Let me, if I may, in the light of present-day science, go somewhat farther than did Hahnemann in defining the essential nature of disease, in this formula: Disease is a state of reaction of the vital force of the organism against a noxious agent or influence which has reduced the vital resistance; an attempt of nature to repair the damage to the organism caused by an insult; an effort of vital force to restore structure and function to a normal state.
The noxious agent ACTS. The organism REACTS. .
The tubercle bacillus is a noxious agent. The disease called tuberculosis is the reaction of the organism against the toxins of the tubercle bacillus. .
The symptoms of “disease,” the signs of reaction, are subjective and objective manifestations indicating that the organism is reacting against an insult which has disturbed vital force and normal function.
Hahnemann speaks of the disease as the “natural morbid affection,” and of the similar drug as the “artificial morbid affection which is implanted upon the vital power deranged by the natural disease,” and says: “This artificial affection is substituted, as it were, for the weaker, similar disease (morbid excitation).”.
Accepting his statement concerning the “natural morbid affection,” the disease, and the “artificial morbid affection,” the similar remedy, it is evident we have two similar insults, two similar noxious agents against which the organism reacts similarly, two agents which have done injury, reduced the vital powers, incited reaction and created similar symptoms. Obviously, both the original noxious agent and the drug are of the nature of a foreign body introduced into the organism, neither of which has any place in the normal physiologic economy.
Being foreign bodies, the organism attempts to rid itself of them by the process we call reaction, and symptoms occur. When the similar- acting remedy is administered it is, according to my conception, not “substituted” for the weaker, similar “natural disease,” but comprises a similar noxious agent superimposed upon the original insult, an added drug insult that incites further reaction similar to that created by the original noxious agent.
Reaction is an expression of vital force exerted against an insult by a noxious agent, either emotional, traumatic, toxicogenic or chemical. It is a normal reparative process by which the organism attempts to restore structure and function to normal. The more intense the insult, the more vigorous the reaction against it. The most intense insult causes death because the organism has not sufficient vital force of reaction to overcome the destructive effect of the insult.
Study of inflammation is suggestive of this thesis. The process of inflammation is so intimately intermixed with the process of repair, which starts immediately following an insult, that no definite line of demarcation can be drawn dividing the two processes. Each is a different phase of reaction against a noxious agent.
When we have gained the concept of disease as a reparative process of reaction of the organism against the insult of a noxious agent that disease is not an entity which can be weighed, measured and found by laboratory methods we will have made progress. When we have recognized that noxious agents, including drugs, act like foreign bodies in injuring the body, that they reduce vital resistance and create hypersensitivity, manifest by symptoms, I believe our concept of the essential nature of disease will have become clearer.
Now, with this concept, allow me to propound a theory of how the homoeopathic similar remedy brings about relief of symptoms. But before stating it let us recall Hahnemanns idea of the matter.
In paragraph 26 of the 5th edition of the Organon we find: “In the living organism a weaker dynamic affection is permanently extinguished by a stronger one if the latter (deviating in kind) is very similar in its manifestations to the former.” And in paragraph 27, “a case of disease is extinguished and cancelled by a drug which is more potent than the disease, and capable of producing in the body symptoms most similar to, and completely resembling those of the disease.”.
I can accept the proposition that a drug is stronger than a disease, evidence of which is that it acts on all provers “unconditionally,” while a disease acts “conditionally,” that is, on persons who are hypersensitive to that particular noxious agent, but not all.
But I cannot accept the proposition that the “weaker dynamic affection (the disease) is extinguished and cancelled by a drug which is more potent than the disease, and capable of producing symptoms most similar to and completely resembling those of the disease,” in view of the foregoing theory of the essential nature of disease. Remember, both the noxious agent and the drug act and the vital force of the organism reacts. It is upon this premise that the following theory of how the homoeopathic similar remedy brings about relief of symptoms, rests, namely:.
When the properly selected similar remedy, one that covers the totality of symptoms, is given in the proper dosage, the reaction of the organism against the influence of the remedy is similar to the reaction against the original noxious agent, therefore, the symptoms of the two reactions are similar.
The homoeopathic recognizes this phenomenon as an “aggravation of symptoms” and has learned that this negative phase of Wright is followed by the positive phase of Wright, or recovery. “Aggravation of symptoms” by the homoeopathic remedy is the result of reaction of the organism against the combined influences of the original noxious agent and that of the super-added, similar remedy, the two together inciting a similar but greater reaction than either one alone. But while the influence of the remedy is primarily stronger it is relatively of shorter duration, because of proper dosage, and soon destroyed by the forces of reaction aroused against it.
The forces of reaction that were arrayed against the remedy, being similar to the forces pitted against the original insult, now join hands with and reinforce the latter and the reinforced powers having only the single, original noxious influence to combat, this influence is overcome and the symptoms of the reaction, the “disease,” cease.
To illustrate, suppose we identify the totality of symptoms of scarlatina as A.B.C.D. Let us suppose that the totality of symptoms of belladonna is A.B.C.D. The symptoms of the disease are due to the reaction of the organism against the toxins of scarlatina, the noxious agent.
We now administer belladonna, another noxious agent similar in action to the toxins of scarlatina, which arouses similar new forces of reaction, indicated by a greater or less increase of the symptoms A.B.C.D. The remedy and its influence are soon dissipated and the forces of reaction that were mobilized against it are now transferred to and combine with the similar forces pitted against the toxins of scarlatina which are thus overpowered, and succumb. We must concede that what we call vital force destroys the remedy and its influence since no other agent is introduced into the organism to accomplish this result.
If the vital forces of reaction destroy the remedy, is it not logical to assume that the two vital forces of reaction when combined against the single, original noxious agent might cause its destruction, thereby curing the so-called “disease”?.
This theory is predicated on the assumption that the individual still has a reserve of healing vital force or vital resistance that has not been entirely depleted by reaction against the original insult. The greater the original insult and the lower the reserve of vital force the less readily the remedy incites reaction against itself.
But here our theory ends, We do not exactly know what vital force or the healing force of nature really is. We dont know how it reacts against a noxious agent. Many theories of cure abound, based on both physical and psychic phenomena, such as antigens, ions, phagocytosis and psychic procedures. All point to arousing a universal intelligence in defence of the organism, but none fulfils all the requirements necessary for an adequate explanation because thus far vital force is undefined.
THOUGHTS FOR CONSIDERATION.
(1) As physicians, we are dealing with vital resistance and hypersensitivity in all cases of disease. Our problem is to increase general and specific resistance and thus desensitize the patient.
(2) The only scientific method of desensitization by drugs is by administration of the homoeopathic similar remedy.
(3) Reaction is an expression of vital force against a noxious agent.
(4) Disease is not an entity per se but a reparative reaction of the organism against a noxious agent.
(5) Disease is not “extinguished or cancelled” by a drug but by the forces of reaction of the organism against the noxious influence causing the so-called “disease.”.
(6) The similar remedy is an artificial noxious agent superimposed upon the original, natural insult and incites extra- added reaction against itself by the organism, both the “natural” and “artificial” insults being factors foreign to the normal organism.
