First let us consider some of the oft-repeated reasons for the failure of Homoeopathy. One of those most frequent voiced is that it has no scientific background, it must fail by all scientific tests; another is that there is no proof of its truth; another that it has not held in the progress of medicine; again, that the number of its adherents must lessen as time goes on; and, finally, that it can have no place in modern medicine in the present kind of medical education.
Now. let us take a little time to discuss evidences for contradiction of these statements. It has no scientific background and must fail by all scientific tests. In the first place, what is scientific?.
The Encyclopedia Britannica gives this definition: “Concerned with the acquisition of accurate and systematic knowledge of principles by observation and deduction.” A sample given in this volume is “Scientific investigation.” (By the way, scientific has superseded sciential which is the proper adjective from science says this encyclopedia). Whatever may be said against Homoeopathy, no one who has investigated it seriously could say that it is not based on accurate and systematic knowledge of principles, or that it is due not based on constant and detailed observation and deduction from such observation. Its background for a hundred and fifty years is a constant illustration of that statement.
The ones who wish to do so, that is, unbiased investigators, become the most enthusiastic adherents to homoeopathic principles. The practice of its students furnishes a quantity of clinical results which become lasting evidence of the value of this method of therapeutics. One of the highest proofs is found in the upbuilding of the human race. At present it is not judged by true adherents but by a half-baked variety and by opponents in so-called regular medicine. It is gaining more adherents every day among scientists and other deep thinkers in all lines of modern discovery. It has a place in the forefront of modern medicine and is sought now more than ever by disillusioned students of so-called modern medicine.
Why then is Homoeopathy not more successful in the eyes of the public? Here are a few reasons: The typical homoeopathic physician’s mind is not suited to publicity. These doctors are so busy quietly curing people that there is no room for lecturing, doing much talking or writing. The majority are not given to talking with patients, neither are the majority of homoeopathic physicians suited to organizational planning or action. Homoeopathy s too young yet to cope with entire success with well-seasoned older groups.
On the other hand, the older groups are not inclined, as yet, to look into its principles, being satisfied to scoff and belittle methods of healing they know nothing about. Perhaps they are jealous of new things in their midst. This happens over and over in history.
It is not the right age for Homoeopathy to come into its own. This also conforms to history, for it has almost become a habit that new things must go through a period of criticism and belittlement, before the truth about them is recognized.
What needs to be done to bring Homoeopathy into its own place? There must be earnest contemplation by each homoeopathic prescriber of all the items mentioned above, followed by a definite program of new effort. Plans must be made to harmonize with study of the whole situations as outlined in the following two sections:.
First, where are Homoeopathic physicians at fault? These physicians must take the lead in bringing their own heritage before the public if they wish to keep the name Homoeopathy. They must realize that others (students of science, philosophy, etc.) will do it soon if they do not, and will bring Homoeopathy before the public under another name. In such a case the last hundred and fifty years of Homoeopathy in the world will be regarded as a hazy forerunner only.
Under all the present opposition, taunting sneers, etc., homoeopathic physicians must stand their ground, meet critics on a high level of competence, with no slinking away, no sense of inferiority. They must stand up, be counted and take the lead that is theirs. Early Homoeopaths did that and in the early days there was more appreciation and admiration for what these doctors could do.
Second, where in are Homoeopathic laymen at fault? Most of them are asleep at the switch, not awake to their grand opportunity. They could build up a formidable organization in numbers and ability (they are the thinking people, the elite of cultural attainment); they could make plans to provide for the education of young doctors in Homoeopathy, to find medical students to take homoeopathic courses, to learn its philosophy themselves in order to answer questions correctly and satisfactorily, to provide for lectures, radio talks, written questions, etc., etc.
How shall we go to work to consider the situation? All the foregoing tells us how. Let us wake up, recognize our wonderful opportunity for what it is, concert our power to bring Homoeopathy into its rightful place. This would free humanity from evil effects of past mistaken treatment, crippling inheritance, unfavorable environment, criminal suppression of emotional and clinical symptoms, and bring to it unbounded health.
There is nothing wrong with Homoeopathy, noting at all. We live in the dregs of an age and the dregs are awful. Other ages have come and gone; they have had awful dregs, too. In everyone of them has grown up a small band of forward-looking deep thinkers. These people hold steadfastly the keys to progress in the new age which has already dawned. In Homoeopathy, our own small band holds the promise of great things. Its members need only to stand together to bring in the time when this method will be recognized for what it is. No, there is nothing the matter with Homoeopathy, nothing at all. We must get the crusading spirit ….. back into the minds and hearts of doctors and laymen as it was in the early days of Homoeopathy.
Good-bye pessimistic thoughts, doubtful minds, timid souls,for the opportunity is here and the time is now!.
1726 EYE STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C.
DISCUSSION
DR. A.H. GRIMMER [Chicago, Ill]: This is too vital a paper to let go without some comments. I hate to be on my feet all the time but I think maybe it will help some of our other brothers to get up to say something.
Dr. Green brought us a message, and it behooves us to get busy. There may be only a few of us, but sometimes a few individuals with a will have changed history. We don’t want to forget the few at Thermopylae that turned back thousands and saved the world.
Homoeopathy now, in our hands, can be brought forward if we will take on a little bit more of a belligerent spirit and stand our ground. We don’t have to go out of our way to insult or bring bitterness on us, but we have the right and privilege, as free-born Americans, to stand up for our beliefs and our rights and insist on our privileges of equal rights, to propound our doctrines as against the the chaotic doctrines of the old school. So, let us heed the Doctor’s message and do something.
DR. GARTH BOERICKE [Philadelphia. Pa]: My personal thought, after thirty-four years, is that right now the difficult with putting over Homoeopathy is that people are too wealthy and too rich in these United States. If we had a first class depression, it would help Homoeopathy a great deal. It is not so in other countries whose people are sick and poor; they get help from homoeopathic practitioners.
Here, the people come to me for a diagnosis first and treatment later. The poorest person in the street, on relief, will come in with a cold and the first thing he asks for is an X-
ray and blood count and cultures and various things like that. Everybody who works in a large clinic knows that. It is a fundamental concept, and it is because they have been trained and ballyhooed to demand a certain brand of medicine which has been brought before them constantly, day and night, over the radio and in Time magazine and Reader’s Digest. I read Reader’s Digest; otherwise I am behind the eight-ball when a patient comes in.
In regard to students, they spend about 8,000 in medical education. They are forced to take certain courses. They elect mine. I have a goodly number, three-quarters of the class every time I give them a couple of lectures. Then as examination come on and they have to pass certain subjects and don’t have to pass mine, they keep dropping out. It is something to think about.
But then as Dr. Green says, fundamentally we are sound. In the old days they had proselyters but they had something to proselyte about. I can’t compete with penicillin in pneumonia; it is impossible. I would be ‘nuts’ to do it.
I saw one of our best young graduates the other day, and he told me he can’t do that; nobody can, with any sense. It can be done especially in older people, and many of my older patient don’t react to penicillin. It is not the bug that is killing them but a lack of resistance. Homoeopathy comes right into the groove, whether I use Phosphorus, Bryonia, Iodine, Lycopodium or Kali carb. In lumbagos and backaches, where formerly we used Rhus and Rhododendron, now we use something else. You just inject them with procaine and it works. I have tried it, and I know. It is not only temporary but curative.
