Homeopathy: for or against?

[Obamot]

JOKER: Do purebred female white mice (sold by the Pasteur Institute for Animal Experimentation), and who have been inoculated with cancer, that laboratories buy very expensive to do their experiments, and which recover good health by feeding them correctly (and not with the capsules of the Institute) is that a joke?

A mouse is a mouse .... a human, remains a human.
Frankly if you think you can cure cancer or a serious pathology by simply having a good diet, well yes it is a joke, and in bad taste for the sick ....

Oh, but that, it is you who says that I wrote or thought that, if you resume my last posts, you will see that it is not that, nor as simple!

I have personally known people with very serious illnesses (type ALS), who did not wait for the culinary advice of naturopaths, sophrology sessions, bio, positive thinking, acupuncture healers, to treat their illnesses, his last had no pharmaco-chemical treatment in most cases for the simple reason that there is no treatment for this disease,no(The rilutek having no effectiveness at 300 € per box!) and they are deaths... or living their last days, so we must stop giving false hope to the sick by telling this kind of thing, it's really horrible for them!

Ps: I have a tomcat at home and I started to dig a hole at the bottom of the garden thinking that he was spending his last night in this world ... three days later and without any medication (the vet said he was doomed ) the creature was gone as in 40, and it is doing very well 2 years later, why do we say that cats have seven lives?
Can we only compare animals of this genus with homo sapiens? NO! Hence the stupidity and barbarity of animal testing ...comparison is not right.

It depends on a lot of things ... It all depends on what stage the person is in, it's clearly defined (the stages) if you take my post above, the penultimate, I describe the conditions for having good chances of getting out.
In the end, saying that a person would have no chance is even worse (if you're a doctor = iatrogenic)

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
However, there too, Hippocrates is a hygienist before the hour considering that the lifestyle and particularly food plays a decisive role in the pathologies "that your food is your medicine and your medicine is your food" that HIC likes to sign .

You have the gift to say the obvious ...

it must be believed that it is not so obvious as that if one refers to the official literature of the decades of the half of the 20th century. Eating, moving, etc ... is only a recent phenomenon addressed to the general public which was supposed ... to know?

Of course, food plays a major role in maintaining good health, but to believe that this is enough is an idealistic vision, health depends on a very large number of factors: genetic, epigenetic, psycho-somatic, environmental and social.

One more reflection that indicates the deep ignorance of these subjects and the mixtures that you make.
So :
No method, no system is perfect, ideal and other such qualifiers. If you had read it carefully you would have noted it.
Food is effectively only one of the means of keeping the body in a state to face external and internal aggressions which lead to pathologies which are only effects, alarm signals of dysfunction.
Now is it enough? As Obamot also points out: what food is this? Of all these polluted, trafficked, refined products, etc ... or an organic diet that minimizes these sources of poisoning? And in this organic diet which products will be recognized as suitable for good processing and not its putrefaction, etc.? These problems were less important at the time of HIPPOCRATE, but crucial today.
So if you consider the first category: your discourse defends itself, but much less for the second and which, to be recognized as different in its effects, can only be measured in the experience of people in an equivalent environment.

It is now possible to sequence DNA, and also possible to detect the genes which would favor the appearance of future pathologies.
It is also following this that the actress Angelina Jolie is made to do a double mastectomy following the presence of the mutant gene BRCA1 which promised her 85% risk of contracting breast cancer.

Everyone is free to choose! Even a mutant gene does not determine its activity, which again depends on many other biological parameters. At this train there, it would be necessary to preventively remove all the organs likely to cancerize.

Quote:
The first reason being that it is a subject that I have studied and deepened in order to know its possibilities and limits according to the application that will be made of it to "sick" individuals. It is called the accumulated testimonies of all the medics practicing this method (in all its variants) since the origin of H and from all over the world.

I would be very curious to know your verification methodology ...

Below !

Quote:
A little simple calculation:
If a homeopath receives 10 people x 300 days per year x 40 years of exercise, this gives 120.000 people consulted by a single homeopath. In France, there were 5.000 homo or 600.000.000 consultations for the duration of the exercise of these medics. 84 countries practice H. and it has lasted for 200 years, which makes thousands of billions of people who have opted for this therapy. And it would not weigh in the balance in terms of efficiency, you have to be realistic! Thousands of billions of experiences are worth more and better than a few randomized trials in conditions not applicable to this technique.

April 1 is a few months away!
Frankly do you think that calculations like this make any sense? Is this a joke?

I know you're mad at arithmetic, but you can always, it's not too late, get started! It's up to you to demonstrate the error!

My neighbor who regularly consults a homeopathic doctor is not exempt from pharmaco-chemical treatment, how can I know what works or not?

Don't you have a better reference? Opposed to a few billion is light!

For a study to be so little serious, patients would have to resort exclusively to homeopathic treatments.

Ah, that's better! When big pharma does not put its veto by order of the medical doctors, it will become clearer.
However, you are not totally wrong insofar as, often, the patient who has been disappointed with chemical treatments turns to other medicines whose homeopathy and there exclusivity is not guaranteed. Then, and always rightly, H can be added to a conventional treatment for various reasons, so it must be taken into account. Finally it has the unicists (the most numerous in other countries) whose prescription is absent from any big pharma product. As everything is mixed, in OUR system, the difficulty is to distinguish whether it is one type of care or another that has proven effective. But it is valid in both directions!
In theory each doctor is required to report the treatments given and therefore the follow-ups of the patients, but according to medical statisticians barely 10% are returned, which does not clarify the subject either which is therefore content with estimates, ladle.

What is more, consultations with homeopathic doctors are most of the time for mild disorders such as colds, rhino, sleep disorders ... which generally go away on their own.

Ignorance, when you hold us! In homeo as in allo, there are all kinds of benign or very serious pathologies, but, and there I join you again, allo / homeo often treat only sores with H (not always) either by ignorance of the medoc to give, either so as not to have problems with the order of doctors who has them in his sights and waits for them at the turn at the slightest problem to have them removed from the order.

I do not know anyone who consults for severe heart or kidney problems.

Another aspect of your ignorance. The H has no claim to settle certain problems which do not arise from its exercise. When an organ is degraded, whatever the type of applied medicine, it goes to failure. Now between dying in the hands of an allo or a homeo (graduate in allopathy who still knows how to establish a classic diagnosis) for insufficiency of adequate means, the patient will see no more difference.

Quote:
As randomized trials, even assuming 50% failure it would still make 24.000 billion successes for all pathologies combined.

Frankly do not come out this kind of calculation in front of specialists, you will pass for a comic of second zone!
Consultation does not mean healing!

I did not mention healing, but consultation in order to quantify all H consultations worldwide and assumed 50% failure (as in allopathy). So there are 220.000 doctors of all specialties in France, 44 times more than H and therefore 44 times more consultations too… no cure, if we look at the mortality figures in France, always.

You could in this case count the number of consultations with the marabouts and have such important figures .... and also counted the immense majority of sick people who do not consult or take medication and who recover on their own ...

Except that Marabout and others are not officially medical graduates and it is the latter that I am talking about. So I compare comparable things: allo medicine / homeo medicine!

Quote:
It is this same discourse held by the opponents who have never practiced these medicines at a high level. This is free speech. *

I send you the remark again, everything you say is free, you declare yourself not to be sick and use the homeo only very, very rarely.

All that I quote is based on testimony from doctors H., not from the street clampin.
For the rest of alternative medicine this is not the subject.

So you don't speak from personal experience but rather from ideology.

You take your desires for realities! If I were an ideologue of homeopathy I would be a habitual consumer, which is not the case. I'm trying to talk about a subject I know from studying it, which obviously isn't your case: where's the ideologue in this case?

You would like to make believe that homeopathy can supplant pharmaco-chemistry, without understanding that its two therapies are complementary in certain cases, but that one does not replace the other,

Another fantasy of your mind! The H. has no other claim than to offer another mode of care. That one day it ends up replacing big pharma is not the subject, it would only be a change from big on one side to big on the other. It is up to the patients to decide, not the big guys whoever they are!

however with a wider range of application / efficacy for pharmacochemicals.

When a system is dominant and wants to leave only a small part to its competitors, it is effectively this dominant position which occupies priority in the market, it is an economic model, nothing more. If tomorrow or the day after tomorrow the demand increases in non-violent medicines, that future doctors are better trained in these emerging medicines, big pharma may fall from its pedestal and its claims to be the only one effective with it.

Quote:
Except, again, that most of the time (it changes very slowly) these so-called alternative medicines only intervene AFTER the failures of school medicine and whose patients await results, late, where the rest has failed .

No, alternative medicine most often intervenes in addition to a heavier conventional treatment, nuance.

In the current system dominated by chemical medicine and propagated, with efficiency, the labs by doctors paid to the orders and media, and which concerns, and there I grant you again, a large majority of patients in our country: yes! Example David Servan Schreiber caught between his medical training and his experience.

Homeopathy is for example used in addition to a chemotherapy treatment

. Still in the current dominant system! Hoping to partially repair what has just been broken. Sad prospect that to break first to be able to repair then!

The use of "soft" or unconventional methods is also often done when there is no more hope and unfortunately does not change the terrible outcome of patients .... and it is real life.

Except, again, that when the barrel has been emptied, it is difficult to continue to extract juice, hello or homeo elsewhere.
It is therefore necessary to compare lived and lived.
This example already cited:
This is a father whom I met and whose daughter died from leukemia and who brings me his father's ordeal and therefore extracts from one of my books (and yes, I'm writing!)
Her little girl had leukemia. After many treatments, she was returned to them to spend her last moments in her family; that is to say the gravity of his condition. Like all parents, they did not resolve to accept the inevitable and drummed to avoid this fatal outcome. They were given the name of a naturopath (you know the charlatans!) Who, given the condition of the child, did not promise a result, but only to do his best. And against all odds, the child's health slowly improved. But the story does not end there. Social services came to visit the family to inquire about the child's health (or to offer their condolences?). Noting the improvement in her condition, they wanted to start the treatment again and the parents had to leave their child to those who had previously got rid of it. Reprocessing, relapse, return to the family home. Back to the naturopath who reiterates his reservations: Re-improvement of the condition of the child. The story could have stopped there, but there are cuts that must be drunk to the dregs. Again revisits social services that note the improvement of the child resumed their work, where they had interrupted, despite the protests of parents. The child could not stand this third aggression and died.
Or this one also cited and it is experience, not theory.
I had a colleague, a little gruff, whose leitmotif was retirement and he was not far from it elsewhere. He only thought about what he could do when he finally got there. Then one day, absence from work and the new grave: advanced cancer; therefore hospitalization and treatment. I hate hospitals and only go there forced and forced, so I did not go there but I regularly (through my colleagues) news, not very happy of course, on his state that was getting worse. Then one day I announce to them: "He will get out of it" Stupefaction, indignation, anger: "We don't play with that, it's disgusting to say that, etc ..." "You'll see"
Indeed some time later, our guy leaves the hospital (to the general surprise of the doctors, the cancer had disappeared, no more traces) with a dazzling form, full of new projects for this retirement which he can finally enjoy after what just happened to him.
During a visit, which he comes to return to work, I exchange a few words with him, a few questions about the lifestyle he intends to adopt, and with the knowledge of his answers I announce to my colleagues: He's going to die from cancer soon. ” Again outcry with protests, indignation, anger: "We don't play with this, it's disgusting to say that, etc." And indeed, some time later, relapse and subsequent death.
I did not know what type of cancer he had, I did not know what treatment was his (even if I would have known it would have been of no importance, I already said I am not a doctor), I knew also the little hope (and even none) that the doctors had on his fate. How did I know he would get out and also how he would relapse? Announcing a relapse is not rocket science; all doctors know that after a remission (this is what we call an illusory cure) a relapse is often frequent and sometimes fatal, but how do we know that there would be a remission when everything indicated otherwise? It was more difficult. In the same way I could have announced a total remission if he had planned to modify his lifestyle, which we will see when tackling this disease later. (It is not magic or divination, but it is the result of observation, listening, common sense, some readings and lived experiences, unfortunately, unofficial.)

Quote:
A few decades ago, the singer Rika Zaraï who had survived an accident and had been condemned to remain paralyzed by the doctors who followed her, recovered with natural medicines to the amazement of these doctors.

You should better educate yourself for Rika Zarai, alternative medicine does not prevent having a stroke and leave her disabled, unfortunately for her ...

Alternative medicines are treatments, not prevention systems, moreover she added a few decades to the counter of her life, which also plays an important role in matters of health or loss of it. Not knowing his current lifestyle, so I have no opinion.

The former superior of the Shaolin temple was despite years of intense training and energetic medicine suffering from Parkinson's disease which left him completely disabled.

http://www.franceparkinson.fr/docs/les-causes-de-la-maladie.php?p=78&id=177
Unfortunately being Shaolin does not mean being aware of or in favor of certain prevention techniques, their goal is elsewhere. Gandhi, now vegetarian, regretted that those who recommend him, as non-violent, continue the slaughter of innocent animals just to satisfy their morbid appetite and therefore its harmful effects physiologically as well as spiritually. But everyone has their choice of life ... and death!

Jacqueline Bousquet, a great follower of "quantum medicine" (sic!) Contracted breast cancer that she did not want to treat by ray ... she sadly died shortly thereafter.

Do not know, so no opinion either on his preventive lifestyle as curative and when one does not know, one is silent.

We must therefore stop dreaming, whatever food or lifestyle, there are a large number of parameters that elude us ...

But those we know, it would be foolish not to take advantage of them and measure their impact. So unlike the theorists of the subject, it is the experience of self and others that largely prevails.

[Obamot]

@Sen-No-Sen the post I was referring to is this >>> if you’re so concerned, we can talk about it either in MP or here. Credit.

[sen-no-sen]

It depends on a lot of things ... It all depends on what stage the person is in, it's clearly defined (the stages) if you take my post above, the penultimate, I describe the conditions for having good chances of getting out.
In the end, saying that a person would have no chance is even worse (if you're a doctor = iatrogenic)

Taking into account a patient early has little effect for diseases like ALS, Parkinson's or other neuro-diseases, even if the only thing you can do is to use powerful antioxidant and vitamin B cocktails, which can slow the progress of the disease by a few weeks / months at best.
At this level, natural methods give almost the same results as pharmaco-chemistry ... that is to say almost nothing.
The phenomenon of motor neuron apoptosis (ALS) is still an inexplicable phenomenon, an interesting avenue would be the use of stem cells, but again the results are far, far from being there.




Janic you wrote:

it must be believed that it is not so obvious as that if one refers to the official literature of the decades of the half of the 20th century. Eating, moving, etc ... is only a recent phenomenon addressed to the general public which was supposed ... to know?

Junk food and inactivity are contemporary phenomena dating back less than 50 years ...
Talking about "eating and moving" to a worker from the 19th century working 6 days a week and 7 hours a day is to give a damn about the world ... ditto for the peasant world or sinners where the efforts were permanent.

One more reflection that indicates the deep ignorance of these subjects and the mixtures that you make.

Oh, sorry, Professor Janic!
Just that now I see only a very long stream of speech from copied paste the internet with an almost pathological tendency to idealism and romanticism.
Your overall thesis is very Rousseautist: the perfect born man and it is society that makes him sick ....

You systematically ignore naturalistic realities, such as genetics and epigenetics, the theory of degeneration (this one you cannot approach because it was founded on the basis of the theory of evolution by K. Lorentz), psychosomatic effects and social cybernetics.

So if you consider the first category: your discourse defends itself, but much less for the second and which, to be recognized as different in its effects, can only be measured in the experience of people in an equivalent environment.

It is precisely the experience that is important, food in a country like ours remains secondary.
The very fashionable discourse of organic food and "it was better before"is uttered by people who generally ignore the living conditions of our ancestors and build an idealized past for themselves.

Pollution by consumer products does not explain most diseases, especially when it occurs in people who ate "old-fashioned" (product from the garden and had a virtuous lifestyle (physical and social activity etc.) ..).

Don't you have a better reference? Opposed to a few billion is light!

The big difference between us is that I speak from experience and I do not invent corner table calculations which prove nothing.
There is no such thing as one allopathic world and another homeopathic world, if a person takes a treatment and it doesn't work they will go to another doctor and use pharmaco-chemical treatment, that your "study" does not say.

As everything is mixed, in OUR system, the difficulty is to distinguish whether it is one type of care or another that has proven effective. But it is valid in both directions!
In theory each doctor is required to report the treatments given and therefore the follow-ups of the patients, but according to medical statisticians barely 10% are returned, which does not clarify the subject either which is therefore content with estimates, ladle.

This clearly demonstrates the impossibility of deducting billions of cured patients.
And healed of what? A cold? A little rhino?
Give me examples of patients with severe heart disease treated exclusively with homeopathy.

Unfortunately being Shaolin does not mean being aware of or in favor of certain prevention techniques, their goal is elsewhere

Really?
I think that in this matter you would have learned a lot from them!
Besides, what are your prevention techniques? Let me laugh!

Do not know, so no opinion either on his preventive lifestyle as curative and when one does not know, one is silent.

Jacqueline Bousquet it was let's say Janic at the power of 100 ....

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
And physics will only give what it is specialized in, an opinion on matter, not on life itself which escapes everyone.

Are we still swimming in the middle of idealism ... life escapes gravity? To the force of tension?
What are the electro-chemical connections in your brain? Marshmallow?

It is mechanics like an engine or a computer which are not self-designed, neither self-made, nor self-driving without external intervention.
What you write on your tablet, does not write itself, you are the external speaker, the breath of life without which your machine is as dead despite all its potential for functionality.

Quote:
What do you think That I have accumulated a sum of knowledge with the internet? It's too superficial.

To the question on utopia you answer me however ...
“Imaginary and rigorous construction of a society which constitutes, in relation to the one who achieves it, an ideal, a counter ideal.
Project whose realization is impossible, imaginary conception ”
Larousse

Eh yes ! There are (it still existed a few years ago) sheets of paper on which appeared signs printed with ink; it was called, it was called ...BOOKS, Ah yes ! I still have some of these old grimoires, Larousse 1995 and even universal Larousse 1922, (a collector), according to which we can copy and not paste.

It's not an answer, it's copy pasted ...

As I am not an academician…. ???? No, actually I am not an academician, I stick to what they say

Quote:
How many works on homeopathy written by famous homeopaths do you have on hand, just to see?

Answering a question with a question is not very polite!

If you have a short memory, I can't help it! you already asked this question and I answered it with precision.

The difference between the field of homeopathy and quantum physics is that the latter is verifiable, reproducible with 100% efficiency and has, despite all its improbability, a relatively satisfactory set of explanatory theories.
None of the homeopathic doctors I have read have allowed me to enlighten myself on the mode of operation of this therapy.

It is a pride to believe that everything can be explained. Fortunately, there are still a few "mysteries" to unravel otherwise there would be a bunch of unemployed researchers. But as the great Charles said "we do not want researchers but finders" which is wishful thinking.

Besides, you declare yourself completely ignoring the mode of operation of this one, it's strong coffee!

Because I do not believe myself out of Jupiter's thigh and ignorance is not a defect, it is just an acknowledgment of not knowing, like you in homeopathy. In addition, this ignorance is not mine but that of the therapists using this technique and using a technique does not mean knowing the mechanisms. Most car drivers don't know how it works, same for the phone, TV, computers and they don't care as long as it works (even with some inevitable breakdowns)

It is crazy, however, since some physicists even go so far as to explain, in a hypothetical way, of course, the possible works of shamanic trances!

They are only mechanics there again, they observe biochemical functions, which generate particular reactions as for hypnosis, but still do not know why, but only how ... and again!

Taking into account a patient early has little effect for diseases like ALS, Parkinson's or other neuro-diseases, even if the only thing you can do is to use powerful antioxidant and vitamin B cocktails, which can slow the progress of the disease by a few weeks / months at best.
At this level, natural methods give almost the same results as pharmaco-chemistry ... that is to say almost nothing.
The phenomenon of motor neuron apoptosis (ALS) is still an inexplicable phenomenon, an interesting avenue would be the use of stem cells, but again the results are far, far from being there.

Always obsessed with big pharma!
An unconventional doctor treated his patients with ALS with unofficial techniques. So the order of doctors removed him from the order and as he continued, they put him on trial for illegal practice of medicine. But there it is no longer internal sauce, but before the legislator. The testimonies of all his patients (almost 20.000) medical records before and after the support, previously disabled and having found many of their functions tipped the scales in his favor despite the great order, which n has not changed the position of the board. (as usual, protecting the system is more important than protecting the patient)

Janic you wrote:
Quote:
it must be believed that it is not so obvious as that if one refers to the official literature of the decades of the half of the 20th century. Eating, moving, etc ... is only a recent phenomenon addressed to the general public which was supposed ... to know?

This reflection relates to this, text AND context, and even what preceded it:

Quote:
Quote:
Janic wrote:
However, there too, Hippocrates is a hygienist before the hour considering that the lifestyle and particularly food plays a decisive role in the pathologies "that your food is your medicine and your medicine is your food" that HIC likes to sign .
You have the gift to say the obvious ...

It was about " let your food be your medicine and your medicine be your food »And therefore of the impact of food on health, which was not the main concern of 20th century medicine.

Junk food and inactivity are contemporary phenomena dating back less than 50 years ...

And much older! Junk food begins with the industrialization of agronomy through chemistry which unbalances and depletes food with nutritional elements important for health.
« Then, with the advent of the chemical, coal and petroleum industry in the 1858th century, more and more "pure" chemical forms of basic elements (NPK) appeared. These chemical fertilizers, despite their immediate effects on growth, were not always easily accepted: for example, in XNUMX, in the north of France, the local press reported that with the approach of sowing "the farmers are harassed by fertilizer traders who claim their chemical concentrates are more effective than manure. The Imperial Agricultural Society, which has carried out tests, warns against these concentrated fertilizers, which it does not believe can replace manure »

Talking about "eating and moving" to a worker from the 19th century working 6 days a week and 7 hours a day is to give a damn about the world ... ditto for the peasant world or sinners where the efforts were permanent.

Not only, it extends during the first half of the 20th century and junk food is permanent because of agronomic industrialization.

Quote:
One more reflection that indicates the deep ignorance of these subjects and the mixtures that you make.

Oh, sorry, Professor Janic!

It's good ! I accept your highly justified apologies!

You systematically ignore naturalistic realities, such as genetics and epigenetics,the theory degeneration (this one you cannot approach because it was founded on the basis of theory of evolution by K. Lorentz), psychosomatic effects and social cybernetics.

And you ignore the reality on the ground, get out of your bubble of quotations on theorists who too are not on the ground but behind piles of files on so-called "scientific" theories.

Quote:
So if you consider the first category: your discourse defends itself, but much less for the second and which, to be recognized as different in its effects, can only be measured in the experience of people in an equivalent environment.

It is precisely the experience that is important, food in a country like ours remains secondary.

Well, we don't live on the same planet.
Our (that of those who do not follow the well-oiled system) lived expresses the exact opposite.

The very fashionable speech of organic food and "it was better before" is made by people who generally ignore the living conditions of our ancestors and build an idealized past.

Stop taking the others for fools, Professor Sen no sen!

Pollution by consumer products does not explain most diseases, especially when it occurs in people who ate "old-fashioned" (product from the garden and had a virtuous lifestyle (physical and social activity etc.) ..).

You only see what you want to see. Eating the old way doesn't mean anything except that habits have been passed down from generation to generation. Gout, rheumatism, arthritis, have not appeared in recent years, but were the lot of these old-fashioned consumers. To this were added cancers, essentially, and cardiovascular diseases linked to junk food and reduced physical activity.
THEexplosion cancers, heart diseases, diabetes, rightly called diseases of civilization, began precisely in the 20th century.
American studies have shown that poor ethnic groups such as the black and Hispanic populations, where diseases such as cancer and infarctions were rare, saw these pathologies settle in and join those of white people as soon as their standard of living joined them on a single generation. However, their usual environment, on the outskirts of cities, was roughly the same as for the wealthiest, but as soon as their consumption pattern changed, depending on new financial availability, these pathologies followed the same curve as the wealthy whites . And it is verifiable with each changeover from one mode to another whatever the regions, the cultures.
Likewise during the Vietnam War, all of the deceased soldiers were autopsied upon their return. And it was a big surprise to find that many of these healthy young people already had cardiovascular diseases.
« American autopsy studies of the victims of the Korean and Vietnam wars have shown the presence of coronary lesions in young soldiers aged 20 to 25. These lesions will be the cause of acute complications of coronary disease from the 5th or the 6th decade. They progress silently for years before reaching infarction and sometimes sudden death, revealing coronary disease in around 50% of coronary patients. It is interesting to observe that it is not the most severe coronary stenoses that are the cause of acute accidents but the occurrence of thrombosis on cracked atherosclerotic plaques, hitherto quiescent.

If cardiovascular disease doesn't always prevent, neither do they strike at random. Coronaries but also victims of stroke have risk factors identifiable et primary prevention measures could prevent or delay the occurrence of accidents. After accidents, intervention studies have demonstrated the benefit of secondary prevention to prevent recurrence and sudden death. All risk factors must be taken care of with even more demanding objectives than in primary prevention and the benefits demonstrated by numerous therapeutic trials designated by acronyms, covering several thousand patients followed for several years. This is what we call evidence-based medicine. Prevention strategies are currently the subject of consensus recommendations from both the United States and Europe with adaptations to our population defined by the ANAES (National Agency for Accreditation and Health Assessment) and the AFSSAPS (French Agency for Sanitary Safety of Health Products).
My presentation will consist of three parts: the correction of risk factors, the results of prevention, the improvement of prevention in our country. (...)
http://www.asmp.fr/travaux/communicatio ... cheron.htm

Quote:
Don't you have a better reference? Opposed to a few billion is light!

The big difference between us,
is that I am talking about experience and I am not inventing corner table calculations which prove nothing.

the difference between us is that you're mad at arithmetic
But your experience compared to billions of others around the world, it continues to be light! I'm waiting for YOUR calculations as for Pedro with Obamot!
Everyone has their own way of life! You, faithful chemistry aficionados, me of alternative medicine for all pathologies.

There is no such thing as one allopathic world and another homeopathic world, if a person takes a treatment and it doesn't work they will go to another doctor and use pharmaco-chemical treatment, that your "study" does not say.

It's in your imagination, your closed world.
Likewise what do not say tes studies is the opposite! There also in the lived, but it is probably not the medium which you frequent.
When, after many failures with school medicine, patients use other, unconventional methods, they generally do not inform their usual doctor (unless it is open) and most of the testimonies agree on this point among non-conformists. So the doctor may believe that it is their meds that are causing a better fit and the vicious circle continues. The risk is that believing that his prescriptions are the cause of these improvements, he could give others in good faith and lead to disappointing, even pathological results.

Quote:
As everything is mixed, in OUR system, the difficulty is to distinguish whether it is one type of care or another that has proven effective. But it is valid in both directions!
In theory each doctor is required to report the treatments given and therefore the follow-ups of the patients, but according to medical statisticians barely 10% are returned, which does not clarify the subject either which is therefore content with estimates, ladle.

This clearly demonstrates the impossibility of deducting billions of cured patients.

Pay more attention to what is written!
a) I did not speak of a patient being cured, but first of all of a consultation.
b) I assumed 50% failure (any figure for that matter) as in hello. So that went from 48.000 billion people consulted to 24.000 billion people treated and satisfied with this fact as well.
So these are not a few cases from here and there and even dividing this figure by 1.000 there would still be 48 billion.
But it is just as valid for allopathy so everywhere!

And healed of what? A cold? A little rhino?

More, much more! Read at least the testimonies of doctors H that I took the trouble to transcribe and tell me if they are only minor sores; that school medicine could not have solved, moreover!

Give me examples of patients with severe heart disease treated exclusively with homeopathy.

You make the donkey to have grain or you are so blind that you cannot read what is written. A severe cardiac pathology will most of the time be treated by surgery, which all homeopaths in the world know how to recognize, because they are first of all allopaths and do not confuse everything like you.
- Cardiology in figures
• With 180 deaths per year, cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death for the French;
• The cardiovascular risk in a heavy smoker is multiplied by 8,5 and decreases with smoking cessation;
• High blood pressure affects nearly 15 to 20% of the French adult population;
• 500 French people suffer from heart failure;
• 5 cardiologists practice in France
Who are the most at risk ?
Older people, smokers or people with high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes are more likely than others to have heart conditions. Physical inactivity and overweight are also on the list of risk factors, as well as a family history of cholesterol or myocardial infarction.
Elderly people because of their inactivity and therefore low oxygenation level
Smokers for the same respiratory reasons
high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes are caused by poor diet.

Quote:
Unfortunately being Shaolin does not mean being aware of or in favor of certain prevention techniques, their goal is elsewhere

Really?
I think that in this matter you would have learned a lot from them!

probably and them of a nonconformist dietetics.

Besides, what are your prevention techniques?

The hygienism that Obamot calls preventive orthomolecular medicine and therefore he made you just before a description.

Jacqueline Bousquet it was say Janic at the power of 100 ....

I had read his biography only; and I hardly found a maximum of common point there, hardly a council towards the vegetarianism and still.

[Obamot]

Yes you are right Janic, we must extend this initial conception of the orthomolecular, I admit that I did
But we can still not today reduce the orthomolecular to Linus Pauling hey hey ...

It depends on a lot of things ... It all depends on what stage the person is in, it's clearly defined (the stages) if you take my post above, the penultimate, I describe the conditions for having good chances of getting out.
In the end, saying that a person would have no chance is even worse (if you're a doctor = iatrogenic)

Taking into account a patient early has little effect for diseases like ALS, Parkinson's or other neuro-diseases, even if the only thing you can do is to use powerful antioxidant and vitamin B cocktails, which can slow the progress of the disease by a few weeks / months at best.

Ah, but that is not all resolved by a single therapeutic means ...! Far from it. And for my part I am much more pessimistic than you (we would be happy with one out of two cases ... in truth, it is often life that takes back its rights, the means used having only helped to pass a course, see the case of your dog! That’s why there is a way of reshaping lifestyle as long as the subject is collaborative.) So indeed, I agree on this point, what the we can do the best, it is to stabilize the subject in the case of the pathologies that you describe (case of multiple sclerosis, when the subject makes digressions in his lifestyle the disease makes a new push, when he resumes his contribution: it stabilizes ... Read and buy the book ...)

At this level, natural methods give almost the same results as pharmaco-chemistry ... that is to say almost nothing.
The phenomenon of motor neuron apoptosis (ALS) is still an inexplicable phenomenon, an interesting avenue would be the use of stem cells, but again the results are far, far from being there.

Okay, that was never my point. I never said that we had to give up anything in all the existing therapeutic arsenal (nothing, not even chemo, I would not allow myself ... after that remains questionable in some cases and not in others but so difficult to assess if you are not a real pro.) On the contrary, I am for cautious combinations ... Besides, ortomolecular medicine does not claim to be on the margins, it is just a "balance sheet medicine" (entry / exit).

One more point, I don't consider it to have "natural methods"VS"pharmacochemistry", the chemists themselves say, impossible to differentiate a natural molecule from a synthetic one, even"dextrorotary VS Levogyre"(I mean that if it is them that they say it, it is valid in both directions, ok!). And we obviously know that in the natural environment, there are very powerful molecules even very concentrated or not ...! This is not the prerogative of the chemical industry!

[Janic]

the chemists say it themselves, impossible to differentiate a natural molecule from a synthetic one, even "dextrorotatory VS Lévorotatory" (I mean that if it is them they say it, it is valid in both directions , okay!).

chemists are just chemists, not biologists, not doctors, let alone naturopaths. The only recognizable criterion is living material, not synthetic products which cause confusion in biochemical processes. Thus it has been noticed that the taking of a synthetic vitamin (deceiving the vigilance of the body) replacing the natural vitamin causes a stop of storage of the latter and therefore possibility of a consecutive vitamin deficiency, but also these vitamins synthetic causes vitamin vitamins avitaminosis.
Thus synthetic Vit C destroys Vit B12; synthetic vit A causes renal leakage of vit C; synthetic vit C can modify the metabolism of uric acid and make red blood cells more sensitive to hemolysis.
The question is therefore whether we want to replace a blind with a blind.
These synthetic products (I have already talked about them) are like crutches for someone with one leg shorter than the other, it does not change the pathology, it hides it, as aspirin will hide the causes of headaches or ointments that prevent pain and that will allow to continue to degrade the suffering part.

[sen-no-sen]

One more point, I don't consider it to have "natural methods"VS"pharmacochemistry", the chemists themselves say, impossible to differentiate a natural molecule from a synthetic one, even"dextrorotary VS Levogyre"(I mean that if it is them that they say it, it is valid in both directions, ok!). And we obviously know that in the natural environment, there are very powerful molecules even very concentrated or not ...! This is not the prerogative of the chemical industry!

By "natural method" I mean taking non-drug product: fruits, vegetables, royal jelly vitamin supplement etc ...
La pharmacochemistry natural or derived from synthetic product is not taken lightly and always requires the advice of a specialist.
As you say, officially there is no difference between a synthetic molecule and a natural molecule ... but our current knowledge does not constitute a finiteness in knowledge ...

it is often life that takes back its rights, the means used having only contributed to passing a course, see the case of your dog!

Not my dog ​​... my cat!
Big difference, the gutter tomcat is almost a semi wild animal that is allowed to domesticate by opportunism, which is by no means the case of the dog which is a human creation.
Dogs often suffer from a multitude of diseases, in particular genetic resulting from selections made between very few specimens (case of St Bernard) and therefore consanguinity, leaving appear tares which accumulates by heredity.
Ditto for so-called purebred cats, like the Persians who often suffer from breathing problems due to their "crushed" muzzle.

The truth, and it is not good to say, is that Homo sapiens with all its technology, its medicine has become an animal that is self-domesticated, it accumulates "defects" (to be polite!) over the generations, which is why we see more and more cancer, genetic disease cases of myopia from an early age etc ...
Pollution is, as regards countries like France, secondary contrary to what one could believe.
In a few decades (but it is already starting ...) the use of systematic medicalization and those of fertilization at birth will be generalized (in rich countries ...) delirium?

How China makes its future geniuses

The Middle Kingdom has the ambition to become a great biotechnological power. And its flagship, the Beijing Genomics Institute, wants to sequence the DNA of the gifted ...

Wang Jian, the boss of the BGI, is convinced that this research will quickly lead to a genetic test. It will allow couples who have recourse to in vitro fertilization to select the most "intelligent" embryos! In the long term, the IQ level of the general population would be improved.

In China, where ethical debates are rare, these words do not trigger any controversy. But the very strong reaction of certain foreign media has served as a lesson. Pending the publication of the results, BGI now avoids communicating on the subject. Bowen, he continues to speak freely to the press. Because several disciplines, psychology, anatomy, or neurosciences have already looked at intelligence. “Today, we have a great tool that can boost our knowledge. And we shouldn't use it?” Bowen wonders.

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/monde/20140110.OBS1978/comment-la-chine-fabrique-ses-futurs-genies.html

[Obamot]

Yes, yes, you're right!

@Janic: No, the chemist with whom I speak about this and who confirmed it to me is indeed a biochemist.

Now, I said well: "what say", implied, they say it today on what they believe to be based (and therefore it is something true within the verified limits of this measurement there, tomorrow ...)

Moreover, purely by way of example, otrhomolecular medicine recognizes the interest of "synthetic vitamin C" (for lack of anything better since it says it nevertheless prefers that of strictly natural origin.

And besides, the labs adapt to the legal doses that must be contained "ad minima" (business is business) ...

Since then it has progressed further since the "adjuvants" natural or not, which are absorbed with, would be worthy of interest (something that we did not see yet a little while ago ...) oh well, talk about a scoop !

For the rest, I prefer, when you say "peut"that affirmations which can be perceived as peremptory, indeed, such and such phenomenon can occur in one subject and not in another (or then you have a link on a study on this and it would be cool to publish it !)

[Janic]

Now, I said well: "what say", implied, they say it today on what they estimate to be founded (and thus it is true within the verified limits of this measurement there, tomorrow. ..)

I understood it that way.

Moreover, purely by way of example, orthomolecular medicine recognizes the interest of "synthetic vitamin C" (for lack of anything better since it says it nevertheless prefers that of strictly natural origin.

It is like the advantage of moving around on crutches. But what are the limits of these uses and its negative effects not taken into account? and are there no other options like natural vitamins C and why are they not used then?
I had heated debates with vegans obsessed with a possible and very hypothetical B12 deficiency. Nothing to do to convince them that only a medical examination can decide to take synthetic B12 (since they refuse any natural B12 therefore animal) and only in case of very low levels and extremely rare characteristic clinical signs.
And who says that: the vegan doctors themselves ignoring their medical training which incites not to give, a priori, a product without the need being felt, it would be like taking aspirin or antibiotics preventively.

For the rest, I prefer, when you say "may" than affirmations which can be perceived as peremptory, indeed, such and such phenomenon can occur in one subject and not in another

Absolutely ! but as nobody, a priori, can predict that such an artificial product will have a positive effect devoid of often hidden side effects (that is to say without being able to make the relation of cause and effect) the caution consists in abstain as long as other possibilities are offered.

or you have a link on a study on it and it would be cool to publish it

not anymore, it's been a while since I lifted my feet, it ended up going in circles.