Hahnemann = H.

 

Vergleich: Siehe: Organon Hahnemann (Farokh Master) + Hahnemann Anhang eigene Mitteln + Goethe und Hahnemann

Organon. aphorismen

Hahnemann's Final Methods.

 

[Robert Ellis Dudgeon]

Similarities Between Hahnemann and Paracelsus    

Presented by Peter Morrell

On the Theory and Practice of Homeopathy, 1853, pp.9-18

     The next name of importance as an authority in the medical art whom we find distinctly enunciating the principle of homeopathy, is the author who wrote under the pseudonyme of Basil Valentine, a Benedictine monk it is believed, who lived about the year 1410, in the convent of St. Peter at Erfurt. His words are "Likes must be cured by means of their likes, and not by their contraries, as heat by heat. Cold by cold, shooting by shooting; for one heat attracts the other to itself, one cold the other, as the magnet does the iron. Hence, prickly simples can remove diseases whose characteristic is prickly pains; and poisonous minerals can cure and destroy symptoms of poisoning when they are brought to bear upon them. And although sometimes a chill may be removed and suppressed, still I say, as a philosopher and one experienced in nature's ways, that the similar must be fitted with its similar, whereby it will be removed radically and thoroughly, if I am a proper physician and understand medicine. He who does not attend to this is no true physician, and cannot boast of his knowledge of medicine, because he is unable to distinguish betwixt cold and warm, betwixt dry and humid, for knowledge and experience, together with a fundamental observation of nature, constitute the perfect physician." (De Microcosmo.)

Philippus Theophrastus Bombastus = von HOHENHEIM PARACELSUS (1493-1541)

     Theophrastus von Hohenheim, commonly known by the name of Paracelsus who flourished in the sixteenth century, was a reformer of much the same character as Hahnemann, and though his doctrines never obtained for him the same number of followers as Hahnemann has, and though the school he founded soon perished and disappeared, and his name was only remembered as that

of a great charlatan, this was not owing to the unsoundness of the therapeutic doctrines he enunciated, which scarcely differed from many of those of Hahnemann; but the ephemeral character of his school was owing to the want of an express foundation for his therapeutic maxims in that great and signal merit of his modern rival, pure experimentation, or the proving of medicines on the healthy. I say an express foundation; for though, as I shall presently show, Paracelsus alludes to, he scarcely insists on the necessity of, pure physiological experimentation, giving no directions how it is to be carried out, and leaving its necessity rather to be inferred than enjoined. With a vigour equal to that of Hahnemann, he attacked the absurd methods of treatment prevalent in his time, for he saw as clearly as Hahnemann the defects of the ancient system, which, however, his assaults failed to overthrow; for the accusations he brings against the physicians of his age might be repeated of those of the present day, and were in fact re-echoed by our modern reformer. I may give a specimen of the mode in which he ridiculed the practice of the day, whereby you may judge of the resemblance betwixt his writings and those of Hahnemann.

     "Suppose," says he, "the case of a patient sick of a fever, which ran a course of twelve weeks and then ended; there are two kinds of physicians to treat it, the false and the true. The false one deliberately, and at his ease, sets about physicking; he dawdles away much time with his syrups and his laxatives, his purgatives and gruel, his barley-water, his juleps, and such-like rubbish. He goes to work slowly - takes his time to it - gives an occasional clyster to pass the time pleasantly, and creeps along at his ease, and cajoles the patient with his soft words until the disease has reached its termination, and then he attributes the spontaneous cessation of the fever to the influence of his art. But the true physician proceeds to work in a different manner. The natural course of the disease

he divides into twelve parts, and his work is limited to one part and a half."

     "That man is a physician," he goes on to say, "who knows how to render aid, and to drive out the disease by force; for as certainly as the axe applied to the trunk of the tree fells it to the ground,

so certainly does the medicine overcome the disease. If I am unable to do this, then I acknowledge readily that in this case I am no more a physician than you are."

     Some of his contemporaries, however, were not so ready to admit themselves to be no physicians, though they could not cure; for an amusing anecdote is related of Sylvius, who, having an epidemic fever to treat, was so unsuccessful, that two-thirds of the respectable people of the town died. But this worthy was far from acknowledging that he was no physician in this instance; on

the contrary, he wrote a very long and learned treatise on the disease, in which he alleges that his art was of the very best, and his remedies the most appropriate, but that God had denied his blessing to them, in order to punish the ladies and gentlemen of the place for their sins. A most pious and satisfactory reason for the great mortality, we all must admit.

Hahnemann classified all the methods of treatment under three heads:

1.      enantiopathic,

2.      allopathic,

3.      homeopathic.

Paracelsus divided doctors into five classes, under the names of

1. naturales,

2. Specifici,

3. Characterales,

4. Spirituales,

5. Fideles.

1st class corresponded to Hahnemann's enantiopathic,

2nd class more closely resembled the homeopathic;

Paracelsus differed from Hahnemann in this, that whereas the latter denies that the enantiopathic and allopathic cure at all, Paracelsus says that each sect is capable of curing all diseases, and an

educated physician may choose whichever he likes.

     With the apothecaries Paracelsus was, like Hahnemann, on very bad terms. As in the case of the modern reformer, Paracelsus was first attacked by the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries, and he returned their persecution by withering sarcasm and contemptuous depreciation. The great ground of complaint on the part of the worthy fraternity was, that Paracelsus did not write long and complex prescriptions, but contented himself chiefly with simples, which brought no grist to the apothecaries' mill.

     "So shamefully do they make up the medicines," he exclaims, "that it is only by a special interposition of Providence that they do not do more harm; and at the same time so extravagantly do they charge for them, and so much do they cry up their trash, that I do not believe any persons can be met with who are greater adepts in lying."

That the apothecaries of our own country were not much better about that period, or a little later, is evident from the expression of Walter Charleton, physician to King Charles II, who says of them, "Perfida ingratissimaque impostorum gens, aegrorurn pernicies, rei medicae calamitas et Libitinae presides."

     "The apothecaries," continues Paracelsus, "are so false and dishonest, that they lead the know-nothing doctors by the nose. If they say, 'This is so and so,' Dr. Wiseacre says, 'Yes, Master Apothecary, that is true.' Thus one fool cheats the other: Apothecary quid-pro-quo gives Dr. Wiseacre merdam pro balsamo; God help the poor patients that come under their hands!"

     Hahnemann himself had not a greater horror of hypothesis in medicine than Paracelsus.

     "The physician," he says, "should be educated in the school of nature, not in that of speculation. Nature is wise (sichtig), but speculation is invisible. The seen makes the physician, the unseen makes none; the seen gives the truth, the unseen nought."

     To the theorising adherents of Galen, he cries: "You are poets, and you carry your poetry into your I medicine." He calls those authors who indulge in their subtle theorising; "doctors of writing, but not of the healing art." He ridicules the idea of learning diseases or their treatment in books. "That physician," he says, "is but a poor creature, who would look to paper books alone for aid."

     Paracelsus rails in good set terms at the compounding of several medicines in one prescription, and he exposes the folly of composite recipes with a vigour, logic, and satirical humour not inferior to that displayed by Hahnemann.

     Like Hahnemann, he laughs at the notion of attempting to reduce all diseases to a certain number of classes and genera. "You imagine you have invented receipts for all the different fevers.

You limit the number of fevers to seventy and wot not that there are five times seventy." how like Hahnemann, who says (Organon, §73, note), "the old school has fixed on a certain number of names of fever, beyond which mighty nature dare not produce any others, so that they may treat those diseases according to some fixed method.''

     How like the commencement of Hahnemann's Introduction to Arsenic is this passage of Paracelsus: "What is there of God's creation that is not furnished with some great quality that may tend to the weal of mankind?" And yet he truly remarks, many things, if used rightly, are beneficial; if the reverse, poisonous. "Where is a purgative, in all your books that is not a poison, that will not cause death or injury, if attention be not paid to the dose in which it is given. You know that quicksilver is nothing but a poison, and daily experience proves it to be so; and yet it is your custom to smear your patients with it thicker than the cobbler smears his leather with grease. You fumigate with its cinnabar, you wash with its sublimate; and you are displeased that it should be said it is a poison, which it is; and this poison you throw into human beings alleging all good; that it is corrected by white bad, as though it were no poison."

     The Galenic maxim, contraria contrariis, finds no favour with Paracelsus. "A contrariis curantur"," he says, "that is, hot removes cold and so forth - that is false and was never true in medicine; but arcanum and disease, these are contraria. Arcanum is health, and disease is the opposite of health: these two drive away one another; these are the contraries that remove one another."

     In another place, he says something similar: "Contraria non curantur contrariis"; like belongs to like, not cold against heat, not heat against cold. That were indeed a wild arrangement if we had to seek our safety in opposites.

Paracelsus's writings

     Again: "This," says he, "is true, that he who will employ cold for heat, moisture for dryness, does not understand the nature of disease." (Paramirum, p.68)

     The homeopathic principle is still more completely set forth in his treatise, Von der Astronomey. He there says: "The nature of the arcana is, that they shall go directly against the properties or the enemy, as one combatant goes against another. Nature wills it that in the combat stratagem shall be employed agonist stratagem, etc., and this is the natural case with all things on earth; in medicine also, the same rule prevails. The physician should let this be an example to him, As two foes go out to the combat, who are both cold or both hot, and who attack one another both with the same weapon: as the victory is, so also is it in the human body; the two combatants seek their aid from the same mother, that is, from the same power."

     Still more distinctly, he enunciates our principle in these words: "What makes jaundice that also cures jaundice and all its species. In like manner, the medicine that shall cure paralysis must proceed from that which causes it; and in this way we practise according to the method of cure by arcana." (Archidoxis, vol iii, pt.v. p.18)

     Paracelsus's system, as far as we can learn it from his works, was a rude homeopathy, an attempt to discover specifics for the various diseases to which man is liable but it was not equal in value to Hahnemann's system, for an uncertainty almost as great as that of the old system attended it. He believed that in nature there existed a remedy for every disease. The physician, from the external Symptoms, was to judge of the organ diseased, and for the cure of the disease he has to select that medicine which experience had shown him exerted a specific influence on the organ affected. He would not have us speak of rheumatism, catarrh, coryza, etc., but of morbus terebinthinus, morbus Sileris montani, morbus heleborinus, etc; according as the malady presented the character of one or other of these medicines, that is to say, affected the organs one of them had an affinity for.

     This is, as I said, a rude homeopathy, but a homeopathy that did not sufficiently consider the character, but only the seat of the affection; and moreover a homeopathy that wanted the sure foundation of experiment on the healthy as the means of ascertaining the sphere of action of the remedies, but that trusted almost entirely to a laborious and empirical testing of the medicines on the sick - a source of Materia Medica which Hahnemann has shown to be sufficiently untrustworthy. Still, I would not say that Paracelsus was destitute of all knowledge of the pathogenetic effects of medicines, or that he entirely neglected this source for ascertaining the virtues of drugs; for some passages of his works would go far to prove the contrary to be the case. Thus the passage I have just quoted, "what makes jaundice that cures jaundice," presupposes an acquaintance with what will cause the disease; and we find more evidence of this in other parts of his works. Thus he writes: "When antimony is ingested it causes a dry cough much shooting pain in the sides and headache, great hardness of the stools, much ulceration of the spleen hot blood, it makes roughness and itching, dries up and increases the jaundice." Alkali causes oppression of the breathing, and foetid smell from the mouth, causes much koder. [whatever that may be] to be ejected, causes much heartburn, griping, and tearing in the bowels, dries up, renders the urine acrid, produces pollutions, also blood from the anus," etc. Such pathogenetic knowledge, however, is too vague and indefinite to have been of much use in practice; but it shows that Paracelsus was in the right direction, though he wanted the courage or perseverance to subject all his agents to the test of pure physiological experiment, and generally trusted to ascertaining their properties by trying them on the sick; a source be it remarked, en passant, which Hahnemann largely availed himself of, though, as I have just stated, he himself exposed its fallaciousness. Paracelsus resembles Hahnemann in still another point, that he recognised the primary and secondary actions of medicines.

     Speaking of vitriol, he says:

    Eisenvitriol in der Stofffärberei (Eisenbeizen, Indigoküpe), zur Herstellung verschiedener Farbstoffe (z. B. Berliner Blau zur Schwarzfärbung von Leder), zur Herstellung von Tinte (Eisengallustinte) und zur Desinfektion;

    Kupfervitriol zur Desinfektion, zur Holzimprägnierung, zur Konservierung von Tierhäuten als Balgen bis zur Verarbeitung zu Leder und in der Taxidermie, zur Beizung von Getreidesaat, zur Bekämpfung von Pflanzenkrankheiten (Bordeauxbrühe im Weinbau), zur Unkrautbekämpfung, zur Herstellung von Mineralfarben und organischen Farbstoffen und als Brechmittel;

    Zinkvitriol in der Kattundruckerei.

     "As surely as it relaxes in its first period, so surely does it constrict in its second period," etc.

     Paracelsus's system was eminently a system of specific medicine, and in many points his therapeutic rule resembles that of Hahnemann, and occasionally he makes use of a truly homeopathic phrase. Thus he says, "likes must be driven out (or cured) by likes;" but the meaning of this, in the Paracelsian sense, generally comes to this, that the disease of the brain, the heart, the liver, etc.,

must be expelled by that medicine which represents the brain, the heart, or the liver, in consequence of its specific action on one of these organs.

     Thus he says: "Heart to heart, lung to lung, spleen to spleen - not cow's spleen, not swine's brain to man's brain, but the brain that is external brain to man's internal brain."

     The next sentence I have to quote explains this meaning more thoroughly. "The medicinal herbs are organs; this is a heart, that a liver, this other a spleen. That every heart is visible to the eye as a heart I will not say, but it is a power and a virtue equivalent to the heart."

     Another point of resemblance betwixt Paracelsus and Hahnemann is observable in the great partiality shown by both for extremely minute doses. In his book On the Causes and Origin of Lues Gallica (lib. v. p.11), Paracelsus compares the medicinal power of the drug to fire." As a single spark can ignite a great heap of wood, indeed, can set a whole forest in flames, in like manner can a very small dose of medicine overpower a great disease. And," he proceeds, "just as this spark has no weight, so the medicine given, however small may be its weight, should suffice to effect its action." How like this is to Hahnemann: "The dose of the homeopathically selected remedy can never be prepared so small that it shall not be stronger than the natural disease, that it shall not suffice to cure it." (Organon, § cclxxix.)

     The following passage shows that Paracelsus anticipated Hahnemann in the employment of medicines by olfaction. Speaking of specifics, he says: " They have many rare powers, and they are very numerous; there is, for instance, the Specificum odoriferum, which cures diseases when the patients are unable to swallow the medicine, as in apoplexy and epilepsy." (Parac. Op., vol. iii. pt. vi. p.70. Basel, 1589)

     I shall close my quotations from Paracelsus by a passage, which shows that, like Hahnemann, he considered the medicinal power as something spiritual, and inseparable from the material medicine - in idea, at least, if not in fact: the medicine lies in the spirit and not in the substance (or body), for body and spirit are two different things."

     I have - said enough to show you the great analogy, the very striking resemblance betwixt Hahnemann's and Paracelsus's doctrines. I could not quote to you all the passages that are strikingly analogous to many in Hahnemann’s works, but what I have adduced will have enabled you to judge of this great likeness for yourselves. It is impossible at this moment to say if Hahnemann was acquainted with Paracelsus's writings. From his extensive familiarity with the writings of medical authors, both ancient and modern, I should hardly suppose that he had not read the works of one so world-renowned as Paracelsus; but then not a syllable occurs in all his works regarding this wonderful and most original writer and thinker. The resemblance of some passages in the Organon and in the minor writings of Hahnemann, to some parts of Paracelsus's works is so very striking, that it is difficult to believe that Hahnemann did not take them from Paracelsus; and yet had he done so, would he not have acknowledged the fact? It may be, after all, that the resemblance is purely accidental; and that his ideas that seem borrowed are just those that must necessarily occur to one who, like Paracelsus, had shaken himself free from the trammels of an antiquated and false system, and had set himself to study nature with his own eyes, unblinded by the distorting spectacles of the schools.

 

Oswald Croll's Basilica chymica (1609)

     One of the immediate followers of Paracelsus, Oswald Croll, who has been accepted by Sprengel and others as a good exponent of Paracelsus's system, seems to have but ill understood his master's maxims when he says, "Cerebrum suillum phreniticis prodest; ideo etiam ii, qui memoriam amiserant, cum juvamento miscuntur cerebro poreitio cuin myristica et cinnamomo aromatisato"

for, as I showed you just now, Paracelsus distinctly says, "not swine’s brain to man's brain.'' The idea of Croll, however, is a further proof of the notion of a necessary analogy between disease and remedy.

     Johannes Agricola, who flourished shortly after Paracelsus, after accusing his contemporaries of their inability to cure cancer, lupus, fistula, or leprosy, says:

 

Johannes Agricola Palatinus (1589-1643)

     But if the subject be viewed in the proper light, it must be confessed that a concealed poison is at the root of such disease, and thus poison must be of an arsenical character; this poison must therefore be expelled by means of the same or a similar poison." He used arsenic for the cure of these diseases. Here, then, is another testimony to the homeopathic principle; for I do not imagine Agricola, in stating that the poison on which Cancer, lupus, etc., depended was of an arsenical in character, meant to say that it was actually arsenic, but only that it was analogous to arsenic in its effects, and, on the homeopathic principle, arsenic was its proper curative agent. He goes on to observe, "If a realgar disease is present, it must be cured with a realgaric remedy, and with none other." That is to say; as I conceive it if we have a case of disease before us resembling the pathogenetic effects of realgar, we must treat it with that substance, and with none other, - a distinct declaration of the homeopathic principle.

 

 

[Peter Morrell]

The next name of importance as an authority in the medical art whom we find distinctly enunciating the principle of homeopathy, is the author who wrote under the pseudonyme of Basil Valentine,

a Benedictine monk it is believed, who lived about the year 1410, in the convent of St. Peter at Erfurt. His words are "Likes must be cured by means of their likes, not by their contraries, as heat by heat. Cold by cold, shooting by shooting; for one heat attracts the other to itself, one cold the other, as the magnet does the iron. Hence, prickly simples can remove diseases whose characteristic is prickly pains; and poisonous minerals can cure and destroy symptoms of poisoning when they are brought to bear upon them. And although sometimes a chill may be removed and suppressed, still

I say, as a philosopher and one experienced in nature's ways, that the similar must be fitted with its similar, whereby it will be removed radically and thoroughly, if I am a proper physician and understand medicine. He who does not attend to this is no true physician, cannot boast of his knowledge of medicine, because he is unable to distinguish between cold and warm, between dry and humid, for knowledge and experience, together with a fundamental observation of nature, constitute the perfect physician“. (De Microcosmo.)      

Philippus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim = P.

Theophrastus von Hohenheim, commonly known by the name of P. who flourished in the 16th century, was a reformer of much the same character as H., though his doctrines never obtained for

him the same number of followers as H. has, though the school he founded soon perished and disappeared, his name was only remembered as that of a great charlatan, this was not owing to the unsoundness of the therapeutic doctrines he enunciated, which scarcely differed from many of those of H.; but the ephemeral character of his school was owing to the want of an express foundation for his therapeutic maxims in that great and signal merit of his modern rival, pure experimentation, or the proving of medicines on the healthy. I say an express foundation; for though, as I shall presently show, P. alludes to, he scarcely insists on the necessity of, pure physiological experimentation, giving no directions how it is to be carried out, leaving its necessity rather to be inferred

than enjoined. With a vigour equal to that of H., he attacked the absurd methods of treatment prevalent in his time, for he saw as clearly as H. the defects of the ancient system, which, however,

his assaults failed to overthrow; for the accusations he brings against the physicians of his age might be repeated of those of the present day, were in fact re-echoed by our modern reformer.

I may give a specimen of the mode in which he ridiculed the practice of the day, whereby you may judge of the resemblance between his writings and those of H. "Suppose“, he says, "the case

of a patient sick of a fever, which ran a course of 12 weeks and then ended; there are 2 kinds of physicians to treat it, the false and the true. The false one deliberately, at his ease, sets about physicking; he dawdles away much time with his syrups and his laxatives, his purgatives and gruel, his barley-water, his juleps, such-like rubbish. He goes to work slowly -takes his time to it- gives

an occasional clyster to pass the time pleasantly, creeps along at his ease, cajoles the patient with his soft words until the disease has reached its termination, then he attributes the spontaneous cessation of the fever to the influence of his art. But the true physician proceeds to work in a different manner. The natural course of the disease he divides into 12 parts, his work is limited to one part and a half". "That man is a physician“, he goes on to say, "who knows how to render aid, to drive out the disease by force; for as certainly as the axe applied to the trunk of the tree fells it to

the ground, so certainly does the medicine overcome the disease. If I am unable to do this, then I acknowledge readily that in this case I am no more a physician than you are". Some of his contemporaries, however, were not so ready to admit themselves to be no physicians, though they could not cure; for an amusing anecdote is related of Sylvius, who, having an epidemic fever to treat, was so unsuccessful, that two-thirds of the respectable people of the town died. But this worthy was far from acknowledging that he was no physician in this instance; on the contrary, he wrote a very long and learned treatise on the disease, in which he alleges that his art was of the very best, his remedies the most appropriate, but that God had denied his blessing to them, in order to punish the ladies and gentlemen of the place for their sins. A most pious and satisfactory reason for the great mortality, we all must admit.          

H., we know, classified all the methods of treatment under 3 heads, enantiopathic, allopathic, homeopathic.

P. divided doctors into 5 classes: Naturales, Specifici, Characterales, Spirituales, Fideles.

1st class Naturales: corresponded to H.'s enantiopathic,

2nd Specifici: more closely resembled the homeopathic; but P. differed from H. in this, that whereas the latter denies that the enantiopathic and allopathic cure at all, P. says that each sect is capable

of curing all diseases, an educated physician may choose whichever he likes.

With the apothecaries P. was, like H., on very bad terms. As in the case of H., P. was first attacked by the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries, he returned their persecution by withering sarcasm and contemptuous depreciation. The great ground of complaint on the part of the worthy fraternity was, that P. did not write long and complex prescriptions, but contented himself chiefly with simples, which brought no grist to the apothecaries' mill. "So shamefully do they make up the medicines“, he exclaims, "that it is only by a special interposition of Providence that they do not do more harm; and at the same time so extravagantly do they charge for them, so much do they cry up their trash, that I do not believe any persons can be met with who are greater adepts in lying". That the apothecaries of our own country were not much better about that period, or a little later, is evident from the expression of Walter Charleton, physician to King Charles II, who says of them, "Perfida ingratissimaque impostorum gens, aegrorurn pernicies, rei medicae calamitas et Libitinae presides“. "The apothecaries“, continues P., "are so false and dishonest, that they lead the know-nothing doctors by the nose. If they say, 'This is so and so', Dr. Wiseacre says, 'Yes, Master Apothecary, that is true.' Thus one fool cheats the other: Apothecary quid-pro-quo gives Dr. Wiseacre merdam

pro balsamo; God help the poor patients that come under their hands!". H. himself had not a greater horror of hypothesis in medicine than P. "The physician“, he says, "should be educated in the school of nature, not in that of speculation. Nature is wise (sichtig), but speculation is invisible. The seen makes the physician, the unseen makes none; the seen gives the truth, the unseen nought“.           To the theorising adherents of Galen, he cries: "You are poets, you carry your poetry into your I medicine“. He calls those authors who indulge in their subtle theorising; "doctors of writing, but not

of the healing art“. He ridicules the idea of learning diseases or their treatment in books. "That physician“, he says, "is but a poor creature, who would look to paper books alone for aid“.

P. rails in good set terms at the compounding of several medicines in one prescription, he exposes the folly of composite recipes with a vigour, logic, satirical humour not inferior to that displayed

by H. Like H., he laughs at the notion of attempting to reduce all diseases to a certain number of classes and genera. "You imagine you have invented receipts for all the different fevers. You limit

the number of fevers to 70 and wot not that there are 5x seventy“. how like H., who says (Organon, §73, note), "the old school has fixed on a certain number of names of fever, beyond which mighty nature dare not produce any others, so that they may treat those diseases according to some fixed method''.

How like the commencement of H.'s Introduction to Arsenic is this passage of P.: "What is there of God's creation that is not furnished with some great quality that may tend to the weal of mankind?" And yet he truly remarks, many things, if used rightly, are beneficial; if the reverse, poisonous. "Where is a purgative, in all your books that is not a poison, that will not cause death or injury, if attention be not paid to the dose in which it is given. You know that quicksilver is nothing but a poison, daily experience proves it to be so; and yet it is your custom to smear your patients with it thicker than the cobbler smears his leather with grease. You fumigate with its cinnabar, you wash with its sublimate; and you are displeased that it should be said it is a poison, which it is; and this poison you throw into human beings alleging all good; that it is corrected by white bad, as though it were no poison“. The Galenic maxim, contraria contrariis, finds no favour with P. "A contrariis curantur", he says, "that is, hot removes cold and so forth - that is false and was never true in medicine; but arcanum and disease, these are contraria. Arcanum is health, disease is the opposite of health: these two drive away one another; these are the contraries that remove one another“.  In another place, he says something similar: "Contraria non curantur contrariis"; like belongs to like, not cold against heat, not heat against cold. That were indeed a wild arrangement if we had to seek our safety in opposites.     

Again: "This“, he says, "is true, that he who will employ cold for heat, moisture for dryness, does not understand the nature of disease“. (Paramirum, p.68)           

The homeopathic principle is still more completely set forth in his treatise, „Von der Astronomey“.

He there says: "The nature of the arcana is, that they shall go directly against the properties or the enemy, as one combatant goes against another. Nature wills it that in the combat stratagem shall be employed agonist stratagem, etc., this is the natural case with all things on earth; in medicine also, the same rule prevails. The physician should let this be an example to him, As two foes go out to the combat, who are both cold or both hot, who attack one another both with the same weapon: as the victory is, so also is it in the human body; the two combatants seek their aid from the same mother, that is, from the same power“. Still more distinctly, he enunciates our principle in these words: "What makes jaundice that also cures jaundice and all its species. In like manner, the medicine that shall cure paralysis must proceed from that which causes it; and in this way we practise according to the method of cure by arcana“. (Archidoxis, vol iii, pt.v. p.18)          

P.'s system, as far as we can learn it from his works, was a rude homeopathy, an attempt to discover specifics for the various diseases to which man is liable but it was not equal in value to H.'s system, for an uncertainty almost as great as that of the old system attended it. He believed that in nature there existed a remedy for every disease. The physician, from the external Symptoms, was to judge of the organ diseased, for the cure of the disease he has to select that medicine which experience had shown him exerted a specific influence on the organ affected. He would not have us speak of rheumatism, catarrh, coryza, etc., but of morbus terebinthinus, morbus Sileris montani, morbus heleborinus, etc; according as the malady presented the character of one or other of these medicines, that is to say, affected the organs one of them had an affinity for. This is, as I said, a rude homeopathy, but a homeopathy that did not sufficiently consider the character, but only the seat of the affection; and moreover a homeopathy that wanted the sure foundation of experiment on the healthy as the means of ascertaining the sphere of action of the remedies, but that trusted almost entirely to a laborious and empirical testing of the medicines on the sick - a source of Materia Medica which H. has shown to be sufficiently untrustworthy. Still, I would not say that P. was destitute of all knowledge of the pathogenetic effects of medicines, or that he entirely neglected this source for ascertaining the virtues of drugs; for some passages of his works would go far to prove the contrary to be the case. Thus the passage I have just quoted, "what makes jaundice that cures jaundice“, presupposes an acquaintance with what will cause the disease; and we find more evidence of this in other parts of his works. Thus he writes: "When antimony is ingested it causes a dry cough much shooting pain in the sides and headache, great hardness of the stools, much ulceration of the spleen hot blood, it makes roughness and itching, dries up and increases the jaundice“. Alkali causes oppression of the breathing, foetid smell from the mouth, causes much koder. [whatever that may be] to be ejected, causes much heartburn, griping, tearing in the bowels, dries up, renders the urine acrid, produces pollutions, also blood from the anus“, etc. Such pathogenetic knowledge, however, is too vague and indefinite to have been of much use in practice; but it shows that P. was in the r. direction, though he wanted the courage or perseverance to subject all his agents to the test of pure physiological experiment, generally trusted to ascertaining their properties by trying them on the sick; a source be it remarked, en passant, which H. largely availed himself of, though, as I have just stated, he himself exposed its fallaciousness.

P. resembles H. in still another point, that he recognised the primary and secondary actions of medicines.          

Speaking of vitriol, he says: "As surely as it relaxes in its first period, so surely does it constrict in its second period“, etc. P.'s system was eminently a system of specific medicine, in many points his therapeutic rule resembles that of H., occasionally he makes use of a truly homeopathic phrase. Thus he says, "likes must be driven out (or cured) by likes;" but the meaning of this, in the Paracelsian sense, generally comes to this, that the disease of the brain, the heart, the liver, etc., must be expelled by that medicine which represents the brain, the heart, or the liver, in consequence of its specific action on one of these organs. Thus he says: "Heart to heart, lung to lung, spleen to spleen - not cow's spleen, not swine's brain to man's brain, but the brain that is external brain to man's internal brain“.          

The next sentence I have to quote explains this meaning more thoroughly. "The medicinal herbs are organs; this is a heart, that a liver, this other a spleen. That every heart is visible to the eye as a heart I will not say, but it is a power and a virtue equivalent to the heart“.

Another point of resemblance between P. and H. is observable in the great partiality shown by both for extremely minute doses. In his book On the Causes and Origin of Lues Gallica (lib. v. p.11),

P. compares the medicinal power of the drug to fire“. As a single spark can ignite a great heap of wood, indeed, can set a whole forest in flames, in like manner can a very small dose of medicine overpower a great disease. „And“, he proceeds, "just as this spark has no weight, so the medicine given, however small may be its weight, should suffice to effect its action“. How like this is to H.: "The dose of the homeopathically selected remedy can never be prepared so small that it shall not be stronger than the natural disease, that it shall not suffice to cure it“. (Organon, § cclxxix.)

The following passage shows that P. anticipated H. in the employment of medicines by olfaction. Speaking of specifics, he says: " They have many rare powers, they are very numerous; there is,

for instance, the Specificum odoriferum, which cures diseases when the patients are unable to swallow the medicine, as in apoplexy and epilepsy“. (Parac. Op., vol. iii. pt. vi. p.70. Basel, 1589)          

I shall close my quotations from P. by a passage, which shows that, like H., he considered the medicinal power as something spiritual, inseparable from the material medicine - in idea, at least, if not

in fact: the medicine lies in the spirit and not in the substance (or body), for body and spirit are two different things“.           I have - said enough to show you the great analogy, the very striking resemblance between H.'s and P.'s doctrines. I could not quote to you all the passages that are strikingly analogous to many in H.'s works, but what I have adduced will have enabled you to judge

of this great likeness for yourselves. It is impossible at this moment to say if H. was acquainted with P.'s writings. From his extensive familiarity with the writings of medical authors, both ancient

and modern, I should hardly suppose that he had not read the works of one so world-renowned as P.; but then not a syllable occurs in all his works regarding this wonderful and most original writer and thinker. The resemblance of some passages in the Organon and in the minor writings of H., to some parts of P.'s works is so very striking, that it is difficult to believe that H. did not take them from P.; and yet had he done so, would he not have acknowledged the fact? It may be, after all, that the resemblance is purely accidental; and that his ideas that seem borrowed are just those that must necessarily occur to one who, like P., had shaken himself free from the trammels of an antiquated and false system, had set himself to study nature with his own eyes, unblinded by the distorting spectacles of the schools.      Oswald Croll's Basilica chymica (1609) = one of the immediate followers of P., Oswald Croll, who has been accepted by Sprengel and others as a good exponent of P.'s system, seems to have but ill understood his master's maxims when he says, "Cerebrum suillum phreniticis prodest; ideo etiam ii, qui memoriam amiserant, cum juvamento miscuntur cerebro poreitio cuin myristica et cinnamomo aromatisato" for, as I showed you just now, P. distinctly says, "not swine's brain to man's brain''. The idea of Croll, however, is a further proof of the notion of a necessary analogy between disease and remedy.          

Johannes Agricola Palatinus, who flourished shortly after P., after accusing his contemporaries of their inability to cure cancer, lupus, fistula, or leprosy, says: But if the subject be viewed in the proper light, it must be confessed that a concealed poison is at the root of such disease, thus poison must be of an arsenical character; this poison must therefore be expelled by means of the same or a similar poison“. He used arsenic for the cure of these diseases. Here, then, is another testimony to the homeopathic principle; for I do not imagine Agricola, in stating that the poison on which Cancer, lupus, etc., depended was of an arsenical in character, meant to say that it was actually arsenic, but only that it was analogous to arsenic in its effects,, on the homeopathic principle, arsenic was its proper curative agent. He goes on to observe, "If a realgar disease is present, it must be cured with a realgaric remedy, with none other“. That is to say; as I conceive it if we have a case of disease before us resembling the pathogenetic effects of realgar, we must treat it with that substance, with none other, - a distinct declaration of the homeopathic principle. for I do not imagine Agricola, in stating that the poison on which Cancer, lupus, etc., depended was of an arsenical in character, meant to say that it was actually arsenic, but only that it was analogous to arsenic in its effects, and, on the homeopathic principle, arsenic was its proper curative agent. He goes on to observe, "If a realgar disease is present, it must be cured with a realgaric remedy, and with none other." That is to say; as I conceive it if we have a case of disease before us resembling the pathogenetic effects of realgar, we must treat it with that substance, and with none other, - a distinct declaration of the homeopathic principle.  

 

Vergleich: Siehe: Geschichten

 

[John Morgan M.R.Pharm. S., R.S. Hom/Helios Pharmacy]

DOSE, DILUTION and the LM POTENCIES

Hahnemann completed the fifth edition of the Organon in 1833 and the sixth edition by the end of 1841. He wrote a letter dated 20th February, 1842, to Schwabe, his publisher in Dusseldorf saying that ' I have now after 18 months of work finished the sixth edition of my Organon, the most nearly perfect of all.' After stating his preference as to type and paper he asked Schwabe if he would publish it, but before the negotiations were completed Hahnemann died on 2nd July 1843. His wife Melanie was pressed by Boenninghausen, Hering and other students of Hahnemann to publish the document after his death, but she would not release the manuscript either because of a desire to protect his name or because of her desire for money! Although most writers favour Melanie's avarice as the cause of the delay, this is unlikely, as the manuscript was not released, even though she was over 80 when she died, and her greed was thus left unsatisfied. Hahnemann described her as his best ever student and her deep love for him surely withheld the manuscript to deny his critics the opportunity of judging the 6th edition even more eccentric than the 5th. It was only released to the world, after translation, in 1921 when Richard Haehl procured the manuscript from Hahnemann's ancestors by which time there had been a great establishment of homœopathy by J.T. Kent and those who followed him. It is ironic that Kent, such a devoted follower of his master, should have only had the fifth edition, and not the 'most nearly perfect of all' on which to base his teaching. Had the 6th edition been available to him, the whole evolution of homœopathy would surely have been different.

Kent's contribution to the development of the high potencies established an extension to remedy preparation based on the guidelines given by Hahnemann in the 5th edition (published in 1833), namely the centessimal potency scale. By 1921, 5 years after Kent's death, America and Europe were well established in decimal and centessimal remedy philosophy so the discovery, in the 6th edition, of a new method of potentising remedies, the LM (= Q) potencies, did not, at the time, start a revolution towards their use. In fact it was a further 33 years, in 1954, that Dr. Pierre Schmidt of Geneva published essays about his experiences using the LM scale. Since then only a few have carried the flame in Europe and India, but recently the worldwide growth of homœopathy has started to look again at the

LM potencies which Hahnemann describes, in a footnote to § 270 as being "the most powerful and at the same time mildest in action i.e. as the most perfected"

The evolution of the preparation and application of Hahnemann's remedies passed through several phases. His early use of remedies (from 1784) were small crude doses, of the drug, in powder or tincture form given according to the homœopathic principle. There were, of course, side effects especially with the poisonous remedies such as Arsenicum, and the desire to eliminate these toxic effects led him to develop, in 1815, the method of trituration and subsequent liquid dilution and succussion, we know as the centessimal potencies. From 1815 he used potentised remedies for the toxic and insoluble inert materials such as Silica, Carb-v. etc. and dosed directly with drops of the less poisonous mother tinctures such as Bry., Puls., Rhus-t.. By 1834 he was using all his remedies in a potentised form, giving the appropriate potency and the minimum dose (i.e. quantity) of his medicines to patients by means of the smallest sugar granules available.

These so-called 'pellet' dosages are described in Chronic Diseases p151 as 'the finest, of the size of poppy-seeds, of which about 200 (more or less) weigh a grain' and just one of these tiny granules, given dry on the tongue, remained Hahnemann's standard solid dose right up to 1837.

            It seems that the evolution of his remedy preparation was fuelled by the desire to create, not only, a highly dynamised remedy but also to give it in the smallest dose (quantity) possible to effect a curative response.

Hahnemann's writings clearly show that he differentiates between the level of potency and smallness of the dose i.e. the quantity given.

For example,

Organon 5th edition (1833) §276 "A medicine, even though it may be homœopathically suited to the case, does harm in every dose that is too large, the more harm the larger the dose, and by the magnitude of the dose it does more harm the greater its homœopathicity and the higher the potency selected".

Organon 5th Edition (1833) § 246 footnote "Now, in cases where he was convinced of the correctness of his choice of the homœopathic medicine, in order to obtain more benefit for the patient that he was able to get hitherto from prescribing a single small dose, the idea often naturally struck him to increase the dose ....... and, for instance, in place of giving a single very minute globule moistened with the medicine in the highest dynamization, to administer six, seven or eight of them at once, and even a half or a whole drop. But the result was almost always less favourable than it should have been; it was often actually unfavourable, often even very bad - an injury that, in a patient so treated, it is difficult to repair.

These days we tend to regard the size of a dose of a centessimal remedy as irrelevant. One tablet or ten tablets taken as one dose still only gives one dose of the potency, doesn't it? But there are unanswered questions. For example, why do we not nowadays extensively see remedies causing 'more harm the larger the dose'? After all, the average dose from a tablet used today is approximately 50x the dose of Hahnemann's small granule. Also how far can a remedy be diluted before the remedy is inactive? If we dissolve a tablet in a bath of water will a teaspoonful dose have the same effect as taking the tablet itself? Why should olfaction of a remedy be more suitable to sensitives? Is this because they take in a smaller quantity of vapour or tablet dust? And how far does the vial have to be from the nose before the dose is inactive? As we shall see management of cases using the LM scale is based on the quantity of medicine the patient takes. Its as if Hahnemann takes it for granted that we all understand the importance of quantity, as well as potency, when administering a remedy, but this seems almost a revolutionary new concept to us as we rarely consider this factor when using both low and high potency centessimal remedies.

            Another interesting concept, which Hahnemann consistently refers to, is the ability of an increased number of succussions to continually strengthen or intensify the potency without further dilution.

In the 5th edition we find the following footnote to §270

            "In order to maintain a fixed and measured standard for developing the power of liquid medicines, multiplied experience and careful observation have led me to adopt two succussions for each phial, in preference to the greater number formerly employed (by which the medicines were too highly potentised).

There are, however, homeopathists who carry about with them on their visits to patients the homœopathic medicines in the fluid state, and who yet assert that they do not become more highly potentised in the course of time, but they thereby show their want of ability to observe correctly. I dissolved a grain of soda in half an ounce of water mixed with alcohol in a phial, which was thereby filled two-thirds full, and shook this solution continuously for half an hour, and this fluid was in potency and energy equal to the thirtieth development of power."

            It is more likely that, rather than an increase in potency level itself, the large number of succussions produce a lateral intensification or energising of the solution within the confines of the dilution factor - a concept upheld by the LM method. If there was not a 'ceiling' to potency level then serial dilution would not be needed to make a remedy, one could simply shake any dilution for different lengths of time as in the example given above. Also the lower potencies are very limited by the physical molecular presence of the remedy so it is impossible to make a 30c if there is material presence as potencies above 12c have no molecules of the original substance left.

            The question remains, however, as to when a potency level is actually reached and how many succussions are needed to reach it and also whether different dilution factors need different amounts. For example if one succussion will turn a 29c into a 30c then extra succussions will simply intensify on the 30c level. If more shakes are needed then a gradual increase in potency occurs until a saturation point arrives and presumably only intensification takes place. In the sixth edition Hahnemann describes the daily succussion of the LM solutions as 'altering and slightly increasing the degree of potency' §248 suggesting a gradual almost exponential curve of increasing potency which never actually reaches the next degree until a further dilution step is taken.

Hahnemann's thoughts are shown in the following extracts,

            Materia Medica Pura (1827) p46 ....... we must act with moderation in order to avoid increasing the powers of the medicines to an undue extent by such trituration. A drop of Drosera in the 30th dilution succussed with 20 stokes of the arm at each dilution, given as a dose to a child suffering from whooping-cough, endangers life, whereas, if the dilution phials are succussed only twice,

a globule the size of a poppy seed moistened with the last dilution cures it readily.

Organon 6th Edition (1842) § 270 footnote ......with so small diluting medium as 100 to 1 of the medicine, if many succussions by means of a powerful machine are forced into it, medicines are then developed which, especially in the higher degrees of dynamisation, act almost immediately, but with furious even dangerous, violence, especially in weakly patients, without having a lasting, mild reaction of the vital principle.

            On the subject of repetition of a centessimal dose of the same potency Hahnemann shows an important change of mind between the 2 editions. In the 5th edition §246 footnote he advocates that" ...... a single dose of a well selected homœopathic medicine should always be allowed first to fully extend its action before a new medicine is given or the same one repeated.", then continues in this long footnote to give details of certain chronic and serious acute conditions when it is actually necessary to repeat the dose several times to effect a cure, although he advises caution as " he has frequently experienced no advantage, but most frequently, decided disadvantage"

            Whereas in the 6th edition the re-written §246 dismisses the above as " all my experience permitted me to say at the time.." and that his research of the previous five years had wholly solved the difficulties of repetition.

 §247 clearly states his renewed position

            "It is impractical to repeat the same unchanged dose of a remedy once, not to mention its frequent repetition (and at short intervals in order not to delay the cure). The vital principle does not accept such unchanged doses without resistance, that is, without other symptoms of the medicine to manifest themselves than those similar to the disease to be cured, because the former dose has already accomplished the expected change in the vital principle and a second dynamically wholly similar, unchanged dose of the same medicine no longer finds, therefore, the same conditions of the vital force. The patient may indeed be made sick in another way by receiving other such unchanged doses, even sicker than he was, for now only those symptoms of the given remedy remain active which were not homœopathic to the original disease, hence no step towards cure can follow, only a true aggravation of the condition of the patient."

After many years of continued experimentation, Hahnemann published new procedures, which solved some of the problems of dose and repetition. They formed the basis of the LM method, which was to follow after another five years painstaking work. 

This first breakthrough comes in 1837 when the chapter in Chronic Diseases called 'Concerning the technical part of Homœopathy' describes the new plussing method for administering centessimal potencies. He is lead to changes of the dosing of remedies because the " variety among patients as to their irritability, age, spiritual and bodily development necessitate a great variety in their treatment and administration to them of the doses of medicines".   Hahnemann felt that the 'single dose and wait' philosophy left too long a period of inaction and the speed of cure often too slow as the practitioner could do nothing but wait for the remedy to complete it curative curve. Also, from his many comments about violent reactions to remedies, the sensitive patients he saw were producing undesirable aggravations, which he constantly sought to escape from.

He firstly introduces the greater beneficial effects of administering remedies always in liquid form, the reason for this being that the medicine " comes in contact with a much larger surface of sensitive nerves responsive to the medicinal action" (5th edition §286) and because of this the effect of the remedy increases. One of the granules of high dynamisation (he refers mostly to the 30c) is dissolved in 7-20 tablespoons of water with a little alcohol added. The patient then takes, directly from the bottle, a tablespoon of the liquid (a teaspoon or coffee-spoonfuls for children) two, four or six hourly for acutes, daily or every other day for chronics. The choice of how many tablespoons to make the solution with depends on how much of the granule is required in each tablespoon dose i.e. 1/7th granule (7 tablespoons) - 1/20th (20 tablespoons), as well as for how many days the remedy is to be given. The differing amount of solution to be made up gives flexibility for each patients needs and infers that the remedy action is different (weaker) in its 'intensity' the more diluted the original granule becomes. Additionally, before each dose is taken " a slight change in the degree of dynamisation is effected if the bottle, containing the solution of one or more pellets, is merely well shaken five or six times, every time before taking it” Thus each days dosage remains homœopathic to the case as the slight increase in the health of the vital force is matched with the slight increase in potency caused by the five or six shakes of the bottle. The regular stimulus of the remedy, which is homœopathic both in pathogenesis and potency, is the key to the speedier cure.

The same chapter in Chronic Diseases highlights this thus " In taking one and the same medicine repeatedly (which is indispensable to secure the cure of a serious chronic disease), if the dose is in every case varied and modified only a little in its degree of dynamisation, then the vital force of the patient will calmly, and as it were willingly receive the same medicine even at brief intervals very many times in succession with the best results, every time increasing the well-being of the patient."

Another method for dosing "careful” patients is also suggested in the same chapter whereby the pellet is dissolved in 200 (approx.8ml), 300 (12ml) or 400 drops (16ml) of a 50% brandy solution, depending on whether it is to be weaker or stronger, and one, two, three or several drops, according to the irritability of the patient, are dropped into a cup containing a tablespoon of water. This well stirred then taken all as one dose or only half is taken if "special care is necessary” The 'stock' bottle is shaken as suggested in the method above.

So here we have as example of reducing the dose further by using drops rather than tablespoons so as to not over stimulate the sensitive or 'careful' patient. I.e. the smaller the quantity of the pellet received in the dose the less its undesirable effects. There is an optimum dosage, which suits each patient as the diluting weakens the potency so it doesn't overstimulate. The optimum dose individual for each case is the smallest amount needed for a gentle but certain remedial effect. These are also the principles on which the LM method is based.

Lastly Hahnemann paves the way for the final step, into his most perfect method, with a famous paragraph concerning the number of succussions given to the vial when preparing centessimal remedies. The homœopathic Pharmacopoeias officially advocate ten succussions as the number to use when preparing C potencies, but I believe they have missed a small point when interpreting Hahnemann’s reasons for change. In Chronic Diseases we are told that when giving remedies in solid form i.e. granules or powders dry on the tongue, Hahnemann found that remedies prepared with more than two shakes were too strong so stayed with two strokes for consistency; but " during the last years since I have been giving every dose of medicine in a solution, divided over fifteen, twenty or thirty days and even more, no potentising in an attenuating vial is found too strong, and again I use ten strokes.  In other words as long as the dose is in liquid form, and can be regulated as to the optimum size and repetition, then no matter how many succussions are used to prepare the original remedy it will not be too much for the patient. This also confirms the idea that the intense action of a highly succussed remedy is diminished by dilution.

 

THE LM POTENCIES

            From 1837-1843, as far as is known, all Hahnemann's administration of remedies was done in liquid form using variations on the above themes. The final development to create a more highly dynamised remedy was the change of the dilution factor from 1:100 to 1:50,000. The 3c trituration powder (details of the preparation of this are in §270) is the starting point for the preparation of the LM scale because all remedies are soluble in water at this point; so any remedy can be utilised even the insoluble materials such as Carb-v., Aur-met. etc. A grain in weight (0.06gm) of this powder is dissolved in 500 drops (30ml) of 20% alcohol making a 1:500 dilution of the 0.06gm of 3c, and one drop of this solution is then further diluted in 99 drops of 95% alcohol, filling two thirds of a glass vial, giving a (1 in 500 x 100 = 50,000) solution of the 3c powder. This tube is then succussed 100 times against a firm but elastic object (the famous leather bound bible) to create the LM 1 medicating liquid. Hahnemann's comments on this new method are found in the 6th Edition §270

" .... meticulous experiments have convinced me that this ratio (1:100) between the quantity of diluent and that of the medicine being dynamised is far too low to develop the medicinal substance properly and to a high degree with a large number of succussions unless force is used. .....Whereas in this much higher ratio (1:50,000), between diluent and medicinal substance, a large number of succussions of the vial filled two-thirds with wine spirit can bring about a far greater development of power."

The LM 1 liquid is then poured onto some poppy-seed granules of which a hundred weigh 1 grain (0.06gm). Although this size is larger than those granules advocated in Chronic Diseases (200 to a grain) they are still so small that one drop of the alcoholic LM 1 liquid can completely wet at least 500 of them. Thus just one granule absorbs at least a 500th of a drop. When this granule is dissolved in a drop of water, and 99 drops of alcohol are added to it, the next LM 2 solution contains a 1/500th x 100 = 1/50,000th of the previous LM 1 liquid. The LM 2 liquid is then succussed 100 times also. The process is continued in this way simply using the granule as the intermediary to transfer a 500th of a drop instead of the direct addition of a whole drop, as is the case with the centessimal 1:100 ratio. Hahnemann's practical simplicity is masterful as the small granules not only provide a tiny, manageable dose, for using with patients, but also the smallest practical unit to effect such large dilution ratio. One could theoretically dilute with one drop to 50,000 drops (100 drops of 95% alcohol = 3.6mls) but the bottle to be succussed 100 times would then contain 1.75 litres of alcohol. Not an economic or practical size for the average human being to work with!

            Although the nature of the 1:50,000 potency created is different from that created by a 1:100 ratio (... my new method produces medicines of the highest power and the mildest action ...§270) it is interesting to note the theoretical relationship with the centessimal scale. Each step of 1:50,000 is a rise of approximately 2.5C so that considering we started with a 3C a LM 1 is just over 5C, LM 6 = 17C, LM 12 = 31C, LM 30 = 73C (all approximate figures)

So the granules are wetted with the solution and left to dry after which they are bottled and labelled with the appropriate nomenclature e.g. LM 1, LM 2 or LM 0/1, LM 0/2 etc. the zero signifying the granule, the form in which the final medicine is stored.

            Now we have this highly dynamised remedy our criteria for how to use them are different from those of the centesimal scale. Obviously the indicated similar remedy is still chosen on the same principles as before but choice of potency, up to now our main variable factor for controlling the response to the remedy, is not such as issue when using the LM's. Hahnemann's recommendation is to always start with the lowest degrees (§246). Although not specifically mentioned, this suggests always starting with LM 1, but is often interpreted, by experienced users of LM's, as between LM 1 and LM 6. The choice is based on the health/vitality level, degree of pathology, suppression, sensitivity etc. and provides a variable on which we can individualize.

With the dissolving in liquid, and subsequent shaking of the bottle before each dose, the potency is gradually raised, expanded, and intensified to continually stimulate the vital force at regular intervals. The next potency level is given when the bottle of the previous potency is finished. No leaps in potency are recommended (§246) and if one starts with LM 1, for example, then LM 2 follows and so on. Unless we dissolve a granule directly in 1.75 litres of water we will never actually reach the next LM level but simply continue towards the potency level determined by the dilution factor.

            After we have chosen the appropriate remedy to give in LM form, the first choice, after the potency, is how much of the granule is the patient to take i.e. the dose, how often it is to be repeated and for how many days are they to be on that particular potency. These are the areas where the difficulties of the LM's lie and, as Hahnemann tells us in §278, theorizing is not enough to tell us what the ideal degree of smallness of the dose is to effect a gentle cure, and that "Only pure experiment, the meticulous observation of the sensitivity of each patient, and sound experience can determine this in each individual case".

            Control of the dosage is very similar to the centessimal 'plussing' technique but using the LM granule, instead of a 30c, dissolved in liquid. The directions for making up the solutions for patient use are defined quite clearly in the 6th edition §248 footnote. He states that one rarely needs more than one granule although two or three can obviously be used if a stronger solution is required. The granule is dissolved in forty, thirty, twenty, fifteen or eight tablespoons of water with the addition of a little alcohol to preserve it; 10% is a good guide for solutions designed to last up to two months. The patient takes directly from the 'stock' bottle" one or, increasing progressively, more coffee or teaspoons of this as follows: in chronic diseases, daily or every other day; in acute diseases every six, four, three or two hours...."         Eight, ten, or twelve succussions are given to the bottle before each dose. Again we have here a variable, which we can use to regulate individual needs if required, twelve shakes giving a slightly sharper daily rise in potency than eight. Also note the wording 'one or increasing progressively more teaspoons' which, if appropriate to the case, can speed up cure by giving increased stimulus from the larger dose as well as taking the patient through the higher potencies more rapidly.

To help us decide how much liquid to make up let us look at the appropriate dosages for each of Hahnemann's suggestions.

A tablespoon is considered a 20ml measure, a teaspoon 5ml, and a coffee-spoonful 2.5ml, so a granule dissolved in :-

40 tablespoons = 800ml = 1/800th granule/ml so a 5ml dose contains a 1/160th of a granule. (160 days supply)

30 tablespoons = 600ml = 1/120th of a granule per 5ml dose (120 days supply)

20 tablespoons = 400ml = 1/80th of a granule per 5ml dose (80 days supply)

15 tablespoons = 300ml = 1/60th of a granule per 5ml dose (60 days supply)

8 tablespoons  = 160ml = 1/32th of a granule per 5ml dose (32 days supply)

A coffee spoonful will represent a dosage twice as small as the above i.e. 40 tablespoons = 1/320th of a granule per 2.5ml dose.

As bottles above 300mls are not very practical for patients to use Hahnemann's practicality introduces the use of a drinking glass to further dilute the solution and obviate the need for a large amount of water. The method is given in detail in §248. One granule is dissolved in seven or eight tablespoons of water and after succussion a tablespoonful is put into a glass containing eight to ten tablespoons of water. After vigorous stirring a teaspoon or coffee-spoonful dose is then taken from the glass. Then next dose is prepared in exactly the same way using a fresh glass of water. This method represents the following dose,

8 tablespoons (160ml)= 1/8th granule/tablespoon (20ml) diluted x 10 =1/80th per 20ml so a 5ml dose = 1/320th granule which is the weakest dose Hahnemann recommends but takes the patient only 8-10 days to finish and be ready for the next potency up.

Dr Pierre Schmidt used one granule in 100mls of water and a coffee spoonful as a dose which represented 1/40th of a granule per 2.5ml dose (40 days supply).

Dr Robert Shore and Dr H Choudhury both dose with one granule in 110ml water putting one tablespoonful in a glass of 110mls of water which represents 1/160th of a granule per 5ml dose (6 days supply).

Other commonly used methods, for preparing weaker solutions, include,

One granule in 150ml stock bottle and a 5ml spoonful in approx.100mls water in the glass, so one 5ml = 1/600th granule per 5ml dose (30 days supply).

One granule in 10mls water then 10 drops in 100mls water in a glass = 1/260th granule per 5ml dose (20 days supply).

Very sensitive patients who quickly become over stimulated by or prove the remedy when given in the standard dose can reduce it, next time, by diluting a teaspoonful from the first glass in a second glass of water thus reducing the dose by a factor of about 20 for each glass used.

            The variations mentioned above provide much flexibility with different combinations of dose and speeds of potency increase reaffirming the importance of 'meticulous observation of the sensitivity of each patient.' §278

            Cases published show Hahnemann used most often the eight-tablespoon stock bottle and glass method in §248 for dosing patients. This provides a weak solution but takes the patient through to the next potency level in only 7-8 days. It is important to remember that the Organon gives many possibilities to tailor dosing to the needs of the patient and experience will show us what is most appropriate. The beauty of the versatile LM method is that we can also just choose one or two methods to gain that experience while still giving our patients the gentle but speedy improvement they desire.

CASE MANAGEMENT

            Many practitioners come to use LM potencies when treating cases which need more care because of risks of aggravation e.g. patients who are very sensitive to remedies, those with very low vitality, cases with severe pathology, history of suppressive treatments etc. But in theory all cases whether acute or chronic, showing pathology or not can be treated with LM's and there are many practitioners who use these remedies exclusively. In practise, however, some patients may need the qualities of the centessimal remedies to awaken their self-healing process. The LM 's give us yet another valuable string to our bow to be chosen appropriately. Alternating periods of treatment with LM's and C's are also possible remembering that the lowest degrees of potency are to be used with each new LM even the last remedy was a high centessimal of the same remedy e.g. Sulphur 10m is followed by the lowest LM (Sulphur LM 1)

            Management of cases with LM potencies is quite simple as long as patient compliance is good and if a few simple guidelines are followed.

            After a suitable solution has been chosen the patient continues to dose appropriately i.e. daily, or every other day etc., while there is improvement to the case and the patient does not show any new symptoms §248. Each dose stimulates a reaction to the vital force, which moves up a level in health only to be further stimulated by the following dose, which matches the favourable change in the patient and remains completely homœopathic as regards symptoms and potency level. The intensity of the potency, determined by the quantity of dose given, is also regulated to the optimum especially if the doses are increased progressively as is suggested .e.g. an extra 5ml spoonful each week. However as no dose can ever be too small then any dosing level will have some effect.

If there is no improvement after a few days then it is either not the appropriate remedy or there are some environmental maintaining causes blocking the remedy action §252.

If new symptoms previously not seen before appear, then the remedy is not the best choice, because the symptoms are not being cured by the remedy, so dosing is stopped. The new picture is then assessed and another remedy given starting at the lowest degrees of dynamisation (LM 1) regardless of what potency level the previous remedy had reached.

Although LM potencies are the most highly dynamised remedies they are much milder than the centessimals in action. However aggravations still do occur and are useful guides to remedy reaction as they are with the C scale. The LM aggravation comes towards the end of treatment and is a return of old symptoms stimulated by the remedy itself. As the curative curve of a particular remedy comes to an end, the vital force has only the excess artificial disease stimulus of the remedy to respond to - susceptibility having been satisfied. The remedy is stopped. If the symptoms disappear in a few days no more medicine is needed, but if the symptoms persist dosing continues as before to complete the cure §281.

An aggravation of symptoms at the beginning of treatment, i.e. with low potencies, is a sign of over-stimulation (too much intensity) and indicates the dose was too high. To alleviate this the amount taken from the stock bottle is reduced to a level, which creates no discomfort, and the remedy is continued using that dosage routine until an increase in dose is appropriate §282. In practise the use of successive dilutions using the drinking glass is the most useful method to effect this or by simply reducing the dose given from the stock bottle e.g. a half-teaspoonful instead of a full one if the medicine is being dosed directly without the use of glasses. Reduction of dose is similarly used for so-called sensitive cases that are immediately over stimulated or prove the remedy during the first days, or hours, of treatment. If treatment is started with higher potencies e.g. LM 3 and above, then initial aggravations could also be due to a too higher potency as with the centessimal potencies.

A SUMMARY OF HAHNEMANN'S DIRECTIONS for the use of LM potencies.

1.         The remedy must be homœopathic §246

2.         The remedy must be highly potentised i.e. prepared by the LM method §246

3.         The remedy must be given in small doses i.e. dissolved in water before administration to the patient §246

4.         The remedy must be repeated at suitable intervals §246

5.         The potency must be altered before each dose i.e. raised by succussion §246. The solution is to be succussed 8, 10, 12x before taking one, or (increasing progressively) more coffee or tea-spoons daily

            or every other day (for chronic cases), 2, 3, 4, or 6 hours for acutes. §248

6.         Potency must start with the lower degrees (LM 1-6?) and proceed to the higher levels §246 footnote

7.         Even long acting remedies can be repeated §248

8.         Dosing is continued while there is steady improvement and the patient does not experience a symptom he has not had before. §248

9.         If a new set of different symptoms are seen, then another more appropriate remedy must be looked for. §248

10.       If an aggravation occurs i.e. an intensification of the original symptoms, at the end of treatment, then the doses must be reduced in quantity and repeated at longer intervals, or stopped altogether to see if the

            symptoms will continue to disappear by themselves. In which case either no more medicine will be needed or continuation of the remedy if, after a certain period, symptoms continue. §248

11.       No dose of a highly potentised remedy can be too small that it cannot be stronger than the natural disease, that it cannot at least partially overcome it and that it cannot start the process of cure. §279

12.       If one is sure that the remedy is correct, and there is no improvement then it is likely that a maintaining cause in the patient's way of life or environment is influencing his progress. This must be removed to bring

            about a permanent cure. §252

13.       Aggravations or ameliorations of the psychic conditions and general demeanour of the patient are a good indication as to the progress of the remedy. §253

14.       If the patient develops some significant new symptoms or symptoms of the remedy then this is an unfavourable response. §256

15.       Do not make favourites of certain remedies, as the smaller lesser-used remedies, which might be more helpful, will be overlooked. §257

16.       It is not necessary to give a patient more than one remedy at a time. §273

17.       If the remedy is homœopathically accurate, it becomes increasingly beneficial as its dose approaches the ideal degree of smallness for gentle action. §277

18.       It is only by experiment, experience and observation of the sensitivity of each patient that can determine the optimum size of dose to give. §278

19.       Dosing continues, increasing it progressively, until the patient, while feeling generally better, begins to manifest one or more of the old, original symptoms. §280

20.       Return of old symptoms is a good sign and the medicine is stopped, as this is an indication that no more is needed as the symptoms are of the remedy. To verify this the remedy is stopped for a week or two.

If the symptoms are of the remedy they will disappear in a few days and no more medicine may be needed. If traces of the original complaint remain then dosing should be continued from where it was

left off. §281

21.       A homœopathic aggravation = intensification of the original complaint, at the beginning of treatment, is a sure sign that the dose (i.e. the quantity of the dissolved granule) is too large and must be reduced. §282

22.       If the smallest doses are given the even if the remedy is inappropriate the harm done is insignificant and the appropriate remedy quickly puts the case in order. §283

23.       Very chronic problems can be speeded up by applying the same solution as that taken by mouth, externally to the back, thighs and lower legs.

 

                       This article has been an attempt to use Hahnemann's writings to understand the dynamics of potency and, in particular, the LM potencies. It is interesting to note that their evolution was a long and gradual one and not such a revolutionary new concept but simply an extension of where we are now i.e. in centessimal potency (5th edition) philosophy.

Their wide flexibility and safety leave silent many of the old arguments about repetition and potency choice, allowing us all a very free and individual approach to their use. It is also a fact that although 6th edition philosophy is taught and revered, the practical methods given to apply this teaching have been, over the years, sadly neglected. Thankfully the recent revival has generated a new enthusiasm for the use of LM potencies giving us a feeling that, at last, their time has come.

 

Possible observations after giving the remedy

1.         No change - how long must we wait, how long does a dose take to act?

2.         Very slight change - nothing much, how long to go on for. 2 weeks?

3.         Good start then acute

4.         Aggravation at the start - acute and chronics 6/8/10 days?

5.         Good start then relapse.

6.         Sensitive patient - becomes over stimulated or proves everything feels speedy, queer, quick changes.

7.         Generally better but some symptoms remain. OK to increase the dose?

8.         OK but shows some symptoms of the remedy - reduce the dose or             increase interval between them.

9.         Symptoms but generally worse, no improvement.

a. continue a bit longer or

b. partial remedy.

10.       Aggravation comes at the end of 3-4 weeks after improvement.

11.       New symptoms come up not of the remedy with no change generally - new remedy needed.

12.       As above but feeling better, change remedy if picture changes

13.       Good improvement but slowing down after 3 weeks. Increase dose or raise potency to see what happens.

14.       Remedy aggravates initially and remains aggravated. Antidote with new remedy or low potency of same remedy.

 

Helios Homœopathic Pharmacy

97, Camden Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 2QR

0892 537254/536393

 

DOSAGE INTRUCTIONS FOR TAKING LM POTENCIES

 

From the stock bottle take................ teaspoon /tablespoonful and put it in a clean glass containing eight tablespoonfuls of water (spring water is best).

Stir the glass vigorously and take ............ teaspoon/tablespoonful dose, holding it in the mouth for a few seconds before swallowing.

Discard the remainder of liquid in the glass.

 

Carry out this procedure ........................................................................

Using a fresh glass of water but SHAKE THE STOCK BOTTLE ON A BOOK OR THE PALM OF YOUR HAND 8 to 12 TIMES before putting the dose into the glass.

 

DOSAGE INTRUCTIONS FOR TAKING LM POTENCIES

 

From the stock bottle take ONE teaspoonful and put it in a clean glass containing eight tablespoonfuls of water (spring water is best).

Stir the glass vigorously and take ONE teaspoonful dose, holding it in the mouth for a few seconds before swallowing.

Discard the remainder of liquid in the glass.

 

Carry out this procedure ONCE A DAY

Using a fresh glass of water but SHAKE THE STOCK BOTTLE ON A BOOK OR THE PALM OF YOUR HAND 8 to 12 TIMES before putting the dose into the glass.

 

[Hahnemann]

Die Paragraphen über Heilungshindernisse in Hahnemanns Organon VI. Auflage Samuel Hahnemann

§ 252

Fände man aber beim Gebrauche der übrigen Arzneien, daß in der chronischen Krankheit die bestens homöopathisch gewählte Arznei, in der angemessenen (kleinsten) Gabe, die Besserung nicht förderte, so ist dieß ein gewisses Zeichen, daß die, die Krankheit unterhaltende Ursache noch fortwährt, und dass sich in der Lebensordnung des Kranken oder in seinen Umgebungen ein Umstand befindet, welcher abgeschaltet werden muß, wenn die Heilung dauerhaft zu Stande kommen soll.

§ 255

Dennoch wird man auch bei diesen zur Ueberzeugung hierüber gelangen, wenn man jedes, im Krankheitsbilde aufgezeichnete Symptom einzeln mit ihnen durchgeht und sie außer diesen, über keine neuen, vorher ungewöhnlichen Beschwerden klagen können, auch keines der alten Zufälle sich verschlimmert hat. Dann muß, bei schon beobachteter Besserung des Gemüthes und Geistes, die Arznei auch durchaus wesentliche Minderung der Krankheit hervorgebracht haben, oder, wenn jetzt noch die Zeit dazu zu kurz gewesen wäre, bald hervorbringen. Zögert nun, im Fall der Angemessenheit des Heilmittels, die sichtbare Besserung doch zu lange, so liegt es entweder am unrechten Verhalten des Kranken oder an andern, die Besserung hindernden Umständen.

§ 260

Für chronisch Kranke ist daher die sorgfältige Aufsuchung solcher Hindernisse der Heilung um so nöthiger, da ihre Krankheit durch dergleichen Schädlichkeiten und andere krankhaft wirkende, oft unerkannte Fehler in der Lebensordnung gewöhnlich verschlimmert worden war.

Anm.: Kaffee, feiner chinesischer und anderer Kräuterthee; Biere mit arzneilichen, für den Zustand des Kranken unangemessenen Gewächssubstanzen angemacht, sogenannte feine, mit arzneilichen Gewürzen bereitete Liqueure, alle Arten Punsch, gewürzte Schokolade, Riechwasser und Parfümerien mancher Art, stark duftende Blumen im Zimmer, aus Arzneien zusammengesetzte Zahnpulver und Zahnspiritus, Riechkißchen, hochgewürzte Speisen und Saucen, gewürztes Backwerk und Gefrornes mit arzneilichen Stoffen, z. B. Kaffee, Vanille u.s.w. bereitet, rohe, arzneiliche Kräuter auf Suppen, Gemüße von Kräutern, Wurzeln und Keim-Stengeln (wie Spargel mit langen, grünen Spitzen), Hopfenkeime und alle Vegetabilien, welche Arzneikraft besitzen, Sellerie, Petersilie, Sauerampfer, Dragun, alle Zwiebel-Arten, u.s.w.; alter Käse und Thierspeisen, welche faulicht sind, (Fleisch und Fett von Schweinen, Enten und Gänsen oder allzu junges Kalbfleisch und saure Speisen; Salate aller Art), welche arzneiliche Nebenwirkungen haben, sind eben so sehr von Kranken dieser Art zu entfernen als jedes Uebermaß, selbst das des Zuckers und Kochsalzes, so wie geistige, nicht mit viel Wasser verdünnte Getränke; Stubenhitze, schafwollene Haut-Bekleidung,

sitzende Lebensart in eingesperrter Stuben-Luft oder öftere, bloß negative Bewegung (durch Reiten, Fahren, Schaukeln), übermäßiges Kind-Säugen, langer Mittagsschlaf im Liegen (in Betten), Lesen in waagerechter Lage, Nachtleben, Unreinlichkeit, unnatürliche Wohllust, Entnervung durch Lesen schlüpfriger Schriften, Onanism oder, sei es aus Aberglauben, sei es um Kinder-Erzeugung in der Ehe zu verhüten, unvollkommner, oder ganz unterdrückter Beischlaf; Gegenstände des Zornes, des Grames, des Aergernisses, leidenschaftliches Spiel, übertriebene Anstrengung des Geistes und Körpers, vorzüglich gleich nach der Mahlzeit; sumpfige Wohngegend und dumpfige Zimmer; karges Darbenu.s.w. Alle diese Dinge müssen möglichst vermieden oder entfernt werden, wenn die Heilung nicht gehindert oder gar unmöglich gemacht werden soll. Einige meiner Nachahmer scheinen durch Verbieten noch weit mehrer, ziemlich gleichgültiger Dinge die Diät des Kranken unnöthig zu erschweren, was nicht zu billigen ist.

§ 261

Die, beim Arzneigebrauche in chronischen Krankheiten zweckmäßigste Lebensordnung, beruht auf Entfernung solcher Genesungs-Hindernisse und dem Zusatze des hie und da nöthigen Gegentheils: unschuldige Aufheiterung des Geistes und Gemüths, active Bewegung in freier Luft, fast bei jeder Art von Witterung (tägliches Spazierengehen, kleine Arbeiten mit den Armen), angemessene, nahrhafte, unarzneiliche Speisen und Getränke u.s.w.

 

 

Vorwort/Suchen                                Zeichen/Abkürzungen                                   Impressum