We must observe from these examples furnished us by the master-and it is always well to cling to his examples as closely as possible-that the reactive energy is always greater than the primitive shock. Were it not for this increase of the expressions of nature in the reaction, a cure might be quite impossible, and it may well be said that woe is man when the vital force does not react against the extraneous noxious influences.
Not so much of value will be observed when strong doses of crude drugs have been made use of. In proportion to the grossness of lack of detail in the primitive effect will there be lack of detail in the reactive effect of the vital force. This lack of detail will often be due to the grossness of the dose administered; a crude dose of drug will be followed by catharsis without specific detail, and when the reaction comes, the constipation will lack the finer sensations which are swallowed up in the intestinal paresis, and nondescript actions and reactions are almost meaningless. This should point out the lesson to provers, and place a limit on the value of such crude provings. This should teach the advocates of such effects that the individualizing indices are not to be found here.
If we follow out the sentiment of the text, we observe the reactive effect in a given case is generally the opposite of the primitive effect, or as though intended to oppose the primitive shock, whether from a burn, or from freezing, or from a drug, or the fixed disease, as will be observed by carefully re- reading the 65th section. The symptoms or appearance of the reaction are generally found in the pathogenesis of the drug causing the primitive shock. The reaction seems to work within the limit of the cause of the primitive shock. The reaction, in other words, is limited to the sphere of the drug causing the primitive effect. In one prover Opium has produced constipation (primitive effect) and in the reaction we observe a diarrhoea. In another prover the primitive effect will be a diarrhoea, and the reaction will be constipation.-See ’65, Organon.
The reaction in healthy people will always be greater than the primitive shock. To state it in another way, the symptoms that appear in one person as primitive effects, appear in another as the reactive influence of the vital force; because the vital force in its efforts to resist the force from without must establish directly opposite actions, and all such reactions are within the line of actions found in the drug or disease cause which the vital force is acting or reacting against. Whatever symptoms or expressions are found in a given reaction will be found in the pathogenetic symptoms of the entity that the given reaction is opposing. There can be no reaction outside of the action of a given entity, whether it be a sick cause or drug.
It must not be supposed that this can furnish a doctrine whereby we can claim or suppose symptoms that have not been actually produced. I am well aware that this doctrine may be criticised before it is accepted, but the study of the provings, thus far, has led me to fully believe in it as a fact.
To understand the action of drugs in the primitive effects, one must not attempt to study it upon the sick, but healthy persons should be chosen, which will give much that is useful by observing what is felt and seen.
Again, to understand reaction one must compare what he sees in healthy persons with what appears in various degrees of sickness in unhealthy people. If we commence the study of the primitive effect through a proving of a drug upon a healthy subject, we will naturally avoid the effect of gross medicines if we would learn much. As has been said, the finer details have been swallowed up in the grossness of effects; but we observe that the few symptoms however seem to repent themselves with an exactness that is surprising, some appearing on the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th days for many weeks with an exactitude of repetition that is surprising. Especially is this the case if the dose that Hahnemann mentioned, which was the 30th potency, should be the lowest resorted to for proving. In comparison with the gross effects which soon pass off, the effect of potencies upon healthy provers is most wonderful in the variety of the symptoms and in the length of time after the potency was administered. Even many weeks after the proving, we find symptoms coming or occurring in intervals of 7, 14 and 21 days. Particularly did I observe this upon a healthy woman in the proving of Cenchris, who had menstrual symptoms four months after the proving, recurring at each menstrual period with perfect regularity; a symptom that is now a confirmed symptom and valuable. If this could then appear as what we term a reactive effect it would puzzle a philosopher to know why the effect from ten-thousandth potency had not long before disappeared. So that it must be reasonable to conclude that all the symptoms that appear after the taking of the drug that was administered are the genuine symptoms of the drug, are the primitive and specific effects of that drug, whether occurring in the first day or many months afterwards. Habits and customs have been established by provings that have lasted the provers for years. These, considered as symptoms, have been cured by the same drug under similar conditions, and should be considered a fundamental primitive effect of the drug’s use; they are really the sickness of the drug.
If we now undertake to consider the action of the drug when no apparent reaction comes against it to oppose it, we then see still more wonderful effects. If we administer to a patient in the last stages of consumption a drug in suitable form that would have cured this patient when he was yet curable, we now observe wonderful and striking things. We notice that after the administration of this drug that he is made worse, the course of his disease is more rapid, and he may be, by the careless use of such drug, hastened to a premature grave. In this instance we notice the lack of reaction. We notice the continued primitive shock, which united with his disease, instead of curing it, hastens him on towards the grave. We observe then that which we had not observed in healthy reaction, a continued downward course in the primitive action of the drug united with the disease; hence, it may well be said that woe is man when reaction does not come.
We observe this state of things in incurable cases of Bright’s disease, consumption, cancer, so that the remedy that was deep enough to cure him, is now poison. We further observe that the remedies that help the severe sufferings in these incurable cases are such as are similar only to the few symptoms in his sufferings. These furnish examples of the primitive action of a drug when not opposed by vital reaction. The primitive expressions become changed by the vital force in healthy reaction, and some have mistaken these for the secondary action of the drug administered; especially this is the case in provings. Then it is that we must consider the primitive, when reaction does not oppose it, that we can know very much of its interior. Observe again the periodicity that comes in symptoms. The periodicity that follows the action of drugs, and what may be studied in a drug may also be studied in disease cause. What is true of the action of a drug is also true of the action of a disease. The most suitable way of studying diseases in their actions is also true of studying drugs in their actions, their conduct. Take for instance an intermittent fever. The paroxysm composed of chill, fever and sweat. The primitive action of that fever cause is attended throughout by the paroxysmal expressions that follow in which the reaction of the vital force has been, either aided or unaided, sufficient to oppose the sick cause.
It might be well to consider the erratic nature of some symptoms belonging to drugs, such as Ignatia having extremes and opposites and alternations of symptoms. Symptoms that change about in a most erratic manner, yet they are all the sick expressions of the one drug. I am aware that I have scarcely touched upon the important part of the truth that is yet to come out of reflecting upon the actions of nature. To be conversant with the signs of drug action is an important road to truth, and the knowledge thus gained must be useful, as a new drug, or the repetition of one chosen will often turn upon what is known about the meaning of actions observed. It is now well known that reaction is going on favorably when mental symptoms are improving and general feelings express a general bodily improvement even though the symptoms are more painful. The successful healer is one who knows much about the signs of reaction and what is intended by nature. It is well known that chronic symptoms engrafted upon the economy either by drugs or chronic miasms are due wholly to deficient reaction of the vital force.
Incurable results of disease are incurable for two reasons: First, destruction of the tissues of the organism. Second, deficient reaction of the vital force. The latter may be again divided into congenital weakness and acquired debility. But as these divisions of inner complexities belong to other subjects, I will dismiss the subject entered upon in this paper, hoping that sufficient consideration, will be given it to expose its weak points that the strongest light may shine upon the real truth.
In 1881, Kent accepted a position as professor of anatomy at the Homeopathic College of Missouri, an institution with which he remained affiliated until 1888. In 1890, Kent moved to Pennsylvania to take a position as Dean of Professors at the Post-Graduate Homeopathic Medical School of Philadelphia. In 1897 Kent published his magnum opus, Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica. Kent moved to Chicago in 1903, where he taught at Hahnemann Medical College.