The allopathic physician believes with us that these morbid processes are nothing but the mechanism of defense of the organism, yet in his practice he opposes these efforts with antipyretics, antiphlogistics, etc., and frequently combats a single symptom with a palliative measure. While interpreting Nature correctly, he fails to imitate it in his practice.
This is the most fundamental difference between the two schools of medicine.
Let us consider now two others which are fundamental, namely: the Law of Similars and the curative action of the homoeopathic remedies. But in doing so, let us profit by hearing the authoritative voice of a Master of Homoeopathy, Dr. H. G. Perez, as he discusses the subject in his wonderful textbook The Philosophy of Medicine:.
When studying the concept of the homoeopathic principle, we find ourselves in the presence of a law and in the presence of a fact.
From the point of view of formal philosophy, the homoeopathic axiom is an abstraction that refers to a relation between vital dynamism and the dynamis of the remedy; and from the practical point of view, it constitutes a relationship of analogy between the symptoms of the remedy and those of the disease.
The FACT is the curative action of the remedies, and the LAW is the relationship of analogy.
This relationship is not one of identify but one of analogy. Identify can refer only to the nature of the individual within itself but distinct from the others; similarity or analogy refers to the resemblances presented by two or more distinct beings.
The analogy to which the homoeopathic principle refers is one of a group of symptoms, but not one of a single symptom. Hippocrates statement vomitus a vomitu curatur does not formulate a law, it only expresses a fact. Similia means similars, not similar.
Hahnemann deduced the precept, which fully symbolises his doctrine, from close observation of the nature of the disease and experimentation with remedies in the healthy according to the strictest rules of inductive logic. . . .
Homoeopathy, like every new science, passed through three different phases; one of hypothesis, one of system and one of doctrine. In the beginning Hahnemann was obliged to base his discovery upon a theory, in reality a very ingenious one; but he forgot that the doses given in disease were infinitesimal and would act only in the morbid state. He needed no theories upon which to base his assertion. The nature medicatrix and the vital dynamis give the explanation of the fact and logic of the truth which is a corollary of a more general principle which dominates in any curative system or method; the natura morborum medicatrix.
Hahnemann, by pure experimentation, discovered the method of helping the healing power of nature and gave the therapeutics genuine curative means and taught how to use and prepare them. And finally was able to state in three words, similia similibus curentur, the relationship that exists between the manifestations of the disease and those of the action of the remedy.
Dr. Perez concludes his chapter by stating that Hahnemann has given to posterity the invaluable bequest of the knowledge of the true action of the remedy and the principle of analogy between the disease and the remedy.
To excite symptoms similar to those that are developed in the organism during disease, is to help and imitate nature in her curative efforts, since morbid manifestations are nothing more than the effort with an instinctive tendency towards the preservation of life.
The study of homoeopathic philosophy enable us to understand and profit from the knowledge of these laws and principles, and unless we fully understand the healing power of Nature and the truth of the Similia, the application of modern laboratory technique in our daily practice will not suffice to accomplish the “highest and only calling of the physician, that is, the restoration of health to the sick”. A well equipped army will fail to obtain a victory unless the general possesses, besides the knowledge of military tactics, the exact knowledge of the enemy.
A number of allopathic physicians have been converted to homoeopathy; but only those who are profound thinkers, those with philosophically trained minds, are the ones who succeed in breaking away from the traditional prejudices to be illuminated with the meridian light of the Similia similibus curentur: and once they become in possession of the truth they hold tight to it. I often heard an old school, the statement that it is a crime to attempt the use of any other curative means, when one already has the knowledge of the healing power of Nature, and of the true action of the remedies in order to apply them according to the relationship of analogy with the disease.
The study of homoeopathic philosophy should occupy most of our time, for only with its help can we detect and correctly interpret the “rarest and most unusual symptoms” which, according to the Master, are certain guides for the exact indication of a remedy.
CHICAGO, ILL. and
MONTERREY, N.L., MEXICO.
