Dropdown Menu

Jul 23, 2011

Unnecessary Use of Antibiotics, Intestinal Flora and Homeopathy

 In present times, as we commonly see in India, Antibiotics are sold over the counter by pharmacists (Although it is illegal), prescribed by quacks and even prescribed by Registered medical practitioners more than their actual need, more frequently, for a longer period than its usual course and antibiotics are even prescribed in disorders even where they are not indicated. One is the most common disorder in which Antibiotics are prescribed without indication are Viral infections either they are viral fever or some other viral infections.

Use of antibiotics kill the intestinal flora either they are good or bad. Acidophilus bacteria make their colonies in our intestines and produce useful vitamins for our normal functioning but unluckily use of antibiotics destroys them. Effects of antibiotics on intestinal bacterial flora last for weeks and longer period. In mean time a person start to suffer some intestinal disorders like diarrhea , constipation, indigestion, flatulence, bad smell and taste in mouth, mouth ulcers and stomatitis etc. These deficiencies may lead to Fatigue, Allergies, Chronic recurrent infections, Indigestion etc.

On other hand, the increased use of “ready to eat” food also leads to loss of intestinal flora. Process used in commercial food manufacturing can destroy these useful bacteria in food necessary for intestinal flora and good health. Chemical ingredients used in “ready to eat” food like preservatives, additives kill intestinal bacterial flora. Beside these factors, increased use of alcohol, rich-fat diets, hormonal pills, birth control pills, use of steroids can harm to useful intestinal bacterial flora.

Homeopathy has multifactor role in this situation. All the common Viral infections like Viral fever on change of weather, coryza, common cold, cough, Viral hepatitis, Viral Rhinitis, Viral infections in ear, nose, throat and chest infections by virus are easily treated by homeopathic medicines safely and successfully. On other hand, after a course of antibiotics, the intestinal bacterial flora can be regenerated by using homeopathic medicines to counter act the side effects of antibiotics. Homoeopathic medicines, like Nux Vomica, Carbo Veg, Lachesis, Sulphur etc., if used judicially can maintain the useful intestinal bacterial flora again.

Using homeopathic medicines with balance diet can restore useful intestinal bacteria, if someone is not want to visit a Homeopath, in that case Acidophilus Lactobacillus are available in capsule and sachet form at medical stores, although Physicians seldom prescribe them. Regenerating intestinal flora not only control digestive disorders like constipation and diarrhea but also it improves bad breath, improves the lactose intolerance, reduces the intestinal flatulence, reduce the chances of intestinal infections  and lastly it manage cholesterol by improving absorption of dietary fats.    

Jul 21, 2011


If you've come to this page directly via a search engine, please note this article is mainly for homeopaths and students of homeopathy, so assumes a certain level of understanding of homeopathic concepts and terminology.

Taking a case is an art. Success of homeopathic prescription is very much depending on true picture of patient. So case taking is a very important subject in homeopathy. Dr. Carroll Dunham, MD ,Editor of "The American Homoeopathic Review", has written an article on case taking.



In my “Lectures on Materia Medica” I endeavored to define the scope, nature and limits of the science of therapeutics, and to show that homoeopathy constitutes this science. I tried to explain to you how it is that, by analysis, every natural science may be reduced to two series of phenomena, connected by law or formula which express the relation of these two series of phenomena to each other; and how the practical problem which the science enables us to solve is this: Given one series of phenomena and the law of relation, to find the other series of phenomena; and that, in this problem lies a test of the soundness of whatever claims to be a natural science, viz. : that it furnishes as a means of prevision or foreseeing and predicting that which is to be observed or discovered; points which I illustrated by a reference to the history and structure of the simplest and most complete of the natural sciences, astronomy or celestial mechanics. Finally, I explained that the two series of phenomena which are the subject of a natural science, must be each capable of independent and indefinite expansion and development as a separate department of natural history; and that no expansion of either must destroy the applicability of the law of relation. I then showed you that in the science of therapeutics or homoeopathy (as it is more familiarly called) the two series of phenomena are respectively the phenomena of the patient on the one hand, and the phenomena produced by the drug upon the healthy, living, human being, on the other hand; while the formula which express the relation between these series of phenomena is the well-known therapeutic law, “Similia similibus curantur,” Likes are to be treated by likes.”
            I showed in the book that, in our practical application of the science of therapeutics, the constant problem before us is that which is the problem in every natural science, viz.: Given one series of phenomena and the law, to state the other series. Given the phenomena of the patient and the law, to find the phenomena of the drug which bear to the phenomena of the patient the relation expressed by the law. Or if we are studying a drug, and have the phenomena which it produces in the healthy, living, human being, then, having the law, to find the series of phenomena in the sick which, bearing a certain relation to the phenomena of the drug, will be canceled by the latter in the terms of the law. In other words, our constant problem is: Given the symptoms of a case, what drug known to us will accord the law, or what must be the effects of such a drug, not yet known to us, as will cure such a case. Or, conversely: Given the effects of a drug, what case, as yet seen or never yet met with, will that drug cure?
            Such prevision as this homoeopathy has again and again in notable cases enabled us to exercise; and by this test she has justified her claim to be entitled the science of therapeutics.
            After this general view and analysis of the subject, it remains for us to study in detail the elements of which the science is composed, viz.: the two series of phenomena respectively and the law.
            I shall therefore ask your attention now to the first series of phenomena, those of the patient; or briefly to the subject of “Symptoms,” or how to take the case.
            And, here, at the very beginning of the subject, let me say that much unnecessary confusion exists in the minds of our own school, and of our opponents, because we have not agreed upon the meaning we shall attach to the word symptom.
            By the old school and by some homoeopathists who have gone astray after the “strange gods” of the physiological school of medicine, a very restricted meaning is given to the word symptom; and this being done it is made a reproach to homoeopathists that they take note only of symptoms, as though we disregarded some important phenomena presented by the patient. Assuming that homoeopathists understand by symptoms only the subjective phenomena or sensations which the patient experiences and describes, “How, then,” exclaims Prof. Bock, “can they prescribe for a typhoid patient who neither hears, sees, tastes, smells nor feels, and who could not express his sensations if he were conscious of them, but lies in a passive apathy, as indifferent as a long!” Well, the fact that he lies there and cannot express his sensations, if he have any, and that the avenues of communication between his brain and the world about him, his special senses and the general sense namely, are closed, constitutes a most important series of symptoms. For, gentlemen, in accordance with Hahnemann’s instructions, no less than with the common sense of the matter, we include under the term “symptom” every phenomenon presented by the patient which is a deviation from or an addition to, his condition which in average health.
            Whatever we can ourselves observe by careful scrutiny of the patient, bringing to our aid every instrument of observation which the ingenuity of man has contrived; whatever the patient can tell us as the result of his observation of himself or of his sensations; whatever his friends and attendants have noticed concerning his appearance, actions, speech, and condition, physical or mental, which differs from his condition and actions when in health – all these phenomena together constitute what we call the symptoms of the patient.

I conceive that it would be a waste of time to examine the alleged distinction between symptoms and “the disease.” Since we have made the term symptom cover every phenomenon, whether it be felt by the patient, it is manifest that we can know nothing of any disease except by the presence of symptoms; that when the symptoms have all disappeared we cannot know that any disease exists, and that therefore by us, for all practical purposes, the totality of the symptoms must be regarded as equivalent to, and identical with, “the disease.” Let, then, the bugbear of a disease a distinct from the totality of the symptoms never more haunt your path – way in practical medicine.

Hahnemann directs us to acquaint ourselves with every deviation from the patient’s normal, healthy condition which we can observe; to gather from the patient’s friends and attendants; to listen to the patient’s statement of everything of the kind which he has noticed, and of all unusual sensations and pains which he has experienced, and all unusual phenomena of which he has been conscious, whether of body or mind.

You will perceive that here are two classes of phenomena referred to, viz.: such as may be observed by the physician or attendants and friends, and such as are perceived and can be stated only by the patient himself. The former, which may be objects of study and observation by the physician, are called objective symptoms. The latter are the subjects of the patient’s own consciousness, and are styled subjective symptoms. We may notice and study the spasmodic twitching of the facial muscles, the alternate flushings and pallor in a case of facial neuralgia, but the patient alone can make us aware of the sensation which he experiences simultaneously with those twitchings and flushes. In a case of pleurisy we may detect a friction sound denoting dryness or roughness of the pleura, or the dullness denoting effusion; we may observe the deviation from the natural symmetry of the thorax; the labored and hurried breathing, the short, dry cough and the expression of suffering which accompanies it, but the patient alone can tell us that he suffers from a stitch in the side, where it is, what direction it takes, what provokes and aggravates and what relieves it.

The physician and attendants may notice and observe the accelerated yet unsustained pulse, the dulled perceptions and sluggish or perverted intellection, the red, or dry, or cracked and trembling, tongue, the elevated and uniformly fluctuating temperature of body, the tympanitic abdomen, the tenderness about the coecum caput coli and the enlarged spleen which characterize a typhoid fever; but only the patient could have made known to us the failing strength of body, mind and will, the peculiar headache and the desolate sense of illness which, perhaps many days preceding the commencement of the doctor’s attendance, began to take possession of him.

We meet with few cases which do not present throughout their course, or at least in some portion of it, both subjective and objective symptoms. If there be an exception, it is that of some chronic affections, consisting exclusively, so far as our observations enable us to speak, of pains and abnormal sensations. I say so far as our observations enable us to speak, for I can hardly conceive of an abnormal sensation except as coincident with some structural change of tissue, although this be so fine as to elude our present means of research.

On the other hand, we meet cases presenting at first view only objective symptoms, as for example, chronic, cutaneous affections and heterologous formations. And yet I believe that in every such case, if we take a broad enough view of it, including the history of the case, we shall find a tradition of subjective symptoms. However this may be, and whatever may be their relative number, and what comparative importance we may be disposed to attach them, these are the two varieties of symptoms which patients present to us.

Now we may study symptoms under two views, with two different objects: First, we may study the science of symptoms as a branch of medical science, as a department of the science of biology, - much as we study physiology, which is the other department of biology, - without any view to a practical application of the results of our study, without any reference to a proposed application of the therapeutic art, without considering how we shall remove the symptoms by interposing the action of a drug; and Second, we may study symptoms with reference to the practical application of our knowledge in bringing drug action to bear upon the patient’s symptoms.

Let us first consider the study of symptoms as an independent department of science. It is one; let me say, which has not received the attention to which its great importance entitles it.

The patient is before us, the object of our observation and inquiry, just as the healthy human being is before us when we study his constituent tissues and organs and their respective functions in pursuing the sciences of anatomy and physiology. We observe his objective symptoms and learn from him his subjective symptoms.

A fact of prime importance for us to remember at the outset of our inquiry is this; that as in nature there are no accidents, so there can be no symptom which is not directly the result of some immediate cause operating in the organism of the patient; no abnormal appearance or condition of any tissue or organ which does not proceed from a modification of its cell structure, its nutrition, or of the normal proportion of the tissues which compose it; no abnormal sensation experienced by the patient which is not the result of some change, either appreciable in some tissue of the body, or assumed to exist therein, or referred to the indefinite realm of dynamics, the convenient habitat of functional derangement for which we have not as yet discovered any structural substratum.
No symptom, then, is to be passed over as unimportant. We know not how important that which now seems trivial may tomorrow be proved to be. This we know, that everything in the human organism, as in the universe, moves and occurs in obedience of nature, we fail of the reverent spirit of the true and faithful student, if we pass over any phenomenon assuming it to be of no account, just because our faculties are so little developed that we cannot see that it has any significance. If it be true, as the Lord of Glory tells us, that of two sparrows which are sold for a farthing not one falls to the ground without our Heavenly Father, that the very hairs of our head are numbered, how can it be that changes of tissue or of excretion or secretion should occur, that abnormal sensations should be experienced save in accordance with some law of organism? The noble sentiment of the Latin poet, “I am a man: Nothing that is human can be alien to me,” is true in a physical no less than in a moral sense.

It is our object to observe everything that is a deviation from the healthy condition. We must then keep up, during our observation, a constant recollection of the condition of organs and tissues, and the performance of function in the healthy subject; and our observation will be a sort of running comparison.

Our object is to note every deviation. We must necessarily follow some method in our investigation; otherwise among such a multitude of objects some would surely escape us. If it be necessary for a dog in hunting to scour a field according to a certain method of line and angles, surely method must be needful when we are beating up this complicated field of the human organism, and that too in search of game which does not start up at our approach.

We may adopt the regional method and survey the whole body, passing from region to region in anatomical order. This is a valuable method and indispensable to a certain extent. It fails, however, to give us sufficient information respecting organs and tissues which, from their situation, are entirely removed from our physical examination or exploration, as, for example, the kidneys and the ovaries. The anatomical method of investigation must be supplemented by what I may call for a moment, somewhat incorrectly, the physiological method. By this we seek to arrive at the condition of that organ. If we find albumen and certain microscopic objects in it, we may be certain that a portion of the kidney has become changed in a very definite way, which, however, we could not otherwise recognize during the life of the patient. The same is true of many other organs.

This knowledge has been obtained by accumulated observations of the symptoms of diseases, and of the results of diseases as noticed after death. But so difficult is the art of observation, and so had is it to obtain from patients all of their subjective symptoms, for the reason that patients have not been trained to the observation of natural phenomena, and are not good observers even of themselves, that we should hardly succeed in getting all the symptoms of a case if we did not add to the regional and physiological another mode of observation. The history of disease has taught us that when certain symptoms are present in some one organ or apparatus of the body, there are almost sure to be present certain other symptoms, objective or subjective, in other organs often anatomically quite remote, and of which the patient probably is hardly aware until his attention is called to them by the physician.

I my cite as examples the fact that certain pains in the head, persistently experienced by the patient, are found, by observation of a great many patients, to co–exist with certain uterine affections, of the existence of which the patient was hardly aware; and the immediate symptoms of which would probably have been overlooked in the recital. Another noteworthy instance, a recent discovery, is the coincidence of a certain morbid condition of the retina with a form of Bright’s disease of the kidney, to which attention may thus be called at an earlier stage than at which kidney symptoms would have discovered it.

To recapitulate, the: we observe the changes in form and structure which are open to our senses, we use whatever methods we posses to discover others; we illuminate the interior of the eye, the rima of the glottis, the canal of the urethra, the meatus of the external ear. We sound the thorax and auscultation; we analyze the secretions and excretions, and reason from the results – through our knowledge of the history of disease – to a conclusion respecting the condition of organs and tissues hidden from our observation. Thus we obtain our complete series of objective phenomena.

We then address ourselves to the task of taking the subjective symptoms of the case. Availing ourselves of the regional method which investigates in topographical order one region of the body after another; the physiological method which traces sensations from one organ to another, and leads us to look for sensations or even objective symptoms in some part of the body because we know them to exist when certain others are present; and, finally, employing our knowledge of the history of disease to trace symptoms, both subjective and objective, from one organ and apparatus to another, we make up our series of subjective phenomena.

Now it may occur to some of you that when I speak of the modifications of tissues and organs found in the patient, and of the necessity of exactly observing and studying them, I am advocating the study of pathological anatomy; and that in showing how a study of the connection of symptoms in the patients may greatly facilitate the discovery of symptoms by showing their mutual connection, dependence and succession, just as the study of physiology enables us to grasp the phenomena of the healthy organism, I am defending the study of pathology. And so I am. For just here we have the province of pathology and pathological anatomy, which are indispensable instruments in the study of symptoms. Let us not be frightened from their legitimate use for the reason that they have been put to a false use.
If we disregard these auxiliary sciences, our collections of symptoms must be for us incomplete lists of unmethodized and unarranged observations. How can we imagine that any department of medical science can exist and be pursued which would not be a useful auxiliary to the physician?

Let us turn now from this glance at the independent study of symptoms as a science, to their study as the means to a practical end. As practitioners of medicine, what is our object in collecting and studying symptoms?

If we regard our duties to our patient in the order in which they were stated in my last lecture, that we are to ascertain for him where and what he ails, whether and how soon he can recover, and finally what will cure or help him, we study symptoms, first of all, to form our diagnosis. Viewed with this object, the symptoms we have obtained from the patient at once classify themselves in our minds. Certain symptoms take front rank as indicating the organ which is chiefly affected, and the kind of deviation from a healthy state which exists in it. Such a symptom is called pathognomonic; and is entitled to that epithet if it be found only when a certain diseased condition exists, and always when that condition exists. We cannot pronounce a symptom to be pathognomonic, nor recognize it as such, unless we are acquainted with the history of disease. Then we require to form our prognosis. Here again we must have a knowledge of the history and course of disease, that we may recognize any symptoms which indicate a lesion so extensive that recovery is unusual or impossible. We must know, likewise, the history of disease, as its course is capable of being modified by medical treatment, and by different varieties of medical treatment.

Third: our object in the study of symptoms is to get into position to ascertain what drug shall be applied to cancel the symptoms and effect a cure. This is the practical end.

The homoeopathist obtains his series of symptoms, and then, in accordance with the law, similia similibus, he administers to the patient the drug which has produced in the healthy the most similar series of symptoms.

Now, in speaking of the independent study of symptoms as a science by itself, I have urged the necessity of eliciting all of the symptoms, both objective and subjective, bringing every auxiliary science to aid in the search for symptoms. But when we come to the practical application of the law, similia similibus curantur, when we come to place side by side the two series of symptoms, those of the patient and those of the drug respectively, it is manifest that those of the patient to which we find nothing corresponding in the symptomatology of the drug, are of no use to us in the way of comparison. Practically, then, unless the observation of symptoms as produced by drugs in our proving is developed pari passu with that of symptoms as observed in sickness, there will be much of which practically we can make no use. And you will find this view to explain much that is said in disparagement of the study of pathology and pathological anatomy, and of any aid which they may afford to the practitioner.

The difficulty resides in the present imperfection, respectively, of the sciences of pathology, symptomatology and pathogenesy.

Of the symptoms which we have obtained from our patients, the question of their relative value must occur to you. I have mentioned pathognomonic symptoms and their supreme value as determining the diagnosis. Are they as valuable when we are in search of the right remedy? To answer, let us see what we are doing. We are seeking that drug of which the symptoms are most similar to those of the patient. We may have seen in our lives a hundred cases of pneumonia. Every one of these presented the symptom which is pathognomonic of pneumonia. And yet the totality of the symptoms of each patient was different, in some respects, from that of every other pneumonia patient. And this must necessarily be so, because the diseased condition of each patient is resultant of two factors, the morbific cause, assumed to be the same for all, and the susceptibility or irritability to that cause, which susceptibility may be assumed to be different for each; the resultant must be different for each. We must look, then, for the symptom which shall determine our prescription in some other symptom than the pathognomonic, in some symptom which from the diagnostic point of view is far less important, in some subjective symptoms, or in a condition which individualizes.

Is it essential that the pathognomonic symptom of the case should be present among symptoms of the drug? Theoretically, it certainly is. Practically, in the present rudimentary condition of our provings, it is not. We attain a brilliant success if not a certain one, where it has never been observed; although I think we are bound to assume, and are justified in assuming, that were our provings pushed far enough it would be produced. This subject will come up again hereafter.

Recalling now the practical division made of symptoms into objective and subjective, the question presents itself: Do we, in the practical use of our symptom series, make use of objective symptoms as in the independent study of symptoms? Unquestionably, wherever the character of our provings has made this possible, and indeed wherever clinical observation has supplemented the provings.

In skin diseases, wherever we meet the well-defined, smooth erysipelas of Belladona, or the vesicular erysipelas of Rhus, or the bullae of Euphorbium, or the cracks of Graphites, or the lichen of Clematis, or the intertrigo of Lycopodium, or the hard scabbed ulcers of Mezereum, from the edges of which thick pus exudes on pressure, - do not these symptoms almost determine our selection of these remedies? Or the white tongue of Pulsatilla, the red-tipped, dry tongue of Rhus, the moist trembling tongue of Phosphoric acid, the broad, pale, puffed and tooth-indented tongue of Mercurius solubilis, the yellow coat at the base of the tongue of Mercurius proto iodatus, or the patchy tongue of Taraxcum, - do we not recognize these symptoms as most important indications for these remedies respectively? Shall I further mention the objective symptoms, - sandy grains deposited in the urine, or a red deposit which adheres to vessel, or the various peculiarities of feculent excretion and of sputa, which are well –known and universally admitted indications of certain remedies, or the radial pulse, or the heart rhythm?

It appears, then, that objective symptoms are valuable indications for the remedy, just in proportion as they have been observed in proving drugs, so as to afford a ground of comparison; and just in proportion as the observation has been precise and definite, enabling us to distinguish one case from another, or, as we term it, to individualize the case.

Such is the value of objective symptoms. But our object being to individualize the case, it frequently, indeed generally, happens that the distinctive symptoms are subjective.

How now shall we examine the patient to get his symptoms? Do you say that this is an easy matter? Gentlemen, it is the most difficult part of our duty. To select the remedy after a masterly examination and record of the case is comparatively easy. But to take the case requires great knowledge of human nature, of the history of disease, and, as we shall see, of the materia medica.

We see the patient for the first time. If the case be an acute one, it may be that at a glance and a touch we shall observe certain objective symptoms which, at least, help us to form our diagnosis, and constitute the basis of the picture which leads is to the choice of our remedy.

Further examination reveals other objective symptoms. For others, as well as for subjective symptoms, we must depend on the testimony of the patient and his attendants. We have then to listen to testimony, to elicit more testimony by questioning and cross-questioning the patient and his friends, and to form conclusions from their evidence. We have to weigh evidence, and here we encounter a task which is similar to that of the lawyer in examining a witness, and success in which requires of us obedience to the rules for the collection and estimate of evidence. We must study our witness, the patient; is he of sound understanding? May we depend on his answers being true and rational? He may be naturally stupid or idiotic, he may be insane, he may be delirious under the effect of the present illness. Or, putting out of view these extreme suppositions, is the patient disposed to aid us by communicating freely his observations of himself, or is he inclined to be reticent? You will be surprised at the differences in patients in this regard. Some meet you frankly, conscious that by replying fully, and by stating their case carefully, they are aiding you to help them. Others act as if they have come to an encounter of wits, in which they are determined that their cunning shall baffle his shrewdness. Others again are morbidly desirous of making themselves out very sick, and will unconsciously wrap their statement of their symptoms so as to justify their preconceived notion of their case; and if you question them, however you may frame your question, they will reply as they think will make out the case you seem to apprehend. Others, on the contrary, so dread to give testimony which, they fear, may make it certain that they have some apprehend disease, that they cannot bring themselves to state facts as they are, but twist and misstate them as they fain would have them.

I might pass without mention the case of those who deliberately conceal or deny the existence of symptoms which would betray the presence of diseases of which, with abundant reason, they are ashamed, because, I take it; you will be minded to have no dealings with those who refuse to their physician their unlimited confidence.

There is another class whose statements are plus or minus what exactness would require. Almost all of our descriptive language is figurative. We describe sensations certainly according to our idea of what effect would be produced by certain operations upon our sensory nerves, e.g., burning, boring, piercing. This involves an act of the imagination. We are differently endowed with the imaginative faculty. Some persons cannot clothe a sensation in figurative language, and are therefore almost unable to describe their subjective symptoms, and are very difficult patients. Others, again, naturally express themselves in this wise, and, where imagination is controlled by good judgment, are excellent patients, because they describe their symptoms well. This is a matter dependent upon natural endowment, and not upon education or culture. Some persons who cannot construct a sentence grammatically will give us most graphic statements of symptoms; while others who have borne off the honours of a university are utterly at a loss for the means to express what they feel.

Finally, some persons have a natural fervor and tropical luxuriance of expression, which leads them to intensify their statements and exaggerate their sensations. And some, like the Pharisee who believed he should be heard for his much speaking, think to attract our attention, and excite us to greater effort in their behalf, if they magnify their sufferings and tell us a pitiful tale. Others, on the contrary, of a more frigid temperament, give us a statement unduly meager in its Artic barrenness; or else, fearing to seem unmanly if they complain with emphasis of suffering which is perhaps the lot of all men, understate their case and belittle their symptoms.

In estimating your patients in these regards, judging while the tale is being told what manner of man you have to deal with, what allowances you must make, what additions, what corrections, you will have full scope for your utmost sagacity and savoir faire; and of the value of this estimate of your patient I cannot speak too highly. I have often seen the thoroughly scientific man led astray and bamboozled, where one far inferior to him in scientific knowledge detected the peculiarities of the patient, made the necessary corrections, got an accurate view of the case, and then the prescription was easy. Why, sometimes the patient will, in good faith, state a symptom so incompatible with others that we know and must declare it impossible, and so it is finally admitted to be by the patient.

If it be necessary to make this estimate of the patient, so must we likewise of his friends, who, besides having the peculiarities already spoken of, may be unfriendly to us or to our mode of treatment, and may thus be reticent or reluctant witnesses, or may even mislead us willfully.

We make this estimate of our patient and his friends while he and they are stating the case to us; and this statement we should as far as possible allow them to make in their own way, and in their own order and language, carefully avoiding interruption, unless they wander too far from the point.

We must avoid interrupting them by questions, by doubts, or even by signs of too ready comprehension of what they are telling us. It will of course happen that they skip over important details, that they incompletely describe points that we need to understand fully. But we should note these as subjects for the future questions, and forbear breaking in upon the train of our patient’s thoughts, lest once broken he may not be able to reconstruct it. When he has finished, we may, by careful questioning, lead him to supply the deficiencies. We must avoid leading questions, and at the same time must not be so abstract and bald that for lack of an inkling of our meaning, the patient becomes discouraged, and despairs of satisfying us. It is never our object, as it may be that of the lawyer, to show our own cleverness at the patient’s expenses, and to bamboozle him. We must, on the other hand, make him feel, as soon and as completely as possible, that we are his best friend, standing there to aid him in so reviewing his case that we may apply the cure. And so we must encourage his diffidence, turn the flank of his reticence, lend imagination to his matter – of – fact mind, or curb the flights of his fancy, as may be required.

We want a statement of the case in graphic, figurative language, not in the abstract terms of science. It does not help us to hear that the patient has a congestive or an inflammatory pain (however correct these conception may be); but a burning or a bursting pain in available. Nor does it specially enlighten us to know that the patient feels now just as he did in last year’s attack, unless indeed we attended him then.

Having received the patient’s statement and made our own observations, we have a picture of the case, more or less complete. What are we to do with it? What is the next step? We have now one series of phenomena. The law tells us that the drug which will cure that patient must be capable of producing in the healthy a similar series of phenomena.

Seeking the means to cure the patient then, we look among drug provings for a similar series of phenomena. Let us suppose that we find one which corresponds pretty well. Not exactly, however, for here are certain symptoms characteristic of that drug, of which the patient has not complained. We examine the patient as regards those symptoms. No! his symptom in that line are quite different. We try another similar drug, comparing and trying proceed until we find a fit. This is a mental process, so expeditious sometimes that we are hardly aware how extensively we engaged in it. But it shows how difficult it is to take a case unless we have some knowledge of the materia medica, and how much an extensive knowledge of materia medica aids us in taking the case; and this explains why the masters in our art have given us such model cases. ( In consultations, a doctor will send his taking of the case. We cannot prescribe from it. We must take the case ourselves.)  In thus fitting the case and the remedy be honest with yourselves, just as in getting shoes for your children. Do no wrap or squeeze to make of it a fit.

And now, before we go further, let us ask what the symptoms are generally which give the case its individual character, and determine our choice of the remedy. Are they the pathognomonic once? They cannot be unless we are to treat every case of disease named by a common name with one and the same remedy. Are they those which are nosologically characteristic? No, for the same reason. They are the trifling symptoms, arising probably from the peculiarity of the individual patient, which make the case different from that of the patient’s neighbor. They may be a sensation or a condition. If it be metrorrhagia, the mere fact that the flow is worse at night may determine the choice between two such remedies as Calcarea and Magnesia.        

Jul 14, 2011

The Repetition Of The Remedy – R. Gibson Miller

If you've come to this page directly via a search engine, please note this article is mainly for homeopaths and students of homeopathy, so assumes a certain level of understanding of homeopathic concepts and terminology.

The Repetition of the Remedy
By R. Gibson Miller, M.D., Glasgow, Scotland

“As homoeopath we properly give our chief consideration to the selection of the correct remedy for the cure of any individual case of disease. But however accurately we may select the remedy; it will prove of little value unless properly administered. It is a safe statement to make, that more cases are spoiled by improper repetition of the remedy than through any other cause and the purpose of this short paper is to restate the rules that must guide us and to elicit the views of the members of this congress on this important subject.”
Much as all those who accept the master law of Similia Similibus Curantur differ with regard to sub laws, yet there is almost complete unanimity with regard to the following, viz:- that whenever the remedy has produced a positive effect, no repetition is permissible until that action has spent itself.
Two theories have been put forward to explain the action of remedies in a Homoeopathic cure, viz:- (a) Hahnemann’s: that the remedy excites a contrary but stronger disease than natural one, so extinguishing the latter, and (b) the more modern theory: that the remedy causes a reaction on the part of Nature, which reaction is the true cause of cure. But let the theoretical explanation be what it may, the fact remains, that in some way or other the remedy restores the equilibrium of the bodily forces.
In our endeavors to restore the equilibrium, great care must be exercised that we do not overdo things and add unnecessarily to the sufferings of the patient.
It is true that this overreaction in many cases does small harm, beyond retarding somewhat the recovery of the patient; but in more critical cases improper repetition may make all the difference between life and death. That this is true will be borne out by all who have had any lengthened experience in homoeopathic prescribing, when they recall cases where, through errors in judgment and above all through excessive zeal, in their anxiety to hasten the cure they have by too hasty repetition turned back the flowing tide, and converted what seemed certain victory into disaster.
To turn to the practical application of this law we find, as is the case with most natural laws, that here also, while the theory is simple, the application is at times exceedingly difficult. In the first place we shall, I think, find it convenient to look at the question of repetition from two aspects, viz:- the primary and the secondary, each of which requires different consideration.
After a remedy has been exhibited in any case, be it an acute or a chronic one, we have always, when considering its effects, to ask ourselves three questions.
(1) Have we selected the proper remedy?
(2) Have we chosen the proper potency?
(3) How long a period must be allowed for the manifestation of a positive action?
This paper has nothing to do with the first and will only allude later to the second, and at this stage we shall consider only the last.
Elements To Be Considered
It is obvious that the duration of this period will vary within very wide limits, according to whether we are dealing with acute, subacute or chronic diseases, and also that many other factors must be taken into consideration in determining the time that we may reasonably allow for the manifestation of this action.
In many ordinary acute diseases, the period that is required for a positive action to show itself will, as a rule, be of short duration; sometimes the action is almost instantaneous, and the improvement, as experienced by the patient and observable by the physician, is so sharply defined that in this class of cases there will be little difficulty in deciding when to stop the remedy.
But even in acute disease we cannot always expect the positive action to show itself in this prompt manner. For such diseases differ largely, in regard to intensity of suffering, in plane of action and also in what may be called their normal duration.
Patients also vary greatly in their responsiveness to remedies- some being over- sensitive, and promptly and involuntarily proving every remedy they receive, whilst in others the reaction is very slow. We must accordingly vary our tactics in each class, though it must be confessed that in dealing with a case for the first time it is not easy to determine how to classify the patient. A very similar condition of affairs is observable with regard to the causation of acute disease. Of two persons exposed- say to a cold wind- at the same time and under exactly similar conditions, one will invariably sicken within a few hours while his companion may feel nothing wrong for forty- eight hours.
The rapidity of response to the remedy will not infrequently be found to be very much diminished in cases that have been long drugged allopathically, and in many such cases it is necessary to repeat the remedy frequently before a positive action can be obtained.
Even in such cases we must not assume that, because the case has been extensively drugged, the ability to respond to the remedy promptly has necessarily been diminished, for experience demonstrates that in many such cases the positive action shows itself after the normal interval. A probable explanation of this difference in rapidity of response in such drugged cases is that when the abused drug has borne little resemblance to the patient in disorder and consequently had no power deeply to influence the same, the medicinal load being removed, the elasticity of the individual enabled the disorder to resume its ordinary course and the patient to react normally to the similimum.
When the abused drug has borne a more or less close resemblance to the true similimum, and has, as a consequence, been able considerably to distort the true image of the disease, then the response to the proper remedy will naturally be slower. A glaring example of this is found in old syphilitic cases where Mercury and Iodide of Potash had been used for long periods. Such cases are often very slow in responding to the similimum, so much so, that many claim that it is not possible, by homoeopathic remedies, to cure them. This view, I am convinced, is erroneous, and all that is required is the patient use of the correct remedy, until a response is obtained, though at times it is necessary, first of all, to antidote the drugging before the true symptoms can show themselves and so lead to the selection of the similimum.
Closely akin to these cases are those which have been treated by inappropriate, somewhat similar, potentized remedies until the entire case is so confused, and the sensitiveness of the patient to remedies so blunted, that it is not possible at first to obtain any prompt response.
Another factor of importance in this connection is the Sphere of action of the disease and the selected remedy. When we are able to select the similimum or a near simile, then the rapidity of response will, as a rule, be normal. But if it is possible only to select a remedy whose sphere of action very partially coincides with that of the disease, the positive action will not be induced so easily.
The pace of the disease also profoundly influences the rapidity with which the primary response manifests itself. In very violent diseases with severe suffering – such as neuralgia – the positive action will, as a rule, manifest itself very quickly for from the very nature and pace of such a disease we expect suddenness of onset and comparative briefness of duration. In such cases a single dose may be all that is needed, though of course it is at times necessary to repeat the remedy frequently.
Acute Cases
In the ordinary run of acute cases, where the pace is slower and the suffering much less acute, it will as a rule be found necessary to repeat the dose several times before reaction occurs. Still more manifest is this in cases of continued fever. Here the entire course of the disease is slower. There is usually a prodrome, during which marked changes indiscernible by the patient or physician are taking place; and even when the onset is abrupt, the disturbance of the economy that has preceded it has in reality been very profound. In such cases it is not reasonable to expect that one dose or a few doses will be sufficient to produce a reaction, and it is necessary, in the vast majority of such cases, to repeat the remedy every few hours for at least two or three days, before a positive reaction is manifest. While this holds true in most of the cases of continuous fever, yet if the vitality of the patient is very low, it is often dangerous to repeat frequently, for the reaction induced by a series of doses, rapidly following one another, may be too violent for the strength of the patient to withstand.
Improper habits of life, or unsuitable hygienic surroundings, always interfere more or less with the production of the positive reaction, and may at times absolutely prevent it. We do not always know or fully appreciate the circumstances and habits of our patients. Doubtless at times, upon observing no effect, after giving the number of doses that as a rule would be sufficient to induce a reaction, we have all decided that the remedy selected for the individual case under consideration was not truly indicated, whereas our mistake lay in not realizing what a load of resistance was required to be overcome. In such circumstances, even when reaction is induced it is apt to be so imperfect and short lasting that very frequent repetition is absolutely necessary.
Patients nowadays habitually make use of so many cosmetics, perfumes etc. – to say nothing of tobacco and alcohol – that at times it is almost impossible to induce reaction. It is true that frequently the potencies, especially the higher ones, will act in spite of these substances even when they are distinctly antidotal to the drugs in the crude form. For example, who has not seen one or two doses of high Phosphorus or Sepia act promptly and after the normal interval when given to excessive smokers? There are many cases where no action can be obtained, unless by frequent repetition, and it is to be feared that often, in our ignorance of such counteracting forces, we muddle along with most unsatisfactory results, and after a time conclude either that the law has failed or, if humble-minded enough, that the failure has been ours in selecting the improper remedy. Then, turning to some other and unsuitable remedy we make confusion worse confounded.
Much of the foregoing has had relation to the amount of repetition that is necessary to induce a primary positive reaction in acute or subacute cases. In such, mistakes are as a rule discerned and corrected with comparative ease. But when we turn to the truly chronic diseases (and this term I use in the Hahnemannian sense of the chronic miasmatic diseases); the problem is much more difficult. In such chronic diseases a considerable time must naturally elapse between the exhibition of the remedy and appearance of reaction. Here again we have to decide in each case how many doses must be given, and how long we must reasonably wait for reaction. So far as I know, no law governing this phase has yet been formulated – though law there must be.
In these circumstances we can only turn to the accumulated experience of the masters in Homoeopathics and learn what they have to teach us until the law is discovered. The consensus of their opinions is that in chronic cases of people of ordinary constitution, the best procedure is to give a single dose and then wait at least ten or fifteen days, before concluding that one dose is insufficient to produce a positive effect.
In many long standing, chronic cases, where the suffering is not very acute, it may be necessary to wait three weeks or more. It is in such cases we are apt to go wrong in our over eagerness to cure. We do not realize that, once reaction has begun, any interference will likely bring it to a stop – for action and reaction are contrary and opposite.
While the foregoing is the best routine procedure, it must ever be borne in mind that there are patients of less sensitive nature, and that with such it is necessary to give repeated doses before a primary reaction can be induced.
I am well aware that some teachers claim that even in ordinary chronic cases it is necessary to give very frequent doses in order to obtain an action, but the experience of the masters absolutely traverses this view. It is well to keep in mind the fact that it is possible, by repeated doses, of even the highest potency, to suppress symptoms for a time without truly curing the disease.
While in acute cases it is true that almost any potency at all removed from the crude substance will, in the majority of cases, prove curative if properly indicated, yet I have no hesitation in stating that the medium and high potencies act much better in such cases, and induce a positive action much more quickly than do the lower potencies. Accordingly, while in acute cases the exact potency is not, as a rule, a matter of vital importance; it is very different when we come to do deal with chronic disorders.
In chronic cases, the almost unanimous experience of those who use the medium and higher potencies is that such potencies induce, as a rule, not only a much quicker positive reaction, but also as infinitely deeper and more lasting one, with the result that it is not necessary to wait so long for the reaction as when using the lower ones. As I have already stated, we know only in a very imperfect manner the laws that govern such phases, and most of us have learned from bitter experience that the foregoing does not always hold true, and that, at times, little or no positive action can be obtained, at least at first, from the higher or medium potencies, and only the lower or lowest bring response.
Chronic Cases
In chronic cases, how can we know that the desired positive reaction is taking place? As a rule, the earliest indication is the appearance of the homoeopathic aggravation. This is at times of such severity that the patient believes himself to be poisoned; is at other times slight; not infrequently, entirely absent. This last is doubtless the ideal, if only we could always attain thereunto. But to attain it habitually implies a profound knowledge which experience alone can confer, both of remedial and of disease forces, so as to render it possible to adjust things so nicely that equilibrium is established.
Apart from the homoeopathic aggravation, I take it that the most important indication that reaction is taking place is the general feeling of the patient. If he declares he is again experiencing the return of that indefinable feeling of well- being and comfort that is the very antithesis of disease, we may safely conclude that the medicine is acting. So unmistakable is this indication that even if the patient paradoxically declares that though his headache or backache is unchanged, or even worse than formerly, yet he feels better in himself, then we know with absolute assurance that reaction is taking place and no more medicine is required in the meantime.
Secondary Repetition
Let us now consider what I called the secondary repetition. We will take for granted that, as the result of either a single dose or repeated doses, an improvement has been brought about. It is agreed by all that such reaction must be allowed to exhaust itself – for no remedy can be homoeopathic to reaction. Consequently, so long as the patient continues to improve, even though slowly, we can only wait until it is evident that reaction has come to an end. If after the remedy the patient steadily improves and the symptoms change in an orderly manner – even new symptoms appear, but finally the symptoms go back to their original state, yet are not marked enough to cause any special suffering – then we must wait, even for months. If no other symptoms appear we can only give another dose of the same remedy. If the symptoms first prescribed for now return unchanged, and there is otherwise no alteration in the case, then all that is necessary is to repeat the medicine, and as a rule, in the same potency. In acute or subacute cases this procedure is all that is necessary. In chronic cases, after several doses at long intervals have acted well, it will usually be found that the action becomes much more feeble, and, if the same remedy is called for, it must be given in a different potency.
Experience demonstrates that generally in chronic cases when a change of potency is necessary, it is better to give a higher one – though at times a lower one will work, and work well.
When several doses, given at long intervals, have acted well and the range of available potencies is small, we may, instead of changing the potency, give a series of rapidly repeated doses of the same potency, which will often induce deeper and stronger action than a single dose has done.
In many chronic cases, where it would at first be decidedly dangerous to give more than a single dose of one of the higher potencies, it will be found that after a number of such single doses at long intervals, it becomes quite safe, and often advantageous, to give a series of rapidly repeated doses.
Very frequently the problem of secondary repetition is not so simple. It is by no means uncommon to have the improvement in chronic cases interrupted by short secondary aggravations, and before repeating it is necessary to make sure that the recrudescence is truly permanent and not simply temporary.
Apart from such minor difficulties it is not always easy, in chronic cases, to determine whether real improvement continues to take place or not.
Owing to the complex nature of miasms, and at times to the presence of more than one, to say nothing of the distortion they have usually undergone through previous inappropriate treatment, the progress of cure is often apparently very erratic, so that the patient deems himself worse when improvement has truly set in and is continuing. In such a state of affairs, however disturbing it may be to the patient, so long as the symptoms progress from within outwards, in the reverse order of their original appearance and from above downwards, we may rest absolutely assured that there is as yet no call for any repetition.
In incurable cases the same law holds true, viz:- that so long as reaction is occurring no medicine may be given. It is to be noted that is such cases, however accurately the remedy may correspond to the symptoms, its force is soon exhausted and frequent repetition is necessary. In this class of cases the symptoms tend to change with much rapidity, and consequently no one remedy accurately corresponds for any length of time.
In diseases that are characterized by periodic attacks of sufferings, it is often difficult to know when to repeat. In many such cases the patient feels absolutely well during the intervening period, and it is only when the paroxysm appears that it is possible to judge what progress is being made.
So long as such attacks come at longer intervals or the attacks are less severe, it is best to assume that the deeply – acting remedy is working curatively and that there is, so far, no need for repetition.
If it is evident that the action of the last given dose is exhausted, the proper time to repeat is after the periodic attack is past. To give another dose of the deep acting remedy immediately before or during the acute phase would in all probability cause an unnecessary aggravation. If, however, the suffering is so severe as to necessitate interference, there can be no objection to exhibition of the appropriate short – acting remedy.
I have purposely spoken at greater length with reference to the primary than to the secondary repetition. The latter has had much attention paid to it, and there is a more general agreement with regard to the proper procedure, between the different sections of our school, than there is in connection with the former.

Jul 10, 2011

Hahnemann- Homoeopathy And Surgery

“The Torch Of Homoeopathy” a legend quarterly magazine on health, homoeopathy and allied subjects, was published by The Rajasthan Homeoeopathy Association for a long duration and edited by Dr. Chandra Prakash and Krishna Charan.

In April 1960, Vol. II , No. 2 the following editorial article was published about role of homeopathy in surgery and Dr Hahnemann’s relevancy in this context. 

 Although there is already an article published about Homeopathy and surgery in this blog Indicated Homeopathic Medicines during and after Surgery but following is an article with its Historical importance.

Hahnemann- Homoeopathy And Surgery

Every year on the 10th of April we celebrate the birthday of Hahnemann. This year also all the Homoeopaths all over the world will celebrate his 205th birthday. He was born on the 10th April,1755, and died a glorious death in harness on the 2nd July,1843, after 88 years enduring service to humanity. But he is immortal and he lives through all the numerous savants of Homoeopathy, all over the world.
      He discovered the greatest truth of the nature’s designs in the matter of health, disease and its cure and the best way to celebrate his scared memory is to serve the people with the true knowledge of Homoeopathy and curing the sick in the true sense of the term. So we very humbly do our part.
      In the foregoing numbers of the TORCH while we have been giving some hints on the use of the common Homoeopathic remedies for the prevention of epidemics, infectious diseases, gynaecology, hysteria, female breasts and lactation, dangerous acute stages etc., this time it has been suggested to hint at some of the common remedies which are useful in surgical cases.
      Much has been discussed in the various journals on the above subject. Yet we often hear silly talks and silly questions from many patients, laymen and even some well-educated persons including some medical men.
      The usual questions are –
1.      Whether there is surgery in Homoeopathy?
2.      Whether there is any homoeopathic cure for surgical cases?
3.      Allopathic medicines may be useless and harmful in majority of cases, but have they not achieved tremendous success in surgery?
4.      Have you got any such medicines in Homoeopathy as they have in Allopathy and surgery which can cause local and general anaesthesia?

Although the questions are silly and lack understanding, we have to face the questions all the same and to satisfy the enquirer.

But to understand the reasonable answers to all these, one must know (1) that the purpose of Allopathy, Homeopathy, Ayurved, Unani or any other system of medicine is to achieve a cure for the sick and also to understand (2) the scope of medicine and (3) the scope of surgery and (4) the best available or known rational means of achieving of the cure in the simplest, surest and quickest manner and if possible economically.

All will agree that the Allopaths take the help of surgery or send the patients to the surgeons only when they find that they cannot cure the case with medicines and they take all the risks of anesthesia and surgical operations only because they find the medicines known to them are useless for such cases. And they send too many cases to the surgeons, only because the scoope of Allopathic medicines is too limited.

Surgery by itself is another distinct branch of therapeutic science which professes to remove the diseased organs or undesirable particles from the body or to set right some deformities by mechanical manipulations, grafting and plastic surgery etc, which they are given to believe are not possible to be dealt with by medicines. But as the Allopaths , for their too limited knowledge of the scope of medicine are obliged to send to many cases too often to the surgeons they are obliged to accept surgery in wed-lock, so that they may save their face when the medicines fail to achieve the cure.

Homoeopathy has no enemity with surgery or the surgeons but as the scope of Homoeopathic medicines for the cure and prevention of many diseases developing into the surgical stage is too vast and large, they seldom need surgical assistance to help their patients. For example, ordinary boils tonsillitis, adenoids, warts, gangrenes, polyps, tumours, hernia, stones, may uterine and urinary troubles can be easily cured by the proper and judicious employment of homoeopathic medicines and so, as the scope of Homoeopathic medicines is wider for the cure of various disease the scope of surgery in Homoeopathic practice is naturally much smaller than in Allopathic practice.

In short it can be said that most of the diseases which occur due to some internal constitutional disorders or metabolic imbalance can by cured with homoeopathic medicines and so it leaves behind the only a small percentage of such cases to surgery which occur due to external causes such as crushed injuries, bullet wounds, splinters, organ damages etc.

In such cases homoeopathy does not deny the usefulness of surgical manipulation and do reserve the scope of surgery, in its teaching and practice of medical science as such.

We acknowledge that surgery is a very delicate art which needs precession skill and that some of the achievements of modern surgery are indeed very great and commendable feats. But we do object to indiscriminate demonstration of the precession skill of surgical feats on the human life and body in such cases where we know there are enough remedial agents that can cure the sick sparing the cost, risk and the torture of surgery. We also object to the present day fashion of unnecessary and risky measures of appendectomy and tonsillectomy and the exploratory laparotomy which seldom serves any useful purpose, but on the contrary makes the person more sick and robs him of some useful organs.

Many highly qualified and experienced veteran surgeons have themselves admitted the uselessness and harmful consequences of tonsillectomy, appendectomy, exploratory laparatomy, X Rays, Radium, Removal of Growths, Tumours, and even cancer, acknowledging the attendants risks involved and the subsequent evils.

Coming to the 4th question above, we have to say that any knowledge of any science is neither anybody’s monopoly nor there is any bar for anybody to make use of any knowledge for any useful purpose.

Those who ask such questions do not even know that the agents employed for anaesthetic purposes are not medicines for cures but just some harmful chemicals or gaseous agents which are employed to rob the patient of his sensitivity. If anybody has to burn he may use fire. If anybody has to cut, he may use any sharp bladed instrument. If anybody has to induce un-natural sleep, he may use any narcotic or hypnotic drugs, whether you call it Opium, Aspirin, Luminal or even Ether, Chloroform or Morphia. They have very little to do for curative purposes.

So this is this. As the surgeons or the surgery has been too much attached to Allopathy, they have been satisfied with whatever harmful but partially useful antiseptic dressing agents were suggested to them from time to time such as Tincture Iodine, Acriflavin, Mercuro-Chrom, Sulpha powders and now antibiotic lotions and ointments. If they had cared to look into the Homoeopathic literature, they could find many more superior and harmless dressing agents to help their work.

We never consider any branch of art or science to be water-tight compartments and we do not consider it a sin to take anything that is useful and beneficial for the patient from anywhere. But the allopathic trench is such that they do not even care to see what rewards homoeopathy offers. They sneer and frown at it and consider it a sin to use anything Homoeopathic.

If they had cared to see what Homoeopathy offers they would have embraced it. But let us not divert from the main issue.

In our foregoing issues of the TORCH, we have given some useful hints of some of the Homoeopathic medicines commonly useful in gynaecology, first-aid, and as prophylaxis in some epidemic diseases and have invited our allopathic friends to use of some such Homoeopathic medicines hinted below which we assure them will prove very helpful in their daily practice of surgical manipulations.

While these will give quicker and greater relief to the patients they will earn laurels for the surgeons as well.

Surgery is the field of war wounds, amputations, grafting, deformities, plastic surgery etc. are indeed very very plausible and useful and we do not dispute this but the following Homoeopathic medicines and many others as adjutants to surgery can definitely make the surgical manipulations more easier and will give the patient quicker relief and cure. 

Arnica 200, 1M  Given before operation will protect against shock and collapse and undesirable hemorrhage.

Arnica 1M or Rhus Tox 1 M  Helps particularly in appendectomy, right sides hernia, lower right quadrant of the abdomen.

Phosphorus 200, 1M  Given before or after chloroform, helps in shock, nausea, vomits, excessive bleeding in nervous patients.

Antim Tart 200  Before and after Ether Anaesthesia.

Carbo veg 200 Gas anaesthesia. Prevents shock and collapse and threatened peritonitis. (Also Arsenic Alb 200).

Acetic Acid 30 Debility from Anaesthesia.

Hypericum 200 Debility from surgical shock, lumbar puncture, nerve injuries, amputations, spinal or brain operations, Threatened Tetanus.

Acid Phos 30, 200 or Ignatia 200  Nervous or mental shock, emotional upsets.

Lachesis 200 or Plumbum 200  Strangulated hernia, Peritonitis (China, Bryonia).

Echinacea   Gangrene, Blood poisoning, Septic, Offensive smell.

Gunpowder 3X   Gangrene, , Blood poisoning, Septic.

Aconite 30    Shock, fear, fear of death, fever, restlessness, anxiety.

Opium 30   Fear, hard constipation, red & hot face, Strenuous breathing, hot sweats, sleeplessness, stupor etc.

Pyrogen 200   1M  Fever, blood poisoning, pulse rate either too fast or too slow, not in proportion with temperature, Puerperal septicemia, septic.

Arnica 1M    Unconsciousness due to concussion, loss of sight and hearing due to brain injury or shock. Soreness of body. Bruised feeling.

Pulsatilla 200    Patient lies with hands above the head, wants air, and washing the face & mouth frequently. Lack of thirst, mild, Timid, and yielding patients. Helps proper presentation of foetus in labour cases eliminating the necessity of caesarian operation.

Nux Vomica 30, 200    Irritable patients, indigestion, constipation, vomiting & retching.

Allium cepa 1M    Neuralgic pains in amputated stumps (Hypericum ), pain fine thread like shooting.

Ammon. Mur 1M   Tearing stitching pain after amputation of the foot. Panaritium.

Staphysigria 200, 1M   Irritable & indignant patient. Pain like cutting by knife persists after operation. Abdominal operations. Colic, burning in urethera. Also clean cut injuries.

Veratrum Album 200, 1M   Great prostration with cold sweat on forehead, body cold, pale face, vomits & stools, feature distorted, tetanic spasms.

Camphor 30  Collapse with body & breath cold yet wants to be uncovered; pulse rapid, respiration slow and sighing.

Carbo veg 30, 200, 1M   Collapse, pulse imperceptible, cold breath, cold knees & body, wants oxygen or air. Eliminates necessity of oxygen cylinder.

Opium 200 or Helleborus 1M  Persistent stupor.

Hepar Sulph 200, 1M   Nervous and too sensitive physically and mentally, faints, due to pains or exertion. Promotes and controls suppuration (Silicea).

Chloroformum 200, 1M or Nitrous Oxide 200, 1M   Persistent ill health after operation, does not feel well since last chlororm anaesthesia.

Solidago 1X  Sabal Seruleta Q, Homeopathic catheter. Retention of urine. Eliminates the painful use of catheter.

Arnica 200, Phosphorus 200   Checks pain and bleeding of tooth extraction.

Sepia 200  Persistent swelling & pain after tooth extraction.

Symphytum 200, 1M   Fractures, bone surgery, help growth of new bone and union of fractured bones.

Hekla Lava 3X  Bony growths & bony hard tumours ( Conium, Calc. Fluor, Causticum)

Causticum 1M  Tumours in robust patients with full, bounding and non-compressible pulse. Antylosis. Contracture of muscles.

Bovista 30   Hard swelling persisting on a fractured and joined bone.

Chamomilla 200   Maddening pains and angry uncivil temper.

Crocus Satvia 30, 200   Dark stringy bleeding. Sensation of something alive in abdomen.

Ipecac 30, 200  Bright red blood with nausea, vomits, coughing, fevers.

Sticta Pul 20, 200   Sleeplessness after surgical operations (Coffea, Kali phos)

Abrotanum 1M  Pressing sensation in chest after thoracic surgery.

Ledum Pal 1M   Punctured wounds, pains going upwards, wants cold application prevent tetanus.

Methylene Blue 6, 30  Surgical kidney, when pus cells continues even after kidney operation.

Aconite 30, 200 or Apis 30, 200  Post operative retention of urine, bloody & burning urine.

Bellis p 30, 200   Sore pains, suppurations, Bed sores. (Arnica, Calendula)

Baryta Carb 200, Cistus can 200   Enlarged cervical glands, tonsillectomy. Soft tumours.

Bellis P 30, Conium 200, Phytolacca 200   Post operative mastitis of female breasts.

Hep.Sulf, Psorinum, Silicea, Capsicum   Before and after ear surgery.

Silicea 200, 1M or Anagalis 200, 1M  Helps to throw out foreign bodies such as thorns, splinters, needless etc.

Merc Sulph 200, 1M  Useful for absorption of  plural effusion after thoracic surgery,. Hydrothorax, Meig’s syndrome.

Strontia Carb 30, 200   Collapse after operation ( carbo veg., Camphor, Veratrum). Lukeamea.

Aconite, Bell, Merc    Post operative rise of temperature. (Pyrogen)

Arsenic Alb 200, 1M  Great prostration, burning, restlessness and frequent thirst for small quantities of water. Midnight aggravation.

Kali Cynatum 6X   Useful in metastasis following surgery.

Merc. Cynatum 200   Diphtheria, prevents the necessity of tracheactomy.

Strontia Carb 30, Arsenic Alb 30    Septic or gangrene due to dissection infection.

Vertarum Alb 30, 200 or Zincum 30, 200   Sudden debility, shock or collapse after pencillin injections.

Tarentula Cub.,Arsenic alb, Anthraxinum,  Carbo Veg, Carbo Ani. Carbuncles, painful, burning & decomposing sores.  

Hepar sulph 3X, Myristica 3X  Helps easy bursting of abcess.

Hepar sulph 1M, Silicea 1M, Calc. Sulph 1M    Helps drying up suppurating wounds.

Kali. Nit. 30 Sudden swelling of whole body.

Ammon. Carb 1M  or Iris V 1M  Will abort Panaritium and felons.

             These are only short hints on some of the commonly useful medicines but for judicious use of these and many other Homoeopathic medicines, one must learn the characteristic symptoms of the medicines from full size materia medica.

But as one uses these medicines he learns how much helpful the Homeopathic medicines can be even in the surgical cases.

Besides these medicines, if our Allopathic surgeon friends learn the use of the Homoeopathic lotions and ointments like Calendula, Hypericum, Ledum, Abrotanum, Urtica urens, Bellis P., Rhus Tox, Hamamelis, Aesculus etc. they will we grateful for the knowledge and the ensuing results and will never go back to the allopathic antiseptics dressing medicines of questionable value.

And if Homoeopathic treatment is given on constitutional basis before any disease develops into the malignant stage or too advanced stage, they will find that 90% of the cases now considered surgical will be cured with medicines, which would of course make surgeons comparatively idle and the professional practice of surgery less lucrative.