[H] A new turn in Classical Homeopathy

[Homeo Bond 007]

I agree with the statement which David A Johnson has made. He is a bold
doctor. I appreciate his courageous pronouncement.
Exactly classical rules are not important. The life of a patient is
important. Hence he put a side all organon’s principles of proving and
started treating AIDS patient with AIDS medicine discovered by Peter
Chappell. Which he claims based on DISEASE CONCEPT. To this stage I
appreciate him.
He saw the patient and not the principles. He very rightly did not
compromise on patient’s health on similia similibus principles of proving.
The medicine has no STARTING MATERIAL (which is the basic need of homeopathy
i.e. similia similibus).
This is great blow on the face of classical homeopaths. If you can
understand this point. I fully support him. I myself have used that medicine
on one AIDS patient. This is not the point of discussion. I am not trying to
create bad impression of any one. No absolutely not. As David and his
Cro-Magnon companion said he is not interesting at all in the marketing of
this product. The point of discussion is he was preaching classical
principles to every homeopath in seminars, in mailing lists and on
discussion forums on the his web site.
Now he himself overruled all of them.
A man always interfere in the discussion and trying to teach every one about
classical rules, PROVING CRITERIA and similia similibus law and when the
dilemma was came on himself. Then he deviates first by saying patient is
important and not principles.
May I ask him if he finds the medicine has successful curability rate then
does he or his collague will adopt the product in their practice.
My answer is if I will get positive response then I will not hesitate any
more to use on my patients.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David A Johnson is renowned “classical homeopath” and Peter Chapell is also
has reputable status in homeopathy. Peter has 30 years of classical
homeopathy. According to David A Johnson, Peter’ AIDS remedy which is based
on disease concept is not strictly according to the rules of classical
homeopathy. But it has fine result after three months of continuous
treatment with AIDS remedy.

http://www.hpathy.com/forum/display_top ... readPage=1

David A Johnson who is doing classical homeopathy left the classical
homeopathic approach and started doing practice with AIDS medicine. David A
Johnson is classical homeopath and finally he thought he should deviate from
classical homeopathic rules by starting AIDS medicine that has not been
prepared by utilitizing well-confirmed methods / laws of proving.

David A Johnson said “Peter has discovered a single universal remedy to
treat AIDS which is not made from any physical substance.” (Remember Peter
is doing classical homeopathy for the last 30 years)

He very rightly said at homeopathy home that we should follow first rule of
organon and nothing else.

When a member asked to David A Johnson

“If you come to know that few homeopathic remedies(say approx three
remedies) when were taken together (combined)and were applied on patient
suffering from AIDS. In return you found excellent feed back and unexpected
result from that combination. Will you easily adopt that formula
(combination of three homeopathic remedies) in your daily practice.

Then David said

“Yes, absolutely. The most important and fundamental consideration is what
helps the patient, not what my philosophy or preferred method of practice
is.”
Please discuss what exactly is classical homeopathy?

Please elaborate what exactly classical homeopathy is?

Or

This is the time of taking turn in basic principles of homeopathy?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Right, I agree, I have no interest in starting a debate or marketing a
product. (David A Johnson)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HEARSAY DONT PROOVE ANYTHING.
AND STILL...IF UNDER TREATMENT, THE TREATMENT IS STILL GOING ON, AND THE
OUTCOME ISNT WARRANTED!
AND THE CASES ISNT CURED..NO EVIDENCE IS SHOW THAT THIS IS CORRECT EITHER.
NONE KNOWS, BEFORE TIME HAS PASSED, AND ITS VERIFIED BY RELIABLE PEOPLE.
HEARSAY ON THE INTERNET ISNT WORTH TO PUT ANY FAITH IN.
TO START A DEBATE AT THIS POINT,IS LUDICRIOUS, UNPROFESSIONAL, AND ABOVE ALL
NOT BELONGING IN THE PROFESSION OF HOMEOPATHY.
THIS IS LITTERALLY REMINDING OF ATTEMPTS TO MARKET A PRODUCT, AND PERSONS,
AND IS NOT A VERIFICATION OF A REMEDIE, OR CURES. (GM )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp

[Shannon Nelson]

Homeo Bond,

Do you sow dissention for a hobby, or what??? I've forwarded this to David
for his reply, and will be interested to hear what he says.

But in the meantime, my thoughts:

on 3/14/03 6:45 AM, Homeo Bond 007 at homeobond007@hotmail.com wrote:
What is this -- recreational flattery before you stab his back???
For a start, how about if we agree that (and I do not know whether this is
true, but only for sake of argument) that PC1 is not a homeopathic remedy.
Why does someone's use of something other than a homeopathic remedy mean
they have abandoned homeopathy?

If someone comes in with a nail thru the foot, are we going to refuse to
take it out unless we can do so with a remedy?

If someone comes in with a severe tooth abscess, are we going to insist on
healing the abscess with remedies just because in theory we "can"? Or will
we say, it will be quicker and easier if you just have the dentist take care
of it?

Peter's rx, *if* it works as he claims, will

(a) not replace classical homeopathy, as it has a strictly limited sphere of
activity -- *the disease of AIDS*, not the other susceptibilities that were
there before the AIDS began. These are different tools, with different
spheres of influence.

(b) provide a feasible way to save the lives of millions, with minimal
output of resources (e.g. well-trained classical homeopaths, clinical
experience, and case follow-up), in a way that full individualized
prescribing has absolutely no hope of achieving, as we have far too few
homeopaths (as well as various other relevant lacks).
David's work is to heal people, not to defend principles.
Your last two lines are to me indecipherable; would you care to explain what
it means?
Despite your "promise", you never told us who you are. Now I am really
wanting to know. Stephen Barret, perhaps, with an "accent" for a disguise?

Please explain why you consider this a "blow on the face" of classical
homeopaths. I'm gathering this is "wishful thinking" on your part.
Wow, I wonder what you'd be saying if you *didn't* fully support him?
Or is that you fully support anything that can be used to weaken homeopathy?
Which you seem to know just enough about to be able to effectively attack,
and to sow dissension.
Sure it is!
So you have abandoned classical hoempathy, and eschewed principles of the
Orgagnon? I know that David has not, but from what you've said here, I
gather that your own usage of the remedy means that you yourself have done
so.
??? Interesting phrase! Who is "his Cro-Magnon companion", and how does he
earn that moniker?
He has not overruled them.
*If* we accept that the remedy is not homeopathic, he has simply decided to
use an apparently effective "other modality" because of its (in the opinions
of some) demonstrated effectiveness. We are all free to dispute the choice,
but let's do so on basis of facts, not innuendo and lies.
Your language here is a little hard to understand.
I gather you are annoyed at David for being (in your opinion) too insistent
about promoting classical methodology? And feel that if he thinks classical
approach is so great, he shouldn't have the nerve to use any other tools? I
will apprecaite clarification on this point.
What does this mean?
Excuse me, but where does Hahnemann, or any writer since, suggest that
"principles" are more important than curing the patient? I think the
situation is exactly the reverse.

Hahnemann's first duty was *always* to the patients, and this is why he
continued refining and expanding his "principles" to lead to greatest
effectiveness. And this is why he [Hahnemann] was unhesitating about
recommending "other measures" when he felt it necessary, and why he was
quick to say that *not* every problem calls for homeopathy as a solution --
he strongly promoted proper lifestyle habits, diet, hygiene, and also gave
brief nod (and presumably more than lip service) to "naturopathic" methods
such as hydrotherapy and others.

Patient's wellbeing is the bottom line, and principles are refined as needed
to further that goal.
So you too are "willing to experiment", in the way you are so damning of
here? Very interesting...
As Georgianna points out, he has most certainly not left the classical
approach. She says he is using PC1 with *two* patients, out of his entire
busy practice. His overall practice is *not* on AIDS, not using PC1. His
overall practice is most emphatically classical. To be less than a lie,
your statement above needs to read, "... left the classical hoemopathic
approach *in his treatment of these two patients*" -- a very different
statement! (And still debatable, IMO.)
It may be true that the development of this remedy does not meet the model.
However numerous remedies have entered our materia medica in "non-standard"
ways, and that did not mean that their developers had eschewed homeopathic
principles.

But I will say again, even if we start from an assumption (which is only
that) that PC1 is "not homeopathic", nothing you say above has any truth or
relevance IMO, and can have no possible motive except to spread dissension
and mistrust.

Please do tell us who you are. Maybe this will help us to better understand
just what you are about.
I believe that would be, "Do no harm."
And here is another point in favor of trialing PC1: One way of "doing harm"
is to delay getting "best" treatment to the pt. In individualized care,
even the best prescribers do not always get the "right rx" on the first try;
then there's a necessary waiting period to judge its activity. If in fact
PC1 is universally effective at stopping AIDS, then if fact it becomes
irresponsible *not* to begin AIDS treatment in this way.

So the matter really turns upon one's view as to Peter's credibility. David
has obviously made his choice, and you are free to make yours. (Hm. You
and David made the *same* choice, and yet you are assaulting him over it.
???? What is going *on* here?????)
This has been discussed.
It has only tangential relationship to this discussion, and I'm not up for
"playing" right now.

What does this sentence mean? (In case it has greater relevance than the
former two.)

I gather you are saying here that the remedy does not have a long enough
clinical record to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety?
(I won't say further without hearing if this is in fact what you are saying;
if so, I will reply further.)
"Hearsay" is always shaky evidence.
Just what is the "hearsay" that you feel is being given too much weight?
Please be specific. Do Peter's recountings of his experiences with the
remedy come under that category in your mind?

(snip)

Interested in your reply,
Shannon