Whereas some drugs may show symptomatic contradictions, or prove effective despite and apparent contradiction (e.g., a cold-blooded drug benefits a warm-blooded patient, as we have seen Psorinum do), the grouping may be accepted as an invariant signpost. How much this simplifies prescribing and repertory work is evident on comparing the relatively few drugs appearing in any one group, even the largest, with the total number of classified drugs. The situation will still obtained after further labors have classified drugs. The situations will still obtain after further labors have classified all materials capable of being used as remedies.

If, however, the Emanometer is alone capable of unlocking the secret of a patients group, of what use are these observations to the prescriber without access to the Emanometer? Here enter analysis and the art of working from details to generalities. Let up postulate a patient for whom the first remedy was prescribed on symptoms alone. Familiar with the Boyd groups but unable to command the instrumental aid of the Emanometer, the physician may base important conclusions on the response of the patient.

The patient reports a general improvement, the kind the experienced prescriber has learnt to associate with the true similimum or something very close to it. If the remedy has been, say, Sulfur from the eighth group, the physician may at once entertain the thought that this patient belongs to the series of groups 5,8 and 11. To settle the exact group the drug is repeated when the effects of the first dose are insufficient to cure the whole case. If the second dose markedly aggravates or fails to touch the patient, it is probable that he did not belong to the eighth group at all but was in one of the complements of the series, 5 or 11. From either of these groups the next prescription may be drawn.

Where the original dose of Sulfur completely cures the case, the group of that patient is almost certainly the eighth. Also, when the Sulfur bears repetition, well and under its influence the patient continues to improve, that patients group is evidently the eighth.

From the repetition of a drug that acted beneficially in the first dose the prescriber may base his surest conclusions regarding a patients group. When well chosen, a drug from the correct group ACTS WELL ON REPETITION, whereas a drug from the incorrect group PRODUCES LITTLE EFFECT after the first dose.

When used along the lines indicated, the groups have been most helpful to prescribers in shortening the path to the similimum. The physician has only to bear in mind that a patient whose group is definitely known presents a generality which, unlike symptomatic generalities, is absolute. Note that no patient belongs to the eighth group in the first, or second, or third, degree-each degree requiring a different position in the total assessment of symptoms. Symptomatic prominence, as indicated by italic or capital type, establishes the perspective of the case. The group generally may be accepted as the foundation on which the case it built.

Evidently the phenomenon of the Boyd groups is the articulation of a fundamental quality associated both with human beings and with inanimate material. Thus far science has been impotent in formulating a theory to fit the experimental facts. We know certain things take place. We do not know why. If the group factor in the patient is regarded as “vital” because it must be increased in intensity by the energy of the right drug, how is it that the drug can itself be shown to possess such a group factor? No drug component could be considered “vital” in a biological sense. If the case of a patient just as in the case of a drug we do not know the sum of biophysical activities relates to the single and characteristic group factor.

Assuming the group factor to reflect the innermost constitution of the patient, why can so many influences alter that group whereas the group of a drug remains fixed? Is this the result of the currents constantly associated with living things-chemical, physical, electrical currents in which the least disturbance may manifest as a shift of grouping? A drug, however, being a stable entity, remains in a fixed group. The final answers probably depend on the construction of an instrument like the Emanometer but freed from having to utilize human reactions as part of the circuit.

So long as the living detector it required he marks the limits of perhaps the accuracy and certainly the objectivity of the apparatus. a completely mechanical detector would compare with the Geiger-Mueller counter or the Wilson cloud chamber used in experimental physics. Such an apparatus might conceivably reorient our present concepts of drug and body energies. It would undoubtedly simplify the labor now necessary in conjunction with the Emanometer. For over twenty years this mechanical detector had been sought. The work still goes on. One day the work of a generation will spontaneously take the right shape in someones mind; the mechanical detector will be born.

Will this happen in our time?.

Classification of drugs according to their electrophysical properties as obtained on the Boyd Emanometer.

NOTES-A patient tends to remain constantly in his own group throughout life as long as the normal balance of health is maintained.

When the health becomes unbalanced from conditions which are not acute, the tendency is to change into a group of a particular series. There are three well-marked series. The most common series is that of 5, 8 and 11. The other series consist of Groups. 1, 6 and 10; 2, 7 and perhaps 9.

The other groups apparently have no especial relationship that has so far been observed.

In acute conditions a patient may change to any group without appearing to follow any known law.

NOTE: Drugs with double asterisks have been grouped definitely. Drugs with a single asterisk have strong support for their accuracy. Drugs without asterisk or dash in front of word have been grouped tentatively.

Allan D. Sutherland