History
of Homœopathy : Its Origin ; Its Conflicts.
by Wilhelm
Ameke, M. D.
Presented by Dr
Robert Séror.
Part
II : Opposition to Homœopathy.
Diet’s experiments.
Explosion of dynamite in the
allopathic fortress.He,
[Der Aderlass, Vienna, 1849.]
indeed, maintains that tartrate
of antimony had upset the belief in bleeding. But there are plenty of
proofs that homoeopathy was this tartar emetic to the allopaths. He
confesses that he was first led by homoeopathy to abandon bleeding in
pneumonia, but that he afterwards gave up homoeopathy.He does not say what homoeopathic remedies he gave, so that we
cannot criticise his treatment. It was, however, according toDietl,
a fact that for some years past the prejudice of the public in favour
of bleeding began to decline, “a circumstance partly attributable
to the influence of homoeopathy and partly to the spirit of the
age.”It can, however, be proved that ” the spirit of the age”
in this matter was determined by homoeopathy.Between the years
1842
and 1846
Dietl
treated 380
individuals in the Vienna Wieden Hospital for inflammation of the
lungs, 85
of these by venesection, 106
with large doses of tartar emetic, and 189
by dietetic means.Of those treated by
Venesection.
Tartar Emetic.
Diet.
Recovered
6884175
Died
172214
Mortality
20%
20,7%
7%
Therefore, in round numbers,
20
per cent. died under rational treatment ; without rational treatment, 7
per cent.As homoeopathy admittedly did no harm, the mortality under rational
treatment exceeded that under homoeopathy by13
per cent.As a matter of fact, the results of homoeopathic treatment were
much more favourable than those of dietetic treatment.We are not adducing these statistics in proof of the superiority of
homoeopathy, but to show that according to them the results of
homoeopathy must have surpassed those of allopathy.These statistics were only furnished by a single individual, but we
quote them because they agree with those subsequently obtained.
Richtert
[Der
Einfluss der Cellularpathologie, Berlin, 1863,
p. 6.]
even maintains that the
allopathic treatment of that day gave a mortality of 25
per cent., while that of expectant treatment was only 7
per cent.Be this as it may, it is certain that the allopaths did a great
deal of harm, while homoeopaths had an immense superiority in the
results they obtained.This is in inflammation of the lungs alone. Think of the number of
other inflammatory diseases, ” gastric fever,” typhus,
measles, scarlet fever, small-pox, dysentery, cholera, &c., in
which lifelong injury to health often resulted from bleeding.What misery have the allopaths brought upon the human beings who
trusted themselves to them ! but we must not blame them for that.
They, no doubt, honestly endeavoured to perfect medical science.But the reproach will always remain at their door that, at a time
when the better way was made known, they through pride and indolence
refused to inquire into it.In
1849
Dietl
published his results, which excited the greatest attention among the
homoeopaths ; he was violently attacked for his opinions by the
allopaths, and he collected and published a great number of new
observations [Schmidt’s
Jahrbücher, Vol. LXXVI., p. 30.]
which fully confirmed his first
results.But the allopaths would not allow themselves to be so quickly
weaned from their dear old habits.As late as
1850,
venesection is recommended in cholera without a word of disapproval by
the editor of Schmidt’s
Jahrbücher ; [Vol.
LXVI., p. 251.]
in 1851
venesection is recommended in ” all the stages of consumption
” [lb., Vol. LXXII., p. 347.]
and in 1854
it is spoken of as a “sovereign remedy in cholera.” [lb.,
Vol. LXXXIV., p. 113.
]In
1860,
in the treatment of scarlet fever, we are recommended as a first
measure to administer an emetic, then a purgative, and finally, as a
third ” prime remedy,” venesection. [lb.,
Vol. CVIII., p. 209.]
The strong arm of the law will put down
the pestilent heresy.The year
1867
[Ib. ; Vol. CXXXV., p. 354.]
shows that in inflammation of
the lungs free venesection was still employed, and even in the present
day many allopaths still hanker after venesection, though now-a-days
the majority occupy the same positionwith regard to this disputed point as was occupied seventy years
ago by the homoeopaths, to the great advantage of those who trusted to
them.But the weight of blame which these ” rational ”
physicians incurred, with the best intentions and in the firm
conviction that they were doing right, is only in part represented
under the head of bleeding.This ” rational ” medicine has further caused not a
little mischief by the administration to the sick body of large
quantities of powerful drugs which have often added a worse artificial
disease to the natural malady already existing.***
In order to continue the history of the opposition to homoeopathy,
we must refer back to the year1829.
We here meet with the criminal action brought against a
homoeopathic physician, Dr.Trinks
; [Archiv f d. hom. Heilk., Vol.
VIII., H. 3.]
an account of which, founded on
the legal documents, was given by Moritz Müller,
for whom even his bitter antagonist in Hufeland’s
Journal, Prof.
Wedekind,
[1828,
Vol. LXVI., St. 6,
p. 21.]
acknowledged his high esteem.A woman named
Kampfe,
twenty years old, fell ill with typhoid fever in 1829,
for which she was treated during four days by Dr. Trinks,
a homoeopathic physician of Dresden. ; after the lapse of that time
she was removed to an allopathic hospital, where she died after four
days of treatment.
Dr Karl Friedrich Gottfried
Trinks (1800-1868)The hospital physician was Dr.
Schrag.
On the assertion of some laymen that the homeopathic powders had
disagreed with the patient, and because she was violently delirious
when received into the hospital, an accusation of poisoning andmala
praxis was founded.The following points were ordered to be inquired into in the
municipal doctor’s official report :Whether the necessary evacuating medicines for the correction and
removal of morbid bile were given in sufficiently large doses ?Whether antiphlogistic measures, such as venesection or leeches,
and if so, how many, were employed at the proper time ?Whether the disease, treated according to
Hahnemann’s
method, was thereby neglected and aggravated to a fatal degree ;
whether poisons were given in a homoeopathic form. The last was denied
by the official chemist, after analysis of the intestines.After receiving the history of the case and its treatment from the
homoeopathic physician, the following report was given :The homoeopathic treatment had not paid attention to the essential
nature of the malady. The nature of the disease, according to the
opinion of the municipal doctor founded on the report of the
post-mortem examination, was an accumulation of corrosive bile with
indurated faeces and violent enteritis.The materies morbi was overlooked and had acted prejudicially on
the whole body.Rational and experienced physicians in all ages always appreciated
the importance of fever and febrile matter. If derivative,
antigastric, antiphlogistic and cooling treatment, together with the
removal of the saburra biliosa from the intestinal canal and bleeding
at the proper time had been employed, relief would have been given and
the patient’s life would have been saved.In conclusion, this official report called homoeopathy a ”
mystic absurdity ” and a ” disgrace to the medical history
of our times,” which should be put down (of course with
assistance from the State), for people’s lives were at stake, and the
homoeopaths rejected with scorn the “experience of the greatest
physicians of all ages ” (in respect to bleeding, emetics and
purgatives).We therefore consider it our duty to signify the same, and to
append our names and seals — Dr.Erdmann,
Amtsphysicus, Gönne,
Amtschirurgus.
The Stadtphysicus, Dr.
Kuhn,
of Dresden, cross-examined the accused, Dr. Trinks,
on October 5,
1829,
as to why he had not employed leeches, cooling and ” mildly
resolvent,” antiphlogistic and purgative remedies.Why, seeing that the menses were checked, did you neglect [we must
not forget that the case was one of typhoid] the employment of the
remedies which have been sanctioned by the experience of so many —
e. g,., derivatives, foot and half-baths, vapour baths into the vagina
[the post-mortem showed that she was a virgo intacta], frictions on
the abdomen, sacrum and inner surface of the thighs, mustard and
vesicant plasters, dry cupping and leeches to the same parts or to the
calves and hypogastrium, besides internal remedies such as borax,
melissa, fixed air, saffron, myrrh, the natural balsams, aloes,
helleborus niger, and even sabina ?
If at first you don’t succeed, then try,
try, try again.[the victim is to be congratulated, even though she is in her
grave, that ` science’ was not let loose upon her.]In further examination the enquirer showed some anxiety to know why
the homoeopathic practitioner had not employed general and local
bleedings, cooling, ” mildly resolvent ” and ”
purgative remedies ?”Unfortunately, the answers of the accused are not communicated,
about which a man likeTrinks
would have no difficulty, but M. Müller
has made some very appropriate observations in the article referred
to.The result of the trial will be found in the
Archiv
für hom. Heilkunst. [Vol.
X., H. 1,
p. 2-4.]From this we see that the Juridical Faculty of Leipzic pronounced
that it was not clear that Dr.Trinks
was to blame for his medical treatment of Kampfe,
and that ” the defendant and the two prosectors and reporters,
Dr. Erdmann
and Surgeon Gönne,
should each pay a third of the costs.”
Dr Moritz Wilhem Müller
(1784-1849)The law authorities based their verdict on the previous report of
the Medical Faculty of Leipzic, in which the following declaration is
made :Finally, the aforesaid municipal physician and municipal surgeon,
have, unmindful that in a judicial report all attacks on opponents
must be eschewed, attackedHahnemann
and homoeopathic physicians in a manner unbecoming educated medical
men though, fortunately, not capable of inducing medical judges to
swerve from the path of absolute impartiality.This dispute had not been settled before the Dresden homoeopaths
were subjected to a second trial.The allopaths have also given an account of this trial.
There are two publications about it. One is by a homoeopath, and is
called,Zur Geschichte der
Homöopathie, by Dr. Moritz Müller.
[Arch. f. hom. Heilk. X., H.]The other, by an allopath, is entitled,
Der
Hahnemannianer als Geschitschreiber und Critiker, by
Dr. Fr. J. Siebenhaar,
of Dresden. [Leipzig, W. Neuck, 1831.]Anyone wishing to know how the contest was carried on both sides
should not neglect to read the reports of the trial. In both works
interesting illustrations are given in reference to the previous
affair.The allopath, Dr.
Siebenhaar,
was called on the 21st
of July, 1829,
to see the master shoemaker Leischke,
whose physician he had been for several years.The patient was
54
years old. It was found that Leischke
had “suffered from cough for a long time before this
attack.”On the above-mentioned day Dr.
Siebenhaar
found, according to his account, inflammation of the lung with a
thickly coated tongue, loss of appetite, and severe vomiting of mucus
and bile.Prescription : venesection to
8
or 10
ounces of blood, and a mixture of sal ammoniac, senna, melag.
graminis, a spoonful every two hours.Some hours afterwards the ” spitting of blood and retching
were little altered,” and there was profuse perspiration. The
next day he was worse.Prescription : local blood-letting, to which however the patient
would not submit.He wanted homoeopathic assistance.
His medical attendant in vain tried to dissuade him from it, and
finally declared that he would continue to attend in spite of the
homoeopathic treatment, but first prescribed a powder containing
sulphur, saltpetre and cream of tartar in equal parts, a teaspoonful
to be taken every hour.In the afternoon the homoeopathic physician, Dr.
Trinks,
was sent for ; he being prevented through business from attending
himself, sent his assistant Surgeon Lehmann.
Lehmann
gave his report
of Leischke’s
state to Trinks
at eleven o’clock at night when he returned from his visit, whereupon Trinks,
who was still occupied with the first trial, resigned the case and
sent word to this effect to Leischke
at 8.45
next morning.
Lehmann
had ordered all
allopathic medicines to be left off, but had purposely prescribed
nothing himself.The patient was now obliged to have recourse to the homoeopath, Dr.
Wolf.
As
Wolf
was not at home his wife sent the Surgeon Helwig
to the patient.
Helwig
, though according
to the law of that time, not allowed to treat internal maladies,
nevertheless gave aconite, and later bryonia, though it was illegal
for the medical attendant to dispense his own medicines.
Criminal prosecution of homoeopaths for abandoning
“scientific” methods of treatment.
Glorious triumph over the
homoeopathic miscreants.He expected that
Wolf
would continue the treatment.But the sword of
Damocles
of judicial prosecution for neglect of bleeding and other “scientific” measures, was always suspended over the heads of the
homoeopaths.
Wolf
, therefore, after
hearing Helwig’s
report, declined to take the case. Helwig,
there-upon, begged the allopath Siebenhaar
to continue his treatment, and this he ” finally consented ”
to do, ” but without being able to effect anything, for the
unfortunate patient died just about that time,” on 24th
July, the fourth day of his illness. The above facts are admitted by
both sides.
Siebenhaar
now, as he
himself narrates, consulted his colleagues as to what course he should
pursue, and the Stadtphysicus, Dr. Kuhn,
already spoken of in connexion with the previous trial, took
proceedings against the homoeopaths, but the judicial authorities did
not consider ” that a legal post-mortem examination was
necessary, I therefore had to content myself with a private autopsy on
the afternoon of July 26,
in the presence of Drs. Kuhn,
Schrag
[both of whom took part in the first trial,] and Leonhardi.”We must here remark that
Helwig
in vain demanded to be allowed to be present. The private post-mortem
showed ” one lung engorged with blood,” which ” was
adherent in several places, especially on the left side, to the chest
walls.” ” The left lung was besides partially hepatised in
various places, and at some points mortification had set in.”” The conclusion drawn from this post-mortem could naturally
be no other than thatLeischke
had died from the effects of violent inflammation of the lungs ending
in gangrene.”We must here remind our readers that homoeopathy was, at that time,
reproached with causing gangrene of the inflamed parts by the neglect
of bleeding.The judicial proceedings against homoeopathy were commenced and the
documents were sent to the Court of Judicature of Leipzic, and this
Court, after receiving a report from the Medical Faculty, condemned
Drs.Trinks
and Wolf
to a fine for neglecting a summons for medical help, and Helwig
to imprisonment for four weeks for treating without a license and for
illegal dispensing, Lehmann
to six months imprisonment with hard labour, because ” the
patient, when Lehmann
visited him, was in a condition requiring instant medical treatment as
with every moment his life became more jeopardised,” “and
the violent inflammation took on a fatal character from the
postponement of the requisite treatment till next morning.”
Lehmann
therefore acted
with culpable negligence. Lehmann
was the person who told the patient suffering from vomiting of mucus
and bile to leave off the allopathic medicine (a mixture of sulphur,
saltpetre and cream of tartar, according to the statement of the
allopath him-self, a teaspoonful every hour), and to do nothing in the
meantime. ”
Lehmann
, as he was not
himself qualified to treat medically, should have sent for a properly
qualified physician.He should have communicated Dr.
Trinks’
decision not to treat the patient some hours sooner.”The accused appealed, and the Juridical Faculty of Leipzic was
empowered to pronounce judgment. This court acquitted all exceptHelwig,
who was obliged to undergo his four weeks’ imprisonment.
[Our own criminal jurisprudence can show a case that will match these
two processes in German law courts. In September, 1849,
our late colleague, Dr. C. T. Pearce,
was consigned to Newgate on the verdict of a coroner’s jury, which
found him guilty of the manslaughter of his brother, Mr. R. D. Pearce,
whom he attended during an attack of cholera for a few days, until he
himself was laid up with the same disease, when the case was handed
over to an allopathic surgeon under whose care Mr. R. D. Pearce
died. To get them to pass this monstrous verdict the jury had to be
harangued and brow-beaten for two hours and a half by the
deputy-coroner, Mr. M. Wakley,
who presided in the place of his father, Mr. T. Wakley,
who combined in his person the slightly incongruous functions of
Coroner for Middlesex and Editor and Proprietor of The
Lancet (the organ of rampant
allopathy, called after the phlebotomizing instrument now, happily,
rendered obsolete by homeopathy). Though only ” Crowner’s quest
law,” this infamous sentence was hailed as a splendid triumph
over homeopathy by all the organs of the dominant clique. See Brit.
jour. of Hom., VIII., p. 70.
— [ED.]It is interesting to read the report of the Medical Faculty of
Leipzic. It pronounced : ” That in such cases sudden death or
relapse into slow consumption could only be obviated by repeated
venesections.”
” That in such inflammations bleeding must be practised once,
twice, or even three times.”
Siebenhaar
complains of
the judgment of the Juridical Faculty of Leipzic, because the
interposition of the homoeopaths took from him the opportunity of
employing efficacious treatment. (page 35)”
Leischke’s
resolution to be treated homoeopathically prevented me from employing
the other indicated remedies — namely, repeated blood-letting and
epispastics.”On page
22,
Siebenhaar
writes :Daily experience is too conclusive in favour of bleeding …. We
must consider the actual facts of the case ; the patient died
suffocated in his own blood, as in spite of the bleeding already
performed, the post-mortem examination showed the lung gorged with
blood and in parts gangrenous, and the liver was also found to be
congested with blood, and it can only be supposed that the physician
(Dr.Müller),
who said that a further venesection would be superfluous or even
injurious, must have been making a bad joke.When the latter (Dr.
Müller)
in support of his position, promulgated the proposition ” that
the allopaths do not know and will not learn that homoeopathic
treatment can supersede bleeding with its consequent weakness and slow
recovery of the patient ; ” this shows the incredible infatuation
of Dr. Müller
in believing Trinks’
fables [See Sendschreiben an
Hufeland, p. 30.]
on the one hand, and his
astonishing impudence in presuming to persuade rational physicians of
this on the other hand.For none but a credulous visionary can believe that such
inflammatory diseases can be cured byHahnemann’s
method, in spite of the many examples recorded in various periodicals
by the deceivers.
Siebenhaar
continues,
page 24
:This point is emphasized the further it is pursued, and the law
should take cognizance of the neglect of bleeding in other well-marked
diseases, such as sanguineous ‘apoplexy, encephalitis, enteritis,
&c.The further consideration of these medico-forensic matters would
however occupy me too long, and I will now content myself with the
quotation of our respected colleague StaatsrathHufeland’s
remark in his masterly treatise Die
Homöopathie, published in
the Journal der practischen
Heilkunde, 1830,
page 24
[the reader already knows it.] ”He who neglects bleeding where life is at stake and death is the
result, has the sin of blood-guiltiness on his conscience, which will
weigh terribly upon him he should be punished by law he is a
murderer by omission.”
Hahnemann’s
attack on the blood-letters.
Hahnemann
saw and heard the
behaviour of the allopaths.He had left the refutation of his opponents to his adherents.
These events took place in the years
1829
and 1830.In
1831
a book by him : Die
Allöopathie, ein Wort der Warnung [Hahnemann’s
Lesser Writings, p. 827.]
appeared.This work may be regarded as an answer to these fanatical attacks.
In
1830
appeared Hufeland’s
well-known article containing the expressions : ” voice of
thunder ” — ” murderers ” — ” punishment by
the law,” &c., which was cited with approval by many, Hahnemann’s
patience tried by the long conflict seemed to be now completely
exhausted.Not we, he says, but
you are
the murderers of the patients. ” This irrational antipathic and
barbarous treatment, with its repeated bleedings, leeches and
depleting medicines, brings thousands every year to their grave.”” Truly ! an excellent, privileged method to put the flower of
mankind quietly out of the way wholesale. Are we to call this a
rational method of healing ? Treatment of the cause ?”Probably with reference to the criminal prosecutions, he advises
his adherents ” not to receive at any price those patients who
have been injured to the verge of incurability by the allopathic
exterminatory art.”We must realise the ” stand-point of science ” of that
time, and the attitude assumed by it, in order to be able to
understand these words.First let the patients be again restored by these titled destroyers
of health to the former state of
natural disease they were in
before these medical attacks upon their lives were perpetrated — if
they are able to do it !Allopaths deserve for their determined adhesion to their antiquated
homicidal treatment nothing but contempt and abhorrence, and impartial
history will brand their names with a stigma on account of their
scornful rejection ofthe
real aid which they might have afforded to their much-to-be-pitied
patients, had they not impiously closed their eyes and ears against
beneficent truth !
Hornburg
was one of Hahnemann’s
pupils in Leipzic.He had passed the examination for the bachelor’s degree, and had
visited the hospitals for a year. He occasionally treated patients in
the town homoeopathically, and this drew down upon him the hostility
of the doctors.
Behaviour
of allopaths to homoeopaths.
Also the fact of his attending
Hahnemann’s
lectures gave offence to the professors.He took every opportunity to openly and courageously oppose the old
system. He was an intelligent, thoroughly well-educated man, and
highly enthusiastic on behalf of homoeopathy.Probably many a patient recovered under his treatment who had been
brought to death’s door by the murderous treatment of the Leipzic
doctors and professors.He was denounced on every possible occasion, and punished sometimes
by fines and sometimes by imprisonment. His homoeopathic medicine
chest was confiscated by command of the Dean of the University, and
was buried by the beadle in the burial ground of St. Paul’s Church.Notwithstanding this he studied diligently, and according to the
testimony of his contemporaries, was a man of great medical knowledge
(on which account he was much valued byHahnemann),
but he was nevertheless twice rejected by the professors in his
examinations.He went to Giessen, from which, however, he was turned away, and
had no better fortune at Marburg. Having returned to Leipzic he
practised there with great success, but was often involved in judicial
processes, the excitement of which gradually shattered his health.The greatest distress was brought upon him by the issue of a
criminal investigation in which he. was involved in the year1831,
on account of his treatment of a woman who was suffering from a very
violent pleurisy.The woman did not, however, die under his treatment, but only after
she had been treated for nine days by Professor and HofrathClarus,
who himself denounced Hornburg,
and insisted on the investigation being dragged on through two years.The anxiety he went through during this time had a very injurious
effect on his bodily health. He was attacked with chronic disease of
the lungs, which, in the spring of1833,
was followed by influenza.In the summer his condition had improved considerably ; he then
received his sentence of two months’ imprisonment for unlicensed
practice, and for preventing the employment of scientific treatment in
a case which terminated fatally.
He was three days after this attacked by repeated Hemoptysis, and
was buried some months later. A great number of the inhabitants of
Leipzic escorted his body to the grave.[Allg.
hom. Zeitung, Vol. IV., p. 75,
and Archiv f.. d. hom. Heilk.]In the year
1843,
the homoeopath, Dr. Baumgarten,
of Magdeburg, undertook the treatment of a servant maid, seventeen
years old, named Christiana Knoll.She had been ill for fourteen days and was in a hopeless condition.
She suffered from exsudative inflammation of the pleura and
pericardium.Her pallid appearance, the bluish grey colour of her lips and nose,
the shortness of her breath, the immobility of the thorax and the
abdominal respiration, finally, her total lack of appetite ledBaumgarten
to form an unfavourable prognosis.Three days later the fatal result followed. A judicial post-mortem
examination was instituted, and it was found that the patient had died
from exsudative inflammation of the pleura and pericardium.The municipal physician declared that death apparently resulted
from want of proper treatment. Remedies against inflammation, such as
blood-letting, saltpetre, mercury, tartar emetic, should have been
employed.The Medical College of the province of Saxony when asked for their
opinion held that such illnesses were fatal even under judicious
treatment.With regard to the question of medical treatment they could say
nothing more than that they, and with them all those doctors who from
time immemorial practised the recognised ordinary methods of
treatment, would have treated the patient differently and according to
the method laid down by the medical men who made the post-mortem
examination. But, as they knew the State allowed homoeopathic
treatment, they could not enter upon a criticism of it.The scientific Faculty of Medicine of Berlin did not agree with
this judgment :Because the experience of centuries had shown that acute
inflammation of the pleura, the lungs, the heart and the pericardium
could only be removed by a certain indispensable mode of treatment.
The power of the State on the side of the
Allopaths.The treatment pursued for centuries was blood-letting, mercury,
tartar emetic, saltpetre, emetics and aperients. Homeopathic treatment
could not replace this efficacious mode of treatment.If our medical examining bodies are obliged very properly to reject
every young doctor who holds therapeutic views like those of Dr.Baumgarten,
[The conduct of the German
Examining Bodies in rejecting candidates suspected of homoeopathic
proclivities has been paralleled in more than one instance by our own
Medical Faculties. The Faculty of the University of Edinburgh in 1851
rejected Mr. A. C. Pope,
because he would not bind himself never to practise homoeopathically.
The Faculty of St. Andrews made a futile request to Dr. Hale
to return the diploma he had recently acquired by examination, because
it (the Faculty consisted of one man, Dr. Day)
had discovered that he was practising homoeopathically. The Faculty of
Aberdeen refused to allow Mr. Harvey
to complete his examinations until he should make a declaration that
” he had not practised, and did not entertain any intention of
practising professionally on other principles than those taught and
sanctioned in this and other legally recognised schools of
medicine.” As Mr. Harvey
believed in the truth of Hahnemann’s
therapeutic rule, he refused to make any such declaration, so the
Faculty refused to complete his examinations for its degree. The
Medical Act, 1858,
fortunately deprived British examining bodies of the power to practise
such iniquities in the future. See Brit.
Jour. of Ham., IX., 513,
609,
XVI., 529.
— [ED.] the tolerance shown by
the Medical College in this unfortunate case cannot be justified.If only for the sake of example, it would be wise to call upon Dr.
Baumgarten
to justify himself from the charges brought against him by the medical
men who made the autopsy.Dr.
Baumgarten
was also called upon by the Royal Government in Magdeburg to justify
his practice, which he very soon did and in a most satisfactory
manner. [Allg. hom. Ztg., Vol.
XXIV., p. 321.]These few examples, to which many might be added, must suffice to
show how the allopaths used the power of the State under their control
in this important contest.The question of the harmfulness of the allopathic, or as they
called it, ” rational ” ” anti-inflammatory ”
treatment of that day has been finally decided, and that too by the
” rational” physicians of to-day, against the ”
rational ” treatment of that time.It is now a matter of history that the allopathic treatment
attacked by the homeopaths has been condemned by the modern
representatives of allopathy. With regard to this weighty question,
history teaches us as follows :That medical school whose treatment was in most cases more
dangerous than the disease, and which did so much mischief among all
classes of citizens, was then armed with the power of the State, it
enjoyed unbounded confidence and was supported by the State in its
campaign against the hated homoeopathy. The State lent its authority
and its arm to those against whom it ought to have shielded the public
and oppressed that party which effected much more favourable results.***
An idea can be formed of the character of the personal intercourse
between allopaths and homoeopaths from the preceding.Trinks
wrote in 1830,
Die Homöopathie,
Sendschreiben an Hufeland (Dresden,
1830),
which discusses
Hufeland’s
expressed opinion on homoeopathy :
Hufeland
had declared :
” Liberty of thought, freedom for science is our principal
palladium ; no kind of despotism–no autocracy, no forcing of
conscience.”
Trinks
remarks on this
(p. 6,
&c.)But what penalties did not the allopaths attempt to enforce against
homoeopathy, its founder and its adherents ? They had then, and still
have, to bear the despotism of the medical caste spirit, the iron
pressure of the most abominable intolerance.I will give you a sketch of this sad state of affairs, which you
can never witness, because you live far from the arena first entered
by homoeopathy.The founder of homoeopathy, a venerable old man, then living at
Leipzic, was ridiculed and scorned by physicians, lampooned in
satirical poems and assailed by every calumny that could throw
discredit on his personal character.His disciples and audience, all who approached him to become better
acquainted with the system of treatment discovered by him, met with
the same fate, the most undeserved contempt ; they were, as it were,
excluded from the caste of doctors as the Pariahs by the Hindoos.Even this did not suffice, they were persecuted in every possible
way, and hindered in the prosecution of their career. At last the
intrigues to drive away the founder of homoeopathy were crowned with
success, and a universal shout of joy for their victory burst from his
enemies.Hahnemann
‘s oldest admirer
and disciple, Stapf,
of Naumburg, met with the same fate. He, too, was scorned and
ridiculed in every possible way like his master, and lived for many
years as one under a ban among his professional brethren.
Persecuting fury of the old school.
Moritz
Müller,
of Leipzic, respected by all alike as a man and a physician, suffered
a like fate, after having publicly spoken in favour of homoeopathy.Many doctors who had previously been friendly with him
now avoided his society, and
broke off all connexion with him, not to mention other
unpleasantnesses which he had to suffer. I myself have experienced the
oppression of this medical despotism in the highest degree. For two
years I have been exposed to all manner of persecutions which could be
devised by refined malice, slander, and malignant envy.
Dr Moritz Wilhelm Müller
(1784-1849)It is certainly difficult in the midst of these persecutions to
preserve one’s faith in mankind ; it is still more difficult not to
refuse one’s esteem to a clique who, in their blind hatred, do not
hesitate to assail the reputation of honourable and upright men, and
who leave nothing untried to destroy what is man’s most dearly
cherished possession.And all this befel the founder of homoeopathy and its adherents for
the simple reason that they treated diseases on different principles,
and because they cured patients who had been left uncured by the
practitioners of the allopathic school.Amidst all these unpleasantnesses heaped upon us, we find comfort
in the consciousness that we are suffering and striving for a cause
which is a blessing to humanity, and which will extend its beneficent
influence still further when these persecutions have ceased and the
practice of this mode of treatment has been freed from the fetters
which the despotism of intolerance has laid upon it ; and, then too,
the time will have come when the outside world will no longer look
upon homoeopathy as a dangerous chimera, and its adherents as
dangerous day dreamers, when it will recognise that humanity must
bless us for it.I would not on any account possess the reputation of the opponents
of homoeopathy, the reputation of having caused the most ruthless
persecutions of their fellow-creatures, because they thought and acted
differently from the teachings of Galenic dogmatism.History, which is always a just and impartial judge, will some day
write the story of those who sinned so grievously against the new
system, against ,its founder, its adherents and its friends. This
epoch will form a chapter in the history of medicine similar to that
formed in the world’s history by the religious fanaticism of Louis
XIV.Innumerable proofs of the persecuting fury of the allopaths are to
be found in homoeopathic writings — we call it ” persecuting
fury,” for what other term can describe the conduct of those who,
because they were incensed at the spread of homoeopathy sought to
throw infamous imputations on the personal character of the
homoeopaths, and even attacked their families in their blind
fanaticism ? Bulky volumes might be written on these unworthy
allopathic attacks.But everywhere the very significant fact is patent that the
violence of the strife was in proportion to the spread of homoeopathy.
So that after the cholera epidemic, in which the adherents ofHahnemann
obtained such immensely superior results to those of the rational
school, it attained a height which has never been surpassed to the
present day. We must transport ourselves to that time to under-stand
the actual condition of affairs.
Cholera and
its allopathic treatment.
In July,
1831,
the fear is expressed in Hufeland’s
journal that
cholera, which had reached our borders through the Russo-Polish war,
might cross them, and doctors rummaged their armoury for weapons with
which to attack this murderous enemy — ” stronger remedies than
those hitherto used.”Such were aurum muriaticum, oxygen gas, charcoal, quinine, as
“cholera very closely resembles intermit-tent fever ; ”
then, too, there were the absorbents — “to absorb the poison
out of theprimae viae,”
” the absorbents are
coming into favour.” Ol. cajeputi, oil to be taken internally,
&c.People read with terror that ” in the corpses of those who
died of cholera, vessels gorged with blood were to be found in the
right ventricle of the heart and thevena
cava, also in the lungs, the
liver, &c.”We say they read ” with terror,” for where blood was thus
found congested in the corpses, on scientific principles the patients
must be bled during life. But “science” could surely hardly
go so far as to bleed in cases of cholera.In the same place it was said : “The blood is black and as
thick as tar, contains little serum, and at last becomes like pap. Icy
coldness of the whole body, even of the tongue, supervenes : ” it
was rather to be expected that blood should be added than taken away.Doubt did not last long on this point, for soon after the notices
from Russia appeared, we read :“A vein is at once and without any delay to be opened, and as
much blood taken from the patient as seems suitable to his
condition.”“This remedy was considered to be indicated in nearly all
cases.”
To meet the cholera, the allopaths
“nothing do but meditate on blood.”As an internal remedy calomel, combined with opium, was to be
administered. A second article appeared ” from the pen of an
intelligent physician.” Blood-letting, leeches, cupping and
mustard plasters are the chief remedies recommended, and blood-letting
is literally the first and the last remedy mentioned in this article.In the following number, further suggestions as to the remedies for
cholera are made. The first is ” emetics,” andHufeland
says, ” the proposal is worthy of consideration.” Let us put
ourselves in Hahnemann’s
position, witnessing all these preparations. A Dr. Mayer
(an allopath) of Berlin thus expresses himself :In spite of the many opponents of
Hahnemann’s
preventive of scarlet fever I find that not only men such as Berndt,
Diisterweg, Formey, Bloch, Schenk,
etc., [All allopaths, to whom
the names of Hufeland
and Prof. Masius,
of Rostock, and others should be added. Comp. Hufeland’s
Journal, 1812,
St. 5,
p. 120
; 1814,
St. 5,
p. 44
; 1815,
St. 1,
p. 123
; 1820,
St. 2,
p. 3
— 24,
where the successful results obtained by many allopaths are collected
; 1820,
St. 2,
p. 3
— 14
; 1823,
St. 4,
p. 3
— 17
; 1831,
St. 2,
p. 108
; 1832,
St. 3,
p. 109
; 1835,
St. 6,
p. 24.]
uphold it, but I have (though
this may not be very important in the eyes of others) myself
experienced the benefit of it on various occasions in my practice of
ten years.Dr.
Rüttel
found lately in the case of an epidemic of scarlet fever that
belladonna in the proportion of four grains to an ounce of water,
where the danger was still distant, and the remedy had been taken for
twelve to fourteen days, was a perfect prophylactic. But where the
infection was close at hand and even in the house, scarlet fever broke
out while the medicine was being taken, but in a much milder form.Though I cannot explain to myself the favourable influence of
belladonna in scarlet fever, I entertain the hope that it may prove a
preventive in the case of cholera by allaying the irritation of the
plexus solaris present in that disease.“Heaven preserve me from my friends,” may well have been
the exclamation ofHahnemann
if he saw this proposal.Others recommended opium, the prohibition of all drink, ”
which was a dreadful measure considering the unbearable thirst
present” — zinc, bismuth, musk with camphor, ipecacuanha,
valerian, sal volatile, hartshorn, natron carbon., menth. piperit.,
arnica, colombo, cascarilla with naphtha and opium, tinct. aromatica,
calam. armor., cold douches and always leeches and emetics, and
cinchona ” on account of its resemblance to intermittent
fever.”While these preparations were being made the cholera had already
crossed the borders of our fatherland, and thedoctors commenced business.
The Professors undertook to lead, the allopathic doctors obeyed as
usual. Let us then see what was taught by one such leader, Professor
Dr. MoritzHasper,
of the Leipzic Faculty of Medicine, in Hufeland’s
Journal, Sept.,
1831.After admitting that in no disease have remedies so opposite been
proposed and used, he writes :It is clear that in almost all countries cholera patients but very
rarely recover without the aid of medicine [he adduces the testimony
of seven doctors for this. Then follows a scientific account of the
pathology of cholera]. The thick black condition of the blood in all
the venous system, the congestion of blood in almost all the internal
organs — the brain, lungs, liver ; further the suppression of
cutaneous perspiration, and the stoppage of the flow of bile, show
that the flow of blood from the outer parts of the body has been
forced to the inner organs, and has disturbed the functions of these
organs.By the clogging of the blood in the heart its action is paralysed,
by the engorgement of black blood in the brain, the symptoms of
stupor, deafness, giddiness, buzzing in the ears and dilatation of the
pupils observed during the disease are to be explained ; forBrodie
and Bichat
have proved by observation and experiment that such a condition of the
blood hinders the functions of the brain like a narcotic poison.These stagnations of the blood always correspond to the violence of
the symptoms. The stagnation of the blood in the lungs explains the
feeling of anxiety and the shortness of breath. Where suffocation is
the cause of death, blood is always found accumulated in the lungs ;
so, too, the inhaling of charcoal fumes produces similar symptoms, and
like the gases in mines brings about a rapidly fatal result…… If
we go a step farther and compare the action of other poisons on our
organism we shall obtain a great deal of light on the subject of
cholera.The experiments of
Fontana
with snake poison, of Majendie
and Delille
with upas poison are given in detail, the experiments of Brodie
and others are mentioned in order to show “that most poisons and
contagia first pass through the blood and from thence produce
disturbances in the nervous system.”
“Here’s the smell of blood
still.”After further statements on the affinities of certain contagia for
special organs, as for example cholera poison for the mucous membrane
of the stomach and bowels, he declares cholera to be a disease
communicable through the air, by human beings and by fomites, which
produces decomposition of the blood, ” of which the cruor and
fibrine or the black carbonaceous blood accumulates in the internal
organs, injures the nervous system, produces cramps, &c., and also
secretions from the mucous membrane of the stomach and bowels, and
thence diarrhoea and vomiting.”The method of cure to be pursued is clearly indicated :
1
.- Removal of the congestion
of the internal organs, and2
.- The morbid matter
accumulated in the bowels is to be re-moved or rendered innocuous.The first indication is fulfilled by practising, at the
commencement of the disease before the pulse at the wrist has ceased
beating, copious bleedings, applying irritants to the skin and giving
stimulating remedies. The second indication is fulfilled by giving
calomel, castor oil, emetics, absorbents and acids.The conclusion is ” that as a general principle blood-letting,
together with the external and internal application of stimulating
remedies, form the first and principal remedies.”A long list of remedies “against individual symptoms” is
then recommended, to satisfy the requirements of ” science.”F.
Hoffmann,
Vater,
Sauvages
and others are quoted as vouchers for the usefulness of bleeding ;
about sixty authors and several great medical societies of that time
are adduced in support of these scientific therapeutics. They all
agree that blood-letting at the beginning is the most sovereign
remedy.We will not detain the reader with a detailed account of the
medical treatment of cholera ; it is a highly unexhilarating subject,
which however requires to be touched upon to make the situation clear.
We will only quote just a few sentences as specimens from this ”
rational ” treatise.This case is one of those where, with
Lichtenstadt,
we cannot refrain from observing that, with repeated bleeding, the
patient might, perhaps, have recovered……
“Such an enmity with blood of men.
“
In this woman (case
26
— she died), hardly a teacupfull of thick, viscid clotted blood
could be drawn. Why was not another vein opened ?Herr von
Loder
of Moscow rejects bleeding in this disease :
- Because it is not of an inflammatory nature.
- Because blood-letting is weakening.
One can hardly believe that such reasons should be regarded as
sufficient by so respected a man. Do we not bleed in cases of
congestion of certain important organs, in asphyxia, &c., states
where there is no inflammation ?Still more remarkable is the second ground alleged — viz. :
that bleeding weakens the vital force. On the contrary, bleeding may
even have a strengthening effect, as is shown, not only in cases of
inflammation of the more important organs where the whole body is as
it were paralysed, in inflammation of the heart, inflammation of the
lungs, croup, &c., but also generally in the case in cholera,
and this is confirmed by the opinions of the best practitioners who
have observed and treated cholera, as also by the testimony of the
patients after the bleeding has been performed.
Hasper
states :
” That nearly all medical men who have had opportunities of
observing cholera, or what is more important, have taken the trouble
to compare the results of different methods of treatment, will agree
with us in this.” And here he is undoubtedly right. More than300
cholera pamphlets appeared at that dreadful time, and a great many of
them were by professors.No pamphlet by a professor is known which protests against bleeding
in cholera. “If,” says Professor
Hasper,
“the mass of blood is diminished, the heart is in a condition to
contract again, oxydisation or decarbonisation of the blood, and this
is still more important, can be resumed, so that arterial, oxydised
blood can be conducted to other organs.”This was scientific, and no homoeopathic scoffer with his
“unscientific impudence,” as they called it, could attack
the position.Small bleedings do not appear to be of any use, and this is the
reason why many practitioners, who, for fear of weakening the patient,
only ventured to draw6,
8
or to ounces, brought bleeding into discredit, and declared it to be
useless.A large opening must be made in the vein, in order that the blood
may flow out in a free stream, if the patient is to be really
relieved.” Bleed freely ” is repeated in at least ten places in
this truly scientific pamphlet, which is adorned with all the medical
learning of the time.
” Leeches,” “bleeding,” the words meet the
reader on every page ; even the application of a red-hot iron to the
stomach is recommended.What were the results ? According to Professor
Hasper
they were everywhere favourable where the bleeding was sufficiently
copious.But as this advice was almost every where followed by the
allopaths, the whole result ought to have been a favourable one, and
this hardly agrees with the fact that, according toHufeland’s
Journal and
others, more than half the cholera patients died.
Hasper
gives the
following statistics : 1,294
cholera patients who had no medical aid all died ; of 14,651
cases which had the advantage of medical treatment only 63
per cent. died.Of other
1,507
cholera patients, who remained without medical treatment, 1,255
died.This last collection were more fortunate than the former
1,294
who perished root and branch without exception. From this then it is
evident that the homeopaths with their ” nothings,” could
see only corpses as a result of their treatment of cholera.An account with authentic proofs by too doctors declared that
blood-letting, i.e., copious blood-letting, is the best means of
cutting short and curing cholera.
Scott
said that “the
occurrence of syncope during bleeding in cholera is a favourable
sign.” ” Collapse is not the result of loss of blood, but it
is, on the contrary, put an end to by it ; it is apt to occur if a
small quantity of blood only is drawn.”And such stuff was believed. It
must
be so — it was proved
scientifically. On p. 38,
it is asserted that the “black blood (as it is found in cholera)
acts like a narcotic poison.” Therefore the larger the quantity
of the narcotic poison removed, the freer must the body be from it.
And the addle-headed homoeopaths could not see that.
Corbyn
is one of the
first who used bleeding in cases of cholera with favourable results.Of
110
patients he only lost two old decrepit persons. Annesley
did not lose one among fifty patients, because he practised bleeding
at an early stage.
Annesley
himself gives us
information which hardly agrees with these statistics of Hasper.
[On the Asiatic Cholera, from
Observations and Autopsies, translated by G. Himly, 1831.
Rosenberg, Fortschritte und Leistungen der Homöopathie, Leipzig, 1843,
p. 221.]
Bleeding the specific for
Cholera.He says that the treatment of cholera hitherto pursued filled him
with horror, and therefore he resolved to follow the indications of
nature.He then gives the results of his treatment of thirteen cholera
patients. In the first case the patient had been bled three times
without any improvement before he was placed inAnnesley’s
hands.
Annesley
opened his veins
a fourth time, but no blood came and the patient died. In the second
case again bleeding was followed by death. In this way twelve patients
were treated, and all twelve were dissected, for they all died. The
thirteenth patient, an officer, would not consent to be bled.
Annesley
declined all
responsibility for the patient, and he got better in spite of science
and the indications of nature. And Annesley
?He calmly continued to bleed, and had plenty of opportunities of
performing post-mortems.Hasper
continues :Boyd lost only two patients out of twenty-eight when he bled
freely.Burrel
only lost two patients out of eighty-eight, who were all copiously
bled ; Craw,
with the same treatment, only lost one out of 100.
Dempster
confirms this
treatment by similar results.
Gravier
says that
bleeding may have a favourable result even when all the signs of
approaching death have appeared, when the limbs are cold and the
oppression is great ….. At a later period Gravier
recommends only leeches.
Colledge
states that all
died who were not bled, and all recovered who were.And so on through many pages. Incidentally less favour-able results
appear, but even these arc made to bear out the case for bleeding. The
sources from which he derived his information are unfortunately not
given by the Professor.As, therefore, these accounts are too one-sided for us to be able
to have any confidence in the statements when contradicted by
well-authenticated facts, we must turn to another author.We choose
Krüger-Hansen
; he did not like Hahnemann,
but was also no friend of “rational” medicine.
Allopathic critics of
Allopathic treatment of Cholera.He wrote a book
Die
Homöopathie and Allopathie auf der Wage, and
in it is described the ordinary treatment of cholera to which he was
strongly opposed. The following description is taken chiefly from this
book :Really it is the turn of the homeopaths to laugh when we consider
that the allopaths sought the seat of the disease now in the spinal
cord, now in the nervous system, in the blood, the skin, the bile, or
the bowels.One looked upon it as an intermittent fever, others regarded it as
a kind of typhus, epilepsy, colic, dysentery, intestinal exanthem,
&c.Some thought that parasites, called
cholerills,
were the cause of the
epidemic ; Hahnemann
was of this opinion.
Rothamel
gave the most
exact definition : Cholera is a composite disease often of dynamic,
generally of asthenic, seldom of hypersthenic and hardly ever of an
active, nature. [Med. Conversat.
Blatt, 1831,
No. 41.
Die Allöopathie, 1834,
No. 17.]Those who thought the disease was caused by a poison proceeded
energetically to destroy it, or at least remove it from the body. For
this purpose, patients were made to inhale suffocating chlorine, were
bathed in lime water, were dosed with emetics, &c.Those who sought for the source of the poison in the blood, or who
thought that the bowels were inflamed, bled, and this was the almost
universal treatment. Mercury, too, was largely used.Others treated only symptomatically ; if the body was cold and
stiff, frictions, vapour baths, hot drinks and hot water bottles were
employed ; wrapping up the patient in horse dung and the warm skins of
newly flayed animals was even recommended ; if the patient was
attacked with sickness, mercury was administered to cause stools ; if
the patient was purging, but not vomiting, emetics were given ; if the
patient had cramps, so-called anti-spasmodics of all sorts mixed
together were administered in the hope that some one might avail.Corporations of physicians boldly recommended bleeding, emetics,
mercury, and diaphoretics. There were cases in which young and robust
persons took six to eight powders of25
to 40
grains of ipecacuanha, each one strengthened with two to six grains of
sulphate of zinc, to begin with.Many doctors carried about emetics with them, and administered them
to all who complained of incipient symptoms of cholera. Most doctors
advised bleeding under given conditions. These conditions were very
frequently present. In all this misery the allopathic doctors disputed
among themselves in no very gentle manner.
Sachs
, of Konigsberg,
looked upon the 300
cholera pamphlets that had appeared as so unimportant that the few
valuable ones could all be carried about conveniently in the pocket of
a practitioner. He himself wrote a work 400
pages long on the subject, which contained the following musings :It will hardly be necessary to inform the intelligent practitioner
that our recommendation of opium by no means excludes the use of
moderate local bleeding where this appears necessary, even if only
symptomatically, and to tide over some temporary difficulty.In what follows we at once perceive in Professor
Sachs,
the scientific teacher :The highly fatal collison which is produced by this nervous fever
(cholera), between agility and atony, whereby both mutually intensify
one another and aggravate the whole condition ; this collision is
often rapidly allayed by the decisive action of opium, which increases
the intensive energy of the blood, and the steadiness and mutual
harmonious limitation of the organic functions is restored, so that
each one is set to rights in its own action and can be of unimpeded
service to the others.Professor Kieser, of Jena, thus prefaced a pamphlet of his
disciple, Von Rein, on Oriental Cholera :The pan-epidemic of Cholera has written with ineffaceable
characters in the history of medicine the empirical character of
contemporary medicine, and its utter irrationality. The Turk
instinctively treats this disease more successfully than does the
European, with his pretentions to wisdom. In this monograph on the
cholera, the first that has appeared of a scientific character, the
various questions that demand solution are solved in the most
satisfactory manner…… for the first time a scientific theory of
treatment has been advanced, based on a scientific knowledge of the
nature of the disease, worked out by the sick bed, and approved by the
most successful practical results …. After maturely weighing the
investigations, observations and practical results laid down in this
pamphlet, we can even affirm with certainty that now that the nature
of cholera and the appropriate plan of treatment to be pursued are no
longer doubtful, it is likely to be exceeded in fatality by many other
diseases.We read on eagerly after such promises.
Kieser
is known to us from the Allgemeiner
Anzeiger der Deutschen as an
energetic advocate of bleeding, but subsequently in his System
of Medicine, he gives
utterance to the often-quoted saying, ” In the present condition
of medical practice, both in Germany and the neighbouring countries,
every patient should be warned to shun the doctor as he would the most
virulent poison.”So in the year
1825,
in Hufeland’s
Journal, [Vol.
LX., st. 2,
p. 40.]
he considers it wrong to ”
draw blood by pounds in all pulmonary diseases, and to let the patient
die from loss of blood,” as the blind anti-phlogistic party do.
Scientific reasons for
bleeding in Cholera.Kieser
seems, then, to
have come to his senses in the course of years, and we, therefore,
expect to find in him an opponent of the horrible allopathic
treatment. What, then, does Kieser
advise ?The treatment of cholera must be that of inflammatory, gastric,
nervous fever.The principal
remedy is blood-letting, proportioned
to the strength of the patient and the intensity of the disease ; in
cases, then, of the most intense form of cholera, and where the
patient was previously robust, blood-letting, from four to five
pounds, is desirable ; and even before the disease is fully developed
such a mode of proceeding is useful.Reason :
” If after venesection to the extent of four to eight ounces,
where the violence of the disease required four pounds, the patient,
nevertheless, dies, it is wrong to look upon bleeding as having failed
in its effect, or even as having been injurious. We could almost think
that all sound judgment had deserted doctors [we hear the same
assertions now made by professors on similar occasions], for if
experience teaches us that a pound of blood can be drawn without
injury from children of one to three years old affected with
tracheitis and encephalitis, how can one hesitate to take several
pounds from a cholera patient who was previously robust, when this
does not imply nearly so much loss of blood to him as the one pound to
the two years old child ? We can hardly under-stand why practitioners
do not once for all try bleeding experimentally on a large scale, as
they have so many other remedies.”The fault then, according to
Kieser,
consisted in the fact that bleedings to the extent of one to two
pounds of blood were too small, in this he agrees with other
professors, Hasper
for example.This was rational medicine ! And
Kieser
(died 1862)
was “an authority of the first rank.”He contributed largely to the development of physiology,
particularly that of plants, to the science of the microscope, and to
biology. Hundreds of doctors swore by his authority. His treatment of
cholera has not yet, however, been fully described.After blood-letting calomel is to be administered with magnesia,
three to ten grains every hour, then follow cold baths for five to ten
minutes, not douches as others recommended. Then an emetic may be
administered, or the patient can again be bled, made to drink cold
water and cold compresses may be applied to the shaved head.To get rid of the rest of the inflammation, six drachms of
saltpetre or more in24
hours, combined with liq. minder. when the stage of inflammation
passes into the nervous stage.In cases where blood would not flow from the vein that had been
openedRein
opened all the veins that he could see.In
Hasper’s
article in Hufeland’s
Journal p. 59,
it is stated :”
Rein
at once laid bare and opened to the extent of half an-inch all the
veins of the cholera patients which he could see on their bodies ; but
in spite of everything two hours were required in the case of each
patient to squeeze out from four, six or eight veins two pounds of
blood.”Often even this was not possible. He then tried arteriotomy, but
only a few ounces of blood were to be obtained from the temporal and
radial arteries.
Kieser
asserts that Rein
in his private practice ” by pursuing this scientific
treatment,” out of thirty cases of the most severe kind of
cholera did not lose one. We ask in astonishment, whether all these
counsels and assertions are to be regarded as ironical — but alas !
no, it is bitter, ” rational” earnest.***
It interests us especially to notice what weapons the allopaths in
Austria used against this devastating disease. Here the consummation
wished for by so many allopaths had been attained. The practice of
homoeopathy had been forbidden since1819,
in consequence of an imperial edict. The prohibition was not carried
out very strictly, but it was the occasion of endless persecutions by
the allopaths and apothecaries.
Results of the ordinary
treatment of Cholera in Austria.According to the
Medic.
Jahrbücher des österreich. Staates (vol.
XII., p. I), vomiting and diarrhoea are simply the healing efforts of
nature ” to get rid of substances deposited in large quantity on
the inner surface of the stomach and bowels, which the animal economy
can no longer digest and assimilate.”But if the vomiting was very stubborn it does not appear to have
been considered as a” healing effort,” for in this case
opium, effervescent powders,River’s
drink, aq. lauroc., black coffee, ice, blisters, and theriac plasters
were employed.In Hungary, morphia and pyroligneous acid were largely used. At the
last period of the epidemic, the Austrian doctors, wishing to change
passive into active diarrhoea, administered calomel in doses of half a
grain every two hours, mixed with sugar or with magnesia and opium.” The extremely favourable effect of bleedings, local and
general, when indicated, is admitted by all physicians. In the
paralytic stage of the disease it is not only of no use, but increases
the collapse and hastens the end.”
Krüger-Hansen
remarks on
this : ” the doctors should have kept such confessions in their
own bosoms, and not exposed themselves to the ridicule of the
homoeopaths ! ” Wawruch
gives us an example of the disastrous results of the allopathic
treatment in Vienna.He relates that
109
children were attacked by the disease in the lying-in hospital at
Vienna at the time of the cholera epidemic, of whom 107
died ; that is to say only two escaped with their lives (Krüger-Hansen).Professor
Bischoff
treated seven patients for cholera in the. hospital of the Joseph
Academy at Vienna in December, 1831,
with the most diverse remedies, six of them died ; the seventh, who
had just recovered from inflammation of the lungs, from the effects of
the treatment of which he was still suffering, refused all remedies
when attacked with cholera, he drank nothing but lemonade, and
recovered.In September,
1832,
121
Vienna and 83
foreign doctors assembled in Vienna on the occasion of the meeting of
the Naturforscherversammlung.
The treatment of cholera was
discussed.
Brodowicz
, Bischoff
and Wawruch
spoke in favour of bleeding repeated four or five times during the
attack of cholera ; according to Obersteiner
and Wirer,
bleeding ought only to be employed in the ” reaction stage.”
Bittner
thought that the
bleeding ought to be limited, and Szots
quoted the favourable results of the treatment in Transylvania, where
no bleeding, either general or local, had been practised.Finally
Sterz
and Herrmann
spoke of the treatment of cholera by emetics.” It transpired,” says
Krüger-Hansen,
” that in the university towns, where the medical teachers
resided, the results of the treatment of cholera were much more
unfavourable than in any other place, even in the country where there
were no doctors.”
Hasper
, the
representative of” rational medicine,” asserts the contrary.W hat, then, were the results obtained by the homoeopaths, who were
very much over-worked at this time, when the cholera was raging. They
themselves assert distinctly the superiority of their results over
those obtained by ” rational medicine.”Their statistics are more favourable throughout than those of the
allopaths, certainly with the exception of those ofHasper.
The allopaths
proved scientifically
the impossibility of better results being obtained by the homoeopaths.
If the latter asserted the contrary they could be proved to have lied
by science. Those who recovered had simply not been suffering from
cholera at all.
Hufeland
calls cholera
“this scandalum medicorum,” in 1832,
in his journal, the
April number, p. 4.
He relates that no hindrance was put in the way of the homoeopaths by
the Prussian Government, a special hospital was even opened for them
under the supervision of an ” allopathic inspector.”But unfortunately this object was not completely attained. This was
partly because, on account of the well-known rapidity of the dangerous
symptoms of this disease, it was not possible always to summon the
medical inspector quickly enough, partly because it was not always
possible for him, however quickly he came, to convince himself of the
existence of symptoms which had previously been there, but which had
already disappeared.What hindered the working of it was however chiefly the fact that
most patients had a repugnance to being taken to a hospital, and
preferred to remain in their own dwellings, where it was impossible
for the inspector to perform his part.We must therefore receive the greater part of the experience
obtained on the good faith of the homoeopaths themselves. And it is
undeniable that the proportion of those cured to those who died, was
extremely favourable. Results still more favourable to the
homoeopathic method were reported to us from other places.
Allopathic testimony to
success of Homoeopathic treatment of Cholera.Hasper
was probably
thinking of those 1,294
fatal cases when he wrote : ” Those cases where the homoeopathic
method was employed proved most rapidly fatal.”Now-a-days no rational professor would venture on the assertion
that the allopathic results were more favourable, and we can certainly
say without fear of contradiction that the homeopaths were more
successful than their opponents in the treatment of this disease.[[I
may be permitted to add a couple of testimonies from the camp of its
opponents to the superiority of homœopathie to the ”
rational” system in the treatment of cholera. The late Sir
William Wilde,
the well-known allopathic oculist of Dublin, in his work entitled Austria
and its Institutions, says
(p. 275)
: “Upon comparing the report of the treatment of cholera in the
homoeopathic hospital [testified to by two allopathic medical
inspectors appointed by Government] with that of the treatment of the
same disease in the other hospitals of Vienna during the same period
[the epidemic of 1836],
it appeared that while two-thirds of the cases treated by Dr. Fleischmann
[the physician of the homoeopathic hospital] recovered, two-thirds of
those treated by the ordinary methods in the other hospitals died.
This very extraordinary result led Count Kolowrat
(Minister of the Interior) to repeal the law prohibiting the practice
of homoeopathy.”
London Homeopathic Hospital.
When the cholera epidemic visited London in
1854,
the Board of Management of the London Homeopathic Hospital, then
located in Golden Square, which happened to be the centre of the most
severely affected part of the metropolis, cleared out the hospital for
the reception of cholera patients only. The medical Inspector
appointed by the Board of Health, Dr. Macloughlin,
was requested to put the London Homoeopathic Hospital on the list of
institutions for the treatment of cholera, which he was to inspect and
report on. This he willingly did, after thoroughly inspecting the
arrangements. He also paid a daily visit of inspection to the hospital
(luring the whole of the time it was engaged in receiving cases of
cholera. The Board of Health had appointed a committee of medical men,
presided over by Dr. Paris,
the President of the College of Physicians, to collect the statistics
of the treatment of cholera in London and to report to Parliament on
the results of the various methods pursued in all the different
institutions. When the report of this Treatment Committee appeared, it
was observed that the returns of the London Homoeopathic Hospital were
altogether ignored. Some stir was made in the House of Commons by Lord
R. Grosvenor
— now Lord Ebury
— about this omission, and this led to a separate Parliamentary
paper being issued containing the omitted returns of the London
Homoeopathic Hospital. From these returns it appeared that the number
of cases treated in the Homoeopathic Hospital was sixty-one, of whom
ten died, giving a mortality of 16.4
per cent. From the other Parliamentary paper, issued under the
editorship of the Treatment Committee, it appeared that the average
mortality under the mode of treatment pursued in the other
metropolitan hospitals was 51,
8
per cent. The Government Inspector, Dr. Macloughlin,
though himself belonging to the dominant sect, testified most
handsomely to the severity of the cases treated in the London
Homoeopathic Hospital, and to the astonishing success of the
treatment. — [ED]
We might gather this even from the renewed vehemence of the
allopathic attacks.All the evidence points to the fact that the spread of homeopathy
increased rapidly during and after the cholera ; the self-reliance and
confidence of the homoeopaths grew, and the irritation of their
opponents reached the highest pitch.At the end of July, cholera broke out at
Raab,
in Hungary. According to authentic statistics, 640
died out of 1,501
patients who were treated allopathically. [Rechtfertigung
des Dr. von Bakody, etc., von Mor. Müller,
Leipzig, 1832.]The results of the homeopathic treatment of Dr.
Bakody,
who was settled in Raab,
were much more favourable. So much so, that the inhabitants made an
appeal through the news-papers for more homeopathic doctors to wage
war against this dreaded foe ?
Dr Tivadar József Bakody
(1825-1911)
The Protomedicus of Hungary, Dr.
Lenhoscek
did not consider this appeal suitable for publication, and in his
capacity of censor refused to allow it to be printed, appending in his
own hand the words ” Pro typis non est qualificatum,” so that
the manuscript was returned to the sender, Franz von Parragh,
“episcopal exactor” and advocate.After cholera had ceased at Raab,
Bakody
informed his friend Dr. Ant. Schmit,
Physician to the Duke of Lucca, of his mode of treatment and the results
obtained, and he, contrary to Bakody’s
wish, sent them for insertion to the Allgemeiner
Anzeiger der Deutschen, which
accepted the article. [In No. 321
of 1831.]It did not contain any expression in the least offensive to any
physician, although Bakody had been subjected to the most severe attacks
on the part of the allopaths of Raab.
Allopathic flowers of rhetoric.
Thereupon the County Physicus, Dr. Joseph v.
Balogh,
and the Town Physicus, Dr. Ant. Karpff
published a rejoinder, in which it was asserted that the homoeopathic
statistics were false, that all the cholera patients treated by Bakody
had died, and that the patients who had recovered had never had cholera.
This article was embellished with the following flowers of rhetoric by
these two gentlemen :The
Allgemeiner Anzeiger der
Deutschen omitted them, but
Mor. Müller
has happily rescued them from oblivion — ” Lying shameless
scribbling” — ” Facts misrepresented in the most pitiful way
” — “Attacks of two medical incroyables (Bakody
and Schmit)
on an art accredited by the experience of a thousand years ” —
” The whole homæopathic clique.”“
Bakody
is so unfortunate as to have become the butt of many non-professionals
by reason of his want of savoir
faire, his unprepossessing
exterior (! ! !) and his want of success in his treatment.”
“Medical forgers.”“The word conscientious is out of place in the homoeopathic
jargon ; “, ” The knight Don Quixote ; ” ” Besides
the eight cholera patients who were carried to the grave,Bakody
neither saw nor treated any other cholera cases, else the homeopathic
fanatics would have crowed ‘still louder ; ” ” Bakody…..
took good care neither to hand in his reports to the town magistrate nor
to make them known by his proselytes ; ” ” medical
juggler.”This was the language used by the allopaths, Dr. Jos. von
Balogh,
the County Physicus, and Dr. Anton Karpff,
the Town Physicus.
Bakody
rejoined in a most
dignified manner, and produced 112
legally attested certificates relating to 154
cholera patients treated by him, of whom only six died.As his witnesses there appeared among others : a cathedral dignitary,
who gave evidence in the name of the Bishop of Raab, respecting five
members of the bishop’s household who had been cured of cholera ;
further an evangelical preacher, a reformed preacher, a member of the
bench of magistrates, three pastors, a count, a notary, an episcopal
treasurer, a consistory counsellor, a member of the council, various
merchants, mechanics, &c.Their testimonies, together with expressions of gratitude to
Bakody,
are printed by Müller
in the work alluded to.
The
censorship used to suppress homoeopathic writings.
One
very favourite weapon of the opponents of homoeopathy was the censorship
of the press, especially in Hungary, but also in other countries.
Griesselich
[Skizzen aus
der Mappe eines reisenden Homöopathen, Karlsruhe, 1832,
p. 128.]
writes on the subject : —Dr.
Kiesselbach
of Hanau wished an account of the homoeopathic treatment of croup to be
inserted in a Kassel paper ; the censor vetoed it, and the Kassel paper
kept silence on the subject of croup and homoeopathy.
Dr Georg August Benjamin Schweikert
(1774-1845)Hahnemann
sent his treatment of
cholera to the Preussische
Staats Zeitung, but it could
not be inserted because the Berlin censor, Prof Kluge,
would not allow it.In
1831
a doctor in Cöthen published an attack on Hahnemann
in the Cöthener Zeitung on
account of his treatment of cholera, to which Hahnemann
wished to respond in the same paper, but was refused permission because
the censor was a friend of the doctor’s.Hahnemann
then had his
rejoinder printed in Magdeburg, where no objection was raised. In
Leipzic Hofrath Dr. Clarus
wielded the censor’s shears, of which fact we can obtain evidence in Stapf’s
Archiv, and
Schweikert’s
Zeitung.
Stapf’s Archiv.The cholera is raging at Raab in Hungary ; the public having
witnessedBakody’s
cures wishes to summon homeopaths thither. But the notice in the paper
is refused insertion by the Protomedicus Lenhoscek
as pro typis non qualificatum.
Considering the use made of the censorship we could almost think that
there was something dangerous to the State in homeopathy ; for as far as
is known the censorship is only intended to keep peace in the States,
but not to hinder doctors from curing, nor patients from I being cured.
Krüger-Hansen
[Brillenlose
Reflexionen, p. 19.]
relates also that his pamphlets
against blood-letting, &c., were sent back from the Austrian states
to Leipzic with the observation : ” the censor has not allowed them
to pass.”
Uncontradicted calumnies grow
like rolling snowballs.Austria-Hungary was a pattern place for the allopaths.
Read the article in the
Allgemeiner
Anz. der Deutschen (year 1833,
p. 965).Not only was license given ” to all base and infamous attacks on
the homoeopaths,” but such were even encouraged, and ” the
oppressed and attacked party was not only not allowed to plead its own
cause, but was not even allowed to defend itself, and all attempts to do
so were carefully suppressed.”” Thus the medical censorship (wielded by the above-mentioned
Dr.Lenhoscek)
struck out the following true and beautiful passage from Hufeland’s
article on homoeopathy, [Hufeland’s
Journal, Feb., 1830.]
which appeared in a Hungarian
paper.No kind of despotism, no autocracy, no suppression of opinion ;
government itself has no right to interfere in scientific matters,
either in preventing research, or in favouring exclusively one opinion ;
for both kinds of interference have done harm, as experience shows.’Not only were articles suppressed that directly concerned
homoeopathy, but even such as were likely to encourage ideas favourable
to the principles of homoeopathy.To prove this I may refer to two very modest treatises, one on
simplicity in medicine and another on the imperfection of the presentmateria
medica, which were rejected in
the following terms.”The remarks in Latin of the censor, Dr.
Lenhoscek,
are given at length, they are to the effect that nothing ought to be
printed against the principles of scientific medicine, cultivated as it
has been for so many centuries. Homoeopaths might publish their
observations, but they must not attack allopathy.The permission here accorded was, however, only an empty consolation,
as the editors of the only medical journal published in Hungary, were
forbidden to accept homeopathic articles.But all this might have been more easily borne, as it was to be hoped
that the advantages of the new system would become more and more known
by deeds, if not by writings ; but this was not all.The adherents of homoeopathy were exposed to all possible insults and
calumnies without being able to make any protest.We are then told that a writer, Dr.
Hanak,
supported by the allopathic professor, Dr. Sch.,
and Dr. T.,
published a series of abusive articles in Die
Biene, which do not leave the
reader one moment in doubt as to the sentiments of these combatants.
Here are some specimens : — ” Among doctors there are not wanting
Icaruses
who, forgetting the waxen composition of their wings, fly stupidly
towards the sun, and falling into the sea of oblivion, have not even the
good fortune of the son of Daedalus of rendering themselves immortal by
their fall.Among these we must reckon all those who boast of their universal
remedies and universal methods of healing, from Dr.Sangrado
to the latest unlucky charlatans of medicine — the homoeopaths.”
” We must, indeed, anticipate that the homoeopathic folly, like
every other work of deceit and darkness, must of itself fall to the
ground ; but the friends of light perceive with pleasure that sensible
doctors are already raising their voices against it.”The most sensible of all ought therefore to be
Simon,
who, as is well known, proved Hahnemann
to be ” a mere ignoramus both as a scholar and a physician.”
“We cannot, therefore, understand how a true Magyar, even if he is
sick in body, as long as he is mentally sound, can give himself up to
such quackery.” ” In what respect is a homoeopathic doctor
different from and better than a bird of darkness who seeks to gather
honey from the cells of his honest colleagues.” The whole article
seems to be made up of such phrases.This article was received with great applause by the opponents of
homoeopathy. [Would even now be received with pleasure as we shall
hereafter see.] They found in it the expression of their own hatred and
ill-will towards this new and aggravating system. The un-instructed
public looked on it as a powerful exposition of the worthlessness of
homoeopathy ; and, in order to obtain the desired result more
completely, Dr.Hanak
resolved to print this article separately, and, with the addition of a
few extracts from Simon’s
book to offer it at a cheap price to the public.A homoeopathic doctor ventured to say something against this abusive
and ignorant treatise, and wished to print his remarks in theModezeitung,
in default of any other German
journal.The article had to be submitted to the medical censorship. After many
weeks it was returned to him with the following remark — “This article is not fitted for insertion in the
Modezeitung,
on account both of its form
and its subject, and will not therefore be allowed to appear in the Modezeitung.
Ofen. July 12,
1830,
M. von Lenhoscek,
Royal Counsellor and Protomedicus of the Kingdom — Mp.”But all this seems mere child’s play, compared with what Dr.
Kovats
says.He wrote
Antiorganon ac
Organorosta, Pesth, 1830.In this work homoeopathy is termed “a system of jugglery and of
deception, quackery, a foolish, bungling science, an occupation suitable
for idle cobblers.”
Calumniare audacter, aliquid adhaerebit.
Hahnemann
was ” a wretched
vagabond, a wandering, ignorant barber, a blind Paracelsist,
a liar, a worthless tempter, a fool, a false, coarse, low fox,” and
so forth. Hahnemann’s
adherents are all ” madmen who ought to be locked up.”Those who allow themselves to be treated homoeopathically are also
“fools.” He terms a homoeopathic doctor, Dr. Paul vonBalogh,
of Pesth (who must not be confounded with Balogh
the County physicus), “a pander to Hahnemann,
a deceiver, a” shameless liar, an ungrateful fellow who takes upon
himself to contemn the teaching of the medical faculty, a charlatan, an
ignorant, foolish, low fellow, who can have learnt nothing or else he
would have found it impossible to accept the teaching of
homoeopathy.”The homoeopaths were unable to defend themselves on account of the
censorship.In Hungary, Surgeon
Rochel,
Professor Schuster,
[Author of the anonymous
Hahnemanniana, Berlin, 1830.]
of Pesth, and Dr. Lippich
treated homoeopathy in the same strain.Repeatedly, and in various newspapers, the homoeopaths attempted to
publish rejoinders. Every time they were rejected, however, by the
medical censor, with the declaration thatHahnemann’s
method of treatment is forbidden in the Austrian States.It is no wonder [says the
Allgem.
Anzeiger der Deutschen] that
in Hungary the most distorted, absurd and laughable ideas prevail on the
subject of homoeopathy, and that homoeopathy
makes but little progress with
the public, generally so responsive to all that is good and true, for
even- learned men have an unconquerable aversion to it.Every day most of the allopathic doctors come to their patients with
the good news that homoeopathy is at last, thanks be to heaven, on the
verge of expiring ; that his Majesty has just strictly forbidden
homoeopathy by a rescript ; that this was necessary since homoeopathy
did so much mischief, that its poisonous remedies either kill slowly, or
cause miserably diseased life, that they destroy female beauty and make
it instantly appear many years older, &c. [The same ideas founded on
the same reasoning are to be met with even now.]The student of medicine in the colleges hears nothing but jeers and
scoffs, or condemnation of homoeopathy. Who is to set them right or
awake in them a desire for reading homœopathic treatises ?Is it a wonder if among the numerous medical students at Pesth there
are so few who have any wish to make themselves acquainted with the new
system ? But notwithstanding all this despotism the light of truth will
yet conquer in Hungary.In the year
1837
the prohibition of the
practice of homoeopathy was removed by an imperial mandate, and for ten
years there has been a hospital and a professorship of homoeopathy held
by Professor v. Bakody,
the son of the Bakody
who was so much persecuted.In
1843
the readers of Hungarian
journals were again ,entertained with an attack on homoeopathy, to which
the homoeopaths thus responded : — [Allg.
hom. Zeitung, Vol. XXIV., p. 268.
]Our opponent has wished to persuade his readers that no stumbling
block has been laid in the way of Homoeopathy by the oldschool,
that we have been allowed to
pursue our own way freely.Even now there is a capital in the Austrian monarchy in which a
homoeopathic book may not even be announced in a journal, nay, the
bookseller may not even expose it in his window. There, as here,
anything may be printed against Homoeopathy, but nothing in its favour.This is the place to describe the medical standpoint of the medical
advisers of the Austrian Emperor, in whom he so implicitly confided.It was above all others owing to Andreas
Stifft,
later his Excellency von Stifft,
a vehement opponent of homoeopathy that the practice of Hahnemann’s
mode of treatment was forbidden.
Griesselich
[Skizzen,
&c.] relates the following
amusing anecdote :” A Dr.
Löbel
appeared at Stifft’s
house to hand him a work which he had dedicated to him.The servant confused his name with that of a Dr.
Lowe,
a homeopath, who had come to Vienna from Prague.Dr.
Löbel
had to wait a long time. At last Stifft
appeared and encountered this non-homeopath with the words, ` You are a
homoeopath — a fool ; go ! go ! I will have nothing to do with fools
!’ Exeunt both through opposite doors.”His Excellency von
Stifft
was the Emperor’s physician in ordinary.As everyone knows Francis II. was then reigning, who was called
Francis I. after the extinction of the Holy Roman Empire in1806.
Death of the
Emperor Francis I.
His father was Leopold II., with the history of whose illness
Hahnemann’s
opposition to the blood-letting four times repeated, is connected.Francis had lost his wives and his youthful grandson, who is known to
the world’s history (Duc de Reichstadt), under the “rational”
system of bleeding.The Emperor was
67
years old, and was considerably bowed down by the weight of years, [Comp.
Krüger-Hansen, Brillenlose Reflexionen, 1835,
p. 21.]
when an inflammatory fever, at
first declared harmless by his physicians (Stifft
and Günther),
attacked him in 1835.Blood was drawn from him. The subsidence of the symptoms, which
usually followed temporarily, was declared favourable ; but as was also
usually the case, the fever increased afterwards, and he was bled a
second time.The symptoms became now more urgent, and both the doctors declared at
mid-day, February28th,
that they could not save the patient.A wish was expressed for a further consultation, and three archiducal
physicians in ordinary appeared at the sick bed. These approved of the
treatment hitherto pursued, and declared that there was still some hope
if a favourable crisis, a profuse perspiration, should take place. To
bring this about they bled him twice more, after which the fever
increased, the strength was proportionately diminished, the breathing
became difficult, and within twenty-four hours the action of the heart
stopped.When the noble-minded patient dismissed, for the last time, the
doctors who looked upon his blood as poison, he gave each of them his
hand, thanked them for their exertions, and assured them of his love and
favour, adding, generously, that he knew how much they loved him, and
that they had done and would do all they could to save his life.The report of the doctors upon the post-mortem examination was as
follows :The patient died of inflammation of the lungs, the heart and the
large blood vessels.The medical treatment was the only correct one, but the frequently
repeated bleedings had not been sufficient to restrain within limits the
increasing inflammation, and a more energetic treatment was precluded by
the general condition of the patient, and would have incurred the danger
of causing instantaneous death.Copyright
© Robert Séror 2006.
