If, however, notwithstanding the smallness of the individual doses, elimination is less rapid than the absorption of new increments of the drug, a sufficient quantity may accumulate and become active enough to permit the primary influence to develop and continue. So too when large doses are given in the first instance, and continued with sufficient frequency, the overpowering original influence of the drug is sufficient to suppress the reaction or secondary effect, hence only primary effects will appear.
Then we read further in these classical volumes on pharmacology that no better pharmacodynamic example of the relation between primary and secondary actions can be cited than is seen in the emetic and anti emetic action of ipecac. If a full dose of ipecac be given, it will induce vomiting. Emesis is therefore its true physiological manifestation or primary effect. If, however, a very small dose be given, no vomiting or nausea will result, but pathologic vomiting may in some cases thus controlled.
Presumably the cells of the vomiting center were sufficiently stimulated to respond, but the response was not strong enough to result in the discharge of a motor impulse. It was however strong enough to induce a contrary reaction or secondary effect and in the instance cited, this effect becomes sufficient to antagonize the morbid emetogenic impulses. Similarly minute doses of pilocarpine will overcome by secondary effect salivation and morbid sweating. The primary effect of the drug in decided doses is to produce these symptoms. These thoughts written by great pharmacologists of the “old school” seem to flow from the pen of Hahnemann himself.
In the December, 1938 issue of the Journal of the American Institute of Homoeopathy, Dr. J. T. Simonson lucidly describes five logical reasons for serious consideration of the parallelism between the action of a remedy presented because of its similar effects to the symptomatic and pathologic manifestations of disease, and the effect of an antigen on tissues and organs sensitized by disease.
His first reason is that drugs and toxins or other blood foreign substances when administered to healthy human beings for definite time periods produce symptoms similar to the reactions or symptoms of a disease in which the same drugs or toxins have been proven to be curative. This phenomenon is a close parallel to the antigenic action of a drug, foreign protein or toxin in stimulating cell resistance and the production of antibodies specific to the disease producing the symptoms. Secondly,.
In a patient whose tissues are sensitized by disease, the similar remedy will stimulate curative activity when given in smaller doses than would be necessary to produce symptoms in the healthy individual. This phenomenon is an acknowledged characteristic of all drugs or toxins acting as antigens.
In the third instance the law of similar is dependent upon a study of the action of drugs on healthy humans, just as the study of antigenic action is based on the action of proteins, drugs and other materials foreign to the blood stream.
As a fourth factor, Dr. Simonson states that “A patient suffering from disease becomes sensitive and responsive to the drug or toxin which would produce in a healthy individual, the symptoms from which the diseased patient is suffering.” One can add that the diseases person becomes specifically sensitive or receptive.
Finally, as a fifth point of parallelism he states that the Arndt-Schulz law governs the varying effect of large and small doses of antigen.
We may add here the corollary that the greater the similarity between the indicated remedy and the disease state, the greater the specific sensitivity or receptivity, in other words the greater the degree of antigenic action; hence the similarity, the less the mass or the higher the potency of drug is required to satisfy the sensitivity and thus establish a state of immunity.
It seems strange that such nonhomoeopathic men as Terry, Kolmer, Rentz, Landsteiner, Macht, Sollman and others are experimenting in fields which continue to give added proof yearly to the Hahnemannian doctrines.
Hamburger has shown that very small quantities of calcium salts, and numerous substances such as colloidal metals, magnesium, mercury, and benzine given in small doses showed a stimulating effect on phagocytosis, but caused a paralyzing effect when given in greater concentration.
Kolmer state that:.
While massive doses of arsphenamine and mercuric chloride tend to suppress antibody formation and cause decrease in complement, small doses tend to increase the production of agglutinine and augment the complement, after a primary decrease.
It has been shown in recent years that the old conception of antigens was not complete, and that we now have the right to consider almost any blood foreign substance, among which are drugs and inorganic compounds, as antigens or substances which have the power to produce antibodies or resistance bodies in the blood and tissue cells and then unite specifically with the corresponding antigen, rendering the latter inactive.
Many drugs and inorganic substances in minute quantities have been shown to possess this antigenic power, uniting with body proteins to produce conjugate antigens of a specific nature, the role of the body proteins being to produce the antibody, while the drug or chemical contributes to the power of specificity. It is gratifying to read that many of the old school, including such great names as Kolmer, Wesselhoeft and Hooker, write of the homoeopathic evidence to substantiate these facts, noting especially the immunologic relations of calcium sulphide to staphylococci, baptisia to typhoid, and veratrum viride to the pneumococcus.
Even though one may have reason to doubt that the homoeopathic remedy cures by antigenic action alone, nevertheless to prove that this one method of “stimulating the vital force” is true, is to make a great advance forward in proving the validity of our school of thought.
Another crucial consideration is that antigens can be introduced orally as well as parenterally. Since homoeopathic medication is almost always administered through the oral channel and rarely by olfaction, this factor of necessity becomes paramount.
The process of immunity, by which the animal body resists invasion and injury by bacteria, are merely specific instances of the operation of general biologic laws applicable to a field far wider than that of infectious diseases alone.
It is true that the proof of any system is the result. It is likewise true that homoeopathy can almost, if not quite, rest on the laurels it has built up for itself since the time of Hahnemann. Yet this is known and recognized by only a relative few within our own school. To gain in numbers and convince the skeptical in the so-called “scientific” world, we must demonstrate the “how” or the modus operandi, for that is the trend and attitude of modern science.
To have shown the analogy between the antigenic action of the homoeopathic drug and that of bacterial vaccines, sera, toxins or other nonhomoeopathic substances that have not the basis of true homoeopathic similarity, does not mean that one must be in full accord with the administration of vaccines, sera and so forth. However, one must adopt a basis or standard for comparison.
Let me quote from Dr. Roberts book where he quotes from Stuart Close, who in turn chooses the words of Professor James Ewing of Cornell Medical College.
The effort to produce passive immunity against the various infections by means of sera may fail in spite of the destruction of all the bacteria present in the body, by reason of the endotoxins, thrown out in the process of bacteriolysis resulting from the serum injections.
The action of endotoxins of all kinds is similar: there is a reduction of temperature but an active degeneration of the organs — a status infectious. Thus sterile death is produced where cultures from the organs and tissues show that the bacteria in question have all been destroyed; but still the animal dies.
This problem of endotoxins is at present the stone wall of serum therapy.
An animal whose serum is normally bacteriolytic may, on immunization, lose this power, the bacteria living in the serum, but not producing symptoms. Thus a rabbits serum is normally bacteriolytic to the typhoid bacillus, but the animal is susceptible to infection. If, however, the rabbit is highly immunized, the serum is no longer bactericidal, the typhoid bacilli living in the serum of the rabbit, but the animal not being susceptible of infection. The animal dies.
It seems therefore that the effort must be made in the future to enable the tissues and the bacteria to live together in peace, rather than to produce a state where the serum is destructive to the bacteria.
In these illustrations we see clearly pointed out the danger of destroying the normal susceptibility or the reactivity of the human or even the lower animal organism, for to destroy or even to interfere with this function if to interfere with and even to destroy life itself. The homoeopathic remedy will establish immunity, but will not destroy or diminish the state of susceptibility. This method whereby susceptibility is interfered with or totally destroyed in establishing immunity is the modus operandi of toxins, vaccines, and sera.
