Allo means opposite. Conventional medicine nature is opposite to the disease nature that is to suppress the diase furhter deeper in to the body.
There are many examples of conventional medication which is not "opposite" to the "disease nature". One example would be vaccines which do not attack the disease (because the person is not infected at the time of vaccination) but rather the prophylaxis "trains" the body how to deal with the disease when it does come across it. Then there are fertility drugs; what are those surpressing?
You may not like the word but you can not ignore the fact.
My personal dislike of any particular word has nothing to do with this. As a matter of fact I don't dislike the word "allopathy", it's got some letters arranged in a unique way and the vowels are outnumbered by consonants and it involves many different oral motions we use when pronouncing other words. By this, I mean that it is a perfectly ordinary word. There is nothing to dislike about it. However, where I must raise my objection is in the incorrect usage of the word.
Would you define for us what is science?
So you are asking me to prove your point? You should tell me what you understand by the term "scientific" and then prove how homoeopathy agrees with your definition. Perhaps take the proffered hints from my previous post and try discover what the definition of "scientific" is for yourself. At the very least I might get you to read something other than a homoeopathy conspiracy theory for once (shock! horror!), perhaps something like an encyclopaedia?
I can also link to arbitrary articles, see for yourself:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-death-call-for-homeopath-rules/2007/11/19/1195321684868.htmlThe article that you provided is a good start, but it is quite long. You are not engaging in a discusion with us, your primary tactic appears to be answering specific questions with vague references to mountains of text. We spend a long time writing these questions and you spend minutes just adding a line or two in reply and linking to another article. That is neither demonstrating your understanding of the question nor is it displaying your knowledge on the subject.
Perhaps put the best argument in your own words. Within your own phrasing of the proof, indicate quoted sections from articles which support your argument, but specific portions of text, not the whole thing. Traditionally, a reference would be to a page in a textbook, but with many websites you have provided in the past the entire text is on one page, making it an arduous task to read through all of the text and
guess which particular statement or paragraph is related to your point.
In the case of the article you linked to here, I need more time to take apart the logical fallacies which hold it together. You have to understand that I might not have enough time to complete this until the weekend because I do have to work, but I will post pieces as I have time. I would like it if you would comment on where you see my analysis being wrong. That is the start of a discussion.
As a quick start, just a few thoughts:
And yet, strangely enough, whatever has been in vogue in conventional medicine in one decade has been declared ineffective, dangerous, and sometimes barbaric in the ensuing decades.
There is some truth here, although perhaps a bit hyperbolic to label medication as "barbaric". Outmoded surgery (like the leukotomy) I can understand, but which medication was labeled "barbaric"? Okay but the main point here is that
scientists found the next generation of medication to replace the
less-effective predecessor (not the ineffective predecessor). It was not homoeopaths who revealed that any particular medication was better suited to curing an ailment, thus promoting the replacement of the predecessor. This is not surprising, it is scientific progress. I wouldn't trust modern medicine if it was still doing the all the same things it was doing 200 years ago, that is the hallmark of something being non-progressive and nonscientific.
Surprisingly, despite this pattern in history, proponents and defenders of "scientific medicine" tend to have little or no humility, continually asserting that today's cure is truly effective.
I would like to know which treatment is "truly effective" and who said that. The sciences are always changing, we learn new and better ways of doing things all the time. There was a point in history when the arrogance of scientists lead to the assertion about 130 years ago that, bar one or two minor details, everything had been solved. This was at a time before knowledge of the big bang, relativity, genetics and psychology (to name a few). It is partly because of this minor embarrassment (and mostly because of the advent of the Philosophy of Science) that scientists no longer state that anything is the final answer. This allows medical scientists to have an open mind about future treatments which have an equal opportunity to become the next "best treatment" as long as the treatment is
proven to work.
The good news about conventional medicine and one of its remarkable features for which it should be honored is its history of consistently and repeatedly disproving its own treatments.
Err, I covered that, but it seems that the author prefers hostile wording.
The fact that only a handful of conventional drugs have survived thirty or more years is strong testament to the fact that conventional medicine is honorable enough to acknowledge its mistakes.
Wow, my pharmacist is a magician; he can make a "handful" of medication look like a huge stock. There are something like four people moving in and out of the shelves back there and even with all that movement the illusion is flawless. Must be mirrors. I suppose that pharmacists must be illusionists, how else would they be able to do that?
Okay, that's only two paragraphs from the thirty seven or so~ in the text. I will have to return to this when the "sarky" tone subsides, and I promise I will also name those fallacies on the weekend.
