Minutus

In a message dated 3/4/04 7:26:56 AM Central Standard Time,
minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
Which translation of the organon are you reading from? Yes I may have
misunderstood you but I dont remember anywhere in my studies about Hahnemann
administering two remedies at the same time. The information is incomplete.
Dr. Hahnemann did in fact, work w/ combination preparations, toward the end
of his career, based on success produced and reported by contemporaries: Dr.
Julius Aegidi, C. Von Boenninghausen, Jahr, et.al.
A paragraph that he wrote, that was never published in the Organon, included
the following:
"By the same token, I may also treat chronic afflictions through
administering, at one and same time, minisucle quantities of two differing but
explicitly indicated homeopathic agents, provided they promote healing from different
sides". This passage was rediscovered by Lutze, and pulblished in his
"Textbook of Homeopathy".
There is often found, a synergistic response to combinations, and the
work on potency chords has been fascinating, as well.

PJ (Paula Jo) Broadfoot DVM Van Buren, AR
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi PJ,

(First, I hope I'm correctly guessing/remembering where the prior post left
off and where yours begins... Does your post begin after the *****'s?)

Did you read the Homeopathy Today article that Robyn posted? (I can re-send
her post if you like.) My excerpt of her excerpt: ""Although Bradford
highlighted the political aspects of the situation, Hahnemann's later letter
to Boenninghausen in October shows that, in fact, the failure of his double
remedy trial was a major factor in the withdrawal of his support at the
meeting. All present at that meeting unanimously agreed to remove the
passage from the 5th Organon..."

So yes, it is acknowledged that during a brief period Hahnemann did
experiment with use of double remedies. But it is also clear that he did
not choose to go forward with that practice, and in fact chose to exclude it
from the practice of homeopathy.

So I would say it is Lutz's "rediscovery" that is incomplete if it fails to
mention the fact that Hahmemann refuted those experiments, and anyone who
wants to argue that simultaneously administered remedies fall under the
heading of "homeopathy", ought to phone up ol' Sam and have it out with
*him*.

I'd like to ask you what I've also asked Anna -- what do you feel is *lost*
if we let homeopathy retain the definition given by its founder? Nothing
forbids a "homeopath" from expanding his/her toolchest as he/she sees fit,
but it's best to be clear about just *what* tool one is using, and why.

Best wishes,
Shannon
on 3/4/04 8:44 AM, pbroadfoot@aol.com at pbroadfoot@aol.com wrote:
*******

At 9:44 AM -0500 3/4/04, pbroadfoot@aol.com wrote:

In fact Hahnemann did NOT use combination preparations toward the end
of his life, and his casebooks make that very clear.
He tried combinations on the suggestions of Boenninghausen and Aegidi
in the early 1830s and by the time the 5th edition of the Organon was
published in 1833, be abandoned those efforts, and saidethe same to
both Boenninghausen and Aegidi, and they agreed with him. The 5th
edition does not contain anything about double remedies (although he
had considered putting it in), and the 6th edition (Never seen by
Lutze, but known by him to exist) had an explicit statement about not
using combination.
Lutze is NOT considered a reliable source. It is only Lutze word that
he "rediscovered" it. Lutze ran a clinic in Koethen and idolized
Hahnemann-- in the full meaning of the word-- he erected idols to
Hahnemann, a statue in a park and a portrait in stained glass (with a
portrait of him next to Sam). Lutze ran a naturopathic clinic and
manufactured and sold a number of combination remedies.
And it is NOT homeopathy (as defined in the Organon) and should not
be confused with it.

JW