Minutus

on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:
((( I agree that the second sentence is false. What has been captured is
the peculiar of the human response to the disease, not the sum of ALL the
individual responses. Any individual responses not peculiar to the group
case are excluded from the group totality
.

on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:

((( Correct. This is the common and basic example. But just because we use
an individualized rx which includes both host and miasm, does not mean that
we cannot also characterize the miasmatic complex by itself. How to do that
was invented by hahnemann by repertorizing a large number of cases who
suffer in common and finding the peculiars of the disease itself.

You are debating with the (obvious) and nonexclusive case.

ANALOGY OF THE VIRULENT ONE-RX EPIDEMIC
=====
Example in our experience of a remedy for an acute disease itself, at least
among the population from which it was repertorized:

Back when populations were not as suppressed, and antibiotics not used in
every epidemic, there were (occasionally) severe high mortality epidemics in
which all clients in the cohort published about responded to ONE remedy.

(The cohort was typically of a region of practitioners that had shared
cases, a national registry, or just one practioners clients).

I have posted examples of these from the homeopathic literature many times
in this topic thread. This would be the special case in which the genius
epidemicus of that situation was a remedy for that disease outbreak itself
(and incorporated all individual variation, at least among the cases in the
cohort). Incorporating all individual variation, in a large enough
population , essentially means obliterating individual variation, for the
aim with a genius epidemicus is to obtain the peculiars of the regional
outbreak as a macro phenonenon. In large enough cohort, this would be (for
a chronic disease)--humanity itself.
We do not see such epidemics much these days, as they are sprayed
immediately with antibiotics and quarantined, and in general, successfully
contained. But we are still vulnerable to them. A virulent new bug with
rapid pace is plausible to cause the mortality of say, the 1918 flu.

So--a remedy chosen from the materia medica (eg Sarracenia for smallpox) has
in the past been a remedy which matched an overwhelming disease which had no
individualization of the case needed. This is an EXAMPLE of a materia
medica version of a precision lesional rx using Hahnemann's acute Genius
epidemicus.

CHAPPELL RX
If we can make the rx from a list of symptoms, then we have a consistently
precise rx for the group totality. In fact this bears out in practice,
because we see clinical results from rx made in this way when the only
distinguishing characteristic used to give the rx is the correct diagnosis.
Is it not obvious that such results (with hering etc reactions and
improvement) are impossible if the group totality had not captured at least
an adequate approximation of the totality of the immaterial VF of the
miasmatic complex causing the disease itself in the immaterial human VF?

A precise lesional rx of this type will work WHETHER the disease has taken
over the individual or not. Because the miasmatic complex of all sufferers
is the commonality we are inferring between the sufferers in the cohort.
And this is what we are attempting to annihilate with this strategy--the
specific inimical complex of parasitic and inimical agents DIRECTLY.

These agents live in the human VF, but they also are inimical VF (not HOST).
When we repertorize the situation where they compete for the operation of
the body, (frank chronic or acute disease)--then we can capture the
characteristics of the disease VF ITSELF as it is expressed throught the
human VF. Because all the cohort has the same correctly diagnosed disease,
and the cohort is of MANY cases, we end up with the peculiar human response
to the miasmatic complex of that specific type. This is how we create a
totality for the disease.

Hering did this (using an rx totality from the mm as opposed to a
technologically synthesized rx) when he used Sarracenia for every sufferer
of a smallpox epidemic which had overwhelmed all individuality.
INDIVIDUALIZED PRESCRIP (OUR STANDARD METHOD)
We take a different method when we use the individualized rx in an acute or
chronic case--as you say it is most often a totality of the VF of the
miasmatic complex and the VF of the Human host parasitized by that inimical
VF. But the precise lesional rx could be used as long as the parameter used
in the group totality is exhibited in any client with any individual
response. That parameter is the correct diagnosis. It goes without saying
that we can use an individualized rx. But the topic here is another tool
for when that tool is not found, or fails to impact the miasmatic complex,
while the client suffers.
Most lesional rx are a combination of the VF of the parasitic infection
(miasmatic complex) and the VF of the genetic/psychosomatic host. This is
the situation of the individualized simillimum. I ascribe to this
simillimum, use it every day, it is the joy and genius of individualized
prescribing, and our hope for healing.
PLEASE DEBATE ON POINT FOR A CHANGE
All this discussion is about is the theoretical basis for another tool---a
way to approach the lesion precisely and directly as a separate VF. I know
you (Piet) consider the miasmatic complex to be one and the same with the
host, but I think this is not the case, and Hahnemann thought the same way
(para 148-sixth ed). It CAN be considered separately and precisely resolved
to the diagnosable disease. This is the profundity and potential of what
Chappell is attempting to do. The totality for a disease simillimum CAN be
found by finding the para 102 peculiars of the disease effects on humans.
(Simillimum here being defined as a remedy for the totality of any entity in
space and time).

It does not replace the individualized simillimum, but IMO it can do work
when the latter is not sufficient to (para 1) heal the sick using a
annihilating mimic of the disease--but using a group totality simillimum for
the disease in adjunct to the simillimum for the individual at any given
time.

The miasm is inimical and foreign to the host, and that is why the host
function is deranged (chronic disease)--or the host is highly susceptible to
rapid colonization on the least contagion (acute disease).
on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:

((( In most epidemics, yes, the rx for the epidemic is a mix between the
miasm being expressed and the individuality of the client. This is basic,
we use this in every epidemic, it can be read in Kent's Philosophy.
on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:

((( It does not, I agree, you are correct. It includes the peculiar
variation of the group response (para 102) but not of each and every
individual. It includes what is common and peculiar to the response of all
in the cohort suffering the same (nonvariable) chronic malady.

What you are not pointing out is that the peculiars of all the repertorized
cases of those who share the chronic disease in common will have a very
similar miasmatic complex, and with enough cases, the human response to the
complex is captured in a totality. This is a simillimum resolved to the
named disease itself. Just taking hahnemans' ingenius method to higher
RESOLUTION.

This is the genius of Hahnemann's group totality method, which he did not,
however, train with higher resolution on a diagnosable disease (for reasons
I have already gone over many times). He did well to first use it to
identify miasms for the first time. These are large categories, and Psora
he admitted himself is undifferentiated (hydra headed).

If the technologically produced rx for the totality of a diagnosable disease
was NOT being captured, then what Chappell says he does would have no
uniform result over a number of different diseases.

But he and others report results. We have hypothesis matching empirical
result. So we at least have something interesting here--do you not agree?
If it directly impacts the miasmatic complex expressing through the client
VF and we get Hering etc reactions, then objections are likely to be
prejudicial, instead of the scientific medical mind at work. Para 1 is the
first duty. If we have a law of similars tool which can act on the cause
of a given disease precisely in adjunct to an individualized rx which does
so on individual peculiars, then it is clearly useful.

Only not understanding, or prejudice would prevent that conclusion. Whether
one wants to use it or not is another matter, but that is not without para 1
implications if clients remain ill after much time and money spent.
on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:

((( Good.
((( You are bringing up the obvious case, but not seeing how the group
totality can characterize the common and peculiar human response to a
specific miasmatic complex (inimical inhabiting VF of the miasmatic
complex). The common miasmatic complex, which is not variable, more or
less (paragraph 103) results in a diagnosable syndrome which has well
defined symptoms and boundaries shared by the entire cohort. As you
correctly point out, this does not not include all the individuality of each
member of the cohort.

An analogous example (acute) is that finding a genius epidemicus for when
the disease is virulent is not looking for individualized variation, but
only the peculiars of the sufferers of a region in that epidemic. In the
case of an overwhelming epidemic in an unsupressed population (which we no
longer have, but Hering et al did in rural america 1830-1930, for example)
this did result occasionally in one-remedy fits all in the region. This is
an EXAMPLE of a disease remedy. The present discussion involves adaptation
of that method to the chronic invariable disease.
on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:

((( Of course, when the client is not one of millions of suffers of AIDS
(for example), and the time, money, and practitioner is available.

Why would you assume otherwise? We are all homeopaths here. We can have
more than one thought at a time in mind, can we not? The discussion is of
another tool, not a replacement tool.
on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:
instead of prescribing on the

((( My statement that all individual variation is covered by a group
totality for an invariable (chronic) miasmatic complex was not precise--I
assume this is your point. I agree, what is captured is not the individual
variation, but what is COMMON in the group response. This is how the human
response to the disease complex is characterized, and which allows the
remedy made from that totality to impact that subtotality of the whole
individual case.

With a precision lesional simillimum for the DIAGNOSED DISEASE, one is not
treating the HOST plus disease (individualized rx, which should always be
used but is not always found or as effective as possible). In the case of
the PC rx, one is treating the specific miasmatic complex of the disease
itself.
Andy

on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:
((( I agree that the second sentence is false. What has been captured is
the peculiar of the human response to the disease, not the sum of ALL the
individual responses. Any individual responses not peculiar to the group
case are excluded from the group totality
.

on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:

((( Correct. This is the common and basic example. But just because we use
an individualized rx which includes both host and miasm, does not mean that
we cannot also characterize the miasmatic complex by itself. How to do that
was invented by hahnemann by repertorizing a large number of cases who
suffer in common and finding the peculiars of the disease itself.

You are debating with the (obvious) and nonexclusive case.

ANALOGY OF THE VIRULENT ONE-RX EPIDEMIC
=====
Example in our experience of a remedy for an acute disease itself, at least
among the population from which it was repertorized:

Back when populations were not as suppressed, and antibiotics not used in
every epidemic, there were (occasionally) severe high mortality epidemics in
which all clients in the cohort published about responded to ONE remedy.

(The cohort was typically of a region of practitioners that had shared
cases, a national registry, or just one practioners clients).

I have posted examples of these from the homeopathic literature many times
in this topic thread. This would be the special case in which the genius
epidemicus of that situation was a remedy for that disease outbreak itself
(and incorporated all individual variation, at least among the cases in the
cohort). Incorporating all individual variation, in a large enough
population , essentially means obliterating individual variation, for the
aim with a genius epidemicus is to obtain the peculiars of the regional
outbreak as a macro phenonenon. In large enough cohort, this would be (for
a chronic disease)--humanity itself.
We do not see such epidemics much these days, as they are sprayed
immediately with antibiotics and quarantined, and in general, successfully
contained. But we are still vulnerable to them. A virulent new bug with
rapid pace is plausible to cause the mortality of say, the 1918 flu.

So--a remedy chosen from the materia medica (eg Sarracenia for smallpox) has
in the past been a remedy which matched an overwhelming disease which had no
individualization of the case needed. This is an EXAMPLE of a materia
medica version of a precision lesional rx using Hahnemann's acute Genius
epidemicus.

CHAPPELL RX
If we can make the rx from a list of symptoms, then we have a consistently
precise rx for the group totality. In fact this bears out in practice,
because we see clinical results from rx made in this way when the only
distinguishing characteristic used to give the rx is the correct diagnosis.
Is it not obvious that such results (with hering etc reactions and
improvement) are impossible if the group totality had not captured at least
an adequate approximation of the totality of the immaterial VF of the
miasmatic complex causing the disease itself in the immaterial human VF?

A precise lesional rx of this type will work WHETHER the disease has taken
over the individual or not. Because the miasmatic complex of all sufferers
is the commonality we are inferring between the sufferers in the cohort.
And this is what we are attempting to annihilate with this strategy--the
specific inimical complex of parasitic and inimical agents DIRECTLY.

These agents live in the human VF, but they also are inimical VF (not HOST).
When we repertorize the situation where they compete for the operation of
the body, (frank chronic or acute disease)--then we can capture the
characteristics of the disease VF ITSELF as it is expressed throught the
human VF. Because all the cohort has the same correctly diagnosed disease,
and the cohort is of MANY cases, we end up with the peculiar human response
to the miasmatic complex of that specific type. This is how we create a
totality for the disease.

Hering did this (using an rx totality from the mm as opposed to a
technologically synthesized rx) when he used Sarracenia for every sufferer
of a smallpox epidemic which had overwhelmed all individuality.
INDIVIDUALIZED PRESCRIP (OUR STANDARD METHOD)
We take a different method when we use the individualized rx in an acute or
chronic case--as you say it is most often a totality of the VF of the
miasmatic complex and the VF of the Human host parasitized by that inimical
VF. But the precise lesional rx could be used as long as the parameter used
in the group totality is exhibited in any client with any individual
response. That parameter is the correct diagnosis. It goes without saying
that we can use an individualized rx. But the topic here is another tool
for when that tool is not found, or fails to impact the miasmatic complex,
while the client suffers.
Most lesional rx are a combination of the VF of the parasitic infection
(miasmatic complex) and the VF of the genetic/psychosomatic host. This is
the situation of the individualized simillimum. I ascribe to this
simillimum, use it every day, it is the joy and genius of individualized
prescribing, and our hope for healing.
THE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION
All this discussion is about is the theoretical basis for another tool---a
way to approach the lesion precisely and directly as a separate VF. I know
you (Piet) consider the miasmatic complex to be one and the same with the
host, but I think this is not the case, and Hahnemann thought the same way
(para 148-sixth ed). It CAN be considered separately and precisely resolved
to the diagnosable disease. This is the profundity and potential of what
Chappell is attempting to do. The totality for a disease simillimum CAN be
found by finding the para 102 peculiars of the disease effects on humans.
(Simillimum here being defined as a remedy for the totality of any entity in
space and time).

It does not replace the individualized simillimum, but IMO it can do work
when the latter is not sufficient to (para 1) heal the sick using a
annihilating mimic of the disease--but using a group totality simillimum for
the disease in adjunct to the simillimum for the individual at any given
time.

The miasm is inimical and foreign to the host, and that is why the host
function is deranged (chronic disease)--or the host is highly susceptible to
rapid colonization on the least contagion (acute disease).
on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:

((( In most epidemics, yes, the rx for the epidemic is a mix between the
miasm being expressed and the individuality of the client. This is basic,
we use this in every epidemic, it can be read in Kent's Philosophy.
on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:

((( It does not, I agree, you are correct. It includes the peculiar
variation of the group response (para 102) but not of each and every
individual. It includes what is common and peculiar to the response of all
in the cohort suffering the same (nonvariable) chronic malady.

What you are not pointing out is that the peculiars of all the repertorized
cases of those who share the chronic disease in common will have a very
similar miasmatic complex, and with enough cases, the human response to the
complex is captured in a totality. This is a simillimum resolved to the
named disease itself. Just taking hahnemans' ingenius method to higher
RESOLUTION.

This is the genius of Hahnemann's group totality method, which he did not,
however, train with higher resolution on a diagnosable disease (for reasons
I have already gone over many times). He did well to first use it to
identify miasms for the first time. These are large categories, and Psora
he admitted himself is undifferentiated (hydra headed).

If the technologically produced rx for the totality of a diagnosable disease
was NOT being captured, then what Chappell says he does would have no
uniform result over a number of different diseases.

But he and others report results. We have hypothesis matching empirical
result. So we at least have something interesting here--do you not agree?
If it directly impacts the miasmatic complex expressing through the client
VF and we get Hering etc reactions, then objections are likely to be
prejudicial, instead of the scientific medical mind at work. Para 1 is the
first duty. If we have a law of similars tool which can act on the cause
of a given disease precisely in adjunct to an individualized rx which does
so on individual peculiars, then it is clearly useful.

Only not understanding, or prejudice would prevent that conclusion. Whether
one wants to use it or not is another matter, but that is not without para 1
implications if clients remain ill after much time and money spent.
on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:

((( Good.
((( You are bringing up the obvious case, but not seeing how the group
totality can characterize the common and peculiar human response to a
specific miasmatic complex (inimical inhabiting VF of the miasmatic
complex). The common miasmatic complex, which is not variable, more or
less (paragraph 103) results in a diagnosable syndrome which has well
defined symptoms and boundaries shared by the entire cohort. As you
correctly point out, this does not not include all the individuality of each
member of the cohort.

An analogous example (acute) is that finding a genius epidemicus for when
the disease is virulent is not looking for individualized variation, but
only the peculiars of the sufferers of a region in that epidemic. In the
case of an overwhelming epidemic in an unsupressed population (which we no
longer have, but Hering et al did in rural america 1830-1930, for example)
this did result occasionally in one-remedy fits all in the region. This is
an EXAMPLE of a disease remedy. The present discussion involves adaptation
of that method to the chronic invariable disease.
on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:

((( Of course, when the client is not one of millions of suffers of AIDS
(for example), and the time, money, and practitioner is available.

Why would you assume otherwise? We are all homeopaths here. We can have
more than one thought at a time in mind, can we not? The discussion is of
another tool, not a replacement tool.
on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:
instead of prescribing on the

((( My statement that all individual variation is covered by a group
totality for an invariable (chronic) miasmatic complex was not precise--I
assume this is your point. I agree, what is captured is not the individual
variation, but what is COMMON in the group response. This is how the human
response to the disease complex is characterized, and which allows the
remedy made from that totality to impact that subtotality of the whole
individual case.

With a precision lesional simillimum for the DIAGNOSED DISEASE, one is not
treating the HOST plus disease (individualized rx, which should always be
used but is not always found or as effective as possible). In the case of
the PC rx, one is treating the specific miasmatic complex of the disease
itself.
Andy

Sorry if repeat, this msg does not seem to post...

on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:
((( I agree that the second sentence is in a strict sense, false, (or at
least not precise). What has been captured is the peculiar of the human
response to the disease, not the sum of ALL the individual responses. Any
individual responses not peculiar to the group case are excluded from the
group totality by para 101-103 (specifically para 102) technique of summing
and then finding the peculiars of the group disease.
on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:

((( Correct. This is the common and basic example. But just because we use
an individualized rx which includes both host and miasm, does not mean that
we cannot also characterize the miasmatic complex by itself. How to do that
was invented by hahnemann by repertorizing a large number of cases who
suffer in common and finding the peculiars of the disease itself.

You are debating with the (obvious) and nonexclusive case.

ANALOGY OF THE VIRULENT ONE-RX EPIDEMIC
=====
Example in our experience of a remedy for an acute disease itself, at least
among the population from which it was repertorized:

Back when populations were not as suppressed, and antibiotics not used in
every epidemic, there were (occasionally) severe high mortality epidemics in
which all clients in the cohort published about responded to ONE remedy.

(The cohort was typically of a region of practitioners that had shared
cases, a national registry, or just one practioners clients).

I have posted examples of these from the homeopathic literature many times
in this topic thread. This would be the special case in which the genius
epidemicus of that situation was a remedy for that disease outbreak itself
(and incorporated all individual variation, at least among the cases in the
cohort). Incorporating all individual variation, in a large enough
population , essentially means obliterating individual variation, for the
aim with a genius epidemicus is to obtain the peculiars of the regional
outbreak as a macro phenonenon. In large enough cohort, this would be (for
a chronic disease)--humanity itself.
We do not see such epidemics much these days, as they are sprayed
immediately with antibiotics and quarantined, and in general, successfully
contained. But we are still vulnerable to them. A virulent new bug with
rapid pace is plausible to cause the mortality of say, the 1918 flu.

So--a remedy chosen from the materia medica (eg Sarracenia for smallpox) has
in the past been a remedy which matched an overwhelming disease which had no
individualization of the case needed. This is an EXAMPLE of a materia
medica version of a precision lesional rx using Hahnemann's acute Genius
epidemicus.

CHAPPELL RX
If we can make the rx from a list of symptoms, then we have a consistently
precise rx for the group totality. In fact this bears out in practice,
because we see clinical results from rx made in this way when the only
distinguishing characteristic used to give the rx is the correct diagnosis.
Is it not obvious that such results (with hering etc reactions and
improvement) are impossible if the group totality had not captured at least
an adequate approximation of the totality of the immaterial VF of the
miasmatic complex causing the disease itself in the immaterial human VF?

A precise lesional rx of this type will work WHETHER the disease has taken
over the individual or not. Because the miasmatic complex of all sufferers
is the commonality we are inferring between the sufferers in the cohort.
And this is what we are attempting to annihilate with this strategy--the
specific inimical complex of parasitic and inimical agents DIRECTLY.

These agents live in the human VF, but they also are inimical VF (not HOST).
When we repertorize the situation where they compete for the operation of
the body, (frank chronic or acute disease)--then we can capture the
characteristics of the disease VF ITSELF as it is expressed throught the
human VF. Because all the cohort has the same correctly diagnosed disease,
and the cohort is of MANY cases, we end up with the peculiar human response
to the miasmatic complex of that specific type. This is how we create a
totality for the disease.

Hering did this (using an rx totality from the mm as opposed to a
technologically synthesized rx) when he used Sarracenia for every sufferer
of a smallpox epidemic which had overwhelmed all individuality.
INDIVIDUALIZED PRESCRIP (OUR STANDARD METHOD)
We take a different method when we use the individualized rx in an acute or
chronic case--as you say it is most often a totality of the VF of the
miasmatic complex and the VF of the Human host parasitized by that inimical
VF. But the precise lesional rx could be used as long as the parameter used
in the group totality is exhibited in any client with any individual
response. That parameter is the correct diagnosis. It goes without saying
that we can use an individualized rx. But the topic here is another tool
for when that tool is not found, or fails to impact the miasmatic complex,
while the client suffers.
Most lesional rx are a combination of the VF of the parasitic infection
(miasmatic complex) and the VF of the genetic/psychosomatic host. This is
the situation of the individualized simillimum. I ascribe to this
simillimum, use it every day, it is the joy and genius of individualized
prescribing, and our hope for healing.
THE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION
All this discussion is about is the theoretical basis for another tool---a
way to approach the lesion precisely and directly as a separate VF. I know
you (Piet) consider the miasmatic complex to be one and the same with the
host, but I think this is not the case, and Hahnemann thought the same way
(para 148-sixth ed). It CAN be considered separately and precisely resolved
to the diagnosable disease. This is the profundity and potential of what
Chappell is attempting to do. The totality for a disease simillimum CAN be
found by finding the para 102 peculiars of the disease effects on humans.
(Simillimum here being defined as a remedy for the totality of any entity in
space and time).

It does not replace the individualized simillimum, but IMO it can do work
when the latter is not sufficient to (para 1) heal the sick using a
annihilating mimic of the disease--but using a group totality simillimum for
the disease in adjunct to the simillimum for the individual at any given
time.

The miasm is inimical and foreign to the host, and that is why the host
function is deranged (chronic disease)--or the host is highly susceptible to
rapid colonization on the least contagion (acute disease).
on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:

((( In most epidemics, yes, the rx for the epidemic is a mix between the
miasm being expressed and the individuality of the client. This is basic,
we use this in every epidemic, it can be read in Kent's Philosophy.
on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:

((( It does not, I agree, you are correct. It includes the peculiar
variation of the group response (para 102) but not of each and every
individual. It includes what is common and peculiar to the response of all
in the cohort suffering the same (nonvariable) chronic malady.

What you are not pointing out is that the peculiars of all the repertorized
cases of those who share the chronic disease in common will have a very
similar miasmatic complex, and with enough cases, the human response to the
complex is captured in a totality. This is a simillimum resolved to the
named disease itself. Just taking hahnemans' ingenius method to higher
RESOLUTION.

This is the genius of Hahnemann's group totality method, which he did not,
however, train with higher resolution on a diagnosable disease (for reasons
I have already gone over many times). He did well to first use it to
identify miasms for the first time. These are large categories, and Psora
he admitted himself is undifferentiated (hydra headed).

If the technologically produced rx for the totality of a diagnosable disease
was NOT being captured, then what Chappell says he does would have no
uniform result over a number of different diseases.

But he and others report results. We have hypothesis matching empirical
result. So we at least have something interesting here--do you not agree?
If it directly impacts the miasmatic complex expressing through the client
VF and we get Hering etc reactions, then objections are likely to be
prejudicial, instead of the scientific medical mind at work. Para 1 is the
first duty. If we have a law of similars tool which can act on the cause
of a given disease precisely in adjunct to an individualized rx which does
so on individual peculiars, then it is clearly useful.

Only not understanding, or prejudice would prevent that conclusion. Whether
one wants to use it or not is another matter, but that is not without para 1
implications if clients remain ill after much time and money spent.
on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:

((( Good.
((( You are bringing up the obvious case, but not seeing how the group
totality can characterize the common and peculiar human response to a
specific miasmatic complex (inimical inhabiting VF of the miasmatic
complex). The common miasmatic complex, which is not variable, more or
less (paragraph 103) results in a diagnosable syndrome which has well
defined symptoms and boundaries shared by the entire cohort. As you
correctly point out, this does not not include all the individuality of each
member of the cohort.

An analogous example (acute) is that finding a genius epidemicus for when
the disease is virulent is not looking for individualized variation, but
only the peculiars of the sufferers of a region in that epidemic. In the
case of an overwhelming epidemic in an unsupressed population (which we no
longer have, but Hering et al did in rural america 1830-1930, for example)
this did result occasionally in one-remedy fits all in the region. This is
an EXAMPLE of a disease remedy. The present discussion involves adaptation
of that method to the chronic invariable disease.
on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:

((( Of course, when the client is not one of millions of suffers of AIDS
(for example), and the time, money, and practitioner is available.

Why would you assume otherwise? We are all homeopaths here. We can have
more than one thought at a time in mind, can we not? The discussion is of
another tool, not a replacement tool.
on 4/1/05 7:21 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:
instead of prescribing on the

((( My statement that all individual variation is covered by a group
totality for an invariable (chronic) miasmatic complex was not precise--I
assume this is your point. I agree, what is captured is not the individual
variation, but what is COMMON in the group response. This is how the human
response to the disease complex is characterized, and which allows the
remedy made from that totality to impact that subtotality of the whole
individual case.

With a precision lesional simillimum for the DIAGNOSED DISEASE, one is not
treating the HOST plus disease (individualized rx, which should always be
used but is not always found or as effective as possible). In the case of
the PC rx, one is treating the specific miasmatic complex of the disease
itself.
Andy

Andy wrote:

treating the HOST plus disease (individualized rx, which should always be
used but is not always found or as effective as possible). In the case of
the PC rx, one is treating the specific miasmatic complex of the disease
itself.

Hello Minutus,

Yes, I agree and understood this from te beginning of the discussion, but
this remedy always MUST be followed by anti-psoric treatment to take care of
the individual part, to restore the vitality of the patient.
So what we do with this approach basically is to split the present disease
state into two parts.
That is why I said we give two partial remedies and to my surprise many PC
prescribers don't even realize this.
This it what worries me the most, the explanations don't show insight in the
choose which strategy is the best in a case at a given time.

This is my problem with the terms Simillimum1 and Similimum2 in use by
Peter, this very confusioning and might unwantedly mislead many.
It would be better when Peter makes clear that no.1 is the 'Anti-psoric
Simillimum' and no.2 the Genus Epedemicus Simillimum.
The simillimum according to the present disease state (? 210-213, Aph5, 6 &
7)the one and only Central Disturbance of the vital force (Mentals, Generals
& Particulars) is basicly a different remedy. (This is the Hahnemannian,
Boeninghausen, Kent, Sehgal, Sankaran, Vijaykar simillimum).
To make things complete and clear; there is also an 'Individual simillimum'
this is the 'core or essence' remedy through the persons life and disease.
Sometimes those different simillimums are covered by the same remedy, but
most of the time they are not.

I accept Peter's remedies as homeopathic acting remedies, and what he is
doing in Africa is a gift from God.
But this must not lead to superficial prescribing on the individual symptoms
and when we encounter the predictable limitations by this approach, sweep
the case over with Peter's remedies or a nosode. By his approach in
explanations, Peter actually is stimulating and rewarding people to do so.
This will not contribute to Homeopaths who know what must be cured in
disease. (Aph 3:then he understands how to treat judiciously and rationally,
and he is a true practitioner of the healing art.)

? 2:
The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the
health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in
the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible
principles.

To this I say that the Hahnemanian simillimum will lead to this, and
splitting up of the disease in parts for several reasons, like Peter and
Ramakrishnan are doing is a second best strategy. But since we are not
living in a perfect world, this in a lot of cases can be used as a welcome
back-up approach.

Kind regards, Piet

So isn't the approach basically the same as an isopathic approach--with
exactly the same advantages and disadvantages?

Advantage: If you know the cause, you have a ready candidate for
(limited) cure.
Disadvantage: Cures only the immediate effects, does not bring about
any deeper or more comprehensive cure, i.e. does touch the level of
*susceptibility*.
Disadvantage: If you don't *know* what caused the problem, then you
need to proceed "as usual", according to symptom picture etc. (or in
the case of Peter's approach, if you don't have a full understanding of
the factors and diseases involved in the particular patient--i.e. he
has said it hasn't had such a good track record with AIDS patients in
the US and Europe?)

Shannon

Hi Shannon,

In my opion it is the same, Similimum1 can't do without Simillimum2 or visa
versa.
With PC remedies there must be one recognizable named disease to treat.
When there are multiple disease effects in a case at the same time, this
strategy will fail.
The advantage of following the vital force in its attempt to fight a
(complex) disease or multiple toxins etc, is that you basically don't have
to know the cumulative causes, just the remedy that matches the current
state will always be effective.
Homeopathy is simple, we only have to prescribe the simillimum.......

Kind regards, Piet

Andy wrote;

with the
host, but I think this is not the case, and Hahnemann thought the same way
(para 148-sixth ed). It CAN be considered separately and precisely resolved
to the diagnosable disease.

Hello Minutus,

Yes, disease and patient can't be seperated, but his is not exactly what I
think.
I do not exclude the infections from the picture, but basically they are
existing in the organism, because there is a fixed negative constitutional
pattern in the vital force caused by suppression in the past.
The miasms are not the germs, but the effect of them (wrong treatment) on
the vital force.
The vital force has to step back after suppression and this will mean a
limitations, a certain tendency in its behaviour.
This pattern is where disease grows on. Since all miasms are expressions of
the same vital force, the division in different symptom groups by means of
the miasms is only a practical tool; to give some guide ness. The dominating
miasm will also be reflected in the present state.
But we al know that remedies do not limit their action to a certain miasm,
most remedies are mult-anti-miasmatic.
So there is no need to treat Psora separately from Sycosis or Syphilis they
all originate from the same individual vital force and all represent the
same underlying susceptibility.
In Hahnemann's time the cases were mostly on a one miamatic level and mixed
cases were an exception.
Hahnemann dealt with what he found by prescribing the simillimum, we must do
the same with what we find today.
Kind regards, Piet