“WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE HOMOEOPATHIC MOVEMENT-PROFESSIONALLY “


The vital force circulates through the nervous system which is the circulatory system of vital government, just as the blood vessels convey digested food in the form of blood. Then that patient will be able to digest and assimilate all the lime or other element, or elements, from the ordinary articles of diet, without the dangers of over-feeding involved in forced feeding of elements glandular products, or physiological drugs.


Perhaps the answer to the question What Is Wrong with the Homoeopathic Movement–Professionally? is found through a discussion of the issues involved in the authors query, “Is it not because we are not in the least unanimous about the limitations of our particular method?”.

There is nothing the matter with homoeopathy. The attitude of mind of many–that homoeopathy has limitations–is largely what is the matter with the profession. The field of homoeopathy is too large for mortal conception. Homoeopathy is unique. It is a science that even the most fastidious cannot embrace in its entirely in a lifetime. Therefore there is bound to be a variance of opinions, due to the limit placed on each individual by each individuals experience. Each individuals vision or horizon is limited to the height of his mental attainment, so there is bound to be a variance of honest opinionS, due to the limit placed on each individual by each individuals experience. Each individuals vision or horizon is limited to the height of his mental attainment, so there is bound to be a variance of honest opinion.

Ignorance then, is the greatest handicap of our profession. That accounts for their limitations as teachers. If the students have not been properly taught, how can you expect them to follow doctrines that have not been taught?.

So our colleges are largely to be blamed. I can but touch that phase. However it is a fact that when dear old Hahnemann College of Philadelphia was dominated by those powerful intellects, like Hering and Farrington, their enthusiasm and ability just radiated homoeopathy to the students, and although, like all other medical colleges of the time, the students were graduated in two years, I would, today, rather have one of those old time prescribers doctor me than the present pseudo- scientists, whose knowledge is largely a record of vacillating theories apeing allopathy.

There are many reasons for this state of affairs. I think a mistake was made when Hahnemann College first undertook to give a degree in both medicine and homoeopathic medicine. The outcome of this was that since those first days of the masters of homoeopathy, the strong teachers have been the teachers of allopathy, whose teachings and prescriptions gradually usurped the homoeopathic teaching.

This is reflected in the November 1930, issue of the Hahnemannian Monthly where Doctor Margaret Hassler, in her presidential address before the members of the Homoeopathic Medical Society of Pennsylvania, states:.

Briefly, the result of this survey shows most clearly:.

First– A. lamentable indifference to the establishment of new societies, county or district, or to any effort to revive former societies. The indifference was explained by the frank statement of so many of our members that through their affiliation with its hospitals,they no longer saw the need for homoeopathic societies, nor any necessity for them as individuals to assert their homoeopathic affiliation.

Second–In the existing societies there was little or no evidence of a keen professional interest in homoeopathic matters per se, but a notable lack of interest in promoting an increased membership. Again, in some of these societies otherwise very active as high as one-third of the total membership were not members of the State Society.

But perhaps the founders of Old Hahnemann College were right in their concept, for complete knowledge of medicine is a three- fold development of physical, mental and spiritual therapy. One should first be grounded in the physical aspect of the trinity. Then a study of the action of remedies on the nerve plane, and last the esoteric teaching of the spiritual plane which dominates the mental and physical. I might dwell on the lack of coordination; lack of creating a homoeopathic consciousness (which field allopathy has monopolized), and the delay of our organization to that end. But all nature is an intelligent force gradually bringing that about herself. Many wonderful discoveries of research laboratories.

in physics are rediscovering or demonstrating homoeopathic principles; they pick up our spoor quiet often. No longer are infinitesimals “the fiction product of diseased mind.”.

If we had the space we could, with profit to all, discuss the various problems to reach Utopia, so I must confine my remarks largely to correct a number of rash statements, where the author of the caption question has confused the ignorance of the doctor mass with the scientific highly trained “honest-to- goodness” “dyed-in-the-wool” homoeopaths. There is a distinction to be made as wide as the poles. We shall attempt to prove that not only are many doctors incompetent to carry out strictly homoeopathic prescriptions, but they are that way because they have not been properly taught basic guiding principles.

William H. Schwartz