Intermittent fever.
By Adolph Lippe, M.D.
Presented by Sylvain Cazalet
Comte Adolph
von LIPPE
(1812-1888)Cullen’s assertion that
bark cured all cases of intermittent fever, because it was both bitter
and aromatic, first gave to Hahnemann the occasion to expose the errors
of the then great authority in medicine, who in years was greatly his
senior. Hahnemann knew that Cinchona cured but a comparatively small
number of cases of intermittent fever ; he also knew that other
substances, both bitter and aromatic, never cured a case of this
disease. Hahnemann was compelled to institute a new mode of
investigation, and first he endeavored to ascertain with certainly what
cases of intermittent fever were curable by Cinchona.
For this purpose he proved Cinchona first on himself, afterwards on
others, and by this new plan of investigation, by these provings, he was
enabled to give us the characteristic symptoms of Cinchona-,
which indicated it in the cure of intermittent fever. From this,
Hahnemann’s first investigation, were developed the fundamental
principles of our school, named and termed by its discoverer.The question Hahnemann
first asked himself was : “What are the peculiarities, the
characteristics of intermittent fever curable by Cinchona ?”
We ask this question in our own days : What is the remedy, how
shall we treat intermittent fever, or how can we find the homœopathic
remedy for each individual case ? If we follow Hahnemann’s advice,
we will be able readily to solve these questions. Many remedies have
been proved and their characteristic symptoms defined. Among them are
some of our native plants as Eupatorium perfoliatum,
Gelsemium, etc.The fact that Homœopathy
was developed by investigating the relation in which Cinchona
stood in regard to intermittent fever, leaves no room for doubt that
there exists the curative remedy for each individual case of
intermittent fever. This will be admitted to be, theoretically, correct
-but not practically. It is asserted that some cases will not yield to
any homœopathic remedy and some physicians even say that in certain
seasons and in some localities we must resort to large doses of Cinchona.
When Hahnemann, by strictly logical argument, demonstrated the error of
Cullen’s assertion, and when he afterwards proved his argument by
practical experiment, and gave to the world the law of cure and the
practical rules to guide us ; the practice based on these
principles and rules has always been proved correct. There can
reasonably be no exception to these well-established principles and
rules, neither season nor locality nor individuality can offer cause for
an exception.The facts are found to
be :(1) Some cases of
intermittent fever are cured by certain persons in certain localities,
by homœopathically selected and potentized medicines.(2) Other cases of
intermittent fever are not cured by-certain persons in certain
localities by homœopathically selected and potentized medicines.If this is true we must
see where the fault is. If under one, the law of cure by the experiment
is successful, and in the hands of some persons, why is it the reverse
under two ?The variety of
possibilities for want of success under two are :a) The law of cure, as
we understand it, has been applied but without success. If this were the
case, then the law of cure could not be correct or true, for the law,
like all natural laws, must be true under all circumstances without
regard to time or locality.b) The law of cure, as
we understand it, has not been applied and, therefore, there was no
success. This may a rise from two principle causes : First, the law
of cure was not properly applied because not properly understood ;
or, secondly, the means to apply it (the medicines and their provings)
were not known, nor understood by the prescribing physician. There may
be a lack of qualification to examine the patient, that is, to obtain a
picture of the disease or a lack of qualification to select the proper
remedy.If we should admit ‘a’,
which we would if we asserted that time and locality annuls or
supersedes the otherwise applicable law of cure, we would declare Homœopathy,
based on these laws, to be fallacious, incorrect and of no benefit to
the sick. But the law holding good in every other case of disease, at
all times and in all localities, this assertion must be set aside,
cannot be held or defended.The failure to cure
intermittent fever with homœopathically chosen remedies and potentized
medicine must rest with the practitioner, who either does not understand
or cannot properly apply the homœopathic law.To those unfortunate
men, who call themselves Homœopathicians but reject Hahnemann’s
teachings, we have nothing to say ; they must be an ? will
remain unsuccessful, not only in the treatment of intermittent fever,
but also of all other diseases. We address ourselves to those Homœopathicians,
who knowing the laws of cure, seek to find the means and mode of
applying them successfully for the cure of intermittent fever, such
cases, in which at times they had failed to effect a cure. This want of
success may be ;1st.
That we have not properly examined the case,2nd.
We may not have found the truly curative remedy ; or,3rd.
We may not have applied it properly.We will take up these
Gases seriatim.
1st
. In
examining a case of intermittent fever, we may find characteristic
symptoms for one of the known remedies, or we may not ; if we do
not find any, it may be because we do not know them, and this is
essentially our own fault. Or,
2nd
. If the
characteristic symptoms are not marked, we select the remedy by other
means -analogy. Again, there may be no characteristic symptoms, as in
cases where there is simply a chill followed by fever and perspiration,
and no strongly marked concomitant symptoms. In this case we must look
to the symptoms of the patient during the apyrexia and to his
constitutional symptoms -these will often assist us in finding the
proper remedy.
3rd
. We may
have been too hasty in repeating or changing the remedies. We should
have obeyed the master’s advice, and allowed each remedy to exhaust its
action before repeating or changing it.
Dr C.
von BœnninghausenBut how to find the
truly curative remedy in a case of intermittent fever is after all the
vexed question. Dr. Von Bœnninghausen in his essay on
“Intermittent Fever” has almost exhausted the question, but we
cannot too often refresh our memory.
1st
. The
examination of the patient as to the time and periodicity -the various
stages of paroxysm- the concomitant symptoms of each stage and the
symptoms predominating during the apyrexia.
2nd
. The
selection of the remedy. The truly curative remedy may be indicated by
the time and periodicity, as under Natrum mur.,
10 A. M., Lycopodium. 4 P. M., Nux
vom, in the morning. Apis
when in the afternoon, and also Lachesis,
Cactus gr., Nitric ac., etc., at the same hour every day Sabadilla,
Aranea, etc. -Again by the concomitant symptoms, as
thirstlessness under Pulsatilla, China,
Sabadilla. Thirst before the chill, Eupatorium,
Arsenic, China, Pulsatilla or only during the chill, Capsicum.
Carbo veg., etc., or between the chill and fever. China,
Sabadilla, etc. The thirst during
the fever paroxysm may be for large quantities of cold water at a time
as under Bryonia, or for small
quantities at a time as under Arsenic,
Lycopodium, etc., or the paroxysm is accompanied by headache
as under Natrum mur., which under Arsenic
continues after the paroxysm, or the fever is accompanied by sleep as
under Apis, Gelsemium, Cactus gr., etc.
We must refer to Dr. von Bœnninghausen’s excellent essay on
“Intermittent Fever” for more minutiæ.
3rd
. The
remedy properly chosen should be administered very soon after the
paroxysm is over and only during the apyrexia, never during the
paroxysm. If the next paroxysm is not changed in any way either as to
time or in its concomitant symptoms, and if no new symptoms belonging to
the remedy have been developed, our choice of the remedy may be supposed
to have been faulty. If the paroxysm changes as to time and the next
attack comes on earlier, we may reasonably expect an improvement and
should not repeat the remedy ; if the next attack is accompanied by
symptoms characteristic of the remedy, or if the attack is lighter we
should not repeat the remedy If the attacks continue but are lighter
each time, we may safely wait on the effects of the medicine given. If
the attacks continue and the symptoms having guided us in the selection
of the remedy cease, then we must choose another remedy. We must follow
implicitly Hahnemann’s rule -not to repeat the dose or give a new remedy
until the effect of the former dose is exhausted.The more carefully we
apply the law of cure to the treatment of intermittent fever the more
brilliant will be our success.
Source :
Am. Homœopathic Review, 1866.
Copyright © Sylvain
Cazalet 2000
