PC remedies-Joy

[AH]

on 3/30/05 5:07 AM, J Lucas at j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
(((((( Joy, you have given no indication to me that you either understand
the discussion, nor want to understand it.

Are you now assailing intellectual debate?

That the group totality rx is "homeopathic" and "homeopathy" goes without
saying. See para 101-103 and Chronic Diseases, which is all group totality
method described and applied. PC rx are synthesized so as to be as precise
as possible and efficiently produced. So they do not use the materia
medica, they are synthesized materia medica, applied on only correct
diagnosis. They are an attempt to approximate the miasmatic complex of the
named disease using the clinical peculiars of a large group of sufferers of
that disease, as in 102, and resolved to the diagnosable disease only. They
are homeopathic, certainly. Though not "homeopathy" the system--do you
really understand how they differ and why?

The same para 101-103 method can be used to find a materia medica group
remedy analog for a disease entity, if you like.

Parimal Banerji and his father did that kind of work for 90 years and 15
million cases and have pathological groupings published for a portion of the
materia medica (having as one component a statistical group totality based
on named diagnosis), with more in the pipeline. Those materia medica
disease remedy totalities, being potentized analogs instead of synthesized,
are THOROUGHLY Hahnemannian. Not exactly the same as a precise lesional
remedy, but a statistical demonstration of lesional remedies in the materia
medica based on group data.

Joy, you appear to take personal affront to the group totality concept,
though it has been a homeopathic law of similars rx in acute disease for
some 200 years. It is part of "Homeopathy" the system as in Organon
101-103, and the mechanism for the birth of the miasmatic concept in CD.

So far, you have not been willing to come halfway in order to attempt to
understand a concept which you seem to find threatening. My guess is that
you are so personally attached to the wonderful art of materia medica of
which you are a very skillful exponent--that you think that there is nothing
else in homeopathy but the individualized simillimum. The individualized
simillimum is (obviously) the central thrust of homeopathy. But you have
left out the group simillimum.

The artistry of materia medica and the finding of the individual simillimum
is not going to go away. How could this happen? Why does it seem so
threatening that a group totality law of similars remedy could be applied
and save a lot of peoples lives or cure their debilitating or fatal disease?
Is it possible that you have taken on the "propaganda":



and used it to cloud your judgement about the group totality remedy concept?
Does your own fixed idea thus make ANY other ideas an affront to homeopathy
*as you understand it*?

If you really understood then you could participate in an intelligent
discussion. INSTEAD we end up with your open vindictiveness toward
homeopaths like Soroush. We have other people resorting to words like
"wanking" in a professional forum.

When we are able to get beyond our prejudices we will all improve as people
and as practitioners. Homeopathic medicine AS IT IS PRACTICED is not able
to restore all cases, and even in success it can be very inefficient. When
people suffering from disease are those who must bear these failures, then
it becomes clear that we have a ways to go if our goal is to be a medical
system fulfilling paragraph 1. Gloating is unwise when so many uncured
cases and suffering people remain unhelped.

Trying to pretend that general homeopathic practice does not fail --probably
at least 50% of the time-- and is efficient (though we zigzag with people
for years) IS NOT AN HONEST ASSESSMENT.
on 3/30/05 5:07 AM, J Lucas at j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:

(((( "Homeopathy" the system includes both individualized and group
totality remedies. Both are law of similar remedies. *Theoretically*, we
can annihilate any disease (miasmatic complex) when either or both of these
two law of similars tools are applied properly in chronic and acute disease.

That we do NOT cure at least 50% of the time ON AGGREGATE AS A PROFESSION in
CHRONIC cases is not a failure of the law of similars! But it is a failure.
A failure of practitioners. A failure is a failure, can we agree on that?
Or have you omitted that word from your lexicon as if it did not exist?

I dont need to tell you that there are many reasons for failure in cases.
Obstacles to cure (Iatrogenic, fixed idea, occupational, relationship,
nutritional, lifestyle, sexual practices, vital reserves of client, organ
rx or detox needed; etc). Client remedy not in materia medica. Materia
medica not known by practitioner. Different method of finding rx needed
(e.g Sankaran semiology; inferential (eg Mangialavori, Scholten, Sankaran).
Not enough information from client. Practitioner failure at case analysis
(particularly in cases of complex or dissimilar diseases and cases of tissue
pathology). There are other reasons. Andre Saine has an article on the
topic on his website for further reference (Causes of Failure in
Homeopathy).

You seem to want to defend the dogma of homeopathy as you see it as if a
failure of people using individualized homeopathic prescribing is some kind
of indictment of the system as a whole. It is not an indictment of the
method of annihilation (law of similars), but of our ability to apply it and
the number of people it can reach. There are two types of
simillimum--individual and group. Try using both types. The PC remedies
are an extension of the group totality concept resolved to the miasmatic
complex resulting in a diagnosable disease. If you have not understood
this, then I cannot help you further unless you honestly wish to discuss it
by telephone.
on 3/30/05 5:07 AM, J Lucas at j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
((( Well, perhaps you can do a survey as to how many of the following
diseases are EFFICIENTLY and SATISFACTORILY CURABLE to the degree physically
possible by the average homeopathic practitioner at present:
Alzheimers
Cancer
Leukemia
ALS and Motor Neuron Diseases
Parkinsons
Rheumatoid arthritis

If you state that there is not room for improvement, then you are not being
honest. Why throw out another law of similars tool based on Hahnemannian
tenets? Why not at least try to understand it fully without malice.
Applying the individualized remedy to a disease subtotality or to the whole
case is our goal. What is so threatening to you about the existence of
another type of law of similars rx adapted DIRECTLY from Hahnemannian
philosophy? Do you understand the group totality concept?

A medical system should not be like a religion. People's lives hang in
the balance. This is the point of paragraph 1. Unfortunately it is that
way both in conventional medicine and in homeopathy. Preserving core tenets
is one thing. But this is a philosophical discussion about potentially
useful law of similars remedies available to your clients. If you don't use
the remedies or agree with them that is the joy of freedom of choice. But
perhaps you could try to be a bit more scientific in your approach to
debate.
((( Is this a subtle deconstruction of classical homeopathy or a discussion
on a list? Why are you concerned, really?

Practitioners on aggregate fail at least 50% of the time in chronic cases.
Is that alright with you? Why the outcry when someone introduces a
different type of law of similars rx based soundly on Hahnemannian tenets?
A proximal explanation is that you don't understand what is being presented.
There is no subtle deconstruction intended, nor any personal attack. Are
you being unscientific and dogmatic by ignoring the basis for the PC rx --
that they are derived right from Hahnemann?

That they are technological rx is a departure from our --compare case with
materia medica-- method of using potentized substance analogs.

But that they are synthesized does not change that they are an effort toward
a law of similar approximation for the miasmatic complexes behind each given
diagnosable disease no matter the sufferer, determined by group signs and
symptoms. They produce Hering/Vijayakar/Sehgal healing reactions and
resolve or stabilize chronic disease cases by targeting the miasmatic
complex directly. This can also be done with individualized remedy totality
prescribing. But the fact is that the profession does not do well with many
diseases and people remain debilitated or die. Did you notice that with a
group totality rx, many more people can be treated for diseases, for
example, like AIDS, where there are millions of sufferers?

Why another law of similars tool derived right from Hahnemann's playbook
should seem to be so threatening is your problem. I can spend no more time
on the topic.
on 3/30/05 5:07 AM, J Lucas at j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:

We
((( That the individualized simillimum method using potentized substance
analogs is beautiful and elegant we agree on. But that it is elegant does
not make it the only law of similars method under the sun. Hahnemann used
the group method to approximate the signs and symptoms (and thus the
underlying miasmatic complex) inherent in the inimical disease entity
itself. In acute disease, the genius epidemicus, when findable in a
virulent epidemic, approximates that outbreak of the disease entity itself.
In chronic disease, Hahnemann did not resolve the summed group cases to
diagnosable disease, but only to the level of miasm. Someone else has
figured out how to resolve it down to the diagnosable disease (complex
miasm). Is this not at least interesting?
on 3/30/05 5:07 AM, J Lucas at j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
((( Boericke used "conceptual" to add to the concept of immaterial
(spirit-like). Spirit is not a thing, therefore it is conceptual. Thought
forms are spirit-like and conceptual, for example.

The point I made was that Para 148 says that the DISEASE ENTITY IS SEPARATE
AND INIMICAL TO THE HOST. You did not address this in your rebuttal, chose
to mention something about "conceptual"--but did not elaborate.

§ 148 Sixth Edition
============
The natural disease is never to be considered as a noxious material situated
somewhere within the interior or exterior of man (§ 11-13) but as one
produced by an inimical spirit-like (conceptual) agency which, like a kind
of infection (note to § 11) disturbs in its instinctive existence of the
spirit-like (conceptual) principle of life within the organism torturing it
as an evil spirit and compelling it to produce certain ailments and
disorders in the regular course of its life. These are known as symptoms
(disease). If, now, the influence of this inimical agency that not only
caused but strives to continue this disorder, be taken away as is done when
the physician administers an artificial potency, capable of altering the
life principle in the most similar manner (a hom¦opathic medicine) which
exceeds in energy even in the smallest dose the similar natural disease (§§
33, 279), then the influence of the original noxious morbid agent on the
life principle is lost during the action of this stronger similar artificial
disease. Thence the evil no longer exists for the life principle - it is
destroyed..."
=============
I did not mean to imply that Hahnemann said here literally that miasms
(diseases) were the vital force of various microbes without bodies parasitic
on the host VF. Although, from the Organon, Chronic Diseases, and other
sources, one can deduce this as a hypothesis.

The point was--if the disease is an inimical and separate agent which taints
the host vital force (para 11, para 148-6th) then we have a basis to
understand the lesional remedy for a dissimilar disease. If
disease/miasmatic complex is separate and inimical to the host, then we
understand that it can be annihilated as a separate totality.

This may help some who are *interested* in understanding the basis for a
group totality remedy. This basis is different than that of the
individualized totality rx. The group totality remedy --through the
peculiar group signs and symptoms-- is particularly aimed at the miasmatic
complex itself for the peculiars over the whole range of group responses to
that complex. The PC remedy is aimed at the peculiar miasmatic complex that
relates to the diagnosable disease. That is not individualized. The
individual variation has been included in the summed peculiars of the group
case. The remedy is addressing what is peculiar to the complex miasmatic VF
of the disease itself, NOT the host VF, though the signs and symptoms are
expressed through the VF of the Host, because the miasms are parasitic on
the Host. This was the point here.
Best,
Andy

[Piet Guijt]

Andy wrote:
relates to the diagnosable disease. That is not individualized. The
individual variation has been included in the summed peculiars of the group
case.

In case of i.e a influenza epidemic, most of the time in different patients
we need to give a different remedy.
In case the patient does not want to be disturbed, we maybe give Bryonia.
For the tearful patient with changing symptoms Pulsatilla etc. The same
epidemic disease, but a small group of remedies that together cover all
symptoms.
The present simillimum is the bridge between the individual and disease and
covers both.

The PC remedies cover only the disease symptoms, it is nonsense that is
includes the states of more remedies; Bryonia, Pulsatilla etc at the same
time with only one pattern.
No, those similimum remedies lose their place in the treatment.
As I said before it is possible to split the present state into an
individual part and the disease part.
This is a possible strategy to choose. No problem with that.
But don't come with the statement, that this method is where Hahnenmann left
of etc and we were lacking before etc.
This is complete nonsense, the present simillimum covers everything.
It is surprising to me that this simple insight is ignored in this
discussion.
Shouldn't we try to find the simillimum first, instead of prescribing on the
individual and being surprised that not all symptoms are covered? Come on
how naive can you be?

Kind regards, Piet

P.S. Andy try to invest in a quality mail instead of a quantity mail, you
wrote a lot but not many that showed me you have a deep understanding.
Soroush, where are you my friend?