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