THE FOUR SYSTEMS
To Follow the History and Precede the Examination
Alterations or complaints relating to the special senses.
General reaction (hyper-sensitive, restless, torpid, etc.)
Pain and particular sensations (causal factor if known, location, sensation, modality).
Sleep (type and dreams of marked).
Vasomotor phenomena (flushes, chill, sweating, either general or local).
Pain (location, sensation, modality and concomitants).
Pulse (irregular, thready, soft, full, etc.).
Sensations other than pain felt in thorax.
Dyspnoea (type and aggravation).
Cough (modalities and type).
Expectoration (type and taste).
Tongue (dry, coated, shape).
Recent cravings or aversions.
Pain or sensations (location, sensation, modality and concomitants).
Eructations (type and whether relief or not).
Abdominal pain (same as under pain above).
Constipation (type of stool).
Pains (as above) relation to micturition.
Discharges (type, modalities, concomitants).
Menstrual cycle (other body complaints felt at this time, also type and flow).
APPENDIX (B,C, d) NOT DONE.
The following case is taken from the writer’s medical service at The Hahnemann Hospital of Philadelphia. It had not been relieved by Salicylates and had to have Morphine at times to control the pain and emotional excitement.
Case : Female, age 23, White, Unmarried. Diagnosis : Infective arthritis. Basic Symptoms
1. Pain – tearing, unbearable, throbbing.
Loc.-right shoulder, left knee
Mod.-Better warm applications, aggravated at night.
2. Sweat, sour.
5. Extra Systole’s “double beat.”
6. Irritable, complaining.
7. General aggravation at night
8. Tearing pains in joints
9. Sour sweat.
11. Better warm applications.
Discussion : Any repertory may be used, but in this case we chose a small one (Boericke) as the symptoms are not unusual, and therefore it is unnecessary to consult one of the larger works.
If we tried to use a clinical repertory, we would have to look up the name of the disease, and arthritis or rheumatic fever would give us a very large list of drugs with which to work, so we decided to use the symptomatic method.
Our first consideration is to select an eliminative symptom. We have been told to look for this among the mentals, the general modalities or the modified common symptoms. We have an example of each in this case :
Thus : Symptom 6 is a mental, 7 is a general modality and 1 is a modified common symptom. Any of these would do, but it is always best to select a mental, if well-marked, and it is in this case.
Thus we select the symptom “Irritable, complaining” as the eliminative symptom. In the list of drugs contained in this rubric there is one that has the other symptoms also-we will find out in good time.
Referring to the repertory under “mod” we see a list of drugs as follows :
all of which have this irritable, complaining mood. Those that have this characteristic especially marked are in italics.
Now this is our major list. We next look up the next symptom in the repertory “worse at night” and now we see a long list of drugs that have this modality; using our major list and ignoring the rest, we find that so far the following drugs have both symptoms 6 and 7 : Arsenicum
Let us now decide which of these have the “tearing pains”- the modified basic symptom which is such an important part of the case.
Under extremities in the repertory we are able to find this rubric, and if these pains can be localized in the shoulder or knee, all the better, but it is the character of the pain that is characteristic.
Again checking through our list we find that of the above drugs
are the only ones that are left.
We now use the “sweat, sour” and find that Bryonia and Cham, only come through, and finally the last symptom, “better warm applications,” Bryonia and Mag. phos. are the only two.
I this whole process is arranged as suggested (Chart D) our analysis can be evaluated at a glance.
It will be noticed the Chamomilla has all the symptoms used in the highest rank except number two, which is not so essential because most cases have this modality due to the particular disease.
There is a true Homoeopathic relationship between this patient and the drug. It is not a “seemingly” one because the provings of Chamomilla show definite effects on the joints and ligaments. In this case, the drug was given in the 6x potency and the patient experienced more relief that night and went on to an uncomplicated recovery several weeks later.
APPENDIX F ” COLLOID CHEM. OBSERVATIONS “
Translation of Prof. J. Traube’s Article in Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift, Aug. 21, 1925.
He therein desires to ascertain whether the physical and chemical processes that form the basis of action in medicine lend confirmation to certain Homoeopathic conceptions or oppose them. In this direction, he holds that the colloidal chemist has a right to speak.
The fact that small and smallest doses of different medicines may produce marked effects in both the healthy and sick organisms is known and cannot be ignored by either Allopaths or Homoeopaths. Every one who is acquainted with the serological investigation must acknowledge it and it would not be honest to withhold giving credit to the creator of Homoeopathy and to the representatives of Homoeopathy. Professor Hebner, who does not want to pose exactly as a friend of Homoeopathy, pointed out that camphor in the 15x potency showed unmistakable physiological action.
Hebner is justified in pointing out that if 1 c.c. of this potency of camphor contains millions of molecules, why should not such a great number of molecules produce physiological effects?
Pilocarpin acts strongly as an irritant to the intestinal muscles. Atropin, its antagonist, acts paralyzingly. Upon what depends this antagonistic relationship of these alkaloids?
Everywhere in our organism the most manifold processes of a chemical and physiological nature take place. If a foreign substance intrudes, it may disturb the existing equilibrium and change the processes, but frequently its action is merely to accelerate the processes, catalytically. It acts as a stimulant or it acts as a paralyzer. Upon this point of view, investigation has been carried on in my laboratory. Small and smallest masses of substance act as catalyzers, as ferments, hastening or slowing.
Narcotics in doses in which they act narcotically are negative catalyzers. It has been proven experimentally that oxidation processes, as well as fermenting and others, are slowed by narcotics. They also exert their paralyzing properties on bio- electrical streams by diminishing the potential. An alkaloid like quinin acts flucculently in diverse colloids and biologically, we may infer, in smallest dosage by means of the destruction of ferments or by retarding oxidation processes.
Whoever is conversant with catalyzers, peptization, tumefaction, absorption, and other processes of the colloidal chemist, knows the action of smallest masses of substances. Of course, the action of these active decimal potencies, to use a term of the Homoeopaths, differs greatly.
The other question, whether medicines in small and smallest dosage may bring about opposite action in larger dosage, based upon physical and chemical behaviour according to the rule of S.S.C. or Arndt-Schultze’s rule, must be answered with “Yes.”
The same applies to the animal kingdom. Colloidial chemical considerations show clearly that opposite action of small and larger medicinal substances show parallel collodial states.
The degree of concentration that furnishes the opposite action in regard to increased or retarded condition lies, of course, in very different concentrations for different processes, and thus it is intelligible when Homoeopaths employ, in certain cases, say the 2x, in others 6x or higher attenuation. Again, it is comprehensible that Hahnemann himself held the position that a remedy in general has no other healing action than aiding the natural efforts of the organism towards restoring health. For they do not change in a general way the course of vital processes, but rather increase or decrease them.
Homoeopaths who recognize that for the action of a medicine, it is not the mass but the fine division of the substance that is decisive, are in perfect agreement with the results of the modern colloid teachings. Every colloid chemist knows that the degree of dispersion, i.e., the size of the surface, is determining for the solving of the most varying problems (absorption, catalytic action, surface tension), and it follows that one millionth or one billionth of a gram may evert just as great a biological action as a whole gram. It is evident from this that there is a thoroughly justified kind of truth in Homoeopathic conceptions.
For example, sulphur may be taken in gram doses in food and will not give the action that the smallest masses of sulphur can produce if these are given in proper forms and division. Different preparations will, of course, react differently. The increased results claimed repeatedly from a combination of two medicines is wholly intelligible from the standpoint of colloidal teaching.
If I have arrived, on the basis of my colloidal experience, at the result that there is a healthy kernel within Homoeopathic observation, I want to have it plainly understood that I do not know anything of Homoeopathic literature, nor do I know but most superficially anything about the curative results, but it certainly seems clear that the smallest amount of a medicine from the physical and chemical grounds must exert many and big actions and that such actions, in numerous cases, are opposite to those produced by larger masses, and again, it is certain it is not the quantity of a medicine but the degree of its division that determines its action.