Vitriol, huh? You, sir, are a liberal, creation's most dangerous fool. This is the accurate description of a liberal:

“Any examination of patriarchy must necessarily include the mindset of the man of war, and any examination of matriarchy must necessarily include the mindset of the liberal. The man of war is essentially the one who mis-defines patriotism to mean servility and nationalism, whereas the actual patriot would never obediently and without good cause invade another country, overstay his welcome or acquiesce to such imperialism and fascism by his leaders. Any real patriot loves his country but recognizes this trait in patriots of other countries, so he can be trusted to avoid abusing his powers as a soldier. A mere nationalist cannot be entrusted with any powers. He’s personified in fascists (‘elitists’), and hence comes the wisdom of the man least trusted with powers is the one who seeks it, and yet we still mindlessly elect professional leaders who’re all lawyers and thus professional liars. What’s wrong with this picture? Rhetorical, for the Founding Fathers refused to incorporate the ancient Laws of Economy into our CONSTITUTION, and we’re now stuck with the mess that created until we do it ourselves before madmen destroy the world. . . .

“Such long diatribes are very easily foisted on the man of war (remembering that we’re not talking about real patriots) and justly so because Christ abhors war, but it’s ultimately undeniable that he’s a small loss in the greater scheme of God’s desires for us and the reasons for Christ’s advent among us to expedite our creation of the Kingdom of God on Earth. . . .

“Most persons who arrogate to themselves the status of ‘intellectual’ are seeking a distinction among men to compensate for their social ineptitude. A deep sense of inferiority compels them to proclaim their superiority over intelligent men of good sense. Intellectuals like to believe they are so far above the rest of society that common men can’t understand them or appreciate them. To prove this contention, they have an esoteric jargon of their own. When intellectuals gather, they spend the time impressing one another with their culture and education. Such intellectuals form a sort of lunatic fringe of writers, artists, poets and bizarre nonconformists who parrot clever things they’ve learned from published intellectuals. Because they really try to believe they are above men, they will go to any extreme to demonstrate their contempt for society’s hard-gained concepts of proper behavior and morality.

“Intellectuals behave in a bohemian manner not so much for the sake of enjoyment but because it is the very opposite of prudent convention. They flout religion because they feel their intellect is beyond such opiates. They contrarily profess radical, revolutionary movements and would secretly love to gain control over their country in order to mold it to their own liking. Inasmuch as they cannot fit into society, their antagonism toward it makes them want to command all who comprise it. They would force everyone to acclaim their kind as exalted beings. Intellectuals are notorious for having promoted revolutionary ideologies that have resulted in the overthrow of established governments, and, in effect, they have carelessly and unconscionably delivered whole nations into the hands of dictators. This they may do in hope of reward from a new government, but almost without exception, they are removed as dangerous inciters of revolution by the very scoundrels to whom they afforded power.

“Most intellectuals are prone to harmless self-pity, retreat and erratic behavior, but the liberal is a real villain. He will take no firm stand on anything even if his very survival depends upon a soundly reasoned plan of action. He will tell you that one must be open to both sides of every question at all times. He will bend over backwards to demonstrate, for instance, that Nazism and Buddhism are similar or that the concepts of good and evil are wholly relative so that no absolute moral laws can exist or insist that the notion that the Sun revolves about the Earth can never be entirely disproved. Under the guise of open-mindedness and intellectual fairness, we have a person who will not think constructively or conclusively. Ironically, he is usually college educated, smoothly persuasive and socially well polished, and these attributes aid in his appointment to positions of trust and respectability. But his devious, unanchored morality and his adeptness at evasive double-talk make the liberal an easy turncoat and traitor. After all, his loyalty is only relative to his non-absolute code of morality. He can rationalize any immoral behavior by his shifting standards that allow him, above all other men, the ability to live any way he pleases and never sin in his own eyes. This he can do without inner conflict because the liberal can argue that his intellect may in some respects exceed God’s wisdom – if indeed he even recognizes a God. The liberal, as can be seen, is without common sense, logic or morality. He is creation’s most dangerous fool. . . .”

Now, try to make an accurate statement about medicine, sir. I don't care what it is, I doubt you can do it. We'll step to it one statement at a time and see what you know, okie dokie? I try very hard to help these people think homeopathically because they're worth my efforts since they're at least close to it, but you've come from the outside as an allopath who doesn't even realize he is allopathic. That's pitiful and pathetic to me, so I tend to care little about your kind, but I will let you try to butt heads against me since I'm an expert at homeopathy, while you know nothing accurate about it. I don't think you're going to like this, but I'll let you expose yourself. So, try to make an accurate statement about medicine.

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

So why the long flatulent quote. I've cut it down for the sake of brevity. You call me a fool, allopath, child of sorts, wish to cave in my cranium with your expert use of karate, piss on me etc etc. Ha! So what else is new? "Fee fi fo fum, I smell the flesh of a non hahnemannian!"

You know Albert you are somewhat of a conundrum - I can see perfect sense in a lot of what you say (homeopathically) conversely I see the irrational violence which so undermines your credibility. You'd benefit by being an Adult in your correspondence with everyone which would be reciprocal and even down right helpful to the cause you so fiercly defend and champion - homoeopathy. Sigh....

Medicine hmmmm thats a tough one Albert.
Couple of meanings come to mind:

1/medication; a remedy - any substance administered for disease treatment.
2/The science and art of preventing, treating or curing disease as it is termed.

What's next, great sir?



Brad

I'm still waiting for you to make an accurate statement about medicine.

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

Statement about Medicine? Sorry, I didn't do that !

SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR - Hahnemann's brilliant perception (aude sapere) observed, noted and applied the fundamental law of true healing. Demonstrated from inception, this law has not changed. It is a fundamental fact. Gradual experimentation has broadened the application of this law but no amount of experimentation has been able to extend this law itself.

'To obtain a quick, easy and lasting cure, chose for every attack of illness a medicine which can produce a similar malady to the one it is to cure' (similia similbus curentur)

Brad

.....and so Medicine, specifically Homoeopathic Medicine, is the application of the Law of Similars.....

And, how do you do that?

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

Well, thanks for the opportunity 444, straight from Hahnemanns Organon. I know just how you'll love this go on expertly karate me for quoting him!

83 This individualizing examination of a case of disease, for which I shall only give in this place general directions, of which the practitioner will bear in mind only what is applicable for each individual case, demands of the physician nothing but freedom from prejudice and sound senses, attention in observing and fidelity in tracing the picture of the disease.

The patient details the history of his sufferings; those about him tell what they heard him complain of, how he has behaved and what they have noticed in him; the physician sees, hears, and remarks by his other senses what there is of an altered or unusual character about him. He writes down accurately all that the patient and his friends have told him in the very expressions used by them. Keeping silence himself he allows them to say all they have to say, and refrains from interrupting them1 unless they wander off to other matters. The physician advises them at the beginning of the examination to speak slowly, in order that he may take down in writing the important parts of what the speakers say.
1 Every interruption breaks the train of thought of the narrators, and all they would have said at first does not again occur to them in precisely the same manner after that.

He begins a fresh line with every new circumstance mentioned by the patient or his friends, so that the symptoms shall be all ranged separately one below the other. He can thus add to any one, that may at first have been related in too vague a manner, but subsequently more explicitly explained.

When the narrators have finished what they would say of their own accord, the physician then reverts to each particular symptom and elicits more precise information respecting it in the following manner; he reads over the symptoms as they were related to him one by one, and about each of them he inquires for further particulars, e.g., at what period did this symptom occur? Was it previous to taking the medicine he had hitherto been using? While taking the medicine? Or only some days after leaving off the medicine? What kind of pain, what sensation exactly, was it that occurred on this spot? Where was the precise spot? Did the pain occur in fits and by itself, at various times? Or was it continued, without intermission? How long did it last? At what time of the day or night, and in what position of the body was it worst, or ceased entirely? What was the exact nature of this or that event or circumstance mentioned - described in plain words?

And thus the physician obtains more precise information respecting each particular detail, but without ever framing his questions so as to suggest the answer to the patient1, so that he shall only have to answer yes or no; else he will be misled to answer in the affirmative or negative something untrue, half true, or not strictly correct, either from indolence or in order to please his interrogator, from which a false picture of the disease and an unsuitable mode of treatment must result.
1 For instance the physician should not ask, Was not this or that circumstance present? He should never be guilty of making such suggestions, which tend to seduce the patient into giving a false answer and a false account of his symptoms.

If in these voluntary details nothing has been mentioned respecting several parts or functions of the body or his metal state, the physician asks what more can be told in regard to these parts and these functions, or the state of his disposition or mind1, but in doing this he only makes use of general expressions, in order that his informants may be obliged to enter into special details concerning them.
1 For example what was the character of his stools? How does he pass his water? How is it with his day and night sleep? What is the state of his disposition, his humor, his memory? How about the thirst? What sort of taste has he in his mouth? What kinds of food and drink are most relished? What are most repugnant to him? Has each its full natural taste, or some other unusual taste? How does he feel after eating or drinking? Has he anything to tell about the head, the limbs or the abdomen?
When the patient (for it is on him we have chiefly to rely for a description of his sensations, except in the case of feigned diseases) has by these details, given of his own accord and in answer to inquiries, furnished the requisite information and traced a tolerably perfect picture of the disease, the physician is at liberty and obliged (if he feels he has not yet gained all the information he needs) to ask more precise, more special questions.1
1 For example, how often are his bowels moved? What is the exact character of the stools? Did the whitish evacuation consist of mucus or faeces? Had he or had he not pains during the evacuation? What was their exact character, and where were they seated? What did the patient vomit? Is the bad taste in the mouth putrid, or bitter, or sour, or what? before or after eating, or during the repast? At what period of the day was it worst? What is the taste of what is eructated? Does the urine only become turbid on standing, or is it turbid when first discharged? What is its color when first emitted? Of what color is the sediment? How does he behave during sleep? Does he whine, moan, talk or cry out in his sleep? Does he start during sleep? Does he snore during inspiration, or during expiration? Does he lie only on his back, or on which side? Does he cover himself well up, or can he not bear the clothes on him? Does he easily awake, or does he sleep too soundly? How often does this or that symptom occur? What is the cause that produces it each time it occurs? does it come on whilst sitting, lying, standing, or when in motion? only when fasting, or in the morning, or only in the evening, or only after a meal, or when does it usually appear? When did the rigor come on? was it merely a chilly sensation, or was he actually cold at the same time? if so, in what parts? or while feeling chilly, was he actually warm to the touch? was it merely a sensation of cold, without shivering? was he hot without redness of the face? what parts of him were hot to the touch? or did he complain of heat without being hot to the touch? How long did the chilliness last? how long the hot stage? When did the thirst come on - during the cold stage? during the heat? or previous to it? or subsequent to it? How great was the thirst, and what was the beverage desired? When did the sweat come on - at the beginning or the end of the heat? or how many hours after the heat? when asleep or when awake? How great was the sweat? was it warm or cold? on what parts? how did it smell? What does he complain of before or during the cold stage? what during the hot stage? what after it? what during or after the sweating stage?
(Added to the Sixth Edition)
In women, note the character of menstruation and other discharges, etc.

When the physician has finished writing down these particulars, he then makes a note of what he himself observes in the patient1, and ascertains how much of that was peculiar to the patient in his healthy state.
1 For example, how the patient behaved during the visit - whether he was morose, quarrelsome, hasty, lachrymose, anxious, despairing or sad, or hopeful, calm etc. Whether he was in a drowsy state or in any way dull of comprehension; whether he spoke hoarsely, or in a low tone, or incoherently, or how other wise did he talk? what was the color of his face and eyes, and of his skin generally? what degree of liveliness and power was there in his expression and eyes? what was the state of his tongue, his breathing, the smell from his mouth, and his hearing? were his pupils dilated or contracted? how rapidly and to what extent did they alter in the dark and in the light? what was the character of the pulse? what was the condition of the abdomen? how moist or hot, how cold or dry to the touch, was the skin of this or that part or generally? whether he lay with head thrown back, with mouth half or wholly open, with the arms placed above the head, on his back, or in what other position? what effort did he make to raise himself? and anything else in him that may strike the physician as being remarkable.

The symptoms and feelings of the patient during a previous course of medicine do not furnish the pure picture of the disease; but on the other hand, those symptoms and ailments which he suffered from before the use of the medicines, or after they had been discontinued for several days, give the true fundamental idea of the original form of the disease, and these especially the physician must take note of. When the disease is of a chronic character, and the patient has been taking medicine up to the time he is seen, the physician may with advantage leave him some days quite without medicine, or in the meantime administer something of an unmedicinal nature and defer to a subsequent period the more precise scrutiny of the morbid symptoms, in order to be able to grasp in their purity the permanent uncontaminated symptoms of the old affection and to form a faithful picture of the disease.

But if it be a disease of a rapid course, and if its serious character admit of no delay, the physician must content himself with observing the morbid condition, altered though it may be by medicines, if he cannot ascertain what symptoms were present before the employment of the medicines, - in order that he may at least form a just apprehension of the complete picture of the disease in its actual condition, that is to say, of the conjoint malady formed by the medicinal and original diseases, which from the use of inappropriate drugs is generally more serious and dangerous than was the original disease, and hence demands prompt and efficient aid; and by thus tracing out the complete picture of the disease he will be enabled to combat it with a suitable homœopathic remedy, so that the patient shall not fall a sacrifice to the injurious drugs he was swallowed.
If the disease has been brought on a short time or, in the case of a chronic affection, a considerable time previously, by some obvious cause, then the patient - or his friends when questioned privately - will mention it either spontaneously or when carefully interrogated.1
1 Any causes of a disgraceful character, which the patient or his friends do not like to confess, at least not voluntarily, the physician must endeavor to elicit by skilfully framing his questions, or by private information. To these belong poisoning or attempted suicide, onanism, indulgence in ordinary or unnatural debauchery, excess in wine, cordials, punch and other ardent beverages, or coffee, - over-indulgence in eating generally, or in some particular food of a hurtful character, - infection with venereal disease or itch, unfortunate love, jealousy, domestic infelicity, worry, grief on account of some family misfortune, ill-usage, balked revenge, injured pride, embarrassment of a pecuniary nature, superstitious fear, - hunger, - or an imperfection in the private parts, a rupture, a prolapse, and so forth.

While inquiring into the state of chronic disease, the particular circumstances of the patient with regard to his ordinary occupations, his usual mode of living and diet, his domestic situation, and so forth, must be well considered and scrutinized, to ascertain what there is in them that may tend to produce or to maintain disease, in order that by their removal the recovery may by prompted.1
1 In chronic diseases of females it is specially necessary to pay attention to pregnancy, sterility, sexual desire, accouchements, miscarriages, suckling, and the state of the menstrual discharge. With respect to the last-named more particularly, we should not neglect to ascertain if it recurs at too short intervals, or is delayed beyond the proper time, how many days it lasts, whether its flow is continuous or interrupted, what is its general quality, how dark is its color, whether there is leucorrhoea before its appearance or after its termination, but especially by what bodily or mental ailments, what sensations and pains, it is preceded, accompanied or followed; if there is leucorrhoea, what is its nature, what sensations attend its flow, in what quantity it is, and what are the conditions and occasions under which it occurs?

In chronic disease the investigation of the signs of disease above mentioned, and of all others, must be pursued as carefully and circumstantially as possible, and the most minute peculiarities must be attended to, partly because in these diseases they are the most characteristic and least resemble those of acute diseases, and if a cure is to be affected they cannot be too accurately noted; partly because the patients become so used to their long sufferings that they pay little or no heed to the lesser accessory symptoms, which are often very pregnant with meaning (characteristic) - often very useful in determining the choice of the remedy - and regard them almost as a necessary part of their condition, almost as health, the real feeling of which they have well-nigh forgotten in the sometimes fifteen or twenty years of suffering, and they can scarcely bring themselves to believe that these accessory symptoms, these greater or less deviations from the healthy state, can have any connection with their principal malady.

Besides this, patients themselves differ so much in their dispositions, that some, especially the so-called hypochondriacs and other persons of great sensitiveness and impatient of suffering, portray their symptoms in too vivid colors and, in order to induce the physician to give them relief, describe their ailments in exaggerated expression.1
1 A pure fabrication of symptoms and sufferings will never be met with in hypochondriacs, even in the most impatient of them - a comparison of the sufferings they complain of at various times when the physician gives them nothing at all, or something quite unmedical, proves this plainly; - but we must deduct something from their exaggeration, at all events ascribe the strong character of their expressions to their expressions when talking of their ailments becomes of itself an important symptom in the list of features of which the portrait of the disease is composed. The case is different with insane persons and rascally feigners of disease.

Other individuals of an opposite character, however, partly from indolence, partly from false modesty, partly from a kind of mildness of disposition or weakness of mind, refrain from mentioning a number of their symptoms, describe them in vague terms, or allege some of them to be of no consequence.

Now, as certainly as we should listen particularly to the patient’s description of his sufferings and sensations, and attach credence especially to his own expressions wherewith he endeavors to make us understand his ailments - because in the mouths of his friends and attendants they are usually altered and erroneously stated, - so certainly, on the other hand, in all diseases, but especially in the chronic ones, the investigation of the true, complete picture and its peculiarities demands especial circumspection, tact, knowledge of human nature, caution in conducting the inquiry and patience in an eminent degree.

On the whole, the investigation of acute diseases, or of such as have existed but a short time, is much the easiest for the physician, because all the phenomena and deviations from the health that has been put recently lost are still fresh in the memory of the patient and his friends, still continue to be novel and striking. The physician certainly requires to know everything in such cases also; but he has much less to inquire into; they are for the most part spontaneously detailed to him.
In investigating the totality of the symptoms of epidemic and sporadic diseases it is quite immaterial whether or not something similar has ever appeared in the world before under the same or any other name. The novelty or peculiarity of a disease of that kind makes no difference either in the mode of examining or of treating it, as the physician must any way regard to pure picture of every prevailing disease as if it were something new and unknown, and investigate it thoroughly for itself, if he desire to practice medicine in a real and radical manner, never substituting conjecture for actual observation, never taking for granted that the case of disease before him is already wholly or partially known, but always carefully examining it in all its phases; and this mode of procedure is all the more requisite in such cases, as a careful examination will show that every prevailing disease is in many respects a phenomenon of a unique character, differing vastly from all previous epidemics, to which certain names have been falsely applied - with the exception of those epidemics resulting from a contagious principle that always remains the same, such as smallpox, measles, etc.

It may easily happen that in the first case of an epidemic disease that presents itself to the physician’s notice he does not at once obtain a knowledge of its complete picture, as it is only by a close observation of several cases of every such collective disease that he can become conversant with the totality of its signs and symptoms. The carefully observing physician can, however, from the examination of even the first and second patients, often arrive so nearly at a knowledge of the true state as to have in his mind a characteristic portrait of it, and even to succeed in finding a suitable, homœopathically adapted remedy for it.

In the course of writing down the symptoms of several cases of this kind the sketch of the disease picture becomes ever more and more complete, not more spun out and verbose, but more significant (more characteristic), and including more of the peculiarities of this collective disease; on the one hand, the general symptoms (e.g., loss of appetite, sleeplessness, etc.) become precisely defined as to their peculiarities; and on the other, the more marked and special symptoms which are peculiar to but few diseases and of rarer occurrence, at least in the same combination, become prominent and constitute what is characteristic of this malady.1 All those affected with the disease prevailing at a given time have certainly contracted it from one and the same source and hence are suffering from the same disease; but the whole extent of such an epidemic disease and the totality of its symptoms (the knowledge whereof, which is essential for enabling us to choose the most suitable homœopathic remedy for this array of symptoms, is obtained by a complete survey of the morbid picture) cannot be learned from one single patient, but is only to be perfectly deduced (abstracted) and ascertained from the sufferings of several patients of different constitutions.
1 The physician who has already, in the first cases, been able to choose a remedy approximating to the homœopathic specific, will, from the subsequence cases, be enabled either to verify the suitableness of the medicine chosen, or to discover a more appropriate, the most appropriate homœopathic remedy.

In the same manner as has here been taught relative to the epidemic disease, which are generally of an acute character, the miasmatic chronic maladies, which, as I have shown, always remain the same in their essential nature, especially the psora, must be investigated, as to the whole sphere of their symptoms, in a much more minute manner than has ever been done before, for in them also one patient only exhibits a portion of their symptoms, a second, a third, and so on, present some other symptoms, which also are but a (dissevered, as it were), portion of the totality of the symptoms which constitute the entire extent of this malady, so that the whole array of the symptoms belonging to such a miasmatic, chronic disease, and especially to the psora, can only be ascertained from the observation of very many single patients affected with such a chronic disease, and without a complete survey and collective picture of these symptoms the medicines capable of curing the whole malady homœopathically (to wit, the antipsorics) cannot be discovered; and these medicines are, at the same time, the true remedies of the several patients suffering from such chronic affections.

When the totality of the symptoms that specially mark and distinguish the case of disease or, in other words, when the picture of the disease, whatever be its kind, is once accurately sketched,1 the most difficult part of the task is accomplished. The physician has then the picture of the disease, especially if it be a chronic one, always before him to guide him in his treatment; he can investigate it in all its parts and can pick out the characteristic symptoms, in order to oppose to these, that is to say, to the whole malady itself, a very similar artificial morbific force, in the shape of a homœopathically chosen medicinal substance, selected from the lists of symptoms of all the medicines whose pure effects have been ascertained. And when, during the treatment, he wishes to ascertain what has been the effect of the medicine, and what change has taken place in the patient’s state, at this fresh examination of the patient he only needs to strike out of the list of the symptoms noted down at the first visit those that have become ameliorated, to mark what still remain, and add any new symptoms that may have supervened.
1 The old school physician gave himself very little trouble in this matter in his mode of treatment. He would not listen to any minute detail of all the circumstances of his case by the patient; indeed, he frequently cut him short in his relation of his sufferings, in order that he might not be delayed in the rapid writing of his prescription, composed of a variety of ingredients unknown to him in their true effects. No allopathic physician, as has been said, sought to learn all the circumstances of the patient’s case, and still less did he make a note in writing of them. On seeing the patient again several days afterwards he recollected nothing concerning the few details he had heard at the first visit (having in the meantime seen so many other patients laboring under different affections); he had allowed everything to go in at one ear and out at the other. At subsequent visits he only asked a few general questions, went through the ceremony of feeling the pulse at the wrist, looked at the tongue, and at the same moment wrote another prescription, on equally irrational principles, or ordered the first one to be continued (in considerable quantities several times a day), and, with a graceful bow, he hurried off to the fiftieth or sixtieth patient he had to visit, in this thoughtless way, in the course of that forenoon. The profession which of all others requires actually the most reflection, a conscientious, careful examination of the state of each individual patient and a special treatment founded thereon, was conducted in this manner by persons who called themselves physicians, rational practitioners. The result, as might naturally be expected, was almost invariably bad; and yet patients had to go to them for advise, partly because there were none better to be had, partly for fashion’s sake.

Just be careful what you say from here on, okay? It's the toughest subject in the universe, and it's easily adulterated. My apologies if I overstepped myself and was unkind and uncharitable. Keep studying. There comes a time when you suddenly realize you spot all of the errors of allopaths and low-potency and high-potency pseudo homeopaths. Keep studying.

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

Sure I'm all for solidarity with integrity - I know only too well how hard it is to get Homeopathy right. After my initial training (15 years ago) I have spent years studying to try and remove some of the literally dangerous concepts that were taught to me as Homeopathy, replacing them with solid information from Hahnemann and his close students. Now I'm cautious, then I was like those fellows Kent described in a dark room with razors. So yeah I try to be careful with what I say and hey, I can see the sense in what you are saying. Maybe I'm liberal but I like to try and understand points of view and where people are at. It can be hard to get this through typed words. Anyway if you want we can keep going with this thread - its good to stretch the 2 or 3 brain cells I have that work optimally.

Best
Brad

Dear Members,

He's invoking a famous quote from James Tyler Kent about the abuse of high potencies. Kent was a major voice in homeopathy after the last Hahnemannian died in the 1890s. He and a few other guys essentially kept it alive through the International Hahnemannian Association (IHA). The IHA was formed by American Hahnemannians and a few high-potency pseudo homeopaths (HPHs) in 1880 after they abandoned the American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH) to the mongrel low-potency pseudo homeopaths (LPHs) who overran it. The AIH was formed in 1844, three years before the American Medical Association (AMA), one year after Hahnemann died at age 88 and just a few years after the Allentown Academy (properly, The North American Academy of the Homeopathic Healing Art in Allentown, Pennsylvannia) collapsed due to fraud by a banker who absconded with the Trust Fund. Allopaths flocked into the AIH due to our amazing successes in the ghastly pandemic of Asiatic cholera of 1830-33 -- the last Great Plague, a special category. They totally compromised homeopathy, so the 40 or so Hahnemannians and HPHs walked away and formed the IHA just 36 years later. It's a sad story, but it's what you get when you adulterate homeopathy, for the only thing that results is allopathic homeopathy -- a bigger oxymoron is hardly possible. So, there was renewed life breathed into the homeopathic voices through the IHA. It's a big deal, for it was the high point of American Homeopathy. The publications of the IHA are all important up 'til the 1890s, and much of it remained important thereafter because HPHs have most things correct.

Then, a few years after Kent expired (I think in 1914 but close to that if it's wrong), Pierre Schmidt of Geneva, Switzerland, actually resurrected Hahnemannian homeopathy. It's quite marvelous, but you have to love homeopathy to think so. He came from out of nowhere and resurrected it. Don't cry about that, and we'll know what you are. Schmidt studied under Kent for a short while (a few months), and all evidence indicates that Kent achieved Hahnemannian status late in his life. It's all a long story, and we have a love-hate relationship with Kent because he so severely compromised the uncompromising Hahnemann in the same ways St. Paul compromised the uncompromising Christ, and yet he made wonderfully accurate statements, too. It's much the same with me and George Vithoulkas. I love the guy, and I like most of the things he says, but follower personalities get ahold of it and carry it to extremes that George is reponsible for. Nonetheless, yes, no, this, that always comes up about Kent. It's a love-hate relationship, and you get used to it, but I can tell you that the first two lectures in Kent's LECTURES ON HOMEOPATHIC PHILOSOPHY are true masterworks! [http://homeoint.org/books3/kentlect/lect01.htm] I don't like any of the others, and I despise his materia medica, but everyone has to read Kent. The best book is K.-H. Gypser's KENT'S MINOR WRITINGS ON HOMEOPATHY.

So, Kent said something like this: "I would rather be in a room of negros [remember that this was said in 1900 in St. Louis, I think, but he should have said, 'in a room of criminals'] wielding razors than be subject to a fool wielding our high potencies." Quite true. You can create insanity with abuse of high potencies. Don't fool around with high potencies, please. They're necessary to cure, but the wrong medicine (and all but one is the wrong medicine) will produce symptoms. You can get into psychotic and schizophrenic states with high-potency self-provings, but you're also basically just witnessing it. You're also experiencing or suffering it, but self-provings are marvelous experiences where you're basically the witness to unique states of consciousness. Imagine that. Tell me any other way to gain actual empathy and sympathy for totally crazy people. Get this: You won't but see ill people wherever you look once you gain some knowledge about our medicines. They all accept allopathic physicians, so they're all crazy. You can take that calculus many different directions, too, and still come up with the fact that everyone is crazy. They all need some medicine, so it's essentially impossible for us to have friends other than other Hahnemannians. You get used to it, though, and it's not such a big cross to bear when you can do what you can with these little mustard-seed-sized thingies from Heaven. I like it, and there's no kidding that we're actual priests to properly wield these medicines, something Hahnemann first said. This isn't the conventional usage of the word priest, though, so get away from me if you think that way, for those guys get paid for doing absolutely nothing and misleading everyone in the process. Nonetheless, these are very powerful medicines, and Kent said it well about the abuse of them. Fortunately, we have Camphor. Tell me God didn't create that stuff specifically for homeopathic mistakes. Isn't that interesting?

I'm going to push this a bit further. Allopaths repeatedly say that our drugs are "innert and innocuous." What ignorant fools! They thereby prove they're not scientists, too, for no actual scientist would pronounce on anything without actual knowledge. No, theory dominates the Minds of mere academics (differentiated from actual scholars and class-A thinkers, 1% of the populations), and present chemical theory says that they must be placebos. They're not, though, and any high-potency self-proving proves it. Likewise, we have a pile of findings from physicists that shatter modern chemical theory, but the idiots simply can't connect the dots. Moreover, Shui Yin Lo's electronmicrographs totally shatter chemical theory, but they just dismiss his findings because they love their theory more than the Truth.

So, ready, set, go. We dare them to daily take multiple doses of a high potency of Lachesis for weeks. I guarantee you, they'll be begging us for an antidote within the month. They'll be huddled in the corner of some room shouting at the Moon and afraid of everything. They'll think they see ghosts. You can't imagine fear until you've proved Lachesis. It's a snake venom. Imagine how afraid snakes must be, and you're not even close. You can find out with homeopathy, though. Lachesis is just one of many drugs that especially shouldn't be abused, though.

Essentially, any high potency is ultra-dangerous, but that's also how powerfully curative they are. You can't cure psychiatric maladies without high potencies, and almost everyone is a psychiatric patient before they come to us for something else. They just don't realize it, and nobody else does, either. Look around, though, and show me someone who's sane. Do they belong to a religion? If so, they're crazy. Do they vote for the major candidates even though it's now no secret that they're all bought and sold by campaign contributions from the rich through their corporations before they get on the ballots? If so, they're crazy. Do they acquiesce to the myriad half-truths and lies of academia? If so, they're crazy. Do they believe there was a Big Bang? If so, they're crazy. Can they tell you the nature of existence without self-conflicts? If not, they're crazy. Do they have children before knowing the truths of existence and before becoming expert at the neurological development of the human brain and expert at child psychology? If so, they're crazy. Do they know the true history of their country, their civilization and the world? If not, they're crazy. Are they going to be embalmed? If so, they're crazy. Do they engage in work that's contrary to the Golden Rule? If so, they're crazy? Do they think, say and do things that will guarantee them the destruction of their Souls? If so, they're crazy. Do they accept the existence of police and acquiesce to the existence of prisons? If so, they're crazy. Do they accept the crime, corruption, tyranny and injustices in general of today without knowing the solutions? If so, they're crazy. Can they defend everything they think, say and do? If not, they're crazy. Show me someone who can. Do they accept the existence of doctors without cures? Of course they do, and they're all crazy for doing that. Almost everyone's crazy, and I just proved it. Can we fix all of them? Yes, and ignorance of this fact also proves they're all crazy.

Why is Jethro Bodine in the White House, anyway? Because masses of morons are crazy. He probably needs a medicine that's most visibly used to cure the crazy street-corner preacher who castigates passersby with shouts of Hell and damnation. He talks about evil doers and condems whole nations as the Axis of evil even though our country should be begging them for forgiveness and should be doing everything we can to fix what previous morons in control of our government and commercial interests did to their countries. He's created even more enemies for us because patriarchal personalities need enemies to define themselves. Now we're involved in a nightmare in Iraq. How did a Veratrum album patient get into the White House? Because masses of morons are crazy. Why was an idiot like Bill Clinton in the White House? Because masses of morons are crazy. Why did we allow another ultra-moron named Judge Kenneth Starr to embarrass the entire country simply because he's a Kali carbonicum patient? Because masses of morons are crazy. It doesn't matter where you look, the only explanation is that almost everyone is ignorant, servile, complacent, selfish, brainwashed and brain damaged (from premature cutting of the umbilical cord), and that's just crazy. We therefore need the high potencies.

Show me anyone who knew I would turn that direction from that diatribe, and I'll show you a homeopath. Even high-potency pseudo homeopaths know this, so they're our buddies. We didn't create this Hell on Earth; everyone else did. We know the solutions, too. Who else does? Not one in a million people do. That's pitiful and pathetic in the extreme, for this status quo is going to destroy the planet and make it uninhabitable 'til the end of God. Why? Because everyone's crazy!

Do you think it's possible for humanity to go on forever as it is? No, but it will because only crazy people accept the destruction of their means to live by power structures that are inherently self-serving to the rich as puppets of the rich. Ultimately, a Great Plague will change things, and we may live to see one because this simply can't go on much longer. Nova just ran an episode titled THE DIMMING SUN. It suggests we have only 10 years before we reach the point of no return with Global Warming. Will the 793 billionaires and the 540-million millionaires stop destroying the planet? No, of course not. We may live to see a Great Plague stop them, folks, so you better be ready. What are you doing for the rest of your life?

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B