The insignificant symptom may prove to be the “mole” that distinguishes between the twins which otherwise could not be distinguished from each other. These true primary pathogenetic groups cannot bee learned from a single prover, no matter how good the prover or proving. It will take at least one hundred provers, of both sexes, and of equal sensitivity to the drug to be proven. A gigantic task and an expensive one, but worth infinite times the original cost.
Our present repertorial evaluation cannot be other than false. Our repertories mislead us. They only mystify and complicate matters. They are mechanical and can only return to us just what we put into them. They appear scientific and even instruments of precision, but, beyond that – VACANCY. But, as an Index Medicus – INDISPENSABLE. Boenninghausen expressed a great truth when he wrote: “There is no doubt that a diligent and comprehensive study of pure materia medica cannot be accomplished by the use of any repertory whatever.”
Therefore all prescriptions founded on Repertorization alone are founded on a false base, and must of necessity, in the main, prove false and misleading. The prescription MUST be based on the true primary pathogenetic group alone, and all gross pathology and morphological states completely ignored only in so far as they prove obstacles to be removed in the aid of recovery. The very best that repertorization can do for us is to give us an approximate similimum, using our present evaluation as a basis. Not knowing the true primary pathogenetic group of each drug, just to what are these evaluations made?.
Not knowing the drugs true primary pathogenesis how are any of us to positively know that we have selected, a priori, the similar remedy? Even Hahnemann and the rest of our very best prescribers have had to work largely in the dark, picking at what was found to be the rare, strange and peculiar characteristics, but with only a vague knowledge of the real reason why. If they had known, for the real good and advancement of homoeopathy, they would have revealed the matter, laid down hard and fast rules, and spent much time in learning just what constituted the true primary pathogenesis of each drug, as this is by wide and far, next to a proper knowledge of how to examine the patient (the most important factor in prescribing), and only approached by a proper knowledge of the amount of drug energy required in a given case to complete the real indications of the drug.
Again, it is this true pathogenesis that makes Similia Similibus possible, and the only method able to verify it. The similitude must be to the drugs primary pathogenesis, and not to any arbitrary evaluation that we may put on any other symptoms, which is the only way we can tell when we have selected the similar remedy, a priori or otherwise. Whenever my prescriptions have been made according to that immutable law my work has been accomplished more easily, more satisfactorily, more accurately, and the results more lasting than before. Let us ever remember that Nature is definite, never either substituting or approximating. The term Similimum, or most similar, has, in reality, no place in homoeopathy. Exactness and accuracy are the watchwords.
Homoeopathy is, or is not, correct; is, or is not, scientific; is, or is not, founded on natural law. If it is based on natural law, which over one hundred and twenty-five years of constant test and verification confirm that it is, then it is both accurate and constant and therefore scientific, the peer of any modern science. What homoeopathy asks of us is – to complete its unfolding; search for the true primary pathogenetic group of each drug in order to arrive at the real symptom totality, as well as its characteristic mark or stamp in order that we may be positive that we have the correct remedy a priori; and honestly attempt to find the exact amount of drug energy required in a given case to counteract the disease energy. This done, we shall be able to arrest all diseases in their progress, abort many, cut short the course of all, and leave behind no evil after effects. Thus we shall establish the only truly scientific system of medical healing obtainable.
An editorial in the January, 1932, issue of The Recorder, laments the fact that few if any men will leave any important achievement behind. In Hahnemanns time, were his achievements acclaimed and generally recognized? It has taken us a long time to recognize them. In apparent desperation, and as a final answer to his critics, he is reported to have flung this challenge to the world: “Put it to the test and report the failures to the world”.
By frequent confirmations, I have discovered exactly just what constitutes the exact symptom totality and why, a thing that has been long sought and has puzzled every one from Hahnemann down. Perhaps this seems to you highly egotistical, but no more so than Hahnemanns announcement of his rediscovery of the law of similars. This discovery of mine reveals that the symptom totality consists solely of that small pathogenetic group of symptoms that that drug alone can produce on EVERY individual and which never varies. I have openly proclaimed this. It is an equally important to know as the law of similars itself. But that proclamation has neither been recognized nor discussed. I repeat with Hahnemann, “Put it to the test and publish the failures to the world.” Or try to cure a case where that little group is absent from the mass of symptoms for which the drug is prescribed.
Working under the above rule I have been able to relieve a patient in the passage of two renal calculi, one from each kidney, without pain and with very little inconvenience with a single dose of Belladonna 10M. Also a case of orchitis with enormous swelling brought about by a suppression of gonorrhoea from sleeping in a draft two days previously, with Bryonia, sending the patient back to work in four days, the swelling all gone.
This primary pathogenetic direct group of the drug alone furnishes the base for the prescription, no matter what unfolds in the course of the disease. No matter what is erected on a substantial foundation, nor how much the superstructure hides that foundation, if the base is removed the whole superstructure will and must collapse. There can be nothing egotistical in the proclamation of a truth or fact.
TOLEDO., OHIO.
DISCUSSION.
CHAIRMAN D.T. PULFORD: Difference are most prolific causes of discussion and I think we will probably have a few here now. The paper is now open for discussion.
DR. C.M. BOGER: I am going to inflict myself on you again. Fortunately or unfortunately, I heard Temple S. Hoyne talk about Bryonia and he gave it a place as one of the great remedies. I marked down a few little notes here I want to speak of. Primary action has been fought over in homoeopathy and even in the old school to some extent, and the truth about the matter is that no symptom can be said to be absolutely primary in every case. A symptom may be primary in one case and the very same symptom can be secondary in the next. That is true of provings and clinically. There is only reaction and the way it goes down there is what they call primary and secondary action. If I hit you, it is y our reaction that counts. If I hit you hard enough so that you fall down and the fall kills you, there is no reaction, and when you observe symptoms, you observe reaction, that is all you do observe. The idea of primary and secondary reaction is all moonshine.
Every once in a while a new word creeps into the English language. As Webster tells us, sometimes they come in flocks. Among the rest was the word ensemble, a reference to ladies dresses. We have a right to appropriate that word, also, the ensemble of symptoms,” and in that ensemble of the symptoms there is always a symptom which is peculiar to the case, and which may be a very remote symptom, an almost unobservable symptom in proving, if it can be found at all.
Hering said that the symptoms of the proving which appeared the latest, the longest after the dose was given, had the highest value. You ought to remember that. That is my belief, too.
Now I will tell you a little experience. A patient woke up one fine morning with palpitation, very violent and it kept going all day long. Towards evening I concluded possibly I had better give her something. I am not in a hurry to prescribe unless I am compelled to because the sudden gunshot prescription is dangerous. It takes reflection to make a good prescription. She seemed in distress and she said, “My heart seems to be on the right side.” How many of you here would know to look for that symptom? What remedy? It is in the Chronic Diseases. What remedy has sensation as if the heart is on the right side? all hold up your hands. It was Borax. I gave her a dose of Borax.
Now this looks dangerously like prescribing on one symptom, but I knew her constitution. I knew years ago I had tried Natrum mur. and I should have given Borax years ago when I gave Natrum mur. We sometimes see our mistakes. In five or ten minutes she was better and she hasnt had it since, not once.
