THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORTHODOX AND THE HOMOEOPATHIC DIAGNOSTIC VIEWPOINTS AND METHODS OF TREATMENT


THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORTHODOX AND THE HOMOEOPATHIC DIAGNOSTIC VIEWPOINTS AND METHODS OF TREATMENT. 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.


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.”.

George W. Mackenzie