From the very beginning of Homoeopathy our one great concern has been to establish a broad, conceptual generalization under which therapeutics might operate in an effective manner, similar to that used in other sciences such as optics, chemistry and physics. It is now one hundred and sixty years since Hahnemann began his investigations and experiments in search of such a principle. During that time three things have become quite apparent.
First, there has been no broad generalization that has been accepted by the majority of the medical profession.
Second, Hahnemanns generalization of Similia Similibus Curantur (Let likes be treated by likes), has had the whole-hearted support of a segment of the medical profession that has proceeded both experimentally and clinically to collect a great mass of information that applies.
Third, there is a very significant absence of evidence that could, by any stretch of the imagination, be intelligently used to overthrow this great generalization and at the same time there exists a great amount of collateral evidence from most disinterested and impeccable sources that can and must be used to support it.
Let us ask the question, Does a need presently exist for some broad concept in therapeutics that will serve as a guide for the successful treatment of the sick by remedies? In answer I shall quote Dr. James B. Conant, President of Harvard University. In an article titled, “The Roll of Science in our Unique Society” as published in Vol. 107 of Science, for January 23, 1948, he says:.
The characteristics of the new philosophy of the seventeenth century was that it sought to deal with those ideas or concepts which arose from controlled experiment and observation and in turn led to further experiment and observation. Science thus defined is to be regarded as a series of interconnected conceptual schemes, which arose originally from experimentation or careful observation and were fruitful of new experiments and observations. The test of a new concept is not only the economy and simplicity with which it can accommodate the then known observations, but its fruitfulness. Science has a dynamic quality when viewed not as a practical undertaking, but as a process of developing conceptual schemes. Science advances not by accumulation of new facts (a process which may even conceivably retard scientific progress), but by the continuous development of new and fruitful concepts.
Today investigations concerned with diseases rather than with basic concepts in Biology are apt to receive popular acclaim there is cancer, infantile paralysis, rheumatism, heart disease, and what is more important large financial backing. Is there danger that in the present fusion of pure and applied science, the tradition of the investigator interested only in the conceptual schemes will be so weakened as to disappear? I am inclined to think so.
Rather I would like to suggest that unless progress is made in reducing the degree of empiricism in any area, the rate of advance of the practical arts connected with that area will be relatively slow and highly capricious. Thus, in terms of new drugs studies designed solely to provide a better understanding of the fundamentals, are thoroughly worth while.
From this and from much more evidence that might be easily collected, it seems to me quite apparent that, in the field of therapeutics, there is still a present-day need for a broad conceptual scheme or schemes.
We homoeopaths, having acknowledged a broad general therapeutic concepts, first developed by Samuel Hahnemann, find ourselves one hundred and sixty years later the heirs to a vast amount of experimental, observational and clinical evidence, which is so great as to overwhelm our capacity for remembering and to force us to devise methods that under the law of similars, will bring such a mass of knowledge into order and make it maximally useful to our patients. The use of compound rubrics is one, if not the best, of such methods.
A brief review of the methods used by various practitioners shows as wide a variation as their knowledge and understanding of homoeopathic concepts and as the degree of curiosity concerning medical problems varies.
FIRST – An empirical choice of a remedy from a group of drugs known to have a general association in a curative way with the type of case before the doctor; i.e. Influenzin to grippe, Dysentery Comp (Bach) with ulcerative colitis; Schirrhinum and Carcinosin with malignancy; Streptomycin (potentized) with Menieres syndrome; Staphylococcin with affections associated with that organism; etc.
SECOND – Keynote prescribing, largely on the basis of one outstanding symptom, i.e. Glonoine (nitro-glycerin) for throbbing headaches; Aconite for sudden tachycardias such as intermittent paroxysmal tachycardia; Lachesis for hot flushes such as are usually found associated with menopausal states; arsenical preparations for gastro-intestinal affections; cuprum for muscular cramping; Aloes for diarrhoea; Gelsemium for virus infections, and many, many more, as you all know.
THIRD – Pathological prescribing in which the diagnosis is used as the basis for the selection, such as Chel.m., for liver and gall bladder conditions; Digitalis for heart disease; Gelsemium for influenza; Bryonia for pleurisy and rheumatic inflammations; Aconite and Hep. s., for croup; Rhus t., in rheumatism; Phosphorus in pneumonic infections; Cactus grand., for anginoid states; Merc. cor., for ulcerative colitis; Hamamelis for anal complaints; Apis in nephritic syndromes, and many others.
FOURTH – Partial repertorialization to obtain a more precise choice of remedies that are similar than can be had by the three previously mentioned methods.
FIFTH – As complete a repertory run-down as is possible with our present knowledge of materia medica and through the use our best repertories which, all must admit, are incomplete. This method is wisely advocated today by the American Foundation for Homoeopathy.
SIXTH – The empirical combination of various drugs into what are commonly known as combination tablets and mixtures. This does not really deserved a separate rating but belongs as a part of the first method cited above.
Each of these methods is used by individual doctors, his choice being largely dictated by the degree of his knowledge and understanding of homoeo-therapeutic procedures. Needless to say, all will be followed by some degree of success, due to the degree of similarity possessed by the drugs given. The given reasons that lead to the choice of a drug are never the cause of the result, which depends upon the host reaction to a similar antigen.
For apparent reasons, even the most conscientious repertorization must not be expected to be always successful, as in fact one has only to read the records of those who practice the method to find out. The difficulties associated with getting the significant symptoms in taking the patients history, together with the prescribers ability properly to evaluate those obtained, when combined with the known fact that our most complete repertory is incomplete in either of two ways, i.e. not everything is known about any one of our remedies on the one hand and many possible substances capable of disturbing the health and therefore acting curatively in selected cases have yet to be explored.
From all this we can safely conclude that each of the above methods of selecting a possibly curative remedy will only give us a relatively successful result, as mans understanding of the problems concerned with treatment with similar antigens varies as widely as does the understanding of the beginner in mathematics to that of the greatest expert in the subject.
Whenever we become curious enough in our attempts to apply the law of similars to compare the drugs found in two or more rubrics in our repertories and by so doing select those common to both and / or all of them, we then have made a compound rubric which will contain drugs more similar to the individual symptoms or reactions of the sufferings of the patient before us. This compound rubric is subject to as many variations as may be found in the variations of the sufferings of the patient being investigated. So, in effect, it is a rubric that is seldom or never found in a proving made on one individual, but is, in a sense, a synthesis of the experiences of many provers and practitioners.
It is the fact that the art of complete repertorialization of any case is very time consuming that has led to the short cut methods listed above. During the past fifty years we must all be conscious of the time consuming efforts of the majority of medical men to reach an understanding diagnosis of their cases. No expense is spared. On the other hand we, as a group, profess a confidence in our broad generalization of similia, but are observed to avoid the time and expense necessary to putting our method into its most effective use.
This constitutes a serious dilemma from which a group, which presently seems to have reached a dominant position in our institutions, would escape by the entire abandonment of our professed belief in the value of the simile concept. To my mind, a better way to escape is offered by making a sincere attempt to explore, not only our main conceptual generalization, but the numerous corollary ideas that have become attached to it.
