(definitions)
Endemic: a disease that may fluctuate but nevertheless exists permanently in
a particular region or population; peculiar to a district or particular
locality, or class of persons.
Epidemic: An outbreak of disease that is common to, or affecting at the same
time, a large number in a community and may spread through one or several
communities.
Pandemic: When an epidemic spreads throughout a wide geographical area or
the entire world.
on 2/9/05 7:05 AM, J Lucas at
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
(( Dear Joy, Putting rx into the water supply is not unlike what is done
with an acute genus epidemicus--same rx for everyone for treatment and
prevention, and if the disease is severe enough and time short
enough--without taking a full case or needing a followup---only enough to
know they can safely react to a remedy (eg all those already in one's
practice who might be susceptible and need a priori prophylaxis if the genus
epidemicus is known and the disease is severe or life-threatening).
Hahnemann gave us two types of simillimum--the individual and the group
acute. Chappell has extended the group acute into a group chronic. The
closest thing in nature to a group chronic for a disease is the nosode of
the disease--and it can be fairly effective if it has been taken from many
strains over a long time span, in order to encompass most or all of the
attributes of the disease. Chappell went one-better-- he developed a
technology to make a chronic genus epidemicus from a list of the group
anamnesis for any disease, just as Hahnemann instructed to do for the group
totality for the acute.
Chappell is merely extending the group simillimum to the chronic level--to
allow treating a mass population with the same remedy--the remedy for the
epidemic or pandemic of a chronic disease instead of an acute. This is only
difficult to understand because we homeopaths have propagandized ourselves
with the idea that homeopathy is only about the individual simillimum.
Schools don't apparently teach the group simillimum well enough. The group
simillimum is a simillimum for a susceptibility to a DISEASE, which in our
system defines that disease, which has a overarching name to define it. If
we use that definition and name and collect all the peculiar hahnemannian
semiology for it and make it into a remedy, then we have a genus remedy for
that named disease for the population it was defined for---which in the case
of a pandemic---is not just one community but the entire world.
If the group totality encompasses a long enough time scale and all the known
hahnemannian semiologic indications of human response to that named disease,
then we have a chronic genus epidemicus--a remedy for that named disease
that can, as Chappell has shown, be given to everyone with that named
disease with curative response to at least some degree that he and others
(especially those recovering from AIDS)---are excited about--just as we see
with the shorter time scale acute epidemic.
Homeopathy is not just the individual simillimum. People have forgotten
about the group simillimum--which is a remedy for a group response to a
DISEASE in terms of collected Hahnemannian symptomology from as many cases
as possible. Chappell has taken the concept of the remedy for the group
ephemeral disease and expanded its timescale to the chronic level. Any
epidemic--for example smallpox--- has a short time scale genus epidemicus
which (once it is found by concatenating numerous local cases and then
repertorizing) is, in a one-stage epidemic, given to everyone. It both
treats and protects potentially infallibly, as the historical data
demonstrates.
A genus remedy *synthesized* for the AIDS pandemic using a concatenation of
all the symptoms of as many aids cases as possible--- after demonstrating
its effectiveness -- is given to everyone where the epidemic rages and can
provide both treatment, and, if desired, prophyaxis. If Chappell has been
accurate enough with his group anamnesis, then his chronic genus epidemicus
for AIDS will be as effective as has the acute genus epidemicus has been
historically for epidemic diseases like smallpox--nearly 100% effective.
Joy wrote:
The mass pandemics that homeopathy has thus so far failed
((( Here are examples of chronic epidemics or pandemics which homeopathy
can currently treat only one-by-one, case-by-case, and with only partial
success, since individual case taking has at BEST about a 30% failure rate
for giving the optimal remedy for gentle, rapid, permanent cure, and can
take years of missed prescriptions and wasted client time and money.
AIDS
Alzheimers
Cancer
Candida
Chronic Fatigue
Chlamydia
Herpes
Leprosy
Leukemia
Lyme Disease
Multiple Sclerosis
(these are all diseases for which chappell has made chronic group totality
remedies BTW)
Individual case taking in very capable hands may indeed solve the case, but
may also fail--and does not make a big impact on a chronic disease affecting
millions of people--like AIDS in Africa. Chappell has developed the Group
chronic simillimum-- a Hahnemannian law of similars remedy for the
DISEASE--potentially allowing treatment of exponentially more people with a
fatal or maiming disease ---quickly and inexpensively.
It is a complementary approach to the individual simillimum, which it does
not replace, because it is not treating the same totality. The individual
psychosomatic totality has to do with one's entire being and life curriculum
as well as one's health--encompassing one's entire psychology and bodily
economy--- desires, aversions, activities, contributions, aspirations,
relations--everything. Each Chappell group chronic genus epidemicus remedy
is aimed at only one totality---the miasmatic chronic named
disease---because it has been defined as all the hahnemannian symptomology
of a spectrum of cases of that disease over as long a time span and large a
geographical range as possible.
It is a groundbreaking advancement. It could (potentially) revolutionize
both homeopathy and medicine if it is not squashed first. Not checking it
out calls for first taking Ostrich 10M. I recommend people get together
and buy these rx (they are not cheap) and use them in their practices and
test them in stubborn cases of organic pathology. Go to vitalremedies.com
and copy the list of remedy codes available from two pharmacies. Then buy
some remedies for clients. Test the remedies. Then report in to the list.
Let's see just how effective these engineered hahnemannian chronic genus
remedies are in cases we have not before thought we could help to permanent
and full restoration.
((( This goes without saying. We have to separate wheat from chaff. The
only way to do this is to be open to all, and test and see what works.
The point being made is *not* that it is not *possible* to deal with
advanced pathology with the individual simillimum. But how reliable and
widespread is success in such treatment? How many of us can carry a
caseload full of cancer, AIDS, MS, etc clients and feel comfortable and
confident and discharge the pt after a few months of treatment? What
Chappell is reporting is the potential to help more clients with a
homeopathic tool based squarely on Hahnemann. If inertia in embracing
another hahnemannian tool---even to test it--- has to do with *not
understanding* an innovation, then it is important to *try to understand
it*. If it is rejected out of prejudice, then Aphorism 1 applies.
The theory behind Chappell's chronic genus epidemicus remedies are indeed
difficult to understand by homeopaths, for the most part because of our own
self-propaganda that the individual simillimum is "all there is" in
homeopathy. We have forgotten that Hahnemann invented another type of
simillimum--the group simillimum-- which we have heretofore only known in
its acute form, which is called the "Genus epidemicus". The genus
epidemicus is the *group simillimum* for a geographical disease, and is
Hahnemann's answer to the acute epidemic, by which everyone affected could
be treated *with the same remedy*. And everyone who had not been yet
affected could be protected *using that same remedy*.
The acute genus epidemicus remedy is found in the early days of the group
disease (epidemic) by concatenating as many cases as possible among all the
able homeopaths of the area, and then repertorizing the case to come up with
an optimal simillimum for the *disease*, which in this case is a *group
disease*. What is a group disease? A disease which appears not just in a
susceptible *individual*, but in a susceptible *population* or region.
Epidemics work on human communities just as they do on individuals---some
communities (by virtue of telluric factors, soil, bedrock, weather,
nutrition, and area morale and collective vigor (collective vital force) get
sick, others do not. We are all connected by some group identity. People
from Birmingham, for example, are Birminghamites---connected into a
geographical region. All that happens in Birmingham is of concern to them.
If the mayor embezzles and bankrupts town hall, everyone knows about it.
Birminghamians are to some extent unique and are connected by this and other
similarities and ties.
Jeremy Sherr once showed how a French Cholera epidemic (for which the genus
remedy was veratrum) had a relation to a Napoleonic defeat in a war--and he
showed how Veratrum fit the group psyche of France at the time. This is
group vital force, and group susceptibility. This is the ACUTE group
disease--an ephemeral eruption of epidemic in a region.
What if we, as Chappell did, decide to expand Hahnemann's principle to the
CHRONIC disease? Take as many cases of the chronic disease over as long a
time scale as possible and as wide a geographic area as possible, and
repertorize it? What if we then, instead of settling for the nosode or the
highest scoring materia medica candidates, can then MAKE that remedy
including all the peak symptoms and major points? Then we have an new
advancement in efficient treatment of disease using an engineered group
simillimum, which is a remedy for the disease in question by virtue of
including in the remedy, all the important components of human
susceptibility to it heretofore recorded.
Why is this important to you, me, and all homeopaths? Why, only a few days
after getting Soroush's report and Chappell's Powerpoint lecture (and for
the first time getting an elucidation and understanding of the basis and
mechanism of Chappell's work) am I interested that others also understand
it?
Because part of what Chappell is doing is PURE Hahnemannian homeopathy---
could not get more hahnemannian. The group simillimum remedy for the largest
chronic disease totality is engineered via a technology that can tailor-make
a remedy that does not exist in nature. This shows results in chronic
pandemics (AIDS, MS etc) with (one remedy fits all sufferers of the named
disease) JUST like the acute disease genus epidemicus of Hahnemann, except
on the expanded timescale of a chronic disease.
Does it replace the individual simillimum, interfere with it, or lessen its
importance? No. The individual simillimum is a remedy for the psychosomatic
life of an individual‹the individual susceptibility which is a mix of
miasms.
The group simillimum is a remedy for a collective response to a disease‹the
collective susceptibility which is like the "miasm" for that disease only
(even though it may also involve mixed miasms). Two different ways to
define a chronic disease--individual and by name. Hahnemann developed BOTH
these approaches. The individual rx for individ totality, in which named
disease is not important. The group remedy specifically for a named
disease. These approaches complement each other. Surely it is clear that
in a pandemic, the Group simillimum, if effective, will be faster and help
more people more quickly--people who may not either be interested in
individualized homeopathy, be able to afford it, or have anyone qualified to
provide it for them.
The individual simillimum is specific to a person whose case must be taken
in extremely intimate depth and then followed for a long time. The group
simillimum can work to treat and protect an entire population.
How important is Chappell's insight and invention of the possibility of a
chronic genus epidemicus? Consider this: the acute disease genus epidemicus
is VIRTUALLY INFALLIBLE under conditions of largely non-immunosuppressed
populations (e.g. the conditions of US 1850-1930). How do we know this?
Because Andre Saine ND scoured the homeopathic periodic literature among the
old homeopathic college libraries of the United States (esp U. Michigan and
University of California-San Francisco where W. Boericke practiced)--- and
found that the acute genus epidemicus was, in the hands of the best
hahnemannian homeopaths-- virtually 100% curative *and* protective of large
numbers of people during epidemics of highly contagious diseases like
smallpox.
The true Genus epidemicus group simillimum of the local regional acute
disease of the time--found by massing and concatenating cases--is not only
virtually 100% curative in a one-stage epidemic---but 100% *protective* of
those yet affected by the disease. In these epidemics being treated by
Hahnemannian homeopaths who understood that group diseases existed and could
be understood and treated---because Hahnemann pioneered it and proved it
could be done--the genus epidemicus remedy for the regional disease in
progress was handed out in some cases to everyone in a practice without
necessarily pulling them in for a followup.
Why was this important to (in many cases) treat everyone in a practice
(especially those whose individual remedy was not clear)? Because the
regional diseases that came through periodically did not only include the
common cold--- but virulent influenza, smallpox, cholera, yellow fever,
diptheria, and other fatal diseases. And there was no "antibiotic" crutch
until the 1930's. So there were many deaths from acute disease except in
families whose doctors were Farrington, one of the Allens, Kent, Grimmer,
and other members (in the US) of the IHA. The protective power of the genus
epidemicus is virtually 100%:
1871-Sarracenia (Pitcher Plant)(which was developed by Hering) was the genus
epidemicus of a smallpox epidemic in Belgium. No deaths occurred in those
immunized homeopathically. All the names and addresses were documented.
Texas Homeopathic Palette, 1883- Vaccininum (homeopathic cowpox) was used,
and completely protected against smallpox, even those eating and playing
with those that had smallpox.
1941 U.S. smallpox outbreak-homeopathic prophylaxis recorded a 98-99%
effectiveness.
and the definition of a genus epidemicus is a group simillimum which both
successfully treats and protects against the local regional acute epidemic.
It thus follows that a "chronic genus epidemicus" will potentially be as
efficacious. And this seems to be what Chappell is reporting. Today the
susceptibility to fatal acute diseases have largely been suppressed out of
existence and replaced by fatal (eg AIDs, Alzheimers) and debilitating (eg
MS, Chronic Fatigue) chronic diseases---which have infectious components, e
ven if not yet fully defined.
Chappell thought to himself--how do we find that remedy--a version of the
acute genus epidemicus that will work on chronic diseases? What is the
Chronic genus epidemicus? What Chappell did was extrapolate in time scale
from ephemeral to permanent and geographical coverage from epidemic to
endemic and pandemic; and do Hahnemann's group characterization procedure
for a *chronic* disease. He realized that the nosode might be the closest
genus remedy but he took an additional step--- a technology that can
synthesize an artificial remedy from a list of symptoms.
This other part of Chappell's discovery-- (synthesized tailor-made
electromagnetic remedies) is in itself a major breakthrough in medicine--it
allows a set of symptoms to be made into a remedy which will resonate with
those symptoms.
*Theoretically* such a remedy will also be, if not also virtually infallible
to its target, close to it---irregardless of what the person's individual
simillimum is, and without interfering with that individual simillimum
totality. Is it not clear how important this then is, both to homeopathy
and to medicine in general?
((( What Chappell is pioneering IS homeopathy. Just the other type of
simillimum that Hahnemann introduced--extended in time scale and
geographical extent--and engineered instead of potentized from a harvested
substance.
((( please define
mentality on this, homeopathy is both
((( Have you thrown out Hahnemann's acute genus epidemicus, then, also? If
you eschew Chappell's rx even to test, then you have essentially done that.
Because the process is the same. The difference being that Chappell's rx is
an engineered rx instead of one made first from a substance in nature. This
technological aid is a necessity since the group chronic simillimum for a
given disease does not likely exist in nature--and if it does it is not
easily or efficiently findable.
((( Was responding to this statement you made in your post, Joy:
"But at the end of the day we will end up prescribing like the allopaths
one remedy for diabetes, one for rheumatoid arthritis, one for Parkinson¹s
etc etc. "
You are probably concerned that individual simillimum prescribing--for an
individual totality--- will become like group simillimum prescribing--for a
disease totality. No one said this would happen--how could it? My sense is
that you did not really read my last post or maybe my style of writing is
too difficult to understand. This is not that difficult a concept to
understand. If after this post and/or reading the past 2 or 3 written on
this topic, one still does not understand it, then one does not want to.
Prescribing "like the allopaths" is in the case of Chappell's group chronic
simillimum--appropriate because all the cogent hahemannian symptomology for
a given chronic disease has been collected and synthesized into one
remedy--that is at least what Chappell says he does. So it IS really a
remedy for a named disease totality--all the symptoms of susceptibility over
time and space that could be collected just like Hahnemann said to do
locally in an acute epidemic. This is a convergence of a clinical entity
with a Hahnemannian Genus totality. The methodology to that point is pure
hahnemannian methodology. But because the remedy is made artificially and
not chosen from the materia medica, it is named according to the disease it
is meant to cover as much of the chronic susceptibility for as as possible.
Should a remedy for the group anamnesis for AIDS be called by some other
name?
Perhaps you should think of these remedies as "hyper nosodes", and use them
initially in your practice when carefully selected individual remedies fail
to act in a case in which the CC is a given very tenacious chronic disease
like AIDS, MS, etc. Because, in a sense, that is what they
are---engineered nosodes---theoretically designed to include all strains...
But remember, they are based on the susceptibility indicated by many cases
(Hahnemannian semiology)--- so not only known infectious diseases are
included in Chappell's list of rx he has engineered---but diseases which
have a miasmatic basis, and may very well have an infectious component yet
undiscovered (eg. MS may involve epstein barr; alzheimers may involve some
microbe, etc). But all these chronic diseases involve spirit-like miasms
first--susceptibility---and that is the basis for all of our
remedies--resonance with a totality of susceptibility.
((( That this approach is inappropriate when seeking the individual
simillimum goes without saying. But do you now understand how it is
appropriate for a group simillimum; and thus how ranting about it is merely
repeating a piece of our own programmed propaganda which applies only to
individual homeopathic prescribing...
((( Hahnemann taught mass prescriptions using the genus epidemicus--the
group simillimum.
I think there are huge political ramifications with this, one
((( I'll let Didi, who uses PC1 for AIDS in her practice in Kenya, and who
has described the decimation in which every family in Kenya has lost at
least one member to AIDS---respond to this one.
((( Sure.
But:
saying that the group simillimum cannot be aimed at a specific disease
susceptibility
because
it does not jive with a fixed idea that homeopathy is only about individual
simillimi
and thus that
we cannot define a remedy that way just because it has never been done
heretofore using group totality remedies
is
getting attached to a dogma which in this case does not apply.
An individual simillimum does not depend on named diseases. A group
simillimum is aimed precisely AT a named disease. So misapplying the rules
for one part of homeopathy to another part of it is thus like
"...constructing so-called systems..." which in Aphorism 1 was merely
Hahnemann's warning against raising dogma over the practical healing of the
sick.
Peace,
Andy
)