Differences

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

--- en:hphys:lippe-ad-fatal-errors-159-11090 [2013/06/04 19:53]
legatum
+++ en:hphys:lippe-ad-fatal-errors-159-11090 [2014/01/09 11:44] (current)
62.65.168.3 Link added
@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 {{anchor:s2}}BY AD. LIPPE, M.D., PHILA.
-{{anchor:s3}}GONZALVO C. SMYTHE, M.D., in his work on “Medical Heresies,” commits a fatal error in the last sentence of his otherwise very welcome book. {{anchor:s4}}“This kind of homoeopathy will not stand the test of recent advances in science.{{anchor:s5}}” The only test of the kind of homoeopathy here alluded to, the homoeopathy taught by Hahnemann, are the “results.{{anchor:s6}}” Experiment has clearly shown that the results, the absolute cures obtained, solely depend on a strict adherence to the principles governing the healing art of Hahnemann, called Homoeopathy. {{anchor:s7}}The departures from these principles have steadily augmented, have really left nothing save a perfect caricature of Hahnemann’s healing art; as these departures become more gross the ability to cure diminishes. {{anchor:s8}}In fact these departures were introduced by the same class of men and for the same reasons in this country as they were advocated in Hahnemann’s days in his own native county. {{anchor:s9}}Then Hahnemann called these men “pretenders,” and indignantly charged them with “laziness;” a deplorable want of knowledge causing just such failures as would follow the application of any other laws for any other purposes where they are not fully understood and conscientiously followed. {{anchor:s10}}The International Hahnemann Association, fully convinced that a faithful adherence to Hahnemann’s teachings would lead to the best results in healing the sick, this conviction being forced upon them by their own experiments tried by themselves, could no longer remain silent when efforts were made to palm off on the community, a caricature for the real healing art. {{anchor:s11}}The fatal error now committed by this learned author has been committed time and again by the “progressive men” in their departures and caricatures; but these men never could show superior results, although repeatedly asked to do so. {{anchor:s12}}Recent advances in science have clearly illustrated the correctness of Hahnemann’s propositions and of his strictly inductive method. {{anchor:s13}}We would call the attention of the learned author, at this time to the discoveries made by Prof. {{anchor:s14}}Jaeger by means of his neural-analysis. {{anchor:s15}}There is science for you, showing that the sickmaking power of drugs increases in the same ratio as the doses are quantitatively diminished. {{anchor:s16}}It would have been a //fatal error// had the members of the International Hahnemann Association separated themselves from The American Institute of Homoeopathy. {{anchor:s17}}Had they resigned their membership //then// Prof. {{anchor:s18}}Smythe would have found two separate bodies, of differing homoeopathists. {{anchor:s19}}He could not be gratified in this particular. {{anchor:s20}}There can be but one kind of homoeopathist, and they adhere strictly to the principles and rules promulgated by its founder in his “Organon.{{anchor:s21}}” By remaining members of the American Institute the members of the International Hahnemann Association declare their opposition to prevailing departures. {{anchor:s22}}By publishing their own platform and principles, they guard against any possible suspicion of endorsing men who, under the mistaken idea of //freedom of medical opinion and action//, reject all and every law and rule governing the healing art; who declare their right to be guided solely by their own individual judgment in treating the sick; and who, while to all intents and purposes advocating eclecticism (see //Hom Times//, Dec. 1880, page 205) irrationally call themselves, what every sensible person knows they are not, homoeopaths.
+{{anchor:s3}}GONZALVO C. SMYTHE, M.D., in his work on “Medical Heresies,” commits a fatal error in the last sentence of his otherwise very welcome book. {{anchor:s4}}“This kind of homoeopathy will not stand the test of recent advances in science.{{anchor:s5}}” The only test of the kind of homoeopathy here alluded to, the homoeopathy taught by Hahnemann, are the “results.{{anchor:s6}}” Experiment has clearly shown that the results, the absolute cures obtained, solely depend on a strict adherence to the principles governing the healing art of Hahnemann, called Homoeopathy. {{anchor:s7}}The departures from these principles have steadily augmented, have really left nothing save a perfect caricature of Hahnemann’s healing art; as these departures become more gross the ability to cure diminishes. {{anchor:s8}}In fact these departures were introduced by the same class of men and for the same reasons in this country as they were advocated in Hahnemann’s days in his own native county. {{anchor:s9}}Then Hahnemann called these men “pretenders,” and indignantly charged them with “laziness;” a deplorable want of knowledge causing just such failures as would follow the application of any other laws for any other purposes where they are not fully understood and conscientiously followed. {{anchor:s10}}The International Hahnemann Association, fully convinced that a faithful adherence to Hahnemann’s teachings would lead to the best results in healing the sick, this conviction being forced upon them by their own experiments tried by themselves, could no longer remain silent when efforts were made to palm off on the community, a caricature for the real healing art. {{anchor:s11}}The fatal error now committed by this learned author has been committed time and again by the “progressive men” in their departures and caricatures; but these men never could show superior results, although repeatedly asked to do so. {{anchor:s12}}Recent advances in science have clearly illustrated the correctness of Hahnemann’s propositions and of his strictly inductive method. {{anchor:s13}}We would call the attention of the learned author, at this time to the discoveries made by Prof. {{anchor:s14}}Jaeger by means of his [[en:hphys:graeter-m-a-new-discovery-in-the-service-of-homoeopathy-159-11031|neural-analysis]]. {{anchor:s15}}There is science for you, showing that the sickmaking power of drugs increases in the same ratio as the doses are quantitatively diminished. {{anchor:s16}}It would have been a //fatal error// had the members of the International Hahnemann Association separated themselves from The American Institute of Homoeopathy. {{anchor:s17}}Had they resigned their membership //then// Prof. {{anchor:s18}}Smythe would have found two separate bodies, of differing homoeopathists. {{anchor:s19}}He could not be gratified in this particular. {{anchor:s20}}There can be but one kind of homoeopathist, and they adhere strictly to the principles and rules promulgated by its founder in his “Organon.{{anchor:s21}}” By remaining members of the American Institute the members of the International Hahnemann Association declare their opposition to prevailing departures. {{anchor:s22}}By publishing their own platform and principles, they guard against any possible suspicion of endorsing men who, under the mistaken idea of //freedom of medical opinion and action//, reject all and every law and rule governing the healing art; who declare their right to be guided solely by their own individual judgment in treating the sick; and who, while to all intents and purposes advocating eclecticism (see //Hom Times//, Dec. 1880, page 205) irrationally call themselves, what every sensible person knows they are not, homoeopaths.
 {{anchor:s23}}Another fatal error is now proposed. {{anchor:s24}}The enterprising publishers Chas. {{anchor:s25}}Robson & Co., 920 Chestnut Street, Phila., have issued a circular with interrogatories to homoeopathic physicians for the purpose of publishing a book entitled, “The Homoeopathic Physicians and Surgeons of America.{{anchor:s26}}” It would be strange if Dr. Smythe & Co., after exposing the various departures and showing off the “caricatures,” should find the followers of Hahnemann, the adherents of his //strict inductive methods//, permitting their names to be published alongside of men who are homoeopaths only in name, thereby endorsing all these various shades of //pretenders// as full-fledged homoeopathists. {{anchor:s27}}Can that “fatal error” be committed? {{anchor:s28}}Is it not also a fatal error if the adherents of Hahnemann’s strict inductive methods endorse eclectic journals, such as publish eclectic papers, by writing truly homoeopathic papers for them? {{anchor:s29}}Would it not be best to publish homoeopathic papers “separately?”

Legatum Homeopathicum

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools