Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Learning Homeopathy - WHERE to Begin??

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Learning Homeopathy - WHERE to Begin??

    Hi, I'm a recent graduate of a college of Traditional Chinese Medicine and so my field is Acupuncture and Chinese Herbology.

    I've become a big supporter of Homeopathy after carefully, for several months, and utilizing such resources as the wonderful Google Book Search, reviewing the old Homeopathy journals and such books as Edmund Carleton's book on Homeopathy and Surgery, and the wonderful works of Dorothy Sheperd, M. Tyler and and M. Blackie.

    My background prior to getting into medicine was software development for 32 years so my mind is very western, very logical and VERY sceptical. That initially made me completely sceptical of Homeopathy but I began to sense an illogic in the criticisms against it and decided to look deeper. I've exchanged emails with M. Ennis and learned to my surprise that the BBC documentary "repeat" of her landmark experiment, didn't and that the research was real.

    Now its time to confront Homeopathy as more than just a reader - I'm Alice, I'm the babe in the woods - I see these people doing prescribing and want to know how to start learning and where. As a student, I was forced to study the "official" version of Chinese medicine which was a "scientized" and sanitized version with various classical Chinese conceptions left out. I've been remedying that with extensive study since graduating. But I need not suffer to learn any "variants" of "schools" of Homeopathy. How about, just this once, I learn the REAL THINK?!!

    In this excellent forum, I've found the postings of Hahnemannian444 to be very enlightening and that of others. I had wrongly assumed that the Organon and other writings of Hahenamann were for specialists and should be avoided by neophytes but am starting to think that I have it all wrong and in fact his books are the best place to start. Being of an android minded mentality however, every time I hit words like "psora", "miasm" or "morbific" I get stopped dead in my tracks and have to puzzle out exactly what H is saying.

    The expensive online and other "training" programs and myriad "certifications", diplomas and "certificates" don't seem all that great to me because, just this once, I'd like to get straight to real Homeopathy. I'm not intrigued by the more modern books on Homeopathy - my excitement comes from a review of what the old time Homeopaths were doing and accomplishing in the limited resources and deadly allopathic treatments of their era.

    Any suggestions for a good path to learning, order that books should be read, places where I might learn REAL Homeopathy would be GREATLY appreciated.

    Thanks!

  • #2
    Learning Homeopathy

    Ah! I found an excellent response to this query from Hahnemannian444 posted in Jan 2006.

    Many thanks to him for pointing out the importance of the book "Lesser Writings"!

    Lot of good observations - look it up, it was in response to a post by Luminous.

    CJ

    Comment


    • #3
      I tend to want to reread something I've posted when people say things like that, but I couldn't find it. Sir, please post the link to it.
      Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
      www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa and www.Google+.com/AlbertHahnemannian.com and www.Tumblr.com.AlbertHahnemannian.com and
      http://www.cityevents.tv/Cetah444

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
        Hi, I'm a recent graduate of a college of traditional Chinese medicine, and so my field is acupuncture and Chinese herbology [phytotherapy].
        I first want it known that I very much approve of this path into homeopathy because people who come to it from the so-called “alternative” therapies (i.e., "so-called" because homeopathy is the only real alternative to all things allopathic, just as Hahnemann said in Article 53 of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE, link: Hahnemann's Organon) already know that what is properly called Rationalist allopathy (so-called “modern” medicine today) simply doesn’t work.

        It doesn't take a big brain to realize this, either, for they tell us in no uncertain terms that they're therapeutic incompetents and therefore quacks by definition since it's actually an ancient Greek word with that meaning. We today still see colloquial corruptions of the word "quack" in every dictionary from 19th-century allopaths, who reserved that word for homeopaths, and they called herbal doctors "practitioners of the medicine of savages." Mind you, though, that the people who called us such names were then doing bloodletting and calomelization in every case and had been since the days of Claudius Galen of Pergamum in the First Century. What morons!

        Look up each disease, and you'll find that 99.99% of them are still incurable in allopathic hands. Therefore, they admit they're quacks. They've graduated as quacks fully competent in quackery. They’ve spent 80-million gazillion dollars of their daddy’s money becoming quacks, thus proving that reprobates generally breed reprobates (and remember that Christ condemned the rich at least a dozen times and in no uncertain terms), history repeatedly proving that it’s very lucrative in backward and warped societies for doctors without cures to slowly and methodically kill all of their patients through chemical poisons, the ray gun and knife, so such parents always approve of their children becoming quacks. As if that’s not enough foolishness pretending to be medicine, they're board certified in total quackery by other total quacks. Hilarious! Thank Hahnemann for that humor if you find it funny since he first pointed it out to us. Actually, it's tragic beyond words, but it takes very disordered brains to fail to witness these admissions of total quackery by quacks. Unfortunately, I just identified 6.8 billion people, didn’t I?

        What adherents to the alternative therapies basically do is listen to the asinine admissions of quackery by most MDs and then look for their mistakes. They simply don’t yet know that the Empiricist allopathy they embrace is shot through with the very same fundamental errors as the system of their principal antagonists, but they will when they learn the truths of medicine in real homeopathy because there’s no other option than a complete reformation of personally entrenched views about medical issues.

        As I’ve said before, you get homeopathy when you correct all of those dumb mistakes about the nature of health, disease and therapeutics and the nature of existence and the nature of the universe -- the five primary subjects of medicine when finally understood. Therefore, naturally, they’ll understand those things if they proceed that far into medicine. That’s far less easily said about physicians and advocates of modern medicine because they’re fundamentally hopelessly lost and totally brainwashed to nothing but half-truths and lies they nonetheless believe.

        Allopaths, by which we generally mean the Rationalist allopaths of modern medicine because they have a virtual monopoly over therapeutics and certainly over public information about medical issues, can’t easily understand homeopathy because they have to correct too many errors believed to be gospel truths. When we’re extremely patient, tolerant, forbearant, kindly, charitable and humble with those morons (those being the six patriarchal of the 12 Great Virtues), which naturally doesn’t easily or often happen, we endlessly collapse every single one of their 80-million gazillion dumb mistakes and hopefully replace them with the Truth for those people. However, very few of those people are prepared to accept that everything of importance they believe about medicine and certainly everything about therapeutics is actually quite wrong or at best a half-truth or lie.

        The 19th century is agonal testimony to this fact, too. We found them flooding our ranks due to our singular successes in the last Great Plague, meaning pandemics off the scale. That was the Asiatic cholera, which began in 1928 and didn’t run its course until 1833. It swept the globe and took away half of every metropolitan population and one-third of those in rural areas. The so-called “Spanish” flu of 1918 (i.e., it had nothing to do with Spain and actually came from God-damned vaccines) was child’s play compared to it. As a consequence of that rapid influx of allopaths into the American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH, the AIH being three years older than the American Medical Association, or AMA), more than 25% of U.S. allopaths claimed to be homeopaths, but it was a total lie. They were nothing but low-potency pseudo homeopaths repeatedly condemned as “mongrels” and the “new mongrel sect” by Hahnemann and all 19th-century Hahnemannians. In actuality, they were allopathic homeopaths, which is impossible as an oxymoron.

        Like their contemporaries we constantly suffer, they never grasped even a kernel of homeopathic thought. They thus tried to prescribe our drugs with allopathic constructs revolving around their dumb therapeutic formula of an accurate disease diagnosis produces (=) an effective therapy. Hahnemann succinctly collapsed this on page 122 of THE CHRONIC DISEASES (link: The chronic diseases: their peculiar ... - Google Books).

        That allopathic prescribing of our drugs for a name of a disease works to a degree in infectious diseases because they’re largely fixed diseases from generation to generation and even over centuries with only small variations that only we bother to notice in each epidemic, and they thus have a comparatively small number of drugs whose pathogenic powers fit their symptoms. Those morons thus tried (and today try) one drug in those lists and then another until they got lucky or the patient died or abandoned them, and that’s still what happens with such wretched misapplications of homeopathy by God-damned allopaths. However, and this is very important, it’s a totally hopeless, useless and effete approach in chronic diseases and psychiatric maladies -- by far the majority of cases and deadly illnesses in industrialized societies. In fact, (emphasis cometh) we’ll eventually discover that every homeopathic drug has cured every allopathic disease category because only an unambiguous and therefore homeopathic (“other-suffering-like”) remedy diagnosis works. Restated, a disease diagnosis has absolutely nothing to do with therapeutics! That’s how wrong allopaths are: 100%. Who is surprised?

        Empiricist allopaths of the alternative therapies don’t yet know that, but they eventually will. Moreover, they’re much more capable of grasping it because they already know that Rationalist allopathy is wrong at every step of its logic and practice. They just don’t yet realize that they also embrace those mistakes with slight modifications that are nonetheless still falsehoods.

        It’s understandably quite difficult for someone to accept that everything they believe is quite wrong, but the Truth almost always requires that from us. To a great degree, pride and the arrogance it can easily produce is the limiting factor in any acquisition of Truth. That’s why the ancient axiom (probably from the BIBLE) correctly says, “Pride goeth before the fall.”

        Here’s what allopaths (and even their equally mindless advocates throughout academia) essentially always say to us: “Look, I studied all of those years and have practiced far more, and you’re telling me that everything I know is wrong? That’s can’t be!” Afraid so, pal. They thus simply won’t listen to us, probably because they can’t. Specifically, we say some word, and they misinterpret it. It happens all of the time, too, because their definitions and basic assumptions are totally wrong about almost everything involved in medicine. They have no cures for 99.99% of all deadly diseases in industrialized societies, so this should not be a surprise, but they’re not prepared for this complete paradigm shift to the Truth because it requires that they readjust virtually everything they hold to be true.

        It’s too difficult for most people to adjust so many errors to the facts of the situation. They say, “One plus one equals two,” but we tell them to adjust their definitions of one and two. They go: “What!? What the hell does that mean?” That’s how serious their errors are. It’s thus a rare personality who’s capable of doing that about medicine or any subject with Truths.

        That’s why we attend to those from the alternative therapies with more care and patience, etc. Obvious, huh?
        Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
        www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa and www.Google+.com/AlbertHahnemannian.com and www.Tumblr.com.AlbertHahnemannian.com and
        http://www.cityevents.tv/Cetah444

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
          I've become a big supporter of homeopathy after carefully, for several months and utilizing such resources as the wonderful Google Book Search, reviewing the old homeopathy journals and such books as Edmund Carleton's book on HOMEOPATHY AND SURGERY and the wonderful works of Dorothy Shepherd, M. [Margaret] Tyler and M. [Margaret, "Maggie"] Blackie.
          That’s understandable, but you’re going to go gaw-gaw if that’s the case when you encounter homeopathic masterworks in both our old and new journal literature by actual Hahnemannians. It’s something like reading about what Newton discerned compared to reading what he actually said, or what John Dalton actually said, or Max Planck, Amos Comenius, Shakespeare, Christ, etc. For example, Newton did claim that he got bonked on the head by an apple, but that’s not where he got the idea. He simply used it as a handy example everyone could understand to grasp the invisible force of gravity. In fact, for centuries, the God-damned Jesuits of the Pauline Church had said (use a mean voice): “Invisible force? Show us this invisible force, and we’ll burn you at the stake for witchcraft!” Galileo had already proved that a feather falls at the same rate as a cannon ball and verified the general observations of Kepler’s Laws of Celestial Mechanics. It’s simply obvious that the Earth is larger than an apple (the proper word being that it has more mass), and Galileo had also proven that the Sun is larger than the Earth. Thus, an apple falls to the Earth. What if you throw it, etc.?

          Newton’s Laws of Motion were simply mathematical outcroppings of such observations for millennia, and it didn’t hurt that he (like Galileo and many others up to our day) was actually a Saint working in the sciences with prophecies to fulfill long ago recorded in the mathematical matrix of the Great Pyramid of Giza. Who is surprised? Although it shocked school scientists, it was recently discovered that Newton was also an alchemist. It hasn’t yet been revealed which kind of alchemist he was, but I won’t be surprised if it turns out that he did spagyric medicine, the most recent form of homeopathy, for he was a Saint in the Hermetic Brotherhood. “You will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free” (Christ). In medicine, at least where cures are involved, those are exclusively found in homeopathy. Who is surprised?

          Those three women were students of Kent’s principal advocates in England. They lived through World War II and thus saw lots of infectious diseases, but their mistakes were blatant when you spot them. Fortunately, they’re infrequent and not very important compared to those of low-potency pseudo homeopaths who use our drugs in allopathic ways. The same calculus applies to the Vithoulkas school of thought today. We pick on them, but it’s small pickin’s compared to the mistakes of others.
          Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
          www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa and www.Google+.com/AlbertHahnemannian.com and www.Tumblr.com.AlbertHahnemannian.com and
          http://www.cityevents.tv/Cetah444

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
            My background prior to getting into medicine was software development for 32 years, so my mind is very Western, very logical and VERY skeptical. That initially made me completely skeptical of homeopathy, but I began to sense an illogic in the criticisms against it and decided to look deeper.
            Yeah, those people deserve to have “Moron” tattooed on their foreheads, and I never think twice about telling them so, either, because they claim to be scientists but constantly prove they aren’t. They go, “We’ve tested homeopathy and found it wonting.” Oh, yeah? Have you now? How’d you do that? “On patients, fool!” Without expert status? How do you do that? “What does that mean?” Get a mirror! You’re growing horns, Jethro. You can only test it in one way without being a Hahnemannian, Bubba. “How?” Article 141 of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE (link: Hahnemann's Organon). “I’ve never read it.” I’m not surprised.
            Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
            www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa and www.Google+.com/AlbertHahnemannian.com and www.Tumblr.com.AlbertHahnemannian.com and
            http://www.cityevents.tv/Cetah444

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
              Now it’s time to confront homeopathy as more than just a reader. I'm Alice. I'm the babe in the woods. I see these people doing prescribing and want to know how to start learning and where.
              It’s always Hahnemann because you won’t discern the mistakes of allopaths and pseudo homeopaths until you know what aren’t mistakes. (“. . . until you know what are mistakes” also works, but I like to perplex people, and it’s actually more true the way I said it, anyway.) For instance, given what Hahnemann said in Article 282 of the ORGANON (link: Hahnemann's Organon), what are the implications of almost everyone banding about the term “homeopathic aggravation” every time they see adverse reactions rather than curative ones? It boggles the Mind, doesn’t it?
              Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
              www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa and www.Google+.com/AlbertHahnemannian.com and www.Tumblr.com.AlbertHahnemannian.com and
              http://www.cityevents.tv/Cetah444

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
                As a student, I was forced to study the "official" version of Chinese medicine, which was a "scientized" and sanitized version with various classical Chinese conceptions left out. I've been remedying that with extensive study since graduating. But I need not suffer to learn any "variants" of "schools" of homeopathy. How about, just this once, I learn the REAL THING?!!
                I’ve referred to what you’re talking about several times here. This is how I generally put it: “Empiricist allopaths are clamoring after reasons for their drugs’ effects and explanations for acupuncture. They’re thus interjecting Rationalist allopathy’s theoretical structure into their empirical findings.” That’s quite backward of their basis. The most absurd one of those explanations I’ve ever heard holds that “acupuncture stimulates the nerves” despite the fact that there’s no universal nervous system and thus no possible universal association between acupuncture points and meridians and the human nervous system. I also want those morons to undergo dental surgery without anesthesia and tell me the implications of stimulating the nerves. Yes, sir, bring it on. I like to make fools shut up.

                I’ve explained acupuncture here from reliable arcane sources at least twice and probably closer to five times. It’s very interesting. The current dogma from traditional Chinese medicine says that the First Emperor of China gave us acupuncture. Sorry, that’s not true. It’s much more ancient than that. In fact, all evidence indicates that both acupuncture and homeopathy originated from Saints in the latter period of ancient Lemuria, properly Mukulia. That’s the northeast quadrant of what is now the Pacific Ocean, the Ring of Fire having resulted from the continent of Mu sinking and throwing us back into the Stone Age for the first of three times. The second was after Atlantis (proper name Poseid Empire) went down about 12,000 years ago and shifted the North Pole from Hudson Bay near to where it is at present after having moved from the Greenland Sea during Mukulian tiumes, and the third was about 5650 B.C., which destroyed the Osirian Civilization of what is now the Mediterranean Sea, thereby ushering in the mysterious period of predynastic Egypt at the supposed beginning of civilization on Earth. As for Mesopotamia, somebody explain why the founding god of that dark civilization supposedly came from the West in a reed boat given that it points to the founder having come from Peru. Academics are quite ridiculous whenever they open their mouths, so I simply won’t easily have truck with them anymore. Read Charles Hapgood for the mechanism of action of continents sinking and rising, which Albert Einstein wrote off on as the last important contribution he made to science, although the mistake about Atlantis is that it is present-day Antarctica and simply “went down” to the South Pole. Mukulia was the first civilization on our planet and the source of almost all of the 100 million human beings who’ve attained human perfection, or so-called “Mastership” of all four planes of human existence. It lasted from 78,000 B.P. (“years before present”) to 26,000 B.P. The truths of existence were our birthright during it, and I mean everyone alive. That’s why we experience affinity for Truths when we encounter them. Unfortunately, the billionaires have perfected brainwashing to a degree not seen since dynastic Egypt, so few people overcome those conditioned-reflex brain reactions of seemingly endless half-truths and lies about almost everything. The origins of China, Korea, the Philippines and Japan are intertwined and stretch back many tens of thousands of years. The Uighur Civilization of the Gobi Desert (Capitol City, Karakota) is lots older than China, but nobody has yet bothered to study it. Even the piddling amount we know about the ancient Rama Empire (the Harappan Culture of the Indus Valley to ignorant academics) is vastly more than is presently known about the Uighur Civilization. Ancient archives are constantly being verified, so I can tell you that we’re all going to be amazed as information about these ancient cultures comes to light.

                BTW, the British always capitalize “Homeopathy,” but it’s not a proper noun, so don’t do it.
                Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
                www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa and www.Google+.com/AlbertHahnemannian.com and www.Tumblr.com.AlbertHahnemannian.com and
                http://www.cityevents.tv/Cetah444

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
                  In this excellent forum, I've found the postings of Hahnemannian444 to be very enlightening and that of others. I had wrongly assumed that the ORGANON and other writings of Hahnemann were for specialists and should be avoided by neophytes but am starting to think that I have it all wrong and that, in fact, his books are the best place to start.
                  Hahnemann wrote for everyone, and so do we. If we say things people can’t understand, it’s generally because we’re still bozos. If not us, then it’s them, but we can’t fix that. Given time, we can explain it to everyone because it’s so damn obvious given the fact that drugs produce symptoms, and Nature doesn’t allow two similar diseases to simultaneously exist in the same organism. Everything else about homeopathy arises from those two facts.

                  As for the flattery, please see page 241 of THE LESSER WRITINGS to see how Hahnemann dealt with it in our first writing (link: The Lesser writings of Samuel Hahnemann - Google Books). We don’t like it because it’s stupid to even suggest it. “Oh, you so smart, Albert [Japanese speak]. I kiss your butt, okay?” No, thank you. None of this is beyond the keen of even children, so there’s no reason to think otherwise.

                  Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
                  Being of an android-minded mentality, however, every time I hit words like "psora," "miasm" or "morbific," I get stopped dead in my tracks and have to puzzle out exactly what H is saying.
                  Psora was the theoretical beastie he thought was responsible for all non-venereal chronic diseases, i.e., those other than syphilis and gonorrhea. Nobody knows why he didn’t assign a chronic miasm to malaria since it’s also infectious and has chronic sequel, but he didn’t. Psora simply means “contagion” just as psoric means “contagious.” The Theory of Chronic Diseases was brilliant but wrong. I’ve explained the details of this many times here.

                  The authors you mentioned didn’t know this. They naturally adopted Kent’s explanations, but you get used to it. Anyone invoking miasmatic theory or so-called “layer theory” is confused. It passes, though, because what they currently believe is quite contrary to the facts. If they’re expounding on it, I guarantee you that they’re as confused as you are and are constantly trying to figure it out since they’re simply misguided. Essentially, someone gave them a false definition at the beginning of their study of the notion, and they’ve never fixed it. Who is surprised?

                  As for morbific, get a dictionary. It means “harmful or injurious.” What are you talking about?
                  Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
                  www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa and www.Google+.com/AlbertHahnemannian.com and www.Tumblr.com.AlbertHahnemannian.com and
                  http://www.cityevents.tv/Cetah444

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
                    The expensive online and other training programs and myriad certifications, diplomas and certificates don't seem all that great to me because, just this once, I'd like to get straight to real homeopathy. I'm not intrigued by the more modern books on homeopathy. My excitement comes from a review of what the old-time homeopaths were doing and accomplishing in [with] the limited resources and deadly allopathic treatments of their era.
                    It will take you more than a decade to do that. Sad, huh? However, we’re far better off today than the old pioneers were. P.P. Wells, the last Hahnemannian standing in the 19th century, said it took him 25 years to understand Hahnemann, and I’ve read the same remark at least twice from other guys I consider to be master homeopaths. Given that fact, there’s nothing particularly wrong with the schools, but we would rather have a chance to see what can actually be done in a real school. The last one was the first one, the so-called “Allentown academy,” properly The North American Academy of the Homeopathic Healing Art. Some of my manuscript material is posted here about such a school and what we’d say to prospective students at monthly weekend seminars.

                    Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
                    Any suggestions for a good path to learning, order that [in which] books should be read, places where I might learn REAL homeopathy would be GREATLY appreciated.
                    I’ve already answered those kinds of questions many times, sir. The best current journal to read is in German, and the next-best is also in German. Sprichst du Deutsch? Seek out the ZKH from Haug Verlag. From my manuscript material on previous Hahnemannians:

                    Originally posted by Hahnemannian444
                    Dead guys in the Way-Back Machine:

                    1. Hahnemann, the Father of Medicine.
                    2. Clemens von Böninghausen (Boeninghausen), the first master homeopath after Hahnemann, a Dutch lawyer saved by homeopathy from a tubercular death who then turned to it to save his Soul.
                    3. Adolf von Lippe, the most proficient prescriber, probably more so than even Hahnemann, a student of Hering and Wesselhoeft in our first only real school called the Allentown Academy (1836-39), stalwart Hahnemannian, my favorite, died in 1888, one of the very last of them, wrote prolifically and never made a single error in homeopathic doctrine or practice.
                    4. Constantine Hering, the Father of American Homeopath, a very long pencil.
                    5. P.P. (Phenius Parkhurst) Wells, another man way off the scale, the last Hahnemannian to die in the 19th century (1890) and the last one until the 1920s or ‘30s when Pierre Schmidt showed up out of nowhere in Switzerland.
                    6. William Wesselhoeft, the elder (the 1st), 2nd Hahnemannian to arrive in the U.S. shortly after Hering (1832, I think), would convince Hering to teach with him and a couple others in The North American Academy of the Homeopathic Healing Art, the so-called “Allentown Academy,” first of three generations of homeopaths, the third a severe disappointment as a low-potency pseudo homeopath “turned all scientific and things.”
                    7. Wm. Wesselhoeft, author of one of my favorite papers in the entire history of 216 years [220 now]. [There appears to be some problem here, for I’m now not sure there were three generations of them. This guy’s paper I so love was published after the first Wesselhoeft died, but it could have been offered posthumously. I simply haven’t resolved this. Such things happen when reprobates burn your libraries and destroy your profession.]
                    8. E.J. (Edmond James, I believe) Lee, a standard-bearer in the latter years of homeopathy’s Golden Age, would naturally work with Lippe and be forced to endure Kent for a couple of years after Lippe’s demise, the next-to-last Hahnemannian of the 19th century to pass on to higher teachers.
                    9. Edward Cranch, very obscure, but one paper proved he was an actual Hahnemannian.
                    10. Carroll (also Carrol and Caroll) Dunham, the ever-generous and charitable one, would make a horrible mistake of granting low-potency pseudo homeopaths permission to hold dissenting views and prescribe in allopathic ways, which would lead to the takeover of the American Institute of Homeopathy by the “mongrels” (Hahnemann) just 30 years after it had been formed, but it was actually their reading more into what he said than what he said that caused it.
                    11. Stuart Close, protégée of P.P. Wells, but still somewhat an HPH [high-potency pseudo homeopath].
                    12. Royal E.S. Hayes, arrived at it late in his life, otherwise an HPH.
                    13. W.S. Gee, Gee and Lee having written almost identically, and I have always been amazed by that.
                    14. H.N. Guernsey, a Hahnemannian and gynecological surgeon, quite vehement, and I believe it was he who most frequently used Hahnemann’s word “mongrels” to describe the low-potency pseudo homeopaths (LPHs) who took over the A.I.H. [American Institute of Homeopathy] and forced the Hahnemannians to found the International Hahnemannian Association, later LPHs destroying American homeopathy when the Flexnor Report of 1910 made it possible.
                    15. Rollin R. Gregg, author of the important Illustrated Repertory.
                    16. Gallivardin, French expert at psychiatric homeopathy, coined the words “alcoholic” and “alcoholism,” one of the beneficial results of Hahnemann’s move to Paris in the last six years of his life, although I do not believe Gallivardin studied under Hahnemann because he came along later.
                    17. Johaan Stapf, one of Hahnemann’s closest students and most important colleagues, collected The Lesser Writings, Hahnemann’s most important book hands down, and presented it to him on the 50th anniversary of Hahnemann’s having been granted the legal right to practice medicine in Germany in 1779, published our first medical journal called “Stapf’s Archives” (accurately Archives für something or other in German).
                    18. Gross, although I have not liked anything so far seen of the few translated writings of Gross (there is so much important literature still sitting fallow), other Hahnemannians insist he was one of us.
                    Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
                    www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa and www.Google+.com/AlbertHahnemannian.com and www.Tumblr.com.AlbertHahnemannian.com and
                    http://www.cityevents.tv/Cetah444

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      In general, I can tell you that asking such questions and making such observations is a major step toward Hahnemannian status (not a plaque and not a certificate -- just something you’ll know) because, in modern vernacular, Hahnemann was way ahead of the curve. We won’t know how many hundreds of years ahead he was until allopathic medicine ceases having truck in diseases without our consent or, better, without our direction. For their inability to cure and iatrogenic (“physician-induced”) diseases invariably resulting from allopathic therapeutics in both long-term applications of chemical drugs (all drugs being poisons, even ours when not homeopathic to the case) and their so-called “heroic therapies” with the knife and ray gun demonstrate that they have no business in diseases. That’s surely something perfectly obvious, so it’s insane that the opposite is true today. Therefore, of course you read Hahnemann first or early. After all, what’s physics without Newton or Planck and that whole crew of physicists for four centuries and then back to the ancient Greeks, or what’s chemistry without Dalton, Boyle, etc.?

                      THE LESSER WRITINGS is my favorite one, but the ORGANON spells out how to cure in a methodological manner never seen before or since. The errors in the ORGANON prove it’s not perfect, but nothing even remotely compares to it anywhere in the entire history of medical thought. The definition of “organon” is well worth reading, too, especially in the big WEBSTER and the multi-volume OXFORD, for most people have no idea what it means. The big WEBSTER renders it best from 1910:

                      “An instrument for acquiring knowledge; specifically: A body of methodological doctrines comprising principles for scientific or philosophic procedure or investigation.”

                      You’ll thus read the two together once you’re familiar with both, and then you’ll cross-reference passages between them. To eliminate confusion but reduce the space needed for such annotations, it’s recommended that you use the acronym “LW” and the abbreviation “Org” followed by the number of the page, the best translation of the ORGANON being the one rendered by Peter Pendleton and overseen by Jost Kunzli and Alain Naude. Similarly, THE CHRONIC DISEASES is “CD” to us, and the MATERIA MEDICA PURA is “MM” just as Hering’s GUIDING SYMPTOMS OF OUR MATERIA MEDICA is “GS,” Kent’s REPERTORY OF THE HOMEOPATHIC MATERIA MEDICA is “K,” Horst Barthel and Will Klunker’s SYNTHETIC REPERTORY is “SR,” Jost Kunzli’s REPERTORIUM GENERALE is “RG,” etc. You can’t do without Hahnemann, and pp. 121-22 of THE CHRONIC DISEASES (link: The chronic diseases: their peculiar ... - Google Books) will tell you why about pseudo homeopaths just as Article 53 of the ORGANON (link: Hahnemann's Organon) puts all allopaths in the hole to Hell they belong in.

                      Of course, allopaths don’t much like such comments, but who cares what they think about anything? Some fool says, “Albert, the President of the United States seems to care what they think.” Yeah, and that means the moron somehow missed the fact that no less than Christ, our Regent ArchAngel, condemned allopaths to Hell in MARK 5:25-26. That gives the big-eared clown in the White House the same immediate and ultimate destiny as billions of others. Hurry along, bozos. Your doctors without cures will be waiting for you in Hell and will, no doubt, still know just what to do to keep you there. Stay there this time, okay?

                      I predict that some killer in the U.S. Secret Service (it surely being no cowinkydink that they’re members of the SS -- heehaw!) will go: “What!?” Yeah, your buddy with the big ears is a God-damned lawyer, too. Christ also condemned them to Hell, didn’t He? “What!?” Yeah, he obviously also likes God-damned bankers and the rich, and Christ condemned them to Hell, didn’t He? “What!?” Yeah, and he sustains God-damned industrial chemistry even though Christ also wants it and them in Hell. “What!?” Yeah, and he obviously likes executives even though Christ also condemned them to Hell. “What!?” Yeah, get used to that reaction, you moron. BTW, the passage is correctly rendered, “A woman was there who had been subjected to [not subject to] bleeding for twelve years,” because allopaths bled people to death from at least 700 B.C. right up to the mid-1890s, and 12 years was the maximum anyone ever survived it. So, neither God nor Christ likes your boss. What do you think They think of you, Bubba? “What!?” Right, wave the flag in Hell, but hurry along. The planet hereafter only belongs to citizens of the world just like Christ said and Hahnemann repeated (link: The Lesser writings of Samuel Hahnemann - Google Books, p. 241). (The SS officer is finally silent.) Ketchup, Bubba. (He slithers away back to his hole. Job well done.)

                      I don’t know what you mean by “morbific” but probably will if reminded. I know the gist of what you’re saying here, and it’s a very important observation for budding Hahnemannians because it and their corruptions of miasmatic theory are two of the inadvertent traps of pseudo homeopathy, especially high-potency pseudo homeopathy. You have to avoid those but understand them in order to avoid them. Failure to do so produces pseudo homeopaths.

                      They’re problems inherent in homeopathy because homeopathic theory is so elegant that it’s like God is talking to us through it. Theory and practice (meaning the scientific structure and practical application of a subject) are the two grand parameters of medicine. Again, that’s the meaning of the word “organon.”

                      Parenthetically, a pretty woman goes: “Elegant? No, Albert, I’m elegant; science isn’t.” I say, “Yeah, it is.” I get a dictionary. “See, you owe me a kiss now. Pay up.” What fun, huh?

                      The elegance of homeopathic theory arises not from the total speculations about supposed causes of diseases like is found everywhere in Rationalist allopathic medicine (“modern medicine” in current vernacular) and as far back as we can trace it 2700 years ago. Even Empiricist allopathy (“alternative therapies” in modern vernacular) is now maniacal about so-called “causes of diseases” and how herbs, acupuncture, chiropractics, nutrition, massage, meditation, etc., work. Forget that stuff, though, because (1) it’s beyond our present keen with only 10% knowledge of human physiology, and (2) it’s irrelevant to cure, anyway. We’ll literally never be able to curatively intervene in trillions of biochemical reactions inside trillions of cells with chemical drugs or cure with physical therapies like with the knife and ray gun because organisms are simply too complicated for such crude and barbarically arrogant notions by God-damned allopaths. Again, Christ said that first (MARK 5:25-26). It’s also simply irrelevant to cure because that’s not how it’s accomplished.

                      The universe tells us in no uncertain terms that Nature simply doesn’t permit two similar diseases to simultaneously exist in the same organism. Cowpox and smallpox are the classical examples in homeopathic theory because Hahnemann used them to explain this fact of Nature. Those elegant arguments are found in Articles ___, ___, ___ and ___ of the ORGANON (link: Hahnemann's Organon). [I’ll get to it later when I have access to my copy of the book, but I’ll be mightily impressed if someone knows which they are and helps me out here.] Let’s throw chickenpox into the argument as a more familiar disease today. We don’t see cowpox anymore, so we don’t know which of the two are more virulent, but one of them will be in an epidemic setting because they always are. Hahnemann correctly said that cowpox will give way to smallpox, and we now know that chickenpox will, too, because it’s also less virulent.

                      More-complex examples in chronic diseases and psychiatric maladies, especially those from real-world experience with patients, invariably bewilder allopaths because all of their definitions of diseases are wrong -- all of them! This, in turn, is because their therapeutic formula -- the heart of therapeutics -- is wrong. They hold and always have held that an accurate disease diagnosis produces (=) an effective standard treatment. Listen to us: Every single element of their formula is wrong -- all of them! Specifically:

                      • There are no accurate disease diagnoses because nobody has only the common symptoms used to define and identify them.
                      • Everybody also has a few therapeutically all-important and highly differential uncommon symptoms. All of those are strange, rare and peculiar and are thus classically called “characteristic” symptoms. Calling them uncommon symptoms is, however, best precisely because they’re not allopathic/common symptoms; they’re homeopathic to some drug.
                      • Diseases are infinite in number and variety, period (link: The Lesser writings of Samuel Hahnemann - Google Books, pp. 258, 442, 499, 510, 525, 532-33, 621-22, 688-92, 712-18, 726, 741, 744 & 767). Therefore, no two patients will ever have the same current symptoms and the same history of symptoms. (Hahnemann did not make that stipulation, but it wasn’t that he was wrong; it was simply an oversight.)
                      • Accurate remedy diagnoses almost invariably show that the person has needed on drug since birth no matter how many diseases they currently have (seven being the apparent maximum number human beings can survive) or have had.

                      Therefore:

                      • There are no standard treatments for diseases as allopaths asininely define them.
                      • Double-blind drug trials are consequently totally felicitous tests, and all of their findings are totally bogus with absolutely no value to anyone, not even the Man in the Moon.
                      • Chemical drugs will never cure. The only drugs allopaths have that can be called curative are antibiotics, but they have insoluble problems and never unfold cases to cure of the underlying chronic and genetic condition like our drugs do.

                      Note also that the word “cure” is nowhere to be found in that stupid therapeutic formula. What’s wrong with this picture? Enter Hahnemann understandably infuriated who says, “It’s the first Article of the ORGANON, you morons. Ketchup!” (Link: Hahnemann's Organon)

                      Incidentally, I didn’t get that excellent joke utilizing the word “ketchup” from PULP FICTION. For all I know, they got it from me, but it’s probably quite generic. I prefer our usage of it, though. For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, Uma Thurman tells a corny joke in the movie. It goes like this:

                      A mama bear, papa bear and baby bear are walking along the road. The baby bear lags behind. The papa bear gives him a sneer and squashes him and says, “Ketchup!” It’s funnier when I say it, methinks.

                      I wish the courts will allow us to bonk allopaths on the head. I’d be knocking them out every minute and yelling, “Ketchup!”
                      Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
                      www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa and www.Google+.com/AlbertHahnemannian.com and www.Tumblr.com.AlbertHahnemannian.com and
                      http://www.cityevents.tv/Cetah444

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Hahnemannian444 View Post
                        I tend to want to reread something I've posted when people say things like that, but I couldn't find it. Sir, please post the link to it.
                        I'd be happy to, except that when I searched in their search engine, all the posts from 2006 and 2007 did not appear. Hmmmm. Curious.

                        So right now I can't find it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Hahnemannian444 View Post
                          I tend to want to reread something I've posted when people say things like that, but I couldn't find it. Sir, please post the link to it.

                          Apologies, it was Luminotion, not Luminous and the posting was from 2008.

                          HERE is the link:

                          http://www.otherhealth.com/homeopath...omeopathy.html

                          Thanks
                          CJ

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Hahnemannian444 View Post
                            . . . Seek out the ZKH from Haug Verlag. . . .
                            Here are two hits:

                            ----- https://www.thieme-connect.com/ejour.../s-2006-938086

                            ----- Medizinverlage Stuttgart: ZKH Zeitschrift fr Klassische Homopathie Autorenhinweise (translated by a gizmo: Google Translate)
                            Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
                            www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa and www.Google+.com/AlbertHahnemannian.com and www.Tumblr.com.AlbertHahnemannian.com and
                            http://www.cityevents.tv/Cetah444

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Hahnemannian444 View Post
                              . . . The universe tells us in no uncertain terms that Nature simply doesn’t permit two similar diseases to simultaneously exist in the same organism. Cowpox and smallpox are the classical examples in homeopathic theory because Hahnemann used them to explain this fact of Nature. Those elegant arguments are found in Articles ___, ___, ___ and ___ of the ORGANON (link: Hahnemann's Organon). [I’ll get to it later when I have access to my copy of the book, but I’ll be mightily impressed if someone knows which they are and helps me out here.] . . .
                              If anyone wanted to, it wasn't fast enough. Articles 34-48.
                              Last edited by Hahnemannian444; 8th June 2010, 09:20 PM.
                              Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
                              www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa and www.Google+.com/AlbertHahnemannian.com and www.Tumblr.com.AlbertHahnemannian.com and
                              http://www.cityevents.tv/Cetah444

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X