[H] Peter Chappell - PC1 HIV/AIDS `1

[David Little]

Dear Colleagues,

As I understand it Peter Chappell claims his remedy is a "new
technology" or designer remedy. My reservation is the apparent lack of full
discloser about the nature of the remedy. This is not in line with medical
norms and consumer acts. Full disclosure the manufacturing and contains is
standard practice. I find it ethically very hard to suggest something when
it is not clear what it really is and how it is made? It is a trade secret.
My question is why all the secrecy???

Sincerely, David Little

PS. Peter Chappal's remarks on potency and individual healing, however,
unwarranted and incorrect in many places. He thinks homoeopaths are working
through a "fog". It does his work no good to put down the work of others
that have helped so many people. His remedies should be able to stand on
their own two feet without putting down all of homoeopathy.

[homeopathy-bounces@homeolist.com]

Dear Colleagues,

As I understand it Peter Chappell claims his remedy is a "new
technology" or designer remedy. My reservation is the apparent lack of full
discloser about the nature of the remedy. This is not in line with medical
norms and consumer acts. Full disclosure the manufacturing and contains is
standard practice. I find it ethically very hard to suggest something when
it is not clear what it really is and how it is made? It is a trade secret.
My question is why all the secrecy???

Sincerely, David Little

PS. Peter Chappal's remarks on potency and individual healing, however,
unwarranted and incorrect in many places. He thinks homoeopaths are working
through a "fog". It does his work no good to put down the work of others
that have helped so many people. His remedies should be able to stand on
their own two feet without putting down all of homoeopathy.
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://www.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Hi

Having a vivid imagination I can accept that PC has a new way of
making remedies.
That's not to say I believe he has , just I can accept it if he has.

I can also imagine why he might not want to reveal the method:
It might be laughed at (Kenneth?); it might discourage Pxs from using
it, and in fact he might not even have a clear way to explain it yet ,
he might still be fathoming it out for himself. However, unless he's
lost the plot, I would expect someone with 25 yrs experience as a
homeopath and who has the integrity that he is attributed with, to
have reasonable grounds for not giving full disclosure. I don't think
it's fair to be jumping to negative conclusions when what matters
first and foremost , before the how's, why's and wherefores, is DOES IT
WORK?

We ( homeopaths) ask others to accept what they do not understand every
day. Can we not take a little of our own medicine and just WAIT, and
see?
It IS frustrating , I agree, but I wouldn't like to try to force
Peter's hand into revealing something by using tactics that aren't
quite blackmail but are decidedly arm twisting, just because I think
he should fully explain something that he doesn't yet feel ready to, or
can't..

I too want answers, I too want more than vague definitions, but as
colleagues have made clear that it is not homeopathy, why the hurry?

With regard to Pc's definitions I have no qualms with him currently
using homeopathy's terminology and points of reference. It's what he's
familiar with;presumably what he used as a starting point, and may
have to suffice until either a new jargon is arrived at or it is
clarified in some other way. It sounds like a work in progress and
deserves a little leeway for that.

Peter has asked for intelligent discussion on ceeds, ( was it this list
-I've lost track!) - I for one would find this interesting, it seems
that Peter is looking to clarify his own ideas on what has probably
been a method developed from intuition rather than reason, certainly
he allluded to that in his stating that he felt a compulsion to get
involved in this way, perhaps we could productively concentrate the
discussion in this direction, actually assisting Peter rather than
simply playing devil's advocate's.
regards
Simon King LCPH MARH

[doctorleelah2h]

Hello David,
I did not notice Peter Chappel "putting down all of homeopathy". In
fact I clearly noticed almost everyone putting him and whatever he
has done, down.

HAving said that - I agree he should reveal as much as possible about
his remedy and its source, etc.
BUT he has (as I noticed yesterday on the board) tried as clearly as
possible to explain what he has done. Somehow he has not gotten
through to us.
So maybe we need to widen our understanding of what he is trying to
convey?
I find what he said essentially similar to what he conveyed to us 2
years back. In the meanwhile he has been tyring to work out a
mathematical formula for the remedy he has developed. He has said so
in the last posting. I think this a significant move forward. I don't
think it is ready for complete public disclosure yet.

Wouldn't you agree its about time we considered that homeopathic
remedies may also be worked out in this way? IT may help US as
homeoapths take a significant leap forward.
I don't intend to presnt that he is using classical homeopathy or
anything of the sort, but I think we need to set the stage for an
open mind rather than prejudiced bias, till we know for sure.

regards,
Leela
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "David Little" wrote:
of full
medical
contains is
something when
secret.
however,
working
others
stand on