pc remedies /miasms

[peter chappell]

Piet Guijt wrote:
ACUTE miasm (when compared to the three primary and some other established
ones). THERE ARE AS MANY MIASMS AS THERE ARE EPIDEMIC DISEASES WHICH IS
RATHER A LOT I THINK

Hi "Dr. Abdul Gafar, Peter,

Why is it acute?
Maybe the onset has an acute nature, but is it self-limiting in nature? I
don't think so, so it is a chronic miasm.

Peter:
I THOUGHT IS WAS NEW IT

Do you mean mixed-miasmatic states? This is something ie Cloudhury speaks
of?

no i mean that micro-organisms of which there are millions, living inside us over millions of years form natural symbiotic combinations and give birth to other new micro-organisms which form to basis of all diseases

remember miasm=epidemic/infectious=micro-organisms three names all having the same meaning the core process is a micro-organism = bacteria, protozoa, virus, worm, fungus

except when we use miasms as overarching concepts which is a separete idea with the same name confusing!
my point is that psora does not exist in reality, its an undifferentiated idea because of the medical situation in Han timeyou can replace it with a hydra headed set of a hundred separate epidemic diseases
smallpox, plague, anthrax, malaria, leprosy, other tick diseases, etc are some of the many past epidemics that affect us all yet we as yet dont recognise
homeopathy in this respect is caught in a time warp, well out of date to say the least
Peter:
THERE ARE AS MANY MIASMS AS THERE ARE EPIDEMIC DISEASES

Miasms are classification of constitutional changes, when you narrow down
the definition of the classification, there can be as many we like. But
Psora, Sycosis & Syphilis are the main fundamental miasms, which means they
represent the three basic different pathways the disease follows when it
pogresses or when it is suppressed.
The advantage is that we don't have to know the exact infection, but must
know which remedies are capable to reverse this process, and yes most of the
time it is a mixed state.

Dr. Abdul Gafar:
I think may be that is why Hahnemann

But he did for Psora! He gave us the list in his CD
Others did this for Sycosis and Syphilis.
Kind regards, Piet
Clinical Guidance for Homeopaths and Students of Homeopathy!
http://www.shahrdarhost.net/Clinical%20Guidance.htm
ATTENTION PLEASE:

The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.

****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send a message with the subject of 'Digest' to minutusgroup@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

I'm uneasy about equating *every* state of miasm or disease with
microorganisms. What about the other side, the idea that germs are
opportunistic and will take root on favorable soil? Of course some are
pathogenic even to a healthy person (or etc.), but most are not. If a
child sickly by birth, of a "heavily miasmatic" background, could be
sterilized of all pathogens, would that make them healthy, and not able
to pass their former weaknesses on to the next generation?

Some (few) microorganisms cause disease on (nearly?) everyone; others
follow disease; and most fall somewhere in the middle (will not infect
a sufficiently healthy organism).
??
Shannon

[peter chappell]

Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:

I'm uneasy about equating *every* state of miasm or disease with
microorganisms. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT What about the other side, the idea that germs are
opportunistic and will take root on favorable soil? WHAT IS SOIL? DO YOU HAVE A DEEP MODEL FOR THAT CONCEPT?

Of course some are
pathogenic even to a healthy person (or etc.), but most are not. If a
child sickly by birth, of a "heavily miasmatic" background MEANING HEAVY MICRO-ORGANISMS SUB ACUTE STATE, could be
sterilized of all pathogens, HOW ? would that make them healthy, and not able
to pass their former weaknesses on to the next generation? THATS A LOT OF DIFFERENT IDEAS IN THAT

WHAT FOR EXAMPLE DEFINES VITAL FORCE

SOME PEOPLE HAVE VFS FIVE TIMES STRONGER THAT ANOTHER

WHAT IS IT THAT DETERMINES AN INDIVIDUALS VITAL FORCE?

SURELY WE DONT KNOW THAT

A PERSON CAN HAVE A HEAVY MICRO ORGANISM=MIASM LOAD INDEPENDANT OF VITAL FORCE

BYE

PETER

Some (few) microorganisms cause disease on (nearly?) everyone; others
follow disease; and most fall somewhere in the middle (will not infect
a sufficiently healthy organism).
??
Shannon
Clinical Guidance for Homeopaths and Students of Homeopathy!
http://www.shahrdarhost.net/Clinical%20Guidance.htm
ATTENTION PLEASE:

The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.

****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send a message with the subject of 'Digest' to minutusgroup@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Peter,
I am only referring to the idea that, in general, germs do not take
hold in a healthy body, and disease is best treated not by a frontal
attack on the microorganisms, but rather by strengthening (and/or
removing obstacles from) the "macroorganism"/patient. In the way that
homeopathic remedies generally work, right? Or do you assume that
acute and chronic remedies directly attack the germs, rather than
strengthening the body/"soil"?
Then you are saying that once all inappropriate microorganisms have
been removed, what's left will be a healthy patient? And thereafter
able to maintain healthy balance on their own? It's a new idea to me,
and I'm curious to understand your thinking.
I am only exploring whether chronic disease is carried or maintained by
anything other than pathogens! I have been of the understanding that
pathogen follows susceptibility, not the other way around.

From which I do NOT assume that there is never a value in addressing
pathogens, but I have seen the two approaches (attack pathogens versus
strengthen the organism) as complementary, yet different.
Agreed, but I'll have to muse over how that relates to my question...
Thanks,
Shannon

[peter chappell]

I suggest these web site
http://www.immuno-sci-lab.com/html/myco ... plasma.htm
http://home.goulburn.net.au/~shack/mycoplasma.htm
What do you make of these?
Bye
Peter

Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:

Hi Peter,
I am only referring to the idea that, in general, germs do not take
hold in a healthy body, and disease is best treated not by a frontal
attack on the microorganisms, but rather by strengthening (and/or
removing obstacles from) the "macroorganism"/patient. In the way that
homeopathic remedies generally work, right? Or do you assume that
acute and chronic remedies directly attack the germs, rather than
strengthening the body/"soil"?
Then you are saying that once all inappropriate microorganisms have
been removed, what's left will be a healthy patient? And thereafter
able to maintain healthy balance on their own? It's a new idea to me,
and I'm curious to understand your thinking.
I am only exploring whether chronic disease is carried or maintained by
anything other than pathogens! I have been of the understanding that
pathogen follows susceptibility, not the other way around.

From which I do NOT assume that there is never a value in addressing
pathogens, but I have seen the two approaches (attack pathogens versus
strengthen the organism) as complementary, yet different.
Agreed, but I'll have to muse over how that relates to my question...
Thanks,
Shannon
Clinical Guidance for Homeopaths and Students of Homeopathy!
http://www.shahrdarhost.net/Clinical%20Guidance.htm
ATTENTION PLEASE:

The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.

****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send a message with the subject of 'Digest' to minutusgroup@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

The first I'm not able to read, but the second is very interesting!
(Re mycoplasma infection associated with ALS). But the question is the
same... As the website notes,

The results support the suggestion that infectious agents may play a
role in the pathogenesis and/or progression of ALS,** or alternatively
[emph. mine] ALS patients are extremely susceptible to systemic
mycoplasmal infections.

As with any infection, I do not doubt that reducing the load of
inappropriate microorganisms will be helpful (e.g. antibiotics *do*
work,albeit palliatively), but I wonder whether (or "when") it should
be given primary importance.

In my garden, if bugs attack my plants, the plants are helped by
removal of the bugs.
But if my plants are healthy, the bugs do not--in general--attack them.
I lean toward compost rather than pesticide.

CAVEAT--I know there are some germs and etc. that a healthy organism
*cannot* resist and I am open to the possibility that this *could* be
the case with some of these diseases/organisms, but would find it
*extremely* important to explore the broader questions about it.

In a situation of deadly epidemic I think it would be foolish to
quibble over definitions of "real health", and have already said that I
think your approach to these sounds terrifically valuable. But where I
am puzzled and curious is about applying that approach to all chronic
disease--attacking microorganisms as opposed to strengthening the
*macroorganism". Maybe it will indeed work out to the same thing, but
I would not feel comfortable ins starting with that *assumption"--I
would want to do long-term comparison of results and see. In any case
I'm finding your work fascinating!

Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[peter chappell]

But where I

am puzzled and curious is about applying that approach to all chronic

disease--attacking microorganisms as opposed to strengthening the

*macroorganism". Maybe it will indeed work out to the same thing, but

I would not feel comfortable ins starting with that *assumption"--I

would want to do long-term comparison of results and see. In any case

I'm finding your work fascinating!
Dear Robert

OK we are progressing together!

Well first I am not even a beginner in understand microbiology and genetics which is where the problem in part lies. But reading the so called experts leads me to believe that they don’t know either, so its partly guesswork at this stage of knowledge if not always.

But I have learnt a few bits and pieces on the way.

I agree your question is critically important…. I will now attempt a few answers…
Immune Load

The micro -immune system of Ethiopian Jews taken to Israel in a 1970 airlift increased from 700 to 1000 (CD4 count) by eliminating parasites. So these micro-organisms are a serious micro immune load.

These same people went onto massively developing diabetes instead as the diet went from basic foods to refined foods. This is ignorance, (cant read, lack of education) and its consequences. Ignorance is core to immunity/disease.
I think that the first similimum never treats disease. I think it enhances the flow of VForce which then motivates the micro immunity to overcome pathological forming processes.
The main pathological forming processes I know are

Micro organisms and the muted after effects of epidemics diseases upon genetics. (Micro organisms like chicken pox can hide inside us for 50 years).
Toxins food additive, poisons,vaccinations, radiation (mobile and nuclear) etc
Genetics
There maybe others
These effects I suggest pre-determine our first and second similimum patterns
If we call all the macro organism difficulties we suffer, eg limiting beliefs, ignorance, fear induced emotional limits, physical trauma, absence of positive influences, etc as disease making opportunities or vital force obstructions then we can say there are macro and micro diseases.
The basis of one form of micro disease is epidemic diseases, miasms as we call them is micro-organisms, and without these I wonder would we ever be able to get sick?

We certainly know they seriously undermine the action of the first similimum and mutate the genetics.
One expert with a very powerful microscope I am told says there is a direct link between specific disease and specific micro-organism. (French man Gustaff Nassin)

I still doubt that any disease is possible without micro- organisms. People like Hulda Clarke have written volumes about this.
Genetics can be disturbed as I understand it by epidemic diseases. These do modify our genetics, and this is why, as I understand it, epidemics like Gonn re-appear if a chronic form in subsequent generations. There is a known genetic mechanism for this.
I think macro immune issues are primarily restricted patterns of functioning due to overloading trauma, that which overwhelms our orninal method of response to life, and near death experiences, such as birth, near death in the womb (threathened miscarriage), threathened abortion, incest, neglect, brutal parenting etc can bring this about.

Incest and later rape can do this also but not so surely.

False beliefs like narrow thinking, believe in rigid laws, sex is a sin etc also restrict VF.

If you believe sex is a sin, your sex chakra is hardly likely to be a lively joyous centre.

I treated a mother superior once (as did Robin Murphy) and her remedy was Hyos, mouthing obscenities based on a life of sex suppression.

For another extreme example, in certain religious communities where even looking at women is a sin, we see serious vision defects (Opposite to sex chachra).

I see that all such restrictive influences slow down the chakras and like egg timers, the energy is slow to flow.
I see peasant people with strong vital forces are often without trauma, a their conception based pattern is all there is. This belongs to what we call the polcreasts and is why, when after a sequence or well acting remedies we arrive at one, we know we have arrived at a heathy state. Its our primitive, preconscious, orginal life pattern.
Individual treatment, first similimum, opens up the channels.

This allows more vital forces to activate our micro immune system and deal with the pathology. That in a nutshell is how I see the first similimum works. I am happy to be wrong on this!
The second similimum is to treat the non-individual parts that contribute to diseases. These will include micro-organisms, genetic dysfunctions, toxins - vaccinations, drugs, poisons, food additives, radiation, and for sure other like things.
If we assume as I do that diseases come out of these effects, and have a coherence of their own, then the totality of the disease, whatever its exact origins, can be treated by the second similimum principle. It might need a series of second similimums to achieve this once these effects are dominating or limiting.
For example

Potentised vaccine
Potentised drugs
Potentised poison
PC disease remedy
The first three have been shown to work and are the second similimum working.

While I am not sure that a PC remedy covers the whole disease or corrects the micro organism issues or genetic ones or even why, I see that it does. Its supports my thesis that like cures like at a diseases as well as a toxin level.
Sufficient diseases have been reversed to prove the point

Even Down syndrome improved well.

I therefore suggest that while this does not prove these are treating ALL the cause of diseases, it certainly covers a lot of options.
I think vital forces at core are directly related to nutrition (food, water, air, fire) and our inner spiritual force. Stop eating and you die proves that point, as does the fact that AIDS patients with strong VF and no food did not recover with PC1 but the same patients plus PC1 and plus food did in the weeks that followed.

Not an easy experiment to conduct, but it happened because initially I did not know they were really starving to death.
To summarise
A natural life, good nutrition, organic food, locally grown, in season, eaten peacefully etc builds vital force.

I think the first similimum address blockages to vital force, trauma, especially.

I think the second similimum address all those things which are not individual, toxins, vaccinations, micro-organisms, genetics that have a life force of their own, which build up an opposing vital force.

When VF is stronger that opposing VF then harmony reigns
I think limiting beliefs are currently out of range of conventional homeopathy. The clear success of my remedy fat/famine proves these can be addressed.
This is obviously not the whole truth, but its currently close to what I think maybe going on.
Keep thinking!!!!
Bye

Peter
Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:
The first I'm not able to read, but the second is very interesting!
(Re mycoplasma infection associated with ALS). But the question is the
same... As the website notes,

The results support the suggestion that infectious agents may play a
role in the pathogenesis and/or progression of ALS,** or alternatively
[emph. mine] ALS patients are extremely susceptible to systemic
mycoplasmal infections.

As with any infection, I do not doubt that reducing the load of
inappropriate microorganisms will be helpful (e.g. antibiotics *do*
work,albeit palliatively), but I wonder whether (or "when") it should
be given primary importance.

In my garden, if bugs attack my plants, the plants are helped by
removal of the bugs.
But if my plants are healthy, the bugs do not--in general--attack them.
I lean toward compost rather than pesticide.

CAVEAT--I know there are some germs and etc. that a healthy organism
*cannot* resist and I am open to the possibility that this *could* be
the case with some of these diseases/organisms, but would find it
*extremely* important to explore the broader questions about it.

In a situation of deadly epidemic I think it would be foolish to
quibble over definitions of "real health", and have already said that I
think your approach to these sounds terrifically valuable. But where I
am puzzled and curious is about applying that approach to all chronic
disease--attacking microorganisms as opposed to strengthening the
*macroorganism". Maybe it will indeed work out to the same thing, but
I would not feel comfortable ins starting with that *assumption"--I
would want to do long-term comparison of results and see. In any case
I'm finding your work fascinating!

Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Clinical Guidance for Homeopaths and Students of Homeopathy!
http://www.shahrdarhost.net/Clinical%20Guidance.htm
ATTENTION PLEASE:

The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.

****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send a message with the subject of 'Digest' to minutusgroup@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Piet Guijt]

Peter wrote;

modify our genetics, and this is why, as I understand it, epidemics like
Gonn re-appear if a chronic form in subsequent generations. There is a known
genetic mechanism for this.
Hello Peter, all,

Isn't Deficiency or insufficiency an indication of Psora?
When were are healthy it is our pure individual essence that rules, this
healthy state is not by definition similar to a polychrest.
Anti-psoric treatment opens up the channels, the individual simillimum
however will succeed to push out all non-individual 'toxins', according to
Herings rules.
Anti-psoric treatment opens up the channels, but the similimum reinforces
the vital force, that's the difference.
It is impossible to separate patient and disease, those factors you are
mentioning are causing the symptoms.
They are not the disease, how will we know their symptoms, only by the
response of the patient?
The patient has a vital force and this will produce symptoms... But wait a
minute didn't we already cover that one with our simillimum?
And when our simillimum did not cover these symptoms? That's strange the
simillimum covers by definition ALL symptoms, because there is a unity of
life.
Yes, when we classify our patients symptoms into groups and try to find a
remedy for each of these groups?
This is possible this is what Hahnemann also showed us, and depending on the
case we can choose which strategy is the most appropriate. Of course we know
what we are doing and we realize when have to change our prescription often
and must give several remedies in alternation, in fact we are prescribing
partial remedies.
Prescription of the simillimum is a full dynamic approach, anti-miasmatic is
a dynamic/material approach with partial remedies. Effects of diseases are
already included in Hahnemann's anti-miamatic strategy and remedies, so this
is nothing new.

All I want to say is that we must see both sides of the possible approaches
in treatment.
But for the theoretical thinking we must know and understand both of them
and how they relate to each other.
Individual treatment is referred to, but we must not prescribe on the
individual but on the dynamic change, the central disturbance of the
individual vital force, which is immaterial.
So before we speak of the limitation of individual treatment, we must first
define what we mean by that.
Maybe the limitation is that some people think they know what 'the
individual simillimum' is, but don't really know?
Kind regards, Piet