With reference to the B. coli grouping, he would remind Dr. Julian that the classification was to be found in standard works of bacteriology, and all that he would require to do is to requires his bacteriologist to return the findings according to that classification. The classification for B. coli is accepted but there was difference of opinion as to the significance of this classification, indeed as to whether B. coli had any “pathologenesis” at all and that classification was therefore quite useless. There was no need to send specimens to Glasgow, if the physician wished to have a report of the type of B. coli present, but he would require to use the “working hypothesis” put forward by this Glasgow bacteriologist, if he wished to try out clinical tests. He would then be in the position “to give: rather than “to suspend” his judgment as at present.
Regarding the nomenclature. What is Morgan Co., does it include Morgan bach, or is it a separate nosode? The contraction “Co.” is for Compound and has reference to the fact that all the bowel nosodes were made up from a number of the specific germ in each case, e.g., Morgan Co. is the potentized vaccine made up from some hundreds of Bacillus Morgan. All the bowel nosode should really have the “Co.” appended Dysentery Co., proteus Co., Gaertner Co., etc.
Now as to the term “Bach” or “Paterson” this refers to laboratory classification of the germ. ” B. Morgan (Bach) ” includes the sub-types B. Morgan (pure) (Paterson) and B. Morgan -Gaertner (Paterson) and it is suggested that these sub-types have individual pathogenesis and individual nosodes have been prepared from these and bear the titles Morgan (pure) (Paterson) and Morgan-Gaertner (paterson). Note that the appendage “Co.” has been dropped but should be understood as applicable.
Dr. Patrick had reminded them the work on the bowel nosodes had given proof of the action of the potentized remedy.
“That the potentized remedy could alter the Flora of the Bowel” was a statement of great importance which so far had not been challenged. It was, therefore, of immediate interest to report that the Faculty of Homoeopathy, through their Research Committee, were incorporating stool examination in the routine work now going on in Drug Provings.
Dr. Mason asked about the relationship of vitamin B to the non- lactose fermenting organisms. He had not done any work on that but he could recall a particular case – that of a doctor with disseminated sclerosis – who had sent stool specimens for examination and report. He had been very intrigued to find that this patient yielded a very high percentage of B. Morgan and that this non-lactose phase was observed to persist over a period of eighteen months and seemed to be unaffected by any remedy given during that period. This patient (a doctor) had been giving himself injections of a vitamin B product over a long period, and one could only speculate as to whether this had caused the change and was responsible for the prolonged phase.
He was grateful to Dr. Ross for giving evidence as to the beneficial action of the bowel nosodes, also for giving the warning that the nosodes must be given at the opportune time to get this action, and that disappointment in their use (or abuse) was often due to a complication due to multiplicity of previous remedies and the bowel nosode was only given as a last resort.
He wonders about the necessity for the sub-types, but he can find out for himself by using these sub-types and comparing his results. The nearer one got to the similar remedy the better the result, that was the case in all Homoeopathic treatment.
It was also true that one could get results with what one may call “collateral therapy” – the use of an allied remedy.
Dysentery Co. might act with some beneficial reaction where B. Proteus or B. Gaertner was present in the stool, being allied types of non-lactose fermenting organism, but he was sure from his experience that a better result would follow from the similar nosode to the organism found.
He also, like Dr. McCrae, finds Dysentery Co. nosode to be something quite apart from the other nosodes.
The last speaker, Dr., Boyd, had very effectively given a summary of the points raised in this discussion and for that he wished to thank him. There was only one other point which Dr. Boyd had offered, namely, his opinion and experience of the autogenous vaccine against that of the stock vaccine. He had found that the vaccine from the actual organism isolated from a patient had less effect than the compound (Co) nosode made from a number of organisms taken from others. He was referring to a non-lactose organism appearing after a remedy and the action of the autogenous vaccine in such a case.
He (Dr. Paterson) would support that point of view and his explanation would be that the appearance of organisms after the action of the remedy was evidence of a vital reaction on the part of the patient. The use of any bowel nosode after such a reaction must be given consideration.
An autogenous vaccine (nosode) would be contra-indicated in such a case, and even the use in an ascending phase. It was a working rule, which he adopted and advised others to follow, that if the percentage of non-lactose organisms was above 50 per cent nosode was contra-indicated. The smaller the percentage of non-lactose organisms the greater the inclination for the nosode. Here was a paradox for the followers of Pasteur – the less obvious by the technique of the bacteriological laboratory, the greater the indication for the clinical use of vaccine or nosode prepared from a specific organism. There was plenty of opportunity of proving the therapeutic value of this working rule, be it paradox or not to the bacteriologist.
In conclusion Dr. Paterson thanked all the speakers and the audience for their interest and patient of a long session.
John Paterson was President of International Homeopathic Medical League in 1939.
John Paterson wrote The Bowel Nosodes, and he was responsible for introducing them into British homeopathy n the 1920s.