He states that “Under the influence of other Neo-hippocratists such as Professor Bier, Professor Hans Much and others, the homoeopathic materia medica has been included for the finding to medicines that act on the whole body”.
And in the Medical World Dr. Cawadias writes:.
As similar disease means similar, defensive reactions, clinical application of the homoeotherapeutical principle (introduced by Hippocrates) is very sound, and has been banished from general medicine only by exaggeration on the part of certain homoeopaths and the narrow-mindedness of “allopaths.” There is a distinct trend in modern therapy (Albert Robin, Bier, Much, Tzanck, and other) to reintroduce homoeotherapy as part of general medical treatment.
There has been lately an important paper by Delors, professor and teacher to the faculty of Lyons, in which he defended the study of homoeopathy in the official school. This was published in the Gazette des Hopitaux (The French Lancet). The position in FRance is, according to Cawadias, “very strongly in favour of Neo-hippocratism, which provides a common ground of understanding for the old divisions of homoeopathy and allopathy”.
In Italy Castiglioni also had enrolled under the banner of Neo- hippocratism, and has written that Neo-hippocratism raises interest in homoeopathy. Pende, professor of clinical medicine in Rome, and probably the leading physician of Italy, is another Neo-hippocratist who had expressed himself as in favour of homoeopathy.
In regard to the charge that homoeopathy has crystallized into a mere creed: that we have made no single advance in teaching or in practice since Hahnemanns death: that we have contributed nothing at all to all the rest that goes by the name of medicine- the first items of the charge are, of course, absolutely untrue, while the rest lies quite outside the province of homoeopathy, whose one concern is Medicine proper: i.e., the discovery of drugs, the proving of drugs as to their subversive, and, therefore, remedial, properties, and the application of drugs for the relief of sickness and suffering. Here steady progress had never ceased.
Perhaps provings might be speeded up? In Germany, I am told, the young homoeopathic doctor is expected to do provings of remedies in order to realize their power. But the actual remedies at our command today must be at least double no, probably more than treble-those bequeathed us by the Great Prover! It would indeed have been a tragedy had homoeopathy stopped short of Gelsemium, of Baptisia, of Apis, of Latrodectus mact., of Lachesis and all the snake venoms, which latter are at last coming into the snake venoms, which latter are at last coming into the range of vision of Old School. Hahnemann foresaw an enormous extension of his work, if it were at all to combat the myriad ills that flesh is heir to; and homoeopathy had never halted where its own business is concerned.
As to science, the claims of our critics and opponents, to speak in the name of science, need modification: but, instead of counter-claiming, as we might well do, that, when it comes to medicine proper we are the more truly scientific, some of us are sometimes tempted to decry the very name of science.
Surely this is an error, for, after all, science is no more and no less than the existing body of knowledge at any given age or moment; and, of that knowledge, every real scientist is aware that there is hardly an item that is not held as only approximately true-as representing only the best approximation to absolute truth possible at the moment! While, as to medicine, surely, after all, the healing of the sick is the whole aim of medicine, and here the simple, sane, clean, merciful, absolutely scientific, methods of Hahnemann are preeminent.
The tortuous ways and speculations of our critics, their daring experimentation on the sick, only lead, again and again, to disappointment and disaster; and “specific” after specific for this disease and that disease simply has its day and cease to be as “too uncertain” “too dangerous,” whereupon this other newer drug or treatment, of far greater promise, assumes in its turn the pleasing role of Will o the Wisp. With the homoeopaths, on the other hand, there is never anything, unless exceptional results, to stir the pulse of the world: nothing to be greeted with the blare of trumpets that dies away on the wind.
Perhaps this is why we appear to make no progress? Law is a tame thing contrasted with feverish expectations, and is often difficult to apply. It takes out best energies for each individual case: but it has the merit of constancy and is not subject to change. With Law, progress can only proceed along its own lines. We will concede all that, and that, to the superficial and the unwise, we are just standing still.
But, apart from the practical side of homoeopathy, whose merit is that it is practical-let us now look round and briefly record what has been done, and is being done, from its more theoretical aspect.
And here one must refer to Dr. Linn Boyds great and learned study of The Simile in Medicine and its aim, to make as it were an atmosphere in which our objective can be studied dispassionately: to show that Hahnemann and his work are not so far apart from medical tradition as has been generally believed, but take their place as a portion of a universal heritage.
In Great Britain, there has been during the last few years a revival of interest in the fundamental tenets of Hahnemann. The main points of our doctrine and practice have been reviewed in the light of accumulated advances in science, and researches have been instituted into the nature of the potencies, discussion have taken place on the principle of the single remedy; while doctrine of chronic diseases has been further elaborated and confirmed by bacteriological investigations.
Again, Pharmacology propounds a fundamental question to homoeopaths, when it asks, What is the nature of the homoeopathic potency? Hahnemann proved conclusively, by experimentation (and the experience of a century had borne him our in this) that through the simple process of potentising, according to his method, “the powers hidden and dormant in the crude drug are called into activity in an incredible degree”. He contends that “medicinal substances are not dead masses in the ordinary sense of the term: on the contrary their true essential nature is pure force (energy), which may be increased in potency almost to an infinite degree by trituration and succussion according to the homoeopathic method”.
Dr. Boyd of Glasgow, by means of his Emanometer, the instrument which the had invented to record and measure this energy, has already provided homoeopathy with interesting data and confirmation. He has accepted the theory of stimulative doses of potent energy; and shown that in our drugs we are releasing an unknown and very potent form of energy, which is extremely selective in action. With this instrument he had been able to record disturbances in the distribution of biophysical energy in the patient, and has been able to demonstrate that the potentised remedy, correctly prescribed, can effect a redistribution of energy, so that a normal balance, or health, is regained. He has also shown that after this transfer of energy has been accomplished, any residual energy from the remedy can be recorded, so that such factors as sensitivity of the patient, over-repetition or under-dosage of the remedy, can be measured.
Outside that finest test of all, the clinical test, the reaction to the correct potentised drug of morbidly sensitive humanity, we have a growing body of evidence that homoeopathic potencies do manifest a special energy on the human organism, and this, not only by the Emanometer, but, as Dr. McDonaghs researches into the ultramicroscopic appearance of the blood have demonstrated, that after the exhibition of homoeopathic potencies, the condition of the blood serum is altered. While Dr. John Paterson of Glasgow, carrying on the work of Wheeler, Bach and Dishington, has demonstrated that the bacterial flora of the bowel also adapts itself to the changes that take place in the organism after the administration of potentised drug. By estimating the proportion and variety of non-lactose fermenters in the stool, he was using the Bacillus Coli and its capacity of mutation as an indicator of the effect of the homoeopathic remedy.
Then, as to the question, at what site do homoeopathic potencies exert their influence: here the scientific evidence has been marshalled by Dr. Frank Bodman, who suggests four levels of action. The first, the “organ level” where the potencies stimulate the action of the enzymes, in the manner described by Person. The second, or “endocrine level”, where the potencies, disturbing the ionic balance, accelerate or inhibit the action of the hormones, as Zondek has demonstrated. The third “level of the central nervous system” at which the lipoid barriers of the neurones can be protected from toxins: and the fourth “level of immunity reaction”, which Walbum has shown can be influenced by drugs in homoeopathic potencies.
Weir received his medical education first at Glasgow University MB ChB 1907, and then on a sabbatical year in Chicago under the tutelage of Dr James Tyler Kent of Hering Medical College during 1908-9. Weir reputedly first learned of homeopathy through his contact with Dr Robert Gibson Miller.
John Weir wrote- Some of the Outstanding Homeopathic Remedies for Acute Conditions with Margaret Tyler, Homeopathy and its Importance in Treatment of Chronic Disease, The Trend of Modern Medicine, The Science and Art of Homeopathy, Brit Homeo Jnl, The Present Day Attitude of the Medical Profession Towards Homeopathy, Brit Homeo Jnl XVI, 1926, p.212ff, Homeopathy: a System of Therapeutics, The Hahnemann Convalescent Home, Bournemouth, Brit Homeo Jnl 20, 1931, 200-201, Homeopathy an Explanation of its Principles, British Homeopathy During the Last 100 Years, Brit Homeo Jnl 23, 1932: etc