On Mar 28, 3:00 pm, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 27, 8:07 pm, PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 27, 7:40 am, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 26, 8:56 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:
"JOHN" <j...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:paadnfqRs5LNUXfanZ2dnUVZ8tyqnZ2d@bt.com...
"Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13uj6upgiffp871@corp.supernews.com...
"JOHN" <j...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:6tudndNXZc9y43TanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
http://whale.to/w/orthodox_herbs.html
http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/herbal_anticancer_agents.htm
Allopathic waffle.
Herbs are allopathic medicine.
HERBS ARE HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE,
HERBS ARE CHINESE MEDICINE,
HERBS ARE EUROPEAN TRADITIONAL MEDICINE,
and... most shocking of all...
HERBS ARE ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE!!!
CitizenJimserac
Actually, it depends on how one uses a particular herb as to whether
it was used homeopathically or allopathically. The term "allopathic
medicine" was coined by homeopathy's founder, Samuel Hahnemann. His
system of therapy was based on "like treats like," which explains why
homeopathy uses only small amounts of an active agent. By contrast,
allopaths use a system of treatment whose premise is "opposite treats
opposite." When an herb is used to *counter* a symptom (like taking
Willow Bark instead of aspirin to dull a headache, or taking garlic to
treat a cold), that is an allopathic use of the herb. There is
nothing wrong with either method when using substances that are
natural to the human body. The problem with modern medicine is the
use of UN-natural substances that not only cause dangerous side
effects but cannot actually treat, cure, or heal anything.
Thanks, interesting points. I question if there
is nothing wrong with either method and you
will find an excellent critique of the fundamental
philosophy of allopathic medicine in James Tyler
Kent M.D.'s "Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy"
(easily found in google book search, copyright expired,
available for free download).
Citizen Jimserac
It may be that Hahnemann believed the allopathic use of herbs was
inherently inferior to a homeopathic approach using the same herbs.
I'm not sure about that. It's interesting that despite the word
"allopath" being created by him, the definition we use today has
drifted to the point that we use it only as a reference to
reductionism, which is an incorrect usage. His term was meant to
describe a simple differentiation based on the principle of homeopathy
as a way to invoke the body's natural defenses in the presence of a
minute challenge, as opposed to the principle of "allopathy" as a way
to combat (or compensate for) something gone wrong. Neither has
anything to do with holism vs. reductionism. Ironically, vaccine is
based on EXACTLY the same principle as homeopathy, although our
resident drug apologists (and others) will frantically deny it,
whereas I don't believe at all in the safety or effectiveness of
vaccine. This illustrates why it doesn't matter what something is
*called* but rather what something DOES, and WHY. In my opinion, we
may *think* we are using an herb allopathically and not
homeopathically, when in reality we are doing BOTH at the same time.
The key is whether or not those substances are natural to the human
body, properly prepared, and beneficially metabolized.
Sorry I ran on. Thanks for the reference to Kent's material, I'll
check it out.
