|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
- 1 250th anniversary
- 2 Biography
- 3 Bibliography
- 4 request from the Classical homeopathy page
- 5 Reputation as a scientist
- 6 Memorial (photo)
- 7 WikiProject class rating
- 8 Suggestions
- 9 Marsh test
- 10 Ref #9
- 11 Bad para
- 12 Born 11 April, not 10 April
- 13 Explanation of major edits
- 14 Orphaned references in Samuel Hahnemann
- 15 Hahnemann University Hospital
- 16 Claims about Cholera are just plain wrong.
- 17 Disputed
- 18 Incorrect date in reference by John Henry Clarke
- 19 Coffee theory and Psora
- 20 Later life
This weekend, supporters of homeopathy are celebrating the 250th anniversary of the birth of Samuel Hahnemann 
- Given the short nature of this article, as part of a series on famous people in CAM, I have to question that almost half of the article is spent on two rather unimportant issues related to his life's work - namely the reference to Dr. Quinn (why not mention all the others who started a hospital or introduced Hahnemann's system into their country?) and the reference to quarantine. What about some major contributions, such as that he was one of the first to talk about hygiene, the value of fresh air, sunshine, etc., that he fought for the purity of medicines in an age of adulteration, leading homeopaths everywhere to fight for better medical standards, such that in the US and Canada, for example, the homeopaths formed the first medical associations, which the AMA was formed to combat, or that he was a famous chemist and medical translator, his texts used throughout Germany, that he treated royalty, a tradition that continues with the British and Dutch royal families to this day? He was also a strong opponent of "heroic measures" drawing medicines attention back to the Hippocratic nil nocere.
Does anyone else feel this article really does Dr. Hahnemann a disservice? --Rudi 02:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- no not anymore, it has been improved in the past year a lot I can see from the history list Pernambuco 16:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Is it correct to call him Saxon? The page on Saxony shows that he was born in The Holy Roman Empire, and this page shows he died in France. Can we better call him Holy Roman/Saxon/French Herr Dr Hahnemann? -- Magmagmagmagmagmagmag 02:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I have added considerable biographical information, which User:Kungfuadam has deleted. Is there some reason why Hahnemann's biography should not be included in an article about him? I am restoring the information. Hgilbert 21:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- While the description of his work and the bibliography are splendid, the biography is woefully incomplete (cf. the German wiki, with a
clear separation of the various stations of his life).Dunnhaupt 23:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe there is a confusion in the "Descendants" topic. The second paragraph ("His father, Mr William Herbert Tankard-Hahnemann (1922–2009)...") mentions that "his" (probably related to Samuel) father was born on 1922. This is not physically possible (Samuel was born on 1755). I believe there is probably some text missing, maybe "his" is related to one of Samuel's descendants... (this is my first interaction in Wikipedia, I'm sorry for any mistake/misconduct). Thanks. Davidbrsp (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- You are quite possibly correct; I will check some of the biographies and see if the paragraph can be improved, including some good source material on this topic. thanks Peter morrell 20:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand the two sub headlines which say "Other works cont´d", please explain what this means, thank you. (I am Pernambuco and I have made many edits to the Classical homeopathy article. ) Pernambuco 01:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
request from the Classical homeopathy page
I am involved in a cleaning up process of the article Classical homeopathy but it is a lot of work, I could use help from others, if someone wants to help just go there, and I am also active on the Talks page with the user "Debbe" (a wiki-pedia friend of mine who helps there) so thank you in advance for your help with fixing that page Pernambuco 21:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Reputation as a scientist
Does this need to be so lengthy? It really has an air of desperately trying to prove Hahnemann's worth, and could really be about a third of the length without losing much actual information. It is skating over the edge of NPOV, in my opinion. It's even more ironic that that bumf leaves out one of Hahnemann's non-homeopathic achievements - that of discovering a test for arsenic that is still in use today. I'll add the bit about the arsenic test, and see if anyone has comments about the other glurge in the next month or so before I think of a way to edit to something resembling objective fact. Trxi 11:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- yes, I agree, and this is a problem that we have with other homeopathic related articles too, I am working on improving Classical homeopathy in this regards, so if you want to help I say thank you to you Pernambuco 13:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto. I'm going to take a shot at condensing that section down a lot, it isn't really that relevant. Kupos 22:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I took a shot. I hope I haven't been overly harsh, but there really wasn't much there to salvage. The giant list of works he'd translated was not relevant at all, and the bit before that was just constant gushing praise, all from the one source. I kept the bit about the Marsh Test, since that seems to be verifiable and concrete. Kupos 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- o.k. well I like most of what you did, it is actually a much better page now, but I have a little concern, and it is that you also took some of the references/sources away. Well, I added one back in, so maybe now it is fine Pernambuco 02:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Seems good to me! Sorry if I did that, I might have been a bit overenthusiastic with my deleting. Kupos 18:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- you sir are an idiot who should be banned from wikipedia Peter morrell 21:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Woah, easy, easy. I'm not saying that any of this is true or untrue, it's just not encyclopaedic. It's more like an advertisement than a serious biography. The objective is to summarize the life of Hahnemann, not to interminably list reasons why he's wonderful. Articles on far more prominent and famous scientists are nowhere near as fawning. If you have any reason why this huge list should be kept, please post it here. I'll leave it in place for the moment to give you a chance to reply. Kupos 00:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
How strange that this article highlights Hahnemann's early essay on the adverse effects of coffee so prominently while concealing his importance as a chemist/pharmacist early in his career, not least the fact that he compiled a/the standard reference work for pharmacists, das Apothekerlexikon! Very curious, don't you think? The German article is far superior and I would volunteer to translate it however the state of the English one suggests that that would be a waste of time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FCallen (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
FYI, there is a CreativeCommons licensed photo of the Washington D.C. memorial described in this article: http://flickr.com/photos/bootbearwdc/23392385/. It might be worth uploading to wiki commons. --Georgeryp 05:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 08:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are some suggestions for improving the article.
- Expand the intro. The intro should be a 'summary' of the entire article. One sentence is no where near enough.
- Improve the flow of the article itself by removing quotes where they are not needed and paraphrasing them.
- Format the "External links" section. All should contain bullets and the name of the link should be the name of the site. After that you can add a "short" explanation of what the link is.
- Format the references. All of them. This tool helps a lot. Also, Newer references from different sources won't hurt either. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
However, the most common test (and used even today in water test kits) was discovered by Samuel Hahnemann. It would involve combining a sample fluid with hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the presence of hydrochloric acid (HCl). A yellow precipitate, arsenic trisulfide (As2S3) would be formed if arsenic were present.  Peter morrell 17:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think it is. Could you quote from your downloadable source? It appears that Hahnemann is used as a source of legal effacy, not chemical tests. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You can search for the word 'arsenic' on this text  which is reputable if not RS. He definitely did pioneering work on arsenic in chemistry and as a poison. I can give published book sources that are not online. Peter morrell 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- On page 52 of Trevor Cook, Samuel Hahnemann Founder of Homeopathic Medicine, UK: Thorson's, 1982 he says "Hahnemann made an indirect contribution to chemistry in publishing a test for wine, which came to be officially adopted in Prussia and known as 'Hahnemann's Wine Test.'...to test for poisonous lead in wine...the basis of the test was the preciptation of the sulphides of lead, mercury, copper and tin by the addition of a solution of hydrogen disulphide (sic; it should be dihydrogen sulphide) gas dissolved in water." are we confusing this wine test with an arsenic test by Marsh?? Peter morrell 18:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This ref appears as 'Bradford, op cit' BUT in the html text it should say in an earlier ref: Thomas L Bradford, Life and Letters of Hahnemann, 1895...blah blah it appears in the html but is not visible in the article footnotes and I can't work out why...can anybody please correct this? thanks Peter morrell 20:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This is where it appears: In the Spring of 1811 [ref:T L Bradford, The Life and Letters of Samuel Hahnemann, 1895, p.76] Hahnemann moved his family back to Leipzig with the intention of teaching his new medical... BUT the ref does not appear in the list. weird?? corrected. Peter morrell 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- The problem was that when you re-use a ref eg <ref name=skaylarkbio/> you need the backslash each time you re-use it otherwise it isn't formatted as a separate reference. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, wonderful. Thanks, Tim! job done. Peter morrell 21:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This paragraph: Hahnemann tested substances for the effect they produced on a healthy individual and tried to deduce from this the ills they would heal. From his research, he initially concluded that ingesting substances to produce noticeable changes in the organism resulted in toxic effects. He then attempted to mitigate this problem through exploring dilutions of the compounds he was testing. He claimed that these dilutions, when done according to his technique of succussion (systematic mixing through vigorous shaking) and potentization, were still effective in producing symptoms.However, these effects have never been duplicated in clinical trials,and his approach has been universally abandoned by modern medicine. is badly written, factually inaccurate and largely unsourced. I propose to try and improve it with better wording and good sources. Peter morrell 05:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Born 11 April, not 10 April
This tells us:
- The baptismal register of Meissen contains the following record : (British Journal of Homeopathy, Vol. 13, p. 525): "Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann, born on the morning of the 11th of April, of 1755; baptized the thirteenth day of April of the same year, by M. Junghanns. Father, Christian Gottfried Hahnemann, painter. Mother, Johanna Christiana, born Spiess." The worthy pastor, M. Junghannes, was of the Lutheran faith, and the infant was baptized on the Sabbath after its birth according to those tenets. The date of Hahnemann's birth has usually been given as the 10th, and not the 11th of April. The town register gives the 11th, and at the celebration at Meissen, in 1855, of the hundredth birthday, the 11th was the day selected.
It is incorrect he was born 11.45pm on the 10th april. Bradford is NOT a reliable source of info on his life. Everyone else gives 10th check Haehl for example. Peter morrell 09:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. According to some German books that are available on the web, Hahnemann celebrated his birthday on the 10th and also put the 10th into his autobiography. One source says that according to his daughters he was born around midnight. I think this would be consistent with "born on the morning of the 11th". Since both dates are arguably correct, it's best to go with the majority.
- Or we could say explicitly "midnight 10th/11th". --Hans Adler (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, so we have dispute between reputable sources. When that happens, I think our job is not to "choose a winner" based on the majority opinion, but to state that we don't actually know precisely when he was born, and to report what the differing sources say. Some say it was 11:45 pm on the 10th; some say it was around midnight 10/11th; but the birth registration says it was "the morning of the 11th". I think the birth registration, being the primary source, deserves primacy, even if the majority of secondary sources disagree. We can say that, for example, his birth registration put it on the 11th and the town celebrated his centenary on 11 April 1855, but that Hahnemann himself claimed to have been born on the 10th and many secondary sources use that date. We should be aware that individuals are generally not the best source of information about their own births, particularly when it comes to births around midnight, because they were in no position to form an objective opinion about the time, and they had to rely totally on what they were told, years after the event, by their mothers, who in turn are usually not the best source of objective information because they had their mind on other things at the time.
- We can't just assume it happened at the stroke of midnight. No births happen at precisely midnight, because no births happen at a precise moment in time, which is what midnight is. Births take more than a split-second to occur. Probably his mother went into labour on the 10th, and most of the labour occurred on the 10th. But births are dated at the conclusion of labour, not the start of labour, and we don't know exactly when it concluded. It was almost certainly either at least a second before midnight (10th April) or at least a second after (11th April). Even if, in the extreme case, the time-keeper looked at their watch and the second hand was exactly on 12.00:00 at the moment the baby popped out, that still means it was by now 11th April because midnight is the start of the new day, not the end of the previous day. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
No, we do not have a dispute between RELIABLE sources, we have agreement across the board, except for Bradford, which is widely acknowledged as being NOT a reliable source. On that basis, YOU'RE POV pushing and your argument rests on a very flimsy basis. It is an incorrect fabrication. There is nothing more to say; he was born late 10th April. Peter morrell 05:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that's very fair, Peter. My sole interest is accuracy; I have no personal opinion one way or another. I aim to keep an open mind; those who attempt to close down discussions ("There is nothing more to say") might be more relevantly charged with having an inflexible point of view. I know that Wikipedia's threshold is verifiability, not truth, and that 10th April is certainly verifiable; but so is 11th April, and we can't just pretend that records supporting that date don't exist. www.suite101.com/article.cfm/homeopathy/90779 says something about the confusion:
- On the 10th/11th April 1755 Samuel Christian Hahnemann was born in Meissen, Southeast Germany. The confusion in date arising as a result of him being born very close to the midnight hour: the church records show the date as the 11th; Hahnemann maintains it was the 10th!
- As I said before, what Hahnemann believed is not significant. Hahnemann could only have been certain it was the 10th by being told second-hand by his mother, the doctor, the midwife, or someone else who was there. If this is the true date, how do we explain the official record showing the birth occurred on the 11th? What does Haehl say about the issue? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to have given that impression; I am not trying to close down a discussion. Maybe we can cite a source which says the date is disputed? I happen to know, having studied Hahnemann's life in depth for so long, that Bradford is NOT a reliable source and often gets things wrong. On that basis alone you cannot say he is a reliable source or take as gospel anything he says. That is the basis of my view. Haehl I will check for you, here you go: "the physicians of Saxony have claimed the 11th as his birthday, because it is thus entered in the church register of Meissen. But I have ascertained from Hahnemann's own daughter that he, Hahnemann, was actually born on April 10th at approximately twelve o'clock midnight. For this reason he celebrated his birthday, until the eighty-ninth year of his life, on the 10th of April. It would therefore be incorrect and unsuitable that on account of error, committed by a beadle one hundred years ago, it should be postponed. Every true follower of Hahnemann will celebrate it like his Master on the 10th." (Haehl, volume 1, p.9). I guess you will still continue to argue your case, but this is the most reliable source we have. Peter morrell 06:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, that's absolutely fine in terms of putting the matter to rest as far as I'm concerned. We have a published statement that the official record was erroneous - end of story. Thanks for the ref. (I guess an Inspector Frost or a Hercule Poirot would still wonder how his daughter could be so certain of the true date, since she was not there at the birth, and the person she got the information from, her father, got the information second-hand himself. So one could argue that Haehl used only a third-hand source. But that's not for us to concern ourselves about at Wikipedia because we'd be getting away from verifiability and into scientific accuracy.) However, to save future debates, maybe we could include a footnote explaining why we think 11th April is wrong. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Great, that's a nice outcome. Someone can edit the above quote, or a variant of it, to a footnote of his birthdate, indicating that Bradford gets it wrong or at least that the date of his birth has been disputed by some folks, even in his own times, but that the predominant view is that he was born ~12 midnight of the 10th April. If I can find time to edit that into the text I will do it, maybe tomorrow. thanks Peter morrell 15:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Explanation of major edits
Hello, everyone. Thought I'd explain the rationale behind my major overhaul of the article. Much of the changes are structural and copy-editing revisions. I tried to even out the sections and got rid of some excessive use of quotations from primary sources. For the most part, I tried to just rephrase the information as it appeared in the text. I also tried to give a more intuitive explanation of homeopathy in the lead.
Perhaps more controversially, I deleted the "Achievements" section. My reasons for doing this are as follows:
1. First and foremost, this section does not represent a neutral point of view. It cites ten of Hahnemann's achievements ... solely as defined by Harald Gaier, a prominent follower of homeopathy. These "achievements" do not reflect any sort of consensus or recognition by the scientific or medical community and are purely sectarian hagiography (and many of them read as nonsense to me).
- On first sight your changes look excellent to me. Thanks. I don't think deleting the Achievements section was controversial. It was added 5 days ago, and I guess most people watching this article felt it wasn't appropriate and weren't sure what to do about it. Just deleting it was a good option if there wasn't anything worth preserving. (I didn't bother to check that.) Hans Adler 17:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Samuel Hahnemann
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Samuel Hahnemann's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Ernst":
- From Homeopathy: Ernst E, Pittler MH (1998), Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials, Arch Surg 133 (11): 1187–90, doi:10.1001/archsurg.133.11.1187, PMID 9820349.
- From Alternative medicine: Ernst E (September 2003). "Obstacles to research in complementary and alternative medicine". The Medical Journal of Australia 179 (6): 279–80. PMID 12964907.
Reference named "Ernst2005":
- From Homeopathy: Ernst E (2005), Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach?, Trends Pharmacol Sci 26 (11): 547–8, doi:10.1016/j.tips.2005.09.003, PMID 16165225.
- From Alternative medicine: Ernst E (August 2005). "The efficacy of herbal medicine--an overview". Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology 19 (4): 405–9. doi:10.1111/j.1472-8206.2005.00335.x. PMID 16011726.
- From Serial dilution: Ernst, Edzard (November 2005). "Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach?". Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 26 (11): 547–548. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2005.09.003.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hahnemann University Hospital
I'm not sure just where this info should go but, I think it's at least worth mentioning that Hahnemann University Hospital is named after him. "Hahnemann University Hospital, established in 1885 and named after Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, is a hospital in Center City, Philadelphia. It is affiliated with Drexel University College of Medicine and serves as its Center City Hahnemann campus." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hahnemann_University_Hospital Dryphi (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- We could add a wikilink to that article in a "See also" section. I'll do that for you. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Claims about Cholera are just plain wrong.
This edit  reverted my changes and added even more bias by claiming the essay is "notable" (says who ?). I had asked if the previous editors had actually read his essay and I don't believe that they have because,
- the word "pathogenic" is in double-quotes in our claims and so this means it is used in-line in the reference. It is not. Read the essay and hunt for the word "pathogenic" - it does not exist. Perhaps it is lost in translation ? The reference is in English though.
- the second if the claim about the bacteriological source ...when in fact he is just re-iterating what was well known in public journals !. His full text is..."The most striking examples of infection and rapid spread of cholera take place, as is well known, and as the public journals likewise inform us, in this way:". He then goes on to describe the contents of those well known public journals and describes a vector which we know now to be dubious. At best he's a Texas Sharpshooter. At worst, well we know there is no scientific basis for any of his stuff so at best he's just re-phrasing existing texts. The significance of the 1831 essay is that he thinks doctors and nurses are the vector and that his camphor drops are the panacea. I'm reverting. Ttiotsw (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody has reverted your edit i simply added back the minute living creatures which was notable because no doctors thought that in the 1830s. Even infection has a poor history as doctors did nor believe in infections for centuries. Are you a medical historian? I think not else you would not say the things you say or the way you say them. Peter morrell 20:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry but you are very confused - you did revert the text and worse - you have added even more unsubstantiated claims that fail WP:V. You should also read Wikipedia:Edit_warring. I removed unreferenced text. I did this because I was reading about Filippo Pacini and so this article was an anomaly. Sure enough reading the references it is utter nonsense. You reverted my change in that you added the same text back in that I removed and, worse, gold plated it with extra wording that made it even more unreferenced. I added the talk page entry which explained my reasoning and then reverted your edits. You reverted my edits claiming edit war. Ttiotsw (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The edit  re-introduces claims which the reference does not support. The re-introduced edit says, "while also more notably conceiving of Cholera as a "pathogenic" disease caused by "excessively minute, invisible, living creatures."
My objections to this which the other party has not addressed are,
- who says that this is "more notably"
- where in the reference does it say "pathogenic" (we have it in double-quotes so should be pretty easy to source).
- who says that he said that this was caused by "excessively minute, invisible, living creatures."
Before you edit the section can you please actually read the essay. The essay very clearly presents existing knowledge where is says that "The most striking examples of infection and rapid spread of cholera take place, as is well known, and as the public journals likewise inform us, in this way:". He then goes on to describe the contents of those well known public journals and describes a vector which we know now to be dubious.
- Far from being a novel or obscure perspective, this was a very hot topic of that day on which seemingly everyone had an opinion. For an illuminating review of the "anticontagionist", "contagionist", and "transmissionist" positions and their changing support over the years of the early 19th century, I commend to editors:
- Heaman EA (1995). "The rise and fall of anticontagionism in France". Can Bull Med Hist 12: 3–25. PMID 11609097.
- Ackerknecht EH (2009 Feb). "Anticontagionism between 1821 and 1867: The Fielding H. Garrison Lecture. 1948". Int J Epidemiol. 38 (1): 7–21. doi:10.1093/ije/dyn254. PMID 19188202. Check date values in:
- Hamlin C (2009). "Commentary: Ackerknecht and 'Anticontagionism': a tale of two dichotomies". Int. J. Epidemiol. 38 (1): 22–7. doi:10.1093/ije/dyn256. PMID 19188203.
- LeadSongDog come howl! 21:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
In the 5th Organon of 1833, in stark contrast to all his new homeopathic metaphysics (e.g. vital force and miasms) there arose at the same time his decidedly modern and bacteriological views about the “excessively minute, invisible, living creatures…of which the contagious matter of cholera most probably consists.” (S Hahnemann, The Mode of Propagation of the Asiatic Cholera, 1831, in Lesser Writings, p.758; see also Haehl, 1, 173-179 & Bradford, 253-7: Thomas L Bradford, The Life and Letters of Hahnemann, Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1895; Richard Haehl, Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Works (2 volumes), London: Homoeopathic Publishing Company, 1922) He was thus a pioneer of bacteriology WAY before Koch and Pasteur. You should know all this if you wish to criticise the points made. Even Dr John Snow, as is well known (but not to you!) who showed Cholera was a water-borne infectious disease had to prove to **sceptical doctors** of the day that the infection in London was coming from a water well which he sealed and thus stopped the infection. Get your facts right. I am sure you will find online sources for all these ahem FACTS. Peter morrell 03:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hahnemann very clearly says in his own words (or the translation) that ""The most striking examples of infection and rapid spread of cholera take place, as is well known, and as the public journals likewise inform us, in this way:"" - (the colon is important here in the essay) I've made it bold to highlight the relevant words, so thus in that essay Hahnemann is simply reiterating what was commonly known. Hahnemann then says that it was the doctors that were the vector, does a bit of product placement, complains about the competition and that's history. On this matter he is not prescient to the later work of both Snow (in isolating the primary vector as water) and (then undiscovered) work of Filippo Pacini in isolating the bacteria. My change highlights what that essay was really about in his own words. If you want your version then you're going to have to find someone else notable who says that what Hahnemann suggested in that essay was prescient to later science. Good luck to that. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- 1800's medicine was barely beyond alchemy. Lucky for the world real medicine has accepted germ theory, and all the other scientific principles that make up evidence based medicine. Like Hahnemann University Medical School (which I believe is now the Drexel University School of Medicine) no longer cares about homeopathy and does real research in real medicine. If you're implying somehow that homeopathy is anything more than 1800's science, you'd be wrong, because there still is no evidence that homeopathy does anything but quench thirst. And skepticism today has a meaning that you're abusing in implying that 1800's physicians are representative of today's physicians. However, describing what Hahnemann believed in a historical since is perfectly useful to the article. And you're an expert on the history of homeopathy, so this article would benefit from your sources to improve this biography. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- @Peter, I take it you address the above comment to me. If not, please clarify. If you look at the history of our Robert Koch and cholera articles, you will see that in fact I am somewhat familiar with the topic having referenced much of those articles. If you read the papers I cited above it is fairly obvious that there were sceptical doctors as you say, but that does not mean that there was unanimity. Indeed those papers discuss the heated debate that went on. However, you seem to wish us to take Haehl and Bradford as neutral [[wp:RS}reliable sources]] when in fact their writings reflect uncritical admiration for Hahnemann that would make a politician blush. We need to be more cautious than that. Of course, if you are convinced they are actually independent and balanced in their reporting on him, we have a suitable place to discuss the question. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hahnemann's 1831 essay on Cholera propagation, which I quoted, is seemingly not online, but his complete Lesser Writings edited by Dudgeon are online and downloadable, which contains the essay, so you can check it there. I think you know very well who I was addressing and it wasn't User:LeadSongDog. Factually, yes I do regard Haehl as a very reliable source, probably the most reliable, though it is true that Bradford sometimes gets his facts wrong. Interpretation of facts is another matter, however. Peter morrell 04:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)
- Editors may also find this 1805 text (in French) Traité des moyens de désinfecter l'air, de prévenir la contagion et d'en arrêter les progrès by Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau (1737-1816) discussing the use of chlorine disinfection to be interesting. Of course he refers to it as vapour of muriatic acid, but its the same stuff. It rather predates Hahnemann's 1831 fluff. Page 284 is particularly interesting. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hahnemann's fluff? Thanks for showing you are no more 'serious' than the other factually uninformed and equally biased person. No point in continuing with this. Count me out. Peter morrell 04:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you like. But fluff is fluff. We work with the best quality verifiable, reliable sources we can identify. Not doctrinaire screeds based on nothing more than Ipse dixit. When you want to do things the serious way, WP will still be here. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect date in reference by John Henry Clarke
We have it that "John Henry Clarke wrote that "In 1787, Hahnemann discovered the best test for arsenic and other poisons in wine, having pointed out the unreliable nature of the "Wurtemberg Test," which had been in use up to that date."" but Hahnemann wrote Poisoning by Arsenic. Its Treatment and judicial Investigation in 1786. Clarke is thus wrong (unless Clarke is referring to a later translation). I would also say that we have a problem with using Clarke given the partisan nature of the publishing house and the only other test at that time (in 1786 that I know of) was by Scheele (from 1775) as the mirror tests of Metzger were in 1787. Is the "Wurtemberg Test" that Clarke (or Hahnemann ) is referring to the tests of Scheele or of Metzger (unlikely as it came out in 1787) - Was Clarke confusing Metzger and Hahnemann work and thus the wrong date ? I find little on this "Wurtemberg Test". Marsh's later work used Scheele and Metzger: and there is no mention of Hahnemann other than Wikipedia which says "the most common test" etc etc. Hahnemann may appear "most common test" but not by many people it would seem. I'll tag the Marsh test entry with a says's who and we need someone to verify what Clarke has said - I don't have his book. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW the edit that added the "most common test" was added back in 2005, here  which substantially changed the original. I'll see if that is true about the water kits. Ttiotsw (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Coffee theory and Psora
Regarding recent changes please note the following: "Though Hahnemann inveighed against the current physiological and pathological theories, he was not that enemy to theory he is represented to be. Indeed, I doubt much whether any one devoid of a highly speculative mind could discover and formulize a general law of nature; for to do so implies that the discoverer shall from a greater or smaller number of facts build up a hypothesis which shall supply all that is wanting in those facts to constitute a universality. Indeed, if we want proof that Hahnemann was very prone, nay perhaps too prone, to theory, i, e., too ready to generalize from insufficient data, we need only look to his extraordinary attempts to explain the mode of action of homoeopathic remedies, which are almost as wild pathological theories as any of those he has ridiculed; and his doctrine of chronic diseases is an unmitigated pathological hypothesis." (Robert E Dudgeon, Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Homeopathy, London & Manchester: Henry Turner & Co, 1853, pp.28-29) This also relates to the comment, recently removed, that he had a tendency to build grand theories upon scant evidence.
And a little further on Dudgeon says this: "In conclusion, I may state that Hahnemann himself alludes to the essay he wrote upon the action of coffee in 1803, where he had ascribed the production of a multitude of chronic diseases to the action of that all but universal beverage, and he confesses that he thinks he had ascribed an exaggerated importance and gravity to its use; since his discovery of Psora as the cause of so many chronic diseases, he is inclined to attribute to that agent the production of most of those affections he had imputed to coffee." (Dudgeon, p.259) These paragraphs more than amply confirm the veracity of the passage that was previously removed. thanks Peter morrell 17:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
There are two aspects here, one concerns Hahnemann's tendency to theorise on scant evidence, which Dudgeon alludes to, and which we might say forms the basic impulse that spawned first the Coffee theory of 1803 and then the Psora theory of 1828. Second, is the underlying similarity between these two theories which he proposed as the sources of all human sickness. There are further good quotes in Dudgeon about this and also in Peters and Snelling among others. I will dig those out and post them here later after which we might then have the key elements of a half-decent edit proposal. thanks Peter morrell 05:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
There are a few issues with this article. Because I do not want to be drawn into the conflict of wether homeopathy has scientific merit I do wish to clarify some points.
[redacted-LeadSongDog come howl!] In the section on later life, allegations are made which have been taken into question. Even if Hahnemann was a lecturer at Leipzig University, his ideas were discredited and the number of students dwindled. It is obvious that Hahnemann succeeded in ameliorating his social position (probably becoming wealthy) but there is no real proof that his theories were legitimate. Hahnemann, in my opinion should be considered an interesting artefact of medical history, he had many good ideas, homeopathy does not seem to be one of them. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)