Pure Homoeopathy Defended

Pure Homoeopathy Defended.
“What can be more astonishing than that professed homoeopathic physicians should deny the efficacy of their own remedies?”

“What …

“What can be more astonishing than that professed homoeopathic physicians should deny the efficacy of their own remedies?”

“What greater evidence can the public ask of ignorance of the system they profess to make use of to cure the sick?”

It has been known to many witnesses that I have not needed anything but homoeopathic remedies in incurables.

I have been giving unusual attention to incurables, in private and hospital practice, where cancer and phthisis pains have been present, where morphine had, in other hands, entirely failed, and in all cases has the homoeopathic remedy, when properly selected, been all that was needed.

Argument will fail to convince some physicians, for the reason that they cannot cure and they cannot be made to believe that any one else can. They do not know how to palliate and they do not believe that any one else knows. If they cannot cure, how then can they be expected to palliate or vice versa. You may freely say that for years I have offered to show that the severest sufferings from phthisis and cancer, can be subdued with potentized homoeopathic remedies. You may say that my students all do it, and say openly that we do not need anodynes. Let any man select cases of cancer or phthisis and bring them to the Woman’s Homoeopathic Hospital, and bring his own judges, and we will teach him to palliate the most painful cases with the indicated remedy. We challenge the world to this very test. I might report cases and they would not be accepted, but there is the hospital that treats these cases and here is the place to see it done. We have now many cases of phthisis and some of cancer. A patient under my care who is being cured of a fibroid of the uterus, a tumour as large as her head, and she (the patient) is returning to health.

It is astonishing that physicians will not listen to men who know how to cure. I offer the wards of our hospital to show the work, and our work will sustain the position of the physicians in Rochester that have resigned. The post-graduate pupils under my tutelage have been trained in the art of healing, and I will guarantee that each one of them can do this work. If this be true, what a pity it is for the professed Homoeopaths of your city to claim anodynes as needed means of relief.

Be sure to make this point emphatic, that I make, viz: I do not select my remedy any differently in curable and incurable cases. I am firmly convinced that a doctor who cannot select medicine closely enough to cure curable cases, should be trusted in no class of cases. The homoeopathic physician does not know that his cases are incurable, and he selects the remedy, and that remedy palliates the sufferings of the patient in incurable cases and cures the patient in curable ones. The physician is a Homoeopath or he is not.

James Tyler Kent
James Tyler Kent (1849–1916) was an American physician. Prior to his involvement with homeopathy, Kent had practiced conventional medicine in St. Louis, Missouri. He discovered and "converted" to homeopathy as a result of his wife's recovery from a serious ailment using homeopathic methods.
In 1881, Kent accepted a position as professor of anatomy at the Homeopathic College of Missouri, an institution with which he remained affiliated until 1888. In 1890, Kent moved to Pennsylvania to take a position as Dean of Professors at the Post-Graduate Homeopathic Medical School of Philadelphia. In 1897 Kent published his magnum opus, Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica. Kent moved to Chicago in 1903, where he taught at Hahnemann Medical College.