User Tools

Site Tools


en:ahr:pope-ac-who-is-a-homoeopathician-02-reply-to-dr-lippe-158-10614

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:pope-ac-who-is-a-homoeopathician-02-reply-to-dr-lippe-158-10614 [2012/07/13 17:37]
legatum [Correspondence, Drs. Lippe and Pope.]
en:ahr:pope-ac-who-is-a-homoeopathician-02-reply-to-dr-lippe-158-10614 [2012/07/13 17:44] (current)
legatum [Correspondence, Drs. Lippe and Pope.]
Line 7: Line 7:
  
  
-<span grade2>​{{anchor:​s3}}Gentlemen</​span>;​ - The point at issue between Dr. Lippe and myself is simply this, I assert that the medical man who invariably, or as often as his knowledge permits him to do, or as the means at our disposal admit of his doing, selects his remedies for the cure of disease guided by the homoeopathic law, as to all intents and purposes a Homoeopathist,​ or in the phraseology of your journal a "​Homoeopathician."​ Dr. Lippe, on the other hand, regards no one as a Homoeopathist or Homoeopathician,​ who does not accept as absolute truth everything propounded as well as every fact related by Hahnemann. {{anchor:​s4}}Those who believe in the law of similars only, who doubt, even though they do not deny the dynamization theory, who have the audacity to question the complete accuracy of the itch doctrine, who presume to regard high dilutions as uncertain remedies, Dr. Lippe has the impertinence to style "​pretenders"​ <span grade2>​i.e.</​span>​ dishonest persons. {{anchor:​s5}}In another part of his curious effusion, he describes such practitioners as pseudo-Homoeopathicians,​ a term equally unjust. {{anchor:​s6}}In all that Dr. Lippe has written, not one word has he uttered, proving that the physician who takes the homoeopathic law as his guide in drug therapeutics,​ is not a Homoeopathician. {{anchor:​s7}}Though all he has published is utterly beside the mark, I will so far presume on your space, as to make one or two observations on what he does say.+<span grade2>​{{anchor:​s3}}Gentlemen</​span>;​ - [[en:​ahr:​lippe-ad-who-is-a-homoeopathist-158-10573|The point at issue between Dr. Lippe and myself]] is simply this, I assert that the medical man who invariably, or as often as his knowledge permits him to do, or as the means at our disposal admit of his doing, selects his remedies for the cure of disease guided by the homoeopathic law, as to all intents and purposes a Homoeopathist,​ or in the phraseology of your journal a "​Homoeopathician."​ Dr. Lippe, on the other hand, regards no one as a Homoeopathist or Homoeopathician,​ who does not accept as absolute truth everything propounded as well as every fact related by Hahnemann. {{anchor:​s4}}Those who believe in the law of similars only, who doubt, even though they do not deny the dynamization theory, who have the audacity to question the complete accuracy of the itch doctrine, who presume to regard high dilutions as uncertain remedies, Dr. Lippe has the impertinence to style "​pretenders"​ <span grade2>​i.e.</​span>​ dishonest persons. {{anchor:​s5}}In another part of his curious effusion, he describes such practitioners as pseudo-Homoeopathicians,​ a term equally unjust. {{anchor:​s6}}In all that Dr. Lippe has written, not one word has he uttered, proving that the physician who takes the homoeopathic law as his guide in drug therapeutics,​ is not a Homoeopathician. {{anchor:​s7}}Though all he has published is utterly beside the mark, I will so far presume on your space, as to make one or two observations on what he does say.
  
  
en/ahr/pope-ac-who-is-a-homoeopathician-02-reply-to-dr-lippe-158-10614.txt · Last modified: 2012/07/13 17:44 by legatum