I glanced at my Daily Telegraph for January 10th, 1934, page 7, and read of the “Dangers of New Drugs” by Sir W. Willcox, with a sub-title, “Risks of Death from Overdose”. Willcox speaks of an ever-lengthening list and names twenty-six such death risks of orthodox medicine, naively adding “drug addiction is not really a vice but a disease”. I ask, what is there in a name? Please remember this is orthodoxy being condemned by a titled orthodox physician.
Such warnings are not necessary with homoeopathy. If homoeopathy uttered such statements about its drugs and treatments the Law and Public Opinion would end homoeopathy in a week and somebody would probably go it jail for mal-practice or homicide. But the vested interests of orthodox medicine are protected.
Many drug diseases are discovered in patients coming to homoeopathic doctors after they have run the gamut of many orthodox practitioners. Such patients constitute the bulk of all chronic cases falling into our hands as a last chance of getting away from the disease of eternal drugging.
The strong drugs have so over-shot their mark that they have created far-reaching drug diseases, as stated by Sir William Willcox. At first many diseases are very hard of diagnosis. As a rule orthodox doctors do not trace such effects to their true cause, not being as wise as Willcox. We homoeopaths know better.
As to difficult and faulty diagnoses, I may state here that the late Sir William Osler, Regius Professor of Medicine, Oxford University, has said that ” about 45 per cent. of difficult cases are wrongly diagnosed”, and further, Dr. Richard Cabot, head of Harvard University of Medicine has gone Osler 10 per cent. better, or worse, saying that ” 55 per cent. of all difficult cases are wrongly diagnosed notwithstanding all the well-known instruments of precision”.
Such wrong diagnoses have only been discovered at post-mortems which is not interesting to the late lamented, though shocking for their relatives. So after all, the homoeopaths have some grounds for prescribing on symptoms instead of doing so with a difficult diagnosis as sole guide. It is safer for the patient. An iconoclast should have a superior alternative to offer.
Whilst the orthodox doctor depends entirely on a broad diagnosis as a basis for his pet prescription for the disease-name, the homoeopath depends more on the patients own symptoms, as related to the doctor, and the more peculiar those verbal expressions of pain and discomfort are the more surely the homoeopathic attendant, professional or lay, is able to select the curative remedy quite independent of the name of the disease.
The fashionable stock remedies for the disease names called “specifics” by them are eternally changing, showing the groping minds during passing years. This change is not to be considered as advance in science. There is such a thing as bewilderment in this craze for something new and to be hoped for as better.
Homoeopathy on the other hand rests on the rock foundation of a basic law of nature, Similia. That the homoeopaths do not always cure depends on the human equation, but our law, Similia, i unchangeable and reliable. Up to a certain point it is so simple that the laity can work, and have worked, wonders in cures.
Judging by the standard works doctors are wedded to strong doses of medicine and they flirt with a hypodermic syringe aiming to make drugs act more quickly, but this method is unwise for several reasons, one of which is that the drug is placed beyond the normal safeguards of the body to be found in the mouth and stomach.
That some orthodox leaders do occasionally wake up to their medical dangers is shown by Willcoxs article. The brain is injured by their Bromides, the heart by their pain-killers and fever-breakers, and various organs of elimination are continually being damaged beyond their power of repair. If they, as a school of medicine, were all of one mind and in agreement as to the exact drugs and dosage it would be another matter and one worthy of our study, but orthodox doctors are far from being in accord in the treatment of any disease.
Reviewing rheumatism, in their hands, amongst the scores of drugs recommended by ordinary doctors one ever comes across the pain-killers given for momentary relief but which are not in any sense curative or harmless. Their Salicylates and Antipyretics hold fashionable sway, but at the same time they admit these have their damaging reactions.
Their second mistake is when they have recourse to compound mixtures. Evidently they are thrown together with some hope that if one drug does not cure perhaps some of the others may. Some drugs are added as correctives to the known dangers of certain of the others in such combinations. These shot-gun prescription are made by the profession as brain-savers to avoid the trouble of thinking the matter out to a conclusion.