Dear Joy
Please see my response in Italics after your comments.
Peter please see exchanges below and kindly comment.
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From:
minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joy Lucas
Sent: 21 August 2009 17:58
To:
minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] HIV AIDS treatments - Was : can homeopathy deal with engineered viruses?
Well I'm glad he uses at least a few stanzas of the Organon - but does he?
§ 100 conjecture is written about and that all epidemics will differ vastly from all others - so how can one substance be for all (I am not calling them remedies because I don't think they are)
§ 100
In investigating the totality of the symptoms of epidemic and sporadic diseases it is quite immaterial whether or not something similar has ever appeared in the world before under the same or any other name. The novelty or peculiarity of a disease of that kind makes no difference either in the mode of examining or of treating it, as the physician must any way regard to pure picture of every prevailing disease as if it were something new and unknown, and investigate it thoroughly for itself, if he desire to practice medicine in a real and radical manner, never substituting conjecture for actual observation, never taking for granted that the case of disease before him is already wholly or partially known, but always carefully examining it in all its phases; and this mode of procedure is all the more requisite in such cases, as a careful examination will show that every prevailing disease is in many respects a phenomenon of a unique character, differing vastly from all previous epidemics, to which certain names have been falsely applied - with the exception of those epidemics resulting from a contagious principle that always remains the same, such as smallpox, measles, etc.
So if the contagious principle remains the HIV, its symptoms will be the same.
Peter has studied these for long!
§ 101 is a continuation from that, emphasising examination for details, from as many case as possible for each epidemic - he might claim that but how can we know, where is the evidence .
This is has done also!
I have no idea what you mean by 'designed for a particular syndrome'. The lack of a need for proving is completely non homeopathic and very anatagonistic towards Hahnenmann's work. Outside of homeopathy the science might actually be interesting - engineering the whole materia medica of a particular epidemic into a single pill (hence no need for a proving) although we need to have that explained to us not kept secret and then we can assess if it is indeed homeopathic or not other wise we might as well say allopathy is homeopathic.
This is the whole basis of the PC remedies:
The symptoms of each 'disease' eg HIV/AIDS are listed and then some how converted to an electromagnetic signal. This is then converted in to a remedy (ala Magnetic poles).
Most of the § mentioned pertain to acute diseases as § 103 writes about the different approach in chronic disease.
It is irrelevant whether or not he makes money out of this. the cases are not exactly pouring in of cure and even those that mention >> could be palliation no more than placebo.
You mentioned in another post that these rx are useful when cases are difficult and a simillimum hasn't been found but my point would be that why adopt this third rate use of a substance, they either work or they don't and if they do then we need no other rx. The science has to be upheld and if the process works for one substance, one diseased state then the others must as well. But the science doesn't hold up at all and in fact § 104 completely outcasts what he is doing or saying he is doing.
Science has a changing face! I have copies this to Peter - hopefully he will pen an answer.
I know Hahenamnn doesn't write about the second simillimum
so what does Chappell mean by this - I was being ironic. [Excuse me for being autistic
]
There are sick people everywhere so I don't understand why he has chosen Africa as his outpost (although I could think of a few) - it shouldn't make any difference just as helios being in Kent or London doesn't matter.
I would much prefer that people go and treat others in the correct homeopathic manner, then it might gain even more respect rather than ridicule.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
So let's do a time warp back to § 3 - how does that fit with the PC rx and § 26 (which obviously numerically carries on from 24 "... medicines, whose pathogenetic effects ar known from having been tested in healthy individuals) - so the cure being written about in § 26 pertains to proven rx and § 3 being about perceiving what is to be cured vis knowledge of medicinal powers. None of that is not possible with PC rx.
Where does H write about the second simillimum? Where are the provings for these rx. Is it sufficient for homeopathy to rely on unreliable reports of >> with PC rx? The quackbusters have a lot of fun with him. There is no need for secrecy, it just brings cynicism. But going by your thoughts on these rx you should be using them all the time, there is no need for other rx or instruction from Hahnemann. Clinical provings are now to take the place of a traditional Hahnemannian proving? Reckless. And the social view of Homeopathy can only be damaged by notions of using substances that are so secretive, to say nothing of his so called 'belief remedies' - there used to be one called 'joined up thinking'!
Joy
.