Confusion over Hahnemanns
Small Dosesby Peter Morrell
Because of the confusion in the letters to this
article, I present a series of quotations from reputable sources which
convey the essence of how Hahnemann came upon and developed the whole
technique of making small doses. Those wishing further detail can
consult the texts here cited. Apologies for length.When Hahnemann first announced cures of diseases
by extremely small doses of medicine, his statements were received with
incredulity and ridicule…Hahnemanns appeal to the medical
profession to test the new method and publish results to the world was
met by active opposition. He was forbidden to practice and was driven
from his home by relentless persecution….[even though] the use of the
infinitesimal dose in homeopathy was the outcome of experience… [1][The] principle of the infinitesimal dose
[is]…an outrage to human reason.’ [2]“ the doctrines of potentiation and the
infinitesimal dose has always been the central point of attack upon
homeopathy by its enemies.” [3]‘In the United States, regular physicians…found
Hahnemann’s theories absurd and incredible. Reasoning that no one in his
right mind could believe such arrant nonsense, they concluded that
homeopaths must be either knaves or fools.’ [4]“Hahnemann claimed that a dilution as minute as
1/500,000th of a grain or even 1/1,000,000th of a grain, could be
effective…to orthodox practitioners, who in many cases prescribed
drugs by the spoonful, Hahnemanns ideas were ridiculous.” [5]“Hahnemann pointed to…classical literature to
demonstrate that his discoverey was known to writers of antiquity and
was essentially rediscovered by him. He also recognised that his doses
would be considered ludicrous by physicians accustomed to heroic
therapy.” [6]“Hahnemann argued that skeptical regular
physicians should not concern themselves with the logic of homeopathy,
but rather look at the results.” [7]“Most regular physicians regarded their
homeopathic colleagues first with skepticism, then with incredulity, and
finally with bitter hostility.” [8]“Hahnemanns final views and practice in
regard to the dose were arrived at gradually, through long years of
careful experiment and observation.” [9]“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.” [10]“Hahnemann’s idea at first was simply to reduce
the “strength” or material mass of his drug, but his passion
for accuracy led him to adopt a scale, that he might always be sure of
the degree of reduction and establish a standard for comparison.”
[11]“He soon discovered that large doses were very
undesirable in ascertaining the effects of drugs [on the healthy
person].” [12]“The more he experimented with the proper
homeopathic doses, the smaller the dose he recommended.” [13]“His discovery of the principle of potentisation
came about gradually as he experimented in the reduction of his doses,
in order to arrive at a point where severe aggravations would not occur.
Gradually, by experience, he learned that the latent powers of drugs
were released or developed by trituration, dilution and
succussion.” [14]“Hahnemann perplexed by the aggravations
resulting from ordinary doses, seeking to find a dose so small that it
would not endanger life and desiring to accurately measure his degree of
dilution so that he might repeat or retrace his steps, invented or
adopted the centesimal scale ” [15]Under certain conditions he found, perhaps to his
surprise, that instead of weakening the drug he was actually increasing
its curative power. In reducing the density of the mass he perceived
that he was setting free powers previously latent, and that these powers
were the greatest and most efficient for their therapeutic purposes…
[16]“This reduction [in dose] was apparently due to
Hahnemanns observation that medicines administered in substantial
amounts according to the law of similars caused severe aggravation of
symptoms.” [17]“His chief endeavour was obviously to establish
a theory of dosage.” [18]“From [1796] onwards he selected remedies from
the standpoint of similarity, still administering, however, fairly large
doses.” [19]“ in 1798 he still prescribed 8 grains of
Ignatia and China in quantities of ½-1 grain ” [20]“In his essay announcing the discovery of a new
therapeutic principle, published in 1796, no allusion is made to any
doses different from those in ordinary use…and in his writings up to
1801 nothing is to be found to lead us to suppose that there was
anything exceptional in his mode of employing drugs…” [21]“In his early years of practice Hahnemann used
doses comparable to those of his colleagues…in 1799 he first announced
the principle of the infinitesimal dose, and after 1800 his dose sizes
were gradually reduced.” [22]‘We cannot fail to be struck by the sudden transition
from the massive doses he prescribed in 1798 to the unheard-of
minuteness of his doses only one year later, and we can but guess the
causes for this abrupt transition.’ [23]“In 1799 he suddenly announced without
particular explanation very small and so-called infinitesimal
doses.” [24]“It is in his little work on Scarlet Fever,
published in 1801, that we have the first forebodings of an unusual mode
of preparing the medicines…the dose of Opium there recommended…is
very small compared with the ordinary dose…the object of this dilution
was to diminish the power of the medicine chiefy…for patients of very
tranquil disposition…” [25]“For the cure of the first stage of Scarlet
Fever [published in 1801] the dose of Belladonna prescribed was only the
432,000th part of a grain of the extract, a quantity intermediate
betwixt our 2nd and 3rd dilution.” [26]“He gave her the one four hundred and thirty-two
thousandth part of a grain of Belladonna, with the result that in about
twenty four hours she became well…in Hufelands Journal, 13.2,
January 1801, he published On Small Doses of Medicine in General and
of Belladonna in Particular…and supports his doses of Belladonna
previously given.” [27]“ the question of doses. Remarkably enough he
even passes over them in silence in his first Materia Medica, which
appeared in 1805 ” [28]“ Materia Medica Pura there are accurate
statements in the second volume appearing in 1816 Arsenicum is
recommended in 12th, 18th and 30th
dilution; Hahnemann gives preference to the 30th ”
[29]“The year 1817 saw the publication of the third
volume of the Materia Medica Pura China 12, Asarum 12 or 15 ”
[30]“ from 1824 to 1827 he gradually increased
the dilution of remedies.” [31]“Hahnemann himself felt in 1829, the urgent
necessity of a limit in potentisation and declared the ultimate degree
of dilution to be the 30th centesimal potency.” [32]“In the year 1829 Hahnemann came upon the
strange idea of setting up a kind of standard dose for all curative
remedies this was to be the 30th centesimal.” [33]“…1/1,000,000 of its original strength. This
constituted the third centesimal dilution; Hahnemann recommended the
thirtieth dilution.” [34]“The materialistically minded [homeopaths]
restricted themselves to the crude tinctures and triturations, or the
very low dilutions, ranging from 1x to 6x another small class of
metaphysical tendency used only the very highest potencies, ranging from
the two hundredth to the millionth ” [35]“The efficiency of homeopathic potencies is not
to be determined by calculation, but by actual trial upon the living
organism.” [36]In the Organon, however, he stated that
trituration and succussion release the spirit-like power of the
medicine – which is compatible with his assumption that medicines act
through their spiritual [geistlich] or dynamic impact upon the organism.
[37]He…[advised] …that the liquid medicine, having
been made up, should be slightly succussed between each dose… [38]Only very occasionally is a succussion of the
container of the liquid specified…this appears to be a succussion of
the stock bottle, or main container, rather than of an intermediate
glass. [39]But with time there emerges ever more clearly the
view that, by shaking and trituration, a uniform mixing, dilution and
weakening of the medicinal substance is not all that is achieved; on the
contrary, the material part of the medicine is thereby more and more
eradicated and as a consequence the spiritual part of the medicine [not
perceptible to human faculties] is released and extraordinarily
increased. This is dynamization…be possible to increase the power by
succussion; the more the medicine is succussed when prepared, the
stronger its effect… [40]…in regard to the most appropriate number of
succussions he altered his opinion repeatedly within a few years.
[41]By trituration and succussion, he says, the
medicinal power of medicines may be increased almost to an infinite
degree. Hence we are warned against succussing our succussive dilutions
over-much. [42]Whilst in the earlier periods of the growth of his
system he merely tells us to shake the bottle, to shake it strongly – to
shake it for a minute or longer – he afterwards tells us that much
shaking increases the power of the medicine to a dangerous extent, and
therefore only two shakes must be used for each dilution. Latterly,
however, he again loses his dread of shaking, and after once more
appointing ten shakes for each dilution as the standard, he becomes more
liberal and allows twenty, fifty, or more shakes, and half a dozen
shakes to the bottle before each dose of the medicinal solution. Again,
whereas in one place he says that the shaking is the only agent in the
dynamization…in another he alleges that dilution is essential to the
dynamizing effect of succussion, and that all the rubbing and shaking in
the world will not dynamize an undiluted substance. [43]“…in preparation the vial had to be succussed.
A simple dilution was not sufficient; the vial containing the medicine
had to be struck against a leather pad a number of times.” [44]“It is highly probable that during such
dynamization…the material substance eventually dissolves completely
into its individual spirit-like essence and that its crude state can be
regarded as actually consisting only of this spirit-like essence, as yet
undeveloped.” [45]Homeopathy is opposed to the use…of drugs in
physiological doses…it depends for all its results upon the dynamical
action of single, pure, potentised medicines, prepared by a special
mathematico-mechanical process and administered in minimum dose. [46]“…he would then prescribe this drug in a small
dose. In some patients the symptoms at first increased before there was
any response. He then tried giving progressively smaller and smaller
doses. He always advocated giving the smallest dose necessary to help
the patient…he evolved a method of mixing, diluting and shaking which
he called succussion…” [47]“He was well aware that some of the remedies in
their most concentrated form were highly poisonous and he had,
therefore, successively reduced the size of the dose. Experimenting in
this way he found that not only was the effectiveness maintained, but
even increased, when the dose was infinitesimally small.” [48]“…it was not long before Hahnemanns
persistent experimentation revealed that dilution and succussion of
remedies somehow rendered them more effective…” [49]‘Yet today in retrospect homeopathy merits a more
favorable consideration for its ultimate influence upon the field of
medicine. First, along with others, it forced the conventional
practitioners to give up the harmful and obsolete practice of
bloodletting and the use of calomel. Second, it proved to be the
stimulus which led orthodox medicine to improve medical education.’ [50]
Sources
[1] Close, Dr Stuart, 1924, The Genius
of Homeopathy Lectures and Essays on Homeopathic Philosophy, New York,
p.227[2] Sir John Forbes, 1846, Homeopathy,
Allopathy and Young Physic, p.17; quoted in Nicholls, Phillip A, 1988,
Homeopathy and the Medical Profession, Croom Helm, London, p.121; Forbes
was physician to Queen Victoria, 1840-61[3] Close, op cit, p.215
[4] Blake, John B, 1981, Homeopathy in
American History, Trans. Stud. Coll. Phys., Philadelphia, Series 5, vol.
3, 1981, pp.83-92, p.86[5] Kaufman, Martin, 1972, Homeopathy
in America, Johns Hopkins Univ Press, Baltimore, p.26[6] Rothstein, William G, 1972,
American Physicians in the Nineteenth Centruy From Sects to Science,
Johns Hopkins Univ Press, Baltimore, p.157[7] Rothstein, op cit, p.157
[8] Rothstein, op cit, p.165
[9] Close, op cit, p.189
[10] Close, op cit, p.215
[11] Close, op cit, p.216
[12] Rothstein, op cit, p.155
[13] Rothstein, op cit, p.155
[14] Close, op cit, p.190
[15] Close, op cit, p.218
[16] Close, op cit, p.216
[17] Coulter, vol. 2, p.400
[18] Haehl, Dr Richard, 1923, Samuel
Hahnemann His Life and Work, 2 vols, Jain, India, Vol. 1, p.312[19] Haehl, op cit, Vol. 1, p.311
[20] Haehl, op cit, Vol. 1, pp.311-2
[21] Dudgeon, Dr Robert E, 1853,
Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Homeopathy, London, pp.337-8[22] Coulter, Harris L, 1973, Divided
Legacy, 3 vols, Wehawken Books, Washington USA, vol. 2, p.400[23] Dudgeon, op cit, pp.395-6
[24] Haehl, op cit, Vol. 1, p.312
[25] Dudgeon, op cit, p.338
[26] Dudgeon, op cit, p.394
[27] Bradford, Dr Thomas L, 1895, Life
and Letters Of Hahnemann, Jain Indian Edition, p.70[28] Haehl, op cit, Vol. 1, p.313
[29] Haehl, op cit, Vol. 1, p.317
[30] Haehl, op cit, Vol. 1, pp.317-8
[31] Haehl, op cit, Vol. 1, p.320
[32] Haehl, op cit, Vol. 1, p.321
[33] Haehl, op cit, Vol. 1, p.322
[34] Rothstein, op cit, p.156
[35] Close, op cit, pp.183-4
[36] Close, op cit, p.222
[37] Coulter, op cit, vol. 2, p.403
[38] Handley, Rima, 1997, In Search of
the Later Hahnemann, Beaconsfield UK, p.131[39] Handley, op cit, p.131
[40] Haehl, op cit, Vol. 1, p.324
[41] Haehl, op cit, vol. 1, p.326
[42] Dudgeon, op cit, p.346
[43] Dudgeon, op cit, pp.349-50
[44] Kaufman, op cit, p.26
[45] Hahnemann, Dr Samuel, 1842,
Organon of Medicine, combined 5th/6th edition of Dudgeon and Boericke,
v.270, end[46] Close, op cit, pp.20-21
[47] Blackie, Dr Margery G, 1975, The
Patient Not the Cure, London, p.6[48] Cook, Trevor M, 1981, Samuel
Hahnemann — the Founder of Homeopathy, Thorsons UK, pp.95-6[49] Handley, op cit, pp.7-8
[50] Siddall, A Clair, 1978, History
of Homeopathic Medicine at Oberlin, Ohio, 1833-1933, Ohio State Med.
Jnl, 74, pt. 2, 1978, pp.121-124, p.124
Article