Homeopathy an Empirical and Scientific Dream Part 3

The previous two blogs were bringing out the importance of letting go of the why (story, sales pitch) in our science.  Especially, in relating to natural living science where it has become perilous to our health.

Part 3 is specifically about acknowledging the incredible functionality and power of empiricism and to lead us to the natural conclusion where we need to bring this power and predictive clarity into our health sciences most of all.


How do you describe something without saying why it is so?

Well, simply you drop the sales pitch.  “Just the facts mam.”  But, there is an art to describing observable natural phenomenon just the way it is and without a story.

As an easy and recognizeable example lets look at Newton’s 3rd law of motion.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Notice, there is nothing which states why this is.  It just is.

It is a clean expression of just what is observed.  It’s brilliant.  It is useable.  It gives us great insight to the world around us in many different environments.  If we don’t see those equal and opposite reactions we sure will look for them because this law says they are there.  It makes sure we don’t miss it, especially in circumstances which could have been dangerous to have it missed.  And, we know how much of a reaction which makes it wonderfully measurable.

Just to be clear, I don’t necessarily agree with using the word law as a description of repeatable phenomena.  We can’t test every environment in the universe, can we?  And, the discovery of quantum physics kind of changes the game as well.  I find it valuable to stay open to possibility by letting go of the absolute without trial.  However it is extremely useful and is worthy of some acknowledgement of a very high degree.

Describing natural phenomenon without why brings us gifts that can be used in almost any environment that will directly affect us.  These descriptions are unique in that we can trust their expression giving us a lot more certainty and reliability to predictable observable responses.

Described empirical natural phenomenon, allow us to predict reliably something potentially not already observed.  (If we were able to do this in living science it would predict safety.)

These, “laws,” are not meek little descriptions of just one particular area.  Entire sciences are formed around these empirical descriptions of natural phenomena.  All sciences can be affected by them to some degree.  They lift our intelligence and expand our consciousness.  They have almost unlimited useable potential and discovery!


Now here’s the quintessence of our discussion:

Can we find profound empirical descriptions of  repeatable natural phenomena which deal with life responses and our health?

I just want you to consider that possibly in our current mainstream health practices we don’t have this available to us.  It is probable we have not brought actual science into our health if we haven’t brought descriptions of these empirical natural repeatable phenomenon to predict our outcomes consistently and reliably in life and health.

Sure, we have descriptions of incredible amounts of  information, but no descriptions of empirical repeatable natural phenomenon which we can count on to hold true in every environment which will affect our health directly, and discern whether something is safe for us or not.

Sure, we also have empirical observations such as Starlings Law for cardiac output.    However, this is a mechanical law.  Starlings Law treats our body purely as a pump and does not and cannot account for the living principles which influence the dynamics, so it is only accurate in a very limited mechanical degree.  Starling’s Law is profound for a pump, but not for a life process.

It is important that we consider Life at the very least as a complex system with multiple feedback-loops.  (This gets into complex systems theory which I fear will loose any chance of an audience.  So, I’ll let it go) Basically, we are not a machine and we have no laws which treat us as living.  Laws such as Starling’s, are still based on mechanics in treating our living heart as a simple pump, even though our hearts can beat autonomously and they are not made out of plastic, and will not respond with absolute predictability in a mechanical model.

There are no profound guiding-post, “laws,” of how life responds to guide us safely.  Nothing is available to us, in mechanically oriented, sales pitch dominated, western medicine!  Mechanical science is not reliably safe, or accurate when used without respect to what is living.  (I’m not necessarily willing to conclude or defend this last sentence as a description of an empirical repeatable natural phenomenon yet, even though I have found it accurate for over 20 years when dealing with our health.)

Where do we see the patterns of empirical repeatable natural physical phenomenon that is as predictable as Newton’s third law of motion in our life responses?

We say medicine is advancing with new discoveries every year.  Yes, new discoveries of why are created daily.  New discoveries of treating life as simple mechanical systems which is completely inaccurate as well.  But, why is not science.  And, mechanical science is not living science.

Where are the new advances in describing empirical repeatable natural living phenomena (laws for life/health)?  Even genetics is a mechanical, and/or chemical description.  I would say through observation that medicine is not advancing, but going the opposite direction with profoundly ignoring basic established principles such as the Hippocratic Oath.  I might consider the Hippocratic Oath of, “first do no harm,” as a principal which may be/lead us to the discovery of empirical repeatable natural living phenomenon.

I would also say that medicine is treading water when it continues to advance in a simple mechanical dynamic.  There is no advancement in continuing practices which have the same predictably harmful responses.

I don’t want anyone to just swallow this as another sales pitch.  Empiricism just describes what is so.  It is not a sales pitch to reveal what is and is not happening.  It is empiricism.  It is science.

Can you describe any empirical repeatable natural phenomena related to  life and our health discovered by western medicine and utilized?  There may be some already known.  I’ve not read everything, or been trained as a medical doctor.  There should be many of these.  I may not have been introduced to them, even though I look for them.  As a hint, I would suggest to you they are only found with a prediction of safety/survival.  I invite you to list some here if you know of any and participate with me.  Just please avoid suggesting a mechanical law treating our bodies as a simple machine with no prediction for safety.  We are not simple machines.  These mechanical descriptions are valuable when treating ourselves as plumping.  Mechanical descriptions are never useful in discovering what therapy has a truly safe outcome for us.  This is why we still find it necessary to harm animals to try and predict if a medication is safe enough to try on ourselves.  It still doesn’t work.

This is an area where we can begin together to create real science for our health instead of sales pitches and non-science (nonsense) which shock us each year with a new medical drug needing to be removed because of the previously unrealized loss of life or function.


We do need an example of what a description of an empirical repeatable natural phenomenon would look like in relating to life and health.  But, just one more exploration before we give that example.

Reviewing this carefully, at first glance we may consider a good diet and exercise as a description of empirical natural phenomenon which lead to predictions of good health.  We know a good diet helps and exercise helps, but in what expression?  Noone agrees in exactly how we should exercise, or what is a healthy diet.  Even in these simple areas we can observe there is good value for our health, but we have no, “law,” or overall description of repeatable natural observable phenomenon to guide us here.  Studies haven’t helped.  One says one thing then another says the opposite.  We are sold by theories diet after diet and it changes every year.  We have no reality when it comes to our health, we currently have sales.

We need these profound guiding-posts (descriptions of empirical natural phenomena) to bring us out of the dangerous methodology of, “sales pitching ourselves to death medicine,” we currently surrender ourselves to.

Personally, I want real advances not sales of why we should continue to be good little boys and girls and take our medicine.

In part 4, I will discuss what the current medical model does use as a description of an empirical repeatable natural phenomenon, but to this point unconsciously.  The predictions are definite.


Before I describe natural phenomenon relating to life empirically, I would like to give an example of what it looks like in a living science.

Why I love the natural healing therapy of homeopathy in particular is because it does give us a description of empirical repeatable natural phenomenon which shows up in life, health, and our environments.  This gives us clarity and a methodology to rule out sales pitches which go against the creed of, “first do no harm.”

The description of the natural phenomenon for homeopathy is simple:

Like cures like. 

Technically, it is formally recognized in Latin, but less understandable for most of us.  In Latin it is:

Similia Similibus Currantur

“Like cures like,” was discovered empirically by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann a German physician and chemist (1755- 1843).  This empirical natural phenomenon was developed also empirically as the healing science of homeopathy.

As an example of empiricism homeopathy will test remedies without any intent of outcome.  What the remedy causes is simply what it heals, so it doesn’t matter what the outcome is, it will always be useful.  Homeopathy and it’s practitioners and pharmacies have no need for any prediction of desired intent.

Homeopathy as a science doesn’t have to sell what the drug might do in order to gain huge sums of money to actually test if it is true.  Natural substances are not patentable and because of this will not make anyone rich by holding a monopoly.  The research for homeopathic remedies is nothing but research to find it’s usefulness.  Simple science.  Empirical.

Current western drug methodology is extremely flawed from the get-go, by predicting a potential medical substances value and financially backing that prediction.  There is no science when the observer is heavily influenced by the outcome, especially monetarily.  Who can resist the temptation to force the results when expectations are high financially, where the result can make or break an entire company not to mention each individual involved?  Let’s be clear, this too is not a sales pitch.  It is empiricism.

Quick simple examples of, “Like Cures Like,” and a natural empirical phenomenon:  Symptoms resembling a bee sting (redness, swelling, stinging pain, worse heat) would be helped by a remedy made from a honey bee in extreme dilution.  Or, when you cut a red onion open without previously rinsing the knife, it hurts and stings the eyes causing lots of tears and mucous out the nose.  We use the red onion for allergies or colds with this similar expression of symptoms very effectively.    Very simple, safe, and effective.  The homeopathic pharmacopeia has been established as an act of congress here in the U.S. since 1938.

These are only examples of acute conditions, but from my experience where homeopathy really shines in effectiveness and safety is with people who suffer chronic conditions.


Even more brilliant and useful is the way the homeopathic remedies have been developed.  It has been empirically shown for over 200 years that very dilute amounts can be used with great effectiveness.  So, no toxic side-effects from the substance is required to be effective, ever.

So, get this.  Talk about inspirational and leaving mystery in the world.  Homeopathically we can use substances diluted beyond Avogadro’s number.  Avogadro’s number is used in chemistry to define how many dilutions it takes to reduce the original diluted substance to nothing.  Homeopathic remedies diluted beyond 24X or 12C have not a single molecule left of the original substance according to Avogadro’s number.  Yet, they are extremely effective when this dilute, sometimes more effective.  That gives anyone who has experienced it themselves a great mystery yet unknown in the world to actually feel and participate with.  Try it.  Magnesium Phosphoricum is much more effective for some pains in 200C in my experience than in less diluted 30C.  However, both dilutions are beyond Avogadro’s number.

Over 20 years I have observed this phenomenon in hundreds (maybe thousands)of situations and felt it myself dramatically many times.  After all these years the possibility and potential of this still leaves me in awe.  We do not know how this works exactly, or why.  We just know it does.  It has been tested and found effective on T-cells, wheat seed germinations, animals, babies, herd animals, and epidemics, all the conditions which theoretically would not allow for the placebo effect.  Yet, we have not developed for ourselves an empirical natural description of this phenomenon, or a sales pitch of why.  (I’m glad we have no sales pitch, because eventually it would be disproved and used to invalidate the real value of homeopathy.)

Talk about safe! Talk about economical!  Talk about the opportunity to honor the Hippocratic Oath with a healing practice.  But, how do we explain this natural phenomenon so it becomes widely accepted for all these obvious benefits without creating a sales pitch (a non-science, why)?

How do we explain that a substance can be very effective for healing without there being one molecule of the original substance present at administration?  Do we need to explain why?  Do we need to show a mechanical model to explain a living empirical response? 

It is currently the greatest criticism of homeopathy from competing industries (basically medical non-science).  Our medical society finds it extremely difficult to let go of the idea that for a medicine to be effective it has to be able to cause destruction.  Or, the financial gain from such a model which keeps people ill.  Medicine has to be strong and have toxicity and side-effects.  Why?  What empirical natural response has ever been offered up to justify the conclusion we have to poison ourselves to heal?

In life any therapy which removes or causes destruction directly to an unwanted condition will harm the host of that condition.  (Careful, I don’t yet want to acknowledge and defend this is a description of an empirical repeatable natural phenomenon, but maybe in the future.)  This description can most definitely be observed.  Our health can’t ultimately win with the continued use of mainstream therapies currently as evidenced by our choice to ignore the Hippocratic Oath with our current practices.  Mainstream therapies have shown to predictably become a leading cause of our death that is the way it is.

We obviously need to consider another approach…

In part 4, I will give a definition for what we might call an empirical law of life and healing.

To be continued…

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Homeopathy an Empirical and Scientific Dream (Part 2)

 

Empiricism is science, and it is the reason I love homeopathy and a few other straightforward natural therapies.

Empiricism is just a description of what works or doesn’t, without answering why.

I don’t mean to state there is no room for theory at all.  Holding a theory as a question is a great state to be in while exploring and looking for answers.  But, why something works is never justification for it’s use.  The justification for it’s use is solely because it works.

However, as people, we too often desire to be sold the story of why.

If you believe you understand something because of knowing why then any other possibility is already lost and so is science.

Stories about why something works currently are being used to sell us on health therapies, procedures, and medications.  It is rationalizations and theories which need to be confirmed by empirical data or we have no-science (i.e.. nonsense).


Considering again the class of drugs mentioned in part 1 where empirical data showed a direct increase for dementia with their use over time:

What is it exactly we are waiting for if not the direct empirical data we were just given to make a choice about those drugs hurting us or not?

Knowing these drugs create a greater probability for dementia what should we do about them?  At the very least, wouldn’t we need to consider stopping the use of those drugs until further empirical data was reviewed?  Maybe the drugs themselves should no longer be available over the counter without these direct warnings being attributed to them strongly on their labels?  What do you think?

Or, should we wait to have a story describing why the empirical data is this way before we make those decisions?  Who will make up that story?  How about if we start this story with preaching how we need to understand this better before coming to any conclusions.  Then, should that story describe the dangers vehemently, or soften them with showing the relief these drugs cause for people?  Personally I would find either absurd!  How many people have read that article compared to how many are taking those class of drugs and are currently at risk without even hearing this information yet?

Danger!  Warning Will Robinson!

What is the cost of using theory and rationalization (story), (sales pitch) to base our health choices on?

1.  The story becomes all consuming and limits our perspective and removes any potential for other possibilities.  The observer heavily influences the results of the studies usually by proclaiming a (why).  Consider this, with drug testing the (why) has to be proclaimed to sell the cost of doing the study on the drug in the first place.  It’s inherently flawed even before the study is created.

2.  We may defend our theory, story, rationalization fervently.  (The money invested alone could have us do this.)  Medically speaking anything outside the rationalized story would occur in the medical world as quackery to us.  It would be discounted or attacked before even being considered, or tried.  If you have anything to do with alternative or natural healthcare, this is life.

3.  Medical science would become a belief about whys (mechanisms of action).  The best (mechanism of action) like a popularity contest would give us our selection of therapy.  The more money and publicity used to create the popularity (fad) wins.  How about that purple pill you should ask your doctor about?  By the way, why do you need to ask your doctor about any drug mentioned on TV?  Wouldn’t your doctor make recommendations she believes you need anyway?

4.  Sadly the Hippocratic oath of, “first do no harm,” would go completely out the door for a rationalization of why (sales pitch).  We would see death from iatrogenic causes (medically induced death) become one of the leading causes of death in our society.  And, unfortunately, iatrogenic causes of death are currently the third leading cause of death in the U.S..  How well are we relating to, “first do no harm?”

That’s brutal.  And, this is hardly an all inclusive list of detriments from choosing rationalization and theory as our guides for choices in our health.  There are many more results from choosing rationalization over empiricism which are just as brutal, but I would like to distinguish more clearly what empiricism actually is.  That’s what gets me up in the morning.


I’m going to leave you with a few questions to consider before part 3.

Can we trust our therapies without understanding why they work? 

Can we trust ourselves to avoid therapies just because the empirical data says we should, even though the story suggests it isn’t so?

Please mull this over for awhile.  Empiricism actually dictates trusting what is, without demanding to know why it is.

Empiricism is asking us to trust therapies for our health without a story about why they work.  Wow, that’s difficult.

Can that be done?

What would that even look like?

Empiricism will ask us to consider not trusting therapies sometimes with wonderful people (doctors) having recommended them to us for decades.

Empiricism is also asking us not to trust our health to therapies having a great story backing them up with lots of expensive adds on TV.  Because the empirical data now shows regular use greatly increases the occurrence of problems like dementia, or even death due to iatrogenic causes.

Can we do this?

Can we not treat our hay fever with that doctor recommended antihistamine and all the smiley people on TV feeling better surrounded by butterflies,  because when we are older there’s a greater chance we won’t even recognize our own children?

I hope we can…

To be continued…

Homeopathy an Empirical and Scientific Dream (Part 1)

Have you ever found opposing studies or medical articles confusing?

Well you’re not alone!

This post is designed to give you the opportunity to literally lift your scientific understanding maybe more than a notch. It is meant to give you the opportunity to shift your perspective and ability to discern between a sales pitch, and what is so.

It is the exact understanding I use to discriminate between which reports, statistics, studies, and theories are either legit, or a promotion. It is literally the distinction between rationalization and empiricism in regards to science. It is also the very foundation of why I have learned to love and trust natural therapies such as homeopathy.

I recently read an article about a certain class of drugs commonly used.  These drugs have been found to have a very significant increase in the cause of dementia. They also hold a wide range of action from simple over the counter antihistamines (such as Benadryl), sleep-aids, tricyclic antidepressants, and drugs used even for overactive bladder. Many people use these drugs commonly to manage their symptoms. Quite a few are available without prescription, OTC. Their damage is related to the cumulative total exposure of the drugs over time. The study found the cognitive and reactivity changes caused by these class of drugs irreversible even after years of discontinuation of the drugs.

This discovery is shocking and is completely opposite of what was believed for all the years these drugs have been in use.

I read the original version on WebMD but you need an account and to log in. Here is a lighter version more accessible to you   ”Widely Used Drugs Tied to Greater Dementia Risk for Seniors.”

And the link:   http://www.livescience.com/49581-anticholinergic-drugs-dementia-risk.html

The information in the article is profoundly worrying just in itself, but not what grabbed my attention as dramatically as one of the disclaimers in the article. The disclaimer became my key focus and threw up an incredible red flag for me. This disclaimer is a great example of where science disappears from our medicine.

You know, I look at things very differently than a person who is not trained at viewing medical or scientific articles, so I ask you to bare with me. I search for empirical facts only and root-out the rest.

Just to be clear the version of the article was re-edited recently to say the study could not prove cause and effect. However, the original version said the study was based on empirical data and therefore was inconclusive and could not prove cause and effect. Here’s the scary part to me, and what threw up the red flag.

How would you prove cause and effect if not based on the empirical data?

A good study is constructed to be solely based on empirical data.

What kind of data would be recognized for absolutely proving the cause and effect?

Here we begin:

In reality there is only two types of data. On the one hand, you have empirical data which is just what is observed without a story. On the other, you have data which is rationalized which means tells a story of why the empirical data is observed, or should be observed. One is actual data the other is a story, theory, model, or hypothesis and these change like the wind.

Again the question becomes, how do you prove cause and effect if it is not the empirical data which determines this?

In reality it’s not possible, but in practice it is done by rationalization.

What is rationalization? Someone has to make up a story which explains it and we all learn to agree upon it. Currently, I’m sorry to say, this is a great majority of what is considered to be the heart of medical science.

As an example:

Have you ever wondered who makes up the stories of why drugs work on TV?

How about this one, “Depression is a chemical imbalance.”

Really? Who made that statement conclusive? I don’t remember those studies or the exact empirical data which proves it. I have more than a few questions before swallowing it which need to be answered by someone. Such as; what causes the chemical imbalance in the first place? Quite simply wouldn’t what causes the chemical imbalance be the real originating cause? Is one person’s chemical imbalance exactly the same as another’s? Who exactly studied every human being in the world to prove this, or at least the majority to even hypothesize it? If they did, what parameters did they use to find these results? I don’t remember any of these being discussed with any of us before the commercials proclaimed it as true. So, the answer is (no one).

Really, (no one) did all the foot work to answer all these questions. It’s not possible. However, someone, created a really good story and sold a lot of medications, and some of these medications may make a difference, but it’s not because they handle an inherent chemical imbalance. That is a sales pitch (story).

These next three paragraphs are not as important as the distinction between empiricism and rationalism, but they do help to discern how we are sold a medical product.

If there is no mechanism of action (story) for why a drug works then a company has no way to sell it. This may be hard to believe, but it is as simple as that. Pharmaceutical companies first sell the concept of why the drug works (story) and tout it as the most important and new discovery while rallying experts to believe and further enhance the story and sell it to doctors. Afterwards it is sold to the public with a little less technical description to make you feel like there is more to the story through the media, and they neatly let you know only your doctor and advance science can really understand all of it. (Mystique and expert classification is very important for the overall sales technique to be effective) Selling the public through media also puts pressure on your doctors to learn and utilize the new products. As an aside, if I suffered from depression I would wish to believe them as well. It is all consuming and miserable to be depressed.

Add FEAR of harm into this sales technique and pretty much it is a done deal.

In my opinion we cannot blame anyone for these practices even the drug companies. People only feel safe when they have a why (answer) when suffering. Name it and it feels known and there is something specific to do about it. If it has no name it is torture and we don’t know why or how it got there or what to do about it. We are just scared and vulnerable to endless suffering. It is a natural process to search for why.

However, I wish to assert rationalization and the need for why, limits our intelligence, prevents a profound understanding of the world, and actually prevents our therapies from being based on empirical science. Answering why can actually prevent us from finding a real solution and quite often is dangerous for our health and well-being.

Also, I most wish to assert that answering, “Why?” which we desperately crave to do is the exact pitfall which profoundly removes any potential for science at all.

To be continued…

When it comes to your family’s health, are you all ears?

I am all ears.  Anything that I can rely upon to take care of my family’s health and well being naturally has my attention.  These pages will be dedicated to what I’ve learned through my completely non-medical practice of Homeopathy for over 20 years which has made the greatest difference for myself, my family, and my clients.  Much of the information I will wish to write about is not in books.  It is from my experiences.  These pages will be about empirical observation, where what is discussed is just what is observed.  Natural phenomenon as compared to mechanical theory.

Comparatively, mainstream western medicine uses theory and rationalization as the guide for therapies chosen to be used on our population.  Rationalization can be misleading especially if we relate to ourselves as non-living machines.  When some information doesn’t fit in the mechanical theory it is simply tossed out, ignored, or even attacked. These pages will be about empiricism where we rely just on what works without trying to explain why or how.  Empiricism as a science gives us a freedom from the prejudices and limitations within the current model of science which ignores how we are natural and not machines.

What is life?  Have we ever been able to find the absolute definitive truth of what makes us alive?  The answer is a huge no.  If you take us all apart and put us together again we don’t return to functioning like a lawnmower would.   We would be dead, permanently. Mechanical theories regarding the health of living beings is ridiculous without understanding exactly what makes us alive.  It might even be absurd if we did understand what alive really is.  We just don’t know.

There is great potential in stepping out of a mechanical model with healing.  We gain incredible tools never looked at because they are natural and everywhere as an expression of living.  As a real life example:  Over 4 years ago a woman diagnosed with cancer asked for help because she was given 4 months to live if she did the chemo-therapy treatments recommended by her doctor.  She was in great pain and fear of death at the time.  Even through that amount of fear she chose for herself a very brave path.  A different path than most.  Because of only having 4 months to live at the outside she choose not to do the therapy which gave her such a horrible prognosis.  Instead she chose to use natural therapies which gave her no prognosis, and happily over 4 years later she is alive and working and enjoying her family while feeling healthy.  She chose not to poison herself with toxic chemo-therapy or suffer the sickness of the effects of mechanical therapies for the last days of her life.  It would not make sense for me personally to choose a therapy of sickness just for a slight possibility of avoiding death for a month or two which is not guaranteed.  How about you?  Most people, because of fear, do choose the recommended approach by their doctors.  If I wasn’t aware of another choice, I would too.

Don’t misunderstand.  She is not cancer free or cured at all.  The cancer has advanced over the years and continues from what I’ve seen on her reports, and I have no idea how she will do in the future.  She does suffer moments where symptoms arise and we fear the cancer is progressing and may become life threatening again.  But this is very rare and to date the symptoms have always gone after a brief time and with only changing the therapy or remedy slightly.  There is no prognosis with natural therapies.  This is about looking at what is and what is not without prejudice.  She is not free from the fear of cancer either.  But, in reality these days none of us are.  She gets to live with it and feel well and participate in life which is a great blessing compared to 4 months of feeling horribly sick into death which she tells me happens to the people she sees when visiting her mainstream doctor.  Her mainstream doctor jokes with her about how she is his best patient because she never does anything he suggests.  Personally, I don’t find that funny.  It makes me sad for people I don’t know, but very happy for my client.  This is also just one person and does not mean my therapies are the best choice for any particular individual.  These are just my experiences, and observations.  I find information about what is and what is not without prejudice very useful.  Please come and visit my blog with big ears.

Best of natural health to you,

Ron