Guest guest Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Hi Joyce I think I had arnica for two weeks after my op. It was to reduce swelling, I was told... I'll bet just using the cane is reminding you to stand and walk in a better position, even if you don't really need to walk on it. If it works, why not use it for long walks for a few weeks, then see how you are doing? Lots of people who haven't had surgery use walking sticks for hiking or long walks, so you won't really look odd, you just hate to go back to the cane when you thought you were past it... I know lots of people who are still limping a bit at four months post-op, and I still occasionally limp myself at 9 months post-op if I get really tired and don't concentrate, so don't worry. I have been told that we will keep seeing improvements for the next couple of years, at least. I thought my rate of improvement had slowed down a lot after the first three months, but yesterday I met someone who had their op four months after I did, and when I saw how much more I could do now (compared to 5 months ago), I realized that I had actually kept improving more than I realized. So hang in there, you'll be able to give up the cane sooner if you use it more right now... n rBHR Oct.17/04 McMinn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 About that improvement - we do seem to forget how bad we were after a while and it takes those wonderous simple things that we avoided for so long and then suddenly do without thinking to help us remember... there was one move in skating - a twizzle it's called - that I had avoided just because I remembered how much it hurt to do it. (there are actually many different twizzles, but one in particular on the left leg used to hurt so much - not that it stopped me from trying it and doing it badly tho!) Today Cliff and I did the dance it's in and for the first time in years it was absolutely easy and done perfectly without an ounce of fear. True I thought oh here it comes, but the thought was simply followed by just stand up and do it. Cliff says my grin after completing it made his day... the twizzle sure made mine!!! As usual in ice dancing he just gets to stand there while I spill out of the frame!!... man is it good to do it all without fear (even falling without fear!). It may be wishful thinking, but I have a feeling that we are going to be better dancers than ever.... Pamela > Hi Joyce > I think I had arnica for two weeks after my op. It was to reduce > swelling, I was told... > I'll bet just using the cane is reminding you to stand and walk in > a better position, even if you don't really need to walk on it. If it > works, why not use it for long walks for a few weeks, then see how you > are doing? Lots of people who haven't had surgery use walking sticks > for hiking or long walks, so you won't really look odd, you just hate > to go back to the cane when you thought you were past it... > I know lots of people who are still limping a bit at four months > post-op, and I still occasionally limp myself at 9 months post-op if I > get really tired and don't concentrate, so don't worry. I have been > told that we will keep seeing improvements for the next couple of > years, at least. I thought my rate of improvement had slowed down a > lot after the first three months, but yesterday I met someone who had > their op four months after I did, and when I saw how much more I could > do now (compared to 5 months ago), I realized that I had actually kept > improving more than I realized. > So hang in there, you'll be able to give up the cane sooner if you > use it more right now... > n > rBHR Oct.17/04 McMinn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Aloha n, I have a few questions on the arnica. I've used it in the past for muscle aches on backpacking trips. I tried to purchase some from the local health food store and found immense difficulty in determining the quantity in a given product. It seems that rather than use a measurement such as ...contains .035 milligrams...the homeopathic system uses a reverse system w/ " C's " etc...to denote miniscule concentrations. My final understanding resulted in the realization that most of the products were being sold with such a minimal trace that it didn't make sense to me. When I checked the numbers and weights, some of those products would be lucky to have a few molecules in a given tablet! So my question, do you know the concentration of arnica in the product you are using? And, if so, what amounts are needed for healing or a response? Finally, have you been able to find any arnica marketed without the homeopathic system of measurement instead using easily comparable measures of concentration of active material in products sold? Please share your thoughts. Thanks, Dan C+, 1/21/02 Dr. Schmalzried > > Hi Joyce > > I think I had arnica for two weeks after my op. It was to reduce > > swelling, I was told... > > I'll bet just using the cane is reminding you to stand and walk in > > a better position, even if you don't really need to walk on it. If it > > works, why not use it for long walks for a few weeks, then see how you > > are doing? Lots of people who haven't had surgery use walking sticks > > for hiking or long walks, so you won't really look odd, you just hate > > to go back to the cane when you thought you were past it... > > I know lots of people who are still limping a bit at four months > > post-op, and I still occasionally limp myself at 9 months post- op if I > > get really tired and don't concentrate, so don't worry. I have been > > told that we will keep seeing improvements for the next couple of > > years, at least. I thought my rate of improvement had slowed down a > > lot after the first three months, but yesterday I met someone who had > > their op four months after I did, and when I saw how much more I could > > do now (compared to 5 months ago), I realized that I had actually kept > > improving more than I realized. > > So hang in there, you'll be able to give up the cane sooner if you > > use it more right now... > > n > > rBHR Oct.17/04 McMinn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 At 03:23 PM 7/10/2004 +0000, you wrote: >My final understanding resulted in the >realization that most of the products were being sold with such a >minimal trace that it didn't make sense to me. When I checked the >numbers and weights, some of those products would be lucky to have a >few molecules in a given tablet! Dan, It is my understanding that is the point of homeopathic medicine--that it is so diluted that very few molecules remain. Many believe in it and have had great success so... I used arnica tablets after my hip surguries. I can't say whether it helped or not, but it didn't hurt. Cindy C+ 5/25/01 and 6/28/01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 Hi Steve and others, I'm finding my reaction to Steve's total dismissal of homeopathy a little like my reaction to the North American orthopedic surgeons who said that resurfacing was not really an option because they couldn't trust any of the studies done on it in Europe. Basically, they said that Europeans were not rigorously scientific with their data... I don't go to a homeopathic physician here in Canada, but I have hosted adult European homestay students who grew up with that medical system, and think that for many medical problems it works very well for them. Whether or not they would have got better anyhow, I can't say. But there is more to homeopathy than just the medications. Some of their ideas about diet, etc. seem to be helpful. Plus, they tend to treat the patient as a whole person, looking into the emotional and other factors that might be influencing their health, rather than just prescribing for a set of symptoms... Homeopathic doctors have to study anatomy and bacteria, etc., just like allopathic doctors. When I was in the Nuffield Hospital in Birmingham for my BHR, I was told that McMinn has started prescribing two homeopathic medicines, rhus tox and arnica, for his patients because he thinks that they help reduce inflammation, swelling and bruising. They didn't cost me anything extra (foreign patients at the Nuffield pay one fixed, all-inclusive price), so I decided to take them. Although I did have some bruising, I had hardly any swelling. Maybe that was because I used the crutches as ordered and didn't try to walk three miles a day during the first week post op... I don't know on what grounds McMinn feels these medications are useful, but given his stature as a surgeon, perhaps one of the doctors on this board would like to learn more about his reasons. In Vancouver, we have a lot of Chinese immigrants, and a lot of practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine. TCM was pooh-poohed at first by local doctors, but now they have started recommending some of the Oriental herbal compounds because they actually do help some patients. For example, instead of going on hormone replacement therapy, which was highly touted by our " scientific " doctors, I used dong quai, and sometimes black cohosh, to control hot flashes. These herbal remedies really worked for me; if I ran out of dong quai, I suffered greatly. But eventually I was able to taper them down to nothing. Try going off HRT and see what happens! Now that large scientific studies have shown that HRT can be very dangerous, I'm glad I didn't take it. At first doctors didn't believe that glucosamine would help anyone either, until patients whose dogs were doing better on glucosamine started taking it themselves. Now my doctor recommends it. However, other doctors think it's just another form of anti-inflammatory, and believe that taking any anti-inflammatories is worse for your joints and cartilage in the long run. So, after these various kinds of exposures, I'm trying to keep an open mind, while not being too gullible on the other hand. Other cultures have a lot to teach us about medicine, diets, exercise (tai chi, for example), that a strictly scientific North American attitude does not allow for. I'm happy to hear both sides of the story, and if someone finds that AvoSoy or whatever works for them, it's good that they share those experiences. Twenty years from now, some treatments that are pooh-poohed right now may become standard, who knows? All of us resurfacing patients are part of a huge scientific experiment, and we all assume some risks. But then, any major surgery has risks. We just have to examine what's known so far, and make the best decisions we can based on our own judgments. n rBHR Oct.2003 McMinm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 >Hi Steve and others, > I'm finding my reaction to Steve's total dismissal of homeopathy >a little like my reaction to the North American orthopedic surgeons >who said that resurfacing was not really an option because they >couldn't trust any of the studies done on it in Europe. Basically, >they said that Europeans were not rigorously scientific with their data... WHOA! There is a wrong useage of the word homeopathy here dude. Homeopathic is defined as (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homeopathic) " A system for treating disease based on the administration of minute doses of a drug that in massive amounts produces symptoms in healthy individuals similar to those of the disease itself. " This is a very specific form of alternative medicine that frankly doesn't have much to convince me it works. This is entirely different from using medications from alternative sources. There is nothing magical about using such medications and there are very large compendiums of the active chemicals in many plants -- best sources are German, where this has a long history. Same in many other parts of Europe. McMinn uses these because he's probably more used to thinking along these lines, rather than some stunning endorsement of US alternative medicine. So nope, he is not doing anything with homeopathic medicine. Not even close. I used to live in Germany for many years that has a thriving natural medicine movement. I'll stick with a quick comparison to German practices, since I know these better. It's probably not too far afield from the UK. Since we are the 500 lb. gorilla to the south, The US has a tremendous influence on Canadian medicine, for better or worse. See, the problem has 2 parts. * In the US, there were historically _no_ requirements for being a doctor. This led to anyone and everyone claiming all sorts of whacky cures (remember snake oil salesmen?) and a lot of it really was based on folk medicine/superstition. Finally towards the end of the 19th century, the doctors who had formal training spearheaded shutting these folks down and none too gently. (yes they should have, btw, a lot of these guys were worse than the disease) This is why there is so much disdain in US healthcare for a lot of these alternative types. In Europe, which had guilds and other such institutions, what we consider alternative medicines were gradually folded into a modern healthcare. In Germany, for instance, many of these cures have a feeling of a kinder, gentler time and a really traditional ring, vs. the " heartless " air of modern clinical medicine. This also plays into the currently popular mindset that all things natural are just better for you. (No, that's a crock of it too, but it does sell chamomile tea sooo well) As one of my German friends put it, " what makes you think good drugs are only found in the Amazon? " * Under US law, you cannot patent and thereby own a naturally occurring substance, whereas in Germany you can. This is why American pharmaceutical companies have almost no research into natural sources: If they isolate a compound in a plant, then they have no way to control who uses it and cannot reasonably recoup their research investment. Therefore, bigger and weirder chemicals are all they can produce. This isn't good, but that's how it works. Don't be so fast to embrace TOM (traditional oriental medicine). Many of those cures require endangered species, contain things you absolutely do not want in you (lead and mercury are often included since they give you a " buzz " which shows the stuff is working) and above all are not regulated in any way. As long as no medical claim is made, they can sell anything they want. Heck if you really are getting what it says on the bottle (and heck if you can read the label anyway...) I've had a fair amount of experience with TOM and it is a very mixed bag. Bottom line with all this -- only accept it if it works in all medical systems. If you can't find a valid reason for it, then be wary. Chemicals are chemicals. Sure dong quai might work, so it should be determined why (bet you a buck this is documented someplace in German). You want US companies to make a drug that uses this, go lobby to change the patent laws. As for alternative medicine, maybe some of them have something amazing only they can do, or maybe they have some system that can't have anything verified in it (they'll " cure " you and if you don't feel any better, there just isn't a way to gauge that, so it all boils down to opinion and you should be tolerant of their view you're better, right?) Since people will pay through the nose for the Truth there are entirely too many charlatans out there for my comfort level. One last, little nit. Science is not a thing, but a method for investigation based on independently verifiable facts, peer review and open friendly discourse. You seem to have it in for this. Ok, but you'd better a have an improvement. Don't say it is always used right, but it is tried and true. Lobbying for what is essentially a received system of medicine is every bit as dangerous as any other blind faith. I mean, we no longer think that traditional western medicine works (what would you do if your doctor started talking about the Doctrine of Humours as part of your examination?) -- jeff rBHR Aug. 1, 2001 Mr. McMinn > I don't go to a homeopathic physician here in Canada, but I have >hosted adult European homestay students who grew up with that medical >system, and think that for many medical problems it works very well >for them. Whether or not they would have got better anyhow, I can't >say. But there is more to homeopathy than just the medications. Some >of their ideas about diet, etc. seem to be helpful. Plus, they tend to >treat the patient as a whole person, looking into the emotional and >other factors that might be influencing their health, rather than just >prescribing for a set of symptoms... Homeopathic doctors have to >study anatomy and bacteria, etc., just like allopathic doctors. > When I was in the Nuffield Hospital in Birmingham for my BHR, I >was told that McMinn has started prescribing two homeopathic >medicines, rhus tox and arnica, for his patients because he thinks >that they help reduce inflammation, swelling and bruising. They didn't >cost me anything extra (foreign patients at the Nuffield pay one >fixed, all-inclusive price), so I decided to take them. Although I did >have some bruising, I had hardly any swelling. Maybe that was because >I used the crutches as ordered and didn't try to walk three miles a >day during the first week post op... I don't know on what grounds >McMinn feels these medications are useful, but given his stature as a >surgeon, perhaps one of the doctors on this board would like to learn >more about his reasons. > In Vancouver, we have a lot of Chinese immigrants, and a lot of >practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine. TCM was pooh-poohed at >first by local doctors, but now they have started recommending some of >the Oriental herbal compounds because they actually do help some >patients. For example, instead of going on hormone replacement >therapy, which was highly touted by our " scientific " doctors, I used >dong quai, and sometimes black cohosh, to control hot flashes. These >herbal remedies really worked for me; if I ran out of dong quai, I >suffered greatly. But eventually I was able to taper them down to >nothing. Try going off HRT and see what happens! Now that large >scientific studies have shown that HRT can be very dangerous, I'm glad >I didn't take it. > At first doctors didn't believe that glucosamine would help >anyone either, until patients whose dogs were doing better on >glucosamine started taking it themselves. Now my doctor recommends it. >However, other doctors think it's just another form of >anti-inflammatory, and believe that taking any anti-inflammatories is >worse for your joints and cartilage in the long run. > So, after these various kinds of exposures, I'm trying to keep an >open mind, while not being too gullible on the other hand. Other >cultures have a lot to teach us about medicine, diets, exercise (tai >chi, for example), that a strictly scientific North American attitude >does not allow for. I'm happy to hear both sides of the story, and if >someone finds that AvoSoy or whatever works for them, it's good that >they share those experiences. Twenty years from now, some treatments >that are pooh-poohed right now may become standard, who knows? > All of us resurfacing patients are part of a huge scientific >experiment, and we all assume some risks. But then, any major surgery >has risks. We just have to examine what's known so far, and make the >best decisions we can based on our own judgments. > n >rBHR Oct.2003 McMinm > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 >Hi Steve and others, > I'm finding my reaction to Steve's total dismissal of homeopathy >a little like my reaction to the North American orthopedic surgeons >who said that resurfacing was not really an option because they >couldn't trust any of the studies done on it in Europe. Basically, >they said that Europeans were not rigorously scientific with their data... WHOA! There is a wrong useage of the word homeopathy here dude. Homeopathic is defined as (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homeopathic) " A system for treating disease based on the administration of minute doses of a drug that in massive amounts produces symptoms in healthy individuals similar to those of the disease itself. " This is a very specific form of alternative medicine that frankly doesn't have much to convince me it works. This is entirely different from using medications from alternative sources. There is nothing magical about using such medications and there are very large compendiums of the active chemicals in many plants -- best sources are German, where this has a long history. Same in many other parts of Europe. McMinn uses these because he's probably more used to thinking along these lines, rather than some stunning endorsement of US alternative medicine. So nope, he is not doing anything with homeopathic medicine. Not even close. I used to live in Germany for many years that has a thriving natural medicine movement. I'll stick with a quick comparison to German practices, since I know these better. It's probably not too far afield from the UK. Since we are the 500 lb. gorilla to the south, The US has a tremendous influence on Canadian medicine, for better or worse. See, the problem has 2 parts. * In the US, there were historically _no_ requirements for being a doctor. This led to anyone and everyone claiming all sorts of whacky cures (remember snake oil salesmen?) and a lot of it really was based on folk medicine/superstition. Finally towards the end of the 19th century, the doctors who had formal training spearheaded shutting these folks down and none too gently. (yes they should have, btw, a lot of these guys were worse than the disease) This is why there is so much disdain in US healthcare for a lot of these alternative types. In Europe, which had guilds and other such institutions, what we consider alternative medicines were gradually folded into a modern healthcare. In Germany, for instance, many of these cures have a feeling of a kinder, gentler time and a really traditional ring, vs. the " heartless " air of modern clinical medicine. This also plays into the currently popular mindset that all things natural are just better for you. (No, that's a crock of it too, but it does sell chamomile tea sooo well) As one of my German friends put it, " what makes you think good drugs are only found in the Amazon? " * Under US law, you cannot patent and thereby own a naturally occurring substance, whereas in Germany you can. This is why American pharmaceutical companies have almost no research into natural sources: If they isolate a compound in a plant, then they have no way to control who uses it and cannot reasonably recoup their research investment. Therefore, bigger and weirder chemicals are all they can produce. This isn't good, but that's how it works. Don't be so fast to embrace TOM (traditional oriental medicine). Many of those cures require endangered species, contain things you absolutely do not want in you (lead and mercury are often included since they give you a " buzz " which shows the stuff is working) and above all are not regulated in any way. As long as no medical claim is made, they can sell anything they want. Heck if you really are getting what it says on the bottle (and heck if you can read the label anyway...) I've had a fair amount of experience with TOM and it is a very mixed bag. Bottom line with all this -- only accept it if it works in all medical systems. If you can't find a valid reason for it, then be wary. Chemicals are chemicals. Sure dong quai might work, so it should be determined why (bet you a buck this is documented someplace in German). You want US companies to make a drug that uses this, go lobby to change the patent laws. As for alternative medicine, maybe some of them have something amazing only they can do, or maybe they have some system that can't have anything verified in it (they'll " cure " you and if you don't feel any better, there just isn't a way to gauge that, so it all boils down to opinion and you should be tolerant of their view you're better, right?) Since people will pay through the nose for the Truth there are entirely too many charlatans out there for my comfort level. One last, little nit. Science is not a thing, but a method for investigation based on independently verifiable facts, peer review and open friendly discourse. You seem to have it in for this. Ok, but you'd better a have an improvement. Don't say it is always used right, but it is tried and true. Lobbying for what is essentially a received system of medicine is every bit as dangerous as any other blind faith. I mean, we no longer think that traditional western medicine works (what would you do if your doctor started talking about the Doctrine of Humours as part of your examination?) -- jeff rBHR Aug. 1, 2001 Mr. McMinn > I don't go to a homeopathic physician here in Canada, but I have >hosted adult European homestay students who grew up with that medical >system, and think that for many medical problems it works very well >for them. Whether or not they would have got better anyhow, I can't >say. But there is more to homeopathy than just the medications. Some >of their ideas about diet, etc. seem to be helpful. Plus, they tend to >treat the patient as a whole person, looking into the emotional and >other factors that might be influencing their health, rather than just >prescribing for a set of symptoms... Homeopathic doctors have to >study anatomy and bacteria, etc., just like allopathic doctors. > When I was in the Nuffield Hospital in Birmingham for my BHR, I >was told that McMinn has started prescribing two homeopathic >medicines, rhus tox and arnica, for his patients because he thinks >that they help reduce inflammation, swelling and bruising. They didn't >cost me anything extra (foreign patients at the Nuffield pay one >fixed, all-inclusive price), so I decided to take them. Although I did >have some bruising, I had hardly any swelling. Maybe that was because >I used the crutches as ordered and didn't try to walk three miles a >day during the first week post op... I don't know on what grounds >McMinn feels these medications are useful, but given his stature as a >surgeon, perhaps one of the doctors on this board would like to learn >more about his reasons. > In Vancouver, we have a lot of Chinese immigrants, and a lot of >practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine. TCM was pooh-poohed at >first by local doctors, but now they have started recommending some of >the Oriental herbal compounds because they actually do help some >patients. For example, instead of going on hormone replacement >therapy, which was highly touted by our " scientific " doctors, I used >dong quai, and sometimes black cohosh, to control hot flashes. These >herbal remedies really worked for me; if I ran out of dong quai, I >suffered greatly. But eventually I was able to taper them down to >nothing. Try going off HRT and see what happens! Now that large >scientific studies have shown that HRT can be very dangerous, I'm glad >I didn't take it. > At first doctors didn't believe that glucosamine would help >anyone either, until patients whose dogs were doing better on >glucosamine started taking it themselves. Now my doctor recommends it. >However, other doctors think it's just another form of >anti-inflammatory, and believe that taking any anti-inflammatories is >worse for your joints and cartilage in the long run. > So, after these various kinds of exposures, I'm trying to keep an >open mind, while not being too gullible on the other hand. Other >cultures have a lot to teach us about medicine, diets, exercise (tai >chi, for example), that a strictly scientific North American attitude >does not allow for. I'm happy to hear both sides of the story, and if >someone finds that AvoSoy or whatever works for them, it's good that >they share those experiences. Twenty years from now, some treatments >that are pooh-poohed right now may become standard, who knows? > All of us resurfacing patients are part of a huge scientific >experiment, and we all assume some risks. But then, any major surgery >has risks. We just have to examine what's known so far, and make the >best decisions we can based on our own judgments. > n >rBHR Oct.2003 McMinm > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 > >Hi Steve and others, > > I'm finding my reaction to Steve's total dismissal of homeopathy > >a little like my reaction to the North American orthopedic surgeons > >who said that resurfacing was not really an option because they > >couldn't trust any of the studies done on it in Europe. Basically, > >they said that Europeans were not rigorously scientific with their data... > > WHOA! There is a wrong useage of the word homeopathy here dude. Homeopathic > is defined as (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homeopathic) > > " A system for treating disease based on the administration of minute doses > of a drug that in massive amounts produces symptoms in healthy individuals > similar to those of the disease itself. " Which is what Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, called " The Law of Similars " . It's the fundamental principal of homeopathy. > * Under US law, you cannot patent and thereby own a naturally occurring > substance, This will come as quite a shock to Bristol-Myers-Squibb, which is making a ton of money on the cancer drug Taxol® (derived from the Pacific yew tree). Steve (bilateral C+ 4/20/04, Amstutz) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 > >Hi Steve and others, > > I'm finding my reaction to Steve's total dismissal of homeopathy > >a little like my reaction to the North American orthopedic surgeons > >who said that resurfacing was not really an option because they > >couldn't trust any of the studies done on it in Europe. Basically, > >they said that Europeans were not rigorously scientific with their data... > > WHOA! There is a wrong useage of the word homeopathy here dude. Homeopathic > is defined as (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homeopathic) > > " A system for treating disease based on the administration of minute doses > of a drug that in massive amounts produces symptoms in healthy individuals > similar to those of the disease itself. " Which is what Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, called " The Law of Similars " . It's the fundamental principal of homeopathy. > * Under US law, you cannot patent and thereby own a naturally occurring > substance, This will come as quite a shock to Bristol-Myers-Squibb, which is making a ton of money on the cancer drug Taxol® (derived from the Pacific yew tree). Steve (bilateral C+ 4/20/04, Amstutz) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 Great that this discussion of homeopathy has evolved to reference immunology specifically! Re. vaccines: Vaccines can be " some " of a virus that causes a disease. Eg, a portion of an outer part (envelope protein) of a virus that does not vary may serve as a vaccine. Or, an attenuated (killed) whole virus (non-viable in terms of possessing functional genes to support viral replication) may function as a vaccine. It is possible that an attenuated virus may revert to functionality, but the vaccines composed of parts of a virus, lacking in viral genetic material, have zero capacity for infection of cells. Regarding the Theory of Similars...there is merit to immunization ( " sensitizing " the body) with that which can cause disease. That's why so much work has gone into trying to find invariant envelope proteins of the HIV virus. Using Candace's term, the minimal " energy " required from an immunizing agent is some component of the pathogen that can enter into the antigen presentation process, lead to the development of a memory B cell, which can then lay in wait, ready to proliferate like hell and spew out antibody should the pathogen come a'knockin' in force. There is, however, no reliable inverse correlation between dilution and potency; re. immunizing agents, more dilute does not correlate with more potent. Maybe I be startin' to blather on here; blame it on the vicodin! - Bob In surfacehippy , Candace Castle wrote: > Hello again Steve-- > Actually, the " Theory of Similars " IS alive in the > 21st century in the form of vaccines! What are > vaccines but some of the same virus that causes the > disease? It's based on a similar theory--that the > body will develop antibodies-- an immune response-- in > the presence of the disease causing agent. The > problem with vaccines is that they sometimes can lead > to people developing the disease that they were > supposed to develop immunity to. In homeopathy, the > concentrations are so minute that there is no danger > of that, but the idea is the same--to provoke an > immune response. The basic idea of homeopathy is that > the " energy " (for lack of a better definition) remains > in the remedy. > > As I said in my last post, vibrational/energy medicine > will be the medicine of the future! Sub-atomic > discoveries have shown that there are smaller > particles than molecules and atoms. Quantum physics > has changed previous thinking about the laws of > physics. There is so much that we don't know about > the energy systems of the body that I'm sure will > become standard knowledge/practice in the future. > Alot has happened since the last century but we > haven't discovered everything there is to know yet! We > presently only use 5% of our mental > capabilities--think of the possibilities when we start > using the other 95%! > I thank people like Dr. Amstutz every day for thinking > outside the box and persisting with it! > Candace 12/02 C+ Vail > > --- sog1927 wrote: > > > > > > However, the " Theory of Similars " really isn't > > something that needs to > > be propagated into the 21st Century. > > > > If you look at the ingedients in a lot of > > homeopathic medicines (like > > nux vomica, also known as strychnine), you should be > > grateful that > > they're so diluted that there's practically nothing > > in them. > > > > Steve (bilat C+ 4/20/04, Amstutz) > > > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 > Hello again Steve-- > Actually, the " Theory of Similars " IS alive in the > 21st century in the form of vaccines! What are > vaccines but some of the same virus that causes the > disease? It's based on a similar theory--that the > body will develop antibodies-- an immune response-- in > the presence of the disease causing agent. Actually no it isn't, as Dr. Barrett (who maintains the excellent, if a tad strident, Quackwatch website) points out: ------------------------------------------------------------------ Many proponents claim that homeopathic products resemble vaccines because both provide a small stimulus that triggers an immune response. This comparison is not valid. The amounts of active ingredients in vaccines are much greater and can be measured. Moreover, immunizations produce antibodies whose concentration in the blood can be measured, but high-dilution homeopathic products produce no measurable response. In addition, vaccines are used preventively, not for curing symptoms. ------------------------------------------------------------------ > The > problem with vaccines is that they sometimes can lead > to people developing the disease that they were > supposed to develop immunity to. In homeopathy, the > concentrations are so minute that there is no danger > of that, but the idea is the same--to provoke an > immune response. The basic idea of homeopathy is that > the " energy " (for lack of a better definition) remains > in the remedy. Well, folks have tried to demonstrate the existence of " vital force " , " elan vital " , and all the rest of the terms by which this concept has been called, for centuries to no avail. You're certainly free to believe in its existence, just as I am free to believe that the universe is run by miniscule invisible, massless unicorns. However, until you can demonstrate some consequence of the existence of either " vital force " or in visible, massless unicorns, I'll take on Occam's authority that they're both unnecessary concepts. One of the unhealthiest people I know is a " Reiki Master " . > As I said in my last post, vibrational/energy medicine > will be the medicine of the future! > Sub-atomic > discoveries have shown that there are smaller > particles than molecules and atoms. Quantum physics > has changed previous thinking about the laws of > physics. Candace, what's the difference between a fermion and a boson? In quantum physics, to what does the term " standard model " refer? What readily observable phenomenon does the the standard model fail to explain? While it's certainly true that there are smaller particles than molecules, it's also true that there is no particle of water smaller than a water molecule that is still " water " . How does a dose of homeopathic medicine " know " which of the absent molecules of countless substances it does not contain is the intended active one? Why doesn't distilled water cure everything? Homeopathy asserts that the " vehicle " (water in many cases) maintains some " memory " of the medicines to which it was exposed, and that this accounts for the " therapeutic effect " of homeopathic remedies. Why doesn't the water remember *all* the substances to which it was exposed, over the countless eons before it was made part of a medicine? Why doesn't it remember the salt of the sea, the albumin and urea of the countless animals it has passed through, the chlorophyll of the plants in which it dwelt, the nitrogen of the atmosphere, etc? Why is its only " recollection " that of a solitary molecule of " active ingredient " in an ocean of solvent? Pretty selective recall, if you ask me. If it only " remembers " the most recent substance to which it was exposed, then wouldn't the tiniest mote of dust in a homeopathic facility render all the medicines inactive? > There is so much that we don't know about > the energy systems of the body that I'm sure will > become standard knowledge/practice in the future. > Alot has happened since the last century but we > haven't discovered everything there is to know yet! That's certainly true, but relying on fantasy to fill in the gaps isn't going to help the process. > We > presently only use 5% of our mental > capabilities--think of the possibilities when we start > using the other 95%! Says who? How do you measure this? You are, after all, using a number which implies that at some point a measurement was involved. How do you determine the precise amount of " mental capacity " someone has to begin with, much less how much they're using? Why 5%? Where does this number come from? Is this ratio of use to disuse evenly distributed throughout the brain? Is this consistent throughout the population, or is my severely autistic nephew using a different amount of his " mental capacity " than, say, Hawking? Is he using more or less? Can I go down to Radio Shack and buy an Acme Mental Capacity Meter and tell for sure? > I thank people like Dr. Amstutz every day for thinking > outside the box and persisting with it! Me, too. And this relates to homeopathy in what way, exactly? > Candace 12/02 C+ Vail So, exactly what homeopathic remedy did Dr. Vail use to cure your hip? We're veering wildly off-topic. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we? Steve (bilateral C+ 4/20/04, Amstutz) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 > Hello again Steve-- > Actually, the " Theory of Similars " IS alive in the > 21st century in the form of vaccines! What are > vaccines but some of the same virus that causes the > disease? It's based on a similar theory--that the > body will develop antibodies-- an immune response-- in > the presence of the disease causing agent. Actually no it isn't, as Dr. Barrett (who maintains the excellent, if a tad strident, Quackwatch website) points out: ------------------------------------------------------------------ Many proponents claim that homeopathic products resemble vaccines because both provide a small stimulus that triggers an immune response. This comparison is not valid. The amounts of active ingredients in vaccines are much greater and can be measured. Moreover, immunizations produce antibodies whose concentration in the blood can be measured, but high-dilution homeopathic products produce no measurable response. In addition, vaccines are used preventively, not for curing symptoms. ------------------------------------------------------------------ > The > problem with vaccines is that they sometimes can lead > to people developing the disease that they were > supposed to develop immunity to. In homeopathy, the > concentrations are so minute that there is no danger > of that, but the idea is the same--to provoke an > immune response. The basic idea of homeopathy is that > the " energy " (for lack of a better definition) remains > in the remedy. Well, folks have tried to demonstrate the existence of " vital force " , " elan vital " , and all the rest of the terms by which this concept has been called, for centuries to no avail. You're certainly free to believe in its existence, just as I am free to believe that the universe is run by miniscule invisible, massless unicorns. However, until you can demonstrate some consequence of the existence of either " vital force " or in visible, massless unicorns, I'll take on Occam's authority that they're both unnecessary concepts. One of the unhealthiest people I know is a " Reiki Master " . > As I said in my last post, vibrational/energy medicine > will be the medicine of the future! > Sub-atomic > discoveries have shown that there are smaller > particles than molecules and atoms. Quantum physics > has changed previous thinking about the laws of > physics. Candace, what's the difference between a fermion and a boson? In quantum physics, to what does the term " standard model " refer? What readily observable phenomenon does the the standard model fail to explain? While it's certainly true that there are smaller particles than molecules, it's also true that there is no particle of water smaller than a water molecule that is still " water " . How does a dose of homeopathic medicine " know " which of the absent molecules of countless substances it does not contain is the intended active one? Why doesn't distilled water cure everything? Homeopathy asserts that the " vehicle " (water in many cases) maintains some " memory " of the medicines to which it was exposed, and that this accounts for the " therapeutic effect " of homeopathic remedies. Why doesn't the water remember *all* the substances to which it was exposed, over the countless eons before it was made part of a medicine? Why doesn't it remember the salt of the sea, the albumin and urea of the countless animals it has passed through, the chlorophyll of the plants in which it dwelt, the nitrogen of the atmosphere, etc? Why is its only " recollection " that of a solitary molecule of " active ingredient " in an ocean of solvent? Pretty selective recall, if you ask me. If it only " remembers " the most recent substance to which it was exposed, then wouldn't the tiniest mote of dust in a homeopathic facility render all the medicines inactive? > There is so much that we don't know about > the energy systems of the body that I'm sure will > become standard knowledge/practice in the future. > Alot has happened since the last century but we > haven't discovered everything there is to know yet! That's certainly true, but relying on fantasy to fill in the gaps isn't going to help the process. > We > presently only use 5% of our mental > capabilities--think of the possibilities when we start > using the other 95%! Says who? How do you measure this? You are, after all, using a number which implies that at some point a measurement was involved. How do you determine the precise amount of " mental capacity " someone has to begin with, much less how much they're using? Why 5%? Where does this number come from? Is this ratio of use to disuse evenly distributed throughout the brain? Is this consistent throughout the population, or is my severely autistic nephew using a different amount of his " mental capacity " than, say, Hawking? Is he using more or less? Can I go down to Radio Shack and buy an Acme Mental Capacity Meter and tell for sure? > I thank people like Dr. Amstutz every day for thinking > outside the box and persisting with it! Me, too. And this relates to homeopathy in what way, exactly? > Candace 12/02 C+ Vail So, exactly what homeopathic remedy did Dr. Vail use to cure your hip? We're veering wildly off-topic. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we? Steve (bilateral C+ 4/20/04, Amstutz) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 I would agree with Steve - my understanding, from seeing a TV program (BBC) about a study performed by scientists sceptical about homeopathy, is that homeopathy doesn't work. Some people seem to confuse this scepticism about homeopathy with herbal and other forms of alternative (ancient) medicines. These latter ones have a proven track record are and widely used here in Europe by medical practitioner as well as public at large. Dan +44 7974 981407 Re: Re: Arnica montanna Hello again Steve-- Actually, the " Theory of Similars " IS alive in the 21st century in the form of vaccines! What are vaccines but some of the same virus that causes the disease? It's based on a similar theory--that the body will develop antibodies-- an immune response-- in the presence of the disease causing agent. The problem with vaccines is that they sometimes can lead to people developing the disease that they were supposed to develop immunity to. In homeopathy, the concentrations are so minute that there is no danger of that, but the idea is the same--to provoke an immune response. The basic idea of homeopathy is that the " energy " (for lack of a better definition) remains in the remedy. As I said in my last post, vibrational/energy medicine will be the medicine of the future! Sub-atomic discoveries have shown that there are smaller particles than molecules and atoms. Quantum physics has changed previous thinking about the laws of physics. There is so much that we don't know about the energy systems of the body that I'm sure will become standard knowledge/practice in the future. Alot has happened since the last century but we haven't discovered everything there is to know yet! We presently only use 5% of our mental capabilities--think of the possibilities when we start using the other 95%! I thank people like Dr. Amstutz every day for thinking outside the box and persisting with it! Candace 12/02 C+ Vail --- sog1927 sog@...> wrote: > > > However, the " Theory of Similars " really isn't > something that needs to > be propagated into the 21st Century. > > If you look at the ingedients in a lot of > homeopathic medicines (like > nux vomica, also known as strychnine), you should be > grateful that > they're so diluted that there's practically nothing > in them. > > Steve (bilat C+ 4/20/04, Amstutz) > __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 I would agree with Steve - my understanding, from seeing a TV program (BBC) about a study performed by scientists sceptical about homeopathy, is that homeopathy doesn't work. Some people seem to confuse this scepticism about homeopathy with herbal and other forms of alternative (ancient) medicines. These latter ones have a proven track record are and widely used here in Europe by medical practitioner as well as public at large. Dan +44 7974 981407 Re: Re: Arnica montanna Hello again Steve-- Actually, the " Theory of Similars " IS alive in the 21st century in the form of vaccines! What are vaccines but some of the same virus that causes the disease? It's based on a similar theory--that the body will develop antibodies-- an immune response-- in the presence of the disease causing agent. The problem with vaccines is that they sometimes can lead to people developing the disease that they were supposed to develop immunity to. In homeopathy, the concentrations are so minute that there is no danger of that, but the idea is the same--to provoke an immune response. The basic idea of homeopathy is that the " energy " (for lack of a better definition) remains in the remedy. As I said in my last post, vibrational/energy medicine will be the medicine of the future! Sub-atomic discoveries have shown that there are smaller particles than molecules and atoms. Quantum physics has changed previous thinking about the laws of physics. There is so much that we don't know about the energy systems of the body that I'm sure will become standard knowledge/practice in the future. Alot has happened since the last century but we haven't discovered everything there is to know yet! We presently only use 5% of our mental capabilities--think of the possibilities when we start using the other 95%! I thank people like Dr. Amstutz every day for thinking outside the box and persisting with it! Candace 12/02 C+ Vail --- sog1927 sog@...> wrote: > > > However, the " Theory of Similars " really isn't > something that needs to > be propagated into the 21st Century. > > If you look at the ingedients in a lot of > homeopathic medicines (like > nux vomica, also known as strychnine), you should be > grateful that > they're so diluted that there's practically nothing > in them. > > Steve (bilat C+ 4/20/04, Amstutz) > __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.