I hope you will agree with me that I have a right of reply through your periodical to your editorial comments, on my article “ONE INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF MEDICINE”, If, so, please publish this letter in your periodical.
You say “the real synthesis in Medicine cannot be arrived at either in combination in mass or by successive practice in the treatment of individual patient or different patient” I have fulfilled this condition of yours for I have combined all medicinal agents only on conditions that for cure they shall be used Homoeopathically, and that they shall be used for palliation, antipathically or heteropathically only in exceptional circumstances. This is certainly not combination in mass or successive practice in the treatment of individual patient or different patients.
You again require that the synthesis must include even all contradictory principles and transcend them. The laws of bodily reactions really do the same. They explain both the beneficial effects of Homoeopathy and injurious effects of antipathy and show the necessity of homoeopathy for cure and necessity of mild antipathy when the acute disease is in its acme. Thus my integration has risen higher than the different methods of treatment.
If you want to rise till higher and derive the laws of bodily reaction from ( ), ( ) or ( ) you are welcome. but until you have been able to do this the laws of bodily reaction must be accepted as the highest synthesis. Dr. Hahnemann also has stated that the laws of bodily reaction explain the beneficial action of homoeopathy and the injurious effects of antipathy (see paras 67 of Organon).
You have condemned the Biochemic systems as too crude. But that is certainly wrong for individualisation is as much necessary in biochemistry as in you homoeopathy, and all the laws of homoeopathy are to be applied to Biochemistry. I do not regard Biochemistry as a system for filling up deficiency. But I regard it as strictly homoeopathic. Palliation by homoeopathic medicines in incurable cases is different thing from palliation in acute cases when the disease is in its acme and can be done only by mild antipathy or heteropathy.
Antipathy and heteropathy are thus occasionally quite necessary to avoid the danger of immediate death and to secure time for the action of homoeopathic medicines. If this is true how can you differ from my statement that “all the agents employed in different systems of medicine must be employed homoeopathically, antipathically or heteropathically as occasion requires. This is the integration of several systems of medicines invogue”.
It appears that simplicity bewilders many of us. Can the medical science be so simple is the feeling of many of us and stands in the way of accepting my harmonizing of the Ayurveda, Unani, Homoeopathy, Biochemistry and Allopathy. You ought to think more deeply about this simplification and harmonization and I hope you will agree with me after such deep thinking.
By the by I do not understand why in the table of twelve drugs you have omitted the entries under Ayurvedic humours. Those entries would have shown the great similarity of the symptoms of Ayurvedic humours with the symptoms of the twelve drugs. In the end before closing I request you to think over the subject more deeply and with an earnest desire to come to some definite conclusion.
Dr. Daftaris arguments for the proposed integration of several systems of medicine do not convince us to fall into his way of thinking. His idea of synthesis and synthetic concepts seem to differ from that of ours. Schusslers system of Bio – chemic treatment seems, to our knowledge, to be based on materialistic conception of organism and as such, radically different from the homoeopathic conception of life and disease – though the preparational mode and symptomatology of the remedies used are according to Homoeopathy.
Simplification of ideas and practice by themselves should have no justification for acceptance in the field of highly complex biological phenomena. We have gone through Dr. daftaris book “Bodily Reactions and Examination of Systems of Therapeutics,” especially the chapters on Allopathy, Homoeopathy and Bio – chemistry. We fail to agree with Dr. Daftaris arguments in toto. This is not the place to go into details. Medicine consists of two portions e.g. a Science – portion and a Art – portion.
In our article on synthesis in Medicine emphasis was given on the Science – portion of Medicine. Dr. Daftaris ideas relate to a practical make – shift arrangement of the Art of Medicine. On consulting Dr. Daftaris manuscript of the previous article “One integrate system of Medicine” we find that there were no entries under the column “Ayurvedic humours”. With all respect to Dr. Daftari the editor feels that it will serve to useful purpose to carry on this controversy in futures issues of this journal.