What Can A Homoeopath Offer In Cancer.
NATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOMOEOPATHY 1995 May / Jun Vol IV No 3.
Andre Saine. 

Dr. Andre Saine, the Toronto Homoeopath, gave an advanced Cancer Seminar in April 1994. In planning this event, the organizers expressed doubts whether this subject could be usefully presented: Is it wise for Homoeopaths to make public proclamations on their ability to cure Cancer? Many, if not most Homoeopaths, will even refuse to treat patients with cancer. In Illinois, in fact, it is a felony to treat Cancer in any way other than by surgery, chemotherapy and radiation.

Dr. Saine acknowledged this situation fully and recognized that it was difficult even to estimate success in treating patients with Cancer. In the past, homoeopaths had made large claims: in California, Dr. Jackson had claimed a 92 percent recovery rate; and Dr. Grimmer in Chicago, who practised during 1927-60, had claimed 95 percent recovery in "precancerous" cases, 75 percent recovery in "incipient" cases, and 10 percent recovery in "advanced" cases. However, a wide range of estimated success is possible. The difference in such estimates lies, in part, in the variations of skill and experience of the Homoeopath. In Dr. Saines opinion the key to success is simply in the selection of the remedy.

However extensive the physicians clinical experience or his knowledge of the materia medica, there may be yet be obstacles to finding the similimum. Dr. Saine identified nine such obstacles:

1. The physician himself may not be able to take a complete case, though not for reasons of incompetence.
2. The patient may not be able to relate his symptoms accurately perhaps because of deficiency in language, or because of inhibitions due to cultural differences that keep him from speaking frankly.
3. A combination of both 1) and 2) with perhaps a "hidden factor" being present: the patient says he "was never well since", but that event was forty years ago and no one can now recall the significant circumstances that would throw light on the case.
4. A good case may have been taken, but the physicians analysis is not "perceptive"; the details given by the patient do not lead to a clear remedy choice; perhaps the prescriber is deficient in his knowledge of materia medica.
5. A good picture is presented; the case is well taken but nothing in the materia medica can be found to correspond to it.
6. The case is confused due to the confusing influences of other therapies.
7. The disease itself is complex: many traumatic conditions have impacted the patients condition; for example - first there was an initial trauma, then the patient experienced rejection in high school and suffered grief, then she contracted herpes, then mono, then was raped, then suffered from financial troubles, then contracted rheumatic fever that was never resolved, and in the midst of all this suffered two whiplash injuries, followed by colitis. Had each of these troubles been treated Homoeopathically and appropriately at the time, they each would have received a different remedy and been resolved; but now it is very mixed up case.
8. Defective reaction (See Kents Repertory p 1397: "Generalities, Reaction, Lack of"). Saine pointed out that "Lack of Reaction" is a misconception. He contented himself by saying that as long as a person is alive, there is always the possibility of a reaction. True, Cancer saps energy with the result that the patient suffers complete weakness; in such a weakened state there is possibly some lack of reaction, but so long as the person is alive, there is the possibility of the body producing a reaction. The stages in acute diseases tend to overlap and it may be difficult to determine exactly where the patient is in the series of stages. For each of these stages there are several appropriate remedies. If you give the remedy appropriate to the first stage early enough, the whole envelopment will be aborted and no one would ever know that pneumonia threatened; but if you give the remedy appropriate for the first stage when the second stage has already begun, the symptoms of the second stage will come on much more severely, though the symptoms of stage one will subside.
   
   Chronic diseases are similar to this. The patient goes through different stages. According to the sensitivity of the patient, nothing may happen if you give the remedy appropriate to an earlier stage. If the patient has already progressed to another stage and you treat it as if it were an earlier stage, the patient may move into a severe end stage. All the remedies in Kents Repertory rubric "Lack of Reaction" are end stage remedies.
9. Defective illness. This is Hahnemanns one-sided diseases" or diseases with an apparent paucity of symptoms. (Organon 172 - 184). For example, the patient may appear to be in good health, but examination reveals a tumor the size of a grapefruit in the abdomen. The defective character of such a disease is in the fact that the sensitivity of the person is normal. This is to say that Cancer is not primarily a dynamic problem - it does not develop because of the imbalance of the vital force. In such cases, time is of the essence since the progression of the Cancer demands great precision in the prescriber.

With these remarks, Dr. Saine came to the critical part of his discussion - sharply distinguishing between remedies that are similar to the disease and that which is most similar. In treating patients with Cancer, Saine exhorted, the practitioner must be a "sharp shooter and precise". Because the range of the patients sensitivity is very narrow, and because delay renders the patients life at risk, only the similimum will suffice, for, in the meantime, the Cancer is extending itself further in the organism.

"The similimum" Dr. Saine said, "is that remedy whose symptoms are most similar to the totality of characteristic (i.e., striking, singular, peculiar) symptoms of the disease, not of the patient, as in constitutional treatment," Here, Saine said, is where people get confused.

This confusion has been further deepened by the influential opinions of James Tyler Kent, who pronounced Cancer as incurable because he placed emphasis on the totality of symptoms of the patient, not on the symptoms of the pathology itself. It is ironical, Dr. Saine observed, that Dr. Kent died of Brights disease, the inference being that if he had prescribed for himself on the basis of the characteristic symptoms of the disease, his death might have been long-delayed. In such critical moments, Dr. Saine said, if you prescribe the remedy that might have been appropriate in the past (i.e. the remedy might have at one time been the patients constitutional remedy) the person will sink.

Since the usual guiding symptoms do not exist in Cancer cases, thus accounting for Kents pronouncement that Cancer is incurable, the physician who proposes to treat such cases successfully must attend with the greatest care to symptoms that would otherwise have been useful only as means of distinguishing between possible alternative remedies that is, differential symptoms which often will be very weak, but yet present.

In the case of a person whose skin cancer is very vulnerable to the least bruising, "small wounds bleed much" may suggest the remedy for an otherwise confusing case.

Dr. Saine insisted that selection of the remedy in Cancer cases is no different than it is in other situations. Correspondence is what is important, what cures is the characteristic symptoms of the disease matched to a symptoms produced by the corresponding remedy Potency is of no importance. He gave many examples of cases where low potencies, even tinctures and very high potencies were equally effective.

Even the most common remedies (Gelsemium, Belladonna, Ruta, Bryonia) when selected accurately do dramatic healing work.

The rest of Saines seminar was a rehearsal of case after case of cured Cancer patients. His own case was one of melanoma of the right eye in a forty-six years old female. She had burning pain, worse cold air, better warm applications, warm drinks ameliorate, averse to cold drink; worse rich foods, meat and fat. She was a worrier; "You name it, I worry about it!" Cancer appeared on both sides of the family. She was given Arsenicum album 30C. The remedy was plussed three times to avoid aggravations. In the months following she suffered a series of relapses, but responded well to increasing potency, reaching to the M M potency fairly soon. After a year she had a serious relapse, screaming with pain, restless, crying, with a cutting pain on the right side: Belladonna 1 M and Aconite 10 M in succession relieved. In the last two years she has experienced excellent health.

Several important additional principles were laid out. Cancer cases need to be watched carefully. As soon as a relapse threatens - which is likely to occur - the indicated remedy should be given at once. It is important not to wait. As the relapse gathers force, much more energy is required to reverse the process than if the direction is perceived early and the negative response headed off. If the remedy is given as the improvement subsides but before the active relapse takes shape, the case will continue to improve.

Dr. Saine insisted that so long as the correct remedy was given, a favourable response was assured even if the patient was under chemotherapy or other powerful drug treatment. Homoeopathic remedies operate on the dynamic level, not the chemical; therefore, there is no conflict between the two. One case demonstrated how effective Homoeopathy was in preventing the side effects of chemotherapy. Usually, persons under chemotherapy are liable to infections, especially pneumonia, but in the case presented, that of a young boy (who was given Sulphur), he suffered no infections, no pneumonia, no weakness, and only minimal hair loss which was rapidly restored. And wonder of wonders, no nausea!

Dr. Saine left us with a note of caution: do not take on these cases if you are not prepared for the task, both medically and Homoeopathically (having a wide-ranging knowledge of the intricacies of the materia medica and awareness of clinical dilemmas which are the experience of wide practice). "Stop thinking of remedies for Cancer! Make yourself free to choose the remedy the case calls for". "Go back to the Organon and read it closely". His command was, "Never give up; keep watching the patient, looking for that hint that will lead you to the healing remedy".

Back