***LIKE all principles, those of homoeopathy have been discovered and evolved through the crucibles of time, experimentation, and increasing enlightenment. Like all principles, too they stand whether or not they have the ascription of those who profess to be their adherents. They are principles that, to those who understand and seek to apply them and to those who benefit from their application, stand pre- eminent, unchangeable, in spite of all changes in therapeutic fashions. To principles there is no time element. Natural law knows no ancient, no modern, Time offers only the greater opportunity for examination of the results of applied principles, the action of the natural laws; and evolution knows not the meaning of fashion.
The word *modern must always be used in a comparative sense. This never appreciated more keenly than when considered in the light of medical practice, and those elements of the practice of today that have survived the crucible of time have rightly become recognized as the principles of the art.
Medicine, while always dealing with the ills of mankind has passed through a continuous barrage of “modern” discoveries. Greater possibilities of investigation of the functions of the body have increased our knowledge of life processes and the circumstances of living; and this increase in knowledge has been of inestimable value in dealing with human suffering. But therapeutics, as demonstrated by modern medicine, is still in a state similar to that of the past, in that the discovery or development of the day is the seeming answer to almost all therapeutic problems. This is another way of saying that in spite of the increased knowledge of the mechanism of the body, no guiding principles have been discovered by the dominant school of medicine that are sure and certain indications in the field of therapeutics. That means there is no test but that of experience for any therapeutic agent, and modern medicine, despite the period of its discovery, still finds itself on a basis of empiricism rather than of true science.
Consider the discovery of the synthetic group of drugs. There has been a continuous procession of these substances over a period of years. Aspirin, luminol, the phenols, the sulphanilamides, the vitamins and numerous others. Each discovery has been hailed as a modern development of science for the conquering or alleviation of the ills of mankind. Sober investigation of the claims of these therapeutic measures astounds us with the conviction that in almost every instance the target at which these measures are aimed is a single symptom or, at most, a small group of symptoms, and not at the patient himself. In most cases the discovery of such a therapeutic agent has been met with loud acclaim and ardent advertising; its use became widespread very shortly. Soon the sincere students of science perceived through their laboratory research and from clinical observations, that there was another face to the seeming curative action of the substance, that was not without danger to the patient; and therefore warnings were sent out that there should not be too free use of the substances except under the most careful observation. In the meantime the fashion of use had spread, especially among those who always seek the easy road in therapeutics, the uninstructed and those who are addicted to self-dosing, with a corresponding amount of further damage to health.
Such as agent was aspirin. First advanced for its harmless sedative properties in the control of pain, it was widely used and in considerable amounts, by physician and laymen alike, until its depressant properties came to be respected by careful therapeutists. The American Medical Association found it advisable to publish warnings against the use of this substances which was commonly sold under the trade name of aspirin; but the use of the substance was not curtailed to any marked degree except by the most careful prescribers. It had become a cure-all for domestic use and all too often in hospitals and by physicians who sought first the suppression of the distressing symptoms rather than the cure of the patient.
Homoeopathic physicians have long known the dangers of suppressive measures, and have always had due respect for the innate powers of any medicament. It was Hahnemann who observed that any drug was poisonous if dangerous dosage were given. Therefore it is to be expected that homoeopathic physicians early recognized the dangers of the synthetic drugs, among them the coal-tar derivatives. The ability of the trained homoeopath to observe and correlate symptoms made it a foregone conclusion that he would easily trace the depressed vitality, the heart attacks, and many collapsed conditions, to the frequent use of aspirin and like pain-killers.
The homoeopathic physician is likewise trained to realize the dangers of suppressed or masked symptoms; that pain has its beneficent aspect as a guidepost, and that the discomforts of an acute cold or grippe cannot be suppressed without grave danger to the ultimate health of the patient The prevalence of the symptom, “never been well since.’ is proof of this.
The phenols, and easily phenobarbital, were hailed loudly as curative, and especially as palliative of many ills. It was not long before their deadly nature was discovered, and the warnings were posted against their use. They are still used extensively, but much more conservatively than formerly. In many of these instances, it is the early dangerous action that is discovered and the later, more insidious and long lasting effects are undiscovered or ignored until too late; these become constitutional and therefore are unrecognized.
Of course all these effects, from first to last, are homoeopathic proof of the potentialities of cure that lie in these synthetic drugs. To the homoeopath, however, there should be but one criterion for their use-the similarity of symptoms produced in the healthy for application to like ills in the sick.
The popular sulphanilamides are one of the best instances of the powers and dangers of synthetic drugs. They have been hailed for their powerful action in infections of many-one is tempted to say all-kinds. It is true that in laboratory and clinic they have proven this power. But along with the proven power of destroying invading organisms they have a like danger to normal cell balance; this has been recognized by those who developed the drug to the point where careful therapeutists will not use these agents without keeping careful laboratory check on the blood stream and other functions of the patient.
Probably more variations of this group of drugs have been developed than of any other that has become popular When sulphanilamide was first publicly recognized and marketed, it was permitted to fall into the hands of laymen who had read glowing accounts of its value and who decided that they could cure themselves of all their ailments with this wonderful panacea. Numbers of these hopeful sufferers purchased, and many deaths resulted. Manufacturers of the products were obliged to keep a closer watch on the production and distribution, and research chemists set about developing less dangerous combinations.
The fact remains that where medicinal agents are capable of eradicating organisms by any other method than by stimulation of the dynamic force to the point where nature itself balances the scale, there is danger to the patient, sooner or later.
It is no doubt true that sulphanilamide and its variations have a comparatively good record in such conditions as pneumonia and like infections. That is, a good record compared to that of the dominant school where pneumonia is a dangerous and often fatal disease. The sulphonamides have so far given a more creditable record than the serum treatments of pneumonia which were so well sung only a few years ago; and in the use of the sulphonamides only prompt use is necessary-one may omit the typing and thus save time. In fact, it has been said by eminent authorities on the use of the sulphonamides that in infections they must be used promptly in the onset of the infection of whatever kind, or they are useless.
Let us analyse this situation. Here we are given a therapeutic agent that will kill the invading organism, with a corresponding dangerous action against normal functions of the body; yet potent as this is, it is of no value against the invading organism after that has become established. Are we to believe that its danger to the normal cells of the patient has diminished in proportion to its possibilities of help against the invader?
It has been many years since the possibility of sterile death has been acknowledged-the blood stream being sterilized of invading organisms, yet death results. This is s true now as then; and the danger may be imminent or retarded in relation to the amount of the crude dosage or the frequency of its administration. Careful observers in both schools of medicine have noted the slow return to normal health of patients “cured”, i.e. the acute infection having been overcome, by heroic methods- or as we may better say, by the application of forces outside the normal functions of the body. Therefore although the invading organisms have been limited in action, the system has to overcome the effects of the infection plus the toxic effects of the treatment.
