MANY MEN OF MANY ,MINDS


Usually I vomit on Saturday morning, after which the headache,blurring of vision and nausea gradually get better but I am completely prostrated al day Saturday; I can sleep Saturday and Sunday night and am able to go back to my work Monday morning”. She continued, “This evening the eyes are worse than ever and I want to go to a picnic tomorrow, the worst way, so I came for something. Cant I get it?”.


There are, today, many issues, many problems, many questions, and many subjects, with many mean of many views on either side of all.

If will be my aim, during the few minutes allotted me, to increase the number of men who agree on the most vital subject of Homoeopathic philosophy and to decrease the number of views on the same subject. I shall try to do so by showing that, while many of our views seem different, they, in reality, are not. the apparent differences are does to seeing things from different viewpoints; and our individual viewpoint is the product of our inheritance, or surrounds, and our education-in a word, due to our make-up.

Before going further let us get together on the word philosophy. Webster defines it as: 1st, “The knowledge of the causes of all phenomena both of mind and matter”; and, “A particular philosophic subject”; and 3rd, “A calmness of temper”. I trust we may all possess the last while discussing the other two.

On what particular points do many of our profession differ concerning Homoeopathic philosophy and practice? We differ on the following: (1) See bibliography.

I Diagnosis.

a.Definition of.

b.Importance of.

II Disease.

a.Definition of.

b.Classification of.

c.Importance of knowledge of.

D.Symptoms of

III Dose.

a.Size of.

b.Repetition of

IV Etiology (Causes).

a.Knowledge of.

b.Importance of in selecting the indicated remedy.

c.Importance of their removal.

d.Importance of in making a diagnoses and giving a prognosis.

V Potency.

a. How to determine.

b.Relation to the repetition of the dose.

c.Efficiency of.

VI Symptoms.

a.Definition of.

b.Classification of.

c.Essentials of.

d.How to secure, arrange and rank.

VII Our Remedies.

a.Their action and reaction.

b.How they act.

c.Primary and secondary action of.

d.Whether antidotal, complementary or inimical.

e.Their elective affinity for tissues and organs.

f.The manner of selecting and administering them.

VIII Auxiliary Treatment.

a.Definition of.

b.Importance of.

Our individual knowledge on the above points (“Phenomena”) surely varies enough to give us ,many views on our “particular philosophic subject”. Let us, therefore, with a “calmness of temper”study some of these different views points and attempt to reduce their number.

DIAGNOSIS.

Let us take the common definition (2), viz: “The recognition of a disease by its symptoms”. On this we can all agree. But, but when it comes to the importance of diagnosis there are nearly as many(1) views as there are individuals.

“Why recognize a disease?” “Homoeopathists should have nothing to do with diseases” “We, Homoeopathists, treat patients, not disease.” Some of the self-styled pure Homoeopathists feel that anyone who uses the word disease should have his mouth washed with soap and water as my other did mine when I used some naughty word.

Fine, fine , but again the patients of homoeopathist sometimes die,and in most states the physicians are obliged to write in the certificate the disease which caused death. In my last book I cite a case (3) of one of these extremists,who was willing not only to hear but use the word condition,but disease never,no never.

I have often written (4) and more often stated that for me a diagnosis is an absolute necessity in the selection of the indicated homoeopathic remedy. Why? Ist. Because when you make a diagnosis you consciously or unconsciously, correctly or incorrectly, from a conclusion as to what tissue or organ is affected. 2nd.You conclude how that tissue or organ is affected,whether irritated,m inflamed, functional or structurally charted., 3rd. You know that it has been demonstrated that some drugs can only irritate, can neither inflame nor cause structural changes like atrophy or hypertrophy, etc.

Therefore, it would be not only futile but unreasonable to select a drug or remedy for an ulcer or a cataract which can only cause irritation. 4th. Diagnosis is very important in helping select the potency and in determining the repetition of the dose. (5) How? Let me cite three cases not only answering the equations but touching the subject of prognosis. (4) All three cases had a similar, yes,a common entrance complaint, viz., blurring of vision”.

CASE 1,

Miss B., age 29, school teacher; dark complexion of neuro-bilious temperament; father died when she was three years old of pyaemia resulting from an operation for gallstones,from which he had suffered for many years. Mother living, but suffers from neurasthenia and occasional attacks of hysteria.

Patient suffered from chorea at the age of puberty, 14, and has also suffered from dysmenorrhoea ever since. She is usually constipated. On her first call at my office her fist sentence was, “Doctor, I want something to stop any blurring of vision”. Being requested to be more explicit she continued, “It comes every Friday night after my weeks work is done and relax my nervous tension. I have a dull headache then, blurring of vision, a mist before the eyes, then nausea; these symptoms grow worse so that I cannot sleep Friday night from the headache.

Usually I vomit on Saturday morning, after which the headache,blurring of vision and nausea gradually get better but I am completely prostrated al day Saturday; I can sleep Saturday and Sunday night and am able to go back to my work Monday morning”. She continued, “This evening the eyes are worse than ever and I want to go to a picnic tomorrow, the worst way, so I came for something. Cant I get it?”.

She was given four doses, five drops each, of Iris ver. to be taken in an ounce of water every hour for four doses. She was to go without her dinner; tot take a laxative doses of Magnesia phos. in a half point of water and go to bed. The next day she went to the picnic and reported a fairly good time. The following Monday she was given Iris 30th, five drops in water, before breakfast, for three days. This cured after six weeks.

CASE II.

Mr.G.H.K., aged 35, Lawyer; light complexion; heavy, thick sweat, of sluggish temperament; family history nil; personal history,subject to catarrh of head and stomach when ever he takes cold,which he does easily. He came into my office with: “Doctor,give me something for my blurring vision. I have a very important case to argue in the morning and unless you can check this attack Ill be unable to appear.” Her added, ” This is the forerunner of a terrible sick headache to which I am subject.” When asked two give particular s he said, “The attack always begins with a blurring of vision,almost blinding me, then come hard sticking pains in my head over my eyes. As the headache grows worse the sight improves but nausea and vomiting set in. I vomit and cough,cough and vomit so that I cant talk. More than that I am terribly weak both mentally and physically from twenty- four to forty-eight hours”.

He was given five tablets of Kali bich, 3x, in a dram of water, every hour for five hours. He was also told to dissolve ten grains of Kali bich. 1x, in a teacup of water and douche his nostrils, throat, and mouth with it on reaching home and the first thing in the morning. He was also given tablets of the 30th of Kali bich. to be taken every morning. The result was satisfactory. He had only one attack beginning with the blurring, after that. CASE III.Let us omit the family history, etc., in this case.

A watch maker came to me and made the following entrance complaint: “:Doctor,my vision is getting poor, I have a sort of mist showed that cataracts were developing in both eyes. He was put internally night and morning and at the same time to have two drops of Cineraria put into both eyes. He was asked to report in six weeks. The report was, “I can see a little better, at least I am sure I am no worse.” The treatment was continued. The second report made three months after was, “I can see much better.Treatment was discontinued so long as there was improvement. His eyesight was saved.

Here are three different patients of three different make- ups and temperaments, with the same entrance complaints,but with three different diseases, affecting four different tissues or organs, viz., nerves, liver,mucous membrane,and eyes,given three different remedies of four different potencies, repeated at different intervals; with the same result, viz., amelioration of the sufferings of the three patients.

In all three cases diagnosis played a very important pat on the selection of the indicated remedy. Not only that, but the diagnosis also enabled the giving of a prognosis which was also important. How? Why” Because a correct prognosis often gives had been to a recent graduate of a homoeopathic college,who, after hearing his symptoms, put up a vial of disks (presumably. (Causticum) handed it to the patient with the instruction to take five every three hours,; and with the statement, “You will be all right in a couple of days”.

The last statement leads me to make another which I hope you will all taken with “calmness of temper”, viz.,m I am sceptical of the wonderful efficiently, the remarkable rapidity of action of the indicated remedy as reported in some of our journals. (6).

When I read that a group of symptoms which I recognized as cataract were given Causticum 1M and that the entire group disappeared in less than forty-eight hours,m I simply shake my head. From my viewpoint such results are absolute impossibilities, especially is this true of pathological conditions. With patients suffering from non-structural diseases of brain or nerves such results are often obtained with the indicated remedy and also without it. I have often given a patient a good fatherly talk and a vial of Place to and secured the desired result in less than a day.So have many others. Yet the publishing of such remarkable results words upon the incredulity of the reasoning,thinking riders and prevents their accepting, as true, anything we Homoeopaths say or write.

DOSE (7).

My views on the size and repetition of the dose have been stated so often that you are all familiar with them. Therefore, I will merely re-state them and not go into a detailed explanation.

F.the size of the dose should be just large enough to produce the desired results. b. The repetition of the dose, i.e.m, whether you should repeat at all, or the time intervening between the repetition,if you do repeat,depends altogether upon the make-up and condition of the patient-in other words what you expect your remedy to do. The following rules have served me fairly.

Ist. If the group of symptoms found in your patients are the counterpart of a group found in a proving give the same remedy in the dose or does as produced the symptoms on the prover.

2nd. Should the case be an acute, serious one, like convulsions or serious hemorrhages, repeat often.

3rd. Should your case be a chronic one, give the single dose and wait a reasonable length of time before repeating or changing.

POTENCY (8).

My views on this important point have also often been given.

They are:

1st. If you find that a certain potency produced a group of symptoms similar to those found in your patient give the same potency.

If not, use the higher potencies for highly sensitive,emotional neurotic patients, and the lower for the dull, lifeless, sluggish one. We should always remember, however,that all rules have exceptions.

CAUSES (9).

a.The acquiring of a comprehensive perfect knowledge of the causes which produce a symptom or group of symptoms is a very difficult task. As a consequence there are the end products of disease; while still others pretend to believe that thee are no such things as disease producing germs. We also have different view of vaccines, toxins,psora, syphilis, and tuberculosis.

b.Whatever our opinion as to what the cause are, all followers of the master know that he recognized such entities and know that Hahnemann made a definite statement that they should be removed if possible. (10).

SYMPTOMS.

All of us will probably agree that a symptom is a manifestation of disease, even if some prefer some symptom of the word disease. But when it comes to the classification of symptoms (11( oh my! oh my! The following are a few: objective, subjective, mixed, rational, general, explainable and non- explainable,keynote, strange,particular, singular, common , uncommon, characteristic, toxicological, pathological, physiological, dynamic, mental, pathogenic,basic and determinative., I think determinative is the baby of the family and that Prof.

Earth Boericke is its father. the most unfortunate thing about this subject is that many men have changed not only their conception but their opinions (views) on many of the classifications. Take as an illustration “characteristic”. Years ago that symptoms was one which could be found in the provings of only one drug, and hence under one remedy. H.C. Allen was sitting in my office one day and I asked him to name one such symptoms. He did. I then took down T.F.Allens symptom REgister, Gentrys Concordance, and the Cyclopedia of Drug pathogenesy and handed them to B.C.Allen. Much to his disappointment he found the same symptom under three other remedies. Today I use characteristic and determinative as synonyms.

C.We need waste to time on the essentials (12) of symptoms, location,modalities and sensations were given by Hahnemann, Lippe, Hering and all the way down to Garth Boericke.

d.Authorities for securing (proving), arranging,and ranking symptoms are numerous and vary according to how many have been superintendents of drug provings.

REMEDIES.

I am sure that we will agree that we apparently disagree as to how our remedies act and react (13); as to the fact that some,though not all, have a primary and secondary action; that these two action play an important part in the selection,not only of the remedy,but also of the dose and potency;that our remedies may be either antidotal, complementary, inimical, or supplemental one to another; as to the importance which the elective affinity of remedies holds to diagnosis and prognosis; and finally as to the manner of selecting and administering the indicated remedy.

as my time is limit I will simply refer you to the bibliography as proof of the above statements, feeling sure that a study of the authorities named therein will greatly reduce the number not only old apparent but real viewpoints, and hence views.

AUXILIARY TREATMENT

While speaking on one phase of the subject, viz., palliation, last year at Montreal I saw very plainly on the faces of many of you that you disagreed most radically with my views. Therefore, I expressed those views, including palliation (14), more extensively under the head of auxiliary treatment in my last book. The subject forms a part of the chapter on How to Select and Administer the Indicated Remedy. Next to preparing the channels (15) and regulating the diet I consider palliation the most important factor in the successful practice of homoeopathy. By palliation, however, I do not confine myself to the use of opium in its various forms or any other anodyne.

Now to our two objectives: 1st. How to increase the number of men. I am but a babe in this family-eight days less than a year old.

This association is altogether too small to do the work it ought to do. The reason for this is that we are too exclusive. I belong to the exclusive bodies. To become a member of either you must have certain qualifications. the membership of one is you must have certain qualifications. The membership of one is less than fifty and of the other less than one hundred. The waiting list of each is a long one-waiting and i presume hoping, some of us will die soon enough to let them come in. Are any except the members benefited by these bodies? Why no. They were organized for the sole benefit and the enjoyment of its members.

I am also a member of another association,whose membership is a thousand times larger than the former. That body is organized for the purpose of benefitting mankind in general. It has members in all parts of the world. Which of the two do the members of the I.H.A. wish to emulate? Which of the two does the I.H.A. really simulate? This body has members in all parts of the world. If I understand it correctly our objective is to extend the blessings of homoeopathy to all mankind. We should be the “l;title leaven which leaveth the whole lump.” we should recognize the fact that the flour and yeast must come in close contact with each other so that the lump” my spread-enlarge the proper size and be of suitable quality to make it appetizing and nourishing bread.

The membership of this body should be increased one hundred fold. How can this be done? A very pertinent question but an extremely difficult on to answer. However, I will make a few suggestions for others to add to or criticize.

Ist. Broaden our standard of admission. From what I have heard and read there will be different views on that suggestion.

2nd. Be charitable of each others views. It may be possible that some of those who differ from us many see some “phenomenon” which we do not; or have had some experiences which we have not.

3rd. It is easier to substitute correct four erroneous view so a member than of one who is not. Although I had often been invited by H.C.Allen, Boger, Clarke, Close,Dienst and others to become a member I felt a good deal as Sloan said he did about it.

However, now that I am in and have met and exchanged views with many more of you I have found that we are all humans.

4th.Become members of an work in other societies. I have often said that every physician should belong to four medical societies, i.e. local, state, national,and international,and I am practicing what I preach.

I have also advocated that these four societies should be inner-related so that each could do his part in all and thus secure the greatest good at the last expense.

How to decrease the number of views? The answer to this question has already been answered in the suggestions, and may be summed up as followers: Meet each other, shake hands,look each other in the eyes and talk things over frankly and freely.

P.S.As a postscript always attracts more interest and receives more attention and more though than the body of the tetter, I will make one more suggestion, viz., but Crabbs Textbook on Synonyms and Snellings Jahrs New Manual of Homoeopathic Practice, and use them when reading the Recorder or other homoeopathic literature.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

(1) Homoeopathic Recorder from June 1929 to June 1930.

(2) Websters and Goulds Dictionary.

(3) See (1).

(4) a.Royal, A.Handy Book of Reference,pages 35 and 36.

b.Diagnosis as Related to the selection of the Indicated remedy. Transaction A.I.,H. 1912.

(5) See (4).

(6) See (1).

(7) Royal A.,handy Book of References, pages 56-66 and 94-

96.

(8) Royal,m A. Handy Book of reference, pages 92-94.

(9) Royal, A Handy Book of reference, page 85.

(10) Hahnemanns Organic.

(11) Royal, A Handy Book of Reference, 31 to 36.

(12) The Three Essentials of a symptom.

Medical Century, 1902.

(13) a.U.H.Renner in Midwest Homoeopathic News Journal, December 1929.

b.Royal., A Handy Book of Reference, page 51.

(14) Royal, A Handy Book of Reference, page 102.

(15) Royal, A Handy Book of Reference, pages 82 to 85.

DES MOINES, IOWA.

DISCUSSION.

CHAIRMAN WAFFENSMITH;This is a very interesting paper by a man who is wise in the wisdom of practice and the experience of teaching.

DR.J.W.KRISHBAUM;I have attended the meetings of this Society some often the word has become more or less obnoxious to me. I wondered last year in Canada whether we would become more or less obnoxious to me. I wondered last function; whether we would ever have any children to stir us up at night and let us exercise our limbs and our vocal chords; whether we would ever have any children who would ask us for butter-bread with a thick spread of jam on it; whether we would ever have any youths to laugh in a cynical way at our ignorance, firm in the believe that after a few years they would far surpass the old fogies; to say nothing of having young men and young women who might come along and take the mantle from our shoulders and carry on.

Personally, in medicine my motto has been patterned after a good man of whom some of you have heard, St.Paul, who said, :”I press onward to the mark”. He ever claimed that he was pure or had reached the mark. And I have heard so much of “purity” and “pure homoeopathy” that I have come to the conclusion that we must drop it,take in new blood,teach them, train them and let them back-slide. But take them back again. Pat them on the shoulder and tell them to do better. There is nothing so dampening to a young man as to turn your shoulder on him and say,”You are not a homoeopath.” How many of you here are pure?.

DR.A.PULFORD;We had at our office a case of vesicular erysipelas that had defined all methods of treatment. You have the pathological stage. Now, what is the remedy? Late we learned that he had had a yellow, water stool., a semi-pathological state. he had taken one dose of medicine and was promptly cured. What is your remedy? You have your pathological and semi- pathological states., He said, “Doctor,whenever I eat o drink that watery stool comes out like a shot”. Where is your pathology in that?.

George Royal
George Royal M. D, born July 15, 1853, graduated New York Homœopathic Medical College 1882, served as president of the American Institute of Homœopathy, professor of materia medica and therapeutics, and also dean of the College of Homœopathic Medicine of the State University of Iowa.