| Ever since Hahnemann pointed out the homeopathic
method as the law of healing there
have been all grades of followers, from such as merely admit its
validity and use it
incidentally, to those who cling to the precepts of the Organon
for guidance. It is a variation
common to every sort of human endeavour and really depends upon
instruction, ability and
will. To teach anything less than the ideal makes for final retrogression
because execution is
necessarily made by fallible mortals.
Quickly enough does the neophyte feel his limitations and lack
of firmness in his
foothold; then, having but a loose grasp of the philosophy of healing,
descent into the murky
shades of palliation and suppression will be swift and sure, and
at the cost of many a
saddening failure.
The mental attitude of most medical men is a clear example of
how far distorted
reasoning may subvert logic; withal, a few rise above their training
and thereby pay a
glorious tribute to the power of indwelling light and truth. These
men soon outgrow the
fetters of an ultimately reactionary teaching, being helped materially
thereto by disinterested
work for the uplift of others.
The miseries of the cancer problem are a hideously sad commentary
on the materialistic
viewpoint of life in general and disease in particular, leading
as it must do, to attempts at
forcible removal of what it cannot cure. Its devotees are not given
to trying to find out why
the most diverse remedies have incontestably cured cancer. If among
such cures there be but
a single actual success, the entire materialistic structure falls
to the ground.
It is a closed and unworthy attitude of mind that rejects the
possibility of arousing vital
energy to the point of throwing off all abnormal action, and yet
gives unbounded credence to
a science (?) that does not agree with itself long enough to make
it worth while. When the
indications are clear there is overwhelming evidence of the power
of the similar remedy to
cure every sickness not already in its terminal stage, because human
beings react
individually to disturbing influences, including disease exciters,
to the point of self
stabilisation.
All disease complexes from their incipiency held some peculiarity,
often obscure, with
increasing tenacity, hence the minutia of the prodrome demand the
closest scrutiny, not only
in malaria where it has been found so indicative, but in all others
as well, especially where it
is apt to be most occult, as in cancer, etc. Seemingly functional
disorders often contain a
symptom or two, the very germinal of future disaster, but as yet
easily curable, if studied in
its connotations.
In every assemblage there are discordant or apparently contradictory
symptoms that
easily mislead us into overstressing single factors, unless we hold
firmly to the concept of
unity in diversity and regard them, significant as they are, as
the surface play of a deeper and
more coherent movement, whose nuances we must fully grasp.
It is at this juncture that the two schools of thought diverge;
one, following the path of
least resistance and the deceptive senses, emerges in the bogs of
materialism and consequent
violent action. The other, attributing all symptoms to mutations
of the vital force, studies
effects of exteriorisation of such modifications and is governed
thereby, realising that they
must all be consistent and of a piece. A crude apprehension of this
thought lies at the bottom
of the idea of specifics, and has harmed medicine not a little.
If every symptom is a little picture reflected from the central
disturbance, a composite
picture will most nearly depict the whole. This is what we mean
when we speak of the
symptom complex or the totality of the symptoms. Each one of these
small pictures contains
at least two elements, the main strain and the variations. As the
latter increase in number the
former is obscured and harder to detect; for which reason the apparently
most discordant
symptom rubrics are placed in apposition, in order to find the basic
drug or drugs common to
all, which will surely again stabilise vital action.
It does us small credit to see some one who has always had homeopathic
care develop
tuberculosis, cancer or what not. Remedies were evidently similar
enough to remove passing
disease pictures, but not deeply acting enough to eradicate true
causative factors, in other
words the similimum had never been found or given. This sort of
work is much too easy for
the ultimate good of our patients, and it imitates traditional medicine
too closely to be a
cause of boasting.
The individualistic way in which the patient reacts affords the
best point of departure for
inquiry into the more obscure, yet highly essential details for
the successful prescription.
Uncovering these takes time and patience, and is not altogether
attractive to minds obsessed
by the incubus of a devitalised science which presents the strange
spectacle of viewing life
from the standpoint of dying matter. It would be really ludicrous
and absurd were the results
not so tragic, and did not the arrogant materialists take themselves
so seriously, with their
absolute dependence upon the tricky senses and the trash piles of
disease, where the
materialistic approach gropes after the origin of disease in the
dead house. But if in nature
"likes call to likes" or "as man thinketh... so is
he", be true, most assuredly the fruitage of
morbidity in thought or deed can not advance sentient life, not
even by injecting organised
matter from a lower into a higher order of being. The assumption
is incontestably false, as
well as a true child of black magic. Medicine will advance safely
only as it learns its lessons
from the way spirit integrates matter.
When the ebb and flow of vital energy grows irregular it spells
sickness, nothing less,
and ineradicable except through similarity of action. If the earliest
evidences of disease are
disorderly vital action its finality must be an intensification
of the same movement, partaking
of the same nature, never being transformed into something else.
Obviously cure depends
upon bringing this movement gently and safely, almost synchronously,
back to normal again.
If the type of the disease holds true throughout its course, its
only possible modifiers are
personal reactions thereto, the very factors upon which the accurate
prescriber must depend.
These remain more or less constant for the life time of the individual.
While symptom
alignments are beyond numbering they are all pervaded and modified
by these basic factors,
which Hahnemann attributed to the influence of what he inferentially
termed miasms. All
instruments fail to disclose the vital dynamis and why its repercussions
are violent in
proportion to its repression, a very significant fact and not always
understood.
Inferentially and practically, curing is a mild and gentle process,
devoid of suppressive
measures, narcotics, etc., all of whose finalities lean deathward.
Devotees of such
wrongheadedness misguide and repress human energy to the limit,
trusting that the rebound
will suffice to insure recovery and perhaps final health. We should
keep in mind that the
finer energies of the human economy can not be manhandled in such
a crude way with
safety. It reminds one forcibly of blacksmiths attempting to repair
watches and is a relic of
the positive, dead end, soul destroying materialism of the past
century, dying so hard in this;
but its break up is inevitable.
Dynamism, until lately laughed out of court, is about to rend
asunder its mockers before
the whole world and it is high time to realise that it is not a
thing apart, but an essential
factor of our very nature and life and must be reckoned with if
we would be efficient healers
of the sick.
Most of us know something of the things exacted of him who would
practice medicine.
They are intended to condition him, elevate the profession and benefit
the community.
Actually we see the reverse; want of logic, incoherence and prideful
selfishness. If there be
lack of harmony among us our foundations can not be very secure
and no amount of subtle
reasoning can make them so, hence we have no right to call ourselves
scientists, much less
artists.
If science or art holds anything at all for the benefit of man,
by that much is medicine
concerned therein. This being true how are we going to disassociate
the dynamics of action
from action itself. Preposterous as the idea is, it is just what
is being attempted in everyday
practice.
Acute observers soon reach the conclusion that present day practices
will utterly shatter
the profession unless it turns another volteface and drops its ostracism,
its blind bigotries and
its self-efficiency and adjusts itself to the trend of general scientific
thought. If its
traditionalism is still too powerful and its culture too lopsided
to do this, it can not hope for
universal acceptance of even the fragment of truth which it clutches
so tenaciously.
A CLlNICAL CASE
Sciatica—Mrs. J. K., aet. 42. For six weeks has had stiffness
and aching in lumbar region
on rising or sitting down. Now confined to bed by throbbing, quivering,
soreness, numbness
and shooting pains down right sciatic nerve to foot, which feels
as if she were stepping on
a ????? and the thigh as if lying on rocks; pains agg. on outside
of thigh. Aching in right calf
on standing and right sole burns.
Menses profuse, with backache and hydroae or aphthae. Leucorrhoea
causes itching. Sleeps in catnaps.
Easy fatigue in hot weather.
Thirsty. No appetite.
Nervous, weepy and restless.
Hot flashes.
Aggravation: Morning and evening. Pressure of clothes.
Before storms. Trifles.
Amelioration: Rubbing. Motion. Heat, locally.
1929-12-26. Rx Lachesis 200 one dose. Better in five days and in
ten days entirely well.
PARKERSBURG, W. VA.
|