Our man from India-I didnt quite get your question about Phosphorus.

DR. PAUL: I think after influenza there is this sequelae, that the patient has never been well after influenza; and so if you later prescribe Influenzin, or something which you discovered last, it would clear the before your Phosphorus.

DR. CARR: I see. You rather approve to begin the Influenzin first?.

DR. PAUL: Influenzin first and then it would clear the case. I think you have got to go to Phosphorus again.

DR. CARR: That sort if stumps me. Is there anybody here who can answer him on this?.

DR. A.H. GRIMMER: I understood, if this condition exists, the doctor believes that the miasm that wad underlying, or the causative factor, as he deems it, should be attacked first. The influenza being the cause, he believes that should be the first thing; that would be a good deal like routine prescribing, but if it got results, we would all be in favour of it.

But it doesnt always to so, because each individual brought down by any of these effective causes will manifest their constitutional and characteristic symptoms to which we try to respond, and in one case it might be the patient needed the Influenzin, and in another case he might need another of our good homoeopathic remedies, so I think we might do better work if we stuck to the homoeopathic principles of prescribing on the symptoms and the conditions as they come up, and if old conditions come back, which are always favorable; but if it is a condition like influenza, I think you are justified in not waiting too long.

In some of those cases the remedy is sufficient to bring them back and it will cure them, but there are some cases like “flu” that will not be cured, and we merely bring the patient back to where he was when he had the influenza and he then required a remedy, and in all probability the remedy you then give will pave the way for your next prescription, which is merely the same remedy that brought it back, in a higher potency, after the Influenzin was given. In this case the same remedy came back.

I did not know that Dr. Carr had injected that dose of Influenzin between the two tests that he sent, but the same remedy came up, but in a higher potency, which the doctor gave, and that completed the patients cure.

DR. HARVEY FARRINGTON: Are we discussing this, or is the essayist giving his final remarks?.

DR. CARR: I just tried to come to the end, but, Dr. Farrington, you just came in. We would like to hear from you.

DR.FARRINGTON: I heard paper. Our original rule, and I think that it is a sound procedure, is to prescribe on the symptoms of latest appearance, which I imagine in this case would be the symptoms of influenza in that patient, and then, if that remedy relieves but does not cure, you can follow with your miasmatic remedy, which in this case would probably be the Influenzin.

I had a case a year or so ago, a little boy two years old, who had all the symptoms of pneumonia, high fever, red face, rales all through the chest, and his breathing became so alarming that we were doubtful that the little fellow would live. Ferrum phos. seemed to be indicated, but only reduced the fever partially, and did not help the pulmonary condition. Then I got a hunch. Without asking embarrassing questions of the parents, I said to the mother, “What position did this little fellow usually assume when he went to bed.?”.

She described the knee-chest position, and a dose of Medorrhinum, 10M, not only brought the fever down, and cleared all of the symptoms in the lung, but also brought out a rash like measles. He made a perfect recovery. It was not measles because he didnt have the other symptoms, and he had had the measles not so very long before. That, I think, is correct procedure.

V. T. Carr