Water has memory, validating homeopathy

"Bob Officer" -*-*.@.*-*- wrote in message ...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 01:05:09 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:


"Bob Officer" -*-*.@.*-*- wrote in message ...
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:42:04 +0000 (UTC), in misc.health.alternative,
Steelclaws wrote:

"carole" wrote in
. bigpond.com:
snip

--
HOMOEOPATHY, n. A school of medicine midway between Allopathy
and Christian Science. To the last both the others are distinctly
inferior, for Christian Science will cure imaginary diseases,
and they can not. -Ambrose Bierce

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about steelclaws.
Allopathic is today's medicine. Look it up in the dictionary.

Find out when Ambrose Bierce lived. It shouldn't be that difficult, even
for you.

This is part of Carole's overall problem. When a homeopath uses the
words "Allopath or allopathic" in relationship to the practice of
"medicine". Especially in the context of the time period or years
which it was used. They *Must* *Use* the definition as set by the
person that coined or originated the used of the word in that time
period.

I understand what you're saying, that allopathic was a word relative to the times.

It seem you do not.

But there's more. The word was coined in hahneman's day, but adapted to include today's conventional drug
based medicine.


However, it is still used today to describe conventional drug based pharmaceutical medicine which typically
uses the "poison, cut and burn" techniques plus the drugs that oppose the symptoms.

and it is used incorrectly.

In your opinion.


Popular usage doesn't mean it is correct usage. You are discussing a
field of medicine where words have exact and technical meanings.
Allopathic refers to only to any medical practice done other than
Homeopathy in 1825 when Hahnemann wrote his paper.

To use it otherwise is to bring confusion into the picture.

Not at all.
If allopathic medicine wanted to avoid confusion, they shouldn't have renamed toxemia to mean something
exclusively to do with pregnancy.


I use a question which answer should settle the question in your
mind: If 10,000 people jumped off the Empire State Building because
it became popular would you?

That is nonsense.


This points out the fallacy of your arguments of the usage by popular
and often ignorant press writers as to the Correct usage of the term.
The 1st person that used the term incorrectly was just and wrong as
the last person to use it.

It points out nothing. Words change and you want to have allopathic reserved for opposition to hahneman but
its ok to change meanings of toxemia to suit allopathic.


For the purpose of medical discussion. Allopathy refers only to the
any other medical practice other than Homeopathy in 1825. Any new
type of medicine is not allopathic in Nature because the term
actually refers to practice of the 4 humors which fell out of favor
when Evidence based medicine started replacing the 4 humors in about
1850. IT also started the invalidation of homeopathy also, because
Homeopathy is not evidence based but conjecture based.

Allopathic has been redefined to include any treatment that opposes symptoms by force, using poisons.


any Medical historian will point out the great deal of papers
published which took Galenism (the source of the formalism 4 humor
concept) to task, which started in the late 1400's. As Galenism
faltered over the next 200 years, dozen of other concepts sprung up
trying to either re-enforce Galenism or replace it with new concepts
like homeopathy and occultism.

Now you've gone too far.


History of how medicine charged and why has been a long progression.
With Evidence based medicine change the way everyone things.
Assumption , must have evidence before they are used. Conjecture is
discarded as a methodology and in practice.

Evidence based medicine is merely pharmaceutical medicine which is one of the robber baron industries bent on
exclusion of any other therapy that competes.
More interested in profits that cures.


Thus look at the time period which Ambrose Bierce lived and died.
1842-1913?. During that early period Evidence Based Medicine was just
taking hold in the US. Many people practice medicine with no real
qualifications. The Four Humors (which was Based on Conjecture and
fallacies) had fallen out of favor. It had actually started falling
out of favor when Evidence Based Medicine started coming in to favor.
Evidence Based Medicine is considered newer than Homeopathy.

But who the bleeding hell was Ambrose Bierce and why bring him into the conversation?

Ambrose was a man who wrote and recorded well enough he is considered
a trained observer and reporter during the time period. Ambrose was
also exposed enough to medical practice where he record his
observation that are found very accurate. Since Bierce traveled
widely, his observation about the state of humanities health and the
practice of medicine are important.

And there's one thing that you don't understand - back in those days of Pasteur and the discovery of
vaccination and the germ theory it was the mid 1850's.

Oh I understand it.

There were all sorts of people trying to figure out how to make a buck out of any new discovery, and how big
money could be made out of anything.

And then there were people who were just advancing the knowledge base
like William Withering, William Harvey, Realdo Colombo. you have to
remember the standard medical practice of the day was bloodletting,
which was exactly what Hahnemann was against. While there were a few
surgeons, trying to practice what later became Evidence based
medicine. You must look at what the schools taught and what was
actually practiced.

And Carole you speak like a person earning a living is wrong. you
constantly through that red herring out. It makes one wonder if you
do anything to earn a wage? or are you on the Dole? The loudest
protester about a person "earning a buck" are the people on the Dole
most of the time.

I don't have a problem with people earning a wage, it depends more on what they do for a living, whether it is
any use to the world or whether they ride on the backs of others.

Cleaners 'worth more to society' than bankers - study
By Martin Shankleman,
Employment correspondent, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8410489.stm
The elite banker
"Rather than being wealth creators bankers are being handsomely rewarded for bringing the global financial
system to the brink of
collapse. Paid between £500,000 and £80m a year, leading bankers destroy £7 of value for every pound they
generate".
Hospital cleaners
"Play a vital role in the workings of healthcare facilities. They not only clean hospitals and maintain
hygiene standards but also
contribute to wider health outcomes. For every pound paid, over £10 in social value is created."
- - -

The question you should ask yourself is, "Does my job create wealth for the community or do I ride on the
backs of others?"


There existed a class of people called robber barons who were intent on exploiting anything and everything
to
make a quid.

Those people are called investors and often visionaries. The went
broke more often than they succeeded. You must be a very poor student
of history not to realize how often they failed.

Obviously there were different classes of investors, the honest ones and the manipulative ones being those who
were shrewd and cunning, who would put their own profits ahead of the common good. These were the ones with no
scruples and didn't let little things like care of their fellow man get in the way of good business sense.


There was the railroad which opened up new opportunties, electicity which could have a tariff and be
charged,
and pharmaceuticals.

It takes lots of cash to build a railroad. back then lots of hand
labor. Over the years in inflation adjusted money it takes about 2-5
million dollars per mile of railroad. Not counting the land.

The money to build dams, and power grids takes millions of dollars in
Inflation adjusted dollars. That millions of dollars came from
investors. Which expected a return on the money.

Well of course it takes money and there were those who did their sums and knew what expenses were involved.


What we've got today is largely a result of some decisions and processes that were set in place back that
long
ago, be they right or wrong.

And you seem to have a large amount of hate of those successes.

When it comes to making profits from connivance and manipulation I have a problem, yes.


The change over date seems to be set about mid-1800. And in the areas
away from major learning/population centers the change would have
been later. and early the closer to leaning/population centers

I understand the book Passions and Tempers by Arikha gives a good
treatment to how firmly the particles of the four humors, also called
in some works Gallenism, was ingrained in society. Naturally when one
long standing system is abandoned many new areas of exploration
spring up. these are often just as wrong as the ones taking its
place.

So when a person which practices homeopathy calls a person a
Allopath, unless they are actually using the Four Humors, they are
technically wrong. Hahnemann uses the word he created, "Allopathic"
to refer to all treatments in existence at that time which was not
Homeopathy. (that means we must look at the world and what existed
then. (we can define Allopathic is the set of any medical practice
which existed in the period of between 1800-1835 which was not
Homeopathy.) Since the time period in which evidence based medicine
started displacing the Four Humors is has been set about 1850. we can
say with a degree of confidences that Hahnemann was not writing about
modern evidence based medicines when he referred to/or used
Allopathy.

The concept of homeopathy is built on a conjecture or assumption
which so far has been shown to be untrue.

I disagree of course.

But Carole you are again Wrong, as usual. I know that will not stop
you, and you will go right ahead and "be made an idiot out of ..."
again.

Of course bob, when I can eliminate fungi, parasites and infections with cellsalts why do I need
pharmaceutical drugs?
What it means is that the orthomolecular cure for disease has been suppressed in favour of pharmaceuticals.

--
Carole
www.conspiracee.com
Bob Officer finally admits it -"I am a tool"
http://groups.google.com.au/group/mi...ss+epidemic%22

"Steelclaws" wrote in message
4.39...
"carole" wrote in
ond.com:

And every single post she makes proves her claims wrong.

And steelclaws, I'm beginning to realise that's all you've got --no
logic, no reasonings, just rhetoric behind all your hot air.

The proof is in the pudding - or in this case in the respective posts. I
can back my claims up by using valid evidence, you cannot.

Yes, I understand why you have to go on the defensive, as you cannot
refute my claims. That's also another thing you always do.

Rash generalisations again.


It is all she has.

It's kind of sad.

Yes, it is sad, that you've devoted your life to your career and all
you've got is rhetoric.

You're just showing - again - that you don't know how to read and
understand what is being said unless I try to dumb it down to your
level.

--
Penicillin cures pneumonia even if you're in a coma, but
alternative medicine only seems to work when you are awake. -
Author Unknown

Now why would that be the case ...I think you're clutching at straws
now.

That's because "alternative remedies" require faith to work. It's also
known as the placebo effect. Penicillin does not require faith, and that
is why it works even with unconscious people.

I told you about my experience with chiropractice, you don't believe that.
I told you I got rid of my asthma and housedust allergies, you don't believe that.
I told you I can get rid of fungi, parasites and infections and you don't believe that.

Looks like you're just in a state of total denial.

--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Its pretty hard to keep in touch with reality when you see so little of it."

"dr_jeff" wrote in message news
On 11/11/10 9:15 PM, carole wrote:
"Bob Officer"-*-*.@.*-*- wrote in message ...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:26:09 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:


wrote in message
4.39...
wrote in
nd.com:

Have you decided yet if Randi used brain waves or magnets? Not that
either would make any difference, of course, to the water.

Maybe magnets because during the time he was present he was playing
around and doing certain tricks - on one of these videos. Wouldn't
have been hard for him to wave his hands over all the vials. Pt 4 -
Details of experiment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzO3A04cOis

Pt 5 - James Randi involvement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhSzOShJb2U

I completely fail to see how waving magnets - surreptiously or not -
would do anything about the distilled water. If you think otherwise,
please present valid evidence.

I don't know how he could have jeopardised the experiment, but he does tricks and nobody knows how he
does
them.

Randi could have known about electromagnetic effect on homeopathic solutions.

http://www.naturalworldhealing.com/n...namization.htm

"...Vibration and Its Crucial Role in Homeopathy:

A key piece to the puzzle of homeopathy is the role of vibration in making the medicines. Without it
there
is
no homeopathy. This was stated by Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., the original describer of the homeopathic
phenomenon. 1. When homeopathic preparations were only diluted (with a gentle swirling action for mixing
with
the pure water added at each step) Hahnemann discovered there was no healing response when it was given
to a
patient. 2. When homeopathic preparations were strongly vibrated (in a method described as "shaking" or
"stirring" in modern literature but done in a specific way that Hahnemann called "succussion",
"dynamization",
or "potentization") at higher steps of dilution he found an increased healing response.



That is a claim Carole. not Data. Data is support by Evidence.

Bob, there's something that I should point out to you.
When an idea is offered, instead of immediately denouncing it -- which merely makes you look like you can't
handle the truth -- why not try to work with it and think about it.
It may not be proof in itself, but may lead to something.

1) When an idea has no evidence, no evidence is needed to dismiss the idea. Hahnemann's ideas never had any
evidence to back them up.

Not unless you call all the people he cured as evidence.
And all the scientific studies.


2) You're making an assumption that is incorrect - that Bob has not thought about homeopathy. I know I have.
I know that there is no evidence to back it up. There is no scientific or empirical (read evidence-based) or
logical reason to think it might work.

Except that it does work.


One doesn't have to rethink a ridiculous claim every time he sees it to reject it.

Oh but then you don't want to find out anything do you, as your brand of science depends on listening to
"experts" and "reliable sources" rather than thinking anything through for yourself.

On the contrary. There is only one brand of science - the one based on evidence. I can't speak for Bob, but
I can assure you that I have thought through homeopathy myself - there is no reason whatsoever to believe it
works. None.


But medical science doesn't know everything.
there are huge gaps in its understanding, it is constantly changing and modifying as new theories come up.
Why do you think that homeopathy has to have a theory behind it in order to be effective?



--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Its pretty hard to keep in touch with reality when you see so little of it."

"Steelclaws" wrote in message
4.39...
"carole" wrote in
ond.com:

And every single post she makes proves her claims wrong.

And steelclaws, I'm beginning to realise that's all you've got --no
logic, no reasonings, just rhetoric behind all your hot air.

The proof is in the pudding - or in this case in the respective posts. I
can back my claims up by using valid evidence, you cannot.

Yes, I understand why you have to go on the defensive, as you cannot
refute my claims. That's also another thing you always do.

And now we've discovered something you always do - make rash generalisations.


It is all she has.

It's kind of sad.

Yes, it is sad, that you've devoted your life to your career and all
you've got is rhetoric.

You're just showing - again - that you don't know how to read and
understand what is being said unless I try to dumb it down to your
level.

And I'm sure there are a lot of people in my situation.


--
Penicillin cures pneumonia even if you're in a coma, but
alternative medicine only seems to work when you are awake. -
Author Unknown

Now why would that be the case ...I think you're clutching at straws
now.

That's because "alternative remedies" require faith to work. It's also
known as the placebo effect. Penicillin does not require faith, and that
is why it works even with unconscious people.

The allopaths sure like to throw that word around - no doubt to explain away any cures that don't want to
attribute to anything but pharmaceutical products.

--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Its pretty hard to keep in touch with reality when you see so little of it."

"Steelclaws" wrote in message
4.39...
"carole" wrote in
ond.com:

Micronutrients are very well researched, but you would not know that.
If they had any effect on the illnesses you claim, they would already
be used for those.


Yes, you'd think that wouldn't you?
But it isn't the case.

Nonsense. Micronutrients are used to treat the deficiency conditions,
and you have seen the list of those I posted.

All I can suggest is that the concepts of "toxemia" and "acidosis" are
off limits as they would cure most diseases and cut into
pharmaceutical market share.

You've STILL to show that a) the conditions exist b) that they cause
"most diseases."

Valid evidence, please, not crackpot sites.

I wouldn't know what you class as valid evidence.
I certainly don't have any double blind studies up my sleeve.



So what we appear to have here is a
"dumbing down" effect with the mass media and the medical schools
playing a dominant role.

What we appear to have here is your paranoid fantasies.

Or your mind control by big pharma.


And its really quite pathetic really, that you idiots can't work it
out.

We can. You cannot. As I said, you haven't been able to produce a shred
of valid evidence to back your claims, just arguments by assertion and
personal anecdotes - and neither are acceptable as evidence.

You haven't presented anything to me that satisfies me that allopathic medicine is on the right track.
Let's see now -- we have incurable diabetes, asthma, ms, altzheimers, allergies, arthritis, rheumatism and I'm
sure you can think of more failures of allopathic medicine.


Which is precisely why you should not rely on "alternative medine"
practitioners. If they won't even know which disease is the case, how
would they know what to advise?

I'm not sure how much it matters.
Because according to cellsalts the remedy is the same for any ache,
pain, discharge or whatever, regardless of the diagnosis.

Bloody hell! Are you serious in saying that? An ache can be caused by
for example strained muscle, fractured bone or a tumor. And your magic
cell salts will cure all of those with the same remedy? I just cannot
believe that, as I'm not very gullible.

Would you say that vitamin C was magic? Well it is if you have scurvy. Same as vitamin b is magic if you have
beri beri, or vit d magic if you have rickets.
Do try and get a grip of yourself.

Generally, that's the theory. The diagnosis isn't so important as allopathic medicine would have us believe.
Obviously a broken bone or torn muscle needs special treatment to heal properly. However, in many cases coming
up with a diagnosis still doesn't cure the disease, its only a name.

"Should a deficiency occur in one or more of these workers, of whom there are twelve, some abnormal condition
arises. These abnormal conditions are known by the general term disease, and according as they manifest
themselves in different parts of the body, they have been designated by various names. But these names totally
fail to express the real trouble. Every disease which afflicts the human race is due to a lack of one or more
of these inorganic workers. Every pain or unpleasant sensation indicates a lack of some inorganic constituent
of the body. Health and strength can be maintained only so long as the system is properly supplied with these
call-salts." --The Biochemic Handbook

For example, sometimes at night I get pain in my hip and I take calcium and it goes away. If I didn't take the
calcium I might end up in my old age with a stuffed hip and needing a hip replacement. Can osteoporosis be
reversed? What causes it? I would say that it is the body drawing on the bones as reserves of minerals to keep
itself running smoothly. However, if these minerals aren't replaced at some point then the bones become
porous.




Eg, if I have a headache the remedy is the same whatever the cause.
I can't comment any further than that.

So a migraine and a brain tumor can be treated with the same substance
and cure it? Yeah, right...

Maybe, maybe not ...I have no experience of brain tumours.


Please present _valid_ evidence for the cure rate for the incurable
illnesses by "alternative medicine."

Asthma is supposedly incurable - I got rid of it with cellsalts.

I said _valid_ evidence for the _cure rate_. If I want personal
anecdotes I'll specify that.

Please do not ask for valid evidence as refusal may offend.
I am into alternative medicine, not your scientific evidence-based system sponsored by the pharmaceutical
business with disease.



Many diseases are the result of toxemia
which has built up over a person's lifetime of wrong eating. Most
alties probably don't know enough about toxemia and acidity and
nutritional cures. There are faults on both sides.

Not that you've ever been able to prove that claim, but try again.

I just don't think that most alties know enough about toxemia and
acidosis which are the two main causes of disease IMO.
I've been to altie clinics where they never really helped or
understood the issues, although they may say things like "your body is
toxic" but they don't seem to have any mechanism to deal with it.

My understanding is that toxemia means that some of the body's systems
aren't working at their optimum, and can show up different ways such
as constipation, various discharges, headache, skin troubles,
dandruff, coating on the tongue, various aches and pains. Treatment
should involve treating the lot, not in focussing on one thing only
such as headache or skin issues. A proper holistic treatment will
recognise symptoms as signs of toxemia and treat the whole body.
Toxemia is the forerunner of more serious diseases where the disease
has settled in and it isn't going anywhere fast. Often when a person
goes to the doctor with aches and pains or discomfort they are often
turned away as hypochondriacs, but when a person turns up with
something more drastic they are welcomed and given assurances they've
come to the right place. The doctors don't understand that disease all
comes from toxemia and acidisos that has taken quite a while to build
to the stage where it causes major disruption.

These symptoms are the disease (dis-ease) process at work, leading to
more severe manifestations which doctors have given names and attempt
to cure. Acidosis / acidity is when one or more of the body's systems
is more acid than it should be and these acids often aren't eliminated
or neutralised but stored around the body leading to degeneration as
people age. Some of the acids get stored around the body in the
tissues or joints which can then play up - causing cramps, desire for
back massage, pains in joints.

All that typing, and still no evidence, just argument by assertion. Try
again.

Let's change roles.
You tell me about big pharma's success in treating altzheimer's disease, or about antibiotic resistant
bacteria.


--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Its pretty hard to keep in touch with reality when you see so little of it."

"carole" wrote in
ond.com:

Yes, I understand why you have to go on the defensive, as you cannot
refute my claims. That's also another thing you always do.

Rash generalisations again.

Nope, it's an observation of your behaviour.

--
Penicillin cures pneumonia even if you're in a coma, but
alternative medicine only seems to work when you are awake. -
Author Unknown

Now why would that be the case ...I think you're clutching at straws
now.

That's because "alternative remedies" require faith to work. It's
also known as the placebo effect. Penicillin does not require faith,
and that is why it works even with unconscious people.

I told you about my experience with chiropractice, you don't believe
that. I told you I got rid of my asthma and housedust allergies, you
don't believe that. I told you I can get rid of fungi, parasites and
infections and you don't believe that.

Looks like you're just in a state of total denial.

No, I require more than your say-so.

Especially when you don't seem to understand that tonsillitis is a self-
limiting condition or can provide test results that would show that you
really were diagnosed with asthma, fungi or housedust allergy.

--
There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity. -Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe

"carole" wrote in
ond.com:

The proof is in the pudding - or in this case in the respective
posts. I can back my claims up by using valid evidence, you cannot.

Yes, I understand why you have to go on the defensive, as you cannot
refute my claims. That's also another thing you always do.

And now we've discovered something you always do - make rash
generalisations.

Informed observations are not rash generalisations. You're mistaking the
two.

Yes, it is sad, that you've devoted your life to your career and all
you've got is rhetoric.

You're just showing - again - that you don't know how to read and
understand what is being said unless I try to dumb it down to your
level.

And I'm sure there are a lot of people in my situation.

Ignorance is correctable. Learning will do that.

--
Penicillin cures pneumonia even if you're in a coma, but
alternative medicine only seems to work when you are awake. -
Author Unknown

Now why would that be the case ...I think you're clutching at straws
now.

That's because "alternative remedies" require faith to work. It's
also known as the placebo effect. Penicillin does not require faith,
and that is why it works even with unconscious people.

The allopaths sure like to throw that word around - no doubt to
explain away any cures that don't want to attribute to anything but
pharmaceutical products.

Try reading a bit on the placebo effect and how it was discovered. It
might surprise you.

--
"Controlled studies reveal that iridology is of no use
whatsoever for the detection of cancer and other diseases in the
stomach, intestines, kidney, lungs and heart - and it is concluded
that this type of alternative medicine is not harmless." -Dan.
Medicinhist Arbog

"carole" wrote in
ond.com:

All I can suggest is that the concepts of "toxemia" and "acidosis"
are off limits as they would cure most diseases and cut into
pharmaceutical market share.

You've STILL to show that a) the conditions exist b) that they cause
"most diseases."

Valid evidence, please, not crackpot sites.

I wouldn't know what you class as valid evidence.
I certainly don't have any double blind studies up my sleeve.

Those - or proper research anyway - would do. Why don't you try find
some?

So what we appear to have here is a
"dumbing down" effect with the mass media and the medical schools
playing a dominant role.

What we appear to have here is your paranoid fantasies.

Or your mind control by big pharma.

That is a classic example of a paranoid fantasy.

And its really quite pathetic really, that you idiots can't work it
out.

We can. You cannot. As I said, you haven't been able to produce a
shred of valid evidence to back your claims, just arguments by
assertion and personal anecdotes - and neither are acceptable as
evidence.

You haven't presented anything to me that satisfies me that allopathic
medicine is on the right track. Let's see now -- we have incurable
diabetes, asthma, ms, altzheimers, allergies, arthritis, rheumatism
and I'm sure you can think of more failures of allopathic medicine.

And I'm sure you can find out just how well any "alternative remedies"
work on those conditions as well. Let's see... Give me the homeopathy
and chiropractic cure rate on those conditions, please.

Medicine is not perfect, and there are conditions it can only alleviate,
nobody denies that. But it is the best we have.

I'm not sure how much it matters.
Because according to cellsalts the remedy is the same for any ache,
pain, discharge or whatever, regardless of the diagnosis.

Bloody hell! Are you serious in saying that? An ache can be caused by
for example strained muscle, fractured bone or a tumor. And your
magic cell salts will cure all of those with the same remedy? I just
cannot believe that, as I'm not very gullible.

Would you say that vitamin C was magic? Well it is if you have scurvy.
Same as vitamin b is magic if you have beri beri, or vit d magic if
you have rickets. Do try and get a grip of yourself.

Those are specific deficiency diseases, and the micronutrients heal
those. However, you cannot heal beri-beri with vitamin C or scurvy with
vitamin B.

Generally, that's the theory. The diagnosis isn't so important as
allopathic medicine would have us believe. Obviously a broken bone or
torn muscle needs special treatment to heal properly. However, in many
cases coming up with a diagnosis still doesn't cure the disease, its
only a name.

You missed the gist of my objection, as usual. If an ache is caused by a
strained muscle, fractured bone or a tumour, are you saying it can be
treated successfully with the same substance?

"Should a deficiency occur in one or more of these workers, of whom
there are twelve, some abnormal condition arises. These abnormal
conditions are known by the general term disease, and according as
they manifest themselves in different parts of the body, they have
been designated by various names. But these names totally fail to
express the real trouble. Every disease which afflicts the human race
is due to a lack of one or more of these inorganic workers. Every pain
or unpleasant sensation indicates a lack of some inorganic constituent
of the body. Health and strength can be maintained only so long as the
system is properly supplied with these call-salts." --The Biochemic
Handbook

What references does the Biochemic Handbook give for those claims?

For example, sometimes at night I get pain in my hip and I take
calcium and it goes away. If I didn't take the calcium I might end up
in my old age with a stuffed hip and needing a hip replacement. Can
osteoporosis be reversed? What causes it? I would say that it is the
body drawing on the bones as reserves of minerals to keep itself
running smoothly. However, if these minerals aren't replaced at some
point then the bones become porous.

There are actually 2 types of osteoporosis, primary type 1 or type 2 and
secondary osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is most common in women after
menopause, and is referred to as primary type 1 or postmenopausal
osteoporosis. Primary type 2 osteoporosis or senile osteoporosis occurs
at age 75 years and older and is seen in both females and males in a 2:1
ratio. The onset of secondary osteoporosis is at any age, and affects
both men and women equally. This type of osteoporosis is a result of
chronic or prolonged use of certain medications and the presence of
predisposing medical problems or disease states. Therefore, osteoporosis
may also develop in men, and may occur in anyone in the presence of
particular hormonal disorders and other chronic diseases or as a result
of medications, specifically glucocorticoids, when the disease is called
steroid- or glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (SIOP or GIOP). Given
its influence in the risk of fragility fracture, osteoporosis may
significantly affect life expectancy and quality of life
Osteoporosis can be prevented with lifestyle changes and sometimes
medication; in people with osteoporosis, treatment may involve both.
Lifestyle change includes exercise and preventing falls. Medication
includes calcium, vitamin D, bisphosphonates and several others. Fall-
prevention advice includes exercise to tone deambulatory muscles,
proprioception-improvement exercises; equilibrium therapies may be
included. Exercise with its anabolic effect, may at the same time stop
or reverse osteoporosis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteoporosis

Eg, if I have a headache the remedy is the same whatever the cause.
I can't comment any further than that.

So a migraine and a brain tumor can be treated with the same
substance and cure it? Yeah, right...

Maybe, maybe not ...I have no experience of brain tumours.

Why don't you learn something about brain tumours then?

Please present _valid_ evidence for the cure rate for the incurable
illnesses by "alternative medicine."

Asthma is supposedly incurable - I got rid of it with cellsalts.

I said _valid_ evidence for the _cure rate_. If I want personal
anecdotes I'll specify that.

Please do not ask for valid evidence as refusal may offend.

Well, I did guess that you would not have any.

I am into alternative medicine, not your scientific evidence-based
system sponsored by the pharmaceutical business with disease.

In other words, you have a belief system.

All that typing, and still no evidence, just argument by assertion.
Try again.

Let's change roles.
You tell me about big pharma's success in treating altzheimer's
disease, or about antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Did I ever claim that medicine is perfect? No.

As regards Alzheimer's, it's irreversible - and no "alternative remedy"
works on it either - but at least real medicine has palliatives
available.

MRSA can be treated with oxazolidinones. As for the rest of them, phage
therapy is demonstrating significant efficiency, but it's still in the
research stage.

How's "alternative medicine" coming along with those lines?

--
"I've never seen any published trials that would lead me to
believe that if you are healthy, your lungs, kidney and liver
need help removing toxins from your body," -Colleen Doyle

On 11/17/10 2:31 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
4.39...
wrote in
ond.com:

And every single post she makes proves her claims wrong.

And steelclaws, I'm beginning to realise that's all you've got --no
logic, no reasonings, just rhetoric behind all your hot air.

The proof is in the pudding - or in this case in the respective posts. I
can back my claims up by using valid evidence, you cannot.

Yes, I understand why you have to go on the defensive, as you cannot
refute my claims. That's also another thing you always do.

Rash generalisations again.


It is all she has.

It's kind of sad.

Yes, it is sad, that you've devoted your life to your career and all
you've got is rhetoric.

You're just showing - again - that you don't know how to read and
understand what is being said unless I try to dumb it down to your
level.

--
Penicillin cures pneumonia even if you're in a coma, but
alternative medicine only seems to work when you are awake. -
Author Unknown

Now why would that be the case ...I think you're clutching at straws
now.

That's because "alternative remedies" require faith to work. It's also
known as the placebo effect. Penicillin does not require faith, and that
is why it works even with unconscious people.

I told you about my experience with chiropractice, you don't believe that.

You have yet to demonstrate that chiropractic was did any good.

It's called the placebo effect.

I told you I got rid of my asthma and housedust allergies, you don't believe that.

You have yet to prove that cell salts work. The plural of anecdote is
not data.

I told you I can get rid of fungi, parasites and infections and you don't believe that.

Coincidence, like your other experiences.

Looks like you're just in a state of total denial.

No, you are in total denial that there can be other explanations.

Jeff

On 11/17/10 2:39 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message news
On 11/11/10 9:15 PM, carole wrote:

...

1) When an idea has no evidence, no evidence is needed to dismiss the idea. Hahnemann's ideas never had any
evidence to back them up.

Not unless you call all the people he cured as evidence.
And all the scientific studies.

Show that it was Hahnmeann's treatments that caused the cure. That's why
real medical scientists use double-blind studies, not anecdote.

2) You're making an assumption that is incorrect - that Bob has not thought about homeopathy. I know I have.
I know that there is no evidence to back it up. There is no scientific or empirical (read evidence-based) or
logical reason to think it might work.

Except that it does work.

Real evidence please. Not anecdote.

One doesn't have to rethink a ridiculous claim every time he sees it to reject it.

Oh but then you don't want to find out anything do you, as your brand of science depends on listening to
"experts" and "reliable sources" rather than thinking anything through for yourself.

On the contrary. There is only one brand of science - the one based on evidence. I can't speak for Bob, but
I can assure you that I have thought through homeopathy myself - there is no reason whatsoever to believe it
works. None.


But medical science doesn't know everything.

Yet to make the assumption without any valid evidence that giving
something that has been diluted so much that not even one molecule of it
remains in a bottle, and then saying that the distilled water left has
"memory" without any scientific evidence that such a thing is even
possible is happening. True, medical science doesn't know anything, but
there is absolutely no good scientific reason to think that homeopathy
works, and plenty of sceintific reasons to explain why it can't work.
Nothing in any science, medical, biological or phsyical science suggests
that homeopathy might work.

Homeopathy is no better than magical thinking.

there are huge gaps in its understanding, it is constantly changing and modifying as new theories come up.
Why do you think that homeopathy has to have a theory behind it in order to be effective?

It doesn't. However, it disagrees with all of known science, and there
is no evidence to show that it works. In fact, it does no better than
placebo in any good scientific tests.

Jeff