Traduzione e redazione a cura di Anna Fontebuoni Biologa
anna.fontebuoni@gmail.com
Un caso di cataratta
di William P. Wesselhoeft
Burnett dedica la 33^, 34^, 35^ e 36^ Ragione alla cura della cataratta con una serie di rimedi omeopatici, e nella 37^ giustifica la sovrabbondanza di rimedi usati con una propria teoria.
Trentatreesima ragione
Come trentatreesima ragione per essere un omeopata propongo un caso di cataratta curato da rimedi omeopatici. Sembrerebbe impossibile, ma qui racconto come ci sono riuscito.
Il confine fra guarigione e non guarigione non è mai ben definito; ciò che oggi è incurabile per la nostra generazione potrebbe essere facilmente curabile domani dalla generazione successiva. Quando lavoravo in ospedale mi è stato insegnato che la cataratta si guarisce solo con un’operazione chirurgica, e fino a pochi mesi fa in ospedali prestigiosi si ricorreva esclusivamente a questo intervento: per non finire ciechi non c’era niente altro da fare che rimuovere e sostituire il cristallino.
Il 28 maggio 1875 andai a visitare una signora affetta da un’infiammazione acuta dell’occhio. Le ero stato consigliato come omeopata dal suo amico Dr. Mahony di Liverpool. Mi sembrò che la donna quasi si vergognasse di dover chiedere aiuto a un discepolo di Hahnemann e dava al proprio medico la colpa di dover rivolgersi a una disciplina che non conosceva affatto. La visitai in una stanza oscurata, eppure riuscii a farmi un quadro della sua situazione. Presto seppi che era la vedova di un ufficiale indiano, che aveva trascorso molti anni in India e che aveva avuto parecchie volte un’infiammazione simile, una o due volte all’anno o più. Di solito durava molte settimane, poi migliorava; nessuna terapia era efficace. Mi chiese se credevo che l’Omeopatia l’avrebbe aiutata e risposi che ci avrei provato. Cercai di esaminarle l’occhio alzando una lamella della veneziana per lasciar entrare la luce e le sollevai la palpebra, ma la fotofobia e il conseguente blefarospasmo erano così forti che riuscii solo a riconoscere una massa rossa gonfia nell’occhio destro, mentre il sinistro era relativamente meno infiammato. In realtà era un caso di panoftalmite. Un esame più dettagliato non fu possibile perché la paziente gridava di dolore appena la luce le colpiva l’occhio. Presi nota dei sintomi principali, cioè che l’infiammazione interessava soprattutto all’occhio destro, e tornai a casa per lavorarci su.
Ero particolarmente ansioso di fare bella figura e trascorsi parecchio tempo a studiare la diagnosi differenziale. Decisi quindi di darle Phosphorus. Prescrizione: Phosphorus 1M dodici dosi mescolato con Saccharum lactis q.b. diviso in 36 parti da somministrare in dodici dosi. Posologia: una dose in poca acqua ogni ora. La dose finale corrisponde a circa 1/100 di grano o meno.
Tornai a visitarla il giorno seguente, circa 18 ore dopo. Venne lei stessa ad aprirmi la porta, schermandosi gli occhi con una mano e assolutamente in grado di sopportare una quantità moderata di luce. L’infiammazione era molto migliorata e scomparve del tutto il giorno dopo. La donna era incredibilmente stupita: erano vent’anni che soffriva del disturbo e aveva consultato moltissimi medici, fra cui eminenti oculisti, senza risultati. Tutti si erano presa a cuore la sua situazione e avevano dimostrato la massima professionalità, ma alle loro terapie mancava qualcosa…: la legge di similitudine! … Qualsiasi piccolo Davide omeopatico può sconfiggere un gigante allopatico con la sua Materia Medica e gli insegnamenti di Hahnemann.
Naturalmente la paziente si mostrò molto riconoscente e disse: “Dato che l’Omeopatia funziona così bene, mi chiedo se non possa guarire la mia cataratta”. Le esaminai gli occhi: dietro le pupille, soprattutto la destra, si potevano notare facilmente opacità. Mi rivelò che l’aveva da qualche anno e aspettava che maturasse per affrontare l’intervento chirurgico. Aveva consultato due oculisti di Londra ed entrambi avevano confermato la diagnosi e la prognosi e l’eventuale terapia chirurgica. Dopo un anno era tornata da uno di questi medici, che le aveva detto che i progressi erano molto lenti, e che avrebbe dovuto aspettare altri due anni. Nel frattempo, la vista le era calata e non riusciva a distinguere allo specchio la scriminatura dei capelli né i nomi sulle insegne dei negozi o gli omnibus nelle strade; inoltre riusciva a vedere meglio al buio che in piena luce. Le risposi che non avevo esperienza, tranne un caso, e che pensavo che i rimedi potessero far poco per il suo caso. Tuttavia alcuni omeopati avevano pubblicato casi con esito positivo…. Infine, nonostante i miei dubbi, acconsentii alle sue pressanti richieste, sorridendo fra me e me per l’audacia che dimostravo. In fondo che male le potevo fare quando stava per diventare cieca? Nel peggiore dei casi, non l’avrei prevenuto! Quindi accettai di tenerla sotto controllo ogni mese circa e di prescrivere ogni volta un rimedio adatto. E lei acconsentì.
Dal 29 maggio al 19 giugno 1875, assunse Calcarea carbonica 30CH e Chelidonium 1CH, alternando 1 granulo tre volte al dì. Poi prese 2 dosi di Calcarea carbonica un giorno e una il giorno successivo, e il contrario di Chelidonium. C’erano indicazioni per entrambi i rimedi, anche se le alternanze non mi convincono. Spero ora di alternare meno spesso i rimedi.
Poi fu la volta di Asa foetida 6CH e Digitalis purpurea 3CH. Poi Phosphorus 1CH e dopo Sulphur 1CH, poi ripetei Calcarea carbonica e Chelidonium. Continuai in base ai sintomi con Phosphorus, Sulphur, Chelidonium, Calcarea carbonica, Asa foetida e Digitalis, fino all’inizio del 1876. Il 17 febbraio 1876, prescrissi Gelsemium 30CH granuli, uno tre volte al dì. Proseguii poi con questa sequenza: Silicea 30CH per 14 giorni, Belladonna 3CH per 14 giorni, Sulphur 30CH per una settimana 3 volte al dì, e Phosphorus 1CH per 14 giorni. Il 20 marzo 1876, sentii qualcuno che parlava a voce alta nell’ingresso di casa mia: era la paziente che vi aveva fatto irruzione e gridava che riusciva a vedere quasi come prima. Distingueva oggetti e persone per strada, le insegne dei negozi e persino la scriminatura dei capelli. Le feci ripetere il trattamento e dopo due mesi le opacità lenticolari (o capsulari) erano completamente scomparse, e la vista era tornata e rimaneva perfetta. Seguii la paziente per un altro anno, in cui non si ripresentò nemmeno l’infiammazione degli occhi, poi partì per l’estero e penso che stia ancora bene perché nelle lettere agli amici non menziona disturbi agli occhi. Ora dovrebbe avere 50 o 51 anni. Dopo questo caso con esito decisamente incoraggiante, curai numerosi altri casi di cataratta con serie di rimedi. Mi reputo privilegiato di conoscere e praticare la grandezza dell’Omeopatia.
Trentasettesima ragione
Mi aspetto che qualcuno contesti i numerosi rimedi che ho usato in questo caso e voglia sapere “quale di essi abbia guarito la paziente”. Provate a prendere una lunga scala a pioli e appoggiarla su un muro di casa per entrare da una finestra del piano superiore. Se ci riuscite, scrivetemi quale dei pioli vi è stato utile a raggiungerla. Capisco benissimo la vostra obiezione, perché anch’io una volta non riuscivo a superare questo ostacolo nel trattamento omeopatico, non riuscivo a spiegarmelo anche se forse esistevano articoli che ne parlavano, quindi ho dovuto approfondirlo da solo. Sono arrivato alla conclusione che in casi cronici complessi sia necessario non un rimedio, ma una scala (serie/sequenza) di rimedi, nessuno dei quali è curativo di per sé, ma che sono sinergici e la loro azione terapeutica cumulativa fa avvenire la guarigione. Ecco come curo la cataratta e molte altre malattie croniche che sono ritenute praticamente incurabili. Considero l’uso di una lunga serie di rimedi per curare casi difficili solo come seconda possibilità dopo la legge di similitudine. Ne ho sentito parlare dal Dr. Drysdale di Liverpool, che, pur non formulandone la teoria, l’ha definita “course of medicines”…
Reason the Thirty-third
As my thirty-third reason for being a homoeopath I propose to give you a case of cataract cured by medicines. You said in one of your letters to me that you would like to see the man who could dissolve a case of genuine senile cataract with medicines. Well, J will recount to you how I was converted myself. The limits of the curable and of the incurable are not represented by any fixed lines; what is incurable today may be curable tomorrow, and what we all of this generation deem incurable, may be considered very amenable to treatment in the next generation. When walking the hospitals years ago I was taught, in respect of cataract, that there was nothing for it but an operation; a few months since, I spent a little time at an excellent metropolitan hospital for the eye, and found that that is still the one thing taught, viz., if you have a cataract, there is no hope for you beyond that of getting bHnd, and then trying to get your sight again by having the cataractous lens removed. On the twenty-eighth of May, 1875, I was sent for to see a lady suffering from acute ophthalmia. She informed me that her friend, Dr. Mahony, of Liverpool, had recommended her to try Homoeopathy when she should again require medical aid, and had also mentioned my name to her. She seemed rather ashamed of calling in the aid of a disciple of Hahnemann, and was very careful to lay all the blame upon Dr. Mahony; for, said she, I know nothing about it. My patient was in a darkened room, and hence I could not well see what manner of woman she was; but I soon, learned she was the widow of an Indian officer, had spent many years in India, where she had had ophthalmia a great many times, and that she was in the habit of getting ophthalmia once or twice a year, or even oftener ever since. It generally lasted several weeks, and then got better; no kind of treatment seemed to be of any great avail. Did I think Homoeopathy would do her any good? I replied that we would try it. I made an attempt at examining the eye, by lifting up one of the laths of the Venetian blind to let in the light, and then everting the lid; but the photophobia and consequent blepharospasm were so great that I barely succeeded recognizing that the right eye was a red, swelled mass, while the left one was only comparatively slightly affected, in fact, a case of panophthalmitis. A more minute examination was impossible, as the pain was so great that the patient screamed whenever any light was let into the eye. I took a mental note of the chief symptoms, notably, of the fact that the inflammation was chiefly confined to the right eye, and went home and worked out the homoeopathic equation; I was especially anxious to make a hit, and so I spent about half-an-hour at the differential drug diagnosis. The drug I decided upon was phosphorus. Thus: JL Tc. Phos. I. m. xij. Sac. lac. q. s. Div. in p. 36 q. xij. S. One in a little water every hour. That would be about the one-hundredth part of a grain of Phosphorus at a dose, or rather less. I called the next day, about eighteen hours thereafter, and my patient opened the door herself, slightly screening her eyes with her hand, and quite able to bear a moderate amount of light. The inflammation was nearly gone; the next day it was quite gone. Patient’s amazement was great indeed; in all the twenty years of these ophthalmic attacks she had suffered much, and had had a number of doctors, including London oculists to treat her, but to no purpose. And yet she had been treated actively, and there had been no lack of physic and leeches, and also no lack of medical skill; but there was lacking in their therapeutics the one thing needful*: the LAW OF SIMILARS. How was it that I, with no very special knowledge of the eye or of its diseases, and with only usual practical experience, could thus beat skilled specialists and men of thrice my experience? Was it, perhaps, greater skill, deeper insight into disease, more careful investigation of the case? By no means. . . It was just the law of similars, patiently carried out in practice. My dear allopathic confrere, why are you so very simple that you leave us homoeopaths with this enormous advantage over the rest of you? Any little homoeopathic David can overcome the greatest allopathic giant if he will only keep to his Materia Medica, and the directions of Hahnemann. And the good thing lies so near, and is so constantly thrown at you. If we homoeopaths were only to make a secret of our But revenons a nos motitons. My patient was naturally very grateful and said “If that is Homoeopathy, I wonder if it could cure my cataract?” On examining the eyes now with some care, one could readily perceive that there were opacities behind the pupils, that of the right being the much more extensive. She then informed me that she had had cataract for some years, and was waiting for it to get ripe so as to undergo an operation. She had been to two London oculists about it, and they agreed both as to diagnosis and prognosis and eventual operative treatment. She had waited a year and gone again to one of these eye-surgeons and been told that all was satisfactorily progressing, although but slowly; it was thought it might take another two years before an operation could be performed. Her vision was also getting gradually worse, and she could not see the parting in her hair at the looking-glass, or the names over the shops, or on the omnibuses in the street; could see better in the dusk than in broad daylight. In answer to her question as to the curability of cataract with medicines, I said I had no personal experience whatever on the subject, beyond one case, and I thought that from the nature of the complaint, one could hardly expect medicines to cure it, or even affect it at all. Still, some few homoeopaths had published such cases, and others had asserted that they sometimes did really succeed in curing cataract with homoeopathic treatment. I added that, inconceivable as it was to me, yet I had no right to question the veracity of these gentlemen, simply because they claimed to do what seemed, impossible. In fine, I agreed, at patient’s special request, to try to cure her cataract with medicines given on homoeopathic lines! I must confess that I smiled a little at my own temerity. But I consoled myself thus: what harm could it do to treat her while she was waiting to get blind? At the worst, I should not prevent it! So, it was agreed she should report herself every month or so, and I would each time prescribe for her a course of treatment. All this was there and then agreed to. She took from May 29th to June 19th, 1875, Calcarea carbonica 30, and Chelidonium i. One pilule in alternation 3 times a day. Thus, she had two doses of the Calcarea one day, and one the next, and conversely of the Chelidonium. There were indications for both remedies, though I cannot defend the alternation; I hope I alternate less frequently now. Then followed Asa foetida 6, and Digitalis purp. 3. Then Phosphorus i, and subsequently Sulphur 30, and then Calcarea and Chelidonium. Thus, I continued ringing the changes ono 1876. On February 17th, 1876, I prescribed Gelseminum 30 in pilules, one three times a day; this was continued for a month. Then I gave the following course of drug treatment: Silicea 30 for fourteen days; Belladonna 3 for fourteen days; Sulphur 30 three times a day for a week, and then Phosphorus i, for a fortnight. A month or so after this date, March 20, 1876, I one morning heard some very loud talking in the hall, and my patient came rushing in and crying in quite an excited manner that she could almost see as well as ever. She explained that latterly she seemed able to discern objects and persons in the street much better than formerly, but she thought it must be fancy, but that morning she suddenly discovered that she could see the parting in her hair, and she at once started to inform me of the fact, and, in route, she further tested her vision by reading the names over the shops which she previously could not see at all. I ordered the same course of treatment again, and in another two months the lenticular (or capsular) opacities completely disappeared, and her vision became and remained excellent. She never had any recurrence of the ophthalmia, and she remained about a year and a half in my neighborhood in good health; she then went abroad again, and in her letters to her friends since she makes no mention of her eyes or sight, and hence I fairly conclude that she continues well. The patient’s age is now about 50 or 51. I have detailed this case somewhat circumstantially, so that my conversion to a belief in the medicinal curability of cataract may appear to others as it does to me. This case made a considerable stir in a small circle, and a certain number of cases of cataract have since come under my care in consequence, and the curative results I have obtained in their treatment are extremely encouraging. And I may add that I published this in the year 1880, and since then I have partially or completely cured a number of cases of cataract with remedies, and this power I possess because I am privileged to be a homoeopath.
Reason The Thirty-seven
You take exception to the number of remedies used in my last case, and want to know “which cured the case?”.
Will you get a long ladder and put it up against the side of your house, and mount it so as to get into your house by the top window; and when you have safely performed the feat, write and tell me which rung of that ladder enabled you to do it.
I sympathize with your objection, because it was once my own great stumbling-block in accepting the results of Homoeopathic treatment; it may perhaps be adequately explained somewhere in the literature of the homoeopathic fraternity, but I have never come across such an explanation, and hence have had to work it out for myself. I will put it to you thus: in difficult, chronic, complicated cases of disease you require not a remedy but a ladder (series) of remedies, not one of which can of itself effect the cure, but each of which works cure-wards, their cumulative action eventuating in cure. THAT is how I cure cataract, and many other chronic diseases that are currently held to be incurable by most men of all shades of therapeutic opinion. I regard this power of utilizing a long series of remedies for the cure of difficult chronic cases as only second in importance to the law of cure itself. I originally learned the thing in conversation with Dr. Drysdale of Liverpool, though not formulated by him, and I doubt if Dr. Drysdale ever did formulate it. In my own mind I call it the ladder of remedies plan. It is what I often heard Dr. Drysdale call “a course of medicines”…
Occhi di cubia | Hawse eyes
Cofanetto rimedi omeopatici inizio XIX secolo (Museo dell’Omeopatia, Roma) | Box of homeopathic remedies, early 19th century (Museum of Homeopathy, Rome)
Copyright Il Medico Omeopata [2025] © Tutti i diritti sono riservati
Scarica il documento in formato PDF