timokay

Francine/whoever, "138 PROVING : "....symptoms that come on at this time, while the powerful medicine dominates the subject's economy, arise from the medicine and not spontaneously." quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FRAN: From his description of a proving Dr H would have accepted the nausea as caused by Bryonia, but common sense would doubtless make him see the squashing as being caused by something else. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIM: Dr H was believed to have common sense, silly. Do you object to this process needing to record all NEW symptoms introduced by the medicine, as opposed to absolutely ALL symptoms the prover is perceiving? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FRAN: Either is a problem. The problem is with your phrase (on this occasion) 'introduced by the medicine'. You can only tell whether something has been 'introduced' by an intervention under test by assessing whether it is different from control. Yes the control can be the same subject pre-test (but there are major drawbacks to this that need careful design to avoid), or other contemporaneous subjects, but you absolutely cannot say for any individual that something new arising after the intervention was for sure caused by the intervention. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIM: Agreed. For any individual, there is a problem. But this is a group effort, each prover doing 15-20 experiments on the medicine/placebo. By contemporaneous I assume you mean no more than all subjects involved in the experiments handled the same way at the same time (and blind to medicine/placebo). quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can only discover an average response for a group as a whole compared with controls. Also, contemporaneous controls in medical trials are essential because the mere fact of doing anything to a subject could alter their responses if you are only following individuals longitudinally with time instead in an unblinded manner. It's also why things must be randomised, so you mustn't give everybody the blank today and the substance under test next week. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIM: Fine. See no problem except the doctor gathering the symptoms will know for sure who the placebo people are, and so will not be blind. (I think Science would accept this though because it is neither aware or interested in that fact since it is outside Science.) You may think symptoms are vague, spurious or random things, but homeopaths know otherwise. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FRAN: I think i've just realized that you can't drop the idea that for a given individual you can say that something happened because of the test intervention rather than it just happening anyway. But you can't know, you really really can't. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIM: We've just agreed on "average response" among many! Things don't "just happen anyway" in the real situation without being recognized as anomolies. You have no understanding of "solidity of symptoms". It is a kind of "theoretical mindset" you have. In practice, these things are very real, and not vague notions to be confused with meteorites and flu bugs. The docs. monitoring the expts are smart people with about 20 years experience of handling sick people and thousands of symptoms. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FRAN: If you give me a drug that is meant to drop blood pressure and mine goes down, it might be because of the drug, because on average that it is what the drug does, but mine might have gone down anyway, or it might have gone down more, but in me the drug actually relatively raises my BP and really you shold have given me something tat worked properly. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIM: Your theoretical world again. It's like eternally questioning the possibility of being able to ride a bicycle but never trying. You say Dr H was wrong about APH138 only because you only live in this theoretical world and misunderstand things...make wrong assumptions. Dr H cracked the whole problem in the practical world. If you experienced it practically yourself you would agree, and at the same time your misunderstandings about the problem would become evident. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FRAN: For me as an individual for many medical states you just cannot tell. There are obviously a few dramatic things like giving an anaesthetic where it would be hard to say that the patient falling asleep and letting someone cut her open was mere coincidence, but in lots of medicine you don't deal with such a clear-cut issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIM: You are groping in the dark. In practice, everything is clear-cut. Tim

Consider a complicated system with a fault which cannot be located nor studied directly. How can the fault be located and corrected? The more complicated a system is, the more effects it often produces as a result of the fault. Also, the more effects there are, the more accurately the fault in the system can be targeted. So, ironically, the fault in a very complicated system can be better targeted than a fault in a less complicated system. Consider a sick person as being that complicated system with a fault (disease). If a substance can be found which produces effects (symptoms) in a healthy person which are identical to the symptoms produced by the sick person, then the substance becomes "logically associated" with the "cause of disease" in the sick person. In practise, this "logical association" can be found to be a "physical association" as well, proven in a remarkable way: If the substance which produces symptoms in a healthy person identical to those in the sick person, is now given to this sick person, it will express these identical symptoms. If the dose is adjusted such that the symptoms it induces are stronger than those expressed by the sickness, the obstacle to cure which caused this sickness becomes removed, and normal healing processes resume, resulting in complete cure. How is this to be interpreted? 1). The obstacle to cure (disease) becomes removed or disengaged by the physically associated substance (derived through logical association), and normal management and resolution of the disease follows. 2). Therefore, with the successful resolution of disease, the "logical association" also had a "physical association"...the actual tissue affected by disease was targeted by the actions resulting from administration of the substance. But the tissue(s) may not necessarily be in one particular physical location of the body; may be more diffuse, yet it is still targeted by the substance, because the physical entity was associated to the logical entity (pattern of symptoms), which represents the whole disease. 3). It is unnecessary to know, physically, what the fault causing the disease actually is, nor how the substance acts upon it, as the objective of targeting the disease and curing the person has been accomplished. This lack of knowledge does, however, pose an apparent problem: the Scientific validation of "mode of action" of the substance. But, failure to establish the mode of action, is not in itself a reason for exclusion of this method from Science. 4). Note the distinction between "disease" and "obstacle to cure". It is easy to perceive the disease as being the disease agent directly causing the disease, yet this is very rarely the case. The body has vast resources for combating disease agents, and many of these are activated with the "Immune Response" in a widespread cascade process designed to resolve the disease. What has actually happened is that the response to this particular disease agent revealed a flaw in these cascading processes, causing an obstacle somewhere, so that these processes cannot continue or complete their program of activities to resolve the disease. The disease agent revealed a subtle failing in these disease management processes, but the threat the agent posed itself to the body was negligible. The obstacle to cure causing the failure of disease management then results in a chain of many events (system in failure) which present externally as a large number of symptoms. And, the pattern of these symptoms depends on where in the complicated processing of disease management that the obstacle to cure occurs. Note that we are not addressing the disease agent itself, but the "obstacle to cure", which is within disease management somewhere and likely to be quite remote from the disease agent. In fact, the disease agent is likely to have been eradicated by some other process before the symptom pattern we call disease appeared in the sick person, but the halted processing is still "hanging", and unaware of this. It would be impossible to work back from the large range of presenting symptoms and effects which the obstacle to cure ultimately caused, to the actual obstacle to cure. But, with so many symptoms presenting, the obstacle seems to be identified effectively by the substance matching the symptoms. There seems to be a "Logical Principle" operating here, that could, in theory, be applied to all complicated systems. It is about "Cause and Effect". A Substance produces exactly the same effects as some other cause in the body, which results in these effects. By bringing the "substance cause" and the "unknown cause" together in the body so that they are equal, it is like two unknowns on both sides of an equation where they can cancel out. With this Logical Principle, it doesn't matter how complicated these unknowns are. They have cancelled out, so the substance is now, I propose, ACTUALLY ACTING ON the "unknown cause" (obstacle to cure). Since it is impossible to work back from the symptoms to learn about the obstacle to cure, we should look for other situations like this in Nature, or construct a model, to test and then prove that this Logical Principle applys to all Black-Box situations. An example: Build an old-fashioned clockwork clock, deliberately leaving some of the cogs loose so they resonate and make a complex audible sound in operation. Analyse the sound emitted by the clock, and feed exactly the same sound back at the clock so that it just exceeds the emitted sound. Will this influence the workings of the clock. (Yes, that's just a resonance phenomenon, you may say.) Any other examples to demonstrate this Logical Principle? Is what the substance in the body does just resonance in all cases, then? NOPE? Maybe all situations of "manipulation of cause" in black boxes, in this "similar effects" way, by the Logical Principle involve resonance? Tim

Glider, Wow. Monster post. Re. Scientists taking the plunge: The Scientists are testing in the way they know best. The flaws are in the fundamental misunderstanding of the basic principles of Homeopathy. You cannot round up a bunch of patients with Disease X, as defined by Medical Science, and test Homeopathy on them. Homeopathy does not recognize Disease X. Homeopathy treats the patients as individuals. They are individuals, with different genetic make-ups. It is unlikely that any of the patients would be treated with the same Homeopathic medicine as any of the others. The "disease" in Homeopathy is the "totality of symptoms" IN THAT PATIENT and even if they did all have what the Scientist's call Disease X, how their bodies deal with it would be very different because they are different. And there are "no controls" when people are said to have Disease X. What else is wrong with them? You won't know until you treat them and see how they respond...may well be a chronic disease behind the other disease. Or two. Treatment is based on how each individual responds...stacks of possibilities, with clear instructions for each...but the end result is complete cure. This is often accomplished with a single dose, even if the disease takes a month or more to resolve.

Some research papers, available on MEDLINE (Pubmed), on Homeopathy. If anybody cannot access these links, please say so. I will then paste in the abstract from the papers. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11327521&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10812756&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9884175&dopt=Abstract This one's Brit Med Journal http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10948025&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10939780&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10335412&dopt=Abstract These next four are scientific journals, and a few more lower down: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12226773&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1825800&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12634583&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10853874&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10484832&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11527508&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11795090&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12725250&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10796532&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10748705&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9821827&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1484708&dopt=Abstract

Glider, Tim: Homeopathy is effective against all diseases (excluding surgical cases). Glider: Where is the evidence for this? If this is the case, why don't homeopathic principles form the core of our health care system? Tim: You mean SCIENTIFIC evidence, I assume. Homeopathy is not yet within Science. Homeopathy has its own Journals/documentation for the successful treatment of nearly all diseases. I hope something can be done about the Science of it soon. I don't think the dominant medical system wants Homeopathy. The problem has to be broken down into its components. The first thing to do is to move the medicines into Science, and that's what we are discussing on sciforums thread "organon of medicine". Glider: Are you saying that homeopathy has a cure for smallpox? Can you provide evidence for this. Tim: I will look. Glider: The book has been around for 193 years. I'm sure it has been read by many people. Yet, it does not form the mainstay of modern medicine. Why do you think that is? Tim: Medical Science and Homeopathy are very different in nature, with no interdependancies. One is dominant, the other suppressed. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Could they co-exist in Science? Science, and patients, needs Homeopathy's strengths now, but Homeopathy has to prove itself Scientifically before it can be accepted by the dominant system. The whole issue IS up to Medical Science, which knows virtually nothing about homeopathy. Until the politics is sorted out, Homeopathy's strengths will be ignored by Medical Science. Glider: Why do you think Hahnemanns' 'solutions' are not used today? Could it be that the medical fraternity is so self obsessed that it is prepared to let thousands of people die rather than admit that homeopathy had the answers all along? It's political. Medical Science DOESN'T UNDERSTAND Homeopathy, and does not appear to be interested. This clearly demonstrated by Benveniste's work and Horizon's testing, NEITHER of which had anything to do with Homeopathy. But, the scientists didn't know this. Glider: This might go some way towards explaining why it doesn't work.The term 'disease' has been defined. If anything, it shows that homeopathy is willing to obfuscate established terminology to a) suit its own ends and b) disguise the fact that it doesn't work. As an aside, immunology isn't really your (or Hahnemanns') strong point, is it? Yawn. Where I stop.

Glider, There is a problem with the term disease. In Homeopathy, the disease IS the "totality of symptoms" in the sick person. The disease agent is rarely the problem, except in highly-infectious or epidemic diseases. The disease agent only revealed a weakness in the immune system which, when functioning normally can eradicate virtually all diseases, and without the appearance of significant symptoms. Symptoms are an indication of failure....meticulously gather them all up, so you can associate this pattern of symptoms with the particular fault in the system. The body reveals a great deal about what is going on inside thru the presentation of external symptoms/signs. So, Homeopathy treats "this particular fault in this particular person", NEVER a disease agent. But with an epidemic disease like smallpox, even people without faults in their immune system will suffer...it becomes overwhelmed...and after examining several cases like this, the doctor may decide to give several patients the same medicine (because the symptoms presenting are the same in all). But, in reality, a stress like this will show up hidden weaknesses in the immune systems of these apparently normally healthy people, and it is more likely that these people, though infected with the same disease agent, will have differing "total symptom patterns", and will therefore have to be treated with differing kinds of Homeopathic medicines. Back to your point. The above shows that disease can be an ambiguous term. Homeopathy treats the person (the fault in their constitution which resulted in the symptoms), not any disease agent. It is difficult to establish a controlled starting point for an experiment. Tim

Glider, Homeopathy is effective against all diseases (excluding surgical cases). Smallpox is an epidemic disease, processed like all other diseases by assembling all the patient's symptoms and finding the medicine with the closest matching symptoms. In the unlikely event that cure is not complete, it means there is an underlying disease (inherited chronic condition, which Hahnemann called "Psora"), which is treated by a second class of medicines called antipsorics. I extracted relevant Homeopathy references on Smallpox and will post them here if 2000+ words is not excessive. The point is that this is an extremely important book, and want scientific people to know about it. Medical Science has some very significant problems to be solved, some getting worse; 100's of incurable chronic diseases affecting millions in the UK and 10's of millions in the USA, for example. There is the problem of antibiotics, with bacteria beginning to win that war; there is malaria, also posing imcreasing problems, to name but a few. Yet Hahnemann cracked these problems...ALL of them, simply, quickly and permanently, without antibiotics, just using the body's own defences. He did this because he managed to separate and identify all the components of the diseased state. He did this although he only had subjective and objective external signs/symptoms to work with. Tim

Also SAY, Homeopaths do not know the scientific method. No training in that area. Tim

OK. There is a step in Homeopathy called the PROVINGS. Medicines are fully tested for the symptoms they produce in people (possibly over 1,000 symptoms in some medicines). The symptom patterns of over 2,500 medicines have been documented in Materia Medicae, i.e., all symptoms per medicine. The data is then rearranged into indexes displaying each symptom and the medicines associated with it. (This index is called a Repertory). Patient's symptoms are looked up in these books to find the most appropriate medicine. If you look in sciforums, organon thread, page 2, scientific researcher FRANCINE has pointed out the importance of repeating this PROVING task but under Double-blind Placebo-controlled (DBPC) conditions...Then, it will have a scientific foundation? Is that progress?

Say, Too vague for me. A "Scientific Method" you mean. There has to be mutual understanding of the problem. Scientists must be able to step out of their "scientific method" for a moment to see the unusual features of this problem. And prejudice reigns - thi biggest problem of all, here. Just misunderstanding.

How does a rational discipline such as this gain acceptance in Science? It appears to be a Catch 22 situation, because Homeopaths are not Scientists, cannot Scientifically test it. And the Scientists who test it do it all wrong because they don't understand Homeopathy. "Some of it conjectural, a lot of it wildly inacurate". "some" and "a lot" is hardly "debate" material. Any specifics?

Glider and Say, That's the problem really. No Scientist ever prepared to take the plunge. (15)

Organon of Medicine - Part 2 Q3: Aphorisms 146+: Most effective employment of the Homeopathic medicines for the cure of natural diseases: (147) Amongst the medicines investigated, the one whose observed symptoms are most similar to the totality of symptoms of a natural disease must be the surest Homeopathic medicine for the disease. (148) The natural disease is NOT a noxious 'substance' residing in, or on, the organism, but a dynamic entity which, acting as if by a kind of infection, upsets the VF in its instinctive control of the entire organism, forcing it to produce disease symptoms. If the VF is made to stop feeling the actions of this "dynamic" entity striving to perpetuate the disorder, e.g., through administration of a Homeopathic medicine which can untune the VF in the most similar way (and more strongly than the natural disease), then the feeling of the natural disease agent becomes lost to the VF. It is annihilated from that moment. In acute diseases, the disease normally resolves in a few hours after the appropriate dose, but if the medicine was not well chosen it takes longer. Selection of the right medicine can be an arduous task. (149) Old Chronic diseases need more time to assess and treat. (153) Among the symptom lists of available medicines, close attention should be paid to the STRIKING or UNUSUAL CHARACTERISTIC SYMPTOMS in the patient because it is these, above all, which must correspond closely to the characteristics of the chosen medicine. (154) The medicine with the greatest number of matching unusual/characteristic symptoms is the most suitable, and a single dose should cure fairly recent acute diseases. In sensitive patients, some mild and temporary aggravation of symptoms may occur, especially if the dose is not sufficiently potentised. This aggravation (otherwise known as the Primary Action of the medicine) is quite common but is a good sign that this single dose will extinguish the acute disease. (161) But, no aggravations are allowed in Old Chronic diseases during their treatment. And, they do not appear if the small doses of the appropriate medicine are increased in potency at each dose (Aph 247). When this is done, some aggravations may appear only when cure is virtually complete. (162) Sometimes, a natural disease occurs for which no medicine is a particularly good match. (163) However, the closest medicine should be chosen and in very small doses. Some unwanted symptoms (from the medicine) may be expected, but these are mild with such small doses, and they will not hinder a good start towards cure. (164) Even if there are not many matching symptoms between the natural disease and the best-chosen medicine, if the matching symptoms are of the "Unusual" or "Characteristic of the disease" type, cure normally follows. Fortunately, there is very rarely a situation in which a reasonably good medicine cannot be found for a Natural Disease. If the best-chosen medicine is not successful, its effects will at least direct the doctor to a more appropriate one. The doctor assesses the combination of the remaining natural disease symptoms and those added by the less than perfectly homeopathic medicine. With acute disease, in this situation of not having a very well-chosen medicine to work with, there is no need to wait for the medicine to actually complete its action before selecting the next. Again, one dose is normally sufficient to bring the disease to cure, or much closer to cure. If symptoms remain after subsequent medicines, again the totality of symptoms is assessed and the most appropriate medicine chosen. (171) Commonly, more than one medicine will be needed to treat the PSORA chronic diseases. Again, each medicine (called an "anti-psoric") is chosen according to the totality of remaining symptoms after the previous medicine has completed its action. (173) "Defective diseases", usually chronic, have few presenting symptoms, and therefore need a much closer scrutiny by the doctor. With such few symptoms, the best-chosen medicine is not likely to succeed unless the available patient's symptoms happen to be of the "peculiar/characteristic of that medicine" type. But, the medicine will bring out more symptoms, improving the chances of finding the most appropriate medicine from the remaining totality of symptoms. This process is repeated until cure is complete. (186) Surgical cases. (189) No external ailment (which is not due to a particular external injury) exists WITHOUT involving the whole organism. (194-200) Medicines should not be applied externally (e.g., to skin symptoms), neither with acute nor chronic diseases. (203) Destroying skin symptoms with surgery, burning away, caustics, sulphur baths, etc, only WORSENS the internal disease, making it chronic (or more chronic) and very difficult to treat. (206) PSORA Chronic disease treatment: The doctor must first enquire about whether the patient has previously suffered from syphilis or gonorrhoea (sycosis), and FIRST deal with any remnants of these chronic diseases before addressing the symptoms purely associated with the PSORA chronic disease. (209) Understanding the disease picture in PSORA chronic diseases can be a lengthy process. But, again, one must look to match the most unusual/peculiar/characteristic symptoms in the patient with the same in the medicine. "Defective diseases" belong to the PSORA chronic disease category. (212) Mental and emotional symptoms are very important and can be decisive because medicines are always found to have distinctive mental or emotional symptoms. (214) Mental diseases are treated in exactly the same way as physical diseases, matching to the psychic symptoms encountered by healthy persons during the medicine provings. (215) Almost ALL so-called mental or emotional diseases are nothing but physical diseases in which mental symptoms usually increase as the physical symptoms diminish, until the disease mental symptoms reach their most striking state of defectiveness. (216-230) The treatment of Mental & Emotional diseases. (231) Intermittent diseases: Those that recur at definite intervals, OR where disease conditions alternate with each other at indefinite intervals. The latter type all belong to the PSORA Chronic diseases, and therefore to be treated with anti-psoric medicines, unless complicated with syphilis, in which case the anti-psoric must be alternated with an anti-syphilitic medicine (see my book "The Chronic Diseases" for details). (232) Sometimes there are more than two diseases alternating. (235) Intermittent fevers are sporadic and epidemic, and each paroxysm often consists of two alternating phases opposite each other, OR three alternating phases. The chosen medicine, usually not an anti-psoric, should be able to produce the above two or three states in the Healthy person, or at least correspond Homeopathically to the characteristics of the strongest phase/states. But it is preferable to choose the medicine based on the symptom pattern of the patient outside his attacks. (236) The medicine should be administered soon after an attack, when the patient is settled, and the VF is in the best state to accept and be affected by the medicine. (238) A single dose can wipe out several attacks, even restore health, but it is usual to need one dose after each attack, initially. My latest medicines (see 6th Ed.) will allow regular repeating of doses without aggravations. Each successive dose is dynamised with 10 or 12 succussions of the medicine bottle. If there is recurrence of the same fever days later, then the cause is the fever re-asserting itself, which only occurs in marshy districts (malaria and related). In this case, the exciting cause must be removed, by a sojourn in the mountains, for complete cure. (240) If the homeopathic medicine for the intermittent fever does not cure fully, AND it is not related to living in a marshy region, this means a Psora chronic disease is in the background, and an anti-psoric must be used for complete cure. (241) For intermittent fevers in single individuals away from marshy areas, must first treat the fever (e.g., malaria, which is not a chronic disease) with medicines which are not anti-psoric, for several days. If recovery cannot be accomplished with these medicines, it means there is an underlying Psora disease beginning to appear, so an anti-psoric medicine must now be used. (244) Re. Intermittent diseases of marshy areas (malaria, etc.): A young healthy person can become accustomed to it and stay healthy provided his way of life is exactly right. The intermittent fevers endemic to this marshy areas will only affect him if he is a newcomer. But then, ONE, or possibly TWO, minute doses of highly potentised cinchona bark will likely fully restore him to health. But, if full recovery does not occur with cinchona bark, it means that there is an underlying Psora developing a chronic condition that requires anti-psoric medicines for cure. However, if the patient is not too ill and therefore not treated with anti-psorics (i.e., the psora has not developed completely and can return to its latent state), these people soon recover if they move to a dry mountainous region - the fever resolves - but they will NEVER become really healthy without the anti-psoric treatment. (Re. footnote to Aphs 244 & 276.) (245) MEDICINES: The method of using them and regimen when taking them: (246) After a dose of medicine, as long as there is an obvious improvement, no more medicine of any kind must be given, as its action speeds towards completion. This is the frequent pattern with acute diseases. But, if the disease is chronic, a single dose can sometimes accomplish cure, but slowly in 40 to 100 days. The doctor can accelerate this recovery, sometimes down to below 20 days, provided that the following conditions are fulfilled: (1). The medicine is accurately homeopathic, (2). It is highly potentised, dissolved in water, given in suitably small doses, and at optimal time intervals. (3).BUT, the degree of potency of each successive dose must be greater than the preceding dose, or the VF (which is being diverted to this artificial medicinal disease) reacts unfavourably to it, AND to doses given at frequent intervals. But these two problems have been overcome with my new (6th Ed.) method of potentisation (or dynamisation). See footnote of Aph 246. (247) So, it is inadmissible ever to repeat exactly the same dose without modifying it. The VF OPPOSES such identical doses - the other (unwanted) symptoms of the medicine appear. The previous dose had already completed its action on the VF. But, by slightly modifying the potency upwards (Aph 269/270), the sick VF allows itself to be altered further by the same medicine without ill effects. (248) Further procedure on the treatment of chronic diseases. (249) Unhomeopathic selection: overdosing and anti-doting. (252) If a chronic disease does not resolve with anti-psoric treatment, it must be something in the patient's way of life that is causing it, which must be identified and eliminated. (253) In all diseases, the psychic condition and demeanour of the patient is very revealing. (269) MAKING THE MEDICINES : The theory of their mechanism. (270) MAKING THE MEDICINES : The detailed practical preparation procedure. (272) The method of administration: pill on the tongue or dissolved in water. (273-274) A patient should be treated with no more than one medicine at a time. It is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN to give more than one medicine at a time. Re. Quinine example in aph 273. (275) After selection of the best medicine, the correct "smallness" of the dose is very important, for gentle action. Otherwise, there is a danger of harm. (276) Overdosing. (278) Determining the ideal dose: only meticulous observation of the sensitivity of each patient can determine this, IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE. (279) The rule about dose selection: "The dose of a highly-potentised medicine beginning the treatment of a chronic disease cannot be made so small: 1). that it is not stronger than the natural disease, 2). that it cannot at least partially overcome it, 3). that it cannot at least partially extinguish it in the VF, and 4). that it cannot start the process of cure." (284) Other means of medicine administration. END

My summary of the Organon of Medicine, by Hahnemann. In 1810, twenty years after Hahnemann first began working on his medical system, he published a book to explain the medical system, how to use it and how the body deals with disease. Hahnemann established the truth through a great deal of practical experience and pure experimentation. AFTER THIS, he documented this truth, in his own way, in the Organon of Medicine. The book begins with a conceptual model he devised incorporating all his findings about disease, its cure, and much more. The book consists of 291 "Articles" or "Aphorisms", and references to these numbers are included below. Anyone who is really interested in getting to the bottom of the Homeopathy debate should, at least, make an effort to understand this perspective. My objective was to simply find the truth, whatever it is. And, reading and understanding this book was essential to this task. The words "Symptoms" and "Signs" are synonymous here; every detectable/perceptible manifestation of disease. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That disease is an entity specific to each patient. That the "totality of perceptible signs" represents the entire extent of the sickness. Looking inside the body for explanations/mechanisms is futile, and unnecessary. (9) The functioning body is not just "chemical". The living being operates on a "dynamic" principle, called the Vital Principle or Vital Force (VF). (Kuby, Modern Textbook of Immunology, Second Ed, Overview: "The cells and molecules of the immune system act together in an exquisitely adaptable "dynamic" network whose complexity rivals that of the nervous system.") (10) Without the VF everywhere present in the body, the "chemical" organism is unable to maintain itself and therefore dies. (11) When a man falls ill, the VF becomes "untuned" by the "dynamic" influence of the disease agent. (12) The VF then brings about the disagreeable sensations and abnormal functions called disease accessible to the senses of patient and doctor, and which represent the "whole" disease. Conversely, the disappearance of all perceptible deviations from health, means the VF has recovered its normal integrity. (13) Disease, excluding surgical cases, is NOT an entity hidden in the interior of the organism, separate from its living totality, NOR an entity separate from the VF. (14) There is no curable disease that does not announce itself through subjective and objective symptoms. (15) The suffering of the untuned VF and the totality of perceptible symptoms that represent the disease are one and the same. The "chemical" organism and VF are inseparable. The doctor has therefore only to eliminate the "totality of symptoms" to simultaneously restore the VF AND eradicate the disease. (16) Disease agents can only untune the "dynamic" VF in a "dynamic" way. The doctor can only correct the untunement by acting on the VF with medicines which also have "dynamic" actions, BUT only when the "totality of symptoms" have revealed the disease to the carefully observing and enquiring doctor, so that they can be cured. (18) The "totality of symptoms" in each individual case is the only indication guiding to the choice of medicine. Medicines can cure disease only if they possess the power to alter the way a person feels and functions. Indeed, it is ONLY because of this power that they are medicines at all. The "totality of symptoms" associated with each medicine is first carefully studied in the healthy. (22) Substances become medicines because they can arouse certain symptoms and signs which can destroy symptoms/signs which exist in the natural disease of the patient, PROVIDED that the two sets of symptoms closely match, established by pure experiment. Administered properly potentised in small doses, the medicine will rapidly and permanently destroy the totality of symptoms in the patient and therefore the disease. (26) A natural law of Homeopathy: In living organisms, a weaker dynamic affection is permanently extinguished by a stronger one (in this case, the medicine) which, though different in nature, greatly resembles it in expression. (31) Disease agents do not have the absolute power to untune our VF. We fall ill ONLY when susceptible, for whatever reason. So, disease agents do not make everybody sick each time. (32) On the other hand, medicines (conceptually "artificial diseases") affect EVERY person, EVERY time, to bring about its characteristic symptom pattern. (33) The medicine must be both very similar in symptoms to the natural disease AND stronger than it. In this situation, the medicine transfers the untunement of the VF caused by the natural disease to an artificial disease condition, but only when very similar in symptoms to the natural one. The natural disease becomes disengaged or taken over, and extinguished. The medicinal artificial disease, when the body realises there is no disease agent, then quickly wanes leaving only health. (35) Medicines which are not homeopathic will never cure any disease. (38) Two dissimilar diseases meeting in a person will compete such that the stronger will temporarily suppress and suspend the milder one until the stronger disease has run its course. Then, the milder disease reappears, uncured, to express its symptoms. (42) Two similar natural diseases cannot ward off or suspend each other such that one comes back after the disappearance of the most recent. Neither can they coexist in the same organism if they are similar in symptoms and effects. The stronger DESTROYS the weaker. The VF can only become "untuned" by ONE disease at any one time. In this case, the weaker disease is completely extinguished by the stronger...the weaker was only a "dynamic" affection anyway. (54) Allopathy (Convention Medicine, in Hahnemann's time): (A). Allopathy generally uses speculation and scholastic arguments instead of observation of natural phenomena and experimentation. (B). "Cure" in disease means a material to be expelled. ©. Uses mixed drugs and crude (large) doses. (D). Maintains its credibility through palliative relief. (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. And this opposite action usually matches the strength of the medicine's primary action. (66) But small Homeopathic doses produce a primary action which is barely perceptible at all, and the VF's opposite secondary action is the same. (68) The medicine may introduce a slight medicinal disease ALONE in the body, but it is fleeting and mild, and so the VF can easily act on this small disturbance to restore complete cure. (69) Palliative medicines: Exactly the opposite happens in palliative procedures. The doctor chooses medicine with the opposite symptom to the patient's complaining symptom. But, this only hides the patient's symptom from the VF for a while. Palliative medicine cannot supplant the pathologically untuned VF in the organism - it only makes the VF insensible to it by producing a condition completely different from the untunement. And the effects of the palliative soon disappear leaving the natural disease intact. The secondary action of the VF to the palliative worsens the disease symptom it temporarily alleviated. The larger the dose of palliative, the worse this opposite aggravation. (70) Summary of the preceding aphorisms. (71) Summary of the following aphorisms: Human diseases are nothing but groups of symptoms which are destroyed/changed into health by medicinal substances that artificially produce similar disease symptoms. There are THREE questions to the task of curing disease: Q1: How does the doctor ascertain what needs to be known about diseases in order to cure them? Q2: How does he investigate the curative nature of Homeopathic medicines? Q3: How does he apply Homeopathic medicines most effectively to cure diseases? Q1: Aphorisms 72-104: Ascertaining what needs to be known about diseases: Diseases are ACUTE or CHRONIC. Acute diseases are rapid disease processes/untunements of the VF which run their course and end quickly. Chronic diseases, enigmatic initially, dynamically untune the living organism from health gradually in their own characteristic way. The VF can only imperfectly resist. As disease progresses, the VF becomes ever more untuned, until death. These diseases are inherited, i.e., genetic in origin, but are still considered, in nature, to be "dynamic" contagions. (73) Acute diseases are brought on by harmful influences, but are mostly "flare-ups" of a latent chronic disease, which then returns to a dormant state if the flare-up is not too severe, nor long acting. (74) Chronic: Must include all the diseases artificially created by Allopathy, which relentlessly weaken the VF. For example, true local inflammations are cured by Homeopathic medicines that dynamically remove the underlying arterial irritations, yet the Allopathic solution may even result in death. (77) Persistent diseases resulting from avoidable noxious influences that are not chronic, go away on their own when living conditions are improved. (78) True chronic diseases arise from inherited factors, and continue to worsen until death, even in those with robust constitutions and in ideal living conditions. A young person may appear to be healthy, but a chronic disease may be present which remains hidden for years, only to emerge later after stressful events. (79) Three categories of chronic diseases: 1. Syphilis, 2. Gonorrhoea (sycosis) are chronic diseases which persist until death if not treated. (80) The third kind is called PSORA, the underlying cause of immeasurable chronic diseases, which I spent 12 years studying. My new medicines, along with those pre-existing, treat all these conditions. (81) Concerns about Allopaths' wrongful naming of diseases, and failure to distinguish between many of them. (82) In chronic disease, as in acute, the doctor must gather all symptoms and signs in each individual case by the same means. This symptom gathering is far more difficult than in acute diseases, as the chronic ones subtly evolve over years. (84-99) The detailed procedure and guidelines for taking the case (to obtain all manifestations of the patient's illness). (100-103) Additional procedure for epidemics. (104) Monitoring of the case. Q2: Aphorisms 105-145: How does the doctor investigate the curative nature of Homeopathic medicines, the tools of Homeopathic cure? Must know the entire pathogenetic action of as many medicines as possible in the healthy so as to increase the choice of satisfactorily matching to natural diseases. (108) Moderate doses of medicines are given experimentally to the healthy to ascertain all manifestations both physically and in the psyche (called a "proving"). Ref. "Force of medicines observed in the healthy human body", 1805. I was the first person to do this, though others have accidentally 'proved' substances, e.g., poisons. This extensive work was a reflection of my faith in the Homeopathic method, the only way to completely cure human disease. (111) These provings convince me that medicinal substances pathologically alter human healthy human bodies ACCORDING TO DEFINITE ETERNAL NATURAL LAWS and that by virtue of these laws, EACH SUBSTANCE CAN PRODUCE THESE SPECIFIC FIXED RELIABLE DISEASE SYMPTOMS THAT ARE CHARACTERISTIC OF IT. (112) Medicines taken immoderately can have very serious or fatal consequences. This does not occur at the beginning but at the end, with completely opposite symptoms, and is the SECONDARY ACTION or COUNTERACTION by the VF. In controlled doses of H. medicines the secondary actions are barely noticeable, just enough to re-establish the healthy state. (113) Narcotics seem to be an exception though in pure experimentation the secondary action is detectable. (115) Alternating action. (116) In medicine provings, some symptoms are seen in many people, and other symptoms much less frequently. This is related to the physical disposition of a few 'sensitive' people. But these symptoms only appear not to be affecting the less sensitive people, because these medicinal symptoms, when associated with a homeopathically chosen medicine, act on ALL sick people with that symptom presentation. 118) Every medicine has a unique total pattern of effects, and this must be fully investigated, by pure experiment ("Proving"). (121) Medicines have a range of strengths. The stronger are effective in small doses. The milder must be given in larger doses. The weakest ones only reveal their actions when tested on delicate/sensitive healthy people. (124) Each medicine must be taken completely alone on the day it is administered. (126) Provers must be trustworthy and conscientious. (128) Crude medicinal substances do not express all their symptoms nearly as well as when potentised, e.g., to 30c. With these potencies, their virtues are developed to an unbelievable degree. (129) There is remarkable variation in the sensitivity of people to doses. The robust require MUCH larger doses to present symptoms. But, must START with low doses, because you cannot predict who will be robust and who sensitive to this particular medicine. (135) All symptoms associated with a medicine do not appear in all provers... need multiple persons of both sexes for a complete proving. (137) Sensitive persons are the best for obtaining the primary actions (i.e., symptoms) of the medicine before they become clouded by the secondary counteractions of the VF. (143) After many detailed provings, the medicines' characteristics are fully listed in "Materia Medicae". (145) There is a need for more than the 99 available medicines to better treat all chronic diseases, though it is possible to manage with this relatively small number. Q3: Aphorisms 146+: Most effective employment of the Homeopathic medicines for the cure of natural diseases. END OF PART 1 of 2

Say, No, the value of Example 1 is to objectively show the action of a Homeopathic medicine on a disease..how Homeopathy deals with a mechanical problem. This is a test strategy, nothing to do with highlighting any shortcoming. The medicinal means are antibiotics, and these will not be effective for much longer. Re. Mercury, devastating for more than 200 years. That is what spurred Hahnemann on to find a less toxic form of Mercury, and he found it. There is hard evidence.

Blike, Hands up ALL who disagree. Tim

Btox, At last, someone who looks at papers. My support extends only to Hahnemannian Homeopathy (the classical Homeopathy practiced by Hahnemann) at the moment, as that is the only Homeopathy I know in detail. I could never support mixing remedies, as you will find in most of the Medline papers. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...3&dopt=Abstract I would not call this a conclusive test of any kind. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...0&dopt=Abstract The atopic preparations are mixtures. And Hahnemann never supported external treatment like this. He stipulates in the ORGANON of medicine that medicines should not be applied externally. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...9&dopt=Abstract A tough one for me. Who was the Homeopath and what did he administer? Probably not a Hahnemannian. "B w" would have an answer here, as it's his field. Hahnemann mentions strategies for handling anxiety disorders..he would always search for and treat the underlying problem. He was aware of the Placebo effect also, and knew how to use it. In fact, it may be the treatment in many cases like this. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4&dopt=Abstract The "common classical form" is NOT Hahnemannian Homeopathy. Homeopathy can never be tested as AN ADJUNCT to conventional treatment. Conventional treatment ALWAYS interferes with both case-taking and the action of the medicine. Hahnemann had some VERY STRONG WORDS on that matter. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4&dopt=Abstract This kind of study could never a strategy for testing Homeopathy. The effectiveness of a polychrest like Arnica on one or two symptoms is not what Homeopathy is about, at all. Polychrests are medicines that MAY affect a high proportion of people, but certainly not in the specific symptoms measured in this study. Homeopathic medicines act on the "totality of symptoms" in that patient. Each patient is carefully assessed for ALL their symptoms, signs and manifestations. The doctor selects (from about 2,500) the medicine which is most homeopathic to each particular case. Tim

Say, Then how do you decide whether a person is ill, and what illness they have? ..the starting point for any clinical trials. S'pose you're right. The BBCi site is FULL of the second type above, and therefore a complete waste of time. What do you think of the examples at the beginning of this topic? Tim

Btox, Delightful fellow. Disproven by whom? Some sites for interested parties: http://www.ccrhindia.org/drugresearch.htm http://www.holistic-online.com/Homeopathy/homeo_clinical.htm http://www.billgrayhomeopathy.com/HomeopathyIntro.html http://holisticonline.com/Homeopathy/homeo_how_it_works.htm http://www.whatmedicine.co.uk/articlesWater7.htm

Mr L, They are chalk and cheese, yet both are rational and disciplined. They live in completely separate worlds - for the patients' sake they should communicate and cooperate because Homeopathy has a lot to offer to Science.

Say, Even when Science and Homeopathy cannot agree on the term "disease"?

Mr L Jakiri (is that the best name?) Scientific method is hard to apply to Homeopathy because there are some fundamental differences. This topic tries to overcome these differences. I did not say the results were met with derision: ...but their attempts to explain HOW it works. Tim

EXAMPLE 3. Homeopathic medicines, whether given to a patient or taken by the healthy ("proving"), show very real signs, such as a localised rashes, or inflammations. Such signs show up very clearly on high-definition Muscle/Spinal Ultrasound (which shows inflammatory and lymphatic "particle" activities in real-time). Monitoring of these activities before and after administration of the medicine would show clear changes in the tissues where the rash is to be expected. EXAMPLE 4. Discussed earlier with MRC Hans. Hans: Also, you claim that Homeopathic drugs taken on their own (by a healthy person, I assume) produce symptoms. This is even easier to test. Tim: Yes, it doesn't mean they have any curative effects, just that they do produce symptoms. This test would be the easiest of all. Hans: If the predicted effect for Bryonia 6c is objectively measurable, fine. I'd expect something to the tune of 100+100 subjects to be adequate. Tim: "Objectively measurable" might be a problem...certainly unmistakable symptoms felt by the patient..is that okay? Or they must be measured with an instrument of some kind? Hans: Show THAT it works (not HOW). Tim: That is an important statement - THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE I HAVE SEEN. One of the BBCi people said it too. Hans: This is the approach of all modern science, or rather, one of them. 1) You have a thesis (A causes B), so you test it, and if it turnd out to be true, you set out discovering why. Especially in medical science this is productive; after all, the patient does not care why the treatment works, as long as it works. 2) Based on a putative causal effect (given our knowledge of A it should cause B), you make a prediction and design a test to verify (or reject) it. We are talking about both types here. About the case stories in your next post: These are old stories that cannot be confirmed. We cannot know if the diagnosis was correct, we cannot know if the patient was really cured or relapsed later. All the participants are long dead, no independent records exist (I presume). I know you trust Hahnemann 100%, but this trust is entirely belief-based and is of no use to others. I'm sorry, but such accounts, while interesting in a historical perspective, have zero scientific value. Tim: I merely pasted parts of the Chronic Diseases, i.e., the manual describing the diseases and how to treat them (used by Homeopaths for 170 years). Tim

1). "Homeopathy must first show THAT it works - Scientifically - then it will get all the support it needs for HOW it works". 2). The problem is that Homeopaths are not Scientists. Their attempts at explaining how it works are usually met with derision - attention should be focused on the kind of Scientific testing that shows conclusively THAT it works, not HOW it works. But Homeopathy's ways differ fundamentally from those of Science, so how Homeopaths are not likely to be able to contribute to the Scientific task. 3). So, Homeopaths cannot do Scientific research, which must be left to the Scientists. The problem is, the Scientists doing the experiments usually do not understand the ways of Homeopathy, and miss obvious flaws in the experiment. 4). There are significant obstacles to be overcome BEFORE Double-blind Placebo-controlled (DBPC) studies and test protocols should be discussed. The first step is to devise Scientific experiments which are likely to test Homeopathy successfully. Preference for: A. Experiments which test Objective symptoms. B. Experiments where both Science and Homeopathy can agree on the starting point; i.e., a particular "disease": EXAMPLE 1. MECHANICAL : Where compression of the spinal cord or a nerve root is clearly demonstrated by MRI, with classical neurological signs confirming the diagnosis in the patient. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that such cases could be used for testing Homeopathy. If it were possible, and the patient received Homeopathic treatment, MRI repeated after resolution of pain would (would not?) show how healing processes resolved the mechanical problem, i.e., nerve compression. EXAMPLE 2. Bacterial "Diseases" like Syphilis and Gonorrhea, and their cure, were very well documented by Hahnemann. The unambiguous presentation of disease symptoms to both Medical Science and Homeopathy, provides a common starting point for testing. Both of these diseases are today treated with antibiotics, but there are concerns about the widespread use of antibiotics. Guinea Pig models: Konrad Wicher. Syphilis Research Laboratory "Syphilis, caused by infection of Treponema pallidum ssp. pallidum (TP) is one of the sexually transmitted disease known for almost 500 years, and yet, many facts about the disease are unknown and the organism cannot be cultured in vitro. We have found that both susceptible and a resistant strains of guinea pigs are capable of transmitting the disease to their fetuses." In uncomplicated cases, Hahnemann treated Syphilis successfully with a single dose of potentised Mercury. (See Chronic Diseases - Samuel Hahnemann, Page 87-96.) Syphilis experiments on Guinea Pigs, with treatment using Homeopathic medicines may provide statistical significance. Monkeys have proved to be the most successful animals for testing this disease. Gonorrhea: Bacterium, Neisseria gonorrhoeae: In Homeopathy, Gonorrhea (Sycosis) is trested with two potentised medicines; Thuja and Nitric Acid. (See Chronic Diseases - Samuel Hahnemann, Page 83-84.) Again, animal testing may provide statistically significant results. Monkeys have proved to be one of the best models for both syphilis and gonorrhea. Homeopaths would, initially, need to take part in this Scientific work as consultants. Tim

Albert, This is the second part of the answers to your last post.