One is shocked on going through that portion of the presidential address delivered at the U.P. Medical Conference which relates to Homoeopathy. The criticism betrays a lamentable lack of fairness, decency, intellectual honesty, of knowledge of the rudimentary principles of Homoeopathy, and is a most ridiculous attack on and a gross misrepresentation of a system of treatment which is every day, and in ever increasing measure, proving its scientific nature.
Professor Hugo Schulz (an Allopath) of the University of Griefswald, Germany, has conclusively shown that Hippocrates, the father of the Medical Science, who flourished in the 4th century B.C., enunciated in his works two therapeutic laws:
1. Contraria Contraris Curantur,
2. Similia Similibus Curantur.
Hippocrates died shortly after that and could not find time to develop the principles. It was left for Hahnemann to rescue the second principle from oblivions cure about 1796. Besides a clear enunciation of the law, Hahnemann gave the posterity, among others, the following new ideas.
(1) The non-material or dynamic nature of disease and its cure; (2) Efficacy of infinitesimal doses (3) Graduated potentization of drugs, i.e., a method of releasing the dynamic forces residing in drugs and increasing their potency on a graduated scale of decimal or centesimal measure; and (4) His conclusions about the special nature of chronic diseases and the various factors giving rise to chronicity in ailments.
With his colossal ignorance the critic alleges, Homoeopathy has been imported from America; and he jokes about the “one decillionth of a grain of table salt giving rise to 1349 symptoms.” Let him take some of these doses under the directions of a Homoeopath and see if any symptoms are produced or not. It is not proper or fair or scientific to criticise without knowing enough about a subject and without carrying out experiments when the subject is a scientific one.
This is an age of keen investigation, of idol breaking and truth finding. He who is afraid to investigate for fear that some cherished beliefs or ideas may be swept away is no scientist. Homoeopathy is a science that courts investigation. Some of its greatest pioneers have been Old School physicians who investigated honestly and were converted. So many M.B.B.S. doctors in India have become converts and are successfully practising Homoeopathy. The writer of this note has had the humble privilege of having converted some and treating them and their family members by the gentle, quick, and effective methods of Homoeopathy.
To wilfully ignorant abusers of Homoeopathy, I have only this to say: abusive language howsoever strong or forceful can never be a substitute for reason or logic or scarcity of argument. Just as a cat sitting with its eyes fixed on a mouse will not notice even if an elephant passes by, so will the biased critic of Homoeopathy never be able to see its great excellences if all the while he is busy looking out for points on which he can ridicule and adversely criticise it.
Investigate honestly and with a mind open to conviction, and hold fast to truth courageously.
B.A., M.D.S.
Dehradun, India