Sim.......II, to sum up.

[Editor-in-Chief; Homoeopathic Medical Panorama]

Dear all,
As I started this let me sum up what I think about it.

1. Peter Chappel's work (PC) is indeed an entirely new and rational way of
proving/potentisation of HOMOEOPATHIC drugs. It can be termed as a
pioneering work.

2. It has immense scope for homoeopathy in future as it will enable us to
find a cure for many of today's incurable illnesses (explained at the end in
#6).

3. PC's work is nothing of 'Similimum II' (as explained below) but only a
set of new drugs produced in a new method.

"Law of similars" being a natural law no one can do anything about
similimum. Either to agree it or disagree with. It was not even been an
invention by Hahnemann. Hn only polished it and supplemented with some
practical tools like proving and potentisation for every day use. Hn's only
original works being proving and potentisation. So there was, is and will be
only one similimum. That's the one most matching in character to the illness
(sick) in question.
Whatever agents one may use (in homoeopathy) one can do it only according
to the law of similars. The agents, its qualities, method of preparation,
the source etc. may change. But still it should obey to the rules "simple,
simile, minimum" for it to be homoeopathy.
Simple = It should be proved (produced in PCs case) as from a single source.
i.e. even if you produce it from Sanicula aqua, which contain many
substances it should be proved as a single entirety, in the traditional
method. In PC's work also the final irradiation or activation is done with a
single energy source which is unchanging further. So this law is not
violated.
Simile = It should be administrated according to law of similars. (Not
violated in PC)
Minimum = It should be given at the lowest possible dose, mainly to remove
any aggravations as it is a similar one to the illness. (Not violated in PC)
Another rule in homoeopathy is "totality". That is the making drugs
(proving and construction of materia medica) as well as applying them to the
sick is by this parameter. That also is not violated by PC even though the
two process are merged in to one by him. In genus epidemicus (GE) also what
we use is the similimum but constructed on a group totality rather than an
individual totality.
The one mis-understanding the homoeopathic fraternity had so far was that
for an illness to be cured homoeopathically the drugs should be used through
the proving-potentising pathway. This was challenged and effectively proven
otherwise by PC. It is entirely true as HOMOEOPATHY is also a natural thing
like similimum and Hn's method is only one of the ways to reach at this end.
There still are OTHER PATHWAYS remaining. (Now.., it is an entirely
different theory and we will discuss it separately later)

4. PC's is only a 'tailor made homoeopathic drug'. It is like this.
Conventionally men used to make clothing after presenting themselves to the
tailor and getting their measurements taken and then from the vast clothing
materials available a correct fit was constructed. It needs skill and takes
time. In time ready-to-wear ones became available by standardizing the
measurements of human body and categorising it into groups and correct fit
for that group is pre-made enmass. It saved a lot of time, also it didn't
matter if the seller of the clothing is not an expert about dresses and
styles. Because the only parameter matched is the size. But it didn't always
make an exact fit unlike in conventional custom tailoring. The same thing
can also happen in PC's as explained in #5 below.

5. PC will work in case of pandemic like AIDS beautifully but (presently)
will have difficulty in others like MS, Alzheimer or Cancer as explained
below.

Any group totality to be 100% effective should include the common
characters of the group. These contain qualifications ascertained by
geography, culture and race of the group. This is evident in the fact that
even a simple illness like chicken pox gives one different GE at different
parts of the world.
Unlike other illnesses AIDS is a very young illness and it is not yet
been influenced to a great extend by the said parameters. (Remember that
evolution is a very slow process measured in human time scale.) Where as MS,
Alzheimer's or any others of that kind has evolved over long periods of time
with different geographical, cultural and racial parameters influencing
them.
So in order to construct PC for them (the other illnesses) one has to do
more work by constructing a totality including symptoms from different parts
of the world and also with different cultural and racial sects included.
That's tedious work if not entirely impossible. Even then it has to be found
out by trial and error that a designed drug from such a large pandemic
totality covers all the patients from different parts of the world or a
designed drug from a more Alzheimer's geographically/racially/culturally
confined totality serves better in the so called regions to combat such
illnesses better.

6. The real significance of Pc's work lies in the fact that in future if the
technology is made simple and affordable one can easily find a "true
similimum" for every case with this. For this the first step of PC's work
(see PP slides) has to be replaced with the individual totality taken in the
traditionalway of case taking, analysis, evaluation.
I think this is possible because once the path is cleared any ggeniuscan
work out a way to construct the mathematical abstract analogous to the
totality. The rest is simple home work in PCs own terms. It is not that
there are geniuses a dozen a dime. But there should be one in at least
hundred million. Now PC has proved that there exists such a possibility one
with adequate gift of mathematical skill and an inclination to homoeopathy
can do this. Unless PC secure a patent for this, the validity of which I
doubt very much.
The interesting thing to be noted is that here there will be no loss of
the charm of traditional homoeopathy as skilled physicians are still needed
to bring out the individual totality. All the diagnostic procedures of today
will also remain valid as the merit of general management never goes out of
the window. Also it will neither enable us to cure all the incurables like
highly advanced pathology etc. as these are against nature's law (can be
explained by the said theory in #3 above).

What will happen is....
* A lot of sick people who now lies at the border line of incurability will
be converted to the curable side.
* Finding or rather administering the similimum will become much much
easier.
* The present day constraint of 'potency selection' will be over came (as
the drug is made in the correct potency needed by the sick!! -can be
explained by the new theory).
* Still 'dosage' and 'repetition' has to be standardised by large trial and
error experiments.
* Homoeopathy which is now a mystic therapeutism will become a standard
procedure and ultra science. Or rather "THE SCIENCE WILL CATCH UP WITH
HOMOEOPATHY!"

Please come forward with any suggestions or ideas as I really need them. It
will be better if you put a Cc to "dr.gafar@gmail.com" of any mails to 'the
minutus' specifically in response to this mail.
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: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Dr Gafar

I think you understood a number of points incorrectly.
Please see **my comments after each point you have made.

Rgds
Soroush

[Rosemary C Hyde PhD]

Nice summation, and good additions by Soroush.

One point you made and passed over is important in this process: that
formal research is a necessary step to bolster the acceptance of PC's
remedies. Peter is now hoping to find physicians willing to lead clinical
trials of his various remedies. Clinical trials do seem to make more sense
here than the usual homeopathic provings, given the origin of the PC
remedies and the fact that they are derived from serious disease states,
from pathology rather than constitution.

I've used particularly Peter's cancer remedy with clients, and have been
impressed. It appears to be a good tool to help a patient respond strongly.
With both the cancer remedy and the HIV remedy, I've seen patients
experience returns of old symptoms as well as stabilization of their state
of health. This response, following the "direction of cure," indicates that
the treatment appears to work curatively rather than suppressively.

The patients have still needed and responded to constitutionally selected
remedies in addition to the pathologically based remedies. Where a patient
has a life-threatening pathology, treating this specifically and
separately as one would an acute illness seems to be a viable strategy. This
is also the approach that Dr. Ramakrishnan took in developing his "Plussing
Method" for treating cancer.

Peter's remedies appear to address very specifically the symptom picture on
which they're based, working at the level of the serious pathology. They
use a healing pathway similar to that of the Genus Epidemicus for acutes --
they seem to address overwhelming pathologies as an acute crisis that must
be addressed first and at a different level than our wonderful deep acting
chronic homeopathic prescribing.

If anyone is in a position to conduct and publicize the results of a
clinical trial using one of Peter's remedies, I'm sure he'd be delighted to
hear from that person.

Rosemary

[AH]

on 2/14/05 7:22 AM, Editor-in-Chief; Homoeopathic Medical Panorama at
chief@homedpa.com wrote:
((( Dear Dr. Gafar, good to hear your further opinions on the current topic.
You clearly understand the significance of what we are discussing. I hope
others will understand the point of this somewhat complex topic also.

I agree with Chappell's classification of the group remedy as a truly
distinct type of simillimum, a Simillimum II which was also the opinion of
Andre Saine. But the semantics of it need not divide people. It is clearly
a distinct TYPE of remedy, whether we call it a simillimum or not.

Chappell is exploiting the group simillimum, which has been used for 180
years, and which is a simillimum for a disease, not an individual. He thus
has made two separate innovations (extension of the group simillimum from
acute to chronic; and invention of a new method to produce medicines,
resulting in a new class of homeopathic medicines, as you aptly point out).

I will try again to elucidate further my assessment by responding to your
statements here.

((( But a simillimum remedy is applied to a defined entity--and in this case
we are comparing two different types of defined entity. One is an
individual economy (susceptibility), the other is a group susceptibility,
which equals the definition of a clinical disease-acute (Hahnemann) or
chronic (Chappell).

A morbific totality that is individual is individual. Overall medicine has
no definition for the such a totality. In homeopathy it is defined by the
remedy that annihilates it in toto. We don't usually annihilate all the
disease of a person with only one remedy, so a simillimum cannot be the
remedy for the whole person in perpetuity, unless we have found that
perfectly resonant medicine. It is a simillimum for a meaningful entity
within that person.

A morbific totality which is for a group is of a malady which affects a
group. In medicine we define this as a "disease" for which we have two
categories:

--acute (self-limited by amelioration; reversion to a sub-acute syndrome
(which thus makes it chronic), or death);
--chronic (persistent in time, and usually progressively and gradually
destructive of the physical vehicle, until the indwelling spiritual entity
must abandon it (death).
These are distinctly different target entities, so the remedy for each is a
distinct type of remedy. A simillimum is a remedy for the totality of an
entity (eg sufficiently similar to annihilate that entity in toto)--and both
these types of remedy qualify as remedies for the totality of each
respective entity (individual and group). Thus we are talking about two
distinct types of simillimi.

This distinction has not been in question for me or others who understand
the genus epidemicus. Saine elucidated it for me, and I am trying to pass
on this insight of his to the group here--because of the vast potential of
Chappell's extension of the group simillimum both in individual and CHRONIC
infectious epidemiological therapeutics. Chappell's insight to extend the
genus epidemicus to the chronic level is brilliant. Chappell's invention of
a way to synthesize a remedy from a list of symptoms is brilliant.
Understanding the significance of these new innovations is critical to both
medicine and homeopathy.

I only recognized this potential by virtue of Chappell's coming out with a
full articulation of his method, and thank Soroush for reporting this to the
group. I wish to help others understand this potential and use it in curing
the sick by law of similars according to Aphorism 1--which is what all of us
are doing as homeopathic professionals and members of this discussion group.
I well realize how much prejudice and inertia there will be before people
will even purchase and use these remedies empirically in their practice.
But the first step is to understand their grounding in hahnemannian medical
theory, and how the group remedy has been in use for some 180 years and has
voluminous data on its superlative efficacy against a named disease entity
for both annihilation and prophylaxis. If upon understanding the concepts,
a practitioner does not wish to employ these remedies, upon unsatisfactory
result of the individual simillimum, that is their choice. It should not be
a difficult one if one understands the (documented over 180 years) almost
infallible capacity of Hahnemann's method of summing cases to describe the
spectrum of susceptibility of a morbific influence. In an individual case,
the engineered precision genus pandemicus inveteratus should be a superior
substitute for the nearest available traditional intercurrent nosode or
lesional totality remedy (either of which in many cases are palliative
only).

In order to understand just how important Chappell's new remedies are to us
toward the goal of completing homeopathy as a system of therapeutics, then
one has to fully understand that we have two types of simillimum. The:

*individual simillimum,
and the

*group simillimum (which equals the simillimum for a named morbific
influence which is a named clinical syndrome, best defined by the sum of the
hahnemannian symptomology for the largest possible group of sufferers in the
geographical extent of that morbific influence, and, (in as much as it is
possible, for the time period that this morbific influence has been in
existence--in order to account for all possible human symptomatic responses
to various strains/variants of that infectious morbific influence).

These are not particularly simple concepts to understand, but are basic to
homeopathy as a complete system, and are not new--but have been in place and
used for 180 years. Chappell just took the group simillimum from the acute
level to the chronic level. He applied Hahnemann's genus concept to a
chronic disease entity instead of just an acute (Hahnemann had invented
this method --- but had gone no farther than the acute level).

Chappell then was beset with the problem of evaluating the result of
repertorizing the result of his sum of chronic cases. No potentizable
substance in nature, not even the nosode of the named disease, is the
optimal simillimum for the totality of symptoms of a named chronic disease.
We have used the nosode as a zig-zag in the process of trying to annihilate
chronic disease entities with (obviously) imperfect success since 1825-1830
when Lux and Hering introduced a new type of remedy--the nosode. We use the
nosode as an intercurrent when "carefully selected remedies fail to act".

Chappell realized that the nosode of the named disease is an imperfect
simillimum for the named disease entity (MS, Cancer, alzheimers, etc which
are complex expressions of mixed miasmatic susceptibility but have an
integrated definition and well-defined boundaries as disease entities).
Chappell realized that the optimal remedy for the totality of any chronic
disease totality he was characterizing did not exist in our materia medica.
If it existed even in nature itself, it would take a long effort to find and
no certainty of success would exist. So he realized that he had to develop
a way to engineer a remedy from a list of symptoms--to custom tailor a
remedy. He developed a method to create a remedy which leapfrogs the
problem of relying on finding the optimal remedy already in nature. A
review of the (now) two methods of determining a remedy for the two types of
simillimum (individual and group) follows here:

==========
COMPARATIVE METHOD USING MEDICINAL SUBSTANCES EXTANT IN NATURE
Our comparative method using substances in nature to systematically apply
the law of similars, a law of symptomaticn chord resonance long known in
medicine as Dr. Gafar points out, by comparing alchemical substance found in
nature with a human organismal economy and psychology and applying the
medicine by similarity :

Hahnemann--find the secondary (medicinal and disease annihilating) effects
of a rarefied version of a substance on human and other organisms by:

1. --observing the symptoms of accidental human poisonings with crude
susbstance

2. --imprinting the substance energetic pattern on water to remove
biochemical toxicity and then experimentally poison people with that
pattern:

(elucidate the power and hahnemannian semiology of that pattern by
artificially forced dissimilarity (PROVING)

3. --observe the nature and characteristics of people who are ameliorated
"cured" by use of the energetic pattern of a particular substance in
practice-- in order to confirm and fill out the understanding of the
morbific indications of that medicine:

(infer unknown characteristics of the medicine by observing the in situ
characteristics of those that it cures by medicinally administered
similarity (CLINICAL USE)

4. Apply the medicine chosen from the catalogue of those known using
clearly comprehensible principles. These principles include hierarchization
of symptoms, with the peculiar and unique leading the list. Boenninghausen
defines the overall picture of how to classify a complete case of symptoms.
Hahnemann includes in his exegesis an understanding that there are
structural entities in nature which underlie different classes of
susceptibility--and provide the basis for much of hereditary human variation
in psychology and tendency to become ill in predictable and well-defined
ways. He calls these energetic (spirit-like) derangements in life force
"miasms". A miasm is a larger entity than a symptom--it is a defined
category of derangement. Miasms combine to produce complexes--and account
for patterns of illness in individuals and diseases that affect both
individuals and groups of individuals, or all of humanity.

Hahnemann defines two types of entity to which to apply the medicines:

*individual disease
*group disease

The rules for application of the similar medicine are the same for both.
The characteristics and symptoms are elicited and observed. Hahnemann
develops a new semiological lexicon in medicine which far surpasses
conventional methods in level of detail of assay of the organismal
homeostatic expressions. Hahnemann's develops a system of principles which
are (compared with no principles of conventional medicine) easily
comprehensible. These principles are utilized in an attempt to match the
pattern of an illness with the pattern of the hidden (alchemical) morbific
capability of a substance. The catalogues of medicines and their alchemical
totality were, in accordance with custom, termed the books of the materia
("material") of medicines, even though the medicines were, in the majority
of cases, applied in their immaterial (patternized) form, with material only
as their carrier. Boenninghausen, at Hahnemann's request, assembled a
symptom index or repertory, for convenient cross-indexing of the knowledge
of each individual medicine in comparison with all of others of overlapping
characteristics, order to organize the database further.

INDIVIDUAL CASE
In an individual case, the list of hierarchized peculiar symptoms as they
depart from health and from common expressions of a named disease or
cultural behavior are used; and compared with the principle characteristics
of a medicine as catalogued from the results of Proving and Clinical Use.
The matched and effective medicine is peculiar to the response of the vital
force of an individual's bodily vehicle and indwelling consciousness to
morbific influences and/or to existence itself. The remedy found by the
analysis of individual characteristics applies only to that individual, and
any clinically defined (nosologically named) disease they might have is
important but only rarely gnomonic (crucially indicative) of the remedy.
The process takes into account all categories of life expression and
disposition, including subtle psychological characteristics. The individual
"simillimum" as the successful remedy is termed, stimulates and/or
annihilates the pattern of illness as no other remedy known in the history
of medicine is capable of accomplishing. The individual simillimum,
however, is a singular achievement, applies only to that individual in time
and space, and depends on laborious, time-consuming, and ongoing
investigation of each case. Miasms have become endemic and complicated in
the genome, and each individual human being is an expression of that
complexity. Clearing oneself of miasms (susceptibility) may be impossible
in a given lifetime.

GROUP CASE
A group case is defined and necessitated by a named disease. A group can
(otherwise) only be defined by race, creed or geographical location and
these tend to rarely be important as a clue to similarity between medicine
and group, and thus are no grounds for a common remedy. The group
simillimum to a common morbific influence is found by summing all the
individual sufferers of a named disease and then choosing the peculiar peaks
of susceptibility they have in common, and matching those peculiars to a
known medicine.

All members of the group receive the SAME MEDICINE (the group simillimum),
which has proven to be nearly 100% effective in TREATMENT AND PROPHYLAXIS of
acute named disease in relatively unsuppressed populations. Hahnemann calls
the group remedy the genus (related in kind) remedy, and applies it to acute
local diseases (epidemics), and thus calls it the genus epidemicus.

5.--J. Scholten and R. Sankaran develop an overarching taxonomic
classification of the SUBSTANCES used to make the remedies in the materia
medica, and using the relations between KNOWN homeopathic medicines and the
constructs of Linnean (biological) and Mendeleevian (elemental) taxonomic
systems---INFER the expected characteristics of UNKNOWN homeopathic
medicines. These inferential expectations are then tested using the
clinical test of similarity as in number (3) above:

(develop a theory of the alchemical (hidden medicinal) characteristics of
the substances, organisms, and products of disease entities present in the
phenomenal world using existing phenomenological classification systems--and
use these inferences to save vast amounts of time to infer the unknown
members of related members within those classifications)

6. Rajan Sankaran--by exploiting the Linnean (and more modern workers')
taxonomic systems (in the first instance using the plant world)--defines a
metaphorical signature which erupts in the individual as a gesture, central
tendency, or sensation. Use computer analysis of the repertory for an
individual taxon to define that sensation for known homeopathic medicines
and then infer that this will be the case for other members of that taxon.
Start with the known attributes of the major hahnemannian categories of
infectious/inherited susceptibility--"miasms"--and then infer (using the
empirical basis of many cases)-- additional miasmatic categories into which
to place those as yet defined. Define each member as a plant taxon as
having one of those 10 or so miasms as DOMINANT, and make the assumption
that each plant alchemical pattern is an embodiment which does contain a
dominant miasm. Thus create a system by which the path to finding a similar
medicine begins with identifying the similarity of a client's pattern to one
of the natural taxons, starting with kingdom (plant, animal, mineral, fungi,
pathogen) and then telescoping down to smaller taxons using the "vital
sensation" and the identified miasm likely exhibited:

(develop an inferential "triangulation" system using taxonomy, "vital
sensation/gesture", and miasm to find resonant and curative homeopathic
remedies by inference---even with very little of the alchemical totality of
that medicine known.)

==============
DERIVED METHOD OF ENGINEERING A REMEDY FROM A LIST OF ELICITED/OBSERVED
SYMPTOMS

Chappell:

1. Chappell realizes that there is a missing link in hahnemannian
homeopathy. We have two MODES of applying the law of similars--one by
individual totality of susceptibility as demonstrated by semiology (signs,
symptoms, metaphor of existence and pathological response to that
existence); and one by group totality (from a concatetenation of individual
expressions).

The individual totality method is very successful--far more successful than
anything else in medicine as a whole, though since the results are based on
the testimony of individuals, it goes largely unrecognized by the rest of
medical science. But the individual totality method is largely unsuccessful
with some miasmatic organic diseases which overwhelm the human constitution
and do not respond to any individual simillimum that can be found easily.
This is the case even in practices which scour the entire materia medica for
an overarching simillimum (and can test the projected result prior to
administration of medicine).

The group totality method is also very successful--and is also far more
successful than anything else in medicine as a whole--and very hard to miss
by the public in fatal epidemics. The survival rates under homeopathic
practice are numbers like 90% in some epidemics compared with numbers like
30% or less under conventional treatment in the same epidemic of, for
example, yellow fever or cholera. Yet, because of:

*the power of economic cartels and their propaganda;
*legislation of funding of medical education education;
*the failure of mainstream materialistic science to investigate, understand,
and teach the reality of nonphysical phenomena;
*the lack of sufficient development of homeopathic medicine infrastructure
and uniformity of result;

even the power of the group simillimum in fatal group acute diseases are
shoved under the rug by medical science in general. Among homeopaths
themselves, there is little understanding of the group simillimum concept,
and most homeopaths consider the scope of homeopathy to be only the
individual simillimum. They utilize the genus epidemicus successfully in
their practice without realizing that they are using the SAME REMEDY for a
cohort of people in the region of fellow practitioners---WHO SUFFER FROM THE
SAME NAMED DISEASE.

What Chappell decides to do is to exploit the "road less travelled" and yet
apply it to not only treatment of groups, but treatment of INDIVIDUALS. He
takes the less-used hahnemannian simillimum for susceptibility to a named
acute disease entity (Hahnemann's acute genus epidemicus remedy) and decides
to apply it to a CHRONIC disease by the same hahnemannian method. He
reasons that all disease is miasmatic--and miasms are infectious/hereditary
nonphysical morbific entities which result in material disease. He
concludes that there should be no real difference between

*repertorizing the summed symptoms of an ephemeral and local eruption of
group susceptibility (acute disease);

and

*repertorizing the summed symptoms of an chronic disease whether newly
erupted or ancient; whether endemic or pandemic.

The group simillimum obtained by the same method will apply to the chronic
target just as it applies to the acute target. Both targets are the result
of miasmatic complexes. The only difference is timescale and pace of the
defined clinical entity (named disease); and the field of geographical
extent of its morbidity.

The PROBLEM is, there is no suitable remedy in the materia medica of nature
thus far which matches IN SUFFICIENT TOTALITY the compiled list of summed
cases for the chronic disease which Chappell takes on initially-AIDS. In
order to annihilate a complex pattern of morbidity due to miasms, a remedy
must match the totality of hahnemannian semiology (signs, symptoms,
metaphor) of the expression of that morbidity. Since we cannot see the
absolute (spirit-like) nature of the miasmatic complex residing in an human,
we infer its nature through the language of hahnemannian lexicon of
semiology. But the match must be sufficient to annhilate the miasmatic
complex via a bioenergetic resonant phenomenon which acts directly on the
miasm complex, and "immunizes" the homeostatic vital forces of the human
vehicle for a period of time.

So, Chappell invented a method to synthesize a remedy using a list of
symptoms from a group totality (which as you point out, Dr. Gafar, could
also be done with an individual totality).

Here is Chappell's method, as applied to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) a
complex miasmatic named syndrome which is commonly very resistant to
application of the individual simillimum:

(From Peter Chappell lecture in England, Jan 31, 2005):
==============
Take the cases 70 in AIDS or 60 CFS patients - normal epidemic
homeopathy
Í
Form a totality with its characteristic and SRP symptoms - normal
epidemic homeopathy
Í
Make this into an abstract mathematical equation - high level task
new idea
Í
Transform this by a mathematical transformation - standard
mathematics
Í
This produces a signal like an orchestra playing- normal
hi-fi signal
Í
Use this to create a magnetic field ­ hi-fi technology - house hold
technology
Í
Potentise it by succussing a vial in the magnetic field. - Hahnemannian
pharmaceutical technology

=============

So this as yet proprietary method works not by potentizing an existing
PHYSICAL substance and making a nonphysical pattern of it that has no
biochemical toxicity and using the resultant patterned carrier as a
medicine---

but by

calculating the control function for the electromagnetic generation of a
complex signal to create a controlled NONPHYSICAL pattern FIRST--- and then
imprinting that on a physical carrier (water or sugar). That nonphysical
forces can be imprinted on a carrier has been known for some 180 years or
more since Hahnemann created the remedies magnetis polis arcticus,
australis, and ambo--made from the north and south poles of a magnet and
both poles at once, respectively.

Since the remedy for the group totality does not accessibly exist as a
potentizable substance in nature Chappell designed an electromagnetic device
which would accept a list of symptoms coded in and made into a pattern using
a mathematical transform function which he must have devised using a model
of universal reality.

Both steps--extending Hahnemannian theory and inventing a new pharmaceutical
technology--are extraordinary and will have highly significant effects on
the present and future of medicine as a whole, and homeopathy in
particular--if homeopaths can wake up to this new tool which is HOMEOPATHIC
and HAHNEMANNIAN and has a 180 year precedent.

The early results of testing of these chronic disease remedies is
predictable given the power of the group simillimum in acute disease:

=======
The following case of ParkinsonPC is reported by Harry van der Zee (editor
of the respected periodical Homeopathic Links, Holland):

ŒA male patient of 64 years old had been treated for Parkinson¹s disease
³successfully² with Plumbum, meaning that his symptoms improved and then
were stabilised. The kind of results homeopathy usually can offer.
After a year I prescribed him ParkinsonPC to see whether that could induce
further improvement.

When I saw the patient back three months later I could hardly believe my
eyes. He walked into the office normally (not his old shuffle), swinging his
arms and he had a good walking pace. His handwriting which had become
typically very small was back to normal, He can now bring a teaspoon with
the remedy to his mouth without any trembling.
In the beginning he reacted to the remedy with aggravations that made him
stop taking the next dose for a week, but after some weeks he could take it
daily.
This is a result the neurologist said he had never witnessed before.
======

The following case of Multiple SclerosisPC is reported by Harry van der Zee.
ŒA 51 years old female MS patient I had been treating for fourteen years,
mainly with Cocculus, to which she responded in times of aggravations.
Despite that her symptoms slowly progressed over the years.
Three months after Multiple SclerosisPC I saw her again. Her weakness had
improved she told. The tingling that had been in her feet for years now had
disappeared almost completely. Also her walking ­ she uses a wheelchair most
of the time ­ had improved. For the first time in years she could walk on
low, normal shoes, and even slippers.¹

=======

The most significant barrier to understanding these relatively clear
concepts is not that they are difficult to comprehend--but that:

*homeopaths are smug because we have a system which seems better than any
other medicinal system on the planet (despite its unreliability,
inefficiency, lack of confirmatory ability prior to prescription (use of
client as "guinea pig"), and its imperfect results in chronic disease. The
feedback we get is that even with an imperfect system, we still get
supremely superior results to any other medicinal system. Our smugness is
thus reinforced.

*homeopaths are sectarians just like any other human that becomes attached
to a body of tenets and becomes "religious"

*human egos prefer self-preserving stablity and "being right" in one's
worldview is thus held tightly like a security blanket. Any challenge to
that world view creates uncomfortable cognitive dissonance and personal
discomfort.

The group simillimum does NOT replace the individual simillimum. It is a
different type of simillimum. In our population of severely suppressed,
vaccinated people it will not act as well as the genus epidemicus acted in
1830-1930 America on fatal and maiming acute diseases. But it provides a
more accurate lesional remedy than any yet available in the materia medica
for individual conditions that we cannot adequately treat with homeopathy.
The best part about it is that while it took the work of a genius with a
resolve to cure AIDS to bring forth--it stands squarely on the shoulders of
Hahnemann's genus epidemicus acute group remedy. It is backed with plenty
of empirical data over 180 years in the worst possible human epidemics of
acute disease. Thus we can predict the ultimate result of an optimal
lesional remedy for a named chronic disease found by concatenating many
cases.

As such, it provides a supremely useful additional Hahnemannian tool in
individual cases in which a remedy for the functional vital force pattern
that can be found by any average homeopath; cannot more than partially or
temporarily remediate the chronic and progressive chronic disease that has
overwhelmed the organism (eg AIDs, cancer, alzheimers, MS, etc).

As well, it provides a tool to treat and protect large cohorts who are
currently dying off by the millions from progressive infectious chronic
diseases (eg AIDS) ---without the necessity of performing a full and
intimate individual case workup such as is required to find the remedy for
the individual psychosomatic totality. In severe situations, the remedy,
once its efficacy is proven fully for a given disease, can be used
epidemiologically and given to people as a mass medication just as the
Hahnemannian genus epidemicus was handed out to all vulnerable members of a
Hahnemannian practice by members of the IHA in Victorian america during the
previous heyday of homeopathy. That statement will be as anathema to many
readers, of course, and I am not advocating unproctored cases. Only saying
that there is a thin line to walk between Aphorism 1 and human decency and
the dictates of the ethics of propriety in proper oversight of medical
cases. If people are dying off and a simillimum for that disease exists and
is not made available to all as a choice, then we are provided with a
significant ethical dilemma. Remember, almost all of the diseases we are
discussing with regard to Chappell group simillimum remediation are
incurable as of yet by ANY MEANS, and many are either maiming or eventually
fatal.
Editor-in-Chief; Homoeopathic Medical Panorama at chief@homedpa.com wrote:
It was not even been an

((( Agreed, the law of similars is ancient. But Hahnemann systematized it
and invented a symptomologic language and methodology in which to apply it
successfully with more uniform result.

Hn only polished it and supplemented with some

((( Well, not quite--the recognition of miasms, the methods of organizing
symptoms and case analysis are also his innovations, are they not?

So there was, is and will be

((( However, there are more than one mode of sickness in a client, as
evidenced by the fact that, by a genus epidemicus remedy, there is a remedy
for a disease entity; and as evidenced by a functional simillimum (commonly
and inexactly called a "constitutional"--there is a remedy for the totality
of an individual functional pattern of sickness. And then there is also a
remedy (by Piet's definition a "partial similar")- for a lesional, organ,
iatrogenic, true psychosomatic layer, or traumatic totality which lies
"over" the "stable" functional totality. So, by your definition:

"That's the one most matching in character to the illness"

There would be two types of simillimum---at minimum. This is really in a
way semantics, and part of the problem of this discussion is in defining
terms.

But--- Chappell's type of remedy (a group remedy chosen on the
susceptibility of the group cohort instead of the individual totality) both
qualifies as a simillimum for the largest totality possible in the
situation, and is a distinctly different TYPE of simillimum. It is
distinctly different that the totality of an individual case/susceptibility.
This is because it encompasses a community, region, or--with enough summed
cases included in its anamnesis--includes a description of the
susceptibility of all humans in the world to a specific morbific
definition--a true simillimum for the named HUMAN disease.

A genus epidemicus (invented by Hahnemann) is the remedy for the local
eruption of acute disease, found by area homeopaths collecting cases of the
epidemic, and summing all the cases of hahnemannian symptomology of the
regional cohort, repertorizing, and then coming up with candidates for the
regional outbreak based on the peculiars of the group case. When found and
confirmed, that remedy is given to all people in the area both to treat and
protect against the NAMED CLINICAL ENTITY--the named acute disease. It is
one remedy for the ephemeral acute disease--a simillimum for an acute
disease. According to Andre Saine's meticulous historical research, the
genus epidemicus has published efficacy close to 100% in epidemics of
smallpox, cholera, yellow fever, and other disease with high mortality; in
relatively nonimmunosuppressed populations. So we should see similar
success with Chappell's equivalent remedy for the named chronic disease.
What I have called, for purpose of distinction, Chappell's artificially
engineered Genus pandemicus inveteratus (genus remedy for a chronic disease)
is a group simillimum just as is Hahnemann's genus epidemicus just
described. It is created in the same manner, but summing up a large volume
of cases in which the named disease is the prominent, and as yet uncured,
aspect of the case (in other words in a case in which the named clinical
entity (eg Multiple sclerosis) has overwhelmed the organism. All individual
simillimum attempts have failed to improve the "lesional" aspects of the
case. The only difference between Chappell's Genus pandemicus inveteratus
(my term for distinguishment) and Hahnemann's Genus epidemicus is a
slower-paced disease, and the fact that it is made from scratch by a new
pharmaceutical technology.

Editor-in-Chief; Homoeopathic Medical Panorama at chief@homedpa.com wrote:

In genus epidemicus (GE) also what

((( Right, but the distinction is between individual constitution and named
disease. The targets of the two repertorizations are different. Thus these
are two different TYPES of simillimum. Do you agree?
((( Excellent point.
((( PC's GROUP simillimum is the only available SUCCESSFUL CLOSEST
APPROXIMATION FIT for the global spectrum of human susceptibility to the
morbific influence known by its expression as the named chronic disease
itself--a result of a miasmatic complex shared by millions or billions of
human individuals. It can be applied in individual cases for which the
individual simillimum has not cured the chronic disease.

If the tailored individual simillimum can be produced which encompasses both
functional and all lesional symptomology, then that will be the most
successful individual simillimum ever seen, as you have suggested in an
earlier post, Dr. G. The tailored INDIVIDUAL simillimum (when and if we use
PC's new technology to produce it) will be the only available SUCCESSFUL
CLOSEST APPROXIMATION FIT for that person as a total and unique expression
of a consciousness clothed with nonphysical vital bodies which include a
vital force plagued with a complex of miasms. We can come close with a
natural fascimile which comes from Hahnemann's original method. In many
cases this is close enough. In others, the group simillimum will be needed.

Editor-in-Chief; Homoeopathic Medical Panorama at chief@homedpa.com wrote:
((( Agreed. Case input from homeopaths from anywhere the disease is extant
must be used to produce the most successful group totality remedy.

Editor-in-Chief; Homoeopathic Medical Panorama at chief@homedpa.com wrote:

((( I agree that this is promising, Dr. G, with the proviso of my points in
the earlier response to this question that you posed.

Editor-in-Chief; Homoeopathic Medical Panorama at chief@homedpa.com wrote:

((( The likelihood is the mathematical transfer function will be
software-controlled, and the computer connected to the coil assembly in
which the vial is placed. The homeopath must still elicit the symptoms of
the case thoroughly and without omission (very difficult in my opinion). As
you suggest, the inputting of the symptoms and production of the
individualized medicine is then trivial. The skill of the homeopath--the
art and science of eliciting symptoms---even in this case would have to be
well developed. Some new parameters of the gathering of symptoms would have
to be developed. But, as you point out, there is a potential (although not
yet certain by any means) of the capability of producing an individual
remedy which removes all functional and lesional aspects at once. That is,
if the vital force will respond to a functional and lesional remedy
simultaneously without being overwhelmed. It may be better to treate the
lesional organic disease first, and the functional pattern later.
Editor-in-Chief; Homoeopathic Medical Panorama at chief@homedpa.com wrote:

(( Agreed. The limitations of the capability of the vital force in which the
remedy is in resonance still exist whatever the precision of the method and
technology to produce the appropriate and precise facsimile.
Editor-in-Chief; Homoeopathic Medical Panorama at chief@homedpa.com wrote:

((( You appear to have satisfied your affirmation, at least in theory, Dr. G
But there is a long way to go. There is only one PC, and limited
funds, and a lot of prejudiced homeopaths who will cling to dogma over
Aphorism 1, at least at first, until they are convinced of the message of
these posts.

Editor-in-Chief; Homoeopathic Medical Panorama at chief@homedpa.com wrote:

All the best wishes,
Andy