Bring4th

Full Version: Nobel prize winner takes homeopathy seriously
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

Meerie

Here is a link to the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/luc-montagnier-homeopathy-taken-seriously_b_814619.html

Let us hope it helps homeopathy gain acceptance in main stream media. I remember reading an article in a German magazine last year, about alternative ways of healing and the journalist limited himself to saying that there was no scientific proof that homeopathy had any effect at all.
Interesting also in the above linked article, Montagnier mentions the ability of water to carry information. I am sure many of you are also familiar with Masaru Emoto's work, who came to the same conclusion. His pictures of water crystals are truly beautiful.
Thanks for sharing, Meerie! This is great news!

There are mountains of clinical evidence in support of homeopathy. However, whenever they try to 'prove' it works, the results have been conflicting or inconclusive. This is because they've been applying the methods used for allopathic drugs to homeopathy, and that doesn't work, because the principles are different.

For example, when testing a pharmaceutical drug, the researchers administer the drug to x number of subjects, and if x% of subjects get results, they deem the drug effective.

When they apply the same formula to homeopathy, it doesn't work. Why? Because, if, say, 20 people have the flu, they might need 20 different homeopathic remedies, because of their different constitutions. So administering the same remedy to 20 people won't yield results; only a couple of them will likely match the constitution of that particular remedy.

The only way science will ever prove homeopathy, is to test it according to its own principles; ie. give the remedy that matches that particular individual.

This can't be done in a double-blind study with the current paradigm.

It doesn't mean homeopathy can't be proven. It just means they are going to have come up with a more creative way of proving it.

Which ain't gonna happen, since they make a lot more $$ from drugs than from homeopathic remedies (which are dirt cheap). It's in the best interest of the medical industry to keep saying there is no evidence for homeopathy, and keep ignoring the mountains of clinical evidence.

Anyone who's ever experienced homeopathy knows it works. We don't need double-blind studies to prove what we already know. (Just like the parents of children who became autistic after being vaccinated don't need the 'experts' to tell them there was or was not a connection.)

Meerie

Monica I agree 100%! you obviously know what you are talking about Smile
we have a saying in German: "wer heilt hat recht". Roughly translated
"the healer is right". no need to prove anything if it helps.
The thing about homeopathy is that it can work in a nanosecond if you pick the right remedy. I remember I took Antimonium crudum to combat my grumpiness once, haha, and in the blink of an eye I experience such a flash of energy it was incredible.... it was as if the grey clouds were blown away and the sun came out.
Yes, I have experienced that too! When given the right constitutional remedy, it was as though the clouds were wiped from my eyes and I saw the world differently. It happened within seconds of taking the remedy. It was uncanny and nothing anyone could say could ever take that experience away from me. It worked. I know it worked. There is no doubt. It wasn't a placebo because I had no idea what would happen...no expectations. It was a total surprise.

I've seen fevers lifted in a few seconds with Belladonna...infections in cats start draining after giving 'drawing' remedies...grouchiness softened immediately with Chamomilla...and so many other unmistakable experiences with homeopathy.

Meerie

Yeah, right! Actually that counters the placebo-argument, that so many like to use in order to discount homeopathy... because it works so well and as you said, fast also, with animals and little children.
Did you experiment with higher potencies as well?
I have never gone farther than D 30 (or C30) - your names in the US are probably different. My teacher said that really high potencies can be dangerous since they can even interfere with karma? I think he meant that these potencies like C1000 or so will effect changes in the mental bodies (the higher the potency, the less it effects the material body and more the spiritual).
It sounds paradox but the more diluted, the stronger the effects can become obviously.