Minutus

Thanks Joe.

You (or others) may be able to help with a couple questions that are puzzling me.

I am doing a little research on osteoarthritis and with the combination remedy, Zeel, performing as well as NSAIDs in the available research, I was looking at its components ... which then led on to this research paper: http://www.biopathica.co.uk/documents/s ... aumeel.pdf

It discusses how healthy pig rather than other animal or human organs were used to study immune responses effects. I can understand the action of similars rather than idem perhaps making this a good thing to do (pigs being genetically close to humans) but the article then goes on to say the following:

"Administering suis organ preparation is intended as irritation therapy that intitates a healing process by overcompensating for the initial worsening that may possibily occur ... Effects are said to develop primarily by way of immunological mechanisms."

I thought it interesting that the whole of homeopathy could be classed as an irritant therapy that triggers an overcompensation but then wondered why in organ therapy, at least in this instance, only healthy tissue was used? Why not use diseased tissue as the true irritant and would it produce an even better response? Has this been done and documented by those who study homotoxicoloy and organ therapy?

Many thanks for your thoughts and discussion. Even though this approach is not 'classical' I am interested in understanding the mechanism behind it.

Fran.

I mean 'idem' OR 'iso' in the below email.

I see two issues here:

1. Homeopathy as an irritant: that does not fit at all with my own research and approach of action through receptors (Third Millennium Homeopathy), although some remedies, especially borrowed from herbalism, do act as such; e.g. Phytolacca acts on the immune system, not by stimulating it directly into action, specific or not, but by irritating it, "poking at it" if you want, then it goes into non specific activity, hence the recommendation not to use it for a prolonged time, at least in herbalism (can't really remember if I read that in the homeopathic MM too....)

2. Sarcodes versus nosode, i.e. using healthy versus diseased tissue: with the sarcode, you attempt to give a blueprint of "normality", a guide on how to restore a pathological tissue to what it should look like; with a nosode, you provide the information "this is not right, correct it". How the physiology makes the difference and perceives the different information is still not clear, receptors or not ....probably has to do with epigenetic activation, but that is way out of my league....

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

Thanks Joe.

In terms of the "irritant" comment, I am thinking of our similar/dissimilar and stronger/weaker homeopathic concepts of disease - the stronger artificial disease (our remedy) being the irritant that increases the irritation of the natural disease and so triggers the overcompensation (ie, the healing response) that helps return the body to health once the artificial disease (remedy) leaves the body. Do you feel these concepts are flawed?

I can understand the "blueprint" concept as well but in the research paper it appeared as if a leap of logic had taken place with its statement indicating that the mechanism of action was one of increased irritant followed by over-compensation - which I can understand as being part of a homeopathic effect. I was wondering if I had missed something or whether the authors had drawn on an inappropriate mode of action in this instance to explain the effects of organ remedies.

Always interested in any other comments you have. There is so much we still don't understand and probably never will in this life. We are always trying to balance fragmented information from restrictive controlled conditions of invitro research with the unweildy profusion of real world responses.

The concept of "irritation" is a human one, not a biological one, don't you think so? I am irritated by some posts, so I either react or delete.....but in the body???

To me, the similar remedy displaces the pathological information from its site, restoring the proper function; the "irritation" part can be seen if and when the normal function overshoots for a while (leading to an aggravation).

I personally think their presentation mixes a "philosophical" concept with lab research, not a wise blend as it promotes disbelief.....

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

It would be very interesting to have this same research replicated using diseased tissue to see if there was any difference - that would give us a lot of information - whether or not there was a difference and if so, in what way. All we need to do is find some arthritic pigs.

We have some politicians with arthritis, they should do............
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com

Don't insult the Pigs!
________________________________
--
Imagine Peace
http://www.homeopathicsolutions.blogspot.com/
________________________________

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

You are absolutely right, my sincerest apologies.........
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com
________________________________
________________________________

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

Oink Oink - we're all full of antibiotics and steroids etc. which would probably askew the results anyway
bob
no not the picture, the sender
________________________________
________________________________

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.