I must make it quite clear that the only difference between the homoeopathic school land ordinary medicine is the actual method of therapy. In all other aspects the two schools are exactly alike. It is only a matter of therapeutics and materia medica. The homoeopathic school has its own method of preparation of drugs and its own way of using them-and it has its own materia medica. So you see this school is simply ordinary medicine with frills. Homoeopathy is an extension to ordinary knowledge. It makes ones medical wisdom richer. It has made a very special and extensive study of drugs and has become in consequence very expert in their use. This has resulted in its own very special system of treating sick people.

You will be interested to hear the views of one of Londons leading medical men. Alec Bourne echoes probably a universal medical voice in his opening sentences of an article in a fairly recent Practitioner. He says “It is probably true that present day knowledge and application of the methods of diagnosis have outrun the capacity of the profession to carry our treatment.” I think it safe to say none of you will quarrel with this. You must all agree that modern science is A1 but that modern therapy is only C3.

As a result it is not surprising to find that there are a few of the profession actively trying to find out ways of altering and helping this state of affairs. But the vast majority are merely restless and waiting for a lead. It is not unnatural that the few have to treat warily. They run the risk of having to face all the criticism-alone. Still it is a pity that progress can be so hindered by prejudice-bias, and fear-that so many of the active few are so reluctant to extend their quest into the field of homoeopathy, for this, it is suggested, offers a rich and interesting reward, not only from a research angle but also as offering a very practical answer to the concern voiced by Dr. Bourne.

It is of course very difficult to get out of the rut-it has been worn so deeply by so many feet. And yet it is being increasingly recognized that all the gems of new discoveries lie outside the rut. This fact has lured a small number into exploring Homoeopathy. Those few who have been dissatisfied and so sought better remedies and better ways of treating the sick. There is no doctor on record who has retreated from this exploration-quite the reverse, in fact for once he has adopted this method of therapy he had never relinquished it.

When one realizes that the very aim and object of all medicine is to try and cure-it does seem strange-you will agree-that the medical world is so reluctant to explore all available avenues to this end. When it comes to knowledge of the exact and detailed properties of drugs and other agents used in the healing of the sick-the homoeopathic school has a most valuable contribution to make. So valuable indeed is this contribution, that no medical man can afford to ignore it. In fact one might go further and say that if any contribution to the curing of suffering humanity be valuable then it is expected that doctors be conversant with at least some knowledge of it. The public indeed have almost a right to expect this.

It is most unfortunate for suffering humanity that so few ever get their attention drawn of this fact. It could be said that the science of Homoeopathy is practically wholly concerned with making the actual knowledge of drug action more exact and more extensive. The methods used to acquire this knowledge are along most scientific lines. All experiments are carried out with only single drugs.

No mixtures are ever used. It may interest you to know too, that whole drugs are used and not the so-called active principles. As you all know, more and more virtue is being discovered in the wholeness of things. It would be entertaining to explore this wholeness idea into the modern views on vitamins and drugs used in ordinary therapy, but that would need another lecture.

It is easy to see however, how vital is this knowledge of specific action of drugs-and how necessary it is to know for certain what drugs can do by actual test carried out in a practical way. All findings are based on actual experiment, and carried out on the human being. In this way what we call “provings” were recorded in great detail. This gave a series of drug pictures or if you prefer it “toxic pictures” as it affected the healthy human of all ages and in all aspects.

By this I mean that these pictures not only reflect the activity of the drug on mans physical make up, but also the result of its action on his mental and psychological plane. Let me remind you how very important are these two latter legs to mans tripod. One is apt to discount this in tackling so called physical ailments. The mental and psychological upset might easily completely overshadow the physical. And, of course, all these experiments were carried out on quite healthy subjects. No reliable, let alone accurate information, can possibly be based on the reactions of a diseased man.

A. Taylor Smith