South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

December 16, 2019, 04:17:13 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Which one is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

 (Read 21550 times)
Description: Comparison
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2008, 20:05:31 PM »

At the time of father of homeopathy, there were around 100 medicines. Now, 200 years afterwards the research in homeopathy has leads to 30 times more medicines. So homeopathy is evolving scientifically.
At the risk of pre-empting AAH’s no doubt well considered reply, I must ask you Dr. Nancy Malik please to provide a comprehensive list of recognised clinical conditions that were identified, classified and for which diagnostic procedures were specified by homoeopaths.

Please read that request again carefully.

'Luthon64

Threatened abortion, Abscess, Acidity, Rosacea, Addison Disease, Adenoids, Albuminuria, Alcholism, Alopecia, Amenorrhoea, Anemia, Ill effects of anger, Affections of anus, Appendicitis, Appetite Disorders, Arthritis, Asthma, Astigmatism, Backache, Lichen Planus, Barber's itch, Beri Beri, Affections of bones, Bowel obstruction, Billary Colic, Affections of bladder, Halitosis,Bright's disease,.....................the list is endless
Logged
ArgumentumAdHominem
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +6/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


This husk is no longer used


« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2008, 21:47:40 PM »

Hopefully this reply will get in early enough that you will have an opportunity to reply tonight Dr. Malik.

You are not reading the question.  Which clinical conditions were discovered by a homoeopath?

  • Who discovered Acidity?
  • Who discovered Abscesses?
  • Who discovered Rosacea?
  • Addison's Disease is named after the British physician Thomas Addison who described this condition in 1855.  There is no record, that I could find, of him being a homoeopath.
  • Adenoids are a part of the body, and thus not a clinical condition.
  • Alcholism, Alopecia? Like Acidity, Rosacea and Absesses, these are conditions that were not "discovered" by physicians.  These are not acceptable examples because you can't name the person who discovered these conditions.
It is pointless continuing with this list.

How were you able to pass a qualifying exam if you are unable to read a question and write an appropriate response?

Answer the question again.  Which clinical conditions were discovered by a homoeopath?
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 24, 2008, 09:11:31 AM »

Homeopathy believes that there are an infinite number of diseases and symptoms. Nature does not follow stereotyped formats of diseases. Every new combination of symptoms constitutes a different disease. So not diseases, but grouping symptoms is considered important.

A typical disease starts much earlier than it is detectable. The early symptoms (quantum changes in our bodies) of a disease are not detectable by modern machines. Homeopaths do not wait for a disease to progress to an observable level by machines. They observe the objective and subjective symptoms.
Logged
johanvz
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


« Reply #18 on: July 24, 2008, 16:42:11 PM »

How were you able to pass a qualifying exam if you are unable to read a question and write an appropriate response?

Ugh, I think their text books state disease equals symptom and symptom equals condition. Also, if you don't know what is wrong(i.e observe a symptom) make up a diagnosis based on the undetected symptoms Huh?.

Homeopathy believes that there are an infinite number of diseases and symptoms. Nature does not follow stereotyped formats of diseases. Every new combination of symptoms constitutes a different disease. So not diseases, but grouping symptoms is considered important.

A typical disease starts much earlier than it is detectable. The early symptoms (quantum changes in our bodies) of a disease are not detectable by modern machines. Homeopaths do not wait for a disease to progress to an observable level by machines. They observe the objective and subjective symptoms.

So I guess the answer is that homeopaths have observed all the symptoms already. However, accurate description and determination of the cause is irrelevant.

However, Dr Malik you are still not answering the question. Which clinical conditions were discovered by a homoeopath? After all, you are selling cures for these conditions.

Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2008, 18:37:36 PM »

A response from two medical experts:
Quote
Acidity:  There’s no such thing as having too much acidity; you can have a drop in pH resulting in acidity from specific illnesses such as lactic acidosis, diabetic ketoacidosis, etc.  This is non-specific bullshit you can tell someone when you don’t know what’s wrong.  No one’s ever described “acidity” as an illness.

Adenoids:  These are an anatomical structure, not an illness.  They’re inflamed in most upper respiratory tract infections as they’re part of the immune system.  Sometimes they’re removed, like tonsils, because of persistent inflammation.  Sushruta Samhita, a sixth century BC Sanskrit text on surgery, attributed to the “father of surgery”, Sushruta, contains various diseases of the eye, the ear, the nose and the head in the Salakya-tantra portion of the Uttara-tantra.

Alcoholism:  It’s simply ridiculous to make a claim as to who noticed the first drunk person and said, “Hey! He’s got a problem.”

Alopecia and amenorrhea :  These also belong in the above category.  Hair has been falling out and women’s periods have been going missing ever since we climbed down from the trees.  I suppose the first wig-maker could lay claim to identifying and treating alopecia.  The commonest cause of amenorrhea is ... pregnancy!  How long have we been doing that!?

Ill effects of anger, affections of anus , backache , affections of bones, bowel obstruction  and affections of bladder:  These are all so non-specific that you couldn’t say who treated them as an illness first.  The Hippocratic school of medicine described well the ailments of the human rectum and the treatment thereof.  Sushruta also discusses certain surgical conditions of ano-rectal region.  Sushruta was well aware of urinary stones, their varieties and the anatomy of the urinary bladder.  Sushruta also describes surgery of intestinal (bowel) obstructions.

Addison Disease:  The condition is named after Dr Thomas Addison, the British physician who first described the condition in 1855.  Chronic adrenal insufficiency.

Beri beri:  Christiaan Eijkman, a Dutch physician and pathologist, first demonstrated that beriberi is caused by poor diet.  The disease was often found in Asian countries, especially in the 19th century and before.

Bright’s disease and Albuminuria:  Bright’s disease is a historical classification of kidney diseases that would be described in modern medicine as acute or chronic nephritis.   First described in 1827 by noted English physician Richard Bright.

Halitosis:  The commonest cause of halitosis is psychogenic, so the homoeopaths can keep this one.

Astigmatism:  Alhazen completes his Book of Optics in the year 1021, which made important advances in ophthalmology and eye surgery, as it correctly explained the process of visual perception for the first time.

Appendicitis:  Claudius Aymand performs the first recorded successful appendectomy in 1763.

Some relevant highlights in the history of medicine, preceding homoeopathy:  The Kahun Gynaecological Papyrus treats women’s complaints and problems with conception.   The Canon of Medicine is a 14-volume Arabic medical encyclopaedia written by the Persian Muslim scientist and physician Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and completed in the year 1025!  The Edwin Smith and Hearst Papyri deal with assorted medical issues.  Ali ibn Sahl Rabban al-Tabari, a pioneer of paediatrics and the field of child development, writes the first encyclopaedia of medicine, ca. 838-870 AD.  Abulcasis establishes surgery ca. 1000 AD as a profession in his Kitab al-Tasrif, which remains a standard textbook in Muslim and European universities until the 16th century.  In 1596 Li Shizhen publishes Bencao Gangmù or Compendium of Materia Medica, containing 1,892 distinct herbs and other Materia Medica. There are some 11,096 side prescriptions to treat common illnesses.
It would seem then, Dr. Nancy Malik, that you also dispense truth only in homoeopathic dilutions.

'Luthon64
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 24, 2008, 19:49:20 PM »

I think I need to give an example:

Let's say a patient is suffering from athritis. The patient has two choices.

Allopathy: Physician will prescribe a drug to treat arthritis. Plus any pain killer (let's say aspirin) and give it to the patient. This approach is to treat the disease.

Homeopathy:

Case 1: If it is a layman or a skeptic like you who do not undersdtand Homeopathy, for them we simply say we have Belladonna, Bryonia, Rhus Tox, (etc etc) in Homeopathy for curing arthiritis.

Then skeptics asks for scientific explanation from me to prove it to them that these medicines/method/procedure have passed double blind because they consider everything unscientific if it has not passed through the lens of double blind studies. But they forget that double blind comes only in 1960's, before that everything was emperical.

I argue with them up to a point because I know they would never trust homeopathy. They can have trust only in one case that they are being cured of their diseased condition.

I ask all skeptics to rely on your personal experience for a while, have you ever tried Homeopathic remedies before discrediting them (According to skeptics, homeopathy has zero effects, so they should not botherthat it is going to kill them)?  The world is divided into the haves and have nots: those who have tried homeopathy and hose who have not. Those who have tried it--the 500 million people in the world who use homeopathy--know that it works. They didn’t decide that based on years of research. The people who discard homeopathy, have no personal experience with it. Homeopathic remedies are readily available. It would require no commitment for them to put a remedy where their mouth is. There is a proud tradition of scientists using their own bodies in research. Dr. Max von Pettenkofer drank a broth containing cholera and Dr. Jesse Lazear allowed mosquitoes infected with yellow fever to bite his arm. Surely you can try a little sugar pill. It would cost you a little. Otherwise you spend so much time and effort for so many years on Internet It seems absurd to argue about a point that can so easily be resolved. 

Case 2: If it is patient or someo one who understands homeopathy, we will explore the case in this way 

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

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

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


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

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

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2008, 20:36:17 PM »

A typical disease starts much earlier than it is detectable. The early symptoms (quantum changes in our bodies) of a disease are not detectable by modern machines. Homeopaths do not wait for a disease to progress to an observable level by machines. They observe the objective and subjective symptoms.
This claim is so nonsensical as to defy categorisation:  A “typical disease” is preceded by “quantum changes” in the body, and these changes can only be detected by a homoeopath, not by any “modern machine.”  Have you any idea how ill-informed, even downright idiotic, that statement is?

Why on earth should anyone believe or even consider seriously a single thing you say when you constantly “answer” important questions with a deceitful shotgun approach and repeatedly show a willingness to distort the truth into various unrecognisable shapes?  You are doing your cause, presumably promoting homoeopathy, much more harm than good when you adopt such underhanded strategies.

I, for one, will no longer respond to your posts until such time as you start being honest and answering questions truthfully.

'Luthon64
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2008, 08:58:19 AM »

You should not get surprised by things if you don't know about it, provided you have a scientific temparament. It is only due to myopic view that you are not able to understand. Open up your horizons and try to see the same things in different light.

The early symptoms of a disease are not detectable by modern machines. Suppose you get a hair in your eye. No amount of x-ray can detect that, but you can see and feel it.

Suppose you have a 1mm tumor in your liver. There is no way that an ultra sound or CT scan will pick it up. The detectable mass can be 2-3mm in diameter. There can be millions of cancer cells in this 1mm mass.

Cancer does not develop in a short time. It starts with unregulated mutations. If the person does not cure the problem it develops in 3-4 years into hyperplasia. If the excesses with the body keep on it develops into dysplasia in further 3-4 years. If still no corrective measures are taken it develops into in-situ cancer in 3-4 years. This in-situ cancer is detectable when it reaches the size of 3mm or more.

All this time the patient has been complaining of different problems. Headaches, menstrual problems, constipation, insomnia, fatigue, cough etc. etc. Since machines were unable to detect this life-threatening problem, the patient ended up with cancer.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2008, 10:10:25 AM »

Please answer the earlier question truthfully instead of simply jumping into a new topic.

Thank you.

'Luthon64
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1551



WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2008, 16:05:33 PM »

To: Dr. Nancy Malik. The saying is "One should have an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out". Lots of people believe in a flat earth. The earth looks flat. Evidence howewer show us that the earth is round. We have to believe the evidence whether we like it or not.
Homoeopathy sound like a good idea, some people might even think it helped, but it needs evidence. Do yourself a favour and read Carl Sagan's "Daemon Haunted World" and get yourself a "baloney detection kit", or you can just grow up and stop believing in the tooth fairy and other fables.
I suspect that homoeopathy practitioners know it is hokes pokes but the money talks and that is why you urge people to have "open minds".
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #25 on: July 28, 2008, 18:11:32 PM »

To: Dr. Nancy Malik. The saying is "One should have an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out". Lots of people believe in a flat earth. The earth looks flat. Evidence howewer show us that the earth is round. We have to believe the evidence whether we like it or not.
Homoeopathy sound like a good idea, some people might even think it helped, but it needs evidence. Do yourself a favour and read Carl Sagan's "Daemon Haunted World" and get yourself a "baloney detection kit", or you can just grow up and stop believing in the tooth fairy and other fables.
I suspect that homoeopathy practitioners know it is hokes pokes but the money talks and that is why you urge people to have "open minds".


http://www.drdooley.net/Book.pdf //beyond flat earth
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1551



WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 28, 2008, 18:48:07 PM »

A load of crock. At least the Publishers note states: "The ideas, procedures, and suggestions contained in this book are not indended as a substitute for consulting with your physician".
No matter how many people believe in a flat earth it is still round. Just proof your methods and we will all believe you. Please, just one propper double blind test is all it will take.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 28, 2008, 19:27:14 PM »

Already mentioned here.  Already examined here.

Please answer the earlier question truthfully instead of simply ignoring it by jumping into a new topic.

Thank you.

'Luthon64
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2008, 12:30:27 PM »

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.
The very kernel, indeed, of all that is wrong here.  It is a mark of supreme arrogance and disdain for one’s opponent’s proficiency to meet legitimate objection with nothing more than curt misdirection and obfuscation.

With that in mind, back into the fray…

'Luthon64
What appears is not always true. I am here to answer your questions and ask questions from you.
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2008, 12:31:27 PM »

A load of crock. At least the Publishers note states: "The ideas, procedures, and suggestions contained in this book are not indended as a substitute for consulting with your physician".
No matter how many people believe in a flat earth it is still round. Just proof your methods and we will all believe you. Please, just one propper double blind test is all it will take.

Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G (Feb 9,1991). Clinical trials of homeopathy British Medical Journal, 302:316–323. This review of research assessed 105 trials, 81 of them positive.  It was performed by two Dutch researchers, who were asked to assess the efficacy of various forms of alternative medicine. Although they were skeptics of homeopathy and alternative medicine generally, they reported, “Based on this evidence we would be ready to accept that homoeopathy can be efficacious, if only the mechanism of action were more plausible”, “the evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications”.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.563 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page April 08, 2019, 04:23:15 AM
Privacy Policy