History
of Homœopathy : Its Origin ; Its Conflicts.
by Wilhelm
Ameke, M. D.
Presented by Dr
Robert Séror.
Appendix.
Medicine as it is now taught
in the Universities.
In Germany the minds of scientific physicians were still enveloped
in the mists of natural philosophy, while the inductive method of
research was already firmly established in England and France.
Dr John HUNTER (1728-93)In England, John ( ◄ )
Hunter
(1728
— 1793)
had, by his intelligent researches, brought to light many scientific
facts, and had especially striven to prove that in inflammation the
phenomena of the disease follow physiological laws.
Marie François Xavier BICHAT (1771-1802)
In France,
Bichat
(1771
— 1802)
was the first who, although not free from some mistaken theories,
sought to direct medical research to facts, and strove to give an
anatomical basis to medical science :” Observer la nature, rassembler beaucoup de faits, prendre
leur ensemble pour principes …… Qui sommes nous pour nous
détourner de cette voie ? “” What is the use of observation,” he says afterwards,
” if we do not know the seat of diseases ? “
Francois BroussaisAmong the clinical authorities,
Broussais
(1772
— 1838)
was one of the first who sought to localise diseases, and strove to
refer them to anatomical changes.He fell into the error of referring most diseases to an
inflammation — a gastro-enteritis — which he tried to cure by
means of venesection and the application of numbers of leeches ; by
this means he and his scholars and adherents made away with some
thousands of human beings, and, finally, with himself.
Therapeutic ineptitude of
pathological theories.The ” anatomical school ” which was developing itself at
this period went to work very thoroughly.Those diseases for which no anatomical substratum could be found in
the dead body, e.g., neuralgias, were simply ignored. Percussion and
auscultation were brought to perfection byCorvisart
and Laennec.
Corvisart
employed Auenbrugger’s
percussion, and Piorry
introduced the plessimeter ; Laennec
invented the stethoscope and taught its use.
This method of investigation was universally accepted in France and
England, while it was but partially adopted in Germany.[J.
H. Kopp. Aerztliche Bemerkungen, veranlasst durch eine Reise in
Deutschland and Frankreich, Frankfurt A/M. Also A. Mühry,
Darstellungen und Ansichten zur Vergleichung der Medicin in
Frankreich, England and Deutschland. Hannover, 1836.]These French ideas were transplanted by the new Vienna school to
Germany.
Karl von Rokitansky
Rokitansky
, ” the
father of modern German medicine,” as he was called before the
adoption of the cellular pathology, brought about the reception of
pathological anatomy and developed it ; and Skoda
and other stook up and taught the physical modes of investigation.The changes effected by disease were observed, but what was the
cause of them ? Where did they arise ? The impetus to pathological
processes was given by derangements of the fluids. In what did these
chemical changes consist ? This was not discovered, and the
therapeutic point of attack was wanting.This was the period of nihilism, when it was “scientific”
to scoff at the curative power of medicines. With regard to the
development of pathological alterations, in1850
and still later people believed in free cell formation on a
structureless base ” from free blastema,” when a generatio
aequivoca had already been rejected in other branches of science.The exudation theory was of great importance in accounting for the
occurrence of morbid processes.Natural philosophy constructed out of disease a special organism,
and some of its adherents supposed it to have roots which penetrated
the organism and which enabled it to grow and flourish. The natural
philosophers encouraged the study of the natural sciences, and in this
direction the French school was not without influence.
Kieser
, Ph. von Walther
and Dollinger
were adherents of the school of natural philosophy ; and Schonlein
was a pupil of the two last ; Schonlein
founded “exact clinical research.” Johannes Müller
furnished a firmer and broader basis for physiology.
Virchow
was a pupil of Schonlein
and Müller.
Rudolph virchow.
The following is an abstract of his teaching, stated as far as
possible in his own clear words :— The human organism is composed of simple minute components
called cells, which again may be considered as elementary organisms,
for each of these cells possesses inherent vitality and energy, and
its power is founded on its peculiar arrangement.The human body is not, therefore, a unit in the strict material
sense of the word, but is rather multiple, a sort of federation or
state. The single cell within a tissue is not nourished but it
nourishes itself, i.e., it absorbs for its own use from the nutritive
fluids in its neighbourhood that which it requires.Its nourishment, therefore, both in quantity and quality, is a
result of the energy of the cell, and is naturally dependent upon the
quantity and quality of the nourishment within its reach. It is by no
means obliged to absorb into itself all the nourishment that flows
around it.Just as a single cell of a fungus or an alga extracts from the
fluid in which it exists just so much and just such kind of material
as is necessary to maintain its life, so the tissue cell in the middle
of a compound organism has elective faculties, in virtue of which it
rejects certain substances and accepts and utilizes others.This is nutrition in the cellular sense. It is not one single power
that rules the organism, but its energy depends on the co-operation of
various powers.These powers are derived from the individual elementary organisms
— the cells.Even the most striking unity in human life, the spiritual
ego,
is not a fixed but a
variable quantity. If, in spite of this, the human organism appears to
us to be a unit, this is owing to three circumstances :1
st. The arrangement of the
vascular apparatus and of the blood circulating in it is on a
connected system prevailing through the whole body, which causes a
material interchange of the stuffs and a certain dependence of the
individual parts on the blood.2
nd. We possess in the
arrangement of the nervous system, with which are connected man’s
highest functions of intellectual activity, a network of branches
traversing the whole body and concentrated in the great central masses
of the brain and spinal cord.3
rd. The stamp of unity is
given to the body by the co-ordination of the innumerable cells. Such
tissue co-ordinations are, e.g., the muscles and the glands.
‘s
cellular doctrine.
Each of these arrangements, each of these so-called organs, is a
multiple made up of numberless elementary organisms.The nervous system and the blood vessels also are made up of these
cellular elements. Every conception of the organism must therefore be
superficial, external, so to speak, which does not take account of the
elements of which it is composed. If such a conception at first sight
appears a breaking up of the body, a disintegration of the manner of
regarding it, further reflection shows that these innumerable elements
are not placed side by side by chance ; they belong to one another on
account of their common origin from a simple basic element, and this
community of origin causes a certain inherent resemblance and relation
of the elementary parts to one another, such as we observe among the
descendants from a common stock.They also belong to one another because their existence is
interdependent, because the life of one cannot — or can only for a
short time — be sustained without that of the others. They are also
held together by mutual needs. Just as the vessels or the blood and
the nerves influence the other tissues, so they are influenced by them
in their turn. Hence a mutual influence is produced which may,
according to circumstances, be either beneficial or the reverse to the
whole.The study of diseases must, therefore, be preceded by a knowledge
of those parts from which all the activity of the body is derived,
i.e., of the cells. Disease is an alteration of the cells. This change
takes place according to fixed laws, the same laws as those underlying
healthy function. Therefore disease is no foreign existence causing
mischief in the body ; disease is only unregulated vital activity.Every morbid symptom, every morbid structure, has its physiological
prototype, and it is impossible for a pathological form to arise of
which the elements are not repetitions of normal processes. The
development of the foetus and of the egg may be referred to the same
fundamental principles which regulate its subsequent course of life
and the morbid disturbances. The diseased structures are distinguished
from the normal ones by the irregular mode of their origin and
occurrence.This irregularity either consists in the fact that a structure is
produced at a point where it does not belong, or at a time when it
ought not to be produced, or in a degree that departs from the normal
type of the body ; so that it is just as possible to discover the
elements of cancer in a normal organism as those of pus.The diseased structures do not always correspond to one single
physiological tissue ; thus, for example, a cancer, like a gland,
contains cellular elements in alveolae or canals, surrounded by a
stroma of connective tissue supplied with blood vessels. All
pathological tissues are produced continuously from physiological
tissues.Blood cannot be looked on as a whole in contradistinction to other
parts, it is not a constant, independent fluid on which the mass of
the remaining tissues is more or less directly dependent. This is the
mistaken view of humoral pathology, which, as regards most of its
principles, rests on the hypothesis that changes which have taken
place in the blood are more or less lasting. In the doctrine of
chronic diseases it was usual to represent the change of the blood as
being continuous, and even as being transmitted and maintained by
heredity from generation to generation.Blood, as such, does not transmit dyscrasia.
The blood is not an independent fluid, regenerating itself from
itself, but a fluid tissue, which is in a state of constant dependence
on the other parts. Every lasting “dyscrasia” depends upon a
permanent accession of injurious substances from certain points
(foci), though these localizations are not found everywhere. Every
lasting alteration in the condition of the circulating fluids must be
derived from individual organs or tissues.There is no such thing as a dyscrasia in which the blood lastingly
transmits special changes.There are two categories of dyscrasic conditions — according to
whether anomalous morphological components are contained in the blood,
or whether the deviation is rather chemical and exists in the fluid
parts. As a rule, morphological dyscrasias do not go on without
chemical dyscrasias, andvice
versa.
The question what the infectious substance actually is, whether it
is connected with cellular elements or peculiar organisms, or whether
it is purely chemical, is a difficult one, and nowhere is rash
generalisation more dangerous than here. With regard to the theory of
dyscrasia, it is shown that either substances enter into the blood
which influence injuriously its cellular elements, and disturb them in
their functions, or that substances are brought to the blood from some
definite point, whether from outside or from some organ, which, from
the vantage ground of the blood, affect the other organs injuriously.Finally, it may happen that the components of the blood are not
regularly replaced.No permanent dyscrasia is possible except by means of some new
influence brought to bear upon the blood from some central focus. It
follows as a consequence of this that it is important in practice to
find out the local origin in all cases of dyscrasia.By means of the study of pathological and pharmacodynamical
phenomena we are driven by necessity to admit the existence of certain
affinities between certain substances and certain tissues, relations
which can be referred to chemical qualities, in consequence of which
certain parts are more fitted to draw certain substances from the
surrounding parts, and thus, also, from the blood.Certain substances which enter the blood can induce changes in
certain parts of the body, by being taken up into them in virtue of
the specific attraction of special tissues to special substances.In almost all cases specific relations exist between the irritable
parts and the irritant substances. In all tissues we find that the
function depends on the minute change of the contents of the cell or
the protoplasm, which probably consists in a slight chemical change in
the molecules.
Recrudescence of the vital force.
Virchow
himself
recognises that his theory splits up the body into a complexity of
cells ; he seeks to keep them together by their ” reciprocal
action ; ” but this is not sufficient to explain the organic
processes.If we look at the harmonic movements in the concrete individual,
whether vegetable or animal, the transmission of the qualities of
parents — even to the slightest peculiarities — which are
transplanted from generation to generation ; the constantly recurring
properties of different genera and species developing themselves from
a small cell ; if we consider the regular processes of growth which
seem to be prescribed to the original cell and maintained within the
individual until its final extinction, we are obliged to accept the
hypothesis of a transmissible principle of unity which causes the
activity of the organism.This fundamental force can only be a component part of common,
natural forces. It was formerly called the ” vital force,”
and everything was referred to it that could not be other-wise
explained. By this means an insuperable obstacle was placed in the way
of scientific knowledge, which was soon, however, torn down by the
inquiring human mind.A school of iatro-mechanists and iatro-chemists arose who made the
processes of the organism fit in with the chemical and physical views
of the period. These attempts in the primitive state of this science
led to the most crude views, which were not satisfying. The conception
of a vital force was again introduced, but as it was believed that
scientific investigations could not flourish under the empire of the
vital force, this has been recently vehemently opposed, and everyone
was condemned who accepted the idea of such a fundamental force.Physiologists rushed into the opposite extreme.
In order to maintain this stand-point they went to work in a very
radical manner ; everything was simply ignored or denied that did not
fit in with the system. Physiology puts on one side the discussion of
the forces which excite the originating cells to the development of
the individual, although this question ought to be the very first.To satisfy the requirements of this system the truth of vital
magnetism was long denied.Virchow
persisted, up to a recent period, in calling it a false science.Recently magnetism has suddenly become ” scientific,” and
has intruded itself into university knowledge, and, notwithstanding.
Chemical changes in the molecules is
the cause of morbid processes.Heiderhain’s
[Der
sog. Their . Magnetismus, Leipsic, 1880.]
efforts, refuses to be
suppressed. The medical faculties scornfully denied a fact they were
not acquainted with, and which they refused to investigate because it
did not fit in with their science. They closed their eyes wilfully in
order to maintain their own system.It is the same with the reception of a fundamental force. We are
certainly justified in not giving a cordial reception to the idea of a
vital force, because it is apt to become associated with mysticism ;
but we are not justified in simply rejecting it altogether. This is a
fault on the part of University medicine which has been a chief cause
of their therapeutic fallacies. The abstract term ”
irritation,” has been adopted fromVirchow,
although it has a wider signification.“The cell is acted on by an irritatant.” This is an
expression that means nothing, but which is daily used without any
distinct idea being apparently connected with it.A second great mistake from which orthodox medicine suffers is,
that it is at variance with itself, there is a divergence between
doctrine and practice.It says :
” In all tissues we find the function principally depending on
the minute alteration in the contents of the cell or the protoplasm,
which makes it probable that it depends on a chemical change in the
molecules.” It would be more in accordance with facts if we were
to say : ” the energy of the cells is influenced by a movement of
chemical molecules.”Whether it is not rather a daring thing to refer the whole activity
of man, the world of his thought and feeling, his memory, &c., to
chemistry alone, need not be considered.At all events, according to this view it is the principal object of
investigation to become acquainted with the chemical changes. The
physical anatomical appearances are primarily the result of chemical
processes. Investigation must occupy itself first with chemical
processes and then proceed to consider pathological anatomy. Instead
of this the reverse takes place.The physical alterations of the cells form the chief object of
investigation, and, incidentally, a certain amount of attention is
given to chemistry.Soon after the appearance of the cellular pathology, physical
theories forced themselves into the foreground of therapeutics,
because investigators were constantly considering the anatomical form
of cells and cell groups.Up to that time the effect of iron in chlorosis, for instance, had
been explained by the fact that it supplied a constituent that was
deficient in the blood ; now the untenability of this theory was
proved, and the action of iron was referred to the tonic properties of
this metal, and the effect of steel baths was appealed to in
confirmation.A chance discovery of
Virchow’s,
that ciliary movements are excited by alkalis, was sought to be
applied to therapeutics, and it was triumphantly used to explain the
beneficial effects of mineral waters ; the alleged discovery of the
paralysing effect of carbonic-oxide gas upon the nucleus of the red
corpuscles (according to the present view there is no such nucleus)
was brought forward, and raised hopes that other excitant physical
agents might be discovered to act on other cell groups.It was
Virchow
himself who chiefly called attention to pathological anatomy, and this
is easily explicable by his especial line of study. He thus himself
principally contributed to make his theory unfruitful for
therapeutics. He did not hesitate to maintain that chlorosis was
referrable to “defective structure of the heart and large
arteries.” [Ueber die
chlorose. Berlin, 1872,
p. 3.According to him ” chlorosis” is incurable, and only a
temporary benefit can be attained.If
Virchow
had been a practical physician he would never have made this.
statement, or would at least have confined it to certain cases. It is,
however, characteristic, and we need not be surprised if a tendency to
chronic coryza is referred to the anatomical structure of the nose.
Therapeutics must be founded on a
knowledge of minute chemical changes.Do the anatomical views of pathology agree with the investigations
of the physiologists ? What does the physiologist teach ? With all
organs he tries to discover, among other things, the influence of the
nerves on their functions, and investigates with the greatest
minuteness the chemical processes which come into play in the body.Take for example the functions of the spleen, the pancreas and the
liver. In the last, for instance, account is taken of the chemical
composition of the bile, of the connexion of the constituents of the
bile with those of the blood, of the changes that take place in it in
certain states of activity of other organs, when certain nerves are
irritated, and of the chemical changes attending it in the fasces,
urine, blood and saliva. Cells are hardly mentioned.What is the pathological method of procedure ? The greatest
importance is attached to the physical changes of cells, little
attention is paid to the influence of the nerves, and chemistry
occupies a comparatively subordinate position.Here, then, there is a most obvious want of harmony in the methods
of investigation, and this is the fault of the pathologists. They
themselves say that chemistry is primary and physical phenomena
secondary. According to their own theory, then, they direct their
attention to the results of the disease, not to the disease itself.
” There is a great gulf in the medical art between knowledge and
practice,” asVirchow
says of allopathy. When such a method of investigation is pursued, it
would be remarkable if the case were otherwise.If there is any prospect, which we doubt, of founding a system of
therapeutics on our imperfect physical and chemical knowledge, a
greater prominence must be given to chemistry than has been the case
hitherto.Certain attempts have been made in this direction, and here we must
mention the name of the late lamentedBeneke,
who, however, did not meet with much attention, especially as his
efforts had no therapeutic results, because he, too, started from too
crude notions.More recently
Baumann,
Brieger
and E. Salkowsky
(these two last under Frerichs
and Virchow)
have obtained valuable results.The work of
Salkowsky
and Leube,
Die Lehre vom Harn, Berlin,
1883,
deserves to be mentioned with approval.These are only the efforts of individuals, they are not general ;
investigations are not conducted methodically. Then we have the search
for ” nitrogen,” ” phosphoric acid,” ”
sulphuric acid,” &c., indeed we never feel sure that one of
these substances will not crop up in any book we may happen to be
reading.How can such coarse experiments give us an insight into the
chemical movements of the organism ? Such attempts might be sufficient
to discover the value of some article of food, but not to determine
the nature of the complicated chemical processes in the organism.Such “investigations” disgrace our knowledge, and show
that we are very far from a right appreciation of the importance of
chemistry. This is also shown by the fact that even now there are no
special professorships of pathological chemistry, which are just as
important for medicine as professorships of pathological anatomy.We seldom or never find among the writings of the allopaths the
report of a disease with a satisfactory diagnosis, and yet they
receive adequate assistance from the State for their investigations in
every direction. If the anatomical changes present have been, as far
as possible, ascertained, ” scientific ” requirements are
supposed to be satisfied ; if the urine has been tested for albumen,
sugar, and ” nitrogen,” everything has been done.We might expect from orthodox medicine, which is so amply provided
with means, the establishment of a chemical, in addition to an
anatomical diagnosis, which should make an accurate chemical analysis
of all the secretions of the body, such as urine, fasces, saliva,
expectoration, sweat, and also if possible the exhalations, and, in
the case of animals, the blood, with strict regard to the amount of
the ingesta, the temperature and moisture of the air, the state of the
barometer, &c., and we should thus enlarge our knowledge of the
chemistry of the body in a manner corresponding to the present state
of science.
The wag on-axle theory of disease.
Thus, for example, in patients suffering from fever the urine ought
not to be merely analysed for nitrogen in order to calculate from this
the amount of urea ; but the other nitrogenous constituents,
creatinin, xanthin, hippuric acid, &c., should also be considered.Private medical practitioners can only carry out such
investigations with the greatest difficulty ; but in hospitals, with
the aid of assistants, they could at least be undertaken in each form
of disease. Future generations will smile at the perfunctory manner in
which we make our diagnosis.A glance at the text books of general pathology will show us the
onesidedness of allopathic views. The best known are those ofUhle
and Wagner,
of Samuel
and of Cohnheim.
In all three, chemistry is treated in an extremely step-motherly
manner. The well-known results of chemicopathological investigations
are seldom if ever mentioned.If medicine is treated in such a fashion, the crudest ideas
concerning the operations of the organism must prevail. ProfessorJürgensen
imparts the following instruction to his pupils :” The axle of a wagon, by the concussions it is perpetually
subjected to, gradually becomes crystalline, and its weight-bearing
power is lessened. In the same manner the construction of an
originally powerful constitution may be gradually disintegrated by the
labour of life.”[Sammlung
klin. Vortr., von Volkmann. No. 61,
p. 482.]If a university professor, whose duty it is to instruct future
physicians in the physiological bases of medicine, and to encourage
his students to reflect upon the natural processes of the organism —
if such a man plants such crude, mediaeval iatromechanical ideas in
their young heads, hastens, indeed, to publish such doctrines and
spread them far and wide, the mere mention of such a fact suffices to
characterise allopathy.
Jurgensen’s
analogy of
the wagon axle-tree should be kept constantly before the eyes of the
allopaths as a warning.
Jürgensen
, in his
anti-homoeopathic essay, says :” As long as the arrangement of our studies makes it possible
for the young doctor, who has learnt without having been taught to
think, to enter into practice with the scantiest amount of knowledge,
so long will it be likely that he will soon desert into the ranks of
our opponents.”
Jürgensen
may rest
assured that as long as such wagon-axle conceptions are taught there
is not the slightest danger of the young physician accepting
homoeopathy.Latterly, the wildest therapeutic hopes have been founded on the
interesting discoveries of bacteria in the seat of various diseases.
The bacteria certainly form a very seductive point of attack for the
operations of the physician. The indications lie patent to the view,
and the therapeutic treatment is very simple.Hitherto, however, the results have not been commensurate with the
expectations. In no internal disease, according to the allopathic
view, is the point of attack on the bacteria more conveniently
situated than in diphtheria.Nevertheless, the results of the allopathic treatment of this
disease are pitiful. In Berlin alone,2000
children die annually from it, which is a large proportion,
notwithstanding the confessedly unhygienic surroundings.The antiseptic treatment of wounds with carbolic acid is cited as
an admirable example of the importance of killing bacteria. But there
is a concurrence of facts connected with this subject which ought not
to be disregarded.Among other things, the temperature is said to be lowered by
carbolic acid ;[Schmidt’s
Jahrbücher, Vol. CXCIV., p. 232.]
further, it has been observed that carbolic acid and other antiseptics
will prevent the escape of the white corpuscles, and therefore they
will arrest the progress of inflammation and the formation of pus.It is further manifest, from the researches carried on by the
sanitary authorities, that carbolic acid in an oleaginous solution
will not destroy bacteria, and yet physicians refuse to subordinate
their practice to theory, and believe in an antiseptic action of
carbolized oil, although oil in itself is not a suitable dressing for
wounds.It is also worthy of observation that even the much vaunted
antiseptic iodoform, even in large quantities, is not able to arrest
the decomposition of albumen.
Greater attention should be given to the chemical action of the
aromatic compounds on the production of urea in fever and
inflammation.The observations of
Rosenberger
[Centralblatt f. d. med. Wiss. 1882,
p. 65.
] and others that septic poison
free from bacteria can excite the same infective phenomena as that
containing bacteria, have an important bearing on the bacteria
question ; indeed, specific septicaemic bacteria make their appearance
in the organism which has been infected without bacteria.These septicaemic bacteria thus developed were, according to
Rosenberger,
produced from the fissiparous fungi present in the normal organism. Of
course these assertions require confirmation.
Buchner
has observed the
transformation of innocent into poisonous bacilli in the hay and
splenic fever bacilli, and in spite of the denial of Koch
this is confirmed by other observers.That a hurtful substance introduced into the body is able to
increase the number of bacteria normally existing in it, has been
established byRossbach
[Ibid., p. 81.]
by his experiments on the effects of papayotin.By introducing this substance into the circulation an extraordinary
large number of micrococci is developed in the blood even in one to
two hours.This discovery, which has been confirmed by subsequent experiments,
affords experimental proof of the fact that a poison, itself free from
organisms, is able to increase the lower organisms pre-existing in the
body with astonishingly greater rapidity than can be done by an actual
infection.
Rossbach
justly draws the
conclusion ” that in true infection the chemical poison or
ferment present along with the inoculated organisms is not
unimportant.”We may add that it is of far more importance than the bacteria,
which are only the carriers of the poison, and that this is capable of
existing without them.The hereditary transmission of syphilis is a proof of this. This
disease may also be transmitted through parasites. A single
spermatozoon is sufficient for conception.
Germicides the only true medicines.
This one seminal animalcule is the carrier of the syphilitic virus,
as well as of many other things. The virus appears to be structureless
in this case, and indeed, must be infinitely small in quantity.It is also important to note that the extent and intensity of a
morbid process are not always proportional to the number of the
bacteria present. It would be rash as yet to pronounce a decided
opinion respecting the importance of bacteria with regard to hygiene ;
it is, however, certain that they will not have the important bearing
upon therapeutics which allopaths expect from them. The results
hitherto obtained are in the highest degree unsatisfactory.Nevertheless, the attempts in this direction occupy a prominent
position. Many have gone so far as to appraise the therapeutic value
of medicines according to their ability to kill bacteria, and to deny
all medicinal action to substances which are not destructive of
bacteria.Bacterial therapeutics, which played such an important part in the
Medical Congress of1883,
is the pendant to the earlier chemical theories before spoken of. We
are as much dazzled nowadays by the discovery of bacteria as our
predecessors were formerly by the great advances in chemistry caused
by Lavoisier’s
discoveries.Over-hasty attempts were made to utilise them at the sick bed,
which were even shared by Alex. vonHumboldt.
Deficiency and excess of oxygen were the causes of disease, and there
were corresponding drugs which were to cure by promoting the
production or the absorption of oxygen. There was a germ of truth at
the bottom of these views.Yet, just as we now smile at the naïveté of such physiological
conceptions, shall we some day smile at the present attempt to found a
bacterial therapeutics, which does not hesitate to attribute the
efficacy of cold baths, in part at least, to their effect upon the
growth of bacteria, as appears from the reports of the Medical
Congresses.
Killing two birds with one stone.
Parasitism, upon which a large proportion of the allopaths now
place all their hopes in spite of its signal failure, shows how little
confidence they had in their former therapeutics ; it further
demonstrates that they do not understand how to appreciateVirchow’s
beautiful doctrine and, indeed, that they have no clear conception of
its importance.The gist of his doctrine, which no one has ever before expressed
with such conviction and supported by such proofs, and from whichHahnemann
himself started, is this : — Disease is a physiological process.The inference is : Study the forces which move the healthy organism
and are inherent in it, search for the substances with which they are
bound up, and make use of these forces for the cure of diseases.The bacterial craze disregards these fundamental rules, for it
regards the processes in the body as of no account ; it simply kills
the parasites and so cures the patient, unless the latter is killed
first ; for it cannot be doubted that an agent capable of killing the
bacteria would also kill the bacteria’s host or seriously injure him.We observe that in typhus, scarlet fever, measles, &c., the
body develops forces which subdue the disease together with the
bacteria ; the true physiological method of cure would be to stimulate
and reinforce these forces in morbid processes.
Virchow’s
theory, which
for more than twenty years formed the basis of orthodox medicine, so
much so that Virchow
was called ” the father of German medicine,” has lately been
to a great extent abandoned.Whereas it in former years completely dominated the views of all
the allopaths, and the latter confidently anticipated that it would
effect a beneficial development of medicine and loftily despised all
who thought otherwise, a decided opponent to it appeared at the
Congresses of Naturalists and Physicians in Munich in1877
and in Cassel in 1878.
Klebs
boldly attacked Virchow
in Cassel, without for a moment denying the latter’s great services to
medicine :” The central idea of the whole cellular theory,”
Klebs
declared, ” is quite undemonstrated, and is indeed extremely
improbable.”In the doctrine of the independent activity of the cell, there lay
concealed vitalists, which is untenable.
Cellular pathology of no
therapeutic value.A special cell-force, which resents injuries and carries on a kind
of war with the enemy — a cellular vital force — does not exist…..
We cannot recognize the autonomy of the cells as a morbid principle……….
Metaplasia of the cells, as described by Virchow,
does not occur…… Cellular pathology has not inquired why this or
that element should get beyond bounds.The most important task of medicine is not fulfilled by the
cellular pathology ; the latter neglects everything antecedent to
cellular changes, and has not succeeded in giving us a knowledge of
those morbid processes in which cell-changes do not occur or come on
at a later period.For this reason cellular pathology can develop no rational — i.e.
scientific — therapeutics based on a knowledge of the course of the
morbid processes………… Amicus Plato, major amica veritas !We here see an allopath and an admirer of
Virchow
convinced that his doctrine has been of no service to rational
therapeutics, a fact of great significance when we recall the great
expectations founded upon it, and the sub-lime contempt expressed by
thorough-going partisans of Virchow
for all who differed from them.Physical investigations are of the greatest importance to surgery.
We observe daily with satisfaction the benefits of the great progress
it has made, although the application of the same ideas to the
province of internal medicine have had a most detrimental action.Hygiene has also made great and most beneficent progress.
All the more lamentable is the condition of therapeutics. It is
evident from what has been said that allopathic treatment, which
disregards the active forces, must be merely symptomatic and
mechanical. Every day experience confirms this.In his
Handbuch der
Krankheiten des chylopoëtischen Apparates, [I.
2nd
Edit., p. 77,
Leipzic, 1878.]
Leube
attributes the beneficial action of Karlsbad, Marienbad and Tarasp to
their supposed property of accelerating the evacuation of the
injurious contents of the alimentary canal, and deduces therefrom that
enough water must be introduced into the diseased bowels to produce
many watery stools.We imagine ourselves transplanted to the last century after we read
such stuff.
Salvation in the stomach- pump.
Here are the same crude and coarse ideas respecting the process of
cure as were entertained by the old defunct physicians with their
stases, obstructions and impure humours.Even on theoretical grounds, every physician must see that if this
were the case every purgative would have as good an effect, even if
the most superficial observation did not suffice to show him that
these mineral waters have a beneficial effect even in doses too small
to purge, and that constipation during a course of the waters does not
interfere with the cure, and that if the waters are taken in
moderation better results are obtained than if the large quantities
necessary to establish diarrhoea are taken, and the organism is by
this means overloaded and weakened.The same chimney-sweep ideas are held in connexion with the
stomach-pump. This instrument, which is certainly useful in very rare
cases, is abused to an extent which shows how dissatisfied the
allopaths are with the results hitherto obtained by them in affections
of the stomach.Limited at first to dilatation of the stomach and gastric ulcers,
it soon became employed in all chronic diseases of the stomach. Zeal
was carried to such a pitch that a certain physician complained loudly
because his name was not mentioned in connexion with the stomach-pump,
though he was one of the first to advocate its use in all cases of
catarrh of the stomach.
Leube
boldly asserted [Die
Magensonde, Erlangen, 1879,
p. 81.]
that : “The immense progress made by clinical medicine in this
century is shown in this ” — the use of the stomach-pump.This commendation had hardly been uttered, when voices were
gradually raised to expose the error into which medical men had so
generally fallen, and by one after another this proof of “the
immense progress” of allopathy was consigned to the lumber-room
of exploded doctrines.If the theory of the action of the stomach-pump were correct, every
cold in the head should be rapidly cured by blowing the nose
frequently and physiology would be naught.
We can excuse the mistakes of individuals, but when we find the
whole profession holding a view quite opposed to physiology like this,
we cannot but believe that their entire therapeutic principles have no
foundation on physiology.The same is the case with regard to the pneumatic apparatus,
without which no ” scientific” consulting-room was complete.
At the present time it only plays a subordinate role and is only used
by a few physicians.The treatment of pain and sleeplessness, which are so frequently
combined, by morphia or chloral hydrate, shows how one-sided and
symptomatic is the allopathic method of treatment.In the majority of febrile affections the therapeutic eye is fixed
exclusively on one manifestation of the process, on one partial
phenomenon of the disease, that is on the fever. For some years past
quinine is the great remedy for all the various morbid processes
combined with fever ; it is the great febrifuge.For a period salicylic acid ran it hard ; latterly, however, it has
been more and more confined to the treatment of rheumatism, but even
with regard to this disease, in spite of the tens of thousands of
observers, they are not yet, after so many years, in a position to
indicate precisely the cases for which it is suitable. It cannot be
doubted that salicylic acid is a great gain to allopathic therapeutics
in the treatment of this disease, though the allopaths, by their
immoderate doses, seem to render doubtful the utility of this remedy.Before quinine, digitalis had been brought into fashion as the
febrifuge par excellence, byTraube
and Wunderlich.
Quinine, also, is again dethroned, and new usurpers are making their
appearance which will obtain the empire over all the fevers.A professor of Erlangen has brought on the
tapis
as the newest, and therefore
of course the best febrifuge, oxychinolinmethylhydrure.This drug, which for the sake of brevity he calls kairin, ” is
able to bring down the temperature to the normal without any evil
results.”[Berlin. klin.
Wochenschrift, 1882,
p. 681.]
Give several medicines at once, perhaps
one may hit the mark.Therefore this wonderful remedy must be able to cure the most
various pathological processes depending upon the most various
morbific causes.As long as the universities are wedded to the delusion that one
remedy directed to one manifestation can arrest the morbid action, no
valuable achievements are to be expected from them.Daily experience gives sufficient proof of the superficial and
one-sided symptomatic treatment of university medicine.Another fault that still adheres to ordinary practice, is that of
mixing various drugs.Virchow,
who has never, like so many of his colleagues, despaired of
therapeutics, gives the allopaths the sensible advice with regard to
the action of drugs, only to trouble themselves about the
“what” and not the “how.”Hence he appeals to experience, but he might very well have added
the warning of old Professor vonWedekind,
given in 1828.
[Hufel. Journ., Vol. LXVI., St. 6,
p. 4.]Physicians
may, while continuing their practice of administering mixtures, attain
in course of time to grey, even, God willing, to white hair, but they
will never gain any experience. But if the example of the homoeopaths
is able to induce us to give less medicine, to change our remedies
less frequently, and never to mix them without special reasons, we
shall, by careful observation, some day come so far that we shall,
without boasting, possess more practical experience than is now
unhappily the case ; with what satisfaction shall we then be able to
regard the absurdities of the homeopaths.
The virulence of their attacks show that the satisfaction over the
” absurdities ” of the homoeopaths is not great, but all the
greater is the mania for mixtures, as the allopathic prescriptions daily
show.This is shown not less by the works on prescription-writing,
especially that ofWaldenburg
and Simon,
in which, according to the assurances of the preface, the ” best
prescriptions” are given ; and, in fact, they are almost all long
and what the chemists call beautiful ” prescriptions, prettily
arranged for the use of medical practitioners.
Dr
Johann Gottfried Rademacher (1772-1850)
How much these prescriptions are used, is shown by the number of
editions through which the book has run ; a new one appeared in1883,
edited by a physician named Ewald
and an apothecary named Liidecke.
]In the Preface they speak of ” Rademacher’s
long prescriptions,” which shows that they know nothing about Rademacher’s
therapeutics, and do not even know the contents of the book they edit.
In it Rademacher’s
prescriptions are given, and they are among the very shortest it
contains. This is another proof of the frivolous manner in which
allopaths judge of things not belonging to their orthodox system, and of
which, on that account, they are quite ignorant.]The prescriptions are just as long and beautiful as ever.
The best “authorities” are devoted to the practice of
giving complex mixtures, which, asHahnemann
told them so often nearly a hundred years ago, always goes hand in hand
with quackery.Though now-a-days it is considered necessary to brand
Hahnemann
as a charlatan, this one merit they should allow him and they might
imitate the simplicity of his medicines, for without that exact
observation is impossible. They arc, however, still far removed from
this goal. The most illustrious physicians mix four or five drugs
together ” scientifically,” and thus ally them-selves with the
quacks ; and these are the teachers of the rising generation of medical
men.In order to excuse the practice of compounding, they refer to the
composite character of plants and mineral waters. These, however, are
quite definite, unalterable compounds of various substances, and have
been proved as a whole, and may thus be regarded as individual
medicines.The compounder capriciously mixes various drugs, one for each
symptom, and is under the delusion that each ingredient of the mixture
retains its peculiar action and will reach its proper address like the
letters in the Post Office, or he imagines that one remedy will ”
correct ” the other.The allopaths, at least some of them, give certain drugs, of whose
effect they feel certain, simply, as morphia, quinine, salicylic acid
(salicylate of soda), and mercury, and thus, as regards some medicines,
they already approach the teachings of the greatHahnemann,
as they do also in their disuse of blood-letting and the ”
evacuating method.”
Usual doses muck too large, they sometimes
kill the patient.It is true that they still change their remedies too often and do not
allow them to exhaust their full action, and they also commit the still
greater mistake of giving them in immoderate doses, thus complicating
the natural with an artificial disease.But a true ” rational ” scientific allopath is never at a
loss ; thus theAerztliches
Intelligenzblatt recommends in
the dangerous injuries to the hearing produced by salicylic acid —
not, indeed, a diminution of the dose and to pay particular attention to
the peculiarities of individual cases, in order to ascertain where it is
suitable — but the administration of secale cornutum in order to
diminish the hyperemia and paralysis of the vaso-motor nerves ; it,
however, adds that the addition of this drug often produces nausea,
retching, [No. 3,
1883.]
and even vomiting.Another widely-read paper, the
Deutsche
Medizinalzeitung [Deutsche
Medizinalzeitung, 1883,
p. 511.]
considers this discovery of such
importance that it gives it to its circle of readers with an approving
introduction.In order to carry out the requirements of “science,”
morphia should be added to counteract the retching and vomiting of the
secale, and it would certainly also be “rational” to
counteract the ” collateral effects” of this dearly beloved
morphia, by giving its antidote atropia by way of a corrigens.In such a state of ” science,” it will not be superfluous
to glance at some of the ” collateral effects ” of the
allopathic remedies.Quinine, in medicinal doses, produced gastralgia, paralysis,
epileptic fits, deafness, amaurosis, and in twelve cases death.[Schmidt’s
Jahrbücher. Vol. LXVI., p. 168.]A child six years old, suffering from ague, was given two doses of
3
grs. of quinine, one at two and the other at five p.m. An hour after the
last dose it became hot and restless and was seized with convulsions,
followed by mydriasis and blindness. It died in three hours.A man of thirty years of age, suffering from ague, but otherwise
healthy, took in the space of twenty and a half hours,52
grains of quinine. An hour and a half after the last dose, he was seized
with restlessness, trembling, irregular and shallow breathing,
mydriasis, blindness and convulsions. Guersent
quotes similar observations by Trousseau
and Giacometti
in the Dict. de Med., vol.
26,
art. Quinquina.
When quinine was given to dogs the following symptoms were produced :
restlessness, vomiting, diarrhoea, convulsive movements in the muscles,
staggering gait, paralysis of the limbs, vascular excitement,
accelerated pulse, difficult breathing, immovable and dilated pupils,
loss of sight, convulsions, coma, twitchings, dyspnoea and death.The necroscopies showed “accumulation of blood in the lungs
resembling red hepatisation ; ” ” congestion of the vessels of
the brain and its membranes, also, occasionally, of the liver and
kidneys ; ” ” patches of congestion in the stomach and
intestines ; ” ” the spinal cord more or less congested.”” The poisonous effects of quinine on dogs agree with those
produced by it on man.”Dr.
Bazire
dosed himself to death with quinine, and his wife was rendered deaf and
blind for a considerable time by taking 35
drachms within a short time. Kriquet
saw death result, on two occasions, from much smaller doses, and Recamier
from 2
ounces taken in 4
grain doses.The author thinks that doses of
3/4
to 1
drachm would be fatal nine times ( ?) out of ten.
[Schmidt’s Jahrbücher, Vol. LXIII., p. 16.]After
3/4
drachm of hydrocyanate of
quinine, the following effects were observed :” great heat of the whole body, redness and swelling of the
face, hard and full pulse, twitchings, redness of the conjunctiva,
widely-dilated pupils, salivation, stammering, convulsions of the upper
extremities, embarrassed respiration, anxiety, profuse sweating on the
chest, incontinence of urine and emission of semen in a strong man, aged27,”
who could with difficulty be
saved.
Quinine not absolutely harmless.
After
1
/ 2
drachm of sulphate of quinine amaurosis came on, and after 3
drachm violent hemorrhage from the rectum.
[Schmidt’s Jahrb. Vol. XVIII., p.292.
]A woman, aged
33,
experienced violent cerebral symptoms, with convulsive movements, from 1
/ 4.
grain of quinine, and a repetition of the dose brought on the same
symptoms. Three other similar cases are mentioned. [Ibid,
LXXXI., p. 157.]After medicinal doses of
6
grains to 1
drachm common effects produced were : Heaviness and sense of fulness,
confusion of head, difficulty of hearing, deafness, delusions of vision,
vertigo, occasional delirium, in rare cases meningitis and convulsions,
still more rarely general collapse. [Ibid,
Vol. LXXVII., p. 308.]On giving it to three healthy colleagues,
1
to hours after doses of 9
to 12
grains of quinine, there resulted : redness of the face and ears
(especially the lobes), sense of fulness and ringing in the ears, as
also great injection of the vessels of the malleus — signs, probably,
of congestion of the labyrinth. [Ibid,
Vol. CLXXI. p 294.]By experiments on animals, the fact has been established that quinine
produces great hyperemia and ecchymoses of the mucous membrane lining
the internal ear, exudations and destructive processes in the labyrinth,
great injection of the meningeal vessels and ecchymoses in the brain.We not unfrequently meet people complaining of deafness after the
administration of quinine. An allopath confirms this in theBerliner
Klinische Wochenschrift (1881,
p. 726),
where he declares ” that he has interrogated people worthy of
credit, who asserted that they had become deaf in consequence of the
administration of large closes of quinine.”The symptoms of quinine-deafness are there described in detail, and
bleeding, mercurial ointment, and tincture of iodine are recommended as
remedies.In consequence of an observation of lardy, that sudden death has
followed the administration of quinine in large doses in typhus,Laborde
[Ibid, Vol. CXCIX., p. 122.]
undertook physiological experiments by giving large doses of quinine to
rabbits and dogs.
Pathogenetic effects of
quinine.Soon after the injection the force of the contractions of the heart
increased, and this was followed by weakening of the heart’s action ; on
renewing the dose the heart’s action was again increased ; finally, its
force was greatly diminished and trembling movements of it supervened.” This effect of quinine on the heart, in predisposing morbid
states, explains the cases of sudden death in typhus and allied fevers
through syncope or paralysis of the heart and respiration.”[Physiological experiments by Dumeril, Demarquay and Lecointe, with
doses of 15
to 30
grains of quinine, caused, first, a decrease of the temperature by some
tenths of a degree, and then a rise of 1.3
to 2.2°
(Schmidt’s Jahrb., Vol. LXXI., p. 288).
In two dogs (Ibid, Vol. LXXVI., p. 21),
after the introduction of 15
to 30
grains of quinine the temperature rose from 1.5
to 2°.
In the same periodical (Vol. LX XVI I., p. 358)
there is a report of the “quinine fever,” in the manufactory
of Zimmer in Frankfurt o. M. In one case there occurred a tertian ague,
p. 359
: “according to Zimmer the fever comes on with extreme heat or with
icy coldness of the whole body, very like an ague.”]Besides quinine, salicylic acid has become a fashionable allopathic
remedy, and we see it prescribed in doses of3
or even 5
drachms (salicylate of soda). Prof. X. [Schmidt’s
Jahrb., Vol. CLXXIII., p. 161.]
who tried 0.05
to 0.10
gramme doses of salicylic acid several times a day in the diarrhoea of
children states : ” In most cases in which it was given, sooner or
later severe inflammation of the kidneys set in, not seldom accompanied
with uremia and ending fatally. More or less serious collapse was also a
common result of its administration.”He further speaks of the injurious effects of salicylic acid in
febrile affections, and the following case is narrated : Febrile
symptoms made their appearance in a child of five months, the ”
probable cause of which was inflammation of vaccine vesicles, three of
which existed on each arm and which had suppurated.” To bring down
the fever salicylic acid was prescribed,15
grains in three doses, to be taken at short intervals ; the child
resisted so lustily that only 8
or 10
grains could be given. It immediately became restless, cried loudly,
tossed about, &c.
Toxic effects of salicylic acid.
As a consequence of the medicine, the mucous membrane of the mouth
and fauces was eroded as if from the action of lunar caustic ; the child
was unable to swallow, and any touch on the mouth, the cheeks and the
pharynx appeared to be painful.The child’s breathing became much distressed, and it died of the
effects of the salicylic acid, as was shown by the cadaveric section(Ibid).
Vertigo, ringing in the ears, even deafness and dyspnoea are
mentioned in allopathic works as results of the administration of
salicylic acid.
Bride
, [Deutsche
Medizinalzeitung, 1883,
p. 511.]
e.g., observed complete deafness
after salicylic acid ; he found the semi-circular canals of this
deafened person completely filled with masses of connective tissue of
various thickness.In the
Berliner Klinische
Wochenschrift, 1883,
p. 241,
it is stated that a lady, after the second dose of one drachm of
salicylate of soda, was seized with alarming dyspnoea.Nevertheless the dose was repeated, and violent dyspnoea returned to
such a degree that the on-lookers expected her death momentarily ; other
symptoms were : giddiness, noise in the ears, systolic heart murmur,
weakness of the heart, intermittent pulse and dimness of vision.Prof. Y.
[Berliner klin.
Wochenschrift, 1882,
p. 709.]
gave a girl of seventeen, who was suffering from rheumatism, at first
then 3
drachms of salicylate of soda daily.Death ensued on the fourth day. According to the report of the
post-mortem examination, the Professor himself said :” There can be no doubt that the fatal issue must be attributed
to the salicylate of soda.”He, at the same time, adduces a number of cases from medical
literature, in which toxical effects were caused by medicinal doses of
salicylic acid.A third drug which has long been fashionable with the allopaths is
chloral hydrate. The allopaths thus describe its ” collateral
effects.”That large doses of chloral hydrate may cause serious poisonous
symptoms and even death is shown by a great number of observations made
on patients…. It can be confidently asserted that several people have
been poisoned by it in doses within the limits of approved medicinal
doses.[Schmidt’s Jahrb., Vol.
CLI, p. 97.
]
Fatal results from chloral
hydrate.This remark is made by
Husemann,
who gives the hypnotic dose of choral hydrate as 7
to 30
grains (see his Arzneimittellehre,
1875).Another author
[Ibid, Vol.
CLIII. Page 140.
] says :We can, unfortunately, adduce a number of cases which show that even
chloral hydrate has dangerous and undesirable collateral effects. It
cannot be maintained that in all these cases impure chloral hydrate was
given.A minute account of the cases of poisoning follows.
Further on the following statement is made :
[Ibid,
Vol. CLV., p. 146.]
” Numerous other examples of
the poisonous effects of chloral hydrate might be quoted.”A number of cases is given where the patients were brought to the
brink of the grave by the ordinary doses of this substance, and only
with difficulty saved.We also find the report of seven fatal cases following the
administration of chloral hydrate to patients who were not suffering
from mortal diseases. Death resulted in the case of a woman whom it was
intended to slightly narcotise by it for the extraction of a tooth ; she
was given55
grains, and died very soon afterwards.The same happened in the case of a vine-grower of forty-three years
of age, ” almost instantaneously,” and a notary, aged
forty-eight years, died in a quarter of an hour after a dose of1
1
/ 4
drachm ; a woman expired after taking i drachm in the space of three
hours.“A young lady, twenty years of age, enjoying good health in
other respects,” was given25
grains of chloral hydrate for dysmenorrhoea. At ten o’clock at night she
took this dose, and, after a period of excitement, fell asleep to awake
in eternity. In spite of every assistance she was a corpse next morning (Ibid).
A young man and another patient are mentioned who suffered the same
fate(Ibid).
Allopathic remedies sometimes the
reverse of remedial.A number of striking cases will be found in the
Bayr.
ärztl. Intelligent-Blatt, 1872.
Bd. 19.In the Congress of Physical Investigation at Freiburg, in
1883,
the fact was acknowledged that ” literature contains the accounts
of many cases in which large doses of chloral caused speedy death
directly by paralysis of the heart and blood vessels : the patients fell
into a faint, with lowering of the temperature, and could not again be
roused.”The same speaker also enumerated the symptoms of chronic chloral
poisoning : derangements of digestion, skin affections, flushings of the
face and head after small quantities of stimulants, great congestion of
the conjunctiva and fundus of the eyes, excited action of the heart,
impairment of nutrition, severe pains in the limbs and slight
psychopathic disturbances.He concluded by describing an attack of fully developed mania in a
patient who had been taking morphia and chloral for asthma.If these facts do not suffice to enable us to judge of the value of
allopathic remedies, plenty of further materials of a similar kind will
be found in other volumes of this same periodical.We could also cite numerous examples to show that morphia, chlorate
of potash, digitalis, iodine, mercury, &c. in the hands of the
allopaths have proved destructive to health and life. What immense
quantities of that pernicious drug, mercury, are taken into their bodies
by our unfortunate fellow-creatures !Its ravages are often more dreadful than those of the disease.
Accidental and artificial cases of mercurial poisoning have shown that
inflammations and ulcerations of the mucous membrane, extensive
cutaneous ulcerations, caries of the teeth, diseases of the bones going
on to ulceration, inflammatory and destructive processes in the lungs,
haemoptysis, &c., are brought on by it.The carelessness of the allopaths induces them to give this injurious
metal in incredible quantities. To rub in2
1
/ 2
ounces of mercurial ointment within ten to fourteen days is quite a
common event.The circumstance that the same poison does not act with the same
virulence on all people, and may be taken by some without immediate
injurious results, causes the allopaths to forget with what dangerous
poisons they are working, though the great observer,Hahnemann,
has shown that such perilous doses are unnecessary.
Schmidt’s
Jahrbücher
[Vol. CLXXXVII., p. 14,
and CLXXXVIII., p. 12.]
gives complete information
concerning the collateral effects of the much-used chlorate of potash.This drug may produce cerebral inflammations, gastro-enteritis,
inflammation of the kidneys and death, as was shown twenty years ago,
and as has been fully confirmed by post-mortems in recent years.A great many cases are quoted in which, to be sure, death was
generally owing to having taken more than the prescribed doses of this
drug, but the liberal manner in which it is prescribed by the allopaths
was the chief cause of the catastrophe. At all events, we have here
again a proof of the injurious effects of the allopathic doses furnished
by the allopaths themselves.In the same way examples could be easily given of atrophy and
albuminuria caused by allopathic doses of iodine, and also of the
injuriousness of digitalis and many other drugs habitually prescribed by
allopaths. Instead of diminishing, allopathic doses seem to be
increasing coincidently with their crude and symptomatic conceptions.In
1855
it was possible for Virchow
to say in his Handbook of
Special Pathology and Therapeutics, [Vol.
II., p. I, p. 291.]
that ” chronic poisonings by
means of morphia, or substances containing it, fortunately occur so
seldom in Germany that they possess little clinical interest.”Now, however, special works are written on
Morphia
Poisoning, The Treatment of Morphia-Patients, and
prospectuses distributed of ” Institutions for the treatment of
patients suffering from morphia and nervous complaints,” as if the
morphia disease were a natural morbid process.All cases of morphia disease may be referred to an allopathic
initiative.We. must not forget that these substances, which exert such an
energetic action on the body, are given to patients whose systems are
already weakened by disease, that the sick organism is thus additionally
burdened with a medicinal disease, and the task imposed on it of
overcoming the medicinal in addition to the natural disease.
Dangerous doses often prescribed.
In the
Allgemeine
arzneiverordnungslehre, [By
Ewald and Lüdecke, Berlin, 1883,
p. 687.]
we read that ” Liebermeister
in high fever gives pills containing 0.005
gramme veratrin, one every hour, till nausea or vomiting is produced,
for which four to six pills usually suffice.”Such prescriptions remind us of the ” science” of the last
century. And this is the treatment pursued by a professor who imparts to
so many young physicians their therapeutic principles. Older physicians
copy these prescriptions, and are thus able to adduce the best authority
for their treatment should it turn out disastrously.In
Nothnagel
and Rossbach’s
Handbuch der Arzneimittellehre we
read : [Berlin, 1878,
p. 611.]” Children have died from the effects of
0.001
gramme of morphia ” — the quantity calculated to be contained in
the opium administered to them. We are therefore advised not to
administer opium to very young children. A given dose of opium, however,
is said in the same work to have an action equivalent to two-thirds of
its weight of morphia.Professor
Seitz
recommends, in Niemeyer’s
Therapie, [Tenth
Edition, 1879,
p. 542.)
for catarrh of the stomach and
diarrhoea in infants, 2
to 5
drops of tincture of opium in 8
ounces of decoction of salep, a teaspoonful every two hours.
Niemeyer’s
book is in the
hand of every practitioner, and all young physicians go to it for their
therapeutic wisdom. A book so widely read recommends opium in a
dangerous dose !Physiology teaches us that the amount of stimulation is by no means
proportional to the intensity of the stimulus. A stimulus liberates a
number of forces whose magnitude cannot be estimated by the commercial
weight of the agent administered.Besides the mischief which allopaths do by the size of their doses,
their treatment is also inconsistent with the teachings of physiology.Their therapeutic rule, ” much helps much,” which is
specially illustrated by their endeavour to cure disease by killing the
bacteria supposed to cause it, is entirely unphysiological.
Allopathic treatment of
pneumonia.If we examine in detail allopathic therapeutics, we shall find full
confirmation of these assertions. Let us glance at their treatment of
pneumonia, not because we think it specially suitable for deciding on
the value of a method of treatment, on the contrary, we consider it
utterly unsuitable for this object, but because the allopaths are fond
of appealing to this disease to demonstrate the excellence of their
system.
Liebermeister
and Jürgensen
are the great coryphaei of the par excellence ” rational ”
treatment, and as such they received the thanks of the Congress at
Wiesbaden.Moreover,
Jürgensen
spoke of the recent great advances in allopathic therapeutics, and of
the great benefit which would be reaped by our descendants. We are
therefore interested to know how he treats pneumonia. He lays down his
principles in Volkmann’s
Sammlung klinischer Vorträge, 1872,
No. 45.According to him, the physician must keep his eye on the heart and on
the fever. ” Pneumonia patients die from failure of the
heart,” p.326.
The cause of the weakness of the heart is the exudation. We would
therefore suppose that the process going on in the lungs must be
attacked, but no !
Jürgensen
says we must
attack the cardiac weakness and the fever, that is to say, the
consequences of the disease. For this purpose he advises cold baths and
quinine : “When the fever is high 1
¼ drachm of quinine may be given to an adult, or 15
grains to a child, under a year old — always in a single dose.”
Jürgensen
is
“strongly of opinion that these are very far from being the extreme
limits for quinine. I know that such large doses will appear dangerous
to many ; my instructress is experience. Only
fools fight against facts.
Only fools fight against facts, but what are
facts ?Those whose object it is to restore the sick to health must not treat
them according to traditions, but when they are once certain in their
own minds what is best to be done they will not hesitate to do it.”We detect in this the didactic tone of the professor. With enviable
coolness he calls his experience “facts,” and stigmatises as
“fools ” those who do not agree with him.” Not unfrequently” vomiting follows the administration of
quinine. If it comes on soon, the dose must be repeated, and ” when
there is periculum in mora we should not hesitate, but should rather
give too much than too little.” Moreover, the patient, after taking
the quinine, should keep the mouth open “in order to get rid of the
excessive secretion of saliva,” and thereby “perhaps
obviate” the vomiting.“Tartar emetic and veratrin lower the temperature at the expense
of the heart, both induce collapse.”In
Niemeyer’s
Therapie [Edited
by Prof Seitz, 1874,
I., p. 197.
] veratrin is strongly
recommended. ” We must, however, bear in mind,” says Professor
Seitz,
” that the desired effect can only be attained by the
administration of doses large enough to produce of slight toxic effects
— vomiting, diarrhoea, great prostration.”Veratrin is nevertheless recommended, for diarrhoea ; vomiting and
great prostration are only ” slight ” phenomena to the
scientific physician. We are therefore actually recommended to induce
these ” slight ” toxic effects, otherwise ” the desired
effect will not be attained.”
Seitz
maintains (l.c.) that
digitalis should be “extensively employed” in pneumonia, and Jürgensen
states that ” Every one who has had much experience with digitalis,
and has given it in effective doses, must have observed that the
collapse following its administration has coincided with the
defervescence,” p. 336.Prof.
Husemann
[Arzneimittellehre, 1875,
II., p. 920.]
writes :While some decades ago hardly a case of pneumonia was conducted to a
favourable or a fatal issue without the administration of digitalis with
or without nitre and tartar emetic, the use of preparations of digitalis
is now becoming much less frequent.This drug is now greatly superseded by quinine.
Jürgensen
prefers quinine ” because it does not affect the heart
injuriously.” Only fools fight against facts, nevertheless we
venture to quote the opinions of other men, with whom Jürgensen
may fight it out.
Schmidt’s
Jahrbücher
[Vol. LXXXI., p. 155
and 156.
] quotes a number of experiments
on dogs, showing that quinine, in doses of 30
grains, has a depressing effect on the heart’s action, and, in the same
work we read : [Vol. LXIII., p. 16.]” Its poisonous effects on dogs agree with those on human
beings.” On page401
further observations on the action of quinine are detailed, according to
which much smaller doses than those given by Jürgensen
produced highly injurious effects, and here young and old physicians are
advised to give such large doses in such a dangerous disease.If there is sleeplessness in a case of pneumonia, morphia and chloral
hydrate are the panaceas.Jürgensen
gives chloral hydrate in doses of 1
1/4
to 2
drachms.We have just seen that i drachm of chloral hydrate, and indeed even r
scruple has caused death in diseases not of a serious character.Jürgensen
recommends doses up to 2
drachms. With what ideas are the young physicians of today turned loose
upon suffering humanity by such professors !
Jürgensen
writes on page 340,
with regard to the diet of pneumonic patients : ” In every severe
case, I insist upon the patient taking strong beef tea once or twice a
day in table-spoonfuls, with one to two eggs.Also a quantity of milk, which is to be determined separately for
each case, according to circumstances.” Besides this, alcoholic
drinks play a prominent part. In certain cases this may be advisable.Dogmatism is, however, here out of place, the patient should not be
imperatively required to cat under all circumstances. If this is done
the physician will disorder the patient’s stomach and aggravate his
malady.
Sanantur in libris, moriuntur in lectis.
Milk is a two-edged sword. In many healthy people it causes catarrh
of the stomach ; nevertheless, it is theoretically easily digested, and
it is frequently prescribed without sufficient caution.Before recommending milk the physician should always inquire whether
the patient could take it when he was well, and prescribe it or not
accordingly. But this is playing too humble a part ; we issue our
commands and they must be obeyed.To combat the cardiac weakness : Port wine, madeira, sherry,
champagne, hot grog made with brandy, rum, or whisky, strong coffee or
tea, camphor and musk — here we haveBrown
over again, though the words sthenia and asthenia are not used.On pages
345
and 346
Jürgensen
holds forth on the subject of venesection. We are only interested in
noting that it is again found to be indicated at the present day.If dyspepsia occurs during convalescence, cinchona and iron are
prescribed :“We begin with one pill, and increase the number proportionately
to the degree of dyspepsia present,” p.349.
This is beyond all doubt ” scientific.” The more intense the
disease the more ferocious the attack, the weaker the stomach the
stronger the dose. Much helps much !” If absorption is slow, I cannot sufficiently urgently
recommend oleum terebinth. to your notice,” twelve drops six times
a day !This is the only remedy alluded to for this state, and
Jürgensen
cannot sufficiently urgently recommend it. We cannot believe that this
professor has ever tried the effect of twelve drops of this drug six
times a day on his own healthy body, otherwise he would certainly not
prescribe it for debilitated patients in such doses.How far in advance of these physicians was
Hahnemann
in this respect !Where absorption is slow, the stomach is usually in such a condition
that it will not tolerate the twelve drops of turpentine six times a
day. ” But in that case we can give quinine and iron,” an
allopath would rejoin.This is true enough, therefore ” rational ” medicine from
prudential motives must add to the oil of turpentine iron and quinine.
Nephritis is not an infrequent complication of pneumonia, butJürgensen
does not mention it ; it is well-known that oil of turpentine causes
symptoms of irritation of the kidneys. Jürgensen
should not have omitted to mention this circumstance to his pupils when
he recommended oil of turpentine.At the commencement of his essay,
Jürgensen
says that the patient and not the disease must be treated, and wherein
does this individualisation consist ? The degree of intensity of the
disease must be observed and a stronger or weaker dose given
accordingly.The proof of the propriety of this therapeia is afforded by
statistics which show a mortality of12
per cent. Later accounts [Jürgensen,
Croupöse Pneumonie. Tübingen, 1883,
p. 257.]
give a mortality of 12.7
per cent.The statistics given by Professor
Hasper
of the treatment of cholera by venesection are, however, still more
favourable, viz. : out of 100
treated for cholera by bleeding, one died ! Jürgensen appeals to his
hearers. This was also done by the advocate of bleeding, Professor Bischoff.
[Ansichten über das bisher.
Heilverfahren. Prague, 1819,
p. 129.]The latter treated
197
“inflammations of the lungs,” only ten of whom died, i.e.,
5
per cent., of these ten, four had phthisis, and three died ” in
consequence of errors in diet.” ” In 26,
moderate antiphlogistic measures, either alone or combined with
leeching, sufficed ; in all the others (not excepting the peripneumonia
of Sydenham),
venesection, regulated in amount by the degree of violence of the
inflammation, was practised, and, indeed, in some cases repeated three
to six times, and leeches were often applied in addition.”
“All his hearers were witnesses of these results.”
Dr Thomas SYDENHAM (1624-1689)A remarkable event happened to this same Professor
Bischoff
afterwards in Vienna, which had an entirely ” unscientific”
issue. In the first comparative trial of homoeopathy, three cases of
pneumonia were taken.One was left to nature, the second was treated
“scientifically,” and the third, homoeopathically.
Comparative trial of homeopathy.
The last became convalescent in five or six days ; the scientific
patient was confined to bed for many weeks, and nature was very slow in
restoring the third. This was the result of chance, saysSimon,
[Antihom. Archiv, 1834,
Vol. II., p. 127.]
and he adds :I say, si fabula vera, for I can hardly believe that a comparative
therapeutics can be made in such a futile manner. How can three cases
treated in different ways decide anything ? Many thousands of
cases treated during many
years would be required, and also exact observations under the most
various conditions and in the most diverse individuals.Who will not admit the truth of this ? We must, however, ask where
have these thousands of observations — required in order to judge of
homoeopathy, which are necessary according to the allopaths themselves,
in order to decide the question — been carried out ?If
Jürgensen
were as imprudent as his late colleague Bischoff,
we are very much afraid he might encounter a similar mischance.
Jürgensen
says on p. 333
:My experience justifies me in asserting that in pneumonia the direct
abstraction of heat is permissible. I am fortunate enough to be able to
adduce the important testimony of Liebermeister, whose mortality with
purely anti-pyretic treatment was reduced from24.4
per cent. to 8.8
per cent.We should like to know how these
24
per cent. who died were treated. Major’s dissertation, [Ueber
die Behandling der acuten croupösen Pneumonie, Basel, 1870.]
quoted by Jürgensen,
unhappily gives no information on this point. It states, pp. 3
to 5,
that from 1839
to 1867,
in the Basel Hospital, 24.4
per cent, of ” true acute pneumonias ” died. The proportion
remained the same during each decade ; indeed, between 1863
and 1868,
of 200
hundred pneumonia cases 54
died, i.e.,
27
per cent !We saw above, on p.
220,
that in the first experiment of Dietl,
20
per cent. died under venesection and tartar emetic, while only 7
per cent. died under dietetic treatment.Later, in
1852,
Dietl,
who had been violently attacked, published a further series of
experiments.
Victims to allopathic science.
He treated
750
expectantly ; 69
died, i.e., 9.2
per cent. In this instance no selection was made, but all cases of
pneumonia were counted, even if it were only a complication of some
other complaint.By these statistics we are forced to the following reflection : among
the24.4
per cent. who died, 15
per cent. were victims to science.Further : The results of the ” purely anti-pyretic method ”
are of no value as proofs of its success, and the ” weighty
authority ofLiebermeister
” is, after all, only a feather-weight. The only thing affected by
it is a diminution of the number of sacrifices to ” science.”Page
332
: Jürgensen
confesses that the cold bath may be the direct cause of death. The other
measures of this clinical instructor are also acknowledged to be
dangerous. His own statistics, in the face of the obviously dangerous
character of his treatment, cannot be adduced in his favour ; besides,
they are less favourable than those of Dietl.For this reason it is not permissible to imitate Jurgensen’s
dangerous experiments.[Schmidt’s
Jahrb., Vol. LXXVI. 30.]***
In
1882
there met in Wiesbaden the “Congress
fur Internal Medicine,” the
object of which is to rescue internal medicine from being absorbed by
surgery and the specialists, and to protect the idea of the unity of the
human organism from the threatened disruption and disintegration.The president,
Frerichs,
energetically repelled all dictation by pathological anatomy, chemistry
and experimental pathology, and maintained that everything must be
decided by individual judgment and experience. The proceedings of this
Congress might well be looked forward to with intense interest, for
pretty nearly all the members of the allopathic world who have any claim
to be considered authorities took part in it.
Individual judgment and
experience, the physician’s only sure guide.We were told all kinds of things we did not want to know, but no
mention was made of what it was essential to know, viz., what methods of
investigation should in future be adopted ; we were only told that every
one must be guided by “his own individual judgment and
experience.”If we examine the reports of the proceedings more closely we shall
find them interesting, as giving us a glimpse of some of the modern
allopathic ideas and achievements.The order of the day on the third occasion of its meeting was ”
Anti-pyretic methods of treatment.”
Karl v. Liebermeister (1833-1901)That such a theme should be put forward in such a manner shows
conclusively the superficial symptomatic and unphysiological nature of
the treatment of the modern allopathic school.Liebermeister,
in fact, only speaks of the ” fever ” which must be combated
by cold baths, quinine or salicylic acid. What the morbid process may be
upon which the fever depends does not seem to be of the slightest
consequence. The only thing to be attended to is the degree of the
fever.
Riess
says he will not
waste words upon “the evidence in favour of the usefulness of an
anti-pyretic treatment of fever,” because he is sure that the
majority of his audience have long been convinced on this point.
Absolutely nothing is said about the cause of the fever ; it is quite a
secondary matter what the disease is which produces the fever.He proceeds to speak of anti-pyretic treatment in general, “of
the danger of the febrile elevation of the temperature,” not of the
character of the morbid process, with which the sentence immediately
following is in naive contradiction : ” It is evident that there is
no parallelism between the height of the temperature and the intensity
of the disease.”In proof of this he gives some instances of relapsing fever and
typhus. We confidently expect the only logical deduction from this :
therefore not the fever, but the morbid process, must be the point
against which our treatment must be directed. But instead and in spite
of this, he recommends quite in a general way “internal
anti-pyretics,” and especially salicylic acid, together with cold
baths.According to
Riess,
salicylic acid acts better than the quinine recommended by Liebermeister.
” The treatment of typhus is the best test of the value of
anti-pyretic remedies.” In typhus, [We
may remind our readers that what we call typhoid or enteric fever is
usually spoken of in Germany as ” abdominal typhus,” or
curtly, ” typhus.” — [Eu.]] where
there is inflammation and ulceration of the intestinal canal, doses of 1
drachm of salicylic acid are recommended.Let the reader refer to the effects of salicylic acid mentioned above
on pages401-402.
He has also employed the salicylic acid treatment in pneumonia and
phthisis. Here, again, the antifebrile method of treatment is spoken of
in quite a general manner.In conclusion,
Riess
says that the parasite theory will not abrogate symptomatic
therapeutics, and will certainly not diminish the importance of ”
anti-pyretic treatment.”
Jürgensen
is not satisfied
with salicylic acid ; it takes away the appetite and produces
disagreeable cerebral symptoms. In severe typhus he gives “light
Bordeaux wine up to two litres a day.” The baths must be given
quite cold — the colder the better. ” But the public do not take
to these cold baths, it is said.Last year I treated the only child of a fellow practitioner in a
severe attack of typhus. Father and mother gave the child cold baths,
and they both admitted that the cold baths of only four minutes’
duration were a real boon to themselves and to the child.” He also
agrees withBrand,
who holds the view that the great abstraction of heat prevents the
further development of the typhus-germ in the body, and Liebermeister
thinks the same.We cannot help asking ourselves whether the complex human organism is
to be regarded merely as an incubating stove for parasites, without any
reactions caused by the character of the disease and the individuality
of the patient ?Jürgensen
concluded by speaking quite generally of ” anti-pyresis,”
” at the head of which the cold water treatment must always be
placed.”
Curschmann
is also in
favour of cold water, but he prefers quinine to salicylic acid.
Binz
discusses the question
whether the anti-pyretic treatment can be considered a causal treatment,
whether it is able to kill the fever-poison in the organism. He answers
it in the affirmative. Salicylic acid diminishes the duration of
rheumatic arthritis to as many days as it formerly lasted weeks.
(Whether his whole audience believed him is not reported.).This can only be explained by supposing that it destroys the poison
of the disease. The same happens in the treatment of syphilis with
mercury.Binz
spoke afterwards of the earlier views of the Vienna school. ” It
said : We are not able to cure a disease ; the patient is only an object
for observation, and it is at most a triumph for us if we can verify our
diagnosis on the dissecting table.”
Binz
enacts here the part
of the enfant terrible of
the first Congress for Internal Medicine.
Gerhardt
is ” fully
convinced ” that the anti-pyretic treatment is the greatest advance
made in the whole domain of internal therapeutics.At the Congress of Physical Investigators at Freiburg in
1883,
Liebermeister
says emphatically : ” The anti-pyretic method has justly been
called one of the greatest advances which have been made in therapeutics
in recent times,” but he speaks of the method itself as
“expectant — symptomatic.” “This expression will be
regarded 50
years hence very much as we now-a-days regard the paeans of praise that
used to be sung to the glorification of venesection.”To return to the Wiesbaden Congress.
Seitz
observed that it would be interesting to discuss the question how much
anti-pyresis was able to effect in different febrile diseases. Here at
last we meet with a physician who at least thinks individualization
necessary, though he, too, speaks of anti-pyrosis generally and not of
the morbid process.
Riihle
was emphatically of
opinion that the anti-pyretic method had spread routine treatment among
the ” medical public.” ” This had had an injurious effect
on our scientific position which it should be our task to regain.”
Indebtedness of medicine to the
water-curers.We willingly subscribe to this opinion ; but by bringing forward and
discussing in such a manner themes like ” anti-pyretic
treatment,” routine, not science, is honoured. It is not science.Fifty years ago the peasant
Priessnitz
possessed science of this description. Neither is it science when Rühle
recommends the administration of calomel in typhus in order to ”
excite the liver, which is used as a depot by the typhus poison, to
energetic action, in order that at the same time a portion of the
injurious matter may be removed.” We seem to be listening to a
disciple of Maximilian Stoll
in the year 1782,
not to a professor of internal medicine at a Medical Congress in 1882.
Liebermeister
defends
himself from the imputation of routine. ” The anti-pyretic method
was on the pro-gramme for to-day, and that is why we have discussed it
only.” This fact, we repeat, is amply sufficient to justify us in
designating the allopathic a routine treatment.When
Liebermeister
adds that this method is not used in the treatment of syphilis, this
far-fetched justification is completely against himself. He proceeds to
say that they (the allopaths) would be happy to treat typhus, scarlet
fever, and other diseases with specifics, ” but for the present
that is, alas ! only a pious wish.” The same is the case with
regard to the parasitic theory. ” We should like very much, only we
cannot.” There is a very good reason for this, Binz
and his quinine and salicylic acid notwithstanding. The allopaths are
searching just where nothing is to be found.This characteristic discussion was concluded by repeated expressions
of satisfaction that there was a perfect unanimity on this subject, and
that this proved the unity of opinion among them on therapeutic
questions. But this unanimity was only with respect to the treatment by
cold water. Who was it that introduced the systematic employment of cold
water ? The laymenOertel
and Priessnitz,
more especially the latter, who treated patients in this way many years
ago, and was on that account attacked by the allopaths in the manner
peculiar to them, with which the reader has already been made
sufficiently acquainted. If it had not been for these two laymen it is
very doubtful whether there would have been this wonderful unanimity
over which there was so much jubilation.
When doctors do agree their unanimity is
wonderful.We should have therefore expected that this Congress would have paid
their debt of honour to these laymen, considering the vile manner in
which they had formerly been attacked by the allopaths, and that they
would at least have said a few words in grateful remembrance of these
men to whom they were indebted for their present unanimity.We may remind our readers that this was not the first allopathic
medical congress in which uniformity of opinion concerning therapeutic
measures prevailed. The same unanimity was repeatedly observed fifty
years ago, in just as numerously attended allopathic assemblies, namely,
when the employment of bleeding in cholera was held to be scientific and
necessary (see above, p.246).
The means of judging of the value of a therapeutic method will be
supplied by the answer to this question : What is the termination of a
morbid process if left to itself without any interference by medical art
? This question was answered on a large scale byDietl
33
years ago, who had a mortality of 9
per cent. under dietetic treatment in the same disease in which the
“anti-pyretic” treatment showed a mortality of 12
per cent., i.e., 3
per cent. more than the
expectant treatment.If, when diseases in general are considered, these numbers may
require some alteration, which will certainly not be to the advantage of
orthodox physic, they still furnish very remarkable material on which to
form our judgment. Contemporary allopathic therapeutics lies under the
same ban of symptomatic treatment as did bleeding.Suppose we have a patient suffering from pneumonia ; he is gasping
for breath and feels stabs as from knives, due to the accompanying
pleurisy, at each cough, at each respiration. lie prays for relief. We
open a vein, the blood flows, and all at once the picture changes —
the stabbing pains are ameliorated, the breathing freer, appetite
gradually returns. The physician who, in the opinion of the ignorant,
has saved the patient from death by his energetic interference receives
looks of gratitude from his patient, who, if he had been let alone would
have recovered his health in a short time, but now perhaps will pine
away, having received from his “saviour” the impetus which
will throw him into pulmonary consumption.The physician only attended to one symptom, and recklessly directed
his efforts to its removal. He over-looked the fact that all the
patient’s strength should be husbanded in order to overcome the disease,
and that every new source of weakness should be carefully warded off
from the patient, who was already sufficiently weakened by the disease.
The symptom was kept in view, but the actual disease overlooked ; the
symptom, the result of the disease, was combated instead of acting
directly on the proximate cause of the symptom, the focus of the
disease, and thus the morbid process was involuntarily promoted.Those who advocate ” anti-pyrosis” labour under the same
mistake. The results of diseases, fever and cardiac weakness, are the
points of therapeutic attack. In order to attain their object they are
obliged to set up a new, alien drug-disease, in addition to that
naturally present.Quinine is said to strengthen the heart ; we have just seen that in
the course of the action of quinine this increased activity is followed
by a state of depression, which after a fresh dose again goes off, but
afterwards gives place to still greater weakness. By such and similar
treatment the diseased process does not pursue its course alone, but is
reinforced by an artificial disease ; and yet the ” first
authorities” among the allopaths meet and congratulate themselves
on the ” great advance ” made in therapeutics by the
introduction of the anti-pyretic treatment, which has sent more human
beings to the shades below than would have one if nature had been left
to herself !Can we have any respect for such ” science ?” Is it a crime
to turn one’s back on such and similar plans of treatment, or to seek
for something better than this miserable unphysiological therapeutics ?The inexplicable phenomena of animal-magnetism were, till recently,
denied and declared to be ” unscientific ” by the
universities.
Gratitude not a medical virtue.
There was perhaps not present at the Congress a single medical man,
who, a few years previously, would not have called any man who was
convinced of the existence of this remarkable power, a mystic, an
ignoramus, an unscientific enthusiast, a duped impostor, &c.If we wished to enumerate all the opprobrious epithets applied to
Mesmer,
the simplest way would be to mention those that had not
been applied to him.In Wiesbaden several physicians spoke of animal magnetism and its
therapeutic value without meeting with any opposition. Thus the truth
was acknowledged of what, from prejudice and arrogance, had been
rejected for many decades ; here, at all events, we see progress.Whom have we to thank for this ? The itinerant magnetiser
Hansen.
It is demonstrable that it was owing to his public appearances that a
repetition of his experiments was first undertaken in
“scientific” circles. Hansen
was assailed during his tour by innumerable and virulent insults, the
instigators of which were directly or indirectly the allopaths.If no public reparation is due to
Hansen,
at all events the manes of the physician Mesmer
should be considered. But we shall look in vain for the confession of
past errors or the expression of gratitude to unorthodox physicians from
the adherents of ” scientific medicine.”
The cramming treatment of consumption.
Both the Congresses for Internal Medicine, that of
1882
and that of 1883,
bear witness to the restless diligence and profound spirit of inquiry
which prevail at our universities ; but we are rudely awakened from the
feeling of joyful admiration with which we follow the interesting
investigations and deductions when we come to the subject of
therapeutics.The crudest conceptions of the processes going on in the organism
seem to be made the basis of the plan of treatment.Thus a physician gives, at this Congress, the advice to consumptives
“to eat as much as possible.” “The chief task of the
medical man in the treatment of consumption is to stimulate the
patient’s appetite by every device known to cookery.”The same adviser approves of the plan adopted by other physicians of
introducing food into the stomachs of tuberculous patients by means of
the stomach-pump. No sensible physician would entertain the idea that a
consumptive patient must eat as much as possible. A truly rational
physician will inquire into the condition of the digestive functions,
and carefully regulate the food in accordance with the digestive powers
and the character of the disease, giving the advice, not to starve, but
also not to eat if there is no appetite ; because to do so, especially
in the case of a debilitated person, is the sure way to derange the
stomach, and because our life is maintained by what is assimilated, not
by what is eaten.But the allopathic axiom is ” much helps much.” What a
pitiable state of allopathic therapeutics is revealed by the assertion
that the main business of the medical art is to make consumptives eat as
much as possible. And to force down nourishment with the stomach pump !Its employment in a consumptive patient already weakened by the
disease, could not fail to produce serious derangements of the stomach.
The most ignorant peasant would not act upon such crude principles when
fattening his geese by cramming them, and yet in this case he has a
healthy stomach secreting normal gastric juices from a healthy body to
deal with. It would not be easy to find a peasant who would cram a sick
goose with food in order to restore it to health.The general agreement upon the subject of anti-pyretic treatment,
about which there was so much mutual congratulation in1882
fell to pieces in 1883,
when the treatment of diphtheria was discussed.
Gerhardt
says, ”
Chlorate of potash is a pure matter of faith held by few persons,”
and he recommends papayotin and chinolin. His next statement is
remarkable : ” I cannot refrain from mentioning my own experience
that the employment of a strong solution of carbolic acid seems to keep
up diphtheria, and I have seen cases rapidly recover when the carbolic
acid that had till then been employed was discontinued.”
Divergent views on diphtheric
therapeutics.This opinion is not without significance w en we reflect that for
many years the orthodox treatment has been such an employment of
carbolic acid through the entire course of the disease, and that it has
been enforced upon young medical men on theoretical grounds, and has
been so generally adopted that the great majority of physicians have
practised it and do still practise it, though not quite to such an
extent as before ; and when we remember that the greatest reproaches
were cast upon the homoeopaths for their neglect of this treatment.
Heubner
assailed the
treatment of diphtheria by local applications, though this was regarded
as one of the most important measures by the allopaths since the first
appearance of the disease, and was and is employed by the majority of
doctors ; he maintains that the organism must be disinfected by the
administration of internal remedies. The ordinary drugs, according to Heubner,
did not at all fulfil this object, ” I recall to mind the
disastrous trials of chlorate of potash, pilocarpin, oil of turpentine,
&c.”
Jürgensen
was of opinion
“that all impurities should be removed,” but not by means of
coarse caustics ; all general disinfection was useless ; the indication
was ” to fortify the system as much as possible.”
Heubner
replies :
“What Jürgensen
says is certainly very rational, but it is expectant therapeutics which,
as has been shown, cannot effect very much ; ” nevertheless it is
” very rational.”
Leube
confesses that for
ten years he has cauterised strongly at the commencement.
Gerhardt
says that by
producing anaemia of the mucous membrane by the application of cold, the
soil is rendered less favourable for the growth of the morbid organisms.
As, however, according to Heubner,
the author of the prize essay on diphtheria, the organisms are dispersed
through the whole body, it follows that the whole body of the patient
would have to be packed in ice for twenty-four hours.
Irrational treatment of rational
doctors.In short, treatment more grotesquely varied was never suggested by a
party of neighbours and gossips assembled round a sick friend on a
Sunday afternoon than was recommended at this Congress by the foremost
allopathic ” authorities,” except that the proposals of the
former would not be nearly so injurious as the privileged ” modes
of treatment.”If we pass in review the remedies recommended for diphtheria alone
during the past15
years, from assiduous cauterization with nitrate of silver and
insufflation of sulphur to papayotin and chinolin, we shall obtain an
interesting insight into allopathic practice. Every year fresh remedies
! First one drug and then another comes into fashion, and on the
introduction of each new remedy, the old ones, however much they may
have been commended, arc contemptuously rejected, and all the bad
results ascribed to them.How irrational is it to apply caustics ! We think it necessary to
preserve from mental excitement patients who are dangerously ill, as its
injurious effect is well known ; and yet a wretched child who does not
understand the object of the treatment, is thrown into paroxysms of
terror two or three times a day, so that it cowers in its bed and
regards with apprehension every one who approaches it. If a healthy
child, or even a grown man, were kept in such terror for days and
nights, we should see what baneful effects such treatment would have
upon them.Again we ask : Is it a crime to reject such ” science ? ”
Is it not rather the duty of every medical man to inquire whether there
may not be something better than what the universities are able to offer
? Is it not clear that there must be here some important external
hindrances which prevent medical men from learning a better way, and
from refraining from participation in the therapeutics of such
representatives of science ?Is not the existence of these external hindrances made still more
apparent, when we observe how every now and then even the followers of
allopathy themselves express in decided terms their dissatisfaction with
the present state of therapeutics, as is well shown by the extract given
above from theWien. medic.
Wochenschrift, at p. 369.
Letting the cat out of the bag.
Richard von Volkmann (1830-1889)In
Volkmann’s
Sammlung klinischer Vorträge, another
allopathic critic says (1878,
No. 139)
: ” When they [the allopathic school] attempted to substitute for
the old a new, exact, so-called rational system of
therapeutics based upon
strictly physiological or anatomico-pathological
foundations, they inevitably made a fiasco.”…. ” The Vienna
school, acting in a decidedly logical manner, was compelled to confess
that there is not and cannot be a therapeia resting on a scientific
basis.”…. ” Every plan of
treatment has, in a short
time, had to give place to another.”On p
. 18
this allopath concludes that the results of
the allopathic therapeutic
investigations have been ” almost entirely negative and of
a disheartening
character.” [I may be allowed
to say a few words with respect to the state of orthodox medicine in
this country. All that the author says about the uncertainty of
therapeutics, the frequent changing of medicines, the giving of
mixtures, and the prescribing according to imaginary pathological
conditions in Germany, is applicable to most of the medical practice of
Britain ; but there are certain differences in other respects which
deserve to be noted.Thus the bacteria-craze does not seem to have taken such hold of the
medical mind in this country as it has in Germany and France, except in
the domain of surgery, but even there it seems to be dying out. The
antiseptic treatment, whichLister
borrowed from Déclat
and pushed to such extreme lengths, has certainly done some good by
introducing greater attention to cleanliness as regards surgical
instruments, and care in the dressing and after-treatment of wounds, but
its exaggerated employment which at first took the medical world by
storm, is now manifestly declining, and ” Listerism,”
so-called, has been completely abandoned by some of our most eminent and
successful surgeons.The anti-pyretic treatment by ice-cold baths in cases of elevated
temperature has been but little used in this country, though quinine,
salicylic acid and kairin are extensively employed to cause
defervescence. The stomach-pump treatment, which for a time found such
favour in Germany, is little practised here.Under the influence of
Ringer,
who has exhibited wonderful powers of research — in homeopathic
literature — and has “conveyed” many of our medicines and
methods into allopathic therapeutics, a kind of bastard homeopathy has
attained a certain amount of assent among our orthodox medical brethren,
and has met with much commendation from the periodical organs of medical
orthodoxy ; so that Ringer’s
book, which is to a great extent a
réchauffé of homoeopathic
treatment modified to meet the prejudices of old-school practitioners,
has rapidly passed through ten editions, and we can hardly take up an
allopathic prescription without seeing how much its construction has
been influenced by Ringer’s
second hand homoeopathy. Desultory attempts are occasionally made to
rehabilitate the old and discarded method of bleeding, but these have
met with little encouragement even from the periodical which takes its
name from the instrument of venesection.England still retains its partiality for purgatives of the strongest
kind, and if these are not prescribed by the profession with such a
liberal hand as formerly, they are enormously consumed by the
population. Medicines which allay pain and cause sleep are also in great
vogue. A sure way to fame and fortune seems to be to invent some new
purgative water, pill, powder or lozenge, or to introduce some new
hypnotic or anti-neuralgic, and the most convincing evidence of the
mischief caused by the incautious use of these dangerous remedies, seems
to have no effect in diminishing their popularity.Experimental physiology is as popular here as it is in Germany, and
is pursued with unwearying zeal in spite of obstructive Acts of
Parliament and not withstanding the insignificant gains to therapeutics
that have hitherto resulted from it. The whole medical profession is
persuaded that its labours will ultimately prove of immense value to
therapeutics.But here as elsewhere these labours have been almost exclusively in a
wrong direction.Experiments with drugs on mutilated dogs and cats, on rabbits’ eyes
and enucleated frogs’ hearts, can throw little or no light on the
therapeutic value of drugs on man, and yet we see big books published
with attempts to found a therapeia on such unsuitable data, thoughHahnemann’s
Fragmenta, which
shows how drugs should be tested, was published in 1805.When our physiologists “make their experiments on the human
subject they are unable to utilize the results in consequence of their
obstinate refusal to make use of the only key that makes them available
for therapeutics. But if their own school can make no use of their
labours for want of this key, they are eagerly seized upon by the
homoeopathic school which possesses this key, and at once incorporated
in its materia medica.And thus the
Jorgs,
the Bockers,
the Harleys,
the Ringers,
the Murrells
and the Bruntons
have the mortification of seeing that while their achievements in
medicine proving are useless to their own school, their value to
homoeopathic therapeutics is warmly acknowledged by the partizans of Hahnemann’s
great truth.
Sic vos non vobis
is
perhaps poor consolation to offer, but it may be a comfort to them to
reflect that their labours are not altogether lost, which they would be
were there no homoeopathic school to profit by them.But in spite of the fruitlessness of their researches to the
therapeutics of the dominant school, the experimental physiologists are
believed in, not only by the medical profession, but, it would seem, by
all scientists, so that for medical men the surest road to admission to
the select precincts of the Royal Society is the reputation of having
practised vivisection on an extensive scale, though the result of all
this loss of time, labour and humanity may be nil or misleading, or the
promulgation of some conclusions which are contradicted or upset by the
next experimental physiologist.On the whole we may say that at the present time the adherents of old
physic are not so antagonistic to homoeopathy in Britain as they seem to
be in Germany and elsewhere. We do not now meet with the same virulent
and vulgar abuse ofHahnemann
and his adherents as we observe in the anti-homoeopathic writings of our
German colleagues.The liberal spirit shown at the International Medical Congress in
London in1881
contrasts favourably with the conduct of the old school in America, and
altogether homoeopathy has attained in Britain a pleasanter modus
vivendi with allopathy than it
seems to enjoy in the Fatherland, which is strange when we consider that
Germany was the fountain-head of the great therapeutic reformation, and
that German medicine has had almost a generation longer to
adapt itself to the new order of things than we have had.Perhaps the old saying, “the nearer the church the farther from
grace,” may find an illustration here. Still here, as in Germany,
much remains to be done before homoeopathy can enjoy the position in
general medicine to which it is entitled ; for its practitioners are
still excluded from all the prizes and emoluments of the profession,
from almost all the medical societies and to a great extent from
professional intercourse with their otherwise-thinking colleagues.The conspiracy of silence with regard to homoeopathy is strictly,
carried out in most of the periodicals, whether medical or literary, and
if we are no longer openly persecuted, we are treated asune
quantité négligeable, or
only received on sufferance.—[ED.]Copyright
© Robert Séror 2006.
