“We have everything ready, doctor,” the husband remarked, with a gesture towards the outfit, that suggested haste. The lady looked at me expectantly and began to bare her arm. Both looked surprised when I seated myself and asked her kindly to tell me how she felt and the circumstances under which the attack had come on. (I had already noted that her color was good, her respiration normal and that while she was under suppressed anxiety and excitement, she was quite self-possessed and in no immediate danger).
After a momentary hesitation, her husband volunteered that while on their way to visit her physician in New York a “heart attack” had suddenly come on; that they had left the subway train, taken a taxicab, rushed home and sent the taxi driver for the nearest doctor. The lady added that she was subject to these attacks frequently and that her doctor had instructed her to carry the digitalis always with her, call the nearest doctor and have him administer it at once.
For them, including the doctor, that was all there was to it. It was assumed that the “nearest doctor” would complacently accept the situation and carry out the routine without question. They were certainly well trained. the legal possession of a hypodermic syringe and perfect readiness to use it at a moments notice on a ready-made diagnosis, was their ideal of a practitioner of “modern medical science”.
I gently insisted on examining the pulse and listening to the heart action with my stethoscope. The pulse could not be felt at the wrist. The heart action was very rapid, but no murmurs were to be defected. It was a very pretty case for a dose of Aconite, which would probably have relieved her (temporarily) in ten minutes. But back of that, I reflected, must lie a history, knowledge of which was essential to an understanding of the case as whole and to a course of intelligent treatment, directed to the removal of the causes and cure of the case. That was what interested me. It would be a pleasure to investigate and handle such a case by the homoeopathic method, if the patient were willing.
“But no,” it was not to be. I stated politely that I regretted to differ with the quoted medical opinion and preferred not to administer the hypodermic of digitalis, but to use my own judgment and examine and treat her according to the homoeopathic method which I conscientiously followed. Otherwise I should feel obliged to withdraw from the case.
The lady, in politest phraseology and perfect society manner, replied that digitalis, hypodermically injected, had always relieved her; that her physician had told her that this was the only effectual method of treating such cases; and that she preferred to follow his instructions.
Her husband most considerately assured me, that he would not under any circumstances, have me violate my principles nor act against my better judgment, and that they would undoubtedly be able to find some physician nearby, who would be willing to carry out the prescribed treatment. Enough said.
As I rose from my seat he politely handed me my coat and hat, I bowed myself out to the accompaniment of a sweet smile from the lady and returned to my office, congratulating myself over the elegant and dignified manner in which the episode had been carried through by both parties.
What a pity that a serum or a vaccine for conferring the blessings of “immunity” upon such patients had not yet been discovered! Doubtless it will be eventually. Meanwhile our serological friends still have their “old reliable,” Meanwhile our serological friends still have their “old reliables,” digitalis and morphia, with which to comfort their doting “heart patients,” besides all the rest of the drugs which confer that temporary “immunity” (from pain) which is quite as real and beneficial (?) as that of the serological species, and not a whit more so.
Members of the homoeopathic branch of the medical profession who, like Danae, have been seduced in their brazen tower by a shower of gold from Jupiter, have less excuse and greater guilt than their allopathic brethren for adopting the dangerous, degrading and disgusting methods of serology. For they had the original golden principle and method, of which serology is a base and repulsive counterfeit.
The only genuine, safe and lasting “immunity” is that which is gained by “the removal and annihilation of the disease in its entire extent,” (which included latent morbid susceptibility to the as yet undeveloped disease) by means of the homoeopathic remedy, plus a sane and wholesome diet and regimen, as taught by Hahnemann.
The follower of Hahnemann has always at his command certain chemico-physical processes by means of which he is able to transform and develop all substances of a medicinal character into true healing agents-when they are applied according to the homoeopathic principle of symptom similarity; and this without producing the slightest degree of toxic action, or bringing about any untoward reaction in the living organism.
Substances thus prepared, are true medicines for body and soul in their disorders. They act in harmony with the laws of life and motion; first, because their rates of vibration correspond with the vibratory rates of the living body; and second, because they are administered by the mouth-the natural channel of peaceable penetration to the interior of the organism and the vital centers. There is thus no shock to the organism and the vital centers.
There is thus no shock to the nervous system, no forcible entrance, no breach of the outer walls of defence, no assault upon the citadel of life, as when drugs or serums are administered hypodermically and the blood stream invaded. The organism is permitted to receive, modify and assimilate the needed remedy in its own way, with no impairment of its power freely to accept or reject, the proffered material.
Such medicines heal, because they satisfy the polarity of the organism and restore systemic balance. The material of which they are composed is rendered homogeneous with the material of which the organism itself is composed and is therefore, perfectly assimilable, by the organism, to supply its needs.
Since health is merely a balanced, and disease an unbalanced condition of the organism, the restoration of organic and functional balance, is the restoration of health.
Dr. Close was born November 24, 1860 and came to study homeopathy after the death of his father in 1879. His mother remarried a homoeopathic physician who turned Close's interests from law to medicine.
His stepfather helped him study the Organon and he attended medical school in California for two years. Finishing his studies at New York Homeopathic College he graduated in 1885. Completing his homeopathic education. Close preceptored with B. Fincke and P. P. Wells.
Setting up practice in Brooklyn, Dr. Close went on to found the Brooklyn Homoeopathic Union in 1897. This group devoted itself to the study of pure Hahnemannian homeopathy.
In 1905 Dr. Close was elected president of the International Hahnemannian Association. He was also the editor of the Department of Homeopathic Philosophy for the Homeopathic Recorder. Dr. Close taught homeopathic philosophy at New York Homeopathic Medical College from 1909-1913.
Dr. Close's lectures at New York Homeopathic were first published in the Homeopathic Recorder and later formed the basis for his masterpiece on homeopathic philosophy, The Genius of Homeopathy.
Dr. Close passed away on June 26, 1929 after a full and productive career in homeopathy.