The Chronic
Diseases, their Peculiar Nature and their Homœopathic Cure.
by Dr Samuel Hahnemann
Presented By Médi-T
(Page 120 … 129)
But if these aggravated
original symptoms appear on subsequent days still of the same strength
as at the beginning, or even with an increased severity, it is a sign
that the dose of this antipsoric remedy, although properly selected
according to homœopathic principles, was too large, and it is to be
apprehended that no cure will be effected by it; because the medicine
in so large a dose is able to establish a disease, which in some
respects, indeed, is similar to it; with respect to the fact, however,
that the medicine in its present intensity unfolds also its other
symptoms which annul the similarity, it produces a similar chronic
disease instead of the former, and, indeed, a more severe and
troublesome one, without thereby extinguishing the old original one.This will be decided in the
first sixteen, eighteen or twenty days of the action of the medicine
which has been given in too large a dose, and it must then be checked,
either by prescribing its antidote, or, if this is not as yet known,
by giving another antipsoric medicine fitting as well as possible, and
indeed in a very moderate dose,
and if this does not suffice to extinguish this injurious medicinal
disease, another still should be given as homœopathically suitable as
possible. [*]Now when the stormy assault
caused by too large a dose of medicine, although homœopathically
selected, has been assuaged through an antidote or the later use of
some other antipsoric remedies, then, later on, the same antipsoric
remedy -which had been hurtful only because of its over-large dose-
can be used again, and, indeed, as soon as it is homœopathically
indicated, with the greatest success, only in a far
smaller dose and in a much more
highly potentized attenuation, i.e.,
in a milder quality.The physician can, indeed,
make no worse mistake than first,
to consider as too small the doses which I (forced by experience) have
reduced after manifold trials and which are indicated with every
antipsoric remedy and secondly,
the wrong choice of a remedy, and thirdly,
the hastiness which does not allow each dose to act its full time.—–
[*]
I have myself experienced this accident, which is very obstructive
to a cure and cannot be avoided too carefully. Still ignorant of the
strength of its medicinal power, I gave sepia in too large a dose.
This trouble was still more manifest when I gave lycopodium
and silicea, potentized to the
one-billionth degree, giving four to six pellets, though only as
large as poppy seeds. Discite moniti.The first error I have
already spoken of, and would only add that nothing is lost if the dose
is given even smaller than I have prescribed. It
can hardly be given too small, if only everything ill the
diet and the remaining mode of life of the patient which would
obstruct or counteract the action of the medicine is avoided. The
medicine will still produce all the good effects which can at all be
expected from a medicine, if only the antipsoric was homœopathically,
correctly, selected according to the carefully investigated symptoms
of the disease, and if the patient does not disturb its effects by his
violation of the rules. If ever it should happen that the choice has
not been correctly made, the great advantage
remains, that the incorrectly selected medicine in this smallest dose
may in the manner indicated above be counteracted more easily,
whereupon the cure may be continued without delay with a more suitable
antipsoric.As to the second chief
error in the cure of chronic diseases (the
unhomœopathic choice of the medicine) the homœopathic
beginner (many, I am sorry to say, remain such beginners their life
long) sins chiefly through inexactness, lack of earnestness and
through love of ease.With the great
conscientiousness which should be shown in the restoration of a human
life endangered by sickness more than in anything else, the
Homœopath, if he would act in a manner worthy of his calling, should
investigate first the whole state of the patient, the internal cause
as far as it is remembered, and the cause of the continuance of the
ailments his mode of life, his quality as to mind, soul and body,
together with all his symptoms (see directions in Organon),
and then he should carefully find out in the work on Chronic Diseases
as well as in the work on Materia Medica Pura a remedy covering in
similarity, as far as possible, all the moments, or at least the most
striking and peculiar ones, with its own peculiar symptoms; and for
this purpose he should not be satisfied with any of the existing
repertories, – a carelessness only too frequent; for these books are
only intended to give light hints as to one or another remedy that
might be selected, but they can never dispense him from making the
research at the first fountain heads. He who does not take the trouble
of treading this path in all critical and complicated diseases, and,
indeed, with all patience and intelligence, but contents himself with
the vague hints of the repertories in the choice of a remedy, and who
thus quickly dispatches one patient after the other, does not deserve
the honorable title of a genuine Homœopath, but is rather to be
called a bungler, who on that account has continually to change his
remedies until the patient loses patience; and as his ailments have of
course only been aggravated he must leave this aggravator of diseases,
whereby the art itself suffers discredit instead of the unworthy
disciple of art.This disgraceful love of ease
(in the calling which demands the most conscientious care) often
induces such would-be Homœopaths to give their medicines merely from
the (often problematic) statement of their use (ab
usu in morbis) which are enumerated in the introductions to
the medicines, a method which is altogether faulty and strongly savors
of allopathy, as these statements usually only give a few symptoms.
They should only serve as a confirmation of a choice made according to
the pure actions of the medicines; but never to determine the
selection of a remedy which can cure only when used according to the
exact similitude of its homœopathic symptoms. There are, we are sorry
to say, even authors who advise following this empiric pathway of
error!The third
leading mistake which the homœopathic physician cannot too carefully
nor too steadfastly avoid while treating chronic diseases, is in
hastily and thoughtlessly -when a properly moderate dose of a well
selected antipsoric medicine has been serviceable for several days,-
giving some other medicine in the mistaken supposition that so small a
dose could not possibly operate and be of use more than eight or ten
days. This notion is sought to be supported by the statement that on
some day or other, while allowed to continue its action, the morbid
symptoms which were to be eradicated, had shown themselves somewhat
from time to time.But if once a medicine,
because it was selected in a correct homœopathic manner, is acting
well and usefully, which is seen by the eighth or tenth day, then an
hour or even half a day may come when a moderate homœopathic
aggravation again takes place. The good results will not fail to
appear but may, in very tedious ailments, not show themselves in their
best light before the twenty-fourth or thirtieth day. The dose will
then probably have exhausted its favorable action about the fortieth
or fiftieth day, and before that time it would be injudicious, and an
obstruction to the progress of the cure, to give any other medicine.
Let it not be thought, however, that we should scarcely wait for the
time assigned as the probable duration of action to elapse, before
giving another antipsoric medicine: that we
should hasten to change to a new medicine in order to finish the cure
more quickly. Experience contradicts this notion entirely,
and teaches on the contrary, that a cure cannot be accomplished more
quickly and surely than by allowing the suitable antipsoric to
continue its actions so long as the
improvement continues, even if this should be several, yea,
many [*]
days beyond the assigned, supposed time of its duration, so as to
delay as long as practicable the giving of a new medicine.—–
[*]
In a case where sepia had showed
itself completely homœopathically antipsoric for a peculiar
headache that appeared in repeated attacks, and where the ailment
had been diminished both as to intensity and duration, while the
pauses between the attacks had also been much lengthened, when the
attacks re-appeared I repeated the dose, which then caused the
attacks to cease for one hundred days (consequently its action
continued that long), when it reappeared to some degree, which
necessitated another dose, after which no other attack took place
for, now, seven years, while the health was also otherwise perfect.Whoever can restrain his
impatience as to this point, will reach his object the more surely,
and the more certainly. Only when the old symptoms, which had been
eradicated or very much diminished by the last and the preceding
medicines commence to rise again for a few days, or to be again
perceptibly aggravated, then the time has most surely come when a dose
of the medicine most homœopathically fitting should be given.
Experience and careful observation alone can decide; and it always has
decided in my manifold, exact observations, so as to leave no doubt
remaining.Now if we consider the great
changes which must be effected by the medicine in the many, variously
composite and incredibly delicate parts of our living organism, before
a chronic miasm so deeply inrooted and, as it were, parasitically
interwoven with the economy of our life as psora is, can be eradicated
and health be thus restored: then it may well be seen how natural it
is, that during the long-continued action of a dose of antipsoric
medicine selected homœopathically, assaults may be made by it at
various periods on the organism, as it were in undulating fluctuations
during this long-continued disease. Experience shows that when for
several days there has been an improvement, half hours or whole hours
or several hours will again appear when the case seems to become
worse; but these periods, so long as only the original ailments are
renewed and no new, severe symptoms present themselves, only show a
continuing improvement, being homœopathic aggravations which do not
hinder but advance the cure, as they are only renewed beneficent
assaults [*] on the
disease, though they are wont to appear at times sixteen, twenty or
twenty-four days after taking a dose of antipsoric medicine.—–
[*]
These attacks, however, if the antipsoric remedy was selected
fittingly and homœopathically and the dose was a moderate one,
during its continued action take place, ever more and more rarely
and more feebly, but if the doses were too strong they come more
frequently and more strongly, to the detriment of the patient.As a rule, therefore, the
antipsoric medicine in chronic diseases continue their action the
longer, the more tedious the diseases are. But vice versa also those
medicines which in the healthy body show a long period of action act
only a short time and quickly in acute diseases which speedily run
their course (e.g. belladonna, sulphur, arsenic, etc.) and their
periods of action are shorter, the more acute the diseases. The
physician must, therefore, in chronic diseases, allow all antipsoric
remedies to act thirty, forty or even fifty and more days by
themselves, so long as they continue to improve the diseased state
perceptibly to the acute observer, even though gradually; for so long
the good effects continue with the indicated doses and these must not
be disturbed and checked by any new remedy. [*]—–
[*]
The importance of avoiding the above-described two errors will
hardly be realized by physicians. These great, pure truths will be
questioned yet for years even by most of the homœopathic
physicians, and will not, therefore, be practiced, on account of the
theoretical reflection and the reigning thought: It requires
quite an effort to believe that so little a thing, so prodigiously
small a dose of medicine, could effect the least thing in the human
body, especially in coping with such enormously great, tedious
diseases; but that the physician must cease to reason, if he should
believe that these prodigiously small doses can act not only two or
three days, but even twenty, thirty and forty days and longer yet,
and cause, even to the last day of their operation, important,
beneficent effects otherwise unattainable. Nevertheless this
true theorem is not to be reckoned among those which should be
comprehended, nor among those for which I ask a blind faith. I
demand no faith at all, and do not demand that anybody should
comprehend it. Neither do I comprehend it; it is enough, that it is
a fact and nothing else. Experience alone declares it, and I believe
more in experience than in my own intelligence. But who will
arrogate to himself the power of weighing the invisible forces that
have hitherto been concealed in the inner bosom of nature, when they
are brought out of the crude state of apparently dead matter through
a new, hitherto undiscovered agency, such as is potentizing by long
continued trituration and succussion. But he who will not allow
himself to be convinced of this and who will not, therefore, imitate
what I now teach after many years’ trial and experience (and what
does the physician risk, if he imitates it exactly?), he
who is not willing to imitate it exactly, can leave this
greatest problem of our art unsolved, he
can also leave the most important chronic diseases uncured,
as they have remained unhealed; indeed, up to the time of my
teaching. I have no more to say about this. It seemed to me my duty
to publish the great truths to the world that needs them, untroubled
as to whether people can compel themselves to follow them exactly or
not. If it is not done with exactness, let no one boast to have
imitated me, nor expect a good result.
Do we refuse to imitate any operation until the wonderful forces of
nature on which the result is based are clearly brought before our
eyes and made comprehensible even to a child? Would it not be silly
to refuse to strike sparks from the stone and flint, because we
cannot comprehend how so much combined caloric can be in these
bodies, or how this can be drawn out by rubbing or striking, so that
the particles of steel which are rubbed off by the stroke of the
hard stone are melted, and, as glowing little balls, cause the
tinder to catch fire? And yet we strike fire with it, without
understanding or comprehending this miracle of the inexhaustible
caloric hidden in the cold steel, or the possibility of calling it
out with a frictional stroke. Again, it would be just as silly as if
we should refuse to learn to write, because we cannot comprehend how
one man can communicate his thought to another through pen, ink, and
paper -and yet we communicate our thoughts to a friend in a letter
without either being able or desirous of comprehending this
psychico-physical miracle! Why, then, should we hesitate to conquer
and heal the bitterest foes of the life of our fellowman, the
Chronic diseases, in the stated way, which, punctually followed, is
the best possible method, because we do not see how these cures are
effected?But if these appropriately
selected antipsoric medicines are not allowed to act their full time,
when they are acting well, the whole treatment will amount to nothing.
Another antipsoric remedy which may be ever so useful, but is
prescribed too early and before the cessation of the action of the
present remedy, or a new dose of the same remedy which is still
usefully acting, can in no case replace the good effect which has been
lost through the interruption of the complete action of the preceding
remedy, which was acting usefully, and which can hardly be again
replaced.It is a fundamental
rule in the treatment of chronic diseases: To
let the action of the remedy, selected in a mode homœopathically
appropriate to the case of disease which has been carefully
investigated as to its symptoms, come to an undisturbed conclusion, so
long as it visibly advances the care and the while improvement still
perceptibly progresses. This method forbids any new
prescription, any interruption by another medicine and forbids as well
the immediate repetition of the same remedy.
Nor can there be anything more desirable for the physician than to see
the improvement of the patient proceed to its completion unhindered
and perceptibly. There are not a few cases, where the practiced
careful Homœopath sees a single dose of his remedy, selected so as to
be perfectly homœopathic, even in a very severe chronic disease,
continue uninterruptedly to diminish the ailment for several weeks,
yea, months, up to recovery; a thing which could not have been
expected better in any other way, and could not have been effected by
treating with several doses or with several medicines. To make the
possibility of this process in some way intelligible, we may assume,
what is not very unlikely, that an antipsoric remedy selected most
accurately according to homœopathic principles, even in the smallest
dose of a high or the highest potency can manifest so long-continued a
curative force, and at last cure, probably, only by
means of a certain infection with a very similar medicinal
disease which overpowers the original disease, by the process of
nature itself, according to which (Organon,
§ 45, Fifth Edition,) two diseases which are different, indeed, in
their kind but very similar in their manifestations and effects, as
also in the ailments and symptoms caused by it, when they meet
together in the organism, the stronger disease (which is always the
one caused by the medicine, §33, ibid.) destroys the weaker (the
natural one). In this case every new medicine and also a new dose of
the same medicine, would interrupt the work of improvement and cause
new ailments, an interference which often cannot be repaired for a
long time.But if any unfavorable
effects are evolved by the present dose of medicine, i.e.,
troublesome symptoms which do not belong to this disease, and if the
mind of the patient becomes depressed, if only a little at first,
still increasingly, then the next dose of the same medicine, given
immediately after the former, cannot but become injurious to the
patient. Yet when a sudden great and striking improvement of a tedious
great ailment follows immediately on the first dose of a medicine,
there justly arises much suspicion that the remedy has only acted
palliatively, and therefore must never be given again, even after the
intervention of several others remedies.Nevertheless there are cases
which make an exception to the
rule, but which not every beginner should risk finding out. [*]—–
[*]
Still there has been of late much abuse of this immediate repetition
of doses of the same medicine, because young Homœopaths thought it
more convenient to repeat, without examination, a medicine which in
the beginning had been found to be homœopathically suitable, and
which had therefore in the beginning proved serviceable, and even to
repeat it frequently without examination, so as to heal more
quickly.
We may declare it once, that the practice of late, which has even
been recommended in public journals of giving the patient several
doses of the same medicine to take with him, so that he may take
them himself at certain intervals, without considering whether this
repetition may affect him injuriously, seems to show a negligent
empiricism, and to be unworthy of a homœopathic physician, who
should not allow a new dose of a medicine to be taken or given
without convincing himself in every case beforehand as to its
usefulness.The only allowable exception
for an immediate repetition of the same
medicine is when the dose of a well-selected and in every
way suitable and beneficial remedy has made some beginning toward an
improvement, but its action ceases too quickly, its power is too soon
exhausted, and the cure does not proceed any further. This is rare in
chronic diseases, but in acute diseases and in chronic diseases that
rise into an acute state it is frequently the case. It is only then,
-as a practiced observer may recognize- when
the peculiar symptoms of the disease to be treated, after fourteen,
ten, seven, and even fewer days, visibly cease to diminish, so that
the improvement manifestly has come to a stop, without any disturbance
of the mind and without the appearance of any new troublesome
symptoms, so that the former medicine would still be perfectly
homœopathically suitable, only then, if say, is it useful,
and probably necessary to give a dose of the same medicine of a
similarly small amount, but most safely in a different degree of
dynamic potency. [*] When
the remedy is thus modified, the vital force of the patient will allow
itself more easily to be further affected by the same medicine, so as
to effect by it everything that may be expected of this medicine and
in this ailment. [**]To adduce an example: a
freshly arisen eruption of itch belongs to those diseases which might
soonest permit the repetition of the dose (sulphur), and which does
permit it the more frequently, the sooner after the infection the itch
is received for treatment, as it then approaches the nature of an
acute disorder, and demands its remedies in more frequent doses than
when it has been standing on the skin for some time. But this
repetition should be permitted only when the preceding dose has
largely exhausted its action (after six, eight or ten days), and the
dose should be just as small as the preceding one, and be given in a
different potency. Nevertheless it is in such a case often
serviceable, in answer to a slight change of symptoms, to interpose
between the doses of pure sulphur, a small dose of Hepar
sulphuris calcareum. This also should be given in various
potencies, if several doses should be needed from time to time. Often
also, according to circumstances, a dose of Nux vomica (x) or one of
mercury (x) [***] may be
used between.—–
[*]
If it, e.g., has first been
given in the 30th potency it will now be given in perhaps the 18th,
and if a repetition should, be again found serviceable and
necessary, it might afterwards be given in the 24th. and later
perhaps also in the 12th and 6th, etc., if, e.g.,
the chronic disease should have taken on itself an acute character.
A dose of medicine may also have been suddenly counteracted and
annihilated by a grave error in the regimen of the patient, when
perhaps a dose of the former serviceable medicine might again be
given with the modification mentioned above.[**]
In cases where the physician is certain as to the homœopathic
specific to be used, the first attenuated dose may also be dissolved
in about four ounces of water by stirring it, and one-third may be
drunk at once, and the second and third portions on the following
days; but it should each time be again stirred so as to increase the
potency and thus to change it. Thereby the remedy seeing to take a
deeper hold on the organism and hasten the restoration in patients
who are vigorous and not too sensitive.[***]
That the itch-patient during such a treatment must avoid every
external application, however harmless it may appear, e.g.,
the washing with black soap, is not necessary to emphasize.If I except sulphur, Hepar
sulphuris and in some cases Sepia, the other antipsoric remedies can
seldom be usefully given in immediately repeated doses. Indeed it is
hardly ever needed in chronic diseases, as we have a goodly supply of
antipsoric remedies at our disposal, so that as soon as one well
selected remedy has completed its action, and a change of symptoms, i.e.,
a change in the total image of the disease, appears, another
antipsoric remedy homœopathically appropriate to the altered case may
be chosen to greater advantage and with a more sure prospect of
hastening the cure, than if we take the risk of prescribing the former
medicine which now is no longer altogether adequate. Nevertheless in
very tedious and complex cases, which are mostly such as have been
mismanaged by allopathic treatment, it is nearly always necessary to
give again from time to time during the treatment, a dose of Sulphur
or of Hepar (according to the symptoms), even to the patients who have
been before dosed with large allopathic doses of Sulphur and with
sulphur-baths; but then only after a previous dose of Mercury (x).Where, as is usually the case
in chronic diseases, various antipsoric remedies are necessary, the
more frequent sudden change of them is a sign that the physician has
selected neither the one nor the other in an appropriately
homœopathic manner, and had not properly investigated the leading
symptoms of the case before prescribing a new remedy. This is a
frequent fault into which the homœopathic physician falls in urgent
cases of chronic diseases, but oftener still in acute diseases from
overhaste, especially when the patient is a person very dear to his
heart. I cannot too urgently warn against this fault.Then the patient naturally
falls into such an irritated state that, as we say, no medicine acts,
or shows its effect, [*]
yea, so that the power of response in the patient is in danger of
flaring up and expiring at the least further dose of medicine. In such
a case no further benefit can be had through medicine, but there may
be in use a calming mesmeric stroke made from the crown of the head
(on which both the extended hands should rest for about a minute)
slowly down over the body, passing over the throat, shoulders, arms,
hands, knees and legs down over the feet and toes. This may be
repeated if necessary.A dose of homœopathic
medicine may also be moderated and softened by allowing the patient to
smell [**] a small pellet
moistened with the selected remedy in a high potency, and placed in a
vial the mouth of which is held to the nostril of the patient, who
draws in only a momentary little whiff of it. By such an inhalation
the powers of any potentized medicine may be communicated to the
patient in any degree of strength. One or more such medicated pellets,
and even those of a larger size may be in the smelling-bottle, and by
allowing the patient to take longer or stronger whiffs, the dose may
be increased a hundred fold as compared with the smallest first
mentioned. The period of action of the power of a potentized medicine
taken in by such inhalation and spread over so large a surface (as
that of the nostrils and of the lungs) last as long as that of a small
massive dose taken through the mouth and the fauces.—–
[*]
That a homœopathically potentized dose of medicine should ever fail
of having an effect in a treatment conducted with
care, I think impossible; I have never experienced it.[**]
Even persons born without the sense of smell or who have lost it
through disease, may expect equally efficient help from drawing in
the imperceptible vapor (proceeding from the medicine and contained
in the vial) through one nostril or the other, as those do who are
gifted with the sense of smell. From this it follows that the nerves
possessing merely the sense of touch receive the salutary impression
and communicate it unfailingly to the whole nervous system.Such medicated pellets kept in a stoppered
vial retain their medicinal power quite undiminished, even if the vial
be opened a number of times in many years for the purpose of
inhalation; i.e., if the vial be preserved from sunshine and heat.
This method of allowing the patient to be acted upon by smelling the
potentized medicine has great advantages in the manifold mishaps which
often obstruct and interrupt the treatment of chronic diseases. The
antidote to remove these mishaps as quickly as possible the patient
may also best receive in greater or less strength through inhalation,
which acts most quickly on the nerves and so also affords the most
prompt assistance, by which also the continuation of the treatment of
the chronic disease is least delayed. When the mishap has thus been
obviated most speedily, the antipsoric medicine before taken
frequently continues its interrupted action for some time. But the
dose of the inhaled medicine must be so apportioned to the morbid
interruption that its effect just suffices to extinguish the
disadvantage arising from the mishap, without going any deeper or
being able to continue its operation any further.
Copyright © Médi-T
2006