The technique of trying to discern each and every physical process that is going on in the human organism is relegated to the materialistic attitude. That is, when perception is lost for the unfathomable direction of the life force, which defies elucidation to the finite, limited human mind, the quest toward such comprehension is bound to be nothing more than materialistic. It cannot reach beyond that point. And that goal is negligible as far as any solution of the problem is concerned. Likewise the technique is futile. It is idle to approach any problem in the wrong way. The assumption that we can discern and reproduce vital processes is entirely without foundation in fact or experience.
We do not know all the functions of any organ or group of organs. Their prominent utility is accepted and perhaps properly realized, but the coordinate functions and the intimate relation of those functions cannot be fully compassed by our investigation. This state of things is being steadily demonstrated in direct ratio to the attempt to discover those things that are beyond our privilege.
It is quite obvious then that what we are permitted to learn must be acquired in a different way, by different means, and by different methods. They surpass the materialistic and reach far beyond. Homoeopathy has provision for this aim. After the method has been elucidated it would seem to be the part of reason to realize the fact that no knowledge of drug or other agent can be known until it has been learned. Its reaction has been shown by the human body and the human mind.
The “try out” of various “cures” by different people when ill is not a demonstration in any particular of their value.
Homoeopathy provides a safe, intelligent, and permanent rule for the determination of merit in all therapeutic agents. They must be studied by their reaction on the healthy. That result is the only one by which their proper application may be found. No one can tell just how something is going on in the vitality of any organ, but it can be seen how that organ is affected by the agent of reactive response.
The value of proving: You learn things from provings which you (physicians) really learn in no other way. It indelibly impresses on your mind certain indications which you associate with definite individuals.
—DONALD MACFARLAN, M.D.
It is logical for homoeopathy to prove every remedy. More than this, it is important that everything that is ingested by man–not medicine alone, but also foods–be proved in the human organism, which is the laboratory of homoeopathy. As properly conducted, this normal experimentation never endangers life, but, on the contrary, is of permanent benefit to health in many cases.
The rather large question has not been carefully settled as to the propriety of forcing foreign substances directly into the circulation by traumatic means.
It is incumbent to learn the distinct effects of single substances upon the human economy when received through the buccal and gastric portals into the body. The method of systematic proving is not generally understood. We are often told that a preparation has been “tried out” as if the process were identical with “proving”. But the actual difference is much like the two kinds of prescribing on symptoms. To begin with symptomatology of a fine grade is almost entirely misapprehended by those who have not taken the trouble to study it.
The sequences and the relationships that are of so much importance pass quite unnoticed by the pathologist. On the other hand, of small value for the requirements of prescribing is the gross symptomatology of headache, fever, diaphoresis and of even less value is to so-called symptomatic prescribing accompanying it of a cathartic, diaphoretic, or other agent for a single deflection.
The finer facts belonging to homoeopathy are not well elucidated by the superbly endowed biological laboratories of the present day. The methods of study therein are too crude. The aim in toto is crude. In scientific healing the truth must be recognized that the human temperament with which we must of necessity deal is impossible with what are or may be considered slight influences.
We cannot accept either physiology or pathology alone as the science of medicine any more than we can say that biology or chemistry, or psychology, is the science of medicine. Though having its important place in medicine, any one of these sciences is remote from the power to heal the sick. A little logic is enough to show that our knowledge of the science of physiology is likely never be large enough to enable us to construct, sui generis, a process that is disturbed, returning to its normal.
We cannot restore gastric function by supplying the deficient secretion, whatever its chemistry. Our chemistry of pepsin, acids or alkalis is inadequate. It does not meet that peculiar demand which is vital. Chemistry does not reach it. We determine that the system lacks iron, and then we administer that element in atrocious doses over an absurd period, but the tissues refuse to accept our bounty. How much more inductive reasoning will it take to teach successfully the lesson that a larger principle is involved in cure than that based on the presumption to reckon directly with the crippled function as if it were isolated, in the belief that chemistry inside the body is identical with chemistry outside the body ?.
Homoeopathy provides a better method for the care and cure of these conditions.
We can only know the whole subject of materia medica and hold it in our mind only by its relation to the healthy human body.–J. B. S. KING, M.D.
It is a curious fact that the text of Materia Medica, written a century ago, should so clearly point to the symptoms of diseases of today, that our modern nomenclature fits perfectly into that old symptomatology and its language.
Heredity is recognized as a leading factor in practical medicine. Homoeopathy accepts this factor in a yet more practical way. It sees the individual patient exactly as he is, and whether the condition in hand is due to heredity, important as this may be, it is quite secondary to the condition in itself.
With adult cases a careful history from birth must be analyzed. Physical defects of infancy and childhood, with their origin, are studied. If early abnormal conditions were not discerned, or on the other hand, were improperly cared for, the facts are of great significance in our scheme of treatment.
The demand for physicians who understand and practice homoeopathy is constant, and will increase with the excellence of the supply. While the dominant school in some countries, discourages, and by public appeal seeks to dissuade students from entering the profession of medicine, the homoeopathic school sees an ever widening field for the homoeopathic physician.
The distinctive ability of a physician enables him to discern precisely that which drugs do or do not accomplish. Just how and why a given prescription was right or wrong he must know by virtue of his position, and by the quality of his training for that position. This ability cannot thrive if deliberate and untiring scrutiny and study of the patients progress does not follow the medication, and unless with the latter no interference whatever is made while results are what they should be.
As to the application of remedies to persons of disordered health, that is the task for the physician who is fully well educated in the principles of homoeopathy. He will teach his patients what they should know–what it is necessary and important for them to know, but it ought always to be remembered that the patient himself may not employ safely the medicines in the manner of allopathy; as for instance, this remedy for headache, that for neuralgia, and so on, unless the selection is made by the physician.
While many who wrongfully take the name of homoeopathist try to belittle Hahnemanns medical philosophy–without knowing any- thing about it–there are those among the more advanced allopathists who are acknowledging its truths, but without knowing that they are so doing.
GEORGE H. CLARKE, M.D.
The science of pure homoeopathy is master of the whole field of pathology, and easily covers, with its far-reaching principles, the very latest findings of working scholars.
Pathology embraces the field of human abnormality. This is the practical meaning of the word, whatever its narrow technical one. It must be remembered that instruments of measurement for vital phenomena are comparatively crude. Morbid anatomy may be the unquestioned fact in some cases, while in others, even though the morbid state be obvious, the question whether it is limited to anatomy may not be settled antemortem or even by postmortem.
Two questions confront the practical therapist throughout his career. These questions relate directly to the distinctive position of the school which flourishes because it maintains the Law of Similars. Every prescriber entertains both questions, though it may be that he does it unaware.
