SIMILIMUM II

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Colleagues

On Monday 31 January I attended a lecture by Peter Chappell, FSHom in London
on SIMILIMUM II.

Peter defines Similimum I as the remedy we aim to find whenever we take a
case.

Peter proposes that by using Sim II remedies we should be able to deal with
and treat serious chronic diseases and what may seem irreversible pathology.

This is a brief summary of the lecture and if any one want the full
presentation which is on PowerPoint, please let me know and I will email it
to you.
You can also visit his site www.vitalremedies.com

I have taken some parts of the following direct from his presentation
slides.
Peter had been thinking of treating AIDS for some time and so in 2001 went
to Africa.

He managed to find 70 AIDS cases (difficulty arises from the fact that
people will not admit that they have AIDS). These were treated as per
normal - i.e. their individual symptoms were considered and a remedy was
selected for them. (Similimum I)

With reference to Organon 100-104 he decided that this was in effect an
epidemic and needed to be treated as such. However, he was mindful that
never a single 100% totality for an epidemic remedy has been found.

"In the Organon, Aphorisms 100 to 104, it states that in an epidemic disease
you need to treat this with the remedy that covers similar/totality ie the
big picture of all the symptoms for the epidemic. (epidemic means the same
as infectious)."
However in
* 200 years of homeopathy we have had something like
* 100,000 to 1 Million homeopaths who have made some
* One billion Prescriptions plus
* 1000s of provings, BUT
Never has a single totality epidemic remedy ever been found!
In the normal process, a remedy is proved and on the basis of that the
Material Medica is complied.
Being an inventor, Peter decided to reverse the process - that is to say
from the MM of the epidemic disease to design a remedy specific for that
disease.

Peter's remedy for AIDS is called PC1.
He described how he has developed this remedy. As a background - a great
deal of Peter's work prior to homoeopathy had centred around computers (yes
30-35 years ago) and magnetism etc.

So what Peter had done was to form a totality and characteristics + SRP
symptoms of the disease - exactly as per normal homoeopathic epidemic
treatment.
He had then evolved an abstract mathematical equation to cover all aspects
of these symptoms.
He had then transformed this to an electronic signal which he said is like
an orchestra playing.
He then converted this to a electromagnetic signal and placed a vial of
alcohol and water in it focal point and produced PCI.

* Take the cases 70 in AIDS or 60 CFS patients - normal epidemic
homeopathy
* Form a totality with its characteristic and SRP symptoms - normal
epidemic homeopathy
* Make this into an abstract mathematical equation - high level task -
new idea
* This produces a signal like an orchestra playing normal hi-fi
signal
* Use this to create a magnetic field hi-fi technology - house hold
technology
* Potentise it by succussing a vial in the magnetic field. - Hahnemann did
this
Parts of this process is Peter's secret procedure and he will NOT reveal
them (I hope he has made accurate instructions and left them in a safe
place).

Effectively this is not too dissimilar to Hn producing remedies out of North
and South Poles. Only Peter having more sophisticated equipment is able to
do more.

[Ordinarily through potentisation and dilution we go from material in to
'spirit' of the substance.
Through Peters technique we take the electronic 'Spirit' of the disease and
make into a remedy.]

Peter reported that with PC1 and providing maintaining causes such as lack
of food etc are covered, 100 per cent of traceable patients had reported
improvements and being able to return to work and resume life. However they
remain HIV +ve and can infect others.

Peter stated that Miasms are based upon the effects of micro-organisms
(plant and animal) on the organism.
bacteria
viruses
protozoa
fungi
worms

Miasms recognised by homeopaths include Gonorrhoea, syphilis, tuberculosis,
malaria, leprosy, typhoid, rabies, polio, leprosy, scabies
Psora is really some of these but undifferentiated
Anthrax, chlamydia, cancer, human papilloma virus, influenza, herpes,
mononucleosis, cytomegalovirus, polio, yellow fever, dengue fever, AIDS,
hepatitis, diphtheria, brucellosis, listeriosis, cholera, botulism, tetanus,
lymes and other tick diseases, bubonic plague, smallpox, giardiasis,
cryptosporidiosis, threadworm, ascarisis, hookworm, schistosomiasis,
toxoplasmosis, tapeworm, measles, mumps, chicken pox, rubella etc

We know is how these pass down the generations in a muted form that is not
the acute form.
For example Gonorrhoea does not pass on as an acute disease to the next
generation but as a miasm which we can exactly notice and predict (Med
materia medica)
Likewise many or all micro organisms pass down as chronic effects
We can see that the micro organisms mutate in some way in this process
We can assume transmission is through body fluids, sperm, in the womb,
mothers milk, kissing, poor hygiene, etc.

Potentised Gonorrhoea does not treat Gon effectively
Tuberculinium is ineffective against TB
Syphilinum is ineffective against Syphilis etc
Therefore Nosodes of diseases are not disease Second Similimums, they are
early attempts at the idea!

The way now to treat every Miasm is by the Second Similimum
We homeopaths dont yet know how to recognise most Miasms
They can be found by diagnostic tests

In Treating Diseases - Peter suggested that
chronic diseases are slow moving processes, like a long running epidemic
when miasms/micro-organisms co-exist together over aeons they join together
(symbiosis) and the results are what we call diseases.
Furthermore, that all diseases are made from the many different marriages
of miasms, even with just a 30 main epidemic diseases/micro animals this
gives thousands of combinations
If this is true, it follows logically that you can treat all diseases with
the Second Similimum.

Peter has expanded his technique for AIDS to cover CFS, Parkinson, MS,
Cancer and a lot more - however clinical results for some of these are very
few or in some cases are non-existent.
-------------
The following case of ParkinsonPC is reported by Harry van der Zee.
A male patient of 64 years old had been treated for Parkinsons disease
successfully 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.
-------------

Carcinosin is not a Miasmic Remedy
Carcinosin is a DISEASE remedy, not a Miasm remedy, its the first attempt
at a disease remedy Similimum in homeopathy and its very effective
To treat the disease you need a remedy that treats the Similimum/totality of
the disease.
Why is Carcinosin not the Similimum for Cancer? Because it is not made of
all the possible cancers.

Remedy Supply
It comes as normal - a vial of pills
You put one or more pills in a dropper bottle with water/alcohol and (5
succussions) they take 10+ drops daily into a teaspoon
Or it is supplied as dropper bottle ready for use direct to patient
Helios and Hahnemann/nl Pharmacies supply

Summary
The AUTOMATIC step of Diagnosis = prescription has huge implications
Holistic treatment that reverses diseases has huge implications
You will find you can treat successfully a lot more people
Prevention of diseases is now a realistic option
All the compromises in Homeopathy can go out the window combinations,
local remedies, isopathy, intercurrents, etc, when you have the first and
second Similimum. Likewise all mention of diseases and pathology, even may
be many symptoms in repertory and materia medica are irrelevant
Organ remedies/Herbs still have a place.

Its possibly the greatest step forward in homeopathy since Hahnemann

[Peter had one reservation about PC1.
He said that although PC1 had worked well in 4 continents and under
difficult conditions, it did not seem to work well in the West and he
thought that this was perhaps because in a lot of the cases he had
encountered so far, the life style of the patient was not helpful because
often drugs were involved.
His best cases had come from the village African who had just got AIDS and
no drugs etc interference.

Best wishes

Soroush

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

I love the whole thing if you can send it!
thanks!
Simon King


"reverence for life is a state of mind not a set of rules" Albert
Schweitzer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Rochelle Marsden]

Very interesting- thank you for that

Rochelle

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Food for thought or what?
Ah you cannae beat groundbreaking stuff for stimulating the old grey
matter!

I hope we get some good discussions going from this!
kind regards
Simon King


"reverence for life is a state of mind not a set of rules" Albert
Schweitzer

[DR. B.P.SHARMA]

Hello Finrod
Thanks for the information. Would be grateful if you could send me the Power
Point Presentation of the Peter's seminar.
Sincerely,

DR.B.P.SHARMA, DHMS,PG.(RT)D.ACU(CAN.)HOMEOPATHIC PHYSICIAN.
www.planethomeopath.com

[Piet Guijt]

Soroush wrote:
Hello Soroush, all,

This sounds a bit vague to me, sometimes 'we' prescribe on an individual
level and sometimes on a miasmatic level.
The potential of those two strategies, is very different.
The way Peter defines this, makes it clear he is talking about a 'Partial
Simillimum', most likely as a deep anti-miasmatic remedy.
The chief complaint was on the level of this remedy (Harry's case), so
improved this a lot. Obviously this remedy is only partial, because not all
symptoms were covered.
For the rest of the symptoms we need another 'Partial simillimum':
Simillimum II ???
What Peter is saying is: When you're not able to find the correct remedy in
a case, be happy with a limited remedy, you can always sweep it over with my
Simillimum II?
Disease, miasms do not come from the outside, but originate from within the
person, so instead of offering Similimum II as the ultimate solution, it
would be better stimulating to find a more individual remedy for the
remaining symptoms, which not only removes them, but also helps the patient
as an individual and prevent the disease to return.

Don't get me wrong, basicly I appreciate what Peter is doing, but it must be
clear on what (secundary)level his prescriptions are.

Kind regards, Piet

[AH]

on 2/6/05 5:19 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:
ALL CASES ARE MIASMATIC CASES
((( Dear Piet, the susceptibility for the largest functional totality which
includes the characteristic psychical symptoms and metaphor for the client's
orientation in life, and organic symptoms which do not have a separate vitae
in the client;

AND

the susceptibility for the disease totality in which the disease IS a
separate totality.

both issue from miasms. This I think we can agree on. In this sense we are
always prescribing on a miasmatic level. And the functional totality is
always individual--an INDIVIDUAL TOTALITY. What Chappell has done is
engineer a method to approach the lesional totality of a given individual
case of organic pathology by use of the GROUP TOTALITY.

CASES WITH A SEPARATE LESIONAL TOTALITY, EITHER PRACTICALLY SPEAKING OR
ABSOLUTELY
In a situation of patient totality PLUS disease totality, both totalities
are not easily covered by one remedy if they can be practically at all.
This provides a limitation of us dealing with advanced pathological cases of
chronic disease in which we cannot uniformly and easily halt the disease
progression.

The characteristic totality (remedy for the "patient") does not always cover
the organic disease. The characteristic totality will raise the level of
the health of the organism by addressing its patterns and character of
energy, but the progression of the chronic disease is in MANY cases not
halted. These are clients that we cannot bring back. And treating the
organic pathology separately does not "suppress" the vital force, as the
"disease" has developed its own vitae separate from that characteristic of
the vital flows of the healthy functioning organism.

EIZAYAGA METHOD STRIVES TO SEPARATE OUT THE DISEASE TOTALITY AS A LAYER JUST
AS DID HAHNEMANN AND HIS PEERS
Addressing the disease directly was what F. Eizayaga and now his sons
carrying on his work strive for with his "lesional" remedy. It is what
Hahnemann used when he could perceive more than one totality within the same
patient. But this "lesional" remedy is not something that we are yet very
good at in much of modern homeopathy.

What it seems to me that Peter has very cleverly generated is an answer to
this problem by reverse-engineering a remedy for each well-described disease
totality using Hahnemann's genus epidemicus method.

Step 1--amalgamate all Hahnemannian symptomology of the chronic infectious
or assumed infectious disease as if all cases of the disease ever reported
were present in one patient.

Step 2--use Peter Chappell's new technology to engineer a remedy which
incorporates all those symptoms and imprint it onto a substrate--in essence
make a remedy that is new to the world and did not come from a substance but
was made from scratch using energy patterns.

We can typically find the characteristic functional totality, and it
corresponds to the simillimum of Hahnemann. This is what he is calling
Simillimum 1.

But as we well know, this totality does not always address the disease and
its progression by mimicking the disease itself. Peter it would seem has
used the Hahnemannian epidemic totality to stand in for us trying to use the
disease symptoms of just the patient before us which may be paltry and yet
have advanced to a totality beyond the totality for the "patient". His
engineered remedies correspond to the named disease, each of which is a
worldwide fluctuating pandemic with a totality that is stable, at least on a
reasonably long time scale. This is his simillimum 2.

A TRULY LESIONAL REMEDY IS NOT A PARTIAL IF THERE IS NO ONE SIMILLIMUM
Neither functional or lesional remedy can be defined as a partial
simillimum, IF the entire case cannot be handled by one remedy because the
characteristic totality and the "disease" totality cannot be encompassed by
one remedy alone.

This is not really a new idea in homeopathy, but an extension of Hahnemann's
group totality method. It is a way to seek a truly lesional remedy by
assuming that chronic diseases are a combination of miasmatic influences
which can be likened to an epidemic or pandemic which has a findable
totality. The totality for the lesional remedy for every sufferer of a
given disease syndrome which is not part of their "patient" totality is
findable by using Hahnemann's "As if one patient" genus epidemicus method.

What IS NEW is the idea that one can reverse engineer a remedy from scratch,
to customize it based on the totality of the symptoms of the pandemic
disease (example MS) and deliver it to each patient with that CHRONIC
disease. Treating a chronic organic disease it as if it was an acute
infectious one--and then engineering a remedy for it. This is an extension
of the Genus epidemicus method plus the ability to design and produce custom
tailored remedies for the group totality.

What it appears that Peter has done is to use Hahnemann's theory of the
genus epidemicus to describe any infectious disease according to its largest
common totality, and then ENGINEER a remedy which corresponds to that
totality using a new technology and methodology. It is using the idea that
a continuously pandemic chronic disease entity can be treated just as can a
time-limited acute infectious epidemic. They both rely on miasmatic
susceptibility as does the functional totality of the patient. The chronic
disease epidemic, he has posited, is a group totality just as is the acute
disease epidemic---just on a much longer timescale.

So, these are not partial similars from our view point. One may theorize in
a given case, for example, that one can cover the symptoms of the DISEASE
and of the functional "personality" of the case with one remedy only. In
some cases this is true. This would be as in Eizayaga's case where the
lesional and the functional "fundamental" (characteristic totality rx which
includes the personality) remedies are one and the same and will cover the
whole case. When that remedy can be found then the whole case will improve
in all its aspects on that one remedy.

But if the fundamental remedy is not found to cover the lesional aspect of
a case, we are left to find a separate lesional remedy, and this we are NOT
nearly as good at as modern homeopaths (Hahnemann, Boenninghausen, et all
were probably much better at it even with less remedies to choose from).
Many individual cases in which the organic pathology does not respond to the
remedy for the "patient"-- the symptoms of the organic pathology must be
seen as a lesional "layer" and treated directly first. It may be an
incomplete picture or one difficult to which to pin an effective lesional or
"smaller" remedy. And we have many, many cases where we cannot either
easily find a remedy which covers both "patient" and "disease"; or we have
not such a remedy available in the materia medica.

Peter has by all appearances found a way to end-run this problem by using
all patients with that same syndrome to find the lesional remedy for all
cases --by using a totality large enough to encompass the genus remedy for
the chronic "epidemic". Then that genus remedy is ENGINEERED--it does not
come from a substance in nature, but from electrical signals modulated
through translation of symptoms into mathematical algorithms and then into a
complex of frequencies. The difference in what Peter seems to have
invented is a way to simulate a CHRONIC disease totality using all the
collected disease totalities amalgamated-- to free us from trying to pry a
lesional totality from each individual case of the given organic pathology
or infectious chronic disease.

This innovation if it is what it says--- could well simplify the treatment
of organic pathology with homeopathy. What Stephen Decker in his extended
Organon calls the "tonic" disease corresponds to the core delusion or the
functional totality. This is the simillimum we all find daily in most
cases. What Decker says Hahnemann calls the "pathic" disease is of
infectious or ephemeral (traumatic) nature. Hahnemann gave us a technology
to deal with pathic disease---he just did not expand it to the chronic
timescale. This is what it appears Chappell has done, which is just an
extension of Hahnemannian thought. Then he added the Chappell innovation of
being able to make a custom remedy by design instead of relying on
collecting images and provings of substances plucked from nature. The genus
epidemicus for MS for example-- (stemming from a miasm which is related to a
chronic infection as yet fully defined--but which we have all the symptoms
of), can be SYNTHESIZED instead of far less efficiently ferreted out of the
materia medica of hodge-podge of proven rx.

Taken to another level, this method and technology of Chappell's could be
used to engineer a remedy for any individual functional case for which a
remedy cannot be found--if the case has not been spoiled by having its
symptoms suppressed away or obfuscated. But we are much better at finding
functional remedies---and our glaring weakness has been in stopping and
reversing organic pathology. Chappell may have found the way to solve this
shortcoming in homeopathic medicine.

A weakness of this new system is that these may as well be patent medicines.
They are manmade. We cannot find them in nature. They need to be spread to
many pharmacies and potentized enough so that they can be grafted. Then we
will not be left without them if the means for making them becomes
unavailable through regulation.
Best,
Andy

=======================

[Piet Guijt]

Andy wrote:

In this

Hi Andy,

I know al this, but basically I don't believe in Layers.
Treating layers is a never ending story.
I only accept the layer model as a practical tool, not as a reality.
A person only has one undivided vital force, which can only have one
disturbance.
In EIZAYAGA's model the 'individual' constitutional remedy in fact is the
Psoric 'structure' or 'type' remedy.
This remedy is a partial remedy, that's why in this model you need other
layer remedies to cover the rest.
The individual remedy I speak of covers the change in the centre of the
case. This individual centre is hierarchical higher then miasms and
constitution and will dynamically restore everything to health. Only problem
is 'we' can't always recognize such a remedy in each and every case right
away, so we must fall back to a second best approach and that's fine, after
all we are only human.
But lets at least realize on which level we are treating the patient and
during treatment always strive for the more exact simillimum.

Kind regards, Piet

[AH]

on 2/6/05 11:14 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:
((( Piet, I apologize for opening what may be a partly semantic discussion.
From your original statement, if a simillimum is defined as the remedy which
encompasses what we could call the functional totality and all organic
pathologies in one--then Chappell's separate simillimi must be partial, as
you say. But if a simillimum is defined as the first remedy needed in a
case at a given time, and there is no remedy which covers both the advanced
organic pathology and the metaphor/pattern of the person's typical
functional pattern, then Chappell's Simillimum 2 is the simillimum for the
time, and that remedy for the "patient" is the simillimum for another time
after the pathology is resolved.

Piet wrote:

((( I studied with Eizayaga among others, and he has 3 categories which
assume a homeostatic equilibrium which is relatively stable on the short
term. (These categories are, as you point out, a practical way of looking at
a case, but one which is essential in a case where the fundamental remedy
will not address the organic pathology):

Constitutional remedy -- non-disease state (I have yet to really use this
concept in practice--it is a proactive approach to prevention which depends
on morphological assumption of stable and immutable base constitution)

Fundamental remedy -- the characteristic functional personality (Sankaran
would say core delusional psychosomatic state)

Lesional remedy -- the organic pathology with a totality which no longer
overlaps with the typical fundamental totality
I am not sure what you mean by psoric structure--perhaps you mean the state
underlying which is either "phosphoric", fluoric, etc. (Eizayaga's words
taken from European methods).
Piet wrote:

((( In theory, it will, if it encompasses in its totality an organic disease
which has a totality which does not overlap with the fundamental or
(perhaps) the "constitutional" of Eizayaga. But in practice, in advanced
organic cases, not only is it very hard to encompass that lesional totality,
but it is harrowing, as the person is in dire straits, and may be
"terminally" so. But certainly in many cases the remedy for the whole
pattern which includes the pathology can be found. But Chappell's new tool
seems to be a kind of miasmatic "genus epidemicus" aimed at a chronic
disease---and this may be very useful for better results in these cases, as
I know you probably agree--and you say so just below:
Piet wrote:
Only problem is 'we' can't always recognize such a remedy in each and every
case right away, so we must fall back to a second best approach and that's
fine, after all we are only human. But lets at least realize on which level
we are treating the patient and during treatment always strive for the more
exact simillimum.

((( Agreed. But there is another element to the conversation which is
involved with how to emcompass a lesional and functional totality with the
same remedy. And that is that not all "layers" or components of a case are
equivalent. To broach this, will need to refer to Steven Decker's extended
Organon available as an ebook from Amazon.com:

evance-above%26field-keywords%3DSteven%252520R%252520Decker%26store-name%3Db
ooks/002-5785774-7792040
And he also has other books sold in this way by amazon. Decker interprets
hahnemann as positing two different types of diseases:

Tonic--functional, with at its center a core delusion, fear, or fixed idea.
Hahnemann found this to be potentially the most serious type of disease. It
corresponds to Eizayaga's Fundamental component of the case, Sankaran's
center of a case, and Chappell's Simillimum 1. This is psychosomatic
disease.

Pathic--due to infection or etiology (trauma of whatever type)--this
corresponds to Eizayaga's "lesional" remedy, and Chappell's Simillimum 2
when an infectious or chronic miasmatic disease is present.

If a pathic totality and functional totality do not correspond to a known
remedy, then we can treat the psychosomatic component but miss the pathic
component. A tonic remedy annihilates organic disease which is still within
its pattern but not a lesional totality (which may also have mental and
emotional component symptoms) which has a smaller and more specific
totality. This is not just a layer, but a particular distinction in type of
layer. Organic pathology as a result of a chronic or sub-chronic miasm can
take on a "life of its own" (cancer, etc).

subacute issue that resulted from a trauma. The acute pathic disease if
epidemic could be treated with a group totality remedy.

The component of Chappell's method that extends the traditional takes the
pathic remedy to the chronic level and even to diseases which are not
thought of as infectious (eg diabetes, which he has custom made a remedy
for). This blurs the distinction between what is infectious and miasmatic.

Then of course, there is Chappell's new technology for making remedies,
which is completely new.

I agree that "layers" can be zig-zag when having missed the whole totality.
But the issue that Chappell is dealing with is the Tonic/pathic distinction.
The "lesional" totality which must be treated first in a case of organic
disease is not always encompassable by a remedy hitting the "center" of the
TONIC totality (the psychosomatic totality which has at its center the
higher "metaphor" and functional pattern. Beyond that, the typical problem
of how long it takes to find the remedy that works for such a lesional case
is of importance when the disease is debilitating or life-threatening. The
hopeful results with Chappell's remedies tailored using EM fields appear to
shorten treatment time of chronic pathic diseases and make it a lot easier
on the practitioner. How well this bears out depends on people trying this
new development in their cases of organic pathology.

I agree we should make distinctions in definitions such as simillimum or
partial simillimum. If the simillimum is defined as the whole totality,
then his use of two simillimums is technically incorrect. But whether it is
technically incorrect or not, I think he was only trying to get at this
tonic/pathic distinction which homeopaths argue about. If one remedy can be
found for the whole case, then the issue is moot. But in a case of a
chronic pandemic which we have poor results making a dent in by that method,
then Chappell's remedies appear to be a major breakthrough.

Ok, I will stop I don't disagree with you. Took this opportunity but
not in disagreement.
All the Best,
Andy

[AH]

Piet wrote:
change in the centre of the case. This individual centre is hierarchical
higher then miasms and constitution and will dynamically restore everything
to health.
on 2/6/05 9:53 PM, AH at andyh@mcn.org wrote:
Best wishes,
Andy