– G. Royal,1910, 65th Session,American Institute of Homoeopathy,

homeopathicmedicines The use of drugs

How to use the knowledge one has acquired by the study of symptoms of disease and the proving and by study of drugs is the climax of the whole subject. The ability to so arrange all the symptoms of an individual case of disease that they will crystallize into a perfect whole, making a picture so clear, so distinct as to be easily recognized, and then to have the symptoms of each remedy so fixed in our mind that we can readily find the exact counterpart of the disease picture, is what will assure the success of the homoeopathic physician. It is no easy task to learn that the value of a symptom, for diagnostic purposes, may differ greatly from the value of that same symptom, for therapeutic purposes. We know that an eruption, a strawberry tongue and vomiting are pathognomonic of scarlet fever. We also know that an eruption, a strawberry tongue and vomiting were produced by belladonna. But to make the group characteristic of belladonna the eruption must be smooth, and the three symptoms of the group must so fit in with the common, less important symptoms of belladonna as to make the picture that of belladonna. The three symptoms, eruption, strawberry tongue and vomiting, are sufficient for our diagnosis. They are also sufficient to call to mind not only belladonna but ailanthus, bryonia, ammonium carb. and others of the class of drugs used as remedies for scarlet fever; but the smooth rash of belladonna, the rough irregular rash of bryonia, the meningitis of ailanthus and the blood changes of ammonium carb. are necessary to the selection of the indicated remedy for “each individual case” of this disease.
 What is true of scarlet fever is equally true of measles, diphtheria and other diseases. The symptom which enables us to make our diagnosis will simply lead us to the class of remedies to be used. The essential part, the hard part of our task, is to select the one from this class which is the most similar or the exact similium to the disease picture.
 Hahnemann tells us in that other remarkable paragraph of his Organon, 153, that the peculiar, striking, uncommon symptom should be given highest rank. This at once raises the question: What is the standard? We must know what is common in order to recognize the uncommon, the peculiar. We answer that there is such a standard and, further, that it can be recognized only by such a division and study of symptoms as we have outlined. We have stated that in the ordinary, common case of scarlet fever we have three symptoms always present, yet we have seen cases in which only two of these three were present. Either one of the three may be absent. You say: a case of scarlet fever without the eruption! Very unusual, I admit, but I have seen three such cases. In one the certainty of exposure and usual prodroma, a very dry, red-glazed mucous membrane of the throat, typical tongue and high temperature were present. So far all is belladonna. But, no rash! That certainly is not belladonna. In addition to the three symptoms given above there were in this case scanty urine loaded with albumin and intense thirst. Later, in the case, there was desquamation of the mucous membrane but not of the skin. Merc. cor. was the remedy. Again you have a case of throbbing headache relieved by having the head low, chilliness aggravated by covering, cough aggravated, coughing, sore throat ameliorated by swallowing food, aggravated from empty swallowing, every modality contrary to what we would expect. This is the peculiarity of ignatia. These “striking,” “singular,” “uncommon,” “peculiar” symptoms of diseases and remedies we use, in connection with the common, ordinary manifestation, to put the finishing touches to our picture, which touches will make it unique, not to be mistaken for any other. We all have taken cases of forty symptoms, thirty of which were found only under nux vomica and ten found under lycopodium, only, and given lycopodium because the ten constituted the “totality.”
 But, you ask, is there no rule, no method by which one can utilize all this knowledge for rapid and accurate prescribing; no mathematical formula which one can apply to all cases? My friends, Hahnemann did not say “observed in all cases,” but “observed in each individual case.” There are, however, some methods employed which, though not absolutely accurate, are helpful and to a certain degree reliable. They are: the key-note method, the intuitive method and the repertory. All have their imperfections.
 The key-note method I consider unreliable, unscientific and unsatisfactory. It is unreliable because superficial, usually basing the prescription on a single symptom, making it the totality. No drug has yet produced a symptom which cannot be found in the proving of at least one other drug. It is unscientific because it does not analyze, compare or individualize. It is unsatisfactory because it often fails to secure the desired results. Let me cite a case to the point: A woman came to her physician with the statement: I have a pain under my right shoulder blade. It begins near the spine, runs around under the shoulder blade to my side. It is a constant, aching pain. She was given chelidonium 3x and ordered to report next day. The report was: Pain same place, same kind, only more severe. Changed prescription from 3x to 1x and advised chloroform and sweet oil applied locally. When the husband was going to make the application, at night, he discovered an eruption and called the doctor, who found a clear case of herpes zoster requiring ranunculus bulb.
 The intuition method, I must confess, is attractive, alluring; but it is treacherous and disappointing to all except experts. It is claimed that something about the eye, the tongue, the speech, the walk suggests the totality of the symptoms and guides to the indicated remedy. The ptosis, the pulling at the collar, the triangular tip of the tongue suggests gelsemium, lachesis or rhus tox. It is the key-note system in which only objective symptoms are used. The advocates of this method claim that Lippe, Hering and T. F. Allen used it successfully; that it was because they used it that they were able to treat so many patients, daily. But these same advocates forget to state that Lippe, Hering and Allen did not employ this method in their younger days or that they were unusually keen observers and hard students. We older men can understand how it is possible, after having made a careful study of sepia and having prescribed it hundreds of times, to see the indications for it without asking a question or hearing a statement from the patient. But even after long experience we are sometimes most woefully deceived by this method.
 The Repertory Method. – This is much more reliable and satisfactory than the other two. The great objection to it is the time it consumes, and yet with a repertory which shows the rank of the symptoms one can study a good many cases in a day. My repertories are constantly on my desk, and their use secures for me my best results.
 There is one other method for studying and using symptoms to which I wish to call your attention, and that very briefly. It is the method of grouping symptoms. Let us take arsenicum for illustration. By grouping its symptoms according to the different tissues affected and the action upon those tissues and organs is the only way that we can harmonize some of the apparently contradictory symptoms of that drug, such as “scanty urine” and “profuse urine,” “puffed, red face” and “pale, sunken face,” “better from heat” and “better from cold, fresh air.” I learned from two acute, fatal arsenicum cases that the stool need not always be dark colored, as stated in our books, and put that knowledge to practical use in the most severe cases of ptomaine poisoning I ever attended. This grouping naturally comes along the line of the “elective affinity” of drugs. It informs us not only as to what tissues are affected, but in what manner and to what extent they are affected, and, furthermore, will explain most of our sensations and many of our modalities.
 By combining the grouping and repertory methods I believe we can most satisfactorily and safely find the symptoms of the remedy used to “retune” the abnormal functioning of tissue or organ. To those who object that this takes too much time and labor, I simply reply with Hahnemann’s words: “When we have to do with an art whose end is the saving of human life any neglect to make ourselves thorough masters of it becomes a crime.” 

Dr.Devendra Kumar MD(Homeo)
International Homeopathic Consultant at Ushahomeopathy
I am a Homeopathic Physician. I am practicing Homeopathy since 20 years. I treat all kinds of Chronic and Acute complaints with Homeopathic Medicines. Even Emergency conditions can be treated with Homeopathy if case is properly managed. know more about me and my research on my blog https://www.homeoresearch.com/about-me/
Dr.Devendra Kumar MD(Homeo) on EmailDr.Devendra Kumar MD(Homeo) on FacebookDr.Devendra Kumar MD(Homeo) on GoogleDr.Devendra Kumar MD(Homeo) on LinkedinDr.Devendra Kumar MD(Homeo) on RssDr.Devendra Kumar MD(Homeo) on TwitterDr.Devendra Kumar MD(Homeo) on Wordpress