– James C. Wood, A. M., M. D., Cleveland. ,American Institute of Homoeopathy, 1910, 65th Session,

homeopathypropaganda The propagandism of homoeopathy

The most casual reader of the literature of the dominant school of medicine cannot fail, I think, to note that the foremost thinkers of that school are earnestly seeking for a more tangible and reliable method of drug therapy. They appreciate the fact that if scientific medicine is to regain the public confidence, lost because of the therapeutic agnosticism which prevails at the present time, scientific medicine must have confidence in its own power to alleviate suffering and to prevent and cure disease. They freely admit that the lack of such confidence is in no small degree responsible, on the one hand, for the growth of the numerous cults whose sole object it is to discredit medicine and the medical profession, and, on the other, for the development of all forms of quackery, as represented by the exploitation of patent medicines and the boastful pretentions of the open advertiser. More than this they are, I believe, prompted by a sincere desire to do that which is best for their patients, irrespective of pathies, isms or creeds, a desire which should be emulated by all honest workers of all schools of medicine.
 In view of the foregoing facts, it is pertinent at this time to again ask the question, “How can we best demonstrate to the medical world the advantages of the law of similars in the selection of drugs for the cure of disease?” My own conception of the healing art is so broad, and my faith in the superiority of that law over other methods and other laws of cure as yet promulgated is so great, that the correct answer of this question seems to me of paramount importance. Personally, I care infinitely more for the general acceptance of that law by all schools of medicine, unless, indeed, it is supplanted by a more reliable one, than I do for the perpetuation of the homoeopathic school as a distinct organization.
 In approaching the subject we cannot ignore the fact that for nearly one hundred years, more or less, active homoeopathic propagandism has been going on and yet the law of similars is still unaccepted by the great majority of medical practitioners throughout the world. This, too, notwithstanding that Hahnemann promulgated the law of similars at a time when, as is now generally conceded, the treatment in vogue was doing infinitely more harm than good; that Hahnemann himself was a regular physician of acknowledged ability, culture and scientific attainment; and that he published his first observations in a prominent and well recognized journal of his school. There was no secrecy as to his methods; they were simply so revolutionary and so diametrically opposed to the prevailing doctrines of the day, so antagonistic to the moneyed interests of the pharmacists, that their author was calumniated, persecuted and ostracised. So, too, were Galleleo, Galvani, Franklin, Jenner and Harvey. The dogmatism of science has ever been the most intense of all forms of dogmatism and history shows that all innovations destined to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind have ever been contended against by human passions and human prejudices. But in our condemnation of this spirit we must remember that the unrevealed thing is not yet a truth until its relationship is found out. Up to the present time there has been no way of proving that the law of similars is a general fact, a principle, a law of nature, except by clinical demonstration. Unfortunately in diseases no two cases are exactly alike, and it is, therefore, impossible to make invariable deductions because of the disturbing influences of constitutional bias, race and environment. But a new era is dawning and something more reliable than mere bedside experience is within our grasp. It is, perhaps, just as well that the positive evidence going to prove that the law of similars is a demonstrable law of nature and of infinite value in the treatment of disease should come chiefly from men identified with the dominant school, inasmuch as the rank and file of that school will be more inclined to investigate such evidence and to put it to bedside test. I refer to the work done by Wright and his theory of immunity. Wright acknowledges with becoming frankness the principle of Homoeopathy which underlies it. This theory was first promulgated and applied by Pasteur and Koch, but it remained for Wright to show by means of his opsonic index that we suffer from disease only when our resistance to the causative micro-organism is depleted; and that this resistance can be increased by injecting a properly prepared culture taken from the patient and reintroducing it into the system. In short, a disease similar to the one with which the patient is affected is thus produced, whereby the opsonic index is raised and the patient recovers. This is nothing less than a scientific demonstration of the law of similars, or Trosseau’s theory of substitution. Doubtless, if further experimentation proves beyond question the correctness of Wright’s opsonic theory, we shall have to reprove our drugs, and with a precision heretofore undreamed of. Already splendid work along this line has been done by Watters. of Boston; Burrett, of Michigan; Wheeler, of England, and Placak, of Cleveland (the latter being a member of the dominant school), showing that remedies like Echinacea, Phosphorus, Hepar sulphur and Iron, have the power to influence the index exactly as do the vaccines. Space forbids extended discussion of this theory, but the evidence deduced has caused men like Cabot, of Harvard, and Gimeno, of Madrid, to look upon the claims of Homoeopathy with renewed interest and respect. Then, too, the use of the vaccines by the dominant school makes it unnecessary for us longer to emphasize the necessity of reducing the dose when basing our prescription upon this law for they are administered in much smaller quantities than many of us have used in our daily practice.
 In view of the foregoing, then is the time not propitious for a new propagandism of Homoeopathy? We have not a perfected system of therapeutics to present to the gentlemen of the dominant school. We must acknowledge, if we are entirely honest and frank, that our system of medicine possesses many imperfections and that it is our earnest desire to overcome such imperfections and to work in harmony with all seekers of truth of whatever school to accomplish this end. No earnest student of the history of Homoeopathy can ignore the fact that much of the opposition with which it has had to contend has been due to pretentions not warranted by facts and to a dogmatism on the part of some of the followers of Hahnemann not in harmony with the spirit of modern thought and investigation. No liberally educated man, of whatever school, will, in these broadening days of intelligence, remain tied to any bounden or groveling belief. Homoeopathy, at the beginning, was a protest against the treatment then in vogue, which later experiments have proved beyond all peradventure was doing more harm than good. Its present mission, as I understand it, is to protest against the therapeutic nihilism of the older school, which has had so much to do in bringing about the lack of faith manifested by the laity in all systems of medicine.
 Homoeopathy should then be presented to the medical world simply as a working law in therapeutics. A law as at present exemplified, possessing many limitations and imperfections, but which, notwithstanding these defects, is capable of curing diseases which are curable by the principle of substitution. It relates to no agents intended to affect the organism chemically or mechanically or that may be required for its support when in health. Neither has it to do with drugs or agents which act in a purely eliminative way to rid the system of poisons or ptomaines; nor does it relate to those which act purely as stimulants or as pain destroyers. These propositions harmonize with the practice of all liberal members of our school. They disarm criticism and leave us free to utilize all methods of cure or relief which will best subserve the interests of the patient. It must ever remain with the individual as to what he can do when basing his prescription upon the law of substitution without the supplementary agents enumerated. The more completely he has mastered that law the less often will he find it necessary to bring them into requisition.
 Necessarily the process of education must be one of slow development, and it is, perhaps, best that it should be. It has long seemed to me that some of the writers of the older school have suggested a method of propagandism which is well worthy of our serious consideration. Such an article, for instance, as that first published by Dr. Kenneth Millican in The Nineteenth Century, of February, 1888, and republished in the St. Louis Medical Review of May 23, 1906, entitled “The Present Position of Medical Schism,” appeals to the liberally educated physician of whatever school. In this article Dr. Millican, quoting from Trosscau, Ringer, Brunten and Phillips, of his own school, shows that these men are teaching Homoeopathy in innumerable instances. This he does by comparing the physiological action of remedies as given by them with the therapeutic application made by the same authors. I can but feel that there is an opportunity for the right man in the homoeopathic ranks to do yeoman’s service for the cause by creating a little book along this line, based entirely upon the physiological action and therapeutic application of drugs as contained in the standard works on therapeutics of the dominant school. The indications there obtained should be supplemented by the introduction of a few, leading, keynote symptoms taken from our own literature and showing the finer differentiation which we make in the selection of drugs. The great mass of symptoms in the average homoeopathic work on therapeutics has ever been a stumbling block to the novice.
 In the meantime we cannot, with safety, dismantle our schools, hospitals and societies until we are assured full professional fellowship, which means that the law of similars must be taught in all colleges of the dominant school and must have a place in all societies under the dominion of that school. Doubtless in assuming this standard we shall be charged with the crime of perpetuating a sect – a condition of affairs not of our own seeking. Until such fellowship is assured, which, doubtless, will not be for many years to come, we must, for our own protection, maintain a distinct organization and remain, not sectarian as we are denominated, but specialists in therapeutics.
 James C. Wood, A. M., M. D., Cleveland. 

Dr.Devendra Kumar MD(Homeo)
International Homeopathic Consultant at Ushahomeopathy
I am a Homeopathic Physician. I am practicing Homeopathy since 20 years. I treat all kinds of Chronic and Acute complaints with Homeopathic Medicines. Even Emergency conditions can be treated with Homeopathy if case is properly managed. know more about me and my research on my blog https://www.homeoresearch.com/about-me/
Dr.Devendra Kumar MD(Homeo) on EmailDr.Devendra Kumar MD(Homeo) on FacebookDr.Devendra Kumar MD(Homeo) on GoogleDr.Devendra Kumar MD(Homeo) on LinkedinDr.Devendra Kumar MD(Homeo) on RssDr.Devendra Kumar MD(Homeo) on TwitterDr.Devendra Kumar MD(Homeo) on Wordpress