Another example of natural cure by a disease-producing force. We find patients that are threatened with phthisis go into a vitiated climate and stay for a number of years and actually receive benefit from this neighbourhood and go away well. Others go into a climate more wholesome and are not cured. This is because the miasm can cure all similar diseases and the curing substances are in attenuated form.
Then it is not sufficient to give the drug itself regardless of its form. It is not sufficient to gave the crude drug, but the attenuation must also be similar to the disease cause.
After all this it will be readily seen that the only method of applying medicines profitably is the Homoeopathic method. We daily see that other methods have no tendency of permanency in their results. By these means there are effected changes in the economy and changes in the symptoms, but no permanent cure, the tendency being simply to the establishment of another disease, often worse than the first, and without eradicating the first. This is just what happens when a fever of malarial origin is sought to be cured by Quinine. The administration of morphine and purgatives is another example.
It must, therefore, be abundantly clear now that the cause of disease coming from an immaterial source, the cure also must be effected through an immaterial agency, that is a dynamised drug power and not the crude drugs employed in other schools. Coming next to the idea of a.
CURE.
we will easily see that other systems do not stand the test of the highest ideal of a cure. Hahnemann speaks of this is S. 2 of the Organon. The perfection of a cure consists first in restoring health, and this is to be done promptly, mildly and permanently, which is the second point.
No sane man will ever dispute the correctness of this test. Now, if you were to ask a physician other than homoeopathic, of what a cure consists, if the trouble is constipation, the opening of the bowels would be called a cure; if haemorrhoids, the removal of these; if a skin eruption, the disappearance of it; or if it were an acute disease and the patient did not die, it would be considered a cure of the disease. And that is really the idea of the patients as derived from the physician. But we must remember restoring health, and not removing symptoms, is the essential point. Restoring health is not removing constipation, haemorrhoids, etc. It has in view the establishment of order in a sick human being.
Coming next to the question of mildness, whenever an outward symptom has been caused to disappear by violence, as by cathartics to remove constipation, it cannot be called mild or permanent, even if it be prompt. At the time when Hahnemann wrote, drugging was not so mild as at the present day. Blood- letting, sweating, etc. were in vogue. Medicine has changed somewhat in its appearance since. Physicians are now using sugar-coated pills and contriving to make medicines appear tasteless or tasteful.
The cocaine, sulphonal and other modern products of the manufacturing chemists are extremely dangerous and their real action and reaction unknown. The chemical discoveries of petroleum have opened a field of destruction to human intelligence, understanding and will, because these products are slowly and insidiously violent.
So that from the point of view of all these Homoeopathy alone can stand out as an ideal system of medicine.
Earlier we deferred the consideration of the question of.
PSORA.
after seeing that it was one of the primary disorders out of which grow all incurable maladies in man. The other two are syphilis and sycosis. Of these, Psora is the first and the others come in order. If we regard Psora as synonymous with itch, we fail to understand it. It embraces insanity, epilepsy, tumours, ulcers, catarrhs, and a great proportion of the eruptions. It is appalling to think of the number of infants that die, and these largely from the outgrowths or outcomings of psora. We see little ones born that have not sufficient vitality to live.
Psora being such, we see that the common chronic diseases of the liver, heart and lungs, are not diseases, but the localisation of psora in those parts. Every one in the world is psoric. The human race walking the face of the earth is but little better than a moral leper. The ancients referred to leprosy as an internal itch. A new contagion comes with every child. As psora piles up generation after generation, century after century, the susceptibility to it increases. Those that have been poisoned in their earliest beginnings with psora become more sensitive to it, so that the slightest whiff of it from school friends will bring on a crop of vesicles between their fingers.
Added to this, these miasms are complicated a thousand-fold by allopathic treatment. The external manifestation of it tends to straighten mankind, but it is suppressed by some violent drug because the itch is looked upon as disgraceful affair. From this suppression we have cancer, phthisis, etc., and general destruction of the body. If HOMOEOPATHY DOES NOT SPREAD, THIS THREATENING CONDITION WILL INCREASE. Homoeopathy as at present practised is largely on an allopathic basis, using allopathic names, calling chronic affections by different names.
No study is made of psora, syphilis is not treated from cause to effect. It this is to be averted the childhood itch must be restored, then the external of the body would be horrible to look upon, but the internal would be in a much better state. Very commonly itch will not yield to homoeopathic treatment immediately, for the remedy must root the heredity within. Remember, one who does not know this loses heart when his remedies do not act at once.
Now I have done. I know there are a great many who are consumed with a desire to learn the principles and philosophy of Homoeopathy, but there are few who are zealous of teaching it, for some reason or the other. As Dr. Kent has said, every ardent lover of homoeopathy should yearn to teach it to his associates and his pupils. If I have imparted a little knowledge about some fundamentals of homoeopathy to at least a few, I should feel I have fulfiled a glorious mission.
In conclusion, it is my duty to point out to you some of the pitfalls which beset those seeking the aid of homoeopathy. The following observations which are given from unimpeachable authority will, it is hoped, serve as very safe guide to such.
1. A true homoeopath never prescribes on the name of any disease. We know that in the present day people are perfectly satisfied if they can find the name of the disease they are supposed to have, an idea cloaked in some wonderful technicality. An old Irishman walked into a clinic one day, and after giving his symptoms, said, “Doctor, what is the matter with me?”
The physician answered, “Why, you have Nux Vomica”, that being his remedy. Whereupon the old man said, “Well, I did think I had some wonderful disease or other.” That is an outgrowth of the old- fashioned folly of naming sickness. The symptoms consisting of the changed feelings and sensations are the sole basis of the homoeopathic prescription.
2. A true homoeopath never prescribes without fist reducing the symptoms to writing. Therefore it is the duty of the sick to see that their symptoms are put on paper, or else to shun the homoeopath who refused to neglects to do so.
3. Never go to a homoeopath unless you are sure that he has mastered the principles and philosophy of it, that he known the meaning of aggravations and ameliorations, that he knows when to repeat the medicine, and when to change.
The writer shows great insight as well as foresight. He is what we consider a pure Hahnemannian Homoeopath. There is a goodly need of men like Suhha Rao in our school of medicine, men who can be more thoroughly trusted than the other dangerous type, who under the garb of Science and modern wisdom fail to find the real worth of homoeopathy, as enunciated by the principle of similia similibus curantur.– N.M.C.
