What is commonly called public opinion is, plainly speaking, the opinion of two or three persons, and we should convince ourselves of the truth of this, could we but see into the mode in which this public opinion originated. We should then find that there are two or three people who first assumed for decided or affirmed that such and such a thing was so without taking the trouble very thoroughly to examine it. Taking for granted that these had sufficient capacity of judgment a few others also accepted their opinions; these again are believed by many other, whose indolence rather inclines them to believe it at once than to take the trouble to test it. Thus grows from day to day the number of such indolent, easily believing adherents; for if the opinion had only gained a goodly number of advocates, those who adopted it afterwards attributed its prosperity to the quasi fact that those already accepting it would have done so only on account of weighty reasons. Others were now constrained to accept what everybody else accepted, lest they might pass for restless souls who were setting themselves up against generally received opinions, and for malapert hinds, who would be wiser than the rest of the word. Assent now becomes a duty.
Now the few who are capable of judging must be silent; and those who are permitted to speak are those who, perfectly incapable of forming their own opinion or judgment, are the mere echo of the opinions of others; nevertheless, they are all the more zealous and intolerant advocates thereof. For they hate in those thinking otherwise, not so much the diverse opinion they hold, as the arrogance of daring to judge for themselves; something, by the way, which they never venture themselves of which they are at least conscious.
In short, very few can think, but all claim the right of having opinions; what else then remains for these latter, since they cannot make opinions for themselves, but to adopt the ready made opinion of others? As this is the case, of what avail now are the voices of a hundred million of men? “Dico ego, tub dicis, used denique dixit set ill; dicta due post toties nil nisi dicta vides! – Text book of Homoeopathy, by D. V. Grauvogl, Part II., p. 390, et. seq.
Auscultatory symptoms of provers are, of course, welcome like all the other objective symptoms; but it is a horrible mistake to suppose that there is so much depending on them. There is no necessity, no gain of certainty, in obtaining any auscultatory symptoms from any drug! In thousands of cases the remedy has been found, without having any such extreme or material symptoms. We have to decide by the individualities of the given case, and we’ll heal the sick by drugs that never produced such symptoms, and very likely never will. Vice versa, if a drug has really produced valvular alterations, hypertrophy or dilatation, tubercles in the lungs, or exudations on the pleura, or any thing else. And a drug never will cure the unless the Characteristics of the case correspond with it, and if these correspond it will cure it, and the organic lesion will, if it is a possibility, be removed. No matter if the drug never has nor will produce it. Guiseppo Mauro cured a case of hypertrophy with the sound of the purring of a cat (Arch. X., 1, 1590) according to the symptoms of Hahnemann’s provers, without any auscultatory symptoms; and Bethmann (A.H. Z., 3,109) a case of dilatation, where the stethoscope manifested the undulatory motion of systole and diastole, without any such symptom having been observed by any of the provers Spigelia. A haynel, P. P.
Wells, and other have treated the worst cases of valvular diseases with the greatest success, and given Spigelia without having a single auscultatory symptom of the same.
Sulphur has been proved by nearly fifty provers; not one of them had exudation of the pleura. We know it has cured innumerable cases.
It is a great mistake to say that if a drug produces a disease, particularly an organic lesion, it will cure such disease. It may, but only if it corresponds with the case, and it will then, if it never produced any such organic symptom.
This is a long quotation from the above referred to article, but is well worth the space. If the writings of the masters who followed Hahnemann when the sure foundation of the homoeopathic healing art was laid were referred to and studied and applied, there would be less mongrelism and less bungling.
CC Jaundice. CC
(82) Case. – Wm. R. Cole, young man of excellent habits, after a few days of feeling dull, weak and sleepy, was suddenly taken with nausea, vomiting, and weak, gone feeling at the stomach. The matter vomited was very yellow and very bitter. In a short time he became very jaundiced. The sclerotic skin, and even the nails were as yellow as gold. The stools were perfectly colorless or gray while the urine was dark brown like larger beer. In the vessel it colored the ware as yellow as gold. The pulse was very slow, only thirty beats per minute, and very weak and occasionally intermitted. Digitalis 3d centesimal, in solution, once in three hours cured. A few years after and after his marriage he had a similar attack, though not quite so severe which the same remedy again cured. This was, the last since, now at least ten years. (Nash.).
Characteristics
Resume.
1. Very slow, occasionally intermitting pulse or rapid and frequently intermitting pulse.
2. Weak heart, with faintness or sinking sensation at stomach, feels as if the heart would stop beating if she moved.
3. Blueness of skin, especially eyelids, lips, tongue and nails, cyanosis.
4. Respiration irregular, difficult, sometimes performed with frequent sighs.
5. When going to sleep the breath fades away and seems to be gone, then wakens with a gasp to catch it; cannot get to sleep on this account. ( Grindelia and Lachesis )
6. Vertigo in the aged, with very weak, slow pulse.
7. Ashy – gray stools, either formed or watery, with cardiac symptoms.
