Dr. Fergie Woods said he would like first of all to say that the afternoon had been one of the most valuable and instructive that he had ever spent at the Society. A great many of his own difficulties had been answered….Dr. Weir had said that no aggravation was to be expected from twelve or thirties, but Dr. Woods said that some of his most severe aggravations had been from thirty, especially in cases of malignant disease. One remedy that was not mentioned amongst those that “hang fire” was Phosphorus Whenever he gave Phosphorus Dr. Woods gave it an extra length of time to act, before changing or repeating….With reference to the heat and cold modality. Dr. Woods thought there was a tendency to place too much reliance on that. Apart from it being difficult to decide exactly what the patient meant, Dr. Woods thought that in itself the modality was not so valuable as it was generally supposed to be.
Dr. Bodman asked Dr. Weir whether he recommended any course of action with a view to the avoidance of interference by the use of such things as toothpaste, cosmetics or such things that might interfere with the action of the remedy or potency. A very large proportion of patients did use such things which might conceivably interfere with the action of the indicated remedy, and it might be helpful if Dr. Weir would say what things in particular the patient should be cautioned to avoid the use of. Another point was difficulty of dealing with those patients – not a small class – who came for the first time for homoeopathic treatment, and who had been in the habit of taking every day a small dose of salts of some kind, or of some other laxative. It was often a little difficult – and indeed one felt a little afraid – to advise these people that they must in all circumstances abstain from the use of any kind of laxative. The question was, did the continuance of the use of such laxatives entirely interfere with the action of the indicated remedy? Should the patient be advised straightway to abandon everything of the sort, and if so, was there any great difficulty in tiding over the interval before the remedy given took effect? Those were two practical points upon which Dr. Bodman said he would be very glad to have Dr. Weir’s opinion and advice.
Dr. Weir said with reference to Dr. Bodman’s remarks on the interference of toothpastes, cosmetics,, that he always advised patients to abandon their use. He had a patient suffering from high fever, and the seemingly indicated remedy had not helped her at all. On entering her room one day, he detected a strong smell of camphor. She denied using camphor. Then he noticed a bottle of Odol standing by her bedside: this contains a large percentage of camphor. He stopped its use, had it taken from the room, gave her the same medicine that ought to have helped her at first. She immediately began to mend and was soon well. He mentioned another patient, suffering from pleurisy. She had been recommended to rub in Sloan’s liniment. Her doctor had prescribed Bryonia which failed to touch the case till he got rid of the odour of the liniment. It took three days before the strong scent could be got out of the room; she was then given the same medicine and was soon all right. Dr. Weir said he always advised his patients to use plain precipitated chalk for cleaning the teeth; but Boyd’s emanometer showed that even that interfered in some way. Dr. Weir recommended the use of chalk or peroxide of hydrogen, and advised his patients to keep away from all strong smelling things. The question of purgatives was a very difficult one, and Dr. Weir said he would be glad if some of the older men present would give their experiences. Dr. Weir said he often told his patients that if they were on a dessert island, with no chemist’s shop or doctor, they would soon get rid of their constipation. He generally stopped laxatives, and advised such patients to sip cold water when warm in bed in the morning, and the effect was often amazing.
Dr. Neatby, in reply to a question, said he used to think that all the strong purgatives did interfere, but now he was not sure. He had been almost forced against his previous beliefs to think that salines given regularly did not interfere, and he did not think that paraffin interfered, as it acted more or less mechanically.
Dr. Goldsbrough thanked Dr. Weir for having brought this subject forward again in his own way. It had been exceedingly interesting, and some who had known Dr. Weir all his professional life said that he got more interesting as he went on. With regard to the aperient question, Dr. Goldsbrough said if the patient could be got to give up the aperient, there was an immensely greater chance of curing homoeopathically. He had verified that over and over again. The difficulty was to persuade the patient that it was not sufficiently important compared with other conditions to get the bowels moved every day. Of course there were some who suffered from not doing so, and those were a more difficult class to deal with, but those who had no symptoms referable to constipation could be dealt with more easily. Did Dr. Weir use high potencies of Nitric acid, Phos acid, Picric acid,? Dr. Golds had found it difficult to think that the acid was not altered in the process of dilution. Personally he had generally kept too the low potencies, but he used Picric acid fairly high. Dr. Goldsbrough ventured to think that headache, when deep in the patient’s experience, was a general rather than a particular symptom. He had repeatedly given Sanguinaria in similar cases to those described by Dr. Weir. In duodenal ulcer and cholecystitis mental symptoms were certainly doubtful and unreliable. Would it not follow that from his type of case mental depression would be expected and become important? Dr. Goldsbrough remembered Chelidonium, Podophyllum, Leptandra and two or three other drugs that worked round that sphere of the body, and they were very finely distinguished by their peculiar local reference. Locally in such cases was very important. Claustrophobia cases were different from general restlessness of the patient. Fear was so much an affection of the individual that he might be restless with it, but the patient who was claustrophobic was obsessed with an idea he must get up and go out of the place. It was not simply a suffering from restlessness. Some of Dr. Weir’s earlier remarks suggested various other points worthy of discussion. First of all, there was that great question of time in relation to the patient. How soon should a medicine act? How soon did it act? Secondly, what would be the effect upon a patient’s health by time? Dr. Goldsbrough said he could not accept the theory about giving a single dose of medicine as applying to cases generally. He brought up the criticism that particular patient might have been affected by time and circumstance in the favourable way, and from that point of view statements as to the effect of the medicine should be received with the greatest possible caution. Another consideration was the effect of personality. The effect of personality was not estimable between the doctor and the patient, but it was estimable between the patient’s one state and another at different intervals as the effect of the doctor, and that was where the true influence of personality came in. The whole problem of mind and body was thereby brought into consideration. They were only on the threshold of knowledge of the subject, but they must go on trying to work through those big things. Dr. Weir was an idealist. He started with calling homoeopathy “Hahnemann’s Law of Cure”, but a great many of Hahnemann’s followers had said that there was not cure, but recovery of the patient. With reference to the use of Baptisia in pneumonia, a dose of Baptisia might give the patient a start towards recovery, but one would hesitate to say the Baptisia cured the patient of pneumonia. The patient may not have got well without it, and the Baptisia may have helped, but to enable them to say so demanded comparison in a great number of similar cases.
Dr. Weir felt sure that Dr. Goldsbrough knew more about the question of potentized acids than he did; but personally, he always gave Nitric, Picric and other acids in high potency. One of the best things he ever did was the treatment of a man suffering from neurasthenia, to whom he gave Picric acid 1000, a single dose; and whose recovery was immediate and lasting. With reference to headaches, Dr. Weir agreed with Dr. Goldsbrough. Referring to the question of “cure” Dr. Weir said, of course the homoeopathic medicine did not cure. It merely stimulated the patient to set about curing himself; and this was the highest form of cure. For here the patient’s resistance was increased and stimulated to do its own fighting. Dr. Weir did not think Dr. Goldsbrough was quite fair in saying that patients might have got better anyway. We knew by multiplied experience that after receiving homoeopathic medicines patients had a better chance than they had before. Another point raised was the question of time. The patient had probably had twenty years in which to get well, surely that was plenty of time. He had failed.
Weir received his medical education first at Glasgow University MB ChB 1907, and then on a sabbatical year in Chicago under the tutelage of Dr James Tyler Kent of Hering Medical College during 1908-9. Weir reputedly first learned of homeopathy through his contact with Dr Robert Gibson Miller.
John Weir wrote- Some of the Outstanding Homeopathic Remedies for Acute Conditions with Margaret Tyler, Homeopathy and its Importance in Treatment of Chronic Disease, The Trend of Modern Medicine, The Science and Art of Homeopathy, Brit Homeo Jnl, The Present Day Attitude of the Medical Profession Towards Homeopathy, Brit Homeo Jnl XVI, 1926, p.212ff, Homeopathy: a System of Therapeutics, The Hahnemann Convalescent Home, Bournemouth, Brit Homeo Jnl 20, 1931, 200-201, Homeopathy an Explanation of its Principles, British Homeopathy During the Last 100 Years, Brit Homeo Jnl 23, 1932: etc