Every physician who, for any length of time, has been engaged in homoeopathic practice, must have become thoroughly convinced of the superiority of the homoeopathic therapy as compared to the therapeutic procedures employed by orthodox medicine. This conviction naturally creates a desire to see the principles of Hahnemann accepted by the whole medical world, in order that every patient may receive the full benefit of the homoeopathic treatment.
In the past great efforts have also been made by homoeopathic physicians to get the official medical school to put the Hahnemannian method to the therapeutic test. These efforts, however, as you all know, have been far from successful, but since the reasons for this failure have been pointed out so many times before, it will be quite unnecessary to dwell upon them here. It is enough to emphasize, however, that in spite of the fact that homoeopathy in the past has proved its superiority over the official therapy, it still remains a method employed only by a small minority, and in most places it is still looked upon only with scorn and ridicule.
Yet today one often hears reference made to the fact that orthodox medicine in its research work is getting closer and closer to the homoeopathic principles. True enough, such expressions as “constitutional therapy”, “individual treatment”,, “functional pathology”, etc., are nowadays often mentioned by allopathic physicians; articles on homoeopathy are now and then appearing in allopathic medical journals; homoeopathic physicians have on a few occasions been invited to address allopathic medical societies and the attitude of the allopathic profession towards homoeopathy seems slowly, but surely, to be undergoing a change for the better. Why is it, then, that it still seems such a hopeless task to get the method of Hahnemann officially accepted by our allopathic colleagues?.
One reason for this is to be found in the unwillingness, so common to us mortals, to openly confess our mistakes and shortcomings; but another, and perhaps still more important reason, is the failure on our part to really prove that homoeopathy still retains its superiority over the allopathic therapy.
Many of you now probably feel like saying that homoeopathy is proving its value daily and in a great number of cases, and you will recall in your minds, no doubt, a great many instances where homoeopathy has brought good results after other therapeutic methods have failed. To this I am going to reply, however, that individual cases prove very little — and in many instances nothing at all– as to the therapeutic value of the method employed.
Individual members of practically every therapeutic school –beginning with our “Old School” colleagues and then down along the line of osteopaths, chiropractors, naturopaths or whatever they call themselves –are able to report individual cures just as startling as those reported by our best homoeopathic prescribers. Yes, even pure quacks, without any medical education whatsoever, are often able to show some really remarkable results.
It happens now and then that a patient who has perhaps been going downhill for a longer or shorter time, suddenly, from reasons unknown, gets a new lease on life and shows a marked improvement, which may even lead to a complete cure, without having been subject to any special therapy. Any therapeutic method that is brought to bear upon the case just before such an improvement sets in is naturally getting the credit for this improvement, but in reality it was not all the cause of the change in the patients condition.
This was impressed very strongly upon my mind by a case that I had some years ago. I was called to a middle-aged woman who had been confined to bed for about five weeks with a temperature of around 103. She had been admitted to a hospital, but since the hospital physicians had not been able to determine the cause of her fever or to bring it down, she returned to her home. I examined her, but I could not find anything to account for her high temperature. The only thing I discovered was a slight leucocytosis. She complained of nothing save a headache and general malaise.
I prescribed for her, and told her husband to let me know in a few days how she was getting alone. After two days he called me on the phone and told me that his wifes temperature was perfectly normal. Naturally I felt quite pleased about the good result from my prescription. However, before I had any chance of saying anything, he asked me whether I now considered it necessary for his wife to take the medicine I had prescribed.