French medicines Drainage and Canalization in Homeopathy 1

[David Little]

At 09:34 PM 6/24/2005, you wrote:
This is not the whole truth. In the late 18th century Hahnemann was
selected as a public health officer and wrote Friend of Health based on his
experience. He wrote about how horrible the towns and cities in Germany. He
wrote about sick building, pollution from fires, food and drink
adulteration, overcrowding as well as poisons in the home and work place.
To think that the towns and cities during the early industrial revolution
were not polluted in out of touch with reality on the ground. Remember
London when through killer smog-fogs! The larger towns and cities were very
polluted and the sanitation and water quality was very poor. He also wrote
about the terrible diets and rotten food many persons were eating because
of lack of proper storage, etc.. This work was written just before the turn
of the 1800s! Also Hahnemann's patient included city dwellers as well as
country folks. Chronic diseases were very common at these times! Just study
medical history books!

In the 1st Organon Hahnemann introduced the single remedy but he also
emphasized it in every other edition. In the early editions of the Organon
hedid not suggest one remedy would cure every diseases alone. In fact he
wrote about how limited the materia medica was and how one sometimes had to
use alternations and a chief remedy and an intercurrent. He continued these
methods until he died and used less alternations in the 1840s then he did
at other times!!!
In 1817 wrote in the "Examination of the Sources of the Common Materia
Medica" (Lesser Writings) that some diseases have a fixed character. This
included miasms, environmentally induced disorders and physical trauma.
Hahnemann wrote:

"...they are diseases which always remain the same; some are produced by a
miasm which continues the same through all generations, such as the
venereal disease; others have the same exciting causes, as the ague of
marshy districts, the goiter of the inhabitants of deep valleys and their
outlets, and the bruises caused by falls and blows."

Hahnemann also noted in this work that it was possible to find specific
remedies for fixed diseases that share the common cause and affect a
homogeneous group of people. The Founder wrote:

"From the circumstance that constant remedies have already been
discovered for those diseases, few though they be, which have a constant
character, one might infer, that for all the diseases of a constant
character, constant (specific) remedies might be found. And accordingly,
since the only trustworthy way, the homœopathic, has been pursued with
honesty and zeal, the specific remedies for several of the other constant
diseases have already been discovered."

Hahnemann's examples of fixed diseases their specific remedies in 1817 were:

1. Belladonna as curative and prophylactic in scarlet fever with
erysipelas of the skin.
2. Aconite in purpura miliaris with inflammatory fever, agonizing
anxiety and restlessness.
3. Spongia and Hepar sulph in croup.
4. Drosera in whooping cough.
5. Thuja in sycosis.
6. Mercury in syphilis.

This list contains acute and chronic miasms! Hahnemann had already
started to work with acute and chronic genus epidemicus remedies by
1817. This is when he started his 11 year study of psora. The results of
this study are presented in The Chronic Diseases in 1828. In this work
Hahnemann notes that Sulphur is one of the leading remedies for psora and
gives a number of examples of the ways he was using this remedy. He also
introduce 47 other anti-psoric remedies during these years. By 1830 he was
starting a majority of his cases with Sulphur and then following up with
other anti-psorics by the remaining symptoms.
The above is historically inaccurate. Hahnemann was already using
Sulphur as his leading anti-psoric remedy in the late 1820s long before he
went to Paris. A German casebooks (DF 34) from 1830 (five years before he
went to Paris) shows he was already starting most of his cases with
Sulphur. Hahnemann very rarely used two or more remedies in one
prescription when he went to Paris. The Paris casebooks show he only
prescribed one remedy at a time in most cases. He might have changed
remedies quickly in a fast moving acute diseases but not in chronic
patients. It is true that he sometimes used alterations or an intercurrent
but he had done this from the time of the 1st Organon in 1810!

Its is very clear that Hahnemann taught there were specific remedies
for the fixed miasms. He had already stated that Thuja and Mercury we
specifics for sycosis and syphilis in 1817! By 1828 he decided that Sulphur
and Hepar were the most specific remedies for psora, suppression and
drugging at the start of treatment. Sulphur, Thuja and Mercury were
Hahnemann's leading remedies for psora, sycosis and syphilis although they
were not his only remedies. Hahnemann tended to give Sulphur first in
chronic patents based on psora, suppression and drugging and then follow up
with single remedies by the remaining symptoms. Hahnemann discovered these
chronic genus remedies by using the group case based on a large number of
suffering from the same mixed miasms. This entire presentation of history
is starting to look more and more like a cooked up agenda driven article
and less and less historically accurate!!!
Hahnemann published his thoughts on specific remedies for miasms as
early as 1817! He also made it extremely clear what he was doing in the
Chronic Diseases in 1828 and in the 5th Organon in 1833! He wrote about
repeating using Sulphur and Hepar in the Chronic Diseases and spoke about
alternations and the use of intercurrents in 1833. He also wrote about the
medicinal solutions and split-doses in 1837. All of this was already in the
public domain.

I have reviewed 100s of Hahnemann prescriptions in the Paris casebooks
and this rendition is based on revisionist history and improper facts to
say the least! This is does not even properly reflect what Rima Handley
wrote and he does even know her name properly! Rima Handley correctly notes
that on “the whole” Hahnemann suspended one remedy while administering
another (Later Hahnemann, page 69). Yes, Hahnemann occasionally used
alterations and once in a great while a tandem remedy but he never used
combinations. When using the LM potency in the 1840s alternation is very
rare. There are no complex prescriptions or mixtures in the Paris
casebooks! This person does not know what he is talking about.
This is more disi-nformation based on historical inaccuracies. To say
that the French homeopaths followed up on how Hahnemann practice is a
myth! They are NOT using a simillimum by the collective or individual
symptoms, the single remedy, the minimal dose, or LM potencies that
Hahnemann used in Paris. They are NOT using the medicinal solution of the
single remedy in split-doses succussed each time before administration.
They are NOT using the anti-miasmic remedies in the same way he did. They
do are NOT using the LM potency. This person is trying to take Hahnemann
away from traditional homeopaths who are following his methods and given
him to those who use mixture and combinations.

Kent wrote extensively on the chronic miasms! He was very well aware
of what Hahnemann wrote in the Chronic Diseases (1828), the 4th (1829) and
5th Organon (1833), which is when Hahnemann wrote about his new views of
chronic diseases. He did not, however, know about the changes surrounding
the 6th Organon and the LM potency. To assume that all traditional
homeopaths are Kentian is a grand misnomer. What about those who followed
Boenninghausen, Heirng's and Lippe's methods? What about Clarke and
Burrnet? What about Boger? There are many styles of traditional homeopathy
but they all have one thing in common - one single remedy at a time!
The following statement is another grand historical inaccuracy. "This
means that in the case of chronic diseases there is no such remedy as the
simillimum any more, a fact Hahnemann established in Paris." Hahnemann
NEVER taught this! Just read the 6th Organon and read the Paris casebooks!
This similllmum is the best single remedy one can choose at any particular
time in the case. Traditional homeopaths have cured 10, 000s of cases of
chronic disease with one single remedy at a time.

It is the method of politicians and lawyers to incorrectly define their
targeted views and then refute the inaccuracy they just made up. This
article is a perfect example of this method. Second comes a completely
false rendition of Hahnemann's life and works. Third claim that you are
doing the Founder's real work all in the name of combination remedies!!!
This is really going to far even for many who occasionally use a combination!
Well here we go! Now comes the real reason for writing such blatant
historical inaccuracies! The introduction of combination remedies all in
the supposed name of doing Hahnemann methods!!!
Next more combinations, etc..
Now I see! How can one make money using one small tiny pill of a single
remedy in medicinal solution like Hahnemann really did in Paris? Just
think how good it is for business to give all these remedies in prepackage
combinations! All you retallers" out there pay special attention now! This
is nothing but propaganda based on complete twisting of homeopathy history,
and of course, the last act is a business proposition!

I don't care if some persons use combinations but they are following
the teachings person's like Luzte NOT Hahnemann. ICombinations remedies
will have to stand or fall on their own merits without twisting the facts.
This is one of the most perverted presentations of homeopathic history I
have seen. God, I wish Julian was still with us! I wonder what he would
have to say about this one!!!

What's next?
Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000