Pronounce or perish! How clearly this Biblical quotation bring anew to the advocates of homoeopathy the warning that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”. We are confronted today with the same problems of ancient biblical times.
After over 100 years of homoeopathic teaching in the United States, we are amazed to find the following, taken verbatim from the dramatic story, Devils, Drugs and Doctors, written by Dr. Howard W. Haggard, Associate Professor of Applied Physiology, Yale University.
Hahnemann was successful in introducing homoeopathy, and because of its success it was accepted and practiced by many physicians. The secret of its success lay not in the effects of the drugs that were used, for these drugs were administered in amounts too infinitesimal to have any effect. Homoeopathy practically gave no medicine at all for Hahnemann advanced the belief that the smaller the dose the greater the effect. If he had said, not “the greater the effect”, but “the better the results”, he would have been right, for then most of the medical profession were giving accessibly large doses of potent and often poisonous drugs.
They were thus doing positive harm to their patients. The small doses used by the homoeopaths did not good, but neither did they do any harm. The patient stayed in bed and, as Pare would have said, “God healed him”. The distinction between the homoeopaths and allopaths-the name applied to the regular medical practitioners by the homoeopaths-has been summed up satirically, thus: The patients of the homoeopaths died of the disease and the patients of the allopaths died of the cure.
The vogue of homoeopathy was brief; it was soon replaced by scientific medicine, which showed that only a few drugs are of value in treating disease, but that these few are indispensable and must be used in effective amount. [ Italics ours C.P.B.].
what an astounding statement in view of the comparative death rates between allopathic and homoeopathic treatment! In what a pitiable position this sage of Yale is placed-there is nothing left for him to learn! He disposes of one and all treatments, except his own-with a grandiloquent gesture. He sits in his tight cocoon of ignorance and self-satisfaction, feeling himself competent to attempt to annihilate, without proper investigation, a therapeutic treatment whose comparative statistics, should he take the time to digest them, would make ridiculous his smug seat of pseudo-knowledge of the arts of medical science.
How could a Professor of Yale University feel justified in making such ignorant statements? He knows, if he will but admit it, that there is no crude drug given in any amount that ever cured anybody of anything, for this is contrary to Arndts Law, which specifically states that crude drugs destroy life processes; less concentrated drugs are toxic; diluted drugs stimulate, while highly diluted drugs are curative.
What and who is to blame for a physician of the standing of Dr. Haggard publishing such a diatribe against the immortal Hahnemann? the lethargy and lack of ethical publicity of the homoeopathic profession itself! The advocates of homoeopathy have given not even a meager understanding to the world at large of the true principles on which homoeopathy is founded.
Homoeopathy is STRONGEST IN NUMBERS in the United States but is WEAKER IN PROGRESS today than in many countries of both Europe and Latin America.
The following startling comparative statistics should be brought sharply before professors, physicians and the lay public:.
For example: Influenza mortality statistics (compiled in 1921, following the fatal epidemic period of 192801919) show that of 24,000 reported cases treated by allopathic physicians, the mortality was 28.2 percent, whereas of 26,000 reported cases treated by homoeopathic physicians, the mortality was 1.0 percent.
E. Rodney Fisk, of New York City, presented in the Journal of The American Institute of Homoeopathy, October, 1928, the following statistics of the value of homoeopathic treatment of lobar pneumonia, including 17,669 cases, as follows: Pure Homoeopathic Treatment.
(11,526 cases), mortality rate 2.8 percent.
Mixed Treatment (homoeopathy and vaccines) (6,143 cases), mortality rate 6.2 percent.
Treatment with sera or vaccines.
(609 cases), mortality rate 12.2 percent.
The low mortality rate of the homoeopathic treatment stands the same today as it has in the past.
Bearing in mind that the above statistics are representative of various curable diseases, is it not deplorable that a college would fail to perfect itself to the highest degree in advancing the practice of homoeopathy?.
An interesting instance is the statement of Charles Edward Russell, of the regular school. In a lecture he said:.
When I was Sunday Editor of the New York Herald, I sent a reporter around to thirty of the most eminent physicians in the City of New York with the instructions that the reporter was to mention the same symptoms of an ordinary, common everyday complaint, and have each doctor write a prescription. The reporter brought back thirty prescription and when we spread them out on the table, no two were the same or would go together. And, a little later, I sent a reporter around to thirty other physicians and asked them what they thought of a person who would prescribe these remedies for this disease, and they said they thought he was crazy.
How different was the result from a homoeopathic standpoint in a similar test cast abstracted from a medical magazine by the British Journal of Homoeopathy, March, 1932. A case was sent for consultation and prescribing to twenty physicians, ten homoeopaths and ten of the so-called allopathic or regular school. Outstanding men, as far as possible teachers in their own schools, were picked for the test. The regular fee was sent and the doctors were not informed that they were taking part in a test question.
To the homoeopaths was added a request for the name of the remedy with the statement that he was studying homoeopathy. The ten allopathic physicians prescribed ten different remedies, while the ten homoeopaths each prescribed LYCOPODIUM. What better proof of the uniform application of a true science could be set forth?.
RESULTS OF MODERN MEDICAL PROGRESS.
Alexis Carrel, in Man, The Unknown, published October, 1939, discussing present-day scientific medicine, makes the following statement, pages 114-115:.
Medicine is far from having decreased human sufferings as much as it endeavors to make us believe. Although modern hygiene has made human existence far safer, longer, and more pleasant, disease have not been mastered. They simply changed in nature.
Again, on page 178:.
A man of forty-five has no more chance of dying at the age of eighty years now than in the last century. This failure of hygiene and medicine is a strange fact. In spite of the progress achieved in the heating, ventilating, and lighting of houses, of dietary hygiene, bathrooms, and sports, of periodical medical examinations, and increasing numbers of medical specialists, not even one day has been added to the span of human life.
On page 20 Carrel makes this statement:.
Injection of specific vaccine or serum for each diseases, repeated medical examinations of the whole population, construction of gigantic hospitals, are expensive and not very effective means of preventing diseases and of developing a nations health. Good health should be natural. Such innate resistance gives the individual a strength, a boldness, which he does not possess when his survival depends on physicians.
At this point it is interesting to note statement of William R.P. Emerson, M.D., author of Diagnosis of Health, in an article for the American Medical Association, in the December, 1938, issue of Hygeia, entitled, A Call to Life:.
Death from old age is so infrequent as to be almost a medical phenomenon. Usually, the life processes collapse prematurely under the weight of preventable disease. True, human life on the average has been prolonged 20 years during the past century, but that record is due almost entirely to the reduction of infant and child mortality.
The four diseases in which the dominant school claims the greatest advance are: Diabetes, pneumonia, diphtheria and syphilis.
Yet, in Tices Practice of Medicine, Vol. 9, page 870, we find the statement:.
Diabetic mortality is rising rapidly throughout the civilized world. In the United States the death rate for 100, 000 was 11.0 in 1900, and 22.0 in 1932.
Any claim made for advance in pneumonia mortality rate is controverted by the fact, through established statistics, as shown above, that the the pure homoeopathic treatment of pneumonia has shown and still shows a lower death rate than any other known therapy.
DOES ORTHODOX MEDICINE CURE SYPHILIS?.
Referring now to the supposed advance in the treatment of syphilis: most pertinent are the following quotations from Treatment of Syphilis, Modern Clinical Syphilology, by Strokes, 2nd edition, 1936:.
WEIGHT THE RISK AGAINST THE BENEFITS. There are risks so serious, especially in the treatment of late cases by intensive methods, that the patient should not be asked to take them. There are benefits so doubtful and methods so double=edged that a hair- line judgment can very properly be drawn between the decision to do or not to do.
THERAPEUTIC PARADOX. The intense action, particularly of the arsphenamines, produces not only therapeutic shock but a rapidity of healing which has disadvantages sometimes far exceeding any possible advantage. It is a very proper question, involving many still unsolved problems in the defense mechanism, as to whether routinized and perhaps over-energetic treatment is necessary or desirable. The radical or complete curability of syphilis in man remains to be proved.
Again, at the meeting of the French-speaking dermatologists and syphilographers at Brussels, July 24 to 28, 1926, when Chairman Flandin was asked “Does one cure syphilis?” he stated he was of the opinion that, Excepting in the initial stage, preserological chancre, our present-day therapeutic methods do not enable us to remove treponemata from the organisms, where they continue capable of producing late cutaneous and visceral lesions and whence they can be transmitted to the offspring. This shows that we do not succeed in curing syphilis.
RESULTS OF ORTHODOX TREATMENT OF ACUTE CONTAGIOUS DISEASE.
The contention of the dominant school that there has been advance in control of diphtheria is definitely contradicted by the fact that the mortality rate is greater since the introduction of antitoxin in 1895 than it was in the years previous to its use. This was definitely proven by statistics of the Metropolitan Asylums Board of London, as given by that great man, W.R. Hadwen, M.D., J.P., in March, 1920, as follows:.
The Metropolitan Asylums, Board statistics show that the death rate for persons inoculated for diphtheria has been reduced from 29 percent to 8 per cent: BUT it is not told that in the very same Metropolitan Asylums Board reports it is shown that amongst the un-antitoxined cases the death rate has been reduced during the same period from 13 per cent to less than 2 per cent; that is, that whilst the average mortality per cent during the whole period of the patients treated with antitoxin, was 14 per cent, the average mortality amongst those who were not antitoxined was only 6 per cent, and the latter includes all the moribund cases, complications and second-week cases, which makes the comparison the more remarkable.
In 1939 we find the following quotation from Advances in the Prevention and Treatment of Contagious Diseases of Childhood, by Platou, Erling S. and Dwan, Paul F. Minnesota Medicine, 22.71, February, 1939:.
“Statistical analysis of mortality rates in the State of Minnesota shows a general decline in the deaths from the more common diseases of childhood since 1915.” However, the deaths from diphtheria, scarlet fever, measles and pertussis in the pre- school age have remained practically unchanged during this period.
THE NEWEST CHEMO-THERAPY.
The New York State Journal of Medicine for May 1, 1937, has an highly illuminating article by Charles Solomon, M.D., from which I quote:.
The history of mans efforts to cure his ills by using drugs is rather an appalling thing. It is filled with successive triumphs of bland incredulity over sound judgment. Time after time both laymen and physicians have been stampeded, fro some mysterious reason, into believing that an individual drug or drug preparation, or a specific class of drugs, had all the characteristics of a panacea.
The much-publicized sulphanilamide group of drugs has been heralded as one of the greatest advances in scientific medicine. Yet in the brief period of its existence, two to three years, after it had been used in the treatment of various infections, a professor in one of the most prominent medical teaching institutions of our country made the following statement:.
Sulphanilamide is the most overrated and one of the most poorly proven fads of pseudo-medical science.
It is worthless in urinary tract infections and contra-indicated in pneumonia.
DR. Oscar W. Bethes, New Orleans, Louisiana, in an article entitled, Very Recent Developments in the Therapy of The Pneumonias, printed in International Medical Digest for the month of May, 1939, Vol. 34, No. 5, pages 302-303, speaks plainly of the failure of sulphanilamide. I give you his exact words:.
Sulfanilamide has been employed for several years, long enough, it would seem, for its therapeutic status to have been fairly well established. Yet this goal has not been reached. ”
Our experience leads us to believe that sulfanilamide is not highly effective in the treatment of pneumococcic lobar pneumonia” (quotation from Mode of Action, Clinical Use and Toxic Manifestations of Sulfanilamide, by P.H. Long, E.A. Bliss and W.H. Feinstone). “The use of sulfanilamide in the treatment of pneumonia has not been sufficiently encouraging to warrant recommendation of this product to replace specific antiserum. While sulfanilamide has value, the results are not striking”. (Quotation from Current Comment: Sulfanilamide Pyridine, J.A.M.A., 111: 2122, December 3, 1938.
CONTROL OF HEALING ARTS.
Unfortunately, since the earliest days in the history of medicine there has been an attempt by groups of physicians or schools of practice to control the healing arts. This is amply proven by medical history. The great Hippocrates was discredited by the dogmatists and the empirics of the ancient world until the rise of the methodics. Then for thirteen centuries Europe was completely dominated by the Galenists. Everything that conflicted with the philosophy of Galen was rejected, but with the rise of Paracelsus a new era of medicine followed.
Paracelsus was replaced by the sects of the Chemists, who in turn were forced to yield to the Vitalists. It would seem that the many centuries of medical study should have brought about a unity of medical thought. Yet today physicians still disagree in respect to disease as old as the human race.
Judge Daly, of New York, in rendering his opinion in Corsi vs. Marciszek, 4 Ed. Smith, 1-5, made the assertion that it is impossible for the law to recognize any class of practitioners, or the followers of any particular system of method of treatment, as exclusively entitled to be regarded as doctor… and that in adverting to the conflicting views and differences of opinion that exist and have ever existed in the practice of the healing art, it is not to call in question the value of learned, skillful and experienced physicians, but merely to show the error of attempting, in the present state of medical science, to recognize as law any one system of practice.
When Dr. Benjamin Rush helped to frame the Constitution of the United States, he insisted that there be incorporated in it a clauses for medical as well as religious freedom, holding that the one as well as the other was necessary to the safeguarding of liberty. He was not successful, and since that day the battle for medical freedom has been waged with increasing hostility.
The late Professor William James of Harvard College, in his address delivered before the Committee of Public Health, Boston, Mass., regarding the exemption of mental healers from the operation of a drastic law pending before the Massachusetts Legislature, said:.
Were medicine at present a finished science, with all practitioners in a agreement about methods of treatment, such a bill as this, to make it penal to treat a patient without having passed an examination, would be unobjectionable.
Clarence Darrow, in an address given October 26, 1921, throws considerable light on the methods of medical legislation. He says, in part:.
To tell you or to tell me that we must have such a physician as the State Legislature provides, is to take away one of the most fundamental rights.
The history of homoeopathy is an example of the attempt of the regular school of medicine to thwart medical progress. Hahnemann, though one of the greatest living physicians of his day, a scholar, a teacher, and writer of note, was denied the right of practice in his own native country.
Every graduate of the regular school of medicine, who has become converted to the practice of homoeopathy, has been a victim of criticism and persecution by the dominant school. In the past few years homoeopathic hospitals have been denied the right of standardization unless the name homoeopathy was eliminated. One Past President of the American Institute of Homoeopathy, who was also a member of the A.M.A., gave an address in favor of homoeopathy at a National Clinic Day program. He was warned that should he repeat such an address he would forfeit his membership in the A.M.A.
There seems to be an impenetrable wall of egotism, prejudice and intolerance, precluding the penetration of the ranks of the dominant school of medicine, and it becomes necessary to educate the lay mind. It is often through education of the public that great truths are forced upon prejudiced teaching institutions, which history shows have been the last to accept valuable discoveries.
It is a regrettable fact that a more determined effort has not been made by the homoeopathic profession to acquaint the regular school of practice and the public at large with the superior results obtained by the application of the Law of Similars.
Now is our great opportunity to prevent domination of any school of practice, thus safeguarding the liberty and rights of the individual practitioners, as well as the individual citizen. This can best be brought about by an ethical citizen. This can best be brought about by an ethical lay journal. This is essential to be proper presentation of homoeopathy, if we hope to survive.
THE ATTITUDE OF THE PUBLIC TOWARD THE REGULAR SCHOOL PHYSICIAN.
It is interesting to note that in a canvas made covering a portion of the city of Seattle, Washington, it was learned that 55 percent of the population canvassed were employing physicians not belonging to the dominant school of practice. That this is not centralized in one district is borne out in the Literary Digest of Sept. 22, 1923, in the printed article, What People Think of the Doctors. It is there states that an inquiry was suggested and financed by Dr. James H. Hutton of the Chicago Medical Society for the contacting of 6,772 persons in all walks of life, the result to which showed that of the 6,772 persons contacted, 93 percent had employed physicians outside of the regular school, while but 7 percent consulted allopathic physicians exclusively.
In spite of the much-publicized boast of the regular school that it has made great strides in the past twenty years, the following quotations would give even the average man the idea the dominant school is “whistling in the dark”:.
From the Bulletin of King Country Medical Society, Seattle, Washington, March 20, 1939, we find the statement:.
No one can deny that distrust of the profession, expressed by a considerable number of the legislators, is a reflection of the attitude of a large section of the public and by this time it is quite certain that the entire profession has come to realize the low estate into which our popularity has fallen.
It has become highly important that we utilize every legitimate source of publicity in order to correct the misunderstanding which has arisen and to combat some of the prejudiced, highly colored criticism and adverse publicity which has been appearing in certain publications. “Our own profession has had, in recent years, a tendency toward a destructive type of lobbying.” That the warning expressed nearly a year ago was well founded is attested by the fact that our representative at the recent legislative session were, as predicted accused of having nothing constructive to offer. They were charged with beings selfish, destructive and opposed to the public welfare.
Again, from the Bulletin of King County Medical Society, Seattle, dated April 17, 1939:.
There can no longer be any doubt whatsoever that the medical profession must take steps to inform the public of its true aims and aspirations and the many things it is doing to bring about better health of the public. So many recent events have pointed to such complete misunderstanding on the part of the public and even on the part of its elected representatives that no members of the profession can now fail to see that some definite program of public education must be undertaken.
DR. Rott, in his recent address to King Country Society, clearly pointed out the necessity of undertaking a serious campaign of health education which will go a long way toward informing public of the activities of the profession in protection of health. This should become a major of the campaign but the interest of the profession should not be allowed to stop there.
Every phase of medical practice and all the various kinds of public health work must be taken before the public. They must be explained and described, not once but many times. Repeated exposition of the desires of the profession must carry to the laity the fact that the sincere aim and purpose of the medical profession is a steady improvement in the health of the public. We must take before the public at large the many advances that are constantly being made in both preventative and curative medicine.