ARE SERUMS VACCINES ETC HOMOEOPATHIC?


This is rather a lengthy paper for a question that could be answered by single syllable. But there are many questions to be asked and explained before the answer can be appreciated and accepted. It would rather surprise me to have a real homoeopath ask such a question.


It was suggested that this paper would provoke much discussion. I sincerely hope it will, for there are many things in it that demand honest, intelligent and logical reasons for the use of these products as they are popularly used.

This is rather a lengthy paper for a question that could be answered by single syllable. But there are many questions to be asked and explained before the answer can be appreciated and accepted. It would rather surprise me to have a real homoeopath ask such a question.

The question is: ARe serums, vaccines, etc., Homoeopathic? The answer is: As popularly used, NO, EMPHATICALLY. Nor in themselves.

We homoeopaths should know by this time that there are neither allopathic nor homoeopathic remedial agents, as such. Such only become homoeopathic when, and if the symptoms brought out by the provings correspond to the symptoms manifested by the disease-the symptom totality-and not to the name of the disease. (The term homoeopathic applies not solely to the drug nor to the disease, but to the individual.) The symptoms totality of any drug is of necessity limited, and thereby limits the sphere of action of each drug or therapeutic agent.

Hence with that limited sphere of action, any attempt at their general or blanket application is in direct violation of the law of similars which governs everything homoeopathic. Homoeopathy demands individuality, and as popularly used those products are neither selected nor used on homoeopathic principles. Any claim that they, as popularly used, are homoeopathic is based on false premises absolutely.

Such claims can only be justified, in the minds of those who make the claim, by an open confession of ignorance of true homoeopathic principles; and it does not hide that fact from patrons who have had real experience with true homoeopathy. Those who try to belittle homoeopathy and its principles only belittle themselves and openly expose their own ignorance. The real truth is that it is either ignorance of the homoeopathic or downright commercialism that drives us to use those products. My own experience, covering more than fifty years, convinces me that my deductions are correct. It is a sure sign that we are not conversant with our materia medica.

As the indication for the popular usage of those products are all based on “the theory of disease”, and a misleading name, I will quote form Dr. Muthu, head of one of the large consumption sanatoria in England:.

If virulent organisms can become avirulent, and avirulent can become virulent, or if cocci can be transferred into bacteria, if different kinds of bacteria can produce similar symptoms, and the same bacteria cause different disorders, or are found in both healthy and diseased persons, then the foundations of bacteriology have been assailed.

Said E.R. Altounyan, M.C., M.D., in London Lancet: After a trail on three pigs and the lab. these products are confidently commended for our use; and we, poor fools that we are, forgetting the solid training of our long early years, accept and prescribe them.

While many impossible theories of the basic cause of disease have been advanced, and continued to be advanced, and discarded with equal facility, I am more firmly convinced in my own mind that my own theory of the basic cause of disease being SHOCK is not only sound and logical but the only one that will stand the test and investigation. Whatever vital current this shock attacks, it invariably produces the same definite end result. And whenever a proving drug induces shock on that same vital current, it produces an exactly similar end result. Thus we have a definite guide to the accurate drug to be used in that particular case. That in itself bans any general or blanket form of drug application.

Now let us look the matter squarely in the face! If we insist in professing homoeopathy, why not either practise it or shut up shop? Just what is it that makes us either ashamed of it, or desert it, if not our ignorance of its principles and materia medica, and how to apply them? Is it not because of the thing we really need, an introduction to homoeopathy? Really now, are we not attempting to misplace the confidence of our patrons when we attempt to palm off on to them hybrid methods? And especially so when own method is so infinitely superior and efficient! Just what valid and logical reason can we give for resorting to the popular usage of those products and palming them off as homoeopathic?

Just where have they proven themselves so superior to homoeopathy that we should cast homoeopathy aside in their favor, and confer the valued title of homoeopathic on them? If the claim that they are superior to homoeopathy can be, or has been, substantiated, just where, when and how can we find that positive claim proven and guaranteed, by reliable authority? Just what disease have either cured or prevented, without danger to the victims following later? Just what HONEST statistics have we in their favor? A former president of the Ohio Medical Society, in commenting on those products, is recorded to have states, “There are three kinds of lies: just lies, damned lies and statistics”.

Said Confucius, “To see the right and no do it, is cowardice.” Said Paracelsus, “A physician should be above all things honest and true,” Therefore, if one is compelled to resort to those products, use them, but assign them to their proper station.

The great claim for those products, by both users and makes, is their supposed “immunizing” powers. But can artificial immunity be brought about with safety? True immunity means a state of FIXATION! Just how long could a human exist if that state could possibly be brought about? Only the dead are in that state, as far as disease is concerned.

The physical body MUST change renew itself constantly, in order to grow and renew its wornout parts. Hahnemann must have known that when he wrote: “The physicians high and ONLY mission, etc.” The physical body MUST cast off its wornout waste tissue and debris, or perish in that mess! The body will not, and cannot, stand to be compelled by any artificial means to retain that filth and waste, and especially by adding more of the same kind to it! Eruptive fevers were preordained for the very purpose of cleansing that body of its waste and filth.

Anent these sera, vaccines, toxoid, Schick test, etc., I find these:.

Dr. W.H. Kellogg, director, Bureau of Communicable Disease, California State Board of Health, is reported to have said: “The Schick test should be abandoned completely. The percentage of errors in reading reactions, even in the hands of the most experienced, runs as high as fifty per cent.” Again, Mather Pfeinffenberger, M.D., President, Illinois State Medical Society, before the Illinois Health Officers, at Springfield, December 3, 1926, is reported to have said: “Prevention practised to its utmost will create more work for the physician and not diminish it.

There will be more vaccinations, more immunizing, and more use of the physician and his services. Only fifteen per cent of all children get diphtheria, even under epidemic conditions, but 100 per cent are prospects for toxin-antitoxin; the same for vaccination.” So we are admonished to become a bunch of disease breeders.

Again, let us glance over what has happened in the line of failures and fatalities, in our mad rush to attain the impossible: Over 20,000,000 reputed vaccinations failed to prevent the most malignant and gigantic epidemic of smallpox, and caused the normal death-rate of five per cent. to rise as high as sixty per cent. That epidemic proved two things: first, that vaccination does NOT prevent smallpox; and second, that vaccination does NOT render the malady less malignant.

Can any advocate of vaccination bring proof as gigantic as that that the reverse is true? I fail to see how any intelligent being can espouse and conscientiously defend a method like external vaccination, that violates all natural laws, which has no foundation in fact, that produces so much suffering and so many fatalities, and which has always failed at the crucial moment, as the Philippine epidemic so fully showed and proved, and which is employed in so bungling and so crude a manner; and whose only claim to efficiency is AN EXTERNAL SCAR, let alone disgrace homoeopathic by insisting on making it a part of homoeopathy, and rule out internal immunization.

Again, our own Dr. Rabe commented in a former issue of the Recorder on some New York statistics, which showed 37, 443, vaccinations performed without even a single immunity being returnable, and but 227 returnable as immune out of over 5,000 revaccinations, and they only theoretical. Just what is precipitated alum going to do for toxoid? What does our materia medica of alum is diphtheria?.

Now let us review the wreckage brought about by these “homoeopathic” crude sera, etc. We find over 100 children killed in Texas, and numerous others injured. Damages? 72,000 dollars. Ten new- born babies killed at Taeaneck, N. J., and twenty others injured. Twelves children killed in Australia, and scores of others injured. Nearly 200 killed at Luebeck, Germany. Ten killed in Rome. Eleven children and three women killed in Cincinnati. After killing seven babies in Austria the Schick test and antitoxin were banned in 1924, and Italy followed in 1933.

Alfred Pulford
Alfred Pulford, M.D., M.H.S., F.A.C.T.S. 1863-1948 – American Homeopath and author who carried out provings of new remedies. Author of Key to the Homeopathic Materia Medica, Repertoroy of the Symptoms of Rheumatism, Sciatica etc., Homeopathic Materia Medica of Graphic Drug Pictures.