3. The influence of the curative power of nature, the efforts of which are not interfered with by Homœopathy. This is the chief cause of all the cures which Homœopathy claims to itself, as the undoubted results of its infinitesimal doses. The two influences first named prepare the system for the operation of this curative power.
4. A comparison between the results of Homœopathic practice and those of the practice of over-dosing physicians. Such a comparison will generally tell in favor of Homœopathy, because the plan of giving no medicine and relying upon a favorable mental influence and a strict regulation of diet and regimen, is much better than storming a patient with drugs, as one would a citadel with balls.
5. An occasional use of remedies in the ordinary doses. This is practised more often than is commonly supposed, and especially by those who have from mere pecuniary motives left the ranks of the ‘Allopaths’ and adopted the Homœopathic practice. They know that in acute diseases especially, there is sometimes pressing need of something more than the tiny doses, and they resort for the moment to their old mode of practice. And it is easy to do this secretly if they wish, for calomel, morphine, &c. are not very bulky medicines, and a good dose of them can easily be put into a very few little globules. Many a Homœopathic patient is thus saved from death by the ‘old practice,’ while Homœopathy gets all the credit of it.[17] Mr. Constantine Hering, in his introduction to Jahr’s Manual, complains that some of his brethren are not strictly orthodox—that they are guilty of the inconsistency of mixing the practice of the old and of the new school together. This complaint however comes with an ill grace from him, for I once knew this prescriber of decillionths of a grain of such inert things as salt and oystershell, direct for a patient a nightly dose of half a teaspoonful of red pepper—a dose quite large enough to suit an ‘Allopath’ or even a Thompsonian.[18]
6. The facility with which people are imposed upon in their attempts to estimate the comparative merits of modes of practice by their results, is another source of the popularity of Homœopathy. Most persons, as I take occasion to show in the chapter on Good and Bad Practice, have an opportunity of witnessing but a limited range of facts in medical practice—altogether too limited to enable them to arrive at any just conclusions. And then the flying reports abroad in the community on this subject are exceedingly vague, and are not to be relied upon. Yet these limited observations, and these reports bruited about by the loose tongue of Madame Rumor, are the boasted facts, by which Homœopathy, like every other delusion, has gained its popularity.
Such being the sources of the popularity of Homœopathy, I do not wonder at all that it has acquired so extensive favor with the public. Neither do I wonder that many very sensible persons have been captivated with it; for the evidence upon which they base their preference is so limited and so loose, that it is calculated to mislead any who rely upon it. And I would not reproach nor ridicule them for this preference; but I would simply ask them to look carefully at the nature of the evidence, on which the success of Homœopathy is so confidently asserted. If they will do this, they will find that the evidence is insufficient and deceptive.
Before I leave this topic, I wish to present to the reader a case somewhat parallel to that of Homœopathy, which may serve to illustrate farther the way in which medical delusions acquire their hold upon the public mind. A clergyman in a small town in Germany, interpreting the passage of Scripture, ‘the prayer of faith shall save the sick,’ as having a literal and an universal application, some years ago went into the practice of medicine among the people of his charge upon this idea. He gives no medicine, but merely visits the sick and prays with them. All kinds of disease, acute and chronic, are submitted to this treatment. He tells those that apply to him, that there is no need of doing so, if they will only themselves repent of their sins, and lift up the prayer of faith. It is only in default of their penitence and faith that his prayers are required. He shows great shrewdness in pointing out the sins of the vicious, to which he attributes their diseases. This adds much to his reputation, and to the mental influence which he exerts upon the sick. He is sincere in his views, and takes no compensation for his services to the sick, which he performs in connexion with his pastoral labors. His success is so great, that no physician has been able to get a living in the place where he resides, and invalids come to him from all the country round, even to the distance of fifty miles.
In this instance, there are some of the same elements of success that exist in the case of Homœopathy. His mental influence upon his patients is very decided. He leaves the curative power of nature to act undisturbed. And added to these sources of success may be mentioned, as having a considerable influence, a reformation in the life of some of those whose vices he faithfully points out to them. So far as apparent results are concerned, it is quite as proper to attribute a curative ‘dynamic power’ to the prayers of this clergyman, as to the infinitesimal doses of Hahneman.
Homœopathists often boast of the inroads which their system has made upon the ranks of the medical profession. But it is an empty boast. If the Homœopathic physicians in this country could be gathered together, it would be an assemblage for the most part of very common men. No superior order of talent would be found among them. There would be none who are distinguished for true research; none who have made any respectable additions to the literature of medicine, or to its store of experience; and none who have ever had any commanding influence. There would be some indeed who are reputed among Homœopathists to be great men; but none, who previous to their conversion to Homœopathy, were considered great by the medical profession. A large portion of that assemblage, I am persuaded from what I have seen, would be made up of men, who have no true faith in the so-called science of Homœopathy, but have a strong faith in the deception which can be practised by means of it upon the community, and its consequent availability in a pecuniary point of view. Those who have such a strange cast of mind, as to dupe themselves into a belief of Homœopathic doctrines, after a thorough and scientific examination of them, I suspect would be in the minority.[19]
Though Homœopathists commonly look down with contempt upon Thompsonism, as being vulgar and unscientific, there is really considerable resemblance between Samuel Thompson and Samuel Hahneman. Let us look at some of these points of resemblance.
Both have a theory on which their practice is based, and nothing is deemed true that does not correspond with that theory.