Homoeopathic contraception?

[Barbrae]

I believe he is an MD. I don't think he could have a problem with that I find iridology more of a diognostic method than a treatment. It is also unreliable because it relies on "us" to do the diagnosing.

 

[geni]

I believe he is an MD. I don't think he could have a problem with that I find iridology more of a diognostic method than a treatment. It is also unreliable because it relies on "us" to do the diagnosing.

Well it's more your staments that it is "unreliable" and that you had bad experinces. Still I don't think you are too likely to run into him he claims to be in Paris.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Homoeopathic contraception?

I come here to answer questions about homeopathy, my belief in it, my practice of it - that is all. So I will repeat again - I do not have your evidence, you can stop asking me for it. Youcan ask me about homeopathic theory, practice, beleifs, education, etc etc.

People may be questioning the lack of evidence generally. It has been suggested to you that a very simple protocol could teach y ou a lot and you have shown no interest. You have been told that it would not primarily be intended to 'prove' something to us, but it might prove something to you.

The main thing you personally get hauled over the coals for is your stubborn refusal to explore the world outside your little box of experience that should lead to you to question the meaning of that experience. What we find disappointing is your determination to kep reciting the same mantra.

I also come to clear up misconceptions - such as the latest that homeoapths claim that homeopathy cures everything instantly, untrue.


I see you have found the thread that shows your defence to be untrue.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870649570#post1870649570

 

[Benguin]

Actually Benguin, if you were familiar with Hahnemanns writing on hygeine, maintaining cause of disease, nutrition and health I think you would see that his philosophies fit into the belief system of naturopathy quite nicely. I think it is unfortunate that more homeopaths don't take this view and have commented many times on the boards that the origional teachings of homeopathy included such things.

My naturopathic training and my homeopathy education (which were two seperate entities btw) compliment each other nicely. I have mentioned before that I do not recommend homeopathic remedies for everyone and for those that I do I almost always incorporate soem aspect of naturopathy.

I have been trained via my naturopathic education in iridology and reflexology - I never use either.

I can't see how it fits with like causes like, but I suppose that's going OT.

The real question (which you didn't quite answer) was whether the same patients would use you as a homeopath and a naturopath?

 

[Lisa Simpson]

You'll be happy to hear that I just found out today that my CEC's for this year include a research seminar and I may be conductign a proving or a DBPC study. ANy volunteers?

I'm on the right side of the Atlantic, but what the heck do those acronyms mean?

 

[geni]

I'm on the right side of the Atlantic, but what the heck do those acronyms mean?

DBPC=double blind placebo controled.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Thanks. It's too early in the morning here for me to try and decipher it myself.

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Homoeopathic contraception?

Regarding my "habit of a lifetime" comment. I can not understand why you keep making comments like that. I came out from day one saying I DO NOT have the "evidence" you require. Why do you keep asking? I have always said the "evidence" that meets your criteria is lacking.

Yes, that's the reason for the "habit of a lifetime" comment.

Barb, you claim to be able to affect people's health. A real world effect. You claim that homoeopathic remedies have properties different from those of the stock solvent or carrier material. Another real world effect.

I'm not asking for anything subtle, here. I'm not insisting that you demonstrate any one specific effect. All any of us would like to see is objective evidence that any homoeopathic treatment really does, on average, speed up the time to recover from any of the conditions that you've referred to, or even that you can tell a potentised remedy from the unpotentised carrier material. Any way you like.

Why is this so hard?

You and Sarah both repeatedly make confident statements about what homoeopathy can do. The nature of your claims is such that they should be pretty easy to demonstrate objectively, you shouldn't have to be a rocket scientist to see that. Just show some objective effect, any objective effect, no matter how trivial, so long as it's real.

Can't you see that there's no point in talking about your beliefs and your practices when you can't show even the smallest sliver of evidence that your beliefs bear any relationship to the real world, or that your practices actually affect the physiology of the body in any way at all?

And that when you say that you don't care, and you'll continue to take people's money even though you cannot and will not defend what you do in any objective way, we find it quite dishonest?

Rolfe.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homoeopathic contraception?

And that when you say that you don't care, and you'll continue to take people's money even though you cannot and will not defend what you do in any objective way, we find it quite dishonest?

Dishonesty, coupled with the blindly stupid tenacity of General Custer.

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Homoeopathic contraception?

Rolfe, I think you know me well enough by now to know my typing is terrible, fingers too fadst and I just don't care enough to check my work here.

What a wonderful and wonderfully handy excuse, Barbrae! You "just don't care to check your work here." There's a tinge of a disconnect, though, you know. I mean, here you are, going out of your way to try to present your case to a skeptical audience, one whom you know to be fact-driven and particular and evidence-discerning. And you expect us to believe you just don't care enough to check your work here? Sure, Barbrae. Whatever.

Yes, a proving can affect one's fertility. Specifically reducing fertility - thereby being able to increase fertility when given as the similimum in an infertile individual. You certainly would not choose to use this (provign) as a form of birth control for several reasosn. First, in a proving there is never just one symptom produced and secondly, you do not know if you would be affected this way.

Is this not a fabulous admission, Barbrae? That, "in a proving there is never just one symptom produced?" The problem, my dear, is that all symptoms but the one would rightly be termed "side effects," should they not, my dear? In which case, my dear, how can a homeopath claim homeopathy has no side effects and fault medicine for having side effects?

Regarding my "habit of a lifetime" comment. I can not understand why you keep making comments like that. I came out from day one saying I DO NOT have the "evidence" you require. Why do you keep asking? I have always said the "evidence" that meets your criteria is lacking. you act like I came here saying that I could prove to youthat homeopathy worked and then failed to do so - I never did. i always said that my belief in homeopathy is based on my experience, I said the evidence that meets your criteria for proof is something I do not have, I do not try to convince you or anyone else of homeopathy's efficacy.

Sure, Barbrae. You don't care to be here to check your work. You don't care to proffer evdience you admit you don't have.. But....

]I come here to answer questions about homeopathy, my belief in it, my practice of it - that is all. So I will repeat again - I do not have your evidence, you can stop asking me for it. Youcan ask me about homeopathic theory, practice, beleifs, education, etc etc.
I also come to clear up misconceptions - such as the latest that homeoapths claim that homeopathy cures everything instantly, untrue.

ANyway, that's that.

Here to clear up misconceptions, but having no evidence to do so? Tell the homeopaths to stop sending in clowns.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homoeopathic contraception?

Is this not a fabulous admission, Barbrae? That, "in a proving there is never just one symptom produced?" The problem, my dear, is that all symptoms but the one would rightly be termed "side effects," should they not, my dear? In which case, my dear, how can a homeopath claim homeopathy has no side effects and fault medicine for having side effects?

Er this makes no sense. Provings are not treaments so there is no issue of side effects.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Originally posted by Barbrae:
...snip...I do not try to convince you or anyone else of homeopathy's efficacy.

...not even yourself or your 'patients'?

Homeopathetic hypocricy in action here, folks.

The mind boggles.

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homoeopathic contraception?

Er this makes no sense. Provings are not treaments so there is no issue of side effects.

I know it will be like following an invisible coked-up hare through the looking glass, but follow the homeopathetic logic a bit. The aim of the proving is to find the symptoms caused by a substance. Barbrae has allowed here what we already know: that these substances always cause multiple symtpoms. The next idea is to take the substance, pound it up and dilute it out of existence. This *ahem* of course strengthens the substance's power as *ahem* a remedy for the very symptoms it caused. Of course, it is also now strengthened as a remedy for all the other symtpoms it caused.

A substance proved to cause headaches and to dry clogged sinuses, now turned remedy, "cures" your headache, and gives you a runny nose. The runny nose is a side effect. There are no two ways around it. If it causes multiple symptoms at standard strength, and magically earns the power to cure those same symptoms at high dilutions, then it "cures" all those symptoms at high dilutions, causing side effects in all cases but one.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homoeopathic contraception?

A substance proved to cause headaches and to dry clogged sinuses, now turned remedy, "cures" your headache, and gives you a runny nose. The runny nose is a side effect. There are no two ways around it. If it causes multiple symptoms at standard strength, and magically earns the power to cure those same symptoms at high dilutions, then it "cures" all those symptoms at high dilutions, causing side effects in all cases but one.

Wll of course that's because you failed to prescribe to the totality. Try not to make things too easy for the homeopayths.

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homoeopathic contraception?

Wll of course that's because you failed to prescribe to the totality. Try not to make things too easy for the homeopayths.

Taking that out exposes the lie about side effects. Homeopathic remedies have them, according to a close examination of homeopathic claims. The reality, of course, is there aren't any effects, let alone side effects. Unless the patient's totality includes the lightened wallet.

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homoeopathic contraception?

Taking that out exposes the lie about side effects. Homeopathic remedies have them, according to a close examination of homeopathic claims. The reality, of course, is there aren't any effects, let alone side effects. Unless the patient's totality includes the lightened wallet.

You don't even need to go through that chain of inference to find the side effects.

Everything that happens after taking a remedy is declared to be caused by the remedy. In the natural course of events, sometimes unpleasant things happen after taking a remedy. These are of course caused by the remedy. However, we avoid the side effects bit simply by renaming these "aggravations", or calling it a "healing crisis", or (and this is where your inference comes in) saying that the patient is proving the remedy.

All of this of course is further "proof" that the remedies have a physiological effect. But they're not side effects, because we just defined side effects as something only "allopathic" medicines have.

Ain't life wonderful in Humpty Dumpty land!

Rolfe.

 

[KFCA]

I had a bout with homeopathic "side effects" or "aggrevations"...or at least I sure THOUGHT I did...when I took the OTC Arnica pellets (& gel) for my sprained knee a year & half ago. At the time I knew almost zilch about homeopathy.

At any rate, I was about half way into using the pellets in the container (maybe Day 3 or 4), religiously following Boiron's written directions, when all of a sudden the most weird feeling came over me. I felt the worst chill, a little sick to my stomach, slightly woozey. It actually scared me to the point where I thought I should immediately discontinue the Arnica use. But then I recalled that I had had this EXACT same sensation about a year before.

We live in an older home, no insulation & our furnce is not normally on during the day, & the Caliornia weather had suddenly turned extra cold. I was likely not dressed warm enough nor active enough inside our house that day to combat the rapid temperature change, & I got several physical reactions...one probably leading to the next. What I first believed to be "the Arnica reaction day" was coincidently identical. The funny part is that IF I hadn't had the previous year's odd physical experience (& fortunately recalled it), I would have definitely chalked t up to the Arnica useage. I mean, what else?

BTW, I found the same feeling coming over me about a month ago under the same weather circumstances, but this time I was smart enough to immediately step into a very hot shower until it passed.

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homoeopathic contraception?

You don't even need to go through that chain of inference to find the side effects.

Everything that happens after taking a remedy is declared to be caused by the remedy. In the natural course of events, sometimes unpleasant things happen after taking a remedy. These are of course caused by the remedy. However, we avoid the side effects bit simply by renaming these "aggravations", or calling it a "healing crisis", or (and this is where your inference comes in) saying that the patient is proving the remedy.

All of this of course is further "proof" that the remedies have a physiological effect. But they're not side effects, because we just defined side effects as something only "allopathic" medicines have.

Ain't life wonderful in Humpty Dumpty land!

Rolfe.

Artfully crafted redefinition seems to be the chief stock-in-trade of woos. We're having a similar problem with some over on one of the "consciousness-is-magik" threads where the woos keep carping on the philosophical construct, "qualia," which is also defined to disallow inquiry.

How like religion this pap is, eh? I mean, of course, the religious strictures of old (if you don't count the Bush administration here in the U.S.) that secured against perfect weaving (because it insulted God) or against dissection (because it insulted God), or telescopes (because they were of the devil).

We should always be suspicious of these artful definitions and restrictions.

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homoeopathic contraception?

You [Barb] and Sarah both repeatedly make confident statements about what homoeopathy can do. The nature of your claims is such that they should be pretty easy to demonstrate objectively, you shouldn't have to be a rocket scientist to see that. Just show some objective effect, any objective effect, no matter how trivial, so long as it's real.

Sarah, I know you exited this thread rather earlier than this, but since you're here, perhaps some comment on this question would be appropriate too?

Rolfe.

 

[Sarah-I]

Rolfe,

I am quite happy to try to undertake experiments either on myself or with friends.