Protection from Sickness by James Tyler Kent

ORGANON $ 35 et seq.

From these paragraphs we see that there are several kinds of protection from sickness. When a violent epidemic is raging we all know that, although the number of victims is large, they are few compared to those who go through the epidemic unscathed, and the question always arises, why is it? We suppose, and probably rightly so, that a large number of the immune have escaped because they were usually strong and vigorous, or in a state of very good order.

But we find among those who have escaped the epidemic a number of persons who are anything but strongly really invalids, one in consumption, another in the last stages of Bright’s disease, another with diabetes. We call them all together and find than none of them have had dysentery or smallpox, or whatever disease was epidemic. They have not been susceptible to epidemic influences. How are you going to explain this? The reason is that they have sickness that it is impossible for the epidemic to suppress.

The epidemic is allopathic, or dissimilar to their diseases, and cannot suppress their disease because of its virulency. Now if they some mild from of chronic disease, a severe attack of dysentery will cause that disease to disappear temporarily, and the new (epidemic) disease will take hold and run its course, and when its subsides the old symptoms will come back again and go on as if they had not been meddled with. This is an illustration of dissimilars, and shows that dissimilars are unable to cure : they can only suppresses. If the chronic disease is stronger than the epidemic disease, i.e., if it has an organic hold upon the body, it cannot be suppressed. This is essentially the relation of the acute dissimilar disease to the chronic disease of severity.

The relation between chronic dissimilar diseases is somewhat different. For example, a patient is in the earlier stages of Bright’s disease, and the symptoms are clear enough to make a diagnosis. He takes syphilis, and at once the kidney disease is held in abeyance, the albumin disappears from the urine and his waxiness is lost. But after a year’s careful prescribing the syphilitic state disappears, and very soon the albumin appears again in the urine the dropsy returns and he dies of an ordinary attack of Bright’s disease.

Then there are cases where two chronic diseases seem at times to alternate with each other; one seems to be subdued for a time and the other prevails. Under proper homoeopathic treatment one will be reduced in its activity and the other chronic disease will show itself. This you will find to be the case when have to treat syphilis and psora together.

The psoric patient, who has been suffering from a skin eruption or one of the various forms of psora, takes syphilis, all the the psoric manifestations, the nightly itching of the salt rheum will disappear, and the syphilitic manifestations for a while and you will be able to subdue them, and in proportion again and will hold inn abeyance that portion of the syphilitic state which is still uncured. You will than be compelled to drop the anti-syphilitic and take up the anti-psoric treatment, and again the homoeopathic remedies will restore apparent order in the economy.

But after this has been done, you will be surprised to see syphilitic state return in the condition corresponding to its last manifestations. You must then drop the anti-psoric treatment and resume the anti- syphilitic. Thus they alternate; when you weaken one, the stronger comes up. The uncomplicated syphilitic eruption does not itch; but the psoric eruption as a rule is an itching eruption, and this will be seen in the alternation of the two diseases. If the patient is given proper treatment his condition will be simplified, but if given proper treatment it will become very complicated.

The two miasms will unite and form a complexity, which is most vicious state of affairs; then the syphilitic eruptions, while they have all the appearance of syphilis, will itch as if they were psoric eruptions. Mercury in large doses is capable of bringing about such a result. Proper homoeopathic treatment causes a separation, while inappropriate treatment produces complication, and you will never see one improve where homoeopathic remedies have caused the trying up of the combination.

Again take a chronic malarial diathesis, which has existed so long that it has complicated itself with psora we sill see after the quinine has been antidoted that the chills and fever will come back in their original form. Here you see an evidence of the separation which Homoeopathy always tends to bring about. The malarial state is now brought into observation for the purpose of cure.

It cannot be cured when complicated, for the remedy cannot be clear that will be similar enough to wipe them out. The first prescription antidotes the drug and liberates the patient from the drug disease, and then you see the most acute or last appearing natural disease which comes back first. This is in accordance with fixed law; the last miasm or the last symptoms that have been made to disappear will be the first to return and go away to appear no more.

In $36 another thoughts comes up: “Thus non-homoeopathic treatment, which is not violent, leaves the chronic disease unaltered. To suppress, there is required a state of violence to be brought about upon the body; one must do violence to the economy by enormous dosing, tremendous physic, much sweating, bloodletting, etc., such as was done in olden times.

Such treatment tends to subdue or suppress disease for the time being; but when the violence has subsided and the rough treatment is removed then the symptoms come back, but in the chronic disease. Violent treatment alter the nature of the chronic disease. A new and more intense disease suspends a prior dissimilar one existing in the body; similarly, just so long as the effect of quinine continues, so long will it suppress and hold in abeyance the disease to which it is dissimilar.

Quinine is capable of engrafting upon the economy its own disease from which will last for years and may not stop until it has been antidoted, by a medicine similar to its symptoms. But if it is antidoted, that malarial disease which its suppressed will appear in its original form and the patient sill say : “These are just the symptoms I had in the first place when I was cured by the late Dr. So-and- so; he cured me with Peruvian bark.” That story is so common that any homoeopathic physician who has been doing sound prescribing for years has lots of records of just such cases. The malaria was subdued only because the quinine was capable of producing a more violent disease than malaria. Arsenicum is capable of doing the same thing; it can engraft upon the economy a dangerous disease that will result in very serious conditions because the Arsenicum will complicate itself with psora.

In some cases we have a complexity of horrible things, lime one built upon another, and when this is so, in treating them the last group which was removed will appear first, which shows that the remedy has done its work, and we then go on to the next, and so on, the different groups sometimes appeared one after another in distant form. They must disappear in the reverse order of their coming, as if put on in layers, one piled upon another.

From all this we see how it is possible for two different diseases to occupy, as it were, two different corners of the same economy, one manifesting itself while the other is subdued. We also see how they may exist in a state of complexity. In the first instance they do not combine, in the other they do and become complex. We also see the propriety and use of observing what treatment has been administered to the patient. It is not always possible to do this, and it is impossible to know whether each on of these drugs has established its own disease.

Not every drug that is administered is capable of establishing a disease. It is always prudent, when symptoms are only partially developed, and when the drug which caused the suppression of symptoms is known, to include the antidotal relation to the drug with the rest of the symptoms; that is to say, select a drug which has a well-known antidotal relation to the drug that caused the suppression of the symptoms, providing it is also the most similar of all drugs to the few symptoms that are present. In that way we make as much of similitude as if possible. The similar remedy is most likely of all others to antidote that drug, Do not be led aside to administer right away the drug that caused the trouble. The principle of Similia is first.

$43. Totally different, however is the result when two similar diseases meet together in the organism; that is to say, when to the disease already present a stronger similar one is added. In such cases we see how a cure can be effected by the operation of nature, and we get a lesson as to how man ought to cure.

Then a real conjunction takes place, a union as it were, a marriage, which results in the disappearance of old things and new things come and exist in a state of order.


The old school of Allopathy considered about `sickness’ and `medicine’ in a particular way.

– The sphere of sickness was limited to the physical level. Only tissue changes were seen and considered.

– The source of sickness, process of sickness, the nature of sickness and the concept of real health were not studied.

– Only the result of sickness was felt with fingers, seen with eyes and observed by sense through instruments.

– The meaning of restoration of health was confined to relief in the ailments of particular organs where they appeared. – Drugs were used in crude forms to remove the ailments.

– The system was based entirely on experience. Decisions were made on opinions of individuals at different times and concensus of opinions or hypothesis.

– Pathological findings formed the basis of the diagnosis.

– The internal of man–his mental and emotional aspects were not considered.

– Symptoms–the language of sickness, at the levels of mind, emotion and body were not studied.

– Every pathological result had its corresponding bacteria.

– Doctrine of Vital Force had no place for them.

– Prime importance was given to the organs of man, and not to the man himself which constituted of body mind and emotions.

Will and understanding of man not studied and considered

Dr. Hahnemann `proved’ the drugs on healthy enlightened human bodies. He found that the drugs affected the mind, the emotions and the body and the effects are expressed through symptoms and modalities. He also found that these drugs in potency are able to remove Similar Sickness appearing in human beings. He discovered an Universal Truth; a truth based on `science’ where opinions do not matter, experiences do not form basis; source of sickness, process of sickness and the nature of sickness is explored and the correct curative agent is found.

Dr. Kent has interpreted and explained the various aspects of Hahnemann’s “Organon of the Healing Art”. His lectures are so vivid that they mirror the fundamental laws of health and healing to the mankind at all levels of understanding. This book was written about 90 years ago-but still, the concepts hold true in the present times. He was an empirical Hahnemannian. He could not compromise with the deviation from principles and philosophy and we find his criticism sometimes sharp and bitter of `Pseudo-homoeopaths’.

– Man is the will and the understating and the house which he lives in is his body.

– The organs are not the man. The man is prior to the organs.

– The order of sickness as well as the order of cure is from man to his organs. The real sick man is prior to the sick sick body.

– A man is sick prior to localization of disease. When we wait for localization, the results of disease have rendered the patient incurable.

– Symptoms are but the language of nature, talking out, as it were, and showing as clearly as the daylight, the internal nature of the sickman or woman.

– Crude drugs cannot heal the sick and that what changes they effect are not real but only apparent.

– Tissue changes are of the body and are the results of the disease, they are not the disease.

– The bacteria are results of the disease. The disease cause is more subtle.

– The remedy, which will produce on healthy man similar symptoms, is the master of the situation, is the necessary antidote, will overcome the sickness, restore the will and understanding to order and cure the patient.

– Man consists in what he thinks and what he loves and there is nothing else in man.

– The physician has to `perceive’ in the disease that which is to be cured, and that is through `totality of symptoms’. He has to perceive the nature of disease and the nature of the remedy.

– Experience has only a confirmatory place. It cannot take the place of science and truth.

– All true diseases of the economy flow from centre to circumference. All miasms are true diseases.

– The active cause is within, and the apparent cause of sickness is without. If a man has no deep miasmatic influence, outer causes will not affect him.

– Homoeopathy has two parts: the science of homoeopathy are the art of homoeopathy. One has to learn the art of homoeopathy to prepare himself for the application of the science of homoeopathy.

– Vital force is constructive and formative, and in its thing in the universe has its aura. Every star and planet has it. The remedy to be homoeopathic must be similar in quality and similar in action to the disease cause.

– As soon as the internal economy is deprived in any manner of its freedom, death is threatening; where freedom is lost, death is sure to follow.

– Potency should suit the varying susceptibility of sickman.

– Any more than just enough to supply the susceptibility is a surplus and is dangerous.

– Human race has been greatly disordered in the economy because of surplus drug taking.

– Primitive cause is not in the bacteria. Bacteria themselves have a cause to appear and survive.

– Over sensitive patients are actually poisoned by the inappropriate administration of potentized medicines.

– Their chronic miasms are complicated with chronic drugging and its effect upon the vital force.

– The physician who can only hold in his memory the symptoms of a disease or a remedy will never succeed as a homoeopath.

– The majority of such as call themselves homoeopaths at the present time, are perfectly incompetent to examine a patient, and therefore incompetent to examine homoeopathy.

– It is impossible to test homoeopathy without learning how to get the disease image so before the eyes that the homoeopathic remedy can be selected.

– At the present day, there is almost no such thing as an unprejudiced mind.

– Do not prescribe until you have found the remedy that is similar to the whole case, even although it is clear in your mind that one remedy may be more similar to one particular group of symptoms and another remedy to another group.

– It is unaccountable, therefore, that some of our homoeopathic practitioners make use of palliatives that are so detrimental to the patients.