Response to Roger Bird regarding physico-chemistry of homeopathy

[John R. Benneth]

Mr. Bird,
I applaud Jeff Tikari for posting Nambiar's work. Obviously you have very little understanding of science and even less of supramolecular chemistry. Material scientists with academic credentials of the highest orders have described the distinctions between the supramolecular materials used as medicine in homeopathy and their inert vehicles in a way that supports part of what Chandran Nambiar has described here (see Roy, Structure of Liquid Water).
As early as Hahnemann, it was thought that [homeopathic remedies] "cannot be apprehended by specious a priori sophistry, or from the smell, taste, or appearance of the medicines, or from chemical analysis, or by treating disease with one or more of them in a mixture (prescription)."
But even though 19th century science did not afford the necessaray terms, instrumentation and theory needed to explain the action of homeopathic action, Hayhnemann's opinion that it was a magnetic phenbomenon still hold up under today's tools.
Chikramin's asymptote theory being no exception, magnetic imprinting in water molecules, like that of ferro-magnetic recording tape, is still the only explanation offered for homeopathy's mode of action by Hahnemann and modern material scientists. Nambiar's keyhole theory aside, magnetic imprinting fits both the observations by Benveniste and Montagnier and the structural analysis by Anagnostatos, Demangeat, Conte et al and Roy et al adn the orthodox literature on water.
Imprinting by H2O protic polarization around pneumatic cavitation was first described by Barnard when NMR analysis of supramolecular "homeopathic medicines" by Smith and Boericke at Hahnemann College in the '60's showed structural differences from their vehicles.
Whereas "hydrosome" is probably a misnomer for hydrozoan and should be replaced by 'clathrate' and the pathogenic molecule binding to artificial keyholes appears to be Nambiar's invention (which I don't agree with) I could be wrong, and Nambiar's work reveals a admirable effort to explain the liquid aqueous structuring in homeopathic supramoleculars and their biological action, all in the teeth of ridicule such as yours. He is also right in stating that "Potentization actually involves 'host-guest' molecular interactions exactly similar to that which is commonly utilized by polymer chemists in preparing molecular imprinted polymers. The only difference is, homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol mixture as the imprinting medium, whereas polymer chemists use polymers."

This is an extremely difficult subject involving pitfalls, egos and misnomers. If you don't understand words LOOK THEM UP instead of just calling them technobabble. If you don't understand something, ask questions. In ridiculing the investigation you are trolling, dissuading people from a necessary but rather delicate discussion that is of key importance to medicine, and making an eventual fool of yourself instead of your target.
So give everybody, including yourself, a break, why don't you? Trying to please "skeptics," i.e. jealouis blowhards, doesn't move anything forward.
John Benneth
In a message dated 8/27/2013 9:45:27 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rogerbird2@hotmail.com writes:
________________________________