The Medicine Garden - Organon Preface

The "Intrepid 4"

The Four Organonmaniacs (this is our terms for ourselves--sorta like the Three Musketeers tradition....one for all and all for one :-)......) have been busting their tails getting this baby Organon educational gift together for all of you. We're all short on time (Mercury retrograde, thank you very much)....and as we were doing our assigned aphorisms....we suddenly realized (typical of Merc. R) that "Oops....geeze, we GOTTA put the Preface to the 6th Organon up FIRST! We can't do nothing unless that's up front!"

That threw us into a panic....we have many people to thank.....among them Dr. Will Taylor's web site from which Paul got the preface and then, Gaby Rottler, our intrepid German homeopath, did the translation for us. So, it was real zoo out there in Cyberland, believe me. And then, we had less than a week to send this 6th preface around to the Organmaniacs for comments--yikes! And of course, we all have practices, and Paul teaches and had scads of paper to correct....so you sort of get the idea of the scrambling we were doing.

Whew....well, personally speaking, I feel it was all worth it :-) And so do the other Organonmaniacs :-). We hope you do too.

So, a little history first. Debra LeRoy utilized.....

Source: Clinical Homeopathy: A to Z Homeopathy Course, by Anton Jayasuriya, published by B. Jain Publishers, New Delhi, India.

.....to show you the differences between the 5th and 6th Organons'.

Why is there such emphasis between the 5th and 6th? Because Hahnemann was alive and revised the versions 1 through 5. The 6th edition was not printed until after his death. His second wife, Melanie, "sat on it" and the 6th edition didn't get into print until 1921! And everyone who worked with Hahnemann, all the "old masters" in all countries, used the 5th--which was published in 1833.

There are some remarkable changes between the 5th and 6th, as you look below. Many of the older homeopaths swear by the 5th and refuse to use the 6th. Contrastingly, there are homeopaths (younger ones of this generation, after 1923), who use the 6th and disdain the earlier 5th edition, in favor of the 'changes' in the 6th. And so, the 'fight' on a cerebral philosophical level will go on well beyond all of us, too.

It should be noted that US homeopaths such as Clarke, Kent and Hering, among many other notables, were all using the 5th edition. It will be up this generation of homeopaths to really 'push the envelope' on the 6th edition to see if it holds 'water' like the 5th does. One of the sticky points is that some of the handwriting on the 6th edition was NOT Hahnemann's--rather, Melanie's. There is a lot of contention about these handwritten notes; whose were they? Should they be added to the 6th or not? THAT discussion will ensue forever, too. My two cents worth about it is pragmatic: I don't care who wrote it. Let's use it, try it and see if it flies. If it don't; it's easy enough to set aside. And if it does work, why not use it? I'm too simple for Organon theorists and academicians, I'm afraid.

We aren't going to get into a philosophical diatribe. Rather, you have 4 working, in-the-trenches homeopaths who USE the Organon every day with their patients. None of us pretend we're experts on the Organon, nor do we aspire to be, nor do we say that our comments are the last to said about it. Experience is experience. It speaks for itself. I won't tolerate devil's advocate arguments on the Organon. If that is your intent is to do a "head-trip", then this discussion and sharing is not for you.

Let's take a look at the differences, and then, we'll jump into the preface to the 6th Organon which was written by Hahnemann:

Organon - Differences Between 5th and 6th Editions

5th Organon

1. Published in 1833...Hahnemann was alive.

2. Contains 294 Aphorisms.

3. Additions 3,4,5,6, (see 6th Organon below)

7. Advises against too quick repetition of remedies particularly in chronic disorders

8. Only the centesimal scale is described.

9. Discusses several methods of medical treatment.

10. Vital Force is the word for Life Principle.

11. Orthodox homeopathy is based on this edition.

6th Organon

1. Published in 1921, 78 years after Hahnemann died.

2. Contains 291 Aphorisms.

3. Additions to the foot-notes of Aphorisms 11, 65, 282 and to the contents of 265, and 269.

4. Aphorisms 29, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 148, 149, 246, 247, 248, 270, 271, 272, 273, 280, and 288 are wholly re-written.

5. Aphorisms 276 and 279 are partially rewritten.

6. Lower portions of Aphorisms 245, 284, 289, 291, and 292 completely omitted.

7. Advises that even in chronic disease daily doses may be utilized, but with daily changes in the potency.

8. A new process for dynamisation is described (50M)

9. States that principle modes of treatment are only two: viz. allopathy and homeopathy.

10. "Vital force" is replaced by Vital energy or the principle of life.

11. It has been claimed that some of the corrections are not in Hahnemann's handwriting and therefore may be unauthorized.

Additional notes:

*The sixth Organon is not fully accepted by some orthodox homeopaths.

*The sixth edition discusses the usefulness of external applications, which was discouraged in the 5th edition.

Organon Publication Dates

1st............................1810

2nd...........................1818

3rd............................1824

4th............................1829

5th............................1833

6th............................1921 (posthumously)

Preface by Hahnemann to the 6th Edition

Comments by four homeopaths are below. We didn't all comment on everything. When moved, we commented; or if something struck us, we commented. These are our opinions and experience. We are all classically trained homeopaths in the Hahnemannian tradition. We are not combo/polypharmacists, nor are we sequential therapy, either.

I will put an asterisk at the beginning (*) of Hahnemann's Preface and at the end of each section (*) so that you can tell where his remarks are differentiated from our comments.

Our opinions will be started with: COMMENTS BY..... and the person identified. If you have questions, please direct it to the comment by person as a post over Athena.

If you have a question, please post to Athena and in the body/text of your Email, identify to whom you are directing the question. If there is a word you don't understand; ask. If there is a phrase you don't comprehend; ask. We hope we'll have the answer :-) If we don't, we'll be the first to admit it.

This entire project will be put up on a series of web pages as it is posted on Athena, so that it will be a "work of art" that can be downloaded by those who value our efforts.

Let's look at the 6th Preface to the Organon by Samuel Hahnemann with a note from Gaby Rottler:

Just to clarify: Paul sent the preface to me - found at Will Taylor's site - http://www.simillibus.com
and I did some polishing , i.e. what I found it should be translated differently got my remarks in [ ].

Comments/Translations by Gaby Rottler

Author's Preface to the Sixth Edition:

In Hahnemann's manuscript copy, he has a note in French which, translated is as follows:

"Medicine as commonly practised (allopathy) knows no treatment except to draw from diseases the injurious materials which are assumed to be their cause. The blood of the patient is made to flow mercilessly by bleedings, leeches, cuppings, scarifications, to diminish an assumed plethora which never exists as in well women a few days before their menses, an accumulation of blood the loss of which is of no appreciable consequence, while the loss of blood with merely assumed plethora destroys life."

Comment by Eileen:
Hahnemann was well known to disdain the medical practices of his day. Medicine of his day sought to either have the person vomit out the contents of their stomach or by use of emetics or herbal means to evacuate via stools/diarrhea the 'disease' material.

"Medicine as commonly practised seeks to evacuate the contents of the stomach and sweep the intestines clear of the materials assumed to originate diseases."

Preface to the Sixth Organon in German - by Gaby Rottler

Vorrede zur sechsten Ausgabe

Die Alte Medicin (Alloeopathie), um Etwas im Allgemeinen ueber dieselbe zu sagen, setzt bei Behandlung der Krankheiten theils (nie vorhandene) Blut-Uebermenge (plethora), theils Krankheits-Stoffe und Schaerfen voraus, laesst daher das Lebens-Blut abzapfen und bemueht sich die eingebildete Krankheits-Materie theils auszufegen, theils anderswohin zu leiten (durch Brechmittel, Abfuehrungen, Speichelfluss, Schweiss und Harn treibende Mittel, Ziehpflaster, Vereiterungs-Mittel, Fontanelle, u.s.w.), in dem Wahne die Krankheit dadurch zu schwaechen und materiell austilgen zu koennen, vermehrt aber dadurch die Leiden des Kranken und entzieht so, wie auch durch ihre Schmerzmittel, dem Organism die zum Heilen unentbehrlichen Kraefte und Nahrungs-Saefte. Sie greift den Koerper mit grossen, oft lange und schnell wiederholten Gaben starker Arznei an, deren langdauernde, nicht selten fuerchterliche Wirkungen sie nicht kennt, und die sie, wie es scheint, geflissentlich unerkennbar macht durch Zusammenmischung mehrer solcher ungekannter Substanzen in eine Arzneiformel, und bringt so, durch langwierigen Gebrauch derselben neue, noch zum Theil unaustilgbare Arznei-Krankheiten dem kranken Koerper bei. Sie verfaehrt auch, wo sie nur kann, um sich bei dem Kranken beliebt zu erhalten *), mit Mitteln, welche die Krankheits-Beschwerden durch Gegensatz (contraria contrariis) zwar sogleich auf kurze Zeit unterdruecken und bemaenteln (Palliative) aber den Grund zu diesen Beschwerden (die Krankheit selbst) verstaerkt und verschlimmert hinterlassen.

Zu gleicher Absicht erdichtet der gewandte Alloeopath vor allen Dingen einen bestimmten, am liebsten griechischen Namen fuer das Uebel des Kranken, um ihn glauben zu machen, er kenne diese Krankheit schon lange, wie einen alten Bekannten, und sey daher am besten im Stande sie zu heilen.

Sie haelt die, an den Aussentheilen des Koerpers befindlichen Uebel, faelschlich fuer bloss oertlich, und da allein fuer sich bestehend. und waehnt sie geheilt zu haben, wenn sie dieselben durch aeussere Mittel weggetrieben, so dass das innere Uebel nun schlimmer an einer edlern und bedenklichern Stelle auszubrechen genoethigt wird. Wenn sie weiter nicht weiss, was sie mit der nicht weichenden oder sich verschlimmernden Krankheit anfangen soll, unternimmt die alte Arzneischule wenigstens, dieselbe blindhin durch ein von ihr so genanntes alterans zu veraendern, z.B. mit dem Leben unterminirenden Calomel, Aetzsublimat, und mit andern heftigen Mitteln in grossen Gaben.

Es scheint das unselige Hauptgeschaeft der alten Medicin zu sein, die Mehrzahl der Krankheiten, die langwierigen, durch fortwaehrendes Schwaechen und Quaelen des ohnehin schon an seiner Krankheitsplage leidenden, schwachen Kranken und durch Hinzufuegung neuer, zerstoerender Arzneikrankheiten, wo nicht toedtlich, doch wenigstens unheilbar zu machen, - und, wenn man dies verderbliche Verfahren einmal am Griffe hat, und gegen die Mahnungen des Gewissens gehoerig unempfindlich geworden, ist diess ein sehr leichtes Geschaeft!

Und doch hat fuer alle diese schaedlichen Operationen, der gewoehnliche Arzt alter Schule seine Gruende vorzubringen, die aber nur auf Vorurtheilen seiner Buecher und Lehrer beruhen, und auf Autoritaet dieses oder jenes gepriesenen Arztes alter Schule. Auch die entgegengesetztesten und widersinnigsten Verfahrungs-Arten, finden da ihre Vertheidigung, ihre Autoritaet - der verderbliche Erfolg mag auch noch so sehr dagegen sprechen. Nur dem, von der Verderblichkeit seiner sogenannten Kunst, nach vieljaehrigen Uebelthaten, im Stillen endlich ueberzeugten, alten Arzte, der nur noch mit, zu Wegbreit-Wasser gemischtem Erdbeer-Sirup (d.i. mit Nichts) selbst die schwersten Krankheiten behandelt, verderben und sterben noch die Wenigsten.

Diese Unheilkunst, welche seit einer langen Reihe von Jahrhunderten in dem Vorrechte und der Macht, ueber Leben und Tod der Kranken nach Willkuehr und Gutduenken zu verfuegen, wie eingemauert fest sitzt und seitdem einer, wohl zehnmal groesseren Anzahl von Menschen das Lebensziel verkuerzte, als es die verderblichsten Kriege gethan, und viele Millionen Kranke kraenker und elender machte, als sie urspruenglich waren - diese Alloeopathie habe ich in der Einleitung zu den vorigen Ausgaben dieses Buches naeher beleuchtet. Jetzt werde ich bloss ihren geraden Gegensatz, die von mir entdeckte (nun etwas mehr vervollkommnete), wahre Heilkunst vortragen.

Vorher wird man Beispiele angefuehrt finden, zum Beweise, dass wenn man in aelteren Zeiten hie und da auffallende Heilungen verrichtete, es immer durch Mittel geschah, die der damals eingefuehrten Therapie zuwider, dem Arzte von ungefaehr in die Haende gerathen, im Grunde aber homoeopathisch waren.

Mit dieser (der Homoeopathik) ist es ganz anders. Sie kann jeden Nachdenkenden leicht ueberzeugen, dass die Krankheiten der Menschen auf keinem Stoffe, keiner Schaerfe, d.i. auf keiner Krankheits-Materie beruhen, sondern dass sie einzig geistartige (dynamische) Verstimmungen der geistartigen, den Koerper des Menschen belebenden Kraft (des Lebensprincips, der Lebenskraft) sind. Die Homoeopathik weiss, dass Heilung nur durch Gegenwirkung der Lebenskraft gegen eine eingenommene, richtige Arznei erfolgen kann, eine um desto gewissere und schnellere Heilung, je kraeftiger noch beim Kranken seine Lebenskraft vorwaltet. Die Homoeopathik vermeidet daher selbst die mindeste Schwaechung), auch moeglichst jede Schmerz-Erregung, weil auch Schmerz die Kraefte raubt, und daher bedient sie sich zum Heilen bloss solcher Arzneien, deren Vermoegen das Befinden (dynamisch) zu veraendern und umzustimmen, sie genau kennt und sucht dann eine solche heraus, deren Befinden veraendernde Kraefte (Arzneikrankheit) die vorliegende natuerliche Krankheit (similia similibus) aufzuheben im Stande sind, und giebt dieselbe einfach, in feinen Gaben (so klein, dass sie, ohne Schmerz oder Schwaechung zu verursachen, eben zureichen, das natuerliche Uebel aufzuheben) dem Kranken ein; wovon die Folge: dass ohne ihn im Mindesten zu schwaechen oder zu peinigen und zu quaelen, die natuerliche Krankheit ausgeloescht wird und der Kranke schon waehrend der Besserung von selbst bald erstarkt und so geheilt ist - ein zwar leicht scheinendes, doch sehr nachdenkliches, muehsames, schweres Geschaeft, was aber die Kranken in kurzer Zeit, ohne Beschwerde und voellig zur Gesundheit herstellt - und so ein heilbringendes und beseeligendes Geschaeft wird.

Homoeopathik vergiesst nie einen Tropfen Blutes, giebt nicht zu brechen, purgiren, laxiren oder Schwitzen, vertreibt kein aeusseres Uebel durch aeussere Mittel, verordnet keine heisse oder unbekannte Mineral-Baeder oder Arznei enthaltende Klistiere, setzt keine spanischen Fliegen oder Senfpflaster, keine Haarseile, keine Fontanelle, erregt keinen Speichelfluss, brennt nicht mit Moxa oder Glueheisen bis auf die Knochen u dgl., sondern sie giebt mit eigner Hand nur selbst bereitete einfache Arznei, die sie genau kennt und keine Gemische, stillt nie Schmerz mit Opium, u.s.w.

Hienach ist die Homoeopathik eine ganz einfache, sich stets in ihren grundsaetzen so wie in ihrem Verfahren gleichbleibende Heilkunst. Wie die Lehre, auf der sie beruht, erscheint sie, wohl begriffen, in sich voellig abgeschlossen und dadurch allein huelfreich. Gleiche Reinheit in der Lehre wie in der Ausuebung, solten sich von selbst verstehn und jede Rueckverirrung in den verderblichen Schlendrian der alten Schule, (deren Gegensatz sie, wie die Nacht der Gegensatz des Tages ist) voellig aufhoeren, sich mit dem ehrwuerdigen Namen Homoeopathik zu bruesten.

Paris, Ende Februar 1842.

Samuel Hahnemann.

English Translation of the Above:

"In order to give a general notion of the treatment of diseases pursued by the old school of medicine (allopathy) it may be observed that it presupposes the existence sometimes of excess of blood (plethora - which is never present), sometimes of morbid matters and acridities; hence it taps off the life's blood and exerts itself either to clear away the imaginary disease-matter or to conduct it elsewhere (by emetics, purgatives, sialogogues, diaphoretics, diuretics, drawing plasters, setons, issues, etc.), in the vain belief that the disease will thereby be weakened and materially eradicated;

Comment by Eileen:
Hahnemann was no fan of blood-letting or what is known as venesection or opening a vein. He's saying that you bleed enough blood out of the person, the symptoms they had (the disease) will disappear.

Comment by Paul:
These procedures were intended to weaken the disease, but instead they weakened the patient. The vital force is adversely affected by the loss of body fluids and electrolytes. This places a tremedous strain on the psoric character of the individual. Psora was the mother of all miasms, without which we will not have disease and which we all possess. It is that inherent "groove" or "fault" (as Vithoulkas describes it) which gives us susceptibility to be ill. Now although we all have psora (other possible miasms over and above this being mainly syphillis and/or sycosis) it is firstly in a latenet or inactive state. This nutritional drainage is one factor that can cause it to become active, so that now we have a more serious situation in that our disease also has an active psoric component. This is something we can discuss later when looking at Hahnemann's theory of Chronic Diseases, the culmination of his study of human disease. He gives the example that he would treat patients homoeopathically, but he would find some resistant to the supposed well-indicated simillimum. As an example let us consider a case showing strong mercury symptoms (Merc sol). This is a remedy belonging predominantly to the syphillitic miasm. It is given in potency, with no effect. Then Hahnemann noticed in these cases that they had in their history had strong doses of allopathy, e.g. perhaps Mercury in crude form (with the side effects of salivation, diarrhoea, vomiting etc) He then noticed that these cases had a strong psoric component because of this treatment. (The side effects had left them feeling drained, weak and lacking vitality). So then he would give an anti-psoric e.g. Sulphur. After this he found the Merc sol would work as expected and complete the cure. (Nowadays some Homoeopaths often start a case by routinely giving Sulphur if there is a history of much allopathic drugging, but strictly speaking one should never be routine in Homoeopathy.)

".....in place of which the patient's sufferings are thereby increased, and by such and other painful appliances the forces and nutritious juices indispensable to the curative process are abstracted from the organism. It assails the body with large doses of powerful medicines, often repeated in rapid succession for a long time, whose long-enduring, not infrequently frightful effects it knows not, and which it, purposely it would almost seem, makes unrecognisable by the commingling of several such unknown substances in one prescription, and by their long-continued employment it develops in the body new and often ineradicable medicinal diseases."

Comment by Eileen:
Hahnemann is against the use of large doses of medicine which are repeated and injure the patient. He also rages against the chemistry of these herbs and that it causes adverse side effects and even other diseases to occur as a result of their administration.

Comment by Gaby:
Especially the mixture - if there are several unknown substances - is dangerous. Because thus it can't be seen where the effects come from.

Comment by Paul:
This is commonly seen nowadays. Along with each prescription, the doctor understand that the medicine has a "therapeutic profile" as well as a "side-effect profile". He or she has been told by the drug companies (the modern day "learned professors"), that this benefit/risk ratio is acceptable (and better than the opposition's product etc.) So one drug is given e.g. an anti-inflammatory, and when side effects such as heartburn occur, an antacid is prescribed to counter that. Eventual depression or tiredness or any other side-effect is then treated with an "appropriate medication". All these "new drug induced illnesses" are termed Iatrogenic disease and constitute a large proportion of the suffering of the doctors patients. Moreover, this is the cause of the increase in Chronic Disease. We often see especially elderly people on a "grocery list" of medication. 3 remedies for blood pressure, 1 for the heart, 1 for depression and 1 for anxiety, 1 for insomnia and 1 for arthtritis, and some cream for the eczema. Then of course the doctor will claim to be "doing so much to improve the quality of life for the elderly !!" (Hahnemann has a message about this at the end of the 5th edition preface.)

"Whenever it can, it employs, in order to keep in favor with its patient, remedies that immediately suppress and hide the morbid symptoms by opposition (contraria contrariis) for a short time (palliatives), but that leave the cause for these symptoms (the disease itself) strengthened and aggravated.

Comment by Eileen:
Hahnemann is saying that this type of medical application do nothing but drive the symptoms of the disease that the person had, deeply into them by using "anti" types of herbal applications--such as an "anti-fever" herb, for example. It is the Law of Opposites or "contraria contrariis".

He also notes that such medical applications can cause palliation, which may make the symptoms ease for awhile, but in the long run, the symptoms come roaring back stronger than before and far more aggravating to the patient, as a result.

"It considers affections on the exterior of the body as purely local and existing there independently, and vainly supposes that it has cured them when it has driven them away by means of external remedies, so that the internal affection is thereby compelled to break out on a nobler and more important part. When it knows not what else to do for the disease which will not yield or which grows worse, the old school of medicine undertakes to change it into something else, it knows not what, by means of an alterative, for example, by the life-undermining calornel, corrosive sublimate and other mercurial preparations in large doses."

[....and other strong preparations in large doses. Gaby Rottler]

Comment by Eileen:
Hahnemann rails against the medical people that they use only external devices such as herbs, etc., in large doses, to get rid of the symptoms in the patient. The only problem is, they do not address it any further than this--the 'internal' part--the reasons why we get symptoms of a dis-ease. This reminds me of the modern-day ad on television that "parts are parts." Medical doctors of today do not differ from the ones of Hahnemann's day--people are only "parts"--not a whole, not seen wholistically as Hahnemann is seeing us.

Mercury was a 'fad' in Hahnemann's day and he saw that the use of it only made the patient worse or more than likely, killed them sooner and it certainly suppressed the symptoms the patient had--if but for a little while. Nowadays, they use chemotherapy and radiation and accomplish the same thing medical people did back then. Medicine hasn't exactly advanced, has it?

Comment by Paul:
The vital force always tries to maintain the illness at the least damaging area of the body. From this we see a hierachical setup whereby one area is less severe than another. This led to an observation which was termed "Hering's Law", which is not a law, but a set of observations concerning the direction of cure. In a nutshell:

In cure, symptoms may move:

From top to bottom,
From inside to outside,
From more important organs to less important organs in reverse order of appearance.

So granny was right when she said that the child with measles will get better once the rash appears. The skin represents a large surface area (to dilute the toxins) and is more external than the lungs or nervous system.

When we look at the above statements by Hahnemann, removing a symptom (e.g. a skin rash) is often done in allopathy by suppression e.g. using cortisone cream for its "anti-inflammatory" properties. The disease could then move to the lungs (more internal organ) with a resultant asthma. Now the disease is "strengthened and aggravated".

That is the idea of suppression and shows the need to observe the disease as a whole. A common misconception is that because a remedy is "homoeopathic" it is totally safe and will not cause suppression. Hering's law should be applied to all homoeopathic cases to determine the success of the prescription. A remedy is only "homoeopathic" when precribed correctly according to the law of similars.

"For the same object the experienced allopath delights to invent a fixed name, by preference a Greek one, for the malady, in order to make the

[.....for the malady of the patient... GR]

patient believe that he has long known this disease as an old acquaintance, and hence is the fitted person to cure it."

Comment by Eileen:
Doctors lapsed into Latin and "medicalese" to impress the patient and also keep the patient in the dark about what was going on.....not much has changed there, either, has it compared to our modern day and age? He's also noting that doctors made the patient think he knew all about this patient's set of symptoms and may well not have...

Comment by Paul:
That is if the doctor even bothers to tell you anything (sorry for that - but sadly it is often true where I come from).

"It seems that the unhallowed principal business of the old school of medicine (allopathy) is to render incurable if not fatal the majority of diseases, those made chronic through ignorance by continually weakening and tormenting the already debilitated patient by the further addition of new destructive drug diseases."

Comment by Eileen:
Well, we see this today, don't we? We zap them with radiation, we poison them with drugs called chemotherapy. And the weakened patient is further weakened and dies sooner, not later, as a result of this kind of medical meddling. And we continue to have pharmacies create new, more potent and poisonous drugs.

Comment by Gaby:
[...medicine is to render, if not fatal, yet at least incurable the majority of diseases, the protracted ones, by continually weakening and tormenting the weak patient, who is already suffering from the nuisance of his disease, and by adding new destructive medicinal diseases. GR]

"When this pernicious practice has become a habit and one is rendered insensible to the admonitions of conscience, this becomes a very easy business indeed."

Comment by Eileen:
Doctors have no conscience. They treat medicine as a business.

Comment by Paul:
When the teachers of the profession do it, when the drug companies help formulate "acceptable" guidelines of patient tolerance and when the patient is told that "without this medication or vaccine" you will suffer the following fate ....... then yes it becomes a very easy business indeed.

"And yet for all these mischievous operations the ordinary physician of the old school can assign his reasons, which, however, rest only on foregone conclusions [prejudices..., GR] of his books and teachers, and on the authority of this or that distinguished physician of the old school. Even the most opposite and the most senseless [paradoxical..., GR] modes of treatment find there their defence, their authority - let their disastrous effects speak ever so loudly against them. It is only under the old physician who has been at last gradually convinced, after many years of misdeeds, of the mischievous nature of hi so-called art, and who no longer treats even the severest diseases with anything stronger than plantain water mixed with strawberry syrup (i.e., with nothing), that the smallest number are injured and die."

Comment by Paul:
There was school of physicians who believed in doing "nothing" .

Comment by Eileen:
The young doctor blindly follows what he was taught and kills many patients. The older doctor, through many years of experience realizes that the mode of medicine he is practicing is doing nothing but killing. In the end, the old medical doctor treats with harmless herbs that ends up injuring and killing fewer patients as a result.

Comment by Gaby:
[It is only under the old physician, privately finally convinced after many years of misdeeds of the perniciousness of his so-called art, ......GR]

"This non-healing art, which for many centuries has been firmly established in full possession of the power to dispose of the life and death of"

[This non-healing-art, which for a long row of centuries has been firmly, like walled-in, established with the privilege and the power to dispose of the life and death..., GR]

"patients according to its own good will and pleasure, and in that period has shortened the lives of ten times as many human beings as the most destructive wars, and rendered many millions of patients more diseased and wretched than they were originally - this allopathy, I have, in the introduction to the former editions of this book, considered more in detail."

Comment by Eileen:
Hahnemann has seen that ten times as many people have died at the hands of doctors and the way medicine is practiced in his day, than what war has killed.

Comment by Gaby:
He means, in former times, when there were striking cures - it happened by accident. The physician unknowingly applied a homoeopathic principle or substance, and a striking cure was the result.

"Now I shall consider only its exact opposite, the true healing art, discovered by me and now somewhat more perfected. Examples are given to prove that striking cures performed in former times were always due to remedies basically homoeopathic and found by the physician accidentally and contrary to the then prevailing methods of therapeutics."

[Now I shall report only its exact opposite, the true healing art, discovered by me (now somewhat more perfected). Before one will find examples described to prove that, when in former times striking cures were performed, it always happened due to remedies which , contrary to the then introduced therapy, came into the hands of the physician by accident and basically were homoeopathic. GR]

Comment by Eileen:
Now, Hahnemann is going to tell us he has found a better way. That he will show us through cases and experience about homeopathy.

Comment by Paul:
Before it was a game of chance. (Occasionally people were cure on the basis of like treats like by chance). Read the book and see how it becomes a true science.

"As regards the latter (homoeopathy) it is quite otherwise. It can easily convince every reflecting person that the diseases of man are not caused by any substance, any acridity, that is to say, any disease-matter, but that they are solely spirit-like (dynamic) derangements of the spirit-like power (the vital principle) [ (the vital principle, the vital force ) ...GR] that animates the human body."

Comment by Eileen:
Any diseases we have are not caused by a germ or bacteria. Rather, it is our spirit that is deranged or out of balance, or out of harmony, that manifests these symptoms. He calls this our Vital Force, an amalgam of spirit fused with our phsyical body.

From a metaphysical standpoint, and this is a personal comment by me, when he says it "antimates the human body" there is only one thing I know of, in my experience, that can do that: the aura. This is the energy that not only surrounds our body, but is fused with our physical form and inter-relates both ways (physical to auric energy and auric energy to physical body). My sense is that Hahnemann was a great metaphysician, that he was clairvoyant--but he never said anyting along this line for fear of further outcries by the medical community. It was one thing to put forth a new medical model. It was quite another to be a clairvoyant AND put forth a medical model, so Sam cooled his heels on this point. He makes a number of references to the energy field/aura.

"Homoeopathy knows that a cure can only take place by the reaction of the vital force against the rightly chosen remedy that has been ingested, and that the cure will be certain and rapid in proportion to the strength with which the vital force still prevails in the patient."

Comment by Eileen:
True cure is accomplished by engaging the person's Vital Force with the correct remedy, that is ingested by the person. Cure will occur rapidly and in proportion to the strength (or weakness) of the person's Vital Force.

For example, a person with a strong vital force will cure faster than a person who has a weak vital force. However, cure can still take place.

Comment by Paul:
There are certain instances when there is very weak vitality and the wrong choice of potency can be too much of a demand on the patient. These patients are either too sensitive or too debilitated (e.g. terminally ill) and they must be treated very wisely using the split dose, or LM potency, depending on availability. In extreme cases we may only be able to achieve palliation of symptoms. The difference between palliation (easing the suffering without producing cure) and allopathy is that palliation should not engraft a medicinal disease on the patient, allopathy usually does. (See next sentence)

"Hence homoeopathy avoids everything in the slightest degree enfeebling, and as much as possible every excitation of pain, for pain also diminishes the strength,"

Comment by Eileen:
Homeopathy will not weaken the person and will also seek to not create more pain in the patient.

"and hence it employs for the cure ONLY those medicines whose power [ability, GR ] for altering and deranging (dynamically) the health it knows accurately, and from these it selects one whose pathogenetic power (its medicinal disease) is capable of removing the [whose powers for alterating the physical condition (medicinal disease) is capable of removing the..., GR] natural disease in question by similarity (simila similibus),"

Comment by Eileen:
By using a medicine that most closely parallels or resembles the symptoms the person has, this remedy will selectively use the person's Vital Force to help address the symptoms. It will, by giving this remedy, remove the disease. This is the Simillimum.

"and this it administers to the patient in simple form, but in rare and minute doses so small that, without occasioning pain or weakening, they just suffice to remove the natural malady whence this result: that without weakening, injuring or torturing him in the very least, the natural disease is extinguished, and the patient, even whilst he is getting better, gains in strength and thus is cured - an apparently easy [seemingly easy, GR] but actually troublesome and difficult business, and one requiring much thought, but which restores the patient [the patients, GR ] without suffering [complaint , GR] in a short time to perfect health, - and thus it is a salutary and blessed [blissfull, GR] business."

Comment by Eileen:
This is the Law of the Minimum Dose. The most minute substance is used to remove the symptoms without more pain or suffering on the patient's part, and without weakening her or him, further. Perfect health and cure will result.

"Homoeopathy sheds not [NOT, GR] a drop of blood, administers no emetics, purgatives, laxatives or diaphoretics, drives off no external affection by external means, prescribes no hot or unknown mineral baths or medicated clysters, applies no Spanish flies or mustard plasters, no setons, no issues, excites no ptyalism, burns not with moxa or red-hot iron to the very bone, and so forth, but gives with its own hand [with its own hand only, GR] its own preparations of simple uncompounded medicines, which it is accuratey acquainted with, never subdues pain by opium, etc."

Comment by Eileen:
Homeopathy is nothing like the allopathic medicine of his day in any way, shape or form. It does not palliate, nor does it suppress.

Comment by Gaby:
Hahnemann puts here forth one of his doctrines: gives with its own hands - don't rely on the patient or anyone else only his own preparations - you better make your remedies yourself of simple, single remedy - not 2 or three together which it is accurately acquainted with - the homoeopath should only give remedies he is familiar with, he should know the remedy, its possible actions.

"Thus homoeopathy is a perfectly simple system of medicine, remaining always fixed in its principles as in its practice, which, like the doctrine whereon it is based, if rightly apprehended will be found to be complete (and therefore serviceable).

[Thus homoeopathy is a very simple healing art, remaining always stable in its principles as well as in its procedures. Like the doctrine, upon which it is based it appears , when well understood, totally self-contained and therefore serviceable. GR]

Comment by Eileen:
Homeopathy is a simple, straight-forward system to be utilized. If we follow the steps exactly, then it will be of great use and service to humanity.

"What is clearly pure in doctrine and practice should be self-evident, and all backward sliding to the pernicious routinism of the old school that is as much its antithesis as night is to day, should cease to vaunt itself with the honorable name of Homoeopathy."

[The same pureness in doctrine and practice stands to reason, and all backward sliding to the pernicious lax routinism of the old school (that is as much its contrary as the night is to the day) should cease to vaunt itself with the honorable name Homoeopathy. GR]

Comment by Eileen:
He wants all the allopathic doctors to stop their barbaric practices and take up homeopathic practice instead.

Comment by Gaby:
Here he votes for the pureness of Homoeopathy. Homoeopathy should be applied according to its principles. Any devation from this way into the direction of the old medicine = allopathy , that is e.g. applying homoeopathic remedies in an allopathic way ( such as a remedy AGAINST eruptions, or homoeopathic remedies to suppress a cough) is not Homoeopathy.

"SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.
Kothen, March 28, 1833.
Confirmed Paris, I84 -*

*Hahnemann did not put in his manuscript the exact date, leaving this probably until the book would go to the printer, but Dr. Haehl suggests February, 1842, as the date according to a manuscript copy made by Madame Hahnemann. Wm. B."

Comment by Debra:
Samuel Hahnemann stated that, "More people die of their medical treatment than their diseases" during his time, and he was quite right. Subjecting individuals to such inhumane and even barbaric practises, while they were obviously in a weakened state, was detrimental to the health and well being of all concerned. Dr. Reiser, for example, is known to have stated that 4-5 pounds of blood needed to be withdrawn for the treatment of cholera! Hot irons were placed in individual's groins and many endured repeated venesection until they fainted. This practice frequently resulted in death.

And this is not even taking into account the septic conditions of the times. Imagine if we still believed in these treatments today, when we have diseases such as HIV, AIDS, and Ebola, etc.

It may have also given rise to the perception of the vampire legends, as there were also people of the times who believed that if most of your blood was removed, yet you still lived, that you must be a vampire.

End of Discussion

History of the Organon of Medicine by Samuel Hahnemann

David Little wrote an excellent article which also highlights the differences:

I have extracted the basic points: (The Organon was written concurrently with various editions of chronic diseases and the two can be read together when studying the developemental timeline of homoeopathy:

Timeline:

1805 The medicine of Experience published.

1810 1st edition of Organon. 1818 2nd edition and 1824 3rd edition of Organon.

1828 1st edition of Chronic diseases and 1829 4th edition of Organon.

(Companion volumes)

1830 2nd edition Chronic diseases.

1833 5th edition Organon

1835 3rd edition Chronic diseases and 1837 4th edition Chronic diseases and

1839 5th edition Chronic diseases

1842 6th edition of Organon written but only published in 1920 in German (77 years later) and in English in 1921.

1843 Hahnemann dies.

Summary 4th Organon: The Limit Maker - the use of the minimum dose

1. Limited size of dose. Suggests 1 or 2 poppy seed sized pills.

2. Limited to single unit dose. The watch and wait method.

3. Limited the highest potency to 30CH.

The wait and watch method. Practised by Kent. Commonly known as Classical Homoeopathy, but abandoned by Hahnemann by 1833 when he wrote the 5th ed. of the Organon.

Summary 5th Organon: The Limit Breaker - a further extension of the minimum dose

1. Made publicly known his use of higher potencies. Aph287 has notes showing use of 60th 150th and 300th centissimal potencies as made by Hahnemannian methods.

2. Furthermore he noted the superiority of using watery solution (split dose) instead of dry dose of pills. Aph. 286:

3. Repeated dosing in the manner described which could result in quicker healing time without the aggravations expected from the dry dose.

"For the same reason the effect of a homeopathic dose of medicine INCREASES THE GREATER THE QUANTITY OF FLUID IN WHICH IT IS DISSOLVED WHEN ADMINISTERED TO THE PATIENT. although the actual amount of medicine it contains remains the same. For in this case, when the medicine is taken, it comes in contact with a much larger surface of sensitive nerves responsive to the medicinal action. Although theorist may imagine there should be a weakening of the action of the dose of medicine by its dilution with a large quantity of liquid [i.e., the medicinal solution] experience asserts exactly the opposite, at all events when the medicines are employed homeopathically."

The 6th organon was completed in 1942 a year before his death, but only released in 1920 in German in 1920 and English in 1921. For this reason, many of the old masters were not exposed to the 6th edition and consequently never used LM potencies, unless they knowledge through private correspondence with hahnemann. Kent worked from the 4th edition hence he gave single dose and waited. There was a movement in the States to go high in potency, hence the kentian style of using higher potencies when indicated.

The 5th edition gave repeated doses, as a split dose. It also changed the number of succussions from 10 previously to 2 succussions per centissimal step. This change was however retracted later by Hahnemann in the 3rd edition of chronic diseases where he again stipulated 10 succussions per step.

Organon Lesson 1

The Differences Between the

5th and 6th Organons