A few decades ago the medical profession was relatively weak in the diagnosis of disease. At no time has the homoeopathic physician been so much in need of an exact diagnosis as the orthodox in order to prescribe the suitable remedy.
The diagnosis of the orthodox school pertains to the deviations from the normal anatomy, the result of a fundamental disease. It should be borne in mind that these deviations are not the disease itself, but merely the secondary manifestation of the fundamental infection. The homoeopathic physician, on the other hand, prescribes for the fundamental infection Hahnemann referred to fundamental infections in Section 81, 148, footnote on page 166 of the Organon and also on pages 12, 33, 42, and 97 of Chronic Diseases. Authorities today refer to the primary infection and in doing so he helps not only the secondary manifestations but also the fundamental infection and too prevents other ailments on their way to become manifest.
The importance of the etiologic diagnosis cannot be stressed too strongly. Take a single illustration, diphtheria. If a physician, homoeopathic or otherwise, cannot diagnose diphtheria or fails, in a questionable case, to have a diagnostic smear made, he cannot see the need for antitoxin, when a life may be lost, perhaps lives of others who have been exposed.
Someone may claim that the use of diphtheria antitoxin is not homoeopathic. It is specific treatment, donated by the animal who was first made immune. Hahnemann accepts the principle of active immunization as discovered by Jenner. Because of the great similarity of cow-pox to small pox, Hahnemann tells of the ameliorating effect of cow-pox upon the patient suffering from small-pox in Section 46, page 130 of the Organon of Medicine:.
“Smallpox coming on after vaccination, as well on account of its greater strength as its great similarity, at once removes entirely the cow-pox homoeopathically, and does not permit it to come to maturity; but, on the other hand, the cow-pox when near maturity does, on account of its great similarity, homoeopathically diminish very much the supervening smallpox and make it much milder, as Muhry and many others testify.”.
He accepts too the principle of immunity against scarlet fever with Belladonna and may I add, my own observation of the prevention of the more profound manifestations of lethargic encephalitis by the early administration of Gelsemium.
There are three conditions that can produce the Argyll-Robertson pupil, 1. Metalues (parasyphilis); 2. Lethargic encephalitis; 3. Gelsemium.
Though we are truly grateful for all the orthodox school has contributed to scientific medicine, it is till in the dark when it comes to medical prescribing. However, there are indications of an approach to scientific medicine when they prescribe desensitizing doses of specific antigens. Quoting from Warren T. Vaughan: (Pages 361 and 362 of his book on Allergy):.
In general, the following rules hold:
1. If the symptoms become worse following an injection, the next dose should be much smaller, and possibly the interval between doses should be increased.
3. If the patient feels better, keep the dose the same and try to lengthen the time between injections.
5. Remember that better results are usually obtained with small doses, even very small ones, than with large ones.
6. The occurrence of a focal reaction may be considered a good sign, indicating that the organism in the vaccine is the right pathogen, but once a focal reaction has been obtained, drop the dose to one insufficient to give reaction, for best results.
This is a fair start which will eventually lead to the acceptance of the principle of homoeopathy by the orthodox school. Let us do everything possible to further its progress. At the present time the principle of allergy (the cause of chronic diseases) in a limited way is accepted and too the principle of desensitization. Sooner or later the medical world will come to realize that most chronic diseases are due to the sensitization of the body cells to bacterial antigens. Hahnemann accepted this truth in substance if not in the same words.
Josef Meller of Vienna recognizes the principle of sensitization as it applies to latent tuberculosis as the fundamental cause of secondary inflammatory diseases of the eye. His discovery of the “fourth dimensional” manifestation (secondary eye manifestations) is the best evidence of the recent trend toward homoeopathy. He was the first to prove experimentally the law of specific sensitization as Hahnemann describes it in Section 80 and elsewhere. Furthermore, Meller discovered the law of specific desensitization when he used the identical in infinites-similarly small doses as a form of treatment for this particular form of hypersensitiveness.
Recalling the importance of the diagnosis as proclaimed by representatives of the orthodox school; it was conceded above in the citation of the diphtheria case. Let us see where the diagnosis as understood by the orthodox school falls down as a guide to treatment. Orthodox medicine does not take into consideration the fundamental infection. It recognizes the importance of the Wassermann test made upon patients about to undergo an operation. This is commendable so far as it goes.
As for the Wassermann test, it should not be accepted as final. It is too crude a method for the determination of the presence of latent syphilis. For this purpose the allergic skin test is more desirable.
Though this test is made primarily for the purpose of diagnosis, the dilute syphilitic antigen acts beneficially in those cases which show a positive reaction. The differential blood count when positive is just as valuable in establishing the diagnosis of chronic pyogenic focal infection (psora).
Unless the physician makes the complete diagnosis, the one that comprehends all fundamental and contributing factors, he is not in a position to treat the patient scientifically according to natural law, that of desensitization. How can one overlook all these factors and yet prate about the importance of diagnosis as the essential guide to treatment. A prescription based upon an incomplete diagnosis is as lopsided as the diagnosis. It is an easy way for the easy going doctor, but: What about the patient?.
It sounds convincing for the old school man to say that a prescription ought to be based upon the diagnosis of the patients disease. As a homoeopath I agree with him about the importance of the diagnosis but disagree as to the meaning of the word “diagnosis”. The old school physician accepts the diagnosis in a restricted sense limiting it to pathological changes in one or a few parts of the organism. He recognizes but a fragment of the whole disease. On the other hand, my understanding of diagnosis is the recognition of the fundamental infection together with its many secondary manifestations.
Even the pathologist is not infallible in his diagnosis in spite of his having the viscera at hand for macroscopic and microscopic study.
The specialist, it would seem, should be less susceptible to error of diagnosis than the general doctor. On the contrary, he is frequently in error.
I can speak more authoritatively of the mistakes made by otologists. Three men will not infrequently give three different opinions as to the character of the deafness in a given case. one claims the deafness is of the conductive form; a second feels just as certainly that it is of the perceptive form while a third contends that it is a combination of the two, that is, a mixed form of deafness.
Two equally reputable otologists may agree that the deafness is of the conductive form and yet disagree as to whether it is one of middle ear catarrh or otosclerosis. Two others may agree that the deafness is of the perceptive form yet disagree as to whether the lesion is in the eighth nerve or the inner ear.
When it comes to the etiologic factors behind the deafness, there are frequent disagreements, one otologist claims that it is due to an infection, another, that it is due to some non- bacterial toxemia. If five different otologists examine a given case, there is likely to be at least four different opinions as to the etiology, site of the lesion and its character.
When it comes to the prognosis, again there is a disagreement and the same can be said of the treatment. The practice of medicine scientifically accepts but one definite type of lesion due to one definite cause amenable to but one definite form of treatment and recurrences are preventable by just as definite prophylaxis. The fact should not be lost sight of that in any case of progressive deafness the ear is not the only organ affected nor is it the only part of the anatomy that needs consideration in its treatment.
The differences of opinion in a given case of deafness regarding the diagnosis, of the location and character of the lesion, its pathology, etiology and treatment is just as true of diseases of other parts of the body.
There is another symptom quite as important as deafness found in diseases of the ear about which there occurs an unhealthy disagreement between otologists concerning the etiology, diagnosis and treatment, namely, vertigo (dizziness).
