G: What do you think homeopathy is not?
AV: It’s not a cure for certain ailments.
A: Oh, no?
AV: Do you mean it is?
G: I’m just noting that homeopaths, including yourself, regularly prescribe remedies for anxiety, sprains, coughs, rashes, insomnia, flu, insect bites, shall I continue?
AV: These are clinical prescriptions, on acute symptoms, not profound healings from the core of one’s being.
G: However, the first axiom is wrong.
AV: You’re right; It should sound like this: in homeopathy there are remedies for diseases and ailments.
G: What’s next?
AV: Homeopathic remedies are not ‘substances’: they can be made in a radionic device – the equivalent of an empty box – or in a noetic way, what we used to call ‘paper remedies’.
G: If they are not substances, what are they?
AV: Symbolic representations.
G: Explain yourself further.
AV: The means represent something; they symbolize something. That ‘something’ can be either a substance from nature, a man-made thing, a concept or an idea, in principle it can be anything that can be imagined. When we say ‘buttercup’ or write down or Ranunculus bulbosus, or with a generated numerical code for buttercup in a radionic device make the remedy: it represents the buttercup in our garden. When that buttercup is potentiated 200 times in a homeopathic company under strict hygienic conditions and protocols, there is no substance left and Ranunculus bulbosus 200K is also a symbolic remedy.
G: However, it can be shown with measuring instruments that a procedure with a starting substance and the same procedure that lacks it produce different results. It is also possible to measure the differences between one potentised starting substance and another, i.e. one agent is not the other. They are all demonstrably and measurably different.
AV: That’s exactly what one of my questions is about.
G: Can you formulate it clearly?
AV: Why is it that not all substances potentized above Avogadro’s number yield the same thing, namely shaken water?
G: As the skeptics claim.
AV: Skeptics don’t read the literature, and when they do, they don’t believe the results. You said that the differences are measurable between one shaken water and another, skeptics don’t know about those studies or ignore the outcome. But I understand them; When you see a shaking machine at work, where the glass tube is automatically filled with water, shaken violently for a few seconds and then emptied through the bottom, after which the container is filled again at the top, shaken, emptied and this 200 times, they shake their heads. What the skeptic has seen is a glass tube, originally filled with the tincture of a product and then rinsed out 200 times or even 1000 times. The latter water is then sprayed over milk sugar granules and sold as a homeopathic medicine. And those are the ‘real’ homeopathic remedies that seem more reliable with their pharmaceutical dress – also for most homeopaths – than the radionic or noetic ones, while they are actually not much crazier. All three seem to be rituals; In the firms, ‘something’ is shaken and diluted until nothing is left and the last 2 seem to make something out of nothing.
G: Like everything that is created.
AV: There you say something like that! Everything is created out of nothing, isn’t it? Creatio ex nihilo!
G: It may sound nicer in Latin, but that’s what you all do all the time.
AV: Creating something out of nothing? You mean….!!
G: First, let’s see if you have any conclusions that homeopathy isn’t. So far we have: homeopathic remedies are not substances, is that all?
AV: Apart from the things that most homeopaths agree on, yes. That homeopathy is not a form of regular medicine with healthy or at least non-toxic remedies, that it is a naturopathy, that it is a complementary healing method, but we don’t need to talk about that. I would love to continue creating from scratch.
