HIV AIDS treatments - Was : can homeopathy deal with engineered viruses?

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Didi Ananda
Please would you share with us your experiences of treating AIDS / HIV infected people with PC remedies and other homeopathic remedies.
When you say PC remedies do not cure, does it mean that symptoms return when the medication is stopped?
Rgds
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ananda Ruchira
Sent: 19 August 2009 12:22
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Re: can homeopathy deal with engineered viruses?
Hi Liz,

thanks for the insight.

But.... what if....

if the viruses are designed (intentially or unintentially) to lodge themselves into the cell structure somehow (now I sound like a sci-fi thriller, but nowadays may not be so farfetched).......????????
PS I'm aware of PC's rx's. They treat but don't cure (as does many other homeo & alt meds)
Sincerely,
Didi Ananda Ruchira
Director
Cells: 0733-895466 / 0723-869133
www.abhalight.org
Skype: anandarucira

Friend me!
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/anandaruchira
Twitter http://twitter.com/AbhaLight
Ning http://homeopathyworldcommunity.ning.co ... ndaRuchira

[Chris_Gillen]

Hi Soroush,
Do you still think of PC remedies as homoeopathic remedies? That is, that they produce *homoeopathic* cures?
Chris.
________________________________

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Chris
As I have no personal experience of them, it is difficult for me to make a judgement. The jury seems to be still out.
That is why I was looking forward to receiving Didi Danda's reports of their use.
However, if they are not holding - that is to say once the remedy is withdrawn the symptoms return - then the correctness of the remedy's role or its potency needs to be questioned.
Best wishes
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Christine Gillen
Sent: 20 August 2009 05:59
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] HIV AIDS treatments - Was : can homeopathy deal with engineered viruses?
Hi Soroush,
Do you still think of PC remedies as homoeopathic remedies? That is, that they produce *homoeopathic* cures?
Chris.
________________________________

[Chris_Gillen]

Soroush,
And how do you propose to know they are the correct homoeopathic remedy when the original source of the remedy is nothing but a so-called "mathematical" fabrication of symptom-crunching in the mind of its originator?
Since the originator is unwilling to disclose his secret methods of manufacture, (i.e. the transmutation of a bunch of solid homoeopathic principles into wishful thinking), the medicines cannot ever be subjected to *true* provings. The jury is well and truly out of the picture, isn't it??
Does Sheilagh Creasy advocate their "homoeopathic" use in her classes, or is this also your own wishful thinking?
Chris.
________________________________
________________________________

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Chris
As you may well know Sheilagh Creasy (May God give her long life and in good health) is a traditional Hahnemannian homeopath.
I cannot immediately recall discussing PC remedies with her. Or if I did, she would have probably raised an eyebrow!
My view is that the PROOF of the pudding is in the eating!
Do not forget that people dismissed Hn and abused him and they still do.
How do we answer - Please look at the results. It is the RESULTS that respond to the questions of how something could be effective after it has been diluted by such degrees (1 drop in more water than the volume of the solar system if it was a sphere!).
It is so easy to do so with Peter too.
Although these remedies are not made in the traditional ways that we are used to, if they manage to cure 'diseases' that others have struggled with, then that is good enough. [Ala Star Trek - It is Homeopathy, but not as we know it Jim!]
If he does not wish to reveal the exact way the remedies are manufactured, it does not mean that they are useless. The evidence of reports from a number of colleagues forms a good testimony. These form what are traditionally called 'clinical provings'.
In any case, I would use my conclusions from Aph 26 (Although John Harvey and perhaps others do not agree with the conclusion) - that if a substance cures (as per Hn's definition), then it was homeopathic to the case.
Please also remember, a substance is only proved to have been homeopathic to the case, if it cures the case (or moves the VF towards achieving a cure). Not who made it, how it was made, what was its degree of dilution / succussion etc.
Best wishes
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Christine Gillen
Sent: 20 August 2009 20:33
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] HIV AIDS treatments - Was : can homeopathy deal with engineered viruses?
Soroush,
And how do you propose to know they are the correct homoeopathic remedy when the original source of the remedy is nothing but a so-called "mathematical" fabrication of symptom-crunching in the mind of its originator?
Since the originator is unwilling to disclose his secret methods of manufacture, (i.e. the transmutation of a bunch of solid homoeopathic principles into wishful thinking), the medicines cannot ever be subjected to *true* provings. The jury is well and truly out of the picture, isn't it??
Does Sheilagh Creasy advocate their "homoeopathic" use in her classes, or is this also your own wishful thinking?
Chris.
________________________________
________________________________

[Joy Lucas]

So let's do a time warp back to § 3 - how does that fit with the PC rx and § 26 (which obviously numerically carries on from 24 "... medicines, whose pathogenetic effects ar known from having been tested in healthy individuals) - so the cure being written about in § 26 pertains to proven rx and § 3 being about perceiving what is to be cured vis knowledge of medicinal powers. None of that is not possible with PC rx.

Where does H write about the second simillimum? Where are the provings for these rx. Is it sufficient for homeopathy to rely on unreliable reports of >> with PC rx? The quackbusters have a lot of fun with him. There is no need for secrecy, it just brings cynicism. But going by your thoughts on these rx you should be using them all the time, there is no need for other rx or instruction from Hahnemann. Clinical provings are now to take the place of a traditional Hahnemannian proving? Reckless. And the social view of Homeopathy can only be damaged by notions of using substances that are so secretive, to say nothing of his so called 'belief remedies' - there used to be one called 'joined up thinking'!

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
________________________________

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Joy
I did write:
[Ala Star Trek - It is Homeopathy, but not as we know it Jim!]
{In case you are not a trekie, The scene was Mr Spock - the Vulcan Science Officer to the Captain: It is life, but not as we know it Jim!}
Peter has extensively used Aph 100-104 as a starting point of his work. That is to say he is treating a lot of things as if they were caused by various epidemics.
Hn could not design his remedies - he could only use substances available to him and try and find their properties by PROVING.
Peter on the other hand claims that his remedies are designed and bespoke for the symptoms of a particular syndrome (for the want of a better word). Therefore they do not require the formal proving route. If they work, then QED.
I do not think Peter would tell an untruth. He has not made any financial gain out of this, in fact so far as I know the project cost him all he had some years ago.
There are other colleagues who have reported great successes with them.
[One was a woman in poor state on death's door with severe oral thrush that she had difficulty swallowing. Literally over night she was better and was able to go to work within 2 week.]
Hn does not write about Second Similimum - for it is a term coined by Peter Chappell!
'Quack busters' would have a go at any one they would wish to, you and I included - so I would not give any value to their opinions.
Look at it in another way. Let us take the areas that Peter has attended. Poor African countries with poor medical care.
Additionally we have people dying or suffering from HIV/AIDS, Malaria, trauma etc etc.
Then someone like PC comes on the scene and gives people some remedies and they improve (or even cured).
Do we say that he should have not done and it is better that these people had died?
Best wishes
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joy Lucas
Sent: 21 August 2009 10:40
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] HIV AIDS treatments - Was : can homeopathy deal with engineered viruses?
So let's do a time warp back to § 3 - how does that fit with the PC rx and § 26 (which obviously numerically carries on from 24 "... medicines, whose pathogenetic effects ar known from having been tested in healthy individuals) - so the cure being written about in § 26 pertains to proven rx and § 3 being about perceiving what is to be cured vis knowledge of medicinal powers. None of that is not possible with PC rx.

Where does H write about the second simillimum? Where are the provings for these rx. Is it sufficient for homeopathy to rely on unreliable reports of >> with PC rx? The quackbusters have a lot of fun with him. There is no need for secrecy, it just brings cynicism. But going by your thoughts on these rx you should be using them all the time, there is no need for other rx or instruction from Hahnemann. Clinical provings are now to take the place of a traditional Hahnemannian proving? Reckless. And the social view of Homeopathy can only be damaged by notions of using substances that are so secretive, to say nothing of his so called 'belief remedies' - there used to be one called 'joined up thinking'!

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
________________________________

[Joy Lucas]

Well I'm glad he uses at least a few stanzas of the Organon - but does he?

§ 100 conjecture is written about and that all epidemics will differ vastly from all others - so how can one substance be for all (I am not calling them remedies because I don't think they are)

§ 101 is a continuation from that, emphasising examination for details, from as many case as possible for each epidemic - he might claim that but how can we know, where is the evidence

I have no idea what you mean by 'designed for a particular syndrome'. The lack of a need for proving is completely non homeopathic and very anatagonistic towards Hahnenmann's work. Outside of homeopathy the science might actually be interesting - engineering the whole materia medica of a particular epidemic into a single pill (hence no need for a proving) although we need to have that explained to us not kept secret and then we can assess if it is indeed homeopathic or not other wise we might as well say allopathy is homeopathic.

Most of the § mentioned pertain to acute diseases as § 103 writes about the different approach in chronic disease.

It is irrelevant whether or not he makes money out of this. the cases are not exactly pouring in of cure and even those that mention >> could be palliation no more than placebo.

You mentioned in another post that these rx are useful when cases are difficult and a simillimum hasn't been found but my point would be that why adopt this third rate use of a substance, they either work or they don't and if they do then we need no other rx. The science has to be upheld and if the process works for one substance, one diseased state then the others must as well. But the science doesn't hold up at all and in fact § 104 completely outcasts what he is doing or saying he is doing.

I know Hahenamnn doesn't write about the second simillimum so what does Chappell mean by this - I was being ironic.

There are sick people everywhere so I don't understand why he has chosen Africa as his outpost (although I could think of a few) - it shouldn't make any difference just as helios being in Kent or London doesn't matter.

I would much prefer that people go and treat others in the correct homeopathic manner, then it might gain even more respect rather than ridicule.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Joy
Please see my response in Italics after your comments.
Peter please see exchanges below and kindly comment.
Rgds
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joy Lucas
Sent: 21 August 2009 17:58
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] HIV AIDS treatments - Was : can homeopathy deal with engineered viruses?
Well I'm glad he uses at least a few stanzas of the Organon - but does he?

§ 100 conjecture is written about and that all epidemics will differ vastly from all others - so how can one substance be for all (I am not calling them remedies because I don't think they are)
§ 100

In investigating the totality of the symptoms of epidemic and sporadic diseases it is quite immaterial whether or not something similar has ever appeared in the world before under the same or any other name. The novelty or peculiarity of a disease of that kind makes no difference either in the mode of examining or of treating it, as the physician must any way regard to pure picture of every prevailing disease as if it were something new and unknown, and investigate it thoroughly for itself, if he desire to practice medicine in a real and radical manner, never substituting conjecture for actual observation, never taking for granted that the case of disease before him is already wholly or partially known, but always carefully examining it in all its phases; and this mode of procedure is all the more requisite in such cases, as a careful examination will show that every prevailing disease is in many respects a phenomenon of a unique character, differing vastly from all previous epidemics, to which certain names have been falsely applied - with the exception of those epidemics resulting from a contagious principle that always remains the same, such as smallpox, measles, etc.

So if the contagious principle remains the HIV, its symptoms will be the same.
Peter has studied these for long!

§ 101 is a continuation from that, emphasising examination for details, from as many case as possible for each epidemic - he might claim that but how can we know, where is the evidence .
This is has done also!

I have no idea what you mean by 'designed for a particular syndrome'. The lack of a need for proving is completely non homeopathic and very anatagonistic towards Hahnenmann's work. Outside of homeopathy the science might actually be interesting - engineering the whole materia medica of a particular epidemic into a single pill (hence no need for a proving) although we need to have that explained to us not kept secret and then we can assess if it is indeed homeopathic or not other wise we might as well say allopathy is homeopathic.
This is the whole basis of the PC remedies:
The symptoms of each 'disease' eg HIV/AIDS are listed and then some how converted to an electromagnetic signal. This is then converted in to a remedy (ala Magnetic poles).

Most of the § mentioned pertain to acute diseases as § 103 writes about the different approach in chronic disease.

It is irrelevant whether or not he makes money out of this. the cases are not exactly pouring in of cure and even those that mention >> could be palliation no more than placebo.

You mentioned in another post that these rx are useful when cases are difficult and a simillimum hasn't been found but my point would be that why adopt this third rate use of a substance, they either work or they don't and if they do then we need no other rx. The science has to be upheld and if the process works for one substance, one diseased state then the others must as well. But the science doesn't hold up at all and in fact § 104 completely outcasts what he is doing or saying he is doing.
Science has a changing face! I have copies this to Peter - hopefully he will pen an answer.

I know Hahenamnn doesn't write about the second simillimum so what does Chappell mean by this - I was being ironic. [Excuse me for being autistic ]

There are sick people everywhere so I don't understand why he has chosen Africa as his outpost (although I could think of a few) - it shouldn't make any difference just as helios being in Kent or London doesn't matter.

I would much prefer that people go and treat others in the correct homeopathic manner, then it might gain even more respect rather than ridicule.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
So let's do a time warp back to § 3 - how does that fit with the PC rx and § 26 (which obviously numerically carries on from 24 "... medicines, whose pathogenetic effects ar known from having been tested in healthy individuals) - so the cure being written about in § 26 pertains to proven rx and § 3 being about perceiving what is to be cured vis knowledge of medicinal powers. None of that is not possible with PC rx.

Where does H write about the second simillimum? Where are the provings for these rx. Is it sufficient for homeopathy to rely on unreliable reports of >> with PC rx? The quackbusters have a lot of fun with him. There is no need for secrecy, it just brings cynicism. But going by your thoughts on these rx you should be using them all the time, there is no need for other rx or instruction from Hahnemann. Clinical provings are now to take the place of a traditional Hahnemannian proving? Reckless. And the social view of Homeopathy can only be damaged by notions of using substances that are so secretive, to say nothing of his so called 'belief remedies' - there used to be one called 'joined up thinking'!

Joy

.

[Joy Lucas]

Contagion is contagion is contagion - it either happens or it doesn't. We have already seen that Hahnemann writes about conceptual contagion in § 11 but it is down to susceptibility as to whether or not sx develop. The whole point about § 100 is that 'every prevailing disease ..... is unique, differing vastly from other epidemics' which makes the notion that one substance for many diseases is a nonsense (unless of course the sx fit but that doesn't come into the discussion it seems here).

The rest I'll answer next week as I am away for the weekend. Got some serious cricket to watch )

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
________________________________