We read of the wonderful advancements and discoveries of modern medicine for most of the ailments of the human body from birth to old age with their inoculations, sulfas, antibiotics, sedations, antiseptics, anti-histamines, cortisone, ACTH–all kinds of miraculous discoveries to relieve sick and suffering individuals. As we hear of the wonders of these preparations and are asked in all kinds of “drives” to contribute money to help eradicate various diseases from the face of the earth, to find quick and sure cures for this and that disease, we must necessarily ask if there is any further need for Homoeopathy in the treatment of our little patients–or our older ones also for that matter.
These new drugs have certainly saved thousands of lives in cases that were formerly practically hopeless, but they have also caused the deaths of numerous people through their careless use. If these new drugs are so wonderful and so easy to apply, giving such quick results (in some cases), why should we homoeopaths spend hours in questioning and study to find the right remedy for the individual patient? Do the results our efforts or should we give up Homoeopathy and become quick cure specialists who endeavor to eradicate the disease irrespective of the patient?
Do these new drugs really cure the patients as the correct homoeopathic remedies have been doing for the past 150 years, or do they only kill the individual disease or infection without curing the patients? I believe that this is true and they certainly do not give the results that any good homoeopathic prescriber has been trained to expect in his patients. I am convinced, however, that no homoeopathic physician should refuse to give antibiotics in cases where they have been definitely proven to be beneficial, but we certainly hope that few of our member will give them for every ailment whether indicated or not.
If you read Dr. Martin Gumperts excellent little book, Hahnemann, The Adventurous Career of a Medical Rebel, you will wonder if the practice of medicine has changed to much from the time of Hahnemann, 150 years ago.
Any parents who have had the chance to compare the results of good Homoeopathy will modern medicine in the treatment of their children will think a long time before they forsake Homoeopathy for the wonders of the much publicized so called modern treatment.
Homoeopathic physicians are being told more and more by the parents of their little patients, “I am certainly gland that our doctor doesnt give our children a shot of penicillin or some other antibiotic every time we take our children to his office or he comes to our home.” Parents who know what good Homoeopathy can do usually prefer to trust to it even though it may take a little longer in some cases and they know that they do run the risk of bad results and very unpleasant and even dangerous reactions.
Also the child is cured as a whole instead of only certain conditions being eliminated with often other bad reactions to follow. Modern medical discoveries certainly do not cure the patient even though they may at least temporarily overcome the particular ailment.
Homoeopathy is gentle, swift and sure; it accomplishes its work without harmful drugging of the patient and with no bad after effects. When the sulfa drugs and the antibiotics are practically forgotten, or at least narrowed down to a very limited use, Homoeopathy will still be restoring the sick to health and saving thousands of precious lives. Homoeopathy saves lives and does not cause dangerous after effects in its use. Children brought up under homoeopathic treatment enjoy going to see their homoeopathic physicians instead of going with fear, trembling and with screaming, as it so common under orthodox medicine with its inoculations, hypodermics and disagreeable- tasting medicine.
Children born and raised with correct and expert homoeopathic care and guidance have less sickness and develop more normally physically and mentally with healthier bodies and happier lives. With good homoeopathic care in infancy and childhood, there is much less prevalence of chronic ailments as cancer, arthritis, kidney, heart and lung diseases.
I have told you enough to prove to you that Homoeopathy is needed as much today as it was 150 years ago, or even 25 years ago, for the really scientific care and cure of our children. The careless use of these new drugs is giving plenty of work for good homoeopathic prescribing for those patients of all ages who are lucky enough to be able to obtain it and have the intelligence to take advantage of it. People and physicians who laugh at Homoeopathy and say that it is a thing of the past do not know what real Homoeopathy is or what it can accomplish.
417 North Central.
DR. H. W. EIKENBERRY (Indianapolis, Ind.): In the light of Dr. Smiths theme, I have had one experience that I think is along that line. A family of mine, good homoeopathic patients, told me that they were socially looked down upon in their neighborhood because they did not have a television; but when they didnt get penicillin for the ailments prevalent in their town at that time, they were socially ostracized.
DR. MARION BELLE ROOD (Lapeer, Mich.): That was a nice paper, Dr. Smith, but how can we approach a statistical estimate of this problem? Is there any way of getting true, valid statistics for actual comparison of present mental deficiencies, mental aberrations, paralyses, and serious, crippling disableness of children, with those of previous years? Is there any way to crack open the vital statistics to get a similar resume to that which Dr. Stephenson gave us on the special subject of cancer?.
It would be very much more convincing if we could do that.
DR. VIRGINIA M. JOHNSON (Chicago, Ill): I should like to recite one case we had in the pediatric clinic in Hering College, youngster about eight or nine years old with strabismus of both eyes. When Dr. Roberts saw the child, he said, “How long has he had this strabismus?” HE had had it about six years.
“Well, do you remember any incident?”.
“Oh,” he said, “it came right after a shot of antitoxin”.
He gave Diptherinum CM. It never returned.
DR. F. K. BELLOKOSSY (Denver, Colo): We have enormous work to do on children. There is always something wrong with every child, and we have to put things in order.
I have had a girl who had a too short neck and the scapulae were touching each other in the middle, so close together on account of the chest being so narrow. After a treatment of about a year and a half, she has a normal neck and normal shoulders. That means the neck has grown and the shoulders have become wider, so that the shoulder blades are not touching each other in the middle of the spine.
I have children that have too long legs, and after a year or two their legs are normal. That means the trunk started to grow; and the legs did not grow, so they became proportionate.
Many that I see have a sway back, too small chest compared with the rest of the body and the pelvis. That can all be corrected very nicely. It takes a year or two.
DR. WILBUR K BOND. (Greens Fork, Ind.): We certainly can do a lot for children with Homoeopathy. I know about two most sensational cases which had epidermolysis bullosa, a very bad skin disease which the old school claims is incurable. They were the only ones I have seen since I have been in practice. These children are getting well. Ranunculus bulbosus was the remedy.
I think a lot of this is due to the ignorance on the part of the family, not realizing what can be cured. They have been filled so full of this hopeless talk by the allopaths, that they dont know that there is a system of medicine or remedies that would cure a lot of these things.
DR. HARVEY FARRINGTON (Chicago, Ill.) I know you all like to get children in the very early ages. I appreciate how much can be done in developing them mentally and physically. However, you dont often find the medicine working in mature age that the patient should have had when perhaps ten or twelve year old.
I treated a woman of twenty-four having a history of being backward mentally, although growing well physically, through all her life. She had many symptoms of Calcarea phos. She had an inferiority complex. She didnt want to go into company. She would sit in a corner and talk to nobody in a social gathering, and otherwise show that she was not only not mentally competent but that she had a fear of others seeing it.
The Calcarea phos. during a period of three years made a total change in that woman. When she came to me she was twenty- four years old, and among other things, the most remarkable were the moles that were on her chin, neck, and upper chest. There must have been a couple of hundred of them, some that were as large as a split pea, and others much smaller.
She finally changed so that she loved to be in company. She played a good game of Canasta, and kept the score, which I understand is not so easy, and then at the end of the period, when she was apparently perfectly well, and mentally far in advance of what she had been previously, and, in fact, almost back to normal, the moles started to recede. They were not warts. They were regular moles. The little ones down under the chin and chest disappeared first, and then a large one here and there.
DR. SMITH (closing): I dont know of any way of getting comparisons of the two methods of treatment. A few years ago, when we had real homoeopathic hospitals where they could type the cases, when we had real homoeopathic hospitals where they could type the cases, they could do it. I dont know any way of doing it now, unless taking the cases of private practice, and they wouldnt accept them. They would always claim a wrong diagnosis was made. I dont know of any way of overcoming that and getting these statistics.