There is but one avenue, in reality, for any progress – the broad and straight avenue of TRUTH; board because there is always room for everybody and straight because it takes us directly to where we want to go without loss of time or effort. We, as homoeopathic physicians, need simply to pursue our course along this wide thoroughfare. The only thing that separates individuals, groups and nations, is the lack of clear vision to guide them to the true path. Warts, like surgical operations, are in rare instances unfortunately necessary, but both operations and warts could many times be avoided were we constantly imbued with the desire to seek the true way.
At times individuals and even large groups are so far away from the truth that they cannot seem to reach it, though the sign posts that point in the right direction are near at hand. There is one certain test that tells us whether a thing is good or not, and that is: does it work? If it does, then it conforms to truth; but, strange to say, some do not even want to make this test. Homoeopathy has been so tested for over 150 years, and all those practising the art know her by her abundant fruit.
Homoeopathy can progress by not being hampered by forces from without. We can make progress by being free. America needs to add another freedom to the four freedoms enunciated by our late President Roosevelt – Freedom to Practise Medicine According to Ones Own Proved and Established Laws and Principles. Our country has progressed and become great by free enterprise, free competition. In a future era when many things will have been ironed out, competition will have had its day, and then the era of cooperation should begin.
But for the present when everything is still on trial, when many re-adjustments are to take place, this stage of competition is essential. Our people, and all peoples throughout the world, need helpful knowledge, need truth from whatever source that may come, and, more than anything else, they need health. With all our material progress, with all our modern inventions, I dare say there are more sick people now seeking restoration to health and never finding it than ever before in the history of the human race. There are today in the United States over 1,700,000 cases of cancer. In 1945, 177,464 died of the disease. In the same year 424,328 died of disease of the heart.
Competition in medicine would make for medical progress all around, as it does in other fields. Thus the health of the nation would at once take an upward step. However, in the medical world there is no such thing as competition; minorities have no voice at all in the administration of city, state or national medical affairs.
Be that as it may, we are not compelled to hide our lamp under a bushel. We must know, ourselves, and be prepared to show to the world, that our principles have received scientific laboratory corroboration, not by one man alone, but by many scientists throughout the world. Dr. William W. Young of Philadelphia, writing for the Journal of the American Institute of Homoeopathy for November, 1944, in an article entitled., “The Role of the conditioned Reflex in Drug Pathogenesis”, summarizes 200 years of research work and shows us how one homoeopathic tenet after another has been verified by innumerable experiments carried out on human beings as well as on animals.
Dr. Young says: “The material I bring to you today is not the contribution of any single one man, but the culmination of centuries of labor, although the most recent names associated with the work are Sherrington, Verworm, Metalnikoff, Magnus, Speransky and Pavlov. These men represent the ultimate in scientific research.” In another article by the same author appearing in the aforementioned Journal for May, 1942, we read as follows: “In a report to the Pennsylvania State Society entitled, “The Homoeopathic Trend in Modern Medical Thought, the Committee on Research made clear one thing, if nothing else, and that was that, while we have done nothing, independent research has presented us with an ever increasing amount of pro-homoeopathic protocols.”
Let me quote another article, by Dr. W. Schweisheimer, entitled, “Samuel Hahnemann, Founder of Homoeopathy”, from the Medical Record of June, 1944, a non- homoeopathic publication: “Modern conception does much more justice to Hahnemann. We can scarcely now estimate the force of character and of courage which was implied in his abandoning the common lines of medicine and braving the wrath of intolerant confreres. With his law of similars and his minute doses, not only Homoeopaths claim that Hahnemann anticipated the principle of vaccination, but even a convinced allopath like Emil von Behring has stated that the use of vaccines is basically a homoeopathic method.
And it is impossible to forget the words of Osler: No individual has done more good the medical profession than Samuel Hahnemann.” Yes, I repeat it: Dr. William Osler, the dean, we may say of orthodox medicine, made this statement: “No individual has done more good to the medical profession than Samuel Hahnemann”. If any of your colleagues on the other side of the fence should scoff at your method of treatment, let them know what one of their own leaders has said in regard to Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of Homoeopathy.
When vital issues are at stake involving the making of important decisions, our statesmen often consult with the American people, because of their faith in the latters good judgment. It behooves us to do likewise. Let us present our case to the great American People, through the Press, the Radio, Magazines and any other means. I have been struck with the great interest shown by most patients in our new periodical, The Layman Speaks. They will read it while waiting and many take the subscription blanks close at hand. Many seem to find it in material they had been looking for a long time.
Every article in this little magazine has so far been really splendid, clear,, instructive. Some of these articles should be reprinted in pamphlet form and distributed to all our patients and to the members of homoeopathic laymens leagues and their friends. One such article in particular should be read by as many people as possible, because it deals with the problem of cancer, and because it illustrates some of our homoeopathic principles, thus showing show and why our cures are performed. The article appeared anonymously in the first issue of The Layman Speaks for October 1947.
For the benefit of any one here who may not be familiar with our point of view on cancer, and on disease in general for that matter, I am going to give you the essence of the article, as follows: Two experts on cancer, both members of the staff of Memorial Hospital in New York issues a recommendation to the doctors to take any possible cancer symptoms seriously; a general practitioner, they urged, having any suspicion of possible cancer should lose no time in referring the patient to an expert. The treatment of cancer, the recommendation continued, is as much an emergency as a fracture, and much more important to the patients life. (This implied that most types, if seen early enough, can be cured by means of surgery, X-ray or radium).
The article continues: This is the sort of publicity put before the layman on what appears to be the highest authority. Now, let us consider the problem. If the tumor has started and is malignant, the situation is serious. By that time there has been what Homoeopathy calls an ultimation. That means that a long course of disorder within the patient has reached its last form. In case of an ultimation, the individual characteristic of the patient tend to submerge themselves under the disease. (That is, all the signs and symptoms that pointed to the remedy exactly suited to the patient as a whole, are covered up and, as it were, hushed up by the new symptoms produced by the cancer tumor itself. These cancer symptoms are practically alike in every patient, and to prescribe on them is utterly futile, as far as cure is concerned.
It is as if we attempted to revive a withering flower by pouring water on it instead of on the soil surrounding the roots of the plant). Thus, the search by Homoeopathy for the constitutional remedy is more difficult. (We cannot reach the roots of the patient, as it were, to supply them with that life-giving something that the proper remedy for him contains. The patient very rarely recalls his former symptoms accurately enough to suggest the needed medicine.
Occasionally, however, we do find the lost symptoms, and it is then that Homoeopathy can cure, and has actually cured, fully developed cancer cases). “Therefore it would have been far better if the case had not been allowed to progress to its ultimation, and had come under Homoeopathic treatment long before the tumor appeared; for Homoeopathy has the means of coping with cases which otherwise would be headed for cancer, a long time before the case ultimates in a local tumor. These means are inherent in the principles and the methods of Homoeopathy, and are not shared by any practice which concerns itself mainly with the tumor after it has appeared.
“If the experts who made the recommendations wish to have cancer detected early, they are satisfied to have it detected in the early stages of the local tumor. That may be early to the experts, but late to Homoeopathy. By that time a long series of maladies, evidences of disorder, evidences of chronic disease, have come and gone, leaving the patient and his attending physician under the impression that they have been successively cured, and the disorder itself has persisted and finally ultimated.
“The important thing is to know that the problem in cancer is not to be solved by any study of cancer itself, but by mastering the laws of medicine which permit the physician to treat the entire person. It is safe to say that if all people throughout their lives had the benefit of constitutional treatment by the principles of medicine known as Homoeopathy, cancer would be an extreme rarity”.
So much for cancer. Now, ladies and gentlemen, the same is true for all the other disease ultimates, or end results, or by- products, or anything else you may want to call them; for most chronic, lingering diseases especially when improperly treated tend thus to ultimate themselves.
These other end-results may be cysts and tumors of various organs, enlargements and swellings of glands and other tissues, like those of the neck, goitre, tonsils and adenoids and so on; degenerative changes anywhere, discharges from body outlets, and all the so-called skin diseases. Surgical operations though necessary at times remove only the effects of disease without however any concern for the cause that produced them. In other words, cancer and all these other things are not the disease, but only the effects of disease.
We must treat disease itself, then, at its very inception, in its first stages, during which no physical manifestations have as yet presented themselves, but only dynamic disturbances like easy fatigue, nervousness, sleeplessness, various aches and pains, headaches, neuralgias, loss of appetite, apathy, mental depression, indolence, irritability, sensitiveness, palpitation, tendency to take cold, and all the other innumerable subjective complaints that people feel in the beginning of some illness.
The most precise diagnostic instruments of today are unable to detect any changes anywhere in the tissues and organs at this stage. Once, however, these changes are found, the disease has already made considerable headway in the bodys economy; it has already grown deep and strong roots in the patients soil. Present-day medicine bases the diagnosis and treatment of disease on these physical findings, disregarding the primary subjective symptoms, or else regarding them as of little or no significance, or useless for the purposes of treatment.
Fellow workers, these and many other facts need to be presented to all fair-minded and unprejudiced people everywhere.
Our task, however, does not end here; there is much other work ahead, and it must be accomplished if we want Homoeopathy to make further progress. Hahnemann, as you know, proved-tested-over 90 remedies. If we should want to give an idea of the extent of this task, we would simply need to say that any physician proving or testing the action of one drug alone for purposes of ascertaining its medicinal properties, would by so doing cause his name to be remembered for many, many years. But Hahnemanns chief work is his Organon of Medicine, a treatise on the true nature of disease, and how to cure it in the shortest, most reliable and most harmless manner according to certain natural laws and principles.
Other men, as you well know, have made similar contributions in the past – von Boenninghausen, Hering, the Allens, Kent Knerr and many others. The practice of Homoeopathy, as you will all agree, is no easy matte; in fact it is tremendously difficult. Dr. Guy Beckley Stearns, one time professor of homoeopathic materia medica in the New York College, used to say that it would require at least ten years of real, hard study in order to become a good Homoeopathic prescriber. It is therefore incumbent upon us who are living today to do all we can to lighten the burden of prospective students of homoeopathy and at the same time assist in her progress.
Let us see what we can do: (1) – Revise the Organon by rewriting it in more simple language, without the terribly long and involved sentences of the present edition. Simplify it by including only the most essential matter. This work, I, myself am trying to do. (2) We need a good repertory of the nosodes, eventually to be incorporated with Kents repertory. (3) The latter itself needs revision with Bogers additions included, as well as anyone elses, plus symptoms and remedies in Knerrs, Allens, and Von Boenninghausens not found in Kents. This of course is the work of years of many collaborators.
Some of us here no doubt have made our own additions to Kents from time to time. There is at least one serious fault with Kents repertory which must be corrected, because you quite often miss your remedy as a result. Many general rubrics in which you would expect to find the remedy you are looking for omit the remedies given in a sub-rubric. Still we are told to work from generals to particulars. For instance the general rubric on page 1303, “Milk agg.” omits the remedies Nicc. and Podo., found in another rubric on page 614, “Diarrhea after milk”. Now, is not diarrhea after milk an aggravation from milk? Again, Ferr. and Ferr. phos. are given in the sub-rubric “Epistaxis”. There are many such omissions.
(4) We need a comprehensive materia medica giving only the essential indications and characteristics of each remedy. (5) We need a differential diagnosis of our remedies. Those of course that are similar. Dr. Roberts has done a splendid work in this field. He should continue in it and give us more. I have begun to collect the striking similarities and differences between remedies by jotting them down on index cards whenever I meet with them in the course of reading or studying the materia medica or other work, and expect to have fairly good collection in ten years from now. (6) Farringtons Clinical Materia Medica is to my mind a very valuable book, but it is too cumbersome. Some time ago I set to work to make an abridgment. It is now half finished. (7) All the questions and answers on various homoeopathic subjects published in the Homoeopathic Recorder should be put in book form, or at least those that seem more important.
(8) And last, but not least, we should have a book, clearly and simply written, on questions dealing exclusively with problems in Homoeopathic philosophy. I am attempting to do some of this work by the same method of jotting down on cards some point on philosophy, whenever the opportunity offers.
A rather large order you will say. Yes, indeed; but it must be filled sooner or later. And now, in conclusion, let me express the hope that in a not too distant future, we will live to see the day when homoeopathic hospitals, and ultimately Homoeopathic colleges, will again be established throughout the land. Then will Homoeopathy assume her rightful place in the world.
NEW YORK, N.Y.