According to the 'key-lock' model of biochemical processes proposed by modern science, biological molecules act as 'locks', and their natural ligands as 'keys'.
Pathogenic molecules and drug molecules act as 'fake keys' that can mimic the natural keys due to their conformational similarity with the 'ligands' and block the 'key-holes', thereby preventing 'natural keys' from interacting with their legitimate 'locks'. This is what we call 'disease'.
'Molecular imprints' on ethyl/water polymers act as 'artificial key holes' fitting to the 'fake keys' or pathogenic molecules, thereby preventing them from interacting with the 'key holes' of bilogical 'locks'. By this process, original 'key holes' or biological molecules are freed from pathological inhibitions produced by the 'fake keys'. This is 'cure'.
Molecular imprints are 'artificial key holes', not 'duplicate keys'. Once understood, the molecular dynamics of this 'key-lock' mechanism involved in disease and cure, the whole scientific explanation of similia similibus will be crystal clear for you.
Jeff Tikari
check out(a must) www.jeffspage.com
A short explanation of the dynamics of cure
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: A short explanation of the dynamics of cure
Jeff, although it is somewhat more sophisticated than the previous versions of your hypothesis (or "model", as you're pleased to call it), the bases on which those were thoroughly discredited a couple of times already remain relevant to this version.
One such basis, perhaps the most obvious, is that not all chemicals disturb health via improper targeting of receptors. Think of lye: it turns fat into soap, no receptors needed. Why, think of salt! The dynamically deranging effects of salt have nothing whatever to do with receptors, and a great deal to do with ion channels through cell membranes.
Another fundamental problem in the hypothesis is its failure to take account of two straightforward facts: (1) Not all disease -- and certainly prior to the industrial age very little of it -- is due to any kind of external chemical. It is in fact dynamic in nature. That is precisely why a very small portion of some substances can have effects disproportionate to their chemical natures. (2) If diseases were due to the influence of such substances on receptors, temporary blockage of those receptors to the chemicals that "fool" them would hardly constitute a cure. (3) It would in fact tend to starve the organism of the substances it has adapted to accept there.
Furthermore, and this is perhaps a rather subtler point, not all disease is a function of inhibition; much is a function of overstimulation. So the hypothesis, even if it were to overcome the above difficulties, relies on a false "model" of disease.
A stronger hypothesis would probably arise from beginning with broader considerations before diving into details that easily distract one from them.
Cheers --
John
One such basis, perhaps the most obvious, is that not all chemicals disturb health via improper targeting of receptors. Think of lye: it turns fat into soap, no receptors needed. Why, think of salt! The dynamically deranging effects of salt have nothing whatever to do with receptors, and a great deal to do with ion channels through cell membranes.
Another fundamental problem in the hypothesis is its failure to take account of two straightforward facts: (1) Not all disease -- and certainly prior to the industrial age very little of it -- is due to any kind of external chemical. It is in fact dynamic in nature. That is precisely why a very small portion of some substances can have effects disproportionate to their chemical natures. (2) If diseases were due to the influence of such substances on receptors, temporary blockage of those receptors to the chemicals that "fool" them would hardly constitute a cure. (3) It would in fact tend to starve the organism of the substances it has adapted to accept there.
Furthermore, and this is perhaps a rather subtler point, not all disease is a function of inhibition; much is a function of overstimulation. So the hypothesis, even if it were to overcome the above difficulties, relies on a false "model" of disease.
A stronger hypothesis would probably arise from beginning with broader considerations before diving into details that easily distract one from them.
Cheers --
John
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: A short explanation of the dynamics of cure
Your analogies here describe the antigen-antibody system but not how homeopathy works.
....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."
....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."
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: A short explanation of the dynamics of cure
If I may interject -
Based on foot note to aph 1
1 His mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant - whilst sick humanity sighs in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries (to which the name of theoretic medicine is given, and for which special professorships are instituted) we have had quite enough, and it is now high time that all who call themselves physicians should at length cease to deceive suffering mankind with mere talk, and begin now, instead, for once to act, that is, really to help and to cure.
What I want to say here is that the way various substances react within the body and in certain circumstance feed it, or kill it or heal is not so easy to define exactly. You see - A large amount of anything will kill!. A medium amount of it is needs as food and a minute amount of it as per homeopathic remedies can cure.
So if we take salt, a few grams will kill, yet we need it daily as food. And of course we should all know most of its healing scope as Nat-m. So how does it behave at each of these stages. And again as Nat-m, its scope of action increases greatly if one tritrates it past C3 to C4 or C5 where it passes the emotional realm and enters the spiritual part of our being. So at this stage, is its action molecular?
Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 29 August 2013 15:28
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] A short explanation of the dynamics of cure
Jeff, although it is somewhat more sophisticated than the previous versions of your hypothesis (or "model", as you're pleased to call it), the bases on which those were thoroughly discredited a couple of times already remain relevant to this version.
One such basis, perhaps the most obvious, is that not all chemicals disturb health via improper targeting of receptors. Think of lye: it turns fat into soap, no receptors needed. Why, think of salt! The dynamically deranging effects of salt have nothing whatever to do with receptors, and a great deal to do with ion channels through cell membranes.
Another fundamental problem in the hypothesis is its failure to take account of two straightforward facts: (1) Not all disease -- and certainly prior to the industrial age very little of it -- is due to any kind of external chemical. It is in fact dynamic in nature. That is precisely why a very small portion of some substances can have effects disproportionate to their chemical natures. (2) If diseases were due to the influence of such substances on receptors, temporary blockage of those receptors to the chemicals that "fool" them would hardly constitute a cure. (3) It would in fact tend to starve the organism of the substances it has adapted to accept there.
Furthermore, and this is perhaps a rather subtler point, not all disease is a function of inhibition; much is a function of overstimulation. So the hypothesis, even if it were to overcome the above difficulties, relies on a false "model" of disease.
A stronger hypothesis would probably arise from beginning with broader considerations before diving into details that easily distract one from them.
Cheers --
John
According to the 'key-lock' model of biochemical processes proposed by modern science, biological molecules act as 'locks', and their natural ligands as 'keys'.
Pathogenic molecules and drug molecules act as 'fake keys' that can mimic the natural keys due to their conformational similarity with the 'ligands' and block the 'key-holes', thereby preventing 'natural keys' from interacting with their legitimate 'locks'. This is what we call 'disease'.
'Molecular imprints' on ethyl/water polymers act as 'artificial key holes' fitting to the 'fake keys' or pathogenic molecules, thereby preventing them from interacting with the 'key holes' of bilogical 'locks'. By this process, original 'key holes' or biological molecules are freed from pathological inhibitions produced by the 'fake keys'. This is 'cure'.
Molecular imprints are 'artificial key holes', not 'duplicate keys'. Once understood, the molecular dynamics of this 'key-lock' mechanism involved in disease and cure, the whole scientific explanation of similia similibus will be crystal clear for you.
Jeff Tikari
check out(a must) www.jeffspage.com
--
.
"What is ironic here is that what is being held out as a justification for high regulation and compliance in the area of Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc, is public safety and risk. Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, no instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to the public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs and no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products… The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural products etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can be described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is—of minimal risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and should not concern itself with trifles."
—D.W. Bain, Report to IM Health Trust: Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc., Lamb, Bain & Laubscher, New Zealand, viewed Feb 20 2013, (emphasis added).
Based on foot note to aph 1
1 His mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant - whilst sick humanity sighs in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries (to which the name of theoretic medicine is given, and for which special professorships are instituted) we have had quite enough, and it is now high time that all who call themselves physicians should at length cease to deceive suffering mankind with mere talk, and begin now, instead, for once to act, that is, really to help and to cure.
What I want to say here is that the way various substances react within the body and in certain circumstance feed it, or kill it or heal is not so easy to define exactly. You see - A large amount of anything will kill!. A medium amount of it is needs as food and a minute amount of it as per homeopathic remedies can cure.
So if we take salt, a few grams will kill, yet we need it daily as food. And of course we should all know most of its healing scope as Nat-m. So how does it behave at each of these stages. And again as Nat-m, its scope of action increases greatly if one tritrates it past C3 to C4 or C5 where it passes the emotional realm and enters the spiritual part of our being. So at this stage, is its action molecular?
Rgds
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 29 August 2013 15:28
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] A short explanation of the dynamics of cure
Jeff, although it is somewhat more sophisticated than the previous versions of your hypothesis (or "model", as you're pleased to call it), the bases on which those were thoroughly discredited a couple of times already remain relevant to this version.
One such basis, perhaps the most obvious, is that not all chemicals disturb health via improper targeting of receptors. Think of lye: it turns fat into soap, no receptors needed. Why, think of salt! The dynamically deranging effects of salt have nothing whatever to do with receptors, and a great deal to do with ion channels through cell membranes.
Another fundamental problem in the hypothesis is its failure to take account of two straightforward facts: (1) Not all disease -- and certainly prior to the industrial age very little of it -- is due to any kind of external chemical. It is in fact dynamic in nature. That is precisely why a very small portion of some substances can have effects disproportionate to their chemical natures. (2) If diseases were due to the influence of such substances on receptors, temporary blockage of those receptors to the chemicals that "fool" them would hardly constitute a cure. (3) It would in fact tend to starve the organism of the substances it has adapted to accept there.
Furthermore, and this is perhaps a rather subtler point, not all disease is a function of inhibition; much is a function of overstimulation. So the hypothesis, even if it were to overcome the above difficulties, relies on a false "model" of disease.
A stronger hypothesis would probably arise from beginning with broader considerations before diving into details that easily distract one from them.
Cheers --
John
According to the 'key-lock' model of biochemical processes proposed by modern science, biological molecules act as 'locks', and their natural ligands as 'keys'.
Pathogenic molecules and drug molecules act as 'fake keys' that can mimic the natural keys due to their conformational similarity with the 'ligands' and block the 'key-holes', thereby preventing 'natural keys' from interacting with their legitimate 'locks'. This is what we call 'disease'.
'Molecular imprints' on ethyl/water polymers act as 'artificial key holes' fitting to the 'fake keys' or pathogenic molecules, thereby preventing them from interacting with the 'key holes' of bilogical 'locks'. By this process, original 'key holes' or biological molecules are freed from pathological inhibitions produced by the 'fake keys'. This is 'cure'.
Molecular imprints are 'artificial key holes', not 'duplicate keys'. Once understood, the molecular dynamics of this 'key-lock' mechanism involved in disease and cure, the whole scientific explanation of similia similibus will be crystal clear for you.
Jeff Tikari
check out(a must) www.jeffspage.com
--
.
"What is ironic here is that what is being held out as a justification for high regulation and compliance in the area of Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc, is public safety and risk. Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, no instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to the public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs and no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products… The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural products etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can be described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is—of minimal risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and should not concern itself with trifles."
—D.W. Bain, Report to IM Health Trust: Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc., Lamb, Bain & Laubscher, New Zealand, viewed Feb 20 2013, (emphasis added).