timokay

I like all the fluffy bunnies.

I like all the fluffy bunnies.

I like all the fluffy bunnies.

I like all the fluffy bunnies.

Glider, Please note that the words you commented on above were not mine. I stated this at the beginning. The words were from Albert (Francine's sparring partner). Francine is known as BigGiantHead in this forum. Rolfe, You do not wish to be involved in the test. I have faced this before. It is like eternally having to go back to step 1 all the time; never any progress with people here. I have already done and proved all that needs to be proved. My test was a new one to involve you, but you're not interested. My objective is to sort out a DBPC trial that would be acceptable to all. I have asked BigGiantHead (Francine) several questions in this thread which he has ignored them all.

Rolfe, I done my provings several times. Getting a friend to help is nothing new. FRANCINE: This is from Albert: FRAN: So, since DBPC trials weren't done with proper analysis afterwards, how can we tell that anything in Materia Medica and Repertory is more than just random (at best) or (at worst) biased by provers knowing what they were suppsoed to feel." Nobody knew anything about the medicines, so they were NOT going to know "what they were supposed to feel." That is so ridiculous! Even today, because there are hundreds and even thousands of symptoms, and because each person will have a relative sensitivity to the medicine being proved, that's impossible to perceive beforehand; they produce the symptoms they produce, period. I have no idea what the problem is here. It is a natural law, you very stupid man; it is not something that can be toyed with. All of the initial provers were homeopathic physicians physically around Hahnemann as his immediate students or were adherent to his precepts as foreign students, like those in the U.S., not liars for whatever reason one can imagine they'd think up symptoms. David Tate (ala Francine, Benji Mouse, Manon Thebus), you're a strange person. You presume and assume everything under the sun because you know nothing but allopathic medicine, which is nothing but total quackery. We are in the business to cure, not to prove anything to anyone else according to their ignorant views of reality. You ought to try getting some integrity some time; it would change your world. Things go into the repertory only after they have been verified by several cures. Things cannot go into the materia medica with "proper controls," as you ignorantly call them, if the only person who would have produced an important symptom would have been thrown out for whatever reason you'd come up with. We have repeatedly suffered your ignorant kind from the beginning. You want to sift the materia medica for "relevant symptoms." All of the low-potency pseudo-homeopaths or allopaths from the beginning have been ignorant fools like you and your kind, but we easily recognized them and thus ignored everything they said as stupid allopathic nonsense. Well, guess what, pal? It ain't us who are wrong; it's you guys, and the proof is our cures and your total quackery, so get a clue! The oddest symptoms have been repeatedly verified as important for cure, and your kind would have thrown them out. Gee, golly, guess we don't need the assistance of bozos, do we? If you continue to examine homeopathy through allopathic lens, you will see only allopathy, and that does not cure. ---------- A follow-up thought. All of the modern provings are totally useless. The GV HPHs have produced lots of provings, but all of them are totally useless. Guess why. Albert / Hanemannian

Rolfe, Under your name it says you are from England. I am too. Suppose I send you money (inc postage) to buy two Homeopathic medicines from Boots (I could do that myself but you could say I tampered with them) ...common ones like Bryonia and Rhus Tox. Then you scratch off anything that distinguishes them...then mark them A and B and send them to me. (I would prefer Bryonia v Blanks, but Blanks not available.) I will tell you which was which.

Chaps, I must run, 'til the morning. Tim

Find an analogy outside living systems, or construct a model to simulate the behaviour of this "black box". A "cause of disease" results in many cascading activities which, should they fail, result a myriad of things happening in such a complicated system (system in failure)...apparently random but this is not the case...result in a predictable pattern of effects, unique to the type of failure occurring. The H. medicine does not act on the "cause of disease" but the "failing part(s)" or "obstacle to cure" identified by this Logical Principle. Surely someone in Maths, Stats, or Logical Analysis would know something about this. A simulator (for the body-disease interaction) could be developed so that the Principle can be tested. The mechanism of Homeopathy seems to be more a Logical/Statistical problem than anything to do with Medicine.

Rolfe, Your interest in the issue of DBPC trials of Provings much appreciated...discussed with Francine (BGH) elsewhere. To catch up with this important issue of DBPC trials, please read from 70% of the way down page 3 below, a post from Timokay beginning "This is from Francine, ..." http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28050&perpage=20&pagenumber=3 Thx Tim

Rolfe, Re. diet. The Bryonia proving would be so quick you would not have to worry about it. This is Hahnemann's take on the Prover's diet: Tim

BGH, Random things? Random in the body? I don't know about you, but random symptoms don't happen to me, without an explanation. I suppose its the subjectivity of it all that bothers you. I think you simply do not understand the practicalities of symptoms, their solidity, their identifiability. Tim

There is considerable criticism about Homeopathy not being able to explain its pharmacological mechanism, but this thread demonstrates some of Science's own shortcomings in this area, and some contradictions appearing in reputable Scientific texts. POINTS 1. The shaky evidence, or lack of evidence, for the mechanisms of many bacterial diseases, and how medicines actually act on these disease agents "in vivo". Scientific knowledge of "in vivo" activities in this area is lacking - as mysterious as a previous discussion asking about "how symptoms are constructed in the body". 2. There are many contradictions in modern textbooks about inflammatory and immune system processes. What causes fever? Is it a deliberate process mediated via the Hypothalamus or is it "faulty nerve stimulation". Leading textbooks on the subject seem very confident with their contradictory explanations. 3. The way so-called Scientific specialists/experts DO NOT accept significant new research findings in their field if it is not in the interest of a pharmaceutical company (the source of their regular backhanders) which holds a patent on a particular drug which would almost become obsolete as a result of the Scientific acceptance of such research. For example, many years ago, the Australian scientist, Barry Marshall who used Koch's postulates, proved that Helicobacter Pylori DOES thrive in the stomach and IS a significant risk factor to stomach ulcers and cancer. And he showed the simple way that this bacterium can be totally eliminated from the body with a short course of antibiotics, permanently removing that risk factor for these stomach diseases. Marshall was conveniently ignored for decades because acceptance of his findings would mean a much reduced need for Glaxo/Wellcome's extortionately-priced ZANTAC (Ranitidine HCl) which inhibits stomach acid, for the treatment of stomach ulcers. But, Marshall's research was ignored until the patent had expired and other manufacturers were free to make and sell Ranitidine at a very much cheaper price. The BBC broad casted programmes about this case many times, exposing the injustice of it all. The drug companies should certainly be rewarded for their research efforts, but not at the expense of patients and progress. PROVING THAT A BACTERIUM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A DISEASE Returning to POINT 1 above, Medical Science has problems proving that a certain bacterium IS actually responsible for a particular disease. So, when bacterial disease occurs, how can we be sure that we have correctly identified the causative agent of the disease? Criteria to answer this question were postulated by Robert Koch over a hundred years ago. All four of these criteria must be satisfied to prove that this infectious agent is the causative agent: 1. the infectious agent should be present in each and every case of the disease, and its distribution in the body should accord with the pattern of the lesion seen; 2. the infectious agent should be recovered from infected individuals, and be established in pure culture in the laboratory; 3. inoculation of samples of the pure cultures into experimental animals (or human volunteers) should cause the same disease; 4. when re-cultured from the experimental animals or human volunteers, the original bacterium should be recovered. KOCH's postulates have never been fulfilled for many diseases like syphilis and leprosy, because the bacteria cannot be grown in nutrient media in the laboratory, yet these bacteria have been generally accepted as THE CAUSE of these diseases. And, many others, like the bacteria causing gonorrhoea and certain types of meningitis will only grow in humans, and have similar problems with Koch's Postulates. Koch's postulates cannot be applied in relation to the importance of factors affecting host susceptibility. Cystic fibrosis patients are uniquely susceptible to damage to their lungs caused by long-term colonisation of their thickened mucus from a bacterium called Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Koch's postulates cannot be tested by inoculating the bacterium into the lungs of a normal animal. Instead, mice belonging to a mutated strain must be used. Some bacterial pathogens are 'single-disease' organisms; others give rise to a range of disease syndromes. One way to summarise the properties of pathogenic bacteria is to regard the bacterial cell as a living delivery system for the various macromolecules which result in its capacity to cause disease. The structural components, or soluble products, of a bacterium which are involved in its capacity to cause such diseases are known as its virulence determinants. So, bacterial infection is no longer viewed as a process in which bacteria grow and develop in their host in the same mechanical fashion which results in the appearance of a bacterial colony on a plate of nutrient medium. The survival of Bacteria depends on mediators which protect bacteria against host defence mechanisms, e.g., mediators against phagocytes and serum lysis. Some bacterial components damage the host by triggering the body's key enzyme cascades to a pathological extent OR by eliciting harmful immune responses. The symptoms of malaria are recurrent chills, fever, and sweating. The symptoms peak roughly every 48hrs, when successive generations of merozoites are released from infected red blood cells. The large number of merozoites formed can block capillaries, causing intense headaches, renal failure, heart failure or cerebral damage. There is speculation that some of the symptoms of malaria may be caused not by Plasmodium itself but instead by excessive production of cytokines - stemming from the observation that cancer patients treated in clinical trials with recombinant tumour necrosis factor (TNF) developed symptoms that mimicked malaria. Homeopathic medicines contain no bacteria, nor any disease agent whatsoever yet they produce symptom patterns that closely resemble those associated with bacterial infections. It is possible that their mode of action is similarly on immune system or acute inflammatory processes such as complement activation, production of cytokines, or influence the activities of macrophages, for instance. The above illustrates that symptoms are not directly caused by a disease agent, but by complicated processes in the body attempting to deal with it. The mode of action of medicines in living tissue faces similar verification problems. This applies as much to conventional medicines as it does to Homeopathic medicines. But, I think that knowledge of the mode of action of Homeopathic medicines is not a mandatory requirement for acceptance of Homeopathy within Science. Tim

BGH, I hope you went back to the first "to Francine" post half way down Page 2. The issue seems to be "Do you really understand symptoms?"

Rolfe, Can easily address your issues too. I did not know the expected symptoms from Bryonia before trying it. Afterwards, as symptoms were so marked, and early, I looked to see what Hahnemann said about Bryonia in the Organon and his Materia Medica. Bryonia and about 5 others are noted for symptoms with "alternating actions", very obvious symptoms. That is what I had noticed about Bryonia, compared to the others I tried. Tim

BGH, Welcome. This is Francine everyone, but BGH will do. They just have to keep taking them. There are many possible reasons for failure. Reputable manufacturer (Nelsons/Weleda). Taken preferably on an empty stomach, at least between meals at 2-hour intervals. 6c better than 30c if they want a quick response, and I have suggested Bryonia because the symptoms are so clear and early...you don't have to go without coffee etc for long...6 hours probably enough...don't touch the pills - let them dissolve on tongue. Anyway BGH we should get back to the DBPC issue. Please read my last posts to you above. Tim

Rolfe Yes. Hahnemann found a remarkable variation in sensitivity to medicines. One person may perceive the symptoms quickly while another would need many more doses before they appeared....but the expected symptoms do occur. In the sensitive people the symptoms would clearly appear at different times and would be easily distinguishable from eachother. In a robust person, nothing may happen for a day and then they would all start to appear together, and overlap with eachother. That is why I give MY experience. Cannot predict the actual time of appearance of symptoms in you. Tim

Symptom appearance with real pills: Within six-eight hours in my case, and the symptoms would continue for about 12 hours if I stopped as soon as they appeared. Symptom appearance with blanks: Nothing.

Rolfe, If you keep taking them, symptoms will always appear...it's a matter of time. If you select Bryonia 6c, it would usually happen by the third or fourth 2-Hour dose. With 30c potency, symptoms would take longer to appear, but would last longer. Hahnemann potentized to 30c to get a milder, deeper action. 6c would bring the symptoms on more quickly. And I suggested Bryonia because it is particularly noted for "alternating symptoms" that everyone would experience. The symptoms would be unmistakable...not subtle...certainly not something that could be called a placebo effect. Tim

Good point Rolfe. Actually, Hahnemann is referring to his Q-potencies, which are not the same as Nelsons. They would be ideal if you can get hold of them, and should be used in any OFFICIAL PROVING. But, in a home-trial there is no need to be so fussy as you are not going to be writing down ALL the symptoms. This is just to demonstrate that they occur. I do have concerns with the preparation processes used, and concerned that they may not be strictly to Hahhnemann's procedure (which he insisted upon), see APH 270..very detailed. This matter certainly needs to be addressed before any serious provings. http://www.homeoint.org/books/hahorgan/organ260.htm#P270E6

Re. my last post on symptoms: By REAL, I mean true or intended symptoms; i.e., what our sensory/perception systems are constructing and intend us to know about. Disease represents a failure of the disease management system...a domino effect with numerous processes going wrong....in these circumstances, the symptoms produced are unintended sensory/perception activities....there are hundreds of them occurring with each disease if you look closely enough. They may appear spurious effects but that is not the case, as they occur in the same form, consistently and predictably each time a person suffers that disease. A repeated proving, where symptoms associated with medicines are deliberately brought out, allows a detailed investigation of these symptoms. It is a field of study that Medical Science has not looked at in so much detail. But they would look at them, they would have to, if we can come up with a Proving methodology conforming to double-blind placebo-controlled (DBPC) criteria, the doorway into Science. I hope you people can help sort this out. Say: I don't know where Francine is...she was on the BBC Current Science, Homeopathyhome site, and siforums...though she has different user names on each site. I have sent her invites. Tim

Hi Rolfe, Not a formal proving but many informal ones. All I did was buy some Homeopathic medicines from the Chemist/Pharmacy and tried them. They all produce symptoms - quite bizarre, because I wasn't ill. (Tried Rhus Tox, Arnica, Calc Carb, Silica, Bryonia; brand name NELSONS- available worldwide.) It is not a matter of taking one pill and waiting a day or two, but take them every 2 hours 'til symptoms appear. Anyone wishing to try a proving, go for BRYONIA 6c because it acts quickly. Tim

HAHNEMANN MASTERED SYMPTOMS Hahnemann resolved a problem into all of its components. The problem was human disease, and he conquered it. Three things enabled this to be accomplished: 1. that in disease conditions, the body expresses the disease externally through many symptoms and signs, amenable to doctor and patient, and the combination of all of these symptoms are found to be unique for each type of disease. 2. he discovered and then honed many substances that mimic human disease symptom patterns. By very extensive research into the actions of these substances on people, he was able to unravel the components (or layers of complexity) of the "observed symptom pattern", and then was able to separate these components from eachother so that they were recognised and understood. He also found a preparation method for these substances that made them FAR MORE useful, both for the above analytical work, and as medicines because many more symptoms would appear in "potentized" preparations. 3. he discovered a natural law; that if a medicine can be found which closely matches, in symptoms, those associated with the sick person's disease, then, by using the medicine to further enhance these matching symptoms in the patient, the whole disease resolves completely. ---------------------------------------------------- It was through step 2 above that the layers of complexity to the "observed symptom pattern" were elucidated. These can be summarised, logically, as follows (though they were not discovered and identified by Hahnemann in this convenient logical sequence). Hahnemann knew he had a problem if his medicines were not behaving consistently or as expected. He had to determine the cause. 1. The substances used to make the medicines must be in simple, unrefined form. APH 123. 2. The preparation procedure must include COMPLETE decontamination of the Mortar/Pestle/Spatula. APH 270. 3. Distinction between symptoms relating to the Primary action of the medicine and the Counteraction (or secondary action) by the body (VF). APH 63. Aph 63. Every medicine that acts to alter the VF, brings about modifications to health called the PRIMARY ACTION. The primary action is a product of both the medicine and the VF, but mainly the former. The VF is initially passive, and accepts the medicine's action. But later, the VF tends to oppose the influence by the medicine, and this is called the SECONDARY ACTION or COUNTER ACTION. And this opposite action usually matches the strength of the medicine's primary action. 4. When administering doses, must begin with small doses otherwise the Primary action symptoms appear too quickly and prompt an opposing secondary action; symptoms appear to swing back to the opposite symptom. But, there is a separate kind of symptoms that present with "alternating actions", because their nature is to alternate presentation, i.e., swings between extremes. APH 115. Aph 115: There are some symptoms occurring in the case of some medicines which are partially, or under certain conditions, directly opposite to other symptoms that have previously or subsequently appeared, yet they are not secondary action (i.e., the mere reaction of the vital force) but represent the alternating state of various paroxysms of the primary action; they are termed alternating actions. When the Primary/secondary action symptoms are alternating, it is very difficult to distinguish between these symptoms and those of the alternating kind. They MUST be distinguishable for the essential recognition of this medicine's symptom pattern. 5. When a symptom pattern is carefully studied in the patient, the pattern may be distorted by the symptoms of a second disease in the background - normally a chronic disease. The doctor must do his best to match the "presenting symptom pattern" to that of a medicine. When that medicine has completed its action, the totality of symptoms must again be assessed if the disease has not resolved. The characteristics of the remaining symptoms will direct the doctor either to consider this to be of the chronic disease type, or another of the acute type, and select a medicine accordingly. 6.Idiosyncracies: Particular physical dispositions are abnormally sensitive, and display more symptoms than other people. But these influences caused by the medicine ARE actually affecting ALL people, though they only appear as symptoms in so-called idiosyncratic people. APH 117. Aph 117: Some symptoms produced by medicines only appear in very few healthy people, called the idiosyncrasies, meaning peculiar corporeal constitutions which, although otherwise healthy, possess a disposition to be brought into a more or less morbid state by certain things which seem to produce no impression and no change in other people. But this inability to make an impression on everyone is only apparent. For as two things are required for the production of these as well as all other morbid alterations in the health of man - to wit., the inherent power of the influencing substance, and the capability of the vital force that animates the organism to be influenced by it - the obvious derangements of health in the so-called idiosyncrasies cannot be laid to the account of these peculiar constitutions alone, but they must also be ascribed to these things that produce them, in which must lie the power of making the same impressions on all human bodies, yet in such a manner that but a small number of healthy constitutions have a tendency to allow themselves to be brought into such an obvious morbid condition by them. That these agents do actually make this impression on every healthy body is shown by the fact that when employed as remedies they render effectual homoeopathic service to all sick persons for morbid symptoms similar to those they seem to be only capable of producing in so-called idiosyncratic individuals. There are about five more "layers of complexity" to the "presenting symptom pattern..will do them later. Tim

Say, No assumptions about what you understand....my points directed at Francine, as I stated. Francine will register soon, I hope. I have left messages for her to join your fine forum, so we can resume this issue. This link shows Hahnemann's emphasis on symptoms. http://www.homeoint.org/books/hahorgan/organ100.htm#P104

Say, It was directed at Francine, wherever she be. The key issue being looked at now is the PROVINGS of homeopathic medicines. If they can be performed as Double-Blind Placebo-controlled trials, this would bring Homeopathy into Science. I have more for Fran but she's disappeared. Any comments appreciated. These were my next points to her: We need to distinguish between REAL symptoms and symptoms arising from the "system in failure" (disease). The latter are apparently spurious, but this is not the case..they are real and predictable, and form a specific pattern with each type of failure. I have seen this type of thing occurring in large mainframe computer networks as well...initially it appears to be spurious, but on close examination, patterns are found - giving clues to the problem which caused the failure. And the next time the system fails due to the same cause, those very same patterns emerge again. I don't think you know nor understand this, as a symptom is something very simple to you. You could not imagine people spending 4 or 5 years studying symptoms in great detail (and then another 25 years of study in general practice, nor appreciate the value of it, yet this forms the basis of Homeopathy. Say: In the next post, will show you Hahnemann's emphasis on symptoms - the tools of his trade. Tim