CAN PRESENT-DAY MEDICINE BE IMPROVED?.
Who of us has not experienced a sense of satisfaction at cutting off a big wart or an epithelioma, bringing skin edges in exact approximation and leaving practically no scar? Or using a local application to stop a foul foot or axillary sweat? Or to clear up disfiguring eczema in a baby or young child? Subdue a headache or other pain, or nervousness or insomnia, with a sedative? Barbiturates, strongly advertised, have come to occupy a prominent place. We know the constitutional kick-back of morphine. Is there similar disorder from our many new sedatives? We may get information about this by asking our mental institution doctors. They have the answer.
Is there any way to restore a nonfunctioning gland instead of administering its secretion product? The pancreas in a diabetic for instance? Insulin, over a long period, makes pancreatic rehabilitation just about impossible, so far as we can learn. How about other treatment for minor degrees of hyper or myopia, astigmatism, or muscle imbalance? Can these be overcome other than by giving optical correction by spheres, cylinders or prisms? Has bringing down a fever with an antipyretic a sound place in medicine or can these abnormalities be treated more satisfactorily otherwise?.
What about cutting off diseased parts of us, where cause lies in the constitution? Can other treatment avail here to our advantage? There is considerable evidence of the success of non- surgical treatment of appendicitis. Is this too great a heresy? It would seem so.
Is our modern shock treatment the best way to handle mental aberration? What about laxatives and cathartics for constipation?.
Has the ubiquitous “hypo,” intravenous and intramuscular medication no alternative? Is our present-day surgery often applied when medical treatment could do a much better job?.
Now, what in the world, if anything, is wrong with any or all of these practise? We all make use of them in our well-established routine. Is there some secret way in which we may improve? I said we all travel this road, which is not quite true. There is a small minority with an entirely different approach, who have practised with satisfaction to themselves and their patients for a century and a half. They call themselves homoeopaths and, though few in number, are widely distributed over the face of the earth. Their case histories are available and I may say interesting and even enlightening.
Follow-up of the usual practices noted above has often witnessed great adverse constitutional reactions. Most of it comes under the head of what the homoeopath dubs “suppressive treatment.” For instance: Who has not seen an infant fade out after clearing its skin of a disfiguring eczema? With the disease exteriorized, it is quite healthy but how disturbing to its mother. With that exit blocked it goes down, down. Recurrence of the eruption brings it back to interior health. Recurrence rarely takes place after a homoeopathic cure.
These homoeopaths say they have a method of successfully treating all the above mentioned abnormalities and many others, with no kick-back; in fact, leaving the patient often more free from physical and mental ills than before treatment.
They claim to cure from within out. It all seems quite unbelievable, but these ideas have persisted for a hundred and fifty years and it is said to be easily demonstrated in most any disease, acute or chronic, or in an epidemic such as the “flu” we are now experiencing.
They have an excellent post-graduate course of six weeks with well-qualified instructors, open to any doctor. Also there is a mail course here in America and in London, England.
But on second thought, perhaps youd better not. Honest investigation of homoeopathy results in conviction, and you, as we, would simply become another member of this irregular group. Think it over.