Homoeopathy And Science Of Dosage

This question of dose has been a puzzle to the non-homoeopath ever since Hahnemann gave out his maxim to the world ., it has also furnished opportunity to our opponents for both scientific and unscientific attacks upon our devoted heads . Amongst homoeopaths too this question of the size of the dose has been the cause of inveterate and even bitter discussion . None has however succeeded in coming to a final issue on the subject and so settle the question for good .Although all homoeopaths perfectly agree as to the fundamental doctrine of homoeopathy , yet this subject of dosage has given rise to a division in disagreement amongst themselves as regards the general efficacy of their respective doses not deny the curative power of the high dilutions He condemns them from the stand point of utilitarianism and considers their preparations as much useless waste .the question of dose is strictly a practical one and can only be settled by thousands of experiments on the bed side . In the beginning of his experiments , Hahnemann used the medicines in their ordinary material doses . But the soon found out that when prescribed in accordance of with the law of similarity , they would aggravate the existing symptoms and also give rise to new ones , besides those of the disease ; so he went on reducing his doses and found to his surprise that a quantitative diminution of the dose would not necessarily involve a corresponding diminution of its curative power . At last he fixed upon the 30th dilution as the only normal dose , sufficiently strong for all curative purposes , but too weak to give rise to medicinal aggravation .
We can very well conceive that a homoeopathically –acting medicine must be administered in a smaller dose than is sufficient to produce its pathogenic action .But now small that dose must be , must depend upon certain modifying circumstances , which will be mentioned here after . We can not accept the 30th as the only normal dose although we find a few immortal names who followed Hahnemann exactly in this matter , such as , Jahr,Lutze, Herring, &c .The regulation of the proper dose of a Homoeopathic medicine can never be be effected in accordance with any universal rule . As in treating a case of any disease , we go on in the plan to strict individualization , so in this matter of dose too individualization is only way of procedures . of the modifying influence the first is the temperament of the patient as well as his individual susceptibility to the action of drugs . Trinks says that the melancholie , sanguine and choleric temperaments display the greatest susceptibility . Experience has more over , shown that children , nervous and irritable natures , and men who live as nearly as possible to the standard of nature of the pathological process as well as that of the drug also require strict differentiation . There are some diseases , but when the nervous system is the seat of the disease , the dose must comparatively be reduced . As regards the individual peculiarity of drugs we know that a gain of arsenic acts much more energetically than a grain of nitre and adrop of nuxvomica and a drop of chamomilla , so that taking into consideration on these modifying influences it is next to impossible to fix upon any standard dose . It must always vary with the varying nature of the modifying influences .
We have said that this question of dose has divided the homoeopathy into what is called the high and low dilutions . The former considers the dilutions above the 3rd as perfectly useless and confine themselves in all cases with in that number . They admit that in some cases the high dilutions from the qwth upwards may be required for particular cases , but that the lowest (1,2,and 3) are generally sufficient for all curative purposes . The high dilutions on the contrary , urge that the real cure of a disease i.e., rapid , safe and permanent cure can be better obtained by means of high and highest ( from the 30th upwards) dilutions , for our selves we must say that we are not bound to any particular class , but this much we can safely aver that the more experience a man gains in his practice ,his predilection for the high dilutions grow stronger . We have now been now practicing homoeopathy for the last twelve years , and we must confess that our own tendency for the high dilutions grow stronger But we do not say that we have have never seen as good cure from the lowest dilutions as from the highest . In fact , with our growing practice , we are becoming convinced day by day that we can not safely dispense with any .We must try to harmonize both and bring about a reconciliation of the two classes . In a case of low remittent fever in an old man after giving trial to the higher dilutions in vain , we had to go to the very 1X decimal of arsenic lab . We had lost every hope of the patient’s recovery in the morning , and we were simply surprised to find him better after a doses of the medicine . When the case went on worse in spite of our treatment Dr.Salzer was called in consultation and he suggested arsenic album .When he heard that the patient had been taking the very same thing and that all the dilutions from the 12th to the 200 were tried in vain , he shrugged his shoulders and told us to do any thing we liked , as the case was utterly hopeless one .we were very much concerned in the patient’s recovery , so could not take the prognosis as coolly as it was given .Dr.Salzer was going to give the 30th potency against just for the sake of giving something , when we suggested that that 1X as the one which Dr.Huges recommends with great stress in such cases . He again shrugged his shoulders and said very good ,”you can give a trial if you like “there was no supply of 1X in our box , but had a drop dose every hour . In the evening we found the patient better , disease and in old man too . he had all the symptoms of arsenic album and the family physician had given had given at first the 6 and then the 12th dilution . Both these dilutions brought on aggravation and also gave rise to severe retching retching and vomiting . We gave the 200th morning and evening , he made a very good recovery after a few doses . We can adduce several other instances from our practice to illustrate our view .
Of course , it is very difficult to devise any rule as to where the high dilutions should be given and where the low . The present practice of giving low dilutions should be given and where the low . The present practice of giving low dilution in acute cases and high dilution in chronic cases , is no doubt generally correct . It has at least one redeeming feature to recommend it for our acceptance . Chronic cases do not require large or repeated doses of any medicine , so this rule to prescribe high dilutions for chronic cases saves the patient from the evils of over indication . The effect of this lower dilutions is not persistent , though their action is both speedy and intense . The higher dilution take a longer time in producing any action , though when once produced , the action lasts longer .In the second case above alluded too , when reaction took place it was something dreadful . when I got the patient he was cold as a snake , after only six doses he became literally hot as an oven ; he actually said he felt awfully hot and wanted all sorts of cooling beverages . It took some days to moderate his temperature to the normal point .
We have said it is very difficult to devise rules for the selection of high and low dilutions . we must look to the reported cases of experienced physicians to come to any definite conclusion . Dr, Sharp gives us a very useful fact which future practitioners may take advantage of to settle the question of dose .He says that all our medicines affect in different doses different organs of our body . Well this fact might after all afford us a clue to this solution . What he speaks of the dose from the physiological dose from the physiological side Dr.Madden argues the question from the stand point of pathology . He has noticed that when one medicine is suitable to a number of diseases , it can never cure all of them with one uniform dose , which must be different in different cases . We must however wait for further corroboration , because the guidance that we can present collect is contradictory . For example Dr. Bayes and Dr.Madden have both asserted that the 12th dilution of chamomilla is that best adapted to meet those cases of reflex irritability of the gastric and intestinal mucus membranes in childhood for which it is indicated . on the other hand Dr.Hirsh recommends a weak infusion of the flowers in such cases . Again Dr.Bayes regards the 18th solution of bryonia as that which is most useful in acute rheumatism ; while Dr. Yeldham thinks that one , two, or three drop doses of the pure tincture none too much ; and Dr. Black and others tell us that the 1st , 2nd ,3rd decimal are far more useful than a higher dilution
From the above statements it will be seen that we can not fix upon any one dilution as the only normal dose of a medicine . the dose must vary with the varying nature of the of the modifying influences . The practitioner must exert his own judgement on the bed side of his patient to select the suitable dose . Even the rule to prescribe low dilutions in acute cases and high in chronic , is not strictly correct , though for ordinary purposes is safe enough .
Dr.Hale gives us a very ingenious rule to settle the question of dilution . He says that when the symptoms of the disease correspond to the primary action of a drug , a higher dilution will be required and vice versa .there are others again who condemns this practice as contrary to the spirit of the law of similarity . They say that the spirit of homoeopathy enjoins upon us to prescribe the lower lower dilutions to combat the primary symptoms , and a higher dilutions when the symptoms of the case correspond to the secondary action of the of the medicine , that is in a case of fever with the primary symptoms of the of aconite , the lowest dilution should be given i.e., from 1st to the 6 . But professor Hale would give the 30th as that possessing the opposite symptoms of the disease . this fact again leads us to the question of primary and secondary action . Later writers , however , tell us that tell us that the secondary action of the small dose . They do not believe that a small dose would necessarily produce the primary action at first and then as rise to the secondary symptoms at once and without the intervention of the primary action . For our part , we do not believe that a secondary action is at all possible unless there is primary action at first
Both in the ranks of the of the low and high dilutionists we read the names of the great men . the latter generally are strict followers of Hahnemann , but the former although they agree as to the fundamental principles of homoeopathy , reject many of his theories as mere vague speculation . they generally do not believe in the theory of dynamization . For our part we certainly believe that a crude drug can never act with the same promptness .as the one that is dynamized . from the recent experiments of professor Crookes (and we don’t seeany reason for our unbelief ) we can not help believing that dynamization does develop the latent medicinal virtue of a drug . silicea in its crude state is certainly inert but who can deny that prepared according to Hahnemann’s directions it shows marvelous curative properties ? so if an inert substance may be converted into a medicine by the process of dynamization , what certainly could there be in believing that the same process would improve the curative power of an ordinary crude drug ?
Hahnemann really believed that in disease the spiritual part of the man is the principal seat of disorder .and the medicine requisite to effect a cure must be rid of its gross material character the process of dynamization is simply necessary to change this gross nature of this drug If we can not take this view of the thing , we don’t think even then we can dispense with the theory of dynamization
Taking for granted that the body is the seat of the disease , does not our physiology reach us that the ultimate cells are the real seats of disease ? If this be so , why should then a material dose be necessary to produce any effect upon these inconceivably minute bodies ? In fact , we are thoroughly convinced that when a medicine is prescribed in material doses it is absorbed into the blood , and there undergoes the same change which our process of potentising gives to our dilution .
Many of our opponents , both professional and unprofessional , describe our cures to the imagination of the patients , but now they reconcile their theory when children and the lower animals are benefited by our treatment we really do not know . This theory will not at least hold water here . Some other very difficult to convince those who are determined to find fault with our system .The best proof of efficacy of our dilution is derived from the actual use of our preperation . Hahnemann truly said “ use as I have used them , and you will be convinced “
But even on theoretical grounds it is not difficult to prove the curative power of our medicines . Every one knows how small a quantity of pus from a vaccine pustule is necessary to give protection to our system from attacks of small pox .What amount of virus resides in that quantity of pus has not been detected even by the highest power of the microscope .Then again all around us we see the ravages of malaria , but no one has ever seen or felt what this substance is ? Pareira cites the case of a man who would be overpowered by the effects of ipecacunha simply by approaching a place where this drug was being dispersed . This no doubt was a peculiarity . But when we say that our medicines act only under peculiar conditions ., our enemies would stare at us .
The following are the rules to be observed in prescribing in accordance with the law of similarity :-
1st –we have said that a medicine chosen in accordance with the law of similarity is calculated . If administered in ordinary material doses to aggravate the existing systems of the disease , or in other words , produce to aggravate the existing systems of the disease , or in other words , produce what is called homoeopathic aggravation
2nd – The limit up to which the dose of a remedy prescribed in accordance with the law of similarity , can be diminished , with out being divested of its curative power has not yet been fixed up to this time
Hahnemann decided in favor of the 30th potency as the only normal dose in all cases . Later practitioners have , however unanimously found fault with this and consider a standard dose as an impossibility . The practical trial being alone capable of deciding , every one should satisfy himself by actual , experiments whether high or low potencies preferable this is the only way of arriving at a final and conclusive result . Our own experience leads us to believe the 12th and the 30th to the best dilutions , but cases do occur now and then when we are required to go either lower or still higher .
3rd – The lower potencies show a more rapid , momentarily more intense has less persistent effect that the higher , which develop their effects more slowly and gradually persistently . 4th – the more homoeopathic the remedy is to the disease , the more surely we expect curative result.
5th –In determining the dose , the peculiar nature of the drug demands especial consideration
6th – The peculiar nature of the patient must be taken into consideration before prescribing .