Re: clarification on homeopathy

[Guest guest]

I just needed to clarify something. Someone may have already done this but, it is an important point. Homeopathy is not about energy healing. I think you are thinking of something else. It is about not just treating the symptoms (as in high blood pressure) but curing the illness. Here is a good website to look at for more info.: Click here: National Center for Homeopathy What you need to remember is that real people have been healed with homeopathy. It is not just "anecdotal" Real people have also been healed by medical doctors. We cannot assume that something we don't believe in does not work though. Then, we are starting to sound like the big corporation (Monsanto to be exact) and their disbelief that raw milk does a body good. I am a walking testimony (not an anecdotal story) that raw milk has healed me. Just

my .02..

Taaron

-------------- Original message --------------

Homeopathic remedies in general have not been proven to work beyond anecdotally. I am very suspicious of homeopathy since it is a form of energy healing.*~*~* Jo & Pete *~*~*

..

[Guest guest]

The whole "energy healing" label that has been given to the system of medicine known as Homeopathy, is a phrase that has been co-opted by contemporary new age healers, not an original phrase used by Hahnemann or the many homeopaths that came after him. They used the term "Vital Force" to name the as yet un-named immune system, not as some sort of metaphysical term.

It's enlightening to do a little research on the history of homeopathy. This was the main system of medicine in the US during the 1800s, and more medical colleges taught homeopathy rather than allopathy till around the time of WWI. When sulfa drugs became popular on the battleground, some homeopathic doctors saw a benefit in giving quick prescriptions that worked without taking a case, and began to use more allopathic drugs as well as altering homeopathic prescribing to using combinations and low doses rather than classical homeopathy. It was in this atmosphere that the AMA gained a foothold in the US and the AHA was greatly weakened. Homeopathy is still practiced side by side w/ allopathy in most countries other than the US and is the main form of medicine used by the British royal family amongst many others.

If you get the opportunity, read Perko's history of the 1918 flu at the front of her book "The Homeopathic treatment of Influenza". Here historically, and in case upon case of real cures still happening today, one can see that homeopathy has a legitimate place in medicine.

Blessings,

Tina in TX

[Guest guest]

Not to get too off-topic, but Hahnemann was a vitalist and was German,

so he never used the term Vital Force. He used to term " wesen " which

does not have a direct translation to the English, but can be thought of

as an intelligent force and the very essence of a living thing. Any

mistunement in the wesen, or " vital force " causes both mental and

emotional disease. Wesen is much bigger than the immune system. Wesen is

not a material substance, it is the intelligent thing which separates

the living from the dead.

And the term energy has unfortuantely come to be associated very closely

with " new agey " ideas, but in reality we only know of matter and energy,

and if the substance has been diluted to the point where the mass of the

substance is gone, one can speculate that it's energy has somehow

altered what remanins. The problem is not with the use of the term

" energy " but rather that " energy " has taken on all sorts of connotations

in the last few decades.

Tabinda

Tina lin wrote:

>

>

> The whole " energy healing " label that has been given to the system of

> medicine known as Homeopathy, is a phrase that has been co-opted by

> contemporary new age healers, not an original phrase used by Hahnemann

> or the many homeopaths that came after him. They used the term " Vital

> Force " to name the as yet un-named immune system, not as some sort of

> metaphysical term.

>

[Guest guest]

This snippet of the article mentions two things I find difficult to

believe. The extreme dilutions used and shaking used to increase it

effectiveness. Considering what I know of the natural world it seems

somewhat improbable that this could be effective. From what I have seen

of the studies done on it, it seems like it it doesn't work much better

than a placebo.

Personally, as a Catholic, I have my suspicions about something that is

used to heal but can't be explained by any of God's laws found in the

natural world. But also as a Catholic I have to admit that there are

things in this world that cannot be explained by science. (For instance,

the existence of the human soul.)

I believe that raw milk can heal but I can also point to very solid

evidence that it has things in it that make it a healing food. But it's

very hard to point to what makes homeopathy work. The answer always

comes back to two things: the persons belief in it and this mysterious

" Vital Force. "

I don't automatically discount personal testimonies but science is

supposed to play the part of a detached and impersonal observer to judge

whether or not it really has an effect. Personal testimonies are fine

but when a person is very close to what is going on, it becomes

difficult to judge whether or not the remedy itself is working or if

there were other things going on or if the person took such things as

vitamins or something else.

There are so many variances of how a person heals that I always say God

is the other half of healing and I suppose that that belief might make

me a faith healer. ;-)

< Hahnemann, a German physician, developed homeopathy in about

1796. He was dissatisfied with the conventional medicine of his time.

The accepted medical remedies at that time were often dangerous for the

patient. There was a joke that more people died of medical treatment

than from the disease itself.

Hahnemann laid out two principles of his homeopathy. First, he said that

" like cures like " (Similia similibus curentur). This meant that a

substance that produces certain symptoms in a healthy person can be used

to cure similar symptoms in a sick person.

Second, Hahnemann asserted that smaller and smaller doses of the remedy

would be even more effective. (In a way, perhaps this was a good idea

because some of Hahnemann's remedies were poisonous.) So Hahnemann used

more and more extreme dilutions of the remedies. In a process he named

" potentization, " Hahnemann would take an original natural substance and

often dilute it 1-to-99 (called " C1 " ). A second dilution of 1-to-99

would be called " C2. " Between each dilution, the remedy must be

vigorously shaken. This shaking, or succussion, supposedly released the

healing energy of the remedy. This healing energy has never been

adequately defined nor measured.

Hahnemann found C30 dilutions to be quite effective. For Hahnemann,

these very high dilutions presented no problem. He did not believe in

atoms, and he thought that matter could be divided endlessly. Today we

know that any dilution greater than C12 is unlikely to contain even one

single molecule of the remedy. Sometimes Hahnemann diluted a substance

1-to-9 (called " D1 " ). In this case any dilution of D24 or greater would

also not likely contain any molecules of the remedy.>

(http://www.homeowatch.org/articles/wagner.html)

*~*~* Jo & Pete *~*~*

@

" Laudo Deum " Farm

kinderfolk_n_liddlebuds@...

Raising quality Kinder and Nigerian Dwarf goats

for small acreage farmers, homesteaders and

families with young children.

(And producing natural soaps for humans and animals.)

[Guest guest]

Maybe I am thinking of something else but, I thought homeopathy was

using medicinal herbs for healing. What's wrong with that?

[Guest guest]

Homeopathy is very different from herbalism or botanical medicine. Go

back and read the other post I put up, the one with the piece of the

article in it. It explains pretty much what homeopathy is and what they

use.

*~*~* Jo & Pete *~*~*

@

" Laudo Deum " Farm

kinderfolk_n_liddlebuds@...

Raising quality Kinder and Nigerian Dwarf goats

for small acreage farmers, homesteaders and

families with young children.

(And producing natural soaps for humans and animals.)

[Guest guest]

Interesting take on the German. I'm an ill-educated American who can only read the Organon in English!

We are also a Christian family and as my husband is a pastor, we have had many discussions just like this with people inside and outside our church. I've been leading a study group off and on for 8 years where all the women are Christian homeschool moms, so I understand the dilemma one might have with homeopathic principals. It's an interesting study, however, and reading the 19th century homeopaths (many of them Christians) is much easier for me than reading the contemporary docs.

Hahnemann was a German Lutheran, and considered himself a Christian. 21st century science is awash with enlightement thinking, so all of these things come into play and can make the study of a lifetime.

Many people who are willing to admit that current science can have it's holes are looking at alternatives (such as raw milk), and Christians need to make Biblical decisions. Each family will come to it's own conclusions on many of these health issues, however, and we hope that we can keep discussions on such open and friendly.

In our church we have doctors, and alternative practioners, vaccinators and non vaccinators, raw milk drinkers and USDA antibacterial types. We sold raw milk for 2.5 years to about 50 local families per week and had many lively discussions about raw vs pasturized, legal vs illegal etc. Our goal is to listen to and participate in discussions, recognize that there are Biblical mandates that need to be upheld (at least 10), leave some things in the "household opinion" category and enjoy the banter as "good clean fun".

Tina in TX

[Guest guest]

This is the problem. In the studies that I have seen done on homeopathy

verses regular therapies homeopathy has not come out to well. It seems

that double blind studies just can't substantiate it's effectiveness.

When we are talking about anecdotes, personal testimonies, are often

used to " prove " that it works. But then it's almost impossible to find

out what is really going on. A person might say that " x " worked for me,

but he may have changed his diet, used a different medication or just

believed that the remedy would work. Most problems actually resolve

themselves, without us doing anything, over time. The body heals itself.

So in the time that we are trying different remedies our bodies are

working on healing and pretty soon we notice that our complaint is gone

and we think " Viola! " The remedy worked! " That's the placebo effect I'm

talking about.

Not too long ago I read an article that was talking about using

homeopathic remedies for a cow or a goat that they wanted to bring into

heat to breed. They were instructed to use these remedies for so many

days and then switch and use this other remedy and in a few weeks the

animals came into heat. And this was the proof that the homeopathic

remedy worked. Well, it's natural for the animal to come into heat every

few weeks so I don't see how that proved the remedy worked.

It's this kind of thing that's used as a proof and I'm sorry, it's not

real proof.

Now this science thing gets everybody upset. Science is not inherently

opposed to God. The first scientist were all believers of God and they

knew that the world is an orderly world; it has natural laws that govern

it's operations. (the law of gravity, cause and effect, etc...)

So I find it difficult to take seriously a system of healing that

operates outside of the natural law.

Why can't we explain how it works? Modern medications can all be

explained, but why can't homeopathy? Herbs are full of chemicals that

act on the body in measurable, observable ways. But nobody can show me

how homeopathy works in the body.

If something has been around for 200 years and is so effective how come

we haven't heard more about it? How come nobody has been able to conduct

research on it that proves it's effective?

If it was so effective a system of healing before modern medicine than

why is modern medicine around still? If it was so effective why was the

quality of life so poor back then? Why was the lifespan so short? Why

did people still die of terrible diseases?

How come I can't find any mention of homeopathy in biographies of the time?

What makes me worried about homeopathy is that people put their trust

and belief in it rather than the the things that God has made and in

Himself. It can lead people into all sorts of odd beliefs as soon as

people believe that it has a healing " energy. "

You know there are lots of stories of people usuing homeopathy where it

didn't work and they became even more ill too.

Placebo:

1. A substance containing no medication and prescribed or given to

reinforce a patient's expectation to get well.

2. An inactive substance or preparation used as a control in an

experiment or test to determine the effectiveness of a medicinal drug.

# Something of no intrinsic remedial value that is used to appease or

reassure another.

Anecdote:

1. a short account of a particular incident or event of an interesting

or amusing nature, often biographical.

*~*~* Jo & Pete *~*~*

@

" Laudo Deum " Farm

kinderfolk_n_liddlebuds@...

Raising quality Kinder and Nigerian Dwarf goats

for small acreage farmers, homesteaders and

families with young children.

(And producing natural soaps for humans and animals.)

[Guest guest]

To respond properly would require writing a book, so I'll be brief. Plus

I'm on vacation. :-)

It is of crucial importance to get a match between the patient's

symptoms and the remedy picture. Without a good match nothing will

happen, for the most part. The FDA requires all homeopathic remedies

such as those found in health food stores to state what they are for.

This is a fallacy because a remedy could be used for any number of

things, and a disease could need any one of hundreds of remedies.

Unfortunately most of these studies are done by people who take a remedy

that's " supposed to be good for asthma " and take a bunch of people, all

of whom have very individualized symptoms, and give them the same

remedy. Yeah, it doesn't work.

To properly test these remedies would involve a lot of research to

select a group of people who actually match the remedy picture (like

worse at night, in damp weather, better lying down, headache on the left

side with the asthma, asthma due to allergens, etc.) That means money.

And as a homeopath, I can guarantee we don't have that, especially

competing with big pharma, which loves to publicize these

double-blind/placebo trials.

Tabinda

Jo wrote:

>

>

>

> This is the problem. In the studies that I have seen done on homeopathy

> verses regular therapies homeopathy has not come out to well. It seems

> that double blind studies just can't substantiate it's effectiveness.

[Guest guest]

Thank you Tabinda! That was pretty close to what I was going to say next so if you don't mind this is my reply........ What she said. Tabinda I would appreciate it if you could send me an e-mail off group when you get off of vacation.

How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.