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” (!!).
Number two is termed the “eliminative plan”. After some pages informing the orthodox the orthodox profession how to proceed, he winds up by saying, “As a matter of fact, Sir George Johnsons castor oil treatment has been extensively tried and found wanting, and the stimulation of the kidneys by diuretics has also been tried under the guidance of this hypothesis has also been tried under the guidance of this hypothesis (meaning a “guess”) and found to do more harm than good” (!!!).
Number three is Allbutts “Antiseptic plan”, and full instructions as to drugs, doses, and methods aiming at neutralizing the poison in the intestines, he winds up thus, “Acids and germicides of many kinds have been tried with this view (not according to any law of cure, and these experiments have always been on the sick and perhaps dying!). This plan” says Allbutt, “may simply result in adding poison to poison, irritant to irritant, and in hindering a process of salutary decomposition or in destroying leucocytes or other innocuous organisms and their products, which may be doing good work. Practically this plan has failed to cure cholera” (!!!).
Number four is Allbutts “stimulative plan” which simply endeavours to avert death from exhaustion. Alcohol, ammonia, and ether to be administered by the mouth, rectum or hypodermically, are the “favourites” (!) of this class, as he puts it, winding up this section of advice thus, “This plan is not without its drawbacks. Gastro-intestinal irritation may be increased; mischief may arise during the reactive stage and undue disturbance of the collapse stage may be hurtful” (!!!). What then is left to orthodoxy to help their practitioners and their cholera patients?
On page 911 Allbutt says, “It may be asserted with confidence that at the present stage of our knowledge, no single principle or plan of treating cholera has met with much success.” Whilst their patients are dying like flies in the autumn they might have tried what “those homoeopaths” do.
What would happen if the death rates of the two schools of medicine were reversed?.
You must allow me to draw your attention to another great British medical authority, viz. Sir William Oslers Principles and Practice of Medicine, 6th edition, pp. 233. Practically all the drugs he advocates for professional help are summed up as being of “negative value”, whilst the following gem is strikingly funny, and worthy of Punch, if it were not so tragic and fatal to some, “Irrigation of the bowel not so tragic and fatal to some, “Irrigation of the bowel (in cholera) should be used, 3 or 4 litres (roughly 32 to 42 quarts) to be given; it may be slowly injected.
Not only is the colon (large intestine) cleaned out, but the small bowel may be also reached, as shown by the fact that the tannic-acid solutions have been vomited” (!!!). Nom de Dieu! and what use this is to the profession and the laity (their patients) is shown by Oslers prognosis “that 30 to 80 per cent. may die with cholera”. If any homoeopathy wrote such information it would be not only disgustingly tragic… it would be highly criminal.
Hahnemann told the world in 1831, including Sir C. Allbutt and Sir William Osler, what to do for cholera, and his treatment is exact to this day, and which brought the death rate in this disease down to about 16 per cent. Whose is the blame? It is recorded that Dr. Rubini of Naples, following Hahnemanns information never lost a case of cholera in the city hospitals, when he was called in early in the disease.
It is only fair to Osler to mention that he gives the method of Major-General Sir Leonard Rogers “Hypertonic Saline” injection, which has some measure of success. At this method requires all the outfit and precision of a first class hospital and highly trained staff to compound and administer this saline, it falls far short of practical value, as but a small percentage of cholera cases occur in the vicinity of such hospitals, where technique, ingredients and machinery are sine qua non, whereas the few tiny vials of homoeopathic remedies can be carried to the end of the world, and coast but about one shilling a bottle, and anyone can learn how to use them. Besides which our medicines enjoy a lower death rate than even this hypertonic saline can produce.
