Potentized remedies

[Jeff Tikari gmail]

I give up, John.
In very simple language oxygen is oxygen and hydrogen is hydrogen - totally different molecules; put together in different proportions will give different substances...but you still have oxygen molecules in say water, as well as hydrogen molecules. Similarily Ca, Na, Zn etc. will all change to different substances when they attach to molecules of other substances. But the molecules will not undergo a change. So as I said whether it is Cal sulph or Cal carb or Ca cl the Ca molecules remain Ca molecules attached to other molecules.
When a proving is done of say, CaSo4 we really do not know whether the Ca molecules or the sulphate molecules were the defining factor. The Calc could be in one instance and the chloride could be in another instance and they could act in unison in a third instance. So in short if we are sure an ailment definately requires Ca, we could use any of the forms that has ca in it and it should work.
I must be a sucker for punishment.
Rgds
Jeff
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:

[healthinfo6]

Just a suggestion, change name to FOREVER medicine. FINAL sounds like it's for euthanasia, end of life or terminally ill purposes.
Susan

[Maria Bohle]

Jeff that was an outstanding reply it was comprehensive and clearly written thank you. I enjoyed reading it. Julian Winston once said the only problem with combos (not poly pharmacy) was they were never proved. I have been wondering if some of the herbal or Aurvedic mixes that are well known and have been used over a long period of time should be proved. What are your thoughts on that?

Sent from my iPhone
Hi

This is the explanation I

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear John
Is potentised causticum, a remedy manufactured by Hahnemann a @SINGLE SUBSTANCE’?
If yes, then you have answered yourself.

If no, then it is back to school!
Rgds

Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 18 January 2013 22:49
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Potentized remedies
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


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]

Hi, Jeff --
I think that when you said that the molecules don't change when atoms recombine, you must have meant that the atoms don't change: that calcium in a molecule retains the essential nature of calcium. And, in a way, it does retain it: the number of protons and neutrons it has will not be changed by any chemical transformations. But, in all the ways that count for the purposes of homoeopathy, its properties change utterly. It is fundamentally because in combination it no longer has the same chemical affinities that it had as elemental calcium that its dynamic properties in combination with any other element cannot be predicted from its dynamic properties in elemental form.
So, although the prediction you're claiming to be possible sounds plausible enough, it simply won't wash.
And all you need do is consider common experience in order to know that this is so. Water and hydrogen peroxide, as mentioned earlier, both consist entirely of hydrogen and oxygen, and yet you couldn't find two more disparate substances, could you! How, then, could you be predicting the properties of either one from its constituent atoms even if you "knew" which atom were, in your words, "the defining factor"?
One more thing about that, in case it occurs to you that in water we may imagine an explanation for the radical difference between water and hydrogen peroxide's being that in one the hydrogen is the defining factor and in the other the oxygen is: there is a third and a fourth molecule too consisting of just hydrogen and oxygen. One is the hydronium group, H3O+. Unlike both water and hydrogen peroxide, its effect is acidic, and therefore its pathogenetic effects will differ from the other two. The other hydroxyl group, OH-. Unlike all the other three, its effect is alkaline; therefore its pathogenesis will be different again!
So now you have four different pathogenetic pictures arising from just two kinds of atom. If those pictures were predictable from the preponderance of effect of one or the other, hydrogen or oxygen, then these four nonelemental molecules should show only two pathogeneses between them, shouldn't they -- and yet clearly will not!
So -- again, by your reasoning -- one should be able to predict the properties of water, of hydgrogen peroxide, of hydronium, and of hydroxyl merely from the properties of hydrogen and of oxygen. And yet, no matter how well we come to understand those properties, clearly they will not predict four different pathogeneses.
Much the same exercise can be done with other fairly simple molecules. The result is this: that two, three, four different chemical substances all made of the same atoms never have the same pathogenesis.
And one thing that the example I gave of monatomic (O-) and diatomic (O2) oxygen shows is that even oxygen is not always, as you say, oxygen, even in elemental form: elemental oxygen in its monatomic form, the radical O-, is far more dangerous biologically than oxygen as a molecule, O2. Yet, by your reasoning, one should be able to predict the properties of O2 from the properties of O-. Similarly, by the same reasoning, one should predict exactly the same pathogenesis from O3, ozone. Yet its pathogenesis is entirely different from that of the oxygen molecule, O2.
As we've seen several times now, your reasoning leads from a truth to a falsehood. Therefore it is the reasoning that is wrong.
It's a fantastic dream, the dream of predicting pathogeneses without doing the trials. Unfortunately, it remains merely a dream, and one that serves only to undermine the importance and the adequate conduct of pathogenetic provings.
Cheers --
John
--
"There is no exercise better for the heart than reaching down and lifting people up."
— John Andrew Holmes, Jr.

[John Harvey]

Hi, Soroush --
I answered this same irrelevant question adequately (as excerpted immediately below) when you raised it, on 7 July 2009:
------------

Soroush, I beg to differ on this point: that Hahnemann, in creating Causticum, did not do so by mixing substances: he created a new chemical compound. Though it undoubtedly contained impurities, as will almost all chemically created compounds, they were, as evidenced by the provings, not enough to destabilise the remedy's pathogenesis. This is a completely different matter from, for instance, mixing more-or-less equally four acids, four alkalis, or four salts and expecting thereby to create a new remedy with a stable pathogenesis; much would be left to chance.

------------
Chris Gillen answered too, more than adequately, in her message of 7 July. The discussion moved well beyond these misconceptions after that. It would be a pity to have to labour them once again for no good reason. To quote Chris's message in its entirety:
======

Soroush, I would refer you to Aphorism 273 before stating "if you mix a few substances and then potentise the mixture, it then becomes a single remedy..." In the footnote Hahnemann explains what he means by a single *simple* substance suitable for homoeopathic application.
Briefly:

(1) Neutral (non-acidic) or middle (low acid) salts which are compounded from 2 substances ... and combine through a chemical relationship in *unchangeable* proportions. (e.g. Kali salts, Magnesiums, Nit ac)

(2) Sulphuretted metals that can be compounded with alkaline salts and which are *always in constant proportions* (e.g. nat sulph, calc sulph)

(3) Ethers which are *formed by the linking* of wine spirit and acids through distillation.

(4) Phosphorus.
Essentially, he refers to a single *simple* substance as one by which its constituents are in constant proportions, or can form stable chemical bonds and exist as a single unit, and remain unvarying during its preparation. This includes Causticum.

Substances sourced from different and various animal products mixed together would not be classified as single, *simple*, medicines. I'd be interested in what Sheilagh has to say about this next time you speak wit=h her.
Chris.

======
In response to these posts, you resorted to quoting some homoeopath whose pronouncements you treated as gospel truth, to the effect that the only problem with mixtures is that they haven't received pathogenetic trials. But you didn't respond to the essential message: that Causticum is not some arbitrary mixture.
If you'd like to respond now, feel free. I believe that Chris Gillen gave up on this list again in light of the frustrations of trying to answer your doctrinal certainties with mere evidence and reason and that we therefore won't have the benefit of her brilliant insights, more's the pity. You may have to make do with me.
This doctrinal obsession of yours has an unfortunate effect on the progress of discussions on this list: it causes it to eat its own tail. Not once -- although you have regurgitated it endlessly and most ardently in the previous discussions -- have you provided any single reason for us to believe this absurd doctrine by which you regard anything at all as a single substance as long as you dynamise it -- except that some homoeopath you idolise said it. Such refuge in authority is not reason. It is not rational. And it most definitely does not advance anybody's understanding.
In later discussions of exactly the same baseless contention concerning dynamised mixtures, your only response to powerful arguments has been to simply reassert, without offering any reasons for doing so, the claim that all mixtures become a "single substance" in Hahnemann's terms upon dynamisation, regardless of the reasoning put to you to show that the claim was ludicrous. It's a sad day when the list's moderator returns to the start of all that discussion as though nobody has shown the claim to be beyond absurd. I have said before now, and will say again, that you place far too much value on doctrine and far too little on reason and evidence.
For your reference, below is my last post (also from 7 July) in the particular discussion quoted above, a post that you didn't respond to. Again, feel free to respond now. Just please don't resort to merely asserting, as you have previously, that your claim is correct and final. Your own authority is, I'm sorry to say, no more compelling than the authorities whose baseless contentions you quote.
Kind regards,
John
============

Hi, Soroush --
2009/7/7 >
Dear John
My understanding of a homeopathic 'single substance' is a substance that has been potentised on its own. For removal of all doubts, NOT two or more potentised substances mixed together (as in hay fever remedies etc).
I agree. As I tried to suggest in my post of about 20 hours ago, there will rarely be a case in which there are not impurities. But the clear predominance of one medicinal substance appears to be sufficient to not have this matter too much.
The substance itself is never simple unless we are talking about using elements - eg gold, lead etc. Even then, they are not 100% pure.

What is important is the proving aspect - so it does not matter what it is, where it came from etc. So long as it is proved properly, then it can be used.
That's where things become a little more sophisticated.
As I'm sure you know, Hahnemann was an analytical chemist of renown before even discovering homoeopathy and showed in some of his instructions on chemical preparations that he was well aware of the impossibility of controlling impurities absolutely.
Actually, a compound such as potassium nitrate may be every bit as pure as an element such as lead. It's not the presence of more than one kind of atom that renders a substance impure or turns it into a mixture; rather, whatever combines chemically with other substances creates a new substance or two (as in gallium combining with arsenic to form gallium arsenide), and whatever cannot remains one of the substances in the mixture.
There is some reason to think that a clear predominance is a major factor in the fate of various radicals, ions, atoms, and molecules dissolved and suspended in homoeopathic solutions during the processes of potentisation. (See, for instance, the extended hypothesis on the nature of potency offered by Colin B. Lessell in The Infinitesimal Dose: The Scientific Roots of Homoeopathy, C.W. Daniel, 1994, which is based partly on observations that predominant dissolved ions increasingly predominate in effect through succussion and dilution.)
There are several reasons to suppose that Hahnemann was completely correct in stating the unpredictability of the interactions between remedies in their crude form, let alone in potency. These include the present difficulty even in the allopathic world of predicting the combined effects on one patient of two drugs that have been prescribed together to many previous patients and his inability to predict such effects despite the rigorousness with which he conducted provings (especially in comparison with almost all modern provings, which pale into relative meaninglessness).
There are several more reasons, as I detailed in a post in discussion of this same topic in 2007 and have offered to re-post, to believe that additional complexities arise in mixing successful potencies of two or more substances. Though these will not usually arise in a potency of a plant substance within which it's possible (most likely due to the organisation of chemistry within the plant itself) to determine a clear hegemony of medicinally active components, they may very well arise in a mixture designed to offer medicinal activity in more-or-less equal parts, as the product of more-or-less equal quantities, of two or more substances unable to combine to form a new one.
The long and the short of it appears, at this stage anyway in our short history of investigating the technology of potency, to be that the predominance of one substance is vital to having any predictability in a mixture, and that plant substances appear -- at least within the one preparation -- to maintain such a hegemony throughout the potentisation process.
From Hn's time and more so now, we have Magnetic poles, electricity, lun, Sol etc. In effect what we are proving is the concentration of such things on a vial of water/alcohol. So immediately your pure substance has been mixed with other substances.
I'm uncertain of what you're saying here in connection with the vial, the water, and the alcohol. Are you suggesting that all these components become a medicinal part of the potentised medicine and that therefore all homoeopathic remedies are effectively mixtures and Hahnemann's conception of a single, simple substance to be used as a medicine was founded on an illusion of chemical purity?

============
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

[Sheri Nakken]

Are you referring to John's post? or Jeff's?

good to see you Maria
sheri

At 03:11 AM 1/19/2013, you wrote:

[Irene de Villiers]

Incorrect chemically...
Both are molecules as opposed to elements or "compound drugs"

Phosphorus does not exist in a single atomic form, and the homeopathic phosphorus was likely made from red phosphorus (rather than the very unstable, volatile white phosphorus which is P4) - based on research of history of Phosphorus by Marysia Kratimenos:
http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/hh_ar ... horus.html
Red phosphorus is polymeric - it has long chains of Phosphorus, in the form of P4 pieces added together.
As such it is a single substance - but is not a single atomic element but a molecular form (having more than one atom/element in its minimal structure.

Same with Calc-phos - it is molecular, a SINGLE compound, not a mixture. It's smallest item (minimal structure) is ONE molecule - not two or more different ones.

A "compound drug" would be a drug containing two or more ingredients at the minimum structure level.
(I use "minimum structure" as that smallest amount which cannot be divided further, being "one piece" of the substance.)

Not all homeopathic remedies are made from such uniform single characteristic pieces - for example plants are used and snake venom - all of which are very involved structurally at their least size level.

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
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."

[Irene de Villiers]

You confused atoms and molecules.
They are totally different ATOMS.

Atoms are the elements alone, not joined to anything - not even to another one the same.
So H is Hydrogen ato. H2 is two H atoms joined into a "molecule" - and the process of doing so DOES change the structure of both the H atoms being used. they now are in the form of one "molecule" - and structurally they are different and consequently they have different properties - and have lost the individual properties of a singe H.
H and H2 do NOT behave the same way even though both contain only "hydrogen".
When they attach to *atoms* of other substances.
Once they are no longer individual atomic elements and they are PART of a molecule, their structure and behavior both change.

For example H2O (water) has 2 H atoms (hydrogen) and one O atom (oxygen). It has a different structure to the same atoms seen separately. And it has a different behavior.
Also, H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) contains the same two atomic elements (hydrogen and oxygen) but because it is structurally different when joined into a H2O2 *molecule* - it also has totally different behavior to say water.

Atoms in a molecule DO undergo a change when joining into a molecule. Much like two round balls of clay look different if you roll them into one sausage - and they also behave differently because of that different structure.
Ca atoms, but they DO change differently according to what they are attached to, and they will behave differently/.
remember that atoms have energy - and that energy is arranged differently in a particular way in any specific atom or molecule - thus changing what kinds of behavior the atom or molecule will show.

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
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."

[Maria Bohle]

I must have meant John's post. I jumped in late and went to the bottom of the letter instead of to the header. John, I am so sorry.

Thanks Sheri for bringing this to my attention.
Maria

ps. It is good to be back on this list, it has been awhile and I didn't realize how much I had missed everyone.