EDITORIAL NOTES AND COMMENTS



It is open to serious question whether strychnine and alcohol have an direct stimulating effect on the heart, and camphor falls into the same category. The caffeine group, including theobromin and its compounds, has undoubtedly an influence on the heart and circulation which may be of service under certain conditions, especially when the failure is associated with edema. Very few drugs can be relied on to act as specific cardiac stimulants, and even those with an assured position only act satisfactorily in the absence of severe toxemia. The less reliance placed on “cardiac tonics” the more attention will be given to those features in the management of the patient by which the heart can be saved from strain.”–J. A. M. A.

We have been laboring under the belief that therapeutic nihilism is well nigh universal; Hays remarks would seem to show that credulity is still a characteristic of medical men and that “cardiac tonics” still play an important part. Hays says that it is open to serious question whether strychnin and alcohol have any direct stimulating effect on the heart and that camphor falls into the same category.

Why, then, do so many physicians of both schools, rely upon these drugs? Evidently they are credulous in the extreme; certainly other measures have given better results, especially the homoeopathic remedy.

“MALARIA IN CHILDREN AND THE ABUSE OF QUININE.–

Dr. Eugene Rosamond, Memphis, Tenn.: The abuse of quinine in its overdosage to children is almost universal throughout the South. The giving of quinine in sugary syrups to infants and children with gastro- intestinal diseases may aggravate the existing condition. Overdoses of quinine may account for many nervous phenomena not explainable otherwise.”–J. A. M. A.

One naturally associates the South with quinine and calomel and Southern homoeopaths have had hard sledding in attempting to overcome this pernicious habit of dosing with these drugs. It seems a pity that the milder remedies of homoeopathy, with their total freedom from after-effects, cannot be more extensively employed, especially where children are concerned. Quinine and calomel, that unholy alliance which has wrought such widespread havoc and destruction! The world could well afford to lose both, provided that homoeopathy were substituted.

“INTOLERANCE FOR BREAST MILK.–

This article presents the history and the results of attempts to desensitize infants by parenteral injection of a small amount of breast milk, when there was vomiting from intolerance for the mothers milk. The means for differentiation of the vomiting from this cause are described, and three cases personally observed are analyzed. The infants were 40, 90 and 45 days old. The children seemed to be in perfect health otherwise, and the persistence of the vomiting, rebellious to all ordinary measures, gave the clue.

One child was given four parenteral injections of from 2 to 4 c.c. of breast milk in three weeks; another eleven injections of 4 or 5 c.c. in twenty-five days, and the other, three daily injections of from 1.5 to 2 c.c. The cure was complete in all and no local or general reaction was apparent.”–J. A. M. A.

Day by day in every way were getting nearer and nearer–to homoeopathic principles! But why torture the poor innocents with hypodermatic injections; why not try a potency of breast milk and desensitize the kiddies in this simple way? It has been done and successfully too! Incidentally, several of the Lacs have been proved and are deserving of study, e.g. Lac caninum, Lac Felinum, Lac vaccinum, Lac defloratum and even Lac simiae, monkeys milk. As a throat remedy Lac can. is one of the most valuable, comparing with Lachesis in this respect. Symptoms which alternate sides should always call attention to it. Pearly white, pseudo-membranous exudations are another indication, especially when found in tonsillitis or diphtheria.

Lac defloratum (skimmed cows milk) is of value in chronic sick headaches, with obstinate constipation, nausea and vomiting and intolerance of milk.

HAS IT COME TO THIS?–

At the regular monthly meeting of the New York County Homoeopathic Medical Society, held on the Pneumonias,” was read by the guest of the evening, a physician of the old school. This fact in itself need cause no particular comment, since we may freely admit that there is much that homoeopaths may learn from their O. S. colleagues. However, the essayist of the evening dwelt upon the treatment of pneumonia with the well-known Rockefeller serum and stated the mortality of type 1 to be 9 per cent. with 14 per cent. without serum; of type 2, 35 per cent., and of type 3, 45 per cent.

To careful homoeopathic prescribers these figures are frankly outrageous and testify eloquently and tragically to the absolute helplessness of our allopathic friends in this disease. The amazing circumstance is the fact that modern homoeopaths listen to the recital of statistics of this kind without voicing the slightest rejoinder as to the great superiority of their own therapeutic measures, which have always shown much better statistical evidence.

True it is, that politeness and courtesy forbid disputation of the statements of the guest of the evening–but it, would seem as though such silence is hiding the homoeopathic light under the allopathic bushel, with a vengeance indeed!.

G. Harlan Wells, of the Hahnemann Medical College of Philadelphia, has recently presented in The Journal of the American Institute of Homoeopathy striking figures relative to the mortality of pneumonia, covering a period of thirteen years and dealing with some 444 cases, demonstrating beyond question the enormous advantage of pure homoeopathic treatment over mixed homoeopathic and physiologic treatment or over physiologic treatment alone.

Quoting Dr. Wells: “It was found in a study of the treatment employed in lobar pneumonia that some patients received no medication except the homoeopathic remedy, others received the homoeopathic remedy and a few doses of some physiological drug, such as codeine or strychnine, while still another group received physiological drugs throughout the major portion of their illness. We have accordingly separated these three groups as follows:

A. Cases receiving no medication except the

homoeopathic remedy………………….. 190 (42.7 percent).

Total deaths………………………….. 14 ( 7.4 percent).

Total recoveries………………………. 176 (92.6 percent)

B. Cases receiving a few doses of physiological.

drugs in addition to the homoeopathic.

remedy……………………………… 101 (22.7 percent).

Total deaths………………………….. 50 (49.5 percent).

Total recoveries………………………. 51 (50.5 percent)

C. Cases receiving physiological drugs throughout.

the course of treatment………………. 153 (34.4 percent).

Total deaths………………………….. 92 (60.1 percent).

Total recoveries………………………. 61 (39.9 percent).

Conclusions.

Wells concludes his article by observing: “1. The mortality rate in cases treated by physiological drugs was eight times as great as in cases treated by the homoeopathic remedy alone.

“2. The average mortality rate in pneumonia as determined by the Rockefeller Institute is two and a half times as great as the mortality rate in cases in this series treated homoeopathically.

“3. The assumption that all the cases in this series that were treated homoeopathically were mild infections (Type IV) is invalidated by the severity of many of these cases, by the extended period of time covered and the varying conditions present. “4. The administration of physiological heart stimulants is invariably attended by a rapidly increasing death rate. With the exception of digitalis in cases of auricular fibrillation, there is no evidence that their administration was attended by anything but injury to the patient.

“5. Intelligent hygienic care combined with the indicated homoeopathic remedy is the most effective treatment for lobar pneumonia now known”.

The italics in Wells quotations are ours and serve to emphasize the salient facts, which ought to “sink in” the minds of those homoeopaths who are chasing the will o the wisp of allopathic therapy. It really is about time that we homoeopaths rest content with our own methods. We have a good thing, why not stick to it? The trouble seems to be, that many of our homoeopathic physicians feel that in the serious or desperate cases they must resort to heroic physiologic measures. They permit themselves to be stampeded and then bombard the helpless patient with an impossible array of powerful drugs. The effect is, of course, particularly upon the family and friends, theatrical; the entire procedure is a play to the gallery, calculated to gain approbation, no matter what the outcome may be. Should the patient die, in the language of the daily press, “all was done that science can do” and the doctor is crowned with a halo.

Conversely, for a patient to die without being tortured by hypodermic needles and oxygen tanks, is, in the minds of the unthinking, an unforgivable crime, and the hapless physician is consigned to purgatory. But, “where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise!”.

THERAPEUTICS OF DEAFNESS.–

Dr. George W. Harvey, of Paradise, California, writes us for information concerning an article which appeared some years ago in THE HOMOEOPATHIC RECORDER regarding the medicinal treatment of deafness. We have been unable to find the article referred to; possibly some of our readers may recall it or, if not, may be willing to contribute a paper dealing with this subject.

Rabe R F
Dr Rudolph Frederick RABE (1872-1952)
American Homeopathy Doctor.
Rabe graduated from the New York Homeopathic Medical College and trained under Timothy Field Allen and William Tod Helmuth.

Rabe was President of the International Hahnemannian Association, editor in chief of the Homeopathic Recorder, and he wrote Medical Therapeutics for daily reference. Rabe was Dean and Professor of Homeopathic Therapeutics at the New York Homeopathic Medical College.