DRUG SENSITIZATION AND DESENSITIZATION REPORT OF MORE CASES


Among chronic diseases we must still, alas! reckon those so commonly met with, artificially produced in allopathic treatment by the prolonged use of violent heroic medicines in large and increasing doses, by the abuse of calomel, corrosive sublimate, mercurial ointment, nitrate of silver, iodine and its ointments, opium, valerian, cinchona bark and quinine, foxglove, prussic acid sulphur and sulphuric acid, perennial purgative, etc.


This is a companion paper to the one presented before the A.I.H. meeting held at Atlantic City this week. The subject is so large that it is impossible to do it justice in a single contribution.

Hahnemann was the first to realize the importance of drug diseases. Quoting from Sections 74 and 75 of the 6th edition of the Organon:.

Among chronic diseases we must still, alas! reckon those so commonly met with, artificially produced in allopathic treatment by the prolonged use of violent heroic medicines in large and increasing doses, by the abuse of calomel, corrosive sublimate, mercurial ointment, nitrate of silver, iodine and its ointments, opium, valerian, cinchona bark and quinine, foxglove, prussic acid sulphur and sulphuric acid, perennial purgative, etc.

These inroads on human health effected by the allopathic non- healing art (more particularly in recent times) are of all chronic diseases the most deplorable, the most incurable; and I regret to add that it is apparently impossible to discover or to hit upon any remedies for their cure when they have reached any considerable height.

Hahnemann did not mention every inappropriate drug that was prescribed during his time for we find him adding “etc.” after the word seton in Section 74. Had he taken the time to include all such drugs his list would still have been small as compared with that of today. Our Food and Drug Act, though well intended, has turned out to be a farce, witness the exposures recently published in the newspaper “P.M.”, Exposing the Patent Medicine Racket, the author of which is a layman, Albert Deutsch. It appears as though Hahnemann is to be vindicated by a layman.

Up until the publication of the Exposing the patent Medicine Racket, no one has done much to support Hahnemann in his condemnation of the administration of inappropriate drugs “in large and increasing doses.” Before the exposure of the patent medicine racket is over let us give the credit to the one who deserves it, Samuel Hahnemann.

Albert Deutsch did well, very well, to expose the fallacy of prescribing inappropriate drugs in excessive doses over prolonged periods of time which is responsible for chronic drug dyscrasias, concerning which Hahnemann says in Section 75 “of all chronic diseases the most deplorable, the most incurable, and I regret to add that it is apparently impossible to discover or to hit upon any remedies for their cure, etc”.

As a result of intensive research during the past seven or more years I have been able to prove that of all diseases none are so easy to cure as those produced by drugs. The administration of any drug in excessive doses will in time cause a drug dyscrasia, after which the patient so sensitized develops a group of symptoms (chronic provings) which remain with him for years, occasionally for a life time. In the case of opium poisoning the symptoms remain for at least 40 years as I have found in more than one case.

Furthermore, the symptoms apparently produced by the drug are not those of that drug alone but are blended with the symptoms of other inappropriate drugs plus those of the natural disease. I have found more cases of multiple drug poisoning than of single. May I go so far as to say that I have seen more individuals poisoned from twenty drugs than from five or less.

When we put together five or ten poisons in one human organism how is it possible to disentangle the symptoms and prescribe a single desensitizing dose and and hope to accomplish a cure. It is not possible.

Every specific sensitization must be taken care of, otherwise it is not possible to effect a complete cure.

If a patient has been sensitized to opium and phenobarbital and then desensitized to opium the sensitization to phenobarbital still remains and vice versa. No drug will desensitize an individual to any other than its own specific sensitinogen. The nearest we can approach the desired results is with the homoeopathic similimum if at all possible.

CONTINUING THE PRESENTATION OF CASE REPORTS OF DRUG SENSITIZATION AND DESENSITIZATION BEGUN IN THE A.I.H.PAPER.

ESTIVIN: It is claimed to be “a local remedy for the alleviation of hayfever.” Mind you! It is not claimed to be a cure. Quoting the advertisement, “A large number of palliative remedies have not proved prompt, reliable and lasting in effect.” This is an admission that the “palliatives” have their drawback. This must be admitted by all who have had experience with palliatives.

They all appear to improve the patient for a short while only to be followed by the secondary effect, that of aggravation leaving the patient worse off than he was before. If the palliative is repeated a larger dose is required than the previous one in order to obtain the same results. Besides, the improvement lasts for a shorter period. It is claimed that Estivin is a prepared solution of Rosa Gallica. The few cases in which we used it in the higher potencies the results were just as effectual in desensitizing the patient as in the case of other poisons.

George W. Mackenzie