§ 39 seems to be an extension of his rant about contemporary (c 1810) physicians, but he has inserted an assertion (without justifying it) that they reason they fail to do anything is because the medicine is not similar to the disease.

In § 40, I think the simple reason why no-one had observed simultaneous cases of smallpox and measles is because both are lethal and if you get both at once you would just die, rather than display two sets of symptoms. Thank God for modern vaccination programs! The other examples of co-infection are based on observation only and reflect the thinking of his time, although he extends the assertion about similarity as an explanation.

H seems to reach the same conclusion about con-infection – I am now firmly convinced that no real amalgamation of the two takes place, but that in such cases the one exists in the organism besides the other only (from footnote 1) – so fair enough

For the Organon,as Andrew says

“I’d pick someone with a full understanding of the medical practices and culture contemporary to Hahnemann. They’d be best placed to place the document in its correct historical context. I’d also get a doctor/scientist on board so we have some objective measure of how accurate his work is.”

The participation of homeopaths is useful, but given a choice I would rather have a medical historian.

Theological study is a waste of time.

Anthropological study is useful.

Do you think studying the Organon is a waste of time then?

Thousands of years of study of religous texts has not advanced humanity. We advance in spite of it, not because of it.

Taking your analogy of the Bible. If one wanted to learn more about it- its historical context, obscure meanings, textual meanings, etc. why would one go to an avowed athiest, whose only interest would be to show you how it is meaningless and useless as your entry into this study? Now that may be an interesting route to take- to get the athiest’s point of view at some point- but it must certainly be balanced by studying with scholars whose life work has been to further their and other’s understanding.

I would find a de-facto atheist to talk to, because they’re about the only people with no vested interest in interpreting it one way or the other. Someone who thinks it is the unerring word of God would be no help at all.

I think a practicing homeopath would be a bad choice for study of the Organon for the same reason: they have a vested interest in making sure I believe its every word. I’d pick someone with a full understanding of the medical practices and culture contemporary to Hahnemann. They’d be best placed to place the document in its correct historical context. I’d also get a doctor/scientist on board so we have some objective measure of how accurate his work is.

I wouldn’t by any means exclude a homeopath who wanted to contribute, but I wouldn’t give them any extra sway over anybody else just because they believe the book. If we took that attitude, we’d end up believing everything that was ever written.

It is certainly admirable that your interest is so strong in attempting to understand homeopathy, and I will butt out and let the discussion continue.