The word means "contagion" and miasmatic means "contagious," and ignorance of this is a major source of the ongoing confusion with the theory.

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa

I too have written an article on miasms that can be found here:
The Three Miasms in Homeopathy: Psora, Cycosis and Syphilis

__________________
Akram
Homeopathy
Reiki Training and Treatment

His paper is a good example of what I said in a posting:

It's also a good example of what I said in posting #5:

It's very difficult to dismiss any papers on this magnificent subject, and the world is immeasurably better for the failed theory because every paper on it makes us think and (more importantly) ponder why there are chronic diseases, but his paper is also shot full of holes. Want me to correct it, sir?

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa

I am open to suggestions and corrections.

__________________
Akram
Homeopathy
Reiki Training and Treatment

Akram, your article begins with this:

That's commonly heard, but it turned out that psora is simply another name for chronic diseases, and you didn't later say that. The other two arise from infections. Hahnemann logically believed that all others must therefore also be from infectious causes, which he theorized as psora (a complex construct), but he was wrong. The fact that he pursued the theory for the rest of his life only demonstrates the scientific discipline, diligence and devotional love of Truth of the truly amazing man. More than any others, Hering did, too, and the same can thus also be said of him. Hering's main contribution to this effort was his shifting of emphasis to Psorinum as the hoped-for cure-all drug for all chronic diseases. It doesn't work like that, guys, and Hahnemann was instead right at the beginning of his work of developing homeopathy and homeotherapeutics: Chronic diseases are infinite in number and will never be seen in exactly the same way in any patient. He said that at least 25 times in THE LESSER WRITINGS (my favorite of his books [link: The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann - Google Book Search]) and twice in the ORGANON (link: Hahnemann's Organon).

The rest of the article doesn't need attention until you fix that mistake, sir.

I want to point out an enigma and inconsistency in this theory that I never read about. His first cures were of malaria. It's also contagious and passes into chronic sequel, so why didn't he add it to his list? I have no idea and have never read anyone even mention this enigma and inconsistency. Anybody know?

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa

Dear Albert

You have an unnerving ability to undo years of my learning with one short sentence. I can't tell you how many hours/ days/ months/ years I've spent studying that book - the first thing I did after I graduated over a decade ago was to write out the theoretical part The Chronic Diseases in my own words, moving all Hahnemann's digressions into footnotes so that I could follow the main thrust of his theory.

Of course I had realised that Hahnemann is referring to some kind of infectious agent when he talks of the chronic miasms, but substituting the word 'miasmatc' for 'contagious' throws a great deal of light; and it makes a lot of sense when one considers the contexts in which Hahnemann uses the word throughout his writings.

But this opens up a whole can of worms doesn't it? For example, referring to the 'cancer miasm' becomes nonsensical - and what about diseases like malaria, which are not contagious but involve an infective agent? And there must be many other chronic miasmatic diseases - herpes for example.

To amend my definition from my previous post - "medical mismanagement (suppression) of the superficial symptoms of chronic contagious diseases has given rise to the many unfathomable illnesses humankind suffers from today". Would you agree with this?

And please tell us why Hahnemann's theory is a failed theory? And what you consider to be Hahnemannian homeopathy if Hahnemann's Theory of Chronic Disease is a flawed!

Regards
Sim

__________________
These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

Yeah, me, too, I remember that effect when I first found contemporary Hahnemannians. They kept telling me I had all kinds of stuff wrong, but I had no way of judging if they were right or wrong until I kept examining it and found they're the actual experts. It's quite unnerving to say the least when people constantly pull the rug right out from under you unless they catch you when you're falling and correct your misunderstandings. Most of them do that, but it happened all of the time because I came to them completely confused as a GV.

Fortunately, I’d simultaneously read the old masters in major journal articles and important books, most especially Hahnemann’s LESSER WRITINGS and the ORGANON OF MEDICINE, but I thought the GVs were representatives of Hahnemannian, classical homeopathy because they kept saying so. Things didn’t jive, though, so I came to some Hahnemannians way confused. What’s more than way? They kept saying, "Read Hahnemann, you fool." Sure thing, man, but I thought I did.

I read him but didn't understand him. I thought I did, but I didn't. I thought I did, but I didn't. I thought I did, but I didn't. It's 30 years later last month, and it's still going on. That's way up the scale near the top of any degree of complexity. The BIBLE's like that, and other manifestations of the Brotherhoods' Philosophy, Cosmology and Archives are the only things higher. All academic subjects and all religions are child's play compared to those two, but truly few people realize one or the other and far fewer realize both. In fact, I've never found one.

You don't really understand Hahnemann's thought until you think homeopathically, and I could prove that in a second by asking anyone outside of Hahnemannian homeopathy what some passage of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE means or those in any of his other books or the voluminous writings of Hahnemannians. They can't do it. They'll invariably interject allopathic ideas, premises, assumptions, definitions, theories, findings, doctrines, models, principles, constructs, paradigms, beliefs, etc. We'll laugh at them, and they'll be bewildered about what we find so funny. They're reacting conditionally as brainwashed people who lack clear and independent thought, so they misinterpret what he and Hahnemannians meant. This is the phenomenon of talking to brick walls. They all do it in very predictable ways, too, and that's funny because they're demonstrating that they're just automatons. For instance, we can easily walk allopaths and pseudo homeopaths into holes to Hell because they don't know what they're talking about and are as dumb as everyone else about medicine even though they have medical degrees and certifications. "Teacha tole me" infuses all beliefs among the masses and their equally lost leaders (99% of incarnant humanity). Only class-A thinkers can think homeopathically and therefore attain Hahnemannian status whereby they understand Hahnemann and Hahnemannians and instantly recognize all things allopathic and pseudo homeopathic. How few are we, Sim? At the end of his life, Hahnemann said there were only a handful, and I can't identify even 100 Hahnemannians in two centuries. Wow, that's the smallest minority in the entire history of humanity. Who are our unknown kinsmen? We always look, but we rarely find them because everyone else thinks allopathically. You can almost instantly spot them, too, because they don't think allopathically.

What does it mean to think homeopathically? Long story I've repeatedly explained here, and it takes years of dedicated study, reflection and logical and empirical testing to accomplish it, but the short of it is to not think allopathically. Everyone in the (George) Vithoulkas school of thought (GVs) thinks homeopathically, but only partially. If it's only partial, then the rest is allopathic. There are a lot of examples of this, but the worst one is the torch song of those people. Their remedy essences are shot through with allopathic constructs, but none of them realize it. When we point it out, they always go, "What!" In fact, they're incapable of understanding it while they have those conditioned-reflex brain reactions from brainwashing, conditioning, indoctrination and supposed "education" to GV's constructs that he mindlessly calls classical homeopathy. How can you understand something if your buttons are constantly being pushed to respond with half-truths and lies -- w/ falsehoods in general? Yeah, for real. There's no homeopathicity to remedy essences, and they don't even try to achieve that, either. In fact, all evidence indicates that they don't even know how to achieve homeopathicity in their conclusions. Wow, are those homeopaths? Not in my book, pal. It's like describing someone without their head or feet. "Look, there's Albert." How do you know that? His head's missing. "Yeah, that's him. Oh, maybe not. Huh, I never noticed. What happened to his head, and where are his feet? How's he walking, anyway? Wow, neat trick. Where's my camera?" They have it only partially right, Sim. If there's no homeopathicity, then the only thing there could be to their prescriptions or statements are allopathic doctrines. It gets more complicated at this point, but it's undeniable that there's no homeopathicity to prescriptions based upon the remedy essences and its myriad synonyms. This goes on and on, and those are the best of the lot we call pseudo homeopaths.

OMG, then there are the low-potency mongrels. "Grab some rocks, George. We'll fix 'em right up. You and me, guy. We'll send them to India." They lost their heads and feet long ago, and nobody has any idea where they put them, either, the idiots. They're hopelessly lost, so you just throw rocks at them. The GVs seem to like them, but we go: "Get away from me! Shooo . . . go over there in India and tell those fools what you think. They'll probably listen to you, but get away from me. Ah . . . Ruff!"

It's true that you have to read Hahnemann because he got most things right and had an incredible ability to say it so succinctly and about very nearly everything involved in homeopathy, too. His propensity to be succinct is constantly awesome, and the fact that he very nearly discovered everything about homeopathy is absolutely amazing, but it's only people like you and I who've repeatedly read his works who know this.

I remember a shocking example of homeopathic thought from master homeopath Jost Kunzli. He said, "Most people need only one remedy all their life." I went, "What? That's not what George Vithoulkas or Kent said, and I'm sure lots of others disagree(d) as well," but he was right.
Clever guy.

Agreed, and I'm glad somebody got it (assuming you did) because most people don't. They instead want to plug this square peg into their round hole of preconceptions about the theory gotten from mystically minded high-potency pseudo homeopaths. It's a thousand miles of yada yada completely off the track of the original theory, and nobody seems to know this, either. What do you do when virtually everyone misleads you? You scream when you discover it, and you want to knock everyone out who told you half-truths and lies; that's what you do.

I did the square peg in a round hole thing for about 10 years because there's so much of that misinformation, even from Hahnemannians. I'm not prepared to reject all of it, because much of it is incredibly brilliant and elegant and could be right, but it's not part of the classical Theory of Chronic Diseases. Unless one understands that, anything else they say is questionable because they're approaching the subject from a standpoint that bypasses the original notion with a mistaken understanding of it. You can't do that in any field or with any subject. It's like saying that people's heads are actually cubical and then asking why? Other people chuckle and go, "What? You got dropped on your head as a kid, right?" Uh oh, mixed metaphors suck. I meant that their definitions are wrong, and that's why they see square heads. Did that work? They have the theory wrong, so everything they say about it is also going to be wrong. They see square heads because they carry theirs under their arms and only occasionally put them where they belong. God only knows where they put them in private. Ah . . . Ruff!

So-called "miasmatic layer theory" falls out of their notions, but that's all collapsed by Hahnemann's discussions about zigzagging cases to cure in Articles 162, 163, 165, 168, 169, 171 & 179 of the ORGANON (link: Hahnemann's Organon). If you find the most-similar remedy, there isn't any zigzagging of cases to cure, and the time involved is shortened two- or three-fold, too. You never want to do that, because where's the guarantee that you'll spot the other prescriptions necessary to complete the cure? No, don't ever throw medicines into people in a caviler way.

Indian homeopaths are the worst about that. Go to www.ABCHomeopathy.com and see what those morons constantly do to wonderfully loving people seeking help from doctors. They recently kicked me out after four times telling their patients that they don't know what they're doing. I was actively looking for another site to post at after what the pseudo homeopaths at HPathy.com did to me and as a consequence of what Jonh's done and continues to do to me here, and I fell upon the worst of all possibly worst examples of pseudo homeopathy at ABCHomeopathy.com. The first outrageous example I found was a kindly lady asking how she's supposed to know if her eczema is getting better. I thought, "What! Why is she even asking this question?" The responses were total sophistry, absolutely unprincipled nonsense, so I said: "When it goes away, and any other answer demonstrates pseudo homeopathy you want to avoid like the plague those people are." I basically did the same thing three more times within 10 minutes because every supposed homeopath there is a total fraud, and they booted me. They're all cowards and fascists (incidentally, all Brahmins are fascists by definition, and almost all Indian homeopaths are Brahmins), so of course they silenced a Hahnemannian who exposed them as total frauds since they can't defend a single thing they think, say or do, and that's exactly the same calculus at HPathy.com.

Indian homeopathy is an absolute nightmare in the extreme, and it runs throughout HPathy.com because one of those fascist Brahmins owns that site. You and Gina wanted me to post there? They're all morons, Sim, and they proved they're actually evil when they silenced me for doing exactly what Hahnemann always did and what Hahnemannians always have and always will do. Fascism in homeopathy? Why would I want anything to do with fascists, Sim?

And look at what Hans mindlessly said today (link: http://hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/f...s.asp?TID=8932). It broke my heart. Boy, he's going to regret that when I finish my statement about HPathy.com at the Fascism in Homeopathy thread. He dropped to zero in my estimation, and we're done associating together because any actual Hahnemannian is devotionally loyal to homeopathy and every other Truth, period. He's defending pseudo homeopathy and tyranny, and no Hahnemannian would ever do that. Hans can't fix that, so he's off of my list of Hahnemannians. Of course, I spotted that years ago but gave him a break. Big mistake, Albert. I respected him. Now I don't. He's bent.

What can you do when idiots think they know what they're talking about? Throw rocks, rotten eggs and tomatoes; that's what you do. They won't listen, so what other option do you have and still live by the Golden Rule? We need really big piles today, though, because there are hundreds of thousands of pseudo homeopaths, most of them in India and an astonishing 50,000 of them in France. They don't have a clue, but they're only the tip of the iceberg of pseudo homeopaths. Those people range right up the scale to the Vithoulkas school of thought, and none of them notices they're illegitimate homeopaths. In fact, they get all bent out of shape when you point out that Hahnemann himself identified their errors and condemned them as pseudo homeopaths. [Link: http://homeoint.org/books/hahchrdi/hahchr12.htm#P120, pp. 121-22.] They get all frowny eyed and red faced and go, "I'm not a pseudo homeopath. How dare you!" Yeah, well, I'm just telling you what Hahnemann called you. Ruff! Throw rocks at LPHs and other allopaths and rotten eggs and tomatoes at HPHs, and everything's cool.

Therefore, layer theory is all hokum. It's actually the third of 7-8 fundamental mistakes that identify high-potency pseudo homeopaths because they all do it. It's perfectly logical, but it's still a mistake so easily perceived as such in those passages of the ORGANON. A lot of people we love and admire make this mistake, but understanding only comes from reflection, not from some guy beating you upside your head and telling you you've got it all wrong and are a moron even though you couldn't be anything but a total moron to misinterpret or misunderstand something since Truths are always obvious and self-evident once understood. A ball drops. Why? We now know, and it's obvious. Hahnemannians are simply in the dreadful position of everyone else having to catch up to us and apparently several hundred years from now even though it's all obvious. What can you do?

"Hey, you, you pseudo homeopaths. Get away from me! Hey, you God-damned allopaths, get dead!" That's what I do because they're in the hopeless position of trying to figure out homeopathy while still thinking allopathically. Rocks and rotten eggs and tomatoes truly work because they won't otherwise listen. They like their beliefs even though they're insane. Sure thing, Jethro, but get away from me, and you guys over there, get dead.

They'll understand it when they understand it, and part of that involves discerning that a lot of the mystical notions about the Theory of Chronic Diseases are pretty flawed in the extreme. It's like they got them from UFO occupants or a weegie board or the back of a Crackerjack box or something. No, read Hahnemann and Hahnemannians is what they always say, and rightly so.

I don't want to go into this very far because it belongs in my intended discussions about Hahnemann's mistakes, but I'm sure there will be plenty of room for more about this wonderfully elegant theory and its modern variations. It's such a marvelously endless subject, and it never ceases to amaze me how much so.

While I'm at it, my next-favorite paper on this magnificent theory is the elder William Wesselhoeft's masterpiece on it. I can't tell you the title because I lost all of my literature, but I can say with assurance that you'll also love it if you don't already, for he addressed a lot of what you're saying about iatrogenic causes of chronic diseases, which Hahnemann originally said made them a true nightmare of complications and a crime against humanity. I'd have to read it again to be sure, but I didn't find anything wrong with what you said along that line of thought. Geeze, allopaths create chronic diseases, and they now actually admit it. What in the world is going on that these people are still in charge of world medicine when they make such admissions as that and that they can't cure 99.99% of all illnesses in industrialized countries and that they euthanize 97-98% of their patients? What a terribly backward and warped civilization that everyone turns a blind eye to such admissions of total quackery and mass murder by doctors. My God, how do we fix such deep brainwashing in everyone that they simply don't hear their physicians tell them they're quacks and murderers? The Nazis would bow and swoon in amazement of allopaths, and that's truly scary. Here come the Nazis to explain it. OMG!

Yeah.I'd have to think a bit longer before I comment on any of that stuff, but it's what I was just saying. These mistakes compound, but when you ask the originators of these ideas what Hahnemann originally meant, none of them know. Uh oh, methinks there are holes in somebody's head, so how do we plug them and get those people to shut up? Fat chance when 80 gazillion students go all googly eyed and hang on every word these HPHs say. Barf! Read Hahnemann, and get a new brain while you're at it. "Test all things and only hold with what proves good and true" (Hahnemann's father).

Yeah, so long as you delete the word "contagious" because the theory failed.

When Jonh gets off my back and stops editing my writings without my permission, I'll post that article.Does that mean you think it's a necessary element of Hahnemannian homeopathy? Uh oh, there's big trouble in little China if you think that way. Newton got things wrong. Galileo got things wrong. Copernicus got things wrong. Kepler got things wrong. John Dalton got things wrong. Lord Kelvin got things wrong. Planck got things wrong. Lord Rutherford got things wrong. Einstein got things wrong. Tesla got things wrong. Comenius got things wrong. Shakespeare got things wrong. Akhnaton got things wrong. Pythagoras got things wrong. Lots of people who were clearly either Saints or proto-Saints got things wrong, but that doesn't disintegrate the importance of the things they got right. The theory is wrong. It's absolutely brilliant and perfectly logical, but it was wrong. So what. Ice cream is still good even though it's not so good for us. Who cares?

Even though the theory was wrong, I believe it's fair to say that everything else Hahnemann said about chronic diseases was right and have been repeatedly verified for 200 years. Article 201, for instance (link: Hahnemann's Organon). That's perfect. People repeatedly pestered him for such explanations, and he brought one forward that was perfect. It's not affected by the contagious element of the theory being wrong. So what. That's actually a very small element of it, anyway. Chronic diseases never get better on their own and always end in death unless cured. That's the most important part of the theory, and that's all that matters.

The spagyric physicians, the next-previous homeopaths whom Hahnemann invoked in paragraph 43 (I think) of his formal presentation of homeopathy called ESSAY ON A NEW PRINCIPLE (link: The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann - Google Book Search), actually voiced the best expression of the Law of Chronic Diseases when they said: “Chronic external [physical and psychiatric] diseases are cured by internal medicines.” Here, you have to properly translate what was actually meant by external and internal. From my manuscript material:

You ask good questions, sir, for the real test of understanding is if one can explain something, and you constantly put me to the test, sometimes about stuff I've never attempted to explain to another person. Be sure to tell me when I make mistakes, too, because it's not possible to avoid it in a gigantomongus subject like homeopathy.

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa

Do please tell me under what heading you would put real Inherited Diseases

Like Huntingdons Chorea
Auto Immune Diseases like Hashimotos Thyroiditis

etc etc

These go from generation to generation and i do not see how they are suppressed

It kind of goes like this:

Say you get stressed and an eczema-like skin eruption appears on your body. If you go to see a homeopath and get an internal dose of (e.g.) Sulphur, the eruption clears up without consequence over the course of a few weeks and - job done. You are cured. You also notice that you are coping better with the stress.

But say you go to the pharmacist and get a cream that chemically prevents your body from producing a skin eruption. You apply it for a few weeks and the eruption clears up (although it returns when you stop using the cream). But you still feel stressed and a few months later you develop a cough that is diagnosed as asthma (bronchial eczema). The body still needs to disperse the stress, but has been prevented from producing symptoms on the skin. So the body produces an irritation at the next level - the internal skin, or mucous membranes of the lungs. After a year or two of asthma inhalers you develop an irritable bowel, maybe even ulcerative colitis (eczema of the intestines).

So now you are taking steroid No. 1 for your eczema, steroid No. 2 for your asthma, and a steroid No. 3 for the ulcerative colitis. You still have all three conditions but they are kept at a reasonably tolerable level by the steroids. But all these steroids affect your adrenal glands, making you more sensitive to stress and increasing the body's need to disperse this stress by producing symptoms.

In addition to this, the inflammation in your bowel prevents the proper absorption of nutrients and so you start to suffer nutritional deficiencies. The inflammation also interferes with the effective elimination of toxins and so your tissues get clogged up, making you more susceptible to acute illnesses, for which you are prescribed frequent courses of anti-biotics, which further upset the digestive flora in your gut. Your tissues now are overflowing with toxins and so your body starts to deposit them in your joints, so that you develop the first signs of arthritis. So you now add anti-inflammatory drugs into the mix, which suppress your immune response, leading to more acute infections and more anti-biotics. After a while, the years of increasing ill health and increased susceptibility to stress and disease get on top of you and you get depressed. Your kind doctor gives you a short course of anti-depressants to help you through it, which upsets your brain chemistry to the point where you relapse into suicidal depression each time you try to come off them. And so it continues.

If at some point in this story you decide to have a child, your child's developing tissues will necessarily reflect the unhealthy state of your own. The current state of your susceptibility will necessarily be reflected in your child. When your child is born your doctor advises you to have your child immunised...

__________________
These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

The sad category. I don't know. I'd have to think about it, dear. They're chronic diseases, so what difference does it make?

As for them being congenital, that's an allopathic premise based upon statistics and a truly false and distorted understanding of the nature of existence, so it's even more complicated. They're currently bonkers about genetic causes. It's their new distraction, and it's a real doozie guaranteed to go on for centuries. For 2700 years, they've been attributing diseases to thousands of causes, always later tossed away as false theories, and none of them have made any difference. They still have no cures for 99.99% if all diseases in industrialized countries. It's their Doctrine of the Proximate Cause. That's capitalized in this case because it's their true mania and underlies everything about allopathic medicine over its entire history of demonstrated quackery ("therapeutic incompetence"). They endless go: "We're closing in on the cause of this disease. Please continue sending us money. Many scientists live in poverty doing God's work. Send us your money, lots and lots of it. Put it in your wills, too. God will thank you, and we will, too." Oh yeah, and you get away with this, right? "Yeah, the public is dumb and servile. It always works." That's not funny, is it? They should be exiled because they're all criminals and mass murderers, and they're certified quacks since their schools don't teach them how to cure, only how to diagnose diseases. How does that work except in distorted and brainwashed Minds, but who cares what self-admitted incompetents say? They essentially go (moronic voice always): "We don't have a cure for this, but we do have a standard treatment that's very expensive and has lots and lots of side effects, and they're all deadly poisons and procedures, but our lawyers endlessly protect us from civil suits by inserting disclaimers at the ends of TV commercials that are half as long as the damn commercials. The dumb and servile public doesn't notice anything wrong with this, so we continue it since it's very profitable and prestige filled. Got any money?" Right, and it doesn't speak well of 99% of incarnant humanity that they endlessly fall for this hokum generation after generation, does it?

A lot of their information about genetics is very reasonable and may well be right, but it's still based on half-truths and lies about the nature of existence and the nature of health, disease and therapeutics and even about the nature of the universe, and you're never going to get any cures from those findings because it all ignores the fact that the organism is doing it to itself. They have no idea what that means, either. They think in mechanical, materialistic and reductionistic terms in relation to the immune system when they hear such words. No, wrongo, daddy. Study physics, and then tell me the implications of those guys having developed myriad constructs for nonphysical particles. They can't do it, and chemists simply ignore those findings as theoretical. They're all morons, and they're all fools because these things are so easily proved by any high-potency self-proving of a homeopathic drug (link: http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/...n/organon.html, Article 141). They won't do that, either. They say they're scientists but constantly prove they're not. They can't even define the organism or anything else about medicine, so hokum is still hokum no matter how mesmerizingly elaborate it is. It's also based on a mere 10% knowledge of human physiology, which they also admit. What kind of conclusions have any validity based on such a piddling percentage of a subject? It doesn't seem to bother them, and they hyper-arrogantly nonetheless declare they know things. What?

You can't cure without ultramolecular drugs, and you can't apply them without the Law of Similars and its ancillary constructs, so they're stuck forever being quacks. You can't get around that calculus, either. Allopathic medicine is an eternal dead end, so any premise or conclusion from them is immediately suspect since their entire history is one of discarded theories and adjusted findings. We go, "Then, that means you're probably wrong about this, too, right?" They fall over shocked by the obviousness of that question, but nothing changes because they're all brainwashed creatures of habit, and the public listens to them and mindlessly adopts all of their premises and findings. Why? Are disease diagnoses accurate descriptions of reality? No, not a single person has only the symptoms of those disease-diagnostic categories, and disease diagnoses are irrelevant to curative therapeutics, anyway. Only an unambiguous remedy diagnosis means anything, so the rest is just information kind of floating around and getting endlessly changed. That doesn't describe the homeopathic materia medica, though, and that's all that matters. Our information will always be the same, and that is a major part of what allows us to cure.

They categorize everything but based upon erroneous assumptions and definitions, so who cares? A guy walks into your house and harangues you about something he's convinced of. This is a lifelong TV commercial from Hell, but it's for real. He's selling you total hokum, but you don't realize it is until he kills all of your loved ones and then you, too. That's what allopaths do, so do you really want to see things the way they do? Bad questions, dear.

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa