Hi Guys. I'm really really interested how homeopathy works. Does it involve spirons? Not sure what they are exactly, but I think its like they're particles of thought and thats what goes into the medicine when its made. Have you heard that if you have a radionics machine then spirons can be stored and put into another batch of medicne? Is that right. Are spirons what connect the physical remedy to the nonphysical plane?

Yours hopefully F.

I have no idea what that is.

Thoughts aren't tranferred [edited: transferred] into the medicines, although I'm sure the mousie dude would like for me to say they are.

I've heard a quasi-Hermetic author explain it like that, but that only proved to me that he was not to be seriously considered about anything.

These are simply succussed high dilutions with specific toxicological/chemical/poisoning effects in their crude state that are expanded to many hundreds of specific effects by replacement of their chemically medicinal properties with their dynamically medicinal properties.

How that works is the subject of this discussion page.

These are ultramolecular, subAvogadrean drugs, and as such they have to be etheric medicines.

All I've done is to show that modern physicists have admitted to over 20 similarly non-physical particles and are therefore destined to finally admit to our pharmacology.

The really stupid thing about all of this is that every person who doubts what we say can prove it to themselves by doing exactly what Hahnemann and every subsequent Hahnemannian has told them to do in order to test this science: prove it, take a dose of a high-potency drug and prove it.

Aude sapere: "dare to taste and understand."

That always shuts up our skeptics, and some of them go on to become Hahnemannians.

But modern science has a very real chance to jump into the future by also testing to see if the solvent/dilutent phase of high-potency homeopathics form into polymers, as Stephenson suggested.

I wish they would.

[ 12. July 2003, 14:07: Message edited by: Hahnemannian444B ]

__________________
Albert, also<br />Hahnemannian444<br />#5904

--"Superluminal particles," huh?

Well, it's a fairly standard term in physics. Look it up.

--Why don't you just say that you don't know anything about the subject and then shut up about it?

It would appear more than you, and you don't wish to debate or learn from anyone who does know. If your only response to questioning is to descend to immediate ad hominem attack then there is no point in debating, but leaving the abusive responses here for others to view helps make the case against you so I've chosen not to complain about them.

--And, by the way, how do you explain ultramolecular particles, mousie,

They are made up by homeopaths as a post hoc rationalisation to underpin a system of quack medicine that depends on the power of coincidence, placebo and credulity. Which begs interesting questions of psychology but none of physics or chemistry. Can I prove that ultramolecular particles don't exist? No. Can you prove they do? No. Is there any need to invoke them? No.


--and why are you here anyway?

To scrape the gilt from the turd. It hurts to see the alt med fraternity steal the clothes of science, mangle them and sell them back to a gullible public. I've seen what's underneath the gilt now and having been directed to this site by a supporter of homeopathy I think I've seen enough.

I know what's meant by superluminal particles.

It's a stupidly meaningless term used by ignorant materialists who'd be better off dead and us with them dead too since that nonsense sustains allopathic mass murder.

I know what tachyons are, and you proved you don't, so don't be trying to convince others that you do when you proved yourself ignorant of the subject.

"If your only response to questioning is to descend to immediate ad hominem attack then there is no point in debating."

I hate killers!

This is big-people talk, not nonsense from the tail end of the Dark Ages!

"ultramolecular particles . . . are made up by homeopaths as a post hoc rationalisation to underpin a system of quack medicine that depends on the power of coincidence, placebo and credulity."

I see you cannot do the calculations you said you can.

Pretty simple: you start with Avogadro's number in a tincture and serially reduce it by dilutions on the order of 10:1 and the exponent reduces from 23 to 22 to 21 till there is nothing.

You'll get there at 12c if the preparation started out with less than one mole, but you're definitely there with a 30c potency.

Allopathic medicine, which you foolishly admit to supporting, is the one that daily admits to total "therapeutic incompetence" or quackery (get a new dictionary or brain, for yours are both broken) in ALL viral diseases, ALL chronic diseases and ALL psychiatric cases.

The ONLY diseases they can cure are bacterial ones.

What a coincidence that almost all of those are self-limited diseases.

Placebo, huh?

Explain to the good folks how animals, infants and the unconscious could react AT ALL and then EXACTLY how we say they should to EXACTLY the drugs we say they should, mr. supporter of totally quackery and mass murder.

"Can I prove that ultramolecular particles don't exist? No. Can you prove they do?"

Yes, you take a homeopathic medicine in ultramolecular potency and prove the substance.

Your kind say that ultramolecular homeopathics are "inert and innocuous" because you presume that medicinal effects have to be chemical effects.

You again prove you're not a scientist, for we have been demonstrating the fallacy of that erroneous assumption for over 200 years; so you should have already proven that to yourself if you are a scientist.

Arrogant asses like you are encouraged to ingest 1M Lachesis three times a day.

Do that and see if you can do so for a month before you're constantly screaming and climbing the walls in abject terror literally begging for an antidote.

No way!

Of course, your kind are not only ignorant and arrogant, you're total cowards or you would have already engaged in the only possible test of homeopathy, right?

I already know this about your kind, but I want to make sure visitors know how spineless and ignorant supporters of allopathy are.

Your kind really need to get dead and shut up.

Make sure you have one of your good buddies in allopathy kill you good, because God knows they're well practiced at it.

And, I know you're going to love this one, make sure your corpse is embalmed so that your etheric pattern is sustained in order to keep you discarnate for several thousand years, for it would really be for the best good of all concerned if you stayed in Hell this time, pal!

Trust me, it's the best thing you could do for all concerned.

I hope you get lost and stay there this time.

"It hurts to see the alt med fraternity steal the clothes of science."

But the emperor has no clothes on, silly man!

How typical.

One presumption after another after another after another…

That's exactly how you clowns end up with nothing but erroneous conclusions and NO cures: all of your basic assumptions are wrong.

And you think that homeopathy is part of alternative medicine, huh?

Again, how pitifully typical.

Homeopathy 101:

“There are only two principal therapies:

-----The first, based in every respect exclusively on the exact observation of nature, and on scrupulous experiments and pure experience – the homoeopathic method, never wittingly used before me, and

-----The second, which does not do this: the allopathic (or heteropathic) method.

“They are directly opposed to each other, and only someone who does not know either could be fool enough to suppose that they could ever approach each other or unite, could make himself so ridiculous as to treat homoeopathically one moment and allopathically the next to please his patients. This is a criminal betrayal of divine homoeopathy!”

(Article 52, ORGANON OF MEDICINE, Sixth Edition, 1842, Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., translated Kunzli et al., 1982)


From Klaus-Henning Gypser, M.D., Editorial for the CLASSICAL HOMOEOPATHY QUARTERLY (Karl F. Haug Publishers, Heidelberg), "2/90," Vol. 3 (1990), No. 2, pp. 39-40:

"The casualness with which allopathic medicine [which includes their myriad academic cohorts] constantly claims to have the right to sit in judgment over homoeopathy is truly amazing! It demands, for instance, that homoeopathic physicians demonstrate 'proof' of the efficacy of homoeopathy. [And remember that the people making this demand are self-admitted therapeutic incompetents or, by definition, quacks due to near absolute ineptitude to cure any but usually self-limited bacterial diseases.] Let us ask why homeopathy should have to prove anything to allopathy? Is it so that it may be recognized as one of the natural sciences? [Our natural laws say it should be.] It is a fact that the methods used to this effect can 'recognize' only the latter. [Clever man. He points out that chemistry can only recognize chemical medicines used in allopathic ways, and that physics isn't yet ready to expose itself to having to admit that they have been lying to people for two centuries about homeopathy. You can't test ultramolecular drugs with protocols intrinsically designed for chemical drugs and effects. These are ignorant people who refuse to test homeopathy in the only way it can be tested, so what idiots are asking them for recognition and why? Why, of course, it's other idiots we call low-potency pseudo-homeopaths or LPHs with a similarly materialistic worldview or model of the universe despite the fact that we use ultramolecular drugs. They’re all the same, and none of them are homeopaths, just useless fools adherent to allopathic medicine destined for ghastly agonal, horrendously horrible, premature iatrogenic deaths in allopathic hands after years of iatrogenic suffering. And then good riddance!]

“What gives allopathy the right to establish itself as the measure of all there is in medicine? Is it not true that allopathy’s basic concept of man as a physico-chemical body [that's absurdly ignorant on the face of it] is far from being the only unquestionably possible approach to healing human beings? On the contrary: does this concept and the resultant problems [which homeopaths don’t face], such as the neglect of the human element through technological intrusions, the iatrogenic damages, etc., not put the very questioner in questioner? Would this be the reason why homoeopaths need to beg allopaths for recognition? By using their own respective foundations as a gauge, two sciences so fundamentally different in their basic premises and their methodology can quite obviously neither recognize nor condemn each other without overstepping their borders in a very unscientific manner. [I respectfully disagree. They admit to being quacks every day on the news, and they murder people every day due to it. I’ll therefore condemn them and their cohorts in all of the power structures that sustain allopathic medicine in diseases, where they obviously don’t belong, from their own declarations and happily sneer at the incarnate devils while doing so. And when society finally figures out that all of these people are simply mass murderers and then condemns them to death without finding anyone to carry out the sentences on the millions of evil beings who want to call themselves our colleagues and on the others who have permitted these crimes to continue over centuries and millennia, I’d gladly step forward and spend the rest of my life sending them all back to Hell! It’s not going to happen, but it should if these societies were really oriented toward truth and justice rather than tyranny and murder.] In this respect, both sciences stand rather as equals and not as one being subordinate to the other. [Sorry, Klaus, allopathic quacks and their cohorts aren’t my equals.] This finally needs to be stated unequivocally!

“In a free democratic society, it must be possible for naturally evolved sciences such as homoeopathy, allopathy and, after all, philology, physics and theology to coexist as unrestricted entities and with all their various conditions and methodologies.”

You finally, and let us hope so, say: “I think I've seen enough.”

Good!

BYEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Edited: The professor is right that this was totally uncalled for an unnecessary as well as unhelpful in the object of this discussion page.

It's also rather flattering that he saw fit to engage us with such a noble object in mind, and I overlooked that fact and permitted my buttons to have been pushed that have nothing personally to do with him.

I was going to edit it out but decided to let it stand and offer apologies since he didn't deserve that just for referring to my understanding as pseudo-science.

I have my excuses, but they're irrelevant and couldn't be understood by anyone outside of Hahnemannian homeopathy anyway, so I simply offer my apologies.

[ 13. July 2003, 07:54: Message edited by: Hahnemannian444B ]

__________________
Albert, also<br />Hahnemannian444<br />#5904

Ok, albert, not bad. You actually answered my questions, and even, in pointing out (correctly) that I have no clear idea of what one (well, you) could mean by ‘soul,’ you stopped with your observation rather than hit me over the head with the rather large hammer you often wield and which I was sitting here, wincing, waiting for it to fall.

By mousie’s last reply, ok, it is very clear he is an allopathic stooge whose post-hoc rationalizations include well worn clichés about placebo effect in situations in which the allopath can’t explain what has happened. It is easy, it represents a refusal to question, a refusal to even try to explain rationally the experiences that others report. It reflects perhaps the greatest shortcoming of modern science, that is, the refusal to admit for consideration the testimony of the patient, anecdotal evidence, even when the number of anecdotes has mounted to a considerable portion, involving countless individuals over a couple of centuries in all corners of the world. They are fools, and mouse has not distinguished himself in this regard.

But this is not about you and mouse, this is an open forum, and even though I share some of your views toward mouse and others like him, I am really more interested in hearing you expand on your position in deliberate, academic style than to witness another easy harangue (that’s right, albert, your harangues are too easy, they roll off the fingertips and onto the keyboard like melted butter and could be better expressed in 2 short sentences rather than taking up so much of our time with it, besides which, you are capable of being so offensive that even those who would be friendly to you are put off). And also besides, you have used the same verbal violence on respected members of this little on-line community, you have had your posts edited out, you have crossed the boundaries of civility too often and too dramatically to get off with excuses that you are only after allopaths. Civility still has its place, even though mousie-boy is an idiot and a scoffer and doesn’t know a placebo from a baby wipe.

Questions:

1. what do YOU mean by soul?
2. would you care to consider this: in discussing the history of man, is it appropriate to include a review of the experiences and contributions of women?
3. carrying on from number 2, I assume you are aware that words can have variable meanings and be used in different ways in different contexts. “The man sat down” refers to a specific individual, a male, while “in man’s constant struggle against adversity…,” ‘man’ refers to the human race, and while politically out of favor at the moment, is nevertheless a useful rhetorical invention to refer to both males and females in a concise form. Change it if you must, because of changing values and sensibilities, but let’s not confuse semantics for politics…or physics. Hence, number 4:
4. consider whether immaterial particles, like massless particles, or energy, or waves, or particle-waves, can be considered as part of the ‘material’ universe. I would suggest to you that the materialistic perspective has hardly collapsed from the weight of its failures. Indeed, I would suggest to you that material science, by your own testimony, has brought us to the point where we can, if not directly, at least by a pretty direct inference, identify or posit or speculate about the presence of and the influence of immaterial objects.
For myself, when I refer to ‘the material universe,’ I mean to refer to matter and energy, and am more than comfortable including ‘immaterial’ particles in the family. I would also argue that if these immaterial ‘things’ can be identified or inferred through physical observations and measurements or their effects on physically observable particles and so forth, then they must at the least, as seems to be implied also in your own comments, they must at the least behave in predictable ways. One of the hallmarks of the materialistic viewpoint is determinism: we can predict what will happen, because the material universe behaves in predictable ways. If we see anomalies, then we make up stories to try to explain them away, and if the story (i.e., hypothesis) works out satisfactorily in future experiments, we consider it a validated theory.
It seems to me from reading your stuff (great word, ‘stuff’), that immaterial things fit this pattern, and I am frankly comfortable enough with the unimaginable creativity of the unimaginably enormous universe to consider that the materia of that universe includes things we might rather call from our own poor vantage point, ‘immateria.’
5. I have to call you up, though, on one point: ‘as every child knows.’ This is nonsense—you’re not seriously intending that we should build our view of life and the universe on the basis of a child’s intuition and incomplete brain development? Or even on an adult’s intuition? Shake up a can of pop, open it, watch the fizz. Wait awhile. Where has the fizz gone? Well, I’d say it’s been used up. And I’d also say there is nothing supernatural about it. Same with life. After awhile, it either runs out of fuel or, more likely, loses the capacity to consume fuel efficiently enough to sustain activity. You really can just answer this question/argument in a civil tone, albert, because you can be pretty sure that almost everyone else on this bb will want to tear my head off also for taking this position. It’s sacrilegious, you know.

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

"Superluminal particles," huh?

THEN

"I know what's meant by superluminal particles"

So that's all right then.

AND

"Can I prove that ultramolecular particles don't exist? No. Can you prove they do?"

Yes, you take a homeopathic medicine in ultramolecular potency and prove the substance"

Hilarious

"Your kind really need to get dead and shut up.

Make sure you have one of your good buddies in allopathy kill you good, because God knows they're well practiced at it."

Probably a good one to have framed for your patients to show what a nice man they're placing their trust in.

"Arrogant asses [mirror, mirror on the wall...] like you are encouraged to ingest 1M Lachesis three times a day.

Do that and see if you can do so for a month before you're constantly screaming and climbing the walls in abject terror literally begging for an antidote."

Now you're just being silly.

""It hurts to see the alt med fraternity steal the clothes of science."

But the emperor has no clothes on, silly man!"

So why try and tell us about tachyons and wormholes and dark matter? That is science in case you hadn't noticed. Just because your notion of the scope of science is so limited doesn't have any impact on those people getting on with actually doing it.

AND LASTLY

"Let us ask why homeopathy should have to prove anything to allopathy?" It's just fraud, not really the specific concern of allopathc medicine, just fraud.

Anyway it's nice to see that I can have my opinion of homeopaths lowered after all. Shows we can all be mistaken.

By the way, bwv11 is asking all the right questions. I presume only a homeopath would post 321 times on this board, so we would probably disagree over most things but the questions being put by him/her are the right ones and ones you could have chosen to answer rather than just descending to abuse. I'm sorry about the chip you so plainly carry on your shoulder, it would seem you think allopathic medicine has done you some great wrong, or else you just can't cut it when the difficult questions are asked. I'll leave you to think that through, you are the one with all the answers it would seem. Except that you've just run away from trying to explain your physics ideas- what should the uncommitted reader think about that? It can't possibly mean that you can't do it, can it? I don't think I claimed to be able to, but you did. All I did was challenge you to explain yourself, as bwv11 pointed out to you. Now we just see bluster, abuse and the sound of feet running from the questions. I've got some time free, I can just post 'And your evidence is?' every time you make unsubstantiated assertions, but it will get a bit boring.

Your responses are good to add to the scrapbook I show people who ask me about homeopathy. So many people vaguely muddle herbalism and homeopathy that it takes quite a bit of explaining to show the differences, and after that it's always handy to show when the true colours of the crank are revealed. Thanks for the demonstration- certainly the nastiest example I've come across so far.

I'll watch with interest your responses to bwv11.

[ 12. July 2003, 23:28: Message edited by: Benjy Mouse ]

Okay, granted.

Let's start again.

Ask a question please.

__________________
Albert, also<br />Hahnemannian444<br />#5904

Okay, having waited patiently but apparently having run you off by abuse you didn't deserve (sincere apologies), I'll ask a question because I was perfectly serious and yet you must not have understood it.

We have a way to prove the existence of non-physical particles because our medicines should not have have medicinal effects and yet do.

In fact, I think it's the only way in which to prove them.

You engage in a high-potency self-proving.

You take either just one dose or infrequent doses until there is a reaction and let it run its course.

Believe me that Lachesis proved ("tested in a trial") in that way would terrify you, but we only make such suggestions to skeptics on a dare.

I don't otherwise know of any way to prove the existence of higher-dimensional or non-physical particles.

I don't see what's hilarious or silly about this.

Hahnemann wrote on this at Article 141 of the ORGANON: http://www.homeopathyhome.com/refere...n/organon.html

__________________
Albert, also<br />Hahnemannian444<br />#5904

That posted twice, so I've erased the second one.

[ 13. July 2003, 04:31: Message edited by: Hahnemannian444B ]

__________________
Albert, also<br />Hahnemannian444<br />#5904

Quote: I don't otherwise know of any way to prove the existence of higher-dimensional or non-physical particles.

But I refer to your post July 10, 8:43pm: you refer to the 15-20 etheric or non-physical particles posited by materialistic science to patch gaps in their theory, explaining phenomena that at this point in time cannot be otherwise explained. The immaterial substances you cite included tachyons, dark matter, vacuum energy, subquantic medium, neutrino flux, neutrino sea…. This is what I referred to when saying you yourself had implied that immaterial ‘particles’ or whatever could be inferred by their effects on the physical plane. Then you state, “It starts to get really nauseating to hear them yak-yak about such things but miss the basic conclusion of multiple planes of existence forced by acceptance of non-physical particles.” My point was that there is apparent interaction here, and that just because at the present date we don’t have the knowledge, data, intelligence, or basic physical capability to directly observe or measure these things, the fact that they fit in as part of an explanatory scheme, clarifying at least hypothetically the functioning of “matter” in the material universe, then I would propose that even ‘immaterial’ substances be considered part of the ‘material’ universe. Regardless whether we conceive of alternative universes, different dimensions, different planes, or what-have-you, whatever turns out to be ultimately the ‘reality’ of our rather large habitat, material particles and immaterial substances are all a part of the complex reality. Even ‘soul,’ I suppose, would have to be included as a residual effect of material existence…though I’ll spare you and myself further speculation on that subject, at least for the moment.

So-o-o-o-o-o-o, if they’re all interacting as part of the total, balanced, unitary universe, whether they are material or immaterial is … pardon the pun, immaterial. Even the immaterial particles act according to laws, for if they didn’t then their hypothesized presence would not resolve any of the holes in the materialistic view of things that had been developed to the time they were hypothesized. Am I losing everybody here?

In other words, when I myself think about the ‘material universe,’ I think about the whole ball of wax, I tend to be skeptical about different dimensions and time travel and such, but see no reason to restrict the inventory of admissible particles to objects the size of bowling balls, molecules, or atoms.

In short, just because there are immaterial substances, how does that prove that there is a ‘spiritual’ dimension or ‘multiple planes of existence?’

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.