Homeopathy: proven effectiveness in India

[pedrodelavega]

janic wrote: So I repeat again, the comparative example of a surgeon and a butcher.

Comparing a butcher and a surgeon makes no sense, their job does not have the same goal ...

In case you did not understand it, the comparison begins and ends with the cutting of the bunch, so common point as the A and the H have a common point which is to take care of the patients, but not in the same goal either.

It's the same goal: To care for the sick.

I have to choose between a thermal or electric car for the same purpose: Getting around. // I have to choose between an allopathic or homeopathic "car" for the same purpose: To move.
Except, in the case of the homeopathic "car", even before trying to explain how it works, it would already be necessary to prove that it moves.
The followers of the homeopathic "car" would undoubtedly put it on a slope and say that it advances of itself.
In the same case, those of the allopathic would compare it with a blind placebo "car" (without engine) (hood closed).

[izentrop]

Pedro, the analogy is correct, on the other hand the use of the word "allopathic" should not be used, because it is a pejorative word invented by the homeopaths to discredit "conventional" medicine.
In addition this word gives me buttons (imaginary, but still )

[Janic]

In case you did not understand it, the comparison begins and ends with the cutting of the bunch, so common point as the A and the H have a common point which is to take care of the patients, but not in the same goal either.

It's the same goal: To care for the sick.

You simply forget this:
The first seek to to remove symptoms with toxic products, and it works, the second ones seek to make restore disturbed organic functions with non-toxic products and it works too.
The aim of conventional medicine is to make the symptoms disappear, which is not the same thing as having the aim of restoring deficient functions.
For example if you have your car radiator clogged, symptom manifested by the smoke that comes out of the hood and that you just put cold water, which will make disappear this symptom; it is different than putting a product that will clean the circuit and putting back water, the system will significantly improve the cooling function.
An important point, however, homeopathy is not a miraculous medicine as some would like to believe; and so clean a water circuit without changing the causes that led to it (and the H does not change the causes either) it is only a temporary intervention too.

I have to choose between a thermal or electric car for the same purpose: Getting around. // I have to choose between an allopathic or homeopathic "car" for the same purpose: To move.
Except, in the case of the homeopathic "car", even before trying to explain how it works, it would already be necessary to prove that it moves.
The followers of the homeopathic "car" would undoubtedly put it on a slope and say that it advances of itself.
In the same case, those of the allopathic would compare it with a blind placebo "car" (without engine) (hood closed).

Your comparison is interesting, but partially false. Indeed what differentiates the thermal from the electric or the hydrogen, it is not the displacement (the final objective) but the means implemented. And we come to this;

Except, in the case of the homeopathic "car", even before trying to explain how it works, it would already be necessary to prove that it moves.

The development of the automobile began with the steam engines
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronolog ... automobile
and no one believed in it until its development was done by multiplying them competed the vehicles on horseback and the literature of the time "showed" all the consequences and even the utopia of this kind of means. Decades later, it is clear that the opponents did not prevent its development which depended less on the industrialists than the users.
The H is the same thing: on the one hand the conservatives who do not see in another way than COMPETITION who can endanger their business, which works! And on the other hand, progressives who see H as another means of care whose reputation is growing more and more in the world, after having been denigrated for two centuries, and it is not, here too, the manufacturers who are the cause, but the users who make fun of the opposition speeches of the ones as the others, but who want concrete results on their pathology and who did not work with each other. (indeed, it is rare that the "patients" go directly to H, without first going through box A)

The followers of the homeopathic "car" would undoubtedly put it on a slope and say that it advances of itself.

And at the bottom of the slope, it would stop, but would not go back anyway: Is it the case?
So: does it work? That is, the car "H" works, without the motor of the A? It is the users who can say it, not the individuals hidden behind their vials and retorts. If these users say UNANIMOUSLY that "it rolls", (downhill as uphill), they are the ones who are right. And the so-called placebo side is laughable because placebos do not concern a particular technique, but INDIVIDUALS sensitive or insensitive to this meansregardless of the therapeutic system used.
This is the proof that claim his opponents who on the one hand are incompetent in this area and the other who cheat when to their conclusions on tests and comparisons unsuitable.

Pedro, the analogy is correct, on the other hand the use of the word "allopathic" should not be used, because it is a pejorative word invented by the homeopaths to discredit "conventional" medicine.

This point of view has been widely examined. The invention of a word, and each year it comes out new, has the function of specifying a point of view, a use. The A exists in fact, not in the word itself but in its function which is to give "anti"

 Allopathy: usual mode of medical treatment that fights disease using drugs which have an opposite effect to pathological phenomena.
https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/allopathie/2422

what differentiates it from the H

A therapeutic method of prescribing to a patient, in a highly diluted and energized form, a substance capable of produce disorders similar to those he presents.

Moreover, the medical literature opening adopted this term, regardless of "ideologies"

In addition this word gives me buttons (imaginary, but still)

Take homeopathy that does not just cure physical ailments, but also psychological ones.

[Janic]

homeopathy, as we can see, is the subject of contradictory discourses. But in fact, what is homeopathy? seen by a homeopath:

[Gébé]

View from another angle:

http://isc-zoelie.blogspot.com/2013/07/ ... s.html?m=1

[Janic]

View from another angle:
http://isc-zoelie.blogspot.com/2013/07/ ... s.html? m = 1

That's what is interesting about the web, it is that all points of view can be issued, especially by those who do not know anything about it. I will, again, dissect this speech, but I am not sure that it is read by the anti by principle of which you seem, obviously, to be part.
The question I ask myself each time is: did they check by themselves what they call quackery? whose definition is very precise, but that he (the author of the subject) must not have read, either, given the incoherence of his speech, as usual.
Now nothing prevents you from having an opinion by your experience, your experience (which may have been negative by the way) on this or that therapeutic, because, if I am not mistaken, the most relentless to criticize something are generally those who do not know nothing about it (whatever the subject besides) and especially which did not experience it.

[Gébé]

That's what's interesting about the web is that all points of view can be issued

On it we agree.

anti by principle which you obviously seem to be part of.

Double-blind studies have so far only shown a single placebo effect (it's sometimes better than nothing *), the day they bring proof to the contrary, I have a different opinion.

* homeopathy being "the medicine of the healthy who ignore each other", in this case, it is a very relevant therapy.

[Janic]

janic wrote: This is what is interesting about the web, it is that all points of view can be issued

On it we agree.

It is always that of acquit!

janic wrote: anti by principle of which you seem, obviously, to be part.

Double-blind studies have so far only shown a single placebo effect (sometimes it's better than nothing *),

The subject has been seen and reviewed. The allopathic study group self-employed Cochrane, who does meta-analyzes, has shown that the percentage of placebo in therapy is ridiculously small (study previously reported and it should be read, not just the other opinion) and this regardless of the therapy in question. So we must stop believing false blind studies unsuited to the subject.

the day they bring proof to the contrary, I have a different opinion.

They are not any studies, favorable or unfavorable to any subject, that it is necessary to believe, (no study has ever cured or healed anyone) but his own experiencewho will walk or not, obviously. AFTER you can always say that it did not work FOR YOU, exactly as one drug will be effective for one patient and no effect for another, and that you must have, possibly, checked.
Unless ... unless you're scared! Afraid to see you're wrong or rather that you have been cheated, that you trusted this speech, rather than another, (without prejudging here which one is which.) [*]

* homeopathy being "the medicine of the healthy who ignore each other", in this case, it is a very relevant therapy.

Still a mantra that goes in the sense that some want to tell each other, but that they do not want to test experimentally.
But it is the same mantra that immunization spreads, wanting to believe that this injection of pus in the body of their children will make them healthy, it is a very relevant therapy ... especially for labs.

[*] there we are before a sanitary absurdity. The parents find it dirty that their children put boogers nose in the mouth, they do not wash their hands to touch everything, which presents only little risk and at the same time we want them to believe that more sick animal, infected, injected into the blood (without a protective filter) will do good to their little darling! Where is the logic?

Now I have thought about the case of this charlatan lady.
self-report Institute Superior of Charlatology that characterizes the individual, but so far his case is understandable too.

Higher Institute of Charlatology

[i] The death of Zoélie

Posted: 11 AP 2015 12: 12 PM PDT

Founder of the SAI, victim and fighter, this is her story ...
She had cancer. And on the way to his illness, charlatans abused his trust. When cancer is reported, every second counts, and at first they hijacked effective treatments, reducing the chances of a cure to almost nothing.
Thereafter, on her own initiative, after personal research on the disease and treatments, she was finally supported by a highly competent medical team of great humanity. Zoélie was tremendously grateful to this team who took care of her with so much consideration and an endless hope of finding an effective treatment, despite more than late management.
If these charlatans, these criminals, had not crossed his path, she might still be here today.
Inspired by the incredible optimism, hope and motivation that animated her, despite the constant difficulties and suffering she was experiencing in her fight against the disease, we will continue to support the Higher Institute of Charlatology.
Indeed, his wish was that every reader of the Higher Institute of Charlatology has a chance to spot and avoid charlatans in time like the ones she met.
Thank you to all ISC readers! Your encouragement and messages of support were important to Zoélie! They motivated her and pushed her to continue, because you surely know it and she discovered it like us, the fight against the charlatans is not easy and detractors are numerous. That's why your presence has been so important to her.
We now need you to continue to fight so that such tragedies do not happen anymore.
In his memory ...
His family and friends

It turns out that I had, in very, very close, 5 cancers and 2 leukemias grouped together on two families, (all opposed to "charlatanism") who trusted the official treatments and who died from it ... also .
To the extent that the official system fails one out of two or three, it is not a panacea either. However, no doctor can commit to a partial or total cure: should we consider this important failure rate as quackery Have they abused his trust?
In all things we must know how to keep reason! And if the "charlatans" she consulted made a promise of healing and not improvement, it is indeed an abuse. However, this does not allow you to put all the eggs in the same basket; because cures of cancer or any other pathology, there are in both camps (although camp does not take care to say anything, so much there is difference between each "therapy" proposed in this catch-all which rejects all the medicine official monopoly)

[*] By experience, personal already, and in psychology, an individual has difficulty recognizing that his credulity has been abused.

[izentrop]

Double-blind studies have so far only shown a single placebo effect (sometimes it's better than nothing *),

The subject has been seen and reviewed. The Cochrane Independent Allopathic Study Group, which conducts meta-analyzes, has shown that the percentage of placebo in therapy is ridiculously small (study reported previously and should be read, not just the other opinion) and this regardless the therapy in question. So we must stop believing false blind studies unsuited to the subject.

Your sentence omitting the word "homeopathy" concerns medicine in general. Lie by omission?

the evidence is not convincing. No evidence has been established of clinically significant deleterious effects due to Oscillococcinum®. http://www.cochrane.org/fr/CD001957/osc ... pe-grippal

At least it can not hurt.

At the same time, the usefulness of such a study or 1% fermented wild duck liver diluted in ... the volume of the solar system is not seen, even if the duck was infested with H1N1 nothing would be left

Sorry to put it back, but it's worth its weight ... water or sugar

[Janic]

Janic wrote:

gebé wrote: Double-blind studies have so far only shown a single placebo effect (sometimes it's better than nothing *),

The subject has been seen and reviewed. The Cochrane Independent Allopathic Study Group, which conducts meta-analyzes, has shown that the percentage of placebo in therapy is ridiculously small (study reported previously and should be read, not just the other opinion) and this regardless the therapy in question. So we must stop believing false blind studies unsuited to the subject.

Your sentence omitting the word "homeopathy" concerns medicine in general. Lie by omission?

No omission! run your little gray cells. Would the patients be insensitive to placebos in A and hypersensitive in H, knowing that they are theoretically taken at random? This concerns all forms of medicine so!

the evidence is not convincing. No evidence has been established of clinically significant deleterious effects due to Oscillococcinum®. http://www.cochrane.org/fr/CD001957/osc ... pe-flu,

You have to read everything:
influenza and influenza-like syndromes.
Authors' conclusions:
There is not enough good evidence to draw solid conclusions on Oscillococcinum® for the prevention or treatment of influenza and flu-like syndromes. Our results do not exclude the possibility that Oscillococcinum® may have a clinically useful therapeutic effect, but given the poor quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not convincing. No evidence has been established of clinically significant deleterious effects due to Oscillococcinum®.
3 thoughts on this study:
1)There is not enough good evidence to draw solid conclusions
in terms of legal value, a lack of evidence has no value to establish proof, nor its opposite
2)Our results do not exclude the possibility that Oscillococcinum® may have a clinically useful therapeutic effect
and why do they not exclude?
3)but, in view of the poor quality of eligible studies, the evidence is not convincing
which in legal terms is called back-to-back opposition.
it calls into question not a particular product in experimentation until the establishment of real evidence.

At the same time, the usefulness of such a study or 1% fermented wild duck liver diluted in ... the volume of the solar system is not seen, even if the duck was infested with H1N1 nothing would be left of it!

there are so many things that some consider useless and yet without them science would hardly progress.

So there is nothing left in classical physics and its limit to the number of Avogadro, but quantum physics is not limited by this number since it considers the phenomena, at this level, closer, even the very being, wavelengths that are demonstrated with YOUNG slots that no particle should be able to cross, but in wave form yes!
Young's slits (or Young's interferences) designate in physics an experiment which involves interfering two beams of light coming from the same source, by passing them through two small holes pierced in an opaque plane. This experiment was made for the first time by Thomas Young in 1801 and allowed to understand the behavior and nature of light. On a screen in front of Young's slits, we observe a diffraction pattern which is an area where dark and illuminated fringes alternate.
This experience makes it possible highlight the undulatory nature of light. It was also made with material,
like electrons, neutrons, atoms, molecules, with which we also observe interference. This illustrates the wave-particle duality : the interferences show that the material exhibits wave behavior, but the way they are detected (impact on a screen) shows their particulate behavior.
In the current state of knowledge!
This is not to say that the H, it is this particular phenomenon since no one seems to have studied this problem, [*] except the history of the memory of the water which gives rise to disputes there too, But all research in science, leaving the beaten track are systematically opposed, before finally being recognized. It's just a matter of habit and time, so let the dogs bark in the void.

Sorry to put it back, but it's worth its weight ... water or sugar

It is especially worth for its weight of ignorance!
[*] Each uses terms according to his specialty or beliefs. Guillemant would say that it is information, E Klein laws beyond the origin of things, etc ...