Dr Ajit Kulkarni’s Comments On Hahnemann’s Idea Of The ‘Law of Simplex’ Authored By Prof. Marc Henry

Comments from Dr Ajit Kulkarni, Pune

Read carefully Prof. Marc Henry’s comments. 
Hahnemann’s idea of the ‘Law of Simplex’ is approved by him. He writes beautifully, “ Hahnemann laid down a synthetic framework of thought… This allowed Hahnemann to KNOW, without using statistics, which SINGLE drug to prescribe to treat patients. I emphasize the term SINGLE because this is where homeopathy reveals its scientific character. Prescribing several remedies to be taken simultaneously for the same patient is already an admission of ignorance and failure on the part of the doctor…About the role of statistics in Medicine, Marc Henry’s views are explicitly clear, “The fatal error here is to believe that the statistical tool will transform art into science, whereas by adding ignorance to ignorance one remains as ignorant as ever”…Marc Henry asks a very pertinent question, “What is the value of quibbling and sniggering when we know that for over 200 years homeopathy has proven itself in the field?”I quote from my book, ‘Homeopathy through Harmony and Totality’,  “Modern medicine, while it has gained largely in anatomy, physiology and pathology and even in therapeutics, has lost immensely by its narrowness of spirit, its rigid materialism and its sectarian dogmatism” (Isis Journal). Mark Henry ignites, “The battle lies ahead for the years to come for homeopaths. My message is that now is not the time for doubt but for courage.”Do the homeopathic community possess the courage?
HOMEOPATHY, MEDICINE, SCIENCE AND IGNORANCE, THE OPINION OF PROFESSOR MARC HENRY
par La rédaction de l’AIMSIB | 26 Jan 2020 |   We no longer present this brilliant scientist (1), Professor of Chemistry at the University of Strasbourg and specialist in the quantum physics of complex materials, first and foremost… water. He once did us the honour of commenting at length on one of our articles (2), the clarity and depth of his remarks should be reread by as many people as possible. Although many AIMSIB members will be critical of certain parts of this text, it does not matter, Professor Henry’s comments are his alone and cannot represent AIMSIB’s general line of thought. When will this exceptional scientist join AIMSIB? Enjoy your reading.I am taking the liberty of speaking in this debate at the express request of Vincent Reliquet, and since I see my name mentioned several times here and there, it also motivates me a little. As I took the care to explain my position on homeopathy in a small 130-page booklet published in March 2019 by Natur’Eau Quant, (3) I will be brief. First of all, I find Dr. Edouard Broussalian’s text very accurate and I agree with his analysis 99.9999%. I also find that the comments are relevant and always made in a clear and respectful manner from everyone’s point of view. In reading them I have identified a few points where I can provide some elements of response to my position as a university lecturer-researcher and therefore strongly involved in high-level scientific research in chemistry for almost 40 years.Point 1: Is medicine a science?The answer here is a resounding no. The reason is that the root of the word science is the Latin verb “scire” which means “to know”. Therefore, by the very definition of the word, the one who does science seeks to know and understand. The scientist can be contrasted with the ignorant who, for a lot of reasons that don’t matter here, doesn’t want to know. Quite paradoxically, the two characters use the same mathematics, the scientist to formulate theoretical models that make it possible to predict the future with the smallest possible margin of uncertainty, ignoring it to obtain probabilities in the absence of any theoretical consideration. If the probability is close to 100%, then the ignorant person thinks that it is necessarily a good choice.We can therefore recognize an ignorant person by his favourite tool, which is statistical reasoning applied outside any theoretical conception.Now let us deprive modern medicine of the statistical tool that is the tool of ignorance, what is left? Not much… Let’s take homeopathy over statistics, what’s left? It hardly changes anything. Because homeopathy is above all knowledge acquired through experience. This clearly highlights the fundamentally scientific nature of homeopathy. Because if that were not the case, I, as a scientist with a strong background in scientific methods, would not even bother to defend it.Homeopathy, like all sciences, was therefore born in an empirical context with a rudimentary theoretical framework forged in the light of observations more than two millennia old. Hahnemann, of course, did not invent anything because the facts were all there in 1796 accumulated since antiquity in a multitude of works written in a multitude of different languages. He has therefore just laid down a synthetic framework of thought (his “organon” originally written in a SINGLE language).This allowed Hahnemann to KNOW, without using statistics, which SINGLE drug to prescribe to treat patients. I emphasize the term SINGLE because this is where homeopathy reveals its scientific character. Prescribing several remedies to be taken simultaneously for the same patient is already an admission of ignorance and failure on the part of the doctor.But, it is necessary to remain humble because if knowledge is in the domain of science, success (in medicine, healing) is entirely in the domain of art, because the human being (as well as the doctor and his patient) is not a machine. So at the risk of sounding a bit old-fashioned, medicine is for me first and foremost an art of healing involving human beings and can therefore never be a science, because it is impossible to find on this planet two human beings who are similar in every way, one of whom can serve as a control over the other who will be the subject of experimentation. To avoid this unavoidable reality, modern medicine uses the tool of ignorance: statistics.The fatal error here is to believe that the statistical tool will transform art into science, whereas by adding ignorance to ignorance one remains as ignorant as ever.All doctors are therefore the basis of the artists, some being true virtuosos and others incorrigible slackers. I believe very sincerely that the current crisis in the medical world is linked to this mistaken belief that medicine can be scientific in nature. Because science knows and if it fails, we have the right to demand accountability. The artist improvises for him, and if he fails, no one has the right to criticize him, because at least he tried.Point n°2: What about biology?If medicine cannot be a science, biology is of a scientific nature with a very precise and efficient theoretical framework which is the concept of the living cell. It is in this concept that lies its strength but also its weakness, since the human being is an assembly of 37.2 trillion cells, to which must be added 38.0 trillion bacteria, according to a recent 2016 estimate.For while biology knows a lot about what happens inside a single SINGLE, it knows almost nothing about what happens between two cells, let alone between thousands of billions of cells.The trap here is to believe that by understanding how a SINGLE works, one can know how a tissue or organ behaves. Very intellectually demanding theoretical tools are available here, but very few biologists use them, most of them preferring to fall back once again on the tool of ignorance that requires no effort.Point n°3: The intrusion of quantum reasoning

Here and there the magic word “quantum” appears without really understanding what it really means. For doctors, this means that as soon as we observe with scalpels, various rays or even vibrations, we disturb.In other words, we never see reality as it is, but always the reality disturbed by the act of observation. Not being aware of this quantum reality in biology can lead to the development of theoretical conceptions that are totally disconnected from reality.If, by any chance, these theoretical considerations biased by observation lead to the formulation of drugs to treat living beings, we can expect to encounter major failures. Here one can only bow to the incredible wisdom of homeopaths, who by their many and varied questions to have the TOTALITY of symptoms ensure that the disturbance induced on the patient is reduced to its strict physical minimum. The more insignificant and unrelated the question is to the state of health, the less the patient is disturbed and consequently the more significant the answer obtained will be and will reveal the real discomfort responsible for the symptoms. This is where homeopathy reveals its true quantum nature and where its apparent extraordinary effectiveness lies, provided, of course, that the interview with the patient is done according to the rules of the art and by taking all the time.Item n°4: Homeopathy and quantum mechanics

Some claim that homeopathic remedies are developed in flagrant contradiction to the laws of physics and chemistry. I want to make it clear that the only laws that are being violated are those of the purely materialistic framework.As soon as we take into account the inescapable matter/vibration duality, we can put the healing information on the vibration (the quantum field) as soon as there is no more active matter.Here water plays a crucial role in conveying coded information about so-called “coherence domains” where matter and vibrations form a quantum whole. I refer interested people to my books (4). The key point here is to admit, as modern physics tells us, via quantum field theory or general relativity, that matter and vacuum are two sides of the same reality and that it is the vibratory aspect that unites the two.  Modeling EM wave trapping in a coherence domain, in “Water and quantum physics”, op. cit. Recent experiments on homeopathic remedies (DYNHOM project led by Michel van Wassenhoven) have shown that there is always matter other than water in a homeopathic remedy, even at a very high dilution (30 CH). Luc Montagnier’s experiments have shown that water can, under the action of the earth’s magnetic field, emit low-frequency electromagnetic signals capable of encoding a molecule as complex as DNA in a totally immaterial way.It is increasingly apparent that homeopathic medicine is something other than water or sugar and that we have the theoretical and experimental tools to see more clearly. But this still requires the necessary budgets to finance cutting-edge research. It is here that we understand that the primary culprits in the current attacks on homeopathy are the laboratories that manufacture and market homeopathic remedies without investing a single cent in basic research.For, if we read between the lines, what is pointed out in the HAS report is not the ineffectiveness of homeopathy per se, but the cruel lack of fundamental research in homeopathy IN RELATION TO the sums committed by pharmaceutical companies that invest an average of 10% of their budget in research.If the homeopathic manufacturers really had confidence in the remedies they market, they would do their utmost to try to understand how their remedy works. However, investing in basic research requires a certain courage and, above all, an indestructible faith that one is looking in the right direction. Collecting substantial profits without reinvesting in research actually reflects a visceral fear that the verdict of science will be negative, hence a doubt that can be exploited to excess by pharmaceutical companies, and hence the very timid decision of the HAS.What is killing homeopathy today is this ridiculous fear of being ridiculous that poisons everything.What is the value of quibbling and sniggering when we know that for over 200 years homeopathy has proven itself in the field? What reassures me is that although homeopathy is on the verge of disappearing in France, it is doing like a charm in India.Point n°5: The theory of free radicalsI was also at one time seduced by the hypothesis of free radicals and being a specialist in electronic paramagnetic resonance (EPR) I have of course sought to know if succussion could make radicals appear.All the experiments carried out have all concluded that there are no free radicals, even in the presence of spin traps that can trap even very fleeting species.So I abandoned this interesting track but not confirmed by a technique known for its extreme sensitivity.

Conclusion

I hope that I have shed some light on the issue and have given homeopaths some confidence in the battle that lies ahead for the years to come. My message is that now is not the time for doubt but for courage.No matter what its detractors say, science can never be used to destroy this magnificent medicine. On the other hand, what science cannot do, ignorance can, and that is precisely what is happening today.If you are spoken to as “matter”, you will retort by speaking of “radiation”. If you’re told “evidence-based medicine”, say that this science dates back to 1990, whereas homeopathy dates back to 1796 and science can never prove anything. The only thing that science can do is to invalidate too narrow theoretical models in order to propose better, more general theoretical models. Since the theoretical model underlying homeopathy is rooted in quantum field physics, the risk that it will be invalidated is very low. Put pressure on industrialists to finally invest massively in fundamental research on homeopathy. In short, dare to be who you are, fully and completely, and above all do not pose as victims of an unjust system.The system is neither fair nor unjust, it is simply driven by human beings who often play the card of ignorance and not that of knowledge.For it is much easier and much more comfortable to be ignorant than to be learned.Note and sources:
(1) UMR 7140, can be reached here: [email protected]
(2) https://www.aimsib.org/2019/11/24/quand-le-sage-designe-la-lune-limbecile-regarde-le-doigt/
(3) Henry M. “L’homéopathie, la physique et la chimie des hautes dilutions” 2019, Ed. Natur’Eau Quant.

Source – par La rédaction de l’AIMSIB | 26 Jan 2020 |