LETTERS TO AN ORTHODOX DOCTOR.
You take exception to the number of remedies used in my last case, and want to know “which cured the case ?”.
Will you get a long ladder and put it up against the side of your house, and mount it so as to get into your house by the top window; and when you have safely performed the feat, write and tell me which rung of that ladder enabled you to do it.
I sympathize with your objection, because it was once my own great stumbling-block in accepting the results of Homoeopathic treatment; it may perhaps be adequately explained somewhere in the literature of the homoeopathic fraternity, but I have never come across such an explanation, and hence have had to work it out for myself.
I will put it to you thus:- In difficult, chronic, complicated cases of disease you require not a remedy but a ladder (series) of remedies, not one of which can of itself effect the cure, but each of which works cure-wards, their cumulative action eventuating in cure-THAT is how I cure cataract, and many other chronic diseases that are currently held to be incurable by most men of all shades of therapeutic opinion.
I regard this power of utilizing a long series of remedies for the cure of difficult chronic cases as only second in importance to the law of cure itself. I originally learned the thing in conversation with Dr. Drysdale of Liverpool, though not formulated by him, and I doubt if Dr. Drysdale ever did formulated it. In my own mind I call it the ladder of remedies plan. It is what I often heard Dr. Drysdale call ” a course of medicines:.
I often compare the cure of a difficult case of disease to a game of chess in which you have king, queen, bishops, knights rooks, and pawns, the various powers of which you must learn before you can play chess.
You do not expect to play chess without learning the game but do expect to able to treat homoeopathically without even knowing the homoeopathic pawn! Hence my writing you all these reasons for my being a homoeopath is a futile farce. I am, in fact, writing to you about chess without your knowing the pieces or even the board !! Still here is my thirty seventh reason.
It is more than a dozen years ago that I, in the North, attended a very wealthy lady, about seventy years of age for acute mania. The friends had, under the advice of the local practitioner, decided to send her to an asylum, but I objected to that course, being very sure she would never come out again. I have had of an asylum myself, and know well that, therapeutically, anyone that goes to an asylum is lost.
They are treated with great kindness, and kept from harm and mischief, but as to curing them well, the “mad doctors” never even try! and, indeed, it is useless to treat the demented allopathically. But good genuine homoeopathy would cure half the inmates of our asylums. You will question my statement, I dare say, but it is the bare simple truth all same. It has been well and learnedly argued in theory and often proved in practice, as you my find for yourself if you will refer to our hereto-relative literature.
Homoeopathic (and other!) practitioners are often hoodwinked by the personal surrounding of a patient, and desperate case is verily no pleasant position to be in, as any physician of the homoeopathic ilk knows but too well.
Now my patient had a lady companion who cast a withering glance at my humble self, and I knew instantly the she would baulk me efforts to cure, unless I prevented it. So I informed her that either she or I must go, or she must solemnly promise to obey all my orders with regard to the patient, “for,” said I, “you do not believe in homoeopathy, do you?” “No indeed, I do not!” And that young ladys look of scorn and contempt!.
Thanks to Baptisia and other common homoeopathic remedies my patient made a complete recovery, and never hand a relapse.
This is my thirty-seventh reason for being a homoeopath, and if ever I lose my reason and become maniacal, great Father in heaven, send me a homoeopathic brother, who will treat me as I treated Mrs. B-.
If you really wish to know the remedies that “did the trick” in my last reason, you have only to look into our literature with humble receptive mind, and you will soon spot them!.
I must get on with task, which is beginning to pall upon me, and I really cannot spare the time.
Not very long after I said goodbye to ex-maniacal patient I was one afternoon sitting in my consulting-room, when who should appear on the scene but the before mentioned lady companion of my said ex-maniacal patient.
“Doctor,” said she, “as you have cured Mrs. B-, I have been wondering whether you could also cure my sister, who is in an asylum suffering from mania; she is very bad, and the doctors say they have no hope of her, as she has been violent for so long.”.
I inquired somewhat into the nature of case, and gave as my opinion that Homoeopathy could cure her.
The plan was communicated to the superintendent of the asylum, who called me some very hard names, the first of which was that I was a deceiver, and that I knew perfectly well that she would never get well. We required the help of three or four people to bring her in a special carriage, and her violence was dreadful for many weeks.
For more than twelve years this young lady has been as sane as you or I, and has during all that time fulfiled the ordinary duties of an independent English lady. If you care to know what medicines did the good, you will find the whole case reported in the British Journal of Homoeopathy, about a dozen years ago. I remember figures with difficulty, so I cannot give you the exact date.
The young lady went with her mother to see the said asylum physician after she was well, but this cure did not lead him, so far I ever heard, either to apologize to me for his vulgar slanders of me, or to investigate the system of medicine that helped that helped me to cure where he failed, and which cure is my thirty-eighth reason for being a homoeopath. Note.- This lady still continues quite well (1896).
The weather is bad to-day, so I am not busy in my chambers; sick people cannot get out in this dreadful weather, and that gives consulting physicians a little time to ruminate. However, a gentleman of seventy-nine, whom I have just converted to homoeopath, was here just now, and his case must afford my thirty-ninth reason. It has the merit of being short and needing no particular introduction.
He came to me last August, and what fixed my attention was his striking resemblance to the late Lord Cairns, who, by the way, was homoeopath, as was also Archbishop Whately, the logic man. Fancy the great logician a homoeopath !.
Well, my patient had been to many eminent physicians in this London of ours for what he called “windy dyspepsia”. He is in great and almost constant pain, full of foul flatus, constant diarrhoea, often involuntary, which is a terrible distress to him.
He was greatly improved in a few months, and the remedies which did it were Arsenicum 5, Nux vomica 5, Sulphur 5, Lycopodium 12, and Colocynthis 3x.
Said the old gentleman, somewhat sententiously, “These medicines seem to suit me.”.
An officer in the army brought his twelve-year-old daughter to me on November 13th, 1886, telling me that she had something growing in the mouth. A similar growth had a year ago, when his family surgeon excised it; in six months from the time of the operation it had grown again, making it difficult for the child to eat her food, as it caught the tongue and teeth, and then bled.
This time the doctor ligatured it off thoroughly, leaving a hole, and informed the father that this time he hopped its roots were got rid of. Now it has grown again at the side of the said hole. On examining the mouth I find in left side, just to the left of the fraenulum lingulae, a warty fleshy excrescence, of the shape of a cocks comb, about a quarter of an inch broad at its base, and nearly a quarter of an inch high.
Patient has normal teeth; the tongue is coated and she is very pale. I ordered Thuja occidentalis 30 internally, in infrequent does, and a mouth wash of Thuja O, two drops in a desert spoonful of water night and morning; to keep it bathing the growth as long as possible, and then expectorate.
As this brought the growth down to the size of a pea, treatment was discontinued, but she then bit it on three successive occasions, where upon it again took to growing, and in January, 1887, when I saw it, it was about as big as a horse-bean. This time I ordered Sabina, just as I had previously ordered Thuja. Under the Sabina patient took on a healthy look, but a small piece of the growth still persisted when I ordered Cupressus lawsoniana in like manner as the Thuja and Sabina had been used.
That was in March, 1887, and I did not see her again. But I met her father in October on another matter, when I enquired about the case, and he replied, “Oh, she is quite well; the lump has been gone a long time, but the hole is still there.”.
So if you ever get a little cocks comb growth in your mouth take my advice and have it treated homoeopathically, for it is, as you see, much better than either excision or ligature, and you will thereafter have no “hole” to mark the locus in quo; and let the little tip stand as my fortieth reason for being a homoeopath.
Deafness is a very troublesome thing to deal with, but it is worth while being a homoeopath, were it only for the power it give over deafness. I never could make out what you allopathic fellows did for deafness beyond the everlasting syringing. I have peered about in the aural departments of big hospitals, and read the books of noted aurists, beginning with a namesake of my own, but could never find that they did any real good beyond clearing away mechanical hindrances. And even in homoeopathy it seen to me that our specialists rely far too much on cutting, scraping, and syringing.