Hahnemann succinately stated that the mild dose was the strong dose and, lacking demonstrable proof of this assertion such as is given here, he himself wavered during his lifetime from the use of the high potency to the tincture in material doses and back again. Time and time again we have been embarrassed by the necessity to explain how such a common condiment as Natrum mur. could, in the infinitesimal dose, give rise to systemic reactions or how an inert spore like Lycopodium could lead to such therapeutic results as we have all witnessed. Here at last we have light showing us the way out of that darkness.
I know it to be a fact that the high potentist has been inclined to hide himself from his fellows, jealously guarding his faith in his therapeutic approach. More of such research as this will permit him to come out of his shell and substitute indisputable proof for abiding faith. And what is more important, others who have not felt free to proceed upon faith alone will have some justifiable reason for using the imponderable.
Not only is it true that the severity of the reaction to the antigen is inversely proportional to the size of the dose but the smaller the dose the more rapid that reaction. Here then is laid another criticism of the small dose, one almost universally employed as an excuse by our weaker sisters to use the handy and brain saving opiate or hypnotic or sedative in lieu of a well chosen symptom specific antigen. How many times have you heard that alibi which goes something like this? “She had a Belladonna headache but I gave her some aspirin instead because she had to have immediate relief.”
You know, as I know, that had it been a Belladonna headache (and of course the speaker was not exactly confident that it was) Belladonna would have given as rapid results as aspirin, granted, of course, that the prescriber gave a small enough dose. At least, if there is any truth in advanced research this we are given to believe.
Another conclusion that can be drawn from this experiment is this, that with the large dose there is not individuality to the cellular reaction. Thus a particle of silica 10 microns in diameter evokes a reaction that is characteristic of any foreign body, be it wood, lead, chalk, tin or what not. But as soon as one reached the realm of the micron or less than micron diameter the bodys reaction takes on character and distinction. This is not exactly a new observation but nonetheless it is highly important because here the observation is made under rigorously controlled conditions with exact serological and histological follow-up, essential research technique which is utterly impossible in human experimentation.
Those who have engaged in provings have all been impressed with the difference in the results of such experiments conducted with the high potencies. In the former there will be a high percentage of takes but the symptoms will be nondescript, often vague, present few modalities and fewer subjective symptoms. Provings with the high potency, on the other hand, often lead to violent reactions, give a low number of takes, result in distinctive, often startling symptomatologies with many subjective symptoms. Reactions to low potencies are short lived. Those to high potencies, once initiated, frequently continue for weeks or months. Thus the newer technique in pharmacology, as illustrated in this experiment, harmonizes once again with the homoeopathic thesis.
But we should not lose sight of the fact that the animals used in this experiment were normal and healthy hosts, carefully selected, housed and fed, weighed and observed, a state of affairs that is impossible to achieve when working with human beings. Yet these animals were sensitive and reacted to the infinitesimal dose. I hardly need say that it is a well established fact today that disease sensitizes tissues and cells to irritants to which they ordinarily would not react or will heighten a sensitivity already present, comparable to an allergy.
Therefore we might well ask the question, if these animals reacted so violently to silica when they were healthy what would be the acuity, the severity, the rapidity, the violence of that reaction and to how small a dose if they were previously conditioned by disease? That question is not answered in this experiment but it certainly points the way for further investigation.
But to return to the original article. Here we are presented with a wealth of histological specimens, serological and haematological data all going to prove that “Silica is capable of exciting every tissue response that can be produced by the complex living organism”. Certainly I do not have to recall to you the text of our materia medica where it is said that Silica is to be used in tuberculosis of all kinds and in all stages but that its use here is to be indulged in with caution and especially so if the high potencies are to be used. Nor do I have to wonder if you have had the truth of that text brought home to you.
And so I draw near the end of my paper, the purpose of which has been to bring out certain salient points, of which I might well tabulate a few. First of all I wish to lay the ghost of the antipathy of the homoeopath toward animal research, research of the kind sponsored by Walbum, Kotschau, Schultz and Gardner. Indeed, I would even essay to go further, to encourage our school to stimulate such research but in doing that to so adapt and improve on the technique that subsequent experiments will be even more fertile than the one quoted here. In advocating this I would strongly urge that such experimentation be employed in conjunction with, but never be allowed to subordinate or take the place of, human “provings”.
How richly we will be rewarded can be readily appreciated when we summarize some of the lessons learned from his single excursion into the newer pharmacology. First we are given reason to know that antigens from widely alien sources can produce essentially similar lesions. Next that a single dose of the antigen will elicit a response that will last for months, lead to inflammation, exudation, proliferation, necrosis, even death. Next that the smaller the dose or the more minutely divided the antigen the greater the reaction in respect to extent (local, focal, systemic), acuity, severity, longevity.
Next that the smaller the dose the more distinctive and characteristic the reaction. Again, the reaction is a function of the host and not of the agent itself. In addition to all this other lines of investigation are suggested. And note you, gentlemen, is not all this essentially homoeopathic in tone?.
And so, in closing, let me make this earnest plea and perhaps a prophecy. Subsidize, encourage, even demand more such research for in this way you will stimulate the recrudescence of the homoeopathic school. Failing to do so will result in a well deserved degeneration. Homoeopathy is not a thing apart from the rest of general medicine, but must be regarded as an essential part of the whole. If, as we give others to believe, there is any truth in our teachings, then we should be only too anxious to have those teachings subjected to the cold scrutiny of exact investigation and, as you have seen here, you may be assured that it will gain by that critique. Fail to do so and in another hundred years it will remain, as it is now, something misunderstood and mistrusted and so avoided by sincere minds who quite properly look upon us, and that which we profess, with misgivings.
PHILADELPHIA, PENNA.
