Not Science, we are told

[timokay]

Kettle,

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

[Sayonara]

I imagine this would be tricky in the case of AIDS.

 

How can you set the proper priority when a lowered immune response means that secondary infections constantly flare up, with no way of predicting which diseases will become involved?

 

This is all terribly controversial.

[timokay]

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.

[timokay]

Sayonara,

 

Re AIDS; "This is all terribly controversial. "

 

It is indeed, and the reason I am persuing this.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by timokay

Sayonara, Peer review does not have to proceed like that.

If you think this is a grilling you ought to try publishing a paper

 

The answer is that this is theoretical, a logical model which correlates with Hahnemann's description of the way his system worked.

OK, great. I'm glad we established that. Now all the model needs is some evidence that supports it.

 

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.

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.

 

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

 

Water is replaced. Proteins being denatured is nonsense.

"Please do not try to tell me ..". I do, because it is the truth.

Well, I went to the page you posted. It was simple to the point of banality but it was accurate I suppose insofar as it actually delved into the biology of fevers, which wasn't a great deal. Nothing there however suggests that I am wrong and you are right. I am not arguing that a pathogen-induced fever is not a part of the immune response, I am arguing that it is damaging to the host. This is the case.

If you don't believe that fevers can cause protein to denature, then what use do you suppose it is as a defence mechanism? Also explain how without causing systemic, intrasomatic distress conditions, a fever can induce violent spasms or even ultimately lead to death. Water is generally only replaced if the patient is tended to by another or is not so sick that they are incapable of assuring themselves basic necessities - if you are going to assume the patient has access to as much water as they need, you are not considering the fever per se, you are considering an integrated recovery process with external interference.

If in doubt, you may find it useful to imagine these processes in a higher mammal that is not human, and does not have the medical support we expect to receive when we are seriously ill.

 

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.

...

Scientific searches will find much more on PNIE, as well as PNI.

I'm not going to go into the smattering of websites I found. But this was among the most cogent: http://www.123relax.com/articles/H_eathealthy.html

Is that a fair summary of the field, would you say?

 

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.

You may be missing the point. You can't force homeopathy and "science" together in the same way you might merge geological and meterological disciplines (for example), 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.

A scientific approach to the problems you are describing will doubtless reveal the truth of the matter.

[timokay]

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]

I'll be interested in hearing about your findings (even if I do seem like a bitter, cynical, sceptic dragon half the time )

[timokay]

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.

[timokay]

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.

[timokay]

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.

[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.

[timokay]

5). How it was done : Logical Model 3

 

As multicellular organisms became larger and their chemical control substances became more numerous and specific in their actions on the tissues, the need arose for an "alternative communication and control system" (ACCS) which is not constrained by chemical specificity nor physiological barriers. This system operates at a level totally different from the known physiological level, not "chemical" at all, but utilising an electrophysical property of the aqueous living environment.

 

When toxic congestion occurs in living tissue during disease states, one of the difficulties physiological processes have, as well as knowing exactly where it is occurring, is actually penetrating the congested tissues enabling it to deal with the problem and restore Homeostasis. ACCS functions primarily to locate, identify, and manage problems of this nature. ACCS has a communication system which uses a type of signalling unlike anything of the known physiological.

 

Since the system operates on this electrophysical property of the solution of living tissues, ACCS's signals are unrecognised at the physiological level of cellular processes, unless it is ACCS's intention to do so in directing activities at the physiological level. Many genes are proposed to be involved in making the components of ACCS. Some of these genes are expressed in all cells, in the form of specific biomolecular machines which operate effectively as transmitters at the level of this electrophysical property, constantly broadcasting signals within the range of the communication system used by ACCS; signals which reflect their functioning or Homeostatic status. These biomolecular machines also take part in physiological processes as well (e.g., "electric-motor" ATP synthase in the mitochondrial membrane) and the signal they transmit may be only an unintentional by-product of their mechanical activity...activity which alters in disease states.

 

Other genes make the main components of ACCS. One type acts as a receiver of the "broadcasted" cellular signals. In total, ACCS behaves like a dynamic entity in living tissues, which moves about unrestrained in the body, carried on this electrophysical property of the aqueous environment, effectively searching for abnormal "broadcasts" indicating potential disease states. It actually occupies the whole body at all times, undetected, but residing in a latent state in the tissues which are healthy.

 

ACCS evolved in parallel with known physiological/biochemical evolution, it's "dynamic" mobility (like a moving cloud, or induced state which appears spontaneously in tissues) suits it to the functions of locating, then directing the physiological level activities to resolve the developing disease conditions, and finally evolving to take over the responsibility of actually managing the resolution of disease states as soon as they appear at the physiological level. These managing activities were probably first associalted with physiological activities of the Brain. Although saying that ACCS is responsible for preventing all disease, its role is more as a manager, to direct and guide the physiological processes to bring about a resolution of disease situations.

Hahnemann explained that if Homeopathic medicines are dissolved in water, then agitation would increase their potency. This suggests a type of (e.m.f.?) induction in the solution. In the living environment, this agitation is constantly maintained by the physiological processes themselves. In an area of altered agitation due to disease, ACCS is attracted, or it spontaneously appears in this tissue as an induced state in that region, a manifestation of a "dynamic" nature of ACCS.

 

In his books, Hahnemann made some statements about this "dynamic" nature which caused a rift between Homeopathy and Medical Science. But his views were based on a lifetime of experimentation and application of his medical system. His beliefs were simply logically deduced from observations. From Hahnemann's perspective, ACCS was the target of his medicines because they mimic the signalling of the ACCS system and influence its behaviour. He considered ACCS to be the disease-handling centre of the body, and not a system operating at the physiological level, such as the Central Homeostatic Control and the Immune system. Hahnemann said that ACCS is well-equipped, and should detect all developing problems and deal with them before any disease symptoms are experienced by the patient. So, if any symptoms develop, ACCS is at fault for not detecting and dealing with the problem.

 

Summary

 

There is a control system, ACCS, operating in the body which manages and eliminates all disease conditions as they develop. It operates and communicates at the level of (or on), an electrophysiological property of the aqueous living environment, separate from normal physiological and biochemical activities. Although it operates at a separate level, it has points of contact with the physiological level where it exerts its influence on disease states.

 

It is extremely mobile, so much so that it appears to be simultaneously present in the whole body. When ACCS first evolved, it probably first exerted its effects in the Brain, and then later extending its activities to the rest of the body. When disease conditions arise, cellular biomolecular machines "broadcast" changed signals which result in a "dynamic" build-up (or induction) of the components of ACCS in the affected region. ACCS has an instinctual memory of how to handle each particular disease condition, and instructs the physiological processes of these tissues to resolve disease.

[timokay]

6). How It Was Done : Model 4

 

SYNERGY/SYNERGISM OF A SYSTEM OR MACHINE:

 

"The Whole being greater than the sum of its parts (or exhibiting more properties than its components)"

 

OR

 

"refers to the effects achieved by a combination of two or more entities".

 

We all have a TV set around us, virtually since the day we were born - just take it for granted. A TV is a good example of something with synergistic properties, as well as all electrical devices, machinery, vehicles. And, the more complicated they become, the more synergistic properties and manifestations they exhibit.

 

Examples I have experienced:

 

a. Machine room of a very Large IBM System/370 Mainframe: A remarkable experience. The control terminals chatting away to each other 24 hours/day; feel as if you are in the presence of an intelligent being.

 

b. Certain HiFi Systems costing over £30,000 ($45,000).

 

There comes a point at which a big leap in realism occurs in HiFi - true synergy from a combination of well chosen Source/Amp/Speakers. But it only happens when ALL THREE have the same very high level of specifications for what they do....if any of the three fall below par, this obvious leap in synergy, disappears completely. (But, how does it know at what level and when to appear?)

 

c. Many high quality cars exhibit additional synergistic characteristics which are pleasing; that's why people pay the price.

 

So, as a machine or system gets beyond a certain level of complexity, it begins to exhibit characteristics, and has a performance, not attributable to any of its individual components.

 

Living creatures are very complicated machines, and our bodies certainly work synergistically to many levels. Such characteristics arise as a result of the extreme complexity of the brain, which then influences the activities in the rest of the body. I think Hahnemann's Vital Principle is one or a group of these synergistic manifestations...nothing spiritual or "immaterial" - though, in a sense, that is what synergy is...some things that mysteriously appear at certain levels of complexity. The "IMMATERIAL" VITAL FORCE: I think Hahnemann is referring to synergistic manifestations which have appeared in the body as a whole, as complexity increased. These are not "immaterial" in the sense of an unknown microscopic mechanism of action (physiology/biochemistry) of living tissues, but apply to the body as a whole.

 

Above, I said that the Vital Principle may use (or be) synergistic properties that appear with complexity. Nature would not hesitate to make use of any properties at all, as we can see from the complexity of cell structure and higher control systems of the body - the results of a long and very competitive evolution.

The ultimate example is the brain where, because of its complexity, we can predict the very highest levels of synergy...so much so that few could accept that the person they are talking to (and indeed themselves) is just a machine, evolved to a state in which they exhibit so many new synergistic properties that this has resulted in developments such as society, culture, art, the accumulation of knowledge, and total dominance of their world.

 

In his many years of research, Hahnemann saw the Nature of disease, of the Body's behaviour in Health & Disease...noted a host of qualities and idiosyncrasies. He was seeing "characteristics of the whole" which appear in any complicated system or machine.

 

ALBERT: " A man dies and something's gone; where was it? Not what was it; ... and every child can understand that something left at death."

 

I don't believe anything leaves us when we die. LIKE a TV our brains work on electricity, and in "real-time" mode. UNLIKE a TV, if you switch the brain off for more than 3 minutes some irreversible damage is done to it (a disadvantage of a machine made from liquid). The brain dies quickly but the rest of the body lives on for much longer - dies regionally - the last parts dying after an hour or more.

 

Amputated fingers or hands, or individual/groups of organs, if quickly put on ice, can remain viable for up to 8 hours or more. These tissues may appear dead very soon after death but this is only due to lack of muscle tone (lost neural input) and lost circulation.

 

But I would say that "actual death" occurs at the moment when certain higher levels of synergy in the brain cease to exist (normally sustained by the physiological level and lower levels of synergy). The closest we can get to identifying the moment of death is to say that we die when our Brains die.

[timokay]

Sayonara, those models above must have been too much for you. They're just models! Try this post:

 

 

DISEASE MANAGEMENT

 

(Instead of the Immune System, the term "Disease Management" (DM) will be used in this discussion because there is believed to be a centre in the Brain which works together with the immune system to manage diseases).

The Healthy person's DM has the resources to heal all disease conditions, and do so even before symptoms present, with the person being completely unaware of the disease. In very rare circumstances, e.g., plague, the Healthy DM may become overwhelmed and symptoms present, temporarily. In this case, one remedy would likely be the the best choice for all those suffering, at least initially. (If complications occur in some of the patients, this is an indication of some weakness in DM.)

 

For the vast majority of diseases, which would normally be easily conquered by the Healthy DM, the disease agent itself is very rarely the problem to be addressed, but only highlights the kind of weakness in the patient's DM. That is why the Homeopath "treats the patient, not the disease agent", i.e., he is targeting the fault in DM rather than the disease agent itself. So, the "disease" IS the fault in the patient's DM, not the "disease agent".

 

When Hahnemann cured acute disease conditions, (i.e., where DM was overwhelmed or in a weakened state), he noted that there was often some other underlying weakness in the DM of certain patients. When such patients become infected with disease agents, due to an inherited condition, the disease is not properly managed and remains unresolved in the patient. Over the years, this inherited weakness causes the accumulation of unresolved diseases in the patient, who becomes a "chronic disease" patient. His condition usually declines over a period of years until death, unless he can be treated effectively.

 

The chronic disease patient shows a symptom pattern which reveals the nature of the most prominent of these diseases, which the doctor then treats Homeopathically. When this disease resolves through the disappearance of many of its symptoms, the doctor re-evaluates the totality of symptoms, and chooses the most appropriate medicine for these symptoms. This process of re-evaluation is repeated until the patient has fully recovered.

 

The treatment is like a "backing out", or reversal, of the accumulated diseases, one by one.

 

Because the choice of medicine depends on "totality of symptoms", which guide the doctor to the choice of medicine, it is as though the Brain Centre which produces the symptoms, can only process one disease at a time, starting with the most serious. When this disease is cured, the next most serious disease presents itself through its symptom pattern. So, although there may be several diseases in the body, the Brain Centre only reveals the most serious one at any one time.

 

The well-chosen Homeopathic medicine is guiding, or pushing, the body's own healing processes in the right way, compensating for the fault in the patient's DM. The result is COMPLETE healing, because the body already has the resources to resolve all disease.

 

Normally, it is not possible to hurry the healing processes. But, Hahnemann found a way to accelerate the cure of chronic disease patients, so long as some skin symptom(s) remains visible (which is often the case in the chronic diseases he treated). He would simply give many more doses, and at more frequent intervals, of the well-chosen medicine and continue as long as the skin symptom(s) persists.

 

So, the chronic diseases are not the result of an infective agent but are of genetic origin. In a healthy person, DM has no problems in maintaining homeostasis, promptly extinguishing any disease - a system which evolved into its almost perfect state over many millions of years.

 

However, being perfect is not the rule of genetics - continuous genetic variation of individuals is essential for the species to adapt to environmental stresses, and many individuals are sacrificed for that overall goal. In all our cells are 40,000 genes, each having between 2 and 200 operational versions. The combination of genes we are dealt make us unique. The DNA of these genes is translated into proteins which make the 4 trillion cells of our bodies and define who we are. The variation of genes at each generation makes us all different in constitution; we are all genetic experiments to test our suitability to the world as it is today. This is measured by whether or not we pass our genes on to the next generation.

 

People have chronic diseases of genetic origin because their "total genetic variations" have proceeded to a level at which some metabolic or physical process of the body, such as DM, is not fully functional, AND which cannot be fully compensated for by Homeostatic mechanisms.

 

Such weaknesses or faults in DM are exposed by specific infectious agents, causing chronic diseases.

[Sayonara]

Hardly - I have been very busy

 

Will read them later - off home now!

[timokay]

A BIT MORE

 

To heal diseases such as cancer or AIDS, spending billions researching the pathology is a complete waste of time and money. The body ALREADY has the resources to resolve all disease - the fact that these diseases arose at all is a reflection of some weakness in the body's disease management...if the diseases do not resolve when the patient's lifestyle is improved and all exciting factors removed, then the problem must be of genetic origin, in DM, and can be compensated for. It may be a genetic defect in a single transmitter used by Disease Management, making it less efficient. If it were anything more serious than this, then the patient would not have survived beyond early childhood.

 

Homeopathic medicines compensate for this particular weakness in DM, making it fully functional again, and able to use all its resources to eliminate all diseases. Correct management involves a cascade of activities in the body's control systems, according to instinctual memory instructions.

 

NO Cancer drug will ever be effective unless it acts at the top of the hierarchy of the healing processes, because otherwise it will be acting against these processes.

[Sayonara]

Well, didn't get the chance tonight. But I am off to a funeral this weekend so I will print off the thread and read your mega post of lengthy DOOM on the train.

[Intelligence]

train ewwww.

 

trains are worse than funerals.

[Hahnemannian444]

Originally posted by blike

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

 

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

 

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

[Hahnemannian444]

Originally posted by atinymonkey

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Hahnemannian444]

Originally posted by Kettle

 

Yup - that's what I said

 

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

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

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

 

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

[Hahnemannian444]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

MRC Hans—

 

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

 

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

 

1) Find patients with the disease in question.

2) Apply treatment.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Would you care to explain that?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

Homeopathic pharmacology produces subAvogadrean drugs.

 

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

 

These things should not have effects but do.

 

Tim and I have two opposite approaches to this enigma.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

This is a very old mystery.

 

I hope somebody here has some ideas.

 

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

 

Thank you.

[Hahnemannian444]

Originally posted by atinymonkey

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

 

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

 

That's not true.

 

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

 

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

 

So that remark is wrong.

[Hahnemannian444]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

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

 

 

That's not exactly accurate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Nice discussion here too.

 

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

[Hahnemannian444]

Originally posted by timokay

Skye,

 

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

 

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