Allan D Sutherland

The Editors assume no responsibility for opinions expressed in this department.

Millburn, N.J., Dec. 8, 1930.


To the Editor of the Homoeopathic Recorder:.

In the December 1930 number of the Journal of the American Institute of Homoeopathy is an editorial Koetschaus Scientific Basis of Homoeopathy, A Simplified Version, in which the editor endeavors to clarify certain articles upon homoeopathy by the German, Koetschau. In the course of his explanatory comments he says:.

In closing these notes I hope that I have succeeded in clarifying some of the major points of Koetschaus discussions, so that the reader may now return to them and secure the full enjoyment their content deserves. Throughout I have attempted as far as possible to interpret the remarks in Koetschaus sense, although I have twice overstepped the limits and inserted something more. If I have succeeded in making the articles more understandable, I shall be glad to do so with the second group of papers which appeared recently, since these are even more interesting and perhaps more fundamental. I do not wish, however, to do this unless this needs to be done. Parenthetically I may remark that homoeopathy has entered into a stage where its literature cannot be read and comprehended by the careless reader; it must be studied if one is to keep abreast with the advances.

It is evident from the editors remarks, that Koetschau is sorely in need of interpretation, and that our editor is the only one qualified to lead the benighted and befogged host of homoeopaths out of the wilderness of scientific jargon. If this really the case, we have come to a pretty pass in the so-called school of homoeopathy, which, as the Journal within the past year or two has only too plainly indicated, is steadily drifting further and further into a troubled sea of mystification, for it has been painfully evident, if the pages of the Journal are to serve as a criterion, that the average homoeopath has been left very much in the clouds by the scientific mental pabulum served him.

If if has become the office of colleges of homoeopathy to turn out graduates who are laboratory workers, rather than practical homoeopathic physicians who are equipped to treat the sick in accordance with Hahnemannian principles, the sooner the homoeopathic profession is made aware of the fact, the better. if we are to judge by the performance of graduates of recent years, the simple verdict must be that homoeopathy has been scientifically strangled to death. The same number of the Journal contains an article by Dr. Joseph Echtman of New York, entitled The Effect of Homoeopathic Sulphur in Diabetes: A Preliminary Report. This article is of considerable interest, as the opening statement will show:.

The formula of insulin has revealed the presence of the sulphur element in its molecule. Since then the belief that the sulphur in the insulin might be responsible for its effect in diabetes has stimulated a number of metabolists to administer this element to their diabetic patients by mouth. The results of these workers were not encouraging, probably because of the crude method used, i.e., the sulphur, as obtained in the drug store, was administered to the patients in allopaths doses.

The author then goes on to say that this method of prescribing the sulphur is not truly (sic) homoeopathic and that it is not based upon homoeopathic principles and philosophy. Further on, under the sub-heading of Method and Dosage, he states that he employs the first centesimal potency, designated homoeopathically as the 2x trituration. He prescribes this in tablet form and gives one tablet eight to ten times a day, until about five hundred tablets are taken. This procedure constitutes a course of sulphur. Further along he states:.

No repertory is necessary in prescribing this homoeopathic sulphur, as here it is prescribed not in accordance with the homoeopathic symptoms presented by the patient, but for the pathologic condition for the glycosuria, just as iodine is prescribed by the allopath for a thyroid condition, or digitalis for a cardiac condition. Potency. According to my observation the 2x only is of value, and no other potency such as the 3x or the 1x. These latter potencies, as well as the higher ones, produce no effect whatsoever.

Numerous thoughts arise in criticism and comment upon this novel brand of homoeopathic practice by one who evidently considers himself to be a homoeopathic physician, for does he not speak of the allopath as one who is evidently of quite another sort? We, however, in our ignorance no doubt, fail to see any difference between the two. After all, there can be but one definition of a homoeopathic physician and that is, one who practices homoeopathy. Obviously and by his own statement, the author is not practising homoeopathy and has, therefore, no moral right to the sectarian designation.

To hide behind the farcical definition of a homoeopathic physician as officially adopted by the American Institute of Homoeopathy many years ago, is absurd. Either we, as a profession, are or are not a school of homoeopathy, but we most assuredly will fail in our alleged mission of advancing the cause of homoeopathy, by attempting to straddle two or even three horses, in true circus style. It is high time that we come to a realization of this patent fact.- RUDOLPH F. RABE.

Suppose we first see a case of pneumonia at a later stage, after perhaps it has been in the hands of a man who believed the proper way to treat this disease is by the administration of material doses of quinine, digitalis, antipyretics and whisky, and the patient, instead of improving has been steadily losing ground in spite of liberal doses of the above; how are we then to take the case?

It may be a very difficult thing to do until Nature is given an opportunity to assert herself and throw off the incubus under which she has been trying to do her best for the patient, and so in such a case (unless the condition is very critical, under which circumstances we must try to take the case as it stands, drug symptoms and all) the quickest way for us to benefit our patient may be to give sac. lac. for twenty-four hours or longer and then to take the case; then it will probably be important that we ignore the name, pneumonia, and even many of the symptoms immediately prominent, and going back to the previous history of our patient, select a deep-acting remedy according to his individual constitution and makeup.

Leave a Comment