Combo rmeds

[Jeff Tikari gmail]

I really don't know how to take that news. If the meds don't need the VF to produce a cure and can kill germs by themselves then how are they different to allopathic rems?
I can't imagine a homeopathic remedy at 10M potency killing anything in vetro.
I'll live and learn, but will need more data before I will be persuaded to stand my learning so far on its head.

Jeff Tikari

Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

________________________________

From: Shannon Nelson
Sender: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 06:41:44 -0600
To:
ReplyTo: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Combo meds
But I assume that the remedy(s) that kill them in vitro, will be different from the ones that may be effective in treating individual *cases*--which would be back to the distinction between "treat the disease" / "kill the bug" versus "strengthening the terrain."

[John Harvey]

Perhaps it's a matter of inducing apoptosis, self-programmed cell death, which after all is a natural healthy function and one that cancer cells circumvent. The healthy thing for a cancerous cell to do is, seriously, to drop dead.

John
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .

[Shannon Nelson]

I suppose there must be relationship to e.g. the Rife technique; some frequencies are supportive to some organisms (or organs, etc.), and others are detrimental. Remedies have frequencies, as do organisms etc. (tho I truly don't understand just how that works!)... Evidently the curative effect of a remedy is not the *only* way in which potentized substances can act. Consider also that frog development study, where potentized... not thyroidinum, what was it? ... caused huge disruption to the tadpoles' development. That could not be called a "curative" effect (hm, unless a Peter Pan cure--they'll never grow up???). It seems that simpler organisms are more easily influenced...?

Shannon
________________________________

[John Harvey]

Human beings are as easily influenced by potentised medicines as frogs are, Shannon. The difference between a human and a frog is that a frog can't tell itself that it wasn't the right remedy and therefore that this isn't happening, whereas a human can.

Such is the usefulness of the idle brain.
________________________________

[Shannon Nelson]

) Actually that makes sense! In a funny. I-wouldn't-think-so-if-I-were-a-cancer-cell kind of way...
________________________________

[Shannon Nelson]

I don't think any remedy to cause a human baby to develop into something else, or to fail to develop! Do you?
________________________________

[John Harvey]

Hi, Shannon --

If you stop thinking of it as a remedy and think of it head on as a deranging medicinal influence, then the only thing that makes its ability to derange foetal development seem far-fetched is the habit of imagining that immaterial doses can't cause gross pathological changes in the sense in which we're used to thinking of them: tumours, myelin depletion, necrosis, and so on.

And it may well be the case that they cannot -- in that sense.

But in this instance, we're not looking at mutagenic properties, the ability to alter production of tissue by changing the genetic recipe, but teratogenic properties -- the ability to alter the use of that recipe to develop an organism through its various stages. Such developmental alterations may be induced through alteration merely of genes' expression without altering those particular genes themselves. Though I'm not sure that such alteration is possible without any slightest genetic change anywhere, teratogenesis is, as I understand it, essentially a product of functional changes, well within the ambit of dynamic immaterial medicinal (and other) influences. So it may be far more susceptible to purely dynamic derangement than genes themselves are (barring ionising radiation and so forth).

As I understand it, this is what the field of epigenetics deals with: not so much changes in the genes as changes in the control of their expression in building proteins. In any case, dynamic influences on gene expression are, I'd hazard, likely to be sufficient to explain the changes found a decade or more ago in fruit-fly genetics under the influence of ultramolecular dynamised substances.

But to get to the essence of your thought here: there is next to no difference between a foetal frog and a foetal human. Give or take a few rearrangements and duplications and substitions, a foetal frog and a foetal human are indistinguishable. (For that matter, so are many of the adults of the two.)

Their recipes are written, using a common alphabet, in only mildly different dialects of the same genetic tongue; the cutting, mixing, sorting, and splicing utensils that rewrite the next edition of the recipes of each are identical, and its organisation, into the chapters we call chromosomes occurs in both.

The recipes call for almost identical basic ingredients.

The ingredients are combined, in subrecipes, in just the same way in each to form amino acids; and the subrecipes are similarly combined to form proteins and then folded, giving the final molecular product its primary, secondary, and tertiary structural properties, using just the same electrochemical tools.

So whatever susceptibilities a tadpole has to dynamic influences are sure to be shared by anything else that shares its fundamental development processes -- even that most genetically complex organism, the lettuce.

Cheers --

John
________________________________

[John Harvey]

It's counterintuitive, certainly, if you think of cancer cells as organisms. Organisms are genetically programmed to survive to reproduce as successfully as possible. Those genetic programs that operate to reduce the overall effectiveness of that single goal are, over the course of generations, differentially overwhelmed in the genetic pool of other combinations of genes directing the relevant processes, leaving in the genetic pool only genetic programs reasonably successful in bringing an organism to sexual fruition.
But cancer cells are not organisms. Correctly programmed, every cell in a multicellular organism serves the needs not of itself but of the organism as a totality. Often that entails a cell's limiting its own development in various ways; or shaping itself; or growing unusually fast or unusually slowly; or living for a long, long time (witness neurones); or dying quickly (witness skin cells).
A cell that the organism has identified (most commonly intracellularly, I imagine) as having acquired a genetic problem is required, under the law of orderly bodies, to attempt self-repair and, in the event of failure, to undergo apoptosis: programmed cell death. The cell does not genetically benefit by failing to do obey that program; in fact, killing the organism will tend to ensure that more such cells will not be so readily reproduced. So there is no evolutionary pressure for a cell to go rogue and disobey the organism's order to drop dead.
What does happen, of course, is that things go dreadfully wrong. Whether due to medical x-ray bombardment, powerful oxidant radicals (such as are found in Macdonald's fried foods and many chemical drugs), ultraviolet bombardment, direct microwave bombardment by mobile phones, or some combination of the above and other influences, what happens in reality departs from the program. A cell due for apoptosis fails to die and undergoes cell division. And thereby begins a tumour or some other new and strange kind of tissue.
Even with a self-replicating monster cell out of control, though, there is of course plenty of scope to halt the program's fulfilment promptly in its tracks, including the body's hungry reserve of phagocytes, which eat cells that don't belong. That's why, of the hundreds of cancers that do get a toehold in our bodies each day, nearly none becomes a detectable problem. But that's another story.
Cheers --
John
________________________________

[Theresa Partington]

I am a bit confused by these tadpoles. You are saying here that the potentised thyroxine delayed their development ( with huge implications for how long we are allowed to prescribe for pregnant women!). And that is what it says on the SOH website.
When I asked about anti-doting remedies just last week, however, Fran directed me to a site where the experiments were on tadpoles who had been artificially stimulated with medical thyroxine. In this account it was the abnormal development that was negated by the addition of potentised thyroxine. (Unless the potentised thyroxine had previously been exposed to mobile phone waves.) A totally different story.
It's pretty important stuff this for there to be be any lack of clarity on what was actually done.
Theresa
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon Nelson wrote: