In writing about my experiences as a physician in China, I shall bring forth no surprising discoveries. The value of this paper rests in the comparison of therapies; the writer having found him compelled to work as an allopathic doctor (being a missionary doctor) and as a Homoeopathist. Eight years of work, with tremendous material furnished especially during the war, gave me ample opportunity to compare the results of both methods. (In the Mission Hospital and three dispensaries during this period, I saw about 60,000 patients; in my own clinic nearly 12,000 patients. In referring to my own patients in this paper, I mean those treated Homoeopathically.
The most common diseases met by the physician in China are tuberculosis and malarias. On top of these epidemics appear in certain seasons of the year: typhoid, paratyphoid, typhus, dysentery, dengue fever, acute malaria. I will mention also the great pneumonia epidemic in the winter of 1942 and an epidemically-appearing syndrome – a mixture of a glandular fever (Pfeiffer) associated with acute rickets.
I begin first with descriptions of treatment of the typhoid group. This group is represented by some 400 cases treated allopathically and 160 cases treated with homoeopathic principles in mind during the great epidemic of 1943. What a difference of results obtained! Who will ever forget the marvellous results after a 2-4 day administration of bryonia, nux vomica, baptisia, stramonium, in the first stages of the disease.
What could I do as an allopath to meet the feverish delirium, all the toxic symptoms of anger, delusions, fright in fever? This epidemic was a bad one, the fever setting in high from the beginning. Glucose with vitamin C injections, the usual antipyretics and washings could not meet all the emergencies. Whereas late complications such as otitis, pyelitis, periostitis (and in some cases of paratyphoid a lymphadenitis) were as high as 20 per cent, I saw as few as 5 per cent in those Homoeopathically treated. In general the latter class presented a picture of quicker recovery. I very often succeeded in aborting a case within 5-7 days.
I must say it was no easy undertaking to embark on a treatment of an acute case. Day by day the MAteria had to be studied, the more unfamiliar particulars repertorized, especially hourly aggravations. The aftermath treatment of such severe diseases was perhaps more efficient from an allopathic standpoint, still there were lots of symptoms which were covered by our drugs (loss of concentration, weak memory for names, drifting of thoughts, alopecia, etc.).
The same observations apply also to the treatment of typhus. How effective pyrog., rhus t., arnica were. The only means for the allopath to meet the most dangerous symptoms, especially those of spoilation of the blood, was transfusion.
Dysentery represents a somewhat different picture. Whereas the typhoid epidemics did not change much as regards virulence, the dysenteries (amoebic and bacillary) changed each year with the genus epidemicus. I could handle both types Homoeopathically during the epidemics of 1940, 41, 43, and 45, but in 1942 the toxic symptoms of bacillary dysentery, especially in children, were so severe that none of the usually indicated and usually efficient drugs met or alleviated the symptoms.
I must admit that I had only a 30x dilution of merc. cor. Lack of alcohol and bottles prevented me from preparing higher dilutions which I needed, particularly for malaria, where, with the exception of China sulf., no drug was of any value below the 30x. I am certain higher dilutions would have met the severest symptoms. But I had to resort to the use of a Japanese preparation of sulfaguanidine, using up to 4 gms. daily compared to 15-18 gms. daily administered by my Chinese colleagues.
The homoeopathic treatment of dengue fever (70 cases) proved much more efficient than the allopathic. The typical headache on turning the eyes could not be alleviated by means of the usual analgesics, whereas bry., bell., gels., were most beneficent. IN over 100 cases allopathically treated I did not experience a shortening of the attack until the rash appeared on the sixth or seventh day. Homoeopathic prescribing shortened the course of fever up to four or five days, alleviated the general soreness and brought forth a quicker recovery.
The most dreaded disease, malaria, I learned to handle after many an unhappy trial. No drug below the 30x would be of any avail. I did not find drugs acting specifically on a specific malaria, as in Boerickes Repertory; i.e. either tertiana or subtertiana (tropical), a vivax of any plasmodium giving in to a smile. The problem is different as far as the quartana is concerned. Here a tendency of a change from an intermittent into a remittent type of fever is to be observed. Here is the domain of what I would call the homoeopathic specific for those cases: psorinum. It took me quite a while to follow up the whole symptomatology extremely rich in particulars, but it paid off in the end.
With over 1,100 Homoeopathically treated cases I dare say that there is no other treatment as profoundly acting as ours. 2,000 observed cases of orthodox treatment (quinine, atabrine, plasmochin, eucalyptus oil, salvarsan, stovarsol) did not give the feeling of satisfaction that one felt when administering a couple of homoeopathic powders. Whoever has seen the heavy discoloration of the skin after a prolonged treatment with atabrine, the flabby features, edema of the deathly pallor of lips and gums, loss of appetite, ear troubles after quinine, will hardly decide for this sort of treatment, especially knowing that there is much more effective therapy in a couple of doses of nat mur., ignat., ars., or any indicated remedy.
Whoever thinks of symptoms like cough during chill or fever, nausea in smokers when smelling cigarette smoke, the reversing of the succession chill-fever into fever followed by chill, the motley picture of gastro-intestinal symptoms associated with either of the three periods, the manifold symptoms during apyrexia, the endless chain of symptoms in chronic malaria? This alone would justify the study of our Materia Medica. And the studying of the manifoldness of the semiology will engender a different outlook on diseases generally. During seven years of homoeopathic practice in Europe I never saw a case of malaria, but after having been confronted with this disease in China I learned a lot more about handling feverish states.
I have to point out the differences in treatment of acute and chronic malaria, a very delicate problem of dosage and repetition. The suggestions as to the treatment of acute malaria made by Stauffer cannot be applied – at least no in China. Contrary to my knowledge received in Europe, acute malaria, which in my opinion represents an acute neurosis with loss of equilibrium in the vegetative economy, reacts solely to far higher dynamizations than chronic malaria. Whereas 52 chronic arsenic cases reacted favorably to the 30x, eight acute cases had no reaction or amelioration on 30x, but the 200x produced a brilliant effects.
U must include that I had followed up more than 50 per cent of all cases with repeated blood tests and most detailed histories. Some cases, 40-60 per cent, of acute malaria did not respond at all. By taking refuge in quinine or atabrine I could suppress the worst symptoms and after a time (one week or 10 days) go on with homoeopathic treatment. Most of such cases after a short period of orthodox treatment represent the changeability of symptoms of pulsatilla and in some cases sepia (changing paroxysms).
As to the repetition in acute malaria, I gave 3 single doses of the 200x a week before retiring, altogether 6-7 doses. Potencies from 12x to 30x, 3-4 times a day, continued for 2-3 weeks. With improvement, the daily intake was reduced to 2 doses. In chronic cases a single dose a week or every 2 weeks when using the 200x, continued 3 months, altogether 9 doses. Potencies of 30x 3 time a week were continued for one month.
The chronic diseases are tuberculosis of the lungs, bones, glands (with and without fistulae), syphilis of secondary or tertiary stage, chronic gonorrhoea, and all sorts of gastro- intestinal disturbances with or without hemorrhages.
One of the most brilliant but also most difficult chapters of Homoeotherapy are the many hemorrhages. In Europe a lung hemorrhage will be found in cases corresponding to what is called the second stage according to Turban. It is different in China where wounds bleed freely, and accordingly hemorrhages occur in beginning affections of lungs, sometimes as a result of an injury (hard racking cough), anger, vicarious bleeding in suppressed menses, etc. Hemorrhages from any orifice, especially from lungs after malaria, and fistulae are most common.
To get into ones mind the drugs in Kents rubric: expectoration bloody, and chest hemorrhages; and all the other corresponding symptoms (at the bedside I used Boerickes Repertory) so as to speedily work out a homoeopathic procedure of a cure is much more difficult than an allopathic approach; but the results! Of course an artificial pneumothorax will stop any hemorrhage (in case there are no adhesions); on the other hand no homoeopathic drug will stop copious bleeding gushing out of a huge cavity.
