Minutus

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, jim hebert wrote:

----------------

TWO original simillium medicines that are incompatible?

I seem to remember Hahnemann writing about only ONE remedy being the closest match/simillimum.

Are your questions hypothetical?

----------------------------

dear leilanae
No, A week ago I was doing a repertory and I remember Lyc and I don't remember the other medicine that fit the picture, but incompatible. Haven't had time to pursue any farther, but had it on my mind. The case is not urgent. Will get back on it when I get done with other more pressing matters.
________________________________

From: leilanae
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 7:16 PM
Subject: [Minutus] Re: incompatible medicines
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com , jim hebert wrote:

----------------

TWO original simillium medicines that are incompatible?

I seem to remember Hahnemann writing about only ONE remedy being the closest match/simillimum.

Are your questions hypothetical?

----------------------------

It is Homeopathy; I use SSC and potentised remedies. And using a remedy too soon does not and can not stop the action of an earlier remedy unless the earlier remedy was in a crude form and the latter remedy is potentized. Because the action of a crude remedy is opposite to the action of a potentized remedy.
Jeff

Jeff - And where do you find that in the organon? why don't we just mix them all together and just use that, if the body know which one to use. That would make it all so much easier. And let's just give every hour till well? Jeff, you do not practice homeopathy according to the laws and principles - just because you use remedies does not make what you do homeopathy.

Might want to read David Little's article http://www.simillimum.com/education/lit ... rticle.php
http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com ... techniques
http://www.hpathy.com/papersold/boger-g ... emicus.asp Boger - "The repeating of the remedy too soon is one of the greatest mistakes that can be made, or equally great is the changing of a remedy. You confuse the whole picture there. "
Study Aphorism 245, 246 and 247 248 he is talking about using Cs in water & LMS in water
http://www.homeoint.org/books/hahorgan/ ... htm#P245E6
§ 245 Sixth Edition
"Every perceptibly progressive and strikingly increasing amelioration in a transient (acute) or persistent (chronic) disease, is a condition which, as long as it lasts, completely precludes every repetition of the administration of any medicine whatsoever, because all the good the medicine taken continues to effect is new hastening towards its completion. Every new dose of any medicine whatsoever, even of the one last administered, that has hitherto shown itself to be salutary, would in this case disturb the work of amelioration. "

Sheri

At 06:42 PM 2/3/2013, you wrote:

Don't go into absurdities - all the remedies at once, indeed!
If you give a remedy and its molecular imprint covers a pathogenic molecule and neutralizes it(lock & key), how can a further
dose of the same remedy un-neutralize it?
If you are not thinking of the action of remedies scientifically, let us drop the subject here and now.
Jeff

At 07:25 PM 2/3/2013, you wrote:
here we go again with your theories.
I encourage you to read aphorism 1 and the footnotes
Sheri

Gosh,Sheri, who hasn't read Aphor 1. Should one then shut ones eyes and brain to further advancement?
Hahneman was not God. No Human is infalliable - nor was Hahneman.

What "molecular imprint"?
Molecular implies involvement of a molecule....
What do you think the "molecular imprint" or a molecule - of say pulsatilla or lachesis or pyrogenium looks like?
Such a thing also does not exist.
Nor this idea of yours alone
WHy?
The pot calls the kettle black......Your version is not scientific either.

It is true that one remedy may antidote another or be incompatible - especially a remedy that is close but not quite a simillimum.
I saw it personally with Asterias rubens which helped the worst symptoms very significantly - it was effective till ginger was eaten, then the Aster was antidoted so hard and fast, it felt like hitting a brick wall. Very repeatable - happened many times.
Later, a better matched remedy than Aster was found for the situation - and THAT was not so easy to antidote.

But there are no ginger molecules or Asterias molecules or pathogenic molecules. Such things do not exist.
Homeopathy does not work the way you imagine.

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."

I do not write about the chemistry of molecular actions- I do not know enough about it. But Dr. Chandran does and has won kudos around the world.
Here is a short article by him:
To understand the scientific interpretation of ‘similia similibus curentur’ in its real perspective, one should know the fundamentals of ‘target-ligand’ relationships and dynamics of ‘bio-molecular inhibitions’.

There are diverse types of molecular ‘targets’ such as receptors, enzymes and antibodies which interact with appropriate ‘ligands’, so that the biochemical pathways underlying vital processes are maintained unhindered. Knowledge of the real molecular dynamics involved in ‘ligand-target’, ‘signals-receptors’, ‘substrates-enzymes’ and ‘antigen-antibody’ interactions is essential for understanding the science behind ‘similia similibus curentur’.

A receptor is a molecule found on the surface of a cell, which receives specific chemical signals from neighbouring cells or the wider environment within an organism. These signals tell a cell to do something—for example to divide or die, or to allow certain molecules to enter or exit the cell.

In biochemistry, a receptor is a protein molecule, embedded in either the plasma membrane or the cytoplasm of a cell, to which one or more specific kinds of signaling molecules may attach. A molecule which binds (attaches) to a receptor is called a ligand or ‘signal’, and may be a peptide (short protein) or other small molecule, such as a neurotransmitter, a hormone, a pharmaceutical drug, or a toxin. Each kind of receptor can bind only certain ligand shapes. Each cell typically has many receptors, of many different kinds. Simply put, a receptor functions as a keyhole that opens a neural path when the proper ligand is inserted.

A ligand may be a whole molecule, a functional group, a moiety or even a radical or free ion.

Ligand binding stabilizes a certain target conformation (the three-dimensional shape of the target protein, with no change in sequence). This is often associated with gain of or loss of protein activity, ordinarily leading to some sort of cellular response. However, some ligands (e.g. antagonists) merely block target molecules, without inducing any response. Ligand-induced changes in targets result in cellular changes which constitute the biological activity of the ligands. Many functions of the human body are regulated by these diverse types of biological target molecules responding uniquely to specific ligand molecules like this.

Studies on the the shapes and actions of target molecules, especially receptors and enzymes have advanced the understanding of drug action at the binding sites of biological molecules.

I have studied it.
In summary his article excerpt here explains *chemical* signalling in which a ligand (chemical that goes from one place to another) attaches to a protein receptor at the end of its journey - to trigger something (chemical) to happen.
He also says the body has many of these kinds of *chemical* activities.
That is all true - but you have misconstrued these chemical actions for homeopathic ones.

What you quote does NOT make a connection between chemical signalling and "similia similibus curentur" even though he claims an understanding of chemical signalling is useful. He does not explain here *how* it is supposed to be useful to know about chemical signalling.
YOU have assumed that homeopathy works LIKE the chemical signalling of an antibody-antigen effect and that is NOT so - nor does Chandran say it is so.

A more detailed version of what is proposed to happen at the depths of tissue structures is in the book by MDs Bellavite and Signorini. (But it also does NOT suggest homeopathy works like a ligand as you are incorrectly assuming from either party's theory.) Chandran's implication is that a ligand type action is useful to understand - not that it happens (in homeopathy).

It IS what happens in allopathy - as Chandran concludes.

Namaste,
Irene
...........
.........

(not in homeopathy)

..........
.........

(not homeopathic activity)
(not homeopathic action)
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."