CORRESPONDENCE

To the Editor, BRITIS~ HOMCEOPATHIC JOURNAL.

DEAR SIR, Comments on the "Case Repor t" published in your journal (page 197) of

Ju ly 1961. The author, Dr. K. N. Kasad, M.B., B.S., claims to have aborted "An Atypical Case of Typhoid" with Ba~tisia h.p. by promoting development of immune processes.

My points against the claim: (1) Clot culture dated 30.11.60--Gram negative immotile bacillus, identified

as E. typhi, was grown. No subsequent blood cultures were made to show that no organisms were

present after the administration of Baptisia. How can it be proved that these immune processes were not produced by the organisms themselves as they are produced in untreated cases?

The characteristic feature of E. typhi is that it is MOTILE. We do not know what other tests were carried out to label the organisms as typhoid.

(2) The Widal reactions as mentioned in the character and titre of agglutina- tion are not conclusive of the diagnosis of typhoid. These readings will not be accepted by the Public Heal th department of this country.

(3) Even the date of last inoculation of the patient is not mentioned. (4) No urine or stool cultures were made to demonstrate that the organisms of

typhoid were present in those discharges. Why then was the remedy along with Typttoidinum administered as a prophylactic measure to the members of the family? And how do we know tha t it was of any use unless agglutinins against typhoid (standard) bacilli were demonstrated in these persons after medication?

The twenty-two year old son of a homceopath in Pakistan died of h~emorr- hagic small-pox. The father had always objected to small-pox inoculation. H e relied on the claims of previous homceopaths and gave him "immunizing" homcepathic drugs. The boy was a prominent sportsman of the country.

(5) Now, look at the timings of clinical improvements and the appearances of agglutinins in the serum. I t is noted by the records here that the clinical improve- ment took place much earlier to the time of the appearance of the appreciable anti-bodies in the serum. We see in nature tha t anti-bodies appear much earlier to the appearance of clinical improvements.

I f we agree to the observations of James Tyler Kent (ref. article "Higher Use of Pr imary Branches in Medical Education", New Remedies and Lesser Writings p. 233) and think tha t "the atypical case" recorded here was really aborted by Baptisia, then in subsequent agglutination tests Widal reaction should be negative. Why has it been shown positive here? I leave others and the author to reply. I f it is really positive it should have appeared in much higher titre and coincided with the clinical improvement.

(6) I t will be reasonable to ask why then clinical improvements followed the administration of Baptisia.

Was it a coincidence and the case aborted itself? I shall put two cases in favour of this.

Case 1 : Patient myself. 1954. First year student of medicine at the University of Glasgow. Was confined to bed after a day 's frontal headache and malaise middle of November. Now, the symptoms were: Great weakness, heat of the face. Extremities cold and a

6o

C O R R E S P O N D E N C E 6 I

cold sensation running up from the spine to the back of the head. Thirstlessnes~ was predominating. Temperature 104 ~ F.

Next day. No improvement after bed rest. Temperature, weakness, heat of the face and chilliness of back persisting. Took Gelsemium in 30th potency in water frequently, starting at night.

Next day. No improvement till morning. Asked for the doctor under' National Health Service. Prescribed Gelsemium 10M.

Temperature went to normal 36 hours after starting Gelsemium 10M and remained so, going down to subnormal after two to three days.

Great weakness followed. The patient gradually became ambulant within a week of the illness. The disease diagnosed clinically as Influenza. 1956. Similar attack followed by a mild headache and cold two days prior tG the sensation of heat in face, that of chill across the back. High temperature and thirstlessness accompanied by weakness.

Prescribed by the doctor--Gelsemium 10M. The recovery was similar.

1957. Similar type attack with the same symptoms but greater weakness. Clinical diagnosis: influenza. Prescribed by the doctor: Gelsemium 10M.

Temperature went down in a similar manner but this time patient was left very exhausted and weak so that it took him another week to come to his normal self.

1958. Similar attack with similar prodromal symptoms but feeling very chilly across the back. Slides for malaria negative. Influenza epidemic predominant locally.

"Should I take any medicine this time? Let me lie in bed and feed myself well."

The recovery was uneventful. I t was similar to that in the first two instances and the patient felt stronger after the temperature came to normal. Period of recovery same as in the first two instances. Till now patient has had no attack.

Case 2: I was awakened at night by the moans of my mother. When I saw her she was sitting in bed in tears. She was restless. Her right upper arm was painful. Age 60. She could not give any reason at that time. "What is that?" I thought. Probably metastasis to humerus. "Should I give her any homceopathic medi- cine? No." I went to sleep but when I got up in the morning after about four hours my mother was fast asleep. At the time of breakfast she smiled and said "Look", pointing to the kitchen window, "I tried to lift it last evening." There was no pain that morning and it has not recurred so far. But I was re- minded of my first case in practice when I sat down the first day in my clinic--

A girl age 10 was brought up to my clinic crying with pain in the muscles of her neck. No abnormality could be seen. Lymph glands were not palpable. Time of arrival 11 a.m. History revealed that she carried a load on her head in the morning, about four hours past.

I prescribed Rhus tox. 30, four doses to be taken hourly. In the evening when I was passing through the locality I was pointed out by the girl. She was smiling and free from pain. I had quoted this wonderful case of mine on several occasions.

To summarize: The case of "atypical typhoid" recorded in this journal was a case of pyrexia

of unknown origin. I t is not fully recorded even clinically. Examination of the respiratory system and alimentary system is not mentioned at all.

Chest X-ray, Mantoux test has not been done. Slides for parasites have not been examined. Virology tests have not been performed.

62 T H E B R I T I S H H O M ( E O P A T H I C J O U R N A L

Even the tests for the diagnosis of enteric fever are inadequate and inconclu- sive.

The basis of prescription of medicine on diagnosis and expectation of future symptoms is absolutely wrong.

In m~y opinion the case aborted itself and I cannot give any credit to the drug here.

Yours sincerely, Senior House Officer, NIAz AHMAD, B.Sc., M.B., CH.B. Stonehouse Hospital (Lanarkshire), Nr. Glasgow. August 14th, 1961.

To the Editor, BRITISH I~OM(EOPATHIC JOURNAL. DEAR SIR,

Dr. Pierre Schmidt says: " . . . Organon in its sixth French edition will appeal to you. I t looks different and worth while becoming acquainted with." (His own translation.)

I t appears Hahnemann himself had given preference and priority to the publication of the French edition of his Organon sixth edition even before pub- lishing his original German edition of the same.

Von Boenninghausen in his Lesser Writings (Ind. Ed., p. 190) writes: " . . . the sixth edition of the Organon, which was completed by Hahnemann before his death, and will appear as he himseff informed me at least in the French language in a short t i m e . . . " Here Boenninghausen adds a footnote: "Jus t this moment when I was about to send off these pages, I hear from a Spaniard from Madrid, who lately has come under my treatment, and who is well acquainted with affairs in Paris, tha t so many mistakes have crept into the French translation of the Organou that it has been determined to provide a new, more correct reprint."

We do not know the fate of this French edition, which Hahnemann wanted to get published; nor do we know who had translated it and how many mistakes had crept into it. Even Pierre Sehmidt, who compared all available editions of the book, does not make any mention of this edition that was to be published by Hahnemann.

Dr. Schmidt with his student Dr. Kiinzli translated this fundamental book from the German text, devoting all available leisure hours of his for five years, with the help of all modern and ancient dictionaries and comparing all the American, English, French and German editions of the book. " I endeavoured", says Dr. Sehmidt, " to interpret with the utmost accuracy the thought of the Master of Homceopathy."

About the English version of the same Dr. Sehmidt says: "The English and American translations of the Organon are unfortunately so wanting in clearness and make such heavy reading tha t few people have the constancy to plod through the whole book. I therefore wish tha t this impor tant work . . . may find a really competent translator so that the treasures it contains may be fully enjoyed and appreciated by English-speaking readers."

We complained about Boericke's sixth English edition (Hahnemannian Gleanings, vol. XXV, no. 7, p. 326): "As translated and published by William Boericke it is not as clear (in its exposition of the 50,000th potencies) as the r6sum~ given by Pahud of Lausanne, who has claimed that Flury of Barne, the President of the Swiss Society, had translated the German text for him." (Hahnemannian Gleanings, Vol. X V I I I , no. 2, p. 48) Boericke has imprinted s phrase "AFTER H~NEMANN" on his sixth edition; moreover, while Pahud