hello snoopy and dr bhatia and thank you both very much for your thoughts.
it would be great if others were interested in this topic, whether 'scholars' or not. anyone with a thought is valued.

as i saw it, hahnemann did not approve of the use of nosodes, which in that day were known as 'isopathic' remedies. at the same time he makes the point in both passages that there is no such thing as 'isopathy' because when a substance is dynamized or potentized, it's nature is altered. [dr bhatia's point 2 above]

so, what were hahnemann's objections to nosodes?

1. at that time psorinum had not been proved to a level hahnemann deemed necessary for its safe use.
this makes logical sense to me, and as dr bhatia notes 'This statement itself gives very clear indication that he was in favour of symptomatic approach for the use of nosodes..and not for the ...'tuberculinum for Tb and Syphilinum for Syphilis ..' approach'

2. use of nosodes:
'contradicts all healthy common sense, and therefore also all experience'

on this point there seems to me no reasoned argument - if something contradicts common sense it does not follow logically that it also contradicts experience. as dr bhatia wrote: 'well! not good enough reasons there'

experience, as hahnemann well knew, precedes so-called 'healthy common sense'.
what experience was hahnemann referring to when he wrote:
"But wanting to cure a human disease (e.g., The itch diathesis or maladies arisen therefrom) with an identical human disease matter (e.g., With a psoricum taken from the itch diathesis) is going too far! Nothing results from it but calamity and aggravation of the disease."?

this comment about nosodes is such an important point and yet is here unreasoned and unexplained. does anyone know of other writings or experiments hahnemann referred to when making these comments?

dr bhatia's idea for proving simian AIDS focuses the issue - ie. AIDS can be treated with remedies that are already proven, but would the use of a fully proven nosode of a similar animal disease speed homoeopathic cure, where symptoms agreed? and if it would be of use, then why would a similar animal disease nosode 'happily supplement our stock of homoeopathic medicines' while the use of a similar human disease nosode would result in 'calamity and aggravation of the disease'?