The first impressions on the plastic brain of the growing child go deepest, therefore the hardest to erase, if ever. It is for that reason medicine has been arbitrarily ruled and guided by men who from early impressions on that plastic brain, and having been taught so much “for sure” that was not so, has become self- opinionated, self-sufficient, narrow-minded, bigoted, intolerant and domineering, all those traits the children of ignorance; a state that even extends to both our judiciary and to our university presidents; they all feel that they are too learned to learn more. A sorry state to be in!.
I expect to be branded an “egotist” when I state: I have delved more deeply, and investigated more thoroughly medicine in general, and homoeopathy in particular than did even Hahnemann, but I do not mean to be egotistical in the least. What I am after is facts, as on facts alone will homoeopathy survive and thrive.
No matter how devoted we are, and should be, to both Hahnemann and homoeopathy, if we do not hunt, dig out and rectify the mistakes of Hahnemann, homoeopathy will again disappear, from the face of the earth. From a literary angle I reverently “doff my cap” and bow in reverence to the great Hahnemann, but I fear that he, like the rest of us, had a lot to learn about medicine. I find it far easier to obtain a medical diploma and a license to practice than to obtain a real medical education. The great fault lies in our inability to be able to read.
Right here let us face the true facts: Hahnemann deserves our unstinted praise and just credit for having rediscovered and firmly establishing the only therapeutic law in existence, thereby furnishing the only ray of light that has ever pierced the dense skulls of a vague medical profession. He was a genius and a mental giant in his day, at a time when little was known of either Nature, disease or medicine. But he had neither discovered nor thoroughly understood the broad scope that the system he had introduced embraced and represented, neither did his faithful followers who all followed too blindly.
That his Organon plainly reveals. How disease was caused he did not know, and states: “It would be of no benefit to know.” He did not understand the modus operandi of the Law of Cure, stating”: “The remedy produces in the system a condition more powerful than the disease.” He did not understand the essential difference between “healthy” cells and “disease” cells. If he understood just what symptoms were required to form the symptom totality he never told it, and that is the one most important part of homoeopathy. He did not understand the reason why drugs could neither diluted, potentized nor dynamized.
He seemed not to understand the origin of “vital force,” so necessary to the cure of disease; that that force emanated from the central control organization of the body and not from the attenuated drug. He apparently did not know just why the drug should in all cases be attenuated. What he did fully realize was that the highly attenuated drugs proved more effective. He was not aware that so- called contagious diseases were only contagious to those already predisposed to that disease.
On the other hand he did know a law of cure existed;that drug proving was the only logical and scientific method of drug selection for the cure of disease if we wished to bring about a safe, pleasant, speedy and permanent cure; that the more highly the remedy was attenuated the more effective it became in the cure of disease, but he had no idea why. He also left us a whole lot to be discovered; things that can neither be discovered nor explained on gross physical grounds. It is that which exists invisibly that is of the greatest importance to us; the origin and not the result. That we ignore with our crude minds.
The questions most persistently asked, and to my mind the most senseless, are: What is homoeopathy? What is wrong with homoeopathy? If homoeopathy is sound, scientific and definitely effective why is it not used to a greater extent, etc? Those questions its enemies like to propound in their senseless effort to suppress it. Now let us look squarely into those questions and see how ridiculous they really are to any intelligent mind, on subjects that should be exposed to the light of day and the destructive moths driven out.
“What is homoeopathy?” The reason that question has never been satisfactorily answered to either the laity or the allopath is due to the fact that is not an entity.
It is only a representative name for the most complete system and scientific method of medicine known, and perhaps ever will be known until Nature changes humanity. The term homoeopathy, from the Greek, omos, like, and pathos, suffering, is in itself, neither expressive of just what homoeopathy embraces and represents, nor is it enlightening on the method. That name neither represents a mere method of therapeutics nor a mere “therapeutic specialty,” as some would like to have us believe. What it does represent in all that can possibly be known of medicine and disease. It has nothing in common with modern medicine aside from anatomy, physiology and surgery.
Homoeopathy embraces and represents a knowledge of; the composition and construction of the human body, and why; the true nature and basic cause of all disease; the essential difference between healthy and so-called disease cells; the modus operandi of the Law of Cure; just how the remedy acts and its role in the cure of disease; the one and only reason for the attenuation of our remedies; why drugs, in themselves, do not cure disease, but merely act as a means to that end; why it is impossible to either dilute, potentize, dynamize or make a complete fusion of our remedies; why all our therapeutic agents should be proven on the normally healthy body,and how to select the positive symptoms from the negative, the former being the only indicators and forming the symptom totality which conforms to, and verifies, when properly applied, the Law of Similars; and just why disease suppression is dangerous and all too often fatal. Just how much of that does modern medicine know, and it claims to be scientific? Imagine!.
The above makes homoeopathy not a mere specialty, but a true system! Webster defines system as follows:
An aggregation or assemblage of objects or states united by some form of regular interaction or interdependence; a natural combination or organization of part to part, conceived as formed by a process of growth, or as due to the nature of the objects connected; an organic whole.
Can you find anything in modern medicine that fits in so neatly, even remotely?.
There is but one single factor that brings about healing, and that factor is not drug but “vital force,” gathered and distributed by the central organization of the body, a force that no drug could possibly supply. All that the drug cell can possibly do is to act as a plug in the broken line of connection between the central control organization of the body and the part affected.
Each line affected by the superior attractive power of the drug in the proving furnishes us the positive indications for the exact drug whose cell composition is identical with its own in order to repair the broken line; thus the indications conform to the requirements of true science; there is no guess work about it! Homoeopathy has to make no apology for its alleged failures, but it has to make all too many apologies for the failures of the incompetents who elect to espouse it, who either fail or refuse to investigate, study, and above all, practise it properly, and who insist or mixing it with inferior methods. Nothing will test the ability of any doctor like homoeopathy; his failure with it will show him up.
“Why, if homoeopathy is sound, scientific, and definitely effective, is it not used to a greater extent?” The answer to that is given: “The difficulty in the application of the Law of Cure.” Let us see! Here are a few of the real potent reasons why it is not used to a greater extent, predominantly among which are: a lack on the part of the would-be homoeopath to investigate, and above all, practise, it; a lack on the part of its teachers to investigate, understand and properly teach it; the jumbled format of our materia medica; the inaccuracies in our philosophies written without a knowledge of the subjects contained therein, as to just how the system operates and why.
Intelligent people clamor for it, but not for its hybrid counterpart, and that latter seems to be all that we present day homoeopaths seem to have to offer. The great complaint of the doctor seems to be: “that to be enabled to prescribe properly a remedy is tedious and time consuming.” Here is a simile: I fussed and fumed trying to replace a ribbon in my typewriter and was just about to give it up when the agent happened to drop into my office. It took him just two minutes to accomplish the feat.
Under existing conditions that complaint is justified, but not from any good reason. It is true that to be enabled to practise homoeopathy properly requires a goodly and thorough knowledge of materia medica, but that does not imply that one must attempt to memorize all the thirty pages of symptoms listed under Aconite in Allens Encyclopaedia of Pure Materia Medica, in order to be enabled to prescribe Aconite properly. To show what is mandatory to know in prescribing let us take Belladonna as an example:
