Idiosyncrasies by James Tyler Kent
The study of the idiosyncrasies is closely related to Homoeopathy. The usual explanation of the term is, an oversensitiveness to one thing or a few things. It does not apply to the general susceptibility in feeble constitutions where patients are susceptible to all things, over-susceptible and over-impressed by simple annoyances. In the old school idiosyncrasies relate to certain patients who are known in every practitioner’s practice as oversensitive.
One oversensitive cannot take Opium for his pains, because of the congestion it produces, because of dangerous symptoms; he is oversensitive to it and has complication from a very small dose even and the physician is compelled not to administer it. Another patient cannot tolerate Quinine in chills and fever; the primary action of Quinine makes him alarmingly sick; where another individual may take 15 grains. One who has an idiosyncrasy to Quinine cannot take –a state of quininism.
The homoeopath recognizes of wide range in susceptibility, including things that the allopath is not acquainted with. There may be a chronic idiosyncrasy from a chronic miasm and an acute idiosyncrasy from an acute miasm. There are certain individuals in every community that cannot ride in the country because of their susceptibility to hay fever; others cannot bear the smell of flowers in the room because of becoming sick; some will get sick from the smell of roses.
I have known a number of patients who became sick in this way. It is common enough, and the sickness is known by the name of rose cold or rose fever. I have a patient who cannot have dry lavender flowers in the house without coming down with coryza. She is disturbed by two or three things in this way, and will go looking about to see which one of those things is in the house. I had another patient who could not have peaches in the room without becoming sick; one of the symptoms that he had was diarrhoea.
This oversensibility is very important and it explains in a measure the susceptibility to the remedy that will cure. If an idiosyncrasy to the remedy is not present, the patient will not be susceptible enough to be cured. The state in which he becomes sensitive enough to a drug to cure him is very analogous to these idiosyncrasies above mentioned. Think what susceptibility man must have to the remedy that cures him, when it cures in the very high attenuations that we use.
There are acquired idiosyncrasies and idiosyncrasies that are born with a patient. Those that are congenital and those that come from poisons are most difficult. In Rhus tox. poisoning those that have once been affected by handling it are so sensitive to it that if they go within a quarter of a mile of the vine, though they cannot detect it with the nose, yet in a few days they will come down with a case of Rhus poisoning. A very high potency of Rhus will sometimes remove that susceptibility and a dose of Rhus c.m. or m.m. will often check the acute poisoning from Rhus: but if you find that the patient has been born with a sensitivity to Rhus, while Rhus may palliate a few times it will finally cease to help him.
When one is born with this sensitivity it is very tenacious and will sometimes persist, in spite of our best endeavours, to the end of life. If eradicated at all, it requires an antipsoric to get to the bottom of it. Hay fever is brought on in the fall and is supposed to be caused by the patient’s over-sensitiveness to irritants that develop about that time; sometimes it is attributed to the hay that is curing in the fields at that time, sometimes to the different weeds that grow up then.
Such patients have often been able to ferret out the thing that they are susceptible to. But psora is at the bottom of all these troubles. Patients getting up from typhoid fever have often idiosyncrasies, and the chronic miasms are responsible for these, just as psora is prior to the sore eyes from scarlet fever. Sequelae are miasmatic, they are simply the outcroppings of chronic miasms.
There are persons who are sensitive, not merely to one or a few things, but to all things; oversensitive to the high potencies, oversensitive in taste, oversensitive to light, and a great many other things. This is a constitutional state; the patient is born with it. There are persons in whom you will see the sensitiveness only when you go away from the plane of nutrition into the plane of dynamics.
You will see for instance patients who will sit at the table and crave common salt; want lots of salt upon their food, and never seem able to get just exactly what they need. They eat plenty of common salt and remain sick, growing thinner all the time. This is on the nutritive plane; the crude common salt is taken with the food. Now you administer the c.m. to such a patient, and it makes that patient sick, producing a violent aggravation. This is where a food sustains a curative relation upon a higher plane. We step out of the nutritive plane into the plane of dynamics, the plane of disease- causes and cure.
Take Calcarea as an instance. We see the allopath and crude medicine man give to certain babies, that are slow in forming bone and teeth and have open fontanelles, lime water in milk, and the more lime water he gives them the less bone they make. Here is a bone-salt inanition, a non-assimilation of lime. A dose of Calcarea very high will enable that child to take all the lime it needs from the food that it eats. The remedy given on the dynamic plane cause a digestion and assimilation of the lime naturally present in the food. You may feed lime in crude form, and no benefit ever come; the child goes on withering and emaciating.
In such non-assimilating patients the symptoms of Calcarea or Natrum mur. appear, calling the attention of the intelligent physician to the fact that the child needs Calcarea or Natrum mur. We know very well that we do not build bone with the c.m. potency of lime, it simply corrects internal disorder and causes the outward forms of the body to flow into order. The turning into order of the internal establishes the nutritive principle from the internal to the external. So that we can see the wider ranges the idiosyncrasy or susceptibility has in Homoeopathy.
Here we might undertake to coin a work, viz.:–homoeopathicity; what does it mean? Homoeopathicity is the relation between the homoeopathic remedy and the patient who has been cured. When the homoeopathic remedy has acted properly, when it has cured the patient, it has demonstrated that it was homoeopathically related to the case; so that the relation, when it was sustained, may be called the homoeopathicity, and it is demonstrated by administering the remedy.
It is true that we can have what would be called a normal homoeopathicity, a normal state, and that state exaggerated. That state exaggerated is where the patient is oversensitive to the curative remedy, and it not only establishes a curative relation, but before curing produces an exaggeration of the symptoms of the patient. A remedy demonstrates its similitude to a case by curing. Homoeopathic physicians use the word simillimum. The simillimum might be called that remedy that has cured the patient, but in advance of curing that case it is only what appears to be the most similar, a medicine cannot be called the simillimum until it has cured.
It is worthy of consideration to discover the difference between a poison taken upon the nutritive plane, that is, in crude substance, and a poison taken upon the dynamic plane. A poison upon the nutritive plane is usually not very deep, is more superficial, it relates more to external things, to the body and tissues, while the poison taken upon the dynamic plane may last a lifetime. The miasms are of such a character.
Poison taken upon the nutritive plane may bring about a life -long effect upon an individual, owing to susceptibility. The small doses of Arsenicum will establish an Arsenicum poisoning that will last a lifetime, but this is now where so deep as will be represented by the higher potencies of Arsenicum. To poison a patient with the higher potencies there is generally required something of susceptibility, while to poison patients upon the nutritive plane susceptibility is not required; any patient can be brought under the influence of a poison given upon the nutritive plane.
Here is another difference. Substances that are inert and substances that we can use as food on the nutritive plane may become poisonous upon the dynamic plane to those that are susceptible. So that there is no substance that may not be a poison in the higher and highest potencies. This gives us a distinction between crude and dynamic poisons that you will do well to think about.
Now from all this we are led to see that if there were no state of susceptibility, no such condition as idiosyncrasy, there could be no Homoeopathy. If there were no susceptibility, there would be no sickness and no need of Homoeopathy.
Susceptibility underlies all contagion and all cure. So that cause and cure, the cause of sickness and the cure of sickness, knock at the same door. They flow in the same way because of the immaterial or simple substance. All disease is in primitive substance, or first substance; all cure of disease must also be in simple substance. In olden times we used to think that all substances capable of extinguishing the vital force, or which overcome the vital force, were poisons; that in itself is a crude idea of a poison.
Any substance capable of impressing itself upon the economy of man sufficiently to cause death, or to create a disorder in the economy, may be called a poison. The definition will apply to both dynamic and crude poisons. Poison present two problems: an external problem and an internal problem. The external deals with the question of quantity, the internal with the question of quality. A dynamis cannot be considered from the standpoint of weights and measures, but from quality. Crude substances are considered from the standpoint of quantity, from weights and measures.
This is only a beginning to set you thinking. This subject leads into the study of protection as well. There are two forms of protection from sickness. Man is protected from sickness in two ways, by Homoeopathy and by use. The physician and the nurse who go into the district of yellow fever or typhoid or diphtheria smallpox who keep busy, who have, in the highest sense of the word, the true love of the use, who have gone into the work as mediums of mercy, will be largely protected just simply from their love of the work, from their delight in it. They have no fear. Fear is an overwhelming cause of sickness; those who fall prey to fear are likely to become sick, but those who face disease with no fear are likely to remain well; they do sometimes fall sick, it is true, but I believe it is because they begin to have fear in the work.
The other and greater prophylactic is the homoeopathic remedy. After working in an epidemic for a few weeks, you will find perhaps half-a-dozen remedies are daily indicated and one of these in a large number of cases than any other. This one remedy seems to be the best suited to the general nature of the sickness. Now you will find that for prophylaxis there is required a less degree of similitude than is necessary for curing. A remedy will not have to be so similar to prevent disease as to cure it, and these remedies in daily use will enable you to prevent a large number of people from becoming sick. We must look to Homoeopathy for our protection as well as for our cure.
LECTURES ON HOMOEOPATHIC PHILOSOPHY BY JAMES TYLER KENT –
The old school of Allopathy considered about `sickness’ and `medicine’ in a particular way.
– The sphere of sickness was limited to the physical level. Only tissue changes were seen and considered.
– The source of sickness, process of sickness, the nature of sickness and the concept of real health were not studied.
– Only the result of sickness was felt with fingers, seen with eyes and observed by sense through instruments.
– The meaning of restoration of health was confined to relief in the ailments of particular organs where they appeared. – Drugs were used in crude forms to remove the ailments.
– The system was based entirely on experience. Decisions were made on opinions of individuals at different times and concensus of opinions or hypothesis.
– Pathological findings formed the basis of the diagnosis.
– The internal of man–his mental and emotional aspects were not considered.
– Symptoms–the language of sickness, at the levels of mind, emotion and body were not studied.
– Every pathological result had its corresponding bacteria.
– Doctrine of Vital Force had no place for them.
– Prime importance was given to the organs of man, and not to the man himself which constituted of body mind and emotions.
Will and understanding of man not studied and considered
Dr. Hahnemann `proved’ the drugs on healthy enlightened human bodies. He found that the drugs affected the mind, the emotions and the body and the effects are expressed through symptoms and modalities. He also found that these drugs in potency are able to remove Similar Sickness appearing in human beings. He discovered an Universal Truth; a truth based on `science’ where opinions do not matter, experiences do not form basis; source of sickness, process of sickness and the nature of sickness is explored and the correct curative agent is found.
Dr. Kent has interpreted and explained the various aspects of Hahnemann’s “Organon of the Healing Art”. His lectures are so vivid that they mirror the fundamental laws of health and healing to the mankind at all levels of understanding. This book was written about 90 years ago-but still, the concepts hold true in the present times. He was an empirical Hahnemannian. He could not compromise with the deviation from principles and philosophy and we find his criticism sometimes sharp and bitter of `Pseudo-homoeopaths’.
KEYNOTES OF PHILOSOPHY
– Man is the will and the understating and the house which he lives in is his body.
– The organs are not the man. The man is prior to the organs.
– The order of sickness as well as the order of cure is from man to his organs. The real sick man is prior to the sick sick body.
– A man is sick prior to localization of disease. When we wait for localization, the results of disease have rendered the patient incurable.
– Symptoms are but the language of nature, talking out, as it were, and showing as clearly as the daylight, the internal nature of the sickman or woman.
– Crude drugs cannot heal the sick and that what changes they effect are not real but only apparent.
– Tissue changes are of the body and are the results of the disease, they are not the disease.
– The bacteria are results of the disease. The disease cause is more subtle.
– The remedy, which will produce on healthy man similar symptoms, is the master of the situation, is the necessary antidote, will overcome the sickness, restore the will and understanding to order and cure the patient.
– Man consists in what he thinks and what he loves and there is nothing else in man.
– The physician has to `perceive’ in the disease that which is to be cured, and that is through `totality of symptoms’. He has to perceive the nature of disease and the nature of the remedy.
– Experience has only a confirmatory place. It cannot take the place of science and truth.
– All true diseases of the economy flow from centre to circumference. All miasms are true diseases.
– The active cause is within, and the apparent cause of sickness is without. If a man has no deep miasmatic influence, outer causes will not affect him.
– Homoeopathy has two parts: the science of homoeopathy are the art of homoeopathy. One has to learn the art of homoeopathy to prepare himself for the application of the science of homoeopathy.
– Vital force is constructive and formative, and in its thing in the universe has its aura. Every star and planet has it. The remedy to be homoeopathic must be similar in quality and similar in action to the disease cause.
– As soon as the internal economy is deprived in any manner of its freedom, death is threatening; where freedom is lost, death is sure to follow.
– Potency should suit the varying susceptibility of sickman.
– Any more than just enough to supply the susceptibility is a surplus and is dangerous.
– Human race has been greatly disordered in the economy because of surplus drug taking.
– Primitive cause is not in the bacteria. Bacteria themselves have a cause to appear and survive.
– Over sensitive patients are actually poisoned by the inappropriate administration of potentized medicines.
– Their chronic miasms are complicated with chronic drugging and its effect upon the vital force.
– The physician who can only hold in his memory the symptoms of a disease or a remedy will never succeed as a homoeopath.
– The majority of such as call themselves homoeopaths at the present time, are perfectly incompetent to examine a patient, and therefore incompetent to examine homoeopathy.
– It is impossible to test homoeopathy without learning how to get the disease image so before the eyes that the homoeopathic remedy can be selected.
– At the present day, there is almost no such thing as an unprejudiced mind.
– Do not prescribe until you have found the remedy that is similar to the whole case, even although it is clear in your mind that one remedy may be more similar to one particular group of symptoms and another remedy to another group.
– It is unaccountable, therefore, that some of our homoeopathic practitioners make use of palliatives that are so detrimental to the patients.