So many appeals having come directly to our notice, we are convinced of the necessity of presenting the readers of “HEAL THYSELF” with some homoeopathic help for this disease. The majority of these urgent requests have come from areas removed from homoeopathic medical help, whilst others have come from distant hot countries where dysenteries are very prevalent and quite serious.
A number of our tropical correspondents inform us that, whilst “Emetine”, in orthodox hands, appears to alter the bowel fluxes, the patients seem to drift at once into a condition if anything worse than the dysentery, for such cases go downhill steadily.
It is to be learned from orthodox standard literature that “liver abscesses” are a common sequel to dysentery when treated with “Emetine”, the much vaunted orthodox “specific” for this disease. This sequel seems almost to be expected by orthodoxy, for some reason or other.
If amoebic dysentery be treated with Ipecacuanha in homoeopathic hands, these liver “abscesses” are not to be expected, showing that the orthodox alkaloid of Ipecacuanha, “Emetine”, is not as efficacious as our homoeopathic Ipecacuanha, after the orthodox pharmaceutical chemist has done his scientific work for his masters.
It is with the view of directly aiding many isolated and distant world dwellers and workers that this information is given. It is hoped that British home readers will at once send a copy (or copies) of this Journal to their friends who are handicapped by their isolation and proximity to this disease.
Dysenteries are not unknown in Europe, and one of the five largest U.S.A. cities has been in the grip of amoebic dysentery for the past year. So this introduction to Homoeopathy will not be amiss even to those who live in temperate climates.
Readers are invited to compare the orthodox treatment with the more precise and safer method of homoeopathic medication, which follows. To those who wish to help their friends in hot climates it will be well to post them a small box of specially selected remedies likely to be needed in such type of cases, buying the chosen drugs in medicated pill form, which should only be obtained from special homoeopathic chemists advertising in the pages of this Journal. Medicated pills are the best for hot countries, as tinctures evaporate quickly, even though apparently well corked.
I have a relation, now in India, who has been in serious trouble with just this disease. He had to be treated by an orthodox man, who used the “routine specific Emetine,” but several subsequent letters point to an immediately following serious condition, to the extent that, although the amoebae were no longer to be found in the irregular and changing bowel evacuations, his heart became so gravely affected that he was ordered to stay in bed for some months, never being allowed to put his feet to the ground, while some lung complication, with bloody expectoration (profuse) also asserted itself.
This complication was at first diagnosed as “T.B.”, but my last letter received, written from a hill station, says that the patient has gained ten pounds weight in the matter of a few weeks. So I am forced to think it was not “T.B.” at all, but some revulsion of Nature following a suppressed dysentery, due to an overdose of the alkaloid Emetine..
From some study of orthodox literature it does not seem to be at all clear what quantity a “personal dose of Emetine” really is, for the drug is slow of being eliminated from the system, and again, the “personal equation of drug limit” varies remarkably in various patients, according to orthodox statements. This should be a warning to avoid alkaloids at orthodox hands, the dosage of which is often estimated on certain “animal weights” corresponding with “human weights” as worked out in the laboratory.
The alternative to “animal weights, etc.” is a matter of a doctors experiment on the patient as to what is a safe “personal dose”, based on the average dose recommended by some laboratory scientist. It is the old cry that orthodoxy tires how much drug it dare give in any case.
How different is the homoeopathic method of testing our drugs on volunteer human “provers” (experimenters) and subsequently we contemplate how minute may be our curative “stimulative” dose, instead of following the orthodox method of trying to discover how big a dose a human being can stand without apparent immediate damage to the patient. Please bear in mind that any surplus drug, more than the minute curative stimulation necessary, always succeeds in doing damage to the human organism, often amounting to an actual “drug disease.”
It is worth while to consider how orthodoxy pitched upon the strong alkaloid “Emetine”, bearing in mind that it is now given as a routine measure for anything that smacks of a dysentery, for probably not 50 per cent. of such cases obtain a laboratory report.
How did orthodoxy first get the idea of using “Emetine”? The homoeopathic doctors of Brazil, which country stands in the first ranks of our school, having at Rio a Homoeopathic College supported by the Federal Government, whose graduates are eligible for any Federal post our doctors there have had such remarkable successes in curing amoebic dysentery for the best part of a century, as this disease is “endemic” (always present) in that country, that the orthodox profession was obliged to take notice of our successes, as the laity soon realized that the homoeopathic doctors of Brazil practically saved every case they treated, whilst orthodoxy was not “enjoying” such results.
However, it is to be supposed that the simple Ipecacuanha tincture (alcoholic whole plant extract), nor did they like to “copy-cat” exactly. Anyhow,their chemists evolved the alkaloid “Emetine”, which, whilst ridding the gut of its amoebae, did not somehow cure the patient quite satisfactorily, for orthodoxy very often has woeful sequellae to its cases.
They report that these amoebae are to be found in the livers of the “cured” dysenteric cases, causing terrible “abscesses”. They even burst through into the lungs (far from a pleasant affair); such things are not found in homoeopathically treated patients.
Laboratory pharmacy is not as safe as it is cracked up to be; it is not as simple as the Law of Similia, Homoeopathy, which medicates on purely personal symptoms of every patient, irrespective of the diagnosed name of any disease, thus avoiding the chance of a “mistaken diagnosis”. We study, for the purposes of a prescription, the peculiar symptoms of Tom, Dick, Harry or Mary. Sir William Osler has stated that 45 per cent. of obscure case are wrongly diagnosed, and many dysenteries are “mixed” infections.
Orthodoxy states that any case of dysentery “mal-treated at first, may be driven from the bowel into the liver, with resulting abscesses, and then beyond the liver into the lungs, with what is known as an anchovy sauce sputum” (disintegrated blood). Orthodoxy claims that their “Emetine” is a parasiticide (kills germs), but what avails it if the germs transfer their work from gut, to forming “liver abscesses” and “anchovy sauce”, etc.?.
Though this article is written to help cases of amoebic dysentery, one must at the same time bring into consideration the bacillary form of dysentery, especially because orthodox standard works state that it is frequently impossible to decide with any certainty which form is causing the trouble, without most exact laboratory help.
For your intelligent aid I am presenting the “personal symptomatic prescribing” of Homoeopathy, in order that you, the laity, and the orthodox profession, may at once learn to help the sick more surely, and I am trying to put things so simply that any of the laity may be able to prescribe safely and easily in times of urgent call, when no professional help is at hand. The intent of this Journal is to carry help to people who demand Homoeopathy, yet who cannot obtain homoeopathic doctors.
There seem to be human “carriers” of the disease, therefore wherever the laity attempt to treat what seems to be any dysentery, and far removed from medical help, they must see that all stools (earth closets, mere holes in the ground, etc.) are chemically treated, when it is suspected that there are cases about, arranging things so that flies cannot carry germs to food. If anyone is so placed that strong chemicals are not to be obtained, all dejecta should at once be deeply buried, frequently changing the public or private latrines.
Cases of amoebic dysentery vary extremely in intensity, but even very light “walking cases” find eventually that their health is slowly and surely being destroyed; they find general weakness, loss of flesh, inability to eat, followed by anaemia and jaundiced complexion. Light cases report about six stools daily. In acute bacillary dysentery stools run up to thirty or more in twenty-four hours.
Cases of either type can relapse after orthodox “Emetine” treatment, and many cases persist for year, on and off. Cases may be of “mixed infection” presenting at one time both amoebic and bacillary invasion. This emphasizes the value of the “personal symptomatic” prescribing of Homoeopathy, rather than a routine employment of a “specific such as “Emetine”.
With our differentiation of particular and “most peculiar” symptoms, homoeopaths have cured dysenteric cases all over the world with our simple and minute remedies, and it has not been noticed that complications are frequent under our treatment. Homoeopaths do not set up any undue “drug aggravations”. We employ small to infinitesimal doses, aiming to create a “nerve stimulation” towards repair.
On the contrary, orthodoxy tries to kill the germs in the body, estimating their dosage and procedure as learned by them in their laboratory test tubes, forgetting or ignoring that the body is but a collection of the most delicate nerves, cells and tissues, which can never be regulated by a “test tube reaction”, nor even by an animal experiment. These orthodox gropings would be laughable if they were not so disastrous to the patients, sooner or later. Remember that two- thirds of homoeopathic practice of medicine consists in curing “drug diseases” implanted by orthodox over-dosing, which are wrongly called “chronic diseases”.
Whilst orthodoxy vaunts the germ-killing power (?) of “Emetine”, their standard works WARN that, “If given too long” (and who can say beforehand what any patient”s “too long” may be ?), or if given to “sensitive patients” (the proof of this is always too late for their safety), “Emetine” may cause peripheral neuritis, and even wrist drop, loss of appetite and flesh, besides nausea, vomiting, and obstinate diarrhoea (that is the dysentery becomes a chronic diarrhoea), and one can expect EVEN CARDIAC (heart) FAILURE.
This is not a pretty nor safe picture for the laity to dwell upon; one would think that this is not what they demand when ill, or actually pay for, to mention such a vulgar point.
Orthodoxy should be ashamed of its therapeutics. If your plumbar or your carpenter made such blunders you would know just what to say to them. As orthodoxy recognizes that “Emetine” causes vomiting, they advocate giving at the same time, “twenty minims of tincture of opium” a short time before the doses of “Emetine”.
They further advise that it “Emetine” is not available their rank and file “may try” twenty (20) to thirty (30) grains of ipecacuanha (I would not give that amount to a horse or cow), but in order to counteract the disastrous effects of such an orthodox dosage they calmly suggest that that opium must be given at the same time as a “gastric sedative” (all of which is funnier than punch). I pity the patients of the orthodox from the bottom of my heart.
When homoeopaths give Ipecacuanha we give the 3x, representing one part drug in 1,000 of sugar of milk, and when we prescribe the 6x strength we find but one part drug in 1,000,000 parts. So you may give our drugs in the strengths named to the weakest infant, without any “kick-back”. If the drug has been wisely and correctly chosen you will obtain the relief you ask of it, and you wont chase the amoebae from the gut into the liver.
Practically every orthodox standard work alludes to “Emetine” as the one and only “specific” for amoebic dysentery; and, they go on to say, if the diagnosis of amoebic origin and cause is uncertain it still “MAY BE TRIED”, which is the weakest of weak and befogged medical advice, and a disgrace to the profession. Poor patients ! “May be tried” is neither more nor less than an experiment on the patient, and remembering the sequellae “heart failures, abscessed livers wrist drop, and anchovy sauce”, who can vote for orthodoxy?.
Here are a few added dangers of “Emetine” culled from orthodoxy as its secondary effects: hepatization of the lungs, rapid heart action, tendency for the head to fall forward, and even lobar pneumonia; hence a new “diagnosis” is forthcoming to the family, because no orthodox man, be he ever so brave or rash, can be expected to own that this or that disease is caused by an overdose of his dangerous drug ! Remember that the ultra- scientific orthodox medical man refuses to study Homoeopathy. I put the blame for all this on the shoulders of the leaders of that profession, as I feel sure that the rank and file of the orthodox men would gladly try Homoeopathy, if they did not fear the wrath of G.M.C.
The following homoeopathic treatment is not my “personal opinion”. Homoeopathy, as a Science, was put on a workable basis by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, after many years of close personal trials by himself and collaborators on themselves. Nothing which Hahnemann stated as “fact” in 1797 has ever been disproved or altered. The “Law of Similars” (Homoeopathy) has existed from all time. It is practised successfully to-day in every corner of the world, and as there are not enough homoeopathic doctors to meet the demand, there are millions of the laity doctoring their families, very successfully. One would think that this fact alone would induce many orthodox doctors to embrace Homoeopathy.
To such of the laity who may wonder how the homoeopaths arrived at their exact knowledge of drugs I will briefly explain, and it wont do any professional orthodox man harm to study these words seriously.
All homoeopathic remedies have been “proved” (tested) on healthy human volunteers, not once but scores of times, in various parts of the world. The results were and are uniform. The persons (men and women) testing such drugs are not told the name of the drug under test, by the person in charge, but they are told that a certain percentage of the powders or pills, depending which variety is being tested, are simply “blanks”.
If powders are used, then so many are simply sugar of milk, and if pills are used, they are simply wet with alcohol, which fact of “blanks” at once rules out all “imagination of symptoms”, because no “prover” wishes to draw down the laughter of his collaborators by recording “drug symptoms” from a blank. This was another very wise precaution of our founder, Hahnemann, who left nothing to chance. All departures from the normal health of the provers immediately following the taking of the drug are collected and minutely recorded by the the person in charge, and they ultimately find their way into print in our Materia Medicas, which anyone may buy.
In successive generations in various parts of the world these “provings” demonstrated that certain symptoms always presented themselves as drug actions, and these have become to be regarded as “classical drug pictures” of this or that drug, and therefore of exact knowledge of what a certain drug can create in a healthy human being. In cases of disease it is but necessary to match the patients personal symptoms with what is known about some drug.
Then the most-like acting drug is given to the patient, but the amount of the drug must be so small that there is no possibility of adding to the disease symptoms. Experience has driven us to smaller and smaller amounts of any drug to bring about the most rapid cures. The Law of Homoeopathy is the guiding rule of “choice” (similia) of drug. The size of the dose is not “Homoeopathy” but plain common sense.
Lest any doubter says, ” I note in your Materia Medicas very grave lesions listed. I cannot believe any prover ever poisoned himself or herself to the extent mentioned as the drug effects, even if a noble volunteer”. The answer to this doubt is another instance of the very great wisdom of Hahnemann.
He foresaw the impossibility of obtaining the ultimate and dangerous drug effects from any volunteer prover, so he set to work collecting and classifying all symptoms experienced by, or seen in, cases of serious or fatal poisonings, whether accidental or intentional. This gave us the full drug picture to enable us to prescribe for the most serious phases of disease. By this means we have never had to go to monkeys, dogs or guinea-pigs for any of our drug knowledge.