In an article in the Transactions of the I. H. A. by the lamented Dr. Maurice A. Turner, he wrote:.
“When reporting cases cured, diagnosis is inevitably demanded. The diagnosis, to be of value, acceptable and conclusive must now be confirmed by the most approved and latest diagnostic methods.” This was written in 1915; it is now 1939! Twenty-four years later. Yet it has a familiar sound. How odd!.
The evil genius of homoeopathy must be laughing these twenty-four years later! It was about 1915 or before that the irrepressible Dr. Cabot proclaimed that forty-eight percent of diagnoses were mistaken. So far as I know this has never been denied. Recently, after all the “great strides” that medicine has made since that pronouncement it has been determined that during this reign of medical technocracy, diagnostic failures have substantially increased. How odd!.
In all simplicity then, if it were odd a quarter of a century ago to be asked that homoeopathic cures be verified by a standard forty-eight per cent erroneous, why should there be now such a demand for verification by false diagnoses of fifty-two per cent? Isnt it rather odd?.
It is only fair, however, to remark that this demand for verification of cures by diagnoses forty-eight to fifty-two per cent erroneous did not come from our allopathic friends, for with a very few exceptions the regulars paid no attention to our cures at all. It came from the alarms and excursions round about our own camp fires. Which also seems rather odd!.
Why the Hahnemannian who like myself goes about with Boenninghausen or Boger and the Chronic Diseases under one arm and the Guiding Symptoms under the other should be expected to verify his cures not only by a notoriously erroneous standard but no the basis of diagnoses built up for entirely differently purposes–that is odd, indeed!.
There is another side to it, however. Diagnosis is very interesting despite the errors, especially when complemented with homoeopathic prescribing. And it has its indispensable uses irrespective of homoeopathy although homoeopathic theory and materia medica knowledge can aid it tremendously. But the puncture that I wish to make is that technological proof of cure as a means of homoeopathic propaganda is harping on the wrong string.
The A string of successful homoeopathic propaganda amongst the profession, and increasingly so in the future, is the immediate effect on the patient of homoeopathic prescribing. With very negligible exceptions the regular physician wants to cure his patient. If he can produce what seems like a curative effect he is humanly and distinctly encouraged. The similar remedy of course produces just that effect in the appearance and sensations of the patient. Anyone who, as the result of his own efforts, gets a good result will most certainly try it again.
There is another and more immediate effect produced by the similar remedy, shown by a simple test that can be applied at any time with practically all patients, viz., lowering of the systolic tension after the similar remedy has been taken. This begins with few exceptions within a short time, even after a few hours after having taken the remedy. It begins before other signs of improvement appear. Even an imperfect degree of similarity will produce that result although it will not last as long.
This applies to patients who carry what is termed normal tension and it applies to hypotension as well although with an excessive hyposystolic tension the lowering, if the patient is curable, will soon be succeeded by a rise. There are a few exceptions to this rule. First, when the medicine has no similarity at all. Second, a transient rise resulting from a homoeopathic aggravation. Third, when arteriocardiac calcification of high degree is present.
With patients whose improvement appears as an effect of the similar remedy but the high tension remains obdurate or even recedes while the diastolic remains high and static, a prognosis of grave and not long deferred crisis may be given. Of course these considerations presuppose bilateral tests for it is possible for an unilateral tension to remain high while the other side shows the influence of the remedy, whereby the prognosis is of course distinctly better.
Epitome: 1. It is not logical to require proofs of homoeopathic efficiency to be based on methods which have been discredited by a large and increasing percentage of failures.
2. Scientific proof of the action of high potencies of a similar remedy can be effected by the use of the sphygmomanometer before other evidence of improvement appears.