Similimum...II?

[Editor-in-Chief; Homoeopathic Medical Panorama]

Dear Andy and Piet..
I have one doubt. Forget (for the time being) about the 'disease
similimum..II'. But if we apply the technique to an individual who is sick
with say advanced cancer or aids and generate a remedy for him/her will it
work? Please understand that in this case there is no partial similimum or
disease similimum. What we have is the individuality (the pure, total,
homoeopathic individulaity of the "sick") of the patient and what we will
generate is a brand new tailor made remedy, that also in the exact strength
required for that case.
Will it fully restore that seemingly (in the present sense) incurable
condition?
Best Regards,
Dr. Abdul Gafar.
www.homeoweb.com/clinic/uae.htm
www.homedpa.com/chief.htm
Tel: +971 50 4699659 (mobile-UAE)
+91 944 7244662 (mobile-India)
(Presently in UAE)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Definitely, science will catch up with Homoeopathy!
---------------------------------------------------------------
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.8.5 - Release Date: 2/3/2005

[AH]

on 2/7/05 7:15 AM, Editor-in-Chief; Homoeopathic Medical Panorama at
chief@homedpa.com wrote:
((( Greetings Dr. Gafar, hope you are well.

My interest in this discussion is generated by the genius of the method of
Peter Chappell as described on his website and his powerpoint presentation
(kindly distributed by Soroush). Chappell's apparent extension of
Hahnemann's idea of group totality to chronic diseases; and his invention of
a technology to tailor-make remedies to a group epidemic anamnesis to create
a genus epidemicus for a chronic disease--are both IMO brilliant.
Apparently the results thus far are markedly positive. Without results we
are only theorizing--and he has results. My sense is that this method of
Chappell is a way of treating Chronic Miasmatic Disease of the "Pathic" type
without using the individual psychosomatic totality--and without overlapping
with that totality and thus suppressing it. It operates using the group
totality of the pandemic disease itself (which includes such diseases as
MS--for which infectious origins have been posited--and miasmatic causes are
automatically assumed).

Thus, in such a case as you describe,if we apply the technique to an
individual who is sick "with say advanced cancer or aids" then Chappell
would FIRST likely see the disease process as amenable to a remedy for the
group miasmatic anamnesis applying to the specific disease--given his
confidence in the efficiency and certainty of that approach.

The individual him/her self represents a psychosomatic totality which
involves their core delusion and the underlying miasm(s) thereof, and this
is (from Chappell's point of view) a separate way of treating a person using
the law of similars. He is using a group totality remedy for the organic or
infectious/miasmatic frankly organic pathological process; and then the
individual totality for the individual case/functional totality. So he
would probably use the methods separately as he describes and currently does
so. I doubt he would attempt to engineer a remedy for the individual
psychosomatic totality and the disease totality(ies) at the same time.

If you are referring to a possible future application of Chappell's
technology---that is, tailor-making a remedy for an INDIVIDUAL psychosomatic
totality --my opinion is that if this is possible, then it would
revolutionize both homeopathy and medicine. But first it would have to be
possible, and second, the technology would have to be mass produced. It
would be quite a step.

My sense is that tailor-making a remedy for an individual characteristic
totality would be more difficult than doing it for the group totality of a
pandemic chronic disease. A group totality is a set of symptoms confirmable
with quite a bit of certainty from a large data set. An individual case may
hinge on a totality based on any number of symptom genres--some subtle, some
metaphorical. Making a remedy for an individual would, I think be much more
difficult than what Peter is already doing. Our traditional comparator
method of finding a match with what is in our materia medica catalogued from
the effects of potentized substances and forces/emanations on a population
of testers (in provings by dissimilarity or clinically by similarity) might
be easier. But it is certainly a logical next step to use his technology
with individual cases--at least as an experiment.

It seems that Peter's motivation was and is to provide a way to use healing
by similars for mass treatment of chronic epidemics effectively and
uniformly in a way that does not involve the cost, time, and failure rate of
our traditional data gathering interview to match a sufficient simillimum of
the time which addresses the chief complaint(s). If the results thus far
are indicative, it would appear that he has added a tool to Hahnemann's
great system by extending both Hahnemann's theory of group anamnesis; AND
creating a means to bypass the need for use of extant substances and forces
to produce medicines. It may be possible to use his technology with
individual cases. But if it is, it will certainly require just as much data
collection as we do now--the hierarchy and precision of symptoms catalogued
via casetaking would need to be flawless and without significant omission.
The input to his remedy creation algorithm would have to be an accurate
representation of the case without leaving out anything significant.
Whether the correctly "engineered" remedy would be superior to an
appropriate remedy in the extant materia medica would be interesting. In
cases in which nothing similar is extant in the materia medica that matches
the case--- or the similar remedy cannot be found--perhaps Chappell's new
tool would be indispensible in that application.

Thus for generating a remedy for the individual totality ---- I don't know
if it would be easier than our current comparative method --- because it
would require just as much data gathering. And trying to mimic an
individual totality with the richness of metaphor of a "natural" remedy may
be difficult. A smaller totality with less dependence on mental and
emotional symptoms might be easier to generate. But either of the latter
would be only one data point, as compared to the group totality applied with
his methodology to the pandemic chronic disease with a large amount of data
(his application of Hahnemann's group totality to chronic epidemic
disease--a profound insight the significance of which I expect will take
some time for people in general to fully grasp).

This is my conjecture. The question would best be posed to Peter Chappell
himself. I got this email address from his website in case it is of use to
you:

peter@vitalremedies.com

Respectfully,
Andy

[J Lucas]

Isn¹t this, more or less, what Dr Ramakrishnan has been doing with cancer
and now, it seems, many other named diseased states?

Best wishes, Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 8/2/05 3:14 am, AH at andyh@mcn.org wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[AH]

> on 8/2/05 3:14 am, AH at andyh@mcn.org wrote:

======
on 2/8/05 1:11 AM, J Lucas at j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com

======

((( Yes, Joy---in one real sense that is true--the sense that they are each
attempting to directly address a "lesional" totality.

The contrast, though, which points to the importance of Chappell's evident
discovery and invention, is basically twofold:

=======
Lesional prescribing on hahnemannian symptomatic indications elicited and
observed in an *individual*
======

Firstly, it is my understanding that Dr. R
(and others using "small-totality" remedies in situations of organic
pathology; or when the characteristic simillimum (psychosomatic
functional/metaphorical/core delusion totality) is sufficient to stimulate a
vital economy to deal with the miasmatic susceptibility which lies behind
the organic pathology; which together represents many Hahnemannian
homeopaths)

are using nosodes and groups of lesional totality rx proven by experience
(say of Dr. R) and from the materia medica. The psychosomatic totality rx
(Chappell's "simillimum 1") is also employed in cases in which it is
different than the lesional totality rx. If I am incorrect in this
description of how Dr. R works, then there are those on this list who are
experts in his method who will correct me.

Eizayaga used the above methods and also another lesional remedy--the blood
or tissue "autonosode" in potencies from single digit centesimal up to
200C--with reported success.

========
Lesional prescribing using a group totality (genus epidemicus) which is
based on Hahnemannian symptomology of many amalgamated cases of that chronic
disease
========
My understanding of what P. Chappell is doing is something different.
Chappell, from my understanding of his writings, is taking all the symptoms
of a disease from many cases as if he was repertorizing a genus epidemicus
(group totality) of an acute epidemic. Except--he is doing it for *chronic*
infectious diseases and even chronic diseases which have no yet well
established infectious component. (For example, having a remedy for diabetes
and other diseases on his list which have no modern understanding of
infectious etiology (and if he gets results for these), Chappell has
seemingly blurred infectious into miasmatic--as miasms are defined by
Hahnemann as being infectious and always have infectious named disease
analogues whether they are cause or manifestation of the susceptibility
which is what the miasm actually represents). In this way Chappell seems to
imply that any clinical derangement entity with a miasmatic cause (which is
all derangements) could provide a totality amenable to his chronic genus
epidemicus---if he designed the remedy based on the truly representative
group anamnesis for that disorder.

So that is one difference.

========
Dynamized substances elucidated by dissimilarity (symptom forcing=provings)
and/or similarity (symptom removal=clinical use) to establish indications
for comparative matching of client totality or sub-totality with dynamized
substance
========

The other difference is that Dr. R is using substances and forces from
nature and the manmade world and Chappell is not. Dr. R uses rx that have
been dynamized and tested by forcing symptoms to appear in "healthy" people
to whom they are dissimilar (except by occasional accidental curative
response); and/or on clients to which they are similar (in clinical
practice which shows the whole nature of a client who represents a cured and
thus representative subject). These Hahnemannian methods which we are all
familiar with are used in order to elucidate a substance's alchemical
valence (panoply of indications and central "metaphor" or "personality") and
thus their usefulness in the treatment of a given pattern or sub-pattern of
derangement in the constitution of humans and other beings.

=======
Concept of panoply of symptoms of the large cohort of cases with a named
disease (group totality) converted into a surrogate dynamis (in this case
transversely electromagnetic or longitudinal suite of frequencies and
phases) depending on Chappell's largely unknown techniques
======

Chappell, by his description and published results, has invented a method to
quantify and symbolize discrete symptoms using a mathematical algorithm to
determine settings to electromagnetically simulate a "custom made" remedy.
Chappell's rx are totally manmade, and start as a force and then are
imprinted on a carrier substance--instead of Hahnemann's method (start with
a substance (often biochemically toxic) and make it into a biochemically
harmless but pattern-holding force which is both developed and carried by
imprint onto water or other carrier "surrogate" substance).
===========================
So both components of what Chappell are doing are actually an
innovation--one an extension of Hahnemann's acute genus epidemicus into
application in chronic infectious diseases of far longer timescale; the
second by inventing a method to transfer a list of symptoms into a vibratory
suite which acts just like those symptoms on an organism just as any
potentized substance will act according to its "secondary" action.

While the two share the use of a "lesional" remedy, Dr. R's are by
intercurrent nosode (an isopathic version of the "disease"); and by a
remedy chosen on our traditional indications of a totality perceivable in
the case. The remedies are from our materia medica.

Chappell's are a chronic genus epidemicus according to his gathered and
chosen symptoms of cases of the named disease and they are synthesized from
scratch.

===========================
I am taking Peter's results as given, and have heard from others with
positive results using them as an adjunct in advanced pathological cases.
So Peter appears to really be on to something. The traditional nosode is
kind of an approximation of the disease and thus a crude approximation of a
chronic genus epidemicus, but Chappell says on his website that his rx are a
better approximation and they are constructed from symptoms amalgamated in
Hahnemannian fashion as a genus epidemicus--from many cases worth of
Hahnemannian symptomology of the chronic disease in question.

===========================
Potential compatibility of Chappell Chronic Genus Epidemicus with treatment
with the characteristic functional totality (the psychosomatic/core delusion
totality); and another lesional remedy
===========================

I think it possible that the genus epidemicus for a chronic disease and the
remedy for the individual totality will not frequently have enough overlap
to, respectively, interfere with the totality also present which it is not
aimed at. In other words, the Chappell chronic genus epidemicus (in say, a
case of MS) will resonate with the Hahnemannian genus epidemicus totality of
the "disease" just as a working acute genus epidemicus will--yet as long as
the disease is present, will only resonate with that totality and not shift
the case of the individual totality. And the converse will be true unless
the individual totality also significantly overlaps with it (as in a
"lesional" totality of a larger or smaller remedy which is aimed at a
totality which includes the organic pathology).

The traditional psychosomatic Hahnemannian totality remedy (the remedy of
the "core delusion" or "metaphor" will not interfere with the genus
epidemicus totality markedly unless it (found by traditional indications and
case taking) is already curative of not only organism functional
derangements but also the organic pathology. In this latter case the
organic/infectious/miasmatic totality is within the totality of the
functional pattern --- and the genus epidemicus rx or any other "lesional"
totality remedy is not really needed in the case.

So, used judiciously and when not redundant, the two approaches are not
homeopathic to each other, as they are aimed at two different types of
Hahnemannian totality--one the group anamnesis of an infectious/miasmatic
disease; the other aimed at the functional and individualized psychosomatic
totality of the organism. Of course this is oversimplified---any case may
have fits and starts of intercurrents, complements, etc in order to reveal
the (until that state has been remediated) stable symptoms on which to
prescribe the remedy which truly stimulates what needs to be cured in the
patient's functional case--a remedy which may or may not intertwine with the
organic pathology in the case.

Of course it is true that if any organic pathology has advance beyond a
certain point, depending on the tissue involved, the case may not be
entirely remediable. Chappell's remedies are a group homeopathic remedy
applied to an individual case--and thus have advantages in potentially
reducing the difficulty for the practitioner in dealing with cases of
advanced pathology with the typical or chosen totality remedy is not
remediating. But it is still a dynamized remedy, and is only capable of
stimulating by bioenergetic resonance---and thus relies on the vigorousness
of the spirit-like living dynamis of the organism of the patient. It is
still a homeopathic remedy--but potentially a type which can bring group
anamnetic homeopathy to the masses suffering from chronic epidemic
disease--with uncomplicated initial casetaking.

One advantage of Chappell's approach is tremendous simplification of
treatment because the genus epidemicus for the chronic disease does not need
to be found on indications--it was made to order on a machine using, for
example, presumably all the most cogent hahnemannian symptoms of gonorrhea.
The other advantage is that homeopathy (may?) be able to touch cases of
advanced pathology that could not previously be touched--using a different
kind of Hahnemannian totality than we usually use in a chronic case--the
group totality for the disease identified by medicine as a discrete entity
and proven indicators for clinical diagnosis. Certainly many cases will be
touched merely because finding the indications for "lesional" totalities is
not the strength of homeopathy post-Kent. It seems to me that
Boenninghausen, Hahnemann, et al could perceive lesional totalities well
even with fewer rx at their disposal to use. Those of us growing up with a
psychological model pioneered by Kent are after the psychosomatic totality,
which is the ultimate overall remedy in the life trajectory of the client
and functional health--- but in some cases will not deal with the smaller
totality an advanced and growing organic pathology which must be dealt with
first. I know this view assails the Paschero "omnipotent simillimum" view
to some extent, but it is not meant to really. Mangialavori shows that
bullseyes can be found which at least cover both acute and chronic maladies;
if not severe advanced pathologies... As Piet describes, there probably is
a totality which includes everything functional and pathologically advanced
in a given organism and case. But finding it may take years, and in advanced
organic cases, there is not that kind of time. We are not very good at it as
modern homeopaths. Almost everyone opts for allopathic treatment or surgery
in such cases. We do not have access as homeopaths to advanced organic cases
except in particularly intelligent populations or when cases are "terminal"
and have been given up on. Chappell's remedies may change that markedly,
because finding an effective remedy for the lesional totality is
exponentially simplified--have a clinical dx and you have the Hahnemannian
group totality remedy, which has been engineered, not taken from nature.
========
Precedent for the results Chappell Reports
=======
Chappell's chronic genus epidemicus is a truly hahnemannian totality---not a
"kluge" any more than an acute genus epidemicus is. And the acute genus
epidemicus in unsuppressed populations, according to authority Andre Saine
ND, has been almost infallible in treatment and prophylaxis of even
high-mortality diseases like smallpox. Examples:

Scarlatina
British Homeopathic Journal, 1843-A review of Scarlatina prophylaxis by
Blake. Of 4628 cases immunized with Belladonna, 4534 (98%) were protected,
the other 2% developed the disease. (Saine 1988)

Smallpox
Texas Homeopathic Palette, 1883- Vaccininum (homeopathic cowpox) was used,
and completely protected against smallpox, even those eating and playing
with those that had smallpox. (Saine 1988)

Polio
Lathyrus sativa has cured and prevented polio. Dr. John Bastyr-1953, 56,
and 57 was involved in Polio epidemics, and had no polio cases in over 5000
patients. (Saine 1988)

1957 polio epidemic- Chicago and San Francisco, 300 children were on
Lathyrus without any cases of Polio, whereas many children on the Salk
vaccine contracted the disease. (Saine 1988)

1957 Buenos Aires Polio epidemic- Lathyrus was the genus epidemicus, and
Lathyrus was distributed freely by the pharmacies. 40,000 doses were given.
Not one case was reported among this group. (Saine 1988)
The acute genus epidemicus, according to Saine is almost infallible in both
treatment and prophylaxis of its given epidemic given perfect compliance
(and used with people with uncompromised immune systems). In his review of
the homeopathic periodical literature, Andre uncovered numerous reports of
the Genus epidemicus being perfectly curative and prophylactic in mid and
late 19th century US and other epidemics in which there where enough
hahnemannian homeopaths practicing to know what a group anamnesis was. The
genus epidemicus was prophylactic in an epidemic even to the extent (for
example) that those with smallpox and those unaffected could sleep together
in the in the same bed when under treatment with the genus epidemicus with
those yet with symptoms being protected 100%.

If the *chronic* genus epidemicus is as effectual in its own sphere (which
is identical but far expanded in timescale) then this demonstrates
Chappell's result and the genius of Hahnemann in conceiving the group
totality--and of Chappell of extending it from acute epidemic to chronic
one.

Since a "chronic genus epidemicus" is merely the same thing as its acute
cousin--- only over a much larger region and time scale, then its result
should be similar. If Chappell has truly captured the symptomologic group
anamnesis of each chronic disease he has engineered "PC" remedies for; then
these remedies should be extremely effective both in treatment and
prophylaxis of the given chronic infectious/miasmatic disease in question.

The nosode of the named disease of an epidemic, according to Saine (speaking
about prophylactic efficacy), is protective to much lesser degree in an
epidemic than the genus epidemicus, which is a more precise mimick of the
local and extant disease expression. In actual treatment of the epidemic,
the nosode may or may not assist in treatment. It is a less accurate
substitute for the remedy for the group anamnesis, or the totality of the
regional disease, evidently. This correlates with Chappell's view of the
Isode as an attempt at a chronic genus epidemicus, but one which falls short
of results he can get with his artificially created remedy based on the full
group anamnesis.

For some reason the isode is not capable of providing as full a symptom
spectrum--presumably because it does not represent the recorded human
pathological responses in Hahnemannian symptomology over a longer time
scale--but only at the time and place the disease was sampled. An isopathic
nosode will thus probably be more efficacious in a given acute epidemic from
which it is newly sampled-- than a chronic one, unless the chronic one is a
mixed remedy made from samples taken over as long a timescale as possible
and from many separated places.

This lesser ability of nosodes as compared with the genus epidemicus may be
one reason why Hahnemann spoke out against isopathy, positing that a
facsimile totality is a better stimulant of response than an "idem"
totality. Hering, however, starting in 1830, demonstrated that isopathy
could be effective (examples):
1870-Swan and Fincke introduced the nosode Variolinum. In 100 families that
already had smallpox in the family, Variolinum was protective of the
remaining members.
===========
Precedent for an "engineered" group totality remedy for a named disease
===========

The *a priori* "engineering" of a remedy for a named disease is not a new
concept, though Chappell's technology is certainly new. Hering did it with
remedies from nature--by doing provings and then predicting what named
disease totality it might be useful in treating. For example, Hering proved
Sarracenia purpurea (pitcher plant)-- and *before* it was used on one case--
predicted its employment in smallpox. Sure enough, it has been the genus
epidemicus for several smallpox outbreaks.

example-
1871-Sarracenia (Pitcher Plant)(which was developed by Hering) was the genus
epidemicus of a smallpox epidemic in Belgium. No deaths occurred in those
immunized homeopathically. All the names and addresses were documented
(Saine 1988)

This demonstrates how the minds of these master practitioners were attuned
to "lesional" totalities as well as

===========
CONCLUSION
===========

In one sense, what Chappell has done is brought clinical diagnostic medicine
and Hahnemannian semiological methods into a conjunction by which an
artificially engineered medicament only needs the clinical diagnosis of a
disease entity to point to its employment.

The remedy synthesis part of this story is phenomenal, if proprietary and as
yet unpatented. Chappell really came onto quite a discovery to come up with
a transfer function between a human symptom and an EM vibration--this cannot
be overestimated as an achievement, if all that has been stated in terms of
actual result to this point is no exaggeration--and I have no indications
yet that it is hyperbole.

Chappell did say, however, that the immune systems in developed countries
will not respond as well as they do in places where people were not under
biochemical suppression most of their lives. This we already know, but
Chappell's spread of use of his remedies to undeveloped and developed
countries will allow a parallel comparison. So, the bold relief of his
results in Africa, for example, may not be seen as markedly in the "West".

Dear Joy, I hope this adequately and accurately compares and contrasts what
Chappell is doing (group totality; engineered rx) --- with the method of
employing a lesional remedy or nosode on individual indications using a
remedy already in the materia medica and made from an existing substance or
force.
Respectfully,
Andy
References
Chappell, Peter, website

Saine, Andre, ND, Pacific Academy of Homeopathy Seminar, Berkeley Calif.
December, 1988

[J Lucas]

But at the end of the day we will end up prescribing like the allopaths ­
one remedy for diabetes, one for rheumatoid arthritis, one for Parkinson¹s
etc etc. Why do we need to mess with what we¹ve got. I quite like Homeopathy
the way it is (or was, depending in which era you live in). )

Best wishes, Joy (who isn¹t against change but who doesn¹t see the need for
it, yet)

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 8/2/05 1:23 pm, AH at andyh@mcn.org wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Dale Moss]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but it would be an error to
conflate the work of Dr. Ramakrishnan and Peter Chappell.

Dr. R's approach to cancer recognizes that the disease is aggressive -- and
adopts a dosing schedule that reflects that. It also holds that certain
remedies, based on his extensive experience, have a particular affinity for
cancers in certain parts of the body. (This is no different from findings
in materia medica that different remedies have affinities for different
tissues or structures.) Often a patient's constitutional remedy and what
Dr. R. calls the "organ-specific" remedy for his or her cancer are the same,
in which case the chances of homeopathic treatment succeeding are high
(provided the pathology is not too advanced). If they're not, then he uses
his knowledge of the patient's constitutional type to help point the way to
the most appropriate organ-specific remedy. Once that has started the
process, he may revert to the constitutional.

The point of this is to narrow the enormous range of potential remedies to a
few that stand the best chance of helping the patient. And that's what
we're here for, isn't it?

Peace,
Cinnabar

[AH]

on 2/8/05 9:05 AM, J Lucas at j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
((( Joy, please bear with me while I use this post to make a few points,
not in the least intended at your expense. I hope the points I make will be
valid ones.

Please see aphorism 1 to see that the above is, almost paradoxically, part
of what Hahnemann warned against. The above ingrained homeopathic epithet
against clinical categories as insipid indicators is merely a construct.

The above concern is also unfounded. Chappell's chronic Hahnemannian
group totality system cannot supplant or replace finding the individual
simillimum pattern, so it is not a worry that the "art" aspect, or challenge
of homeopathy, is in any kind of danger. But it appears now that a chronic
genus epidemicus rx can make possible efficient standalone or adjunct
treatment of chronic ancient and pandemic diseases on a mass basis using a
group totality remedy. Homeopathy has until now been helpless to effect
mass pandemics of CHRONIC disease except inefficiently and with partial
success--and only slowly and laboriously one by one. So if the clinical
disease entity becomes the name of an engineered "genus epidemicus
perennnis" remedy, should this be of concern?

We (not picking on you Joy) have little right to decry allopaths on whom
homeopaths depend to take the cases we cannot deal with because the
pathology is "too advanced". They are our big "crutch". No room for
smugness among homeopaths certainly.
J Lucas at j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
Why do we need to mess with what we¹ve got. I quite like Homeopathy
the way it is (or was, depending in which era you live in). )
Best wishes, Joy (who isn¹t against change but who doesn¹t see the need for
it, yet)

((((
++++++++++++
Can we Treat Advanced Pathology Efficiently and Uniformly Yet? Can we Treat
Chronic Pandemics at All yet on an epidemiological level?
+++++++++++++
It appears that we may have a new law of similars *Hahnemannian* tool that
may help deal with a big weakness of our modern practice and even the
practice of the Victorian era masters. Except in certain clinics, and e.g.
India (where there is a very strong and uninterrupted homeopathic tradition;
and/or great numbers of people whom cannot afford allopathic recourse)--we
no longer can deal with advanced organic pathology and life-threatening
diseases even as well as did the masters of the late 19th century.

We have *never* been able to put a large dent in mass CHRONIC epidemics
beyond prescribing for the individual. We perhaps smugly think that we are
doing so well, and helping so many, that we cannot improve in this area. Or
think it is "impossible" to stimulate the body to heal advanced cancers or
any other organic pathology.

There is no theoretical reason why a resonant remedy cannot be found for
severe or indolent chronic pathologies. Chappell now shows the theoretical
and empirical proof that his engineered "Genus epidemicus perennis" (my
term) (a genus epidemicus for the chronic epidemic disease) may be a great
boon in treating pandemic diseases. The chronic genus epidemicus is a true
group totality just as is the acute genus epidemicus ephemeris (my term).
This is Hahnemannian homeopathy. We have plenty of challenge in
homeopathy--should not one remedy "by the dots" (that is based solidly on
Hahnemannian tenets) be welcomed? The goal is Aphorism 1, not keeping
homeopathy challenging. Chappell's method will not replace nor interfere
with the need for-- or efficacy of-- an individual psychosomatic totality
remedy (Chappell's "Simillimum 1").

Frankly IMHO the fact that there is an engineered additional group totality
law of similars remedy tool ----that treats on indication of named
disease--- is a boon. Advanced path. cases are harrowing for the
practitioner. IMHO Chappell's rx--as a new tool alongside the
individualized simillimum---are a potential real advancement in medicine; as
well as in ease of the life of a practitioner. This is an advancement in
hahnemannian homeopathy that exploits an underused tenet of the law of
similars--the group totality. Since the remedy is artificially engineered
to encompass the largest anamnesis of a disease entity , it thus can use
that clinical entity as its indication.
We have a piece of our own propaganda that says that clinical diagnostic
entities (named diseases) are something "below us" because they are only a
subset of Hahnemannian semiology. Our own propaganda can be self-infecting.
In this particular case Hahnemannian semiology and clinical diagnostic
category have *converged* because the remedy can be (for the first time)
*custom engineered*.

We decry "allopaths" though they are the ones that get passed the advanced
organic pathology cases that WE CAN'T HANDLE. If we fail with the individual
simillimum, do we welcome another hahnemannian law of similars tool?
Millions perish of infectious diseases in Africa and elsewhere that we
cannot handle because of the sheer numbers and need for individualization.
Chappell may have solved this weakness in homeopathy. Should we be
disappointed?

Homeopathy has a steep learning curve, is time-consuming, too exclusive, has
too high a failure rate and has no reliable confirmatory systems
(pre-prescription quality control) widely used. We do not use a litmus test
to measure the similitude of the remedies we prescribe before using the
client as a "guinea pig". Those of us with "80% success rates" turn away
cases we think "incurable" or with pathology too advanced. With the
exceptions of high-standard and relatively rare very gifted practitioners,
homeopathy is not yet a uniformly reliable, efficient, complete system of
medicine with any kind of aggregate standard of result.

Some of the reason for this is legally mandated for us "nonmedical"
homeopaths--but that makes no difference. If homeopaths (outside of India
and a few unique clinics) could treat clients with severe life-destroying
diseases ---in cooperation with medical doctors--- with more efficiency and
uniformity, then homeopathy could further emerge out of the backwaters, and
we would be closer to perfecting medicine. In an "ideal" potential future of
this planet; or any planet better than this one that one might be privileged
to be living on--- homeopathy (and instrumented homeopathic extenders);
meridian therapies (acupuncture, etc); hypnotherapeutic / shamanistic /
psychotherapeutic methods; and laying on of the hands/adjustment; may
replace "corporate" medicine entirely.

Homeopathy is far from ready for this eventuality.

We have "star practitioners" but as a profession and a practical scientific
medicine IMO homeopathy is in its infancy. We should be able to restore all
but the most iatrogenically abused. We see suppressed cases and we give up
on them. We need to have better-taught and reliable ways be able to recover
suppressed cases so they can be prescribed upon just like any other case. We
need to be able to handle advanced path cases routinely. Are additional
Hahnemannian tools welcome?

Dr. Ramakrishnan's popularization of his own work has taken away some of the
psychological barrier of treating advanced path. cases. Chappell's tool is
another tool, albeit one that is "proprietary" which means that it can be
taken away more easily. I am bothered by the proprietariness of Chappells
rx--but maybe the technology will be licensed, or maybe the rx are
potentizable and graftable if necessary.
Chappell's work is a sophisticated advancement, and thus will take a long
time for people to understand. Few people understand well the concept and
the power of the group totality even as Hahnemann expounded it, and we don't
use it enough in acute epidemics. The chronic group totality concept is
thus difficult to understand. It is a true totality, and Chappell has IMO
elucidated a missing link of Hahnemannian thought. But if we don't use it
out of prejudice or smugness, is it acceptable to fail to help those with
organic pathologies that any form of individualized simillimum cannot help?
Do we ignore a complementary tool to improve homeopathy in an area in
which it is weak‹the difficulty treating certain tenacious chronic miasms
once the pathology has advanced‹or at all--- and the inability to treat
great numbers of people because of a focus on individualization?

Homeopathy is still in its infancy, and we are being given a gift--a new
*Hahnemannian* tool --the orphaned chronic twin of Hahnemann's group
totality system for acute infectious disease. The acute genus epidemicus
group totality remedy--in its ideal form in unsuppressed populations--- is
an almost infallible system for treating acute epidemic disease as is shown
by historical data. In the *same manner*, these chronic disease group
totality *engineered* remedies hold promise to treat advanced pandemic
chronic pathologies that may not be amenable by law of similars to any
easily findable individual simillimum, certainly not on a mass basis.
Chappell's remedies show an ability to treat great numbers of people with a
named chronic diagnosis even for people without the means or time to have
their individualized simillimum found by repeated interviews.

The individual psychosomatic or lesional totality that we may not be able to
find with ANY kind of reasonable time efficiency and cost--or find at all---
keeps many severe cases out of reach of cure. Us homeopaths must be wary of
our own erroneous "delusion that homeopathy is omnipotent". Anyone treating
severe path. knows the pressure of this type of case and that these are
usually harrowing experiences for the practitioner. Should we be concerned
because the named clinical syndrome becomes germain for us as an indicator
and gives us another way to help our client without sending them back to
only palliative or suppressive measures with no hope of eventual
restoration?

Or, looking at Aphorism 1, should we consider that a godsend?
Use of your post as a bit of a "bully pulpit" was in NO WAY meant to offend
you Joy--AT ALL. Your statements in the short post are not unique, but
commonly held ideas. My message was a general one. I know the concepts
behind the Chappell remedies are not very accessible, am attempting to
clarify.
Best to all always,
Andy

[J Lucas]

Dear Andy,

1. What does this mean ­ ³mass basis²? Will we be putting nosodes into the
water supply next? The mass pandemics that homeopathy has thus so far failed
need to be named and stated why homeopathy has failed.
2. Homeopathy can probably treat anything but we need to be so good at what
we do and strive to attain this, so much to learn. Homeopathy is becoming
diffused, there are so many methods, so many justifications of these methods
but we have to be reliable in how we discover the simillimum. If it is true
that we cannot deal with advanced pathology (and I disagree with this), we
have to find out what the reason for this is ­ as individual practitoners.
3. Homeopathy is still in the shadows, would be my answer to this but given
the chance I think homeopathy, as it stands now and since Hahnemann, could
deal with these so called chronic epidemics.
4. I am not wearing a hair shirt mentality on this, homeopathy is both
simple and complicated and the challenge isn¹t always present, who wouldn¹t
want to make it easier, but I don¹t think this mass approach is the answer.
5. Don¹t know where you get this from, the MM¹s are full of named diseased
states ­ cancer, diabetes, scleroderma, lupus, arthritis, heart diseases,
etc etc
6. I wasn¹t taking this opportunity to decry allopaths, merely the
allopathic approach ­ one remedy for one disease, another for another etc
7. Of course we have a lot of learning to do but let¹s learn what Hahnemann
taught us before we start advancing (if it can be called this) into mass
prescriptions. I think there are huge political ramifications with this, one
of them being the people of Africa as some kind of experimental strategy ­
haven¹t they had enough of that already. I loathe the idea of people being
used as experiments.

Stanza 1 is dependent on all the other stanzas of the Organon, it doesn¹t
stand alone.

Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 9/2/05 10:54 am, AH at andyh@mcn.org wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[AH]

(definitions)
Endemic: a disease that may fluctuate but nevertheless exists permanently in
a particular region or population; peculiar to a district or particular
locality, or class of persons.
Epidemic: An outbreak of disease that is common to, or affecting at the same
time, a large number in a community and may spread through one or several
communities.
Pandemic: When an epidemic spreads throughout a wide geographical area or
the entire world.

on 2/9/05 7:05 AM, J Lucas at j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
(( Dear Joy, Putting rx into the water supply is not unlike what is done
with an acute genus epidemicus--same rx for everyone for treatment and
prevention, and if the disease is severe enough and time short
enough--without taking a full case or needing a followup---only enough to
know they can safely react to a remedy (eg all those already in one's
practice who might be susceptible and need a priori prophylaxis if the genus
epidemicus is known and the disease is severe or life-threatening).
Hahnemann gave us two types of simillimum--the individual and the group
acute. Chappell has extended the group acute into a group chronic. The
closest thing in nature to a group chronic for a disease is the nosode of
the disease--and it can be fairly effective if it has been taken from many
strains over a long time span, in order to encompass most or all of the
attributes of the disease. Chappell went one-better-- he developed a
technology to make a chronic genus epidemicus from a list of the group
anamnesis for any disease, just as Hahnemann instructed to do for the group
totality for the acute.

Chappell is merely extending the group simillimum to the chronic level--to
allow treating a mass population with the same remedy--the remedy for the
epidemic or pandemic of a chronic disease instead of an acute. This is only
difficult to understand because we homeopaths have propagandized ourselves
with the idea that homeopathy is only about the individual simillimum.
Schools don't apparently teach the group simillimum well enough. The group
simillimum is a simillimum for a susceptibility to a DISEASE, which in our
system defines that disease, which has a overarching name to define it. If
we use that definition and name and collect all the peculiar hahnemannian
semiology for it and make it into a remedy, then we have a genus remedy for
that named disease for the population it was defined for---which in the case
of a pandemic---is not just one community but the entire world.

If the group totality encompasses a long enough time scale and all the known
hahnemannian semiologic indications of human response to that named disease,
then we have a chronic genus epidemicus--a remedy for that named disease
that can, as Chappell has shown, be given to everyone with that named
disease with curative response to at least some degree that he and others
(especially those recovering from AIDS)---are excited about--just as we see
with the shorter time scale acute epidemic.

Homeopathy is not just the individual simillimum. People have forgotten
about the group simillimum--which is a remedy for a group response to a
DISEASE in terms of collected Hahnemannian symptomology from as many cases
as possible. Chappell has taken the concept of the remedy for the group
ephemeral disease and expanded its timescale to the chronic level. Any
epidemic--for example smallpox--- has a short time scale genus epidemicus
which (once it is found by concatenating numerous local cases and then
repertorizing) is, in a one-stage epidemic, given to everyone. It both
treats and protects potentially infallibly, as the historical data
demonstrates.

A genus remedy *synthesized* for the AIDS pandemic using a concatenation of
all the symptoms of as many aids cases as possible--- after demonstrating
its effectiveness -- is given to everyone where the epidemic rages and can
provide both treatment, and, if desired, prophyaxis. If Chappell has been
accurate enough with his group anamnesis, then his chronic genus epidemicus
for AIDS will be as effective as has the acute genus epidemicus has been
historically for epidemic diseases like smallpox--nearly 100% effective.
Joy wrote:
The mass pandemics that homeopathy has thus so far failed

((( Here are examples of chronic epidemics or pandemics which homeopathy
can currently treat only one-by-one, case-by-case, and with only partial
success, since individual case taking has at BEST about a 30% failure rate
for giving the optimal remedy for gentle, rapid, permanent cure, and can
take years of missed prescriptions and wasted client time and money.

AIDS
Alzheimers
Cancer
Candida
Chronic Fatigue
Chlamydia
Herpes
Leprosy
Leukemia
Lyme Disease
Multiple Sclerosis

(these are all diseases for which chappell has made chronic group totality
remedies BTW)

Individual case taking in very capable hands may indeed solve the case, but
may also fail--and does not make a big impact on a chronic disease affecting
millions of people--like AIDS in Africa. Chappell has developed the Group
chronic simillimum-- a Hahnemannian law of similars remedy for the
DISEASE--potentially allowing treatment of exponentially more people with a
fatal or maiming disease ---quickly and inexpensively.

It is a complementary approach to the individual simillimum, which it does
not replace, because it is not treating the same totality. The individual
psychosomatic totality has to do with one's entire being and life curriculum
as well as one's health--encompassing one's entire psychology and bodily
economy--- desires, aversions, activities, contributions, aspirations,
relations--everything. Each Chappell group chronic genus epidemicus remedy
is aimed at only one totality---the miasmatic chronic named
disease---because it has been defined as all the hahnemannian symptomology
of a spectrum of cases of that disease over as long a time span and large a
geographical range as possible.

It is a groundbreaking advancement. It could (potentially) revolutionize
both homeopathy and medicine if it is not squashed first. Not checking it
out calls for first taking Ostrich 10M. I recommend people get together
and buy these rx (they are not cheap) and use them in their practices and
test them in stubborn cases of organic pathology. Go to vitalremedies.com
and copy the list of remedy codes available from two pharmacies. Then buy
some remedies for clients. Test the remedies. Then report in to the list.
Let's see just how effective these engineered hahnemannian chronic genus
remedies are in cases we have not before thought we could help to permanent
and full restoration.
((( This goes without saying. We have to separate wheat from chaff. The
only way to do this is to be open to all, and test and see what works.

The point being made is *not* that it is not *possible* to deal with
advanced pathology with the individual simillimum. But how reliable and
widespread is success in such treatment? How many of us can carry a
caseload full of cancer, AIDS, MS, etc clients and feel comfortable and
confident and discharge the pt after a few months of treatment? What
Chappell is reporting is the potential to help more clients with a
homeopathic tool based squarely on Hahnemann. If inertia in embracing
another hahnemannian tool---even to test it--- has to do with *not
understanding* an innovation, then it is important to *try to understand
it*. If it is rejected out of prejudice, then Aphorism 1 applies.

The theory behind Chappell's chronic genus epidemicus remedies are indeed
difficult to understand by homeopaths, for the most part because of our own
self-propaganda that the individual simillimum is "all there is" in
homeopathy. We have forgotten that Hahnemann invented another type of
simillimum--the group simillimum-- which we have heretofore only known in
its acute form, which is called the "Genus epidemicus". The genus
epidemicus is the *group simillimum* for a geographical disease, and is
Hahnemann's answer to the acute epidemic, by which everyone affected could
be treated *with the same remedy*. And everyone who had not been yet
affected could be protected *using that same remedy*.

The acute genus epidemicus remedy is found in the early days of the group
disease (epidemic) by concatenating as many cases as possible among all the
able homeopaths of the area, and then repertorizing the case to come up with
an optimal simillimum for the *disease*, which in this case is a *group
disease*. What is a group disease? A disease which appears not just in a
susceptible *individual*, but in a susceptible *population* or region.

Epidemics work on human communities just as they do on individuals---some
communities (by virtue of telluric factors, soil, bedrock, weather,
nutrition, and area morale and collective vigor (collective vital force) get
sick, others do not. We are all connected by some group identity. People
from Birmingham, for example, are Birminghamites---connected into a
geographical region. All that happens in Birmingham is of concern to them.
If the mayor embezzles and bankrupts town hall, everyone knows about it.
Birminghamians are to some extent unique and are connected by this and other
similarities and ties.

Jeremy Sherr once showed how a French Cholera epidemic (for which the genus
remedy was veratrum) had a relation to a Napoleonic defeat in a war--and he
showed how Veratrum fit the group psyche of France at the time. This is
group vital force, and group susceptibility. This is the ACUTE group
disease--an ephemeral eruption of epidemic in a region.

What if we, as Chappell did, decide to expand Hahnemann's principle to the
CHRONIC disease? Take as many cases of the chronic disease over as long a
time scale as possible and as wide a geographic area as possible, and
repertorize it? What if we then, instead of settling for the nosode or the
highest scoring materia medica candidates, can then MAKE that remedy
including all the peak symptoms and major points? Then we have an new
advancement in efficient treatment of disease using an engineered group
simillimum, which is a remedy for the disease in question by virtue of
including in the remedy, all the important components of human
susceptibility to it heretofore recorded.
Why is this important to you, me, and all homeopaths? Why, only a few days
after getting Soroush's report and Chappell's Powerpoint lecture (and for
the first time getting an elucidation and understanding of the basis and
mechanism of Chappell's work) am I interested that others also understand
it?

Because part of what Chappell is doing is PURE Hahnemannian homeopathy---
could not get more hahnemannian. The group simillimum remedy for the largest
chronic disease totality is engineered via a technology that can tailor-make
a remedy that does not exist in nature. This shows results in chronic
pandemics (AIDS, MS etc) with (one remedy fits all sufferers of the named
disease) JUST like the acute disease genus epidemicus of Hahnemann, except
on the expanded timescale of a chronic disease.

Does it replace the individual simillimum, interfere with it, or lessen its
importance? No. The individual simillimum is a remedy for the psychosomatic
life of an individual‹the individual susceptibility which is a mix of
miasms.

The group simillimum is a remedy for a collective response to a disease‹the
collective susceptibility which is like the "miasm" for that disease only
(even though it may also involve mixed miasms). Two different ways to
define a chronic disease--individual and by name. Hahnemann developed BOTH
these approaches. The individual rx for individ totality, in which named
disease is not important. The group remedy specifically for a named
disease. These approaches complement each other. Surely it is clear that
in a pandemic, the Group simillimum, if effective, will be faster and help
more people more quickly--people who may not either be interested in
individualized homeopathy, be able to afford it, or have anyone qualified to
provide it for them.

The individual simillimum is specific to a person whose case must be taken
in extremely intimate depth and then followed for a long time. The group
simillimum can work to treat and protect an entire population.

How important is Chappell's insight and invention of the possibility of a
chronic genus epidemicus? Consider this: the acute disease genus epidemicus
is VIRTUALLY INFALLIBLE under conditions of largely non-immunosuppressed
populations (e.g. the conditions of US 1850-1930). How do we know this?
Because Andre Saine ND scoured the homeopathic periodic literature among the
old homeopathic college libraries of the United States (esp U. Michigan and
University of California-San Francisco where W. Boericke practiced)--- and
found that the acute genus epidemicus was, in the hands of the best
hahnemannian homeopaths-- virtually 100% curative *and* protective of large
numbers of people during epidemics of highly contagious diseases like
smallpox.

The true Genus epidemicus group simillimum of the local regional acute
disease of the time--found by massing and concatenating cases--is not only
virtually 100% curative in a one-stage epidemic---but 100% *protective* of
those yet affected by the disease. In these epidemics being treated by
Hahnemannian homeopaths who understood that group diseases existed and could
be understood and treated---because Hahnemann pioneered it and proved it
could be done--the genus epidemicus remedy for the regional disease in
progress was handed out in some cases to everyone in a practice without
necessarily pulling them in for a followup.

Why was this important to (in many cases) treat everyone in a practice
(especially those whose individual remedy was not clear)? Because the
regional diseases that came through periodically did not only include the
common cold--- but virulent influenza, smallpox, cholera, yellow fever,
diptheria, and other fatal diseases. And there was no "antibiotic" crutch
until the 1930's. So there were many deaths from acute disease except in
families whose doctors were Farrington, one of the Allens, Kent, Grimmer,
and other members (in the US) of the IHA. The protective power of the genus
epidemicus is virtually 100%:

1871-Sarracenia (Pitcher Plant)(which was developed by Hering) was the genus
epidemicus of a smallpox epidemic in Belgium. No deaths occurred in those
immunized homeopathically. All the names and addresses were documented.

Texas Homeopathic Palette, 1883- Vaccininum (homeopathic cowpox) was used,
and completely protected against smallpox, even those eating and playing
with those that had smallpox.

1941 U.S. smallpox outbreak-homeopathic prophylaxis recorded a 98-99%
effectiveness.

and the definition of a genus epidemicus is a group simillimum which both
successfully treats and protects against the local regional acute epidemic.

It thus follows that a "chronic genus epidemicus" will potentially be as
efficacious. And this seems to be what Chappell is reporting. Today the
susceptibility to fatal acute diseases have largely been suppressed out of
existence and replaced by fatal (eg AIDs, Alzheimers) and debilitating (eg
MS, Chronic Fatigue) chronic diseases---which have infectious components, e
ven if not yet fully defined.

Chappell thought to himself--how do we find that remedy--a version of the
acute genus epidemicus that will work on chronic diseases? What is the
Chronic genus epidemicus? What Chappell did was extrapolate in time scale
from ephemeral to permanent and geographical coverage from epidemic to
endemic and pandemic; and do Hahnemann's group characterization procedure
for a *chronic* disease. He realized that the nosode might be the closest
genus remedy but he took an additional step--- a technology that can
synthesize an artificial remedy from a list of symptoms.

This other part of Chappell's discovery-- (synthesized tailor-made
electromagnetic remedies) is in itself a major breakthrough in medicine--it
allows a set of symptoms to be made into a remedy which will resonate with
those symptoms.

*Theoretically* such a remedy will also be, if not also virtually infallible
to its target, close to it---irregardless of what the person's individual
simillimum is, and without interfering with that individual simillimum
totality. Is it not clear how important this then is, both to homeopathy
and to medicine in general?
((( What Chappell is pioneering IS homeopathy. Just the other type of
simillimum that Hahnemann introduced--extended in time scale and
geographical extent--and engineered instead of potentized from a harvested
substance.
((( please define
mentality on this, homeopathy is both

((( Have you thrown out Hahnemann's acute genus epidemicus, then, also? If
you eschew Chappell's rx even to test, then you have essentially done that.
Because the process is the same. The difference being that Chappell's rx is
an engineered rx instead of one made first from a substance in nature. This
technological aid is a necessity since the group chronic simillimum for a
given disease does not likely exist in nature--and if it does it is not
easily or efficiently findable.
((( Was responding to this statement you made in your post, Joy:

"But at the end of the day we will end up prescribing like the allopaths ­
one remedy for diabetes, one for rheumatoid arthritis, one for Parkinson¹s
etc etc. "

You are probably concerned that individual simillimum prescribing--for an
individual totality--- will become like group simillimum prescribing--for a
disease totality. No one said this would happen--how could it? My sense is
that you did not really read my last post or maybe my style of writing is
too difficult to understand. This is not that difficult a concept to
understand. If after this post and/or reading the past 2 or 3 written on
this topic, one still does not understand it, then one does not want to.

Prescribing "like the allopaths" is in the case of Chappell's group chronic
simillimum--appropriate because all the cogent hahemannian symptomology for
a given chronic disease has been collected and synthesized into one
remedy--that is at least what Chappell says he does. So it IS really a
remedy for a named disease totality--all the symptoms of susceptibility over
time and space that could be collected just like Hahnemann said to do
locally in an acute epidemic. This is a convergence of a clinical entity
with a Hahnemannian Genus totality. The methodology to that point is pure
hahnemannian methodology. But because the remedy is made artificially and
not chosen from the materia medica, it is named according to the disease it
is meant to cover as much of the chronic susceptibility for as as possible.
Should a remedy for the group anamnesis for AIDS be called by some other
name?

Perhaps you should think of these remedies as "hyper nosodes", and use them
initially in your practice when carefully selected individual remedies fail
to act in a case in which the CC is a given very tenacious chronic disease
like AIDS, MS, etc. Because, in a sense, that is what they
are---engineered nosodes---theoretically designed to include all strains...
But remember, they are based on the susceptibility indicated by many cases
(Hahnemannian semiology)--- so not only known infectious diseases are
included in Chappell's list of rx he has engineered---but diseases which
have a miasmatic basis, and may very well have an infectious component yet
undiscovered (eg. MS may involve epstein barr; alzheimers may involve some
microbe, etc). But all these chronic diseases involve spirit-like miasms
first--susceptibility---and that is the basis for all of our
remedies--resonance with a totality of susceptibility.
((( That this approach is inappropriate when seeking the individual
simillimum goes without saying. But do you now understand how it is
appropriate for a group simillimum; and thus how ranting about it is merely
repeating a piece of our own programmed propaganda which applies only to
individual homeopathic prescribing...
((( Hahnemann taught mass prescriptions using the genus epidemicus--the
group simillimum.

I think there are huge political ramifications with this, one

((( I'll let Didi, who uses PC1 for AIDS in her practice in Kenya, and who
has described the decimation in which every family in Kenya has lost at
least one member to AIDS---respond to this one.

((( Sure.

But:
saying that the group simillimum cannot be aimed at a specific disease
susceptibility

because

it does not jive with a fixed idea that homeopathy is only about individual
simillimi

and thus that

we cannot define a remedy that way just because it has never been done
heretofore using group totality remedies

is

getting attached to a dogma which in this case does not apply.

An individual simillimum does not depend on named diseases. A group
simillimum is aimed precisely AT a named disease. So misapplying the rules
for one part of homeopathy to another part of it is thus like
"...constructing so-called systems..." which in Aphorism 1 was merely
Hahnemann's warning against raising dogma over the practical healing of the
sick.
Peace,
Andy

[Piet Guijt]

Andy wrote:

Hahnemann gave us two types of simillimum--the individual and the group
acute. Chappell has extended the group acute into a group chronic.

Hi Andy,

You're forgetting something, the Hahnemann's miasms are also chronic genus
group remedies.
But Hahnemann did not give us two types of simillimum's, he gave us just
one.
The factors that contribute to the simillimum can be different according to
Aph 5.
Hahnemann's mentions causation, miasms, individuality etc. They al
contribute to what the simillimum will be like.
This simillimum is the total change, the deviation from the healthy
individual.
To find the simillimum, draw a line from the chief complaint to the centre
of the person and find the remedy similar to this state. This remedy will
cover all symptoms.
But a partial remedy will not cover all symptoms, so when 'simillimum 1' is
still indicated, but is not curative for a certain group of disease
symptoms, this proves we are dealing with a partial remedy.
Most likely this remedy is similar on the level of only one miasm i.e psora,
but the state indicates i.e. a psora-syphilic remedy.
When after the prescription of the correct simillimum it ceases to act and
there are still symptoms left, it better to try to find a complementairy
remedy to the first one, which will continue what you started, because the
state as a result of the treatment has changed. This is better then a
PCsimillimum 2.
I hope this makes this clear
Kind regards, Piet