your thoughtful comments would be valued on the following two extracts from hahnemann's writings.

"The antipsoric medicines treated of in what follows contain no so-called idiopathic medicines, since their pure effects, even those of the potentized miasma of itch (Psorin) have not been proved enough, by far, that a safe homoeopathic use might be made of it. I say homoeopathic use, for it does not remain (idem) the same, as it could only be useful to him in a potentized state, since crude itch substance which he has already in his body as an idem is without effect on him. But the dynamization or potentizing changes it and modifies it; just as gold leaf after potentizing is no more crude gold leaf inert in the human body, but in every stage of dynamization it is more and more modified and changed.
Thus potentized and modified also, the itch substance (Psorin) when taken is no more an idem (same) with the crude original itch substance, but only a simillimum (thing most similar). For between IDEM and SIMILLIMUM there is no intermediate for any one that can think; or in other words between idem and simlie only simillimum can be intermediate. Isopathic and oequale are equivocal expressions, which if they should signify anything reliable can only signify simillimum, because they are not idem."

Chronic Diseases vol. I, p 152
Latest edition by Hahnemann1838
Trans Tafel

"There are those who would like to create a third application of medicines against disease, through isopathy as it is called, namely, the cure of a present disease with the same miasm. But even granted that one could do this (since the miasm administered to the patient would be highly potentized and consequently changed) isopathy would nevertheless only produce a cure through a simillimum opposed ot the simillimo. But this wanting to cure through the an entirely identical disease potence (per idem) contradicts all healthy common sense, and therefore also all experience. Those who first broached the subject of so-called isopathy presumably had hovering before them the benefit which humanity received through cowpox inoculation. Those who were inoculated remained free from all future smallpox infection and were cured of the disease in advance, as it were. But cowpox and smallpox are only very similar; they are in no way entirely the same disease. They differ from one another in many respects, namely in that cowpox has a more rapid course and is gentler, and especially in that cowpox never infects the human being through proximity. Widespread inoculation with cowpox so effectively put an end to all epidemics of the deadly, terrible smallpox that the present generation has no vivid conception of that former horrible smallpox-plague. In this way, to be sure, certain other animal diseases will present us with medicinal and curative potences for very similar, important human disease, happily supplementing our stock of homoeopathic medicines. 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."

Organon para. 56 footnote
Latest edition by Hahnemann though to be 1842
Trans Decker

[ 05 May 2002, 23:47: Message edited by: Anna Bryant ]

Dear Anna,

It sounds like he's saying that the exact same thing (isopathic treatment) will cause an aggravation. Hopefully our resident scholars--Divina and Chris--will come along and explain everything.

Snoopy

Hi Anna,
I think what u have picked in these 2 paragraphs is an apparent contradiction. If u look at these 2 paras superficially...it appears as if Hahnemann is saying 2 diametrically opposite things in them. In the first one he seems to be saying...psorinum is 'similimum' to psora...tuberculinum is 'similimum to Tb'....syphilinum is 'similimum' to syphilis..and so on. And in the second para, he seems to be
denouncing the use of same substance(nosode?) in same condition..calling it isopathy.

But there is a subtle difference that one must observe.

In the first para:

1. he has talked about the relationship between a crude nosode and it's potentised version. He has NOT talked about the relationship between a
nosode and it's application in a disease condition.
2. What he has said is that 'crude nosode' is not 'same' as 'potentised nosode'. An extarct of itch eruptions is not 'same' as psorinum...a
syphilitic discharge is not 'same' as syphilnum/luesinum....they can at best be 'similar', because the properties of the crude substance are greatly modified by the process of potentisation.
3. also he has said that these medicines have not been proved well so far..to make proper homeopathic use of them. 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

In the second paragraph:

1. he is talking about the relationship between nosodes and their application in disease.
2. he has said that giving the same nosode in same condition ..defies healthy common sense and experience..(well! not good enough reasons
there..).. And has also said that such use may cause disease aggravation
3. Also he has said that even if such an application of nosodes is able to 'cure' some condition...the it will be due to its capability to produce 'similar' (and not 'same') reaction. (probably he had in his mind what is written in the first para, but the language suggests that
even if it happens..it would be exception, not the rule.)
4. Also he has widened the use of chickenpox against smallpox to look for the probability of other 'similar' animal diseases being used to
fight against human disease .(Great idea man! Anybody out there going to prove simian AIDS (SIV) for human AIDS patients?)

That's it from me!

__________________
Dr. B<br /><br /><a href="http://www.doctorbhatia.com" target="_blank">www.DoctorBhatia.com</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.hpathy.com" target="_blank">www.Hpathy.com</a><br />Homeopathy for Everyone

What I meant to say was:
Dr. Chris Divina Bhatia, our resident scholar.

Snoopy

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'?

That is an interesting question--regarding the example of the AIDS nosode.

No doubt everyone is aware that as a remedy it probably would not be of much use for treating AIDS. (Just as everyone is aware that all the nosodes are not as effective as other remedies for treating their "respective" diseases).

But, if you were to read the AIDS proving notes and its effects on provers who are not suffering from AIDS at all, you can see just how useful and curative that nosode is for other, very real, very deep, illnesses. One prover in particular found the proving to be so curative--what would have become of that patient, had she never had the good fortune to stumble on that nosode? The answer is, she'd probably experience partial cure with a long, convoluted string of remedies which would produce a series of partial suppressions, ameliorations, aggravations, and at best, some form of health stability.

Tuberculinum and psorinum are so curative for so many people who don't actually have tuberculosis or scabies; carcinosin is also so curative for people who don't actually have cancer (just read Amy Lansky's article about her son's autism, and how carcinosin cured him).

In certain circles right now it is fashionable for people to put down nosodes. But if the nosode remedy fits the case, and it cures, the nosode is no more worthy of criticism or praise than any other remedy. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say; and if nosodes were really the "nothing remedies" some like to say they are, they would never have brought about such cure when used homeopathically.

If the whole argument focuses on the fact that they can't be used against their "respective diseases", then I agree; but that's isopathy--not homeopathy. I'm not an isopath.

Divina

Divina

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

Divina,
Hahnemann had actually praised the use of cowpox against smallpox by jenner as it was 'similar' and as u can read in the above quotes by Anna that he had actually played with the potential of using 'similar' animal nosodes for 'similar' human ailments.
Thinking on the same lines i had suggested the possible application of Simian AIDS (found in monkeys, related to human HIV but can't infect humans) nosode in human AIDS cases. There is a difference in giving an animal (simian) drived AIDS nosode and human derived one..which does not make such application isopathy...and I am not an isopath either. There has not been much research regarding the application of 'similar' animal nosodes in human cases...and who knows they might prove more useful than we think...as cowpox did for smallpox.

__________________
Dr. B<br /><br /><a href="http://www.doctorbhatia.com" target="_blank">www.DoctorBhatia.com</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.hpathy.com" target="_blank">www.Hpathy.com</a><br />Homeopathy for Everyone

Dear Anna
Before coming to details related to the topic I would like to put a few lines
About Psorinum . Psorinum prepared from nosode but Hahnemann forbids to prescribe
as ITCH disease directly .Unless well indicated by drug picture like other medicines Psorinum will fail to bring the cure
concept of nosodes ( views and work presented by Dr. Paterson Homeopathic hospital Glassow in 1949 )
A NOSODE IS LIKE A VACCINEIN SOME RESPECTS BEING DERIVED FROM THE CULTURE OF A PARTICULAR ORGANISM, BUT CONTAINING NO ACTUAL GERMS OR BACTERIA.
It is used to stimulate the body to produce natural antibodies against the infection..
Thus in Homeopathy ther are nosodes for use in chicken pox, whooping cough,and measles to take three well known examples.so that the homeopathic nosodes prepared from culture of forgoing organisms and which in words of Dr.Paterson are in the nature
Of a kind of potentised vaccine having the power to restore a disturbed metabolism to health
All the nosodes have been proved homeopathically on healthy volunteers by assessing their action
In the words of Dr. paterson
1. specific organism is related to disease
2. …………………………….to remedy
3. the remedy is related to the disease

Hahnemann’s saying of psorinum and psora is not to give psorinum for itch disease
Unless called by totality
(it is what I learnt ) …….to be continued
(details of Dr.Paterson works)
(more views on the subject )
sorry , my typing is slow

__________________
Dr.P.K.Sinha

Of course, the only problem with looking at the HIV virus as a nosode is that it doesn't appear to be the cause of AIDS - the cause of which is different in different countries and amongst different cutural/social groups. The proving has brought out many symptoms, but it is unlikely to have any connection to the miasm which seems most prevelent in those patients.

My experience with AIDS patients has shown a strong tubercular but especially MALARIAL miasm (see Sankaran's Soul of Remdies). I have frequently used China for these patients (along with Drosera, Tub, and Fl-ac). Even when not wasting away with chronic diarrhoea, they often have strong feelings of persecution and obstruction in their lives.

__________________
David Kempson.<br />Dip.Homoeopathic Medicine.<br />Lecturer Australian College of Natural Therapies (Brisbane Campus)<br />Member AHA, AROH, HMA<br />Member Australian Homoeopathic Association. Member#0442.

Dear members of this discussion

It has to be noted, that Hahnemann advices here strongly against the use of nosodes and isopathy for various reasons, yet, if we take a look into his casebooks of the last years, even after these paragaraphs were written, he does exactly the opposite.

In the case of: Borrough on the visit of the 21.07. 1841 he gives: ANTIEPILEPT. c 30, on the visit of the 07.08.1841: Antiepilept. C24, on the 08.08 1841 he gives Antiepilept. C18.

This is not a single case, and a single application of a nosode---this is a repeated application of a auto-nosode, which was unproven previous. This was treating according isopathic rules and not homeopathy.

Now this leaves us with a big???????????????????????????????????????????????

My own view on the subject of nosodes is, that they have to fulfil the same requirements like all the other substances used for homeopathic treatment.

First: the substance has to be defined. This also includes the exact source, date preparation. It has to be reproducable in case the substance gets lost or destroyed.

Second: the substance has to have undergone sufficient testing in healthy humans in order to find out its true virtues. This testing is called proving.

Third: it has to be available in homeopathic preparations when needed.

In the case of nosodes I see gray areas in all points. Sofar no-one was able to specify the person being the donator of the different preparations of Carcinosum, nor of Psorinum, medorinum, syphilinum.
The pharmacies could not even tell me that their products sold under the same name were identical to the original substance.
The second point does not look much better either---the provings,--- if there are any, they are very incomplete. There is no proving known to me of carcinosum at all. Whenever I ask around the homeopaths for volunteers, they all have disappeared if it comes to the idea of proving carcinosum.
Would’t these homeopaths who use carcinosum on their patients come forward for a bit of proving---or are they too scared??

I personally don’t like to mix remedies with a predictable outcomes with the application of remedies of which the outcome is unknown and unpredictable to me.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath