In my first articles, What Is Homeopathy?, I briefly touched upon the process of succussion in homeopathy, which is used to potentize substances into homeopathic remedies. Due to the misconceptions out there, I wish to explain this more.
This includes the fact that based on this and other aspects of homeopathy, many prominent scientists support Homeopathy.
The process of succussion involves the vigorous diluting and shaking of substances. Depending on the potency, the substance is mixed into water, shaken, and then put into another water solution where it is mixed again. Dilutions can range from 1/10-1/50,000, again depending on potency.
Based on Hahnemann’s experiments and the homeopathic provings carried out by homeopaths since his time, the cycle and combination of vigorous succussions as well as the subsequent dilutions, potentize the substance, making it a stronger, more profound remedy upon the vital force.
These succussions essentially enable potentization by altering the water’s structure in the solution, after each time it is diluted. This imparts electromagnetic waves in order to alter these structures during each succussion.
Meaning, that the energy essence of the the original substance becomes manifested in the physical homeopathic remedy. It essentially retains a “memory” so to speak of the original. The more diluted the original, the more metaphysically stronger it becomes when potentized into a remedy.
It sure does!
Although both skeptics and even some homeopaths have understood this process to be somewhat of a mystery, several major scientists have explored this process and found that indeed the substance, even after it’s succussed, diluted, and swished in water, does retain a memory of the original substance.
And it can be visibly observed through scientific methods. Ironically, this discovery was made by prominent scientists and researchers who are not homeopaths. Many of them are also Nobel Prize Winners!
These are some of the scientists/researchers:
Dr. Jacques Benveniste, M.D.
Once highly regarded by the international scientific community, Dr. Jacques Benveniste was a renowned French immunologist for decades until the “Benveniste affair” in 1989.
Dr. Benveniste conducted an experiment, which was to mimic 3 other similar, successful university studies. Using certain substances, he wanted to see if a substance, when extremely shaken and diluted, would have its molecular and energetic properties nonetheless maintained afterwards.
The results that he found, under rigorous scientific standards which included multiple tests and retests, found that indeed, the original makeup of the substance is still retained after dilutions.
These dilutions also were found to have an effect on a type of white blood cell known as basophils.
However, due to the efforts of many in the scientific community, his research was apparently proven to be false and incomplete, which led to many medical and scientific institutions to cease funding his studies.
He also was further attacked by many in the scientific community for his revolutionary and controversial findings. Again, this was carried out by those who wanted to maintain the “accepted” view that a thoroughly diluted substance has no remnant of the original substance left, and “certainly” no “memory” of the original, in the form of energetic frequencies, remain.
Yet until his death in 2004, the efforts of Benveniste did not cease, as he continued investigating his previous research, which led to his official formation of the concept of “Digital Biology,” which summarizes his theory:
1. If a substance is diluted in water, the water can carry the “memory” of that substance despite the fact the none of the original molecules are left after the dilutions.
2. The molecules of any given substance have a spectrum of frequencies that can be digitally recorded with a computer, then played back into untreated water (using an electronic transducer), and when this is done, the new water will act as if the actual substance were physically present.
Brian Josephson, Ph.D.
A professor emeritus of Cambridge University and a Noble Prize winner, Brian Josephson first spoke out against critics of Benveniste and homeopathy after he attended one of Benveniste’s first conferences.
He noted how despite the fact that Benveniste offered credible research and analysis and that skeptics of Homeopathy have misunderstood [and in many cases twisted] the concepts of Homeopathy, he was viciously and “irrationally” attacked by many in the scientific community.
Josephson explained that the problem with the claims of skeptics is that they argue that Homeopathy cannot work because after so many dilutions, there is nothing physically left to be used in the solution to actually bring about healing.
However, he notes that supporters of Homeopathy have always noted that the Homeopathic remedies work because the only the molecular structure of the water changes during intense dilutions.
In other words, the energetic effect of the remedy comes about via the alteration of the change in the water’s structure, not because of the diminishment of the molecules in the solution.
In his own words:
Regarding your comments on claims made for homeopathy: criticisms centered around the vanishingly small number of solute molecules present in a solution after it has been repeatedly diluted are beside the point, since advocates of homeopathic remedies attribute their effects not to molecules present in the water, but to modifications of the water’s structure.
Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid, cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking. There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account.
Josephson has also spoken about the “pathological disbelief” of many in the scientific community and how they tend to dismiss any idea, concept, theory, or experiment that does not conform to their own conventional way of thinking. Ironic for apparently unscientific people who claim to strive for scientific standards.
Dr. Luc Montagnier
In 2008, Dr. Luc Montagnier won the Noble Prize for codiscovering the AIDS virus .In 2011, Montagnier came out in an interview in Science Magazine, basically supporting Homeopathy, based on his own research.
To summarize, he took the DNA of several pathogens, diluted them, and found that despite the intense dilutions of these pathogens, the remaining solutions were filled with electromagnetic waves. The highly diluted solution of DNA emitted electromagnetic particles which changed the structure of the water.
Bacteria and viral DNA produced the highest frequencies of electromagnetic waves; other various pathogens produced at lower frequencies.
He argued that this development, when applied correctly, could really aid in combatting numerous diseases, such as Alzheimer’s and autism.
Like Josephson, Montagnier has also criticized the scientific community for their witch hunt on Benveniste, the “modern Galileo” of this generation, and other similar scientists who promoted these valid, researched views:
“I am told that some people have reproduced Benveniste’s results, but they are afraid to publish it because of the intellectual terror from people who don’t understand it.”
When Science Magazine asked if he was supporting “pseudoscience” [i.e. Homeopathy], Montagnier replied: “No, because it’s not pseudoscience. It’s not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study.”
Here’s Montagnier presenting his research to UNESCO:
Proof for Succussion in Homeopathy? Yes!
Based on this and other research, both on this site as well as in scientific and clinical journals and reviews, it is outrageous that many in the scientific community have demonized homeopathy and declared that there is 0 support for it.
On the contrary:
- Most, if not all skeptics, do not know or want to know the true aspects and science of Homeopathy and how it really works.
- Though there are negative reviews [like in all medicines], there are way more positive results than negative in the research on Homeopathy.
- Ironically, the most notable scientists and doctors, such as the ones mentioned above and others, have supported and demonstrated Homeopathy’s science of resonance and practicality.
As people who seek the truth, the only way that false claims can be invalidated is by seeking and promoting the truth. A little bit of light can light up a dark room. Here is another example of that “light”:
I hope you enjoyed this article. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to simply leave a response on the comment box below and I will momentarily get back to you.
SOURCES AND FURTHER READING:
- Chikramane PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR, and Govind S. Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy. Volume 99, Issue 4, October 2010, 231-242.
- Josephson, B. D., Letter, New Scientist, November 1, 1997.
- Davenas E, Beauvais F, Amara J, et al. (June 1988). “Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE”. Nature 333 (6176): 816-8.
- Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, Weisshuhn TE, Baumgartner S, Willich SN. The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies–a systematic review of the literature. Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):128-38. Epub 2007 Mar 28.
- Endler PC, Thieves K, Reich C, Matthiessen P, Bonamin L, Scherr C, Baumgartner S. Repetitions of fundamental research models for homeopathically prepared dilutions beyond 10-23: a bibliometric study. Homeopathy, 2010; 99: 25-36.
- Luc Montagnier, Jamal Aissa, Stéphane Ferris, Jean-Luc Montagnier, Claude Lavallee, Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences. Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 81-90.
- Nobel laureate gives homeopathy a boost. The Australian. July 5, 2010. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/nobel-laureate-gives-homeopathy-a-boost/story-e6frg8y6-1225887772305
- Enserink M, Newsmaker Interview: Luc Montagnier, French Nobelist Escapes “Intellectual Terror” to Pursue Radical Ideas in China. Science 24 December 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6012 p. 1732. DOI: 10.1126/science.330.6012.1732