|
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.
--- Next
--- |
Forums
Courses
Shop
Diseases
Articles
Journal
Directory
