Hohenheim`s organopathy, as interpreted by Rademacher, differs, therefore, somewhat from the organopathy of Rademacher`s followers, inasmuch as these practically gave up the idea that remedies are per se friendly to the organs, and brought into their organopathy the Hahnemannic proving of drugs on the healthy, and this being done, the organopathy (Rademacherians) and the homoeopaths marched side by side, the former giving up their journal.
Rademacher`s work has been both ignored and criticised, but it remains classic for all time; I believe his direct art-cures of disease are unsurpassed, may, never equalled, in the written history of medicine so far as the same is known to me.
I sometimes regret that the disciples of Hahnemann and those of Rademacher became so closely assimilated, for it seems to me that drug provings are not everything, and I cannot help thinking that had the Rademacherians kept by themselves, they would have taught us much of the higher physiology of various organs that we still have to learn. And I am bound to say that some of the organ remedies of Rademacher possess a direct healing power over organ diseases that their provings in no way explain. Perhaps further knowledge will throw light on this; we must accept the fact, and wait for the explanation.
In daily life we make certain acquaintances with our fellow- beings, and some of these pass out of sight for a time, or for ever. Months or years roll by, and we meet with some of them again, and as So-and-so is with us, we introduce our friend to him, remarking that we have known him ever since a certain memorable event. We find that with a physician disease and drugs stand out as so many individual acquaintances along the path of his professional life; if he meet a congenial brother chip he will very soon run off the first subject of conversation and begin to “talk shop”. Most people will join in a very hearty condemnation of “talking shop,” but nevertheless, the genuine man will not be long with you before you can form a pretty correct opinion of his walk in life. Let two medicos meet for a little social chat, and you will not have to wait long for the sign of the leech. And why should it be otherwise? Do we really expect a plant-loving botanist to prefer astronomy as a subject of conversation?
Sometime since I was casually sitting in a pretty garden with a gentleman. Left a few moments together we began to chat, and the gentleman asked if I could discern a bar across the attic window. No, was my reply. “I can,” said he, and almost immediately he inquired whether I had been to the Academy. No, I had not. And then in a twinkling he exclaimed : “Oh, what lovely tints, just look at the shade of the plum-tree across the path, and that green, I mean there just by the nut-tree.” Need I say he is an artist?
I had not noticed any of the pretty things to which he called my attention, but I had seen a small issue-a tiny aperture in his skin covering his larynx.
As a striking clinical acquaintance, there stands out in my professional path a remedy called Ceanothus Americanus, which acquaintance has increased with years, till it and I have become fast friends, to the advantage of not a few. Through my clinical friend Ceanothus Americanus, I have perhaps paid much more attention to the spleen than I otherwise should, and it is of the spleen that I am about to discourse.
As an introduction to “Diseases of the Spleen,” I cannot do better than reproduce a portion of what I wrote on the subject of this ceanothus Americanus in 1879.
Burnett was one of the first to speak about vaccination triggering illness. This was discussed in his book, Vaccinosis, published in 1884. He introduced the remedy Bacillinum. He authored twenty books, including the much loved "Fifty Reason for Being a Homeopath." He was the editor of The Homoeopathic World.