Category Archives: Historical


Presented by Peter Morrell & Sylvain Cazalet. THE CONVALESCENT HOME AT EASTBOURNE
For 15 Women and Girls and 5 Children – 20 Beds

The Convalescent Home, Eastbourne
36, Enys Road, corner of Enys ans Carew Roads (nearly opposite the Princess Alice Memorial Hospital). Open to Visitors daily (Sundays excepted) from 2.30 till 4.30.


This century -“Woman’s Era” as it has very justly been called – will probably see the swing back of the pendulum and the final adjustment of the woman question.

     More and more we see how, when a woman seriously sets herself a task and makes it her business to do it properly, she seldom fails to make a great success.

     There is one particular in which her superiority is acknowledged by both sexes – namely, in the making of a home. Man can make money and a great many other things, but with the best will in the world, his home is unhomely until a good woman has put her gentle seal upon it.

Patients at Tea in the garden of the convalescent home, Eastbourne.


     A Convalescent Home more than any other requires a woman’s help and guidance, and the Hospital was particularly fortunate in securing the active efforts and munificence of Mrs. Clifton Brown, who, together with Major Vaughan Morgan, founded the Homoeopathic Convalescent Home at EastBourne.

     The Home was opened on Saturday, August 25, 1888. To the indefatigable efforts of the chairman, Major William Vaughan Morgan, in the foundation and organisation of the institution, and to his indomitable energy and influence with other kind friends, the existence of the Home is due, and in the establishment of this new institution a fresh debt was added to those which the cause and friends of homoeopathy already owed to him.

     It is interesting at the present day to recall the names of some of the generous donors who assited in making the Home possible, many of whom have unfortunately now passed away : Mr Hugh Cameorn, who assisted at the foundation of the London Homoeopathic Hospital itself and rallied his friends to help in the establishment of the Home by donations amounting to over £ 1,100; Mrs. Clifton Brown, whose munificent gift of £ 1,000 at once made the establishment of the Home possible; Mrs. William Vaughan Morgan, Miss J. Durning Smith, Miss Barton, Miss Isabella Barton, Mr. and Mrs Frank Smart, Mr. James Spicer, the Earl of Dysart, Mr. Henry Tate, Miss Houldsworth, Mr. William Debenham, Mr. Maurice Powell, Miss C. A. Stilwell and Mrs. Whateley Willis, were among a large number of liberal donors to the Foundation Fund.

     The total amount received in donations, including the proceeds of a concert at the Duke of Westminster’s London residence, was £ 3,251. This amount enabled the Board to purchase the lease of the house and furnish it, and also meet the unavoidable expenses of its organisation and establishment, without dawing on the subscription list.

     The first legacy received for the Home was bequeathed to it while yet the scheme was in an undeveloped stage. General Sir James Alexander, K.C.B. for many years a firm homoeopathist and member of the Board of Management of the Hospital, bequeathed in 1887 the sum of £ 500 to form the first investment for its maintenance. This good example has been emulated by many friends since.

     It is to be regretted that in one important particular the original scheme has not yet been carried into effect. The Home was primarily designed for men, women and children, as well as for the nurses of the Hospital. Unfortunately, in a house of its size, the reception of men patients is impossible, and so perforce the patients have up to the present been limited to nurses, women and children.

     It must be remembered that men patients are, of all others, those for whom the benefits of a convalescent home are most urgently needed. It is on their health that the maintenance of their families depends. Experience at the Hospital has proved that men patients, forced to resume their daily work too soon after serious illness, are liable to return to the Hospital wards after a breaf absence, whereas two or three weeks at the seaside, passed in freedom from cares and under favourable conditions, would have given them a long lease of health and strenght.

     For the moment the male patients of the Hospital are being sent to a convalescent home at Bexhill-on-Sea, by arrangement with that institution.

     It is intended to provide a home for the reception of men patients so soon as arrangements can be made. The sum o £ 3,184 has already been contributed for the purpose. The Home has bestowed its benefits during the 25 years of tis existence of 5,000 persons, its admissions numbering 200 annually.

     It is maintained by annual subscriptions and is preserved from debt by the income from a legacy left to it by Major Vaughan Morgan.

* * * * *

Copyright © Peter Morrell or Sylvain Cazalet 1999

The principles of homoeopathy part 1. What we need to understand.

Before we can discuss Principles, it is vital that the practitioner understands the rationale behind the approach of a homoeopath towards a sick patient.

Homoeopathy is a science and is focused on patient management of Disease. The process of analytics in managing a disease is based on a holistic overview of patient reaction to a disease influence. What is evident today in the poor training a homoeopath receives, is the harmful influence of the Swedenborg School of thinking (KENT) which is contradictory to the scientific mode of application as defined by Hahnemann and expanded on by Boenninghausen and others.

Hering and Kent and the influence of the American school of Homoeopathy did not influence the medical practice in the positive way the therapy displays it to be.

Kent And Hahneman

  1. S. Hehr, M.B.B.S., D.P.M.

(Originally Published in British Hom. Journal as “Was Kent a Hahnemannian?”, Vol. 73, No. 2, Re- edited by Dr R.S.Mann after consultations with Dr. G. S. Hehr)

Kent has been hailed as a true disciple of Hahnemann.There should be a reassessment in light of the following contrast between the view of Kent and Hahnemann:

On “authority” and “experience”


“We must begin by having respect for law … Let us acknowledge the authority.”2

“… and medicine today, outside of homoeopathy, is a medicine of experience…It is necessary that the exact and proper position of experience should be realized  … Experience has … only a confirmatory place. It can only confirmed that which has been discovered by principle…Experience leads to no discoveries … One who has no doctrines…imagines he discoveries by his experience”.3

HAHNEMANN: “Medicine is the science of experience…”4

“The true healing art is in its nature a pure science of experience …”5

“…the complete true healing art can never be the work of self-satisfied ratiocination…, but that the requisite for this … are only to be discovered  but due attention to nature by means of our senses, by careful honest observations and by experiments conducted with all possible purity and in no other way6

“I demand no faith at all and do not demand that anybody should comprehend it. Neither do I comprehend it; it is enough that it is fact and nothing else. Experience alone declares it, and I believe more in experience than in my own intelligence.”7

“But what and how much …can be determined by no speculative reason or unreason, but experience alone must determine…and in the domain of facts there is no appeal from experience…”8

On the relation of skin symptoms to internal malady

KENT: “But this very scientific ignorant doctor has made a failure: he has driven what was upon the surface and harmless into the innermost precincts of the economy and the patient is going to die as a result of scientific ignorance.”9

HAHNEMANN: “The diseases … springing from such one-sided destruction of the chief skin symptom (eruption and itching) which acts vicariously and assuages the internal psora (which destruction is erroneously called ‘Driving the itch into the body’)…”10

“All miasmatic maladies … are always present as internal maladies … before they show their local (skin) symptoms.”11

“… when the development of the (internal) venereal disease has been completed, only then diseased nature endeavours to mitigate the internal evil and to soothe it,  by producing a local symptom…”12

“…some wretched casuists have considered as resulting from driving back of the poison out of the chancre into the interior body…”13

On Psora

KENT“Psora is the beginning of all physical sickness. Had psora never been established as a miasm on the human race, the other two chronic diseases would have been impossible. All the diseases of man are built upon … it (psora) goes to the very primitive wrong of the human race … that is the spiritual sickness from which … the race progressed into … the true susceptibility to psora…”14

HAHNEMANN: “…the ailments and infirmities of body and soul … (if they do not belong to the two venereal diseases, syphilis and sycosis) are … manifestations of (psora).”15

“In Europe and also in other continents … only three chronic miasms are known…”16

“….and indeed so many that at least seven-eights of all chronic maladies spring from it (psora) … while the remaining eighth spring from syphilis and sycosis, or from a complication of two of these three … chronic diseases, or (which is very rare) from a complication of all the three of them….”17

On Vitalism

KENT: “Hahnemann could perceive this immaterial vital principle. It was something he arrived at himself, from his own process of thinking (but all historians mention that it was Joseph Barthez, b.1734, d.1806, who introduced the term “vital principle”18).

There was a paucity of individual ideas at that time… but Hahnemann thought much, and by thinking he arrived at the ideas contained in this (i.e. the 9th paragraph of the 5th edition of the Organon), which only appeared in the last (i.e. 5th.edition of 1833).”19

(Allusion to “vital force” appeared in the Chronic Diseases20 published in 1828, and in the fourth edition of the Organon that we shall refer shortly, Kent substitutes “simple substance for “immaterial vital principle” in the paragraphs subsequent to the one sited above – vide reference 19. This new expression appears to be Kent’s own coinage. Imputation of “much thought” to Hahnemann appears to be Kent’s projection of his own thinking, the result of which was the new expression. Hahnemann’s views on reasoning and speculation are clear in reference 8).

KENT: “…simple substance is endowed with formative intelligence…”21

HAHNEMANN: “… the instinctive, irrational, unreasoning vital force (instinktarige, verstandlose. keiner Uberlegung Fahige .. Lebnskraft — this could also be translated: instinctive, unable to reason/understand, without the capacity for reflection) 22 (the contrast between Kent and Hahnemann over the attributes of vital force is obvious from these words)…

“…unreasoning, merely animal vital force (die verstandlose, bloss aminal ische Lebenskraft).”23

On Bacteriology

KENT: “Hahnemann did not adopt any such theory as bacteriology”.

HAHNEMANN: “… the cholera miasm … grows into an enormously increased brood of those excessively minute, invisible creatures …”24 (How else could one have described bacteria at that time!)

Why was Kent so often wobbling off the pivot? Perhaps it was not for nothing that Jouanny wrote:

“The second trap is to do what certain absent-minded homoeopathic doctors do, namely to consider only the symptoms of the patient in his reaction to his disease, and in particular his psychic signs. This was the attitude of Kent and his spiritualistic school which went so far as to say that the pathognomonic signs of the disease have no importance in the selection of the homoeopathic drug.”

“This is a philosophical attitude which makes homoeopathy into theology, and considers man to be made only of the soul. There is a great danger here…”

“This attitude has practically destroyed homoeopathy in America where it was at one time a flourishing discipline. It is now practised by a few esoteric doctors.”

“One can say that this attitude is not in conformity with the methods set out and defined by Hahnemann, because generally the ‘psychic symptoms’ taken into consideration by the followers of Kent, are not experimental changes in the mental behaviour of a patient, but the psychological characteristics of susceptible types of individuals. This is the result of the subjective interpretation of the experimenter and the patient. These doctors select the homoeopathic drugs on the basis of psychic symptoms … such a practice can be justifiably criticized …”25

Kent’s homoeopathy is not necessarily always Hahnemannian. As Campbell recently put it : “Nevertheless, it does not take a very detailed study of the history of homoeopathy to show that modern practice actually differs in quite significant ways from Hahnemann’s own practice. In both England as well as America, for example, the influence of J.T.Kent, who imported certain ideas derived from Swedenborg, has been paramount since shortly after the turn of the century”.26

Hahnemann’s distinction between the responses of the animate and the inanimate; his view about adaptive responses of the organisms”, 28 his stress on the value of signals in biology;29 his almost foreshadowing of “the law of initial value” of Joseph Wilder,30 his near modern views on nutrition31 and his suggestions for psychological exercise32 are all missing from Kent’s writings. One feels constrained to ponder how far the words of Inglis (on the relation of Galen to Hippocrates) would apply also to the relation of Kent to Hahnemann.

“Ostensibly by the Hippocratic School, he was to subvert its teachings. Hippocrates, Galen admitted, had led the way … ‘He opened the road, I have made it possible’ … Galen was able to impose his views on how the road should be followed; and as a prolific writer, he saw to it that they were published.33 


  1. Kent was a Swedenborgian, and he can be accused of including the fundamental concept of a mystical correspondence between the spirit world and humans to Homoeopathy. Which distract the Homoeopathic philosophy from Hahnemann’s “Rationality” to Kent’s “Metaphysical”.
  2. This shift from the basic nature of reality of the human system compelled Kent to start unrealistic and unbalanced emphasis on “Mind” or “Mental Symptoms” or “Mental Origin” of every disease. Hahnemann is realistic and balanced in his approach in an individual case of sickness, he searched for the totality where is actually lies but Kent arranged the “Mind” always on the beginning of a case. Kent pushed the basic methodology of Homoeopathy towards “Irrationalism”.
  3. On Miasm, Hahnemann is certain about three different basic causes of diseases, Psora, Sycosis and Syphilis but for Kent, Psora is the only basic cause of all the diseases, including two other miasms too.
  4. Hahnemann always talks about the “gentle restoration” of the sick with only mild aggravations, but Kent admitted his was to cure with severe and long homoeopathic aggravations.
  5. Kent underlined the return of all the past symptoms, eliminations and exteriorization (developing skin lesions etc.)  in a case is a good indication and path towards a cure, whereas Hahnemann marked them as organism’s defence or reaction against wrong prescriptions and excess of doses.
  6.    Dr Kent may have a good, efficient and ardent homoeopath but his concepts and theories vary from Dr Hahnemann on most of the basic understandings of Homoeopathy which make differences in approach, the methodology for the treatment of a patient.
    7.  So accepting Kent as a true disciple of Hahnemann, as Kent himself claims, undermines the value of Hahnemannian theory and concepts of Homoeopathy. We must read and practice Homoeopathy as Hahnemannian methods and Kentian Methods, with their respective theories, concepts and differences from each other.

One method generally leads to a low success rate, If not outright failure.

In taking a case. A correct diagnosis would have been of equal importance
to the therapeutist and to the surgeon if each disease had a distinct cause, as characteristic of itself, as the disease is distinct from all others, however, this is not the case.

The same disease may arise from different causes in different cases, hence to the
therapeutist the diagnosis is of subordinate importance as a basis of treatment. It can be shown that constitutional peculiarities of a patient manifest themselves through certain concomitant symptoms which make a difference in the aggregate
of symptoms in each case. In each case of diseases bearing the same name, we find that the patient exhibits not only the symptoms of the named disease but also concomitant symptoms peculiar to the diseased patient and different from other diseased patients with the same disease name. Hahnemann realised that this combination of expressions of sympathetic disorders in other parts of the body now had become ‘Constitutional’ in its affection, and thus stopped being a local symptom, and the expression of the diseased patient has become an all-encompassing state.

These concomitant symptoms, along with other knowledge, force the homoeopath to relinquish the belief that the malady along with its local expressions is the sole object of treatment. The homoeopath is now forced to view the patient from a ‘causality’ view and look at the pattern of progression of development from all symptoms present, not just the local disease and in effect come to see that the sum of the symptoms is greater than just this new affection.

A clinical history, the basis for disease development in every individual, will necessitate the remedy having or corresponding to the sequence of physiological effects matching the patient’s disease in development. This disease ‘constitution’ in the medicine will be required to enable the patient to receive help from the similar. However, the homoeopath will take the FULL history and other episodes of dis-ease into account as well as the current issue.

Rational reasoning indicates that the development of diseases (with the same name) owes the difference in symptom exhibition simply because of the constitutional differences of each patient. To a therapeutist, the symptoms appearing in its evolutionary sequence represent the cause or a combination of causes of a particular disease condition.

So long as the disease is viewed as a local or anatomical problem, the question of determining the basis or indications of treatment, cannot be answered. A study of the clinical history of each case supplies the key to the solution of this problem.

This is one of the major differences in approach to treatment from allopathic therapeutics.


Kanjilal et al – An Appeal to the Homoeopaths of India to Save Homoeopathy. Hahnemannian Gleanings 1979,XLVI,471

Kent J.T. – Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy. P.19,Chicago : Ehrhart & Karl,  1954.

Ibid – P.43.

Dudgeon R.E. – Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. P.439, New Delhi: Swaran (reprint of New York; Willian Radde, 1852 edition)

Hahnemann  S. – Organon der Heilkunst, P.7, Dresden: Arnold, 1819.

Ibid – P.15 -16.

Dudley P ed. – The Chronic Diseases by Samuel Hahnemann, P.124, f.n. New Delhi, Jain Reprint

Ibid –P.325

Kent J.T. – Lectures.P.27

10 Dudley P. – The Chronic Diseases, P.17.

11 Ibid – P.32.

12 Ibid – P.36.

13 Ibid – P.36 f.n.

14 Kent J.T. – Lectures.P146.

15 Dudley P. – The Chronic Diseases, P.8.

16 Ibid – P.9.

17 Ibid – P.14.

18  Castiglioni A. – A History of Medicine, P.586, New York: Alfred Knoff, 1958.

19 Kent J.T. – Lectures.P.76-77.

20 Haehl R. – Samuel Hahnemann: His Life and Work. P.136, New Delhi, B.Jain Reprint.

21 Kent J.T. – Lectures.P.79.

22 Hahnemann  S. – Organon der Heilkunst, P.IV, Dresden and Leipzig, Arnold, 1829.

23 Ibid – P.146.

24 Hehr G.S. – Bacteriology and Homoeopathy.Br.Hom.J. 1982, 71,62,64-5.

25 Jouanny J. – Essentials of Homoeopathic Therapeutics, P.39, Laboratories Boiron, 1980.

26  Campbell A.C.H. – Editorial, Br. Hom. J., 1980, 69, 3.

27 Hahnemann  S. – Organon der rationallen Heilkunde, P.5-8, Anm.  Dresden, Arnold, 1810.

28 Dudgeon  R.E. – Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. P.62, Para 289-290.

29 Hahnemann S. – Fingerzeige auf den homoopathischen Gabrauch der Arzneien in der bisherigen praxis. Neues Journal der practischen Arzneikunde von Hufeland 1807, 43.

30  Dudgeon R.E. – Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. P.34.

31 Hehr G.S. – Hahnemann and Nutrition. Br. Hom. J. 1981,70,208-12.

32 Hehr G.S. – Self awareness and Homoeopathy, Br. Hom. J. 1983, 72, 90-5.

33 Inglis B. – Natural Medicine, 0.18. London, Collins, 1979.


Hahnemann by Ameke: a Sound and Reliable Witness.

by Peter Morrell


Dream of Egypt, 1995 – Peter Morrell


Dr Wilhelm AMEKE (1847-1886)This short piece brings to the attention of others the useful work of Wilhelm Ameke from his little known book ‘A History of Homeopathy.’ Being out of print for over a century and hard to obtain, this useful text illuminates Hahnemann’s life in a fresh and masterful way. This is an interim piece I compiled recently for some lectures, and which will be extended as time permits. In due course, it is hoped that the full text of Ameke might be placed online where all can admire its many gems. This selection mostly focuses upon Ameke’s description of Hahnemann’s views on many clinical matters and snippets regarding the origin of homeopathy. It also highlights what is unusual, important and remarkable in his character as a physician.


Dr Joseph Von QUARIN (1733-1814)Although Hahnemann retained enormous affection and respect for his teacher at Vienna, Dr von Quarin, it remains certain that von Quarin “was an advocate of bleeding till the day of his death,” [Ameke, 59] in 1812. Hahnemann stated, “I owe to him whatever there is of physician in me.” [Ameke, 58] Although Hahnemann “employed bleeding…but he always applied it cautiously.” [Ameke, 67] Though as early “as 1784 he contended…against bleeding,” [Ameke, 67] yet “he still bled in 1797…and [even as late as] 1800 he was not an absolute opponent of it.” [Ameke, 67] But he always felt it was abused and used to excess by most physicians. He “was a great enemy of coffee, but a great advocate of exercise and open air…change of climate and residence at the seaside.” [Ameke, 60] On the therapeutic use of cold water “Hahnemann writes at length…and gives exact instructions.” [Ameke, 62] He always gave “only one remedy at a time, and carefully watched its effects.” [Ameke, 74] For every addition of a “second or a third [remedy] only deranges the object we have in view.” [Ameke, 86] Giving only one drug, we must “wait till its action is exhausted before giving another.” [Ameke, 87] Once he was convinced of something “he enunciated it with the greatest precision, and did not easily allow himself to be turned from it.” [Ameke, 63]

Even as a young physician, Hahnemann seems to “have been unaffected by the prevalent belief in authority,” [Ameke, 59] preferring instead to formulate his own medical views, very largely based upon his powers of reflection and his very keen observational powers.

Tendencies Hahnemann condemned

Dr Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)In 1808 Hahnemann sharply condemned the main method of “treating most diseases by scouring out the stomach and bowels.” [Ameke, 94] This is also the “method which regards the diseased body as a mere chemically decomposed mass,” [Ameke, 94] and which regards diseases as having “no other originating cause but mucosities…[inspiring treatments that seek the] combat of putridity.” [Ameke, 94] Such a view also pretends that only by “the strength of the doses of most powerful and costly medicines,” [Ameke, 94] can such disease ever be subdued or cured. Hahnemann bemoans the “search into the internal essence of diseases,” [Ameke, 95] which he regards as an utterly futile endeavour. He also condemns this system as one that respects only “the mechanical origin of diseases…[and] which derives diseases from the original form of the parts.” [Ameke, 95] Such a view he regards as too simplistic, too mechanistic and not sufficiently holistic in its perception of the living organism.

Hahnemann condemned those medical systems that claimed “most diseases were produced by impure and acid humours which were to be expelled from the body,” [Ameke, 42] or which claimed that “most illnesses resulted from gastric impurities, especially bile,” [Ameke, 43] and which therefore believed that “the removal of these matters by emetics and purgatives was the principal means resorted to.” [Ameke, 43] As far as Hahnemann was concerned, such medical systems incorrectly concluded, “purgatives and emetics demonstrated the truth of these theories.” [Ameke, 43] One such idea was “infarcts…an unnatural condition of the blood vessels…distended in various places by ill-concocted, variously degenerated, fluid-bereft, inspissated, viscid, bilious, polypous and coagulated blood…” [Ameke, 43] Hahnemann had nothing but contempt for such theories and regarded them as entirely imaginary concepts and dangerous fantasies with no reality whatever. Therefore, he was equally dismissive of the methods employed such as “clysters…to which various appropriate drugs were added…employed to disperse these infarctus.” [Ameke, 44] This treatment with clysters [enemas] “was much in vogue among physicians, patients and even healthy persons, for many years.” [Ameke, 45]

Hahnemann was as dismissive of clysters and the theories of infarcts as he was of the strong mixed drugs also in vogue at the same time. Such remedies as “senna, spirits of wine, dandelion, rhubarb, sal-ammoniac, mercury, dog’s grass and antimony…which were supposed to cleanse the tubes and passages of the human body from their foul accumulations.” [Ameke, 45] Hahnemann simply did not believe the monstrous theory that every patient had these mythical obstructions and poisons. He was therefore wholly opposed to the idea that they must all be “sweated and purged, puked, bled and salivated,” [Ameke, 45] back to health by these heroic measures.

It is no surprise therefore that he roundly condemned and dismissed on instinct “bleeding, cold, emetics, purgatives, diaphoretics.” [Ameke, 46] He denounced the “vomiting, purging and sweating,” [Ameke, 46] view that “inflammatory matters, impure fermenting substances, acridities and degenerated bile,” [Ameke, 91] were the causes of disease or that they should be “energetically evacuated,” [Ameke, 91] in order to cure the patient. All such talk he depicts as merely a “euphemism for emetics and purgatives,” [Ameke, 92] and indeed, for “the lancet, tepid drinks, miserable diet, emetics, purgatives…[which] threatened to destroy our generation.” [Ameke, 96]

He denounced the use of “blisters, baths, fomentations, anodynes, and repeated enemata,” [Ameke, 68] just as he maintained that “refrigerating and laxative salts, watery drinks, and bleeding act as poisons. Emetics and blisters do harm.” [Ameke, 68] To most practitioners it must have been “very tempting to utilise the great chemical discoveries in the treatment of disease,” [Ameke, 50] but Hahnemann [almost alone] successfully resisted this temptation. Most physicians were “too impatient to utilise,” [Ameke, 50] new discoveries, too eager “to reap when they had barely finished sowing.” [Ameke, 50] They dismally failed to “observe how the functions of their patients were carried on.” [Ameke, 53] Even at this early stage, one can see that Hahnemann was cautiously and judiciously trying to work out precisely why the medicine he had been taught did not work and one can detect his endeavour to find a harmless yet efficacious therapeutic method.

In the early 1790s, he “gave one remedy at a time, and carefully watched its effects.” [Ameke, 74] This sums up his approach very accurately. He also “succeeded in achieving many splendid cures by his simple method of treatment…[soon having] the reputation of a careful and successful practitioner.” [Ameke, 74-5] His basic powers of patient observation were truly remarkable. Not only did he want to know “what is hurtful or irrational,” [Ameke, 87] in the medicine of his day but why and how one can proceed to escape from such a useless muddle. In medicine, he despised whatever was harmful and what did not make sense, usually both together. “That is the essence of science: ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to a pertinent answer.” [Jacob Bronowski (1908–1974), The Ascent of Man, ch. 4 (1973)] Hahnemann had the immense audacity and conviction to “prescribe one single, simple medicament and nothing more,” [Ameke, 97] and then simply wait and observe. This was the essence of his approach for the reform of medicine.

Other influences were also at work in their impact on medicine. One problem that reared its head was “the whirligig of natural philosophy” [Ameke, 48] which had taken hold of many people, most of whom were “suffering from the spirit of the age.” [Ameke, 48] None of this brought any benefit to medicine, according to Hahnemann. It just gave the signal and increased the tendency to invent more wild theories. Yet, in therapeutics, disease was increasingly regarded as a “departure from normal form and composition, that is, anatomical and chemical change.” [Ameke, 49] Consequently, “one theory was superseded by another,” [Ameke, 53] and people frequently switched sides many times. As a result, “dogmatism and a persecuting spirit,” [Ameke, 57] became the dominant spirit, just as if religious sectarianism were breaking out in medicine and inspiring many unnecessarily “embittered disputes.” [Ameke, 58] Eighteenth century medicine was crisis-torn, with rival theories pitched against each other in an unseemly battle for supremacy.

As early as 1784, he “speaks contemptuously of fashionable physicians.” [Ameke, 76] He also tried to “direct the attention of his fellow-practitioners to the many absurdities of the day.” [Ameke, 77] Why? because he wanted them to be more critical. A good example is when he says, “we must forcibly sever ourselves from these deified oracles if we wish to shake off the yoke of ignorance and credulity.” [Ameke, 77] He rebelled against any deference to medical authority [because so and so says this] as a means of validating a method or concept. He insisted on thinking for himself and experiment as a superior path. He infinitely preferred consulting “nature and experience,” [Ameke, 126] to any medical theory.

Hahnemann was taught the medicine of mixed strong drugs, which he confessed, “clung to him more obstinately than the miasma of any disease.” [Ameke, 78] Although in the first few years of his practice he adhered to this approach, “he was gradually emancipating himself from this bad system.” [Ameke, 78] It did not work, in spite of his best efforts. As early as 1784, “he advocates a simple method…instead of the farrago of contradictory prescriptions.” [Ameke, 78] In the year 1798, “he inveighs against the physicians who love prescriptions containing many ingredients…[regarding it as] the height of empiricism…the employment of mixtures of strong medicines.” [Ameke, 81] He was realising that the chief problems were mixed drugs, strong doses and damaging methods like blood-letting, purges and enemas. Nothing in the medicine of his day was either curative or gentle.

Instead of mixed drugs he would increasingly “give only one simple remedy at a time…[Ameke, and so] in these simplest maladies he gave single simple remedies out of the store of existing drugs which was then small.” [Ameke, 80] His careful and methodical approach reveals just “how earnest was his striving after truth and how great his anxiety for the improvement of therapeutics.” [Ameke, 85] He especially “surpassed his mixture-loving contemporaries in the gifts of observation and investigation.” [Ameke, 85] Hahnemann confidently declares that, “using several drugs at once…is the true sign of charlatanism. Quackery always goes hand in hand with complicated mixtures…[which is] so far removed from the simple ways and laws of nature.” [Ameke, 86]

In 1805, he states “a single simple remedy is always…the most beneficial…it is never necessary to give two at once.” [Ameke, 86] He denounces “drugs…which must fight against diseases,” [Ameke, 87] as deriving from a misunderstanding of sickness with such doctors viewing patients “through glasses tinged with ideal systems,” [Ameke, 87] which are utterly useless means to cure sickness. They did this rather than investigate matters for themselves, as he was doing. They obstinately clung to theory and eschewed the spirit of empiricism Hahnemann loved and which was the guiding beacon of his life. No physicians other than Hahnemann “preached this important truth with such energy and such conviction.” [Ameke, 87] He “attacked deference to authority in therapeutics as early as 1786 and 1790.” [Ameke, 87]

Dr Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)It is perfectly true that “no physician since Paracelsus had dared to expose with such frankness and boldness the miserable condition of the medical treatment of the period…[and] that requires a thorough reform from top to bottom.” [Ameke, 98] Is modern medicine really any better? Is it less harmful, more logical or more curative? Which, if any?

In therapeutics, Hahnemann regarded the many who became “involved in gossamer subtleties,” [Ameke, 97] as fools, because such was “a misdirection of mental energy,” [Ameke, 97] that might be much better employed for the more serious task of observing patients and using single drugs in small doses. Rather than do that, they foolishly preferred to use “sweetening, diluting, purifying, loosening, thickening, cooling and evacuating measures,” [Ameke, 95] that would not cure the patient anyway. Therefore, in his view, patients faced “the wretched and hopeless choice of one of the numerous methods, almost all equally impotent…[with] no fixed therapeutic principles of acknowledged value.” [Ameke, 99] In medicine, such was the outrageous state of affairs in the early years of the 19th century.

Good Reputation

Hahnemann “acquired a great reputation for his improvements in the practice of medicine, in pharmacology, and especially in hygiene.” [Ameke, iv] Hufeland, for example, “never lost respect for Hahnemann’s genius and services to medicine.” [Ameke, iv] As a translator Hahnemann always “intercalates various improvements and inventions.” [Ameke, 12] He was widely regarded as “a writer who has improved and perfected,” [Ameke, 14] any text translation he undertook. This was no chance comment. Numerous examples exist of this observation. Numerous honours and accomplishments in chemistry and pharmacy preceded his discovery of homeopathy, what Ameke calls “his pre-homeopathic labours.” [Ameke, x] Various writers refer to “Hahnemann’s superiority,” [Ameke, 18] or to this “very valuable book by my esteemed friend, Dr Samuel Hahnemann.” [Ameke, 18]

These comments mostly allude to his innumerable minor discoveries and embellishments to the art of chemistry, or to the value of his translation footnotes all completed before the emergence of homeopathy. For example, “in 1788, Hahnemann discovered the solubility of metallic sulphates in boiling nitric acid.” [Ameke, 28] Another is “the test for wine invented by Dr Hahnemann [which] has especially pleased me.” [Ameke, 29] Or “Hahnemann’s mercury, an excellent and mild preparation, the usefulness of which has been proved.” [Ameke, 32] He is variously described as “a capable physician,” [Ameke, 75] and “one of the most distinguished physicians of Germany…of matured experience and reflection…a man rendered famous by his writings.” [Ameke, 75]

In 1799 one writer alludes to Hahnemann by calling him “a man who has made himself a name in Germany both as a chemist and a practitioner [who] deserves especial recommendation,” [Ameke, 37] and adds that “every article gives evidence of having been written with the greatest care.” [Ameke, 37] Another critic expresses his admiration for “a man who has conferred so many benefits on science…by his valuable translations…that are faithful and successful…[who has] added precious notes which expand and elucidate [the original]” [Ameke, 40] such that “he has thus enhanced the value of the work.” [Ameke, 40] So highly regarded were Hahnemann’s translations “which he has enriched with his own notes.” [Ameke, 40] These “great many explanatory and supplementary remarks…give the translation a great advantage over the original.” [Ameke, 40]

Such writers could clearly appreciate the “thoroughness of his emendations…his short notes…[which] serve to explain the text…and which is enhanced by the translator’s notes.” [Ameke, 40-41] Such comments reveal the clear and unambiguous recognition which he received for his “thorough pharmaceutical knowledge and industry…this celebrated chemist…this meritorious physician…the meritorious Hahnemann…whom chemistry has to thank for many important discoveries.” [Ameke, 41] He is unanimously applauded as one who “has won for himself unfading laurels,” [Ameke, 42] for his contributions to science. Hahnemann was “so much respected and renowned for his valuable services,” [Ameke, 90] that he did not require to “to make himself more popular with the German public.” [Ameke, 90]

Dr Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)When Hahnemann correctly stated that “Arsenic does not contain muriatic acid…[this showed] Hahnemann’s superiority,” [Ameke, 18] in points of chemistry. In all his translations, “accuracy prevails everywhere,” [Ameke, 22] and reflects the “extreme care he employed in his labours.” [Ameke, 22] As early as 1784, “Hahnemann advocated the crystallisation of tartar emetic.” [Ameke, 24] It was in the fine details of his corrections and footnote additions that he earned his reputation as a meticulous, highly knowledgeable, diligent and thus reliable scientific translator. In time, he garnered a similar reputation for his work reforming pharmacy, for example, “the regulation and sale of poisons,” [Ameke, 34] the “preservation of odoriferous substances,” [Ameke, 34] and the “evaporation of extracts over water baths.” [Ameke, 34] Ameke also lists many pages of examples of his contributions to pharmacy and examples of his recommended small doses for drugs of all types.

In such innumerable ways Hahnemann was considered to have “enriched our therapeutic thesaurus.” [Ameke, 35] In every case, they all prove “how thoroughly Hahnemann had studied the subject,” [Ameke, 34] in question, whether it was botany, pharmacy or chemistry. It meant that when he made a statement “every page shows that the well informed author speaks from experience,” [Ameke, 37] it shows his great diligence, that he composed work of more than “an ordinary character,” [Ameke, 37] that he always produced “useful work,” [Ameke, 38] and that “he surpassed most of them in knowledge of the subjects,” [Ameke, 38] on which he expounded. Such factors considerably enhanced his scientific credentials.

Dose Reduction

Hahnemann “even wished to see the names of diseases abolished.” [Ameke, 116] Though he recognised the obvious convenience of disease classification schemes, he “always advocated individualisation and taught it systematically.” [Ameke, 116] He felt that giving diseases names was a highly misleading habit that inevitably led to disreputable rote prescribing, and to viewing a sickness as an actual thing. Though he did use crude drugs throughout the 1790s, he developed a peculiar method of administering the drug “in very small but continually increasing doses, till some severe symptoms manifest themselves.” [Ameke, 119] He later called this the ‘primary toxic action’ of a drug. Then the dose was abruptly stopped and beneficial results awaited. He later called this the ‘curative secondary reaction’ of the vital force elicited by a drug [see Organon §57, 59, 63, 64-6, 69, 112, 114-5, 130, 133, 137-8, 161 for primary and secondary effects of drugs]. He gradually diminished the doses he used throughout that decade. He always used smaller doses than his contemporaries, and experimented a great deal in achieving good results from the tiniest doses. These trials obviously flowed from his conviction that large doses were intrinsically harmful and felt it was his duty to find a saner, more rational and less damaging approach to the whole question of dosage of drugs. He soon saw the reform of drug dosage as absolutely crucial for any reform of medicine itself.

Mercury in syphilis is probably “the only instance after 1799 in which he recommends stronger doses.” [Ameke, 121] His method “began with small ones and gradually increased them up to the point of slight toxic action.” [Ameke, 121] In this manner he aimed to transform himself into “the zealous, careful observer, the conscientious physician.” [Ameke, 121] Though he had not as yet “raised the smallness of the dose to a general therapeutic principle,” [Ameke, 121] yet this practice of unrelenting dose experimentation “was peculiar to him, and distinguished him from all his colleagues.” [Ameke, 121] He also “noted accurately the duration of action,” [Ameke, 121] of drugs that he used. No-one else was doing this. And all the while these experiments formed an essential part of “his laudable endeavours to attain to simplicity of treatment.” [Ameke, 121]

In recommending smaller doses for numerous drugs, Hahnemann was basing his view on direct observations of the actions of drugs on the body. Repeatedly, he grounds his medical views not in high-faluting theories but through consulting “nature and experience,” [Ameke, 126] as his chief guides in all that he says. In the footnotes to Cullen [1790], Monro [1791] and the Edinburgh Dispensatorium [1797], he disagrees with almost every dosage listed by the original author, concluding always that “large doses…must do harm.” [Ameke, 126] Instinctively, he rebelled against large doses as harmful.

In every case, therefore, he recommends “an incredibly small quantity,” [Ameke, 127] of the drugs he discusses, because the large doses “multiplied experience will not allow me to advise.” [Ameke, 127] The results “of the zealous and careful researches of our genial investigator forced upon him…the conviction that the doses…accepted as normal, were much too large.” [Ameke, 127] History records “no instance…of a physician ever having attempted to determine the question of the suitable dose with such zealous endeavour as the clear-sighted, indefatigable and thoughtful Hahnemann.” [Ameke, 127]

Dr Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)Severing his link with tradition, and basing his views solely upon direct observation and experience, he “proceeded still further in the diminution of the dose.” [Ameke, 128] Nor did he recommend drugs on the old basis. He did not aim “to produce emesis, purgation, or narcosis; neither did he employ them to cleanse the blood of acridities…cutting the phlegm, softening of indurations, or destroying parasites.” [Ameke, 128-9] What such low dose preparations he used did, was to “favourably influence the curative process.” [Ameke, 129] This means they assist the natural healing powers. This was a radically new therapeutic concept.

Furthermore, he found that small doses of the best remedy would create “as great an impression as if they were infants at the breast.” [Ameke, 129] By this he meant, “the sensitiveness of the human body to medicines…transcends all belief.” [Ameke, 129] He especially means sensitivity to similar medicines. He himself was “astounded at his discovery.” [Ameke, 129] He too regarded as incredible “the results obtained by a millionth, a billionth, etc, part of a grain of medicine.” [Ameke, 129] As is now well known, he soon went on to obtain “results which could not be obtained with the crude substances.” [Ameke, 131] Drugs, which obviously contained no detectable substance, still “possessed great healing power.” [Ameke, 131] They heal by their similarity to the case totality and by stimulating the innate self-healing powers.

This breakthrough in dose reduction and medicine preparation also meant that many previously “highly poisonous substances,” [Ameke, 131] could now be brought into harmless use as healing agents. They could indeed be “converted into…powerful remedial agents in the hands of a skilful physician.” [Ameke, 131] Dismissing the views of his “dogmatical and credulous predecessors,” [Ameke, 133] whose theories and “deductions ran counter to the maxims of experience,” [Ameke, 133] Hahnemann, as “a practical physician,” [Ameke, 133] grounded his medical views solely in the “science of experience.” [Ameke, 133] He roundly condemned the “imaginings of physicians,” [Ameke, 133] which he felt to have no place in any rational healing art. What he also called “speculative refinements, arbitrary axioms…dogmatic assumptions…[and the] magnificent conjuring games of so-called theoretical medicine.” [Ameke, 134] Instead, Hahnemann had respect solely for “a science of pure experience…knowledge of the disease to be treated and the actions of drugs.” [Ameke, 134] These, he insists can only be deduced “from pure experience and observation,” [Ameke, 134] rather than from signatures or ‘old wives tales,’ which he despised.


Dr Robert Ellis DUDGEON (1820-1904)In his own house “he liked to wear a brightly-flowered dressing-gown, yellow slippers and black velvet cap.” [Ameke, 157] His long pipe “was seldom out of his hand, and this indulgence in tobacco was the only relaxation from his abstemious mode of life…his food extremely frugal.” [Ameke, 157] When seeing patients, instead of a bureau, “he used a large plain square table on which three or four huge folios lay, in which he had entered the histories of the maladies of his patients…[and] in which he wrote down their cases…with the exactness which he recommends in his Organon.” [Ameke, 157]


Wilhelm Ameke, History of Homœopathy, with an appendix on the present state of University medicine, translated by A. E. Drysdale, edited by R. E. Dudgeon, London: E. Gould & Son, 1885.

Causal Medicine and homoeopathy. (2 of 2)

Part 1

We left off in the preceding post after bringing up the subject of Miasms. The intention is that students of Homoeopathy obtain accurate understanding of Hahnemanns words and meaning, so as to be confident practitioners in the therapy.

Let us begin by giving you facts to consider.

Hahnemann published a pamphlet in 1831 regarding what he then thought to be the mode of propagation of the Asiatic Cholera (see Lesser Writings, page 753 Pages may vary in different printings.) In this work he used such expressions as “excessively minute invisible living creatures so inimical to human life of which the contagious matter of the cholera most probably consist. The physicians and nurses take away with them in their clothes in their hair, probably also in their breath, the invisible [probably animated) contagious matter surrounding the cholera patient”.

you cannot take Hahnemann’s conjecture resting on probabilities in 1831 to be his real conviction or his assumed foreknowledge of modern Bacilli to be the cause or spreading agent of cholera. Evidence shows that Hahnemann never repeated or confirmed by his subsequent writing up to 1843,  (the time of his death) what he had tentatively  written in 1831.

Hahnemann eschewed the materialism of his time and promulgated that it is the vital force, (Life Principle, Immune system) the immaterial, invisible force which keeps man alive, happy and prosperous in health to realise the higher purposes of his existence. but when deranged by the dynamic influence of morbific agents inimical to life, it produces disagreeable sensations in the organism and bends it to irregular processes which the physician can ascertain symptoms to render aid.

These disagreeable sensations etc. occur during an overpowering attack of immaterial miasm (infection) on the immaterial vital force on the invisible immaterial plane.

For infection takes place by affection of the Vital Force (Life Principle, Immune System) with immaterial, invisible, miasmatic (infectious) influences which lead ultimately to material changes, where you find Bacteria, Bacilli etc in the human economy.

The meaning of the dynamic influence has been clearly explained byHahnemann in the foot-note of aphorism 11 (6th edition Organon). There he writes, “The dynamic effect of the sick making influences upon healthy man as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the vital principle in the restoration of health, is nothing else than infection and so not in anyway material, nor in any way mechanical, just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material or mechanical. It is purely specific, conceptual influence that communicates to a near child, small-pox or measles in the same way as a magnet communicates to the near needle, the magnetic Property . Again, if one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this antiperistaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination ?”

Thus we see, Hahnemann speaks of vital force, disease producing force and medicinal force—all these are invisible, immaterial, conceptual and spirit-like forces.

To drag him down to the material plane of Bacteriology, is an error which every thinking rational Homceopath should avoid religiously. To inaugurate the bacteria theory and infuse it into the minds of innocent students instead of susceptibility or vital weakness as cause of disease (as said by Hahnemann) is simply to axe out Hahnemannian Homceopathy.

Hahnemann’s statement from his Lesser Writings published in 1831 regarding the spread of Cholera occurring on board the ships in the river Ganges in India.

He is reported to have said: “In the confined spaces, filled with mouldy, watery vapours the cholera miasm finds a favourite element for its multiplication and grows [Please note here, the real meaning of The invisible cholera miasm” gradually developing into material form from internal, invisible, immaterial state
(as is natural in every infection) into an enormously increased brood of these excessively minute, invisible living creatures so inimical to life of which the contagious matter of cholera most probably consists. The cause of this is undoubtedly the invisible cloud that hovers closely around the sailors who have remained free from the disease composed of probably millions of the miasmatic (Means—developed from miasm, or resultant disease from an infection) animated beings which at first developed on the broad marshy banks of the tepid Ganges always searching out in preference the human being to his destruction. This pestiferous, infectious matter as he calls it, “which is carried about in the clothes, hair, beards, soiled hands, instruments of physicians, nurses and others seems to spread the infection and cause epidemics. “

Hahnemann never saw or admitted any material cause, Bacteria or Bacilli, as is clearly apparent from quotations from his subsequent writings in the Organon without any doubt 0r probability as shown above.  Here, I should again draw the attention to the fact that this statement in the Lesser Writings naturally of lesser importance and authenticity was never referred to by Hahnemann in his future writings.

It was made, without actually seeing a case of cholera, without visiting India, without having a glimpse of the Ganges, without feeling the temperatures of the waters of the Ganges so pleasant and something more than pleasingly cool (Hahnemann described it as tepid) without having the good fortune of knowing the wonderful antiseptic properties of the cold stream which comes down from the Himalayas. But Hahnemann describes it as tepid for want of actual experience. Another wonderful feature of the statement is that it is qualified by the words “Seems”, “Probably”, “Most probably” as stated above. To make a passing remark without actually seeing a disease or anything connected with it, is one affair and solid opinion formed after close observation and handling it, is certainly essentially different. The theoretical assumptions are liable to be falsified by cool thinking, practical and repeated observations or experience extending over a length of time. Maybe the reality is that Hahnemann was passing through a doubtful state of mind but he never settled into a solid opinion as it appears from later writings.

But correctly speaking his assumption is due to misinterpretation.

In the preface of the the sixth edition of the Organon published in 1843 Hahnemann says: “It can easily convince every reflecting person that the diseases of man are not caused by any substance, any acridity, that is to say disease matter but they are solely spirit-like (dynamic) derangements of the spirit-like power [vital principle) that animates the human body (Aph 11.).

Here, please notice, there is no word “probably” etc. in the assertion of Hahnemann. This was written in 1833 and published in 1843, that is, at least two years if not ten years after Hahnemann’s observation regarding the probable affection and spread of Cholera published in 1831.

In the 11th para of Organon Hahnemann says—“When a person falls ill it is only the spiritual self-acting (automatic) vital force everywhere present in the organism that is primarily deranged by the dynamic influence of morbific agent inimical to life, it is the vital principle deranged to such an abnormal state that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations and incline it to irregular processes which we call disease.”

Again in the 12th para he repeats the same thing “it is morbidly affected vital forces alone that produces the disease.”

In a foot-note to the 12th para Hahnemann says “How the vital force causes the organism to display morbid phenomena, that is how it produces disease, it would be of no utility to physician to know.”

This remark was made by Hahnemann here only because he had bitter experience in trying to explain how cholera spreads or affects persons with a probable, i.e., doubtful theory.

Now what was the bitter experience he had? It was the challenge by Dr. Hufeland, of his theory of the “Probable” cause of the spread of cholera. quoting from the Lesser Writings of Hahnemann,. At para 758 Hahnemann says:—

The Only fact brought forward by Hufeland against my proofs that on board an English Ship in the open sea about the latitude of Riga that had no communication (?)with the town two sailors were suddenly seized with the cholera, proves nothing, for it is not known how near the ship came to the infected town of Riga so that the sphere of miasm exhalation from the town although diluted might yet have reached and infected the sailors who were still unused to the miasm (infecting agent) especially if they as is often the case were rendered more susceptible to it from intemperance.”

Here Hahnemann being cornered by Hufeland has been compelled to admit that sailors on board the ship near Riga were attacked with cholera not from infectious matter washed out from the town, a far-fetched idea, but was attacked with the miasm (infecting agent) of cholera being susceptible to it from the lowered vitality or vital weakness due to their intemperance, etc. Now everybody with common sense is bound to admit that sailors on board the ship in the Ganges were also affected with cholera, from the same cause of lowered vitality caused by intemperance, etc. The dismal unhealthy condition which helped the growth of cholera miasm (infecting agent) certainly lowered the vitality of sailors also on the Ganges. Of course, the bad odour, mouldy atmosphere, etc., added fuel to the fire in spreading the disease. So the meteoric or telluric influences causing sporadic or epidemic attacks of Acute diseases cannot be thrown overboard with bad logic or fallacious arguments. What Hahnemann had published in 1843 in Organon must have greater authenticity than what he gave out in his Lesser Writings.

The most striking example of infection and rapid spread of cholera as is well-known and as the journals inform us in this way:

“On board ships in the confined spaces filled with watery vapours the cholera miasm (infecting agent)  finds a favourable element for its Multiplication, etc.”

If the sailors on the sea near Riga are liable to attack of cholera without any actual contact due to intemperance lowering the power of vital force to resist the disease miasm (infecting agent) the sailors on board the ship near the shore of the Ganges living under same unhealthy condition and character had their vitality lowered by intemperance. The same causes have been expressed in paragraph 73 of the Organon of epidemic diseases which prevail among thickly congregated masses of human beings. That calamities of war, inundations and famine also produce Acute diseases by lowering the strength of the vital force and thereby developing susceptibility to diseases when innumerable persons gather together and live under unhealthy conditions and privations, is readily understandable.

Hahnemann says:—
Morbific noxious agents do not possess the power of morbidly deranging the health of man unconditionally but we are made ill by them only when our organism is sufficiently susceptible to the attack of the morbific cause—(Organon aph 31).

The truth is unless the vital force is weak and susceptible, no acute or chronic miasm can ever affect the vital force.

To clarify further.

The second edition of Hahnemann’s “Chronic Diseases” was published by parts between 1835 and 1838. In that edition Hahnemann retained those passages in the body of his book, which refer to “the parasitic existence” of Chronic miasms (vide p. 9, para 2, Chronic Disease, Second Edition 1835) and not merely the very suggestive foot-notes In the sixth edition of Organon (the manuscript of which he was supposed to have completed in 1843 or in February1842, according to Haehl) in a foot-note to sec. 80 he refers the readers to the above-mentioned 2nd edition of “Chronic Disease”.

This shows that what he conceived of the nature of miasms was maintained by him till his death. During the Cholera Epidemic years of 1831 and 1832 Hahnemann was a resolute, clear thinking man of seventy-six. So his writings during this period came out of a mature brain and were not of “lesser” importance just because his scattered articles were collected and published in a book form by Dr. Dudgeon under the name “Lesser Writings”.

Dr. Dudgeon, for instance, charged Hahnemann with “frequent changes and repetition of the same thing, etc.” He certainly failed to reckon the necessities for introduction of a perplexing new thing in questions of life and death. Others with more profound knowledge found in Hahnemann’s huge writings which they mostly misunderstood unwarranted presumption, dogmatic assertion, obscure conception, undue generalisation, incomplete formulations and arguments in a vicious circle.

We point out that Hahnemann was a cautious scientist. How could he write otherwise in absence of positive visual observation? But his intuition and clear logic led him to hint about the invisible living beings which had something to do with incidence and spread of the Cholera disease in an epidemic form. Here a bit of medical history will clarify the situation. Long before Hahnemann’s birth the microscope was invented. The researches of Kircher, Malphigii, Leewenhoek, Hooker etc. (during 1626-1651) established the existence of microbes. But till Hahnemann’s time it was not definitely known whether pathogenic micro-organisms did exist or in the event of their existence whether they had any causal relation with the human organism in the production of diseases. The idea of infection by micro-organisms was also hinted at by G. Fracastoro when he published his book “De Contagione” in 1546 after the great plague epidemic in Europe. Hahnemann was a scholar and a voracious reader. He must have known about Fracastoro’s writings. During the Cholera epidemic the people and medical men were confronted with the same problems of checking the spread of the disease as during the previousplague period. Though Hahnemann, in the beginning was against all classification and nomenclature of diseases, the epidemic diseases where many persons were simultaneously attacked with a very similar type of disease set him thinking deeply and led him to conclude about the existence of “fixed miasms”—proofs of which are before our eyes in his writings of Sec. 73 (Organon, 6th Ed.).  Hahnemann came to fix the nature of these “fixed miasms” as living micro-organisms. He wrote four letters concerning Cholera during June to October in 1831—where he not only gave clear hints about the nature of the causative agents, their mode of transmission, their curative treatment but also about the preventive steps to be taken to check the spread of that terrible disease. He wrote about sterilising the infected clothes with a heat of about 80°C; and certainly Hahnemann did not think of sterilising “immaterial, conceptual, spirit-like dynamic forces” with heat (Haehl’s Biography of Hahnemann).

The then medical profession including the great Dr. Hufeland stood for the atmospheric-telluric theory for the cholera epidemic and decried the preventive measures suggested byHahnemann. It was Hahnemann alone who stood for the microbic nature of infection which has been proved up to the hilt by systematic researches of Pasteur and Koch. That Hahnemannwas cornered by Hufeland in certain points proves nothing but the fact that the full and precise knowledge about transmission of infecting organisms was not known to the former. Hahnemann  through sheer intuition and clear logic and correct observations anticipated their works.That Hahnemann meant by “miasm” what we mean by microbes is established beyond any doubt.

Dynamic action.

Negatively it is an action other than mechanical, physical or chemical. Positively it is a qualitative action. If the drugs can possess dynamic action, if the human organism can exert dynamic action, why not the living micro-organisms no matter whether they are visible or invisible ? Allopathy tries toexplain the modus operandi of the process of infection by the interaction of the chemistry of the body with the toxins secreted by the microbes. Hahnemann, on the other hand, claims that the chemico-physical processes just fall short of the total and complex living phenomena. As the drugs act on the living body through their essential qualities besides their physico chemical properties, so the living microbes can also act through their essential qualities (possessed by their life-force) to change the qualitative state of the organism. That’s all, where is the
difficulty to understand this simple thing? During Hahnemann’s time the word “miasm” was used loosely to express many things viz., morbific emanations from putrescent organic matter, animal or vegetable, and sometimes the effluvia arising from the bodies of those affected by certain diseases some of which were regarded as infectious and others not. Hahnemann fixed the connotation and denotation of this vaguely used word—miasm. From the Organon it can be clearly proved that Hahnemann included physical, psychic and these biological causes under the general name of morbific noxious agents. But all these agents act on the living organism through dynamic (i.e., qualitative) actions and interactions to alter the state of health of the organism. The inclusion of biological agents i.e., miasms (in old terminology) or microbes (in modern terminology) in the list of the morbific noxious agents i.e., “contagium Vivum” is the greatest contribution of Hahnemann in the field of medical thought. Dyna- mis means force and force is always invisible and imperceptible to our senses but their existence is inferred through their workings. The immaterial force must have a material vehicle. As substantial entity of a drug is the vehicle and carrier of its dynamic property, so the microbic body is the vehicle and carrier of their dynamic property. Where is the difficulty to understand this?

Hahnemann talked about “Dynamic influences of morbific agents”—and we tried to establish the identity of one group of the morbific agents. Bacteria etc., are living beings and not material substances. Bacteria belong to the group of fission-fungi of the plant kingdom. Hahnemann could not possibly know that but surmised that they must be living beings. He used the word “animated”.

Our human organism is an integrated indivisible whole of mentalised
living matter. It presents different aspects—material, vital and mental—which we take as distinctive entities for the facilitation of our comprehension (aph 15 of Organon 6th Ed.), but which are not so in factual reality. Here, again, we give credit to Hahnemann for anticipating the psycho-somatic conception of modern times. The truth is that the human organism is neither a machine nor a chemical factory nor a vital or psychic being, each to the exclusion of all others but it is a whole including all aspects and at the same time transcending them all. But towards the end of his life Hahnemann leaned more and more to the pure vitalistic school whereas the rapid advances in the knowledge of physical sciences tipped the balance on the side of the materialistic school. History reveals that he was more influenced by the theories of Stahl, Barthez and Hoffmann , who all belonged to the animistic and vitalistic school though
he tried to keep away from the irrational parts of their theories.

Comparative study of the successive editions of Organon shows that this allusion to “vital force” occurs first in the 5th Edition (1833) as “vital force” has often been substituted for the words “Organism”, body, state of health of the previous
edition. In the 6th edition he came to believe in the substantial entity of the vital principle. But this trenchant division into rival schools of thought has lost its significance as the latest development in the knowledge of physical sciences has served to dematerialise matter and found mass and energy to be convertible terms and as theoretical physics pushed to its extremes is on the point of losing itself in the realms of metaphysics. We feel a contradiction and conflict in Hahnemann’s ideas if we read sees. 11, 12, 13 with 15 of Organon, (6th edition). In sec. 15 we read the body-life as a complex indivisible whole, although “in thought our mind separates this unity into two distinct conceptions for the sake of easy comprehension. Here the factual reality is that the body and life are not two entirely separate substantial entities; whereas in aphs. 11, 12, 13 we are given to understand that it is only the vital principle which is primarily affected in disease and which leads to subsequent disorders in the material body. There is a mechanical view of cause and effect implicit behind this statement which Hahnemann shared with the sixteenth and the seventeenth century physicians that the living body did not work itself but it was tenanted by a principle that made it “live”, something immaterial that used the body as a craftsman uses a tool.  But if life and body are inseparable and one cannot exist without the other what happens when a man dies ? Surely something which kept the organism alive is missing and the vitalistic school pounced upon this phenomena and asserted the independent existence of the life-principle.

Neither the science nor the philosophy of the West could explain this apparently anomalous phenomenon. For an explanation we have to delve deep into the
realm of metaphysics which is just the thing Hahnemann wanted us to avoid. That is why in a footnote to aph. 31 he wrote that he did not wish to give a hyper-physical (i.e., metaphysical) explanation of the internal nature of the disease or the essential nature of life-force in healthy or unhealthy condition. To him disease is just a state of alteration in health i.e., a qualitative change comprising sensational and functional changes which are perceptible to our senses. The human organism has a material part (body) which is also liable to change but it is the qualitative change which the patient feels and suffers therefrom. But here Hahnemann apparently forgets his body-life integration and like a pure vitalist asserts that this qualitative change is absolutely independent of physico-chemical alterations of the physical body.

This statement has served to make the confusion worse.. The real truth is that though life can never be adequately explained through physico chemical processes it is as futile and untrue to say that life does not consist of chemico-physical processes as to say that poetry does not consist of words.  In our Surface-existence mind, life and body are integrated into an indivisible whole. To our senses are perceptible the phenomena of physical mind and physical life which do not exist apart from the material body. But the true mind and true life can exist apart from the body which go away in the event of death. ‘All diseases with which we medical men are concerned belong to our physical nature, whether in the gross physical or vital physical or the mental-physical level. We do not treat mind and life as such but as a mentalised living body. For in this world of matter everything is manifested through it. We do not see Life or mind existing by itself but always as a ‘bodied’ life and embodied mind. How the mind or life has come to be embodied is a metaphysical problem beyond our ordinary mental conception. Hahnemann referred to this fact in his foot-note No. 8 to sec. 12 of Organon, 6th Edition.

Hahnemann did not, could not, and wanted not to delve into these metaphysical questions. He stuck to the plane of phenomena on which he could tread with surer steps and he was satisfied to deduce only those conceptions which were warranted from his observations. Still he was a child of his times and leaned to vitalistic school in his later years. That is why Hughes regarded Hahnemann’s vital theory as a physiological hypothesis.

In aph 31 of Organon 6th Edition, Hahnemann writes that the action of drugs on the living organism is almost unconditional whereas the miasmatic infection is very much conditional, the susceptibility of the organism being a prior condition. As it takes two hands to produce a clap so we require the living body’s susceptibility on the one hand and the miasm, on the other for eventual pro- duction of disease. Leaving the miasm or microbe out of consideration and talking about the production of diseases only with the living body’s susceptibility is one-sided and incomplete. This distorted view axes out the Hahnemannian Homoeopathy. Hahnemann perfectly anticipated that the miasms (microbes) were not the absolute cause but only a conditioned cause in the production of diseases.

Bacteriology has solved the problem to a great extent of prevention of acute diseases, whether sporadic or epidemic; and Bacteriology has rounded off the theory of chronic diseases as propounded by Hahnemann. Whatever may be Hahnemann’s conception of the nature of the morbific agents his approach to the therapeutic problem is different from that of the Allopathic School.

Truth never cramps anyone’s mind; reception of truth leads to further mental expansion. The Organon is a critique of medical philosophy for all times.

A proper and accurate study of Hahnemann’s writing will never lead to difficulty but on the other hand will serve to clear away many misconceptions that have accumulated round the Homoeopathic philosophy.


  • B.K.Sarkar.
  • Samuel Hahnemann
  • Richard Haehl
  • Clements Boenninghausen

Hahnemann’s First Provings

hahnemann111Hahnemann’s First Provings.

by Peter Morrell

For the full original article click here
From the earliest beginnings until now, the materia medica has consisted only of false suppositions and fancies, which is as good as no materia medica at all.” [The Organon, v.110]

“Medicine tests [provings] constitute one of the most critical points of Hahnemann’s teachings. This grandiose attempt to acquire unhypothetical medical experience was outwardly justified by the complete lack of objective methods of investigation and experimental systems in those days…[Hahnemann had] the courage to break away from hypotheses and systems…” [Gumpert, 122]

This essay explores the early provings of Hahnemann and attempts to place them into some kind of historical and conceptual context.


The first provings of Hahnemann really need to be measured in two ways… first, against what came after them and the way homeopathy unfolded forwards from that point, which is the view most homeopaths adopt. And second against what existed before the provings and where he got his remedies from. The plain fact is that most of the remedies initially came from the allopathic materia medica. Without doubt also, translation work opened up for him “a world rich in the most glorious prospects,” [Goethe] of medical data, therapeutic hints, clinical observations and notes about drug actions, which must have enormously enriched his medical thinking and which practically no-one else was party to. So, Hahnemann must have been imbibing a wealth of clinical and therapeutic ideas from his many translations and historical researches, during the 1780s and 1790s.

Measuring backwards from what followed is an inherently deceptive approach as it fails to fully illuminate certain crucial aspects of the project as it must have been conceived in Hahnemann’s mind. The idea of experimentation on healthy subjects was more or less floating in the air in that epoch: Haller expressed it clearly, Stork also and Alexander, for example, made in 1766 a proving of Camphora some years before Hahnemann’s experiment with Cinchona bark. The idea of conducting provings probably came to Hahnemann from Von Haller:

“Indeed, a medicine must first of all be essayed in a healthy body, without any foreign admixture; when the odour and taste have been examined, a small dose must be taken, and attention must be paid to every change that occurs, to the pulse, the temperature, respiration and excretions. Then, having examined the symptoms encountered in the healthy person, one may proceed to trials in the body of a sick person.” [von Haller, 12]

However, four key points seem clear about the first provings. Firstly, they derived from his studies and detailed knowledge of drugs in use at the time; secondly, that as the project evolved empirically he must have been made acutely aware that the number, subtlety and diversity of symptoms produced by a drug were much greater than the clinical records had initially suggested; thirdly, that he involved members of his family and circle of close friends from an early stage: “the family…and every free moment of every one of them, from the oldest to the youngest, was made use of for the testing of medicines and the gathering of the most precise information on their observed effects.” [Gumpert, 114] Fourthly, he realised that the instructions to provers had to involve them recording everything, every subtle change in their psycho-physical totality and consciousness and not just the main physical symptoms. Hahnemann gives “pure experiment, careful observation and accurate experience alone,” [Gumpert, 144] as the sole determining factors that can generate any authentic medical theory. He “demanded a complete break with everything,”[Gumpert, 149] that had gone before.

He sought “to discover the specific relations of certain medicines to certain diseases, to certain organs and tissues, he strove to do away with the blind chimney sweeper’s methods of dulling symptoms.” [Gumpert, 99] He “instituted “provings” of drugs upon himself, members of his family, friends, students and fellow practitioners, keeping all under the most rigid scrutiny and control, and carefully recording every fact and the conditions under which it was elicited.” [Close, 147-8]

“If one has tested a considerable number of simple medicines on healthy people in this way… then one has for the first time a true materia medica: a collection of the authentic, pure, reliable effects of simple medicinal substances in themselves; a natural pharmacopoeia…” [The Organon, v.143]

The second and fourth points meant that Hahnemann was more or less forced into a deeper appreciation of the reality of holism in the organism simply by conducting provings, in other words from his empirical studies. This must have been a wholly unexpected aspect for him. What started as merely a test of one drug soon became a revelation as it “ceased to be a little trickle…it became a broad flood,” [Wells] and an entirely new materia medica took birth, unfolding before him in incredible and undreamt-of detail. The third point suggests that he realised at a very early stage that a drug’s impact upon the female system is rather different from its impact upon the male, and though complementary to each other, these two aspects of a proving reflect entirely different dimensions of the same drug. From the minute details of a proving, a new sense of completeness eventually developed in his mind, so spawning a synthesis: the drug picture. Likewise, in accordance with his initial aim in conducting provings, he obtained for each drug a reliable database, based on experiment and in which personal responses as well as general effects were all compiled into the final picture.

The importance of the first point simply means that he obtained his first hunches about the therapeutic activity of drugs partly from using them himself, and partly “as he explored the muttering tomb,” [Auden, New Year Letter, 217] of his translation work, during which he ‘saw into’ the apparent sphere of action of a drug from reading the accounts of many others in the past who had observed their action or seen them cure specific diseases or symptom clusters. Thus, he probably realised in advance of the actual provings that most drugs tend to have a multi-faceted action upon the organism.

Always intimately tied in with his views of drugs was his interest in and study of poisonings: “I found from the toxicological reports of earlier writers that the effects of large quantities of noxious substances ingested by healthy people…largely coincided with my own findings from experiments with those substances on myself or other healthy people.” [Hahnemann, 1810, v.110] “He collected histories of cases of poisoning. His purpose was to establish a physiological doctrine of medical remedies, free from all suppositions, and based solely on experiments.” [Gumpert, 92] The proving is in fact merely a mild and subtle form of poisoning, what we might term a ‘micro-poisoning,’ during which the power of the drug ‘takes hold’ of the prover and so reveals its therapeutic ‘sphere of action’.


First Proving

His studies of drugs had led him to the realisation that ‘single drugs in moderate doses’ offered up the best if not the only hope of creating a gentle and effective system of curative medicine. That point implicitly involved a prior and firm rejection of the Galenic diktat of using mixed drugs in strong doses, because instinctively and temperamentally he was “a most passionate opponent of mixed doses that contained a large number of ingredients.” [Gumpert, 96] This sets the scene for the first proving, of Cinchona in 1790, deriving as it did both from a translation work and from his own intimate knowledge and personal use of the drug in question. Here we have to note a possible peculiar sensitivity of Hahnemann himself to Cinchona bark, as he had contracted malaria in his youth, during his Hermanstadt journey.

It is important to recall that the first proving was not actually designed at the outset to study the effect of a drug on the entire human system, to prove a drug, as is often claimed. No, rather it was specifically designed to test a claim by Cullen that Cinchona acts curatively on fever because of its bitter action on the stomach. It is precisely this point which Hahnemann set about to test for himself: “in the following year, 1790, Hahnemann translated Cullen’s Materia Medica. Cullen (II. 108) explains the efficacy of Cinchona in intermittent fever by the “strengthening power it exerts on the stomach,” and adds, ” that he has never met with anything in any book which made him doubt the truth of his view.” [Ameke, 62] It is this point which inspired Hahnemann to see if the drug would indeed affect the stomach as Cullen suggested. To his surprise, he found it did not do that and his testing of it proved to be a revelation in other ways.

Hahnemann disagreed with Cullen’s theory of the action of Cinchona upon the stomach and so resolved to test the drug on himself. He “criticised the opinion of Cullen that the action of Peruvian bark [quinine] was that of a tonic to the stomach…and proceeded to argue that quinine acts in malaria because in healthy people it can produce symptoms similar to intermittent fever.” [Bodman, 3-4] In this first proving experiment, Hahnemann observed symptoms broadly similar to those of malaria, including spasms and fever. [Cook, 59; Haehl, I, 37, 39] With Cinchona, he had “produced in himself the symptoms of intermittent fever.” [Haehl, vol. 1, 39]

Much has been written about the first proving that need not be repeated here, but the main consequence of it conceptually for Hahnemann was that after ‘single drugs in moderate doses,’ the first proving firmly and irreversibly established his third axiom of homeopathy: the law of similars, and realisation of its significance must have finally extinguished any remaining fragmentary attachments Hahnemann may still have harboured concerning the therapeutic possibilities of contraries: “dying to embers from their native fire!” [Keats, line 366] The “similia similibus principle,” [Gumpert, 96] was indeed Hahnemann’s “brilliance of idea,” [Gumpert, 97] and was also “the doctrine which was to redeem him from the medical nihilism of despair.” [Gumpert, 104] This new principle, “was to him what the falling apple was to Newton, and the swinging lamp in the Baptistery at Pisa was to Galileo.” [Dudgeon, xxi] As Dudgeon says, “from this single experiment his mind appears to have been impressed with the conviction that the pathogenetic effects of medicines would give the key to their therapeutic powers.” [Dudgeon, xxi]

With the three axioms comprising the core of his newly emerging system: single drugs, moderate doses and similars, the drug proving thus became the fourth homeopathic axiom and around these axioms homeopathy not only more sharply crystallised and defined its doctrines and methods, but in this manner it finally separated itself entirely from its Galenic predecessor, emerging “from the ashes as a new phoenix,” [Hirsch, et al] and shaking off any remaining association with the dreaded ‘bleed and purge’ method of mixed drugs in high doses that Hahnemann had so detested and which had filled him with horror even from his first medical lectures in Leipzig and Vienna, for Hahnemann was indeed, “a most passionate opponent of mixed doses that contained a large number of ingredients.” [Gumpert, 96]

1790s Provings

Now, it would seem, Samuel Hahnemann towered like a colossus over the medical past and potentially over its entire future. It was doubtless at this “a crucial moment,” [Doren, 7] that he finally becomes a truly great pioneer, engaged in something momentous, prior to which he was only a potentially important figure. At this point, he probably first received “a hint of his future greatness,” [Doren, p.7], because it can hardly have escaped his attention that here was a magnificent moment, a turning point not only of solving a huge problem he had first set out to explore in 1783 when he gave up medical practice, but because in those moments had he not heard the “loud hymns that were the royal wives of silence?” [Auden, Kairos & Logos, 309] and seen the “shadows and sunny glimmerings,” [Palgrave, Wordsworth] of a new plan before him, the germ of an entirely new system pinned out like an architect’s drawing: “my system of medicine has nothing in common with the ordinary medical art, but is in every respect its exact opposite…the new method of treatment, called homeopathy, being the exact opposite of the ordinary medical art hitherto practised, has no preparations that it could give to the apothecary, has no compound remedies…” [Gumpert, 176-7] He had also manifested, “the courage to break away from hypotheses and systems…zones fatal to the human spirit.” [Gumpert, 122]

All he now needed were more provings—many more provings—and the opportunity to utilise these newly proven drugs on patients, on actual cases of sickness. “Day after day, he tested medicines on himself and others. He collected histories of cases of poisoning. His purpose was to establish a…doctrine of medical remedies, free from all suppositions, and based solely on experiments.” [Gumpert, 92]

“Many before Hahnemann, from Hippocrates down, had glimpses of the law [of similars], and some had tried to make use of it therapeutically; but all had failed because of their inability to properly graduate and adapt the dose.” [Close, 1924, p. 215]

The bright prospect that emerged from the provings meant that everything that had gone before was only theoretical, but now he stood on the brink of a new practical method and the exultation of being able to go beyond and take forward the work of his vitalist predecessors, Stahl, van Helmont and Paracelsus [“Paracelsus’s system…was a rude form of homoeopathy…but it was not equal in value to Hahnemann’s system…” [Dudgeon, 14]], in being able to adapt that previously elusive and will-o-the-wisp ‘law of similars’ into a practical working method, rather than just a theoretical aim, a hopelessly wistful medical dream: “he fought with redoubled energy for the purity of medicine,” [Gumpert, 96] and “strove to do away with the blind chimney sweeper’s methods of dulling symptoms.” [Gumpert, 99] The grim and ground-breaking task before him in the 1790s was therefore to conduct as many provings as possible. And that is precisely what he did: “undeterred by the magnitude of the task, Hahnemann set about creating a materia medica which should embody the facts of drug action upon the healthy.” [Close, 147]

It is worth stating that very little of a hard factual nature is known about precisely which drugs he proved and when. We have to try to piece that together from only “a few crumbs.” [Adams] Although in 1790 Hahnemann had only proved one drug in Cinchona, yet he had proved 27 by 1805, when he published his Fragmenta: “Hahnemann’s ‘Fragmenta de viribus medicamentorum positivis’…gives us, for the first time, an insight into the remarkable, and so far unknown, methods of investigation, which he employed. It supplies reports on the tests of twenty seven medicines the results of years of experiment on himself and his family.” [Gumpert, 122]

Given that the Fragmenta probably contained work completed up to the year 1804, when he settled in Torgau, then he had proved 27 drugs in only 14 years…almost two per year. Even by modern standards that is impressive progress. Indeed, such impressive progress for a “a cautious man, notwithstanding his utmost circumspection,” [Wollstonecraft, p.12] like Hahnemann suggests that he knew very clearly in his own mind that he was engaged in something “supremely important,” [Columbia, 7] and which demanded his complete attention at all times. Otherwise, such progress would inevitably have been slower, far less impressive, less driven and presumably much more haphazard.

The actual situation is complicated by the fact that in the same decade he was moving about all over Saxony with his growing family. The decade of the 1790s sees Hahnemann living in many different places and coincides with his most intense period of “wandering, yearning, curious—with restless explorations.” [Whitman, line 91] He changed town or residence fifteen times between 1789 and 1805: He lived in Leipzig, [1789-92], then “in 1791, poverty compelled him to remove from Leipzig to the little village of Stotteritz.” [Bradford] In 1792 he was in Gotha [1792], then Georgenthal [summer 1792 to May 1793], nursing Klockenbring; Molschleben [1793-4], Gottingen [1794], Pyrmont [Oct 1794-Jan 1795], Wolfenbuttel [1795], Brunswick [1795-6], Koenigslutter [1796-8], Hamburg, Altona [summer 1799], Molln, near Hamburg [Sept 1800-1801], Machern & Eilenberg, nr Leipzig [1801], Dessau [1802-4], Torgau [June 1805 to summer 1811]

It is also complicated by the fact that in 1792-3, for almost a whole year, he was resident in Georgenthal treating the insane patient, Herr Klockenbring. All such factors reduce the time he could have devoted solely to provings to something like 12 or 13 years and means he either proved several drugs back-to-back or he managed to prove several simultaneously using different groups of people. Furthermore, the remedies in the Fragmenta do contain a few surprises and it is very informative for us to scour the 1790 decade for other hints of what remedies he was scrutinisng at what point. For example, Bradford mentions [p.57] that Hahnemann was using Hepar sulphuris c.1794.

In 1796, in his “Essay on a New Principle,” Hahnemann mentions the following 46 remedies, of which 19 [41.3%] later appear in the Fragmenta as fully proven drugs: Nux vomica [p.318 p.278] Mercury [287], Chamomilla [267], Achillea [269], Valeriana [269], Viscum [269], Conium [270], Aethusa [271], Cicuta [271], Cocculus [271], Paris [271], Coffee [271], Dulcamara [272], Belladonna [273], Hyoscyamus [275], Stramonium [276], Tabaccum [277], Ignatia [279], Digitalis [279], Viola [281], Ipecac [281], Arbutus [282], Rhododendron [282], Ledum [282], Opium [283], Plumbum [287], Arsenic [291], Taxus [290], Aconite [291], Helleborus [292], Anemone [293], Geum [293], Drosera [294], Sambucus, [295], Rhus [295], Camphor [295], Ulmus [298], Cannabis [298], Crocus [298], Scilla [299], Veratrum alb [303], Sabadilla [302], Agaricus [303], Nux moschata [303], Rheum [Rhubarb] [303]

That Valeriana, Hyoscyamus, Stramonium, Ignatia, Mercury and Belladonna, were among the first drugs proved in the 1790s, might arouse curiosity and raise a few eyebrows. It somehow implies that Hahnemann regarded such predominantly ‘mental’ drugs, and perhaps mental symptoms in general, as highly important aspects of health and sickness in general. The degree to which this might also derive in part from his treatment of Klockenbring in 1792-3 seems also to be an interesting point to raise. After the Cinchona proving of 1790 he spent some time treating an insane man in 1792-3 but no mention is made of remedies…then in 1795 he mentions remedies like Ignatia and Hyoscyamus which MIGHT have been needed for his insane case…it is thus tempting to presume some undisclosed connection between that insane case of 1792-3 and his apparent use of remedies like Hyos and Stramonium and Ignatia with such very strong mental profiles. It also seems to suggest “entirely changed points of view,” [Whitman, lines 8-9] with him coming to regard mental symptoms as very valuable in all remedies around this time. It implies that he was widening his concept of the nature of sickness beyond a small compass of physical symptoms, which was at that time the standard allopathic conception in which he had been trained. It is difficult to discern exactly when he abandoned specific allopathic concepts and then placed his adherence solely upon specifically homeopathic ones. All these conceptual changes arguably derive from the provings.

The drugs in this list are ones he was using, ones he had read about and had an interest in, and some that he was proving or had proved. These were all drugs that stood out as significant to him; they were clearly all on his ‘shopping list’ for deeper investigation. It is clear that he was focused at this time on 40-50 drugs which he believed, when used singly, acted by similars and which he could add to his growing materia medica.

In 1798, the remedies mentioned in the essay “Antidotes to Some Heroic Vegetable Substances,” [Lesser Writings, pp.322-29] are as follows: Camphor, Mezereum, Coffea, Ignatia, Verat alb, Gamboja, Ant tart, Stramonium, Cocculus ind, Arnica, Opium, Cantharis, Scilla = 13 remedies of which 9 [69%] appear also fully proved in the Fragmenta of 1805.

The Fragmenta

The 27 drugs proved in the Fragmenta are as follows [Haehl, vol 2, p.82]:[followed by number of symptoms obtained by Hahnemann and those by others]

Aconitum napellus 138 75 [h got 65% of sx]
acris tinctura (Causticum) 30 0 [he got 100% of sx]
arnica montana 117 33 [he got 78% of sx]
belladonna 101 304 [he got 25% of sx]
camphora 73 74 [he got 50% of sx]
cantharis 20 74 [not listed by Bradford, p.80] [he got 21.3% of sx]
capsicum annuum 174 3 [he got 98% of sx]
chamomilla 272 3 [he got 99% of sx]
cinchona 122 99 [he got 55% of sx]
cocculus 156 6 [he got 96.3% of sx]
copaifera balsamum 12 8 [he got 60% of sx]
cuprum vitriolatum 29 38 [he got 43.3% of sx]
digitalis 23 33 [he got 41% of sx]
drosera 36 4 [he got 90% of sx]
hyoscyamus 45 290 [he got 13.4% of sx] [104 478 according to Seror]
ignatia 157 19 [he got 89.2% of sx]
ipecac 70 13 [he got 84.3% of sx]
ledum 75 5 [he got 93.8% of sx]
Helleborus 32 25 [he got 56% of sx]
mezereum 6 34 [he got 15% of sx]
nux vomica 257 51 [he got 83.4% of sx]
Papaver somniferum) opium 82 192 [he got 47% of sx]
pulsatilla 280 29 [he got 90.6% of sx]
rheum 39 13 [he got 75% of sx]
stramonium 59 157 [he got 51% of sx]
valeriana 25 10 [he got 71.4% of sx]
veratrum album 161 106 [he got 60.3% of sx]

As we can see, the number of symptoms which Hahnemann recorded for each drug ranges from 12 for Copaifera to 280 for Puls. Perhaps as an insight into his personality, or constitutional type, Hahnemann himself obtained the maximum number of symptoms from Chamomilla, Pulsatilla and Nux vomica; and the least number from Cantharis, Copaifera, Digitalis and Valeriana.

The Materia Medica Pura

This work was published 1811-31, and contains the following 65 fully proven drugs:

Aconitum napellus, Ambra grisea, Angustura, Argentum, Arnica, Arsenicum, Asarum, Aurum, Belladonna, Bismuthum, Bryonia, Calcarea acetica, Camphora, Cannabis sativa, Capsicum annuum, Carbo animalis, Carbo vegetabilis, Chamomilla, Chelidonium, China, Cicuta virosa, Cina, Cocculus, Colocynthis, Conium, Cyclamen europaeum, Digitalis, Drosera rotundifolia, Dulcamara, Euphrasia officinalis, Ferrum, Guaiacum, Helleborus niger, Hepar sulphuris calcareum, Hyoscyamus, Ignatia, Ledum, Magnes, Magnetis polus arcticus, Magnetis polus australis, Menyanthes trifoliate, Mercurius, Moschus, Muriaticum acidum, Nux vomica, Oleander, Opium, Phosphoricum acidum, Pulsatilla, Rheum, Rhus, Ruta, Sambucus, Sarsaparilla, Scilla, Spigelia, Spongia, Stannum, Staphisagria, Stramonium, Sulphur, Taraxacum, Thuja, Veratrum album, Verbascum

The Chronic Diseases

Contents of the Chronic Diseases [1829]

Agaricus, Alumina, ammon carb, ammon mur, anacard, ant crud, arsenic, aurum, Aur mur, Bar c, borax, Calc carb, Carb-an, carb-v, caustic, clem, coloc, conium, cuprum, digitalis, dulc, euphorb, graph, guiacum, Hepar sulph, Iodium, kali-c, lyc, mag-c, mag-m, manganum, mez, muriat ac, Natr carb, Natr mur, nitr ac, nitrum, Petroleum, Phosphorus, phos ac, Platina, sars, sepia, silicea, stannum, sulph, sul-ac, zincum [48 drugs]

A comparison of the remedies listed in the Fragmenta, the Materia Medica Pura and the Chronic Diseases is most informative and “throws a totally different light on,” [Berger] some interesting questions about Hahnemann’s methods and why certain remedies seem to ‘come in and then go out’ of favour. This is a very interesting study and presumably throws to light aspects of his changing views as the provings progressed. My own tentative view of this is that though he was initially excited by every new proving, as time wore on he sometimes saw few applications, or few successful applications, of some drugs in cases of sickness.

In this sense, his initial excitement for a freshly proven drug must have given way to a sense of disappointment about, say, its limited therapeutic application. In such an eventuality he was forced to downgrade such remedies as ‘lesser’ while retaining his enthusiasm for those ‘higher’ remedies, which tended to match many disease states and which had thus shown an ability to produce some successful cures. This seems be the best explanation of why remedies do appear to come and go across the visor of homeopathy as it evolved. I hold this view primarily because he was above all else an empirical and pragmatic man and nothing seemed to have impressed him more than results. He wished for a medicine “without the superfluous rubbish of hypotheses.” [Gumpert, 26] Everything “that savoured of theory was swept dramatically out of his mind. In his opinion there was only one criterion: success.” [Gumpert, 24] It also reveals the basic nature of the materia medica as it exists today with some 50 or 100 remedies doing most of the work and dozens of others that are very rarely used. That the materia medica is like this would simply seem to be an “inexorable law of nature.” [Harding, 20]

Another issue concerns the provings he published. For example, why does Hahnemann fail to include the Fragmenta drugs in the Materia Medica Pura or the Chronic Diseases? It seems strange that he does not aggregate these separate publications as he goes along into a growing and expanding work showing all provings in one volume: a growing homeopathic materia medica. He even updated the MMP and CD as separate works as time went on and failed to add some of the drugs in the Fragmenta. This would seem to reflect a mysterious and undisclosed attitude on Hahnemann’s part in relation to the provings. Why leave drugs out of later works that were fully proved in earlier publications? It does not seem to make any sense.

The following analysis of the drugs he proved yields many interesting facets of this subject.

1. Remedies mentioned in 1796-8 and then appearing in the Fragmenta are:
acon, bell, canth, camph, cocc, dig, dros, hell, hyos, ign, ledum, mez, nux-v, opium, rheum, stram, val, veratr
= 19/27 = 70.4% match between previous mention and proving in Fragmenta

2. Remedies mentioned in 1796-8 and appearing in MMP
acon, arn, bell, cann, camph, canth, cham, cicuta, cocc, con, dig, dros, dulc, hell, hyos, ign, ledum, merc, nux v, opium, rheum, sambuc, scilla, stram, taxus, val, veratr
= 27/65 = 41.54% match between previous mention and proving in MMP

3. Remedies mentioned in 1796-8 and appearing in CD
Dig, dulc, agar, arsen, con, hepar, mez
= 7/48 = 14.6% match between previous mention and proving in CD

4. Remedies mentioned 1790s but never proved by Hahnemann:
achillea, aethusa, anemone, arbutus, crocus, gamboja, geum, paris, plumbum, rhodo, sabadilla, tabacum, taxus, ulmus, viola, viscum
= 16/51 = 31.4% mentioned 1790s but never proved later

5. Remedies in Fragmenta never previously mentioned
caust, copaifera, cupr, puls
= 4/27 = 14.8% no previous mention and proving in Fragmenta

6. Remedies in MMP; never previously mentioned
ambra, argent, angustura, asaraum, aurum, bism, bry, calc-ac, carb an, carb veg, chel, cina, coloc, cycl, euphras, ferrum, guiac, magnetis arct, magnetis austr, manganum, mur ac, oleandr, phos ac, puls, ruta, sarsap, spig, spong, stann, staph, sul, thuja, verbasc
= 35/65 = 53.85% of MMP Remedies never previously mentioned

7. Remedies common to Fragmenta and MMP
acon, arn, bell, camph, cham, china, coccul, copaifera, dig, dros, hell, hyos, ign, ipecac, ledum, nux v, opium, puls, rheum, stram, val
= 22/65 = 33.85% overlap between Fragmenta and MMP

8. Remedies in CD also in MMP
aur, carb an, carb v, coloc, con, dig, dulc, guiac, hep, manganum, mur ac, phos ac, sars, stram, sulph

= 15/48 = 31.25% overlap between MMP and CD

9. Remedies in Fragmenta and CD
caust, cupr, dig, mez
4/48 = 8.3% overlap Fragmenta to CD

10. Remedies with no previous mention but in CD
agar, alumina, ammon carb, ammon mur, anac, aur-m, bar-c, borax, calc-c, clematis, coloc, euphorb, graph, iod, kali-c, lyc, mag-c, mag-m, nat-c, nat-m, nit ac, nitrum, petr, phos, platin, sep, sil, sul-ac, zinc
= 29/48 = 60.42% CD Rx totally new and previously unmentioned

Richard Haehl: exposition on Miasms and Chronic diseases.

This is one of the most beneficial summations of Hahnemanns writings available to the genuine practitioner.

HAHNEMANN  would not have  been  the  keen observer we have known him, if he had not noticed  in the  course of years with ever increasing clearness,  that  the structure of his therapeutic system lacked the final coping stone.    It  is true that his homoeopathic system offered, as he himself  states, ” far  more certain,  more convenient  and less harmful “ remedies than allopathy  for acute diseases,  for epidemic diseases,sporadic fevers, and venereal diseases.  ” But the number  of the tiresome diseases yet  in the wide world was incomparably greater,” and in  spite of all homoeopathic experiments  they  were still uncured.

The treatment of such  diseases was, “even when carried out strictly in accordance  with the theory of  the homoeopathic science,  as hitherto practised,  encouraging in the beginning, less favourable in the continuation and hopeless in the end.”

“the years 1816 and 1817, I have been employed, day and night, with the very serious problem of finding out why all the medicines known to homoeopathy, bring  about no real cure in  the diseases under discussion and of securing, if  possible, a clearer insight into the true state of those thousands of stricken ones, who remain uncured in the face of the unimpeachable truth of the homoeopathic system of healing. Lo ! in this  time the Giver  of all  good things suffered  me to solve this sublime riddle for mankind’s good as a result of incessant thought. tireless investigation, accurate observation and the most  careful experiments.”

These are Hahnemann’s words  in the first part of his last  considerable medical  work :  “Chronic  Diseases,  their nature and homoeopathic  treatment ” (I. Edition, Arnold, Dresden and Leipsic,  1S2S ; II. Edition, 1835 to 1839).  And in a footnote he adds :

Yet of all these indescribable labours I did not so much as breathe a word either to the world in general or to my students.  This was not perchance because the ingratitude frequently shown me restrained.   .   .  No, I did not breathe a word of it, because it is improper and even injurious to speak and write of immature things.   Only in the last year have I communicated the main facts to two of my students, who have done most meritorious service on behalf of homoeopathy. This  was for their good and that of their patients, and that the whole of this scientific knowledge should not  be lost to the world in the event of a higher call into eternity before the completion of my book—which was not improbable in my seventy-third year.”

The two students, of whom Hahnemann here speaks, were Dr. Stapf, of Naumburg, the publisher of the  ” Archive for the Homoeopathic Science of Healer” and his co-publisher, Dr.  Gross,  of Juterbogk, Hahnemann’s sponsor.  These two, who stood nearest  his heart and who had penetrated furthest into his new system of healing, were, in fact, the first doctors to whom he  entrusted  his new discovery.  But  some  years  before (1823) he had told an enthusiastic  supporter of his theories, who  had been  cured  of a chronic disease of long standing (the Consul General for Prussia. Dr. Friedrich Baumgartner,  of Berlin),  how he  had  endeavoured to  cope effectually  with chronic diseases.  At that time he still hoped to be able to test his theory in a hospital of his own in Kothen (there was none in the town) and to be able to prove  its truth to his students by actual  fact.  For he was doubtful whether he would  be able by  means  of  the written word to  make  generally  comprehensible  all that  he had  investigated  and ascertained in the course of years concerning the nature of chronic diseases.

His hope of a hospital of his own in Kothen was not  fulfilled.  His patron, Duke Ferdinand, whom he had approached in the matter, was probably not in a position to satisfy this desire  of his Physician-in-ordinary, in view of the continuously precarious financial position of his estates (and particularly in view of  the violent resistance of  his medical authorities of which he had full cognisance).  Consequently Hahnemann kept his new  discoveries  to himself for several years, making use of them only in his own practice  and, according to his own story, achieving eminent and remarkable  cures in cases where formerly his  own well-chosen remedies had failed .  At last, when his intuitions gained by  inexhaustible investigation had become certainties to himself,  when these new views and ideas seemed to be sufficiently matured. he determined on their communication to others, on their written deposition in a well-ordered form.  His old publisher, Arnold of Dresden, undertook the publication of the work.  The first edition  consists of four parts in all ; the second of five.  Part I contains the general theoretical principles of the new theory about chronic diseases ; Parts II  and IV and some of Part V contain a detailed presentation of the most important antipsoric remedies.

We shall return later to the fate of the book on  the market. Few books have stirred up  more excitement in the medical  world than Hahnemann’s ” Chronic  Diseases.” His conception of these  diseases  and, in particular, his Psora Theory aroused the criticism  of friend and foe to a tremendous extent from  the very  moment of their  publication.   At  this point many of his adherents and students refused to follow him any further. To his opponents these views of his  seemed to be even more idiotic than the high dilution medicines of homoeopathy and for nearly a  century they have formed the target of  their scornful ridicule.  This should therefore justify us in proceeding  to treat at some length the contents of this last  medical work of considerable size, given by Hahnemann to the world.   The modern medical scientific world is once more evincing a sharper sense of the deeper fundamentals  of  disease  than  was  possible  for  decades past  under  the tyrannous  prejudice  of  materialistic-bacteriological  views,  and we  may perhaps succeed in making clear to it what Hahnemann really wished to say.

Perhaps the moderns will recognise the true kernel of enduring value, which, enveloped in much that is incomprehensible, vague, untenable and obsolete, is contained in this work by a more  than seventy years old explorer of rare acumen.

The starting point for the main ideas of the book was the observation, that certain  chronic diseases of venereal  origin and otherwise,  could  be alleviated by  homoeopathic remedies,  but not  completely cured.  Special conditions, such as serious dietary mistakes, cold, wet and stormy weather, temperamental influences,  etc., caused the apparently rectified  troubles to appear again, frequently with new and  stubborn  symptoms.   New remedies, chosen in the best and most careful  way, were again of avail, “but only slightly and  imperfectly” for a short time, until  the next outbreak was brought  on by adverse external  influences.  On the  other hand,  under favourable, external conditions, such as a change of climate and home, careful diet, etc., a  “remarkable truce “  was observed.  Considering all things, however, the chronic malady was never eradicated, but became  worse from year to year, often with the most varied external symptoms.

At first it  was thought that the reason for failure of  the homoeopathic treatment might be found in the insufficient number of remedies proved and that the prospects would change for the better the more accurately proved medicines the physician had  at his disposal.  But although  this proved to be some consolation for the students, the Master  could not rest satisfied with. Day and night, he  was occupied with the question why the ordinary, carefully selected remedies did not produce a lasting cure. At last he came to the conclusion that, “in chronic diseases one has always to deal with a segregated part of a deeper lying original evil, the large extent of which  is  shown  by new symptoms arising from  time to time.   .  .  .  But the original evil  sought must also be of a miasmatically chronic nature—as was  perfectly evident  to me  from the fact that, once it had developed to a certain degree of intensity, it could not be eradicated by the mere vigour of a robust constitution. Neither could it be overcome by the  healthiest  diet and order of life, nor annulled by itself, but in the course of years it grew worse, with the addition of other more serious symptoms—right up to the end of life.”

From frequent observations, Hahnemann had discovered that chronic maladies,  which would not completely yield  to the  usual homoeopathic remedies, had some connection with a “previous outbreak of psora.” Itch,  a  skin disease  caused by the itch insect, was then of  far greater importance than nowadays.  It  was extraordinarily widespread  among the common  people.  Although  external  treatment with salves, etc., often disposed very quickly of the external symptoms, all kinds of obstinate evils would follow in its train,  and these often  could not be subdued for years. Hahnemann was not alone in his  view of  the  connection between chronic maladies and “expelled  itch”.  Two decades before  the appearance of his ” Chronic  Diseases,”  Autenrieth, a University  Professor of Tubingen,had  referred to this  (” Tiibinger  Blatter  fiir  Naturwissenschaft und,” Vol. II, 2nd Part).* In quotation of the contents we adhere to the .md  Edition of the work ; it is more complete in several passages. Of Autenrieth’s observations Hahnemann says: “When I was compiling my first edition of “Chronic Diseases”, I  did  not know of Autenrieth’s  experiments  in  practical therapy in the clinics of Tubingen in 1808.   But what he says about the diseases after the local expulsion of itch is, as I then saw, merely a confirmation of what I had  already found in a hundred other writers.  He, also, has noticed many diseases resulting from this external dislodgment of itch—ulcers  of the  foot, phthisis, hysterical chlorosis, with various menstrual complications,  white  swelling  of  the  knees,  dropsy  of the  joints,  epilepsy, amaurosis with  discolouration of the cornea,glaucoma with gutta serena, mental disturbances, paralysis, strokes curvature of the neck, etc.  All of these he attributes (quite  wrongly) to the salves.  But his own slow method of local dislodgment (which he foolishly calls curing) with liver of sulphur  and soft soap is not a whit better.  The absurdity of thinking that his method is not just as much  a local dislodgment of the itch eruption from the skin! He knows as little about really effective help as all the rest of  the allopaths, when he writes :  ” It is indeed ridiculous to think  of curing itch  (scabies) by internal remedies.’* No! it  is not only ridiculous, it  is pitiable not to think of learning a sure  and  thorough cure by internal remedies of this internal itch malady, which is not to be cured by local expulsion.” As time went on, Hahnemann was more and more convinced, as a result of his observations, that the most diverse diseased conditions of the human body—from warts on the finger to the largest encysted tumours, from mal-formation of the finger-nails to swelling of the bones and curvatures of  the spine, “in a word, that thousands of wearisome human troubles, labelled with various names by pathology, are—with few exceptions—solely the true descendants of the polymorphous psora   .  .   .  and only partly expressions of the old chronic eruptive and itch miasma “ (sycotic and venereal diseases excepted).And in another place he says :

All chronic diseases of man—even those which are left  to them-selves  and are not aggravated by wrong treatment—betray great persistence and endurance.  Unless they  are  thoroughly cured  by medical science, before or when they are fully developed, they become more and more acute as time goes on and for the whole course of  life they cannot  be lessened, still less overcome and eradicated by  the power  of a  nature, however robust, or  of a manner of  life  and diet  however healthy.  They will therefore  never pass   away  of themselves, but will grow and vitiate themselves  until death supervenes.Consequently they must, all of them, have as their fundamental origin firmly  established chronic miasms, by  which means their  parasitical existence in the human organism can be continually strengthened and increased.”

According to Hahnemann, there are in Europe only three chronic miasms, the diseases of which are distinguished by local symptoms and from which most, if not all, chronic ailments originate :

Sycosis, or fig-wart disease.

  1. Syphilis or venereal chancre  disease,  and
  2. Psora,  which  is at the bottom of the itch Hahnemann’s opinion an important cause of chronic diseases.

Syphilis and  to a  greater extent Psora occur far  more frequently.  Sycosis is not always prevalent in an equal amount, but  fluctuates considerably.  For example, during the French wars, from 1809 to  1814, it was very widely propagated, but since then it has been much  less frequent.Hahnemann  then goes on  to describe the multi-shaped, wart-like and cauliflower-like excrescences from the urethra on the glands and prepuce in the male  or around the genitals in  the female, such  as are so frequently encountered in gonorrhoeal diseases.  He repudiates local removal  and external destruction of  these growths by  ligatures, excisions or corrosions,as well  as the senseless internal application of mercury,  which does not influence or diminish in the slightest  the sycotic miasm.The surest and most thorough cure for this sycotic miasm the gonorrhoea and all its excrescences, and therefore for the whole of the sycosis, is obtained by applying internally the sap  of the Tree of Life (Thuja) in 30th potency as indicated homoeopathically.  In certain cases  to be followed later by Acidum Nitricum.  Only in the most  advanced  and  serious  stages would it be necessary ” to paint the larger  warts once a day with the mild sap, pressed from the green leaves of the Thuja, mixed in  half  proportion with spirits of wine “

But  if  the  sycosis is  complicated with  syphilis  or even with  psora, then, first of all, the worst constituent, namely, the psora,  must be treated with anti-psoric remedies.  Only after that should the  anti-sycotic remedies be used and last of  all ” the suitable dose  of the best mercury preparation ” should be  prescribed for the syphilis.  This  treatment must be repeated,when necessary, until the cure is complete, in the order named.

But one must be sure to allow each  of these three kinds of medicine enough time to complete its own effect.

With remarkable perspicacity  Hahnemann realised  that  gonorrhoea, i.e.  sycosis or fig-wart  disease, is a separate disease,  not  connected with syphilis and that it is caused  by a specific virus.   He thus stood in direct contrast to his famous English contemporary, John Hunter, who, as is well-known,  took up the point of view that there was  only one venereal  poison. According to the constitution and physical nature of  the man this poison caused in one  subject gonorrhoea,  in a  second a soft chancre and  in  a third a hard  chancre.   Even until sixty years  ago, Hunter’s  confusing theory  of  the unit}’ of  sexual diseases remained  common property of physicians, and homoeopathy’s founder was severely reproached for having dared to set up open defiance of so important an authority as John Hunter.After nearly one hundred years of serious research in the laboratory and at the sick-bed, we know that Hahnemann was quite  right, that in reality gonorrhoea and syphilis are totally different diseases and that their bacteria have nothing at all  to do with one another.  Wliilst gonorrhoea  arises from the gonococcus discovered by  Neisser, the soft chancre is caused by rod-like bacteria, grouped in chain formation and the virus  of the hard chancre,so-called syphilis, is the spirochaeta pallida Schaudinn.

Further, in regard to the method of treating gonorrhoea, modern researches have resulted in valuable confirmations  of the accuracy of Hahnemann’s intuitive conceptions. Right up to our own time gonorrhoea was considered by  the old school to be a local malady  and was  therefore treated  almost entirely by local measures. In the medicine  of to-day it has been acknowledged that gonorrhoea may cause serious deterioration of the bodily fluids and disturbance of the general state of health, and that local treatment may not infrequently be followed by a latent continuation of gonorrhoea, lasting for years and tens of years.   It  is a logical conclusion  from the above which induces the modern medical  world to endeavour to supplant purely local measures by a treatment guided more by biological principles. How  nearly the old  school has  gradually  approached  Hahnemann’s conception of the nature and treatment of gonorrhoea may be shown by the concluding words of a recent essay (January, 1922) on  “Gonorrhoea as a Chronic Malady ” (Med.  Clinic,  1922, Xo.  3, p. 67), by Dr. E. Langer, a student of the Berlin professor, Dr. Buschke : Our therapeutic armoury, of which only the principal parts are mentioned here,  is  tremendous, but on the  other hand the results achieved are very modest.  With  gonorrhoea,  too, we have to deal in a considerable number  of  cases with a deep-seated general  disease,which we can never or very rarely track to its lair.  For the future, the only thing to do is to seek a way of attacking the disease in its point of localisation according to biological laws .According to Hahnemann’s theory of chronic diseases, SYPHILIS is another frequent  source of tedious illness. In its importance and frequency it exceeds sycosis considerably. In the following words, Hahnemann states his conception of the nature of syphilis : “In  impure coition  the  specific  infection probably takes  place instantaneously at the point of contact and friction.When the infection has taken hold, the whole living body is overcome with  it.   Directly  after the moment of  infection the formation  of venereal disease begins in the whole of the interior.   .   .  .   It is only after this penetration of the evil received into all the organs, only when the transformation of the whole man into a venereal subject  … is complete  .   .  .   that the morbid state tries to ease  and to palliate the internal evil by producing  a  local symptom  (called a chancre), which first appears as a blister and  then breaks out into a painful sore.

On the basis of this conception Hahnemann repudiates with the greatest severity local treatment and “removal “ of the chancre, and in support he quotes passages from  the writings of  various celebrated contemporaries, amongst  others, John  Hunter, and the Frenchman, Fabre. From  these utterances it becomes quite clear that they also regarded local treatment and removal of the chancre sore as quite purposeless, since a cure of the venereal disease could never  be obtained in this way. On the contrary, “if it is not cured, it becomes worse from year to year to the end of life, and even the most robust constitution cannot destroy it in itself.” The chief remedy is the best mercury preparation in the finest dilution.

This treatment of syphilis with small doses of mercury not to be repeated too often is still to-day regarded as the best by many homoeopathic doctors. From old school medicine partisans, however, complaints are raised declaiming against the enormous quantities of  mercury hitherto usual because of the lasting and  dangerous after  effects.   Many physicians make use of the mercury-containing spring of San Anton and laud its effectiveness, although according to  Professor Dr. E.  Hintz  it  contains  only 0.0000016  gr.  o fhydragyrum bichloratum to i Kilo, a quantity amounting to about the 8th decimal potency.  Professor Dr. Kionka (Jena), who likewise recommends the use of this mineral spring containing  mercury, expresses himself in the following  words, which  offer a pleasing contrast  to the derisive comments of so many physicians  concerning  the homoeopathic treatment of syphilis : Schade’s researches make it probable that the effect of mercury on syphilis is a catalytic one and such people as are in agreement with this view will be guided in their therapeutic efforts in the disease by the desire to extend the mercury cure over as long a time as possible But in order to produce such a (fermentative) effect, it  is sufficient to have the smallest quantity of  the substance  concerned in the body, provided that  it circulates therein in  a suitable form.  .  .   .  We must also draw attention to discoveries of former times which have apparently fallen into oblivion.  According to  them, quite small quantities of mercury given over a long period, improve the state of health. Hahnemann’s views about the nature and treatment of syphilis coincide almost perfectly with our modern theories,  except that we  are a century richer  in  experience. On  the  other hand,  we  know  now  that  the number of  diseases directly consequent  on  syphilis is far greater than Hahnemann and his contemporaries  suspected. On the other hand, we have learned  from experience that  syphilis is a much more obstinate disease than Hahnemann had formerly  imagined.  Many of his assertions in this respect have been refuted by new observations and experiences and one would scarcely hope to find in these days a homoeopathic doctor who would be content to abide by the following definite statements made by Hahnemann : ” There  is no chronic miasm, no chronic  disease springing from a miasm, which can be more easily cured than this.Only one single small dose of the best mercury remedy is requiredto cure thoroughly and for  ever the whole syphilis  and its chancre within a fortnight.   .   .   .   The chancre, not treated with external remedies, would never be healed if the internal syphilis had not been first  of all completely annihilated and  extinguished by the mercury dose.” If Hahnemann had been able to see  the  convincing  after-effects of uncured syphilis, often only  appearing after tens of years, he, who was so extraordinarily conscientious a  physician, would have expressed  himself more cautiously about the healing of venereal disease.

Sycosis and syphilis, however, are very much less significant as a cause of chronic diseases when compared with psora:

Psora  it is, that oldest, most universal, most pernicious and yetthat least  known chronic miasmatic disease, which has been deform-ing and torturing the nations for thousands of years.” Seven-eights of all  the  chronic maladies prevalent are  ascribed by Hahnemann to Psora, whilst  the remaining eighth originates in syphilis and sycosis or a complex combination of these two  miasmatic  chronic diseases or of all three.

“I will quote here a few of those innumerable experiences which have been left for our guidance, and which I could increase by an equal number of my own observation (were the former not sufficient and to spare !), and  thus I will show how ravenously the internal psora rageswhen it is deprived of  the  local symptom,  the skin eruption, which serves as a palliative for the evil dwelling within.”

Then he accompanies his statements with nearly a hundred cases of the disease taken from writers in all centuries. In every case severe bodily or mental suffering followed the  removal  of  a  skin  eruption  by  external remedies.  In this collection we see the most diverse skin diseases grouped with itch, scald head, various kinds of lichen, leprosy, swollen glands  of the neck and facial eruptions. This is certainly sufficient proof of how widely Hahnemann understood the term ” itch ” or ” psora.”

He has been reproached for quoting so many  medical writers in favour  of his ” psora ” theory without supporting his views  by the description of cases which he himself had observed.  He  repudiates this  reproach when he says : “Truly !  if the examples I have here quoted from the older and more modern non-homceopathic writers are not conclusive testimony enough, I should like to know which others could be considered more conclusive (my own not excepted) !  How often (I should say myself,almost always) have not our opponents of the old school denied credence in the observations made by honourable homoeopaths, because they were not completed before their eyes and because the patients’ names were only indicated by a letter.”

PSORA , a  common  expression that  was widely  known in Hahnemann’s time, was the general term for a whole  series of  skin troubles of the most varied kinds, well known from the  very earliest  times.   It was in this  wider sense that  contemporaries (e.g.  Autenrieth, Schonlein, etc.) used the word generally at the end of the eighteenth  and in the first  three decades  of the nineteenth century, although at the same time they applied it in the narrower sense to itch proper. Hahnemann did not therefore coin this expression, but rather by his use of it showed his association  with his contemporaries.  It is  important to establish this with some emphasis.  Like them he used the word in a wider sense, in spite of the fact that, like them, he  knew the cause  of itch—the itch mite (Acams  scabiei or Sarcoptes hominis), its destruction by external remedies (embrocation, baths, etc.) and the digging out of the  mite from its burrows under the skin.  He  shared also the view of his contemporaries that the itch eruption could only develop on a favourable fostering ground, called” Internal psora.”   The latter, however, was not cured with the destruction or removal of the  mites,  although of course it was necessary  first of all to remove the parasite.  Thus far, Hahnemann’s theory coincides exactly with that  of the  Tubingen Professor Autenrieth   and his celebrated  student Schonlein of Wurzburg.  Psora,  ” the internal itch,” was totally different in his opinion from the external ailment, the primary eruption.  The latter could be cured quickly and easily, whilst the internal psora, often remaining latent for a long time and only showing secondary symptoms  as a result of special factors, was a wearisome disease.  In 1S29 he wrote to Dr. Schreter,of Lemberg, entirely in this strain  (Neues Archiv (Stapf),  1847, 3fd Vol.,2nd Part, pp. 181  and 183) :

“What the allopaths could not expel by sulphur or mercury ointments was no primary itch eruption at all, for that disappears with such ointments in two days and often in a few hours.  No !  that was definitely a secondary eruption, a real case of developed psora, which was showing itself in eruption as in so many cases.  Do not be surprised that you could not  easily get rid of these psora cases which are often so vicious.”  (June 19th,  1829.)

“And :In newly contracted itch (internal psora, which has developedinto chronic diseases and eruptions, is very different from that. in fact,that is the primary state  whilst the other is the secondary and worse state !) in a case of this itch, newly infected, you will obtain easy successby treating with a mild sulphur remedy.”  (September 12th, 1S29.)

But in another place (and this contrasting attitude must be emphasised) Hahnemann maintains that psora, internal itch, is only brought about by the external disease of itch and the latter’s hasty removal.  Psora will remain for life if it is not cured by the physician’s art.

“However slight  the  internal psora  may  be at the time of the removal of this itch eruption, appearing only as a few blisters, yet as is shown by the subsequent indispositions and ailments, frequently not too serious, the internal psora remains.   Although it may be slight it is the general psoric malady of the whole organism and cannot be eradicated without the help of science.  Continually increasing to the end of life, the  vigour alone of even the finest and most robust physical constitution cannot  overcome it.   .   .  .   For years the psora latent in the body may be slumbering and the patients suffering from it may give the impression of being perfectly  healthy.   .   .  .  Often it does not betray its  presence for years by marked symptoms, which might suggest a serious  disease.   .  .   .   Internal itch is of such a peculiar nature that, under favourable external circumstances, it may remain for a long time, as it were, suppressed and covered over, and the patient appears to the superficial  observer to be healthy.  .   .   .  This may remain for years, often for many years, until unfavourable circumstances for mind and body or for both occur sometime and this seems to act as a hostile impulse  to the latent internal evil to arouse  it and bring its germs to development. Then the friends, the doctor and the patient himself cannot understand why his health has so suddenly gone to ruin.

To Hahnemann psora is a disease or disposition to disease, hereditary from generation to generation for thousands of years and it is the fostering soil for every possible diseased  condition.  At the same time it  is the most infectious of all.  Contact with  the general external skin is quite sufficient for transference of the disease in contrast with sycosis and syphilis, in which cases a certain amount of friction on the tenderest parts of our bodies, where most  nerves are congregated and where the cuticle  is thinnest, is requisite for infection.  But  everyone   is  exposed to  psora  almost  under  any circumstances :“The  hermit on Montserrat in his rocky abode can  escape it as little as the young prince in his cambric swaddling clothes.”

Hereditary transmission for thousands of years has, of course, generated an increasing number of the forms of disease, so that their polymorphous symptoms are nowadays almost innumerable. Hahnemann says that psora, breaking out from its latent state, can be observed in the most variable forms imaginable, according to the bodily constitution, the deficiences of up-bringing, the  habits, the mode  of occupation and the external conditions  of  the individual.  An unusually large number of diseases, stated in the pathology of the older school to be definitely self-existing, are simply “the characteristic,secondary symptoms of the  underlying miasmatic malady now  coming to light—namely psora, this thousand  headed monster  so  long undiscovered,so pregnant with misery.” Together with nearly one hundred cases of disease,  taken from medical writers of  every  age in  support  of his  contention   (see  above),  he enumerates on thirty-two pages (pp. 67-98) all the manifold  manifestations of psoric diseases.  An astonishing number of ailments, apparently having no connection  with  one  another,  meets us  here;  variations  of  the general state  of  health  and  of the  temperament, disturbances  in the control of thought and  in the mnemonic capacity,  headaches,  marked dryness and brittleness of the skin together with scurf and loss  of hair, mutation   of  complexion,  interference with   sight  and  hearing, painful sensibility of certain parts of the body  to  pressure, small sores on the lips, increasing decay of the teeth, catarrhal ailments of the upper  and lower trachea, difficulties in breathing, disturbances of stomach and  bowels, rheumatic ailments, feeling of severe cold or  extreme  sensibility to heat, boils, ulcers, warts and encysted  tumours, skin easily disposed to perspire, increased  tendency to  catch cold, disturbances of sleep with vivid  dreams,etc., etc.   ” One might almost ask in desperation :  ‘ What is there not ? ‘ “as  a modern  professor,   Krehl,  of Heidelberg,  exclaims  in  discussing “Arthritis ” and its numerous symptoms.   And yet ” Arthritis,”  caused by excess of uric acid, is a much narrower conception than that of Hahnemann’s psora! The individual physical constitution is  the varying factor, which makes it  more or less difficult for  the  physician to correlate  all these  symptoms in their  proper nature and connection.   Hahnemann  boasts  that  he is exceptionally well fitted to discover  psora in its many  forms  because he himself never had a psoric constitution.  In a footnote to p. 57 he says : “To me it was more possible than to many hundreds of others todiscover and recognise by careful comparison of the condition of  all those affected by it, the signs of psora, whether it were still slumbering and  latent in the interior or whether it had been aroused from with into serious chronic maladies.  For I, which is  very rare, was  never psoric and consequently, from my birth  to my present eightieth year, I have always remained perfectly immune  from all these ailments. This is in spite of the fact that I  am very sensible to acute epidemic diseases   and that I  suffer many  mental labours and innumerable temperamental difficulties.” On the same subject he  wrote to Dr.  Wislicenus, of Eisenach,  on the 30th March, 1825: “these extremely enigmatic problems the one circumstance that helped me considerably was the  fact that, from  my birth onwards,I had always been free from every trace of the psora poison. On that account I could  the  more certainly  detect the difference  noticeable between psora and absence of psora. One single small boil is sufficient to mark  down a man as psoric. The man uninfected with psora, never bleeds from the nose unless he has had a blow on it.”

And  now as to the treatment.  In Hahnemann’s  opinion psora will cure itself as  little as syphilis.  The whole skill of the physician is necessary to come to the aid of its polymorphous forms and it  is only  possible on the basis of  the law of similars.  Above all there is one remedy, which seems suited to the  condition of psora and  that  is  Sulphur.   Hahnemann saysthat  in  drawing up a list of the symptoms observed in psoric  patients, their striking coincidence with the medicinal effects of Sulphur had been remarkable. The first therapeutic principle, stated by Hahnemann in  his ” ChronicDiseases ”  for psora,  to which by the way the greater part of the book is devoted, demands  that  no  skin eruption shall be  removed by external remedies.This is quite understandable since to him the skin eruption is not a local symptom at all, not a disease in itself but  simply a sign of  internal unhealthiness  or disorder—in fact, a sign of psora.   He says :

“If  the . physician  desires  to  proceed  in a  conscientious  and intelligent manner, no skin eruption, whatever its nature, should be removed  by  external  remedies.  The  human skin cannot  withoutthe help of the rest  of  the  living  body produce  from  itself  an eruption.  It will never become diseased in any way unless the general diseased condition, the abnormal state of the whole organism,  compels In every case an improper condition  of the whole  body, of the inner living organism,  is  at the  root  of the  trouble and therefore this must first be considered and  should  be  removed  by  internal medicines, which will alter, improve and  cure  the whole.  Thereupon the eruption,  depending  for existence on the internal disease,  will cure  itself  and  disappear—often  more  speedily  than  by external remedies. With  newly infected adults treatment with internal remedies for several weeks and without any external remedies at all, will be sufficient to destroy the internal and external psora.  In the case  of a newly infected  child, the administration of one or two pellets of the size of a poppy seed moistened with potentised Sulphur in spirits of wine will be quite sufficient to breakup completely and cure the whole of the itch—eruption and inner itch disease (psora) as well, whilst all external remedies are absolutely avoided.”

In the same way as Hahnemann had designated Thuja as the chief remedy for sycosis and Mercurius for syphilis, he here advocates Sulphur as the most effective agent against psora.  It is quite true that large doses of this remedy will not attain their object whether applied internally or externally.  Large doses of Sulphur either bring about deterioration of the state of health or else they are simply expelled by vomiting or diarrhoea without the body being able to avail itself of its curative power. But in the majority of instances Sulphur is not sufficient by itself to cure thoroughly  the psora.   Very  often several remedies are necessary, and in the worst  cases  a large  number are required in succession, if  “this tremendous army of psora  symptoms “  is  to be dominated and a cure effected.  Consequently, the  larger part  of the work, four volumes of the second edition, concerns itself exclusively with a presentation of the anti-psoric medicines and their effects.  But it is quite evident that Hahnemann does not expect a total cure simply from the anti-psoric internal remedies alone, for he precedes everything else by detailed regulations of behaviour and advice on the manner of life and dietetics, necessary during the anti-psoric treatment.  As  on  previous occasions  he again  forbids the enjoyment of coffee and China tea.  His  advice touches upon every  relevant  detail. Temperamental  influences  caused  by  trouble, need  and such like, or disturbances  of  the mind and  qualms of conscience  are  just  as harmful during anti-psoric treatment as mistakes in eating and drinking :

An innocent man  can spend ten years in the Bastille  or in the galleys suffering bodily torment with less prejudice to his health than a few months, with every bodily comfort, spent in an unhappy marriage or with a gnawing conscience.  .   .  .  With what difficulty and how rarely can  in  that case  the best anti-psoric cure accomplish anything for the good of the unfortunate ! With continuous grief  or worry, with  the unending  presence of trouble and vexation—greatest of all destructive  agents to life—no success can be hoped for in the chronically diseased, even with a most masterful guidance in the cure or with  the most carefully selected,  the most suitable remedies. For  continuation  of the finest  structure  is foohsh if the foundation of the building  is  being  daily—though  it be  only  gradually—undermined by lapping waves.”In place of warm and hot cleansing baths, which never cease to disturb the condition of the invalid, those infected with a Chronic malady must restrict  themselves  during the  anti-psoric  treatment  to ” tepidly  cool ablutions ” with soapy water, whereby  the purpose is completely achieved without any injurious effect.”

“Anti-psoric remedies (86) are selected according to  the usual general principles  of homoeopathy and  administered  one dose at a time, the effect of which is as a rule allowed to pass away completely before being repeated. Often this is only the case after 24, 30 and frequently as much as 40 and 50 days.  The fundamental rule is : To allow the dose of the medicine, which has been carefully selected for its  homoeopathic suitability  according to the  symptoms of the particular  case of disease, to have  its effect without  interruption as long  as it is visibly  helping  on  the  cure and increasing  to  an appreciable extent the improvement of  the malady. Slight  ailments  and additional symptoms such as headache,  stiff neck,slight diarrhoea, etc., which may occur during an anti-psoric cure,  should not induce a patient to have instant recourse  to other medicines,  as the effect of the anti-psoric may easily be thereby disturbed and opposed.  Such symptoms are very often only  the consequence of the remedy acting homoeopathic aggravation of moderate extent, a sign of the cure beginning which one may hope with tolerable certainty to see achieved.”

Should, however, very obnoxious symptoms make their  appearance, an antidote is given, under the assumption that the anti-psoric remedy was ill-chosen.   Thereupon the complications generally disappear quite rapidly. Over hasty repetition of anti-psoric  remedies is to be avoided as much as the employment of too large doses.  As is well known, Hahnemann soon deserted this principle and allowed his  chronic patients to use the suitable remedy  more  frequently—even  daily—changing  constantly the  degree of dilution from higher  to  lower and  lower potencies.  (Vide ” Organon,”6th Edition, S 246.)

“But if the invalid incurs during the anti-psoric treatment an acute illness like measles,  scarlet fever, influenza,  pneumonia, etc., the treatment of the chronic disease must be interrupted.   The anti-psoric treatment may only be continued again after the acute illness has been cured with the help of the suitable homoeopathic remedy.The best time for taking a dose of anti-psoric medicine is before breakfast. Female patients must stop taking the medicine shortly before menstruation and during that period.  Pregnancy, however, is no hindrance to anti-psoric treatment.  On the contrary,  ” in this condition, so natural to  a woman, the symptoms of internal psora often reveal themselves most clearly because of the increased sensibility and sensitiveness of the woman’s body and mind :anti-psoric  medicines therefore have a more definite and appreciable effect.”

In revising the ” Organon,” 1842, Hahnemann refers in a footnote to

  • 284 with repeated emphasis to the merit of anti-psoric treatment  during pregnancy and suckling, because, hereditary  transmission of chronic diseases to the foetus and the suckling  can be  thus  avoided.

In  the ” ChronicDiseases ” he recommends :

“Medicine should never be given  to the  sucklings themselves.The mother or the nurse takes the  medicine  and through her milk it takes very rapid effect on the child with  a mild and powerfully curative value.”

The first volume concludes with detailed instructions for the preparation of homoeopathic  remedies  and so  the whole volume is devoted  to the presentation of his new theory of chronic diseases.

Julian Winston at the 2000 NCH conference……

……….Outlining the development of the first repertory by Bonninghausen in 1832, he brought the past and present together with a quote from a letter from Hahnemann to Bonninghausen, dated December 26, 1834, where Hahnemann says: “Even if the homeopathician perceive that the repertory is insufficient for finding the best remedy for every case of disease, nevertheless, they calm down when they have such an overview in their hands, and even believe with some probability to be able to dispense with sources, and they don’t buy them and use them.”

So even at that time, 166 years ago, Hahnemann expressed concern that people were using the repertory as a shortcut to finding the remedy, without bothering to look further in the materia medica for the remedy.

After Bonninghausen’s repertory came the Jahr Repertory in 1834. I was amazed to learn that the Lippe Repertory in 1879 was the first new repertory in 45 years. It was this repertory of Lippe that was further modified by E.J. Lee (who published the Mind section in 1889) and that eventually formed the conceptual base of Kent’s Repertory in 1897.

Winston briefly discussed a few other repertories that appeared at the time of Kent—the Concordance of Gentry (in six volumes), the Symptom Register of T.F. Allen, and the Repertory of the Guiding Symptoms compiled by Calvin B. Knerr.
     The most important point that Winston made was the need to see the repertory as a flawed tool that should not always be taken at face value.

To stress this point, he mentioned several examples, but the one that really struck me was the rubric in Kent’s Repertory, “Mind, Fear, destination, of being unable to reach his,” and the single remedy it contains: Lycopodium. “Someone on the lyghtforce [e-mail] list asked if this was a proving symptom, so I searched it out,” said Winston. He found it in Allen’s Encyclopedia under “Generals.” The symptom is: “Weariness and exhaustion while walking, so that he feared that he would be unable to reach his destination, at 5 p.m. (twenty-first day).” That is very different than that which one would understand from the rubric in Kent.

Stephen Messer, ND, who was in the audience, mentioned that he once looked for the original symptom for the rubric in the Synthesis Repertory, “Mind, seasons, autumn, mental symptoms aggravate in.” He said he found the original symptom in Allen: “Feeling of sadness and some disposition to tears, caused by an impression that he was soon to die and leave his friends; disposition to take a sad view of the beauties of autumn.” Once again, the original symptom appears to be quite different than one would understand from the repertory rubric.

So it is important to verify the rubric in the original sources—the provings. But there is even another problem doing that. We know that many of the provings done with crude (non-potentized) doses contained both a primary action and a secondary action—for example, the wakefulness of Coffea is followed by sleepiness. Both primary and secondary actions are contained in the proving. Yet Kent did not differentiate between these in his repertory. One of the comments that Winston shared from Dr. Gypser is that if you prescribe using the symptoms of the secondary action, you’ll get a palliation but not a cure. So to make the repertory even more accurate as a tool for prescribing, one has to go through it and take out (or at least mark) the secondary action symptoms.

This then leads to a closer look at the provings themselves. Were the provers really healthy? Hahnemann’s son Friedrich had a back injury as a child and was deformed as a result. What symptoms do we get from Friedrich in his provings? Vertigo and backache!

Winston quoted a discussion he had with Frans Vermeulen where Vermeulen mentioned that the remedy Origanum was proved on 17-year-old girls in a boarding school and “of course they would have a ‘desire for boys.'”

When looking at the repertory, one should look at the symptom and try to first find where it came from (by going to the original sources) and then decide if it is reliable.

Commenting upon how the repertories are getting bigger and bigger, Winston quoted the English homeopath Nhoj Eel, who suggested that, “If we extrapolate the number of these additions which will appear over the next 50 years against book size we can see that by the year 2050 we can confidently expect the new repertory size to be 9 foot by 6 foot by 3 foot. Either this, or the repertory will remain Kent-sized and come complete with a microscope.”Although offered as a tongue-in-cheek commentary, there is certainly a grain of truth in it.

We should be cautious about additions, and we should be aware of the shortcomings of the original—since all the newer repertories—Synthesis, Complete, and Phoenix—derive from Kent’s Repertory.

Winston, once again, impressed me with his encyclopedic knowledge which appears so effortless to access. It was an informative and entertaining presentation.

Time to go home and start looking at my Kent Repertory with new eyes!

Hahnemann the experimenter

This material is found in the case of Thomas Everest DF-14, (Hahnemanns case books) which spans the years 1842-1843. I have worked on this case for a number of years as it shows Hahnemann treating a tri-miasmatic complex disorder. The patient was an psoric patient who had many symptoms dating back to his earlier years when he was in India. Hahnemann was treating him quite successfully with Sulphur in the LM potency from 0/1, 0/2, 0/3, etc., and when he contracted gonorrhea while under treatment in Paris.
Hahnemann used Cannabis for the primary gonorrhea symptoms and Thuja for the underlying sycosis.This treatment worked very well. The patient also had some syphilitic symptoms in the background which Mercury acted upon. The seem to be a point in the case where there were still some lingering venereal symptoms when Hahnemann suddenly gave made a synthetic prescription by combining two symptoms from the repertory. One side of the rubric was itching in the anus – Sulphur AND the other side of the rubric was made from XXX. Samuel made a bracket embracing the remedies Mercury from one rubric and Sulphur from then rubric pointing to Cinnabaris (Red Sulphide of Mercury) in the 0/21.

The T. Everest casebook entry was an example of an experimental synthetic prescription using the two rubrics from Boenninghausen’s Alphabetical Repertory, Part One, Embracing the Remedies which are Antipsoric, Antisycotic and Antisyphilitic. This is also commonly called the Repertory of Antipsoric Remedies. Hahnemann clearly makes up a composite rubric from the symptoms of Sulphur + Mercury equaling = Cinnabaris, which is not in the repertory. This remedy aggravated the patient’s anger but then removed the remaining venereal tendencies. Secondly, he gave this experimental synthetic remedy in the 0/21 potency as an opening potency. This were the basic circumstances.

The Following quote is taken from the case of Thomas Everest, Hahnemannn’s Paris Casebooks, DF 14. The French text was produced by David Little and translated by J. C. Ravalard, MD and edited by Jill Gittins. The German rubrics were taken from the German edition of the A Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Homoeopathic Remedies, Part 1, Embracing the Antipsoric, Antisycotic and Antisphylitic Remedies supplied by Chris Gillen and translated by Oda Schiller of Germany. This material is protected by copyright laws by David Little and HOE 2004 in agreement with the RBI in Germany.

March 25th, 1843

25 = night of 22/23 still eructation and cutting pain in epigastrium has been forced to get up at night – the appetite had gone away – today the appetite came back – anal itching better – almost completely stopped – still does not sleep well – abdomen and epigastrium better – since the 22nd itching and sensitiveness of ears increased – fears a new attack

[German rubric: Juecken in den Ohren] Itching in the ears; Sulph.
[German rubric: Juecken am After] Itching at the anus; Merc.

} Cinn. [These two rubrics are joined by a bracket after which is written Cinnabaris]


Cinn 21/0 – 7 ½ – 1 tablespoon – glass – to take 1, 2 teaspoon [Cinnabaris 0/21 in a 7 ½ tablespoon solution, 1 tablespoon into a dilution glass, to take 1, then 2 teaspoons] (French: 1 c. a b. v. pr. 1, 2 p. c.)


This is exactly what is written in the Paris Casebooks. Hahnemann made a bracket that embraces the Itching in the ears; Sulph. and the Itching at the anus; Merc. } and then wrote Cinnabaris. The Sulphur and Mercury can be found under these rubrics in A Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Homoeopathic Remedies, Part 1, Embracing the Antipsoric, Antisycotic and Antisphylitic Remedies.

1. A Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Homœopathic Remedies, First Part, Embracing the Antipsoric, Antisycotic and Antisyphilitic Remedies lists the following remedies under the rubric:

Ears and Hearing, In the ears, Itching (Gr. Oren und Gehoer, In den Ohren, Juecken): Agar. (3), Alum. (3), Amm. (4), Bar. (3), Bell. (2), Bov. (3), Calc. (2), Carb. veg. (2), Caust. (2), Coloc. (2), Con. (3), Daph. (2), Graph. (2), Hep. s. c. (2), Kali. (3), Lyc. (3), Mur. ac. (2), Natr. mur. (2), Nitr. (2), Nit. ac. (2), Petr. (2), Phosph. (3), Phosph. ac. (2), Plat. (2), Rhod. (2), Sassap. (3), Sep. (3), Sil. (3), Stann. (2), SULPH (4), Zinc. (2).

A Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Homœopathic Remedies, First Part, Embracing the Antipsoric, Antisycotic and Antisyphilitic Remedies lists the following remedies under the rubric:

Anus: Itching (Gr. After: Juecken): Agar. (2), Alum. (3), Amm. (2), Bar. (4), Bell. (3), Calc. (3), Carb. veg. (2), Caust. (3), Con. (2), Euphorb. (3), Graph. (2), Kali. (4), Lyc. (2), Mur. ac. (2), Natr. (2), Nit. ac. (3), Petr. (2), Phosph. (3), Phosph. ac. (2), Plat. (3), Sassaap. (3), Seneg. (2), Sep. (4), Stann. (3), Zinc. (4). – MERC. (4).

The first component Hahnemann wrote down was Sulphur, which is found in the rubric ^itching in the ear.* The second component Hahnemann selected was Mercury, which is found in the rubric *itching at the anus*. Then Hahnemann connects them with a bracket } and writes down Cinn, Red Sulphide of Mercury, which is composed of Sulphur and Mercury. Hahnemann most likely studied Cinnabaris and other remedies in the Materia Medica Pura and Chronic Diseases. Nevertheless, the Paris casebooks show the above synthetic repertorization with Sulphur and Mecury } Cinn. are carefully marked in the prescription. These are the basic historical facts

David Little.

Misunderstanding Hahnemann’s Legacy (Little vs Saine)

The I.H.M. present a treatise by David Little in response to comments made by Andre Saine regarding the L.M.potencies. We felt the historical content worthy of publishing.

In our (I.H.M.) research of the Paris casebooks, we were were struck by the strangeness of some of the prescriptions and the methodology employed in case management. The case was written by his wife, and notes by Hahnemann himself added to the side with remedies added. I personally went through the entire work twice and English translations were provided by Vladimir from the work.

In looking for an explanation for the poor casework, we present the possibility that the patients were actually seen by Melanie and discussed with Hahnemann later, and he added notes for her consideration on certain symptoms. In any event, the casebooks are not representative of the quality of work which the German casebooks reveal.


Dear Colleagues,

I have great respect for Dr. Andre Saine but I must deal with his comments about Samuel Hahnemann, the LM potency, and the 6th Organon. I have studied the microfiches of the Paris casebooks very closely and read everything available on the subject of the LM potency. I have also used the C and LM potency in medicinal solution for over 20 years and taught countless others how to do likewise. There are several misconceptions and historical inaccuracies in his statements about the Hahnemann and the LM potency. For this reason, it is my duty to place the truth in the public domain.

Dr. Saine begins his critique by saying that Hahnemann commonly used the 200th potency by 1840 and that by the beginning of 1841 he started experimenting with the LM potency. He also said Hahnemann only had 12 LM remedies with Sulphur prepared only to the 0/20. He stated that Hahnemann only experimented with the LMs for around 2 years and used them less in 1842 than in 1841 and barely practiced in 1843. Then he says rather sardonically that Hahnemann “apparently” though he had enough experience to authoritatively recommend the LM potencies to his colleagues. Dr. Saine says he has read almost every LM case and it was truly “very difficult” to be satisfied with the results.

By 1840 Hahnemann was using potencies like the 191, 192, 193 to 199th and occasionally gave the 200C. For some reason, he preferred to use potencies in the 190-199C ranges rather than 200C. Is this because he found that the 200C was not the smoothest potency? This particular potency has earned a reputation as the “great aggravator” in some circles. Nevertheless by 1840s Hahnemann did have a good amount of experience with potencies up to the 200c, and according to Melanie, he also tested the 1M. Hahnemann continued to these higher potency centesimal remedies even after the developed the LM potency.

Dr. Saine claims that Hahnemann only began to use the LM potency in early 1841 and only administered the remedies for around two years. On this basis he implies that Hahnemann was rash to recommend the LM potency based on such limited experience. The idea that Hahnemann only used the LM potency for two years does not fit the timeline presented in the 6 th Organon or the material found in his Paris casebooks. In the footnote to aphorism 246 of the 6 th Organon (c. 1842-1843) the Founder wrote:

“What I said in the long footnote to this paragraph in the fifth edition of The Organon of the Medical Art was all that my experience allowed me to say at the time. It was written with the purpose of preventing these adverse reactions of the life principle. However, during the last four or five years, all such difficulties have been fully lifted through the modifications I have made since then, resulting in my new, perfected procedure [for fifty-millesimal potency medicines].”

Organon of the Medical Art; S . Hahnemann (O’Reilly 6th Edition), footnote, Aphorism 246.

The earliest known administration of the fifty-millesimal potency was on March 9, 1838 (DF-6 p.145) when Hahnemann prescribed Sulphur 0/1 to a patient named Eugene. The introduction of the medicinal solution and split-dose in 1837 and the first LM case in early 1838 fit perfectly into Hahnemann’s timeline for introducing his new methods. These two hallmark dates are exactly four to five years from the time of writing the 6th Organon . Although Ms. O’Reilly inserted the words [for fifty-millesimal potency medicine] into the text they are not found in the original German. This is because Hahnemann is referring to his “new, perfected procedure” that he applied equally to C and LM potency. This procedure includes the use of the medicinal solution, succussing the remedy bottle prior to administration, and the use of the split-dose at suitable intervals to speed the cure when necessary. This shows that Dr. Saine’s statement on this matter is historically incorrect.

Although the first LM prescriptions started in 1838, Hahnemann did not extensively test his new potency in the clinic until the 1840s. The idea that Hahnemann did not use the LM potency in 1840 is also false. For example, on May 22nd, 1840 Mr. Tarbocher (DF-12) received a single dose olfaction of Sulphur LM 0/1 followed by 4 placebos. These two cases prove that Hahnemann used the LM potency long before 1841. Dr. Saine’s claim that Hahnemann used the LM potency less in 1842 than 1841 is also incorrect. Adler’s statistical study of the Paris casebooks shows that the number of LM prescriptions using three degrees of potency in 1842 was much greater than in 1841.

My impression is that the LM potency was tested quite extensively in 1841 and 1842 and by 1842 Hahnemann had worked out the system as rendered in the 6th Organon . He increasing applied his new system in both 1842 and 1843. It is true Hahnemann only used the LM potency for part 1843 as he passed away on Sunday, July 2nd, 1843. Nevertheless, Hahnemann was working with many patients right up until his final illness. During this time he administered nearly half as many LM prescriptions in at least three degrees of ascending potencies than he prescribed in all of 1842! He was intensifying his use of the LM potency in his last thee years not decreasing it. The facts show that Hahnemann tested the LM potencies over a five-year period.

To say Hahnemann only had 12 remedies in the LM potency with Sulphur only potentized up to 0/20 is historically incorrect. In 1920 Haehl recovered Hahnemann’s: LM remedy box. He noted that a large part of the contents of medicine chest were missing leaving only seventy remedies in the Fifty Millesimal potency. He opined, however, that Samuel had around one hundred and fifty LM remedies. Most of the remedies were potentized from the 0/1 to 0/10 degrees but the cardinal anti-miasmatic medicines like Mercury and Sulphur was potentized up to the 0/30. Where does the idea that Hahnemann had only 12 remedies which he only used less and less over a two year period come from? Why is this false information used to demean the Founder experience in this manner?

It is easy to compare the Paris cases in which he used the high potency Cs like the 190-200 th with the cases he used the LM potency. I have read Hahnemann’s LM cases, and just like his C cases, there are some successes and some failures. What can be said for the LM potency can be said for the C potencies. The way Dr. Saine portrays the fifty millesimal potency cases makes it sound like Hahnemann’s centesimal cases we somehow much better. This is a complete untruth. The reason he was experimenting with the LM potency was he was not satisfied with C potencies. Hahnemann seemed to prefer the LM potency in chronic diseases in his last two years. Nevertheless, he continued to use both the C and LM potency in medicinal solution side by side until his passing in 1843. In truth the new methodology is just as important as the twin potency factors.

One must remember that Hahnemann is the Alpha of Homoeopathy – not the Omega. What one sees in his German and French casebooks is the birth of Homeopathy. Samuel is the Father but his child is still growing and has yet to attain its full maturity. Hahnemann’s stated one of the difficulties he faced was the limited number of well-proven remedies. The repertories and materia medicas at his disposal only contained around 125 remedies. If one is going to honestly criticize the LM cases they should likewise criticize the cases using 6C to 200C. It is not a matter Hahnemann’s C cases versus his LM cases. It is a question of how to use both potency systems to the best advantage in our life and times.

Dr. Saine also accuses Hahnemann of being dogmatic and says this is because he always though his latest experiments were the ultimate way. He says that reading Hahnemann’s works in their chronological order shows he always tired to impress upon the reader his latest method was “absolute perfection, and, that is it. Period”. He claims that when we read any edition of the Organon, including the 6th we may get stuck in his “dogmatism” and not go beyond his last word. He behooves us to go beyond this dogmatism and not repeat the Hahnemann’s mistakes and be open to change. He says the only thing that really matters is the inductive method introduced by the Founder.

Well I would agree that Hahnemann’s inductive method is central and indispensable but so are the principles similars cure similars, the minimum dose and the potentized remedy. These are the checks and balances that make homoeopathy a safe and effective system. The Founder spoke of the limitation of his system and kept on working at improving the system. He often pointed out his mistakes in the various editions of the Organon and The Chronic Diseases . The record shows that his attitude was to keep experimenting in an effort to make improvements and overcome obstacles. He never thought that one technique was “Perfected. Period!” By the time Hahnemann published his present experience he was already working to make new improvements. He also included the ideas of others if they were better than his own. For example, Hahnemann got the idea of using a downward succussion on a hard but elastic surface from Jenichen. Before this he only used a downward jerk of the arm.

Where Hahnemann was historically accused of “dogmatism” was in relationship to his feeling that Homeopathy was inherently superior to allopathy and the two should not be mixed. When people mixed his new system with the old school he became upset and demanded loyalty to Homeopathy. He wanted to protect his new system because he was afraid it would be swallowed up by orthodox medicine to the point it would be lost as a pure science. In my opinion, he was quite right to protect his creation. If he did not defend his new system it would have been destroyed by the half-homeopaths and allopaths.

To call Hahnemann “dogmatic” because he felt his final method was his best is unwarranted. Of course, he felt each work was better than the last one because, in general, they were! Hahnemann’s middle path method found in the 5 th and 6th edition is a more perfected method than what he taught in the 1, 2, 3, and 4th Organon . In the first four editions of the Organon Hahnemann taught that a remedy must not be repeated until the duration of its affects had completely ceased and the patient relapsed. In the 5th and 6th edition he found a better method that transcend this limitation when certain conditions were followed. This new method allows for a more gentle, rapid and permanent cure than was possible with the first 4 editions.

In the 5th and 6th Organon Hahnemann taught that any “noticeably progressive and strikingly increasing amelioration” is a sign that precludes the repetition of the medicine as long as it lasts. The reason for this is that the medicine being use is still hastening toward completion at the fastest rate possible. The repetition of the remedy under these conditions only slows down the cure or causes relapses. This reflects what Hahnemann said in aphorism 245 of the 5th Organon on the single dose. This aphorism shows one when the wait and watch method is most appropriate. Nothing has been lost and there is everything to gain from the experience of the Founder over his last 14 years.

Hahnemann then says, “On the other hand” there are some cases that have only “slow, continuous improvement based on one dose of a aptly selected homeopathic medicine taking 40, 50, 60 100 days to complete the cure, depending on the nature of the medicine, but his is very seldom the case”. In most cases where there is only slow improvement the patient relapses long before cure is achieved. Hahnemann goes on to state how important it is to “foreshorten this period” to 1/2, 3/4 or less the time attaining a much more rapid cure. This reflects what Hahnemann said in aphorism 246 of the 5th Organon on repeating the remedy to speed the cure.

Hahnemann makes it very clear that there are two basic types of remedy actions that must be treated differently. The Founder no longer treated every case the same like he did from 1810 to 1833.

A. The first condition is a visibly progressing and strikingly increasing amelioration. In this instance one is too leave the single dose act without repetition as long as this state last. This also means that any time during treatment there is a dramatically increasing amelioration on a series of doses stop the remedy. This is true for the C and LM potency.

B. The second condition is a slow continuous improvement that could take up to 100 days to show any significant improvement. This, however, is seldom the case. Most of the time a slow improvement ceases at some point and the patient relapses. In this case one should repeat the dose at suitable intervals to speed the cure. This is quite common in protracted chronic disease. One may repeat the dose to speed the cure only if they meet all five conditions noted at the end of the paragraph.

1. The remedy is perfectly homeopathic (Not a wrong remedy or a partial simillimum.)

2. The remedy is potentized and dissolved in water. (Not the dry dose.)

3. The remedy is given in a small dose (1 pill in a 7-8 tablespoon medicinal solution, given in a split-dose, olfaction, etc.)

4. The remedy is given at suitable intervals based on what experience has shown to be best. (Individualization.)

5. The degree of potency must be changed before administering each dose (The medicinal solution must be succussed prior to ingestion.)

There is a great difference between a visibly progressing and strikingly increasing amelioration and a slow continuous improvement that takes up to 100 days to show any significant results. What Hahnemann is offering is a very clear differential of two completely different types of remedy actions. This is a much more sophisticated approach then just giving everyone a single dose and then waiting and watching no matter how slowly the patient is progressing. With his new posology methods there was no need to watch for weeks and months with the patient barely improving and wait for a relapse.

Why wait for a relapse of symptoms when the remedy can be repeated where there is only gradual improvement? This is not the time to wait and watch. This is the time to act and observe! Waiting for long periods with the patient barely improving is not necessary with Hahnemann’s advanced methods. Why not repeat the remedy as long is the improvement is continuing and there are no aggravations or new symptoms? Anytime there is a strikingly increasing amelioration the repetition is stopped as long as this state lasts. This middle path method can greatly speed the cure of protracted cases that take months and years to cure! This is not dogma – This is the fruit of over 40 years of experience!

The Paris casebooks show that Hahnemann tended to start his cases by giving a single dose by olfaction followed by placebos or short series of 3 to 7 doses oral doses over a period of one week. Then he would check the patient and make a proper assessment of the remedy, dose, potency and repetition. Whenever there was a strong remedial action he would give the patient placebos and have them return in another week. If the patient appeared to require the repetition of the remedy to speed the cure he would continue his doses as long as there was no aggravation or new symptoms. Anytime there was a strikingly increasing amelioration he would stop the dose as long as this state lasted. Hahnemann constantly alternated active doses with placebo and periods of waiting and watching throughout the case. He used this “on again – off again’ method to control the power of both the C and LM potency in medicinal solution. There are no daily doses for weeks, months and years on end in the Paris casebooks.

Dr. Saine says that if the 6th edition of the Organon had been published in 1843 the question of potencies would have evolved differently. He makes it sound good that the 6th edition was lost for nearly 80 years so that the higher potency Cs could develop. He says it was fortunate that after Hahnemann died Boenninghausen started to use the 200th regularly and that later on, especially in America, they started to experiment with the highest potencies. He says that based on 150 years of experiments by Hahnemann, Boenninghausen, Lippe, Hering, Dunham, Skinner, Nash, etc., “the higher potencies have been proven and are here to stay.”

Yes, the high potencies are here to stay but that doesn’t mean there is no room for any other potencies! Boenninghausen was already using the 200C and higher before Hahnemann died but he also used other potencies as well. When Melanie Hahnemann was asked about what potencies Samuel used she replied that he use anything from 3C to 1M depending on what was needed. It is a fact that some patients do better on the 6C, some on the 12C, some on the 30C, some on the 200C, some on the 1M and some need the LM potencies. It is best to have as many options as possible.

If you try to give high potencies to everyone the outcome in some will be dangerous aggravations, accessory symptoms and antagonistic counter actions of the vital force. In some cases there is a danger of making the disease worse and causing premature death. The higher potencies do not suit every patient and all disease states. At one stage Kent tried to begin his cases with ultra high potencies but he found that it was counter productive in the long run. Later he suggested starting at the lower ranges and moving upward to the higher degrees as the case progressed. Kent learned this the hard way, and was honest enough to share his experience so we don’t make the same mistakes.

Hahnemann never said “don’t use Cs anymore – Only use the LMs”. The high potencies made by Jenichen and Karsokoff were already in use when he was alive. He supported the use of high potencies in the 5 th Organon and continued to use the 190-200th even in his last years. Who is really being dogmatic here? Who is resisting history as well as the future? Who is saying there is only one way? Who is it that is not open to change? Who is not open to expanding our case management strategies? Certainly not Hahnemann!

The Paris casebooks show Hahnemann used the C and LM potency side-by-side though out his last years. Hahnemann’s only negative statement in the 6 th Organon about the C potency is concerns medicines made on machines that gave overly forceful succussions. This is a warning well worth heeding because potencies made with overly strong mechanical succussions produce furious primary actions without long enduring secondary actions. It is not a matter of one potency against the other potency so there is no need for a divide and rule mentality. What Hahnemann was offering homoeopathy is two complementary opposite potency systems that greatly expand the therapeutic horizons of Homoeopathy!

I feel it was a great loss that the 6th Organon was not published until 1920. One cannot learn how to correctly use the LM potency from a book. The 6 th edition was meant to be an aid for teaching the new method by teachers with experience in the technique. To understand the bigger picture one needs to study the Paris casebooks and eyewitness accounts of Hahnemann’s practice. One needs to study with those how have used the LM potency for many years. Then one needs to test Hahnemann’s new postulates in the clinic in the proper manner. Using the medicinal solution and the LM potency wrongly and then saying they don’t work will not do.

Yes, Homoeopathy would have developed differently if the 6 th edition were published. Yes, Homoeopathy would have been better because we would have had two potency systems. Yes, more individual would have understood how to use the medicinal solution and the split-dose when necessary. Yes, there would be less confusion because Hering, Boenninghausen and others would have used the C and LM potency side by side just like Hahnemann. We would have a living lineage of teachers that understood how to use the C and LM potency according to Hahnemann’s advanced methods. And yes, that would have been wonderful!

There is no doubt that the high potency centesimal remedies have done lot of good but they have also caused some damage. I have received more than one letter, phone call and email from people who have never been well since they were given random numbers of pills of a higher C potency. It is not really the centesimal potency that is the problem. It is the way they are being administered. If one gives too many pills of too a high potency too many times the outcome is aggravations, accessory symptoms and antagonistic counter actions of the vital force. This makes some patients so hypersensitive that they can no longer take potencies without dire consequences. These patients become difficult to treat by any method if one is not careful. So what if these are a minority of cases. Do they not matter? Should they be “sweep under the rug” and then forgotten? No, we should learn from our mistakes and try to do better in the future. Most of these problems can be avoided if one uses the method of the 5 th and 6 th Organon properly.

As long as people continue to use the high and ultra high C potencies by the methods of the 4th Organon (which were only used with the 30C and lower) these problems will remain. Hahnemann first developed the medicinal solution during the period he was testing the high potency centesimal remedies. When he was using the dry dose he suggested limiting the potency to 30C. He changed his mind when he started using the medicinal solution to modify the power of the potencies above the 30c. That is why he supported the use of high potencies like the 300th in the 5th Organon . Unfortunately, too many homoeopaths have not taken the time to review these historical realities and have not bothered to test the system. Some still think every reaction is a good reaction but unfortunately this is not the case. When a patient does not recover from a negative remedy action they usually blame the problem on some other factor.

Dr. Saine is of the opinion that we could not achieve similar results if Homoeopathy was limited to the lower potencies and “In reality the LM are very low potencies.”  This idea can only come from a person who has very little if any real experience with the LM potencies. Anyone with clinical knowledge would not call the LM potency a 3C in a cup! Although the LM 0/1 has around the same amount of original substance as the 6C, there is a great difference between mathematical equivalency and the relative medicinal powers of the C and LM potency.

The 1/50, 000 dilution ratio and 100 succussions of the fifty millesimal potency produces a completely different medicinal quality than the 1/100 dilution ratio and 10 succussions of the centesimal remedy. This larger dilution ratio and increased succussion factor produces a much deeper penetrating remedy even at the lower degrees. In many ways, the LM potency has the best qualities of the high and low potency in one remedy. They are very deep acting remedies but at the same time they can be repeated at shorter intervals when necessary to speed the cure.

Some cases do better on the LM potency and some cases on the C potency. Some cases need both the C and LM potency at the right times. If one studies the Paris casebooks one comes to the conclusion that Hahnemann was well aware of this fact. Experienced homoeopaths are reporting cures of very chronic diseases with the LM potency where the high C potencies failed. There are also some cases that are cured by the C potency when the LM potency failed. So why not use both in accordance with Hahnemann’s advanced methods? In this way nothing is lost and there is everything to be gained.

Boenninghausen was in close contact with Hahnemann about the development of the LM potency. Hahnemann sent him two fifty millesimal case examples in 1843. It was the Baron’s greatest desire to see the 6th Organon published and he let it be known in public that he had tested the new dynamizations. Boenninghausen wrote:

“In the new edition of the Organon which will probably appear yet in the course of this year, improved and completed by Hahnemann himself, a new simplified procedure for the potentizing of medicines will be taught, which has considerable advantages over the former and yields a preparation as to the efficacy of which I can, from my own experience, give full praise.”

The Lesser Writings; C. M. F. Boenninghausen, Aluminium Metallicum, footnote, page 74.

In this quote Boenninghausen clearly confirms that the praise he lauded on new dynamizations was based on his “own experience”. Unfortunately, Melanie became upset with him for announcing that the 6th Organon with its new potency would soon to be released. She told him not to speak about the subject in public until after the 6th Organon was published. Regrettably, the text did no see the light of day in his lifetime. Nevertheless, The Baron spoke of his experiences with the LM potency in his last article written shortly before he left for his Heavenly Abode.

“Of the other remedies used in these two cures (Sulphur, Mercurius, Nitric Acid), new dynamizations were used, which will be described in the next edition of the Organon , the peculiar preparation of which is known to me and which requires less time and trouble, but essentially presents our present high and highest potencies but having given my word of honor, I am not as yet at liberty to publish the same.”

The Lesser Writings; C. M. F. Boenninghausen , Boenninghausen’s Last Work, Atropa Belladonna L, page 316.

In this quote Boenninghausen lets it be know that he was privy to how the LM potency was made and had tested them in comparison to the centesimal potencies. It was the Baron’s opinion that the action of the LM potencies was equal to the “high and highest potencies” used at the time. This was written in 1863 when the C potency was already reaching staggering heights in Europe and America. The Baron was well aware that one could not mathematically equate potencies with different in remedial powers by linear mathematics. The LM 0/1 acts like a much higher potency than the 30C. The only way that one can test the comparative powers of the C and LM potency is to test them on patients.

Hahnemann’s lower potencies where the 30C to 6C. His higher potencies were anywhere from the 50C to the 200C and the LM 0/1 to 0/30. Melanie stated he had also used the 1M. The Founder tended to lower the degree of his low potencies from 30C to 24C to 18C to 12C to 6C and raised the high potencies from 191C to 192C to193C, etc. He also tended to raise the LM potency in degrees like 0/1, 0/2, 0/3, etc. He continued to use the low and high potency centesimal remedies as well as the LM potency throughout his last years in practice.

Some have found that the LM potency is “too powerful” and causes more aggravations than the single dry dose. This is true if one tries to give them daily or on alternated days for weeks and months to everyone in a mechanical fashion. They are far too powerful to be used like a 6C. In some cases the LM potency is too deep of an acting potency for the patient and they do better on 6C to 30C. Many of these patients can be worked up from the lower potencies Cs to the LM 0/1 over time. This seems to work better than jumping from the 30C to 200C in many cases. Why get trapped in categories like low and high potency prescribers? Why get stuck in categories like a C or LM prescriber? Why not use both potencies as needed? Why get fall into a for or against mentality? Isn’t it best to do what is best for the patient based on their sensitivity and the nature their disease state?

Dr. Saine says he has always stayed away from the LM potencies because “does not need to use them”. Where is the experimental spirit of the Founder in this statement? Isn’t this a person who said we should remain open to changes? Is it rational to criticize all the methods Hahnemann introduced in the 1830s and 1840s before even trying them? Samuel was never satisfied so he was always open to new experiments. There is much more at stake here than just the LM potency. There is an entirely new way to approach case management strategies and posology factors on offer in the 5 th and 6 th Organon . Why hold on rigidly to the dry dose and exclusive wait and watch method of the 4 th Organon ? Like Hahnemann, I am constantly experimenting with remedy selection, delivery systems, dose, potency and repetition. There is always room for doing better!

  Dr. Saine second reason for rejecting the LM potency is the method  “is too complicated” keeping in mind that aphorism 2 of the Organon speaks of “easy comprehensible principles”. The methods of the 5th Organon (1833), the 1837 Chronic Diseases , and the 6th Organon (c. 1843) are the extension of the principles enshrined in the all the previous editions of the Organon . The principle of Hahnemann’s advanced methods is the individualization of the remedy, the size of the dose, the degree of potency and the repetition of medicine to suit the patient. That is certainly an easy enough model to understand if one has an open mind. Those who still think the size of the dose does and the nature of the delivery system do not matter can see no reason for making any changes in their methods. They follow the incorrect theories that originated with James Kent not the teachings of Samuel Hahnemann.

The truth is that nature of the delivery system and the size of the dose are important factors related to posology. Hahnemann introduced the use of 1 or 2 pills in medicinal solution so that he could reduce the frequency of aggravation, accessory symptoms and antagonistic counter actions of the vital force. He introduced the split-dose so that the remedy could be repeated to speed the cure in those cases that only show slow improve on the single dose. He applied this new system to both the C and LM potency. He stated that this method could reduce the time of cure in resistance cases to 1/2; or 1/4 or less the time it takes with the single dry dose method.

Isn’t this a claim worth testing seriously in the clinic over a sufficient period of time? Isn’t reducing the time of cure in challenging cases worth a little more effort on the part of the practitioner? Aren’t better results worth taking the time to learn a more advanced method? Why let ideas like “I don’t need” or “its too complicated” get in one’s way when it is the patient that really matters. I challenge everyone to test the methods of the medical solution and adjusting the size of the dose of the C and LM potency in clinic before they make up their minds. That is the only fair way.

There is nothing too complicated about taking a pill and putting it into a bottle to make a medicinal solution. There is nothing too complicated about succussing the bottle. There is nothing too complicated about giving the dose in spoonfuls. There is nothing too complicated about customizing the repetition to suit the cause, symptoms, circumstances and remedy action. What about the first aphorism of the Organon , which says our sole duty is too heal the patient? It doesn’t say out duty is to do what is easiest for us. It doesn’t to be complacent while the patient is barely improving. It doesn’t say we should accept unneeded aggravations. It says we should do what is best for the patient!

Dr. Saine’s third reason for rejecting the LM potency is that Pierre Schmidt and P. Sankaran tried them but continued with their previous methods. At the same time, there were many like Dr. H. Choudhury that had great success with the LM potency for over 30 years! Many of these individuals were in West Bengal, India and Bangladesh. This was at a time when almost no one in the West was using these potencies. Over the last 40 years a tremendous amount of clinical experience has been gathered in India. I have used the LM potency for over 20 years and many of my colleagues now have years of experience. It is no longer a case of the opinion a just a few persons. The LM potencies have been tested all over the world and they have proved their value in the clinic. It is no longer a question of what someone might have or might not have done in the 1950s.

Hahnemann tested the 200C and 1M but he was not completely satisfied with them in all cases. These are probably the most used high potencies today. It is a clinical fact that an excessive number of dry pills can cause serious aggravations and complications in some cases. At the same time, the dry pills cannot be repeated safely before the duration of the previous dose ceases and the patient relapses. This is true whether the patient was improving in a striking manner or only slowly responding over a period of months. There is nothing one can do to change this situation with the methods of the 4 th Organon .

Hahnemann found the methods of the 1820s too restrictive and slow in a great many chronic diseases. He also did not think it was necessary to aggravate patients with high potencies to cure them. This is why Hahnemann reduced the size of the dose as he increased the level of his potencies. This is why he introduced the medicinal solution and split-dose in 1837. This is why he began to experiment with the LM potency in 1838. That is why he wrote the 6th Organon in the 1840s. That is why he used his advanced methods with the low and high potency centesimal remedies as well as the LM potency.

When I first started speaking about the differences of the 4th, 5th and 6th Organon very few had any idea of what I was taking about. In those days one could not even buy the LM potency in the USA and many other countries. At that time those with experience in using the C and LM potency in medicinal solution in the West was limited to a few. Today, there are many who have 5, 10, 15 and 20 years of experience. Many of these practitioners used the high and highest C potencies for many years and now they have found a place in their practice for the LM potency. Before someone criticizes Hahnemann’s advanced methods and the LM potency they should at least test them first. To do otherwise is disingenuous.

Dr. Andre Saine is a respected teacher and practitioner. Nevertheless, I have been forced by circumstances to defend the Hahnemann’s credibility in relationship to the LM potency and the 6th Organon . In the process of his critique Dr. Saine has passed on several historical inaccuracies that he used to dramatize his opinions. I must say that I am surprised and saddened by this misuse of the facts. To repudiate the LM potency on the basis that Hahnemann only used them for two years, made less LM prescriptions in 1842 than 1841, only had 12 LM remedies, and only made Sulphur to the 0/20 is a false argument. I have provided documentation and sources that show that each of these statements is historically incorrect. One is welcome to their personal opinions but there is no reason to use incorrect information to criticize Hahnemann and the 6th Organon.

To say we must go beyond Hahnemann’s final teachings because he was a dogmatist is an oversimplification Founder’s character, life and works. This statement seems to be connected to the theme that if the 6th Organon and Hahnemann’s Paris cases were published it would have thwarted the development of the centesimal remedies. This idea, however, has little relationship to historical realities. The two example cases Hahnemann sent Boenninghausen in 1843 show the Founder using both the C and LM potency in medicinal solution on the same patients. There is absolutely no suggestion that the C potencies should be abandoned in this material. To the contrary, the Paris casebooks show that the C and LM potency can be used side by side in a great variety of potencies.

What is written in the 6th Organon is the outcome of nearly 50 years of the Founder’s experience and the final capstone of his legacy. In this work Hahnemann did his best to remove all the remaining obstacles in his homoeopathic system and pave the way for a safer, more rapid and permanent cure. It was his hope that his new middle path philosophy on repetition and the advanced posology techniques for the C and LM potency would reduce aggravations and speed the cure in slow responding cases. Now the mantle has been passed to a new generations and it is up to us to investigate the Founder’s hypothesis in the clinic. After more than 160 years of neglect Samuel Hahnemann’s lost teachings are finally being given the attention they deserve.

Similia Minimus
Sincerely, David Little

PS. I was just informed that Dr. Farokh Masters told a seminar in the Netherlands that Hahnemann only used the LM potency on 6 patients thus insinuating that the LM method was not tested properly! This is another practitioner I admire and respect but they don’t seem to value the work of Hahnemann nor those following in his footsteps. Adler’s study of the Paris casebooks shows that Hahnemann used the LM potency in three degrees like 0/1, 0/2 and 0/3 on 681 patients! This number does not include all of the other types prescriptions using the LM potency. This is only the number of cases in that demonstrate a series of three lower degree potencies as discussed in the 6 th Organon . Where do these people get these ideas? An even more pertinent question is – Why do they say such things?

Schuesslers Tissue Salts

Born 1821 Died 1898. Medical Doctor and Naturopath.

We have been asked why Hahnemannian Homoeopaths do not use or prescribe the 12 salts of Schuessler.

Firstly, the whole system of Biochemics has NOTHING to do with Hahnemann or the practice of Homoeopathy. It has always been a source of sadness to me that noted homoeopaths of the day, gave the systems some credence. From examining the history, it is possible to see where American homoeopathy began to lose its credibility with the Hering school, who started to deviate from Hahnemanns recommendations, and even made a whole new potency scale which added nothing to the therapeutics today.


The idea upon which Biochemic Therapeutics is based is the physiological fact that both the structure and vitality of the organs of the body are dependent upon certain necessary quantities and proper apportionment of its inorganic constitu ents. These remain after combustion of the tissues and form the ashes. These inorganic constituents are, in a very real sense, the material basis of the organs and tissues of the body, and are absolutely essential to their integrity of structure and functional activity. According to Schuessler’s theory, any disturb- ance in the molecular motion of these cell salts in living tissues, caused by a deficiency in the requisite amount, constitutes disease, which can be rectified and the requisite equilibrium re-established by administering the same mineral salts in small quantities. This is supposed to be brought about by virtue of the operation of chemical affinity in the domain of histology ; and hence this therapeutic procedure is styled by Scbiissler the Biochemic method, and stress is laid on the fact that it is in supposed harmony with well-known facts and laws in physiological chembtry and allied sciences.

As we can see from the preface taken from the book, written by Boericke, this methodology has more to do with naturopathy than homoeopathic prescribing. For each of the 12 tissue salts, there is a list of ailments, and if your ailment falls under NAME of one of them, then you take the appropriate salt. Real homoeopaths need not ask why this is not appropriate.

  • The salts are limited to certain potencies.
  • I have discovered that in the manufacture of the tissue salts, a small amount of the substance is inserted in the crude form along side the potentised version in each tablet.

This is one of those therapies that uses the term ‘homoeopathic’ and had NOTHING to do with the principles of prescribing in homoeopathy.

I know of many practitioners who will give a prescription of a tissue salt rather than do the proper job of ascertaining the symptoms and giving the appropriate medicine required. Giving a medicine for example, to a baby who is teething in the Tissue salts limits a prescription to Ferrum Phos. What if the symptoms are NOT ferrum phos? Why do some practitioners feel that low potencies are ‘safe’ to give in Tissue salts?

The I.H.M. and Hahnemann do not approve of non homoeopathic practices regardless of whether a medicine is potentized or not. On this basis, a practitioner who regularly uses the Tissue salts need to re-examine the principles of homeopathic practice and educate themselves as to what it is that they are doing.