Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Voegeli's preceptor?

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

  • Voegeli's preceptor?

    Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
    Side question, unrelated to dark circles under eyes....

    Dr. Leon Vannier, teacher of Voegli..... any thoughts on Vannier's books ?

    Thanks
    CJ
    If you're talking about Adolph Voegeli, I didn't know that and want to know more if true.

    Incidentally, and primarily for the sake of students and other readers, I titled this thread "Voegeli's preceptor?" because preceptorships are not only the old and even ancient way of medical education but the tried-and-tested way we've repeatedly found to Hahnemannian status unless one is born to a Hahnemannian. What you're suggesting is therefore important and particularly to me. Also, we call them teachers but the process preceptorships because the word teachership is somehow awkward to the ear. Funny thing, the human brain, and funny language, huh?

    I have been able to recognize other Hahnemannians rather easily for a little over 20 years but have mostly lacked the time to pursue incidental information about them or even make contact with all of them. I recognized him to be "in or after the manner of Hahnemann" (for others, that being the literal meaning of Hahnemannian) at the beginning of my transition to Hahnemannian status in about 1991 or '92 in a couple of papers he wrote about extremely interesting relationships between particular homeopathic medicines and particular acupuncture points. Several rereadings of them confirmed it, so I want to know more about him.

    I've only heard the name Vannier because reading for me is mostly a time premium I don't have anymore. With one exception, I have had a sour opinion of the 50,000 French homeopaths all that time. Therefore, tell me about Vannier, too.

    Likewise, please name the French Hahnemannians you know about and both living and dead.

    Please tell me whatever you may know of Hahnemann's years in Paris.

    What public or private libraries with English titles of our books and journals are to be sought in France if one goes overseas to photocopy and scan them?

    I lost contact with a German immigrant to Portugal who was hand-making our drugs in a reliable way as an adherent to Hahnemannian homeopathy. Do any exist in France?

    Who were Hahnemann’s students in Paris?

    Where did he live? Any photos of it or them?

    Finally, please tell me how you even know the name Voegeli, for we can go for years in this world allopathic environment and never hear anyone else even voice a name we admire and recognize as colleagues and teachers. Who are you?

    God bless!
    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

  • #2
    Voegeli's Preceptor?

    I have interspersed my responses after your comments, thanks !

    As to who am I, I'm an Acupuncture Physician/DOM (board certified in Oriental Medicine and Herbology) in Florida. No longer in practice, I mainly read Homeopathy, and am working on herbal projects, correlating Arabic, Chinese and other oriental treatments.
    I may write a book on this at some point.

    ...
    H444:I have been able to recognize other Hahnemannians rather easily for a little over 20 years but have mostly lacked the time to pursue incidental information about them or even make contact with all of them. I recognized him to be "in or after the manner of Hahnemann" (for others, that being the literal meaning of Hahnemannian) at the beginning of my transition to Hahnemannian status in about 1991 or '92 in a couple of papers he wrote about extremely interesting relationships between particular homeopathic medicines and particular acupuncture points. Several rereadings of them confirmed it, so I want to know more about him.

    MY RESPONSE: There is some stuff in "Chinese Acupuncture" by Soulie de Morant on points of Wiehe - connections between acupuncture points and homeopathic medicines.

    H444: I've only heard the name Vannier because reading for me is mostly a time premium I don't have anymore. With one exception, I have had a sour opinion of the 50,000 French homeopaths all that time. Therefore, tell me about Vannier, too.

    MY RESPONSE: I had been searching for a Homeopathic book with more details in clinical treatments and cases than "Drug Pictures" by Margaret Tyler or the wonderful books by Dorothy Shepherd, both Kentians I believe.

    H444: Likewise, please name the French Hahnemannians you know about and both living and dead.

    MY RESPONSE: I don't know any but Leon Vannier. I'm just a student, a neophyte at this.

    H444:Please tell me whatever you may know of Hahnemann's years in Paris.

    MY RESPONE:Nothing other than that I think that's when he developed his CM potencies which were said to bypass the well known Homeopathic aggravation. Yet these potencies and their fabrication seem to have been kept as something of an insiders' secret for quite some time. The Homeopathy historians can sort this out, if correct.

    H444:What public or private libraries with English titles of our books and journals are to be sought in France if one goes overseas to photocopy and scan them?

    MY RESPONSE: Well you'd find Vannier in French of course and others, I've never been to France and don't speak or read French. How I stumbled across Vannier and found a couple of books that I find quite interesting, going into details and remedy relationships in somewhat more detail than even Nash, was that I found some of Vannier's books on various Russian web sites, in Russian (whether bowdlerized or not I don't know) and since I was nearly fluent in that language many years ago, I could read some of it. I immediately ran the pages through google translate using the Google Chrome browser (Google Translate) and got a good first pass English translation- lots of jumbled up sentences, some untranslated Russian words and idioms but enough to make sense of much of it. There are as far as I know, no English translations of these books. But there IS a book of Vannier's published in English available from Jain in an inexpensive paperback entitled "Human Medicine". Whether or not he is a genuine Hahnemannian is for experts like you to decide, not me. But it seems, with my turtle like persistence and slowness as a student, to be on the right track.
    Oh, I did find one of Charette's books in Russian too. I think it was "Practical Homeopathy" ... don't have it nearby right now.

    To give an idea of what I do, I saw mention of Margaret Tyler's Homeopathy Correspondence Course for Graduates, to a lesson 12 in her book "Homeopathic Drug Pictures" so I tried hunting that down. To my amazement, only one library in the world, in Utrecht Holland of all places, had a copy. They wanted an absurdly expensive sum to get a CD with it on it, in the hundreds of dollars. I later found it could be had for 60 euros from a chap at the Swiss Pierre Schmidt Institute of Homeopathy, I've forgotten the exact name. It was also in Spanish in a book that went out of print in the early 1990's.
    I've got lessons 2-10 and 12. I'm missing #1 and #11. I'd love to see #11 because that's the lesson that covers making your own remedies.

    H444: I lost contact with a German immigrant to Portugal who was hand-making our drugs in a reliable way as an adherent to Hahnemannian homeopathy. Do any exist in France?

    MY RESPONSE: Don't know.

    H444:Who were Hahnemann’s students in Paris?

    My RESPONSE: Don't know.

    H444:Where did he live? Any photos of it or them?

    MY RESPONSE: Paris I think. His brother and son also were accomplished Homeopaths. Photos of Vannier on the web.

    Finally, please tell me how you even know the name Voegeli, for we can go for years in this world allopathic environment and never hear anyone else even voice a name we admire and recognize as colleagues and teachers. Who are you?

    MY RESPONSE: I know the name Voegli from YOUR postings. I try to follow up all your comments by researching and learning. That's how I learned the importance of "Chronic Diseases" by Hahnemann. I pay particular attention to people you have mentioned as being genuine Homeopaths. I'm always on the lookout for books or articles by them.
    For who I am see the opening lines of my response, above.

    I'm sorry I move at the speed of a turtle but that's the way I am. I try to correlate Tyler, Kent, Shepherd, Blackie, and many others, observing similarities and differences in their approaches and treatments... and their successes and failures. My goal is to understand their manner of thinking which I believe is a lost art, with frames of reference and fundamental postulates and assumptions which we no longer have after being corrupted by the machine coporatized medicine of their future that is our now. Vannier is quite good on this topic, devastating...see his in English book "Human Medicine". He also wrote a book on constitutional types ... I've not gotten to that being too wrapt up in the other stuff.

    You said in past postings that learning would take 10 years... you were right. For me probably longer.

    Here are the names of the Vannier books that I found on the Russian web sites
    (oh, to find them, just search for Vannier using google advanced search and specify you want only results in Russian language... that should take you right to them. Then just run it through google translate to get a fair first pass).

    1."Homeopathic Remedies for Acute Conditions" by Dr. Leon Vannier, 2d Edition Paris 1949
    (I don't have the web address for this one)

    2.Course in Clinical Homeopathy by Dr. Leon Vannier

    (this one can be found at the following web address, in Russian)
    www.ru-psi.com : ???? ??????????? ?????????? : ???? ????? : ?????? ??????

    3. Homeopathic Materia Medica
    (this one is also out on the web in Italian and Spanish somewhere)
    ru-psi.com : ??????????????? ??????? ??????????? ? ?????? ????????? : ???? ????? : ?????? ??????

    4. Homeopathic Constitutions by Vannier
    (looks similar to Grauvogl, have not read it yet)
    ru-psi.com : ??????????????? ???????????. ??????????? ? ??????? : ???? ????? : ?????? ??????

    Thanks! CJ

    Comment


    • #3
      Good responses, sir. It deserves similarly detailed replies.

      Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
      I'm an Acupuncture Physician/DOM (board certified in Oriental Medicine and Herbology) in Florida. No longer in practice, I mainly read Homeopathy . . .
      Good for you! And I have no problems with the rest of those passages, for Arabic and ancient Chinese medical literature is simply missing in the West, and that's unacceptable since it's massive and perhaps most especially because the former inherited ancient Egyptian medical literature when they acquired what was left after the three horrible burnings of the magnificent Library of Alexandria. Chemistry developed from that, so this is no small thing. Good for you, and God's speed with that!

      Additionally, I think you will realize the vast importance of such efforts when you read Hahnemann's dissertation at the University of Leipsig in THE LESSER WRITINGS, for he there showed his command of all then-known ancient medical literature. That is, he didn't know that a lot more exists, so this is damn important. God's speed, sir!

      Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
      There is some stuff in "Chinese Acupuncture" by Soulie de Morant on points of Wiehe . . .
      Excellent! Thank you. That is the first lead I've found. Of course, I never found the time to look. I just forgot and never found the time. Nonetheless, that works for me.

      Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
      . . . Margaret Tyler . . . [and] Dorothy Shepherd, both Kentians I believe.
      Yes. A little help on where to look for actual Hahnemannian literature from, in many cases, actual master homeopaths cometh from my pen: en:hphys:start [Legatum Homeopathicum], the third posting there. Don't bother to thank me, for I can tell you'll appreciate it. It's quite important that somebody somewhere finally did this thing of scanning those priceless old journals from us.

      As for the next one I avoid quoting, I foolishly presumed that you're French from your username, but I subsequently discovered this error by simply looking at your profile here. "What good are fools to the world? None except to themselves." Cute, huh? I think Stan Laurel said that in private, or so some legend seems to fire in my brain telling me that. Whoever, I like it.

      Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
      Nothing other than that I think that's when he developed his CM potencies which were said to bypass the well known Homeopathic aggravation. Yet these potencies and their fabrication seem to have been kept as something of an insiders' secret for quite some time. The Homeopathy historians can sort this out, if correct.
      No, that’s almost all wrong but perfectly understandable. Moreover, it appears that you knew what you were talking about but instead called them CM rather than LM potencies, for the other one we use is the C-scale of homeopathic potentization and thus C-potencies being how we refer to them. Hahnemannians don’t use the D-scale of it.

      First, what’s you’re talking about are the so-called “LM potencies,” which are actually correctly called Q-potencies because they’re diluted at the ratio of 1:50,000, which is the fancy number quinquaginta-millessimal and are therefore also called by that long name. The nomenclature for them differs on the two sides of the Atlantic when seen in case reports. In the US, we tag them as 0/1, 0/2, 0/3, etc. I don’t know why and don’t really care since I don’t follow that corruption of this element of homeopathy. In Europe, they appear as Q1, Q2, Q3, etc. Actually, most of us here in the US do it the original way, the second example.

      Next, you’re perhaps (I’m probably wrong here) presuming that he developed the decimal fraction of our potentization scale (1:10), but that nonsense came from the God-damned low-potency pseudo homeopaths of the 19th century led worldwide first by Dake from the US and then by Richard Hughes from Great Britain. True feelings voiced: I hope they all stay in Hell. Uncharitable, I know, but I also know what those allopathic homeopaths did to homeopathy. God, help us!

      Hahnemann started with centessimals (1:100) but found them to be totally unacceptable because we couldn’t repeat them as often as needed. In fact, people unnecessarily died due to this, so he fixed it. A little more explanation, they last too long in their primary or drug effects at the higher potencies (i.e., at 12c and beyond, which is now where we begin with them), so he just trashed that scale once he discovered the Q-potencies some time between the 5th and 6th editions of the ORGANON. Therefore, the Q-scale first appeared with the last edition of the book in 1842, one year before he expired at age 88. Yeah, it was in Paris.

      As for the likely source of that amazing change in our pharmacology, the CHQ published a paper showing how Constantine Hering suggested a dilution ratio of, I think, 1:10,000. It simply appears, since Hahnemann didn’t explain where he got the amazingly different ratio, that Hering gave him the seed thought and that Hahnemann advanced it until it was what he called “perfect.” That’s in Article 271 of the ORGANON near the end of it in those lengthy footnotes, and he said it at least a couple of times in different ways, too.

      BTW, that’s how you make them. If that’s insufficient, ask the director of Hahnemann Labs in the Bay Area of Northern California if she can find the time to tell you more or ask Schmidt-Nagel in Switzerland. They probably have something prepared for such questions. Otherwise, Hahnemann said the gist of it there. Robert M. Shore of Seattle is the only person I know of who’s made his own medicine, so you could also ask him. Likewise, he probably knows of a lot of other people who have so that they could share their medicines with colleagues. They don’t know who I am, but it’s okay.

      As for the terrible corruption of the term homeopathic aggravation you’re using, I’ve relatively recently explained that here somewhere, so please just look for it. It’s some time within the last year and probably close to that. The gist of it is that the people who say stuff like that completely misunderstand what Hahnemann said about so-called “aggravations,” for that exclusively refers to one’s simillimum (“thing most similar”) at the end of treatment when it ceases being necessary and therefore instead produces symptoms in them. It’s therefore when we know they’re cured. That’s kind of important, isn’t it? The GVs have lots of things wrong, sir, so just don’t listen to them. Read Hahnemann! What he said about this is in the back of the ORGANON. It’s not hard to find, either, so what’s wrong with this picture that all of them get it wrong? Yeah, buddy, they’re presently just followers of George Vithoulkas and his crowd of teachers of the thousands of GVs. God, help us! Then, too, they’re all potential Hahnemannians, so just forget such vehemence. We don’t like corruptions and adulterations of homeopathy because we know what the results are from having repeatedly suffered them in the past. You’ll figure it out.

      As for Q-potencies having been an insider’s secret, that’s also wrong. I fully explained this a very long time ago here, but the administrators of this site have either done something horrible with most of my postings here or have simply made them inaccessible to others as well as me to edit and further comment on years later. What’s wrong with that picture? You can always complain, for they don’t listen to me anymore and are thereby forcing me out of this site for whatever reason or reasons. What’s the motive there if not for greed, though? They belong to me as my intellectual property, but this crime has already occurred and has sealed their destinies, which neither of them will like one bit. Such is life, though.

      I explained all of this when I gave a somewhat thorough but succinct history of the last edition of the ORGANON. It was many years ago, perhaps in 2002 or 2003. Of course, they have also extracted all of my postings as Hahnemannian444B. Oops! Somebody wants to go to Hell, huh?

      Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
      . . . How I stumbled across Vannier and found a couple of books that I find quite interesting, going into details and remedy relationships in somewhat more detail than even Nash . . .

      But it seems, with my turtle like persistence and slowness as a student, to be on the right track.
      Good enough. He probably was a Hahnemannian since only we ever do that with any precision and according to the parameters of the Law of Similars. That of course does not surprise me since Voegeli impressed me as such when he appeared in the CHQ with those two papers.

      I can’t tell exactly which you meant by the last stipulation, but I’ll assume the one you might want to know. Yeah, you’re doing fine, sir.

      Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
      . . . at the Swiss Pierre Schmidt Institute of Homeopathy . . .
      Okay, something very important cometh: Pierre Schmidt appears to have single-handedly saved legitimate homeopathy. I’ve explained that here, but it or them are probably also gone.

      Try to get the ear of an author who publishes in the venerable Z.K.H. from Haug Verlag to explain it to you, for this is now taking too much of my life.

      Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
      I know the name Voegli from YOUR postings. I try to follow up all your comments by researching and learning. . . .
      You’re the one, huh? Thank you, I’m flattered, for it usually appears that I’m wasting my time and writing this stuff for future homeopaths. Far from it, I love all of our students, period, and I certainly speak for all Hahnemannians in this regard. After all, who else can we best help get this stuff, anyway? We did it through the old journals in the 19th century, but the Internet is now the best way. After all, we rarely taught in any of the schools, and there were too many pseudo homeopaths for those Hahnemannians to just ignore them all. They generally came out of our schools all confused, so the journals were the most efficient way to fix that. Now it’s the Internet.

      Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
      That's how I learned the importance of "Chronic Diseases" by Hahnemann. I pay particular attention to people you have mentioned as being genuine Homeopaths.
      Good! I put the former off for a very long time and finally decided there was no time like the present. Master homeopath Georg (sic, he was German) von Keller best explained that in the CHQ. I think I did very little more than simply restate it. I hoped it affected someone, sir. Thank you.

      Actually, I may have presumed what you meant, for it now appears you may be referring to the book. I initially thought you meant what I said in attempting to explain the failed Theory of Chronic Diseases. Wanna tell me which you meant?

      It’s true that I recognizer Hahnemannians when I discover them and rather quickly simply because they don’t make the mistakes with which we identify high-potency and low-potency pseudo homeopaths, but so will you pretty soon at this pace -- or so it seems. God’s speed, sir.

      Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
      . . . I try to correlate Tyler, Kent, Shepherd, Blackie, and many others, observing similarities and differences in their approaches and treatments... and their successes and failures. My goal is to understand their manner of thinking which I believe is a lost art, with frames of reference and fundamental postulates and assumptions which we no longer have after being corrupted by the machine coporatized medicine of their future that is our now.
      Okay, so as to hopefully avoid opening a can of worms I don’t have time to explain, I would first advise you to avoid all of that because they were just Kentians. I hopefully made this somewhat clear in my recent long posting in the discussion forum I mentioned above at Legatum Homeopathicum when I invoked those “handful of British women,” Shepherd and Blackie having been their students. More importantly, though, I said there that the CHQ raised the bar on published case reports “by an order of magnitude.” When you see those in the CHQ, you’ll know what I’m talking about, but that’s much more easily accessed in the ZKH if you speak German. I tragically don’t, but I already learned this excellent protocol in the CHQ. Basically, it’s an initial paragraph or two stating the differential symptoms and the disease involved; then a correct repertorization of those three-or-more all-important uncommon symptoms; then materia medica matches of those symptoms, which they quote verbatim so that it’s readily understood without having to tediously look them up ourselves (none of the old case reports did either of these); and then the results. It’s essentially the way we do it, too.

      It happens that a lot is involved in taking the case that is shortened in published case reports, but I am presently about to post something on that since a recent posting here precipitated that after I found myself wanting to tell the guy to “retake the case per Hahnemann’s directions in the ORGANON.” It should be pretty soon, but it is most certainly not meant to take the place of what Hahnemann said about this. It’s just my slant on it in modern vernacular and things that seem important as general guidelines about taking the case per Hahnemannjan dictums so that we can apply the Law of Similars and precipitate the Laws of Cure.

      Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
      Vannier . . . also wrote a book on constitutional types
      Okay, you’ll see reference to that old notion in the cure of DEAFNESS by master homeopath Carroll Dunham here: en:ahr:dunham-c-deafness-cured-by-mezereum-158-10403 [Legatum Homeopathicum]. Those categories are not heard anymore, though. Essentially, those so-called “constitutional types” voiced a pile of words in one word much like the name of a disease does.

      A long time ago, somebody in this forum pulled together all of the variations of that stuff down through the centuries and did the best job of explaining it I’d ever seen. I thus thanked her for precluding me from having to do it, which would have been damn difficult. If you look for it, I believe the first thing I said was something like this: “That’s the best job of that I’ve ever seen.” I think she made some mistakes, but I stand by what I said, too. Her username was Lisa something, and I often wonder if it’s the administrator here with a similar username, but the latter never responded to that question from me. For precision, she tagged her postings by invoking Dunham below her name, and her profile said she’s in Oxford. Fancy, huh? I think she’s a teacher at some small homeopathic school in Oxford.

      To correct you somewhere here that’s related to this, that’s rather clearly where George Vithoulkas mainly got his notion of remedy essences. It’s a very old notion that seems to have evolved into his remedy essences after Kent did something similar. So, you were close . . . damn close, actually. Methinks somebody told you that, though, so explain this to them, too, if true.

      A little further, it’s a serious mistake to think in terms of so-called “constitutional types” because it misleads one into believing that people will need that remedy for constitutional symptoms and another for infections or so-called “acute symptoms.” No, God no! Basically, we want to find the one remedy that person has always needed, and then fully cure them with it. Whatever comes after that is another matter, but it usually happens that they also then simply need that remedy for them. It’s a whole lot more complicated than that in practice, though, for we don’t always find that one perfect remedy for them and thus still have to (due to these mistakes) “zigzag cases to cure,” as master homeopath Adolph Lipped brilliantly called it. We don’t want to do that today with some drug that’s just their so-called “simile” medicine in the old vernacular and thereby be forced into finding another one and usually still another one because it takes longer and there’s no guarantee we’ll find that 2nd or even 3rd drug. A case well taken is well cured is an old homeopathic axiom for precisely this reason.

      My God, I hope that’s understandable.

      Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
      You said in past postings that learning would take 10 years.
      Close. The way I say it tends to be somewhat uniform so that I don’t have to tediously stipulate it, so I’ll do that now. I usually say something like this: Expert homeopaths in the past [sometimes instead saying “Past Hahnemannians”] have said it took them 25 years to understand Hahnemann’s thought. I say it like that because others have also used that figure, but I believe it was master homeopath P.P. Wells (Phineus Parkhurst) who first said it. It took me 12 years, not 10. There’s no reason it should take that long, though, for I lived the early years of studying homeopathy being mislead by the GVs. God, help us!

      I don’t know how long it should actually take, but I’m convinced that we could do it in the standard period of time now seen to get an MD, for there’s all of the book study and whatnot in medical school and then the residency. Essentially, what they call a residency is what we both now and in the past call a clinical preceptorship; however, that’s only because no schools at present teach actual Hahnemannian homeopathy, so clinical preceptorships are still the way. I also speak about this in a very long posting I’m currently working on that will appear in the discussion that this thread came from.

      If all Hahnemannians in the world or at least most of them came together in an actual homeopathic medical school, I’m quite sure we’d have the same period of time as seen in allopathic medical schools or probably those four additional years studying the basic sciences, too, for application of it in clinical settings is simply going to take as long as it takes -- period. Nobody graduates until we know they know what they’re doing, but nobody would gain entrance to such a school unless we knew beforehand that they could do it, however long it takes. I have manuscript material about this I’ve posted in this forum, but I also don’t see it. It’s an outtake from a hypothetical First Lecture at such a school. Complain for me and for you if its being missing also bothers you.

      As for what you added there, you’re doing fine. I don’t know how I can tell such things with some degree of precision to be pretty sure about it, but I can.

      Finally, thank you for the links. I doubt that I’ll have the time to get them, but others should benefit from those links. Here’s one you’ll probably like: The Aphorisms of Hippocrates by von Boenninghausen - Book II.

      God bless!
      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
        Voegeli's Preceptor?

        I am informed by its author, Hahnemannian444 that he posted a response on Nov. 19.

        Awaiting the posting of that response by otherhealth.com


        Thanks !

        CJ

        Comment


        • #5
          I see I made six careless mistakes in that very long posting and inserted something in it that actually belonged in an email, so I've edited them there and note them here for the historical record.

          The first one was a misquote. I suggested that Stan Laurel said this:

          Originally posted by Hahnemannian444 View Post
          "What good are fools to the world? None except to themselves."
          I am pretty sure he said that but instead like this:

          Originally posted by Hahnemannian444 View Post
          "What good are fools to the world? None but to themselves."
          I woke up with that thought yesterday morning, but it seemed to have been something said to me in another voice rather than the nonsense of dreams, or so my quasi-monkey brain tells me. I actually think that’s possible because it’s rare but has happened before and because I often do a sight gag I got from him in one of their first talkie movies and teach it to children because it’s a brain thing whereby the middle fingers wiggle on opposite sides of the hands, something impossible for children five and under to do.

          The next one was a really bozo statement that originally appeared as follows:

          Originally posted by Hahnemannian444 View Post
          In the US, we tag them as 0/1, 0/2, 0/3, etc. I don’t know why and don’t really care since I don’t follow that corruption of this element of homeopathy. In Europe, they appear as Q1, Q2, Q3, etc. Actually, most of us here in the US do it the original way, the second example.
          No, that’s not at all what I meant. I therefore corrected it as follows:

          Originally posted by Hahnemannian444 View Post
          In the US, we tag them as 0/1, 0/2, 0/3, etc. In Europe, they appear as Q1, Q2, Q3, etc. Actually, most of us here in the US do it the original way, the second example.
          Only pseudo homeopaths call them LM potencies. I don’t know why and don’t really care since I don’t follow that corruption of this element of homeopathy.
          Not quite the same thing, is it? I must have pushed the wrong buttons and not noticed deletions. Such is life, though.

          The next one is that I incorrectly referred to Article 270 as Article 271. Oops! I don’t know how to explain such mistakes other than that we do tend to remember the numbers of lot of the important ones but sometimes find our brains aren’t working so well due to exhaustion. Whatever the reason or reasons, I’ll stick with that one. My apologies.

          Then, I carelessly said:

          Originally posted by Hahnemannian444 View Post
          Robert M. Shore of Seattle is the only person I know of who’s made his own medicine, so you could also ask him.
          No, the word medicine is supposed to be plural, so I fixed it, too. Incidentally, he wrote an important Editorial in the magnificent journal he edited at the end of its noble run called HOMEOTHERAPY in which he explained that nobody makes the correctly sized micro-globules to make Q-potencies as Hahnemann directed. They have to be a certain size because their manufacture is different from C-potencies. Its protocol is completely different, calling for saturization of 500 micro-globules with a given amount of dilutent, so they have to be a certain size. All of the pharmacies utilize standard-sized micro-globules, but that skews this scale and fails to allow us to actually duplicate Hahnemann’s experience with them. It’s a small thing, but one would think that our pharmacists would do it right. Robert therefore started to make his own micro-globules and then his own medicines. That was a long time ago, too. I think you’ll like him, sir.

          Next, I accidentally implied something here:

          Originally posted by Hahnemannian444 View Post
          Basically, it’s an initial paragraph or two stating the differential symptoms and the disease involved; then a correct repertorization of those three-or-more all-important uncommon symptoms; then materia medica matches of those symptoms, which they quote verbatim so that it’s readily understood without having to tediously look them up ourselves (none of the old case reports did either of these) . . .
          No, I meant that “none of the old case reports did either of the two latter things,” so I also fixed it there.

          Then, I left out the hyphen in out-take here:

          Originally posted by Hahnemannian444 View Post
          I have manuscript material about this I’ve posted in this forum, but I also don’t see it. It’s an outtake from a hypothetical First Lecture at such a school.
          Finally, I said the following that actually sprang out of an email I was simultaneously writing to Peter Beznek at Legatum Homeopathicum:

          Originally posted by Hahnemannian444 View Post
          To correct you somewhere here that’s related to this, that’s rather clearly where George Vithoulkas mainly got his notion of remedy essences. It’s a very old notion that seems to have evolved into his remedy essences after Kent did something similar. So, you were close . . . damn close, actually. Methinks somebody told you that, though, so explain this to them, too, if true.
          I somehow juxtaposed the two things of so-called “constitutional types” and something I wanted to explain to Peter. It therefore has nothing to do with this. Oops! I have no idea what the hell happened there. I am frequently totally exhausted, so I rather clearly just messed up putting those passages where they belonged. Whatever, I can’t fix that now by extracting it, so I’ve told Peter it’s here. Such is life.

          God bless!
          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
            Six mistakes edited

            Good responses, sir. It deserves similarly detailed replies.

            Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
            I'm an Acupuncture Physician/DOM (board certified in Oriental Medicine and Herbology) in Florida. No longer in practice, I mainly read Homeopathy . . .
            Good for you! And I have no problems with the rest of those passages, for Arabic and ancient Chinese medical literature is simply missing in the West, and that's unacceptable since it's massive and perhaps most especially because the former inherited ancient Egyptian medical literature when they acquired what was left after the three horrible burnings of the magnificent Library of Alexandria. Chemistry developed from that, so this is no small thing. Good for you, and God's speed with that!

            Additionally, I think you will realize the vast importance of such efforts when you read Hahnemann's dissertation at the University of Leipsig in THE LESSER WRITINGS, for he there showed his command of all then-known ancient medical literature. That is, he didn't know that a lot more exists, so this is damn important. God's speed, sir!

            Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
            There is some stuff in "Chinese Acupuncture" by Soulie de Morant on points of Wiehe . . .
            Excellent! Thank you. That is the first lead I've found. Of course, I never found the time to look. I just forgot and never found the time. Nonetheless, that works for me.

            Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
            . . . Margaret Tyler . . . [and] Dorothy Shepherd, both Kentians I believe.
            Yes. A little help on where to look for actual Hahnemannian literature from, in many cases, actual master homeopaths cometh from my pen: en:hphys:start [Legatum Homeopathicum], the third posting there. Don't bother to thank me, for I can tell you'll appreciate it. It's quite important that somebody somewhere finally did this thing of scanning those priceless old journals from us.

            As for the next one I avoid quoting, I foolishly presumed that you're French from your username, but I subsequently discovered this error by simply looking at your profile here. "What good are fools to the world? None but to themselves." Cute, huh? I think Stan Laurel said that in private, or so some legend seems to fire in my brain telling me that. Whoever, I like it.

            Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
            Nothing other than that I think that's when he developed his CM potencies which were said to bypass the well known Homeopathic aggravation. Yet these potencies and their fabrication seem to have been kept as something of an insiders' secret for quite some time. The Homeopathy historians can sort this out, if correct.
            No, that’s almost all wrong but perfectly understandable. Moreover, it appears that you knew what you were talking about but instead called them CM rather than LM potencies, for the other one we use is the C-scale of homeopathic potentization and thus C-potencies being how we refer to them. Hahnemannians don’t use the D-scale of it.

            First, what’s you’re talking about are the so-called “LM potencies,” which are actually correctly called Q-potencies because they’re diluted at the ratio of 1:50,000, which is the fancy number quinquaginta-millessimal and are therefore also called by that long name. The nomenclature for them differs on the two sides of the Atlantic when seen in case reports. In the US, we tag them as 0/1, 0/2, 0/3, etc. In Europe, they appear as Q1, Q2, Q3, etc. Actually, most of us here in the US do it the original way, the second example.
            Only pseudo homeopaths call them LM potencies. I don’t know why and don’t really care since I don’t follow that corruption of this element of homeopathy.

            Next, you’re perhaps (I’m probably wrong here) presuming that he developed the decimal fraction of our potentization scale (1:10), but that nonsense came from the God-damned low-potency pseudo homeopaths of the 19th century led worldwide first by Dake from the US and then by Richard Hughes from Great Britain. True feelings voiced: I hope they all stay in Hell. Uncharitable, I know, but I also know what those allopathic homeopaths did to homeopathy. God, help us!

            Hahnemann started with centessimals (1:100) but found them to be totally unacceptable because we couldn’t repeat them as often as needed. In fact, people unnecessarily died due to this, so he fixed it. A little more explanation, they last too long in their primary or drug effects at the higher potencies (i.e., at 12c and beyond, which is now where we begin with them), so he just trashed that scale once he discovered the Q-potencies some time between the 5th and 6th editions of the ORGANON. Therefore, the Q-scale first appeared with the last edition of the book in 1842, one year before he expired at age 88. Yeah, it was in Paris.

            As for the likely source of that amazing change in our pharmacology, the CHQ published a paper showing how Constantine Hering suggested a dilution ratio of, I think, 1:10,000. It simply appears, since Hahnemann didn’t explain where he got the amazingly different ratio, that Hering gave him the seed thought and that Hahnemann advanced it until it was what he called “perfect.” That’s in Article 270 of the ORGANON near the end of it in those lengthy footnotes, and he said it at least a couple of times in different ways, too.

            BTW, that’s how you make them. If that’s insufficient, ask the director of Hahnemann Labs in the Bay Area of Northern California if she can find the time to tell you more or ask Schmidt-Nagel in Switzerland. They probably have something prepared for such questions. Otherwise, Hahnemann said the gist of it there. Robert M. Shore of Seattle is the only person I know of who’s made his own medicines, so you could also ask him. Likewise, he probably knows of a lot of other people who have so that they could share their medicines with colleagues. They don’t know who I am, but it’s okay.

            As for the terrible corruption of the term homeopathic aggravation you’re using, I’ve relatively recently explained that here somewhere, so please just look for it. It’s some time within the last year and probably close to that. The gist of it is that the people who say stuff like that completely misunderstand what Hahnemann said about so-called “aggravations,” for that exclusively refers to one’s simillimum (“thing most similar”) at the end of treatment when it ceases being necessary and therefore instead produces symptoms in them. It’s therefore when we know they’re cured. That’s kind of important, isn’t it? The GVs have lots of things wrong, sir, so just don’t listen to them. Read Hahnemann! What he said about this is in the back of the ORGANON. It’s not hard to find, either, so what’s wrong with this picture that all of them get it wrong? Yeah, buddy, they’re presently just followers of George Vithoulkas and his crowd of teachers of the thousands of GVs. God, help us! Then, too, they’re all potential Hahnemannians, so just forget such vehemence. We don’t like corruptions and adulterations of homeopathy because we know what the results are from having repeatedly suffered them in the past. You’ll figure it out.

            As for Q-potencies having been an insider’s secret, that’s also wrong. I fully explained this a very long time ago here, but the administrators of this site have either done something horrible with most of my postings here or have simply made them inaccessible to others as well as me to edit and further comment on years later. What’s wrong with that picture? You can always complain, for they don’t listen to me anymore and are thereby forcing me out of this site for whatever reason or reasons. What’s the motive there if not for greed, though? They belong to me as my intellectual property, but this crime has already occurred and has sealed their destinies, which neither of them will like one bit. Such is life, though.

            I explained all of this when I gave a somewhat thorough but succinct history of the last edition of the ORGANON. It was many years ago, perhaps in 2002 or 2003. Of course, they have also extracted all of my postings as Hahnemannian444B. Oops! Somebody wants to go to Hell, huh?

            Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
            . . . How I stumbled across Vannier and found a couple of books that I find quite interesting, going into details and remedy relationships in somewhat more detail than even Nash . . .

            But it seems, with my turtle like persistence and slowness as a student, to be on the right track.
            Good enough. He probably was a Hahnemannian since only we ever do that with any precision and according to the parameters of the Law of Similars. That of course does not surprise me since Voegeli impressed me as such when he appeared in the CHQ with those two papers.

            I can’t tell exactly which you meant by the last stipulation, but I’ll assume the one you might want to know. Yeah, you’re doing fine, sir.

            Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
            . . . at the Swiss Pierre Schmidt Institute of Homeopathy . . .
            Okay, something very important cometh: Pierre Schmidt appears to have single-handedly saved legitimate homeopathy. I’ve explained that here, but it or them are probably also gone.

            Try to get the ear of an author who publishes in the venerable Z.K.H. from Haug Verlag to explain it to you, for this is now taking too much of my life.

            Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
            I know the name Voegli from YOUR postings. I try to follow up all your comments by researching and learning. . . .
            You’re the one, huh? Thank you, I’m flattered, for it usually appears that I’m wasting my time and writing this stuff for future homeopaths. Far from it, I love all of our students, period, and I certainly speak for all Hahnemannians in this regard. After all, who else can we best help get this stuff, anyway? We did it through the old journals in the 19th century, but the Internet is now the best way. After all, we rarely taught in any of the schools, and there were too many pseudo homeopaths for those Hahnemannians to just ignore them all. They generally came out of our schools all confused, so the journals were the most efficient way to fix that. Now it’s the Internet.

            Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
            That's how I learned the importance of "Chronic Diseases" by Hahnemann. I pay particular attention to people you have mentioned as being genuine Homeopaths.
            Good! I put the former off for a very long time and finally decided there was no time like the present. Master homeopath Georg (sic, he was German) von Keller best explained that in the CHQ. I think I did very little more than simply restate it. I hoped it affected someone, sir. Thank you.

            Actually, I may have presumed what you meant, for it now appears you may be referring to the book. I initially thought you meant what I said in attempting to explain the failed Theory of Chronic Diseases. Wanna tell me which you meant?

            It’s true that I recognizer Hahnemannians when I discover them and rather quickly simply because they don’t make the mistakes with which we identify high-potency and low-potency pseudo homeopaths, but so will you pretty soon at this pace -- or so it seems. God’s speed, sir.

            Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
            . . . I try to correlate Tyler, Kent, Shepherd, Blackie, and many others, observing similarities and differences in their approaches and treatments... and their successes and failures. My goal is to understand their manner of thinking which I believe is a lost art, with frames of reference and fundamental postulates and assumptions which we no longer have after being corrupted by the machine coporatized medicine of their future that is our now.
            Okay, so as to hopefully avoid opening a can of worms I don’t have time to explain, I would first advise you to avoid all of that because they were just Kentians. I hopefully made this somewhat clear in my recent long posting in the discussion forum I mentioned above at Legatum Homeopathicum when I invoked those “handful of British women,” Shepherd and Blackie having been their students. More importantly, though, I said there that the CHQ raised the bar on published case reports “by an order of magnitude.” When you see those in the CHQ, you’ll know what I’m talking about, but that’s much more easily accessed in the ZKH if you speak German. I tragically don’t, but I already learned this excellent protocol in the CHQ. Basically, it’s an initial paragraph or two stating the differential symptoms and the disease involved; then a correct repertorization of those three-or-more all-important uncommon symptoms; then materia medica matches of those symptoms, which they quote verbatim so that it’s readily understood without having to tediously look them up ourselves (none of the old case reports did either of the two latter things); and then the results. It’s essentially the way we do it, too.

            It happens that a lot is involved in taking the case that is shortened in published case reports, but I am presently about to post something on that since a recent posting here precipitated that after I found myself wanting to tell the guy to “retake the case per Hahnemann’s directions in the ORGANON.” It should be pretty soon, but it is most certainly not meant to take the place of what Hahnemann said about this. It’s just my slant on it in modern vernacular and things that seem important as general guidelines about taking the case per Hahnemannjan dictums so that we can apply the Law of Similars and precipitate the Laws of Cure.

            Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
            Vannier . . . also wrote a book on constitutional types
            Okay, you’ll see reference to that old notion in the cure of DEAFNESS by master homeopath Carroll Dunham here: en:ahr:dunham-c-deafness-cured-by-mezereum-158-10403 [Legatum Homeopathicum]. Those categories are not heard anymore, though. Essentially, those so-called “constitutional types” voiced a pile of words in one word much like the name of a disease does.

            A long time ago, somebody in this forum pulled together all of the variations of that stuff down through the centuries and did the best job of explaining it I’d ever seen. I thus thanked her for precluding me from having to do it, which would have been damn difficult. If you look for it, I believe the first thing I said was something like this: “That’s the best job of that I’ve ever seen.” I think she made some mistakes, but I stand by what I said, too. Her username was Lisa something, and I often wonder if it’s the administrator here with a similar username, but the latter never responded to that question from me. For precision, she tagged her postings by invoking Dunham below her name, and her profile said she’s in Oxford. Fancy, huh? I think she’s a teacher at some small homeopathic school in Oxford.

            To correct you somewhere here that’s related to this, that’s rather clearly where George Vithoulkas mainly got his notion of remedy essences. It’s a very old notion that seems to have evolved into his remedy essences after Kent did something similar. So, you were close . . . damn close, actually. Methinks somebody told you that, though, so explain this to them, too, if true.

            A little further, it’s a serious mistake to think in terms of so-called “constitutional types” because it misleads one into believing that people will need that remedy for constitutional symptoms and another for infections or so-called “acute symptoms.” No, God no! Basically, we want to find the one remedy that person has always needed, and then fully cure them with it. Whatever comes after that is another matter, but it usually happens that they also then simply need that remedy for them. It’s a whole lot more complicated than that in practice, though, for we don’t always find that one perfect remedy for them and thus still have to (due to these mistakes) “zigzag cases to cure,” as master homeopath Adolph Lipped brilliantly called it. We don’t want to do that today with some drug that’s just their so-called “simile” medicine in the old vernacular and thereby be forced into finding another one and usually still another one because it takes longer and there’s no guarantee we’ll find that 2nd or even 3rd drug. A case well taken is well cured is an old homeopathic axiom for precisely this reason.

            My God, I hope that’s understandable.

            Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post
            You said in past postings that learning would take 10 years.
            Close. The way I say it tends to be somewhat uniform so that I don’t have to tediously stipulate it, so I’ll do that now. I usually say something like this: Expert homeopaths in the past [sometimes instead saying “Past Hahnemannians”] have said it took them 25 years to understand Hahnemann’s thought. I say it like that because others have also used that figure, but I believe it was master homeopath P.P. Wells (Phineus Parkhurst) who first said it. It took me 12 years, not 10. There’s no reason it should take that long, though, for I lived the early years of studying homeopathy being mislead by the GVs. God, help us!

            I don’t know how long it should actually take, but I’m convinced that we could do it in the standard period of time now seen to get an MD, for there’s all of the book study and whatnot in medical school and then the residency. Essentially, what they call a residency is what we both now and in the past call a clinical preceptorship; however, that’s only because no schools at present teach actual Hahnemannian homeopathy, so clinical preceptorships are still the way. I also speak about this in a very long posting I’m currently working on that will appear in the discussion that this thread came from.

            If all Hahnemannians in the world or at least most of them came together in an actual homeopathic medical school, I’m quite sure we’d have the same period of time as seen in allopathic medical schools or probably those four additional years studying the basic sciences, too, for application of it in clinical settings is simply going to take as long as it takes -- period. Nobody graduates until we know they know what they’re doing, but nobody would gain entrance to such a school unless we knew beforehand that they could do it, however long it takes. I have manuscript material about this I’ve posted in this forum, but I also don’t see it. It’s an out-take from a hypothetical First Lecture at such a school. Complain for me and for you if its being missing also bothers you.

            As for what you added there, you’re doing fine. I don’t know how I can tell such things with some degree of precision to be pretty sure about it, but I can.

            Finally, thank you for the links. I doubt that I’ll have the time to get them, but others should benefit from those links. Here’s one you’ll probably like: The Aphorisms of Hippocrates by von Boenninghausen - Book II.

            God bless!
            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
              Voegeli's preceptor?

              H444:
              (Responding to my comments about what I thought were CM potencies)

              No, that’s almost all wrong but perfectly understandable. Moreover, it appears that you knew what you were talking about but instead called them CM rather than LM potencies, for the other one we use is the C-scale of homeopathic potentization and thus C-potencies being how we refer to them. Hahnemannians don’t use the D-scale of it.*

              First, what’s you’re talking about are the so-called “LM potencies,” which are actually correctly called Q-potencies because they’re diluted at the ratio of 1:50,000, which is the fancy number quinquaginta-millessimal and are therefore also called by that long name. The nomenclature for them differs on the two sides of the Atlantic when seen in case reports. In the US, we tag them as 0/1, 0/2, 0/3, etc. I don’t know why and don’t really care since I don’t follow that corruption of this element of homeopathy. In Europe, they appear as Q1, Q2, Q3, etc. Actually, most of us here in the US do it the original way, the second example.*

              Next, you’re perhaps (I’m probably wrong here) presuming that he developed the decimal fraction of our potentization scale (1:10), but that nonsense came from the God-damned low-potency pseudo homeopaths of the 19th century led worldwide first by Dake from the US and then by Richard Hughes from Great Britain. True feelings voiced: I hope they all stay in Hell. Uncharitable, I know, but I also know what those allopathic homeopaths did to homeopathy. God, help us!*

              Hahnemann started with centessimals (1:100) but found them to be totally unacceptable because we couldn’t repeat them as often as needed. In fact, people unnecessarily died due to this, so he fixed it. A little more explanation, they last too long in their primary or drug effects at the higher potencies (i.e., at 12c and beyond, which is now where we begin with them), so he just trashed that scale once he discovered the Q-potencies some time between the 5th and 6th editions of the ORGANON. Therefore, the Q-scale first appeared with the last edition of the book in 1842, one year before he expired at age 88. Yeah, it was in Paris.*

              My Response:

              (Understanding your time constraints I have streamlined my comments. Apologies for being so wordy in my previous post.)
              Many thanks for the clarification on the potencies. Quite useful. In my early studies, I had been at first attracted to Richard Hughes, particularly upon comments of Clarke but later got a feeling of intellectual sterility, that something was missing compared to what Hahnemann was saying or the, what's the word, “richness” of Lippe or Dunham or Hering, and so turned away from both (Clarke and Hughes) their writings for purely intuitive reasons.

              H444:

              As for the terrible corruption of the term*homeopathic aggravation*you’re using, I’ve relatively recently explained that here somewhere, so please just look for it. It’s some time within the last year and probably close to that. The gist of it is that the people who say stuff like that completely misunderstand what Hahnemann said about so-called “aggravations,” for that*exclusively*refers to one’s*simillimum*(“thing most similar”) at the end of treatment when it ceases being necessary and therefore instead produces symptoms in them.*It’s therefore when we know they’re cured.*That’s kind of important, isn’t it? The GVs have lots of things wrong, sir, so just don’t listen to them.*Read Hahnemann!*What he said about this is in the back of the ORGANON. It’s not hard to find, either, so what’s wrong with this picture that all of them get it wrong? Yeah, buddy, they’re presently just followers of George Vithoulkas and his crowd of teachers of the thousands of GVs. God, help us! Then, too, they’re all potential Hahnemannians, so just forget such vehemence. We don’t like corruptions and adulterations of homeopathy because we know what the results are from having repeatedly suffered them in the past. You’ll figure it out.*

              My Response:

              Understood. Will do. The misunderstanding is propagated across numerous modern homeopathic books that I was forced to look at until I finally realized the only way to the real deal was to head backwards in time to early writings. Exactly what I had to do after TCM medical college and their bowdlerization and “scientization” of Chinese medical concepts, so I'm used to this hunt. There is NO road map. Numerous Homeopathy training courses and “schools” cobble together some stuff and call it the real deal. I've already fallen for this game once in Chinese medicine. Not this time.
              It's a didactic and epistemologial mine field out there but you already know that.

              My Comment:

              That's how I learned the importance of "Chronic Diseases" by Hahnemann. I pay particular attention to people you have mentioned as being genuine Homeopaths.

              H444:

              Actually, I may have presumed what you meant, for it now appears you may be referring to the book. I initially thought you meant what I said in attempting to explain the failed Theory of Chronic Diseases. Wanna tell me which you meant?*

              My Response:
              I meant the book.

              H444:

              It happens that a lot is involved in taking the case that is shortened in published case reports, but I am presently about to post something on that since a recent posting here precipitated that after I found myself wanting to tell the guy to “retake the case per Hahnemann’s directions in the ORGANON.” It should be pretty soon, but it is most certainly not meant to take the place of what Hahnemann said about this. It’s just my slant on it in modern vernacular and things that seem important as general guidelines about taking the case per Hahnemannjan dictums so that we can apply the Law of Similars and precipitate the Laws of Cure.*

              My Response:

              I... and many others I'm sure, look forward to it. You don't know the number of people now, and in the future, who will have lightbulbs turn on in their heads by seeing this stuff. Do keep doing it. SAVE what you write, maybe at some time in the future you can post it all on a web site or in a book. It IS invaluable. Thanks !

              Comment


              • #8
                First, I want to explain how you put quotes in boxes because I don’t need to read my own postings, and you’ll probably prefer that format. It’s pretty simple. Just click the QUOTE button on the posting you want to quote from. That will allow you to copy and paste the thingies that look like this:
                Originally posted by Hahnemannian444;#####
                at the beginning of them and
                at the end of the passages you want to quote. I pull it all to a WORD document and wrangle it with all of that copying and pasting and just erase whatever I choose to pass over.

                Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post

                . . . Richard Hughes, particularly upon comments of Clarke . . .
                Yeah, I bought Clarke’s DICTIONARY early but have never used it. I thought, “Yeehaw, three volumes! That must be a biggie.” No, it’s a total flop not worth the paper it’s printed on. I’m not sure I’d say that about his repertory, but I’ve also never used it. You can’t exercise the Golden Rule by either selling it or giving it away, so just let it grow cobwebs on your shelves. If there’s something good in it, maybe somebody will some day find it, and then you’ll need it. A lot of homeopathic books are like that, though, so you just get used to it.

                As for the stuff I wrote about homeopathic aggravations, I’ve submitted a very long posting finally making all of that clear (he said with hopes).

                As for what I wrote about the failed Theory of Chronic Diseases that I thought you were referring to, it’s here: http://www.otherhealth.com/homeopath...-medicine.html, posting #6.

                Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post

                SAVE what you write
                I do save it now, but I didn’t think I’d have to and therefore don’t have all of it saved. As incredible as it might seem to outsiders of homeopathy, H.R.H. Prince Charles is a friend of mine from 1986 onward due to a series of letters I then wrote him after invoking him as “the world’s most important champion of homeopathy” in a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives after he and a high-ranking member of Reagan’s Administration came on all three Sunday morning TV talk shows yaking about medical reform without having made a single accurate statement about medicine. I thought Charles should see that letter, and back came a reply from Buckingham Palace. For others, the European Royals have always favored homeopathy since Hahnemann cured Duke Klockenbring of Hannover of raging insanity in 1791 and thereby showed he is the actual Father of Psychiatry. That is, Pinel of the Paris Academy is usually called that, but pp. 244-49 of THE LESSER WRITINGS (link: The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann - Google Play) show that Pinel simply plagiarized Hahnemann’s reforms to psychiatry and voiced them in his lecture to the Paris Academy six months after Hahnemann published that case report in an obscure medical journal. Anyway, it appears I have to ask Charles to sick some of his attorneys on the owners of this site to get me back my published literature. I think he’ll do it, and they are not going to be much pleased by it if that happens. I simply want access to all of my postings. If they’ve destroyed some of them, they’ll pay until they die, and they won’t like what happens to them after they die one bit. Such is life, though.

                God bless!
                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
                  Taking the Case

                  Originally posted by Citizen_Jimserac View Post

                  I . . . look forward to it.
                  Sir, since you mentioned it, what I have to say about taking the case is just a long footnote added to something very long (16 pages, in fact) addressing our abhorrence to allopathic thought and its deeply destructive consequences in all ways throughout society as one of the main power structures that at its full measure of destructiveness both keeps Christ’s Kingdom of God on Earth from forming and keeps people from their birthright of mental freedom that’s available through homeotherapeutics. Therefore, that main posting may never find the light of day.

                  That long footnote, one of eight, just gives others an idea of what we look for and how we think when we do this thing we traditionally call taking the case. I happen to think it's pretty good because it's succinct even though four pages long and I know what I’m talking about, but I haven't really worked on it much since it's just a footnote or long addition I yanked out of that main part of it and thus have it as an accessory posting. It’s the main things we look for . . . categories of them, but I keep thinking I’ve left important things out. We literally have to drag this information out of patients because it’s almost invariably things from the past that lead us to the simillimum. Everybody today has this long train of suffering all of their lives that have been squelched either by allopaths or intellectually by themselves as unimportant stuff or have otherwise simply transitioned into other sets of symptoms. Taking the case is a really difficult thing to talk about because it’s so dynamic or changeable from moment to moment and in each and every case. For instance, we can easily miss something important if we fail to note it as a later question, but those deeper questions can only come after we’ve pursued details upon details, and those can only be pursued after people are through reciting their sufferings --without interruptions except to write it down right. I’m still very clumsy at it after many years, so I almost invariably require several case interviews before I do anything but give blanks. I haven’t looked at it for nearly two weeks now and by intent to read it afresh, so don’t hold your breath about that since I’ve got a good start on it but just know important things are missing.

                  I therefore instead direct your attention to two readily available masterworks on taking the case in Articles 83-104 of the ORGANON (Organon) and what Boenninghausen had to say about it (Boenninghausen Lesser Writings -).

                  As for the former, you can't properly evaluate Hahnemann's thought in the ORGANON without buying the book because The Hahnemann Foundation has not released it to an e-book for obvious reasons involved in the tremendous effort and expense that went into finally making that definitive rendering of the work into English in the early 80s after a lot of effort and exactly 140 years of that sixth edition of the work not existing except in manuscript from. In fact, they produced a few extremely lovely and rather expensive leather-bound copies of it I could never afford while they were available. That's how much they thought of it. It's the translation by Peter Pendleton and Alaine Naude with oversight by master homeopath Jost Kunzli. It also and almost alone has a superb index. Hands down, although you'll want them all, it's the only one to actually study if you speak English as your primary language.

                  Again about taking the case, some of the most excellent questions I’ve ever seen to be asked of patients came from the hands of master homeopath Jost Kunzli of Switzerland and Robert M. Shore of Seattle in one of the issues of HOMEOTHERAPY that he edited. I lost those a long time ago, but he might give you a Xerox of it or, better, put those pages online.

                  God bless!
                  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
                    Aggravations; Voegeli Addition from an Email by an HPH, Part One

                    Greetings, and Happy Thanksgiving to one and all around the world!

                    It seems I made an oversight in not stipulating something important both in posting #3 here and from posting #_ (?) several months back (link: ). A high-potency pseudo homeopath (HPH) who clearly admires if not follows George Vithoulkas rather than, like Hahnemannians, fearing the corruptions of homeopathy by him and those within the Vithoulkas school of thought (GVs) rightly took me to task for it. Why nobody here didn’t disappoints me because I cannot make my postings unambiguous unless others of homeopathic learning ask me to explain such seeming mistakes, which in this case was indeed a mere oversight.

                    He first quoted me as follows from posting #_ (?) several months back (link: ):

                    [quote=Hahnemannian444] (link: )
                    Homeopathic aggravations are much misrepresented in modern literature. If you read Hahnemann's ORGANON OF MEDICINE, you will find in the back of it that he explains what he meant by that term. It means what happens at the end of treatment when the drug can do no more, i.e., we thereby know the cure is complete because it instead produces symptoms.
                    (/quote)

                    That’s basically the same thing as what I said in the following from posting #3 in this discussion thread:

                    Originally posted by Hahnemannian444
                    permalink
                    As for the terrible corruption of the term homeopathic aggravation you’re using, I’ve relatively recently explained that here somewhere, so please just look for it. [BTW, that’s it.] It’s some time within the last year and probably close to that. The gist of it is that the people who say stuff like that completely misunderstand what Hahnemann said about so-called “aggravations,” for that exclusively refers to one’s simillimum (“thing most similar”) at the end of treatment when it ceases being necessary and therefore instead produces symptoms in them. It’s therefore when we know they’re cured. That’s kind of important, isn’t it?
                    Being a non-native English speaker, he sent me statements that were initially difficult to interpret within the same email quoting me above from several months ago. The following paragraph could not, however, mean anything else but how I have stipulated it by placing clarifications within brackets as follows:

                    Originally posted by An_unidentified¬_GV_in_a_recent_email_modified_by_ Hahnemannian444
                    The precise mode [of] how Hahnemann explains the [primary] action [of homeopathic medicines] implies homeopathic aggravation in ALL cases when the remedy is able to ovecome [overcome] the disease ([from the passages in the ORGANON constituting the] introduction of [to where he discusses the fact that a drug, or] artificial disease [agent, is innately] STRONGER than the natural disease [due to increasing potencies of one’s simillimum allowing us to literally push a disease out of an animal or human organism, otherwise called cure]).”
                    Okay, I do generally make a mistake in presuming others understand that I no longer use C-potencies or at least almost never do now. The exceptions are irrelevant but never come from my administration of our drugs, only from my attempts to help others either online or through the mail whereby they acquire our drugs themselves. The presumption involves the fact that Hahnemann trashed that scale of homeopathic potentization for the reasons I’ve explained and that I therefore assume others understand I also ceased using them almost 20 years ago. I essentially said that here in posting #3 as follows:

                    Originally posted by Hahnemannian444
                    Hahnemann started with centessimals (1:100) but found them to be totally unacceptable because we couldn’t repeat them as often as needed. In fact, people unnecessarily died due to this, so he fixed it. A little more explanation, they last too long in their primary or drug effects at the higher potencies (i.e., at 12c and beyond, which is now where we begin with them), so he just trashed that scale once he discovered the Q-potencies some time between the 5th and 6th editions of the ORGANON.
                    I should have added: “Consequently, I no longer use our C-potencies and therefore no longer encounter the unavoidable bad effects from them, which constitute almost all other references to homeopathic aggravations in the ORGANON OF MEDICINE.” Such are oversights, though.

                    So, the guy rightly took me to task for such statements, and I further explain them now. This is also important because, as I just said, Hahnemann kept statements in the ORGANON from previous editions having to do with aggravations from C-potencies. Why he failed to make that clear by stipulating in those several statements that those types of homeopathic aggravations are exclusive of the innately faulty C-scale of potentization is a matter of speculation that will probably never be fully resolved. My personal opinion about it is somewhat complicated involving the following facts.

                    He was turning 87 years old in 1842 when he released the last edition of the ORGANON, and he died the next year. He was engaged in a very busy practice while simultaneously teaching a large number of physicians. The size of his practice in Paris was revealed by James Tyler Kent long ago telling us that Hahnemann left $500,000 when he died even though he arrived in Paris as a virtual pauper and worked there only seven years until he expired, properly called going through transition to astral existence. With the help of an economics professor I knew, I carefully did the math on the value of that much money in 1987 dollars (the original being some figure in French Francs I no longer recall) and think I correctly remember coming up with the astonishing figure of $11 million. I have no idea how much it’s worth now but suspect it’s probably three times that much because the cost of living has tripled since then. Other than trying to confirm his now-known failed Theory of Chronic Diseases (link: http://www.otherhealth.com/homeopath...-medicine.html, posting #6), the main things Hahnemann was constantly testing in those years were the Q-potencies. In 1832, Boenninghausen released our first user-friendly repertory (links: A Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Homoeopathic Remedies - Google Books and Baron Clemens Maria Franz Von BOENNINGHAUSEN - PHOTOTHÈQUE HOMÉOPATHIQUE présentée par Homéopathe International and BOENNINGHAUSEN'S CHARACTERISTICS MATERIA MADICA & REPERTORY - C.M. BOGER and https://archive.org/details/boenninghausensc00bn and Nature-Reveals.com - The Boenninghausen Repertory - Therapeutic Pocketbook Method - Second edition (G. Dimitriadis, editor) and Baron Clemens Maria Franz Von BOENNINGHAUSEN - PHOTOTHÈQUE HOMÉOPATHIQUE présentée par Homéopathe International) many years after Jahr had released the first one, which was difficult to use (links: Jahr's Manual of Homeopathic Medicine, 1835 and https://archive.org/details/hullsjahrnewmanu00jahr2 and G.H.G. Jahr's Manual of homoeopathic medicine). (BTW, Hans Weitbrecht, who posts here, may very well be the world’s expert on what we call the Boenninghausen method, so questions about it are probably best addressed to him.) Hahnemann would certainly have been intensely involved in perfecting both of Boenninghausen’s repertories released in Hahnemann’s time by constantly contributing corrections and additions to them because we’re basically lost without our repertories since it’s simply too much information for the ordinary human brain. There were only 96 drugs in use by us at the time Hahnemann died, but it would have been obvious to him that every single substance in the entire universe becomes medicinal when homeopathically potentized because all had up to that time. Perfecting the repertory was therefore absolutely essential, and I’m quite sure Hahnemann realized it. Whatever else he was also doing would have only contributed to the pull on his time on this Earth. I’ve never found anyone tell us what he died of, but he may have had a chronic disease after such a hard and long life. Although allopaths name diseases faster than we encounter them, we’ve found all of those 5000(+) chronic diseases we have encountered in practice to be curable and therefore have no reasons to believe there are any exceptions. Assuming this wild assumption of Hahnemann having developed a chronic disease is correct, the meager number of drugs available to him would have forced him into years of zigzagging his case to cure.

                    If I’m right that Hahnemann had a chronic disease, at least three factors come into play and probably more. The first is easily the many pulls on his attention and demands on his time that I’ve just briefly passed through. The second is the sparse number of potentized drugs then constituting our materia medica (“materials of medicine”). The third is the incredible difficulty involved in treating yourself. While people like to invoke the famous statement from Hippocrates that goes “Physician, heal thyself,” any circumspect and knowledgeable physician and especially a homeopath knows it is more accurate to say: The physician who treats himself has a fool for a patient. Boenninghausen would certainly have been there to help Hahnemann if I’m right that he had a chronic disease, but I’m of the opinion that Hahnemann would have kept any potentially terminal illness absolutely private because I know how this man thought. On the other hand, if he died of a heart attack or stroke, which seems more likely for people like him and which is the preferred way to expire, all of that is irrelevant.

                    Either way, I therefore suspect that Hahnemann simply didn’t get around to making those many stipulations in the early passages of the ORGANON having to do with the innately unavoidable homeopathic aggravations from C-potencies and decided to release the book while he still could. The terrible events that kept the 6th edition of the ORGANON from becoming available for 140 years in other than the shabby translations of passages by the Boericke brothers -- God-damned low-potency pseudo homeopaths! -- speaks volumes about this likely scenario at work in my supposition about why Hahnemann released the last edition of the ORGANON before he got around to correcting those earlier passages about homeopathic aggravations from C-potencies.

                    I otherwise don’t know why Hahnemann failed to do that but do know that it’s created this terrible problem of pseudo homeopaths (i.e., those who haven’t yet reached Hahnemannian status) constantly demonstrating their outrageous ignorance of everything I’m saying here and has especially created their very dangerous misinterpretations of drug effects that foul up their homeopathic practices simply because they only use C-potencies. God, help us!

                    So, all of those half-dozen or even dozen statements in the earlier sections of the book are essentially what I explained above about the deleterious effects of that scale. They do not invalidate the much more important passages I referred to in the back of the ORGANON whereby it became clear with Q-potencies that real homeopathic aggravations (meaning not those from the primary effects of C-scale drugs but those that still occurred after he trashed that scale) result from the medicine ceasing to be necessary because the person is cured.

                    There’s nothing more to it, but experience proves that few people understand this difficult subject and yet only because their clinical experience is solely with the trashed scale of C-potencies. I therefore proceed a bit further.
                    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
                      Aggravations; Voegeli Addition from an Email by an HPH, Part One

                      Aggravations; Voegeli Addition from an Email by an HPH
                      Part One


                      Greetings, and Happy Thanksgiving to one and all around the world!

                      It seems I made an oversight in not stipulating something important both in posting #3 here and from posting #_ (?) several months back (link: ). A high-potency pseudo homeopath (HPH) who clearly admires if not follows George Vithoulkas rather than, like Hahnemannians, fearing the corruptions of homeopathy by him and those within the Vithoulkas school of thought (GVs) rightly took me to task for it. Why nobody here didn’t disappoints me because I cannot make my postings unambiguous unless others of homeopathic learning ask me to explain such seeming mistakes, which in this case was indeed a mere oversight.

                      He first quoted me as follows from posting #_ (?) several months back (link: ):

                      [quote=Hahnemannian444] (link: )
                      Homeopathic aggravations are much misrepresented in modern literature. If you read Hahnemann's ORGANON OF MEDICINE, you will find in the back of it that he explains what he meant by that term. It means what happens at the end of treatment when the drug can do no more, i.e., we thereby know the cure is complete because it instead produces symptoms.
                      (/quote)

                      That’s basically the same thing as what I said in the following from posting #3 in this discussion thread:

                      Originally posted by Hahnemannian444 View Post
                      As for the terrible corruption of the term homeopathic aggravation you’re using, I’ve relatively recently explained that here somewhere, so please just look for it. [BTW, that’s it.] It’s some time within the last year and probably close to that. The gist of it is that the people who say stuff like that completely misunderstand what Hahnemann said about so-called “aggravations,” for that exclusively refers to one’s simillimum (“thing most similar”) at the end of treatment when it ceases being necessary and therefore instead produces symptoms in them. It’s therefore when we know they’re cured. That’s kind of important, isn’t it?
                      Being a non-native English speaker, he sent me statements that were initially difficult to interpret within the same email quoting me above from a posting several months ago. The following paragraph could not, however, mean anything else but how I have stipulated it by placing clarifications within brackets as follows:

                      Originally posted by An_unidentified¬_GV_in_a_recent_email_modified_by_ Hahnemannian444
                      The precise mode [of] how Hahnemann explains the [primary] action [of homeopathic medicines] implies homeopathic aggravation in ALL cases when the remedy is able to ovecome [overcome] the disease ([from the passages in the ORGANON constituting the] introduction of [to where he discusses the fact that a drug, or] artificial disease [agent, is innately] STRONGER than the natural disease [due to increasing potencies of one’s simillimum allowing us to literally push a disease out of an animal or human organism, otherwise called cure]).
                      Okay, I do generally make a mistake in presuming others understand that I no longer use C-potencies or at least almost never do now. The exceptions are irrelevant but never come from my administration of our drugs, only from my attempts to help others either online or through the mail whereby they acquire our drugs themselves. The presumption involves the fact that Hahnemann trashed that scale of homeopathic potentization for the reasons I’ve explained and that I therefore assume others understand that I also ceased using them almost 20 years ago. I essentially said that here in posting #3 as follows:

                      Originally posted by Hahnemannian444 View Post
                      Hahnemann started with centessimals (1:100) but found them to be totally unacceptable because we couldn’t repeat them as often as needed. In fact, people unnecessarily died due to this, so he fixed it. A little more explanation, they last too long in their primary or drug effects at the higher potencies (i.e., at 12c and beyond, which is now where we begin with them), so he just trashed that scale once he discovered the Q-potencies some time between the 5th and 6th editions of the ORGANON.
                      I should have added: “Consequently, I no longer use our C-potencies and therefore no longer encounter the unavoidable bad effects from them, which constitute all other references to homeopathic aggravations in the ORGANON OF MEDICINE.” Such are oversights, though.

                      So, the guy rightly took me to task for such statements, and I further explain them now. This is also important because, as I just said, Hahnemann kept statements in the ORGANON from previous editions having to do with aggravations from C-potencies. Why he failed to make that clear by stipulating in those several statements that those types of homeopathic aggravations are exclusive of the innately faulty C-scale of potentization is a matter of speculation that will probably never be fully resolved. My personal opinion about it is somewhat complicated involving the following facts.

                      He was turning 87 years old in 1842 when he released the last edition of the ORGANON, and he died the next year. He was engaged in a very busy practice while simultaneously teaching a large number of physicians. The size of his practice in Paris was revealed by James Tyler Kent long ago telling us that Hahnemann left $500,000 when he died even though he arrived in Paris as a virtual pauper and worked there only seven years until he expired, properly called going through transition to astral existence. With the help of an economics professor I knew, I carefully did the math on the value of that much money in 1987 dollars (the original being some figure in French Francs I no longer recall) and think I correctly remember coming up with the astonishing figure of $11 million. I have no idea how much that’s worth now but suspect it’s probably three times that much because the cost of living has tripled since then.

                      Other than trying to confirm his now-known failed Theory of Chronic Diseases (link: http://www.otherhealth.com/homeopath...-medicine.html, posting #6), the main things Hahnemann was constantly testing in those years were the Q-potencies. In 1832, Boenninghausen released our first user-friendly repertory (links: A Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Homoeopathic Remedies - Google Books and Baron Clemens Maria Franz Von BOENNINGHAUSEN - PHOTOTHÈQUE HOMÉOPATHIQUE présentée par Homéopathe International and BOENNINGHAUSEN'S CHARACTERISTICS MATERIA MADICA & REPERTORY - C.M. BOGER and https://archive.org/details/boenninghausensc00bn and Nature-Reveals.com - The Boenninghausen Repertory - Therapeutic Pocketbook Method - Second edition (G. Dimitriadis, editor) and Baron Clemens Maria Franz Von BOENNINGHAUSEN - PHOTOTHÈQUE HOMÉOPATHIQUE présentée par Homéopathe International) many years after Jahr had released the first one, which was difficult to use (links: Jahr's Manual of Homeopathic Medicine, 1835 and https://archive.org/details/hullsjahrnewmanu00jahr2 and G.H.G. Jahr's Manual of homoeopathic medicine). (BTW, Hans Weitbrecht, who posts here, may very well be the world’s expert on what we call the Boenninghausen method, so questions about it are probably best addressed to him.) Hahnemann would certainly have been intensely involved in perfecting both of Boenninghausen’s repertories released in Hahnemann’s time by constantly contributing corrections and additions to them because we’re basically lost without our repertories since it’s simply too much information for the ordinary human brain. There were only 96 drugs in use by us at the time Hahnemann died, but it would have been obvious to him that every single substance in the entire universe becomes medicinal when homeopathically potentized because all had up to that time. Perfecting the repertory was therefore absolutely essential, and I’m quite sure Hahnemann realized it. Whatever else he was also doing would have only contributed to the pull on his time on this Earth.

                      I’ve never found anyone tell us what he died of, but he may have had a chronic disease after such a hard and long life. Although allopaths name diseases faster than we encounter them because we’re so few in number and because civil laws preclude us from deviating from standard treatments (the fancy way we often get around that being to treat something else the person has for which there is no standard treatment), we’ve found all of the 5000(+) chronic diseases allopaths mindlessly name that we have encountered in practice to be curable and therefore have no reasons to believe there are any exceptions. Assuming this wild assumption of Hahnemann having developed a chronic disease is correct, the meager number of drugs available to him would have forced him into years of zigzagging his case to cure, as master homeopath Adolph Lippe would later quite brilliantly call it.

                      If I’m right that Hahnemann had a chronic disease, at least three factors come into play and probably more. The first is easily the many pulls on his attention and demands on his time that I’ve just briefly passed through. The second is the sparse number of potentized drugs then constituting our materia medica (“materials of medicine”). The third is the incredible difficulty involved in treating oneself. While people like to invoke the famous statement from Hippocrates that goes “Physician, heal thyself,” any circumspect and knowledgeable physician and especially a homeopath knows it is more accurate to say: The physician who treats himself has a fool for a patient. Boenninghausen would certainly have been there to help Hahnemann if I’m right that he had a chronic disease, but I’m of the opinion that Hahnemann would have kept any potentially terminal illness absolutely private because I know how this man thought. On the other hand, if he died of a heart attack or stroke, which seems more likely for people like him and which is the preferred way to expire, all of that is irrelevant.

                      Either way, I therefore suspect that Hahnemann simply didn’t get around to making those many stipulations in the early passages of the ORGANON having to do with the innately unavoidable homeopathic aggravations from C-potencies and decided to release the book while he still could. The terrible events that kept the 6th edition of the ORGANON from becoming available for 140 years in other than the shabby translations of passages by the Boericke brothers -- God-damned low-potency pseudo homeopaths -- speaks volumes about this likely scenario at work in my supposition about why Hahnemann released the last edition of the ORGANON before he got around to correcting those earlier passages about homeopathic aggravations from C-potencies.

                      I otherwise don’t know why Hahnemann failed to do that but do know that it’s created this terrible problem of pseudo homeopaths (i.e., those who haven’t yet reached Hahnemannian status) constantly demonstrating their outrageous ignorance of everything I’m saying here and has especially created their very dangerous misinterpretations of drug effects that foul up their homeopathic practices simply because they only use C-potencies. God, help us!

                      So, all of those half-dozen or even dozen statements in the earlier sections of the book are essentially what I explained above about the deleterious effects of that scale. They do not invalidate the much more important passages I referred to in the back of the ORGANON whereby it became clear with Q-potencies that real homeopathic aggravations (meaning not those from the primary effects of C-scale drugs but those that still occurred after he trashed that scale) result from the medicine ceasing to be necessary because the person is cured.

                      There’s nothing more to it, but experience proves that few people understand this difficult subject and yet only because their clinical experience is solely with the trashed scale of C-potencies. I therefore proceed a bit further.

                      ===============

                      See Part Two
                      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
                        Aggravations: Voegeli Addition from an Email by an HPH, Part Two

                        Aggravations: Voegeli Addition from an Email by an HPH
                        Part Two


                        Originally posted by Hahnemannian444
                        There’s nothing more to it, but experience proves that few people understand this difficult subject and yet only because their clinical experience is solely with the trashed scale of C-potencies. I therefore proceed a bit further.
                        To whit, here’s how that guy next addressed his understandable complaint with his quote of me from several months ago:

                        Originally posted by An_unidentified¬_GV_in_a_recent_email_modified_by_ Hahnemannian444
                        . . . whatever may be written about this, if you have never seen a homeopathic aggravation followed by an amelioration [emphasis mine], I wonder what kind of homeopathy you practice. It is easy to observe[,] especially in the cases of acute diseases[, which Hahnemann defined as “transient” diseases, generally meaning infectious diseases].
                        I first hope it is understandable to readers of this forum that I smiled pretty big and chuckled a bit at his wondering what kind of homeopathy I practice, but that also shows his dedication to homeopathy and wariness of any adulterations of it. It happens that this issue is clearly new to him from not having used the Q-potencies and thus, in turn, failing to proceed to carefully reexamining every single passage in the ORGANON where Hahnemann invokes homeopathic aggravations because that’s what’s different about Q-potencies: No aggravations. When he finally does, he’ll slam right into Article 280, as in now:

                        Originally posted by Hahnemann_ORGANON_Article_280

                        The dose of the medicine that continues serviceable without producing new troublesome symptoms is to be continued while [ b]gradually ascending[/b] [UCD = unnecessary comma deleted] so long as the patient with general improvement [UCD] begins to feel in a mild degree the return of one or several old original [b]complaints [the time element of the 4 Laws of Cure]. This indicates an approaching cure through a gradual ascending of the moderate doses modified each time by succussion (§ 247). It indicates that the vital principal no longer needs to be affected by the similar medicinal disease [i.e., his simillimum] in order to lose the sensation of the natural disease (§ 148). It indicates that the life principle[,] now free from the natural disease[,] begins to suffer only something of the medicinal disease[,] hitherto known as homoeopathic aggravation. [All emphases mine.]
                        Therefore, his understandable but erroneous complaint about this is no problem. We all walked down this road that leads of Hahnemannian status by correcting these many small and large mistakes of pseudo homeopaths, and this is a very important element of it that I am just beginning to explain here.

                        Okay, the innately, insolubly, unavoidably deleterious phenomenon of C-potencies that I characterized above from posting #3 here as being “unacceptable because we couldn’t repeat them as often as needed” naturally couples with the innately deleterious phenomenon of (as the guy put it) homeopathic aggravation followed by amelioration with C-potencies. For emphasis, that is exactly what I was talking about when I above said that “people unnecessarily died due to” this primary or drug effect remaining in the C-potencies.

                        Therefore, Hahnemannians don’t generally use C-potencies even though we all know how to use them with care. I believe this is a matter of habit, though, for people do what they’re familiar with. It happens that I no longer use them because I have already repeatedly confirmed that these unacceptably deleterious effects from C-potencies simply don’t exist with the Q-potencies -- period!

                        Truly, this last major contribution to medicine by Hahnemann -- and it’s important to stipulate that he contributed so many that he outranks every other person in the entire history of medicine in this regard as a true futurist who will clearly be later recognized as having been probably 500 years ahead of his time -- is so magnificent that it saddens all of us that it’s still virtually unknown in our times and is certainly not the standard method of homeopathic drug potentization despite what he said about this method in the footnotes of Article 270 of the ORGANON. Namely, he called them perfect or nearly perfect or whatever, and that’s true. He took a very simple pharmacological process --something that itself belies common sense and produces drugs that we used to call “infinitessimals” (sp?) but now more scientifically call ultramolecular (“beyond-molecules”) medicines -- but one that in its first dilution ratio had unavoidable drug effects (primary effects) and simply removed them. My God, is that not important?

                        Now, that’s probably understood by all homeopaths and homeopathic students, but most other people lack this knowledge and therefore don’t know what we’re talking about when we mention drug effects and the primary effects of drugs because they have no conception of what actual curative effects are and certainly have never heard of what we call secondary effects of drugs, reactions of the organism and counter actions of the organism because allopaths know nothing about this since they know nothing about the nature of existence, do not have a sound philosophy of medicine and have never seen cures, in turn, because they exclusively use chemical agents of both synthetic origin and their so-called “natural medicines” from the wild. Hahnemann explained this truly wonderful phenomenon of cures in the ORGANON, and it goes something like this:

                        • A drug has two effects: primary and secondary.
                        • The primary effects are drug effects, and the secondary ones are reactions or counter actions of the organism.
                        • The only ones with any basis in case analysis following administration of a drug are the counter actions of the organism because those will invariably be curative reactions.
                        • If we don’t see those counter actions of the organism manifesting as the four Laws of Cure, often called Hering’s Laws of Cure, then we know we missed with a wrong drug and therefore only see the pathogenic (“suffering-engendering”) symptoms of a medicine’s power to produce symptoms.
                        • The secondary effects of drugs, also called counter actions of the organism, will invariably be curative reactions because only one’s simillimum (“thing most similar”) or simile drug (the word simile being part of our old vernacular no longer seen and meaning a drug that’s close to a person’s simillimum) will initiate these counteractions of the organism and thus curative reactions.
                        • That is because Nature will not allow two similar diseases in the same organism, drugs being artificial disease agents because they temporarily produce symptoms unless magically transformed into actual remedies by the Law of Similars, the basis of which is that irrefutable phenomenon of Nature not allowing two similar disease states in the same organism.
                        • Otherwise, drugs just have primary effects -- period.
                        • That, in turn, is one of the many reasons allopaths will never be able to cure.

                        Okay, assuming all of that is clear, there’s a further hitch of importance I can now explain after having invoked [i]simile[i/] drugs because this deeper explanation should make clear that the innately deleterious phenomenon of C-potencies, especially in the higher potencies on that scale, does not actually void what I said about homeopathic aggravations “[b]exclusively referring s to one’s simillimum at the end of treatment when it ceases being necessary and therefore instead produces symptoms in them,” or what we call proving symptoms because prüfung is German for “test or trial.” This subject is kind of difficult to explain, but I think I can do it sufficient justice for all to understand.

                        The guy I’m referring to here mentioned in his email homeopathic aggravation followed by amelioration (a so-called “catch phrase” and problematic expression I’ll soon address as such) but failed to mention that this only occurs with simile drugs, again meaning those close a person’s simillimum. That drug aggravation (i.e., what allopathic jargon calls side effects, remembering that their horrible chemical drugs will always have side effects and will never be curative) never occurs with the simillimum -- period! Restated, although I cannot speak about decimal potencies because I’ve never used them, it makes no difference whether one uses C-potencies or Q-potencies if they find the simillimum: Curative effects without side effects will occur -- period! Again, that’s because Nature will not allow two similar diseases in the same organism. Further restated: There are no deleterious effects from the simillimum no matter which homeopathic potentization scale one uses and no matter which potency one begins with.

                        You do not, however, everwant to begin high with the C-potencies because you get this totally insoluble question if you do: What are you going to do if you run out of potencies on that scale? As for the Q-potencies, that simply never comes up because Hahnemann stipulated in Article 270 of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE for us to (I think I remember this verbatim) “begin with the lowest potencies and proceed as necessary.” Therefore, although a lot of people still overlook this important protocol with Q-potencies, we are supposed go always begin with Q1 and proceed as necessary, never repeating the same potency per the Law of the Single Dose.

                        BTW, how many big-Kauna morons with big mouths in the Vithoulkas school of thought say otherwise? Let me count the ways: Heaps, gobs, oodles and caboodles of them. There is this thing called the Law of the Single Dose, which Hahnemann never actually stated as such but which has long-since been accepted by all Hahnemannians as one of the four Laws of Therapeutics. Who doesn’t know this? Yeah, buddy, it would seem as though heaps, gobs, oodles and caboodles of the big-Kauna morons with big mouths among the GVs don’t know this. What a surprise, huh (facetious)? The majority of them always appear on the stage with very somber and deep voices of seemingly great erudition. Truly, you have to see this carnival act to believe it. It goes something like this: “Yeah, ya see, Hahnemann said in Article 270 that we can repeat the potencies in the Q-scale.”

                        He did? Methinks your brains are flipped upside down, guys, or maybe inside out would be closer, huh? Then, again, maybe it’s stuck somewhere the Sun does not shine and where it does not belong, huh?

                        Where, pray tell, in the ORGANON did Hahnemann say that we never do that? Who wants to guess that these hundreds of big-Kauna morons with big mouths in the Vithoulkas school of thought don’t know the answer to that question, either? Just read these guys spout this stuff. Believe me, it speaks volumes for those with the eyes to see and the insight to perceive. Yeah, classical homeopaths my ars! Don’t fear, I now show you one, and a real goodie it is, too: A COMPARISON OF THE C AND LM POTENCY - David Little - Journal.

                        Now, assuming everyone did indeed read that pile of hokum as intended so that this is fully understood, let’s try on Article 247 of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE as the closest statements to what now constitutes the succinct statement of natural law we call the Law of the Single Dose. In the few minutes it will take a person to read this, I will have simultaneously dared anyone in the entire universe to tell me that Hahnemann allows unmodified doses. Ready, set, go:

                        Originally posted by http://www.homeorizon.com/homeopathy-books-online/organon-of-medicine/organon-of-medicine-introduction

                        § 247 Fifth Edition

                        Under these conditions, the smallest doses of the best[-]selected homoeopathic medicine
                        may be repeated with the best [UCD = unnecessary comma deleted] [and] often with incredible[UCD] results [UCD] at intervals of fourteen, twelve, ten, eight [UCD] [or] seven days [UCD] and [UCD] where rapidity is requisite [UCD] in chronic diseases resembling cases of acute disease [UCD] at still shorter intervals [UCD] but in acute diseases at very much shorter periods -- [viz.] every twenty-four, twelve, eight [UCD] [or] four hours [UCD] [and] in the very acutest [diseases] every hour [UCD] [and] up to as often as every five minutes [UCD] -- in ever [every] case in proportion to the more[-]or[-]less rapid course of the diseases and of the action of the medicine employed, as is more distinctly explained in the last note.

                        [Notice that the footnotes are missing, that the people who transcribed it for posting online have incredible carelessness and illiteracy unbefitting a masterful scholar like Christian Freidrich Samuel Hahnemann, and notice the incredible illiteracy of the Boericke brothers (LPHs) that they inserted seventy-twelve unnecessary commas. These are the types of people we allowed for so long to have rendered Hahnemann’s thoughts into English and allow to do it today for online content? Unfortunately, all of this continues with both of their renderings of this Article from the 6th edition. God, help us!]

                        § 247 Sixth Edition

                        It is impractical [correct translation = unnecessary] to repeat the same unchanged dose of a remedy once, not to mention its frequent repetition (and at short intervals in order not to delay the cure) emphasis mine]. The vital principle does not accept such unchanged doses without resistance, that is, without other symptoms of the medicine to manifest [correct rendering = manifesting] themselves [other] than those similar to the disease to be cured [UCD] because the former dose has already accomplished the expected change in the vital principle and a second dynamically wholly similar, unchanged dose of the same medicine no longer [therefore] finds [UCD] therefore [UCD] the same conditions of the vital force. The patient may indeed
                        be made sick in another way by receiving other such unchanged doses, even sicker than
                        he was, for now only those symptoms of the given remedy remain active which [that] were not homoeopathic [“of or pertaining to similar suffering”] to the original disease [UCD] [;] hence[,] no step towards [toward] cure can follow [UCD] [--] only a true
                        aggravation of the condition of the patient. But [However,] if the succeeding dose is [slightly] changed slightly every time [UCD] [--] namely[,] potentized somewhat higher (§§ 269-270) [--] then the vital principle may be altered without difficulty by the same medicine (the sensation of natural disease diminishing) and thus the cure brought nearer.1

                        1 We ought not[,] even with the best chosen homoeopathic medicine [UCD] [--] for instance[,] one pellet of the same potency that was beneficial at first [UCD] [--] to let the patient have a second or third dose [UCD] taken dry. In the same way, if the medicine was dissolved in water and the first dose proved beneficial, a second or third and even smaller dose from the bottle standing undisturbed [UCD] even in intervals of [for] a few days [UCD] would prove no longer beneficial [UCD] even though the original preparation had been potentized with ten succussions or[,] as I suggest[ed] later [i.e., in Article 270][,] with but two succussions in order to obviate this disadvantage and this according to [the] above reasons. But [However,] through modification of every dose in its [degree of] dynamiztion degree, as I herewith teach, there exists no offence [to the organism] [UCD] even if the doses be repeated more frequently [UCD] [and] even if the medicine be ever so highly potentized with ever so many succussions. It almost seems as if the best[-]selected homoeopathic remedy could best extract the morbid disorder from the vital force and in chronic disease to extinguish the same only if applied in several different forms.
                        That is totally unambiguous: We are never to repeat the same potency unmodified -- period! Moreover, the delivery method of the medicine being dissolved in a glass of water is not part of the protocols of Q-potencies. In fact, that does not constitute a sufficiently significant modification of dose size to be utilized in either the Q-scale or C-scale. Furthermore, because we are not dealing with amounts of substance in ultracolecular potencies but instead with etheric-energy medicinal powers, it makes absolutely no difference how much of a given potency is delivered to a patient or prover -- period! They could take a single micro-globule or a gallon of it. You simply cannot introduce the crude chemical pharmacology of allopathic medicine into homeopathy and expect to understand homeopathic potentization -- dynamization being more accurate -- because these are not chemical drugs. I long ago gave up counting the number of GVs who hold that it makes a difference because they simply don’t have a clue and have obviously never empirically tested these stupid notions they propound.

                        Indeed, the most brilliant analogy I have ever encountered for what is at work in this very interesting phenomena of dose size being irrelevant to the amount of medicinal power that’s delivered to patients came from a homeopathic pharmacist at either Ehrart and Karl or Boericke and Tafel. This came early in my homeopathic studies, so I foolishly never bothered to record his name or where he worked because I was then encountering seemingly endless questions and such foreign concepts that they might as well have come from Moon men because they were so different from everything allopathic. He suggested that a hologram is the best analogy here because, and I quote him verbatim, “one can infinitely cut a hologram in half and still come up with a whole image.” Isn’t that interesting? I’ve never heard it anywhere else, either.

                        ================

                        See Part Three
                        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


                        • #13
                          Aggravations: Voegeli Addition from an Email by an HPH, Part Three

                          Aggravations: Voegeli Addition from an Email by an HPH
                          Part Three


                          Originally posted by Hahnemannian444
                          Indeed, the most brilliant analogy I have ever encountered for what is at work in this very interesting phenomena of dose size being irrelevant to the amount of medicinal power that’s delivered to patients came from a homeopathic pharmacist at either Ehrart and Karl or Boericke and Tafel. . . . He suggested that a hologram is the best analogy here because, and I quote him verbatim, “one can infinitely cut a hologram in half and still come up with a whole image.” Isn’t that interesting? I’ve never heard it anywhere else, either.
                          So, that single similar remedy (also called one’s simillimum, an unambiguous remedy diagnosis, a homeopathic prescription as well as other words and terms) will virtually light up a person. It is impossible to miss this set of curative reactions because they will (1) always follow Hering’s Laws of Cure (a misnomer because Hering showed how Hahnemann had actually first identified them, and all Hering did was to put them in the succinct terms necessary for statements of natural laws) and will (2) produce a degree of mental freedom (§253) the likes of which a person has never experienced. It’s absolutely impossible to imagine this mental freedom, too. It’s like someone removed this big fat club from inside your brain. It’s as if you’ve been raised to a level of Heaven, and that’s actually true. It’s like suddenly functioning with the capabilities we’re supposed to be born with but don’t have due to allopathic therapeutics through all known generations making the whole population of the Earth less than healthy from birth. Moreover, that horror is coupled with the outrageous fact that God-damned allopaths have also caused almost every single person alive to have suffered permanent brain damage by prematurely cutting their umbilical cords before it stops throbbing three hours after birth.

                          Newsman Bobs says, “We interrupt regularly scheduled programs for this special news bulletin.” Why don’t they understand why the umbilical cord continues to throb for three hours after birth if not immediately cut per their God-damned standard treatment in parturition? My God, a monkey could understand this! The lungs are immersed in amniotic fluid, and therefore the alveoli are coated with it. Gas transfer cannot occur under those circumstances. Since this is quite obvious, it should not come as a great surprise that this has been known among arcane circles for tens of thousands of years but finally became known to allopaths in the 1950s when a surgical nurse noted it and explained it in one of their hundreds if not thousands of throw-away medical journals, which of course not even they read. Sixty years of ignorance of this by all allopathic physicians and nurses seems a bit extreme, though, does it not? I think it does when one realizes that there are currently over 10 million allopathic physicians and somewhere between 30-50 million allopathic nurses worldwide. Obviously, none of them can think clearly and for themselves, but everything they think, say and do demonstrates that, so who is surprised? “Teacha tole me!” Sure thing, Bubba. Now go back to sucking your thumb.

                          The cord obviously continues to throb because the mother is still supplying oxygen to the newborn, so what happens in the first hours after birth? Several things, the first of which is that the newborn is lain prone either face up or face down. That causes amniotic fluid to fall to the front or back of the lungs. Amniotic fluid is basically just sugar water, so it readily evaporates and is absorbed by tissues in the lungs -- but not for three hours! At some point, the newborn fully takes over oxygen intake, and this is indicated by the cord ceasing to throb.

                          Any monkeys in the audience? (Moderator: One stands up.) Did you understand this? (Moderator: He vigorously shakes his head and makes unintelligible sounds with great excitement while wildly flailing his arms that seem to indicate yes.) Good, what did I tell you guys?

                          The problem I mentioned above with the expression aggravation followed by amelioration is a real annoyance to us. In my experience, only high-potency pseudo homeopaths ever use that expression, at least today. In fact, they use a lot of clichés, platitudes and slogans. Anyone familiar with brainwashing and the modus operandi (“mode of operation”) of it knows that the heavy usage of clichés, platitudes and slogans and especially when used in lieu of logical explanations for them is a dead giveaway of brainwashing. It comes from hypnosis. The methodologies and manifestations of hypnosis are almost completely unrecognized by modern people, and this is indicated by the ubiquitous examples of it throughout society.

                          For instance, all politicians are lawyers, and everyone knows that all lawyers are nothing more than God-damned professional liars. Why we hire such people to lead us is beyond comprehension since there’s no excuse for them even existing in a civilization and perhaps most especially because they do nothing but endlessly demonstrate their insane attempts to legislate civilization into existence by creating countless laws that actually do nothing but limit our political freedoms. What’s wrong with that picture? “They load people down with burdens they can barely carry and don’t lift a finger to help them” (Christ). Politicians speak in terms to convince people of stuff, and they all engage in what today is called political spin, which is just clever jargon for lies and slanted half-truths. Furthermore, they tell us they receive campaign contributions. The magical money they call campaign contributions is a just short way of saying they have been bought and sold by the rich before they even got onto the voting ballots. God, help us! Nobody seems to notice any of this stuff, though. Military indoctrination is also surfeit with brainwashing techniques. For instance, “Serve your country!” They leave out “. . . by becoming a professional killer.” Nobody notices. “Be one of the few, the proud, the Marines!” Maybe, but how come most of those people suffer for the rest of their lives if they actually engaged in combat? “We will break you down and build you back up again.” Yeah, I think they got that one right . . . rebuild you into a professional killer. TV marketing is also surfeit with the modus operandi of brainwashing (“indoctrination to falsehoods”). For instance, who does not have some stupid jingle stuck in their head from some evil marketers, even from if not especially from childhood? “Can’t sleep? Take Sominex!” That’s just one of them stuck in my brain from childhood. God, help us! Inspirational speakers, especially fundamentalist religionists, do nothing but engage in mass hypnosis, and it’s clear from the massive audiences who flock to these future denizens of Hell that none of them know they’re sheep being led to the slaughter. Likewise, none of them are sufficiently familiar with Christ’s teachings to perceive that their preachers know nothing about it, either. Again, nobody notices. How about good salesmen? Who has not heard the expression closing the sale? All good salesmen and saleswomen know this expression because they know when to do it. Little known, good salesmen engage in hypnosis of their prey whether it be intentional or just on the basis of evil instincts that allow them to profit at the expense of others -- a violation of the 1st Law of Karma & Economy, incidentally. At first, they talk and talk and talk in a monotone voice. That initiates this evil process in those who’re susceptible to being hypnotized due to ignorance of the modus operandi of it. Then they get somewhat excited and continue with that modification of their manipulation of prey if the person responds in kind. It makes no difference what they’re talking about, either. At some point, their prey get a so-called “glassy-eyed appearance” about them. That means they’ve dropped into the hyper-suggestible and hyper-emotional alpha-wave brain state of preliminary hypnosis. Whether salesmen and saleswomen know this, they recognize it as the time to close the sale. “Here, sign here.” There are thousands of these examples of hypnosis in our societies.

                          All of these tacitly accepted brain manipulators are quite good at it, too, and they’re quite financially successful due to it because nobody notices what they’re doing to people’s brains. It doesn’t matter where you look. Our societies are so backward and warped that we are surrounded by tyrants and demagogues trying to sell us total hokum even though the Golden Rule would preclude it if societies adopted the nine specific Laws of Karma & Economy as the basis of civilization. I’ve said that before here, though, haven’t I? The techniques and manifestations of mass hypnosis and brainwashing are manifold, so this is no place to further discuss them.

                          My point is that the followers of George Vithoulkas (GVs) all spout these many clichés, platitudes and slogans one is constantly encountering in the literature of high-potency pseudo homeopaths. Aggravation followed by amelioration is just one of them. The problem here is that it misleads one into misinterpreting reactions following administration of our medicines. “Oh, that must be an aggravation. We can expect amelioration to follow because it was a good prescription.” So, here come the proving symptoms because the prescription was wrong. Then, those wane, and the person is as they were before their very being was messed with by incompetents wielding our medicines. These GVs then decide it must need an increased potency. “Oh, well, we’ll just up the dose a bit, and that should fix it . . . this homeopathic aggravation.” It goes on and on like that, too, because they all reinforce each other with this total hokum. I dare anyone to pick up one of their totally useless homeopathic medical journals and tell me that’s not seen in any given issue of them. I suppose one or two issues of their journals might exist without them, but I can assure you that it’s the norm because they’re all confused about homeopathic aggravations. This is furthermore indicated by the fact that none of them knows anything about what I have said here and certainly do not know that we know a person is fully cured when we see this aggravation of symptoms at the end of treatment because they never get there! God, help us!

                          So, while it is true that C-potencies can have these untoward reactions (drug reactions or primary actions of the medicines) and then can have curative reactions kick in, that only occurs if one misses the person’s simillimum but hits a drug close to that one needed by the person, i.e., a so-called “simile drug.” I hope that’s understandable.

                          Now, that said, it behooves me to point out that it is incredibly difficult to find a person’s simillimum. If anyone thinks that rocket science and brain surgery are difficult, let them try homeopathy. There is no comparable calculus for this -- period! We therefore often miss and just hit on a person’s simile drug. Such is life. Thus, out come proving symptoms and especially with the C-potencies. That’s all there is to it.

                          If that’s insufficient, people need to let me know what I left out or failed to explain sufficient for understanding by everyone.

                          ======================

                          Finally, because I have not inserted this anywhere else in this forum and it’s fast becoming overdue to do so, I am quite sure that I speak for every Hahnemannian who’s ever lived when I say that we can render nothing but praises to Peter Bezemek and his colleagues at the Legatum Homeopathicum for finally making some of our priceless old homeopathic medical journals available online. I believe I explained why in no uncertain terms here: en:hphys:start [Legatum Homeopathicum].

                          God bless!
                          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


                          • #14
                            Sir, I just found Jahr online: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/homeop/...q1=homneopathy. That's probably what you're looking for.

                            Here's the way it looks now: Register  |  Login  |  Edit Acco. It's a very expensive book, but it lists something like 2600 substances that have so far been homeopathically potentized, most of them without provings. Everything in the entire universe will eventually be entered into the homeopathic pharmacopie and materia medica. Isn't that amazing?

                            God bless!
                            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
                              Voegeli's Preceptor

                              Thank you ! I did know about this one, translated by someone other than Hempel, eh?

                              I have heard that Hempel's translations were bad news but have not had time to investigate why.

                              I also have recently purchased a reproduction paperback edition, large sized, of Jahr's "Manual of Homoeopathic Medicine" (Volumes 1-2 combined into one book), put out by "Nabu" Press which apparently specializes in producing low quality reproductions of copyright expired books.

                              I say "low" quality because the font is difficult to read and 20 or so pages are completely unreadable as the pages were not scanned correctly either. Apparently, Nabu cannot afford a proof reader or copy editor. Neither do they seem to have an identifiable web site. Wise move there.

                              Worst of all, this is an 1836 edition. The later editions from around 1860, have the paragraphs under each Materia Medica item divided into sections..."Head"... "Eyes"... "Skin"... etc.., making it easier to zero in on, and spot curious or unusual symptoms, for example raising the head from the pillow numerous times under "Stramonium".

                              I may end up using my usual technique, simply finding the right edition, and then printing it out myself to a laser-jet printer, two pages of text to one sheet, and then paying to get it cut and bound.

                              Now if only I could find Hahnemann's note books (case books) on line, but that is too much to hope for.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X