The term immunity is now, it is hoped, clear, and the aim of drug giving to produce it or to help to produce it. But some interesting phenomena remain to be described. In investigating the problems of immunity it was found (as stated above) that in some diseases, notably in diphtheria and tetanus (lockjaw), the disease symptoms were mainly due to the circulation in the body of bacterial toxins, and that in these two cases an important part of the defence mechanism consisted in the elaboration of an antidote to the toxin, an anti-toxin, which directly counteracted the toxin and thereby gained time for the body to destroy the germs when otherwise it would have been overwhelmed by the poison. This discovery of Professor von Behring and Professor Roux was a most important one. It was found on following further these phenomena of antitoxin formation, that if toxin were injected into a healthy animal (preferably a horse) in a dose insufficient to kill, the body promptly formed anti-toxin in excess, so that after a few symptoms the animal, becomes quite well again, and circulating in its blood is found enough anti- toxin to counteract a good deal of fresh toxin. A further toxin injection sets this mechanism going again, and ultimately, with little or no discomfort to the animal, its blood serum becomes highly charged with anti-toxin. This serum can be drawn off and kept for a considerable time and forms the so-called antitoxic serum. When a case of diphtheria presents itself it is possible to inject this diphtheria anti-toxin to counteract the toxin which is being manufactured; conceivably the serum can counteract it so completely as to produce a condition of immunity, But this immunity being due to the antidote artificially produced and injected, and not to the powers of resistance of the body, is called passive, immunity in contra-distinction to active immunity. Of course, from the moment of invasion the natural powers of resistance are at work; the patient is producing his own anti-toxin as well as dealing with the bacilli directly. The function of the serum is to supplement the resources of the patient: therefore it is particularly valuable at the beginning of an attack before the forces of the defence are fully called out. Diphtheria is the best example of a disease wherein an anti- toxic serum has claims to be considered valuable, but tetanus (lockjaw) is another sickness where toxin and anti-toxin come into play, and serum has also been used with good effect (it is claimed) in certain streptococcal infections. This passive immunity, however, has on the whole been found to be a phenomenon which lends itself to use in treatment on rather a limited scale, and the hopes roused by the discovery of diphtheria anti-toxin (and to some extent justified in that disease) have not been much rewarded in attempting to deal with other diseases on similar lines. (* The use of anti-tetanic serum in the Great-War was very successful) However, the many and varied researches into problems of immunity were next rewarded by the placing of “vaccination” for bacterial disease on a sound footing, and vaccination is an attempt to produce active immunity. It has already been pointed out above why one attack of a bacterial disease gives some immunity against future attacks. The observation of this fact led first to inoculation with mild small-pox as a preventive of severe small-pox. When it was found that this process was very dangerous, as contagion from a mild case has the power to develop sometimes into a very severe form of the disease if the inoculated patient proved susceptible, the practice was given up in favour of ordinary cow-pox vaccination. The theory of cow pox vaccination is that disease is a modified form of small-pox and possesses the power to prevent the severe disease. As we should now phrase it, it leads, to the production of anti-bodies which are available against small-pox. The value of it has become a burning question and till the discovery of the germ or organism of variola it is difficult to marshal conclusive evidence, but the process which is unproven for smallpox rests on a better foundation for other bacterial diseases. The names vaccination and vaccine are retained for the process and the substance used, although in other bacterial diseases neither process nor substance has anything to do with cow-pox. Whenever a germ can with confidence be reckoned as a causal agent in producing a disease, experience teaches that the best agent (or one of the best) for calling out the resistance of the body and so achieving cure, can be made from the causal germ itself. The organism is grown on a suitable culture medium outside the body, killed by heat, and injected into the patient, and this “vaccination” is found to evoke a specific resistance to the particular germ. Active immunity to it is, in fact, produced. The process was at first used for prophylaxis, to protect against diseases such as typhoid by preliminary vaccination and advantage has been largely taken of vaccines for this purpose. But it was presently found that even patients suffering from the actual diseases could at times have a latent power of resistance evoked by the cautious use of vaccines. But in asmuch as the ultimate rise of resistance (positive phase of Sir A. Wright) is preceded by a lowering of resistance (negative phase), it was found necessary to use vaccines with great care and in small (often minute) doses. (* There is a form of vaccine made of so- called “sensitised” bacilli, which is claimed to be free of the danger of producing a negative phase, but there is nothing in the process of its manufacture and use that conflicts with the general theory of action of vaccines.)
Now consider these discoveries of the bacteriologist from the point of view of Homoeopathy. Here we find remedies for diseases made out of the very agents claimed to cause those diseases. The agents are slightly modified by culture outside the body, and the process of sterilization of the vaccines, and are then administered in small and infrequent doses. It would be difficult to find any other adjective than homoeopathic for the practice, and the realization of this fact has done more to undermine the prejudice against Hahnemann than any other discovery. Long before Bacteriology, Hering and Lux, and others, had tried to make remedies by potentizing disease products. Compton Burnett indeed used a remedy analogous to Tuberculin before Koch, and discovered out of his own clinical experience the rules for its application in infrequent doses, which are identical with those of the modern use of Tuberculin, except that Burnett employed potencies (and high potencies) where to-day Tuberculin is generally given in quantities, very small it is true, infinitesimal sometimes, but yet larger than those of Burnett. Also Tuberculin is generally injected (not always, however), and Burnett gave his Bacillinum by the mouth. The other homoeopathic users of “nosodes” (remedies made from disease products) also used only potencies, and to-day many homoeopathists prefer these potencies and make new ones from bacterial cultures instead of injecting dead bacilli in vaccines. There is little doubt that this is quite a satisfactory procedure and the principle is the same whichever method is adopted. And that principle can only be conceived as an endorsement (for these bacterial diseases at least) of the homoeopathic law, whereby homoeopathic physicians can take new courage for this is an aid to their cause unlooked for, but none the less most welcome.
LICENTIATE OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS; MEMBER OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS; LICENTIATE IN MIDWIFERY, LONDON AND EDINBURGH, ETC. PHYSICIAN TO THE READING AND BERKSHIRE HOMOEOPATHIC DISPENSARY.
Author of "The Stepping Stone to Homeopathy and Health,"
"Manual of Homoeopathic Treatment". Editor of "The Homoeopathic World."