In an article in the Transactions of the I. H. A. by the lamented Dr. Maurice A. Turner, he wrote:.
“When reporting cases cured, diagnosis is inevitably demanded. The diagnosis, to be of value, acceptable and conclusive must now be confirmed by the most approved and latest diagnostic methods.” This was written in 1915; it is now 1939! Twenty-four years later. Yet it has a familiar sound. How odd!.
The evil genius of homoeopathy must be laughing these twenty-four years later! It was about 1915 or before that the irrepressible Dr. Cabot proclaimed that forty-eight percent of diagnoses were mistaken. So far as I know this has never been denied. Recently, after all the “great strides” that medicine has made since that pronouncement it has been determined that during this reign of medical technocracy, diagnostic failures have substantially increased. How odd!.
In all simplicity then, if it were odd a quarter of a century ago to be asked that homoeopathic cures be verified by a standard forty-eight per cent erroneous, why should there be now such a demand for verification by false diagnoses of fifty-two per cent? Isnt it rather odd?.
It is only fair, however, to remark that this demand for verification of cures by diagnoses forty-eight to fifty-two per cent erroneous did not come from our allopathic friends, for with a very few exceptions the regulars paid no attention to our cures at all. It came from the alarms and excursions round about our own camp fires. Which also seems rather odd!.
Why the Hahnemannian who like myself goes about with Boenninghausen or Boger and the Chronic Diseases under one arm and the Guiding Symptoms under the other should be expected to verify his cures not only by a notoriously erroneous standard but no the basis of diagnoses built up for entirely differently purposes–that is odd, indeed!.
There is another side to it, however. Diagnosis is very interesting despite the errors, especially when complemented with homoeopathic prescribing. And it has its indispensable uses irrespective of homoeopathy although homoeopathic theory and materia medica knowledge can aid it tremendously. But the puncture that I wish to make is that technological proof of cure as a means of homoeopathic propaganda is harping on the wrong string.
The A string of successful homoeopathic propaganda amongst the profession, and increasingly so in the future, is the immediate effect on the patient of homoeopathic prescribing. With very negligible exceptions the regular physician wants to cure his patient. If he can produce what seems like a curative effect he is humanly and distinctly encouraged. The similar remedy of course produces just that effect in the appearance and sensations of the patient. Anyone who, as the result of his own efforts, gets a good result will most certainly try it again.
There is another and more immediate effect produced by the similar remedy, shown by a simple test that can be applied at any time with practically all patients, viz., lowering of the systolic tension after the similar remedy has been taken. This begins with few exceptions within a short time, even after a few hours after having taken the remedy. It begins before other signs of improvement appear. Even an imperfect degree of similarity will produce that result although it will not last as long.
This applies to patients who carry what is termed normal tension and it applies to hypotension as well although with an excessive hyposystolic tension the lowering, if the patient is curable, will soon be succeeded by a rise. There are a few exceptions to this rule. First, when the medicine has no similarity at all. Second, a transient rise resulting from a homoeopathic aggravation. Third, when arteriocardiac calcification of high degree is present.
With patients whose improvement appears as an effect of the similar remedy but the high tension remains obdurate or even recedes while the diastolic remains high and static, a prognosis of grave and not long deferred crisis may be given. Of course these considerations presuppose bilateral tests for it is possible for an unilateral tension to remain high while the other side shows the influence of the remedy, whereby the prognosis is of course distinctly better.
Epitome: 1. It is not logical to require proofs of homoeopathic efficiency to be based on methods which have been discredited by a large and increasing percentage of failures.
2. Scientific proof of the action of high potencies of a similar remedy can be effected by the use of the sphygmomanometer before other evidence of improvement appears.
I wish to suggest further that other mechanical tests, such as the sphygmograph for instance, should be expected to corroborate the results of these tests. The writer has been too much interested in the human considerations of homoeopathy to spend time with these purely material phases and to follow up their technical possibilities, therefore is offering this as more suggestive than scientific or of use of propaganda. Another feature of these tests is that when the action of a similar remedy has become exhausted and is to need repetition or change, his systolic tension will gradually rise before subjective symptoms re-appear. In practice, however, no change or repetition should be made until the symptom picture has become clear. Otherwise the evolution of the cure may become disturbed or even cease entirely.
The writer has made no observations in conditions characteristically febrile.
Lastly, the only reason I have felt urged to record these things is that sooner or later some bright regular will say them and I want to get ahead of him; as most always do should do because we have a better scientific view-point and criterion, both physiologic, dynamic and theoretic, to do with.
WATERBURY, CONN.
DISCUSSION.
DR. SHERWOOD: On this matter of diagnosis I can agree we should make a diagnosis for the purpose of knowing when we have an infectious or contagious disease and for the purpose of knowing what to advise as far as dietary changes that should be made, but I still maintain we shouldnt try to diagnose the name of the disease so much as to put our effort toward the diagnosis of the proper remedy that that patient needs, and expect it to do something.
Too many men get into the habit of deciding it is a certain cardiac condition, a certain varicose condition, or something of that sort, and then prescribe a particular drug for a particular condition. That is what I want to warn against, and why I feel the way I do about a too accurate diagnosis. If I have an infection, I dont care what kind of a bug it is. I know I have the infection, and I know if I get the proper remedy, regardless of what bug it is, I am going to get my patient well.
DR. GRIMMER: I want to confirm the observation the doctor made about the reduction of blood pressure. While blood pressure, of course, is not accepted as a diagnosis, it is an indicator of some other trouble in the system. It is a pretty constant index as to the general condition of the patient. I have confirmed the doctors observation many, many times, of seeing the blood pressure go down and, on the other hand, of seeing very low blood pressure come up to around the normal point under the action of the indicated remedy.
DR. FARRINGTON: I just want to ask Dr. Hayes how soon he applies this test and how late it can be applied and still give the desired information.
Also, I would like to see this paper published very soon, because the exceptions and a few other things he said in connection with this test are somewhat complicated. I would like to see them in print.
DR. BELLOKOSSY: I wanted to say the same thing Dr. Grimmer said. It is very interesting that the blood pressure goes down when the right homoeopathic remedy is given; the systolic goes down, but the diastolic remains the same. That means the pulse pressure is lower.
The low blood pressure goes up, but generally slowly. If a man has low blood pressure to any extent, it takes many months and sometimes even years to bring it to normal. It is much easier to reduce blood pressure than to bring it to normal.
DR. HAYES: I would like to answer Dr. Farringtons question. He asked how soon he could see the tension go down after giving the remedy. It depends altogether on the patient. Sometimes you get it in two hours, and again it will be within two days. How long before it comes up against also depends on the patient.
That brings up another point on which I wanted to speak. As I said in my paper, after the correct remedy you can even lower hypertension for a short time.
The other point I wished to put in the paper was that when the action of a remedy is exhausted the arterial tension begins to rise, even without any other feelings or sensations of the patient of relapse or symptoms.
That is not necessarily an indication for prescribing. In fact, I dont prescribe until I get a picture of a remedy, the same remedy or another remedy. When the blood pressure begins to go up again, after it has been down, that is the end of the action of that remedy.
Born in Torrington, Litchfield, Connecticut, USA on 20 Oct 1871 to Royal Edmund Hayes and Harriet E Merriman. He had at least 4 sons and 1 daughter with Miriam Martha Phillips. He lived in Torrington, Litchfield, Connecticut, United States in 1880. He died on 20 July 1952, in Waterbury, New Haven, Connecticut, United States, at the age of 80, and was buried in Waterbury, New Haven, Connecticut, United States.