Chris has a very important point.
I think Peter needs to be very clear about the source of his remedies
and his method of preparation to the homeopathic community if they
have to be acceptable as homeopathic remedies. This is apart from the
need to be proved as well. Till he does that speculation will be rife
.. and will not be healthy ... as is most of this discussion as we can
see.
But apart from that, I did the clinical trial on about 8 patients with
PC1. All 8 felt "better" while taking the remedy, they put on weight,
felt a sense of well being, appetite improved, etc. 5 out of 8
improved in their presenting acute symtpoms as well as acute problems
that came up. Do rememebr that these peole were also on alloathic
antibiotics and symptomatic treatment which could not be avoided. BUt
earlier the allopathic treatment would be ineffective.
BUT the CD4 count in ALL 5 followed up for 6 months showed a serial FALL.
My impression is that PC1 is definitely effective for AIDS patients.
BUT it seems to work pallatively (like acute homeopathic remedies),
not curatively, because the CD4 count (based on Cell mediated
immunity) does not improve, even though the acute infections resolve
(based on humoral imunity and acute infallmation).
I would have preferred to put these people on a chronic homeopathic
consitutional similimum and interpose antimiamatics when necessary
along with PC1.
I have already conveyed this to Peter Chappel.
dr. leela
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Gillen" wrote:
up as a
preconceptions, maybe
Sunday
bargain
remedy
works,
likely
proving
they should
Behalf
sound
reports
support
etc. And
have found
explain that
can look
chose the
where the
process
essence
according to
can be
process
according
"proving" of
sexy
symptoms of
jumbo jet
that are
There has
instead just
like an
start to
PC Remedies - Chris
Re: PC Remedies - Chris
on 2/9/06 8:56 AM, doctorleelah2h at doctorleela@hotmail.com wrote:
((( Hi Doc Leelah,
That the remedies are technologically made is stated up front. I agree that
it *should* be stated -- as what distinguishes these homeopathically-acting
remedies from Homeopathy "the system". Of those that object to the
technology being "secret", few would *understand* that technology even if
it was explained in detail more than it already has been via a flow chart.
So lack of information about the technology is not really a cogent
objection. It is more like an excuse - overlooking the possible benefit to
ill people in their charge. Who does not use their computer because they
don't know how it produces the image on the screen? The "rife speculation"
that you refer to is mostly because several "contributors" to the discussion
do not care to inform themselves using the information provided to them.
The topic is seen as far more simple than it is and the same "objections"
repeated. Honest correspondents seriously and objectively study a topic
*before* commenting with the intent to *contribute*. Some of this
"unhealthy" discussion is due to simplistic challenges without respect for
either the topic or the forum.
I answer the above with a few paragraphs which are "aimed" not at you but
all readers. Your true contribution later in your email makes you one of
the few to substantively contribute to the discussion instead of trying to
denigrate the development with criticisms based on shallow understanding.
PC REMEDIES
The rx are synthesized informed by peculiars of the disease (group
totality). This means that they are programmed from the characterization of
the *disease itself* from a cohort of sufferers with that correct diagnosis
in common. This is analogous to a "proving" of the disease, which is then
directly emulated. This is purely Hahnemannian (Organon 101-104).
PROVINGS
No one objects to a Hahnemannian proving by dissimilarity of the resulting
remedy. But the ludicrousness of stating that one will not use the rx
without such an elicitation defeats in large measure the whole point of
being able to create remedies technologically. If the technology did not
work to emulate the programmed peculiar symptoms of the named disease, none
of the PC remedies would work on ANYONE.
VARIABLES IN PRECISION
In your experience, at least one remedy -- PC1 -- works as you suggest in
your small clinical trial below. The main variable with emulating a foreign
vital force based on its resultant pathophysiology is on how tightly
coherent the characterization can be. Overall efficacy and
disease-specificity depends on that variable. Characterization precision
depends firstly on how sharply-boundaried the classified disease diagnostic
category is. Secondly on how many valuable Organon 153 datapoints are
available which distinguish the totality as a cluster. Thirdly on whether
the data comes from a fresh group case using Hahnemannian homeopathic
semiology elicited by homeopaths -- or from medical descriptions of the
disease. Chappell has concluded that for well-described diseases, large
group cases (akin to provings but of a disease) provide no advantage over
the medical literature. For diseases like CFS which are not well defined,
the homeopathic group cases become more important.
(cf. )
A coherent cluster of symptoms of enough of the *expression* of the foreign
vital force is needed for destructive resonance of that *actual* vital force
to occur. A coherent cluster of peculiars allows the artificial disease
emulation to be similar to its complex miasmatic basis. A coherent cluster
of the kernel of the symptoms of the named disease phenomenon as it always
appears -- and which allows its diagnosis -- makes a true "specific". The
true specific remedy for the named disease is capable (without obstacles)
of resonance with the disease existing in theoretically ANY unsuppressed
sufferer of it. The obstacles are similar to the ones for any
homeopathically acting remedy -- drug or vaccination layer, dietary
insufficiency, circumstantial life pressures, etc).
GROUP TOTALITY IS A SEARCH FOR THE BULLSEYE FOR THE DISEASE JUST AS
INDIVIDUAL TOTALITY IS A SEARCH FOR THE BULLSEYE FOR ONE PERSON
The disease-specific remedy that works on ANY SUFFERER of it is the ultimate
goal of the group totality. We are too used to approximations, zig-zagging,
and time consuming healing processes thereby. Hahnemann and those in 175
years thereafter achieved it in certain usually fatal epidemics when one
remedy fit all sufferers because the virulence eliminated individuality.
But Hahnemann did not have the materia medica to achieve this ultimate level
of specificity beyond the first miasms and down to the resolution of the
individual classified disease. We STILL do not -- for we have no
disease-specific remedies in the materia medica that work regardless of the
sufferer (!). Hahnemann did not have a technology to achieve a true
specific. Now that we do, there are actually people who feel that this is a
drawback! Frankly, this is Luddite at the expense of the sick; or inability
to understand the topic. It is in some cases merely knee-jerk opposition to
anything that does not jive with the "familiar". In short, prejudice based
on the past and inertia to admit new data and methodology.
FUTURE OF HOMEOPATHY
Homeopathy will die on the vine into withdrawal to the grass roots unless it
further develops IMHO. Too much stands to oppose it. The liaison of
diagnostic medicine and law of similars healing that PC remedies create is a
step in that direction.
Homeopathy must also on aggregate become far more reliable to be considered
a tenable system of medicine by those that run the culture and by popular
demand. In India this has become the case because homeopathy is so
economical, and because Indian people take care of their own, with massive
free treatment of their fellow human beings.
The pharmacy is a vulnerable point regarding regulation of homeopathy out of
access. Technological remedy production (of all of the materia medica) by
each practitioner is one of the writings on the wall for preservation of
homeopathy in the near future.
THE END POINT OF HAHNEMANN'S GROUP TOTALITY IS THE TRUE SPECIFIC
Those steeped in their own propaganda against "specific" remedies confuse
the patient-specific simillimum with group totality (disease-specific)
simillimum (the Genius epidemicus for the acute, sub-acute, or chronic
disease). The only significant non-Hahnemannian element of PC remedies is
that the remedies are engineered instead of mined from the materia medica.
Instead of being matched using closest available approximations of
potentised substance which has been characterised to greater or lesser
degree -- they are engineered. They are made by an electromagnetic device
whose input is symptoms. The output is magnetically produced,
biologically-active analogues of that same complex of symptoms.
WHY USE A TECHNOLOGY?
The reason Chappell chose this route is because the materia medica offers
ZERO true disease specifics regardless of sufferer. Finding precise
disease-specifics has not happened in 200 years of homeopathy. Is it a good
use of time to try to find them (for hundreds of disease complexes) among
potentised substances? Or create them from the very symptoms of the group
totality itself using a technology? One person has created 100+ of these
remedies in 2 years (!) Chappell is a classical homeopath, one of the
founders of the SOH 30 years ago -- but is also an electronics engineer. So
from all this it should not be difficult to see how and why the technology
for PC remedies came about.
==============
Several points are useful to understand regarding PC remedies:
€Chappell's rx could not exist if Hahnemann's group totality (Organon
101-104) had not been developed.
€Chappell's remedies could not act successfully IN ANY PATIENT AT ANY TIME
for the disease suffered if they did not work by law of similars
(homeopathicity).
€Chappell's technology would be disproved if the remedies did not work ever,
or so inconsistently as to be unreliable.
===============
To understand why Chappell engineers disease-specific rx instead of using mm
artificial disease analogues, first it must be understood:
1. that group totality case analysis (group as if one patient) is a process
of characterizing a NAMED DISEASE (or as yet named classifiable natural one)
that is shared by many people at the same time or at different times, acute
or chronic;
2. that the materia medica contains only:
€INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATIONS of unnamed (individual) patterns identified only
by the name of the homeopathic remedy which removes them
AND
€INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATIONS of named diseases.
There are NO precise emulations of ANY named disease entity in our materia
medica that apply so they can be called "true specifics" in *treatment*;
and always achieve similarity. There are a few close ones. But no true
specifics.
A GROUNDED DISCUSSION LEADS TO PEOPLE USING THE REMEDY TO HELP CURE PATIENTS
Despite the efforts of some to say that these technological rx do not work
(based on what data not offered?) -- they do work in unsuppressed cases.
The urban industrialized and post-industrial countries are widely suppressed
by modern medicine and vaccination -- and this situation is worsening, not
improving.
The evidence that PC remedies work in unsuppressed cases (and even heavily
tampered-with ones) is overwhelming after 4 years in thousands using PC1 and
from reliable and well-known practitioners using many of the other 100+ PC
remedies for other diseases.
Perfection will never be achieved. But those who do not see the nature of
the advance here under discussion and its implications are shallow-dippers
indeed. If such people feel they contribute to the discussion by commenting
without all the information -- then their study of the rules of intellectual
debate are in order. Why "contribute" to a discussion without prior study
and understanding of the topic?
Recall what Schopenhauer said:
=======
Every new discovery passes through three stages; first it will be greeted
with ridicule, then it will be opposed, and finally it will be accepted as
obvious.
=======
Some would appear to have the delusion that law of similars healing is
already at its pinnacle of reliability, and is omnipotent. This is truly a
delusion, as most homeopaths know. This has been covered extensively in
previous posts on Minutus extending back a year and longer in discussions of
independent instrumented confirmatories and disease-specific technological
remedies.
PC REMEDIES ARE NOT HOMEOPATHY THE SYSTEM, BUT HOMEOPATHICALLY-ACTING
The "PC" remedies are designed from group totality - an invention of
Hahnemann himself and which led to his discovery of the miasmatic forcing
function of disease. They are not part of *Homeopathy the System* -- ONLY
because the remedies are technologically made. But their mechanism of
action is homeopathicity by the second mode of hahnemannian simillimum.
This second type of homeopathic mechanism is poorly taught in homeopathic
colleges. PC remedies produce aggravations of the exact past symptoms of
the disease and Hering/Vijayakar signs -- both hallmarks of resonance by the
law of similars. Amelioration follows. There is no escaping that PC
remedies act homeopathically.
TWO TYPES OF SIMILLIMUM (OR REMEDY FOR THE TOTALITY OF AN ENTITY (PATIENT OR
CLASSIFIED, DIAGNOSABLE (IDENTIFIABLE) DISEASE ENTITY)
The first patient-specific case-analysis process evaluates and emulates the
host vital force plus the foreign vital force (unified). The sum of
miasmatic distortions (peculiar symptoms of the ONE PATIENT) lead to a
remedy which best matches the case. The second, and disease-specific type
directly emulates the complex of foreign vital force (miasm) which is the
basis of the endogenous chronic disease or acute susceptibility.
That foreign vital force expresses itself through the shared peculiar
symptoms of the named disease cluster OF A GROUP OF PATIENTS with that
diagnosed disease. An attempt to create a similar artificial disease for
the latter can be undertaken from the materia medica; or (since 2001) via
an engineered specific. The precise ultimate form of this remedy is one for
the miasmatic basis of the peculiar kernel of the disease entity regardless
of the sufferer. A PC remedy is an attempt to create that ultimate true
specific when it is possible to do so.
on 2/9/06 8:56 AM, doctorleelah2h at doctorleela@hotmail.com wrote:
((( Your extensive clinical data is a real contribution to the discussion.
Congratulations on your commitment to Organon 1. An ounce of clinical
trial certainly outweighs a pound of any uninformed dogma.
on 2/9/06 8:56 AM, doctorleelah2h at doctorleela@hotmail.com wrote:
Do rememebr that these peole were also on alloathic
((( And the PC1 rx worked anyway on at least these 5-8 patients.
on 2/9/06 8:56 AM, doctorleelah2h at doctorleela@hotmail.com wrote:
BUt earlier the allopathic treatment would be ineffective.
((( 8 out of 8 feeling better and put on weight. 5 out of 8 with
improvement in opportunistic infective episodes.
on 2/9/06 8:56 AM, doctorleelah2h at doctorleela@hotmail.com wrote:
BUT the CD4 count in ALL 5 followed up for 6 months showed a serial FALL.
My impression is that PC1 is definitely effective for AIDS patients.
((( Here is what Chappell said about this phenomenon as of June, 2005:
Progress Indices--Caveat about using CD4 count as sole means to gauge
progress
A caveat is appropriate here about using CD4 count increase over time as an
index of PC1 performance. CD4 does not necessarily rise quickly under PC1
treatment even as the client is improving. I have reservations about using
the CD4 as a litmus test with PC1 in the same way that it is used with
retroviral drugs.
Probable "Anti-Viral Drug" Evaluation Model
Those doing most HIV/AIDS trials are working with a different treatment
mechanism. Retroviral drugs knock out the HIV virus immediately, and thus
CD4 rises automatically and quickly as these immune cells are no longer
being attacked and causing CD4 loss. The opportunistic diseases are then
wiped out by the increased CD4 cells. This is a simple and valid model.
But its validity does not cross over to PC1 treatment, as the recovery mode
seems to be somewhat the inverse and the timescale of increase of CD4 count
is longer.
Probable PC1 Evaluation Model
With PC1, we observe within the first days and weeks that people feel better
and can fight off infections when before they could not. What is very clear
is an IMMEDIATE increase in immunity because we observe that all sorts of
diseases fade away (acquired ones, or ones that were latent but surfaced,
like malaria, candida, herpes, TB). So I deduce the immune system gets
better at its job even if to starts its labors with the same number of CD4
cells and the same Viral Load (number of viruses found per ml of blood).
While we have never had the money to do a very large study of CD4 changes
under PC1 treatment, what I speculate is that at first the existing CD4
cells increase in efficiency. Perhaps the CD4 cells were 10% effective
prior to PC1 and quickly they move to 90% efficiency under PC1. As this
occurs, the acquired diseases begin to be overcome *first*. The immune
system seems to prioritize them while ignoring the virus, which may increase
as CD4 reduces. This may be in accordance with the reverse order of
appearance as in Hering's rule after a successful law of similars remedy.
But in any case it is what we observe in application of PC1 to AIDS
patients.
CAVEAT
Under PC treatment, it appears that CD4 cells pay attention to the virus
only after a period of time, when the later opportunistic infections have
been dealt with. An increase in CD4 occurs only after the viral load is
finally reduced. That will take time and as it happens, so does the
"numbers game" with the relevant viral load itself begin to be won. When
the "HIV" load decreases, the number of CD4 cells increases in proportion.
But there is a time lag in this process and several months must be allowed
before a CD4 rise is seen after commencing treatment with PC1.
on 2/9/06 8:56 AM, doctorleelah2h at doctorleela@hotmail.com wrote:
((( Your opinion seems similar to this one from the Abha Light Center in
Kenya (this as of fall, 2005):
Some Conclusions from our experience:
€That homeopathy can indeed rise to the need of shouldering the great task
of treating people successfully in large numbers in this pandemic.
€The need for discovering an "epidemic" remedy for the disease itself is of
the essence. We should not hold back merely on "points of order". Try PC1.
If it works, use it.
€We have found PC1 works best when the patient has been cleared as far as
possible of other obstructive stuff e.g., virulent infections, over-dosing
of drugs, suppressed diseases, etc. We have found that PC1 may cause
aggravations--therefore we prefer to clear the way first, so to speak, and
supervise the first month closely.
€We are mostly convinced that it is PC1 that is doing the final job of
restoring health-- from trial and observation. In most cases "classical",
constitutional treatment eventually "fell down.² That is-- the patient was
better; then worse; then again treated for the next round of infections;
then better; then worse again etc. In other words no real permanancy to
their improvement.
€There are no test results yet to show whether PC1 is a permanent cure or
whether HIV still remains in the system to grow again. We've had a small
number of cases (those who could afford the tests) return back to us
reporting "HIV undetectable" soon after finishing the PC1. We hope to use
some of our funding in 2005 to test a larger group of patients and get more
grounded statistics.
€Aside from HIV presence or not--PC1 appears to restore health for a long
stretch of time. We do not see back our patients because they have regained
their health.
€Polychrests + PC1 go a long way towards enabling mass treatment of the AIDS
pandemic. Ultimately we found patient totality 30C-200C prescriptions
combined with low-potency tinctures and naturopathic therapy; later followed
by PC1-- to be the cheapest, most rapid, most gentle, and most permanent
restoration of health in the AIDS clients we treat here. "
=====================
((( But it should be clear to anyone that quality individualized treatment
as described above will only make a small dent in the 20+ million AIDS
patients in the pipeline in Africa and 40 million worldwide. So standalone
use of PC1 distributed free as well is an inevitability and a positive.
That is if one agrees that such a practice is warranted... Does your
clinical data so far support standalone use of PC1 for the AIDS pandemic?
How would it be if one had the disease, had never heard of homeopathy, had
no money, had no access to the few homeopaths in Africa outside of the
Republic of South Africa, and lived in a rural area with only the internet
as a source of info...
PC1 provides a unique disease-specific option. This is also the case for
the 100+ other PC remedies available only for use by practitioners in the
clinic. Chappell's work only adds to what we already have in law of
similars healing -- and takes away NOTHING.
((( This is a valuable contribution of clinical data, experience, and
opinion.
The below may be helpful to other readers as an beginning overview. Other
introductions follow. It is a work-in-progress. But the introductions if
studied with open mind, and the list of answers to FAQs provides an coverage
of group totality homeopathy and PC Remedies:
http://www.vitalremedies.com/faqs/index.php?p=all#a171
((( Best to all,
Andy
((( Hi Doc Leelah,
That the remedies are technologically made is stated up front. I agree that
it *should* be stated -- as what distinguishes these homeopathically-acting
remedies from Homeopathy "the system". Of those that object to the
technology being "secret", few would *understand* that technology even if
it was explained in detail more than it already has been via a flow chart.
So lack of information about the technology is not really a cogent
objection. It is more like an excuse - overlooking the possible benefit to
ill people in their charge. Who does not use their computer because they
don't know how it produces the image on the screen? The "rife speculation"
that you refer to is mostly because several "contributors" to the discussion
do not care to inform themselves using the information provided to them.
The topic is seen as far more simple than it is and the same "objections"
repeated. Honest correspondents seriously and objectively study a topic
*before* commenting with the intent to *contribute*. Some of this
"unhealthy" discussion is due to simplistic challenges without respect for
either the topic or the forum.
I answer the above with a few paragraphs which are "aimed" not at you but
all readers. Your true contribution later in your email makes you one of
the few to substantively contribute to the discussion instead of trying to
denigrate the development with criticisms based on shallow understanding.
PC REMEDIES
The rx are synthesized informed by peculiars of the disease (group
totality). This means that they are programmed from the characterization of
the *disease itself* from a cohort of sufferers with that correct diagnosis
in common. This is analogous to a "proving" of the disease, which is then
directly emulated. This is purely Hahnemannian (Organon 101-104).
PROVINGS
No one objects to a Hahnemannian proving by dissimilarity of the resulting
remedy. But the ludicrousness of stating that one will not use the rx
without such an elicitation defeats in large measure the whole point of
being able to create remedies technologically. If the technology did not
work to emulate the programmed peculiar symptoms of the named disease, none
of the PC remedies would work on ANYONE.
VARIABLES IN PRECISION
In your experience, at least one remedy -- PC1 -- works as you suggest in
your small clinical trial below. The main variable with emulating a foreign
vital force based on its resultant pathophysiology is on how tightly
coherent the characterization can be. Overall efficacy and
disease-specificity depends on that variable. Characterization precision
depends firstly on how sharply-boundaried the classified disease diagnostic
category is. Secondly on how many valuable Organon 153 datapoints are
available which distinguish the totality as a cluster. Thirdly on whether
the data comes from a fresh group case using Hahnemannian homeopathic
semiology elicited by homeopaths -- or from medical descriptions of the
disease. Chappell has concluded that for well-described diseases, large
group cases (akin to provings but of a disease) provide no advantage over
the medical literature. For diseases like CFS which are not well defined,
the homeopathic group cases become more important.
(cf. )
A coherent cluster of symptoms of enough of the *expression* of the foreign
vital force is needed for destructive resonance of that *actual* vital force
to occur. A coherent cluster of peculiars allows the artificial disease
emulation to be similar to its complex miasmatic basis. A coherent cluster
of the kernel of the symptoms of the named disease phenomenon as it always
appears -- and which allows its diagnosis -- makes a true "specific". The
true specific remedy for the named disease is capable (without obstacles)
of resonance with the disease existing in theoretically ANY unsuppressed
sufferer of it. The obstacles are similar to the ones for any
homeopathically acting remedy -- drug or vaccination layer, dietary
insufficiency, circumstantial life pressures, etc).
GROUP TOTALITY IS A SEARCH FOR THE BULLSEYE FOR THE DISEASE JUST AS
INDIVIDUAL TOTALITY IS A SEARCH FOR THE BULLSEYE FOR ONE PERSON
The disease-specific remedy that works on ANY SUFFERER of it is the ultimate
goal of the group totality. We are too used to approximations, zig-zagging,
and time consuming healing processes thereby. Hahnemann and those in 175
years thereafter achieved it in certain usually fatal epidemics when one
remedy fit all sufferers because the virulence eliminated individuality.
But Hahnemann did not have the materia medica to achieve this ultimate level
of specificity beyond the first miasms and down to the resolution of the
individual classified disease. We STILL do not -- for we have no
disease-specific remedies in the materia medica that work regardless of the
sufferer (!). Hahnemann did not have a technology to achieve a true
specific. Now that we do, there are actually people who feel that this is a
drawback! Frankly, this is Luddite at the expense of the sick; or inability
to understand the topic. It is in some cases merely knee-jerk opposition to
anything that does not jive with the "familiar". In short, prejudice based
on the past and inertia to admit new data and methodology.
FUTURE OF HOMEOPATHY
Homeopathy will die on the vine into withdrawal to the grass roots unless it
further develops IMHO. Too much stands to oppose it. The liaison of
diagnostic medicine and law of similars healing that PC remedies create is a
step in that direction.
Homeopathy must also on aggregate become far more reliable to be considered
a tenable system of medicine by those that run the culture and by popular
demand. In India this has become the case because homeopathy is so
economical, and because Indian people take care of their own, with massive
free treatment of their fellow human beings.
The pharmacy is a vulnerable point regarding regulation of homeopathy out of
access. Technological remedy production (of all of the materia medica) by
each practitioner is one of the writings on the wall for preservation of
homeopathy in the near future.
THE END POINT OF HAHNEMANN'S GROUP TOTALITY IS THE TRUE SPECIFIC
Those steeped in their own propaganda against "specific" remedies confuse
the patient-specific simillimum with group totality (disease-specific)
simillimum (the Genius epidemicus for the acute, sub-acute, or chronic
disease). The only significant non-Hahnemannian element of PC remedies is
that the remedies are engineered instead of mined from the materia medica.
Instead of being matched using closest available approximations of
potentised substance which has been characterised to greater or lesser
degree -- they are engineered. They are made by an electromagnetic device
whose input is symptoms. The output is magnetically produced,
biologically-active analogues of that same complex of symptoms.
WHY USE A TECHNOLOGY?
The reason Chappell chose this route is because the materia medica offers
ZERO true disease specifics regardless of sufferer. Finding precise
disease-specifics has not happened in 200 years of homeopathy. Is it a good
use of time to try to find them (for hundreds of disease complexes) among
potentised substances? Or create them from the very symptoms of the group
totality itself using a technology? One person has created 100+ of these
remedies in 2 years (!) Chappell is a classical homeopath, one of the
founders of the SOH 30 years ago -- but is also an electronics engineer. So
from all this it should not be difficult to see how and why the technology
for PC remedies came about.
==============
Several points are useful to understand regarding PC remedies:
€Chappell's rx could not exist if Hahnemann's group totality (Organon
101-104) had not been developed.
€Chappell's remedies could not act successfully IN ANY PATIENT AT ANY TIME
for the disease suffered if they did not work by law of similars
(homeopathicity).
€Chappell's technology would be disproved if the remedies did not work ever,
or so inconsistently as to be unreliable.
===============
To understand why Chappell engineers disease-specific rx instead of using mm
artificial disease analogues, first it must be understood:
1. that group totality case analysis (group as if one patient) is a process
of characterizing a NAMED DISEASE (or as yet named classifiable natural one)
that is shared by many people at the same time or at different times, acute
or chronic;
2. that the materia medica contains only:
€INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATIONS of unnamed (individual) patterns identified only
by the name of the homeopathic remedy which removes them
AND
€INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATIONS of named diseases.
There are NO precise emulations of ANY named disease entity in our materia
medica that apply so they can be called "true specifics" in *treatment*;
and always achieve similarity. There are a few close ones. But no true
specifics.
A GROUNDED DISCUSSION LEADS TO PEOPLE USING THE REMEDY TO HELP CURE PATIENTS
Despite the efforts of some to say that these technological rx do not work
(based on what data not offered?) -- they do work in unsuppressed cases.
The urban industrialized and post-industrial countries are widely suppressed
by modern medicine and vaccination -- and this situation is worsening, not
improving.
The evidence that PC remedies work in unsuppressed cases (and even heavily
tampered-with ones) is overwhelming after 4 years in thousands using PC1 and
from reliable and well-known practitioners using many of the other 100+ PC
remedies for other diseases.
Perfection will never be achieved. But those who do not see the nature of
the advance here under discussion and its implications are shallow-dippers
indeed. If such people feel they contribute to the discussion by commenting
without all the information -- then their study of the rules of intellectual
debate are in order. Why "contribute" to a discussion without prior study
and understanding of the topic?
Recall what Schopenhauer said:
=======
Every new discovery passes through three stages; first it will be greeted
with ridicule, then it will be opposed, and finally it will be accepted as
obvious.
=======
Some would appear to have the delusion that law of similars healing is
already at its pinnacle of reliability, and is omnipotent. This is truly a
delusion, as most homeopaths know. This has been covered extensively in
previous posts on Minutus extending back a year and longer in discussions of
independent instrumented confirmatories and disease-specific technological
remedies.
PC REMEDIES ARE NOT HOMEOPATHY THE SYSTEM, BUT HOMEOPATHICALLY-ACTING
The "PC" remedies are designed from group totality - an invention of
Hahnemann himself and which led to his discovery of the miasmatic forcing
function of disease. They are not part of *Homeopathy the System* -- ONLY
because the remedies are technologically made. But their mechanism of
action is homeopathicity by the second mode of hahnemannian simillimum.
This second type of homeopathic mechanism is poorly taught in homeopathic
colleges. PC remedies produce aggravations of the exact past symptoms of
the disease and Hering/Vijayakar signs -- both hallmarks of resonance by the
law of similars. Amelioration follows. There is no escaping that PC
remedies act homeopathically.
TWO TYPES OF SIMILLIMUM (OR REMEDY FOR THE TOTALITY OF AN ENTITY (PATIENT OR
CLASSIFIED, DIAGNOSABLE (IDENTIFIABLE) DISEASE ENTITY)
The first patient-specific case-analysis process evaluates and emulates the
host vital force plus the foreign vital force (unified). The sum of
miasmatic distortions (peculiar symptoms of the ONE PATIENT) lead to a
remedy which best matches the case. The second, and disease-specific type
directly emulates the complex of foreign vital force (miasm) which is the
basis of the endogenous chronic disease or acute susceptibility.
That foreign vital force expresses itself through the shared peculiar
symptoms of the named disease cluster OF A GROUP OF PATIENTS with that
diagnosed disease. An attempt to create a similar artificial disease for
the latter can be undertaken from the materia medica; or (since 2001) via
an engineered specific. The precise ultimate form of this remedy is one for
the miasmatic basis of the peculiar kernel of the disease entity regardless
of the sufferer. A PC remedy is an attempt to create that ultimate true
specific when it is possible to do so.
on 2/9/06 8:56 AM, doctorleelah2h at doctorleela@hotmail.com wrote:
((( Your extensive clinical data is a real contribution to the discussion.
Congratulations on your commitment to Organon 1. An ounce of clinical
trial certainly outweighs a pound of any uninformed dogma.
on 2/9/06 8:56 AM, doctorleelah2h at doctorleela@hotmail.com wrote:
Do rememebr that these peole were also on alloathic
((( And the PC1 rx worked anyway on at least these 5-8 patients.
on 2/9/06 8:56 AM, doctorleelah2h at doctorleela@hotmail.com wrote:
BUt earlier the allopathic treatment would be ineffective.
((( 8 out of 8 feeling better and put on weight. 5 out of 8 with
improvement in opportunistic infective episodes.
on 2/9/06 8:56 AM, doctorleelah2h at doctorleela@hotmail.com wrote:
BUT the CD4 count in ALL 5 followed up for 6 months showed a serial FALL.
My impression is that PC1 is definitely effective for AIDS patients.
((( Here is what Chappell said about this phenomenon as of June, 2005:
Progress Indices--Caveat about using CD4 count as sole means to gauge
progress
A caveat is appropriate here about using CD4 count increase over time as an
index of PC1 performance. CD4 does not necessarily rise quickly under PC1
treatment even as the client is improving. I have reservations about using
the CD4 as a litmus test with PC1 in the same way that it is used with
retroviral drugs.
Probable "Anti-Viral Drug" Evaluation Model
Those doing most HIV/AIDS trials are working with a different treatment
mechanism. Retroviral drugs knock out the HIV virus immediately, and thus
CD4 rises automatically and quickly as these immune cells are no longer
being attacked and causing CD4 loss. The opportunistic diseases are then
wiped out by the increased CD4 cells. This is a simple and valid model.
But its validity does not cross over to PC1 treatment, as the recovery mode
seems to be somewhat the inverse and the timescale of increase of CD4 count
is longer.
Probable PC1 Evaluation Model
With PC1, we observe within the first days and weeks that people feel better
and can fight off infections when before they could not. What is very clear
is an IMMEDIATE increase in immunity because we observe that all sorts of
diseases fade away (acquired ones, or ones that were latent but surfaced,
like malaria, candida, herpes, TB). So I deduce the immune system gets
better at its job even if to starts its labors with the same number of CD4
cells and the same Viral Load (number of viruses found per ml of blood).
While we have never had the money to do a very large study of CD4 changes
under PC1 treatment, what I speculate is that at first the existing CD4
cells increase in efficiency. Perhaps the CD4 cells were 10% effective
prior to PC1 and quickly they move to 90% efficiency under PC1. As this
occurs, the acquired diseases begin to be overcome *first*. The immune
system seems to prioritize them while ignoring the virus, which may increase
as CD4 reduces. This may be in accordance with the reverse order of
appearance as in Hering's rule after a successful law of similars remedy.
But in any case it is what we observe in application of PC1 to AIDS
patients.
CAVEAT
Under PC treatment, it appears that CD4 cells pay attention to the virus
only after a period of time, when the later opportunistic infections have
been dealt with. An increase in CD4 occurs only after the viral load is
finally reduced. That will take time and as it happens, so does the
"numbers game" with the relevant viral load itself begin to be won. When
the "HIV" load decreases, the number of CD4 cells increases in proportion.
But there is a time lag in this process and several months must be allowed
before a CD4 rise is seen after commencing treatment with PC1.
on 2/9/06 8:56 AM, doctorleelah2h at doctorleela@hotmail.com wrote:
((( Your opinion seems similar to this one from the Abha Light Center in
Kenya (this as of fall, 2005):
Some Conclusions from our experience:
€That homeopathy can indeed rise to the need of shouldering the great task
of treating people successfully in large numbers in this pandemic.
€The need for discovering an "epidemic" remedy for the disease itself is of
the essence. We should not hold back merely on "points of order". Try PC1.
If it works, use it.
€We have found PC1 works best when the patient has been cleared as far as
possible of other obstructive stuff e.g., virulent infections, over-dosing
of drugs, suppressed diseases, etc. We have found that PC1 may cause
aggravations--therefore we prefer to clear the way first, so to speak, and
supervise the first month closely.
€We are mostly convinced that it is PC1 that is doing the final job of
restoring health-- from trial and observation. In most cases "classical",
constitutional treatment eventually "fell down.² That is-- the patient was
better; then worse; then again treated for the next round of infections;
then better; then worse again etc. In other words no real permanancy to
their improvement.
€There are no test results yet to show whether PC1 is a permanent cure or
whether HIV still remains in the system to grow again. We've had a small
number of cases (those who could afford the tests) return back to us
reporting "HIV undetectable" soon after finishing the PC1. We hope to use
some of our funding in 2005 to test a larger group of patients and get more
grounded statistics.
€Aside from HIV presence or not--PC1 appears to restore health for a long
stretch of time. We do not see back our patients because they have regained
their health.
€Polychrests + PC1 go a long way towards enabling mass treatment of the AIDS
pandemic. Ultimately we found patient totality 30C-200C prescriptions
combined with low-potency tinctures and naturopathic therapy; later followed
by PC1-- to be the cheapest, most rapid, most gentle, and most permanent
restoration of health in the AIDS clients we treat here. "
=====================
((( But it should be clear to anyone that quality individualized treatment
as described above will only make a small dent in the 20+ million AIDS
patients in the pipeline in Africa and 40 million worldwide. So standalone
use of PC1 distributed free as well is an inevitability and a positive.
That is if one agrees that such a practice is warranted... Does your
clinical data so far support standalone use of PC1 for the AIDS pandemic?
How would it be if one had the disease, had never heard of homeopathy, had
no money, had no access to the few homeopaths in Africa outside of the
Republic of South Africa, and lived in a rural area with only the internet
as a source of info...
PC1 provides a unique disease-specific option. This is also the case for
the 100+ other PC remedies available only for use by practitioners in the
clinic. Chappell's work only adds to what we already have in law of
similars healing -- and takes away NOTHING.
((( This is a valuable contribution of clinical data, experience, and
opinion.
The below may be helpful to other readers as an beginning overview. Other
introductions follow. It is a work-in-progress. But the introductions if
studied with open mind, and the list of answers to FAQs provides an coverage
of group totality homeopathy and PC Remedies:
http://www.vitalremedies.com/faqs/index.php?p=all#a171
((( Best to all,
Andy
Re: PC Remedies - Chris
Dr Leela told us about Palliation (could even be allopathic or placebo
palliation) - since when did palliation get the thumbs up and get
converted into cures - that's how easy it is to spread myths I guess.
Look forward to further results of the trauma rx he is treating
genocide with - apparently the results are "amazing, stunning,
wonderful". Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
palliation) - since when did palliation get the thumbs up and get
converted into cures - that's how easy it is to spread myths I guess.
Look forward to further results of the trauma rx he is treating
genocide with - apparently the results are "amazing, stunning,
wonderful". Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-
Sheri Nakken
- Posts: 3999
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: PC Remedies - Chris
>Homeopathy will die on the vine into withdrawal to the grass roots unless it
Homeopathy will die on the vine for the same reason it almost died on the
vine before. Practitioners diluting homeopathy and using allopathic and
other methods, instead of being pure homeopaths following the laws and the
principles. Schools not teaching the organon and Hahnemannian teachings.
And we certainly are in that same position again, much to my chagrin and
the world's potential loss. Most people saying they practice homeopathy,
haven't even READ the organon, I dare say.
http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/intro/history.php
"However, the majority of homeopaths practicing in this country did not
prescribe their medicines on the basis ofthe totality of symptoms, but
primarily according to the chief complaint. These homeopaths prescribed
medicines for specific diseases, and sometimes, they prescribed one
medicine for person's headache, another for the digestive disorder, and
another for the skin problem. Hahnemann and his followers were particularly
adamant about the use of only one medicine at a time, and Hahnemann"
" The poor training that the homeopathic schools offered after the turn of
the century ultimately discouraged the rigorous approach that the Hahnemann
method required."
Further development hardly needs to happen. People don't follow the laws
and principles. But that is too hard. Better to have an easy system, use
a machine, blah blah blah.
If someone wants to develop something else call it SOMETHING ELSE for god's
sake. Leave homeopathy out of it.
It makes me sick
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936
Homeopathy will die on the vine for the same reason it almost died on the
vine before. Practitioners diluting homeopathy and using allopathic and
other methods, instead of being pure homeopaths following the laws and the
principles. Schools not teaching the organon and Hahnemannian teachings.
And we certainly are in that same position again, much to my chagrin and
the world's potential loss. Most people saying they practice homeopathy,
haven't even READ the organon, I dare say.
http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/intro/history.php
"However, the majority of homeopaths practicing in this country did not
prescribe their medicines on the basis ofthe totality of symptoms, but
primarily according to the chief complaint. These homeopaths prescribed
medicines for specific diseases, and sometimes, they prescribed one
medicine for person's headache, another for the digestive disorder, and
another for the skin problem. Hahnemann and his followers were particularly
adamant about the use of only one medicine at a time, and Hahnemann"
" The poor training that the homeopathic schools offered after the turn of
the century ultimately discouraged the rigorous approach that the Hahnemann
method required."
Further development hardly needs to happen. People don't follow the laws
and principles. But that is too hard. Better to have an easy system, use
a machine, blah blah blah.
If someone wants to develop something else call it SOMETHING ELSE for god's
sake. Leave homeopathy out of it.
It makes me sick
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: PC Remedies - Chris
Hi Sheri,
You've brought up lots of issues here, but taking just this one:
Some very practical issues come in here. What do you feel should be
done if the homeopath finds him/herself unable (whether ongoingly or
simply "for now") to help the patient by remedies alone, but *does*
know other ways to give relief? Not an academic question for those of
us who learned other tools before learning homeopathy, *and* who are
not yet flawless prescribers (of which I have never met one, BTW)? As
a patient I have no patience with a doctor (any variety) who says "Do
what I say and nothing else, no matter how bad my results are." As a
prescriber, I would not ask this of my own patients--not unless that is
a *feasible* choice (symptoms are not e.g. causing great suffering, or
putting "life on hold") and not unless the patient is willing and able
to comply (which sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't).
If you had a child who had been tantruming, sleepless and miserable at
home, and constantly in the principle's office at school, and your
first remedy wasn't working but you knew herbal or nutritional things
that would help--or if, as is likely, the child is already on
prescription drugs--would you insist that they stop the drugs, try
nothing else, and let him scream and thrash take consequences, while
waiting for you to solve the puzzle? Call me a wimp, but I could not;
not as the prescriber, and not as the parent. Could you? Even knowing
that it *is* possible to treat homeopathically even while the patient
is getting palliative relief?
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
You've brought up lots of issues here, but taking just this one:
Some very practical issues come in here. What do you feel should be
done if the homeopath finds him/herself unable (whether ongoingly or
simply "for now") to help the patient by remedies alone, but *does*
know other ways to give relief? Not an academic question for those of
us who learned other tools before learning homeopathy, *and* who are
not yet flawless prescribers (of which I have never met one, BTW)? As
a patient I have no patience with a doctor (any variety) who says "Do
what I say and nothing else, no matter how bad my results are." As a
prescriber, I would not ask this of my own patients--not unless that is
a *feasible* choice (symptoms are not e.g. causing great suffering, or
putting "life on hold") and not unless the patient is willing and able
to comply (which sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't).
If you had a child who had been tantruming, sleepless and miserable at
home, and constantly in the principle's office at school, and your
first remedy wasn't working but you knew herbal or nutritional things
that would help--or if, as is likely, the child is already on
prescription drugs--would you insist that they stop the drugs, try
nothing else, and let him scream and thrash take consequences, while
waiting for you to solve the puzzle? Call me a wimp, but I could not;
not as the prescriber, and not as the parent. Could you? Even knowing
that it *is* possible to treat homeopathically even while the patient
is getting palliative relief?
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]