In considering the “anti- allergic therapy” of bronchial asthma, Hugo Habicher (American Medicine, June 1925, p. 366) gives it as based on the theory that “in the great majority of cases” the asthmatic attack is “caused by unknown miasmae” and that “such patients should be taken to regions which are free or practically free from miasmae” or “should be treated by a non-specific anti-allergic therapy.” In Frankfurt, the chemotherapeutics of Ehrlich has lost its original slogan of parasitotropism and has more regard for the role of the host. With Morgenroth, the host counts more than the parasite, as it did with Hahnemann.
In staid old Boston, Paul D. White (Journal American Medical Association July 11, 1925, p. 82) speaks of the importance of the “study of symptoms,” of “idiosyncrasy to drugs,” of the importance of “the individual in therapy,” of “the average dose, pharmacologic action in animals and the usual course in man” as helpful guideposts, but “very crude ones,” just what Hahnemann said, only a great deal better.
“We must establish,” says White, “in the future more accurate directions than we have at present when we have to treat a particular person with a certain family history, a certain past history, and present constitutional peculiarities,” just what Hahnemann felt before he gave his famous directions for the practice of homoeopathy. Hahnemann could afford to be dogmatic. He had something to be dogmatic about.
Hahnemann was independent in intellect. Hahnemann was moral beyond the “morals” of his detractors. He sought the good, the principle that purifies, as well as the true, the principle that illumines. He “sought truth earnestly and found it.” He himself wrote this in English. He sought goodness. He followed his father, who had the soundest concepts of what is good and worthy of man, who in the very words of Hahnemann, “hatte die gesundesten Begriffe von dem was gut and des Menschen wurdig genannt werden kann”.
Hahnemann wrote as clear a German as Luther, who made modern German, and as beautiful a German as Goethe, who wrote the finest modern German, wrote as compelling a German as Schopenhauer, who wrote the most philosophic, and as Lassalle, who wrote the most eloquent German ; wrote as soberly as Kant, only more clearly and more elegantly, and therefore more understandingly. Only a distorted mind can discover in Hahnemanns style the style of a revival preacher.
Hahnemanns Organon is not “a mere seed with inherent flaws.” It is a complete method, practiced and practicable. All the improvements in modern medicine carry us back to Hahnemann and his experiments that led and followed his conception of homoeopathy, his organon of curative medicine. Science says, Here is the thing ; take it or leave it. Homoeopathy says : Here am I ; take me or leave me. Homoeopathy has nothing to do with ignorant speculators whose science consists in putting forth, not science, not homoeopathy, but merely their own unprovable, improbable speculations.
Hahnemann will be honored ; Hahnemanns Organon of curative medicine will be practiced ; homoeopathy on the basis of symptom- similarity will be in medical vogue. Consciously and unconsciously, Hahnemanns homoeopathy is finding acceptance throughout the whole medical world.-JAMES KRAUSS, M.D., F.A.C.S., Hahnemann and Hahnemanns Organon of Medicine, in sixth edition of Hahnemanns Organon, Boericke & Tafel, Philadelphia, 1922.
One day one the truths enunciated by Hahnemann and verified by his followers are being substantiated by our allopathic friends. It is well.-E.A. TAYLOR, M.D.
Hahnemann, born 1755, came to know that the giving of strong drugs to cure the sick, without any low to guide in their selection, was worse than useless ; it was exceeding dangerous and positively harmful. RUSSEL C. MARKHAM, M.D.
Does Nature cure ? Well, that depends. It depends on many things, including what is cured. It would be hard indeed to be forced to the confession that physicians do not in spite of nature sometimes cure. There are many cases where the best of fresh air and good food and even good nursing fail of themselves to restore health, good accessories to medicine thought they are.
There are, alas ! many cases where medicine generously given also fails to cure. Nature has no proper to overcome the deleterious effects of too much inappropriate medicine. Neither has Nature power to carry along successfully toward a cure a case that does not receive the proper remedy at the proper time under proper conditions. Granted that she does get a cure after these considerations are met, is it Nature that has cured ? Surely, not unassisted. She could do nothing in the circumstances until a certain specific help was provided for her activity.
When the statement, “Nature cures,” is made it ought to be shown what was cured. Also whether Nature herself unhindered by unfavorable conditions accomplished the beneficent feat. There is danger in attributing to Nature what she never would have done without artificial aid.
Nature has accomplished a very valuable part or role when her subject has been made to express in his illness her needs for him. That expression of fine symptomatology which so often indicates both diagnosis and remedy has highest values. But all alone best that Nature can do is to transfer a disorder to another locality. The “snuffles” of infancy without the homoeopathic remedy is succeeded by ear disturbances in many cases, which in turn may be followed by other disorders and so on, the sequence varying according to the particular case.
Homoeopathy being but in its infancy, it wants men of independent courage, who can stand upon their own feet, regardless of outside organization, and fearless of the tyranny of numbers.-T. SKINNER, M.D.
When we hear patients saying, “Our doctor practices both” (allopathy and homoeopathy) we know that the physician referred to is either false to himself and to his patients, or ignorant of the law of cure.-C.H. LAWTON. M.D.
While it is said that dominant medicine is slowly discovering homoeopathy, which is true-true in more senses than one-its truth is not sufficiently embracing to provide good result. It is quite clear that enormous dosage has largely disappeared, and concentrated drug in small quantities are popularly dispersed, but the fact remains that these in no. sense approach the homoeopathic ideal in either form, content, or appropriateness. This merely in consideration of small versus large doses. It is of course a superficial note entirely, but it must be remembered that the popular conception of homoeopathy is that it is a system of taking little sugar pills that are tasteless, and so, on that account, practically harmless.
But it is in further, respect that dominant medicine is said to approach homoeopathy. It has been affirmed even by many homoeopaths that the newest method of administration, say of serum therapy, simulate or duplicate homoeopathy in both principle and effect. This is hardly possible in any sense, since none of these newer methods reckon with the investigation properly conducted of their effect on the healthy human being. the serums and vaccines are improperly administered, have a purely hypothetical raison detre, and are responsible for innumerable fatalities.
It cannot be too often repeated that homoeopathy has as its initial requirement the proving of its material medica on the healthy human being through the channels of alimentation, and never through the blood circulation, which latter method is in itself an assault on the defences of the body.
Occasionally a young doctor has not the courage of his common sense. Having learned some rules in medicine and medical practice he confidently depends on them at the expense of his better judgment in many an instance if he could use that judgment. It takes him a long while to see the individual case as it is, the if he ever sees it. And it takes him still longer to discern the individual patient as well as the case.
Rules are often non-applicable to a case. It may be one that is outside the rule area. Typical cases, so-called, are common. They need medical discernment as well as medical skill. They are not helped as they should be by academic means alone, demanding as they do a contact quite above and beyond the routine order. Rules will answer for a starting point of estimate, but not as defining particular need. This must be administered on a higher and more accurate determination.
But this technique presupposes an advanced equipment in skill and understanding. It is rare to find it in the young practician. He is not qualified by years and the nature of youth to go at the problem in other than a mood of the mechanical. Two and two made four in its narrow sense. That the problem offers any deeper complexity is overlooked entirely. For this reason surgery appeals as most definite.
Yet this is not invariably the case. Particular or special aptitude or talent for the healing art may provide all the good medical reasoning that is indispensable for the occasion.
