Might this be helpful?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/homeopa...te/dosage.html
and
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/homeopa...S/potency.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/homeopa...potencies.html

regards


Simon King LCPH MARH

Dear Colleagues,

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???

Sincerely, David Little

PS. Peter Chappal's remarks on potency and individual healing, however,
unwarranted and incorrect in many places. He thinks homoeopaths are working
through a "fog". It does his work no good to put down the work of others
that have helped so many people. His remedies should be able to stand on
their own two feet without putting down all of homoeopathy.

(I posted this on the Minnitus list as well. I have no clear idea of what gets posted where - I'm in a "fog" ;) , so here it is again.)

Hello David,
I did not notice Peter Chappel "putting down all of homeopathy". In fact I clearly noticed almost everyone putting him and whatever he has done, down.

HAving said that - I agree he should reveal as much as possible about his remedy and its source, etc.
BUT he has (as I noticed yesterday on the board) tried as clearly as possible to explain what he has done. Somehow he has not gotten through to us.
So maybe we need to widen our understanding of what he is trying to convey?
I find what he said essentially similar to what he conveyed to us 2 years back. In the meanwhile he has been tyring to work out a mathematical formula for the remedy he has developed. He has said so in the last posting. I think this a significant move forward. I don't think it is ready for complete public disclosure yet.

Wouldn't you agree its about time we considered that homeopathic remedies may also be worked out in this way? IT may help US as homeoapths take a significant leap forward.
I don't intend to presnt that he is using classical homeopathy or anything of the sort, but I think we need to set the stage for an open mind rather than prejudiced bias, till we know for sure.

regards,
Leela

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leela (I posted this on the Minnitus list as well. I have no clear idea of what gets posted where - I'm in a "fog" ;) , so here it is again.).

Phos. ac., Kali phos....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leela Hello David,

Maybe because it's:

NOT homeopathy, and this is a mail list devoted to...Homeopathy.

Ahh Kenneth, but Peter Chappel is and has been a homeopath (classical) most of his life (25 years or more) - or that contribution does not count for anyone on your list?

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

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.

Could it possibly be because...if something cannot be independently duplicated/confirmed (such as "cold fusion")...it's...a hoax?

Hi

Having a vivid imagination I can accept that PC has a new way of making remedies. That's not to say I believe he has , just I can accept it if he has.

I can also imagine why he might not want to reveal the method: It might be laughed at (Kenneth?); it might discourage Pxs from using it, and in fact he might not even have a clear way to explain it yet, he might still be fathoming it out for himself. However, unless he's lost the plot, I would expect someone with 25 yrs experience as a homeopath and who has the integrity that he is attributed with, to have reasonable grounds for not giving full disclosure. I don't think it's fair to be jumping to negative conclusions when what matters first and foremost , before the how's, why's and wherefores, is DOES IT WORK?

We ( homeopaths) ask others to accept what they do not understand every day. Can we not take a little of our own medicine and just WAIT, and see? It IS frustrating , I agree, but I wouldn't like to try to force Peter's hand into revealing something by using tactics that aren't quite blackmail but are decidedly arm twisting, just because I think he should fully explain something that he doesn't yet feel ready to, or can't..

I too want answers, I too want more than vague definitions, but as colleagues have made clear that it is not homeopathy, why the hurry?

With regard to Pc's definitions I have no qualms with him currently using homeopathy's terminology and points of reference. It's what he's familiar with;presumably what he used as a starting point, and may have to suffice until either a new jargon is arrived at or it is clarified in some other way. It sounds like a work in progress and deserves a little leeway for that.

Peter has asked for intelligent discussion on ceeds, ( was it this list -I've lost track!) - I for one would find this interesting, it seems that Peter is looking to clarify his own ideas on what has probably been a method developed from intuition rather than reason, certainly he allluded to that in his stating that he felt a compulsion to get involved in this way, perhaps we could productively concentrate the discussion in this direction, actually assisting Peter rather than simply playing devil's advocate's.

regards

Simon King LCPH MARH
http://WWW.HOMEOPATHY-HELP.NET

Dear Peter,

can you ( or anyone) please explain the difference between ceeds and miasms

thanks

Simon King LCPH MARH
<http://WWW.HOMEOPATHY-HELP.NET>?

Well said Simon.
I think you explained the main points clearly.
What Peter tried to explain 2 years back and what he is saying now - I can see that he has progressed in his understanding and attempt to explain this phenomenon.

To answer your questions, yes the remedy has been working. My colleague has a few patients on it who feel symptomatically better than they have ever been on thier 'cocktails'. Getting documented (lab) evidence may take a long time.

In India w're trying to work in a research situation and hopefully get lab results as well. But all these things take years of persistent work.

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Well for me it counts that he should know better than labeling his remedy something it is not!! There's enough confusion out there with people not knowing what homeopathy is.

NO disrespect and NO disredit to his "remedy"... People are taking this way too personally thinking I am insulting Peter's remedy without even trying it. I'm simply saying... He should know better than to call it somehting it is NOT!

Timothy