Not Science, we are told

[Hahnemannian444]

Tim said to Sayonora:

Sayonara,

 

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

 

You feel the need to be antagonistic.

 

 

I didn't see it that way.

 

That is an allopathic view of things.

 

It's kind of innately antagonistic since the allopathic system is 100% oriented toward antagonism of diseases as the very name allopathy means as coined by Hahnemann, but it is understandable given that the natural sciences created modern Rationalist allopathy according to their understandings of things from an EXTREMELY patriarchal attitude and Apollonian worldview.

 

Glad it wasn't me this time, though, who felt that way.

 

Makes me feel better, Tim.

[Hahnemannian444]

Tim, then you said:

 

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

 

Wow!

 

I am totally shocked!

 

Hilarious too, for I have not yet seen you lose your cool.

 

These people haven't yet seen me lose it, but I don't much care when that happens.

 

Why, however, you said this to Sayonora I do not understand, for that has not been my take on his/her remarks.

[Hahnemannian444]

Originally posted by Kettle

 

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.

 

I haven't yet seen any AIDS cases and do not look forward to when I do, for they are all allopathically disordered, incurable cases, and I've seen plenty enough of those already since that's all allopathic medicine does to people.

 

I am not at all impressed with the allopathic pronouncements on AIDS and am wholly unconvinced that HIV has anything whatsoever to do with it, and for a number of reasons.

 

Those people in homeopathy who have seen AIDS cases confirm this view, but we see precious few papers on it because allopathic medicine has a near-total monopoly on them just as it does on most cases.

 

I would post here the best pages I've seen on it if there is an interest, for I have been meaning to type them up for sharing anyway.

[Hahnemannian444]

Sayonora said:

 

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.

 

That's not an accurate way of saying it.

 

You mean, disregarding that which does not yet fit into the existing paradigm or that which exists outside of the existing basic assumptions.

 

The problem you people in and supportive of allopathy have is that all of your basic assumptions are wrong, which of course is why you have no cures, so you really have no leg to stand on with such a statement.

 

That's not the case with homeopathy, though, for our system is stable and cumulative as well as based upon the 10 Laws of Medicine that makes homeopathy the actual Science of Medicine.

 

So you need to back off from such authoritarian statements or I will cut you in half.

[Hahnemannian444]

Sayonora then immediately says:

 

The general idea is that if a theory can't stand under the weight of evidence, it's probably not worth clinging to.

 

Okay, then let's quote Max Planck:

 

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised [sic] with the ideas from the beginning. (Max Planck, 1858-1947, SCIENTIFIC AUTOBIOGRAPHY, 1949)

 

And if you want to get really big time, Nicola Tesla will pull down your false assumptions as the Father of Alternating Current and thus the 20th Century and a man adherent to AEther Theory who was constantly demonstrating practical evidence as a forgotten genius like Hahnemann.

[Hahnemannian444]

Sayanora, you said:

 

...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 couldn't have said that better myself, and I just referred to Hahnemann as a forgotten genius.

 

The question we have asked for 213 years is, why?

[Hahnemannian444]

Sayanora, you then said:

 

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.

 

True, but there are two very distinct levels of invoking the word scientific.

 

One applies to scientific method, which can be and often is flawed from the get go by erroneous assumptions, and one applies to pure sciences underlain by natural laws.

 

The pure sciences are just chemistry, physics and homeopathy, mathematics if one wants to accept that the mathematical absolutes fulfill the criteria of 1) natural laws as being 2) absolutely verifiable and 3) provide a reasonably and relatively precise degree of predictability to the phenomena being observed, dealt with and precipitated.

 

Hahnemann homeopathy exceeds the wildest expectations of what a medical system can do, but it is so foreign to the basic assumptions of the natural sciences that we are often thrust outside of it and discarded.

 

Big mistake, for we have found the means of disintegrating unnecessary human and animal suffering by a few simple little truths of existence!

[Hahnemannian444]

Originally posted by timokay

Kettle,

 

"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. "

 

Hahnemann could cure AIDS, if he were around today. The question is, are other Homeopaths as good as Hahnemann?

I hope Homeopath Albert may be able to comment on this.

 

Hahnemann was able to manipulate disease management...he could firstly, IDENTIFY the disease or kind of diesease to disease management, and then SET THE PRIORITY of the disease, so that the body would heal itself. Instinctual memory does not know AIDS...that is the only reason it can be fatal. Just TELL disease management about it, and it can easily overcome it....ALL disease.

 

Tim has a very unique approach to explaining homeopathy.

 

I've never read anything like it, and I don't especially approve since the speculative nature of it ignores how we have logically and empirically tested Hahnemann's explanations for nearly 200 years.

 

However, Hahnemann's explanations were not oriented toward a mechanism like electromagnetism, so I let it slide given that Tim's explanation may well be pivotal to either confirming hypotheses about homeopathic pharmacological potentization I favor or might provide a new slant.

 

I'm standing beside him because we have long needed a champion in chemistry to look into this issue.

 

I will repeat that we have not yet found any diseases incurable.

 

That does not, however, mean that we do not find incurable patients with these diseases.

 

What we mostly find is that whenever somebody gets entangled with allopathic medicine, they might as well prepare to die within 10 years because it does not cure and does speed people to their graves.

 

This is important about AIDS because it seems to be an iatrogenic disease.

 

BTW, how many people are aware of the fact that it was first identified in 1954?

 

Dr. Robert Wilner, author of THE DEADLY DECEPTION, seems to have been the discoverer of this.

 

The First Edition of the MERCK MANUAL (1954) lists four primary causes of AIDS: 1) starvation and malnutrition, 2) recreational drugs, 3) radiation, and 4) chemotherapy.

 

Bet that puts a big ole dent in the assinine claim of the pharmaceutical people who want to sell the world on an AIDS vaccine and retire to the Moon.

[Hahnemannian444]

Tim said this about a remark by Sayonora:

 

Water is replaced. Proteins being denatured is nonsense.

 

Thank you, Tim.

 

I wondered who had ever seen a fever of 160 degrees F.

[Hahnemannian444]

Since Tim mentioned Shui Yin Lo's papers, I want to point out that there is also a book: http://www.minimum.com/p7/engine/book.asp?n=2671#

 

More importantly, the nanometer-sized electron-micrographs he captured of ice at room temperature resulting from succussed serial dilutions may be confirmations of three previous speculations and hypotheses.

 

I name them.

 

About 100 years ago, a homeopath who was more famous as a homeopathic pharmacist speculated brilliantly on the mechanism of our potentization process.

 

That was the famous Bernard Fincke, M.D..

 

In the 1950s and '60s, another homeopath by the name of James H. Stephenson, M.D., hypothesized that "hydro-alcohol" solvent molecules in our potencies formed into "polymeric matrices" or polymers, the implication being that they were somehow unique for each drug even though that bewilders me how so.

 

If I remember correctly, for I have not looked at those papers for a couple of years, he seems to have suggest that some force intrinsic of the original substance was responsible for it.

 

I will not voice further about this till I re-read them again.

 

Then, in the 1970s and '80s, Wm. A. Tiller, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus in the Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University, wrote many papers on homeopathy and homeopathic pharmacology, one of the most important notions he put forward being that the substances also existed at the Etheric level as "deltrons."

 

That meshes perfectly with what arcane literature says about the nature of the universe, literature that is, incidentally, constantly being confirmed.

 

For example, such arcane authors told us in the 1970s at the commensement of the Big Bang Theory that "photons lose eneregy in traveling the vast intergalactic distances" and thus spread in wavelength, the core erroneous assumption of that ridiculous theory and its ancillary notion of an inflationarily expanding universe.

 

Then see this mechanism inadvertendly confirmed on p. 32 of the Jan. 1999 issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, where it said that cosmic rays "lose energy" to the cosmic microwave background radiation.

 

Same mechanism would be involved there, folks.

 

Hence, no Big Bang or a universe that's inflationarily expanding and 15 billion years old; rather, we live in a steady-state universe about 7½ billion years old.

 

Anyway, those four sources are my contribution to this search by Tim and I.

 

Somebody is going to know something that's the missing piece(s) to this puzzle, for a mechanism has to be available to explain Lo's discovery of room-temperature ice, which may very well be Stephenson's hydroalcohol polymers.

 

That's the gist of it.

 

We're looking to fill in holes and give congruity to mere logical notions.

[Hahnemannian444]

Sayonora says:

 

Water is generally only replaced if the patient is tended to by another or is not so sick that they are incapable of assuring themselves basic necessities - if you are going to assume the patient has access to as much water as they need, you are not considering the fever per se, you are considering an integrated recovery process with external interference.

 

This is true.

 

It's not so much the water but the electrolytes lots in dehydration through continued high fever that are dangerous if not replaced by saline drip.

[Hahnemannian444]

Those postings cover page one, and all I can manage at the moment.

 

Seems I should have been paying attention to this site too.

[atinymonkey]

Originally posted by Hahnemannian444

 

That's not true.

 

The logic you refer to is deductive logic based upon erroneous assumptions as the general principles, which of course is why theiresultant conclusions of particular facts are always wrong.

 

Legitimate homeopathy engages in inductive logic based upon accurate general principles known as the 10 Laws of Medicine.

 

So that remark is wrong.

 

I like that. You say I'm using deductive logic, but blindly miss that it's exactly what you are using. You state I have erroneous assumptions as the general principles, when you yourself are making assumptions about my knowledge of the principles. You mark my answer against the 10 Laws of Medicine from the ‘legitimate’ homeopathy, missing entirely that I was outlining the basic logic and not the dogma of a particular group of exponents. To paraphrase yourself, this is why their resultant conclusions as particular facts are always wrong.

 

Hahnemann did not invent this approch, Hippocrates did. Hahnemann simply developed his own branded approach. The principle stays the same despite which group you follow.

 

But I said earlier, I don't enjoy getting into arguments about this. It goes against my basic beliefs in science. It's not that I have anything against homeopathy, I think done right it can be beneficial to a certain section of society. The guys who practice it are in my experience kind/giving and genuine people. Unfortunately they all also seem to be highly argumentative and protective about homeopathy.

[Intelligence]

Monkey - I couldn't help but notice how plain stupid your signature definition of truth is. I've never heard of a more twisted mentality.

[atinymonkey]

Well, thanks troll boy. It comes from the Devil's Dictionary, written 1911. As all my sigs do. It's comedy, for the literate.

[Hahnemannian444]

Atinymonkey, Hippocrates did not invent the Law of Similars, nor did he apply it.

 

You have to be precise if you are going to make remarks about homeopathy.

 

All Hippocrates said was that some cures arise due to like cures like, but he did not apply it therapeutically because to have done so would have required he do homeotherapeutics.

 

In fact, the great demigod of allopathic medicine was a total bozo, so it's ridiculous to say he did anything systematically.

 

Moreover, the HIPPOCRATIC CORPUS makes clear that several people were the authors of it, for they are constantly contradicting each other from both the Rationalist and Empiricist traditions of allopathy.

 

As to my remarks about your logic, I was not applying any general principles in my analysis, but I did notice erroneous assumptions underlying your views.

 

That was deductive logic, but your assumptions were still wrong.

[atinymonkey]

Just to make this clear, Hippocrates did invent the Law of Similars. At least according to every homeopathy website listed, there are 160 in total with the same statement.

 

You have to be precise if you are going to make remarks about homeopathy.

 

http://www.homeopathy.edu/background.htm

 

http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/web/pages/leaflet3.htm

 

http://www.homeopathycanada.com/homeopathy/whatisit.html

 

http://www.kaamaru.com/Pages/homeopathy.html

 

http://www.health-works.demon.co.uk/homoeo.htm

 

http://www.homoeopathyuk.org/homoeo.html

 

http://www.healthworks.fsnet.co.uk/homoeopa.htm

 

http://www.londonhealth.co.uk/homeopathyintro.asp

 

http://www.maryloftus-cawley.com/homoeopathy.htm

 

http://www.beaumonthealth.com/homeex.html

[Intelligence]

Here comes monkey with his untruths, little troll

 

Hahnemannian444 you are right. Here is a quote from the NATIONAL CENTER FOR HOMEOPATHY

 

The laborious dilution process is not unique to Oscillococcinum. It is the bedrock of homeopathy, a mystical specialty invented in the early 19th century by Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician. Homeopaths today still rely on his "law of similars," which holds that tiny quantities of a substance that in larger amounts produces symptoms of a disease will cure that disease.

 

 

http://www.homeopathic.org/news1100.htm

 

End of Story. Someone ban this troll.

[atinymonkey]

Apprecitate the enthusiasum. A little off topic though. But full points for effort.

[Intelligence]

In otherwords you don't have the BALLS to admit you posted 20 links to idiotic untruthful pieces of information.

 

It's no wonder it's so easy to disprove everything you say - all you know you learned from random personal internet websites.

 

Monkey - by the way I work as a medical neuroscientist - I know medicine.

[Hahnemannian444]

Atinymonkey, you said:

 

Just to make this clear, Hippocrates did invent the Law of Similars. At least according to every homeopathy website listed, there are 160 in total with the same statement.

 

Okay, so they're all ignorant fools.

 

Now I have to explain two things.

 

Mighty easy to ask questions.

 

Homeopathy has existed at least three times before.

 

One of them, the oldest in all probability reckoned in one manner but second-oldest judged from another perspective, was Hermetic medicine in ancient Egypt.

 

The Greeks didn't develop anything; they were all students of the Egyptians.

 

Hippocrates couldn't have developed a hole in the ground.

 

You will learn this when you read the homeopathic analysis of the Hippocratic aphorism rendered by Count Clemens von Boeinghausen, called the GLOSSES ON HIPPOCRATES, although that is apparent from merely reading the HIPPOCRATIC CORPUS.

 

The Hermetic physicians potentized their drugs.

 

There is one and only one reason for having done that.

 

The Law of the Minimum Dose (misnomer) or Optimally Ultramolecular Dose is a direct cognate of the Law of the Single Dose and an indirect cognate of the Law of Similars and the Law of the Single Remedy.

 

Out of it comes homeopathic pharmacology of potentization or dynamization, and all four are interdependent Laws of Therapeutics or one four-part Law of Therapeutics.

 

So there it is obvious that Hippocrates did not come first.

 

Now to the idiots you consider authorities.

 

They are all mere followers in the George Vithoulkas school of Thought (GVs), which in turn is part of high-potency pseudo-homeopathy (HPH).

 

They are lots better than the allopathic homeopaths called low-potency pseudo-homeopaths (LPHs), but they are both fools who in no way represent Hahnemannian or classical homeopathy even though the GVs say they do and the previous HPHs, known as Kentians (ala James Tyler Kent), called themselves Hahnemannians due to their having inherited the International Hahnemannian Association (founded in 1880) after all of the Hahnemannians died by the late 1890s and left it to the Kentians by default.

 

The LPHs do nothing but make mistakes and are in no way, shape or form actual homeopaths, for they prescribe homeopathics (the medicines) on the basis is disease-diagnostic categories; i.e., a disease by name gets a drug with such fools, just like is done in allopathy.

 

That is not homeopathy, and that is the basic protocol of all double-blind trials, for they invariably take a disease by name and test homeopathy or a homeopathic medicine against it.

 

It will always fail because allopathy always fails due to it being based upon the five very same erroneous assumptions underlying allopathy.

 

Specifically, the basic assumptions of medicine are about health, disease, therapeutics, the nature of existence and the nature of the universe.

 

Allopathy will always be effete because it is totally wrong in its approach to medicine, and this cannot be corrected because they lack the 10 Laws of Medicines and ultramolecular drugs.

 

There are approximately 10,000 times as many LPHs as Hahnemannians and about 100 times as many LPHs as HPHs.

 

These people are hyper-materialists who thus insist upon "tanglble doses" and all that entails along with allopathic ideas of diseases and patho-physiological mechanisms.

 

The LPHs do everything wrong and are not homeopaths.

 

The HPHs make eight fundamental mistakes, all of them serious but at least not hopelessly wrong, for they at least almost know how to think homeopathically.

 

They're simply misguided due to a long tradition of this group of hyper-mystical types that today manifest as a school of thought emphasizing presumptuous psychobabble and mystical sophistries.

 

They, for instance, cannot identify uncommon/characteristic symptoms, without which it is impossible to arrive at an unambiguous homeopathic prescription of the simillimum ("thing most similar").

 

At best these people make guesses due to their ridiculous quasi-homeopathic case analysis through which they invariably emphasize the mental symptoms, even if they do not exist (they read them into cases) and attempt to convince each other it is a pretty good idea to prescribe for the remedy personality or essence or remedy image, etc., none of which actually exist.

 

They are a self-reinforcing network of fools who today run all of the schools and most of the medical journals.

 

But they do not graduate anyone competent and rarely say anything whatsoever accurate in their journals.

 

The second mistake they make is to prescribe from the repertory (symptom index) to the homeopathic materia medica ("materials of medicine") or collections of proving symptoms and clinical additions of them.

 

Hahnemann himself dismissed this class of pseudo-homeopaths as "bunglers," "_______" and "aggravators of diseases" on pp. 121-22 of THE CHRONIC DISEASES, but apparently none of the GVs in this form of HPH have ever read those two paragraphs or they would not be constantly making these two mistakes.

 

Their so-called remedy essences are a third mistake.

 

They also invariably have ridiculous notions about so-called "miasmatic layers" of disease, this in contradiction to Hahnemann's meaning about miasms being contagious or transmittable infections as an unproven theory in the realm of chronic diseases, even though perfectly logical since he has seen that all others diseases are contagious.

 

They make four other mistakes, but the point should be clear that they make fundamental mistakes that separate them from legitimate or Hahnemannian homeopathy.

 

There are about 100 times as many HPHs as Hahnemannians, and there are very few Hahnemannians both historically and at present.

 

So it is no wonder that they all make such an ignorantly ridiculous statement since that is about all that ever comes from them.

 

Is that clear?

[Hahnemannian444]

Intelligence,

 

And there is the other part: Hahnemann seems to have independently rediscovered the Law of Similars as a simple product of an experiment and brilliant insight.

 

Here we enter into an unanswerable question, for he invoked the most recent form of homeopaths in his first paper on homeopathy but several times stated that nobody had every used the Law of Similars in a systematic way or as part of a system that would be homeopathy.

 

We feel he may have rediscovered homeopathy from surviving fragments of the Spagyric physicians, but this will never be possible to establish, and Hahnemann was so far above reproach that it is an unanswerable question and simply a major mystery in homeopathy.

 

But that is the other factor of it: Hahnemann used the Law of Similars systematically, and one has to look long and hard to dig up the three previous forms of homeopathy.

 

But that's a good additional point.

 

I want to point out to everyone who hears this that this is very deep and rare information with which I sincerely you are never led astray by any claims covered here.

 

And don't be picking at each other, for this is a very difficult subject, and you are both surely interesting people to be attending to this thread against all odds in an allopathic environment of world cartel in medicine.

 

You should not be hereafter led astray by LPHs or HPHs or allopaths, and that is simply very rare.

 

Whatever your disaggreements and antagonisms, you have something very important in common you both know along with whoever else reads this.

 

I am a Hahnemannian.

 

Believe me when I tell you something about homeopathy, but always verify it logically and experientially before you actually accept it, for nothing can otherwise become knowledge unless you test it both ways inside and out.

[atinymonkey]

Your right, I was being pedantic and petty. I went to the homeopathy websites to get information, assuming that classical homeopathy was the same as that widely practiced. I've got a copy of Clemens Franz Maria von Boenninghausen analysis, and I'll get started on reading through it.

 

I don't consider the homeopathy websites to be authorities, but did make the assumption that you would see them as such. Obviously that was a misconception, and I apologise again.

 

I've also got a copy now of 'Chronic Diseases' by Hahnemann. I'll go off and read that too.

 

Unfortunate, I was a bit stuck in 'troll' mode, I didn't give the posts the effort of analysis that they deserved.

[timokay]

Albert,

 

"That was the famous Bernard Fincke, M.D..

 

In the 1950s and '60s, another homeopath by the name of James H. Stephenson, M.D., hypothesized that "hydro-alcohol" solvent molecules in our potencies formed into "polymeric matrices" or polymers...".

 

They would be stable enough to settle on pills. I think we should consider viewing them under the Scanning Electron Microscope,SEM (re. Geckeler/Samal's work) - as they may survive the fixation process.

 

I can't find any Homeopathy research in this area..where a Homeopath is involved with SEM research.

[timokay]

Albert. My post to Sayonara on page 1 started with the quote below, which HE said, not me.

 

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

 

My reply:

 

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.