Response to Elham regarding the physics of homeopathy

[John R. Benneth]

What? A homeopath won't ever solve the mystery of potentization? Come on Elham . . since when does being a homeopath rule out understanding the physics of his remedies? Any homeopath worthy of the title should be digging into this, its not as impossible or difficult as you seem to portray it to be. And you're not being rude, but because I don't want to be rude I won't say what I think you're being. except to say you're as bad as the skeptoids. Historically anyone who starts talking about this and starts coming up with a physico-chemical explanation of homeopathy is immediately booed down by both sides, discredited, not just by pseudo-scientists, but by homeopaths as well
It seems to be the one thing that the homeopathy haters and homeopaths agree on, that because there shouldn't be an explanation there isn't one, because if there was it would make too many people look stupid, the mystagogues who have been banking on the ignorance of it.
Naturally you haven't read any of the pre-clinical literature for homeopathy, you haven't even tried, you probably are not even aware it exists. Nor will you, I suspect.
Homeopaths don't need to discover the science on their own, its already been done for them by non homeopaths.Three of the most revealing biochemical studies of "homeopathic remedies" were done by non-homeopaths, all three were "orthodox" immunologists and two of them have been Nobel prize winners . . Emil Behring (first Nobel prize for Medicine for diphtheria anti-toxin, which he claimed was homeopathic, like all vaccines) , Jacques Benveniste (renowned French immunologist, head of INSERM) who was crucified by James Randi, Nature Magazine AND George Vithoulkas (!) for essentially doing nothing more than replicating a biochmeical test that to date has been replicated two dozen times; and Luc Montagnier (2008 Nobel prize for AIDS) who discovered some really remarkable things about homeopathy.
The thing that Benveniste did that really blew the lid off the can was he discovered electromagnetic indices for the materials in question, and this was replicated by Montagnier in 2009, where in addition he found evidence that supramolecular structuring in the "remedies" was transducting background radiation into unique signals, verifying Hahnemann's claim that the action is magnetic, i.e. paramagnetic. When Montagnier filtered out the cystalliferous structuring, the remedy stopped "working."
As to the physics of the "homeopathic remedy," a seminal report in 2005 on The Structure of Liquid Water, Novel Insights from the Material Sciences and Potential Relevance to Homeopathy were done by three professors of the material scientists, two of them heads of their departments (Roy and TIller) and a professor of psychiatry known for her physical tests of "homeopathic remedies" (Bell).
Most of the most important physical and in vitro tests of homeopathic remedies have been done by non homeopaths.
The only thing left to determine is how supramolecular transduction works, which is a hell of a lot more than allopaths can do for their patented crap.
There is no chemical reaction in a "homeopathic remedy." The change isn't just in the electron shell, its a change in the nuclei of the H2O molecule. In other words, the action comes from a nuclear reaction, it's radioactive. "Homeopathic remedies" are medically in the class of low energy radiopharmaceuticals.
Now I've given you some things to chew on. Let's see if you can respond by moving just one piece, without knocking all the others off the board to end the game, like the skeptoids do.
Elham, to suggest there is no physical explanation for the dynamic action of supramolecular substances as used homeopathic medicine is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part, because as long as it remains unexplained, you can peddle it as magic instead of as the science of real medicine.
Mark my words, the people who refuse to understand what these materials used as medicine are electrochemically, will get run out of the business.
John Benneth
In a message dated 8/28/2013 10:19:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, elhamohajer@gmail.com writes:
________________________________

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

...........and, blowing my own trumpet here, this is exactly what I did in Part 3, Homeophysiology, of the book Third Millennium Homeopathy, putting together earlier research in many different branches of science and technology into a coherent explanation of the mechanism of action of homeopathic remedies.
Those are quite old researches, no need for quantum physics or nanotechnology to get there, even though those methods might be more precise and up to date....

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

[Irene de Villiers]

I do not agree with this part of your explanation, John.
It is not to do with the nuclei of the H2O molecule. The *molecule* has no nuclei, only the component atoms have nuclei. But those nuclei are not part of it either and there is no radioactivity involved. Radioactivity would involve subatomic particles escaping the nucleus of an atom - and that's not what occurs (thank goodness).

It's the structure of the water molecule itself that has relevance - its *electrical* charges are relevant - not any nuclear particles.
The cage-like clathrate structures that water molecules form around a substrate substance, are stable, and reproducible and duplicated on succussion - without need of the inclusion of the original substrate for the duplicates. It's a physical orientation of molecules of water that makes the clathrates in a sustainable way - and which enables an electrical frequency (not a radioactive wave) that correlates with the original substrate substance, to be maintained by the clathrate - and later be transmitted to a cell receptor.

Dr Roz goes into detail in his book "Third Millennium Homeopathy".

......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."

[Paul Booyse]

Actually, I agree with Elham. And by the way, even if we can work out how the remedy “imprints itself” on the H2O medium (bearing in mind one can also triturate in lactose) – we still need an explanation as to how the “remedy” affects the VF.
Ideally a quantum physicist who becomes a homeopath may be able to provide some answers, but in as much as physicists are not homeopaths, homeopaths are not quantum physicists.
regards,
Paul
From: jrbenneth@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 1:09 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Response to Elham regarding the physics of homeopathy

What? A homeopath won't ever solve the mystery of potentization? Come on Elham . . since when does being a homeopath rule out understanding the physics of his remedies? Any homeopath worthy of the title should be digging into this, its not as impossible or difficult as you seem to portray it to be. And you're not being rude, but because I don't want to be rude I won't say what I think you're being. except to say you're as bad as the skeptoids. Historically anyone who starts talking about this and starts coming up with a physico-chemical explanation of homeopathy is immediately booed down by both sides, discredited, not just by pseudo-scientists, but by homeopaths as well
It seems to be the one thing that the homeopathy haters and homeopaths agree on, that because there shouldn't be an explanation there isn't one, because if there was it would make too many people look stupid, the mystagogues who have been banking on the ignorance of it.
Naturally you haven't read any of the pre-clinical literature for homeopathy, you haven't even tried, you probably are not even aware it exists. Nor will you, I suspect.
Homeopaths don't need to discover the science on their own, its already been done for them by non homeopaths.Three of the most revealing biochemical studies of "homeopathic remedies" were done by non-homeopaths, all three were "orthodox" immunologists and two of them have been Nobel prize winners . . Emil Behring (first Nobel prize for Medicine for diphtheria anti-toxin, which he claimed was homeopathic, like all vaccines) , Jacques Benveniste (renowned French immunologist, head of INSERM) who was crucified by James Randi, Nature Magazine AND George Vithoulkas (!) for essentially doing nothing more than replicating a biochmeical test that to date has been replicated two dozen times; and Luc Montagnier (2008 Nobel prize for AIDS) who discovered some really remarkable things about homeopathy.
The thing that Benveniste did that really blew the lid off the can was he discovered electromagnetic indices for the materials in question, and this was replicated by Montagnier in 2009, where in addition he found evidence that supramolecular structuring in the "remedies" was transducting background radiation into unique signals, verifying Hahnemann's claim that the action is magnetic, i.e. paramagnetic. When Montagnier filtered out the cystalliferous structuring, the remedy stopped "working."
As to the physics of the "homeopathic remedy," a seminal report in 2005 on The Structure of Liquid Water, Novel Insights from the Material Sciences and Potential Relevance to Homeopathy were done by three professors of the material scientists, two of them heads of their departments (Roy and TIller) and a professor of psychiatry known for her physical tests of "homeopathic remedies" (Bell).
Most of the most important physical and in vitro tests of homeopathic remedies have been done by non homeopaths.
The only thing left to determine is how supramolecular transduction works, which is a hell of a lot more than allopaths can do for their patented crap.
There is no chemical reaction in a "homeopathic remedy." The change isn't just in the electron shell, its a change in the nuclei of the H2O molecule. In other words, the action comes from a nuclear reaction, it's radioactive. "Homeopathic remedies" are medically in the class of low energy radiopharmaceuticals.
Now I've given you some things to chew on. Let's see if you can respond by moving just one piece, without knocking all the others off the board to end the game, like the skeptoids do.
Elham, to suggest there is no physical explanation for the dynamic action of supramolecular substances as used homeopathic medicine is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part, because as long as it remains unexplained, you can peddle it as magic instead of as the science of real medicine.
Mark my words, the people who refuse to understand what these materials used as medicine are electrochemically, will get run out of the business.
John Benneth
In a message dated 8/28/2013 10:19:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, elhamohajer@gmail.com writes:
________________________________

[Roger B]

How do you deal with the problem that all atoms, especially in fluids, and all sub-atomic particles, are rapidly moving in random ways and are all under pressure? Being under pressure, every "hole" is going to be filled in very quickly. I just don't see any structure in water or alcohol.

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: pb000014@mweb.co.za
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 20:44:53 +0200
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Response to Elham regarding the physics of homeopathy
Actually, I agree with Elham. And by the way, even if we can work out how the remedy “imprints itself” on the H2O medium (bearing in mind one can also triturate in lactose) – we still need an explanation as to how the “remedy” affects the VF.
Ideally a quantum physicist who becomes a homeopath may be able to provide some answers, but in as much as physicists are not homeopaths, homeopaths are not quantum physicists.
regards,
Paul
From: jrbenneth@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 1:09 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Response to Elham regarding the physics of homeopathy
What? A homeopath won't ever solve the mystery of potentization? Come on Elham . . since when does being a homeopath rule out understanding the physics of his remedies? Any homeopath worthy of the title should be digging into this, its not as impossible or difficult as you seem to portray it to be. And you're not being rude, but because I don't want to be rude I won't say what I think you're being. except to say you're as bad as the skeptoids. Historically anyone who starts talking about this and starts coming up with a physico-chemical explanation of homeopathy is immediately booed down by both sides, discredited, not just by pseudo-scientists, but by homeopaths as well
It seems to be the one thing that the homeopathy haters and homeopaths agree on, that because there shouldn't be an explanation there isn't one, because if there was it would make too many people look stupid, the mystagogues who have been banking on the ignorance of it.
Naturally you haven't read any of the pre-clinical literature for homeopathy, you haven't even tried, you probably are not even aware it exists. Nor will you, I suspect.
Homeopaths don't need to discover the science on their own, its already been done for them by non homeopaths.Three of the most revealing biochemical studies of "homeopathic remedies" were done by non-homeopaths, all three were "orthodox" immunologists and two of them have been Nobel prize winners . . Emil Behring (first Nobel prize for Medicine for diphtheria anti-toxin, which he claimed was homeopathic, like all vaccines) , Jacques Benveniste (renowned French immunologist, head of INSERM) who was crucified by James Randi, Nature Magazine AND George Vithoulkas (!) for essentially doing nothing more than replicating a biochmeical test that to date has been replicated two dozen times; and Luc Montagnier (2008 Nobel prize for AIDS) who discovered some really remarkable things about homeopathy.
The thing that Benveniste did that really blew the lid off the can was he discovered electromagnetic indices for the materials in question, and this was replicated by Montagnier in 2009, where in addition he found evidence that supramolecular structuring in the "remedies" was transducting background radiation into unique signals, verifying Hahnemann's claim that the action is magnetic, i.e. paramagnetic. When Montagnier filtered out the cystalliferous structuring, the remedy stopped "working."
As to the physics of the "homeopathic remedy," a seminal report in 2005 on The Structure of Liquid Water, Novel Insights from the Material Sciences and Potential Relevance to Homeopathy were done by three professors of the material scientists, two of them heads of their departments (Roy and TIller) and a professor of psychiatry known for her physical tests of "homeopathic remedies" (Bell).
Most of the most important physical and in vitro tests of homeopathic remedies have been done by non homeopaths.
The only thing left to determine is how supramolecular transduction works, which is a hell of a lot more than allopaths can do for their patented crap.
There is no chemical reaction in a "homeopathic remedy." The change isn't just in the electron shell, its a change in the nuclei of the H2O molecule. In other words, the action comes from a nuclear reaction, it's radioactive. "Homeopathic remedies" are medically in the class of low energy radiopharmaceuticals.
Now I've given you some things to chew on. Let's see if you can respond by moving just one piece, without knocking all the others off the board to end the game, like the skeptoids do.
Elham, to suggest there is no physical explanation for the dynamic action of supramolecular substances as used homeopathic medicine is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part, because as long as it remains unexplained, you can peddle it as magic instead of as the science of real medicine.
Mark my words, the people who refuse to understand what these materials used as medicine are electrochemically, will get run out of the business.
John Benneth
In a message dated 8/28/2013 10:19:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, elhamohajer@gmail.com writes:
________________________________

[John R. Benneth]

In a message dated 8/29/2013 8:08:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, furryboots@icehouse.net writes:
Thank you for responding to this, Irene! I have rarely had an opportunity to debate the physical merits of supramoleculars with anyone, this is the first time anyone's mentioned clathrates to me in an email, I thought I was the only one who wrote about that!
Regarding the molecular nuclei, well, I guess this is more of what Hahnemann would probably call "a priori sophistry" nomenclature. Butr . . if an atom theoretically has a nucleus, and a molecule is a collection of atoms, then a molecule must have nuclei, n'est ce pas?
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but specifically, the H2O molecule has three nuclei, two hydrogen and one oxygen, and the hydrogen can become radioactive as tritium and emit beta particles. Tritium radioactivity in a low dilute of potassium iodine has been detected by Yves Lasne and Rolland Conte using beta scintillation, suggesting that homeopathic remedies are, indeed, nuclear radioactive! Or at least have a concordant nuclear EM component.
This opens up a whole new line of questioning, for which Montagnier has provided key piece of information . . that the electromagnetic signal from supramolecular structuring, such as in clathrates, is transducted (this must drive the placeboists nuts) out of the Schumann resonances, the ambient background radiation, the 60 cycle EM field Tesla discovered in 1899! Voila!
So this is why I say it's . . after all, radioactivity and EM are essentially synonymous.
Well, I question that . . supramolecular forces, such as the Van der Waals, consist more than just the hydrogen bond, there is also the covalent sigma bond, and despite putative opinion to the contrary, this also plays a relationship in liquid aqueous structuring.
I'd say that's a pretty good description of a supramolecular process. My 2010 lecture at the Cavendish postulates how clathrates form around solutes. My question now is, how does this radioactivity, or EM, that has been detected in homeopathic remedies, occur, what is the physical process for transduction, i.e. the piezo electric effect, in water?
I think it could be nuclear, specifically involving electron capture.
Thanks Irene, I wasn't aware of Dr. Roz's book until he mentioned it in an email yesterday. I look forward to reading it. And thanks again for an engaging discussion on the physics of homeopathy.
Let me know what you think!
John Benneth

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Dr. Jurgen Schulte is a physicist, quantum physicist and homeopath.

At the 2012 Brisbane conference, he gave a talk about quantum physics and homeopathy, where he described in detail the experiments he performed to explain the mechanism of action through quantum physics. The conclusion was that he could not, the experiments were inconclusive.

Joe.

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

[Fran Sheffield]

Just a small correction - Jurgen is not a homeopath and does not fully understand homeopathy - something he happily tells people himself.

His connection with homeopathy is that he has edited and compiled research in the area high dilutions (below Avogadro's) and ultra-high dilutions (above Avogadro's) but as we know, these potencies can be applied homeopathically or allopathically. While Jurgen has looked at research that shows potencies have an effect he is unfamiliar with their allopathic or homeopathic application.
Kind Regards,

Fran Sheffield
________________________________

[Fran Sheffield]

Welcome John,

Lovely to see you here and I hope you stick around.
Kind Regards,

Fran Sheffield

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Glad to be corrected...he still clearly showed that he could not explain anything through quantum physics...

Joe.

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