Prime Doctor,

After reading your entire posts, you compelled me to get log on and offer notes. I just cannot remain spectator on your posts without offering my hearty comments. It is my consolidated reply on your posts.

My dear members!

I think the inventor of the medicine is trying to get advantage of homeopathic shelter for his legal protection. His medicine does not belong to homeopathy. Although the inventor has linked his medicine with homeopathic world. He actually wants to use the name of homeopathy and is taking advantage of that.

If you read entire comments of Shirley Recishman which offered on various posts then you will come to know that she is trying hard to protect homeopathic principles and its laws. According to my gathered comprehension, she has the opinion that if peter’s medicine fulfils the criteria of homeopathic rules or if he has prepared his medicine by applying homeopathic principles then there is no option left for us for not adopting or accepting that medicine in our routine practice but before accepting and starting practice that medicine. We should be very clear about our concern over the newly discovered medicine. I think if I am right in generalizing her points then she is absolutely right in her respectful opinion.

I think no principle; rule and laws of homeopathy were followed in making and applying that medicine. The inventor actually wants to sell his product by all means and hence the inventor is trying to protect against legal laws by declaring his research product belongs to homeopathy but actually it does not. [img]redface.gif[/img]

It is also my opinion that the inventor very cleverly tried to merge the homeopathic principles with his newly invented medicine just to show that his medicine belongs to homeopathy. He did not follow the rules and principles. So I cannot stand with her and also cannot support him.

I accept that what inventor has said about the effectiveness of his medicine is right. His medicine has good result on AIDS but I openly say that his medicine is not homeopathic and he did not follow any rule of homeopathy as exposed by prime doctor.

__________________
<b>Lady Dr. Meena</b>

Yes, I agree. The treatment is not homeopathic. I also think under the circumstances, i.e., 8,000 people dying daily, no available homeopaths in Africa, people too poor to pay for treatment, etc., that if anything shows good results, we should use it even if it's not homeopathy. And in the meantime begin doing the provings on the remedy that may allow us in the future to use it homeopathically. It's just that during this process we need to be very clear about what is homeopathy and what is not homeopathy.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Well said, Shirley. So, now, can everyone stop with this foolishness about making Peter Chappell out to be a big greedy charlatan? It smacks of sour grapes...particularly because it comes mainly from people who are threatened by him or are thoroughly incapable of doing the kind of work he's successful in--healing the sick, particularly people so sick no one else in the world wants to help them.

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung

This is a quote from a member who does not belong to homeopathy by profession I don't know who is she?

I agree with her as she does not belong to homeopathy. So I fully support her desire for sick.

She does not know that there are so many many medicines which iare equally effective against HIV/AIDS but she always objected and rejected those medicines.The most probable reason of her rejection was those inventor does not belong to homeopathic world. She really objected their inventions by declaring that these are not homeopathic.

She has the habit of saying these remedies are suppressive in nature. Hahnemann was against those medicine which were supressive in nature, if not prepared by applying homeopathic aphorisms.

She has the habit of presenting objection if a person speaks against homeopathic rules. Now she has no objection against peter's medicine when everybody is saying and confirming that he does not follow any homeopathic rule or aphorism. But she is supporting him. The reason is quite clear, she has limited knowledge over homeopathy by profession.

I will again say we support rules according to our own wishes and desires. If we like something we support them without following ruels. It is totally our liking and disliking which actually play role for deciding right or wrong thing.

Now I hand over my mic to homeoman to get log on and speak up..... and tell us your views about new invention which neither homeopathic or allopathic but actually hermaphrodite (having both sexes)

__________________
Hafeez
Forum Pk

The inventor did great job for humanity no body is against his work. I fully support him. We are discussing implementation of homeopathic rules on the medicine? Which rules did he follow? Can't we discuss homeopathic classical principles.

__________________
<b>Lady Dr. Meena</b>

Homeoman,

Peter has just arrived. Pl give him some time. I am sure he will satisfy you. He has thirty years of homeopathic practice.

__________________
Homeopath

Homeoman,

Please hand over the mic to me.

As mass said earlier. when you do reserach you have to keep all philosophy a side. For doing reserach one has to follow scietientific reasoning ie. hypothesis experiment and result. He is screaming from many years. Earlier I was not intreested in discussing on net. As I have no time but later on I decided to contribute positively. A staage came when a member attacked on my personality. It's long story. Now I have forgotten everything.

I appraciate PETER's work. His research work is really annoucable and apprciatable. He did research by ignoring the philosophy and found a great remedy. Hahnemann was also doing reserach without philosophy after getting result he wrote his experiences in the form of aphorisms.

An interesting news for me is that member is demanding medicine (non-homeopathic compound medicine having no proving and starting material) for their net patient from Peter. She is a classcial homeopaths.

__________________
<b>Dr. M Iqbal (Classical Homeopath)<br />Iqbal Poly Clinic, Main Market, Kharian<br />Phone Clinic: 05771-511337, Residence: 05771-533737 </b>

Dear Meena

You got the point so early You are so genious.

Now he has started about talking electromagnetism and then he will change his track after few days. Let's wait

I am thinking about classical members who were supporting him on declaring homeopathic medicine. Leela and david jonhson were among those who were sitting in driving seat. They are actually classical homeopaths. :razz:

Dr Peter said

Lady Dr, Azra in the past when said "Define homeopathy" These members were against her. They started teaching her homeopathic rules. Now we should seriously think about redefining of homeopathic defination and its rules.

[ 24. January 2003, 09:24: Message edited by: Homoeo Dr. Mujahid ]

__________________
<b>DR. MUJAHID HUSSAIN, DHMS, DCA (SRILANKA), RHMP<br />TAHIR HOMOEOPATHIC AND ACUPUNCTURE CLINIC, KHAN BAHADUR PLAZA,<br />CIRCULAR ROAD, GUJRAT STATE </b>

I agree with this statement... on this board.

I hate to be remain unidentified member. My phone number and address is written on the provided web address. Remeber, I am not homeopath.

Few weeks ago, I requested few members to send me few brouchures,pamphlets or magazine on homeopathic topics. They all promised me but so for I did not receive any material.

[ 24. February 2003, 19:42: Message edited by: Prof. Raza Hussain ]

__________________
Muhammad Raza Hussain<br />Z.C Post Graudate College