From “Deutsche Zeitschrift fur Homoeopathie”,
March 1941. Translator S. W. S.
DR. F. SULZER, BERLIN, GERMANY.
Whoever thinks he has studied Homoeopathy without penetrating into its spirit is soon ready to criticise. At one time the strict diet was supposed to have given the result or kind nature which helped itself, but never could the well chosen and properly potentized remedy transform sickness to health! To fight against such remonstrances with sound arguments, would be like carrying coal to Newcastle.
He who understands the matter can only shrug the shoulder in comparison, for it would be “loves labor lost” to try to convert such ignorance. In order to instruct, presupposes some rudimentary knowledge of the matter in question, or at least the effort to acquire that knowledge. But both qualifications I must deny to such an opponent who knows the thing, has studied it thoroughly, and has arrived at a final conclusion,” hence sapienti sat!.
It is different matter with the subjects mentioned in the title of this paper. They are often slung at homoeopathists, and even among our own confreres they have been voiced to brand extreme trends within the family of homoeopathic physicians. The one side is supposed to work with routine, perhaps with a compendious textbook, or with the aid of a “Family Physician”, the other works out the symptoms one by one and compares them with the repertory without delving into the real nature of the disease, the pathologic anatomic picture.
We do not believe that such extremes are found among real homoeopathic physicians, nor do we think that such mental dullness in treating the sick leads to remarkable results, hence such ways are soon abandoned to avoid losing the patients. But a kernel of truth is contained in such reproaches, for the routine treatment is a danger, especially for the very busy physician, which might easily wreck his very best efforts.
Through many and varied experiences with especially acute diseases, a certain, I might say, routine action has developed, which immediately brings to our mind the indicated remedy when we have viewed the disease picture in its essential features. And the results show us that we are usually right–until some day a case presents itself which soon demonstrates that our routine is nothing. Here we must make a “neat and clean,” differential diagnosis if we are to find the simillimum.
When we come to treat a typical case of diphtheria we usually select Apis and Mercurius cyanatus (the latter highly esteemed in Germany by our school SWS) without hesitation, even though the cases differed in the beginning. The further course without doubt shows that sometimes other remedies must he consulted. We can excuse the physician, for just as in acute diseases the beginning symptoms are the least pronounced individual indications, the latter do not appear until later on.
It would be senseless not to let our experience guide us to some extent, but always to consider the present cases as individual for which we must first search for the simillimum. Thus in most cases of pleurisy our experience prompts us to give Bryonia unless fever and other symptoms demand that Aconitum be considered.
Undoubtedly there are cases where Bryonia disappoints, and Kali carbonicum is indicated. JAHR, who can not be accused of neglecting the symptoms, but who was called a symptom- coverer, states in his Therapeutic Guide page 213, after urging the use of Aconitum and Bryonia in pleurisy: “and if the severe stitching pains continue, Kali carbonicum, and sometimes Kali nitricum must be given.”
It is self-evident that remedies must be chosen according to strict individualisation, yet I must confess that I have often seen the action of Kali carbonicum, but I never could detect any indication for it in fresh cases, even though I, and especially the patient would have fared better, had we not lost valuable time by giving Bryonia first without results. This is where experience comes in, and a certain empiricism, based on the precepts of our materia medica pura, which we must not reject and which we can not very well do without.
Some years age a very sick child came under my care after allopathic treatment. It was a case of broncho-pneumonia following capillary bronchitis. The allopathic colleague had given the gravest prognosis, which was the reason why homoeopathy was sought. There was a very detailed chart with temperature curves for every two hours; from noon till evening the temperature rose to 105 degrees. Examination disclosed fine rales on both lungs, and posteriorly on the left side I found bronchial breathing.
Respiration was correspondingly increased, and the entire picture decidedly discouraging. I confirmed the grave prognosis of my predecessor unless my medicaments would soon improve the condition. I gave Sulphur 6x and Phosphorus 6x, a teaspoonful in hourly alternation. The result was surprising event to the father took the temperature every two hours. The fever receded and was not higher in the evening than in the morning. The medication was continued and in a few days the little patient was not out of danger.
Who will find fault when this experience became the pattern for my future medication in broncho-pneumonia, even accompanying measles or pertussis? These remedies gave excellent results almost always, and I also employ them in severe cases of capillary bronchitis where I fear complication of broncho-pneumonia, even if there are not any physical signs of it. I am satisfied with my results, and only wish that experience would place more such reliable healing agencies in my hands. In reality this is pure empiricism, and yet I consider the cure as genuinely homoeopathic.
But in very few acute conditions are we able to boast of such generalizing experiences; usually we are confronted with a number of remedies from which we have to find the simillimum, just to mention acute catarrh of the stomach, diarrhoea, sore throat, etc., for which we have to individualize carefully to be on the safe side. That the choice i not easy is mainly the reason why homoeopathy is not more adopted. Of course, it is more convenient to prescribe Opium tincture for diarrhoea, or the well known cholera drops, than to find the simillimum among the many remedies.
As a matter of course an allopathic physician is antagonistic to the entire idea of homoeopathy, and loath to consider that a catarrh of the stomach may be worse after bread, eggs, fatty food or ice water. It is absolutely immaterial for his action whether the stomach condition occurred after drinking milk or sour wine, but we homoeopathists however have to pay close attention to these conditions for the selection of that remedy which cures the case quickly and best.
Therefore, in a certain sense routine prescribing, or better expressed, a treatment based on experience, limited empirically, is not to be rejected in homoeopathy. However, we may not give empiricism free rein to the extent of some of our confreres in partibus infidelium, that with the name of the disease the prescription is also ready, like iron in chlorosis, salicylic acid in rheumatism, chininum or antipyrinum in fever, etc.
It remains to say something about symptom covering. That word, I will not deny it, has a disagreeable sound, and does not reflect good therapeutic thinking. Science fares even worse when I regard therapy in such a way that I put symptom against symptom and thus draw conclusions as to the correct remedy. However, matters are not that simple, for if one only counts the symptoms without weighing them, one fares badly.
The total of the subjective and objective symptoms undoubtedly represent the disease, and the more faithfully when all symptoms have been properly regarded. To find the simillimum for the disease, I have to search for that remedy which has the most similar symptom complex in its pathogenetic action. Hence in reality the symptoms of disease and remedy must be as much alike as possible. In other words: must cover each other. But that leaves a good deal for the thinking physician and his action, above all the recognition of the symptom complex, which is the disease itself, in order to establish the nature of the disease.
Here we have to weigh well, to separate the essential from the non-essential, to arrive at a diagnosis, which not only outlines the sickness picture in sharp concepts, but also clearly accentuates in light and shadow, in color and tone the importance of all parts. To find the simillimum, the remedy has to undergo the same scrutiny, it must be similar not only in the most prominent lines, but also in light and shadow it has to correspond to the disease.
Suppose I had before me a sickness with the symptoms a-b-and c, where the main tone is on a, then a remedy which has the symptoms a-b and c, but with the proving emphasis on c. This could not be the simillimum. The main symptoms–a–I might find in 3, 4 or more remedies, hence they demand recognition, and I would see which one also presented–b–and possibly–c–. If I found a remedy which had–a–very prominently, but neither–b–nor–c–, then I would probably not have much success with it. At times such a remedy may give some relief, but not enough, or it might soon cease to act.
