Rolfe, The purpose was to get indications of presence of different salts. Dr.Sch. was not willing to advice RDAs. The rest whole theory is based on provings, symptoms etcc. Not exact, but when presence of these were indicated--it tells that he was knowing & understanding presence of these in different parts. Are these grossly wrong in matching these(as per atomic/ionic constituents of salts) with today's improved details. Anyway, can you tell current analysis of presence of differant constituents in differant parts of body in quantity, as you are asking from me?
Can/should we Skeptics in Modern Science?
Rolfe
Adult human female
No, you didn't state that this was about the presence of "different salts". You saidKumar said:
I repeat, "mostly similar salts". Your post seems in fact now to indicate the opposite.
What I know about the composition of the body in today's terms is not what we are discussing. We are discussing your claims, and I want to see the analyses on which Schüssler based his ideas. Flume found something about blood plasma and blood cells, which made reasonable sense. Why can you not show me the same analyses for all the parts of the body you are talking about?
Rolfe.
Rolfe said:
Because, I don't want that in quantity and it is neither mentioned in referances nor required for the purpose of unserstanding this system. I just wanted to know 'how mostly/somewhat similar salts are/were found in several specimens of differant parts of humans bodies? I didn't mentioned how mostly/somewhat same quantity...... Any way, it can be somewhat same propotional quantity, but its indications are there but not the exact quantity, which you should tell by searching your old records. Anyway, it is not so important. Important is how same salts(by name) were indicated in different parts on ash analysis?
Kumar, I think your words 'mostly/somewhat similar' are confusing. Do you mean that all the different body parts have mostly similar minerals? That muscle is similar to brain, for instance? Or do you mean that the muscles of all people are similar and the brains of all people are similar but the muscle and brain might be different from each other? Can you say exactly what tissues are similar to others? Because it seems as if Schuessler's point was that there was a difference between muscle and brain, for instance.Kumar said:
Here's an example of where Schuessler missed something because of the limited knowledge of his time. In that section you posted from "Twelve Tissues Remedies", the information on muscle did not list a calcium salt. But calcium is absolutely critical to the function of muscles. It is much more interesting than the ones listed.
(I'm not saying I think it would have been a useful treatment. But with Schuessler's interest in'molecular motion', I think calcium would have been expected to be on his list for muscles.)
flume said:
flume,
Cacl.Phos ir mentioned;-
"In bone cells we have calcarea flour and Magnesi phos. and a large proportion of calcarea phos. This latter is found in small quantities in the cells of muscle, nerve, brain and connective tissue."
Do you know constuents of differant parts of body as per current knowledge. Older details which I have given, can be gross assesment in various tissue
Rolfe
Adult human female
Kumar, you already know my view on this. That any analyses carried out in the 1870s were of necessity so crude that their results are of no value in elucidating how the body works.Kumar said:
You, however, seem to set such store by these analyses Schüssler looked at (first I thought you claimed he did the analysis, but now it seems he just looked at analyses carried out by someone else), that I would be intersted to know what the results were and how they were obtained. I'm not that surprised to realise that you don't have a clue, though.
It's not up to me to tell you what these analyses were or are. You are making the claims for Schüssler's method, so it is up to you to show us what Schüssler based his theories on.
You don't know, do you?
We've told you a dozen times that the importance of different ions is in where they are within the tissue - inside or outside the cells, free or bound to membranes, and what mechanisms control where they go and what functions they fulfil. Crude ash analysis is of no interest to how scientists understand the functioning of the body. If you think it is of interest, show the analyses you think are so important.
Rolfe.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Always assuming that Dr. S. had any real idea of the function of salts (well, ions really) in the living body...flume said:
Rolfe said:
Try to understand my point. Body ulitimtely can work & perform functions by release of any energy & different energy levels & pattern can perform different activities & functions. Probably but mostly, energy in body is released by chemical reactions. It can be thought that constituents of these tissue salts, interact with each other & release/take some specific energy level & pattern--resulting in differenciating effect as indicated. Chemical reactions can be spontaneous. However when ash analysis is seen, the salts in ash indicated these possibilities. I can't say for sure, but cations & anions as per salts constituents may be having some chemical affinity to each other in different parts.
Can you explain it; suppose there are 100 ions of sodium, 80 ions of Cloride, 25 of phosphorus & 15 of sulphur are there in a solution. How these will associate on drying it?
Rolfe
Adult human female
This is complete fantasy. You simply made that up. There isn't the slightest shred of experimental evidence to support such a theory.Kumar said:
Kumar, the workings of chemistry and biochemistry in the body have been painstakingly worked out step by step by scientists who have done a great deal of basic study of their subject, and are building on the findings of earlier workers. You can't even begin to understand how this is done without an education. What makes you think that you alone, with no education in the subject and no understanding of what is already known, can single-handedly dream up a true description of how the world works?
Now, would you care to tell me what constitutes an "ion" of phosphorus, or sulphur? Because I have to tell you, there's no such thing. I also have to tell you that if I make some assumptions about what you actually mean by that, such a solution is impossible.Kumar said:
Rolfe.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Kumar is like a person who, without having learned to drive, without having ever seen an engine, and without having any keys, sits down in the rear seat of a car and starts to make claims of what is wrong with the engine since he cannot make the car run.
We carefully explain that he needs to learn to drive, needs to get the keys, and needs to move to the driver's seat, but he just starts to weave imaginary ideas of why the car should run the way he wants it to run.
Hans
We carefully explain that he needs to learn to drive, needs to get the keys, and needs to move to the driver's seat, but he just starts to weave imaginary ideas of why the car should run the way he wants it to run.
Hans
Rolfe
Adult human female
Come on, Kumar. What is an "ion" of phosphorus? Or of sulphur? Have you any idea why I said that your hypothetical solution is impossible?
If you can't answer this, then yes, anything we could say and indeed the whole of science is obviously "beyond your head".
I hardly think you can take much credit from the fact that we sometimes find it difficult to understand what you mean by your garbled and incoherent fantasy-posts.
Rolfe.
Rolfe,
I understand more salts as tisse salts.
Anyway you can read here.SULFUR & PHOSPHORUS.
More details about ION, Sulfur &
Phosphorus.
I understand more salts as tisse salts.
Anyway you can read here.SULFUR & PHOSPHORUS.
More details about ION, Sulfur &
Phosphorus.
Kumar, my reaction to your post was the same as Rolfe's. There is no substance to it. You could have written the same paragraph and substituted lots of other words for salts and ash, and it would have sounded just the same - and still made no sense. The twelve "reflected wavelengths". The twelve amino acids. The twelve tissue-specific protein isoforms. The twelve happy thoughts. The twelve vitamins. (Probably homeopathy actually includes all these 
.)
And I saw the same two problems that rolfe saw with your question. I think everyone knows what you mean, but if you understood what you were talking about enough to discuss that question, you wouldn't say it that way.
.)And I saw the same two problems that rolfe saw with your question. I think everyone knows what you mean, but if you understood what you were talking about enough to discuss that question, you wouldn't say it that way.
Rolfe
Adult human female
No dice, Kumar. I know what sulphur and phosphorus are, and I know what ions are, and I know why sulphur and phospohorus are not ions. I don't need to read Wikipedia links about any of it. Maybe you need to read the links yourself?Kumar said:Rolfe,
I understand more salts as tisse salts.
Anyway you can read here.SULFUR & PHOSPHORUS.
More details about ION, Sulfur &
Phosphorus.
What I want to know is whether you understand anything at all about these elementary matters. If you don't, then you ought to try to find out something about them before you presume to investigate anything involving salts.
Oops, said that before, didn't I? But Kumar doesn't want to get an education.
Rolfe.