HOMOEOPATHY AND THE NOSODES


Nosodes form a splendid addition to our armamentarium; but if we dont know how to supplement them with other remedies we are just as badly off as if we didnt know how to supplement other remedies by the use of the nosodes. I give it to show that the Law of Similars is applicable in all respects to the use of the nosodes as it is to the use of other homoeopathic remedies.


IT MAY be aptly said of the nosodes that they have the unusual distinction of being the most abused, unused and misused of all the remedies in the Homoeopathic Materia Medica; some physicians using them routinely, others using them rarely or seldom. Whether one practices Isopathy or Homoeopathy by employing these remedies is beside the point, as for all practical purposes they are one and the same thing.

This paper will concern itself with a short history of the various nosodes, their early use by Homoeopaths and their relationship to the modern use of vaccines, sera and other similar measures used in general therapeutics and prophylaxis.

This very interesting and very useful class of remedies is defined by Dewey as “the morbid product of disease, when employed as remedies.” The word nosode comes from the Greek word “nosos,” which means disease. Some insist that the nosodes be prescribed on definite indications only, as any other remedy, regardless of pathology, etiology, or circumstance. Others plead that they have a definite field of usefulness in prophylaxis, as can be seen in some case reports of the old prescribers. H. C. Allen in his “Keynotes” says, of Diphtherinum, “the author has used Diphtherinum for twenty-five years as a prophylactic in Diphtheria and has never known a second case to occur in the family after it had been administered. The profession is asked to put it to the test and publish the failures to the world.”1 In this latter respect they approach in theory the use of vaccines as employed by the old school. In this branch of therapy, the schools of medicine approach each other closer than in any other respect, and meet on common ground.

Nosodes have a long and interesting history. In 1830 Hering proposed the use of saliva of a rabid dog as a remedy for hydro- phobia.

He also used the variolus pustule from small-pox which subsequently came into general use by vaccination. In 1882 Pasteur published his first communication on rabies. Four years previous to Kochs work on Tuberculin, Hering, Swan and Biegler used Bacillinum and Tuberculinum. Bacillinum is a trituration of tubercular lung. Tuberculinum is a triturate from the sputum of tuberculous patients.

Dr. J. Compton Burnett2 published “A Cure for Consumption” several years before Kochs experiment with Tuberculin and observed results following the use of a preparation which he called “Bacillinum.” Koch used a lymph, which was an extract in glycerine of dead tubercular bacilli. In this connection, in regard to the tuberculins, Park and Williams have the following to say, “the Tuberculins have not fulfiled the hope that Koch had for them. However, the diagnostic use of Tuberculin is of very great value.”3 It can be safely said that the above quotation does not apply to our own Tuberculinum as brought out by Swan in 1879. This fact may be explained possibly by the vast difference in their forms of preparation. Bacillinum is a compound natural infection, our Tuberculinum is a trituration from a tubercular abscess, while Tuberculin, (Kochs lymph) is a product of laboratory experiment. The presence of Kochs bacillus in both specimens of tuberculin gives no excuse for confounding them. In my opinion there are, from a homoeopathic point of view, distinct differences among Bacillinum, of Heath and Burnett, Kochs lymph and our own Tuberculinum of Swan. The original Kochs lymph has had an interesting clinical history. While Koch attempted to cure tuberculosis with his lymph, with disastrous results, the Homoeopath has achieved remarkable cures with the same preparation in another great scourge, namely pneumonia. Within a few weeks after Kochs reports on the use of O. T. the most enthusiastic and encouraging reports came from scores of prominent physicians and large hospitals. Within a few months volumes had been written on this subject. A new journal, devoted exclusively to the treatment of tuberculosis with Kochs lymph, had come into existence. It is true that some of the more conservative members of the profession were a little slow in accepting the new doctrine and practice, but the majority followed the current set in motion by the great Koch and his many eminent admirers and devoted followers. It was not long, however, before the glowing accounts of the result of the new treatment of tuberculosis came at longer intervals and in a more moderate tone. Later, case reports were inserted from different parts of the world in which it proved a complete failure, and not in an inconsiderable number of cases it was charged with having caused a speedy and fatal termination of the patient. Then came the timely warning of the veteran pathologist, Virchow, who showed by numerous post mortem examinations of patients who died under this treatment, that death was caused by a dissemination of the disease from a local focus acted upon by the lymph. Soon medical societies acted to condemn its use and some local governments were moved to restrain its further application by legal enactments. Enough time has now elapsed to judge the merits of the treatment of tuberculosis by Kochs lymph, or, as it was later called Tuberculin or O.T. It has been put to test in the treatment of all forms of tuberculosis, and the result–a miserable failure.

But to this day, Tuberculin, of Koch is used by Homoeopaths in pneumonias and in pulmonary congestion in tuberculous patients. Far more potent is the action of Bacillinum in non- tuberculous pulmonary conditions and other affections of the respiratory tract. Catarrhal dyspnoea and hypersecretion of mucus responds quickly to Bacillinum, Idiosyncrasy to colds, sinus infections and, in fact, a low resistance to respiratory infections and influenza yield dramatically to a course of treatment of Bacillinum.

It is evident, from the experience of the early workers in the treatment of tuberculosis by employing Tuberculin, that the results were very discouraging. This was due to the very intensive treatment of this disease by both injecting a most potent agent and by giving it in the most heroic dosage. Even down to the present day, the handling of this disease has shown no improvement in so far as specific treatment is concerned, this in spite of the ever decreasing dose of Tuberculin employed. In this regard Park and Williams4 say, “Tuberculin is not a cure for tuberculosis. It should be used as an addition to, not as a substitute for the recognized methods of treatment. It is a two- edged weapon and should be employed only by those who have a thorough understanding of its possibilities for good, and unfortunately, for harm. The treatment is without value in advanced tuberculosis.” It might be interesting to note what results the Homoeopathic School has had with this same substance over a period of sixty years. First, it is still used by Homoeopaths, although if given promiscuously, some dangers may follow its use; but, on the whole, its employment has yielded brilliant results not only in tuberculosis but it many kindred diseases. Kochs Tuberculin may be the only remedy which will save a severe, moribund case of pneumonia or influenza, both incipient and chronic cases of tuberculosis and influenza when given as an intercurrent remedy. In this regard Jousett quotes Dr. Arnulphy,5 “I make bold to state that no single remedy in our materia medica, not excepting Ipecac, Iodine, Tartar Emetic and even Phos., approaches the singular efficacy of Tuberculinum in well authenticated cases of that affection (broncho-pneumonia), be it in the child, the adult, or the aged. Its rapidity of action in some cases is little short of wonderful, and all who have used it in this line are unanimous in their unbounded praise of its working.” Clinically, Tuberculinum produces pneumonia, broncho-pneumonia and congestion of the lungs in the tuberculous patients. Hence, it is homoeopathic in those affections. Tuberculin also produces, in the healthy organism, inflammatory changes in the heart and aorta. Injections into animals produces parenchymatous and interstitial nephritis and albuminuria.

The nosodes have had the distinction of being introduced and proven by the most outstanding figures in Homeopathic medicine for over one hundred years. The following chronology will illustrate : 1831.Hering issued small monograph on the nosodes, followed in 1833 by similar work on these remedies by a veterinarian in Leipsic named Lux, who advocated these remedies as Isopathic. Hering, however, proved these remedies according to the tenets laid down by Hahnemann.

1830.Hering proposed use of saliva of rapid dogs (Hydroph.) as a remedy for hydrophobia. Fifty-two years later Pasteur published his first communication on rabies.

1833.Lyssin, potentized and proved, was introduced by Hering.

1833.Psorinum introduced by Hering.

1836.Anthracinum was introduced by G. A. Weber in cattle plague. He cured every case in the animals and in many men who had contracted it. The bacillus producing the disease was not discovered until 1863 by Davaine.

Benj Goldberg