User Tools

Site Tools


en:ahr:lippe-ad-who-is-a-homoeopathician-reply-to-mr-pope-158-10571

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
en:ahr:lippe-ad-who-is-a-homoeopathician-reply-to-mr-pope-158-10571 [2012/07/13 17:56]
legatum [DOCUMENT DESCRIPTOR]
en:ahr:lippe-ad-who-is-a-homoeopathician-reply-to-mr-pope-158-10571 [2012/11/05 19:47]
legatum
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== WHO IS A HOMOEOPATHICIAN?​====== ​ ====== WHO IS A HOMOEOPATHICIAN?​====== ​
  
 +{{:​en:​ahr:​lippe.jpg?​nolink&​100 |Ad. Lippe}}
  
 {{anchor:​s2}}By AD. Lippe, K. D., Philadelphia,​ PA. {{anchor:​s2}}By AD. Lippe, K. D., Philadelphia,​ PA.
- 
- 
  
 {{anchor:​s3}}In the August number of the London <span grade2>​Monthly Homoeopathic Review.</​span>​ Mr. Pope's reply is a mere repetition of a negation-argument,​ whereas I had asked for a more explicit and positive definition of the position he assumes. {{anchor:​s3}}In the August number of the London <span grade2>​Monthly Homoeopathic Review.</​span>​ Mr. Pope's reply is a mere repetition of a negation-argument,​ whereas I had asked for a more explicit and positive definition of the position he assumes.
- 
- 
  
 {{anchor:​s4}}Where I spoke of Mr. Pope and his friends, I did not mean to imply that he officiously thrust himself forward to express, not only for himself but for others, views for which he alone can be held responsible,​ but I addressed myself to him and such Homoeopathicians as, like himself, assume that name under the same erroneous views and false conceptions. {{anchor:​s5}}By his own statement Mr. Pope includes among his friends Dr. Hempel, who assumed to define Homoeopathy under solemn oath at Toronto, C. W., on the 8th day of April, 1859. {{anchor:​s6}}His testimony went for naught, the prisoner, in whose favor he testified, was found guilty and confessed his Crime before he was hung. {{anchor:​s7}}So much for the personal explanation. {{anchor:​s4}}Where I spoke of Mr. Pope and his friends, I did not mean to imply that he officiously thrust himself forward to express, not only for himself but for others, views for which he alone can be held responsible,​ but I addressed myself to him and such Homoeopathicians as, like himself, assume that name under the same erroneous views and false conceptions. {{anchor:​s5}}By his own statement Mr. Pope includes among his friends Dr. Hempel, who assumed to define Homoeopathy under solemn oath at Toronto, C. W., on the 8th day of April, 1859. {{anchor:​s6}}His testimony went for naught, the prisoner, in whose favor he testified, was found guilty and confessed his Crime before he was hung. {{anchor:​s7}}So much for the personal explanation.
- 
- 
  
 {{anchor:​s8}}A remedy can never, under any circumstance,​ aggravate the disease; nor can a remedy ever cause a disease. {{anchor:​s9}}There is the same great and important difference between a natural and a medicinal proving creating a change of sensational and even functional disorders, that there is between a progressive disease and the symptoms caused by the remedy administered in the largest or smallest dose to cure the natural disease. {{anchor:​s10}}Both the symptoms of the prover and the symptoms generally termed "​medicinal aggravation"​ cease of themselves, and if this" medicinal aggravation"​ occurs, in a curable case after the administration of the smallest possible dose, and it does often occur, this phenomenon is a certain and positive indication that the remedy was rightly chosen, and the improvement will follow without the slightest doubt: this improvement will not follow should the remedy be not rightly chosen - not homoeopathic - and the progressive disease will further develop itself in spite of repeated or larger doses. {{anchor:​s11}}-The remark that the "​unchecked progress of disease"​ frequently follows the higher and highest dilutions is perfectly gratuitous, and if Dr. Cockburn reports to have seen sharp aggravations follow unmedicated globules he does not state what followed - the sharp aggravation was then undoubtedly the unchecked progress of disease and not what is understood among Homoeopathicians under homoeopathic aggravation. {{anchor:​s8}}A remedy can never, under any circumstance,​ aggravate the disease; nor can a remedy ever cause a disease. {{anchor:​s9}}There is the same great and important difference between a natural and a medicinal proving creating a change of sensational and even functional disorders, that there is between a progressive disease and the symptoms caused by the remedy administered in the largest or smallest dose to cure the natural disease. {{anchor:​s10}}Both the symptoms of the prover and the symptoms generally termed "​medicinal aggravation"​ cease of themselves, and if this" medicinal aggravation"​ occurs, in a curable case after the administration of the smallest possible dose, and it does often occur, this phenomenon is a certain and positive indication that the remedy was rightly chosen, and the improvement will follow without the slightest doubt: this improvement will not follow should the remedy be not rightly chosen - not homoeopathic - and the progressive disease will further develop itself in spite of repeated or larger doses. {{anchor:​s11}}-The remark that the "​unchecked progress of disease"​ frequently follows the higher and highest dilutions is perfectly gratuitous, and if Dr. Cockburn reports to have seen sharp aggravations follow unmedicated globules he does not state what followed - the sharp aggravation was then undoubtedly the unchecked progress of disease and not what is understood among Homoeopathicians under homoeopathic aggravation.
en/ahr/lippe-ad-who-is-a-homoeopathician-reply-to-mr-pope-158-10571.txt · Last modified: 2012/11/05 19:47 by legatum