Two years ago, we were privileged to read before this group of my colleagues, a paper entitled Cadmium Cures of Cancer, wherein were stated the results of the treatment, up to that date, of two hundred and twenty-five cases, with a loss of fifty cases in four years. At this time, there has been added to that list twenty-two more deaths by cancer, but these last named lived six years, most of the time in comfort, performing their accustomed work, and all dying with a minimum of suffering. Many experienced no suffering, and without morphine or any other narcotic or anaesthetic drug, they went quietly and peacefully to their rest.
The remaining hundred and fifty–these give every promise of living many years, excepting some of those, whose advanced age at any time may intervene to end life. From these figures, we may claim a cure of two-thirds of all cases treated after a lapse of six years, by strictly homoeopathic methods, because most, if not all, of the remaining patients will die from causes other than that of cancer. Remember, these were not incipient cases, they all showed the cachexia, and the clinical and laboratory evidence of the developed active cancer disease.
Many had been treated surgically and by radium and x-ray with only harm resulting, before they came to homoeopathy. Because of these facts, and because of new data collected under wider and more varied experience in the application of homoeopathic research in cancer, I am hopeful of far greater achievement in the near future in the cure and abatement of this implacable disease. It is destined to be accomplished by all the true disciples of Hahnemannian homoeopathy.
We need but correlate our remedy prescribing with dietetic and hygienic measures to accomplish even more astounding results than we have in the past (in terms of cure). We need also to discover a method of making an absolute diagnosis of the pre- cancer stage. When this desirable thing is a certainty, and it is in sight even now but not quite perfected, we shall witness the recognition of the power of the homoeopathic law over mans most destructive and heretofore ineradicable foe.
After a review of all modern research, and after the futile and discouraging results obtained by surgery, x-ray and radium over a long period, of time, we know that Hahnemannian homoeopathy holds out to the afflicted the only real hope for cure in the early cases, and amelioration of suffering and the prolonging of life in the advanced cases.
The more experience I have with the use of the Cadmium preparations, the more convinced I am of their indispensable need in cancer. Not that they always perfect the cure alone and unaided, but they are the most effective antidote I have yet found to aluminum poisoning, and that factor plays a far more important role in cancer than most of us believed in the past. Intestinal forms of the disease, especially, are undoubtedly much aggravated by the presence of that subtle poison.
Aluminum is one of the most common of the irritants entering as exciting causes in many cases of cancer. Cad. iod. is the most effective antidote to radium and x-ray burns to be found among the homoeopathic remedies, competing with Phos. for radium poison and with Fl.ac. and Sil. for the x-ray abuses. These remedies are the most effective agents yet found against the frightful results both locally and systematically, that radium and x-ray produce.
From a homoeopathic view, the cancer problem presents four basic aspects, each a study in itself:.
The first is the physiological phase, and this is related to both doctor and patient. The horror and depressing effects of a cancer diagnosis, right or wrong, is in itself, overwhelming in most cases. To the patient no hope remains, it is useless to try, the only concern left is to avoid as much suffering as he can and possibly prolong for a time a life already doomed.
To the doctor, especially if he is scientific and imbued with the up to date ideas of the so called authorities, it means just another fated victim for whom there is no remedy or help, only an object of experimentation of mutilation and torture, all in the name of science and progress. No attempt by intelligent effort is made to seek causes and invoke law, which is the first attribute of true philosophy and science. The patient under such mental states is permitted and left to go, to think, act, eat, and do as he chooses, unguided, unaided, as a bit of driftwood on a storm tossed sea, without compass or succor.
The second aspect is the one of irritation which comes from many sources, some very subtle and obscure. Drugs, especially the coal tar derivatives, serums, vaccines, metallic poisons; and processed, adulterated, demineralized, devitalized, irritating foods, are found in this group.
The third aspect is that of dietetics, the removal of all irritating and harmful foods, and the careful selection of non- irritating, balanced, individualized nourishment.
The fourth aspect, is that of remedy selection. This is more difficult and complicated than that of ordinary prescribing because so many things enter in the history and cause of cancer, and because no two cases are alike. We may have to antidote some specific drug poison in one case, before anything else. Another may require the reduction of some specific basic miasm or infection, such as syphilis. A series of complimentary remedies is frequently needed to meet conditions in many cases, but all according to the homoeopathic law, doses given singly, and at sufficient intervals apart, for the expression and evolution of the cases.
We may learn much from observation, relating to the nature and growth of cancer, both when left to the vital force unassisted by medicinal action, and when influenced by such action. Last year, I saw a woman, sixty-three years old, who presented a breast cancer in active stage, far advanced, but only for a short time, prior to my seeing her, had it pained.
She stated that she first noticed the lump in her breast twenty-three years before and she had feared to see any doctor because of her dread of operations; she had taken no treatment, observed no rules of diet, worked hard under more or less trying circumstances, yet nature unassisted, had kept her alive, free of pain and fit for over twenty years. What work homoeopathy could have done with that case in its incipiency. We all see the answer in the number of lumps and nodules that disappear under good prescribing.
This brings us to the most vital part of our subject, that of prevention; for if we can cure a large number of developed cases, and if nature, unaided, can retard the disease ravages for twenty years, what will good prescribing plus proper diet and proper living do, to prevent the development of cancer. It has long been known that constitutional homoeopathic treatment will prevent cancer in the large majority of cases. In these times when this silent terror is dominating the world, especially the world of dominant medicine, it becomes our solemn duty, to give to humanity, these potent facts.
Millions of dollars are wasted annually in donations for allopathic ignorance, to squander in cruel animal experimentations that ignore and pervert the laws of God and nature, and fail to bring anything save additional suffering and sacrifice to an already overburdened race. Is it wrong, to let a suffering and terrorized world, know that homoeopathy is the balm of healing to check the destroying conquest of this hideous monster, conceived in violated law, born in wickedness, and nurtured in ignorance?
DR. E. UNDERHILL, JR.: This is one glorious paper. I would like to see it reprinted and distributed to every physician in the United States. Dr. Grimmer has emphasized the three essential points–the homoeopathic remedy, diet, and routine of life. Without those three together, I do not think you are going to cure a very large percentage of cases.
DR. P. L. BENTHACK: As the doctor says, you must remove the cause. I will give you a brief outline of what Dr. Emil Schlegel says in his German book, printed in 1923, which he gives from his own experience. He practised forty years, and has cured cancer. His work, I think, is the best in the world on cancer. I wish you would have that book translated into the English language. It is very condensed. He says you must remove the cause of the trouble. He says his cancer cases are similar to all other chronic diseases. He does not hold that coffee antidotes our remedies, but that too much coffee is not good.
If he cannot get his patients away from coffee he lets them drink one cup in the morning. He has to do with the laboring classes mostly. He says if people are undernourished they should be encouraged to eat more nourishing food, and a little more meat than they have been eating, but if they have been over-nourished or over-fed, they should eat less, and especially less meat.
They can take a good deal of soup made from beef bone, because the phosphorus and lime that boils out is good for one who has cancer. I had a paper in the Homoeopathic News in September 1930, on what I call drainage limitation. It would be worth your while to look it up. I gave the remedy mostly in the tinctures and in low potencies. Dr. Nebel in Switzerland, uses compound remedies. His son gave me the list of those remedies and some indications for their use. I have given them in the good homoeopathic way, the indicated remedy, the single remedy.
Burnett changed from high potency to a low potency because the high potency is too strong. When the patient is overloaded with poison the lower, functional potency is a better aid for nature cannot throw off the condition alone.
If we can get cancer cases in time, I believe we can cure 90 per cent. of them, and those that we do not cure live much longer and much easier. I hardly ever have to resort to a dose of morphine, although in extreme cases I have used it.
I have had a good many cases come to me with a fearful odor, and with homoeopathic remedies I have been able to get rid of the odor, prolong their lives and give them a fairly easy death.
DR. C. M. BOGER: This wonderful paper gives me an opportunity to say two or three things. I will begin by mentioning two cases of cancer. One was a case of a middle-aged woman whose mother died of malignant cancer of the breast. The mother lived eight years under homoeopathic treatment for the malignancy. The daughter had a lump in her breast, also, and went to a surgeon and had the lump taken out.
This was about six years ago. About four months ago, she came to me and said, “Doctor, I have a pain in that old scar. There is something wrong in my armpit.” I examined her, and sure enough there was. She had a pain in the old scar and a lump in the armpit. I gave her one dose of Bellis perennis 30th potency, and repeated it in two weeks. The lump has entirely disappeared, and the pain has gone away. She says she is entirely well and is overjoyed.
The point that I wish to bring out in connection with this case is this: From old school sources we have been led, for many years, to believe that cancer and injury were of some relation to each other. The old school men are not mistaken in everything. There are some good points. You put these two things together in her case, and it gives you the solution very well.
The other case is a woman eighty-four years of age. Twelve years ago she had gallstones removed by surgical operation. Six years after that a lump appeared in the right breast, which gradually enlarged until it now extends below the nipple and is about the size of a saucer. It is dark blue in color. The peculiarity of this case is that she does not have much pain in this lump, but every now and then she has an attack of acute inflammatory erysipelas.
Finally I discovered that Arnica covers both symptoms, erysipelas and higher cancer. Her last attack of erysipelas occurred less than ten days ago. It came on severely with high fever, intense drowsiness, terrible prostration and eruption on the chest. She was down with an erysipelas just thirty-six hours. That is the shortest she has ever had. The attacks of erysipelas are getting shorter and shorter. This shows what is possible in the case of cancer.
There is another part of this paper of which I wish to speak. It has nothing to do with cancer. There are many investigators, nowadays, who seem to labor under the delusion that they can do evil and have good results therefrom. Men who are doing this are the vivisectionists and men of that type. Oh, yes, we have been taught in the old school that many victories in medicine are due to vivisection and so on, but how we get around the moral law and the logic of the thing, I dont exactly comprehend. If anyone here can enlighten me and tell me how one can break the moral law and do evil, and have good come out of it finally, I shall be glad to get the information.
DR. A. H. GRIMMER: The doctor spoke about potency. It is an important factor, and it is going to take much more experience than I have had yet to trace out the relative merits of the potencies. They all have merit.
You can go clear back into the literature and find that there have been many cures made, and Buckley, Burnett and Cooper have undoubtedly given us authentic cures. It is true, as the doctor observes, that if we give the potency too high at first, especially if the cases are advanced, we are going to cause unnecessary suffering and perhaps create an aggravation we cannot get rid of in these advanced cases of cancer. So I start with the potency around 30th in most cases and feel out to see how the reactions are. If they stand that well, the succeeding potencies will carry on with the work very beautifully.
The diminution of the odor is a favorable symptom in the cure of cancer. When you find that taking place it is one of the surest indications that your remedy is working, that the patient feels better, looks better and is better. It may be some time before the growth begins to show the improvement we hope for, but if that order prevails, your remedy is doing its work. If any other order prevails, if the cancer is healing but there is more pain and more odor, your remedy is not the best.
Again the doctor mentions the diet. I stated in the paper that the diet must be selected for the needs of the individual case. I think that covers that subject pretty well, with one exception. You should limit the meat you give a cancer patient, because the uric acid in the meat has a specifically deleterious effect on the cancer. This has been proven by a good many good observers outside of our homoeopathic ranks, and some of them are getting results. One of the first men to note this was an old school man, a Dr. Buckley, of New York, who cured a number of cases with nothing but diet.
Dr. Bogers observations are absolutely true. They refer to the irritational part of our text, injuries, and so forth. We have the most wonderful remedies to correspond with these things, and such remedies as he mentioned, especially Bellis, have given us a great many cures. Bellis has probably given us as many cures in breast cancer as any other one remedy, if you can get the specific history following an injury. It competes with Conium. In Conium the breast is apt to be free of pain. In Bellis you are apt to have more or less pain.
Hypothesis has no part nor lot in the homoeopathic prescription; the homoeopath does not attempt to translate the simple, truthful language of the symptoms into the ever changing, and always unintelligible jargon of pathological diagnosis.
A diagnosis of the symptoms of any given case might indeed point to fatty degeneration of the heart, or to a cirrhosis of the liver, or to some other artificial classification; nevertheless the true homoeopath administers the remedy indicated by the totality of the symptoms, not stopping to ascertain whether or no that remedy has ever caused fatty degeneration or cirrhosis. Any attempt at a pathological basis, for homoeopathic prescriptions, must at once exclude mental and subjective symptoms, and these are often our surest guide to a proper selection, even though they be pathologically insignificant.—E. J. LEE, M.D., 1881.