Quote: Well, because the facts show there are no molecules. Still the spectogram shows Natrum mur, in a 10M potency. So how do you explain that?
Still the spectogram shows natrium mur in 10M is not authenticated through impartial and independent researh studies. Such type of studies and pictures were also published in Anton Jaysuriya (Late Director of Open International University Srilanka)many years ago but these are all pics and nothing else. The fact has not been varified by any other qualified and competent Scientist.
I think this easy and simple approach is not difficult to comprehend that a thing can be seen by you, could also come under observation for rest of the scientific community. Am I right? If you can see the moon, then it should also be visible for rest of the world. That is called science. It is not science a homeopath has seen something and rest of the world can't see it.
I am not saying I do not accept hologram or anyother theory. I am trying to say that it is all speculated theories that not verified by any independent research institute or neither accepted by world scientidic community. I hope when it will be accepted as it is as you mentioned here, I will be first who will also adopt it :)
If Spectrogram idea is correct then you can easily differenciate between nat mur 200 and nat mur 1000. A good idea is that we should give the researcher 10 different potencies without label but our own secret code and asked him to help us in identifying the potencies names. If you become successful then you can win the noble prize, I am sure.
These have all been verified by scientists and are not speculation. My blog gives you the whole list of scientists who verified. So it is accepted by the scientific community. You simply have not read my blog.
A spectogram does not differentiate between potencies. That is done by NMR. You need to get an education in scientific methods for proof.
Quote: You call Benveniste a fraud. James Randi was the fraud who 'prepared" the bottles for the double blind. You trust him?
I am the opponent of James Randi. I do not support him. Rather I am the first one who actually HANDELLED him rightly -:) When I also announced at skeptic site that if any body who will prove that homeopathic medicines do not work we will pay One Million Pakistani Ruppees. Remember, he announced that if any body will prove that homeopathic medicine does work he will pay one million dollar and I in encounter announced that if any skeptic who will prove that homeopathic medicines does not work I will also pay. For that purpose on court stamp prize money was announed. The check scanned copy was published in national news paper and homeopathic magazine. The state provided gurantte money and supported the deal as witness. Still not a single claim is recieved from skeptic.
They are demanding to prove homeopathy and win a prize and we are saying to disprove homeopathy and win a prize. Formula is very simple -:)
Benveniste did a spot fixing -:) Just like crickters are doing today. For throwing one single NO BALL, they are getting 10 thousand pounds. A bowler mostly bowled 10 to 20 NO BALLS so it is very easy for him to fix a deal with brokers. When nobody can prove that the ball he threw is actualy a deal with broker.
The same is the case with Benveniste. He was the research scientist of international fame but he was also greedy person. When Dolisos approach him to come with that findings that actually suits Dolisos, Benveniste after taking huge amount as sponsor money for his lab, he issued that report as spot fixing that was later disapproved through experimentation. Simple is that. Benveniste thought being a scientist everybody will believe. But this was not happened.
You also see, these scientists for money steal formulas and research papers and publish them with their own names or try to get them patent first before the original inventor. It is a common habbit of these greedy research scientists. Although they also perform good and quality research work also but SPOT FIXING is also part of their game.
Randi did the spot fixing. Not Benveniste. You have your facts wrong, just like with your combinations. I just give you an education in both scientific homoeopathy and complex prescribing. You are simply a very stubborn man, set in your ways and refuse to see that your viewpoint is entirely wrong.
If Benveniste work was geniune and correct then we should not worry. Then it should be varified by others too. If he can prove something then that prove should be visible infront of other scientists too. It is not possible that he can see something but other can't. Although he is not in the world today, but I hope his fellow workers should come forward to prove it again he was not wrong.
Dr.Prabhat Kumar Dasgupta and Dr. chandrakant bhapkar
On this topic, we have difference of opinion. I personally do not support combination and also not in favour to use combination therapy. But my opinion is that each and every homeopath use combination but do not admit it.
To me use of sulphur at morning and nux at night is a pure combination, which homeopaths use to treat piles.
Secondly, we first prescribe one remedy on some specific symptoms for the treatment of an acute and after half an hour we need to change it with another remedy to encounter the change occurred rapidly in acute.
It is again a type of combination because a medicine like sulphur or any other remedy is still working in the body and it has a duration of course also then again we suggest another when we know the duration of the course of action of first remedy is not yet ended.
The only difference is that we did not add two remedies out side the mouth but we add combination of remedies inside the mouth.
In homeopathy most of the cases are finished by the use of combination of remedies but we actually do not consider such practice as “combination”. To me, HAHNEMANN has not mentioned, "not to use combination of homeopathic remedies" but taught us if a single homeopathic remedy can cure a patient then we should not use more then two homeopathic remedies at a time.
Hahnemann during epidemic of scarlet fever used combination of remedies to control the disease and history tells us that out of five, three patients got cured. That step actually boosted homeopathic practice and given popular name to Hahnemann.
My question is that if a patient visits at our clinic in acute and we know first he needs remedy “A” at start of the case in the morning and after that with the passage of time or prevailing of disease we will need Remedy “B” in the evening then what’s wrong we add both remedies A and B at the same time save our time. When we know the remedy “B” will be definitely required to cure and finished up the case.
If I give aconite in fever on onset and if I know he will be required nat sulf in the evening he will feel cold then why it is illogical to add both at start? When you will giving aconite in the morning and nat sulf in the evening.
Anyone using Sulph in the morning and Nux at night does not know how to find the similimum. I would never subject myself to such treatment and consider those bunglers not homoeopaths. They are mere imitators of what Hahnemann had to do due to a small amount of remedies.
Hahnemann never used a combination of remedies for scarlet fever. That is plain speculation. History also tells us he cured 96% and not just 60%. Dr Mas, you should stop spreading your opinions on homoeopathy and Hahnemann as facts. That is simply disingenious and confusing to the newcomers. Dr Haehl, whom you despise as a fantast, proved all his assertions from the letters of Hahnemann, in which he even wrote the authorities that Belladonna is the specific for scarlet fever and that no other remedy was needed. So where does your speculation of the combination come from? From your imagination.
We do not give Aconite in the morning and Nat sul in the evening. We find the similimum that covers the whole case. That combination is nonsense.
Dr.Prabhat Kumar Dasgupta and Dr. chandrakant bhapkar
Sulphur duration of action is 40 days. While nux vomica is 7 days. Podo works for 30 days and carbo veg 60 days.
For patient you considered nux is suitable and you also given and then in the evening the patient again reported the case with severe pain and you thought now I have to give him carbo veg according to the changed symptoms then what will you do?
Will you prescribe carbo veg when nux action is not complete? if you did then is it not combination in the body?
So many times, I also write my next remedy, which I expected to come next during the treatment of the patient but I do write in secretly on the paper so that when this patient will visit again I should have better idea of my next remedy. Sometime my second remedy is changed instantly just after five minutes and sometime after one week or so. What you call it single remedy treatment of combination?
What's your opinion on this issue that when you are expecting a second remedy in then evening then why it is prohibited to give at once in the morning to save time combined first remedy?