Minutus

For remedies potentised beyond Avogadro's limit.
Active principles of potentized drugs are MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or HYDROSOMES, which are nanocavities engraved into water-ethyl alcohol supramolecular matrix through a peculiar process called POTENTIZATION. 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.

All potentized drugs contain diverse types of molecular imprints representing the diverse types of individual constituent molecules which are part of a drug substance used for potentization. By acting as 'artificial key holes', these individual molecular imprints can bind to specific pathogenic molecules that have the same conformational affinity; thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions that they are subjected to in diseased conditions. This is exactly the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.

Extract from the writings of Chandran KC
Jeff Tikari
check out(a must) www.jeffspage.com

Jeff, I love you. I appreciate your efforts. I want you to be happy. But I had trouble getting past the first two sentences because I was LOLing. What you said may even be true. But it won't cut no ice with skeptics or ANY other materialistically oriented scientist or fan of science or even the general public. They are all going to say that it is nonsense and gibberish.

Since I believe you, sort of, I assume that such 'imprints' are how the etheric or transcendental energy of the homeopathic remedy stays connected to the water.

I'm sorry, I tried to read you comment again and burst out laughing. You have to say stuff that people can relate to. You can't describe things that are on top of things that are made up of things all of which haven't even been proven, accepted, or understood yet. It would be like trying to describe how to use the gmail app on your android phone to Alexander Graham Bell. Bell might have been a brilliant scientist, but he would have been utterly lost the moment you said any of the words that I used to tell you what my example was going to be.

I live on both sides of my brain. I am a jack of many arenas of thought and the master of only one: philosophy. I frequent several physics forums and can understand most of what they say. So it is easy for me to know what the skeptics are going to think and say.

Are we still friends? I hope so. (:->)

Roger Bird
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: jtikari@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:44:28 +0530
Subject: [Minutus] Homeopathic Hyraosomes
For remedies potentised beyond Avogadro's limit.
Active principles of potentized drugs are MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or HYDROSOMES, which are nanocavities engraved into water-ethyl alcohol supramolecular matrix through a peculiar process called POTENTIZATION. 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.

All potentized drugs contain diverse types of molecular imprints representing the diverse types of individual constituent molecules which are part of a drug substance used for potentization. By acting as 'artificial key holes', these individual molecular imprints can bind to specific pathogenic molecules that have the same conformational affinity; thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions that they are subjected to in diseased conditions. This is exactly the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.

Extract from the writings of Chandran KC
Jeff Tikari
check out(a must) www.jeffspage.com

Mr. Byrd,
I applaud Jeff 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:
________________________________
EXTRAORDINARY MEDICINE

John Benneth, Homeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com

SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

Love people, expect them to love you back.

Dear all,

Don't want to be rude or anything but if you ever think a Homoeopath is going to solve the mystery of potentization you are mistaken. We will use its powers and let the skeptics shout and yell at us as much as they like, but we won't solve its mystery. It will need science to advance much more and technology to advance much more and then there might be a slight chance that a scientist might come up with some explanation. In the meanwhile let us continue with our work that is curing the sick and let others worry about how Homoeopathy works

Best regards
Elham
________________________________

On the contrary, Elham, it is no longer a mystery.
It uses a physics principle involving water clathrates..not discovered by homeopaths, but discovered by physicists:-)

John B alludes to this in his well written email.

We do not all need to understand it, in order to use or benefit from homeopathy, but some of us are innately curious and prefer to do so.

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."

Hmm… Clathrates may or may not provide a mechanism: they have been shown to form more readily in solutions previously frozen with clathrates in them, and possibly (though if so I'm unaware of it) in water with such a history they can tend to form even without the solute upon which they are known to depend. (The molecule that the clathrate encloses is what binds the clathrate together.)

That said, there are several reasonable hypotheses as to how the (dynamised) ultramolecular (or inframolecular) solution may manage to retain (beyond microseconds) and transmit the dynamic information that constitutes medicinal effect. They may all be correct in explaining some of the action of potentisation. And it's eminently possible that successful potentisation relies on two or more such mechanisms.

What we don't know is whether the phenomenon wherein clathrates more readily form in solutions in which they have previously existed (and been frozen!) is wholly sufficient to explain the ultramolecular solution's carriage of that dynamic information.

And any hypothesis that doesn't take into account the very different manner of potentisation that occurs through trituration, though, will leave a bit of a hole in explaining those potencies. (And yes, some ultrapotencies have been made entirely through trituration, and they have been found pathogenetic, even violently so.)

Moreover, if the hypothesis does manage to fully explain the liquid ultrapotencies, it does not mean that it's correct! Several competing hypotheses may fully explain a phenomenon, and all may be wrong.

Elham is right: homoeopaths who (as has occurred in this conversation) jump on any potential explanation that seems to serve will not convincingly explain the matter even to well-meaning informed skeptics. Certainly we won't do so if we fail to perceive and respect the limits of the research that offers, certainly, strong clues in this direction. Only once the hypothesis has been tested and shown to do the job will it become a strong explanation of the phenomenon of potency.

In all this discussion of the mechanism of the phenomenon we call potency, let's remember too that the essential question to the credibility of homoeopathy is not whether an ultramolecular solution may, or for how long it may, carry medicinal information; that issue is merely a distraction that the anti-homoeopathy crowd finds convenient, a scapegoat with which to hang homoeopathy's credibility out to dry. Let's recall that homoeopathy does not require ultrapotencies, which are merely a technological adjunct to its practice. The essential question is whether the similar medicine invokes a curative response. Grubbing down into the limits of action of a single molecule or of an ultramolecular medicine is a sure way of forgetting that.

Ultrapotencies are something we use merely because we can. The similar medicine is something we use because we must. It is the attempt to utilise medicinal similarity that defines homoeopathy, and it is the success of using medicinal similarity to invoke curative responses that can and must be the sole measure of its rationality.

Cheers --

John

I don't care about convincing skeptics!

One of them, I don't remember who, once wrote that even if homeopathy could be demonstrated and shown to be effective, he would not accept it, ever......
And many years ago, in my office, I had a conversation with a colleague who, interestingly, had been asking for a treatment although he clearly said that there was nothing to homeopathy; so I offered to lend him the book by Bellavite and Signori, took it off the shelve and handed it to him: he moved away as if I was trying to touch him with a red hot poker!

So when asked, I try to explain, otherwise, who cares.

But I am passionate about knowing and understanding everything about what I do. I certainly can work and treat patients without knowing that, the same way I use this computer or drive my car without having a clue on how they function. At least with my computer, after having crashed and destroyed a few, it has been my experience that the more I eventually learn (by pestering the technician who repairs it) about its function, the least problems I get.

And knowing how homeopathic remedies do work helps confirm or refine the basic theories we use daily and put them in 21st century wording and understanding.
To me, that is extremely important.

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

Hi, Joe --

I agree with you. But you're referring as "skeptics" to those who wish to keep their precious status quo intact. I was referring to everybody else.

Cheers!

John

As I have said over and over and over, district attorneys and other politicians and an overwhelming majority of the voters listen to conventional MDs, and 99% of all conventional MDs are materialistic skeptical scientists.

I suppose that giving a convincing materialistic explanation for homeopathy would convince them. Unfortunately, that side of my brain which is my inner physicist finds the attempts at a materialistic, mechanistic explanation as presented here to laughable and disturbing to my inner Occam. And I don't mean that in a disrespectful way.

As far as knowing for myself how homeopathy works, I have already said that I know how it works and I gave my explanation, which is that the water or alcohol is connected to the transcendental vibe or energy of the particular substance. This vibe or energy "tickles" ones own vital healing power which goes to work to oppose it.

For me, having had serious transcendental experience, this explains everything. And although it makes me feel warm and secure at night, I don't see that it helps any in improving homeopathy. I suppose someone might use this theory to improve homeopathy, but I am not sure how. Anthroposophical medicine claims to have an improvement, but until today, I have never even seen Anthroposophy mentioned in this forum.

Roger Bird
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: jroz@ihug.co.nz
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:41:24 +1200
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Homeopathic Hyraosomes
I don't care about convincing skeptics!

One of them, I don't remember who, once wrote that even if homeopathy could be demonstrated and shown to be effective, he would not accept it, ever......
And many years ago, in my office, I had a conversation with a colleague who, interestingly, had been asking for a treatment although he clearly said that there was nothing to homeopathy; so I offered to lend him the book by Bellavite and Signori, took it off the shelve and handed it to him: he moved away as if I was trying to touch him with a red hot poker!

So when asked, I try to explain, otherwise, who cares.

But I am passionate about knowing and understanding everything about what I do. I certainly can work and treat patients without knowing that, the same way I use this computer or drive my car without having a clue on how they function. At least with my computer, after having crashed and destroyed a few, it has been my experience that the more I eventually learn (by pestering the technician who repairs it) about its function, the least problems I get.

And knowing how homeopathic remedies do work helps confirm or refine the basic theories we use daily and put them in 21st century wording and understanding.
To me, that is extremely important.

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

From: Roger B
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 5:14 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Minutus] Homeopathic Hyraosomes
Hi Roger,
OK. But that’s not what the Organon says. If you mean the secondary action, well that is often part of the disease process as well. How does the VF oppose that? You get cholera and the VF displays diarrhoea etc. No increase in this action gets rid of the cholera and in fact you eventually die from dehydration. How can the VF action be the reason for cure? A child has fever. No increase in fever from the disease cures the child. In fact the higher the fever the sicker the child. It’s not a good explanation for the mechanism of cure.
The explanation that makes best sense is the one in the organon. The remedy opposes the inner disease state, which allows the VF to function in a healthy way as opposed to it’s previous dysfunctional way. The opposition to the disease is from the remedy, not the VF.
Anthroposophy is allopathic in certain aspects, polypharmacy and polytherapy. I don’t think it can achieve the results that a simillimum can. I have studied it over the years.
regards,
Paul

.