I know this old journal as well as the AMERICAN HOMEOPATHIC REVIEW, which you guys also made available, and I fully expect to find MEDICAL ADVANCE and the others edited by Hahnemannians either already or eventually made available by you guys. They're priceless! Thank you.

Is the HOMEOPATHIC PHYSICIAN available as a full download like the AMERICAN HOMEOPATHIC REVIEW?

Albert

The Homoeopathic Physician is still being processed, so the .mobi version will have to wait. We have many other magazines ready for processing, but this takes a lot of time, manpower and money.

You said,

“We have many other magazines ready for processing . . .”

Good, and God’s speed with that because I doubt that any one other thing could so singularly assist the thousands of high-potency pseudo homeopaths (HPHs) in the George Vithoulkas school of thought (GVs) in reaching Hahnemannian status since there is no connection between these old journals and the many from the GVs. Hahnemann was unequivocal on pages 121-22 of THE CHRONIC DISEASES in identifying the first two of seven or eight fundamental mistakes of HPHs when he said they (1) prescribe from the repertory and (2) don’t have the slightest idea of either what uncommon/characteristic symptoms are or of their singular importance to remedy diagnoses and therefore to homeopathic cures. Restated, other than guesses to whatever degree, finding a person’s simillimum (“thing most similar”) is absolutely impossible without discovering three or more strange, rare and peculiar symptoms in a case history, and there simply is no justification for prescribing from the repertory since those are often short-hand versions of the actual symptoms and sometimes accidental but real distortions of them in our materia medica (for others, “materials of medicine”). I dare suggest that it would be all but impossible to find a single published case report among the hundreds in the great many generally useless medical journals from the GVs in which even one person didn’t prove him or herself an HPH in Hahnemann’s eyes since they all prescribe from the repertory and upon various premises that have absolutely nothing to do with the Law of Similars; e.g., their famous so-called “remedy essences” and the fallacious notion of so-called “miasmatic layers.” I walked that path for 12 years; i.e., I was deeply familiar with a large portion of our old journal literature, and yet I also read most of the journals and newsletters from the GVs because they claimed to be classical homeopaths. Nothing made sense between the two large sets of journal literature, though, and the conflicts didn’t resolve themselves until I finally re-read all of Hahnemann’s writings and came across those three paragraphs in THE CHRONIC DISEASES.

Your group has so far chosen well with the old journals, none of which have been easily available until now, but there's a definite hierarchy of importance in our medical journals. I above mentioned the CINCINNATI MEDICAL ADVANCE (commonly called just the MEDICAL ADVANCE) and could also mention others high on our list from the 19th century, but three of our now-defunct English-language medical journals from the late 20th century actually outrank all of them and therefore need to come next or soon thereafter. Wait for it, please, for explanations belong beforehand.

Without any question whatsoever, absolutely every single one of our past medical journals and newsletters need to be republished and made available online. Considering that Hahnemann correctly identified two kinds of pseudo homeopaths and forms of pseudo homeopathy on the pages mentioned above, these many generally rare publications naturally fall into three categories.

At the very bottom are those from low-potency pseudo homeopaths (LPHs), and it wouldn’t bother me if it takes a century before they’re made available since they’re simply not worth reading. On the other hand, master homeopaths like Adolph Lippe, Constantine Hering, P.P. Wells, Wm. Wesselhoeft, the elder, Carroll Dunham, E.J. Lee, Clemens von Boenninghausen and others as well as other Hahnemannians often wrote diatribes rebutting stupid statements from LPHs and published them in our journals. I don’t remember ever seeing any of the rebutted articles, but they’re part of our literature we all need if only to know what not to do and how not to think. Restated, we can’t burn them; we simply have to make it known that it’s not actually part of our literature and is just a super-ridiculous claim that it is. We don’t burn books.

Next, naturally come journal articles written by high-potency pseudo homeopaths. All of the present-day journals in the hands of the followers of George Vithoulkas are among them, but they also range back clear to the time of Hahnemann or he wouldn’t have identified them as another class of pseudo homeopaths. It’s actually more accurate to call them quasi homeopaths because they have most things about homeopathy correct, but it’s ultimately impossible for half-truths to be classified as other than what they are. Enough said about them.

Again, your group is on the right track with the first two old homeopathic medical journals you’ve scanned and worked on, and there are several others. However, please consider next doing that with the three following homeopathic medical journals from the late 20th century:

• HOMEOTHERAPY; JOURNAL OF CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHY, its initial issues having had the subtitle of JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL SOCIETY. Alain Naude edited the first years of it, and Robert M. Shore edited the final years with the changed subtitle. It’s a very large collection because it ran for over a decade but was published bimonthly. Many of the articles are republications of homeopathic masterworks from the 19th century, but that in itself is important because many of them were thereby collected in one publication.

• The CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHY QUARTERLY, or C.H.Q. This was edited by Klaus-Henning Gypser. The extreme importance of this journal is that it was simply the English translations of contemporary papers published in the parent journal, the venerable German-language ZEITSCHRUFT FÜR KLASSISCHE HOMÕOPATHIE, or Z.K.H. The bar for published case reports was raised by an order of magnitude in these two journals. The papers on the theoretical spectrum of homeopathy, or so-called “homeopathic philosophy,” are also important and typical of Hahnemannians. Perhaps the most important thing about this journal was an announcement released in one of the last issues of its short run of five or six years. Namely, they said they’d formed an organization called the G.H.G. Jahr Institut (sic, it’s German), named after the creator of our first repertory in 1835, MANUEL OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE, commonly called simply Jahr’s MANUEL. They are going to publish an up-to-date materia medica of over 100 volumes, all of it digitally recorded for ease of updating, and a new repertory they expect to be large volumes numbering at least three. Many things about its importance necessarily going unsaid in any synopsis, the CHQ was what principally pulled me into Hahnemannian status.

• Finally, Jost Kunzli and Horst Barthel attempted to arouse interest in another English-.language homeopathic medical journal about a decade prior to the CHQ but found little or no support from abroad. THE GERMAN JOURNAL OF HOMEOPATHY therefore only passed through two issues as far as I know.

Therefore, please scan them next.

God bless!

Thank you very much for your message and especially for the magazines you have proposed.

Yes, sir, you're welcome, but I certainly wish you'd react with a little more detail. I said a great deal there and will cease doing so if it gets nothing more than a thank you. Life's too short for that, sir.

At the very least, I'd like to know which of our old journals come next in your noble effort that's WAY overdue from ALL other people. I have insight into these things from experience that probably amounts to more years than you've lived, so I'd like to attempt to influence your subsequent choices if you opt to ignore the above suggestions.

Therefore, please name as many of our old journals as you were talking about when you above mentioned “many other magazines” to scan and make available online and as MOBI e-books. In general, a little more precision, sir.

God bless!

I did not have much more to say at that moment before I looked into it in greater detail. Based on our email communication I believe you when you say these magazines are valuable. We are willing to publish ANY magazine that promotes pure Hahnemannian homeopathy and educates homeopaths in the direction we see as the best. The problems with these magazines you have proposed are primarily two:

1. They are hard to get. You have proposed places to get them in the email we have received from you, but there is still legwork to do in this regard, so any more substantial help in this regard would be appreciated.
2. There are most likely copyright issues. This is generally 75 years (50 years in US) after the death of the last editor or the author of the text. If these are just reprints of the old articles, we could use those without problems. But we would have to take a look at the articles first to determine whether or not we can publish them. If it would be possible to make an agreement with the proper copyright holder, if any, that would be a solution too, but I have a fair share of experience with this kind of dealings and they are rarely easy (people having unrealistic demands, lack of communication, lack of willingness to find the solution etc.).

Regarding your question about what magazines come next, we are working on the Homoeopathic Physician at the moment, some materia medica may be coming (old stuff like Hahnemann's MM, Allen's Encyclopaedia) and the next magazine in line is Philadelphia Journal of Homeopathy. We also plan to publish individual articles as we see fit, from any magazines (such as Kent's Values Of Symptoms - http://www.legatum.sk/en:hahnadv:kent-jt-value-of-symptoms), so if you have specific suggestions about important texts, these can be published much more swiftly than complete volumes.

Generally, this is a very slow work and we lack enough volunteers for proofreading work (http://www.legatum.sk/en:proofreading). Commercial proofreaders ARE available but they are a) very expensive b) usually do a lousy job on old homeopathic texts.

This is tremendous work you are doing of the highest importance. I've expended 5 years in slowly working back to find the “real” Homeopathy and reconstruct the thinking patterns of the old time Homeopathic physicians. It is mostly a journey back into time. As the deviations, distortions and subversions crept into the field, and the political power of the old time allopaths regained their lost control, the old journals and even books fell by the wayside and the original pristine conceptions were forgotten, replaced by substitutes, stand ins, approximations where once science had reigned.

In seeking the old journals and information, I have found google books, www.archive.org and now your web site to be of profound value. In fact, such research could not be accomplished without them.

To give just one example, I had seen mention of Dr. Margaret Tyler's “Correspondence Course in Homeopathy for Graduates” in her famous (and still in print after 70 years!) “Homeopathic Drug Pictures” book. I looked everywhere for this course. It was available in a book form in Spanish, but that went out of print 25 years ago. In English, there is but ONE LIBRARY IN THE WORLD, in Utrecht, Holland that has it, and they wanted hundreds of dollars for a CD with the course on it, and ONLY after the request had been made through a University library. I made the request through my hospital's medical library. I finally was able to get some of the 12 lessons from the Institute d' Pierre Schmidt in Switzerland but am still missing Lessons 1 and 11.

Work such as you are doing will fill this need, you have my profound thanks. If I ever write a book on the results of my research, mention shall be made of your website and work in the Preface.

I understand what you mean. I believe it is the same for everyone - we are first exposed to homeopathy as it is taught today, which is (unless you are very lucky to find someone teaching pure homeopathy), as a rule, full of deviations from Hahnemann's method. As we start questioning the validity of some of the priciples presented, we may find our way to the old journals and be saved

Is the course you mention any good? Is it out of copyright? Perhaps you could share it with us and we could publish it on our web site?

Allen's ENCYCLOPEDIA is not worth the paper it's printed on any more than are those of any other low-potency pseudo homeopaths. These people were what that period’s Hahnemannians called “the sifters.” Indeed, I believe some of those old papers are in this journal. Hering and Lippe principally used the term. These totally evil people – allopathic homeopaths easily being the world's biggest oxymoron – who both then and today number 10,000 times as many of them as Hahnemannians, actually sifted our materia medica and removed all symptoms from provings at 12c and higher, and the monster named Tim Allen changed a great many of the symptoms he did not approve of – the moron!

If he remains on your list to scan, you people at Legatum Homeopathicum will have nullified all of the good you've so far accomplished. My God, who would rightly defend people who intentionally destroyed homeopathy as allopathic homeopaths by preserving their useless books, especially when there are hundreds more to digitize and even more to finally render into English from the German in which they’ve sat fallow for centuries?

Albert (Hahnemannian444)

Albert,

first I thought I will delete your whole message, but I have decided to keep the first part concerning Allen's Encyclopaedia of Pure Materia Medica. Please take that as a last warning concerning the tone of your writing, personal attacks, preaching, judging etc.

Concerning your opposition against publishing Allen's Encyclopaedia, these are my counterarguments:

1. Allen's views on homeopathy are IMMATERIAL when it comes to a book which is just a collection of provings. Remember, that Hahnemann himself used the writings of allopaths when collecting symptoms of poisonings for his materia medica. I do not see why Allen should be excluded, no matter how much you may despise him as a homeopath. The symptoms are the symptoms, so what you propose does not make any sense, especially with regards to the fact this is by far the largest old materia medica.

2. You write that he “removed all symptoms from provings at 12c and higher”. That is absolutely incorrect as can be easily proven when you actually LOOK into his book. For example, in Lycopodium entry, there are many provers listed as contributing who took potencies above 12th - quotations “took 200th dil.”, “proving with 30th, and afterwards with repeated doses of 18th dil.”, “took a dose of 6000th (Jenichen)”.

3. He also includes Hahnemann's symptoms from his Chronic Disease and Materia Medica Pura – many of the symptoms included there are from 30th potency provings.

4. What proof do you have regarding your accusation of changing symptoms he did not approve of?