Legatum Homeopathicum

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

====== Letter from Dr. Lippe. ======

{{anchor:s2}}- To the Editors of the American Homoeopathic Review - Gentlemen: In Vol. V., No.6, p. 279, you publish among your correspondence, a letter from Mr. Pope under the heading, "[[en:ahr:pope-ac-who-is-a-homoeopathician-02-reply-to-dr-lippe-158-10614|Drs. Lippe and Pope]].{{anchor:s3}}" - Allow me to say, as regards the tone and style of Mr. Pope' a letter, "Chacun a son gout.{{anchor:s4}}" The invitation to have the last word, is all I accept from Mr. Pope. {{anchor:s5}}I cannot find time to refute all of Mr. Pope's statements. {{anchor:s6}}The points are before the profession, and I abide by their decision. {{anchor:s7}}Whenever a discussion ceases to elicit the solution of a question at issue, as in this case, viz: "Who is a Homoeopathician," it is not further necessary to continue that discussion. {{anchor:s8}}It may still be possible to persuade Mr. Pope that his logic leads him into all his erroneous conceptions of Homoeopathy, and my invitation to follow out his, logic, by showing him the way to do so, may probably either end the discussion or induce him to apologize. {{anchor:s9}}His logic is this: "Clinical records in England show that Arsenic was, at one time, the principal curative remedy in cholera", and therefore beyond all possible dispute, Arsenic has been, is, and will be, one of the principal remedies in that disease. {{anchor:s10}}Had Mr. Pope shown the similarity between the known proving of Arsenic and of cholera, or had be explicitly stated the symptoms or groups of symptoms corresponding between the provings and the (so-called) disease, the point he aimed at, would have been established. {{anchor:s11}}But on the other aide, if it is proved, that there exists no correspondence between the ordinarily. characteristic symptoms of cholera and those of the provings of Arsenic, it is quite likely that the logical critic will doubt the reliability of the clinical reports, or the correctness of our Materia Medica, based on provings on the healthy, or the truth of the homoeopathic law of cure.

{{anchor:s12}}Dr. Black's essay on Arsenic (in the first and only volume of the Hahnemann Materia Medica) is no guide for the study or that remedy and the essay cannot be considered an authority either on the ground of its title page or because it never has been reviewed adversely. {{anchor:s13}}I have preferred to study Arsenic from the fifth volume of Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases. {{anchor:s14}}In following the above logic, Mr. Pope may say, that, Dr. Hempel (his friend) having given testimony under oath in open court at Toronto, "Clinical observations establish a fact," and no one had the right to expose Dr. C. J. Hempel, and discredit the reliability of his evidence. {{anchor:s15}}If Mr. Pope really and honestly thinks so, and wishes to rescue his friend Hempel, he can zealously prove his sincerity of friendship, by taking what Dr. Hempel pretends to have cured the cholera, viz: one fifth of a grain of Arsenic, repeated fifteen times in forty-eight hours, equal, according to common computation to three grains of Arsenic in two days. {{anchor:s16}}Our discussion will then, assuredly be at an end. {{anchor:s17}}Yours respectfully,

{{anchor:s18}}Philadelphia. {{anchor:s19}}December 17th, 1864. {{anchor:s20}}AD. Lippe.

----

====== DOCUMENT DESCRIPTOR ======

Please fill all the letters into the box to prove you're human.

Please keep this field empty:

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

Legatum Homeopathicum

User Tools

Site Tools

Page Tools