At the most, drug action can simulate types of disease in part only. No human entity can show forth all, or even a majority, of the symptoms appertaining to a single drug or even of single type of disease. The nearest approach to this specificity is perhaps the relation of Mercury to syphilis, and yet Hahnemann, like the rest of us, supplemented its use with other drugs when quick- silver lagged because of the presence of other factors. The latter show themselves as side symptoms, seemingly having no connection with the disease in had; for which reason we view them as the outcroppings of their miasms, which deflect the vital force.

The older homoeopaths ascribed poor results to the presence of an all-pervading miasm which obscured and distorted the real indications. With an enormous increase in available pathogenetic symptoms we do not feel this need so acutely, albeit often to our own disadvantage. Most prescribers gradually enlarge the scope of their remedies quite beyond their seemingly legitimate sphere of action.

This springs from the fact that the simillimum releases reactive power strong enough to re-establish harmony, which in turn is capable of sweeping away almost any morbid condition. The crude similar, however, can remove but a small part of the symptom complex and leaves behind a distorted image of the sickness, much harder to treat. The best that can be said for partial prescribing is that it sometimes removes the super- imposed load which blocks an effectual reaction.

Such an impediment originates in the presence of some miasm, pernicious drugging or suppression. Hahnemann inveighed strongly against excessive depletion and pernicious polypharmacy; we, however, are faced by the still more dangerous procedure of serumization and ray treatments. The first always holds the menace of sensitization and vasomotor effects, while the latter drives back upon the vital force every eliminative function. A more dangerous procedure is hard to imagine.

All in all it may be said that the utter therapeutic confusion of dominant medicine is only too apparent to one who thinks clearly. It is becoming increasingly evident that auto-antidotalism, as serumization in the old school and isopathy in our own, has captured a large part of the therapeutic field. In either form it is incapable of doing more than removing a present incubus, leaving the basic disease untouched. It therefore falls short of being the simillimum, hence of doing the most good possible.

A word in conclusion. Jahr was ideally correct in stating that proper repertory analysis as well as the pathogenetic picture should point out the same remedy independently of each other; but practically most of us use the former to amplify, clarify and complement the latter.

For us the proving text is too rigid and lacking in flexibility without the addition of some imagination, always a dangerous recourse, because resemblances are not equally evident to us. For this reason we need the check and counter- check of clinical evidence in order that our remedies may be properly delimited. This can be best accomplished by a system of coapting symptoms and their related remedies as is nowadays down with card indices, although these are confessedly now in their formative stage.

The procedure itself yields an entirely new point of view, and one fully consonant with Hahnemanns conception of the deduction to be drawn from the clinical picture. The method steps down the enormous rubrics of generalities and adds new ones composed of the most diverse elements present in the clinical picture, thereby forming the combination most likely to contain the particular minutiae so decisive for the homoeopathic remedy.

In parting, I have a word to leave with you. Hold fast to the law, learn its implications and thereby cure others. It is only way it can actually be accomplished. Are we as prescribers and healers ready to take what should be the leading part in reformation of therapeutics?.




A YOUNG man went through great excitement, hardships, privations and exposure in the Virginia Campaign of 1864. He came down with typhoid fever, was tremendously dosed with quinine, carried north, and his case pronounced discouraging by physicians in consultation, who willingly allowed themselves to be superseded by a despised homoeopathist.

Faithful to the law of cure, the new school physician began his work by giving Pulsatilla, which was similar to may of the symptoms present and antidotal to quinine. Improvement was soon manifest, but the whole case had been reached. Scanty urine presently became an urgent symptom, almost amounting to complete suppression. The remaining symptoms have not come to my knowledge.

C.M. Boger
Cyrus Maxwell Boger 5/ 13/ 1861 "“ 9/ 2/ 1935
Born in Western Pennsylvania, he graduated from the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and subsequently Hahnemann Medical College of Philadelphia. He moved to Parkersburg, W. Va., in 1888, practicing there, but also consulting worldwide. He gave lectures at the Pulte Medical College in Cincinnati and taught philosophy, materia medica, and repertory at the American Foundation for Homoeopathy Postgraduate School. Boger brought BÅ“nninghausen's Characteristics and Repertory into the English Language in 1905. His publications include :
Boenninghausen's Characteristics and Repertory
Boenninghausen's Antipsorics
Boger's Diphtheria, (The Homoeopathic Therapeutics of)
A Synoptic Key of the Materia Medica, 1915
General Analysis with Card Index, 1931
Samarskite-A Proving
The Times Which Characterize the Appearance and Aggravation of the Symptoms and their Remedies