Re: homeopathy, is it effective, research review.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To get a good summary on the research looking at how effective it is,
follow the links below, hint, it ain't nuten to get workde up over:

I have been reading the previously mentioned British thesis.

This Hahnemann who was a German MD spoke 8 different languages
fluently in addition to being an experimental chemist who tested his
medicines experimentally on patients.

What is truly stupid, are the stupid science geek criticisms voiced
here to date.

There appears more to homeopathy than what first meets the eye. At
any rate, the thesis readings are a whole lot more intelligent and
interesting than the [censored] posted on these ngs.

Thesis on homeopathy submitted to Staffordshire University
for the degree of Master of Philosophy
http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/british/index.htm

Here are two quotable quotes. 🙂

"The orthodox physician has, in short, been so indoctrinated by a
false logic, a false metaphysic, and a meretricious science, that his
mind is inaccessible to our point of view. To understand in any
particular sense what are our methods would call for a reorientation
too drastic for the ordinary mortal. [Robertson, 1978, p.93]"

"There is first disorder of government, and this proceeds from within
outwards until we have pathological changes in the tissues. In the
practice of medicine today the idea of government is not found, and
the tissue changes only are taken into account. He who considers
disease results to be the disease, is insane. It is an insanity in
medicine, an insanity that has grown out of the milder forms of mental
disorder in science, crazy whims. [Kent, 1900, p.22]"

The presentation of material in this thesis has really blown my
mind!!! It is very interesting reading.

Here, is another interesting quote on how homeopathy was documented to
be effective against the the London Cholera epidemic of 1854.

"In the London Cholera epidemic of 1854, of the 61 cases of cholera
treated [at the London Homeopathic Hospital], 10 died, a percentage of
16.4; of the 331 cases of choleraic and simple diarrhoea treated, 1
died.

The neighbouring [Allopathic] Middlesex Hospital received 231 cases of
cholera and 47 cases of choleraic diarrhea. Of the cholera patients
treated 123 died, a fatality rate of 53.2 per cent., amount the
victims being one of the nurses."
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.

Interesting.

I was researching homeopathic sites on the Influenza Epidemic in he US
in Summer/Fall of 1918,

Most sites claimed that 30% of the population inflicted but treated with
either nothing or orthodox medicine died, while the death rate from
homepathically treated was only 1%.

However, I have a problem understanding this as historical experts now
believe that this particularly deadly influenza epidemic affected 25 to
28% of the US population . We'll say 25% to keep it easy, which means
25 million caught influenza in that terrible epedemic (the US population
at that time was approximately 100 million), so that means based on that
31% figure, approximately 7.5 million American citizens would have died,
whereas, again historically, the death figure was 675,000 give or take,
a tremendous number, but nowhere near 7.5 million. Another site said
45-50%/5%. One site refined the percentages to "hospitalized", but
since there were really few official hospital beds & makeshift
arrangements were set up in school gyms, civic auditoriums, department
stores all over the country, I don't know how they arrived at these
figures.

One or two homeopathic sites even claimed that 8,000 "men" working in a
Chicago factory were treated with a homepathic remedy or remedies & not
one of them died. Since this was still during World War I & "women"
were working in defense factories during this War (Rosie The Riveter
was not a new concept), I find it logically hard to believe this story,
But maybe that's just me.

BTW, my maternal grandfather died in this 1918 Influenza Epidemic,
leaving behind a widow & two young children, so the 25% worked in that
family.

"John 'the Man'" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To get a good summary on the research looking at how effective it is,
follow the links below, hint, it ain't nuten to get workde up over:

I have been reading the previously mentioned British thesis.

This Hahnemann who was a German MD spoke 8 different languages
fluently in addition to being an experimental chemist who tested his
medicines experimentally on patients.

What is truly stupid, are the stupid science geek criticisms voiced
here to date.

There appears more to homeopathy than what first meets the eye. At
any rate, the thesis readings are a whole lot more intelligent and
interesting than the [censored] posted on these ngs.

Isaac Asimov's Trilogy is "a whole lot more intelligent and interesting than
the [censored] posted on these ngs." But it is still fiction. And so is
homeopathy.

Quoted message said:

Thesis on homeopathy submitted to Staffordshire University
for the degree of Master of Philosophy
http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/british/index.htm

Here are two quotable quotes. 🙂

"The orthodox physician has, in short, been so indoctrinated by a
false logic, a false metaphysic, and a meretricious science, that his
mind is inaccessible to our point of view. To understand in any
particular sense what are our methods would call for a reorientation
too drastic for the ordinary mortal. [Robertson, 1978, p.93]"

This sounds like Dave's "higher plane" [censored].

Quoted message said:

"There is first disorder of government, and this proceeds from within
outwards until we have pathological changes in the tissues. In the
practice of medicine today the idea of government is not found, and
the tissue changes only are taken into account. He who considers
disease results to be the disease, is insane. It is an insanity in
medicine, an insanity that has grown out of the milder forms of mental
disorder in science, crazy whims. [Kent, 1900, p.22]"

Crazy whims are proprietary to alternative medicine.

Quoted message said:

The presentation of material in this thesis has really blown my
mind!!! It is very interesting reading.

Here, is another interesting quote on how homeopathy was documented to
be effective against the the London Cholera epidemic of 1854.

"In the London Cholera epidemic of 1854, of the 61 cases of cholera
treated [at the London Homeopathic Hospital], 10 died, a percentage of
16.4; of the 331 cases of choleraic and simple diarrhoea treated, 1
died.

The neighbouring [Allopathic] Middlesex Hospital received 231 cases of
cholera and 47 cases of choleraic diarrhea. Of the cholera patients
treated 123 died, a fatality rate of 53.2 per cent., amount the
victims being one of the nurses."

First, who was doing the counting? Second, how well do you suppose
homeopathy would do in a contest against MODERN medicine in treating
cholera? [Hint: the fatality rate for scientifically treated patients would
be zero, or nearly so.]

Just thought you might want to know.

--Rich

Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker
rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective, research
review.."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/british/index.htm
Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), founder of Homeopathy, a German
physician and chemist who spoke 8 different languages fluently gave up
his medical practice in disgust at its poor results(1782-3). He
published the main body of his homeopathic writings between 1805-28
and moved to Paris, France in 1835 at the age of 80 and practiced
homeopathy.

Quoted message said:

Second, how well do you suppose
homeopathy would do in a contest against MODERN medicine in treating
cholera?

The facts are that Hahnemann was extremely successful in treating
deadly acute diseases like cholera with homeopathy. 🙂

If the science geeks on these ngs can be believed, then Samuel
Hahnemann should be called a Quack rather than an intellectual giant
who used the experimental method to develop his theories .

The facts are that homeopathy was proven to be a clinically effective
therapeutic method for treating deadly acute diseases like cholera.

I will repeat my earlier comments for the benefit of the
intellectually challenged science geeks on these ngs.

Shewmaker's comments are precisely how Medical Scientism operates. 🙁

The established theory of Medical Scientism is automatically assumed
to be backed by science, while any competition has to show evidence to
support their position.

Shewmaker possesses the characteristic of arrogance which is the
calling card of all Science Geeks. 🙁

Compared to the Masters thesis of Peter Morrell,
http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/british/index.htm
Shewmaker's comments are just plain stupid. 🙂

Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.

"John 'the Man'" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Second, how well do you suppose
homeopathy would do in a contest against MODERN medicine in treating
cholera?

The facts are that Hahnemann was extremely successful in treating
deadly acute diseases like cholera with homeopathy. 🙂

Uh, no. That is not a fact. There are no controlled studies and that would
be needed to call this claim a "fact".

Quoted message said:

The established theory of Medical Scientism

There is no such theory.

le moo

"John 'the Man'" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The facts are that Hahnemann was extremely successful in treating
deadly acute diseases like cholera with homeopathy. 🙂

No, he wasn't.

Quoted message said:

If the science geeks on these ngs can be believed, then Samuel
Hahnemann should be called a Quack rather than an intellectual giant
who used the experimental method to develop his theories .

Hahnemann was a quack. Those who still subscribe to his silly theories and
sell water and sugar pills to naive believers are quacks.

Quoted message said:

Shewmaker possesses the characteristic of arrogance which is the
calling card of all Science Geeks. 🙁

And Mr. Goode displays the ignorance of disease processes and human
physiology which is glaringly obvious on his website. Cholera is
characterized by violent diarrhea and kills by dehydration and electrolyte
depletion. It is treated with intravenous electrolyte solutions. GALLONS of
homeopathy might replace the lost fluids, but wouldn't provide electrolytes,
and would actually make the condition worse. (Most cholera epidemics today
happen in places where neither IV fluids and equipment nor people with the
skills to use them exist, but great success has been obtained by the
development of electrolyte salts in a packet that can be dissolved in boiled
water and given to the patient by mouth.)

--Rich

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/cholera_g.htm

Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker
rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective, research
review.."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the science geeks on these ngs can be believed, then Samuel
Hahnemann should be called a Quack rather than an intellectual giant
who used the experimental method to develop his theories .

Quoted message said:

Hahnemann was a quack. Those who still subscribe to his silly theories and
sell water and sugar pills to naive believers are quacks.

The good news is that the author of this thesis has a homepage, with a
huge collection of other scholarly works written by Peter Morrell.
http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/index.htm

My history on Western natural healing practices is progressing quite
nicely. Peter Morrell has done much of the scholar footwork for
me. 🙂

After all, I don't want to be known as a modern day Quack like our
fellow Rich Shewmaker, obviously is.
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.

Once upon a time, our fellow Happy Dog
rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective, research
review.."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The facts are that Hahnemann was extremely successful in treating
deadly acute diseases like cholera with homeopathy. 🙂

Quoted message said:

Uh, no. That is not a fact. There are no controlled studies and that would
be needed to call this claim a "fact".

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

"There are no controlled studies and that would be needed to call this
claim a "fact." "

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Science geeks apparently don't believe that the
facts of history are facts!!!

"... you have my sympathies"
Science Officer Ash to Ripley, in the movie ALIEN.
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.

Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker
rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective, research
review.."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/cholera_g.htm

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Can you tell time and location, Shewmaker?

"In the London Cholera epidemic of 1854, of the 61 cases of cholera
treated [at the London Homeopathic Hospital], 10 died, a percentage of
16.4; of the 331 cases of choleraic and simple diarrhoea treated, 1
died.

The neighbouring [Allopathic] Middlesex Hospital received 231 cases of
cholera and 47 cases of choleraic diarrhea. Of the cholera patients
treated 123 died, a fatality rate of 53.2 per cent., amount the
victims being one of the nurses."

Just thought that you might want to know, ... again Shewmaker! 🙂

"John 'the disillusioned shill for the disproven quack theory called homeopathy'" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

After all, I don't want to be known as a modern day Quack like our
fellow Rich Shewmaker, obviously is.

Okay, John, please tell us precisely what you know about me and what I do that defines me as a "quack." Since it is obvious to you, you should be able to do this. If you are using a different definition of "quack" than this:

Main Entry: quack
Function: noun
1 : charlatan
2 : a pretender to medical skill

(from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)

then please provide YOUR definition.

--Rich

"John 'the Man'" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker
rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective, research
review.."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/cholera_g.htm

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Can you tell time and location, Shewmaker?

"In the London Cholera epidemic of 1854, of the 61 cases of cholera
treated [at the London Homeopathic Hospital], 10 died, a percentage of
16.4; of the 331 cases of choleraic and simple diarrhoea treated, 1
died.

The neighbouring [Allopathic] Middlesex Hospital received 231 cases of
cholera and 47 cases of choleraic diarrhea. Of the cholera patients
treated 123 died, a fatality rate of 53.2 per cent., amount the
victims being one of the nurses."

And, again, from where did this data come? Who is reporting it? Do you
believe everything you read? Besides, even if the data are accurate, it's
likely that in 1854, neither hospital had effective treatment for cholera,
and the difference in survival rates reflects normal variation and the fact
that the homeopathic hospital was treating a smaller number of patients and
was thus probably able to provide more nursing care, i.e., more frequent
oral hydration.

--Rich

Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker
rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective, research
review.."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

And, again, from where did this data come? Who is reporting it? Do you
believe everything you read?

Do you believe that everyone is stupid, Shewmaker?

Are you saying that in England Master Degree theses in history don't
document their sources of information?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Just how stupid do you think we are, Shewmaker?

Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker
rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective, research
review.."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

Okay, John, please tell us precisely what you know about me
and what I do that defines me as a "quack." Since it is obvious
to you, you should be able to do this. If you are using a different
definition of "quack" than this:

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Could it be your posting behavior on these ngs, Shewmaker?

Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂

Even more articles on homeopathy are at:
http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/index.htm

"John 'the Man'" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker
rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective, research
review.."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

And, again, from where did this data come? Who is reporting it? Do you
believe everything you read?

Do you believe that everyone is stupid, Shewmaker?

Are you saying that in England Master Degree theses in history don't
document their sources of information?

Then perhaps YOU can document it.

Quoted message said:

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Just how stupid do you think we are, Shewmaker?

If that is the editorial "we," I think that if not actually stupid, you are
quite ignorant. Why don't you just admit that you know nothing about cholera
and that you chose a bad example to support your pet homeopathy?

--Rich

Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker
rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective, research
review.."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Just how stupid do you think we are, Shewmaker?

Quoted message said:

If that is the editorial "we," I think that if not actually stupid, you are
quite ignorant. Why don't you just admit that you know nothing about cholera
and that you chose a bad example to support your pet homeopathy?

Why don't you just admit that you know nothing about homeopathy, the
health reform movements in both Europe and America, and personal
health in general, Shewmaker?

"John 'the Man'" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker
rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective, research
review.."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

Okay, John, please tell us precisely what you know about me
and what I do that defines me as a "quack." Since it is obvious
to you, you should be able to do this. If you are using a different
definition of "quack" than this:

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Could it be your posting behavior on these ngs, Shewmaker?

Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂

Nobody has successfully challenged my medical knowledge here, so I hardly
fit the definition. You, on the other hand, certainly fit the
Merriam-Webster definition of "charlatan," "one making usually showy
pretenses to knowledge or ability."

If you want to call me a "debunker" like Jan and Dave do, that's fine. I
wear that label proudly.

--Rich

Quoted message said:

Even more articles on homeopathy are at:

http://www.homeowatch.org/

"John 'the Man'" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker
rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective, research
review.."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Just how stupid do you think we are, Shewmaker?

Quoted message said:

If that is the editorial "we," I think that if not actually stupid, you

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

quite ignorant. Why don't you just admit that you know nothing about

cholera

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and that you chose a bad example to support your pet homeopathy?

Why don't you just admit that you know nothing about homeopathy, the
health reform movements in both Europe and America, and personal
health in general, Shewmaker?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Actually, I've read a biography of Samuel Hahnemann, and I actually own two
very old moldy volumes of Materia Medica that I picked up in a used-book
store. While I can't claim to have actually read them like a novel (you'd go
crazy), I spent several hours on several occasions sampling them. So it's
entirely possible that I know more about homeopathy than you do. I'm not
sure what health reform movements you are referring to, but I'm well versed
in healthcare history. As for "personal health in general," it is my daily
profession, and here I am SURE I know more about that than you do. Let's
see, yesterday I saw a 24-year-old woman whose previously diagnosed
gallstones had developed into an acute cholecystitis, a six-year-old boy
with a 2 cm. laceration on his chin, an eighteen month-old girl with a fever
who was admitted to the hospital with probable viral meningitis, an
alcohol-intoxicated driver motor vehicle accident victim with neck and back
pain who was treated and released, and a 74-year-old lady with severe
constipation. You would not know where to start to help any one of these
people, and homeopathy wouldn't help any of them either.

Just thought you might want to know.

--Rich

Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker
rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective, research
review.."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Okay, John, please tell us precisely what you know about me
and what I do that defines me as a "quack." Since it is obvious
to you, you should be able to do this. If you are using a different
definition of "quack" than this:

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Could it be your posting behavior on these ngs, Shewmaker?

Quoted message said:

Nobody has successfully challenged my medical knowledge here, so I hardly
fit the definition. You, on the other hand, certainly fit the
Merriam-Webster definition of "charlatan," "one making usually showy
pretenses to knowledge or ability."

Quoted message said:

If you want to call me a "debunker" like Jan and Dave do, that's fine. I
wear that label proudly.

Do I have to repeat myself again, Shewmaker?

Shewmaker's comments are precisely how Medical Scientism operates. 🙁

The established theory of Medical Scientism is automatically assumed
to be backed by science, while any competition has to show evidence to
support their position.

Shewmaker possesses the characteristic of arrogance which is the
calling card of all Science Geeks. 🙁

That is how I define Quackery, Shewmaker! Quack, ... Quack, Quack!

The good news is that the author of this thesis has a homepage, with a
huge collection of other scholarly works written by Peter Morrell.
http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/index.htm

My history on Western natural healing practices is progressing quite
nicely. Peter Morrell has done much of the scholar footwork for
me. 🙂

After all, I don't want to be known as a modern day Medical Scientism
Quack like our fellow Rich Shewmaker, obviously is.

Why don't you just admit that you know nothing about homeopathy, the
health reform movements in both Europe and America, and personal
health in general, Shewmaker?
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.