THE FOLLY OF DELAY


THE FOLLY OF DELAY.
By Heselton J T.

 

WHEN a young man I was assistant to an orthodox doctor


WHEN a young man I was assistant to an orthodox doctor. Naturally, I became acquainted with the usual remedies prescribed for suffering humanity. But I was dissatisfied. Patients who did not take their medicine in many cases recovered more quickly than those who did. Thinking seriously led me to believe that biochemistry was more rational and many “miracles of healing” convinced me that my convictions was well founded.

But I have had two notable failures. A lady sought counsel for arthritis affecting the knee and finger joints., The medicine prescribed eased the pain and swelling in the knee but did not restore flexibility to the fingers. My patient was not impatient yet finally abandoned treatment without complete restoration. She did not express surprise, since she confessed that she had had the complaint for many years.

Another case was that of an independent gentleman. He had rheumatism affecting all his limbs especially the right arm. In this case the biochemics improved his general health and his friends congratulated him on his improved appearance. But the pain in the right arm persisted. It remained obdurate. He too, stated that he had had his complaint many years. It commenced when he was 18 and now he was 55.

Moreover, he averred that the doctors had saturated him with salicylates, and this was confirmed by iris-diagnosis. He had considerable treatment and then resigned himself to a painful affliction which he deemed inevitable.

Now, it is strange that these two patients should be content to endure their affliction for years and did not seek something better than orthodox treatment. In my opinion both show the folly of delay. It is maintained that had they submitted to biochemic treatment earlier they would not to-day be lamenting their inevitable sufferings. When the system has for years become contaminated with allopathic poisons even rational treatment becomes exceedingly difficult.

Perhaps ladies are the greatest procrastinators. It is natural that they should be silent regarding their sexual troubles. No one would wish otherwise. Yet when it is known that most of these troubles can be ended by homoeopathic or biochemic remedies it is exceedingly foolish to suffer unnecessarily and not show decision. There is no wisdom in false modesty. Surely every woman who is not enjoying good health ought to seek the advice of experienced practitioners who could make life worth living.

Surgeons constantly tell the public that premonitory cancer is often painless and that when any abnormal growth appears it should be reported. They themselves, however, are often to blame for this procrastination. It is due to their readiness to use the knife. But the fact that so many malignant growths have disappeared under harmless remedies ought to be sufficient inducement to seek at once the advice of those who have no desire to operate before medication proves inadequate.

The mother of two nurses, having lost faith in orthodox doctors, complained of excruciating pain in the stomach. She had had both breasts removed. She was afraid of another cancer coming. We gave her one of our Editors favourite remedies Hydrastis to be alternated with Natrum mur. After a few days the pain vanished and her general appearance was much improved.

Whether this was ulcer or cancer, what would have been the advice of almost every allopath? We learnt, in course of conversation, that this woman had super salinity of the blood which an American doctor believes to be the chief cause of cancer. She had an inordinate love of salt and took it with every meal hence the alternative Natrum mur. As may well be imagined she rejoiced that she had avoided another operation.

Consumption is curable in its early stages, but delay may be fatal. Some forty years ago a young man, living in the neighbourhood of Wakefield, showed all the signs of consumption. Since he was bleeding from the lungs Ferrum phos. was prescribed and the bleeding was immediately stopped. His strength was recovered and soon he became a picture of health. Even his doctor admitted that had he not sought biochemic aid, as many more, he would probably have drifted into an incurable condition and nothing on earth would saved him from a premature death.

You ask, ” If health declines what must we do ?” It is well to have at hand a few common remedies for acute ailments. If, however, the disease be of a chronic nature, then other help should be sought at once. Fortunately, there are numberless practitioners who have abandoned orthodox treatment for something more effective. They have cured chronic ailments when allopaths have failed.

Medical practitioners resemble poets that are said to be born not made. On the other hand, some of the most distinguished doctors, strange though it may be, have failed so utterly in clinical practice that they have had to betake themselves to other ” calls”.

At the present time doctors are lamenting that apart from the panel list patients are becoming fewer. Some ascribe this to the war which may be in some measure true. Other doctors blame the large sale of patent medicines, and are devising means of checking the so-called evil. Why are they afraid of the chemist shop ? Is it because a chemists shop proclaims the inadequacy of orthodox treatment? Only when doctors find a better way of curing disease can they hope to stem the drift that is causing them so much concern.

J T Heselton