Allopathy (Modern medicine) should be replaced by Homoeopathy
- "...an estimated 164 million people—more than half of the total US population—receive unneeded medical treatment over the course of a decade."
- "Allopathy is the leading cause of death, 783,936 1 every year in the USA alone."
- "New England Journal of Medicine study, an alarming one in four patients suffered observable side effects from the more than 3.34 billion prescription drugs filled in 2002."
Walter Last has a very interesting question-
ARE MOST DISEASES CAUSED BY THE MEDICAL SYSTEM?
He says- "The total number of iatrogenic deaths in the USA for 2001 is estimated to be 783,936. These were due to fatal drug reactions, medical error and unnecessary medical and surgical procedures. With this, the medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. In comparison the 2001 heart disease death rate was 699,697 and the annual cancer death rate 553,251 (1).
-"Children who received broad-spectrum antibiotics were about 9 times more likely to suffer from asthma. A recent research paper confirmed dysbiosis as a main cause of asthma"
A newly published book "Modern Medicine is Killing You: Start Your Healthcare Revolution Now!" by Niraj Nijhawan, Kristyn Kalnes (Illustrator), may prove me unfortunately I still don't have the book.
there are a lot of examples when the drugs are banned but till then it harms up to thousands people
On the other hand homoeopathy is safer then allopathy even in case of prolonged treatment.
1- The homoeopathic medicines are tested on healthy human beings (no animal testing).
2- Homoeopathy has a definite law of nature, while allopathy don't have any fixed law.
3- On the rise of a disease allopathy need research than new medicines for newly arrived/evolved micro-organism. Homoeopathy is in always ready position.
4- Each of the modern medicine have side effects, so many times some dangerous side effects reveals after a prolonged exposure of drug, till then the drug is consumed by millions of people.
As such, his burden of proof is to show that modern medicine is irrevocably flawed and/or dangerous. Giving plenty of examples of where side-effects have been unexpected, or people have died of illnesses brought on by medical treatment, does not match this burden. It merely shows that we need to extremely careful about which medicines we allow to be used in hospitals.
My burden of proof, in addition to disproving any argument that my opponent provides in relation to the above, is to show that at best, homeopathy should be used in addition to modern medicine. As seen in my previous debate, I believe that when used exclusively, homeopathy is dangerous and life-threatening - but when used to complement modern medicine, it can be extremely useful, providing a level of pastoral care and placebo all too often not found in modern medicine. The main reason that I argued it should be banned was because often people take the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment in isolation to the effectiveness of modern medicine, and stop using the modern medicine - this is when danger creeps in. So long as we can all make the distinction and use them in tandem, there is no problem.
I shall briefly deal with the four points that my opponent raised in favour of exclusive homeopathy, in the order he presented them:
1- Modern medicine is also tested on healthy human beings, and animal testing is (thank God) being reduced significantly, hopefully soon to the point of not being used at all.
2- Modern medicine does have a "definite law of nature": what can be proven to work in curing disease/treating illness and injury/etc., should be used in treatment.
3- An excellent reason to use homeopathy to complement modern medicine. If there are specific moments - which are few and very far between, if indeed they exist at all - that modern medicine somehow "can't catch up", that would be the time to use homeopathy as a stopgap until modern medicine can be used once again.
4- Homeopathy also often has the side-effect of simply not working.
I await my opponent's response.
J_a_y forfeited this round.
For reasons why I believe homeopathy to be dangerous when used on its own, to the exclusion of modern medicine, feel free to read my previous debate on homeopathy: http://www.debate.org..., which also had this principle as a key issue.
Of course you are the choice as my opponent because of that debate but my thought is older.
I know the burden of proof of dangerous of modern medicine is mine and that I've done in my previous post, very interestingly you says "...does not match this burden." Without any reason or logic, just because you think, they don't match!
My opponent suggesting to the people "we need to extremely careful about which medicines we allow to be used in hospitals." The simplest conclusion of this suggestion is- Everyone should have to go for a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery along with Bachelor of pharmacy, before going to be a patient.
My opponent is just arguing with me rattle-headed he nothing knows about homoeopathy he wrote "homoeopathy is dangerous and life threatening" but again he don't have any proof or even a firm logic. He is presenting his thoughts and only thoughts.
Here is once more his imagination "...pastoral care and placebo all too often not found in modern medicine" there is no proof or any logic in support of his orgument.
My opponent want to say that (without any logic or proof) the danger of homoeopathy is only one - it doesn't work. While I'm presenting the lethal hazards of modern medicine with logics and proof, than why it should be replaced with homoeopathy which is safer?
Let's see the points upon which Logician stressing -
1 - He is thanking God for reducing animal testing it's OK But now scientist and drug companies are making us guinea pig for that we must pray 'Oh God please save us'. because now we are at more risk.
2- Then why they are so reluctant to homoeopathy?
3- Whole writing including this point shows that the Logician is a clod of homoeopathy.
In 1918 Spanish Flu the sucess rate of homoeopathy is 98%.
"Dean W. A. Pearson of Philadelphia collected 26,795 cases of influenza treated by homeopathic physicians with a mortality of 1.05%, while the average old school mortality is 30%." (http://www.nesh.com...)
24,000 cases of flu treated allopathically had a mortality rate of 28.2%
26,000 cases of flu treated homeopathically had a mortality rate of 1.05%.
The condition is still unchanged and will remains same, because the virus evolution is faster and unknown direction till the scientist discover a new drug for newly evolve virus a lot of people died.
the chase and run will never be stopped while homoeopathy has the treatment always ready.
4- I've been presented a lot of examples the Modern Medicine is dangerous/fatal each medicine has it's own definite side-effects while homoeopathy doesn't have any side-effect. In Logician's word - Homeopathy also often has the side-effect of simply not working.
My friend how will you justify the above example?
Remember one thing if The Newton wasn't born that doesn't mean the apple will not fall on the earth.
The reason that I didn't go into much depth in my previous round was that I presumed it obvious that the burden as presented (and accepted by my opponent) didn't match with the arguments that he provided.
Apparently, that clarity was not there - so allow me to make it clearer. My opponent is proposing the outright abolition of modern medicine as a method of treatment. Not merely that we should reduce its use, or take homeopathy seriously, but actually abolish any method apart from homeopathy.
Providing lots of scare stories about modern medicine does not match this burden, for the simple reason that it is equally possible to provide lots of scare stories about homeopathy - people who put their trust in homeopathic treatment, and for whom it didn't work. Take this example, which I quoted in my "ban homeopathy" debate:
"a woman had relied on homeopathy during a trip to Togo in West Africa, which resulted in a serious bout of malaria. This meant she had to endure two months of intensive care for multiple organ system failure. In this case, the placebo effect offered no protection. That's the harm." http://www.1023.org.uk...
In other words, my opponent has provided instances of modern medicine having bad side-effects, but I have provided instances of homeopathy doing the same. Playing "example tennis" (e.g. talking about homeopathy during the Spanish flu as if one examples proves a rule) does not constitute proof for this very reason.
Furthermore, my opponent took the position that even if homeopathy didn't work, that somehow makes it better than modern medicine. Notice that even my opponent's criticism focuses on how modern medicine has bad side-effects - in other words, the treatment works, but has unfortunate (and occasionally unpredictable) extra effects that downplay the effectiveness of the treatment. Nonetheless, the treatment works on a more rigorous scale - which is more than can be said for homeopathy.
Notice further that, despite making a grandiose claim in the first round that homeopathic treatment has a "definite law of nature", he did not bother to elaborate further on this assertion in his final round.
=== Defence of my previous arguments ===
It is a shame that, rather than use logic and reasoning, my opponent instead resorts to calling me a clod and "rattle-headed". I presumed that, given that he's clearly read my previous round on banning homeopathy, he would know precisely why I believe homeopathy to be dangerous. I did not elaborate further precisely because it was a throw-away comment not directly related to this debate. Rather than waste space on points not directly relevant to this debate, I will instead point readers to my previous debate here: http://www.debate.org....
But remember: showing homeopathy to be dangerous is not my burden here; it is merely to show that modern medicine need not be abolished, which I have already done. As I said in the previous round, the downsides of modern medicine means only that "we need to extremely careful about which medicines we allow to be used in hospitals." My opponent's suggestion that this entails that everyone should become a heavily-trained physician is facetious, and unnecessarily so. It only requires that medical licensing bodies take extreme care as to which medicines are allowed at hospital, not that every individual take such extreme caution.
My opponent's claims regarding the effectiveness of homeopathy, from his quoting of the Spanish flu and use of the Times of India article, show that homeopathy needs to be taken seriously. Congratulations to him on that. But in this debate, such sources are worthless - he argued that modern medicine should be replaced by homeopathy, which requires sufficient attack on the fundamentals of modern medicine, rather than simply quoting specific cases where it has failed.
For these reasons, he has not matched his burden, whereas I have done. Vote CON.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|