Cushing's disease: a new approach to therapy in equine and canine patients.

[caballus]

[QUOTE=Androcles;5009990]
Really? HOw is that addressing my question? Maybe you should reread it. Or are you equating over/under active with chronic and acute.[/QUOTE]No … I was thinking acute and chronic … not paying attention to your specific question. Sorry.

You wrote

You would probably have to understand homeopathy in order to understand that. (except that by giving a dose of 30c they are not treating it with more ACTH, as I said I believe that dose is for overactivity and if the OP knew something about homeopathy perhaps she could address it).

Although there are some who say that I have to say ‘it depends’. … again, on the individual. I also said I questioned this particular study simply BECAUSE one remedy was used in one potency which might lead people to believe that ACTH 30c and Quercus rob 30c were THE remedies to give a Cushings horse or dog. I say this in light of ‘classical’ homeopathy where one individual may respond favorable to 30C of ACTH and 30c Quercus rob but others may not. The fact that its also given on a daily basis long term leads me to question it, as well. True Classical uses one dose and wait approach for chronic situations. The treatment as described in the study might work for some horses but for others it may not OR it may even aggravate the situation if the potency is TOO strong for that horse.

So, I don’t agree that 30c is THE potency for ‘over active’ glands in light of the guidelines Hahnemann put forth in the Organon. It just depends on the individual.

[Percheron_X]

[QUOTE=RAyers;5010052]
Your question, while valid is too simple to engender a simple answer. It all depends on the disease state. The immune compromise could be due to the metabolic condition thus fixing the immune system would do little correct the underlying condition.

You would need to clarify what the disease is in order to describe a remedy.

Reed[/QUOTE]

I think that an army makes a good analogy for the immune system.

*There has to be a clear knowledge of who the enemy is.

*There has to be a plan to do battle with that enemy.

*There has to be Officers who can relay those battle orders to the Foot Soldiers.

*There has to be sufficient arms and ammunition to wage the battle.

*There has to be a knowledge of when the enemy has been reduced to the point that it is no longer a threat.

• There has to be a call to stand down after the battle has been won.

If any of the above is missing or faulty, that may equate to an immune disfunction.

[deltawave]

All cells vibrate to a specific rate (frequency) according to their particular need for existence.
You do realize this is all bullcrap, right? Pure, unadulterated pseudoscientific babble. Need for existence? You’re in the metaphysical realm, Gwen, and the laws of nature/science DO NOT APPLY there. By definition. So call a spade a spade–homeopathy is supernatural, or a belief system, or something that exists outside the plane of the natural world. Stop trying to fit this nebulous peg into a concrete hole already. :rolleyes:

How does one ‘see’ a resonant frequency particularly one that is of ‘spirit’ in nature? I don’t understand.

Of for the love of . . . bangs head on desk It’s hopeless.

You are trying to force the supernatural/spiritual/divine into a test tube here, Gwen. Far, far better minds than yours or mine have long since concluded that this is not, in fact, possible. I’m going to try once more, in two or three very short sentences:

You cannot substitute faith for knowledge.

The supernatural is not measurable scientifically.

If what you’re using/touting/believing is spiritual, stop trying to make science define it.

In addition to some biology classes, I’m thinking philosophy 101 would come in handy.

[MistyBlue]

Vital Force is not a law, rule, etc.

It’s a theory…even defined as such in dictionaries. The Vital Force Theory.

And it’s actual definition is:

(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) (esp in early biological theory) a hypothetical force, independent of physical and chemical forces, regarded as being the causative factor of the evolution and development of living organisms

To base any type of diagnosis or medical healing plan on a theory of something hypothetical seems a tad unusual. And possibly dangerous.

[deltawave]

Hypothetical law (may be simply invented) + impassioned desire and agenda for IT TO BE SO = dogma. Good luck prying the dogma loose.

Creationism follows the same rules.

[Percheron_X]

Scared peasants of the the dark ages tried to explain anything they didn’t understand using any answer that would make sense to them…

But then some people got the idea that they could prove an answer was true by supporting that answer with demonstrative facts.

Homeopathy is only a word… If there is any fact of any real benefit relating to any of the methods practiced by Homeopaths. Then it is the job of science to validate the existence of those facts, and then to form theories that might explain how it works.

To throw out an entire “concept”, because one doesn’t like the “color” of a belief associated with it, is not science either…

[Androcles]

[QUOTE=caballus;5010062]
No … I was thinking acute and chronic … not paying attention to your specific question. Sorry.

You wrote

Although there are some who say that I have to say ‘it depends’. … again, on the individual. I also said I questioned this particular study simply BECAUSE one remedy was used in one potency which might lead people to believe that ACTH 30c and Quercus rob 30c were THE remedies to give a Cushings horse or dog. I say this in light of ‘classical’ homeopathy where one individual may respond favorable to 30C of ACTH and 30c Quercus rob but others may not. The fact that its also given on a daily basis long term leads me to question it, as well. True Classical uses one dose and wait approach for chronic situations. The treatment as described in the study might work for some horses but for others it may not OR it may even aggravate the situation if the potency is TOO strong for that horse.

So, I don’t agree that 30c is THE potency for ‘over active’ glands in light of the guidelines Hahnemann put forth in the Organon. It just depends on the individual.[/QUOTE]

???

You don’t ‘agree’ with a question?

So you can generalize about acute vs chronic but everything else depends?

Didn’t the study say they had an 80% response rate?

I think the best thing you could do for homeopathy is keep quiet about it. After I read your posts I know less about the subject than when I started.

[Bluey]

—"…It’s hopeless…"—

:yes:

:lol:

[caballus]

@Androcles;5010131

???

You don’t ‘agree’ with a question?

No, I don’t agree that 30c is the dose for overactive anything. I’m merely answering your question. You said you “believe that dose is for overactivity and if the OP knew something about homeopathy perhaps she could address it.” So, I’m saying no, I don’t agree with 30c being the dose for overactivity assuming that you read or heard or learned this information somewhere – ??

So you can generalize about acute vs chronic but everything else depends?
There are specific remedies that are used frequently for acute situations. For chronic situations the treatment is more involved and can be very much more complex than merely saying, “OH! I’ve strained my muscles. I’ll take some Arnica.”

Didn’t the study say they had an 80% response rate?
Yep … and it makes me wonder, that’s all. It basically goes against Hahnemann’s Classical homeopathy teachings. I don’t say that they’re wrong, obviously – and I don’t dis-believe the study; I believe the study but wonder why the results were such when I’ve learned the ‘classical’ studies and the principles of classical are such that I’ve stated before.

I think the best thing you could do for homeopathy is keep quiet about it. After I read your posts I know less about the subject than when I started.
Sorry you’re confused.

[deltawave]

To throw out an entire “concept”, because one doesn’t like the “color” of a belief associated with it, is not science either…
I’m not throwing anything out (although I will admit to extreme impatience while waiting) but myself and lots of other people have been waiting about 150 years for homeopathy to show us something in the realm of fact. When and if the facts show up, I am fully prepared to analyze them and adjust my opinion accordingly.

Don’t you think it’s interesting that there have been no “giants” of homeopathy since old Hahnemann himself? That in a century and a half (give or take) there has been NO revision, NO modernization, NO push forward in the body of knowledge? I find that extremely interesting, and it brings to mind a lot of other things that came . . . and went, in the pantheon of quackery. Homeopathy just sort of sticks around for some reason, perhaps because it is theoretically incomprehensible to anyone with a scientific background and flies under the radar thereby . . .

[goeslikestink]

[QUOTE=caballus;5009943]
Here’s a good explanation of some of the homeopathic terms and thinking …
(not my writing but a student’s)

VITAL FORCE - also referred to as the “life force” or “life priciple”. That which is inherrent in all living organisms that differs them from non-living material objects. It’s the invisible energy or spirit which allows the organism to function in it’s most perfect manner. Without it, the organism can not live.

all those organisms die when you open your mouth or breath in lol

[Organon Intro., Organon Chap 1, Organon Glossary, Beyond Flat Earth Medicine pgs. 49-50]

scince proved the world to be round
flat earth medince to me that would eating dirt nasty stuff dirt is lol

HEALTH - when a person’s body, mind and soul are all in tune and running in harmony with one another, therefore showing no “symptoms of disease”.

that means they are healthy and dont need anything lol

DISEASE - alteration of a body no longer in tune which allows the symptoms of the mistunements to display in a physical manner.

often happens with people then they call the doc for some real medicine hopefully they get better or if not then its controlled usage

CURE - alteration of a body back into attunement where there are no longer any physical signs of disease.

drugs frm the doc normal cure ailments or manage it

heres one for you callubus what happens when you mix vineger and baking soda lol

[deltawave]

drugs frm the doc normal cure ailments or manage it

Very few physicians I know claim to “cure” everything, or even anything in some spheres. Only quacks and charlatans are so full of hubris. Some things certainly can be cured, many cannot. And some things just go away on their own, leaving the arrogant to take credit if they are so inclined. Those who’ve been doing it for a while soon learn to be humble when claiming “cures”.

[caballus]

You are trying to force the supernatural/spiritual/divine into a test tube here, Gwen.
I’m not trying to do anything except address comments and answer questions that are directed to me regarding Homeopathy.

Was it not Albert Einstein who said that energy and matter are the same thing? and Aristotle said “The energy of the mind is the essence of life.” Does not ‘all life’ live in a state of vibration? Are we not all, essentially, nothing but electrical energy following the Law of Vibration in a ‘sea of water’ with a bit of tissue and bone thrown in here and there? Organs and systems that work harmoniously together and resonating wonderfully and beautifully when healthy? OK … I know. I know. grin

Do you honestly believe that all that exists can be boxed into a nice, neat package of solid walls? A ‘test tube’, if you will? Now its my turn to ‘bang head on desk’ … and just a(n) FYI – I do believe in creationism. I also believe that animals are sentient ‘beings’ and have spirits/souls. Personally think the ‘big bang theory’ is about as ridiculous as I’ve ever imagined. If we all descended from apes then why are there still apes on the planet? Why didn’t they ALL turn human? So you and I will never come to terms on anything – probably even the fact that the sun is shining (no, there are clouds. But the sun IS shining. But no, there are clouds!) because we just don’t perceive things the same way.

PS … don’t hurt your head.

[caballus]

drugs frm the doc normal cure ailments or manage it
No – the drugs are ANTI bacterial, ANTI septic, ANTI fungal, ANTI biotics … they kill the ‘bugs’ that are making someone sick. Or, as you said they MANAGE the state of dis-ease. The base REASON the person got sick to begin with is because something in the body/mind/spirit allowed the ‘bugs’ to overcome the healthy/balanced state. Does no good to treat the person with emphysema if they’re still smoking 4 packs of cigarettes a day. Does no good to treat the diabetic if sugar is still consumed by the pound each day. Does no good to treat the high blood pressure or the nervous debilitation unless the stress is not addressed. Drugs palliate or suppress or kill the ‘enemy’. The BODY, itself, if strong enough, will heal itself once those enemies are gone. If not strong enough for whatever reason, will just ‘get sick’ again.

[Androcles]

[QUOTE=goeslikestink;5010172]

heres one for you callubus what happens when you mix vineger and baking soda lol[/QUOTE]

One of your posts, no doubt

[goeslikestink]

[QUOTE=deltawave;5010179]
Very few physicians I know claim to “cure” everything, or even anything in some spheres. Only quacks and charlatans are so full of hubris. Some things certainly can be cured, many cannot. And some things just go away on their own, leaving the arrogant to take credit if they are so inclined. Those who’ve been doing it for a while soon learn to be humble when claiming “cures”.[/QUOTE]

deltaware mate i meant common stuff or docs controls and manages the problem with drugs etc or prevent it with drugs etc since she quoting a lot of stuff on humans and not on animals

[deltawave]

Great thinkers say many things, and their quotes are wonderful for making us ponder. But facts are still facts, and beliefs are still beliefs, and (to paraphrase another great quote by Kipling) “never the twain shall meet”.

Absolutely I do NOT think that we know everything that can be known or will be known. Absolutely I think (you can also use the word believe here) that there are things “going on” that we haven’t figured out yet.

BUT, and HOWEVER. Something like we’re discussing here–whether or not homeopathic remedies can be subjected to the scientific method, do not qualify as the “unknowable” or “intangible” at all. If the remedies DO SOMETHING, that SOMETHING should be measurable, tangible, reproducible, and subject to observation. Whereby they then define themselves in the same fashion. (measurable, etc.) Your talking about “scientific evidence” that they work suggests that you are under the impression that these remedies are therefore scientifically valid and measurable. And yet when challenged to cough up some evidence, you retreat into the defense that no, rather they are mystical/spiritual/intangible things. You cannot have it both ways, Gwen. Choose one, defend it to the uttermost, and you will have made your statement. But you are the one trying to force things into a test tube here, not I. If homeopathy is spiritual/supernatural in your best estimation, FINE. If it’s not, however, you can’t call it that but rather you have to accept the facts, even if they shake loose your firmly entrenched dogma.

FYI – I do believe in creationism. I also believe that animals are sentient ‘beings’ and have spirits/souls. Personally think the ‘big bang theory’ is about as ridiculous as I’ve ever imagined. If we all descended from apes then why are there still apes on the planet? Why didn’t they ALL turn human?
I rest my case. Beliefs and science forced to coexist, for no good reason, at complete odds to one another, all in the name of the defending our beliefs, and at the expense of readily available knowledge. How pitiful. Willed ignorance at its finest, with a dash of religious fanaticism. :no: You do realize that the “apes” from which we likely descended are not even remotely the same species as we have today, yes? No? Oy vey. :no: You do realize that Nature has dead ends, yes? No? Oy vey. That extinction happens? Like all the pretty little eohippuses? (eohippi?) Leaving descendants that are quite different, but no less real, yes? No? :rolleyes:

[deltawave]

The base REASON the person got sick to begin with is because something in the body/mind/spirit allowed the ‘bugs’ to overcome the healthy/balanced state.
Not all diseases are caused by “bugs” or a faulty immune system, for pity’s sake. And “stress” has precious little to do with hypertension, unless of course your base of knowledge about diseases of this sort is based in the era of your precious Hahnemann. :rolleyes:

[Percheron_X]

[QUOTE=deltawave;5010159]
I’m not throwing anything out (although I will admit to extreme impatience while waiting) but myself and lots of other people have been waiting about 150 years for homeopathy to show us something in the realm of fact. When and if the facts show up, I am fully prepared to analyze them and adjust my opinion accordingly.

Don’t you think it’s interesting that there have been no “giants” of homeopathy since old Hahnemann himself? That in a century and a half (give or take) there has been NO revision, NO modernization, NO push forward in the body of knowledge? I find that extremely interesting, and it brings to mind a lot of other things that came . . . and went, in the pantheon of quackery. Homeopathy just sort of sticks around for some reason, perhaps because it is theoretically incomprehensible to anyone with a scientific background and flies under the radar thereby . . .[/QUOTE]

I’d suggest that any “breakthroughs” utilizing homeopathic principles that either have been made, or will be made, will become a part of conventional modern medicine, and not be associated with homeopathy.

The exact same way that the science of metallurgy was born out of alchemy…

[millerra]

pssst. Hey DW…

Remember: — argue ---- fencepost