Soroush - I think what you suggest would be the best. I am sure
Helen and her husband had the best interests of homeopathy in mind
when they (he) said that we should not just have Rustum Roy's
assertions to support us. Which probably is true- the surer we are
of the research that supports us- the better it will be.
So instead of becoming more and more strident against Helen and
Dave, we will wait for the academicians to sort this out correctly
so that we will have a well-presented defense.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Finrod" wrote:
Prof Roy's
Behalf Of
senility were
them to
paper itself
construed as a
speculations.
He does not
week of
versed in
For
proposes," but my
when my
weeks.
the paper
whatsoever of
mechanism by
does not
the
interpretations,
glass the
it say
particles of
these
shows that
structure to
clusters,
then what
structure
contamination from
understood that the
of
controlled
the water
correct in his
after the
some
In others
types of
and
milliseconds).
unknown.
with
can be
intended
you listed
all.>>
of the
affecting
not
research shows
discovered.>>
see the
scientific
that if
making the
diluted, and
the
of
share ours.
'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated
-
muthu kumar
- Posts: 1208
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:00 pm
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: 'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated
Yes it is clear now! I can now see who is saying what and how the lines of argument are developing.
Now let me add a few other questions. [Like all science, one break through creates more and more questions!]
It is one thing to do the differentiation tests on a 'potentising' solution of say 30C which can be added to sac lac so that we have the remedy in globulee form. But how does the dry form on the lactose pill transfer back to fresh water the structure it had when we are plussing the remedy or making up an LM solution?
Also how does the structure that was in the potentising solution and was some how transferred to the globulee maintain a curative structure when it is placed under the tongue?
Regards
Soroush
Now let me add a few other questions. [Like all science, one break through creates more and more questions!]
It is one thing to do the differentiation tests on a 'potentising' solution of say 30C which can be added to sac lac so that we have the remedy in globulee form. But how does the dry form on the lactose pill transfer back to fresh water the structure it had when we are plussing the remedy or making up an LM solution?
Also how does the structure that was in the potentising solution and was some how transferred to the globulee maintain a curative structure when it is placed under the tongue?
Regards
Soroush
-
Helen Tucker
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: 'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated
Helen wrote:
Carol wrote:
Thank you. Very good point. I should have said
"ultradiluted remedy."
Discussing all this has raised some questions about the manufacture of
remedies. Maybe you (or anyone else) can help?
1. What did Hahnemann say about contaminants? I come across this question
all the time with skeptics. Nobody has pure water. What about the
contaminants in the water used to dilute a substance? Do the contaminants
get potentized too? Can that interfere with how well a remedy works?
2. Was Hahnemann concerned about contaminating influences such as the type
of container used in the dilutions? If so, what did he consider to be
contaminating influences?
3. I read that Hahnemann initially used only alcohol as a solvent, and not
water. Later, he changed to a part alcohol/part water mixture because
alcohol alone was too expensive. Is this correct? Is alcohol still used in
the dilution process today? If so, how much alcohol is used in the
manufacture process today?
4. Did Hahnemann use sugar pellets? Or did he only use the last diluted
solution only? How did Hahnemann come about putting the remedy in sugar as
the very last step?
5. How do proponents of the "structure of water" hypothesis explain how the
memory of water gets transferred into sugar after all the water has
evaporated? How does that memory in the sugar get transferred back into
water when the consumer dissolves the sugar again? I am simply not familiar
with the literature on this hypothesis, so any quick summary would help.
Thank you!
Helen
Carol wrote:
Thank you. Very good point. I should have said
"ultradiluted remedy."
Discussing all this has raised some questions about the manufacture of
remedies. Maybe you (or anyone else) can help?
1. What did Hahnemann say about contaminants? I come across this question
all the time with skeptics. Nobody has pure water. What about the
contaminants in the water used to dilute a substance? Do the contaminants
get potentized too? Can that interfere with how well a remedy works?
2. Was Hahnemann concerned about contaminating influences such as the type
of container used in the dilutions? If so, what did he consider to be
contaminating influences?
3. I read that Hahnemann initially used only alcohol as a solvent, and not
water. Later, he changed to a part alcohol/part water mixture because
alcohol alone was too expensive. Is this correct? Is alcohol still used in
the dilution process today? If so, how much alcohol is used in the
manufacture process today?
4. Did Hahnemann use sugar pellets? Or did he only use the last diluted
solution only? How did Hahnemann come about putting the remedy in sugar as
the very last step?
5. How do proponents of the "structure of water" hypothesis explain how the
memory of water gets transferred into sugar after all the water has
evaporated? How does that memory in the sugar get transferred back into
water when the consumer dissolves the sugar again? I am simply not familiar
with the literature on this hypothesis, so any quick summary would help.
Thank you!
Helen
-
Helen Tucker
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: 'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated
Helen wrote:
Carol wrote:
Thank you. Very good point. I should have said
"ultradiluted remedy."
Discussing all this has raised some questions about the manufacture of
remedies. Maybe you (or anyone else) can help?
1. What did Hahnemann say about contaminants? I come across this question
all the time with skeptics. Nobody has pure water. What about the
contaminants in the water used to dilute a substance? Do the contaminants
get potentized too? Can that interfere with how well a remedy works?
2. Was Hahnemann concerned about contaminating influences such as the type
of container used in the dilutions? If so, what did he consider to be
contaminating influences?
3. I read that Hahnemann initially used only alcohol as a solvent, and not
water. Later, he changed to a part alcohol/part water mixture because
alcohol alone was too expensive. Is this correct? Is alcohol still used in
the dilution process today? If so, how much alcohol is used in the
manufacture process today?
4. Did Hahnemann use sugar pellets? Or did he only use the last diluted
solution only? How did Hahnemann come about putting the remedy in sugar as
the very last step?
5. How do proponents of the "structure of water" hypothesis explain how the
memory of water gets transferred into sugar after all the water has
evaporated? How does that memory in the sugar get transferred back into
water when the consumer dissolves the sugar again? I am simply not familiar
with the literature on this hypothesis, so any quick summary would help.
Thank you!
Helen
Carol wrote:
Thank you. Very good point. I should have said
"ultradiluted remedy."
Discussing all this has raised some questions about the manufacture of
remedies. Maybe you (or anyone else) can help?
1. What did Hahnemann say about contaminants? I come across this question
all the time with skeptics. Nobody has pure water. What about the
contaminants in the water used to dilute a substance? Do the contaminants
get potentized too? Can that interfere with how well a remedy works?
2. Was Hahnemann concerned about contaminating influences such as the type
of container used in the dilutions? If so, what did he consider to be
contaminating influences?
3. I read that Hahnemann initially used only alcohol as a solvent, and not
water. Later, he changed to a part alcohol/part water mixture because
alcohol alone was too expensive. Is this correct? Is alcohol still used in
the dilution process today? If so, how much alcohol is used in the
manufacture process today?
4. Did Hahnemann use sugar pellets? Or did he only use the last diluted
solution only? How did Hahnemann come about putting the remedy in sugar as
the very last step?
5. How do proponents of the "structure of water" hypothesis explain how the
memory of water gets transferred into sugar after all the water has
evaporated? How does that memory in the sugar get transferred back into
water when the consumer dissolves the sugar again? I am simply not familiar
with the literature on this hypothesis, so any quick summary would help.
Thank you!
Helen
-
Helen Tucker
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: 'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated
(Sorry that I posted that last message twice. I don't know how that
happened.)
Shannon:
To me, it matters only in how easily that structure is changed into another
structure. If structure carries the effect, and structure can be changed
through number of ways including exposure to EMFs and touching glass, then
the effect can be changed through EMFs and touching glass. I mean, remedy
in water solutions are exposed to EMFs and contact with glass all the time.
Those things are such universal influences that I don't see how remedies can
stay "pure," if what Roy says is true.
If structure can ONLY be changed through succussion (and radionics), then as
long as I don't succuss (and put it in a radionics machine), I can have
reasonable confidence that the original intended structure of a remedy is
durable and reliable. However, the more ways the structure can be changed,
the more likely that my remedy can become contaminated with a different
structure and may not have the intended effect. So definitely, if structure
can be changed without succusion (or radionics), it has huge implications
for the practice of homeopathy in my view.
Right. Have any studies been done to prove remedies that have been possibly
structurally altered?
Oh a piece of salt washed away by a drop of rain, which then falls into a
puddle, which then joins a drain, which then joins a river, etc. But you
don't get Nat Mur in the end.
Good point! However, if structure carries effect, and structural changes
happen outside of succussion (and radionics), and all sorts of water we
ingest are potential remedies, then we would be proving those remedies all
the time just from drinking water from a glass or near a power line (vs.
drinking from a plastic cup and not near a power line).. I don't really see
that happening (though it is possible), so I am more skeptical that Roy's
speculations fit in with homeopathic principles.
Of course, I don't know (and I don't think Roy knows either) how MUCH
hypothetical structural change is caused by each factor. It could be that
succussions (and radionics) cause HUGE structural changes and touching glass
only causes little insignificant ones. But I think it is something that
needs to be studied and addressed by proponents of the water structure/waer
memory school.
Just my thoughts,
Helen
happened.)
Shannon:
To me, it matters only in how easily that structure is changed into another
structure. If structure carries the effect, and structure can be changed
through number of ways including exposure to EMFs and touching glass, then
the effect can be changed through EMFs and touching glass. I mean, remedy
in water solutions are exposed to EMFs and contact with glass all the time.
Those things are such universal influences that I don't see how remedies can
stay "pure," if what Roy says is true.
If structure can ONLY be changed through succussion (and radionics), then as
long as I don't succuss (and put it in a radionics machine), I can have
reasonable confidence that the original intended structure of a remedy is
durable and reliable. However, the more ways the structure can be changed,
the more likely that my remedy can become contaminated with a different
structure and may not have the intended effect. So definitely, if structure
can be changed without succusion (or radionics), it has huge implications
for the practice of homeopathy in my view.
Right. Have any studies been done to prove remedies that have been possibly
structurally altered?
Oh a piece of salt washed away by a drop of rain, which then falls into a
puddle, which then joins a drain, which then joins a river, etc. But you
don't get Nat Mur in the end.
Good point! However, if structure carries effect, and structural changes
happen outside of succussion (and radionics), and all sorts of water we
ingest are potential remedies, then we would be proving those remedies all
the time just from drinking water from a glass or near a power line (vs.
drinking from a plastic cup and not near a power line).. I don't really see
that happening (though it is possible), so I am more skeptical that Roy's
speculations fit in with homeopathic principles.
Of course, I don't know (and I don't think Roy knows either) how MUCH
hypothetical structural change is caused by each factor. It could be that
succussions (and radionics) cause HUGE structural changes and touching glass
only causes little insignificant ones. But I think it is something that
needs to be studied and addressed by proponents of the water structure/waer
memory school.
Just my thoughts,
Helen
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: 'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated
helensan@att.net wrote:
In my opinion:
Yes if they are dissolved. Hahnemann triturated solids because they did
not dissolve in water. So solid/undissolved contaminants would be no
problem but dissolved ones would be part of the remedy.
Maybe:
Yes if the contaminant happens to be dissolved thus potentized, AND a
match to symptoms in which case the remedy will work better;
no if the contaminant is solid;
unlikely if the contaminant is not a match to symptoms. eg I am not
especially sensitive to remedies and I can take quite a load of them
with zero effect for unmatched ones. A seriously sensitive individual
MIGHT be affected by a potentized contaminant that was dissolved in the
original solution.
In theory:-)
(er - my theory!)
I do not remember this, for some reason I thought he used glass - but
there were less options in those days. Glass was available for example -
but no plastic.
The correct way to make any mother tincture depends on what you want to
dissolve into it for potentization. Some things dissolve better in
water, others better in alcohol and still others better in glycerin.
It's not to do with cost but with what aspect of substance/plant you
want to dissolve.
Thus the HPUS (in USA, and similar instructions in other countries)
lists for mother tinctures, what ratios of each of those solvent/s need
to be used for a specific remedy to be manufactured, in order to extract
the appropriate active principle into the tincture.
Solids were/are triturated instead of diluted at the START of making a
remedy.
Trituration for solids adds energy just as succussion does in liquid.
Gee did I find that out the hard way making a yellow jacket remedy with
sloppy technique for the dust during trituaration; by 4C I felt I was
getting stung all over - and had to get to 9C to "cure" it. But I still
got random "stings" all over for a month or more later and needed the
odd 9C extra dose.
When ice changes phase, (water to solid and back etc) the crystal
structure is maintained - and water clusters behave like crystals. SO
they do retain their structure despite phase changes. There's a lot of
research on this - I do not have a link handy at the moment, it's just
an off the cuff answer. I can not "convert" to situations where sugar is
a carrier once the water/alcohol evaporates. (Not sure if there is
research on that.)
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
In my opinion:
Yes if they are dissolved. Hahnemann triturated solids because they did
not dissolve in water. So solid/undissolved contaminants would be no
problem but dissolved ones would be part of the remedy.
Maybe:
Yes if the contaminant happens to be dissolved thus potentized, AND a
match to symptoms in which case the remedy will work better;
no if the contaminant is solid;
unlikely if the contaminant is not a match to symptoms. eg I am not
especially sensitive to remedies and I can take quite a load of them
with zero effect for unmatched ones. A seriously sensitive individual
MIGHT be affected by a potentized contaminant that was dissolved in the
original solution.
In theory:-)
(er - my theory!)
I do not remember this, for some reason I thought he used glass - but
there were less options in those days. Glass was available for example -
but no plastic.
The correct way to make any mother tincture depends on what you want to
dissolve into it for potentization. Some things dissolve better in
water, others better in alcohol and still others better in glycerin.
It's not to do with cost but with what aspect of substance/plant you
want to dissolve.
Thus the HPUS (in USA, and similar instructions in other countries)
lists for mother tinctures, what ratios of each of those solvent/s need
to be used for a specific remedy to be manufactured, in order to extract
the appropriate active principle into the tincture.
Solids were/are triturated instead of diluted at the START of making a
remedy.
Trituration for solids adds energy just as succussion does in liquid.
Gee did I find that out the hard way making a yellow jacket remedy with
sloppy technique for the dust during trituaration; by 4C I felt I was
getting stung all over - and had to get to 9C to "cure" it. But I still
got random "stings" all over for a month or more later and needed the
odd 9C extra dose.
When ice changes phase, (water to solid and back etc) the crystal
structure is maintained - and water clusters behave like crystals. SO
they do retain their structure despite phase changes. There's a lot of
research on this - I do not have a link handy at the moment, it's just
an off the cuff answer. I can not "convert" to situations where sugar is
a carrier once the water/alcohol evaporates. (Not sure if there is
research on that.)
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
-
Helen Tucker
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: 'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated
Helen wrote: > 3. I read that Hahnemann initially used only alcohol as a
solvent, and not water. Later, he changed to a part alcohol/part water
mixture because alcohol alone was too expensive. Is this correct?
Irene:
***No, I meant I thought he used alcohol in the dilution/succusion process,
not just for the tincture. Was alcohol used for dilution? Is it still used
for dilution today?
Helen wrote:> 4. Did Hahnemann use sugar pellets?
Irene:
***I'm sorry I wasn't clear. Did he use sugar pellets at the end of the
dilution process? Did he give his patients sugar pellets or globules, like
we buy now?
Thanks for the answers. They help me understand it all better.
Best,
Helen
solvent, and not water. Later, he changed to a part alcohol/part water
mixture because alcohol alone was too expensive. Is this correct?
Irene:
***No, I meant I thought he used alcohol in the dilution/succusion process,
not just for the tincture. Was alcohol used for dilution? Is it still used
for dilution today?
Helen wrote:> 4. Did Hahnemann use sugar pellets?
Irene:
***I'm sorry I wasn't clear. Did he use sugar pellets at the end of the
dilution process? Did he give his patients sugar pellets or globules, like
we buy now?
Thanks for the answers. They help me understand it all better.
Best,
Helen
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: 'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated
If you study Hn's methods, you will note that he used distilled water. Also
he found that Homoeopathic remedies were destroyed by being heated. That is
why his equipment is boiled for (I think) 20 minutes before they are
re-used.
Distilled alcohol (Spirit of wine) was quite expensive too, so if you look
at his dilution techniques, in producing LM remedies, you will note how this
technique produces great economies.
Regards
Soroush
he found that Homoeopathic remedies were destroyed by being heated. That is
why his equipment is boiled for (I think) 20 minutes before they are
re-used.
Distilled alcohol (Spirit of wine) was quite expensive too, so if you look
at his dilution techniques, in producing LM remedies, you will note how this
technique produces great economies.
Regards
Soroush
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: 'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated
Hi Helen,
Shannon replies: A lot of these matters we aren't able to answer
definitely on basis of *theory*, because--as we're seeing now!--the
theory is still very much "in process". But we do have 200 years of
experience to give some help! Contact with glass does not seem to be
any problem, and it seems that the remedies are really not very
delicate, so long as they are kept from strong smells (and I think it's
only *certain* strong smells that can be a problem, but not certain
about that), direct sunlight (again I am not certain whether that will
*always* nullify a remedy, but it's been seen clearly that it can) and
very high temperatures (tho I've heard someone talk about carrying
their remedies in the trunk / boot of their car thru the desert, with
no apparent harm; still, I wouldn't want to count on that). A few
lucky people have come into possession of remedy kits as much as 100
(and perhaps more) years old, and find them still *very* effective--one
person in fact said that his 100 year old set seemed stronger than the
remedies he'd been accustomed to using. So evidently their glass vials
had not harmed them!
EMFs have not been an issue until more recently, but I have not so far
heard any suggestion that they can damage remedies; x-rays (at least
the in levels encountered in airports and air travel) evidently do not.
Yes.
Yes; so protect them from strong smells, direct sun, and (it's said)
temps above 120. (Tho i heard one case where for practical reasons the
remedy was administered in boiling coffee--and worked well! Go
figure...)
Not that I know of.
Right.
That's only a current hypothesis... And even if correct, may or may
not be complete.
Did Roy say that?
Various non-homeopaths (in various "alternative" contexts) do believe
that water carries an "energy" which is very much affected by those
things and much more, and that even the best filtering will not
necessarily yield the best water.
Sorry, I still haven't read it... (And it's not high on my list today,
argh)
Sounds plausible.
Tho I wouldn't really call the effects of succussion etc. "huge"; they
are subtle enough that they are *only* effective, or even noticeable,
when used in pretty specific ways! Still, your suggestion does make
sense...
One can make oneself nuts if one puts incomplete theory too far
ahead of observation. So far none of these things have seemed to be a
problem; perhaps that will change, or perhaps the theory will
eventually have to figure out *why* they haven't been a problem.
Shannon
Shannon replies: A lot of these matters we aren't able to answer
definitely on basis of *theory*, because--as we're seeing now!--the
theory is still very much "in process". But we do have 200 years of
experience to give some help! Contact with glass does not seem to be
any problem, and it seems that the remedies are really not very
delicate, so long as they are kept from strong smells (and I think it's
only *certain* strong smells that can be a problem, but not certain
about that), direct sunlight (again I am not certain whether that will
*always* nullify a remedy, but it's been seen clearly that it can) and
very high temperatures (tho I've heard someone talk about carrying
their remedies in the trunk / boot of their car thru the desert, with
no apparent harm; still, I wouldn't want to count on that). A few
lucky people have come into possession of remedy kits as much as 100
(and perhaps more) years old, and find them still *very* effective--one
person in fact said that his 100 year old set seemed stronger than the
remedies he'd been accustomed to using. So evidently their glass vials
had not harmed them!
EMFs have not been an issue until more recently, but I have not so far
heard any suggestion that they can damage remedies; x-rays (at least
the in levels encountered in airports and air travel) evidently do not.
Yes.
Yes; so protect them from strong smells, direct sun, and (it's said)
temps above 120. (Tho i heard one case where for practical reasons the
remedy was administered in boiling coffee--and worked well! Go
figure...)
Not that I know of.
Right.
That's only a current hypothesis... And even if correct, may or may
not be complete.
Did Roy say that?
Various non-homeopaths (in various "alternative" contexts) do believe
that water carries an "energy" which is very much affected by those
things and much more, and that even the best filtering will not
necessarily yield the best water.
Sorry, I still haven't read it... (And it's not high on my list today,
argh)
Sounds plausible.
Tho I wouldn't really call the effects of succussion etc. "huge"; they
are subtle enough that they are *only* effective, or even noticeable,
when used in pretty specific ways! Still, your suggestion does make
sense...
One can make oneself nuts if one puts incomplete theory too far ahead of observation. So far none of these things have seemed to be a
problem; perhaps that will change, or perhaps the theory will
eventually have to figure out *why* they haven't been a problem.
Shannon