From Lessons in Pure Homeopathy, Chapter 8 — (pp. 938-940)

A red flag warning

This chapter is very important as it can serve as a red flag warning to aspiring homeopaths and all existing and future leaders of homeopathic institutions so that history doesn’t repeat itself. First, for all aspiring homeopaths, this chapter can guide learning how to distinguish pure homeopathy from misrepresentations and to know when to walk away from any teachings that are not pure homeopathy. Second, for any current or future homeopathic institution, this chapter presents a great lesson, which is to never ever, I repeat, to never ever let any misrepresentation infiltrate our institutions, namely our schools, clinics, professional associations, regulating boards, supporting organizations, journals, publishers, etc. While reviewing the recently published work of a professed homeopath, Dr. Wilhelm Stens, physician to the royal family of Prussian, Lippe said, “It is, therefore, the most sacred duty of all homeopathicians, and especially of the representatives of the homeopathic press, to protest against this generalizing, not only seven times but seventy-seven times, viz., continually and forever.”¹

This chapter depicts the exceptionally rapid progress that homeopathy made in the nineteenth century, particularly in America, which was, incidentally, the most significant rise in popularity ever in the history of medicine. All of it resulted from the unparalleled successes its pioneers had obtained in the early years of homeopathy, which was incidentally a time when the adherents of homeopathy assiduously followed no other teachings than the ones of Hahnemann. Lippe referred to this quick rise in the popularity of homeopathy in its early days in the United States, which he witnessed as “the almost miraculous growth of our school of medicine.”²

In 1859, Benjamin Joslin discussed the main reasons for the greater success of the early practitioners of homeopathy compared to the ones generally obtained by his contemporaries, “There has arisen in certain quarters a want of confidence in the proper homeopathic potencies, even a distrust of the universality of the Hahnemannian law, a prevalent use of the crudest preparations, a vain attempt to accomplish cures by brute force instead of skill, by extensive mauling rather than definite adaptation. This pseudo-homeopathy resorts to allopathic generalization, and by a natural and necessary transition, to eclectic and allopathic medication.”³

This chapter also depicts the incredible downfall that our school experienced, also unparalleled in the history of medicine, with the disappearance of most of our institutions, i.e., over 150 hospitals and sanatoriums, in a very, very short time, which was essentially caused by misrepresentations that had infiltrated and seeped slowly but surely into most of our institutions. This infiltration of misrepresentations into our institutions became so commonplace that it became invisible until nothing was left of our institutions but their “homeopathic” denomination, which was eventually dropped for obvious reasons.

As homeopathy was reaching the peak of its growth and popularity in 1876, Carroll Dunham, in an address before the World’s Homoeopathic Convention held in Philadelphia, foresaw the coming day when allopathy would surrender to the truth of homeopathy. He pointed out that as allopathy had dropped its infamous heroic medicine, it was looking for new ways and had slowly been adopting some of the premises of homeopathy, such as the single remedy, the small dose, the symptoms, not the diagnosis constituting the disease and the proving of drugs on the healthy. According to Dunham, it was even “touching the law of cure, Similia similibus curantur.”⁴

One year after the speech of Dunham, Henry Newell Guernsey, in an address entitled The Principles Enunciated by Samuel Hahnemann as Authority in Medicine, that he presented before the American Institute of Homoeopathy shared a similar vision of homeopathy becoming the dominant system of medicine, but, he added a necessity for this revolution to happen, which was that the Institute begin a serious and continuous study of the works of Hahnemann, “I speak now for myself and for those I have the honor of referring to above [Hering, Lippe, Raue, Bayard, Dunham, Wells, Payne and McManus], that this American Institute, individually and collectively, in so far as the law of cure is concerned, could not spend the next thirty years so profitably as to study, to discuss and to apply rigidly in daily practice every rule and precept given us by our master in the Organon of the Healing Art and his Chronic Diseases. These works are eminently practical throughout. They are not of a character to be read once and then laid aside, but they are for study, for laborious study every day of our lives so that we may gain a clear insight into their practical teachings. Constant experience will prove to us that the more perfectly we apply his principles to practice in every case we prescribe for, the more satisfactory and complete will be our success in curing the sick.

“Mr. President and brethren, let us begin this good work at once; then we shall become purer, more scientific and more able practitioners; then we shall have offered upon this floor for our consideration fewer and fewer papers portraying shocking and inconsistent modes of practice, from which nothing can be learned except the utter unwillingness of their authors and writers to practice homeopathy.

“On the other hand, we shall have papers better and more scientific, showing profundity of thought in carrying out and promulgating the principles of Hahnemann. Then will this Institute be in the era of progress in improving the science and art of medicine. . . .

“Let our Institute enter upon this noble work at once and in full earnest, individually and collectively; then will its perpetuity, its strength and power of might be felt in and throughout the world. Do this, and allopathy in all her strongholds will speedily be replaced by her rival opponent, homeopathy, and nations will rejoice more than ever in its mighty healing virtues.”⁵

Unfortunately for humanity, that tipping point, when a weaker majority accepts the point of view of a stronger minority, which is said to be about 25 percent,⁶ never occurred. In 1876, when Dunham made his speech to an exuberant international audience, there were about 5,000 professed homeopathic physicians in the U.S. versus about 48,000 allopathic physicians, a ratio of 10.4 percent.⁷ As time progressed, the materialistic thinking and methods common to allopathy were subtly but surely introduced into our institutions by professed homeopathic teachers and practitioners until it became the “new truth,” and nothing was left of homeopathy.

Lessons in Pure Homeopathy comprises the best of Adolph Lippe’s numerous writings, narrating a significant part of the yet unwritten story of pure homeopathy. Approaching homeopathy with Lippe as the guide is ideal for developing a clear, certain and deep understanding of the path that must be pursued to truly master homeopathy.  https://homeopathy.ca/product/lessons-in-pure-homeopathy-volumes-i-ii/

References:

1. Wilhelm Stens. In Adolph Lippe’s The Physiological School of Medicine. Hahnemannian Monthly 1865-1866; 1: 139-144.
2. Adolph Lippe. In Memoriam. In A Memorial of Constantine Hering, Born January 1st, 1880, Died July 23rd, 1880. Philadelphia: Globe Printing House, 1884.
3. Benjamin F. Joslin. Homeopathic practice and provings, early and recent. American Homoeopathic Review 1858-1859; 1: 418-4-25.
4. Carroll Dunham. Address of the President of the World’s Homeopathic Convention of 1876. Transactions of the American Institute of Homoeopathy 1876; 1: 37-50.
5. Henry Newell Guernsey. The principles enunciated by Samuel Hahnemann as authority in medicine. Transactions of the American Institute of Homoeopathy 1877; 444-447.
6. Sabrina Stierwalt. The science of tipping points: how 25 percent can create a majority. Scientific American March 12, 2019.
7. In 1900, the momentum had been lost, as this ratio of professed homeopathic physicians to allopathic ones in the U.S. had dropped down to 8 percent, as there were about 15,000 professed homeopathic physicians versus about 117,000 allopathic physicians.