Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- en:ahr:ahomeo04-miscellaneous-04-158-10317 [2012/07/12 10:54]
127.0.0.1 external edit
+++ en:ahr:ahomeo04-miscellaneous-04-158-10317 [2017/07/18 06:13] (current)
46.161.9.20
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-====== MISCELLANEOUS.======
+wh0cd864627 <a href=http://bystolic.world/>bystolic 2.5mg</a> <a href=http://zaditor.reisen/>zaditor</a> <a href=http://prinivil.reisen/>prinivil</a> <a href=http://meclizine.reisen/>meclizine oral</a> <a href=http://emsam.world/>get more information</a>
-{{anchor:s2}}PRESCRIBING FOR DISEASE BY NAME. {{anchor:s3}}— Why is it that homoeopathic physicians witness the constant stealing in among them of this blighting empiricism without alarm? {{anchor:s4}}Your Review is filled with it, and I cannot but hone inadvertently, for it seems to be everywhere. {{anchor:s5}}And where can all this end, if not checked, except in converting every one countenancing it into a more <span grade2>nostrum vender</span>?
-{{anchor:s6}}But, the better to be understood allow me to specify.
-{{anchor:s7}}Homoeopathic Societies are everywhere fruitful nurseries of this evil; or, rather, they give systematic utterance to it, and thus, through their proceedings, foist it authoritatively upon the public. {{anchor:s8}}Of course you publish their proceedings; and you do not, as I wish you did, point out and condemn their evil in them.
-{{anchor:s9}}Permit me to illustrate. {{anchor:s10}}On the subject of Chronic Diarrhea, in cases of returned soldiers, I quote your Journal, as follows:
-{{anchor:s11}}Dr. W. W. says, "he has used Merc. viv. 3 with very satisfactory results, Croton tig. has also been strongly recommended."
-{{anchor:s12}}Dr. G., "relies chiefly upon Podophyllum."
-{{anchor:s13}}Dr. B., "has confidence in Arsenicum."
-{{anchor:s14}}Dr. R., "thought Podophyllum, Arsenicum and China would be found useful remedies."
-{{anchor:s15}}Now, all this is without the most distant allusion to any symptom, except the single one involved in the name. {{anchor:s16}}And this body of doctors is gravely <span grade2>guessing</span> at cures for that name! {{anchor:s17}}Is there any difference between these and the granny with her "<span grade2>yarb tea</span>?{{anchor:s18}}" The whole is quite identical with what we find upon every wrapper that accompanies every bottle and every box of empirical nostrums that we have ever seen sold from the shops. {{anchor:s19}}No sane prescription <span grade2>can</span> be made, in any case, until the case, itself, is seen; for, until then, none can know what controlling symptoms will be present; and it is these alone, that can point out the drug which is required <span grade2>in that particular case.</span> {{anchor:s20}}The <span grade2>name</span> has no agency in this.
-{{anchor:s21}}Again. {{anchor:s22}}There is a diseased condition known to the general public as "Fever and Ague.{{anchor:s23}}" Now, in a debate like the above, one says he has found Arsenicum useful; another has experience that China is better; while a third, speaking also from experience, denounces both these drugs, as without efficacy in this disease. {{anchor:s24}}Very well: these three men are all right and all wrong, according to the method they are pursuing. {{anchor:s25}}They are all prescribing for a <span grade2>name,</span> and not for symptoms. {{anchor:s26}}He who prescribed Arsenicum, successfully, succeeded because the symptoms of that drug, <span grade2>whether he knew it or not,</span> were present, and called for it; and it was the same with him who employed China; while the third party employed these drugs when the symptoms calling for them were not present, and hence his "experience" found them without effect.
-{{anchor:s27}}And what, let me ask, is such proceeding but pestilent nonsense — but the blind leading the blind, until all finally fall into the ditch, together? {{anchor:s28}}And yet these, and such as these, call themselves Homoeopathists! {{anchor:s29}}No wonder the world scouts their calling as nonsense; for such it is, if judged by such works.
-{{anchor:s30}}SHADE OF HAHNEMANN.
-{{anchor:s31}}Such a pungent address as the above, from the shade of our venerated Master (received, by the way, through the U. S. Mail) could not fail to stir in us manifold emotions. {{anchor:s32}}In view of its exceeding pungency, we were fain to exclaim with Ulysses, when he accosted the "inexorable ghost" of Ajax,
-{{anchor:s33}}"Still burns thy rage! and can brave souls resent
-{{anchor:s34}}Ev'n after death! relent, great shade, relent!"
-{{anchor:s35}}But then, whatever may be said of the justice of the reproach it contains against the REVIEW, the <span grade2>doctrine</span> of the address is " <span grade2>sound to the core.</span>{{anchor:s36}}"Prescribing for diseases by name" is a pestilent abomination which cannot be too frequently nor too cogently exposed and denounced.
-{{anchor:s37}}We thank the "<span grade2>Shade of Hahnemann</span>" for calling attention to an evil the magnitude of which cannot be overestimated.
-{{anchor:s38}}Hahnemann during his life time expressed himself frequently and very forcibly on this subject. {{anchor:s39}}His first mention of it occurs in an "Essay on the three Current Methods of Treatment," published in <span grade2>Hufelands Journal,</span> 1809. {{anchor:s40}}He there says, "the method which from the remotest time has always found the most partisans, which is the most convenient of all, is the <span grade2>treatment of the name"</span> 'If the patient has the gout, give him Sulphuric acid; the remedy for rheumatism is Mercury; Cinchona is good for ague; Simaruba for dysentery; Squilla for dropsy.{{anchor:s41}}' Here the mere name of the supposed disease is sufficient to determine the parempiric for a remedy which crude, undiscriminating experience has sometimes found useful in diseases that have been superficially termed gout, rheumatism, ague, dropsy, but have neither been accurately described nor carefully distinguished from similar affections."
-{{anchor:s42}}This admirable essay in which Hahnemann shows the errors of this mode of practice is so conclusive and is so superior in both matter and manner to the above 'communication from the "Shade of Hahnemann," that the latter furnishes an additional reason for believing what the alleged written and oral communications from the spirits of our deceased Statesmen and others, so abundant of late years, seem to demonstrate, viz.: that after this life, the intellectual status of the individual suffers a marked deterioration.
-{{anchor:s43}}We are not surprised at a trace of petulance in the communication, for it is well-known that in his old age Hahnemann's temper became somewhat irritable and unreasonable.
-{{anchor:s44}}Our ideas of the condition and employments of the shades of the departed are, of course, for the most part, hypothetical. {{anchor:s45}}Virgil, it is true, intimates that they are engaged in pursuits not dissimilar to those which occupied them here on earth:
-{{anchor:s46}}"Quae gratia currum
-{{anchor:s47}}Armorumque fuit vivis, quae cura nitentes
-{{anchor:s48}}Pascere equos, eadem sequitur tellure repostos."
-{{anchor:s49}}But with a greater scope and amplitude:
-{{anchor:s50}}"Largior hic campos aether et lumine vestit
-{{anchor:s51}}Purpureo; solemque suum, sua sidera norunt.{{anchor:s52}}" — AENEID, VI.
-{{anchor:s53}}From this, and from the allusions which he makes to the REVIEW, we must conclude that the "Shade of Hahnemann" makes Homoeopathy its chief concern and is one of our constant and interested readers. {{anchor:s54}}We, therefore, venture, in all humility to remonstrate against his "reproach; to protest that, if there be any one doctrine that has been inculcated more than another in the pages of the AMERICAN HOMOEOPATHIC REVIEW, it is just that which teaches that each individual sick person is to be prescribed for according to the symptoms he presents and without reference to the name which might be given to his supposed disease.
-{{anchor:s55}}With humble reverence we approach the shade and cry
-{{anchor:s56}}"Da jungere dextram
-{{anchor:s57}}Da, genitor; teque amplexu ne subtrahe nostro."
-{{anchor:s58}}Revise with us the Volume of the REVIEW which is just completed, and note whether it has not faithfully taught that which you reproach it for not teaching.
-{{anchor:s59}}We are not without misgivings of the fruitlessness of this appeal, remembering the disappointments of AEneas:
-{{anchor:s60}}"Ter conatus ibi collo dare brachia circum;
-{{anchor:s61}}Ter frustra comprensa manus effugit imago
-{{anchor:s62}}Par levibus ventis, volucrique simillima somno."
-{{anchor:s63}}Nevertheless, we shall make the references.
-{{anchor:s64}}In No. 1, Vol. III, AMERICAN HOMOEOPATHIC REVIEW, Dr. Wells writes as follows: "It is only after many painful buffetings and sore disappointments, that he comes to suspect that <span grade2>names</span> are not <span grade2>things,</span> and finally to see clearly that many conditions, called by the same name, are so different in their characters as to be essentially different affections. {{anchor:s65}}* * *He is not to treat <span grade2>diseases, names, things,</span> imagined somethings which have somehow found their way into live humanity and made it suffer and perhaps are bringing its existence into peril. {{anchor:s66}}* * He is to treat sick men, women and children — <span grade2>patients,</span> and not <span grade2>diseases.</span> {{anchor:s67}}* * What then is <span grade2>disease?</span> {{anchor:s68}}It is only a <span grade2>condition,</span> not a <span grade2>thing.</span>"
-{{anchor:s69}}Again in No. 2, Vol. III, page 74, Dr. Wells says: "For it must never be forgotten that we are prescribing for the <span grade2>man,</span> not merely for that group of phenomena which we have, for convenience, consented to call diarrhea."
-{{anchor:s70}}In No. 3, Vol. III, pages 104 and 106 are to the same purpose.
-{{anchor:s71}}In No. 4, Vol. III, page 171, Dr. Wells says again: "It is not because the disease is dysentery, let it never be forgotten that (this remedy) cures; but because of that 'like' to the individualizing symptoms of the case, by virtue of which it and all other drugs cure."
-{{anchor:s72}}In the same number, pages 148 and 149, Dr. Lippe says: "In the treatment of any of the above described abnormal conditions * * the true physician will never be guided by the name of the disease or by the pathological conditions of the diseased organ in the choice of the remedy; it will not matter whether the inflammation is acute or chronic, the true physician, <span grade2>knowing that the totality of the symptoms alone constitutes the disease,</span> will select the remedy which is most similar in its effects to the symptoms of the patient, etc., * * making therefore each case to be treated as a special case."
-{{anchor:s73}}In No. 5, Vol. III, pages 203 to 210 teach the same truth.
-{{anchor:s74}}In No. 6, pages 222 to 224; a case by Dr. Allen finely illustrates the doctrines so frequently inculcated.
-{{anchor:s75}}In No. 7, Vol. III, page 304, Dr. Wells says once more: "At the same time we cannot but protest against giving this or any other drug, merely because a patient has cardiac rheumatism, without first making a careful comparison of the symptoms of the case with those of the drug, and then it is only to be given because of the resemblance required by the homoeopathic law of cure."
-{{anchor:s76}}And now, we seem to hear our genial contributor, Dr. Hering, invoking the shade in the words of Dante:
-{{anchor:s77}}"Tu se' lo mio maestro, e il mio autore;
-{{anchor:s78}}Tu se' solo colui, da cui io tolsi
-{{anchor:s79}}Lo bello stilo, che m' ha fatto honore.{{anchor:s80}}" — INF.,1.
-{{anchor:s81}}and calling his attention to the following passage in No. 2, Vol. III: 'The Half-Homoeopathists do not follow the only indications which the Hahnemannian physician recognises — the <span grade2>symptoms;</span> but their choice of a remedy is determined rather by the <span grade2>pathological name</span> which they give to the so-called disease, i.e., the name which, according to their degree of cultivation at the time, they are in a position to give — one giving one name, another another. {{anchor:s82}}They declare that this is <span grade2>scientific.</span> {{anchor:s83}}* * Of all the indications which enable the homoeopathic physician to select the remedy, the <span grade2>symptoms of the case,</span> take the first rank. {{anchor:s84}}It matters not whether a child has Scarlatina or Measles or a bastard of the two; he is to be guided by the <span grade2>symptoms</span>; and all besides is only accessory and auxiliary.
-{{anchor:s85}}We forbear any further citations. {{anchor:s86}}Thus far in every number of that volume of the REVIEW which has been issued under the present editorship, there has been a clear and urgent presentation of the doctrine in question. {{anchor:s87}}If the true method of teaching be "line upon line — precept upon precept — here a little and there a little" — the REVIEW may well presume, in this regard at least, to hold up clean hands to the august Shade which rebukes it.
-{{anchor:s88}}We desire to make but one more citation. {{anchor:s89}}The Shade finds fault with the members of Medical Societies, because in making brief and summary statements of their experience during a stated interval, they, for brevity's sake, group a number of the individual cases they have encountered and include them all under one nosological term. {{anchor:s90}}Thus, one member says he has treated such a number of cases of diarrhea and has been successful, in the majority of them, with such a remedy, say, for example, Podophyllum. {{anchor:s91}}Now it does not follow, that, because he stated his experience in this brief way, the member <span grade2>prescribed</span> for the cases thus treated, <span grade2>according to the name,</span> "<span grade2>diarrhea?</span> {{anchor:s92}}It does not follow that he did not individualize each case, and perceive in it the characteristic indications for Podophyllum. {{anchor:s93}}But he does not, in his statement before the society, go into these particulars. {{anchor:s94}}It would be inappropriate — for he is not giving a lecture for the purpose of instructing inexperienced beginners. {{anchor:s95}}On the contrary, he is stating his experience to a body of experts, to whom it is interesting to hear, in a few words, that in a certain region, during a certain period, such a number of cases of disease occurred which required such or such a remedy.
-{{anchor:s96}}For such compendious statement, some system of classification is indispensable. {{anchor:s97}}Indeed in this regard medicine does not differ from other natural sciences. {{anchor:s98}}In Botany, for example, a system of classification is adopted for convenience in identifying plants and interchanging exact information concerning them. {{anchor:s99}}Nevertheless, nobody thinks of using plants, in the arts or in medicine, according to their systematic arrangement, but, solely, according to their individual properties. {{anchor:s100}}Thus the nutritive Triticum vulgare and the noxious Loliumtem, have the same family name — yet nobody would think of confounding them in their uses.
-{{anchor:s101}}Thus, in medicine, a nomenclature of disease is indispensable for the convenient communication of foots and interchange of ideas.
-{{anchor:s102}}Indeed, if we might venture to do so, we would remind the Shade that Hahnemann himself in the introduction to many of his provings, uses nosological terms, such as Croup, Asthma, Paralysis, Leucorrhea, Gout, that is, when stating the affections for which the remedy in question would probably prove efficacious. {{anchor:s103}}He always, it is true, adds the caution "provided the other symptoms correspond,"and we have no right to doubt that our colleagues, who, for convenience, use nosological terms, are equally circumspect in making sure that" all other symptoms correspond" in the prescriptions which they narrate.
-{{anchor:s104}}But even on this point, an Editor of the Review has placed himself on record in most happy terms.
-{{anchor:s105}}In No. 1, Vol. III, Dr. Wells says: "It may be asked, what is the value of a nomenclature of diseases? {{anchor:s106}}Why attempt to name them at all? {{anchor:s107}}The answer is, it is a convenience in the expression and interchange of ideas — indispensable, if you please. {{anchor:s108}}By the name is simply meant to indicate a group of phenomena which are found in a given class of affections, and which belong equally to each member of the class and which distinguish it from all other classes."
-{{anchor:s109}}And the same idea has been elaborated by another writer in Nos. 4, 5, 6.
-{{anchor:s110}}With this full state went of our faith and with these evidences of our faithfulness, we again use to our Shadowy correspondent the words of Ulysses:
-{{anchor:s111}}"Turn then. {{anchor:s112}}Oh, peaceful turn! thy wrath control,
-{{anchor:s113}}And calm the raging tempest of thy soul!{{anchor:s114}}" D.
-{{anchor:s115}}%%__________%%
-{{anchor:s116}}A "COMEDY OF ERRORS.{{anchor:s117}}" — In Vol. III, page 379, of this REVIEW, appeared a notice of Mr. Wilson's article in the London <span grade2>Homoeopathic Review,</span> entitled "How far is Dr. Hempel to be trusted as a Translator of Hahnemann's Works?"
-{{anchor:s118}}This article of Mr. Wilson has given rise to some discussion in England, and we propose to give a brief history of the controversy. {{anchor:s119}}To this we are impelled by the vast importance of the subject. {{anchor:s120}}All English-speaking homoeopathic practitioners who are not familiar with the German language depend on Dr. Hempel's translations for their knowledge of Materia Medica.{{anchor:s121}}%%*[%%This notice was in press before receiving the August number of the London "Homoeopathic Review" containing Mr. Wilson's response.]
-{{anchor:s122}}It is surely of the greatest moment to them to know whether these translations are trustworthy or whether they are, as Mr. Wilson pronounces them, "utterly undeserving of confidence."
-{{anchor:s123}}The <span grade2>British Journal of Homoeopathy</span>, Vol. XX, page 688, reviews Mr. Wilson's Essay, and defends Dr. Hempel in a style which we suppose should be called "chivalrous" — since "chivalry" now a days means fighting desperately in a detestable cause. {{anchor:s124}}Under the amiable and classical title "LOVE'S LABOR LOST," the <span grade2>British Journalist</span> says, "It appears that Hempel has omitted a good many of the symptoms that occur in Hahnemann, which <span grade2>was very wrong in him</span>, for, as a faithful translator, he was bound to give a literal version of the original. {{anchor:s125}}Mr. Wilson, therefore, deserves the thanks of Hempel's readers for pointing out the untrustworthiness of the translation. {{anchor:s126}}* * * These omitted symptoms Mr. Wilson supplies and suggests that those who have Hempel's translation should restore them to their proper place in the work. {{anchor:s127}}* * * To this proposal we altogether demur. {{anchor:s128}}* * * Hempel has in a rough and imperfect manner attempted to winnow some of this chaff out of our Materia Medica. {{anchor:s129}}We are only sorry he has not performed his task more thoroughly."
-{{anchor:s130}}It seems from this that the translation is admitted to be "untrustworthy," and Mr. Wilson "deserves thanks" for showing it to be so. {{anchor:s131}}Yet the Reviewer altogether demurs to Mr. Wilson's proposal that the student supply the omissions for himself, and proceeds to thank Dr. Hempel for having made them and to regret that he did not make more. {{anchor:s132}}Thus both Dr. Hempel and Mr. Wilson receive the thanks of this grateful Reviewer; the one for making blunders; the other for detecting them. {{anchor:s133}}Both receive a rebuke; the one for having made omissions, the other for proposing to supply these omissions! {{anchor:s134}}This reminds us forcibly of the sentiments of Mr. Hosea Biglow respecting the Mexican war:
-{{anchor:s135}}"As for the war I'go against it!
-{{anchor:s136}}That is — I mean — I kind o' du
-{{anchor:s137}}That is — I mean — that — <span grade2>bein' in it</span>
-{{anchor:s138}}The best way is — <span grade2>to fight it thru.</span>"
-{{anchor:s139}}To this "Love's Labor Lost" of the <span grade2>British Journal</span> Mr. Wilson makes a brief reply, promising a thorough investigation of the subject. {{anchor:s140}}Meanwhile, supporting the Shakespeare of the <span grade2>British Journal,</span> Dr. Cockburn in the <span grade2>Monthly Review</span>, of London, appears in a "Tempest," defending Hempel and pronouncing Mr. Wilson's anxiety to guard the "trifling" subjective symptoms of the Materia Medica, to be a mere profitless "Much Ado About Nothing."
-{{anchor:s141}}Dr. Fenton Cameron, in the same Review, in admirable temper and with irresistible logic, gives Dr. Cockburn "Measure for Measure," and shows the vital importance of these subjective symptoms
-{{anchor:s142}}Dr. Cockburn rejoins that the main thing is the pathological picture given by <span grade2>objective</span> symptoms and that, for the rest, the Materia Medica may, for all purposes of real usefulness, be made up pretty much "As You Like It."
-{{anchor:s143}}The <span grade2>British Journal,</span> July, 1863, Vol. XXI, page 463, gives a <span grade2>resume</span> of the whole affair, in much better spirit than its notice in Vol. XX. It gives Mr. Wilson right in every essential, sends Dr. Cockburn into the corner as he deserves, and magisterially preserves its own dignity and consistency by pronouncing Mr. Wilson and Dr. Hempel <span grade2>both</span> wrong — the latter <span grade2>throughout</span> his translation — the former in a single reference to a single symptom of Sarsaparilla!
-{{anchor:s144}}"All's Well that Ends Well.{{anchor:s145}}" The end will show that even in this tiny exception to Mr. Wilson's criticism, the <span grade2>British Journal</span> has itself committed an error.
-{{anchor:s146}}The grounds on which the <span grade2>British Journal</span> "demurs" to Mr. Wilson's proposal that the student should supply for himself the omissions which he points out as having been made by Hempel are stated by him in the following language:
-{{anchor:s147}}On examining these 231 omitted symptoms of Sarsap., we find that no less than 205 of them are symptoms contributed by the anonymous prover, indicated by the letters 'Ng.' Now those who have devoted most attention to a critical examination of Hahnemann's Materia Medica, assure us that the symptoms furnished by 'Ng' are altogether untrustworthy. {{anchor:s148}}That this verdict is true our own less profound examination and comparison have satisfied us, and we are the more disposed to this unfavorable opinion from the slighting manner in which Hahnemann himself speaks of 'Ng.' while making use of his proving. {{anchor:s149}}Thus in a note to Alumina (<span grade2>Chr.Kr.</span> II, 35) Hahnemann says, "Drs. Hartlaub and Trinks indicate by these two letters only (which is actually leaving anonymous) a man who furnished the greater number of the symptoms of medicinal provings for their Annals, which are often recorded in very careless, prolix and ambiguous expressions. {{anchor:s150}}I was only able to extract what seemed useful from them, and that only on the understanding that he conducted his observations like an honest discreet man.{{anchor:s151}}" Thus far Hahnemann. {{anchor:s152}}The British Journalist goes on to say that "Ng." contributed such a host of symptoms to the Chronic Diseases that, if he proved them all himself he "must have suffered the tortures of the damned" in proving them. {{anchor:s153}}He intimates that "Ng." declined to reveal himself, possibly from a consciousness that he was a "bogus" prover, and wishes that every one of his symptoms were eliminated from our Materia Medica. {{anchor:s154}}He finally thanks Dr. Hempel, as already stated for his "rough and imperfect winnowing" of the Materia Medica and "cannot see the use of restoring such rubbish."
-{{anchor:s155}}This view of the case, while admitting Dr. Hempel's utter faithlessness as a "<span grade2>Translator</span>" presents him to us as deserving of thanks in the character of an "<span grade2>Expurgator.</span>"
-{{anchor:s156}}Therefore, Mr. Wilson's question, "How far is Dr. Hempel to be trusted as a <span grade2>Translator</span> of Hahnemann's works?" will still be pertinent if modified as follows: "How far is Dr. Hempel to be trusted as an <span grade2>Expurgator</span> of Hahnemann's works?"
-{{anchor:s157}}The voluminous works of Hahnemann may be supposed to contain errors, like all other human productions. {{anchor:s158}}The function of the faithful, and accurate and judicious Expurgator is assuredly an honorable one — and his labors should receive the hearty thanks of the profession. {{anchor:s159}}But how if the alleged Expurga for be unfaithful, and inaccurate to the last degree?
-{{anchor:s160}}Be it observed that Dr. Hempel himself never assumes the position of Expurgator. {{anchor:s161}}He claims only to have given a translation "in perfect accordance with the original.{{anchor:s162}}" Mr. Wilson states, and the <span grade2>British Journal</span> admits, that he did no such thing. {{anchor:s163}}The <span grade2>British Journal</span> makes the expurgatorial assumption <span grade2>for him</span>, and bases it on the statement that the defects of the translation are all comprised in his omissions of the symptoms of "Ng.," which the B. J. says are "rubbish."
-{{anchor:s164}}Now. "Ng." did <span grade2>not</span> decline to reveal himself. {{anchor:s165}}On the contrary he published, says Dr. Bath, over his own name, Cajetan Nenning, his method of proving and of collecting symptoms from other Provers, in a statement which is so clear, straight forward and manly as to convince the reader at least of his entire honesty and good faith. {{anchor:s166}}— <span grade2>Allg. Hom. Zeit.,</span> 1839.
-{{anchor:s167}}Hahnemann's note to Alumina was printed before this publication by Nenning. {{anchor:s168}}It is not surprising that Hahnemann scrutinized with unusual caution symptoms furnished by an, at that time, anonymous Prover, When, however, he says, "<span grade2>I was only able to extract what seemed useful from them</span>" it would appear only fair to infer that <span grade2>after</span> this unusually sharp scrutiny, Hahnemann had admitted as valid and trustworthy those symptoms by "Ng." which he proceeded to include in his <span grade2>Chronische Krankheiten.</span> {{anchor:s169}}We incline, therefore, to accept those symptoms as coming <span grade2>with the endorsement of Hahnemann,</span> in <span grade2>addition</span> to the signature of Nenning.
-{{anchor:s170}}Now for the "tortures of the damned.{{anchor:s171}}" "Ng.'s" symptoms must be good for nothing, because they are so numerous! {{anchor:s172}}Thus argues the <span grade2>British Journal.</span> {{anchor:s173}}Does the same reasoning hold good with reference to <span grade2>Hahnemann</span> who, in his ten volumes of provings, has given us more than ten times as many symptoms as Nenning? {{anchor:s174}}The simple fact is that both Hahnemann and Nenning give as their own not only symptoms observed on themselves, but also symptoms observed on other persons who proved drugs trader their personal supervision.
-{{anchor:s175}}But suppose Dr. Hempel really thought Nenning's symptoms good for nothing (which he nowhere ever hints that he did); if he carefully and faithfully sifted them out from the Materia Medica, he would deserve the meed of honest labor, even though subsequent research should prove his impression to have been a mistaken one.
-{{anchor:s176}}On examination, however, we find this pretended expurgation to be as faulty and as faithless as Mr. Wilson has shown the translation to be.
-{{anchor:s177}}To confine ourselves to the remedies cited by Mr. Wilson; we find that Sarsaparilla, which was originally published in Hartlaub and Trinks' <span grade2>Reine Arzneimittelehre</span> and then, with additional symptoms, in the <span grade2>Chronische Krankheiten</span> of Hahnemann, Volume five, contains 561 symptoms by the following Provers:
-| {{anchor:s178}}Hahnemann contributed | {{anchor:s179}}136 |
-| {{anchor:s180}}Schreter " | {{anchor:s181}}22 |
-| {{anchor:s182}}Hermann " | {{anchor:s183}}40 |
-| {{anchor:s184}}Hartman " | {{anchor:s185}}46 |
-| {{anchor:s186}}Teuthorn " | {{anchor:s187}}10 |
-| {{anchor:s188}}"Ng." (Nenning) " | {{anchor:s189}}285 |
-| {{anchor:s190}}Quoted from various allopathic authors | {{anchor:s191}}22 |
-| | {{anchor:s192}}561 |
-{{anchor:s193}}Of these 561 symptoms, Mr. Wilson quotes (the <span grade2>British Journal</span> says, "<span grade2>correctly,</span>') 236 which Dr. Hempel <span grade2>omits</span> in his translation of this one remedy, An error of <span grade2>a little more than 42 percent,</span> in this translation which professes to be "in perfect accordance with the original!"
-{{anchor:s194}}But the <span grade2>British Journal</span> intimates that the omissions are of Nenning's symptoms alone. {{anchor:s195}}This is so far from* being the case, that we find the omissions pretty impartially distributed among the whole corps of Provers, as we shall show by a table:
-| {{anchor:s196}}Prover. | {{anchor:s197}}Symptoms. | {{anchor:s198}}Omitted by Hempel or about | {{anchor:s199}}88 percent. |
-| {{anchor:s200}}Hahnemann, | {{anchor:s201}}136 | {{anchor:s202}}12 | {{anchor:s203}}30 " |
-| {{anchor:s204}}Teuthorn, | {{anchor:s205}}10 | {{anchor:s206}}3 | {{anchor:s207}}10.9 " |
-| {{anchor:s208}}Hartmann, | {{anchor:s209}}46 | {{anchor:s210}}5 | {{anchor:s211}}10 " |
-| {{anchor:s212}}Hermann, | {{anchor:s213}}40 | {{anchor:s214}}4 | {{anchor:s215}}27.5 " |
-| {{anchor:s216}}Schreter, | {{anchor:s217}}22 | {{anchor:s218}}6 | {{anchor:s219}}72.2 " |
-| {{anchor:s220}}"Ng." (Nenning), | {{anchor:s221}}285 | {{anchor:s222}}206 | |
-| {{anchor:s223}}Allopathic authors, | {{anchor:s224}}22 | {{anchor:s225}}none! | |
-| | {{anchor:s226}}561 | {{anchor:s227}}236 | |
-{{anchor:s228}}If the symptoms furnished by Nenning are "rubbish," and if 72.2 percent. were omitted by Dr. Hempel, for that very good reason, suffer us to ask, were the 27.8 percent of Nenning's symptoms which Hempel did <span grade2>not</span> omit <span grade2>not</span> "rubbish?{{anchor:s229}}" And if <span grade2>these</span> were <span grade2>not</span> "rubbish" while the others were, pray by what standard was this ruthless Expurgator governed? {{anchor:s230}}May we not ask a sight of his Index Expurgatorius?
-{{anchor:s231}}And if Nenning's 72.2 percent. of symptoms which he omitted were "rubbish," were Hahnemann's 8.8 percent. which he likewise omitted — were these "rubbish too? {{anchor:s232}}And the 30 percent. of Teuthorn's? {{anchor:s233}}And the 27.5 percent. of Schreter's? {{anchor:s234}}And the 10 percent. of Hermann's? {{anchor:s235}}And the 109 percent of Hartmann's?
-{{anchor:s236}}And if Hahnemann's pettish note to Alumina induced the Expurgator to elide these 206 symptoms by Nenning, was there any similar good reason for striking out the twelve symptoms by Hahnemann himself?
-{{anchor:s237}}So much for Sarsaparilla.
-{{anchor:s238}}Mr. Wilson gives the names of twelve other remedies in which Dr. Hempel omitted a large number of symptoms. {{anchor:s239}}The <span grade2>British Journal</span> accounts for these omissions in the same way. {{anchor:s240}}They are the expurgations of Nenning's symptoms.
-{{anchor:s241}}These remedies are Nitrum, Petroleum, Phosphorus, Phosphoric acid, Platina, Sepia, Silicea, Stannum, Sulphur, Sulphuric acid, Zinc, Arsenic.
-{{anchor:s242}}Now on examining the <span grade2>Chronische Krankheiten,</span> it appears that in the proving of <span grade2>five</span> of these twelve remedies "Ng." <span grade2>took no part whatever.</span> {{anchor:s243}}These five are Petroleum, Phosphoric acid, Platina, Stannum, Arsenic. {{anchor:s244}}Yet in translating these five remedies, Dr. Hempel omitted no less than 386 symptoms! {{anchor:s245}}Whose (since it was not Nenning's) was the "rubbish" thus rudely cast aside?
-{{anchor:s246}}Again, on examining the seven remaining remedies of the list to which Nenning <span grade2>did</span> contribute symptoms, we find that to Phosphorus "Ng." furnished 401 symptoms — Hempel omits 272 symptoms. {{anchor:s247}}If these were all "Ng.'s" symptoms (which they are <span grade2>not),</span> there would yet remain 129 "Ng." symptoms which he has graciously allowed to remain. {{anchor:s248}}We ask again for his standard of expurgation? {{anchor:s249}}Of what sort is that divining-rod of his, which points him to the gold among the rubbish-heap of Nenning's symptoms?
-{{anchor:s250}}In Silicea "Ng." gives 67 symptoms, Hempel omits 111. {{anchor:s251}}Whose symptoms <span grade2>beside</span> "<span grade2>Ng.'s</span>" does ha add to the rubbish heap which the Shakespeare of the <span grade2>British Journal</span> thanks him for removing? {{anchor:s252}}Are they those of Gross, or of Stapf, or of Goullon. or of Wahle, or of Hartlaub, or of Hering — for these together with "Ng." were the Provers of Silicea — no ignoble names along with Hahnemann's
-{{anchor:s253}}To Sulph. "Ng." contributed 240 symptoms — Hempel omits 224. {{anchor:s254}}Supposing that all of these were "Ng's" (which they were <span grade2>not),</span> 16 must have been retained by Hempel. {{anchor:s255}}May we ask why, if Ng.'s symptoms are "<span grade2>rubbish</span>?"
-{{anchor:s256}}To Zinc "Ng" contributed 358 symptoms, Hempel omits 200 symptoms (not all of them Ng.'s). {{anchor:s257}}Had the remaining 158 the shimmer of true gold to the eye of the Expurgator?
-{{anchor:s258}}It was kind perhaps and "chivalrous" in the <span grade2>British Journal</span> to take the part of Dr. Hempel, and to say <span grade2>all that could be said</span> in defence of his translation. {{anchor:s259}}If it had stopped there, its defence could have done no harm to the cause of Homoeopathy, which is of far more consequence than the feelings or fame of any individual. {{anchor:s260}}If it had stopped there, we should have had neither occasion nor opportunity thus to review its defence. {{anchor:s261}}But its endeavor to hide the long ears of the faithless Translator under the shaggy and terrible lion-skin of the Expurgator, deserves, much better that the signature of Dr. Nenning, to be paraphrased, "No go!"
-{{anchor:s262}}In the notice of Mr. Wilson's Essays on this subject, which appears in the <span grade2>British Journal</span> for July, 1863, the critic writes in a much better spirit, conceding Mr. Wilson's accuracy in every respect save as regards one single symptom of Sarsaparilla, respecting which he speaks as follows:
-{{anchor:s263}}"In one instance he (Mr. Wilson) lays stress on the language of the original by giving it in full, thus: 'Constant sweet taste in the mouth, almost like that from liquorice wood, for several days.{{anchor:s264}}' Now it is very odd that 'on referring to the original.' i. e., Hahnemann's Sarsaparilla, we do not find that symptom at all! {{anchor:s265}}But we do find it as a symptom of Sabadilla — not a Hahnemannic medicine — so how Mr. Wilson came to mix it' up with a critique on Sarsap. it is very difficult to understand, and may dispose him to mitigate a little the severity of his language even while justly correcting the errors of Hempel, near the close of an immense labor, etc., etc.{{anchor:s266}}" A very fine moral homily to be sure! {{anchor:s267}}But even in delivering a moral lecture it is well to remember David Crockett's maxim, "<span grade2>First be sure you're right, then go ahead</span>"
-{{anchor:s268}}Sarsaparilla, as before remarked, was originally published in Hartlaub and Trink's <span grade2>Reine Arzneimittellehre,</span> Vol. II. On referring to this proving we find symptom 67, of which Mr. Wilson has given an <span grade2>exact translation</span> in those words, which the <span grade2>British Journal,</span> says are not to be found at all in the proving of Sarsaparilla! {{anchor:s269}}Is it possible that the British Journalist himself foiled to look up the original authorities? {{anchor:s270}}But he says, it does not occur in <span grade2>Hahnemann's Sarsaparilla; literally</span> this is true, and here is another error of our "comedy.{{anchor:s271}}" Hahnemann himself does not quote the entire symptom from Hartlaub and Trinks, but gives it as follows; 175. {{anchor:s272}}"Taste in the mouth constantly sweet, for several days.{{anchor:s273}}" He leaves out the simile "almost like that from liquoric wood," as given in Hartlaub and Trinks, and which perhaps adds nothing to the completeness of the symptom. {{anchor:s274}}The point which Mr. Wilson makes against Hempel, is that Hempel leaves out the word "<span grade2>stets," "constant</span>" and renders the symptom as follows: "Sweet taste in the mouth for several days.{{anchor:s275}}" This is a serious omission.
-{{anchor:s276}}On turning to Sabadilla we find a symptom — not contributed by Nenning but by Schoenke — in nearly the same words, <span grade2>so far as the mention of liquorice wood</span> is concerned but <span grade2>differing</span> materially as to the <span grade2>conditions of time and circumstance</span>. {{anchor:s277}}It reads as follows: 124. {{anchor:s278}}"A sweet taste in the mouth; it is to him as if he had chewed liquorice wood.{{anchor:s279}}" — <span grade2>Archiv.</span> 4, 3.
-{{anchor:s280}}Our friend of the <span grade2>British Journal</span> must have a very "sweet tooth" indeed, if the mere mention of <span grade2>liquoric wood</span> can thus entice him to forget to look up his authorities, and can bewitch him into neglecting to note these important conditions of time and circumstance, which are so essential a part of the significance of a symptom. {{anchor:s281}}D.
-{{anchor:s282}}%%__________%%
-{{anchor:s283}}CHININUM SULPHURICUM IN ACUTE ARTICULAR RHEUMATISM, BY DR. ESCALLIER. {{anchor:s284}}— Premising that in a pamphlet published some years previously he repudiated entirely the use of Chin. sulph. in this disease, because then having seen it tried only in heroic doses of the Parisian school, Dr. E. says, "but since then I have become acquainted in my practice with the use of Chin. sulph., in small doses, in this disease, so often obstinate and painful as well for the patient as for the physician, even for him who is supplied with the powerful remedial means which Homoeopathy places at his disposal. {{anchor:s285}}Consequently I must acknowledge that I did not formerly estimate this remedy at its true value, and that its healing power in acute articular rheumatism exceedes that of any other remedy. {{anchor:s286}}No other remedy appears to me more rapidly and more favorably to modify this disease in its duration and course. {{anchor:s287}}It is most applicable when the general, very acute and continuous symptoms have been opposed by Acon., Bry., Merc., or the other indicated homoeopathic remedies When these do not speedily induce a favorable change it is time for the use of Chin. sulph.
-{{anchor:s288}}"I need hardly add that I have by no means imitated the eulogists of the massive doses of China. {{anchor:s289}}Such as are capable of producing serious nervous symptoms, nor have I resorted to the pellets and high attenuations, but have confined myself to the low triturations. {{anchor:s290}}Nevertheless I have in this way given very small even infinitesimal doses, thus remaining true to the general principles of the Hahnemannian mode of treatment, and not injuring my patient."
-{{anchor:s291}}Justifying his choice of this remedy mainly by the "very clearly defined periodical remission which is found in the disease," and which he considers the essential characteristic of the disease, he reports several cases of which a single one may serve as an example.
-{{anchor:s292}}M. L. S., aged 44 years, large and strong, of sanguine temperament, had four years previously been very speedily relieved by Rhus tox. of the tolerably severe sub-acute symptoms, remaining from an attack of acute articular rheumatism, which had already lasted four months when he came under my treatment. {{anchor:s293}}Now, Feb. 2d, 1858, after four years, I find the patient having suffered for eight days with bronchitis, and for two days with general pains and fever.
-{{anchor:s294}}Pulse 100, full. and hard; tongue dry, thirst; anorexia. {{anchor:s295}}He complains of pains in his head, loins and feet, less in the left foot but the right was swollen, red and so painful that he was unable to sleep the previous night. {{anchor:s296}}Bryonia 5, every three hours.
-{{anchor:s297}}February 3d. {{anchor:s298}}Very restless night from nine, p.m., to day break; very violent pain in the right foot which he must constantly keep in motion; severe pain in the sacral region; frequent cough at night; pulse 110; no sweat. {{anchor:s299}}Rhus tox., every three hours.
-{{anchor:s300}}4th. {{anchor:s301}}After a worse night he suffers to day in both lower extremities; knees swollen; motion and touch painful; cough very much increased; sibilant respiration. {{anchor:s302}}Bryonia 5, as before.
-{{anchor:s303}}5th. {{anchor:s304}}Yesterday evening some improvement, but about eleven o'clock the pains returned attended with copious sweat. {{anchor:s305}}To day, from two, p.m., decided improvement, but about midnight there was again high fever with severe pain, especially in the hip-joints.
-{{anchor:s306}}6th. {{anchor:s307}}In the forenoon the pains were less severe, but the fever still high. {{anchor:s308}}Pulse 100. {{anchor:s309}}Daring the paroxysms of pain, he coughs frequently. {{anchor:s310}}In consequence of this palpable periodicity, I gave him China and Sulphur 2, four grains in two doses to be taken one immediately, the other early in the morning.
-{{anchor:s311}}7th. {{anchor:s312}}Decided improvement; no paroxysm the past night, and some sleep. {{anchor:s313}}He complains now only of the hip, the swelling of the knee has disappeared. {{anchor:s314}}Pulse 92. {{anchor:s315}}Same prescription.
-{{anchor:s316}}8th. {{anchor:s317}}Still better; slept four hours; pulse 80. {{anchor:s318}}Idem.
-{{anchor:s319}}9th and 10th. {{anchor:s320}}Improvement continued; pulse 78; pain in the hips moderate; some appetite. {{anchor:s321}}One dose of Chin. sulph. 2 daily.
-{{anchor:s322}}After giving, February 13th, Ant. crud. 12, for some gastric symptoms, I left the patient completely cured, February 15th.
-{{anchor:s323}}T. C. FANNING, M.D., Fishkill, N. Y.
-----
-====== DOCUMENT DESCRIPTOR ======
-^ Source: | The American Homoeopathic Review Vol. 04 No. 04, 1863, page 180-191 |
-^ Description: | Miscellaneous; Prescribing For Disease by Name; Comedy of Errors; Chininum Sulphuricum in Acute Articular Rheumatism |
-^ Author: | Ahomeo04 |
-^ Year: | 1863 |
-^ Editing: | errors only; interlinks; formatting |
-^ Attribution: | Legatum Homeopathicum |

Legatum Homeopathicum

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools