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.
