Hello,

Hello,

One question irritates my brain since long:-

Can we consider effects of homeopathic remedies as natural to us? If yes, how?

"By natural to us" I mean that any substance to which we are exposed since long back and we have inherent sense of right and wrong or evolved, persistent and are habitual to that.

Natural here don't mean substances those are produced by nature as all existences can be natural. But whether that is in that natural form or not to which we are naturally exposed & habitual since ages and evolved to that. To current generations of bacteria, antibiotics may not be natural but these can become natural when they become fully resistant to those antibiotics.

Further, to get cure/treatment...I mean different effects, our body may need some different/strange or shocking effects to our cells/system. Natural substances can't be such strange effects but those can only be treated as foods to body.

" To a person, who lived on plains since ages and evolved or become habitual to it, living in valley or on moutains can both be unnatural"..so sometimes adviced to live there to get different/unnatural effects"

Under above thought:

Can it be considered that homeopathic effects are also unnatural to us but from the other side of higher unnatural concentrations i.e. lower side unnatural concentration?


Best wishes.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

By "unnatural" I don't mean "supernatural" but I mean which is not natural to us, for which we don't have inharent sense of wrong or right.

Just look at dict. defintions:

Natural: "based on an inherent sense of right and wrong
: being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
: begotten as distinguished from adopted;.."

Unnatural: not in accordance with or determined by nature; contrary to nature; affected: distorted and unnatural in shape or size;not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events...


Whether we remained exposed to homeopathic remedies in their same concentration/form as we use them as potentised remedies in nature since long back?

Do we have their inherent sense of of right and wrong?

Are these being in accordance with or determined by nature?

Are these having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature?

Are these found in nature in 'as it is form/concentration' as we use these or we have made some changes in these by potentization?

If we are not exposed to potentised remedies in their same form and concentration in nature since long back, we can't treat them as "natural to us".

Moreover, substances which are natural to us, may behave like food, supplements, replacements or poision but not alike drugs which are meant to give some different, dynamic, shocking, sudden, toxic or therapeutic effects unabling body system to behave differently than food.....effects. OK?

Still I have some feelings that we are exposed to homeopathic type effects in nature but missing these due to modern lifestyle...so is to be supplemented in form of homeopathic remedies.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

when the body is exposed to an antigen an antibody is formed. this antibody is evidence of exposure

when applying homoeopathic medicines we are not exposing ourselves to something we have already been exposed to. the drug is mimicing the presenting symptoms in a similar way (homeo) so as to stimulate the vital force into action. hence the presenting symptoms are matched in a similar way (homeo) not same (iso).


where we have been exposed and need an antidote to existing disease states that do not belong to the organism but have been induced, some may apply isopathy to effect a treatment. hahnemann though talks about the difference between real and false disease states and there is a clear distinction.

your question "Can we consider effects of homeopathic remedies as natural to us? If yes, how?" is probably best answered in the negative from my viewpoint although the same could be said of the exact opposite. the effect of homeopathic remedies is in the stimulation. by mimicing the disease force the drug is increasing the body's response to the disease force hence the secondary drug action is the body's own response. however the primary action is the body's response to the drug. see aphorism 29.

secondly the Arndt-Schulz law is applicable in homeopathy as has been observed from the start. "for every substance small doses stimulate, moderate doses inhibit, and large doses kill".

combined with this reasoning and an understanding of homeostatic processes it is the nature of a disease to progress until either self resolution or death of the organism. without the interference of a drug would be "in accordance with nature". homeostasis insures that systems survive where possible within parameters. this is as nature intended.

Yes alike vaccination, the exposure of such antigen is taken and handled by immune system as an unnatural effect/exposure.

I doubt, this way such hetrogenous drug can be considered as "natural" to us. You may call it alike "natural to us" but not natural. Furthur that potency/concentration should also match with what we may be previously taking in nature but now missing due to moderization effect or otherwise.


There is always an stimulation of immune system by any induced disease. That type immune stimulation can also be possible by isopathical biochemic forces. Can't such isopathical stimulation to immune system or vital force for handling induced diseases be more natural---obiously if we are getting that type and that much stimulation in nature but missing at present?

Yes alike vaccination, but provided, if we are getting same stimulation of increasing the body's responce by increasing the disease force in nature. Do we get/do it in nature?

However, I think, we get it when are in nature--increase in disease force and remedies dynamic effects but missing now due to modernizations and modern lifestyles.

Although this law has become "obsolete" now, but it may still hold good in cephalic phase effects sense. Still those homeostatic processes should happen in nature with us--to be declared those exactly natural to us.

Isopathical remedies increases body's response directly as primary response whereas homeopathic remedies increases the disease force to get secondary drug action to enhance body's responce. Is it ok?

Best wishes. I enjoyed.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

Kayveeh your attempts to discourage the Arndt-Schulz law:

http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns...Pzhtm#12426310

It is widely accepted as a pharmacological rule. Show me evidence that it has become obsolete. I see it referred to in many papers that are addressing high dilutions. I observe it in pharmacy where we have therapeutic index and in nutrition where vitamins are recommended within therapeutic guidelines. It is a rule and the foundation of it is relative to where it is applied. A more simple task for you may be to provide an example where it is not applied.

The term ‘vaccination’ is not relating to any specific antigen. Pharmaceutical drugs that are used are antigens as is the dust in the air that we breath.

With regard to your statement...

"the exposure of such antigen is taken and handled by immune system as an unnatural effect/exposure."

We are constantly being exposed to antigens. I would not agree that it is unnatural. We live in an environment that is external to our organism. Organisms are constantly adapting to their environment. It is natural for an organism to adapt to its environment. Antigens are a natural part of our environment. Look up the definition for antigen.

Your desire to approach homeopathy as a natural medicine is misguided. We use nosodes and sarcodes and substances which are toxic in their crude form. What is natural about this? What about when we use potentised pharmaceutical drugs? Or we extract glandular secretions and potentise them? Then what happens to your approach of natural medicine? It is a flawed assertion. It is natural for us to become hungry and so seek out food. It is natural for us to become sick and so seek relief. It is not natural for somebody to know exactly what medicine can cut short their sufferings due to an inability whilst sick to be impartial and unprejudiced. Otherwise I would not have bothered with university for so many years.


My approach would be to assert that the process is a far healthier one than loading the organism with often unnecessary levels of drugs. By interfering in the natural processes of homeostasis medicine is assisting the body but it in itself is not a part of any natural process.

Might I suggest you read more about homeostasis and allostatic processes. This is the foundation of physiology of which you should have a solid knowledge or should not be commenting or even I dare say practicing.

The only rational argument against vaccinations is more to do with the organism not presenting as diseased and therefore questions that medicines are necessary where a disease is yet to occur. This is an ethical question where healthy debate should be encouraged. Homeopathy has it’s own in the form of prophylaxis and there is much evidence available to support its use.



"I doubt, this way such hetrogenous drug can be considered as "natural" to us. You may call it alike "natural to us" but not natural. Furthur that potency/concentration should also match with what we may be previously taking in nature but now missing due to moderization effect or otherwise.

Your statement has me confused. I don’t see the relevance of this as I have mentioned in my reply to you earlier that I don’t see any drugs as being part of natural processes. Therefore I may not like to call it “natural to us” at all. You may but I won’t and I can’t even accept your assertions as they don’t seem to make sense. You have not provided a clear platform for me to observe your thinking. Hopefully this time you will understand my previous post and make your own assertions more easily understood next time.

Use of careful language is very important and I’d like for you to read my response and consider it with a critical mind rather than approaching as a sophist and negating everything written.

Medicine is used to cut short the sufferings that diseases bring. Isopathy in my understanding works the same as homeopathy. The drug picture matches the disease picture and the VF responds to the slightly stronger introduced drug picture. This is all clearly explained in the organon.

Have you not been to remote areas and observed people living close to nature who are diseased? Please tell me where this utopia exists. It is not possible for the majority of people to live in any environment and not be affected by it. It is necessary for the organism to constantly adapt. Sometimes the adaptations required are beyond the organisms ability. Hence disease. The argument against modern lifestyles is only based on increased pressures to adapt. Farmers do not live in cities and still suffer no more or less stresses that modern city dwellers experience.



“Isopathical remedies increases body's response directly as primary response whereas homeopathic remedies increases the disease force to get secondary drug action to enhance body's responce. Is it ok?”

The above statement is not ok in my understanding. This is contrary to the understood action of drugs on the body. Go back to the organon.

I again challenge you to assert what value are you adding to this thread? Where is the evidence to support research and scientific validity of homeopathy? Where is the basic knowledge of organon and where is the understanding of the human organism and its coping mechanism?

Homeopathy is not based on random speculation as I have witnessed in many of your posts. It is a system that is based on rational progressive thought based on observations. This is what it is to be a scientist. All else is rubbish and should be thrown out next time the truck comes by.

"*Arndt-Schulz law. An obsolete law stating that weak stimuli excite physiologic activity, moderately strong ones favor it, strong ones retard it, and very strong ones arrest it.
http://www.homeowatch.org/basic/glossary.html "

In recent discussions it was told to me that, those(CMs) are not normally considered as antigens. They use such microprotiens which don't trigger immune response. There should be some allergic reaction for triggering immune response against any antigen. Their working is normally based on, to reduce disease force directly. I think ‘vaccination’ is relating to introducing specific antigen so that immune system learn to make antibodies against that immediately on need.

It takes many genarations to adapt to any environmental change. It may require genetic changes. Those antigens to which we are naturally exposed can be since ages. How we are exposed to homeopathic potentised remedies(which I think you consider alike antigens) since ages?

What do you say now, whether homeopathy is a natural treatment or not?


I think you suggest that homeopathy is not a natural healing system? Ok?

How can you compare/relate homeopathic remedies with vaccinations and with antigens?



Ok, finally you say, homeopathic remedies are not natural. OK? In nature, we may be taking bath into running rivers, waterfalls, hold dips etc. Can't that water and minerals mixed in that water be alike potentised remedies?

How this can be related to tissue salts? Are these not isopathical? Do these increases the disease force or body's response, primarily?

We can't say that people, farmers living in remote areas at Africa are not effected by modernizations pressures. They use TVs, radios, cars, clothes, foods etc. Moreover they feel pressures by knowing about modernizations but not getting. Still their diseases can be mostly natural to which our body is knowing how to handle. But diseases in crowded and polluted big cities can be unnatural. However this topic is related to homeopathic remedies--natural or unnatural?

Are we naturally exposed(may not be ingesting) to the crude/raw state of substances used to make homeopathic remedies?



Do you want to say, isopathical responses are alike homeopathic responses and the difference is in substances not in theory?

First pls understand, I am also pro-homeopathy esp.tissue salt system but also respect good things in all knowledges alongwith. As doctorleela said previously; somewhat: God has not given all knowledges to any one, I try to look into many not just one. Moreover critical logical thoughts (not just contradicting due to egoistic or for some vested selfish interests) are meant to add something to any knowledge not contradicting it--that way reseach and discoveries come into existance...I think so. Best.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

Only by careful observation can we understand fact. reading other people's work and accepting it without testing is not gaining anything more than a bookish knowledge. you can fill your brain with it but often there are contradictions and gaps. experimentation and observation are the only true forms of learning. all else is a distraction.

Sorry, I posted a big replies in two posts to previous post 2 days back. I don't know where it is lost. Can you pls recover it?

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.