Hey HC...
I apologize for the shouting. I haven't figured out how to do the quoting with a posting. I instead chose to differentiate my words from others by using capital letters.
Mmmokay. I notice others have explained the quoting feature, so enough about that.
Hahnemann was respected enough that he was voted as an honorary member of the NY medical society in 1832,
If so then it is frankly rather disingenious of you to assert that Charles Darwin did not dare to support homeopathy openly in the same years. Do try to make your story straight.
though he was voted out in 1843 just one week after his death because the medical society said that homeopathy was too much of an ideological and "economic" threat.
Source?
Although many people who were uninformed about homeopathy make fun of Hahnemann's concept of miasms, this concept were some of the earliest sophisticated insights about genetic disease. Hahnemann determined that people with syphilis, gonorrhea, and TB didn't die immediately, but during their disease process they gave birth (or sperm), and this new human being's health was influenced by the diseases of the mother and father. Such child would not have syphilis, gonorrhea, or TB, but they would have specific symptoms that were associated with each of their "miasms."
Excuse me, but this is nonsense. The diseases you mention are infectuous diseases, and have nothing whatsoever to do with genetic diseases. Do you really not know about these things?
and modern medical historians confirm that Hahnemann “showed sound balance and good judgment” in his advocacy of proper diet, fresh air, and exercise as a method of treatment. His promotion of hygienic measures during epidemics won him praise as a public health advocate, and his kind rather than cruel and harsh treatment of the insane granted him a place in the history of psychiatry (Rothstein, 1972, 152).
And, have you realized that herein probably lies the explanation to his successes in treating epidemics?
Hahnemann noted that Cullen asserted that the reason that Peruvian bark was an effective drug for malaria was due to its bitter and astringent properties. Hahnemann thought this was a peculiar statement because he knew more bitter and astringent medicines, but they provided no benefit in the treatment of malaria. He then conducted an experiment upon himself where he took this herb twice a day until he developed symptoms of its toxicology, and here he discovered that it created a fever with chills as well as other symptoms that were similar to malaria. Hahnemann proposed that Peruvian bark (which contains quinine) may be effective for treating people with malaria because it has the capacity to cause similar symptoms.
If you are to write about this, and claim intellectual honesty, you must also explain how the symptoms Hahnemann experienced are not charanterisic for Cinnhoa bark at all. In fact his observation is one of the riddles in the history of homeopathy, because the feever and chills he experienced cannot be repeated by others. In fact, later historians have suggested that he either was allergic to to some substance in the bark, or he simply happend to have a flu.
Also, do write that we now know that the active substance, chinine, ceartainly does not produce malaria-like symptoms when given to healthy subjects.
In other words, if you consider writing about the history of Hahnemann and homeopathy, you owe it to your readers to explain how Hahnemann's initial "discovery" of homeopathy was in fact based on a mistake
.
Hahnemann ultimately conducted upon himself experiments with 90 other substances, and his colleagues and friends also engaged in these experiments. He had found a consistent pattern from these experiments, that is, he found that various substances in overdose create their own unique syndrome of symptoms and that whatever syndrome a substance causes in toxic dose, it can and will elicit a healing response when given in specially prepared small doses to people who have similar symptoms of pathology.
No, that was not what Hahnemann
discovered. He discovered, what is already known, that various substances provoke a toxic reaction, which has a repeatable pattern. That it can cure diseases with a similar pattern is, however, Hahnemann's theory. One for which there remains, after 200 years, no conclusive evidence.
*snip*
Despite Hahnemann’s significant contributions to medicine, pharmacy, chemistry, psychiatry, and public health, he remained a humble man. “I do not ask during my lifetime any recognition of the beneficent truth, which I, without any thought of myself, offer. What I have done, I did from higher motives for the world. Non inutilis vixi (I have not lived in vain).”
On the Hahnemann Monument in Washington, DC, are those Latin words. Indeed, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann did not live in vain.
Or, he was perhaps a bit hypocritical. If you read his basic work, the Organon of Medicine, it is far from humble. Indeed about half of the text is devoted to telling the reader how great he, Hahemann, is, and how stupid his detractors are.
But enough of all this theorizing and history massage: Are there any of the concrete point raised you would like to adress, or are you content to drone on with your evasions?
I notice that since the post where you were kind enough to call me a gentleman, you have consistently ignored whatever I have posted. I take it that the gentleman approach is not likely to get me anywhere with you, so I suppose I must consider a gloves off approach from now on. No problem, I have tried that before.
Hans
Now for my questions…