[condor]

The way this discussion has gone is like this :

Person A (who has seen the results for himself) : I had this condition, & have seen positive results after taking homoeopathy treatment. And I have been cured of my condition.

the Skeptic : No, Mr A, you are absolutely wrong. The study conducted by so & So says that this is not possible at all because they say Homeopathy does not work.

Coming back to the points you have mentioned :

e1t1bet : I have provide enough evidence. The fact that you cannot comprehend basic volumetrics isn't my problem, and it is not my prerogative to teach you that. Feel free to consult fraudulent homeo practitioners and swallow sugar balls.

I don’t see any evidence from you here, apart from a copy-paste of some text taken from various sources on the net. So what proof do you have to say that what they have published has actually been done ?

Even if they did conduct the study and got exactly the same results they have published, How are you so sure ? On what basis do you believe them ? You have not participated in the studies, you have not met the participants, you are not a test subject, you have not reported results, you have not verified what the test patients have felt before or after, and you have not verified what the test conducting entity has done.

So all that you quoted is a by far just anecdotes. To a person who has experienced results himself, what you have quoted will qualify as a bigger anecdote than what you have defined as anecdotes.

e1t1bet : I am not trying to change anyone's views. If someone wants to try homeo, even after knowing pros and cons, it is his choice and I respect that.

If you accept it is their choice, then you don’t have do this :

e1t1bet : However, I won't stand back and watch while people go around spreading baseless myths.

You are contradicting yourself by doing so.

e1t1bet : The burden of proof, in this case lies on your side, not mine.

And Why not on your side ? Why should the burden of proof lie on the people who have seen the proof for themselves ?

And what you hold up against the personal experiences of these people here is just a quote from the net.

Go ahead, do the studies yourself, and come back to us with the results. You can then say with more authority that YOU did the study, and have first hand evidence for what you are saying. Till then, what ever you say will remain ‘anecdotal evidence’ for every one.

e1t1bet : No, my opinion is not based on my encounters. I have never tried homeopathy, and I do not know anyone who has. What I am stating is based on scientifically established facts!

And yet you say it is bunkum ! In your own words, you have not tried, you don’t know anyone who has, you say it is your opinion. You have not done any study, and yet you take a nth party’s material as the scientific truth. Why are you not skeptical about what they have said in their results ?

Edsel Rulez! : Hello, aren't you getting it backward?

If I have experienced results, how is it backward ? I’ll say it again that to a person who has seen results with anything, he does not need anyone telling him that his results are fake. For him, what he has seen is fantastic enough.

Edsel Rulez! : The onus is not upon skeptics to prove that something doesn't work; the burden of proof is on the person who makes a fantastic claim.

Again, why so ? Saying that is like putting the skeptic on a pedestal, as one who is beyond any accountability. If the skeptic is so right & confident about what he is saying, Let the skeptic prove that every single result that the benefitted have experienced is just an illusion that the person has seen.


Till then, the skeptic is entitled to his opinion as much as the believer is. If the skeptic wants to convince the others, he is most welcome to put forth his side of things - not quoted material.

Mods, I think this discussion has gone far enough.

[tsk1979]

Well lets say I have invented a magic pill which increases efficiency of all cars by 100%, do I have to prove it, or do the people asking for proof need to prove it.
People have claimed to make gold out of iron. I am sure, the burden of proof lies on then, not on people calling them out.

Regarding medicine, a medicine containing compound X reacts with certain molecule Y in the body. Such reactions can be proved using basic chemistry.
Now if somebody comes and says, that 1 molecule of a substance in 1 billion molecules of water will somehow change the property of water, that person needs to provide proof. Its entire possible that there is some kind of celestial magic involved. If that is the case then such practitioners should declare that there is magic involved.
Please provide some scientific proof of alternative systems.
As for Ayurveda there is enough scientific proofs. For example chemicals have been isolated from neem which have blood purifying and disinfectant properties.
Turmeric has been chemically shown to be an anti biotic.
There is proper scientific explanation for things like Yoga and Ayurveda. However Homeopathy as a science does not offer any scientific proof. why? And all those who say they have been cured, can they conclusively proof
1. It was not placebo effect
2. They were not given an allopathic medicine labelled as homeo?

[Gansan]

I am a strict adherent of "modern" medicine. I won't call it allopathy. As far as alternate medicines go, I have respect for Ayurveda and Sidda. Remember, they have been practiced in India for thousands of years before the British arrived here to suppress them. And 'Rhinoplasty" was performed by Susruta 1500 years ago.

Sushruta Samhita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still, these two systems or rather quacks practicing them, sometimes make use of heavy metals in their medicines. So be careful whether you are consuming it yourself or administering to your little ones.

I am not a fan of homoeopathy and on a few occassions that I actually underwent the treatment, it had absolutely no effect on me. And the money I spent was in no way lesser than what I would have spent with a GP. But one thing though-the doses are so infinitely small, even if they have no positive effect on you, they absolutely can't cause any side effects at all!

I have an uncle at Bangalore who practices homoeopathy and have seen him prepare the "medicines". While I rather like the principle of "like curing like", the extremely tiny doses/dilutions and the exact number of strokes/shakes he will give them etc appear mere mumbo-jumbo to me.

This is purely my own perception and no offence intended to followers of homoeopathy.

[condor]

TSK, your post, by itself is logical. But definitely, you would agree that the relief seen by @Download2live, or the intsances mentioned by Samurai, or what I have seen in myself - are measurable using the same equipment that allopathy uses - IS different from someone saying that iron has been turned into gold.

*
So if someone wants to say that both the examples in TSK's post are equally good, I'll invite the person to show me someone who claims to have turned the iron into gold, with the specimen that has been transformed.

Till then, I suggest that we limit the discussion to what has been seen & experienced - and where the results have not happened.

[Samurai]

Are we to assume that all discoveries have been done? There are no more mysteries left in the universe?

Most 20th century inventions and discoveries would be considered voodoo if they were contemplated in 19th century. How Homeopathy is working for some may be considered voodoo now, but who knows, they may be an explanation in next 50 or 100 years. I prefer to keep an open mind than demand that everything has to be explained in the terms of current scientific knowledge.

[kutlee]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Do I have to prove it, or do the people asking for proof need to prove it.

Now if somebody comes and says, that 1 molecule of a substance in 1 billion molecules of water will somehow change the property of water, that person needs to provide proof.

Good point. There's a million dollar challenge on this by James Randy foundation.
Homeopathy Qualifies for the Million Dollar Challenge

I think BBC was part of the experiment. Saw this long time ago.

I believe that homoeo doesn't work. There is no proof. The medicines don't expire (because it's just alcohol..no medicine). Still follow homoeo.

[Edsel Rulez!]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Are we to assume that all discoveries have been done? There are no more mysteries left in the universe?

Samurai, while there are many things we don't know about and are yet to be discovered, homeopathy isn't one of those exalted mysteries. It goes against everything modern chemistry has to say, and has no history of independent research or testing (unlike even ayurveda). Treat it as a hobby if you wish, but please don't expect it to work miracles. The link I posted earlier explains the "science" behind homeopathy. I'm not an allopathic doctor and I don't have any close relatives who are, so it's not as if I have an axe to grind. And I would be the first to admit that allopathy is far from perfect. The difference, however, is that allopathic doctors agree that there are many things they don't know and are willing to update themselves when new discoveries are made. Homeopathy, on the other hand, claims to be immutable and as "perfect" as it can get. That makes it seem more like a religion than a science.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Most 20th century inventions and discoveries would be considered voodoo if they were contemplated in 19th century.

The reverse is even more likely to be true -- many so-called 'scientific" theories that were considered valid in the past are considered unscientific or voodoo today. That's how science progresses. Medicine as practised in the 18th century was very different from what it is today. The thing about allopathy is that it's constantly evolving and changing as our awareness of the natural world increases. A hundred years ago there was no aspirin, no penicillin, no paracetamol. In a few decades these drugs would in all probability have been superseded by better options with fewer side-effects. That's how modern medicine works. But homeopathy, as I mentioned earlier, is a fossil. It admits no changes, no revisions, no progress.

Originally Posted by Samurai

How Homeopathy is working for some may be considered voodoo now, but who knows, they may be an explanation in next 50 or 100 years. I prefer to keep an open mind.

Highly unlikely. If homeopathy gets a scientific explanation in the next 100 years, that would mean junking and rewriting everything we know about chemistry today. Surely it's far more likely that homeopaths are mistaken/deluded than to suppose that whatever scientists learned about chemistry in the past 300 years is completely wrong? Bear in mind that homeopathy is one man's innovation. Hahnemann was probably convinced that it works, but hey, we're all human. All through history we have had plenty of humans imagining themselves to be gods and prophets... and enough people to believe in them. That's how we are!

There's a greater danger involved. Since homeopathy is a non-science its practitioners often claim to eradicate diseases for which allopathy has no cure. Indeed, I have seen many people with chronic or incurable ailments resort to homeopathy as a last resort. That does give a feeling of hope for the desperate, but the danger is that they often discontinue all "regular" treatment and medication as well. It's especially dangerous in ailments like cancer and AIDS. A case in point is Dr Majeed of Ernakulam, who made millions promoting his supposedly ayurvedic cure for AIDS. The medicines never worked. Indeed, the Supreme Court even enforced a ban on sales of the fraudulent drug. But that didn't stop gullible people from continuing to flock to him. Homeopathy thrives on the same principle -- hope.

Forget the financial aspects involved; if it gives people satisfaction and some signs of actually working, that's great. I wouldn't advise such people to give it up. My main issue is with people who claim that it's a "science". It's not. Those who do this are either ignorant of the basic principles of science, or how homeopathy claims to work, or both.

Sam Kapasi, I recall you'd said in this thread that you don't think homeopathy relies on the placebo effect and that your respect for it is growing by the day. I find you refreshingly rational and open-minded in your approach to any topic under discussion, so I'd like to know what exactly prompts this belief. Please note that I'm not baiting you; I enjoy hearing all sides of a debate so long as it's well-reasoned. And of course, if doesn't resort to ad hominem arguments or the inevitable reference to Hitler.

[Jaggu]

I don't think any amount of debate here will reveal the magic our body and mind can do. Period! I have seen it happen around me, the good, the bad and the ugly side.

All these diff streams/science etc has figured some part of it right, and i wouldn't look down on any one of them. As long as it helps an ailing human or an animal i would definitely give it the due credits. But ill ensure the source/practisioner is reliable one. This is more important to me.

The End!

[kalpeshc]

A small update in the midst of the ongoing debate. I went ahead and visited a homeopath for my 18 month old kid's skin problems. Basically he had a few boils on his skin which were very small. Six months back he had the same problem but they kept on becoming larger and larger until they were literally the size of half a table tennis ball. And I am not exaggerating here. This happened over a month. During this time, I did consult with a few allopathic doctors but all of them insisted that these are regular boils and they'll burst on their own or they have to be forcefully burst. All this while my son was in unbearable pain and used to whimper for the better part of the day.

I tried naturopathy which helped in bursting those boils. But I did not get any help from allopathic doctors except the offer to surgically burst them and remove the pus. The first doctor (a very reputed pediatric for that matter) even considered them as regular tiny boils and advised us to do nothing about it !!!

This time around I wanted to try homeopathy because I have faith in it. My son has also started actively rejecting any allopathic medicine because of the bitter taste. He spits it out. I went to the doctor on Monday who asked me to try a few sugar balls and some powder. The very next day the boil burst partially and the area started drying up. Today is the third day and the boils are now extremely dark in color and not the light red. They are basically 'ripening' and the size is still small. Today he took the history of my son and gave me a long prescription of around 10 days. Like Samurai san mentioned, he even asked me to get a blood report done and was surprised why did any doctor not recommended it last time around. (Thank you Samurai for your post - helped me immensely). I am going to wait for a few more days before I pass judgment but I am tilting towards accepting homeopathy as a remedy one can definitely try for at least non-acute, non-critical medical issues.

[Samurai]

My wife had this to say after reading this thread:

I have no idea how homeopathy works. But it has to be experienced to be believed. When my son joined autism therapy there was a 3.5 years old child in his class who probably had the most severe symptoms. His chin was down touching his chest, thumb in his mouth,body curled up and he would refuse to leave his mother's lap. Compared to him all the other kids looked better off because they atleast look normal to a casual observer. However in two months time, that child started sitting up and taking notice of his environment, in just two months since I first saw him, he caught up with everyone else in the class. Just that was a miracle for all of us who had seen him earlier.

But the real miracle came in the third month when he started talking. It was simply unbelievable even to his mom (who is a now a good friend of mine). All our children were getting the same therapy from the exact same therapists, the only difference was that child was on homeopathic medicines. The irony is both parents of that child are chemists working in major pharma companies. THEY convinced me to go for homeopathy. If it works it opens up a whole new world for our autistic children, and if it doesn't we won't be any worse off.

[Edsel Rulez!]

Originally Posted by Samurai

My wife had this to say after reading this thread:

Samurai, there's a common fallacy known as Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. It's like the kind of situation where many of us are convinced a "lucky" shirt or pen will help us perform better in an exam because it seemed to work a few times. However, if you feel homeopathy is helping, by all means go ahead. My main worry is that people may get wrapped up in this and tend to forget regular checkups or ignore other advances in medical science.

[Samurai]

I wondered why kalpeshc started a controversial like thread comparing one medicinal system vs the other. So I decided to read the first post of the thread to understand his reason. That is when it occurred to me, that it was not his intention to compare. He was merely looking for alternative options. But he gave an incorrect thread title, which indicated some kind of comparison. So I have changed the title of the thread.

Starting now, this thread is purely about well established alternative medicinal/treatment options like Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Unani, etc. The skeptics have had their say, anybody who is interested in their views are welcome to read from the beginning and form their own opinion.

Starting now, anymore posts trashing any alternative treatment option will instantly receive infractions on the grounds of spamming/trolling. - Support Team

[Wolfheart]

I watched a documentary called " The Beautiful Truth- Gerson Cancer Cure". The Gerson diet is an alternative to Chemotherapy and was developed by a German physician Dr. Max Gerson.

Albert Schweitzer was supposedly cured of diabetes with the Gerson therapy. As part of the therapy, the patient is put on an organic, plant based diet and also has to undergo coffee enemas () in order to detoxify the body.

Supposedly, thousands of people have been "cured" of chronic diseases such as cancer and arthritis by undergoing this therapy. However the internet is full of pages where the Gerson therapy is labeled useless, unproven and even dangerous. Gerson's daughter attributes the negative publicity to the almighty pharma lobby. Has anyone had any firsthand experience?

[Samurai]

Wolfheart, did you say coffee enema? I doubt anyone will openly admit first hand experience now... Anyway, if it has worked for many, let's not worry about it.

There are so many strange medical practices that seem to work but there is no scientific proof for them. At least nothing that can convince modern scientist, but that doesn't mean they don't work at all. Science it yet to discover it. Here is a strange example from my family.

My mother has had chronic migraine since she was 15. If ever she doesn't get to sleep on time at night, next day she starts suffering from severe headache for next 2-3 days. I grew up watching this phenomena. During that time, she would be bed-ridden, can't eat properly, vomits all the time, it is hellish, the whole home environment used to have gloomy pall whenever my mother is struck with migraine. Thanks to that I learnt to cook emergency food for the family so that we can get past those days. No medicine ever worked, not allopathy, not ayurveda, not homeopathy, not yoga, not anything. Every damn cure has been tried, but nothing has ever worked.

After my wedding I have rarely stayed with my mother for long durations, but I used to hear about her occasional migraine incidences even then. However, last few months my parents stayed with me to take care of my older son since my wife was away in Bangalore for my younger son's autism treatment.

During these last few months, I realised that my mother didn't suffer migraine even once. So I asked about it.

Me: Mom, I don't see you suffer from migraine anymore...
Mom: Well, I haven't had a single episode since 4 years, not since I turned 70.
Me: That is wonderful, you mean migraine stops after a certain age?
Mom: I suffered it for 55 years, no it doesn't go away with age. I was treated for it.
Me: Wow, so something finally worked, who was it, what was it?
Mom:Um, it was Ganapathy Bhat from Puttur.
Me: Ganapathy Bhat from Puttur? But he is a retired Bank Manager, dad's junior.
Mom: Well, there was a traditional treatment that was passed on for generations in his family. He had learned it from his father. Few years back, he offered to use it. Since he is a family friend for 35 years, I decided to trust him even though he is no doctor.
Me: What was the treatment?
Mom: He looked for a nerve behind my head and pressed it very hard. It pained for couple days, and after that nothing. Next time I lost sleep, I didn't get migraine. In fact I never got migraine after that, not since 4 years.

How can this be explained? I can't think of a way, don't think any modern doctor can. But my mother doesn't care whether it can be explained or not, she got cured, that's all she cares. We don't even know the name of this treatment or the branch of medicine it belongs.

Can we ask Ganapathy Bhat from Puttur? Not anymore, he expired in a tragic cycle accident couple years back. May he rest in peace.

[Deep Blue]

My experiences with homeopathy. This is was in my early teens when my father had a close friend who was a homeopath.
The first was for a wart (a blackish swelling) on my forehead. I was prescribed some powder for a month and was told it will fall off one fine day. The fine day never came and got it removed after an year by a dermatologist.
The second was an ingrowing toe nail causing infection. Again I was prescribed some powders and the globules. Within two days, things became worse, swelling which was only in the toe extended to the foot and toe developed blebs. My brother who was studying dentistry took me to the surgeon in his hospital and underwent partial removal of the ingrowing toe nail immediately and was prescribed antibiotics. Within two days I was back to normal.

Later on in life, I went on to study medicine as in Allopathy.


[
Mom: He looked for a nerve behind my head and pressed it very hard.

[/quote]


The nerve that you mention and the nerve described in Anatomy ( as in allopathic medicine) are completely different. The word nerve has a definite definition, structure, function, course etc, whereas the nerve as you mention may not be the nerve defined in anatomy. Most commonly people refer to veins seen on the skin surface as nerves. These carry blood and have no relation to transmission of sensory or motor messages. The nerves described in anatomy cannot be seen on surface and some can be felt at defined surface markings. All these are in Allopathy and I dont know about alternative therapies.

Any way, the happy thing is your mother is cured of the headache.


I hope posts trashing allopathic treatments will also recieve infractions