Presented by title before the I.H.A., Bureau of Clinical Medicine, June.
A very wise old teacher of medicine once said: “Ninety per cent of all disease would recover spontaneously if nothing is done by the physician or attendants to prevent.” If this dictum were limited to acute disease it might read ninety-nine per cent.
The Public Health Service states that ninety per cent of disease is unnecessary, preventable, and the recent survey ordered by Ex-President Hoover placed the cost of medical care with all its attendant outlay and loss of time, at fifteen billions of dollars. If ninety per cent of this outlay is preventable it must give us pause in these times of deficits to consider how much money we are wasting. If the loss were limited to actual outlay, even this could be borne with equanimity, but what of those who are not hospitalized, or even attended in their homes? Are they delivering the utmost of their ability in creative work? Are they accomplishing as much for their families or the nation at large as would be the case were they one hundred per cent well?.
One is not well one moment and sick the next, but a gradual upbuilding of disease causes may culminate suddenly in patent illness. Disease is the result of many years of partial function, a gradual accumulation in the body of its own acid end- products of both digestion and metabolism, or, in other words, excretion is not equal to intake.
Now how dies a body functioning below the normal level, sick, inefficient, recover to the previous normal?.
If it is true that ninety per cent of disease would recover spontaneously if nothing is done to interfere, then we can not escape the conclusion that the process of recovery is inherent in the body. We must conclude that recovery does not depend on the remedies given, but on the bodys ability to eliminate the accumulations that have interfered with function and restore this to the normal. It is unthinkable that function can region the former normal after illness unless the causes that produced the cataclysm that we call disease have been discontinued, for, obviously, a continuance of the cause will insure a continuance of the manifestation of this cause.
Recovery, then, presupposes a discontinuance of he exciting causes, whatever these have been. To obliterate a symptom complex is not to insure recovery in any sense of the word, for the continuance of the cause is bound to again produce the same or some other manifestation of disrepair and lowered function.
We are all familiar with the repair processes of the external parts of of the body, as abrasions, cuts, wounds, loss of nails or hair, and fully except that the body is able to repair these evidence of dysfunction easily and completely, yet we do not seem to apply this same knowledge to the internal parts. What we see on the surface if merely evidence of what goes on inside, and it is no more certain that the internal repairs cannot be made without discontinuance of the causes of disrepair than that the finger nail will fail to grow if we continually hit it with a hammer, and no less true, for they are identical conditions.
When we are acutely ill nature does the best she can to discontinue the causes of our illness. She takes away our appetite, and if this is not sufficient, she often adds nausea and vomiting, to make certain that we can no longer pollute the body with debris that is embarrassing to its perfect function. Often in severe colds and influenza even the taste is gone, so that all food is tasteless, or has a perverted and highly disagreeable taste.
If it were possible to continue the food causes of disease without diminution during illness then are would be no recoveries, but a continual deepening of both causes and manifestation.
In the face of this statement, what are we to do with those who feed during illness, and boast that they never lower the intake during typhoid or pneumonia or other severe illness?.
When we so balk nature in her attempt to stop the intake till elimination has measurably caught up, we compel her to use other methods, so she inhibits the power to digest foods or even to absorb the results of digestion.
Thus all those cases that recover from acute illness without interruption of he intake of food do so in spite of this, and never because of it.
Nature is striving continually to bring the human model back of perfection, and for growth does not cease when full stature is attained, as we naively think, for every day we die call by cell, and the process of repair is merely a continuance of the principle of growth. The internal organs we have this year are not the ones we have a few years ago; in fact, some of the cells, as those of the blood stream, have an extremely short life cycle, the red cell, the erythrocyte, having a complete cycle of life that lasts but a very few weeks; and the blood stream we have today is not that of a few weeks ago.
Our patients present themselves with a definite symptom complex, and we go into a huddle with these, aided by repertories and materia medica, and attempt to find a suitable and usually exact similimum for this complex.
We perhaps succeed, and lo! the symptoms are no more, our patient is gratified, and great is our reputation. Yet, have we done any constructive good in obliterating these symptoms?.
Annoying symptoms have disappeared permanently in many cases, with great relief and often noticeable improvement in general health; yet, if we follow this case through life we will find other and other complexes developing, with, too often, the development of chronic organic disease in the end. Why is this? Simply because the body continues to be fouled by the same percentage of unexcreted waste, debris, acid-auto-toxicosis, that must find expression in many efforts of the body to clean house by the familiar crises that we mistakenly call disease.
If we could only realize that each crisis is merely an acute effort of the body to clean house, we would not waste to much time a search for a similimum for the symptoms but would assist in the house-cleaning process, inhibit the intake of acid-forming material, even to the point of total deletion of all intake for a time, and we would be rewarded by a disappearance of the symptoms without study for, symptoms are a record of the bodys struggle to keep clean inside.
Were this not easily demonstrable, then it would be a rash statement to make, that the body puts out symptoms merely as an indication of its effort to clean house.
The law of similars does work, as the writer has had ample opportunity to observe during forty-three years of general and specialized practice through both the general field and that of the sanatorium. But during the early years of his practice, when he was depending on the Hahnemannian idea, he was gratified by the exactness of the prescription many, many times, only to find some other manifestation of disrepair showing in other and varied forms, and was at a loss to account for this fact. Even though his education was of the allopathic variety, with surgery as his main objective, yet he learned in the first few months of practice that to put into the human body various chemicals and minerals which were not integral to it, was taking a long chance on the ability of this most wonderful machine to eliminate these extraneous substances, and he shrank from the material doses, and in an intensive study of homoeopathy he found the principles applicable to all sorts of cases without fear of harm, and with what he then thought splendid results.
Now, after twenty-seven years of strict application of the principles of nutritional correction he would not think of taking time to look up remedies, unless some very annoying symptom of long duration were becoming intolerable, when the chronic nature of the complaint might make recovery too tedious.
In acute troubles it is so easy and so quick of application, and its results are so completely satisfying, that he looks first to a detergent purge of simple salines, followed by thorough emptying of the colon and complete inhibition of all nourishment. These measures so quickly allay fever, bring relief from pain or other discomforts,and so rapidly initiate recovery, that he has not in several years found in necessary to administer any similimum.
Pneumonias are cut to forty-eight hours, as a rule, especially if free perspiration also can be induced. Typhoid fevers seldom showed temperature after the end of the second week, and were usually at work in another week, even if of the nervous type. Asthmatic attacks attacks usually disappeared in a night, unless of years standing.
Acute appendicitis does not admit of the purge, as colonic stasis is present, but the thorough emptying to the colon by means of repeated enemata, the application of the ice bag, entire rest of the digestive tract, with rest in bed, has seldom failed to shorten the attack to a few minutes or seldom longer than an hour, with the victim at work the next day. Perforations, if walled off, follow the same course, but require forty-eight or more hours for drainage through the colon, and in not one case of any type or degree of appendicitis has there been death or surgical intervention during these twenty-seven years. The indications are plain: Stop all intake of trouble-making material, empty the colon, and wait, thus giving nature time to repair the damage done.
Chronic disease recovers not less surely, though the rebuilding process must be longer, of course.
The foregoing leads to the inevitable statement that when we speak of constructive treatment for disease, all we can do is to stop causing disease, and the cure is up to the body itself, as only the body can repair itself. Those factors that the only ones included in any consideration of constructive treatment, as everything done for the symptomatology is merely a recognition of the state of the body, but not doing anything constructive for it.
When we recognize the presence of appendicitis, we have two courses open to us. The one is removal of the diseased organ, surely not a constructive procedure, and the other is a recognition of the factors producing the condition and their removal, which is surely not destructive, but wholly constructive, as it permits of the bodys own efforts at repair.
All disease originates in the bodys inability to keep itself clean inside, just as Sir William Arbuthnot Lane so aptly says when he states that: “After all, there is but one disease- deficient drainage”.
If our intake of food covers our every need, if it does not embarrass the body with a heavy eliminative task, if the necessities of digestive chemistry are kept in mind, separating wholly alkaline tasks from wholly acid tasks, if we are using sun, air, water and exercise sanely, then we are living constructively, and when we analyze the constructive treatment for disease, we find this also among these constructive treatment for disease, we find this also among these prerequisites named, and nothing outside these. STROUDSBURG, PA.
DR.UNDERHILL;Dr. Hays more excellent paper well deserves our careful consideration.
He may possibly have stepped on a few sensitive ones who feel that “the physicians high and only mission” is to prescribe medicine for the sick without any particular thought as to the cause of the trouble or effort to remove, at least in some measure, the obstacles to recovery.
Surely we can agree with the Doctor that a very large percentage of all cases if illness are hindered rather than helped in the recovery process by their medical advisors and attendants. This is particularly evident in acute illness where the so-called accepted and accredited modes of treatment run the death rate up to appalling figures.
All members of the International Hahnemannian Association will agree that acute illness is a house-cleaning proposition, an eliminative effort on the part of the constitution.
Now as to treatment, the Hahnemannian will endeavor to prescribe the similimum and quickly reduce and sublimate the body toxins. In a remarkably short time the patient is well and able to resume his usual occupation. Diet has not been stressed, case management has been perhaps inadequately considered, but the results of skillful homoeopathic prescribing in acute disease will over-ride all obstacles and spectacular cures are consistently reported.
Let us hear again from Dr.Hay. He “looks first to a detergent purge of simple salines, followed by through emptying of the colon and complete inhibition of all nourishment. These measures so quickly allay fever, bring relief from pain or other discomforts and so rapidly initiate recovery that he has not in several years found it necessary to administer any similimum.”.
Here we find ourselves on controversial ground. Agreed as to the cause and purpose of acute disease, we are confronted with two apparently unrelated views as to treatment.
Results count, at least they are supposed to count, so what about the patient? He will almost certainly recover under either system of therapy, for both are sane, sensible, conservative and scientific, and should by all means be intelligently combined in the treatment of the sick. Case management in general and dietetic correction in particular are woefully weak points in the treatment prescribed by the average physician, the Hahnemann homoeopathist unfortunately not excepted.
Again quoting Dr.Hay; “To obliterate a symptom complex is not to insure recovery in any sense of the word, for the continuance of the cause is bound to again produce the same or some other manifestation of disrepair and lowered function.”.
Cruel words these.
It has been customary for the followers of Hahnemann to hide themselves behind the supposedly impregnable walls of Psora, Syphilis and Sycosis and so secure have they felt in their position that they have established their main base of operations, especially in their offensive against chronic disease, immediately behind those walls.
Each and every patient is regarded by Hahnemannians as undoubtedly cursed with more or less Psora and quite possibly with more or less syphilis or sycosis, and in some cases with all three combined. The poor devil may have to shoulder the blame sometimes for having acquired syphilis or sycotic infection, but psora is unhesitatingly laid at the very root of his ancestral tree.
Scientists must continually resist that very human tendency to trim, tailor and even to distort observed facts to fit a cherished theory or a preconceived opinion.
Without actually quarreling with the psora theory it has undoubtedly tended toward limiting and restricting the vision of many sincere homoeopathists. Hahnemannians have proceeded on the assumption that psora is inherited and therefore inbuilt, that of itself it tends “ever to increase with the years” and that it may be complicated before birth or during life with venereal disease, that the only possible cure or alleviation for this “curse” is by means of the indicated antipsoric remedies aided, when necessary, by the prescription of an antisycotic or antisyphilitic medicine in suitable potency.
If living a clean, natural, wholesome life has any significance, any merit, any value, it must hold these consistently.
If food poisoning actually occurs-and some cases are so obvious as to compel recognition and identification, not only by physicians but even by laymen-is it not reasonable to infer that there must exist all grades and shades and many different kinds of food poisoning from the most acute and violent to the most insidious and essentially chronic? If food toxins can cause acute illness, why not chronic suffering and disease as well?.
Intestinal toxemia and colonic stasis are recognized and variously combatted by many physicians of differing schools of thought, yet many of these same physicians fail to realize the importance of dietetic control either in acute or chronic disease, least of all do they sense the fact that, more than in any other one way, man is eating himself into all manner of sickness and suffering.
In conclusion, may we suggest to Dr.Hay that his therapeutic results can be greatly enhanced and the recovery process definitely accelerated by the consistent employment of the potentiated homoeopathic remedies in acute, and especially in chronic, sickness.