Placebo Effect

[Dancing David]

There is a lot more to the Placebo effect than just the mental state of the person. It is well documented that people who have a spiritual network are more likely to survive cancer and heart disaease. But that begs the question, are people who are spiritual because they are healthy or are they healthy because they are spiritual.

The main driver behind the placebo effect is 'regression to the mean', most people don't seek help in the eleventh hour, they seek help only after the barn has burned down. In other words most people don't seek medical treatment until they are really sick. A certain amount of those people are already getting better and regressing to the mean.

The other problem in the placebo effect is the shortness of most clinical trials for drugs used on a long term basis.

 

[Kumar]

Thanks BSM & Dancing David. It should be true.

In other words; how this "placebo effect" can be linked to "effects of thoughts...........(my other topic).

 

[Prester John]

Regression to the mean is an interesting confounder that can be hard to understand (well the concept is easy, its statistical application is hard(er)).

http://www.visi.com/~thornley/david/philosophy/thinking/mean.html

Suppose we are teaching a complicated task to someone, and our student has learned the basics but is still uncertain. He sometimes does well, and sometimes badly, because he knows what to do but does not yet have it ingrained.

When he does it well, this is partly because he was lucky, and therefore he will probably do less well the next time. When he does it poorly, this is partly because he was unlucky, and he will probably do better the next time. This is going to happen no matter what else happens, including what we do as teacher.

Suppose, for example, that we praise the student when he does well, and scold him when he does poorly. We will see that when we praise the student, he performs worse, and conversely when we scold him he will do better. If we are observant, we will probably conclude that scolding does better than praise in motivating students. In fact, praise tends to be more motivating, but we wouldn't observe that unless we varied our teaching style and took careful notes.

I would suggest that its not too much of a step to suggest that this may indeed be a description of the mechanism of homeopathy, or one of its mechanisms. I like. Sorry i digress.....

 

[Rolfe]

The main driver behind the placebo effect is 'regression to the mean', most people don't seek help in the eleventh hour, they seek help only after the barn has burned down. In other words most people don't seek medical treatment until they are really sick. A certain amount of those people are already getting better and regressing to the mean.

Mmm, I don't know that I'd call that a placebo effect. I'd put that down as coincidental recovery, and I think that's the cause of most of the pro-altmed anecdotes you hear.

Placebo effect as I understand it is the reported improvement very often seen as a direct consequence of pill-taking (when the patient believes the pill is pharmacologically active). So, you take two comparable groups of patients and give one group nothing, while the other group get sugar pills, but told that they're the very latest scientific treatment for what ails you. In many situations, you will see a real, siginificant effect in the latter group, beyond any coincidental recoveries.

This mainly happens with conditions where there is a largish subjective component. How bad has your headache been today, madam? If you're doing objective measurements, then often you'll find nothing.

I recently read an interesting study of a herbal remedy for arthritis in dogs. Everybody was supposed to be blinded. Both subjective (how bad would you say that limp is?) and objective (force plate measurements) criteria were employed. However, the blinding almost certainly broke down due to the fact that the snake-oil made the dogs smell peculiar. This would have been much more obvious to the vets who assessed all the dogs, than to the owners, who only saw their own dog and may or may not have appreciated the significance of the smell. On the subjective assessments, there was a significant difference in favour of the snake-oil, but only in the opinions of the vets, the ones most likely to have been unblinded. The reports from the owners, however, although not statistically significant, nearly got there too. Yes, and a proportion of them probably did catch on to the meaning of the smell.

The objective measurements showed bugger-all difference between the groups.

I think this is quite a nice example of how the expectations of the observer, even when the observer is not the patient, can potentially skew a subjective assessment in the direction of the expectation. Placebo effect, in this sense, works just peachy in animals.

The animals, of course, don't know the difference. However, if the human observer is also the patient, this subjective impression of being "better" may be thought of as a real benefit, even though it's pretty much illusory. This is what I usually think of as the "placebo effect".

However, what I think the cited study is saying is that this subjective "feel-good" effect simply resulting from pill-taking may actually produce a real, measurable improvement, by some change in brain chemistry. Interesting finding.

As an aside, I recall reading a study where they denied that there was such a thing as a "placebo effect", by looking at very objective measurements of well-defined conditions. Of course this is the sort of situation where you'll likely see nothing, but it doesn't disprove the effects on subjective assessments.

But the altmed people were ecstatic. There's no such thing as a placebo effect! Therefore the great effects we see with our remedies must be real and physiological.

Yeah, right.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

Very good posting. Can you tell me in percentage that how many people can be cured/treated by (1) If no medicine is given (2) By placebo effect if pills or any other mean is given (3) By current medical care. Pls consider all usual negligences.

[Unquote here: Rolfe, I was willing to know some informations from you because you have indicated previously. How the clinical lab. tests were done before 1875. Were those by taking blood samples as you take now & those were on ionic basis or on salt basis? Is it possible that those time doctors have found substances in salt forms by analysing the dead body's parts because living body's tests may be possible then. I mean can you tell me something about physiology & clinical lab tests of that time. Thanks)

 

[Prester John]

Kumar

1) 80% (CI 1-100)
2) 80% (CI 1-100)
3) 90% (CI 1-100)

My answers reflect the usefullness and accuracy of the question.


(I'm pretty sure about the CI tho')

 

[Kumar]

Prester John,

I tell you one mentioning in one book on tissue salts. The author was principal of one homeopathic college. He mentioned one of his rare experiance. He told that he taught both homeopathy & Tissue Remedies System to some students. H has several thousands rules & remedies whereas TRS has just few rules & 12 remedies. He then taken test of both subjects at differant times. To his surprise, he noted that students given right awnsers to H questions but could not awnser & kept sheet mostly blank of TRS questions.

Can you tell me the awnser how it happened?

 

[Kumar]

Kumar

1) 80% (CI 1-100)
2) 80% (CI 1-100)
3) 90% (CI 1-100)

My answers reflect the usefullness and accuracy of the question.


(I'm pretty sure about the CI tho')

PS,

Can you bit explain in some more clear language for me? thanks.

 

[Prester John]

No Kumar i cannot, mainly bacuase you have provided insufficient information to answer the question with. Any answer i give will have to make a lot of assumptions, so many infact as to make any answer i give effectively guesswork.

 

[Kumar]

PS, you can understand the meaning. However you can give these details for common diseases. I want to know that how much these three types can be effective in treatments of common diseases.

 

[Rolfe]

Can you tell me in percentage that how many people can be cured/treated by (1) If no medicine is given (2) By placebo effect if pills or any other mean is given (3) By current medical care. Pls consider all usual negligences.

Your guess may be almost as good as mine.

However, define "cured". I'd say that the word means you actively did something to make the patient better. I'd also say it implies that the patient is back to normal afterwards.

So, by these definitions, nobody is "cured" if no medicine is given. Estimates of around 70% across the board for people just getting better on their own though. Same with placebo effect. It cures nobody, but again about 70% of people will get better anyway. On average. (Of course, close on 100% of people will get better from a common cold, while 0% of people will get better from a multiple myeloma, for example.)

Medical care. Well, permanent cures of stuff that wouldn't have resolved on its own are mostly to be found in surgery subjects. Consider appendicitis. Pretty much fatal if left alone, very high success rate with surgery, and after surgery patient no longer has the disease, it will not recur, and no ongoing care is needed. That's a clear-cut "cure". In contrast, medical care often speeds up recoveries that might well have happened anyway. (I don't think I'd have died from pneumonia in 1988 if I'd been left alone, but I was still darn grateful for the hospital bed and the erythromycin. Did these "cure" me? Depends on your definition.) Or it manages conditions that would otherwise be fatal, without necessarily achieving a "cure". Consider diabetes. It can't be cured as such, but diabetics can live close to a normal life and a normal life-span thanks to medical control. So talking about percentage of patients "cured" isn't a good way of assessing the benefits of medicine.

You see the difficulty of generalised statistics? Common cold, no treatment, 100% recovery. Appendicitis, no treatment, 0% recovery, 100% fatal; surgical treatment, >99% cure (I think). Diabetes, no treatment, 0% recovery, very high percentage fatal (even milder type II will get you in the end); medical treatment, 0% cure, but >90% recovery in the sense of clinically well on permanent treatment. Giving across the board figures is meaningless.

Placebos and useless things like homoeopathy are fine if you've got something that is going to get better anyway. Carry on. But when you're talking about real illness of the treatable variety, they're dangerous, pernicious rubbish.

[Unquote here: Rolfe, I was willing to know some informations from you because you have indicated previously. How the clinical lab. tests were done before 1875. Were those by taking blood samples as you take now & those were on ionic basis or on salt basis? Is it possible that those time doctors have found substances in salt forms by analysing the dead body's parts because living body's tests may be possible then. I mean can you tell me something about physiology & clinical lab tests of that time. Thanks)

I only have three old veterinary papers from way back then, two on horse sweat analysis (the subject of my own PhD) and one on horse urine analysis. They are dated 1888 to 1890. Analytical methods were extremely crude, and they didn't have much available. They did have litmus paper, I can see that, but in general the Materials and Methods are not well described. My impression is that Smith, the author of the urine paper, is ashing the urine and then redissolving it in different solvents to do his analysis. But in fact it doesn't matter whether he was analysing dry (salt) material or dissolved (ionic) material, it's the same substance being measured.

He describes quite a lot of constituents - total solids, urea, hippuric acid, benzoic acid, total nitrogen, ammonia, phosphoric acid, sulphuric acid and other sulphur compounds, chlorine, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, potassium oxide and sodium oxide. There's an interesting misunderstanding there, because in fact the sodium, potassium and chloride are actually present as dissociated ions and that was what he was picking up, not chlorine gas, or oxides - or if these were what he measured, they aren't the forms the elements take in the original fluid. In contrast the calcium (and I think the bulk of the magnesium) is present as insoluble suspended salts, principally calcium carbonate. Smith did realise this, in fact he stated "the amount of salts in suspension is in some cases remarkable, the most common being the carbonates of lime and magnesia", which is bang on the money, but he chose to express his results in a different form in the tables.

There are limitations due to lack of understanding of the actual compounds one might expect to encounter. Smith handles the urea/ammonia aspect very well, but clearly knows nothing at all about the other major nitrogenous compound which is present in pretty large quantities, creatinine. Other things he describes, like benzoic acid, well, I wouldn't even bother looking. I suspect he may have been measuring something else. Also, there's no record of his having looked down a microscope at the samples, which is surprising - if he had, he'd have seen crystals of calcium carbonate in abundance.

It's really interesting, but entirely from a historical perspective. On one hand I'm impressed by the painstaking work with such limited equipment, and by how far he got in some of the areas (especially spotting the insoluble, suspended calcium carbonate, and the discussion of the urea content). On the other hand, I'm judging it in the light of what I know from being able to do my own measurements using modern equipment, and where we differ, I'm confident that my figures are right and his mistaken. This is how it is with very old science. We may admire the accomplishments, but we don't rely on the results any more!

I don't know when the first analyses of blood were done. I don't have a historical reference for this, though I'm becoming interested enough to look for one, if anyone has written such a work. (I'm finding Google impossible, because of the word "history" appearing in most medical links anyway, referring to case history.) If they were doing that stuff with urine and sweat back then, I'd be surprised if nobody had tried the same game with blood serum. However, it's a lot more complex in composition than urine or sweat, and it would have been more difficult to get meaningful results. Also, I don't believe they were at the stage of being able to make many clinical conclusions from their results. I'd think it was more at the stage of finding out what's there at all - the problem is that clinicaly significant changes in many constituents would be too small for the available methods to detect

Blood glucose measurement might be the best documented - MRC_Hans may know when the earliest measurements were done.

Kumar, you've stimulated my interest in this, and I think I'll try to find out more about it. But I repeat, this is historical interest. I'd like to know when various methods were developed, and when they were precise enough to be able to pick up clinically significant alterations in subtle things like sodium and potassium, as opposed to the things with huge alterations such as glucose and urea. I'd like to know what the methods were, and how they compare to what we do now. But I don't believe I have anything to learn from the results of these times. The chemists working then were pioneers, and much to be respected, but we can do so much better now and see where they were impressively right and where they were stunningly wrong.

Dr. Schüssler was one of these early pioneers, as far as I can understand it. He tried to do some basic analyses of body constituents. Bizarrely, he looked at whole ashed bodies rather than individually at different body fluids or organs, so he would inevitably have got a broad mean with no concept of the differences between different fluid compartments or tissues. And his results would have been about as accurate as Fred Smith's urine figures, which is to say only approximate at best.

Now why should we take any account of such findings in modern medicine? The answer is we don't. It's not relevant. I'm not sure of the history of it, but as far as I can gather rather than stay in the mainstream, just adding to discoveries and revising them when better data became available, he founded a cult where he claimed to use the results of these early analyses to formulate a system of treatment. The existence of this cult, which seems to be perpetuated, as always with bogus treatment cults, by people ascribing coincidental recoveries to the treatment (and your accounts of your own experience do nothing to persuade us otherwise), appears to have "frozen" the discipline as it was in the late 19th century, while real science has left it far behind.

Kumar, I know you think this tissue salts thing is marvellous and could benefit many people if the mechanism of action were elucidated, but it just ain't so. It might have been a rational idea in its time, but it was based on false premises - partly due to the limitations of the analytical methods giving imprecise results, missing things that are there and finding things that aren't (silica), and partly due to the incorporation of enough homoeopathy to ensure that the remedies have very very little in them at all. I'm grateful to you for stimulating my interest in the history of my subject, but I can assure you that we're not missing anything the great doctor discovered in 1870.

You're imagining all this. If you want to think of it as faith healing then that might be the best way to look at it. You keep looking for a scientific explanation, but there isn't one. Because any science there was, is long out of date. The rational explanation, and the one I favour, is that everything is explained by wishful thinking and coincidental recovery. You certainly can't demonstrate anything different, as there are no controlled or repeatable studies in your favour. But if there is any effect there, magic has got to be the cause, 'cos it sure ain't scientific.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

Many many thanks of informative & suggestive reply. It looks we both are honest in our studies & feelings but there can be some differances in understandings/finding of realities.

So, by these definitions, nobody is "cured" if no medicine is given. Estimates of around 70% across the board for people just getting better on their own though. Same with placebo effect. It cures nobody, but again about 70% of people will get better anyway. On average. (Of course, close on 100% of people will get better from a common cold, while 0% of people will get better from a multiple myeloma, for example.)

According to the estimate 70%(100%) in some cases can get better or recovered(may also aquire immunitis/resistances) on their own or by placebo effect. This figure can furthur increase if particular attentions for enhancement of these effects are pursued & followed. This figure might have not taken into account the loosing of possible imunities or resistances due to taking of treatments. I think we can better know this concept by studing birds & animals living in natural & civil environment naturally with out taking any treatment from human's medical systems. However & 70% is also a significant figure. I therefore, told CMS+TRS for true or better cure, TRS being minimum contradictory remedies. It is also to be noted that if we will be satisfied that these TRS works, few chronic diseases can possibily be only handled by this system(as it enhance bio-availability/assimilation of 'defficiencies due to accumulations or indigetion'--physiological defficiency) not just remove or add to it.

Now what happens to patients who take medicines for these 70% cases which could possibily be recovered on their own? Do they pay some other price also than cost of treatments?

 

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

Thanks for telling me about some history of physiology. I have requested for this information because it is important to know the basis of theory of TRS. In this systems, the presence of these salts is given in differant tissue, eg., Calcium Fluoride( remedy Calc.Fluor) as a 'vital constituent of the elastic fibers, the surface of the bones, of cascular walls and connective tissue. Calcium Phosphate(remedy Calc.Phos) a predominant mineral salt in the blood plasma, bones, gastric juice and saliva. & so on.

It appears to me thier basis was of dead parts/tissues not the living ones. If they would have taken tissues & blood from the live specimens--then also they could had tested on salt basis. Can you just tell me that if blood/tissue constituents are found in ionic form in liveones, but they associate or converts in salt/compound forms when a person or sample of blood/tisse is in dead form? I think it can be possible that when you test/measure a blood/tissue sample then the constituents(mostly inorganic) are already converted in compound/salt form but you test in their elemental/ionic form only. Do you again convert the specimen in ionic form when you measure/test the same?

 

[Rolfe]

Kumar, I'm tired of explaining this again and again.

None of these elements is present in the body in elemental, metallic form. They are always in the ionised form. When this form of the substance is in solution, the ions are free, when it dries out (or forms an insoluble salt), it is a salt. But this is irrelevant to the measurement, which is usually done on substances in solution.

There's no difference between live and dead here - it's all a question of whether or not the substance is in solution. Most of the ions in the body are in solution, apart from the bones of course, and this doesn't change on death. It will only change if the body or body part subsequently dries out. Horse urine is just a bit odd because it has a lot of calcium and carbonate in it, which forms an insoluble salt which precipitates out of solution almost as soon as the urine is formed. In most other species crystal formation in the urine is abnormal.

Composition of the blood plasma, approximately:

Sodium, 150 mmol/l
Potassium, 5 mmol/l
Chloride, 100 mmol/l
Bicarbonate, 30 mmol/l
Calcium, 2.5 mmol/l
Phosphate (inorganic), 1 mmol/l
Magnesium, 0.7 mmol/l

There are also trace elements such as copper, zinc, selenium, iron, iodine and so on (but note, when I say "elements" I'm still talking about ionised forms, not metallic elemental forms). But not, so far as I am aware, silica.

These things are all present as free ions, you don't get insoluble salts precipitating out in the plasma. But it doesn't matter! The assays will detect them in whichever form they happen to be, there is really no difference.

Calcium Fluoride( remedy Calc.Fluor) as a 'vital constituent of the elastic fibers, the surface of the bones, of cascular walls and connective tissue. Calcium Phosphate(remedy Calc.Phos) a predominant mineral salt in the blood plasma, bones, gastric juice and saliva. & so on.

Kumar, this is just laughable. It's not entirely wrong, because the people trying to do these analyses in the 1870s did the best they could with the means at their disposal. But it's a hundred years out of date.

Schlüssler dreamed up his fanciful remedies on the back of these early attempts at mineral analysis, and as so often happens, people became irrationally convinced that they had some effect. Same as they became irrationally convinced that homoeopathic remedies had an effect, or Perkins' tractors, or acupuncture, or chiropractic manipulation and all sorts of other bogus interventions. But there isn't enough of anything in his preparations even to provide daily requirements, never mind correct a deficiency.

If there really was something valid there, we'd know about it. It's not exactly a neglected field. I measure alll the above analytes in blood plasma every day and use the results to advise as to diagnosis and treatment. I didn't even know who Schlüssler was until I learned it from you, because he's so far in the past and so irrelevant to modern practice that his contribution isn't even mentioned in modern education.

Now this is simple. I say you're imagining any effect you think is there, or just giving the remedies the credit for what would have happened anyway. I challenge you to produce even one properly-controlled and conducted study that suggests differently.

Otherwise, let's stop this circular conversation.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Kumar, I'm tired of explaining this again and again.

Sorry & thanks. But I am not yet clear about how Dr.Schlüssler could know & mentioned these ions in salt form as present in differat parts of body i.e. composition/constituents of whole body & differant parts of the body in 'salt form'. Ash analysis is indicated for the whole body but not for the parts/orgons.

None of these elements is present in the body in elemental, metallic form. They are always in the ionised form. When this form of the substance is in solution, the ions are free, when it dries out (or forms an insoluble salt), it is a salt. But this is irrelevant to the measurement, which is usually done on substances in solution.

There's no difference between live and dead here - it's all a question of whether or not the substance is in solution.

When I say elemental form I mean in single atom form not in molecular form. You are right. It can be either in ionic form or in salt form( i dont know if these can also exist in body in acid/base form as molecules not ions). Doesn't the heat energy of our living body effects the reactions( disassociation & associations) in our body. Does ions will not be converted in molecular form on death on loosing its heat energy.

But not, so far as I am aware, silica.

You can try. Check dried tissues & ash of those tissues simultaniously.

These things are all present as free ions, you don't get insoluble salts precipitating out in the plasma.

How the blood, sweat, and other discharges taste salty. Do the ions have taste i.e. if Na+ or Cl- is salty?

Rest we can discuss after when we will find the working logic.

 

[Rolfe]

But I am not yet clear about how Dr.Schlüssler could know & mentioned these ions in salt form as present in differat parts of body i.e. composition/constituents of whole body & differant parts of the body in 'salt form'. Ash analysis is indicated for the whole body but not for the parts/orgons.

Well, that's your subject. Did he measure different organs separately? Unless he did that, I don't see how he could tell.

When I say elemental form I mean in single atom form not in molecular form. You are right. It can be either in ionic form or in salt form( i dont know if these can also exist in body in acid/base form as molecules not ions). Doesn't the heat energy of our living body effects the reactions( disassociation & associations) in our body. Does ions will not be converted in molecular form on death on loosing its heat energy.

Kumar, your terminology is confusing me, but I think I understand. However, "elemental" usually denotes the unionised or metallic form. If you've ever seen sodium or potassium metal touch water, you'll know why there's none of these in the body. The things you are talking about aren't involved in molecules in the body, they're all charged ions which dissociate in solution. Nothing happens to these when the body cools down, so long as the solution doesn't dry out they stay there, just as they were.

(Silica) You can try. Check dried tissues & ash of those tissues simultaniously.

No, Kumar, I've already in another thread typed out for you everything the advanced biochemistry textbook I have here says about silica. It's not a normal constituent of the body, and it causes harm when it is present in the lungs for example. If Schlüssler thought he found some, he was mistaken. It's understandable, he only had very primitive methods to work with. I believe he missed some things which are indeed present, too.

How the blood, sweat, and other discharges taste salty. Do the ions have taste i.e. if Na+ or Cl- is salty?

Yes, absolutely! It is the dissociated dissolved ions which are tasty. Think about it. If you put dry common salt (NaCl) on your tongue it tastes very salty, but if you dissolve salt in water and taste that it also tastes salty. In fact you are tasting the dissociated ions in both cases, because some of the dry salt dissolves immediately when it comes on contact with the saliva. In contrast if you tried to taste an insoluble salt it might not taste of much because not enough would dissociate for the taste buds to detect anything.

Ions will crystallise as salts in the proportion they were present in, if a solution dries out. And if there are ions present which form insoluble salts (like the calcium and carbonate in horse urine) the insoluble salt will precipitate out even if the solution is still wet. But the ions are still the same ions, and apart from bone virtually everything in the body is dissolved. In life and death, so long as the body doesn't dry out.

Even if it does dry out, simply add water and they will redissolve. Most measurements are done on solutions, but it doesn't matter - if you have a way to measure the dry form it's still the same thing you're measuring, and how you measure it doesn't change how the ion is present in the body.

Got it yet?

Of course if I had the foggiest idea of the point you were trying to make, it might make it easier. But I've long given up on that one.

Kumar, we know a great deal about the amount and function of the electrolytes and minerals in the body. Dr. Schüler's time is long gone, and you're wasting your time trying to twist modern science to accommodate the misunderstandings he came up with.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Well, that's your subject. Did he measure different organs separately? Unless he did that, I don't see how he could tell.

Yes that is true. But I thought it is a physiology subject. However it indicate that their can be a fixed pattern of presence of various ions(salts on drying of the tissues) in the various parts of the body. eg. calcium phosphate in bones. Every time we do analysis on drying up of tissues we may get just similar salt composition in orgons of differant persons.

..I believe he missed some things which are indeed present, too.

OR probably he might have thought that these 12 are sufficient. His goal was to minimize the remedies & rules. However around 40 tissue salts are mentioned in other litretures.

Yes, absolutely! It is the dissociated dissolved ions which are tasty. Think about it. If you put dry common salt (NaCl) on your tongue it tastes very salty, but if you dissolve salt in water and taste that it also tastes salty. In fact you are tasting the dissociated ions in both cases, because some of the dry salt dissolves immediately when it comes on contact with the saliva. In contrast if you tried to taste an insoluble salt it might not taste of much because not enough would dissociate for the taste buds to detect anything.

Yes it is also true, thanks. Now I can think about the taste or sensation created by ions which possibly trigger the body to secrete various enzyimes,hormones or other body secretions to metabolize those sunstance which constitute the remedy.


Even if it does dry out, simply add water and they will redissolve. Most measurements are done on solutions, but it doesn't matter - if you have a way to measure the dry form it's still the same thing you're measuring, and how you measure it doesn't change how the ion is present in the body.

Got it yet?

I got it, thanks again. However by measuring in dried form or as in salt form, we gets the idea of the pattern of their presence in differant parts.

Of course if I had the foggiest idea of the point you were trying to make, it might make it easier. But I've long given up on that one.

Kumar, we know a great deal about the amount and function of the electrolytes and minerals in the body. Dr. Schüler's time is long gone, and you're wasting your time trying to twist modern science to accommodate the misunderstandings he came up with.

Probably we may solve some issues as a result of these discussions.

Best wishes.

 

[Rolfe]

I thought it is a physiology subject. However it indicate that their can be a fixed pattern of presence of various ions(salts on drying of the tissues) in the various parts of the body. eg. calcium phosphate in bones. Every time we do analysis on drying up of tissues we may get just similar salt composition in orgons of differant persons.

This is quite correct. However, do you know if Dr. Schüssler actually did this? If he reported different compositions for different tissues, it would seem likely that he did. And indeed, it's technically easier to analyse single organs than whole bodies.

The different ionic composition of different tissues and (more importantly) body fluid compartments is very well understood. If you would just get yourself that physiology textbook you could learn such a lot!

Of course, you'd learn more if you approached the subject with an open mind, rather than trying to twist every little bit of information into some fantastic theory you think might support your imaginary tissue remedies.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

This is quite correct. However, do you know if Dr. Schüssler actually did this? If he reported different compositions for different tissues, it would seem likely that he did. And indeed, it's technically easier to analyse single organs than whole bodies.

It is not mentioned that he did this analysis.But he mentioned only their presence in body & tissues. May be it was a regular feature of his time physiology.

The different ionic composition of different tissues and (more importantly) body fluid compartments is very well understood. If you would just get yourself that physiology textbook you could learn such a lot!

But if there is a fixed composition of differant ions in differant parts of wet body OR is a fixed composition of differant salts in differant parts of dried/ashed body?

 

[Rolfe]

But if there is a fixed composition of differant ions in differant parts of wet body OR is a fixed composition of differant salts in differant parts of dried/ashed body?

Rolfe.