Your cheerful Secretary stands me right up against a tree by bouncing out such a title as this. Too well I know how unable I am to fill such a responsibility at short notice. What shall I say, talk about my own practice? Well, there has been no change in my way of practicing since a tottering but earnest beginning in 1901 or 1902, that is, when I discovered homoeopathy about fifty years ago. The only exception is what has been gained by observation and practice as with any art, minus what may have dropped out of ken on the way, for the business of homoeopathy is not merely using a stock of knowledge, it is primarily a way of doing.
Even at the beginning, I conceived it as a dynamic law with a set of principles for its application. I conceived it as the very law of compensation in the aberrations of life itself. Fifty years of practical experience has proved it. Indeed, even one successful hit should prove it. What then of a score of a hundred in a row? Its action is so positive and quick compared to mere recovery. Of course we except trauma, active or passive, more or less, although much of that is better left to medicine. Also, it is an aid to whatever should not be left to medicine only.
We have heard less these later years about homoeopathy being a “rule” instead of a law. It is comforting to know that that idea is now buried comfortably in the dust of its origin, wherever that was. Let it rest ! The whole world, or that part of it which exercises any judgment at all, should now begin to realize that such denial of the immutable, and misplaced self-will, is exactly what is the matter with it. Humanity has been chasing false rules made by its instead of discovering and using the laws of living and of individual means and rights. The prophets of old fairly screamed about this but their pleadings and warnings have been too little respected. Even some “intellectuals” of our time say law is what man makes it. They swallow their own five senses by such assertion, to say nothing of putting blinders on the higher faculties and vision.
But to return to our specific subject, if it be specific. Every homoeopath who has concentrated on his art even a few years knows that the number of patients who need material force is very, very small, provided they have had or can have efficient homoeopathic treatment. Patients who have had it over a sufficient period of time according to their native constitutions seldom develop those conditions for which it is the style to mutilate or suppress by surgery or by chemical or drug force.
In the second place, many with pathological change do better with hands off anyhow. Perhaps, in the so called Utopian future, all this sacrifice may be recognized as having been a good thing (sick, or not sick, as you please). For purely surgical technique has of course gained greatly by the collective experience. The sacrifice of the many will thus benefit those of the far away future. Personally, I prefer to work toward that far away future in a different way.
The modern medical man is blind to chronic metastasis, to what we call suppression, perhaps more so than his ancient forbears. Homoeopaths who base their practice on dynamic principles and have to undo the mistakes of common medicine realize the truth of this. I see no reason for imitating or placating facts so destructive to life or health, especially because, according to certain investigators, even institutions of medical learning have fallen into the guiding hands of the drug monopoly, and, indeed, there is almost a surgical monopoly. This is the worst of all because it protects those who are ignorant of vital dynamics and the avaricious in their ravages on trusting human beings.
I am aware that certain apparent benefits result from the use of chemotherapy. To me they seem to be of three kinds. There is the kind where sulfa et al are in their nature similar to the dynamic state of the patient. The recovery is quick and lasting. From my base of observation that kind seems to be very infrequent. Another result is where the patients vitality is strong enough to repel the disease despite the drug. The usual improvement following a naturally resolved acute disease is mistakenly credited to the drug which has been advertised so thoroughly. The recovery of this class is slow.
The third apparent good result is when the acute condition subsides into chronic disease. This is apparently the most common effect of chemotherapy. The recovery requires weeks, months or longer. But because of extensive advertising and popular flocking-like-sheep some of these actors in the play pretend to think it wonderful. But an increasing number of patients shy away from doctors until something critical occurs. So it is not so wonderful after all — except the advertising and the gullibility.