Hi..,
It was interesting to watch the debate without being in it for a few days.
Also some more productiveness is brought in to the matter from many.
I think now it is fairly obvious to anyone what a group totality is and how
Peter adopted that of acutes (of Hn) to chronics (of his own) to produce his
remedies. This is nothing new, obvious. But what is new and entirely HIS for
the time being is the way in which he makes remedies. That is nothing short
of genius, alas yet to be fully digested by us all.
Another thing is AIDS is definitely a miasm. And for that matter it is an
ACUTE miasm (when compared to the three primary and some other established
ones). Because compared to 'hundreds/thousands' of years of chronicity of
them 'tens' of years is nothing. That also in the bottom of the ladder. So
the same thing will happen as in GE. That, it will work well in acutes and
not in chronics (very surprisingly, I think may be that is why Hahnemann
didn't attempt to make GE for chronic). So it will work in AIDS and not in
others like MS or Cancer beyond an extend, UNLESS you incorporate more data
as regards, geography, culture and race. It is interesting to note that even
Andy agreed to it (his first explanation to Piet's Q of 'what to infer if PC
fails?' Ref: digest# 1928). (Also see my summation in # 1919)
Now what we do (and did so far) in chronic dx. Treat them individually with
well (toiled) selected remedies. So I still think that rather than
constructing a 'enormous group totality', say for example, for MS with data
from different parts of the world, it will be more effective to construct
'different smaller totalities' for different parts of the world and
construct PC remedies for them.
That brings us back to the final point I stated. The real significance of
this (PC tech) lies in the fact that IF we can adapt the tech to an
individual level, it will open before us the same door once again which was
done by Hn's chronic miasms and anti miasmatic Rx.
Best Regards,
Dr. Abdul Gafar.
www.homeoweb.com/clinic/uae.htm
www.homedpa.com/chief.htm
Tel: +971 50 4699659 (mobile-UAE)
+91 944 7244662 (mobile-India)
(Presently in UAE)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Definitely, science will catch up with Homoeopathy!
---------------------------------------------------------------
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/2005
PC's
-
peter chappell
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: PC's
"Editor-in-Chief; Homoeopathic Medical Panorama" wrote:
Hi..,
It was interesting to watch the debate without being in it for a few days.
Also some more productiveness is brought in to the matter from many.
I think now it is fairly obvious to anyone what a group totality is and how
Peter adopted that of acutes (of Hn) to chronics (of his own) to produce his
remedies. This is nothing new, obvious I THOUGHT IS WAS NEW IT WAS NOT OBVIOUS TO ME BEFORE THAT CHRONIC DISEASES WERE BIOSYMBIOTIC COMBINATIONS OF MIASMS BUT I AGREE GIVEN THAT ITS OBVIOUS. But what is new and entirely HIS for
the time being is the way in which he makes remedies. That is nothing short
of genius I THINK ITS FAILY SHORT OF GENIUS , alas yet to be fully digested by us all.
Another thing is AIDS is definitely a miasm. And for that matter it is an
ACUTE miasm (when compared to the three primary and some other established
ones). THERE ARE AS MANY MIASMS AS THERE ARE EPIDEMIC DISEASES WHICH IS RATHER A LOT I THINK
Because compared to 'hundreds/thousands' of years of chronicity of
them 'tens' of years is nothing. That also in the bottom of the ladder. So
the same thing will happen as in GE. DONT UNDERSTAND That, it will work well in acutes and
not in chronics (very surprisingly, I think may be that is why Hahnemann
didn't attempt to make GE for chronic).
So it will work in AIDS and not in
others like MS or Cancer beyond an extend, DONT UNDERSTAND
UNLESS you incorporate more data
as regards, geography, culture and race. It is interesting to note that even
Andy agreed to it (his first explanation to Piet's Q of 'what to infer if PC
fails?' Ref: digest# 1928). (Also see my summation in # 1919)
Now what we do (and did so far) in chronic dx. Treat them individually with
well (toiled) selected remedies. AGREED AND I DONT SEE THAT CHANGING So I still think that rather than
constructing a 'enormous group totality', say for example, for MS with data
from different parts of the world, it will be more effective to construct
'different smaller totalities' for different parts of the world and
construct PC remedies for them. UMMM SO FAR THE CORE PROCESS OF DISEASES LOOKS SIMILAR WORLD WIDE THE SAME DESIGN PRINCIPLES APPLY AND REMEDIES SEEM TO WORK WORLD WIDE
That brings us back to the final point I stated. The real significance of
this (PC tech) lies in the fact that IF we can adapt the tech to an
individual level, it will open before us the same door once again which was
done by Hn's chronic miasms and anti miasmatic Rx. DOONT UNDERSTAND
KIND REGARDS
PETER CHAPPELL
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi..,
It was interesting to watch the debate without being in it for a few days.
Also some more productiveness is brought in to the matter from many.
I think now it is fairly obvious to anyone what a group totality is and how
Peter adopted that of acutes (of Hn) to chronics (of his own) to produce his
remedies. This is nothing new, obvious I THOUGHT IS WAS NEW IT WAS NOT OBVIOUS TO ME BEFORE THAT CHRONIC DISEASES WERE BIOSYMBIOTIC COMBINATIONS OF MIASMS BUT I AGREE GIVEN THAT ITS OBVIOUS. But what is new and entirely HIS for
the time being is the way in which he makes remedies. That is nothing short
of genius I THINK ITS FAILY SHORT OF GENIUS , alas yet to be fully digested by us all.
Another thing is AIDS is definitely a miasm. And for that matter it is an
ACUTE miasm (when compared to the three primary and some other established
ones). THERE ARE AS MANY MIASMS AS THERE ARE EPIDEMIC DISEASES WHICH IS RATHER A LOT I THINK
Because compared to 'hundreds/thousands' of years of chronicity of
them 'tens' of years is nothing. That also in the bottom of the ladder. So
the same thing will happen as in GE. DONT UNDERSTAND That, it will work well in acutes and
not in chronics (very surprisingly, I think may be that is why Hahnemann
didn't attempt to make GE for chronic).
So it will work in AIDS and not in
others like MS or Cancer beyond an extend, DONT UNDERSTAND
UNLESS you incorporate more data
as regards, geography, culture and race. It is interesting to note that even
Andy agreed to it (his first explanation to Piet's Q of 'what to infer if PC
fails?' Ref: digest# 1928). (Also see my summation in # 1919)
Now what we do (and did so far) in chronic dx. Treat them individually with
well (toiled) selected remedies. AGREED AND I DONT SEE THAT CHANGING So I still think that rather than
constructing a 'enormous group totality', say for example, for MS with data
from different parts of the world, it will be more effective to construct
'different smaller totalities' for different parts of the world and
construct PC remedies for them. UMMM SO FAR THE CORE PROCESS OF DISEASES LOOKS SIMILAR WORLD WIDE THE SAME DESIGN PRINCIPLES APPLY AND REMEDIES SEEM TO WORK WORLD WIDE
That brings us back to the final point I stated. The real significance of
this (PC tech) lies in the fact that IF we can adapt the tech to an
individual level, it will open before us the same door once again which was
done by Hn's chronic miasms and anti miasmatic Rx. DOONT UNDERSTAND
KIND REGARDS
PETER CHAPPELL
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-
Piet Guijt
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: PC's
ACUTE miasm (when compared to the three primary and some other established
ones). THERE ARE AS MANY MIASMS AS THERE ARE EPIDEMIC DISEASES WHICH IS
RATHER A LOT I THINK
Hi "Dr. Abdul Gafar, Peter,
Why is it acute?
Maybe the onset has an acute nature, but is it self-limiting in nature? I
don't think so, so it is a chronic miasm.
Peter:
I THOUGHT IS WAS NEW IT
Do you mean mixed-miasmatic states? This is something ie Cloudhury speaks
of?
Peter:
THERE ARE AS MANY MIASMS AS THERE ARE EPIDEMIC DISEASES
Miasms are classification of constitutional changes, when you narrow down
the definition of the classification, there can be as many we like. But
Psora, Sycosis & Syphilis are the main fundamental miasms, which means they
represent the three basic different pathways the disease follows when it
pogresses or when it is suppressed.
The advantage is that we don't have to know the exact infection, but must
know which remedies are capable to reverse this process, and yes most of the
time it is a mixed state.
Dr. Abdul Gafar:
I think may be that is why Hahnemann
But he did for Psora! He gave us the list in his CD
Others did this for Sycosis and Syphilis.
Kind regards, Piet
ones). THERE ARE AS MANY MIASMS AS THERE ARE EPIDEMIC DISEASES WHICH IS
RATHER A LOT I THINK
Hi "Dr. Abdul Gafar, Peter,
Why is it acute?
Maybe the onset has an acute nature, but is it self-limiting in nature? I
don't think so, so it is a chronic miasm.
Peter:
I THOUGHT IS WAS NEW IT
Do you mean mixed-miasmatic states? This is something ie Cloudhury speaks
of?
Peter:
THERE ARE AS MANY MIASMS AS THERE ARE EPIDEMIC DISEASES
Miasms are classification of constitutional changes, when you narrow down
the definition of the classification, there can be as many we like. But
Psora, Sycosis & Syphilis are the main fundamental miasms, which means they
represent the three basic different pathways the disease follows when it
pogresses or when it is suppressed.
The advantage is that we don't have to know the exact infection, but must
know which remedies are capable to reverse this process, and yes most of the
time it is a mixed state.
Dr. Abdul Gafar:
I think may be that is why Hahnemann
But he did for Psora! He gave us the list in his CD
Others did this for Sycosis and Syphilis.
Kind regards, Piet