Minutus

As I understand it, allopathy rarely cures, it usually just palliates.
In terms of 'scientific' explanations, I'm trying to find time to
explore the work by French physicist Roland Conte and another whose
name I have forgotten (sorry) who are published already on the
subject of high dilution etc (available from some bookshops, Amazon
etc). They have been studying the effects of high dilution of
homeopathic remedies and of succussion. Their studies prompted them
to come up with some new equations/theories and they developed
the "white hole" theory (as opposed to black hole). They sent a copy
of their manuscript to Steven Hawkings who (hope this is correct) was
so excited published a new book of his own on the subject before
Roland et al published theirs.
As someone pointed out (Shannon?), there other energy theories that
we utilise daily without understanding completely and this is one of
them. I do believe that there is further explanation in the energy
field (pun intended). Acupuncture stimulates the body's energy
(vital force, defence mechanism etc?) to encourage it to heal
itself. As a young person growing up I could see lots of "naturally"
occurring diseases and couldn't believe that there wasn't also a cure
for each one naturally occurring on this planet. Now I have
discovered that there is - homeopathy! You use the 'energy' of a
remedy specific to your totality to stimulate your energy system to
cure itself. You find certain diseases tend to occur in only certain
parts of the world (less so these days), but if you look closely, you
will find a plant/animal/mineral indigenous to that area that has
been used to cure/alleviate that disease. I don't think these are
accidents. If we listen to nature more instead of thinking we need
to improve on nature all the time we might do a lot better.
Regards,
Elizabeth

Dear Ravinder
Some ideas to use for your arguement ...

1) Perhaps you could use in your arguement that India simply can't afford
Western "scientific" medicine, it must surely be out of the reach of many
people in India.
2) Plus detail cases where patients have sought out a homeopath after
trying all manner of allopathic treatments.
3) India has an unbroken historical use of homeopathy with many
prominant people using it.
4) To say that the energy medicine doesn't affect the vital force is like
saying there is no spirit soul, which again is a deep part of Indian culture.

So there are plenty of arguements to use apart from the dilution which is
really a very weak arguement when taking the whole system into account.
Jayne

In the following websites you can find case reports with full lab reports and images.
www.homeocases.org
http://www.homeomiracles.com/Welcome/Ma ... racles.htm

Some homeopaths like Dr Praful Vijayakar have plenty of videos of their cured cases. You can seek their help too.

Sincerely, Feras
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Just listened to a lecture given by this man , Seyyed Hossein Nasr on What is Sacred Science?

He makes the differentiation between experiment and experience. He goes on to discuss the historic impact of
Descarte and Newton on the limited thinking today. I was struck by the concordance of his presentation with the ongoing dialogue on this list and in the field. The idea is that Descarte and Newton set up a dichotomy between the idea in the mind and the object which is external. Ultimately the belief/practice developed that only allowed
for a single level process of understanding and knowing. Spirit, feelings, experience is not to be counted as
a valid way of knowing. This is the essence of the difficulty that homepathy faces. We can point to cured cases till the cows come home at midnight without moving the argument forward because the basic way of knowing has not been met. Thus, our job is not to convince that homeopathy works, but to argue the validity of different ways of knowing in this world. Our alternative, it seems, is to ignore the opposition and not waste our time on their arguments much as we would ignore someone who is narrow and foolish in their presentations to us.

tanya

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tanya wrote:
moving the argument forward because the basic way of knowing has not been
met. Thus, our job is not to convince that homeopathy works, but to argue
the validity of different ways of knowing in this world. Our alternative,
it seems, is to ignore the opposition and not waste our time on their
arguments much as we would ignore someone who is narrow and foolish in their
presentations to us.

Exactly! And very well put. (Though I think Descartes and Newton tend to get
a rather disproportionate share of the blame: IMO it's not so much what they
themselves thought, but how they've subsequently been interpreted.)

David Taylor Reilly (of Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital) said something along
similar lines in a UK TV documentary on homeopathy. He was being challenged
about homeopathy's failure to conclusively demonstrate its efficacy through
double-blind randomised controlled trials. His reply (stated with a very
evident twinkle in his eye) was that this either proved that homeopathy
didn't work or that double-blind randomised controlled trials were
unsuitable as a means of proving whether a treatment does, or doesn't, work.

My two units-of-a-currency-of-your-choice worth ...

From a purely *scientific* perspective -- which is taking science back to
its foundations in the likes of Bacon -- much of what now passes for
"scientific" method doesn't stand up to rigorous scrutiny. (Interestingly,
Hahnemann's methodology comes off rather better.)

Apply the same standards that sceptics are demanding of homeopathy to most
of the conventional drugs in use today and our modern pharmacopaeia would be
a small fraction of its present size. The reason homeopathy is rejected is
not because it fails to perform to a required standard in RCTs -- its
performance is probably as good, if not better, than many conventional
treatments given the nod by the FDA et al -- but because its route is most
definitely not on the map. It's blatantly non-material mechanism of action
pushes conventional understanding too far outside its comfort zone.

This is all about emotion -- specifically, the emotional attachments people
form to the maps they draw of the world; what makes them feel comfortable,
what makes them feel secure. It has to do with the fear that arises when
those comfortable illusions are threatened (and/or when a lucrative source
of income is threatened). It has to do with a desperate need for certainty
in an uncertain world. It has precious little to do with "science", because
the genuine pursuit of the scientific method demands a totally *open* and
unbiased mind, a certain amount of courage, and the knowledge that the map
is not the territory.

This business of "proving" the validity of homeopathy is a game. It's
oppositional in nature: "my team" vs "your team". Homeopathy vs Allopathy.
It's no good trying to pretend it's not a game -- doing so is only allowing
the other team to have the run of the pitch, move the goalposts to wherever
they want whenever they want, and apply the rules arbitrarily and
selectively, which is exactly what's happening. If you want to play, then
insist that the rules apply to *both* sides equally and fairly. And have
some sense of strategy, regardless of how intimidated you might feel by
being part of a non-league side up against a first division team. Playing it
defensively you'll hold your ground at best and achieve a draw if you're
lucky. If you want to score points, then you have to take the game to the
other side and exploit the glaring weaknesses in their own back line (though
be aware that they can play real dirty if you do).

Personally I think we achieve far greater and lasting success in taking it
one small step at a time. No amount of indifferent RCT results and negative
publicity are going to make much difference to a patient who's just
experienced a homeopathic cure for themselves. For all the apparent hegemony
of the "scientific" world view, personal experience carries far more weight
for the average individual, and the recommendation of a trusted friend or
relative -- "invalid anecdotal evidence" from the "scientific" soapbox --
has enormous persuasive power.

Regards
Wendy

You want "Science"?

Please read those 2 books:
Homeotherapeutics by Dr. Delinick (and read a book review of it in Links, next issue or issue after next)

The emerging science of homeopathy Bellavite and Signori

You have all the science you need in those books, guaranteed!

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind""