Hahnemannian444

Nash is a good source.

Try this article by Constantine Hering, the Father of American Homeopathy: Why older schools of medicine reject homœopathy.

http://www.homeoint.org/cazalet/hering/reject.htm

Tim,

I've read what you said.

It is true that allopathy has dismissed symptoms as objective evidence of diseases.

We wonder to what lengths they will go from here, for diseases can only make themselves known to our senses by symptoms.

Allopathic medicine jumped to the ridiculous conclusion that clinical findings revolving around numerical statistics suffices for defining diseases, and they've been stuck in this absurdity for at least 50 years if not closer to 100 in which German chemistry took over allopathic medicine in the early decades of the 20th century.

Moreover, they have interjected the words "objective" and "subjective" from philosophy into medicine where they have no place.

Ask a patient if their pains and sufferings are objective or subjective and you will find only blank stares.

Allopathic medicine is total nonsense, and their throw-away journals from a viewpoint that relies upon endless new discoveries will show you how ridiculous it is.

They accept one thing, then another, but their new findings and discoveries make the old views invalid, which they nonetheless claimed were the truth.

This happens all of the time too.

One should ask them why they don't have a stable and cumulative data base.

Homeopathy is stable and cumulative due to there being 10 Laws of Medicine that make our knowledge from the beginning and since then still valid.

The homeopathic materia medica is unchanging data because this is the actual Science of Medicine.

It sickens me to examine allopathy, because it is really little more than a ghoulish blood cult of legally sanctioned animal and human sacrifice.

YT2095 asks:

And could you die from an overdose if you forgot to take them?

my m8 said that happened to someone once?

I hate this question because there have never been any known accidents with homeopathic medicines, but there are known problems with c-potencies acting with too much force and requiring long periods between repetitions.

Kent reported a death of someone with tuberculosis when given Phosphorus in a second dose too soon.

But these drugs are as safe as medicines can possibly get, and Hahnemann said he overcame all of the problems of c-potencies with Q-potencies.

As for forgetting to take them, we do not send people home with drugs; they get a single dose of a potency and then we evaluate it before giving either a slightly modified potency and then repetition or increasing of the potency.

I'm not sure I understand your questions.

Also, does it work on the same principal as a Vaccine?

Give you a tiny amount of a bug (rendered inert) so that your body makes appropriate anti-bodies to it?

No, homeopathy has nothing to do with vaccines, and we are 100% opposed to all vaccines and hold that they are propounded on a series of half-truths and lies.

For instance, "rendered inert" is an adaptation of the notion they tried to get away with over a very long time of them having killed the virus, which is absolutely impossible.

Now they try to sell the double-talk of neutralizing the protein coat; however, it is the viral DNA and RNA plus the foreign proteins from animals and animal cells that they're cultured on that make them deadly, not the protein coat.

There are nothing but problems with vaccines and it seems to be a sterling example of mass brainwashing since none of it makes the slightest bit of sense.

I'd rather not get into that here, though, too, for it is a hornet's nest with lots of people; and that deflects away from why Tim and I are here.

No, though, homeopathy has nothing to do with antibody-antigen reactions within receptor-site theory.

A bit more on that before the sky falls on me about it.

Two facts is all I'll persue here about it.

First, they are subAvogadrean drugs that we prefer to call ultramolecular medicines and that I favor calling etheric drugs.

That forces an argument about the etheric pattern being involved in the mechanism of health, disease and therapeutics and is an intrinsic part of the nature of existence and the nature of the universe.

Secondly, we live in a time when physicists have inadvertently verified the existence of the AEther or AEtheric Plane while still insisting in the majority that they have done no such thing.

The list of non-physical particles and major manifestations of the AEther exceeds 20 and have been accumulating from diverse findings in physics over the last two decades.

I think it is just a matter of time till we prove that homeopathic pharmacology involves etheric particles, prove meaning in the same way that lots of tacitly accepted constructs in chemistry and physics remain unprovable except by their effects.

Then we will have another major paradigm shift in chemistry and physics that will usher in the future of sciences in exactly the way that Nicola Tesla predicted was inevitable with technologies underlain with Ether Theory.

Originally posted by YT2095

curiosity here....

Surely a single dose of "fresh" air (LOL) would contain an overwhellming does of toxins too? or Cosmic rays or background radiation and transmiters all around us ever your own Comp Monitor would have much more medicinal value then?

such low doses over long periods (the idea behind Homeopathy). why do or can these things make folk ill?

or at least SOME folks (hayfever`s about the worst I get from the air and maybe sunburn).

so how does it work? or is it the IDEA that your taking something that you`re TOLD is good for you?

And could you die from an overdose if you forgot to take them?

my m8 said that happened to someone once?

No, it's not the low dilution that makes a substance a homeopathic medicine, it's the succussion process (vigorous shaking of half-full vials) between serial dilutions.

How they produce symptoms in the healthy and cure them in the sick has a classical explanation from Hahnemann and a whole slew of modern notions. I think mine makes sense and affirms what Hahnemann said.

Hahnemann proceded from the assumption that medicines are poisons that become curative only when we're sick and in need of the substance capable of producing the most similar symptoms. He would have thus railed against the notion of so-called "natural drugs" and therapies as absurdities.

I think that our etheric drugs make the disordered vital force or no-longer-integral etheric pattern once again whole. The details of that go on and on, but that's the gist of it. That's also classical homeopathic theory about how disease arises and cure obtains. I've just modernized it while still being way outside mainstream thought.

.

Tim asked:

Albert, why do you say this?

"Those substances shouldn't have effects but do."

You mean, just that they are Subavogadrean?

Yeah, allopaths and allopathic Minds aren't wrong in the assertion that they should be inert and innocuous due to being subAvogadrean; they're just wrong in the assumption that they are just because they should be; i.e., they reason from an a priori basis (from generals to particulars), which has nothing to do with scientific objectivity, and with wrong basic assumptions about everything important to any medical subject.

Tim asks:

So, the question is; when Hahnemann spoke of self-proving, what doses was he giving himself? Obviously, Q-potencies, but which ones?

No, the Q-potencies were his last major contribution to medicine. They came out of his work while in exile at Cothen and then at Paris where he applied them along with Boeinghausen. But he used various potencies at different times. He seems to have wanted to standardize the best potency for a while, till he figured out that the Law of the Single Dose and the Law of the Optimally Ultramolecular or Minimum (misnomer) Dose -- and he nowhere called them out as two of our four Laws of Therapeutics but merely referred to "laws" in the plural since he was very conservative and scientific about such pronouncements -- are direct cognates of each other that require we increase the potency with each additional dose of a curative drug. His provings and self-provings were engaged in over a wide range of potencies. The last call he gave for a limit on potencies before he dealt with Jenichen's higher c-potencies (e.g., 1500c and higher, all done by hand) and developed the Q-potencies was 30c.

And thorough provings proceed up in potencies with sensitive persons. People for whom the medicine being tested/proved show marked effects above those of others are called "sensitive provers" for that drug, and they are kept to test them up in potencies to discover the more refined and defined effects, not necessarily the deeper effects, as the HPHs insist about high potencies. It's not that they act more deeply as potency increases; rather, they act more SWIFTLY and cure procedes deeper as a natural process of cure. It just looks like they act more deeply. Anyway, those people take, for instance, 12c till they have an effect, then 30c, then 200c, then 1M and that usually suffices lest we engraft a disease on them.

About that, and this has to do with what I suggested to you about the poisons and especially the medicines from the snake venoms, there are a number of remarks in the old journal literature telling how people who originally or thoroughly proved some drug suffered it for years and even till they died. Hering said this about Lachesis; and I think Kent's wife made the same remark due to a cure of her that was handled carelessly with Lachesis too. Lots of people made such remarks about various drugs, though. You just do as much as you can for humanity through provings, and it seems some people were zealous at the expense of their health. We now know such things a little better, so we do not push them.

I want to prove Nigella sativa or "black cummin" seed. It has a long history as a cure-all in Islamic history and was referred to as a cure-all by Mohammed, but it is totally unknown in the West. It's an incredibly important substance, it seems, too, for it has some sort of positive action on the immune system in chemical doses. That means, conversely, that it will prove curative in autoimmune diseases, which of course ranges across all chronic diseases and especially those like AIDS, cancers, lupus, scleroderma, cystic fibrosis, etc. I actually have some of the stuff, but there are correct protocols required of new drugs I am just learning from John Borneman III. I'll be involved in this for a while, but I mean to do self-provings of it as well as acting as the compiler of whoever I can get to test it. Usually it is the Hahnemannians who do the provings, for we are the best observers with the most objective perceptions due to clinical practice. Interesting, huh? Hahnemann missed a major drug and so had everyone else. I'm still flaberghasted how this fell through the cracks due to the political structure of the world and how Islam was pushed to the side by the Barbary Pirates of Islam (Tripoli, etc.) shut down by President Jefferson. Islam remained isolated from the West till the 9/11 planes, but I've known about the religion for about 33 years. NDE stuff. How about that, though? A new drug that would seem to possibly be needed right now suddenly made itself available to us via me and probably a few others I do not know about. I like it.

re: Cell Receptor Mechanism Barry Blatt - 96th post - 14 Jul 2003 19:17

If there is one recpetor why so many different hom. medicines?

Any evidence for the existence of this receptor in the brain?

 

Are people responding to the homeopathic medicine or the placebo effect? 'High level' reactions can be easily induced by giving people water and telling them that it is an adrenalin solution.

 

Overdosing on homeopathy? Don't make me laugh! I have personally ingested an entire tub of homeopathic arnica in one go by way of proving to an audience of believers that it was cobblers.

 

Long standing diseases? Theese do tend to go in cycles of worsening and improving, or going in bursts of damage. It is all too easy to claim that nay temporary imporvment is die to an intervenetion. Any evidence for benefit in long standing illneses need long clinical trials. Have they been done in the case of homoepathy? What is the relapse rate? any different from placebo?

 

The last section is nonsense I'm afraid. You are postulating a recpetor that does not exists for a mechanism you would like to exist but cannot find proof for (and is physically impossible and not relevant to how cells actually work) to justify a system of alleged mechanism with no decent clinical evidence that it works at all.

 

Evolution has not exploited lots of things that do exist - no animal works off nuclear energy for example, thhe use of silicon for more than a few vey simple structural purposes or as anything other than crystals, no animal uses hydrogen to float in the sky, etc, etc.

 

The body does 'heal itself' where this is possible. The process is not neat and foolproof. Many illnesses are due to malfunction of 'healing' process, eg, all allergies, arthritis, heart disease, cancer; over reaction in response to invasion by microbes is implicated in TB and SARS. Do homeopaths beleive in microbes? [reply]

Tim, I've told you that these are ultramolecular, subAvogodrean, etheric medicines that could therefore only directly affect the etheric pattern that then orders the physical atoms, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems and organism because they are the same substances of the physical body only nutating at a higher frequency that's thus out of phase or not en rapport with physical substance.

I think you're barking at the Moon to want to find a physical mechanism for etheric medicines.

Why this is such a problem with so many people only reflects the lack of perception of reality in the average person and those indoctrinated to the natural sciences while ignoring the obvious evidence for higher planes of existence all around us and in seven major groups of phenomena.

You can continue to postulate this notion of a brain center, and I will patiently watch its development, but I am telling you that it has to be as I've said since they're ultramolecular drugs.

How is an ultramolecular drug going to affect some physical structure?

Doesn't and couldn't work like that, pal.

The vital force was the generic term for what is now more scientifically known as the etheric pattern.

The etheric pattern is the aggregate of all the etheric particles of an organism or form, which in turn numbers exactly the number of subatomic particles comprising that body or form since they are the same thing only that level of them nutating at the Etheric level of being.

It is so difficult to understand?

Tim says and asks:

What do you mean by a high potency? E.g., Q-potency? or C-potency (6c or 30c) bought from the chemist?

High potencies are 12c and higher because they're subAvogadrean and ultramolecular degrees of potentization or dynamization. This is a distinction created by the low-potency pseudo-homeopaths (LPHs) because they insisted upon "tangible doses" even before Avogadro came along with his measuring stick. You'll sometimes see HPHs and Hahnemannians in the old literature refer to "high and highest potencies" in order to make the point clear that they divide very sharply from materialistic Minds in allopathy and LPH.

As I have said, 30c Arnica, Rhus Tox, Calc Carb, DO NOTHING in the healthy. But 6c Bryonia does.

I don't know what's up with that, but if you continuously take a homeopathic (amount means nothing), you are going to engage in a self-proving, I don't care what drug it is.

Tim says:

The fact remains, Albert, that there must be some breakthrough somehow in the Scientific testing. They don't even accept the provings.

This is why we so strongly favor resolution of the pharmacology mystery first, for that will open the flood gates to our experimental and clinical data since they a priori dismiss us saying they're just placebos. Well, once they're shown to not be placebos -- which they could do themselves the way they're supposed to if they were actual scientists and had read the instruction manual of homeopathy and homeopathic testing in the ORGANON -- they will have no excuses for ignoring our data collected on many millions of patients in a stable and cumulative history of 213 years. First things first, Tim. These things are inevitable.

Tim, you didn't say it correctly:

Yes, it's unethical to ever give a patient a placebo.

Blanks are invaluable in practice after a medicine has been given, for people cannot conceive of drugs acting for weeks and months on a single dose. But that is not keeping them suffering; it's just keeping them from being anxious about something being done for them, and it's done due to their own ignorance about health, disease, therapeutics, the nature of existence and the nature of the universe. I eventually explain this to them down the road so that we do not have to play this game, but the average person has to travel a long way in understanding to be able to comprehend the Law of the Single Dose and the Law of the Optimally Ultramolecular or so-called Minimum (misnomer) Dose.

But this allopathic practice of making some people suffer with no therapy is totally reprehensible and cannot be condemned too severely. They're all dullards with Bullwinkle heads.

Tim remarks:

Firstly, I didn't know that there were repertories, of note, around in Hahnemann's time.

Hahnemann mentions his repertory in THE LESSER WRITINGS. It apparently didn't survive the wrath and carelessness of Melanie, whom some naive women at homeopathyhome defended. Likewise, Boeinghausen was the actual developer of the systematic repertory, although arranged on the schema of Hahnemann. Kent's REPERTORY is said to have been just a compilation of lots of others after he inherited the manuscript for it from Adolph Lippe along with Lippe's practice; however, there is a very disturbing passage in a Discussion section of a paper in the old journals in which somebody remarked that Kent's REPERTORY was page-by-page a copy of Pulford's missing manuscript. Ouch on Kent, huh?

Secondly, I thought repertories WERE the "provings results" assembled in a different way, i.e., a listing of all the medicines associated with a particular symptom, instead of medicines listed with all their symptoms (materia medica) ?

The repertories are a serious distortion of the actual symptoms that's unavoidable from compiling a symptom index. There's no way to represent the actual statements from the provers, for they are often very detailed remarks. (Here we note that modern patients are so allopathically brainwashed that they don't even pay attention to their own sufferings but instead also, like allopaths, find a mere diagnostic name or term sufficient and expect that of us too.) So to prescribe from the repertory is akin to reading Shakespeare from an index of his compiled writings. That doesn't even mention the myriad mistakes made and missed by Kent and his students. The G.H.G. Jahr Institut [sic] will fix all of these errors while compiling our 100-plus-volume new materia medica, but the fact remains that only a presumptuous fool prescribes from the repertory. God knows, the Vithoulkas school of thought reeks of those types and the Kentians before them, and others before them clear back to Hahnemann or he wouldn't have made that SINGLE complaint against those students. And I emphasize that fact; that's the only time he even mentions HPHs (meaning high-potency pseudo-homeopaths) while constantly railing against allopaths and LPHs (low-potency pseudo-homeopaths). It speaks volumes, so we have to be careful when we dismiss the GVs and Kentians, etc., for they're really fully viable students and the older, more experienced ones near colleagues. Still, mistakes are the one identifier of false homeopaths and allopaths, for they all make them while Hahnemannians don't.

Originally posted by blike

[b What is the main difference? Why hasn't there been research into Hahnemannian Homeopathy? [/b]

I finally answered that on page 3 near the bottom.

I don't really like to address the other question, for it assumes that there hasn't been any, whereas every single homeopathic proving over the last 213 years has been research and evidence.

If you mean, as I'm sure you do, allopathic research, that's also a question I dislike answering, for they can't test homeopathy since they have every basic assumption of medicine wrong.

For example, they will invariably want to test a homeopathic medicine FOR a disease against that disease, whereas homeopathy does not work that way.

This is where those bozos say it has been tested and failed; whereas, in reality, they just tested allopathic precepts against the Law of Similars and allopathy failed.

They are too ignorant to realize this too.

Correct homeopathy requires that we isolate out the uncommon symptoms of a case and use them almost exclusively to determine the medicine that's most similar to the case symptoms, for those uncommon symptoms are strange, rare and peculiar and thus will have few medicines listed as having cured them.

Two will have still fewer in common by cross referencing the lists of medicines in a symptom rubric that belongs to an uncommon symptom, and then three will usually have between one and five or even one and two medicines that run through all three uncommon symptoms.

The ideal is that we then go to the materia medica ("materials of medicine") and match up the one with the most verbatim similarity of symptoms.

That methodology really does not lend itself to any sort of double-blind protocol, except perhaps to find out if the homeopath knows what he's doing by testing if s/he can tell which of two sets of patients were given placebo and which the active medicine they themselves determined.

But that's not a real test of homeopathy.

Double-blinding is actually totally pointless, for there's nothing to determine in homeopathy since we have been proving cures of all diseases for over two centuries and are thus not inclined to make half of a group of test subjects suffer with placebo.

Allopathy is actually a totally reprehensible system in all manifestations, and their so-called trials are just another example of it.

I never answer this type of question very well because I don't like the whole notion of it and cannot understand why whole masses of people think it's so important.

The real test of homeopathy is a self-proving with a high potency.

Those substances shouldn't have effects but do.

Hahnemann wrote brilliantly on this at Article 141 of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE: http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html

I forgot to post the three paragraphs from THE CHRONIC DISEASES by Samuel Hahnemann, founder of homeopathy, on high- and low-potency pseudo-homeopathy (HPH & LPH):

+

“As to the second chief error in the cure of chronic diseases (the unhomoeopathic choice of the medicine) the homoeopathic beginner (many, I am sorry to say, remain such beginners their life long) sins chiefly through inexactness, lack of earnestness and through love of ease.

 

“With the great conscientiousness which should be shown in the restoration of a human life endangered by sickness more than in anything else, the homoeopath, if he would act in a manner worthy of his calling, should investigate first the whole state of the patient, the internal cause as far as it is remembered, and the cause of the continuance of the ailment, his mode of life, his quality as to mind, soul and body, together with all his symptoms (see directions in Organon), and then he should carefully find out in the work on Chronic Diseases as well as in the work on Materia Medica Pura a remedy covering in similarity, as far as possible, all the moments [?], or at least the most striking and peculiar ones, with its own peculiar symptoms; and for this purpose he should not be satisfied with any of the existing repertories – a carelessness only too frequent; for these books are only intended to give light hints as to one or another remedy that might be selected, but they can never dispense him from making the research at the first fountain heads [i.e., the provings]. He who does not take the trouble of treading this path in all critical and complicated diseases, and, indeed, with all patience and intelligence, but contents himself with the vague hints of the repertories in the choice of a remedy, and who thus quickly dispatches one patient after the other, does not deserve the honorable title of a genuine homoeopath, but is rather to be called a bungler, who on that account has continually to change his remedies until the patient loses patience; and as his ailments have of course only been aggravated he must leave this aggravator of diseases, whereby the art itself suffers discredit instead of the unworthy disciple of art.

 

“This disgraceful love of ease (in the calling which demands the most conscientious care) often induces such would-be homoeopaths to give their medicines merely from the (often problematic) statement of their use (ab usu in morbis) which are enumerated in the introductions to the medicines, a method which is altogether faulty and strongly savors of allopathy, as these statements usually only give a few symptoms. They should only serve as a confirmation of a choice made according to the pure actions of the medicines; but never to determine the selection of a remedy which can cure only when used according to the exact similitude of its homoeopathic symptoms. There are, we are sorry to say, even authors who advise following this empiric pathway of error!”

 

(The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and their Homoeopathic Cure, Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., translated from the 2nd enlarged German edition of 1835 by professor Louis H. Tafel, 1896.)

The second paragraph discusses HPHs and the third exposes LPHs.

The HPHs make eight fundamental mistakes; Hahnemann mentions only the first two most serious ones: they 1) cannot identify uncommon/characteristic or strange, rare and pecular symptoms because nobody in that school of thought realizes it's the key to homeotherapeutics; and they 2) prescribe from the repertory to the homeopathic materia media because they engage in an exercise in presumptuous psychobabble steming from clinical psychology and psychiatry about so-called "remedy essences," personalities of the people needing the remedies, so-called constitutional states and prescriptions and other synonyms about such presumed perceptions upon which to prescribe instead of detailed symptoms they verbatim match in the materia medica.

These people use high potencies with recklous abandon and have a hyper-mystical attitude and worldview.

The LPHs are exactly the opposite, and they do nothing but make mistakes in everything.

These people are hyper-materialists and are easily recognized as allopathic Minds using homeopathic medicines in allopathic ways, i.e., prescribing on the basis of mere disease-diagnostic categories.

Homeopathy does not work like that, for those things are just statistical abstractions based upon the symptoms that large numbers of people have in common, or upon the common symptoms of cases.

Correct homeotherapeutics relies upon the few uncommon but highly individualizing and differential uncommon symptoms of patients/cases.

These people are just allopaths using homeopathics in allopathic ways.

As hyper-materialists, they naturally insist upon "tangible doses," meaning no potencies that are subAvogadrean.

There are approximately 10,000 times as many LPHs as Hahnemannians and about 100 times as many HPHs as Hahnemannians, and there haven't ever been very many Hahnemannians for whatever stupid reason.

I mean by that comment that it ain't so difficult to get it right, folks.

It's a lot more difficult than either false form of homeopathy and any form of allopathy, but it still is not so difficult since natural laws guide our decisions.

The LPHs are hopeless, but the HPHs are just confused; the HPHs can be salvaged and historically are occasionally known to advance to Hahnemannian homeopathy.

It's about that simple.

Just because somebody uses homeopathic medicines does NOT make them a homeopath, and just because they claim to be classical or Hahnemannian homeopaths does not mean it's so, for all of the GV HPHs today claim to be classical homeopaths and all of the Kentian HPHs before them claimed to be Hahnemannians.

Tim says: "Personally, I don't think we need a SEM, Albert, a high-powered light microscope may be sufficient, as Lo reported."

I don't see how other than a scanning electron microscope would do since the room-temperature ice crystals Lo found were nanometer sized.

I left that out, folks.

Dey iddy bitty tings.

You think this would be a simple finding?

Edit addition: These may be Stephenson's polymers.

Tiller called the etheric particles deltrons.

Now I want to emphasize why Tim and I are here.

We're looking for research or big brains to resolve homeopathic pharmacology.

These are subAvogadrean or ultramolecular ("beyond-molecules") drugs, etheric medicines in reality.

They logically should not have effects because there are no chemicals in the solutions sprayed onto media like globules, tablets, powders, granules, etc., and yet they are medicinally active.

Something must happen with succussion (i.e., the vigorous shaking of half-full vials) in between serial dilutions, for we only get homeopathic medicines with succussed high dilutions; dilution alone does nothing.

Electromagneticism sounds like the most logical mechanism, but we are still at the stage of total guesses.

The most sound hypothesis I have found, and Tim is pursuing a different set of leads to be thorough and catch up to me and make sure I have not overlooked anything, is the notion of etheric particles of the crude substance forcing the water and alcohol molecules into polymers or crystals unique to each medicine such that they occupy space on the Physical Plane but act as etheric medicines.

That's a mouthful to those unfamiliar with these concepts, but that's the gist of the argument that seems the most promising to me.

Fincke propsed something like this 100 years ago.

Stephenson propounded a specific mechanism of polymers.

Tiller independently suggested something similar although making no mention of polymers, and he gave a word to the etheric particles he surmised must be doing something to the water and alcohol particles in the solvent phase of homeopathic potentization.

Then Shiu Yin Lo blew us away when he accidentally discovered with a scanning electronmicroscope that water molecules of succussed subAvogadrean dilutions of various chemicals produced ice crystals AT ROOM TEMPERATURE.

These may Stephenson's polymers.

Zap and Zowie!

So we are looking for lost literature, i.e., findings that have no home and have been file away, or people with insight to what's going on here.

It's going to most likely be water chemistry and probably with succussed high dilutions.

But it can conceivably be anything relevant to electromagnetism.

Anybody got any ideas?

A bit further on the above about the Law of Chronic Diseases since there is a nice-sized audience here.

Although Hahnemann's Theory of Chronic Diseases didn't pan out, he never applied it, and it produced the Laws of Cure.

Hahnemann made, I believe, two of the four critical observations that comprise the Laws of Cure; Hering supplied the other two.

And, although Hering specified that they have to do with chronic diseases in particular, it has since been thoroughly verified that the following Laws of Cure are applicable in all diseases:

During cure symptoms

1. Disappear in the reverse order of occurance (Time);

2. Move from center to periphery, specifically:

2a or 2. From within outward (Space);

2b or 3. From more important to less important organs (Energy); and

2b or 4. From above downward (Matter).

These are really just the reverse of pathological progressions, so they are indeed absolutes we can call natural laws.

This is VERY important, for the implications of this are that any deviations of these in therapies create iatrogenic diseases.

This is exactly what we find too; all allopathic therapies produce diseases.

Even the relatively benign and wonderful so-called "cures" with antibiotics can later be found to have been the onset of a series of tragedies that lead to death.

That's rare with antibiotics, for they do seem to be worthy allopathic contributions to drug therapy just as antivirals should eventually arise as helpful agents, but this only seems to be with relatively healthy patients, not the older and more frail ones.

For those people, antibiotics are a second choice to homeopathics; actually, all allopathics are a second choice to correct homeotherapeutics, but antibiotics serve as a nice safety valve should we fail to find the person't simillimum ("thing most similar") or a series of similes ("seem-ah-lees") with which to zig zag cases to cure.

So the upshot of such observations is that people should avoid allopathic therapies like the plague.

They will inadvertently kill you dead really slowly with lots of suffering, and they are fraught with hazzards that cannot be avoided such that therapeutic accidents in allopathy can also kill you dead quickly.

The statistics of Knight et al. verify this observation of our since the beginning.

Hahnemann said to avoid taking allopathically corrupted or spoiled cases.

He told allopaths to first bring those cases back to their natural diseases less the iatrogenic complications of them before we should take them.

The tragedy of our times is that everyone is messed up with allopathic disease influences due to vaccinations and many therapeutic interventions by the time they reach age 50, unless they are under homeopathic treatment or are lucky.

These are very difficult cases because allopathic drugs influences, which come with all drugs, present to us total unknowns.

A few nice discussions on this have transpired at http://www.homeopathy.com.

Tragedy is the word for it.

Fortunately, we will eventually transcend such deleterious times as homeopathy takes its proper place as the exclusive medicine in drug therapies.

When that happens is, however, a matter of great speculation.

Still, however, it is inevitable, for we have demonstrated that there is no such thing as an incurable disease, and we are the only ones who have.

I will probably not see it in my lifetime, but the present generation may.

Tim,

I'll find the papers and post the titles somewhere.

And, no, nobody in homeopathy has worked with scanning electron microscopes.

Takes money, ya know.

I forgot the succinct statement of natural law by the Spagyric physicians on the Law of Chronic Diseases:

Chronic external diseases are cured only by internal medicines.

External and internal here refers to a knowledge of the AEther and thus of etheric medicines and the etheric pattern, for those guys thought of their drugs as composed of quinto essentio or "essence of the fifth element," which means etheric particles.

atinymonkey,

I encourage a reading of Boeinghausen, but Hahnemann's THE CHRONIC DISEASES is difficult to avoid being mislead due to his there having proposed a theory that never panned out.

I'll therefore save you some time so that you can instead read the ORGANON or THE LESSER WRITINGS OF SAMUEL HAHNEMANN, much more worthy of study.

At homeopathyhome.com, as Hahnemannian444 and Hahnemann444B, I posted two responses relevant to Hahnemann's Theory of Chronic Diseases.

They follow, and then I'll quote the Spagyric physicians on the Law of Chronic Diseases as it should exist in homeopathy.

The first of the two postings at HomeopathyHome.com was some text from my pen plus the majority of a paper by a master homeopath in the Hahnemannian tradition named Georg von Keller, M.D.

But I put it succinctly a bit later, so I first copy that here, then the paper by Keller.

There was a thread begun at HomeopathyHome named "Miasms" in which people were starting to yak yak about miasmatic layers, so I put a stop to it with this:

The so-called Theory of Miasms, in its manifold forms of ridiculous psychobabble proffered by total fools, is one of the eight mistakes and indicators of high-potency pseudo-homeopaths (HPHs), so you all had better watch out with such stuff around me and my kind.

"Miasm simply means "contagion."

"Hahnemann witnessed first that all of the epidemic diseases were infectious/contagious and were cured by specific drugs, then that syphillis and gonorrhea are also and were similarly cured by specific drugs (viz., Mercury and Thuja and Nit-ac, respectively).

"It was therefore perfectly logical for him to have assumed that the various undefined chronic diseases had their origins in contagious skin diseases like lepracy.

"He called it psora.

"But that turned out to be wrong.

"He and Hering separately attempted to find a universal or specific drug for scabies (viz., psorinum) in the thought that curing psoric disease (in the singular) would eliminate chronic diseases (in the plural), but they failed and realized that the number of antipsoric drugs would endlessly expand because chronic diseases are NOT misasmatic or contagious.

"That's all there is to it.

"I quoted Georg von Keller, a real homeopath, at length on this at "Prescription by Disease Names."

"I recommend that you people read that and get me to finish quoting it and hereafter be quiet about so-called miasms unless you want me to embarrass you.

--------------------

"Albert, also

"Hahnemannian444"

That's important to understand so that you're not mislead by the mystical mumbo jumbo from GVs and other HPHs about miasmatic layers.

There's something to be said for miasmatic layers, but it is not something that can be applied therapeutically, and that's what the bozos in the Vithoulkas school of thought (GVs) and HPHs always try to do.

It impresses only fools.

This is what Georg von Keller had to say about Hahnemann's Theory of Chronic Diseases some 20 years ago; be impressed:

-------------

"Psorinum, Psora, and Miasms"

"Georg, von Keller, M.D.

"HOMEOTHERAPY: JOURNAL OF CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHY, Vol. 9, No. 3, May-June 1983, pp. 74-81

"HERING ENDEAVORS TO FIND A PREVENTATIVE [PREVENTIVE] FOR PSORA

"Jenner introduced cowpox vaccination in 1798. We can imagine only with difficulty what that meant to the people of the time, what hopes this awakened in the suffering populations. The medical world of Hahnemann's time was deeply marked by the great epidemic diseases, by the helplessness with which they confronted any acute disease, including the exanthematous diseases of childhood. Even measles often ended in death.

"Something that would protect against one of these life-threatening diseases must have seemed miraculous. Naturally, people investigated the possibility of vanquishing other diseases in the same way. What better to do than to eliminate the source of all ills, that age-old scourge, Psora?

"Hering experimented with Psorinum and wrote, 'I wanted above all to have a general prophylactic for scabies, something which [that] seemed to me to be far more important than just another new remedy.' And elsewhere he said, 'Finding a medicine that would protect against Psora would be the greatest discovery of all.'

"HAHNEMANN ENDEAVORS TO FIND A SPECIFIC REMEDY FOR PSORA

"Even without these high-reaching plans, homoeopathy had been, from the beginning, spectacularly successful in the treatment of life-threatening acute diseases. It was above all a use of remedies 'specific' to a given epidemic which [that] succeeded in keeping mortality to an astonishingly low level compared with the usual methods of treatment.

"'Specific remedies' meant that a collective disease picture had to be assembled, one which was characteristic of the entire epidemic, not just individual patients, and that the remedy most similar to this collective disease picture had to be found and then administered to every individual patient alike. This same method of treating with specifics also worked with venereal diseases, when the primary lesions had not been suppressed by external treatment. The remedies for epidemics had to be determined anew for each new epidemic, even if the new appearance went by the same name as before; but the specific remedies for the chronic venereal diseases were always the same, Thuja with Nitric acid for Sycosis, and Mercury for Syphilis.

"Up to this point homeopathy was a complete success. But the more Hahnemann turned his attention to treating chronic diseases the less permanent his successes were. Hering wrote, 'Hahnemann made the same discovery that we all do: some patients get well, some don't. When the remedy was exactly similar [the possibility of which increases with more well-known drugs] he did of course obtain cures, but in chronic cases they often didn't last. Hahnemann's unusual powers of observation allowed him to see the difference between cases that remained cured and those that didn't. He discovered that symptoms must be removed in the reverse order of their appearance; that the most recent symptoms are always the most important ones in the selection of the remedy; and that when the symptoms disappear in the reverse order of their coming, the patient remains cured, but not if they disappear in any other order.'

"'The same abilities allowed him to recognize that improvement was greater and lasted longer in those chronic cases in which an eruption appeared, than in those where internal symptoms went away without anything appearing externally. That gave Hahnemann the idea, the hypothesis [for contagious psora as the cause of all other diseases]. In the same way he would put together pictures of current epidemics or intermittent fevers, he now put together the picture of those who had had scabies which [that] had been suppressed, and who thereafter suffered from chronic diseases.'

"This was how the hypothesis of the miasmatic [contagious] nature of non-venereal chronic diseases began. Hahnemann thought that this discovery had put him on the trail of a specific cure for Psora. He wrote in a letter in 1823, 'To find this missing piece of the puzzle and thus to fully clarify the art of entirely eradicating the ancient chronic diseases, is what I have striven to do day and night for the last four years of my life, and finally after a thousand tests and experiments, and after ceaseless reflection I have achieved my aim.'

"IN ANY CASE, A METHOD OF TREATING CHRONIC DISEASES WAS FORMULATED

"Hahnemann and Hering's expectations were not fulfilled. A specific for Psora was not found, nor was it possible to find a vaccine, as Hahnemann had once forseen [sic]. But the hypothesis of the miasmatic [contagious] nature, even of non-venereal chronic diseases, was a definite step forward in the development of homoeopathic theory and practice. Hering wrote the following about this development: 'The Hahnemannian school follows without preconceived notions[,] only plain experience, and when it happens to permit hypotheses, it never considers them to be essential.'

"Hahnemann worked for eleven years to find a specific remedy for Psora. With the help of the hypothesis of the miasmatic [contagious] nature of Psora he thought to be able to find the specific, as we have read in the letter cited above. He soon realized that there was no one, single remedy for Psora, and that the number of anti-Psoric remedies would become larger and larger. In a letter of 1827 he speaks of six or eight remedies; in 1828 the first edition of the Chronic Diseases appeared with 21 remedies, and finally in 1835 there were 47 remedies in the second edition.

"He also reached the conclusion that even in an individual case one remedy was not sufficient, and in 1829, in the fourth edition of the Organon, he came for the first time to the formulation of paragraph 168: 'In non-venereal chronic diseases, therefore those arising from Psora, one often needs to use several anti-Psoric remedies in succession to bring about a cure, each to be chosen because it is homoeopathic to the group of symptoms remaining after the previous one has completed its action.' [Very important that one remember here what Lippe said about zig zagging cases to cure before Apis, for the precision of prescription matches goes up with more well-known drugs.]

"THE SPECIFISTS FOLLOWED HAHNEMANN ONLY PART OF THE WAY

"Many of Hahnemann's contemporaries turned away from this arduous method of treating chronic diseases, in which one is resigned to patiently search for a new remedy whenever a new disease picture presents itself. They stayed with the method of treating by specifics that Hahnemann had used in dealing with acute diseases, and called themselves Specifists. One of their most prominent representatives, Richard Hughes, wrote the following [foolishness] in an article entitled 'The Two Homoeopathies': 'Anything new which a man [here he means Hahnemann] manages to put forth after his 74th year, is not necessarily good in all its particulars. And the fact that Hahnemann established the 30th attentuations as the standard dose for provings and for treatment does not make us bid welcome to the rest of his innovations. To make the Hahnemann of 1830-1843 our leader is, in my opinion, to put ourselves at the mercy of his senility.' Richard Hughes was at that time 41 years old [and never got but dumber].

"Others tried again to continue Hering's investigations of Psorinum, and to be able to use the products of illness, if not to protect against the same disease, then at least to cure it.

"Thorer wrote in 1833: 'The discovery of a class of remedies made from contagious disease substances that were used to treat the contagious diseases from which they came, was what brought about a temporary confusion, a momentary doubt about the correctness of the homoeopathic principle.' Hering and Hahnemann quickly found their way back to the principle, to curing by means of symptom similarity. Others tried repeatedly to introduce this class of remedies that were used against the same diseases which [that] they produced, e.g., Tuberculinum for tuberculosis in the wider sense, and Syphilinum for the imagined syphilitic diathesis.

"The quintessence which [that] finally came from Hahnemann's research from Psora is this: in acute diseases one can expect to get along nicely [in a case] with a single remedy, perhaps even with a remedy specific for the disease; but in cases of developed Psora [chronic disease], that is, in every prolonged and troublesome case of chronic disease, one must accept the fact that one will need several or many remedies in succession [again remember zig zagging and more well-known drugs], since the disease will change its form without being extinguished. Also, Psora often passes into its variable latent state, a state which [that] Hahnemann described as follows: 'The man afflicted with a few or several of these complaints (dormant Psora) takes himself to be healthy and others also take him to be so. He can in this state lead a very tolerable life for years and can carry on his activities relatively unhindered.'

"PSORINUM AS AN INTERCURRENT REMEDY

“… …”

-----------------

That paper is in four holdings: the National College of Naturopathic Medicine (NCNM, Portland), John Bastyr College of Naturopathic Medicine (Seattle), National Lib. of Med. (Bathesda, Maryland) and Northwestern Health Sciences University (Bloomington, Minnesota).

So here's the deal about THE CHRONIC DISEASES.

The first 100-odd pages of it comprises text that were Introductions and Prefaces to the various volumes as they came out over about 12 years, for it is a materia medica, like his THE MATERIA MEDICA PURA.

That is definitely important reading, but you will be mislead without the foregoing facts.

I will next post the three relevant paragraphs from it about HPHs and LPHs so that you can ignore that work and read the ORGANON and LESSER WRITINGS.

I'm impressed that you consider it worth doing.

More power to you, for we consider homeotherapeutics 25th-Century therapeutics that's actually older than known civilization

Intelligence,

And there is the other part: Hahnemann seems to have independently rediscovered the Law of Similars as a simple product of an experiment and brilliant insight.

Here we enter into an unanswerable question, for he invoked the most recent form of homeopaths in his first paper on homeopathy but several times stated that nobody had every used the Law of Similars in a systematic way or as part of a system that would be homeopathy.

We feel he may have rediscovered homeopathy from surviving fragments of the Spagyric physicians, but this will never be possible to establish, and Hahnemann was so far above reproach that it is an unanswerable question and simply a major mystery in homeopathy.

But that is the other factor of it: Hahnemann used the Law of Similars systematically, and one has to look long and hard to dig up the three previous forms of homeopathy.

But that's a good additional point.

I want to point out to everyone who hears this that this is very deep and rare information with which I sincerely you are never led astray by any claims covered here.

And don't be picking at each other, for this is a very difficult subject, and you are both surely interesting people to be attending to this thread against all odds in an allopathic environment of world cartel in medicine.

You should not be hereafter led astray by LPHs or HPHs or allopaths, and that is simply very rare.

Whatever your disaggreements and antagonisms, you have something very important in common you both know along with whoever else reads this.

I am a Hahnemannian.

Believe me when I tell you something about homeopathy, but always verify it logically and experientially before you actually accept it, for nothing can otherwise become knowledge unless you test it both ways inside and out.

Atinymonkey, you said:

Just to make this clear, Hippocrates did invent the Law of Similars. At least according to every homeopathy website listed, there are 160 in total with the same statement.

Okay, so they're all ignorant fools.

Now I have to explain two things.

Mighty easy to ask questions.

Homeopathy has existed at least three times before.

One of them, the oldest in all probability reckoned in one manner but second-oldest judged from another perspective, was Hermetic medicine in ancient Egypt.

The Greeks didn't develop anything; they were all students of the Egyptians.

Hippocrates couldn't have developed a hole in the ground.

You will learn this when you read the homeopathic analysis of the Hippocratic aphorism rendered by Count Clemens von Boeinghausen, called the GLOSSES ON HIPPOCRATES, although that is apparent from merely reading the HIPPOCRATIC CORPUS.

The Hermetic physicians potentized their drugs.

There is one and only one reason for having done that.

The Law of the Minimum Dose (misnomer) or Optimally Ultramolecular Dose is a direct cognate of the Law of the Single Dose and an indirect cognate of the Law of Similars and the Law of the Single Remedy.

Out of it comes homeopathic pharmacology of potentization or dynamization, and all four are interdependent Laws of Therapeutics or one four-part Law of Therapeutics.

So there it is obvious that Hippocrates did not come first.

Now to the idiots you consider authorities.

They are all mere followers in the George Vithoulkas school of Thought (GVs), which in turn is part of high-potency pseudo-homeopathy (HPH).

They are lots better than the allopathic homeopaths called low-potency pseudo-homeopaths (LPHs), but they are both fools who in no way represent Hahnemannian or classical homeopathy even though the GVs say they do and the previous HPHs, known as Kentians (ala James Tyler Kent), called themselves Hahnemannians due to their having inherited the International Hahnemannian Association (founded in 1880) after all of the Hahnemannians died by the late 1890s and left it to the Kentians by default.

The LPHs do nothing but make mistakes and are in no way, shape or form actual homeopaths, for they prescribe homeopathics (the medicines) on the basis is disease-diagnostic categories; i.e., a disease by name gets a drug with such fools, just like is done in allopathy.

That is not homeopathy, and that is the basic protocol of all double-blind trials, for they invariably take a disease by name and test homeopathy or a homeopathic medicine against it.

It will always fail because allopathy always fails due to it being based upon the five very same erroneous assumptions underlying allopathy.

Specifically, the basic assumptions of medicine are about health, disease, therapeutics, the nature of existence and the nature of the universe.

Allopathy will always be effete because it is totally wrong in its approach to medicine, and this cannot be corrected because they lack the 10 Laws of Medicines and ultramolecular drugs.

There are approximately 10,000 times as many LPHs as Hahnemannians and about 100 times as many LPHs as HPHs.

These people are hyper-materialists who thus insist upon "tanglble doses" and all that entails along with allopathic ideas of diseases and patho-physiological mechanisms.

The LPHs do everything wrong and are not homeopaths.

The HPHs make eight fundamental mistakes, all of them serious but at least not hopelessly wrong, for they at least almost know how to think homeopathically.

They're simply misguided due to a long tradition of this group of hyper-mystical types that today manifest as a school of thought emphasizing presumptuous psychobabble and mystical sophistries.

They, for instance, cannot identify uncommon/characteristic symptoms, without which it is impossible to arrive at an unambiguous homeopathic prescription of the simillimum ("thing most similar").

At best these people make guesses due to their ridiculous quasi-homeopathic case analysis through which they invariably emphasize the mental symptoms, even if they do not exist (they read them into cases) and attempt to convince each other it is a pretty good idea to prescribe for the remedy personality or essence or remedy image, etc., none of which actually exist.

They are a self-reinforcing network of fools who today run all of the schools and most of the medical journals.

But they do not graduate anyone competent and rarely say anything whatsoever accurate in their journals.

The second mistake they make is to prescribe from the repertory (symptom index) to the homeopathic materia medica ("materials of medicine") or collections of proving symptoms and clinical additions of them.

Hahnemann himself dismissed this class of pseudo-homeopaths as "bunglers," "_______" and "aggravators of diseases" on pp. 121-22 of THE CHRONIC DISEASES, but apparently none of the GVs in this form of HPH have ever read those two paragraphs or they would not be constantly making these two mistakes.

Their so-called remedy essences are a third mistake.

They also invariably have ridiculous notions about so-called "miasmatic layers" of disease, this in contradiction to Hahnemann's meaning about miasms being contagious or transmittable infections as an unproven theory in the realm of chronic diseases, even though perfectly logical since he has seen that all others diseases are contagious.

They make four other mistakes, but the point should be clear that they make fundamental mistakes that separate them from legitimate or Hahnemannian homeopathy.

There are about 100 times as many HPHs as Hahnemannians, and there are very few Hahnemannians both historically and at present.

So it is no wonder that they all make such an ignorantly ridiculous statement since that is about all that ever comes from them.

Is that clear?