|
HOW
HOMEOPATHY WORKS!
PART
1
100%
Authored by Brian R. Connelly, LMHC
Business and Personal Coach
See
bio at the end of page 3
Introduction |
|
 |
Many theories have been proposed to explain how homeopathic remedies
seem to work, ranging from misapplied quantum theory to the “doctrine
of signatures” and other kinds of alchemical mystique. Many homeopaths
feel that “science” may never solve the mystery. So, as
a result of information that is incomplete without a generally accepted
and unifying theory , the homeopathic practitioner tries to develop
and work with a variety of eclectic “rules of thumb”.
Faced with over 200 years of empirical experience, we must continue
to try to find a common ground and unifying basis in theory. Modern
chemistry and physics sprang from the common ground that was atomic
theory. Why should homeopathy be any exception?
My thesis is that “science” has been looking for the answer
to homeopathy in the wrong place.
We have been looking either on the quantum scale (sub-atomic or small
molecules) or on the statistical-mechanics scale (millions of molecules).
But there is a no-man’s land (in between) which contains matter
on a scale of 10 to 1000 angstroms … i.e. bigger than a simple
molecule but smaller than a living cell.
For example, (Blakeslee, 2001) reports:
“At this level, things do not act according to well-described
theories of chemistry and physics. Rather, systems this size seem to
obey a unique set of rules that cannot be deduced from studying their
individual components…..There are too many atoms in the systems
to be described by electromagnetism and quantum theories but too few
atoms to handle statistically.” (My italics.)
Research on this ‘nano-scale’ is very pertinent to a working
theory of how homeopathic remedies work within the organism. For example,
what if we were to look at the ‘nano-scale’ structure of
the solvent (water) versus the usual focus on the solute (the dissolved
remedy)?
It turns out that recent research supports the idea that the unusual
physical chemistry of water may offer a unifying theory for homeopathy
not only in terms of the actual nature of the remedy as it is prepared,
but in terms of its bioactive interaction with the organism.
The goal of this article is to offer an overview of a new theory that
can be tested in the research lab and supported by clinical experience.
Review of Current
Theory
To be useful to the practitioner, any theory should try to meet some
practical utility criteria as a minimum, besides lending some scientific
credibility to the homeopathic paradigm. Here are five suggestions:
1) The theory must offer principles that the homeopath would find useful
in daily practice.
There have been many
‘meta-theories’ that seek to explain everything but predict
nothing. For example, how can Conte’s quantum ‘white hole’
theory help us choose between one potency over another? If a theory
can not predict practical outcomes, then it becomes scientifically untestable
and, therefore, unuseable in practice.
2) The theory should be parsimonious.
Truth is elegant.
Assumptions should be simple, testable and the number should be held
to a minimum. The assumptions should reflect the basic experience that
is already generally held to be known.
Parsimony is not simplistic. For instance, those theories that promulgate
‘energy’ or ‘frequency ‘ of a remedy are usually
just didactic metaphors and not concrete, operational explanations.
An example would be (Sharma 1990). He presented some interesting experimental
observations and explained them on the basis of the energy of ‘resonant
unpaired electrons’. But I think that most chemists would not
agree with his claim that molecules of ‘equal’ energy are
equivalent biochemically.
3) The theory should show how the bioactive moiety interacts with the
organism to effect change.
This means that a
biological mechanism needs to be identified that represents the action-reaction
homeostasis of what is called the ‘vital force’. The phenomenon
of ‘aggravation’ should be accounted for, as should size
of dose and potency effects.
4) The theory needs to be testable through future research.
Given a working theory,
there is much more research to be done to improve our understanding
of disease and lend wider credence to the homeopathic paradigm. The
theory needs to offer predictions that can be repeatedly and conclusively
proved or disproved in the laboratory and in the clinic.
5) The theory should facilitate the systemization of ongoing clinical
experience.
A problem with the
current Materiae Medica in finding the simillimum for a case is that
the data for a particular remedy tends to be consolidated without source
differentiation. Toxicology, clinical experience and all results for
all potencies used during a proving are treated as equivalent. Referring
to the original provings can help somewhat but, by this point, the intuition
and prejudgement of the clinician are often biasing factors in seeking
“confirmation” of the remedy selected.
So it seems that, in the Materiae Medica, idiopathic uniqueness is implicitly
denied, which seems contrary to the concept of fitting the remedy to
the individual case. Of course, we feel we allow for this by crossing
other rubrics but it still comes down to a trial-and-error approach
for the remedy and potency selected in the individual case.
The Proposed Model – Development and Discussion
This section will outline some general clinical evidence relating to
the nature of potency, the in-vivo ‘measurement’ of potency
effects, the puzzle of why ‘diluting’ a remedy increases
its power to heal and possible reasons why succussion is an important
part of that puzzle.
We shall also examine why alcohol could be more than just a preservative
and how ‘dry’ lactose or sucrose pellets could stabilize
and be carriers of the remedy.
Finally, we shall take a look the relationship between the Vital Force
and the bioactivity of the symptom-remedy and how remedy action within
the organism seems to proceed.
What is our case
experience in working with different potencies?
Observations on size of dose and number of succussions…
“One of the keys to Hahnemannian homeopathy is the size of dose
and the number of succussion given to the medicinal solution.”
(Little, 1998)
Further observations on number of succussions…
“Homoeopaths using the 1842 LM methods have recorded many case
histories where a certain remedy did not act with a certain number of
succussions [but] that immediately showed curative responses after adding
more succussions to the same remedy bottle.” (Little, 2001)
And some observations on selecting potency that seem to come from an
entirely different perspective…
The Banerji family of physicians in India provide a unique experience
and methodology. They make about 2000 prescriptions per day at their
clinic in Calcutta, with a staff of 12 doctors. Behind this family’s
methods there are about one hundred years of experience. They largely
prescribe on an organ ‘syndrome’, or group of symptoms,
rather than the ‘totality’ of symptoms. They use one remedy
in one potency for one syndrome. Based on hundreds of cases, (Banerji,
1985) shows that a Lycopodium constipation is sensitive to potency as
follows:
* 6C and 30C showed
no significant percentile response;
* 200C showed 75 percentile response, but
* 1000C (1M) showed no percentile response either!
A corollary of the Banerji family’s experience is that they see
each potency having its own unique subset of symptoms. Both observations
are in accordance with Hahnemann’s clinical experience, as (Little,
2001) notes:
“Although Hahnemann spoke about raising the potencies from lower
to higher in the Organon, the microfiches of the Paris casebooks often
show him searching up and down the potencies until he found a harmonic
degree. After finding a harmonic degree he would then work up from there.
Because everyone is truly an individual it is hard to make clear and
fast rules about what potencies are best. Sometimes you have to search
for the most harmonic potency.”
These observations illustrate the important role of succussion in determining
potency and the efficacy of the remedy which the theory needs to explain.
How is potency measured?
The problem is that potency has not yet been measured directly, only
indirectly and subjectively. For example, it’s the interaction
of the remedy and the prover that together produce the symptom, not
the remedy alone. There's no way you can remove the prover from the
relationship unless the same remedy were to produce the same effect
in every prover. We know that not to be true, so the theory needs to
offer a way to redefine this problem.
How can a remedy have any biological effect when it’s been diluted
beyond recognition?
The quick answer lies in this question itself, plus a little more. The
high potency remedy has indeed been greatly diluted but it has also
been ‘succussed beyond recognition’.
Some theoreticians say that succussion is a way of imparting ‘energy’
to the remedy. This is a truism which really tells us nothing. So perhaps
a better suggestion is that the process somehow transfers information
to the remedy solution. (Beneviste, 1999) seems to hold this view, but
he does not answer the question of ‘how’ in a way that is
helpful to the practitioner.
Nonetheless, we shall now explore the idea of ‘potency as information’
as the basis in developing a theoretical model.
Redefining Potency and Dose as “Information”
(Anick , 1998) has proposed a concept of a liquid structure involving
zwitterion (charged) water clusters which could carry remedy information.
There is some published experimental support for this view, from (Jongma,
1998) who for the first time identified the existence of neutrally charged
(‘unprotonated’) water cluster ions.
In searching for possible bioactive species in the remedy using nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR) methods, the evidence has been inconclusive.
An experimental and critical survey showed that Conte’s results
were due to soda glass contamination and could not be reproduced using
regular silica glass vials
(Milgrom, 2001).
And there was an excellent review of NMR work published as a guest editorial
in the British Homeopathic Journal (Demangeat, 2001).
On the other hand, using newly developed infrared analytical methods,
there has been considerable study of molecular clusters in a variety
of liquids. Some of this research, using FT-ICR spectra (Jongma, 1998)
confirms the existence of stable molecule clusters in water using technologies
involving surface impact. In other words, they demonstrated creation
of water clusters, using sudden adiabatic expansion to create plasma-like
conditions. These conditions will be shown later to be akin to the cavitation
conditions created by succussion.
(Andersson, 1997 and 1999) has created individual clusters, using sudden
evaporative cooling, which average up to 4,000 water molecules in the
molecular size spectrum. The cluster size distribution curve goes up
to 14,000 molecules/cluster. These clusters were directed at a graphite
surface at a velocity of 1,380 metres/second. Large cluster fragments
of “several thousand” water molecules were found to survive
these high collision velocities, which underscores how extremely stable
these water clusters can be.
PART
2
My
Homeopathy Page
|
MERCURY: