[Read before the I.H.A., Bureau of Homoeopathic Philosophy, June 1930].


Speaking in the modern vernacular, it all seems to depend on him who does the counting. Any subject that ceases to be accepted may be voted dead. The world in general measures things by their popularity, and a solo principle is considered to be either of value or quite negligible according to its acceptance by the majority.

With the general, values do not apart from their assessment- the publicity they acquire-or, at least, their place is not recognized, for neither reasoning nor thought is brought to bear. Two things account for it. A multitude of us are too little in the habit of thinking at all, and another multitude is mentally indolent. Thus, for instance, a supposedly intellectual person remarked that she did not know that any intelligent people opposed the Jennerian vaccination. How she could have over-looked even the newspaper records from Switzerland, England, and even Germany beggars comment. Hence, the public must be reckoned with as it is. Its state and trend in respect to vital questions should be noted.

When we discard the material bulk of what arrives by the post we do so with little necessary examination of its content, because quasi-medical recommendations and samples from the trade combine to tell the story of non-suitability to the practice of physicians possessing respect for science and who are intent on curing the sick. A thousand or two different ointments, sedative, cathartics, and whatnots make no appeal to employment requiring better agents.

The exacting pharmacopoeia of homoeopathy precludes any temporizing with makeshifts. It matters not at all that these latter are what do count enormously in other circles, they do not count with the homoeopathist, or with any relation to ultimate cure. The jargon of trade insures their wide popularity elsewhere, that is, with definite majority which does not exclude large classes in licensed medicine.

As conscientious homoeopathists we need a generic name for our medicinal agents. The appellation of “drug” is bad; “remedy” is not sufficiently distinctive; “medicine” is quite indefinite. Cannot someone propose a word that fits our therapy suitably? Since crude drugs occupy and extremely narrow field, and, when crudely used, may occasion unfortunate proving in a case inappropriate for that study, the word “drug” is almost offensive. As has been said, the homoeopath deals with energy, not material. This truth is being steadily established outside its own range of applied science. It is sure to count in the long run, and fads of the hour do not affect the principle of systematic method in vital therapy. The delicate reactions we expect and witness give the honest homoeopath ever new appreciation of a rare truth not widely glimpsed. Perhaps that will come later, for the glow is ever there.

And so all the shallow boastings of pseudo-science, minus any claim whatever of art as applied to human care, give us a morality between the ages of forty and seventy, a mortality amongst that most useful of mankind. What would be said if homoeopathy made such a record? Which brings us back to our caption: That which counts. The answer is more than obvious. It is the faithful use of the similar remedy as introduced and stabilized by Hahnemann. In other words, as cannot be said too often, though it has been said repeatedly before, the best way to extend the knowledge and success of homoeopathy is to practise it.



DR. G. ROYAL: There is one point I wish to touch on in connection with this paper because it may help us in our discussions and in our reading of journals and books, and is what the doctor has said about drug and remedy. During my work at the University I defined a drug as a substance in any of the kingdoms, mineral, vegetable, animal, which, taken into the human system, has power to disturb the functions of that individual. After we have the symptoms which have been produced by a drug and we wish to administer something to remove these symptoms, our drug becomes a remedy.

John Hutchinson