Romies states that Thyroxin influences growth and development of tadpoles in dilutions of 1 in 5,000,000,000. 1
Jakoby shows that Potassium cyanide activates the ferment urease in a dilution of 1 in 1,000,000. 2
Reid Hunt has demonstrated that Acetyl chlorine in the strength of a milligram is half-a-million gallons of blood causes a distinct fall in the blood pressure.3.
Macht has shown that the uterus of a virgin guineapig responds to such a dilute concentration of Histamine as could not be demonstrated by the most refined microchemical methods.4
Cobra venom has been shown to haemolyse red blood corpuscles in a dilution of 1 in 10,000,000.5
The addition of 4 parts in 10,000 of copper doubles the rate of toxin production from a culture of diphtheria bacilli. (Locke and Main).6
These are merely random selections exemplifying the action of micro-doses in living cells – bacterial – amphibian – and mammalian.
But why this ultra-refinement in the dosage of homoeopathic remedies? Why, when all medicine is concerned with the maximum dose, should homoeopathy teach the minimal dose? and indeed such minimal doses as we shall speak of later, when we come to describe potentisation.
The reason is plain. Medicine, hitherto, has been mainly concerned, if one may so put it, with doing violence to the organism. It has been directed to cause sweating – vomiting – purging or sometimes to paralyse the action of the bowels. It has been used to deaden pain – to induce a drugged sleep – to modify the action of the heart – to depress fever – to excite appetite. In all these cases, the dose must be material. We are doing something subversive to the patient, or to his parts. Therefore the dose must be a poisonous, but not a lethal one. It is for this reason that the dosage of official medicine is apt to be the largest one dare give, to ensure the desired effect.
But when a remedy is used, in exactly the opposite manner – croton oil for diarrhoea – apomorphine to control vomiting – opium for the coma of cerebral haemorrhage – lead for constipation -rattle snake poison to control bleeding – and so on, it is only common sense to give it in the smallest dose that will evoke the desired reaction. Anything more than this will pro tem increase suffering – even where the ultimate result is good. And this is why, in the first instance, experience compelled Hahnemann to reduce his doses.
Observe! Homoeopathy never wants to do anything to a patient, only to stimulate his reactive powers, and so cause him to cure himself. For Hahnemann, disease was merely to rebellion of Vital Force against noxious agents inimical to life; and he taught that cure can only come from the stimulated reaction of Vital Force against disease.
Again, Hahnemann tells us that the smallest possible dose of a homoeopathic medicine will operate chiefly upon the diseased parts of the body, which have become extremely susceptible of a stimulus so similar “to their own disease”.
This increased sensitiveness of diseased parts is stressed by Bier also, who talks of the “extraordinarily sensitive disease threshold”;7 and who quotes Hufeland: “There is a reagent which is more delicate than the most delicate chemical reagent, and that is the reagent within the living organism.”
As a crude instance of this increased sensitiveness in diseases, Bier states that “it requires 250,000 times as much formic acid to produce symptoms in the healthy than in the gouty.”
Hahnemann, when applying to hypersensitive diseased tissues the one stimulus to which they were most sensitive, viz. the drug of like symptoms – that is to say, the drug that was proved to irritate those particular tissues – was forced, again and again, to reduce his doses.
It is by provings that we discover, in each case, exactly what organs or tissues are affected by different poisons; and when we apply these, as stimulants, to parts (not only especially sensitive to those particular drugs, but also rendered hypersensitive by disease) the necessity for reducing the dose is manifest.
THE INFREQUENT DOSE
Hahnemann speaks of the dose, whose repetition, depending on many factors, is never a matter of routine, or of the proclivities of the prescriber, but always depends on the reaction of the individual patient.
In acute sickness, without structural changes (I will give you cases), the effect of the first dose may be dramatic, and establish such instant and complete reaction that no second is needed.
Or in (say) pneumonia, after a marked improvement all round, the disease may, a few hours later, again get the upper hand; and experience shows that the remedy generally needs to be repeated in from four to six hours for a couple of days, till the temperature not only comes, but remains, down.
In deadly and most rapid cases, such as cholera, Hahnemann tells us that the repetition of Camphor must be in three to five minutes until reaction is established, or with Cuprum or Veratrum, every hour or half hour…. He says that remedies which act for a considerable time have the duration of their action diminished in proportion as disease is acute.
In chronic diseases the call to repeat varies with every case. The symptoms demand a remedy, and the return of symptoms, modified, will demand its repetition.
But there are other factors that come in. Some remedies are deep and long-acting, some superficial and short-acting. Some patients respond actively, others are sluggish and slow in their response. The question of the potency also comes in, since reaction varies with different potencies, and lengthens out with the higher potencies.
Therefore experience and observation alone can decide as to repetition, which depends on the individual reaction of the patient to the individual medicine.
This allowing the remedy to act was one of the great obstacles, as Hahnemann foresaw, to the acceptance of his work. His rule is, that the dose of the carefully selected homoeopathic remedy should act till it has accomplished its effect.
“Perceptible, continuous improvement, whether in acute or chronic disease, so long as it lasts contraindicates the repetition of any medicine whatsoever.” He says that every new dose of medicine would disturb the process of recovery.
And it is not this reasonable? Medicines do not cure; they merely stimulate curative reaction in the patient; and so long as this is in full swing, it is foolish to interrupt. The call for repetition is the renewed call of symptoms.
Hahnemann says, and we have proved it. “The surest way to hasten the cure is to let the medicines act so long as improvement continues…He who observes this rule with the greatest care, will be most successful homoeopathic practitioner”… and one may add, Vaccine-practitioner – as has been found.
One of Hahnemann’s greatest followers had told us, “More cases are spoilt by the too hasty repetition of the remedy than from any other cause.”
But Hahnemann foresaw the long years in which even his own followers, convinced of the law of similars, would yet doubt his teachings in its regard, and would do inferior work, because of the two great stumbling blocks to its acceptance – the small dose, and the infrequent dose. He says: “My doctrines in regard to the magnitude and the repetition of the dose will be doubted for years….I do not comprehend it – but facts speak for themselves. The truth of the proposition is demonstrated by experience – in which I have more faith than in my intelligence…If physicians do not carefully practise what I teach, let them not expect to be successful in their treatment.”
And here let me say that it is the experience of all of us, whose practice is guided by the homoeopathic law, that the closer we stick to the doctrines of Hahnemann, the better our results.
INITIAL AGGRAVATION
And the Hahnemann’s Initial Aggravation – transient and little noticed in acute sickness, but often very definite in chronic disease; where it may occur during the first eight to ten days. It was the initial aggravation that caused Hahnemann, as we said, to reduce his doses; and which led presently to the establishment of the fact that when remedies are reduced again and again by repeated subdivision into the region of infinitesimals, there is no loss, but an augmentation of energy…And therefore, as time went on, and observation was added to observation, “dilutions” became for him “potencies”, and the 30th dilution (“one in a decillion”) was more correctly named, the 30th power, or potency.
Initial aggravation is succeeded by period of amelioration. Sir Almorth Wright has called it a “positive phase,” which, Hahnemann says, must not be interfered with. Vital reaction has been brought into play, and must be permitted to work itself out.
VACCINES – HOMOEOPATHIC
Such initial aggravations are only seen in homoeopathy and where homoeopathic remedies, such as vaccines, are employed. Here they are often very definite, and have led, as in Hahnemann’s case, to the reduction, again and again, of the dose.
And that vaccines and disease products used for the cure of disease are homoeopathic is pretty widely recognised.
Weir received his medical education first at Glasgow University MB ChB 1907, and then on a sabbatical year in Chicago under the tutelage of Dr James Tyler Kent of Hering Medical College during 1908-9. Weir reputedly first learned of homeopathy through his contact with Dr Robert Gibson Miller.
John Weir wrote- Some of the Outstanding Homeopathic Remedies for Acute Conditions with Margaret Tyler, Homeopathy and its Importance in Treatment of Chronic Disease, The Trend of Modern Medicine, The Science and Art of Homeopathy, Brit Homeo Jnl, The Present Day Attitude of the Medical Profession Towards Homeopathy, Brit Homeo Jnl XVI, 1926, p.212ff, Homeopathy: a System of Therapeutics, The Hahnemann Convalescent Home, Bournemouth, Brit Homeo Jnl 20, 1931, 200-201, Homeopathy an Explanation of its Principles, British Homeopathy During the Last 100 Years, Brit Homeo Jnl 23, 1932: etc