Potentized remedies

[Jeff Tikari gmail]

I am quoting below a part of what Chandran Nambiar writes.
Just look up the dictionary to gather the meaning of 'moiety'
Potentized homeopathic drugs contain 'molecular imprints' or 'hydrosomes', which can bind to the exogenous and endogenous pathogenic molecules having complementary affinity, thereby relieving the protein molecules from molecular inhibitions. This is the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics.

'Hydrosomes' or 'Molecular Imprints' are nanocavities formed in the 'supra-molecular clusters of water and ethyl alcohol', by a process of 'molecular imprinting' involved in potentization. When introduced into the organism, they act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules having complementary configurational affinity, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological molecular inhibitions. This is the most rational and logical explanation of molecular dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics....
Jeff

[John Harvey]

Hi, Jeff --

Thanks for the quote below. It's a bit of a mixture of fact and fantasy, I gather, in that I know of no evidence that the "hydrosomes" resulting from potentisation are capable of binding to pathogenic molecules (and, in any case, their doing so wouldn't in any way explain either their primary action or the organism's secondary response to them, in cases not arising from toxicity); nevertheless, it's informative and interesting.

I mentioned your particular use of the word moieties because you didn't appear to be using it in either possibly relevant sense in which a dictionary would define it. I'm intrigued, if in fact it was denoting either "halves" or "indefinite portions", to know quite what you were trying to convey in the sentence

"Knowing the moities of say Calc sulph only adds to my knowledge of what the remedy is".

Calc. sulph. arises from immutable proportions, not indefinite ones, of calcium, sulphur, and oxygen; so "indefinite proportions" wouldn't seem to be a relevant connotation of the word. Were you in some way referring to halves of Calc. sulph.? Perhaps this was a reference to calcium and sulphur, was it?

Cheers --

John

[Sheri Nakken]

and we should believe Chandran because?
Sheri

At 06:03 PM 1/17/2013, you wrote:

[Jeff Tikari gmail]

Here Sherry is a letter to Chandran Nambiar which is self explanatory.
Jeff
Permit me to quote the comments of Prof. Rati Ram Sharma, DSc, PhD, MD(MA), MSc, MAMS, FIAMP , [Professor & Head (retired), Deptt. of Biophysics (with Nuclear Medicine), Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India] on DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY:

"Hearty congratulations Dr. K.C Chandran Nambiar, for a masterly presentation. Well done, keep it up.

I completely agree that in pharmaceutical chemistry, a "single" drug is a molecule or ion that can independently interact with biological molecules. Such a molecule or ion is the active "unit" of the drug substance. If a drug substance contains more than one such active units, capable of independent biological activity, it is a compound drug, not a "single" drug.

Let us join minds and head to suggest homoeopathic pharmaceutics as is available in Modern Scientific Medicine or Allopathy. In fact we have to have a group of like minded ascietists along with a pharmceutical company and a Homoeopathic Research Institute.

Respectful regards from,
Rati Ram Sharma,
DSc, PhD, MD(MA), MSc, MAMS, FIAMP

[Professor & Head (retired), Deptt. of Biophysics (with Nuclear Medicine), Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India; Present Res. address: H. No. 615, Sector 10, Panchkula-134113, Haryana, India; Phone: (0091-172)-2563949, Mobile: 9317655775; email: rrjss615@gmail.com, ; web site: http://physicsrevolution.com/

View this comment on this page:

http://totalcurehomeopathicprescription ... r-believed -

THANK YOU, PROF. SHARMA. I CONSIDER YOUR NICE APPRECIATION AS A GREAT HONOR CONFERRED UP ON ME, AND A VALUABLE AUTHORITATIVE RECOGNITION OF MY SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS OF HOMEOPATHY. THANKS A LOT

[Md Hossain]

Hi

This is the explanation I wanted to give about my FINAL MEDICINE ( hope everybody can remember ). PHOSPHORUS is a single drug but CALCAREA PHOS. is a compound drug . All existing medicines are partial similar but FINAL MEDICINE is complete similar for all human being . Atleast successfully verified on more than 10 thousands persons . I think these huge number is sufficient to prove of its efficacy . We should think that no need to die everybody to proof that " Man is mortal " .

Dr Md Emdadul Hossain
www.finalmedicine.com

--- On Fri, 18/1/13, jtikari@gmail.com wrote:

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Dr Hossain
Any potentised material is regarded as a 'Simple Substance'.
The Phosphorus you mentioned, even in its most pure form has other elements in it, so it is never 'PURE'.

And this is the beauty of homeopathy - it does not matter what is the origin of the substance, it can be potentised and once proved it can be used to cure.
We still have only your word for the greatness and beauty of your final medicine.

If you are right in your claims, there would be such a queue of patients at your door that it would make all the news channels.
You have done nothing to remove the doubts expressed clearly to you on Minutus.
The ball is still in your court. Show the evidence, principles (if any) and how it works.
Rgds

Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Md Hossain
Sent: 18 January 2013 13:56
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Potentized remedies
Hi

This is the explanation I wanted to give about my FINAL MEDICINE ( hope everybody can remember ). PHOSPHORUS is a single drug but CALCAREA PHOS. is a compound drug . All existing medicines are partial similar but FINAL MEDICINE is complete similar for all human being . Atleast successfully verified on more than 10 thousands persons . I think these huge number is sufficient to prove of its efficacy . We should think that no need to die everybody to proof that " Man is mortal " .

Dr Md Emdadul Hossain
www.finalmedicine.com

--- On Fri, 18/1/13, jtikari@gmail.com > wrote:
From: jtikari@gmail.com >
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Potentized remedies
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, 18 January, 2013, 8:09 AM
Here Sherry is a letter to Chandran Nambiar which is self explanatory.
Jeff
Permit me to quote the comments of Prof. Rati Ram Sharma, DSc, PhD, MD(MA), MSc, MAMS, FIAMP , [Professor & Head (retired), Deptt. of Biophysics (with Nuclear Medicine), Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India] on DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY:

“Hearty congratulations Dr. K.C Chandran Nambiar, for a masterly presentation. Well done, keep it up.

I completely agree that in pharmaceutical chemistry, a “single” drug is a molecule or ion that can independently interact with biological molecules. Such a molecule or ion is the active “unit” of the drug substance. If a drug substance contains more than one such active units, capable of independent biological activity, it is a compound drug, not a “single” drug.

Let us join minds and head to suggest homoeopathic pharmaceutics as is available in Modern Scientific Medicine or Allopathy. In fact we have to have a group of like minded ascietists along with a pharmceutical company and a Homoeopathic Research Institute.

Respectful regards from,
Rati Ram Sharma,
DSc, PhD, MD(MA), MSc, MAMS, FIAMP

[Professor & Head (retired), Deptt. of Biophysics (with Nuclear Medicine), Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India; Present Res. address: H. No. 615, Sector 10, Panchkula-134113, Haryana, India; Phone: (0091-172)-2563949, Mobile: 9317655775; email: rrjss615@gmail.com , ; web site: http://physicsrevolution.com/

View this comment on this page:

http://totalcurehomeopathicprescription ... r-believed -

THANK YOU, PROF. SHARMA. I CONSIDER YOUR NICE APPRECIATION AS A GREAT HONOR CONFERRED UP ON ME, AND A VALUABLE AUTHORITATIVE RECOGNITION OF MY SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS OF HOMEOPATHY. THANKS A LOT

[Jeff Tikari gmail]

What you are writing, Emdadul is mind boggling. It is great - but if you are telling us your way is Earth Shaking, tell us about it. SM told us all about homeopathy and we are following his way. If he was as secretive as you are...there would be no Homeopathy. If you have found a super way, tell us. Are you afraid you might be proven wrong? Let us judge your claims and declair that you are a true genious..
Teach us Master.
Jeff

[John Harvey]

All three most recent messages here -- from Dr Hossain, from Soroush, and from Jeff Tikari -- are discussing concepts that are, in their present vague state, without practical benefit to homoeopaths and possibly without real relevance to homoeopathy; and, although further discussion may give those concepts both relevance and practicability, for any relative newcomer reading the discussion (and anybody who is not keeping up with such sidelines), they are so esoteric as to be daunting rather than interesting.

More distressingly, all three messages confuse basic terms.
Dr Hossain, your short discussion of phosphorus (potentised?) and Calcarea phos (potentised?) appears to confuse two concepts of the same name, compound.

The first is the chemical concept of a compound -- which is most definitely a single chemical substance, whose unit is a single molecule. That molecule is built of two or more, often different, atoms, such as (in the case of calcium phosphate) calcium, phosphorus, and oxygen, but is not in any sense a mixture. Its identity is singular and completely separate from the calcium, phosphorus, and oxygen that go to make it up. Its physical appearance, physical properties, chemical properties, biological activity, and dynamic effects all are unpredictable from the elements (calcium, phosphorus, and oxygen) that make it up. It is a substance entirely different substance from its constituents.

Take, for a clearer example of this, the difference between water and its constituent elements, hydrogen and oxygen.

Hydrogen is a lightweight gas so highly reactive with oxygen that upon contact with it, in the presence of a spark of heat, it will burst into flame.

Oxygen is a gas so corrosive that it will turn solid iron and many other metals into dust; so highly reactive that even some metals (such as sodium) will burst into flame upon contact with it at room temperatures.

Yet burn the hydrogen with oxygen to form water (in the stable ratio of two atoms of hydrogen to one of oxygen, hence H2O), and the single substance you get, water, is a highly stable liquid, not reacting easily with either hydrogen or metals, with at least 37 properties that no other substance shares.

Moreover, another substance, also consisting entirely of hydrogen and oxygen (two atoms of each per molecule, H2O2), has entirely different properties from those of water: hydrogen peroxide, again corrosive and somewhat unstable. It fairly easily reacts to many substances, breaking down into water and a single oxygen atom; yet its chemical (and biological and dynamic) properties are not exactly like those of oxygen, as the single oxygen atom it releases has different electrical properties from the oxygen we know and love, which always occurs in the relatively stable form O2.

This single oxygen atom released in the breakdown of hydrogen peroxide is unable to pull both the electrons it is attracted to from the H2O, because the H2O is electrically very stable and is not prepared to give both up; so the oxygen atom ends up with a single extra electr rather than two.

That single electron, because it is what is known as an unpaired electron, makes that oxygen atom even more reactive than the oxygen molecule, and highly hazardous to the stability of many biological molecules, such as DNA and RNA.

As you may perceive, then, even the behaviour of the oxygen molecule is not predictable from the behaviour of its component oxygen atoms! It has its own unique properties, just as the oxygen atom has its.

The water molecule has its own unique properties, just as the hydrogen and oxygen atom have theirs.

Hydrogen peroxide's properties are again different and again unique (though, for good reason, they have much in common with those of ozone, O3, which also readily releases a single oxygen atom with an unpaired electron).

All these substances are single, simple, unique substances, and the word compound in chemistry expresses merely the chemical combination of two or more different atoms (as in water; as in hydrogen peroxide; as in calcium phosphate) into an entirely new single chemical substance.

The second concept, the pharmaceutical concept of compounding medicines, unfortunately uses the same word to express an entirely different matter: not creating a chemical compound at all but merely creating a mixture. (Such a mixture may include a solution, but solutions do not create new compounds as such; they merely temporarily create a loose electrical bond between molecules of the solvent -- usually water -- and atoms, or part molecules, of the solute.)

Mixing two or substances does not create a new chemical substance. (At least, not in itself. Once we mix hydrogen and oxygen, they may react -- forming water -- with a bang, given that we put a match to them. Until then, they're merely an intermingling of hydrogen molecules, H2, and oxygen molecules, O2.) A mixture is merely a spatial intermingling, such as occurs when you walk into a crowd.

You do not, in walking into a crowd, lose your identity and merge with one or more others to become a new kind of creature. No more do mixtures constitute new substances as chemical compounds do. These mixtures are known as pharmaceutical compounds, having been "compounded" together by somebody with a spoon, a stirring rod, or a mortar and pestle; but they are not chemical compounds, they are mixtures, and as such they behave, physically and chemically, somewhat as you'd expect them to by the nature of their constituent parts.

Their medicinal activity , though, is another matter. Medicinally, mixtures commonly attain fresh properties -- because of the complex nature of biological organisms. Organisms are affected in one way by one chemical substance, and in another way by another chemical substance; but those effects are not entirely independent. A single substance has many, many effects in the one organism. The effects of one substance and the effects of another will occur in many of the same regions, organs, tissues, even cells and cellular activities, of the body. Imagine that one substance is tending to cause a mitochondrion in a cell to produce a certain signal and that another substance is tending to cause the same mitochondrion to produce another signal. What will be the result: will it be a mixed signal, or both signals? More likely, the result may be that it produces instead a third signal altogether.

Mixtures (including pharmaceutical "compounds"), then, commonly have the bizarre properties of synergy (production of new effects unpredictable from the total of the known effects of their parts) and antergy (cancellation of such predictable effects). These arise not because a pharmaceutical compound is a new substance but because the effects of any single substance are so broad, so widespread, so ubiquitous, that the effects of two such substances are certain to be at odds in places in the organism.
Soroush, although it is true that almost nothing we can obtain on Earth can be totally pure, clearly that truth does not detract in any significant way from our ability to prescribe in a pure mannerand have a singular primary effect from a nearly pure medicine, does it!

The entire history of medicine, and certainly the entire history of toxicology and then homoeopathic pathogenetic trials (provings), has been possible to document only because it has been possible on many occasions to reliably ascribe certain effects to certain medicinal causes. Without such reliability, there couldn't possibly be any such thing as a medicine; we would be unable to predict the outcome of ingesting any particular medicine, because we're simultaneously ingesting nearly everything else with it.

What your argument concerning purity ignores is that the most significant determinant of how serious an effect a substance will have is quantity.

In every breath of purest air, we inhale a very small amount of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, and ammonia.

In every drop of purest drinking water, we imbibe small quantities of decomposing crustacean flesh and bacteria.

With every bite of purest food prepared and served in the most hygienic conditions, we ingest small quantities of sulphides, phosphates, and pathogenic bacteria.

Yet we do not spend our days rocking from one illness to the next from these, exactly because their quantities are too low.

They are too low in the sense that the organism is perfectly capable of fighting off small quantities of most things -- certainly most things occurring in the environments in which that organism evolved.

They are also too low to significantly compromise the purity of the effects of any single medicinal substance that has been administered in rather more significant quantities.

And that is the point upon which your entire argument concerning purity fails. Anybody who sets out to administer a mixture for medicinal purposes uses proportions -- or at least intends to do so -- in which every medicinal substance entering into the mixture (or pharmaceutical "compound") is capable of exerting its effects to a significant degree. In homoeopathy, we deliberately set out to exclude a mixture of effects by ensuring that the medicinal substance we intend to administer is as pure as we may find it.

I'm perfectly aware that not every homoeopathic medicine is a chemical compound; that Hahnemann included in the term "single, simple medicinal substance" many medicines that are, chemically speaking, mixtures -- for instance, plant substances that consist of a naturally occurring mixture of chemical substances. And I'm aware of failed arguments that since some of our medicines are, chemically speaking, mixtures, we may therefore regard every man-made mixture as a potential new homoeopathic medicine. That facile argument has been disposed of here so many times now that I hope it never again finds a proponent. It's clear that the naturally occurring mixtures in medicinal plants are of sufficiently stable combined effect that we have been able to obtain fairly reliable pathogenetic pictures of them for homoeopathic use -- which is more than can be said of any man-made mixture of medicines.

You do make the mistake, though, of repeating a contention that has been thoroughly discredited here on previous occasions, and I wonder that you continue to raise it: the contention that any mixture, any bizarre confluence of medicinal influences, becomes a single substance -- with the stability of pathogenesis that such a term implies -- merely through the process of potentisation.

The claim actually contains its own disproof: if at the beginning of the potentisation process it is a pharmaceutical mixture (or pharmaceutical "compound") -- with the various disparate medicinal elements and the various unpredictabilities that such a mixture entails -- and at the end of the process it is a "single substance", with a stable pathogenesis not subject to variation through potentisation stages or through changes in the proportions of the starting mixture -- then surely some change in that mixture's pathogenesis must have occurred along the way! In this way, the claim contains its own contradiction.

It is crystal clear that if Hahnemann meant anything at all by the term "single, simple substance", then the term did not compass any and every arbitrary mixture of substances -- even if the mixture is then dynamised into invisibility. His reference to single, simple substances, and his repeated exhortations to intelligent physicians to stick to them, was for no other purpose than to distinguish single medicines from medicinal mixtures. It is a fundamental mistake to interpret
What I

is an unnecessary distraction from the point that there is a marked difference between
Hi

This is the explanation I wanted to give about my FINAL MEDICINE ( hope everybody can remember ). PHOSPHORUS is a single drug but CALCAREA PHOS. is a compound drug . All existing medicines are partial similar but FINAL MEDICINE is complete similar for all human being . Atleast successfully verified on more than 10 thousands persons . I think these huge number is sufficient to prove of its efficacy . We should think that no need to die everybody to proof that " Man is mortal " .

Dr Md Emdadul Hossain
www.finalmedicine.com

--- On Fri, 18/1/13, jtikari@gmail.com > wrote:

[John Harvey]

Please ignore the message just sent; it was incomplete and apparently sent itself!

Cheers --

John
--
"There is no exercise better for the heart than reaching down and lifting people up."
— John Andrew Holmes, Jr.

[John Harvey]

The most recent messages under this subject line from Dr Hossain, from Soroush, and (two) from Jeff Tikari are discussing concepts that are, in their present vague state, without practical benefit to homoeopaths and possibly without real relevance to homoeopathy; and, although further discussion may give those concepts both relevance and practicability, for any relative newcomer reading the discussion (and anybody who is not keeping up with such sidelines), they are so esoteric as to be daunting rather than interesting.

More distressingly, all three messages confuse basic terms.
Jeff, you're right to distinguish pharmaceutical compounds, which are merely mixtures, from chemical compounds. I hope I manage to shed more light on this below. But the letter you quote is not self-evidently a reason to believe Chandran Nambiar's contention concerning the action of homoeopathic medicines in opposing toxic compounds, and certainly no reason to imagine that this is, or could possibly be, the mechanism of all homoeopathic medicinal activity, since not all illness arises from a toxic substance. The letter doesn't even self-evidently make any sense.
Dr Hossain, your short discussion of phosphorus (potentised?) and Calcarea phos (potentised?) appears to confuse two concepts of the same name, compound.

The first is the chemical concept of a compound -- which is most definitely a single chemical substance, whose unit is a single molecule. That molecule is built of two or more, often different, atoms, such as (in the case of calcium phosphate) calcium, phosphorus, and oxygen, but is not in any sense a mixture. Its identity is singular and completely separate from the calcium, phosphorus, and oxygen that go to make it up. Its physical appearance, physical properties, chemical properties, biological activity, and dynamic effects all are unpredictable from the elements (calcium, phosphorus, and oxygen) that make it up. It is a substance entirely different substance from its constituents.

Take, for a clearer example of this, the difference between water and its constituent elements, hydrogen and oxygen.

Hydrogen is a lightweight gas so highly reactive with oxygen that upon contact with it, in the presence of a spark of heat, it will burst into flame.

Oxygen is a gas so corrosive that it will turn solid iron and many other metals into dust; so highly reactive that even some metals (such as sodium) will burst into flame upon contact with it at room temperatures.

Yet burn the hydrogen with oxygen to form water (in the stable ratio of two atoms of hydrogen to one of oxygen, hence H2O), and the single substance you get, water, is a highly stable liquid, not reacting easily with either hydrogen or metals, with at least 37 properties that no other substance shares.

Moreover, another substance, also consisting entirely of hydrogen and oxygen (two atoms of each per molecule, H2O2), has entirely different properties from those of water: hydrogen peroxide, again corrosive and somewhat unstable. It fairly easily reacts to many substances, breaking down into water and a single oxygen atom; yet its chemical (and biological and dynamic) properties are not exactly like those of oxygen, as the single oxygen atom it releases has different electrical properties from the oxygen we know and love, which always occurs in the relatively stable form O2.

This single oxygen atom released in the breakdown of hydrogen peroxide is unable to pull both the electrons it is attracted to from the H2O, because the H2O is electrically very stable and is not prepared to give both up; so the oxygen atom ends up with a single extra electr rather than two.

That single electron, because it is what is known as an unpaired electron, makes that oxygen atom even more reactive than the oxygen molecule, and highly hazardous to the stability of many biological molecules, such as DNA and RNA.

As you may perceive, then, even the behaviour of the oxygen molecule is not predictable from the behaviour of its component oxygen atoms! It has its own unique properties, just as the oxygen atom has its.

The water molecule has its own unique properties, just as the hydrogen and oxygen atom have theirs.

Hydrogen peroxide's properties are again different and again unique (though, for good reason, they have much in common with those of ozone, O3, which also readily releases a single oxygen atom with an unpaired electron).

All these substances are single, simple, unique substances, and the word compound in chemistry expresses merely the chemical combination of two or more different atoms (as in water; as in hydrogen peroxide; as in calcium phosphate) into an entirely new single chemical substance.

The second concept, the pharmaceutical concept of compounding medicines, unfortunately uses the same word to express an entirely different matter: not creating a chemical compound at all but merely creating a mixture. (Such a mixture may include a solution, but solutions do not create new compounds as such; they merely temporarily create a loose electrical bond between molecules of the solvent -- usually water -- and atoms, or part molecules, of the solute.)

Mixing two or substances does not create a new chemical substance. (At least, not in itself. Once we mix hydrogen and oxygen, they may react -- forming water -- with a bang, given that we put a match to them. Until then, they're merely an intermingling of hydrogen molecules, H2, and oxygen molecules, O2.) A mixture is merely a spatial intermingling, such as occurs when you walk into a crowd.

You do not, in walking into a crowd, lose your identity and merge with one or more others to become a new kind of creature. No more do mixtures constitute new substances as chemical compounds do. These mixtures are known as pharmaceutical compounds, having been "compounded" together by somebody with a spoon, a stirring rod, or a mortar and pestle; but they are not chemical compounds, they are mixtures, and as such they behave, physically and chemically, somewhat as you'd expect them to by the nature of their constituent parts.

Their medicinal activity , though, is another matter. Medicinally, mixtures commonly attain fresh properties -- because of the complex nature of biological organisms. Organisms are affected in one way by one chemical substance, and in another way by another chemical substance; but those effects are not entirely independent. A single substance has many, many effects in the one organism. The effects of one substance and the effects of another will occur in many of the same regions, organs, tissues, even cells and cellular activities, of the body. Imagine that one substance is tending to cause a mitochondrion in a cell to produce a certain signal and that another substance is tending to cause the same mitochondrion to produce another signal. What will be the result: will it be a mixed signal, or both signals? More likely, the result may be that it produces instead a third signal altogether.

Mixtures (including pharmaceutical "compounds"=;), then, commonly have the bizarre properties of synergy (production of new effects unpredictable from the total of the known effects of their parts) and antergy (cancellation of such predictable effects). These arise not because a pharmaceutical compound is a new substance but because the effects of any single substance are so broad, so widespread, so ubiquitous, that the effects of two such substances are certain to be at odds in places in the organism.
Soroush, although it is true that almost nothing we can obtain on Earth can be totally pure, clearly that truth does not detract in any significant way from our ability to prescribe in a pure manner and have a singular primary effect from a nearly pure medicine, does it!

The entire history of medicine, and certainly the entire history of toxicology and then homoeopathic pathogenetic trials (provings), has been possible to document only because it has been possible on many occasions to reliably ascribe certain effects to certain medicinal causes. Without such reliability, there couldn't possibly be any such thing as a medicine; we would be unable to predict the outcome of ingesting any particular medicine, because we're simultaneously ingesting nearly everything else with it.

What your argument concerning purity ignores is that the most significant determinant of how serious an effect a substance will have is quantity.

In every breath of purest air, we inhale a very small amount of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, and ammonia.

In every drop of purest drinking water, we imbibe small quantities of decomposing crustacean flesh and bacteria.

With every bite of purest food prepared and served in the most hygienic conditions, we ingest small quantities of sulphides, phosphates, and pathogenic bacteria.

Yet we do not spend our days rocking from one illness to the next from these, exactly because their quantities are too low.

They are too low in the sense that the organism is perfectly capable of fighting off small quantities of most things -- certainly most things occurring in the environments in which that organism evolved.

They are also too low to significantly compromise the purity of the effects of any single medicinal substance that has been administered in rather more significant quantities.

And that is the point upon which your entire argument concerning purity fails. Anybody who sets out to administer a mixture for medicinal purposes uses proportions -- or at least intends to do so -- in which every medicinal substance entering into the mixture (or pharmaceutical "compound") is capable of exerting its effects to a significant degree. In homoeopathy, we deliberately set out to exclude a mixture of effects by ensuring that the medicinal substance we intend to administer is as pure as we may find it.

I'm perfectly aware that not every homoeopathic medicine is a chemical compound; that Hahnemann included in the term "single, simple medicinal substance" many medicines that are, chemically speaking, mixtures -- for instance, plant substances that consist of a naturally occurring mixture of chemical substances. And I'm aware of failed arguments that since some of our medicines are, chemically speaking, mixtures, we may therefore regard every man-made mixture as a potential new homoeopathic medicine. That facile argument has been disposed of here so many times now that I hope it never again finds a proponent. It's clear that the naturally occurring mixtures in medicinal plants are of sufficiently stable combined effect that we have been able to obtain fairly reliable pathogenetic pictures of them for homoeopathic use -- which is more than can be said of any man-made mixture of medicines.

You do make the mistake, though, of repeating a contention that has been thoroughly discredited here on previous occasions, and I wonder that you continue to raise it: the contention that any mixture, any bizarre confluence of medicinal influences, becomes a single substance -- with the stability of pathogenesis that such a term implies -- merely through the process of potentisation.

The claim actually contains its own disproof: if at the beginning of the potentisation process it is a pharmaceutical mixture (or pharmaceutical "compound") -- with the various disparate medicinal elements and the various unpredictabilities that such a mixture entails -- and at the end of the process it is a "single substance", with a stable pathogenesis not subject to variation through potentisation stages or through changes in the proportions of the starting mixture -- then surely some change in that mixture's pathogenesis must have occurred along the way! In this way, the claim contains its own contradiction.

It is crystal clear that if Hahnemann meant anything at all by the term "single, simple substance", then the term did not compass any and every arbitrary mixture of substances -- even if the mixture is then dynamised into invisibility. His reference to single, simple substances, and his repeated exhortations to intelligent physicians to stick to them, was for no other purpose than to distinguish single medicines from medicinal mixtures. Hahnemann went to immense pains to draw the distinction between a naturally occurring or synthetic "single, simple substance" and any other kind of substance, and it is a fundamental mistake to regard that distinction s a non-distinction.
Kind regards,

John
Hi

This is the explanation I wanted to give about my FINAL MEDICINE ( hope everybody can remember ). PHOSPHORUS is a single drug but CALCAREA PHOS. is a compound drug . All existing medicines are partial similar but FINAL MEDICINE is complete similar for all human being . Atleast successfully verified on more than 10 thousands persons . I think these huge number is sufficient to prove of its efficacy . We should think that no need to die everybody to proof that " Man is mortal " .

Dr Md Emdadul Hossain
www.finalmedicine.com

--- On Fri, 18/1/13, jtikari@gmail.com > wrote: