MYTHS – MISUNDERSTANDINGS & THE TRUTH
Often as a result of misunderstanding, mistranslation, poor research and in some cases intentionally, a considerable amount of Schuessler’s works over the years appears to have attracted some ” alterations” to the facts – we hope on these pages to put at least some of these matters to rest.
In Australia we have found that there are quite a few assumptions, and what may appear to be poor research. No one it seems has taken the time to, contact the Biochemischer Bund Deutchland (German Association of Biochemistry) for assistance, – this foremost Organisation founded in 1885 was the first Biochemic Organisation formed anywhere in the world, and can boast Dr. Schuessler as a member. This organisation, is the owner of all Schuessler’s works, research notes, scientific journals, diaries etc., and has, since those early days maintained continued research into the works of Dr. Schuessler, has branches all over the world and is a world leader in the area of Schuessler mineral therapy. The BBD has representation in an advisory capacity on the German Health Board and that of the European Union.
Homoeopathic or Biochemic (?)
Minerals are not Homoeopathic, they are Biochemic, they do not follow the rule of similarity (similar similaris) as many consider but are prepared in the Homoeopathic manner in order to provide bioavailability, they are bonded with the correct ion, (i.e. Calcium +phosphate or Calcium +fluoride) and as such metabolism does not have to locate the opposite Ion in order to achieve function. The are absorbed through the Buccal mucosa and or sub lingual tissue, this enables for direct entry to the blood stream and the availability to cells, fine dose of course being an absolute requirement for the processes of Osmosis. (Homoeopathic treatments are Heterogenous, while Biochemic treatments are Homogenous) one should not forget that the entire organism is almost all comprised of minerals and requires minerals in order to function.
Schuessler did not Abandon his No 12, Calcium Sulphate, as has been suggested in some literature. He did indeed find that Sodium Phosphate and Silica, had the same function. However the facts are, that while Schuessler initially started out with twelve mineral salts, he later took calcium sulfuricum off that list because the physiologist Gustav Bunge found this salt was a metabolic product and therefore not an original inorganic mineral element ! That is how Schuessler’s system came to consist of only eleven components – however, today following considerable research, Calcium Sulphate is included in the list by The German Association of biochemistry as it has been shown there are certain signs and symptoms that suggest a deficiency of this mineral and thus it is prescribed by those suitably qualified; (in fact in biochemistry it is the remedy for old suppurating processes, it purifies the body and detoxifies the connective tissue.) and as many Association qualified practitioners – and indeed patients will attest to, it has some wonderful healing properties when dissolved in the bath water ! (It is also used regularly for many other complaints in so far as Silica and Sodium phosphate are not suitable remedies)
One Australian writer stated in the early part of the twentieth century that he believed gross physical mineral deficiencies could be demonstrated to exist and that these deficiencies could not be replaced with the homoeopathically prepared salts of Schuessler – ” – this is rather a surprising comment, given the fact that Schuessler had already noted and demonstrated the existence of physical deficiencies, how to diagnose the gross physical mineral deficiencies by signs, symptoms, the all important history and by using as one of his tools (methods) Facial Diagnostics, and to some extent psychological signs, and, had been successful in his treatments using the bio-availability provided by the homoeopathic method of trituration for over 70 years by this time. Facial diagnostics was improved upon by Hickethier in the 20th Century – and continues to be taught not only by qualified Institute lecturers, but by a specialised school in Germany. Schuessler’s mineral therapy his methods and prescriptions have of course been scientifically proven to be successful, and in Europe an accepted “evidence based paradigm “
One also reads in some Australian literature that Sodium Chloride (Nat Mur – Natrium Muriaticum) has in most cases been abandoned, and not considered in a number of Naturopathic teachings. Unfortunately such schools have failed to even consider modern scientific research facts regarding this most essential mineral, and in so doing have almost removed themselves from the science of biochemistry . Certainly if sodium chloride is in abundance in the blood, cells will not utililze this essential mineral – it is considered a poison, but as such without the mineral many cellular functions and activities cannot take place. This mineral is indeed an antagonist if caution is not taken when prescribing or administrating, however, it is regarded as a healing salt for many diseases, Paracelsus pointed out “the dosage primarily determines if the substance is a healing remedy or a poison.
“Schuessler recognised the value of sodium chloride at a very early stage and emphasised its unique healing effects. This salt fulfills important functions in our body; essential metabolic processes could not take place at all without Sodium chloride. Its most important range of application is therefore all problems that are connected to either too much or too little fluid;
Maurice Blackmore – Mineral Deficiencies in human Cells. first published 1954 and reprinted up to 1993. page 11/12 – Blackmore states : “Following this a number of the mineral compounds were put on the market in tablet form and called tissue salts or biochemics. It is of course doubtful whether Dr. Schuessler put these on the market or whether they could have even been produced in his day”.. Dr Schuessler did not of course put them on the market, he used powder forms of treatment,the common method of his day these were supplied by the Hof Apotheke (Hof Chemist shop located in the same street as his practice,) The first advertisement for tablets was placed in the December edition of the Popular Homoeopathic Journal (No 12 dated December 18th 1873) published in Leipzig, advising that they were available from Dr. Schwabe’s Homoeopathic Central Chemists – It is known that Scheussler prescribed these for his patients in place of powders. (Just for the note, the Schwabe company went on to become the largest producers of homoeopathic medicines and mineral tablets in the world, and the DHU (Deutsches homoeopathic Union) forms part of the company www.schwabe.de www.DHU.de
From research into Homoeopathic remedies we are aware of counter effective substances, which are not always identified with those antagonists known to orthodox medicine.
As Schüssler’s biochemistry is not Homoeopathic in the sense of Hahnemann’s rules of similarity,(it only utilises the homoeopathic method of trituration, in order to achieve a greater bio-availability) the focal point lies in the antagonists of scientific pharmacology. Here Magnesium and Calcium, as well as Sodium and Potassium antagonize one another. However, this only becomes apparent during resorption*.
Of course after metabolic action all minerals are contained in the blood anyway, and thus metabolism is further quite capable of dealing with this for the purpose of assimilation.
In order to avoid such disruptions it is generally recommended to take certain minerals one after the other and not together. All minerals should not be swallowed; instead they should be allowed to dissolve in the mouth, as there are a fewer other disruptive factors.
If you don’t follow this rule, nothing serious or dangerous will happen, however you should anticipate a reduced effectiveness.
So in principle if they are taken orally and allowed to dissolve in the mouth separately in the case of those mentioned here and those in the book Facial Diagnostics (Peter Emmrich M.D. Dip Biochemistry, Dip. Biology., Dip Chemistry)there is little chance of any antagonistic effect – if swallowed there will not only be the possibility of antagonistic effect but of course there are other aspects which must be considered such as absorption, and the processes of the digestive tract.
This is why Schuessler was adamant that his therapy be applied strictly in accordance with his method of dissolving in the oral cavity and or by using hot water method (hot 7) for example where the water due to its heat (likened to a cup of tea) is sipped and held for a moment in the mouth, yet absorbed through the Buccal mucosa and or sub lingual tissue before swallowing. Often qualified practitioners will suggest that other minerals are also taken dissolved in hot water there are many proven reasons for this.
The terminologies ‘chemical reaction’ and ‘interaction’ should be separated.
– Interaction is the mutual influence of two medications in the sense of increase or decrease of effectiveness. This is definitely not the case with the biochemic remedies.
– Chemical reaction is a conversion of the compounds, for example that Potassium chloride and Calcium sulphate already convert into Potassium sulphate and Calcium chloride prior to the resorption – and this is also not going to happen.
– Resorption the process by which a structure is the selective uptake into the bloodstream of substances previously filtered out of the blood
On the subject of Repertory!
Schuessler was quite clear in answering his many critics, who while using his method with some success demanded he produce a repertory!
In July of 1885 he added to his annual issue of the Abgekurzte Therapie (Shortcut therapy) the following letter.
“Whoever wishes to use this book according to my intentions, must impress upon his memory, by means of thorough study, the action of the twelve remedies. When he shall have done this he will have no need of an alphabetic repertory, and he will soon, in the way of practice, arrive at the knowledge that the want of detail so complained of is to the thinking practitioner no hindrance to the successful use of the precepts in this work. But they who only now and then, as often as he is left in the lurch in a given case by the method of cure to which he is accustomed, resorts to the Biochemical Therapy as a ‘ without having made a thorough study of it, will indeed, long for an alphabetic repertory of indications. My book is not designed for those who essay to traverse, on one foot only, the provide of Biochemical Therapeutics.”