PC Remedies - Chris/Andy

[doctorleelah2h]

HI Andy,
Thanks for the scientific post;)

Actually the situation is not so easy as no one can clearly define (as
yet) what can be acceptable in homeopathywith a lot of conflicting
views going around. I don't know if anyone will be able to srot that
oen out.

Just 2 points:
1. When there has to be a specific similarity to group symtpoms, as in
Genus Epidemicus or more precisely 'antimiasmatic' remedy (which is
aimed at similar group symmtoms), it is expected in a chornic disease
that an antimiasmatic remedy is deep acting enough to affect the
Immune system to produce a change/improvement in the chronic
immunological respose. IN the case of AIDS the CD4 is an indicator.
BUT there are other parameters that cna be used as well.
As I stated earlier, the acute impact of PC1 is significant enough
clincally, but unfortunately the chronic disease continues unabated.
THis is what lead Hahnenamm to develop the theory of Miasms.
While I"m not in a position to discuss whtehr this effect is
homeopahtic or not, what is more importnat is whether this effect is
curative or not. From my expereince it is palliative and not curative
- as acute, superficial homeopathic remedies are.

2. The mode of preparation and source of remedy is as important to
homeopathy as anything else. We understand homeopathy to have
"NATURAL" sources of remedies that are furthur potentized. ELiminating
the NAtural source, (we have precise details about method of
collection, parts used etc in the Homeopathic Pharmacoepia) leaves one
with questionable soures and methods ... something that will always be
open to suspicion in energy medicine.
OF course many modern remedies are made from chemical substances as
well - but the source is still clearly defined.
We already have a problem proving drug dynamization scientifically and
technologically today. The only point that supports that this is
reliable is because we START with a NATURAL SOURCE that is clearly
defined and obtainable and reproduced by anyone on the planet.

Thanks,
leela

2.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, AH wrote:
agree that
homeopathically-acting
even if
chart.
benefit to
they
speculation"
discussion
"objections"
respect for
you but
one of
trying to
understanding.
characterization of
diagnosis
is then
resulting
did not
disease, none
suggest in
foreign
precision
diagnostic
whether
over
defined,
foreign
vital force
cluster
always
"specific". The
obstacles)
ultimate
zig-zagging,
in 175
ultimate level
of the
this is a
inability
opposition to
prejudice based
unless it
create is a
considered
popular
massive
homeopathy out of
medica) by
confuse
remedies is
medica.
device
offers
it a good
among
the group
these
engineer. So
technology
ANY TIME
work ever,
using mm
process
natural one)
times, acute
identified only
materia
PATIENTS
not work
suppressed
worsening, not
heavily
PC1 and
100+ PC
nature of
shallow-dippers
commenting
intellectual
study
greeted
accepted as
truly a
discussions of
technological
forcing
-- ONLY
homeopathic
symptoms of
resonance by the
(PATIENT OR
emulates the
disease-specific type
is the
disease for
2001) via
one for
regardless
discussion.
FALL.
time as an
under PC1
about using
and thus
then
model.
recovery mode
CD4 count
feel better
very clear
sorts of
surfaced,
of CD4
changes
increase
remedy.
have
When
proportion.
allowed
Center in
great task
itself is of
Try PC1.
far as
over-dosing
speak, and
"classical",
patient was
cure or
to use
get more
long
regained
the AIDS
followed
treatment
standalone
pandemic?
homeopathy, had
internet
case for
in the
Other
introductions if
coverage

[andyh]

> HI Andy,

((( Hi Dr. Leelah, not sure exactly what you mean by scientific, but am
glad it seemed useful to you. Here is a bit of the Chappell FAQs that
you might enjoy:

http://www.vitalremedies.com/faqs/index.php?p=all#a97

The above should be a link to the question:
•What was JT Kent’s conception of the DISEASE as distinct from the PATIENT?

===========

((( HI Dr. Leelah, I agree that the definitions are not easy or what is
going on is easy to sort out. This is why biolumanetics, for example, is
a useful research tool...

With small clinical trials like you have done we have real data to work
with. These PC remedies (at least some of the totalities so far) are
very useful. If people try them and report data as you have, then we are
much better off. My work to explain them in the context of what we
already can surmise about remedy action and case analysis is done with
hope that people get enough understanding of the rx to USE them and add
to the knowledge of their effectiveness.
============

(( Yes, understood. But it may depend on the type of immunity. The PC
remedy is not like a remedy for the totality of sx of the pt -- but only
for the cluster of the target disease entity, or that portion of the
miasmatic load -- which is in itself a totality of the miasmatic complex
that relates only to that PART of the patients overall disease. It may
not set up eradication of the virus. It relates to the symptoms of the
disease in direct similarity. It is not a remedy for the "patient" but
one for the "disease" -- literallly. If the "virus" is hanging out
somewhere and requires more of a patient totality remedy, then that will
be needed, or some other means of eradication of the virus (eg Rife
electromedicine kit sold for this purpose).
As well, just to speak re: semantics --our own definitions limit us. The
entire disease of the client is miasmatic. So any remedy that removes the
whole disease or any coherent subtotality of it is a "antimiasmatic "
remedy. The identified miasms (which are but a subset of all that exist)
have particular remedies associated with them -- but every remedy is
"antimiasmatic", from a realistic standpoint. Of course, we think of
thuja as associated with sycosis in particular and syphilis secondarily.
But is it more "antimiasmatic" than any other remedy which acts to remove
part or all of the total miasmatic load of the person at a given time?
Does not every significant homeopathically-acting remedy have its
miasmatic niche?

As far as "deep-acting" is concerned, is this a relative term partly to do
with the matter of prevalence of a particular miasm. Any remedy
correlating with a prevalent miasm will of course be "deep-acting".
There may be other criterion which determine "depth of action" eg. nosode
versus mineral (more deeply acting ?) vs plant (less deeply acting?).
For example, nux-v is called a "not deep acting" remedy. It is good for
business stress which may be on the surface of a case, but is not very
often suitable as a fundamental or "constitutional" remedy. There are
many factors probably others I do not mention on the topic of "depth" of
action.

I have no idea yet whether PC remedies are "deep acting" or not. But my
supposition is that:
--PC Remedies are to a pathological cluster
--as nux-v is to a cluster of thought forms and aggravations from business
dealings and wear and tear and money worry.

In other words -- they work on the target totality only. They contain in
symptomology no more than the target disease. They are not a remedy for
the "patient" and thus should not be judged so. They are designed for a
specific target. For example a colleague used PCSyphilis on a stage 2
syphilis client and it did nothing. Probably becausse the rx was
programmed with first stage syphilis. These are specific totalities.

================
IN the case of AIDS the CD4 is an indicator.

((( IMO,
The slow rebound of CD4 alone (in the context of recovery from the fatal
disease) does not put PC1 in the category of "palliative" - a term
reserved for superficial treatment when:

--remedy does not provide action to any significant degree beyond comfort
relief
--patient vitality is insufficient for any remedy to act deeply
--appropriate remedy is not available/findable so symptomatic treatment is
found
--case is defective due to iatrogenic damage so only a symptomatic rx is used
--the pathology is advanced and irreversible so no hope of deep acting
cure is expected and care must be taken not to try and kill the patient

According to Chappell's experience since 2002, Hering's signs occur and
all other indications of AIDS improve including disappearance of
opportunistic infections (TB, malaria, skin lesions, KS, etc). Increase
in weight and energy, etc. occurs, and patient gets outwardly fully well.
This was your reportage in 5 of your 8 trials. When Hering signs occur
and the pt returns to wellness, then if completeness of cure is not
attained, probably more accurate is that (in case of our customary
remedies - a complement is needed to complete the cure; or in the case of
PC remedies, maybe when chappell starts introducing potencies we will see
more potential to go "deeper"; or the patient totality remedy is needed to
complete the cure if this is not forthcoming while using PC1 for the
target cluster.
It is true that "HIV+" by test does not reverse under PC1 to some extent
that even Chappell cannot yet quantify. But because PC remedies are aimed
only at a disease cluster and not what preceded it --this does not make
PC1 a "palliative" IMO.

Your recommendation which is similar to Abha Light Clinic in Kenya
regarding use of PC remedies in their current incarnation is a good one:
When an homeopath is available, PC1 can be followed/complemented with
patient-specific remedy. Or PC1 can be used from the beginnning in
conjunction with patient-specific treatment so pt gets a "double barrel"
of patient-specific and disease-specific treatment.

But these suggestions are not relevant for the larger number of people who
do not have access to a homeopath and who use PC1 standalone. Chappell
recommends other adjuncts to patients to take care of final reduction of
the viral load which makes one "HIV minus" by test -- which PC1 does not
provide in many cases, from what Chappell has said. The CD4 slow rebound
is an issue to contend with. Whether it is a serious problem for
standalone use of PC1 or not Chappell cannot say (and I have asked him
some questions that I pasted in below).

More detail:
First, it must be remembered that the PC1 is a remedy designed from the
group case of AIDS -- in other words some 80 cases of AIDS whose symptoms
have been added together and the peculiars extracted for use. That is an
anamnesis of the disease we call AIDS. Just like what we do with a whole
case of a *patient*, but with a group of patients -- which drowns out
individuality and identifies what is only of the disease process as it
appears in most every case. Up to here, this is purely Hahnemannian --
straight from paragraphs 101-104 which we have used to seek the genius
epidemicus for the last 175 years -- but only in acute epidemics and to
look at chronic miasms.

Chappell's technology allows us to resolve remedies to the specificity of
a classified CHRONIC or ACUTE disease totality . This is unprecedented in
law of similars medicine until 2001. We do not have specifics for
diseases regardless of the sufferer in the homeopathic materia medica.
NONE. This is what Chappell's technology allows. This is to me what is
breakthrough and the potential of which should be followed where it leads
by trying the remedies in the appropriate situations (stubborn cases which
include diagnosable organic disease; dissimilar and complex diseases;
epidemics with or without access to patient-specific homeopathy.

The group totality is like a "proving" of the disease -- which is what is
programmed into the device which produces a remedy. The remedy is
"precharacterized" by the group totality. A proving on healthy
individuals will only show that the technology does "something" like the
disease pic. In order to show the accuracy of both the tech AND the
chosen peculiars of the disea\se, only clinical trials on the target
disease prove much of anything. And calling for provings of PC remedies
puts them back in the category of substances -- unnecessarily. Once it
is known that the tech works (this has been established ) then it is only
a matter of whether the group totality is sufficient. Sure, we could
use one or two provings as a liaison between chappells tech and what we
are used to, and so that more people have trust in the tech. But the rx
are not applied according to provings. So they are a demonstrator only --
not a good use of time past about the first one that shows people whether
or not these rx produce pathogeneses i n the same way that any other
homeopathic remedy does.

This remedy is produced electromagnetically. The transfer function of the
device creates a biologically-active pathogenesis which matches the
meaning of the symptoms that have been input. If this did not work, then
NO totalities would work. You had action on 8 out of 8 and significant
results in 5 of 8.

The lack of CD4 rebound (well known by Chappell) led Dr. Leelah to the
conclusion "palliative". But PC1 is not designed to treat the whole case
-- only the symptoms of AIDS.

PC1 is a remedy for the totality of symptoms of not a *patient*, but for
AIDS the *disease*. That disease has a complex miasmatic basis.
Hahnemann deduced that this miasmatic basis is unknowable. But we can
annihilate it by destructive resonance using the language of signs and
symptoms -- if we can find an agent which can produce those same symptoms
in healthy humans. The group totality when it can be tailored to the
exact peculiars of an anamnesis of the disease is such a remedy. We have
no such a specific for a classified disease anywhere in the materia medica
in 200 years of collecting remedies through toxicology, clinical herbalism
and serendipity, and provings (available for only approx. 1/3 of our
available remedies). But since 2001 we can synthesise one. This remedy
is a simillimum (remedy for the totality of symptoms) of a named disease
entity with sharp enough boundaries to be diagnosable and distinguishable
from any other malady. It has a unique miasmatic basis shared among all
sufferers. This commonality is what is annihilated by PC1.

A remedy is not a palliative when a patient improves markedly, shows
Hering signs, and only slow CD4 marker rebound (already known to behave
this way under PC1) is considered grounds to make such a conclusion.

Optimal treatment of anyone requires more than just a subtotality remedy
for a disease within their case. The patient-specific is NOT wholly
replaced by the disease-specific remedy, as has been discussed. PC
remedies add to law of similars medicine a new and powerful tool. But
takes nothing away from classical homeopathy from which it has sprung. PC
remedies could not exist without Hahnemann's group totality concept. They
could not work on *anyone* if they did not reproduce the profile of the
disease sufficient to allow resonant annihilation of its miasmatic basis.

==================
The group-totality disease-specific can go where the patient-specific
cannot as has already been demonstrated over the last year of discussion.
That is its point of value (dissimilar and complex diseases in the clinic;
and pandemics in which skilled patient-specific law of similars treatment
is not available to the person).
==================

(((((( Questions asked of Peter Chappell a few days ago:

1. AH: Dr. Leela of India, a physician and journalist, has done a
small clinical trial of 8 subjects and reported the results to you. Her
conclusion is the PC1 is effective for AIDS but is a palliative.

PETER CHAPPELL:
Dr Leela has reported palliative results is cases where I have not seen
the full details. From what data I have from Dr Leela PC1 reactivated TB
(as would be expected) in many cases and TB drugs were then used to
suppress this so long term results would not likely be positive. There was
one case, likely sexually active where reinfection would stop any positive
result.

This is not a critisism of Dr Leela, but just pointing out the sheer
difficulty of assessment.

I think too that these cases were in a hospice, so they were well advanced
already where good outcomes are less likely.

There are always reponse options as we know, cure and palliation being the
obvious two, but there are many options inbetween due to reinfection, use
of drugs, other reactivated diseases, poor food supply etc

In reality there has been, as yet, no systematic evaluation.
2. (((((( AH Dr. Leela reported slow CD4 rebound or even crash of CD4
as you discussed last summer and that file regarding caveat to its use for
evaluation of PC1 was posted to Minutus.

PETER CHAPPELL:
There is no real CD4 and Viral load results I know of that are more than
anecdotal.

Re Dr Leela, with great respect to her, if the cases involved active TB
then TB drugs may have affected the results.

There are contradictory results of CD4 with PC1 in AIDS. As yet there
has been no really significant result either way.

Several results have been observed:
1 CD4 goes to maximum, VL dissapears
2 CD4 hovers/improves
3 CD4 decreases

In our cohorts in Africa, this certainly depends upon the starting point;
how sick they are; reinfection, and food supply.

Incidentally there are a few results of PC1 plus ARVs where CD4 goes to
1000 plus and VL goes to zero, where ARVs alone CD4 hovered around 100.

So obviously more research is needed on this point.

3. ((( AH: Has a Hahnemannian proving of PC1 been published. Or can you
tell me what the preliminary results are -- and/or report these to the
Minutus list. Several people want to see if the PC remedies can produce
symptoms in the healthy by dissimilarity.

PETER CHAPPELL:
So far those of us who have used PC1 extensively in clinical cases, many
hundreds, have not seen any provings happen in a case. But all these
cases were of active AIDS -- and that is the precise target of the remedy.

Secondly I am not aware of any complete proving of any PC remedy having
been yet published.
4. (((((( AH: Is there any data set has been assembled and any
statistics done yet on PC1 standalone use in cases.

PETER CHAPPELL:
This week we are discussing a trial of PC1 with a Minister of Health and
it is possible, given good fortune especially around funding that this
will take place this year or next

There are anecdotal statistics on my web site

================
Dr Leelah wrote:
((( No one (Chappell, etc) has said that PC remedies are homoepathy "the
system". But they act homeopathically by design. We have PLENTY of
remedies made from synthetic sources in the materia medica! That does not
mean they are as significant as naturally occurring plants or minerals or
animals in the scheme of curing cases of natural totalities. But the
"natural" angle is not germain to homeopathy- even the "system" of it.
What sets PC rx apart is technological production from scratch from
SPECIFIED complex magnetic fields. We have for example magnetis polis
australis (hangnails is keynote). But is a potentized force from a sample
-- not a techologically specified magnetic field pattern.

========
ELiminating

((( Yes, no one denies the tenets of the potentized substance pathway of
Hahnemann as being definitive for hoemopathy the system as it is codified
and regulated. However, with PC remedies we potentially have something
unique, not just another "energy remedy". Here we have a genre of remedy
specified by the group totality of Hahnemann. This is what makes is so
very interesting and unique in all of law of similars healing. True
disease specifics do not exist in the materia medica after 200 years. In
two years with a device, there are 100+ available that do not need
provings to be applied -- because they are precharacterized by the group
totality for the disease. Correct diagnosis automatically puts the
patient in the group totality cohort from which the remedy was programmed.
This is what is so groundbreaking. This is why it is important that
people try these remedies so they can be further developed for the good of
patients.

This is a unique specific not available in the materia medica. When the
totality has demonstrated efficacy in a number of cases of that target
disease, then it develops clinical efficacy database. It is based on the
peculiars of the disease itself and applied only on correct diagnosis.
The assumption is that all sufferers of the same classified disease can
respond to the same remedy just like all people with phosphorus
characteristics will respond to phoshorus. What is being annihilated is
the miasmatic basis behind the symptom complex of what is to be cured. If
a remedy for an organic disease cannot be found in the mm (patient
totality or patient subtotality) then a disease-specific group totality
remedy applied directly to the subtotality cluster of the disease can be
used to move the case along until that part of the miasmatic load has been
removed and the disease is less "dissimilar". This may elucidate the
next patient-specific remedy to be used.

A few links on the topic:
http://www.vitalremedies.com/faqs/index.php?p=all#a125

http://www.vitalremedies.com/faqs/index.php?p=all#a126

http://www.vitalremedies.com/faqs/index.php?p=all#a132
((( A good place for both double beam spectrophotometry as they use for rx
quality control at govt hospital in Kerala state ;; and biolumanetics
which systematically shows the activity of a potentized remedy in a
photograph. But my point is that PC remedies are the only exponent of the
genius epidemicus which is specified for both chronic and acute diseases
-- for the first time. That is what is imiportnant. Disease specifics
are not practically possible unless technologically produced. So
"naturalness" is not particularly relevant.

==================
The only point that supports that this is
(((( Self-reliance is a great goal.. But as it is, we use so many
remedies in homeopathy that are only made by pharmacy x i Zurich or
wherever that at some point many homeopaths have to use machine
emulations of remedies. And with the best devices, those emulations work.
This makes homeopathy even more universal and egalitarian because much
of the materia medica is available literally in a box.

Without pharmacies and the mail, we could not be self-reliant anyway.
So, sorry if I am not enthusiastic about the argument that "naturalness"
is necessary for pure homoepathicity.

We cant worry about those who question the water cluster. There is too
much healing to be done.

PC remedies are pharmacy rx just like any other. Great if we can grow
calendula and Ruta in our backyard. But how many of us make our own rx?
Even tinctures can be emulated by some rx emulators. I hope we always
have herb sources available. But without the pharmacies, we are more or
less relying on clinic stocks and sharing between us. Hom pharmacy for
manufactureing is a full time profession. Point is we are not
self-reliant anyway. We are spoiled by pharmacies.

Also, eventually we may have devices in our offices to custom-make
magnetically produced remedies (eg Chappell licenses his tech). Probably
a ways off. Law of similars is the operative concept in true medicinal
healing. So being able to make remedies specific to totalities that we
know are not practically available in substances is one of the next steps
of advance IMO>
((( Best,
Andy