Vithoulkas
Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2013 10:16 pm
In a message dated 12/4/2013 7:44:23 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, skyhomeopathy@gmail.com writes:
No, I don't know what was taught except that whatever it is, he learned it in India, and when he teaches it you could sing the Stars and Stripes Forever during the pauses, while his class sits there, bent over their laptops, trying to find some actual information.
Maybe they're reading my Journal . .
The idea that homoeopathy can be objectified as a science is an anathema to him. It's not that he can't dimension the subject and lay it out objectively, he simply won't, because it doesn't serve his megalomania to do so. As Rozencwaj has pointed out, there's no coherent posology to homoeopathy. An incoherent 19th century posology is the mysticism of homoeopathy and VIthoulkas loves mysticism and he's infused modern homoeopathy with it, leaving posology to be completely iatrocentric, Saturnian, the "do as you will" license for practitioners.
If homoeopathy was to be demystified, it would be mainstream medicine. It woujld put people like Vithoulkas out of a job.
This can be see in his terror of the biochemical proofs for homoeopathy, floated on the notion that in vitro action of ionized materials (high dilutes) doesn't follow his theory of what it should be. The pre-clinicals demystify homoeopathy, and in this he is in bed with the "skeptics" and pseudoscience who he secretly encourages to bash homoeopathy.
Apparently he thinks there should be no in vitro action, and rather than accept it for what it's worth, he actually joined the homoeopathy bashers to deny biochemical proofs, which demolish the placebo hypothesis.
What this means is that he's using the placebo hypothesis to hide behind, to remain the reigning mystagogue of "homeopathy," not homoeopathy, as Hahnemann practiced it, but bullshit "homeopathy", as Vithoulkas defines it.
He's been infected with iatrogenic hubris, and its clouded his judgement.
Let me give you a weird example of this. Fourteen years ago I took up James Randi's million dollar challenge to prove homeopathy. I presented a protocol to Randi stated to identify active samples of ionized materials as used as medicine in homoeopathy from their liquid inert vehicles in an RCT triple blind test. When Randi saw what was coming, he suddenly revoked the offer. Years later Vithoulkas took up the challenge, but Vithoulkas' "protocol" was a CLINICAL test.
This reveals the point. If a man challenges you to a duel with penknives, why would you show up with a toothpick? Anyone with a little perspicuity can see that Randi doesn't think any straighter than VIthoulkas does He has specifically said that there isn't any difference between "homeopathic" water and plain water, the implication being that "homeopathic" solutions are indistinguishable from the solution they were made from.
Randi accepted my protocol for this, using a physical test to identify verum, and then ran away from it.
Then Vithoulkas comes along and foolishly wants to do a clinical test to prove homeopathy. In order to this, his protocol requires the use of a hospital in Athens, human subjects and the mayor's approval. Randi waits him out and the deal falls apart.
My work was to find forensic proofs for homoeopathy. Vithoulkas's has always been to simply glorify Vithoulkas.
The materia medica are (clinically) proof enough for homeopathy for any reasonable soul. But reasonable souls don't run medicine. So the meat we throw to the dogs has to be the pre-clinicals. But Vithoulkas doesn't want this anymore than Randi does, because the pre-clinicals create objective proof for verum, the effective use of homeopathy's biologically active ionized pharmaceuticals, an authority that robs both men of their arbitrary authority on the subject of homoeopathy, their demagoguery
So frankly I haven't seen much use for Vithoulkas. In playing to the boxes he ignores the groundlings. In denying pre-clinical proofs, most notably the biochemicals, he's obstructed the acceptance of homoeopathy by science by at least 25 years.
I suspect there are much better homoeopaths here on this list, better than mangod George Vithoulkas. The beating he gave Jacques Benveniste was a terrible mistake. He helped Randi put Benveniste on the cross and hammer in the nails through the man's hands.
Frankly, I think he's got a lot of explaining to do. But watch. When confronted with this he'll turn his palms up . . and shrug.
Benneth
No, I don't know what was taught except that whatever it is, he learned it in India, and when he teaches it you could sing the Stars and Stripes Forever during the pauses, while his class sits there, bent over their laptops, trying to find some actual information.
Maybe they're reading my Journal . .
The idea that homoeopathy can be objectified as a science is an anathema to him. It's not that he can't dimension the subject and lay it out objectively, he simply won't, because it doesn't serve his megalomania to do so. As Rozencwaj has pointed out, there's no coherent posology to homoeopathy. An incoherent 19th century posology is the mysticism of homoeopathy and VIthoulkas loves mysticism and he's infused modern homoeopathy with it, leaving posology to be completely iatrocentric, Saturnian, the "do as you will" license for practitioners.
If homoeopathy was to be demystified, it would be mainstream medicine. It woujld put people like Vithoulkas out of a job.
This can be see in his terror of the biochemical proofs for homoeopathy, floated on the notion that in vitro action of ionized materials (high dilutes) doesn't follow his theory of what it should be. The pre-clinicals demystify homoeopathy, and in this he is in bed with the "skeptics" and pseudoscience who he secretly encourages to bash homoeopathy.
Apparently he thinks there should be no in vitro action, and rather than accept it for what it's worth, he actually joined the homoeopathy bashers to deny biochemical proofs, which demolish the placebo hypothesis.
What this means is that he's using the placebo hypothesis to hide behind, to remain the reigning mystagogue of "homeopathy," not homoeopathy, as Hahnemann practiced it, but bullshit "homeopathy", as Vithoulkas defines it.
He's been infected with iatrogenic hubris, and its clouded his judgement.
Let me give you a weird example of this. Fourteen years ago I took up James Randi's million dollar challenge to prove homeopathy. I presented a protocol to Randi stated to identify active samples of ionized materials as used as medicine in homoeopathy from their liquid inert vehicles in an RCT triple blind test. When Randi saw what was coming, he suddenly revoked the offer. Years later Vithoulkas took up the challenge, but Vithoulkas' "protocol" was a CLINICAL test.
This reveals the point. If a man challenges you to a duel with penknives, why would you show up with a toothpick? Anyone with a little perspicuity can see that Randi doesn't think any straighter than VIthoulkas does He has specifically said that there isn't any difference between "homeopathic" water and plain water, the implication being that "homeopathic" solutions are indistinguishable from the solution they were made from.
Randi accepted my protocol for this, using a physical test to identify verum, and then ran away from it.
Then Vithoulkas comes along and foolishly wants to do a clinical test to prove homeopathy. In order to this, his protocol requires the use of a hospital in Athens, human subjects and the mayor's approval. Randi waits him out and the deal falls apart.
My work was to find forensic proofs for homoeopathy. Vithoulkas's has always been to simply glorify Vithoulkas.
The materia medica are (clinically) proof enough for homeopathy for any reasonable soul. But reasonable souls don't run medicine. So the meat we throw to the dogs has to be the pre-clinicals. But Vithoulkas doesn't want this anymore than Randi does, because the pre-clinicals create objective proof for verum, the effective use of homeopathy's biologically active ionized pharmaceuticals, an authority that robs both men of their arbitrary authority on the subject of homoeopathy, their demagoguery
So frankly I haven't seen much use for Vithoulkas. In playing to the boxes he ignores the groundlings. In denying pre-clinical proofs, most notably the biochemicals, he's obstructed the acceptance of homoeopathy by science by at least 25 years.
I suspect there are much better homoeopaths here on this list, better than mangod George Vithoulkas. The beating he gave Jacques Benveniste was a terrible mistake. He helped Randi put Benveniste on the cross and hammer in the nails through the man's hands.
Frankly, I think he's got a lot of explaining to do. But watch. When confronted with this he'll turn his palms up . . and shrug.
Benneth