on 3/31/05 2:25 AM, J Lucas at
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
### Ploy? I think you have become somewhat paranoid.
on 3/31/05 2:25 AM, J Lucas at
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
and yes I do denounce intellectualism when it
### Corrupt? Is the presentation of philosophy in a discussion of medicine
corrupting? Is my intent to corrupt? This is ridiculous and mildly
delusionary.
on 3/31/05 2:25 AM, J Lucas at
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
### Sorry, this is your paranoia again. I have zero desire to get into a
game of illogical and personal potshots like you have (to a degree that has
frankly astounded myself and others) on this topic of PC Rx. I have
responded with logic, and do not wish to attack anyone personally. Debate
is a logical process. No one need feel assaulted by logic. You are calling
the kettle black.
I have presented information from the Organon and discussed the
(interesting) basis of this type of rx, and you have been attacking this
work, calling it "overintellectual" and now "corrupting", and a "ploy".
Over the course of this discussion, occasionally your argument has been
valid and contributory, but much of the time is only emotional, seemingly
fear-based, and mostly without basis in fact or logic.
I have zero interest in "assaulting" anyone anytime in this lifetime or any
other. It is anathema to me. I will state logic and fact to people if it
furthers the healing of individuals, nations, planet. That is not assault.
on 3/31/05 2:25 AM, J Lucas at
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
### You did not answer this one.
on 3/31/05 2:25 AM, J Lucas at
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
### Rubric-- Suspicious (I don't think that suspicion is warranted here at
least not in the ways you have presented (e.g. Chappell is unscrupulous, the
rx dont contain anything, other illogical ideas you have presented that I
dont have time to go back and find).
If you have limited knowledge of engineering, then that is your bias, but
then your objections are not based on logic (maybe on fear of the unknown?).
I know you are well conversant with many technical aspects of agriculture
and have no problem at all with computers, so I think your distrust is not
based on lack of acuity, but on some kind of fear of threat. The
(farfetched) validity of your as yet unfounded fears are far outweighed by
the healing work to be done.
Reasonable suspicion is healthy and warranted. But weighed against the
potential of the remedies and the track record so far, your nonrigorous
statements have not contributed to the discussion.
on 3/31/05 2:25 AM, J Lucas at
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
If you actually practised homeopathy you might be able to
#### I am not practicing professionally at present--correct. I practiced 10
yrs professionally (while also having another separate career), encompassing
about 650 chronic clients, since taking my first course in 1984. Not
voluminous experience, but enough to understand the full gamut of types of
cases from psychological to "terminal" and all in between. My initial
education was primarily by extensive seminars (1100 hours in total) with
most of the best instructors e.g. Vithoulkas, Eizayaga, Creasy, Sankaran,
Klein, Rozenberg, Sherr-- and a couple of dozen others. I graduated from a
professional training program in 1987. I was program director of a
professional homeopathic school in the Bay Area (Pacific Academy in
Berkeley, Calif) for 2 years. I worked on the development of Macrepertory in
1986-87. I continue to study and write, and benefit also from the
experience of colleagues in particular my friends on discussion boards.
=========
Is it likely that my judgement is faulty or improperly weighted because of
lack of experience as you say? Or is this is your uninformed personal
potshot (instead of a logical point with attention to the topic of PC rx and
group totality rx).
=========
In fact, my honest acquaintance and dissatisfaction with the limitations of
homeopathy from my own clinical experience is a primary factor in why I do
not presently practice. My own illness is included in that and is a
significant contributor to my dissatisfaction.
I have helped quite a number of people at a reasonable price, and they
appreciated my help. But I am interested in better results--for myself,
others, and as a profession. There were failures, and failure is not
something which is to be shoved under the rug. Referral did not solve
failures--in fact referral was ineffectual, indicating that even far more
experienced homeopaths were not necessarily more successful than I was in
those types of cases. I would like to be able to see people recover from
complex dissimilar diseases that we currently do not do well with even with
the best individualized treatment. I would like to find the limits of law
of similars treatment by clearly comprehensible principles.
Expanding MM knowledge is one reason I participate on this list, and I
benefit from your expositions and suggestions for cases. But IMO you are a
bit too self-satisfied and liken the profession as a whole to your
apparently somewhat self-aggrandized view of our (and probably your own)
level of success. Your idea that the general practice of the profession is
optimal and the reach of homeopathy is as extensive and impacting as it can
be is IMO either delusional or dishonest. (I dont think you are dishonest,
so my guess is that you have glorified reality somewhat). IMO *humility* is
a good attitude when it comes to what we have really accomplished thus far
in modern homeopathic medicine--not self-satisfaction.
I immediately saw the Hahnemannian basis for these rx. Not that the rx are
wholly Hahnemannian--they obviously depart from "Homeopathy" the system.
But if you cannot see the homeopathicity of them, then you have not gone
beyond a certain level of understanding in what we are treating in a
constitution. The introduction of another law of similars tool for use in
chronic disease and based on Hahnemannian precepts should be an intriguing
development that is rigorously examined. That is exactly what I have
attempted to do in this case on this discussion list.
IMO for some reason you have overreacted. My guess is that you are attached
to the "artistry" of individualized homeopathy, and have a delusion that
what is precious to you is threatened. Use of a group totality tool in
chronic cases in which the individual totality has not and will not likely
be found or found quickly in a case of fatal or progressive and debilitating
organic disease will not threaten anything, can only help. These rx or
others like them can save or help clients using a tool which works
homeopathic to the miasmatic complex underlying the diagnosable disease.
CLEARLY, these are law of similars rx which annihilate miasmatic basis for
disease without suppression, and with the same healing signs that we observe
when we annihilate using a remedy totality from the MM. They do not
interfere with the use of the individualized simillimum, but are merely
another prescription for a whole and discrete totality within the case--the
dissimilar inimical agents which provoke the diagnosable signs and symptoms
of a discrete named disease. If these rx are unnatural simillimi, then the
genius epidemicus is an unnatural simillimum (and when for a virulent
epidemic in an unsuppressed population, it is a SIMILLIMUM, one for an
entity in toto, a disease entity underlain by a miasmatic complex). We have
used the genius epidemicus for 200 years, and it is Hahnemannian. I suspect
you are just not interested in it. Why?
Why do you think I have bothered to write about these rx? I am sorry if my
writing is (too technical? too intellectual?) for you. Plenty of people can
understand what you have characterized as overintellectual. To assume that
I am trying to corrupt anyone would be laughable if it did not indicate
suspicion and paranoia on your part. What do you fear? A delusion of
threat to dogma WITHOUT unprejudiced examination of the facts is irrational.
If you find facts too "intellectual" then it explains why you do not
articular arguments which demonstrate understanding of the points made about
the Hahnemannian basis of the rx. Considering the healing work to be done
which we DO NOT yet accomplish with the status quo--your as yet unfounded
distrust of the tech basis for the rx is outweighed. At the very least, the
rx are worth using for stubborn and serious uncured cases.
If I recognized that you *understood* the topic; and merely disagreed with
it--- and were not just taking potshots--- then that is honest and open
debate. But I am clear that you do not understand. You do not pony up
logic in your opposition. So your contributions are for the most part not
debate, but gratuitous denigration based not on fact, but "belief". I agree
that the remedies themselves are new, and we will have to see if their
apparent success really pans out writ larger. But you don't appear to be
interested in anything new under the sun, even if it is firmly based on
Organon concepts and is homeopathic in action. The theoretical basis of
these rx is what I have been interested in attempting to articulate. I like
to know what I am using before using it.
I think group totality rx resolved to the diagnosable disease is an
interesting development. It is only another tool, but potentially a
significant one. You have overblown your reaction, as I do not think that
these rx threaten homeopathy in any way, and can only help clients. Time
will tell. I have no attachment to the result, but find the signs of utility
promising. If these rx do not end up being profoundly useful then I'll send
you some heirloom seeds of your choice.
on 3/31/05 2:25 AM, J Lucas at
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
#### Go back and read the post, which I have reproduced at the end of this
one. Do you see evidence that I am trying to denigrate your character-- or
are you paranoid? I have zero interest in denigrating your character, Joy.
It is you who are picking on me with insignificant potshots (and on Soroush
for example, rather harshly I might add)
in *case* you cannot see
yourself.
If you dont like intellectual discussions then I will skip (attempting) to
have them with you. I used to really enjoy our interactions. You have some
real personal issues with this new development, and have from the beginning
been mostly prejudiced and unscientific about evaluating these rx from
philosophical and other standpoints. You have not for me substantiated ANY
of the worry and bluster you conjered up about these rx being problematical
in the various ways you imagine. You really have made a lot of noise to no
real account, IMO.
I have learned by studying the concepts involved. I think it is rather
funny for you to make fun of a synthesized rx as if it contained nothing.
We really don't have much to show for our potentized substance analogs
either, regarding substance. It would be interesting to use that
spectrophotometer they have in India on our mm rx and technologically
produced rx and evaluate them that way. It is all pattern and signature.
So the parent pattern being a substance versus an EM signature, a force,
etc. is not of much moment. We have decades of experience now with various
types of force and emanation rx, and technologically emulated rx (the most
experience in that area happens to be on your island, BTW)--though I suspect
you would have a problem with that as well?
I find the proprietary aspect of the PC rx a problem (reproducibility, and
would like to see the technology sold to pracs as said). But you seem to
really feel threatened by these rx altogether, and not at all interested in
the potential for certain clients. I find this peculiar. Preference to
dogma over restoration of a client by a remedy with homeopathic mechanism
and with both (Hahnemannian) philosophical, and empirical evidence of that
is illogical. Hahnemann did not like blind adherence to dogma either (para
1).
A diagnosable disease is just a miasmatic complex resolved to a particular
discrete and whole syndrome with boundaries and well understood
pathophysiology. A named disease is not a theory or dogma, but a defined
expression in response to a NATURAL ENTITY--albeit one inimical to the human
host. Hahnemann says (11, 148-sixth, elsewhere) that a disease is an
immaterial, inimical agent separate to the host VF but existing within it:
"When a person falls ill, it is only this spiritual, self acting (automatic)
vital force, everywhere present in his organism, that is
primarily deranged by the dynamic influence upon it of a morbific agent
inimical to life;..." (para 11)
"The natural disease is... 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..." (para 148, sixth)
The disease can be annihilated as a separate entity if that entity is
comprehended in toto by virtue of a GROUP case taking of sufferers. The
acute disease and chronic disease have somewhat different miasmatic
mechanisms, IMO, as I have explained in previous posts. The point is that a
given miasmatic complex can be annihilated by mimick of the separate living
miasmatic complex entity defined by the disease syndrome --- OR it can be
annihilated by a mimick of a mixture of the human host vital force and the
inimical miasmatic vital force. This does not "cure" the entire individual
case, only (in best case) annihilates the dissimilar disease. The precision
lesional rx as the Chappell rx are an example is a simillimum for a
miasmatic complex of a stable human disease.
There will always be an individualized simillimum, since that is for the
host PLUS its inimical miasmatic load (which according to Hahnemann, is
rarely if ever fully removed, and we are clearly more laden than those of
hahnemann's time because of the use of biocidal (antibiotic) treatment).
We can deduce from Organon, CD, and other sources that a disease (miasmatic
complex) is due to parasitic microbial VF that lives in the human VF,
survives biocidal biochemical treatment, and is passed on to the offspring
via the VF of the gametes. Taking miasms out of the realm of "belief" and
explaining their mechanism technically according to known concepts would be
a positive step. By further development of a hypothesis in this area, more
may be learned to explain acute susceptibility, and chronic tendency to
endogenic disease.
Obviously, I included these ideas in the discussion as it now exists in the
minutus archives in order to validate the use of what can be termed a
"precision" lesional rx. Such a remedy addresses only the inimical
miasmatic complex defined by the peculiar signs and symptoms of the
diagnosable disease entity itself. This is determined by summing the cases
of a group proving of the disease itself. Such an rx can be seen as being
destructively resonant ONLY of the target component of the Host VF which is
foreign, inimical, and mismatched and causes the definable and diagnosable
malady.
If we can through para 102 method, capture the totality of a discrete
miasmatic complex corresponding to a diagnosable disease syndrome-- and
produce a remedy which very closely corresponds--then we have a direct
approach to homeopathic annihilation of a chronic disease entity within the
host. As said, this is treatment of an individual with a simillimum for the
disease entity itself. The characteristics of the rx are determined by the
same ingenious para 101-103 method that Hahnemann used to begin to identify
the much larger categories of miasm. Individual diseases are the resultant
of miasms in combination, and are a smaller and more discrete totality.
Although one can see that this type of rx can operate "standalone", this
method does not replace individualized homeopathic treatment-- but
complements it. I use individualized prescribing exclusively. I do not
eschew rational law of similars methods to improve that prescribing, even if
they be new.
I will be using the rx in cases in the near future, as will others that have
been in on this discussion. Results from that will be a more data in
determining just how useful these rx are, and to get experience in
dovetailing them in a case.
Science is hypothesis and testing. These rx pass muster for me in
philosophical basis. I can see why they work. Now to use them.
Andy
=====================================================================
PREVIOUS POST:
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