4 ms·

I took homeopathic Byronia Alba for three weeks as a loading dose before the vaccines were available. I also formulated my own constitutional homeopathic remedy

I took homeopathic Byronia Alba for three weeks as a loading dose before the vaccines were available. I also formulated my own constitutional homeopathic remedy 12 years ago from a specific snake venom after trying various other snake remedies. I have used it on my animals too. Not just pets like cats and dogs but also horses. I have saved dozens of animals while the vets insisted that euthanasia was the only option. In India, without resources while volunteering at an animal shelter, I learnt it to help street animals and feral cats. I mix and match homeopathic and allopathic modalities all the time. I am not willing to cut off my nose to spite my face in the name of ‘scientific thinking’. So I don’t reject any healing modality that works. There is literally no science that proves homeopathy doesn’t work. A lot of anti alt medicine rants is just as unscientific as medicinal quackery(this also exists). YMMV. I was also willing to participate in the mass experimentation of covid vaccines even though I didn’t know much about it..none of us did..we all acted on the basis of faith. I was under no illusion about the alleged effectiveness of the vaccines. It was a crapshoot. It is the same attitude that I had when I first adopted homeopathy. In balance, I have had more success with homeopathy than with allopathic (or even herbal/Ayurvedic) modalities and I tend to favour homeopathy over all else. Also: let’s not forget that it’s cheap and somewhat open source. Anyone with time and effort can learn it. So it’s not a profit gusher. If anything, it diverts profits from Big Pharma. I adore Big Pharma, but I am not going to shell out thousands of dollars and hours of my life in waiting rooms for a headache or flu or a broken arm or asthma or migraines if I can figure it out myself. I can. Many can’t. I am glad that they have other options. Just don’t want others to diss mine. Especially by those who don’t want to educate themselves about other healing modalities and would simply parrot others in the name of ‘science’. I have literally never met a scientist who disagrees at once with someone who carries a different point of view. Scientific temperament is one that is ever searching. I have known intelligent, thoughtful and highly educated scholars who would at the most crinkle their foreheads with not so much as a smirk ..and they’d very politely ask for reasons why..this is how I filter scientists from non scientists. Not by the degree they earn from books and parroting lecturing professors. The trademark of science is curiosity and a questioning attitude. When that dies, science dies. IMO..even within my relatively short lifetime..scientific temperament has dimmed considerably and I expect it to die soon..with only the gatekeepers managing the flow and direction of new discoveries and science. Edited to add: that is an idiotic article. Equating homeopathy to ‘nazi medicine’ and an anti Semitic motive is just bad journalism. I find it repulsive that this author is published.

olliej 5y ago
“No scientific evidence it does not work” is not a valid argument. This is super super simple to resolve. If a homeopathic treatment works, then you can show that it worked. If you cannot show it works, then it does not. The end. It it either works or it doesn’t. How are we still having this debate?
- jelliclesfarm 5y ago
  Isn’t that a simplistic way of looking at a problem? We know homeopathy works. Millions of people around the world have been healed by homeopathy. We don’t know HOW it works as it doesn’t pass the current scientific method scrutiny.(pseudoscience acc to Popperian method) I know it works because I have cured(not ‘healed’ in a hippy dippy happy sense)acute and chronic conditions for humans, animals and birds. To me, that is evidence. Evidence Based Medicine is aggregation of a limited population based sample size. Homeopathy is symptom based treatment of an individual. They are entirely different concepts.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > We know homeopathy works We actually don't know that, and have pretty strong reason to suspect that it can’t compared to whatever the diluent used is, because homeopathy literally involves no treatment at all. > Millions of people around the world have been healed by homeopathy That's, at best, unproven. (If you are confusing homeopathy with the broader category of holistic/traditional/alternative medicine, that may explain part of the error; some of that stuff, despite the absence of scientific basis, clearly works, and discovering how is an important aspect of modern medical science.)
    - jelliclesfarm 5y ago
      - olliej 5y ago
        Provide a double blinded study with a statistically valid sample size that demonstrates the homeopathy works. What we knows is that at the dilutions proposed there is none of the original chemicals present. even if they were present, we know that the chemicals involved have at best minimal involvement with human biology. And we also know, through many many double blinded studies that people are bad at correlating events. If you have a cold and you apply your homeopathic mix, and get better, that means literally nothing. It doesn’t matter how “immediate” the effect is. Because you don’t know if you were already getting better. Even better is that this human behavior reinforces itself: after day 1 it doesn’t work, so you take it the next, and then the next,etc until you’re better. Homeopaths will claim that the homeopathy therefore worked. Here is the very simple thing you have to do. Find an illness you can treat with homeopathy. Get 10 thousand people with that illness into your study. Have one half of them use plain water, the other use the homeopathy. If homeopathy works, you will see a difference. Saying people “know” homeopathy works is like doctors “knew” you had to keep pus in the body. Like people knew you didn’t need to wash your hands before surgery. Then someone actually studied outcomes, and behold the outcomes match we now know. Those outcomes also match our understanding of basic biology and physics. Every homeopath knows that proving homeopathy works is a trivial exercise. That is why they don’t do any studies. Because it would show that they’re snake oil preying on desperate people.

olliej 5y ago

“No scientific evidence it does not work” is not a valid argument. This is super super simple to resolve. If a homeopathic treatment works, then you can show that it worked. If you cannot show it works, then it does not. The end. It it either works or it doesn’t. How are we still having this debate?

jelliclesfarm 5y ago
Isn’t that a simplistic way of looking at a problem? We know homeopathy works. Millions of people around the world have been healed by homeopathy. We don’t know HOW it works as it doesn’t pass the current scientific method scrutiny.(pseudoscience acc to Popperian method) I know it works because I have cured(not ‘healed’ in a hippy dippy happy sense)acute and chronic conditions for humans, animals and birds. To me, that is evidence. Evidence Based Medicine is aggregation of a limited population based sample size. Homeopathy is symptom based treatment of an individual. They are entirely different concepts.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > We know homeopathy works We actually don't know that, and have pretty strong reason to suspect that it can’t compared to whatever the diluent used is, because homeopathy literally involves no treatment at all. > Millions of people around the world have been healed by homeopathy That's, at best, unproven. (If you are confusing homeopathy with the broader category of holistic/traditional/alternative medicine, that may explain part of the error; some of that stuff, despite the absence of scientific basis, clearly works, and discovering how is an important aspect of modern medical science.)
  - jelliclesfarm 5y ago
    - olliej 5y ago
      Provide a double blinded study with a statistically valid sample size that demonstrates the homeopathy works. What we knows is that at the dilutions proposed there is none of the original chemicals present. even if they were present, we know that the chemicals involved have at best minimal involvement with human biology. And we also know, through many many double blinded studies that people are bad at correlating events. If you have a cold and you apply your homeopathic mix, and get better, that means literally nothing. It doesn’t matter how “immediate” the effect is. Because you don’t know if you were already getting better. Even better is that this human behavior reinforces itself: after day 1 it doesn’t work, so you take it the next, and then the next,etc until you’re better. Homeopaths will claim that the homeopathy therefore worked. Here is the very simple thing you have to do. Find an illness you can treat with homeopathy. Get 10 thousand people with that illness into your study. Have one half of them use plain water, the other use the homeopathy. If homeopathy works, you will see a difference. Saying people “know” homeopathy works is like doctors “knew” you had to keep pus in the body. Like people knew you didn’t need to wash your hands before surgery. Then someone actually studied outcomes, and behold the outcomes match we now know. Those outcomes also match our understanding of basic biology and physics. Every homeopath knows that proving homeopathy works is a trivial exercise. That is why they don’t do any studies. Because it would show that they’re snake oil preying on desperate people.