Years ago Abrams had an instrument with which he made certain diagnose. He selected remedies according tot he diagnoses which he made. I have a good friend, in Newton, in Kansas, who has an instrument by which he can make his diagnosis, select his remedy, and tell the effect of the potency. William E.Boyd has an instrument which works i a similar manner. I dont believe that Abrams, or Guy, or anyone else, ever claimed that his process was an absolutely scientific one. “Scientific” is a word that we apply to every thing. But “science” has a meaning and I claim for science this: That the proving of our drugs and verification of our drug provings is just as scientific as anything the old school claim they ever did.
DR. C.M.BOGER: Mr. Chairman, Dr.Stearns paper is very, very interesting. There is one point in the paper which he hasnt brought out as fully as he might have, but the germ of it is there.
As I have so often insisted before, the action of a homoeopathic potency is a conversion of energy. When we go into chemistry what do we find? We cannot have chemical reactions without the presence of some other chemical, the actual presence of it, not in solution. In making a chemical combination of this kind we do not have to have the third chemical in the solution, just the radiation of it from the outside.
Otherwise the chemical reaction cannot take place although the mixture has already been made. In other words, this radiation helps to produce a certain chemical reaction, a conversion of energy. We cant have a chemical reaction without conversion of energy. In order to make a cure we must have a conversion of energy. I believe that the best definition of potency we have so far-it is not a perfect one-is that the potency is a chemical converter, acting as chemical radiation does.
DR. DAYTON PULFORD: Having gotten through physics by the skin of my teeth, I cant discuss Dr.Stearns paper from an academic standpoint but I would like to suggest that we appoint him as an ambassador to attend the A.I.H. conference, at which Dr.Farrington is going to present a thesis on the subject, High Potencies Do Not Act.
DR.W.J.S. POWERS: Dr. Stearns has spoken of solutions and Dr.Boger has spoken of potencies. I should like to know if there is any difference between a solution and a potency?.
DR. W.W. WILSON: What do you think?.
DR. W.J.S. POWER: I think, as a good believer in Hahnemann, that a potency is not a solution.
DR. W.W. WILSON: It isnt.
DR. W.J.S. POWERS: And when we talk of a high solution we are not talking of a high potency. I have been trying to crack the nut, because I had this experience in Germany.
I went into a pharmacists and asked him to give me a thirtieth potency. He took a sixth decimal potency and added alcohol to it as a solution. Did I get a thirtieth potency or not?.
I think that we ought to be careful to differentiate between the potency and the solution. This pharmacist wasnt really giving me a thirtieth potency.
DR. G.B.STEARNS: You asked for a dilution?.
DR. W.J.S. POWERS: No, I asked for a potency and he gave me a dilution.
DR. J HUTCHINSON: He gave you the sixth potency.
DR. W.J.S. POWERS: Yes, but dont you see that thee is a distinction between a solution and a potency in Dr.Stearns problem? Are we going to get that radiation from a solution and not from a potency? I mean, doesnt it makes a difference we have a potency or a solution in whether we get a reaction?.
DR. G.ROYAL: I should like to ask a question: Dont you get a thirtieth potency from a trituration as well as from a solution?.
DR.W.J.S.POWER: Yes, but that is not a solution. That is a potency. When you pour a thing in that way (demonstrating) you are not potentizing it.
DR.G.ROYAL: Of course not. Then another I would like to ask I dont know much about that-when you liberate an electron cant you do it by trituration or succession.?.
DR. W.J.S. POWER: It will take a better man than I am to answer that. radioactive when highly enough potentized. If it is true doesnt is answer Dr. Powers question?.
DR.C.L.OLDS: Mr.Chairman, it seems to me that the matter of potency has nothing whatever to do with chemistry, but has to do with physics entirely. It is a matter of motion and that of course would come under physics.
In regard to this question that has been raised as to the difference or the similarity or the sameness of potencies and dilutions, you will remember that last year I read a very short paper giving some experiments in making potencies without dilution, after a certain point. With a modification of the Abrams machine I showed that they were potencies, the same as potencies ordinarily made. I have used quite a number of potencies made in that way and they seem to react quite differently from a dilution. I cant say that they act the same as the hand-made or the fluction potencies but there certainly is a very great difference between their action and the action of a mere dilution.
DR.A PULFORD: Mr. Chairman, I think there is quire some misunderstanding about potentization, and I think the term is a misnomer. Your potentization does not add power. Neither does it detract. It simply regulates the amount of that power. It doesnt change it in anyway as far as the ultimate symptomatic results is concerned. We merely regulate the dose. When it is properly understood I think that will be less misunderstanding because wen you talk about dilution you suggest subdivision and potentization has no relation whatever to subdivision.
We are discussing two things which do not concern each other. In potentizing you are subdividing power and using a more direct dose by freeing that power from its confines. Take a dose of Silicea, for instance, and give it in its crude form. It is inactive. Silicea contains a wonderful power, and the more you dilute that envelope, or thin it down, so that the power can escape, the more active it becomes. The power is the same. It doesnt change at all. Potentization had no place in our work in any way, shape, or form that I can see.
DR. H.B.BAKER: Some years ago, Dr.W.E.Boyd and Dr.McCAre in London carried on a good many experiments, very careful experiments, with remedies, by use of the emanometer, and I think I am correct in saying that they found they could take one dilution and register a certain reaction.
Then, if they succussed that once, they registered a different reaction, which changed every time up to twelve succussions. After that the reaction remained constant. Isn’t that correct.?.
DR. G.B.STEARNS: That is right.
DR. H.B.BAKER: But then they had to dilute to get a change.
DR. G.B. STEARNS: Yes, they had to dilute.
DR. H.B. BAKER: Those were very careful experiments, checked up were carefully, and these men certainly are very capable experimenters. This result of theirs may be of interest.
DR. G.ROYAL: Newton, whom I spoke of earlier in this discussion speaks of a succussion that changes the entire face. Then dilution will do the same, and I told Dr. Pulford that I was glad he had used the words “liberate the power.”.
DR.C.B.STEARNS: I would like to say just a word about the difference between a solution and potency. If you put a spoonful of sugar in your cup of tea and dont stir it, it takes quite a while for it to dissolve, but if you leave it long enough, it will dissolve. If you stir it, it dissolves quickly. I believe you can make a potency without shaking if you wait long enough.
Physically, it seems to be true for it is one of the laws of matter that a substance in solution will diffuse equally throughout the solvent, if you leave it long enough. A gas diffuses equally throughout its containing body if you leave if long enough; if you agitate it, it diffuses more rapidly.
When we get into the higher dilutions. I dont know if there is a different law. I have purposely made this paper suggestive, staring with things which we know, and some things which we know, and some things that we think we know, without attempting to reach any specific conclusion.
DR. W.W.WILSON: What is the difference between a dilution and a solution? The terms “dilution,” “solution,” and “potency” have been used.
DR. G.B.STEARNS: We will assume that a solution is a solvent which contains all the solute it can dissolve, while a dilution is made by adding more solvent to a saturated solution. Solutions between some substances, such as between alcohol and water, have no point of saturation because any amount of either water or alcohol can be added to a solution between the two. The density of a solution varies with the temperature. In order to make the discussion simple, these variations were not brought out in my paper.
As mentioned in he first paragraph, I assumed that high dilutions were all made in the way we make our potencies and I intentionally did not differentiate between simple dilutions and dilutions with succession. We dont know whether there is a difference between the two and discussion of that point belongs to homoeopathic philosophy. I wished to bring out points that had to do with the physics of high dilutions, points which we can utilize as thinking-posts.
