Then again, besides these concomitant symptoms that have already been mentioned, there should be one in which the genius of the remedy should be plainly and definitely portrayed, so that it would be immediately noticeable. This symptom would immediately attain such importance that it would outweigh the chief ailment, and thus be chosen as the *simillimum. Such a *simillimum corresponds to Hahnemann’s dictum which calls for a striking, strange, peculiar, and unusual sign, which may then be considered almost alone in choosing the remedy, because it gives pre- eminently the character of the whole design.
A peculiar and unusual deduction from these concomitant symptoms is that they often illumine remedies that have never been thought of before in this relationship to the individual case and therefore broaden our vision and concept of the ***LAW OF SIMILARS.
In considering what Hahnemann calls the “strange, rare, and peculiar (characteristic) symptom” and their value in directing us to the remedy, let us remember the exposition that A. Conan Doyle so often puts into the mouth of his famous character, Sherlock Holmes. This worthy, in summing up some famous case in which he has acted the scientific detective, uses these words: “That which is out of the common is usually a guide rather than a hindrance.” And again”:”That which seemingly confuses the case is the very thing that furnishes the clue to its solution.”
In considering the value of symptoms in solving any chronic case we cannot do better than to take these aphorisms for our guide, and to remember that those symptoms which confuse the ordinary physician, or which he regards as useless or a having no relationship to the case, are the very symptoms that furnish the clues for the remedy.
In considering the value of symptoms there are certain symptoms that are apparently caused by conditions, and that almost precede the symptomatology, and seem to gives a basis for the patient’s condition. These may be exposure to cold: exposure to wet; all those conditions of which people say that thus and so was the cause of their illness and the cause of their symptoms. These play a large part in pathological prescribing. In pathological prescribing. these causes of disease loom, large; in homeopathic prescribing they do not loom as large, save as showing the tendencies of the patient.
This embraces causes that are directly traceable to diet as well as climatic conditions. Embraced in this category also are susceptibility to disease conditions and idiosyncrasies. The symptoms that are produced by trade conditions come in this category and the poisoning that many take place from too much drugging, or from working in metals. The symptoms produced from working in metals. The symptoms produced from such conditions may be valuable in showing the Pathological trend of the metal or gas or drug causing the condition, but they do not show the finer differentiations nor have they the same value that they do from the exhibition of the potencies.’
Sometimes these early symptoms will place the physician in a position to see clearly the basic miasmatic condition from which the patient is himself suffering. This should bear a larger place in the evaluation of symptoms.
This, too, brings up the question of infectious diseases and the symptomatology attending the so-called contagious diseases. It is the duty of the physician to take very close observation of the first cases he has in an epidemic of infectious diseases for the symptomatology of each epidemic is distinct of the epidemic, while the next epidemic may have an entirely different symptomatology. Immunity can be assured to patients if we will closely observe the symptomatology and select the epidemic remedy in the early stages of epidemic by administering the epidemic remedy as a prophylactic. In this way the symptomatology of epidemic diseases is exceedingly valuable to the homoeopathic physician
In analysing the case, very valuable symptoms are those pertaining to the aggravations and ameliorations, because the aggravations and ameliorations are the natural modifiers of diseased states and are the definite reaction of the man himself. We must take into consideration that every symptoms of note has these modifying conditions of aggravation and amelioration, as to time, the time of day, the time of season, the time of the moon; the aggravation or amelioration from thermic conditions; from motion or rest, of the part affected or of the condition as a whole; from lying down or sitting or standing, and the positions taken during such conditions, waking or sleeping, and the aggravation and amelioration from such positions and circumstances; the various positions in motion that aggravate or ameliorate; the desires or aversions to eating and drinking, especially in feverish conditions; aggravations from certain foods and drink. These are all modifications that are of the utmost importance in evaluating the symptoms.
While we cannot hope to cure a patient without strong general symptom, yet conditions of aggravation or amelioration may in themselves become generals, if they appertain in the same say to several parts of the body; they then become conditions of the man as a whole, or general symptoms, even though they seemingly express themselves in local parts. For instance, if a headache is worse by motion; if the pain in the knee is worse by walking or stepping; if there is pain in the shoulder from raising the arm; then the worse from motion becomes a general as of the whole man, although it seemingly appears ion dissociated parts.
The contradictory symptoms have an importance, because they may rule out many of the remedies that otherwise might be considered in connection with an individual case. That is, symptoms that are decidedly opposed to the provings, like the thirstlessness of the of the fever of *Ignatia or Apis or *Pulsatilla when fever is present and when other symptoms agree. Contradictory symptoms may have a strong bearing in choosing the remedy from the standpoint of being themselves a symptom, just as a paucity of symptoms may be a symptom in itself, as has been brought out in the provings of the so-called “do nothing” remedies, which are often called for in profound states. For this reason, if you cannot find a remedy because of alternating or contradictory symptom, or for very lack of symptoms, take these conditions as indications for symptoms of the very first rank.
To emphasize again the necessity for consideration of the aggravation and ameliorations of the periods of distress: it is well to bear in mind the period of onset in periodic manifestations of symptoms, the increase, the same, the decrease, and the end of disease manifestations in the evaluation of symptoms. For instance, condition such as *Cedron, *Spigelia, *Sanguinaria, a *Natrum mur-these remedies have a decided periodicity, and it is very important to consider also those symptoms that occur in the recession or in the intervals between the periods of aggravation.
These are but a few of the conditions confronting the homoeopathic physician if he would cure his patients and he should learn early to evaluate symptoms, because symptoms are the sole expression of the internal disturbance, and it is only by the proper understanding of the case expressions in disease, and an equal knowledge of the condition as expressed in the provings, that we can apply our guiding law, *similia similibus curentur, intelligently and for the benefit of our patients. What symptoms rank the highest in an analysis of the case?
How do we rate: Generals? Mental and emotional symptoms? Subjective symptoms Objective symptoms? Concomitant symptoms?
Where do we place much emphasis on objective symptoms and why?
Cite an instance where an objective symptom may be translated as a subjective symptom.
How much consideration should we place on the diagnosis of the case?
Give an outline of the totality of a case.
When may common symptoms attain a peculiar value?
What do we mean by “epidemic remedy” and how can we determined the epidemic remedy?
When may a particular symptom become a general.
