gall bladder cysts

As these are not preparations made from the real substances, and there are no provings done with them, there is no predicting what they will do, and probably no real harm in it either.

I have found that many of the various methods of instantly making remedies (radionics, writing the name on paper, focussing thoughts on the water etc) creates a generalized energetic substance but does not create a specific homoepathic medicine.

There is a person on another forum who has 'invented' a system of making medicines where the name of the medicine is written on a piece of paper and placed under a container of water. He would give cases where people were 'cured', but most examples given were acutes (self limiting and usually self resolving) or if they were chronic, there was a lack of details, follow up, and rarely any kind of cure that we would see on our medicines(they did not meet our criteria for being called cured).

Although we often argued about it, to be fair I offered to try these kinds of medicines on my own patients. I chose 9 patients who had all done very well on their medicines (made from the actual substance) and who all required a repeat dose and showed no change in state (so a relapse or a cessation of movement towards cure). 7 of those experienced nothing. 1 experienced an aggravation. 1 experienced a generalized positive improvement (with no change to the pathological symptoms).

This was only a small sample, and hardly what one would call enough to create any theories. However it was more than this other person had done, and it suggested to me that whatever changes he was seeing, we being seen with the eye of someone who did not understand homoeopathic cure. Belief is a powerful thing (but not as powerful as homoeopathy). When I presented this experiment, I was told that my disbelief had ruined it. A strange thing to say, since our (real) medicines are in no way affected by the belief of either practitioner or patient.

All those patients were given the remedies from my own stock after that, and all experienced the kind of reactions I expected (aggravation followed by improvement).

While we do not know exactly how water holds the signature of a substance, not knowing the mechanism does not mean that all theories therefore are likely.

Dr. Emoto's experiements with water were astounding. It is the beginning of understanding something fundemental about life, about water, about the world. His experiments showed without a doubt that potentization creates a specific pattern in the water in our medicines (all the medicines made from a substance had the same water crystal structure, and these structures were the same in medicines made from the same substance).

He also showed that words themselves can alter water.

What did not come out of this, and what appears to be the huge jump in logic here, is that words = substance. By speaking Sepia, do you create cuttlefish ink energy? Why do you think you would? Where is the connection here? It is just as likely that something completely new is created.

Of course the real test would be to freeze the water and look at the crystals. If they are the same as the medicine made from the substance, we would know.

Or, an even better experiment would be to do a double blind proving with a medicine made this way.

I remember in a college I worked in, that a proving was done with radionically made medicines. Double blind, the provers didnt even know that they had been given a medicine made this way. It was a very vague and indistinct proving, of a medicine that was quite well known (Bryonia). None of the main themes came out, and very few common symptoms or characteristics showed themselves at all. From this, we judged that the provers had not been given a genuine medicine at all, and were simply reporting normal symptoms for themselves.