DR. RUSSELL ON SOME LESIONS OF THE NERVOUS CENTRES DR. WURMB ON THE PURE EFFECTS OF SULPHUR DR. HIRSCH ON SQUINTING AND STAMMERING DR. GAIRDNER'S FEW WORDS ON HOMOEOPATHY DR. EIGENBRODT'S RESULTS OF THE LEOPOLDSTADT HOSPITAL REPORT OF THE LONDON HOMEOPATHIC HOSPITAL. DR. HORNER AND THE HULL INFIRMARY CONTENTS OF No. LXII. ERYTHROXYLON COCA, BY DR. CL. MULLER.. THE PURE EFFECTS OF SULPHUR, BY DR. F. WURMB TABES DORSALIS FROM ABUSE OF MERCURY, BY DR. BLUMBERG ON HIPPOZÆNINE, BY DR. WILKINSON CEREBRAL DISEASE, BY DR. ATKIN CASE OF ARTHRITIS, &c., BY DR. STOKES CASES TREATED WITH THE CROMATES OF POTASH, BY DR. DRYSDALE 675 THE BRITISH JOURNAL ОР HOMEOPATHY. HOW FAR IS BELLADONNA A PROPHYLACTIC OF SCARLATINA? BY GEORGE WYLD, M.D. (Read before the British Homœopathic Society.) IN the year 1799 Hahnemann first conceived the idea, and subsequently confirmed that idea in his own mind by experiments, that Belladonna was a wonderfully powerful, if not a certain prophylactic in scarlatina of the smooth ordinary type, and it is the object of this paper to arrive at some conclusion as to how far Hahnemann's idea has been confirmed by subsequent experience. To call the opinions of Hahnemann in question in this matter may, to many, at first sight, appear somewhat presumptuous; because there are few facts connected with our system of medicine which have generally been considered as better established. Still in this, as in all other questions connected with our system, it is our duty as men of science boldly to enquire, and steadfastly to abide by that only which the most rigid cross-questioning fails to convict of error. But should it even be arrived at that Belladonna is in our day with reference to scarlatina unworthy of the high position it held in the earlier days of HahneVOL. XV, NO. LIX.—JANUARY, 1857. B mann, this result does not necessarily bring any discredit upon the author of the original idea, but may merely show that there is a subtlety in the character of many diseases, and an instability of type, which in time reduces the efficiency or homœopathicity of certain drugs with reference to certain specific diseases; so that what in medicine is true to-day may be, and often is, false to-morrow. Truly, as says Hippocrates, "Our life is short, but our art is long and difficult;" so long, and so difficult, and so shifting, we may add, as would appear for ever to place medicine beyond the limits of a certain science. But let us see what evidence is to be obtained in the question before us. With reference to the facts of the case there is in this paper no pretention to any novelty, these facts being entirely second-hand, being indeed all obtained from a paper by Dr. Begbie, in the Medico-Chirurgical Review (1855), on the subject before us, and from the pages of Professor Henderson's reply to Dr. Simpson's laborious burlesque on Homœopathy; and there is this great advantage, that the facts are agreed to by both parties, the conclusions drawn from these facts only being different. But where undoubted facts are attainable, surely a philosophic deduction from such facts ought not to be beyond the reach of the careful seeker after truth. I shall now proceed to cite certain cases which would appear to justify the conclusions arrived at by Hahnemann. In 1812 Schenck at Hitchenbach during an epidemic of scarlatina, gave Belladonna to 525 individuals, out of which number only three were attacked by the disease. Dr. Gumpert at Posen in 1818 during an epidemic, gave Belladonna to twenty families, and three individuals only were attacked by scarlatina. M. Berndt in 1817-18-19, during epidemics in Austria, gave Belladonna to 195 children, and fourteen only took scarlatina, and that in a mild form. Dusterberg at Warburg in 1820, during an epidemic, administered Belladonna to a certain number of families, but in each family excepted one child, and all were protected who took Belladonna, and all who had no Belladonna took scarlatina. Of this statement we would beg in passing to observe, that if it is completely to be depended upon, it would appear to establish in the fullest manner the truth of Hahnemann's idea with reference to the power of Belladonna in the epidemic at Warburg in 1820. Behr at Bernburg, during an epidemic in 1820, gave Belladonna to forty-seven individuals, and only six were attacked by scarlatina, and nearly all were attacked mildly. Meglin at Colmar found that all were protected by Belladonna in an epidemic in 1820. Dr. Beeke mentions that in two villages in Silesia, during an epidemic, 132 took Belladonna, and only six were attacked by scarlatina. Kunzmann, physician to the Frederick Institution, Berlin, became in 1825 convinced of the prophylactic power of Belladonna, having apparently protected sixty children in an epidemic of scarlatina, which, until the drug was given, appeared to be spreading in the hospital. Gelnecki, of Stettin, found that of ninety-four children three only out of seventy-six who took Belladonna were attacked by scarlatina, while fifteen who did not take the drug were all attacked. And here I would again observe, that we have a very strong corroboration of Hahnemann's idea. Maizier, of Burg, gave Belladonna to 170 children, in a village, and none were attacked by scarlatina, while in a neighbouring village where no Belladonna was given, many were attacked and several children died. On scarlatina appearing in the Hospital at Langendorf, Dr. Randhan gave Belladonna to 160 children, who all remained. free from the disease. Valsen, at Cleves, gave Belladonna to 247 individuals, and only thirteen were attacked by scarlatina. Dr. Black gave Belladonna to eleven children living in a house where there were two cases of scarlatina, one of them accompanied with sloughing sore throat, and all escaped, although one slept in the same bed with one of the patients. Dr. Newbigging, in 1849, at John Watson's Hospital in Edinburgh, gave Belladonna to sixty-nine children, and three only afterwards were attacked, although the discase previously was prevailing, that is, twenty-two cases had occurred. Dr. Newbigging adds, that he should consider it to be his duty at all times to avail himself of Belladonna under similar circumstances. Such is the evidence in favor of the idea of the prophylactic power of Belladonna in scarlatina, but before drawing any conclusions, let us see what Dr. Begbie has brought forward on the opposite side of the question. Dr. Lehmann, staff physician at Torgau, says that in a family of three boys, on the eldest being attacked with scarlatina, he put the remaining two under Belladonna, but both were attacked, and one died four months after the first outbreak. In a family of five, a boy was attacked with scarlatina, and the other four were put under Belladonna; in eight days a girl was attacked, and on the third day died; next day a sister was attacked and recovered; and then another sister was attacked, and on the fourth day died: thus two out of the family of five died. A boy aged five years, an only son, took scarlatina after having taken Belladonna for several weeks, and on the fourth day he died. In a family of four children the eldest took scarlatina; the three others were then put under Belladonna, and two became affected with scarlatina in a severer form than the first who took no Belladonna. Dr. Mierendorf, of Stralsund, says that children to whom Belladonna was given died in greater proportion than those who took none. Mr. B. Bell on scarlatina appearing in Watson's Hospital, Edinburgh, in 1851, gave Belladonna to fifty-four boys, and twenty-three were attacked. Dr. Gillespie, of Donaldson's Hospital, gave Belladonna to 100 boys, and fifty-two took scarlatina. Dr. Elb, of Dresden, a homœopathist, did not find Belladonna of any marked benefit in a certain epidemic of malignant scarlatina. Dr. Balfour, on scarlatina showing itself in the Royal Military Asylum, Chelsea, gave Belladonna to seventy-six boys, and to the remaining seventy-five he gave no Belladonna, and two in each division were attacked. |