Veterinary homoeopathy illegal?

Sarah-I said:
Homeopathy is:-

- a well established and complete system of medicine which has been in world wide use for over 200 years;

- a natural, safe, effective and scientific system of healing which supports the body's natural desire to heal itself;

- a holistic approach to health, which incorporates the emotional and mental aspects of a persons well-being in addition to the physical.
Click to expand...

Ok at short notice I can't think of any system that fits this description

Clasical homeopthy fails on:

in world wide use for over 200 years (find it being used in mongolia 200 years ago)

Natural (so all that shaking and making up remedies is natural?)
effective
scientific (proving get about as far from the scientific method as you can)
which supports the body's natural desire to heal itself (no evidence of this)
 
Sarah-I said:
Homeopathy is:-
Click to expand...
Sarah, you are describing some qualities you think homeopathy has, but you are not defining what homeopathy is. If you give a definition of homeopathy, we should be able to look at a practice and decide "that is homeopathy" or "that is not homeopathy".
 
The body needs to keep in balance within very fine limits and this is called homeostatis. The body knows what it needs to do to keep healthy. If you cut your finger, mechanisms within your body heal this. So yes, the body does heal itself. If it can't, then it produces symtoms. It is then that a good homeopathic remedy is indicated.
 
Still curious Sarah...

Are you the "Super Sarah", then the "Sarah 68" that used to be the "resident expert" on Homeopathy at HealthBoards.com?

That Sarah, in explaining "Provings", mentioned some kind of a "Buddy System" where any two provers had contact information with the other during the proving...I assume telephone numbers, maybe email. I thought that rather prejudicial to this "proving" process. Perhaps you can confirm (or not) whether this actually occurs & why.
 
Rolfe said:
And I never said you ever said that all "allopaths" are evil. I think others have already provided quite enough examples of your regular habit of denigrating real medicine whenever you can. Though, as I've said from the start, you clearly have little or no idea of how rude you frequently are.

Now, let's agree on one thing. "Allopathy" is a fictitious system of medicine characterised by treating with opposites. If mainstream medicine could ever have been characterised as doing that (it certainly never adopted it as a philosophical approach, or declared it to be a natural law), these days are long gone. I never studied anything called "allopathy", nor was I ever taught that treating symptoms by substances producing the opposite signs was a natural law, nor was it ever suggested to me that this was a reasonable approach to any branch of medicine. And this goes for every other qualified doctor and dentist and vet alive today.

So, if you use the term "allopathy", I will assume that you are speaking of this nebulous "treat with opposites" philosophy, which if it ever existed, evaporated sometime in the late 19th century. Nothing to do with me. Or anybody else.

So, I do NOT agree that allopathy is perfect, or beneficial, or necessary, or anything other than a term made up by Hahnemann to describe his take on what some of his contemporaries were doing.

If you want to talk about conventional medicine, scientific medicine, evidence-based medicine or whatever, I suggest you find a term both parties will recognise.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
Well - you are wrong - "allopathy" is the treatment by methods other than like cures like - Antipathy is the cure by opposites.

And guess what, I never studied in "woo" nope, never took a course called that, never ever, and yet....

I have posted before that "allopathy" can be found in use to refer to conventional medicine by folks other than homeopaths.
 
Huh - apparently several school do actually teach "allopathy" and confer an MD do those who study allopathy.

ttp://www.princetonreview.com/medical/research/articles/decide/allopathic.asp

Allopathic Medicine

Allopathic schools confer the M.D. on their graduates, and allopathic training is by far the most widely available and recognized type of medical training. Allopathic institutions in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada are accredited by the American Association of Medical Colleges, (AAMC). Teaching methodology varies among schools.

http://www.providence.edu/Premed/Health+Professions/Allopathic+Medicine.htm
Allopathic Medicine



Description Physicians are licensed to perform medical examinations, diagnose illnesses, treat people suffering from disease or injury and advise patients on how to maintain good health. They may be general practitioners or specialists and may combine medical practice with research and/or teach in medical schools.
Degree M.D.
Program Length 4 Years
Professional Schools’ Organization AAMC (American Association of Medical Colleges)http://www.aamc.org
Application Service AMCAS (American Medical College Association Application Service)http://www.aamc.org/students/amcas/start.htm
Academic Admission Requirements 1 Year each: Biology, General Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Math (through calculus), Physics, English.
Admission Exam MCAT (Medical College Admission Test)http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat
Personal Attributes & Experiences Integrity, responsibility, leadership, social maturity, purpose, motivation, initiative, curiosity, common sense, perseverance and breadth of interets; Humanitarian concern; Understanding of profession developed through experiences in health care settings, especially clinical, talking to health professions, reading the literature, exposure to undergraduate research.
Recommendation Letters Health Professions Committee letter (usually confidential) sent with additional individual letters of support.
 
Seems to me the last time you posted this lot, someone did a number on the whole thing, and pointed out that one of the links (or was it more than one?) was a fake, pretending to be a well-known medical school but with a subtly different url. Maybe that someone would care to repeat the exercise, in the interests of parsimony? How come we can demolish points these guys make on Monday, and they just come back on Wednesday with the same erroneous assertions?

Do you prefer to argue sterile points like this, or to address the interesting questions BSM has posed?

You must realise that the question "what is homoeopathy?" is intended to give us some idea what is included within the discipline.

You say dowsing isn't, though I know a veterinary homoeopath who dowses for remedies and has at least one paper published in Homeopathy which used this method and which was never criticised for it.

BSM has also asked about
Multiple tablets

Repeated dosing

Combination therapy as promoted by Wim and unchallenged by you

Adherence to and dependence on conventional medical diagnoses

Prescribing to those diagnoses without taking full homeopathic histories

Use of "constitutional remedies"

Using homeopathy as a complement to medicine rather than as an alternative

"Grafting"

"Plussing"

The lack of leather bound Bibles in pharmacies

All the other problems of manufacture that mean you have no idea what the pharmacies are really selling you or which of the various steps in manufacture are required to produce a successful remedy.
Click to expand...
I'm also genuinely interested to find out the answers to that lot.

You mentioned "like cures like", and I know that other homoeopaths also assert that any example of this, including examples from conventional medicine, are in fact the practice of homoeopathy. (So I can't understand why they are so much against vaccination.) However, homoeopathy surely isn't just like cures like? What about all the diluting and succussing? Really, what do you include within the practice of homoeopathy, and what do you exclude?

Oh, and I think I missed the part where you explained how the word "natural" is applicable to homoeopathy. Would you mind repeating it?

Sarah has given a completely useless definition of homoeopathy, which is no great surprise. Though I'd like to know what she means by "complete" (as in "a complete system of medicine"). I would also like to know how she can describe something in which it is impossible to demonstrate any rational mode of action, or any effect above placebo in controlled trials, or even to distinguish the "medicines" from the unmedicated carrier material as "scientific".

Look, we're just fed up with every situation where we encounter a homoeopath doing weird things, meeting the dismissal that "this isn't homoeopathy" - even though the person doing it clearly thinks it is. So, what practices do you accept as "real" homoeopathy?

Rolfe.
 
Sarah-I said:
Homeopathy is:-

- a well established and complete system of medicine which has been in world wide use for over 200 years;

- a natural, safe, effective and scientific system of healing which supports the body's natural desire to heal itself;

- a holistic approach to health, which incorporates the emotional and mental aspects of a persons well-being in addition to the physical.
Click to expand...
Oh well, Sarah, avoid saying anything meaningful, why not?

So, can you explain what you mean by "complete"?

And in what way all this shaking and diluting (of stuff like antimatter no less) is "natural"?

And how you reconcile the term "safe" with all the accounts of aggravations and so on that we hear, even you yourself I believe once claimed to know someone who had killed a dog with homoeopathy. Just one example, from a recent thread a H'pathy
Dear FBDF

Pl.stop going to the homeopath you were referring to.

If you can't find a good homeopath, better stick to allopathy, till you find one.

Your homeopath will cause more harm than your allopathic medication.

Allopathy may not cure,may lead to suppression etc,but it is better than the type of treatment your homeopath is giving.

Murthy
Click to expand...
So if the remedies are so safe, how come this incompetent can possibly be doing harm?

(If we labelled conventional medicine as "safe" and then justified this by the circular argument of declaring that any adverse event wasn't, by definition, "medicine", how would you react?)

Please provide evidence of effectiveness. As we've asked you to dozens of times, but no evidence has been forthcoming.

And how do you justify the use of the word "scientific", when the practices are more akin to magic than science (e.g. that grafting joke), and science has not even been able to find any way of distinguishing an allegedly "potentised" product from the inert carrier material, and the "scientific" method of determining efficacy of a medicinal product, the controlled trial, consistently delivers a verdict of bugger-all effect?

I don't know why I'm bothering, because I've no hope that you'll address any of this in a meaningful manner, or explain how we can tell a "true" homoeopath from one you'll dismiss as "no true homoeopath". I suppose I just like laying your intellectual bankruptcy bare.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe,

Unfortunately, as Barb has told you before, you will have to do better than this if you want answers to questions.

Barb is a homeopath, but she is not stupid at all. I am a homeopath now too and I am not stupid either. I also have qualifications in nursing that includes postgrad studies too.

I think perhaps that just because you are a vet, you feel you are superior and a cut above everyone else. Not so.
 
Sarah-I said:
Rolfe,

Unfortunately, as Barb has told you before, you will have to do better than this if you want answers to questions.
Click to expand...

Ooh, it's all mystical knowledge is it? is there a special handshake and everything?

Just answer the frickin' questions Sarah. The way to convince someone you're not stupid is to show intelligence not just repeating "I'm not stupid". Remember, as an intelligent person, you told us that calcium plaques in the neck dislodge and cause strokes. You've got a nice little list of questions to be going on with and a whole thread about homeopathic "grafting" just beggong for you to defend that concept. Off you go.

Sarah-I said:
Barb is a homeopath, but she is not stupid at all. I am a homeopath now too and I am not stupid either. I also have qualifications in nursing that includes postgrad studies too.
Click to expand...

But those qualifications missed out instruction in English grammar, it would seem
 
Sarah-I said:
The body needs to keep in balance within very fine limits and this is called homeostatis. The body knows what it needs to do to keep healthy. If you cut your finger, mechanisms within your body heal this. So yes, the body does heal itself. If it can't, then it produces symtoms. It is then that a good homeopathic remedy is indicated.
Click to expand...


Your "complete" system of medicine doesn't grow many fingers back. Funny that. Maybe you should potentise some ground up salamander.
 
JUST IN CASE ANYONE HASN'T NOTICED....

Sarah and Barb are playing their silly little game again of avoiding the questions they can't answer by trying to divert attention to a discussion about the discussion itself, a tendency to which I have just contributed and will now stop.

Just answer the questions and no more attempts at misdirection, please.
 
Sarah-I said:
The body needs to keep in balance within very fine limits and this is called homeostatis. The body knows what it needs to do to keep healthy. If you cut your finger, mechanisms within your body heal this. So yes, the body does heal itself. If it can't, then it produces symtoms. It is then that a good homeopathic remedy is indicated.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but this still doesn't tell me what homeopathy is. It doesn't say anything about the practice itself.

If I were to treat this as a definition, I would be forced to conclude that taking aspirin for a fever was homeopathy, but that taking a superdilute solution of whatever for an infection was not. And I do not think that is what you intended to imply.

I am not looking for a description of the virtues you think homeopathy has, or any theoretical basis for it. I am asking you how I am supposed to tell when a practice X is or is not homeopathy. I (and others) ask this because frequently when we criticize some practice or another, we hear "but that is not homeopathy." Thus, we need to be able to tell which practice are and which practices aren't.

That should not be very difficult to do. See, I will give you an example: conventional medicine is the use of whatever treatment is mostly likely cure an ill, extend life or quality thereof, and ameliorate suffering, based on our current understanding of the scientific evidence for or against that treatment, and taking into consideration the tradeoffs and side-effects the treatment may have.

I'm sure BSM, ThirdTwin or Rolfe can give a better definition than the one I did, because I am only a lowly computer programmer with pretensions of being a physicist, but given your expertise in homeopathy, you should be able to give me a definition of homeopathy that's at least as good as that.
 
Sarah-I said:
Unfortunately, as Barb has told you before, you will have to do better than this if you want answers to questions.
Click to expand...
You mean there's more to it than just trying to ask the questions as clearly as possible? What do you want, paying?

(Crikey, and I even took the snippy remarks out of BSM's questions to try to give them one less excuse to avoid answering. So she just plain refuses to answer....)

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:

Do you prefer to argue sterile points like this, or to address the interesting questions BSM has posed?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Please Rolfe -explain to me why it is perfectly exceptable for you to take the time and energy to post an entire post regarding my ignorant usage of the term allopathy and yet when I refute what you say - providing evidence to back up my comments I am simply wasting time - or evading?

There is such an unbelievable double standard with this group it is sickening.

Explain aslo, why if I miss a few frigging hours in not replying I am evading and yet - Prester John who first requsted my definition of homeopathy hasn't replied yet and no one cares - ooh is he evading my answer - ooooh.

Regarding the allopathy term - one of my links is to the britannica encyclopedia site - another is to Med terms - a totally ALLOPATHIC site - I can find a bunch more examples if you like. Oh, no comments on how allopathy is not cure by opposites? No comment on how your favorite term "woo" is totally unacceptable to me but that doesn't matter, does it? YOu get to post whatever you like regarding this topic and when I do I am wasting time - huh.
 
Rolfe said:
You mean there's more to it than just trying to ask the questions as clearly as possible? What do you want, paying?

(Crikey, and I even took the snippy remarks out of BSM's questions to try to give them one less excuse to avoid answering. So she just plain refuses to answer....)

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Or yikes - she has a life beyond this lovely place - Now I have made that clear many times before so my questio to you - why must you continue with your petty little digs?

ANd gee taking those snippy remarks out made so much of a difference, until I read any of your other posts with your own included.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:


Just answer the questions and no more attempts at misdirection, please.
Click to expand...

Hey the ball is in your court - just stop the rudeness and just watch how nice and accomidating I can be. Easy as pie - and all within the control of you folks. The only time I "misdirect" as you say is when I feel the need to defend myself due to some nastiness or outright lie - I never just throw out these "misdirected " posts randomly, ya know.
 
Barbrae said:
Regarding the natural law comment - again, prester asked for MY definition of homeopathy - not to "prove" anything. BTW I have already discussed the natural comment in another post.
Click to expand...
You stated "Homeopathy...is the healing of disease...through the natural law that like cures like" as part of your definition of homeopathy. If you assert there is such a natural law then you have to be able to back up that assertion with some facts. A natural law is a law of nature that is extremely well defined, usually with mathematics.

Please provide a link to the post that discusses the natural comment. I am unable to find it.

If like always cured like then you would surely have no difficulty curing cancer by using a substance that is capable of causing cancer symptoms. Do you have such a remedy? There's a lot of suffering going on in the oncology wards that could do with relieving.

Regarding treating allergies with dilute allergens - It depends on what symptoms are produced and what is being looked at to cure, however - treating same with same is isopathy not homeopathy. Homeopathy is like or similar, isopathy is exactly the same.
Click to expand...
So you would use something like, say, pepper for a hayfever remedy?

BTW, you have not addressed one of my other concerns:
If the remedy given is not capable of producing the same symtpoms intended to cure and amelioration of symptoms doesn't happen then it is not homeopathy.
Click to expand...
Kiwi Kid replied: So first the provings have to show the same symptoms, and second, even if you have the correct remedy, it is not homeopathy unless the symptoms are ameliorated? Bit of a get-out-of-jail-free card don't you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom