Minutus

on 3/27/05 2:55 AM, Ardavan Shahrdar at ashahrdar@yahoo.com wrote:
((( Dear Ardavan. I agree with the thrust of what you say here regarding
proprietariness. I think it is a dangerous step to make a successful law of
similars proprietary remedy that cannot be reproduced by pharmacies and
practitioners. Thus I think the best further step would be for Chappell to
sell and license the technology to practitioners. Such technology would
include a library of the remedies already programmed, and provide a means
for symptoms to be programmed from any group totality--acute or chronic
(epidemic/pandemic). Then the capability would be available to all.

However, as regarding "instructions"--I and others have previously explained
how Chappell's rx are based on the second type of simillimum that Hahnemann
invented--that for the named disease itself. Their application to chronic
disease is where the philosophical rub primarily exists--but this rub is IMO
because of our need for further understanding of what miasmatic diseases
actually are. I thus disagree that finding an rx for a diagnosable disease
is a departure from Hahnemannian method in concept (obviously it is a
departure in letter). But the concept must be debated regarding the correct
context. We are not discussing an individualized simillimum(! with
apologies). I will again address this question here. It is regrettably
somewhat of a long explanation. It will take some time and study. This is
unavoidable, but IMO I hope worthwhile. I make these explanations out of
desire to be able to truly discuss the issues, as most people do not yet
understand fully their basis in Hahnemannian thought, and thus their
implications. I might have previously done more thinking about the concept
of the group simillimum than the average practitioner. If so, this would be
the only reason why I have the certaintly that what Chappell has done is
Hahnemannian and homeopathic, if a departure somewhat from Homeopathy the
defined "system".

Perhaps you already understand what has been done, but from your statement
you seem to indicate that the simillimum for a named correctly diagnosed
disease miasmatic entity itself is an "unnatural" simillimum (please correct
that if it is a wrong assumption). However, IMO the PC rx--when it
represents an accurate totality for the named disease itself-- is no more
"unnatural" than the genius epidemicus is for an acute epidemic. We have
almost 200 years of success using the group totality method in acute
diseases. Is that experience invalid?

The group totality rx does not suppress the individual vital force, though
it is treating a subtotality--because it treats the active subtotality as a
precise and complete entity, and this entity is dissimilar to the host vital
force pattern. Curative response from these remedies is like what we
observe from individual simillimum (Hering/Vijayakar/Sehgal type signatures
of healing response), although what is being addressed to be cured (which is
known a priori by only the correct diagnosis) is completely dissimilar to
the psychosomatic whole of the host. What is addressed is the complex and
inimical miasmatic entity itself which results in the well-defined and
*diagnosable* disease entity.
In a particular individual, the simillimum for the disease addresses the
subtotality of the SPECIFIC miasmatic vital force within the individual
which has (in typical cases of organic disease (eg ALS)) overwhelmed the
individual AS IF the situation was a true ACUTE disease. The chronic
disease, whether it is dissimilar or not, can be directly addressed as a
subtotality parasitic on the host vital force with a group totality remedy.
Required to do this is an accurate characterization of that stable
miasmatic complex pattern which is present in all sufferers of that named
and stable chronic disease. Annihilation in toto of that well defined
inimical vital force entity is then possible. The host vital force is a
dissimilar totality. The Host vital force contains parasitic vital forces
(miasms) which can begin to overwhelm subsystems via inductive effect on
individual host cells. These miasms have been present since gestation,
indeed they are part and parcel of the whole host. But they can also be
addressed as a subtotality.

DEMONIZATION OF THE CONCEPT OF THE DISEASE TOTALITY AS A CONFUSION
Kent and others promulgated "propaganda" so that we do not MISUSE the named
disease totality to determine the individual simillimum. The named chronic
disease totality is a subtotality of an individual in a chronic situation.
This propaganda is appropriate in the finding of the individualized
simillimum when the chronic diseases are not dissimilar, and not complex. A
case in which the host vital force is uniform and strong, and the miasmatic
(microbial) vital force (miasms) are weak and minimal--results in a
psychosomatic case in which many aspects respond to a course of one or more
remedy totalities which are similar to the case by comparison, as we are
accustomed. But in cases of dissimilar disease, the situation of finding
the remedy for each disease subtotality is far less straightforward.

(BTW Ardavan, please do not interpret this as aimed at you, it is a general
statement)--If people wish to be prejudiced and follow Kent's idea for the
case of the group totality, then the meaning of Chappell's discovery and
invention will go straight over their head. Whether they agree with an idea
or not is up to them. But if they wish to be involved in mutually informed
debate, it is first necessary to understand THAT which is being debated, or
one is merely giving opinion based on prejudice or misunderstanding.

Regarding the PC remedies--we are not talking about the individual
simillimum--but of Hahnemann's group simillimum--WHICH IS A SIMILLIMUM OF A
DIFFERENT TYPE AND MODE ALTOGETHER. Therefore all the ideas people have in
their head about the individual simillimum are not all appropriate for
discussing a group simillimum. Kent used the genius epidemicus regularly,
but did not necessarily recognize its implications. The Genius epidemicus is
an approximation of the named epidemic disease itself. When the cohort is
large enough and the disease virulent enough, the resulting para 102
peculiars represent the analog by Hahnemannian semiology OF THE NAMED
DISEASE ITSELF--A GROUP PROVING OF THE DISEASE. This method of
understanding what is the nature of a DISEASE VITAL ENTITY can be applied to
chronic disease as well as acute, as Hahnemann discerned, but was not able
to carry to the RESOLUTION of the specific miasmatic complex of a named
chronic disease. He stopped at individual remedy totalities within a
miasmatic category, and did not take the specificity to the level of a
diagnosable disease. He did not have the analogs in the materia medica to
do so, and even today, finding those analogs systematically would be too
time consuming. Hahnemann also did not have diagnostic tests to confirm
miasmatic disease complexes as specific entities when they can be so
defined.

WHAT IS A GROUP TOTALITY SIMILLIMUM?
When a virulent epidemic overwhelms almost everyone who imbibes the
microbes, then the exhibited peculiar symptomology culled from the group of
cases (para 102) represents a description not of an individual, not of a
group, and not of a miasm. It is a description of a group response to a
disease. Chappell, like Hahnemann, realized that this is true not just for
the acute case, but also for the chronic case. He developed technology to
go one further step in resolution from remedy totalities within Psora,
however, and this (technology) is why the named chronic disease simillimum
is possible rapidly and without recourse to a materia medica approximation.

The additional step Hahnemann DID NOT take is harnessing his group totality
method to define a group totality for a chronic NAMED DISEASE (a smaller and
more specific category than a miasm)--and then be able to reproduce that
specific remedy systematically. He managed to do it only for prophylactic
purposes byin 1799--when he found that Belladonna was specific to
prophylaxis of Sydenham scarlatina. Belladonna will also treat many cases of
the disease although not all cases--because belladonna is not specific
enough to the disease group totality.
GROUP TOTALITY IS A DIFFERENT TYPE AND MODE OF SIMILLIMUM
We generally define a simillimum as the remedy for the totality of symptoms
of an entity. In the case of an individual, this definition is rather
loose--how can we show that we captured the entire individual automatic
living force (vital force)? We only at best are able to annihilate that
individual pattern as it exists at a given time.
But, that being said, the simillimum by this definition has two variants as
introduced by Hahnemann. The simillimum for the individual totality of the
moment we are all familiar with. It is found by rigorous case taking. It
is a simillimum for an *individual*. This is the first type of
Hahnemannian simillimum.

The Genius epidemicus is a simillimum for a *disease* when the disease is so
virulent as to overcome most individual characteristics (a true acute
disease); and the population of provers of that disease (summed cases from
which para 102 symptoms are culled) is sufficiently large.

So, while Hahnemann used the para 102 method to define "antipsorics", his
genus epidemicus is for a far more narrowly defined entity--a particular
disease outbreak which was proved by a cohort of sufferers.

In Hahnemann's case, he had no way to engineer the genius epidemicus
straight from the list of para 102 symptoms from the summed cases of the
epidemic. So, he resorted to the potentized analog as proved by
dissimilarity on people, or evident by poisonings. This is our usual
method--use the analog as proved by dissimilarity or by clinical use or
curative response (similarity).

Hering proved by dissimilarity Sarracenia (Pitcher plant) and predicted it
would be a remedy for smallpox. It was the genius epidemicus for at least
one smallpox epidemic, as I have reported previously the published record.

Hering found Kali cyanatum as a candidate rx for smallpox epidemics (and a
potent prophylactic in crude and potentized form) by *similarity* (curative
response). He was alerted that the attendance records at certain
philadelphia metal plating plants showed that workers there did not get
smallpox. Workers at these plants (with potassium cyanide in use) did not
get smallpox.

Thus we have these two remedies for use for smallpox epidemics by these
methods. What Chappell has done with his technology is allow us to skip
either of those steps. Chappell produces an analog for the disease without
the requirement of starting from a substance which we then demonstrate the
symptoms and characteristics by dissimilarity (systematized proving of a
group) or similarity (systematized healing of a group).

I should point out as I have before that Chappell's method is unlikely to be
useful for an individual totality. Chappell say this himself. We cannot
define an individual *a priori* from a casetaking and be sure that we have
captured the pattern thoroughly--this might be almost impossible. We need
the totalities to be thoroughy predefined and investigated and use
COMPARISON. However, in contrast-- from the collection of symptoms from
enough cases of a group of sufferers of a stable and narrowly DEFINED and
DIAGNOSABLE chronic DISEASE ITSELF, we can accurately describe the human
clinical peculiars of the disease itself *in toto*. This Hahnemann
demonstrated, and we have almost 200 years of data (in acute epidemics)
demonstrating the success of this method in applying a specific analog to
the treatment of a specific acute outbreak (the so-called Genius epidemicus,
or "unique spirit of the epidemic") (thanks to G. Rottler and R. Foley for
work on the history of the terms Genius and Genus in this context).
REMEDY FOR THE SPECIFIC MIASMATIC COMPLEX THAT WE KNOW OF AS A LIVING
DISEASE ENTITY WITHIN THE HUMAN VITAL FORCE BUT INIMICAL TO IT
What makes Chappell's PC remedies different than the Hahnemannian para
101-103 remedies is that Chappell posited that the chronic epidemic remedy
was resolvable down to the specific disease. Hahnemann knew this most
likely, but he could only RESOLVE down to the remedy totality within the
miasmatic category. He had only remedy totalities to compare to the para
102 result of the repertorization. Chappell, on the other hand, can make
the analog directly FROM the para 102 result (and other collections of
symptomology (e.g. all available clinical descriptions of the disease which
represent how humans react to the morbific influence in common).

Many diseases for which the individual simillimum method has not been
successfully curative are complexes of chronic miasms which have become
dissimilar and have overwhelmed the client JUST like an acute disease does
in a shorter timeframe. The Chappell remedy is a Genius epidemicus for the
chronic disease ITSELF-- but having leapfrogged the step of having to find
the annihilating analog among our materia medica library.

One must study these concepts awhile to really understand this--I do not say
that it is easily understood. Careful study will eventually result in
really knowing WHY Chappell's remedies are firmly based on the Hahnemannian
second TYPE of simillimum--that for the unchanging chronic disease itself.
Both acute and chronic disease results from susceptibility. Miasms are
nonhuman vital forces present in the human vital force. Miasms are the
vital forces of microbes trying to run human unicellular subsystems as if
the host cells were the body of the microbe. The human differentiated cells
are not like those of a decomposer microbe (like syphilis for example), and
the resulting *mismatch* is the "delta" which characterizes the
characteristics of the miasm).

A simplified hypothesis of miasm follows. The real situation is more
complex than this. But one basic idea is this:

ACUTE SITUATION
The acute disease results from colonization *accelerated* by a closely
matching vital force present in the affected individual. The proliferation
from accelerated division and resulting proliferation may be sufficient to
kill the host in a short time.

CHRONIC SITUATION
The chronic disease does not result from colonization--but from the
parasitic microbe vital forces clinging to and stressing the host cells of a
certain more susceptible type--until those host cells fail. In the special
case of the cancer vital force--it is able to take over almost any type of
differentiated human cell type and reproduce in it in the undifferentiated
pattern of the decomposer microbe which is or was the cancer microbe (it may
be difficult to find because it may be extinct as a microbe physical body).
on 3/27/05 2:55 AM, Ardavan Shahrdar at ashahrdar@yahoo.com wrote:
(( This is true. However, when the remedy is engineered directly from a
group proving of the miasmatic disease itself, and the clinical result is
curative response with Hering/Vijayakar signatures, then we can infer that
we have accomplished a similarity by the mechanism of Group totality
simillimum. Provings of the disease remedy will provide additional
information or confirmation, certainly. But it should be clear that if
Chappell rx were not similar to the disease, then they would have no effect,
and no result. Since the principle is just as Hahnemann's (para 102
symptoms)--but the remedy is engineered DIRECTLY from the group totality of
the disease itself--then the proving is not pivotal for the design use of
the remedy. That design use is to DIRECTLY address the inimical vital
force(s) of the disease subtotality which has overwhelmed the individual by
stress--- just as does an acute disease by colonization of the actual
microbes.
on 3/27/05 2:55 AM, Ardavan Shahrdar at ashahrdar@yahoo.com wrote:
Our basic principle is
((( How is the group simillimum not "like cures like"? Is the genius
epidemicus not a hahnemannian law of similars rx?

The difficult issue for understanding the Chappell class of chronic rx is
recognizing that a dissimilar chronic disease is a result of a nonhuman
(microbial) inimical vital force complex living WITHIN the Host vital force.
It can be addressed DIRECTLY and annihilated by destructive resonance just
as we do the pattern of the miasmatic complex which we recognize as the
psychosomatic remedy of the client.

The individual vital force totality is the host vital force plus the
inimical miasms. But when the inhabiting miasmatic vital force becomes on
the ascendant, it overwhelms the host. The chronic disease group totality in
an individual is the miasmatic vital force complex expressing through the
vital force of the host, but it is dissimilar to the pattern of the host.
Therefore finding a remedy similar to both the "patient" (their
psychosomatic "disease" (with a small "d") and the Disease which inhabits
that host (Disease with a big "D"--what the medical world considers as
diagnosable disease) is difficult. The Hahnemannian antimiasmatics can do
it for many diseases. P Banerji is close to perfecting the confirmed the
clinical pictures of diseases via 15 million cases over 90 years. Eizayaga
took a good crack at it. It can be done with remedy totalities. This is
advanced prescribing. And many diseases have not been addressed even by
remedies approximating dissimilar diseases. Chappell has just taken a
Hahnemannian method of a different type (Group simillimum) and extended it
from acute to chronic for annihilation of the inimical and dissimilar
disease totality itself DIRECTLY. This is applicable PRECISELY to the
correctly diagnosed chronic disease. Otherwise it would not work at all.
on 3/27/05 2:55 AM, Ardavan Shahrdar at ashahrdar@yahoo.com wrote:
We are not going to

((( We will not confirm it thoroughly in all of its symptoms. However, as
Scholten, Sankaran, and Mangialavori have shown, we can obtain result by
INFERENCE from known remedies related by taxonomy (Mendeleevian or Linnean).
This for cases incurable by using only fully proved rx. To prove by
dissimilarity all the rx that the latter individuals use to cure cases by
inference and elucidation by similarity (clinical cured cases) would take
many decades. And, and P. Banerji (with 15 million cases in database) has
shown that clinical pictures as related to individual provers are necessary
to define totalities.

So, clearly, the method of elucidation by inference and cure (clinical
elucidation by similarity) has become PRACTICAL enough for widely successful
use. In the case of, for example Scholten, Sankaran, Mangialavori, it
requires different methodology (recourse to more essence matching; or in
Sankaran's case, invention of a new type of semiology--that of a vital
"sensation" or gesture)---but no one can dispute that it can be useful. It
is not Hahnemannian to the letter, certainly. Using the characteristics of
the cured is just another method of ascertaining the action of a medicine.
I agree it will miss some symptoms. But it has shown itself to be less time
and energy intensive, thus those have used it. It does not replace proving
by dissimilarity, but it has overtaken that method by necessity. If we can
make provings by dissimilarity less time consuming (e.g. develop software
for symptom collation) and fund them better, then perhaps they will catch
up, and we will have more complete pictures of the hundreds of new remedies
made extant by inference and clinical experience.
on 3/27/05 2:55 AM, Ardavan Shahrdar at ashahrdar@yahoo.com wrote:
we can just find out what picture a remedy

((( The proving of PC rx will interesting, and might help further confirm
that Chappell's technology does what he claims it does. But if one
considers that it might be "better" then it would appear that one is still
thinking in our usual mode of comparison of case with existing remedy
analogs (potentized substances). Because Chappell does not use substance
analogs to produce his rx. Chappell's method leapfrogs the need for
comparison of case and remedy. The sufficiently large group case (para 102,
and all disease descriptions extant) of a cohort of suffers of a disease IS
the electromagnetically produced PC remedy.

The remedy is equivalent to a mass proving of the miasms driving the DISEASE
as expressed in humans. Otherwise Chappell rx would do nothing in cases,
would not cause curative responses consistently only in people with the
correct diagnosis. The miasmatic character of a particular chronic disease
is STABLE, and if we collect all the characteristics from a large enough
cohort, then we are able to characterize it THOROUGHLY just as Hahnemann
says in para 103. We can thus annihilate the underlying miasmatic complex
(inimical, nonhuman vital force) that has come to dominate a portion of the
the vital function of the individual. The individualized simillimum is an
annihilation of the miasmatic complex specific to Kent's "the patient". The
group simillimum is an annihilation of the miasmatic complex specific to the
"Disease". That "Disease" is dissimilar to the patient. Kent says if we
can find a remedy similar to both simultaneously, then we can cure both the
patient and the tissue pathology. But in dissimilar and complex diseases,
this is usually not possible. The patient may improve somewhat, but the
chronic disease is not cured, and eventually is their cause of death.

on 3/27/05 2:55 AM, Ardavan Shahrdar at ashahrdar@yahoo.com wrote:
((( I agree that proprietariness is indeed a dangerous precedent in
homeopathy and I have the same concern. IMO, these will overshadow the
detriment:

---the ability to address miasmatic complexes for specific diseases
DIRECTLY, and in complement to the individual simillimum--thus saving
individuals with dissimilar or complex diseases for which the remedy
totality cannot be matched

---extending homeopathy to the level of the chronic epidemic/pandemic, thus
allowing mass treatment by a law of similars remedy whether the client will
undergo treatment by the individualized simillimum in the future or not.
example--AIDS. We can treat AIDS with the individual simillimum, but only a
few individuals, and there are many millions of sufferers.
IMO, without more substantiation of your point, the above advantages will
prove to be of far more import than the detriment. However, I base that
opinion on the assumption that Chappell will make his technology available
to practitioners, as I share your concern about proprietariness.
Centralized solutions can disappear. Decentralized ones are difficult to
eliminate.

All the best to all,
Andy