Let us see what happens if K be antidoted. This then immediately raises the threshold of sensitivity-or destroys it completely. When this happens no factor from whatever series is able to cause any reaction. it has not the slightest effect, there is no reaction, i.e. disease: the person remains healthy. Or if he be already sick-and K be antidoted-then that patients own mechanism can de-sensitize his sensitive state.

When this happens the factors causing disease slowly but surely lose their ability to cause disease and that patient starts to get well. It does not matter what the disease is-the process and the end is the same-provided the patients has still power to react. There are some patients who reach such a low state of vitality before they are helped that they no longer have this power.

Now the whole essence of the rationale of the homoeopathic method of therapy is the antidoting of K. When you get a disease picture P-it is very real and very definite. This is what the homoeopathic school is wholly concerned with and sets about to cure. I emphasize this point because in the ordinary school it is so different.

Here a guess is made at some cause of the disease (be it backed up by all manner of tests-it must till remain a guess and it may be remarkably near the truth, but no one can be sure). Once this guess is made and only then, is treatment able to be instituted. Therapy is then aimed at, something in the nature of a guess, something that is not real or definite, and so one can easily realize how it is that ordinary medical treatment is difficult an so uncertain-and often so poor and unsatisfactory.

Let me very shortly show how antidoting K is done. The disease picture P is noted in all its aspects, physical, mental and psychological, and with as much detail as possible. Then a search or a knowledge of Materia Medica will enable one to find some drug that produces a similar picture of P the disease picture. For the sake of simplicity let me select say G in the first series of my illustration.

I do this because you will remember that this is one of this series I postulated that could not only sensitize a person but, through continued action, go on to produce a similar picture P in the victim to the picture P caused by some agent of the second series. G then must contain the vital factor K. As the homoeopathic preparation is the antidote to G itself-it must therefore antidote factor K. And once K is obliterated-none of the first series can then produce any effect on the individual and this completely stops any of the second series of agents as well.

In a nutshell Homoeopathy is the antidoting of K, no matter what the actual causative factor. Before we come to some particular cases we shall deal with in the discussion-it will be interesting to note what one of the authorities on therapeutics says in his latest book:- “If the physician gives medicine in direct form-the organism reacts by destroying the substance to that point where it may be laid upon and used.

In other words the the organism homoeopathizes the substance. The medicine of the physician heals-where it is helpful-only by reason of the homoeopathizing process. The homoeopathic doctor, through the process of potentizing the remedy, relieves the sick organism of a task for which it often no longer has the strength.”

Before we open the discussion let me stress once more how different Homoeopathy is fundamentally. It is important to appreciate that it is something different to what you are accustomed to in your talks and your discussion. You have been used to discussing some disease or other in general, that means your custom is to talk in theory. All ordinary methods of therapy are directed to some disease in general. Now this is the point I ask you to mark. The only thing that can be talked about in a general way in Homoeopathy is the matter of principles of its laws of therapy-and not disease.

There are no abstract diseases in the homoeopathic school. Things are so concrete that all discussion is directed to the question of actual therapy for some actual individual under review. The patient is under review, not his disease-so talk on a disease is rather pointless. The discussion should therefore centre round an actual case to be of any value. Homoeopathy is no Theory, but a practical thing and like all practical things can only be demonstrated in a practical way. But as we have no concrete cases before us to-night I suggest we stick to that type of thing that has so little variation, that everyone of us can have no doubt of the actual picture the patient produces-say for instance a case of burns or poisoning-or some definite skin, and I leave you to suggest these.

A. Taylor Smith