This is going to be a semi-clinical paper. Those of us who have more faith in homoeopathy than some of our colleagues, believe that much can be done for the children by treating their constitutional state but even in averting threatened acute illnesses or mitigating their severity. We believe this because we have tested it out. For similar reasons we believe that it is not necessary to immunize our patients in the currently accepted sense of that verb. We prefer the immunization arising from that same up building of the constitutional state. Especially do we protest, inwardly or vocally, against the claim that all or practically all accepted immunization immunizes and that all other methods of meeting these situations are criminal neglect of our patients.
On or about October, 1929, a case of diphtheria was discovered among the school children of a certain town on Long Island. The whole school body was panic-stricken and parents were so strongly urged to use anti-toxin that it amounted almost to a threat of criminal negligence on their part if they did not use this prophylactic and invitation to the disease to attack their children. In the meantime, the little patient was being cared for by a graduate nurse of the community. You may be sure she did not go near that house without receiving the full limit of anti- toxin. The child died-probably solely because he did not receive the anti-toxin sufficiently early. Nothing is said about his not receiving toxin-anti-toxin, so it is a safe assumption that he contracted the disease causing his death, despite plenty of prophylactic injection.
What about the nurse? The child died-of “pneumonia.”- and within a few days the nurse died of diphtheria. How could she? She certainly had received ample injections of toxin-antitoxin, as a nurse, and surely there was an ample supply of antitoxin to pour into her. But she died. My patients in the community sent me a clipping from the local paper, commenting on the nurses death, from which I quote in part:.
“With two deaths attributed to diphtheria in this community, the town health department urges parents of small children to have them innoculated with toxin- anti-toxin. Cooperation on the part of the parents, says the health officer, will help prevent an outbreak.”.
I wish to record myself as fully in accord with this statement of the health officer, since they have no other means of building up an immunity against diseases. But we have a better method and we would like to make it widely known.
My patients in this community include two small boys. Their paternal grandfather died of tuberculosis. Their father is very tall, extremely slender- his ankles look like pipestems- and while his general health is good, he suffers from asthma. Their mothers family has a history of much neurosis, including herself, and some mental obliquity in other members of the family. Both boys are very nervous, and the younger one has appalling tonsils at times, very much enlarged, ragged, and rough.
The school people insist that they must be removed. And again I concede their viewpoint since they know no other successful method of meeting the situation, while we do. The parents and myself are determined to build him up without hauling down that flag which gives warning of his constitutional state.
In December 1929, the children were both ill. and the local doctor called in pronounced the disease scarlet fever. I happened to be in the vicinity at the time and went to see them. All evidence of scarlet fever had disappeared by that time, but both boys looked suspiciously like nasal diphtheria. I requested cultures, and the local doctor came to take them before I had left the house. It is to be assumed that he had never heard of nasal diphtheria, because he contented himself with a swab from each throat and departed, after telling the mother that he had taken all the cultures we requested. The reports were negative- but the mother and myself never changed our opinion as to the presence of nasal diphtheria.
The work on the constitutional condition of these lads has gone on steadily and they have both kept remarkably well most of the intervening months, particularly this past winter. Just now the younger one is rejoicing in a very prompt, uncomplicated recovery from mumps, while many of his playmates are suffering from pyelitis otitis, and even an infected tooth, as sequelae. I saw the children in December 1930, and even I was astonished at the improvement in the condition of those tonsils.
Why have I bored you with this long clinical recital? Because it preaches more effectually than any mere words can the doctrine of the single remedy applied to the constitutional state and not alone directing our attention to acute conditions. Our homoeopathic remedies are the best immunizing agents available.
One word more: Apropos of the death from diphtheria of the graduate nurse who had been caring for a diphtheria case (which died of “pneumonia”-do not lose sight of that death cause) in the news dispatches of June 9, 1930, from Luebeck Germany, was the following item.
“Luebeck, Germany, June 9 (A.P.)-Eight more babies have died in an infant hospital here as the result of being innoculated with anti-tuberculosis serum recently. Thirty-five in all have died.”.
So we have further confirmation for the faith that is in us to care for our patients homoeopathically. WASHINGTON, D.C.
Infinitesimal or High Potentization, and Microdosia, serve as the pharmacological principles of homoeopathy.
Qualitatively, assimilation depends on the material nature and distinctive quality of matter and action, both of them concerning organs and the drug, and upon their specific relation to each other.
This quality and relation to each other of drug and organism in the healing process must necessarily be the same with the nature of all matter and action in mutual action, that is under the third Newtonian Law of Motion-Contrariety (and equality) of action and reaction.-B. FINCKE, M.D., 1862.