How Allopaths and Homoeopaths were monitoring their patients 250 years ago and NOW? Has anything changed? NO.

 Let us see what Dr. Hahnemann wrote during his time. He wrote, thus;
“The old school physician gave himself very little trouble in this matter in his mode of
treatment. He would not listen to any minute detail of all the circumstances of his case by
the patient; indeed, he frequently cut him short in his relation of his sufferings, in order
that he might not be delayed in the rapid writing of his prescription, composed of a variety
of ingredients unknown to him in their true effects. No allopathic physician, as has been
said, sought to learn all the minute circumstances of the patient’s case, and still less did he
make a note in writing of them. On seeing the patient again several days afterwards, he
recollected nothing concerning the few details he had heard at the first visit (having in the
meantime seen so many other patients laboring under different affections); he had allowed
everything to go in at one ear and out at the other. At subsequent visits he only asked a few
general questions, went through the ceremony of feeling the pulse at the wrist, looked at
the tongue, and at the same moment wrote another prescription, on equally irrational
principles, or ordered the first one to be continued (in considerable quantities several times
a day), and, with a graceful bow, he hurried off to the fiftieth or sixtieth patient he had to
visit, in this thoughtless way, in the course of that forenoon. The profession which of all
others requires actually the most reflection, a conscientious, careful examination of the
state of each individual patient and a special treatment founded thereon, was conducted in
this manner by persons who called themselves physicians, rational practitioners. The result,
as might naturally be expected, was almost invariably bad; and yet patients had to go to
them for advice, partly because there were none better to be had, partly for  fashion’s sake.”
(Footnote 90, Para 104).
I think nothing much has changed except in surgical techniques as palliative and curative in
non-malignant diseases. Medicine part remains the same as before or worse with multiple
medicines formulations of several companies of the different countries with unknown
ingredients with side effects which are given on the packets and enclosed literatures. New
drugs/medicines come and go as fashions and nothing is permanent. Many chemotherapy
and antibiotics have come and disappeared. Chronic diseases are unfolding in people with
suppressive medicines for acute diseases/conditions and now preventive vaccinations for
epidemics and for anything and everything. So natural immunity is reduced or lost followed
by auto immune diseases and new infectious diseases. Recent outbreak of unknown
hemorrhagic epidemic disease (Ebola). What a fate of humanity? I started the work (1954)
to meet these side effects or conditions and discovered the Tautopathic way and prepared
medicines to antidote or treat the side effects of convention medicines and vaccines. I got
very good results in many cases and published my results in the book; What is Tautopahty?
I have stopped further work on it as now many medicines of Allopathy are/were coming out
in the market are/were mixtures of more than 3 or several medicines and to prove single
medicine or give single medicine to antidote side effects I find it difficult. Same thing
happened with multiple vaccines.
Now cancer cases come with all reports of Convention Medicine from Doctors or Hospitals
for palliative homoeopathic treatment e.g.; pains, obstructions, recurrence of cancers,
metastasis, bleedings, side effects of Chemotherapy, Radiations, General weakness, debility
loss of weight, etc. All cases are incurable or terminal with multiple secondaries. With all
the complications when we treat these cases with correct indications of medicines
according to Law – similarity of signs and symptoms and with miasmatic approach (footnote
to Para. 40), patients are/were feeling better, improvement in signs and symptoms are seen
and they continue medications as “palliative care”. We do get reports as we need after and
during treatments at certain intervals for monitoring patients which are/were mentioned in
the case records. Only in such way we can prove “an evidence based” Homoeopathy
whether it is curative or having remission or palliative with better quality of: life and in no
other way.
How Dr. Hahnemann was monitoring his cases day to day? Now let us see what Dr.
Hahnemann wrote on this subject.
“When the totality of the symptoms that specially mark and distinguish the case of disease
or, in other words, when the picture of the disease, whatever be its kind, is once accurately
sketched, the most difficult part of the task is accomplished. The physician has then the
picture of the disease, especially if it be a chronic one, always before him to guide him in his
treatment; he can investigate it in all its parts and can pick out the characteristic symptoms, in
order to oppose to these, that is to say, to the whole malady itself, a very similar artificial
morbific force, in the shape of a homoeopathically chosen medicinal substance, selected
from the lists of symptoms of all the medicines whose pure effects have been ascertained.
And when, during the treatment, he wishes to ascertain what has been the effect of the
medicine, and what change has taken place in the patient’s state, at this fresh examination
of the patient he only needs to strike out of the list of the symptoms noted down at the
first visit those that have become ameliorated, to mark what still remain, and add any new
symptoms that may have supervened (Para. 104).”
That was after a complete case taking and “if it be a chronic one” and again after looking at
the signs and symptoms and analyzing the history of the case he gave medicine. When the
patient came for second visit he inquired; how the patient felt, whether the patient was
better or worse or new symptoms arose. He used to add new symptoms and if needed a
new medicine was given and that was the process he followed throughout his medical
career. During 1838 and 1842 he used to call patients at short intervals and used to give
treatment on miasmatic history. This you will find in his case journals from 1838 to 1842.
Further he wrote, thus; “Had it still been present to guide the internal treatment, the
homoeopathic remedy for the whole disease might have been discovered, and had that
been found, the persistence of the local affection during its internal employment would
have shown that the cure was not yet completed; but were it cured on its seat, this would
be a convincing proof that the disease was completely eradicated, and the desired recovery
from the entire disease was fully accomplished-an inestimable, indispensable advantage
to reach a perfect cure (Para. 200).”
Let us dissect the Para. 200 and discuss.
(1) Had it still present to guide the internal treatment.
(2) the homoeopathic remedy for the whole disease might have been discovered,
(3) and had that been found, the persistence of the local affection during its internal
employment would have shown that the cure was not yet completed;
(4) but were it cured on its seat,
(5) this would be a convincing proof,
(6) that the disease was completely eradicated,
(7) and the desired recovery
(8) from the entire disease was fully accomplished
(9) an inestimable, indispensable advantage to reach a perfect cure.
Here Hahnemann points out about local objective symptoms which had been suppressed
by wrong and prolonged local medications and this he wrote for chronic miasmatic diseases
(Para. 198 and 199). This was for skin diseases (Psoric), condylomata growth (Sycotic) and
chancre (Syphilitic). What about secondary signs and symptoms of all MIASMS after
removing local signs? Internal miasmatic conditions (MIASMS) were not cured and they
produced innumerable signs and symptoms of diseases in human beings (Para. 80, and it’s
footnote; Para. 81, and it’s footnote).
During Hahnemann’s time and before diseases were known by subjective and objective
signs and symptoms, nobody bothered about mind and disposition (Paras. 210, 211, 212
and 213) which Hahnemann added to know complete suffering of the patient who had the
disease, either acute or chronic. Further during Hahnemann’s time no X-Ray or visual
investigations or Imaging instruments of present day were available nor Laboratory
investigations were done and these all get reflected in Para. 200 as sign and symptoms.
In present time/era most of the homoeopathic physicians; seniors and new generation get
cases of complicated diseases which have been suppressed by other systems, of Medicines
and they get confused. How to treat these cases? For acute and epidemic disease they do
better than other systems but for chronic diseases they find difficulties or problems when
Hahnemann writes, “were it cured on its seat, this would be a convincing proof that the
disease was completely eradicated”. And that is why we are reporting cancer cases with all
available reports.
What to do? Then, understanding of Para. 200 comes in. Here comes the help of advanced
techniques e.g.; PT, PT-CT, MRI, X-Ray, Tumor makers, USG and all laboratory reports, etc.
of Conventional Medicine (Allopathy) for diagnostic and monitoring purposes in
Homoeopathy and for convincing proof’, and an inestimable advantage to reach a perfect
cure” or palliation or remission of the disease or condition. We, ourselves are/were doing.
same thing since many years (nearly 65 years) to convince those who are/were skeptics or
non believers in Homoeopathy.
Many Homoeopaths still believe that what Hahnemann wrote; “When a person falls ill, it is
only this spiritual, self-acting (automatic) vital force, everywhere present in his organism,
that is primarily deranged by the dynamic* influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to
life; it is only the vital principle, deranged to such an abnormal state, that can furnish the
organism with its disagreeable sensations, and incline it to the irregular processes which we
call disease; for, as a power invisible in itself, and only cognizable by its effects on the
organism, its morbid derangement only makes itself known by the manifestation of disease
in the sensations and functions of those parts of the organism exposed to the senses of the
observer and physician, that is, by morbid symptoms I and in no other way can it make itself
known (Para. 11)”. Hence we are/were called “symptoms hunters”. In a sense, many
Homoeopaths consider that the “Totality of the Symptoms” constitutes the entire disease.
If that is then, the “Totality of Symptoms” is the most debated and confused question many
:I time. Let us take for example; pain in the abdomen, whether it is from liver or stomach or
colon or kidney or gastric or appendix, etc. How will you find out what is exact (its seat)
complaint of the patient? We leave you here to clear yourself or get confused. Do “morbid
symptoms” and signs which are shown in e.g.; X-Ray, PT, CT, MRI, Tumor Makers and
Laboratory reports which are physiological or pathological, are not signs and symptoms? To
prove that Homoeopathy works we must have all morbid reports of all our patients before,
during, and after treatment to know whether the patient is improving, better or worse at
every visits (when these are available or, if necessary) of our patients to monitor them for
the result oriented Homoeopathy.          ~
References:
1.            Dr. Samuel Hahnemann; Organon of Medicine, 5^th. Edition.
2.            Dr. Samuel Hahnemann; Organon of Medicine, 6^th. Edition.
3.            Dr. Ramanlal P. Patel; My Experiments with 5O Millesimal Potencies, 6^thEdition.