Geschichten aus der Homöopathie
http://www.widesky.de/Widesky-Ecke/Gute-Nacht-Geschichten.html
Natalie
Robins: the gruesome practice of medicine in Europe and
“The
knives that were once used by doctors to drain blood from the bodies of men,
women, and children were folding triple-bladed instruments with bone handles and
highly polished sheaths…
Always
nearby was a shallow bowl - plain or ornate with delicate flowers or birds - to
catch the cascading blood as it flowed from the diseased bodies. The pain of
multiple incisions in the scalp, neck, wrists, ankles, back, penis, vagina, and
forty other sites was invariably excruciating. Just as often, the bites of
leeches were used as an alternative to knives. Those whosurvived their
bloodletting sometimes got better…
“And
if the removal of enough blood to cause the patient to lose consciousness -
sometimes as much as 70% of the person’s blood - didn’t bring about a cure,
there was also mercury, arsenic, or lead, which purged the body of its excesses
if they didn’t first poison the patient, or blistering, pulling teeth, sweating,
ice, starvation, darkness, and silence. Illness was always dreaded; the popular
treatments for it were hell on earth. Even babies were bled“.
Remedies
could be nearly as bizarre as they were brutal. Lethargy often was treated with
massive doses of whiskey, wine, opium, or roast beef. The words of the 17th
century playwright Moliere were almost as true in the 18th and 19th centuries.
“Nearly all men die of their remedies and not of their illnesses“.
In
1792, Austrian Emperor Leopold II was bled to death by his doctors, who sliced
open his veins four times in 24 hours. Hahnemann was withering in his contempt
for Leopold’s doctors. “Science pales before this!” he wrote in an article
published in Germany.
George
Washington met a similar fate seven years later. After developing a severe sore
throat and cold, he was bled four times. One young doctor recommended a new
procedure, a tracheotomy, which had been successfully used in
By
this time, Hahnemann had given up medicine in disgust. He believed that a good
diet, good hygiene, and good living conditions were essential for good health.
He believed patients often recovered on their own. His beliefs were ignored and
ridiculed. So he made a living as a translator and chemist.
Then
came Hahnemann’s first “
Aha!
Well, actually, I’m not sure most people, even those as brilliant as Hahnemann,
could invent an entire new school of medicine from such a small discovery.
But
he did. It was based on the Law of Similars: “A substance that causes, in a
healthy person, symptoms similar to those of a disease state, can cure a sick
person of that disease. Or - “Let Likes Be Cured By Likes“.
In
some respects, Hahnemann wasn’t reinventing the wheel. Hippocrates hypothesized
that cures could result from the actions of either similars or opposites. A
smallpox vaccine had been invented in England in 1776. Vaccines, which used a
small amount of the virus to produce immunity to the full-fledged disease
caused by the virus, fit snugly within the parameters of “Like Cures Like“.
So
do modern treatments for allergies, which utilize small doses of the allergens
to build up a person’s immunity to them.
But
Hahnemann took his theory to the extreme. You might even say he ran right off a
cliff with it. Hahnemann’s sole focus was on the patient’s symptoms. He
couldn’t care less about the cause of an illness. Causation was simply
irrelevant to the theory of “Like Cures Like“. The cure would always be found
by matching the symptoms induced by a particular remedy in a healthy person
with the symptoms displayed by the patient.
Hahnemann
approached a patient like a jailor carrying a massive key chain. One key - and
only one key - would turn the lock and free the patient from the jail cell of
his illness.
And
whenever he encountered a patient with different symptoms, he needed to find a
different key in order to unlock the door.
Ingesting
small amounts of diluted herbs, plants, minerals, and animals, Hahnemann and
some volunteers continued to experiment on themselves, monitoring the symptoms
produced
by each substance. The results of about 120 of these “provings,” as Hahnemann
called his experiments, were collected in a book, the Materia Medica.
Hahnemann
also included information from written accounts of accidental poisonings. It
was particularly appropriate to do so, since many of the provings involved
poisonous substances such as arsenic and belladonna. But Hahnemann believed
nothing was toxic if taken in small doses.
This
belief led Hahnemann to another “Eureka!” moment. Poisons had to be diluted in
order to take them safely. Hahnemann began to dilute all of his remedies. Then
he
began
to “succuss” them, shaking the diluted substance vigorously. Hahnemann believed
that homeopathic remedies work by triggering the Vital Spark or Vital Force in
the
patient,
which heals by restoring balance to the body. The shaking of the remedies was
aimed at awaking the “slumbering hidden dynamic powers” contained in the
remedy.
Weird?
You ain’t heard nothing yet. Hahnemann believed that remedies become more
potent with successive dilutions. Under his theory of “potentization,” the
“weaker”
the
remedy, the more powerful it becomes. Remedies often were diluted to the extent
that not even a single molecule of the substance remained in the dilution.
As
Natalie Robins writes in Copeland’s Cure, “Homeopaths believed that the very
shadows - or memory - of the original substance was enough to effect
healing…potentization
enabled remedies to touch and effect the energetic realm of the Vital Force -
the place where disease arises and cure must take place“. In addition,
Hahnemann
speculated that long-term diseases were caused by a “psora,” which he defined
as an itch produced by a negative spirit.
At
this point, critics of homeopathy, not to mention proponents of logic, pull the
cord and get off the bus. Invisible remedies? Diluted water that “remembers”
what was
in
it? Who could possibly believe such nonsense?
Millions
of people, as it turned out, who were sickened, literally and figuratively, by
the conventional medicine of the time. By the early 1800’s, Hahnemann was practicing
homeopathy, railing against “old school medicine“.
In
1810, he published the “Organon Of The Medical Art”, a textbook on homeopathy.
The medical establishment called him a “daring revolutionist” and an “eccentric
troublemaker”.
The
typhoid fever epidemic of 1813 cemented Hahnemann’s reputation as a guru of
alternative medicine. As thousands perished around the city of Leipzig,
Hahnemann treated 180 patients with homeopathic remedies and lost just two of
them.
A
star was born. The medical establishment fought back. Doctors and druggists
harassed Hahnemann. He was charged with selling illegal remedies in 1820 and
cast out
of
the big city. Hahnemann fled to a small town in eastern Germany. But his fame
grew and doctors, students, and patients from around Europe flocked to see him.
Hahnemann
was the equivalent of a rock star, an anti-establishment bad boy. Amy Lansky in
Impossible Cure: In the evening, a circle of disciples would gather at
Hahnemann’s feet.
Dressed
in a gaudy dressing gown, yellow stockings, and a black velvet cap, Hahnemann
would puff on a long Turkish pipe and dispense pearls of wisdom to his
devotees.
His
made-for-the-movies life featured a particularly happy ending. In 1830, when Hahnemann was 75, his wife died.
Four years later, a beautiful, wealthy, socially prominent artist and poet,
Melanie d’Hervilly, journeyed from Paris for treatment from Hahnemann after
reading the “Organon Of The Medical Art”. She then became his student and much
more. The 34-year-old artist and the 79-year-old doctor fell head over heels in
love.
Hahnemann
and d’Hervilly married, moved to Paris, and established a thriving homeopathic
clinic, treating luminaries such as Paginini and Balzac.
Hahnemann
died in 1843, but his reputation was just beginning to blow up in the U.S. In
1844, the American Institute of Homeopathy was founded. Partly in response to
the growing popularity of homeopathy, the American Medical Association was
established in 1847.
The
AMA wasted little time in going after the upstart. It branded homeopathy as
“alien” and as a “delusion,” a form of medicine practiced by imposters who
believed in miracles. It also mounted campaigns against other forms of
alternative medicine, including naturopaths, chiropractors, and osteopaths.
But
the AMA’s campaign didn’t stop millions of Americans from flocking to
homeopathic practitioners. Clergymen recommended homeopathy from their pulpits.
Women and children loved the “sugar doctor“.
(Homeopathic
remedies were usually absorbed into sugar water and taken in the form of sugar
pellets.) And why wouldn’t they? It was a no-brainer. Do I want a doctor to
slice open my child’s veins and splash his blood into a basin? Or do I want to
give little Susie or Timmy a sugar pellet?
Homeopathy
became known as the “people’s medicine“. It was readily available and it was
inexpensive. As Robins describes it, homeopathy was “the first worldwide,
systematic option to bloodletting. Because of its painlessness, lack of side
effects, and relative simplicity, homeopathy caught on like wildfire in
America“.
By
1900, there were 22 homeopathic colleges and 14,000 homeopathic doctors in
America. The war between the medical establishment and the rebels waxed and
waned in intensity, but never ceased. Prominent Americans took sides. Oliver
Wendell Holmes denounced provings as random experiments devoid of scientific
validity.
Mark
Twain: “Homeopathy forced the old school doctor to stir around and learn
something of a rational nature about his business…” Twain was “grateful that
homeopathy survived the attempts of allopaths [conventional doctors] to destroy
it“.
President
William McKinley: who used homeopathic doctors, was instrumental in the
erection of a statue of Hahnemann within viewing distance of the White House.
One
of the most influential advocates of homeopathy was Royal Copeland (1868-1938),
the hero of Copeland’s Cure. An eye surgeon who became fascinated by homeopathy
after travelling to Europe, Copeland became the Health Commissioner of New York
City. He cemented his reputation as a healer during the flu epidemic of 1918,
which ravaged other cities far more severely than New York. He achieved
nationwide celebrity status by penning a syndicated newspaper column called “Your
Health,” which attracted 11 million readers. In 1922, he was elected to the
U.S. Senate.
Copeland
was a subtle proponent of homeopathy, a skilled politician who walked a
tightrope between those who extolled and those who excoriated the practice. He
described homeopathy as “one of many methods of treating sickness“. Copeland
attempted to position it as a medical specialty rather than a distinct and
separate practice of healing that had little in common with conventional
medicine.
And
he was a harsh critic of some practitioners of alternative medicine, branding
chiropractors as a “public menace and peril” to both patients and the community
at large after some chiropractors “treated” typhoid fever and tuberculosis
victims with chiropractic methods, thus exhibiting little or no understanding
that such communicable diseases were spread by germs.
Copeland’s
crowning political achievement was his sponsorship of the Federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act of 1938. The bill was sparked by the death of 100 people who
had taken a strep throat medication containing
diethylene
glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze. Copeland persuaded his Senate
colleagues to pass the first bill requiring drug companies to disclose active
ingredients and post warning labels on their products.
Homeopathic
remedies were treated as the equivalent of drugs under the Act, which gave
homeopathy a certain stamp of legitimacy. The Act, a forerunner of the modern
FDA, remains Copeland’s enduring legacy.
But
the heyday of homeopathy was drawing to a close. Conventional medicine was
advancing with giant strides. Homeopathic and other of alternative medicine
practitioners continued to be besieged by the AMA and other establishment
figures, branded as “pseudo scientists,” “freaks,” “unconscionable quacks,” and
“fakers“.
The
conduct of snake oil salesman within the ranks of alternative medicine also
undercut its credibility. Some naturopaths claimed that they could cure cancer
“by natural processes without medicine or surgery“.
Some
homeopaths in New York recommended “autotherapy” - the use of remedies made
from bodily fluids ranging from diluted blood to pus to spit to tears, to ear
gook.
Homeopaths
splintered into competing camps. Unicists, an orthodox sect, preached the
original gospel of Hahnemann, who insisted on using only one remedy at a time.
Kentians,
a reform group, recommended one high potency remedy for mental and emotional
symptoms and one low potency remedy for physical symptoms. Pluralists
prescribed taking several remedies in a precise order. Complexists prescribed
taking several remedies at the same time.
By
the middle of the 20th century, homeopathy had almost disappeared in America,
although it continued to attract practitioners and patients in other parts of
the world.
(England
has always been a homeopathic bastion, in large part because the Royal Family
has employed a homeopathic physician for generations.)
While
the 60’s brought a renewed interest in alternative medicine, for better and for
worse - Robins writes that “offbeat, unconventional care became increasingly
faddish” - homeopathy lingered in the shadows.
A
watershed moment for homeopathy occurred in 1985, creating reverberations that
continue to this day. French research scientist Jacques Benveniste claimed to have
proof that highly diluted homeopathic remedies - so high that not a single
detectable molecule of the substance remained - left a “memory” in the diluted
water that measurably changed the molecular composition of the water. His
findings were written up in the respected journal Nature, and they created a
furor. When investigators from Nature tried and failed to replicate the results
claimed by Benveniste, it left homeopathy with a black eye that remains
visible.
And
it separated the True Believers in homeopathy and the Contemptuous Critics of
homeopathy into fiercely antagonistic camps. Call it an ugly fight between the
Counterculture and the Establishment. Or, if you’ll indulge me in a bit of
hyperbole, a bitter feud between the Hippies and the Squares.
Dr.
Murray Gell-Mann, winner of the Nobel Prize in 1969 for his discovery of
quarks, says it is “garbage physics” to claim there is a “memory” left in water
that no longer contains a single molecule of a homeopathic remedy.
True
Believes such as Amy Lanksy, author of Impossible Cure, cites Benveniste’s
experiments as proof of the scientific validity of homeopathy. But the True
Believers of homeopathy continued to lose ground. By 2001, insurers were
covering chiropractic care in 50 states, acupuncture in seven, and naturopathic
treatments in two. Homeopathy wasn’t covered by insurers in a single state. It
still isn’t.
Despite
the grudging acceptance of some types of alternative treatments, conventional
medicine is still spooked by and suspicious of alternative medicine in general.
In 2002, Jonathan Quick, director of drug and medicine policy at the World
Health Organization, which was described by the New York Times as the “global
watchdog over unconventional medicine,” pleaded for a truce between “uninformed
skeptics who don’t believe in anything, and uncritical enthusiasts who don’t
care about the data.
We
want to convince the skeptics that some things work, and make the enthusiasts
more cautious because it can kill them“.
Makes
sense. Yet in many cases the Hippies and Squares continue to view each other
with fear and loathing. Consider the flap over the appointment of Dr. James
Gordon in 2000 to lead Bill Clinton’s White House Commission on Complementary
and Alternative Medicine. The purpose of the commission, the first of its kind,
was to evaluate “the great potential and possible perils associated with the
use of CAM“.
Gordon
is a psychiatrist who founded the Center for Mind/Body Medicine in Washington
D.C. He’s a faculty member at Georgetown Medical School and the author
of
10 books about alternative medicine. But his appointment to head the White
House commission sent the Squares into a hissy fit. Steven Barrett’s
quackwatch.com blasted Gordon for volunteering at the Haight-Ashbury Free
Clinic in the 60’s - “helping ease young seekers through their experimentation
with drugs“. If cavorting with actual hippies wasn’t bad enough, Gordon was
also criticized for his interest in dynamic meditation, a form of dance
involving whirling and spinning, and his fascination with U.F.O.s.
An
exasperated Gordon fired back at the Squares, accusing CAM opponents of
possessing “a McCarthyite mindset - the inquisitioner’s mind, not the
scientific mind.
There’s
a lack of thoughtfulness in that approach - knee-jerk is the right word“.
Gordon
may be right regarding the reaction of the Squares to alternative medicine in
general. But the old school docs have sound reasons to question the validity of
homeopathy, with its weird theories and oddball practitioners. Hahnemann completed
the 6th edition of the Organon Of The Medical Art way back in 1842. It is,
writes Amy Lansky, “still the most comprehensive text on the principles of
homeopathy to this day“.
Is
that something to brag about? Imagine if an M.D. pulled out a 160-year-old text
to diagnose and treat a patient who complained of stomach pains or a lump in
his armpit. He’d be laughed out of the profession. “Hey doc, haven’t you
learned anything in the last century or two? Sure, give me some of those
leeches you’ve got in that jar. And slice open a vein or two while you’re at
it“.
Lansky
claims that Hahnemann was a “scientist in the truest sense of the word“.
Maybe
in his own time. But today his teachings appear to be the work of a mad
scientist. Homeopathy seems mired in the past, lost in a bygone era, suffused
with ignorance, superstition and mysticism. And yet. 15.000.000 Americans use
homeopathic remedies. The global popularity of homeopathy is steadily rising,
particularly in Europe and Asia.
Why?
For a very practical reason--many remedies work. Clinical trials in Europe in
the 1980’s indicated that homeopathy was at least mildly effective for
conditions ranging from arthritis to flu to hay fever to gall bladder problems,
to fibromyalgia.
You
can buy homeopathic remedies at health food stores, of course, but also at
Safeway and Walgreens.
Geschichte
der Potenzabstufungen Posologie
Apis:
This article
appeared in 1866 in The Elements of a New Materia Medica and Therapeutics.
A
lad, aged about 12 years, had been afflicted for several months with ascites
[accumulation of fluid in the abdominal cavity] and hydrothorax [accumulation
of fluid in the lung cavity].
He
had been treated for some three months by allopathic physicians first for
dysentery, followed by ascites, and afterwards for several months by a
homeopathic physician. No permanent benefit resulted from either mode of
medication, and the symptoms finally became so urgent that I was called in
consultation, and tapping was at once resorted to in order to save the patient
from imminent danger. Appropriate homeopathic remedies were again prescribed,
but without arresting the onward course of the malady. The patient commenced to
fill up again with great rapidity.
The
secretion of urine was nearly suspended, the skin was dry and hot, pulse rapid
and weak, respiration short and difficult, great tenderness of the abdomen,
dryness of the mouth and throat, thirst, excessive restlessness and anxiety,
short, irritating cough, and an almost entire inability to sleep.
At
this stage of the case a wandering Indian woman - one of the few survivors of
the Narragansett tribe - suggested to the family the use of a honey-bee every
night and morning.
She
enclosed the bees in a covered tin pail, and placed them in a heated oven until
they were killed, and then after powdering them, administered one in syrup
every night and morning.
After
the lapse of about twenty-four hours the skin became softer and less hot, the
respiration less difficult and more free, the pulse slower and more developed,
and there was a decided increase in the quantity of urine. From this time the
symptoms continued steadily to improve, the dropsical effusion diminished day
by day, until at the expiration of a few weeks, the patient was entirely cured.
This
is the first cure of dropsy by Apis which was ever reported … From this
empirical fact - this usu in morbus - I perceived that the profession was as
yet unacquainted with a powerful remedial agent, and accordingly commenced a
series of provings and of clinical trials with it …
Blatt-o: Ein an Asthma leidende Mann (Indien) trank Wasser, worin eine Kakerlake gefallen war. Danach besserte sich sein Asthma.
http://www.remedia.at/homoeopathie/Causticum/causticumgrimm.html
Caust
is most challenging. I [John Morgan] have made this remedy 5x in the last 11
yrs with 3 successes and 2 complete failures. It is by far the most complicated
and involved process of all Hahnemann’s special remedies, involving hazardous
chemical reactions and distillation apparatus which needs constant care and
attention. It is also the one remedy for which the final chemical composition
has been the subject of debate and it is still not
known
what Causticum actually is. Even before Hahnemann’s death it was controversial.
In 1835 a chemist called Griesselich followed Hahnemann’s instructions to the
letter but failed to reproduce the remedy concluding
that
there was no such thing as Causticum. He offered a prize of 12 ducats to anyone
who could clarify its chemical nature - an offer which was not taken up by
anyone. The recorded attempts of other chemists, during Hahnemann’s lifetime,
and the analysis of different preparations from different manufacturers, more
recently, has revealed variable and inconclusive results. Also chemically there
are good reasons why it should be nothing
other
than distilled water which was what Griesselich’s experiments mostly produced.
To try and unravel this
mystery we must look at the preparation in detail, in the Causticum monograph
in Chronic Diseases. I will go through it step by step to explain the chemical
changes.
Lime, in
the state of marble, owes its insolubility in water and its mildness to an acid
of the lowest order which is combined with it; when heated to red heat the
marble allows this acid to escape as
a gas. Hahnemann is describing the liberation of carbon
dioxide (CO2) from marble when it is heated and its transformation from a hard
insoluble form into a soft and water soluble substance which
is calcium oxide (CaO). His use of the
word 'lime' to describe marble relates to limestone, from which marble is
derived and not to the modern chemical definition of 'lime' or 'quicklime'
which is
calcium oxide. Carbon dioxide an acidic
gas and will make carbonic acid (H2CO3) when dissolved in water.
During this
process the marble, as burned lime, has received (besides the latent heat)
another substance into its composition, which substance, unknown to chemistry,
gives to it its caustic property
as well as
its solubility in the water, whereby we obtain lime-water.
From this statement is
seems that Hahnemann did not know the chemical composition of calcium oxide
which is formed after heating marble or any other calcium carbonate such as egg
or oyster shells.
Calcium oxide is
caustic, can create burns on the skin and reacts quite violently with water
giving off much heat creating lime water, a solution of calcium hydroxide
Ca(OH)2, which has alkaline properties.
This
substance, though not itself an acid, gives to it its caustic virtue, and by
adding a fluid acid (which will endure fire) which then combines with the lime
by its closer affinity, the watery caustic
(Hydras
caustici) is separated by distillation.
This passage describes
the reaction of the alkaline quicklime with a heated acid to create the watery
Causticum which is recovered by distillation.
Two pounds of white marble has to be
heated to red heat to effect the necessary chemical change by driving off the
carbon dioxide as follows:
CaCO3 + fire (heat) = CaO + CO2
dip this
piece into a vessel of distilled water for about one minute, then lay it in a
dry dish, in which it will soon turn into powder with the development of much
heat and its peculiar odour called lime
vapour.
When the burnt marble, now quicklime
CaO, is put into water it fizzes quite dramatically giving off heat and
hydrating to form calcium hydroxide some of which, in solution, steams to
create the
vapour Hahnemann mentions.
The formula is as follows: CaO + H2O =
Ca(OH) 2 + heat
Of this
fine powder take two ounces and mix with it in a warmed porcelain triturating
bowl a solution of two ounces of bisulphate of potash, (potassium bisulphate
KHSO4) which has been heated to
red heat,
melted, cooled again and then pulverised and dissolved in two ounces of boiling
hot water.
Potassium bisulphate is
an acid salt with some water in its crystals. Just why Hahnemann melts it to
red heat and cools it again is unclear. Perhaps in his day it was only
available in hard lump form instead of the modern
fine crystals and needed
this treatment to make it a quickly dissolving powder. It melts easily at red
heat, is dried by this heating and easily dissolves in hot water. Another
possible reason for heating is to bake the crystals
so ensuring that no more
than two ounces of water and two ounces of the two solids are present in the
final mixture so that all of it can react completely as per the following
formula: Ca(OH)2+ KHSO4 + H2O
= KOH + CaSO4 + 2H2O
The thick, white paste
formed by this mixture of components is just fluid enough to be pourable though
needs a spatula to put it all in the retort. The hydrated calcium sulphate so
formed is commonly known as
Plaster of Paris hence
its insoluble pasty quality and the potassium hydroxide formed is in the
solution which binds the mass.
This
thickish mixture is put into a small glass retort, to which the helm is
attached with a wet bladder; into the tube of the helm is inserted a receiver
half submerged in water; the retort is warmed
by the
gradual approach of a charcoal fire below and all the fluid is then distilled
over by applying the suitable heat.
The glass apparatus
Hahnemann used was the well known distillation retort known as the alembic.
They are difficult to find these days but are commonly seen in old chemistry or
alchemical books. A glass bulb elongates
into the conical helm
which ends in a small spout. The absence of modern water cooled glass
condensers in the early 1800's gave rise to the use of a pigs bladder full of
water to cool and condense the distillate vapour as it
rose from the heated
glass bulb. The receiving bottle is attatched to the helm, with a moistened
pig's bladder, to create a porous seal and is also cooled to complete the
liquefaction of any uncondensed vapour.
Using gradual heat, as
the charcoal fire infers, it takes many hours (4-6) to completely distil all
the liquid and it is important that it is heated to dryness. My experience up
to now has been with the use of modern distillation equipment, rather than the alembic,
which I feel physically mimics the properties of the original adequately
although cannot replace the authentic ritual of the real thing with all its
beautiful subtleties. I'm sure that I will
have more experiences of
this remedy preparation each time getting even closer to the impossible goal of
perfectly repeating Hahnemann's own remedy.
The distilled fluid will be about an ounce and a
half of watery clearness, containing in concentrated form the substance
mentioned above, i.e. Causticum;
It smells like the lye of caustic potash. On the
back part of the tongue the caustic tastes very astringent, and in the throat
burning; it freezes only in a lower degree
of cold than water, and it hastens the putrefaction
of animal substances immersed in it.
When muriate of Baryta is added, the Causticum
shows no sign of sulphuric acid, and on adding oxalate of ammonia it shows no
trace of lime.
A dictionary definition
of 'lye' is ' the technical term for the alkaline liquor obtained by leaching wood
ashes with water commonly used for washing and in soap making; more generally
the
common name for any
strong alkaline solution or solid such as sodium or potassium hydroxides.'
The chemical tests
mentioned at the end, using barium chloride, shows there is no presence of
sulphate ions and ammonium oxalate shows there are no calcium ions present in
Causticum. The
physical
properties mentioned, of freezing point and putrefaction, are common
characteristics of caustic alkalis.
The Preparation
Take a piece of freshly burned lime of about two pounds,
Two pounds of white marble has to be heated to red heat to effect the necessary
chemical change by driving off the carbon dioxide as follows:
CaCO3 + fire (heat) = CaO + CO2
dip this piece into a vessel of distilled water for about one minute, then lay
it in a dry dish, in which it will soon turn into powder with the development
of much heat and its peculiar odour called lime
vapour. When the burnt marble, now quicklime CaO, is put into water it
fizzes quite dramatically giving off heat and hydrating to form calcium
hydroxide some of which, in solution, steams to create the vapour Hahnemann
mentions. The formula is as follows:
CaO + H2O = Ca(OH) 2 + heat
Of this fine powder take two ounces and mix with it in a warmed porcelain
triturating bowl a solution of two ounces of bisulphate of potash, (potassium
bisulphate KHSO4) which has been heated
to red heat, melted, cooled again and then pulverised and dissolved in
two ounces of boiling hot water.
Potassium bisulphate is an acid salt with some water in its crystals.
Just why Hahnemann melts it to red heat and cools it again is unclear. Perhaps
in his day it was only available in hard lump form
instead of the modern fine crystals and needed this treatment to make it
a quickly dissolving powder. It melts easily at red heat, is dried by this
heating and easily dissolves in hot water. Another
possible reason for heating is to bake the crystals so ensuring that no
more than two ounces of water and two ounces of the two solids are present in
the final mixture so that all of it can react
completely as per the following formula:
Ca(OH)2+ KHSO4 + H2O = KOH + CaSO4 + 2H2O
The thick, white paste formed by this mixture of components is just
fluid enough to be pourable though needs a spatula to put it all in the retort.
The hydrated calcium sulphate so formed is commonly known as Plaster of Paris
hence its insoluble pasty quality and the potassium hydroxide formed is in the
solution which binds the mass.
This thickish mixture is put into a small glass retort, to which the helm is
attached with a wet bladder; into the tube of the helm is inserted a receiver
half submerged in water; the retort is warmed by the gradual approach of a
charcoal fire below and all the fluid is then distilled over by applying the
suitable heat.
The distilled fluid
will be about an ounce and a half of watery clearness, containing in
concentrated form the substance mentioned above, i.e. Causticum;
It smells like the lye of caustic potash. On the back part of the tongue the
caustic tastes very astringent, and in the throat burning; it freezes only in a
lower degree of cold than water, and it hastens the putrefaction of animal
substances immersed in it.
When muriate of Baryta is added, the Causticum shows no sign of sulphuric acid,
and on adding oxalate of ammonia it shows no trace of lime.
A dictionary definition of ‘lye: ‘the technical term
for the alkaline liquor obtained by leaching wood ashes with water commonly
used for washing and in soap making; more generally the common name for any
strong alkaline solution or solid such as sodium or potassium hydroxides.’
The chemical tests
mentioned at the end, using barium chloride, shows there is no presence of
sulphate ions and ammonium oxalate shows there are no calcium ions present in
Causticum. The physical properties mentioned, of freezing point and
putrefaction, are common characteristics of caustic alkalis.
Modern Documentation
One of the drawbacks to the industrialisation of remedy preparations by large
homoeopathic manufacturers, over the years, is the imposition of allopathic
methods of quality control and analysis on raw materials in order to licence
remedies as medicines for retail sale. This can impose strict testing of
original remedy materials to prove identity, quality and the validation of
potentisation methods which, of course, is a good thing. When pure sources of
elements and compounds are used there is no problem achieving this, but when
the starting point is already an impure source this can cause difficulties. For
example it is impossible to know the exact analysis of the marble Hahnemann
used for the original remedy/not documented from where the sample was obtained.
Also uncertainty as to the exact composition of the finished Causticum, and the
many trace elements it may contain, would mean very involved analytical
discussions about criteria and tests. Pharmacopoeias over the years have
avoided this issue by substituting 2 pounds of marble with 2 pounds of burned
lime, without indicating a source, to avoid having to introduce such a
variable. This means pure industrially prepared 99.9% calcium oxide is put
forward as the starting point. Caust is not found in either the French or
German homoeopathic pharmacopoeia (GHP) which are both widely used in the
Causticum Raasay Quelle: Helios
My interest in Causticum was rekindled when on a visit to the Burren school in
Galway,
However
as the years go by I am more and more convinced that remedies themselves choose
when to be made and the timing must be right to create the perfect conditions.
Esp. true for new proving remedies, a good example being the coincidental major
astrological movements of Pluto at the start of the Plutonium proving
previously unknown by the proving team.
The
conditions for a superb Causticum firing came together one night last June at
Jeremy Sherr’s summer school on Raasay island off the
Not
found yet is a satisfactory answer to why Hahnemann went to so much trouble to
make this remedy/his intentions. If the goal was to make potassium hydroxide
(KOH) this method is not very efficient and apparently unnecessary. Chronic
diseases describes the smell of Causticum like the 'lye' of caustic potash
(KOH) so it was obviously already available and known to him so why bother?
Andreas
Grimm, who reproduced the original method exactly in 1989, speculates that
Hahnemann was trying to isolate and distil the 'caustic principle' i.e. the
OH-ion which is, unknown to him, a fruitless task using this crude method.
Perhaps we will never know the truth but the combination of so many alchemical
elements seriously leans towards an experiment with another dimension. The use
of the great transforming fire, the meeting of the two principles masculine
(acid) and feminine (base) in equal measure, the hermetically sealed unit and
the final distillation in the alembic are all well known alchemical
processes.
Whatever the true reason the result is undeniably one of the most important remedies
in the materia medica and it is important to be clear as to its composition and
reproducibility.
Chemical
Possibilities
According
to the formulas the thickish mixture in the flask contains only three
components KOH + CaSO4 + 2H2O. i.e. Potassium hydroxide, calcium sulphate and
water. There are actually no volatile gases or products which would pass over
during distillation except water. Potassium hydroxide dissolves in water but
remains behind as the water boils off. Calcium sulphate is insoluble and
remains behind as a white hard mass. So how is the final product alkaline at
all. Many years it was thought that the alkalinity was due to ammonia which is
created when elemental calcium metal reacts with nitrogen 3Ca + N2 = Ca3N2 and
the resulting calcium nitride reacts with water to form ammonia gas. Ca3N2 +
6H2O = 2NH3↑ + 3Ca(OH)2 This gas then forms ammonium hydroxide
(amm-caus), when it contacts water. NH3 + H2O = NH4OH.
Scholten states in his recent book that Causticum contains ammonia but
is different from ammonium causticum.
However
reactive elemental calcium metal is not present in our process and calcium
oxide, which is, does not form this liaison with nitrogen and thus ammonia is
not formed. It is possible for ammonia to be formed if potassium hydroxide
comes into contact with the protein of the pigs bladder but this is very
remote. So how is the potassium hydroxide present in Causticum?
Grimm
gives, what I believe, is the most likely explanation. At 350 - 400o C,
temperatures, created by the charcoal fire, potassium hydroxide sublimates
without decomposing. Sublimation means that the solid vaporises into the
condenser and is carried over into the receiving vessel by water vapour thus
resulting in a weak solution. Grimm also suggests that bumping may also occur,
which is common with alkalis, creating a spitting effect up the tube. Thus
Causticum is a weak solution of potassium hydroxide by these effects. If there
are traces of unfired calcium carbonate in the calcium oxide then the addition
of the acid may liberate carbon dioxide gas which may be present as a trace as
in CaCO3 + KHSO4 = CaSO4 + KOH +CO2. However there is also another subtle dimension
which must also be remembered. The starting point was an impure marble which
could have had trace elements of many different elements. Ornamental marble
gains it colours from the presence of impurities such as iron creating red,
chlorites the greens and graphites the blues. Quartz (silica) is also often
found as an impurity in marble, so there are still many possible trace elements
which are unknown and may be present.
The Kali Element
Causticum
theme: sympathetic/serious/intense/sensitive type who can become a social
activist, working on behalf of others, to overcome injustice can be seen as
being made up of the 3 elements KOH.
Scholten
describes the potassium element themes as:
Doing
their work and duty without thinking. Steady plodding conscientiousness to get
the job done. Have and need fixed rules and like to stick to them. Have strong
principles and can be depended upon to fulfil their responsibility. Often work
alone and decide for themselves how to do it. Don’t like interference. Can even
turn away from the family. Fixed attention to principles and duty leads to an
inability to identify with their action. Loose their sense of self.
Brainwashed. Are naive. Over control suppresses free thinking. Are not open to
debate and become closed, dogmatic, moralistic.
Siehe Causticum:
Conclusions
At
present Causticum holds secrets and speculation and attempts to use materia
medica to decipher constituents is very inexact because of the differences in
numbers of rubrics between
the
remedies in the repertories. Perhaps continued chemical analysis of
preparations in the future, ideally by many companies, will give rise to some
definitive answers as to what Causticum is.
Up to
now the documented variations have been inconsistent and more samples,
willingness and time is needed to standardise this remedy correctly. I am sure
it is a Kali salt, and should be
thought
of as one, but alchemy is a mysterious thing and I'm sure this wonderful
substance will still keep some of its secrets hidden for some time to come.
If any
of you have any comments or information which can shed more light on the
subject I would be very grateful to receive it.
Acknowledgements
Quelle:
Helios pharmacy UK
Hahnemann
und die Choleraepidemie:
Die in der amerikanischen Literatur erwähnten Hauptmittel für die Epidemiebehandlung waren Ars., Bry. und Gels., wobei ersteres bei einer Nachrepertorisation der Leitsymptome wie schon bei Shepherd im Vordergrund steht. Es wurden aber auch Merc-cy., Phos., Lach., Rhus-t. und andere Mittel mit gutem Erfolg eingesetzt. Eine europäische Sonderposition nimmt der bedeutende Schweizer Homöopath Dr. Antoine Nebel (1870–1954) ein, der Eupat-per. wichtigstes Pandemiemittel bestimmte.
Ein international koordiniertes, einheitliches Konzept fehlte bei dieser Pandemie. Die homöopathische Bewegung war trotz ihrer Qualifikation zu sehr zersplittert und ohne genügend klare wissenschaftliche und organisatorische Führung, was sicher auch einer der Gründe für ihren Krebsgang in den nachfolgenden Jahrzehnten war. Und wie sieht es heute aus, etwa 3 Jahrzehnte nach einem erneuten Aufschwung der Homöopathie in Europa und USA und bei erneutem Aufflackern einer H1N1-Pandemie?
Im Internet waren trotz optimaler Kommunikationsmöglichkeit zu meinem großen Erstaunen auch einige Wochen nach den ersten beunruhigenden Nachrichten aus Mexiko nur einige Gemeinplätze zur Influenzabehandlung und ein paar esoterische Spekulationen, aber keinerlei verwertbare homöopathische Daten zur aktuellen Epidemie zu finden.
Wie anders hatte doch der bereits 76-jährige Hahnemann reagiert, als 1831 die ersten Berichte über eine an der Ostgrenze der K.u.k.-Monarchie neu aufgetretene und potenziell sehr gefährliche Seuche eintrafen! Er ließ sich von der um sich greifenden lähmenden Panik und Ratlosigkeit nicht anstecken, geschweige denn, dass er sich auf anderweitige Autoritäten verlassen hätte: Er befolgte die altbewährte taktische Regel, dass man einen angreifenden Gegner nicht einfach in Verteidigungsstellung erwarten, sondern wenn immer möglich schon im Aufmarschraum attackieren sollte, und ließ sich durch einen homöopathischen Kollegen im polnischen Galizien umgehend über sämtliche Krankheitsaspekte der sich schnell zur Pandemie ausweitenden Cholera informieren. Nach einer in Anbetracht der damaligen Postkutschenkommunikation und langsamen mechanischen Drucktechnik sehr kurzen Zeit konnte Hahnemann nach sorgfältiger Fernrepertorisation schon einen schriftlichen Epidemieplan zirkulieren lassen.
Dieser erwies sich schon beim ersten Einsatz in Osteuropa als der damaligen Schulmedizin deutlich überlegen
Und sollte der Homöopathie schließlich auch gesundheitspolitisch mehr Gewinn bringen als vermutlich alle Individualbehandlungen zusammen.
Lac owleum: Im Juli 1996 hatte J.
Wichmann mit ein paar Kollegen ein „amüsantes“ Gespräch bei einem
Seminar-Mittagessen in Augsburg, wobei über besonders skurrile
Mittelverordnungen Witze gemacht wurden. Dabei wurde die Idee aufgebracht,
einen Artikel über ein erfundenes Mittel zu schreiben und schlug als
offensichtlich absurd die „Eulenmilch“ vor (Till
Eulenspiegel lässt grüßen)
Lachesis: C. Hering hatte gehört von der Giftigkeit der Lachesisschlange.
Er nam sich vor sich das Gift zu besorgen. So gesagt, so getan!
Er fuhr mit seiner Frau mit
einem Segelschiff nach Mittelamerika (Surinam). Da brauchte er Träger, die die
beiden zu Fuß in einem Gebiet brachten, wo Lachesisschlangen vorkamen. Da
fanden sie erst mal keinen Person, der eine Lachesisschlange fangen wollte.
VIEL zu giftig und zu gefährlich.
Nach dem Versprechen immer
größere Belohnungen wurden die Beiden eine Lachesisschlange gebracht. Die
Fänger flüchteten!!
Dr. Hering entnahm die
Schlange persönlich das Gift und fiel in ein Delirium. Seine Frau notierte fein
säuberlich, was ihren Mann während dieses Deliriums sagte, tat und zeigte.
Das war die erste
Lachesisprüfung!!!
The
Story of Oscillococcinum [freely adapted from Jan Willem
Nienhuys]
Hahnemann’s description of the substance used
indicates that it was not a refined substance but simply crude petroleum taken
from the ground: “This product of the interior of the earth is extremely strong
in smell, taste and medicinal effect. For medicinal use it ought to be very
fluid and of light - yellow colour. If it is very fluid it is not very likely
that it has been adulterated with fat vegetable oils.”
In Hahnemann’s day, oil distillation had not
been developed, the first instance of it being in 1853, 10 years after his
death, and fractional distillation had not been developed as a laboratory or
commercial tool until 1864.
In 1853 the first actual distillation of crude
petroleum into kerosene (paraffin oil) was performed and the first modern “rock
oil” mine was created in southern
T. F. Allen’s Encyclopedia (1878 edition)
states that oil from
‘Accidental’ oil fields in
Hahnemann’s expressed concern was whether the
product was exclusively rock oil or had been adulterated with vegetable oils,
chiefly suspecting oil of turpentine. He proposed tests, one using sulphuric
acid and a simpler one of evaporation on writing paper, to determine if such
oils were present. He then advised a means of removing any such oils, if found,
using alcohol and filtration. (Chronic Diseases)
So we are forced to accept that Hahnemann’s
Petroleum is from the liquid portion of crude petroleum of unknown composition
and from an undefined source.
At some point later in the development of
homoeopathic literature, we find homeopathic Petroleum identified with kerosene
(paraffin oil). For instance Clarke’s Materia Medica (1900) states: “Commercial
‘Petroleum’ and commercial ‘paraffin oil’ are one and the same. The Petrol. of homoeopathy is this substance
purified and rectified.”
The most recent Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the
The adoption of kerosene/paraffin oil as a more
defined homoeopathic “Petroleum” has its justification in that it closely
matches Hahnemann’s description and that, as a specified fractional distillate
of crude oil, it can now be standardised - which is essential to the reliance
on a remedy that is being prescribed in accordance to a proving. According to
the 26th edition of the Martindale Extra Pharmacopoeia, kerosene is
“a mixture of hydrocarbons, chiefly of the methane series, distilled from
petroleum.
It is a colourless or pale yellow mobile oily
liquid with a characteristic odour. B.P. 150 to 300. Wt. per ml about 0.8g . .
. Insoluble in water; soluble 1 in 2.5 of alcohol.”
Uranylacetat/Thoriumnitrat/Uranylnitrat
Robert Müntz: Ausgangspunkt und Motor
für die Herstellung neuer radioaktiver Arzneien war Jan Scholten radioaktive
Salze der Actinoidenreihe zu potenzieren.
Die Herstellung radioaktiver
homöopathischer Arzneien bringt neben der herkömmlichen Arbeit der Potenzierung
(Lösungsvorschrift o. Trituration) zusätzliche rechtliche Fragen des
Strahlungsschutzes mit sich, die vor Beginn der Arbeit geklärt sein müssen.
Nach Gesprächen mit den Verantwortlichen des Austria Research Centers (ARC) in
Seibersdorf und des Gesundheitsministeriums wurde kein Einwand gegen die
Anfertigung entsprechender Centesimalpotenzen gegeben. Das ARC zeigte sich
höchst verständnisvoll für mein Anliegen, radioaktive Stoffe im
Forschungszentrum zu potenzieren/unterstützte mich großartig bei der
praktischen Durchführung.
Zu erwähnen ist, dass mit dieser Potenzierung Thorium als drittes natürlich vorkommendes
Element der Actinoiden erstmals der Homöopathie zugänglich gemacht wurde.
Potenzierung steht aus von Protactinium und Neptunium als letzten Vertreter der
5 natürlich vorkommenden Actinoiden.
Durchgeführt wurde die
Arbeit im Sicherheitstrakt des ARC in Seibersdorf unter entsprechenden
Vorsichtsmassnahmen: Schutzkleidung/Schutzhandschuhe/Chemieabzug/Zählrohr zur
Messung der Strahlung vor und nach dem Potenzieren.
Die Potenzierung erfolgte aus pragmatischen Gründen gemäß HV 5a, der
Lösungsvorschrift des HAB 2003. Die Trituration wäre zwar aus der Sicht der
Arzneiwirksamkeit vorteilhafter gewesen, ließ sich aber auch aus Zeitgründen
nicht durchführen, zumal sie mehrere Stunden dauert und der Zeitaufwand
gegenüber der Leitung des Forschungszentrums nicht vertretbar gewesen wäre.
Außerdem wäre die Kontamination mit radioaktivem Staub, der bei der Trituration
entsteht, nicht auszuschließen gewesen.
Die Lösung der Stoffe erfolgte im Verhältnis 1:100 mit Ethanol 43 % und war
unproblematisch, lediglich Uranylacetat brauchte zur Lösung etwa 15 Minuten.
Danach wurde nach der Hahnemannschen Mehrglasmethode gemäß HAB 2002 10x kräftig
auf eine elastische Unterlage geschlagen und in das nächste Fläschchen im
Centesimalverhältnis verdünnt.
Wesentlich für die Genehmigung der Herstellung durch die Behörden war, dass die
Verdünnungsschritte deutlich über die Avogadrosche Konstante hinaus zu erfolgen
hatten. Es wurde daher die Potenzierung bis zur C15 in der Mehrglasmethode
durchgeführt, eine Verdünnung, die eine Million mal höher ist als jene
Konzentration, bei der statistisch gerade noch ein Molekül des Ausgangsstoffes
anzutreffen ist. Die Mehrglasmethode, also die Verwendung eines neuen
Fläschchens bei jedem Potenzierungsschritt, ließ auch Adsorptionsphänomene mit
Sicherheit ausschließen. Als reine Vorsichtsmassnahme wurde nach Beendigung der
Potenzierreihe mit einem Geigerzähler nochmals überprüft, ob die C15 Lösung
auch tatsächlich strahlungsfrei war. Danach wurde sämtliches Arzneimaterial und
sämtliche Hilfsmittel wie Flaschenladen, Faserschreiber etc. zur Vernichtung im
ARC zurückgelassen, lediglich die C15 Lösungen von Thoriumnitrat, Uranylacetat
und Uranylnitrat wurde zur weiteren Verarbeitung in unser Labor nach Eisenstadt
gebracht. Die Vernichtung des strahlenden Abfalles erfolgt durch Einbringen in
flüssigen Beton, der in 100 l Endlagerungsfässer gegossen und nach Aushärtung
in ein Endlager gebracht wird.
Vergleich: Siehe: Hahnemann + Anhang. (Darwin)
Vorwort/Suchen Zeichen/Abkürzungen Impressum