Why are post involving medicines (or quackery)on this sub-forum?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by ElectricFetus, Sep 10, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    Here we go again.

    The idiots come out of the woodwork as soon as we try to accomplish something here.

    How typical of your low-grade kind to think in terms of winning and losing.

    This ain't a game, pal!

    Your views cause people to die!

    Defend allopathy all you want, but let's all hope they kill you all the sooner to shut up your very ignorant kind.

    I'm not aware of having espoused any theories, pal.

    And I have already expressed that I couldn't give a damn what the uninformed and misformed think, okay?
    Clever euphemism, now what does that mean?

    I have another pair of questions for you since you insist upon demonstrating your abject ignorance:

    1. What is man? and
    2. What is man's thought?

    Let's see you druel, like a good little ghoul.

    Okay, dumb ass, what does homeopathy and homeopathic pharmacology have to do with any of that?

    And I can see you have not yet read the MAYAN PROPHECIES, for you would not be so quickly dismissing astrology had you, you very uninformed idiot!

    Okay, and you think like a jackass!

    Happy now?

    If you oppose homeopathy or support allopathy, you're damn right you're a mass murderer and should be summarily executed for being part of it.

    However, nobody has to lift a finger to rid us of your kind, for you're all stupid enough to let allopathic quacks kill you, like the good little ghouls they are.

    Feeling better yet?

    Homeopathy cannot kill, but some so-called homeopaths are almost as dangerous as allopaths.

    You clearly haven't seen us tear into low- and high-potency pseudo-homeopaths, but being uninformed goes hand-in-hand with being misinformed about homeopathy, doesn't it?

    I don't know why you guys insist upon constantly demonstrating what is thoroughly known about you, but it really bores me.

    Also, you clearly don't know what homeopathic medical journals to look into, so I will give you a really big jump start at it by giving you title of the most important one of all time (personal opinion): the ZKH (Karl F. Haug Verlag/Publishers).

    The English translation of it was the CLASSICAL HOMOEOPATHY QUARTERLY.

    Go see what you're missing.

    We are certainly too few and always have been.

    Well, "the self-governed man is the key to civilization" (Thomas Paine, the Father of both the American and French Republics), and "choose someone [as your primary physician] . . . who is no stranger to everything else important for man as a citizen of the world to know" (Hahnemann). How's that?

    "Rapid fans who accuse all scientists of being dog-raping baby-eaters," huh? That's a really cute one. You must be British. But if you're so fond of thinking of yourselves as scientists, why do so-called scientists support and sustain the abject quackery of allopathic medicine and totally reject the personification of science in homeopathy? You people can never answer that one without getting egg on your faces.

    You people assume you're capable of criticising us but constantly prove you're totally incompetent to do so. Where in your book are fool novices qualified to criticize experts? You are incapable of critique until you know the subject, pal! Until then, best to be quiet rather than be shown by your own remarks that you're ignorant.

    Let me put it a bit more centrally for you all. The three pure sciences revolve around 1) natural laws that are 2) absolutely verifiable and 3) provide a relatively and reasonably precise degree of predictability to the phenomena being observed, precipitated and dealt with. The critical part here is that those who are doing the verifying know the subject sufficient to test it. But there's never been one of you idiots who have EVER bothered to investigate the subject sufficient to know what you're doing, so you can't verify it without first being sufficiently informed about homeopathy. This should be obvious, but it somehow escapes the brains of all of you idiots who call yourselves scientists but constantly prove otherwise. Why's that, pal?


    And I'm dieing to know what you meant by "fields like" mine. Let's hear what you think homeopathy is like, buddy boy.
    And here we come to the crux of the matter with your kind.

    Please listen this time, for I really despise having to repeat myself a dozen times to your kind.

    I don't give a rat's ass what you and your kind think of me because you're total jackasses and prove it ALL of the time.

    What you consider credibility is crapola that belongs back up your ass 'cause it ain't worth nothing!

    We already know that it works; you're the ones who remain ignorant of it due to laziness.

    That ain't our fault, and your destinies are not ours either.

    I am not here looking for that or anything else you guys constantly presume, like the good little assholes you insist upon demonstrating yourselves to be.

    I'm here looking for help about homeopathic pharmacology, period!

    So it would be really nice if you and all of your little friends with nothing to contribute to this would please go out and play while the grown-ups talk things over a bit.

    Okay dokie?
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2003
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. cowgirl Registered Member

    "The idiots come out of the woodwork "
    "How typical of your low-grade kind "
    "Your views cause people to die!"
    "lets all hope they kill you all the sooner to shut up your very ignorant kind."
    "Let's see you druel, like a good little ghoul."
    Okay, dumb ass"
    "you very uninformed idiot!"
    "you think like a jackass!"
    "you're damn right you're a mass murderer and should be summarily executed for being part of it."
    "like the good little assholes you insist upon demonstrating yourselves to be."

    Lovely mature constructive debate there. You're really proving your point. Hey, have you considered going into politics?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    Yeah, I'm used to it.

    You have to have seen this stuff as often as me to know what's coming and want to forestall it.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    If you weren't here to fight, you wouldn't have posted to this thread.

    So don't snob around about this not being a game. It's Sciforums, and you picked on a thread called Why is Quackery Being Posted In This Sub-Forum. You obviously know this, or you wouldn't have just spit out that last lake of venom.

    If you're really that hot to talk about homeopathy, why don't you ask for your own sub-forum?

    A more direct criticism:

    The law of Similars does not make sense to me. Consider the coffee example from one of Nasor's links.

    Caffeine works (contrary to popular belief) by slowing the breakdown of cyclic AMP. Cyclic AMP is a compound in your cells that forms part of the interaction with hormones like adrenaline.

    So, rather than causing any effect itself, caffeine makes natural reactions last longer - if you are surprised, for instance, the tension from being surprised will take longer to go away.

    Why would a small amount help you sleep?

    I assume this example was a little spurious anyway, since it could probably be argued that the patient was not sleepless in exactly the same way as they would be from drinking too much coffee.

    All the same, the law of similars obviously should not work in the cases of:

    1) poisoning - because the person's system already contains too much of the offending compound
    2) injury - because injury symptoms are mechanical and not a direct result of a physiological process.

    With respect to disease (which I assume is homeopathy's main focus) I would imagine that the same symptoms could be caused by more than one disease, and it would not be reasonable to assume that the same compound would cure two different diseases on the basis that they displayed the same symptoms, since we generally assume that the remedy is acting on the disease, rather than only on the response mechanisms of the person in question.

    There is a case in which like does cure like - the case of vaccines. However, this presumes that the physiological response of the patient is normally too slow to respond to the disease before it begins to do damage, and so the technique bombards the immune system with disease signals to ensure that a response happens. This also represents a much more finely tuned administration effort, since the substance being administered is a treated form of the actual disease, and not just a compound that is thought to produce the same symptoms.

    (This is what I'm referring to as the "black box" concept of human physiology, to wit, that if two diseases look the same then they are the same and the same treatments will heal them. Also, please don't insult my intelligence with lame arguments over the definition of "man" and "thought". We're not arguing about definitions right now.)

    In my personal experience there is another case of like curing like, which I believe acupuncture was originally developed to deal with. On occasion, you may receive an injury which will not heal, usually because it was too shallow to bleed like a paper cut. Such injuries will occasionally hang on for weeks because your body either ignores them, or has no mechanism to repair them (I'm not sure which). In these circumstances another injury at the same site which promotes bleeding will help to heal the previous minor injury. However, the physiological benefit of this technique is easily analyzed and falls firmly within accepted scientific convention, just as the vaccines do.

    In the general descriptions of homeopathy I've read here, it is described as having subtle, long-term effects. Given that, it's not entirely unfair for homeopathy's detractors to state that it might be a manifestation of the placebo effect, or some similar phenomenon that is less well recognized.

    Finally, since most homeopathic doctors only prescribe their remedies in conjunction with regular medical treatment, I am unsure why you are of the belief that homeopathic and allopathic medicine are opposites and that allopathic medicine is mass murder, since many of your homeopathic colleagues don't seem to have such a problem with it. I will submit that people sometimes undergo unnecessary surgery, but there are likewise situations in which surgery saves lives.

    So then, Hahnemannian, if you really want to be reasonable about this field, go to the Biology and Genetics subforum, set up a thread, and ask your questions. I agree my comments may have been a little over the top, but honestly, a thread where people are already making fun of you is no place to start up a scientific inquiry - not that I believe that story for a second.
  8. Quasi Registered Senior Member

    Hahnemannian and others- please try to keep this civil. Name calling is not productive. I also do not think trolling Hahn into anger is a good idea either. Again, here Hahnemannian really believes in what he is doing. which answers the question as to why he feels it appropriate to post here. You should also realize that homeopathy is licensed in several states, and is included in socialuized medicine in Germany and probably several other countries. I agree that there is no good clinical data, and no mechanism which it is probable for it to work. Further, homeopaths refuse some simple, well designed plans for studies. I have also criticezed the Organon of Medicine for its call to ignorance: Part 2, page 1 : "It is not the role of the physician to (study how the body works)... or determine the cause of disease." This is rediculous as we can do both. How can homeopaths deny that emergency medicine, immunization, and most drugs work and improve peoples lives? Admittedly, it is difficult to get an answer based in facts that homeopaths present. A better question might be: Is there a common personality trait that prevents certain groups from accepting that their ideas are wrong in the face of evidence? Perhaps a lack or ability to think critically on some biochemical level?
  9. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member


    I don't want to engage in answering a bunch of questions about homeopathy because 1) I'm here looking for people to help us resolve the mechanism of homeopathic pharmacology who might know relevant findings that may have gotten lost just as Shiu Yin Lo's work would have been had not one of our pharmacologists stumbled into one of his seminar lectures in the Bay Area, and 2) it will bring out the crazies here.

    But I will answer your questions and address what I can of your concerns since you're not part of them so far.

    But the other guy first since it's easier.
  10. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    That's a misquote and misrepresentation.

    Article 1 footnote: "It [the calling of the physician] is not to weave so-called systems from fancy ideas and hypotheses [based upon endlessly erroneous assumptions] about the inner nature of the vital processes and the origin of diseases in the invisible interior of the organism (on which so many fame-seeking physicians have wasted their powers and time) [ and who still do today via research rather than being actual physicians, the statistics today being horrendous that the vast majority of allopaths never in their lives see a patient for these reasons]. Nor does it consist of trying endlessly to explain disease phenomena and their proximate cause [the now ancient allopathic god], which will always elude him.

    "Nor does it consist of holding forth in unintelligible words or abstract and pompous expressions in an effort to appear learned so as to astonish the ignorant, while the world in sickness cries in vain for help.

    "Surely by now we have had enough of these pretentious fantasies called
    theoretical medicine , for which university chairs have ever been established [hence the ready derision of those blokes], and it is time for those calling themselves physicians to stop deceiving poor human beings by their talk and to start acting instead -- that is, really helping and healing" (Kunzli et al. trans., "The First Integral English Translation of the Definitive Sixth Edition of the Original Work on Homoeopathic Medicine," the subtitle to the only translation worth reading).

    The issue of the cause of diseases will almost always evade allopathic researches in the realm of chronic and psychiatric cases, for the vast majority of them precipitate from a no-longer-integral etheric pattern that Hahnemann generically referred to as the vital force or vital principle of life.

    The Doctrine of the Proximate Cause has always done yoeman's work in allopathic medicine, but it is totally meaningless since the real means of disintegrating unnecessary human and animal suffering is exclusively the Law of Similars.

    No matter how fancy the logic about antibiotics and spin offs in Receptor-Site Theory, it is still far less scientific, sure, safe, effective, inexpensive and curative than the Law of Similars, and we have so thoroughly proven this that you'd be advised to instead spit into the wind than try to convince us against something we know without the slightest doubt and wonder when the rest of you will discover it.

    The cause is meaningless once disease processes are in motion.

    The only exception to this is when the exciting cause becomes the sustaining cause.

    I don't want to explain this further, for any divergence will be nothing more than an opinion, about which I could not care less.

    Your basic assumptions are ALWAYS wrong, so you are simply mistaken to think that they were well designed or simple.

    You guys have every one of the five basic subjects of medicine totally wrong, and that's just one of the reasons allopathic therapies don't work.

    Those five are:

    1. The nature of health;
    2. " " " disease;
    3. " " " therapeutics;
    4. " " " existence; and
    5. " " " the universe.

    Given that all of the conclusions are always wrong, why does it not ever occur to anybody in allopathic medicine or its ancillary sciences, which by rights belong to us too, that their basic assumptions are wrong?

    Where is a scientific Mind?

    Emergency Medicine is one of the exclusive provinces of allopathic medicine, and we have no problem with that since it's ghoulish to most of us, and thank God there are people so wired!

    But that is not disease therapeutics.

    Immunizations are a total falsehood, and their proper name is therefore vaccinations, for they do no such thing as immunize people.

    Anybody wanting to argue FOR vaccinations had better get informed before taking us on, for there isn't anything about it that can be defended and all of the statements and claims FOR them are either half-truths or lies.

    If you want specific references amid a pile of literature, I'd request that you read these two works carefully:

    1. THE ROLE OF MEDICINE, Thomas McKeown; and

    KeKeown's work has a bunch of graphs in chapter 6 that are a core issue collapsing a pile of half-truths and lies about vaccinations, and their importance simply cannot be understated.

    Walene James' work, on the other hand, has some problems, not the least of which is that she does not make a single accurate statement about homeopathy and presents some startling notions about transmutation of pathogens, viz., between bacteria and viruses, and she presents other controversial notions that are problematic for some Minds.

    However, it has proven to be one of the most important of the myriad works against vaccines that I have found, and I would love to help her with the Second Edition of the work since she left out lots of facts.

    But do not try to tell me that it is a good idea to shoot trillions of viruses into infants, because that's just insane!


    What we see in vaccinations -- noting well that Hahnemann was in favor of them and would also surely have been in favor of antibiotics until he likewise learned their serious drawbacks -- are very dynamic iatrogenic diseases that do not make themselves known very readily but which do so during our process of cure.

    Here I want you all to understand that these are natural laws at work, not mere opinions.

    During cure symptoms disappear in the reverse order of occurance.

    That is the time-element of Hering's four Laws of Cure.

    We have repeatedly verified, over two centuries, that many diseases of adulthood precipitated from vaccinations in youth as unravelled during cure.

    These are not opinions, folks, so do not try to argue this fact with me since I could not care less about mere opinions!

    Here we go again.

    You have NO evidence of the kind!

    All of your so-called evidence is based upon findings from low-potency pseudo-homeopathy, but that's just allopathic homeopathy.

    I could not care less that you have demonstrated that another form of allopathy doesn't work because NONE of it works!

    A better question is to ask that of the hundreds of thousands of fools who refuse to examine and test homeopathy in the only way possible but instead come to conclusions on the basis of A PRIORI conclusions.

    What type of idiots do that?

    I'll tell you.

    Go into any university science department and you will find nothing but their kind.

    We need scientists, folks.

    There are facts that have been verified millions of times!

    That is a mute issue to us because the ignorant are not permitted opinions about this even though they have very big mouths and insist upon constantly proving themselves idiots.

    Facts need verification.

    We have already done it.

    If you guys want to do so, please do it, but do not presume that we have the time or money to waste on such useless and wasteful practices.

    By all means, prove it to yourselves, but do it the proper way.

    That means you have to understand the subject, and none of those personality types are capable of doing it since they are materialists, reductionists and allopathic in every way, shape and form imaginable.

    Better to cut off their heads and put them out of their missery than try to explain simple facts to such people.

    This is a matter of brainwashing, of conditioned-reflex brain reactions.

    For example, if you conduct a very simple little word-association test of such Minds, you will discover exactly this.

    These are some key words revealing such deep-seated biases and their ignorance:

    natural laws

    There are so many more.

    I guarantee you that everyone opposed to homeopathy has allopathic reactions to all of those words.

    That's demonstrative of conditioning, brainwashing, indoctrination, "education."

    I did not cause these people to fail to be able to think either clearly or for themselves; they did that very well themselves with the help of endless numbers of their kind in the masses (class-C thinkers) and among the proverbial leaders (class-B thinkers), 90% and 9% of humanity, respecitively.

    That's the personality trait.

    I think they all need new brains.
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2003
  11. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

  12. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Oh my god, Hahnemannian having a heart attack! We need to give him ultra-super-diluted extract of a McDonalds cheeseburger, hey that what homeopathy says will treat him.
  13. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    Okay; I've reviewed timokay's Organon of Medicine summary. I feel plenty educated now. If I understand correctly, the ideas are basically that:


    The human body has a vital force (VF for short) that represents the fact that it is alive. Dead thing = no vital force. The proper operation of the human body relies on this VF not being disrupted. A thing that disrupts the VF, thereby causing the symptoms of disease, is called a disease.


    Diseases are some agent that disrupts the VF. Diseases have no physical expression of their cause in the human body, only symptoms.


    Since no physical expression exists for a disease it cannot be cured by physically influencing its cause. Palliative treatments (trying to reduce the symptoms) only weaken the VF's responses to the disease, and so when the treatments stop the disease returns more strongly than before.
    Homeopathic remedies, by contrast, increase the symptoms of the disease. This is intended to increase the VF's response to the disease, so that it will naturally drive out the disease on its own.
    Homeopathic remedy, therefore, must be matched to produce the same symptoms of the disease as closely as possible. The closer the symptomatic match, the more easily the disease will be cured.

    K, now that I'm through with that, I'd like to discuss the problem with as little invective as possible.

    Hahnemannian. You need to understand why others disagree with your theories.

    They are theories. The natural laws that Hahnemann writes about are only derived from the preponderance of evidence in his own experience - no divine proof is available for this kind of question. If everyone can reproduce his results then the theory will become stronger, but in the world of science truth is not a fish that you can catch. So, please don't claim that his natural laws are scientific. Any claim of absolute truth is not scientific BY DEFINITION. I would appreciate it if you either 1) stopped appealing to the authority of absolute truth or 2) stopped appealing to the authority of science. You can do one or the other but not both.

    The Vital Force that Hahnemann speaks of is not observable. Even if homeopathic remedies do turn out to function as well as you say, it still does not represent a demonstration of the existence of the vital force, because a purely physical process could produce the same results in some yet unknown way. The apparent elegance of the VF explanation does not in any way lend to its credibility; it also adds an extra step to the disease process, which does not make it a more compact explanation than the purely physical one.

    The idea that diseases are represented by their outward presentation is not supportable, because there are diseases like Rabies and Kreutzfeld-Jacob syndrome which do not present symptoms until you are past the stage where treatment might save you.

    Thus far, there are two things you have done in this discussion. You have asked for people to believe you out of hand, and you have rabidly defended your personal viewpoint with a small amount of explanation and a large number of insults. Your assertion that you are in the top 1 percent of the best people in the world does not support your argument even if I did believe it.

    Homeopathy as a principle is not intuitive, nor is it in line with present scientific views. As such, demanding that people believe it to be true out of hand, and cursing them as stupid murderers when they question you, is not warranted. If you are defending a scientific principle, then make your arguments like a scientist, not like some kind of priest.

    I don't care how long you've been a homeopath.
    I don't care how much you believe in Dr. H.

    Nothing will change the fact that you're demanding extreme forms of intellectual tolerance from others while showing none yourself. With this attitude you will not advance science.
  14. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    I love the way you assume that people dismiss homeopathy because they don't understand it. Most of the people here dismiss homeopathy because they do understand it.

    Anyway, I still haven't gotten an answer on why you aren't posting to the pseudoscience forum. I assure you that we 'mass murderers' won't bother you if you post there.
  15. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    Show me where Hahnemann says that. Tim's abridgement of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE is for you guys who refuse to read the book, even though it is available online in the previous edition. That does not, however, mean he has properly represented Hahnemann's thought, and it is guaranteed to be in error because the subject is 1) so damn difficult that it takes us decades before we really know what we're doing, because 2) Hahnemann already attempted to make it succinct and yet leave no rock unturned about it, and because 3) Tim's just beginning to unravel this most difficult of subjects. Tell me which Article you got that from and I will post the thing in toto.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2003
  16. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    1. I already know why and stated it above about indoctrination and the conditioned-reflex brain reactions and presumptions you just demonstrated.

    2. No, they're natural laws. They obey the same absoluteness as all other natural laws.

    3. Everyone can reproduce his results; Hahnemannians and even HPHs and LPHs have been doing so from the beginning. The fact that allopathic Minds aren't able to only demonstrates that they fail to understand how. That's not my fault, and it doesn't nullify the existence of the Law of Similars and any other of the 10 Laws of Medicine because they're dullards. We've told them how, and Hahnemann's ORGANON OF MEDICINE is little more than an instruction book for this purpose. We do it all of the time and have since Hahnemann. Your saying they're not natural laws is collapsed by all of our cures per those laws, so you're again wrong.

    This kind of thing is really boring, guys. We tell you this is the problem. You demonstrate it. We point that out. Then, you do it again, and again and again. Boring!

    4. Again, I do not care about mere opinions, period. Allopaths and those who're also adherent to their erroneous assumptions underlying allopathic medicine from the natural sciences, which do NOT cure (guys!), express nothing but opinions. Allopathy is, in fact, based upon nothing more than the consensus of opinion. Its shifting theories and practices fully attest to this fact. Our theories and practices remain stable and cumulative precisely because they're based upon natural laws.

    Please get a clue about this primary fact before again trying to engage my attention, for I go through this grade-school crap all of the time with you guys. Why you demonstrate that you're not scientists and yet constantly claim you are really annoys me, because I AM a scientist and prove it every day. If you want to play around with the natural sciences involved with inorganic matter, fine, but do not be so pretentious as to tell me what I do and do not know when I have proven these natural laws for 25 years and when you are the ones who constantly demonstrate ignorance about life and living processes amenable to curative medicine. Boring!

    5. Okay, what IS scientific "by definition" is anything 1) based upon natural laws that are 2) absolutely verifiable and 3) provide a reasonably and relatively precise degree of predictability to the phenomena being observed, precipitated or dealt with. That's why homeopathy is the actual Science of Medicine or Science of Therapeutics. Your saying it is not does not make it so, and our demonstrating it is for 213 years as homeopathy and for millennia through the three previous forms of it DOES make it so. I am not keeping any of you from these truths involved in medicine; you're doing that all by yourselves. Neither can I care if you insist upon being so lazy as to form opinions without empirical experience, but I can assure you that you'd say that is NOT scientific in any other realm. Okay?

    6. I do not know what this means, for natural laws are absolute truths and are the very basis of science.
  17. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    1. Okay, that deserves two responses. First, show me an electron or any other subatomic or quantum particle. Second, yes, it is observable. There are at least seven major subjects proving higher planes of existence:

    1. Death;
    2. Sleep and unconsciousness in general;
    3. Homeopathic potentization of ultramolecular, subAvogadrean pharmacology;
    4. Accupuncture points;
    5. The 20+ synonyms for and major manifestations of the AEther or AEtheric Plane of existence (e.g., virtual particles, the vacuum energy of empty space, dark matter, DeBroglie's subquantic medium, etc.);
    6. Rollin R. Gregg's ILLUSTRATED REPERTORY; and
    7. Shiu Yin Lo's photographs of nanometer-sized water crystals at room temperature in succussed high dilutions he accidentally discovered.

    2. Yes, it does, because these are subAvogadrean, ultramolecular, etheric medicines; they should NOT have medicinal effects but do.

    3. What? These strange medicines do, so what are you talking about?

    4. It happens that most contemporary Hahnemannians generally ignore the speculations about the vital force and argue simply that these are absolute facts however caused. I, however, know that Hahnemann's generic vital force or "vital principle of life" is synonymous with the etheric pattern. Most people like you have a great deal of difficulty conceiving of the etheric pattern, but that again is not my problem, it's yours. If you want to adhere to a bunch of models that do not work, fine, but allopaths are absolutely guaranteed to kill you and everyone you love and admire, so you're advised to adjust that model upward to homeopathy while you still can.

    5. OOPs! There is no provable explanation for disease processes being purely physical. The allopathic notions are, in fact, patently wrong as demonstrated by their TOTAL INCURABILITY of viral, chronic and psychiatric cases. We don't suffer this problem, and our cures of all diagnostic categories proves our model is right. In any other arena, that fact would be accepted. If you want to argue for receptor-site theory as regards infectious diseases, you're still unable to cure viral diseases and certainly cannot cure bacterial ones as well as us. But bacterial diseases are a minor fraction of illnesses, so you are inadvertently sustaining abject quackery and mass murder. Really want to do that?
  18. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    I wish to emphasize that Tim and I are here looking for assistance about homeopathic pharmacology.

    These kinds of issues here are endless.
  19. timokay Registered Senior Member

    Re. comments from Albert (Hahnemannian) and others,

    Yes, of course my Organon summary is nothing but a brief summary; I call it MY version for this reason...and balanced so that would be more readable to scientific people. It is sadly lacking in detail, which makes it wrong in places, Albert certainly understands and tolerates that. Many people have commented on parts of it, and much appreciated, so it will be changed/corrected as suggested. Thanks. The more comments the better.

    Albert said, re. Organon of medicine:

    There is a final edition (6th) of the Organon available online, though not the best translation.
    Select 6th Ed from the following link which lists the 291 Articles/Aphorisms and the edition (5th or 6th):

  20. timokay Registered Senior Member




    You're right. It is unheard of.

    If we say that, during the 2 billion years of evolution of life, the sophistication of physiological processes advanced to, and then beyond, a level of sophistication at which "synergy" began to occur in these processes. Then Nature actually exploited synergy in its physiological processes.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2003
  21. timokay Registered Senior Member


    "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 like you are in the presence of an intelligent being.

    b. Certain HiFi Systems costing over £30,000 ($50,000).

    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 falls below par, the obvious leap in synergy, disappears completely. (But, how does the "whole system" know at what level the synergic leap is to appear/disappear?)

    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...this is called SYNERGY.

    Living creatures are very complicated machines, and I think our bodies certainly work synergistically to many levels. I think Hahnemann's Vital Principle is one or a group of these synergistic manifestations...nothing "spiritual" as some people mistakenly think - though, in a sense, that is what synergy is...things that mysteriously appear at certain levels of complexity.

    And Nature would not hesitate to make use of any such properties in the course of evolution if they are of benefit.

    The ultimate example of complexity is the brain where we can predict the very highest degree (or levels) of synergy...so much so that few could accept that the person they are talking to (and indeed themselves) is just a machine. Are society, culture, art, the accumulation of knowledge, and many more, just synergic manifestations of the brain?

    " 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. 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 of the person" occurs at the moment when certain higher levels of synergy in the brain cease to exist (normally sustained by lower levels of synergy which in turn are built on the known physiological level).

  22. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    1. That would be this one: http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/web/pages/leaflet3.htm

    2. These are not chemical drugs, so these comments are irrelevant to homeopathy.

    3. First of all, there is no "amount" involed in homeotherapeutics because these are subAvogadrean, ultramolecular, etheric drugs. Understanding this is a quantum leap in consciousness -- despite the fact that modern physics is constantly referring to non-physical, etheric particles without meaning to -- so it is a constant source of problems for us with those who Paracelsus called “school” scientists.

    Secondly, we don't know why these field medicines do what they do because the mechanism of the Law of Similars is still unknown. George Vithoulkas and Bill Gray, in THE SCIENCE OF HOMEOPATHY: A MODERN TEXTBOOK, Vol. I, argued that the Law of Similars is simply the biological manifestation of the physics Principle of Resonance. That's certainly possible, but it's still unknown.

    Lastly, we know what we know about our medicines from the Law of Similars through 1) toxicology, 2) provings and 3) clinical verifications and additions. At Article 52 of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE, Hahnemann referred to our data as being "based in every respect exclusively on exact observation of nature, and on scrupulous experiments and pure experience."

    Why or how our medicines work are not questions we've been able to answer yet, and Tim and I are here attempting to open this door to such research by seeing if an explanation as to how homeopathic pharmacology produces ultramolecular drugs is available from misplaced findings. That mechanism is expected to be electromagnetism, but this is far afield from my expertise, so I am generally just looking for such experts and their research results.

    About Coffea cruda and other homeopathic medicines, read some of our primary materia medica ("materials of medicine") at these sites:


    Along with the foregoing, a whole slew of homeopathic books online are available here: http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/books_online.shtml

    Lots of articles are available online here: http://www.homeoint.org/hompath/articles/index.htm and here:

    I now generally read only Hahnemannians, because all of the others make too many mistakes and cause me to feel I should correct them, but it would be difficult to tell you who is who unless you choose to ask me questions about specific individuals.

    As for homeotherapeutics, which you all seem to have a great deal of problems with, Kent, who is generally someone a Hahnemannian should not quote, wrote brilliantly about the Hierarchy of Symptoms here: http://homeoint.org/books3/kentwrit/writ60.htm

    Generally speaking, Kent there established a pair of side-by-side lists of categories of symptoms headed UNCOMMON Symptoms and COMMON Symptoms. Then he identified two major subclasses of them in each list as Generals and Particulars. Under Generals are three categories of Mental Generals and seven of Physical Generals, then there are three types of Particular Symptoms (meaning symptoms of specific parts as opposed to the person generally or as a whole).

    Homeopathic potentization opens up and extends as well as refines the range of medicinal powers a substance has, so it will be very difficult for you to envision this if you insist upon trying to conceive of medicines as being purely chemical substances. We understand this thinking because we've all been there a long time ago, but I assure you that these ultramolecular drugs DO have medicinal effects. You can demonstrate this to yourselves very readily by engaging in a high-potency self-proving (i.e., anything at 12c and above), and you can read about this in Article 141 of the ORGANON at: http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html

    Hahnemann used to invoke the Latin aude sapere to his provers, which apparently means "dare to taste and understand." That's about right. In the higher potencies, it's about as close as one can come to understanding how people needing these medicines think and feel. It's really quite impossible to explain something so experiential, and I certainly encourage everyone to undergo self-provings throughout life. They take a minimum of one month and are more often three-month efforts when one runs up the potencies in order to experience and understand the full range of symptoms suffered by people needing a medicine, so these are very serious scientific tests and one is limited by the length of their lifetime as to how many are possible to undergo. Aude sapere!

    4. You're thinking in a box. See how many medicines are listed as having cured sleeplessness and under various conditions by accessing those symptom rubrics on pp. 1251-54 of Kent's REPERTORY (which listed only 600-some of the 2500+ medicines) here: http://homeoint.org/books/kentrep3/kent1250.htm#P1252

    5. Yeah, a good point there. Our medicines logically should not beneficially affect cases of chemical poisoning because they're ultramolecular drugs, but they suprisingly do. In fact, probably the most amazing additions to come into homeopathic therapeutics for several decades are the experiences of obscure, lay homeopaths in rural parts of India who've been able to save snake-bite victims. Indeed, several of the cases had the people already pronounced dead but saved by homeopathy, and one of them had the guy on the funeral pire about to be cremated. You tell us how or why these ultramolecular drugs neutralize poisonings, because it doesn't make any sense to us. It turns out, however, that we have lots of case reports of such cases, just not ones with such deadly toxins as snake venoms. I say this because I used to place toxicology as one of the exclusive provinces of allopathic medicine, but that's apparently not true. I cannot, however, speak with any authority here because I have never had a poisoning case that I'm aware of.

    Stipulated, the vast majority of cases of reported "flu" are probably food poisoning, but this cannot be known. Here I would remind you that this, again, is not a case of "amount" of substance being prescribed, as one would expect in chemical-antidote prescriptions, so it really is a mystery. There are now about half a dozen of these major mysteries in homeopathy. You guys ought to help us resolve these things, for we are all too busy to do so and certainly do not have the money to engage in such researches essentially outside of our field. For instance, why would chemical camphor antidote all homeopathic prescriptions and instantly stop all provings? We will probably never be able to answer that one. What’s the mechanism of the Law of Similars? What’s the mechanism of homeopathic pharmacology?

    Like I have said, Tim and I are here trying to resolve the last one. Anybody have any ideas?

    6. This also is a perfectly logical assumption, but it also is incorrect. We have lots of curative effects with accident-injury cases likewise expected to be the exclusive province of allopathic medicine and Emergency Medicine in particular. We don't know why, and I don't have enough experience here to offer an explanation to it either. See one of the symptom rubrics for injuries here at Injuries: http://homeoint.org/books/kentrep3/kent1365.htm#P1368
    and here at Wounds: http://homeoint.org/books/kentrep3/kent1420.htm#woundspoisonous

    You did not mention surgical cases, which again would logically be the exclusive arena of allopathic medicine. We have lots and lots of clinical experience 1) making surgeries unnecessary and 2) speeding recovery from surgeries. Here we are talking about disease cases, so the reason is that they are our province.

    7. Here we are coming head long into one of the main problems with people who think only allopathically about diseases. These symptoms of specific disease categories (disease-diagnostic categories) are called COMMON symptoms because everyone with that diagnosis, whatever it is, has those symptoms in common. What you simply must understand about homeotherapeutics is that there are also UNCOMMON symptoms and that these are the ones that almost exclusively decide on the prescription since they are "strange, rare and peculiar." They are classically called characteristic symptoms, but it is much easier to understand them as UNCOMMON symptoms because they exist outside of the COMMON symptoms of disease diagnoses.

    You will certainly see in Kent's REPERTORY that LOTS of diseases and LOTS of drugs share symptoms, but these will invariably be just the COMMON symptoms. Find a symptom rubric for which you cannot conceive of a pathophysiological reason for it and you will generally be looking at an UNCOMMON symptom. These things run throughout the repertory and materia medica, so they will be readily found if you just reflect on what you're reading. Identifying them in cases is what makes it possible to find the correct medicine for a person. It's basically what I do.

    8. Go into the GENERALITIES chapter and find diagnostic categories and you'll see how many medicines have cured those diseases. But it is important to understand that those are just COMMON symptoms and that those symptom rubrics are constantly expanding because it seems almost as if every medicine could cure every disease. This is so far from the notion of disease specificity and so-called "magic bullets" found in allopathic theory that you will probably have a very hard time understanding it until you grasp that we identify which medicine a PERSON needs, who is suffering some disease diagnosis, by discerning their UNCOMMON symptoms and cross referencing them to see which medicine or medicines run through all of those UNCOMMON symptoms. They will generally be less than a handful if one has three UNCOMMON symptoms precisely because the symptom rubrics will be small since they are "strange, rare and peculiar" (Hahnemann). You'll find some of the infectious diseases also listed in the Fever chapter.

    9. No, diseases do not exist apart from the person, so we treat the person, not the disease. This notion is an allopathic abstraction that results from thinking of diseases as arising from causative agents. However, there are lots of insoluble problems with assuming that the approach to diseases is best along the lines of causative agents. One is that it ignores the fact that some people get sick when exposed to pathogens and some people don't. This will generally be because the immune systems of healthy persons will function properly, so they never enter the statistics of epidemics. The exception is among psychiatric cases and those with chronic diseases more deadly than the infective one. Those who are seriously disordered in their mental functions can live under ghastly circumstances without becoming ill, and those who are seriously ill with a chronic disease are usually immune to infective diseases unless they're more deadly than the person's present disease state. Why are these things facts unless the integral or relatively nonintegral nature of the etheric pattern is the key element in diseases? The other major fact involved in collapsing the notion of disease entities being involved in diseases is that most chronic diseases do not have any physical causation. Some certainly arise as long-term poisonings from free radicals thanks to the petrochemical industry, and this number is likely to rise and rise as it gets investigated. However, the vast majority of cases of chronic diseases are simply where the organism essentially destroys itself. If you can explain this physically, fine with me, but it will not be but effects or manifestations of a no-longer-integral etheric pattern, which is what we have been saying all along by calling it the vital force. We've been proving this by exclusively curing them with ultramolecular drugs for centuries. If you can conceive of how ultramolecular drugs affect a person unless they affect our etheric pattern, you're smarter than me. Also, if you're happy with your understanding, even though it doesn't work and therefore cannot be defended either logically or emperically, that's fine with me.

    10. I don't know what this means. The symptoms ARE the response mechanisms.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2003
  23. Hahnemannian Registered Senior Member

    I wish to emphasize that Tim and I are here looking for assistance about homeopathic pharmacology.

    These kinds of issues here are endless.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page