In this “general irritation” I think you will find the chief predisposing factor in the aetiology of this much dreaded disease. Taking life as a whole, there can be little doubt that the “pace,” if I may use the expression, is much faster than it was a generation ago, sufficiently so, probably, to account for the increased death-rate from this particular trouble.
Statistics are frequently misleading and unreliable, but some significance must surely be attached to the fact that, among the clergy, who at least ought to take a more calm and philosophical view of life than the average, the mortality figure from cancer is 45, against the average of 78.
If the foregoing thesis is at all accurate, it would be only natural to assume that the greater the “general irritation” or strain in any individual, the less local irritation would be required to break the cell control, and vice versa.
If we are right regarding these aetiological factors, then the prophylactic treatment is obvious. Remove all possible causes of local irritation, and “Don’t worry.” Probably the “Don’t worry should come first as being the more important.
In the treatment of the patient suffering from carcinoma it is of the greatest importance that, so far as is possible, he or she should be put, mentally, at rest. That is a task which will tax the ingenuity of the best of physicians. I shall not, therefore, presume to advise you how best to do it, but if it can be managed much will have been gained.
One of the first things which the physician has to decide is the question of surgical treatment. I hope the surgeons present will pardon my putting it that way, but I think the homoeopathic physician has usually to decide this question, after taking very fully into consideration, of course, the views of his surgical colleague. This question, in the past, has been one of great difficulty to me. Holding the views which I have endeavoured to express to you, however, I am now rarely in doubt. If there is a good or reasonable chance of removing the whole of the malignant growth, I advise operation. If the operation is successful from the point of view of removing all the new growth, I do not imagine the patient is cured. He has got a reprieve, the immediate danger is removed, and it is now the duty of the physician to deal with the predisposing cause. In those cases where the patient remains free for some years and again falls a victim to the disease, I do not think it is a recurrence, but that the condition has started again de novo.
Surgical treatment is often necessary as a palliative measure, most commonly in cases of intestinal obstruction. In cases of doubtful carcinoma of the gastro-intestinal tract I never allow my patients to be X-rayed, as I am quiets satisfied that, in a certain percentage of cases, exposure to X-rays gives rise to a marked increase in the malignancy of the growth.
The medical treatment of cancer differs in no way from the medicinal treatment of any other disease. The totality of the symptoms of the patient, and that only, can offer any reliable guide as to what medicine to select. The real trouble regarding the medical treatment of this disease is that, so often, the symptoms are vague of the growth itself, sometimes absent altogether. The absence of symptoms is not, however, surprising, as the proliferating cells, being part of the body itself, do not give rise to any toxins and there is, therefore, nothing for the body to react to.
What are we do for those patients who have no symptoms, who present no drug picture that we can prescribe on?
From the standpoint of homeopathic philosophy, the patient who is seriously ill and presents no symptoms is incurable. Shall we wait, then, for symptoms to turn up? If so, we shall probably wait until there is an ulcerated surface and we get symptoms of toxaemia. A prescription based on these symptoms will relieve the toxaemia, but will probably do nothing towards stopping the growth.
Some years ago a patient was admitted to the Holds worth Homoeopathic Hospital on account of carcinoma of the cervix uteri. She had been attending the Dispensary for some months previously, and had been slowly but definitely slipping backwards. The surgeon who examined her thought he could get the growth completely away, and, although it seemed rather a doubtful case, operation was decided upon. At the operation a preliminary curetting was done and the uterus disinfected as far as possible, prior to abdominal hysterectomy. On opening the abdomen nodules were founds in the wall of the bladder. The abdomen was, therefore, closed nothing being removed.
Shortly after the operation the patient developed a profuse greenish yellow vaginal discharge having a most offensive odour, while her general condition was so bad that it looked as if she might die within a few days. At that time some articles were appearing in the Homoeopathic World on black gunpowder, and, with the idea of trying to clear up the odour, which was very disturbing to the other patients in the ward, I decided to try gunpowder. The third centissimal potency was given. In a very short time there was marked improvement, the odour disappeared, the patient’s colour improved, her appetite came back, the vaginal discharge stopped, and, to cut the story short, she went out of the hospital, after six weeks, apparently well. The surgeon again examined her and reported that, had he been seeing her for the first time, he could not have made a diagnosis-he could feel nothing abnormal in the cervix or the broad ligaments. I regret to say that after about ten months this patient had a recurrence and that she died about eighteen months after leaving hospital.
The ultimate result notwithstanding, this case was very striking, and there could be no doubt about the temporary effect of the gunpowder. This led me to try other two combinations: the first was sulphur, carbo veg., and carbo animals, the second sulphur, silica, and carbo veg. I got Nelson & Co. to triturate these substances together from the crude to the sixth centessimal potency.
It is far too early yet to make any claim for these combinations. All I wish to say is that I am more satisfied with the results of the second one-sulphur, silica, and carbo veg.- that with anything else I have tried.
Now, in case I should be misunderstood, I would like to say quite definitely that I am not advocating the use of this combination in all cases of cancer. In every case an effort should be made to get symptoms on which to base a prescription. If the symptoms are there, then the medicine which they call for must be given. If nothing can be found on which to prescribe, I have found this combination very useful.
Whatever remedy is chosen, I think it should be repeated frequently and given in what is now called the ” plus” method. Reaction is always sluggish, and the effect of a single dose soon passes off.
In conclusion, let me say that, while it is impossible to look on cancer otherwise than as one of the most serious conditions with which we have to deal, I do not approach these cases now with the same feeling of helplessness as at one time I was wont to do.
DISCUSSION.
Dr. CLARKE said all would agree that Dr. Patrick’s paper was something rather outside the usual. He had given, to the speaker at any rate, a clearer conception of the cancer process than he had formed before. The process was one of proliferation without control. Members of the Congress had heard something the previous evening from Sir Frederick Feeble about the control of cell production, but Dr. Patrick’s very clear exposition that control was the feature was something which he (Dr. Clarke), at any rate, had not come across before-especially in the illustration of the fertilized cell in gestation. He was glad to hear that Dr. Patrick had used his old friend, black gunpowder. It was an extremely powerful remedy. Personally, he looked upon it as a unit. It was something more than a combination, and he believed that in the manufacture of the powder there was an element of graphites, which was used for keeping the grains separate. It was no invention of his own. He had merely put it into a shape so that it could find its way into the homoeopathic materia medica; and there it was in the appendix to his Dictionary. In ancient days it had been the remedy by which Jack Tar and Tommy Atkins had cured their gonorrhoeas and their chancres, and they had done much better on that than they had on the things which the doctors had given them.
Dr. COOPER said there was one thing about Dr. Patrick’s paper which had rather astonished him, and that was the remark that Dr. Patrick did not think that the action of single dose lasted long in cases of cancer. Personally be had found that the dose more often than in other cases. He considered that a great deal depended upon the frequency with which single doses were repeated as to the benefit which was obtained from them. If they were repeated too often one sometimes got an over-stimulation, and an unfortunate result might follow. He could not agree with Dr. Patrick in saying that the action did not go on for a very considerable time in some cases. Dr. Patrick had mentioned the question of surgery-the removal of the tumour- and had said that he was in favour of removing it in every case where it was possible to do so. He, personally had made it clear in his own paper that he was of the opinion that one wanted to get control over the constitutional condition first before removing under much more safe conditions.
