In teaching the young idea how to shoot, the question naturally arises, can anyone teach a subject intelligently, effectively and satisfactorily if he or she is not thoroughly conversant with that subject?.
As a prelude to this diatribe, let us first listen to a few lines from Pope which seem to cover both our subject and present status, then to a word of warning from Dr. Frederick Rand Rogers, of New York.
“Let such teach others who themselves excel,
And censure freely who have written well.
Be sure yourself and your own reach to know,
How far your genius, taste and learning go;
Launch not beyond your depths, but be discreet,
And mark that point where sense and dullness meet.
The lines, thou touched but faintly, are drawn right,
But as the slightest sketch, if justly traced,
Is by ill coloring but the more disgraced.
By doctors bill to play the doctors part,
Prescribe, apply, and call their masters fools.
Medicine resembles poetry, in each.
Are nameless graces which no methods teach,
And which a masters hand alone can reach.
Moderns, then, beware! or if you must offend.
Against the precept, neer transgress the End.
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring,
Survey the whole nor seek slight faults to find.
When Nature moves, and rapture warms the mind.
Most critics, fond of some subservient art,
Still make the whole depend upon a single part:
They talk of principles, but notions prize,
And all to one loved Folly sacrifice.
Doctors like painters, thus unskilled to trace.
The Naked Nature and the living grace,
With gold and jewels cover every part,
And hide the ornaments their want of art”.
Dr. Frederick Rand Rogers of New York, in addressing 5,000 Utah educators, is reported to have said: “Colleges worship marks, grades are a disgrace to scientific education; the highest grades, as a general rule, go to the student who is the best ape, to the one who can best imitate his teacher”.
We can take it from this, then, that a college education does not mean anything; that the college has fallen wide of both its mission and its opportunity, the opportunity to teach the student, not only how to think, but how to think for himself, in other words, the most important part of any beings education.
The editorial Pathological Prescribing, p. 660, the September issue of the Recorder, furnishes a beautiful theme for a sermon, and is full of rich food for much deep and mature thought, for it affects homoeopathy vitally, and shows how varied, and from how different angles a simple, straightforward principle may be viewed.
We neither worship nor idolize Hahnemann for Kent, we have not had personal contact with either one, and while they may be back numbers as compared to the “more enlightened” modern doctor living in this “enlightened” age who feel themselves far in advance of those two immortals, yet, we ask you, in spite of this, to hark back and read and reread their words of wisdom and weigh them thoroughly before we decide to palace them in the discard and replace them with pathological verbiage. “Hahnemann”, according to Dunham, “declared the pathology of his day to be unsafe as a basis of medical treatment, and proved that therapeutics could never be based on pathology, because pathology is a science of hypothesis respecting the nature and processes of morbid action, and must always be speculative and uncertain”. the pathological leopard has not changed his spots to date that nay one knows of. Kent said, “All that is knowledge of disease is expressed in symptoms”. If these two men are right, and no one has ever yet been able to prove them wrong, then pathological prescribing is entirely foreign to homoeopathy.
Hahnemann, wise beyond all other medical men, was apparently not wise enough to realize that his approval of vaccination, unconsciously, laid the plot that would eventually defeat the ultimate acceptance of homoeopathy. This fatal slip has been taken advantage of by allopaths and modern homoeopaths alike and used against homoeopathy in defense of the use of not only vaccine virus, sera, etc., but of every other irregular method of practice, pointing back to this error as Hahnemannian authority.
If Hahnemann was right about vaccination, he certainly was wrong about homoeopathy. If vaccination is right, so, then, is all other external and hypodermic therapy, and, by that decision, homoeopathy is absolutely wrong. This error led to much of the matter contained in Dr. Metzgers Presidential Address at Montreal.
Dr. Irvin Metzger said in the address, among other things, “IT is no longer sufficient to be able to recognize maladies and deal with them effectively, but we must be able to foresee and foretell them by anticipating their incidence”. Who made that”no longer sufficient” if not those incapable of coping with disease, the real reason for the existence of medical profession? “The physicians high and only mission is to restore the sick to health”. We shall soon, then, expect the fireman to appear, after the doctors have gotten so wise, who can foretell and forestall all fires before they happen, and thus a fire will be a disgrace. The policeman will next appear who can foretell and forestall all crime before it happens and crime will like wise become a disgrace. These are just as possible and logical as the other. Page the millennium! Perhaps Dr. Metzger can teach us how to lift the veil to enable us to glimpse the future. Had not “the cobbler better stick to his last”? What is going to happen no one knows, nor ever will. No epidemic has ever been prevented by medical means. Homoeopathy alone has ever been able to mitigate one. The medical “guardian of public health”, the allopathic health officer, is a myth and a fraud, a meddler and a pest. We seem to have forgotten that there is but one method of real disease prevention in man, and that is to destroy his dispositions; to so right his internal relations that they can readily adjust themselves to the external relations, which simply means cure his existing troubles and he will then be immune to all diseases. Then let us teach our students how to care for those things that have happened; that is all that medicine can take in honestly, and its sole reason for existence. Leave the quackery and faking to those who know no better. Had Hahnemann and all his followers stuck to their lasts and taught and practised strict homoeopathy and condoned nothing outside, things would have been far different with us today.
Next to Hahnemanns fatal mistake in approving vaccination, the next greatest blow to homoeopathy and one which looks as if it would bring about its ultimate burial alive, was the acknowledgment by homoeopathys adherents that it is a part of modern medicine.
When we stop o take an inventory of ourselves, as homoeopathic physicians, what right have we to condemn the allopath for his refusal to change his course and give up his allopathy for merely modified from of his own method? Pathological and morphological teaching and prescribing must surely make him think so, And, since he, himself, is a master in the art of pathological prescribing, and more expert than we at it, he has a right to stop and ask himself: Why change and follow someone who is merely stealing my own thunder, and what valid reason for the existence of that brand of so-called homoeopathy? Yes! Echo answers why? On the contrary, is not Hahnemannian homoeopathy the very system that we are leasing him to believe that we are going to teach and that he expects to learn, a separate and distinct principle, far distant from, and something entirely foreign to allopathy? Is this, then, not the rankest kin of deception?.
Is it possible to teach student an allopathized form of hybrid, so-called homoeopathy, or homoeopathy in allopathic language and have that student emerge a strict Hahnemannian homoeopath? If so, can you produce one as an example? If not, then, is homoeopathy not better off without such?.
Homoeopathy seeks the origin of disease, condones strict individualization only, knows how to proceed, knows beforehand, and in time, and is in strict accord with nature. On the other hand allopathy seeks the end product, condones only standardization and is directly opposed to nature and must, consequently, of necessity fail. How can we honestly attempt to teach those two opposites? If they could be successfully taught you would have eclipsed the greatest miracle ever performed. Because real Hahnemannian homoeopaths will not consent to this deception they are dubbed prejudiced.
Our determination to know is commendable in a way and has been much stressed. But if a remedy cures which has not been known to have produced a similar condition to that which it cured, would the knowledge that it had or did produce a similar condition make that cure any more complete or permanent?.
Would the knowledge have changed the ultimate result in any way? Was Hahnemanns case of sycosis cured with Chamomilla purely a myth? Or Boenninghausens case of tuberculosis cured with Pulsatilla a fraud? Or my own case of syphilis cured with Calcarea carb. purely a delusion? Have we a record of those drugs producing their respective conditions? Should such cases be compelled to remain without relief until such pathological conditions had been produced by them? If we are compelled to wait to believe anything until it is a ll scientifically demonstrable before we can accept it you can positively be assured you will die in waiting.
When we have studied the pathological end result all that we can possibly learn is what has happened, but get no clue whatever to its exact origin, how to combat it in others or how to prevent a similar occurrence in others. If the study of pathology had or did give us these clues, then, allopathy, with all its years of pathological investigation, research and study to its credit, would have succeeded beyond all expectation and have reached the goal years ago and there would have been no homoeopathy today. But has it? Allopathy is no nearer the goal, in even a single instance, then it was in the beginning from the standpoint of prescribing. Then why not, in introducing the allopathic student into the homoeopathy bears no relation whatever to the method he is about to leave?.
Diagnostically, both pathology and morphology are not to be ignored, but they, in themselves, are of minor importance in homoeopathic prescribing, for they, in themselves, furnish no clue whatever to the individual constitutional remedy. It simply avails us nothing to merely know that one has cancer, tuberculosis or is deformed. The cause or origin is what we must seek, and as disease, which is as invisible as life itself, expressed itself in symptoms only, it is that language that is the most important for us to be able to read and understand. The homoeopaths truths, which are but too often regarded as per prejudice have never yet been successfully attacked.
To successfully teach the young idea how to shoot, we must teach him true homoeopathy and distinctly impress upon him that there is no relation between homoeopathy and modern medicine; that homoeopathy is as yet incomplete and that it must not be judged as in its entirety; that it is ignorance of unproven remedies that is the sole cause of our having to resort of temporary expedients, as well as of a lock of acquaintance with those remedies already proven.
We are convinced, from over 16 years of exclusive experience with it, that homoeopathy is right; that it is logical; that it is philosophical; that it is scientific; that it is the only complete system of curative medicine known, but there will never be unity of through, action and agreement among homoeopathic physicians until its unfolding is completed, until it is taught in its purity and until it is entirely divorced from modern medicine.
We are allowing our contact with modern scientific medicine to so addle our brains that we are fast losing sight of the very object for which we are gathered here to discuss, teach and preserve. We cannot expect our students to rise above our own level if they are to adhere strictly to our teachings. It therefore behoves us to teach them homoeopathy in all its purity. More students will fall below this standard than will rise above it. Therefore the higher the example set the better homoeopath the student will remain.
DR. C.L.OLDS: I would like to take issue with one statement of Dr.Pulfords. If I understand him correctly he said something about curing- I dont remember the exact exact statement-and that then we would be immune to disease. I should like to ask Dr.Pulford if he known whether there ever was a person, is now, or ever will be one is absolutely immune to disease; that is, as I understand it, one who has no chronic miasms? To my mind, it is simply an impossibility that there should be a person who has been so cured that al miasmatic trouble is annihilated and he is absolutely immune to disease.
DR. A PULFORD: I will answer that by a living example. I have never yet hesitated to go into any disease no matter what it was. I have been into practically all the diseases.
DR. W.W WILSON: That doesnt make you immune.
DR. A.PULFORD: Wouldnt I get one or more of those diseases if I were not immune?.
DR. W.W.WILSON: Not necessarily.
DR. A. PULFORD: Then what does immunity mean?.
DR. C.L.OLDS: I should like to ask if you know of any person who would dare inject syphilitic virus into himself?.
DR. A. PULFORD: That is another question.
DR. C.L.OLDS: Well, it is a disease.
DR. A. PULFORD: It bears no relation to this.
DR. POWERS: What is meant by “disease”? I dont think it s possible to make a human foolproof. You can cure him and put him in good condition, but what in the world is going to prevent him from eating a plum cake and drinking a glass of cider on top of it, which will probably lead to his death? You talk about making people immune. You would have to make them all foolproof to do that.
DR. I. FARR: This is an excellent paper on the matter of teaching pure homoeopathy, if you have the proper environment. In other words, if we had a homoeopathic globe or sphere or this new planet with homoeopathy, I think the plan would work very well. But, lying all joking aside, we are here with those who are followers or children of followers of all methods of therapy, and if we are to succeed in converting the world to homoeopathy it seems that it would be better to proceed from the known to the related unknown.
Most prospective physicians know something of disease from hearsay and most disease have some pathology. Therefore, if we are to convert them to homoeopathy it seems that we must show them that the remedy is not in fighting the disease, but that the individual is sometimes recognized through the pathology.
DR. C.M.BOGER: The factors which go to make up the mind in choosing the most similar remedy are innumerable. Materia medica doesnt contain all of them. Pathology contains some of them. General science contains some of them. We never can know too much. We never can know enough to make an exact similimum, to make a prescription of an exact similimum. In keeping up with general science, every once in awhile you read something which enlightens you very much on some remedy about which you really known very little. Just the other day I was reading an article in Popular Science on some toad poison used in China and what it was used for. I took up Mills Encyclopaedia and read part of the article on Agaricus and found many of the symptoms that this article contained in that pathogenesis, but not all of them. And those that were not in allen, helped to illuminate those that were already there. That is the way we have to know our remedies. That is the way you know your diseases.
CHAIRMAN J.W.WAFFENSMITH: Dr.Pulford has a remarkable crusading spirit, and he may say some things that we dont like. I am thankful that we do find men who get out of the stereotyped way of doing things, who get away from the standardization and give us a jar once in awhile, knock us down, because we need waking up. We need to get away from this satiated standardization that we have today. In all avenues of thought and in all lines of organization, they are becoming tired of it, and I for one most heartily thank Dr. Pulford for giving us his paper.
DR. A PULFORD: I should like the privilege of giving the allopathic side of pathological prescribing, taken from Modern Surgery. I think it ought to be published for the benefit of all of our fellows:
“Cellular pathology entices the students but is a false lure. It destroys the efficiently of the physician for it leaves the needed explanation of the mysteries of the well untold.
We need a new approach and until we have it all these viral phenomena which basically we do not understand shall not be understood.
“As real clinicians we must still be empiricists, using drugs, clinically learning to know their effects, using them helpfully, but not actually fundamentally understanding how or why they act as they do.
“The physician, the healer can divorce the pathologist and the researcher. These students may follow their fancies as far as they like. They are not physicians. They have not materially helped the clinicians. They have far to go and much useless lumbar to abandon before they will actually help clinicians greatly by their activities”. From first to last Hahnemann teaches that the totality of the symptoms must be considered in making a prescription; this applies no less to the specialities than to general practice, but the specialist the temptation to get rid of that condition of which the patient complains, and on account of which he applies, is great, and must be resisted if he wishes to heal the sick, which as Hahnemann declares, is the sole duty of the physician; to suppress leucorrhoea at the expenses of the various, to suppress gonorrhoea at the expenses of not only all sexual organs, not only the whole being of the patient, but also and worst of all, of generations of be born, to suppress catarrh in the upper passages at the expense of the lower, to suppress a so- called skin disease at the expense of the whole or some special internal part, in short to do anything in the way of suppression of special symptoms without regard to the general system is not homoeopathic and therefore not scientific.-CHAS. B.GILBERT, M.D., 1895.
I mention a final difficulty in curative treatment, namely, the early repetition or change of the remedy. If the study has been carefully worked out, an the prescription made for the patient in accord with the perverted vital action, a remedy should be given time to act before thinking of repetition or change. No interference should be made until improvement ceases. Remember, the patient himself reestablished the natural order, which is one of balanced vital force and health.-RAY W. SPALDING, M.D., before the Eastern, 1929.