timokay

4). How It Was Done : Logical Model 2 Hahnemann was a pioneer of experimentation on the nature of disease and how the body deals with disease. We may question his theories, but not his many documented experimental observations about the nature of disease. He established some rules or principles, such as that if a medicine can produce all the symptoms that a disease agent causes in a patient, then the disease agent itself could not be responsible for the disease symptoms. Symptoms are produced by the body. The complex behaviour of the body during disease led Hahnemann to the belief that there was something "higher than the chemical level" which is managing disease. He called it the Vital Principle or Vital Force. This "logical model" addresses some aspects of the Vital Principle, proposing it to be an OVERSEER system. THE LAW OF SIMILARS: That if a dose of a well-chosen medicine which is just stronger than the disease being treated, is administered to the patient, the disease is extinguished. But, why should this be? If the medicine is stronger, then it should make the problem worse, and it does temporarily. And, how does it dis-engage the disease? Hahnemann is saying that there is what I will call an OVERSEER System which "oversees" and deals with disease conditions or potential disease conditions existing at the chemical level - and should eradicate them before symptoms appear. But, the OVERSEER failed - symptoms appeared. The medicine was needed to exaggerate this particular disease condition so that the OVERSEER system could now recognize it clearly, and then deal with it as it should have done before the symptoms appeared. If the medicine was not well-chosen, the OVERSEER would react in a different way, thinking it to be a different disease condition, for which it would take the wrong actions. In either case of the medicines above, the OVERSEER is being deceived by the medicines. The medicines imitate communication signals sent to the OVERSEER. This logical explanation means that this OVERSEER system is responsible for dealing with any developing disease conditions promptly, such that they cannot express themselves at all at the chemical level (via symptoms). It monitors everything happening at the chemical level, all the time, and deals with any problems, like a maintenance crew permanently out on a job, and on the move. The nature of OVERSEER must be quite different from conventional physiological, because it could not possibly be acting at the normal physiological/biochemical level where there are so many restrictions, and have such mobility. The physiological restrictions, where messengers have so much specificity as well as the receptors they target, would prevent any conventional physiological process from fulfilling the required "free-ranging" role. Therefore, the specificity at the foundation of all physiological control processes makes any kind of Total, or Holistic, control of the body virtually impossible at the physiological level. Perhaps this OVERSEER control system appeared and evolved over many millions of years as multicellular organisms became larger. It seems the OVERSEER can operate independently of the chemical environment, although superimposed upon it. It can enforce its control when necessary to deal with developing disease conditions it detects. The OVERSEER co-exists with the chemical level, but is using a physical property of the aqueous living environment for its activities and communication. I include some thoughts on the logic behind how Hahnemann accomplished this manipulation of the OVERSEER System, enabling him to deal with disease. The living system described below is a system in the brain, but not the OVERSEER. The fault in the brain system should have been dealt with by the OVERSEER before any symptoms appeared. The OVERSEER had become UNTUNED from the physiological processes it is supposed to be monitoring. A Logical Principle of complicated systems If any complicated system produces very many detectable effects as a result of some part of it not functioning correctly, then ANYTHING that makes the system produce exactly the same effects, is acting on the whole system in a very similar way. This, of course, includes the failing part of the system. The more complicated the system is, the more certainly that this principle holds, if a significant number of effects appear. The ANYTHING which accurately mimics the fault is, in effect, logically associated with this unknown failing part of the complicated system, as well as the association with those many detectable effects. The "non-functioning part of the system" is a logical term: It could actually mean one or many parts of the system and/or any faulty interactions between them. Also, this "Logical Principle" applies to all complex systems, whatever is their actual mechanism. In complex living systems (e.g., systems in the brain), if the number of detectable effects can be increased for the disease condition, this will give the experimenter a more detailed and unique picture of that particular disease condition. Repeating this process for all disease conditions would eventually also provide information about the behaviour and characteristics of the whole system. In living systems, the ANYTHING would be a substance. If many substances were used to probe the system under investigation in the above way, recording the total detectable effects for each substance, would add to "logical" or "conceptual" knowledge about faults in the system, especially if the experimenter was able to increase the total number of detectable effects for each substance. The "many" substances that should be tested to obtain a detailed picture of faults in the complex system, may run into the hundreds or thousands. During this activity, the experimenter would not fail to learn a great deal more about the functioning of the system as a whole, and then, by logical deduction, introduce a concept such as the Vital Principle/Force. Regarding this brain model: Since all the substances tested would be increased from a low dose to high doses until they produce the many effects needed to specifically identify them, they would always include toxic effects largely common to all substances. The primary objective of this exercise then, would be to find substances that exhibit effects which are different from the commonly expected toxic effects. Such unusual effects normally appear as the first effects appearing, before the dose has increased to toxic levels. In practice, unique or unusual effects are rare, so it is necessary to include all the toxic symptoms, and to use the "totality of effects" to hopefully identify the uniqueness of this substance, and therefore its value as a medicine. Also, in practice, the large majority of substances tested for their medicinal value have no effect at all in low doses, and only the very common toxic effects at higher concentrations, resulting in a very common "totality of symptoms". This suggests that these have no interaction with any specific component of the system at all, and are of no use as medicines. Another feature noted in practical clinical studies on people is the very large variability in the sensitivity of each substance among individuals. Since the objective is to try to find unusual presenting effects, and since these only appear as the first symptoms presented, the testing must begin with very low doses to begin with. Certain persons may be particularly sensitive to this substance, presenting some unexpected symptoms after low doses - this means the substance is having some specific effect on the system below toxic levels, and is therefore has potential as a medicine. Hypothetical System In a hypothetical isolated system of ten components which interact with each other, consider the types of problems which may occur in biological systems: 1. a component of the system is failing or inefficient in performing its function, i.e, 1.1 its product, or its signal is not produced. 1.2 its product, or its signal is faulty or weak. 2. a component is failing to detect a signal to it, from another component(s). 3. the components which feed back to switch off other components (product/signal) are failing, or not triggered as a result of the failing steps 1 & 2 above. In practice, even a small biological system is likely to be much more complicated than this, with each component interacting with more than one of the other components OR with some components not participating at all, depending on the input to the system. Also, in practice, the system will not be ISOLATED, as assumed in this hypothetical case. There will be inputs to, and outputs from, the system which are potentially faulty. If the input is not accepted or processed correctly by this hypothetical system, it will accumulate. It is the accumulation of products as a result of the fault in the system that will cause the observed effects, and toxicity. And, the kind of accumulations and their effects depends on where in the system the fault has occurred. By matching symptoms closely, the medicine is "logically" targetting the fault in the system. The twist in the tail is that the medicine is not acting on any fault in the physiological system at all, but by imitating and exaggerating the precise signal that should have been received and processed by the OVERSEER system (Vital Principle) to manage the disease. Para 33 of the Organon: "Natural disease agents have only a subordinate and conditional power to alter human health, while medicinal forces have a far superior power to do so, one that is absolute and unconditional." This shows a fundamental difference between the "disease" and the "medicine". The disease condition of the patient, known through symptoms, is the outward expression of the failing physiological processes of a system in the brain. The medicine which produces very similar symptoms is something else completely. It is the SIGNAL which acts directly on the OVERSEER system which then performs its function of resolving the disease.

3). How It Was Done : Logical Model 1 The symptom patterns which appear during Homeopathic treatment always involve the whole body, so the Brain's Homeostatic Control Centre is suspected as the primary target of the medicine. The Brain then triggers normal healing processes, so there is no direct action of the medicines outside the Brain. Since symptoms are the currency of Homeopathy, their origin must be considered. This first model proposes a centre in the brain which initiates symptom patterns, and which responds differently for each type of "signal" from the medicines. The medicine could not possibly be acting diffusely or randomly around the body with such predictable symptom patterns. The medicine may not actually directly affect the "symptom generator" - it may influence some other component of the Brain's Control system which then sends the signal to the symptom generator. This model proposes that the Homeopathic signal is an artificial signal which mimics the Brain's own signals passed between the components of the Homeostatic Control System, (or the signal actually participates in the mechanism of these components to cause the symptoms). Each homeopathic "signal" does not generate a single symptom, but a pattern of symptoms which, in totality, are unique for each homeopathic medicine. Since a single "signal" operates in this way, it can be deduced that the Brain also aggregates symptoms to a particular signal in the same way. For this to work, the Brain would need instinctual memory to be able to match each specific signal to its symptom patterns. Alternatively, the symptoms may just be toxic reactions in the Brain resulting from the fault in the control centre. Hahnemann preferred sensitive patients during the provings because the very first symptoms to appear tended to be almost unique to that medicine. He always had to start with very small doses because of the large variability of "prover" sensitivity, and then progressively increase the doses to toxic levels. All the hypersensitivity or toxic symptoms that followed with the higher doses were less important than the first, as they were so common among medicines, but had to be recorded anyway because other symptoms associated with this medicine appeared at the same time as them. The years of many medicine "provings" (symptom gathering) provide for the Homeopath a detailed "logical" knowledge of the behaviour of the Brain's control system, but without knowing its physical structure. The objective, then, is for the Homeopath to be able to recognise all possible "conditions of failure" of the control system through the external presentation of symptoms, so as to be able to then manipulate the control system in a precise way, according to the Law of Similars. We do not need to know much about the actual structure of the control system in this logical model. Like any system, it will consist of a number of components which perform functions and communicate to, or pass something to, other components, or feedback to inhibit other components. Any fault causes some kind of "blockage" in the system. The end result is that thing(s) accumulate excessively, and in a very characteristic way for each particular "component fault", resulting in the characteristic toxic reactions, which are actually ONLY IN THE BRAIN. The areas of the Brain affected by this toxicity may be those controlling various regions of the body, which gives the patient the perception that the symptoms are actually coming from the organs and tissues that these brain areas are responsible for. If untreated, the fault in the control system will usually "hang" in this state, stuck at a specific component(s) for years - or further accumulations will cause a worsening of toxicity and symptoms causing a steady decline until death. This is similar to the behaviour of the chronic diseases. SUMMARY In disease, there may actually be no disease in the body at all except within the Control system itself, which is faulty and still producing symptoms because it is not able to complete its action and reset itself after a disease in the body has resolved. The Homeopathic medicine must, firstly, target and then PUSH the faulty step in the Control system so that the Control system can overcome the faulty step, resume its processing of the disease, and complete normally. Therefore, the "total symptom pattern" of the disease is logically associated with, and reveals the identity of the faulty part of the control system. The Homeopathic medicine, by matching these symptoms closely, becomes logically associated and targets the very same fault, pushing that faulty component so that this obstacle in the system can be overcome.

2). How It Was Done : Introduction In 1790, a fully-qualified and experienced doctor and chemist was faced with the unsolved problem of disease. He knew neither how the body works nor what causes disease. He had given up on Conventional Medicine because "it was no good". The medicines, he found, did more harm than good - when he poisoned and almost killed one of his children - that was the last straw. But the problem haunted him for years. He wanted very much to solve it. All he had to work with were a handful of "medicines", discovered by chance and which seemed to help - at least initially, before their toxicity would result in worse problems. These "medicinal" substances had something in common. They all change or alleviate symptoms of diseases. He proposed that it was their ability to change symptoms that was their medicinal value - their only medicinal value. Starting with these medicines, diluting to make them less toxic, he found a different kind of medicine inside them, and then in many other substances - many of these having the property of producing distinct patterns of symptoms in healthy people, yet causing no lasting effects. It took him years to research hundreds of substances which had these symptom properties on healthy people, eliminating the majority which exhibited only common toxic symptoms. He found that if the total symptom pattern of the medicine closely matched the patient's disease symptom pattern, a remarkable resolution of symptoms sometimes occurred in the patient. It was complete recovery, though he could not explain how it worked (The Law of Similars (1796)). He then spent many years testing many substances (on himself, family, friends) for the symptoms they produce, so that medicines matching the symptom pattern of all known diseases would be available for use. In 1810, after perfecting and fully testing these medicines for the treatment of all acute diseases, the "Organon of Medicine" explaining his system of medicine was first published. After studying Hahnemann's books, I believe the most likely explanation for the mode of action of these medicines is that they act purely on the Brain's disease management system and, by implication, this system is in absolute charge of disease management, controlling and, where necessary, overriding the immune system. By matching symptoms, the medicines somehow target and then overcome the fault in the system. Once overcome by the medicine, the body's disease management system simply resumes its processing from where it left off. The disease management system already has the resources evolved over millions of years to manage virtually all, if not all, disease conditions so there is little point in studying the precise mechanism of physiological processes of the body. Re. a recent question on the Homeopathic treatment of chronic diseases, I answered: At the moment, I favour the simplest possible explanation, that these substances act only on the Brain - they mimic signals the Brain uses to manage disease & maintain homeostasis. The brain already has the capability to cure nearly all diseases. But, it deliberately leaves some chronic conditions untreated if they are not important to survival. Modern Man survived the famines in Africa by being able to conserve resources. Hahnemann was able to override this adaptation. He could PUSH these Homeostatic mechanisms in the right way to eliminate nearly all, or all, chronic diseases, and surprisingly quickly considering the length of time that many of the patients had suffered. The next discussions are "proposed models" of how it was done derived from Hahnemann's books.

Sayonara, IT WENT THRU EVOLUTIONARY STEPS, simple steps for the crowd elsewhere; was based on my first interpretations of Hahnemann's many observations, re. human disease and medicines. This rambles a little (in six numbered parts, and you may well " seem like a bitter, cynical, sceptic dragon half the time" after reading it). 1) SOME LOGIC EXAMPLE 1: Does anyone remember a board game called Black Box? A three-dimensional version was made, as a computer game. One player would put something inside the box and the second player would have to identify it without looking inside the box. Instead, he could fire "rays" into the box and see where they came out of the box. They could be fired into all six faces of the box. In the computer version, each side was divided into a 12x12 grid, and the ray could be fired in thru any of these 144 locations, would emerge from another location after being deflected or otherwise by the object. A direct hit reflects the ray back along the course it came in from. Glancing contact deflects it thru 90 degrees and out. By firing enough rays, the player could identify the object in the box. So, each ray provides some position information about the object. The computer version was more challenging because the object in the box could be up to 7 separate ATOMS instead of a finite object, scattered defusely in the box. Then, the rays would get some interesting internal deflections to fool the opponent. Nevertheless, if enough rays are fired in, the exact position of all the atoms can be identified with absolute certainty. EXAMPLE 2: Stand ten tuning forks of various sizes in a cardboard box, close the box and challenge someone to identify what is in the box. If it were a very determined and persistent person, he/she would eventually get around to trying a wide range of sound frequencies - and then all the forks would resonate in turn. He/she did get the answer, so you can know a great deal about what is inside a "Black Box" without actually looking inside. EXAMPLE 3: A man, who has never played chess in his life, challenges the top two Chess players in the world to a series of games in which he will play them simultaneously, in adjoining rooms. He promises to give them a good game; even beat them sometimes. They accept the challenge. The rule for each pair of simultaneous games is, that our challenger makes the first move in one of the games, and one of the champs makes the first move in the other game. Result after 10 pairs of games : WON 3 LOST 3 DRAWN 14. Not bad for someone who had never played chess in his life. All he did was wait for the first Champ to start the game and make the same move to start the game with the other champ; then wait for that Champ's move, repeating it in the other game, etc. It doesn't matter how complicated a problem is, it can sometimes be beaten with LOGIC. I am sure someone like Peter will add a few more examples in jest. Example 4: A Bigger "Black Box": Disease Management in the Brain. When a person becomes infected with a disease agent, it is normally eliminated without that person ever even knowing about it (because that is the way disease management is supposed to work). But if symptoms appear at all, and then persist, all it means is there is something wrong with this person's disease management. It is unlikely to be a serious fault - anyone who makes it beyond early childhood could not possibly have anything seriously wrong with their disease management. Disease Management has evolved over many millions of years to deal with almost anything thrown at it. So, there is only a minor fault to be dealt with, and it is only a matter of finding it. ------------------an earlier post --------------- Simple Logical Model : When somebody falls ill, there is a potentially very significant problem to be dealt with by the doctor, because a person is an organism of about 4 trillion cells, the product of more than two billion years of competitive evolution. The person will certainly not just succumb to the disease and die without a fight; he/she has extremely sophisticated mechanisms to cope with almost every eventuality. One strategy is to just leave the patient alone to recover. Any "blind" intervention is likely to do more harm than good, or just delay the process. But, through experience, doctors learned some things that seem to help the recovery. They also learned something about the causes of disease, and the obstacles to cure - which could then be avoided/removed. But some diseases are more severe and persistent, and do not resolve even with careful management, so the doctors had to find other ways. To make any progress with this almost intractable problem, doctors had to learn as much as possible about the nature of disease. This could entail a detailed investigation of body tissues and how they function, or focus on how the body as a whole behaves. The effectiveness or success of each of these approaches would be determined only through practical experience. It happens that the holistic approach of actually influencing the activities of the control system in the brain which itself manages disease and healing (Homeostatic Control System) was by far the most effective and complete curative method. The body already has the capacity to combat almost every disease condition, so there is no need for the physician to actually know the mechanics of how the body, or medicines, work. It is only important to be able to know how to precisely manipulate the control system when it is failing.

Sayonara, "Now all the model needs is some evidence that supports it." That will come when the model has been fully checked against all reported observations, and there are thousands of those. I have found more support for the belief that the immune system holds a memory of all the current diseases in the body, and the Brain component of disease management processes just one disease at a time. More later. "There's nothing at all wrong with having a theory, but there is certainly a wrong way of delivering it. Since homeostasis and its effects on the immune system are the crux of the issue I don't see how you can leave them out of the debate really." I didn't deliver it like that at the first attempt last week (elsewhere). Step 1 is to just leave it as a conceptual model of disease management consisting of two main components, the immune system and the Brain's controlling influence. I could paste those intermediate steps taken, though they were evolving models, and not fully consistent. "...because "science" is not a discipline. It is a methodical approach that, while allowing flexibility in practice, uses a strict code to ensure that all hypotheses are tested rigorously according to the same standards." That's the problem in a nutshell.

Sayonara, Re AIDS; "This is all terribly controversial. " It is indeed, and the reason I am persuing this.

Sayonara, Peer review does not have to proceed like that. However, I will reply as your response seems to be reasonably civil this time. ""then you may want to cite some evidence or deductive reasoning, especially if you are later going to say "The location of HCS is unknown. It may have several components at various locations in the brain". Where is this information coming from? Is it purely theoretical? Does it explain all observed evidence?" The answer is that this is theoretical, a logical model which correlates with Hahnemann's description of the way his system worked. I don't know what is wrong with having a theory. There are no books on this because no Scientist has ever bothered to address it. The debate should not be about the definition or scope of Homeostasis and the immune system. The location of HCS in the Brain IS unknown. All we know is that it is managed/controlled in the Brain. "Yes, perhaps "hijack" was not the best word to choose, as it implies a deliberately directed effect. What I was trying to get across is that the homeostatic response - when triggered by an infection - usually does more harm than good. Please do not try to tell me that the best way the body can aid an immune response, that can act over a mere 3 days to an indefinite period.." Anyone can do a search on fever with immune and see that fever, though uncomfortable, is a deliberate attempt to defeat the disease agent by raising the temperature away from that which is optimal for the agent. So yes, the fever helps the immune system fight infection. http://www.ehendrick.org/healthy/000539.htm#Treatment " raise the temperature of the body so high that water is lost exponentially and proteins are denatured." Water is replaced. Proteins being denatured is nonsense. "Please do not try to tell me ..". I do, because it is the truth. You could simply do a search on PNI or PNIE and find the Science of Psychoneuroimmunology and other variants. The subject is too vast for me to go into here. http://www.msu.edu/user/chenhao/pnijour.htm This link explains something of the Psyche component (see the intro first): http://home.tiscalinet.ch/kmatter/psychone.htm#_Toc442256832 Scientific searches will find much more on PNIE, as well as PNI. "why the title of this thread is "Not science, we are told"? Is it because SOMEONE SAID research into this area was not a valid scientific endeavour? 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." Who said? Your teacher at school. Homeopathy IS a rational discipline. It is dismissed because it is difficult to verify Scientifically, that is all. The main problem is the failure of Science and Homeopathy to work together to resolve its mechanism, such as the transmission of the signal thru' ethanol/water. If Chemists Geckeler & Samal were to cooperate with a Homeopathic pharmacy, one of the most serious contenders for the mechanism of action could be evaluated. The same applies to Lo et al's work. These studies point to a cluster mechanism: 1) SHUI-YIN LO in 1996 2) Samal/Geckeler in 2001 1) Here are Lo's two papers on 'a form of Ice' (Ie-crystals), which accumulate in water on dilution/succussion. The chemists say such crystals/clusters would not be stable. http://pecan.srv.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/dst/www/ATG/lo-iestru.html http://pecan.srv.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/dst/www/ATG/lo-ice.html 2). S. Samal and K. E. Geckeler, Unexpected solute aggregation in water on dilution, Chem. Commun. 21 (2001) 2224-2225. This paper is not available online. http://www.netklinik.de/naturtherapie/scientific_basis.htm Hahnemann himself implied that the signal was actually passing to the brain through sensory nerves.

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.

Sayonara, "It's a nice concept but unfortunately it's bollocks." You feel the need to be antagonistic. It is unclear why. My experiences with people with such an attitude is that they never change their minds, AND expect me to explain it all to them, which I shall not be doing. If you do not have anything constructive to say then I shall be completely ignoring you after this post, and hope the other people here are mature enough to do the same. (NOTE: I didn't ask you to stay away because I know it is pointless.) "The homeostatic functions do nothing to help the body when it is under attack - in fact most viral infections we only notice because they hijack homeostatic functions, causing fever etc." "hijack?" Fever is a deliberate response by the Homeostatic system to combat the disease agent, which influences/assistst the immune system's activities. "PNIE input" means PSYCHE-NEURO-IMMUNO-ENDOCRINE input, the four components of Homeostasis. The immune system is so entwined in Homeostasis it has for decades considered a part of Homeostasis. "Immune responses have nothing whatsoever to do with the hypothallamus or activity of the pituitary - they are mediated by discrete biochemical events at a cellular level." Perhaps you mean initiated, not mediated. The immune response is a co-ordinated response, which has the potential to involve MANY systemic activities, if the infection is not dealt with promptly. "Homeostasis involves the correct regulation of glucose, water, heat and oxygen throughout the body - nothing more." "Nothing more". And how the hell does it do it. By magic. (Not questions.) "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." Your "of course" seems very much out of place as it is followed by rubbish. That is exactly what Dr Hahnemann did. Activated processes which force the resolution of the disease conditions. Your words have distorted what I wrote. Read it again. "I think that someone here is getting confused because homeostasis and homeopathy both begin with the five same letters. Clearly doesn't realise why formal Latin and ancient Greek are used for scientific terms." Obviously a person without any degrees shooting his schoolboy mouth off. A very silly person - this is my last word to you.

Skye, "I haven't read a lot on homeopathy and hadn't heard of the HCL concept." HCS is, as yet, a concept derived from close study of Hahnemann's books and writings. The best Homeopathy reference is "The Organon of Medicine", and where anyone interested should start. It was first published in 1810 and underwent 5 modifications. The 6th Edition is by far the best, and the ONLY translation of it worth reading is by KUNZLI et al.(1982/3/or later). This is the version you should be able to get from your public library (they may have to bring it in from another lib.). The other major work of Homeopathy is "The Chronic Disease" ("Advanced level" Homeopathy) to be read after the Organon. There are some versions of the Organon online, but all are LOUSY translations. Here are some of them. The 6th Ed is the one to read. It has 291 numbered Paragraphs (Aphorisms) though they are much more than a single paragraph. When people talk about Homeopathy, they often refer to the Para number of the Organon. http://www.homeoint.org/books/hahorgan/ http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html http://homeoint.org/books/hahchrdi/index.htm Does the HCL have a physical location within the brain, if so where? And have there been any patients that are lacking this region, with noticable immunological deficiencies? The location of HCS is unknown. It may have several components at various locations in the brain. The four main inputs of PNIE to HCS are believed to converge somewhere near the Hypothalamus - the proposed location because of its blood receptors and proximity to the major endocrine gland (Pituitary gland). How does this fit in with, what I think is the central concept, the concept of like cures like? Homeopathic medicine produce "unique set of symptoms". THAT is their only medicinal value. For these medciines to act "homeopathically", the medcine chosen must precisely match the patient's "unique set of symptoms". This is the "like cures like" of homeopathy.

Blike, "Do they treat complex illnesses, or just things like the common cold.. " Hahnemann could treat ALL diseases except what he called "surgical cases". The ALL diseases includes all the most troublesome diseases around today which are considered incurable by medical science....i.e., all the chronic and degenerative diseases. Albert, an experienced Hahnemannian Homeopath, can give details if you need them? If so, I'll call him in.

CONTINUED (Above post incomplete..accidently posted.) HCS has a fault and just HANGS in an incomplete state....possibly for ever (chronic disease). Normally these people gradually deteriorate over years until death because HCS cannot help the immune system. But, there is no disease agent in the body...the immune system has completed its task. Later I will explain how the above was deduced by Hahnemann (though it was me who re-stated it in terms of modern science, so don't blame Hahnemann). Briefly, Hahnemann was a very experienced and well-read doctor. He knew of 100's cases where a patient with a disease would suddenly show symptoms of another disease...another infection had taken over. Then , when that disease had resolved..the old disease would come back and take its course. He classified diseases according to their similarity of symptoms, and their severity (and therefore the priority they get in the body.) He found that, if diseases were very similar in nature, resolving one of them would resolve the other one at the same time. But, this was largely theorising, because he was under pressure to explain how his medicines work. He proposed that the medicine was an "artificial disease", and the dose was selected to just exceed the natural disease in severity so that "it would take it over" - or suspend the natural disease. But, the medicine is just a false signal and this artificial disease wanes in a day or two. At this point, we should expect the suspended disease to come back and continue....but it doesn't..its gone for ever. To explain this, I think HCS can only process one disease at a time. There may be multiple diseases in the body being managed by the immune system but, when HCS interprets the PNIE input from the immune system, it chooses just the disease which is the more serious/stronger. (At some point it may intervene by activating the instinctual instructions for this disease, or just leave the immune system alone to complete the job.) In the case of the Hanging The above disease symptoms disappeared because it was a HCS disease. The processing was stuck at some faulty step for a long time, unable to complete. In the meantime the immune system had eliminated the disease. When the stronger artificial disease comes along, it sets the HCS disease aside...clears it from the processing area and works on the artificial disease until it disappears. If the HCS disease were a real disease, the re-evaluation of the latest PNIE input from the immune system would re-instate the disease as the "current disease" in HCS. But there's nothing there...HCS is back to normal so all the HCS-caused symptoms disappears. So, HCS refers to instinctual memory in managing disease conditions it recognizes from immune system input, but it has no other memory of diseases in the body - monitors/processes one at a time, (the most serious), and when it is resolved by the immune system just refers again to the immune system's PNIE input for the next disease to monitor/process.

Giles, How does 'symptom recognition' work? Antigen recognition is well documented. Excellent question. We can only speculate as it is handled by some unknown centre in the brain. Its existence is deduced by the very predictable behaviour of the Homeostatic system after taking homeopathic medicines. Hahneman left a great deal of info on his observations. This is nothing like anything operating in tissues outside the brain, e.g. antigen recognition. It's purely a neural network interfacing with "regional areas for the organs/tissues" in the brain to produce the perception of symptoms. A system which is inpenetrable? Perhaps, from a Scientific perspective, but Logigally/Conceptually by careful observation, we can deduce a lot about it. How do disease-causing agents (or other recognisable effects) cross the blood-brain barrier to reach the 'homeostatic centre'? I don't know what you mean. No disease agent is crossing the BB barrier in this scenario. Perhaps, you mean the Homeopathic medicine. It must get into the brain because that is where it effects its action. If its nature is such that it passes thru the blood stream then it must cross the BBB. But, it is possible this medicine actually enters the brain through the nervous system...bizarre I know, but cannot be excluded yet. How do you account for known causal pathways in well-studied disease organisms? I do not dispute those pathways and the immune system gets to work on them. But too much emphasis is placed on those pathways. The immune system goes about its business and eliminates the disease organisms. The Homeostatic centre monitors immune system activity (constant input from immune system thru PNIE interface, e.g., hypothalamic blood sensors) - only becomes involved when there is an unusual situation (e.g., immune system overwhelmed or trying to manage multiple diseases). How does the immune system signal the brain? Through the constantly monitored PNIE interface. (I will post something on the background of PNIE for people who are not familiar.) How does this model account for the normal modes and functions of 'memory' in the immune system? The immune system goes about its business at its own physiological level, including the functions of 'memory' it has. The Homeostatic Control system (HCS) has a different physiological mechanism, in the brain, and includes instinctual (memory) instructions for each disease situation. When the PNIE input (immune system component) is recognized by HCS as an emergency situation, HCS takes action by referencing the instinctual memory instructions for this particular emergency and initiates those instructions; a cascade of activities to combat this disease around the body, from the highest level of control - e.g., involving hormone releasing factors secreted by the pituitary. But, this all happens without the patient even knowing about it. Hahnemann recogonized this period when the disease was silently being managed. It is only when HCS itself has a fault that symptoms appear, called PERCEIVED symptoms due to HCS failure. At this point, HCS may become out-of-line with the immune system, but the disease which persists with these symptoms is ONLY in HCS. Name one disease for which the 'homeostatic' disease mechanism is documented at the molecular level. It is so difficult to get inside the "black box" which is the Brain, but it can be deduced by relentless experimentation and logical reasoning. Why do disease-causing organisms generate symptoms in tissue culture, or in other organisms without a central nervous system? I do not question at all what you have said. But, the symptoms that people call "disease" are actually generated by the body itself, i,e., in the Brain. As far as Hahnemann was concerned, the disease agent disappears into the body never to be seen again. He could precisely mimic all the symptoms with his medicines, which contain no disease agent at all, therefore it is THE BODY which produces the symptoms, not any disease agent. Why, if the homeostatic centre operates on signals from the immune system, does 'resolution' depend on symptom discrimination rather than antigen discrimination? No antigens go into the brain in this scenario. The medicines are not antigen but their sole function is their ability to produce symptoms...that alone. The antigen is handled outside the brain by the immune system. The antigen itself does not go into the brain, cannot get in. HCS has the PNIE input as its window on the world, which is something else completely - e.g.hypothalamic blood receptors for blood factors + much more, resulting from the on-going management of the disease by the immune system. HCS assesses/monitors the status of the disease. How does this model incorporate the concept of adaptation at all? What aspect of adaptation? HCS is a powerful backup to the immune system. When Hahnemann mastered its operation, he could resolve any disease at all, because HCS can be PUSHED into action. So, the fundamental difference between Medical Science and Homeopathy is that Hom acts on this Brain centre, which is the source of all perceived symptoms, and which has the capacity to initiate activities which greatly assist the immune system to eliminate disease. But, in the majority of diseases which present with many symptoms, the disease IS THE SYMPTOMS. HCS has failed to complete its processing of some disease it had helped the immune system with. otwh

Kettle, The testing was done by Scientists, not Homeopaths. There are branches of Homeopathy that Hahnemann would not have approved of at all, so any approval by Homeopaths in those branches is suspect. No scientist has ever tested Hahnemannian Homeopathy. Tim

Albert, I don't know what "Quick Response" below means...a limit of some kind on post size? Try posting in pieces. Let's see what this forum has to offer. But, still looking for a Science one with a significant following.

Jakiri, Who considered it? Give publication ref.

Just because something is difficult to prove, that doesn't mean Scientists should just turn their noses up at it. There is a Scientific problem to be solved, so it should be considered. I refer to Classical Homeopathy. The bizarre nature of its mechanism is astonishing, but it is still rational. A German doctor noticed that many substances prepared in the right way produce "symptom patterns" in people. These medicines are acting on the Brain's Homeostatic Centre. Dr Hahnemann simply threw 1000's of these substances at the Brain (using healthy people as subjects) to understand the mechanism of this Homeostatic centre...and he actually solved the problem of disease by associating "specific symptom patterns" with "specific faults" in the Homeostatic centre. He discovered a principle: how diseases behave when they exist simultaneously in a patient...one will dominate, the other suspended...the brain has an instinctual memory of each disease (i.e. what to do when signals from the immune system indicate such-and-such disease). When diseases are of a very similar kind, the instinctual memory system does not have the resolution to distinguish between them...thinks they are just one disease. The patient is sick because the Homeostatic centre has a fault, and NOTHING to do with any disease agent (which has only exposed the fault). By selecting a medicine with exactly the same symptoms as that exhibited by the sick person, the Homeostatic Control system is fooled by the medicine, believing it to be the same disease as the natural disease. It completes the processing of that natural disease by taking it over. The fault in the system still exists, but the medicine has detached the natural disease and marked it as resolved. Must go. Any interest? There is a Scientific problem to be solved. Let me explain. (Later) Tim

Sayonara, Yes, the Scientific clinical trials have been disappointing. None, however, have been performed on Hahnemannian Homeopathy, which, I believe, worked perfectly. Albert is an experienced homeopath in that area, so I hope he will join in. Most of Homeopathy has not stuck to essential principles laid down by Hahnemann.. As far as I can see, these areas of "Homeopathy" could not work, which might explain the results.

This topic discusses the raging Homeopathy debate. Hahnemann wrote books 200 years ago on a medical system that must have worked for him to have known so much about disease and how to cure it - he extended his own life to more than three times the life expectancy for someone born in 1755. His books are so rational and flawless, it is impossible to believe that this is anything other than a valid medical system. Everyone feels they have the right to dismiss Homeopathy, though how could they know. They want Scientific proof but do not want to contribute to discussions on how to find that particular kind of proof. I am not a homeopath, have no financial interest, just know that, after carefully studying his books, Hahnemann cured chronic diseases, considered incurable today, that affect millions in Britain and 10's of millions in the USA. I hope I can tempt Homeopath Albert into this debate. Please ask any introductory questions or background on the subject, if you don't know anything about it. Tim K.