Potentisation and The Infinitesimal Dose



The basic idea is to do so modify a primarily virulent animal virus, toxin or other pathological product, that it may be used safely for therapeutic or prophylactic purposes. In that respect it may be regarded as a crude analogue or imitation of homoeopathic mechanical potentiation.

Considered as a technical process such a method is highly objectionable because it involves so many uncertainties. The living organism is an infinitely complex thing, when we consider the almost innumerable mechanical, chemical and vital processes going on within its constantly changing fluids and solids. Many of these processes are very imperfectly understood. There are no means of accurately registering and measuring all these activities; no means of determining exactly what these changes are; nor how they are modified by the introduction of the foreign morbid substance used.

In comparing this method with the Hahnemann process it is only necessary to point out:-

1. The Hahnemannian process is purely physical, objective and mechanical.

2. It does not involve any uncertain, unseen, unreliable nor unmeasurable factor. Its elements are simply the substances or drug to be potentiated, a vehicle consisting of sugar of milk, alcohol or water in certain quantities and definite proportions; manipulation under conditions which are entirely under control and so simple that a child could comply with them.

3. The resulting products is stable, or may easily be made so; in fact it is almost indestructible; and the experience of a century, in its use under homoeopathic methods and principles has proved it to be efficient and reliable in the treatment of all forms of disease amenable to medication.

4. The process is practically illimitable. Potentiation of medicine by this method may be carried to any extent desired or required.

To argue about a question which can be settled promptly by the actual test of experience is a waste of time and energy, for nothing is gained by it and we must come to the test of experience in the end. To rehearse the theories, speculations, mathematical computations, illustrations from analogy and comparison with similar processes used in the allied arts and sciences, put forth by authors and disputants in discussing the pros and cons of the potentiation theory since it was first propounded by Hahnemann, might be interesting to some, but probably no one who has allowed himself to become prejudiced against homoeopathic high potencies would be convinced by all the arguments thus stated.

But when a sincere investigator sees an expert examine and prescribe for a case under the methods and principles taught in the Organon and witnesses, the therapeutic effects of the various potencies, he has seen a demonstration which he can repeat for himself until he is convinced that Hahnemann was right when he said; (par. 279) ” Experience proves that the dose of a homoeopathically selected remedy cannot be reduced so far as to be inferior in strength to the natural disease and to lose its power of extinguishing and curing at least a portion of the some, *provided that the dose, immediately after having been taken, is capable of causing a slight intensification of symptoms of the similar natural disease.

The results of the use of potentiated medicines have led careful students of the principles and conscientious practitioners of the methods of homoeopathy, to gradually rise in the scale of potencies until many have come to use most frequently the higher potencies. This is because they are found to act more gently. more deeply, more rapidly and more thoroughly than the crude drug or the low dilutions in the great majority of cases; and because it is impossible to cure certain forms of disease without them.

We have already seen how the idea of potentiation was made practical by the invention of what was essentially a new mechanical appliance, the centesimal scale of menstruation, Just as the mechanical performance of the mathematical processes of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division was made possible by the invention of the slide rule.

Unfortunately when this discovery was first announced attention was immediately focused upon the subject of *quantity rather than upon *quality proportionality and the laws of relation, under which homoeopathic medicines act. Objectors at once began to make arithmetical calculations of the *quantity of the original drug to be found in the various potencies and to be staggered by the size of the denominators of the vulgar fractions which were supposed to express that quantity. To arithmetically express the fraction of the original drop of the “mother tincture” contained in one drop of the thirtieth centesimal potency requires a numerator of one, over a denominator of one, with sixty ciphers added!

That such an infinitesimal quantity of medicine could have any effect was for some, unthinkable. Thus merely because of a seeming improbability, based upon *a priori reasoning without experiment opposition to the new doctrine arose.

It never occurs to such minds to study the *laws of relation nor to ascertain experimentally whether such a potency really does act when brought into proper relations with the living organism. They refuse to submit it to the actual test of experience. To a scientific mind such an objection is not worthy of consideration childish. On such grounds every notable invention of the last century would be rejected. What more improbable than the assertion that a man sitting in his office, could audibly converse with his friend three thousand miles away across the continent? But there stands the telephone on his desk ready for the demonstration.

The efficiency of homoeopathic potencies is not to be determined by calculation, but by actual trial upon the living organism. If one desire to be convinced that there is power in the thirtieth potency of Arsenic, let him put ten drops of it in a half pint of water and begin taking table spoon doses of it every three hours. Convincing proof of its power will be experienced inside of three days.

To the mind of the mathematician, the astronomer, or the modern physicist accustomed to think in the terms of the infinitesimal, such quantities present no difficulties, but to the unscientific mind, with its crude conception of the constitution of matter, they are unthinkable and incredible. It did not occur to the objectors to view the subject to view the subject from the standpoint of *the laws of relation under which such powers and quantities act, nor would their prejudices permit them to submit the matter to the simple test of practical experiment by which it could have been settled at once. Homoeopathy therefore almost from the beginning found its progress opposed by a prejudice based merely upon a seeming improbability.

The discovery a spectrum analysis, which revealed the presence of the drug as far as the twelfth centesimal potency, lent to the infinitely small quantities a significance not yet fully recognized in its bearing upon homoeopathy; but even this, while it confirmed the fact of the presence of the drug, could not explain the *relation of imponderable substances to the living organism.

The fact as pointed out by Ozanam, is that Hahnemann, by his discovery of potentiation, raised homoeopathy to a level with other natural sciences, since he created for it a method which is analogous to the infinitesimal calculus of mathematics, upon which is based the atomic theory of chemistry. It illustrates and harmonizes with the “theory of the interatomic ether of space” the “theory of the radiant state of matter,” the theory of the electric potential of present day physics, and with the chemico- cellular theory of physiology and pathological anatomy. It agrees with modern bacteriology in its explanation of the action of pathogenic micro-organism as being due to the infinitesimal quantities of their secreted poisons. It is in harmony with the latest conclusions of modern psychology.

Von Grauvogl has shown that ” the absorption of inorganic substances by the living organism regulates itself chiefly *according to the organic need, hence such substances are taken into the organism only in very small quantities and in soluble form. Iron offers a good illustration. The physiological school found by experience that the natural Chalybeate springs were most efficacious in chlorotic-anaemic conditions, and yet the very strongest of these contains less than a grain of iron in sixteen ounces of water.” In these later days, dependence is largely placed in so-called “organic iron” preparations derived from certain plants which contain very much less iron, and that existent in a highly vitalized or colloidal state.

A blood cell, among its other necessary constituents, contains a part or proportion of chloride of calcium which requires for its arithmetical expression a decimal of twenty-two places, corresponding to the eleventh centesimal potency. We are reminded by this of the remark of the celebrated physiologist, Valentin, who said; “The extreme minuteness and the immense quantity of the ultimate elements, everywhere engage our attention. The smallest image observable by the eye originates in millions of atmospheric vibrations. A grain of salt hardly large enough to taste, contains billions of group of atoms which no mortal eye can ever grasp. *Nature work everywhere with an infinite multitude of infinitely small magnitudes, Which become appreciable to our comparatively dull senses in their ultimate masses only.”

Stuart Close
Stuart M. Close (1860-1929)
Dr. Close was born November 24, 1860 and came to study homeopathy after the death of his father in 1879. His mother remarried a homoeopathic physician who turned Close's interests from law to medicine.

His stepfather helped him study the Organon and he attended medical school in California for two years. Finishing his studies at New York Homeopathic College he graduated in 1885. Completing his homeopathic education. Close preceptored with B. Fincke and P. P. Wells.

Setting up practice in Brooklyn, Dr. Close went on to found the Brooklyn Homoeopathic Union in 1897. This group devoted itself to the study of pure Hahnemannian homeopathy.

In 1905 Dr. Close was elected president of the International Hahnemannian Association. He was also the editor of the Department of Homeopathic Philosophy for the Homeopathic Recorder. Dr. Close taught homeopathic philosophy at New York Homeopathic Medical College from 1909-1913.

Dr. Close's lectures at New York Homeopathic were first published in the Homeopathic Recorder and later formed the basis for his masterpiece on homeopathic philosophy, The Genius of Homeopathy.

Dr. Close passed away on June 26, 1929 after a full and productive career in homeopathy.