I think we all recognise, in these days, what Hahnemann insisted on, that cure comes by the reaction of what he calls Vital Force against disease. We know a little more about the complicated mechanism of such reaction; but it is no longer absurd to teach, as he taught that vital reactions are evoked by disease, and that such reactions are curative; and that the utmost we can do, curatively is to stimulate such reaction.
He says that thousands of substances subversive to health, simulate disease conditions and can be employed to evoke enhanced curative reaction, where such is the case.
For instance… who will diagnose belladonna poisoning from scarlet fever? they have often been mistaken; or diagnose between dysentery and poisoning by corrosive sublimate? or between ptomaine and arsenical poisoning? Hahnemann contends and demonstrates that substances which simulate natural disease can be used, in fine dosage, for their cure. And the most striking homoeopathic curative results can be seen when using Arsenic (in infinite subdivision) for ptomaine poisoning, Mercurius cor. (corrosive sublimate) for dysentery or Belladonna for scarlet fever. Anyone who desires to put Homoeopathy to the test, cannot be better than start with one of the these.
Homoeopathy never contemplates curing disease by drugs in massive and repeated doses. Its object is to stimulate the patient to cure himself. Therefore it is never a question of quantity, where the vital stimulus is employed, but always of precise selection and quality, in the drug employed for the purpose.