HOW DID WE GET OUR HOMOEOPATHIC MATERIA MEDICA


HOW DID WE GET OUR HOMOEOPATHIC MATERIA MEDICA. Hahnemann shared the fate of other inconvenient innovators. His reformatory ideas were not accepted, even though he tried in exceptionally clear ways in his fundamental work (Experiments about a new Principle, etc.), and many times later to urge the necessity of his research method.


Ladies and gentlemen:

In my previous lecture you learned how with the aid of our great medical treasury we are able to treat our patients individually, and today you expect information as to how we obtained our knowledge of our remedies Here we have to take a short excursion into the history of medicine. At the time when Hahnemann, the father of Homoeopathy, lived, one system of medical practice succeeded another. When yesterday it had been correct to consider the cause of disease due to passive hyperaemia in the organs and to resort to venesection, the next day the cause of all diseases was supposed to be due to something “sharp.” This was divided into acid, alkaline, oily, and salty “sharpness”.

These hypothetical causes of diseases were treated with drastic purgatives, frequently given enemata, and “fontanelles” (setons) to “drain them out.” This was called “rational therapy.” This treatment, supposedly based on consideration and reason was in reality only chimera.

The knowledge of remedy action was not better founded prejudiced and groundless. Since nothing certain was known, a dozen or more medicaments were mixed in the fond hope that a suitable remedy were among them.

Here Hahnemann appeared on the scene with his reformatory efforts, i.e. his demand: Every medicament must be proved singly on the healthy individual to learn its action before it is given to the patient.

Since pathologic anatomy had not passed the era of Morgagni (Italian physician 1682 to 1771-S.W.S.) and physiological research was still in its infancy, a systematic proving of remedies on the healthy human being, combined with observation of accidental poisoning, was the only means of information about action of remedies in the human body.

Hahnemann shared the fate of other inconvenient innovators. His reformatory ideas were not accepted, even though he tried in exceptionally clear ways in his fundamental work (Experiments about a new Principle, etc.), and many times later to urge the necessity of his research method. It did not help him to refer to the authority of Albrecht von Haller who, 20 years earlier, had voiced the same demand in his Introduction to the Pharmacopoeia Helvetica.

So Hahnemann began the task alone. later a small number of enthusiastic pupils joined him. The first results of these provings of 27 remedies he published in 1805 in his monograph: Fragmenta de Viribus Medicamentorum Positivis sive in Sano Corpore Humano Observatis. During the following years his Reine Arzneimittellehre (Pure Materia Medica) was published in six volumes. Later he added 47 remedy provings in his Chronische Krankheiten (Chronic Diseases). During the course of 100 years homoeopathic physicians of all countries proved more than 1,000 remedies on healthy subject mostly on themselves.

The old school also has extended its knowledge of remedies during the second half of the last century, but along different ways: By experiments on animals and on isolated organs.

Both methods, which unprejudiced observation does not exclude as long as they supplement each other, have their drawbacks as well as advantages.

The pharmacological school method has the favorable advantage that they can get their experimental animals easily. The imperfections of this “rabbit medicine” are that the remedy action on the animal or isolated organ cannot ipso facto be applied to human beings. But the experiments can only go on to a certain point because irreparable damage must not be done. Furthermore it is difficult to get a sufficient number of provers. A proving on ourselves is not a simple matter.

In the first place it has to continue until real disturbances in the normal action of body-function appear, which may be connected with painful or annoying symptoms. And such provings demand attention and a good deal of time. At this time (1934) the Central Society of Homoeopathic Physicians (more than 40 homoeopathic physicians in northern Germany-one fifth of the homoeopathic physicians practicing in that radius) has been proving some remedies for the past three months, and next year another such remedy proving will take place. This is surely a fine demonstration of the diligence and devotion of our homoeopathic colleagues.

The homoeopathic materia medica was created on the results of these remedy proving with additional reports stemming from super doses and poisonings, mentioning the symptoms observed from each medicament.

An instructive example for our meditation is cantharis, the poisoning symptoms of which you know from your studies of toxicology. Already Hahnemann reported on this remedy in the first issue of his proving pictures. He speaks of 20 symptoms which he experienced in himself, and a further 75 symptoms reported by 19 co-laborers. Later Hartlaub and Trinks gave a more complete picture in their Materia Medica.

You know cantharis skin action from external application, The skin turns red, is inflamed, and continued action causes burning and blistering. On the basis of the similia rule we therefore use it with success in homoeopathic dilution for burns, sunburns and vesicular erysipelas.

The old physicians frequently used the Cantharis plaster in pleurisy “as a derivative to the skin.” In reality this was involuntary Homoeopathy. The poisoning symptoms when Cantharis is given internally show unmistakably a specific action on serous membranes. Cantharis can produce a pleuritic irritation.

The chief action of Cantharis is evident in the urinary organs. First the urine secretion in increased quantitatively with frequent tenesmus, heat and burning in the urethra. When Cantharis is given in stronger doses, inflammation of kidneys, ureters and urethra results, with backache; the urine becomes scanty, bloody, containing albumen; burning pain in kidney region with severest strangury. Fever with extreme restlessness. The sexual organs are also involved; severe sexual erethism, in men priapism.

Corresponding to these remedy-action, Cantharis in Homoeopathy is given especially when urinary organs are inflamed. It is one of our chief remedies in acute inflammation of bladder and urethra with severe strangury and burning and cutting pains in the bladder region. The sexual symptoms result from the acute inflammatory-hyperemic symptoms of the urinary organs, and must be evaluated as such.

Where in acute posterior gonorrheic urethritis, aside from severe strangury, sexual irritation symptoms appear like erections and pollutions, we give Cantharis, but not below the 6x potency. Cantharis acts then as a similimum by quickly relieving these torturing symptoms, much better than any sedative. Bladder catarrh with less stormy symptoms, as after taking cold and getting wet, especially in woman, is often quickly cured by Cantharis, which in such cases we give in a lower potency, but not below the 4x potency. Also in nocturnal strangury of prostatics Cantharis 4c to 6c often helps.

Corresponding to the picture of Cantharis poisoning, we use it in dry or exudative pleurisy when the urinary organs also are involved with irritation.

I consider it not unimportant to mention that 200 years ago Groenvelt and Bartholin recommended Cantharis in chronic cystitis. This recommendation has been totally forgotten, perhaps because it was given in too strong doses and thus did damage, or it was used in urinary catarrh in which it was not the simile, and could therefore not develop any curative action.

I hope I have succeeded in making it clear from the toxicology and provings of Cantharis how we homoeopathic physicians gain our indications from the provings. Realizing the importance of toxicology for Homoeopathy, many homoeopathic physicians of the past began gathering and studying the scattered toxicological literature. Today the embryo disciples of Hahnemann have a much easier job, for in the meantime Hugo Schulz, M.D., Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Greifswald (Germany), in his lectures Action and Application of Inorganic Medicinal Substances, etc., has collected all toxicological material as well as that gained from “provings on the healthy.” His two volumes (George Thieme, Leipzig) constitute the best introduction to Homoeopathy.

Aside from medicines known to old school pharmacology, Homoeopathy uses many medicaments scarcely known by name to allopathic physicians, and I do believe also that such will interest you, e.g. “horse chestnuts” (Aesculus hippocastanum).

The first proving of Hippocastanum was undertaken 75 years ago and it shows especial action on the rectum and anus in all provers. Aside from subjective symptoms (sensation of dryness, fullness, heat, itching and of a foreign body) in the rectum, some provers reported haemorrhoidal swellings.

On the basis of these findings which unquestionably showed the organotropy of the remedy o rectum and anus, homoeopathic physicians tried Aesculus in haemorrhoidal complaints. Therapeutic results during the past 75 years proved the specific action of this remedy-we prefer the 3x potency-in haemorrhoids. Provers also reported pain in the iliosacral joint; these pains were not severe, more a dull sensation of pain with local weakness. Such lumbago one finds often in patients suffering from haemorrhoids. Aesculus also acts on the mucous membrane of throat: Sensation of dryness in pharynx.

Fritz Donner