Andy responds:
((( Firstly, a miasm is *not a remedy*, of course. And I have not
forgotten what you refer to. If you mean that a nosode of the extant
disease analogue of a miasm is a chronic genus group remedy, then that is a
good insight, but according to Chappell, that nosode is only the poor
approximation of a group genus remedy for that disease that we have used
heretofore. Peter Chappell discusses WHY this is the case on both his
website and in the powerpoint abbreviated lecture that
has kindly been distributed by Soroush on this list.
I suggest you read both before we further discuss this matter because we are
not mutually fully informed. Thus I have to do a lot of unnecessary
writing.
(I have sent the powerpoint lecture to you privately).Others wishing this file can contact me privately at andyh@mcn.org. The
website is also very informative, and contains the codes for ordering
remedies.
The nosode of a disease, unless made from strains of the disease expanded
temporally and spatially over the history of the disease's existence, is
inadequate compared to a true group simillimum from a concatenation of cases
(Hahnemann's genus simillimum for the DISEASE, which is a GROUP SIMILLIMUM,
not an individual simillimum). Even the multi-strain nosode is undoubtedly
inferior to the remedy engineered from a large database of cases of
individual susceptibility to that disease added together, which becomes the
perfect catalogue of group susceptibility‹and with enough cases from around
the world---current human susceptibility.
We know from study of the efficacy of prophylaxis in acute epidemics that
the isopathic nosode is often one of the first lines of defense--for a
priori homeopathic immunization, before the genus epidemicus is known from
the early cases of the epidemic. But, according to Andre Saine, the nosode
is not 100% protective, while the genus epidemicus, a more precise
representation of the real-time local group susceptibility, is under
conditions of unsuppressed population and perfect compliance, 100%
protective, according to Saine's research. Therefore the group remedy is a
more accurate mimic of the susceptibility than the nosode. If the nosode is
of the real-time strain of the epidemic, then that may increase its efficacy
in prophylaxis. BUT--it also should be mentioned that the isode is not
automatically useful for treatment of those already having succumbed to an
epidemic, while the genus epidemicus, according to Saine, is both 100%
effective as treatment AND prophylaxis. So the nosode can be inferred to be
an inferior stand-in for the genus remedy for the disease in an acute
epidemic. Thus we can expect the same for its efficacy in chronic disease,
and we can expect MORE from a remedy precisely engineered from the results
of the concatenation of cases that make up the Hahnemannian symptomology of
the chronic diseasse. The Chappell Genus pandemicus inveteratus, if you
will--will be the most accurate simillimum for the named chronic disease
ever devised.
So from the data about the genus epidemicus, we can extrapolate the
effectiveness of a genus remedy for the chronic disease that is synthesized
from a database compiled using the same methodology--and expect very high
effectiveness, theoretically 100%.
Expanded to the nth degree of case data input in geographic extent and
timespan, Chappell's chronic genus remedy becomes a complete description of
HUMAN susceptibility to a morbific influence (even one not explicitly
infectious). Chappell has figured out how to engineer an absolute
simillimum remedy for a named disease. Period. If this seems like
hyperbole to any homeopath reading this, then one needs to learn what the
group simillimum is, the history of it, its efficacy, and then visit
Chappell's website, order some of the remedies and start experimenting with
these remedies with clients, and see for yourself.
Piet wrote:
((( I find this to be incorrect, depending on one's terminology. Hahnemann
developed two types of simillimum--the individual and the group. We have
(apparently) been so thoroughly brainwashed by our own definitions that we
forget the group totality simillimum. In one sense, you could say that
these two types of simillimum are really the same, just on a different scale
(INDIVIDUAL SIMILLIMUM--one human susceptibility versus: GROUP
SIMILLIMUM--susceptibility of an epidemic cohort; or, with enough cases
summed together--the susceptibility of the whole population of the world to
that given disease).
The individual simillimum is for an individual, and the group simillimum is
for a DISEASE, by which one remedy treats all sufferers of the cohort.
This makes them distinct entities. Chappell is correct, there are two types
of simillimum, and both were developed by Hahnemann.
Understanding what a group simillimum represents is essential to
understanding the profound significance of what Chappell has done. Without
the reader understanding the distinction between the individual simillimum
and the group simillimum, the promise of the remedies that Chappell has
developed will elude. The Chappell engineered remedy for a chronic disease,
which I will call the Genus pandemicus inveteratus, can impact human health
on an epidemiological scale, both in:
*mass treatment scenarios dispensed by homeopaths or non-homeopaths in a
case of a fatal, maiming, or otherwise severe epidemic or pandemic
*any homeopathi c practice with individual clients in a stubborn case of,
for example, Multiple Sclerosis for which the individual simillimum that has
been able to have been found is proving only partially effective or does not
touch the organic disease at all. We are used to not curing MS or only
improving it only somewhat. Read the case of Parkinson's from later in this
post. See if that interests you as a healer.
Chappell's rx is the remedy for all sufferers of the extant CHRONIC pandemic
in the mass treatment scenario ; and replaces the intercurrent nosode in the
individual case in a classical practice. Being able to find a Genus
pandemicus inveteratus (GPI) allows treatment of potentially millions in
the situation of fatal and incurable diseases without taking the full
individual case. This extends the power of healing by similars to the
masses as it has never been available before because of:
… *lack of sufficient numbers of excellent practioners
… *the time inefficiency, difficulty, cost, and nonuniformity of result of
case-by-case treatment by the individual simillimum only
… *the nonexistence heretofore of a remedy for chronic named diseases .
Instructions to proctor a case under treatment only with any Group
simillimum‹chronic or acute-- become simple enough for non-homeopathic
health professionals to administrate until the life threat has been removed
or the case resolved. Of course, proctor and followups with a qualified
homeopath would be optimal and desired where possible, even if the full
workup for an individual simillimum is not done.
People without the money or interest in individualized homeopathy; or access
to a qualified homeopath because there are simply not enough well-trained
homeopaths in existence to treat but a small fraction of the world
population--can now avail themselves of law of similars healing. This
becomes possible via using the group simillimum developed by Hahnemann
and--- extended from epidemic to endemic/pandemic/chronic disease capability
through Chappell's insight; and Chappell¹s technology for producing a
remedy precisely engineered using the data from concatenated individual
cases of almost any named chronic disease.
Chappell's remedies are remedies for the named disease in an absolute sense,
because to the extent possible, the spectrum of human symptom response
(susceptibility) has been engineered into the remedy by using the
Hahnemannian concatenation of individual cases across geographical location
and time.
This is a remarkable development in homeopathy and rests squarely on
Hahnemann¹s shoulders and is not possible without the historical data on
the group simillimum. If one understands this and Chappell's material, then
it will become clear the significance of Chappell's extension of the scope
of Hahnemann's group anamnesis from acute to chronic disease. It will also
become clear the significance of his development of a technology which can
synthesize a remedy from that data---a remedy which likely has no analogue
as a potentizable substance in nature.
There are clearly two types of simillimum:
1. For the individual economy.
--if you like the overarching definition, then it means the Paschero-type
"life remedy" assuming stability of the symptom picture--and the totality
that is both central and addresses the diseases involved, if such a remedy
exists in the materia medica
--if you like the "simillimum of the time" definition, then it is the next
totality that needs to be cured, the totality that can be perceived at the
time in any individual case
2. For the group DISEASE.
Everytime we treat an epidemic with a local genus epidemicus, then we prove
that this separate type of Hahnemannian simillimum exists. It is not for
the individual or a malady dependent on the economy of an individual. It is
a disease dependent on the economy of a group--a region (epidemic or
endemic) or the entire world (pandemic or endemic--Chappell type remedy).
Hahnemann and homeopaths for approximately 180 plus years have used the
group simillimum for ACUTE epidemics to treat and protect a whole population
of people simultaneously with the SAME REMEDY from a NAMED DISEASE.
Now, Chappell has made it possible to treat any human being with an
unsuppressed immune system having a CHRONIC named disease with one remedy
engineered from the sum data of concetenated cases of that disease.
The group totality is a remedy totality which addresses not a semiological
entity within an individual, but a disease entity which has a clinical
definition. Ultimately, as you say Piet, on a world scale this brings us in
proximity to the concept of the miasm itself (not in a relative sense, but
an absolute sense). The one-strain nosode is to date our best approximation
of the miasm itself and its extant named disease analogue or analogues. But
Hahnemann's group totality genus remedy is a better approximation of the
spectrum of human susceptibility to the morbific influence which is behind
any chronic disease, likely even better than a multi-strain nosode. And
Chappell developed a technology to synthesize a remedy from a list of
symptoms which comes out of such an sum of concatenated cases.
======
Both these types of simillimum (individual, and group) utilize Hahnemann's
language of semiology to define any entity perceived as morbific and thus
desirable to remove.
1. BUT the first is only for the INDIVIDUAL economy:
*individual psychosomatic totality (center of the functional
case--ideogenic/core delusion/metaphor),
*iatrogenic totality,
*lesional organic disease totality,
*traumatic totality,
*acute infectious totality,
*organ/meridianal totality
or WHATEVER totality begs to be cured FIRST and next.
There are many functional cases in which the whole case is covered by one
remedy--this is often typical in cases where the organic disease has not
overwhelmed the normal functional vital economy. This type of individual
case is uncomplicated. Our bias as homeopaths is toward this type of case
because most patients use the crutch of antibiotic and allopathic
suppressive "quick fix" medicine; or surgery or the like before they go to a
homeopath. And when we cannot fully cure a case of organic disease we throw
up our hands and say "this is the best that homeopathy can do² (and it is
still better than any other medical modality). We have been overinfluenced
by Kentian psychosomatic philosophy that suggests that the characteristic
psychosomatic totality is ALL THERE IS to a case. If a functionally
patterned system becomes overwhelmed by organic pathology, we are not very
good on aggregate at finding a lesional remedy separate from that functional
totality. But many cases require what you (Piet) would call a "partial
similar"; or "layer remedy" or "lesional remedy" first.
These lesional remedies have been used by:
*Dr. Parimal Banerji of Calcutta, who has the largest statistical database
of lesional remedies that exists in the history of homoeopathic medicine
*Francisco Eizayaga MD of Argentina (passed on from this life but whose
children carry on his methods)--see Disease Algorithms which are Eizayaga's
work compiled by Lynn Amara
*Dr. Ramakrishnan
*practitioners in clinics in India and elsewhere which treat all disease
elsewhere untreatable or unsatisfactorily treated with surgery or
suppression ---(notables are for example Farokh Master, but there are many,
many other famous and not famous practitioners who use "lesional" totalities
routinely that do NOT depend on the psychosomatic totality (Kentian remedy
for the "patient"))‹but are complementary and cardinal to the succedent
remedy for the the larger psychosomatic totality.
The above methods in lesional prescribing are very important. But
Chappell is telling us and offering to us the means to extend homeopathy
FURTHER, and obtain more uniform and less laboriously obtained results using
a truly precision lesional remedy for the named chronic disease.
2. This second type of simillimum is for an expanded totality, a GROUP. On
a regional scale, it is the remedy for the *regional susceptibility* to a
named disease. It is NOT a remedy for for an individual susceptibility or
individual response to a morbific influence--but a larger living entity---a
human community. On a global scale, with enough cases available, it becomes
a remedy for the DISEASE in an absolute clinical sense--the NAMED DISEASE
which exists anywhere on the planet and which is a remedy for any HUMAN with
that disease regardless of who they are as a personality and regardless of
what their individual simillimum is.
This is a distinct type of simillimum--and depends on a clinical entity
definition only because that is how human medicine has categorized that
disease. For example, AIDS has a definition. Diptheria has a definition.
Hahnemannian semiology gives a thorough and complete definition of each
chronic disease when we concatenate a sufficient number of cases on a
regional/temporal or global/pandemic scale. The Hahnemannian definition can
be made into a remedy via Chappell's technology--a remedy that does not
exist accessibly in nature but only can be engineered. Theoretically,
because we know that the genus epidemicus is virtually infallible, the
remedy obtained by such a method and synthesize by Chappell's pharmaceutical
technology for:
AIDS
Bilharzia
Bubonic Plague
Cancer
Candida
Chronic Fatigue (CFS,ME)
Chlamydia
Cystitis (Interstitial)
Herpes (type 1 and 2)
Influenza
Leprosy
Lyme Disease
Malaria
Rabies
Parasitic Worms
Tuberculosis
and so on will also be infallible or nearly so--in undrugged, unsupressed
populations. Those cases whose iatrogenic damage can be remediated through
individual treatment should be able to regain the ability to respond
accordingly.
In fact, it also appears that Chappell is devising remedies for chronic
diseases that are not really considered by modern medicine to be infectious;
and symptoms of iatrogenesis and trauma, such as:
Burn
Shock
Alcoholism
Alzheimers
Arteriosclerosis
Arthritis
Autism
Acne (cystic, nodular)
Bilharzia
Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome (CPRS)
Congenital Heart Defects
Cortisone (iatrogenic)
Diabetes (type 1 and 2)
Downs Syndrome
Hepatitis (all types)
Injury
Leukemia
Migraine
Motor Neuron Diseases
Multiple Sclerosis
Myopathies
Old Age
Osteoporosis
Parkinsons
Penicillin (iatrogenic)
Psoriasis
Rheumatoid arthritis
This may mean that many chronic conditions have a previously unknown
infectious component. This may stem from their miasmatic basis for
organismal expression of the susceptibility to host particular
microorganisms which exploit that susceptibility. Or it may mean that
cataloguing the spectrum of human susceptibility to any given disease merely
elucidates its miasmatic roots, and shows that the Genus pandemicus
inveteratus is really a remedy for the specific miasmatic complex of that
disease.
If these latter remedies for allegedly non-infectious chronic diseases work
as well as the ones for obviously infectious ones, then classical homeopaths
will definitely have to deprogram their notions that only the individual
simillimum is applicable and nonsuppressive in treating chronic disease
successfully and optimally. The group chronic simillimum may well be
complementary and allow precision lesional treatment of systemic endogenous,
local, infectious, psychiatric, traumatic, and iatrogenic disease to exist
alongside individualized treatment and its functional, pyschological, and
lesional components. Altogether, this development, along with further
development of reliable objective confirmatory systems, should IMO move
homeopathy further along as a more reliable, complete, efficient and
uniformly successful system of medicinal therapeutics.
It is important to recognize that the Group simillimum DOES NOT appear to
supplant or replace the Individual simillimum, but probably COMPLEMENTS IT.
The group chronic simillimum of Chappell appears to be a truly lesional
remedy and an accurate one for the named disease--ANY human sufferer of that
named disease.
Why do I say that Chappell's remedies will be infallible or nearly so (in
unsuppressed cases? Because under the best undrugged conditions (rural
United States 1830-1930) we have data from the homeopathic literature that
says the genus epidemicus remedy (one remedy given to all sufferers in an
epidemic cohort) is almost INFALLIBLE in smallpox, cholera, yellow fever,
and other highly communicable and fatal or maiming acute diseases.
Chappell's Genus pandemicus inveteratus remedies use the exact same
methodology as did Hahnemann and the Hahnemannian homeopaths to collect the
data on group susceptibility. Those Hahnemannian homeopaths treated many
deadly epidemics between 1830 (arrival of Hering in US) and 1930 (onset of
use of suppressive antibiotics) with a Genus epidemicus used a selected
remedy from the materia medica of proved and clinically verified remedies.
Indeed, it was that success that really put homeopathy on the map in the
first place with the public in the young new United States, particularly in
the Yellow Fever epidemic in the 1870s. Chappell engineers his remedies,
because there is likely no natural analog for the symptom list that comes
out of the sum data of cases of any given chronic disease. If there is such
a genus pandemicus inveterata in nature, it might take years or decades to
find it. Chappell's pharmaceutical technology allows it to be synthesized
from scratch without having to potentize a substance.
The genus epidemicus, based on stats from homeopathic periodical literature
obtained by Andre Saine, ND; and, for example, the "Logic of Figures" (by if
memory serves, Bradford); a book on homeopathic efficacy in epidemics--is a
simillimum for named disease with nearly 100% success rate of treatment of
those with symptoms; and nearly 100% success rate in protection of those yet
afficted.
This level of success is possible in non-suppressed populations. Chappell
points out his experience so far (2 years) indicates that these remedies
work best on those rarely or never treated with allopathy. Chappell's Genus
pandemicus inveteratus remedies should work just as well for a chronic
pandemic as the genus epidemicus remedy has proven efficacious in numerous
historical epidemics for treatment and prophylaxis such as:
POLIO:
Lathyrus sativus is often the genus epidemicus for Polio:
Polio-Taylor Smith and Johannes Borg-1850-they immunized 82 people in an
epidemic area with Lathyrus sativa 30C every 16 days. 12 of the 82 were
part of a family, and in direct contact with family members. NO polio cases
occurred in the population of 82.
Dr. John Bastyr-1953, 56, and 57 was involved in Polio epidemics, and had NO
polio cases in over 5000 patients. Chickens are susceptible to polio.
Bastyr would know polio was in the are from watching the chickens. In the
1950's he would give Lathyrus 200C, 3 doses the first year, 8 months later a
booster of Lathyrus 1M, and 1 year after that another booster of 10M.
1957 polio epidemic- Chicago and San Francisco, 300 children were on
Lathyrus without ANY cases of Polio, whereas many children on the Salk
vaccine contracted the disease.
A.H. Grimmer gave Lathyrus "vaccinations"in 5000 cases, with 100%
protection. Grimmer recommended:
-Lathyrus 30C once a month for 3 months for kids 1-3 years old
-2 months later, Lathyrus 200C every other month for 2 doses
-then Lathyrus 1M 2 months later
-then Lathyrus 70M twice a year for 5 years
I have in previous posts cited results in smallpox, yellow fever, etc. from
the research of Andre Saine, ND of the homeopathic periodic literature from
hahnemannian homeopaths who used the Genus epidemicus. The group simillimum
is almost infallible against a named epidemic disease. This portends that
Chappell's breakthrough will produce similar results in unsuppressed
populations with CHRONIC DISEASES.
Breakthrough? I suspect the average homeopath reading this does not yet
have the "aha!" certainty about this, because most of us were never taught
the profundity of the group totality before and took it for granted. When
we contributed cases to the finding of ---or used--- the Genus epidemicus
together with colleagues in a local epidemic (if we have even done this
much); then we did not really realize what we were doing‹using a simillimum
for a NAMED DISEASE.
It is a distinct type of simillimum. Increasing the number, timespan, and
geographical extent of cases used to characterize the optimal Chappell
engineered remedy for a given named disease push it asymptotically toward
the absolute human simillimum for the named disease. Not just the remedy
for ephemeral eruptions of a disease as in the past 180 or so years since
Hahnemann invented the group remedy---but a remedy for a chronic organic
disease like cancer, MS, Alzheimers, etc.
Revolutionary in homeopathy? Certainly. Will understanding the
homeopathicity of this type of simillimum take lots of unprejudiced
deprogramming of our own bias that homeopathy is only about the individual
simillimum? Yes. But I can tell you that I consider this development by
Chappell (which includes an extension of Hahnemann both in theory and
pharmaceutical technology)--to be a major medical advance. I can say this
because we have data over 180 years on the supreme efficacy for the genus
epidemicus (acute disease group remedy) in hand already.
And Chappell's Genus pandemicus inveteratus for any chronic disease uses
THE SAME METHOD to gather its data. In order to make an otherwise
unavailable remedy possible, he has invented a technology to transfer a list
of symptoms into an electromagnetic signature and imprint it on a remedy.
This is a breakthrough, altogether, of Nobel Prize proportion. If we do not
get on this quickly and champion and USE it, we endanger it, for the forces
which wish to keep selling the world suppressive medication will eventually
recognize it as a threat--to profit. I recommend that you obtain a few of
the remedies and try them with applicable clients. When satisfied, then get
a lifetime supply of everything Chappell puts out. Remember, these remedies
are unique and not available in nature--they are engineered.
Not only will these remedies prove efficacious in treating named diseases,
but they will provide precise and harmless prophylactics as well when severe
infectious disease enters a region or local endemic disease (eg Lyme
Disease) exists. Any new epidemic (e.g superflu) or even genetically
engineereed disease can be characterized by early cases according to the
concatenated cases just as Hahnemannian homeopaths have been doing for 180
years. The difference is, now the genus epidemicus can be engineered and
made available as soon as the data has been compiled.
Piet wrote:
The factors that contribute to the simillimum can be different according to
Aph 5. Hahnemann's mentions causation, miasms, individuality etc. They al
contribute to what the simillimum will be like.
((( This is common to any individual OR group situation. We reach the group
remedy by combining individual cases. When the group is afflicted by the
same malady, our catalogue of all the individual semiology becomes the basis
for the optimal genus remedy which (in ideal one-stage epidemic) will both
treat and protect 100% of the cohort. When the group of individual cases is
expanded geographically to the world, and expanded temporally to include the
discernible history of the named disease itself, then we are no longer
dealing with just a genus epidemicus,(a remedy for a local and ephemeral
eruption of a disease strain) but a Genus pandemicus inveteratus -- a remedy
for the named pandemic or endemic chronic or acute disease entity itself.
This is the genius of Chappell's work, and is why:
--Chappell's chronic group remedies work
--Chappell's remedies are absolutely grounded in Hahnemannian classical
theory going back nearly to the beginning
--Chappells remedies are HOMEOPATHY, not some variant which people should be
wary of because we have been programmed that the individual simillimum is
all that exists.
Piet wrote:
This simillimum is the total change, the deviation from the healthy
individual.
To find the simillimum, draw a line from the chief complaint to the centre
of the person and find the remedy similar to this state. This remedy will
cover all symptoms.
((( In a simple functional case, yes. But in a case in which organic
pathology has overwhelmed the vital force, no. See the example of the
Parkinson¹s case of Harry van der Zee below.
Piet wrote:
But a partial remedy will not cover all symptoms, so when 'simillimum 1' is
still indicated, but is not curative for a certain group of disease
symptoms, this proves we are dealing with a partial remedy.
((( Right. In an individual case when we are remediating individual
susceptibility using a list of symptoms from one individual, then we often
must use what in your definition is a partial similar to deal with the
(dreaded J) layer of lesion or perhaps truly psychosomatic layer that
embodies the chief complaint to be cured, which may be a severe and
inexorable chronic disease like M.S. ---prior to addressing the functional
totality of the case.
If there does exist an overarching supreme simillimum which will remediate
the entire functional and lesional case, then we have no need of a lesional
remedy, and this is the simplest type of case, although there are few with
the materia medica acumen that can attain this simillimum with uniform
result greater than approximately 50% in a volume practice. In my opinion
and that of Edward Whitmont, only by widespread incorporation of a reliable
and convenient objective confirmatory system in most homeopathic practices
(example biolumanetic photography) will homeopathy become a true system of
medicine that people can stake their lives on. I now add that only with the
success of the innovations by Chappell will medical regulators, insurance
companies, and epidemiologists finally condone homeopathy as reliable; and
more that just the intelligentsia will have patience for it and be willing
to pay for it as their stand-by and regular system of therapeutics.
Piet wrote:
Most likely this remedy is similar on the level of only one miasm i.e psora,
but the state indicates i.e. a psora-syphilic remedy.
When after the prescription of the correct simillimum it ceases to act and
there are still symptoms left, it better to try to find a complementairy
remedy to the first one, which will continue what you started, because the
state as a result of the treatment has changed. This is better then a
PCsimillimum 2.
((( Can you substantiate your statement that it is better? It may be in
some cases, and one may be able to completely restore a case of cancer, ms,
alzheimers, parkinsons, chronic fatigue, or the like with an individual
simillimum or complement, or miasmatic remedy only. BUT--what if one
cannot? Will one ignore a group simillimum remedy because one does not, out
of prejudice, know what it represents? I am writing this in order to
attempt to prevent that result, as we have been given a new gift and it is
now time to embrace it. Why should any of us provide a fine example of
Aphorism 1 prejudice by choosing dogma over cure of the patient by another
means to the most rapid, gentle, and permanent result using the law of
similars as laid down by Hahnemann---by the group simillimum that we have
orphaned?
If fulfillment of aphorism 1 includes an innovation in homeopathic practice
which changes our view of homeopathic practice and adds a new hahnemannian
tool, then it calls on us to adapt. It is a test of our own level of
prejudice or ability to adapt with the aim of healing the sick as our
highest value. It is a test to overcome any ingrained programming about
what, heretofore, is yet an inadequate system of therapeutics which remains
on the margins of world medicine. A system which has not been ready, at
least outside of parts of India and some clinics and practices--- to throw
away the need of our clients to rely heavily on the crutch of antibiotics
and recourse to suppressive medicine.
Three cases using Chappell's remedies:
=========================
CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME
The remedy CFSPC (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) has been designed during a
meeting with homeopathic colleagues gathered by Anne Vervarcke in Leuven in
Belgium in January 2004. Based upon 60 well documented cases a totality was
developed for CFS over a three day period
After using this CFS remedy over four months this group formulated the
following conclusions:
It is clear that this result for 5 patients was excellent and far better
than any other treatment they had received over a period of up to twenty
years.
These results have lasted over 6 months now.
AGGRAVATIONS of their original symptoms from their very first day of CFS
came next day after the remedy, even those of 20 years before.
An up-to-date report after one year of experience can be read at www.ckh.be
in English.
There are twelve homeopaths now signed up to this project
========================
PARKINSONS DISEASE
The following case of ParkinsonPC is reported by Harry van der Zee (Editor
of Homeopathic Links)
ŒA male patient of 64 years old had been treated for Parkinson¹s disease
³successfully² with Plumbum, meaning that his symptoms improved and then
were stabilised. The kind of results homeopathy usually can offer.
After a year I prescribed him ParkinsonPC to see whether that could induce
further improvement.
When I saw the patient back three months later I could hardly believe my
eyes. He walked into the office normally (not his old shuffle), swinging his
arms and he had a good walking pace. His handwriting which had become
typically very small was back to normal, He can now bring a teaspoon with
the remedy to his mouth without any trembling.
In the beginning he reacted to the remedy with aggravations that made him
stop taking the next dose for a week, but after some weeks he could take it
daily.
This is a result the neurologist said he had never witnessed before.
========================
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
The following case of Multiple SclerosisPC is reported by Harry van der Zee.
ŒA 51 years old female MS patient I had been treating for fourteen years,
mainly with Cocculus, to which she responded in times of aggravations.
Despite that her symptoms slowly progressed over the years.
Three months after Multiple SclerosisPC I saw her again. Her weakness had
improved she told. The tingling that had been in her feet for years now had
disappeared almost completely. Also her walking she uses a wheelchair most
of the time had improved. For the first time in years she could walk on
low, normal shoes, and even slippers.¹
((( Piet, I realized quickly upon reading the material on
Chappell's website what his innovations and results mean--only because I was
taught by Andre Saine in 1988 what the genus epidemicus simillimum truly is
and that it is a different type of simillimum for both nearly infallible
treatment AND prophylaxis for all members of a cohort facing the same
morbific influence. What Chappell has done is expand the capability of that
second type of Hahnemannian simillimum to potentially all humans facing that
same named CHRONIC disease. We are into a new era and groundbreaking
improvement in homeopathy using the Hahnemannian group simillimum expanded
to its full potential, along with the individual simillimum on which we have
focussed and which retains its importance.
There truly are two types of simillimum, and they do not interfere with each
other, but probably fully complement each other. Simillimum 2 replaces the
intercurrent nosode, in one sense. It is an engineered ³hypernosode² based
on Hahnemannian genus remedy theory, and it WORKS WELL. Moreover, it can
expand the impact of homeopathy beyond just case-by-case---- to
epidemiological scale not just for acute diseases, but for chronic. This is
groundbreaking, and its importance to sick people and medicine in my opinion
is likely to be remarkable, to say the least.
Chappell's rx are currently available from two pharmacies. See his website
vitalremedies.com for order code info and overview that goes into more depth
than I have here. Please use these remedies. From Helios, available for 20
pounds each (not cheap) in either 35 dose bottles of lactose or 15 ml
liquid.
All the best to all,
Andy
PS‹I have used in this post the term Genus pandemicus inveteratus to
distinguish the Chappell genre of chronic remedy from the Genus epidemicus
acute remedy. The new term is not a term necessarily condoned by Peter
Chappell for his remedies, only one used here for the purpose of
distinction.
PPS-(Here is a definition of miasm that comes apparently from Rajan Sankaran
courtesy of ; and is a definition which readers might
find of use):
"Miasms are, in the most abstract Hahnemanian sense, tendencies in which
matter (the physical material sheath of beings) degrades and is eventually
destroyed within the parameters of time and space. From this point of view,
miasms are dynamic energy forces that inform the organism of the pace, mode
and depth of its own destruction process. As deep ancient forces, miasms
are not only contagious, but also hereditary and therefore 'coexistent with
the life force' from birth, or better, conception. They inform the entire
system of a being: the physical body, the mind, the emotions, the
sensations, the spirit. They lay down the ground for the landscape of
susceptibility of a particular individual; they mark down the fertile paths
down which that being will attract and contract certain maladies and mandate
the pace and modalities in which they will progress...." --Rajan Sankaran
==========
References
Chappell, Peter, FSHom. Powerpoint presentation, England, January 31, 2005
(courtesy of Soroush Ebrahimi RSHom. )
Chappell, Peter, FSHom.
Website:
Contact:
Saine, Andre, ND, Pacific Academy of Homeopathy, Seminar in Berkeley,
California, December, 1988
