CT debate

[Annemieke Cloosterman]

Hi Tanya

I think it was very interesting. To me the most important part was
that apparently measering of changes in homeopathic remedies is
possible. Although I think clinical trials are very important and
should be done again and again, I think first there has to be a
possible explanation.
And it seems to be possible at this moment to do measurements, where
it can be shown that it is not the composition of the water that
changes, but the structure. And those changes happen with succussion.
My understanding was that a remedy or electro-magnetism can have an
effect on water and the pressure of the succussion changes the
structure, which holds at least for hours.

And for the rest of the debate, I was very impressed with Iris Bell.
She was confident and her arguments where convincing. Not trying to
impress or ridicule, but just showing data that she and others had
found.

And what did you think of it?

Annemieke
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Tanya Marquette"
wrote:

[Tanya Marquette]

well,i had mixed feelings i think.
the anti-homeopathy people were smooth but bad.
they presented no real information and as Roy noted,
they confused composition with structure. I really
enjoyed his presentation. and Iris Bell was very
scholarly as well. Her important point was that research
in homeopathy was often not structured to examine what
homeopathy says it does and that homeopathy's protocol
and standards for healing needed to be central to research
structure.
I missed the Israeli man due to garbled sound. It was too
hard for me to hear him and I skipped to Andre Seine but
couldn't get the beginning of his talk. He was obviously the
most forceful presenter in his affect. I was disappointed
that he did not talk about the 1918 flu epidemic which was a
much more contemporary health battle in which homeopathy shone.
And I was disappointed that none of the supporters mentioned
the research on epigentics which shows that trauma can ammend
the gene structure and affect how the genes work generations
after the trauma; ie creating miasmatic layers. that research
is very scholarly. is it too new for people to begin using it
in their arguments? have they not read it? i find that hard
to imagine.
the naysayers were smooth talkers and they will have some good
getover effect with some people. and as per usual, the conservative
element tends to use emotional language and makes large overriding
statements that reinforce the negative biases. the supporters, as
per usual try to be so scientific and careful with so much analysis
that people might just go to sleep. Roy was the only one that seemed
to consider this and tried to use humor and reference to the conservative
language use of words like plausible in a colloquial manner to capture
the public's attention to his core argument.
so i think there was some good, some weak pieces in the presentation.
i think there is much to learn about how to handle this type of experience
when we talk with people in our daily lives or write articles about our
practice.
tanya

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Tanya, Annemike,

did you pay any attention to the arguments of the nay-sayers?

Did they resemble the arguments of Hahnmannian, John Harvey et al?

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Tanya Marquette]

yes, i did listen to the naysayers--as much as i could stand.
they cited all the standard cliches. there was
no science behind homeopathy. memory of water was meaningless.
the composition of water is the composition of water. the lancet
meta analysis was referenced. the uk was removing homeopathy
from its health care system because it is bogus. and the entire
concept was just not plausible.
further, the idea was reasonable 200 yrs ago when people were
bleeding pts to death and treating with mercury and arsenic in the
raw. but there is no proof of it working. the placebo effect was
the cause of any improvement. sitting with a practitioner for 45"-1'
was the therapeutic factor.
it was all emotional attack. fortunately, one of the yea-sayers
attacked the meta-analysis for its lack of clarity and science.
as previously noted, the yea-sayers were much more concrete with
their data and critiques--just somewhat drier, except for andre seine.
tanya

[muthu kumar]

Well, thanks - but was there anything like Hahnemannian 2002's
ramblings?
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Tanya Marquette"
wrote:
1'
seine.
conservative
overriding
analysis
seemed
conservative
capture
presentation.
experience
about our
was
where
succussion.
an
Bell.
to
had

[Irene de Villiers]

Tanya Marquette wrote: the placebo effect was

Ah yes - tell it to the pigs, cats, horses, etc, dosed in their drinking
water:-)))

Namaste,
IRene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Tanya Marquette]

well the yea-sayers did respond to this mentioning
the animals, but very minimally.
tanya

[Tanya Marquette]

sorry, but your 'ramblings' elude me at the moment.
what particular points did you have in mind
tanya

[mcgonigle_john]

Tanya,

What is this epigenetic/traumatic research you mention?

Thanks.

John McGonigle, MD

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Tanya Marquette"
wrote:
seemed
conservative
capture
presentation.
experience
our
where
succussion.
Bell.

[Tanya Marquette]

very interesting. about 10-14 days ago someone
(i forget who) on this list notified us of a PBS
program that sounded good so i watched it. it
addressed the issue that even with similar genes
people will show different patterns of being. the
program discussed something called epigentics--the
attachment of new material to genes which cause them
to behave differently. further, the program noted
that these changes carry through the generations.
so an illness in one generation can cause changes in
future generations. further, it indicated that trauma
on an emotional level will do the same. one of the
examples provided was the impact of the famine in
ireland. it noted that several generatons later the
impact of that physical/emotional trauma was impacting
the length of life of men and women differently.
my immediate reaction was 'here is the physical manifestation
of miasmatic theory.'
the concept of epigenetics is simply the external attachment
of material to the genes that remains what seems to be permanent
in the individual and can be transmitted to future generations.
here is a link to the pbs program with short audios of the information.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/02.html
from Science Mag
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/plus/ ... netics.dtl
if you do a web search you will find a host of sites with information on
this. it seems to be the hottest new find in heredity.
tanya