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.”.
