Question about Memory Storages?

[Donks]

"NO, NO, NO! The brain does NOT interact with the photons! The eyes do!"

If sunlight interacted & passes through a glass, then that light from glass to our eyes & then from our eyes to brain---can't mean sunlight didn't interacted with our eyes & brain & interacted only with glass.

Oh wow. You actually think the eyes send photons to the brain? Oh wow. There's no point in explaining anything to you. You just stay in your little fantasy world and be happy. After all, ignorance is bliss. You must be the most blissful person ever.

 

[flume]

Originally posted by Kumar: Is it not a simple common sense that whenever eyes/body matches two images, whether a photo or a real person, there ought to be some similarity in reflected WLs from both--may be in form of colour, edges or dimentions(pattern/spectrum) as eyes/body interact with these WLs only.

Maybe you do understand this; it may be your choice of words that is confusing. You are right that that there has to be some similarity between the image you see of a photo and a person in order for you to recognize the photo. There has to at least be some similarity in the relative dimension of darker and lighter parts of the image. The problem is in what you mean by reflected wavelengths. If you are only using that phrase to talk generally about light (since the light is reflected and light does have different wavelengths) then you are correct, but you are saying it in a way that is confusing. WHen I read that, I think you are saying that there has to be some similarity in the actual wavelengths hitting the eye from the photo and the person.

There has to be some similarity in pattern, but the actual wavelengths can be completely different.

Because of the kinds of questions you ask, it does matter exactly how you are using the phrase.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*

Do you want to persist on that, there is no similarity in a image of a person in person & in his same time true colour & true dimentioned photo?

Yes. (Nice change from all the "No"s, right?

But still extremely clear is not absolute. *snipped, poetic, but irrelevant analogies*.

Extremely clear is as absolute as anything gets in the real world. If you jump from a tall building, it is not absolutely certain that a lorry of mattresses will NOT drive by at just the right time and place and cushion your fall, but Idon't suggest you count on it.

Btw, Do you understand, approve & endorss logics?

Yes. (See? we CAN avoid those pesky "No"s).

Hans

 

[Kumar]

And, we have told you that this has been done. You are a hypocrite here, Kumar. How many clinics did YOU visit? How mant observations did YOU note and study before you made your mind up? 1? 2? YOU have not studied a lot of clinics, YOU have not read hundres of case stories (because then you would know more than you do).

Do you want to say that results of survey of homeopathic clinics, patients & homeopaths shows negative results? Why then patients, homeopaths visits clinics regularily & repetedly? Is it morning/evening walks, show dramas, to pass time & to give donations? I discussed with many patients & replies of most were positive. When you say placebo, then you still endorss effect--himeopathic or placebo is yet to calculate in absolute sense.

However, scientists HAVE studied homeopathy. Remember it has been around for 200 years. They have even been making experiments. It HAS all been done, Kumar.
And the firm, absolutely firm conclusion is: It does not work. It never worked, and it never will work. What benefit patients get from homeopathy is simply placebo.


So many 'misses, weaknesses, pendings' are/can still be there to arrive at an absolute & final conclusion.



The most important condition is 'to become firm & fully dedicated by conducting survey first'.

Translation: You need to believe .

No, To you "believe" can be after knowing it in your language.

Sorry to burst your little bubble, but the big and mighty pharma companies don't give a hoot about systems and "languages". All they care about is money. If any homeopathic remedy could be shown to work, it would now say "Glaxo" on the label.

YES, thanks, that can be a hindrance for taking knowledge out of the minds of homeopathic community.

Practical observations, experiances & time testings can be more important considerations than tests & DB studies,

[b[No, you are wrong.[/b]

No.

These adversities were also found using protocols. Not just hearsay.

No, Many medicines really shown adversities( as DBI--lactic acidosis). Whatever way you mould, still many medicines have failed, modified, banned, shown adversities etc. after practical experiances & time testings. Who knows, set protocols as on today are still wrong & we are just taking those concentrated chemicals with possible adversities, by wrongly set protocols, at any date we may find that we were just used for experimenting these without "absolute" knowledge about same?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Do you want to say that results of survey of homeopathic clinics, patients & homeopaths shows negative results?

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying.

Why then patients, homeopaths visits clinics regularily & repetedly?

Homeopaths because they make a living that way. Patients, becuase they are led to believe it works. By homeopaths.

I discussed with many patients & replies of most were positive.

And they are wrong.

When you say placebo, then you still endorss effect--himeopathic or placebo is yet to calculate in absolute sense.

I don't endorse effect. It is a known fact that people feel better when they think they are being treated. That might be OK if all that was wrong with them was nervous or things that go over anyway, but there are some seriously ill patients consulting homeopaths (just read hpathy), and they get nothing but placebo and a kind word.

So many 'misses, weaknesses, pendings' are/can still be there to arrive at an absolute & final conclusion.

No.

Sorry to burst your little bubble, but the big and mighty pharma companies don't give a hoot about systems and "languages". All they care about is money. If any homeopathic remedy could be shown to work, it would now say "Glaxo" on the label.

YES, thanks, that can be a hindrance for taking knowledge out of the minds of homeopathic community.

Nonsense. It is all there in writing. Anybody can look it up and make their own remedies. The homeopathic community has no secrets. As for hindrances to taking knowledge out of the minds of homeopaths, I withold my comments .

Watch it, BTW; that sentence was almost perfect English. Don't let your front slip .

No, Many medicines really shown adversities( as DBI--lactic acidosis). Whatever way you mould, still many medicines have failed, modified, banned, shown adversities etc. after practical experiances & time testings.

That was not what I said. I said it was not just hearsay like the support for homeopathy, those adverse affects were disclosed using rigorous field test protocols.

This is a tired old strawman that homeopaths love to ride: Some drugs were banned, so DBPC tests are no good. This is nonsense. DBPC tests are used for finding eficacy of drugs, the extent of those protocols cannot and are not supposed to discover rare side-effects. It is a hard fact of pharmacology, that rare side-effects can only be found in the field.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying.

Homeopaths because they make a living that way. Patients, becuase they are led to believe it works. By homeopaths.

And they are wrong.

I don't endorse effect. It is a known fact that people feel better when they think they are being treated. That might be OK if all that was wrong with them was nervous or things that go over anyway, but there are some seriously ill patients consulting homeopaths (just read hpathy), and they get nothing but placebo and a kind word.

No, you can get many positive replies in homeopathic clinics. Although, you can mould it as placebo in view of least measurable adversities with these, these looks specifics & differant than placebo.

Nonsense. It is all there in writing. Anybody can look it up and make their own remedies. The homeopathic community has no secrets. As for hindrances to taking knowledge out of the minds of homeopaths, I withold my comments .

Watch it, BTW; that sentence was almost perfect English. Don't let your front slip .

..or you can think that homeopaths are not serious in finding its science due to take-over fear--so not serious about researching.


That was not what I said. I said it was not just hearsay like the support for homeopathy, those adverse affects were disclosed using rigorous field test protocols.

This is a tired old strawman that homeopaths love to ride: Some drugs were banned, so DBPC tests are no good. This is nonsense. DBPC tests are used for finding eficacy of drugs, the extent of those protocols cannot and are not supposed to discover rare side-effects. It is a hard fact of pharmacology, that rare side-effects can only be found in the field.

It is(italic ones) interesting & serious to know it. Side/adverse/toxic effects along with real effects are of great importance for pre-introduction exposure in public, in view of concentrated chemicals mostly other than food, are used in modern medicines. Is it not right to think that field of mass public is used as experimenting ground for these concentrated chemicals with possibilty of strong adversities. In this sense, I am right to think that 'fields of mass public' or real practical experiances & time testing is more OR of great importance.

 

[MRC_Hans]

No, you can get many positive replies in homeopathic clinics. Although, you can mould it as placebo in view of least measurable adversities with these, these looks specifics & differant than placebo.

Of course you can. You can get positive replies in ANY clinic. If people did not believe it worked, they wouldn't go there. How can you distinguish between placebo and real effects?

..or you can think that homeopaths are not serious in finding its science due to take-over fear--so not serious about researching.

It doesn't matter what homeopaths think. We all know what homeopathy is about, if we care to read Hahnemann and a few others. It has been sitting there for 200 years, for crying out loud; do you really, really think none of the pharma companies have looked into it to see if there was an easy buck to fetch?

It is(italic ones) interesting & serious to know it.

And you didn't know? Your ignorance never ceases to surprise me.

Side/adverse/toxic effects along with real effects are of great importance for pre-introduction exposure in public, in view of concentrated chemicals mostly other than food, are used in modern medicines.

Of course they are important. And the pre-introduction trials are testing for any adverse effects that can be predicted.

Is it not right to think that field of mass public is used as experimenting ground for these concentrated chemicals with possibilty of strong adversities.

There is no other alternative. An unpredictable adverse effect that happens to, say, one patient in 10,000 can ONLY be found after you apply the drug to tens of thousands of patients. There IS no other way to do it.

In this sense, I am right to think that 'fields of mass public' or real practical experiances & time testing is more OR of great importance.

Duh. Nobody said they were not. Your arguments for it were faulty, that's all.

There is a deep and lasting irony in having a proponent of homeopathy (and any other alternative system) complain about conventional medicine "using the public as experimenting ground":

Kumar, that is what homeopathy is doing ALL THE TIME! Homeopathy is one big and continuous experiment on patients. It is simply the way it works. Take the case, prescribe an individual remedy that nobody can document the exact effect of, see how it works, retake the case, make a new prescription, etc.

All experiments.

(Congratulations for scoring yet another bulls-eye in own foot ).

Hans

 

[Kumar]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Of course you can. You can get positive replies in ANY clinic. If people did not believe it worked, they wouldn't go there. How can you distinguish between placebo and real effects?

Thats what I am saying, you can easily get positive report by survey in homeopathic clincs, means practical experiances, observations & time testings of mass... Whether these positives are by real effect or by placebo--is yet pending to find just in science. But true purpose & goal of any treatment can be; 1. healing 2. least adversities 3. least expensive..... --if these are fulfilled in this sequence, it means purpose is served--whether it is real or placebo. Even on placebo, if you get more beneficial results & aspects than harmful results & aspects, we can think on this also accordingly to get nett positive results & least adversities & costs. We can also consider in dividing as; most under non convenrional treatments(Potencies) and some balance more serious one under conventional treatments(Crudes). I don't know, how much it is right to immediate jump into "Crudes" even for small, small problems which can form major part of all problems.

It doesn't matter what homeopaths think. We all know what homeopathy is about, if we care to read Hahnemann and a few others. It has been sitting there for 200 years, for crying out loud; do you really, really think none of the pharma companies have looked into it to see if there was an easy buck to fetch?

Then, it is not a fault of homeopaths, they don't want so don't do or don't tell, you/pharma companies can't do as yet. Furthur, I am not sure if they can be able to fetch easy buck, probably they may not able to charge high price & so % of profit can be much lesser. Moreover, if problems could be cured in homepathic thiinkings/theory--problems, turnover, profit percentage etc. can be substancially reduced--just in thinking dynamically & in long term. It may therefore, be not in their pure commercial interests.

And you didn't know? Your ignorance never ceases to surprise me.

If you can judge an ignorance, you can't be surprised. It is something else.

Of course they are important. And the pre-introduction trials are testing for any adverse effects that can be predicted.

Do you want to say that, all the adversities found on practical testing in field are previously estimated. HOW then field applications to all public can be possible?

There is no other alternative. An unpredictable adverse effect that happens to, say, one patient in 10,000 can ONLY be found after you apply the drug to tens of thousands of patients. There IS no other way to do it.

Should we take this percentage (one in ten thousand adverse, 9999 positive) as valid reason to ban any medicine?



Duh. Nobody said they were not. Your arguments for it were faulty, that's all.

There is a deep and lasting irony in having a proponent of homeopathy (and any other alternative system) complain about conventional medicine "using the public as experimenting ground":

In your previous sayings, it looks common public is used as 'experimenting ground', even more than that. Do pharma companies or other authorities, pay for it OR charge for doing these experiments? I think they should not atleast charge, till practically experiances & time tested--say 3-10 years at least is over.

Kumar, that is what homeopathy is doing ALL THE TIME! Homeopathy is one big and continuous experiment on patients. It is simply the way it works. Take the case, prescribe an individual remedy that nobody can document the exact effect of, see how it works, retake the case, make a new prescription, etc.

All experiments.

(Congratulations for scoring yet another bulls-eye in own foot ).

Hans

Even experiments; Still with least advesities, 200 years persistant track record, less cost, less painful, more time devoted by healer...etc. Just compare. This much persistance, even much less than this, is not there in any real modern medicine. Is it not so?

 

[steenkh]

Even experiments; Still with least advesities, 200 years persistant track record, less cost, less painful, more time devoted by healer...etc. Just compare. This much persistance, even much less than this, is not there in any real modern medicine. Is it not so?

Since the homoeopathy does not have a better track record than doing nothing at all, why not skip the expensive remedies and just concentrate on the consultation? Even less cost, even less painful, and more time devoted by "healer", just compare!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Thats what I am saying, you can easily get positive report by survey in homeopathic clincs, means practical experiances, observations & time testings of mass... Whether these positives are by real effect or by placebo--is yet pending to find just in science.

No, it is not pending. Placebo (broadly speaking) can explain all the results, no effect of remedies can be found. Conclusion: It is not the remedies that cure. Until such time as either:

- A plausible mode of action can be theorized

- Effect can be shown empirically

- science has better things to do.

But true purpose & goal of any treatment can be; 1. healing 2. least adversities 3. least expensive.....

Obviously.

--if these are fulfilled in this sequence, it means purpose is served--whether it is real or placebo.

Obviously, but why charge the patient money for sugar pills in the process?

Even on placebo, if you get more beneficial results & aspects than harmful results & aspects, we can think on this also accordingly to get nett positive results & least adversities & costs.

Problem is, placebo doesn't really cure much. Patients "cured" by placebo were not physically ill, or they would have recovered anyway. For real disease, placebo does not cut the cake.

We can also consider in dividing as; most under non convenrional treatments(Potencies) and some balance more serious one under conventional treatments(Crudes).

Translate to English, please.

I don't know, how much it is right to immediate jump into "Crudes" even for small, small problems which can form major part of all problems.

So who is treating for small, small problems? Wait, homeopaths do! The conventional MD will tell you: "No need to take medicine for that. If you feel too uncomfortable, take an Aspirin, but it will go over by itself."

But the homeopath will "take" your case, and charge you for that and some sugar pills.

Then, it is not a fault of homeopaths, they don't want so don't do or don't tell, you/pharma companies can't do as yet.

Translate to English, please.

Furthur, I am not sure if they can be able to fetch easy buck, probably they may not able to charge high price & so % of profit can be much lesser.

Another strawman. Cheap medicine is very profitable. No developement costs, no patent costs, no risk. Just churn out cheapo pills. They love it.

Moreover, if problems could be cured in homepathic thiinkings/theory--problems, turnover, profit percentage etc. can be substancially reduced--just in thinking dynamically & in long term. It may therefore, be not in their pure commercial interests.

Nonsense again. Somebody will do it. There is competition. But it is no risk; obviously, homeopathy cannot improve general health. It has had 200 years to try.

Do you want to say that, all the adversities found on practical testing in field are previously estimated. HOW then field applications to all public can be possible?

No, that is not what I said. Go back and read again.

Should we take this percentage (one in ten thousand adverse, 9999 positive) as valid reason to ban any medicine?

The ratio depends. If a treatment can save you from certain death, you will be willing to risk serious adverse effects. If it can lighten your headache, you won't.

In your previous sayings, it looks common public is used as 'experimenting ground', even more than that. Do pharma companies or other authorities, pay for it OR charge for doing these experiments? I think they should not atleast charge, till practically experiances & time tested--say 3-10 years at least is over.

Think all you will.

Even experiments; Still with least advesities, 200 years persistant track record, less cost, less painful, more time devoted by healer...etc.

Several wrongs here. Homeopathy is NOT cheap. You don't know if it has adversities, because there are no data. There is no track record.

Just compare. This much persistance, even much less than this, is not there in any real modern medicine. Is it not so?

So right you are. Luckily, modern medicine has not been fooling around with the same things for 200 years and still not knowint what is going on, like homeopathy.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

Since the homoeopathy does not have a better track record than doing nothing at all, why not skip the expensive remedies and just concentrate on the consultation? Even less cost, even less painful, and more time devoted by "healer", just compare!

To me & here, I think, it is least... healing substance. Track record means--with you? What other, which can fullfill least.. & mass.. conditions, with good track record with you?

 

[steenkh]

To me & here, I think, it is least... healing substance. Track record means--with you? What other, which can fullfill least.. & mass.. conditions, with good track record with you?

Completely unintelligible to me, but I think you want to say that homoeopathy has a good track record.

To which I can say that doing nothing also has a good track record, though it is not something that is often written down.

When I get the flu, I normally do nothing at all, and in a few days the illness is miraculously cured. A few years ago I contracted paratyfus and another virus I have forgotten the name of, and it took three weeks, but still without medication, these illnesses disappeared. The results of the blood tests I took when I came back from a travel in Egypt showed these viruses, but by the time my doctor knew which medicine I should take, I was already recovering.

These are just anecdotes, but so is most of the track record of homoeopathy.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
These are just anecdotes, but so is most of the track record of homoeopathy.

Correction: ALL of the track record of homeopathy. Carefully selected anecdotes, even.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans ]

No, it is not pending. Placebo (broadly speaking) can explain all the results, no effect of remedies can be found. Conclusion: It is not the remedies that cure. Until such time as either:

- A plausible mode of action can be theorized

- Effect can be shown empirically

- science has better things to do.

You are not considering practical experiances. Mode of action is in Homeopathic materia medica & other referances. Effects can be surveyed. Means what science/attuned public find anything better?


Obviously, but why charge the patient money for sugar pills in the process?

Many treatments under any system can be just be placebo/self healing...Somewhat you indicated 80%++?, All charges for these, psyctrists also charge. So why not homeopathy? Can a patient be healed by taking sugar at home without visiting homeopath accordingly? Major expense in these can be consultation & least in remedy's costs.

Problem is, placebo doesn't really cure much. Patients "cured" by placebo were not physically ill, or they would have recovered anyway. For real disease, placebo does not cut the cake.

It can't be said, absolutely, as yet. We also don't know WHO really cure, "HE" or Self or we???

We can also consider in dividing as; most under non convenrional treatments(Potencies) and some balance more serious one under conventional treatments(Crudes).

Translate to English, please.

In view of self healing & placebo effects--as anticipated, many can be " curative by self or attuned ". If we follow better health practices, we can still improve these to "most". I consider it as 'potency treatment'. But still some can't be treated without hard/invasive treatments, which I call as "Crude treatments". So, we can make specific room for both 'Crudes & potencies'.


So who is treating for small, small problems? Wait, homeopaths do! The conventional MD will tell you: "No need to take medicine for that. If you feel too uncomfortable, take an Aspirin, but it will go over by itself."

We mostly get pain killer, antibiotics, antacids...etc. for routine small, small diseases--even for viral fever. There are so many OTC medicines are there for many type of routine problems. Most earnings of most physicians can be on small/routine problems.???

But the homeopath will "take" your case, and charge you for that and some sugar pills.

But still, he don't give you adversities which you can get otherwise even for routine/self healing/placebo type problems--which may be many or most.

Then, it is not a fault of homeopaths, they don't want so don't do or don't tell, you/pharma companies can't do as yet.

Translate to English, please.

Big/easy buck can be for pharma companies as you indicated, not for homeopaths--so they don't research or don't tell. Pharma companies are yet unable to research it.

Another strawman. Cheap medicine is very profitable. No developement costs, no patent costs, no risk. Just churn out cheapo pills. They love it.

Don't you feel these will be more competitive so less priced, in view of least adversities & simple technology.

Nonsense again. Somebody will do it. There is competition. But it is no risk; obviously, homeopathy cannot improve general health. It has had 200 years to try.

Translate in english.

No, that is not what I said. Go back and read again.

You mentioned some predicted...

The ratio depends. If a treatment can save you from certain death, you will be willing to risk serious adverse effects. If it can lighten your headache, you won't.

No, I want to know why medicines are banned even by this small adversity of one in ten thousand. Some may be missing DBI as for some it was positive.

In your previous sayings, it looks common public is used as 'experimenting ground', even more than that. Do pharma companies or other authorities, pay for it OR charge for doing these experiments? I think they should not atleast charge, till practically experiances & time tested--say 3-10 years at least is over.

Think all you will.

Translate.

Several wrongs here. Homeopathy is NOT cheap. You don't know if it has adversities, because there are no data. There is no track record.

To me TRS is quite cheap, adversities in experiance of 200 years are considered as least (but I doubt ).

So right you are. Luckily, modern medicine has not been fooling around with the same things for 200 years and still not knowint what is going on, like homeopathy.

Means; you don't like persistance, practical long experiances, time testings, long track records, least adversities....etc. because you favour skepticism??

Mr. Hans,

Are we not moving in 'this & that types of same old repetitions' or leaning on slippery slope? Better, we can get something new, dynamic, modified, changed, different & materialistic--the style you prefer for your system/s & scepticism.

 

[Kumar]

Completely unintelligible to me, but I think you want to say that homoeopathy has a good track record.

To which I can say that doing nothing also has a good track record, though it is not something that is often written down.

When I get the flu, I normally do nothing at all, and in a few days the illness is miraculously cured. A few years ago I contracted paratyfus and another virus I have forgotten the name of, and it took three weeks, but still without medication, these illnesses disappeared. The results of the blood tests I took when I came back from a travel in Egypt showed these viruses, but by the time my doctor knew which medicine I should take, I was already recovering.

These are just anecdotes, but so is most of the track record of homoeopathy.

Have you benefitted or lost by this? You was knowing that these will be cured in itself--so got placebo/self healing effect. Others who don't understand?

Btw, I have a question,

Whether antibiotics clear latent diseases & disorders surviving in body or add to these or clear these but add some other? I am bit more woried about these. Can these latents be assessed as more of resistant to modern antibiotic types with epidamic type spread in near future, in view of modern imbalances--lifestyles, eco system, envirinment etc.? Can we/most have inherant pre-dispositions to these latent diseases in view of effect on our immunities of imbalances & antibiotic use in tons even for routine problems?

 

[Kumar]

Correction: ALL of the track record of homeopathy. Carefully selected anecdotes, even.

Hans

In view of scepticism, favor non-persistant & non ansolute nature,
do you still think about long & better track record. Which real medicine has long & better track record of 200 years or some less, BTW?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yawn. Modern medicine has a track record of constant improvement, of ever better understanding how things work.

Homeopathy has a track record of not moving one inch. Hahnemann didn't have any idea how it could work 200 years ago, modern homeopaths still use the same metods and still don't have any idea how they might work.

Modern medicine can test its results and document its achievements.

Homeopathy cannot tell the difference between two remedies or a remedy and blanks, and its only documentation is an unstructured collection of selected anecdotes.

Hans

 

[steenkh]

Have you benefitted or lost by this? You was knowing that these will be cured in itself--so got placebo/self healing effect. Others who don't understand?

Actually, I never know that any disease will be cured by itself, I just hope so. If an illness lasts to long or if there are indications that it is a more serious one, I go to a doctor just like verybody else. And, technically, this is not the placebo effect, because I am not under the impression that I have been takeing any medication. Our immune system is able to heal a long range of illnesses, and homoeopathy is just a way to spend time and money until the immune system has worked - if it will work!

Btw, I have a question,

Whether antibiotics clear latent diseases & disorders surviving in body or add to these or clear these but add some other? I am bit more woried about these. Can these latents be assessed as more of resistant to modern antibiotic types with epidamic type spread in near future, in view of modern imbalances--lifestyles, eco system, envirinment etc.? Can we/most have inherant pre-dispositions to these latent diseases in view of effect on our immunities of imbalances & antibiotic use in tons even for routine problems?

What latent diseases are you thinking about? You can carry the HIV virus in you for a long time without knowing it, and only limited effect is achieved by the specialised drugs that have been produced in recent years. You can also carry a gene defect that may or may never materialise into an illness. The effect of drugs upon illnesses caused by gene defects depends on what gene defect we are speaking about.

Misuse of drugs always carry the risk of developing an illness. If you are living in certain places, like Sri Lanka, you may accumulate an arsenium poisoning over the years by drinking plain water.

The modern imbalances you are talking about is just b*t. People are living longer and are healthier today, a sure sign that if there are any "imbalances" (whatever they are) at all, then they are less than in ancient times. What you should look out for in modern life is junk food, stress and inactivity.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You are not considering practical experiances.

I am explaining practical experiences. My explanation is different from yours.

Mode of action is in Homeopathic materia medica & other referances.

No, not the mode of action. The claimed effects are there, but unverifiable. Nobody has yet repeated a proving in a double blind setup. As soon as blinding is applied, nobody can discern rmedies from blanks. This is a fact, deal with it.

Effects can be surveyed.

Surveys that have been done show no effect over placebo.

Obviously, but why charge the patient money for sugar pills in the process?

Many treatments under any system can be just be placebo/self healing...Somewhat you indicated 80%++?

No I dindn't. You misinterpreted a post of mine.

All charges for these, psyctrists also charge. So why not homeopathy?

Nobody should charge for a treatment that has no effect.

Can a patient be healed by taking sugar at home without visiting homeopath accordingly?

Well, what is YOUR answer to that question? Because if the remedies did work, the answer would be yes.

In view of self healing & placebo effects--as anticipated, many can be " curative by self or attuned ". If we follow better health practices, we can still improve these to "most". I consider it as 'potency treatment'.

Why do you call it potency treatment? What has it to do with potency?? Listen, you are difficult enough t ounderstand without inventing your own vocabulary.

But still some can't be treated without hard/invasive treatments, which I call as "Crude treatments". So, we can make specific room for both 'Crudes & potencies'.

And?


So who is treating for small, small problems? Wait, homeopaths do! The conventional MD will tell you: "No need to take medicine for that. If you feel too uncomfortable, take an Aspirin, but it will go over by itself."

Big/easy buck can be for pharma companies as you indicated, not for homeopaths

I don't know about that. In the US, the charge for a homeopathic consultation is often over 100$, and a bottle of sugar pills is 20$. Considering that the expenses are practically nil, that confirms to my definition of an easy buck.

--so they don't research or don't tell. Pharma companies are yet unable to research it.

Why should they be unable to research it? Don't you think they can read the books?

Don't you feel these will be more competitive so less priced, in view of least adversities & simple technology.

Actually, I don't, since they don't work. But if they worked, they would be. But so are aspirins and such. As you note yourself, they are not in short supply.

No, I want to know why medicines are banned even by this small adversity of one in ten thousand. Some may be missing DBI as for some it was positive.

And I answered, but to elaborate: Vioxx, the latest example, is "just" a pain-killer. We have other painkillers, so even a small risk for giving a patient a heart atttack is unacceptable.

Insulin can make people that would otherwise die live long and healthy lives, so we accept that an overdose can kill a patient.

To me TRS is quite cheap, adversities in experiance of 200 years are considered as least (but I doubt ).

I don't doubt it. Sugar pills don't have many adverse effects. The point is, if they have an effect, there will be adverse effects. But since no data are recorded, you will never know.

Means; you don't like persistance, practical long experiances, time testings, long track records, least adversities....etc. because you favour skepticism??

Nope, it means I like things that work.

Mr. Hans,

Are we not moving in 'this & that types of same old repetitions'

Yes we are. Why do you think this is?

or leaning on slippery slope? Better, we can get something new, dynamic, modified, changed, different & materialistic--the style you prefer for your system/s & scepticism.

Right, so what is "new, dynamic, modified, changed, different" about your 200 year old, unchanging system?

Hans

 

[Rolfe]

i've changed my mind. i originally thought that Kumar was a true, non troll, moron, but i now think he is a troll. a very good troll, and a dedicated troll even. the 3rd law of motion quip was just too sublimely moronic to have come out of the mouth of a natural moron. of course, if Kumar is an actual true to nature moron, he makes Blatheri(nteresti)ng I(an)diot look positively brilliant. nobelesque, even.

Did you vote, yet?

Rolfe.