“The transition from matter to mind is made along the new theories of biology, theories which regard the living organisms as something more than the mere sum of its constituent parts. The new biology goes beyond the mechanistic view which still holds the attention of Clarence Darrow [and all of the old school]. Man is considerably more than a machine, according to the new view.

“Life, according to the new biology, is a specific principle of organization. The individual, in this new view, is a dynamic organic whole.

“In this new scientific view in which so much emphasis is placed on organization, mind finds its place as an organizing agent.” (D).

“Mind is admittedly an active, conative, organizing principle.” (S).

“Mind, even more than life, is a principle of whole-making.” (S).

“Gen. Smuts rejects the mechanistic view of the functioning of the mind.” (D).

I draw a long breath and heave a sigh. The above needs no comment. To you, as homoeopaths, it is only too obvious. After 136 years science has come to this! Yet it is denied that mind can produce disease! to paraphrase Shakespeare, “It wearies me, I know it wearies you”.


After careful consideration of the above quotations, the prodigal son has returned to the parental roof to partake of the fatted calf of homoeopathic philosophy. His tour merely led him in a circle. The truth lay on his front doorstep and he walked over it. In a few thousand years from now the medico-politicians will stand where we do today in their painful march to the truth.



DR. A. PULFORD (Toledo, Ohio): For those who still feel that we should abandon homoeopathy for the “more scientific” methods of allopathy, allow me to quote the following:.

Victor Levine, Prof. Medical Department of the University of Omaha, Neb., has this to say: “Thus it happens in science that we develop from limited knowledge a system of reasoning, which holds unchallenged sway for some time, only to be demolished with the widening of the scientific horizon; all of which follows the path leading to what the philosopher Baruch Spinosa termed “reductio ad ignoratum.” How is that for medical science?.

Dr. A.H. Gordon, Prof. of Medicine at McGill University, Montreal, has this to say (speaking of pneumonia): “the amazement comes when we remember that with succeeding periods the weapons used, and the manner of using them differed not only in material form, but were absolutely opposed in principle and in spite of this and of the monotonous recurrence of 20 or 30 deaths per 100 sick, there was still hope left, and even enthusiasm, over each new form of treatment. But while we are in sight, perhaps, of the Promised Land, we must not forget that we are still wandering in the wilderness, and for this day and time we must continue to care for and guide through a dangerous illness, people sick of it, and without any weapon in our hands against it, which we can confidently trust.” And all that after 2,500 years of continuous scientific medical progress.

Sir (Dr.) James Mackenzie, of England, has this to say: “If progress is to be made, a new spirit must be infused into teaching and research. If the most enlightened members of our profession were to inquire into the grounds of their beliefs, even those most dearly cherished, how often would they be surprised to find on what fallacies their beliefs are based. The fact that medicine is becoming so complex implies that it is being pursued on wrong lines. We go on repeating the same old blunders age after age.” so it would seem that the proverbial mountain has labored for 2,500 years and not even brought forth the proverbial “funny little mouse”.

Wm. D. Johnson, M.D., President New York State Medical Society, has this to say: “What we call the science of medicine is a most variable and unstable affair, constantly changing and constantly to change. Today we are justly proud of the body of scientific medicine. If we could live into the next generation, we should be ashamed of it.” And yet we homoeopaths are ashamed of homoeopathy. May God help us, nobody else can!.

CHAIRMAN SPALDING: The subject of Scientific Reasons for Abandoning Homoeopathy, or holding to it when presented the opposite way, is a mighty good subject to start off the discussions. I didnt put it there to be disposed of quickly, as the doctor humorously suggested. I thought it would be a good thing to perhaps make us think early.

DR. ALFRED PULFORD (Toledo): I think this paper has given us a very good set of reasons for sticking to homoeopathy.

DR. C.M. BOGER (Parkersburg, W. Va.): First of all, we had better make up our minds whether medicine is scientific or not, for the men who are practising and promoting medicine, the professors or medicine, are not agreeing on this point. I suppose it doesnt make much difference what we think about it. Not long ago there was a lengthy article in The Forum, where you see sporadic outbreaks of such things. The author started out with Is Medicine Scientific? He is a doctor himself. The more I practise medicine, the more I come to the conclusion that a great deal of medicine is not scientific. Maybe I started out with the idea, but I have slowly changed to the opposite. Regular medicine is strictly not scientific.

In contradistinction between Homoeopathy and the old school, the old school has pursued all kinds of so-called scientific studies, including biology and anatomy (which is strictly not a scientific study at all), and so forth, and has deduced therefrom, or tried to deduce therefrom, some method of practice. This has all ended in colossal failure. Nothing has come of it, for the reason that all the different pathologies and all the different collateral sciences have and tend toward or end in speculation and theory.

We have the theories that Berkhill and other men before him, led us into and the sheep have properly followed these theories to the detriment of their patients and the standpoint has changed to theory instead of practice.

Now here comes our homoeopathy and draws its conclusions from the facts presented by the living individual, not from those of some collateral science and from these conclusions presented by the individuals it has built a theory, and, as facts go, we today are the most realistic of the realists. We have theories, dynamic theories, but we are realists of the deepest dye, because we are realists practising from the standpoint of the facts as presented by the patients. We are also idealists.

DR. A.H. GRIMMER (Chicago): I want to thank the doctor for bringing us this live philosophy and for stating it so clearly. The great difference between the two schools is this, as the doctor showed: Science is constantly changing because science may be one thing today but new facts and new discoveries come up constantly so that ten years from now which completely upset the previous conclusions.

Homoeopathy was founded on a law and law doesnt change. Law is the same yesterday, today and forever. That is what the doctor brought out in a very nice way, and it is for that reason that we, those of us who have grasped that truth, stick so thoroughly and so doggedly to Homoeopathy. We know we are right. We know that armed with that law we can cure sick folks, and that knowledge brought to the bedside confirms the law. We do cure them. We cure them after the scientific methods are utter failures.

DR. CHARLES L. OLDS (Philadelphia): I think we should bring to mind the reason why Homoeopathic medicine is scientific. One reason the doctor has just given, because we have a law, a law for prescribing medicines for the sick. You will have noticed probably in the homoeopathic school that is the only place where we have the pure effects of drugs and those are obtained by provings, and if those pure effects of drugs are used, according to the homoeopathic law, then we have something that is strictly scientific.

DR. DAYTON T. PULFORD: I attended the meeting of the Ohio Homoeopathic Society and along this line there was one interesting point. One of the members read a paper in which he led all of us to believe that the great thing to develop in the homoeopathic medical college was the cynical attitude. We have to stop and consider that there are all grades in science from the filling station helper who scientifically lubricates your car to Pepsodent which scientifically kills germs in fifteen minutes, the rain barrel type that is put out by the Hygiene of the press and all the advertising with no desire for recognition but only to get at the facts.

I was taught that when I had a case that had been allopathically drugged, I should give a dose of Nux, wait a few days and then give the indicated remedy. At present, I find the most effective way is to give the indicated remedy, in the highest potency, at once. It “lays over”, to use a vulgarism, all the other drugs that have been given in crude form or very low potencies. It passes into the system on a higher plane than any lower potency can attain, and the effects are as immediate as if no other drugs had been taken; I know this from manifold experience. It does its work while the other drugs in the system are fighting among themselves – so intent on their own business, as it were, that they pay very little attention to the organism – thus antidoting the individual effects of each. This plan saves time. – SAMUEL SWAN, M.D., 1889.

Dayton T. Pulford