Can/should we Skeptics in Modern Science?

[Rolfe]

This is just childish talk. Do you think that when scientist analyse, they include tubes, bottles etc. in sample. Whoever had analysed the humans ashes, he was science person & you can't expect that he had included cloths, dusts etc. in samples. Furthur, whether Dr.Sch. had analysed or got details from science books, is immaterial for us. I just want to know that when most of inorganic biochemicals, present in our body in their ionic forum, how got analysed in somewhat similar salts--as tissue salts on dry ash/burned analysis?

Kumar, what is "childish" is the way you go on asking us to explain these analytical results you claim were obtained around 1870, and yet can't produce the evidence!

I don't know that "mostly similar salts are/were found in several specimens of differant parts of humans bodies, on dry/burned ash analysis" unless you can show me the reports of the findings. If Schüssler got figures from books, which books were these? If he did the analyses himself, where are the results recorded? Why do you assume that these things happened when you have no information other than vague hearsay about it?

You don't even know who did the analysis, or when, never mind what the methods used were. You assume that the work was done by "science-person", but you cannot know that. In the 1870s there were many amateurs playing around with scientific experiments and we cannot know how well the analyses were performed unless we see the records of what was actually done. Have you any idea at all how difficult it is to ash a substantial piece of animal tissue without any fuel or combustible material in the system?

As I told you, I have actual scientific papers from around 1890 describing some analyses of horse urine and sweat for minerals and electrolytes. The author tried to describe the methods he used, but even though he was a professor the science was in such an early state that there is a lot of ambiguity. It's also very clear that the methods he had available were crude and inaccurate compared to what we have today, and that he inevitably included some dust and other contaminants with his samples.

I tried to compare his results to my results from 100 years later on similar analyses, but I found that due to the differences in methods and the units used it wasn't very meaningful. That work is regarded as of merely historical interest nowadays, because nobody is using it as a base for any current practices. Nevertheless, the data were there for me to have a go at making sense of it in scientific terms.

Now, if you were able to show me similar published scientific work relating to Schüssler's theories, I could look at the results in the same way as I looked at Smith's results and see how much sense there was to be made of them. But you can't show me where to find the data. Well, no data, no meaningful discussion I'm afraid.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

Just give me a simple reply, whethe there will be some substances in molecular/compound or in salt form, on anylysing dry/burned ash from human parts or any other living- say plants in some similar proportion or not?

I have previously given referances & analysis as mentioned in "Twelve Tissue Remedies". Whether Dr.Sch, himself done the analysis or taken out from referances is not clear. But he could know it & therefore specified 12 tissue remedies. If he would had not got it, how could he would had introduced these 12 remedies. You may consider also read book as flume has indicated.

If you don't have technology or discarded old technology, to chenck presence in salt forms, you can tell accordingly.

 

[Mojo]

I have previously given referances & analysis as mentioned in "Twelve Tissue Remedies". Whether Dr.Sch, himself done the analysis or taken out from referances is not clear. But he could know it & therefore specified 12 tissue remedies. If he would had not got it, how could he would had introduced these 12 remedies.

By good old-fashioned guesswork, perhaps?

You may consider also read book as flume has indicated.

 

[flume]

I don't know any more about the chemistry than when I posted before. But I am going to suggest some assumptions.

Assume that the scientists who produced these results (such as Bunge) did do careful analysis using the methods of their time and only analyzed the tissues they were interested in. (No cloth or wood contaminants etc.)

But also assume that their methods were less accurate than ours now, so they still had some contamination, probably some extra silicon from their grinding equipment.

Assume that their methods were less accurate than ours now and they missed some minerals. (This is obviously true, and was even mentioned in the books.)

Assume that Schuessler did not worry about the exact or relative amounts of the minerals in the ash anyway - this was mentioned in one of the books, that he valued some salts even though their amount in the tissue was lower than other salts.

Assume that the 19th century scientists did measure the main tissue minerals with a certain accuracy- these would be the ones that are measured in most foods: sodium, potasssium, calcium, magnesium, phosphates, sulfur, chloride, iron - that make up most of the ash. Most of the elements that are included in Scuessler's group are the ones that make up almost all the ash of the body.

Assume that if you took the amounts of kali phos and natrum phos and calcium phos, etc., reported in a tissue by Bunge, and you calculated the total amounts of calcium, sodium, phosphate etc. and compared them to our values for the individual measures of calcium, sodium and phosphorus in each tissue, that they were not too far off.

(Also assume that we currently are able to analyze the amounts of compounds formed in ash if we need to, but do not normally do that analysis on food or tissue ash because it does not have any useful information. It might be useful in other fields like geology or forensics.)

Assume that some tissues have different proportions of the main minerals from other tissues. Certainly cells have higher potassium inside than sodium, and liquids like plasma have higher sodium and less potassium. Muscles might have higher iron than some other tissues like skin.

But also, consider that the analysis of Bunge etc. might not have been accurate enough to get this difference between tissues exactly right.

Assume there are in fact salts in the ash of burned tissue.

Assume that Bunge etc. were able to measure roughly the amounts of those salts, so that when they said there was , for example, magnesium phosphate in the ash, they were correct.

Does this agree with the implications of your questions? I'm giving Bunge (or whoever's work Schuessler used) as much credit as possible, but also trying to be reasonable about their limitations.

Now explain why it makes any difference at all what compounds were found in the ash.

The ash is nothing like the real tissue. Salts are formed in the ash because the organic material is burned up and the water is evaporated. What matters is the amounts of the individual elements in the tissues, like calcium or potassium.

 

[Donks]

The ash is nothing like the real tissue. Salts are formed in the ash because the organic material is burned up and the water is evaporated. What matters is the amounts of the individual elements in the tissues, like calcium or potassium.

Which diseases are supposed to be caused by the "imbalance" of these salts?

 

[Rolfe]

Just give me a simple reply, whethe there will be some substances in molecular/compound or in salt form, on anylysing dry/burned ash from human parts or any other living- say plants in some similar proportion or not?

See Flume's excellent posts on this matter.

I have previously given referances & analysis as mentioned in "Twelve Tissue Remedies". Whether Dr.Sch, himself done the analysis or taken out from referances is not clear. But he could know it & therefore specified 12 tissue remedies. If he would had not got it, how could he would had introduced these 12 remedies. You may consider also read book as flume has indicated.

You seem to know nothing at all about the theory behind your beliefs. You have not previously given any references to any analysis, so if you have such a thing, please post it now.

You seem to be saying that you don't know what Schüssler measured or did, but he must have done something valid because he based the tissue remedies system on it. Hey, how about he just made it up? The whole thing makes no sense whatsoever, and if you want us to consider that there could be some sense in it, you have to be able to explain the theory and show the data on which the theory was based. So far, you have failed miserably.

If you don't have technology or discarded old technology, to chenck presence in salt forms, you can tell accordingly.

I note that in spite of many attempts by people to explain it to you, you still do not understand the difference between a salt, an ion and an element.

So, how about you stop trying to tell us about this TRS nonsense until you are actually in a position to explain what it is, including the theory and the data on which the theory was based.

Rolfe.

 

[flume]

Actually, Kumar did post some values at one point in some other topic. I think they probably are the numbers from this book., "The Twelve Tissue Remedies of Schuessler" by Dewey and Boericke. They give some values from the Textbook of Physiological and Pathological Chemistry by Bunge (aka von Bunge). In this section they don't actually say how Bunge did the analysis or whether it was based on ash.
In 1000 'grammes' of blood cells, the amount of inorganic substances:
iron=0.998
Kali sulph=0.1322
Kali mur.=0.132
Kali phos.=3.079
Natrum phos.=2.343
Natrum=0.344
Calc. phos.=0.094
Magnes. phos.=0.o6o
In 1000 grammes of intercellular fluid(plasma) the inorganic
material is:
Kali sulph.=0.281
Kali mur.=0.359
Natrum mur.=5.545
Natrum=1.532
Calcar. phos.=1.532
Magnes. phos.=0.298
Natrum sulph, Fluor., and Silica, traces
Milk (1000 g):
kali=0.780
Natrum=0.230
Calcarea=0.330
Magnesia=0.060
Iron=0.004
Phosphoric acid=0.470
Chlor=0.440
Fluor and Silica=traces

(could be typos)

Notice that in the section on milk, the values are for single elements or ions, not for compounds.

 

[Kumar]

flume,

You posted two excellent posts. TRs can make any person to do something good.

..Now explain why it makes any difference at all what compounds were found in the ash.

The ash is nothing like the real tissue. Salts are formed in the ash because the organic material is burned up and the water is evaporated. What matters is the amounts of the individual elements in the tissues, like calcium or potassium...

Any activity or function can be dependent of force & energy, taken or released on any chemical reaction. I assume that some specific chemical reactions takes place resembling to indicated tissue salts composition on association & disassociation of chemical bonds as per these salts. Specific energy is released as per these specific reactions which may effect specifically. You can differenciate in energy changes on any change in carbs molecule & of Sodium cloride molecule.

Pls assess accordingly.

Btw, you mentioned, you can do salt/compound analysis from ash. Can you tell me how & whether it existed since Bunge's time?

 

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

Your problem is that inspite of encouraging & contributing to any other knowledge, you start finding faults on some 'yet unclear' points may be due to pre-concieved idea about same. I don't think you can get any new/dynamic knowledge, by your this problem. I have provided many links & referances to gain some basic knowledge on this system. Flume got some refrances & now can contribute. If you wanted, you could also got. Just try to interact as some others are doing i.e. contributing more contadicting/firing less alike a teacher or friend. Just consider as of now & in present status of science-- we have a system, some mass people observed & experianced it as positive(incl me) with least adversities, It also somewhat resemble with our chemistry. Dr.Sch. got some indications by looking at body's chemistry & taken some gemstones out of so many clour stones in homeopathy & given us even by diverting from his academic carrier & profession(as he was M.D.. of that tim).Some physical effects by reflected lights & by our direct exposures can be thought even these are not/least composed to our body....Accordingly we may check half filled not empity glass.

Sorry, If I am wrong. But I want this type of interactiona with me.

 

[Donks]

Rolfe,

Your problem is that inspite of encouraging & contributing to any other knowledge, you start finding faults on some 'yet unclear' points may be due to pre-concieved idea about same. I don't think you can get any new/dynamic knowledge, by your this problem. I have provided many links & referances to gain some basic knowledge on this system. Flume got some refrances & now can contribute. If you wanted, you could also got. Just try to interact as some others are doing i.e. contributing more contadicting/firing less alike a teacher or friend. Just consider as of now & in present status of science-- we have a system, some mass people observed & experianced it as positive(incl me) with least adversities, It also somewhat resemble with our chemistry. Dr.Sch. got some indications by looking at body's chemistry & taken some gemstones out of so many clour stones in homeopathy & given us even by diverting from his academic carrier & profession(as he was M.D.. of that tim).Some physical effects by reflected lights & by our direct exposures can be thought even these are not/least composed to our body....Accordingly we may check half filled not empity glass.

Sorry, If I am wrong. But I want this type of interactiona with me.

Okay, let's try that attitude with you.
We have observations of a phenomenom. Namely, some people observed that after using cell salts, illnesses sometimes go away. So let's suppose that cell salts cures some illnesses. Now, how can we make sure? How about an experiment. Let's take a group of people suffering form the same symptoms, and divide them into two groups. Then we get 2 preparations made. One is the proper cell sat remedy. The other is simply water. To one group we give the cell salt, to the other we give the water. But let's not tell them, or their doctors, which group got what.

Kumar, what do you think will happen? Which group will get better quicker?

 

[Kumar]

Okay, let's try that attitude with you.
We have observations of a phenomenom. Namely, some people observed that after using cell salts, illnesses sometimes go away. So let's suppose that cell salts cures some illnesses. Now, how can we make sure? How about an experiment. Let's take a group of people suffering form the same symptoms, and divide them into two groups. Then we get 2 preparations made. One is the proper cell sat remedy. The other is simply water. To one group we give the cell salt, to the other we give the water. But let's not tell them, or their doctors, which group got what.

Kumar, what do you think will happen? Which group will get better quicker?

It may be 1000th time repetition type question. Person should bother about of got treated or not, cost & advesities. People experiancing it found accordingly--so only using these. They also don't find these alike water. Whwther real effect, non-measurable, placebo, self healing, supernatural or otherwise, are yet pending to know by science & should if interests the same. Depending upon belief & need of patients & skill of prescriber & observer, differanciating effects should be noticable in cell salts & plain water.

 

[Kumar]

Chemical Composition of Humans

Dry weight %

Carbon... 61.7
Nitrogen.. 11.0
Oxygen.. 9.3
Hydrogen... 5.7

Calcium.. 5.0
Phosphorus.. 3.3
Potassium.. 1.3
Sulfur.. 1.0
Chlorine.. 0.7
Sodium.. 0.7
Magnesium.. 0.3

Trace amounts of B, F Si, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, Se, Mo, Sn, I.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/zoo00/zoo00432.htm

Elemental Composition of the
Human Body
oxygen 43 kg
carbon 16 kg
hydrogen 7 kg
nitrogen 1.8 kg

calcium 1.0 kg
phosphorus 780 g
potassium 140 g
sulfur 140 g
sodium 100 g
chlorine 95 g
magnesium 19 g
iron 4.2 g
fluorine 2.6
zinc 2.3 g
silicon 1.0 g

http://web2.iadfw.net/uthman/elements_of_body.html

The above data indicate elemental/chemical composition of human body. If we take lactose underconsideration as part of remedy, most of tissue salts cover most of elements(95%+) in human body. Why Dr.Sch. not considered Nitrogen, Zinc & other trace elements, may be not either noted on ash analysis or not given much importance due to any reason. Probaby, if 95% problems are handled balance may itself be taken care by body due to its improved streangth by this 95% consideration. It may also be due to some miss or weakness of science at that time. Some more about 30 cells salts were indicated by some other people after Dr.Sch. but whether these were valid or not as per Dr.Sch. thinking, it can't be said. But one think is indicative, Dr.Hahn. had covered some more remedies resembling body's composition which Dr.Sch. had definitely studied. But whether he has considered or not in his system is just a thought but by this, it looks he may not had cinsidered those intentionally.

 

[Kumar]

But also assume that their methods were less accurate than ours now, so they still had some contamination, probably some extra silicon from their grinding equipment.

I don't think grinding is involved in this analysis. Even involved, these are simple understandings & any science person will definately take care of these things. Moreover, silicon, fluorine as silicic acid & fluoride are indicated as trace element in recent datas, also.

Assume that Schuessler did not worry about the exact or relative amounts of the minerals in the ash anyway - this was mentioned in one of the books, that he valued some salts even though their amount in the tissue was lower than other salts.

It is bit a thougt to me also. Why Dr.Sch. consedered Silicon & Fluorine & not Nitrogen, Zinc etc. I think he was knowing(by reading, by inderstanding or by provings) OR otherwise (can't expect, probably as I think by our direct exposures), the mode of action & effect of these two elements(may be Sulphur also).

Assume that the 19th century scientists did measure the main tissue minerals with a certain accuracy- these would be the ones that are measured in most foods: sodium, potasssium, calcium, magnesium, phosphates, sulfur, chloride, iron - that make up most of the ash. Most of the elements that are included in Scuessler's group are the ones that make up almost all the ash of the body.

Yes, then?

Assume that if you took the amounts of kali phos and natrum phos and calcium phos, etc., reported in a tissue by Bunge, and you calculated the total amounts of calcium, sodium, phosphate etc. and compared them to our values for the individual measures of calcium, sodium and phosphorus in each tissue, that they were not too far off.

These are to be measured as per parts of body as they noticed.

(Also assume that we currently are able to analyze the amounts of compounds formed in ash if we need to, but do not normally do that analysis on food or tissue ash because it does not have any useful information. It might be useful in other fields like geology or forensics.)

We have to find--how it can be useful information esp. if there can be spontaneous chemical reactions in accordance with these salts, involved in body's parts, to get some energy changes effects OR moving these near the skin to get somewhat light effect.


Assume that some tissues have different proportions of the main minerals from other tissues. Certainly cells have higher potassium inside than sodium, and liquids like plasma have higher sodium and less potassium. Muscles might have higher iron than some other tissues like skin.

Ok, then what?

But also, consider that the analysis of Bunge etc. might not have been accurate enough to get this difference between tissues exactly right.

Absolute accurecy may not be of much importance as these were used to know just the indications of specific salts. However, I feel, physiology of that time indicated, reactions & effects as per salts not all as per ions/elements.

Assume there are in fact salts in the ash of burned tissue.

Assume that Bunge etc. were able to measure roughly the amounts of those salts, so that when they said there was , for example, magnesium phosphate in the ash, they were correct.

Does this agree with the implications of your questions? I'm giving Bunge (or whoever's work Schuessler used) as much credit as possible, but also trying to be reasonable about their limitations.

Now explain why it makes any difference at all what compounds were found in the ash.

It makes lot of difference as I already indicated, in term of specific energy levels & patterns related to specific compound/salt--if specific chemical reactions are there as per salts. Ash analysis indicate affinity of some some elements/cation to some specific anion.

The ash is nothing like the real tissue. Salts are formed in the ash because the organic material is burned up and the water is evaporated. What matters is the amounts of the individual elements in the tissues, like calcium or potassium.

As above. Even in ionic form in tissue, TRs may effect in line of effects by these ions, individually as Na+Cl, in case of Natrum Mur, homeopathically. NaCl salt found specifically in any part, for example, indicate specific presence of Na+Cl ions in any part.

 

[Kumar]

Abundances of the Elements in the Earth's Crust

Approximate
% by weight

Oxygen 46.6
Silicon 27.7
Aluminum 8.1
Iron 5.0
Calcium 3.6
Sodium 2.8
Potassium 2.6
Magnesium 2.1
All others 1.5

Average composition of the atmosphere up to an altitude of 25 km.


Gas Name/ Chemical Formula/ Percent Volume

Nitrogen N2-- 78.08%
Oxygen O2-- 20.95%
*Water H2O-- 0 to 4%
Argon Ar-- 0.93%
*Carbon Dioxide CO2-- 0.0360%
Neon Ne-- 0.0018%
Helium He-- 0.0005%
*Methane CH4-- 0.00017%
Hydrogen H2-- 0.00005%
*Nitrous Oxide N2O-- 0.00003%
*Ozone O3-- 0.000004%

* variable gases

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html

The above are some of our direct exposures. Sunspended particles & other contaminations in air & earth can be there. This link tells about suspended particles in air;
http://theweathernetwork.com/features/airq/info/aq_Pollutants.htm

But in view of our exposures since our evolution, what can you grossly think, be our direct exposures?

 

[Mojo]

Whwther real effect, non-measurable, placebo, self healing, supernatural or otherwise, are yet pending to know by science

This is precisely what the test described by Donks is designed to find out. Don't you think it would be a good idea to find out if there actually is a real effect before wasting a lot of time trying to work out how the alleged effect occurrs?

 

[Donks]

It may be 1000th time repetition type question. Person should bother about of got treated or not, cost & advesities. People experiancing it found accordingly--so only using these. They also don't find these alike water. Whwther real effect, non-measurable, placebo, self healing, supernatural or otherwise, are yet pending to know by science & should if interests the same. Depending upon belief & need of patients & skill of prescriber & observer, differanciating effects should be noticable in cell salts & plain water.

I keep asking that question because you still haven't answered it. Including this time.
For all your talk of wanting to use science, when confronted with even the vaguest of scientific approaches you run the other way. Why is that? You know you won't like the answer before you even try?

 

[Kumar]

Mojo,Donks,

Pls don't engage me in this & type of talks. One thing is clear that science & working of remedies are still unclear & doubtful in science. Why to discuss & waste time asking this & that about this again & again. You may discuss & ask, if any concept in science is relevant & can be possible, instead.

I have give some datas relating to our direct exposure. Apart from these, we may also be substancially exposed to Sea water-so salt, trees & their droplets, atmospheric changes due to time chenges, day & night, moon's phages, seasons etc. H2S or other gases relesed by algaes, bacterias erc., Sun light, colours, radiations, civilization's created polutions etc.

Probably, all these of our exposure can effect us due filtred lights, reflected lights, emissions etc. If we look bit dynamically, we can find TRs cover most of these in their elemental compositions. What can it mean?

 

[Kumar]

Mojo,Donks,

Pls don't engage me in this & type of talks. One thing is clear that science & working of remedies are still unclear & doubtful in science. Why to discuss & waste time asking this & that about this again & again. You may discuss & ask, if any concept in science is relevant & can be possible, instead.

I have give some datas relating to our direct exposure. Apart from these, we may also be substancially exposed to Sea water-so salt, trees & their droplets, atmospheric changes due to time chenges, day & night, moon's phages, seasons etc. H2S or other gases relesed by algaes, bacterias erc., Sun light, colours, radiations, civilization's created polutions etc.

Probably, all these of our exposure can effect us due filtred lights, reflected lights, emissions etc. If we look bit dynamically, we can find TRs cover most of these in their elemental compositions. What can it mean?

Can you tell some other direct major exposures to us?

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,Donks,

Pls don't engage me in this & type of talks.

So you consider that asking whether the effects you are so determined to invent an explanation for actually exist to be irrelevant???

One thing is clear that science & working of remedies are still unclear & doubtful in science. Why to discuss & waste time asking this & that about this again & again.

Why waste time trying to explain an effect without bothering to find out whether it actually exists? A coherent explanation, assuming you can produce one, will still have no validity in the real world if the effects you are explaining don't exist. You can't make something real merely by describing it.

You may discuss & ask, if any concept in science is relevant & can be possible, instead.

Concepts that have no basis in fact are, obviously, irrelevant to the real world.

I have give some datas relating to our direct exposure. Apart from these, we may also be substancially exposed to Sea water-so salt, trees & their droplets, atmospheric changes due to time chenges, day & night, moon's phages, seasons etc. H2S or other gases relesed by algaes, bacterias erc., Sun light, colours, radiations, civilization's created polutions etc.

Probably, all these of our exposure can effect us due filtred lights, reflected lights, emissions etc. If we look bit dynamically, we can find TRs cover most of these in their elemental compositions. What can it mean?

So you are saying that we are exposed to all sorts of things? I wouldn't disagree with that, although I would draw the line somewhere before lunar viruses (sorry, I couldn't resist it), but many of these things have no measurable effect on us. Remember, for example, what you have been repeatedly told about the way light interacts (or rather doesn't interact) with our bodies?

Even if these things do have an effect on us, if we are being continually exposed to them what benefit do you think there could possibly be in exposing ourselves to additional infinitessimal amounts of certain specific substances ?

 

[Rolfe]

Actually, Kumar did post some values at one point in some other topic. I think they probably are the numbers from this book., "The Twelve Tissue Remedies of Schuessler" by Dewey and Boericke. They give some values from the Textbook of Physiological and Pathological Chemistry by Bunge (aka von Bunge). In this section they don't actually say how Bunge did the analysis or whether it was based on ash.

I don't remember seeing that before. Quite interesting. We still don't know who did the analysis, or where or when, or what the methods were though. Also, this isn't different body organs or parts of the body, it's erythrocytes and plasma (and I'm not sure where the relevance of the milk comes in).

The most striking feature is the finding that the cellular preparation has potassium as its dominant cation, while the ECF (plasma) has sodium. And of course we know that this is correct. Although there seemed still to be quite a lot of sodium in the cellular preparation, I think we can ascribe that to the fact that a pure cell preparation is impossible to achieve. There will always be the "trapped plasma" between the cells, and you can't wash them in water or you'll get osmotic rupture. (When I've done equivalent analyses to these, I analysed the spun-off plasma separately, then re-analysed a frozen lysate of whole blood. Knowing the PCV, the analysis of the plasma, and the analysis of the lysate, allows the composition of the pure cell fraction to be calculated.)

However, the matching up of cations and anions is purely arbitrary, as the substances certainly wouldn't be present in these forms in the live organism. I wonder why the milk is expressed as ions (I presume) rather than salts?

I can only imagine that the sulphate groups in the analysis came from sulphur-containing proteins. However, fluoride and silica were surely contaminants as these do not occur in plasma to the best of my knowledge.

And does this get us any closer to figuring out why Kumar believes this means anything? I thought his ideas had more to do with analyses of whole bodies or organs, than with body fluids.

Rolfe.