on 2/19/05 9:42 AM, J Lucas at
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
((( Which is the rationale for a group totality which will describe a
chronic disease from a miasmatic standpoint. A miasm is too broad to allow
a group totality of an overwhelming chronic organic disease to be as
specific as is a group epidemicus of an overwhelming acute organic disease.
Hahnemann only got as far as classifying antimiasmatic remedies that could
apply to each chronic malady most closely (and this was a mammoth step of
course).
Chappell takes the next step of further precision in match of disease and
remedy, aided by being able to synthesize a remedy from a list of the
peculiar group symptoms, instead of try to make an imperfect fit from a
substance. The process of finding a substance analogue is laborious. The
closest analogue might be a nosode, but probably not--and Hahnemann
emphatically found the facsimile (homeopathic) remedy to be far superior to
the idem (isopathic) remedy). So the whole process of finding specific
remedies for group totalities was laborious and antimiasmatics (notably
antipsorics) provided the nearest approximation Hahnemann could make to what
Chappell has perfected.
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
((( He stops short of saying this explicitly, although making a group
totality for a chronic disease is in fact WHAT PARAGRAPH 103 IS ABOUT--and
which Chappell perfected for the named disease entity. It is important to
realize that the Chappell remedy for group totality for named disease in
classical practice is best adapted to when the chronic organic disease is
beginning to overwhelm the VF characteristic functional pattern and the
disease response/susceptibility contribution to symptoms is overriding the
individuality contribution to symptoms. Kent (1912) states this situation
as:
====
"The difficulty in prescribing for patients with such altered tissue -
cataract, hepatization (in pneumonia), induration of glands,
aterio-sclerosis, fibroids, cancer, etc. - rests in the fact
that when these tissue-changes occur, the symptoms on which a prescription
should be based - the symptoms of the patient - have disappeared. The
symptoms present at the time are symptoms of the pathology. "
====
Kent goes on to say:
====
"If the symptoms that preceded this condition can be learned, and considered
together with the later results of disorder - the pathological tissue - it
may be possible to select a remedy that is sufficiently related to both the
patient and his pathology, to effect a cure of both, provided always that
the reaction and vitality of the patient are sufficient to permit the
resolution. "
=====
In other words, if a remedy that matches the totality of symptoms of both
the "Patient" (psychosomatic totality) AND the organic disease (lesional
totality) can be found; and especially if it is on record clinically for the
tissue change symptoms, then the organic disease can be affected. Kent does
not mention treating the lesional totality alone, but Eizayaga and others
do-but not without first striving to do what Kent suggests. Chappell
precision lesional rx allows treating the individual with the ultimate
remedy of para 103 that Hahnemann would have made if he had the technology
of Chappell.
The difficulty in prescribing for patients with such altered tissue -
cataract, hepatization (in pneumonia), induration of glands,
aterio-sclerosis, fibroids, cancer, etc. - rests in the fact
that when these tissue-changes occur, the symptoms on which a prescription
should be based - the symptoms of the patient - have disappeared. The
symptoms present at the time
are symptoms of the pathology. If the symptoms that preceded this condition
can be learned, and considered together with the later results of disorder -
the pathological tissue - it
may be possible to select a remedy that is sufficiently related to both the
patient and his pathology, to effect a cure of both, provided always that
the reaction and vitality of the
patient are sufficient to permit the resolution.
The whole paragraph 103 EXACTLY describes what Chappell does in a chronic
disease (except Chappell MAKES HIS RX TO ORDER of the group totality
peculiars and Hahnemann uses the match of proved remedy to group
totality--but still only in terms of the antipsorics). Hahnemann mentions
the miasmatic remedy totalities but does not explicitly focus his group
totality on the named chronic disease entity. Hahnemann could not
synthesize a remedy according to the symptoms. This made optimal precision
match with the "malady" group totality very difficult and time consuming,
relying on choosing and proving of a substance. impossible. The antipsoric
was the closest analogue to the remedy for the shared "malady" for which
Hahnemann attempted to find a group totality remedy. Addition of the
ability to synthesize the named disease totality rx makes the process
precise and efficient, without having to find the perfect analogue in
existence in form of a proved or unproved substance. Hahnemann could not
take that next step, and Chappell did. If one understands this, then one
is beginning to understand what these remedies represent.
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
((( Down's is of course a result of miasmatic inheritance and
characteristics which develop during gestation because of the involved
miasms, which are "contagious" by certain contacts and by inheritance. It
is "epidemic" or not according to its prevalence. Treatment of at risk
parents who wish to conceive or after amniocentesis would seem to be one
approach; as well as after birth as a main remedy followed later by the
individualized simillimum.