Articles on homeopathy from master homeopathic practitioners
Canadian Academy of Homeopathy : The Canadian Academy of Homeopathy offers training, online courses and classes in homeopathy that is acclaimed worldwide.

The American School of Homeopathy and the International Hahnemannian Association: The High Point of Homeopathy
PART II—Liga News 2015; No. 16 (Dec.): 14-19.
by André Saine, N.D., F.C.A.H.

› Return to the website

Lippe and Hering were not exceptions in the homeopathic profession for obtaining extraordinary results as the ones reported earlier.

In 1879, Dr. Henry Newell Guernsey, the other member of the famous Philadelphian triumvirate with Hering and Lippe, was a very skilled homeopath, as can be acknowledged when he reported that after thirty years of practicing genuine homeopathy the mortality in patients with typhoid fever should be “almost to zero.” 01

However, Guernsey’s specialty was obstetrics and that is where he particularly shined as a homeopath above all his colleagues. In his textbook on obstetrics and gynecology, he wrote the following passage on puerperal fever: “In different countries, and at different times, childbed fever has assumed an epidemic form; raging with great virulence and fatality, and attacking almost every puerperal woman; but neither including any very extended range of territory, nor lasting more than a few months on any one occasion. Dr. Watson states, that puerperal peritonitis ‘is observed to reign as an epidemic, especially in Lying-in Hospitals, and that it occurs at irregular intervals, sometimes leaving them quite exempt from its ravages for years together.’ 02,  03

Guernsey remarked that the mortality from puerperal fever tends to also be elevated in private practice, “The mortality of childbed fever in private practice among the allopaths has always been very great; and in the lying-in institutions and hospitals this disease has sometimes proved so dreadfully fatal as to render these public charities a curse rather than a blessing to the communities in which they were situated. Of the one hundred and sixty cases of severe inflammation of the uterus and its appendages which occurred to Dr. Lee in London from March 1827 to the end of April 1835, and of which he gives a tabular view, eighty-eight, or a little more than fifty per cent recovered.  04 In another author mention is made of thirty-one cases being lost out of thirty-two, or 96 7/8 per cent; while of twenty women in childbed in Hôtel-Dieu Hospital in Paris in February 1746, affected with puerperal fever, scarcely one recovered.”  05

In 1878, in a paper presented before the New York County Homoeopathic Medical Society, he said, “In looking over the September number 1878 of the Obstetrical Journal of Great Britain and Ireland, including Midwifery, etc. my eye was arrested by the above title of a paper by Alfred H. McClintock, M.D., F.R.C.S.L, LL.D. This gentleman, by universal concession of the allopathic school of medicine, stands pre-eminent in accuracy of statistics, so that what he publishes may be regarded as authentic.

“His statistics for ‘Death-rates in Childbed’ are made ‘from a large collection of cases treated in private practice by several men of character and eminence,’ and have been in compilation for a long period of years. By the term ‘in childbed’ he means those women only that have perished either in the act of parturition or within the succeeding four weeks.

“In the above data he estimates the death-rate in childbed at one per cent, ‘and this, mind you,’ he says, ‘among patients in comfortable circumstances treated at their own homes by competent and highly skilled accoucheurs,’ where of course these competent and highly-skilled accoucheurs would naturally avail themselves of every known means of saving life under such urgent and peculiar circumstances. In the lower walks of life, where less skill is brought into requisition, and the means for employing all that is known, are wanting, the death-rate must be much higher. Dr. McClintock further states that he has lately received from Professor Lusk of New York an interesting and elaborate paper, which ‘contains one very striking fact which tends to support the estimate I have put forward as the true death-rate of women in childbed.’ This ‘striking fact’ is as follows: ‘A careful analysis made by Dr. Lusk of the vital statistics of New York for the nine years ending 1876, shows that the total number of deaths to the total number of confinements would be, at least, in the proportion of 1 to 85.’ In the Philadelphia Almshouse, Blockley, during the years 1872-1876, inclusive, the mortality from all causes was, in 1109 cases, 38 deaths, giving a percentage of 3.42.

“If, then, in Great Britain, where medical learning and skill have attained so great a height, one (1) in a hundred (100) recent mothers must go to an untimely grave; and if in New York, the metropolis of America, where medical education and ability are supposed to abound, 1 in 85 recent mothers must succumb to the fell destroyer—then, to place the death-rate throughout the United States of America at one per centum, would really be a very low estimate for allopathic physicians. It is their own statistics, and death-rates which they themselves give, that we are now reporting. But in so important a matter as this nothing should be kept back. They should tell us of the injured constitutions by bad treatment—the deleterious effects of their frightful medication—of the suppression of diseased conditions they cause, which linger in the system and gnaw at the vital force like a canker-worm, till the grave covers their deplorable work and the case is forgotten. Of the ninety-nine or eighty-four that survive, how many escape these scathing influences altogether? Add all these injuries to their already frightful death-rates, and some idea of the magnitude of their mortality can be entertained.  06

In contrast, Guernsey reported his own record during a long career despite having gone through a most dreadful epidemic, “But let us turn to the contemplation of a more pleasing picture. … About the year 1850 it fell to my lot to work through an epidemic of childbed fever which raged with great severity in the extensive 23d ward (Frankford) of Philadelphia. My obstetric practice was very large, certainly as large as that of any of the twelve physicians in the ward. I was the only homeopathic physician practicing in the ward at that time. We worked side-by-side in the same streets and in the same blocks. The allopathic physicians lost a large number of their patients, whilst I did not lose even one, during the entire epidemic; and I have so far, in a practice extending over thirty-five years, during which time I have attended fully 4000 childbed cases, lost but one case of puerperal fever within the four weeks immediately succeeding confinement.”  07

Such exceptional results were not unique to Guernsey as a homeopathic obstetrician but were quite consistent with the ones of his colleagues who also practiced genuine homeopathy. In the paper presented in New York city, he reported comparative statistics regarding the practice of Hahnemannian and allopathic obstetricians, “So soon as I determined to write this paper, I addressed a large number of postal cards to homeopathic physicians of character and eminence, living in different parts of the country, for the sake of their experiences, which should serve as the basis for statistics that could be relied upon to establish death-rates in childbed under homeopathic treatment, pure and simple.

“Eighty answers to this inquiry came promptly to hand, the sum total of which warrants the estimate, in accordance with the data of the card, at less than one fifth of one per centum, which is less than two deaths in a thousand cases of confinement. These statements came principally from our distinguished and veteran brethren who I know practice homeopathy, pure and simple; who I know rely upon the properly selected medicine in all cases of therapeutical necessities; who I know keep aloof from the allopathic mode of practice as far as possible, being well aware that the latter leads to misery and death, whilst the strictly homeopathic mode leads to happiness and safety.

“Take, for instance, puerperal or childbed fever, septicemia, or whatever it may be called; also phlebitis and phlegmasia alba dolens; the rate of mortality under allopathic treatment in these cases is fully 30 per cent, (Churchill’s Midwifery, 1860: 542) or 300 out of 1000. It is only about 2 per cent, or 20 in 1000, under the homeopathic treatment, pure and simple. In puerperal convulsions [“real eclampsia”], allopathic rates are 25 per cent, or 250 per 1000. On the other hand, under strictly homeopathic treatment, with a firm reliance upon the well-selected homeopathic simillimum the mortality is only 1.5 per cent, which is 15 per 10OO.

“And especially note the fact that in homeopathic recoveries there are no sequelae to contend with, while the sequelae attendant upon allopathic recoveries are most alarming to contemplate. Look again at the figures in puerperal fevers, etc.—900 out of 1000 for allopathy, to 20 out of 1000 for homeopathy. Again, in puerperal convulsions—230 out of 1000 for allopathy, to 15 out of 1000 for homeopathy. This being the case, why is it that some homeopathic physicians shirk their duty and resort to allopathic measures in such cases?

“It is worthy of note, just here, that women having had strict homeopathic treatment before and during pregnancy have by far fewer irregularities during parturition and the lying-in period; and what abnormalities do then occur are much more easily controlled. And still further be it remarked, as a positive fact, that the further we depart from strict homeopathy, pure and simple—the more a physician drifts into and adopts allopathic measures in the treatment of his patients, in these or any other forms of illness—the higher becomes his death-rate. ‘Comparisons are odious,’ and here they are particularly so to the allopathic fraternity’s mode of practice. …

“A fearful catastrophe to encounter under the allopathic mode of treatment, and from which, according to Churchill’s statistics (Midwifery, 1860: 45), one out of every six dies, is postpartum hemorrhage. With all their appliances—the cold douche, ice-plugs, colpeurynters, hot water injections, transfusions, and every other conceivable plan, except the right one, to arrest hemorrhage and to save life—they lose one sixth of all their cases of this kind. Then why should we, even in a solitary instance, imitate their bad example in the treatment of these cases, thereby meeting out to ourselves such a mortality, which indeed is a cutting reproach to the divine art of healing. For we have it on indisputable evidence, that in all postpartum hemorrhages which are treated by even moderately skilful homeopathic physicians, when they select and apply their medicines according to the strictest principles of our school, the average death-rate is 1/20 of 1 percent. This is a loss of 1 in 2000, against 166 2/3 in 1000 for those who practice allopathy according to their own statistics.”

“The statistics, as given above, which redound so largely to the credit of homeopathy, will stand the test of close scrutiny, and soon enough will all the jeers, jokes, sarcasms, slanders and condemnations of the real homeopathic practice in these cases—soon enough will all the abuses of so sacred a matter—come home with fearful vengeance upon the heads of those who perpetrate such wrongs. It is a fact that the more strict the homeopathic treatment in these very cases the smaller will be the mortality. I find my own experience to accord well with that of nearly all my correspondents; that they never use any other means for controlling postpartum hemorrhage than the homeopathic medicine, having no confidence in any other, and they rarely lose a case from this much dreaded occurrence. In a practice of thirty-five years, during which time I have treated fully 4000 cases of childbed sickness, I have, truthfully and honestly, never lost a case by uterine hemorrhage, and I have never used an adjuvant of any sort or kind. I have been repeatedly called in consultation with other physicians in these cases, and have always seen a happy issue. Also, I have succeeded allopathic physicians when, by their manner, if not by their words, they have shown the interested parties that they had no hope of saving life—and these cases I have invariably saved. I have found women almost insensible, pulseless, and bathed in a cold, clammy perspiration; ‘she is flooding to death,’ the attendants would say. Calling at once for a tumbler of water and a teaspoon, I drop a few little pellets of China between the lips of the dying patient, and a few more into the tumbler of water, and I give her a teaspoonful of the solution every half minute or minute, and so continue to do till I can distinguish a return of the pulse; then I give it at longer intervals, and a perfect recovery is the final result. China is worth infinitely more than tens of thousands of transfusions or any quantity of brandy and water, of any other possibly means of saving life, in these exceedingly dangerous cases.

“Oh! ‘tell it not in Gath, nor let the sound thereof reach Askalon  08,’ how some self-styled homeopathic physicians decry the teaching of Samuel Hahnemann on this subject, as exemplified in my work on Obstetrics. This teaching is true, and it is being successfully tested by the best homeopathic physicians in the world, more and more every day. Those who tamper in the least with homeopathic treatment, pure and simple, are sure to fail of reaching the satisfactory results above reported; while all physicians who are true to the law of similars will meet with a success more or less brilliant according to their efforts.

“In the preparation of this paper I have had occasion to refer to myself, not for self-elevation in comparison with others, but that I might the better illustrate the value of homeopathic treatment; for I believe all can do as well as I, and even better, if they apply the law of cure more perfectly than it has been in my power.”  09

The mortality associated with puerperal hemorrhage was also affecting the survival of the infant to be born or recently born. In his textbook on obstetrics, Guernsey wrote, “The mortality of mothers and children is in frightful proportion [in puerperal hemorrhage], however, to the number of cases, for, according to the same author [Churchill], out of 782 cases, 126 mothers died, or about 1 in 6; while of 944 cases, 288 children perished, or about 1 in 3. These results occurred in cases treated by practitioners who knew nothing of the efficacy of medicines applied homeopathically for controlling hemorrhage. The extent of the modifying effect homeopathic treatment has upon the mortality of mothers and children in these cases is truly wonderful and diminishes fatal cases almost to none at all.”  10

Guernsey concluded his presentation with comparative statistics from all causes of obstetrical complications, “The average mortality from all causes within the puerperal month from allopathic treatment is 1 per cent, or 10 per 1000. From the effects of drugging and inefficiency in aiding the recuperative powers of nature, at least 10 per cent more premature deaths, sooner or later, making 20 per 1000. And what shall be said of the influence of all the heroic drugging upon the offspring?

“On the other hand, the further we keep from allopathic treatment, and the more perfectly we practice homeopathic treatment, pure and simple, the better for the offspring and the better for the mothers. Our statistics prove beyond question that our mortality does not reach 1 of one per cent, less than two in a thousand (2 per 1000), and no sequelae or bad effects from drugging. When such striking differences of mortality are so clearly manifested between the two schools, and at the same time are so easy of demonstration, what hope or incentive have we in borrowing tools from the allopathic school? The conclusion is inevitable; and our duty, as physicians, to our wives, our children, to our children’s children, and to the community at large, absolutely demands of us that we obey, to the very letter and spirit, that grand and benignant law of cure which is embodied in the well known formula, Similia similibus curantur.

Despite such astounding statistics obtained by genuine homeopathy in obstetrics, the complaisance of his homeopathic and allopathic colleagues or the community at large doesn’t seem have been greatly affected. In this contest, Guernsey quoted in his textbook of obstetrics the following passage from Abbé Spallanzani 11: “It is the custom of certain dabblers in philosophy to deny facts, however particularly described, and though related by persons of the highest authority, merely because their own endeavors (in the same direction) fail of success. But they do not reflect that this is acting in direct opposition to the principles of sound logic, by which we are taught that a thousand negative facts cannot destroy a single positive fact.”  12

Guernsey ended his New York presentation by providing the testimony of five of his close colleagues who had authenticated the statistics he had collected from his eighty colleagues obstetricians, “We, the undersigned, having examined and compared the eighty statistical reports, from as many homeopathic physicians, on the mortality of women in childbed, recording upward of 45,000 births, feel warranted in placing the estimates as given above in Dr. Guernsey’s paper on death-rates in childbed under homeopathic treatment, pure and simple, as correct. Ad. Lippe, M.D., Thos. Moore, M.D., J. K. Lee, M.D., Malcolm Macfarlan, M.D., J. C. Guernsey, M.D.”

It is interesting to note that this low puerperal maternal mortality rate of 0.1 percent obtained by homeopathy “pure and simple” was not equaled by conventional medicine despite all the advances in nursing care until the 1950s.  13 In 1931-1933, the puerperal maternal mortality was still seven times higher at 0.68% in United States, while in Philadelphia it was 0.66%,  14 and between 1920 and 1932 it was in New York City 0.53%.  15

Also the current percentage of deaths in American mothers with postpartum hemorrhage of 0.067 percent is not as favorable to the 0.05 percent obtained by genuine homeopathy close to 150 years ago.  16,  17

Maternal deaths were kept to a minimal under genuine homeopathy, which in turn kept infant mortality low. Guernsey discussed the extremely high infant mortality when mothers would die at birth and infants were subsequently admitted in foundling hospitals before being sent to the country with a wet nurse under whose care they remained for up to one year. He reported in his textbook of obstetrics that the mortality in these infants was enormous. He reported statistics from three French hospitals (in Lyons, Paris and Rheims), which he said where similar to the ones obtained in America: “The mortality under one year of the children admitted into these institutions at Lyons, 33.7 per cent; at Paris, 50.3 per cent; at Rheims, 63.9 per cent. At the Foundling Hospital on Blackwell’s Island, New York, the pastor in charge states, ‘That of the five hundred motherless infants that he had baptized within the two years preceding January 1867, only about twenty-five were living, most of the balance having been returned dead within about twenty days after their admission. Their food was cow's milk only.’ On the first of November the same reverend gentleman informed me that he had baptized one hundred and sixty since the first of March, of whom only six remained living, the most of them having died within twenty days after arriving at the hospital.”  18

Once infants had survived birth in the nineteenth century they had to face many upcoming challenges from epidemics diseases, which were then endemic and made infant mortality very high. In the 1870s in Philadelphia, they were commonly taken away by cholera infantum, croup, whooping cough, diphtheria, pneumonia, infantile bronchitis, peritonitis and smallpox. J. C. Morgan examined the records obtained from the health board of Philadelphia for comparative mortality between the two schools of medicine for 1872 in this ciry where there was one homeopathic physician (Hahnemannians and non-Hahnemannians) for every four registered allopathic physicians. If we look at mortality limited to only infants we find that their mortality from cholera infantum was 34% greater under the care of allopaths. From infantile bronchitis, the mortality was more than two times greater under allopathic care. If we look at the comparative mortality from other conditions that commonly took infants away but is not limited to them, as close to 80% of their victims were children younger than 10 years old, the mortality from croup was twice as great under allopathic care; from diphtheria, it is was 47% less under homeopathic treatment; from whooping cough, it was 131% greater under allopathic care; from pneumonia, it was 149% greater under allopathic care; from peritonitis, it was 300% greater under allopathic care; and finally, from smallpox, it was 50% less under homeopathy.

Morgan wrote, “Marvelous it may be, but the proof is undeniable! … There is something positively astounding in this exhibit; but there can be no doubt of its perfect accuracy and fidelity to truth [as these records were taken form the board of health]. Let every man who loves life, every one who cares for the welfare of the dear ones at home, every hospital manager whose duty it is to consider the poor, ponder well these facts, form his conclusions fairly, then act them out boldly.”  19

Of course these numbers do not reflect upon the results of genuine homeopathy, as P. P. Wells reported no deaths in close to 500 cases of pneumonia, or as seen earlier, Lippe, Hering and Reichhelm reported no deaths in close to 300 cases of malignant diphtheria, or as Lippe reported a number of times death from acute diseases would be an extremely rare occasion under genuine homeopathy.

Despite advances in medicine and nursing care, infant mortality in the United States remained high more than half of a century later as in 1931-1933 it was 7.2% in Philadelphia and 6.5% in the United States,  20 and between 1920 and 1932 it was 6.5% in New York City.  21

Now, if we look beyond the differences in the comparative mortality between the homeopaths (Hahnemannians and non-Hahnemannians) and allopaths in the practice of obstetrics and neonatal care, but expand our analysis to mortality comparisons from all causes of mortality between the two schools  22 of medicine during the same period of time in the United States, we again find a great statistical difference. Dr. David A. Strickler, professor of History of Medicine at the Denver of Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, collected for the American Institute of Homeopathy comparative vital statistics for the years 1891 to 1895 from public health offices of large U.S. cities. In 1895, the population represented in the last collection of statistics was 4,607,066, or about 1/15 of the population of the United States at that time.  23

Dr. Strickler summarized the results of his exhaustive labors for the year 1895 as follows: “The results in 151,259 deaths reported show that for the same number of cases treated, the old school lost from measles, 499 to our 100; from scarlet fever, 180 to our 100; from typhoid fever, 149 to our 100; from obstetrical cases, 246 to our 100; from acute stomach and bowel diseases, 195 to our 100; from acute respiratory diseases, 192 to our 100; and from all causes, 181 to our 100. That from the amount reported, the saving in life in the United States of America from homeopathic treatment would be about 500,000 per annum.”  24

Again these numbers have noting to do with Hahnemannian homeopathy, which, as we mentioned above, showed a mortality rate in acute diseases close to zero. Now, just imagine if the rest of the homeopathic physicians, or as Guernsey called them “self-styled homeopaths,” which represented more than 90% of the professed American homeopaths, and had had practiced strict Hahnemannian homeopathy the impact it would had on the U.S. population and the welfare of humanity for all time to come. And if genuine homeopathy had been universally practiced in the U.S. in 1895, the number of lives saved every year would have been closer to 800,000 instead of the 500,000 previously reported. The world of medicine would have likely entered of most significant revolution.

Strickler reflected on the signification of the results he reported, “These are facts, which influence us in maintaining a separate existence. Until the medical world understands the law of similars and gives it a fair show by unbiased trials, the homeopaths, if true to themselves, and to their trust, must maintain a separate existence. Until then, as a sect in medicine, we have a right to exist and to ask you to study a special therapeutics.”  25

In a 1901 paper entitled The Demand of the Hour, Dr. S. S. Smythe, professor of Gynecology at the Denver Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, made important inferences about the statistics presented by Dr. Strickler: “In discussing the comparative statistics of this country before the American Institute of Homeopathy, Professor David A. Strickler made the following sweeping, but entirely trustworthy declaration: ‘It matters not in what city, what disease, nor what method of comparison is instituted, the records show universally in favor of homeopathy.’ With records like this, and many others equally convincing, it becomes our duty to unite as one man in placing homeopathy where it rightfully belongs in public estimation.

“Here let me say, en passant, that in the census year 1890, the government reports gave the total number of deaths in the United States as 872,944. No mortality report from the 1900 census has been published, but will probably show considerably more than a million deaths for last year.  26 If now an epidemic should invade our country and increase the number of deaths 500,000 above the ordinary mortality, the people would be panic stricken, and the government would be called upon to use every possible means to arrest the scourge regardless of expense; yet little attention is paid to the fact, as shown in all of our comparative vital statistics, that allopathic treatment annually adds to our mortality lists many thousands which might be saved under homeopathic treatment. During our four years’ civil war, when nearly four millions of men were engaged in killing each other, the number killed in battle was (in round numbers) 67,000; died from wounds, 47,000. Total, 114,000. The number who died from sickness was 200,000, all under allopathic treatment.

“I leave it to you to draw your conclusions from these figures but I am sure there are some kinds of medical practice more fatal than war and epidemics; more dangerous to human life than the battle field. … Since the publication of Dr. Strickler’s statistics (Comparative Vital Statistics (1891-1895)), the allopaths have become suspiciously silent, and it is impossible to secure reports from any of their hospitals. … Under the circumstances, their silence is not very mysterious, and reports, like comparisons, might be odious. …

“In view of all these things, it becomes our highest duty to unite all our forces for the purpose of placing homeopathy where it justly and rightfully belongs before the law and in the understanding of the people. It is a duty we owe to the truth, to the world and to humanity. Through our many organizations, it ought to be possible, under well-directed effort, to convince all intelligent people that the law of homeopathy is of universal application in the treatment of disease, and that its universal adoption would result in immense saving of human life.

“Homeopathy has been held in abeyance by sheer force of numbers and the unscrupulous opposition of the old school. The time has come when we must force upon public attention the advantages to be derived from homeopathic treatment, not only among the people but in all branches of public service, the army, the navy, and in all public institutions.

“This may seem a huge undertaking even now, but when we review the accomplishments of the past, the task will not appear impossible to those of us who believe that truth will eventually overcome all obstacles to its progress.

“The old records, showing the triumphs of homeopathy, should be brought forward and placed again and again before the public. New records should be gathered in our hospitals and from all available sources. Comparisons should be instituted, and every endeavor should be made to bring about competitive tests between the schools. We seek no advantages and ask for no favors in any such tests, but something of this kind is demanded at this very time to convince the public that homeopathy continues to be superior as a healing method over all others. …

“From its inception homeopathy has been obliged to withstand the most violent opposition of the old school. It has been assailed in a way that would crush anything but truth itself. No ordinary medical theory could have withstood the assaults which have been hurled against it. Its enemies have been unscrupulous and unsparing in their denunciations, but such is the vitality of the truth in homeopathy that no power on earth ever has or ever will destroy or crush it. A century of the bitterest antagonism has but served to show that the discovery of Samuel Hahnemann possesses that inherent force which we call ‘truth,’ and which is impregnable and indestructible.”  27

In 1902, Dr. J. A. Kirkpatrick, professor of Pathology at the Hering Medical College in Chicago, asked pertinent questions regarding Dr. Strickler’s statistics in a paper entitled Do Your Own Thinking; But First Inform Yourself: “Few stop to think of the consequences when they choose a doctor or recommend one to their neighbors. People of wide experience and observation who have witnessed death many times are slow to use their influence and assume so great a responsibility. …

“But is there not danger of becoming blindly trustful when this confidence shall become the basis of credulity, which will help to perpetuate error that involves a consequent loss of life? Does not history teach that there was a time when the learned and much beloved physician, as we now know, used measures that actually hindered recovery and caused the unnecessary loss of life? …

“It is not enough to have faith—there must be intelligence. What a person may think does not settle a question. It does not change facts. Life is fixed by laws; break them and you suffer. It makes no difference whether you do so through ignorance or prejudice. …

“If a fruit grower set out 100 apple trees and 28 died, and a neighbor only lost 6 trees out of 100, think you that he would not try to find out the cause of his greater loss?

“Are you not of much more value than many trees? Every one is deeply interested in human life. Why not investigate?

“There never was a time when more accurate records were kept. They are not perfect, but there are enough to make some reliable comparisons. They are to be found in hospitals, asylums and other charitable and public institutions. …

“Dr. Strickler, who gathered and compiled these statistics, says, ‘That on any basis of calculation the allopaths sign twice as many death certificates as the homeopaths. It lies with the allopaths to explain why this is so.’ …

“It seems almost incredible that such a difference in mortality should continue to exist in an enlightened land and age. History is simply repeating itself, for there have been many similar examples in the past that could be enumerated. Our generation is no exception; we are still fettered by ignorance and prejudice.

“Truth is mighty and will prevail, but must have an advocate. Armed with truth ‘one can chase a thousand and two put ten thousand to flight.’ …

“‘Knowledge is power.’ It is the foundation of wisdom, understanding, righteousness and true happiness. …

“The only hope for deliverance from medical imposition lies along the line of an increased general intelligence.

“Homeopathy deserves careful investigation. It has no secrets. Its books are open. It is founded upon law. Its principles are in harmony with the latest researches in physiology and pathology. Every one should know its plan, its principles and its success.

“When a person knows the comparative value of the various forms of treatment then he will be qualified to choose a doctor for himself and recommend one to others.

“To fail to qualify ourselves is to base judgment upon mere opinion or hearsay and trifle with human life.”  28

It is astounding but so unfortunate for the welfare of humanity that with such superior results the allopathic school of medicine was permitted to completely reign over medical affairs and this with the full support of philanthropists, institutions and governments until today. The homeopathic community will need to invest considerable and unrelenting efforts to make the world communities realize the truth of homeopathy and the incredible benefits they could receive from its universal adoption.

(To be continued)


› Return to the website

If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, contact us | (514) 279-6629