An anonymous, writer, obviously a doctor of the orthodox school, has addressed to me an anonymous letter and has challenged me to publish it in the next issue of “HEAL THYSELF”. Usually anonymous letters are treated with contempt and thrown into the waste paper basket. I make an exception in this case as the effusion is very characteristic.
He writes: “With mingled amusement and indignation I have read HEAL THYSELF. Naturally I have heard a good deal about Homoeopathy. It pains me to think that presumably educated men can possibly dabble in such frank charlatanism as one finds between the covers of HEAL THYSELF.”.
The writer is obviously ignorant of the fact that, in this country, two hundred doctors of the orthodox school, who have passed all the usual examinations, have embraced Homoeopathy, that Homoeopathy has been practised in England by orthodoxly trained doctors for more than a century, that there are throughout the world, about ten thousand doctors who practise Homoeopathy, and that tens of thousands of “presumably educated” people are treated exclusively homoeopathically.
Among these are many of the most prominent members of the royal families of England and other countries, and among the great men of the past who were treated homoeopathically were statesmen such as Disraeli, Bright, Bismarck. There are scores of homoeopathic hospitals throughout the world. The London Homoeopathic Hospital has more than two hundred beds. I imagine that men such as Disraeli, Bismarck, Bright, Bernard Shaw, Sir Herbert Barker and many others may be described as “educated men.”.
Referring to a lecture of mine, the writer says: “The general trend of your remarks are for the defence of homoeopathic principles indeed this is the atmosphere that one finds throughout the whole journal. Now, anything which justifies itself should not require ceaseless verbal defence. Possibly you will not understand that, as the average homoeopathic intellect seems peculiarly impervious to any logical conclusions. You make some very disparaging remarks upon the use of the hypodermic syringe. Have you ever seen the result of an injection of diphtheria antitoxin? No, you havent.”.
The writer is obviously quite ignorant of the fact that Homoeopathy is a valuable method of treatment which has been practised by tens of thousands of orthodoxly trained doctors throughout the world for more than a century. He is even ignorant of the orthodox treatment which the lauds as the only one of value. Diphtheria anti-toxin has in no way reduced the mortality of diphtheria except statistically. Formerly thousands of throats which are now called diphtheritic were called “drain throats”.
Fifty years ago, when I was a boy, I had repeatedly a “drain throat,” treated with complete success, by my father, an excellent orthodox physician, by resting in bed and gargles. At that time no-one thought of taking a swab. Had a swab been taken, I should have been declared to have suffered from diphtheria. Throughout the swab-taking period the number of theoretical diphtheria cases has much multiplied.
Hence the percentage of deaths from diphtheria to theoretical diphtheria cases has of course greatly shrunk, while the total number of diphtheria deaths has increased, notwithstanding the much belauded anti- toxin treatment, which is extremely dangerous. Every well- informed doctor knows that there are cases of diphtheria without the organism and that there are cases in which the diphtheria organism may be found which display no clinical evidences of diphtheria.
The reckless methods of vivisectors have been condemned by many of the leading orthodox authorities here and abroad, among them Lord Moynihan, whose views I cannot quote in detail for lack of space. Orthodox doctors make experiments on animals and then make similar experiments on their patients, not infrequently with disastrous results. One cannot argue from animals to men. Rabbits can eat with impunity a quantity of Belladonna which would kill a human being.
Wishing to defend the cruel useless methods of vivisection against my criticism the writer says: “Do you realize that without his experiments on dogs, Banting would never have discovered insulin? Of course, in your estimation, insulin will be a useless drug. You will probably treat diabetes mellitus by feeding the patient on one grain of sugar per year,” The writer will probably give indiscriminately Insulin to every diabetic, because it is recommended in the text-books.
He obviously is not aware that Insulin, far from having diminished the death rate from diabetes, has proved curatively disappointing. It does not cure diabetes and has never done so. Although it is universally employed, the number of deaths from diabetes has rapidly increased since Insulin has been introduced and has been universally employed on diabetes. The figures published by the Registrar-General will show the correctness of my statement.