I better start this post with an appology: I am going to try and explain something that is rather obvious to rational thinkers. But recently, we had comments on this blog that made it clear to me that some of my readers are are far from rational. They have suggested that the real life test of a therapy like homeopathy is the survival rate of hospitals where this therapy is being used.
So why are the mortality rates in homeopathic hospitals lower that for normal hosptials?
Does that fact not prove the value of homeopathy?
No!
Why not?
Because with every comparison we need to make sure that we compare comparable things.
Patients who are admitted to homeopathic hospitals are very different from those in a normal hospital. To put it in a nutshell: THEY ARE FAR LESS SERIOUSLY ILL.
I should know that because I worked both in a homeopathic hospital and in several normal ones.
Most patients who chose to go to a homeopathic hospital are chronically unwell. Some do have a chronic illness but many others are not truly ill. Hardly anyone has a life-threatening disease.
During the months I worked in a homeopathic hospital, we only had to report one single fatality. I do remember many patients with asthma, allergies, neck pain, obseity, insomnia and similar conditions. During a comparable time period when I worked in a normal hospital of a similar size, we had dozens of fatalities.
I am sure that we all have sad experiences of a seriously ill relative or friend. Because her diesease is so serious she gets worse and worse. Eventually, home care does not suffice and she is admitted to hospital. We hope that there her life will be saved. Sadly, this is not always the case.
In other words, moribund patients are often rushed to hospital where many of them die. They are not rushed to a homeopathic hospital!
Or, to put it bluntly, the ‘real life test’ of measuring death rates of homeopathic (or naturopathic, integrative, etc.) hospitals and comparing them with the usually high mortality rates of normal hospitals is not just unreliable, it is meaningless rubbish.
As I stated above, all of this is entirely obvious – except, of course, for the deluded.
PS
There are comparisons between two or more hospitals that can provide useful information; they usually relate to specific conditions or interventions, e.g. hip replacement in hospital A versus hip replacement in hospital B.
33 Responses to Why are the death rates of some (homeopathic) hospitals lower than those of other hospitals?
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Close to the place I live is an anthroposophic hospital where. A lot of people come to this hospital if school medicine has done with them – if their perspective is to die soon.
I don’t have any information on the success rate of this hospital and if they manage to turn the fate of these people around. I know that people prefer to die here, as dying is escorted spiritually and not technically.
Dear Edzard,
I respect you as a serious scientist. However, here you make proclamations without any statistical foundation.
And even if you find that homeopathic hospitals have less hard cases – my next question would be: why is this so? Do people treated with homeopathic medicine to a lower extent seriously ill?
If there are these two ways of treating people and the border is as thick as it seems to be, I would not expect many changes between these two worlds.
However, what I can see in Germany for hospitals where they use homeopathic medication: These hospitals are standard school medically founded hospitals that support their work in the way the experts have learned it at university with an “extra” of homeopathic remedies. And these hospitals can be expected to have the same range of medical problems to be solved as any hospital else.
“these hospitals can be expected to have the same range of medical problems to be solved as any hospital else”
WRONG!
evidence?
apart from my own experience, I know of none – but you made the claim, so provide the evidence.
I can only talk from the situation in Germany. There are no pure homeopathic hospitals but maybe some where homeopathich remedies are part of the remedies they use.
Here are some youtube talks (in German) where doctors who are experts for emergency medicine use homeopathic remedies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMnTNjc0-Kw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2uK-shBEXs
They report about the special situations of extreme emergencies where they often discovered that homeopathic remedies do an excellent job where classic approaches often do not lead into a good solution.
Here would be cases where lives could be saved having these remedies in the bag.
However, you will find no emergency doctor who would exclusively use homeopathic remedies at his work. It is for turining around critical situations, for bringing back to life, for resetting for normal and healthy funciton.
Of course, a lot of problems will not be solved the homeopathic way and here very classic school medical approaches will be used.
The homeopatic aprroach is not either school medicine or homeopatich approach but: Would homeopatich approaches add important tools to the medical toolbox – and if yes: why not using it?
In a situation like this, I would expect lower death rates for hospitals working will the full range of options compared to those blcoking themselves for idiological reasons.
– pure homeopathic hospitals do not exist anywhere;
– extreme emergencies treated with homeopathy are extreme rareties and should land the homeopath before a court;
– youtube is about the worst type of evidence possible;
– homeopathy works merely as a placebo therapy and is thus no addition to the medical toolbox, particularly not in emergencies;
– treating patients according to the best available evidence is not called ‘ideology’;
– your comments are offencive and dangerous nonsense.
– extreme emergencies treated with homeopathy are extreme rareties and should land the homeopath before a court;
Do you think so – if it was helpful?
Let’s imagine you are a doctor and you have to incubate somebody, but you have not technical support for it — let’s say you have to care for a soldier who was heavily wounded. Now, you have some homeopathic remedy that could set his system into a state where incubation is no longer necessary.
Do courts give military decoration?
Would a person, who would know about the potential of homeopathic remedies and who does not use it in case of emergency, have to get into trouble with court?
I do not know if you have listened to the youtube links. Are these doctors, having clear experience with homeopathic treatment, all mad?
You do not know about the mechanisms behind homeopathic remedies, and nobody knows. However, this does not mean, that there is no mechanism.
We know about statistical issues of studies dealing with homeopathic remedies. There are a few studies that support homeopathic remedies. Most do not.
Wouldn’t it be an important job to try to find out, why it sometimes does not work?
Many studies are not significant at p?ß.ß5. However, they show some kind of trend at p≤ 0.1.
Maybe there was a wrong remedy used, maybe the patient was not in the right situation for the treatment, maybe the remedy was not prepared in the ideal way? For the patient it could be important, that he is ready to receive very light impulses – which means that the body must be awake and there should be no disturbing signals from coffee, tea, etc. The patient should also not be influenced by negative thoughts about homeopathic remedies, which could turn them into nocebos with no effect.
The doctor in one of the YouTube videos was talking about the extreme energetic and wake situation of bodies having had a heavy accident – and the openness and effectiveness of homeopathic signals in this situation.
I would like to inspire a medicine that takes the full spectrum of options – with the doctor being the decider based on his own experience.
And I would like to inspire a medicine that takes the full spectrum of options that are rational and supported by evidence.
“It is for turining around critical situations, for bringing back to life”.
Have I misunderstood this? Is it really saying that homeopathic treatment can bring the dead back to life? That is…er… a substantial claim…..
I refer to hospitals like these:
https://www.anthro-kliniken.de/deutschland.html
Look at this one:
https://www.filderklinik.de/
And at the doctors working there:
https://www.filderklinik.de/unsere-aerzte/
Some of them have their vita public, and you can see, that they learned and worked at very classic universities and hospitals.
they are not even primarily homeopathic but anthroposophic.
The matter is actually very simple. But the discussions with homeopathy supporters clearly show that they don’t (want to) understand the simple things. For example, the fact that water or sugar, which contains very little or no active ingredient, cannot be effective.
If you have a lot of cases where the homeopathic remedies did a good job – why should you believe in theories that are ideologically founded and not scientifically proven? The reasoning you support here, comes from a misleading theory that has its origin in the time homeopathic medicine was discovered. We still not know how it works. However, a lot of people have good experience with it and in Germany we have a general rule: “Wer heilt hat Recht.” Translated it means, that everybody who is successful with curing patients does a good job, and he is right doing it this way. There is no need to explain why the treatment was successful – the result is speaking for itself.
I tried to explain in a different talk a few years ago how I think that homeopathy works. But no matter if this is useful or not – not understanding the functional foundation does not mean that there is no function.
If I ever would need emergency medicine and my life could be saved if they give me a few globuli – I would like to take them for sure!
“If you have a lot of cases where the homeopathic remedies did a good job – why should you believe in theories that are ideologically founded and not scientifically proven?”
Because since ~150 years medicine has moved on from judging the effectiveness of interventions by experience; it has become [more] scientific; if you call this ‘ideology’ you are more stupid than I had expected.
This is the stupidest argument ever, which is repeatedly put forward by supporters of homeopathy.
https://www.spektrum.de/kolumne/wer-heilt-hat-nicht-zwingend-recht/1766359
@Holger
Well, there’s your problem: there is no evidence whatsoever that homeopaths have ever cured one patient.
Yes, of course lots of patients got better after receiving homeopathic treatment, but this does not justify the conclusion that homeopathy was the cure.
Lots of people who recovered from e.g. the flu have been drinking tea – but no-one in their right mind would claim that drinking tea is an effective flu remedy.
https://edzardernst.com/2023/05/homeopathy-is-an-illusory-concept-and-poses-a-danger-to-patients/
https://edzardernst.com/2019/04/who-cares-how-alternative-medicine-works-as-long-as-it-does/
https://edzardernst.com/2013/09/the-worst-platitude-of-them-all/
Well, there’s your problem: there is no evidence whatsoever that homeopaths have ever cured one patient.
I have the evidence based on personal experience. In some cases complete turnarounds where problems that lasted for years ended with a few globuli.
Sigh!
In 1799, George Washington was died from exsanguination. He was bled to death by his eager physicians who, like George himself, believed in their “experience” of bloodletting.
The most problematic, and sometimes dangerous, three words in healthcare are: “In my experience”
Bloodletting would still be a mainstay medical therapy if Holger’s experience-based approach to development had prevailed.
Holger will never learn. His pride (and income?) depend on not learning that ’experience’ will only deceive if you let it lead you. The reason modern medicine has developed beyond bloodletting, globuli and sulfur enemas is that science replaced experience based development.
@Holger
Thousands of years of medicine were based on personal experience. It turned out that this didn’t work, especially after we introduced the scientific method into medicine. Somehow, homeopaths failed to get the message.
Certainly. And the huge mistake that homeopaths make is to conclude based on just singular observations like this that ‘homeopathy works!’
A proper scientist would not make this mistake, and start asking all sorts of questions:
– Can we find similar cases where the same condition resolved after using homeopathy?
– How many cases of the same condition did not respond to homeopathy?
– What is the natural history of this condition, i.e. how often does it spontaneously resolve?
– Are there RCTs for treating this condition with homeopathy? What was their outcome?
– Is there a plausible, scientifically proven mechanism by why this homeopathic treatment appears to work?
And these are only the most important questions to ask.
Alternatively, you can also ask yourself the question what is more probable:
– That a condition resolved naturally (which happens all the time), and just coincided with the use of homeopathy, or
– That a substance which has no link whatsoever with the particular condition is first diluted until there is not a single molecule left, after which the resulting water is used to temporarily moisten sugar pellets, and that these sugar pellets without any active substance whatsoever then cause a very clear, strong effect, healing a patient, as if by magic. But only very occasionally and unpredictably, and never when under scientific scrutiny.
In other words: if you treat large enough numbers of sick people with homeopathy, there will always be some for which homeopathy appears to work wonders – but never more than once. All of which points towards the same answer: homeopathy does not work, and cannot work. Homeopaths are fooling their patients, but first and foremost they are fooling themselves.
Evidence based on personal experience is worthless and only good for the trash can.
Ah, yes, stating a false syllogism.
QUOTE
This is the diversion, and it is another application of the fallacy non causae ut causae.
‘State a False Syllogism’ is the twenty-fourth of Schopenhauer’s stratagems.[1]
— David Straker, “Changing Minds”
END OF QUOTE
1. The Art of Being Right by Arthur Schopenhauer
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
You wrote:
“How big is the success for a broken leg?
How big is the success for a cut hand?
How big is the success for a liver cancer?
How big is the success for a heart attack?
You can guess it at first glance: ZERO!”
Have I ever claimed that homeopathy could heal these cases?
I can tell you where homeopathy did a good job for me:
– healing of hemorrhoid in a final way after years of school medical tratment without success.
– fast and smooth healing of wounds with Arnica C1000
– reliable defense of coughs and sneezes if taken immediatelly after first signs (Aconitum C30)
– reliable treatment of tussive irritation using Hyoscyamus
– reliable calming down for deep and relaxing sleep after getting upset by talks with people etc: Coffea
These are examples where homeopathy serves me well in multiple cases. There are other cases where I had very good experience with homeopathy treatment – however, not enough cases to talk about it.
I never said that homeopathy could replace school medicine, and I never will. It could be an expanding of options and tools for treatment of several illnesses. And there are clear cases, where homeopathy maybe could support school medical treatment but will never haven an option to replace it.
I also see no reason why there should be any struggle between both schools – if the health of the sick person is the center of the doctors and the medical system.
Clinics that use homeopathic medicine or similar approaches are at least in Germany classic school of medicine based institutions that make use of the expanded range of options homeopathy offers to them. And this makes sense.
We may question Hahnemanns theories, and we even should do it. However, we should not throw away the positive experience a lot of people made with his approach. If the current theories are nonsense – go and search for better ones! If we understood the mechanism behind it, we should be able to optimize and power up the entire system.
Regarding the examples where homeopathy serves me well regularly, I would not even know better school medical approaches!
No, doofus, I did not write those things.
1. You bark at the wrong tree.
2. You are clueless about how homeopathy works.
3. Did you read the Organon IN ORIGINAL (in GERMAN!)? No? Then you are not qualified to debate homeopathy.
“1. You bark at the wrong tree.
2. You are clueless about how homeopathy works.
3. Did you read the Organon IN ORIGINAL (in GERMAN!)? No? Then you are not qualified to debate homeopathy.”
1. It’s a correct tree. You are arboreally mistaken.
2. All homeopaths are, and everyone else is, clueless about homeopathy works, by definition, since it doesn’t work better than placebo, and no-one knows exactly how placebo works.
3. So everyone in the world who practices homeopathy (including some medically qualified persons like Dr. David Reilly) but has not read the Organon (which edition, by the way?) in German, is unqualified to debate homeopathy? And, presumably, to practice it? Wow!
Insistence on the absolute authority of a prescientific text is one of the things that marks homeopathy as a pseudoscience.
Mojo wrote on Thursday 01 August 2024 at 12:42
[*QUOTE*]
———————————–
“Did you read the Organon IN ORIGINAL (in GERMAN!)? No? Then you are not qualified to debate homeopathy.”
Insistence on the absolute authority of a prescientific text is one of the things that marks homeopathy as a pseudoscience.
———————————–
[*/QUOTE*]
In this case you overlooked an important detail: homeopathy believers babble a lot about homeopathy, but except for some very rare cases no-one of them ever read the garbage by Hahnemann. Aribert Deckers already said it years ago: Already the contemporaries of Hahnemann for sure hated Hahnemann because of his unbearable boasting and babbling and his arrogance. It is a pain to read the mess.
One has to read that old crap in original TO SEE, with one’s own eyes, what a terrible stuff Hahnemann produced. And one has to read it to see, HOW Hahnemann tricked the people.
Translations are forging the original wording and all the other rhetoric warfare. And, this is essential, IT IS rhetoric warfare. That is the point.
“I can tell you where homeopathy did a good job for me”
And I can tell you that eating boiled daisies did a good job for me.
Doesn’t make it true. Doesn’t constitute scientific evidence either.
There is *nothing*scientific about homeopathy: it’s an ideology, not a school of medicine.
You haven’t even bothered to find out who Edzard is, nor his qualifications, nor his nationality
You really are exceptionally dense.
Not seen you round these parts in a long time Mr Teapot. All well with you and yours?
Do you know how much a homeopatic remedy contains?
If you believed in Hahnemanns thinking, you would say: Yes – nothing! And on this believe most of the critics against homeopathy is founded without even thinking twice.
My answer would be: I do not know how much a homeopathic remedy contains, as I do not believe that the process of making it is a series of solutions!
The first step will bring certain substances into solution.
During the further process, always the same layer inside the alcoholic solution is transferred into the next step. If we get a classic sedimentation profile in the liquid column, we would always transfer the same amount of substances from one step to the next. There would be no or almost no dilution process! And something else will happen: The substances will gather a thick water envelope around them due to activation caused by the shaking process.
Please keep in mind, that the process is done in alcoholic solution and not in pure alcohol and not in pure water!
Being a scientist, no one should follow the sayings of thousands, who just repeat what they have heart, but he should think about the process that are going on while preparing the remedies!
I do not say, that my theory is correct. However, I know for sure, that the simple repetion of Hahnemanns ideas and the critics that are founded on them, are scientifically not very well founded. They take a state of knowledge from hundreds of years ago and make not even a try to rethink it the critical way.
@Holger
Like all homeopaths, you are making stuff up on the spot as soon as your dumb quackery is exposed for what it is. Even though it is rather a waste of time, for I have much better things to do, it is mildly amusing to address the endless failings.
Do you have ANY idea how dumb this makes you look? So you are saying that patients are given ‘remedies’ without anyone actually knowing what’s in those ‘remedies’? For this reason alone, homeopaths should be absolutely forced to stop doing homeopathy, as their profound ignorance is implicitly endangering the life and health of patients. Also see below for an example.
What a dumb claim, especially from someone pretending to be knowledgeable about homeopathy. NO, this is NOT what happens. The solution is vigorously shaken, and this inevitably produces a fully homogenous distribution of water, alcohol and dissolved substance. Then, 1% of this resulting homogenous liquid is taken (using various methods), and diluted with 99% diluent, and then shaken vigorously again.
Here you can see an automatic machine for this dilution process in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAmGV5ZHOFA
And just for your convenience, here is what it does exactly:
1. The first dilution is placed in a small vial at the end of the shaker arm.
2. The arm shakes the vial a fixed number of times.
3. Then the vial is turned upside down, draining all its content except what is still adhering to the glass – this is assumed(!) to be 1% of the original volume. The water-shaking clown in the video also explains that in the manual process, they instead take one drop from the container with the solution, and put that into a new container with diluent.
4. Then the vial is topped up again with a squirt of diluent.
5. Go back to step 2 N times, with N = ‘potency’ along the C scale.
No layers or careful extraction occurs. Shake & dilute is all that is happening.
More dumb gibberish. Sedimentation occurs when a heavier-than-water insoluble fraction in a liquid has time to sink to the bottom. This does not happen here.
Amazing! So the homeopathic ‘remedy’ Arsenicum album in fact contains significant amounts of arsenic trioxide – de facto poisoning patients instead of healing them?
Good grief …
This may well be the most sensible thing you have said in this thread. No, your ‘theory’ most definitely is not correct, and neither is anything else you said. Please accept that homeopathy is indefensible; it is nothing but a long-outdated belief in magic.
Anyway, I have much better things to do with my time, so I’ll leave it at this.
Holger The Troll is wasting our time AGAIN, Richard.
See your reply on Thursday 21 December 2023 at 16:30
https://edzardernst.com/2023/12/no-one-should-ever-use-any-homeopathic-ophthalmic-products/#comment-149103
And on Friday 22 December 2023 at 15:09
https://edzardernst.com/2023/12/no-one-should-ever-use-any-homeopathic-ophthalmic-products/#comment-149118
hear, hear!
Edzard Ernst writes answer:
“In other words, moribund patients are often rushed to hospital where many of them die. They are not rushed to a homeopathic hospital!”
To analyze this we have to make some big decisions, just like Bob Ross, the painter, so often said.
First of all we have to make 2 sides:
a) the side of the patient
b) the side of the homeopathic clinic
This separation is essential. If the patient has a serious condition OR if it is a matter of surgery, etc., then already the patient is “pre-informed” that this is not so much a matter for homeopathy.
But there is more on the side of the patient. The patient is not alone. He is surrounded by people around him, like family, neighbours and friends. Then there is the field of paramedics, his general practitioner. AND THE CLINIC!
The people around the patient influence him.
The people in the medical field move the patient to a clinic. But which one?
AND THEN we have the counter-part: the clinic. Will the clinic accept him? And how will the clinic treat him?
Each of these areas, groups, active societies has its own mental world, its own ideology, and its own interests.
Interests? Yes! The clinic of course does have interests. What is the clinic made for? Is it a generous project, funded by donations, or is it a commercial organization, meant to make money?
We can assume the latter. So then there is one more area to look at: What if the patient gets near death? Of course it is no good to have a dying patient. The more the patient whines and makes suffering noises, the worse. The effect on other patients is no good. And it takes a lot of time and material to care for the patient.
In total: dying patients are bad for the atmosphere in the clinic, and they are bad for the image. So the clinic has a strong interest NOT to have dying patients in the house. So, if the clinic realizes things go downhill, the clinic will either reject such a patient or, if possible, try to “export” it to a hospice, and, snip, the patient is no longer on the death list of the clinic, problem solved.
Now, what about the side of the homeopathic healers? More or less they make a clear decision: Is this a case for homeopathy or not?
Things like accidents, tasks for survery, etc., I already mentioned. Homeopaths so very often mention this expressis verbis. They already themselves say this clearly. We have seen many statements of homeopaths on this topic.
So, where is the big trap? Edzard Ernst does not mention it here. The big trap is to look at the number of deaths!
The big trap is NOT that patients are treated with homeopathy and end their life in a homeopathic clinic, spoiling the success statistics. The big trap is that patients are fooled with such statistics, and that the homeopathic treatment ruins their chances of survival, or at least of getting well again. Homeopathic “treatment” is an act of destroying health, of destroying necessary time for useful treatments. THIS is the main damage done by homeopathy. Homeopathy is a parasite.
Parasites have several interests:
1. to make money
2. to cover up
3. to deny responsibility
4. to get rid of the damage, i.e. the damaged patients.
This makes homeopathic clinics completely different, compared with normal, scientific clinics.
The 4 points seems simple, and really ridiculous. But they are not. Look at
3. deny responsibility
Already Hahnemann did that! He piled up a large number of “contra” items, which, so he claimed, will spoil homeopathy.
From the very beginning homeopathy was and is a fraud. Hahnemann wrote:
“Das Organon der ächten Heilkunst”
https://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_org6.htm
[*QUOTE*]
———————————-
page 236
§260
Für chronisch Kranke ist daher die sorgfältige Aufsuchung solcher Hindernisse der Heilung um so nöthiger, da ihre Krankheit durch dergleichen Schädlichkeiten und andere krankhaft wirkende, oft unerkannte Fehler in der Lebensordnung gewöhnlich verschlimmert worden war (1).
—–
1) Kaffee, feiner chinesischer und anderer Kräuterthee; Biere mit arzneilichen, für den Zustand des Kranken unangemessenen Gewächssubstanzen angemacht, sogenannte feine, mit arzneilichen Gewürzen bereitete Liqueure, alle Arten Punsch, gewürzte Schokolade, Riechwasser und Parfümerieen mancher Art, stark duftende Blumen im Zimmer, aus Arzneien zusammengesetzte Zahnpulver und Zahnspiritus. Riechkißchen, hochgewürzte Speisen und Saucen, gewürztes Backwerk und Gefrornes mit arzneilichen Stoffen, z. B. Kaffee, Vanille u.s.w. bereitet, rohe, arzneiliche Kräuter auf Suppen, Gemüße von Kräutern, Wurzeln und Keim-Stengeln (wie Spargel mit langen, grünen Spitzen), Hopfenkeime und alle Vegetabilien, welche Arzneikraft besitzen, Selerie, Petersilie, Sauerampfer, Dragun, alle Zwiebel-Arten, u.s.w.; alter Käse und Thierspeisen, welche faulicht sind, (Fleisch und Fett von Schweinen, Enten und Gänsen, oder allzu junges Kalbfleisch und saure Speisen; Salate aller Art), welche arzneiliche Nebenwirkungen haben, sind eben so sehr von Kranken dieser Art zu entfernen als jedes Uebermaß, selbst das des Zuckers und Kochsalzes, so wie geistige, nicht mit viel Wasser verdünnte Getränke; Stubenhitze, schafwollene Haut-Bekleidung, sitzende Lebensart in eingesperrter Stuben-Luft, oder öftere, bloß negative Bewegung (durch Reiten, Fahren, Schaukeln), übermäßiges Kind-Säugen, langer Mittagsschlaf im Liegen (in Betten), Lesen in wagerechter Lage, Nachtleben, Unreinlichkeit, unnatürliche Wohllust, Entnervung durch Lesen schlüpfriger Schriften, Onanism oder, sei es aus Aberglauben, sei es um Kinder-Erzeugung in der Ehe zu verhüten, unvollkommner, oder ganz unterd-
page 237
rückter Beischlaf; Gegenstände des Zornes, des Grames, des Aergernisses, leidenschaftliches Spiel, übertriebene Anstrengung des Geistes und Körpers, vorzüglich gleich nach der Mahlzeit; sumpfige Wohngegend und dumpfige Zimmer; karges Darben’ u.s.w. Alle diese Dinge müssen möglichst vermieden oder entfernt werden, wenn die Heilung nicht gehindert oder gar unmöglich gemacht werden soll. Einige meiner Nachahmer scheinen durch Verbieten noch weit mehrer, ziemlich gleichgültiger Dinge die Diät des Kranken unnöthig zu erschweren, was nicht zu billigen ist.
———————————-
[*/QUOTE*]
Hard to read, even for Germans. Hahnemann’s followers use a more modern wording. They cover up by “softening” Hahnemann’s crap and his boasting and lying.
Here is a “modern” version:
https://www.homeopathyschool.com/the-school/editorial/the-organon/aphorism-251-260/
[*QUOTE*]
———————————-
§ 260 Fifth Edition
Hence the careful investigation into such obstacles to cure is so much the more necessary in the case of patients affected by chronic diseases, as their diseases are usually aggravated by such noxious influences and other disease-causing errors in the diet and regimen, which often pass unnoticed.1
1 Coffee; fine Chinese and other herb teas; beer prepared with medicinal vegetable substances unsuitable for the patient’s state; so-called fine liquors made with medicinal spices; all kinds of punch; spiced chocolate; odorous waters and perfumes of many kinds; strong-scented flowers in the apartment; tooth powders and essences and perfumed sachets compounded of drugs; highly spiced dishes and sauces; spiced cakes and ices; crude medicinal vegetables for soups; dishes of herbs, roots and stalks of plants possessing medicinal qualities; old cheese, and meats that are in a state of decomposition, or that passes medicinal properties (as the flesh and fat of pork, ducks and geese, or veal that is too young and sour viands), ought just as certainly to be kept from patients as they should avoid all excesses in food, and in the use of sugar and salt, as also spirituous drinks, heated rooms, woollen clothing next the skin, a sedentary life in close apartments, or the frequent indulgence in mere passive exercise (such as riding, driving or swinging), prolonged suckling, taking a long siesta in a recumbent posture in bed, sitting up long at night, uncleanliness, unnatural debauchery, enervation by reading obscene books, subjects of anger, grief or vexation, a passion for play, over-exertion of the mind or body, especially after meals, dwelling in marshy districts, damp rooms, penurious living, etc. All these things must be as far as possible avoided or removed, in order that the cure may not be obstructed or rendered impossible. Some of my disciples seem needlessly to increase the difficulties of the patient’s dietary by forbidding the use of many more, tolerably indifferent things, which is not to be commended.
———————————-
[*/QUOTE*]
Indian homeopaths mostly write in English, so we can read in English of today:
https://www.lifeforce.in/what-to-eat-avoid.aspx
What do we see? Answer: A LONG LIST OF FOUL EXCUSES.
All these foul excuses are to deny any responsibility for the homeopath, and homeopathy in general, for not delivering a help to the patient. Everything is a cover-up.
Now, when there is such a life-form, which from the beginning does nothing else but deny any responsibility, what will it do, when things go bad? Answer: It will do everything it can to avoid such a patient, either by already rejecting him, or by getting him out of the office as fast as possible, when things go bad.
Homeopathy is fraud. And we have to look at it “holistic”. Which means not only to look at the dead, but to look at EVERYTHING homeopaths do. And what do they do? Answer: THEY PARASITIZE! And, as parasites, they make money by “treatments” and “consultancy”, and then spill out the patient to keep the office clean.
Homeopathy is easy.
Homeopathy kills, but in more than one way.
Homeopathy is fraud. Homeopaths delude. To point at the (“low”) number of deaths is fraud. How can be handle is? Answer: by simple statistics!
As Edzard Ernst writes: things mus be comparable.
To compare the success rates one from the beginning must differentiate and look at each medical condition separately.
How big is the success for a broken leg?
How big is the success for a cut hand?
How big is the success for a liver cancer?
How big is the success for a heart attack?
You can guess it at first glance: ZERO!
How about the success for chronic diseases?
A chronic disease is a chronic disease because the patient is ill, it not killed immediately, but is able to withstand for a longer time. Scientific medicine can not heal. At best it can keep the situation somehow stable.
This situation is the best possible base for a fraud like homeopathy. Because the patient can not escape to scientific medicine (because scientific medicine can not heal him), and with mumbo-jumbo the homeopaths can rip off the patient over a long time. This, exactly this, is the reason why homeopaths so intensely claim that chronic diseases are THE FIELD for homeopathy.
Homeopath is easy, yes, it is. One only has to look at it “holistic”, from a bird’s view, to see what really happens. Separating all the diseases and looking at the success rates FOR EACH DISEASE we see that homeopathy is worthless shit.
We also see, why homeopaths are so interested in the placebo effect. Because the nearer to the placebo effect they go, especially in studies, the lesser the difference is FOR LARGE NUMBERS, and so the homeopaths make SMALL study sizes, where, just by random choice, the outcome goes up or down and can be manipulated with fraudulent statistics. AND THEN they prefer to publish success stories, and keep the negative results secret. They conceal the truth.
Homeopathy is fraud. And as such it hides its deaths. As I said: one has to look at the matter holistic. This means: Not only to look at those patients, who are exported of a homeopathic clinic in a coffin, but to look at who they accept to enter, and to look at how many patients ENTER a homeopathic clinic, and then go down the drain, still alive, but end up dead (because of the homeopathic fraud) at other places later.
Health insurance companies could do this statistics. They have the raw material. Why do they not get to work and do the calculations? Or,… did they already do this and keep the results secret? They won’t tell us. But we can guess…