But the Homoeopathic therapist, having taken the case and noted the symptoms which individualize the patient, attempts to select that remedy which, in its proving, has caused symptoms similar to those of the patient before him, though not the same disease. He treats the patient as an individual, different in many respects from other patients who may, perhaps, have the same disease or in whom the same diagnosis has been made. Such individualization does not embrace the anti-bacterial agents nor the viruses which allegedly have caused the illness. Thus we have the possibilities of a serious disagreement in methods of therapeutic procedure.
As is usual in disagreements arguments can be advanced by either side which seem compelling. Yet it would appear that the homoeopathic side has the better of the argument; for this allegation can be proved, if we will observe the cases treated by both methods and compare the outcome and, more particularly, the length of the sickness and the character of the patients convalescence. To those physicians who are in a favorable position to observe, the Hahnemannian method of treatment will quickly impress itself as by far superior.
A few illustrations may be helpful in the determination of the justice of the foregoing assertion. A robust an of middle age had come to me several years ago for an annoying blepharitis which was entirely cured by Sulphur 200, one dose. he considered himself thereafter to be in better general health than before, but a few months ago, due to exposure to the elements and a neglected coryza, he complained of earache and rushed off to a specialist in the mistaken and popular belief that this was the right thing to do. The specialist in ear, nose and throat diseases, accustomed as he is to treat diseases and not accomplish all that was hoped for.
The hope, however, was fulfiled, for the pain disappeared, although rather slowly, leaving the man more or less of a physical wreck, so much as that each day he was compelled to leave his work and go home to rest; his limbs were shaky and his usual strength very much depleted. In commenting upon his condition, he said: “Well, I suppose this will take time, but these wonderful sulfra drugs do take it out of you!” To which I gracefully assented. This particular case illustrates, also, why the family doctor, eulogized in song and story, finds his sphere of activity and usefulness shrinking and why our younger physicians strive and why our younger physicians strive to become specialists as rapidly as possible. But then, we Americans are a very gullible people and rarely think for ourselves.
In contrast to the above experience is the following case: A woman, seventy-six years of age, came down with what appeared to an attack of virus influenza; the outstanding symptoms were those of Gelsemium which was given in the 200th potency at three hourly intervals. Careful physical examination showed the lungs to be clear and there was no cough. On the following day the conditions were much the same, though the patient felt somewhat better; the temperature was below 100 and the lungs were still clear. The heart action was good, also pulse.
The remedy was discontinued and sac. lac. given instead. the third morning here was a cough and some sharp pain in the lower left side of the chest; auscultation revealed crepitant rales in the lower lobes on both sides. The temperature had risen to 100.5 and the pulse was now somewhat accelerated and small. The cough was non- productive. The patient herself was dull, lethargic and she could not lie upon the left side, as this aggravated the chest pain.
The tongue was but slightly coated and there was absolutely no thirst, a symptom which had suggested the earlier selection of Gelsemium. Phosphorus 200. was now given in the time-honored half glass of water, at three hourly intervals. That night the temperature rose to 103, but by the next morning had dropped to 99.6. The crepitant rales had completely disappeared and the patient felt decidedly better. Within a week she was up and about and has been well since, in spite of living through several heatless days when, due to a severe sleet- storm, all electric and power lines had been broken by falling limbs and branches.
Had this patient been under orthodox treatment the customary, modern scientific therapy would have been resorted to and the patient would still be dragging herself about, to say the least. Homoeopathy is so far superior that comment to the contrary is stupid as well as silly.
Phosphorus, although it has the marked symptom of unquenchable thirst for cold drinks, also is a thirstless remedy, a fact which is very easily overlooked. the lethargy, though marked in Gelsemium, is found in Phosphorus also and when coupled with the symptom of indifference, the latter remedy is likely to be needed. It is these seemingly unimportant symptoms which may make the difference between success and failure in homoeopathic prescribing.
Many additional cases might be cited, but to those who understand the basic principles of homoeopathy the above experiences are sufficient. However, it may with good reason be observed that to swim against the tide of prejudice and to attempt to combat sheer ignorance, often blatant in character, is a thankless, if not a hopeless, task. Homoeopathy is a therapeutic speciality, supreme in its legitimate sphere, but, as long as orthodox medicine refuses to investigate its principles and likewise denies a place for the teaching of these principles in the curricula of medical colleges, homoeopathy will continue to remain the neglected step-child of medical science.
– RUDOLPH. F. RABE.
American Homeopathy Doctor.
Rabe graduated from the New York Homeopathic Medical College and trained under Timothy Field Allen and William Tod Helmuth.
Rabe was President of the International Hahnemannian Association, editor in chief of the Homeopathic Recorder, and he wrote Medical Therapeutics for daily reference. Rabe was Dean and Professor of Homeopathic Therapeutics at the New York Homeopathic Medical College.