Kirlian
photography
Kirlian
found that when he photographed living materials in a high frequency
oscillating EM field, he saw in the films colored lights apparently
surrounding, and emanating, from the object – rays from
finger tips, auras around leaves. Kirlian auras are only visible
in the film. They are not apparent when one looks directly at
the object in the field. So we are not dealing with visible light.
We are dealing with an invisible energy – still possibly
an EM radiation, e.g. UV. Most scientists feel that Kirlian photography
is artifactual, but the artifact is not adequately explained.
The Professor thought it was probably a “moisture artifact”.
That Kirlian photography records patterns of moisture that surround
objects. Well, it would be interesting to know why there are rays
of moisture coming off people’s fingers tips. But it’s
more likely that we are looking at EM fields. After all, we can
expect those be there.
When
you put an EM field-generating/interfacing crystal [such as bone,
collagen, or cellulose, the stuff that animals and plants are
made of in a high frequency oscillating EM field you might expect
to see a lucent reaction, but not necessarily in our narrow spectrum
of visible light. But note, there is a difference between dead
and living materials in the Kirlian field: wood, paper, non-living
substances don’t generate the same fields, so we’ll
have to distinguish “living crystals” , there is a
difference between dead and living processes. In the living crystal
processes are happening to their EM field – and when we
put a living system in a high frequency oscillating EM field,
I don’t think that lucent phenomenon should surprise us.
The world no doubt behaves, as it should. There is neither miracle
nor artifact here.
Kirlian
photography and homoeopathy
Igor
Jerman, M.D., Sc.D., Full Professor of Theoretical Biology, Slovenia
shares his experience with homoeopathic dilutions of potassium
iodide in water:
Although
more than 200 years have elapsed since the beginning of homoeopathy,
the so-called (long-term) memory of water is still a highly disputable
and controversial theme in scientific circles. On the basis of
the known and accepted physical laws and properties of water,
a vast majority of scientific community does not allow even a
remote possibility that water might “remember” a substance
once diluted in it. The reason for this is that the Brownian motion
of water molecules and clusters would annihilate any memory structures
in terms of Pico seconds. However, in spite of this presumably
physical impossibility many healing practitioners as well as many
scientists claim on empirical grounds that water can prove its
memorizing capacities. In physical researches the most striking
results indicating water memory were obtained from NMR, UV and
X-rays spectroscopy of ultra-highly diluted water (ultra high
dilution means a dilution of a substance in which there is high
probability that not even one molecule is left; it is practically
Pure water), less significant results were gained from Roman spectroscopy.
Many challenging results were obtained in physiological researches
on various organisms such as wheat, tadpoles, chicken embryos,
mice, humans, cell cultures etc. there were also some extensive
double-blind medical examinations of homoeopathic treatment that
showed statistically significant differences between placebo and
homoeopathic water effects.
|
|
|
A
series of experiments was performed, in which potassium
iodide (KI) solutions of different concentrations (prepared
in twice distilled water; water was prepared in the laboratory
for Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical
Technology, University of Ljubljana) were compared with
pure twice-distilled water (control, named K0). KI solution
was used because it gave most significant results in our
research of the influence of ionic composition of water
on the corona discharge around water drops. |
PH of twice distilled water was around 6
(presumably because of CO2) and any solid precipitates from glass
were present only in traces. However, KI solutions were prepared
with the same water as the control, so any trace impurities were
present in both compared waters.
Our
results therefore reveal two different effects: that of dilution
and that of succession (the vigorous shaking of the solution during
the potentisation process); they are both combined in homoeopathic
solutions. The effect of diluted substances, generally directed
in opposite to that of normally effective solutions (for instance
poisons), is already known as the hormesis effect (according to
Neafsey, hormesis is a term which has been applied to a variety
of stimulatory responses to low doses of otherwise toxic substances
which improve health and enhance longevity). Our results consistently
prove that strongly diluted substances have an effect opposite
to that of the mother solution and usually to that of the weak
solution (10-3M) as well. This indicates a possibility that the
hormesis effect is not based only on some general physiological
properties of organisms but on the as yet unknown physical properties
of the solutions themselves. But there is also a certain difference
between the hormesis effect and our investigations, since the
former usually disappears at higher dilutions (around 10-5M),
while Kirlian electro photography still reveals some significant
effects even at dilutions as high as 10-24M.
In
conclusion, our results demonstrate repeatable and statistically
significant effects of highly diluted standard and homoeopathic
dilutions of KI on corona discharge Kirlian electrography. This,
together with countless results obtained by other research groups,
related to biological effects of homoeopathic dilutions, indicates
that there is some physical basis enabling organisms to utilize
information imprinted into water.
What
statistics have to say about homoeopathic results?
Duplicated
remedies show no change in freezing patterns or in Kirlian photography.
Duplicated remedies are probably a placebo response at best. To
test this supposition, a double blind experiment was conducted.
Procedure:
35
patients were chosen from a naturopathy doctor’s practice.
All patients were using homoeopathy on a regular basis and knew
what results to expect. Some patients used a Candida nosode to
control bloating or other body symptoms; others used Belladonna
or Lachesis for symptoms. All were familiar with their remedy’s
effect. Each patient was given either a regular homoeopathic or
a duplicated remedy. Each patient was also given either a placebo
sugar pill, or a pill with 5mg. Narcan (Naloxone). Naloxone is
used to block endorphin response and has been found to block the
placebo effect in placebo responsive patients. Patient profiles
were chosen to exclude those symptoms of pain as Naloxone can
increase pain perception. The test was double blind with neither
patient or practioner knowing which formula was given. Patients
were given questionnaires to evaluate the efficacy of the remedy.
Results of the effectiveness are shown in the accompanying diagram.

Results:
Tests
indicated that the duplicated remedy performed significantly lower
than the real remedy. The placebo blocking Narcan pill significantly
lowered efficacy. Perhaps the information transfer of mode number
four (multi-dimensional transfer) could account for the transfer
of duplicators; the Narcan with its endorphin blocking action
might also block other dimensional information transfer. Even
though the study shows a markedly decreased efficacy with the
duplicated remedy, radionic remedies have no pharmacology, uantic
state or polymorphic state; thus, they are not homoeopathics yet
homoeopathy is continually blamed for radionic remedies that fail.
Here
again, quality is not of paramount importance to all homoeopathic
practitioners. Some prefer the greater monetary reward duplicators
or imprinters provide. This lack of focus on quality and effectiveness
compromises the homoeopathic industry. Only through quality and
dedication to developing and delivering the finest homoeopathics
can we truly succeed.