THE INTERFACE BETWEEN BIO-LIMINAL TECHNOLOGY AND CLASSICAL
HOMEOPATHY: CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS
THE INTERFACE BETWEEN BIO-LIMINAL TECHNOLOGY AND CLASSICAL
HOMEOPATHY: CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS
By Charles Wansbrough published March 2000
At the heart of the homeopathic model lies the ‘law of similars’, which has been metaphorically interpreted in terms of ‘the laws of resonance’. It is an apt metaphor to explain how the bio-energetic fields of the human organism are actively changed by their interaction with homeopathic remedies. Such remedies are always given on the basis of their similarity to the complex signature of a patient derived from a therapeutic encounter. We can further explain through the principles of resonance why a remedy may have only partially acted, by stating that its wave pattern was not a close enough match to fully engage the bio-energetic field of that patient.
Such a metaphor may actually be a very useful model in explaining the alarming proliferation of opinions and methodologies that seem to abound within the homeopathic arena. Before engaging in a discussion of such a model, I would like to define some terms that may be helpful in interfacing with a homeopathic model.
Wave signature of a remedy refers to the premise that a homeopathic remedy carries the information necessary for healing in the form of a subtle composite waveform. My premise is to assume that all potentised remedies carry a unique wave signature, and I am also assuming that all living organisms also interact with their environments through their bio-energetic system as a complex wave signature.
Bio-matrix refers to the overall energetic configuration of the human individual which gives rise to bio-energetic fields which interact with remedies. A matrix is the substrate which upholds or supports different hierarchical levels of complexity.
Bio-liminal information refers to the work and observations collated over years by Patrick Richards regarding a novel aspect of consciousness, which has been observed via the medium of photography. Other articles have been dedicated to a discussion of this phenomenon, and I am going to use the empirical observations derived from observing this phenomenon by directly relating them to the homeopathic model of interaction. The word ‘bio-liminal’ was coined to indicate the biological nature of the information, together with the fact that it lies below the normal threshold of awareness and therefore ‘liminal’ was used to indicate this threshold. The use of this technology allow us to actively make some important clinical and empirical observations regarding the function and action of homeopathic remedies
Frequency Domain refers to the bandwidth accessible to a practitioner when engaging in a therapeutic encounter with the use of remedy wave signatures. A simple example of this is when I want to tune into say Radio 3 on the radio, I turn the dial to 91.3Mz. However, one will still derive a signal at 91.1 and at 91.4 so its bandwidth ranges between 91.1 and 91.4, indicating a narrow bandwidth. On the other hand, other radio stations may have far larger bandwidths and can be accessed through a broader range of frequencies. The point is that the bio-matrix of patients have certain bandwidths, some wider than others, and this is of enormous relevance to the model being proposed here.
BIO-LIMINAL TECHNOLOGY
For a discussion of this technology we refer readers to the website: http://www.biolumenetics.net. My aim in this article is to expand on my experience using the technology with Classical homeopathy. Before doing this, I need to give my own personal interpretation of what the term ‘Classical homeopathy’ means to me to avoid any possible confusion.
In the simplest terms the basis of Classical homeopathy rests on the one remedy approach. If this remedy matches the energetic wave signature of the patient, then a dramatic shift in health takes place and the patient is cured of their malady. This is the process in a nutshell, and this was the construct that I applied when treating patients homeopathically. My only wish was to discover whether I could find effective remedies which matched the patients’ symptomatology resulting in a dramatic shift in their symptoms and active movement towards health. The technology allows one to measure the ‘potential outcome’ of a particular remedy by taking a Polaroid photograph of the patient holding the remedy in his or her field. It is that simple!
The best possible remedy for the patient always produces a clear photograph of the patient, (see other articles) and this phenomenon, using the resonance model, can be assumed to occur if the correct wave signature of the remedy matches the domain frequency of the bio-matrix of the patient, thereby leading to an instantaneous increase in the photon emission of the patient. One can only assume that the correct energetic configuration brought about by the energy transfer that results in resonance is caught as a surge in photon emission on the photographic plate. This assumption was the one I made after experimenting with the technology over a period of six months. In reality, Patrick Richards, who created and researched the technology over a period of twenty years, used a different subtle energy medicine. The basis of his energetic medicine was a solution which he called a chelate, modified by the same method by which he configured the field generator, and I was unsure whether I could achieve the same clarity with standard homeopathic remedies as he had observed using his own energetic chelates.
After some two years of observing and using the Bioliminal technology, my own empirical observations have validated those of Patrick’s, but in this case using single homeopathic remedies instead of his chelates. Even with the advantages of the technology, to take a case and then prescribe the best remedy for a patient is always a very demanding process requiring a mixture of clinical knowledge and intuitive skill. Using the technology, the best possible remedy for the patient shows up as a crystal clear image indicating high photon emission. Unfortunately, it is extraordinarily difficult to find the exact simillimum for each patient at every session, given the restraints of time, the limits of our skills as practitioners and the number of photographs we permit ourselves to take. We have established a procedure of limiting ourselves to a maximum of twelve photographs per session, as we have found that overstepping this limit tends to lead to a loss of focus on the part of the prescribers. If we are unable to find a good remedy for the patient within these parameters, we tend to ask the patient back for another session. Thankfully this only occurs in a small minority of cases. This procedure has been well delineated in my article Androctonus A Protocol.
CLINICAL
EVALUATION AND MODUS OPERANDI
Since the technology allows us to make qualitative statements about the effectiveness or degree of resonance that a remedy creates, we will now make some observations that have arisen from our clinical practice and which we hope will contribute to the ongoing debate within the homeopathic community.
In meeting the awesome demands of a technology, which effectively negates your own input until the best remedy is found, we rearranged the materia medica in terms of kingdoms and then subdivided these into the families, genuses and species. Each kingdom was analysed this way and Jan Scholten’s methodology was the key to the establishment of our own modus operandi. After all, we only take two hours over our appointments, and in this period of time we have to scan or intuitively know an extraordinary amount of materia medica in order to find the correct remedy. It is equally interesting to note and concur with Jan Scholten’s own observations as we began by prescribing polychrests and found that very little clarity ensued with this approach, and were forced by the sheer pressure of circumstances to change our prescribing to smaller or unknown remedies. As I note in the editorial to our website, in a survey of 75 patients, the prescriptions of non-polychrest remedies was as high as 75% which is not to say that polychrests would not have worked, but Classical homeopathy is based on the best possible remedy (the simillimum) to do the maximum amount of healing in the shortest time possible. This particular maxim has been my guiding principle since I realised that if it was possible to find the remedy that produced complete clarity using the technology, then it would perform the maximum amount of energetic reconfiguration in the shortest possible time available within the bounds of patient’s expectation. The whole process is not easy and I still find it extraordinarily difficult, but I am slowing improving and with time I may be able to call myself a homeopath of moderate knowledge!
Point One: Patients have different domain frequencies. This means that some patients will react to a number of different remedies whilst other patients will react to very few remedies.
Firstly I would like to point out an interesting clinical observation regarding the base photograph taken of an individual patient at the initial consultation. The base photograph is the first photograph we take with the Polaroid camera when a patient initially comes into the consultation room. Since an individual presents an infinitely complex dynamic wave pattern that is ceaselessly in motion, a base shot gives us an instant frozen moment in time and space of that wave signature on photography. We have found that this frozen moment represents their state at that moment and any subsequent interaction with any potentised remedy will change the nature of the photographic image depending on the quality of match or mismatch that the remedy represents as an interacting wave signature with the bio-matrix of the individual under treatment.
We have noticed that different patients present with different qualitative states in their photographic base images taken in the bioliminal field. Our conclusions regarding this anomaly in respect to a homeopathic model, is that it represents the degree of bandwidth available for prescribing at that instant in time.
In other words, different patients present with different frequency domains. This means that a patient presenting with a very clear photograph indicates that in practise only the correct remedy will elicit a response in his bio-matrix; an incorrect remedy would have no response, but because the base photograph is so clear the access to his bandwidth is very narrow and necessitates a very skilful prescription if one hopes to change the energetic configuration of that patient. The reasons for this narrow frequency domain are not at this moment relevant to this discussion. On the other hand, a patient who presents with a very fuzzy photograph as their base, represents a wide frequency domain and this implies that a number of remedies would have an effect on their bio-matrix, some even producing a dramatic effect although still not being the exact simillimum.
Prior to the qualitative evaluation of the technology, as homeopaths we had no way of knowing how a patient presented, but such an observation in terms of frequency domains explains why several homeopaths might prescribe different remedies for the same patient and theoretically obtain some amelioration. It also explains how the process of effective zig-zagging between different remedies will work well at times, since a close remedy given to a patient that presents a wide frequency domain may energetically configure the patient to an ameliorated state and a better state of energy. On the other hand, a patient presenting with a very narrow frequency domain presents one with a veritable challenge because only a very close similar will engage with enough energy to overcome this narrow bandwidth.
Point Two: The therapeutic encounter is a marriage of three wave signatures: that of the patient, that of the remedy and that of the practitioner. This effectively diminishes the myth of objective clarity to which some homeopaths seem to religiously adhere.
The second point to be made is that in the therapeutic process there is an intimate relationship between the patient and homeopath. The wave signature of the homeopath has a role to play in how effective the placebo effect will be. The practitioner’s presence, or bio-matrix, represents another wave signature that may add or detract from the effectiveness of the remedy.
This is why, in the last resort, it is impossible to be absolutely objective about the interaction of a remedy as the wave signature of the practitioner always interacts with that of the remedy and that of the patient. The unprejudiced observer is far more important that one realises; a negative or abreaction to a patient may well influence the efficacy of the therapeutic interaction. The mode of examining this proposition can also be done through the use of the bioliminal technology. Effectively the field generator created by Patrick allows us to capture wave signatures on photographs, and to thereby ascertain, in terms of coherence or incoherence, the positive or negative results from an interaction between two people or more. (See another article for a fuller examination of coherence)
What can be examined via the photographic image is the degree of coherent or incoherent interaction that occurs between different people. This interface makes explicit information which is normally implicit and is felt by certain individuals as intuitive feelings of unease or distress when in the company of others. Theoretically, one could evaluate one’s degree of coherence relative to that of a patient by taking a photograph of yourself standing next to the patient after their base photograph had been taken. When two people are photographed together the resulting photograph will either be coherent or incoherent indicating the effect the respective wave signatures have on each other. The negative or detrimental effect of such a procedure is to draw energy away from the patient, and/or oneself thereby decreasing the effect of the placebo effect, which is an essential element of any therapeutic encounter. I have yet to carry out this experiment as the ethics of such a procedure and its usefulness is somewhat suspect.
Patrick Richards, as part of his experimental protocol, started to treat families together, and discovered that though one member of a family might be very sick, if he photographed the whole family and the interactions between different members of the family - a complex procedure - he was able to pinpoint the real source of stress in the family. He also discovered that if he treated the real source of stress in the family, for example a father who perhaps felt his son was not living up to his expectations, then not only did the family return to coherence but the son’s ailments also dissolved without the son actually receiving any medicaments. This particular scenario is not that surprising for homeopaths; cases abound where the mothers of sick children have been treated instead of the children, with the result that those children have been cured without ever being given a remedy. So such interactions should not surprise us, and one must always be aware of how effective one’s own unique wave signature can be in modulating the outcome of a therapeutic encounter. One could speculate further and say that correct and focussed intention alone should be an effective healing medium, and I suspect that healers are able to project their wave signatures in a particularly concentrated and effectively focussed way. Moreover healers, by virtue of their ability, must be able to simulate a far greater range of wave signatures than a normal individual.
Point Three: The Simillimum corresponds to the optimum match between the wave signature of a remedy and that of the wave signature of the bio-matrix.
This is a complex issue. The notion of the simillimum implies that for each state there is an optimum remedy, maybe only one remedy which is an exact match for that state. Nevertheless, the very axiom, ‘the law of similars’, only functions within the constraints of similar potentials, a clinical observation that has been validated since homeopathy was established. As mentioned, we have seen through our use of the bioliminal technology that patients vary in the breadth of their frequency domains – some have very limited wavebands whilst others have larger wavebands. This means that for the first group of patients only very few remedies will produce any change in their state whilst the remaining group may respond to a larger number of remedies. This must correspond to the facts, otherwise if a patient only improved with their optimum remedy, homeopathy would never have been able to function effectively. For example, I have estimated that out of the Arthropod phylum, which includes the spiders and insects, Tarantula and Apis are commonly prescribed remedies, yet it can be estimated that the percentage of the arthropod group that have actually been potentised and not even used amounts to 0.004% of this huge group of animals. Yet two major remedies of this group elicit enough resonance to overcome the colossal asymmetry that the facts present.
In a way, the technology has shown us what is in fact the state of affairs which homeopaths intuit in the first place. With the first group we are compelled, because of their restricted waveband, to find a more exact simillimum. With the patients who have a larger wave band, whilst we may be able to get movement in their state of health with a number of different remedies, usually there is one remedy which could be said to be the optimum prescription, the closest match to the patient’s state and this remedy, when prescribed, tends to produce profound effects in the life of that patient. This is reflected by the clarity of the photographs. Usually, when we hit upon the exact simillimum we are greeted by a crystal clear photograph with a high photon emission (the background colour of the photo is bright yellow and the photo looks just like a normal photograph). We know that when we achieve this type of clarity that the remedy is an exact match and will provoke a deep reaction in the patient. We have learnt to equate crystal clarity of the bioliminal image with the optimum remedy, the simillimum, through observing the clinical effects of these matches. Of course, the optimum is not reached all the time, and sometimes we have to make do with an almost clear photo and sometimes with not as high a photo emission as we would prefer (green background colour). Sometimes with this type of reduced clarity we may find a number of remedies which produce the same type of clarity and then we have to make a choice amongst them.
This is not to say that the remedy which produces this type of photo will not work. It often does quite well. But we know that another remedy could also have been given which might have worked as well. Thus we cannot say in this instance that that remedy is the simillimum for the patient at that time. We can only say that it is a good remedy for the patient, perhaps a close enough match. We are after all just dealing with similars here. To give an example from our practice: we took the case of a patient who is a student homeopath and who had received many different remedies from other homeopaths over the years. Immediately we knew that the remedy which she might require from us maybe a more unusual remedy than the normal polychrests since she had been prescribed most of these. The remedy which we prescribed at the first session was Baryta Muriaticum (clearish photo but with green background colour). This had an effect on the patient but we were not completely satisfied. The next remedy we prescribed was Beryllium (even clearer photo but also with green background colour). This had more of a marked effect than the previous remedy but still it had not initiated the deeper changes we had hoped for. At the third consultation we asked more questions to fully comprehend the state of the patient which had been rather eluding us. The remedy Adamas (Diamond) elicited a crystal clear photograph with very high photon emission. We suspected that this was the bulls eye prescription we had been looking for and that the remedy when prescribed would provoke a profound reaction. This then could be said to be the exact simillimum for the patient’s state at that time and that this would have been the correct remedy for the patient at the first consultation had we been able to find it. Another example – a patient came with menstrual and skin problems. We prescribed Pituitary Gland 200 which elicited a clear photo but with low photon emission (green background). The results of this remedy was very good – 80 per cent reduction in all symptoms. In view of the good result we thought oh good, this is probably the exact simillimum for the patient and probably she requires a repeat prescription. However, on testing Pituitary Gland again, it produced a fuzzy image, much to our dismay. We knew that it would do nothing if we repeated it and that we had to find an even closer match. We eventually found that Folliculinum produced an absolutely crystal clear image with very high photon emission and we knew that we had our remedy and that it would probably go on to cure the patient. Now it is interesting that homeopaths without the technology, given the very good results of Pituitary Gland initially, would probably have either waited or repeated this remedy and that it might have produced some further changes but that it probably would have run out at some stage. How many clinical cases in our journals are an example of this? A close remedy but not the exact simillimum?
Point Four: There appears to be some confusion in homeopaths between the terms ‘simillimum’ and the ‘constitutional remedy’. The simillimum is not the same as the constitutional remedy.
The simillimum, at least from my own understanding, applies to the optimum frequency match found at any therapeutic encounter. The simillimum, or similar remedy, applies to solely to the clarity of frequency correspondence elicited in the meeting between patient and remedy. The patient exhibits a state of frequency incoherence, and our sole motivation as homeopath is to find the optimum remedy at that moment to reconfigure the bio-matrix of the patient towards a healthier state of coherence. Such states, which correspond to optimum ‘remedy wave signatures’ found at any therapeutic moment, are not to be confused with constitutional states. The term ‘constitutional’ applies to a different conceptual level which implies historically an almost magical remedy that embraces and matches all aspects of the individual – physical, emotional and mental symptomatology. The term ‘constitutional’ seems to revolve around the idea of finding a remedy which is equivalent to the golden mean, in so far as by finding this exact remedy, the entire health of a patient will dramatically shift towards a state of cure in the shortest possible time. It is a mythical construct that implies that by finding such a remedy, (the simillimum) the patient will then remain in a healthy state but nevertheless locked into a rather narrow frequency domain. A ludicrous contradiction!
Life and the human condition, together with our own clinical observations, cannot possibly reflect this state of affairs. The bio-matrix of each patient is in a state of ceaseless and dynamic interchange both internally and externally, and today we prefer to think of remedies as states of being. This not only adds a more dynamic interpretation to the exchange of energy between remedies and patients, but equally dispels the confusion that arises between the simillimum ( an optimum frequency state) and the constitutional remedy (in our view a mythical construct not borne out in practise). To give a lucid example of this distinction, let us refer to the case written up in the journal: Androctonus A Protocol. This particular patient had suffered from constipation since the age of fifteen, had taken laxatives all her life, and had also developed osteo-arthritis of one hip over a period of three years. As the case demonstrates, we found Androctonus to be her simillimum, or optimum remedy, which dramatically cleared what had been a chronic problem all her life. This could be considered as a clear case of the patient’s ‘constitutional remedy’ since I suspect that if this remedy had been prescribed at any time in her life it may well have produced the same result. However, at the fifth appointment the patient presented a very distressed state triggered by some domestic problems. We assumed that the so-called ‘constitutional’ remedy, found and clearly articulated through its activity, would work again to dispel the patient’s state of stress. The impeccable logic of a ‘constitutional’ state implies that stress in a healthy state will inevitably reproduce a constitutional remedy signature, as the state represents the patient’s unique healthy domain. Ironically, this was not what we clinically observed, for on asking the patient to hold Androctonus as a remedy at this appointment, we found her picture to be totally incoherent. At first we were surprised, but we did find that Tarantula Hispanica produced complete coherency and acted instantaneously as her acute remedy. The question remains: can we call this an acute state or a different state? The point to be made is that at this fifth appointment, the simillimum corresponding to the optimal frequency state was Tarantula, yet her so called ‘constitutional’ failed to act. My feelings are that the constitutional remedy construct may have arisen when there was a limited amount of remedies available for prescribing and thus one had to fit one’s patients into these remedy pictures. Given the changing nature of modern society, together with the evolutionary pressures of multiple roles presented to the human condition, we are prone to changing states far more rapidly than were our ancestors. Given such evolving parameters, the notion of a ‘constitutional’ state becomes a redundant concept that ceases to have any clinical significance in our practise. This point is clearly reiterated by Jan Scholten in the epilogue to his magnificent book ‘Homeopathy and the Elements’. He makes the point that patients are not remedies; somebody may have a problem, but he is not the problem; if he were that state then he could obviously not be cured!
My own thoughts on the subject of the ‘constitutional’ is to do away with the fixed implications of this whole concept, and replace it with more fluid ‘attractor states’ ( a term borrowed from Chaos theory) which represent emerging habitual patterns which constantly reoccur in the lifetime of the patient, until the insight necessary to dissolve such habits is encountered in the lifeline of that patient. This concept needs further investigations and as such is the subject of another article.
Point Five : The need to wait for prescribing again we have not found to be the normative procedure using the technology as a guide.
This brings me to the thorny problem of the speed at which a correct remedy will act and the need to repeat the same remedy again. This is a controversial point of view, and though I cannot claim to have seen enough cases, I can say that the rate at which a state or remedy picture changes is very variable.
The observations noted after a correct remedy has acted (a correct remedy is assumed to be that one that created a crystal clear photograph) can result in a number of variations on how to act.
(a) Some cases have returned after the correct remedy to produce crystal clear base photographs on their second visit. This has indicated to us that the remedy has acted at a deep level and that we should wait since one cannot give a remedy to further amplify clarity. However, it is our observation that after the third visit most of these cases needed a new remedy. In other words, the correct remedy had acted deeply and dissolved that state thereby increasing the degrees of freedom and health.
(b) Some cases, after a correct prescription, have already changed by the second visit and require a new remedy. The case where we prescribed Tantulum is an example of this phenomenon (described on the website). This remedy elicited a crystal clear photograph and provoked dramatic changes in our patient and normally we would have been tempted to wait after such a prescription. Nevertheless, a month later, we felt that the state of our patient had changed from the state of indecision which was the essence upon which we prescribed at the first session and this insight was clearly validated when we photographed the patient holding Tantalum at this follow-up session - the resulting photograph was extraordinarily incoherent, which is why we were forced to find another remedy. Another state necessitated another remedy, an observation which is borne out by Jan Scholten in his epilogue to Homeopathy and the Elements. A patient is not a remedy, but presents a state which attenuates his/her degrees of freedom; when the state (and remedy picture) is dissolved he/she then returns to a situation of multiple potentials, no individual being a remedy for life.
(c) Some patients have needed the same remedy prescribed over a period of months; this ideal situation (the type of cases usually written up in homeopathic journals and textbooks) where the patient requires only one remedy for months or even years, has not been borne out in our experience. Invariably, even those cases that follow the classical norm of the one remedy, which may need to be repeated once every 3-6 months, change far more rapidly that we would have expected. Furthermore, we can evaluate states clearly, using the technology as a guide, and invariably know when even a correct remedy state has dissolved and this follows the dictates of Samuel Hahnemann when he states: ‘the highest ideal of therapy is to restore health rapidly, gently, permanently; to remove and destroy the whole disease in the shortest, surest, least harmful way, according to clearly comprehensible principles’. Such principles remain the bedrock of homeopathic practise, yet today in the 21st century, such principles may need to be consolidated by technologies of subtle medicine such as this bioliminal phenomenon.
To reiterate: my colleague and I have observed that when the exact simillimum is given, the state of a patient being presented for treatment may dissolve rapidly and a new state may arise to be treated, often within 3 months of the original prescription.
We explain this phenomenon as follows. If the remedy is an exact simillimum the original state the person came with should dissolve pretty quickly. As to how long this will take depends on the person and the depth of that state. The states of some patients are removed within a month or so whilst for others the process takes a bit longer. Now life is a continual process and this is reflected by the technology. After the initial state is removed, the person may find that there are other problems which arise in their lives which couldn’t come up or be dealt with unless the original problem had been eradicated. We thus need a new remedy to deal with this new problem or issue. It is like following a constantly flowing river. We read many cases in the journals where only one remedy has been given for years and to tell the truth we find this does not match our experience or what the technology reveals to us in practice. We would love it to be otherwise as constantly finding new remedies for patients sorely tests our skill and knowledge and we would relish an easier life! The other aspect to this problem is where we are not able to find the exact simillimum for the patient and in these cases we tend to zig-zag with the most optimum remedies we can find at each session. This necessitates changing remedies more often, usually after each month, as we try and find an even better remedy for the patient. And in this respect I do not think we are any different from any of our colleagues.
Furthermore, the need to wait for remedies to be processed was never found to be necessary when Patrick Richards developed the technology. He found by using his own modified solutions of homeopathic remedies that he could prescribe at each visit and he would tend to see patients every two weeks; his results and the pace of cure were astounding by any standards.
Point Six : The use of poly-pharmacy is based on the same principles as single remedy prescriptions. Nevertheless, successful poly-pharmacy requires enormous skill.
One final point regarding Poly-pharmacy must be made. One of the major criticisms made against the practise of poly-pharmacy is the inherent difficulty in ascertaining which remedy is the curative one and therefore the one that needs to be prescribed again. This particular criticism becomes irrelevant when one has the technology, since one is always trying to prescribe to the greatest clarity produced by the photographic imagery. My problems in trying to effectively use poly-pharmacy with the technology are due to my own inexperience and inadequate skills in configuring the correct composite wave signatures, which would produce coherence. My own knowledge of combining different remedies is limited, but I am certain a very skilful poly-pharmacist would obtain equally effective results.
Patrick Richards effectively used poly-pharmacy in prescribing more than one remedy at a time, as he would normally prescribe up to four chelates at the same time, which when their wave signatures were correctly configured, would produce absolute clarity in the field. In effect, he was a very skilful prescriber of poly-pharmacy, but only when the composite wave signatures of his chelates produced clarity, using the technology as his guide. The clinical results he obtained using this particular methodology, in combining composite wave signatures, corresponded to the highest ideals that Hahnemann laid down, as quoted above. The speed of cure was extremely rapid, hardly any aggravations ever took place, and he studiously kept in touch with many of his patients for up to six years and found them to stay permanently well.
SUMMARY
To sum up, the most useful clinical observation, which has arisen from our use of the technology, has been the theme of frequency domains. This useful concept helps to explain why some patients state categorically that homeopathy has never worked for them, the reason being that their very narrow frequency domain excludes any response from most remedies; their configuration may well be subsumed under the frequency signature of a very small remedy. Others patients react to many remedies, which can be interpreted as a large frequency domain, and therefore they may well react to a range of remedies. The next useful clinical observation is that the wave signature of the therapist may either attenuate or amplify the effects of the remedy, which falls into that rather mystifying arena of the placebo effect!
In the final analysis, different homeopaths will use different cognitive constructs ranging from the medical to the esoteric, and may even generate effective placebo strategies, but there still has to be an active transfer of information within the therapeutic encounter, and however this scenario is configured, that information is crucial and has certain energetic dimensions that must be addressed for it to work effectively. Homeopathy works on the law of similars, which implies matching the wave signature of the patient to that of the remedy, and in this process there may be innumerable strategies that can be employed to do this. Yet the movement of information that occurs is absolutely necessary for the ensuing drama of cure to take place, and any precise technology that can contribute in defining this information is an extraordinary bonus. My colleague and I have worked with the technology for over two years, and my hope is, that it may contribute towards the ongoing renaissance in homeopathic therapeutics, as we need further methods of evaluation in the rather awesome maze that materia medica has become. The process is ongoing, and further investigations need to be carried out, nevertheless it represents a change of emphasis in subtle medicine and another nail in that awesome monolithic coffin of reductive science.