|
Abstract
|
[SafetyLit note: This is another 19th century attack on allopathic medicine by a homeopathic advocate.]
Beyond question, whatever may be said against specialism in medicine, it has this great advantage, that it enables the physician to pronounce more authoritatively upon the practicability of curing certain forms of disease than would be possible for those not in every-day contact with similar groups of cases. For this reason the homoeopathic specialist is very favorably placed for making trial of the comparative effects of low and of high dilutions. He deals with one form of disease and has ample opportunity of observing to what extent these particular affections are acted upon by the various preparations of our many remedies; hence he is able to make comparisons that under other circumstances would be impossible. In the month of February, 1882,1 was consulted about a poor girl, aged twenty, who was absolutely deaf, so much so that it was impos sible to hold any conversation with her, and the only history I could get was that four years ago she had had a very severe blow on the side (left) of her head with the handle of a windlass, and that since then she had become gradually deaf, until now she was unable to hear anything...
After homeopathic treatment] she can now. earn a livelihood, which, without treatment, would have been impossible. The great lesson we learn from this case, and which one ac quainted with the treatment of a very large number of cases of a similar description is in a position to testify to, is this, that it would have been impossible to have effected this change without any but a high dilution.
As for allopathic treatment, there is no allopath who could even believe in the power of medicine to effect such a change as occurred in this case
Language: en |