This subject was selected because it was felt that the time was ripe for the general acceptance of the truth regarding the cause and cure of disease.
Nothing happens by mere chance. We see the operation of law everywhere, otherwise there would be chaos. Look up any work in physics and you will find references to many physical and natural laws; for instance, Amperes laws, Aragos law, Boyles law, Coulombs law of electric charges, Daltons law, Donders law, DuFarys law, Dulongs law and Petits law, Faradays law, Fechners law, Fermats law, Ferrels law of gyration. Foules law, Froudes law, Galtons anticyclonic law, Haeckels law, Henrys law, Hess law, Joules law, Jurins law, Kelvins law, Keplers law, law of constant angles, law of constant proportion, law of definite proportions, law of octaves, Newtons law of gravitation, Newtons law of motion, Ohms law, Voltas law, Webers law, Watts law, and numerous others. Hahnemann refers to the law of cure in section 25 of the Organon of Medicine (6th edition): ” . . . and that all medicine cure, without exception, those diseases whose symptoms most nearly resemble their own, and leave none of them uncured.:.
In section 26 he continues:.
“This depends on the following Homoeopathic law of nature which was sometimes, indeed, vaguely surmised but not hitherto fully recognized, and to which is due every real cure that has ever taken place.”.
Orthodox medicine ignores any law of cause or of cure. The chaotic way they had looked upon disease was pointed out by Hahnemann on page 15 of the Organon when he observed that allopathy: presupposes the existence sometimes of excess of blood (plethora-which is never present), sometimes of morbid matters and acridities; hence it taps off the lifes blood and exerts itself either to clear away the imaginary disease matter or to conduct it elsewhere (by emetics, purgatives, sialogogues, diaphoretics, diuretics, drawing plasters, setons, issues, etc.), in the vain belief that the disease will thereby be weakened and materially eradicated; in place of which the patients sufferings are thereby increased, and by such other painful appliances the forces and nutritious juices indispensable to the curative process are abstracted from the organism.”.
The average orthodox physician of today practices many of these centuries old methods which Hahnemann condemned.
Diseases are not due to any of the suppositions of the orthodox school, neither are they due to maladjustment of the spine and least of all to those purely spiritual errors the Christian Scientists would have us believe.
Excluding accidental injuries and faulty regimen the cause of disease is fundamentally an infection or combination of infections The cause of tumors, benign and malignant, is as yet doubtful. It is quite possible that they will eventually be found to be of bacterial origin. aggravated too often by misapplied treatment.
Hahnemann on pages 51, 52, and 53 of the Organon of Medicine points out how the orthodox profession treated diseases: “… most diseases in a circuitous manner like the diseased vital force when left to itself and thus in an indirect manner, by means of stronger heterogeneous irritants applied to organs remote from the seat of disease, and totally dissimilar to the affected tissues . . . by means of diaphoretic and diuretic remedies, blood lettings, setons and issued, but chiefly by irritant drugs to cause evacuation of the alimentary canal, sometimes upwards by means of emetics, sometimes (and this was the favorite plan) downwards by means of purgatives, which were termed aperient and dissolvent remedies.”.
The treatment of disease, to be successful, must follow a definite law. Many of the homoeopathic school have argued that since the old school object to the word homoeopathy, it might be called by some other name. If there must be an appeasement, why not call it the law of desensitization.
Homoeopathy by any other name is just as effectual.
After the law of cure has been finally recognized perhaps the medical profession may become liberal enough to give the credit to its discoverer to whom it belongs.
The teaching of the orthodox school is that diseases are limited to that secondarily involved part that cries out the loudest. They look upon each secondary manifestation of a single fundamental infection as a separate disease. Hahnemann refers to the numerous secondary manifestations of a single fundamental disease in Section 80 when referring to psora (chronic pyogenic focal infection): the producer of all the other numerous, I may say innumerable, forms of disease etc.”.
He then proceeds to list some of them: “…nervous debility, hysteria, hypochondriasis, mania, melancholia, imbecility, madness, epilepsy and convulsions of all sorts, softening of the bones (rachitis), scoliosis and kyphosis, caries, cancer, fungus haematodes, haemorrhage from the stomach, nose, lungs, bladder and womb, of asthma and ulceration of the lungs, of impotence and barrenness, of megrim, deafness, cataract, amaurosis, urinary calculus, paralysis, defects of the senses and pains of thousands of kinds, etc., figure in systematic works on pathology as peculiar, independent diseases.”.
Hahnemann refers also to the polyphase character of the single fundamental infection, psora, in Section 81 as follows:.
“The fact that this extremely ancient infecting agent has gradually passed, in some hundreds of generations, through many millions of human organisms and has thus attained an incredible development, renders it in some measure conceivable how it can now display such innumerable morbid forms in the great family of mankind, particularly when we consider what a number of circumstances contribute to the production of these great varieties of chronic diseases (secondary symptoms of psora), besides the indescribable diversity of men in respect of their congenital corporeal constitutions, so that it is no wonder if such a variety of injurious agencies acting from within and from without and sometimes continually, on such a variety of organisms permeated with the psoric miasm, should produce an innumerable variety of defects, injuries, derangements and sufferings, which have hitherto been treated of in the old pathological works, under a number of special names, as diseases of an independent character.”.
Even to this day the school physician and many of our own school, look upon a sick individual as one suffering for instance, from a heart disease. He may go so far as to narrow the diagnosis down to coronary disease. The diagnosis centers in this one manifestation of the fundamental (primary) infection. The cardiologist is able with the diagnostic aids at his disposal to tell us a lot about the presence of a heart condition, but fails to look for the underlying cause. His diagnostic viewpoint covers but a very narrow field. He rarely thinks of any other part of the body. Where one does not look, he naturally finds nothing.
Another patient with the same precordial distress seeks the stomach specialist who feels just as sure that the patients digestive apparatus is the sole cause of his trouble. Like the cardiologist he ignores other parts. The real homoeopath, on the other hand, looks upon the symptoms of the patient as nothing other than the secondary manifestation of a primary (fundamental) infection.
He does not make the mistake of paying undue attention to any single part but studies the case as a whole. Any physician, be he specialist or general practitioner, who in the study of his patient omits to take into account the entire clinical picture or who fails to look for the fundamental infection responsible for the patients ailments is unable to effect a lasting cure.
Physicians of the orthodox school consider the diagnosis as the important desideratum upon which to base a prescription. They looked with disfavor upon the homoeopathic physician whom they accuse of ignoring the diagnosis in favor of symptom matching as the most important guide to treatment. This looks bad for the homoeopath from the viewpoint of the orthodox school. Let us see whether or not this criticism is well founded.
Though the orthodox school has not yet accepted the homoeopathic (desensitization) principle, they are drifting toward it. Eventually, they must accept it in spite of their present disinclination.
As was said earlier in Hahnemanns behalf, let credit …
go to whom it belongs. So too must we give credit to the great scientists of the orthodox school. They have given us our present day pathology, a necessary branch of medical science. They have contributed much to the diagnosis of disease so far as it pertains to the secondary manifestation of fundamental infection. Hahnemann pays the medical profession of the old school a well deserved compliment in the third paragraph of his introduction to the Organon of Medicine, as follows:.
“Without disparaging the services which many physicians have rendered to the sciences auxiliary to medicine, to natural philosophy and chemistry, to natural history in its various branches, and to that of man in particular, to anthropology, physiology and anatomy, etc.”.
A few decades ago the medical profession was relatively weak in the diagnosis of disease. At no time has the homoeopathic physician been so much in need of an exact diagnosis as the orthodox in order to prescribe the suitable remedy.
The diagnosis of the orthodox school pertains to the deviations from the normal anatomy, the result of a fundamental disease. It should be borne in mind that these deviations are not the disease itself, but merely the secondary manifestation of the fundamental infection. The homoeopathic physician, on the other hand, prescribes for the fundamental infection Hahnemann referred to fundamental infections in Section 81, 148, footnote on page 166 of the Organon and also on pages 12, 33, 42, and 97 of Chronic Diseases. Authorities today refer to the primary infection and in doing so he helps not only the secondary manifestations but also the fundamental infection and too prevents other ailments on their way to become manifest.
The importance of the etiologic diagnosis cannot be stressed too strongly. Take a single illustration, diphtheria. If a physician, homoeopathic or otherwise, cannot diagnose diphtheria or fails, in a questionable case, to have a diagnostic smear made, he cannot see the need for antitoxin, when a life may be lost, perhaps lives of others who have been exposed.
Someone may claim that the use of diphtheria antitoxin is not homoeopathic. It is specific treatment, donated by the animal who was first made immune. Hahnemann accepts the principle of active immunization as discovered by Jenner. Because of the great similarity of cow-pox to small pox, Hahnemann tells of the ameliorating effect of cow-pox upon the patient suffering from small-pox in Section 46, page 130 of the Organon of Medicine:.
“Smallpox coming on after vaccination, as well on account of its greater strength as its great similarity, at once removes entirely the cow-pox homoeopathically, and does not permit it to come to maturity; but, on the other hand, the cow-pox when near maturity does, on account of its great similarity, homoeopathically diminish very much the supervening smallpox and make it much milder, as Muhry and many others testify.”.
He accepts too the principle of immunity against scarlet fever with Belladonna and may I add, my own observation of the prevention of the more profound manifestations of lethargic encephalitis by the early administration of Gelsemium.
There are three conditions that can produce the Argyll-Robertson pupil, 1. Metalues (parasyphilis); 2. Lethargic encephalitis; 3. Gelsemium.
Though we are truly grateful for all the orthodox school has contributed to scientific medicine, it is till in the dark when it comes to medical prescribing. However, there are indications of an approach to scientific medicine when they prescribe desensitizing doses of specific antigens. Quoting from Warren T. Vaughan: (Pages 361 and 362 of his book on Allergy):.
In general, the following rules hold:
1. If the symptoms become worse following an injection, the next dose should be much smaller, and possibly the interval between doses should be increased.
3. If the patient feels better, keep the dose the same and try to lengthen the time between injections.
5. Remember that better results are usually obtained with small doses, even very small ones, than with large ones.
6. The occurrence of a focal reaction may be considered a good sign, indicating that the organism in the vaccine is the right pathogen, but once a focal reaction has been obtained, drop the dose to one insufficient to give reaction, for best results.
This is a fair start which will eventually lead to the acceptance of the principle of homoeopathy by the orthodox school. Let us do everything possible to further its progress. At the present time the principle of allergy (the cause of chronic diseases) in a limited way is accepted and too the principle of desensitization. Sooner or later the medical world will come to realize that most chronic diseases are due to the sensitization of the body cells to bacterial antigens. Hahnemann accepted this truth in substance if not in the same words.
Josef Meller of Vienna recognizes the principle of sensitization as it applies to latent tuberculosis as the fundamental cause of secondary inflammatory diseases of the eye. His discovery of the “fourth dimensional” manifestation (secondary eye manifestations) is the best evidence of the recent trend toward homoeopathy. He was the first to prove experimentally the law of specific sensitization as Hahnemann describes it in Section 80 and elsewhere. Furthermore, Meller discovered the law of specific desensitization when he used the identical in infinites-similarly small doses as a form of treatment for this particular form of hypersensitiveness.
Recalling the importance of the diagnosis as proclaimed by representatives of the orthodox school; it was conceded above in the citation of the diphtheria case. Let us see where the diagnosis as understood by the orthodox school falls down as a guide to treatment. Orthodox medicine does not take into consideration the fundamental infection. It recognizes the importance of the Wassermann test made upon patients about to undergo an operation. This is commendable so far as it goes.
As for the Wassermann test, it should not be accepted as final. It is too crude a method for the determination of the presence of latent syphilis. For this purpose the allergic skin test is more desirable.
Though this test is made primarily for the purpose of diagnosis, the dilute syphilitic antigen acts beneficially in those cases which show a positive reaction. The differential blood count when positive is just as valuable in establishing the diagnosis of chronic pyogenic focal infection (psora).
Unless the physician makes the complete diagnosis, the one that comprehends all fundamental and contributing factors, he is not in a position to treat the patient scientifically according to natural law, that of desensitization. How can one overlook all these factors and yet prate about the importance of diagnosis as the essential guide to treatment. A prescription based upon an incomplete diagnosis is as lopsided as the diagnosis. It is an easy way for the easy going doctor, but: What about the patient?.
It sounds convincing for the old school man to say that a prescription ought to be based upon the diagnosis of the patients disease. As a homoeopath I agree with him about the importance of the diagnosis but disagree as to the meaning of the word “diagnosis”. The old school physician accepts the diagnosis in a restricted sense limiting it to pathological changes in one or a few parts of the organism. He recognizes but a fragment of the whole disease. On the other hand, my understanding of diagnosis is the recognition of the fundamental infection together with its many secondary manifestations.
Even the pathologist is not infallible in his diagnosis in spite of his having the viscera at hand for macroscopic and microscopic study.
The specialist, it would seem, should be less susceptible to error of diagnosis than the general doctor. On the contrary, he is frequently in error.
I can speak more authoritatively of the mistakes made by otologists. Three men will not infrequently give three different opinions as to the character of the deafness in a given case. one claims the deafness is of the conductive form; a second feels just as certainly that it is of the perceptive form while a third contends that it is a combination of the two, that is, a mixed form of deafness.
Two equally reputable otologists may agree that the deafness is of the conductive form and yet disagree as to whether it is one of middle ear catarrh or otosclerosis. Two others may agree that the deafness is of the perceptive form yet disagree as to whether the lesion is in the eighth nerve or the inner ear.
When it comes to the etiologic factors behind the deafness, there are frequent disagreements, one otologist claims that it is due to an infection, another, that it is due to some non- bacterial toxemia. If five different otologists examine a given case, there is likely to be at least four different opinions as to the etiology, site of the lesion and its character.
When it comes to the prognosis, again there is a disagreement and the same can be said of the treatment. The practice of medicine scientifically accepts but one definite type of lesion due to one definite cause amenable to but one definite form of treatment and recurrences are preventable by just as definite prophylaxis. The fact should not be lost sight of that in any case of progressive deafness the ear is not the only organ affected nor is it the only part of the anatomy that needs consideration in its treatment.
The differences of opinion in a given case of deafness regarding the diagnosis, of the location and character of the lesion, its pathology, etiology and treatment is just as true of diseases of other parts of the body.
There is another symptom quite as important as deafness found in diseases of the ear about which there occurs an unhealthy disagreement between otologists concerning the etiology, diagnosis and treatment, namely, vertigo (dizziness).
In a given case one otologist pronounces the vertigo as due to a disturbance in the vestibular branch of the acoustic (eight) nerve; another claims that it is due to a disease of the brain stem; still another contends that it is of intralabyrinthine origin. All three cannot be right. Ask the same experts: What about the etiology? Again, they will differ widely, so too, will they disagree as to the form of treatment indicated. I have seen two experts disagree as to which of the two ears was involved.
From these few illustrations and hundreds of others that could be cited, it is plain to see that the treatment of diseases should be directed toward the fundamental disease rather than limit it to a single, secondary manifestation. Some of the best known otologists with the aid of x-ray and clinical laboratory studies and their own diagnostic appliances including the magnifying otoscope and tuning forks, frequently fall down in the diagnosis. What about treatment based upon a mistaken diagnosis? How is it possible for a patient to be cured if five or six otologists render as many different opinions as to the etiology and diagnosis? Which of the five is right? Can it be that all are mistaken? What is true of otology is true of all the other specialities.
I wish Dr. Wm. Griggs of Philadelphia were here to tell of his experience recently at the hands of an outstanding expert in urology, how a series of mistakes were made in determining the etiology, pathology, diagnosis and treatment. As a result, the patient was made seriously worse which could not have occurred under purely homoeopathic treatment.
A few words as to my own case: For three months I suffered from a corneal ulcer involving the right eye. As one of fifteen trustees of the Eye Section of the Philadelphia County Medical Society, I came in contact with the other trustees once a month at dinner. They all recognized that something was wrong by the way I shielded my eyes from the glare of nearby lights. They all appeared interested. There were, at least, seven different opinions as to the cause and cure of the ailment. I tried out a few of the suggestions offered by my old school friends, none of whom suggested any internal medication.
At a second meeting a few of these experts (the best in Philadelphia) started to “kid me”. One or two others said, “You cant do much for those d- ulcers.” When the third monthly meeting was reached and the ulcer has not improved, one of the group, an excellent ophthalmologist and intimate friend, begged me to let him treat the eye. He promised to cure the ulcer within two weeks. He was told to go ahead. Daily visits were made to his office. On each occasion he spent considerable time studying the eye. After the third visit, he began to use foreign protein. I cautioned him against the possibility of protein sensitization (allergy). He insisted it would not happen. At the end of two weeks, I had been sensitized and without any appreciable improvement. Homoeopathic remedies, plus attention to a diabetic factor, did the trick.
A failure had to be scored against those who directed their attention toward a single secondary manifestation instead of the fundamental disease.
1. There is no disease that is strictly local.
2. What appears to be a local disease is but the peak, (the first appearing secondary) manifestation of a fundamental infection.
3. Excepting those disturbances in health due to faulty living and the abuse of drugs, diseases acute and chronic are due to infection in which no part of the body is exempt from its noxious influence.