Well... WIth no provings, and no information about what it is, so we can't even *guess* as to whether it might cause the symptoms it is evidently curing, what would be the basis for insisting that it's "homeopathic"? Not everything that "works" is "homeopathy". Maybe it is, but we just don't have enough information to make that call.

So those who want to stand on purist principle have every reason, IMO, to be wary. However those who are primarily interested in utility, and who are happy to give Peter benefit of the doubt because of his credentials, well, we are eagerly awaiting more information!

So is it off-topic here? Possibly, but personally I still think the discussion should continue, and I look forward to learning more about it. If it turns out to be *not* homeopathy, I will consider myself non the poorer for having learned something unexpected.

:-)
Shannon

HI Shannon,
that I understand is:
The reason PEter han't proved the remedy yet is because he's in the throes of using it clinically. HE initially went to Africa and was prescribing homeopathic similimums for years before he developed this remedy afer being in close interaction with hundreds of AIDS patients. All this information was on his first website which has changed.

Funds as well are a major problem. No one is funding his clinics in the heart of the AIDS epidemic in African villages. HE's working on his own personal funds which run out easily. Inspite of that if people have sincerely (personally) asked him for the remedy to use clinically and in return give him their clinical information and trials with patients on it, he has been generous to send them 1 drahm vials of granules at NO cost.

Trying to get government funding or NGO funding runs into 2 major blocks - The pharmaceutical industry control exists to push the tested and WHO approved Cocktails and, there is resistance to an unknown remedy or homeopathy.

So I think if he could trust a few homeopaths to collaborate with him, who have the understanding and means to conduct a clincial trial as well as a proving for him, that's his best bet for the long term. MAybe some Philantropist may turn up eventually and donate a large sum to furthur research and development of his "invention".
IN light of that - I'd think he's taking the necessary precautions.

I think Hennie posted his latest website. Its the first time I have seen it and the information has certainly progressed since I last saw, but with much less content and subjective descriptions that he had given us earlier which included a wide number (almost 30) of case studies already observed. I think this idea is developing and maturing pretty fast as are the positive clinical results. Positive input (and criticism) from us could only be helpful to him.

leela

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Shannon,

I agree with the statments that you have made and I never attacked PC1 as being effective or non effective. It is quite possible, with the proper clinical trials and research PC1 may prove itself.

My basis for being, what you have labeled a pureist" is because I get very tired of explaining what Homeopathy is every time some new miracle herb or something comes on the market. Some of those herbal products I have used and used successfully. I would never, as a learned homeopathy, label them as homeopathy just because they are effective.

Look at some of the herbs that are used in herbal form. We could justify them as mother tinctures. We could claim them to be homeopathy as we are using them homeopathically. How many references in Borike's Materia Medica claim the use of the Mother tincture to be used. Thuja to cover a wart. But is this practice of herbology homeopathic or simply holistic?

I agree and echo the remarks made by David about disclosure. Homoepathy is a science which is one of the reasons that I believe it survived the move from Germany to the United States. It wasn't the typical witch doctors, or people that were often dismissed as quacks, it was real educated doctors backed with provings and had their information in order. We never would have had the homeopathic hospitals in the USA if we couldn't teach a scientific approach.

Again just my 2 cents worth.

Timothy Snider

When I saw Peter's presentation a couple of years ago, he said:

All of the clients who did not have the strength to walk (at least a little) and the appetite, strength, and opportunity.. to EAT-DIE, regardless of treatment.

All of the clients who did have strength to walk and were able to eat -IMPROVED greatly -with PC1 treatment.

If there is anyone interested in this thread who has not yet viewed http://www.abhalight.org/pc1.html it might be a good idea to do so - otherwise claiming to lack any information is a self-fulfilling exercise.

Here is one excerpt from the website noted above

94 people were surveyed. 53 were female. They were suffering anything from Stage 2 to 4 HIV, but most were in Stage 3. Length of time with HIV/ AIDS infection: average 7.6 years, typically 3 years to 10 years, total spread 1 to 15 years. 25 lived in absolute poverty, as defined by WHO. Very few had substantial income above modest survival levels. The average age was 30, typically 23 to 37 and totally age spread 9 months to 51 years.
Statistics*
o 19 made a complete recovery**
o 47 made a good, significant recovery
o Most of the other 47 people improved unless they did not follow safe sex practices or sometimes because they had other serious diseases concurrently, or extreme poverty and starvation. ( see Complicating Factors below)
o People were surveyed up to 24 weeks and most, once well, stayed well.
* Statistical evaluation based on local criteria similar to Karnofsky score and adjusted for extreme difficulties.
** That is, completely well with nothing wrong at all: no symptoms, complete strength, strong appetite, stable increased weight, normal.
===============================

If, as according to the little bit of evidence contained in this and several other field studies (please let's not go into lengthy discussion of procedural methods for clinical testing :)
-as I was saying, if this evidence is reasonably accurate (I have no reason to doubt it)
-Then, there is something of great value here !

No, it is not homeopathy.
It is, approximately quite similar to radionics to the best of my ability to discern. No, I'm not a practitioner nor supporter of radionics.

Still, the results speak for themselves.

Peter used some parts of homeopathic thought- in terms of a more-or-less genus epidemicus approach .. and an "energy medicine" -if he has this kind of success, shouldn't we be searching for a homeopathic genus epidemicus approach rather than focussing on what is not to our individual liking with PC1 ?

PC1 fails to be homeopathy per se in that there is no proving or clinical pathogensy, also in that it is far more rarified in terms of its origin / preparation than Sol, Luna, or for that matter, Unicorn's milk.

So, to recap:
No, not homeopathy.
Yes, apparently extremely successful in limited trials.
Shares some components of homeopathic thought/method -falls short in others.

What positive things can we do with this information?

best,

David Hartley www.holistiq.com
San Francisco EastBay (510)776-5914
---------------------

Terrific post, Dave -- thankyou!!
Just to split a hair or two -- *regardless* of the source and its rarified nature, *if* the preparation can be used to induce a proving which includes AIDS-related symptoms, then surely we would indeed say that it's "homeopathy", right? It would then be one of those remedies that's entered thru the "back door" of clinical usage prior to proving -- as have several of our well established remedies...

So I think all we can say at this point as to its "homeopathicity" is that -- we don't know yet.

Now if the proving is done and *fails* to yield any relevant symptoms, that would also be awfully interesting, as then we're back to wondering just how it *does* work?

Best wishes,
Shannon

Very interesting website! And speaking of "homeopathic", he says,

"This new medicine uses the fundamental homeopathic principle of "like cures like"; that is, of treating the totality of disease symptoms with a remedy that initiates the individual's healing response through the remedy's own similarity in action to the disease in question.

The new advance in the development of this remedy - provisionally called "PC1" - is that it has been specifically designed for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. This is unlike other medicines of homeopathy that are made from plant, mineral or biological sources. This is not an immune boosting herbal/mineral combination. It is a completely new invention, and nothing like it has been made before."

Elsewhere on the page he describes it being a "mirror image" of the disease, and something to do with mathematical equations and etc. that sounds *utterly* like gobbledy-gook, but he also gives impressive descriptions of its effectiveness (backed by charted results of clinical tests), so I guess it's gobbledygook that works, and works in a somehow homeopathic way... Wow, I'll be eager for the explanations, some day!

Shannon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon 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.

Yes. Some people use homeopathy to heal--some people may manage to heal by going into a trance and channelling magical liturgy from the intelligent squids on the sixth planet around Betelgeuse. If an individual has found something, however goofball, that *works*, good for them. May they live long and prosper--and do a lot of healing by the way. Where I get very restive is when, for example, someone blows up someone else's four years of hard grind and £10K by saying, more or less, 'forget all that--my way is BETTER'. This too often rapidly leads to 'do it my way or you are INFERIOR.' Which is not helpful.

If the intelligent squids want to send me their magical liturgy too, great, I'll look into it when it arrives. Meanwhile homeopathy has a *practical* history to be proud of and no one should be made to feel stupid or demoralised for following it. I'm slogging away on those prescribing skills too.

Arrrrgh.

Robin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon King Jonathan Stallick wrote an interesting book called 'AIDS the homeopathic challenge' which might be of interest to some based on his work in LOndon UK with HIV+ Px (shows homeopathy works well) regards

Dear Simon,

Can you post a little example of some of the results? I don't think enough people realize traditional homoeopathy can play a very positive role in HIV/AIDS. PC1 is not the only game in town.

Sincerely, David

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hartley When I saw Peter's presentation a couple of years ago, he said:

Dear David,

What is written below does not exactly fit the *all IMPROVED greatly* Below there are three categories, complete recovery, significantly improved, and improved and those that did not improve due to various obstacles to the cure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hartley If there is anyone interested in this thread who has not yet viewed

By "complete recovery" you mean laboratory tests showed they went from HIV+ to HIV -? No relapses and stayed well for years?

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hartley o 47 made a good, significant recovery.

I presume you mean asymtomatic or nearly asymptomatic? Are there any CD4+ test and other laboratory works showing significant improvements? How long were the follow ups?

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hartley o Most of the other 47 people improved unless they did not follow safe

Improved means less symptoms, etc? What does most mean??? Any blood work done on these people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hartley o People were surveyed up to 24 weeks and most, once well, stayed well..

What does "most" mean? 24 weeks is VERY short period of time. Some homoeopathic studies followed people for many years. Normally, one speaks clear laboratory reports and 5 year follow ups before speaking of a cure, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hartley >* Statistical evaluation based on local criteria similar to Karnofsky

So all of this is clinical observation with no laboratory reports or control groups?

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hartley If, as according to the little bit of evidence contained in this and

Let us hope so for the suffering masses as a single genus epidemicus remedy of any type is fairly easy to be distributed by lay folks. Traditional homoeopathy has shown some good results including clinical observation, control groups, double blind tests, and laboratory reports. I think this should be done with PC1, etc.

Sincerely, David Little

PS. Personally I don't care if PC1 is homoeopathy, inspired by homoeopathy, or not homoeopathy. I would like to know what it really is!

I have a paper by Rastogi, Singh, Singh, Dey and Rao, through the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, Delhi from about 1995:

Double Blind Placebo Controlled Clinical Trial of homoeopathic Medicines in HIV Infection.

Results and conclusions:
Two groups were studied
1 - Asymptomatic HIV infection
2 - Persistent generalized lymphadenopathy

50 cases for each group, 25 placebo, and Medicine 25
Preliminary studies in first group showed practically no significant different in changes in number of CD4 +T cells in subjects of both placebo and medicine group

In group 2 there was a significant improvement in CD4 +cell numbers (upward trend)in the subjects in the medicine group as compared to placebo group. Significantly, 4 subjects of placebo group in group 1 and 5 of group 2 with an initial downward trend of CD4 + T cell, showed an increase in CD4 +T cell count after administration of indicated Homoeopathic medicine in a period of 15 to 30 days.

The study confirms a positive role of homoeopathic medicines in improving immune status of HIv/AIDS patients

May be of interest

Robyn