Vol. 18 No. 1 February 1998
by Dr Royal E S Hayes
So many articles discussing the non-surgical treatment of tumours and tending to discourage the surgical have appeared in medical literature the past few years, that it is not unlikely that the time may come when the scalpel treatment, if it be not substituted in toto, may at least be restricted to even more discriminating selection than it is now.
The new trend against local extirpation appears to be in direct proportion to the investigation of causes and effects and inversely to the surface play of current surgical thought. However, each physician must settle his tumour problems according to his own vision and experience. But it cannot be emphasized too much, that the homœopathic vision deserves to be constantly cultivated and enlarged; also condensed into persistent effort. For its possibilities in viable cases are limited approximately only by the possibilities of the prescriber himself, wild as this may sound to the skeptical ear.
That homœopathic medicines have cured in the aggregate many tumours and that probably every physician who has long made a business of intensive prescribing has at least a few cures to his credit, cannot be questioned or considered accidental. The magic of the name Compton Burnett is partly due to his amazing success in the medicinal treatment of tumours. His contemporary, Cooper, had striking results with single drop doses of tinctures of vegetable origin. He had the courage to say that “of all forms of chronic disease none are so easily acted upon as the cancers.” Estimating his reports intuitively and allowing some discount in diagnoses, it still appears that his statement was justified, at least so far as he was concerned. Some of the pioneers reported cures or arrested pro-gress as have later workers, the late Dr Peterman, for instance, and just recently Coleman in the Journal of the American Institute of Homœopathy.
The writer’s efforts have met with varying success, of course. A few of the cases continuing treatment long enough for fair opportunity have not responded to the best endeavours. With some, promising results were attained only to be wiped out by a fresh advance of the disease. Some advanced steadily, but were effectively palliated by the single remedy. A few cases have been cured. Many more early cases have been cures than failures. Unfortunately, my actual statistics have been neglected. Homœopaths should keep better statistics.
The medicinal treatment of tumours sometimes requires an apparent departure from the accepted rules of prescribing. This does not mean departure from the homœopathic principle, but merely a variation of technique. If one prescribes for the patient always and never prescribes for the tumour and uses high potencies only, it is probable that some stubborn nodules will not budge which otherwise would. A tumour is in some degree independent of the constitutional organism, it creates a little milieu of its own; it is the next thing to a parasite. Therefore, a high potency capable of effecting general curative reaction may pass right by the tumour, so to speak, and not disturb it at all, while a small dose or doses of the low potency with its coarser and more sluggish radiations, may be more easily thrown towards the periphery, that is, the tumour, and give it a shaking up. It appears that those who report more cures of tumours not only adhere to the single remedy and consistent individualization, but have the knack of successfully wielding the low potency with its more pathologic implications, as well as the high.
I have been much interested in an article by Dr Grosvenor, in the October number of the Journal of the American Institute of Homœopathy, telling of his work with the late Dr Hinsdale and others in making pathological provings on animals, that is, pushing the drug until it has caused tissue lesions, then studying the results. Dr Grosvenor mentions an arterio-nephritic case as an example. Mercury corrosivus having caused presumably the same pathology in kind and location was applied in a low potency and if it did not produce a final tissue cure, it did cause substantial improvement. This deserves serious attention.
When tissue has become pathologic in structure the organism suffers from three more or less distinct things. first, the pre-existing constitutional disharmony; second, the effects of loss of function in the changed tissue; third, in malignancies especially, the absorption of toxins from tissue degeneration. Here are three possible totalities to be considered. Any one or all of these conditions may produce its own symptomatic reaction and only partially suppress the others, thus producing a mix-up of symptoms. We have to estimate which chain of symptoms is most active or immediately obstructive to the flow of vitality and which are more latent and prescribe accordingly. The constitutional simillimum may occasionally be capable of sweeping all before it, but frequently the more recent obstacles need to be removed first.
Even such an imponderable obstacle as nerve or emotional tension may have to be removed before the constitutional remedy will act. This is what I mean by possible departure from the usual course of prescribing and what Hahnemann meant by the phrase ‘to know what is curable’. It is common experience to get considerable functional improvement and increase of general energy while the pathology remains unchanged. On the other hand, many prescribers could testify to the salvage of damaged tissue with the use of low potencies.
Looking at it from another angle, it is not unreasonable to expect that by applying the principle of similia to density as well as to identity, that the lower potency with its lower radioactivity may make contact with and react upon organic substances of low grade, that is, pathological tissue, while highly potentized medicines, those exalted to extremely fine and fluent radiation, would merely pass through without affecting it, something as on a lower plane, the X-ray passes through soft tissue.
If the microscope and laboratory develop a technique of differentiation, accurate pathological prescribing and an adequate repertory, a method capable of removing pathological impediments, then the psychic and sensory method will have its perfect medicinal complement and there will be a great addition to the already wonderful resources of the homœopathic principle. Theoretically the two methods are far apart, but in practice the balancing point would be found according to the individual patient and his condition at various times. ‘The play’s the thing.’ If these modern investigators do their work as well as Hahnemann did with his Materia Media Pura, they will do well indeed!
This long apparent digression is deliberate, because the same material considerations apply in solving the medicinal problems of new growths. In the present status of the medical art it takes accumulated experience and sometimes inspired guessing, in addition to the practical technique, to get good result with tumours. It is a special work adapted to mature experience and the command of leisure.
Of the cases presented I will report the quickest and therefore the most sensational cure first. Then the skeptics, if any, will find that if they can manage that one, the others will go down without choking!
January 3, 1922: Miss R, aged 22, presented a hard lump in the outer segment of the left breast. It was about 2.5 x 1.5 inches, of irregular outline and not very movable. During the last six weeks she had not been able to lie on the left side because of soreness. There were piercing pains in it, especially in the evening while lying in bed and before and during menstruation. It had appeared gradually since receiving a blow on the breast fifteen months previous. Both breasts were regularly sore before menstrual periods but had never been so, previous to the injury. Two weeks before, she had undergone an operation for recurrent appendicitis and had a fibroid removed from the uterus. As a tribute to feminine psychology it may be related that she had hid the knowledge of the breast tumour from the physicians, although suffering much from it while in the hospital. The postoperative disability was greatly increased by pulling and soreness in the operated region, apparently caused by adhesions. Moving about too actively caused vomiting in addition to greatly increasing the soreness.
Here were three cardinal features: the soreness and tendency to fixation in a dense hyperplasia following an injury, soreness of the breasts at menstruation periods and abnormal fibrination in the operated region.
Now, there were a lot of other symptoms of which I have segregated the significant ones for convenience in interpretation,vis:
Sickly, sallow complexion; emaciation; lateral scoliosis.
No appetite except for pickles and salty things; thirstless; aversion to sweets; nausea and chills after taking ice cream.
Exhausted sensation in the morning; sleepiness and tiredness after eating; depressed spirits; weeping.
What shall be done, prescribe for the constitutional symptoms? Clearly not. Not only the tumour but the entire process of fibrosis was in an active state and supervening the constitutional totality. Therefore, Kali muriaticum 200c, one dose, was prescribed. In two weeks the tumour was about 0.5 x 0.25 inches in size and the patient could lie on that side with comfort. Two weeks later the condition seemed to be stationary. Kali mur CM one dose was given. A group of vesicles then appeared on the abdominal scar and discharged a yellow fluid with further relief of the abdominal soreness. In six weeks from the beginning, no trace of the tumour could be found. Three weeks more and a little soreness was noticed where the tumour had been. Abdominal soreness was slight. Phosphorus 500c one dose, was now given for the constitutional symptoms and five weeks later, Arsenicum. The remaining soreness now disappeared and there has been no complaint since.
Dr Hayes’ article, which first appeared in The Homœopathic Recorder, January 1925, will be concluded in the next issue.