Up-To-Date With Nosodes and Sarcodes

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

We take the opportunity of placing before the Homoeopathic profession this little brochure comprising symptomatic pictures of a few recently proven drugs and a group of Nosodes known as 'Bowel Nosodes. These were originally introduced to medical fraternity by Dr Edward Bach. Dr Bach learned from his observation that the same treatment did not always cure the same disease in all patients, as patient reacted differently to the same disease condition. He studied patient in wards of hospital and came to irresistible conclusion that patients with a similar personality or temperament would often respond to the same remedy, whereas others of different type needed other treatment for cure although suffering from same complaint. Like Hahnemann he also believed in the truth that treatment depends on the individuality of patients. Therefore, in this age of antibiotics, it is becoming more & more apparent that though they may appear to be useful, they are very often attended with undesirable side-effects and can't treat one disease without generating other. These Bowel Nosodes and Sarcodes treat and cure individual as a whole.

I have been requested by the publishers of this book to acquaint the Homœopathic profession of India with the history of the discovery of the 'Bowel Nosodes' which were originally introduced in the medical field by Edward Bach, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., M.B.B.S., D.P.H. Like our Hahnemann, Bach was a unique per- sonality, gifted with phenomenal intuitive faculty- which is essential to the make-up of a born genius, research-worker and contributor of original ideas in the field of knowledge. His life and activities go to prove the old adage that great minds think alike. Like Hahnemann he had little use for accepted theories until he had proved them for himself. Practical experience and observation were to him the only way of learning. From his student days in medical institutions, a convic- tion grew in him that the most effective approach to the study of diseases consists in watching every patient, observing the way in which each one was affected by his complaint, and seeing how these different reactions influenced the course, severity and duration of the disease. Soon he learnt through his observations that the same treatment did not always cure the same disease in all patients, as patients reacted differently to the same disease-condition. With these ideas he studied the patients in the wards and came to the irresistible conclusion that patients with a similar personality or temperament would often respond to the same remedy, whereas others of a different type needed other treatment for their cure although suffering from the same complaints. Like Hahnemann, he saw the truth that the personality of the individual was of more importance than the body in the treatment of his disease; the patient's outlook on life, his emotions, his feelings, were all points of first importance in the treatment of all the ills that human flesh is heir to.

As a casualty medical officer at University College Hospital, London, in 1913, and later in the same year, at the National Temperance Hospital, he grew more and more discontented with the treatment of so-called modern medicine and attributed its therapeutic failure to the fact that the majority of medical men had little opportunity to study their patients as concrete indivi- duals. This made him seek for other avenues of healing art and he felt attracted to another branch of medicine, the Immunity School. As an Assistant Bacteriologist at the University College Hospital, he hoped to find the answer to his problem through Bacteriology. Here he discovered that certain intestinal germs, belonging to non-lactose fermenting, gram-negative, coli-typhoid group, which up to then had been considered of little or no importance, were closely connected with chronic disease and its cure. These germs were present in the intestines of all persons suspected of suffering from chronic disease, and were also present in healthy persons; but in the first instance they were definitely increased in number and in the latter, were present in smaller proportion.