Homeopathy: for or against?

[dede2002]

From what I understand, homeopathy would boost the immune system the right way. This implies that the said system is not too damaged ...
The possibility of reducing the side effects of chemical treatments (and vaccines) seems interesting, there is no reason to be for or against since one does not prevent the other.

We could also formulate "for or against drugs"

For example a small flu:
You can either do nothing and rest, or take paracetamol all day long, or try homeopathic remedies.
In all three cases we will be cured after a few days.

The second case is economically interesting, because the "patient" can still go to work!

[sen-no-sen]

From what I understand, homeopathy would boost the immune system the right way. This implies that the said system is not too damaged ...
The possibility of reducing the side effects of chemical treatments (and vaccines) seems interesting, there is no reason to be for or against since one does not prevent the other.

Yes, I completely agree with this point of view.
The problem lies in the dualistic approach, with on the one hand defenders of pharmaco-chemistry who do not recognize the possible benefits of homeopathy and on the other the pro-homeopathy who disdains all recognition of pretexting allopathy its only dangers, lobbies etc ...

For example a small flu:
You can either do nothing and rest, or take paracetamol all day long, or try homeopathic remedies.
In all three cases we will be cured after a few days.

There is no such thing as a "little flu", strictly speaking, but flu-like conditions, a very generic term for typical symptoms: fever, runny nose, sneezing.
In the major part of the cases, it is about common cold or nasopharyngitis.
Pharmaco-chemistry offers a whole bunch of drugs for self-medication with a lot of advertising to treat them.
His latest ones actually attack the consequences rather than the cause of the disease, they contain vasoconstrictorsusually from pseudoephedrine, the risks of which are proven, but they only mask the evil by mitigating its effects, in the last place it is the body which does all the work ... in short, its drugs slow down the process which allows the body to take over.

In case of consultation with the doctor, he will often prescribe the same type of treatment with an antibiotic in addition, which will attack him at the source of the pathology, helping the body to recover ... except that there are still risks for health is far from neutral.

There remains the homeopathy that works ... or not ... depending on the individual.

Or the best method, unofficially advocated by the medical community, is nasal washing with an antiseptic, the best of all being sulfur water which independently treats sore throat and nasal passage infection.

Be careful however, if a cold can pass on its own, it can quickly develop into nasopharyngitis then a small gift linked to our bipedalism, causing a flow to the throat and airway with the added bonus of a beautiful angina and an evolution towards bronchitis, and there it’s more the same.

[Janic]

The possibility of reducing the side effects of chemical treatments (and vaccines) seems interesting, there is no reason to be for or against since one does not prevent the other.

It is a delicate reasoning and difficult to support not on a simple practical reasoning but on the level of the principle! Why ?
Homeo (like any alternative medicine) is sometimes considered the spare tire in the event of a puncture. We drive on a dented road with sharp stones that protrude and hop it bursts. Quickly the spare tire which allows you to continue driving on this same road with other sharp stones… until the next puncture! This is what Obamot and I try to explain with other arguments that complement each other (since with parallel but not identical experiences). So of course it is better to have a spare tire, but if the vehicle is not intended for this type of road, it is only to back off for the same result (for example cancers postponed by 5 years (max))
The question, in this case: it is: is there a need, by exclusiveness, to proceed with this only means? Are there not others less violent, less aggressive, whose results would be the same but without the disadvantages which, according to your speech, would intervene like the firemen to extinguish the fire which will have burned EVERYTHING?
Or, without damage to the house take a suitable fire extinguisher (the simillimum) to prevent everything from burning? (for vaccines see the specialized subject)

The problem lies in the dualistic approach, with on the one hand defenders of pharmaco-chemistry who do not recognize the possible benefits of homeopathy and on the other the pro-homeopathy who disdains all recognition of pretexting allopathy its only dangers, lobbies etc ...

It is a completely distorted vision. Homeopathy (not some homeopaths who do it by experience when they have to repair what was broken by the allo) does not declare itself opposed to allopathy, but as a different way of care. The only objection is simply QUANTITATIVE and it is the results experienced that count, not theoretical discourses on the sex of angels.
So, according to popular common sense: " between two evils you must choose the lesser »As far as this choice is left, first to the medics guaranteeing them the same right to exercise their discipline as their colleagues allo and to the patient by first informing him of the advantages and disadvantages of each method.
For lobbies, it is a well-established fact that the more powerful a group (not only pharmaceutical), the more it requires decision-makers to support their action (employment / unemployment = carrot / stick). It remains valid for homeopathic groups too, except that the weight in the balance is not equivalent.

There remains the homeopathy that works ... or not ... depending on the individual.

The same could be said of hello or any other inappropriate therapy! If a person breaks his leg, dismisses a shoulder, neither the hello or the homeo will be able to do anything about it, it is out of their field of action and yet these traumas can trigger chain reactions or therapies can intervene, calming, antihemorrhagic in allo as in homeo or in acupuncture for example to reduce the pain, but the reinstallation will depend on the specialist physiotherapist, bone repairer, osteopath.
Here again, and always with regard to experience, in homeo it does not depend precisely on the individual, but on identified individual signs (the nuance is important)
An example: an individual presents particular pathological signs that the allo also identifies, but the homeo pushes this census much further by these questions which surprise those who know nothing about it. According to the signs identified, the homeo will give a characteristic remedy relating to the signs in question and it does not work. Is it the fault of a poorly chosen remedy, of an inadequate dilution, of a poor quality of the medoc, of the patient's condition with a deficient immune system, etc.? Most of the time not! This is because the analysis of the signs is distorted by a previous state which will hide the real manifestation, but which can be identified by another analysis of these signs. And often, according to some homeopaths and this brings us back to the thought of dedé, an old vaccination will have distorted these signs in question. Taking a specific remedy for this previous vaccine will clear up the pathology and the remedy previously discerned may act.
Is this related to the immune system? Nobody knows anything about it and especially not homeopaths (who are allo graduates) and it doesn't matter there again. So a person allergic to… lemon (or something else) can come into contact with sick and contagious people without becoming so, so with an effective immune system here and not there? We can doubt it!

[pedrodelavega]

The problem lies in the dualistic approach, with, on the one hand, defenders of pharmaco-chemistry who do not recognize the possible benefits of homeopathy (...)

It is not because some do not recognize the effects of homeopathy that they are necessarily defenders of pharmaco-chemistry.
We can be against both (against one because it is ineffective and against the other because it is toxic).
We can also recognize that there are other alternatives to homeo than allo, as we can also recognize that there is no alternative to allopathy without being its defender ( cad: It is effective & useful in some cases, on the other hand there are side effects so to use only when it is Actually necessary)

Besides, most of the debate has, until now, been homéo Vs allo oriented when this is not the subject:

Homeopathy for or against
amha, to answer:
1 / How does it work?
2 / What is the evidence that it works?
(You are right. Of the 33 pages, point 2 has largely taken precedence over point 1 )

[pedrodelavega]

Now it would be interesting to address the question of how homeopathy works(please don't copy and paste), organically I hear.

What about?
If the water has a "memory" and that by this phenomenon, the homeopathic remedy keeps in memory the "active" principle present in the mother tincture during the multiple dilutions:
How to know if the water or the solvent used during the manufacturing does not already have in "memory" other "active" principles contradicting the desired effects or generating unforeseen effects?

[Janic]

How to know if the water or the solvent used during the manufacturing does not already have in "memory" other "active" principles contradicting the desired effects or generating unforeseen effects?

finally an interesting question! In reality, again, nobody knows! I will take another analogy (which like the others is only a line of thought, it is now necessary to specify the role of an analogy!) We know from the strengths of measuring instruments that certain fungi are toxic because of their alkaloids . But before these measures, the non-mycologist could pick them up without distinction and therefore poison himself with a fricassee of mushrooms. We can say that a mushroom is a mushroom, but that is no longer true. The difference between allo and homeo is like a reverse effect. The "active" part increases its activity with its dilution without anyone knowing why, even if this "active" product is also found mixed with other products which could also be active and again nobody knows why. Wisdom (even without going through measures unknown to this day) is to see a usable reality and tell yourself that one day, perhaps, the mystery will be known ... or never!
We have to get out of these theoretical discourses. A patient does not care a lot about all these speeches, he suffers and wishes the end of it some means used. Homeopathic exercise by thousands of therapists, in various countries, over a whole professional life and that for two centuries is better than all these abstract speeches.

[sen-no-sen]

It is not because some do not recognize the effects of homeopathy that they are necessarily defenders of pharmaco-chemistry.

Really?
I think you do not understand the meaning of the term pharmacochemistry.
Life is chemistry (bio-chemistry to be exact), an apple, a rabbit, humans are the results of chemistry.
Chemistry should not be understood as a toxic product from the petroleum industry, even if the major part of current drugs actually come from artificial pharmaco-chemistry, via synthetic products.
Herbal medicine is chemistry ...
After what remains, if we put aside his two approaches (homeo / allo), only acupuncture, hypnosis, healers, positive thinking, interesting but insufficient.

We can also recognize that there are other alternatives to homeo than allo, as we can also recognize that there is no alternative to allopathy without being its defender ( cad: It's effective & useful in some cases, on the other hand there are side effects so only use when it's really necessary)

From the moment one denies the effectiveness of one method in favor of another, one becomes by definition a defender in spite of oneself.
even if i don't like meds, i find them to be of paramount utility in guaranteeing our recovery in the event of illness, so i am an advocate, which does not mean that i am a lobbyist.


Janic wrote:

The question, in this case: it is: is there a need, by exclusiveness, to proceed with this only means? Are there not others less violent, less aggressive, whose results would be the same but without the disadvantages which, according to your speech, would intervene like the firemen to extinguish the fire which will have burned EVERYTHING?
Or, without damage to the house take a suitable fire extinguisher (the simillimum) to prevent everything from burning? (for vaccines see the specialized subject)

It is an idealistic point of view, in short you would like to replace pharmaco-chemistry with homeopathy, admit it, we will save time!

[Obamot]

How to know if the water ou the solvent in use during manufacture does not already have in "memory" other "active" ingredients contradicting the desired effects or generating unforeseen effects? [/ b]

[Flytox Moderation]
2) water IS a solvent (and powerful even for that matter)
3) conductivity is an essential point;
4) acidity ...
5) temperature ...
6) mineralization ... (non-mineralized water has no significant electro-conductivity, on the contrary, too mineralized water risks short-circuiting the cells of the human body).
etc ...

[Flytox Moderation]

[pedrodelavega]

How to know if the water ou the solvent in use during manufacture does not already have in "memory" other "active" ingredients contradicting the desired effects or generating unforeseen effects? [/ b]
[Flytox Moderation]

It is not I who claim the effects of "water memory".

6) mineralization ... (non-mineralized water has no significant electro-conductivity, on the contrary, too mineralized water risks short-circuiting the cells of the human body).
etc ...

The water used for dilution is demineralized.

[Janic]

sen no sen

Janic wrote:
Quote:
The question, in this case: it is: is there a need, by exclusiveness, to proceed with this only means? Are there not others less violent, less aggressive, whose results would be the same but without the disadvantages which, according to your speech, would intervene like the firemen to extinguish the fire which will have burned EVERYTHING?
Or, without damage to the house take a suitable fire extinguisher (the simillimum) to prevent everything from burning? (for vaccines see the specialized subject)

It is an idealistic point of view, in short you would like to replace pharmaco-chemistry with homeopathy, admit it, we will save time!

I am hippocratic above all and therefore pragmatic! " First do no harm ". However in the hierarchy of means whose nuisance is almost zero homeopathy is in a good place. So I asked a specific question: " is there a need, by exclusivity, to proceed with THIS ONLY MEANS Remained unanswered.
Personally, I only use homeopathy very, very rarely, but the effectiveness of which I have checked each time. My choice is not homeopathy or allopathy, but lifestyle which avoids, most of the time, recourse to any school medicine whatsoever. This is how Obamot and I come together in that it is better to prevent than to cure.
Afterwards, in sick people, they should have the choice of the mode of care they want, which is not yet the case currently because of non-training of doctors in other medicines (unofficial, it goes from yourself!)
As a reminder: The recognition of homeopathy by the order of doctors (to better control these homeopaths) only dates from 1997! It is already progress despite everything when we remember their designation of this one and acupuncture, among others, as quackery.
For pharmaco-chemistry (although you mistakenly mix chemistry and biochemistry) should only be the last resort when all alternative medicine has not had the desired effectiveness.