Dr. Albert Abrams, of San Francisco, in Physico-Clinical Medicine of same city, seems to have stirred up the homoeopathic journals. The Recorder, June, considered his paper and nearly all the other homoeopathic journals have done the same – approvingly. Yet, indeed, there is nothing homoeopathic in what he wrote save an affirmative of the infinitesimal, which, as many of out men have repeatedly told us, Hughes, for instance, has nothing to do with Homoeopathy, or, in other words, with similia similibus curantur. In this they are right, for Hahneman started with big doses and succeeded; he reduced the dose, and succeeded, and to-day we have men prescribing the ɵ and others the D.M.M., the 3x and the 30th, all successful. This seems to show that Homoeopathy is a bigger proposition than infinitesimals, and, also, that the recognition of the fact of infinitesimals is no proof that the man so recognizing is a Homoeopath, nor is it a proof of the fundamental principle of Homoeopathy, namely, similia similibus curantur.
There is a vast deal back of that Latin homoeopathic proverb, whether you spell it curantur or curentur, than is dreamed of in the philosophy of some of the modern homoeopathic Horatios. The size of the dose is a matter of experience with logic tending to the higher potencies. The action of the law is eternal whether the Aconite be in the tincture or in a potency, and we can also see that the smaller the dose of the needed “similar” poison that is curative the less the afflicted one has to contend with on his road to recovery. The “how” of a cure bothers the men who go in for science. How does a grain of corn germinate and bring forth a hundredfold? “Heat and moisture” is the triumphant reply. But “how?” No one knows, not even the Agricultural Department of the United States. That Department knows the fact just as the Homoeopaths know the fact that Aconite will cure if indicated. But how it is done in either case no one knows. To answer you must know the secret of “life,” and not even the Rockefeller Institute knows that, for when one of its scientists loses what is known as “life” he becomes a mass of substance easy to analyze, which was not the case before his mysterious “life” departed. Then the mass was warm with life.
This leads up to what one very respected contemporary had to say of Abrams’ paper, namely:
“If Abrams’ conclusions are confirmed by other investigators and they become thoroughly established, it will be a tribute to Samuel Hahnemann and should serve to lessen much of the prejudice now existing against Homoeopathy.”
With all due regard for our learned New York contemporary it will do nothing of the kind, for Abrams, while proving the actuality of the so-called infinitesimal rather makes light of real Homoeopathy of which the infinitesimal is but a corollary. Homoeopathy is the only thing in therapeutics that is scientific and it can and must stand on its own bottom. The seemingly near approaches, and the patronizing half approvals from the outside are of no real benefit without a recognition of the great fundamental the Law. A man may believe that an ion can buzz around in an atom like a fly in a cathedral, but that belief does not make him a Homoeopath any more than the seeing and believing in the existence of a cathedral makes a man a Christian.
When we get down to brass tacks there is precious little any of us know of what is below the surface of things, though most of us are cock-sure we know much or even “know it all.” What causes diphtheria?
“The bacillus of diphtheria, of course.”
What causes the bacillus?
“Give it up!”
And even here it is by no means certain whether the bacillus causes the disease or the disease causes the bacillus. Every experienced Homoeopath knows that a drug administered on clear cut, homoeopathic indications will quickly cure the patient whether it be given in material or infinitesimal dosage if cure be possible, but a belief in infinitesimals without the Law would leave the physician helpless.
And after all is said, why should Homoeopaths be so eager for the crumbs of commendation that fall from the allopathic table as though they were our superiors?