W. D. Foster:–I have practiced Homoeopathy to the best of my ability for a long time, and I have always taken pleasure in listening to discussions upon the potency question. The question seems to be so wide and so broad that it seems hardly possible to define a line upon which all physicians will agree. I have never been able to secure the remarkable effects from high potencies that have been claimed for them by others; or at least only occasionally. It is a question that will no doubt continue to agitate the minds of homoeopathic physicians in all time to come. I have been much interested in both paper and the discussion that I have heard.
President:–Any more discussion? If not I will call upon Dr. Holloway to close the discussion.
J. C. Holloway:–I confess that it is a little
K. disappointing, after working along in small country town L. where the allopaths are rampant and there are no homoeopaths to consult with, to come to the International Hahnemannian Association and find a number here not ready to stand up for what Hahnemann taught. In differing from me not a man cited Hahnemann. I know what Hahnemann taught; not a man living can controvert a single item of it, and I claim to be a Hahnemannian because I follow what Hahnemann taught.
I was once as crude a mongrel as ever lived–a mutton headed mongrel–too stubborn to listen to better teaching. I went to Dr. Kent and asked him if he could teach me to cure syphilis, gonorrhoea, leucorrhoea and all those serious diseases with the potentized remedy and nothing else. He said, “Yes, sir, I can.” I told him that I had no confidence in the high potencies, and I told the truth when I said that, but it was my absolute ignorance.
I am surprised that any man of the Hahnemannian Association will say that the tincture would cure when the potency would not; I know that such is not the case. You will find nothing in my case lower than the 200th. and I treat all kinds of acute and chronic cases that any man treats. I will compare notes with any man in acute or chronic diseases, and I never use anything lower than the 200th.
I want to cite one case. My own boy had one of the worst cases of prolapse of the rectum that I ever saw. It seemed to be very slow and hard to cure. I consulted a number of Hahnemannians, but they could not help.
I watched that case for a long time before I found the remedy. At length a diarrhoea revealed the fact that Mercurius sol. was needed. That remedy in the 3m cured the diarrhoea, the straining and the tenesmus and at the same time I observed that the condition of the rectum was helped for two weeks. Then it came down again very dark and bloody with a tendency to sit and strain.
I made the same improvement for three successive times with the 3m, each improvement lasting two weeks. Then I gave one dose of the same remedy in the 50th and the condition went away never to come back from that day to this and that has been four years ago. No one need tell me that there is not more power to cure in the 50m than in the crude drug or in the low potencies. I know there is.
P. E. Krichbaum:–I rather resent the tone of Dr. Holloways remarks. He seems to be laboring under the impression that nobody but himself has any right to an opinion. I am just as good a homoeopathic physician as he is, and would be glad to compare my results with his. To make an idol of Hahnemann is sure to hurt the cause of true Homoeopathy. I do not believe that Hahnemann was divinely inspired or that he knew everything that there is to be known. At the same time I believe that I pay him fully as great reverence as Dr. Holloway, but it is more rational.
L. P. Crutcher:–How high did Hahnemann himself go in the potency line?.
J. C. Holloway:–I tell you that we if knew as much as Hahnemann did we would know enough to practice more successfully than we do.
