Hahnemannian444

Atinymonkey, Hippocrates did not invent the Law of Similars, nor did he apply it. You have to be precise if you are going to make remarks about homeopathy. All Hippocrates said was that some cures arise due to like cures like, but he did not apply it therapeutically because to have done so would have required he do homeotherapeutics. In fact, the great demigod of allopathic medicine was a total bozo, so it's ridiculous to say he did anything systematically. Moreover, the HIPPOCRATIC CORPUS makes clear that several people were the authors of it, for they are constantly contradicting each other from both the Rationalist and Empiricist traditions of allopathy. As to my remarks about your logic, I was not applying any general principles in my analysis, but I did notice erroneous assumptions underlying your views. That was deductive logic, but your assumptions were still wrong.

Those postings cover page one, and all I can manage at the moment. Seems I should have been paying attention to this site too.

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

Since Tim mentioned Shui Yin Lo's papers, I want to point out that there is also a book: http://www.minimum.com/p7/engine/book.asp?n=2671# More importantly, the nanometer-sized electron-micrographs he captured of ice at room temperature resulting from succussed serial dilutions may be confirmations of three previous speculations and hypotheses. I name them. About 100 years ago, a homeopath who was more famous as a homeopathic pharmacist speculated brilliantly on the mechanism of our potentization process. That was the famous Bernard Fincke, M.D.. In the 1950s and '60s, another homeopath by the name of James H. Stephenson, M.D., hypothesized that "hydro-alcohol" solvent molecules in our potencies formed into "polymeric matrices" or polymers, the implication being that they were somehow unique for each drug even though that bewilders me how so. If I remember correctly, for I have not looked at those papers for a couple of years, he seems to have suggest that some force intrinsic of the original substance was responsible for it. I will not voice further about this till I re-read them again. Then, in the 1970s and '80s, Wm. A. Tiller, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus in the Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University, wrote many papers on homeopathy and homeopathic pharmacology, one of the most important notions he put forward being that the substances also existed at the Etheric level as "deltrons." That meshes perfectly with what arcane literature says about the nature of the universe, literature that is, incidentally, constantly being confirmed. For example, such arcane authors told us in the 1970s at the commensement of the Big Bang Theory that "photons lose eneregy in traveling the vast intergalactic distances" and thus spread in wavelength, the core erroneous assumption of that ridiculous theory and its ancillary notion of an inflationarily expanding universe. Then see this mechanism inadvertendly confirmed on p. 32 of the Jan. 1999 issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, where it said that cosmic rays "lose energy" to the cosmic microwave background radiation. Same mechanism would be involved there, folks. Hence, no Big Bang or a universe that's inflationarily expanding and 15 billion years old; rather, we live in a steady-state universe about 7½ billion years old. Anyway, those four sources are my contribution to this search by Tim and I. Somebody is going to know something that's the missing piece(s) to this puzzle, for a mechanism has to be available to explain Lo's discovery of room-temperature ice, which may very well be Stephenson's hydroalcohol polymers. That's the gist of it. We're looking to fill in holes and give congruity to mere logical notions.

Tim said this about a remark by Sayonora: Thank you, Tim. I wondered who had ever seen a fever of 160 degrees F.

Tim has a very unique approach to explaining homeopathy. I've never read anything like it, and I don't especially approve since the speculative nature of it ignores how we have logically and empirically tested Hahnemann's explanations for nearly 200 years. However, Hahnemann's explanations were not oriented toward a mechanism like electromagnetism, so I let it slide given that Tim's explanation may well be pivotal to either confirming hypotheses about homeopathic pharmacological potentization I favor or might provide a new slant. I'm standing beside him because we have long needed a champion in chemistry to look into this issue. I will repeat that we have not yet found any diseases incurable. That does not, however, mean that we do not find incurable patients with these diseases. What we mostly find is that whenever somebody gets entangled with allopathic medicine, they might as well prepare to die within 10 years because it does not cure and does speed people to their graves. This is important about AIDS because it seems to be an iatrogenic disease. BTW, how many people are aware of the fact that it was first identified in 1954? Dr. Robert Wilner, author of THE DEADLY DECEPTION, seems to have been the discoverer of this. The First Edition of the MERCK MANUAL (1954) lists four primary causes of AIDS: 1) starvation and malnutrition, 2) recreational drugs, 3) radiation, and 4) chemotherapy. Bet that puts a big ole dent in the assinine claim of the pharmaceutical people who want to sell the world on an AIDS vaccine and retire to the Moon.

Sayanora, you then said: True, but there are two very distinct levels of invoking the word scientific. One applies to scientific method, which can be and often is flawed from the get go by erroneous assumptions, and one applies to pure sciences underlain by natural laws. The pure sciences are just chemistry, physics and homeopathy, mathematics if one wants to accept that the mathematical absolutes fulfill the criteria of 1) natural laws as being 2) absolutely verifiable and 3) provide a reasonably and relatively precise degree of predictability to the phenomena being observed, dealt with and precipitated. Hahnemann homeopathy exceeds the wildest expectations of what a medical system can do, but it is so foreign to the basic assumptions of the natural sciences that we are often thrust outside of it and discarded. Big mistake, for we have found the means of disintegrating unnecessary human and animal suffering by a few simple little truths of existence!

Sayanora, you said: I couldn't have said that better myself, and I just referred to Hahnemann as a forgotten genius. The question we have asked for 213 years is, why?

Sayonora then immediately says: Okay, then let's quote Max Planck: And if you want to get really big time, Nicola Tesla will pull down your false assumptions as the Father of Alternating Current and thus the 20th Century and a man adherent to AEther Theory who was constantly demonstrating practical evidence as a forgotten genius like Hahnemann.

Sayonora said: That's not an accurate way of saying it. You mean, disregarding that which does not yet fit into the existing paradigm or that which exists outside of the existing basic assumptions. The problem you people in and supportive of allopathy have is that all of your basic assumptions are wrong, which of course is why you have no cures, so you really have no leg to stand on with such a statement. That's not the case with homeopathy, though, for our system is stable and cumulative as well as based upon the 10 Laws of Medicine that makes homeopathy the actual Science of Medicine. So you need to back off from such authoritarian statements or I will cut you in half.

I haven't yet seen any AIDS cases and do not look forward to when I do, for they are all allopathically disordered, incurable cases, and I've seen plenty enough of those already since that's all allopathic medicine does to people. I am not at all impressed with the allopathic pronouncements on AIDS and am wholly unconvinced that HIV has anything whatsoever to do with it, and for a number of reasons. Those people in homeopathy who have seen AIDS cases confirm this view, but we see precious few papers on it because allopathic medicine has a near-total monopoly on them just as it does on most cases. I would post here the best pages I've seen on it if there is an interest, for I have been meaning to type them up for sharing anyway.

Tim, then you said: Wow! I am totally shocked! Hilarious too, for I have not yet seen you lose your cool. These people haven't yet seen me lose it, but I don't much care when that happens. Why, however, you said this to Sayonora I do not understand, for that has not been my take on his/her remarks.

Tim said to Sayonora: I didn't see it that way. That is an allopathic view of things. It's kind of innately antagonistic since the allopathic system is 100% oriented toward antagonism of diseases as the very name allopathy means as coined by Hahnemann, but it is understandable given that the natural sciences created modern Rationalist allopathy according to their understandings of things from an EXTREMELY patriarchal attitude and Apollonian worldview. Glad it wasn't me this time, though, who felt that way. Makes me feel better, Tim.

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

That's not exactly accurate. You need to preface that remark with, "According to our present knowledge,..." for you're faced with the fact that nearly every chapter of GYTTON'S PHYSIOLOGY admits to less than 10% knowledge of human physiology. And your apparent but understandable fixation on causes of diseases, since it is an allopathic mania, is made all the more difficult when one realizes that the entire history of allopathic medicine and the ancillary sciences shows that every time a cause has been determined, it later turned out to be an effect. Even pathogens require a host cell or organism that makes its seemingly primafacia place as a causative disease agent merely secondary. This issue of what orders homeostasis -- which you of course hold is mediated by cellular-level processes per the famous reductionism and pathophysiological model of the natural sciences and allopathy -- and what causes diseases quickly complicates in magnitudes when one realizes that physicists have inadvertently confirmed the existence of the AEther or AEtheric Plane of existence. This has gotten railings against it every time I've pointed this out, but I find it clearly indicated due to understanding what's meant by the etheric pattern, higher octaves of atomic nutational motion as the meaning of higher planes, and the vortex nature of matter and energy from subatomic and quantum particles being "torroidal eddies in the fabric of space analogous to smoke rings." This becomes pivotally important when one realizes that homeopathic medicines are unavoidably etheric medicines by virtue of them being subAvogadrean, ultramolecular drugs. When correctly chosen, they thereby apparently set back in order a disordered or no-longer-integral etheric pattern that's generically called the vital force. It is the only explanation I have found comfortable over 25 years. As for the issue of cause and effect, please go read the First Lecture in Kent's LECTURES ON HOMEOPATHIC PHILOSOPHY (http://homeoint.org/books3/kentlect/lect01.htm). Nice discussion here too. I'm most impressed with the several sites Tim and I are engaged in, but it is a bit daunting to keep up with all of them.

That's not true. The logic you refer to is deductive logic based upon erroneous assumptions as the general principles, which of course is why their resultant conclusions as particular facts are always wrong. Legitimate homeopathy engages in inductive logic based upon accurate general principles known as the 10 Laws of Medicine. So that remark is wrong.

You're not going to like this answer, but the cause of the disease is irrelevant to curative therapeutics because pathology and therapeutics have nothing to do with each other. I recently posted on this at length at http://www.sciforums.com, so I copy that here: MRC Hans— Everything you say here is wrong, and they all stem from the five basic assumptions of medicine that allopathy has totally wrong and is part of why they cannot cure:

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

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

COUGH, pleurisy, in (K800): Acon., ars., bry., ip., lyc., sulph. Those medicine would not be listed in Kent's REPERTORY (http://homeoint.org/books/kentrep2/kent0795.htm#P796) had they not cured it.

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