|
§ 101
It may
easily happen that in the first case of an epidemic disease that
presents itself to the physician’s notice he does not at once obtain
a knowledge of its complete picture, as it is only by a close observation
of several cases of every such collective disease that he can become
conversant with the totality of its signs and symptoms. The carefully
observing physician can, however, from the examination of even the
first and second patients, often arrive so nearly at a knowledge
of the true state as to have in his mind a characteristic portrait
of it, and even to succeed in finding a suitable, homoeopathically
adapted remedy for it.
§ 102
In the
course of writing down the symptoms of several cases of this kind
the sketch of the disease picture becomes ever more and more complete,
not more spun out and verbose, but more significant (more characteristic),
and including more of the peculiarities of this collective disease;
on the one hand, the general symptoms (e.g., loss of appetite, sleeplessness,
etc.) become precisely defined as to their peculiarities; and on
the other, the more marked and special symptoms which are peculiar
to but few diseases and of rarer occurrence, at least in the same
combination, become prominent and constitute what is characteristic
of this malady.1 All those affected
with the disease prevailing at a given time have certainly contracted
it from one and the same source and hence are suffering from the
same disease; but the whole extent of such an epidemic disease and
the totality of its symptoms (the knowledge whereof, which is essential
for enabling us to choose the most suitable homoeopathic remedy
for this array of symptoms, is obtained by a complete survey of
the morbid picture) cannot be learned from one single patient, but
is only to be perfectly deduced (abstracted) and ascertained from
the sufferings of several patients of different constitutions.
1 The physician
who has already, in the first cases, been able to choose a remedy
approximating to the homoeopathic specific, will, from the subsequence
cases, be enabled either to verify the suitableness of the medicine
chosen, or to discover a more appropriate, the most appropriate
homoeopathic remedy.
§ 103
In the
same manner as has here been taught relative to the epidemic disease,
which are generally of an acute character, the miasmatic chronic
maladies, which, as I have shown, always remain the same in their
essential nature, especially the psora, must be investigated, as
to the whole sphere of their symptoms, in a much more minute manner
than has ever been done before, for in them also one patient only
exhibits a portion of their symptoms, a second, a third, and so
on, present some other symptoms, which also are but a (dissevered,
as it were), portion of the totality of the symptoms which constitute
the entire extent of this malady, so that the whole array of the
symptoms belonging to such a miasmatic, chronic disease, and especially
to the psora, can only be ascertained from the observation of very
many single patients affected with such a chronic disease, and without
a complete survey and collective picture of these symptoms the medicines
capable of curing the whole malady homoeopathically (to wit, the
antipsorics) cannot be discovered; and these medicines are, at the
same time, the true remedies of the several patients suffering from
such chronic affections.
§ 104
When
the totality of the symptoms that specially mark and distinguish
the case of disease or, in other words, when the picture of the
disease, whatever be its kind, is once accurately sketched,1 the most difficult
part of the task is accomplished. The physician has then the picture
of the disease, especially if it be a chronic one, always before
him to guide him in his treatment; he can investigate it in all
its parts and can pick out the characteristic symptoms, in order
to oppose to these, that is to say, to the whole malady itself,
a very similar artificial morbific force, in the shape of a homoeopathically
chosen medicinal substance, selected from the lists of symptoms
of all the medicines whose pure effects have been ascertained. And
when, during the treatment, he wishes to ascertain what has been
the effect of the medicine, and what change has taken place in the
patient’s state, at this fresh examination of the patient he only
needs to strike out of the list of the symptoms noted down at the
first visit those that have become ameliorated, to mark what still
remain, and add any new symptoms that may have supervened.
1 The old school
physician gave himself very little trouble in this matter in his
mode of treatment. He would not listen to any minute detail of all
the circumstances of his case by the patient; indeed, he frequently
cut him short in his relation of his sufferings, in order that he
might not be delayed in the rapid writing of his prescription, composed
of a variety of ingredients unknown to him in their true effects.
No allopathic physician, as has been said, sought to learn all the
circumstances of the patient’s case, and still less did he make
a note in writing of them. On seeing the patient again several days
afterwards he recollected nothing concerning the few details he
had heard at the first visit (having in the meantime seen so many
other patients laboring under different affections); he had allowed
everything to go in at one ear and out at the other. At subsequent
visits he only asked a few general questions, went through the ceremony
of feeling the pulse at the wrist, looked at the tongue, and at
the same moment wrote another prescription, on equally irrational
principles, or ordered the first one to be continued (in considerable
quantities several times a day), and, with a graceful bow, he hurried
off to the fiftieth or sixtieth patient he had to visit, in this
thoughtless way, in the course of that forenoon. The profession
which of all others requires actually the most reflection, a conscientious,
careful examination of the state of each individual patient and
a special treatment founded thereon, was conducted in this manner
by persons who called themselves physicians, rational practitioners.
The result, as might naturally be expected, was almost invariably
bad; and yet patients had to go to them for advise, partly because
there were none better to be had, partly for fashion’s sake.
§ 105
The second
point of the business of a true physician related to acquiring a
knowledge of the instruments intended for the cure of the natural
diseases, investigating the pathogenetic power of the medicines,
in order, when called on to cure, to be able to select from among
them one, from the list of whose symptoms an artificial disease
may be constructed, as similar as possible to the totality of the
principal symptoms of the natural disease sought to be cured.
§ 106
The whole
pathogenetic effect of the several medicines must be known; that
is to say, all the morbid symptoms and alterations in the health
that each of them is specially capable of developing in the healthy
individual must first have been observed as far as possible, before
we can hope to be able to find among them, and to select, suitable
homoeopathic remedies for most of the natural disease.
§ 107
If, in
order to ascertain this, medicines be given to sick persons only,
even though they be administered singly and alone, then little or
nothing precise is seen of their true effects, as those peculiar
alterations of the health to be expected from the medicine are mixed
up with the symptoms of the disease and can seldom be distinctly
observed.
§ 108
There
is, therefore, no other possible way in which the peculiar effects
of medicines on the health of individuals can be accurately ascertained
- there is no sure, no more natural way of accomplishing this object,
than to administer the several medicines experimentally, in moderate
doses, to healthy persons, in order to ascertain what changes, symptoms
and signs of their influence each individually produces on the health
of the body and of the mind; that is to say, what disease elements
they are able and tend to produce1,
since, as has been demonstrated (§§ 24-27), all the curative power
of medicines lies in this power they possess of changing the state
of man’s health, and is revealed by observation of the latter.
1 Not one single
physician, as far as I know, during the previous two thousand five
hundred years, thought of this so natural, so absolutely necessary
and only genuine mode of testing medicines for their pure and peculiar
effects in deranging the health of man, in order to learn what morbid
state each medicine is capable of curing, except the great and immoral
Albrecht von Haller. He alone, besides myself, saw the necessity
of this (vide the Preface to the Pharmacopoeia Helvet, Basil, 1771,
fol., p.12); Nempe primum in corpore sano medela tentanda est, sine
peregrina ulla miscela; odoreque et sapore ejus exploratis, exigua
illiu dosis ingerenda et ad ommes, quae inde contingunt, affectiones,
quis pulsus, qui calor, quae respiratia, quaenam excretiones, attendum.
Inde ad ductum phaenomenorum, in sano obviorum, transeas ad experimenta
in corpore aegroro,” etc. But no one, not a single physician, attended
to or followed up this invaluable hint.
§ 109
I was
the first that opened up this path, which I have pursued with a
perseverance that could only arise and be kept up by a perfect conviction
of the great truth, fraught with such blessings to humanity, that
it is only by the homoeopathic employment of medicines1 that the
certain cure of human maladies is possible.2
1 It is impossible
that there can be another true, best method of curing dynamic diseases
(i.e., all diseases not strictly surgical) besides homoeopathy,
just as it is impossible to draw more than one straight line betwixt
two given points. He who imagines that there are other modes of
curing diseases besides it could not have appreciated homoeopathy
fundamentally nor practised it with sufficient care, nor could he
ever have seen or read cases of properly performed homoeopathic
cures; nor, on the other hand, could he have discerned the baselessness
of all allopathic modes of treating diseases and their bad or even
dreadful effects, if, with such lax indifference, he places the
only true healing art on an equality with those hurtful methods
of treatment, or alleges the latter to be auxiliaries to homoeopathy
which it could not do without! My true, conscientious followers,
the pure homoeopathists, with their successful, almost never-failing
treatment, might teach these persons better.
2 The first fruits
of these labors, as perfect as they could be at that time, I recorded
in the Fragmenta de viribus medicamentorum positivis, sive in sano
corpore humano observatis, pts. I, ii, Lipsiae, 8, 1805, ap. J.
A. Barth; the more mature fruits in the Reine Arzneimittellebre,
I Th., dritte Ausg.; II Th., dritte Ausg., 1833; III Th., zweite
Ausg., 1825; IV Th., zw. Ausg., 1827 (English translation, Materia
Medica Pura, vols I and ii); and in the second, third, and fourth
parts of Die chronischen Krankheiten, 1828, 1830, Dresden bei Arnold
(2nd edit., with a fifth part, Dusseldorf bei Schaub, 1835, 1839).
§ 110
I saw,
moreover, that the morbid lesions which previous authors had observed
to result from medicinal substances when taken into the stomach
of healthy persons, either in large doses given by mistake or in
order to produce death in themselves or others, or under other circumstances,
accorded very much with my own observations when experimenting with
the same substances on myself and other healthy individuals. These
authors give details of what occurred as histories of poisoning
and as proofs of the pernicious effects of these powerful substances,
chiefly in order to warn others from their use; partly also for
the sake of exalting their own skill, when, under the use of the
remedies they employed to combat these dangerous accidents, health
gradually returned; but partly also, when the persons so affected
died under their treatment, in order to seek their own justification
in the dangerous character of these substances, which they then
termed poisons. None of these observers ever dreamed that the symptoms
they recorded merely as proofs of the noxious and poisonous character
of these substances were sure revelations of the power of these
drugs to extinguish curatively similar symptoms occurring in natural
disease, that these their pathogenetic phenomena were intimations
of their homoeopathic curative action, and that the only possible
way to ascertain their medicinal powers is to observe those changes
of health medicines are capable of producing in the healthy organism;
for the pure, peculiar powers of medicines available for the cure
of disease are to be learned neither by any ingenious a priori speculations,
nor by the smell, taste or appearance of the drugs, nor by their
chemical analysis, nor yet by the employment of several of them
at one time in a mixture (prescription) in diseases; it was never
suspected that these histories of medicinal diseases would one day
furnish the first rudiments of the true, pure materia medica, which
from the earliest times until now has consisted solely of false
conjectures and fictions of the imagination - that is to say, did
not exist at all.1
1 See what I have
said on this subject in the “Examination of the Sources of the Ordinary
Materia Medica,” prefixed to the third part of my Reine Arzneimittellebre
(translated in the Materia Medica Pura, vol. ii).
|