Homeopathic Hyraosomes

[John Harvey]

Paul, your riposte concerning nuclei and electrons is a delight.

Let me ask you something, though, about this contention regarding the Organon's explanation of a homoeopathic remedy's action.

Alhough Roger's expression of it is rather vague, what he seems to be saying is that the similarity of the (gentler) dynamic state of the medicine to the (comparatively overwhelming) dynamic state of the patient stimulates the vitality to oppose the newly imposed similar state. This seems far more in keeping with the Organon's explanation and with the method of prescribing the medicine than does the idea that the homoeopathic remedy -- prescribed, after all, on its ability to mimic the patient's state of dynamic derangement, not on its ability to remove or oppose it -- opposes the patient's inner disease state.

So your contention here raises a puzzle. Any interpretation of the Organon as claiming that the homoeopathic remedy opposes the inner disease state is as far removed as possible from my reading of it. What part of the book leads you to that interpretation?

Kind regards,

John

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Please allow me to involve myself in this conversation, bear with me...

In Homeophysiology I have tried to demonstrate the existence of clathrates and their action on receptors, which simplistically is to displace, remove, the pathogenetic elements that prevent the proper function of the receptors; this is valid for physical as well as mental/emotional situations (see Candace Pert, Molecules of Emotions).
Because those clathrates are empty shells, they also lack the solidity of the "real" toxic element and therefore can break down easily, freeing the receptors.
There is nothing new in this phenomenon, it is a well known pharmacological activity that allows drugs to act of their receptors.
But the parallel is immediate with Hahnemann's assertion that the "artificial disease of the remedy" = the clathrate replaces the "original disease" = the pathogenetic element blocking the receptors, and then disappears. This again highlights H's genius while bringing the concept in line with what is known in modern physiology.
That way we are updating an old concept whose principles are correct but need a more precise, more detailed mechanism of action.

OK??

Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com

[John Harvey]

Hi, Joe --

Well, it's an interesting one to think about. The "pathologenetic elements" preventing proper function of the receptors, then, would be a result, rather than a primary cause, of the disease state, in this scenario?

I have to say that I've just re-encountered the subject of ormus states, orbitally rearranged microclustered elements, a fragmentary explanation of which on Wikipedia () suggests yet another possible mechanism involved in the production of homoeopathic potency. It's enough to make your head spin -- well, mine, anyway, because too much of the chemistry is over my head. Quite how much of the Wikipedia entry is fantasy, I don't know, but there's some suggestion that elements in ormus states may more readily enter into states on the verge of the incredible (albiet perfectly humdrum for quantum mechanics), such as their existence in two simultaneous locations. (Possibly we'll learn that they have other, unthought-of, but entertaining properties, such as temporal reversal!) I do have to wonder, though, whether -- if there's some truth to your hypothesis -- ormus states could be involved in holding the clathrate together (possibly even without the unambiguous presence of an atom at its centre).

Whether potential explanations highly dependent on clathrates are limited by the availability of soluble substances for the clathrate to enclose is a question to consider. On the other hand, the unusual properties of atoms in ormus states may lie behind both Hahnemann's conversion of insoluble solids to soluble ones through trituration and the formation of a wider range of clathrates than simple solubility would predict; and perhaps it's possible that the relatively few kinds of atoms that enter into ormus states are sufficient to trigger (a) clathrate formation around many other substances and (b) persistence beyond Avogadro's limit.

Dependence of the hypothesis upon receptor involvement may be a bigger hurdle. But if there is some reason to believe (a) that all medicines act on at least one receptor, (b) that (as you seem to be suggesting) all endogenous pathogenetic chemicals also act on at least one receptor, and (c) that some kind of barrier between the receptor and the pathogenetic substance will suffice to enable the organism to reverse a dynamic process that has been in train for some time, then the clathrate-&-receptor hypothesis may have much to recommend it.
It would suggest, though, wouldn't it, that the organism must be able (or enabled) to differentiate the blockaded substance from other substances that should normally meet that receptor.

Taking a step back, the hypothesis also would suggest that once the homoeopathic remedy acts on the organism, the organism itself must manufacture the appropriate clathrates of endogenous pathogenetic substances. Now, this too is plausible; but again, it seems to necessitate a rather complicated explanation.

One further persistent problem I perceive in explanations of homoeopathic action that depend upon the involvement of receptors is the one I raised earlier: that evidently not all medicinal (deranging) action does occur via receptors, Nat. mur. being a case in point.

Given that this is so, the clathrate-&-receptor hypothesis would seem to require positing also a method by which a blockade between pathogenetic molecules and receptors (if there are indeed salt receptors, or Na+ and Cl- receptors -- and if there aren't, then the flaw seems to me to be fatal) ultimately results in blockading other chemical pathways (such as, in the Nat. mur. case, ion channels through cell membranes).

I have the feeling I've just lost sight of a further difficulty also, but these seem fairly significant complications that the apparently simple hypothesis entails.

These complications largely disappear if one doesn't presuppose that the action of clathrates (or whatever other medium of medicinal information may be involved) must occur via receptors. Without that assumption, it becomes a fairly straightforward hypothesis of structural mimicry of some kind (or, more likely, of some kinds) that reflects the elemental, molecular, or complex composition of the original substance whose deranging effects mimic the state of the patient's health. Obviously there's some reason you've bypassed this simpler approach to the hypothesis, though; it would be interesting to hear about that.

Kind regards,

John

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

I don't think I forgot or bypassed anything, the whole reasoning is detailed in the book, not in this snippet.

And yes, there are receptors for anything and everything: Ca, K, Na, hormones, and the myriad of those that have not yet been discovered.

I do not know what ormus state is, but I do not have any exclusivity on explanations......what made me tick while developing this theory (and yes, there is still a large number of hypotheses to be proven and demonstrated, as stated in Part 4) is that to me, as a practitioner of medicine who tries to base whatever I do on physiology and its disturbances, it covers absolutely all the bases; and that is all I need.

Research and understanding are not static and some ways are totally obscure for me; as true and correct as they can be, I do not understand them at all. Therefore I needed to create a simple way to explain, first of all to myself, what I am doing and how it works.

I have no doubt that others will find flaws in it, be my guest, correct them and make the explanation even clearer and more evident....but before arguing either way, at least take the time to read the whole concept, not just base either agreement or rejection upon a summarised snippet hastily written between other more important activities.

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com

[John Harvey]

Hi, Joe --

I'm not taking issue with your book's explanation, as I'll probably never get around to finding the book!

Interesting to know that there are receptors for all these things. That does tend to pave the way for the clathrate-&-receptor hypothesis (though I remain somewhat skeptical toward the idea that every deranging compound meets a receptor). But I'd like to know what you make of the other problems I see in it. (If I've been too opaque about anything besides ormus states, just say, and I'll break what I'm on about down a little.)

The ormus states are essentially electronic conditions of an atom that allow it to exist either as a sole atom (i.e. monatomically), if it has an even atomic number (and therefore an even number of electrons in the uncharged state) or as an atom pair (i.e. diatomically), if it has an odd atomic number (and therefore needs to share two electrons with another such atom in order to avoid the instability that arises from having an unpaired electron).

I gather that atoms in an ormus state display remarkably different characteristics from their more common polyatomic (polymer) form.

To take two instances, ormus gold (which, although it's commonly referred to as monatomic, presumably is diatomic, since its atomic number is 79) is either a white powder or a brittle glassy substance; and many ormus elements are significantly lower in weight (not in mass) than when in their more usual state, and their weight fluctuates -- these weight changes most likely resulting from another property of ormus elements, superconductivity, a property that leads to something called the Meissner effect, which reduces weight through the powerful magnetic field that results from extremely high circular currents (which readily arise in superconductors).

The possible significance, as I saw it, of ormus states to this conversation lies in their possible role in the process of dynamisation due to the extreme properties they exhibit. Their powerful magnetic properties, for instance, allow for the possibility of a role in clathrate formation. And their alleged ability to be present and elsewhere simultaneously allows for the possibility of a continuing role in maintaining clathrate stability.

I don't put these musings either as fact or as explanations of the phenomenon of homoeopathic potency, but merely as interesting possible mechanisms by which some of the process might be explained by somebody knowledgeable on these topics. In other words, I think that ormus states may provide a clue as to how your own hypothesis could reflect the truth of the matter. But I still see hurdles for it to overcome, and I'd be very interested in learning what may overcome them if somebody can put some ideas concisely enough to absorb in this forum rather than in a book-length treatise available at a cost.

The facts of not only the existence of homoeopathic potency but also certain mechanisms sufficient to cause and maintain it -- facts well established in the 50 years of research that Roy et al.'s paper summarises -- can after all be put simply and unequivocally in a few sentences. (Or so I imagine. I haven't yet made that attempt. But I don't think it would be too hard.) And that research reflects some rather complex realities concerning the creation and maintenance of multiple phase states and structural regions in glasses and liquids. As well, it wouldn't be too difficult to summarise deftly the research on the production of coherent light and resultant phase alignments that occur in succussion. So I'd hope we could delve into the clathrate-&-receptor hypothesis in a relatively restricted forum without the brevity's causing it too much damage.

This is the kind of discussion we could really benefit by, discussion in which we maintain our ability to distinguish fact, explanation, relevant hypothesis, and pure fantasy (which has its place but needn't be confused with explanation or fact as occurs here with tiresome regularity).

Cheers!

John

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

As I claim in part 4 of the book all those theoretical mechanisms need investigation but then we need access to well equipped laboratories, otherwise we are theorising, and we can keep doing that until the cows come home, without any results.

As for finding the book, come on, it is in the bookshop that sell homeopathic literature, it is on Amazon and it is on www.bookdepository.com , emryss.com, nature-reveals.com and probably others.

Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com

[John Harvey]

Hmm… So, on the one hand, we've run out of things to discuss short of doing experiments ourselves in a laboratory we can't afford and don't know how to use; and, on the other, we could discuss how to overcome the hurdles to the clathrate-&-receptor hypothesis if I bought your book and read it? Does the book come complete with do-it-yourself lab and lab training, then?

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

You think you are funny?

Yes, we need to do the experiments.

Buying my book will not "overcome the hurdles", it will only give you the complete picture of what I have in mind and that is all. And it will give me $1.99 in royalties.....I admit it, I am greedy....

Your answer has one typical modality: sterility...........not the first time you want to engage in hyperbolic phraseology with no possible practical outcome.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com

[John Harvey]

Thanks for the offer, Joe. My mistake: I thought that you were interested in improving on a presently rather incomplete hypothesis (since you yourself offered it as sufficient explanation) that clathrates and receptors were vital in mediating the homoeopathic response to high potencies -- a hypothesis that at present has, as you say, "no possible practical outcome". But you say that you're only interested in telling us where we can read your state of mind (and pay for the privilege of doing so)?

If I gently sought to resolve the discrepancy between your supposed hard-headed practicality on the one hand ("all those theoretical mechanisms need investigation but then we need access to well equipped laboratories, otherwise we are theorising") and your unwillingness on the other to engage in discussion that nails flights of fancy to facts ("I don't think I forgot or bypassed anything, the whole reasoning is detailed in the book, not in this snippet… hastily written between other more important activities"; "we can keep doing that until the cows come home, without any results"), it was not because I thought the discrepancy was humorous; it was because I thought you might have something more in mind than pressing us to buy your book, and that you might perceive for yourself and be willing to overcome the contradictions in your various positions.

Again, my mistake; I should have known better. But an explanation that you're unable to put short of a book may be more complex and fanciful (even hyperbolic!) than it need be in order to explain the facts.

Kind regards,

John
--

“Many corporations are led by executives who do not grasp the reality that people have identities and corporations do not.”
—D. Ramonte Rawis, commenting on Whitney Johnson, “It’s time to dream for a living”,

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

You want me to tell you in one post what took me 6 years to research and put to paper, summarize it in around 40-50 pages with a explanation showing how I got there?

You clearly demonstrated that you are not interested and not willing to read what others write or what is common knowledge:
- you admitted not having read Roy's paper until recently...why not?
- you did not bother to check anything about deuterium and tritium, just offered your "opinion" and were completely wrong, but presented your argument as if whatever you said was the pure truth and reality
- you were not "aware" of the different receptors, did not bother to check something that I learned more than 30 years ago in second year of medical school

Basically, you emit opinions and thoughts as facts in a preposterous, pompous, pedantic succession of Dickensenian sentences hoping to drown the reader in verbosity and boredom. When challenged to READ the FULL articles, papers or books with explanations, you go ahead with personal attacks, claiming that all I want is to sell my books.

No, indeed, I cannot discuss anything more without fact, experiments, proofs, because I have reached the limit of what I can understand, explain, demonstrate, without more information, more real data. That is the difference between the scientific approach and your airy-fairy theorizing about things you do not have a clue about.

Don't bother answering......

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com