| The well accomplished cure of a case of cerebro-spinal
meningitis in the Homoeopathic Hospital at Leipzig, by the use of
Zincum cyanatum, brings the question to our mind, if the use of
such compound remedies [as is of late frequently done on the part
of homoeopathic physicians] is in accordance with the principles
of homoeopathy, which tell us that to cure diseases only such remedies
should be used as had been proven on healthy persons. And may we
adopt such substances as Arsen. jodat., Stibium arsenic., Ammon.
brom., Calc. brom., Ferrum hydrobrom., Natrum subsulph., etc., as
our remedies?
The strict followers of Hahnemann will decidedly deny this question.
They will argue that the remedies in this composition had not been
tried on healthy persons, and that it had not been proven that they
unite in themselves the effects of both proven substances, of which
they consist, in the same manner in which the trials revealed them.
They will be placed in the same category with the so-called double
remedies, once so severely rejected. Besides this, it will be argued,
that there is no need of them, and moreover, that the proven remedies
in our possession are sufficient for the cure of all curable diseases,
if given in the proper doses and in accordance with the circumstances.
To do this, a most thorough knowledge of remedies is necessary.
Acknowledging that adhering to the principles established by Hahnemann
is a vital condition of homoeopathy, it is nevertheless not necessary
that we should ruthlessly reject a new idea which originated within
those principles, though it might vary from the letter thereof,
if it only promises to contribute toward the advancement of Hahnemann's
doctrine. We have considered it our duty to examine in the most
impartial manner every new idea of this kind as to its value and
its claims on homoeopathy.
We have acknowledged the empiricism of Rademacher, the enlargement
and revision of the same from the pen of Weihe by means of his doctrine
of epidemic remedies and the points of pain, the biochemistry of
Schussler, as being related to homoeopathy, and well calculated
for the furtherance of the same.
We have gladly welcomed and pursued with interest all works of
Prof. Jager, our indefatigable, brave co-worker, as far as they
contribute to a better foundation and understanding of Hahnemann's
doctrine. We have as far as possible brought to the knowledge of
our readers all publications of the entire medical literature, which
confirmed the truth of similia similibus. In short, we have made
an effort to keep aloft from that orthodoxy which hinders all progress,
and which ultimately leads to a standstill and to annihilation.
This standpoint we shall also take towards the use of compound
metallic remedies of a more recent day. Hahnemann himself has sanctioned
them by taking Hepar s.c., the different preparations of Mercury,
Ammon. mur. and others, among his homoeopathic medicines, even if
he demanded a previous proving on healthy persons. The fulfillment
of this condition was in those days not very difficult by reason
of their limited number. But since the progressing chemistry of
later days is capable of producing such medical substances in larger
numbers, it is almost impossible to keep pace with it. We would
consider it an unjust adherence to principles for principle's sake,
if we should deprive us of the advantages which are connected with
the use of the same.
We admit that we, by doing this, do not conform to Hahnemann's
positive demand of experiment; but we dispute the violation of homoeopathic
principles thereby.
The question at issue is only a different use of the material
gained by experiments on healthy persons, not the recommendation
of remedies which have been invented by this one or that one at
the sick-bed as therapeutic. We should decidedly protest against
the adoption of such into homoeopathy, since by doing so we would
leave the firm ground already gained, and the doctrine of Hahnemann
would soon entirely disappear.
Those who consider mechanically looking for symptoms the only
true and all-sufficient way will not agree with us.
But we dare to assert openly that this would not answer in all cases;
each of us who considers this question seriously will have to confess
that he has experienced this. Hahnemann admitted this in his treastise
of chronic diseases. Medical science cannot be based simply upon
arithmetic. We cannot dispense with mental activity as to combination
and speculation, if it shall not be lowered to a common trade, as
particularly v. Grauvogl has laid it down with energy in his work.
But it must under all circumstances be maintained that this speculative
mental activity can only be based upon facts, which have been gained
by experiment.
In connection with our argument, therefore, the use of compound
metallic remedies is only justified if done on the principle of
similia similibus and the existing medical proving. The use of Merc.
cyanatus against dyphtheria by Drs. Beck and v. Villers, Sen., in
Petersburg, has broken the road in this respect. An examination
of Merc. cyanatus as a single medical body did not exist, but one
of Merc. and of Acid hydrocyanic. These two provings offered almost
the complete picture of severe diphtheria, so that the thought suggested
itself to unite them in one medicinal body and to try their curative
power against said disease.
The experiment was rewarded with a splendid result, which since
has repeated itself in thousands of cases, and has forced our opponents
- though against their will - to recognize it. That this process
in homoeopathic has, as far as we know, never been contradicted.
Why should not two medicinal bodies, united in one, do in other
cases what the union of these two remedies in one body has accomplished?
There is no reasonable cause against it, and the experience at the
sick-bed has given numerous proofs of the correctness of this treatment.
We do not hesitate, therefore, to recognize an addition to our medicines
in these compound metallic remedies.
But we would like to guard against the dangerous error, that by
the use of these, our old well-tried remedies would gradually become
superfluous, and that the tiresome study of the same be unnecessary.
One would thereby commit the folly to neglect an old valuable acquisition
for a new one, however much the latter might promise. My caeterum
censeo therefore stands good.
(Translated from Allg. Hom. Zeit., bd. 118, No. 19, in the Homoeopathic
Recorder, July, 1889, Vol. IV, No. 4, page 156.)
|