homeopathy, is it effective, research review.



Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>> Why don't you just admit that you know nothing about homeopathy, the health reform movements in
>> both Europe and America, and personal health in general, Shewmaker?

>Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

>Actually, I've read a biography of Samuel Hahnemann, and I actually own two very old moldy volumes
>of Materia Medica that I picked up in a used-book store. While I can't claim to have actually read
>them like a novel (you'd go crazy), I spent several hours on several occasions sampling them. So
>it's entirely possible that I know more about homeopathy than you do.

Quoting from my online history ...

"78 A.D., Dioscorides (40-90 A.D.) published De Materia Medica ("On Medicines"), Europe's first real
guide to herbal medicine. It discussed 600 plants. It remained a standard medical reference for over
1,500 years."

Who in their right mind would read a book written in 78 A.D? Could it be Shewmaker? Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

I don't do herbs, nor Alternative Medicine and that would include homeopathy, Shewmaker.

I do Natural Health. And, natural health works only within certain parameters, Shewmaker. Just
thought that you might want to know. :)

Homeopathy comes under the history of Western natural healing practices. I am inclined to believe
that homeopathy does not qualify as a natural therapy as I have defined it, due to its spiritual and
metaphysical elements. But, it is definitely was part of the heath reform movement. And, a lot of
intelligent people over the last couple of hundred years definitely are of the opinion that
homeopathy actually works.

Effectiveness is what counts, Shewmaker, not adherence to your Quack Medical Scientism dogma.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ Offering easy to understand lessons that will
change your life.
 
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00BD_01C39AE1.0BA3A920 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"John 'the Charlatan'" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...

> >> >Okay, John, please tell us precisely what you know about me and what I do that defines me as a
> >> >"quack." Since it is obvious to you, you should be able to do this. If you are using a =
different
> >> >definition of "quack" than this:
>=20
> >Nobody has successfully challenged my medical knowledge here, so I =
hardly
> >fit the definition. You, on the other hand, certainly fit the Merriam-Webster definition of
> >"charlatan," "one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability."
>=20
> >If you want to call me a "debunker" like Jan and Dave do, that's =
fine. I
> >wear that label proudly.
>=20
> Do I have to repeat myself again, Shewmaker?
>=20
> Shewmaker's comments are precisely how Medical Scientism operates. :(
>=20
> The established theory of Medical Scientism is automatically assumed to be backed by science,
> while any competition has to show evidence to support their position.
>=20
> Shewmaker possesses the characteristic of arrogance which is the calling card of all Science
> Geeks. :(
>=20
> That is how I define Quackery, Shewmaker! Quack, ... Quack, Quack!
>=20

So, you define quackery as "arrogance."

Main Entry: ar=B7ro=B7gance=20 Pronunciation: 'ar-&-g&n(t)s Function: noun Date: 14th century
: a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing =
manner or presumptuous claims=20

(from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)

Fair enough. I admit that I feel superior to people who, like you, = flaunt their ignorance. I'm
also aware that that my persistent = correction of your patently false assertions must seem
overbearing to = your childlike view of that world, but as Orac likes to state in his = sigline, "A
statement of fact cannot be insolent." Perhaps it can be = arrogant, but so what?

> The good news is that the author of this thesis has a homepage, with a huge collection of other
> scholarly works written by Peter Morrell. http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/index.htm

It's interesting and appropriate that your "scholarly" mentor endorses = astrology as well as
homeopathy. After all, one popular false theory = deserves another. I did enjoy his artwork, though.

>=20
> My history on Western natural healing practices is progressing quite nicely. Peter Morrell has
> done much of the scholar footwork for=20
> me. :)

Good history is based on original sources. Do you know how to find them, = or will you plagiarize
Mr. Morrell and others like him?

>=20
> After all, I don't want to be known as a modern day Medical Scientism Quack like our fellow Rich
> Shewmaker, obviously is.

Perhaps I fit your personal definition of a quack, but that does not = constitute "known as" by any
accepted definition.

>=20
> Why don't you just admit that you know nothing about homeopathy, the health reform movements in
> both Europe and America, and personal health in general, Shewmaker?

I thought said that you don't repeat yourself.=20

--Rich

------=_NextPart_000_00BD_01C39AE1.0BA3A920 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML
5.50.3825.1300" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DV><FONT size=3D2>"John 'the Charlatan'" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:D[email protected]"><FONT = size=3D2>[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT=20
size=3D2>> wrote in message </FONT><A=20
href=3D"news:[email protected]"><FONT=20
size=3D2>news:[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT =

size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV>
<DVI><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DVII><FONT size=3D2>> >> >Okay, John, please tell us = precisely what=20 you know
about me<BR>> >> >and what I do that defines me as = a=20 "quack." Since it is
obvious<BR>> >> >to you, you should be = able to=20 do this. If you are using a
different<BR>> >> >definition of = "quack"=20 than this:<BR>> <BR>>
>Nobody has successfully challenged my = medical=20 knowledge here, so I hardly<BR>>
>fit the definition. You, on the = other=20 hand, certainly fit the<BR>>
>Merriam-Webster definition of = "charlatan,"=20 "one making usually showy<BR>>
>pretenses to knowledge or=20 ability."<BR>> <BR>> >If you want to call me a
"debunker" like = Jan and=20 Dave do, that's fine. I<BR>> >wear that label
proudly.<BR>> = <BR>> Do=20 I have to repeat myself again, Shewmaker?<BR>> <BR>>
Shewmaker's = comments=20 are precisely how Medical Scientism operates. :(<BR>> <BR>>
The=20 established theory of Medical Scientism is automatically assumed<BR>> = to be=20
backed by science, while any competition has to show evidence to<BR>> = support=20 their
position.<BR>> <BR>> Shewmaker possesses the characteristic = of=20 arrogance which is
the<BR>> calling card of all Science Geeks. =20
:(<BR>> <BR>> That is how I define Quackery, =
Shewmaker! Quack,=20 ... Quack, Quack!<BR>> </FONT></DIV>
<DVIII><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIX><FONT size=3D2>So, you define quackery as "arrogance."</FONT></DIV>
<DX><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXI><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">Main Entry:=20
<B>ar=B7ro=B7gance</B> </FONT><BR><FONT face=3D"Times New = Roman">Pronunciation:=20
</FONT><TT>'ar-&-g&n(t)s</TT><BR><FONT face=3D"Times New = Roman">Function:=20
<I>noun</I><BR>Date: 14th century<BR><B>:</B> a feeling or an impression = of=20 superiority
manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims=20 </FONT></DIV>
<II><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<III><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT face=3D"Times New = Roman"><EM><FONT=20 size=3D2>(from
</FONT></EM><A=20 href=3D"http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary"><EM><FONT=20
size=3D2>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary</FONT></EM></A><EM><FONT=20
size=3D2>)</FONT></EM></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<IV><EM><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" = size=3D2></FONT></EM> </DIV>
<V><FONT size=3D2>Fair enough. I admit that I feel superior to people = who, like=20 you, flaunt
their ignorance. I'm also aware that that my persistent = correction=20 of your patently
false assertions must seem overbearing to your = childlike view=20 of that world, but as Orac
likes to state in his sigline, "A statement = of fact=20 cannot be insolent." Perhaps it can
be arrogant, but so = what?</FONT></DIV>
<VI><BR><FONT size=3D2>> The good news is that the author of this = thesis has a=20 homepage,
with a<BR>> huge collection of other scholarly works = written by=20 Peter
Morrell.<BR>> </FONT><A=20 href=3D"http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/index.htm"><FONT=20
size=3D2>http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/index.htm</FONT></A></DIV>
<VII><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<VIII><FONT size=3D2>It's interesting and appropriate that your = "scholarly" mentor=20 endorses
astrology as well as homeopathy. After all, one popular false = theory=20 deserves another. I
did enjoy his artwork, though.</FONT></DIV>
<IX><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<X><BR><FONT size=3D2>> <BR>> My history on Western natural = healing=20 practices is
progressing quite<BR>> nicely. Peter Morrell has = done much=20 of the scholar
footwork for <BR>> me. :)</FONT></DIV>
<XI><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<XII><FONT size=3D2>Good history is based on original sources. Do you = know how to=20 find them,
or will you plagiarize Mr. Morrell and others like = him?</FONT></DIV>
<XIII><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<XIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<XV><FONT size=3D2><BR>> <BR>> After all, I don't want to be = known as a=20 modern day
Medical Scientism<BR>> Quack like our fellow Rich = Shewmaker,=20 obviously
is.</FONT></DIV>
<XVI><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<XVII><FONT size=3D2>Perhaps I fit your personal definition of a quack, = but that=20 does not
constitute "known as" by any accepted definition.</FONT></DIV>
<XVIII><FONT size=3D2><BR>> <BR>> Why don't you just admit that you = know=20 nothing about
homeopathy, the<BR>> health reform movements in both = Europe and=20 America, and
personal<BR>> health in general, = Shewmaker?<BR></FONT></DIV>
<XIX><FONT size=3D2>I thought said that you don't repeat yourself. = </FONT></DIV>
<XX><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<XXI><FONT size=3D2>--Rich</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_00BD_01C39AE1.0BA3A920--
 
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00D7_01C39AE9.C12CC4E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...

>=20
> >Actually, I've read a biography of Samuel Hahnemann, and I actually =
own two
> >very old moldy volumes of Materia Medica that I picked up in a =
used-book
> >store. While I can't claim to have actually read them like a novel =
(you'd go
> >crazy), I spent several hours on several occasions sampling them. So =
it's
> >entirely possible that I know more about homeopathy than you do.=20
>=20
> Quoting from my online history ...
>=20
> "78 A.D., Dioscorides (40-90 A.D.) published De Materia Medica ("On Medicines"), Europe's first
> real guide to herbal medicine. It discussed 600 plants. It remained a standard medical reference
> for over 1,500 years."
>=20
> Who in their right mind would read a book written in 78 A.D? Could it be Shewmaker? Ha, ...
> Hah, Ha!

While you are laughing, you are displaying your ignorance. While = Hahnemann was doing what you call
"the experimental method" and what he = called "provings," he collected his results and conclusions
in a series = of volumes entitled "Materia Medica."=20

http://tinyurl.com/scnm

Just thought you, as a health care historian, might want to know.

>=20
> I don't do herbs, nor Alternative Medicine and that would include homeopathy, Shewmaker.

I'm waiting to hear what you do when you get the flu.

>=20
> I do Natural Health. And, natural health works only within certain parameters, Shewmaker. Just
> thought that you might want to know. :)

Parameters known only to you, no doubt.=20

>=20
> Homeopathy comes under the history of Western natural healing practices. I am inclined to believe
> that homeopathy does not qualify as a natural therapy as I have defined it, due to its spiritual
> and metaphysical elements. But, it is definitely was part of the heath reform movement. And, a lot
> of intelligent people over the last couple of hundred years definitely are of the opinion that
> homeopathy actually works.

A lot of intelligent people believe astrology actually works. That = doesn't make it true.

>=20
> Effectiveness is what counts, Shewmaker, not adherence to your Quack Medical Scientism dogma.

Yes, effectiveness is what counts. No system of healthcare in history = has been more effective than
modern scientific medicine.

By the way:

Main Entry: dog=B7ma=20 Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'd=E4g- Function: noun Etymology: Latin
dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more = at DECENT Date: 1638 1 a : something
held as an established opinion; especially : a definite = authoritative tenet b : a code of
such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a = point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative
without adequate = grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally = stated and authoritatively
proclaimed by a church=20

The "authority" of medical practice is constantly being challenged and = changed by research. Points
of view or tenets "put forth as = authoritative without adequate grounds" are immediately attacked
from = all sides and rejected by the scientific world.

Just thought you might want to know.

--Rich

------=_NextPart_000_00D7_01C39AE9.C12CC4E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML
5.50.3825.1300" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DV><FONT size=3D2>"John 'the Man'" <</FONT><A=20 href=3D"mailto:D[email protected]"><FONT =
size=3D2>[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT=20 size=3D2>> wrote in message </FONT><A=20
href=3D"news:[email protected]"><FONT=20
size=3D2>news:[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT =

size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV>
<DVI><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DVII><BR><FONT size=3D2>> <BR>> >Actually, I've read a = biography of=20 Samuel
Hahnemann, and I actually own two<BR>> >very old moldy = volumes of=20 Materia Medica
that I picked up in a used-book<BR>> >store. While = I can't=20 claim to have actually
read them like a novel (you'd go<BR>> = >crazy), I=20 spent several hours on several
occasions sampling them. So it's<BR>>=20 >entirely possible that I know more about
homeopathy than you do. = <BR>>=20 <BR>> Quoting from my online history ...<BR>>
<BR>> "78 A.D.,=20 Dioscorides (40-90 A.D.) published De Materia Medica ("On<BR>> =
Medicines"),=20 Europe's first real guide to herbal medicine. It<BR>> discussed 600 =
plants.=20 It remained a standard medical reference for<BR>> over 1,500 =
years."<BR>>=20 <BR>> Who in their right mind would read a book written in 78 =
A.D? =20 Could it<BR>> be Shewmaker? Ha, ... Hah, Ha!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DV><FONT size=3D2>While you are laughing, you are displaying your = ignorance.=20 While
Hahnemann was doing what you call "the experimental method" and = what he=20 called
"provings," he collected his results and conclusions in a series = of=20 volumes entitled
"Materia Medica." </FONT></DIV>
<DVI><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DVII><A href=3D"http://tinyurl.com/scnm"><FONT=20
size=3D2>http://tinyurl.com/scnm</FONT></A></DIV>
<DVIII><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIX><FONT size=3D2>Just thought you, as a health care historian, might = want to=20
know.</FONT></DIV>
<DX><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXI><BR><FONT size=3D2>> <BR>> I don't do herbs, nor Alternative = Medicine=20 and that
would include<BR>> homeopathy, Shewmaker.</FONT></DIV>
<DXII><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXIII><FONT size=3D2>I'm waiting to hear what you do when you get the=20 flu.</FONT></DIV>
<DXIV><BR><FONT size=3D2>> <BR>> I do Natural Health. And, = natural=20 health works
only within certain<BR>> parameters, Shewmaker. = Just=20 thought that you might
want to know. :)</FONT></DIV>
<DXV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXVI><FONT size=3D2>Parameters known only to you, no doubt. = </FONT></DIV>
<DXVII><BR><FONT size=3D2>> <BR>> Homeopathy comes under the history = of=20 Western natural
healing<BR>> practices. I am inclined to = believe that=20 homeopathy does not
qualify<BR>> as a natural therapy as I have = defined it,=20 due to its spiritual
and<BR>> metaphysical elements. But, it is =

definitely was part of the heath<BR>> reform movement. And, a = lot of=20 intelligent
people over the last<BR>> couple of hundred years = definitely are=20 of the opinion that
homeopathy<BR>> actually works.</FONT></DIV>
<DXVIII><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXIX><FONT size=3D2>A lot of intelligent people believe astrology = actually works.=20 That
doesn't make it true.</FONT></DIV>
<DXX><BR><FONT size=3D2>> <BR>> Effectiveness is what counts, = Shewmaker, not=20 adherence
to your Quack<BR>> Medical Scientism dogma.</FONT></DIV>
<DXXI><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXXII><FONT size=3D2>Yes, effectiveness is what counts. No system of = healthcare in=20 history
has been more effective than modern scientific = medicine.</FONT></DIV>
<DXXIII><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXXIV><FONT size=3D2>By the way:</FONT></DIV>
<DXXV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DXXVI><FONT size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>Main Entry: =
<B>dog=B7ma</B>=20 </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D3><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">Pronunciation:=20
</FONT><TT>'dog-m&, 'd=E4g-</TT><BR></FONT><FONT face=3D"Times New = Roman"=20
size=3D3>Function: <I>noun</I><BR></FONT><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20 face=3D"Times New
Roman">Etymology: Latin <I>dogmat-, dogma, </I>from = Greek, from=20
<I>dokein </I>to seem -- more at </FONT></FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=3DDictionary&va=3D= decent"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D-1>DECENT</FONT></A><BR></FONT><FONT = size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">Date: 1638<BR><B>1 a</B> <B>:</B> something = held as an=20
established opinion; <I>especially</I> <B>:</B> a definite authoritative = tenet=20
<B>b</B> <B>:</B> a code of such tenets <pedagogical <I>dogma</I>> =

<C>c</B> <B>:</B> a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative = without=20 adequate
grounds<BR><B>2</B> <B>:</B> a doctrine or body of doctrines = concerning=20 faith or morals
formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a = church=20 </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DV><FONT size=3D2>The "authority" of medical practice is constantly = being=20 challenged and
changed by research. Points of view or tenets "put forth = as=20 authoritative without
adequate grounds" are immediately attacked from = all sides=20 and rejected by the
scientific world.</FONT></DIV>
<DVI><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DVII><FONT size=3D2>Just thought you might want to know.</FONT></DIV>
<DVIII><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIX><FONT size=3D2>--Rich</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_00D7_01C39AE9.C12CC4E0--
 
John 'the Man' <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Actually, I've read a biography of Samuel Hahnemann, and I actually own two very old moldy volumes
>>of Materia Medica that I picked up in a used-book store. While I can't claim to have actually read
>>them like a novel (you'd go crazy), I spent several hours on several occasions sampling them. So
>>it's entirely possible that I know more about homeopathy than you do.
>
>Quoting from my online history ...
>
>"78 A.D., Dioscorides (40-90 A.D.) published De Materia Medica ("On Medicines"), Europe's first
>real guide to herbal medicine. It discussed 600 plants. It remained a standard medical reference
>for over 1,500 years."
>
>Who in their right mind would read a book written in 78 A.D? Could it be Shewmaker? Ha,
>... Hah, Ha!

Gohde is so monumentally stupid and knows so little about homeopathy that he doesn't even recognise
the title of Hahnemann's book and thinks it was written in 78AD.

--
Peter Bowditch The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles The Green Light
http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins
and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

First, ... the Pythia at the Oracle at Delphi would often groan, shriek and thrust about violently
because they had breathed in too much ethylene gas.

Is that your problem, Shewmaker? Huffed too much ethylene today?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

>I'm waiting to hear what you do when you get the flu.

http://www.ec-online.net/Knowledge/Articles/flu.html "The flu is caused by a virus, so antibiotics
(like penicillin) don’t work to cure it. If you begin to develop these symptoms you should be
prepared for one to two weeks of illness:"

One to two weeks of illness?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

I never gotten the flu in my life, Shewmaker.

Could be because I never gotten the annual Flu Shot, either?

>> I do Natural Health. And, natural health works only within certain parameters, Shewmaker. Just
>> thought that you might want to know. :)

>Parameters known only to you, no doubt.

Nonsense!

See references #1 and #2 at: http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/definition.html

>> Homeopathy comes under the history of Western natural healing practices. I am inclined to believe
>> that homeopathy does not qualify as a natural therapy as I have defined it, due to its spiritual
>> and metaphysical elements. But, it is definitely was part of the heath reform movement. And, a
>> lot of intelligent people over the last couple of hundred years definitely are of the opinion
>> that homeopathy actually works.

>A lot of intelligent people believe astrology actually works. That doesn't make it true.

Astrology does not come under the definition of natural health, natural therapy, or even natural
healing practices. Just thought that you might want to know. :)

>> Effectiveness is what counts, Shewmaker, not adherence to your Quack Medical Scientism dogma.

>Yes, effectiveness is what counts. No system of healthcare in history has been more effective than
>modern scientific medicine.

Have you always been this delusional, Shewmaker?

>The "authority" of medical practice is constantly being challenged and changed by research. Points
>of view or tenets "put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds" are immediately attacked
>from all sides and rejected by the scientific world.

http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/british/critique.htm "In no profession, perhaps, has there been so
little open-mindedness, so little of the impersonal, so little of the true scientific spirit, as in
medicine. [Close, 1924, p.54]"
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ Offering easy to understand lessons that will
change your life.
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Peter Bowditch rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Gohde is so monumentally stupid and knows so little about homeopathy that he doesn't even recognise
>the title of Hahnemann's book and thinks it was written in 78AD.

The names of books that Hahnemann wrote and the number of editions he made of each are
immaterial facts.

Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>> My history on Western natural healing practices is progressing quite nicely. Peter Morrell has
>> done much of the scholar footwork for
>> me. :)

>Good history is based on original sources. Do you know how to find them, or will you plagiarize Mr.
>Morrell and others like him?

Judge for yourself. http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/history.html I plan on referencing
his work, because they are original sources. :)

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
 
Really y works for me and my wife and kids--helps to have a person who knows how to prescribe the
stuff.. it is remarkable what it has done for me.. Michael "John 'the Man'" <[email protected]>
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Once upon a time, our fellow [email protected] rambled on about "homeopathy, is it effective,
> research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >To get a good summary on the research looking at how effective it is, follow the links below,
> >hint, it ain't nuten to get workde up over:
>
> I have been reading the previously mentioned British thesis.
>
> This Hahnemann who was a German MD spoke 8 different languages fluently in addition to being an
> experimental chemist who tested his medicines experimentally on patients.
>
> What is truly stupid, are the stupid science geek criticisms voiced here to date.
>
> There appears more to homeopathy than what first meets the eye. At any rate, the thesis readings
> are a whole lot more intelligent and interesting than the **** posted on these ngs.
>
> Just thought that you might want to know. :)
 
"John 'the incompetent historian'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The names of books that Hahnemann wrote and the number of editions he made of each are
> immaterial facts.

One would think that the books that Hahnemann wrote would be on the reading list of someone who
claims to be preparing a "history on Western natural healing practices," but perhaps you work to
different academic standards.

You were caught out. You rebuked me for reading "a book written in 78 A.D.," revealing that you are
ignorant of a basic fact about Hahnemann and homeopathy. Now you are trying to weasel out by
claiming it is "immaterial."

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

--Rich
 
"John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Judge for yourself. http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/history.html I plan on
> referencing his work, because they are original sources. :)

Yes, please do finish "referencing his [sic] work." I note that in your bibliography, there is not
one original source. Do you know what the term "original source" means? Until you produce a few, I
have judged for myself, and will feel free to assume that your exposition of half truths and
falsehoods is plagiarized from Morell and his ilk, or made up of the whole cloth.

--Rich
 
"John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> First, ... the Pythia at the Oracle at Delphi would often groan, shriek and thrust about violently
> because they had breathed in too much ethylene gas.
>
> Is that your problem, Shewmaker? Huffed too much ethylene today?
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Say what? I have no idea what you are trying to say, or what Pythia or ethylene have to do with the
subject at hand. Could it be that having no effective rejoinder, you are reduced to a rant and a bit
of psychotic laughter?

>
> >I'm waiting to hear what you do when you get the flu.
>
> http://www.ec-online.net/Knowledge/Articles/flu.html "The flu is caused by a virus, so antibiotics
> (like penicillin) don't work to cure it. If you begin to develop these symptoms you should be
> prepared for one to two weeks of illness:"
>
> One to two weeks of illness?
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> I never gotten the flu in my life, Shewmaker.
>
> Could be because I never gotten the annual Flu Shot, either?

No, not having gotten a flu shot cannot be the reason you have never had the flu, if indeed that is
true. My curiosity about the sequellae of your having the flu has nothing to do with penicillin. I'm
wondering how your overblown self esteem will cope with the reality that your health is transient
like that of everyone else.

> >> ... And, a lot of intelligent people over the last couple of hundred years definitely are of
> >> the opinion that homeopathy actually works.
>
> >A lot of intelligent people believe astrology actually works. That
doesn't make it true.
>
> Astrology does not come under the definition of natural health, natural therapy, or even natural
> healing practices.

Indeed it does not. But the endorsement of astrology by Mr. Morrell certainly casts a shadow over
his credibility as a "scholar."

>
> >> Effectiveness is what counts, Shewmaker, not adherence to your Quack Medical Scientism dogma.
>
> >Yes, effectiveness is what counts. No system of healthcare in history has been more effective
> >than modern scientific medicine.
>
> Have you always been this delusional, Shewmaker?

The effective healthcare provided to most of the world's people by scientific medicine is
no delusion.

>
> >The "authority" of medical practice is constantly being challenged and changed by research.
> >Points of view or tenets "put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds" are immediately
> >attacked from all sides and rejected by the scientific world.
>
> http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/british/critique.htm "In no profession, perhaps, has there been so
> little open-mindedness, so little of the impersonal, so little of the true scientific spirit, as
> in medicine. [Close, 1924, p.54]"

Another jewel from Morrell's site, this is one man's opinion. Sounds like he had an axe to grind.

--Rich
 
"Michael Balarama" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Really y works for me and my wife and kids--helps to have a person who
knows
> how to prescribe the stuff.. it is remarkable what it has done for me.. Michael
...

You do realize that it is just water?

You have been prescribed water, which more than likely have been diluted so much that there more
than likely is not one molecule of the "like works on like" substance in it:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/homeopathy.htm
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>> First, ... the Pythia at the c would often groan, shriek and thrust about violently because they
>> had breathed in too much ethylene gas.
>>
>> Is that your problem, Shewmaker? Huffed too much ethylene today?
>>
>> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
>Say what? I have no idea what you are trying to say, or what Pythia or ethylene have to do with the
>subject at hand. Could it be that having no effective rejoinder, you are reduced to a rant and a
>bit of psychotic laughter?

Aristotle wrote about Oracle at Delphi did he not? You were the one talking about astrology were you
not? Apollo god of prophecy spoke through the Pythia at the Oracle at Delph.

I mean don't you read? It was in the July 15, 2003 issue of Scientific America.
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>health is transient likethat of everyone else.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

health is transient like that of everyone else?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! that was a good one, Shewmaker.

huh? I don't get it. Are you really trying to say that I am like everyone else? Does that include
you, too? Or, are you the square peg in the round hole?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>> Have you always been this delusional, Shewmaker?

>The effective healthcare provided to most of the world's people by scientific medicine is no
>delusion.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Where can I sign up for this FREE health care, Shewmaker?

I repeat, have you always been this delusional, Shewmaker?
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Now you are trying to weasel out by claiming it is "immaterial."

Hahnemann was a prolific writer. That particular book certainly was not very important to
homeopathy.

Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Do you know what the term "original source" means?

Could it mean: Rich Shewmaker is the original jewel?
 
John 'the Man' <[email protected]> wrote:

>Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker rambled on about "Re: homeopathy, is it effective,
>research review.." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
>>Now you are trying to weasel out by claiming it is "immaterial."
>
>Hahnemann was a prolific writer. That particular book certainly was not very important to
>homeopathy.
>
>Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!

Hahnemann's seminal work was "not very important to homeopathy"? Keep it up , John. I haven't seen
anything so funny for years.

--
Peter Bowditch The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles The Green Light
http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins
and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
 
"John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in

> >> The facts are that Hahnemann was extremely successful in treating deadly acute diseases like
> >> cholera with homeopathy. :)
>
> >Uh, no. That is not a fact. There are no controlled studies and that
would
> >be needed to call this claim a "fact".
> >
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Science geeks apparently don't believe that the facts of history are facts!!!

It is a fact of Usenet history that you are an ineducable imbecile. Your response is inadequate to
establish that the things you claim are facts are anything other than rumour.

le moo
 
"John 'the Man'" <[email protected]>

> I do Natural Health. And, natural health works only within certain parameters, Shewmaker. Just
> thought that you might want to know. :)
>

No you don't. You haven't provided a shred of evidence that you do anything but make claims you
can't back up. Where are those historical references?

> Homeopathy comes under the history of Western natural healing practices. I am inclined to believe
> that homeopathy does not qualify as a natural therapy as I have defined it, due to its spiritual
> and metaphysical elements. But, it is definitely was part of the heath reform movement. And, a lot
> of intelligent people over the last couple of hundred years definitely are of the opinion that
> homeopathy actually works.

More people are of the opinion that evidence based medicine works. So I guess you lose.

le moo