A man called me by telephone asking if I remembered treating him for aural vertigo, or Menieres Complex symptoms. He gave me his name, but it meant nothing to me. I had had more than one case of his disorder. On asking him when he saw me last he replied that it was a few months over twenty years. Said had had no trouble whatever since his cure that he thought was permanent until a week ago when he had a striking return of the trouble. Said he had been perfectly well in every way, that an otherwise, for all the twenty years.
I gave him an appointment, and when he appeared I remembered him perfectly. He came to me first from the neurological hospital and several specialists whom he had consulted seriatim. All his symptoms were very pronounced twenty years ago. spasmodic deafness, gastric crises, sudden unsteadiness in locomotion, tinnitus aurium, headache, and intense vertigo for periods all took place, persisting in some or all respects at times.
Originally I had given him Gelsemium, and it worked so well that it was exhibited in ascending scale potencies until a cure resulted. But he was several months under my care twenty years ago. (I must emphasize the number of years, as I do not expect to have ever again such triumph for homoeopathy! or for its human exponent!) He continued to come to me then until I gave him an optimistic prognosis, and as he and his business left town I quite forgot him.
Well, que faire? Why not do as before? The picture was the same. It was chiefly objective. He was not imaginative! So I began with Gels. 1M. It worked well. It looked as if I wouldnt make any money. However, he needed to be seen fortnightly, and on pretty uneventful improvement he went along on rising potencies till the CM. held him a few weeks. Then there was evidence of returning phases of the condition. They did not end decidedly. How I hated to change my remedy. But it was necessary (unless everybody is now going to tell me otherwise) and Cocculus appeared as the “sheet anchor” (!).
So, after all the members have given me a piece of their minds ….
I will some time tell them whatever happens as a result of changing the remedy. you cant be told before, for while everything evidenced the great improvement from Cocculus, how can we tell but what the cure will not last for twenty years again! He is not yet fifty.
NEW YORK.
DISCUSSION.
Dr. HAYES: Was not the doctor all wrong at the start? He should not prescribe such a lowly simple as Gels. he should go it all better and give Medorrhinum to every new case. Med., you know, contains psora, the syphilitic and sycotic miasms and covers the whole field of human symptoms and relations. It also runs back into the transfixations of the great and grandgreats from the first to at least the seventh or eighth Allighierian circles.
But coming down, or up, to earth, I have hopes for Cocculus in this case. I remember it as the second of a trio of remedies with which I cured a severe case of Menieres disease three times; whereas the doctor has only cured his case once and a half in twice as many years.
As with the doctors patient, allopathic specialists had been tried and found wanting. With the first attack in 1921 the woman would fall as if suddenly thrown to the floor. She was cured for two years with Ambra grisea 1M. and 40M. six weeks apart. Then with Cocculus 200 and 1000 three months apart. The worst attack of all come in 1924 when she not only could not move at all but had to be held down (with chill, Lach.), such was the distress and fear of falling out of bed. Curare 1M. and 10M. then produced, so far, a ten year cure.
What is a “cure?” The doctor implies if not asks the question. Would that it could be answered. but do we not have as good a nosological right to it as any, however “Scientific?”.
If he wouldnt give Med. instead of Gels. one might question the stopping at the CM. when common experience tells us that much and quite occasionally even more is done above that potency after it is through. Can the doctor deny that the burden of proof is on him?”.
DR. HUTCHINSON: Point well taken.
DR. MACFARLAN:I was of course greatly interested in the case reported by Dr. Hutchinson. I never treated a case of Menieres disease. I believe the reason that Dr. Hutchinson got such a good result was due to the choice of course of his two remedies which were separately used when needed.
Both Cocculus and Gelsemium have a tremendous effect on Vertigo. Natives use the former to poison fish and they float to the top and are grabbed by them, hence I believe the name, fishberry. From personal provings Gelsemium induces more vertigo, that is of a great extent, than Belladonna. At least that is my personal opinion. I once cured a case of dreadful vertigo by Phosphorus.
I got it by accepting a hint written years ago by the famous G.H.G. Jahr. The latter often used Phosphorus for many kinds of vertigo, I believe.
DR. HUTCHINSON: Thanks; a valuable hint to study on. DR. PULFORD: I have come in contact with a few cases of Menieres disease, but sad to relate I have never cured one. I think the reason, in my case, was a lack of knowledge of the origin of the disease, on the one hand, and of how to select the proper remedy on the other, if one if possible to be found. The great trouble for all of us is a dearth of proven remedies covering that particular ground.
Dr. Hayes brought the subject of the definition of the term cure. My own understanding and definition of the term cure is: A complete eradication of the predisposition to that phase of the ailment to be removed or cured. That is the best definition I ever heard or read. The allopath cannot possibly do that, and he knows it, the very reason he is so anxious to have the term eradicated and banned from the mails.
Dr. Hutchinson did so well that any comment of mine would be both futile and out of place. But according to my own acceptation of the term cure, the doctor made a most splendid palliation of his case. The very fact that the doctors case returned in all its pristine glory, and then some, is proof of my contentions. And, again, the very fact that it seemed to have changed phase, apparently calling for a different remedy, is further proof of my contention. All that goes to prove that we are doing the bulk of our work with drugs foreign to the case in hand, therefore not applicable. Kindly pardon me for the allusions.
Each drug has its own little peculiar direct pathogenesis that marks its individuality, and this must positively be searched for and found. Until this is done we are in no position to judge the fallibility or infallibility of the homoeopathic law. No remedy can possibly take the place of the correct remedy, and any other drug action FINAL, always provided that the drug is not interfered with and given ample time to complete its work.
Dr. Hayes suggested Medorrhinum. Dr. Macfarlan suggested Phosphorus. But in either case, on what specific grounds? Is it not, though, rather sacrilege on our part of copy our allopathic friends method, treat the disease and ignore our foundation, the homoeopathic law? My own idea in reporting a case is to give the particular symptom or fact that leads to the remedy to be studied, and if found to be correct, applied, and why! To me that is real teaching. As the only “black sheep” in the Association, I am merely pointing out just how you who are really good prescribers can teach us neophytes who are inferior men. Dr. Hutchinson, I congratulate you; you did a beautiful piece of work!.
DR. HUTCHINSON: As to the neophytes, you know better.
DR. HAYES: That is the best definition I ever heard or read.
DR. PULFORD: Soon after I came to Toledo, I had a very bad case of infantile marasmus brought to me, that had been the rounds of the “very best” ….. talent in both Toledo and Chicago. The little lady was a sorry sight. Silica proved to be the remedy and made apparently a brilliant and lasting “cure,” for which I was quite elated and received much praise. The baby grew up to womanhood, married and had a baby girl of her own. That baby went through the identical phase as her mother. They had moved to Chicago, but they had to bring back the baby to Toledo. Silica was again indicated and worked wonderfully. The child is now a beautiful girl, but what about the cure?.
DR. D.T. PULFORD: Therefore is one question I would like to ask: has there been any case of this trouble reported which has been treated by homoeopathy alone without first going through the usual line of treatment?.
This is truly a remarkable result. I wonder just how much permanent damage which would prevent a cure was done by the treatment of the various “great men” the patient consulted before coming to Dr. Hutchinson.
Perhaps by my paternal standard this was not a cure, but if any man could palliate me until after I died, Id think he was swell fellow, and no maybe.
DR. HUTCHINSON: The comments by Dr. Alfred Pulford are so pertinent that I am inclined to accept them as pure finality. Were it not for the sweet humanity shown by Dr. Dayton Pulford I should quite easily admit that entire absence of a disorder for twenty years is no cure, when after twenty years of respite it returns however mildly or intensely!.
