In such a case it looks as if the germ arrived first, but had nothing to do, while in other cases the disease arrives first, and then the germ seems to have plenty to do. What is he doing? Is he helping or harming? That question has not been answered altogether conclusively. In other examples that may be somewhat analogous, the organisms of putrefaction do not appear till the host is there. Then they do appear even from far and remove the useless or dead matter. They did not cause the death for they were not present but they began their beneficent immediately the task presented itself.
The victims of microphobia surround us. They compose the larger part of the population. And no wonder! The microbe propaganda surrounds them. No doubt thousands of the educated look upon bacteriology now taught as one of the biggest evidences of civilized learning, medical progress, and victory over disease dissemination.
There are many objections to the tenets of bacteriology as now taught. Here are some corrections of the fallacious viewpoints.
I. The germ does nor appear before the disease.
II. When the germ is found in health there is no disease there.
III. When the germ is not attacked per se the patient recovers under other treatment.
IV. When the germ is attacked it is worse for the patient.
IV. Some severest cases provide no germ for identification.
VI. As recovery approaches the germs leave coincidentally.
“Meningitis germs were found to be carried in the army camps – carried by men who were perfectly well themselves, but causing meningitis in the other soldiers with whom they came in physician by radio. It illustrate well the position taken by many doctors and therefore by a very large portion of the public. It is a striking instance of holding to the tenet that the germ is the cause of the disease, but yet fails of its accomplishment. The so-called “carriers” do not become infected by the disease though the germ is present, which of course leads one to the query of why?.
An answer to this query is prepared, and in the face of the main proposition that the germ is the cause of the disease, it is adroitly maintained that for some reason which science has not yet determined, or at least has not seen fit to enunciate, certain persons are susceptible while others are not. That is, those who get the disease are susceptible; those who escape, even with the possession of many specific germs, are not susceptible. By no manner of means could it be argued by these minds that the disease coming first it may be possible that the germs follow as a means of protection or correction. That proposition would shatter the whole structure of bacteriology as taught. That other simple and straightforward proposition that disease are caused by germs would be thrust out of all consideration, and science would have to start all over again. And that would be very difficult for science.
Microbe propaganda has so engulfed the popular mind that no one or at least only a very few persons are immune to its appalling suggestions. Every case of human disorder is relegated by its owner to the logic of the germ theory. That is, the victim assumes immediately that he has become the lodging of a disease producing bacterium.
So far has this gone that the patient voluntarily diagnosticates his complaint with a confidence only to be acquired by the strict attention he has paid to germ publicity. He is likely to think that all bacteria are evil, that there is no such thing as a beneficent microbe. He may not know that they are vegetables organisms, not animalculae at all, and that in the food we eat are millions of a type and character to lend not only the finest flavors, but also contribute the very nourishment most required for the best maintenance of our physical life.
This is all a monstrous pity, for it shows to what a pass has the wrong teaching brought the public mind. In the name of science so many false notions are promulgated that the penalty is paid in toto by the ones most interested and concerned, not by the advertisers.
It is a question of large interest as to whether bacteriologists worthy of the name really believe in the propositions they put forth.
The great fault with our school is that is that we dont appreciate what a good thing we have got. “All true appreciation is the result of keen insight” – o.s. HAINES, M.D.
There are many old families in this country who have never known a case of diphtheria of any member in any generation. The disease is a rare one as far as the experience of persons who heed sanitation and hygiene go. They may catch “cold” when subjected to all the multifarious crimes of heating and of ventilation in places, they may suffer from acute disorders of many kinds, but the fact remains, diphtheria is not one of them.
Notwithstanding this fact, the bacteriologist may find in the mouth and throat of these very persons enough of the Klebs- Loeffler bacilli to initiate more than one attack of diphtheria. Yet there is no diphtheria, although the germ is in situ. So it is plain that something is required besides the germ of diphtheria to produce diphtheria in the human organism, in certain cases at all events.
Consequently, necessitated by this fact, we have the postulate that there must be a predisposition to diphtheria in certain cases, for it is frankly admitted by the bacteriologist that the presence of the essential bacillus for the incitement of diphtheria in many instances does not cause diphtheria.
Those who contend that the old school by the use of vaccines, etc., have thereby recognized and accepted the essential principle of Homoeopathy give every evidence that they themselves are in profound ignorance of both its principles and its practices. – EDWIN A. TAYLOR, M.D.
Pathogenesis is “the development of morbid conditions or of disease”.
Medical treatment and its corollaries have done more in modern times to secure illness than any other agent. The means used for care and cure of the sick have increased rather than abated human disorders of health.
Drugs make pathology. Remedies correct and banish it. Remedies in potency may be proved. Drugs are often proven if employed too long in single instance.
The advances made in Homoeopathy are in direct line of proving study and development. Hence the advances made in homoeopathy correspond directly with its accurate employment.
The proposition is a simple one, that Homoeopathy should be practiced according to its specific requirements. It cannot be fooled with profitably or even safely, but it will yield abundant reward to all concerned when faithfully employed.
Many years have elapsed since diphtheria antitoxin was first introduced. Of all the sera now on the market, it or its successors is still the only one highly vaunted. Others have been administered as specifics, some extensively, but the results are not desirable for publication. Just how to vanquish the bacterium and not the patient is still the problem, and the precise vocation of the bacterium is yet a secret.
It is clear that the task set himself by the laboratory worker in his declaration. ” The antisera are specific”, is exceedingly difficult of illustration, despite the great and interesting thoroughness of laboratory industry in the twentieth century. The physicist, the biologist, the chemist, each does his own work in his own way, and his conclusions approach and suggest Homoeopathy. But he does not as yet by any of his accomplishments express Homoeopathy at all clearly. He has started with an assumption, a presupposition, that involves knowledge by himself at least of processes which can hardly be determined, much less explained. It is one thing to recognize and count corpuscles, quite another to reckon with their vis a tergo. Hypotheses may be useful and logical. They are dwelt upon in the absence of facts. It is, however, well to bear in mind that hypotheses as such are abandoned when facts arrive – not before.
The therapeutic problem of today is one of safety, and it confronts the patient everywhere. It remains to determine whether it is right and expedient in the nature of medicine as a science and art to invade the human organism with the forces of any crude procedure while the utility of that procedure is not positive.
The view of disease as due primarily to bacteria established the need of immunity. When the first premise, which we reject, is entertained by the bacteriologist, he ignores all evidence to the contrary.
The immunity proposition, that everyone must have had a form of the disease in order to be safe, is assuming that individual resistive power does not exist.
The laboratory of Homoeopathy is the living human organism, and it includes in its equipment the whole man; not his body alone, but his mind and all his functions. This important laboratory differs essentially from the so-called biological laboratories that flourish by reason of arbitrary and empiric medicine.
We insist that only the laboratory of Homoeopathy, the human being itself, its own economy, is delicate enough to aid and guide the therapist in his glorious obligation to conserve human health. Rats and rabbits and guinea pigs, and even the noble dog. Cannot tell us the things that we most need to learn.
