The patient was a typhoid case whom Dr. Trinks had treated for four days homoeopathically until she was admitted to a general hospital where she died five days later.” This case was not unique, and homoeopathic physicians were even deprived of the right of practising as a result of not resorting to blood- letting as a life saving device. As a natural result, the enemity between withdrew the last remnants of their recognition. “But it should be stated,” says the writer, “that the leaders of the Viennese school of pathologico-anatomical nihilists, Diet in particular, acknowledged that it was due to the doctrines of homoeopathy at they had entirely abandoned the practise of bleeding and were using its remedies with success.”
Such recognition, as well as the success of homoeopathy with the public at large, especially among the so-called better classes, did not tend to exterminate the warfare existing between the contending parties, and in the seventies and eighties of last centuries renewed attacks were directed against the Hahnemannians by leaders of Clinical Medicine.
The virulent anti-homoeopathic attacks launched during the past fifty years are characterized by their general failure to comply with the most fundamental demands of scientific objectivity. The aim of the writers is merely to villify and to kill. “Moreover, they are precluded from grasping the homoeopathic hypotheses by virtue of their unconditional materialistic viewpoint, the concepts of which are limited to the findings of pathological anatomy or of experimental pathology. Thus, it was a forgone conclusion that they would reduce to ridicule the object of their hostility.
But it is significant to note that certain principles which have been definitely demonstrated and which would seem to favor the homoeopathic ideas, such as the apparently homoeopathic operation of smallpox vaccination and later that of immunity therapy, have been rejected by them. They maintain that the former concerns prophylaxis and not treatment, and that the latter is something different, namely, Isopathy, which was also rejected by Hahnemann. All efforts on the part of modern homoeopaths to appropriate the results of modern medical research are met with distrust and with the remark that they can make no claim to these.
Throughout this entire literature, with the possible exception of Harnack, who at least makes an attempt to apply logic in the interpretation of homoeopathy, there is no evidence of a sincere desire to examine their methods and observations, and of complying with the first demands of criticism. They were doubtless unaware of the fact that by so doing they, as representatives of allopathy, were placing dangerous weapons in the hands of their opponents. Thus, it is not surprising that the unfavorable criticism of Jurgensen in particular, called forth a vehement reply.
It was by no means hard for the homoeopaths to show that his Therapeutics in the Light of Science, according to the principles of which he jeopardized the lives of his patients by ice-cold baths and daily doses of 5 gm. of quinine or 9 gm. of chloral, could not claim any superiority to the unscientific methods of homoeopathy.
“In contrast to the efforts of Official Medicine, whose only object was to exterminate homoeopathy, we find, towards the end of the past century, a number of their most prominent representatives imbued with a sufficiently strong sense of impartiability to consider the problem from a serious and objective point of view. Hugo Schulz of Gerifswald, in particular, has done this both in a theoretical and practical manner. He instituted tests of various remedies according to the homoeopathic plan, butt to our mind with more suitable methods (Methodic). In addition, he investigated the theoretic basis of the law of similars and that of dosage, which he has led to do more particularly through his studies of the biogenetic principle of Arndt.
This is not the place to judge the merits of his investigations; but it should be mentioned that the mere fact that his research lay along these lines sufficed to expose him to the suspicion of medical here by the entire body of scientific medicine, particularly by his own colleagues. But in compensation he has won the esteem of certain independent non-homoeopathic scientists, and Bier in particular has acknowledged that he owes to Arndt. This is not the place to judge the merits of his investigations; but it should be mentioned that the mere fact that his research lay along these lines sufficed to expose him to the suspicion of medical here by the entire body of scientific medicine, particularly by his own colleagues.
But in compensation he has won the esteem of certain independent non-homoeopathic scientists, and Bier in particular has acknowledged that he owes to Arndt the impulse which led him to undertake his own investigations along these lines. Furthermore, Much, in his work and investigation concerning vaccination therapy has, according to his own words built the bridge to connect with what is correct in so-called homoeopathy.
Finally, mention should be made of the therapeutic attempts of Ernst Neisser, Zondeck, Lowy and Kothe to treat exophthalmic goiter and ulcerous stomatitis by a homoeopathic method or one very closely resembling it. The most important communication and pronouncement is the one by Bier mentioned at the beginning of this article, and the manner in which it has been received by scientific Medicine clearly shows how hard it still is for the majority of persons to view this matter impartially”.
The writer concludes his survey by asking whether Medicine has any interest in settling its controversy with homoeopathy. In his opinion the answer must be decidedly affirmative, as this cleavage in an honorable profession is both senseless and undignified. “But to attain this end certain long cherished habits will have to be abandoned. In the first place, Official Medicine must realize that it will not compromise its dignity by taking up the consideration of homoeopathic problems otherwise than by merely declining to discuss them.
Moreover, it must bring historic justice to bear in considering the origin of these doctrines and must view Hahnemann, not as a heretic, but as a searcher after Truth, even though he followed strange paths and overestimated the magnitude of his work. Above all, it muse cease continually to insist on the principle of dynamism in his doctrine as constituting the fundamental evil. Why apply so much scientific prudery to this particular point?
The theory of Vitalism in cellular pathology has impeded medical progress as little as have the teleologico-vitalistic concepts of our modern pathology, such as adaptation, prophylaxis, self-regulation, etc., which are by-words in the mouths of our sincerest mechanists (?). We are merely concerned to determine whether Hahnemanns ideas, stripped of their ephemeral wrappings, as which they appear to us in the nature of dim anticipations of the theories of organ specificity and tropism, may in their essence prove to be adaptable to our present-day Medicine.
“This end can be attained if impartial scientists selected from both sides jointly undertake to test drugs demanded by homoeopathy and to supplement their investigation by the customary methods of research employed by non-homoeopathic Medicine. Not until this has been done can there be any question of the existence of a truly disinterested standpoint. But this same attitude of objectivity toward the homoeopaths will have to be demanded of them in exchange, and for this reason it is imperative that the object of the investigation be clearly defined before-hand.
Thus, the aim is not to convince the allopaths of the correctness and general applicability of homoeopathy, but forthwith to incorporate such homoeopathic principles as can be shown to be tenable and practicable into the body of Official Medicine, there to be left to their fate. Homoeopathy must vanish as a sect ! But in place thereof must arise homoeopathy, as a new or renewed integral part of our therapy it may contribute to the enrichment of Medicine as a whole. Every scientifically trained physician can conceive of but one form of Medicine; a division into homoeopathy and allopathy is a nonsensical anachronism, which must be destroyed once and for all time.
As it would be mistaken and suicidal on the part of homoeopathy to oppose such a development by adopting an attitude of esoteric limitation, so also would it be unpardonable on the part of the official school of Medicine to adhere to its scientific standpoint in so narrow and dogmatic a manner as to refuse to allow such a process of fusion to be effected”.
