thanks for answering.
Whatever email-program you are using...in any case it's difficult for me
to sort it all out because of the additional CRs (carriage returns) and
the CAPS etc.
BTW: are you by chance planning to come to Berlin in early May, for the
LIGA-congress? Would be nice to meet you there and continue a little bit
of talking from person to person.
I'll comment on my own post and your answer:
---------------------------------------------
Gaby:
I found Peter Chappells approach really interesting - though of course
I too have no idea HOW his remedies were really made. From Didi Ananda's
response, from what I read on his website and from his powerpoint
presentation I gathered that there really could be something behind, as
some of the figures were quite impressing when it came to getting a
curative or partial curative response.
Peter:
I THINK THE RESULTS ARE MORE THAT QUITE IMPRESSIVE
I THINK A SOBER ASSESSMENT IS THAT THEY ARE OUTSTANDING
THE STATS DON'T REALLY SHOW REALITY
REALITY OFTEN IS FOR PC1 THAT WITHOUT THE REMEDY THEY WOULD BE DEAD
Reply Gaby:
It's great that you seem to have so wonderful results. So far I've only
seen a little bit of the statistics.
But please bear in mind, that by no way I was up to questioning your
results.
I only tried - and still try to - deal with the question:
*** Is it homoeopathy***?
---------------------------------------------
Gaby:
Q: Is it homoeopathy?
A: Till now I don't think so.
Peter:
WELL HAHNEMANN DID NOT DISCUSS THE META PRINCIOPLES UPON
WHICH HOMEOPATHY EVOLVED OR ARRIVED
HE DID NOT THINK ON THAT LEVEL.
CLEARLY LIKE CURES LIKE IS CORE AND THAT GOES BACK 100S OF
MILLIONS OF YEARS
I CAN PROVIDE MY DEDUCTIVE REASONING FOR THIS LAST SENTANCE
BUT IT'S A BIT LONG FOR HERE
ITS IN THE BOOK
APHORISMS 100+ STATE FOR A EPIDEMIC DISEASE TREAT TOTALITY
READ MICROBIOLOGY
MY CONCLUSION IN A NUT SHELL IS THAT ALL DISEASES ARE
SYBIOTIC RELATIONSHIPS OF MICRO ORGANISMS=MIASMS=EPIDEMIC DISEASES
THAT'S A BIG LEAP OF THOUGHT BASED ON MODERN SCIENCE
IT'S A BIG STEP, I CANT PROVE IT, BUT TO ME ITS ALMOST INDISPUTABLE
THEREFORE APHORISM 100+ APPLIES TO ALL DISEASES
Reply Gaby:
Similia similibus curantur/curentur. Yes, that's one of the main points.
But another one is the: How do we arrive at the knowledge to be able to
compare, the characteristic symptoms of the remedy and the
characteristic symptoms of a patient or a prevailing genius epidemicus
(BTW: for all the readers on the list: Even in English it should be
GENIUS epidemicus, having nothing to do with Genus, which is a
completely other sort of thing.).
Your method differs in this part. As you term it: reverse-engineering.
It may work, of course. It may even be a break-through in medicine.
But I friendly but stubbornly insist, that this way of preparing alone
doesn't make it homoeopathic.
And deductions and conclusions are often difficult to prove .... it
takes time to establish a new rule or law. (And of course, discussions
with sceptics can't be avoided - and in my opinion shouldn't be. They
are helpful to test ones own arguments, and see where there still are be
holes or too fragile bridges that need to be fixed.)
---------------------------------------------
Gaby:
Aph. 141: " The tests with remedies of the healthy medical doctor upon
himself remain the most preferable ones."
Peter:
YOU ARE WELCOME TO DO THIS
MANY UNHEALTHY HOMEOPATHS ALREADY HAVE TO GOOD EFFECT
PROVINGS NEED DOING
ITS NOT MY SKILL
I ENCOURAGE IT
ONE INSIGHT IS INCLUDED AT END OF THIS
Reply Gaby:
I had already decided to get a bottle of the remedy, simply out of
curiosity. And I will test it on myself. In nearly all my provings I
have experienced at least one so well-cut symptom, to be able to
differentiate it from other remedies. So this will be, as every other
remedy, an interesting experience.
---------------------------------------------
Gaby:
Aph. 143 - 145: "Only out of the exploration of the pure effects of
remedies on healthy persons a true Materia Medica develops."
Peter:
THIS IS TRUE BUT IT EXCLUDES OTHER WAYS OF DEVELOPING KNOWLEDGE OF
REMEDIES HAHNEMANN DID NOT FORSEE
Reply Gaby:
May be. So if the explorations of the pure effects are done in another
way than the 'normal' homoeopathic way, why is there the need to call it
'homoeopathic'?
Why not coin another name for it, so that not only practitioners as well
as lay people are able to see that there are differences?
I do see of course what PC1 and homoeopathy have in common,
mathematically spoken like 2 intersections: some parts are used by both
of them, but you didn't use ALL of the pillars, that are necessary to
term something homoeopathy.
Perhaps you will say: That is terribly nitpicking if PC1 saves so many
lives, it doesn't matter what it is called, if the idea is based on some
of the clear homoeopathic principles.
Maybe nitpicking.
But I do have a passion for homoeopathy, what it is, what it was, and
the principles that it's based upon. So _I_ need the proving info.
---------------------------------------------
Gaby:
Aph. 269-271: " The way peculiar to Homoeopathy of preparing raw
medicinal substances to develop their curative power in the most
possible way. Dynamization."
Peter:
THIS IS ONLY ONE POSSIBILITY
WHEN POTENTISATION IS FULLY RESEARCHED AND UNDERSTOOD, BETTER METHODS
WILL BE FOUND
Reply Gaby:
That's speculation. We'll see what future will bring.
---------------------------------------------
Gaby:
So if Peter has chosen the totality of symptoms, this is the
indication. But: Where is the proving on healthy persons that we base
our knowledge on?
Peter:
MY BEST CASES ARE BASED ON PATIENTS TELLING ME THEIR REMEDIES
I GIVE IT
THE RESULTS ARE STUNNING
THE MATERIA MEDICA RESULT IS FANTASTIC
SEE LATRODECTUS MAC IN EMTIONAL HEALING WITH HOMEOPATHY
I CHALLANGE YOU TO FIND A BETTER PICTURE OR PRODUCE A BETTER CURE
Reply Gaby:
What do you mean exactly? You mean people told you what they had as
remedies or what they thought they should receive????
---------------------------------------------
Gaby:
With the symptoms obtained it could be easily seen if/that PC1 was
really homoeopathic to Aids cases. Then PC1 can be called without doubt
a homeopathic remedy - and then it IS Homoeopathy.
Peter:
DON'T AGREE
Reply Gaby:
I think I'll wait for the provings to be published and look at symptoms
produced by myself. Then I will know more.
---------------------------------------------
Gaby:
Q: what if Peter doesn't do a proving of PC1?
A: Then strictly speaking: PC1 may be helpful for many cases of Aids
(something which could be proven by further studies), but it couldn't be
called a homoeopathic remedy. Same as complex-remedies just aren't
homoeopathy, cause what is in them hasn't had a proving.
Strictly speaking. Classical speaking. Hahnemannian speaking.
Peter:
NOT TRUE I THINK SEE ABOVE
Reply Gaby:
Here the two of us could stand debating endlessly (like ion those old
greec yards, where they mentally fought for hours..)
---------------------------------------------
Gaby:
Q: But PC1 would work in spite of that?
A: Of course. There are many things that have effects, as we all know,
positive effects, curative effects. But to be termed 'Homoeopathy' it
has to fulfill the criteria mentioned above.
Peter:
THIS CAN BE DEBATED
HOW MANY REMEDIES NEED PROVING BEFORE THIS NEW WAY IS VALIDATED?
Reply Gaby:
You mean: how many remedies produced in the Peter-Chappell-way need to
be proved to establish a rule or law, that these and all further
remedies produced in that way are homoeopathic to the totality of
symptoms chosen by you?
Can't tell. That's rather a question for a statistic expert with the
mathematical tools to calculate and extrapolate it.
And, of course: in any case there will always be exceptions to the rule.
Best,
Gaby
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gaby Rottler
Germany
rottler@curantur.de
http://www.curantur.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~