Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Chappell I would like deeply considered opinions on this idea below

Peter,

This really doesn't make sense to me at all....

You refer to the ceeds of disease and the archetypal relationships... I hope you are not comparing these archetypal relationships to people who have contracted the HIV virus.

I have worked in the field for a long time, and being a gay male myself I don't possibly see any connection between the way that a gay male contracts the virus and a drug user on the street. And how you could possibly infuse the similar archeypes into a remedial solution that will react with both people's vital force the same way.

I'm not doubting that your Miracle remedy might work. My point is that you are labelng it as homeopathy and it's not... by all definitions it's not homeopathic in principle. Maybe similar. But then vaccinations are similar to homoepathy too.

You are trying to bring rhetoric into your definition of homeopathy by using terms like "designer" remedy and then applying "it"... whatever "it" is in a homeopathic fashion and claiming "it" as homeopathic.

And as far as your arguments on potentization.... potentization is homeopathy... end of discussion... I understand your factors, but if you read the organon and chronic diseases - which were handed down by the founder so we would have a baseline understanding of the homeopathic principle and the homeopathic cure - then you will understand why potentization is homeopathy...

If you wish to come out of the etheric and discuss what is in your remedy other than mathatmatical formulas imprinted on a medium and then infused with hope and good will.. then perhaps we can have an discussion on homoepathic principles as it pertains to PC1 and 2... but as long as your discussion is strictly etheric then your claims need to be that it is wholistic or metaphysical in action... not that it's homeopathic.

Timothy Snider