Now, everybody knows that certain drugs “act on the liver,” specifically; and necessarily, such drugs have a marked pathological symptomatic affinity for the right side. A marked instance is found in Chelidonium.
Once more-the heart is located mainly in the left side of the chest. Strongly related to this organ and its surroundings and sympathies, is Lachesis- a serpent poison. Necessarily, therefore, Lachesis is, so far forth, a “left-sided remedy,” in the upper part of the trunk, at least.
All of these affinities are given clearly, in Allen’s Boenninghausen’s Pocket-Book.
At this last point, however, a new element appears. Lachesis also affects the liver, on the right side and below the heart-mass, and other left-sided upper organs with which it clearly affiliates, as the tonsil. Dr. Hering, in view of the spiral type of all living forms, saw in this, only a natural continuity of structural relationship, and expressed it by the formula-“upper left, lower right.” Rhus, on the contrary, is “upper right, lower left”.
Again, Belladonna shows, in nearly all organs, a preference for the right side. China, in like manner, for the left side.
All “antipsorics,” the cardinal remedies for “psora,” the principal “chronic miasm” of Hahnemann, appear to develop their symptoms from within, outward. Indeed all the chronic drugs, used against the three poisons-“chronic miasms”-of syphilis, and sycosis, or gonorrhoea, as well as psora are by hahnemann required to have this same peculiarity. Sulphur is the type of the antipsorics; Mercurius, of the anti-syphilitics; Thuja, of the antisycotics.
On the other hand, Psorinum, the virus of psora, works from without, inward; and hence, seems scarcely suitable as a genuine anti-psoric.
Lastly, some drugs exhibit a tendency to act, mainly, but with exceptions, from above downward; as, Belladonna. Others, from below, upward; as, Aconite.
Symptoms moving either upward or inward, are held to be of similar, and grave import; those moving downward or outward, as of similar and salutary tendency. Allied to the former, is the approach to “noble organs,” or to the mind; comparable with the latter, those symptoms which recede therefrom.
Dr. Hering was, after Hahnemann, the greatest exponent of this profound subject, in our ranks.
The course and direction of pains and other sensations, and of advancing anatomical lesions, is very characteristic in many cases. Thus stitches running downwards in the sacrum and thighs, of Kali carbonicum; tonsillitis, extending from right to left, Lycopodium; from left to right, Lachesis. From his intimacy with the provings of the latter, Dr. Hering inclined to the opinion that sometimes, at least, this, the therapeutic indication is opposite to the facts in the proving; and that similar symptoms, in the same locality, or region, but opposite in direction, are the truest types of Homoeopathy. Similar undulations of force, in diseased tissues and drugs, travelling in opposite directions, being the true similars, versus identities.
On the other hand, Dr. R.R. Gregg, in his valuable Illustrated Repertory, figures, for therapeutic use, the courses and directions of stitching pains in the trunk, just as stated in the provings; and gives many instances of successful application thereof. This question is still sub judice.
Special Pharmacodynamics, or materia Medica.
PART V.-(Jahr, Allen, Cowperthwaite, etc.).
The work of this part, during a limited term of teaching, differs from the course of study required by the studious practitioner, mainly in extent; the method is the same in both cases. With the latter, also, the considerable number of classifications, generalizations, etc., published and unpublished, and which some of our thinking men have proposed, are entitled to a fair consideration; as Hahnemann’s, Grauvogl’s, Schussler’s, Morgan’s, etc.
As to the students’ course, it is important to bear in mind that Part IV. is fundamental and preliminary to this. Later, it consists mainly to the selection of a limited number of leading and familiar drugs, such as those already quoted under Part IV., and others, known as “polychrests” (or drugs of many uses), and applying all that has been said to each, in this way securing the most striking picture of each.
This being done for any two very similar drugs of the list, there remains one more essential proceeding, viz., comparison. This is performed in two ways. First, copy, or otherwise select, those symptoms of either which are most emphatic in the proving; also, those which are the most monopolized, or most characteristic of, the drug. A symptom, characteristic of one drug, and not found in any other, is termed a unicum. Then, with the Repertory, and with other provings, search, among these, for the remedies having either strikingly similar or strikingly antagonistic symptoms, or both; mark upon the margin opposite the words: “Compare Pharmacodynamics represents this plan. Dr. H.C. Allen is the author of a recent reproduction of this.
The second method of comparison consists in writing the symptoms, especially the emphatic or characteristic ones, of the two chosen drugs, in parallel columns, upon foolscap paper, under the usual rubrics, and in such a way that those opposite to each other shall relate to the same subject, and shall thus display their similarity or antagonism in a striking and practical way. In this arrangement, the usual anatomical order of the Materia Medica as prescribed by Hahnemann, is the most convenient. Gross’s comparative Materia Medica is the type of this method. Lippe, Hering, Morgan, Farrington and others have extended the work, and in journals, etc., have further illustrated the method.
The Materia Medica of A. Teste, M.D., of Paris, translated by Hempel, hot now out of print, is a good example of the comparative method of study, upon Hahnemannian principles. Recent studies of Epiphegus and of Latrodectus, by Dr. S.A. jones, are also models in their way; having a pathological bent (American Homoeopathic Observer, etc.).
The “clinical method” of comparison, herein discussed (see Therapeutic Symptomatology), and also Boenninghausen’s last division, “Relationship,” may here be added.
The literature of our Materia Medica is now ample. The works of Drs. C. Hering and T.F. Allen stand first, without doubt. Next, that of Dr. A.C. Cowperthwaite. Many of the older physicians still rely upon Jahr’s Symptoms Codex, and Lippe’s work; Hering’s Condensed Materia Medica is satisfying to many of the juniors.
The Pharmacodynamics of Dr. Richard Hughes, like his Therapeutics, is well suited to those who, having a knowledge of Old School medicine, but believing in Homoeopathy, seek to enter upon its study and practice, as novices.
Clinical Therapeutics.
PART VI.-“Clinical Therapeutics,” or the “Homoeopathy of Experience.”.
Here, as always, Hahnemann and his Organon are first. His Aphorisms of the Treatment of Chronic Diseases, collected by Dr. S. Lilienthal, and published not long before his death, in The California Homoeopath (1889), under the title, Catechism, is of great importance, and should be printed in book form. So also is the first volume of his Chronic Diseases. All invite and deserve careful research and study.
Again, an easy his teachings, by Dr. C. Hering, entitled, Hahnemann’s Three Rules, is of immense practical value. It was published in volume one, number one, of the Hahnemannian Monthly.
Verification of Provings is a leading part of our clinical study. A certain amount of scepticism of the reliability of the pathogenetic records prevails, and is natural enough; whilst, in a convert from ancient medicine, it is of times debilitating and painful. All evidence of the truth of these is therefore of the greatest value. Every symptom and symptom-group confirmed at the beside by successful practice thus becomes a permanent addition to our therapeutic wealth.
In connection with the question of reliability of symptoms, in our Materia Medica and Repertories, most physician doubt the “pure provings,” as to which symptoms are due to the drug under trial, and which to the environment, or, above all, to the subjectivity of the prover. This is quickly answered; every symptom in a proving is a composite of all three of these factors, in varying proportions. But so, also, are the clinical symptoms, in every case of disease we are called to treat; and the “similarity” of the curative drug must be found in all of these three lines, if we arrive at the similimum. Lack, in either line, impairs the validity of the selection. Even the very personal trails, the texture and color of skin, hair and eyes,a re significant; much more, the passing sensations, even if trivial.
Secondly, other sceptics are concerned as to the inclusion of symptoms in the Materia Medica and repertories, which, being observed in the sick, have disappeared after the remedy under consideration has been taken. This question is to be settled only by critical observation. Our best and most experienced prescribes testify that so far from being deceptive or unreliable, these symptoms are often of the most characteristic nature. That they have not yet appeared in a proving does not invalidate this, and this appearance, some day, must be expected.
