Shrunk wrote:Probably one of the most spectacular successes in the history of "allopathic" medicine has been the implementation of public sanitation programs. I can't think of a better example of treating a problem at its roots, and it is the kind of think that homeopathy and "alternative" medicine would have been completely incapable of producing. (Since, as we have seen here, they don't believe pathogens actually are responsible for disease.)

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:Homeopathic Firsts
http://www.hmc21.org/#/homeopathic-firsts/4533557722

TMB wrote:
OK lets take a case history and see how it works.

Patient presents with flu symptoms, fevers, body aches, upper respiratory symptoms, fairly common, viral plus secondary bacterial infection. Conventional medicine prescribes antibiotics which addresses the secondary bacterial infection, assumed primary viral put down to random virus. Symptoms re-appear two months later, cycle is repeated and continues for two years.

Insight from a homeopathic book leads to diagnosis from an allopathic allergist who identifies an extreme allergy to house dust mites. Steps are taken to remove dust from beds etc etc, and symptoms improve significantly, however good health is not totally restored. Increased vigilance around dust mite eradication gives limited results.

Skin issues arise, upper respiratory issues are mild but chronic, other apparently unrelated reactions occur, hives appear on exposure to cold water, known as idiopathic cold urticaria. Removal of dairy from diet improves things partly, however overall health starts to decline rapidly, weight loss is 1kg per month, skin itch and eczema becomes close to unbearable.

In desperation, diet is reduced to a few basic food types and symptoms begin to resolve rapidly. Further tests show that celiac disease is probably at the core of issues spanning from somewhere between 20-50 years in the patients life. Always underweight, with unexpected bouts of un-wellness as a child and marked changes in health depending upon city lived in. Finally diet changes reveal that issues with gluten are possibly at the centre of all issues, from allergy to dust mite, intolerances to numerous food types, weight loss, general weakness and malaise.

In this case treating a bacterial infection was certainly effective with antibiotics, but only in the short-term, and damaging in the long-term. Because allopathic doctors are trained to look through keyholes with both eyes at the same time instead of opening the door, meant that over a number of years that no one allopathic doctor was able to do more that diagnose and prescribe according to their narrow definition of health. In addition this was possible only when a tentative self diagnosis had already happened. The use of an iridologist at various stages during this process allowed the patient to get an idea of the status of each major body organ and system. This meant that herbs could be taken to assist with a stressed immune system, or pancreas, or liver as it struggled to deal with the collateral damage caused by gluten, and subsequent allergies and intolerances.

Alternative practitioners were also not in a position to diagnose the person entirely, however were able to assist and diagnose related issues and once a diagnosis was made for celiac, could place symptoms and remedies in the correct context. In addition to this continual use of herbs does not have the same damaging effect as the long-term use of antibiotics.

Conventional medicine was able to diagnose specific issues like the presence of allergy to dust mite, and the presence of the celiac gene, but only when the patient presented this as the probable cause. Only the treatment prescribed by alternative medicine had any chance of treating the whole patient as opposed to symptomatically.

If you haven’t already guessed, the above is a précis of my health through my life and I have consulted with dozens of doctors from allopathic, various specialist, herbalists, homeopaths, dual practitioners, acupuncture. The major issue with conventional medicine is the reliance upon pinpoint technology to diagnose, rather than a natural ability to heal and read people. Its rather like someone reading a book on leadership, when they really just do not have the natural ability to lead. Reading about techniques can certainly help if you have the right attributes, but if you do not, it just makes you a pill pusher.

This means that treating symptoms especially if acute might be appropriate, but not when you cannot see, or lose sight of the patient overall. Alternative medicine at least recognises that there is necessarily a causation stack underlying the symptoms, masking the symptoms and getting through the days appointments is not a long term fix for many cases. There are many people with chronic and undiagnosed health issues that can be easily corrected if the correct path is taken to diagnosis and treat these.

Does this make it any clearer?

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

TMB wrote:
OK lets take a case history and see how it works.

Patient presents with flu symptoms, fevers, body aches, upper respiratory symptoms, fairly common, viral plus secondary bacterial infection. Conventional medicine prescribes antibiotics which addresses the secondary bacterial infection, assumed primary viral put down to random virus. Symptoms re-appear two months later, cycle is repeated and continues for two years.

Insight from a homeopathic book leads to diagnosis from an allopathic allergist who identifies an extreme allergy to house dust mites. Steps are taken to remove dust from beds etc etc, and symptoms improve significantly, however good health is not totally restored. Increased vigilance around dust mite eradication gives limited results.

Skin issues arise, upper respiratory issues are mild but chronic, other apparently unrelated reactions occur, hives appear on exposure to cold water, known as idiopathic cold urticaria. Removal of dairy from diet improves things partly, however overall health starts to decline rapidly, weight loss is 1kg per month, skin itch and eczema becomes close to unbearable.

In desperation, diet is reduced to a few basic food types and symptoms begin to resolve rapidly. Further tests show that celiac disease is probably at the core of issues spanning from somewhere between 20-50 years in the patients life. Always underweight, with unexpected bouts of un-wellness as a child and marked changes in health depending upon city lived in. Finally diet changes reveal that issues with gluten are possibly at the centre of all issues, from allergy to dust mite, intolerances to numerous food types, weight loss, general weakness and malaise.

In this case treating a bacterial infection was certainly effective with antibiotics, but only in the short-term, and damaging in the long-term. Because allopathic doctors are trained to look through keyholes with both eyes at the same time instead of opening the door, meant that over a number of years that no one allopathic doctor was able to do more that diagnose and prescribe according to their narrow definition of health. In addition this was possible only when a tentative self diagnosis had already happened. The use of an iridologist at various stages during this process allowed the patient to get an idea of the status of each major body organ and system. This meant that herbs could be taken to assist with a stressed immune system, or pancreas, or liver as it struggled to deal with the collateral damage caused by gluten, and subsequent allergies and intolerances.

Alternative practitioners were also not in a position to diagnose the person entirely, however were able to assist and diagnose related issues and once a diagnosis was made for celiac, could place symptoms and remedies in the correct context. In addition to this continual use of herbs does not have the same damaging effect as the long-term use of antibiotics.

Conventional medicine was able to diagnose specific issues like the presence of allergy to dust mite, and the presence of the celiac gene, but only when the patient presented this as the probable cause. Only the treatment prescribed by alternative medicine had any chance of treating the whole patient as opposed to symptomatically.

If you haven’t already guessed, the above is a précis of my health through my life and I have consulted with dozens of doctors from allopathic, various specialist, herbalists, homeopaths, dual practitioners, acupuncture. The major issue with conventional medicine is the reliance upon pinpoint technology to diagnose, rather than a natural ability to heal and read people. Its rather like someone reading a book on leadership, when they really just do not have the natural ability to lead. Reading about techniques can certainly help if you have the right attributes, but if you do not, it just makes you a pill pusher.

This means that treating symptoms especially if acute might be appropriate, but not when you cannot see, or lose sight of the patient overall. Alternative medicine at least recognises that there is necessarily a causation stack underlying the symptoms, masking the symptoms and getting through the days appointments is not a long term fix for many cases. There are many people with chronic and undiagnosed health issues that can be easily corrected if the correct path is taken to diagnosis and treat these.

Does this make it any clearer?

Quoting Dr. SFA, Pakistan

"Accurate Diagnosis" is mandatory for "Cure" is still a misconception as per homeopathic view in concerned.

Finding the "accurate diagnosis" and thinking that it is somehow related with the "cure" is the most widely believed phenomena among conventional doctors and scientist and also the general public is made to believe this.

They always stress for "Proper Diagnosis" and hence believing that it would be followed up by "Proper Treatment" and think that this would somehow end up in "Proper Cure" of the disease.

The idea that a correct diagnose would ultimately lead to the cure of the disease is non-factual and millions of us represent it by carrying large diagnostic documents and results after results of pathological tests with us - shuttling between the specialists every day.

Shrunk wrote: Your are quite right to suggest that modern medicine's emphasis on high tech interventions and funding models that reward high-volume practices have increasingly tended to render such traditional values as anachronistic. That's a real problem and an unfortunate situation, but it is not an indictment of "allopathic"medicine as a whole, so much as of the social, political and economic conditions under which it is currently typically practiced.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

Shrunk wrote:Probably one of the most spectacular successes in the history of "allopathic" medicine has been the implementation of public sanitation programs. I can't think of a better example of treating a problem at its roots, and it is the kind of think that homeopathy and "alternative" medicine would have been completely incapable of producing. (Since, as we have seen here, they don't believe pathogens actually are responsible for disease.)

Homeopathic Firsts
http://www.hmc21.org/#/homeopathic-firsts/4533557722

In 1792 he advocated healthy accommodation for the sick. [1] This view was not taken up widely until Florence Nightingale produced evidence confirming its importance in 1854.
In 1795 he advocated improvements in public hygiene measures. [2] Such improvements only appeared towards the end of the nineteenth century and were a major reason for reduction in mortality rates before 1914. [3]
In 1809 he was publicly opposed to the common treatment of bloodletting, and a justification published later shows that his reasons are the same as are given today. [4,5]
Hahnemann was the first to employ the scientific method to develop a medical system. He employed a combination of detailed research of past and contemporaneous medical records and toxicological reports, observation, experiment and theory-construction. His arguments about the relationship of treatment to illness were supported by references to the work and observations of others. [6,7]
Homeopathy was the first medical system to conduct scientific trials of medicines before using them to treat the sick. [8,9]
By 1831 homeopathy had become the first medical system to adopt the concept of micro-organisms in its explanation of health and disease, some 60 years before Koch saw them through a microscope. [10]
Homeopathy was the first medical system to recognise that those organisms could evolve, some 30 years before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. [11]
By 1841 Hahnemann had identified the need for healthy housing and a healthy diet, including avoidance of excess use of sugar and salt. [12] This has become an important issue today.
By 1827 Hahnemann recognised that it was insufficient to "look on matter as dead mass, for from its interior can be elicited incredible and hitherto unsuspected powers." [13] The extent of such powers is still being investigated by physicists.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

Shrunk wrote: Your are quite right to suggest that modern medicine's emphasis on high tech interventions and funding models that reward high-volume practices have increasingly tended to render such traditional values as anachronistic. That's a real problem and an unfortunate situation, but it is not an indictment of "allopathic"medicine as a whole, so much as of the social, political and economic conditions under which it is currently typically practiced.

Conventional doctors perceive the body as a physical and chemical entity, much like a mechanic would view a machine. Using this “mechanistic” approach, their concern is to examine these structures using a variety of technologies such as X-rays, MRI’s, CT scans, gastroscopes, colonoscopes, biochemical lab tests and the like.

orpheus wrote:

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

TMB wrote:
OK lets take a case history and see how it works.

Patient presents with flu symptoms, fevers, body aches, upper respiratory symptoms, fairly common, viral plus secondary bacterial infection. Conventional medicine prescribes antibiotics which addresses the secondary bacterial infection, assumed primary viral put down to random virus. Symptoms re-appear two months later, cycle is repeated and continues for two years.

Insight from a homeopathic book leads to diagnosis from an allopathic allergist who identifies an extreme allergy to house dust mites. Steps are taken to remove dust from beds etc etc, and symptoms improve significantly, however good health is not totally restored. Increased vigilance around dust mite eradication gives limited results.

Skin issues arise, upper respiratory issues are mild but chronic, other apparently unrelated reactions occur, hives appear on exposure to cold water, known as idiopathic cold urticaria. Removal of dairy from diet improves things partly, however overall health starts to decline rapidly, weight loss is 1kg per month, skin itch and eczema becomes close to unbearable.

In desperation, diet is reduced to a few basic food types and symptoms begin to resolve rapidly. Further tests show that celiac disease is probably at the core of issues spanning from somewhere between 20-50 years in the patients life. Always underweight, with unexpected bouts of un-wellness as a child and marked changes in health depending upon city lived in. Finally diet changes reveal that issues with gluten are possibly at the centre of all issues, from allergy to dust mite, intolerances to numerous food types, weight loss, general weakness and malaise.

In this case treating a bacterial infection was certainly effective with antibiotics, but only in the short-term, and damaging in the long-term. Because allopathic doctors are trained to look through keyholes with both eyes at the same time instead of opening the door, meant that over a number of years that no one allopathic doctor was able to do more that diagnose and prescribe according to their narrow definition of health. In addition this was possible only when a tentative self diagnosis had already happened. The use of an iridologist at various stages during this process allowed the patient to get an idea of the status of each major body organ and system. This meant that herbs could be taken to assist with a stressed immune system, or pancreas, or liver as it struggled to deal with the collateral damage caused by gluten, and subsequent allergies and intolerances.

Alternative practitioners were also not in a position to diagnose the person entirely, however were able to assist and diagnose related issues and once a diagnosis was made for celiac, could place symptoms and remedies in the correct context. In addition to this continual use of herbs does not have the same damaging effect as the long-term use of antibiotics.

Conventional medicine was able to diagnose specific issues like the presence of allergy to dust mite, and the presence of the celiac gene, but only when the patient presented this as the probable cause. Only the treatment prescribed by alternative medicine had any chance of treating the whole patient as opposed to symptomatically.

If you haven’t already guessed, the above is a précis of my health through my life and I have consulted with dozens of doctors from allopathic, various specialist, herbalists, homeopaths, dual practitioners, acupuncture. The major issue with conventional medicine is the reliance upon pinpoint technology to diagnose, rather than a natural ability to heal and read people. Its rather like someone reading a book on leadership, when they really just do not have the natural ability to lead. Reading about techniques can certainly help if you have the right attributes, but if you do not, it just makes you a pill pusher.

This means that treating symptoms especially if acute might be appropriate, but not when you cannot see, or lose sight of the patient overall. Alternative medicine at least recognises that there is necessarily a causation stack underlying the symptoms, masking the symptoms and getting through the days appointments is not a long term fix for many cases. There are many people with chronic and undiagnosed health issues that can be easily corrected if the correct path is taken to diagnosis and treat these.

Does this make it any clearer?

Quoting Dr. SFA, Pakistan

"Accurate Diagnosis" is mandatory for "Cure" is still a misconception as per homeopathic view in concerned.

Finding the "accurate diagnosis" and thinking that it is somehow related with the "cure" is the most widely believed phenomena among conventional doctors and scientist and also the general public is made to believe this.

They always stress for "Proper Diagnosis" and hence believing that it would be followed up by "Proper Treatment" and think that this would somehow end up in "Proper Cure" of the disease.

The idea that a correct diagnose would ultimately lead to the cure of the disease is non-factual and millions of us represent it by carrying large diagnostic documents and results after results of pathological tests with us - shuttling between the specialists every day.

(bold mine)

But haven't you been arguing that the important thing is to get to the root cause of the disease instead of treating just they symptoms? Sounds like you believe proper diagnosis is important.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:Conventional doctors perceive the body as a physical and chemical entity, much like a mechanic would view a machine. Using this “mechanistic” approach, their concern is to examine these structures using a variety of technologies such as X-rays, MRI’s, CT scans, gastroscopes, colonoscopes, biochemical lab tests and the like.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

orpheus wrote:

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

TMB wrote:
OK lets take a case history and see how it works.

Patient presents with flu symptoms, fevers, body aches, upper respiratory symptoms, fairly common, viral plus secondary bacterial infection. Conventional medicine prescribes antibiotics which addresses the secondary bacterial infection, assumed primary viral put down to random virus. Symptoms re-appear two months later, cycle is repeated and continues for two years.

Insight from a homeopathic book leads to diagnosis from an allopathic allergist who identifies an extreme allergy to house dust mites. Steps are taken to remove dust from beds etc etc, and symptoms improve significantly, however good health is not totally restored. Increased vigilance around dust mite eradication gives limited results.

Skin issues arise, upper respiratory issues are mild but chronic, other apparently unrelated reactions occur, hives appear on exposure to cold water, known as idiopathic cold urticaria. Removal of dairy from diet improves things partly, however overall health starts to decline rapidly, weight loss is 1kg per month, skin itch and eczema becomes close to unbearable.

In desperation, diet is reduced to a few basic food types and symptoms begin to resolve rapidly. Further tests show that celiac disease is probably at the core of issues spanning from somewhere between 20-50 years in the patients life. Always underweight, with unexpected bouts of un-wellness as a child and marked changes in health depending upon city lived in. Finally diet changes reveal that issues with gluten are possibly at the centre of all issues, from allergy to dust mite, intolerances to numerous food types, weight loss, general weakness and malaise.

In this case treating a bacterial infection was certainly effective with antibiotics, but only in the short-term, and damaging in the long-term. Because allopathic doctors are trained to look through keyholes with both eyes at the same time instead of opening the door, meant that over a number of years that no one allopathic doctor was able to do more that diagnose and prescribe according to their narrow definition of health. In addition this was possible only when a tentative self diagnosis had already happened. The use of an iridologist at various stages during this process allowed the patient to get an idea of the status of each major body organ and system. This meant that herbs could be taken to assist with a stressed immune system, or pancreas, or liver as it struggled to deal with the collateral damage caused by gluten, and subsequent allergies and intolerances.

Alternative practitioners were also not in a position to diagnose the person entirely, however were able to assist and diagnose related issues and once a diagnosis was made for celiac, could place symptoms and remedies in the correct context. In addition to this continual use of herbs does not have the same damaging effect as the long-term use of antibiotics.

Conventional medicine was able to diagnose specific issues like the presence of allergy to dust mite, and the presence of the celiac gene, but only when the patient presented this as the probable cause. Only the treatment prescribed by alternative medicine had any chance of treating the whole patient as opposed to symptomatically.

If you haven’t already guessed, the above is a précis of my health through my life and I have consulted with dozens of doctors from allopathic, various specialist, herbalists, homeopaths, dual practitioners, acupuncture. The major issue with conventional medicine is the reliance upon pinpoint technology to diagnose, rather than a natural ability to heal and read people. Its rather like someone reading a book on leadership, when they really just do not have the natural ability to lead. Reading about techniques can certainly help if you have the right attributes, but if you do not, it just makes you a pill pusher.

This means that treating symptoms especially if acute might be appropriate, but not when you cannot see, or lose sight of the patient overall. Alternative medicine at least recognises that there is necessarily a causation stack underlying the symptoms, masking the symptoms and getting through the days appointments is not a long term fix for many cases. There are many people with chronic and undiagnosed health issues that can be easily corrected if the correct path is taken to diagnosis and treat these.

Does this make it any clearer?

Quoting Dr. SFA, Pakistan

"Accurate Diagnosis" is mandatory for "Cure" is still a misconception as per homeopathic view in concerned.

Finding the "accurate diagnosis" and thinking that it is somehow related with the "cure" is the most widely believed phenomena among conventional doctors and scientist and also the general public is made to believe this.

They always stress for "Proper Diagnosis" and hence believing that it would be followed up by "Proper Treatment" and think that this would somehow end up in "Proper Cure" of the disease.

The idea that a correct diagnose would ultimately lead to the cure of the disease is non-factual and millions of us represent it by carrying large diagnostic documents and results after results of pathological tests with us - shuttling between the specialists every day.

(bold mine)

But haven't you been arguing that the important thing is to get to the root cause of the disease instead of treating just they symptoms? Sounds like you believe proper diagnosis is important.

I think I need to give an example:

Let's say a patient is suffering from arthritis. The patient explored two choices.

Conventional medicine: Physician will prescribe a drug that has been shown to treat arthritis. Plus any anti-inflammatory drug/pain killer (let's say aspirin) and give it to the patient. May be blood test to know RA factor, if any, etc. This approach is to treat the disease.

Homeopathy Medicine: Homeopath physician deals the same with the following approach

a. Joints are red, hot swollen with throbbing pain is a possible Belladonna case.

b. Pain is worse from slightest movement. Better resting. Dry mouth - a possible Bryonia case.

c. Pain is worse at first motion, better afterward, stiff joints in moving - a possible Rhus Tox case. [/b]

Note:
1. For each a, b, c, there are many homeopathy medicines. I have shown one only, for the purpose of illustration
2. Symptoms have been limited to only three a, b,c. Otherwise there are many more to be considered during case taking


A physician will go further into mind (mind symptoms)and other physical symptoms (the above three are just to make you understand).

Disease is not symptoms. It is disease in terms of symptomsIn homeopathy the physician has to go into more specific nature of a problem - many layers deep into any complaint.

DST70 wrote:
Agreed, but those multi–pronged strategies come embedded in a rationalist model of medicine. In rationalist models illness is categorised by disease groups, so if you have disease 'A' you'll be treated in the way that disease 'A' always gets treated, as per the results of clinical research. This makes sense under a rationalist model where common symptoms are more important than peculiar symptoms. Whether or not this is the only way of observing human health and illness is debatable.

There's also a problem if you try and "standardize" a sample group too much. The more internal homogeneity the sample group has (more common symptoms), the less representative of the wider population any successful treatment is, so the less 'real world' application it has. Striving for homogeneity in sample groups is not always desirable; assuming it in the world at large is a very debatable concept.

I'm not denying the obvious benefits and huge improvements in medical care from this approach - that would be stupid. But the question remains whether that model is enough on its own to determine the efficacy of a treatment or cure. At least it's something considered by many people, not just alternative therapists.

David

orpheus wrote:

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

orpheus wrote:

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

TMB wrote:
OK lets take a case history and see how it works.

Patient presents with flu symptoms, fevers, body aches, upper respiratory symptoms, fairly common, viral plus secondary bacterial infection. Conventional medicine prescribes antibiotics which addresses the secondary bacterial infection, assumed primary viral put down to random virus. Symptoms re-appear two months later, cycle is repeated and continues for two years.

Insight from a homeopathic book leads to diagnosis from an allopathic allergist who identifies an extreme allergy to house dust mites. Steps are taken to remove dust from beds etc etc, and symptoms improve significantly, however good health is not totally restored. Increased vigilance around dust mite eradication gives limited results.

Skin issues arise, upper respiratory issues are mild but chronic, other apparently unrelated reactions occur, hives appear on exposure to cold water, known as idiopathic cold urticaria. Removal of dairy from diet improves things partly, however overall health starts to decline rapidly, weight loss is 1kg per month, skin itch and eczema becomes close to unbearable.

In desperation, diet is reduced to a few basic food types and symptoms begin to resolve rapidly. Further tests show that celiac disease is probably at the core of issues spanning from somewhere between 20-50 years in the patients life. Always underweight, with unexpected bouts of un-wellness as a child and marked changes in health depending upon city lived in. Finally diet changes reveal that issues with gluten are possibly at the centre of all issues, from allergy to dust mite, intolerances to numerous food types, weight loss, general weakness and malaise.

In this case treating a bacterial infection was certainly effective with antibiotics, but only in the short-term, and damaging in the long-term. Because allopathic doctors are trained to look through keyholes with both eyes at the same time instead of opening the door, meant that over a number of years that no one allopathic doctor was able to do more that diagnose and prescribe according to their narrow definition of health. In addition this was possible only when a tentative self diagnosis had already happened. The use of an iridologist at various stages during this process allowed the patient to get an idea of the status of each major body organ and system. This meant that herbs could be taken to assist with a stressed immune system, or pancreas, or liver as it struggled to deal with the collateral damage caused by gluten, and subsequent allergies and intolerances.

Alternative practitioners were also not in a position to diagnose the person entirely, however were able to assist and diagnose related issues and once a diagnosis was made for celiac, could place symptoms and remedies in the correct context. In addition to this continual use of herbs does not have the same damaging effect as the long-term use of antibiotics.

Conventional medicine was able to diagnose specific issues like the presence of allergy to dust mite, and the presence of the celiac gene, but only when the patient presented this as the probable cause. Only the treatment prescribed by alternative medicine had any chance of treating the whole patient as opposed to symptomatically.

If you haven’t already guessed, the above is a précis of my health through my life and I have consulted with dozens of doctors from allopathic, various specialist, herbalists, homeopaths, dual practitioners, acupuncture. The major issue with conventional medicine is the reliance upon pinpoint technology to diagnose, rather than a natural ability to heal and read people. Its rather like someone reading a book on leadership, when they really just do not have the natural ability to lead. Reading about techniques can certainly help if you have the right attributes, but if you do not, it just makes you a pill pusher.

This means that treating symptoms especially if acute might be appropriate, but not when you cannot see, or lose sight of the patient overall. Alternative medicine at least recognises that there is necessarily a causation stack underlying the symptoms, masking the symptoms and getting through the days appointments is not a long term fix for many cases. There are many people with chronic and undiagnosed health issues that can be easily corrected if the correct path is taken to diagnosis and treat these.

Does this make it any clearer?

Quoting Dr. SFA, Pakistan

"Accurate Diagnosis" is mandatory for "Cure" is still a misconception as per homeopathic view in concerned.

Finding the "accurate diagnosis" and thinking that it is somehow related with the "cure" is the most widely believed phenomena among conventional doctors and scientist and also the general public is made to believe this.

They always stress for "Proper Diagnosis" and hence believing that it would be followed up by "Proper Treatment" and think that this would somehow end up in "Proper Cure" of the disease.

The idea that a correct diagnose would ultimately lead to the cure of the disease is non-factual and millions of us represent it by carrying large diagnostic documents and results after results of pathological tests with us - shuttling between the specialists every day.

(bold mine)

But haven't you been arguing that the important thing is to get to the root cause of the disease instead of treating just they symptoms? Sounds like you believe proper diagnosis is important.

I think I need to give an example:

Let's say a patient is suffering from arthritis. The patient explored two choices.

Conventional medicine: Physician will prescribe a drug that has been shown to treat arthritis. Plus any anti-inflammatory drug/pain killer (let's say aspirin) and give it to the patient. May be blood test to know RA factor, if any, etc. This approach is to treat the disease.

Homeopathy Medicine: Homeopath physician deals the same with the following approach

a. Joints are red, hot swollen with throbbing pain is a possible Belladonna case.

b. Pain is worse from slightest movement. Better resting. Dry mouth - a possible Bryonia case.

c. Pain is worse at first motion, better afterward, stiff joints in moving - a possible Rhus Tox case. [/b]

Note:
1. For each a, b, c, there are many homeopathy medicines. I have shown one only, for the purpose of illustration
2. Symptoms have been limited to only three a, b,c. Otherwise there are many more to be considered during case taking


A physician will go further into mind (mind symptoms)and other physical symptoms (the above three are just to make you understand).

Disease is not symptoms. It is disease in terms of symptomsIn homeopathy the physician has to go into more specific nature of a problem - many layers deep into any complaint.

So a conventional doctor treats the underlying disease. A homeopathic doctor treats the symptoms. This is what you're saying.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote: The language of symptoms is the best language that asks for the remedy. The symptoms are the compass that a homeopath uses to find his way to the right remedy. Symptoms are the language of a disease — the body’s attempt to balance itself.

natselrox wrote:

Homeopathy: Curing with Kindness

The British Medical Association recently called homeopathy "witchcraft", and a parliamentary committee recommended stopping all NHS funding for it. Yet many people, not least members of the Royal Family, swear by it.

So, what are the facts? Why is there still so much uncertainty? And why are emotions flying so high? British homeopaths are this week celebrating their annual Homeopathy Awareness Week – a good occasion to try and find some answers.

Homeopathy was developed almost single-handedly by a German physician, Samuel Hahnemann. About 200 years ago he found that when, as a healthy person, he took the anti-malaria drug quinine, he experienced some of the symptoms associated with malaria. He eventually concluded that "like cures like": any substance that provokes a symptom in a healthy person can be used to treat that same symptom when it occurs in a patient. You cut an onion and your eyes start watering; so a homeopathic preparation made from onions can be used to cure hay fever, a condition characterised by watering eyes.

But homeopaths do not use simple extracts of onions or other substances. Hahnemann also believed he had found that diluting an extract repeatedly in a special way – homeopaths call this "potentisation" – would make the remedy not less but more powerful. How on earth can this possibly work? Therefore, homeopathic remedies are so diluted that typically they no longer contain a single molecule of the onion. The theory of the "memory of water" provides the answer, according to homeopaths. It postulates that, during the dilution process, some mystical "energy" is transferred from the onion to the water. And that "energy" then triggers a healing response in our body.

This is all wishful thinking and romantic fantasy, scientists insist. The war of words is as old as homeopathy itself, but somehow misses the most important point. If homeopathic remedies make patients healthy, the debate is academic.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. So do homeopathic remedies really have any effect on patients? To find out, we need clinical trials. Today we have about 150 clinical trials of homeopathy. Typically they test the effectiveness of homeopathy by treating one group of patients with homeopathy, while a comparable, second group receives placebos, i.e. sugar pills that only look like the real thing.

These trials have generated vastly different results: some suggest homeopathy works, others fail to do so. It can thus be tempting to cherry-pick and select those data that suit our arguments. This sort of thing has fuelled more and more emotional debates. But that approach is, of course, fundamentally misguided. To get to the truth, we must firstly avoid cherry-picking and look at the totality of the studies, and secondly we have to consider the issue of their reliability. Some trials are biased, but others are not. If we do all this systematically, we are bound to arrive at rather sobering conclusions.

Many researchers across the world have reviewed the evidence and concluded that homeopathic remedies are pure placebos. Five years ago, The Lancet even announced "The Death of Homeopathy". But homeo- pathy did not die. In fact, it continues to thrive and now boasts many supporters, who say, "We are not stupid, we have experienced benefits and therefore know it works."

Homeopaths ignite the debate further by claiming that the clinical trials are artificial, inadequate research tools. They show us "real-life" studies where patients are monitored over time but are not compared to a placebo group. These observations invariably demonstrate impressive success rates after homeopathic treatments. So, we seem to be confronted with a perplexing contradiction: homeopathic remedies are placebos with no specific effects, but in "real life" they seem to work.

The solution to the conundrum is quite simple, however: the remedy does nothing and the homeopath does everything.

If you see a homeopath, you are typically asked many very detailed questions. The homeopath is interested, empathetic and you feel warmly understood. The whole encounter lasts for about an hour, and at the end you receive a prescription. The remedy is a placebo but, never mind, the consultation and the expectations it raises have important effects. This is true particularly if you are suffering from conditions such as insomnia, depression or eczema that respond well to this type of reassuring "mini-psychotherapy". No contradiction at all then. But one nagging question does remain. Does it matter what helps the patient? If it is a placebo so be it, some would say. Regardless of the negative scientific verdict, homeopathy is good for you. What really counts is that it works. Essentially this line of argument implies that, regardless of the negative scientific verdict, homeopathy is good for you.

For a whole host of reasons, I disagree with this line of argument. Honesty is one of them. If the remedy is a placebo, we cannot truthfully pretend it isn't. Such lies may be benign, but they are also unethical.

And it is essential to realise that we don't need a placebo to generate placebo-effects. If a doctor prescribes for patients suffering from insomnia, depression, eczema etc a treatment that works beyond a placebo and, if this is done in a kind and empathetic way with time and understanding, the patient will profit from the specific effects of the prescription and also the non-specific effects of the encounter, which we often call placebo-effects.

Good medicine should always employ specific therapeutic effects (which homeopathic remedies do not possess), as well as the non-specific effects of the therapeutic encounter, i.e. time, understanding, empathy and human warmth, which homeopaths have lots of. Using only one or the other is quite simply not good medicine.

So, when we celebrate Homeopathy Awareness Week, we should honour Samuel Hahnemann – not for inventing homeopathy but for reminding us how important those non-specific elements of the therapeutic encounter really are.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 00455.html

Thommo wrote:

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:Homeopathic Firsts
http://www.hmc21.org/#/homeopathic-firsts/4533557722

Haha, good one.

Homeopaths discovered evolution.

As for some of the other slightly less outrageous claims in the list it's interesting that it claims having an advocate favour things like sanitation before they were widely implemented is supposed to give some sort of credibility to the claims of modern day homeopaths.

It's elementarily obvious that people advocated sanitation prior to it's widespread usage. The claim is meaningless, homeopaths weren't "first" to advocate sanitation, which had in fact been around in various forms for thousands of years prior to it's widespread modern day usage.

orpheus wrote:

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

Shrunk wrote: Your are quite right to suggest that modern medicine's emphasis on high tech interventions and funding models that reward high-volume practices have increasingly tended to render such traditional values as anachronistic. That's a real problem and an unfortunate situation, but it is not an indictment of "allopathic"medicine as a whole, so much as of the social, political and economic conditions under which it is currently typically practiced.

Conventional doctors perceive the body as a physical and chemical entity, much like a mechanic would view a machine. Using this “mechanistic” approach, their concern is to examine these structures using a variety of technologies such as X-rays, MRI’s, CT scans, gastroscopes, colonoscopes, biochemical lab tests and the like.

Yes. You have a problem with that?