would be needed for that.

 

One does not need to be a homeopath to study the effects of homeopathy in a scientific fashion - what you need is access to a fully staffed lab for a couple of months

[atinymonkey]

timokay said in post #13 :

Also SAY,

 

Homeopaths do not know the scientific method. No training in that area.

 

Tim

 

Of course they do, it's taught in secondary school. It's not a complex thought process, it's taught to 5 year olds, and there is no special school where Homeopaths children are sent. I can get you the key stage packs for 7 to 11 year olds where the scientific method is explained, and the 11 to 15 year old teaching plans for the US, UK and European educational systems.

 

Really timokay, that's a silly thing to say.

[Sayonara]

To be fair there were people on my honours degree course who were more familiar with the subtle nuances and shifting patterns of city fashion than they were with the scientific method.

[timokay]

Glider,

 

Many. Point 35 "Medicines which are not homeopathic will never cure any disease." is one (I don't recall the role of homeopathy in the elimination smallpox for example), but as Sayonara points out, we've been here before.

 

Homeopathy is effective against all diseases (excluding surgical cases). Smallpox is an epidemic disease, processed like all other diseases by assembling all the patient's symptoms and finding the medicine with the closest matching symptoms. In the unlikely event that cure is not complete, it means there is an underlying disease (inherited chronic condition, which Hahnemann called "Psora"), which is treated by a second class of medicines called antipsorics. I extracted relevant Homeopathy references on Smallpox and will post them here if 2000+ words is not excessive.

 

I'm still waiting for you to tell me the point of your (very long) post. What point are you trying to make?

 

The point is that this is an extremely important book, and want scientific people to know about it. Medical Science has some very significant problems to be solved, some getting worse; 100's of incurable chronic diseases affecting millions in the UK and 10's of millions in the USA, for example. There is the problem of antibiotics, with bacteria beginning to win that war; there is malaria, also posing imcreasing problems, to name but a few.

 

Yet Hahnemann cracked these problems...ALL of them, simply, quickly and permanently, without antibiotics, just using the body's own defences. He did this because he managed to separate and identify all the components of the diseased state. He did this although he only had subjective and objective external signs/symptoms to work with.

 

Tim

[timokay]

Glider,

 

You don't have to understand homeopathy to test its claims. The claim 'This intervention will cure that disease' is testable. You don't need to understand the intervention.

 

There is a problem with the term disease. In Homeopathy, the disease IS the "totality of symptoms" in the sick person. The disease agent is rarely the problem, except in highly-infectious or epidemic diseases.

 

The disease agent only revealed a weakness in the immune system which, when functioning normally can eradicate virtually all diseases, and without the appearance of significant symptoms.

 

Symptoms are an indication of failure....meticulously gather them all up, so you can associate this pattern of symptoms with the particular fault in the system. The body reveals a great deal about what is going on inside thru the presentation of external symptoms/signs.

 

So, Homeopathy treats "this particular fault in this particular person", NEVER a disease agent.

 

But with an epidemic disease like smallpox, even people without faults in their immune system will suffer...it becomes overwhelmed...and after examining several cases like this, the doctor may decide to give several patients the same medicine (because the symptoms presenting are the same in all).

 

But, in reality, a stress like this will show up hidden weaknesses in the immune systems of these apparently normally healthy people, and it is more likely that these people, though infected with the same disease agent, will have differing "total symptom patterns", and will therefore have to be treated with differing kinds of Homeopathic medicines.

 

Back to your point. The above shows that disease can be an ambiguous term. Homeopathy treats the person (the fault in their constitution which resulted in the symptoms), not any disease agent. It is difficult to establish a controlled starting point for an experiment.

 

Tim

[Glider]

timokay said in post #17 :

Glider,

 

Homeopathy is effective against all diseases (excluding surgical cases).

Where is the evidence for this? If this is the case, why don't homeopathic principles form the core of our health care system?

 

Smallpox is an epidemic disease, processed like all other diseases by assembling all the patient's symptoms and finding the medicine with the closest matching symptoms. In the unlikely event that cure is not complete, it means there is an underlying disease (inherited chronic condition, which Hahnemann called "Psora"), which is treated by a second class of medicines called antipsorics. I extracted relevant Homeopathy references on Smallpox and will post them here if 2000+ words is not excessive.

It is if it contains no evidence. Are you saying that homeopathy has a cure for smallpox? Can you provide evidence for this, or would it be another case of a homeopathic 'practitioner' messing around until the patient was beyond all hope?

 

The point is that this is an extremely important book, and want scientific people to know about it. Medical Science has some very significant problems to be solved, some getting worse; 100's of incurable chronic diseases affecting millions in the UK and 10's of millions in the USA, for example. There is the problem of antibiotics, with bacteria beginning to win that war; there is malaria, also posing imcreasing problems, to name but a few.

 

Yet Hahnemann cracked these problems...ALL of them, simply, quickly and permanently, without antibiotics, just using the body's own defences. He did this because he managed to separate and identify all the components of the diseased state. He did this although he only had subjective and objective external signs/symptoms to work with.Tim

 

The book has been around for 193 years. I'm sure it has been read by many people. Yet, it does not form the mainstay of modern medicine. Why do you think that is?

 

We are aware of the problems and limitations of medicine. We are aware of the increasing problems of resistant bacteria, e.g. MRSA and resistant strains of TB. You state categorically that Hahnemann solved these problems (clever of him as MRSA wasn't around 193 years ago, and then, they weren't even aware of what caused infection. Joseph Lister wasn't even born until 1827). Why do you think Hahnemanns' 'solutions' are not used today? Could it be that the medical fraternity is so self obsessed that it is prepared to let thousands of people die rather than admit that homeopathy had the answers all along? Or, is it more likely that the 'solutions' presented by Hahnemann don't work?

 

timokay said in post #18 :

Glider,

 

There is a problem with the term disease. In Homeopathy, the disease IS the "totality of symptoms" in the sick person. The disease agent is rarely the problem, except in highly-infectious or epidemic diseases.

 

The disease agent only revealed a weakness in the immune system which, when functioning normally can eradicate virtually all diseases, and without the appearance of significant symptoms.

 

Symptoms are an indication of failure....meticulously gather them all up, so you can associate this pattern of symptoms with the particular fault in the system. The body reveals a great deal about what is going on inside thru the presentation of external symptoms/signs.

 

So, Homeopathy treats "this particular fault in this particular person", NEVER a disease agent.

This might go some way towards explaining why it doesn't work.

 

But with an epidemic disease like smallpox, even people without faults in their immune system will suffer...it becomes overwhelmed...and after examining several cases like this, the doctor may decide to give several patients the same medicine (because the symptoms presenting are the same in all).

You still suggest that homeopathy can cure smallpox? Why didn't it then?

 

But, in reality, a stress like this will show up hidden weaknesses in the immune systems of these apparently normally healthy people, and it is more likely that these people, though infected with the same disease agent, will have differing "total symptom patterns", and will therefore have to be treated with differing kinds of Homeopathic medicines.

 

Back to your point. The above shows that disease can be an ambiguous term.

The above shows no such thing. The term 'disease' has been defined. If anything, it shows that homeopathy is willing to obfuscate established terminology to a) suit its own ends and b) disguise the fact that it doesn't work. As an aside, immunology isn't really your (or Hahnemanns') strong point, is it?

 

Homeopathy treats the person (the fault in their constitution which resulted in the symptoms), not any disease agent. It is difficult to establish a controlled starting point for an experiment.

Tim

You start with a large group of sick volunteers. You allocate them randomly to three conditions. You apply homeopathic remedies in one condition, established interventions to the second, and a placebo to the third. You measure; symptom reduction, recovery rate & time to discharge, and maintenance (incidence of relapse). You analyse your data, you draw conclusion based upon the results of your analysis.

 

Why do you continue with this? There are no grounds for debate here. There is no evidence that homeopathy is effective. If there was the slightest indication that homeopathy could solve such problems as MRSA, resistant strains of TB or any illness whatsoever, don't you think it would be used? Do you really think that established medicine so hostile to alternatives that it is prepared to let people suffer and die rather than investigate the possibility that those alternative might be effective? Are you that deluded? Many forms of homeopathy have been tested. The most recent of which I am aware was the principle of 'the memory of water' (or whatever you choose to term it); the principle that some curative factor remains inherent in a solution diluted thousands of times. This was tested under strictly controlled conditions using a double blind method. The results showed that the homeopathic 'remedy' was no more effective than pure distilled water. In short, it doesn't work.

 

It doesn't matter that you post long monologues based upon Hahnemanns' book. It doesn't matter that you are prepared to spend the time writing thousands of words on the topic of homeopathy. A high word count won't convince anybody of anything. To be taken seriously, you need to present the slightest shred of evidence that homeopathic interventions are effective, and "Hahnemann says..." does NOT constitute evidence. I say homepoathy doesn't work. So, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, it's Hahnemanns' word against mine, and in the absence of evidence either way, that's all it takes for stalemate (I will not bother to mention here all the homeopathic 'remedies' that have failed to live up to their claim when tested under controlled conditions).

 

Homeopaths do not know the scientific method. No training in that area.

Get some. You'll save yourself a lot of heartache. To get you started, here are a couple of things you will need to demonstrate:

 

1) That your approach does no harm, either by direct action (either physically, e.g. through toxicity, or psychologically, e.g. by misleading patients and/or providing false hope) or omission (e.g. by preventing the patient from from seeking effective help until it's too late).

 

2) That your remedy is significantly more effective than no intervention at all, and (preferably) is at least as effective as those already used.

 

Whilst I appreciate that you have a deep faith in homeopathy, any further posts on the topic that are devoid of evidence in support of it are simply not worth posting, as they won't be worth reading. I have nothing against your faith in homeopathic methods, but, in the absence of evidence demonstrating their efficacy, I would rather they were kept away from sick people.

[timokay]

Glider,

 

Tim: Homeopathy is effective against all diseases (excluding surgical cases).

 

Glider: Where is the evidence for this? If this is the case, why don't homeopathic principles form the core of our health care system?

 

Tim: You mean SCIENTIFIC evidence, I assume. Homeopathy is not yet within Science. Homeopathy has its own Journals/documentation for the successful treatment of nearly all diseases.

 

I hope something can be done about the Science of it soon. I don't think the dominant medical system wants Homeopathy. The problem has to be broken down into its components. The first thing to do is to move the medicines into Science, and that's what we are discussing on sciforums thread "organon of medicine".

 

Glider: Are you saying that homeopathy has a cure for smallpox? Can you provide evidence for this.

 

Tim: I will look.

 

Glider: The book has been around for 193 years. I'm sure it has been read by many people. Yet, it does not form the mainstay of modern medicine. Why do you think that is?

 

Tim: Medical Science and Homeopathy are very different in nature, with no interdependancies. One is dominant, the other suppressed. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Could they co-exist in Science?

 

Science, and patients, needs Homeopathy's strengths now, but Homeopathy has to prove itself Scientifically before it can be accepted by the dominant system.

 

The whole issue IS up to Medical Science, which knows virtually nothing about homeopathy. Until the politics is sorted out, Homeopathy's strengths will be ignored by Medical Science.

 

Glider: Why do you think Hahnemanns' 'solutions' are not used today? Could it be that the medical fraternity is so self obsessed that it is prepared to let thousands of people die rather than admit that homeopathy had the answers all along?

 

It's political. Medical Science DOESN'T UNDERSTAND Homeopathy, and does not appear to be interested. This clearly demonstrated by Benveniste's work and Horizon's testing, NEITHER of which had anything to do with Homeopathy. But, the scientists didn't know this.

 

Glider: This might go some way towards explaining why it doesn't work.The term 'disease' has been defined. If anything, it shows that homeopathy is willing to obfuscate established terminology to a) suit its own ends and b) disguise the fact that it doesn't work. As an aside, immunology isn't really your (or Hahnemanns') strong point, is it?

 

Yawn. Where I stop.

[Glider]

timokay said in post #20 :

Glider,

 

Glider: Where is the evidence for this? If this is the case, why don't homeopathic principles form the core of our health care system?

 

Tim: You mean SCIENTIFIC evidence, I assume.

 

No. I mean any evidence whatsoever.

 

Until you present some, this is where I stop.

[timokay]

Some research papers, available on MEDLINE (Pubmed), on Homeopathy.

 

If anybody cannot access these links, please say so. I will then paste in the abstract from the papers.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11327521&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10812756&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9884175&dopt=Abstract

 

This one's Brit Med Journal

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10948025&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10939780&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10335412&dopt=Abstract

 

These next four are scientific journals, and a few more lower down:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12226773&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1825800&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12634583&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10853874&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10484832&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11527508&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11795090&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12725250&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10796532&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10748705&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9821827&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1484708&dopt=Abstract

[Glider]

Thank you for those links. Here are some selected highlights.

 

The methodological quality of the trials was highly variable. In the 19 placebo-controlled trials providing sufficient data for meta-analysis, individualized homeopathy was significantly more effective than placebo (pooled rate ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 2.23), but when the analysis was restricted to the methodologically best trials no significant effect was seen. CONCLUSION: The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies. Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies.

 

CONCLUSIONS--At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias.

 

There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results.

 

The majority of available trials seem to report positive results but the evidence is not convincing. For isopathic nosodes for allergic conditions, oscillococcinum for influenza-like syndromes and galphimia for pollinosis the evidence is promising while in other areas reviewed the results are equivocal.

 

CONCLUSIONS: The available research evidence emphasises the need for much more and better-directed research in homeopathy. A fresh agenda of enquiry should consider beyond (but include) the placebo-controlled trial. Each study should adopt research methods and outcome measurements linked to a question addressing the clinical significance of homeopathy's effects.

 

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma. As well as randomised trials, there is a need for observational data to document the different methods of homeopathic prescribing and how patients respond.

And my favourite...

 

Up to now, no research has categorically proven that homoeopathy has a specific pharmacological action, consequently it is not a proven scientific therapy. CONCLUSION: If homoeopathy wants to be recognised by classical medicine, it must continue its academic research. It is only by doing this that homoeopathy will be accepted by the scientific world.[/b

 

 

Not particularly impressive on the whole.

 

Whilst the fact these studies exist refutes completely your contention that:

 

"That's the problem really. No Scientist ever prepared to take the plunge. (15)"

 

They in no way support your contention that:

 

"Homeopathy is effective against all diseases (excluding surgical cases)."

 

And there is still no evidence for your statement:

 

"There is the problem of antibiotics, with bacteria beginning to win that war; there is malaria, also posing imcreasing problems, to name but a few. Yet Hahnemann cracked these problems...ALL of them, simply, quickly and permanently, without antibiotics, just using the body's own defences.".

 

And to finish for the day, here are a few articles I found:

 

 

Use of CAM results in delay in seeking medical advice for breast cancer

 

European Journal of Epidemiology, 2003, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 817-822(6)

 

Malik I.A.[1]; Gopalan S.[2]

 

[1] National Cancer Institute, Karachi, Pakistan [2] University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

 

Abstract:

 

Cancer patients in developing countries often delay seeking medical advice. It can adversely influence the clinicopathological behavior and outcome of the disease process. This study was undertaken to obtain information about initial perceptions of patients presenting with breast lump, subsequent efforts to seek medical advice, frequency and reasons for delay in seeking medical advice and its possible impact on clinicopathological characteristics. We prospectively gathered data from 138 recently diagnosed (3 months) breast cancer patients who had initially presented with a breast lump and were referred to the medical oncology service for further treatment. Delay in seeking medical advice was defined as time period of 1 month between initial perception of lump and first physician visit. The study was conducted at the National Cancer Institute, Karachi, Pakistan. Most (85%) patients discovered the lump accidentally. In other cases, lump was discovered by the family physician or by the patient as part of regular self-examination. Etiologic perceptions included malignancy (17%), benign growth (26%), milk clot (19%), trauma (23%) and infection (10%). On average, patients took 8.7 weeks to inform the family and 17.2 weeks to first physician visit. Fifty three percent delayed seeking medical advice. Common reasons were; antecedent use of complimentary/alternative therapies (34%), lack of significance attached to the lump (23%), fear of surgery (22%), conflicting personal commitments (7%), fear of cancer (5%), and others (8%). Twenty nine percent practiced CAM before visiting any physician. Common methods used were homeopathy (70%), spiritual therapy (15%) and Ayurvedic medicine (13%). CAM use was associated with delay in seeking medical advice (OR: 5.6; 95% CI: 2.3, 13.3) and presentation at an advanced stage of disease (OR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.01, 4.6). Patients who delayed seeking medical advice more often had positive axillary nodes and stage III/IV disease. Breast cancer patients in Pakistan frequently (53%) delay seeking medical advice. Antecedent practice of CAM is widespread and a common underlying reason. The delay results in significant worsening of the disease process.

 

 

Homeopathy has no QOL effect in paediatric asthma

 

PharmacoEconomics and Outcomes News, 2003, vol. 1, no. 416, pp. 10-10(1)

 

Homeopathy in dermatology

 

Dermatologic Therapy, June 2003, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 93-97(5)

 

Smolle J.

 

Abstract:

:

 

Alternative methods are commonly used in patients with dermatologic diseases, with homeopathy being one of the most common. Homeopathy was developed by Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and is based on the law of similars and the law of infinitesimals. It is a regulatory therapy where high dilutions of particular compounds are thought to induce a counterreaction in the organism. In dermatology, homeopathy is often used in atopic dermatitis, other forms of eczema, psoriasis, and many other conditions. To date, however, there is no convincing evidence for a therapeutic effect. There are only a few controlled trials, most of them with negative results. The few studies with positive results have not been reproduced. Acceptance by the patient seems largely based on counseling and emotional care rather than on objective responses to the homeopathic drugs.

 

Quality Assessment of Physical Research in Homeopathy

 

The Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 1 February 2003, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 113-132(20)

 

Becker-Witt C.[1]; Weißhuhn T.E.R.[2]; Lüdtke R.[3]; Willich S.N.[4]

 

[1] Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics; Charité Hospital, Humboldt University of Berlin, D-Berlin, Germany [2] Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics; Charité Hospital, Humboldt University of Berlin, D-Berlin, Germany [3] Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation, D-Essen, Germany [4] Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics; Charité Hospital, Humboldt University of Berlin, D-Berlin, Germany

 

Abstract:

Objectives: To assess the evidence of published experiments on homeopathic preparations (potencies) that target physical properties (i.e., assumed structural changes in solvents).

 

Method: A suitable instrument (the Score for Assessment of Physical Experiments on Homeopathy [sAPEH]) was developed through consensus procedure: a scale with 8 items covering 10 criteria, based on the 3 constructs, methodology, presentation, and experiment standardization.

 

Reviewed publications: Written reports providing at least minimal details on physical experiments with methods to identify structural changes in solvents were collected. These reports were scored when they concerned agitated preparations in a dilution less than 10-23, with no other restrictions. We found 44 publications that included 36 experiments (the identity of 2 was unclear). They were classified into 6 types (dielectric strength, 6; galvanic effects, 5; light absorption, 4; nuclear magnetic resonance [NMR], 18; Raman spectroscopy, 7; black boxes of undisclosed design, 4).

 

Results: Most publications were of low quality (SAPEH < 6), only 6 were of high quality (SAPEH > 7, including 2 points for adequate controls). These report 3 experiments (1 NMR, 2 black boxes), of which 2 claim specific features for homeopathic remedies, as does the only medium-quality experiment with sufficient controls.

 

Conclusions: Most physical experiments of homeopathic preparations were performed with inadequate controls or had other serious flaws that prevented any meaningful conclusion. Except for those of high quality, all experiments should be repeated using stricter methodology and standardization before they are accepted as indications of special features of homeopathic potencies.

 

Can Homeopathically Prepared Mercury Cause Symptoms in Healthy Volunteers? A Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial

 

The Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 1 April 2001, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 141-148(8)

 

Vickers A. J.[1]; Van Haselen R. [1]; Heger M. [2]

 

[1] Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital, London, England, United Kingdom. [2] Research Center HomInt, Karlsruhe, Germany.

 

Abstract:

Objective: To pilot a method for determining whether homeopathically prepared mercury causes more symptoms (a "drug proving") in healthy volunteers than placebo. Methods: One hundred and eighteen (118) healthy volunteers ages 18 to 65 were recruited by local advertising. Subjects unfamiliar with homeopathy undertook a 1-week single-blind placebo run-in, a 1-week of double-blind, randomized treatment on either homeopathically prepared mercury 12C or placebo, and a third week of placebo run-out. Each day, symptoms were recorded on a checklist that included both true mercury symptoms and symptoms not expected to be caused by mercury (false symptoms). Additional symptoms were assessed by open reporting. Outcome was assessed by calculating a score for each day as the number of true symptoms minus the number of false symptoms. The mean score during placebo was then subtracted from the mean score for weeks two and three of the trial. Results: Fourteen (14) subjects dropped out during placebo run-in. The remaining 104 completed the trial. Baseline comparability was good. Mean difference score was -0.125 (SD 3.47) for mercury and -0.221 (SD 3.01) for placebo (p > 0.2). No significant differences between groups were found for the number of subjects meeting predefined criteria for a drug-proving reaction. Conclusion: This pilot study failed to find evidence that mercury 12C causes significantly more symptoms in healthy volunteers than placebo. Questionnaires with a limited number of gross symptoms do not seem to be an appropriate methodological technique in drug proving research. If drug-proving phenomena exist, they appear to be rare.

 

The effects of homeopathic belladonna 30CH in healthy volunteers - a randomized, double-blind experiment

 

Journal of Psychosomatic Research, March 2001, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 155-160(6)

 

Walach H.[1]; Koster H.; Hennig T.; Haag G.

 

[1]aDepartment of Environmental Medicine and Hygiene, University Hospital, , Freiburg, Germany

 

Abstract:

 

Objectives: The practice of homeopathy rests on symptoms, which have been produced by medicinal substances in healthy volunteers, often applied at ultramolecular dilutions. It is unknown whether these symptom patterns are due to specific effects or chance fluctuation. Methods: We tested the hypothesis that a homeopathic substance can bring about symptoms different from observation and placebo in a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design with baseline observation. Results: 87 out of 118 healthy volunteers took both placebo and homeopathic belladonna 30CH in random sequence, after a 2-week observation period, and finished the 8-week trial. Apart from an insignificant tendency for subjects to report more symptoms with belladonna (mean number: 27.34), as compared to observation (24.26) or placebo (24.17), there was no indication that subjects reacted differently to homeopathy than to placebo or during baseline. Conclusion: There is no indication that belladonna 30CH produces symptoms different from placebo or from no intervention. Symptoms of a homeopathic pathogenetic trial (HPT) are most likely chance fluctuations.

 

Now let it go, for Gods' sake!

[timokay]

Glider,

 

Wow. Monster post.

 

Whilst the fact these studies exist refutes completely your contention that:

 

"That's the problem really. No Scientist ever prepared to take the plunge. (15)"

 

They in no way support your contention that:

 

"Homeopathy is effective against all diseases (excluding surgical cases).

 

Re. Scientists taking the plunge: The Scientists are testing in the way they know best. The flaws are in the fundamental misunderstanding of the basic principles of Homeopathy. You cannot round up a bunch of patients with Disease X, as defined by Medical Science, and test Homeopathy on them. Homeopathy does not recognize Disease X.

 

Homeopathy treats the patients as individuals. They are individuals, with different genetic make-ups. It is unlikely that any of the patients would be treated with the same Homeopathic medicine as any of the others. The "disease" in Homeopathy is the "totality of symptoms" IN THAT PATIENT and even if they did all have what the Scientist's call Disease X, how their bodies deal with it would be very different because they are different.

 

And there are "no controls" when people are said to have Disease X. What else is wrong with them? You won't know until you treat them and see how they respond...may well be a chronic disease behind the other disease. Or two.

 

Treatment is based on how each individual responds...stacks of possibilities, with clear instructions for each...but the end result is complete cure. This is often accomplished with a single dose, even if the disease takes a month or more to resolve.

[timokay]

Francine/whoever,

 

"138 PROVING : "....symptoms that come on at this time, while the powerful medicine dominates the subject's economy, arise from the medicine and not spontaneously."

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FRAN: From his description of a proving Dr H would have accepted the nausea as caused by Bryonia, but common sense would doubtless make him see the squashing as being caused by something else.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

TIM: Dr H was believed to have common sense, silly.

 

Do you object to this process needing to record all NEW symptoms introduced by the medicine, as opposed to absolutely ALL symptoms the prover is perceiving?

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FRAN: Either is a problem. The problem is with your phrase (on this occasion) 'introduced by the medicine'. You can only tell whether something has been 'introduced' by an intervention under test by assessing whether it is different from control. Yes the control can be the same subject pre-test (but there are major drawbacks to this that need careful design to avoid), or other contemporaneous subjects, but you absolutely cannot say for any individual that something new arising after the intervention was for sure caused by the intervention.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

TIM: Agreed. For any individual, there is a problem. But this is a group effort, each prover doing 15-20 experiments on the medicine/placebo. By contemporaneous I assume you mean no more than all subjects involved in the experiments handled the same way at the same time (and blind to medicine/placebo).

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can only discover an average response for a group as a whole compared with controls. Also, contemporaneous controls in medical trials are essential because the mere fact of doing anything to a subject could alter their responses if you are only following individuals longitudinally with time instead in an unblinded manner. It's also why things must be randomised, so you mustn't give everybody the blank today and the substance under test next week.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

TIM: Fine. See no problem except the doctor gathering the symptoms will know for sure who the placebo people are, and so will not be blind. (I think Science would accept this though because it is neither aware or interested in that fact since it is outside Science.) You may think symptoms are vague, spurious or random things, but homeopaths know otherwise.

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FRAN: I think i've just realized that you can't drop the idea that for a given individual you can say that something happened because of the test intervention rather than it just happening anyway. But you can't know, you really really can't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

TIM: We've just agreed on "average response" among many!

Things don't "just happen anyway" in the real situation without being recognized as anomolies. You have no understanding of "solidity of symptoms". It is a kind of "theoretical mindset" you have. In practice, these things are very real, and not vague notions to be confused with meteorites and flu bugs. The docs. monitoring the expts are smart people with about 20 years experience of handling sick people and thousands of symptoms.

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FRAN: If you give me a drug that is meant to drop blood pressure and mine goes down, it might be because of the drug, because on average that it is what the drug does, but mine might have gone down anyway, or it might have gone down more, but in me the drug actually relatively raises my BP and really you shold have given me something tat worked properly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

TIM: Your theoretical world again. It's like eternally questioning the possibility of being able to ride a bicycle but never trying.

 

You say Dr H was wrong about APH138 only because you only live in this theoretical world and misunderstand things...make wrong assumptions. Dr H cracked the whole problem in the practical world. If you experienced it practically yourself you would agree, and at the same time your misunderstandings about the problem would become evident.

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FRAN: For me as an individual for many medical states you just cannot tell. There are obviously a few dramatic things like giving an anaesthetic where it would be hard to say that the patient falling asleep and letting someone cut her open was mere coincidence, but in lots of medicine you don't deal with such a clear-cut issue

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

TIM: You are groping in the dark. In practice, everything is clear-cut.

Tim