“Disease are cured, not by eloquence, but by remedies, well and duly applied, of which, if any sage and discreet man, though he have no tongue, know well the proper usage, he shall become a greater physician than if, without practice, he ornament well his language.” Quotation from Cornelius Selsus, who lived 23 B.C. to 50 A.D.
During the eighteenth century, medicine was predominately a conglomerate of revolutionary systems and theories in medicine. There was the dynamico-organic system of Stahl, who believed that the soul was the supreme principle of disease. There was a mechanico-dynamic system of Hoffman, teaching that life expresses itself in motion, and that all manifestations within the body are controlled by a spirit which has its origin in the nervous system. The school of Montpellier taught that the various organs possess individual life, and then there was Mesmer, the prince of psychologists of his time, who claimed that a magnetic fluid poured from the hands, which could be used to cure the human body of all disease.
Then there was the Breunonian system, which asserted that it was only necessary for a cure to determine the grade of disease in accordance with the strength or weakness of the active, irritation, and to adjust the right proportion of strengthening or weakening medicines to the case.
Then there was the practice of previous centuries, the phlogistic and anti- phlogistic theories, that all diseases were caused by the impaction of debris, and the obstruction of the intestines; added to these were a half-dozen other assorted hypothesis. The practice of medicine of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries had little to offer toward the cure of diseases.
The work of Hahnemann and Pasteur had not yet been done. Listen had not propounded the theory of antisepsis, Harvey and Jenner were unknown, and chemistry was only a very beginning science. Anatomy, although reasonably well known by the artists of the early eighteenth century, notably Leonardo da Vinci, was not studied or known as a part of medicine. Pathology, biology and physiology were just beginning to sort out of the facts from a welter of hypothesis.
Drugs were known and used in abundance, but there was no basic scientific pharmacology to support their use. All sorts of mixtures and combinations were used without reference to the effects the ingredients of the mixture might have upon one another, nor to the effect on the living body. When the mixture did show evidence of positive action, the reason for its action was not known, and if cure was accomplished the credit was given to the mixture and not to the individual who was cured.
In this confusion of unscientific balderdash there came upon the stage a remarkable and wonderful physician, Samuel Christian Friedrich Hahnemann, who was born in Meissen, Germany, in 1755. Hahnemann was a very highly intelligent and remarkable man, and a profound student. He studied medicine at the Universities of Leipzig and Vienna. He graduated in medicine at Erlangen in 1779, but he became dissatisfied with the practice of the profession and retired for reflection and study.
We hear from him again in 1790, in his treatise on the study and development of the basic drugs, taken from Peruvian bark, in which Dr. Hahnemann proved the action of the drug upon the healthy body; this resulted in a disease resembling the symptoms of malaria. The evidence were so pronounced that he decided that it would be well to try small doses of the extract of Peruvian bark on patients suffering from malaria, and to his great astonishment the result was a perfect cure.
He then tried the drug upon himself to reprove his previous experiment, and cured himself with small doses of the drug, infrequently taken. The result of this investigation in use of Peruvian bark encouraged Hahnemann to continue to study individual drugs. Dr. Hahnemann then began a series of further experiments with drugs upon healthy individuals, and in 1796, with a wealth of research behind him, he announced his remarkable hypothesis that became the basis of the system called homoeopathy, expressed in the phrase; “similia similibus curentur,” or similars cure similar.
After the announcement of his remarkable hypothesis. Dr. Hahnemann attacked physicians from all over Europe to him as students. The basis upon which he announced his system of cure was so remarkable and so outstanding that it appealed to the real thinkers in medicine of his day.
In 1810, he presented to the world his most famous work entitled: “Organon der Rationellen Heilkunde,” which was translated in many languages, and especially English. In this book, Dr. Hahnemann presented three main tenets: first, that diseases or symptoms of diseases are curable by particular drugs, which produce similar pathological effects upon the healthy body; second, that the dynamic effect or force of the drugs is increased by giving them in small doses, even diluted to a very high degree of their original strength; and third, that chronic diseases are manifestations of suppressed miasms or psora.
Remember that in this period of time, bacteria was unknown, the knowledge of physiology was practically nil, pathology was wholly speculative; the only guidepost of research was the amelioration of symptoms of disease and the cure of the disease itself. It was the generally accepted theory of the time that the outward manifestations or objective symptoms of disease was a salubrious mechanism for the relief of an inner condition attacking the system as a whole.
Quoting from the Organon, “the only really salutary treatment is that of the homoeopathic method, according to which the totality of symptoms of a natural disease is combated by a medicine in commensurate doses, capable of creating in the healthy body symptoms most similar to those of the natural disease.”
This concept remains as true today as it was in 1810, when the Organon was written, although the statement contains a very meager description of what we know today as the Law of Immunity. The application of a similitude directed in positive action produces a reaction of a normal resistance in the body to such an event that disease is overcome, and the result is positive cure.
The announcement of the findings of Dr. Hahnemann, with its true scientific basis for investigation, was the beginning of the greatest era of research in medicine that the world has ever known. Physicians were groping in a chaos of medieval superstition, magic, and empiricism, with no basic idea of fact to direct them in the search for cause and cure, but the system instituted by Hahnemann had at least two things in its favor in addition to the discovery of the fundamental law of “similibus curentur”. First it replaced the mixtures of powerful drugs and it carried with it a powerful appeal to the scientific mind, and as always a new and revolutionary system appeals to the lay imagination.
Even today Professors Meyer-Steinberg of Jena and Sudhoff of Leipzig, two of the worlds greatest medical historians, assert that the influence of Hahnemann was the most outstanding of any of his contemporaries, and was on the whole certainly the first scientific approach to the practice of medicine.
Dr. Hahnemann emphasized the individualization of the patient in the handling of disease, and he demonstrated the value of testing the virtue of drugs by a system of trial. Thus it will be seen that the advent of homoeopathy was the first great movement on the horizon of scientific investigation in the field of medicine.
After the publication of Organon in 1810, homoeopathy spread rapidly throughout the continent of Europe. We find it popular in 1819, in Austria, where in 1837, it was recognized by Imperial decree. It reached Italy and Denmark in 1821, and in 1827 was introduced by Dr. Quinn into the British Isles. Homoeopathy fluorished in England after the establishment of a homoeopathic dispensary service, which was opened in 1841.
Homoeopathic hospitals were established throughout the United Kingdom, and most of them still survive even with socialized medicine in control. Homoeopathy in Great Britain is, today, very popular and homoeopathic physicians are medical advisors to the Queen and the Royal house. It was a homoeopathic physician who diagnosed and recommended the lung operation on the late King George VI.
Homoeopathy was brought into the United States and the Western Hemisphere in about 1825 and immediately became quite popular. The American Institute of Homoeopathy was organized in 1844, and remains the oldest medical association in the United States. The first homoeopathic medical college was organized in Philadelphia in 1848.
The next was in New York in 1858, and during the latter half of the 19th century homoeopathy spread rapidly to all nations of the North and South American continents. In the United States homoeopathic practitioners were so popular as to almost dominate the field of medicine. Many tales might be told of the battles within the medical fraternities to determine whether the homoeopathic or the so-called regular party should control.
The American Medical Association in their annual meetings represented a highly controversial institution, and many times the scepter of authority passed from one group to another. In 1890, there were fourteen homoeopathic and eight eclectic medical colleges in the United States, while in 1900 there were twenty- two homoeopathic and ten eclectic schools. At the beginning of the 20th century, the influence of homoeopathy began a very rapid stride.
Medical schools throughout the nation began to adopt the scientific method of investigation and research. The influence of the works of Hahnemann was seen in the teachings of the so-called regular schools. The multiple drug prescription began to loose in favour for use of the single remedy. The theory of immunity was translated into a law, and the great work of the United States Public Health Service, and in the great field of preventive medicine itself to be a permanent and positive fact,
For the past fifty years scientific medicine has been sweeping onward with a steady and sure progress, based almost entirely upon the premise of Hahnemann. Until today, American medicine stands at the highest pinnacle of achievement in world medicine, largely because of the influence of homoeopathy upon the field of research and the practice of medicine.
During the early years of the 20th century when prejudice and ill-feeling existed, caused by a high degree of misunderstanding among medical men, it was necessary to maintain homoeopathic medical colleges. Today that is no longer necessary, homoeopathy being only a part of medical education which deals with a special training for skill in the application of the law of “similia similibus curantur”.
Further because of the general acceptance of the basic principles of homoeopathy, it is no longer necessary or expedient to maintain separate homoeopathic schools. The field of medicine, which includes everything pertaining to the healing art, has discarded in good measure, many of the old prejudices of the past, the superstitions that came down from the ancients, and the magic of the savage, and have substituted in its place the true scientific approach to research and practice.
Yet, withal, homoeopathy being what it is, we find it necessary to establish a system of careful choosing among the students of medicine, in order to give them the advantage of the wonder and values of homoeopathy.
The student who embarks on the road to efficiency in homoeopathic practice must be endowed with the very highest achievement in general as well as medical education. He then must spend extra years of time in study to become proficient in prescribing according to the homoeopathic law. It is not an easy road to success. The homoeopathic physician cannot simply make a physical examination together with such laboratory investigations as are indicated, make a diagnosis, and prescribe a remedy or write a prescription for a multiple drug formula or an antibiotic, then expect a cure.
The homoeopathic physician knows that he must treat his patient as an individual, he must study his patient, must know his personality, he must note and carefully consider every symptom that his patient presents; in other words, the homoeopathic physician must go beyond the simple physical examination and laboratory diagnosis of an ordinary disease, and treat his patient according to the law of “similia similibus curantur.”
All this takes a most profound devotion and dedication on the part of the physician, because he knows he is dealing with a God- created individual, who is suffering from a disease. Therefore, he must know all there is to know about disease, and in addition he must know all there is to know about the individual. The practice of homoeopathy is real labour. It is devoted and indicated work, it requires all the ingenuity, all the mental capacity, and all of the ability of the physician to make a success of his practice.
Homoeopathy today is outstanding in the fact that it has had the privilege and honor of leading the medical profession throughout the world in its most marvelous advance of the past century, and still maintains its proud position in the vanguard of scientific medicine in the world today.
The public need have no fear in the employment of a homoeopathic physician, because his service is equal to the best in scientific medicine. He has had the training, the educational background, and aptitude that places him among the leaders of his profession.
“A homoeopathic physician is one who adds to his knowledge of medicine, a special knowledge of homoeopathic therapeutics, and observes the law of similia. All that pertains to the great field of medical learning is his, by his training and by tradition, inheritance and by right.”
$ Remedies Indicated in Coryza [Remedies Indicated In Coryza].
The Homoeopathic Herald By Das N C.
# 1953 Oct Vol 14 No 7.
^ Das N C.
~ Materia Medica / Therapeutics.
` Puls / Nux-v / Merc / Ip / Ign / Euph / Bell / Ars.
Arsenicum where the nose is stopped up and yet running with acrid discharge causing burning pain both inside and outside the nose; insomnia without special reason; epistaxis; patient is restless (Hering). Woman of 42 complains of chronic coryza alternating with fluid discharge, burning in nose. Corroding discharge making upper lip sore, causing crust which at times was moist, again dry. Arsenicum 30., two doses cured. Peculiar for Arsenicum is the corroding discharge with burning; nose seems stopped up, yet runs.
Belladonna. Swelling of nose with coryza, especially indicated if nostrils are swollen and sore, with redness; heat and pain in nose; burning, stitching, dryness. Sense of smell either acute or weak. (Hering.)
Cyclamen. Frequent sneezing with mucous discharge; nervous headache and pain in ears for ten years; finally Cyclamen cured quickly. (Malaise.)
Euphrasia. Coryza with copious mucous discharge; eyes affected, and lachrymation. (Hering.)
Hepar sulphur. Coryza in patients who have taken much mercury, or where mercury has been given without result; every cold draft causes coryza or headache; or if only one nostril is affected; headache worse from every motion. (Hering.)
Ignatia. Coryza in nervous patients who are hysterically excited and complain of frontal headache. (Rummel.)
Ipecacuanha. Man of 25 suffers from chronic coryza. Nose always stopped up; loss of smell; head heavy; dry cough, or scanty expectoration especially nights during long lasting attacks; painful thrusts in head and stomach ending in nausea and vomiting, followed by general perspiration and exhaustion. Ipecacuanha 30. cured.
Mercurius often indicated in common coryza especially if many people suffer from it; much sneezing and dripping; nose swollen and sore; foetid nasal discharge with nocturnal perspiration; fever; patient does not like to be alone; thirst; dislike of warmth, but does not stand cold well. Later Hepar is often indicated. (Hering.)
Nux vomica. Fluid coryza during the day, stopped up evenings; mouth dry without much thirst. Chest dry; stools hard. (Hering.) Indicated in first stage of coryza with more inflammatory symptoms; nose dry; little mucous discharge. (Tietze.) A strong man, blacksmith of sanguine temperament took cold, coryza with severe inflammatory pains in right frontal sinus, pain tearing as if in bone; eyelids red; nose stopped up, dry; aggravated from heat of stove and in morning. Pulse hard, full, fast. Constipation. Aconitum 24. morning and Nux vomica 30. evening improved by next morning and cured quickly.
Pulsatilla. Indicated in coryza with fluid discharge which soon changes to stopped up nose with loss of appetite and smell; discharge thick-yellow or greenish or foetid odor. (Hering.). The patient with fluid coryza feels best in open air, worse entering warm room; evenings the nose is stopped up. When the inflammatory stage of coryza is passed and frequent mucous discharge has set in, Pulsatilla often relieves in a few hours.
Girl of 18, delicate, quiet disposition, suffered from chronic coryza. Symptoms. Has suffered from coryza for several months with yellow-greenish, purulent, foetid discharge; nose swollen, itching evenings. Loss of appetite; confusion as if drunk, better in open air, worse in warm room. Menses delayed, scanty, pale, followed by leucorrhoea. Extremities heavy; evenings chilly without thirst; looks pale and suffering; anxiety; depressed mood and tearful. Pulsatilla 9c. one drop, cured completely in a few days. (Stapf).
Woman of 34, previously menstruated regularly, took severe cold with suppression of menses, followed by heaviness in head, coryza and total loss of smell and taste. Continued use of Pulsatilla 3c brought profuse nasal discharge of yellowish-green mucus, with return of menses, taste and smell. (Genzke.)
In the second stage of coryza with yellowish-green discharge, and leading in chronic form to ozaena, with relief in open air, but aggravated evenings and in room, Pulsatilla is indicated, especially in female patients of mild, quiet disposition with scanty or lacking menses.
Sambucus is indicated in suckling babies whose nose is stopped up with thick mucus making nasal breathing practically impossible; patients starting from asleep as if choking. Sambucus 3c helps quickly. (Tietze).
Woman suffering from chronic coryza, filled with tough mucus often preventing nasal breathing; can not breathe through mouth; after 8 sleepless nights patient is irritable, desperate. Sambucus 200c gave sleep the following night. (Gross.)
Generally during the first stage of coryza Nux vomica is indicated; in the second stage Pulsatilla; in nervous patients with hysterical excitement and dull frontal headache Ignatia; in patients who previously had been treated (for other conditions) with much Mercurius, or if Mercurius had been given and failed, Hepar sulphur should be chosen, especially when cold air causes headache (aggravated by motion).
Frequent sneezing: Cyclamen, Mercurius. Stopped up nose: Ipecacuanha, Nux vomica; or nose stopped up and then runs: Pulsatilla; if stopped up, yet runs; Arsenicum; stopped up during the day, runs evenings: Nux vomica. If stopped up evenings and in room, but runs in open air; Pulsatilla; if stopped up so, breathing is difficult, especially in children; Sambucus; if only one side affected: Hepar.
Watery discharge drips from nose: Mercurius; copious discharge with flowing tears: Euphrasia; acrid, burning discharge: Arsenicum; if discharge is thick-green: Pulsatilla; foetid: Mercurius.
$ Homoeopathists And Homoeopathy [Homoeopathists And Homoeopathy].
The Homoeopathic Herald By Das N C.
# 1953 Oct Vol 14 No 7.
^ Jacob Genis.
~ Philosophy and discussion.
On all sides the cry is going up that Homoeopathy is going out of existence; that it is squashed by allopathic manoeuvres. So it is in many ways, and various factors could be cited as contributory causes for its decline. There has never been decadence of Homoeopathy itself, only stagnation, largely due to the complacency of its exponents and practitioners, who mistook the starting point for the winning post!
While I had lunch with a young eye ear, nose and throat specialist friend in London, I mentioned that I was attending the Convention of the Faculty for Homoeopathy at the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital. This young man then expressed himself very frankly about Homoeopathy and its status in England. He told the writer that the British Medical Association will never recognize Homoeopathy as belonging to the category of scientific medicine, permit it to be taught in the medical schools of Great Britain, or see it raised to the status of a medical speciality. There was a certain degree of tolerance on account of the British Royal Familys interest in and patronage of it!
Now, after contacting doctors from different lands, the writer has come to the conclusion that this young F.R.C.S. was probably perfectly right. Why should orthodox medicine recognize something that may jeopardize its teachings and practices of two thousand years or more? One could hardly credit international medicine with such foolishness. Here and there in the world there have been and are instances of toleration, but, after long study and observation, this writer has come to the conclusion that this toleration is actually one of the biggest dangers to the continued existence of Homoeopathy.
The writers has sat in conventions and listened to speakers who made great efforts to show how much Homoeopathy agrees with orthodox concepts. Should the emphasis not rather be on how much orthodox medicine stumbles into homoeopathic principles and concepts these days after almost two centuries? Remember Hahnemanns teachings about infection; about prophylaxis; the totality of the symptoms of the patient; the psychosomatic approach; the allergies, etc. etc.?
Things were not called by the same names, but they are all there in his writings. The whole history of Homoeopathy and the history of the life of its founder make these pseudo-homoeopathists but cowardly diplomats. They have not even the pride to know when they are not wanted at the party; that they are only tolerated for the sake of not creating a scene. This cajoling on the part of these people is tantamount to saying, “Pardon me, Sir! I sincerely hope you will not be offended if I should use some Homoeopathy in my practice.”
In her presidential address to the British Faculty, as published in the October, 1951, issue of the British Homoeopathic Journal, Dr. Mergery Blackie quotes Dr. Skinner as follows: “Homoeopathy being but in its infancy, it wants men of independent courage who can stand upon their feet regardless of outside organization and fearless of numbers. With such men to nurse her, she is independent of allopathy and all its conservative rights and privileges, government grants, etc. Homoeopathy being but a young shoot of the noble and eternal tree of life and truth, it has to be made strong by opposition by contacts with strong and warlike elements.”
Does the above quotation not perhaps contain the real and essential requirement for the revival of Homoeopathy? What a pity that we do not now seem to have men and women of the calibre that could match up to the situation. Most modern homoeopathists seem to suffer from a sneaking inferiority complex!
Teaching institutions complain that they do not get sufficient interested students. Have institutions, instead of bewailing their lack of students, considered what they really have to offer students, excepting fragmentary and disconnected lectures on philosophy and materia medica? This writer would almost stake his life on it that very few students who attended one of these courses will really be able to give an intelligent explanation of what Homoeopathy is and how and where it differs from and with orthodox medicine.
Why not have a properly integrated course of at least two years duration at a clinic or hospital where Homoeopathy can be seen in action; and where students can be thoroughly indoctrinated with the practical aspects of this art of healing; where they can at least learn how to take their cases properly and learn to select the remedy? Under such conditions they should also be able to witness the amazing rapidity and power of the indicated remedy in acute diseases, as well as see for themselves some of the most intractable chronic diseases, or generally known surgical conditions, masterfully handled from beginning to end. Miserably little success can be expected where students are not also given the proof of what Homoeopathy can do. The writer well remembers the time when he personally thought a 6x potency very high!
Could these institutions have the temerity to expect students to exchange these poorly-organized teachings with practically no clinical proofs or statistics for their well-integrated studies at properly organized institutions? And now, is it not foolish and ridiculous to expect students to study Homoeopathy in a few short lectures, when those of us, who know a little of the subject, realize only too well the prodigiousness of the task to master the art, science, materia medica, and philosophy, as well as numerous corollaries of Homoeopathy? Do these tyros appreciate, for instance, the potency of these simple-looking drugs, and the tremendous responsibility that should accompany their prescription?
This writer is practically positive that he will fail 95 percent of the students of these institutions with the first question on some of the more salient points of Homoeopathy. Take a simple question like the following for examination and see what answers you will get: “You have a case that is hypersensitive to impressions, faint-hearted, and of a yielding disposition. The case had pneumonia some time ago and was left with a chronic cough, which is much worse from lying down. The expectoration is bloody, yellow, lumpy, purulent, and contains granules like shot with very offensive smell. There are stitches in the chest, frequent sore throats and lingering colds. There are bad night-sweats, worse towards the morning. The patient is extremely sensitive to cold, and better from warmth, in summer, and in damp, warm weather. X-rays show extensive tuberculous infiltration of the right lung. What is the obvious remedy and why will you not use it?”
This writer charges a large number of so-called homoeopathists with blatant ignorance, criminal carelessness, and no small degree of self-ostentation about the few “lucky shots” in their prescribing. Only too frequently one notices cases quoted from records where the practitioner got no results on account of obvious mistakes in the remedy selection. No wonder that they cannot demand from their orthodox colleagues due respect, or even their chagrin! What greater contribution to contempt than boastfulness of the ignorant. Again let us quote Dr. Skinner through Dr. Blackie: “Let us announce to the world what we can do, if we do it!”
Now to answer those who believe that Homoeopathy should be taught as a medical speciality. Apart from the fact that the mere nature of Homoeopathy makes it eminently suitable for general practice, specialism implies at least two to three years post- graduate study at an institution that has above average standing. The question is: Can London with its “pathological orientation” or Arnica with its lethargy and rush methods organize such outstanding institutions that they will weather the storms of criticisms of the regular schools by the sheer excellence of their curricula and teaching staffs and clinical and research facilities?
If this can be accomplished, the writer believes that it should be possible to turn out a sort superior type of general practitioner, who would be able to carry the torch of Homoeopathy wherever he may settle. Believe it or not, it is not difficult at all for a man who knows Homoeopathy to create an impression and thereafter to hold his own, no matter what may be contrived and schemed against him. He only needs to handle his first few acute cases brilliantly; cure a few cases of acute tonsillitis and appendicitis, and help old Mrs. Grundy with her rheumatism, and they will all club together to be his most willing advertisers. Real curative work is so rare these days that it almost appears as a miracle to the laity. And real and lasting cures should not be very difficult to a man who had the right Homoeopathic training!
In the days when there was much opposition to Homoeopathy, it waxed powerful everywhere. It meant something to have been an homoeopathist. Extremely brilliant results were obtained. It became patronized by the best in society, including royalty. Statistics were furnished by homoeopathic hospitals which proved beyond any doubt its superior results in all classes of disease, from the most fatally acute to the most chronic, including insanity. Homoeopathy scored these honors through outstanding exponents by its merits and results. Physicians and laity were eagerly proving ever more new remedies. How does this compare with to-days laxity and half-hearted efforts?
Recently the writer had a latter from an Indian homoeopathist with which he included a copy of a letter from the Indian Ministry of Health, and in which a spokesman for that body suggests that it appears illogical that different systems of medicine should exist as permanent parallel entities, and also that Homoeopathy, Unani and Ayurveda may complement modern medicine, but that in view of its continued progress in the world, it must remain the ultimate systems of treatment for the sick.
This would appear quite logical and reasonable if we did not have prior experience of this very kind of thing elsewhere. Now if the Indian homoeopathists should accept such a compromise, then in the not too far distant future India will have only a few old people in practice and no young men coming forward to replace them. Have we not seen this in the United States, at one time the worlds repository of homoeopathic knowledge and learning? If Americans do not wake up and reorganize with a vengeance, the word “Homoeopathy” may be deleted from American medical dictionaries within fifty years time. It is already with sacrifice that Messrs. Ehrhart and Karl of Chicago keep up reprints of Kents Repertory, a great book that should be thoroughly revised and brought up-to-date.
Why all homoeopathic associations of the few remaining schools and hospitals are not completely severed is a real farce. The name of Hahnemann and his system are only retained to ridicule the life-work of a great medical reformer and benefactor of mankind, because none of these institutions propagate or practice his art or teachings.
America is not at present running one single course of instruction worthy of serious consideration by prospective students, [*With this statement the Editor is not in full accord. Considering the limits imposed on it by financial considerations, the Foundation of Post Graduate Course is excellent. That there is room for improvement we agree.] although this writer thinks back respectfully and fondly to his memorable association with the various teachers of the American Foundation for Homoeopathy, who, notwithstanding great financial difficulties and personal sacrifice, try to keep alive a spark of true Hahnemann Homoeopathy in North America!
It would appear that, instead of minor individual efforts by small non-influential groups, America and Great Britain, as the leading medical countries of the modern world, should each organize curricula of post-graduate instruction at well-known universities or hospitals, lasting at least two full academic years, and so set an ideal standard that will become internationally recognized for its excellence.
A Fellowship in the Royal College of Physicians or of the American College is indicative of excellence and high medical attainment anywhere in the civilized world. Is it really impossible to do something similar for Homoeopathy, if we put all our sincerity and will into the effort? Surely such a type of qualification in Homoeopathy should carry due weight and do away with much of the miserable misrepresentation of this finest of therapeutic sciences.
$ Editorial – Struggle For The Recognition Of Homoeopathy [Editorial – Struggle For The Recognition Of Homoeopathy].
The Homoeopathic Herald By Das N C.
# 1953 Nov Vol 14 No 8.
^ Das N C.
In April 1937, during the British regime, the wide popularity of the Homoeopathic system of treatment and the growing public demand for the state recognition of Homoeopathy induced Janab Ghiasud-din to move a resolution in the then Central Legislative Assembly to that effect, which was adopted but effect thereto had not been given. But this had its repercussion in Bengal and the public demand for a legislative enactment of a Homoeopathic Bill led the Govt. of Bengal in the Department of Public Health and Local Self Govt. (Medical) to adopt a Resolution (No. 1866 Medl dated 24th June, 1941) as a result of which the General Council and State Faculty of Homoeopathic medicine, Bengal (now West Bengal) was ushered into existence on the 1st April 1943.
Afterwards on the 17th. February 1948 Sri Satish Chandra Samanta (M.P. from Bengal, General constituency) moved a resolution for consideration in the Constituent Assembly to the following effect:
“This Assembly of opinion that homoeopathic system of treatment be recognised by the Indian Union and that a General Council and a State faculty of Homoeopathic medicine be established at once.”
With reference to Sri Samantas resolution an amending resolution was brought forward by Sri Mohanlal Saxena in the following terms:
In view of the fact that treatment by the system of homoeopathy is resorted to by many people, this Assembly is of opinion that the Government should consider (a) The making of arrangements for the teaching of homoeopathy. (b) The advisability of having post graduate course of study; and (c) The advisability of regulating the profession and arranging for the registration of practitioners in order to raise and maintain the uniformity of standards.”
The Honble Rajkumari Amrita Kaur, Minister of Health, intervened at this stage and opined that if “recognition” was intended to facilitate legislation for purposes of regulating the practice under the system and registration of practitioners, then the matter would have to be very carefully considered and a Committee might be appointed for the purpose.
Accordingly a Homoeopathic Enquiry Committee of member under the Chairmanship of Dr. J.N. Mukherji, D sc., F,N.I., F.R.A.S.B. etc., was constituted by order of the Ministry of Health, Govt. of India, on the 31st. August 1948 with the following terms of reference:
(1) To report on the place of homoeopathy to relation to medicine in all its aspects including the treatment, prevention and control of disease; (2) to survey the existing facilities for the teaching of Homoeopathy in India, the extent to which this system of treatment is practised in the country, and the manner in which such practice is carried on, i.e. whether by people adequately trained or not; and
(3) to make recommendations to Government on
(a) the measures to be taken to improve facilities for training in homoeopathy and to regulate such training; and
(b) the desirability of state control of the practice of homoeopathy, and if control is desirable, the manner of such control.
The Homoeopathic Enquiry Committee submitted their unanimous report to the Ministry of Health on the 11th. July 1949. Subject to a separate note by one allopathic member of the Committee. The Committees recommendations, in the main, are as follows:
(1) A Council of Homoeopathic Medicine shall be established by law and called the Central Council of Homoeopathic Medicine, India.
(2) The functions of this Council shall be mainly of a co- ordinating and advisory nature, but the Council will have powers to control which will be exercised through the provincial Boards or Faculties in the following matters:-
(i) Standard, equipment and training of affiliated homoeopathic institutions:
(ii) Standard of examinations to be held for homoeopathic students:
(iii) Registration of existing homoeopathic practitioners;
(iv) Homoeopathic pharmacies, phamaceutical laboratories and manufacturing concerns.
(3) Provincial State Boards or Faculties as may be set up by Government of State Unions or Provinces will be responsible for the maintenance of register, for the actual conducting of examinations, publishing of results and enforcement of disciplinary action, subject to the supervisory authority of the Council.
(4) A central model teaching institution should be established for the training of under-graduates and of post-graduates in Homoeopathy.
(5) With regard to training in Homoeopathy it was recommended that there should be a single course of training, namely the University (Degree) course and the minimum qualification for admission to the course should be the same as laid down by the Indian Universities in respect of the regular system of medicine. The College course should be of the same standard as laid down by the Indian Universities and the duration of the course should be five academic years.
(a) Four homoeopathic members of the Committee consider that there should be a Diploma Course of four years in addition to the University course.
(b) Five homoeopathic members consider that homoeopathic subjects should be taught from the very first year while the other thinks that it should be taught from the second year. It is recommended that the homoeopathic subjects should be taught from the very first year.
(6) Provision of facilities in recognised institutions for Homoeopathic Researches.
(7) Adequate number of homoeopathic hospitals and dispensaries under the charge of homoeopathic doctors possessing prescribed qualifications should be established. Pharmacies and organisations concerned with the preparation and manufacture of homoeopathic drugs in India should be placed on a proper footing and government should assume the authority to intervene in cases of lowering down of standards, adulteration of drugs, bad dispensing etc.
(8) Govt. should provide facilities for training in homoeopathy in order to give Homoeopathy a chance to evolve its own genius.
(9) It is recommended that effect may be given to the above recommendations as early as possible.
The Homoeopathic profession waited for the reaction of the Central Government to the Report of the Homoeopathic Enquiry Committee. In the event of the Ministry of Health keeping silent over the matter, a deputation of representatives of the All India Institute of Homoeopathy waited upon the Honble Rajkumari Amrita Kaur on 11-4-50 and arising out of the discussions a memorandum was submitted to her. The important item in the said memorandum was the acceptance by the deputationists of the proposal that the preclinical portions of the teaching of Homoeopathy (Anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology) should for an inferior period be conducted in Allopathic institutions, with certain provisions and safeguards. But the clinical portion should be taught in separate Homoeopathic institutions. This memorandum was subsequently ratified by the General Council State Faculty of Homoeopathic Medicine, West Bengal.
In the meantime the Health Ministers Conference under the Chairmanship of the Honble Rajkumari kaur (Minister for Health Govt. of India) was being periodically held; and in the third Health Minister Conference held at New Delhi (Aug. Sept. 1950) accepted the recommendations of the Homoeopathic Enquiry Committee with slight modifications. But the Ministry of Health postponed the consideration of the Homoeopathic Enquiry Committee Report as well as of the resolutions and recommendation of the Third Health Ministers Conference with regard to Homoeopathy, till it received the opinion of the Medical Council of India.
The Medical Council of India took long to treat and discuss the matter. In its meeting held on the 19th and the 20th April 1952 resolutions were passed that (1) there should be “only one system of medicine in India, namely the modern system, with a minimum uniform standard as prescribed by the Council”; and (2) that the study of indigenous systems and of homoeopathy should, therefore, be promoted only at post-graduate course of training after the intending practitioner has obtained basic qualifications in modern medicine as in the case in respect of homoeopathy in the United Kingdom, Europe and America.
It is evident that the opinion of the Medical Council of India is virtually a confirmation of the discussion notes of the two allopathic members of the Homoeopathic Enquiry Committee.
Soon after the publication of the resolutions of the M.C.I., the Homoeopathic State faculty of West Bengal took up the matter and in one of its general council meeting the whole subject was discussed thread-bare and certain resolutions were passed condemning the decision of the M.C.I., and exposing the fallacies and absurdities implicit in their resolutions.
The General council of the Homoeopathic State faculty, also passed a resolution to publish a brochure giving the details of the present status of Homoeopathy vis-a-vis the Central and Provincial Governments of India, the main recommendations of the H.E.C. Report, the publication of the M.C.I. resolution passed in their general council meeting as published in the news press, and the resolutions passed by the Third Health Ministers Conference and the resolution passed by the General Council of the Homoeopathic State faculty, West Bengal at its meeting held on 1-5-52. The proposed brochure was published by the Registrar, Homoeopathic State faculty, W.B. and was circulated amongst the members of the Parliament, State Legislatures and the General Public.
The Homoeopathic State faculty, W.B. sent a body of deputationists to wait on the Health Minister, Govt. of India on 17-6-52 to have a frank discussion regarding the situation created by the passing of such a resolution by M.C.I. and also very anomalous impasse created by the Govt. of West Bengal by not accepting the certificates issued by the Homoeopathic practitioners holding the “D.M.S.” diploma granted by the General Council and State faculty of Homoeopathic medicine, West Bengal.
The Health Minister promised to look into the matter of rights and privileges to be enjoyed by other qualified Homoeopathic practitioners; and asked the Director-General of Health Services to form a small committee to which she wanted our co-operation to device ways and means to evolve a scheme of teaching Homoeopathy in an under-graduate course wherein the students will have the fullest scope of learning the principle and practice of Homoeopathy as well as of acquiring the fundamental knowledge in the ancillary sciences satellite to Medicine and considered to be indispensable in the make-up of a complete physician. The general impression that was gathered at that interview was that the Health Minister had not yet come to any final decision regarding Homoeopathy but the Medical Directorate was trying to implement the recommendations of the M.C.I. and to put all sorts of all impediments to reach our goal.
The deputationists told the Health Minister about the publication of the brochure “The case for Homoeopathy” (copies of which were handed over to Rajkumariji and the D.G.H.S.) and about our future plan of enlightening the members of the Parliament, State Legislatures and the General Public with our view points to bring pressure upon the Govt. of India for the good of the suffering public of our country.
The Health Minister acquiesced that there was nothing wrong in the exercise of this, our democratic right to create and organise public opinion in our favour. Arising out of a reference made by the D.G.H.S. with regard to the present position of Homoeopathy in U.S.A. Dr. B.K. Sarkar one of the deputationists handed over to him two copies of the Journal of the American Institute of Homoeopathy (January 1951 and April 1952 issues) wherein articles were published by leading American Homoeopaths, deprecating the methods of teaching Homoeopathy in a common medical institution or as an elective course in such institutions and urging the necessity of reviving the old four-years-course Homoeopathic Colleges for under-graduate study instead of teaching Homoeopathy only at a post-graduate level.
In the meantime The Planning Commission was busy in drafting the five-years planning scheme. The Commission invited a few leading Homoeopaths of India to discuss about the ways and means to improve the condition of training and practice of Homoeopathy in the country. In their report they put in.
Sec. 87. With regard to Homoeopathy the proposals of the representatives of the profession appear to be reasonable and are, in the main, as follow:- (1) A Central Council of Homoeopathic Medicine may be formed. (2) Suitable Colleges among the existing ones may be upgraded and standardised and the question of starting new institutions may also he considered.
(3) The Course in the College may be common during first two years and students will then learn homoeopathic philosophy, Materia medica and therapeutics and allied subjects in 3 years.
(4) Facilities for homoeopathic research may be provided.
(5) A central homoeopathic drug manufactory and laboratory for standardisation of drugs may be opened at Lucknow.
Sec. 92. Homoeopathic medicines are not prepared according to well-known pharmacopeal methods. Moreover, these drugs are used in such diluted forms that they cannot be tested or standardised by any known chemical process. The only precaution that could be taken is to allow the manufacture and preparation in bonded laboratories under the supervision of qualified Homoeopaths.
After the publication of the Planning Commission Report on the 10th December 1952 the Director-General of Health Services issued invitation letters to those representatives of the Homoeopathic profession who attended the Planning Commission Session to participate in the deliberations of an Ad Hoc Committee with the following words:
You will recall that while you were here in connection with the meeting called by the Planning Commission to discuss indigenous systems of Medicine and Homoeopathy, certain suggestions were made for immediate implementation in respect of teaching and research in Homoeopathy and other cognate matters. I am anxious to take some concrete steps in order to put some of these recommendations at any rate into effect as soon as possible.”
I propose to put up definite proposal for consideration by the Health Ministers conference which is going to meet shortly etc.
As a result of this communication from the D.G.H.S. three meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee were held; and the Committee discussed the following items and came to unanimous decisions regarding the same:
1. Training of Homoeopaths.
2. Research in Homoeopathy.
3. Standardisation of homoeopathic drugs.
4. Regulation of the practice of homoeopathy.
5. Utilisation of homoeopaths in health services.
6. Establishment of the Central Council of Homoeopathy.
7. Training of Homoeopaths:
(A) Undergraduate Training.
There should be only one course of training, viz., a five years degree course in homoeopathy made up of 42 years for basic and hospital studies and 6 months internship.
The candidates eligible for admission to the proposed degree-course in homoeopathy should pass Intermediate science (University standard) with Chemistry, Physics and Biology.
The 42 years course should be in two parts, namely.
(a) Pre-clinical studies for 2 years
and (b) Clinical studies for 22 years.
The following subjects were approved for pre-clinical years:-
3. Elementary Pharmacology and Homoeopathic Materia Medica.
The 22 years of clinical studies would comprise the following subjects:-
3. Midwifery and Gynaecology.
4. Hygiene and Medical Jurisprudence.
5. Pathology and Bacteriology.
6. Homoeopathic Materia Medica, Therapeutics and Repertorization.
7. Organon and Homoeopathic Philosophy. Examinations:- An intermediate examination will be held at the end of two years of pre-clinical studies, the subjects for the examination being: Anatomy, Physiology and Elementary Pharmacology. It was recommended that the final examination should be in two parts. For part 1 the subjects should be Hygiene, Pathology and Bacteriology, and Medical Jurisprudence. These examination should take place one year after the Intermediate Examination. For part II in the remaining subjects, viz., Medicine, Surgery, Midwifery and Gynaecology, Homoeopathic Materia Medica and Therapeutics including Repertorization and Homoeopathic Philosophy, the examination should be taken at the end of 42 years of study.
Curriculum: The Committee considered in detail the draft syllabus drawn up by the members and approved the same.
In order to provide adequate facilities for such training the committee would suggest that
(i) the three existing homoeopathic colleges affiliated to the Homoeopathic State Faculty. W.B. at Calcutta should be amalgamated into one, pooling their resources in men and material. It is understood that the teaching staff of the institution shall, in the clinical section, consist of qualified practising Homoeopaths.
(ii) Other existing homoeopathic colleges in Lucknow, Gudivada and Midnapore should also be upgraded to give effect to this type of training;
(iii) any new homoeopathic institution which may be established, must possess adequate facilities to give the training of the degree standard and according to the draft syllabus:
(iv) The amalgamation of the College in Calcutta and the upgrading of the three other institutions should be completed within a period of five years and the authorities concerned should take such steps as are necessary to achieve this end. It was pointed out that the institutions would require financial help for such upgrading. It was agreed that the authorities concerned should submit detailed proposals for the upgrading programme together with their requests for financial aid to the State Governments concerned. The Chairman stated that if requests for financial aid from the centre were received they would be given due consideration.
B. Postgraduate training. The Committee agreed that there should be at least one College for giving post-graduate training in homoeopathy both to homoeopaths as well as graduates of medicine. The Committees view was that, to start with, the proposed HOmoeopathic College in Bombay should be developed as early as possible for the purpose. There should be two courses of post-graduate training, each of one years duration viz, (i) for homoeopaths who had taken the basic qualification from recognised homoeopathic institutions, and (ii) for graduates in modern medicine. The college authorities should submit proposals to the State Government for grant in aid for this development.
The Committee considered the programme of research submitted by the members of the Ad Hoc Committee and it was agreed that out of the subjects listed, research on the following should be undertaken early and that a sum not less than Rs. 5 lakhs should be provided for this purpose:-
1. Use of recent methods of Encephalography.
2. Combined clinical and laboratory research.
3. Drug provings.
4. Preventive measures according to homoeopathic principles for combo infections diseases.
3. Standardisation of Homoeopathic Drugs.
The Committee agreed that pending the establishment of a separate institution for the purpose of manufacture and standardisation of Homoeopathic drugs the existing well-equipped Homoeopathic institutions should be entrusted with this work by augmenting wherever necessary, the existing facilities and equipment, particularly in respect of testing mother tinctures and for rendering such help as is required to the indigenous manufacture of the homoeopathic drugs. It may be necessary to depute suitably qualified students for specialised training abroad in this field.
4. Regulation of the practice of Homoeopathy.
The Committee was of opinion that immediate steps should be taken to introduce a system of registration for the regulation of practice of homoeopathy for avoidance of quackery and for the prohibition of the award of degrees and diplomas or issues or certificates by any except by institutions recognised for the purpose.
5. Utilisation of Homoeopaths in Health Services.
The Committee was of the view that utilisation of homoeopathic graduates, who have completed training for degree course, should be considered for employment in health services. However, those who have received training only of diploma course in recognised institutions, may be considered for employment only after they have had further training for one year in clinical subjects and in preventive medicines.
6. The establishment of the Central Council of Homoeopathy.
The Committee discussed the question of the establishment of a Central Council for Homoeopathy in all its aspects and reviewed the arguments put forward for it including those mentioned in the Homoeopathic Enquiry Committees Report. The Committee was of opinion that pending the establishment of a Central Council an advisory Committee should be constituted by the D.G. to advise him on all matters concerning the Homoeopathic system of medicine as for example, education, regulation of professional practice, control of Homoeopathic Pharmaceuticals and research.
This resume sets forth the present position of Homoeopathy vis-a-vis the Central and State Governments. The improvement of Homoeopathy depends on the establishment and running of fully equipped Homoeopathic institutions and hospitals attached thereto which will turn out complete homoeopathic physicians. It is for the first time that we have been able to secure the assurance from the Central Govt, about financial aid for the proposed homoeopathic institution and Research as well as about Utilisation of only qualified Homoeopathic practitioners in all Health Services.
It is our considered opinion that it is possible only at Calcutta to start a fully equipped Homoeopathic institution where the teaching staff, in the clinical section, may be manned by practising homoeopaths qualified from recognised institutions; and this is possible only if the three existing Calcutta Homoeopathic institutions (affiliated to the Homoeopathic State Faculty, West Bengal) are amalgamated into one, pooling their resources in men and material. The three existing Homoeopathic Colleges are all public institutions. They are governed by their respective Associations which are registered under the Joint Stock Companys Act 21 of 1860. No particular individual or a group of individuals possess any vested interest in it.
It surpasses our understanding what stand in the way of amalgamation of these institutions on the face of such a grand opportunity that has presented itself for the cause of Homoeopathy and Homoeopathic practitioners. The future of Homoeopathy stands at a cross-road; our attitude and line of action might make or mar the destiny of such a superb system of Healing Art. Let it not be said that we were weighed in the balance and found wanting. Let not posterity point their disdainful finger at us who might be accused of failing to rise up to the occasion. Time and tide wait for no man and we should take time by the forelock if we do not wish to miss the bus.
Our appeal to the authorities of the Homoeopathic institutions concerned, will, we hope, not go in vain. The whole homoeopathic profession, the students of homoeopathy and even the lay public-should all put their shoulders to the wheel to get the car of homoeopathy going smoothly on its triumphant march to reach its destined goal. Bengal is the home of homoeopathy in India and the burden of responsibility on the shoulders of the Bengalee homoeopaths is too precious to throw it away. If such an unfortunate thing come to pass history will condemn us, posterity will not forgive us and the soul of Hahnemann will turn in his grave and curse us to eternal damnation. Friends, beware!
We will be failing in our duty it we do not mention the signal services rendered by Dr. J.N. Majumdar to the cause of homoeopathy and the active and leading part taken by him in the deputations to Central Health Minister and participation in the deliberations with the planning Commission and Ad Hoc Committee under the chairmanship of D.G.H.S.
$ Concepts Of Health And Disease With Reference To Psychosomatic Medicine [Concepts Of Health And Disease With Reference To Psychosomatic Medicine].
The Homoeopathic Herald By Das N C.
# 1953 Nov Vol 14 No 8.
^ Bomford R R.
~ Philosophy and discussion.
“Literature of “Psychosomatic Medicine”.
The literature on so-called psychosomatic medicine – I shall come back to that term later – is already considerable, and I shall not attempt to review more than a very little of it, partly because such an attempt would need to occupy at least several lectures, and partly because I believe it would be unprofitable. For I suspect that a persons attitude to what may be called the psychosomatic method in medicine depends less on an intellectual evaluation of the literature than on his attitude to neurosis.
Just as an overtly neurotic patient tends to arouse irrational feelings in most of us, so does the suggestion that illness, needless to say in ourselves as well as in our patients, can be fully explained only when psychological and physical factors are taken into account. We resist this suggestion as applied to ourselves, and we tend to deny it in our patients.
Earlier I quoted an article by Pickering (1950) in which he dismissed what he called the psychosomatic hypothesis in a few lines on the ground that the small amount of critically established fact on which it was based could be explained in other ways. But in doing this he makes an assumption: he assumes, it seems to me, that a satisfactory account of the causation of disease states, or some of them has been, or can be, given in purely physical terms; and that it therefore behoves those who are interested in the so-called psychosomatic hypothesis to prove their case by proving critically established fact.
But this is a big assumption, and I would ask those who make it to consider carefully in how many chronic diseases can they give a satisfactory account of the aetiology in purely physical terms? We come to nearest to giving such an account, I suppose in nutritional deficiencies and in certain chronic infections, where again one factor in the environment is of particular importance. But is that factor, even in these instances, the whole story? A great deal is known, for instance, the whole story?
A great deal is known, for instance, about the tubercle bacillus; but can we really explain on humoral grounds why some people become ill with tuberculosis while others do not, and, of those who do become ill, why in some the process is a arrested while in others it is not? I doubt if we can, and I believe that studies of personal factors which may be concerned in the onset and course of tuberculosis such as those of Wittkower (1949) and of Day (1951, 1952), even though they do not amount to “Critically established fact”, are still of great interest and importance in this connection.
I would like to suggest that we may equally, and indeed with much more reason, start from the historically older and philosophically more satisfactory assumption that illness is a state of the whole man – in the sense that it is a state of a body-mind unity, and ask those who doubt the importance of psychosomatic method to establish their case by giving a satisfactory account in purely physical terms of the aetiology of even one of the chronic conditions which are at present described as of unknown aetiology. Peptic ulceration, ulcerative colitis, hypertension with all its sequelae , rheumatoid arthritis, and asthma to name but a few, await such an explanation.
But, it may be said, since rheumatoid arthritis can now be dramatically if not completely relieved by supplying the substance cortisone, we can surely regard rheumatoid arthritis as a purely physical abnormality, curable by physical means. And doesnt this make the complicated and difficult psychosomatic approach unnecessary?
Those who use this kind of argument are confusing mechanism with aetiology. The discovery of cortisone and A.C.T.H. has brilliantly illuminated, or bids fair to illuminate, the physico- chemical mechanism of rheumatoid arthritis amongst other things, but it has brought us no nearer being able to answer the question why a given person is taken ill with rheumatoid arthritis or how this illness can be prevented – just as the discovery of insulin and vitamin B12 had led to very great advances in our knowledge of the physico-chemical mechanism of diabetes and pernicious anaemia without telling us why some people develop these conditions or how they may be prevented.
Medicine in undergraduate teaching schools, as Halliday puts it, has shown hitherto a distinctly mechanismic bias, in the sense that it has devoted enormous energy to the explanation of the mechanism of disease in physico-chemical terms, relatively less to the environment, and still less to the person. But there are signs that this is changing. There have been, for instance, numerous psychological studies of personality types in different illnesses, notably the very extensive contributions of Dunbar (1943), and her colleagues from the psychiatric and medical divisions of Columbia University.
My own feeling is that these and other personality studies, though of great interest, are somewhat inconclusive in that they seem to depend so greatly on the subjective interpretations of the observer, and it remains to be seen whether independent observers will always find the same personality types or range of types in the same illnesses. At the same time a start has been made on the more accurate study of physical types by means of Sheldons method of somato-typing (Tanner, 1949).
To my mind the outstanding recent contribution to the study of man, rather than mechanism, has been the work of Wolf, Wolff, and their colleagues and Cornell University Medical Colleges, over that last 10 to 15 years.
For details of their methods and results one must read at least their two monographs (Wolf and Wolff, 1943; Grace, Wolf, and Wolff, 1951). Very briefly, one patient with a gastrostomy and four with prolapsed colonic mucosa were studied over considerable periods. The rate of blood flow, as judged by colour changes in the mucosa, and secretory and motor activity of the stomach and colon were measured in a variety of circumstances, and notes made on the effect upon them of ordinary physiological stimuli, of drugs, of the patients life situation, and sometimes of emotionally coloured happenings, either occurring spontaneously or provoked deliberately during the course of the experiments.
I believe these are important studies for several reasons. They were performed on man, and intact man, except for the accident by which either gastric or colonic mucosa was visible. Instead of trying to standardize the conditions of their experiment by avoiding the complication of using conscious human subjects, or by what might be called eliminating the human factor, these observers standardized all the other conditions of their experiments so far as possible and deliberately set out to study, among other things, the effects on the stomach and colon of human situations and emotions.
What emotion the subjects were actually experiencing in the different experimental situation had, of course, to be inferred. But, given that the authors inferences were substantially correct, their results are of the greatest interest. I would like to mention one or two points which seem particularly relevant to my lecture. In an animal preparation the actions of a drug are usually constant and predictable. In these observations on man there are several instances where this was not so, and there the actual effect of a drug appeared to depend not on its pharmacological action but on the meanings of its administration to the particular subject.
This is seen most clearly in the account of the effects of the intravenous administration of atropine on the colon in three of the subjects with colostomies. In two subjects who were thought to be in a state of relative security and relaxation the injections were accepted with apparent equanimity, and their effect was a profound decrease in motor activity of the colon and some blanching of the colour of the mucosa, as would be expected on pharmacological grounds.
In a third subject, who resented the experiment, the same intravenous dose of atropine was followed by a great increase in motor activity and in colour of the mucosa – changes which had been found previously in states of anger – and, though the atropine produced its expected effects on the salivary secretion and circulatory system, at no time was there any pallor or diminution in the motor activity of the colon. It appears that in this instance the physiological effect of the resentment aroused by the injection of the drug predominated over its expected pharmacological effect.
This observation is in fact a particular instance of something which appears throughout these studies – namely, the important and often predominant effect on the subjects gastric and colonic function of the relationship existing at the time between the observer and the subject or, in more general terms, the physician and the patient.
Another point I would like to mention is the authors finding that the colonic changes in anger and hostility were greatest in the two of the four patients who had conspicuous difficulty in expressing their feelings (and these incidentally were the two of the four patients who suffered from ulcerative colitis). This again only confirms what has long been held by psychiatrists, but the demonstration that the actual changes in the colon were greatest in those who appeared to be suppressing their anger in new and impressive.
I believe this study is important not only for its content, but because it represents a new departure – the measurement changes in function in the organs of man, in health and disease, in relation to life situations and emotional states. It may well be the beginning of a new chapter in our understanding of illness.
It seems inescapable that sooner or later we shall come, or indeed we shall be driven by the economic pressure of the cost of sickness, to regard the prevention of disease and promotion of health as more important than the curative or more often palliative medicine to which at present we devote so much more attention. One of the main difficulties seems to be that we have no clear idea of what constitutes health. So far as I can remember, health was not mentioned when I was a student.
The mechanismic view of disease which was then the rule left no room for a concept of health, other than in terms of no disease. Just as a machine which was in working order ran, so the body was regarded as healthy so long as there was no break-down or disease. But good health is something more than no disease, and we can all recognize it when we see it, even though we cannot say just what constitutes it or how to go about getting it. I believe it is our professions lack of concept of health, other than as a state of no disease, that leaves the way open for widespread exploitation of the average persons natural desire to enjoy as good health as he can.
My object in raising this question is not to attempt to settle the meaning of health. We are asked to believe, indeed, that this has already been done by the World Health Organization, which has laid it down in most authoritative and uncompromising terms that “health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being; and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity”. Here, adds its Director-General, as a kind of warning to meddlesome intruder, is one word concerning the meaning of which the dictionaries will not have to worry from now on (Brock chisholm, 1949).
I need not spend time on this definition (with its necessary implication that all of us are sick, since none of us enjoy complete physical, mental and social well-being), because it has already been ably examined and criticized by Curran (1952). With all deference to the Director-General of the World Health Organization, I believe we are still far from a satisfactory idea of what constitutes health.
The Oxford Dictionary defines health first as “soundness of body; that condition in which its functions are duly discharged”, and gives as a further meaning “spiritual, moral or mental soundness”. I imagine it would be generally agreed that health cannot be fully explained in physical terms, and, whatever opinion we hold about disease health is certainly psychosomatic.
One of the most interesting discussions of health and disease I know of, occurs in a small book by Crew (1949) on Public and Personal Hygiene. After pointing out that the individual must be capable of adjusting himself to the conditions and circumstances of his external physical and social worlds, he defines health “as that state of the individual in which harmony exists between the various component parts of himself and between the individual as a whole and the circumstances and condition of his external world”.
This definition is a distinct advance, but does not seem entirely satisfactory for at least two reasons: first, no one enjoys complete harmony either in himself or with his external world; and, secondly health is not so much a state of harmony as the product of a process of continuous adaptation or adjustment, by which a reasonable degree of harmony is maintained. The nearest I can get to an explanation of health – I would not say a definition – is that a persons health depends first on the constitution he is born with, and then on the success he has in constantly adjusting either himself to his environment or his environment to himself, so that a reasonable degree of harmony is maintained both within himself and between himself and the social and material world in which he lives.
But my object is raising this question was not to attempt to settle the meaning of health. It was to point out the need for such a concept, and some of the difficulties in formulating it – difficulties which are, I believe, intimately connected with the questions that I have been discussing. It is no accident that academic medicine has no concept of health; for the mechanismic idea of disease leaves no room for one, other than in terms of no disease, which is clearly inadequate.
I would now like to try to pull together some of the apparently disconnected threads of my discursive and eclectic review of some changing concepts in medicine.
Thinking in medicine seems too often to be based on unexamined or insufficiently examined assumptions. It seems often to be taken for granted, for instance, as I have tried to point out, that we can usefully study diseases rather than diseased persons; that all disease or most diseases can be explained in terms of direct mechanical cause and effect; and that diseases can be divided into physical and psychological, with the implication that so-called physical diseases can be studied and treated satisfactorily by exclusively physical methods. In general these individual assumptions add up to a main one, that disease – no one seems to have worried much about health – can be explained in mechanismic or physico-chemical terms.
The rise of so-called psychosomatic medicine, which in America appears already to have assumed very considerable proportions, can best be regarded in a social sense as a revolt against this main assumption; and it is significant that this revolt has coincided with a growing tendency among some physical scientists to question how much their methods can be expected to explain. Strictly, as I have also tried to emphasize, there can be no such thing as psychosomatic disease, for these terms involve a confusion between the methods of examination and the objects of study.
Health and disease are necessarily psychosomatic, so there cannot be part of medicine or some diseases which are psychosomatic. What the psychosomatic method does insists or rather reiterates, for its teachings are as old as medicine is that in health and disease man must be studied by both physical and psychological methods. It is perfectly true that, in some, much information may be given by physical and little by psychological methods, and in others much by psychological and little by physical methods; but we must not be tempted to conclude from this that there are physical diseases and psychological diseases.
It is often assumed that there is an antithesis of some kind between science and art in medicine. If one were to hazard a guess, a time will come when this too will be regarded as having been a mistaken assumption. When this has happened we shall recognize sciences of pathology, pharmacology, experimental medicine, and so on (for many aspects of disease are explicable in terms of mechanism); and possibly a science of psychology. But strictly clinical medicine will, I believe, regarded neither as an art nor as a science in itself, but as a special kind of relationship between two persons, a doctor and a patient. It will be recognized that this relationship is the essential feature of clinical medicine; and that the degree of success that it has depends, as in other human affairs, on the skill with which both science and art are called to its aid.
$ Appendicitis [Appendicitis].
The Homoeopathic Herald By Das N C.
# 1953 Nov Vol 14 No 8.
^ Bose N C.
` Lach / Lyco / Puls / Med / Sulph / Nux-v.
Appendicitis is a sycotic disease. It is caused by deficient peristaltic movements of the intestines. Unhealthy intestine cannot evacuate faeces properly and some particles of faeces enter inside the appendix and rot there, hence the inflammation comes on. A sincere physicians duty is to find out the cause of the disease and treat the patient to make his intestines healthy. If the peristaltic movement is restored entered faeces come out of the appendix and the patient improves all-round.
We have nothing to do with the name of the disease as it often misguides us. Our one correct remedy according to symptoms can cure the pain, either it is in gall-bladder or in duodenum or in appendix or in colons. It is not quackary. Cure is definitely better than diagnosis. Nobody should ignore the fact. Sometimes gall-bladder pain is referred to appendix region and Allopaths diagnose it as appendicitis and remove the appendix. But the pain continues. They realize their mistake soon and declare that the trouble is in the gall-bladder and so on.
Stomach pain is relieved by eating from Allopathic point of view, indicates, ulceration in the stomach, as the acid hydrochloric irritates the affected part in empty stomach and the food when taken absorbs the acid and so the pain stops. We need not bother about the name of the disease; our LYCO-200 can stop this pain in no time.
10M – CM.
Better in sea climate
Pain in liver region.
Pain in appendix region. Black stool.
Over sensitiveness to touch.
Downwards pressure of internal organs
Yellowish coating on the middle of tongue.
Stool mixed with mucus. Never get done feeling.
Cannot digest fat, the best medicine to tone-up the intestines.
Pre-history of malaria,
Most of these medicines I have used myself and I have tried on patients successfully.
Cina is a good medicine for disordered alimentary canal, worms are present there.
A staunch Homoeopathy may oppose to specify medicine according to disease. But that is not true. All famous Homoeopaths have there specifics. of course, based on experience. Experience should be published for the interest of the scientific advancement of Homoeopathy.
A few cases of acute Appendicitis:-
(1) Feroj, age 14, admitted on 17-11-50 at 6 P.M. No motion for 3 days, constant pain on the whole abdomen, XRayed by an Allopath who called him for operation, but the boys mother did not like that idea so he was brought to me.
Lyco 200, after about 15 minutes the pain increased, he was compelled to bend double due to the pain which passed off after a few minutes. The pain became intermittent. I sent him home where he got clear stool at about 8 P.M. The colour of the stool was brown. The pain was recurring at long intervals.
Lach 30. Two doses at one hours interval.
Lach 200. On 18-11-50. in the morning. No pain.
Lach 1M. On 20-11-50. So far he is keeping good health.
(2) Mrs. F, age 24, mother of three children, the last child she delivered a month before. I was called at 3 A.M. ON 28-6-49. She was rolling on bed due to pain with frequent urging for stool which was a little only Nux-Vom. 30. No relief. Time 15 minutes.
Lyco. 30. No relief. Time 15 minutes.
Lach. 30. The pain suddenly stopped for a few minutes to my great surprise. I left another two doses of Lach. 30 to be given at one hours interval and returned. Evening news was complete relief.
Lach 200. On the next morning. Lach 1M. after a week. No further attack so far.
(3) Mr. Prem, age 22. Pain in the abdomen accompanied with diarrhoea, vomiting and temp.-101. Cause meat. Admitted at 5 P.M. (23-11-51) Nux-vom. 30. two doses followed by Lyco. 30 two doses for the whole night.
24-11-51. Morning temp. 98. No vomiting, no motion. Lyco 200.
25-11-51. Sulph 200 in the morning Lach. 200 in the afternoon. Cured.
(4) A. L. age 26, a doctors dilemma. He was Xrayed 5 times and
was under observation for a month in a local Hospital. The Surgeon could not find anything wrong with the Appendix and the treatment to relieve his agonizing pain in the abdomen was of no use.
He came to me on 5-9-52. Dirty yellowish tongue, stomach was full of wind, no clear stool for the last few weeks.
Lyco. 200 at 7-30 P.M. and Nux-vom. 30 at night. He reported the next day that night was better.
6-9-52. Nux-vom 30 two doses, four hourly.
12-9-52. Sulph. 200 in the morning, Nux-vom 30 in the evening.
He felt slightly better.
6-9-52. Nux-vom 1M. No change.
23-9-52. Lach. 1M. Very good result obtained.
7-10-52. Lach 1M. No trouble at all.
24-10-52. Hepar Sulph. 200 for sore throat. No better.
27-10-52. Lach 10M. For the same.
5-11-52. Puls. was given because all old symptoms returned after eating fat food. Puls gave relief of stomach complaint but he developed a new Back pain (Kidney region).
8-11-52. Medo. CM. Little better
6-2-53. Puls 10M. Flatulence after eating fat food.
24-3-53. Medo. CM. to avoid constipation as well as Medo. is his constitutional remedy.
$ Polio Aborted With Remedies [Polio Aborted With Remedies].
The Homoeopathic Herald By Das N C.
# 1953 Nov Vol 14 No 8.
^ Wilbur K Bond.
Case I – Master Morris M., aged 8, of Richmond, Indiana, suddenly became ill with high fever of 105* during the terrible epidemic of polio last August. He had a stiff neck, headaches, weakness, vomiting and was unable to walk. Lathyrus sativa 1M was given.
Then the case unexpectedly passed out of my hands and the local doctor made much ado about the whole set-up, hospitalized the child, quarantined the family, and did a spinal tap. Cell count showed 800 lymphocytes. The child was kept under observation, and nothing was done. Much to the dismay of the doctor, the case was cleared up on the second day. The child crawled out of bed and walked down the hall. He was discharged in 1 week (they had to keep him that long to “save face”).
Case II – Tommy M., aged 7, brother of the above patient. Two days after the first case got home, he developed the same symptoms. Lathyrus sativa was given and the child was kept quiet. This time the mother did not become embroiled in much a serious muddle with the local doctor and hospital. The child was able to play the next day. He was cleared up and out of doors three days later.
Case III – Marion S., aged 6. High fever (104), vomiting, pain in cervical spine and occiput, bloodshot eyes, and incoherent talking. Lathyrus sat., 1M had been given two weeks prior as a preventive. Case aborted next day. His little brother had the same experience at the same time. Three other children not affected. All had received Lathyrus two weeks prior as a preventive. Mind you, this all took place in one of the worst epidemics the country has seen last August in Richmond, Indiana.
Case IV – A child of a Mrs. E., one afternoon, received Lathyrus as a preventive because he complained of a stiff neck, high fever, leg cramps, and a headache in the presence of a severe epidemic. He went home and promptly proceeded to grow worse. Alarmed as they were, the neighborhood doctor was called in and the child was immediately hospitalized. Spinal fluid showed Polio. Again befuddled by the mysterious working powers of the potency, they were compelled to discharge the patient within a couple of days. He walked out of the hospital well. Now the younger brother had fever, but nothing developed. The interesting contrast here is that on the same street, there was another severe case of Polio who had not had the services of a homoeopath. I heard indirectly from the mother of my case that this other case had to stay in the hospital for six weeks and then came out a partial cripple. A man and his wife on the same street were non-protected; they both died.
I have always used Lathyrus as a preventive in hundreds of families and during bad epidemics too; and as yet, I have my first case of Polio to see progress to a dangerous stage. Ive had 100 percent recovery and that many aborted cases.
DR. ROGER A. SCHMIDT (San Francisco. Calif.]: Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate Dr. Bond on those very illustrative cases and on the results he got with Lathyrus.
We have had some cases of polio on the Pacific Coast. I dont believe that they were, by far, as extensive and as serious as they were in the Middle West. We have had a number of cases, incipient cases, lets call them that, that were probably aborted but not confirmed, as far as diagnosis is concerned, except for the pain in the neck and the other features, fever and so on. although I never used Lathyrus in those cases, they have cleared up pretty nicely and quickly with Gelsemium in the very early stage of the disease.
But this brings me back to the very early days of my practice, maybe twenty-five or twenty-eight years ago, when, as a young doctor in Geneva, Switzerland, I took care of a case of polio which had at that time been a rather rare affair, a man of thirty years of age who got a very severe case of it, in fact going to the point of unconsciousness. I called in consultation the other homoeopathic doctor that was there at that time, Duprez (my brother wasnt there at the time). who advised me to give him Muriatic acid.
I think the indication was, and I never forgot it, that you get terrifically dizzy as he was turning on the right side in the bed, and he had all the other features, of course, of profound prostration; in fact, he was a very, very sick man, but he pulled out of it. We didnt give any Lathyrus at that time. He pulled out of it, in fact, quite rapidly, with only a moderate degree of residual paralysis in the left leg.
And the interesting feature is, at the same time when that man became sick, another one in the town got sick also and was treated by the professor of medicine, the head of the medical faculty of the Geneva Medical School. That man had the privilege to have not only that doctor to attend to him but many others called in consultation.
Following the course of his disease, he didnt die but he was very severely crippled, and for years later had to use crutches to walk, whereas the patient I attended, married just a year after he had contracted the disease and was able to dance the day of his marriage, with his bride.
DR. LAURA B. HURD [San Francisco, Calif.]: I would like to ask Dr. Bond what potency he gave the lathyrus and how he administered it.
DR. BOND; In the 1M.
DR. CARL H. ENSTAM [Los Angeles, Calif.]: Where there any characteristic symptoms of the epidemic in Indiana at that time?
DR. BOND: That looked like the characteristic epidemic remedy, as far as I could determine.
DR. R.S. FARIS [Richmond, Va.]: Did you use the 1M as the preventive?
DR. BOND: Yes.
DR. FARIS: Give it more than once? Did you repeat it as a preventive?
DR. BOND: As a rule, I just gave one powder. Sometimes I gave three or four powders, with instructions during an epidemic to take a repeat on it in a couple of weeks, if the epidemic was still raging.
DR. A.W. HOLCOMBE [Kokomo, Ind.]: It seems to me that I am monopolizing a good deal of time here. I have seen but two cases of polio, one a young fellow about fourteen years old, and I have forgotten now what I gave him because that was fifty years ago, but he still has a little limp.
But what I want to tell you more about is a homoeopathic doctor over at Monticello, a town about forty-five miles northwest of me. He is a very busy man. I had a patient from there that came over about every three or four weeks, a lady optometrist.
One time she came over and I said, “How is Doctor So-and-so?”
She said, “Doctor is paralyzed.”
I said, “How long ago has that been?”
“He has been in bed for weeks. He had polio. He cant move, cant get out of bed.
“Well,” I said, “you have his wife call me up and let me find out about it. Homoeopaths are too scarce in Indiana to have them laid up. They have to get out and do their business.”
She called me up. I went over and I said, “Have you any Lathyrus?”
She said, “No. What is it?”
I said, “It is my prescription for you husband.”
I sent her the thirtieth. I think I sent five powders to take night and morning. Always give an odd number of doses.
I said, “You report to me in about two weeks.”
Well, in two weeks she called me up and said the doctor was resting better and he could move his limbs a little bit in bed; he couldnt get out of bed, however. So I sent him five powders of Lathyrus 200th, and that got him out of bed.
Then a little later I gave him 1000th and, later, the 10,000th. The last time I heard he was out doing his work just as well as he ever did.
It is wonderful what Lathyrus will do in the case of polio. Gelsemium is good in polio, if it covers the condition.
DR. ALLAN D. SUTHERLAND [Brattleboro, Vt.]: Mr. Chairman, I have had two cases of polio, and my record is extremely poor.
The first case was a married woman with five children, who developed the disease and became completely paralyzed from her waist down. At the same time she began to miscarry, being about five months pregnant. Nux vomica helped her through that rather trying time. She is still paralyzed; has had two pregnancies since, which have had to be terminated by caesarean section, because she has absolutely no abdominal muscles at all. We felt she wouldnt be able to carry through the second stage of labor successfully with no abdominal muscles since she has a little difficulty even in delivering a stool. But she is cheerful and relatively happy and thinks she is lucky to be alive, because she was really quite sick.
The second case was a fourteen-year-old girl who developed, first, paralysis in the limbs and eventually a paralysis of the diaphragm and chest muscle, and expired. The homoeopathic remedy seemed not to help. It was probably the fault of her homoeopathic physician rather than of the system under which he practised, and he felt pretty badly about that.
DR. BOND [closing]: I have nothing much more to say except there are, of course, other good remedies. Lathyrus has just been my champion remedy most of the time.
I did have one case that came in with very high, burning fever and responded very nicely to Belladonna, and no further remedy was needed. I am still waiting for that Curare case when we get a bulbar type of polio. $ Sulphur [Sulphur].
The Homoeopathic Herald By Das N C.
# 1953 Nov Vol 14 No 8.
^ Jacob Genis.
~ Materia Medica.
On studying Sulphur one finds that each writer enlarged upon that part of its vast symptomatology that appealed to or impressed him most. So we find in Kent his “ragged philosopher” concept overshadowing many of the other fine mental symptoms of this great remedy. Nash, on the other hand, accentuates its characteristic burning.
It is easy in treating on a remedy like Sulphur to become somewhat of a philosopher onself, because, to this writers mind, there is no other remedy in the materia medica, that provides one with better food for thought. Writing the symptomatology of Sulphur, one virtually writes the story of Mankind, more or less. Portions of the Sulphur picture are to be found amongst the “highest” and the “lowest.” In it is written the story of the different stages of the evolution of Man.
The study of Sulphur leads one immediately to observe its very well-marked essentials, viz. (a) Its rather outstanding and definite mental symptoms; (b) very characteristic skin reactions; (c) secretions, and exudations; (d) tissue reactions; and (e) its circulatory disturbances.
In dealing with anybody, proper relations should start with proper introduction. Sulphur should, I think, always be introduced first of all by its rich mental symptomatology.
When meeting the Sulphur individual anywhere there is immediately to the knower of mankind a striking personality, whether he is a chatterbox from the “back streets,” a socialite, a university professor, a poet, a philosopher, a scientist, a religious dignitary, an iconoclast, a recluse or merely a hobo, or the “dirtman” or street cleaner. He is, on closer study, always a singularly “different” type, and is often revered or despised by his fellow men because of this difference. Whether he is of the lowly group or of the higher, he always insists on having his own ideas about things, and says so; or he stays silently aloof from the world around him.
Masculinity is a strongly-marked feature of this personality; not the so-called “he-man” variety, but rather does this individual give this impression through the uttered word, his reserve, or his appearance, which, even in rags, may have an air of philosophic nobility.
Sulphur is seldom concerned with what the world around him thinks of him; he is more concerned with what he thinks of the world. So, if he is gifted and developed personality, he could quite easily become the great and revered leader. Or again, if he should be the lower type of mentality, he may be nothing more than an egoistic chatterbox and nuisance.
It has been said that the Sulphur individual is selfish, and this is true, but in this writers experience, more in so far as his opinions, his concepts, and his accomplishments are concerned. As far as his worldly goods are concerned, he may be most generous and unselfish. This is the type who could probably sell what he has and give it to the poor so that he could follow a great ideal, even as many of the worlds great religious leaders, reformers, philanthropists artists, scientists and philosophers have done. Sulphur is always somewhat of an iconoclast and fanatic.
There is a certain degree of perseverance about Sulphur which deserves mention, because it is quite unusual. He can seldom persevere when it comes to hard physical expenditure of energy, but can reveal an amazing doggedness when it comes to a mental pursuit. Sometimes, and especially when his line of thinking delves into the greater mysteries of existence and being, this can lead to often apparently foolish conclusions of a supposed solution of these mysteries, or else end in aimless brooding and speculation. This maze of contradictory possibilities may drive him into deep religious or philosophic melancholia and despair, or else he may become cynical and atheistic, or again he may meekly decide to accept the whole business as Fate, Karma, or the will of God and not to be questioned.
The Sulphur personality is often endowed with an amazing memory, but, strangely enough, not for the names of other people, unless they are authorities on his own particular interests. This may be due to the fact that he considers few people important enough to remember their names at all.
Sulphur is usually a dirty persons, not very careful about washing and changing clothes; as a matter of fact, there may be a distinct aversion to washing, and many Sulphur skins are aggravated from washing. And yet, on the other hand, this individual may make a fetish of cleanliness. To some Sulphur types filthy smells, or places, or talk may be very obnoxious, although the opposite may be just as true. Amongst Sulphur types one may find the practitioners of a very ancient form of autotherapy, namely the taking internally of their own urine and faeces for medicinal purposes. Or these people may be advocates of such practices. And again young children may eat the dried secretions from their noses or excreta. Sometimes these same practice are observed amongst the demented.
With some of these people, organized education means nothing. They are either too lazy to study or believe that education is not such a wonderful asset at all. They often suffer from what one may term the “arrogance of ignorance.” Yet with many more there is a great thirst for knowledge, but often their studies concern subjects not ordinarily followed, or lead into the extraordinary, the abstruse, the peculiar. The philosophic student will usually follow up one of the mystic or esoteric branches of philosophy.
In this search for a solution of the riddle of the universe, he may give up all practical considerations of the everyday duties that life enjoined upon him, forget about his person, the necessities of his family and dependents. Kent considered this selfishness, but the fact is, that it seldom enters his mind that he is selfish. He is probably fully aware of the conditions to which his dependents are subjected, but he can hardly do anything about it, because he feels that his search or research is a great necessity for the benefit of Mankind at large, and so is often is. So did many a religious aspirant, a philosopher, a scientist, an artist work, or locked himself into seclusion to do just this.
So did Karl Marx toil away at his controversial philosophy, amidst squalor and want, with his family in abject misery and without the amenities and comforts of everyday life. It is related that he developed many boils, was careless in his writing, as well as rather unclean. He had an inflated opinion of himself, was pitted against all those better off, and who perhaps worked much harder for what they had. As a scientific experiment for the exhibition of Sulphur in high potency, his life story sounds very interesting!
This type is also a very easy borrower of money, books, just about anything, but, whereas other types will make an effort to return the borrowed things, or else borrowed with the dishonest intention of never returning, the Sulphur person has every intention of doing so some day, but seldom does. He just keeps on forgetting the obligation.
If there is also one who believes that the world owes him a living, it is this one. He is often peevish, almost childish in his expectations and complainings. It is written in the symptomatology that Sulphur is “a hopeful dreamer.” It is true that with may Sulphur types “there is always tomorrow.” This should not be such a bad trait, but, where as with others there may be an active effort to make “tomorrow” better, not so with this one. He just hopes from day to day, does not bestir himself, and quite often believes in Fate, in luck, or for some miracle to happen which will alleviate his lot.
A listed symptom of this remedy: “thinks rags beautiful,” is, I am afraid, somewhat ambiguous, unless more circumscribed. It is not necessarily to be taken that the Sulphur person will look at a piece of rag with ecstasy, unless he is utterly insane. It is rather a peculiar mental ability acquired by deep philosophic speculation and introspection that gives the power to see past and through the sordid appearances of Life and find that underneath it all is a greater reality which is innately beautiful. This, peculiarly, is the experience of many artists, thinkers, religious men and others who have gone through the terrible struggle between reality and unreality.