Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Chappell Quote: Originally Posted by David Little As I understand it Peter Chappell claims his remedy is a "new technology" or designer remedy. My reservation is the apparent lack of full discloser about the nature of the remedy. This is not in line with medical norms and consumer acts. Full disclosure the manufacturing and contains is standard practice. I find it ethically very hard to suggest something when it is not clear what it really is and how it is made? It is a trade secret. My question is why all the secrecy??? I was not trying to put down Homeopathy. I think individual Homeopathyis magnificent, profound, the deepest sort of therapy and fantastic when it is achieved. I used 'fog' because I observed, amongst a group of homeopaths in a Chronic Fatigue Syndrome trial we did together, say almost to a woman/man, that after my CFS remedy they could now see the individual remedy needed, after years of trying and not succeeding. Fog seemed to me the situation.

Dear Peter,

Thanks for you clarifications. Using generalizations about homeopathy based on something you observed in one group of homeopaths over a single disease state cannot be considered universal. When it comes to collective diseases the group anamnesis made up of several suffers often make the major remedies very clear. Treating miasmatic diseases only by the individual method does not suit their nature. Collective diseases need collective studies and collective remedies. Individual diseases with unique aerological constellations and individual symptoms need individual remedies. One does not replace the other all that easily because of the difference in the nature of the disease state. Of course, these two approaches can be complementary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter I dont declare the full process for this reason. If I do I must make it full and complete and accurate and exact etc. Otherwise others could further investigate it and patent the bits I get wrong, therby limiting all use. A GM patentee wanted to to offer Bangadesh a vitamin A enriched rice, apparently they are short on Vit A. He had the main patent. He wanted to give it for free. But there were 70 other surrounding patents which inhibited him from this act.

Of course, your explanation should be exactly how it is made. That is your responsibility. As to the patent issues - if you correctly describe and patent your version of PC whatever, it is safe for you in that form. The old homeopaths did not patent medicines or copyright the proving materials. They were open for all to use in order to advance our science. They wanted to keep all the relevant information in the public domain for the greater good. This is a great way to protect information because only a personal secret can be suppressed whereas things in the public domain are preserved by the many.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter To declare the process fully requires the same skills as filing a full patent, and for that it requires a lot more research by me than I have the time and money for, as well as some very skilled patent lawyer input, something costing a lot of money. Currently for 3 years I have existed on donations. They dont cover research or lawyers. I dont see this changing. PC1 is however, the very best treatment for AIDS and could still be instrumental in stopping the dying in Africa. My CFS remedy appears to out perform any treatment of any kind by a very big margin. Patients dont ask or get very concerned.

Until some well done clinical studies are published this is all still anecdotal information. I am not, however, being skeptical about your statements. Nevertheless, such claims are best backed up with facts. It is possible to do some limited but precise documentation with laboratory test for a smaller amount of money. In India you can get HIV/AIDS test for 150 rupees (around $1.50) CD4+ test done for 700 rupees (around $14). These amount do not pose an obstacles someone who wishes to test a small group and make public the findings. Years are passing.

The report Didi gave from Africa spoke of 60% being asymptomatic and the other 40% not return which usually means they did not come back because it did not help. They are also using other herbal remedies at the same time which confuses the matter. The follows up I saw were for only 24 weeks which is far to soon to claim complete success in such a disease. As of yet I have not see any controlled studies or laboratory results. Homeopaths, on the other hand, are doing serious double blind studies, laboratory tests, and clinical studies running over years. There are well documented studies of homoeopathy keeping up to 90% percent asymptomic. So your remedy is not the only method showing promise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter There is a little aside here. You ask what is it? But what is say Aurum? Gold. But what is gold really? At some point you dont know. This applies to everything. We like things in boxes we think we understand, but do we really know what anything really is?

This does not satisfy the norms of medical practice. The above is far too personally subject, highly theoretic, overly philosophical, and a bit too "new age" for the medicinal sciences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter my web sitewww.peterchappell.net is my web site as well as aids-heal.com I hold to my views on potency. It is primative the way its used. I know thats not polite, but its accuarate.

This is only your personal opinion (not a divinely declared truth). Some of what you say may be your own lack of understanding. The way many of us are using potency is not primitive by any definition of the word. Your criticisms were quite inaccurate in places and very stereotypical. Hahnemann's advanced method uses methods of adjusting the size of the dose and using potency that are truly revolutionary and are part of the medicine of the future. It will take modern science many more decades to understand the potency phenomena so it can hardly be called "primitive." New experiments are advancing our science today. I am not going to waste time arguing with you over your personal *opinions* about potency, etc.

Sincerely, David