Quote: Sir, It is not the matter of your personal thinking -:)
Then why do you apply your personal thinking to the subject?
There is no chemistry in homoeopathic medicines. If you read my blog, you would have seen that I talk physics. Entirely different and therefore relevant to the discussion.
You appear to be talking shifting matter, whereas I say it is transmutation of matter, which is a scientifically valid process. It is called nanotechnology and Professor Richard Feinman was its originator.
So who is not accepting basic scientific principles here? None other than you. You are determined to make your opinion prevail and ignore completely the fact that physics is not chemistry. You also want to make us believe that one bottle will be empty, which is a fallacy in reasoning. Matter cannot go from something to nothing - Aconite cannot become no Aconite. That does also not imply that matter is destroyed, but that your reasoning is false.
Here is the fallacy: shifting the material from one bottle to another, in that process a stage will come when the complete material will be shifted from one bottle to another. This is a fallacy in reasoning, because we never shift all the material. It is serial dilution and as such each time only a (small) part is "shifted" from one bottle to another. The dilution from which we "shift" is always more than the next dilution.
Moreover, you have completely side tracked from the original question here, which is about the allowance of mixopathy and not about the structure - chemical or physical - of our remedies. For that we should open another thread perhaps?
You see in this picture, if you will start transfering the material from one bottle "A" to another bottle "B" then definitely a stage will come when the whole material will be transferred and not a single molecule will remain in Bottle "A". Here matter is neither created nor destroyed but it was transferred from one bottle to another. Same is the case in Homeopathy, during succession we reduce the quantity for the starting material by shifting or transfering the medicine and for that purpose we performed a serial method. The chemist says, after 13c potency the material is completely transferred. I don't know then what we give to patient but it is my naked eye experience that even then it does work.
This is your fallacy in pictures and simply your opinion, which is not based on facts.
The fact is that from Bottle A only a few drops are transferred to Bottle B.
From Bottle B a few drops are transferred to Bottle C. And so on. Serial dilution does not take more than once a few drops from the previous bottle to the following bottle. It is serial dilution and not numerical dilution from the same original bottle.
Quote: The chemist says, after 13c potency the material is completely transferred. I don't know then what we give to patient but it is my naked eye experience that even then it does work.
If you don't know, then why tell me I just give an opinion and you are right? You just admit you have no clue, whereas my blog gives you the physics of the entire potency conundrum, which you dismiss as my opinion.
Indeed, (quote): Sir, you if we (homeopaths) will not accept the basic science principles then how can we discuss with world scientific community?
Why do we look at things and define through a priory ? The so called scientists of this generation still lack the equipment to assert the homeopathic medicinal action.
A medicine is capable of producing the symptoms. Definitly it is due to some chemcial interaction with body. The SAME MEDICINE is capable to cure disease then it should remain in medicinal form, if we are using the word SAME.
If you shout at someone, and the victim feels sad and gloomy,... your words are the causation logically. If a simple collection of few words, which are non material can evoke a diseased state in a person, where is the material basis of disease ?
If the disease can be produced when there is no molecular or atomic content ( sound waves in this case ) , so why cannot Staph 200 which doesn't have any molecules cure the same ???
It is unwise to look at a grander phenomenon through a pin hole of limited scientific development and use it as benchmark to define homeopathy.
Quote: From Bottle B a few drops are transferred to Bottle C. And so on. Serial dilution does not take more than once a few drops from the previous bottle to the following bottle. It is serial dilution and not numerical dilution from the same original bottle.
That was actually I wanted to tell you that when you will keep on transferring one drop from bottle A to B and to C, a stage will definitly reach when you will be having no material to transfer. I am astonished how this simple notion is not followed (Smile) The above pictorial fallcy was not demonstrated to prove serial process but to tell you that when one thing is transferrred from one bottle to another then previous does not contain anything :)
You see, when aconite mother tincture is put on serial dilution chain, the quantity of the starting material (aconite) is gradually decreased (this is represented in colour shades)
The Bottle "A" contains large quantity of aconite molecules, hence the color is dark blue and when quantity is reduced or decreased in bottle "D", the shade is slight light blue. If this process continuous then in Aconite 30 you will see no shade color and no molecules exist.
Quote: Why do we look at things and define through a priory ? The so called scientists of this generation still lack the equipment to assert the homeopathic medicinal action.
Its not a sensible approach to develop an opinion that homeopaths know better then the rest of the Scientific Community. So for you which you have gained is just becuase of this working of this community. If you will give the impression that basic chemistry rules do not apply on homeopathy then it will never be recognized at official level.
Hahnemann never used any potency above avogadros limit. He used 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 18 and 22 potency and found result. Few potency of above 30 potency he used for experimentation and concluded that instead of using c potency use LM potency and you know LM is again within the limit of avogadros number.
Hahnemann used many potencies above Avogadro's limit. His daybooks speak about the 30C, the 60C, 100C, 200C and even 500C. And he was successful with them too. Read Richard Haehl's biography of Hahnemann. You have obviously a mechanistic notion of homoeopathy. Which means you do not understand it. Below are some names of scientists who did not spout opinions, like you do about Hahnemann. All LM potencies, which the 6th edition of the Organon describes as the best, were used by Hahnemann and he was successful with them while all are way past Avogadro.
So your quote
Hahnemann never used any potency above avogadros limit. This is a blatant fabrication of your opinion not borne out by the facts.
Rustum Roy (God bless his soul) and many others proved that clathrates exist in homoeopathic potencies caused by succussion. Luc Montagnier, (of HIV fame) recently proved there were electromagnetic radiations coming off homoeopathic potencies of DNA. In my blog you will find that there are many experiments done to prove substance in homoeopathic high dilutions. Benveniste did experiments proving the action of high dilutions. It pays also to go to ECCH website to see many more proofs of high dilutions containing something other than molecules. Quote: Its not a sensible approach to develop an opinion that homeopaths know better then the rest of the Scientific Community That counts more so for you.
Quoted from above: Paragraph 273 says that all substances must first be triturated, before the serial dilution. So this produces particles smaller than molecules and therefore Avogadro's limit does not apply.
For the first time your honour came with some logical reason. I said, all the chemist of this world are agreed to this point that under avogadros limit if the method of preparation of homeopathic potency is adopted then no molecule does exist. Now you are saying the particles are smaller then molecules and these do exisit. For that purpose you also mentioned few FRAUD names like Benveniste.
First of all, I would like to clarify that no such smaller particles do exist in homeopathic potency Aconite 200. Its clear and if you have some study or reference to prove that then please tell us, so that we should also start following it. Because I have open mind and it is always ready to accept new information. If it is proved then we can solve our so many problems which homeopathy is facing. Even in Pakistan, the homeopathic drug act has been passed by the standing committee on health and it is on the floor of the parliament but not passed yet just becuase we have no proof to prove homeopathy -:) Except our cured cases.
On Benveniste experiment Dolisos homeopathic pharmacy was behind. The pharmacy sponsored the project but Benveniste never disclosed it that he earned huge amount of money from DOLISOSOS unless it was disclosed by the concerned authorities.
Benveniste first came with water memory theory that was rejected by all scientific community. Later on it was disapproved again under controlled trial study headed by LANCET journal team, in which james randi was also included. I am not the supporter of james randi but trying to inform you that the trial study was failed and Benveniste research findings were rejected. He unable to prove anything except a spaculated theory like Darwin theory. That is rejected today.
Benveniste findings are also not logical because in homeopathy there are so many homeopathic remedies where only dry medicines are prepared in 3x or 12x and these also have homeopathic effects also. Therefore, retaining of water memory again illogical.
Comming towards the history of HAHNEMANN, his remedy kit box contains only those potencies which I told you above no higher potency was found in it. Secondly if few high potency even used those were used on experimental basis and Hahnemann in sixth edition only recommend the use of LM. Most of the Lm are used below LM3.
To prove something, we need references of impartial group researchers not homeopathic story teller like Richard Haehl's. Julian Winston (God bless him) was also a historian. He also came with so many speculated stories and presented as history facts but those were never varified and supported by non homeopathic historian. I have the honour of exchanging hundreds of emails with him and when I asked him, how a poor person like HAHNEMANN (he was living in single room accomodation with 10 or 11 children), from where he brought 100000 glass bottles for the preparation of CM potency? He had no logical answer. Even today in this modern world, where pharmacies have lot of capital to purchase anything, these pharmacies are not preparing CM potency in traditional style. They are using Korsakov method. Korsakov remedies have a different effect from those prepared by the Hahnemann method. Mother tincture is progressively diluted in a single flask. The flask is automatically emptied and refilled. The remedies prepared certainly have different effects from those prepared by the Hahnemannian method.
Therefore, if you came with some opinion then you should also come with some research studies or references atleast just quoting few paragraphs from here and there does not fulfill our mission to understand homeopathy on scientific basis. Thank you.
You talked about NANO PARTICLES. I pasted a picture to demonstrated the gradual decrease of atoms and molcules of starting material if HAHNEAMNN METHOD OF PREPARATION OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE is adopted.
I can't understand when there would be no atoms or molecules then from where the smaller particles will came from? When a bottle contains only alcohol atoms or molecules then where smaller nano particles of aconite starting material will exist?
Selenium is a metal. When there would be no selenium metal in 200 potency then from where the nano particles will came. Or, where nano particles do exist or in what form?