You take exception to that number of remedies used in my last case, and want to know "which cured the case
Will you get a long ladder and put it up against the side of your house, and mount it so as to get into your house by the top window; and window and when you have safely performed the feat write and tell me which rung of that ladder enabled you to do it.
I sympathize with your objection because it was once my own great stumbling-block in accepting the results of homoeopathic treatment; it may perhaps be adequately explained somewhere in the vast literature of the homoeopathic fraternity, but I have never come across such an explanation and hence have had to work it out for myself. I will put it to you thus:- In difficult, chronic complicated cases of disease you require not a remedy but a ladder (series) of remedies, not one of which can of itself effect the cure, but each of which works cure words, their cumulative action eventuating in a cure - THAT is how I cure cataract and many other chronic diseases that are currently held to be incurable by most men of all shades of therapeutic opinion. I regard this power of utilizing a long series of remedies for the cure of difficult chronic cases as only second in importance to the law of cure itself. I originally learned the thing in conversation with Dr. Drysdale of Liverpool though not formulated by him, and I doubt if Dr. Drysdale ever did formulate it. In my own mind I call it the ladder of remedies plan. It is what I often heard Dr. Drysdale call " a course of medicines."
I often compare the cure of a difficult case of disease to a game of chess in which you have king queen bishops, knights rooks and pawns the various powers which you must learn before you can play chess.
You do not expect to play chess without learning the game, but you do expect to be able to treat homoeopathically without even knowing the homoeopathic pawn! Hence my writing you all these reasons for my being a homoeopath is a futile farce. I am in fact, writing to you about chess without your knowing the pieces or even the board! Still here is my thirty-seventh reason.
It is more than a dozen years ago that I in the North attended a very wealthy lady, about seventy years of age,for acute mania. The friends had, under the advice of the local practitioner, decided to send her to an asylum, but I objected to that course being very sure she would never come out again. I have had charge of an asylum myself and know well that therapeutically anyone that goes to an asylum is lost. They are treated with great kindness and kept from harm and mischief but as to curing them- well the doctors" never even try! and indeed it is useless to treat the demented allopathically. But good genuine Homoeopathy would cure half the inmates of our asylums. You will question my statement, I dare say, but it is the bare simple truth all the same. It has been well and learnedly argued in the theory and often proved in practice as you may find for yourself if yourself if you will refer to our hereto-relative literature.
Homoeopathic (and other!) practitioners are often hoodwinked by the personal surroundings of a patient, and to be pitchforked into a nest of unbelievers to cure a desperate case is verily no pleasant position to be in, as any physician of the homoeopathic ilk knows but too well.
Now my patient had a lady companion who cast a withering glance at my humble self, and I knew instantly that she would baulk me in my efforts to cure unless I go or she must solemnly promise to obey all my orders with regard to the patient, "for said I, you do not believe in Homoeopathy, do you "No indeed, I do not!" And that young lady's look of scorn and contempt!
Thanks to Baptisia and other common homoeopathic.
remedies my patient made a complete recovery and never had a relapse.
This is my thirty-seventh reason for being a homeopath, and if ever I lose my reason become maniacal great Father in heaven, send me a homoeopathic brother who will treat me as I treated Mrs. B --.