User Tools

Site Tools


en:hphys:lippe-ad-clinical-reflections-159-11102

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
en:hphys:lippe-ad-clinical-reflections-159-11102 [2013/06/04 19:52]
legatum
en:hphys:lippe-ad-clinical-reflections-159-11102 [2014/01/09 11:51] (current)
62.65.168.3 Link added
Line 12: Line 12:
 {{anchor:​s21}}“ //Our opponents claim to have demonstrated again and again that there is nothing in our potentized preparations. {{anchor:​s22}}The reasoning of Thomson touching the size of molecules furnishes them a welcome argument against the possibility of any drug potency existing in even our medium attenuations. {{anchor:​s23}}And these arguments have strongly influenced many of our own school whose personal experience and observation had not compelled opposite convictions. {{anchor:​s24}}But let me say that proofs of a negative kind in any matter which can be determined only by experiment are fallacious, and a dangerous dependence. {{anchor:​s25}}I do not despair of seeing before many years, from some old-school authority or some non-medical investigator,​ a demonstration of the medicinal power of homoeopathic potencies; and I warn such of my colleagues as have been influenced by the arguments of our opponents, against the chagrin they will feel when they shall be outflanked on this point; when to unbelieving homoeopathists shall be presented, by experimenting allopaths, a demonstration of the drug-power inherent in homoeopathic attenuations.//​” {{anchor:​s21}}“ //Our opponents claim to have demonstrated again and again that there is nothing in our potentized preparations. {{anchor:​s22}}The reasoning of Thomson touching the size of molecules furnishes them a welcome argument against the possibility of any drug potency existing in even our medium attenuations. {{anchor:​s23}}And these arguments have strongly influenced many of our own school whose personal experience and observation had not compelled opposite convictions. {{anchor:​s24}}But let me say that proofs of a negative kind in any matter which can be determined only by experiment are fallacious, and a dangerous dependence. {{anchor:​s25}}I do not despair of seeing before many years, from some old-school authority or some non-medical investigator,​ a demonstration of the medicinal power of homoeopathic potencies; and I warn such of my colleagues as have been influenced by the arguments of our opponents, against the chagrin they will feel when they shall be outflanked on this point; when to unbelieving homoeopathists shall be presented, by experimenting allopaths, a demonstration of the drug-power inherent in homoeopathic attenuations.//​”
  
-{{anchor:​s26}}The prophetic words then uttered have been fulfilled fully and to every //​scientific//​ man’s satisfaction. {{anchor:​s27}}We call the attention of such colleagues, as were warned by our late G. Dunham, to Professor Jaeger’s Neural Analysis, and to Professor Pasteur’s vaccine discoveries. {{anchor:​s28}}It becomes obvious that Hahnemann’s dynamization doctrine has been fully proven to be correct by Profs. {{anchor:​s29}}Jaeger and Pasteur, and can not possibly be represented as a theory or as a supplementary principle, [//​Hahnemannian Monthly,// October, 1881, Page 627.] and we may say here that the declaration of Principles accepted by the International Hahnemannian Association does not differ in the least from Hahnemann’s teachings as we find them in his “Organon of the Healing-Art.”+{{anchor:​s26}}The prophetic words then uttered have been fulfilled fully and to every //​scientific//​ man’s satisfaction. {{anchor:​s27}}We call the attention of such colleagues, as were warned by our late G. Dunham, to [[en:​hphys:​graeter-m-a-new-discovery-in-the-service-of-homoeopathy-159-11031|Professor Jaeger’s Neural Analysis]], and to Professor Pasteur’s vaccine discoveries. {{anchor:​s28}}It becomes obvious that Hahnemann’s dynamization doctrine has been fully proven to be correct by Profs. {{anchor:​s29}}Jaeger and Pasteur, and can not possibly be represented as a theory or as a supplementary principle, [//​Hahnemannian Monthly,// October, 1881, Page 627.] and we may say here that the declaration of Principles accepted by the International Hahnemannian Association does not differ in the least from Hahnemann’s teachings as we find them in his “Organon of the Healing-Art.”
  
 {{anchor:​s30}}No matter how many “//​brainy//​ men” [Ibid, p. 626.]. constitute themselves as judges and they forming a court of final appeal, a tribunal which summons Hahnemann and his Organon to appear before them to be by them judged; no matter by what sophistry these “ //brainy// men “ attempt to show that Hahnemann’s dynamization doctrine does not constitute an essential and necessary part of homoeopathy,​ but merely amounts to but a supplementary principle; this tribunal will find that they have no jurisdiction over the case—that both the experience of Hahnemann’s true followers and the experiment of Old-School physicians, have long ago entered judgment in favor of the great Philosopher,​ who arrived at his dynamization doctrine by by strict inductive method, and is now endorsed by modern scientists, these “ //brainy// men “may as well learn that there can be no appeal from the judgment entered long before they attempted to try his case. {{anchor:​s30}}No matter how many “//​brainy//​ men” [Ibid, p. 626.]. constitute themselves as judges and they forming a court of final appeal, a tribunal which summons Hahnemann and his Organon to appear before them to be by them judged; no matter by what sophistry these “ //brainy// men “ attempt to show that Hahnemann’s dynamization doctrine does not constitute an essential and necessary part of homoeopathy,​ but merely amounts to but a supplementary principle; this tribunal will find that they have no jurisdiction over the case—that both the experience of Hahnemann’s true followers and the experiment of Old-School physicians, have long ago entered judgment in favor of the great Philosopher,​ who arrived at his dynamization doctrine by by strict inductive method, and is now endorsed by modern scientists, these “ //brainy// men “may as well learn that there can be no appeal from the judgment entered long before they attempted to try his case.
en/hphys/lippe-ad-clinical-reflections-159-11102.txt · Last modified: 2014/01/09 11:51 by 62.65.168.3