timokay

I like all the fluffy bunnies.

I like all the fluffy bunnies.

I like all the fluffy bunnies.

I like all the fluffy bunnies.

Glider, Please note that the words you commented on above were not mine. I stated this at the beginning. The words were from Albert (Francine's sparring partner). Francine is known as BigGiantHead in this forum. Rolfe, You do not wish to be involved in the test. I have faced this before. It is like eternally having to go back to step 1 all the time; never any progress with people here. I have already done and proved all that needs to be proved. My test was a new one to involve you, but you're not interested. My objective is to sort out a DBPC trial that would be acceptable to all. I have asked BigGiantHead (Francine) several questions in this thread which he has ignored them all.

Rolfe, I done my provings several times. Getting a friend to help is nothing new. FRANCINE: This is from Albert: FRAN: So, since DBPC trials weren't done with proper analysis afterwards, how can we tell that anything in Materia Medica and Repertory is more than just random (at best) or (at worst) biased by provers knowing what they were suppsoed to feel." Nobody knew anything about the medicines, so they were NOT going to know "what they were supposed to feel." That is so ridiculous! Even today, because there are hundreds and even thousands of symptoms, and because each person will have a relative sensitivity to the medicine being proved, that's impossible to perceive beforehand; they produce the symptoms they produce, period. I have no idea what the problem is here. It is a natural law, you very stupid man; it is not something that can be toyed with. All of the initial provers were homeopathic physicians physically around Hahnemann as his immediate students or were adherent to his precepts as foreign students, like those in the U.S., not liars for whatever reason one can imagine they'd think up symptoms. David Tate (ala Francine, Benji Mouse, Manon Thebus), you're a strange person. You presume and assume everything under the sun because you know nothing but allopathic medicine, which is nothing but total quackery. We are in the business to cure, not to prove anything to anyone else according to their ignorant views of reality. You ought to try getting some integrity some time; it would change your world. Things go into the repertory only after they have been verified by several cures. Things cannot go into the materia medica with "proper controls," as you ignorantly call them, if the only person who would have produced an important symptom would have been thrown out for whatever reason you'd come up with. We have repeatedly suffered your ignorant kind from the beginning. You want to sift the materia medica for "relevant symptoms." All of the low-potency pseudo-homeopaths or allopaths from the beginning have been ignorant fools like you and your kind, but we easily recognized them and thus ignored everything they said as stupid allopathic nonsense. Well, guess what, pal? It ain't us who are wrong; it's you guys, and the proof is our cures and your total quackery, so get a clue! The oddest symptoms have been repeatedly verified as important for cure, and your kind would have thrown them out. Gee, golly, guess we don't need the assistance of bozos, do we? If you continue to examine homeopathy through allopathic lens, you will see only allopathy, and that does not cure. ---------- A follow-up thought. All of the modern provings are totally useless. The GV HPHs have produced lots of provings, but all of them are totally useless. Guess why. Albert / Hanemannian

Rolfe, Under your name it says you are from England. I am too. Suppose I send you money (inc postage) to buy two Homeopathic medicines from Boots (I could do that myself but you could say I tampered with them) ...common ones like Bryonia and Rhus Tox. Then you scratch off anything that distinguishes them...then mark them A and B and send them to me. (I would prefer Bryonia v Blanks, but Blanks not available.) I will tell you which was which.

Chaps, I must run, 'til the morning. Tim

Find an analogy outside living systems, or construct a model to simulate the behaviour of this "black box". A "cause of disease" results in many cascading activities which, should they fail, result a myriad of things happening in such a complicated system (system in failure)...apparently random but this is not the case...result in a predictable pattern of effects, unique to the type of failure occurring. The H. medicine does not act on the "cause of disease" but the "failing part(s)" or "obstacle to cure" identified by this Logical Principle. Surely someone in Maths, Stats, or Logical Analysis would know something about this. A simulator (for the body-disease interaction) could be developed so that the Principle can be tested. The mechanism of Homeopathy seems to be more a Logical/Statistical problem than anything to do with Medicine.

Rolfe, Your interest in the issue of DBPC trials of Provings much appreciated...discussed with Francine (BGH) elsewhere. To catch up with this important issue of DBPC trials, please read from 70% of the way down page 3 below, a post from Timokay beginning "This is from Francine, ..." http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28050&perpage=20&pagenumber=3 Thx Tim

Rolfe, Re. diet. The Bryonia proving would be so quick you would not have to worry about it. This is Hahnemann's take on the Prover's diet: Tim

BGH, Random things? Random in the body? I don't know about you, but random symptoms don't happen to me, without an explanation. I suppose its the subjectivity of it all that bothers you. I think you simply do not understand the practicalities of symptoms, their solidity, their identifiability. Tim

There is considerable criticism about Homeopathy not being able to explain its pharmacological mechanism, but this thread demonstrates some of Science's own shortcomings in this area, and some contradictions appearing in reputable Scientific texts. POINTS 1. The shaky evidence, or lack of evidence, for the mechanisms of many bacterial diseases, and how medicines actually act on these disease agents "in vivo". Scientific knowledge of "in vivo" activities in this area is lacking - as mysterious as a previous discussion asking about "how symptoms are constructed in the body". 2. There are many contradictions in modern textbooks about inflammatory and immune system processes. What causes fever? Is it a deliberate process mediated via the Hypothalamus or is it "faulty nerve stimulation". Leading textbooks on the subject seem very confident with their contradictory explanations. 3. The way so-called Scientific specialists/experts DO NOT accept significant new research findings in their field if it is not in the interest of a pharmaceutical company (the source of their regular backhanders) which holds a patent on a particular drug which would almost become obsolete as a result of the Scientific acceptance of such research. For example, many years ago, the Australian scientist, Barry Marshall who used Koch's postulates, proved that Helicobacter Pylori DOES thrive in the stomach and IS a significant risk factor to stomach ulcers and cancer. And he showed the simple way that this bacterium can be totally eliminated from the body with a short course of antibiotics, permanently removing that risk factor for these stomach diseases. Marshall was conveniently ignored for decades because acceptance of his findings would mean a much reduced need for Glaxo/Wellcome's extortionately-priced ZANTAC (Ranitidine HCl) which inhibits stomach acid, for the treatment of stomach ulcers. But, Marshall's research was ignored until the patent had expired and other manufacturers were free to make and sell Ranitidine at a very much cheaper price. The BBC broad casted programmes about this case many times, exposing the injustice of it all. The drug companies should certainly be rewarded for their research efforts, but not at the expense of patients and progress. PROVING THAT A BACTERIUM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A DISEASE Returning to POINT 1 above, Medical Science has problems proving that a certain bacterium IS actually responsible for a particular disease. So, when bacterial disease occurs, how can we be sure that we have correctly identified the causative agent of the disease? Criteria to answer this question were postulated by Robert Koch over a hundred years ago. All four of these criteria must be satisfied to prove that this infectious agent is the causative agent: 1. the infectious agent should be present in each and every case of the disease, and its distribution in the body should accord with the pattern of the lesion seen; 2. the infectious agent should be recovered from infected individuals, and be established in pure culture in the laboratory; 3. inoculation of samples of the pure cultures into experimental animals (or human volunteers) should cause the same disease; 4. when re-cultured from the experimental animals or human volunteers, the original bacterium should be recovered. KOCH's postulates have never been fulfilled for many diseases like syphilis and leprosy, because the bacteria cannot be grown in nutrient media in the laboratory, yet these bacteria have been generally accepted as THE CAUSE of these diseases. And, many others, like the bacteria causing gonorrhoea and certain types of meningitis will only grow in humans, and have similar problems with Koch's Postulates. Koch's postulates cannot be applied in relation to the importance of factors affecting host susceptibility. Cystic fibrosis patients are uniquely susceptible to damage to their lungs caused by long-term colonisation of their thickened mucus from a bacterium called Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Koch's postulates cannot be tested by inoculating the bacterium into the lungs of a normal animal. Instead, mice belonging to a mutated strain must be used. Some bacterial pathogens are 'single-disease' organisms; others give rise to a range of disease syndromes. One way to summarise the properties of pathogenic bacteria is to regard the bacterial cell as a living delivery system for the various macromolecules which result in its capacity to cause disease. The structural components, or soluble products, of a bacterium which are involved in its capacity to cause such diseases are known as its virulence determinants. So, bacterial infection is no longer viewed as a process in which bacteria grow and develop in their host in the same mechanical fashion which results in the appearance of a bacterial colony on a plate of nutrient medium. The survival of Bacteria depends on mediators which protect bacteria against host defence mechanisms, e.g., mediators against phagocytes and serum lysis. Some bacterial components damage the host by triggering the body's key enzyme cascades to a pathological extent OR by eliciting harmful immune responses. The symptoms of malaria are recurrent chills, fever, and sweating. The symptoms peak roughly every 48hrs, when successive generations of merozoites are released from infected red blood cells. The large number of merozoites formed can block capillaries, causing intense headaches, renal failure, heart failure or cerebral damage. There is speculation that some of the symptoms of malaria may be caused not by Plasmodium itself but instead by excessive production of cytokines - stemming from the observation that cancer patients treated in clinical trials with recombinant tumour necrosis factor (TNF) developed symptoms that mimicked malaria. Homeopathic medicines contain no bacteria, nor any disease agent whatsoever yet they produce symptom patterns that closely resemble those associated with bacterial infections. It is possible that their mode of action is similarly on immune system or acute inflammatory processes such as complement activation, production of cytokines, or influence the activities of macrophages, for instance. The above illustrates that symptoms are not directly caused by a disease agent, but by complicated processes in the body attempting to deal with it. The mode of action of medicines in living tissue faces similar verification problems. This applies as much to conventional medicines as it does to Homeopathic medicines. But, I think that knowledge of the mode of action of Homeopathic medicines is not a mandatory requirement for acceptance of Homeopathy within Science. Tim

BGH, I hope you went back to the first "to Francine" post half way down Page 2. The issue seems to be "Do you really understand symptoms?"

Rolfe, Can easily address your issues too. I did not know the expected symptoms from Bryonia before trying it. Afterwards, as symptoms were so marked, and early, I looked to see what Hahnemann said about Bryonia in the Organon and his Materia Medica. Bryonia and about 5 others are noted for symptoms with "alternating actions", very obvious symptoms. That is what I had noticed about Bryonia, compared to the others I tried. Tim