The Hahnemannian Gleanings Volume LIII NO.12

THE HAHNEMANNIAN GLEANINGS (THE 1 HAHNEMANNIAN LEANINGS THE HAHNEMANNIAN GLEANINGS | SR Eprtor : Dr. K. P. MUZUMDAR, B.SC., D.M.S., M.B.S. (HOM,) Vol. LIM No. 12 December 1986uuauunnuauuneuneunUORENUREEDERERLEUTEMA MIELE TENA A Aun ane e nny Ain, Dr. W. KARO, M.D. Selected Help In Children's Diseases, 7th ed... Rs 5.50 Selected Help in Diseases of the Respiratory System, Chest etc., 4th ed. “ . Rs. 4.00 Diseases of the Male Genital Organs, 6thed. .. Rs. 7.50 Homocopathy in Women's Diseases, Tthed. .. Rs. 6,50 Rheumatism, 5th ed. we .. Rs. 4,50 Urinary and Prostatic Troubles, 5th ed. .. Rs. 5,00 PUBLISHERS: HAIINEMANN PUBLISHING CO. PRIVATE LTD. 165, Bipin Behary Ganguly Street, Calcutta 700012 perereeereerereerercnerrernctrrennnrenTeCICR UCC STUDIES IN ORGANON Dr. L. Gomes, Ma. 8.7, DMS. For success in practice of Homoeopathy understanding of the Organon is necessary. For fuller grasp of the subject particularly by students, this book has been written by a teacher of the Organon in question and answer form. 2nd Edition, 110 pages. Price Rs, 7.50 Publishers: HAHNEMANN PUBLISHING CO. PRIVATE LTD. 165 Bipin Bebary Ganguly Street, Calcutta 700012 3 vans SSYONON enya NUN UN UT UUN NLU UUUEEEEEERELEELURU UREN EU EDE DEEP ETIV ETTVa ee nny The Hahnemannian Gleanings Owned and Published by HAHNEMANN PUBLISHING CO. PRIVATE LTD. 165, Bipin Behary Ganguly Street, Calcutta-700 012 Subscription: Single year Rs. 35.00, Foreign Rs. 58.00 Two years Rs. 65.00, Foreign Rs. 110.00 Single Copy Rs. 3.50 All communications relating to the Editorial Dept., Books for Review, Journals for Exchange etc., and all Business Communica- tions including request for Change of Address, which requires three weeks’ time to be effective, and Remittances should be sent direct to the publishers : HAHNEMANN PUBLISHING CO. PRIVATE LTD. 165, Bipin Behary Ganguly Street, Calcutta-700 012 TABLE OF CONTENTS DECEMBER 1986 Editorial—Dr. K. P. Muzumdar, BSC.,D.MS.,MBS —.. + Ot How Important are the Mentals?—Dr. Bernard Leary, M.B., B.S., M.R.C.G.P., DTM. and H.M.F. Hom + 293 Polypharmacy, A Great Fallacy in Homoeopathy —Drs. Mohinder Singh and Bhupendar Singh. +. 296 On the Paradox of Microdoses—Dr. J. Mukherjee, Msc.,D.M.s. 9... 311 Experience with Lesser Known Drugs—Dr. Anil R. Bhatia,o.Ms. .. 326 Examples on Sankaran’s Cards—Dr. A. Khaleque = + 330 Magnet Therapy in Retinitis Pigmentosa—Dr. A.N. Ramanathan .. 336 Does Allopathic Medicine Cure?—Dr. C, V. $. Corea 337 A Beginner's Fix—Dr. C. K. Bhattacharyya 339 Pharmacognostic Studies of Hydrocotyle Asiatica Linn —P.N. Varma, (Mrs.) J. Raj, Vikramaditya : MI Query and Reply o 348 Letter to the Editor ” M9 Book Reviews ” + 350 Published by Gauri Sankar Bhar from Hahnemann Publishing Co. Private Ltd., 165, Bipin B. Ganguly Street, Calcutta-700012 and Printed by him at the Eastend Printers, 3, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Calcutta-700 014.== PR YOU HAVE READ HIM AND NOW YOU CAN HEAR HIM DR. RAMANLAL P. PATEL, D.MSS. (Cal); D.F.Hom. (London), L.M. Dublin; etc. Offers cassette tapes of his recent lectures on Homoeopathy delivered to doctors and students of Homoeopathy in West Germany, U.S.A., and Australia. Hear and enjoy 35 years of experiences in Homoeopathy in 26 lectures on 20 cassettes. It is an audiovisual presentation. Price for each Cassette 25/- (Indian Cassette) Rs. 45/- (Foreign Cassette) Handbook with Charts : Rs. 15/- Price for Complete Set : Rs. 400/- (Indian Cassette) Including Handbook with Charts Rs. 800/- (Foreign Cassette) Postage and Packing charges extra. Write for the list of lectures on cassette tapes to: Sole Distributors: HAHNEMANN HOMOEOPATHIC PHARMACY, Hahnemann House, College Road, Kottayam 686 001, India EYERIT:: It has long been used in the treatment of lachrymal fistula, chronic conjunctivitis and corneal opacity of the eye. Price per 10m! phial Rs. 5.00. GASTRO; Acidity, heartbum and flatulence can be cured almost at once. It is very useful in gastric troubles also. Price per 60ml phial Rs. 4.00. MARGOSOL: Causes of skin diseases are removed within 24 hours. Scabies, Ringworm, Itches, Prickly heat etc. start disappearing like magic from the very first day of application of Margosol. Price Re. 0.40 paise per packet & doz. Rs. 4.30. Manufactured by: Joy Herbal House, Calcutta-58 AVAILABLE AT HAHNEMANN PUBLISHING CO. PRIVATE LTD,Se DEFECTIVE ILLNESSES Dr. Pierre Schmidt i Defective illnesses or the illnesses which do not manifest themselves completely are really difficult obstacles to cure. The physician is to depend on the syndrome of the patient to make an? effective prescription, and if it is incomplete, he cannot make a definite prescription. In this booklet Dr. Pierre Schmidt of Geneva has narrated 3 various types of defective illnesses and the ways to tackle them. Added to this is the therapeutics of defective illnesses which will Prove to be of immense help to the practitioners. ! Pages 73. Price Rs. 6.50. Publishers : HAHNEMANN PUBLISHING CO. PRIVATE LTD. 165 Bipin Behary Ganguly Street, Calcutta 700012 POCCaaaaaaaan Yt SUNDAR AN ANTISEPTIC AND UNPARALLELED BEAUTY CREAM _ seaury aip For ALL SEASONS (21g) Retail Price Rs. 5.50 Dr. Das’s TONIC FOR THE BRAIN AND MEMORY SUBITON Retail Price Rs. 9/- (50ml) Available at: Sundar Homoeo Sadan 113 NeTast SuBHAS ROAD, CaLcuTra 1 And HAHNEMANN PUBLISHING CO. PRIVATE LTD. 165 B. B. GANGULY STREET, CaLcuTTa 12 VP Co.)oe HOMOEOPATHIC THERAPEUTICS OF DIARRHGA DR. JAMES B. BELL, .D. An authoritative work giving materia medica of the medicines required in the treatment of Diarrhoea, Dysentery, Cholera ete, with an exhaustive repertory. Second edition, 315 Pages. Price Rs. 14.50. Publishers: HAHNEMANN PUBLISHING CO. PRIVATE LTD. 165 Bipin Behary Ganguly Street, Calcutta 700012 THE BOWEL NOSODES Dr. John Paterson Bowel Nosodes are of comparative recent addition to the already existing armaments of nosodes in the hands of homoeopaths. In this small booklet Dr. Paterson has presented a clinical Picture of each type of bowel organism, viz. B. Morgan, B. Proteus, Bacillus No. 7, Gaertner, B. Dysenteriae, Sycotic co. B. Mutabile & B. Faccalis based on his clinical observation of the sick persons. 23 pages. Price Rs. 3.50, Published by HAHNEMANN PUBLISHING CO. PRIVATE LTD. 165, Bipin Behary Ganguly Street, Calcutta-700 012 a3 i runnuuunununeann See nn ACCLAIMED AS THE BEST & MOST USEFUL INVENTION FOR HOMOEOPATHY PATENTED AUTOVISUAL HOMOEOPATHIC REPERTORY By Dr. R. P. Patel An apparatus of multiple use. At one operation you know the medicine and the miasms. It outdates Card Repertories. (Com- bined set.) Price Rs. 3500/-, postage and packing extra. Orders are supplied on priority basis. Literature available. N.B.: Books by different authors are available. India COO TAUTOPATHIC DRUGS Ask for the list to: HAHNEMANN HOMOEOPATHIC PHARMACY HAHNEMANN HOUSE, COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, S. INDIA Books by Dr. R. P. Patel - Tautopathy (Sth edition)—Rs. 10/- . My Experiments with 50 Millesimal Potencies (Sth edition)—Rs. 20/- The Art of Case Taking and Practical Repertorisation (4th edn.) —Rs. 50/- 1 2. 3. 4. A Treatise on Homoeopathic Surgery (3rd edition)—Rs. 10/- 5. Analysis and Evaluation of Symptoms (3rd edition}—Rs. 4/- 6. Homoeopathy, Its Principles and Doctrines (2nd edition)—Ra. 5/- 7. Research Report on 50 Millesimal Scale potencies—in press 8. Lipoid Flocculation (Colloidal) Test (2nd edition)—Rs. 4/- 9. Some of the Causes of Failures in Homoeopathic Practice (2nd ed.) Rs. 3/- 10. Word Index to Kent's Repertory (3rd edition)—Rs. 80/-, Export ed. USA. $ 10/- 11. Autovisual Homoeopathic Repertory (Combined =n) pa. 3500/- 12, Autovisual Miasmatic Repertory . 13. Luffa operculata in Br. Asthma—Rs. 3/- 14, Case-taking form with Easy Repertorisation (17th edition)—Rs. 2.00 15. Repertory Charts (Sheets)—Re. 1.00 16. Alternating Symptoms in Homoeopathy—Rs. 5/- Rein) Cv) SAI HOMOEOPATHIC BOOK CORPORATION Hahnemann House, College Road, Kottayam 686 001 6 iLATEST FROM I. B.P.S. Rs. . BARTHEL/KLUNKER — Synturic Repertory IN 3 vots P. Set, 500.00 Vou I MENTAL Symptoms; Vor II GrneraL SYMPTOMS; Vou III Stunprna & SexUAL SYMPTOMS COULTER, H. L. : Homonoratiic Screncn & Mopern Mepicine (THE Prysic or HEALING wrth MicRoDoses) 30.00 . WHITMONT, E. C. : Psycrn & SunstaNce—Essays ON HoMOEOPATHY IN LIGHT OF JUNGIAN PsYCHOLOGY 30.00 |. PHATAK, S. R. : MATERIA MepIca or Homororatuic Mepicine 60.00 . DUTT, M,C. : Some ASPECTS OF THE TREATMENTS OF THE ‘ScouRGE OF THE CANCER 14.00 » POWELL, F. W. : BiocHemic PRESCRIBER 6.00 |. POWELL, F. W. : BiocHEMISTRY UP-TO-DATE 9.00 . SANKARAN, R. : THE MIND (MENTAL SYMPTOMS IN HoMOEOPATHY) 8.00 ). SHEPHERED, D. : HomozopaTay For First AIDER 9.00 For your requirement of all kinds of Homoeopathic books please contact: INDIAN BOOKS & PERIODICALS SYNDICATE B-5/62 Devnagar, Pyarcylal Road Karol Bagh, P.O. Box 2524, New Delhi-110 005 DRUGS OF HINDOOSTHAN by Dr. S. C. GHOSE, M.D., M.RS.L. (London) A masterpiece on vegetable drugs of India written by a master- hand and an original prover of international reputation. 9th edition, pages 342. Price Rs. 23.00 Publishers: HAHNEMANN PUBLISHING CO. PRIVATE LTD. 165 Bipin Behary Ganguly Street, Culcutta-700 012THE HAHNEMANNIAN GLEANINGS Vol. LI DECEMBER 1986 "No. 12 EDITORIAL PROPHYLAXIS AND HOMOEOPATHY t From a very early period of its history many workers in the field of medicine occupied themselves in search of absolute preventive medicine against disease. One of the most successful and noted of them was Jenner (1798) who introduced vaccination as prophylactic against smallpox. The suggestion of Dr. Mason Gord for prevention of hydrophobia is well known. He observed that the dogs which suffered from distemper did not become rabid. So, he Proposed that a person bitten by a rabid dog should be inoculated with the morbid discharge from the nose of a dog suffering from distemper. There has, however, not been much headway in the so-called modern medicine in respect of prophylactic treatment except by way of vaccination and inoculation. The search for a medicinal prophylactic is almost exclusively limited to Homoeopathy. The reason is that the principles of homoeopathic therapeutics embrace the science of analogy and the rules that guide a homoeopath in the selection of a remedy also lead him to discover a prophylactic. Hahnemann was the fist to discover the prophylactic property of a homoeopathic medicine. The efficacy and prophylactic virtue of Belladonna in scarlet fever are well known. It may be argued that it bears resemblance to the protective power of vaccinia of Jenner against smallpox. But Hahnemann used a posteriori reasoning deduced from the observed facts in the use of Belladonna while Jenner used a priori reasoning in the use of vaccinia. Many workers contemporary to Hahnemann like Bock, Kramer, Hufeland, Wolf and others experimented with the discovery of Hahnemann and were fully satisfied with the results. The only other disease for which Hahnemann attempted to find out a prophylactic was Asiatic cholera, During the epidemic of Asiatic cholera in Europe he first recommended Cuprum met. 30 once a week. Later he advised Cuprum met. and Veratrum alb. alternately Hering (1830) suggested that the prevention of diseases might be found in their own morbid products. However, he did not put his idea to the test of experiments.292 Tu, Hanwemtannian GLEANINGS [December The subject of prophylaxis has not yet been sufficiently developed. If pre. ventives on homocopathic principles can be discovered for scarlatina and cholera, medicinal preventives for other diseases seem to be feasible on the same principles. ; . | Many authorities have suggested preventive medicines for certain condi. tions based upon their personal experiences; but they have not been proved by controlled studies or statistics. Many homoeopaths follow the authorities with seeming success. Allan Sutherland also says that the efficacy of the sug gested preventive medicines may be accepted even if they were not proved. We, however, feel that controlled studies of preventive medicines should be conducted so that they can be used effectively and widely. Our government is spending crores of rupees for vaccines, yet they are in short supply. Homoeo- pathic prophylactics are sure to be cheaper than the vaccines. Why not the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy explore the possibilities and conduct trials? It will be worth trying. The views and opinions expressed by the authors of articles published in this journal are not necessarily those of the editor and publishers. PUBLISHERS’ NOTICE We regret to announce that this is the last issue of THE HAHNEMANNIAN GLEANINGS to be presented to the readers. After publication for a fairly long period of fifty-three years, the journal has to be closed down for want of a regular flow of well-written, informative articles. The articles received were not only of a poor standard but the content was often obscured by the contributors’ failure to express themselves in lucid, grammatical language. But it was not just the contributors’ manner of expression that prompted us to take such a decision; it was actually the lack of interesting and informative articles. For these reasons the journal was getting thinner from month to month and could not be published on the first day of the month as before, which our readers must have been noticing. The decision to close down was, therefore, inevitable. HAHNEMANN PUBLISHING CO. PRIVATE LTD.HOW IMPORTANT ARE THE MENTALS? Dr. BERNARD LEARY, M.B., B.S., M.R.C.G.P., D.T.M. & H. M.P. Hom. The foreword to Kent's Repertory contains the statement: “Kent (closely following Hahnemann in this as in all things) is most definite as to the symptoms of first grade; the symptoms of first importance to the case, as expressing most absolutely the patient. There are the mental symptoms.” This book has now become so accepted that it is commonly referred to as ‘The Repertory’, as if there were no others, The idea of the primacy of the mental symptoms is therefore impressed upon students. But to what extent is it true? Can it really be said that Kent follows Hahnemann when the latter, although he talks about the spirit and the mind, instructs us to seek “the more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms; for it is more particularly these that very similar ones in the list of symptoms of the selected medicine must correspond to.”* In this it is the peculiarity of the symptom rather than the bodily system upon which the emphasis is placed. The origin of Kent’s view seems to lie not with Hahnemann but with Sweden- borg, although he obviously believed he was following the Master. “Sickness can be learned by study of provings of drugs upon the healthy economy. Hahnemann made usc of the information thus obtained when he stated that the mind is key to Man.””? Furthermore he seems to have thought that his was the general view. “The symptoms of the mind have been found by all his (Hahnemann’s) followers to be the most important symptoms in a remedy and in a sickness.” It is difficult to find much evidence to support this latter statement, Hughes and Dudgeon do not appear to have had such views. Even Hering makes no mention of this sort of idea. Instead he says: “In all chronic and lingering cases, the symptoms appearing last, even though they may appear insignificant, are always the most important in regard to the selection of the drug. The oldest are of least importance. All symptoms in between have to be arranged according to the order of their appearance.”* This is a view we totally neglect. Von Boenninghausen does state that “the personality, the individuality of the patient, must stand at the image of the disease, for the natural disposition rests on it.® But he then goes on to say that “the spiritual and dispositional individuality of the patient here gives the most important, often the only deciding factor for the selection of the remedy where the disease involved is ‘one of the mind or spirit.” This is of course logical but it is a long way from the ideas of Kent. For Kent the whole picture is much more mystical. “The will and understanding constitute Man; conjoined they make life and activity. With the will and understanding operating in order we have a healthy man. Tissue changes are of the body and are the results of disease. They are not the disease.’* It is 2294 Tue, HanxemanntAn GLEANNGS [December obvious that with such an attitude mental symptoms would be of prime impor. tance. Where the complaint is of a psychological nature, whether of anxiety, depression or dementia, the mind is the first consideration. But with physica] complaints how often do real mental symptoms occur? Of course there is the injured patient who is scared and requires Aconite, or the teething child with bad temper needing Chamomilla. But all too often there is a complete lack of psychological symptoms. Is this necessarily a bad thing? If a cold restless patient has diarrhoea, must he be anxious before he is given Arsenicum? In fact many prescriptions are not made because of symptoms but because of temperament. That cold restless patient tends to be given his Arsenicum because he is tidy and is anxious; but since he is always tidy and always anxious these cannot be regarded as symptoms of his disease. Kent himself warns that “The physician should above all things be able to distinguish in each case what is morbid and what is natural . . . It is a bad habit to associate remedies with certain kinds of people, except it be upon conditions that are morbid.” But the idea of the constitutional remedy has taken hold so that the poly- chrests in particular are prescribed for individual temperaments. Indeed it is quite common to see instructions to treat a condition with regular doses of a pathological remedy plus, every month or two, the constitutional remedy. Kent, despite the advice given above, makes the extraordinary statement: “Whenever you examine a case with a view to determining the constitutional remedy, do not confine yourself to the similimum alone, i.e. the remedy which bears the maximum qualitative similarity to the symptoms.”* This may be effective therapeutics, but in no way can it be called Homoco- pathy. Yet it is not at all unusual to hear the statement: “I made a pathological prescription” (i.e. the one that corresponded with the symptoms ascertained) “while I searched for the constitutional remedy” (i.e. while I searched for those so important but apparently non-existent mental symptoms). There is no doubt that the mind can have extraordinary effects upon the body. Biofeedback can slow the pulse. Hypnotism can abolish pain. The mental training methods allegedly in use in Eastern Europe for the development of their athletes appear to produce remarkable results. Evidence seems to be accumulating of the effect of mental conditioning upon malignant disease. But Homoeopathy is a method of matching a set of symptoms in every system of the body with a drug picture. It is not merely a method of influencing the mind. If it were it would simply be the placebo our enemies believe it to be. There is no doubt that patients given a pathological remedy plus their constitutional remedy often do well. But this may not be because of the need for a constitutional remedy but because only in this way do we meet the need to match all the symptoms. It is a recognized defect of Kent’s Repertory that all too often the result of a repertorization is a polychrest. Thus, although i thousands of remedies, we use perhaps a hundred. If we know the materi ee | as Hahnemann did, it is at least possible that we would be i wel ss Meare a single remedy to match almost every case. al1986] How Important ARE THE MENTALS 295 Mental symptoms often assume importance because they are particularly noticed by the patient and his family, but there seems no other reason why they should be given special priority, For what we unfortunately do not know is how efficient different methods of prescription are. If the patient with diarrhoea, mentioned before, is cold, restless and anxious, he will almost certainly benefit from Arsenicum because he is receiving the similimum. If he has only three of these symptoms he will still probably improve because he gets something every near to the similimum, But if a remedy is prescribed, solely, because the patient is that ‘type’, have we any real evidence that cure is any more likely than if the ‘pathological’ remedy suggested by his available symptoms were given alone instead of concurrently ? The ideas of Kent would not have succeeded in effecting an almost complete takeover of Homoeopathy if they had not offered results. But it must be realized that they are his ideas and differ from those of the other great homoeopaths, including Hahnemann. They are not fixed laws, as he suggests, but nineteenth-century theories that one would expect to need modification by the 1980s. For the newcomer Homoeopathy is difficult. Many would say that it always remains so. But it should not be made more difficult by the all too common implication that the prescriber has failed if he does not bring forth a host of mental symptoms leading to a constitutional remedy from a well balanced patient. He should be encouraged to concentrate on finding the similimum from those symptoms that are forthcoming. Kentian principles might then be put forward as a means of increasing efficiency to be studied and considered when confidence has been established. REFERENCES 1. Kent, J. T.: Repertory of the Homoeopathic Materia Medica, p. ix. Calcutta: Hahnemann Publishing Co. (1973). Hahnemann, S.: Organon, translated Boericke, p. 205. Calcutta: Roy (1972). Kent, J. T.: Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy, p. 17. New Delhi: Jain (1977). Hering, C.: Analytical Repertory of the Symptoms of the Mind, p. 24. New Delhi: Jain (1981). | Bradford, T. L.: The Lesser Writings of CMF von Boenninghausen, p. 108. New Delhi (1979). Kent, J. T.: Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy, p. 14. |. Kent, J. T.: Temperaments. Medical Advance, reprinted Homoeopathic Heritage (1980): 5: 254, Kent, J. T.: Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica, p. 13. Calcutta: Roy (1975). Naveen —The British Homoeopathic Journal, July 1986POLYPHARMACY, A GREAT FALLACY IN HOMOEOPATHY Drs. MonINDER SINGH and BHUPENDAR SINGH, Ludhiana Before taking up the topic for discussion, let us illustrate the meanings of polypharmacy and polyprescription. According to the Webster's dictionary polypharmacy means (1) The practice of using an excessive number of ingredients in a prescription, (2) use of many medicines at the same time. According to Steadman’s Medical Dictionary it means (1) Mixing of many drugs in one prescription, (2) ‘shotgun’ prescription. Polypresctiption was introduced by the Arabs during the fifteenth century after they had come in contact with the Greek traditional medicine. Gradually they adopted the practice of surgery, opthalmology, rhinology etc. Though great advances had taken place in the field of medical science in the eighteenth century in respect of theory and causation of diseases, blind respect for fan- tastic and one-sided theories, ‘shotgun’ prescriptions and loathesome mixtures of many medicinal substances, blood-letting and cupping and other torturesome therapeutic practices were in vogue and were being advocated by the stalwarts of the medical profession. In the eighteenth century there were a number of theories and hypothetical assumptions concerning the nature and causation of diseases which were based on incomplete observations and vague generalis- tion. During this period of turmoil in the field of medicine, a philosopher- scientist in the person of Dr. Hahnemann (1755-1843), who, even while a school boy, was desoribed by his teachers as the “double-headed prodigy of genius and erudition”, discovered the true and rational art of healing based on immutable laws of nature, of course, much to the opposition of his contempo- raries and named it Homoeopathy, the basis of which is pure factual observations derived experimentally with the help of potentised medicinal substances. He dynamised them by rendering them more effective and more powerful by their breaking up and releasing their radioactive energy. He tackled the disease through pure observation of phenomena of life. His method of approach for treating the sick was with the help of a single dynamised remedy. The drugs/ remedies he employed in the treatment of the sick were experimentally proved on healthy persons; and collecting their overall statements of the positive and perceptible reactions of the human body recorded in the words of persons Reted upon, allowing no misinterpretations. He avoided and discarded any hypothesis and assumptions which could not be deduced from the observed facts te ideal homoeopathic cure as stressed by Hahnemann after his experi mentation is with a single remedy at a time (the minimum dose) alter judging1986] PoLyPHaRMACy, A GREAT FALLACY IN HOMOEOPATHY 297 the patient's susceptibility to medication. For this purpose proficiency in grasp- ing the knowledge of materia medica and intelligent comprehension of the homoeo. philosophy in consonance with its spirit as explained in the Organon are very essential. On the other hand, polypharmacy is an orthodox and dogmatic way of preparing a prescription. Homocopathy never admits of such a fallacious way of treating the sick. So-called homocopathic complexes and compounds are in utter violation of the homoeopathic principles. Some young and overambitious homoeopaths who have chosen a life of comfort have started the use of mixtures, so-called complexes and combination of homoeo. remedies to treat their patients by misinterpreting the Organon. A few such articles have even appeared in some monthly journals of Homoeopathy. We shall take up their views for discussion. Dr. Mukherji of Calcutta has tried to present his views on polyprescription (THE HAHNEMANNIAN GLEANINGS, May 1984) quoting certain sections of the Organon. The writer refers to sec. 272 of the Organon (Sth ed.) along with its footnote: “In no case is it requisite to administer more than one, single, simple medicinal substance at one time.” The writer, to form the basis of his justification for the use of polyprescription, mentions its footnote with particular reference to the last line which reads: “‘Some homoeopathists have made experiments, in cases where they deemed one remedy homoeopathically suitable for one portion of the symptoms of a case of a disease, and another remedy for another portion, of administering both remedies at the same or almost at the same time; but I earnestly deprecate such a hazardous experiment, which can never be necessary, though it may sometimes seem to be of use.”! The writer also refers to Dr. Aegidi’s urging and persuading Dr. Hahnemann for experimenting with the use of double remedies. If we analyse critically sec. 272 along with its footnote, we shall at once come to the conclusion that the words “though it may seem to be of some use” only support and confirm the idea of using one remedy at one time rather than contradict it. Every painstaking homoeopath after repertorising his case finds two or three remedies apparently indicated therein, but after closely going through the pages of Materia Medica he decides which one is the most similar to the case. A careful prescriber who understands the comparative value of the symptoms would be able to choose the most suitable remedy by taking into consideration the more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms. The more general and undefined symptoms such as loss of appetite, debility, restless sleep, discomfort and so forth demand but little attention, they being of vague and indefinite character. Hahnemann was very clear in his verdict of using one single remedy at one time and very strict in prohibiting the use of double remedies at the same time. Being a philosopher-scientist he was very open-minded in welcoming useful ideas and suggestions to give them a fair trial to deduce useful facts1986] PoLyPHARMACY, A GREAT FALLacy IN HOMOEOPATHY 297 the patient's susceptibility to medication. For this purpose proficiency in grasp- ing the knowledge of materia medica and intelligent comprehension of the homoeo. philosophy in consonance with its spirit as explained in the Organon are very essential. On the other hand, polypharmacy is an orthodox and dogmatic way of preparing a prescription. Homoeopathy never admits of such a fallacious way of treating the sick. So-called homoeopathic complexes and compounds are in utter violation of the homocopathic principles. Some young and overambitious homoeopaths who have chosen a life of comfort have started the use of mixtures, so-called complexes and combination of homoeo. remedies to treat their patients by misinterpreting the Organon. A few such articles have even appeared in some monthly journals of Homoeopathy. We shall take up their views for discussion. Dr. Mukherji of Calcutta has tried to present his views on polyprescription (THE HAHNEMANNIAN GLEANINGS, May 1984) quoting certain sections of the Organon. The writer refers to sec. 272 of the Organon (Sth ed.) along with its footnote: “In no case is it requisite to administer more than one, single, simple medicinal substance at one time.” The writer, to form the basis of his justification for the use of polyprescription, mentions its footnote with particular reference to the last line which reads: “Some homoeopathists have made experiments, in cases where they deemed one remedy homoeopathically suitable for one portion of the symptoms of a case of a disease, and another remedy for another portion, of administering both remedies at the same or almost at the same time; but I earnestly deprecate such a hazardous experiment, which can never be necessary, though it may sometimes seem to be of use.” The writer also refers to Dr. Aegidi’s urging and persuading Dr. Hahnemann for experimenting with the use of double remedies. If we analyse critically sec. 272 along with its footnote, we shall at once come to the conclusion that the words “though it may seem to be of some use” only support and confirm the idea of using one remedy at one time rather than contradict it. Every painstaking homoeopath after repertorising his case finds two or three remedies apparently indicated therein, but after closely going through the pages of Materia Medica he decides which one is the most similar to the case. ‘A careful prescriber who understands the comparative value of the symptoms would be able to choose the most suitable remedy by taking into consideration the more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms. The more general and undefined symptoms such as loss of appetite, debility, restless sleep, discomfort and so forth demand but little attention, they being of vague and indefinite character. Hahnemann was very clear in his verdict of using one single remedy at one time and very strict in prohibiting the use of double remedies at the same time. Being a philosopher-scientist he was very open-minded in welcoming useful ideas and suggestions to give them a fair trial to deduce useful facts298 Tie HAHNEMANNIAN GLEANINGS [December which could fall in line with his scientific principles. Dr. Aegidi, a topmost allopathic physician of those days, after having suffered a severe contusion of the left shoulder, was heading almost towards invalidity, in spite of having received the best available treatment of the time, He approached Dr. Hahnemann and after having received homocopathic treatment experienced a joyful feeling of health. After that Dr. Aegidi became an ardent admirer and disciple of Dr. Hahnemann. Dr. Aegidi, being an allopathic physician and a user of multi-mixture, could not immediately retreat mentally to the idea of a single prescription; so he tried to induce Dr. Hahne- mann to use double remedies at a time. Hahnemann did give a trial to the suggestion, as he was an open-minded experimenter, but soon returned “after some vacillation to pure homoeopathic principles, and these he upheld with remarkable keenness to his friend Boenninghausen, who had been at first won over to the cause of double remedies.” He termed the use of double remedies as “dangerous heresy and mixture-mongering” which will be “dealing the death-blow to pure Homoeopathy and converting it to blind Allopathy.”? Since then Dr. Aegidi remained a staunch and favourite follower of pure homoeopathic principles One Dr. Arthur Lutze of Kéthen tried to bring out a spurious sixth edition of the Organon making some “arbitrary alterations” in the fifth edition, “inter- posing a paragraph 274b on the use of double remedies, which stood in direct opposition to Hahnemann’s accepted principle: ‘Only one single and simple medicine at one time to be given to the patient’."* Dr. Lutze tried to associate Dr. Aegidi his views for his support for the use of double remedies. Dr. Lutze’s spurious edition met with protests by all the homoeopathic doctors at home and abroad, including the editorial staff of the leading homocopathic journals and consequently it was discredited and discarded. Dr. Aegidi, too, came out with a statement against it by declaring thus “I, years ago, loudly and publicly made known my disapproval of administration of double remedies, as an abuse and a mischievous proceeding. I, therefore, find myself compelled to publish my explanation as it originally appeared in the Allg. Hom. Zietung., vol. 54, No. 12 of May 18th 1857." Dr. von Boen- ninghausen shared his views and also issued a statement condemning the use of double remedies. Hahnemann was very strict in prohibiting the use of more than one remedy at a time. In para 169 of the Organon he says, “It, on the first examination of the disease and on the first selection of a medicine, we should find that the tality of the symptoms of the disease would not be effectually covered by ota thease elements of a single medicine—owing to the insufficient number of eee dicines—but that two medicines contend for the preference in point Pears ne of which is more homocopathically suitable for one of appropriateness, ner part of the symptoms of the disease, it is not advis: a ie oa ereployment of the more suitable of the two medicines, i after - inati 7 ive boll See ea the other without fresh examination, and much less to gi’1986] PoLyPHarMacy, A GREAT FALLACY IN HOMOEOPATHY 299 together (§272, note), for the medicine that seemed to be the next best would not, under the change of circumstances that has in the meantime taken place, be suitable for the rest of the symptoms that then remain; in which case, consequently, a more appropriate homoeopathic remedy must be selected . . ."* It is very astonishing that Dr. Mukherji, in spite of Hahnemann’s clear and explicit instructions for using one single remedy at one time, is isolating the words “though it may sometimes seem to be of some use” from the spirit and meaning of the whole sentence to meet his ends. The word ‘though’ is a conjunction in English grammar; it is a connecter of two clauses of a sentence which can never give any meaning independently. The footnote explains that even if some homoeopaths find two remedies indicated in a case, one for one portion and the second for the other portion, even their experimental use is hazardous and is deprecated, Hahnemann means to say that in no case more than one simple, single remedy be used at one time. Hahnemann was averse to using mixtures of even crude medicinal substances; he very vehemently ridiculed the multi-compounded prescriptions and expressed his views as follows: “No a priori conclusion can be drawn concerning the power of a compounded medicine. Every remedy has its own ten- dency. If several globes of different size and weight are pushing against one another with different power in different directions, which way will they go? Who can tell that?" “Nature . .. likes simplicity and effects much with one remedy, but you do little with many. Imitate Nature." How could Dr. Hahnemann favour the administration of potentised and dynamised remedies in polyprescription? Dr. Mukherji has started on a basis which is quite inconsistent with the homocopathic philosophy. Of course, using the technique of set-theory and quantum mechanics he has developed a formalism to justify his own viewpoint which is very much against the Hahnemannian principles. Any number of such mathematical equations can be constructed and developed to suit one’s own requirement. His own conjectural interpretations of some paras of the Organon do not stand the acid test of this rational art of healing which is based on the immutable laws of nature. Dr. Mukherji cites a case to elucidate his viewpoint for the use of double remedies and thereupon forms certain algebraic representations to justify his whimsical interpretation. It is as under: “A young girl, aged 17, had her first serious impairment of health at her puberty, which was delayed. She has ‘never been well since’. Bad taste in the mouth, with dry tongue and no thirst. She is anaemic and has recurrent attacks of bronchitis; usually constipated since her first menstruation, but has fre- juent attacks of diarrhoea, usually at night. She weeps easily, indecisive, slow ind of phlegmatic temperament, desires warm food, has good appetite but a ‘ew mouthfuls fill her up to the throat. She has right-sided ovaralgia which changes side during menstruation, All her symptoms are worse from 4 to 8 p.m.,300 TH HAUNEMANNIAN GLEANINGS [December especially excessive accumulation of flatus, sour eructation, heart-burn ang headache.”"* Regarding the above-cited case Dr. Mukhorji says: “To a homocopathic physician the disease-picture will indicate two medicines: (i) Lycopodium, (ii) Pulsatilla, Since a medicine cannot cure which it does not produce, it js evident that to achieve a cure both the remedies have to be administered, Selection of a single remedy here will correspond to an application of an imperfect medicinal morbific agent, Hence the result will be only a partial cure not full.”” #.G., Nov. 1983, page 481). Though the case has been taken incompletely, yet on the very face of the symptoms described, it, in no way, indicates two remedies. It is a clear case of Lycopodium. Almost all the symptoms are covered by Lycopodium, The ‘partial’ symptoms, which are considered by the learned doctor to be those of Pulsatilla, are almost all covered in the pathogenesis of Lycopodium, (Please refer to Hering's Guiding Symptoms, vol. 7 under Lycopodium.) These are as under: “Bad taste, dry tongue, and no thirst. Never has been well since puberty, first menses delayed; constipated since her first menses, having frequent attacks of diarrhoea usually at night. She weeps easily, indecisive. Sour eructation, headache etc.” Dr. Mukherji tries to quote only certain fragmentary portions of sentences out of the paras of the Organon to justify his theoretical assumption quite in isolation from the inter-related and correlated paras and sentences. Giving one remedy for one portion and another for the other portion of the symptoms is quite contrary to the accepted principles of Homocopathy. The totality of symptoms presented by the patient is to be regarded as one whole and aggregate for which a similar remedy is to be selected. This totality cannot arbitrarily be divided into groups or sub-units. Giving remedies one after the other, without re-examining the case, after the exhaustion of the action of the first remedy given, rests only on a hypothesis which is not warranted by the principles of homoeopathic science. True homoeopathic prescription demands that every time a new prescription is made, then after collecting the symptoms, materia medica be consulted for their com- parison and the most similar remedy suited to the case be prescribed. Such succession of remedies is quite compatible with the homoeopathic philosophy. Dr. Mukhegji is confusing this sort of succession of remedies with polyprescription and his confusion becomes worse confounded when he prescribes remedies after dividing the totality of symptoms into sub-units, groups and portions. When the second remedy is to be employed, a fresh review and te- examination of the case is very much desirable, as successive changes in the symptoms necessitate the selection of a new remedy, otherwise it will not fulfil the conditions of the law of similarity. Dr. Mukherji states: “The part ‘completion of the action of the previous remedy’ of section 171 in the sixth edition of the Organon holds the key in1986] PoLypHARMACY, A GREAT FALLACY IN HOMOEOPATHY 301 favour of polyprescription. Dr. Hahnemann recommended in sections 168 and 171 that a second remedy can be administered after the completion of the action of the first remedy.” The learned author, as discussed earlier, misconstrues the meanings of the paras of the Organon to justify his hypothetical assumptions, Para 171 of the Organon reads thus: “In non-venereal chronic diseases, those most commonly, therefore, that arise from psora, we often require, in order to effect a cure, to give several antipsoric remedies in succession, every successive one being homocopathically chosen in consonance with the group of symptoms remaining after completion of the action of the previous remedy.” The question of remedies to be given in succession has been discussed in the preceding paragraph of this article. Hahnemann never favoured the administration of the subsequent remedy without reviewing the case afresh, as in inveterate cases after the first prescription the organism generally demands the successive remedy. It may be a repetition of the first in higher potency, or may be a complementary of the first, or may be an antidote, if the previously given remedy has not acted homoeopathically; it may be an intercurrent one to combat the dominant miasms, indicated, of course, according to the symptoms; or entirely a new remedy. In all the above-mentioned situations, only one single remedy is to be given, at a time. Sections 168, 169, 170 and 171 explicitly explain this. A few extracts from them are given below: “And thus we go on, if even this medicine be not quite sufficient to effect the restoration of health, examining again and again the morbid state that still remains, and selecting a homoeopathic medicine as suitable as possible for it, until our object, namely, putting the patient in possession of perfect health, is accomplished.”—Sec, 168.7 If, on the first examination of a disease and the first selection of a medicine, we should find that the totality of the symptoms of the disease would not be effectively covered by the disease elements of a single medicine—owing to the insufficient number of known medicines—but that two medicines contend for the preference in point of appropriateness, one of which is more homoeopathically suitable for one part, the other for another part of the symptoms of the disease, it is not advisable, after the employment of the more suitable of the two medicines, to administer the other without fresh examination, and much less to give both together (§ 272, note), for the medicine that seemed to be the next best would not, under the change of circumstances that has in the meantime taken place, be suitable for the rest of the symptoms that then remain; in which case, consequently, a more appropriate homoeopathic remedy must be selected in place of the second medicine for the set of symptoms as they appear on a new inspection.”—Sec. 169." From the above para, the misunderstanding created by Dr. Mukherji regarding the use of double remedies, as supposed to be indicated by the footnote of section 272 of the Organon (Sth ed.), should be evidently clear, 3302 Tu Hanemannian GLEANINGS [December leaving no doubt with regard to the administration of one single, remedy ap one time and at the same time. . Dr. Mukherji tries to cover up the original ideas contained in the Organon, of Medicines for the sake of deriving apparently learned equations based on entirely fallacious and erroncous assumptions which are quite incompatible with the homoeopathic principles. The whole footnote of sec. 272 of the Organon (Sth ed.) has been, in a way, annulled in the light of sec. 170 of the 6th ed, where a special mention has been made about it in this context. In certain cases, more than one remedy is called for in a cyclic order, e.g Sulphur, Calc. carb., Lycopodium, Sarsaparilla, Sepia, etc. In such cases the next prescription is to be employed when the action of the first has been exhausted. Dr. Mukherji gives the illustration of a ladder by quoting Dr. J. C. Burnett “A long series of remedies is required for the cure of difficult cases, just as to reach the top window of a house all the rungs are to be used.” True, but we use one rung at a time, and not more than one, or all of them, simultaneously to reach the top window. Even this illustration of his does not hold good in support of polyprescription, i.e. mixing or employing more than one remedy at a time. Dr. Burnett always employed one single remedy at one time followed by Sac. lac. All his prescriptions in his works on ringworm, neuralgia, tonsils, tumour, etc. bear testimony to it. His next prescription followed after the action of the first remedy had been duly exhausted. We are, of course, all aware that due to the complexities of life, human constitutions and temperaments have undergone considerable changes and due to the noxious effect of the miasms, i.e. psora, sycosis and syphilis, chronic diseases have become indefinite and long-standing; therefore deep-acting anti- miasmatic remedies are needed to overtake them. Remedies to be given in succession, however, do not violate the homocopathic principles, if given singly at one time. The ideal cure is always with a single remedy prescription. It would be worthwhile to mention here in this connection a few words from the outstanding homoeopath, Dr. Stuart Close. He says, “This morbid susceptibility which constitutes disease may exist towards several different medicines, the degree of susceptibility to each depending on the degree of symptom similarity; but the highest degree of susceptibility exists towards the most similar—the similimum, or equal. Hence a given patient may be cured of his disease homoeopathically by either of the two methods; by giving several more or less similar remedies in succession, or by giving one exactly similar medicine—the similimum or equal, It depends upon whether he is being treated by a bungler or an expert. The bungler may ‘zigzag’ his patient along through a protracted illness and finally get him well, where an expert would cure him by the straight route with a single remedy in half the time.”* Let us now turn our attention to the second section of Dr. Mukherii’S article appearing in May 1984 issue of THE HAHNEMANNIAN GLEANINGS. It starts as under:1986] POLYPHARMACY, A GREAT FALLACY IN HOMOEOPATHY 303 “The human body may be considered as a hierarchical multicomponent system consisting of respiratory, cardiovascular, alimentary, urogenital and other functional units, at a particular level of organisation considered. A system may be defined as a collection of interacting parts which in some sense constitute a whole. Everything excluded from the collection may be considered as the environment. It is assumed by definition that the internal interactions are always greater than external interactions. In this way the descrip- tion of the living being can be based on the representation of a finite number of subsystems of the human body. Each of the subsystems may be considered as a system in itself when considered individually. But, for our purpose, they are the components (subsystems) of the human body, which is the system in our case.”” Let us examine and analyse the viewpoint presented by the doctor. It was Hahnemann who for the first time introduced to the medical world the rational concept of life that it is a unity from its very beginning and the spiritual vital force, the dynamis, animates the material body from its very origin. This vital force is already present in the simple cell from where the origin of the human being starts. This is the force which helps this cell to develop into various kinds of characteristic cells to take the form of different systems, such as muscular, respiratory, nervous, glandular etc., thus taking the shape of an organism. Without this life-principle (vital force) the cells would not have been able to emerge as a whole organism. “No organ, no tissue, no cell, no molecule, is independent of the acti- vities of the others, but the life of each one of these elements is merged into the life of the whole. The unit of human life cannot be the organ, the tissue, the cell, the molecule, the atom, but the whole organism, the whole man.” It is here that we should understand the holistic and unitary conception of the phenomenon of any living being. The living organism is quite different from an inanimate machine. Unlike a machine, a living organism is not the arithmetical aggregate or a sum-total of various different parts. Parts of a machine can be separated out, and they can exist very well. We can recon- struct it again from the separated parts; but in the case of a human body this process is irreversible, as to exist is quite different from to be in life; it is not at all one and the same thing. An organism grows from within and belongs to the domain of life. Hahnemann wanted that man should be studied from the standpoint of the whole organism rather than from that of the mechanism; as he regards the whole organism as a unit of life rather than any one part, any organ, any one subsystem; as each one part depends upon every other part and all act together in unison as one in health or in disease. That the man is to treated as a whole. Therefore the concept of considering the living human body as a hierarchical multi-component system and demarcating it into different subsystems is quite in antagonism to and in utter conflict with the basic Principles of Homoeopathy. Functioning of the whole organism in a synchro- nized and harmonious state constitutes health. Derangement of the vital force304 ‘Tu HaHNeMANNIAN GLEANINGS [December in the organism caused by the dynamic influence upon it of a morbific agent inmical to life, is disease. Sections 12 and 13 of the Organon are worth reading in this context. Dr. Hahnemann proved simple medicinal substances singly and thoroughly with respect to their pure peculiar effects on human beings in unimpaired state of health. He recorded the effects resulting in various symp. toms and prepared materia medica providing a wide panorama of types of individuals, such as sulphur type, lycopodium type, pulsatilla type, calcarea type, sepia type etc. Dr. Mukherji’s very idea and basis of considering the human organism a hierarchical multi-component system is not acceptable as discussed in the pre. ceding lines. It is against the spirit of homoeopathic philosophy. Therefore prescribing medicines on the basis of the subsystems and different portions of the human body falls short of the required criteria as laid down in the Organon, Hence the concept of polyprescription or polypharmacy is not justifiable and pure Homoeopathy can never reconcile to it. Let us now examine the problem of the duration of high potency in the light of the interpretation offered by Dr. Mukherji. He refers to the footnote appended to sec. 287 of the fifth edition of the Organon which reads: “The higher we carry the attenuation accompanied by dynamization (by two succussion strokes), with so much the more rapid and penetrating action does the preparation seem to affect the vital force and to alter the health, with but slight diminution of strength even when this operation is carried very far, —in place, as is usual (and generally sufficient) to X when it is carried up to XX, L, C, and higher; only that then the action always appears to last a shorter time.” The learned doctor has inferred from the above mentioned lines that “the higher the potency, the shorter will be the duration of the completion of its action.” In the light of his conjecture we can assume that the lower the potency, the longer will be the duration of the completion of its action. Again the doctor has misinterpretated the footnote. The length of the effective duration of the dose cannot be determined and defined in advance, as it depends on the nature of the disease under consideration, the size of the dose and the degree of the patient’s susceptibility. Hahnemann, after experimenting with the crude drugs, which produced troublesome medicinal aggravation, made experiments with potentised (dynamic) drugs and found that their efficacy had increased and that they had become more powerful medicinally. But he never lost sight of the basic fundamental laws governing the dose to be employed, ie. the law of the least action (maxima minima) and the law of the mutual action, i.e. “the quantity of action necessary to effect any change in nature is the least possible—minimum. Action and reaction are equal and opposite.” He, being very judicious and cautious in the selection of the dose, started with low potencies, going higher and higher gradually, so that the patient's resistance which had been lowered due to his disease was heightened. With the gradual rise in the administered potencies resulting in gradually raised resistance, the duration of the completion of the action of the last dos?1986] PorypHarmacy, A GREAT FALLACY IN HoMOEOPATHY 305 (naturally in the higher potency) was rendered shorter, as, after gradually reaching the state of health, the organism had become less receptive to the medicine. The receptivity of the organism depends on the degree of the susceptibility of the patient. The higher the degree of susceptibility, the greater the receptivity of the patient, hence the longer the duration of the action of the remedy. Dose is a matter of pure experiment, precise observation and accurately noted experience, and also of theoretical conjecture or of precise reasoning. The greater the impressionability due to the depth of the plane of the disease owing to the patient’s susceptibility, the longer the duration of the completion of the action of the dynamised remedy is expected to be in the ascending potencies, as susceptibility is modified to a very great extent with the administration of the remedy in different ascending powers (potency). In this way, appearance of unpleasant symptoms, i.e. aggravation, can be avoided or lessened. In general we can say that an indicated medicine may take its action curatively in every curable disease, in whatever potency it is given, but the complete cure can only be affected with the administration of a similimum, i.e. appropriate remedy in the appropriate potency, as this is the one which reaches the plane and level of the disease to act with commensurate power and strength to eradi- cate the disease. ‘As for the selection of the potency, a careful prescriber is expected to use his ingenuity and intuitional judgment on the basis of his experience based on keen observation, keeping in view the patient’s sensitivity and susceptibility in all respects. Dr. Kent says that there are sensitive patients who after having been given homoeopathic remedy develop miasms which last for years and become the source of further diseases—acute and chronic. “The symptoms of the drug crop up periodically, years after it has been abused, and the peri- odical attacks are perfectly typical of the drug. The mineral substances which are perfectly harmless on the crude plane may be poisonous on the dynamic plane, when the patient is oversensitive. There are persons who can drink a glass of milk with impunity and be nourished by it, but upon whom a drop of milk, potentised to a high degree and repeated beyond its homoeopathicity, will establish a miasm that will last for years. A prover of Lac caninum had a return of symptoms periodically. She was oversensitive and proved the medicine indiscriminately, and suffered ever since from its poisonous effects, whereas if it had been given prudently, the disease would have established itself upon the body like any other acute miasm, would have run its course and disappeared... . I tested a very high potency of Lachesis on an oversensitive patient, giving but a single dose, and that patient ran the course of the Lachesis disease in about two months; the symptoms disappeared and never returned.”""” The imprudent and indiscriminate use of high potencies plays havoc with the health of the patient. The higher the potency, the lesser the quantity of the drug in it, and the more powerful and deeper its effect on the human economy. Naturally, the duration of the completion of the action of the high potency will be longer. That is why Hahnemann advised giving remedies at306 “Tue Hane anntan GLeANtncs as their indiscriminate, frequent repetition is always harmful 1 f medicinal aggravation it is always safe to ‘as there is no fixed yardstick to deter. i ¢ appropriate potency in a case. All authorities agree unee the proper a 4 found in the degree of susceptibility. Dr. Fincke says, “That dose is appropriate which will be proportionate to the degree of the susceptibility of the patient.” “The closer the relationship between the discase-symptoms and the drug- symptoms, the greater the susceptibility and, consequently, the higher the potency required; but this makes it a comparative problem of relationship; therefore, the answer lies in our individual exercise of the interpretation of this law." In the context of high potencies, Dr. J. T. Kent says, “High potencies are two-edged swords; hence they should be given very cautiously. If our medicines were not powerful enough to kill folks, they would not be powerful enough to cure sick folks. It is well for you to realise that you are dealing with razors when you are dealing with high potencies. I would rather be in a room with a dozen negroes slashing with razors than in the hands of an ignorant prescriber of high potencies. They are means of tremendous harm, as well as of tremendous good.” This does not mean that the use of high potencies should be discarded. These potencies serve their own useful purpose. Modern life due to turmoil and turbulence has become very complex; consequently human organisms, due to the dominance of the intermingled miasms, have been overwhelmed with complicated diseases. That is why use of high potencies has become all the more necessary to combat the miasmatic influence in the organism. But only their judicious use and intelligent repetition would take the patient to the curative side, without destroying his natural susceptibility. In view of this a skilful prescriber cannot do without being in possession of remedies in different potencies ranging from the lowest to the highest. Their proper handling will, however, work wonders and pay him due dividends. We now take up the ‘Set Algebraic Representation etc.’ to discuss their ‘validity’ as claimed by Dr. Mukherji. He states: “Let S(D) represent the set of symptoms as described by the patient, by the person or persons attending the patient, as observed by the physician (objective symptoms). . . . S(R) te present the set of remedy symptoms . . . as described in the materia medica.” He Bp the a into different Portions representing as S(D) = $,(D), S,(D); SAD). Se(D). Similarly, S(R) = $,(R), Sy(R), Sy(R),.. Sa(R).—THE H. 6 wih ees aa aaa wih fatal ompa disease erateucall 80 erning the homocopathic Philosophy, which views the Fs i etically taking into consideration the totality of symptoms. ae by adding that the elements of remedy symptoms are ), and the elements of disease symptoms are contained long intervals Therefore, to minimise the chances o' start the treatment with low potencies1986] POLYPHARMACY, A GREAT FALLACY IN HOMOEOPATHY 307 in the set S(R). “S(R) € S(D), and S(D) € S(R).... When above conditions have been achieved, one may write: S(D) C S(R), ie. the two sets are identical or similar...” Next he says that “it... often happens that a homocopathic physician finds that all the disease symptoms are not contained in a single remedy, i.e. S(R) € S(D) and S(D) C S(R), are not satisfied. The interpretation of section 162 of the Sth edition of the Organon has thus been expressed mathematically by set algebra by Dr, Mukherji: “S(R) G S(D), but S(D) ¢ S(R)” He expresses it thus in words: “The physical meaning of these relations is that the set of remedy symptoms is contained in the elements of disease symptoms, but the set of disease symptoms is not contained in the set of remedy symptoms S(R). Mathematically this is expressed by saying that S(R) is a subset of $(D), physically meaning thereby that S(D) has some elements different from S(R). Under such condition one may write: S(D) # S(R).” This reference is made on the basis of sec. 162, where an imperfect medicine is to be employed for lack of a more perfect one. But this employment of imperfect medicine may be due to (i) incomplete proving of the drug, or (ii) paucity of the symptoms as observed in the patient, or (iii) failure to select a similar remedy with respect to its pure and true action. But with all this, sec. 167 is quite clear and satisfies the condition of not employing more than one single remedy at one time. It reads thus: “Thus if there occur, during the use of this imperfectly homoeopathic remedy first employed, accessory symptoms of some moment, then, in the case of acute diseases, we do not allow this first dose to exhaust its action, nor leave the patient to the full duration of the action of the remedy, but we in- vestigate afresh the morbid state in its new altered condition, and add the remainder of the original symptoms to those newly developed in tracing a new picture of the disease.” “We shall then be able much more readily to discover, among the known medicines, an analogue to the morbid state before us, a single of which, if it do not entirely destroy the diseases, will advance it considerably on the way to be cured. . . ."—Sec. 168. From the above it is evident that S(D) is always contained in S(R). Had it been not so, the question of giving a remedy unnecessarily does not arise. Hence the expression S(D) ¢ S(R) bears no validity. Dr. Mukherji gives the illustration of a case relating to a girl of 17, which, according to him, is a case of both Lycopodium and Pulsatilla, which he expresses in his algebraic representation as; S(R,) € S(D) and S(R,) S(D) when S(R,) is Lycopodium and S(R,) is Pulsatilla, As discussed earlier, Lycopodium happens to be the most similar remedy in this case; and after giving the remedy, if some of the symptoms remain, we shall have to review the case, and at that stage Pulsatilla may or may not be the remedy. Hence this representation also falls short of the target.308 THe HAHNEMANNIAN GLEANINGS [December §(R) can never be a subset of S(D), as a whole sainot Be a oe of ; part. Neither can $(R) be identical with S(D) as symptoms o! 2 remedy, S(R) have been collected from different individuals who reacted according to thei susceptibilities, impressionabilities, and sensitivities, forming a vast range symptomatology as described in the materia medica while S(D) represent: only a partial impairment of an individual's health. For example, the symptomatology of Lycopodium is a sum-total of symptoms, both subjective and objective, numbering thousands as arranged in the materia medica, ranging from mind to extremities and involving all vital organs, tissues, glands etc, S(D) can be identical with S(R) only when the vital force is towards total deacy leading the patient's derangement of health towards terminal condition. Selection of a remedy is always based on the patient’s symptom-similarity; therefore to assume that S(D) has some elements different from S(R) is not tenable, Although they are not identical, yet S(D) has the nearest similarity to the symptoms of S(R), as only on that similarity the usefulness of the employment of that remedy can be ensured. Therefore the validity of the representation is questionable, which is as follows: S(D) # S(R). We cannot assume one to one correspondence where individualisation is one of the criteria for selecting the similimum. Although S(D) has close resemblance with S(R), yet these are essentially the same. It is simply confusing Homoeopathy with Isopathy, which is based on law of aequalia aequalibus, while Homoeopathy is based on law of similia similibus. One to one correspondence may be possible if treatment is carried on according to the isopathic principles. For instance, Psorinum, prepared from the itch, cannot become a specific for psora, itch etc. and similarly Syphilinum for chancre etc. These remedies shall have to be prescribed on the basis of symptom-similarity. Polypharmacy is not at all in agreement with the homocopathic philosophy; it belies the test of the touchstone of the homoeopathic principles. Use of two or more remedies at one time or mixing some remedies together not only narrows the scope of taking their action independently, but also causes the possibility of doing dathage due to their interaction on the dynamic plane, as the dynamised remedies, unlike crude drugs, instead of acting on the nutritive plane, at once approach the dynamic plane to tackle the disease. Advisability of a single remedy cannot be set aside on any hypothetical assumption or mere conjectural theories, Each remedy proved singly provides a vast panorama of a very wide range of symptoms, its right selection works rairaculously. Now Lycopodium, a vegetable substance, contains sulphur, oe natrum sulphuricum in Sufficient quantity and some phosphorus. ly many other polychrest remedies contain elements of other medicinal substances. That is why they present a very vast pi st tolo when proving is made. hae arn cea The selection of the proper Temedy of the most difficult tasks. It demands capacity, concentration of mind, Proper in the homoeopathic treatment is one strenuous labour, great memorising sense of judgment and keen sense of1986] POLYPHARMACY, A GREAT FALLACY IN HOMOEOPATHY 309 observation. Individualisation being necessary, every case requires due and proper individual attention, which can only be accomplished by a painstaking and dedicated prescriber. “Hahnemann never allowed his treatment to be degraded to the stereo- typed form of mass treatment by reason of the great crowd of patients. On every individual case he bestowed the greatest attention and took infinite pains in recording the symptoms and selecting the suitable remedy. His extraordinary memory was of great service to him in this matter. But if ever he vacillated in the choice between two or more remedies, he did not disdain to call the help of his repertories.’"* Dr. Mukherji is willing to accept the validity of the law of similars, but is hesitant to admit the necessary logical corollaries which have been deduced after many experiments and observations. In this developing world, with the explosion of scientific know-how everyone is in search of finding some short- cut methods to satisfy the desire of a materialistic mind; therefore in medicines also some ‘shotgun’ prescriptions are being devised to suit the need of the commercial-minded persons. As a result, many so-called homoeo-complexes and biochemic combinations have come up. These complexes and combinations are compositions of such remedies as are antidotal to one another or have a diametrically opposite biochemical action, e.g. Hepar sulph. with Merc. and then Natrum mur. with Nat. sulph. These mixtures are so great a blemish and so great an injury,and so great a damage to the health and life of the patient. Dr. Mukherji’s algebraic representations, as already discussed, are based on hypothetical assumptions and theoretical conjectures. John Stuart Mill says, “There is but one sure access to truth, the road of experiment, record and controlled reflection.” —(Essay ‘On Liberty’). It would have been much appreciated if Dr. Mukherji had experimented on himself and on his friends and let the profession know the results of his provings, on the lines of our revered Master Hahnemann and other renowned homoeopathicians. His suggestion with regard to proving drugs in combination to test the validity of his algebraic equation No. 14 on page 210 of May 1984 issue of THE HAHNEMANNIAN GLEANINGS can only be entertained when he himself takes the initiative of ascertaining the results by the facts observed by him after due experimentation. The equation is as follows: S(M, + M,) = S(M,) U S(M2) Researches are very much desirable and are the need of the day, as lack of them leads to intellectual stagnation and hinders further development in any field of life. But at the same time it is also necessary that the basic principles should not be compromised. Homoeopathy is based on natural laws which were in existence even prior to the existence of this material world. Distortion of the facts contained in its philosophy and their misinterpretation will lead us nowhere, or if anywhere at all, then only to a blind pathy. 4310 THe HAHNEMANNIAN GLEANINGS [December REFERENCES Hahnemann, S.: Organon of Medicine, Sth ed., footnote of section 272. Haehl, Richard: Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work, vol. 1, page 182. Ibid., vol. 1, page 86. Hahnemann, S.: Organon of Medicine, 6th ed., section 169. Haehl, Richard: Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work, vol. 1, page 308. ‘THE HAHNEMANNIAN GLEANINGS (1984), vol. LI, 5: 204. Hahnemann, S.: Organon of Medicine, 6th ed., sections 168 and 169. . Close, Stuart: The Genius of Homoeopathy, chapter VII, page 78. Roberts, H. A.: The Principles and Art of Cure by Homoeopathy, chapter III, ‘Vital Force’, Page 35. 10. Kent, J. T.: Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy, chapter XVI, ‘Oversensitive Patients’ pages 133-134, 11, Roberts, H. A.: The Principles and Art of Cure by Homoeopathy, chapter XII, ‘The Dynamic Action of Drugs’, page 109. 12. Kent, J. T.: Lectures on Homoeo. Materia Medica, “Hepat sulphur’, p. $43. 13, Hachl, Richard: Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work, vol. 1, page 277. ~Pernavwayen>ON THE PARADOX OF MICRODOSES Dr. J. MUKHERII, M.SC., D.M.S., Calcutta ABSTRACT: In this paper the paradoxical points associated with dynamized homoeopathic medicines have been identified. Attempts of other authors to solve the paradox of microdoses on the basis of the formation of polymers of the solvent molecules or of stereospecific isotactic polymers with the ability of self-replication of the solvent in the absence of the initial exciting solute have been discussed. A functional relation amongst the potency (p), dilution (@), and number of succussions (5) involved in the preparation of potentized medicines has been established, and the practical application of this relation in dynamization of the drug substance by potentizing machines has proved without the least trace of doubt the existence of drug material in potentized medicines, however high the potency might be. Appropriate references have been appended in support of the above claim. ‘The idea that there cannot be any drug substance beyond 24x, 12C or 0/4 potencies, because Avogadro's law will then be violated, has been proved to be a misconception. The mode of action of microdoses has been briefly discussed. By proper references, correspon- dences existing between the dynamized medicines and colloidal solutions have been identified. ‘A distribution function for the particles of the drug substance has been established, and studying the behaviour of the function, it has been mathematically proved that there is always a finite probability of existence of the drug particles in the dynamized medicines, however high the potency might be, when the potency is changed by changing both dilution and the number of succussions. The study of the distribution function has led to the conclusion that the drug particles in the dynamized medicines are analogous to the air molecules in the atmos- phere. It has been established that the higher the potency, the higher is the probability of the existence of drug material in the potentized medicines. SECTION ONE Introduction: What really is a paradox? Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language gives one meaning of paradox as “that which is contrary to received opinion”, and the other as “‘that which is apparently absurd but really true”, In the case of the homoeopathic dose the second meaning is applicable. Homoeopathic medicines are potentized medicinal substances which have undergone the process of dynamization by rigorous trituration or succussion according to the strict rules of homoeopathic pharmacy.** Sometimes dynamization and potentization are used synonymously. Potentized medicines are the result of the act of potentization carried out on drug or medicinal substances. The paradox associated with a dose of homoeopathic medicine appears to be related to the mode of preparation of the medicine by the strict rules of homoeopathic pharmacy. , A dose of 1M potency medicine, according to the popular idea, has a dilution of 1/10! and that of CM potency 1/10%%.° grain. Taking the Avogadro’s number as 6.03 x 10% molecules per gramme mole of a substance,312 ‘Tue HanneManntan GUBANINGS [December attainment of a dilution of 1/1029 grain of it is indeed incomprehensible and inconceivable. Herein lies the root of the paradox of microdose, Hahnemann said! that in the third potency millesimal, scale the amount of drug material present is 125 x 10-™* grains, i.e. 10-* (5x 10°*)* in one minim of the dose (footnote of section 270 of the 6th edition of the Organon). The factor 10-® comes from the third potency centesimal scale, which is the Starting amount of the millesimal scale. It is reduced to 5x10-!° grains in the oO, 25Xx10-¥ in 0/2 and 125x10~8 in 0/3 potencies. Proceeding this way one would find that the sixth potency in the millesimal scale would contain 15625 x 10-*° grains. Taking a grain as equal to 66 mg, a medicinal substance of molecular weight of 100 g will have only 1.03125 x10-®* g of it present in a dose of 0/6 potency in the millesimal scale. Thus to retain the medicinal substance in the sixth potency of this scale one has to divide the molecule at least into 100 parts. This statement violates Avogadro’s hypothesis and the concepts of molecular physics, and hence it is paradoxical. Hahnemann did not mention anything about the quantity of matter present in the dynamized medicines in the millesimal scale beyond the third. He was however confident about the presence of medicinal substance even in the thirtieth potency in this scale and in the centesimal scale. Instead of giving a mathematical treatment to prove the validity of his confidence in the presence of material even in 0/30 potency he simply observed: “Let them learn from the mathematicians how true it is that a substance divided into ever so many parts must still contain in its smallest conceivable parts always some of this substance, and that the smallest conceivable part does not cease to be some of this substance and cannot poss- ibly become nothing ...”*, and again, “The doctrine of divisibility of matter teaches us that we cannot make a part so small that it shall cease to be something and that it shall not share all the properties of the whole.” SECTION TWO Hypothesis based on Polymerization of water to solve the paradox: R. B. Smith and G. W. Boericke* have studied the nuclear magnetic resonance (N.M.R.) of serial dilutions (1x 10-* to 1 10-°) and potencies (6x. to 30x) of an ionizing solute lithium chloride (Licl) in a series of five aliphatic alcohols (methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, iso-propyl and n-butyl). Their observations had been that: (1) Most frequently there is a larger area under the hydroxyl end of the N.MLR. spectrograms when the solutions are succussed in a serial order than when they are diluted in a serial order without succussion; (2) the greatest areas under the (OH)~ end of the N.M.R. spectrograms are produced by succussion; (3) the changes so produced are physical and not chemical. In the discussion part of the paper they state: “Since, according to AV" gadro’s law, any solute in a chemical dilution will disappear after 6.03 x101986] ON THE PARADOX OF MicRODOSES 313 dilution (approximately the 24x), all medicines above 24x potency should therapeutically be useless. This premise is true if one thinks only of the solute as therapeutic actor, rather than the solvent. It must also be remembered that the solvent is always a part of the dose regardless of how high the administered potency be.” In conclusion they have suggested that “the problems which Homoeco- pathy has faced for many years may pass away if the answer to the therapeutics could be equated to both water and water structure in high dilutions.” The authors have tried to explain the experimentally observed phenomenon from the N.M.R. study by the polymerization of H,O molecules during potentization. Now, their observation cannot solve the problem of the microdose paradox, because: (1) Highly potentized medicines made in a liquid vehicle in centesimal or millesimal scales are soaked in sugar of milk globules and dried. These globules if properly preserved maintain the medicinal property even after 18/20 years according to Hahnemann, Water polymers are not present in the dried medicinal globules. When medicinal globules without water polymers have therapeutic action, it is evident that the solvent cannot have any role to play in the microdose therapeutics as suggested by the authors. As the medicines dispersed in either solid (sugar of milk globules) or liquid (dilute alcohol) vehicles have therapeutic effects, it is logically accepted that the therapeutic action of the medicines is independent of the nature of the vehicle through which the medicine is dispensed. (2) Let us quote the footnote of section 288 of the Sth edition of the Organon, relevent to this subject: “It is especially in the form of vapour, by olfaction and inhalation of the medicinal aura that is always emanating from a globule impregnated with a medicinal fluid in a high development of power, and placed dry, in a small phial, that the homoeopathic remedies act most surely and most powerfully... A globule... impregnated with the thirtieth potentized dilution, and then dried, retains for this purpose all the power undiminished for at least eighteen or twenty years (my experience extends to this length of time), even though the phial be opened a thousand times during that period, if it be but protected from heat and the sun’s light.” In the same note Hahnemann described the method of administration of microdose by olfaction. This experimentally established fact of cure of disease by the olfaction of the remedy/remedies by Hahnemann negates the hypothesis at the conclusion of the paper referred to. (3) Trituration of medicinal substances has been carried up to 200x for therapeutic purposes. As trituration is carried out in sugar of milk, there is no water present to be polymerized, so that the solvent cannot be a part of the game of therapeutical action of microdoses. ; (4) They have taken it as an accepted fact that there cannot be any medicinal substance present in any dilution of potency beyond 24x in the decimal314 “Vue Hane anntan GLEANINGS (December scale, because that violates Avogadro's law. It is evident that in making this assumption the authors have overlooked what Hahnemann has said in cop, nection with the related subject as mentioned in refs. (2) and (3). It should be pointed out here that the authors have failed to recognize the correspondence existing between the medicinal substance in the potentizeg medicines and the dispersed state of matter in colloidal solutions. Colloidal chemists have been successful in establishing distribution func. tion, taking into consideration the action of gravity on the very finely divided particles of matter in the colloidal solutions and the Brownian movement executed by the particles in the solution. By establishing a distribution function for the drug material in the potentized medicines, however high the potency ~ might be, we shall prove the existence of drug substance in it, in the latter part of this paper. Hence from the four above-mentioned observations it is evident that what the authors have observed by the N.M.R. study of dilutions and potencies of electrolytic substance cannot solve the microdose paradox. Again, G. P. Barnard and J. H. Stephenson have tried to apply the phenomenon of stereospecific polymerization to the paradox of microdose. To solve the paradox of violation of Avogadro’s law by microdose, they postul- ated the formation in the solvent of stereospecific isotactic polymers uniquely characterized by the electronic and vibrational states of the solute molecules. They claim to have created a concept which may explain the permanence of solvent polymers in solution after the original solute ions have been removed. They suggested that these solvent polymers could impregnate further succussed dilutions. This would lead to an increasing population density of longer and Jonger polymer chains (up to the limiting length) with increasing dilutions and succussions. The situation would be dominated by the rupture points in the series. The mean molecular weight would hence oscillate between maximum and minimum values. They have summarized as follows: “Homoeopathic medicines, prepared by serial succussion dilution, have been claimed to produce clinical effects at dilution far beyond 1 x10“, the theoretical limit of Avogadro’s number of 6.03 x 10®° atoms/mole. This paradox makes many scientists reject homoeopathic therapy. Recent application of quantum chemistry theory to biological systems indicates that these succussed high dilutions may act via the physico- dynamic structure of their solvent phase, rather than the chemical properties of their dissolved solutes. The solvent molecules may arrange themselves into stereospecific isotactic polymers with the ability of self-replication in the absence of the initial exciting solute. Certain physical quantities of these suc cussed high dilutions appear to verify this conclusion.” The hypothesis the authors have tried to develop to explain the paradox of microdoses cannot, in fact, solve the problem, because all the four points mentioned before against the paper in ref. (4) are also applicable here. Mor over, if ionic solutions are the necessary precondition for the formation of1986] ON THE PARADOX OF MICRODOSES 315 stereospecific isotactic polymers by succussion in the fluid vehicle, then this hypothesis of the authors is not in general applicable to all the drugs in the homocopathic materia medica because only a small fraction of homocopathic drug substances where formulae Sa and 5b of the pharmacy are applicable are electrovalent in nature.® SECTION THREE Root of the Paradox identified and partly solved: It appears that the root of the controversy, whether medicinal substance is present in dynamized medicines beyond the twelfth potency centesimal or fifth potency millesimal scales, lies in the consideration that the amount of medicinal substance is reduced, as one increases the potency in steps of unity, by a quantity which follows the rule of geometric progressive series of common ratio 110-7 grains in centesimal, 510-4 grains in millesimal and 110-1! in decimal scales. Hahnemann’ indicated that the process of dynamization consists of two parts: (i) increasing the attenuation (dilution) by a constant friction; (ii) trituration in case of insoluble substances and succussion for soluble substances. It should be noted here that Hahnemann described trituration and succussion processes as some form of grinding. It is evident that the degree of dynamization or potency (p) depends upon the dilution (d) and number of succussions (s), i.e. potency is a function of two variables. Writing this mathematically by a functional relation we have p=f(s, d) () The physical interpretation of this functional equation is this. One can change the potency by keeping the dilution (d) constant and increasing the number of succussions. Hahnemann proved it by his experiment with soda. He dissolved 1 grain (66 mg) of soda in half ounce (14 ml) of water mixed with alcohol in a phial, which filled two-thirds of the phial, and shook this solution continuously for half an hour and he found that the soda developed medicinal power equivalent to that of the thirtieth potency in the centesimal scale,!# As succussion has been described by Hahnemann as similar to the Process of grinding, it is evident from the observation of this experiment that soda will be divided into finer and finer sizes as succussions will go on increasing. In the footnote of section 270 of the Sth edition of the Organon, Hahnemann has Stated that by giving greater and greater numbers of succussions medicines are very highly potentized. Hahnemann advocated standardising the potency of a medicine on the basis of the number of succussions undergone by it. If the succussion is carried on for several hours in a potentizing machine, then"one may reach any high degree of dynamization. If the potency is carried to, say, CM or MM in this experiment, then one cannot deny the presence of316 Tie HAHNEMANNIAN GLPANINGS [December soda in the CM or MM degree dynamized microdose. Hence any assumption that soda will not be present in a dose of MM potency prepared in this way will not be logically valid. In practice, potencies beyond 30 are prepared by simultaneously varying the dilution (d) and the number of succussions (s). Hahnemann used to prepare medicines by hand, varying d and 5 of relation (1). Potencies of 200, 1M, 10M, etc. are prepared by varying s only, keeping d constant after the 3rd or 6th potency. : Let us consider a drug substance whose molecular weight is 100. One can obviously calculate that | minim of the 6th potency of this medicine will contain about 4x 10! number of molecules. Now, to one minim of the 6th potency medicine 99 minims of dilute alcohol are added and succussed in a potentizing machine giving different numbers of succussion to prepare different potencies, ‘As one had 4X10! number of molecules at the beginning, there is no reasonable ground to assume that so many molecules have vanished when CM or higher potencies are prepared without changing the dilution. ‘A question may arise here that if the medicines are prepared this way by the potentizing machine, then what is the difference between a dose of 200 and one of CM potency medicine? The difference, in the words of Hahnemann, is that the higher and higher the degree of dynamization, the more and more of the latent medicinal power of the substance is exposed. Again, the difference from the point of view of the size of the particles of the medicinal substance is that the higher and higher the potency, the finer and finer are the particles, i.e. taking the substance to collodial or micromolecular solution of the dispersed state of matter. Thus accepting the presence of the drug material in the highest dynamized medicine prepared by changing s only, a pertinent question will arise about the case when the potencies are prepared by varying both d and s. The answer to this question will be given from the standpoint of distribution of particles in colloidal and micromolecular solution in the latter part of the paper. There is, however, a limitation of this functional relation. Hahnemann? indicated that if the dilution is low, i.e. the concentration of the medicinal substance is high, then any number of succussions will not dynamize the medicinal substance, i.e. the medicinal power of the substance will not be exposed. The second limitation of the functional relation is that when s = 0, ie, not allowing any succussion, the potency will not change by simply increasing the dilution of the substance. Hahnemann described such solutions as simple dilutions or attenuations. ___ Let us suppose that there be Mp grains of the medicinal substance present in 100 minims of the p’th potency medicine. To change it to (p+1)’th potency, to one minim of the p’th potency medicine 99 minims of alcohol is to be added and shaken ten times. One should expect that the amount of substance present in one minim of (p+1)’th potency would be Mp/100 grains. Had the medicina:1986] _ ON THE PARADOX oF Microposes 317 substance been uni a Pa money distributed in the solution, this expectation would reduced in a geometrical, mount of medicinal substance would have been 5X10~ in the millesimal ee series by 1/100 in the centesimal and We shal S- drug pea Presently establish that it is not justifiable to assume that the throughout the volume ee always be distributed uniformly (homogencously) higher and high of the medicine as the dynamization proceeds to attain Bher potencies. As the potentization goes on increasing, the drug material increase and consequently the sizes of the nt become finer and finer. It is quite reasonable to assume ‘ance in the potentized medicine behaves as the matter in the the colloidal solution. In support of this assumption we quote observations of colloid chemists from different sources. subdivisions of the drug material Prese: that the drug subst: dispersed state in SECTION FOUR Potentized medicines and colloid solution: Prof. Traube® observed: “The fact that small and smallest doses of different medicines may produce marked effects in both the healthy and sick organisms is known and cannot be ignored by either allopaths or homoeopaths. Everyone who is acquainted with the serological investigation must acknowledge it and it would not be honest to withhold giving credit to the creator of Homoeopathy and to the representa- tives of Homoeopathy. Prof. Hebner, who does not want to pose exactly as a friend of Homoeopathy, pointed out that the camphor in 15x potency showed unmistakable physiological action. Hebner is justified in pointing out that if 1 c.c. of this potency of camphor contains millions of molecules why should not such a great number of molecules produce physiological effects ? “Everywhere in our organism the most manifold processes of chemical and physiological nature take place. If a foreign substance intrudes, it may disturb the existing equilibrium and change the process, but frequently its action is merely to accelerate the process catalytically. Tt acts as a stimulant or it acts as a paralyser. ca also cxert their paralysing properties on bio-electrical iminishing the potential. cr bY ato recognize that for the action of a medicine, it is not s ut the fine division of the substance that is decisive are in perfect ee ith the results of the modern colloid teachings. One millionth or agreement Witt Ngeam may evert just as great a biological action as a whole one millard oe it from this that there is a thoroughly justified kind of truth gram. ne vathic conception. The increased results!" claimed repeatedly from . aoepinaton of two medicines is wholly intelligible from standpoint of a col colloid teaching. “| have arr there is 2 healthy 5 ‘ved, on the basis of my colloidal experience, at the result that Keel within homoeopathic observation and again it is

The Hahnemannian Gleanings Volume LIII NO.12

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Hahnemannian Gleanings Volume LIII NO.12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like