Treating Epidemics with PC Resonances: Harry van der Zee Interview (2/3)


Now, could you tell us what you’ve been
doing in recent years? Yeah. That actually starts with a case that I saw
at a conference, I think it was 2004. There was an ECCH conference in Holland, and
there was one presentation by Malcolm Smith of a case of HIV/AIDS. And the patient came to him because of a severe
depression. This man was deeply, deeply depressed. And, to just summarize it: this person couldn’t
imagine that anyone would ever love him, and the only thing he could imagine to do in the
future is just to make an end to his life, that’s how depressed he felt. And so this was a case where the homeopath
had been treating him, giving him several remedies. Nothing worked. And as in Homeopathic Links at some point
there had been a short article by Peter Chappell reporting from Africa that he had found a
remedy that was useful for AIDS in Africa, the homeopath thought: Well, okay, let me
then at least give him something for his HIV. So he gave him this remedy ‘PC1’ – and
this was all on video – and this was the most impressive case I’ve ever seen in my
life. And what is PC1? PC1 is the remedy that Peter Chappell made
for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. So this was given to this depressed patient,
who also happened to be HIV-positive. And this man responded to this remedy with
a complete transformation. And when I saw this on video, I mean… this
struck like lightning. Because this is the kind of transformation
I would love to see with every patient I’m treating, and this man was explaining how,
since the remedy, his whole depression cleared up. And, weeping, he told, he said: “I love
everyone, I love everyone.” So before there was this situation of the
idea “Nobody will ever love me.” He wasn’t talking about other people loving
him anymore – he was just full of love, for everyone. He said: “It’s phenomenal, I love everyone.” When I saw that, first of all this is the
kind of response you would love for everyone, and secondly: A remedy made specifically for
a disease? A non-individualized remedy for this case,
supposedly, brought about this change. So what it meant to me, this case, what it
meant to me is that the individual problem of this patient happened to coincide with
the root of AIDS, with what is the basic problem, issue, behind this epidemic of AIDS, and that
it has all to do with love. If you analyze it, that’s logical: people
don’t get AIDS when they take good care of themselves and of others, when you have
a loving relationship, when you have respect for other people and respect their Yes and
their No, there is no AIDS. So AIDS has everything to do with lack of
love and human relationships. So it meant to me that this remedy that Peter
claimed to be very effective for AIDS patients not only was a remedy that seemed to work
well on the symptoms, but it went to the root of the problem. So I asked him about his work, whether there
was a place in Africa where I could go to objectify his results, because he was the
only one reporting. And so I said that I’d be interested to
publish about this in Homeopathic Links, but then I would want to be able to objectify
what you have been seeing. And so that’s when I decided to go to Malawi
– I went together with Corrie Hiwat, my colleague at that time – and we interviewed
some 60 patients that had been treated by Peter some six months before, and we recorded
all their symptoms. Luckily Peter had already used a system of
rating all their symptoms when they were with him, and we could do the same, and the most
objective one that we could rate was just their weight. And to my great surprise, joy, I can say that
they had improved on all parameters that we were able to measure. On all parameters these patients had improved. So these were impressive results. And after having seen that and after being
aware that it is possible to treat an epidemic like AIDS with homeopathy effectively, I felt
that this is something I would want to support, so I linked up with Peter and we discussed
how we could further implement his approach. Now as to your question, how does he make
it: We’ve had long discussion about this, because at some point he decided not to make
it public how he makes them. He was in a situation in Ethiopia treating
patients individually first, just giving Sepia to a Sepia, Pulsatilla to a Pulsatilla, and
whatever, and he was seeing results. Not consistent, but in many cases he was seeing
results, and in some cases real good results. The usual kind of results… The usual kind of homeopathic practice. But he realized this is an epidemic, so in
principle you can use the genus epidemicus approach, meaning that you can look for one
or a group of remedies that can cover the totality of this disease, and you could give
it automatically to everyone where the diagnosis is being made. So, also being aware that there are some 25
million people infected in Africa, he realized that he himself could just treat a handful
– hundreds, perhaps thousands, but never millions. So to really reach a much larger group of
people, a remedy would have to be found that could be given to anyone. And that’s one of the great advantages to
the genus epidemicus approach: you don’t need a lot of skills to apply it once someone
at least has defined a remedy that works. Right, and the remedy that he defined is not
one of the ordinary ones used in infections? Well that’s what he looked for first: he
made an analysis, he took seventy cases, took all the symptoms, took out all the individual
symptoms and took the disease-specific ones, and that was the ‘case of the disease’. And then he made an analysis in the materia
medica, repertory, etc., looking for one, two, three remedies that could cover the totality,
and he couldn’t find it. He wrote about this, wrote emails around the
world: Anybody has a good idea? And nobody came up with a good idea. So at some point he asked himself: If I already
know the totality that I want, would it be possible to reverse-engineer the process of
making a homeopathic remedy? Is it possible to have a totality and put
that totality into a bottle, into a granule. Otherwise we make a remedy from a substance,
and then we do provings, and we have clinical confirmations… And we determine the totality after? … and then we have totality. And he said, well, if I do this the other
way around: I have a totality, how do I put it into a granule? And so he pondered about that, and found a
way, and asked his patients: Are you willing to try a new remedy? And so he gave to several patients this new
remedy, and then after some weeks they were coming back, and then he was seeing consistent,
amazing results. People that couldn’t work were back to their
jobs, children that couldn’t go to school were back to school, people were increasing
in weight, their pains were gone, their TB symptoms were gone: people were just thriving. So he was amazed, and he thought, I mean,
the world would just go for it: I just have to announce this and people will go for it. And as we know, with homeopathy in general
this doesn’t happen, and it didn’t happen with HIV/AIDS, either. So this is still something we’re working
on. But at this point you’ve been working in
Africa and have yourself also observed results with this approach? Yeah. So, first of all, I’ve done some 60 interviews
with patients he had been treating before, treated some new cases there also and seen
them coming back, and I remember sitting there with Cory that at some point I said: It’s
crazy, but it’s easier to treat an AIDS patient here than a child with a runny nose
in my practice in Holland. Because you could just completely rely on
the results, and that is something which in normal practice you do not have. That is typical of a genus epidemicus approach,
provided you have a remedy that really covers the totality of the disease: you can just
have consistent results. It’s actually the branch of homeopathy that
really pushed homeopathy forward more than a century ago. That was the golden age of homeopathy, if
you like, and that was when there were lots of homeopathic hospitals, and when hospital
records showed that with epidemics like cholera, yellow fever, homeopaths were having great
results compared to allopathic hospitals. Now this was before the development of antibiotics,
penicillin, and all of that, so allopathy found its way to having better results as
well. But treating epidemics is our best asset,
I’m sure. And how has your experience with PC remedies
been since 2004? Already in 2004, when in Malawi, we also saw
several patients that had been treated by Peter for malaria, because after having seen
that his technology for creating a remedy for a disease totality like AIDS worked, he
realized that he could do the same for other diseases, and see whether that would work
as well. So one of the first remedies, perhaps the
first, after PC1, was a remedy for malaria that he made. And we just saw amazing results: these were
patients that had malaria all of the time, got PC-Malaria, and for six months no more
malaria. And I thought, well, this might be a seasonal
influence, so I dived into the records of the centre there, to see how many malaria
patients were coming every month, and discovered that in the month that these patients that
used to have malaria all of the time – chronic cases actually – and had no more malaria,
the clinic saw more malaria cases than the rest of the year. So they were going against the trend instead
of following the trend. So this was even more significant for the
result. Worldwide there are 500 million infections
a year: that’s huge. One million deaths a year: that’s huge. So this is a huge disease, and what we also
know is that it has been with mankind for as long as we can go back. So malaria has been there with mankind for
many, many years, and is crippling Africa, you could say, because so many people get
it regularly, or even have it chronically, so they can’t work properly, can’t set
up a business, can’t go to school, or whatever. So this is a huge disease. It’s interesting that the first remedy that
Hahnemann tested, China (quinine), is related to malaria. And as I see it, certainly in Africa, the
malaria miasm is the biggest around. There are scientists that claim that since
the very beginning of mankind, probably 50% of all people that ever lived on the planet
died from malaria – that’s how big this disease is. Also, if you look at the miasm, that’s very
interesting. From my analysis, what we’ve come to understand,
is that malaria has a lot to do with the friction between the individual and the group. And so you see malaria as a disease especially
in countries where there is a strong tribal culture. It is also an observation that if an individual
leaves the tribe there is a higher chance of getting malaria, and when an individual
returns to the tribe there is also a higher chance of getting malaria. So going in and out of the collective is an
issue that has to do with malaria. Which is a basic human issue, and a Lac-humanum
issue, I guess? It’s a very basic human issue: I and the
group, a very human, basic issue. So malaria is a big disease, bigger than probably
AIDS, although that makes the headlines more easily. And so it’s one of the diseases that we
have decided to focus on very strongly, also, because there is a lot to be gained there. Now, besides AIDS and malaria there are other
epidemics like tuberculosis, other infectious diseases, and whenever I’ve been able to use
PC remedies made for that I’ve seen good results. So on the level of epidemics, we have wonderful
opportunities to effectively make a change, in those countries where usually homeopathic
assistance is very low if not completely lacking. In Africa there are not many homeopaths besides
South Africa. So we have a low-skill level of homeopathy
with great results. Also if you look at it in terms of how to
be effective in approaching mankind with homeopathy, by treating epidemics on the basis of which
chronic disease can flourish – that’s the whole Hahnemann’s concept of miasms
– by treating the epidemics you prevent the chronic diseases to occur. So it’s also in that sense much more effective
to treat the collective first instead of the individual. And then when you’ve treated the collective
and the collective diseases and then individual problems remain, that’s where you can come
in with classical homeopathy, and we can use the wonderful developments we’ve seen in
the last decades to individualize cases as best as we can. So, this is essentially like using nosodes,
or is there a difference between nosodes and the PC remedies? Well, I think that the fundamental difference
is that the nosode doesn’t cover the real totality of the disease, whereas a PC remedy
can, based on the practical experience that when you apply it you can apply it one-to-one
for the diagnosis, if the diagnosis is clear. It was quite amazing to me to see how this
works even with people that have hardly been trained in homeopathy, like in eastern Congo. I’ve been training nurses for three hours
how to use 13 different PC remedies for 13 different indications, and after three hours
they were able to treat AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, trauma, with great success. And it was very interesting to see that when
I came back to evaluate their results, they said that, with malaria, if the remedy doesn’t
work the diagnosis is wrong – that’s how confident they were about the remedy, because
then they found out… I mean, in Africa people call all kinds of
things malaria, so if they checked it, it appeared not to be malaria, it appeared to
be typhoid or whatever, so they could just diagnose the case by giving a remedy.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *