Abstract:
Homoeopathy employs potentized remedies grounded in the law of similia, with dosages informed by comprehensive research. This article examines the historical development of posology and the evolution of dose and potency.
Keywords: Dose, Potency, Repetition, Scientifique of Potentization
Introduction:
Posology, derived from the Greek words ‘Posos’ (meaning ‘how much’) and ‘logos’ (meaning ‘study’), refers to the study of dosage in homeopathy. It encompasses the potency, quantity, form, and repetition of a homeopathic remedy. According to Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, it involves enhancing potency, particularly the synergistic effect of two drugs that exceeds the sum of their individual effects. Similarly, Stedman’s Medical Dictionary defines it as the interaction between two or more agents resulting in a pharmacologic response greater than the combined responses to each agent alone.
Homoeopathic Potentization:
Potentization is a physical process that releases, develops, and modifies the dynamic energy in crude medicinal substances for medicinal use while eliminating their destructive or toxic effects. This involves systematic dilutions and succussions or trituration. Homeopathic potentization is a mathematico-mechanical process that transforms crude, inert, or poisonous substances into forms that are physically soluble, physiologically assimilable, therapeutically effective, and safe for use as homeopathic remedies. (Stuart Close)
Scientifique of Potentization:
Science has not explained homeopathy because it lacks fundamental principles, making it a mystery to the scientific community.
Concepts explaining About Homoeopathic Potentization:
French biologist Jacques Benveniste proposed that water retains a “memory” of substances dissolved in it, which he believed accounted for the homeopathic effect. In 1988, he published a study in Nature supporting this theory, claiming that ultra-dilute solutions produced biological effects. The primary argument against water’s memory is the brief duration of hydrogen bonds between water molecules.
The Hahnemannian method involves diluting one part of a homeopathic potency with 99 parts of alcohol in a new flask, followed by succussion to create the next potency on the centesimal scale.
Hahnemann dilution (H, e.g..CH)- Multiple flask method of preparation
The Korsakovian method, which is simpler and faster, is often used for higher potencies of 200C and above, utilizing the same container for each dilution step.
Korsakovian dilutions (K, e.g., CK) – single flask method of preparation
Evolution Of Potentization:
From the inception of his true system of Western medicine in 1796 (Essay on a New Principle), Hahnemann introduced the idea of the “optimal dose,” which is the smallest effective dose just above the strength of the natural disease. Between 1796 and 1801, he did not significantly reduce dosages, prescribing 4 grains of veratrum album for colicodynia, 5 grains of Ipecac, and 4 grains of nux vomica. He frequently mentioned the use of moderate doses compared to the large, often toxic doses prevalent in his time. Concerned about the poisoning effects of these larger doses, Hahnemann sought to reduce quantities through alcohol dilution. Initially, he used large doses, a common practice at the time, but his observations revealed that they often caused unnecessary aggravation. In § 621 of his Lesser Writings (On the Nature and Treatment of Venereal Disease, 1786, p. 133), he noted that he sometimes needed only 1 grain of soluble mercury to treat moderate idiopathic venereal symptoms, compared to cases requiring up to 60 grains.
From 1798 to 1811, Hahnemann prescribed common doses, gradually reducing them to prevent the violent effects of remedies. By 1799, he began discussing dilutions, first hinted at in the translation of the second part of the Edinburgh Dispensatories (1798). He believed Boerhaave’s 2-grain recommendation for Silver Nitrate was too strong and advocated for a very diluted version. Similarly, in the “Apothecaries Lexicon,” he suggested administering “very small doses” of Sabina and Hyoscyamus, recommending minute amounts (0.000-0.002 grams) of concentrated juice. Hahnemann preferred Stramonium in quantities as small as one hundredth or thousandth of a grain of concentrated juice (Haehl, Vol. I, p. 312).
In 1800, he stated that arsenic was not a viable medicine for physicians who wouldn’t consider doses as small as one ten-millionth part (Haehl, Vol. I, p. 312).
In 1801, he detailed dilution and succussion in his treatise on scarlet fever (Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever), expressing incredulity that colleagues recommended opium in half-grain doses for infants, often attributing poisoning deaths to unrelated causes. Hahnemann emphasized that drops for internal use must be mixed with 1 to 4 tablespoons of fluid before administration (Lesser Writings, p. 375, footnote 3). He also provided precise instructions for a serial dilution for Belladonna, achieving a dilution of 1 in 24 million. The preparation process involved dissolving a grain of powder in distilled water and then creating several dilutions to produce a prophylactic remedy for scarlet fever, each drop containing a twenty-four millionth part of a grain of dry Belladonna juice (Lesser Writings, p. 380-381).
In 1801, Hahnemann defended his posology approach in Hufeland’s medical journal, highlighting crucial observations: dry doses are weaker than liquid doses; sick individuals require smaller doses to prevent unnecessary aggravations; and the more acute the disease, the smaller the required dose. He suggested descending doses for generally healthy individuals with localized issues and emphasized that the action of diluted doses is purely “dynamical.” He noted that any aggravation from a small dose of an improperly chosen remedy is typically short-lived and can be easily remedied (Lesser Writings, p. 387-389). In Medicine of Experience (1805), a precursor to the Organon of Medicine, he further elaborated on his discoveries, establishing the importance of selecting the correct remedy and using incredibly small doses for effective treatment.
From 1816 to 1822, Hahnemann used various dilutions from the Mother Tincture, sometimes exceeding 30C.
By around 1825, he began to view these preparations as “dynamizations” or “potentization” rather than mere dilutions, recognizing that friction played a significant role in enhancing the drug’s activity. In a note to Thuja in “Materia Medica Pura,” he stated that the medicinal power of crude substances increases with prolonged trituration or succussion, eventually dissolving into a pure medicinal spirit. This concept was further explored in his 1827 article, “How can Small Doses of such very Attenuated Medicine as Homeopathy employs still possess great power.”
By 1829, this idea was hinted at in the fourth edition of his work, and from 1829 to 1833, he primarily used the olfaction method, where patients sniffed a medicated 30C globule. In 1833, §269 of the fifth edition introduced the theory of dynamization through succession and trituration, emphasizing that dynamization extends beyond simple dilution, as stated in the preface to the 1838 fifth volume of “Chronic Diseases.”
In 1837, Hahnemann described dynamization as shaking the liquid before administering each dose, maintaining that while the potency remained constant, the degree of dynamization increased. He advocated for divided liquid doses with succussion of the stock bottle for each use, concluding that frequent repetition of the same potency could lead to resistance from the Living Power. The remedy’s effectiveness relies on its dynamization similarity to the disease, rather than merely symptom similarity. After curing a disease at a specific dynamization level, repeating the same dose was no longer homeopathic. While he initially advised against dose repetition to prevent adverse reactions, he later linked this to dynamization. By slightly altering the remedy’s dynamization through succussion and dilution, it became feasible to administer daily doses, even with minor pre-dosing shaking of the solution.
After The Invention of Psora Theory:
After inventing psora theory, Hahnemann established a standard dosage for all remedies at a globule of the 30th dilution, as recommended in his essay ‘On the Extreme Attenuation of Homoeopathic Medicine.’ Between 1837 and 1843, he found that frequent repetitions were problematic for sensitive and weak patients. Although he employed the olfactory method for these patients, it lacked the flexibility and precision of the liquid, divided dose. He realized that greater dilution was necessary with increased repetition, which led to the adoption of the 1/50,000 dilution instead of the 1/100 dilution, forming the Q or LM scale.
Post Hahnemannian Era:
Boenninghausen, a contemporary of Hahnemann, supported high potencies, highlighting their benefits in his writings. He noted that high potencies enhance their effectiveness in chronic conditions and offer quicker results in acute diseases, even when dietary precautions are overlooked.
In contrast, homeopaths like T. F. Allen, Richard Hughes, Clarke, and Boericke advocated for low potencies in most cases. Conversely, proponents of medium and high potencies included Boenninghausen, Hering, Lippe, Guernsey, Raue, Dunham, H. C. Allen, Kent, Boger, Nash, and Roberts.
Clarke suggested that for acute illnesses, lower dilutions (1C to 3C) are most applicable, while higher dilutions are necessary for chronic diseases.
Close emphasized that several factors influence dosage choice: greater characteristic symptoms of a drug necessitate higher potencies; children generally require medium to high potencies; sensitive individuals, those with intellectual occupations, or those frequently exposed to excitement or medication may also benefit from higher potencies. He noted that in terminal conditions, even crude drugs might be necessary. He further stated, “Different potencies act differently in different cases and individuals at various times and under different conditions. All may be needed; no single potency, high or low, can satisfy all cases consistently.”
Jahr clearly illustrated that the difference between low and high potencies lies not in their strength but in the expression of the remedy’s unique characteristics as potency increases. He observed that proving tinctures and low potencies generally yield common symptoms, while medium and higher potencies reveal finer, more distinctive symptoms of the drug. Jahr represented this concept with concentric circles, indicating remedies at various stages of potentiation.
Kent, an advocate of medium and high potencies, taught a generation on this approach. He stated, “When the similimum is found, the remedy will act curatively across various potencies. If the remedy is only partially similar, it will only be effective in one or two potencies before new symptoms emerge and another remedy is needed.”
Nash also supported the use of medium and high potencies, while Roberts advised that if symptoms are very similar, one could use higher potencies, but lower potencies are advisable when similarity is uncertain. Generally, medium or high potencies may pose risks when pathology is present.
General laws applied in posology (According to H.A.Robert):
Law of Dosage: The curative dose must match the quantity and quality of the morbific agent that caused the disease.
Law of Quantity and Dose: The required drug quantity is inversely proportional to its similarity to the disease.
Law of Quantity: The least amount of action necessary to induce change is minimal or infinitesimal.
Law of Quality: The quality of a homeopathic remedy’s action is inversely related to its quality.
Law of Use: The appropriate dose effectively permeates the organism and influences its vital force in the functional sphere of the individual.
Law of Repetition (for proving): Do not repeat the dose while symptoms persist from the initial dose.
Law of Repetition (for cure): Do not repeat the remedy as long as it continues to be effective.
Constantine Hering states: “If the symptoms resemble the primary effects of the drug more, use lower potencies; if they align more with secondary effects, use higher potencies.”
Carrol Dunham, in his Science of Therapeutics, notes that the debate over infinitesimal doses has caused significant rifts in both traditional and homeopathic circles. He supports the infinitesimal dose viewpoint, asserting that there are many cases in chronic disease where large doses have been effective.
Compared With Modern Concept:
The 20th century marked a revolutionary shift in our understanding of the universe with the advent of relativity and quantum theories. These groundbreaking discoveries dismantled the classical Newtonian concept of solid substances. Quantum theory introduced the concept of light quanta, now known as photons, which are recognized as fundamental particles. At the subatomic level, classical solid objects dissolve into wave-like patterns, representing probabilities of interconnections.
Conclusion:
Dr. Samuel Hahnemann’s tombstone bears the inscription “Non inutilis vixi,” which translates to “I have not lived in vain.” The discovery of quantum theory and the recognition of the interconnectedness of the dynamic universe, including the role of nanoparticles, have led modern physics to conclusions strikingly similar to those Hahnemann reached over 200 years ago. These insights affirm that efficient therapeutic aid in homeopathy is achievable through the use of nanoparticle-laden homeopathic medicines.
References:
1.Hahnemann’s; Organon of Medicine; translated from the 5th edition, with an appendix by R.E Dudgeon, with additions and alterations as per 6th edition translated by William Boericke, and introduction by James Krauss; B.Jain Publisher’s (P) Ltd; New Delhi; 2000.
2. Decker Steven & Verspoor Rudi : The Dynamic Legacy: Hahnemann From Homeopathy to Heilkunst. An On-going Study of the Meaning in the Writings of Samuel Hahnemann within the Context of the Dynamic System of Thought. Chapter 11 – Historical Development of Dose and Potency.
3 .Dudgeon R.E.; the Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann; B Jain Publishers (P) Ltd. New Delhi; Reprint Edition: 2004, 2006; ISBN 81-7021-124-7; book code b-2268
4. Hahnemann S; Materia Medica Pura; B. Jain Publishers ( P) Ltd. ISBN: 81-8056-030-9; BOOK CODE : BS- 5639
5. .Hahnemann S; Chronic Diseases Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homoeopathic Cure, translated from the second Enlarged German Edition of 1835, by Louis H. Tafel; New Central Book Agency, Kolkata. 6. Hahnemann’s; Organon of Medicine; translated from the 5th edition, with an appendix by R.E Dudgeon, with additions and alterations as per 6th edition translated by William Boericke, and introduction by James Krauss; B.Jain Publisher’s (P) Ltd; New Delhi; 2000.
7. Close .S ; The Genius of Homoeopathy, Lectures and Essays on Homoeopathic Philosophy ; B. Jain Publisher’s (P) Ltd., New Delhi: ISBN ; 81-7021-108-5; Book Code :BC-9010
8. Kent J.T – Lectures on Homoeopathioc Philosophy. Indian Edition; To be had of SETT DEY & CO. 1967
9. Nash. E.B; Leaders in Homoeopathic Therapeutics With Grouping and Classification: B. Jain Publishers Pvt. LTD. ISBN: 81-8056-599-8. Book code :BN- 9020
10 ..Roberts H. A: The principles and art of cure by homoeopathy; B.Jain ,Pvt. Ltd.ISBN 81-7021-028-3 ; Book code B-2444.
11. Hering C. Guiding Symptoms of Our Materia Medica
12. Dunham C . The science of therapeutics.The principles of homoeopathy.B.Jain Publishers Ltd.; Reprint edition; ISBN:978-81-319-0242-4
