PHYSIOLOGICAL ANTAGONISM 
THERAPEUTIC LAW OF CURE. 
THE 
ELEOTUS B. WARD. M. D., 
by 
Assistant to the Chair op Practice of Medicine in the Long Island College 
Hospital, Brooklyn, N. Y. 
[Bead before the Detroit Academy of Medicine, Dine 10, 1879.]* 
“Facts, and the invariable laws which govern them, are the pursuit, 
and the only legitimate pursuit, of science.”—Comte. 
The natural instinct of the human mind is to reduce ques- 
tions of science to definite laws. In medical science this has 
led to endless speculations and to most fanciful theories. 
Narrow-minded theorists reproach rational medical science 
with haying no definite and universal law of cure. We are 
charged with being unscientific, irrational, and having no 
guiding principle to govern us in the treatment of disease. 
To those who have given the subject but little study this 
objection carries with it seeming weight. Men and women 
naturally take to a “ system ” that is said to be definite, uni- 
versal, and exact in its application, however absurd from the 
nature of the case such pretensions may be. We naturally 
incline in medicine, as in theology, to adopt creeds. They 
furnish a kind of mental and moral support to those that are 
content to follow, not to lead. 
Medical science, in the earlier stages of its history, was 
largely made up of such speculative creeds and theories; and 
even now there is a kind of non-rest in the popular professional 
mind for a creed, or for some universal well-ascertained law of 
* Reprint from The Detroit Lancet. 2 
PHYSIOLOGICAL ANTAGONISM 
cure. This leads us to ask: Is it possible, in the present state 
of medical science, to make any approach to such general law 
on a scientific basis, and include at the same time the fragments 
of all creeds and systems that have in them elements of truth ? 
Can we, in other words, agree upon any formulated statement 
that is sufficiently broad and comprehensive to include every- 
thing that curatively affects the human organism, while at the 
same time it commits us to none of the one-idead speculative 
theories of the schools ? And, above all, can we formulate a 
law of cure that tends at all times to a sound and rational 
practice? To this possibility I make, with some degree of 
hesitation, my brief communication. 
That curative remedies sometimes act anti-pathically, some- 
times allo-pathically and sometimes homoeo-pathically, there 
cannot be reasonable doubt; whether by altering the chemical 
constitution of the fluids, or modifying the sensibilities of the 
solids, we observe the operation of the same general law, 
namely, that of physiological antagonism to the morbid condi- 
tion of which disease is but a manifestation. This is the 
central thought of my paper, and the facts and reasonings 
presented will be good or bad, speculative or otherwise, as they 
may tend to strengthen or weaken the statement made in 
my text. 
It is hopeful, I think, for the future of pathology that we 
fall back more and more in our explanation of disease, on 
principles drawn from physiology; morbid action is only modi- 
fied vital action—vital action acting under the disturbed con- 
ditions of life; and I regard it equally hopeful for therapeutics 
that the action of remedies may be explained on the same gen- 
eral principle. For it is clear to my mind that drug action and 
diseased action from other causes may be studied from the 
same general stand-point. Drug action becomes diseased 
action when it does not act in harmony with nature. 
By the title of my paper it will be seen that I start with the 
proposition, believed to be true, that there is a physiological 
antagonism naturally and essentially existing between reme- 
dies which act curatively and the abnormal processes which THE THERAPEUTIC LAW OF CURE. 
3 
take place in the human body; otherwise, disease, unless cured 
by unaided nature, will continue until the organism is destroyed. 
A condition in the system different from the disease, whether 
that be similar action, substituted action, or opposite action, 
must take place in order to cure, and this condition or action, 
Avhatever it may be or however it may act, I have ventured to 
call a condition of antagonism—antagonism to the morbid 
element which disturbs the organism. It must be so fx-om the 
very nature of the action itself. 
But this different condition is not produced by drugs alone, 
nor by general constitutional states. The action of one special 
disease on another furnishes many striking illustrations of this 
general law of antagonism. Thus a new disease we know 
sometimes cures an old one. Neuralgia of the fifth pair is 
often cured by erysipelas ; glycosuria disappears during a 
course of typhoid fever ; carbuncle has been known to stop 
diabetes ; insane persons are said to lose their insanity during 
an attack of Asiatic cholera; small-pox will, for the time, 
remove inveterate psoriasis ; chronic diseases as a class, if in 
activity, antagonize continued fever or cholera; Esquiroll 
states that epileptics are attacked in small proportion and with 
slight severity from typhus ; Louis has shown that typhoid 
fever rarely or never originates in the course of any acute affec- 
tion ; it is proven that ague prevents or greatly modifies the 
development of continued fever and of phthisis; certain heart 
diseases also antagonize tuberculous disease; gout and acute 
articular rheumatism are said to be incompatible. Ambrose 
Blocklock, surgeon-major of the Madras army, believes also 
that “ persons who have had well-marked cow-pox at no distant 
period are fully protected from Asiatic cholera.” He fixes 
upon five years as the limit of its action, and says after twenty 
years’ residence in India he has seen no exception to the state- 
ment made. 
A past disease lias also been frequently observed to modify 
a new disease, altering or modifying its appearance, course or 
sequehe ; this it may do for a season or for a life time. In illus- 
tration of this, syphilis may be mentioned. It is, I believe, a 4 
PHYSIOLOGICAL ANTAGONISM 
view held by many that a successful inoculation having once 
taken place, a true indurated chancre having followed, the pro- 
duction of a similar sore under the influence of a new inocula- 
tion is almost impossible; even when it does appear it is 
modified, antagonized ; it is only a “syphiloid” disease. 
But perhaps the most valuable illustration of this law is 
in the action of one drug in the system in modifying or 
antagonizing that of another. Our opulent materia medica is 
rich in illustrations of this law of drug ayitagonism. Thus 
strychnia is antagonized in its action on the system by chloral 
hydrate and the bromides ; ether vapor by the action of cold; 
calabar bean by that of atropia ; belladonna by opium and 
jaborandi. And what are all these multiplied examples but 
illustrations of this great law of antagonism—the antagonism 
of drug action as well as of morbid action. 
Again, how rich the field of illustration presented to us 
in the study of diathetic influences over intercurrent diseases. 
Every day’s clinical practice exemplifies this, and it furnishes us 
valuable practical suggestions. The diathetic state is constantly 
stamping its modifying impress on intercurrent or acute specific 
disease with which it may be associated, and we make little 
headway in the cure of the special disease until we correct the 
predisposing diathesis. 
I can only suggest the thought; to follow it out would be to 
review.the whole history of practical medicine ; sometimes the 
influence may be one of cure ; often, however, like our drugs, 
it is the reverse. 
But I aim only, in the limited space of my paper, briefly to 
show in these general statements the action and reaction of 
these morbid elements on each other, and to point out the fact 
that these actions may be in the direction of antagonism, and 
therefore curative ; and, by parity of reasoning, which is, I 
think, fair and logical in this instance, I arrive at the conclu- 
sion that drugs, when they act curatively, have the same modi- 
fying and counteracting influence, and that this antagonism is, 
in fact, their real “ law of cure.” 
Now if we compare for a moment drug action with diseased THE THERAPEUTIC LAW OF CURE. 
5 
action, we observe the same general law of antagonism. Thus 
aconite, veratrum and quinia reduce fever; colchicum cures 
gout; mercury and iodine antagonize syphilis ; quinia and 
arsenic arrest an intermittent ; while strychnia, belladonna, 
digitalis and carbonate of ammonia are specific stimulants to 
the respiratory and cardiac nerve centers, rousing the heart and 
lungs into activity when embarrassed from exhaustion, and 
thus enabling them to again respond to their natural stimuli to 
action. 
How these agents accomplish these results we may not know; 
indeed we do not know in the present state of medical knowl- 
edge ; that their modes of action are many and various we 
have abundant proof ; but one thing is sure, and that is, that 
a remedy, if introduced into the system in sufficient quantity 
to be perceived by it, never occupies neutral ground ; it either 
coincides with or counteracts the morbid process, and this coun- 
teracting process is what I mean by physiological antagonism; 
that is to say, remedies, when they act curatively, act bio- 
logically ‘ they so act on the ultimate dynamic life-forces of 
the system that morbid action is antagonized, and the system 
returns by its own intrinsic law of cure to its normal physio- 
logical type. 
This view, it will be seen, recognizes at once the autocrasy 
of Nature in the cure of disease. All remedies, to be curative, 
must act in harmony with nature ; for if they do not they 
coincide with instead of antagonize the disease. To this pro- 
position I think no exception can be taken ; it is universal in 
its application, and practical in its tendencies and results. 
Thus we find rational medical science ever ready and willing 
to accept the actual results of careful and intelligent experi- 
mental observations. This must, for the present at least, remain 
the basis of all sound practical medicine. In other words, all 
sound practical experience, well attested and well established 
by the profession, must be accepted as true science, whether 
we perceive the science or not. 
It cannot, of course, be claimed that the materia raedica of 
to-day is an exact science. Then how necessary it is that the 6 
PHYSIOLOGICAL ANTAGONISM 
practitioner should be thoroughly grounded in some great 
fundamental underlying principles of this branch, that he may 
not merely treat the superficial symptoms or states of disease, 
but reach to the deeper causes and processes that produce them, 
and these he will find in the disturbed conditions of the pro- 
cesses by which we live, and our remedies, it must appear evi- 
dent, can only act rationally and curatively when they counter- 
act or antagonize these disturbing agents. If it is possible, in 
the present state of medical science, to state any general law of 
cure, this law of ‘physiological antagonism, is perhaps as nearly 
correct as any formulated statement that can be made. This 
antagonism, it will be readily seen, may act in many and 
various ways ; in some instances it may be similar, in others 
opposite ; in some instances we may be able to explain its 
action, in others not; but in all cases we fall back on Rational 
Experience, which is at present the safest guide and surest 
rule of sound medical practice. 
The future, we may reasonably hope, may reveal much more 
exactly the precise how and why of the action of remedies, 
their modes and processes in the system, their actions and 
counteractions ; and it may be that we shall have much clearer 
conceptions as to the true scientific “ law of cure ” than we 
have at present ; but I maintain that no matter how exact and 
accurate our knowledge may be, the law will be in all time 
that of antagonism ; hence the formulated statement of my 
paper. 
All remedies that act in harmony with nature in counteract- 
ing disease act, of course, on a principle different from the 
diseased action, and the law of cure, it logically follows, con- 
sists essentially in this different action. Even Hahnemann’s 
boasted law of cure is based upon the doctrine of resemblances. 
The action of the drug is “ similar ” to that of the disease—not 
identical with it, and this similarity of course includes a differ- 
ence, and in this difference, whatever it may be and however it 
may act, consists the cure. In this there is nothing new. 
On this general statement then of different action all 
“ schools ” can harmonize ; all can stand on the common plat- THE THERAPEUTIC LAW OF CURE. 
7 
form of Rational Empiricism until exact science can formulate 
a more definite and universal law of cure. 
It may be objected to the views here presented that they are 
too general and do not tend to exact scientific observation of 
the action of remedies. In reply I have to say that I simply 
affirm the supremacy of Nature in the cure of disease, and 
nature and science can never be in antagonism. A system of 
cure to be rational must be natural cure ; it must act in har- 
mony with nature. The aid we give nature may, it is true, 
sometimes consist in “ similar ” action, sometimes in “ contrary ” 
action ; but it is safe to affirm that it must always be different 
action from that of the disease, and this different action, when 
curative, is undoubtedly that of Physiological Antagonism. 
The cure evidently takes place in obedience to this law of 
antagonism, whether the active law in the individual case be 
that of “ similar ” action or “ contrary ” action ; and the size of 
the dose must, of course, have reference to these two dissimilar 
actions. “If the relationship of the medicinal effects,” says 
Kidd,* “be analogous to the symptoms of the disease, the 
increased sensibility which this law of action begets calls for 
a moderate dose, i. e., less than the amount required to produce 
the full physiological effects. When the relationship is oppo- 
site or dissimilar to the symptoms of the diseases, then full 
(large) doses are required, and more frequent repetition.” 
Upon this law of increased sensibility in certain morbid states 
is based Ilahnemann’s dogma of “ infinitesimal ” medication. 
The process of cure, whether the action be similar or oppo- 
site however, is physiological; that is, remedies act by and 
through the same agency that effects spontaneous cures. The 
acts are such conservative operations as pertain to living organ- 
isms, and such a system I call, by way of distinction, “ Natural 
cure” It is the healing art founded on natural principles, and 
these principles, acts or agencies, will be found, on careful 
analysis, to grow out of a law of vital antagonism to the states 
or conditions which produce disease. This antagonism was 
recognized by the older writers as the “ vis medicatrix naturae.” 
* The Laws of Therapeutics.