SPECIFICS - PC Remedies
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:34 pm
Our discussion of Miasms / Chronic Disease led us to PC remedies.
Joy then said
"This is wooly thinking and anti hahnemannian surely - if we go for
specifics for every named disease then we can throw out a large percentage
of our materia medica."
A thought that comes to mind is that if we go around on a horse and a boggy
and some one has a vision of a car that can takes us around faster and in
more comfort, do we reject it because of the question of what shall we do
with our horses and all the fantastic carts we have already?
And Joy, on SPECIFICS you would know better than any one else that Hn used
specifics himself
From Peter again "Hahnemann did determine that Belladonna was a specific for
the smooth form of Scarlatina in 1799.
Hering attempted to engineer remedies for diseases--relying on small clues
from herbal uses, poisonings, and serendipity to identify substances to
employ and prove. Examples of Hering’s work are Sarracenia purpurea and Kali
cyanatum for Smallpox. After proving Sarracenia, Hering stated his
confidence that it would likely be a remedy for smallpox. Hering introduced
Kali cyanatum because workers in Philadelphia metal plating plants that used
potassium cyanide did not suffer from smallpox. Kali cyanatum is an
effective a smallpox prophylactic even in crude form. Hering and his
son-in-law Calvin Knerr ordered the powder sprinkled on the bedclothes of
patients to protect the physician and others in the household or hospital."
Please see Peter's ideas below based on extension of Hn's thoughts. Perhaps
Joy would kindly advise which parts are WOOLLY and why.
ALL OF BELOW IS FROM
http://www.vitalremedies.com/faqs/index ... at=32#a105 where
Peter uses sections of Organon and adds his comments after (((.
Rgds
Soroush
§ 101
It may easily happen that in the first case of an epidemic disease that
presents itself to the physician’s notice he does not at once obtain a
knowledge of its complete picture, as it is only by a close observation of
several cases of every such collective disease that he can become conversant
with the totality of its signs and symptoms. The carefully observing
physician can, however, from the examination of even the first and second
patients, often arrive so nearly at a knowledge of the true state as to have
in his mind a characteristic portrait of it, and even to succeed in finding
a suitable, homœopathically adapted remedy for it.
((( 101 describes using more than one case to characterise the nature of a
disease which affects more than one person in the same way and with
identical (virulent epidemic in unsuppressed population); or similar (milder
epidemic where some individual symptoms remain) symptoms shared between
them. This is an introduction to the concept of the characterization of a
group totality—which is a departure from characterization of the patient
totality. Hahnemann used this concept to discover the common afflictions
known as miasms, though his groupings were Meta-miasms more than specific.
The groupings of these Meta-miasms allowed the finding of the antimiasmatic
classes of remedies (antipsorics, antisycotic, antisyphilitic). The group
totality method of finding the peculiars from among many sufferers of the
same outbreak saved hundreds of thousands of lives in high-mortality
epidemics 1799-1945 by finding of the remedy for the epidemic disease with
symptoms shared in common in the sufferers.
•Paragraph 102 analysis
§ 102
In the course of writing down the symptoms of several cases of this kind the
sketch of the disease picture becomes ever more and more complete, not more
spun out and verbose, but more significant (more characteristic), and
including more of the peculiarities of this collective disease; on the one
hand, the general symptoms (e.g., loss of appetite, sleeplessness, etc.)
become precisely defined as to their peculiarities; and on the other, the
more marked and special symptoms which are peculiar to but few diseases and
of rarer occurrence, at least in the same combination, become prominent and
constitute what is characteristic of this malady.1 All those affected with
the disease prevailing at a given time have certainly contracted it from one
and the same source and hence are suffering from the same disease; but the
whole extent of such an epidemic disease and the totality of its symptoms
(the knowledge whereof, which is essential for enabling us to choose the
most suitable homœopathic remedy for this array of symptoms, is obtained by
a complete survey of the morbid picture) cannot be learned from one single
patient, but is only to be perfectly deduced (abstracted) and ascertained
from the sufferings of several patients of different constitutions.
1 The physician who has already, in the first cases, been able to choose a
remedy approximating to the homœopathic specific, will, from the subsequence
cases, be enabled either to verify the suitableness of the medicine chosen,
or to discover a more appropriate, the most appropriate homœopathic remedy.
((( Hahnemann appears here to be speaking only of “acute” disease by his use
of the word“epidemic”. But chronic diseases which are endogenous and endemic
within humanity (and for which conventional biology and medicine has no
tenable explanation of true cause whatsover) arise from miasms which result
from unresolved acute diseases. This blurs the distinction between acute and
chronic and makes them part of a continuum. Our remedies do not make a
distinction between acute and chronic—only between sufficient similarity of
the artificial disease (remedy)—or insufficient similarity (failure)).
Hahnemann used the paragraph 102 method of general and peculiar symptoms of
summed cases of a group to characterise the acute disease outbreak. This was
the so-called genius epidemicus, or “unique spirit of the epidemic”. This
was also the chronic Meta-miasms of psora, syphilis, and sycosis.
A “simillimum” can be defined as a remedy for the totality of a whole
entity. The entity addressed by the patient totality remedy in an ideal
functional or “constitutional” situation is the totality of the pattern of
the individual—which is defined only by the name of the successful remedy.
But when maladies are present which are dissimilar to the remedy for the
totality of symptoms of the individual in toto, and cannot be encompassed by
a remedy from the materia medica, then we must treat those dissimilar
diseases separately. When prescribing for the individual lesionally, we must
use a remedy for a subtotality within the individual. Either the remedy
given is similar to the whole, or the whole contains several dissimilar
components that are whole in themselves, and that must each be addressed
individually.
When that sub-entity is a coherent disease with boundaries of clear
definition, then the subtotality is also addressing a whole entity. Thus it
is also a “Simillimum”—but one for the classified and named disease entity,
not the individual as a holistic entity. This second mode of simillimum was
invented by Hahnemann but not taken to its ultimate expression and
resolution.
Paragraph 102 describes the characterizing of a shared disease, not an
individual one. This is a different type of law of similars remedy--- a
remedy for a group disease of short or long time scale. If the number of
cases in the summed cohort having the same maladywas large enough, the
disease (acute or chronic) could be characterised for all sufferers not
justof a epidemic, but for all humans across time. Mutating acutes can be
generalised to the kernel which peculiarises the disease itself and not its
individual outbreaks.
Epidemics of the same mutating acute disease can be summed and their
variations tuned out to reveal what underlies the ephemeral variations. For
example, Dengue Fever acute outbreaks are still Dengue the disease pattern
of susceptibility and expression-- or they would be classified as a
different disease. Every miasmatic disease has its peculiar nature. For some
disease totalities that is easier to characterise—for others not. There is a
science to creating the totality which becomes a PC remedy—and that science
was provided by Hahnemann’s genius. But the science of creating the remedy
which precisely mimicks that artificial disease was the accomplishment of
Chappell.
The symptoms of a chronic disease do not mutate, and can be characterised by
summing chronic cases. But Hahnemann only got as far as individual acute
outbreaks and meta-miasms. It took another step to allow the resolution of
the characterization to be reflected in a remedy which was precise and
reliably reproducible. The symptoms of the disease are stable—so one stable
remedy should apply. We need not further individualise a disease which has
already been repertorised as to its pattern of peculiar symptoms—which
characterise its miasmatic base regardless of the individuality of the
patient.
Hahnemann had not the means to make a remedy for the determined symptoms
right on the spot and with reproducibility. He had only what was in his
materia medica of remedies proved from the world of substances. Chappell in
2001 invented a means to emulate a list of symptoms electromagnetically and
create a biologically active remedy which reflects an artificial disease. By
programming the device with a characterization which is as precisely similar
to the peculiar pattern of the disease as can be found—we have a remedy for
all sufferers of the same reliably diagnosed disease. The method of
comparing case pattern to materia medica pattern is unnecessary in order to
apply the PC Remedy. And makes a “proving” of the resulting remedy employed
only a proof of the efficacy of the device. This additional proof is
interesting (and PC1 for example, is one remedy undergoing a proving at
present)—but it is unnecessary when clinical results across many diseases is
already in hand.
Assuming a proving is necessary in order to use a PC remedy reveals a lack
of understanding of either homeopathy or of Chappell’s innovation. Both of
these topics are sophisticated. But it is also true that homeopathy has
become almost a religion for some who profess to be unprejudiced in the
casetaking room but are extremely prejudiced about their interpretation of
the Organon. So there are both intellectual and prejudicial boundaries that
must be cut away for practitioners to understand PC remedies. The simple
step of testing them on cases which have no other possible means for
resolution is an obvious empirical basis which requires no speculation.
•Paragraph 103 analysis
§ 103
In the same manner as has here been taught relative to the epidemic disease,
which are generally of an acute character, the miasmatic chronic
maladies,which, as I have shown, always remain the same in their essential
nature, especially the psora, must be investigated, as to the whole sphere
of their symptoms, in a much more minute manner than has ever been done
before, for in them also one patient only exhibits a portion of their
symptoms, a second, a third, and so on, present some other symptoms, which
also are but a (dissevered, as it were), portion of the totality of the
symptoms which constitute the entire extent of this malady, so that the
whole array of the symptoms belonging to such a miasmatic, chronic disease,
and especially to the psora, can only be ascertained from the observation of
very many single patients affected with such a chronic disease, and without
a complete survey and collective picture of these symptoms the medicines
capable of curing the whole malady homœopathically (to wit, the antipsorics)
cannot be discovered; and these medicines are, at the same time, the true
remedies of the several patients suffering from such chronic affections.
((( Here Hahnemann emphasises that if enough cases can be summed, then
eventually the “totality of the symptoms which constitute the entire extent
of this malady… the whole array of the symptoms belonging to such a
miasmatic, chronic disease” can be found. He and his later disciples
(Hering, members of the IHA, Hahnemannian homeopaths in Europe and India)
were able to precisely characterise high mortality acute diseases to one
remedy. But Hahnemann himself was only able to resolve nonoverwhelming acute
diseases--and chronic diseases—to the level of the Meta-miasm Psora,
Sycosis, Syphilis—and the group of remedies he called the “antipsorics” and
other singular or multimiasmatic remedies. And thus that is what we
inherited as the last word on the group totality type of law of similars
remedy.
Now, we have a way to use reliable diagnosis of a classified disease with
definite boundaries to characterise a mixed multimiasmatic entity of
otherwise unknown valence and provide a remedy for it. How? By the
technology to plug the characterization of the peculiarities of the disease
itself into a remedy which precisely reflects that nonphysical entity and
which is thus an accurate emulation of the disease itself. Instead of
looking for a remedy artificial disease analog among remedies that have been
proved or used on herbal, eclectic, or toxicological means—which is
inherently inconsistent—we can produce that analog via an electromagnetic
signal via analysis of the disease to find its peculiar pattern--and
programming and production of the remedy.
This advance in lesional prescribing does not mean that we still do not need
patient totality prescribing (!) We have to leave the finding of the
Simillimum I up to the skill of the practitioner and the serendipity of the
processes of fate which has given us our database of remedies. Determining
the similarity of a medicine for a individual is infinitely more complex
than summing cases or using a definition of a disease pattern crafted over
centuries. We must determine the individuality using all means and all
pathways— “core delusion”, sensation, particular, modality, concomitant,
organ systems affected, life themes, and so many more parameters that rely
on human perception and analysis.
With Hahnemann’s group totality method, we have in contrast an essentially
mathematical algorithm to characterise a disease. Interpretation of totality
to find peculiarity is still necessary as in any repertorization. But
essentially the mass of data is resolvable to a pattern for the disease
shared by all sufferers. We characterise the peculiarity of the disease
instead of the individual.
With Chappell’s technology, we have its even more immutable counterpart---
which allows production of a precise biologically active emulation of that
characterization. One follows the other, and the process is reliable and
reproducible. Programming the peculiar nature of the disease into a device
provides its biologically active precise analog and allows us to end-run the
need to search for a lesional remedy among 4000 possibilities—only a
percentage of which (less than half of Allen’s Encyclopedia, for example)
have received any a priori proving at all. Homeopathy is a difficult
detective game. But a system of medicine bears a grave responsibility. And
homeopathy thus far has not proved its reliability and reproducibility in
settled and diagnosable pathology which we often cannot really help, let
alone “cure” by the patient totality law of similars method alone.
With the ability to custom fabricate a remedy from a list of symptoms we
have the key to the precision lesional or disease remedy. The output of the
paragraph 101-104 process of summing cases, can be telescoped down to the
resolution of the diagnosed disease. We know the whole cohort has the same
disease, with a small error of diagnosis possible. We know the client before
us has that same disease, again with a small error of wrong diagnosis
possible. Not that the diagnosticians of Hahnemann’s day were slouches (!),
but there are many more confirmatories of diagnosis at our disposal
today—via laboratory and via 150 years more literature and experience. New
diseases are well-enough defined to be characterizable using Hahnemann’s
method—as it does not require that we know anything but the peculiar
semiology in order to create a characterization. We have the means to create
a biologically active artificial disease from scratch—so all the means for
success are potentially available.
•Paragraph 104 analysis
§ 104
When the totality of the symptoms that specially mark and distinguish the
case of disease or, in other words, when the picture of the disease,
whatever be its kind, is once accurately sketched,1 the most difficult part
of the task is accomplished. The physician has then the picture of the
disease, especially if it be a chronic one, always before him to guide him
in his treatment; he can investigate it in all its parts and can pick out
the characteristic symptoms, in order to oppose to these, that is to say, to
the whole malady itself, a very similar artificial morbific force, in the
shape of a homœopathically chosen medicinal substance, selected from the
lists of symptoms of all the medicines whose pure effects have been
ascertained. And when, during the treatment, he wishes to ascertain what has
been the effect of the medicine, and what change has taken place in the
patient’s state, at this fresh examination of the patient he only needs to
strike out of the list of the symptoms noted down at the first visit those
that have become ameliorated, to mark what still remain, and add any new
symptoms that may have supervened.
((( Here Hahnemann says that if we can precisely characterise the
peculiarity of the disease entity (the most difficult part because of the
collection and analysis of data from many cases); and precisely mimick it
with an artificial analog, then we can cure the suffering of the ill. Yet he
only had at his disposal 125 medicines whose “pure effects have been
ascertained”. He only had the method of comparing those alchemically
described medicines with the case in order to find a match. He could only
zig-zag and successively approximate similarity with a series of remedies
over time. He did not have the means to custom design a remedy perfectly
suited to the symptoms of any sufferer of the same disease.
Today, we have some 4000 or more potential medicines with some
characterization, although the pure effects of all of these are not nearly
as well known as well as the 125 that Hahnemann had; and a good portion are
not known beyond a few symptoms. But homoeopathy is still a comparative art
which depends on extraordinary intelligence and patience, understanding of
the method, and sheer years of experience. It will remain so for the
patient –specific totality remedy. But for the peculiar and definable
disease, we need no longer flail and fail to find the lesional remedy for a
case that has been overwhelmed by one of the foreign miasmatic combinations
that inhabits each of us. These are cases we cannot help, or cannot help for
decades while the client hangs in the balance in faith and spending many
thousands without relief. We are not even as good with serious pathology as
Hahemann was in his day, since much of its treatment has been taken out of
our hands by the trust of the public in the dominant medical paradigm.
The dominant paradigm of for-profit allopathic pharmaceuticals and
vaccinations is a quick fix with penalties. The goal of removal of the cause
of the disease is ignored because conventional medicine does not have an
understanding of its vitalistic nature. Nor of the successful way of dealing
with it by sympathetic resonance. Determination of both the nature of the
case and how to find or fashion a remedy to provide that resonance is what
homeopathy is. And that science has just been extended using the principles
of its original inventor and the technology of a modern inventor.
The PC group totality remedy is possibly the largest step in reliability of
that process for lesional prescribing that has been taken since Hahnemann.
Will the reader test that assertion him/herself by using the remedies in
cases? Or allow clients we assume that we cannot help with the current
standard of homeopathy to continue to suffer?
=======
Did Hahnemann ever apply the Group Totality concept to CHRONIC DISEASES?
Brief:As was shown in the analyses of paragraphs 101-104, and by Hahnemann’s
The Chronic Diseases (1828) the answer is of course yes.
David Little comments:
“The Founder's original pictures of the chronic miasm, Psora, was
constructed from a group case made from Hahnemann's cases over a 11 year
study. The original anti-psorics were actually the remedy epidemicus
remedies for chronic miasma, Psora…” ( http://www.simillimum.com )
However, Psora is a very broad, “hydra-headed” category which has only
recently been further differentiated by Sankaran. The individual antipsorics
are not group totality remedies, but ones requiring individualization. The
other anti-miasmatic categories also contain individual totality remedies.
In chronic disease, Hahnemann only resolved the group totality resultant
down to the level of Meta-miasm.
======
Why didn’t Hahnemann HIMSELF further focus Group Totality remedies from
META-MIASM (e.g. psora) to named disease?
Brief: Without a way to make remedies custom from a list of symptoms
(technology); Hahnemann could not create further resolution for the group
totality in chronic diseases than broad miasmatic categories. Within each
miasmatic category were remedies which are for individual patterns. But
these are not applicable to all with the same diagnosed disease regardless
of individuality. The antipsorics and other antimiasmatic remedies require
individualization.
More Detail: Hahnemann did determine that Belladonna was a specific for the
smooth form of Scarlatina in 1799. Hering attempted to engineer remedies for
diseases--relying on small clues from herbal uses, poisonings, and
serendipity to identify substances to employ and prove. Examples of Hering’s
work are Sarracenia purpurea and Kali cyanatum for Smallpox. After proving
Sarracenia, Hering stated his confidence that it would likely be a remedy
for smallpox. Hering introduced Kali cyanatum because workers in
Philadelphia metal plating plants that used potassium cyanide did not suffer
from smallpox. Kali cyanatum is an effective a smallpox prophylactic even in
crude form. Hering and his son-in-law Calvin Knerr ordered the powder
sprinkled on the bedclothes of patients to protect the physician and others
in the household or hospital.
But otherwise the closest Hahnemann and disciples got to remedies for the
named disease was in results in severe acute epidemic diseases using the
group totality. Before antibiotics, epidemics were recorded in the
homeopathic periodical literature 1799-1945 in which individual expression
was obliterated by a mutated and thus virulent pathogen. For this reason in
a number of instances the genius epidemicus ended up being resolved to one
remedy for all sufferers of the overwhelming acute outbreak. The same remedy
that was curative protected those as yet affected. There was a recorded
Smallpox outbreak in 1883 in Texas in which children in the region treated
with the genius epidemicus were protected even while playing and sleeping
with those with a disease. Smallpox has an easily transmitted pathogen.
Epidemiologic records showing treatment and prophylaxis of this type is
strong evidence that close approximation of many ephemeral disease outbreaks
had been accomplished using the group totality and existing materia medica.
These successes in overwhelming epidemics with one remedy revealed the
potential to peculiarise a disease concept – not just the morbid pattern of
an individual-- using the group totality method. But a chronic disease
peculiarised in the same manner, or the acute disease perennially and not
just ephemerally, are a different matter. There are probably only a few
near-perfect named disease analogs in the materia medica, even now, for
chronic advanced pathology. Picture-specific remedies that can bring a
person to better health or even complete recovery however apply only to that
individual response to the disease. The materia medica is geared toward
symptom patterns within individual people. As well, although Hering had a
knack for finding useful remedies, we have not been able to specify a remedy
sphere of action a priori; or make a remedy to order. The materia medica
thus does not contain analogs precisely specified for a miasmatic complex
underlying any endogenous named chronic disease entity. Nor does it contain
a precise remedy for a disease concept tied to a pathogen (perennial named
acute disease). Nosodes are reasonably effective prophylactics of their
source pathogen, but are not effective in treating that same extant disease.
In order to accomplish precise resonance with the peculiarised symptom
cluster of a classified disease entity regardless of individuality, we have
to go beyond the materia medica of analogs made from potentised substances.
Hahnemann probably realised the potential of a method of systematic direct
treatment of the specific cluster we classify as a morbific entity. But to
do this, a precision disease remedy made from a peculiar named disease
totality must be available when needed. The serendipitous process of finding
and characterizing our materia medica has taken two centuries, and still
contains few if any true named disease analogs. In order to create a group
totality remedy which fits all sufferers, a reliable remedy synthesis
technology is needed. This Hahnemann did not have.
Joy then said
"This is wooly thinking and anti hahnemannian surely - if we go for
specifics for every named disease then we can throw out a large percentage
of our materia medica."
A thought that comes to mind is that if we go around on a horse and a boggy
and some one has a vision of a car that can takes us around faster and in
more comfort, do we reject it because of the question of what shall we do
with our horses and all the fantastic carts we have already?
And Joy, on SPECIFICS you would know better than any one else that Hn used
specifics himself
From Peter again "Hahnemann did determine that Belladonna was a specific for
the smooth form of Scarlatina in 1799.
Hering attempted to engineer remedies for diseases--relying on small clues
from herbal uses, poisonings, and serendipity to identify substances to
employ and prove. Examples of Hering’s work are Sarracenia purpurea and Kali
cyanatum for Smallpox. After proving Sarracenia, Hering stated his
confidence that it would likely be a remedy for smallpox. Hering introduced
Kali cyanatum because workers in Philadelphia metal plating plants that used
potassium cyanide did not suffer from smallpox. Kali cyanatum is an
effective a smallpox prophylactic even in crude form. Hering and his
son-in-law Calvin Knerr ordered the powder sprinkled on the bedclothes of
patients to protect the physician and others in the household or hospital."
Please see Peter's ideas below based on extension of Hn's thoughts. Perhaps
Joy would kindly advise which parts are WOOLLY and why.
ALL OF BELOW IS FROM
http://www.vitalremedies.com/faqs/index ... at=32#a105 where
Peter uses sections of Organon and adds his comments after (((.
Rgds
Soroush
§ 101
It may easily happen that in the first case of an epidemic disease that
presents itself to the physician’s notice he does not at once obtain a
knowledge of its complete picture, as it is only by a close observation of
several cases of every such collective disease that he can become conversant
with the totality of its signs and symptoms. The carefully observing
physician can, however, from the examination of even the first and second
patients, often arrive so nearly at a knowledge of the true state as to have
in his mind a characteristic portrait of it, and even to succeed in finding
a suitable, homœopathically adapted remedy for it.
((( 101 describes using more than one case to characterise the nature of a
disease which affects more than one person in the same way and with
identical (virulent epidemic in unsuppressed population); or similar (milder
epidemic where some individual symptoms remain) symptoms shared between
them. This is an introduction to the concept of the characterization of a
group totality—which is a departure from characterization of the patient
totality. Hahnemann used this concept to discover the common afflictions
known as miasms, though his groupings were Meta-miasms more than specific.
The groupings of these Meta-miasms allowed the finding of the antimiasmatic
classes of remedies (antipsorics, antisycotic, antisyphilitic). The group
totality method of finding the peculiars from among many sufferers of the
same outbreak saved hundreds of thousands of lives in high-mortality
epidemics 1799-1945 by finding of the remedy for the epidemic disease with
symptoms shared in common in the sufferers.
•Paragraph 102 analysis
§ 102
In the course of writing down the symptoms of several cases of this kind the
sketch of the disease picture becomes ever more and more complete, not more
spun out and verbose, but more significant (more characteristic), and
including more of the peculiarities of this collective disease; on the one
hand, the general symptoms (e.g., loss of appetite, sleeplessness, etc.)
become precisely defined as to their peculiarities; and on the other, the
more marked and special symptoms which are peculiar to but few diseases and
of rarer occurrence, at least in the same combination, become prominent and
constitute what is characteristic of this malady.1 All those affected with
the disease prevailing at a given time have certainly contracted it from one
and the same source and hence are suffering from the same disease; but the
whole extent of such an epidemic disease and the totality of its symptoms
(the knowledge whereof, which is essential for enabling us to choose the
most suitable homœopathic remedy for this array of symptoms, is obtained by
a complete survey of the morbid picture) cannot be learned from one single
patient, but is only to be perfectly deduced (abstracted) and ascertained
from the sufferings of several patients of different constitutions.
1 The physician who has already, in the first cases, been able to choose a
remedy approximating to the homœopathic specific, will, from the subsequence
cases, be enabled either to verify the suitableness of the medicine chosen,
or to discover a more appropriate, the most appropriate homœopathic remedy.
((( Hahnemann appears here to be speaking only of “acute” disease by his use
of the word“epidemic”. But chronic diseases which are endogenous and endemic
within humanity (and for which conventional biology and medicine has no
tenable explanation of true cause whatsover) arise from miasms which result
from unresolved acute diseases. This blurs the distinction between acute and
chronic and makes them part of a continuum. Our remedies do not make a
distinction between acute and chronic—only between sufficient similarity of
the artificial disease (remedy)—or insufficient similarity (failure)).
Hahnemann used the paragraph 102 method of general and peculiar symptoms of
summed cases of a group to characterise the acute disease outbreak. This was
the so-called genius epidemicus, or “unique spirit of the epidemic”. This
was also the chronic Meta-miasms of psora, syphilis, and sycosis.
A “simillimum” can be defined as a remedy for the totality of a whole
entity. The entity addressed by the patient totality remedy in an ideal
functional or “constitutional” situation is the totality of the pattern of
the individual—which is defined only by the name of the successful remedy.
But when maladies are present which are dissimilar to the remedy for the
totality of symptoms of the individual in toto, and cannot be encompassed by
a remedy from the materia medica, then we must treat those dissimilar
diseases separately. When prescribing for the individual lesionally, we must
use a remedy for a subtotality within the individual. Either the remedy
given is similar to the whole, or the whole contains several dissimilar
components that are whole in themselves, and that must each be addressed
individually.
When that sub-entity is a coherent disease with boundaries of clear
definition, then the subtotality is also addressing a whole entity. Thus it
is also a “Simillimum”—but one for the classified and named disease entity,
not the individual as a holistic entity. This second mode of simillimum was
invented by Hahnemann but not taken to its ultimate expression and
resolution.
Paragraph 102 describes the characterizing of a shared disease, not an
individual one. This is a different type of law of similars remedy--- a
remedy for a group disease of short or long time scale. If the number of
cases in the summed cohort having the same maladywas large enough, the
disease (acute or chronic) could be characterised for all sufferers not
justof a epidemic, but for all humans across time. Mutating acutes can be
generalised to the kernel which peculiarises the disease itself and not its
individual outbreaks.
Epidemics of the same mutating acute disease can be summed and their
variations tuned out to reveal what underlies the ephemeral variations. For
example, Dengue Fever acute outbreaks are still Dengue the disease pattern
of susceptibility and expression-- or they would be classified as a
different disease. Every miasmatic disease has its peculiar nature. For some
disease totalities that is easier to characterise—for others not. There is a
science to creating the totality which becomes a PC remedy—and that science
was provided by Hahnemann’s genius. But the science of creating the remedy
which precisely mimicks that artificial disease was the accomplishment of
Chappell.
The symptoms of a chronic disease do not mutate, and can be characterised by
summing chronic cases. But Hahnemann only got as far as individual acute
outbreaks and meta-miasms. It took another step to allow the resolution of
the characterization to be reflected in a remedy which was precise and
reliably reproducible. The symptoms of the disease are stable—so one stable
remedy should apply. We need not further individualise a disease which has
already been repertorised as to its pattern of peculiar symptoms—which
characterise its miasmatic base regardless of the individuality of the
patient.
Hahnemann had not the means to make a remedy for the determined symptoms
right on the spot and with reproducibility. He had only what was in his
materia medica of remedies proved from the world of substances. Chappell in
2001 invented a means to emulate a list of symptoms electromagnetically and
create a biologically active remedy which reflects an artificial disease. By
programming the device with a characterization which is as precisely similar
to the peculiar pattern of the disease as can be found—we have a remedy for
all sufferers of the same reliably diagnosed disease. The method of
comparing case pattern to materia medica pattern is unnecessary in order to
apply the PC Remedy. And makes a “proving” of the resulting remedy employed
only a proof of the efficacy of the device. This additional proof is
interesting (and PC1 for example, is one remedy undergoing a proving at
present)—but it is unnecessary when clinical results across many diseases is
already in hand.
Assuming a proving is necessary in order to use a PC remedy reveals a lack
of understanding of either homeopathy or of Chappell’s innovation. Both of
these topics are sophisticated. But it is also true that homeopathy has
become almost a religion for some who profess to be unprejudiced in the
casetaking room but are extremely prejudiced about their interpretation of
the Organon. So there are both intellectual and prejudicial boundaries that
must be cut away for practitioners to understand PC remedies. The simple
step of testing them on cases which have no other possible means for
resolution is an obvious empirical basis which requires no speculation.
•Paragraph 103 analysis
§ 103
In the same manner as has here been taught relative to the epidemic disease,
which are generally of an acute character, the miasmatic chronic
maladies,which, as I have shown, always remain the same in their essential
nature, especially the psora, must be investigated, as to the whole sphere
of their symptoms, in a much more minute manner than has ever been done
before, for in them also one patient only exhibits a portion of their
symptoms, a second, a third, and so on, present some other symptoms, which
also are but a (dissevered, as it were), portion of the totality of the
symptoms which constitute the entire extent of this malady, so that the
whole array of the symptoms belonging to such a miasmatic, chronic disease,
and especially to the psora, can only be ascertained from the observation of
very many single patients affected with such a chronic disease, and without
a complete survey and collective picture of these symptoms the medicines
capable of curing the whole malady homœopathically (to wit, the antipsorics)
cannot be discovered; and these medicines are, at the same time, the true
remedies of the several patients suffering from such chronic affections.
((( Here Hahnemann emphasises that if enough cases can be summed, then
eventually the “totality of the symptoms which constitute the entire extent
of this malady… the whole array of the symptoms belonging to such a
miasmatic, chronic disease” can be found. He and his later disciples
(Hering, members of the IHA, Hahnemannian homeopaths in Europe and India)
were able to precisely characterise high mortality acute diseases to one
remedy. But Hahnemann himself was only able to resolve nonoverwhelming acute
diseases--and chronic diseases—to the level of the Meta-miasm Psora,
Sycosis, Syphilis—and the group of remedies he called the “antipsorics” and
other singular or multimiasmatic remedies. And thus that is what we
inherited as the last word on the group totality type of law of similars
remedy.
Now, we have a way to use reliable diagnosis of a classified disease with
definite boundaries to characterise a mixed multimiasmatic entity of
otherwise unknown valence and provide a remedy for it. How? By the
technology to plug the characterization of the peculiarities of the disease
itself into a remedy which precisely reflects that nonphysical entity and
which is thus an accurate emulation of the disease itself. Instead of
looking for a remedy artificial disease analog among remedies that have been
proved or used on herbal, eclectic, or toxicological means—which is
inherently inconsistent—we can produce that analog via an electromagnetic
signal via analysis of the disease to find its peculiar pattern--and
programming and production of the remedy.
This advance in lesional prescribing does not mean that we still do not need
patient totality prescribing (!) We have to leave the finding of the
Simillimum I up to the skill of the practitioner and the serendipity of the
processes of fate which has given us our database of remedies. Determining
the similarity of a medicine for a individual is infinitely more complex
than summing cases or using a definition of a disease pattern crafted over
centuries. We must determine the individuality using all means and all
pathways— “core delusion”, sensation, particular, modality, concomitant,
organ systems affected, life themes, and so many more parameters that rely
on human perception and analysis.
With Hahnemann’s group totality method, we have in contrast an essentially
mathematical algorithm to characterise a disease. Interpretation of totality
to find peculiarity is still necessary as in any repertorization. But
essentially the mass of data is resolvable to a pattern for the disease
shared by all sufferers. We characterise the peculiarity of the disease
instead of the individual.
With Chappell’s technology, we have its even more immutable counterpart---
which allows production of a precise biologically active emulation of that
characterization. One follows the other, and the process is reliable and
reproducible. Programming the peculiar nature of the disease into a device
provides its biologically active precise analog and allows us to end-run the
need to search for a lesional remedy among 4000 possibilities—only a
percentage of which (less than half of Allen’s Encyclopedia, for example)
have received any a priori proving at all. Homeopathy is a difficult
detective game. But a system of medicine bears a grave responsibility. And
homeopathy thus far has not proved its reliability and reproducibility in
settled and diagnosable pathology which we often cannot really help, let
alone “cure” by the patient totality law of similars method alone.
With the ability to custom fabricate a remedy from a list of symptoms we
have the key to the precision lesional or disease remedy. The output of the
paragraph 101-104 process of summing cases, can be telescoped down to the
resolution of the diagnosed disease. We know the whole cohort has the same
disease, with a small error of diagnosis possible. We know the client before
us has that same disease, again with a small error of wrong diagnosis
possible. Not that the diagnosticians of Hahnemann’s day were slouches (!),
but there are many more confirmatories of diagnosis at our disposal
today—via laboratory and via 150 years more literature and experience. New
diseases are well-enough defined to be characterizable using Hahnemann’s
method—as it does not require that we know anything but the peculiar
semiology in order to create a characterization. We have the means to create
a biologically active artificial disease from scratch—so all the means for
success are potentially available.
•Paragraph 104 analysis
§ 104
When the totality of the symptoms that specially mark and distinguish the
case of disease or, in other words, when the picture of the disease,
whatever be its kind, is once accurately sketched,1 the most difficult part
of the task is accomplished. The physician has then the picture of the
disease, especially if it be a chronic one, always before him to guide him
in his treatment; he can investigate it in all its parts and can pick out
the characteristic symptoms, in order to oppose to these, that is to say, to
the whole malady itself, a very similar artificial morbific force, in the
shape of a homœopathically chosen medicinal substance, selected from the
lists of symptoms of all the medicines whose pure effects have been
ascertained. And when, during the treatment, he wishes to ascertain what has
been the effect of the medicine, and what change has taken place in the
patient’s state, at this fresh examination of the patient he only needs to
strike out of the list of the symptoms noted down at the first visit those
that have become ameliorated, to mark what still remain, and add any new
symptoms that may have supervened.
((( Here Hahnemann says that if we can precisely characterise the
peculiarity of the disease entity (the most difficult part because of the
collection and analysis of data from many cases); and precisely mimick it
with an artificial analog, then we can cure the suffering of the ill. Yet he
only had at his disposal 125 medicines whose “pure effects have been
ascertained”. He only had the method of comparing those alchemically
described medicines with the case in order to find a match. He could only
zig-zag and successively approximate similarity with a series of remedies
over time. He did not have the means to custom design a remedy perfectly
suited to the symptoms of any sufferer of the same disease.
Today, we have some 4000 or more potential medicines with some
characterization, although the pure effects of all of these are not nearly
as well known as well as the 125 that Hahnemann had; and a good portion are
not known beyond a few symptoms. But homoeopathy is still a comparative art
which depends on extraordinary intelligence and patience, understanding of
the method, and sheer years of experience. It will remain so for the
patient –specific totality remedy. But for the peculiar and definable
disease, we need no longer flail and fail to find the lesional remedy for a
case that has been overwhelmed by one of the foreign miasmatic combinations
that inhabits each of us. These are cases we cannot help, or cannot help for
decades while the client hangs in the balance in faith and spending many
thousands without relief. We are not even as good with serious pathology as
Hahemann was in his day, since much of its treatment has been taken out of
our hands by the trust of the public in the dominant medical paradigm.
The dominant paradigm of for-profit allopathic pharmaceuticals and
vaccinations is a quick fix with penalties. The goal of removal of the cause
of the disease is ignored because conventional medicine does not have an
understanding of its vitalistic nature. Nor of the successful way of dealing
with it by sympathetic resonance. Determination of both the nature of the
case and how to find or fashion a remedy to provide that resonance is what
homeopathy is. And that science has just been extended using the principles
of its original inventor and the technology of a modern inventor.
The PC group totality remedy is possibly the largest step in reliability of
that process for lesional prescribing that has been taken since Hahnemann.
Will the reader test that assertion him/herself by using the remedies in
cases? Or allow clients we assume that we cannot help with the current
standard of homeopathy to continue to suffer?
=======
Did Hahnemann ever apply the Group Totality concept to CHRONIC DISEASES?
Brief:As was shown in the analyses of paragraphs 101-104, and by Hahnemann’s
The Chronic Diseases (1828) the answer is of course yes.
David Little comments:
“The Founder's original pictures of the chronic miasm, Psora, was
constructed from a group case made from Hahnemann's cases over a 11 year
study. The original anti-psorics were actually the remedy epidemicus
remedies for chronic miasma, Psora…” ( http://www.simillimum.com )
However, Psora is a very broad, “hydra-headed” category which has only
recently been further differentiated by Sankaran. The individual antipsorics
are not group totality remedies, but ones requiring individualization. The
other anti-miasmatic categories also contain individual totality remedies.
In chronic disease, Hahnemann only resolved the group totality resultant
down to the level of Meta-miasm.
======
Why didn’t Hahnemann HIMSELF further focus Group Totality remedies from
META-MIASM (e.g. psora) to named disease?
Brief: Without a way to make remedies custom from a list of symptoms
(technology); Hahnemann could not create further resolution for the group
totality in chronic diseases than broad miasmatic categories. Within each
miasmatic category were remedies which are for individual patterns. But
these are not applicable to all with the same diagnosed disease regardless
of individuality. The antipsorics and other antimiasmatic remedies require
individualization.
More Detail: Hahnemann did determine that Belladonna was a specific for the
smooth form of Scarlatina in 1799. Hering attempted to engineer remedies for
diseases--relying on small clues from herbal uses, poisonings, and
serendipity to identify substances to employ and prove. Examples of Hering’s
work are Sarracenia purpurea and Kali cyanatum for Smallpox. After proving
Sarracenia, Hering stated his confidence that it would likely be a remedy
for smallpox. Hering introduced Kali cyanatum because workers in
Philadelphia metal plating plants that used potassium cyanide did not suffer
from smallpox. Kali cyanatum is an effective a smallpox prophylactic even in
crude form. Hering and his son-in-law Calvin Knerr ordered the powder
sprinkled on the bedclothes of patients to protect the physician and others
in the household or hospital.
But otherwise the closest Hahnemann and disciples got to remedies for the
named disease was in results in severe acute epidemic diseases using the
group totality. Before antibiotics, epidemics were recorded in the
homeopathic periodical literature 1799-1945 in which individual expression
was obliterated by a mutated and thus virulent pathogen. For this reason in
a number of instances the genius epidemicus ended up being resolved to one
remedy for all sufferers of the overwhelming acute outbreak. The same remedy
that was curative protected those as yet affected. There was a recorded
Smallpox outbreak in 1883 in Texas in which children in the region treated
with the genius epidemicus were protected even while playing and sleeping
with those with a disease. Smallpox has an easily transmitted pathogen.
Epidemiologic records showing treatment and prophylaxis of this type is
strong evidence that close approximation of many ephemeral disease outbreaks
had been accomplished using the group totality and existing materia medica.
These successes in overwhelming epidemics with one remedy revealed the
potential to peculiarise a disease concept – not just the morbid pattern of
an individual-- using the group totality method. But a chronic disease
peculiarised in the same manner, or the acute disease perennially and not
just ephemerally, are a different matter. There are probably only a few
near-perfect named disease analogs in the materia medica, even now, for
chronic advanced pathology. Picture-specific remedies that can bring a
person to better health or even complete recovery however apply only to that
individual response to the disease. The materia medica is geared toward
symptom patterns within individual people. As well, although Hering had a
knack for finding useful remedies, we have not been able to specify a remedy
sphere of action a priori; or make a remedy to order. The materia medica
thus does not contain analogs precisely specified for a miasmatic complex
underlying any endogenous named chronic disease entity. Nor does it contain
a precise remedy for a disease concept tied to a pathogen (perennial named
acute disease). Nosodes are reasonably effective prophylactics of their
source pathogen, but are not effective in treating that same extant disease.
In order to accomplish precise resonance with the peculiarised symptom
cluster of a classified disease entity regardless of individuality, we have
to go beyond the materia medica of analogs made from potentised substances.
Hahnemann probably realised the potential of a method of systematic direct
treatment of the specific cluster we classify as a morbific entity. But to
do this, a precision disease remedy made from a peculiar named disease
totality must be available when needed. The serendipitous process of finding
and characterizing our materia medica has taken two centuries, and still
contains few if any true named disease analogs. In order to create a group
totality remedy which fits all sufferers, a reliable remedy synthesis
technology is needed. This Hahnemann did not have.
