Jump to content
The Corroboree

Recommended Posts

Neurobiology of Placebos with Fabrizio Benedetti

(Brain Science Podcast)

an excellent dialogue/interview on the placebo effect and how 'placebo' is not a dirty word or describes an ineffective treatment

"today we are in a very good position to describe, from a biological and from an evolutionary approach, the doctor-patient relationship, and the placebo effect, itself."
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting podcast i will take a listen, thanks, but i understand placebo to not be a dirty word, ie: shamans heal with placebo for the tribal member starts the healing proccess on there walk to the shamans tent....

But i cant see why you would post that here after seeing the papers i posted to say its more then a placebo?? same thing with dogs and cats they cant be subject to placebo?? anyway... thanks for they share.

You guys would know this, but you can never proof a hypothisis you can only disproove one.

ie: They have taken a photo of a atom now , and it is nothing like boyles moddle chemists or physics like to imagine, hense the idea of a atom has now been disprooven, but it never was prooven in the first place......

Ballzac if you did read my posts you will see there is PHYSICAL proof, that being radiation.... and electronegitivity of the solutions...... it shits me when people post old infomation without reading the new infomation, and i say that in utter most respect, thanks for joning the conversation, but everything you mentioned had been dismissed a few posts up.... considering you have such a great understanding of science why is it that your family doctor still gives you unprooven treatments to this day?

in regards to imunization, in the refrence to that im sure he was talking about how "homeopathy is understand to work right now" you see the industry is on a verge of changing with lots of new proof coming out, previously it was thought homeopathy worked simply becuase your body can only have one alliment at any given time so if you give the body a new posion it will concentrate on that posion and will forget about the old one... i can see how that got confused with the princibles of imunization.

and remeber 50% of conventinal medicine right now is unprooven, does this mean that 50% of concentional medicine is alternative medicine!!! WHAT THE.. MIND FUCK!!!

Panadol was only prooved HOW it worked 3 years ago, this didnt stop us using it for decades?? becuase it worked....

.............Also i dont give a fuck how i spell if you need to attack my spelling it prooves your arguments are weak and you need to resort to logical fallacies to attack my integrity.... consider that before you correct my spelling.

How is wooddragon going to assist he has a pHD in physics or is studying homeopathy at a university level??? 0_o

Or he would actually read the proof from some of the worlds most respected science jornals before posting ???

The most upsetting part about the entire topic is noone is reading the papers before posting...... just just skim over it, dont bother, then continue on to post there own opinions...

anyway... i wonder where nobel prize winner Luc Montagnier is latly?? his input would be invaluble in this thread...

Edited by vual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You asked for the opinion of physicists. I don't know how many other people in this thread are qualified to answer your question from a physicists point of view, but I thought I was being helpful by adding my 2c. Honestly, I didn't respond for my own sake. I have more important things to do with my time than discuss homeopathy with you, and if you don't want my input then I'm perfectly happy to stay out of the discussion.

Also i dont give a fuck how i spell if you need to attack my spelling it prooves your arguments are weak and you need to resort to logical fallacies to attack my integrity.... maybe you did it subconsiously but either way its sad.

Was this aimed at me? I re-read my post and can't see where I've attacked you for your atrocious spelling.

I'll respond to your PM here because it's really just part of the discussion here and I think your PM was superfluous: Firstly, the thread's a trap? Okay, I guess we were all sucked in then. Well done. :wacko:

In response to you complaining that I did not provide any arguments relating to the papers you posted: I'm a physicist, not an expert in medical science, so I thought I would answer your initial question about what explanation there is for homeopathy in terms of quantum mechanics. I do not feel qualified to discuss the papers you posted. If you want an intelligent and educated response from someone who knows what they're talking about, I suggest you PM WoodDragon and ask him to join in on the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worrys, thanks for joining in.

I cant see how my PM was "superfluous", Yes i am studying a degree in homeopathy, yes it gives me a advantage over you in this subject... superfluous no, i was making it known to you that I to was educated in the feild, and i didnt wanna make it publicly known for people will link my account name to my university, i tend to use PM for private details to those i can trust....

Aanyway thanks for taking it apon yourself to force me to make it public......or calling me out on a PM or whatever you thought you where doing..... either way its pritty untrust worthy to move something spoken about in a trusted PM to a public thread, i would dare say......

Do you even know what superfluous means? what i did was the oposite of superfluous, expecially in a topic where education makes a difference, i was establishing my "credentials" with you, for you cared to establish "yours" with me... so on that logic you being a SO CALLED "physicist" is superfluous, and even more so for your statment about you being a physicist is a compleate lie, maybe a SELF TAUGHT student of physics would be more approriate? .....

*enemys run of to google homeopathy higher education in australia, and troll for blog posts with the same bad spelling as mine....* <-- -

In the above I ment to say daltons atomic theory not boyles... why didnt you point that out you are a physicist you mention?

I assume you didint point it out because you didnt read it, or you didnt understand everything you read (*brain ticks over*)........

I am not going to attack your physics reserach but what physics feild are you currently reseraching? Matter comes in many forms and size's. If you did answer the inital question from a physics point of view i wouldnt of minded, but that would be considering you had a NEWLY educated point of view, things change and it seems you havnt been keeping up with your feild.

Fuck even a simply Google serach gives more infomation then you gave. If you are a Physics researcher like you claim it would of been apropriate to read the research and then anylise it for us.....???

I perfect example is how einstein was wrong about alot of stuff in the field of "physics".....

(ie: speed of light being the fastest and atomic particles being the smallest....)

But it worked at that point in time, i honestly think schools should stop teaching old pseudoscience and concentrate on new reserach from a basic level as not to fuck up with peoples fundimentals they carry with them later in life....

pseudoscience what a strange word.... essentialy all science is fake if looken at from a future prospective, AND NO SCIENCE CAN BE PROOVEN ONLY DISPROVEN, so the entire pretense behind this post IS A TRAP.

I was refering to the physics papers and qunatum mechenics not the medical papers, but both are great examples of critical evidence based research, but like you yourself mentioned you are not even educated enough to continune the conversation past the point of where you dont understand, and that was a while back. Hense why i still miss the point of any of your replys....

I hate to sound rude and i resepct your idea's but nothing is more anoying then someone saying "science" has no proof for something when to post they had to bypass the proof first, or they have a outdated understanding of science, or the fundimentals have changed along the way and they forgot to update there knowledge bank with new laws and theorys (daltons example). Science is so far away from a perfect study its not funny, and it tends to lead people to think of a "perfect science", science is just a CURRENT explanation of how things work and changes on a hourly basis all around the world as new papers are published and new experiments developed.

Honestly do you have any paid subscriptions to any jornals?? but you call yourself a scientist (sorry a physicist).

a real physicist would be peer reviewing as many articals as he can..... and a real physicist would take offence to that statment, maybe you are a student of physics but i would not say you are a reserache, I assume you have a university education in physics to make those bold statments but wouldnt you be dying to read new scientific litriture from your very field of study??

we allready established at the start you dont read propaly or dont fully understand what you read, so this post i make i feel is in vein....

The worst thing to happen to science is this new "skeptomania" movment of so called scientists going around attacking so called psudeoscience.... when the entire idea of science is just that, a good quote i once heard was.

"If there is no point on changing someones opinion with a experiment, i cant see the reasion to experiemnet in the first place"

Maybe wooddragon dosnt care to post for he knows for there is no point? or maybe he is busy with his quantum physics research, either way it would be awsome to have a qualified physicist's opinion on this subject, but i dont think a educated physicist would dare to comment for they could only backup my opinons after reviewing the litriture...........

really though whats the fucken point, just frustrates me that you consider yourslef a man of science, but cant be fucked to do the reserach, anyway you have more important things to do then debate something that has to do with your own industry being physics and also the worlds second most widly used medical system that will persioanly effect your slef and family members in years to come....... meh who cares right, it works and thats all that matters.

Edited by vual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fucken james randi all this anger has come from him, i must have a deep complex over him!!

sorry to take my love/hate reation ship with james randi out on everyone here.... like i mentioned in spirituality thread i need think before i type.... i just spew negitive shit, anyway ill leave my posts up for my own sake, no point removing them, what is said has been said. :(

I asked for your opinons and you gave them to me, becuae they didnt agree with me i attacked them, im sorry about that for what itsworth, thanks kindly for sharing your opinions on the subject with us :)

borderline schitzophrenia MPD or something... i dont know....

Edited by vual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homeopathy may not be fast acting, but it is really the only medicine I know that can cure diseases from the root.

I had warts not too long ago and I tried everything to get rid of them. Carving them out worked (sort of) until they came back, showing that the problem was not fixed from the root. The only thing that worked was homeopathic medicine I took to get rid of the virus internally and externally with pills and cream (respectively). It wasn't all fun and games, I had to take those pills ritually, three times a day for almost two months! Considering that warts do not go away due to time alone, I think homeopathy is more than placebo. Granted, you can't fix cancer or cystic fibrosis with homeopathy, but it's good for everyday sicknesses we all get every once in a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been sold on it, but I have seen it work on horses so I'm not convinced either way.

I have a bit of an issue with basic premise of homeopathy - like repels like, ie if I put two drops of water(from different sources) on a microscope slide so they almost touch they don't actively repel each other they just sit there, and if I break the surface tension they will seemingly attract each other and combine into 1 larger drop. Two grains of any powdered substance will not repel each other and if magnetically charged they self align the opposite poles and attract each other. 2 magnets will tend to establish an alignment (one or both will rotate) that attracts unless there is some outside interference that is holding the like poles together.

The concept of miasms is quite intriguing though, as I remember Hahneman really lost a lot of credibility over that hypothesis. Now we look at disease and susceptibility to disease/illness in terms of DNA and it all makes sense in a peculiar twist that no-one could have seen coming before the advent of DNA analysis.

Maybe there is a cause-effect relationship between the mitochondria and dna sequence that works both ways and can be manipulated through outside influences, such as energy fields we can't yet quantify, like the miasms of old that were incomprehensible at the time.

Edited by SallyD
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think consciousness creates form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner is currently taking homeopathic melatonin which she claims is giving her the best sleep she's had in ages. Before then she was taking Valerian pills (which kind of worked) Passionflower, combo pills and none of it was really working.

Now I keep hearing from the scientists that it's nothing but the placebo effect, but if that is truly the case then it means that other products are actually having a worse effect on her sleeping patterns. Or it's not really a placebo effect at all.

Most of the people I trust who are scientifically minded and who also believe homeopathy works also don't think it's placebo. How can it work effectively and every time on children when other products don't if it's just a placebo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if homoepathy works better than other forms of medicine, which it seems to in many cases, yet it is merely a placebo, doesn't that mean that the other forms of medicine are actually having a detrimental affect on the patient?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my opinion, at this point in time, what the human body is capable of is any bodies guess. some homeopathic treatments may be amazing, but so far beyond reasonable understanding with our current knowledge. too many people are too significantly helped for it to be a purely placebo effect.

@whitewind, i don't think that western medicine is always detrimental, but it is certainly true many individuals react very differently (and perhaps negatively) to some things, specificaly synthetic medicines, where natural products don't have the same reaction. it would be nice if there were doctors who would apply whichever methods needed to help the patient be them homeopathy, chemical medicine, whatever. bias towards either side can't be helping.

dio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have studied homoeopathy as a part of a degree I completed years ago. It was only half a semester, intro to homoeopathy type subject. Apparently there are private colleges where one studies for up to four years to become "qualified", qualified in the eyes of one of the numerous homoeopathic and natural/alternative medicine professional associations.

I have always had a one big problem with homoeopathy that my lecturer was not able to address nor has it really been discussed very much, so I thought I would bring it up.

The problem is that pilules (spelling? I am talking about the little white spherical sugar pills that are made into homoeopathic remedies) are bone dry.

but

one of the fundamental principals behind homoeopathy is the idea that water has a "memory". That water will retain an imprint or will be somehow changed (indefinitely).

So for example, an aqueous solution of atropine is serially diluted 10, 20, 100 times to the desired "potency" (in inverted commas because the homoeopathic idea of potency is quite different to the pharmacological sense). I can't remember the exact figure but at some level of dilution there will close to nothing or nothing left of the atropine but the water it was dissolved in has been changed in someway, so that it's now imprinted with the memory of atropine. I should add that I'm not sure if "memory" or "imprint" are the correct homoeopathic terms to describe this proposed property of water, I am using them because they are simplest way to describe what I understand of homoeopathy.

I don't take issues with the way homoeopaths claim water behaves, that may or may not be true. It's just a theory that some people believe. Obviously, what gets me is that there is no water in a lot of the remedies being sold.

Well, I am currently studying 2&3rd year chem as a part of a new degree and I can understand that the sugar pills will not be completely anhydrous and there will be some water left in sugar pills that appear to be dry and I also understand that there may also be water molecules associated with the crystalline structure of the solids that make up the sugar pills. But, it occurs to me that even if water does behave in the homoeopathic way, the act of soaking sugar pills in it may somehow serve to bugger up the waters "memory" of atropine. If water does behave in the way homoeopaths claim, won't the water's atropine imprint be messed up by it's tendency to try to make an imprint of the molecules that get dissolved in it i.e. the sugar and what ever else the pills are made out of? I mean wouldn't you end up with either water with atropine/sugar/other binders imprint or some jumbled mess of imprints?

What about the liquid remedies? They have ethanol as an added preservative.

It is not like ethanol is a special case and it has special properties that don't effect the water. According to homoepathic principle, everything can be made into a remedy, so that a pretty powerful contradiction.

The underlying principals of homoeopathy might be true, might be great, might be crap. I don't know, what I do know is that there are some huge gaps in the theory of homoeopathy and the actual practice of it. My homoeopath lecturer was very, very knowledgeable. He had study for 4 years and practised privately for years as well. He really knew his homoeopathy and could make some very well considered arguments in its defence but my simple question about the absence of water in a sugar pills were always kind of glossed over. I didn't want to push it because I was genuinely scared (forgive me, I was but a child) that I was right and there is no answer and a large part of the homoeopathic industry are selling sugar pills because in theory (homoepathic theory) it is impossible to make a homoeopathic remedy out of crystalline sugar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh no! I have killed the thread :(

but seriously, does anyone know enough about homoeopathy to be able to tell me if the above is a fair point. No water = no homoeopathic remedies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my point of view follows:

I worked as a herbalist for a number of years, managing a dispensary in Sydney.

We had a homeopath working for us, & I tried some of the remedies & for me & they just didnt cut it.

Hours of researching like treats like etc etc.

To cut a long story short there werent many return clients/patients.

We had this black box ( cant remember its name at the mo) that you put a card into, then set a dial to the potency of the remedy that you were wanting to use & viola

you had a "homopathetic" remedy that was supposedly "proven". The receiving remedy was made from french brandy & water.

Cant say I ever saw good results with this...

The cost for this remedy was about 5 mins of time, & $1 worth of brandy, water, a bottle & a dropper. Sold for at least $10 upwards. easy money.that didnt do much

We also made flower essences, bush flower essences & again honestly the result was the same. These essences were made properly by diluting flowers in bowls of water, at the right moon time blah blah.

I honestly think the brandy in minute doses was what people needed.Alcohol may be more potent than we realise...

You could kind of sum up the type of client that was into these remedies. I hate to stereotype so such leave that well alone....

Although on the other hand Kiniesiology, which I also studied & I cant explain but this one seemed to work....for me any way.

My thoughts are Herbs, Vitamins, Lifestyle, Attitude, Acupuncture etc all do work.

Homeopathy after being in the industry for a number of years just doesnt cut it.

Spend your money on something else....

Evidence based practice, now I support that idea, so that seems why homeopathy is & will be the first "alternative/complementary " medicine to go from being taught in unis etc, which isnt that far off....

I have a bach of Health sciences in Herbal medicine, professional cert in Iridolgy, some pieces of paper in Kiniesiology, Bachelor of health sciences in Complementary medicine, studied cert 3 in massage,

& a few other bits n pieces.(bush flower essences etc). I have had my degree for a while now

Cant explain 'Homopatheticy' & wouldnt bother....

The worlds full of charletons...

Just my 2 cents

 

only half sorry I have not been surfing the net much and not looking in on these forums to have missed out much of the course this thread had taken, (read only about a third of by now), but I want to say something about the post above, . .

I'd readily believe it of many homeopaths, since if they didn't learn the basic principals of how to prescribe well, and get very good at prescribing, quite speedily, (and yes it can be an assiduously lengthy process to get it right), then not only can the remedies seem to have no effect whatsoever, but they can actually make the mind and dreaming, more difficult. That is, if the remedy was not "well selected" as the Indian Ayurvedic experts in homeopathy might say.

Basically, find someone you see is good at taking their own medicine, and at causing good health results in other people besides themselves and their immediate family, before you trust any medicine, no matter how correct the theory.

Good homeopaths are few and far between, and although I have been focused on an undercurrent of learning homeopathy for over ten years, (but only recently been enrolled in a degree in health science with homeopathy major), I seriously still do not know how good at prescribing for folk I've never met before, I will be becoming.

However, what I am able to confirm, is:

the "what the bleep do we know" film+book type of ideas of water molecules having a memory stored in some kind of sub-structural way, are the deal

However, I might as well add, that if I am a Shamanic practitioner, and read the head, and body signs, of a patient, then my spit might remember, and my spit might as well be that same homeopathic remedy as I could spend hours finding in books, that is, either way, if I am truly good at what I do.

Also, the black box with cards as mentioned above, is a real phenomenon in the science of radionics, but that kind was the old model, and these days one may even obtain devices by which one needs only speak, (or even breath), into a something, and something changes something into the remedy. However, those original black boxes give a good impression, in the pictures on the cards, of each remedy having its own unique electro-magnetic field, which is the real case.

The fact is, a person needs to be very very physically and/or psychically, sensitive to perceive the effect of a homeopathic remedy. Like super sensitive. BUT I could guarantee to you all, that if, for example, you were to take daytura at the same time as one of the other solanaceae plants in a homeopath's dose (diluted out of existence apparently, thus apparently, HOMEOPATHY IS THE EVIDENCE THAT PLACEBO EFFECT IS REAL LIFE), you would not fail but to recognize the effect.

One of the other effects homeopathy can have, longer term, is to simply make the body more sensitive all the time. After ten years, of having a new remedy every few weeks, (just one dose), eventually it began to feel like being stoned all day every day, but without any narcosis, so feeling the body more, AND being sensitive in the mind more, at the same time.

There is a warning that accompanies homeopathy, which is not to use a homeopathic remedy made from the same substance which may have been the actual cause of the underlying symptoms being treated. The rule is like cures like, Not sameness curing same. Like cures do-like, to be precise. You get the dream of what not to from the remedy, and then the sensation in the body of why not to, and then you have to figure out how not to, or else you'd be fucked. So it works well for you if you work it for yourself basically. But along the lines of what not to do, I could recommend, that it is NOT GOOD, if you want to eradicate the longer term mental problems associated with something like cannabis use, to go and take a homeopath's dose of cannabis, (even though homeopathy literature is mightily entertaining to read on the subject), because it definitely could cause the longer term mental patterns to become permanent, so as you'd never need have any ever again, but would also never be straight ever again.

Not that it bothered me any, since I'd had a constantly renewing effect happening after just one mushroom trip a few years before I found a homeopath who could keep me level.

All the science and pseudo sciences aside, most good homeopaths are very religious people, and the fact of what homeopathy achieves in the Spiritual domain, is very real. Whereas all psycho-active plants, enable that the body's brain receives of the Spirit, what homeopathy enables is that the Spirit receives of the body's self observance, and therefore, it works best for who is already confident of having a health reviving ability of Spirit.

I've seen people have intensely strong reactions to a homeopathic remedy, then totally deny that anything changed, simply because their reaction was born in having gained increased self consciousness of shame. Which can be what the health needs, whenever pride had gone the wrong direction.

Even if you don't believe me, I still would not advise you to go out and take any old homeopathic remedy willy nilly, and definitely not in repeat doses. There is an actual science in homeopathy, but it is more related to the science that is sustained within a Shamanic outlook, which westerners tend to not even recognise as a science. But a science of the exact right dose, of the exact right fear, at the exact right time, that may stimulate the organism of a biological body, into becoming more cleverly responsive to the spiritual domains.

Edited by curaezipirid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here I go again, . . . sorry guys for expecting anybody to trudge through my brain bludgeoning here, but I am enjoying reading everything in this thread, and wanted to have more say:

Hi Vual, Homeopathy is a huge field and there are things that work and others that are crap. Im in the middle of an homeopathical education and i can tell you one thing: The stuff with the diluted chemicals inside the nice little mini-pearls is pure crap to fill the pockets of the people who do it with some money. The few positive results people have are directly related to a placebo reaction of the human psyche. Dosage makes the poison. Too small of a dose = No result. Period.

BUT there is a whole lot of things from the Homeopathic field that definately work. I believe in Phytotherapy, TCM, Accupuncture and everything that has to do with it.

I respect when people believe in some certain aspects of homepathy that i think are bullshit and i wont join a discussion about that because people have to decide for themselves what they believe in or not but personally, i have not the slightest doubt its nothing but rip-off. Phytotherapy on the other hand is the shit.

 

The important point in the quote above, is that among all professional homeopaths is incredible disagreement about what homeopathy is, how it works, and why. In fact many homeopaths radically disagree with one another even about basic rules such as how to prescribe safely.

Yet somehow something is working for all of them, presumably. I'd say some are indeed total charlatans, and others can do the real deal, alike to Shamanic work, but the insideous nature of homeopathy, is that it avails itself to charlatans to profit from, and so be careful who you get homeopathy prescribed by, is the most important know how in the field. You'd think if it's nothing, it couldn't be harmful, but it can be quite bad for longer term health consequences, (either because it is a placebo when something else was needed, OR, as I believe, it is very alike to acupuncture in how a disease could be suppressed as readily as cured, if the wrong medicine was to be prescribed). Some homeopaths prescribe to suppress diseases as they make more money that way, so be very cautious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't.. there is no scientific evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathy above that of placebo.

Also, "placebo" doesn't mean it doesn't necessarily have an effect, just that there is no medical reason for it to do so.

The placebo effect can be very real, and ranges from the patient feeling subjectively better to actual medical improvement. There is no way for a patient to judge whether it is placebo or not.

But the effect isn't the result of the placebo (for instance the water used in homeopathy), but of what the patient thinks about the placebo.. a lot of people, if they believe something will or might have an effect, will experience some kind of effect.

This is why placebo is considered unethical in medicine, as it essentially involves a kind of deception (although it happens, for instance some doctors will prescribe an antibiotic for a virus, just to make the patient go away—knowing full well that antibiotics have no medical effect on viruses, but many patients will feel better after taking a pill from the doctor).

 

The think about all placebos, is that the patient needs to be told it is something more than a placebo. But if it works on animals, and without a patient needing to believe in it being more than a placebo, then it is more than a placebo. That's one way to find out whether a homeopath is good at homeopathy, if they can tell you it will work without you needing to believe in it.

Just because a University teaches something doesn't mean it is scientifically sound, that decision is made on the basis of evidence. But I understand your confusion about universities offering such courses.. I had read that it was happening in the UK but didn't realize it was going on over here as well.

The short answer as to why they are offering it is money: universities are commercial ventures and alt med is a popular and lucrative field.

 

Good points.

Further thought along the same lines, is that pharmaceutical companies don't support homeopathy, because it is more accessible to everybody for less money, since a remedy once made, as in once it is diluted, so long as it is taken care of well, holds and can be replicated from the original, eg put that sugar pill into a bottle of brandy, and you have a whole bottle of potential new sugar pills, when drops of brandy land in bowls of sugar. Bizarrely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the conventional method of visualising atomic structure and the relationship between molecules and the relative forms their energy takes are insufficient for use in describing the mechanism by which homoeopathy works.

closer to string theory though even that is slightly to limited.

atoms must be viewed more as non planar tauroids to properly grasp the way in which energy can flow from one energy packet into another... the qualities and quanitities fall within ranges which produce categories which we know as atoms and molecules... these can be split into still more discreet bundles of tauroidal spirals... depending on several factors which are only visible to a mind trained in advanced visualisation techiniques which would generally breach te ordinary perception of the material universe these atoms and their sub-atomic composites can also manifest various qualities and characteristics.

at the level on which homoeopathy works the changes in the qualitis of the substances are so subtle and fine that they are not able to be detected by material instruments, theough they can be detected bvy the visualisation centre of the mind... that specific centre is only the surface of a far more complex interactive system that literally manifests the most subtle forces.

imagine for example...

 

I agree with the above good points, but take care not to over indulge in use of the word "imagine" please. (You know one of the commonalities between all ancient cultures and religions, is a saying alike "the only thing nobody can imagine is dying" . . . and one would not want to go imagining diseases into existance, would one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homeopathy is interesting. It does seem to be very effective - I used it once, many years ago, and it worked on long term depression and anxiety when nothing else did. Whether that was due to the homeopathic practitioner also appearing to give a shit - an hours therapy, rather than 2 minutes in a doctors surgery, quick script and you're out - is also debatable. But they tell me that it also works on dogs and other animals, which are not prone to any placebo effect. I know a surprising number of people who believe that homeopathy works, including several nurses. And it works on children, too young to know what they are ingesting.

Science is our way of understanding an observable phenomena. For scientists to state that homeopathy doesn't work - because they don't understand how it works - this is sheer nonsense. You have to prove it doesn't work, not say you don't understand how it works.

To me, it is yet one more big pharma crime trying to control the market, and doctors and scientists are unknowingly complicit in their misunderstanding of how science should work - as a way of understanding, not as dogma.

Saying that, there is clearly bullshit around - remedies sold as homeopathy that are more akin to herbalism but with tiny doses instead of quantum imprints, and people who decry it without even knowing the principles. Not enough knowledge, essentially. Remember, those who despise homeopathy also despise herbalism, and frequently don't know the difference, or are in the pockets of the medical industry, where science is only used for profit making purposes.

 

Nicely expressed! Do we need to know more than that it works, and is it rather that we need learn how to make it work at its best, which is within that hour long consultation, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't make sense though. Firstly, a vaccine triggers an immune response to a virus you have not been exposed to yet. There is no point in having a vaccine for a contagion that you've already contracted. Homeopathy is intended to actually cure problems that you're already suffering from. Also, is this how homeopathy supposedly works? If I want to prevent insomnia, do I have a tiny, tiny, amount of amphetamines, at which point my immune system will build antibodies that fight sleeplessness in my body, and then next time a little bit of sleeplessness sets in, my body is ready to attack it, helping me sleep? It doesn't seem very logical.

 

Actually it is perfectly logical. An "anti-body" has "anti-" not "ante-" as its prefix.

A controversial issue among homeopaths, is whether or not, in developing a new immune response, a patient may need, or not need, to experience what is called a "homeopathic aggravation" which is usually like a briefly experienced rash, or welt, on the surface of the skin.

I kid you not, I once had a susceptibility to having head lice cured in me, and the remedy caused instead, a load of super itchy welts, starting at my tummy, at around 6pm one evening, (times of day are really important for finding the exact right remedy in homeopathy, and nobody wonders much why, it just is), then moving out from my tummy covering my torso, then starting down my arms and legs, then no more at dawn, then the next evening they came back, but started where they'd left off the night before, and moved down to my hands and feet, and by the third night, the itchy welts only appeared on the palms of my hands and soles of my feet, then no more. Then, no more head lice ever again. Even when in contact with. Well, an occasional odd louse if I am in contact with a lot in children or something, but no infestations like I used to get. But I did have to take the homeopaths advice to stop using petro-chemical treatments first, which had started not working at getting rid of the lice anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and remeber 50% of conventinal medicine right now is unprooven, does this mean that 50% of concentional medicine is alternative medicine!!! WHAT THE.. MIND FUCK!!!

Panadol was only prooved HOW it worked 3 years ago, this didnt stop us using it for decades?? becuase it worked....

 

read MIMS to know, that the pharmacuetical companies don't know how most drugs work

that the main difference with homeopathy is that a patient needs an individualised prescription, (except in certain cases of epidemic , . . . as my work in homeopathy for addicts exists),

and pharmaceutical companies simply hate that idea, of the right medicine being one out of a few thousand, which may take an hour to find, AND, the medicine itself can be easily replicated; makes the whole idea of homeopathy simply less profitable than all the cruder medicines that have the same effect on everybody . . . each homeopathic remedy, will effect each person differently, and it is a finely attuned skill to work out which remedy will have the most curative effect on which patient and at which time . . . a lot of people don't use homeopathy mainly because there are few really very good homeopaths around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homeopathy may not be fast acting, but it is really the only medicine I know that can cure diseases from the root.

I had warts not too long ago and I tried everything to get rid of them. Carving them out worked (sort of) until they came back, showing that the problem was not fixed from the root. The only thing that worked was homeopathic medicine I took to get rid of the virus internally and externally with pills and cream (respectively). It wasn't all fun and games, I had to take those pills ritually, three times a day for almost two months! Considering that warts do not go away due to time alone, I think homeopathy is more than placebo. Granted, you can't fix cancer or cystic fibrosis with homeopathy, but it's good for everyday sicknesses we all get every once in a while.

 

Yes homeopathy can cure a disease at the root. I have experienced such cureS, and it is a quite hard journey to accept as a patient, but worthwhile.

However, I believe other disciplines, like acupuncture, acupressure, and osteopathy, (especially cranial osteopathy), are just as effective at curing.

Also, you can fix cancers with homeopathy, sometimes, yet with only the most highly individualised prescriptions, but no cancer cure will ever be guaranteed, because, knowing the Shamanic way of curing it, the patient really has to be prepared to give up a lot of self concept. Also, as I understand homeopathy, I would not like to take repeat doses of any remedy for warts, . . . but as I wrote already, us homeopaths tend to disagree in what potencies to use and whether to repeat a prescription. I got taught the way of single dose high potency prescribing, by a lay homeopath with a busy enough practice that his wife stayed at home to care for their six kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been sold on it, but I have seen it work on horses so I'm not convinced either way.

I have a bit of an issue with basic premise of homeopathy - like repels like, ie if I put two drops of water(from different sources) on a microscope slide so they almost touch they don't actively repel each other they just sit there, and if I break the surface tension they will seemingly attract each other and combine into 1 larger drop. Two grains of any powdered substance will not repel each other and if magnetically charged they self align the opposite poles and attract each other. 2 magnets will tend to establish an alignment (one or both will rotate) that attracts unless there is some outside interference that is holding the like poles together.

The concept of miasms is quite intriguing though, as I remember Hahneman really lost a lot of credibility over that hypothesis. Now we look at disease and susceptibility to disease/illness in terms of DNA and it all makes sense in a peculiar twist that no-one could have seen coming before the advent of DNA analysis.

Maybe there is a cause-effect relationship between the mitochondria and dna sequence that works both ways and can be manipulated through outside influences, such as energy fields we can't yet quantify, like the miasms of old that were incomprehensible at the time.

 

It is not that like repels like, but that like can cure like. Curing is different from repelling. Think of how soap works, its molecules are long, so their shape replicates the shape of oil molecules, and they attract the oil molecules by polarity, but this is essentially another like curing like effect.

How homeopathy got explained to me the first time I visited a homeopath, is that the remedy is like a big bad monster in the subconscious mind, (or even in conscious dreams), which is bigger and badder than the disease, but simultaneously it and the disease are attracted to one another. So they fight it out in your subconscious mind. Kind of like Gandalf and the Balrog, going down together, and the bodies immunities are like the reborn Gandalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think consciousness creates form.

 

Why yes, yet how in control of our conscious mind are we! and , . . . well, . . . what might we have created out of illusions, if not diseases, . . . (if not disease, then the flora and fauna, and geology, is what Shamanic healing is all about, . . . and homeopathic remedies are a marvellous aid in shamanic work)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner is currently taking homeopathic melatonin which she claims is giving her the best sleep she's had in ages. Before then she was taking Valerian pills (which kind of worked) Passionflower, combo pills and none of it was really working.

Now I keep hearing from the scientists that it's nothing but the placebo effect, but if that is truly the case then it means that other products are actually having a worse effect on her sleeping patterns. Or it's not really a placebo effect at all.

Most of the people I trust who are scientifically minded and who also believe homeopathy works also don't think it's placebo. How can it work effectively and every time on children when other products don't if it's just a placebo?

 

Maybe we let some folk believe it is no more than a placebo, just because that is the easiest way for them to accept the efficacy.

Of course placebo theory depends on the patient being told it is something else, but homeopathy works on animals, and plants, and children respond better than most adults.

With remedies which are prescribed in repeat doses, there will be another effect not apparent until a while after your partner stops taking the homeopathy. We have to be very careful not to cause patients to become addicted with repeat doses in homeopathy, which is the sad irony in the placebo theory, that sometimes a doctor might say that a person became psychologically addicted to the placebo effect, but when in fact, the remedy could be causing a specific nightmare, which would not come into the conscious mind until after the patient stops taking the remedy, . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my opinion, at this point in time, what the human body is capable of is any bodies guess. some homeopathic treatments may be amazing, but so far beyond reasonable understanding with our current knowledge. too many people are too significantly helped for it to be a purely placebo effect.

@whitewind, i don't think that western medicine is always detrimental, but it is certainly true many individuals react very differently (and perhaps negatively) to some things, specificaly synthetic medicines, where natural products don't have the same reaction. it would be nice if there were doctors who would apply whichever methods needed to help the patient be them homeopathy, chemical medicine, whatever. bias towards either side can't be helping.

dio

 

That is the bottom line of course. What is best for an individual patient, and also their community, simultaneously.

Did it matter if somebody believed homeopathy is only a placebo effect, if they are going to train themselves to prescribe well nevetheless, supposing that all the work in prescribing, is a kind of psychological assessment which helps in and of itself. So long as they know when to refer a patient for any serious condition they could not treat, there is no harm in even homeopaths considering homeopathy to be a placebo effect, if the science is beyond their mind to conceive of.

The science exists, and is real, but does it matter if we don't know what and why, so long as we know how, and are responsible in how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×