Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Chappell PC1 is not a combination of other remedies......

I have no quams calling this a breakthrough Metaphysically healing method that works wholistically with the person. But you're right.. it's not herbs and (I add) not homoepathy.

Timothy

Hello,

I thank you, Peter Chappell.

We can listen to all the classical homeopaths critique (disaparge) your remedy all they want but have they the answer to this terrible disease? I've lost dear friends (and a few cats who were every bit as dear) to this disease and I open handedly applaud your work.

Homeopathy is without question a marvelous modality, the finest. Problem is, homeopaths knowing how to use it to the completion (eradication) of any disease, let alone AIDS. My apology in advance to the purists, whose concepts I so admire and would love to emulate, but in the trenches, what works......works. And it seems Peter Chappell has found (created!) something that does.

So be it. I don't particulary care what one wishes to call it.

Best,
Georgianna

Hi Timothy,

Technically we can't know whether PC1 is homeopathic to the disease unless we prove it on healthy individuals and see whether they develop relevant symptoms. Conversely, unless that proving is done *and fails utterly*, we also can't say that it's "not homeopathic".

(And re potency, potency is only an enhancement to our method; remember, Hahnemann *first* practiced homeopathy using tiny doses of crude substance only.)

Shannon

Hi Caroline,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caroline ... a very successful homeopath ... saying that it did not matter if we got the wrong remedy / potency...Intent is what counts, we ARE the healers..

So in other words, every time a homeopath gives a remedy that "doesn't
work", and every time they "miss the remedy" with a given patient time after
time, it's because they didn't really "intend" to heal that patient? And
every time you feel really, really *certain* about a remedy you've given,
but the darned thing still doesn't work... Mm, I doubts it!

I suppose there are some folks whose "intent" is so powerful that they could
heal by giving even "the wrong remedy"; most of us, tho... Sigh, dream on.
Me, I'll stick with improving my prescribing skills.

:-)
Shannon

Earlier few homeopaths (specially pakistani) were discussing on net that peter's remedy is not homeopathy. But at the same time the present honourable members were backingup peter and were saying "no it is homeopathiac in nature". Shannon very rightly pointed out the basic need/requirment of homeopathy. Atleast today, peter somehow told us that it is not homeopathic in nature.

__________________
Homeopath

Hi Peter,

Wouldn't your "ceed" be basically the same as a miasm? Hahnemann did say hat chronic miasms are the basis for all (acute or chronic) disease (excepting "indispositions", which are states of dis-ease caused by errors of living, and they disappear once conditions are set right. However in some circumstances the conditions never *will* be set right, which would presumably give rise to chronic disease/miasm(?) in the offspring if not in the parent?)

Shannon

Hi Shannon,
I too thought that what Peter was essentially describing was Hahnemann's observations of Chronic Miasms.
Leela

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Hi All
I thought that my message had gone directly to Peter Chapell, It was not eant for the list.
I am not totally sure about intent, although I could not practice with "negative" intent. And I am sure that a remedy does not work for a variety of reasons, the strongest being that we have got the wrong remedy. I do know some healers who use homoeopathy that can "send" the energy. But yes, I do believe that it is the right remedy, not the intent that is important

"Us" is too general a response, apologies if I have caused offence Kenneth. However, there are so many theories about how each potency works. I was never scared to use a "high " potency where it struck me that the energy of the patient was high and / or the cause was long held. I am still reluctant to use a high potency on skin problems.I am worried that it could cause an aggravation. I have experienced different reactions with different potencies. Julian says that a very high potency (think it was a 10m) "grafted" a lot of problems onto him. Could this actually be a proving?

Now my asthmatic daughter is finally being treated with LM's and although still on one daily puff of steroids, is doing so much better over all than she did on centissimals.

OK, call instinct "guessing" (and I will disagree with you on that definition) but please enlighten me, how do you choose a potency?

Best wishes

Caroline :-)


www.Free-Range-Education.Co.Uk The Book About Home Education :-)
----- Original Message -----

Quote:

Originally Posted by caroline spear OK, call instinct "guessing" (and I will disagree with you on that definition) but please enlighten me, how do you choose a potency?

The general rule-of-thumb is: The deeper, more inward the disease (i.e. if it is primarily manifesting on the mental/emotional plane) the higher the potency. If it is manifesting as a disruption of functions, middle potencies; if there are organic changes, low potencies or tinctures.

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Chappell Note ceed = chronic effect of epidemic disease c e e d There is the idea that remedies have a mind set and pathological features, a stiff emotions and stiff joints for example in Rhus Tox. There is another idea I have that no pathology can exist without the presence of ceeds. This is what I would like to discuss.

Interesting idea but how to prove, or even to acquire data on which to postulate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Chappell This second idea is that, if the human body was in its pure state of perfect genetics, no possible pathology could arise as there would be no imperfections on which to take root. However ceeds and mind sets have coexisted for millennia and maybe there is no separation now. We have very well established connections between remedy mind sets and well known pathologies. So clearly there is a link

I suggest that epidemic Dx have the potential to produce both an acute and a chronic mind state, nor may these be the same states.

Whether they persist depends on the usual ( susceptability, ability to overcome Dx etc.)

Unfortunately there is no clean slate top work from ( or is there?) So it can be difficult if not impossible to separate pre-existing mind states that were either just latent - or underexpressed - or undeveloped, - or due perhaps to appear in due course. ALL of which could be the sum inheritance from previous generations of ceeds.

One question to pose then as a starting point is why did the first human being to get ill from an epidemic, get ill from any epidemic Dx? To answer that we must try to imagine a time when humans were never ill, look at their circumstances and look for clues in history etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Chappell Is there a direct connection between mind states and pathological states?.

Obviously but it looks as though perhaps you're asking more about etiology?

[QUOTE=Peter Chappell]There appears to be in the well detailed remedies like Rhus Tox, Sepia, Sulphur, Aurum etc. But supposing the ceeds only provide the soil and only certain types of minds can thrive in that soil, so that, as the journey of life starts at conception, each step of choices, like I see evolution, is along predetermined options set by the ceedic state, so that if you have a strong syphilic ceed, its only possible to develop Aurum and other well know syphilic remedy states, as these others just have no affinity. It means then that Aurum say will be selected as a natural choice out of a range of similar syphilic options.
The stresses that Aurum can set up all facilitated by the syphilitic ceed to take root, for example the mental depression can affect the testicles, and the option already exists in the ceed for testicular pathology to be established.
What I am say is that its possible to see the possibility that the remedy sets up the stress, and the ceed allows it to become pathological..[/QUOTE]

The 'remedy' sets up the stress? not sure I am with you here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Chappell This seems possible, even likely, so it means that it’s possible to suppose that pathology is impossible without ceeds. That’s a very important possibility..

This point seems worth pursuing, that pathology is impossible without ceeds. But I still think we need to put ceeds under the microscope. Where do they come from, originally? ( I have my ideas on this)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Chappell If we go back to Africa its possible to see very powerful archetypal relationships based upon animal passions, the male leader of the herd, the subservient females, and such like patterns running society. It’s easy to believe these have existed for all time. There are examples of female dominance amongst animals and female dominant options are also seen in people. My main point here is that the basic behavioural patterns date from our time as animals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Chappell These patterns can also be influenced by minerals, as is well known in the hard people living on dry, hard rock compared to their near neighbours who are soft and warm who live by he seaside. Likewise severe mineral deficiencies affect mind and body dramatically. So it’s easy to understand how minerals have influenced the human archetypes. Likewise, in wars and conflicts, terrible deeds, killing, torture, as well as often the consequences, starvation, loss of family, loss of culture, have further differentiated our inner emotional states and created deep panic states. When it comes to plants, surely there is some truth in the maxim you are what you eat, and my version, you are what you assimilate from what you eat (I personally vomit out poisons readily) so it’s easy to see that plants could also determine our mind states. All this is proven in homeopathic experience. However, it’s also possible to see very clearly that unresolved diseases leave imprints upon the human race, the wildness that follows gonorrhoea, the boredom and dissatisfaction that comes from tuberculosis, the destructiveness from syphilis etc. So all these have influence the development of our minds. Can we conclude anything from this? While all the above is true, does it mean that the actual pathology, as against a disturbance of function, for example a stiffness in mind resulting in a stiffness in the body, is possible without the intermediary of ceeds? Would the Rhus Tox persons joints degenerate without a syphilitic ceed? Would the joints inflame without a gonorrhoea ceed? etc.

I don't understand, are you asserting that remedies only produce stresses upon the physical body? I wouldn't agree with that.

I really think to answer your questions epidemic diseases need clearer definition as to what they actually are.


regards

Simon King LCPH MARH