Hahnemannian444

Atinymonkey, Hippocrates did not invent the Law of Similars, nor did he apply it.

You have to be precise if you are going to make remarks about homeopathy.

All Hippocrates said was that some cures arise due to like cures like, but he did not apply it therapeutically because to have done so would have required he do homeotherapeutics.

In fact, the great demigod of allopathic medicine was a total bozo, so it's ridiculous to say he did anything systematically.

Moreover, the HIPPOCRATIC CORPUS makes clear that several people were the authors of it, for they are constantly contradicting each other from both the Rationalist and Empiricist traditions of allopathy.

As to my remarks about your logic, I was not applying any general principles in my analysis, but I did notice erroneous assumptions underlying your views.

That was deductive logic, but your assumptions were still wrong.

Those postings cover page one, and all I can manage at the moment.

Seems I should have been paying attention to this site too.

Sayonora says:

Water is generally only replaced if the patient is tended to by another or is not so sick that they are incapable of assuring themselves basic necessities - if you are going to assume the patient has access to as much water as they need, you are not considering the fever per se, you are considering an integrated recovery process with external interference.

This is true.

It's not so much the water but the electrolytes lots in dehydration through continued high fever that are dangerous if not replaced by saline drip.

Since Tim mentioned Shui Yin Lo's papers, I want to point out that there is also a book: http://www.minimum.com/p7/engine/book.asp?n=2671#

More importantly, the nanometer-sized electron-micrographs he captured of ice at room temperature resulting from succussed serial dilutions may be confirmations of three previous speculations and hypotheses.

I name them.

About 100 years ago, a homeopath who was more famous as a homeopathic pharmacist speculated brilliantly on the mechanism of our potentization process.

That was the famous Bernard Fincke, M.D..

In the 1950s and '60s, another homeopath by the name of James H. Stephenson, M.D., hypothesized that "hydro-alcohol" solvent molecules in our potencies formed into "polymeric matrices" or polymers, the implication being that they were somehow unique for each drug even though that bewilders me how so.

If I remember correctly, for I have not looked at those papers for a couple of years, he seems to have suggest that some force intrinsic of the original substance was responsible for it.

I will not voice further about this till I re-read them again.

Then, in the 1970s and '80s, Wm. A. Tiller, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus in the Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University, wrote many papers on homeopathy and homeopathic pharmacology, one of the most important notions he put forward being that the substances also existed at the Etheric level as "deltrons."

That meshes perfectly with what arcane literature says about the nature of the universe, literature that is, incidentally, constantly being confirmed.

For example, such arcane authors told us in the 1970s at the commensement of the Big Bang Theory that "photons lose eneregy in traveling the vast intergalactic distances" and thus spread in wavelength, the core erroneous assumption of that ridiculous theory and its ancillary notion of an inflationarily expanding universe.

Then see this mechanism inadvertendly confirmed on p. 32 of the Jan. 1999 issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, where it said that cosmic rays "lose energy" to the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Same mechanism would be involved there, folks.

Hence, no Big Bang or a universe that's inflationarily expanding and 15 billion years old; rather, we live in a steady-state universe about 7½ billion years old.

Anyway, those four sources are my contribution to this search by Tim and I.

Somebody is going to know something that's the missing piece(s) to this puzzle, for a mechanism has to be available to explain Lo's discovery of room-temperature ice, which may very well be Stephenson's hydroalcohol polymers.

That's the gist of it.

We're looking to fill in holes and give congruity to mere logical notions.

Tim said this about a remark by Sayonora:

Water is replaced. Proteins being denatured is nonsense.

Thank you, Tim.

I wondered who had ever seen a fever of 160 degrees F.

Originally posted by timokay

Kettle,

 

"Does that include AIDS - that isn't a "surgical case"? If there is a cure for this as you suggest then maybe Albert should let all of the millions of people afflicted with this terminal and incredibly unpleasant disease know. "

 

Hahnemann could cure AIDS, if he were around today. The question is, are other Homeopaths as good as Hahnemann?

I hope Homeopath Albert may be able to comment on this.

 

Hahnemann was able to manipulate disease management...he could firstly, IDENTIFY the disease or kind of diesease to disease management, and then SET THE PRIORITY of the disease, so that the body would heal itself. Instinctual memory does not know AIDS...that is the only reason it can be fatal. Just TELL disease management about it, and it can easily overcome it....ALL disease.

Tim has a very unique approach to explaining homeopathy.

I've never read anything like it, and I don't especially approve since the speculative nature of it ignores how we have logically and empirically tested Hahnemann's explanations for nearly 200 years.

However, Hahnemann's explanations were not oriented toward a mechanism like electromagnetism, so I let it slide given that Tim's explanation may well be pivotal to either confirming hypotheses about homeopathic pharmacological potentization I favor or might provide a new slant.

I'm standing beside him because we have long needed a champion in chemistry to look into this issue.

I will repeat that we have not yet found any diseases incurable.

That does not, however, mean that we do not find incurable patients with these diseases.

What we mostly find is that whenever somebody gets entangled with allopathic medicine, they might as well prepare to die within 10 years because it does not cure and does speed people to their graves.

This is important about AIDS because it seems to be an iatrogenic disease.

BTW, how many people are aware of the fact that it was first identified in 1954?

Dr. Robert Wilner, author of THE DEADLY DECEPTION, seems to have been the discoverer of this.

The First Edition of the MERCK MANUAL (1954) lists four primary causes of AIDS: 1) starvation and malnutrition, 2) recreational drugs, 3) radiation, and 4) chemotherapy.

Bet that puts a big ole dent in the assinine claim of the pharmaceutical people who want to sell the world on an AIDS vaccine and retire to the Moon.

Sayanora, you then said:

If so I suggest reminding them that it is the investigative approach that is considered to be scientific (or unscientific if applicable), not the subject matter.

True, but there are two very distinct levels of invoking the word scientific.

One applies to scientific method, which can be and often is flawed from the get go by erroneous assumptions, and one applies to pure sciences underlain by natural laws.

The pure sciences are just chemistry, physics and homeopathy, mathematics if one wants to accept that the mathematical absolutes fulfill the criteria of 1) natural laws as being 2) absolutely verifiable and 3) provide a reasonably and relatively precise degree of predictability to the phenomena being observed, dealt with and precipitated.

Hahnemann homeopathy exceeds the wildest expectations of what a medical system can do, but it is so foreign to the basic assumptions of the natural sciences that we are often thrust outside of it and discarded.

Big mistake, for we have found the means of disintegrating unnecessary human and animal suffering by a few simple little truths of existence!

Sayanora, you said:

...rather than firing off statements of 'fact' that are only backed up by references to the work of someone whose methods and findings science has largely ignored.

I couldn't have said that better myself, and I just referred to Hahnemann as a forgotten genius.

The question we have asked for 213 years is, why?

Sayonora then immediately says:

The general idea is that if a theory can't stand under the weight of evidence, it's probably not worth clinging to.

Okay, then let's quote Max Planck:

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised [sic] with the ideas from the beginning. (Max Planck, 1858-1947, SCIENTIFIC AUTOBIOGRAPHY, 1949)

And if you want to get really big time, Nicola Tesla will pull down your false assumptions as the Father of Alternating Current and thus the 20th Century and a man adherent to AEther Theory who was constantly demonstrating practical evidence as a forgotten genius like Hahnemann.

Sayonora said:

There's a big difference between refusing to consider new and potentially valid information, and disregarding that which does not fit in with the observable evidence.

That's not an accurate way of saying it.

You mean, disregarding that which does not yet fit into the existing paradigm or that which exists outside of the existing basic assumptions.

The problem you people in and supportive of allopathy have is that all of your basic assumptions are wrong, which of course is why you have no cures, so you really have no leg to stand on with such a statement.

That's not the case with homeopathy, though, for our system is stable and cumulative as well as based upon the 10 Laws of Medicine that makes homeopathy the actual Science of Medicine.

So you need to back off from such authoritarian statements or I will cut you in half.

Originally posted by Kettle

 

Does that include AIDS - that isn't a "surgical case"? If there is a cure for this as you suggest then maybe Albert should let all of the millions of people afflicted with this terminal and incredibly unpleasant disease know.

I haven't yet seen any AIDS cases and do not look forward to when I do, for they are all allopathically disordered, incurable cases, and I've seen plenty enough of those already since that's all allopathic medicine does to people.

I am not at all impressed with the allopathic pronouncements on AIDS and am wholly unconvinced that HIV has anything whatsoever to do with it, and for a number of reasons.

Those people in homeopathy who have seen AIDS cases confirm this view, but we see precious few papers on it because allopathic medicine has a near-total monopoly on them just as it does on most cases.

I would post here the best pages I've seen on it if there is an interest, for I have been meaning to type them up for sharing anyway.

Tim, then you said:

Obviously a person without any degrees shooting his schoolboy mouth off. A very silly person - this is my last word to you.

Wow!

I am totally shocked!

Hilarious too, for I have not yet seen you lose your cool.

These people haven't yet seen me lose it, but I don't much care when that happens.

Why, however, you said this to Sayonora I do not understand, for that has not been my take on his/her remarks.

Tim said to Sayonora:

Sayonara,

 

"It's a nice concept but unfortunately it's bollocks."

 

You feel the need to be antagonistic.

 

I didn't see it that way.

That is an allopathic view of things.

It's kind of innately antagonistic since the allopathic system is 100% oriented toward antagonism of diseases as the very name allopathy means as coined by Hahnemann, but it is understandable given that the natural sciences created modern Rationalist allopathy according to their understandings of things from an EXTREMELY patriarchal attitude and Apollonian worldview.

Glad it wasn't me this time, though, who felt that way.

Makes me feel better, Tim.

Originally posted by timokay

Skye,

 

"I haven't read a lot on homeopathy . . . . When people talk about Homeopathy, they often refer to the Para number of the Organon.

Don't call 'em that, call them Articles.

Originally posted by Sayonara³

Homeostasis involves the correct regulation of glucose, water, heat and oxygen throughout the body - nothing more. Of course it is possible to mitigate the symptoms of disease by meddling with homeostasis, but there is no way to launch some kind of "homeostatic response" at the cause.

 

That's not exactly accurate.

You need to preface that remark with, "According to our present knowledge,..." for you're faced with the fact that nearly every chapter of GYTTON'S PHYSIOLOGY admits to less than 10% knowledge of human physiology.

And your apparent but understandable fixation on causes of diseases, since it is an allopathic mania, is made all the more difficult when one realizes that the entire history of allopathic medicine and the ancillary sciences shows that every time a cause has been determined, it later turned out to be an effect.

Even pathogens require a host cell or organism that makes its seemingly primafacia place as a causative disease agent merely secondary.

This issue of what orders homeostasis -- which you of course hold is mediated by cellular-level processes per the famous reductionism and pathophysiological model of the natural sciences and allopathy -- and what causes diseases quickly complicates in magnitudes when one realizes that physicists have inadvertently confirmed the existence of the AEther or AEtheric Plane of existence.

This has gotten railings against it every time I've pointed this out, but I find it clearly indicated due to understanding what's meant by the etheric pattern, higher octaves of atomic nutational motion as the meaning of higher planes, and the vortex nature of matter and energy from subatomic and quantum particles being "torroidal eddies in the fabric of space analogous to smoke rings."

This becomes pivotally important when one realizes that homeopathic medicines are unavoidably etheric medicines by virtue of them being subAvogadrean, ultramolecular drugs.

When correctly chosen, they thereby apparently set back in order a disordered or no-longer-integral etheric pattern that's generically called the vital force.

It is the only explanation I have found comfortable over 25 years.

As for the issue of cause and effect, please go read the First Lecture in Kent's LECTURES ON HOMEOPATHIC PHILOSOPHY (http://homeoint.org/books3/kentlect/lect01.htm).

Nice discussion here too.

I'm most impressed with the several sites Tim and I are engaged in, but it is a bit daunting to keep up with all of them.

Originally posted by atinymonkey

Or to put it another way, if you are always tired, drink coffee. You don’t treat the reason for the tiredness, just combat the effect. Obviously that affects nothing on the molecular level, but in essence all of us use homeopathic methods for treating health problems. We don’t go for a cat scan if we have a headache, some herbal tea and a soak in a bath is more effective.

 

Homeopathic methods take that principle to the extreme. That's where is starts conflicting with logical approaches to medicine. You wouldn’t believe that soaking in a bath would cure a brain tumour that’s causing a headache, it’s just naïve.

That's not true.

The logic you refer to is deductive logic based upon erroneous assumptions as the general principles, which of course is why their resultant conclusions as particular facts are always wrong.

Legitimate homeopathy engages in inductive logic based upon accurate general principles known as the 10 Laws of Medicine.

So that remark is wrong.

Originally posted by Sayonara³

The homeopathic model is apparently directed to addressing the symptoms of disease, and not the cause.

 

While this means that Dr Hahnemann no more cured anyone than I could with a stick of ginseng and my enthusiasm, it surely also means the homeopathic model does not need to explain any of the workings of either medicine or the immune system?

 

I think Dr Hahnemann's invstigative approach may have had some accidental merit, but it was most likely masked by his "if I punch you in the face, you'll forget about your bladder problems" approach.

You're not going to like this answer, but the cause of the disease is irrelevant to curative therapeutics because pathology and therapeutics have nothing to do with each other.

I recently posted on this at length at http://www.sciforums.com, so I copy that here:

MRC Hans—

Everything you say here is wrong, and they all stem from the five basic assumptions of medicine that allopathy has totally wrong and is part of why they cannot cure:

Now, to find out if some treatment does that, we seem to need to test it. This test seems to be the same no matter if the treatment is homeopatic, snake oil, or a product of the modern medical industry:

 

1) Find patients with the disease in question.

2) Apply treatment.

3) Find out if the patients got better. [/ QUOTE]

 

There is, indeed, only one test of curative therapeutic effects, but you obviously don't yet know it and instead invoke the allopathic model despite the fact that it's pointless/useless, ridiculous, ignorant and based upon some of the erroneous assumptions that surrounds and pervades allopathic medicine.

 

That test is against the Law of Similars in provings (prufung = "test or trial").

 

Your test doesn't accomplish anything but feed the evil allopathic death machine with fuel in the form of an endless accumulation of information they don’t know what to do with, so why do it in that way and feed that monster of unnecessary suffering and death?

 

The five basic assumptions of medicine are about health, disease, therapeutics, the nature of existence and the nature of the universe.

 

You've adopted/accepted an allopathic model, based on errors in those five basic subjects of medicine, that doesn't work and yet you want to sustain it.

 

Would you care to explain that?

 

Assuming you posted because you want to know where you are wrong in order to be able to defend your views, I cannot tell your views of health, the nature of existence or the nature of the universe from what you said, but your views of disease and therapeutics makes them all allopathic, and those are somewhat easy to explain.

 

To refer to “the disease” means that you believe diseases can be named such that it has something to do with therapeutics, but that is wrong.

 

It's a common mistake too, for most people are allopathically conditioned to such constructs, which is readily apparent in their terminology and reactions to words (hence, word-association tests) because those constructs cannot be defended either logically or experientially and that leaves them having been adopted only via brainwashing, conditioning, indoctrination or by what is also called “education,” because they all refer to accepting information from external sources by certain similar techniques of thought manipulation rather than one arriving at conclusions based upon sound assumptions tested both logically and experientially.

 

Specifically, diseases as diagnostic categories do not actually exist in the world, for they are a statistical abstraction based solely upon the symptoms that large numbers of people have in common, called the common symptoms, but all actual patients also have the all-important uncommon symptoms that solely lead to an unambiguous remedy diagnosis or prescription.

 

Hence, nobody has ONLY those common symptoms, so those disease-diagnostic categories do, indeed, have nothing to do anything that actually exists.

 

Allopaths cannot determine a remedy diagnosis (“to thoroughly know” something) because they don’t understand the nature of therapeutics since they are, in turn, stuck on the notion of mechanisms of diseases and drugs at the level of cellular biology, which erroneous assumptions exist because Rationalist allopathy developed out of and relies upon the natural sciences that indicate reductionism and mechanism are basic features of causes and effects.

 

These things are true as regards pathology, but they do not have anything to do with therapeutics, for another set of natural laws governs that as the four Laws of Therapeutics with the Law of Similars in the center.

 

It is incredible to us how scientists en masse can ignore these other natural laws when it is supposed to be what they're searching for intrinsic of being scientists.

 

Again, this notion of causes and effects in the mechanism of cells presupposes that causes of disease have something to do with therapeutics, but nobody can tell you why that's so, and they forget that causes are irrelevant once diseases make themselves manifest as system-wide disorders even if they appear to be local, for such local disorders cannot arise unless there is a system-wide breakdown in homeostasis that allows for ever-lowering homeostasis until death finally supervenes.

 

Stipulated, causes of diseases are relevant unless they take the position of sustaining causes, in which case their removal doesn't mitigate other than irritant causes at that stage.

 

A simple example is bunions and calouses from poorly fitting or structured shoes and/or jobs that keep one on their feet all day long.

 

Removal of a proximate cause can prevent diseases, and removal of a sustaining cause can allow a homeopathic prescription -- i.e., a medicine homeopathic to the case, in this usage not referring to homeopathic medicines in the generic sense, which of course can be used in an allopathic way according to mere disease names – to act properly since sustaining causes of disease are also disease agents and influences, just as are also proximate causes of diseases.

 

In the simple case of poorly fitting shoes or being on one’s feet all day long, these things can eventuate into disease states affecting one generally as well as locally/particularly, for they can be debilitating to the point of making walking tiresome to the person, not just painful to their feet.

 

Other examples easily exist to demonstrate that the allopathic mania about causes are fruitless and always will be pointless searches since the attributed causes of diseases discovered by allopaths down through history have always later on ended up being mere effects.

 

Moreover, given a proper understanding of the nature of existence and the nature of the universe, any cause of disease in the physical world, unless it be a pathogen (ignoring immune-system immaturity, dysfunction and full compromise) or something that’s avoidable (like well-fitting shoes and work not requiring one to be on their feet all day long), will always be an effect of cause at the Ætheric level of existence.

 

In short, causes of diseases can precipitate from either direction.

 

This is where allopathic Minds dissociate, for the mere mention of the Ether for some reason gets your back hairs up, despite the fact that Newton had no trouble with higher planes of existence since he coined the term ”Ætherial Medium.”

 

Here we enter into the fact that physicists, while historically being total mechanists inanely opposed to higher planes of being due to it smacking of religion (showing how little scientists understand religion as a series of illegitimate doctrines of legitimate religious philosophies) have inadvertently proven the existence of the Æther over the last 20 years and given us over twenty synonyms of it and major manifestations of the Ætheric Plane of existence or 2nd nutational octave of existence.

 

I shall first name some of the synonyms: virtual particles, tachyons, deltrons, the vacuum energy of empty space, quintessence from string theory, Einstein’s cosmological constant and DeBroglie’s subquantic medium; now some major manifestations of it: Chiu’s neutrino flux, H.C. Dudley’s neutrino sea, blackbody radiation and cosmic microwave background radiation.

 

I don’t carry around a list of them but wish I did at time like this, for there are lots more.

 

But I think that suffices for this posting for at least a week.

 

 

Tim and I are here looking for help to resolve a major mystery in homeopathy.

 

Our drugs should not have effect but do, and we want to know if a scientific mechanism can be discovered from people with big brains either being familiar with findings that have been shelved about water chemistry or simply because they spot the explanation.

 

Homeopathic pharmacology produces subAvogadrean drugs.

 

We call them ultramolecular drugs, and I call them etheric medicines.

 

These things should not have effects but do.

 

Tim and I have two opposite approaches to this enigma.

 

His is in search of the mechanism, likely involving electromagnetism and water chemistry.

 

My part of it is more esoteric since the result is subAvogadrean medicines that requires an explanation after the mechanism has been established, for that explanation is just speculation till we know something has happened that can be proven.

 

Anybody know of any lost or shelved literature on water chemistry or electromagnetism that could explain why vigorous shaking of serial dilutions could make homeopathic potencies medicinal?

 

This is a very old mystery.

 

I hope somebody here has some ideas.

 

We will hang out a while and answer whatever questions you have about homeopathy while hoping somebody knows something important we are unaware of.

 

Thank you.

Originally posted by Kettle

 

Yup - that's what I said

 

A brief search on Google revealed a few studies on Hahnemannian homeopathy, perhaps the most positive one being...

Boiron Abecassls, Belon (1983). "The Effects of Hahnemannian Potencies of 7c Histaminum and 7c Apis Mellifica upon Basophil Degranulation in Allergic Patients".

..although I couldn't track down anything more than fragmented excerpts.

People claim to be Hahnemannian and classical homeopaths but prove they are not, so that reference is also irrelevant.

Originally posted by atinymonkey

One of my pal's dad is a member of the Homeopathy Orgainsation, he's also joint head of the Osteopath Accociation (UK, obviously) and holds 2 doctorates. I think he might object to the sentance 'No scientist has ever tested Hahnemannian Homeopathy', seeing as it debases most of his work over the past 16 years

 

http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/

 

I don't tend to ask him anything about homeopathy, as we don't agree on it's uses (he's an ex-hippy, mother earth and all that jazz). However he is a very good osteopath.

Osteopathy is just allopathic medicine, so the invoking of an allopath and a form of allopathy in support of homeopathy is off.

Originally posted by blike

I do agree that having a healthy body and eating healthy food does help with preventative measures. What is the extent that homeopaths attempt to "remedy"? If I come to you with pleurisy, can a homeopath do anything about it? Do they treat complex illnesses, or just things like the common cold..

COUGH, pleurisy, in (K800): Acon., ars., bry., ip., lyc., sulph.

Those medicine would not be listed in Kent's REPERTORY (http://homeoint.org/books/kentrep2/kent0795.htm#P796) had they not cured it.

Tim, this site just ate a long, initial posting.