Members of the International Hahnemannian Association and Friends of Homoeopathy:.
The medical world been producing many new and seemingly wonderful drugs during the past few years. It would almost seem as if there might not be any further need or place for Homoeopathy. Homoeopathy, in fact, has been weighed in the balance, but it has not been found wanting. It is still the greatest system of therapeutics known to suffering humanity.
It is scientific and is founded on a solid scientific law. It cannot cure all diseases, but it can cure all curable diseases and many that are usually considered incurable. New discoveries in healing drugs come and go, but the truths of Homoeopathy remain steadfast forever.
These new modern drugs that we have been hearing so so much about have done wonders in many cases and have saved many lives. These drugs have been very much abused by the regular school and, I am sorry to say, also by some of the homoeopathic physicians. The indiscriminate use of these drugs has done much harm and even caused some deaths. There may be certain desperate cases where it may be wise even for the strict homoeopath to use them but it not often.
Public opinion may demand, and even the laws may almost make it compulsory, to use them at times even though the homoeopathic physician might prefer not to do so. Practically all of these drugs in potency are useful and valuable remedies when proven and used according to the homoeopathic law. We have found Penicillin the most often indicated homoeopathically of the antibiotic remedies and have had some very good results with the 200 potency and higher.
I would like to tell you of a recent case and leave it to you whether the latest modern treatment that was received was superior to what Homoeopathy would have done. A screw driver slipped and caused an injury not too severe in the palm of this young man’s left hand. He felt that he was obliged to go to the company doctor and he was given emergency treatment in a well- known Southern California hospital. The treatment consisted of cleaning the wound with alcohol and then he was given antitetanus serum and 4000,000 units of Penicillin. He went back to work after his emergency treatment, as his injury was not severe enough to disable him, but, lo and behold, the treatment was the disabling element.
In about an hour he began to develop a rash and from then on he suffered the torments of the damned night and day in honor of modern, up-to-date, scientific medicine. He had an eruption from head to foot with a severe oozing, vesicular eruption with terrible itching and burning. The injury was on Monday afternoon and he was in bed until Friday morning when he called up to see if we could do something for him. He had been given Pyribenzamine by the attending physician in trying to control his reaction with no results. His treatment had certainly been scientific with antiseptic, antitoxin, antibiotic, and finally antihistamine but it took Homoeopathy to given him relief. We gave him Rhus venenata 10M and he began to improve within a few hours.
He says that he has had his lesson and in the future he will depend on Homoeopathy regardless of company doctors. Most homoeopathic physicians would have cleansed this wound with calendula and he would have only lost the time that it took to come to the office. As it was, he was off work thirteen days and had untold suffering. I will leave it to you which treatment would be the most scientific. Is it common sense, even if it is the latest scientific treatment, to give the Penicillin when you have no infection and may not get one, and take the chances of such a reaction? If an infection does appear. Penicillin should clear it up just as well as it would have prevented it.
The June issue of The American Mercury contains an article, “The Case for Homoeopathy,” by William Gutman, M.D., of New York City, a member oft his Association. This article is followed by “The Case Against Homoeopathy” by Laurence Farmer M.D., also of New York City. Dr. Gutman is to be congratulated on his masterly presentation of homoeopathy in this article. I do not know how it could have been better presented in such a short article. The American Mercury is to be congratulated on having chosen such an able physician to give. “The Case for Homoeopathy.”
Homoeopathy should also be thankful to The American Mercury in having a physician who presented such a weak case as Dr. Laurence Farmer did in his article. “The Case Against Homoeopathy.” His write-up might influence a few people who know nothing about Homoeopathy, but it will be disgusting to those who know real Homoeopathy and what it is accomplishing. Dr. Farmer treated it in a rather sarcastic way as though he was hanging the final wreath of flowers on it for its burial.
It would have been difficult to have found anyone to present a weaker and more ridiculous argument against Homoeopathy than Dr. Farmer did in his article. There might be some criticism of The American Mercury for classifying Homoeopathy among the irregular forms of the healing art. The homoeopathic physician does, plus Homoeopathy It is the most scientific system of healing known. It was stood the test of active use at the beside for over one-hundred and fifty years and certainly should not be classed as irregular.
Good homoeopathic prescribing alone can rid the body of the harmful effects of these new drugs that are so popular today. Our only worry is that we do not have enough homoeopathic physician to supply the demand. Homoeopathy is a specialty in medicine. We need more and better facilities for post-graduate study in Homoeopathy. I do not believe that the under-graduate study of Homoeopathy will ever be really successful again in this country and, personally, I do not believe that it is desirable. Most of the best homoeopathic prescribers in the world are members of this Association, so it is the duty of the International Hahnemannian Association and The American Foundation of Homoeopathy to further the facilities and opportunities for postgraduate instruction in Homoeopathy.
Secretary-Trasurer, I.H.A.
Business Manager, The Homoeopathic Recorder.
Author of The Home Prescriber Domestic Guide.
Dr. A. Dwight Smith was born in Monticello, Iowa, in 1885. He graduated with an M.D. degree from Hahnemann Medical College in Chicago in 1912, and in 1921 moved to Glendale, California. After spending a period in the Army Medical Corps he did a residency at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia specializing in pediatrics. During his many years of practice he was president for one year and secretary-treasurer for thirteen years of the International Hahnemannian Association. He also served as editor of the Homeopathic Recorder, for thirteen years. Dr. Smith also held the position of editor of the Pacific Coast Homeopathic Bulletin for over forty years.