[ The Editors assume no responsibility for the opinions expressed in this department.].
To the Editor of The Homoeopathic Recorder:.
OUR I.H.A.DISCUSSIONS.
Some very valuable papers are presented before the I.H.A. We have always preferred to listen to a paper, except perhaps those written under high pressure, or as a last moment expedient, rather than to an extemporaneous talk. The reason for this is that the conscientious writer of a paper puts in some time in real thought on his subject sees how it looks in print, corrects his mistakes, and sees where he can improve his expression, or convey a better idea. All this is denied the extemporaneous speaker and his hearers, as witness the following as they appear in the extemporaneous discussions.
One discussant arises to discuss a statement and acknowledges that he “did not remember the exact statement” of the subject he attempted to discuss. Another discussant enlarges on the above in attempting to discuss a point that he too evidently did not exactly remember the statement. Here is what the essayist wrote: “The real time of proper indication of the remedy is before these external manifestations and products appear, not after; before the fixed pathology, not after.
This is why pathology and morphology have so little bearing on the selection of the remedy.” Here is what the discussant said the essayist said” “The time for giving the homoeopathic remedy was before the pathological changes had occurred, and by analogy or inference, he led us to believe that after pathological changes had occurred, some of these things were inapplicable.” (The italics ours). Just how the two statements can possibly mean the same thing we are unable to sense.
Thus we see the value of seeing our statements in print. Those two statements bear no relation to each other, as you will note by comparison. The essayists statement was made to show, merely, that gross pathology and morphology bore no real part in the selection of the remedy; that they were incidental rather than mandatory.
The primary onset of the disease produces symptoms corresponding to the symptoms, solely, constitute the symptom totality. In other words, the resultant symptoms of the primary onset of the disease constitute its symptom totality, and must, in all cases, if the drug is to be positively indicated, correspond to the direct primary symptoms produced by the proving drug alone, and not by any varying symptoms following that storm, or arising from the drug later arousing latent predispositions.
This symptom totality must be constant or homoeopathy would be false, as no drug is capable of removing a pathogenesis it is incapable of artificially reproducing on the healthy human organism. The direct primary symptoms, of either the drug or the onset of the disease are the only ones that are constant and unchangeable and that comply with the natural law that governs them. It matters little what follows in the line of symptoms as the disease progresses, or what symptoms follow in the wake of the primary storm of the proving drug, whether they result in gross pathology, or morphology, or not.
The primary symptoms of both drug and disease form the base or root that must be removed before further action and consequent destruction can be stopped. Neither the remedy itself nor the indications for that remedy bear any relation to either the fixed pathology, or the morphology that may follow. It is the beginning and not the end that concerns both drug and physician. The pathology and morphology depend on the disease, not the reverse. The time of indication of the remedy is strictly one thing, its time f application quite another. It is NEVER too late to give the truly indicated remedy, even in the face of the most profound fixed pathology. If nature is still at work she can just as readily undo as do.
Medically, homoeopathy, when completed, will be found to be everything in medicine, as no cure, nor benign relief, can either be made, or given, that is not based on natural law. And as homoeopathy alone acknowledges and operates under natural law, there is no other method eligible to be considered. No one will ever be able to define its limits, or when it is too late to apply it, or when it cease to act. A PULFORD.
