Comments on: Brilliant Speech by Prince Charles: Future King shows the limitations of mechanistic and reductionist thinking.

By: Ruth

Ruth — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:53:42 +0000

2 Comments:

PaoloV, you are very rational indeed. Do you attend Church?

Prince Charles is an entertainer for which each Briton pays 75 pence per year (rest of the Monarch family is included with that bargain price). He should rather entertain and not disappoint, e.g., How the hell did he manage to settle with Camilla for so much money? This is taxpayer money….for entertainment.

Love to all,
Ruth

By: Dr. Kaplan

Dr. Kaplan — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:24:21 +0000

Veterinary homeopathic research:

(http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/research/veterinary_research.html)

Human homeopathic research:

(http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/).

By: Dr. Kaplan

Dr. Kaplan — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:19:15 +0000

Yes, I have a lot of respect for Prince Charles too. If we want to keep a monarchy we should be thankful for the work he is doing.

By: Dr. June Gillam

Dr. June Gillam — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:09:07 +0000

As a visitor to the UK this month, I was edified to watch Prince Charles’ speech and glad of his holistic approach to the many problems we face on the Earth. It was a shame to see not much coverage of his speech in the media and seemed quite disrespectful to me, as well as not helpful in building a more educated and motivated people. Where once I viewed Prince Charles as a sort of irrelevant actor on the world stage, now I see that he can be among the wise ones to lead us toward a new dawn of a better day along with leaders such as President Obama.

By: Dr. Kaplan

Dr. Kaplan — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:05:52 +0000

Thank you Rob Downing. I agree with what you say. The system is indeed geared up to the prescription of drugs and mechanistic thinking in general. You don’t get into medical school because you have A levels in subjects like philosophy, psychology, drama, poetry, literature etc. Rather maths, science, physics biology. My view is that you need both.

By: Dr. Kaplan

Dr. Kaplan — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:02:57 +0000

Zeno, I stand totally for using homeopathy alongside orthodox medicine. Syphilis, TB, meningitis, small pox and many other scourges of humanity can now be put to the sword with the appropriate use of mechanistic medicine as can subdural haematoma and many other conditions. However the majority of problems seen by GPs are not necessarily satisfactorily treated by a purely mechanistic approach. I have always asserted that the best people to choose between a mechanistic approach and an holistic one in any given person or situation is a medical doctor also trained in a form of whole person medicine such as homeopathy. I am a medical doctor who uses classical homeopathy as a tool within my practice and do not eschew the great advances of orthodox medicine.

By: Dr. Kaplan

Dr. Kaplan — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:57:10 +0000

PaoloV, I agree with much of what you say. However in relation to: “the efficacy does need to be shown using the same standards of evidence as you would expect for any other health intervention” The key expression here is ‘would expect’. The fact is that MOST of orthodox medicine does not have this standard of evidence behind it. Look at this pie chart (which I’ve written about extensively on this site) http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp This clearly shows that the ‘expected evidence’ for many ‘orthodox’ interventions including several multi-million pound ‘breakthroughs’ simply does not exist. Have a look at what evidence exists for psycho-analysis and analytic psychotherapy. The fact is that homeopathy has been singled out for vindictive attack simply because mechanistic, deterministic and reductionistic detractors cannot live with what they see as its ‘implausibility’

By: Robin

Robin — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:47:34 +0000

“Interestingly one of the most convincing studies of all in homeopathy is the veterinary double blind one where cows drinking from the trough with a homeopathic remedy in it got far less mastitis than those that drank from another trough.”

“Homeopathy DEFINITELY helps (We have studies to show this.)”

I’m sure you have a perfectly good reason for not providing a link to either of these studies you mention, which you now have the chance to rectify.

By: Rob Downing

Rob Downing — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:14:30 +0000

It is about time we realised this is a way foreward for the future, and stopped knocking Homeopathy….It does work… is very safe and COST effective, But this is why the DRUG companies do not like it….i also enjoy your web site.

By: Zeno

Zeno — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:29:22 +0000

Brian Kaplan said: “Homeopathic doctor [sic] do not eschew orthodox medicine…”

Some – including you – may not, but some homeopaths do:

“Germs do not cause disease.”

- Dana Ullman, a well-known homeopath (Source: https://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/media/in_the_news_view.jsp?id=394)

“First of all, we should understand that the Germ Theory, on which the basis of vaccination rests, is not fully a truth.”

C. J. Varghese, homeopath (Source: http://www.hpathy.com/health/varghese-vaccines2.asp)