On Homeopathy

Observation, testing and clinical application by ALL homeopaths since Hahnemann, that's how.

They were actually elucidated by Constantine Hering, but Hering showed where Hahnemann had already spied them.

All Hering did was to put them into succinct and cogent terms appropriate for statements of natural law.

But the actual natural laws are part of the fabric of space.

If you want to help us figure out the mechanism of them, good, then help and stop hindering us!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First, science has thested homeopathy methods, withh null results. Homeopaths claim that this is due to our misapplication, but fail to suggest a test which would work.

And also, how did Hahnemannian actually find out about these laws? What made anyone try them in the first place? And what makes you believe they are a part of the fabric of space?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

May I ask what about it appears useful?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Present State of the Homoeopathic Materia Medica(1)

Klaus-Henning Gypser, M.D.

Classical Homoeopathy Quarterly (CHQ), Vol. 5 (1992), No. 4

Karl F. Haug Verlag (Publisher)




Summary

This paper demonstrates the evolution of the materia medica from the provings published in periodicals to the clinical symptoms that appeared in reported case histories. Within the past 100 years, no extensive materia medica – such as for instance Allen’s “Encyclopedia” – has been created for the benefit of the practitioner. Since the number of symptoms for each remedy has increased considerably, there is an urgent need for an up-to-date text of this nature. After lengthy preparatory deliberations, the creation of the “G.H.G. Jahr Institut,” a project to this effect, is presently being considered. The objective is to collect the primary sources of all provings and clinical symptoms published throughout the world and to publish them in an organized fashion.

Keywords

Materia medica – obsolescence – modern version – primary sources -- publication


The following presentation will attempt to demonstrate how the homoeopathic materia medica has evolved from its beginnings to its present form. It will indicate the dangers that appear to threaten it and show the path along which it would need to develop in order to further evolve. This will be required if homoeopathy is to continue to provide future patients with this independent, dependable, scientific kind of therapy that is free from harmful side effects and which is financially affordable. For it goes without saying that, aside from a correct anamnesis, an accurate selection of the simile and properly manufactured and appropriately chosen remedies, a comprehensive materia medica is an absolute prerequisite to any homoeopathic cure.

The Origins of the Materia Medica

We know that even before the publication of his major works, Hahnemann researched healing powers of drugs by means of provings on healthy human beings. In this context, “healthy” disregards nuances such as “as healthy as possible” or “relatively healthy.” It simply means to differentiate between truly sick persons, i.e., those who are in need therapy and those who are not. Thus, in his ‘Versuch über ein neues Princip zur Auffindung der Heilkrafte der Arzneisubstanzen nebst einigen Blicken auf die bisherigen’ (Attempts at Establishing a New Principle for Discovering the Healing Powers of Medicinal Substances, in Addition to Some Glances at the Previous Ones) of 1796, Hahnemann commented as follows:

“The only thing we can do in order to research medicines is to test them on the human body itself.”(2)

and in “Heilkunde der Erfahrung” (The Empirical Art of Healing) of 1805, the precursor of the Organon:

“The medicines show the nature of their morbid potency and their absolute and true effect best in the healthy human body when each is taken singly and in unadulterated form.(3)

The results of the provings were first published in Latin in Hahnemann’s “Fragmenta de Viribus Medicamentorum sive in Sane Corpore Humano Observatis” (1805). In 1822, the first homoeopathic journal, the “Archiv für die Homöopathische Heilkunst” started circulation and, among other things, published the results of provings. This established the trend to promulgate the initial publication of provings in relevant journals and on an international basis. Although the first edition of Hahnemann’s “Chronic Diseases” appeared between 1828 and 1830 in the form of a book, as did the “Rein Arzneimittellehre” by Hartlaub and Trinks between 1828 and 1831, and Hering’s “Amerikanische Arzneiprüfungen” (American Drug Provings) in 1857 – to mention only the larger ones, that contained several previously unpublished provings – but these are the significant exceptions to the rule; the initial publication of provings remained the perogative of the journals.

Thus far, we have spoken of the provings on healthy human beings as the basis for the materia medica. We shall now proceed to examine how the latter was not only validated but also rendered more precise by clinical observations. To this effect, let us hear Bönninghausen who quotes the Thuja symptom “On blowing the nose a pressing pain in the carious tooth (sideways)” (MMP II, p. 656, No. 156) and has the following comment:

“This little word in parentheses, namely ‘sideways.’ which at the time still needs further validation, is either left out completely (by Jahr), or copied without explanation (by Noack and Trinks), probably because they did not know how to interpret it…It must, however, be conceded that the symptom appended in this manner does not communicate clearly enough, since ‘sideways’ may refer to the pain as well as to the cavity in the tooth. This is why only the subsequent practical experience was able to shed light on it by revealing to us that ‘sideways’ refers to the hollow tooth and points to the fact that the cavities of the teeth are developing from the sides (not from the crown) – which is a very important and useful symptom occurring almost exclusively in chronic diseases for which Thuja was found to be the preferred and most essential remedy. – Many such veritable gold nuggets are still hidden in Hahnemann’s provings that need to be ‘purified’ but which are carelessly pushed aside and thrown away as rubbish.”(4)

In the final analysis, so-called “clinical symptoms” expand our knowledge about the healing powers of drugs. These symptoms are discovered for any given remedy when a curative prescription has been made in which the simile was arrived at on the basis of the patient’s essential symptomatology and when a symptom that has not previously been known to pertain to this remedy disappears during the treatment. Such observations were published almost exclusively as case studies in journals.

We may thus recapitulate by saying that the information regarding the remedy symptoms result for the most part from provings in healthy human beings but, although to a lesser extent, they also come to us from clinical observations, and that the leading journals were the principal medium of publication for both.

The practitioners of the past century, who had no access to the numerous international periodicals, asked themselves how they could possibly benefit from this information. To this effect, T.F. Allen established the ten volumes of his “Encyclopedia of Pure Materia Medica between 1875 and 1879, and Hering, beginning in 1879, came out with his “Guiding Symptoms,” the ten[-]volume edition of which was completed by his followers in 1891. The reference to these two works on the materia medica, which are still the most comprehensive ones available to this day, leads to our next point, namely that of

The Continued Evolution of the Materia Medica

Both collections have certain disadvantages that will be discussed briefly: They were incomplete even at the time of their initial publication[,] and they contain many mistakes. In the case of the Encyclopedia, they consist mostly of inaccuracies in the translation. For example, in the seventh volume, we find under Paris quadrifolia, for symptom No. 7: “Vertigo…aggravated by going upstairs.” This symptom was observed by Hering and first published in the third volume of Hartlaub and Trinks’ “Reine Arzneimittellehre” (Pure Materia Medica) as the ninth symptom. However, in this publication, it refers to “Vertigo…on promenading,” which makes quite a difference when used for selecting a remedy. Incidentally, this mistake also found its way into Kent’s Repertory.(5) It furthermore illustrates the manner in which mistakes proliferate and consequently may well lead the practitioner who has no access to the relevant primary sources to come up with the wrong prescription.

In the case of the “Guiding Symptoms” there is the additional problem that many listings were taken from the primary sources in fragmentary form, that symptoms from provings and clinical symptoms are not always clearly differentiated from each other and that the marginal valuations of the symptoms are often rendered equivocal by the diversity of the signs. Furthermore, the symptoms listed are, on the one hand, not “leading symptoms” only, as we would expect from the title, and[,[ on the other hand, some of those that were already known at the time when the manuscript was established, are not listed. However, the most serious flaw for us today consists in the fact that these works were established 100 years ago and that, consequently, they do not comprise that which has been added since. On balance, the result is that today’s practitioner is deprived of the totality of the materia medica symptoms known to date. As a consequence of this state of affairs, some patients may well remain incurable merely because something that has been known for a long time is not readily accessible. A conservative estimate of the number of symptoms lying fallow puts them at roughly eight to ten times the volume contained in Allen’s Encyclopedia.

In order to correct this deplorable condition, it was decided to create a homoeopathic materia medica that would contain all primary source materials in their original wordings, “primary source” referring to all published provings and case studies. In preparation of this most ambitious of all undertakings in the history of homoeopathy, being also the basis for all “orientations” in homoeopathy and on which different projects, e.g., specific summaries, can be founded, several tasks had to be accomplished first and were carried out without any assistance whatsoever from either public or private institutions.

First, it was necessary to establish which periodicals had been published thus far throughout the world. To this purpose, an international consortium of authors was created and a pertinent compilation was made which was published under the title of “Bibliotheca homoeopathica.” It contains an alphabetical listing of the periodicals by country[,] and it indicates the place and dates of publication as well as the number of volumes published. Each periodical has also been assigned an abbreviation consisting of three capital letters[,] which is meant to facilitate bibliographical referencing.

Second, it was necessary to identify the libraries holding the periodicals in the various parts of the globe and to establish contacts with the employees of these libraries. This has now resulted in the largely unrestrained examination, copying or borrowing of most of the desired documents.

Third, an attempt had to be made to separate the important journals. This has been generally successful thanks to intensive efforts in this direction over a number of years. Some periodicals published mainly contributions such as provings and case studies that were translated from other leading journals. These had to be sorted out and their primary sources had to be tracked.

Fourth, it was essential to gain an overview of the approximate volume these collected items would take up for each remedy, of what difficulties were to be anticipated in translating them if necessary, [omit] and in choosing a rational strategy for the classification of the symptoms. Keller’s “Symptomensammlungen homöopathischer [capitalization] Arzneimittel” (Collections of Symptoms of Homoeopathic Remedies) currently comprising 14 volumes were of invaluable assistance in this effort.

After these hurdles had been cleared, the form in which this future homeopathic [oeo] materia medica was to be made available to the practitioner had to be designed. In conclusion, it was decided to adopt the form of books – i.e., one volume for each remedy or one volume containing several small remedies – and to also satisfy modern needs by supplying computer programs. A complementary new, comprehensive and finally reliable repertory is also planned, to be realized as soon as the materia medica homoeopathica will be ready.

The next step concerned the appropriate structure with which this undertaking could be accomplished. The creation of an institute appeared to be the best suited[,] and it is planned to name it “G.H.G. Jahr Institute” in honor of the first large[-]scale collector of homoeopathic materia medica. With the aid of all computer modern computer data bases, this institute will collect, secure and classify the primary sources and collate them into publishable documents.

Time being of the essence, it is not possible to go further into detail at this moment. Progress reports will periodically be published in the relevant journals.

Let us now consider the

Dangers Facing the Materia Medica

In part, they stem from questionable provings that are being carried out today. As recent attempts in Germany have demonstrated, the results introduced a number of difficulties into the field. Among them we must count not only the so-called “environmental influences[,]” which are much more prominent today than they ever were previously, but also – and this point has thus far not at all been taken into consideration – the significant modifications of man himself. To a large extent, the latter is no longer capable of observing phenomena. The phenomenon counts little in our time in which learned theories are readily established and hailed as the sole endeavor of interest. This is encountered daily in our practice when patients speak, for instance, of their “circulatory problems” instead of the actual sensations such as vertigo or heart palpitations and their modalities, which they reduce to “mere” symptoms. In so doing, they present us immediately with some theory of causality. Provers who, unfortunately, are all too often beginners in matters homoeopathic, are faced with the same difficulties. Aside from receiving a solid preparation in homoeopathy, these provers ought to be schooled intensively in the art of unprejudiced observation[,] and they should practice how to perceive phenomena, all of which, of course, would require a considerable amount of time. In examining contemporary reports of provings, it becomes obvious that only a small fraction of them are at all useable. Anyone interested in reading these reports in the relevant journals can readily see how little true information the remaining assortment holds when compared to the provings from the past century. It is easy to imagine how much useless and even questionable information might thus invade our materia medica.

Even more pernicious are the myriad of [omit] “addenda” recorded by frequently not impeccable authorities. Interestingly enough, these additions are not given in the form of complete symptoms that were cured and would be destined to be included in the materia medica, but they are presented as mere additions to repertory rubrics. Here, we are amazed to find that what differentiates a materia medica from a repertory is obviously not common knowledge. All entries in the repertory must be verifiable in the materia medica, since without it, a repertory has no foundation. In order to get a clear picture of the contractions the repertory rubrics represent, we need only analyze the wordings in which the original symptoms were recorded in the source materials for the materia medica.

The remainder of the speculations that are presently in circulation in the guise of “enrichments” of the materia medica and which are literally being “sold” goes beyond description. For example, original materia medica symptoms are being re-interpreted [omit hyphen] at random, the patients’ symptoms are being explained on the basis of one theory or another, and the two are brought into a relationship of similarity in which phenomena no longer have any place. Is it really necessary to continuously have to repeat the fact that homoeopathy, if it is to bring about true healing, must compare remedy symptoms with the symptoms of the patient, and this in the absence of any theoretical speculation? Instead, “addenda” arrived at in the above described manner, are presented to an overwhelmed public, especially to one already in awe of psychological jargon. The uncertainty factors thus introduced into the materia medica can probably only be fathomed by those who stand on solid footing and understand homoeopathy to be a scientific method of healing and not some kind of flotsam and jetsam anyone might use as he sees fit.

In conclusion, it remains to be hoped that the international collegium will realize how important a modern version of the homoeopathic materia medica really is. There is no way of predicting if this project can be brought to successful fruition. The sheer volume of the undertaking prohibits any prognosis[.], [O]only one thing is certain,[;] namely[,] that the work has to be carried out in this manner if homoeopathy is to survive as a scientific drug therapy. This will require not only considerable financial backing, but also excellent cooperation among colleagues. Taking into consideration the fact that this undertaking will suit all “orientations” in homoeopathy as a basis for their therapeutic efforts, some prudent optimism is in order with regards to the successful completion of this project, provided all colleagues – in particular the German ones – and in keeping with what Bönninghausen stated so appropriately in 1860, succeed in placing the cause above personal considerations(6). [outside the period]



Notes
1) Paper read at the 46th conference of the LMHI on 6 May 1991 in Cologne/Germany
2) Hahnemann 1971.[,] 151
3) Hahnemann 1989.[,] 37
4) Bönninghausen 1979, 559
5) Kent 1973.[,] 97
6) Bönninghausen, AHZ 61 (1860) 63.

Bibliography

Allen, T.F. [Timothy Field] The Encyclopedia of Pure Materia Medica.[,] Vol. I-X.[,] Philadelphia 1875-79.
Archiv für die homöopathische Heilkunst (ACS) 1 (1822) – 23 (1848).
Baur, J. [Jacque], K.-H.[Klaus-Henning] Gypser, G. [Georg] v. [von] Keller, u. P.W. [______ ______] Thomas. Bibliotheca Homoeopathica.[,] Vol. 1 – Periodicals.[,] Gouda 1984.
Bönninghausen, C. [Clemens] v. [Von] Die Aphorismen des Hippokrates.[,] Nachdr.[,] Göttingen 1979 (11863).
Bönninghausen[,] C.v. Die Versammlung der homöopathischen Aerzte Rheinlands und Westphalens zu Dortmund am 26.[,] Juli [July] 1860. Allgemeine Homöopathische Zeitung (AHZ) 61 (1860) 53-54 u. 62-63.
Hahnemann, S. [Samuel] The Chronic Diseases.[,] Transl. [trans.] by [omit] L.F. Tafel.[,] Repr. New Delhi 1990 (11896). [CD]
Hahnemann, S. Fragmenta de viribus medica-mentorum sive in sano corpore humano observatis.[,] Paris I-II.[,] Leipzig 1805.
Hahnemann, S. Heilkunde der Erlahrung.[,] Nachdr.[,] Heidelberg 1989 (11805).
Hahnemann, S. Kleine medizinische Schriften.[,] Bd. I.[,] Nachdr.[,] Heidelberg 1971 (11829).
Hahnemann, S. Materia Medica Pura.[,] Vol. I.[,] Transl. [trans.] by R.E. Dudgeon.[,] Repr. New Delhi 1990 (11880-1881).
Hartlaub, C.G. [_____ _____] u C.F. [_____ _____] Trinks.[,] Reine Arzneimittellehre.[,] Bd. I-II.[,] Leipzig 1828-31.
Hering, C. [Constantine] Amerikanische Arzneipüfungen.[,] Leipzig u. Heidelberg 1857.
Hering, C. The Guiding Symptoms of Our Materia Medica.[,] Philadelphia 1879-91.
Kent, J.T. [James Tyler] Repertory of the Homoeopathic Materia Medica.[,] Second Indian Ed. Calcutta 1973 (11897-99).


Klaus-Henning Gypser, M.D., Wassenacher Str. 23, D-5471 Glees, Germany

(Transl. by H.M. Deitrich.)

 

AGAIN and AGAIN: SCIENCE HAS NEVER TESTED HOMEOPATHY!

What is wrong with you people?

I know I am speaking English!

You idiots have been so deluded that you tested low-potency pseudo-homeopathy, allopathic homeopathy, NOT homeopathy!

Can't you read?

You're fired for incompetence and intentional misrepresentation and sophistry!

Get out!

----------

We have done NO SUCH THING!

You have failed to follow the instructions SUGGESTED for 213 YEARS, dumb ars!

Or are you lieing?

I think you're lieing, because I find it very difficult to believe that anybody could be as stupid as you guys here.

Tell the people why you're lieing.

I'm sure they want to know why you want them to not have access to Hahnemannian homeotherapeutics for themselves and their friends and loved ones.

Tell them why you support quackery.

Tell them!

 

I refer you to:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20330
See the paragraph about posting lots of verbatim text.

 

that strange I just happened to read many reports of science testing homeopathy.

 

Albert

Well if you Google on his name most of the refenrences look pretty much like this

and like I said, reading someone's book doesn't make you a scientist, especially when the book contains the sorts of things that Kieninger wrote, and yes I have read what he wrote.

It seems to me you've got muddled all sorts of ordinary physics and added in a lot of made up stuff.

I quoted the tachyon thing because you brought it up and others can see that it doesn't make much sense. But blackbody radiation is high school physics and was a problem until quantization solved it. It's got nothing to do with Aether. It just reads like you've picked up physics buzz-words and throw them around for effect.

I can only say it as I see it. What's going on? I think you've got this all really confused. F.

 

It says this:

You don't read very well, do you?

Dropped on your head as a kid?

Failed 6th-grade English?

3rd-grade?

What is wrong with you?

 

Yet you accuse us of not doing research:
Hill C, Doyon F. Review of randomized trials of homeopathy. Review of Epidemiology 38:139-142, 1990.
Jacob J and others. Treatment of childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine: a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics 93:719-725, 1994(link)
Sampson W, London W. Analysis of homeopathic treatment of childhood diarrhea. Pediatrics 96:961-964, 1995
Homoeopathic Medicine Research Group. Report. Commission of the European Communities, December 1996.
NCAHF Position Paper on Homeopathy. Loma Linda, CA.: National Council Against Health Fraud, 1994.

Link to 12 other projects here

 

Oh wow thats a good one! Haha if I have not seen bullshit before then this would be my first time.

 

Actually, it says this:
Posting large verbatim extracts of text from other sites is undesirable for several reasons...
Quoted text should be restricted to a few lines or a paragraph unless the poster is quoting the text along with his or her, own detailed analysis (interspersed with the text).
You will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, or threatening.

 

And then there is also this research:
Wallach, H. Does a highly diluted homeopathic drug act as a placebo in healthy volunteers? Experimental study of Belladonna 30C in a double blind crossover design - a pilot study. J Psychosomatic Res 1993; 37(8): 851-860
Jürgensen, T. Die wissenschaftliche Heilkunde und ihre Widersacher. Volkmanns Sammlung Klinisher Vorträge 1876; 106: 876-916 (in German).
Wynn, SG. Studies on use of homeopathy in animals. JAVMA 1998; 212(5): 719-724
Maddox, J, Randi, J and Stewart, WW. "High dilution" experiments a delusion. Nature 1988; 334: 287-290.
Silvo, M and Arnaldo, P. Ultrasonographic study of homeopathic solutions. Br Homeopathic J 1990; 179: 212.
Roberts, T. Homeopathic test. Nature 1989; 342: 350
Seagrave, J. Evidence of non-reproducibility. Nature 1988; 334: 559.
Ernst, E and Pittler, M. Alternative Therapy Bias. Nature, 365, 480, 6 Feb 1997.
Aulas, JJ and Bardelay, G. L'homéopathie vétérinaire, in L'homéopathie: Approce historique et critique et éevaluation scientifique de ses fondement empiriqes et de son efficacité thérapeutique. Roland Bettex Publ, Paris, 1985: 209-224
Hill, C and Doyon, F. Review of randomized trials of homeopathy. Rev. Epidme et Sante Publ 1990; 38: 139-147
Kleijnen, J., Knipschild, P. and ter Riet, G. Clinical trials of homeopathy. BMJ 1991; 302: 316-323.
Kleijnen, J., Knipschild, P. and ter Riet, G. Trials of homeopathy. BMJ 1991; 302: 960
Linde, K., et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controled trials. The Lancet 1997; 350: 834-843
Vandenbroucke, J.P. Homeopathy trials: going nowhere. The Lancet 1997; 350: 824
Friese, K, Feuchter, U and Moeller, H. Homeopathic management of adenoid vegetations. Results of a prospective, randomized double-blind study. HNO 1997; 45: 618-624
Hart, O, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial of homoeopathic arnica C30 for pain and infection after total abdominal hysterectomy. J R Soc Med 1997 Feb;90(2):73-78
Whitmarsh, T, Coleston-shields, D and Steiner, T. Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study of homeopathic prophylaxis of migraine. Cephaligia 1997; 17: 600-604
Wallach, H, et al. Classical homeopathic treatment of chronic headaches. Cephalgia 1997: 17: 119-126
Aberer, W, et al. Homeopathic preparations - severe adverse effects, unproven benefits. Dermatologia 1991; 182(4): 253
Kerr, H and Yarborough, G. Pancreatitis following ingestion of a homeopathic preparation. N Engl J Med 1986 Jun 19;314(25):1642-1643
van Ulsen J, Stolz E, van Joost T. Chromate dermatitis from a homeopathic drug. Contact Dermatitis 1988 Jan;18(1): 56-57
Ernst, E and White, AR. Homeopathy and immunisation. Br J Gen Pract 1995; 48: 629-630.
Sulfaro, F, Fasher B and Burgess, MA. Homeopathic vaccination. What does it mean? Med J Austr 1994; 161: 305-307.
Fisher, P. Enough nonsense on immunisation. Br Homeopath J 1990; 79: 198-200.
Pray, S. A challenge to the credibility of homeopathy. Am J Pain Man 1992; 2: 63-71.
Larson, LJ, Wynn, S and Schultz, RD. A canine parvovirus nosode study (abstr), in Proceedings, 2nd Ann Midwest Holistic Vet Conf 1996; 98-99.


That alot of non-research, on top of that previous listed by me and BTox.

 

All Right, Francine,

I'll take you on if you want to pit me against something as stupid as Google.

I've read the literature for 35 years, and stuff they have never even heard of.

If you think the predictions are a problem, so what.

A Pole Shift predicted on 5/5/2000 is a problem until you realize that it's an eventuality shown by Charles Hapgood and Albert Einstein in PATH OF THE POLE and MAPS OF THE ANCIENT SEA KINGS.

And it's not just Hapgood; try Ivar Zapp and others.

So Armageddon ended without a nuclear exchange; isn't that good?

Problems with those predictions go kaput that quickly.

That's a lie.

Richard Kieninger may have, indeed, been an Initiate/Saint in the real sense of the word.

He knew things you are totally ignorant of, so your opinions are totally meaningless.

Are you going to tell me that the Hebrew Prophets were not constantly persecuted and prosecuted by their governments, or that every advanced person in history hasn't been so treated by evil sophistists in the legal machinery of countries?

Even an ArchAngel was murdered by such evil people generically called men of war.

I have no idea what is behind that court conviction, but I do know how truly evil men of war are and the fact that they permeate our governments and societies due to patriarchal attitudes and an Apollonian worldview dominating it.

There is not a single individual high up in a power structure of our times who will ever live again due to too much negative karma and resonance with Hell (Lower Astral Plane for the ignorant), and good riddence!

That is what the Nazarene meant by "binding evil for 1000 years."

They're doing it to themselves too.

These men here are part of it.

Who's making them create such a destiny for themselves?

They're all just incredibly stupid, and they will be poor loss to this humanity, though.

That goes for the several hundred million of them, too, possibly a billion.

There are 13 billion members of this Human Life Wave, and one billion of them have refused to incarnate into these "26 Dark Millennia since MU went down" for fear of losing hard-earned Egoic advancement as Initiates.

Only 100 million human Egos have made it to Mastership too, and that will not be permitted to continue from here on since there is no more excuse of national karmic indebtedness falling back on us.

A great many of us will not make it to our intended destiny by the time of the universe-wide Progression of the Life Waves, but they will simply have to start anew as blank Souls alongside newly created human Egos out of the present Animal Life Essence of this earth.

We will simply run out of evil people as they cycle through incarnation over the next 100-500 years.

So what!

Tyrants do not deserve the future and will preclude themselves from achieving what they're supposed to attain.

How can we care about them anyway?

Look at how this crew of them has opposed every attempt I've offered to answer their questions by producing lies, misrepresentations, subtle distractions and any number of stupid sophistries from erroneous basic assumptions about the five primary subjects of medicine out of misguided sincerity.

Why have they done this?

Their destinies are surely sealed by such actions.

Do you care about such fools engaged in evil; and if so, how do you manage that since their evils are inadvertently designed to murder you?

I know about six problems in Richard Kieninger's (RK's) writings.

Six!

Nobody I've ever read made so few mistakes, and nobody ever wrote about such astonishing subjects as Richard Kieninger.

You'll encounter a passage rather early in THE ULTIMATE FRONTIER that confirms that he wrote the book with an intent "to appeal to some and turn asside others."

It certainly manages to do that, but you're not supposed to finish reading the book or its many supplements if you're one of them in whom it causes incredulity to fester.

That is how the Brotherhoods do things, Francine.

If you think otherwise, you're misinformed.

I do not worship the man, and I am quite sure that nobody at Stelle or Adelphi does either.

We all know very well the means and modus operandi of brainwashing and cultish techniques.

In fact, we're all expert on such things of necessity.

If you don't like RK's writings once you've read them, fine with me; it doesn't affect me one bit.

But you don't know anything about it, do you?

You've formed an opinion based upon ZERO knowledge, haven't you?

Your opinion therefore means absolutely nothing and is, in fact, worse since you're therefore an easy victim of lies and misrepresentations as contained in what you quoted.

Are you happy being ignorant of such things?

I can't imagine how anybody could be happy being ignorant, but plenty of people are satisfied with an indefensible and uncircumspect personal philosophy.

Doesn't bother me except to make me melancholical about humanity, but I already get that constantly about homeopathy, don't I?

Okay, now I'm more than interested in what you're talking about.

Okay, Francine, how does my remark about tachyons not make any sense?

Obviously you don't know anything about tachyons, so what's the problem?

As for blackbody radiation, it is a universe-wide field effect that's probably a major manifestation of the Ether.

I did NOT say it was synonymous with the Ether; I said it was a major manifestation of it, didn't I?

I get really tired of this poor comprehension skill I seem to constantly encounter.

Do you want to tell me what your problem is?

I think the others here do it too often for it to other than intentional; what's your excuse?

How about the neutrino sea, Francine; do you understand how that's associated with the Ether?

If not, why do you jump to conclusions instead of asking?

Okay, then in like kind you therefore deserve, I don't think you know what you're talking about and should be silent since you only manage to engender karmic debts by misleading others while you're confused, misinformed, uninformed and misguided.

Like that?

Francine, I most certainly have not got things figured out, but I am a lot better off then the average person many fold worth because I can defend my personal philosophy from having tested it logically and experientially over the past 35 years, whereas few others have, and of them few have looked into alternative explanations since so few people are familiar with the Brotherhoods' Philosophy, Cosmology and Archives.

If you're happy with what you know, fine with me.

 

how dare you put me in a spot!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Lol, I thought maybe I missed some enlightening conversation

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hahnemannian,

Obviously you know nothing about tachyons, tachyons are faster then light particles and light propagation has nothing to do with that.

 

Fair questions.

The first experiment arose as a consequence of disagreeing with Wm. Cullen's statements about the action of Peruvian bark in intermittent fevers, of which malaria is one, while translating his materia medica.

Hahnemann was, incidentally, world known as a medical scholar and superb translator, and that's why he got the job of translating the work of the principal physician of his time.

(Here we note that Cullen was the Scottish physician at the height of his profession, while the U.S. produced the infamous Benjamin Rush who replaced Cullen in Hahnemann's lifetime.)

Disagreeing with the ridiculous notions put forward by Cullen, Hahnemann actually "quaffed" the vile stuff and suffered the very symptoms of malaria he had experienced naturally years earlier.

He retested that several times and got the same results.

Because he was familiar with old medical literature, he recognized the "doctrine of similars" as reported by Hippocrates and others since then.

But Hahnemann went further and spied it as the key to therapeutics.

Here we note with no small amount of amazement that Hahnemann invoked the Spagyric physicians in his formal presentation on homeopathy in 1796 (ESSAY ON A NEW PRINCIPLE FOR ASCERTAINING THE CURATIVE POWERS OF DRUGS, WITH A FEW GLANCES AT THOSE HITHERTO EMPLOYED) on page 261 and paragraph 43 of the work.

These men were doing homeopathy up until they were all murdered and their books were burned in the persecutions of alchemy 100 years before Hahnemann.

We don't know what to make of this except that it's absolutely fascinating that it's the only place he mentioned them.

For instance, had he spied the majesty of homeopathy in Spagyric medicine and simply reintroduced it after so short a period of time since they were burned at the stake, it would certainly have been dismissed.

On the other hand, he appears to have made unique rediscoveries over a very long period of time that eventually produced the several natural laws involved in homeopathy and everything else essential to it, all of which were the products of Hahnemann, just one man far in advance of his times!

Incidentally, Hahnemann never named 10 Laws of Medicine, only the Law of Similars and another one that's generic for all therapies, whether or not they're curative, but he several times refered to "natural laws" in the plural, which only demonstrates his highly conservative nature to avoid pronouncing things natural laws rather than mere principles till he was sure; however, these issues have since then been more than settled to my satisfaction, so I call them the 10 Laws of Medicine.

So he discovered, or actually rediscovered, the Law of Similars.

The Law of the Single Remedy is a natural corollary of it because we only ever test a single substance against it.

All combination substances are a priori elements of low-potency pseudo-homeopathy, and I tell you that you'll find that in almost all prescriptions of French homeopaths whom you're quick to call "classical" and "Hahnemannian" homeopaths without the slightest idea about what that means.

The next most important of the four Laws of Therapeutics discovered by Hahnemann was the Law of the Single Dose, but the next actually discovered in chronological order was the Law of the Minimum (misnomer) or Optimally Ultramolecular Dose.

These two came out of the potentization process.

The Four Laws of Cure were not all discovered by Hahnemann; Hering showed he'd discerned only either two or three (not sure), but it's clear that Hahnemann did perceive the gist of the lesser three in symptoms moving from center to periphery during cure.

The Law of Chronic Diseases was not discovered by Hahnemann, but it's essence was.

We have the succinct statement of natural law of it the Spagyric physicians.

Hahnemann's Theory of Chronic Diseases was an error, but the gist of it remained true.

That's why we see this disparity of renunciation of it and yet recapitulation of its essential facts in his later years.

It seems pretty clear that Hahnemann would have acquiesced to their statement on it had he ever discovered it.

About them, their literature was apparently either destroyed by the Allies in insane bombings of nonstrategic targets like Dresden and others, the Russians inherited them at Breslau, and what remained has been pilfered since the fall of the Soviet Union.

That's about how it went.

----------

What made people try them were his astonishing cures you guys are denying existed, even though they are part of medical history.

What made people try them is the physician's heart.

Try to manufacture one in an allopathic medical education; it's destroyed by them.

----------

All natural laws and fundamental forces of nature are part of the fabric of space because they issue off of the second plane of existence.

The fact that they have mechanisms physicists have discovered does not change this fact of higher origins.

If you want to think they just pop into existence due to some physical particles, those involved in these ultramolecular drugs are going to destroy that assumption.

Ask somebody else this question.

 

All Right, Little Brain,

I will explain it to you.

Yes, they are faster-than-light particles.

The wave phenomenon of the propogation of light is the product of them.

They are the etheric level of photons, the very same energy concentration as photons only nutating at the next "higher" rate of oscillation.

They force photons back into particles after they eternally disintegrate into waves due to bucking the speed barrier inherent in physical matter and energy called the speed of light.

I don't care what you think they are; that's what they actually are.

Whatever it is that you read on them, read it again and keep reading other stuff till you figure this out.

That doesn't mean that everyone knows this, but you'll get to it if you keep at it.

 

Persol,

We don't care what non-results allopaths have gotten when they supposedly tested homeopathic medicines, for we have never found they have a clue about what they're doing and we have never found other than that these things do what we have always said they do.

None of you here knows the SLIGHTEST accurate thing about homeopathy, so what makes you think that other allopathic Minds do and have done anything accurately when none of them have read and understood the ORGANON either?

What is wrong with all of your brains that you fail to understand a simple little statement like that?

If you don't conduct tests correctly, if you don't make the medicines accurately, if you antidote them, if the persons are already sick, and possibly other obstacles being in the way and productive of errors by the ignorant and foolish who try to test homeopathy without knowing what they're doing, you will not get any results.

I am not going to look at piles of ridiculous sophistry from stupid allopathic Minds, for I know for a fact that these things are true and you more than know that you don't have a clue about anything having to do with homeopathy.

Who's going to be right here?

You guys who don't know anything about homeopathy, or we who're experts at it?

Get real!