Presidential Address British Homveopathic Congress, Glasgow, 31 August-1 September 1967

Are we poles apart ?

H A M I S H W. B O Y D , ~ .B . , M . a . C . P . ( G . ) , F.F.HOM.

Fellows and Members of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, Colleagues of the Facul ty of H o m e o p a t h y , Ladies and Gentlemen:

I should like to thank you for the honour you have done me in electing me President of this Congress. So often I have heard it said tha t the homeopa th ic approach to the healing of the sick is so ut ter ly different from that of our orthodox colleagues tha t we must always remain poles apar t in outlook. While it is true tha t our methods of selecting t reatment and the remedies we give differ in many ways, I am convinced tha t neither method can be used to the exclusion of the other if we have the welfare of our patients at heart.

The theme of this Congress has been "Meeting Points in Medicine", and we have today heard papers from scientific experts giving us up-to-date information on drug investigation and research, which have shown us the care and exactitude with which research should be carried out. We have heard something of the problems of toxicity and sensitivity, and we have seen how we in H o m e o p a t h y can use these details of side effects and toxic properties in our search for new remedies which can be proved by our methods and used in the t reatment of the sick.

In order to place H o m e o p a t h y in perspective in present-day medicine, I should like first to survey briefly the basic beliefs and philosophy of the homeo- pathic physician, and some of the stumbling blocks to its more general accept- ance. There are two main fundamentals in homceopathic prescribing: the simile principle and the use of potentized remedies.

THE SIMILE PRIIWCIPLE

The principle evolved as a result of astute observation and is basically this: the symptom picture which a drug can cause it can also cure. This" does not, necessarily mean that a remedy like Arsenlcum can only be used to t reat a patient suffering from arsenic poisoning, although there are instances where an identical substance in potentized form can be used to clear up sensitivity reactions to tha t substance, as we have heard in the case of penicillin today. Modern desensitization to pollens uses this type of method. In most cases, how- ever, it is the similarity of the patient 's symptoms as a whole to the symptom picture of a particular remedy which enables a curative prescription to be made. I t is perhaps easy enough to envisage a symptom picture of a patient, although here again the homoeopathie physician is seeking as broad and detailed a picture as possible, characteristic of the individual in his reaction to his disease. He is seeking to find the patient 's general reactions to heat and cold, his desires and aversions to particular foods, the presence or absence of thirst,

P I ~ E S I D :E:B~ T I A L A D D R E S S 3

t ime aggravations of the pain or fever and above all the mental reactions of the individual. Is he irritable or anxious, is he extrovert and easy to talk to, or moody and withdrawn and reluctant to discuss his symptoms? Is he cheery and untidy or fastidious and full of fears, loquacious or jealous or angry? I shall have more to say about observation of the mental symptoms later, but meantime we can see evolving a very comprehensive picture of our patient.

But how can a remedy have a picture? The homceopathic materia medica is made up of just such pictures. These are built up from a knowledge of toxicology and side effects, which I have already mentioned, and from "provings" as described by Dr. Raeside this morning. "Provings" are merely the collection and sifting of symptoms obtained from healthy human volunteers after the administration of repeated small doses of the substance being proved. Some provers are, of course, more sensitive than others and produce valuable and unusual symptoms, and there are many common symptoms which are excluded because they are common. Thirdly there are symptoms which are observed to have disappeared in a number of patients while under t reatment with a particu- lar remedy. These three groups of symptoms go to make up the remedy picture, and the selection of the most similar picture in patient and remedy is the art of prescribing.

The fact that drugs can have what appear to be opposite effects in different dosage and in different persons is a recognized finding in physiology and pharmacology. We have patients who are stimulated by morphine instead of sedated. We know that X-ray and radium can destroy cancer cells, but they can also stimulate them. Amphetamine, usually a stimulant, is given to sedate in a hyperkinetic child.

In a recent report to the Russell Park Memorial Ins t i tu te - - the Cancer Research Centre in Buffalo--a compound discovered in the soluble ribonucleic acid of yeast cells, plant cells and certain animal cells, and known as IPA, was found to have a stimulating effect on tobacco plant cells in a concentration as low as 1 ~g/ml, making them divide more rapidly and differentiate. At slightly higher concentrations, however, IPA changed its effect on plant cells and inhibited their growth as it did with human myelocytes. This would seem to be a finding very like the Arndt-Schultz phenomenon known to homceopathic physicians for very many years, tha t larger quantities destroy or inhibit and smaller amounts stimulate.

We also know that a patient who is ill often becomes more sensitive to small quantities of drugs than a healthy person. Digitalis will slow and steady a rapid and irregular heart in disease, but quite large doses can be given to healthy persons with little effect.

These comments bring us to the second fundamental in homceopathic prescribing, the potentized remedy. This has been one of the chief stumbling blocks to the acceptance of Homceopathy by scientific men, and indeed has become so synonymous with Homceopathy that many have lost sight of the fact tha t the word Homceopathy refers to t reatment by likes or similars, and has no reference whatever to potencies. Indeed Hahnemann only evolved the "potency" by practical experience in the use of similar drugs in comparatively crude dosage. In the second place the homceopathic remedies are not merely infinitesimal doses but remedies prepared by serial stages of dilution and mecha- nical shaking or succussion. We have no right to assume that these preparations are merely microdoses, and many of us feel sure tha t the method of preparation is a vital factor in their efficiency.

4 T H E B R I T I S H H O M G ~ O P A T H I C J O U R N A L

We are frequently asked to give reports on the scientific evidence supporting the presence of an active agent in our potentized remedies. More research into this field is vital, but already a number of carefully controlled experiments into potency action have been carried out. Dr. Gibson will be reviewing this work in his paper, but I should like to mention the biochemical experiments of the late W. E. Boyd, 1 using potencies of mercuric chloride in a 30c dilution, 10 -6~ and showing clear evidence of their action on the digestion of starch by diastase. Also the more recent work of Professor G. Netien of Lyons. 2 He was able to demonstrate that the germination and growth of seeds obtained from plants treated with copper sulphate solution was increased when these seeds were grown on a 15c H potentized copper sulphate dilution. Professor Cier 8 demon- strated that the hyperglycaemic reaction produced in mice by an injection of alloxan could be completely inhibited by giving a 9e potency of alloxan intraperitoneally prior to the crude dose, and also that after a diabetogenic injection of alloxan the blood sugar values returned to normal more rapidly when a 9e potency of alloxan was given.

These experiments were well controlled and the results in the original papers are highly suggestive of an effect from potentized remedies.

I hope those of you to whom these remarks are common knowledge will forgive my digression at some length into the basic principles of Homceopathy, but only in this way do I feel we can view our methods in perspective.

During this Congress we have looked at different aspects of toxicology, because in some ways we are on common ground in this with our orthodox colleagues, we by the use of these findings in our provings and they because concern is felt about the increasing number of side effects and toxic symptoms arising from new drugs. I have sometimes heard homceopathic physicians condemning modern medicine as a whole because of the dangers of new drugs. I would support them to some extent in condemning the indiscriminate use of drugs, particularly those which are insufficiently vetted, but I think we should remember that this critical attitude is also held by many of the best physicians in the orthodox schools and the pharmacologists of the drug firms. We have heard of the care taken in the research into new drugs and I think we must be impressed by this. Let me quote some comments from a recent article in The Practitioner, by Dr. Hennessey of the Wellcome Foundation:

"People vary in their susceptibility to biologically active substances and a few react excessively to a dose that gives a satisfactory response in most others. Some individuals may show abnormal reactions that bear no resemblance to the characteristic pharmacodynamie or toxic effects of a drug; these reactions, commonly ascribed to allergy, hypersensitivity or idiosyncrasy, cannot at present be satisfactorily reproduced in animals."

He reviews the methods used in evaluating new drugs in animals. Genetic factors can also play an important part in the occurrence of toxic reactions in man and some forms of toxicity are explicable on this basis. He further states:

"The final assessment of the ability of a new drug to produce adverse effects must be made from observations of its action in man. Satisfactory means of evaluating toxicity that may result from the presence of organic disease or metabolic abnormalities, or from individual hypersensitivity or idiosyncrasy, have yet to be developed. Differences between species and individuals will always be important."

I~I~E S I D : E N T I A L A D D I ~ E S S 5

These observations go to show the awareness of the problem amongst the research teams, but they also pinpoint the importance of tests in man. Our own provings of course are all carried out in human subjects.

I t has been said that the homceopathic doctor achieves his success as a result of psychotherapy, and not due to the effects of his remedies. I would refute this as a complete answer, because I am absolutely convinced that our remedies contain an active curative component, having seen them act in acute infections and in young infants as well as difficult chronic cases not helped by other drugs. I still recall vividly one of my earliest attempts in Homceopathy on a girl of 22 with a severe throat infection. She was very toxic, sweating profusely with a temperature of 104 ~ F. Her throat was swollen and red with white exudate and her tongue was dirty, flabby and moist with a bad odour--a typical case for Mercurius solubilis, which was given in water in 1M potency (a laughable amount in terms of quantity). The following day the temperature was 99 ~ F. and she was less toxic, although the local appearance of her throat was worse, with more exudate. The local signs did not perturb me because she was better in general and the remedy was continued. In four days her throat and mouth had cleared up altogether. Or a visit to a girl of 10 with a high fever, flushed, coughing and sick, with marked thirst for cold drinks and early signs of pneumonia in her right lung. Again the fever a n d pulse came down in 24 hours with the remedy Phosphorus 30. The signs in her chest became more definite and an X-ray confirmed a consolidation in her right lung, although by this time she was much better in herself. Phosphorus was continued, followed by 3 powders of Tuberculinum 12 and complete resolution occurred over the next ten days.

A man of 36 came to see me in January 1965 with a history of migraine headache for ten years. The headaches occurred over the right eye, a boring pain worse with bright light, moving or driving, and lasting an hour or two. They could occur every evening for two weeks and were relieved a bit by Cafergot. He could then have a spell of a month or two free. His eyesight and sinuses were normal. He was a tall man, chilly with a liking for savoury foods, sensitive, emotional and seffconseious, rather t idy and with a horror of wounds and accidents. The first remedy given was Spigelia 1M in view of the type and position of the headache. This gave him marked relief temporarily, but he then developed a headache waking him at 3 a.m. With the physical and mental symptoms described, Silica 1M was given. I did not hear from him for two years, and then he phoned me up. "I have had no headache for two years," he said, "but a further attack came on this week, at 3 a.m., on the right side of the head. Please can I have another of those powders you gave me before." Silica 1M again cleared it up. I t is difficult for me to believe that these cases were cured by psychotherapy or spontaneously as quickly as they were, but in many chronic ailments I am sure psychotherapy does play a big part. The homceopathic physician takes his case history carefully and encourages his patient to talk and express his symptoms in great detail in order to select a suitable remedy, and this in itself helps the cure.

Psychotherapy is an essential ingredient of good medicine practised by any school, and let us beware of assuming that this is the prerogative of Homceo- pathy. I am sure that our orthodox colleagues could learn much from our case-taking methods, but I am equally sure that many of them are already using a part of this in everyday work, especially in general practice. I should

6 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 ~ I A L

like to quote for you two further comments, the first from a leader on Psycho- therapy in the B.M.J., 8 October 1966:

"Psychotherapy is a highly individual method of helping patients with their problems rather than of treating circumscribed illnesses" (Mowbray and Timbury).

"Most doctors spend only a small part of their t ime killing bacteria, removing growths, repairing physical damage, and removing symptoms, though their training made them expect that they would be doing these things most of the time. Most of the doctor's t ime is spent in making his patients feel better, irrespective of whether their 'dis-eases' are directly or indirectly due t(r identifiable noxious agencies. One of medicine's main functions is to keep man adjusted to his environment as a useful member of society."

At a recent conference in this College, Dr. Fulton, of Glasgow, well known for his enthusiasm in promoting good general practice, gave a paper outlining some of his ideas about the future of the family doctor. Some of his remarks were identical with views expressed by homceopathic doctors for a long time. He said:

"Family doctors must be able to recognize anger as well as angina, envy as well as eczema, fear as well as fever. The family doctor must know when to use drugs as an aid to t reatment and when to prescribe himself along with or instead of medicine. Can we inculcate in the students and graduates of today the philosophy, the att i tude of mind, pecuhar to general practice, that there are no diseases, only sick persons, and that to a family doctor the individual is always more than the sum of his systems."

Here again we see how the best orthodox physicians are concerned with the sick person and his temperament. How little, however, do they know of the value of the remedies we use in Homceopathy for the effects of emotions or where certain strong mental symptoms are obvious in the patient 's descrip- tion of his case-history--Chamomilla for irritability, Staphisagria for resent- ment, Platina for pride, Lachesis for suspicion, Opium for shock, Ignatia for grief.

I gave a title to this paper "Are we poles apart?" and I hope that we can all see tha t we need not be. Homceopathy is not a substitute for orthodox medicine, but it should be an integral part of it in every sphere. We who practise it should be grateful for the tremendous advances in curative medicine in recent years, in the correction of deficiencies and iu the fields of antibiotics, surgery and physical medicine. We must use these methods with discrimination and whenever they are most applicable, but we must also use Homceopathy alongside these. Homceopathy has a wide sphere of action from infancy to old age, in midwifery and gynaecology, before and after surgical operations, in physical disease and psychosomatic and emotional states. While the approach of the homceopathic prescriber is different to that of his orthodox colleagues, it need not be incompatible. We must work towards the day when Homceopathy is not a separate form of medicine but an integral par t of every doctor's materia medica, used with discretion where it is most valuable.

The question of potencies will continue to be treated with scepticism and disbelief until more is understood about the effects of dilutions and succussion. Research into this phenomenon must be pursued with the utmost vigour, not only in homceopathic circles but in biochemistry, physics and pharmacology.

P R E S I D E N T I A L A D D R E S S 7

I f substances prepared in this way have an action on the human organism, as I am convinced they have, then this is something which could have repercussions far beyond the realms of Homceopathy, and might lead us to new and more effective ways of healing the sick.

Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I have tried in this address to present to you m y understanding of the place of Homceopathy in medicine today. I do not believe there is a place either for a rabid purist homceopath or for a rabid anti-homceopath. We must work together in research and in clinical medicine for the benefit of our patients and for the future welfare of mankind.

R E F E R E N C E S

x Boyd, W. E., Brit. Horn. J . , 44, No. 1, 1954. '~ Netien, G., Boiron, J., and Marin, A., Brit. Horn. J . , 55, 18, 1966,

Cier, A., Boiron, g., Miles u and Braise, Brit. Horn. J. , 56, 51, 1967.

DR. T. ~. STEWARr The most scientific homceopath in the world was said to be the late Dr. William Boyd. From his outstanding family we are lucky to have in Glasgow homceo- pathic circles his son, Dr. t Iamish Boyd, who has just given such a clear concep- tion of the position of t tomceopathy in medicine today.

We are proud in Glasgow tha t the British Faculty of Homceopathy have chosen Dr. Boyd as their representative at the Indian Homceopathic Congress in Delhi this year. After hearing him today you will appreciate the wisdom of their choice.

I have always been impressed by Hamish 's unruffled patience and yet grasp of the most minute detail. The background of his highly scientific family enables him to comprehend and keep up with the latest advances in medical diagnosis and life-saving measures.

His academic at tainments enhance his influence on patients. I may say, that without knowing it, he prescribes himself with great and good effect.

I f I was an orthodox doctor who previously thought there was nothing in Homceopathy, after hearing this balanced address, I would have to take a long hard look at my prescription before starting administration of any drug to suppress the symptoms of chronic disease.

Finally, I would like to congratulate Dr. Boyd on the excellence of the presidential address which he has just delivered so beautifully.