My dear allopathic confreres, WHY are you so very simple that you leave us homoeopaths with this enormous advantage over the best of you? Any little homoeopathic David can overcome the greatest allopathic giant, if he will only keep to his Materia Medica and the directions of Hahnemann. And the good thing lies so near, and is so constantly thrown at you. If we homoeopaths were only to make a secret of our art, you would petition the Government to purchase it of us!
But-revenons a nos moutons. My patient was naturally very grateful and said, “If that is homoeopathy, I wonder if it could cure my cataract?” On examining the eyes now with some care one could readily perceive that there were opacities behind the pupils, that of the right being the much more extensive. She then informed me that she had a cataract for some years, and was waiting for it to get ripe, so as to undergo an operation. She had been to two London oculists about it, and they agreed both as to diagnosis and eventual operative treatment. She had waited a year and gone again to one of these eye-surgeons and been told that all was satisfactorily progressing, although but slowly; it was thought it might take another two years before an operation could be performed. Her vision was also getting gradually worse, and she could not see the parting in her hair at the looking- glass, or the names over the shops, or on the omnibuses in the street; could see better in the dusk than in broad daylight.
In answer to her question as to the curability of cataract with medicines, I said I had no personal experience whatever on the subject beyond one case, * (This was the case of a lady of 48 years of age, with senile cataract, in which Calcarea 30, and Silicea 30, had been given with apparent benefit.) and I thought that from the nature of the complaint one could hardly expect medicines to cure it, or even affect it at all. Still some few homoeopaths had published such cases, and others had asserted that they sometimes did really succeed in curing cataract with homoeopathic treatment. I added that, inconceivable as it was to me, yet I had no right to question the veracity of these gentlemen simply because they claimed to do what seemed impossible.
In fine, I agreed at patient’s special request, to try to cure her cataract with medicines given on homoeopathic lines!
I must confess that I smiled a little at my own temerity. But I consoled myself thus: “What harm could it do to treat her while she was waiting to get blind? At the worst I should not prevent it!”
So it was agreed she should report herself every month or so, and I would each time prescribe for her a course of treatment.
All this was there and then agreed to.
She took from May 26th to June 19th, 1875, Calcarea Carbonica 30, and Chelidonium 1, one pilule in alternation 3 times a day. Thus, she had two doses of the Calcarea one day and one the next and conversely of the Chelidonium.
There were indications for both remedies, though I cannot defend the alternation; I hope I alternate less frequently now.
Then followed Asafoetida 6, and Digitalis Purp, 3.
Then Phosphorus 1, and subsequently Sulphur 30, and then Calcarea and Chelidonium.
Thus. I continued ringing the changes on Phosphorus, Sulphur, Chelidonium, Calcarea Carbonica, Asafoetida and Digitalis, till the beginning of 1876.
On February 7th, 1876, I prescribed Gelsemium 30, in pilules, one three times a day; and this was continued for a month.
Then I gave the following course of drug treatment: Silicea 30, for fourteen days; Belladonna 3, for fourteen days; Sulphur 30, three times a day for a week, and then Phosphorus 1, for a fortnight.