Read before the I.H.A., Bureau of Homoeopathic Philosophy, June 1930.



There are, today, many issues, many problems, many questions, and many subjects, with many mean of many views on either side of all.

If will be my aim, during the few minutes allotted me, to increase the number of men who agree on the most vital subject of Homoeopathic philosophy and to decrease the number of views on the same subject. I shall try to do so by showing that, while many of our views seem different, they, in reality, are not. the apparent differences are does to seeing things from different viewpoints; and our individual viewpoint is the product of our inheritance, or surrounds, and our education-in a word, due to our make-up.

Before going further let us get together on the word philosophy. Webster defines it as: 1st, “The knowledge of the causes of all phenomena both of mind and matter”; and, “A particular philosophic subject”; and 3rd, “A calmness of temper”. I trust we may all possess the last while discussing the other two.

On what particular points do many of our profession differ concerning Homoeopathic philosophy and practice? We differ on the following: (1) See bibliography.

I Diagnosis.

a.Definition of.

b.Importance of.

II Disease.

a.Definition of.

b.Classification of.

c.Importance of knowledge of.

D.Symptoms of

III Dose.

a.Size of.

b.Repetition of

IV Etiology (Causes).

a.Knowledge of.

b.Importance of in selecting the indicated remedy.

c.Importance of their removal.

d.Importance of in making a diagnoses and giving a prognosis.

V Potency.

a. How to determine.

b.Relation to the repetition of the dose.

c.Efficiency of.

VI Symptoms.

a.Definition of.

b.Classification of.

c.Essentials of.

d.How to secure, arrange and rank.

VII Our Remedies.

a.Their action and reaction.

b.How they act.

c.Primary and secondary action of.

d.Whether antidotal, complementary or inimical.

e.Their elective affinity for tissues and organs.

f.The manner of selecting and administering them.

VIII Auxiliary Treatment.

a.Definition of.

b.Importance of.

Our individual knowledge on the above points (“Phenomena”) surely varies enough to give us ,many views on our “particular philosophic subject”. Let us, therefore, with a “calmness of temper”study some of these different views points and attempt to reduce their number.


Let us take the common definition (2), viz: “The recognition of a disease by its symptoms”. On this we can all agree. But, but when it comes to the importance of diagnosis there are nearly as many(1) views as there are individuals.

“Why recognize a disease?” “Homoeopathists should have nothing to do with diseases” “We, Homoeopathists, treat patients, not disease.” Some of the self-styled pure Homoeopathists feel that anyone who uses the word disease should have his mouth washed with soap and water as my other did mine when I used some naughty word.

Fine, fine , but again the patients of homoeopathist sometimes die,and in most states the physicians are obliged to write in the certificate the disease which caused death. In my last book I cite a case (3) of one of these extremists,who was willing not only to hear but use the word condition,but disease never,no never.

I have often written (4) and more often stated that for me a diagnosis is an absolute necessity in the selection of the indicated homoeopathic remedy. Why? Ist. Because when you make a diagnosis you consciously or unconsciously, correctly or incorrectly, from a conclusion as to what tissue or organ is affected. 2nd.You conclude how that tissue or organ is affected,whether irritated,m inflamed, functional or structurally charted., 3rd. You know that it has been demonstrated that some drugs can only irritate, can neither inflame nor cause structural changes like atrophy or hypertrophy, etc.

Therefore, it would be not only futile but unreasonable to select a drug or remedy for an ulcer or a cataract which can only cause irritation. 4th. Diagnosis is very important in helping select the potency and in determining the repetition of the dose. (5) How? Let me cite three cases not only answering the equations but touching the subject of prognosis. (4) All three cases had a similar, yes,a common entrance complaint, viz., blurring of vision”.


Miss B., age 29, school teacher; dark complexion of neuro-bilious temperament; father died when she was three years old of pyaemia resulting from an operation for gallstones,from which he had suffered for many years. Mother living, but suffers from neurasthenia and occasional attacks of hysteria.

Patient suffered from chorea at the age of puberty, 14, and has also suffered from dysmenorrhoea ever since. She is usually constipated. On her first call at my office her fist sentence was, “Doctor, I want something to stop any blurring of vision”. Being requested to be more explicit she continued, “It comes every Friday night after my weeks work is done and relax my nervous tension. I have a dull headache then, blurring of vision, a mist before the eyes, then nausea; these symptoms grow worse so that I cannot sleep Friday night from the headache.

Usually I vomit on Saturday morning, after which the headache,blurring of vision and nausea gradually get better but I am completely prostrated al day Saturday; I can sleep Saturday and Sunday night and am able to go back to my work Monday morning”. She continued, “This evening the eyes are worse than ever and I want to go to a picnic tomorrow, the worst way, so I came for something. Cant I get it?”.

She was given four doses, five drops each, of Iris ver. to be taken in an ounce of water every hour for four doses. She was to go without her dinner; tot take a laxative doses of Magnesia phos. in a half point of water and go to bed. The next day she went to the picnic and reported a fairly good time. The following Monday she was given Iris 30th, five drops in water, before breakfast, for three days. This cured after six weeks.


Mr.G.H.K., aged 35, Lawyer; light complexion; heavy, thick sweat, of sluggish temperament; family history nil; personal history,subject to catarrh of head and stomach when ever he takes cold,which he does easily. He came into my office with: “Doctor,give me something for my blurring vision. I have a very important case to argue in the morning and unless you can check this attack Ill be unable to appear.” Her added, ” This is the forerunner of a terrible sick headache to which I am subject.” When asked two give particular s he said, “The attack always begins with a blurring of vision,almost blinding me, then come hard sticking pains in my head over my eyes. As the headache grows worse the sight improves but nausea and vomiting set in. I vomit and cough,cough and vomit so that I cant talk. More than that I am terribly weak both mentally and physically from twenty- four to forty-eight hours”.

He was given five tablets of Kali bich, 3x, in a dram of water, every hour for five hours. He was also told to dissolve ten grains of Kali bich. 1x, in a teacup of water and douche his nostrils, throat, and mouth with it on reaching home and the first thing in the morning. He was also given tablets of the 30th of Kali bich. to be taken every morning. The result was satisfactory. He had only one attack beginning with the blurring, after that. CASE III.Let us omit the family history, etc., in this case.

A watch maker came to me and made the following entrance complaint: “:Doctor,my vision is getting poor, I have a sort of mist showed that cataracts were developing in both eyes. He was put internally night and morning and at the same time to have two drops of Cineraria put into both eyes. He was asked to report in six weeks. The report was, “I can see a little better, at least I am sure I am no worse.” The treatment was continued. The second report made three months after was, “I can see much better.Treatment was discontinued so long as there was improvement. His eyesight was saved.

Here are three different patients of three different make- ups and temperaments, with the same entrance complaints,but with three different diseases, affecting four different tissues or organs, viz., nerves, liver,mucous membrane,and eyes,given three different remedies of four different potencies, repeated at different intervals; with the same result, viz., amelioration of the sufferings of the three patients.

In all three cases diagnosis played a very important pat on the selection of the indicated remedy. Not only that, but the diagnosis also enabled the giving of a prognosis which was also important. How? Why” Because a correct prognosis often gives had been to a recent graduate of a homoeopathic college,who, after hearing his symptoms, put up a vial of disks (presumably. (Causticum) handed it to the patient with the instruction to take five every three hours,; and with the statement, “You will be all right in a couple of days”.

The last statement leads me to make another which I hope you will all taken with “calmness of temper”, viz.,m I am sceptical of the wonderful efficiently, the remarkable rapidity of action of the indicated remedy as reported in some of our journals. (6).

When I read that a group of symptoms which I recognized as cataract were given Causticum 1M and that the entire group disappeared in less than forty-eight hours,m I simply shake my head. From my viewpoint such results are absolute impossibilities, especially is this true of pathological conditions. With patients suffering from non-structural diseases of brain or nerves such results are often obtained with the indicated remedy and also without it. I have often given a patient a good fatherly talk and a vial of Place to and secured the desired result in less than a day.So have many others. Yet the publishing of such remarkable results words upon the incredulity of the reasoning,thinking riders and prevents their accepting, as true, anything we Homoeopaths say or write.

DOSE (7).

My views on the size and repetition of the dose have been stated so often that you are all familiar with them. Therefore, I will merely re-state them and not go into a detailed explanation.

F.the size of the dose should be just large enough to produce the desired results. b. The repetition of the dose, i.e.m, whether you should repeat at all, or the time intervening between the repetition,if you do repeat,depends altogether upon the make-up and condition of the patient-in other words what you expect your remedy to do. The following rules have served me fairly.

Ist. If the group of symptoms found in your patients are the counterpart of a group found in a proving give the same remedy in the dose or does as produced the symptoms on the prover.

2nd. Should the case be an acute, serious one, like convulsions or serious hemorrhages, repeat often.

3rd. Should your case be a chronic one, give the single dose and wait a reasonable length of time before repeating or changing.


My views on this important point have also often been given.

They are:

1st. If you find that a certain potency produced a group of symptoms similar to those found in your patient give the same potency.

If not, use the higher potencies for highly sensitive,emotional neurotic patients, and the lower for the dull, lifeless, sluggish one. We should always remember, however,that all rules have exceptions.


a.The acquiring of a comprehensive perfect knowledge of the causes which produce a symptom or group of symptoms is a very difficult task. As a consequence there are the end products of disease; while still others pretend to believe that thee are no such things as disease producing germs. We also have different view of vaccines, toxins,psora, syphilis, and tuberculosis.

b.Whatever our opinion as to what the cause are, all followers of the master know that he recognized such entities and know that Hahnemann made a definite statement that they should be removed if possible. (10).


All of us will probably agree that a symptom is a manifestation of disease, even if some prefer some symptom of the word disease. But when it comes to the classification of symptoms (11( oh my! oh my! The following are a few: objective, subjective, mixed, rational, general, explainable and non- explainable,keynote, strange,particular, singular, common , uncommon, characteristic, toxicological, pathological, physiological, dynamic, mental, pathogenic,basic and determinative., I think determinative is the baby of the family and that Prof.

Earth Boericke is its father. the most unfortunate thing about this subject is that many men have changed not only their conception but their opinions (views) on many of the classifications. Take as an illustration “characteristic”. Years ago that symptoms was one which could be found in the provings of only one drug, and hence under one remedy. H.C. Allen was sitting in my office one day and I asked him to name one such symptoms. He did. I then took down T.F.Allens symptom REgister, Gentrys Concordance, and the Cyclopedia of Drug pathogenesy and handed them to B.C.Allen. Much to his disappointment he found the same symptom under three other remedies. Today I use characteristic and determinative as synonyms.

C.We need waste to time on the essentials (12) of symptoms, location,modalities and sensations were given by Hahnemann, Lippe, Hering and all the way down to Garth Boericke.

d.Authorities for securing (proving), arranging,and ranking symptoms are numerous and vary according to how many have been superintendents of drug provings.


I am sure that we will agree that we apparently disagree as to how our remedies act and react (13); as to the fact that some,though not all, have a primary and secondary action; that these two action play an important part in the selection,not only of the remedy,but also of the dose and potency;that our remedies may be either antidotal, complementary, inimical, or supplemental one to another; as to the importance which the elective affinity of remedies holds to diagnosis and prognosis; and finally as to the manner of selecting and administering the indicated remedy.

as my time is limit I will simply refer you to the bibliography as proof of the above statements, feeling sure that a study of the authorities named therein will greatly reduce the number not only old apparent but real viewpoints, and hence views.


While speaking on one phase of the subject, viz., palliation, last year at Montreal I saw very plainly on the faces of many of you that you disagreed most radically with my views. Therefore, I expressed those views, including palliation (14), more extensively under the head of auxiliary treatment in my last book. The subject forms a part of the chapter on How to Select and Administer the Indicated Remedy. Next to preparing the channels (15) and regulating the diet I consider palliation the most important factor in the successful practice of homoeopathy. By palliation, however, I do not confine myself to the use of opium in its various forms or any other anodyne.

Now to our two objectives: 1st. How to increase the number of men. I am but a babe in this family-eight days less than a year old.

This association is altogether too small to do the work it ought to do. The reason for this is that we are too exclusive. I belong to the exclusive bodies. To become a member of either you must have certain qualifications. the membership of one is you must have certain qualifications. The membership of one is less than fifty and of the other less than one hundred. The waiting list of each is a long one-waiting and i presume hoping, some of us will die soon enough to let them come in. Are any except the members benefited by these bodies? Why no. They were organized for the sole benefit and the enjoyment of its members.

I am also a member of another association,whose membership is a thousand times larger than the former. That body is organized for the purpose of benefitting mankind in general. It has members in all parts of the world. Which of the two do the members of the I.H.A. wish to emulate? Which of the two does the I.H.A. really simulate? This body has members in all parts of the world. If I understand it correctly our objective is to extend the blessings of homoeopathy to all mankind. We should be the “l;title leaven which leaveth the whole lump.” we should recognize the fact that the flour and yeast must come in close contact with each other so that the lump” my spread-enlarge the proper size and be of suitable quality to make it appetizing and nourishing bread.

The membership of this body should be increased one hundred fold. How can this be done? A very pertinent question but an extremely difficult on to answer. However, I will make a few suggestions for others to add to or criticize.

Ist. Broaden our standard of admission. From what I have heard and read there will be different views on that suggestion.

2nd. Be charitable of each others views. It may be possible that some of those who differ from us many see some “phenomenon” which we do not; or have had some experiences which we have not.

3rd. It is easier to substitute correct four erroneous view so a member than of one who is not. Although I had often been invited by H.C.Allen, Boger, Clarke, Close,Dienst and others to become a member I felt a good deal as Sloan said he did about it.

However, now that I am in and have met and exchanged views with many more of you I have found that we are all humans.

4th.Become members of an work in other societies. I have often said that every physician should belong to four medical societies, i.e. local, state, national,and international,and I am practicing what I preach.

I have also advocated that these four societies should be inner-related so that each could do his part in all and thus secure the greatest good at the last expense.

How to decrease the number of views? The answer to this question has already been answered in the suggestions, and may be summed up as followers: Meet each other, shake hands,look each other in the eyes and talk things over frankly and freely.

P.S.As a postscript always attracts more interest and receives more attention and more though than the body of the tetter, I will make one more suggestion, viz., but Crabbs Textbook on Synonyms and Snellings Jahrs New Manual of Homoeopathic Practice, and use them when reading the Recorder or other homoeopathic literature.


(1) Homoeopathic Recorder from June 1929 to June 1930.

(2) Websters and Goulds Dictionary.

(3) See (1).

(4) a.Royal, A.Handy Book of Reference,pages 35 and 36.

b.Diagnosis as Related to the selection of the Indicated remedy. Transaction A.I.,H. 1912.

(5) See (4).

(6) See (1).

(7) Royal A.,handy Book of References, pages 56-66 and 94-


(8) Royal,m A. Handy Book of reference, pages 92-94.

(9) Royal, A Handy Book of reference, page 85.

(10) Hahnemanns Organic.

(11) Royal, A Handy Book of Reference, 31 to 36.

(12) The Three Essentials of a symptom.

Medical Century, 1902.

(13) a.U.H.Renner in Midwest Homoeopathic News Journal, December 1929.

b.Royal., A Handy Book of Reference, page 51.

(14) Royal, A Handy Book of Reference, page 102.

(15) Royal, A Handy Book of Reference, pages 82 to 85.



CHAIRMAN WAFFENSMITH;This is a very interesting paper by a man who is wise in the wisdom of practice and the experience of teaching.

DR.J.W.KRISHBAUM;I have attended the meetings of this Society some often the word has become more or less obnoxious to me. I wondered last year in Canada whether we would become more or less obnoxious to me. I wondered last function; whether we would ever have any children to stir us up at night and let us exercise our limbs and our vocal chords; whether we would ever have any children who would ask us for butter-bread with a thick spread of jam on it; whether we would ever have any youths to laugh in a cynical way at our ignorance, firm in the believe that after a few years they would far surpass the old fogies; to say nothing of having young men and young women who might come along and take the mantle from our shoulders and carry on.

Personally, in medicine my motto has been patterned after a good man of whom some of you have heard, St.Paul, who said, :”I press onward to the mark”. He ever claimed that he was pure or had reached the mark. And I have heard so much of “purity” and “pure homoeopathy” that I have come to the conclusion that we must drop it,take in new blood,teach them, train them and let them back-slide. But take them back again. Pat them on the shoulder and tell them to do better. There is nothing so dampening to a young man as to turn your shoulder on him and say,”You are not a homoeopath.” How many of you here are pure?.

DR.A.PULFORD;We had at our office a case of vesicular erysipelas that had defined all methods of treatment. You have the pathological stage. Now, what is the remedy? Late we learned that he had had a yellow, water stool., a semi-pathological state. he had taken one dose of medicine and was promptly cured. What is your remedy? You have your pathological and semi- pathological states., He said, “Doctor,whenever I eat o drink that watery stool comes out like a shot”. Where is your pathology in that?.

DR.C.M.Boger: There some things I would like to say in connection with this paper.

This Society was organized by Dr.Lippe and Dr.Guernsey organized to keep alive the homoeopathy of Hahnemann because it was felt that the Institute was black sliding, to use the expression that Dr.Krichbaum just employed. We have been engaged mostly in keeping the homoeopathy of Hahnemann alive. If there had been no I.H.A., homoeopathy today would be ahead. The Institute,m so far as homoeopathy of a hahnemann alive. If there had been no I.H.A., Homoeopathy today would be dead. The Institute, so far as homoeopathy is concerned, is about four- fifths dead now. the ordinary medical education-by that I mean in all school is stamped alike. They are all standardized, every one. If you want to get away from standardization. , if you want to get away from standardization, if you want individuality, you have to each individuality , you have to instruct individually.

Now I come to the other point. We have been a failure as missionaries. We have been so much engaged in keeping ourselves alive that we have forgotten that there is such a thing as missionary zeal.

At Atlantic City after the great trouble we had a Watch Hill there were only seven members present. I was among the seven. Dr.Water James and Dr.T.J.Clark of New York water there. They have both passed on. At that time we, as an infant,almost breathed our last, because of scandal.

When we had the other trouble with Swan and osteopathy. the almost did something to us,gave us diphtheria, or something, but we got through with that. And here we are today facing the electronic treatment. That is the coming storm on the horizon and we will have to dispose of the shortly. But homoeopathy is the only solid ground and the only solid basis upon which we have to stand.

The criticism that havent been much as missionaries is probably deserved, but were are making strong effort on boston to overcome that, and I hope we will succeed if we succeed it will be because this Society stands have to get Homoeopathic instruction and we have been put through in schools. They havent been standardized. that is what is the matter.

A few years ago the United States government tried to make an experiment of feeling the solidities on cubes of prepared food. In a few weeks the solidities were hardly able to stand. That is what is the matter with the medical profession today. they have been fed on standardized food so long that the medical profession is hardly able to stand.

Looks at the assaults on the profession today we people who are not doctors. Think of that. A large part of the profession is held in open derision today. If we are going going to amount to anything we have to stand by our colors, and I think the school in Boston is one of the best means of doing that.

We have been few in numbers many times. We have had large meetings and we have had small meetings,but the closer to keep to Hahnemanns law and what Hahnemann told us the more nearly we will he presented.

Dr.H.A ROBERTS;In the possession of he I.H.A.we have kept a clear and shining light of the truths that Hahnemann gave us us. there is no question about that. there is a necessity and a great necessity, and a great necessity, for the missionary spirit to go on and promulgate this and carry it forward, and I think the I.H.A. has taken steps that are particularly apropos in this direction.

Take, for instance,the journal that we are publishing. Look back the time when we took cover that journal and look at it today. It can hardly be recognized as the same sheet. it has improved very much it us teaching good homoeopathy. You can call it “pure” if you wish. It is Hahnemannian homoeopathy as exemplified by many if the masters who are gone, as exemplified by some of the masters who are still living, and there are a good many.

I want to make a suggestion in connection with the Boston Post-Graduate School which is teaching the Hahnemannian ideals of Homoeopathy. We dont pretend to teach anything except homoeopathy as its individual who is seeing to learn. How many of the young have improved in Homoeopathy in the last twenty-give years? Would you recognize yourself back twenty-five years ago? This leads me to the though I an trying to carry on. I have six or seven your men with whom, I am in constant touch, writing to them, trying to direct then in to homoeopathy, and they are becoming apt students. Sooner or later they will go to the Boston Post-Graduate School. You would be surprised at the progress that some of those young men are making under direction as t what books to get, what books to study, how to study and how to help trying cases.

That is the only way we can do it. If every one of our two hundred and six members in this Association would take some young man, just one,and guide him, in five years we would have bigger membership.

DR.J.M.GREEN: On of the things we ought to do is discover where the ignorance of homoeopathy lies,both in other fields of medicine and among the laity. I do believe that ignorance is homoeopathys greatest enemy at the present time. If we would find our what our neighbors are thinking about and then try to meet that need we would recuperate our own ranks at a faster rate, and we would do away with the idea of being called “pure? or ?exclusive” faster than we have been able to do in the last ten or fifteen years.

DR.G.ROYAL:I want to try to answer some of the points that have been raised and to elucidate a little more some of my own statements.

Dr.Green asked three very prominent, very pertinent questions: What doe the laity thin of us? I dont thin I need to answer that. What does the l;city think of us in Des Moines or in lows or in Ohio or in Oregon today? By us I mean all homoeopaths, more necessarily this society, but I will include you, and you may answer the question.

Now, then why do they think w3hat they do of us.? has said. I am going to tourist that subject next Wednesday. Instead of referring has said. I am going to treat that subject next wednesday. Instead of referring to its as ignorance we are going to call it misconception of Homoeopathy. And where doe the public get its misconception? Through the public press, through the pamphlet, through the magazine, through the journals, through this journal.

I understand there are about two hundred and sixty members of this society and a great many of those didnt even subscribe to our journal. Doesnt that help answer your question somewhat?.

The next question is, How are we going to overcome that misconception How are we going to get them interested? We have to take the law of similia. We have to take the law of similia. We have to to do by them as others do. We have to use the press, the journals, the magazines,the pamphlets,and everything over going to reach them,. in any other way. When two hundred and sixty members, we will say, get two hundred copies of the journal, how many of our one hundred twenty- five or one hundred third million people are we going to reach?.

Dr.W.W.WILSON;How many of the daily papers would publish it if you have it to them?.

DR.G.ROYAL:There again comes in our personal influence. I lives in Des Moines and have lived there thirty-one years. I never have presented to the Des Moines Register a single article on cancer, of a notice of a homoeopathic meeting, or my views on anything else, that they have rejected. And a good newspaper that reaches the masses and does it intelligently will publish what they recognize as the truth, and many of them will recognize us.

Your question implies one thing,which is lamentable which is that much of our press. Our newspaper,s is controlled by the A.M.A.I know that. But there is a division coming in the A.M.A. There is a division coming in the ranks of the American Press Association that we can take advantage of, and we ought to do it.

Now I come to what you have to do Dr.Boger touched on it and the rest of you touched on it. Suppose we had ten women here,pure, perfect intellectually, spiritually and physically. Here are ten men. they are the only ones in existence. Suppose these ten women say, “No, if we marry them, we cant transmit in its purity what we have.” They remain unmarried, unmated, childless. Which would you rather have? At the end of thirty days after that decision is made what good are your books and everything else going to do? We have to mate. We have to propagate. We must have children, and we must educate them.

Leave a Comment