PC Remedies-ardavan-corrections

[AH]

Corrections to comments in the post that were not well stated :
==========
correction:

He did not have the analogs in the materia medica to
do so, and even today, finding those analogs systematically would be too
time consuming.

(( This is meant to say that that finding specific diagnosed disease
complex analogs when:
would be time consuming to do systematically. Not that it would be
impossible(!). Only that finding rx a priori for a disease subtotality and
proving candidates is time consuming and not rapidly systematic as is
producing them directly by technology.
==========
correction:
If people wish to be prejudiced and follow Kent's idea for the
case of the group totality, then the meaning of Chappell's discovery and
invention will go straight over their head.

(( This should say if the demonization (eg by Kent) of the utility of the
diagnosed disease in finding the individualized simillimum is carried over
to discussion of the group totality simillimum for the named disease, then
understanding Chappell will likely be very difficult. Understanding will
probably be blocked by that prejudice.

Kent's caveat is obviously appropriate, in finding the individualized
simillimum (!)

BUT--The PC group totality simillimum is NOT an individualized simillimum,
but a simillimum for a named disease suffered by a large cohort of sufferers
of that specific disease in common. This type of simillimum was invented by
Hahnemann.

(Note that my intent is not AT ALL that people agree with Chappell's
technique---merely that people understand its Hahnemannian basis and its
implications). In order to discuss an idea the idea must first be
understood to some degree of commonality.
==========
correction:
Since the principle is just as Hahnemann's (para 102
symptoms)--but the remedy is engineered DIRECTLY from the group totality of
the disease itself--then the proving is not pivotal for the design use of
the remedy. That design use is to DIRECTLY address the inimical vital
force(s) of the disease subtotality which has overwhelmed the individual by
stress--- just as does an acute disease by colonization of the actual
microbes.

((( By stress here I mean the inductive stress of miasmatic vital force
(inimical by mismatch) clinging to host cells and deranging their function.
==========
correction:
The proving of PC rx will be interesting, and might help further confirm
that Chappell's technology does what he claims it does. But if one
considers that it might be "better" then it would appear that one is still
thinking in our usual mode of comparison of case with existing remedy
analogs (potentized substances). Because Chappell does not use substance
analogs to produce his rx. Chappell's method leapfrogs the need for
comparison of case and remedy. The sufficiently large group case (para 102,
and all disease descriptions extant) of a cohort of suffers of a disease IS
the electromagnetically produced PC remedy.
"Chappell's method leapfrogs the need for
comparison of case and remedy. "
((( This does not make our primary method outmoded nor will it ever replace
the method we use to match MM to case! The statement is face value only.
It applies only to Chappell's technology or any other that can produce a
remedy from a list of symptoms.

===========
correction:
on 3/27/05 2:55 AM, Ardavan Shahrdar at ashahrdar@yahoo.com wrote:
We are not going to
We will not confirm it thoroughly in all of its symptoms. However, as
Scholten, Sankaran, and Mangialavori have shown, we can obtain result by
INFERENCE from known remedies related by taxonomy (Mendeleevian or Linnean).
This for cases incurable by using only fully proved rx. To prove by
dissimilarity all the rx that the latter individuals use to cure cases by
inference and elucidation by similarity (clinical cured cases) would take
many decades.

((( "... we can (i.e. have and do) obtain result by INFERENCE from known
(fully proven) remedies (that are) related by taxonomy (Mendeleevian or
Linnean). Use of these methods can cure cases incurable by using only fully
proved rx. " I respect those that do not use these methods. But pointing
out that a large number of remedies are currently being used in homeopathy
without full provings or any proving at all by dissimilarity---but (via
prescription based on inference)-- with clinical information by similarity
(cure).

=========
correction
And, and P. Banerji (with 15 million cases in database) has
shown that clinical pictures as related to individual provers are necessary
to define totalities.
((( This is a bit garbled. P Banerji method finds disease remedy totalities
from provings AND clinical confirmation; and finds these in remedies extant
in the materia medica.
Best
A