A STUDY of this disease provides at least four classical lessons of the world value of homoeopathy.
The :first lesson” proves how an accurate prescription can be made without knowing the actual name of the disease attacking a patient. this gains much valuable time, thus saving many lives.
A “second lesson” is conveyed by a comparison of the vastly lower death rate in cholera when treated homoeopathically, than has ever been possible with orthodox methods. As cholera is endemic (ever present) in the British Empire (India) this is surely of value to the Indian people as well as to all taxpayers, and to you, the laity, who after all are the ones who may run the risk.
A “third lesson” is proved by the fact that it is possible to always have the few necessary and inexpensive medicines at hand, even in the most inaccessible places, as these remedies can be carried in a pocket, for instant use. This “lesson” of “immediate medication” holds good in any acute disease.
A “fourth lesson” is provided by the unchanging homoeopathic therapeutics, against which we will show the everchanging and weird methods of orthodoxy, proving their therapeutics lack a “Law of Cure”.
the then totally “unknown disease”, which we now know to have been true Asiatic Cholera, first invaded Europe in 1831, and it may occur again, if climatic conditions are ever ripe.
In 181 Hahnemann, the founder of homoeopathy, practising then in Germany, received most urgent appeals from his colleagues at Vienna, who had learned homoeopathy at his feet, imploring Hahnemann to tell them what remedies to use for this unknown and terrible disease which was killing its 66 per cent. and over. These Vienna doctors had previously been taught by Hahnemann how to minutely observe and record the precise individual symptoms of all their cases. Thus, when they wrote to Hahnemann they were able to outline precisely the three prominent, yet totally different “types” of symptoms which their epidemic cases provided them with.
Hahnemann, knowing his “drug symptoms” (in 1831) immediately wrote to his fellow workers accurately prescribing one remedy for each of these types or phases of the same epidemic disease, and the three remedies them named by Hahnemann, each for its own particular type, are of classic importance and exactness to this day, and will be so until the end of time. Such is the precision of homoeopathy, which the laity should remember, and the orthodox doctors as well. Nothing like this exactness in medicine has ever been given to the world. Later I will detail these three remedies with their peculiar symptoms.
But to better set forth this superiority of homoeopathic prescribing, it is imperative that you be told of the weird indecision of orthodox therapeutics. You must also know that orthodoxy has refused to study homoeopathy at any time since 1831, though our work has been an open book for them to buy and study. The consequent unnecessary loss of life has been terrific. If you have any friends in any cholera areas, send them a copy of this journal, and let them learn what reduces the death risk from 50 per cent. and 66 per cent. down to about 16 per cent.
Which is your choice? The therapeutics of orthodoxy, as learned from their own standard works written for their own professional guidance, is one series of everchanging “personal ideas or plans” of how this diseases may be treated. And these gropings without any “law” express some fear and even self-confessed failure. How different is homoeopathy. Hahnemann once said, “When life is at stake, ignorance is a crime”!.
If any homoeopath doctor was to state in word or print that “50 per cent. might be expected to die, with or without his medicine” as Sir Cambridge University has stated in his System of Medicine by many writers (col. x; page 908 et seq), if a homoeopath had said this, we would immediately be crushed out of existence by public opinion aided by the Daily Press, as incompetent, even if we were not sent to prison for “culpable homicide” or whatever the legal term is for this sort of dangerous stupidity. This would be our just award. I refer the readers attention to our statistics.
For the guidance (?) of the orthodox profession Allbutt outlines at great length four great “plans ” of the treatment of cholera, and in the light of what he writes it would seem that a “medical plan” is nothing more than a guess or wild groping of himself or some other doctor. LEt us then consider the “lesson” of these “plans”.
In number one plan he advocates astringents, mineral or vegetable, in combination with opium, anti-spasmodics, even presented by him to be given by the the mouth and rectum, yet-at the end of many pages of instructions how to employ them, he winds up thus, “It is doubtful whether the checking of these discharges (stools and vomit) is, as a dominant principle, a sound basis of action” (!!).