Not Science, we are told

[timokay]

Just because something is difficult to prove, that doesn't mean Scientists should just turn their noses up at it. There is a Scientific problem to be solved, so it should be considered.

 

I refer to Classical Homeopathy.

 

The bizarre nature of its mechanism is astonishing, but it is still rational. A German doctor noticed that many substances prepared in the right way produce "symptom patterns" in people.

 

These medicines are acting on the Brain's Homeostatic Centre.

 

Dr Hahnemann simply threw 1000's of these substances at the Brain (using healthy people as subjects) to understand the mechanism of this Homeostatic centre...and he actually solved the problem of disease by associating "specific symptom patterns" with "specific faults" in the Homeostatic centre.

 

He discovered a principle: how diseases behave when they exist simultaneously in a patient...one will dominate, the other suspended...the brain has an instinctual memory of each disease (i.e. what to do when signals from the immune system indicate such-and-such disease). When diseases are of a very similar kind, the instinctual memory system does not have the resolution to distinguish between them...thinks they are just one disease.

 

The patient is sick because the Homeostatic centre has a fault, and NOTHING to do with any disease agent (which has only exposed the fault).

 

By selecting a medicine with exactly the same symptoms as that exhibited by the sick person, the Homeostatic Control system is fooled by the medicine, believing it to be the same disease as the natural disease. It completes the processing of that natural disease by taking it over. The fault in the system still exists, but the medicine has detached the natural disease and marked it as resolved.

 

Must go. Any interest? There is a Scientific problem to be solved. Let me explain. (Later) Tim

[JaKiri]

It has been considered. However, there is bugger all evidence to support it, compared to a very large amount for the opposition.

[timokay]

Jakiri,

 

Who considered it? Give publication ref.

[Kettle]

If someone was able to scientifically prove that homeopathy worked they'd be $1million richer - there's some guy (a magician, I think) who has offered all this money to anyone who can produce conclusive evidence that homeopathy works. To date no one has (as far as I'm aware).

 

The main problem is, is that many scientists have conducted trials into homeopathy and published favourable results but they are then unable to replicate the results when asked to demonstrate the experiment before other scientists and observers. Other trials have been sponsored by companies specialising in homeopathic remedies and so we must obviously be skeptical with regards to their objectivity.

[timokay]

Kettle,

 

The testing was done by Scientists, not Homeopaths. There are branches of Homeopathy that Hahnemann would not have approved of at all, so any approval by Homeopaths in those branches is suspect. No scientist has ever tested Hahnemannian Homeopathy. Tim

[blike]

No scientist has ever tested Hahnemannian Homeopathy.

 

What is the main difference? Why hasn't there been research into Hahnemannian Homeopathy?

[blike]

I do agree that having a healthy body and eating healthy food does help with preventative measures. What is the extent that homeopaths attempt to "remedy"? If I come to you with pleurisy, can a homeopath do anything about it? Do they treat complex illnesses, or just things like the common cold..

[atinymonkey]

One of my pal's dad is a member of the Homeopathy Orgainsation, he's also joint head of the Osteopath Accociation (UK, obviously) and holds 2 doctorates. I think he might object to the sentance 'No scientist has ever tested Hahnemannian Homeopathy', seeing as it debases most of his work over the past 16 years

 

http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/

 

I don't tend to ask him anything about homeopathy, as we don't agree on it's uses (he's an ex-hippy, mother earth and all that jazz). However he is a very good osteopath.

[Kettle]

Originally posted by timokay

The testing was done by Scientists

 

Yup - that's what I said

 

A brief search on Google revealed a few studies on Hahnemannian homeopathy, perhaps the most positive one being...

Boiron Abecassls, Belon (1983). "The Effects of Hahnemannian Potencies of 7c Histaminum and 7c Apis Mellifica upon Basophil Degranulation in Allergic Patients".

..although I couldn't track down anything more than fragmented excerpts.

[blike]

do you know what journal that was in?

[Giles]

Originally posted by timokay

How does 'symptom recognition' work? Antigen recognition is well documented.

 

How do disease-causing agents (or other recognisable effects) cross the blood-brain barrier to reach the 'homeostatic centre'?

 

How do you account for known causal pathways in well-studied disease organisms?

 

How does the immune system signal the brain?

 

How does this model account for the normal modes and functions of 'memory' in the immune system?

 

Name one disease for which the 'homeostatic' disease mechanism is documented at the molecular level.

 

Why do disease-causing organisms generate symptoms in tissue culture, or in other organisms without a central nervous system?

 

Why, if the homeostatic centre operates on signals from the immune system, does 'resolution' depend on symptom discrimination rather than antigen discrimination?

 

How does this model incorporate the concept of adaptation at all?

 

etc.

[Sayonara]

The homeopathic model is apparently directed to addressing the symptoms of disease, and not the cause.

 

While this means that Dr Hahnemann no more cured anyone than I could with a stick of ginseng and my enthusiasm, it surely also means the homeopathic model does not need to explain any of the workings of either medicine or the immune system?

 

I think Dr Hahnemann's invstigative approach may have had some accidental merit, but it was most likely masked by his "if I punch you in the face, you'll forget about your bladder problems" approach.

[atinymonkey]

Or to put it another way, if you are always tired, drink coffee. You don’t treat the reason for the tiredness, just combat the effect. Obviously that affects nothing on the molecular level, but in essence all of us use homeopathic methods for treating health problems. We don’t go for a cat scan if we have a headache, some herbal tea and a soak in a bath is more effective.

 

Homeopathic methods take that principle to the extreme. That's where is starts conflicting with logical approaches to medicine. You wouldn’t believe that soaking in a bath would cure a brain tumour that’s causing a headache, it’s just naïve.

[timokay]

Giles,

 

How does 'symptom recognition' work? Antigen recognition is well documented.

 

Excellent question. We can only speculate as it is handled by some unknown centre in the brain. Its existence is deduced by the very predictable behaviour of the Homeostatic system after taking homeopathic medicines. Hahneman left a great deal of info on his observations.

 

This is nothing like anything operating in tissues outside the brain, e.g. antigen recognition. It's purely a neural network interfacing with "regional areas for the organs/tissues" in the brain to produce the perception of symptoms. A system which is inpenetrable? Perhaps, from a Scientific perspective, but Logigally/Conceptually by careful observation, we can deduce a lot about it.

 

How do disease-causing agents (or other recognisable effects) cross the blood-brain barrier to reach the 'homeostatic centre'?

 

I don't know what you mean. No disease agent is crossing the BB barrier in this scenario. Perhaps, you mean the Homeopathic medicine. It must get into the brain because that is where it effects its action. If its nature is such that it passes thru the blood stream then it must cross the BBB. But, it is possible this medicine actually enters the brain through the nervous system...bizarre I know, but cannot be excluded yet.

 

How do you account for known causal pathways in well-studied disease organisms?

 

I do not dispute those pathways and the immune system gets to work on them. But too much emphasis is placed on those pathways. The immune system goes about its business and eliminates the disease organisms. The Homeostatic centre monitors immune system activity (constant input from immune system thru PNIE interface, e.g., hypothalamic blood sensors) - only becomes involved when there is an unusual situation (e.g., immune system overwhelmed or trying to manage multiple diseases).

 

How does the immune system signal the brain?

 

Through the constantly monitored PNIE interface. (I will post something on the background of PNIE for people who are not familiar.)

 

How does this model account for the normal modes and functions of 'memory' in the immune system?

 

The immune system goes about its business at its own physiological level, including the functions of 'memory' it has.

 

The Homeostatic Control system (HCS) has a different physiological mechanism, in the brain, and includes instinctual (memory) instructions for each disease situation.

When the PNIE input (immune system component) is recognized by HCS as an emergency situation, HCS takes action by referencing the instinctual memory instructions for this particular emergency and initiates those instructions; a cascade of activities to combat this disease around the body, from the highest level of control - e.g., involving hormone releasing factors secreted by the pituitary. But, this all happens without the patient even knowing about it. Hahnemann recogonized this period when the disease was silently being managed. It is only when HCS itself has a fault that symptoms appear, called PERCEIVED symptoms due to HCS failure. At this point, HCS may become out-of-line with the immune system, but the disease which persists with these symptoms is ONLY in HCS.

 

Name one disease for which the 'homeostatic' disease mechanism is documented at the molecular level.

 

It is so difficult to get inside the "black box" which is the Brain, but it can be deduced by relentless experimentation and logical reasoning.

 

Why do disease-causing organisms generate symptoms in tissue culture, or in other organisms without a central nervous system?

 

I do not question at all what you have said. But, the symptoms that people call "disease" are actually generated by the body itself, i,e., in the Brain. As far as Hahnemann was concerned, the disease agent disappears into the body never to be seen again.

He could precisely mimic all the symptoms with his medicines, which contain no disease agent at all, therefore it is THE BODY which produces the symptoms, not any disease agent.

 

Why, if the homeostatic centre operates on signals from the immune system, does 'resolution' depend on symptom discrimination rather than antigen discrimination?

 

No antigens go into the brain in this scenario. The medicines are not antigen but their sole function is their ability to produce symptoms...that alone.

 

The antigen is handled outside the brain by the immune system. The antigen itself does not go into the brain, cannot get in. HCS has the PNIE input as its window on the world, which is something else completely - e.g.hypothalamic blood receptors for blood factors + much more, resulting from the on-going management of the disease by the immune system. HCS assesses/monitors the status of the disease.

 

How does this model incorporate the concept of adaptation at all?

 

What aspect of adaptation? HCS is a powerful backup to the immune system. When Hahnemann mastered its operation, he could resolve any disease at all, because HCS can be PUSHED into action.

 

So, the fundamental difference between Medical Science and Homeopathy is that Hom acts on this Brain centre, which is the source of all perceived symptoms, and which has the capacity to initiate activities which greatly assist the immune system to eliminate disease.

But, in the majority of diseases which present with many symptoms, the disease IS THE SYMPTOMS. HCS has failed to complete its processing of some disease it had helped the immune system with. otwh

[timokay]

CONTINUED (Above post incomplete..accidently posted.)

HCS has a fault and just HANGS in an incomplete state....possibly for ever (chronic disease). Normally these people gradually deteriorate over years until death because HCS cannot help the immune system. But, there is no disease agent in the body...the immune system has completed its task.

 

Later I will explain how the above was deduced by Hahnemann (though it was me who re-stated it in terms of modern science, so don't blame Hahnemann).

Briefly, Hahnemann was a very experienced and well-read doctor. He knew of 100's cases where a patient with a disease would suddenly show symptoms of another disease...another infection had taken over. Then , when that disease had resolved..the old disease would come back and take its course.

 

He classified diseases according to their similarity of symptoms, and their severity (and therefore the priority they get in the body.)

 

He found that, if diseases were very similar in nature, resolving one of them would resolve the other one at the same time. But, this was largely theorising, because he was under pressure to explain how his medicines work. He proposed that the medicine was an "artificial disease", and the dose was selected to just exceed the natural disease in severity so that "it would take it over" - or suspend the natural disease. But, the medicine is just a false signal and this artificial disease wanes in a day or two. At this point, we should expect the suspended disease to come back and continue....but it doesn't..its gone for ever.

 

To explain this, I think HCS can only process one disease at a time. There may be multiple diseases in the body being managed by the immune system but, when HCS interprets the PNIE input from the immune system, it chooses just the disease which is the more serious/stronger. (At some point it may intervene by activating the instinctual instructions for this disease, or just leave the immune system alone to complete the job.)

In the case of the Hanging

 

The above disease symptoms disappeared because it was a HCS disease. The processing was stuck at some faulty step for a long time, unable to complete. In the meantime the immune system had eliminated the disease. When the stronger artificial disease comes along, it sets the HCS disease aside...clears it from the processing area and works on the artificial disease until it disappears.

If the HCS disease were a real disease, the re-evaluation of the latest PNIE input from the immune system would re-instate the disease as the "current disease" in HCS. But there's nothing there...HCS is back to normal so all the HCS-caused symptoms disappears.

 

So, HCS refers to instinctual memory in managing disease conditions it recognizes from immune system input, but it has no other memory of diseases in the body - monitors/processes one at a time, (the most serious), and when it is resolved by the immune system just refers again to the immune system's PNIE input for the next disease to monitor/process.

[timokay]

Blike,

 

"Do they treat complex illnesses, or just things like the common cold.. "

 

Hahnemann could treat ALL diseases except what he called "surgical cases". The ALL diseases includes all the most troublesome diseases around today which are considered incurable by medical science....i.e., all the chronic and degenerative diseases. Albert, an experienced Hahnemannian Homeopath, can give details if you need them? If so, I'll call him in.

[Skye]

I haven't read alot on homeopathy and hadn't heard of the HCL concept.

 

Does the HCL have a physical location within the brain, if so where? And have there been any patients that are lacking this region, with noticable immunological deficiencies?

 

How does this fit in with, what I think is the central concept, the concept of like cures like?

[Sayonara]

It's a nice concept but unfortunately it's bollocks.

 

The homeostatic functions do nothing to help the body when it is under attack - in fact most viral infections we only notice because they hijack homeostatic functions, causing fever etc.

 

Immune responses have nothing whatsoever to do with the hypothallamus or activity of the pituitary - they are mediated by discrete biochemical events at a cellular level.

 

Homeostasis involves the correct regulation of glucose, water, heat and oxygen throughout the body - nothing more. Of course it is possible to mitigate the symptoms of disease by meddling with homeostasis, but there is no way to launch some kind of "homeostatic response" at the cause.

 

I think that someone here is getting confused because homeostasis and homeopathy both begin with the five same letters. Clearly doesn't realise why formal Latin and ancient Greek are used for scientific terms.

[timokay]

Skye,

 

"I haven't read a lot on homeopathy and hadn't heard of the HCL concept."

 

HCS is, as yet, a concept derived from close study of Hahnemann's books and writings.

 

The best Homeopathy reference is "The Organon of Medicine", and where anyone interested should start. It was first published in 1810 and underwent 5 modifications. The 6th Edition is by far the best, and the ONLY translation of it worth reading is by KUNZLI et al.(1982/3/or later). This is the version you should be able to get from your public library (they may have to bring it in from another lib.). The other major work of Homeopathy is "The Chronic Disease" ("Advanced level" Homeopathy) to be read after the Organon.

 

There are some versions of the Organon online, but all are LOUSY translations. Here are some of them. The 6th Ed is the one to read. It has 291 numbered Paragraphs (Aphorisms) though they are much more than a single paragraph. When people talk about Homeopathy, they often refer to the Para number of the Organon.

 

http://www.homeoint.org/books/hahorgan/

 

http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html

 

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

 

Does the HCL have a physical location within the brain, if so where? And have there been any patients that are lacking this region, with noticable immunological deficiencies?

 

The location of HCS is unknown. It may have several components at various locations in the brain. The four main inputs of PNIE to HCS are believed to converge somewhere near the Hypothalamus - the proposed location because of its blood receptors and proximity to the major endocrine gland (Pituitary gland).

 

How does this fit in with, what I think is the central concept, the concept of like cures like?

 

Homeopathic medicine produce "unique set of symptoms". THAT is their only medicinal value. For these medciines to act "homeopathically", the medcine chosen must precisely match

the patient's "unique set of symptoms".

 

This is the "like cures like" of homeopathy.

[timokay]

Sayonara,

 

"It's a nice concept but unfortunately it's bollocks."

 

You feel the need to be antagonistic. It is unclear why. My experiences with people with such an attitude is that they never change their minds, AND expect me to explain it all to them, which I shall not be doing.

 

If you do not have anything constructive to say then I shall be completely ignoring you after this post, and hope the other people here are mature enough to do the same. (NOTE: I didn't ask you to stay away because I know it is pointless.)

 

"The homeostatic functions do nothing to help the body when it is under attack - in fact most viral infections we only notice because they hijack homeostatic functions, causing fever etc."

 

"hijack?" Fever is a deliberate response by the Homeostatic system to combat the disease agent, which influences/assistst the immune system's activities.

 

"PNIE input" means PSYCHE-NEURO-IMMUNO-ENDOCRINE input, the four components of Homeostasis. The immune system is so entwined in Homeostasis it has for decades considered a part of Homeostasis.

 

"Immune responses have nothing whatsoever to do with the hypothallamus or activity of the pituitary - they are mediated by discrete biochemical events at a cellular level."

 

Perhaps you mean initiated, not mediated. The immune response is a co-ordinated response, which has the potential to involve MANY systemic activities, if the infection is not dealt with promptly.

 

"Homeostasis involves the correct regulation of glucose, water, heat and oxygen throughout the body - nothing more."

 

"Nothing more". And how the hell does it do it. By magic. (Not questions.)

 

"Of course it is possible to mitigate the symptoms of disease by meddling with homeostasis, but there is no way to launch some kind of "homeostatic response" at the cause."

Your "of course" seems very much out of place as it is followed by rubbish.

 

That is exactly what Dr Hahnemann did. Activated processes which force the resolution of the disease conditions. Your words have distorted what I wrote. Read it again.

 

"I think that someone here is getting confused because homeostasis and homeopathy both begin with the five same letters. Clearly doesn't realise why formal Latin and ancient Greek are used for scientific terms."

 

Obviously a person without any degrees shooting his schoolboy mouth off.

A very silly person - this is my last word to you.

[Kettle]

Originally posted by timokay

Hahnemann could treat ALL diseases except what he called "surgical cases". The ALL diseases includes all the most troublesome diseases around today which are considered incurable by medical science....

 

Does that include AIDS - that isn't a "surgical case"? If there is a cure for this as you suggest then maybe Albert should let all of the millions of people afflicted with this terminal and incredibly unpleasant disease know.

[Sayonara]

I have plenty to say that's constructive, but if you won't hear it I really can't help you. Nobody likes having their theory taken apart but if you are going to bring it to a science forum you have to expect that's exactly what's going to happen. It's called "peer review", and it's the way things are.

There's a big difference between refusing to consider new and potentially valid information, and disregarding that which does not fit in with the observable evidence. If you have a look around this site you'll see it's littered with the remains of theories that fell foul of this process. The general idea is that if a theory can't stand under the weight of evidence, it's probably not worth clinging to.

 

Now, in your first post you claimed there was a scientific problem to be solved, and that you would explain later. So it's about time you did, rather than firing off statements of 'fact' that are only backed up by references to the work of someone whose methods and findings science has largely ignored. I am actually interested to hear what this problem is, as it may actually shed some light both ways (if you see what I mean).

 

If you are going to make statements such as

 

The Homeostatic Control system (HCS) has a different physiological mechanism, in the brain, and includes instinctual (memory) instructions for each disease situation.

When the PNIE input (immune system component) is recognized by HCS as an emergency situation, HCS takes action by referencing the instinctual memory instructions for this particular emergency and initiates those instructions"

then you may want to cite some evidence or deductive reasoning, especially if you are later going to say "The location of HCS is unknown. It may have several components at various locations in the brain". Where is this information coming from? Is it purely theoretical? Does it explain all observed evidence?

 

hijack?" Fever is a deliberate response by the Homeostatic system to combat the disease agent, which influences/assistst the immune system's activities.

Yes, perhaps "hijack" was not the best word to choose, as it implies a deliberately directed effect. What I was trying to get across is that the homeostatic response - when triggered by an infection - usually does more harm than good. Please do not try to tell me that the best way the body can aid an immune response, that can act over a mere 3 days to an indefinite period, is to raise the temperature of the body so high that water is lost exponentially and proteins are denatured.

 

"PNIE input" means PSYCHE-NEURO-IMMUNO-ENDOCRINE input, the four components of Homeostasis. The immune system is so entwined in Homeostasis it has for decades considered a part of Homeostasis.

Define 'psyche' input. I am fully aware of neural and endocrine input into homeostasis. Having been taught all the way through school, college and University by some very highly regarded academics that the immune system and the homeostatic system are completely separate I am going to need some convincing of your assertion that they are inseparably intertwined, rather than just being expected to accept it from "some guy" on the net.

 

Perhaps you mean initiated, not mediated. The immune response is a co-ordinated response, which has the potential to involve MANY systemic activities, if the infection is not dealt with promptly.

No, pretty sure I mean mediated. Although yes - initiated too, although in this context the actual initiation is in no way relevant.

 

"Nothing more". And how the hell does it do it. By magic. (Not questions.)

What has this got to do with anything?

"My computer makes me dinner"

"No it doesn't, it merely processes information according to the rules of the software you install"

"And how the hell does it do it? By magic? Therefore you are wrong, HA!"

 

 

Your "of course" seems very much out of place as it is followed by rubbish.

Really? Then perhaps you can give me an example that is backed up by empirical evidence and has been subjected to the rigours of the scientific method.

 

 

As you suggested I have read your posts again. There is a strong underlying order to everything you have said except for the one or two critical assumptions that I have already pointed out. You probably hate me by now but believe me this is nothing compared to the public drubbing people have got for suggesting much milder theories without covering their bases first.

 

Let's have some actual quantifiable evidence.

 

Originally posted by timokay

Obviously a person without any degrees shooting his schoolboy mouth off. A very silly person - this is my last word to you.

OK, that last bit about languages was just totally unnecessary. Sorry. But that quote is just funny ---^

[Sayonara]

And let's not forget my little speech:

 

Originally posted by Sayonara³

By "Hahnemann cured chronic diseases" I take it you mean in individuals and not across the planet?

 

It's all very well to dismiss the claims of people who turn their noses up at homeopathy because they just don't like it - in fact, I'd encourage it. I mean, what do they know?

 

However you should not simply dismiss the results of all the clinical trials that have been performed on homeopathic remedies. We know now that some things work 'as advertised', some appear to work, and some claims are just silly (half a pigeon on the head for migraine, etc).

 

As with any field related to biochemistry, it's not an "all or nothing" event.

To which you replied:

 

Originally posted by timokay

Yes, the Scientific clinical trials have been disappointing. None, however, have been performed on Hahnemannian Homeopathy, which, I believe, worked perfectly.

 

What I am trying to say here is that I'm not automatically ruling out everything you have said. Like any scientist, instead of simply listening to what you believe and deciding if I like it or not, I want you to show me the evidence.

 

[edit] Which reminds me, I meant to ask why the title of this thread is "Not science, we are told"?

Is it because someone said research into this area was not a valid scientific endeavour? If so I suggest reminding them that it is the investigative approach that is considered to be scientific (or unscientific if applicable), not the subject matter.

[daisy]

Right.....Timokay I know nothing about homeopathy but I DO know that homeostasis and immunity are separate pathways/mechanisms. Please give me a recent reference for a peer-reviewed review/journal article that explains the mechanism or the latest evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy. And I mean a JOURNAL with an impact factor of greater than 1 at the very least. I do not mean some website or ancient text published by the vanity press.

[daisy]

I'm serious by the way.......you put this topic out there so it's your job to convince me....not the other way round.