Religion and Ethics in the news

One thing is for sure, after Claudy the roman catholic religion have no Ethics, at ALL.

Once more homeopathy:

The allegations that homeopathy was no better than a placebo-effect (or imagination) couldn’t be further from the truth. Firstly, each remedy acts differently. Secondly, these remedies cause test symptoms in test persons and, thirdly, homeopathic remedies cause a physical aggravation reaction in the patient. As long as the patient is repertorised, these remedies will work reliably. While being treated with homeopathic remedies, it is indispensable to avoid caffeine (coffee, tea, dark chocolate etc.), medicinal herbs (infusions etc.) and mint and menthol (toothpaste which contains menthol, mouthwash etc.)

A German Homeopathy Journal (Homöopathie-Zeitschrift II/09) reports on a fertility study which was carried out at the University Clinic of Heidelberg in the 1990s. The baby-take-home-rate for patients treated with classical homeopathy was 28.5% and for the conventionally treated hormone-therapy group 9.5%. Expenses and duration of therapy were 2,010 DM (Deutsch Mark at that time) / 4.8 months for the homeopathy group and 23,323 DM / 16.5 months for the hormone-therapy group. This study was supported by the German Carl-and-Veronika-Carstens-Foundation.
Hormone therapy group: 21 women, 6 pregnancies, 4 miscarriages
Homeopathy group: 21 women, 6 pregnancies, 6 babies given birth
Classical homeopathy resulted in an equal number of pregnant women, compared to the hormone-therapy group.
The latest issue of Homöopathie-Zeitschrift discusses the treatment of disabled children. Homeopaths employ Hahnemann’s miasm-theory and repertorisation of the patient to find the correct remedy. An alternative practitioner observed that her patients developed well with the remedies; babies learned to crawl, older children to communicate, and some could even go to school and learn. When the chosen remedy ceased to work and they needed it again, they would temporarily relapse to their old passive behaviours. One family had a healthy baby, and, after the obligatory vaccinations, they now have a handicapped child.

As to the ridiculous demand that homeopaths should be paid very little, I have to say that they don’t earn much anyway. They earn much less than any medical specialist who switches on an appliance to take a minute or two to (mis)diagnose a patient. If you have questions after the examination, the “specialist” is gone, leaving the discussion of the results to somebody else. Homeopaths have opted to learn homeopathy even though they earn much less because they have realised that it’s a very good way to help their patients. Having trained as doctors or alternative practitioners AND having completed training in homeopathy, they have a profound knowledge of medical issues.

Those people who attempt to oust homeopathy from the healthcare services so that it can be replaced by allopathy act irresponsibly. It is a relief to find out that Edzard Ernst has never completed any courses in homeopathy at all.

It's fascinating to think about the possible psychological implications of the 'burn the Quran' day. What's the American football equivalent of an 'own goal' I wonder?

If I wrote a book, one thing that I would probably welcome is if there was a great hoo-ha about it and some nutters decided to publicly burn it. This is the sort of publicity to almost die for!! A public relations coup beyond a publisher's wildest imaginings. It would certainly save a packet in the marketing budget, that's for sure. And, of course, the nutters would presumably have had to buy the books first in order to have the right to burn them. So thanks for the revenue, which can be put towards a further print-run!!

As for Islam causing "billions of people to go to hell" (presumably because they have wittingly or unwittingly committed thought crimes), then pastor Jones seems to want to hasten them on their way by his pyromaniacal theology.

Truly nasty stuff, this 'religion' thing. I don't want anything to do with it.

I prefer the love of God instead.

Here's one re stem cell research or a possible block to it rather: https://bit.ly/crEfiz

and one on mosques and sharia in USA: Catholic Exchange: The ‘End of the Beginning’ on Shariah https://bit.ly/aZX2GU Full https://bit.ly/9hZi0E

robinsfeather(#2)

I know it might be hijacking the thread a little, but I couldn't let your post go past without commenting on it.

Outside of its own publications, homeopathy has no evidence to back up its claims. None. At all. It's got even less evidence for it than the idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old, or that Queen Elisabeth the Second is a shape changing lizard person.

The concept of diluting a substance down so much that none of the original molecules remain and that somehow increases its potency goes against the basic fundamentals of modern chemistry and the 'theorised' concept of water memory is deeply, deeply flawed.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about it. To put it in a mathematical and scale perspective, as a former director of the American Physical Society once said :

"since the least amount of a substance in a solution is one molecule, a 30C solution (a 1 in 10 dilution done 30 times) would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30 billion times the size of the Earth."

Scientific tests run by both the BBC's Horizon and ABC's 20/20 programs were unable to differentiate homeopathic dilutions from water, even when using tests suggested by homeopaths themselves.

Homeopathic remedies are placebos at best, dangerous distractions from proper medicines at worst.

robinsfeather(#2)

I know it might be hijacking the thread a little, but I couldn't let your post go past without commenting on it.

Outside of its own publications, homeopathy has no evidence to back up its claims. None. At all. It's got even less evidence for it than the idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old, or that Queen Elisabeth the Second is a shape changing lizard person.

The concept of diluting a substance down so much that none of the original molecules remain and that somehow increases its potency goes against the basic fundamentals of modern chemistry and the 'theorised' concept of water memory is deeply, deeply flawed.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about it. To put it in a mathematical and scale perspective, as a former director of the American Physical Society once said :

"since the least amount of a substance in a solution is one molecule, a 30C solution (a 1 in 10 dilution done 30 times) would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30 billion times the size of the Earth."

Scientific tests run by both the BBC's Horizon and ABC's 20/20 programs were unable to differentiate homeopathic dilutions from water, even when using tests suggested by homeopaths themselves.

Homeopathic remedies are placebos at best, dangerous distractions from proper medicines at worst.

I had a look at 'Ten Reasons to burn a Koran' on that group's website, it's really quite baffling. https://www.doveworld.org/blog/ten-reasons-to-burn-a-koran if anyone's interested. Reason number 9 'Deep in the Islamic teaching and culture is the irrational fear and loathing of the West'.
I would suspect the real reason is somewhere along the lines of 'Deep in our fundamentalist Christian culture is an irrational fear of people who do not believe what we do.'

Natman, I wouldn't want to outstay my welcome on this site either. However, I thought that my information above may be of general interest, especially the fact that Edzard Ernst, the alleged authority on alternative medicines, has no qualifications in homeopathy and does not seem to be familiar with basic research in the field.

Homeopathy supporters did not become supporters because people told them how wonderfully homeopathy works. They noticed it themselves.

Of course, every scientific discipline carries out their own studies. They don't hire other people to do it. I think that the University of Heidelberg is a reputed institution.

Journalists may be nice people but they haven't got sufficient medical training to work with and evaluate homeopathy. From what I've read in the press in the UK and in Germany in the last months one would think that some of them lack even the most basic knowledge in this subject. You cannot "see", and hence not distinguish from the outside whether a liquid, pellet or tablet contains a homeopathic remedy, but if a remedy matches the symptoms of a patient the patient will go through an aggravation reaction after a day or two (if the remedy acts slowly).

The original substances that are used in classical homeopathy are all poisonous to some degree. To make the remedies, these substances have to be diluted and SHAKEN. Without the shaking process you get no homeopathic remedy. The poisonous nature of the original substance distiguishes classical homeopathic remedies from everything else that is around and calls itself homeopathy, too. Classical homeopaths will only prescribe one remedy or two at the most.

I came across homeopathy for the first time because I wanted to write a newspaper article about it. Ever since then classical homeopathy has helped me several times and works reliably. There are homeopathic mixtures on the market that may or may not work. For me, they didn't. Also, beside Hahnemann, there is the Sankaran-Method. Dr. Sankaran has developed a completely different complex system and a new miasm-theory. While the Hahnemann-method relies on symptoms and repertories, Sankaran also interprets the patient's frame of mind and emotional problems from this gestures etc. and matches that to a remedy. This is debated and criticised among homeopaths but there is also an open interest in this method. I do not know enough about the Sankaran-method yet and would have to do more research. Personally, I am happy to stick with Hahnemann.

the article 'finding the root of antigay sentiment in Uganda' is quite shocking - Knew it was bad - didn't realise it was THAT bad!

Robinsfeather: you say homeopathy has 'worked' for you. Can you elaborate - do you mean improved function, resolution of symptoms or something else?
It is possible to improve function or clear /reduce symptoms using many different modalities/medicines etc or even none at all ....... my point is none of that constitutes true healing as I understand it.

William -think you need another category - something like 'Can you believe this..?' or "Read and Laugh" and here is the first entry:

£200,000 spent on building bridges over motorways for dormice! And it's not a joke!

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11091681

Eunice,

antigay sentiment in Uganda

And I was accused of over exaggerating it, where is that

"dangers of evangelism thread"?

It has been a case of light the blue touchpaper and retire to a safe distance. I am sure the lovely christian evangelists will deny any responsibility when the first executions happen, and from what I have been learning it will happen even if the bill does not pass because they are so fired up with christian zeal that they believe it is god's work and have committed to kill homosexuals anyway.

@robinsfeather

You're right, most journalists don't have sufficient knowledge to report on or evaluate homeopathy. However, the occasional doctor does.

And BTW, could you explain about knocking the solutions against a leather and horsehair surface, please? I'm sure we would all be fascinated.

Robinsfeather (#8)

Shaken, sorry, that makes all the difference. You know, when I'm working in my laboratory (for I am an analystical chemist) and I dilute acid (harmful and in some cases poisonous to humans) I give it a good shake to make sure it's totally homogenised. Wouldn't ya know? It's less concentrated! It's not as effective! Otherwise, everytime I threw concentrated acid down the drain and it was mixed with water in our dosing tanks, the increase in potency would probably dissolve the tanks away!

If you're so convinced homeopathy works, then please show me some peer reviewed research to back up your claims; the University of Heidelberg might be a respected institution, but what has this got to do with homeopathy?

"Journalists may be nice people but they haven't got sufficient medical training to work with and evaluate homeopathy" Homeopathy is nothing more than a very, very weak solution, what medical training do you actually need to practice it? From my research, most homeopathic practitioners have no medical qualitifactions at all!

Face facts; homeopathy has no credible evidence for its success. Its core principles go against the very basics of chemistry, basics that have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Rational Wiki has a very good article on homeopathy here

Hi Dave,
Yes - awful.
To my understanding it is absolute pure evil and nothing whatsoever to do with God's will. Religion as it stands today has a lot to answer for - this is not the work of God but of man. Man created the religions as they currently are and bastardised many true teachings that were given by those who did know something of God. This mess, this hatred and man's inhumanity to man is due to man - not God. Man (in general) is unfortunately unaware of his own true nature and that of God - and in that ignorance and those misbeliefs and misperceptions, evil can reign. By our (man's) own choices we perpetuate the presence of evil - hence the resolution of it is also down to us (man).

Eunice,

On this topic there is a question with I would be interested to know the answer to:-

Is the basis for this attempt to wipe out homosexuals (the sinners not the sin) true biblical teaching? or
Is it a abject failure of evangelism to teach their christian message?

If the former then why are they lying to us here about all this sinner sin thing when they really want to kill me but can't quite get the majority to vote for it.

If the latter then it proves how dangerous evangelism is and how bad they are at it, why they are in fact significantly responsible for any deaths which occur and why they should be over there trying to sort it out.

Any genocide which occurs will be justified as gods work and be a direct result of evangelism. Gay rights people in Uganda report that the Ugandans were fairly neutral about homosexuality before the American evangelists arrived. Before colonisation homosexuality was actually acceptable so it would appear that early homophobia in Uganda is a import by christianity during colonisation.

The sequence seems to go like this

Homosexuality was accepted, then missionaries who arrived during colonisation converted the natives to christianity and they were taught homosexuality was wrong but it was tolerated or ignored but there were prison sentences for it (as it was in Britain at the time). Christian evangelicals arrive with fire and brimstone and god hates fags (mainly lies and garbage they would be locked up for spouting here or in USA) and lo and behold homosexuals are enemy number 1 and ripe for being wiped out from Uganda.

Maybe one of the pastors or ministers who support these kinds of missions to Africa could explain to me about the success of their ministry on this topic.

BTW Uganda is not an isolated case as other African nations are following suit (notably Malawi which is heavily influenced by the Presbyterian church through its missions although I understand mainly from Scotland for the actual ministry)

Hi Dave,

It is not to my understanding a biblical teaching - but many things in the bible can be 'read' or twisted to how people want to read them. And the bible is not the be all and end all of God by any means. Many evangelicals seem to turn the bible into God though! I would also make a distinction between 'their Christian message' and the teaching of the Christ. The evangelical christian message is not to my understanding the same as the teaching of the Christ - even though they think it is of course. For me, the teaching of the Christ is one of equalness amongst all (incl. Jesus) and love for all. There are no grounds whatsoever to persecute any section of humanity based on the teachings of the Christ. As said before, evangelical /fundamentalist Christianity is rooted in fear, not love. That they then spread this fear and the teachings associated with it - is of course evil and perpetuates the separation from God rather than bringing people closer to God. So they are doing the opposite of what they actually think or believe they are doing. And of course so deep rooted is the fear, so convicted are they that they are right that it is next to impossible to get them to see or understand this. If only they could adopt a live and let live, love and let live policy /teaching.

Hahnemann used a book with a leather jacket. Today you could use a mouse pad, for example. Horse hair is not required in the process. Natman, the fertility study compared homeopathy to hormone-therapy. It must have been distressing for those women to have a miscarriage after all those efforts. Wikipedia and the like are no longer a reliable source of information for me because the information given on homeopathy and the miasm-theory is either incorrect or lacks basic important information.

The fact that we cannot explain (yet) as to why the shaking process makes all the difference does not mean that we shouldn’t use classical homeopathy. We are using many things we cannot fully explain yet but which, upon observation, work reliably. Classical homeopathy is one of them. At first, I was doubtful, too, but then I felt the remedies acting in me. I must say, this is really quite remarkable, and it will work for most people provided they stay away from those substances that neutralise the remedies.

Allopathic drugs never “cure” anything. It’s always the self-healing powers of the body at work. Allopathic drugs may support the process – or upset it due to their side-effects. Chronically ill people depend on allopathic drugs for the rest of their lives.

I was once in excruciating pain made much worse by allopathic drugs when my GP said: Go home, there is nothing else I can do for you. Last year, after years of not using homeopathy, I was frequently ill due to a different problem, and my GP said: Allopathy has no remedy against this.

So I decided to take up homeopathy again and haven’t been ill since then. I have an example of my own experience as to what an aggravation reaction may look like. The remedy was pulsatilla which is a "joint-remedy".

Tiredness that wants to give in to sleep. My traffic accident knee felt numb and swollen but when I touched it, it wasn't. I couldn't move my leg for a while. A feeling as if my feet couldn't carry my body. This lasted a few seconds. (I was seated at the time). Back to knee numbness. The remedy reinforces a symptom, let's go and then reinforces it again later, albeit with less intensity. Two days later several areas of my back were hurting, one at a time. This lasted for a weekend. I woke up one morning, covered in sweat which is one of the symptoms of the remedy but very unusual for me.
The middle finger of my left hand hurt. The next morning it went from swollen to not swollen twice than turned swollen and red before the problem disappeared. Then, in the afternoon, I couldn't make a fist with my left hand. All my fingers were stiff as if I had arthritis (which is a health problem in my family). The right hand was not affected. A quarter of an hour later it was all over, and I could move my left hand as if nothing had happened.

Homeopathic remedies reinforce the symptoms of the patients, usually one by one, in a time period of a few days. This is followed by a period where nothing much happens but the remedies are still allowed to work (1-4 months). After this, the symptoms that the remedy has covered should not return any more.

Hahnemann came to believe that our health problems were partly inherited, caused by the consequences of illnesses such as scabies and syphilis that our ancestors had and passed on to us. It looks like modern epigenetics confirms his idea because apparently genes can be turned on or off and thus cause illness. The respective articles on the Canadian studies can be found on the BBC. This would also explain why allopathy provides no long-term or permanent cures: it does nothing to rectify these genetic problems.

I am only speaking up for classical homeopathy as Hahnemann practiced it. I have no knowledge to be able to evaluate the Sankaran-method.

Hi Eunice,
Appreciate the answer, it would be interesting to know from the folk who evangelise in general and in Africa directly or through support and funding, whether they think the their bibles teaching on homosexuality has been successfully taught or is it a failure on their part to correctly teach their understanding.

They may say it is only a small part of the bible and their missionary work, but it is being used for the justification of murder so I would hope they feel able to respond.

There is something I would like to add here because it is hardly being discussed at all.

The problem is that nowadays you cannot simply say: Try homeopathy.
On homeopath does Hahnemann, the other Sankaran.
Some homeopaths push against a patient's arm (kinesiology), test their pulses or even use a pendulum to "find" the remedy and spare themselves the tedious repertorisation process.
Some use cat combos and grass mixtures to treat allergy (which is called desensitisation, not homeopathy) while Hahnemannians would opt for the miasm-theory.
Some prescribe a whole bunch of remedies at once which is wrong because it should only be one or two (if they act together) remedies at the same time. Others have done a weekend-course and still write on their sign that they do homeopathy.
There are homeopathic mixtures on the market that use substances that would in their original form be beneficial (such as chamomile) while the original substances of classical homeopathic remedies are poisonous and thus counter the patient's symptoms. I have found that those mixtures had no effect on me.
And, last but not least, there was the absurd idea that duck liver might help against swine flu.

In classical homeopathy, the original substances of the remedies would cause certain symptoms in a human being, including the psyche, if eaten. Those patients who already have those symptoms get the respective remedy. This seems logical and straightforward. Hahnemann actually relied on contemporary literature where allopaths had described the symptoms of a patient who had accidentally eaten, for example, a poisonous plant. He also tested original substances and remedies on himself and his family and observed his patients closely and would have noticed if nothing had happened.

The problem with homeopathy is that there is so much around these days that calls itself homeopathy but is not classical homeopathy. Forget about the placebo-effect. If it's not done correctly, NOTHING, will happen, never mind our "imagination". I have experienced that, too. And I certainly will not spray homeopathised ladybirds on my plants when the real animal does the trick and I don't think I require homeopathised birds ever. Rather, I want those animals to be protected.

Backing up a bit first

As to the ridiculous demand that homeopaths should be paid very little, I have to say that they don’t earn much anyway.

Someone should tell Scottish NHS recruitment that, then. £68K for 8 hours a week is not bad.

...my GP said: Allopathy has no remedy against this.

A GP used the word, allopathy? Unusual, since it is a term almost exclusively used by homeopaths and other alternative medicine types.

Anyway, the basic problem supporters of hemeopathy have to contend with is that randomised double blind trials have demonstrated that homeopathy works no better than placebo. I notice a previous comment on another thread, you used the LSV tactic of announcing to the world what is and what isn't scientific as if you are an authority on the matter, so spare us the so called placebo effect) gambit.

This would also explain why allopathy provides no long-term or permanent cures: it does nothing to rectify these genetic problems.

Whereas, of course, water, containing no molecules of a substance (but with "memory" of it)thought by someone to cause symptoms, does.

Robinsfeather: unless you/people heal the underlying issue that gave rise to the illness/disease/arthritis etc in the first place - then all you are doing with homeopathy is papering over the cracks at best and at worst actually causing more harm by burying issues deeper. Improved function is not a true measure of healing. Genetics has a role to play but is by no means the whole answer - and in the way you have protrayed it - it just helps people avoid taking responsibility for their 'stuff'. Rather than focusing on genetics - it might be more fruitful/healing to consider the unhealed underlying emotional issues.

Robinsfeather,

Your faith does you credit and your long posts are interesting, to say the least.

However, homeopathy doesn't work. Period.

Your opinions are your own, as they should be, but to claim that modern (allopathic? For real?) medicine does not do anything is dangerous fraudulent. Time and time again, medicines created in the normal manner have cured, prevented and alleviated diseases and the symptoms of diseases, if only homeopathy could claim as much.

I'm prepared to concede that the gods might exist (as I've said in previous threads), however, I will say, with utter and complete 100% certainty that homeopathy is pure quackery that has no scientific effects, only the power of self-belief and the placebo effect.

The fact that we cannot explain (yet) as to why the shaking process makes all the difference does not mean that we shouldn’t use classical homeopathy

It's not that we can't explain why it works, we can't see it working at all! A dilution, done using standard homeopathic techniques contain no active ingredients at all!

If you have proper evidences to prove otherwise, please enlighten me.

Here's a wee snippet on the increase in people in the West accepting reincarnation occurs incl psychiatrists

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/fashion/29PastLives.html?_r=2

@Eunice

It looks like there's as much easy money rinsing gullible people in the reincarnation industry as there is in homeopathy. A seminar for over 200 people at $355 a pop - $71K for a weekend - ker-ching. A session of regression therapy, $100 an hour - ker-ching.

Regression therapy has been studied and found to be very interesting, but nothing to do with past lives. The "memories" are actually created during the hypnosis out of suggestion from the hypnotist and the fascinating phenomena of cryptomnesia and confabulations.

 
I think reincarnation is a typical product of an admixture (undoubtedly shaken, not stirred) of hooey and wishful thinking. The Dalai Lama is just another version of the faintly unpleasant Christina Baxter - women, both would appear to argue, can do lamaship, just like episcopacy, but neither of them think gays are eligible for the top jobs.

On which issue, Dave, I may not fall precisely into the category of those from whom you were hoping for a response, but I'm afraid I think the Bible's position on homosexuality (both desire and practice) is abundantly clear. 

The practice is unequivocally forbidden and the prescribed penalty for transgression of the interdiction is death. The desire is considered unnatural, unbefitting the redeemed, and capable of correction.

I really do not see how one can advocate gay rights within the Church without denying the moral authority of the Bible. Why, though, openly and uneqivocally denying that authority (in the way, for example, that I would do) is such a big problem for many Christians never ceases to amaze me - I have yet to meet a Christian who consistently and conscientiously applies its totality in practice to his or her own life.

The Bible is as clear about witchcraft as it is about homosexuality - witches should also be put to death. The persecution and murder of suspected child witches in some African countries is an under-reported issue but one of perhaps even more pressing concern than the current proposed Ugandan legislative changes. 

The heritage Christian mission has left Africa, then, is one about which I can only feel deeply ambivalent. Two members of my own family were medical missionaries who devoted years (in one case, the entireity of a working life) to alleviating suffering on the continent. I cannot believe that commitment was not both genuine and beneficial to the individuals and communities involved. Likewise it would be naive in the extreme to believe that pre-colonial societies were bastions of liberal tolerance - whatever the case with homosexuality, such practices as the horrific genital mutilation of female children can hardly be laid at the door of Christian missionaries. As with most things causation is bound to be complex and current practices inconsistent and incapable of being fairly evaluated in the context of an artifical grouping based on little more than lexicography.

This isn't the Summer Reading thread but, for anyone interested in the deficiencies of both missionary endeavour and colonialism generally, Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible is a stonking good read.

Parrhasios: it's not unusual for Christians to dismiss reincarnation as it was not something that they were taught about or brought up with in their church and indeed the opposite may be true. However, for me reincarnation is much more consistent with a God of love than this one lifetime Christian scenario given the course of some people's lives....and if it were true would render God not very loving at all!! As I understand it we are all on a return journey to God and the route we take to get there and how long is by our own choices - so we can take as long as we like, as many lifetimes as we like. Given that the majority of the world's religions do support reincarnation there is probably more to it than hooey or wishful thinking! Indeed there are apparently some references in the bible and others that were apparently removed at the council of Nicea as the church wanted to have control over people and if they knew there was reincarnation they would not have that control. (there is a book on Christianity and reincarnation but I have not read it yet!) On a hypothetical basis reincarnation makes complete sense to me and personally, I have no doubt as to the reality of it. Can I prove that to you? No...and again it is for each person to discern for themselves but who knows, maybe next lifetime we'll 'meet' again and recognise that old familiar feeling of haven't we met somewhere before ?? lol :-)

Grokesx: yes I agree plenty of kerching! Brian Weiss is a psychiatrist who has written books on the subject and came from a western medical perspective that did not support that view. His views changed as a result of his work with patients which seemed to show that recalling these memories (however they arose and whether they were real past lives or not) had a beneficial effect on the patients symptoms and health. Some of the stories are quite interesting including the subsequent benefits. However, that whole subject of past life regression is open to glamourisation and falsification and people making up stories re this or that. My views have altered over recent yrs and I wouldn't support that sort of past life regression now - however that does not negate the reality for me that we do have past lives and those lives can influence the present life....just as what we do and how we live in this life will influence our next incarnation.

Parrhasios,

If I understand what you are saying then the new laws should enact the death penalty for serial fornication and adultery (as well as homosexuality and witchcraft)in order for it to be non discriminatory.

The practice is unequivocally forbidden and the prescribed penalty for transgression of the interdiction is death. The desire is considered unnatural, unbefitting the redeemed, and capable of correction

I know the few passages which might be said to say support the case for the death penalty for actual same sex acts, but how do you make the assertion from scripture about the desire being unnatural, unbefitting and capable of correction. I am not aware of any scripture which condemns homosexuality (which was not even understood at the time), the scripture simply seems to condemn the physical act and even then as a reaction to certain circumstances.

The bible may consider the attraction unnatural but all the scientific evidence is against it, we are born with our sexuality (it is natural contrary to biblical teaching) and it is not something which can be changed and it is dangerous to attempt to.

I really do not see how one can advocate gay rights within the Church without denying the moral authority of the Bible

The real issue here is that, as a homosexual who does not believe in the bible, why am I subject the churches beliefs and if I lived in Uganda why should I be executed for someone else's beliefs ? That argument means it was fine for the Romans to throw christians to the lions, crucify them and subjugate them to slaves as per their beliefs.

I do not advocate gay rights within the church, I advocate that the church give us the same freedom to live as equal human beings according to our natural sexuality as the church advocates for it's believers in line with their beliefs. Surely that is equality and respect.

I agree that not everything was rosy before colonisation, in fact it was just, if not more, barbaric but that is not an excuse to accept the failings of evangelism because they are not "quite as bad" as what was there before in fact all evangelism has seem to achieve is to shift the focus of the barbarity.

I also fully accept that there have been lots of very good and effective people who have gone to Africa and have improved the lot of the people. There are some however, who have simply exported the hatred which they can no longer peddle in their own countries.

I was in the parade at Foyle Pride yesterday and was thinking about whether the glum faces of the Free Presbyterian protesters actually wished they could have a Uganda type law, fortunately they were at the start of the Parade and for the rest of the parade we were applauded and cheered by the people of Derry, great day out and just shows how many people can set aside some bits of hatred written thousands of years ago.

Thanks for the suggested reading, I will take you up on that.

 
Eunice - I do not believe either that we come from God or that our lives are a journey back towards Him; rather I would hold that part of our journey through this fleeting existence may be a journey with Him. 

On the matter of reincarnation I would strenuously deny that I dismiss it from a position of ignorance and I do recognise that there are traces of the idea in Christian tradition.  The most striking incidence of the notion in the Bible is probably in the dialogue leading to the Petrine confession where, in response to Jesus' question "Who do men say that the son of man is?", the disciples respond: "Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah: and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets". Just because an idea is found in the Bible though doesn't mean it isn't nonsense and thus to Dave.

Dave -  I must stress that I do not regard the Bible as in any sense authoritative. For me, that is a good thing, challenge is much more relevant to modern man than dictat. I would hope to persuade my fellow Christians to come to regard the Scriptures as an interesting and potentially instructive collection of entirely human writings on the quest for meaning through God, a quest that, in the Bible, is not unconnected with the stuggle for social justice.

I would suggest that anything but the most tendentious reading of Romans 1 and 1 Coronthians 6 will show that the Christian Testament teaches quite plainly that homosexual desire, not just practice, is offensive to God. I cannot see how the condemnation of homosexual desire and feelings can be understood as anything other than a condemnation of the homosexual state of being. I find it incredible and repulsive that people can accept this nonsense as the Word of God but, equally, I think it dishonest to attempt to say that this is not what it says or, if it is what it says, it's not what it means. This is why I say that an acceptance of the validity and morality of homosexuality requires a rejection of Biblical authority and I urge people towards that rejection.

I do not believe the state (any state) has any business legislating in areas of personal morality. The notion that people should be protected from themselves is one I find both absurd and offensive. It is right to protect those who cannot protect themselves so an age of consent is valid, so is legislation to prevent abuse of trust, but, universal prohibitions make no moral sense. I would contend, for example, that making any recreational drug illegal infantslises the population and infringes liberty without just cause. 

 

Parrhasios,

I understand where you are coming from, which is why my last reply does not scan so well. I initially wrote it as an adversarial reply so it was full of you and yours, I then went through it to change it to the church and the bible when I re read your post and realised your perspective.

Your last paragraph I agree with and have advocated here in the past. On the matter of drugs I would agree as long as both the supply and the regulation was controlled and that it was recreational drugs only. Drugs which cause dependence and lead to crime to support the dependence need to be kept out of circulation.

Parrhasios: I agree that the bible is not the 'last word' on reincarnation or indeed any other subject incl God ....I was just using it as example of it being in the bible and was thinking of the verse that you quoted. I would agree we are on a journey with God here and would go further than that to say we are here to express God, to make manifest the love of God on earth. If you do not think we come from God or are returning to God - where do you think we come from and where are we going to or returning to??

Re Recreational drugs: even the terminology is misleading - recreational implies that it is fun-filled, playful, harmless....none of which is true in my view. You say it infringes liberty without just cause - I would say there is plenty of 'cause' if the true harm of such drug taking were to be realised. People take drugs for all sorts of reasons eg checking out, not wanting to feel what is really going on in their lives, to escape etc and this will occur whether there is legislation or not. So i'm not saying legislation is the answer but it can help prevent some people from taking such harming substances. Addressing the reasons why people want to take drugs in the first place may be more helpful, bringing up children to know who they are and to be self-caring and self-loving would also help - as it is impossible for anyone who is truly self-loving to ingest any such harm-full substances.

My GP said "WE have no remedy against this." (= meaning allopathy) However, homeopathy does. The term allopathy is not meant to be demeaning in any way; rather it is the correct technical term to distinguish it from homeopathy. I am not saying the allopathy is superfluous. It depends on the illness. Yet, I believe, I am by far not the only one who has been let down by allopathic drugs.

The "placebo-effect" cures very little if anything at all because our organs are controlled by our autonomic nervous system. If we are ill, it is the body's immune system that starts processes that we are unaware of and have no control over. This is basic biology. If you have a cold, it is the body that fights the virus, not your "positive" thinking. And if it's an aggressive virus, this may last longer.

As a patient, I have known classical homeopathy for 14 years now. Homeopathic remedies cause an aggravation reaction that differs, depending on the respective remedy and the symptoms that the patient has. Of course, I announce "to the world" that allegations that the placebo-effect is working all those wonders are utter nonsense and those posting such statements usually have nothing to do with homeopathy or medicine and know nothing about it at best or have other vested interests at worst. But don't worry, I am not writing for you lot, I am explaining what I know so far for those people who are ill and need classical homeopathy to get well.

Maybe those who believe in the placebo-effect should get a placebo next time they are ill. It would spare the health-care system a lot of money. And if they don't get well then they just haven't believed "firmly enough" and it will be their fault. At least it would demonstrate that the "placebo-effect" does not work and is also no reliable measure for comparing one patient to another as they apparently did in those studies.

I have found classical homeopathy to help me with:
- a chronically inflamed organ. If cancer develops there, as it was feared it could, the prognosis is practically infaust. Allopathic drugs made this situation worse. Homeopathy (carcinosinum 200C) relieved me of that pain within two days and was allowed to work for 2 months.
- a cold with high fever. In my case, this usually lasts more than 2 weeks and becomes very severe. With homeopathy (belladonna 30C) it was completely gone in 2 days.
- chronic backache. Dealt with in 2 weeks. Remedy allowed to work for a month (pulsatilla 200C).
- chronic exhaustion. Relieved on the second day. When I neutralised the remedy with coffee, the exhaustion came back on the next day. This remedy needed to work for 3 months (arsenicum album 200C).
- tendency to get colds. At the moment treated with calcium carbonicum 200C. More remedies i.a.w. Hahnemann's miasm theory and my repertorisation results will follow.

While allopathy throws a lot of money out of the window and needs ages to have any effect, if any at all, homeopathy is always much cheaper and so much more effective, if applied properly. For me, it made all the difference between having a lot of health problems and having hardly any health problems at all.

Having said that, when a disease is dangerous and requires antibiotics, these should be taken and may also be prescribed by a homeopath. Homeopaths also refer patients to see a specialist. Children should be taken to a specialist to obtain a diagnosis just in case swift action is required. You could ring your homeopath and tell him about the situation to keep him informed and go to see him later. If a cancer is diagnosed that requires an operation it is currently the safest bet to have this operation done.
Homeopathy can also support patients after operations and with severe illnesses or patients who are dying. So if I was seriously ill, I would always want classical homeopathy to be part of my treatment.

Eunice - as the Good Book says - I came from dust and unto dust I shall in due course return. Some things it does get right. ;-)

I slightly disagree with both you and Dave: I would legalise all drugs. In my opinion the best way to deal with problem drug abuse is through regulated supply where consistency of dosage and composition can be controlled and adicts can seek help and support without fear of criminalisation. Prohibition merely increases risk, fuels crime, and has little discernible deterrent effect.

I disagree with you more fundamentally, Eunice, on the matter of drug consumption: I am a frequent drug-user (these days it is mostly alcohol) who hugely enjoys my gin and occasionally wine without damage either to my health, my soul, or society at large. I am not in any sense empty, I have no void to fill, and no pain to escape. I drink purely because I enjoy it, because it heightens my experience of life.

I find it interesting that Jesus' ministry is said to have begun at a wedding: interesting and appropriate because that ministry was to announce the rightness of (and the right to) abundant life. Jesus was called a glutton and a wine-drinker; His concern for justice did not make Him a dry prune: it was combined with and aimed at the universal enjoyment of that zest for life in all its fullness which truly honours our humanity.

Parrhasios: pity we didn't get paid every time we disagreed - we would both make good money! :-)

I agree the body goes to dust but not the spirit nor the soul in my view.

I understand your reasoning re legalising of drugs but I do feel making them illegal does deter some people from taking them and that is a good thing. Of course it will not stop all.

I also am familiar with all the reasons for supporting alcohol consumption and used a good many of them myself in the past. However, I now have very different views and understandings. There is no judgement and people are free to drink as much as they like. However, it is incorrect to say that alcohol does not affect one's health - there does not need to be excessive consumption for this to be so. Alcohol is toxic to human cells and it most certainly does affect one's health detrimentally even if one does not perceive it to be the case.

I fully understand your reasoning re alcohol but why does your experience of life need heightened if there is no emptiness, no void, no pain to escape (to use your words) ? The greatest source of love and joy to my understanding is within us - and if we are in touch with that there is no need for ANY life 'enhancing' substance. I could say I had many fun times and lots of laughter, great parties and many many hangovers from alcohol. However, no amount of money could entice me to consume a drop of alcohol now - not because I am scared I would not stop but because the joy I feel now could never be beaten by alcohol or any of those 'fun' times and I now know how harming it really is. Of course people who drink do not like to hear this, and do not like to be challenged on why they drink. It says alot about the state of society that it is considered to be abnormal to not drink rather than to be abnormal to drink!! Of course in my drinking days I thought any one who didn't drink was abnormal and boring or just some moralising religious freak! I am none of those and I very much do support people living a full and abundant life and honouring all of humanity - by connecting to the joy and love they have within - not numbing it and separating from it with alcohol!
Hope that didn't light the blue torch paper or send you directly to the gin bottle!...... :-)

Robinsfeather: just because you have found that your symptoms have improved with homeopathy - does not mean that the precipitating cause has been addressed or healed - in fact it hasn't. None of what you said indicated that the underlying reasons why you had those symptoms in the first place, have been addressed.

Eunice - I am not aware of your evidence that moderate consumption of alcohol is physically harmful. Maybe you can enlighten me?

I don't get this idea of our life experience being one of anithesis: for the vast majority of people such is simply not the case. Just because one's every waking moment is not filled with unremitting joy does not mean one hovvers constantly on the edge of an abyss of despair. I generally lead a fairly level life of pretty quiet contentment. My experience of the Divine in the sacraments and worship of the Church, the community of the faithful, and my interactions with my fellow-man bolsters my spirit and challenges my sometimes too great complacency. I only drink socially and then I have to say that a good bottle (or two, or more) of wine makes the conversation flow, the jokes funnier, and, by no means of least importance, loosens the old joints on the dance-floor. I drink because of the enjoyment it adds to a good night out and I deny utterly your assertion that it might be in response to an inner emptiness. On a post-script, I am blessed with the sort of constitution which means hangovers are a very rare event.

@ Eunice

In fact Dr Sankaran believes that illness is brought about by a trauma somewhere in the family history which is then passed on from generation to generation and causes health problems in the patient. If Sankaran succeeded in healing the emotional family trauma, all physical problems would disappear, too. This is why he came up with his interpretation work to find the correct remedy which matches the patient's frame of mind. If a patient is sure that it's the right way for them to go they can. I have personnally once been treated by a homeopath who apparently followed that method, and she did not come up with a remedy that had any effect on me. After her third attempt I left. This demonstrates how impatient I am and that I will leave quickly if nothing happens. However, maybe she just didn't get it right.

Recently I read a book by a German Hahnemannian homeopath who looked at trauma experienced during and after birth and even went back as far as to the moment when the child was fathered. He used human nosodes and therapy to heal birth trauma. He found that some of his patients did not react to carefully chosen conventional homeopathic remedies unless they had received those nosodes first. They were different ones for men and women. However, I am not doing that either (at least not at the moment)because I find I react strongly to conventional classical homeopathic remedies.

And last but not least, emotional trauma can be dealt with in therapy. There are also 12-step and other self-help groups. The codependency and inner child literature looks into child abuse and codependency symptoms such as low self-esteem, lack of boundaries etc. In this context I would like to recomment Pia Mellody. There is plenty of literature available, and a lot can be achieved on that level.

Since I am emotionally stable but have found my (physical) health problems in Hahnemann's miasm theory, I take it from there and see where it leads to. At the moment I am pleased that I am no longer ill and can lead my life as I want to.

I have found classical homeopathy to help me with:
- a chronically inflamed organ. If cancer develops there, as it was feared it could, the prognosis is practically infaust. Allopathic drugs made this situation worse. Homeopathy (carcinosinum 200C) relieved me of that pain within two days and was allowed to work for 2 months.
- a cold with high fever. In my case, this usually lasts more than 2 weeks and becomes very severe. With homeopathy (belladonna 30C) it was completely gone in 2 days.
- chronic backache. Dealt with in 2 weeks. Remedy allowed to work for a month (pulsatilla 200C).
- chronic exhaustion. Relieved on the second day. When I neutralised the remedy with coffee, the exhaustion came back on the next day. This remedy needed to work for 3 months (arsenicum album 200C).
- tendency to get colds. At the moment treated with calcium carbonicum 200C. More remedies i.a.w. Hahnemann's miasm theory and my repertorisation results will follow

In case anyone is thinking of trying the those 'remedies':

In homeopathy, the 'C' number refers to the number of times the solution has been diluted by a factor of 10 (1 part substance, 9 parts water). A 30C means that it has been diluted (1 in 10) 30 times. Because there are a finite number of molecules in any given amount, and each time the solution is diluted the number of molecules is reduced by 9/10ths, the patient would need to consume 10^41 pills (a billion times the mass of the Earth), or 10^34 gallons of liquid remedy (10 billion times the volume of the Earth) to consume a single molecule of the original substance.

You can imagine the volumes required for a 200C solution.

Homeopathy doesn't work. Andecdotal evidence aside (note that all the examples given are of conditions that get better in time naturally) there is no evidence homeopathy is anything other than expensive water.

On a side note, although there are no molecules of the original substance left (or maybe one, if you're lucky), belladonna and arsenic are both highly dangerous poisons, not recommened for a 'cure' of anything, aside from maybe life.

@ Eunice
I forgot to mention that classical homeopathy considers emotional aspects such as fears and phobias and hallucinations, among other, too, because those remedies also affect the psyche.

Moreover, some emotional problems may be miasmatic rather than caused by a trauma. This may be of interest if there is no reasonable explanation for a phobia or other emotional problems. Medorrhinum, for example, which is associated with the sycotic miasm, lists:

fears: hears whispering voices, sees ghosts who look at him from behind furniture, afraid of imagined things, sees rats and insects [that are not really there], sees people who come into the room and whisper 'come'... (source: German Homoeowiki).

It is important to know that the patient needn't have all the symptoms that the remedy covers, but that a large part of the symptoms that the patient has must be covered by the remedy. For treatment of another set of symptoms, the homeopath may choose another remedy.

@ Natman
Your post sums up what I thought at first when I interviewed that homeopath. However, homeopathic REMEDIES are not poisonous. They are safe for pregnant women and babies and they work as long as the patients are repertorised and get their respective individual remedies. As long as that precondition is met you can also design studies.

As a patient, you shouldn't just "try" those remedies on your own because, while they worked for me, they may not be right for you. In any case, it is always necessary to obtain a proper diagnosis first because that 'stomach pain' may have a more serious cause which requires urgent action.

Allopathic remedies may not always be safe, and I think this needs to change. In the USA more than 100 children died after overdosing on a coughing medicine before the FDA pulled the drug from the market.

Those who fight homeopathy put forward increasingly stereotypical arguments and begin to sound like broken records. They don't have sufficient knowledge to argue beyond that - or they have no knowledge about homeopathy at all. I don't think anybody has the right to say that other people who need it can't have it.

@Natman (37)

While I agree with you about homeopathy (and was toying with posting the xkcd cartoon myself), your numbers seem a little out. If the substance is diluted 1:10 30 times, then wouldn't that be a dilution of 1:10^30? In that case, one molecule out of 10^30 would be from the original substance. The only way you would need 10^34 gallons of liquid remedy to get one molecule is if the original remedy only had one molecule per 1,000 gallons (or 1 molecule in 10^11 pills).

The molar mass of water is 1.8e-2 g/mol, so 10^26 molecules would weigh 3 kg. 10^30 molecules would require 30 tons or 6,600 gallons. In other words, if you filled an Olympic swimming pool with a 30C dilution, you'd find about 100 molecules of the original substance.

The 200C figure is a fun one to work out. 10^200 molecules would weigh 3x10^174 kg and occupy 3x10^171 cubic metres. Let's call a solution of this size (in which we would find 1 molecule of original solution) the Giant Homeopathic Space Cube. The volume of the Milky Way is around 10^61 cubic metres, so you could fit 10^110 galaxies into the Giant Homeopathic Space Cube and still only have one molecule of the original substance. If you were to pick one molecule at random from The Giant Homeopathic Space Cube, you would be 10,000 times more likely to win the lottery 28 weeks in a row than to pick out the original molecule.

@robinsfeather
'I don't think anybody has the right to say that other people who need it can't have it.'

To be fait to Natman, he's never suggested that no-one shouldn't have access to anything they don't need; he's saying that no-one needs homeopathic remedies because they're ineffectual.

Parrhasios: I was just referring to the toxic effects of alcohol on the cells of the body even at low dose. Of course to produce end-organ damage that is clinically detectable takes more prolonged use. The fact that alcohol is harming to the body is self-evident to many by how one feels the day after drinking! It doesn't take a randomised controlled trial for that one!
To clarify, I did not assert that you were empty and that was why you were drinking. This started with talking about drugs in general and I said there were many reasons why people take drugs ( and that would include alcohol). Whilst there appear to be many reasons - to my understanding there is a root cause for all of them. As I said before, you and everyone else can drink til the cows come home - I am not going to judge or criticise you or anyone for doing so and it would be very hypocritical of me to do so. I am just sharing based on what I have learned about the human person and alcohol combined with my own experiences during and post alcohol days- and for me now my understanding is that it is not a very self-caring think to do. Thing is we are very good at doing lots of things that are not very self-caring! However, if you don't agree - that's fine!

Robinsfeather: you mention emotional trauma and abuse etc and yes these things have consequences. However, I was meaning the bog standard emotions that most people have (anger, sadness, frustration, rage, jealousy, resentment etc etc etc) - these all have consequences on health and healing the reasons for them is part of the healing process. So for example one can take remedy after remedy - but if one does not deal with one's anger or other emotional issues etc then no true healing occurs.

Jonathan - you like numbers far too much!! :-)

Eunice,

The scientific data tends to refute your argument, most studies indicate that light to moderate alcohol use actually shows longer lifespans and lower heart problems as compared to zero alcohol consumption. Some types are better than others.

You also say,
why does your experience of life need heightened?

why can not even the most fulfilled life be even more heightened or see things from a slightly different perspective on occasion or just simply be silly and a bit uninhibited?

You seem to be getting dangerously close to simply treading water in your bliss from god and waiting for the rapture of judgement day in some inner search for truth to the exclusion of being able to actually enjoy living and interacting with mere mortals. I prefer to live my life in the human experience with all of the pitfalls (and odd hangover) it entails, after all it is what we are built for.

Jonathan,

To be fair to the numbers, I stole them from wikipedia so they're -bound- to be accurate ;-). I didn't actually do the maths, it was more to show that there's nothing in a homeopathic remedy other than water. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

Robinsfeather,

Your faith in the 'remedies' does you credit, a shame it's so devoted to something with even less going for it than belief in gods. I can't disprove god, but homeopathy has been disproven, it has no factual basis whatsoever. Not only that, it's dangerous to push homeopathic solutions over and above proven medicinal therapies.

Those who fight homeopathy put forward increasingly stereotypical arguments and begin to sound like broken records. They don't have sufficient knowledge to argue beyond that - or they have no knowledge about homeopathy at all

I'm going to repeat the same thing - that homeopathy is useless - until someone can provide me with credible evidence to the contrary. Only then will I stop sounding like a broken record.

Hi Dave,
I am aware of what research says but I don't agree with it. As I said - it is quite clear to me that drinking alcohol is harming to the body. A simple hangover conveys this much! The body speaks truth.
I have no problem with being silly - great! I just prefer alcohol free silliness these days personally. And I am certainly not waiting on any rapture on a judgment day that does not exist in my view. Nor am I treading water in bliss. No thank you! I am not floating around on some pink fluffy cloud either! I am totally for enjoying life and interacting with all mortals for none are 'mere'. I have lived a life full of experience and many many pitfalls and hangovers - and feel I have learned a few things about the human condition along the way such that I would say we were not built for hangovers or just for experiences - but for so much more if we so choose. I am def not moralising, criticising or judging anyone who drinks and not too many years ago the words you are saying could have come out of me! I have changed, my views have changed and much more besides - I feel for the better but I fully understand how it might seem otherwise to other people! I know many will not agree with me and that's ok too :-)

@ Eunice: I agree that those emotions you mention must be dealt with in everyday life. However, no remedy needs to be taken for that. I think it suffices to question one's reaction and make changes accordingly.

@ Natman: It is not a question of belief because, as I said above, there are homeopaths who do not find the correct remedy and then nothing happens. People who take their information out of self-help books on homeopathy may also end up disappointed because those books do not give sufficient information to repertorise a patient properly. The same is true for general advice that is sometimes given on homeopathy such as 'If you have a cold, take natrium muriaticum 12X twice a day for a week'. The aggravation effect is physical in nature, it can be quite intense, and the patient has no influence over it, once it has started. Maybe we will find out one day why the higher C and Q-potencies work better than the X-potencies. Incidentally, it was something that Hahnemann did not understand either.

At the moment, the pharmaceutical industry has a problem. They are used to earning billions of whatever currency for some drugs per year. The profits they make are so huge that they could have financed the Euro-fund or paid the debts of a European country. Now the EU requests them to prove that their drugs actually have an effect. In addition, in Germany they must now justify their high prices which, up to now, they were able to set all by themselves. Other European countries may well follow. At the same time, some profitable drugs will lose their patent protection. So there is a lot going on, and some companies try to compensate for expected financial losses by buying other companies. However, these are problems that the pharmaceutical industry needs to address by itself and not at the expense of alternative healing methods.

Homeopathy used to occupy a mere niche; there are many people who do not even know that it exists. Now, due to the campaign, homeopaths are forced out of hiding and do not only have to announce to the world that their method works but they also have to explain how it works. As a consequence, more people are aware now that it exists. Homeopaths are usually recommended by word-of-mouth.

At the same time, homeopathy would be beyond reproach if every homeopath repertorised their patients properly using the respective literature or a computerised repertorisation programme. I am not saying that there should never be any research but I believe that new, reasonable ideas must first prove their value in daily practice.

Robinsfeather,

Did I read you right? Are you seriously claiming that before any research is done on a product, even one with no medicinal properties as a homeopathic water sample, that it should be used daily on the public first? I'm at a loss to describe just how flawed that line of thinking is...

The issues within the pharmaceutical industry are all of their own creation, but it doesn't detract anything from the efficiency of their products. Modern medicines are marvels of biochemistry, planned and designed in super computer simulators; their properties predicted by genetic and chemical sequencing. The data to support their success is overwhelming, millions, if not billions, of people can claim an improvement in their lives because of them. Homeopathy didn't eradicate smallpox, prevent the outbreak of a major plague in Europe for well over a hundred years, lengthen the lifespan and increase the comfort of uncounted terminal cancer patients. The only claims that come close to even standing upto proper medical scrutiny are for the treatment of minor ailments that would get better naturally anyway.

You claim that "they also have to explain how it works", please, inform us all of how it actually works. By your own words; "Maybe we will find out one day why the higher C and Q-potencies work better than the X-potencies. Incidentally, it was something that Hahnemann did not understand either.", you cannot explain anything because homeopathy -doesn't- work. At all.

The principles behind homeopathy go against the basic foundations of chemistry, there is no credible evidence that homeopathy has ever worked and to all intents and purposes, homeopathic products are water, and nothing more.

People have been prosecuted and imprisoned for far, far less that this kind of fraud and there are a number of notable cases already where homeopathic 'treatments' to the exclusion of modern medicines have resulted in the death of the sufferer and the prosecution of the 'healer' for willful neglect.

Hahemann was a quack, who cottoned onto a money making scam that people have been using and be used on for over a hundred years.

At the moment, the pharmaceutical industry has a problem. They are used to earning billions of whatever currency for some drugs per year. The profits they make are so huge that they could have financed the Euro-fund or paid the debts of a European country. Now the EU requests them to prove that their drugs actually have an effect. In addition, in Germany they must now justify their high prices which, up to now, they were able to set all by themselves. Other European countries may well follow. At the same time, some profitable drugs will lose their patent protection. So there is a lot going on, and some companies try to compensate for expected financial losses by buying other companies. However, these are problems that the pharmaceutical industry needs to address by itself and not at the expense of alternative healing methods.

This is a bit confused. You are rather overlooking the fact that homeopathy is itself part of the multi billion pound alternative medicine market, one which Big Pharma itself is not averse to tapping, no doubt partly because the products are not subject to the same strict regulations as their "allopathic" ones.

Anyway, like many others, I have little love for the tactics of Big Pharma - they do what large profit led corporations do. But they have been regulated for a long time and plough billions into research and testing. I think I read somewhere that only one out of every 5000 projects ends up with drugs on the pharmacists' shelves. Are you saying that only now the EU is demanding that they do trials to show the drugs work?

Also, like Natman, I'm a bit bemused at your suggestion that anyone should be able to go out and try out their latest ideas in practice before they are tested.

But, hey ho, I've got a brilliant idea I'd like to try on you. I've got a bottle of water that relieves pain. It's not just any old bottle of water, mind, it remembers... Oh bugger, that's been done. How about rubbing your feet... oh no, beaten to it. I know, needles in the skin... this is actually harder than I thought it would be. I know, I know, willow bark... wait, that actually does work, but it's gone all allopathic these days. Hang fire, I'll think of something else and get back to you.

Guys whilst modern medicine does require trials and testing etc - virtually all of medicine/surgery foundations was achieved by people taking stuff/doing stuff without ANY testing or trials. New techniques evolved and were introduced by what were called 'pioneers' and today would be struck off for not testing etc. I'm not advocating willy nilly introduction of new drugs or techniques - just explaining that all of that is a relatively late newcomer to the world of medicine/surgery which freely did stuff without testing for aeons. So it's not that surprising. Also in the early days of liver transplantation - many of the first patients died. If this had been set up in a study it would never have got through due to the early deaths. It is difficult to evolve a completely new technique without some willing participants who accept they are partaking in untested territory - either before a study can be done or even when it is to be done.

By "proving their value in daily practice" I meant that new IDEAS should be tested on persons who agree and are willing to go along with it. Homeopaths still use the same (safe) remedies.

Dr. Sankaran has established a completely different system and miasm-theory to treat his patients. Some homeopaths have attempted to learn his method and apply it to their patients in Europe. If this leads to the right remedy, fair enough. If if doesn't, they haven't helped the patient. In that case, it would have been better to stick to Hahnemann.

@ grotesx: Your last paragraph is grotesque, indeed. In homeopathy, there is no "bottle that relieves pain". There are remedies that relieve various kinds of pain but the patient has to be repertorised first to get the remedy that is in line with him.

It is well-known and has often been discussed worldwide that side-effects of allopathic drugs, even down to "harmless" painkillers, may be dangerous. The FDA has more information as to which drugs it pulled off the US-market because they were detrimental to patients' health, sometimes even leading to their death. It's not all so wonderful as Natman tries to make everyone believe. On the other hand, some drugs are known to be completely ineffective.

Taking homeopathy out of the NHS would mean that patients who cannot afford to pay for a homeopath privately have no access to homeopathy even if it would help them get well, contrary to allopathic drugs. Homeopathy is always cheaper than allopathy. In the fertility study, I mentioned above, it was more successful than allopathy.

I would feel privileged to live in a country that has homeopathic hospitals. A few weeks ago, a friend died of heart-failure after an operation. Had she been given a homeopathic remedy to sustain her heart, she might have pulled through.

I came across a study carried out at a univerity of South Africa on a gel to prevent HIV infection in women when their sexual partners are uncooperative. 445 women received the gel, 444 a placebo. 39 % of the women who used the gel did not infect themselves, and with 336 women who used the gel exactly as instructed, infection rates fell by 54%. The results have to be replicated but the gel looks promising. However, does this mean that 444 women who received a placebo are now HIV-infected as are 61-46% of the group that received the gel? And when the results are "replicated" does this mean there will be more women who are bound to die due to their newly acquired infection? How ethical is that? How ethical is it to carry out such a study "on the general public" as Natman says. (source: New Scientist, 24 July 2010, p. 5)

Robinsfeather,

Evidence? Where is your evidence?

I once heard of a guy, who read somewhere, that once upon a time this person with omgkillerdeath disease licked a furbie and he felt better for a few days before he died. Oh how I wish we lived in a country that had furbie licking hospitals. That single unsubstantiated story shows that furbie licking works. Dr Doctorman wrote about it, a hundred years ago, we don't do what he said anymore, we've improved it. Of course, you have to oggleboogle with the patient first, to make sure they lick the right furbie, you can't just do it yourself, that way we maintain a monopoly on the furbie licking. And once you've oggleboogled, you need to make sure the furbie is stroked, 20 times widdershins, otherwise it doesn't work. If your tests didn't work, you obviously didn't stroke it properly, or used the oggleboogle wrong and had the wrong furbie.

-This- is how people who advocate homeopathy come across to me. Once you alter the terminology, it's more obvious that it's the utter bunkum that it really is. And that's not even going into the chemical impossibility.

@ Natman: I have explained above how homeopathic remedies work and have helped me as I have perceived them as a patient. As long as patients are repertorised properly and receive the one remedy that is in line with them, they will experience an aggravation reaction before their symptoms disappear. This happens to patients all over the world. German instructions to those remedies specifically point out that an aggravation reaction is considered to be a good sign. This information is based on fact and experience, otherwise it wouldn't be there. So you have, without a doubt, an effect. You do not alter the terminology, you speak about homeopathy using the correct terms.

I presume that it is highly unlikely that patients all over the world get on the phone to one another and say: Hey, mate, nothing happened but let's claim we experienced this aggravation reaction anyway!
Homeopathy is still there and is supported because people found it has healed health problems where allopathy failed.

And since the topic came up:
I have never tried acupuncture but I met someone from a medical profession once who wanted to learn it because it relieved him from his migraines.
Bach flowers and Schuessler salts are not homeopathy.

Natman, I don't think you have ever seriously tried homeopathy before posting your opinion, which is unsubstantiated in many ways, on a BBC forum. Since you seem to say the same things over and over again and I have reacted to that already to the best of my ability, I would like to conclude this discussion.

Robinsfeather,

Okay!

Homeopathy is bunkum.

It doesn't work.

If you buy homeopathic remedies, you're wasting your money.

If you use homeopathic remedies to the exclusion of standard medicine, you're putting your life at risk.

That is all.

I came across a study carried out at a univerity of South Africa on a gel to prevent HIV infection in women when their sexual partners are uncooperative. 445 women received the gel, 444 a placebo. 39 % of the women who used the gel did not infect themselves, and with 336 women who used the gel exactly as instructed, infection rates fell by 54%. The results have to be replicated but the gel looks promising. However, does this mean that 444 women who received a placebo are now HIV-infected as are 61-46% of the group that received the gel? And when the results are "replicated" does this mean there will be more women who are bound to die due to their newly acquired infection? How ethical is that? How ethical is it to carry out such a study "on the general public" as Natman says. (source: New Scientist, 24 July 2010, p. 5)

From a report of the study:

All participants were tested for HIV at monthly follow-up visits, at which they also received reproductive health services, such as pregnancy tests, and HIV prevention services, including pre- and post-test counseling, HIV risk-reduction counseling, condoms and treatment for other sexually transmitted infections.

So, all participants were given the best treatment available in Africa. Half were given the gel that might or might not have had an effect on HIV and half were given a placebo - in the hope that a treatment could found to reduce the risk of HIV infection for millions of people. You might find that less ethical than, say the Society of Homeopaths' Symposium in London a few years back whose flier informed us that homeopath Harry Van Der Zee believes that using the PC1 remedy, the AIDS- epidemic can be called to a halt, and that homeopaths are the ones that can do it without ever demonstrating that homeopathy can do anything at all, but hopefully most sane people don't.

Homeopathy is always cheaper than allopathy

Well, water is pretty cheap, although knocking against a leather saddle might take a bit of labour. Nelson and Russell, the UK water... sorry, homeopathic remedy manufacturer manage to take £30 million a year off gullible punters for their special water.

My son tried homeopathy for his asthma once. Although I was sure it wouldn't work, I held my peace. The asthma went away for a time, then came back, as these things do. Although that one anecdote says nothing at all about the efficacy of homeopathy, is my opinion now more valid than Natman's? I only ask because I've heard there is another school of furbie licking with an alternative theory of furbie stroking. After oggleboogling, the furbie is stroked 24 times Deasil (which, as every one who knows anything about anything is aware, is the opposite of widdershins).

@Eunice

Although it is difficult to discuss these things with someone who just "disagrees" with research when the results conflict with what they are "quite convinced" of, I'll give it a go.

I'm not advocating willy nilly introduction of new drugs or techniques - just explaining that all of that is a relatively late newcomer to the world of medicine/surgery which freely did stuff without testing for aeons. So it's not that surprising. Also in the early days of liver transplantation - many of the first patients died. If this had been set up in a study it would never have got through due to the early deaths.

Just because people in former times were pretty gung ho about new techniques doesn't tell us anything about how we ought to go about things now. And yes, the first liver transplant patients in the 60s died, but so did those that didn't get transplants. There was no ethical dilemma that I can see.

Grokesx: I am happy to discuss - but it doesn't take research to tell you or anyone that alcohol is harming to the body......just ask your body how it feels after a night on the booze. Dehydration, sore heads etc mean the body is saying - this stuff is not good for me. It's not rocket science! If you want science look up the cellular effects of alcohol on the body - detrimental to most cells.

re the second part - I wasn't advocating that we should be gung ho - just that people were saying how surprised they were that someone suggested giving someone something without it being researched first. I'm not saying we should be doing that - I was just pointing out that until quite recently that was how medicine and surgery was founded and developed for aeons. Doing research first is a recent introduction and it is possible that it could hamper pioneers or attempts to do more radical new things that have a learning curve and where the early results are not as good as later ones - when lessons are learned and techniques perfected .....but if done in a study then the early complications could close it before it gets off the ground. The ethical dilemma wasn't about whether those in the 60's got transplants or didnt ......it was that if it had been in a research study with the early results/deaths it would have been abandoned and not got off the ground.
I was just making the point that the idea isn't that big a surprise/shock given that was how it was for aeons - and yes I agree that doesn't mean we have to carry on like that.

Dave - # 41 - I couldn't agree more!

Eunice - # 53 - are you saying we should assess the risks/benefits of all our intake solely on its isolated impact at a cellular level? That could be interesting!

I have always been interested in sport and am still pretty active - I usually spin a couple of times each week and fit in a couple of gym sessions as well. I'm afraid I indulge myself with the services of a personal trainer from time to time to make sure my exercise regime is offering me maximum benefits. After a session with him the next day my body will typically ache from shoulder to ankle, I have occasionally been so stiff I can hardly manoeuvre myself out of bed. Much worse than any hangover and longer lasting! Are you going to tell us that vigorous exercise is actually bad for us too?

Parrhasios: prepare yourself, sit down, take a few breaths - yes I would say vigorous exercise is not the most loving thing you can do for your body!
Oh dear what have I let myself in for now!!!
I would even go a step further than cellular level and relate it to the effects at the energetic level as we are energetic beings. Food/drink/exercise etc has consequences on the body - best assessed by how we feel after the consumption/performance of whatever it is.....perhaps you have eaten different meals and after them felt light/heavy/sluggish/lethargic/stimulated ?? etc How we move and exercise all affects the body as well - and the most loving or caring form of exercise or movement for the body is that which has the quality of gentleness. Don't worry - I have been there too and done the 'no pain, no gain' thing and would have a tendancy to drive myself too hard. To my understanding it is about making choices that are self-caring/selfloving and being gentle with oneself is part of that and being guided by how we FEEL. I had a negative reaction to this too - thinking its weak and woolly etc but the more I put it into practice then the more I feel the benefit.
I appreciate there may be many who find this complete bunkum and that's ok - at least it's a bit different and might even entertain you a little! :-)

@ Natman:
Patients who make use of homeopathic remedies do NOT put their health or their lives at risk.

A homeopath needs a firmly established diagnosis just as much as the allopath. Also, using homeopathic remedies does not mean that you stay away from medical check-ups or allopathic drugs if and when they are needed.

Homeopaths may also prescribe antibiotics if the situation is bad enough and will refer patients to a specialist to establish or confirm a diagnosis, just as much as a "conventional" doctor would. However, usually, it is the other way round. Allopaths have tried their best on the patient, and patients come to the homeopath with the respective medical documentation in their hands.

@ grocesx:
The anti-HIV gel may be the best option available in the given situation in Africa but it still sounds contemptuous, unethical and inhuman to me to infect patients newly with HIV as part of a study.
As to homeopathy used to treat HIV, I have never read any respective publications on what is done for those patients and therefore know nothing about it.

With regard to the "other" point you have raised, I have asked two English native speakers who also do not know what Natman and you are talking about. Since this does not seem to be homeopathy, I can probably leave it out.

I am very sorry to read that your son has asthma. I am not a homeopath and I haven't studied medicine so take what has come to my mind on that level and contact a trained homeopath for further information and treatment of your son.

First of all, there are two different kinds of asthma, asthma bronchiale and asthma cardiale for which homeopathic treatment will be very different. I assume your son has the first. My repertory lists a couple of modalities that may accompany this illness, together with the respective remedies. The German Homoeowiki - compiled by homeopathy students - lists, among other, psorinum (in cases of suppressed dermatoses) and medorrhinum, both are nosodes. Psorinum is associated with the first miasm, psora, medorrhinum with the second, sycosis (not psychosis!).
As far as I know, asthma patients must not discontinue their spray on their own. Only if and when homeopathy has IMPROVED the situation, the spray may be reduced or discontinued. It will be up to the allopath or specialist to decide that. I am surprised now that you say the asthma was GONE for a while and then came back.

In those cases, homeopaths can either give the same remedy again - of the same or a higher potency or choose another remedy which also covers asthma. This is where the miasma-theory may come in. The homeopath could prescribe anti-psoric remedies to take out other symptoms first. The second stage would then be anti-sycotic remedies that have scored high points in the repertorisation process or even remedies that cover two miasms. Medorrhinum is associated with arthritis deformans, oedema, asthma and heart problems, among other (the last is my own generic term; I think homoeowiki was more specific).

I would continue to work my way through the remaining miasms and see which symptoms can be removed and always use high potencies of 200C or more.

Asthma can also be the consequence of a vaccination which makes an anti-miasmatic treatment a good option. I guess this makes Natman furious now but there are countless indications that the general vaccinations we receive as babies damage our health. Homeopaths have observed that they seem to set off the family miasms in the patient. In one case, a healthy baby - proved with pictures and on film - became a handicapped child after receiving his vaccinations. They have suggested that maybe children with ancestors who had a lot of illnesses should not be vaccinated at all or only after an anti-miasmatic treatment. They also argued that babies were vaccinated too early and that one should wait for them to develop further before vaccinating them. There are also high-risk patients, such as those who have multiple sclerosis who should not be vaccinated (in one case tetanus) because they may experience a deterioration of their illness.

In contrast, when you travel to an exotic country, it is important to get a vaccination against malaria.

Anyway, I wish you and your son all the best.

Eunice - "Food/drink/exercise etc has consequences on the body - best assessed by how we feel after the consumption/performance of whatever it is...". On this basis I heartily recommend a glass of Meursault with lunch and maybe a couple of Chambertin with supper. Both make me feel very good indeed after (and indeed during) consumption!

@robinsfeather

I don't think you're getting the concept of clinical trials, so I'll just leave that one.

Don't worry about my son's asthma. In the end he went back to the inhalers that actually work when he realised homeopathy's a load of old huey.

What is this miasam you keep referring to, Robinsfeather? Has it been proven? Or is it simply another method by which homeopaths use to claim their techniques work?

Is it, in fact, the same miasam that Victorian 'doctors' thought infested the world and was responsible for things such as cholera and dysentry? The same miasam that was decisively disproven with the advent of germ theory?

Next you'll be talking about the four 'humors' and how a proper balance of these four liquids are needed for good health. Actually, I wouldn't be suprised if you advocate a feathery head-dress and a funky dance.

Unless a homeopath is a medical doctor (which the vast majority are not, in fact, the majority have no medical training at all) then he can't prescribe anything. All he can do is say 'go and ask a real doctor'.

Your tirade against vaccines overlooks the fact that they're responsible for saving the lives of millions of people every year and have eliminated one of the most dangerous diseases off the face of the planet; smallpox.

Can homeopathy claim as much?

I'll keep repeating it: Homoepathy doesn't work. It's a bottle of water.

It is clear that a bottle of water could never make asthma go away, not even for a little while. It is also clear that asthma patients cannot "believe" their illness away, not even for a little while. It has happened to me, too, that some health problems were persistent and needed follow-on treatment with deeper acting remedies.

Patients do not get well on bottles of water. They get well with classical homeopathy. And those remedies are tested, grokeskx, otherwise you could never compile repertories or write materiae medicae.

@ Natman: No wonder you keep posting stereotypical statements. You are not even familiar with the most basic concepts of homeopathy. I'll leave it to you to research it because it is complex. The miasm-theory basically means that health problems we have today (that are not due to an unhealthy lifestyle) are inherited from illnesses that our ancestors had. Wikipedia does not mention Hahnemann's miasm theory but there are other sites that will explain it. Incidentally, modern epigenetics explains that genes can be switched on or off erroneously and thus cause illnesses.

I haven't written a tirade on vaccines. I have merely pointed out that there are some high-risk patients who should maybe not be vaccinated.

You must have overlooked the Dr in front of the names of many homeopaths. Other homeopaths - in Germany - are alternative practitioners. They have also received medical training and additional training in homeopathy which lasts a few years. I guess in the UK the situation is similar.

Homeopaths and allopaths also work together for the benefit of patients. If the patient's health improves, the "conventional" doctor is bound to notice, too. When I go to get my next check up, for example, my doctor will notice that I haven't been ill this year at all, in contrast to the way I was last year and the years before.

Robinsfeather,

Read this, maybe take notes, and perhaps you'll understand.

Get a bottle of a pure homeopathic solution, it contains, for example, one mole of atoms of your active ingredient. One mole is equal to 6.02 x 10^23 atoms, that's 6.02 followed by 23 zeros.

Everytime you make a one in 10 dilution, you reduce the number of molecules in your solution by 9/10ths. This is basic mathematics.

Eventually, after around 24 of these dilutions (24X/12C), there is a 60% chance of ONE atom remaining. That's a one followed by no zeros.

When you reach 60X/30C, you need to consume 10^34 (1 followed by 34 zeros) gallons of 'remedy' to have consumed one atom of original atoms. That's a sphere roughly 10 billion times the size of the Earth.

Now, you explain to me how that isn't water?

Parrhasios: I knew you would come back with some version of feeling great after drinking!!! :-)

Robinsfeather: rather than illnesses in the ancestors have you considered the possibility of influences from the person's own previous lifetimes - no need to blame the ancestors. That just renders them a victim and victims don't heal.

And those remedies are tested, grokeskx,

Yes, they are tested and have not been shown to work.

...otherwise you could never compile repertories or write materiae medicae.

Yes you could. Just as Natman and I could compile furbie licking reportories.

Eunice, it is known and accepted today, that we inherit health problems from our ancestors. I don't think any doctor would be of another opinion.

re asthma: Inhalers do not "work" either in the sense that they don't make asthma go away. They help the patient breathe and are therefore very important. However, the patient will have to use them for the rest of his life.
The first remedy I took against exhaustion wasn't the correct one either. It was the second remedy that did the trick. Still, exhaustion is also included in the third remedy but I haven't felt any corresponding aggravation reaction so I think my problem is definitely gone. Should it ever come back, I can combat it with homeopathy again because there is no allopathic remedy. I do not discard homeopathy on the whole just because it hasn't worked out "perfectly" the first time around. If I had a serious illness, I would always want classical homeopathy to be part of my medical treatment.

Historically, as I have written above, Hahneman also used contemporary literature to compile symptoms for the remedies he used, i.e. he used the observations that allopaths made in patients that had accidentally consumed poisenous substances. Since then, those remedies have been tested again and again, even to this day, to confirm those findings. The test persons do not know the remedy they have been given as they write down the symptoms they experience. Some symptoms of poisonous substances are well known.

With regard to the high dilution, maybe we do not understand all of our bodies' chemistry. I am sure that hormones do not exactly flood our bodies either and yet are very effective. Maybe you can think about and explain why remedies cause different aggravation reactions in patients. This is something I have repeatedly found.

Eunice - I also feel great after ice-cream (love it)! Broccoli, on the other hand, no, don't think so...

Now, should you worry about Parrhasios? Interesting question! Well I certainly shan't be stalking you but, as for anything else, only you can answer that.

I think I have done a reasonable job in eliminating what innate sexism I might once have had and I try not to be patronising, so I certainly shan't be patting your back and telling you not to worry your pretty little head over my nasty old comments.

There are three people on this blog whose opinions I quite routinely find deeply offensive: OT, Christopher, and yourself. Oddly I rather like you all. What you have in common is a strong commitment to deeply held convictions, honest and uncompromising affirmation of those convictions in the face of opposition, and the odd bit of cheeky humour.

Robinsfeather,

You really don't get it, it's not about "we don't know how everything in the body works". This isn't about unexplained reactions or phenomena, this is about the physical impossibility of a homeopathic solution containing anything other than water molecules. Hormones work because they're specifically tailored to meet your bodies needs, you might also be suprised I think at the huge amount your body releases in a situation.

Once you've realised this, and acknowledged it, then we can move on to the claims that homeopathic 'remedies' do something.

I don't really care about what you've 'seen' or experienced. I could make similar claims, but without actual evidence to back it up, it means nothing.

Re: Asthma. It's a condition, not an illness. Asthma is the contraction of the tiny tubes in your lungs in reaction to various (and sometimes unknown) stimulii. There is no cure because the underlying condition is physiological (sometimes it's even psychosomatic), not pathological. Inhalers contain chemicals that force these tubes open again, sometimes the bodies reaction is too severe for the (mild) substances found in inhalers to work and stronger treatment is needed.

Once more, finally - accept that it is a physical impossibility for homeopathic solutions to be anything other than water. Until you do that, I'll keep repeating it and rubbishing everything you say.

Parrhasios: I know I don't need to worry about you! You are of course free to live your life and ingest whatever you so choose irrespective of whether it is harming or not (there's plenty more lifetimes ahead! ;-) ) I spent a long number of years consuming all of the substances you mention and more besides so I know what you are talking about as I could easily have made the same arguments myself!

It is interesting though that you find my arguments offensive - as they are based on the understandings and ways of love!! So basically you're saying you are offended by love ;-) !! Don't worry though - it's not unusual - Christianity (and other religions and the process of growing up) has done a good job of eradicating people's ability to care for or love themselves in a true way. Just a little bit of cheeky humour for you to ponder upon if you so choose!

As for ice cream (fat and sugar :-) ) - so long as you don't throw it at me at the dinner table - but as you love it you would hopefully not waste it in such a way! :-)


Robinsfeather: inherited conditions are not as simple as you make out - it ultimately comes back to the individual.

@ Eunice: There are families in whose paternal or maternal line certain physical illnesses abound because they have been passed on from generation to generation. Ask any doctor. I agree that this isn't the only reason why individuals may get ill.

Dear Natman: It is impossible to convince someone who experiences aggravation reactions with each and every remedy that classical homeopathic remedies do not work. Just the opposite is true. I never thought they could do that much for me! The fact that I am no longer suffering from any of those health problems and can live my life the way I want to is evidence enough for me, and I daresay that other patients who have experienced the same would agree. After all, my GP said she could do nothing for me and that there was NO CURE in allopathy. (Just the same as they say for asthma.)

So, what now, Dr. Natman? Do you have any idea what I should have done instead in this case? I guess I could have continued to be off work for lengthy periods of time. Some employers fire their employees if they are ill too often. Also, being frequently ill would mean I could not enjoy my leisure-time because I would always be on the brink of the next illness. It's pretty predictable that the situation would get even worse as years pass by.

As long as every individual patient receives the remedy that has been repertorised for them to cover their individual symptoms and stays away from those substances that will neutralise the remedies, you can design studies to your heart's content. I have actually mentioned one above, which you, of course, have ignored.

So if you say you want to "rubbish" the experiences I have made with homeopathy as well as the professional studies on homeopathy that have been carried out at a German university clinic, I wonder where your medical degree is because this is the least you should have now. You know next to nothing about homeopathy, you don't know that homeopaths are frequently MDs, you haven't heard about repertories, materiae medicae or the aggravation effect and you have no idea what the miasm-theory is, which raises the question why you are posting in this BBC forum at all.

Patients want classical homeopathy because it works for them. When the patient regains his health, this can be confirmed by allopaths, too. And I don't think you are the one to know what's best for other people.

@Natman (61)

A mole isn't 6x10^23 atoms, it's 6x10^23 of anything. If you're talking about mixing solutions, then it's probably molecules that you're dealing with, rather than atoms. Otherwise your figures are correct.

Jonathan,

Yeah, I used the word atom to avoid having to explain to Robinsfeather the difference between molecules and atoms and confusing the issue any further.

Robinsfeather,

You're dodging the issue. Please explain how, according to the MATHEMATICS presented, how a homeopathic solution can be anything other than water.

And I'm not an MD, but I am a qualified chemist. I believe that gives me every right to question the validity of homeopathic solutions on a chemical basis.

Patients 'want' classical homeopathy because people like you continue to evanglise that it somehow works, despite providing no evidence that it works. I don't know what is best for everyone, but I do know, with utter certainty, that drinking a little bottle of water isn't going to cure anything at all.

Natman, it's good to know that you would have other patients and me suffer just because classical homeopathy does not fit in with your theories. A bottle of water does not cure any symptoms, homeopathic remedies, however, do, as many patients have observed.

Some remedies act more deeply than others because they tackle the miasms in a patient, and high potencies in general have shown to act more deeply than lower ones, as I have experienced myself. It is a fact that this phenomenon has not yet been explained, but then, there is also no explanation as to why EMDR trauma-therapy or autohemotherapy work.

By the way, they teach Chemistry at German schools, too, even though I have decided not to make it my profession.

Meanwhile, rather than looking at the remedy, maybe we need to look at the bio-chemistry of the body.

I would like to know wheter a patient's reaction to a remedy can be observed or measured in any way. I think it would be interesting to know what's going on inside a patient's body after a remedy has been taken and whether aggravation reactions can be confirmed in any way due to brain activity or other processes in the body, including but not restricted to epigenetics.

Some reactions to homeopathic remedies are obvious enough for friends and family to notice, too. Pulsatilla produced the most remarkable symptoms in me. I bet you can't explain why the fingers of my left hand became immobile for about five minutes.

If homeopathy didn't work, patients would stay away. Just the opposite is true, some people seem to expect one-time miracles even though they know they have a serious disease. Although the astma of grokesx's son disappeared for a while, it didn't occur to him to go for follow-up treatment. Rather, he expected it all to be gone after five pellets and one remedy, and when the condition came back he started bad-mouthing homeopathy even though he knew that his inhalers were not going to cure him either. So homeopathy must meet the high expectations of many patients who come back to it again and again. I would certainly not spend money and time on it if it didn't work.

Although the astma of grokesx's son disappeared for a while, it didn't occur to him to go for follow-up treatment. Rather, he expected it all to be gone after five pellets and one remedy, and when the condition came back he started bad-mouthing homeopathy even though he knew that his inhalers were not going to cure him either.

How the hell do you know what my son expected and what he didn't from the details I gave? Leave him out of your ridiculous fantasies, if you don't mind.

Robinsfeather,

Read the posts. Answer the critique.

Homeopathic solutions ARE JUST WATER.

There's no point you saying "A bottle of water does not cure any symptoms, homeopathic remedies, however, do", when you refuse to concede that mathematically and chemically, your 'remedies' are nothing more than water.

Please, please, please! Answer that point! Then we can get onto discussions over why you think a bottle of water can do anything at all!

People go back to homeopaths because either a) it's not working and they're too dumb to try a real doctor or b) it got better and they (falsely) attributed it to a placebo.

It seems the claims of our resident homeopathic advocate are as substantial as the contents of the product he was pushing.