The first impressions on the plastic brain of the growing child go deepest, therefore the hardest to erase, if ever. It is for that reason medicine has been arbitrarily ruled and guided by men who from early impressions on that plastic brain, and having been taught so much “for sure” that was not so, has become self- opinionated, self-sufficient, narrow-minded, bigoted, intolerant and domineering, all those traits the children of ignorance; a state that even extends to both our judiciary and to our university presidents; they all feel that they are too learned to learn more. A sorry state to be in!.
I expect to be branded an “egotist” when I state: I have delved more deeply, and investigated more thoroughly medicine in general, and homoeopathy in particular than did even Hahnemann, but I do not mean to be egotistical in the least. What I am after is facts, as on facts alone will homoeopathy survive and thrive.
No matter how devoted we are, and should be, to both Hahnemann and homoeopathy, if we do not hunt, dig out and rectify the mistakes of Hahnemann, homoeopathy will again disappear, from the face of the earth. From a literary angle I reverently “doff my cap” and bow in reverence to the great Hahnemann, but I fear that he, like the rest of us, had a lot to learn about medicine. I find it far easier to obtain a medical diploma and a license to practice than to obtain a real medical education. The great fault lies in our inability to be able to read.
Right here let us face the true facts: Hahnemann deserves our unstinted praise and just credit for having rediscovered and firmly establishing the only therapeutic law in existence, thereby furnishing the only ray of light that has ever pierced the dense skulls of a vague medical profession. He was a genius and a mental giant in his day, at a time when little was known of either Nature, disease or medicine. But he had neither discovered nor thoroughly understood the broad scope that the system he had introduced embraced and represented, neither did his faithful followers who all followed too blindly.
That his Organon plainly reveals. How disease was caused he did not know, and states: “It would be of no benefit to know.” He did not understand the modus operandi of the Law of Cure, stating”: “The remedy produces in the system a condition more powerful than the disease.” He did not understand the essential difference between “healthy” cells and “disease” cells. If he understood just what symptoms were required to form the symptom totality he never told it, and that is the one most important part of homoeopathy. He did not understand the reason why drugs could neither diluted, potentized nor dynamized.
He seemed not to understand the origin of “vital force,” so necessary to the cure of disease; that that force emanated from the central control organization of the body and not from the attenuated drug. He apparently did not know just why the drug should in all cases be attenuated. What he did fully realize was that the highly attenuated drugs proved more effective. He was not aware that so- called contagious diseases were only contagious to those already predisposed to that disease.
On the other hand he did know a law of cure existed;that drug proving was the only logical and scientific method of drug selection for the cure of disease if we wished to bring about a safe, pleasant, speedy and permanent cure; that the more highly the remedy was attenuated the more effective it became in the cure of disease, but he had no idea why. He also left us a whole lot to be discovered; things that can neither be discovered nor explained on gross physical grounds. It is that which exists invisibly that is of the greatest importance to us; the origin and not the result. That we ignore with our crude minds.
The questions most persistently asked, and to my mind the most senseless, are: What is homoeopathy? What is wrong with homoeopathy? If homoeopathy is sound, scientific and definitely effective why is it not used to a greater extent, etc? Those questions its enemies like to propound in their senseless effort to suppress it. Now let us look squarely into those questions and see how ridiculous they really are to any intelligent mind, on subjects that should be exposed to the light of day and the destructive moths driven out.
“What is homoeopathy?” The reason that question has never been satisfactorily answered to either the laity or the allopath is due to the fact that is not an entity.
It is only a representative name for the most complete system and scientific method of medicine known, and perhaps ever will be known until Nature changes humanity. The term homoeopathy, from the Greek, omos, like, and pathos, suffering, is in itself, neither expressive of just what homoeopathy embraces and represents, nor is it enlightening on the method. That name neither represents a mere method of therapeutics nor a mere “therapeutic specialty,” as some would like to have us believe. What it does represent in all that can possibly be known of medicine and disease. It has nothing in common with modern medicine aside from anatomy, physiology and surgery.
Homoeopathy embraces and represents a knowledge of; the composition and construction of the human body, and why; the true nature and basic cause of all disease; the essential difference between healthy and so-called disease cells; the modus operandi of the Law of Cure; just how the remedy acts and its role in the cure of disease; the one and only reason for the attenuation of our remedies; why drugs, in themselves, do not cure disease, but merely act as a means to that end; why it is impossible to either dilute, potentize, dynamize or make a complete fusion of our remedies; why all our therapeutic agents should be proven on the normally healthy body,and how to select the positive symptoms from the negative, the former being the only indicators and forming the symptom totality which conforms to, and verifies, when properly applied, the Law of Similars; and just why disease suppression is dangerous and all too often fatal. Just how much of that does modern medicine know, and it claims to be scientific? Imagine!.
The above makes homoeopathy not a mere specialty, but a true system! Webster defines system as follows:
An aggregation or assemblage of objects or states united by some form of regular interaction or interdependence; a natural combination or organization of part to part, conceived as formed by a process of growth, or as due to the nature of the objects connected; an organic whole.
Can you find anything in modern medicine that fits in so neatly, even remotely?.
There is but one single factor that brings about healing, and that factor is not drug but “vital force,” gathered and distributed by the central organization of the body, a force that no drug could possibly supply. All that the drug cell can possibly do is to act as a plug in the broken line of connection between the central control organization of the body and the part affected.
Each line affected by the superior attractive power of the drug in the proving furnishes us the positive indications for the exact drug whose cell composition is identical with its own in order to repair the broken line; thus the indications conform to the requirements of true science; there is no guess work about it! Homoeopathy has to make no apology for its alleged failures, but it has to make all too many apologies for the failures of the incompetents who elect to espouse it, who either fail or refuse to investigate, study, and above all, practise it properly, and who insist or mixing it with inferior methods. Nothing will test the ability of any doctor like homoeopathy; his failure with it will show him up.
“Why, if homoeopathy is sound, scientific, and definitely effective, is it not used to a greater extent?” The answer to that is given: “The difficulty in the application of the Law of Cure.” Let us see! Here are a few of the real potent reasons why it is not used to a greater extent, predominantly among which are: a lack on the part of the would-be homoeopath to investigate, and above all, practise, it; a lack on the part of its teachers to investigate, understand and properly teach it; the jumbled format of our materia medica; the inaccuracies in our philosophies written without a knowledge of the subjects contained therein, as to just how the system operates and why.
Intelligent people clamor for it, but not for its hybrid counterpart, and that latter seems to be all that we present day homoeopaths seem to have to offer. The great complaint of the doctor seems to be: “that to be enabled to prescribe properly a remedy is tedious and time consuming.” Here is a simile: I fussed and fumed trying to replace a ribbon in my typewriter and was just about to give it up when the agent happened to drop into my office. It took him just two minutes to accomplish the feat.
Under existing conditions that complaint is justified, but not from any good reason. It is true that to be enabled to practise homoeopathy properly requires a goodly and thorough knowledge of materia medica, but that does not imply that one must attempt to memorize all the thirty pages of symptoms listed under Aconite in Allens Encyclopaedia of Pure Materia Medica, in order to be enabled to prescribe Aconite properly. To show what is mandatory to know in prescribing let us take Belladonna as an example:
Burning heat and redness, the heat leaving a burning sense in the examining fingers; head hot, body cold; eyes suffused, brilliant, pupils fully dilated; aversion to light; face scarlet red and hot; throbbing carotids; tongue and throat scarlet red and dry; great thirst especially for lemonade; pains and sweats come on suddenly, stay any length of time and go as suddenly as they came; the pains clutch and stab; sleepy but cannot sleep, twitches and jerks in the sleep; worse jar, especially of the bed.
Is that difficult to either remember or prescribe? I have never failed with Bell. when that picture was present no matter what the disease, but you try to cure a case with Bell. where none of those symptoms are present. When they are present you can safely ignore all the rest of the symptoms.
It is on the above method that I have been successfully working for over fifty-eight years, and it has enabled me to withstand the most bitter hatred and opposition from my allopathic friends, as well as to enable me to prescribe, and that successfully, for as many of fifty patients in a four-hour period, and none of that lot either died or failed to come back, some bringing new patrons. Because we do not understand how, as I in my typewriter case above mentioned, “proper prescribing is tedious and time consuming,” but that is our own fault, and is no excuse for our refusing to learn how. Put the time in fooling with the repertory into learning the symptom indications, the ones produced by the drug alone.
“Disease, its nature, its basic cause, and its cure.” If we can possibly submerge our crude beliefs, and forget all that we have been taught “for sure” that is not so, we may go ahead and learn something. But this calls for the ability to be able to read intelligently, understandingly and analytically, and above all, think. Modern medicine never has gotten anywhere because of that lack of ability among its highly learned but totally medically uneducated leaders.
Disease is simply brought about by a break in a line of communication between the central control organization of the body and the part affected, resulting in the loss of control over that part, thus piling up in the part normally healthy cells but foreign to the part, which foreign cells, for want of proper knowledge, we term pathology, that all due to the obstruction of the flow of “vital energy” to keep the part free of those foreign cells.
That break in the line of connection is the real cause of disease. Then the basic cause of all disease is merely the result of shock. No matter what the exciting cause may be, whether mental, physical, mechanical or chemical, if it does not or cannot produce shock, there will be no disease. Shock is the result of impact that breaks the line of communication between the central control organization of the body and the part affected.
Health can only be restored and maintained by repairing, and keeping in repair those lines of communication, and since each line of communication is composed of its own individual class of basic cells, the remedy for that particular lines repair must be composed exactly of similar cells in exact counterpart. Thus our proper slogan is, Likes must be replaced by likes; not Likes are, or may be, cured by likes. Remedies do not cure, they simply replace.
While the real basic cure in all cases is immediate and permanent, it quite often takes Nature some time to remove all the accumulated foreign cells, which makes the cure at times appear extremely slow, while we in our ignorance believe the remedy to be slow acting. That exposes the folly of the time and vast amount of funds expended and wasted in research and the study of end products in the futile effort to attempt to find the nature and basic cause of disease. While drug proving amply displaces the questionable reliability of physical diagnosis which has proven over fifty per cent wrong by actual test.
“Drug proving.” Here is the one feature, thanks to Hahnemann, that carries homoeopathy into the realm of real science by giving it a fact that can be proven and demonstrated at will. It marks the progress of homoeopathy; its discontinuance the decline of homoeopathy. Drug proving is no childs play, it is the task of a real thinker, a close observer, and an acute analyst. That task has never been carried out in an intelligent manner, not even by Hahnemann.
It is not generally known, if at all, that no drug can be properly proven by a single prover, no matter how intelligent that prover may be, since each proving drug gives us a dual set of symptoms, the one positive, fixed and permanent, that appear in each and every prover of that drug, and which constitutes the real symptom totality; the other set negative and useless as indicators, since they vary with the individual prover, and we are dealing with a fixed law and must conform to all the requirements of that law if we are to be successful.
For a want of that understanding the student becomes confused and throws up his hands, and homoeopathy loses a good prospect.
A word on the proving of complex remedies, taking Hepar as an example. The results are not due to the combined elements, but to prover of a third agent drawn to the two elements by the attractive power of those two elements; the attracted power being stronger than the other two gives a different set of symptoms in the proving entirely different from those in their separate provings, yet to show that the fusion of the two is not complete we note symptoms cropping out characteristic of the two component elements of the compound drug. It is impossible to form a complete fusion of any two or more drugs since in order to accomplish that the basic cells composing each drug would have to be opened and the contents let out; if that could be done all would become chaos and no objects could possibly be formed.
“Symptom totality.” Just what does that mean? Does it mean that if we prescribe, say Aconite, correctly that all the thirty pages of symptoms registered in Allens Encyclopaedia of Pure Materia Medica should be included? If you, as an expert, and I as a novice collect two separate sets of symptoms from the same case, unknown to each other, each set different, and indicating different remedies, both have strictly conformed to the requirements of the Law, according to our own light, and according to that yardstick, both must be right, but are they? Rather does not the symptom totality consist of that little fixed coterie of symptoms that occurs in and on each and every prover of that drug?
If not, just how are we going to explain logically and intelligently our reasons for operating under any Law that is fixed? Natures laws never change, but each prover of the same remedy gives us a changed set of symptoms in their entirety, and so does the same prover under different conditions, but the symptoms produced directly by the proving drug never change under any condition, or we could not work intelligently under any law. Therefore let us forget “the most similar remedy” and confine ourselves to the accurately indicated remedy that does and must confine itself to the symptoms brought out directly and solely by the proving drug alone on each and every prover of that drug, and which forms the only true drug picture that is of any value in prescribing.
Odd symptoms may point in the direction of a remedy, but if the totality does not include the full drug picture the remedy will not be necessarily indicated, nor success assured.
“Attenuation.” It is imperative that all our remedies be attenuated, and that for only one reason, to free the cohesion of their component cells in order that they may be readily taken up and placed by the assimilative powers and be the more readily built into the parts needing them for repairs of the broken lines of connection between the central control organization of the body and the part affected, and not to free any energy as we have been so erroneously taught and made to believe.
Crude drugging and crass ignorance are inseparable twins! If one stops to realize that since it is impossible to break open the basic cells composing all objects, you will fully realize that it is humanly impossible to either dilute, potentize, dynamize our drugs or to make a complete fusion of the same; all that can possibly be done to them is to break up their formation by freeing their component cells.
Nothing will test the ability of any doctor like homoeopathy; the less his ability the more faults he will find in it, the more limitation, and the more he will incline to the “faultless” modern medicine, which apparently fits his inability more perfectly. Modern medicine has now carried on nearly 3000 years, with no lack of research, funds, experimentation and investigation, and is today just about where it started from in its ability to cure disease, but possibly a little more refinedly destructive.
It knows no more about Nature, and the nature, cause and cure of disease than it ever did. It has a peculiar brand of “science” strictly its own. It speaks of scientific experiment. If science means I know, then why the experiment? There is such a thing as intelligent experiment, but even that is unknown in modern medicine. Pathological prescribing is born of ignorance of the true facts. It is that that brings out the pathology that concerns us and the cure, and it is the cure that should concern us most.
Now let us get down to cold facts: Homoeopathy can never succeed, prosper and spread until it owns and controls its own colleges and experimental stations where it can properly and scientifically prove drugs and evaluate the results of those provings and sift the positive from the negative symptoms; where the teachers are properly trained for their work. Homoeopathy needs of all things, A Drug Provers Union.
In ignoring the concentration on drug proving it gives modern medicine good and sufficient grounds for branding homoeopathy as passe, and proclaiming it as “out of step with the times.” Modern medicine is at least trying to progress according to its light, but we are content to sit back and rest on the fruits of those who have gone on. The more cures we can make the more patients we will have, but no homoeopath can make cures without proper remedies. All the real research homoeopathy really needs is drug proving! Prove drugs and practise homoeopathy strictly and watch it grow! We preach homoeopathy to the laity and when the laity asks for it we have no homoeopathy to offer, and the most that is now offered is hybrid.
Allow me once again to repeat good old Boenninghausen:.
Ever more glorious will homoeopathy unfold its banner; ever more brightly will it beam in the firmament of science; ever more full of curative virtue she will show her wonderful powers if she is not decked in any false finery or disfigured with any borrowed attire or ornaments. It positively will not mix with modern medicine. Then “If I am right your grace impart still in the right to stay; if I am wrong who of you will teach my heart to find that better way?”.