Minutus

Dear Piet,
One sentence in your message (edited below), can give us an opportunity to move off *this* boring topic, towards a more interesting one: Can you share with us this 'group of complementary remedies'?
Thanks for your time and attention.
Maly

Piet Guijt wrote:
Hi Joy,
(snip)
So far we only succeeded to find a group of complementary remedies, which
all together cover the complete disease.

(snip)
I agree we are already equipped with good strategies and remedies, but I
welcome additional ones.
...

---------------------------------
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Maly, all

The remedies of the genus epidemicus share the ability to cure a part of the
complete disease as expressed in a group of sufferers.
When treating a group of people with a disease of a collective nature we
need all those remedies to cover their symptoms. In that way they are
complementary, all remedies overlap and cover a part of the larger picture.
We say he disease is expressed and "modified" by all the involved
constitutions.
This show that the GE remedies also include individual symptoms. But the
individual symptoms come from another source, so those GE remedies are
partial individual and partial disease selected.
When we would get rid of the individual symptoms in the GE picture, we would
get the true disease picture.
We know that partial remedies aren't that effective compared to a perfect
matching one, so it would be no surprise that a pure GE remedy is more
effective to break the dynamic disease effect. This remedy should be
complemented by the individual remedy.
Till now we thought the nosode, represents the center of the disease, but
the nosode is only one member of the GE, so doesn't go to the heart of the
matter.
What Chappell did, was to take a shortcut, instead of trying to find an
existing or new remedy as a pure GE remedy, he designed this remedy. This
was only done for practical reasons, to save time.

Whether we like it or not, or we do or don't accept his remedies as
homeopathic medicine. He proved the existence of another strategy, as an
addition to the ones we already know.
So when we reject his method of creating remedies, we must come up with
alternative proven remedies, which can replace them.
To get stuck in discussing the nature of his PC remedies, but to miss the
genius of his approach, would be a major mistake.
To be honest there are a lot of thing I don't like or approve concerning his
"movement" and remedies, but let all of us make an effort to integrate his
strong points into homeopathy.

Kind regards, Piet