This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
en:ahr:lippe-ad-who-is-a-homoeopathician-reply-to-mr-pope-158-10571 [2012/07/13 17:55] legatum [WHO IS A HOMOEOPATHICIAN?] |
en:ahr:lippe-ad-who-is-a-homoeopathician-reply-to-mr-pope-158-10571 [2012/11/05 19:47] (current) legatum |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====== WHO IS A HOMOEOPATHICIAN?====== | ====== WHO IS A HOMOEOPATHICIAN?====== | ||
+ | {{:en:ahr:lippe.jpg?nolink&100 |Ad. Lippe}} | ||
{{anchor:s2}}By AD. Lippe, K. D., Philadelphia, PA. | {{anchor:s2}}By AD. Lippe, K. D., Philadelphia, PA. | ||
- | |||
- | |||
{{anchor:s3}}In the August number of the London <span grade2>Monthly Homoeopathic Review.</span> Mr. Pope's reply is a mere repetition of a negation-argument, whereas I had asked for a more explicit and positive definition of the position he assumes. | {{anchor:s3}}In the August number of the London <span grade2>Monthly Homoeopathic Review.</span> Mr. Pope's reply is a mere repetition of a negation-argument, whereas I had asked for a more explicit and positive definition of the position he assumes. | ||
- | |||
- | |||
{{anchor:s4}}Where I spoke of Mr. Pope and his friends, I did not mean to imply that he officiously thrust himself forward to express, not only for himself but for others, views for which he alone can be held responsible, but I addressed myself to him and such Homoeopathicians as, like himself, assume that name under the same erroneous views and false conceptions. {{anchor:s5}}By his own statement Mr. Pope includes among his friends Dr. Hempel, who assumed to define Homoeopathy under solemn oath at Toronto, C. W., on the 8th day of April, 1859. {{anchor:s6}}His testimony went for naught, the prisoner, in whose favor he testified, was found guilty and confessed his Crime before he was hung. {{anchor:s7}}So much for the personal explanation. | {{anchor:s4}}Where I spoke of Mr. Pope and his friends, I did not mean to imply that he officiously thrust himself forward to express, not only for himself but for others, views for which he alone can be held responsible, but I addressed myself to him and such Homoeopathicians as, like himself, assume that name under the same erroneous views and false conceptions. {{anchor:s5}}By his own statement Mr. Pope includes among his friends Dr. Hempel, who assumed to define Homoeopathy under solemn oath at Toronto, C. W., on the 8th day of April, 1859. {{anchor:s6}}His testimony went for naught, the prisoner, in whose favor he testified, was found guilty and confessed his Crime before he was hung. {{anchor:s7}}So much for the personal explanation. | ||
- | |||
- | |||
{{anchor:s8}}A remedy can never, under any circumstance, aggravate the disease; nor can a remedy ever cause a disease. {{anchor:s9}}There is the same great and important difference between a natural and a medicinal proving creating a change of sensational and even functional disorders, that there is between a progressive disease and the symptoms caused by the remedy administered in the largest or smallest dose to cure the natural disease. {{anchor:s10}}Both the symptoms of the prover and the symptoms generally termed "medicinal aggravation" cease of themselves, and if this" medicinal aggravation" occurs, in a curable case after the administration of the smallest possible dose, and it does often occur, this phenomenon is a certain and positive indication that the remedy was rightly chosen, and the improvement will follow without the slightest doubt: this improvement will not follow should the remedy be not rightly chosen - not homoeopathic - and the progressive disease will further develop itself in spite of repeated or larger doses. {{anchor:s11}}-The remark that the "unchecked progress of disease" frequently follows the higher and highest dilutions is perfectly gratuitous, and if Dr. Cockburn reports to have seen sharp aggravations follow unmedicated globules he does not state what followed - the sharp aggravation was then undoubtedly the unchecked progress of disease and not what is understood among Homoeopathicians under homoeopathic aggravation. | {{anchor:s8}}A remedy can never, under any circumstance, aggravate the disease; nor can a remedy ever cause a disease. {{anchor:s9}}There is the same great and important difference between a natural and a medicinal proving creating a change of sensational and even functional disorders, that there is between a progressive disease and the symptoms caused by the remedy administered in the largest or smallest dose to cure the natural disease. {{anchor:s10}}Both the symptoms of the prover and the symptoms generally termed "medicinal aggravation" cease of themselves, and if this" medicinal aggravation" occurs, in a curable case after the administration of the smallest possible dose, and it does often occur, this phenomenon is a certain and positive indication that the remedy was rightly chosen, and the improvement will follow without the slightest doubt: this improvement will not follow should the remedy be not rightly chosen - not homoeopathic - and the progressive disease will further develop itself in spite of repeated or larger doses. {{anchor:s11}}-The remark that the "unchecked progress of disease" frequently follows the higher and highest dilutions is perfectly gratuitous, and if Dr. Cockburn reports to have seen sharp aggravations follow unmedicated globules he does not state what followed - the sharp aggravation was then undoubtedly the unchecked progress of disease and not what is understood among Homoeopathicians under homoeopathic aggravation. | ||
Line 209: | Line 203: | ||
====== DOCUMENT DESCRIPTOR ====== | ====== DOCUMENT DESCRIPTOR ====== | ||
- | |||
- | |||
^ Source: | The American Homoeopathic Review Vol. 05 No. 03, 1864, pages 153-164 | | ^ Source: | The American Homoeopathic Review Vol. 05 No. 03, 1864, pages 153-164 | | ||
- | |||
^ Description: | Who Is a Homoeopathician? {{anchor:s136}}Reply to Mr. Pope. | | ^ Description: | Who Is a Homoeopathician? {{anchor:s136}}Reply to Mr. Pope. | | ||
- | |||
^ Author: | Lippe, Ad. | | ^ Author: | Lippe, Ad. | | ||
- | |||
^ Year: | 1864 | | ^ Year: | 1864 | | ||
- | |||
^ Editing: | errors only; interlinks; formatting | | ^ Editing: | errors only; interlinks; formatting | | ||
- | |||
^ Attribution: | Legatum Homeopathicum | | ^ Attribution: | Legatum Homeopathicum | |