We have just emerged from reading Prizes Essays on homoeopathy printed in the July 1930 issue of the Journal of the A.I.H. These essays contain some very excellent matter, but also some assertions, both qualified and unqualified, which, if brought before a tribunal of real Hahnemannian homoeopaths, would not pass muster, let alone draw a prize. And, since those “Essays” are to go before the public as truly representative of homoeopathy, with the stamp of approval of those who have assumed to control and represent homoeopathy and homoeopaths, we shall therefore be judged accordingly by the public in general. Therefore, the public should be set right on the questionable assertions and the misinformation contained therein, and informed of the truth. Apparently those intelligent men of the A.I.H. have yet to learn that it is impossible to pollute a stream and draw from that stream pure water.

These statements we will number and refer to those numbers in our comments:

(1) “Immunity to disease by serums” sanctioned.

(2) “Vaccine virus is essentially homoeopathic”.

(3) “Homoeopathy is not a system of medicine”.

“Homoeopathy is not dosage”.

(4) “In homoeopathic therapeutics the size of the dose is incidental”.

(5) “Why there need be any failure with the homoeopathist to cure”.

(6) “It would be absurd to advocate a remedial cure for cancer, tuberculosis, etc”.

(1) Real immunity to disease consists, as Spencer said of life, “in the ability of the internal relations to adjust themselves to the external relations”. If these relations work harmoniously life and health ensue, if interfered with, disease or death will be the result. Can this ability to adjust be facilitated by throwing obstacles in their course? Once this balance becomes deranged disease ensues, when lost, life becomes extinct. What is disease, then? Merely the result of this unbalance. The ultimate result of this unbalance depends entirely, not on the original factor, but on the course which that factor takes. Disease represents but one tree, with but one root, but with myriad branches. And, since we see the activity of but one branch at a time, it is that branch only that we attempt to assail and remove, or-to suppress.

Homoeopathy produces its immunity by striking to the trunk of that tree, leaving no budding joint to resprout; not by merely rendering that branch inactive. This, then, is the removal of a predisposition, resulting in cure, not prevention. In other words, prevention of an external manifestation by the eradication of an internal predisposition, which can only be brought about when that internal predisposition is known to exist. Its existence is made known long before its external manifestation appears. The “prevention”, advocated and sanctioned in one essay, and palmed off as “homoeopathic”, is merely, if disease does exist and its product interferes with natural adjustment, suppressive; if disease does not exist, useless.

So that in either case it is injurious, and too often fatal; of which we have too much heart- rending proof. Who of us has ever seen a disease? Who of us knows just which one of those branches is going to become uncovered and active next? Now, then, since we cannot see a disease, and do not know which one of those branches is going to become uncovered and active next, just how are we to know positively when, and when not, we have prevented, or produced immunity against, any disease? Is this, then, not all theoretical speculation, endangering life and inviting dangerous, false “security”? It would be beautiful and comforting were it other than speculative theory, and dangerous at that.

The essayist explains that “diphtheria antitoxin produces passive immunity”. What is “passive” immunity if not suppression or diversion? The ultimate result must of necessity be disastrous, as witness the innumerable number of deaths produced thereby. As a single example, the 41 children killed at Luebeck, Germany, out of 246 innoculated, a rate of nearly 17 percent, to say nothing of the untold thousands of whom we never hear. In this essay we are regaled with a beautiful theory of how these sera act. If that were known, then it fully explains why and how every remedy acts. If you know the action of one you know the action of all.

This fact alone condemns the theory about the action of the sera. When we speak of disease, the mind of the allopath, as well as that of the so-called modern homoeopath, reverts at once to its external manifestation solely, because it is at once visibly, tangibly and ocularly demonstrable; but when a Hahnemannian homoeopath speaks of disease his mind reverts to something invisible, intangible and undemonstrable, at least ocularly. We know that disease is present for it discloses its presence to us in sensory and ocular manifestations. We also know that homoeopathy dispels disease because it causes these appreciable manifestations to disappear.

Since, then, this disease proper is invisible, unseeable and ocularly undemonstrable before it makes its presence felt by its appreciable manifestations, who of us is endowed with sufficient insight to glimpse the future and tell positively that any given set of external manifestations are actually going to appear? What a boon to humanity if we only could! We can repeatedly demonstrate a cure but prevention must rest purely on theoretically speculative ground, a ground very, very apt to be injurious, if not fatal. Homoeopaths cannot sanction hypodermic therapy of any kind and be honest.

(2) “Vaccine therapy is essentially homoeopathic.” Since when, may we ask? That is a very rash statement. Even Crookshank and Creighton proved them by no means similar, thus not, as used, homoeopathic. They are only homoeopathic to their own pathogenesis, as are Psorinum, Medorrhinum, etc., and that pathogenesis is as limited as that of any other remedy. If they are anything, they are isopathic as used promiscuously, and that is a long, long way from homoeopathic. Promiscuous hypodermic therapy is not only unhomoeopathic but it is reprehensible, full of pitfalls and a veritable death trap born of ignorance and fostered by laziness.

If Nature could not use these vaccinal and seral products in their original state, (the reason she threw them our in the first place), is it logical and a mark of intelligence to assume that she can use these same products in the same crude state after they have been rendered still more unusable by the admixture of other foreign products, without first having the opportunity to change them? Evidently the users of these sera and vaccines do not understand that foundation of medicine, physiology; neither do they seem to grasp the full intent of that wonderful laboratory, the digestive apparatus.

It looks to the man on the outside as if the essayist was getting his dates badly mixed when he states that “vaccine therapy is essentially homoeopathic”, and that without qualification; and also when he tries to palm off isopathy as homoeopathy, and attempts to mislead a confiding public that homoeopathy embraces and sanctions or indorses all kinds of questionable methods of treatment.

(3) “Homoeopathy is not a system of medicine.” May we, ever so gently, refer to that great fountain of information, Websters new International Dictionary, where one may ponder over the definitions of “system” and “medicine”, and see if a gave mistake has not been made. If homoeopathy is not “a mode of operation governed by a law” then it is nothing. If homoeopathy is not “the science and art of dealing with prevention, cure and alleviation of disease”, then it is, again nothing. On the contrary homoeopathy is the personification of those very two. Just what does so-called modern medicine contain to make it a “system”? We homoeopaths can make “cures” without similia? Not without first proving the law of similars wrong.

Who is able to do this? This makes homoeopathy the only system of medicine extent today. “It will ever more gloriously unfold its banner, ever more gloriously beam in the firmament of science and ever more show its curative virtues if not adorned in false finery or covered with false jewels and ornaments”, so said good old Boenninghausen.

Homoeopaths seem to be divided into three camps: First, those who believe in the similar remedy and ignore modern medicine; second, those who believe in the most similar remedy, but who are as yet ungrounded in the principles of homoeopathy and its philosophy, and who find that they must step over into the old field occasionally, (for the same reason that the demure maiden publicly wishing to denounce Satan to please her friends, told him to get behind her, but aside, not too far behind), their faith or rather lack of faith in themselves, making them want to feel that each is within easy reach when wanted; third, the rest, of whom the least said the better, who firmly believe in the course of least resistance, and would rather sell out homoeopathy than do anything to defend it against its enemies.

(4) “In homoeopathy the size of the dose is incidental.” And by the same process of reasoning homoeopathy is incidental to some so-called homoeopaths. Kent said, and we have proved him right, that “the symptoms may lead one to the drug, but the proper potency leads to the similimum”. Our essayist has yet to learn, as have a host of others, that it is that eternal trinity, mandatory requisite to an accurate homoeopathic prescription, that must be present, if a final and proper result is to be expected and obtained.

That trinity is: correct symptoms, that individualistic mark or stamp that distinguishes the particular drug from all others, and lastly, and by no means least, the correct potential or potency, for it alone constitutes the final factor in the make-up of the indicated remedy which kent and I agree to call the SIMILIMUM (and not similimum). The “size of the dose” may be “incidental” to those who do not know, or who have only a limited knowledge of, homoeopathy, but to a Hahnemannian homoeopath it is the peer, if not the superior of the other two mandatory factors above named.

The neglect to take into consideration the potency or dose has caused more failures, and we may add deaths, than any other factor, and that to many otherwise good homoeopaths. This we know from personal experience. If 47 years of hard knocks will not teach a man something then he is mentally impossible. Drugs or curative agents as we call them are but the containers of confined energy. Their fatality depends entirely upon the secretions of the partaker to be able to act on the container so as to render them active.

This is well illustrated in the immunity of animals which can consume quantities of drugs that are exceedingly poisonous to man. Energy is energy whether released from a drug or produced by physical or mechanical means. If massage is indicated, applied and cures, then it is just as homoeopathic as any drug; but as with the drug, you must have a definite indication to know just when and how to use that applied power and how much. Even massage and other mechanical methods, when not indicated, can do untold harm. They cannot be used promiscuously with perfect safety.

(5) “It might be rightly asked-if this law is so sure-why there need be any failures with homoeopathists to cure.” It is well to use the word “homoeopathist” instead of the word homoeopathy. There are but two reasons why homoeopathy should fall, first, the absence of the indicated remedy; second, the patient being beyond the remedys reach, irrecoverable. But there are numerous reasons why the homoeopathists fails, amongst which are his negligence to obtain the rest of the unproven remedial agents; his failure to follow religiously the rules of the game; the application of the wrong remedy; lack of knowledge of how to secure the patients history; ignoring the importance of the indicated potency or “size of the dose”, etc., and a hundred and one other etcs.

Our experience teaches us that if we have taken the history properly, seen that the remedy secured therefrom bore the individualistic mark or stamp, and the proper potency was selected, and the patient was not beyond the reach of medicine, we had no failures, and the need for frequent repetitions of the remedy reduced to a minimum. Wherever any remedy of any kind will act, homoeopathy will not disappoint.

(6) “It would be absurd to advocate that there is a remedial cure for cancer, tuberculosis, etc.” Yes! as far as the name alone goes. Names are deceiving and misleading, yet the above leads the public to believe that that is final. What a comfort it would have been to the victims if it had been stated that there is no cure for cancer my name, which is a fact, but that there ar remedies which will cure the patient having the cancer, when that remedy is positively indicated.

Dr. A.H. Grimmer has personally demonstrated this, and we, ourself, have demonstrated it on three (allopathically diagnosed) cases, one of the superior maxilla, one of the inner canthus of the eye and one of the uterus; the first with Phos. 10M, the second with Hydrastis 30x, the last with Rhus 30x. An allopathically diagnosed case of tuberculosis, moribund, was restored completely with Tub. cc, and increased from 98 to 185 pounds, looks the picture of health, and works like a “beaver”. A case, undiagnosable by the allopaths, a school teacher, living in a Wisconsin town, who was thought to be tubercular, having sudden attacks of complete prostration and ravenous hunger, and who had been under observation several weeks at the Mayo Clinic, was restored in a week by a single prescription of Natr. phos. 30x.

But the most amazing of all is this case: A 10 year old girl who had been under allopathic care for some time for “diabetes mellitus” and growing worse all the time, and was to be sent to the hospital for observation, was turned over to us. Her face bore the individualistic stamp of Cina all over it. Dr. D.T.P. took the history of the case for me and confirmed to the letter what had been observed. On June 3rd she received a single dose of the 1M and a Placebo. It was not repeated. The girl became strong, healthy and active.

Unknown to us, the father, thinking it all to be too good to be true, after all he had gone through, took the young lady and a sample of her urine to the original doctors for examination, who pronounced both girl and urine normal in every respect. This on July 5th. Does Cina, when indicated, cure “sugar diabetes”? Was it ever known to have caused it? That is but a single incident of the many that have occurred to us. These, then, prove one of two facts: Either homoeopathy cures patients of these predispositions, or, contrary to our common concession, the allopaths are very, very poor diagnosticians, and also shows the fallacy of placing too much faith in diagnosis for prescribing purposes.

Modern medical men learn all too little from their failures and mistakes. As the late Dr. McKenzie remarked, “We go right on making the identical mistakes year after year that we made in the beginning.” They prescribe, their prescriptions fail and all they learn is that they failed. Does this give them any assurance in the next case? Is it any wonder then that the allopaths and their “homoeopathic” sympathizers never progress? Even the most intelligent of homoeopaths can only conjecture from his mistakes, he has no assurance that, if he had the same case over again, this failure would lead him to a positive success.

On the other hand the homoeopath has this advantage, he knows, or should know why he failed. He prescribes on definite indications. He proves his remedies, beforehand, on healthy or normal human beings (not on animals) to find these definite indications. He matches the two and, if his potency is right, gets immediate results. He tries this over and over again under like conditions and finds that it never fails. He has succeeded; he has learned something, and that of value; he knows the reason why. Had all that proven a failure, all that he would have learned would have been that he had failed, and that would have ended the matter.

Would his failures have justified him in continuing his failures? On the other hand he had learned that his provings had brought him reliable guides; that the application of the remedy to the similar disease symptoms, when the patient was not beyond help, always brought, relief, and nearly always a cure, and above all that the remedy acts, which is of far more importance than to know why or how the remedy acts. These, then, have brought him knowledge which justifies and strengthens his reason and position in giving the same remedy again under the same circumstances with perfect confidence in the end result. You have learned something, not from failure, but from success, and also, the reason why.

When the day arrives, when we can think of homoeopathy without having to mix it with allopathy, then, and not until then, will homoeopathy come into its own.

Leave a Comment