Minutus

No, it is homeopathic long before that. It begins the homeopathic qualification when it has been chosen as a substance to potentise and then proved for sx similarity - once it is in that protocol it can be considered homeopathic because it is going through the homeopathic principle.

Curative is never enough - the allopaths claim many drugs to be curative, many procedures to be curative but this doesn't make them homeopathic.

We have just has a stanza from the Organon warning about 'unknown' remedies and if anything fits this bill then the so called PC rx do.

We have been over this many times before.

Joy

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

Dear Soroush,
I am sorry to once again disagree with you, but....
Peter Chapell needs to first tell us what the remedy is.
Second do provings and third allow the homeopathic community to review his remedies and provings. Until that happens, I would not consider these to be "homeopathic" remedies.
We discussed his AIDS remedy ad nauseam a few years back. I even contacted him privately and never got an answer as to what this remedy is, or where were the provings.
Magda Aguila
Aquiline LLC
Animal Nutrition and
Homeopathic Consultations
www.aquilinedanes.com
________________________________

Peter Chappell News
Resonance Healing for a New Era
Dear Friend,
We are currently updating the site www.healingdownloads.com which will include a drastic reduction in the range of downloads available.

The renovated site will provide Acute Illness, Epidemic Diseases, First Aid, Fear and Tonic downloads only, all with new sounds.
If you would like any of the downloads for Trauma, Chronic Diseases, Fat, Toxins, Sexual Issues, Nervous Reactions, Fixed Patterns of Behaviour, African Epidemic Diseases, Chronic Children's Health, Minor Adult Health Issues, or the Aging Downloads then now is the time to get them.
From Sept 1st 2009 they will no longer be available.
This is for a number of reasons including;

* The deleted items are mostly available on vitalremedies.com
* We would like to offer downloads that are obviously for self help. It is not that the other downloads do not work, it is that they more often than not need to be used in conjunction with skilled helpers.
* There are legal issues that are restrictive.
* The present site stretches disbelief too far.

We will be happy to hear your responses.
Kindly,
Peter Chappell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support Our Work in Africa
You can donate online or through the Homeopathy Action Trust (HAT) to the Amma Resonance Healing Foundation (ARHF) http://www.arhf.nl/donate.php
Forward email

This email was sent to hrandco@bezeqint.net by news@healingdownloads.com .
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe T | Privacy Policy .
Email Marketing by

Peter Chappell | PO Box 5 | Celadna | 739 12 | Czech Republic

Here is a reply from Peter Chappell.

If you cannot open the attachment, please send an email to
finrod@finrod.co.uk

Soroush, Many Thank yous for conversing with Peter,
He answered some questions and not some others. But it is a start! I will again explore the website. We absolutely must know what the rx is and how it is manufactured.
His claims comparing his business model to his examples is a bit off the mark though. Hahnemann researched and experimented and then put forward his hypothesis. Many many researchers have followed in his footsteps. And some have suffered financial constraint but certainly not death and 99% suffered nothing at all. If Peter is indicating that he can not disclose his trade secrets for financial reasons, this does nothing to further the objective interrogation of his discoveries. We are talking about something far more important than Coke.
Although I will be the first to admit that I fully understand his predicament.
And pass my thanks along to Peter for engaging!

Peace and prosperity, Rik

PS: Soroush, I just smashed my finger with a hammer to "cure" my headache....Curative? Yes......Homeopathic no.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, wrote:

Soroush, you're going at this backwards. It's completely irrelevant whether we know something else that cures! Are you about to claim that any cure must be homoeopathic?!

In any case, as it happens, there are of course other methods that cure. One of them is chiropractic. A practitioner long ago told me that chiropractors use Hering's Law to gauge response to chiropractic treatment. Another is T.C.M. Even its herbal remedies operate on a different principle, yet they apparently stimulate a curative effect. Acupuncture clearly is not administration of a substance (unless you want to define "substance" in some extraordinary way) -- and not, in any case, of anything that causes similar symptoms -- and yet is capable of complete cure. And there are undoubtedly other methods. But knowing or not knowing them is beside the point. The point is that homoeopathicity is not defined by cure. I'm truly amazed that you'd even consider such a notion as having any merit. If you wouldn't define sexual consent by the fact of pregnancy, why would you think of defining homoeopathicity by the fact of cure? It's a nonsense, and I'm sure you can't be unaware of that. These games don't help readers to grasp homoeopathy's simple essence.

Cheers --

John
2009/7/21 >
________________________________
________________________________

Peter,

There is nothing, so far as I'm concerned, to prevent you from inventing a new medical system every bit as good as Traditional Chinese Medicine (which cures using allopathic herbal remedies and cures using acupuncture -- neither method being homoeopathic) or as good as homoeopathy or even as good as Irene de Villiers's practice. And, just as many of us applaud that style of allopathy, many of us applaud yours. No value judgement was intended on any other allopathic practice.

My intent was, and remains, to clarify that no allopathically based prescription (i.e. one based on no particular relationship between known patient symptomatology and known singular pathogenesis) may also be homoeopathic (i.e. based on a very particular relationship between known patient symptomatology and known singular pathogenesis).

Thank you for confirming my clarification.

Soroush suggested that he too had made this distinction in previously stating "So is his work homeopathic? No - not as we know homeopathy" -- and by confirming that "I have no information on [PC1's] proving. I do not think there is any". So he had. At the same time, he did, I believe, fall into the classic trap -- the one that Hahnemann's scientific methods rescued us from -- of reasoning from a perceived "cure" to perceived medical indications for a medicine.

It was this trap, in which western medicine had been mired from antiquity, that Hahnemann stepped out of by testing on himself Peruvian bark.

Recognising the utter invalidity of this backward reasoning, Hahnemann followed a forward-reasoning process, from facts to application to results to interpretation, and established -- scientifically, falsifiably, and reproducibly -- the consistency of the curative relationship between natural illnesses and medicinal ones that he generalised as Similia similibus curantur.

Without the insight that a remedy's indications come from its pathogenesis and not vice versa, there is no homoeopathy; and no indications that derive from clinical use can be said to be homoeopathic ones.

If you'd like to see the classic modern case of this, please refer to the Minutus conversation between Shannon, Hahnemannian2002, and me (subject line: "Re: The combos conversation") of 1 to 2 June 2007 on the "homoeopathic" use of penicillin in ear suppuration -- in a nutshell, backward reasoning such as Soroush has suggested may validate your mysterious medicines as "homoeopathic" to the patient "cured" by them also results very readily in the conclusion that penicillin is homoeopathic to ear suppurations. In fact, such fallacious interpretation of the "good" results of medical treatment as showing the proper indications for a medicine is exactly what had to be destroyed in order to take the step forward that Hahnemann did in conducting the first proving.

Thanks, by the way, for the invitation to read your book. If my reasoning is fallacious, however, then it must be either because its premises don't hold up or because its logic is faulty, and I'm sure you can set me straight in less than the length of a book. You say that your remedies are not mixtures. But if you use the same terminology as Soroush has lately adopted, then that statement means exactly nothing, as there are no mixtures that Soroush now regards as anything but "one single, simple medicinal substance". So I don't know what you mean by denying that your remedies are mixtures. Do you mean that they are potencies of a single, simple medicinal substance? Your candour regarding the allopathic basis of their prescription, though, is very refreshing, and you have my heartfelt thanks for that. As I say, there is no judgement intended upon allopathy in this effort that we make here to discern what is homoeopathy and what is not; it is simply a matter of keeping the concept clear despite many efforts to turn it into one form or another of allopathy.

Kind regards,

John
2009/7/21 >