In view of these facts, it is hardly correct to say, as Dr. Hempel does, that “all the provings of the original provers of our Materia Medica were made with massive doses of the strongest preparations, etc.”
Second, we call upon the Austrian Provers’ Union. This society conducted in the years 1842 to 1848, a series of re-provings of certain of the drugs proved by Hahnemann, in the hope of certain of the drugs proved by Hahnemann, in the hope of discovering the pathological connection of the symptoms which in Hahnemann’ scheme are disconnected. Conceiving also that some of Hahnemann’s symptoms were vague, because produced, as they supposed, by small doses, they pushed their provings with massive doses, in many case to extreme poisoning. With these views we could hardly expect from them much testimony, either positive or negative, on the subject of proving with potencies; but, in that which they do furnish, we should expect them to be unfavourable witnesses for our views, since their proclivities are almost uniformly against the use of potencies in proving or in therapeutics. Dr. Hempel says, “all these splendid provings, etc., were instituted with massive does; the middle and higher potencies were invariably tried after the former.” Let us examine the records.
In the proving of Aconite, sixteen provers made in all thirty-seven experiments. Six of these were made with dilutions from the first to the twelfth centesimal, and symptoms were observed in all but one. In five of these cases, large doses of the tincture had been taken before the dilution. In one case the prover began with the first centesimal dilution and got symptoms.
In the proving of Bryonia, fourteen provers made twenty-nine experiments, of which ten were with dilutions from the first decimal the dilutions, viz: with
the tenth and the thirtieth, and got in one case very graphic symptoms; in the other, symptoms unequivocal though less numerous. In the cases in which dilutions were used after massive doses of the tincture had been taken, considerable intervals were allowed to elapse after the last symptoms from the tincture-proving disappeared before the dilutions were taken, e.g., forty-one days before the 203d dilution was taken, and yet this dilution appears to have produced decided symptoms. It is true that the propriety of ascribing these symptoms to the Bryonia is called in question by the Editor of the Austrian Journal, but with scarcely sufficient grounds, since a subsequent proving with the 203d dilution evoked them again. Here, then, in the tincture, symptoms were obtained (while in one case in which they were taken after the tincture, no symptoms were observed, shows that the corollary to proposition No.2 is at least not universally true).
In the proving of Silver we find that the drug was taken be one prover each in the first, second, and third trituration, and in the fourth, fifth, and sixth dilutions, and valuable symptoms were obtained by each. The Editor calls attention to the great correspondence between these symptoms and those of Hahnemann, obtained, as we known, from the first trituration.
In the proving of Nitrate of Silver, the Editor remarks: “Between the experiments a sufficient time elapsed to insure against the effect of one experiment being complicated by those of a preceding one, two years being consumed in the proving.” The proving was begun with the first decimal trituration, and subsequently in succession the second, sixth, and thirtieth dilutions were used. The effect of each dose was allowed to expend itself before a new experiment was instituted; symptoms clear and characteristic, and covering a period of six to nine days, were obtained from a single dose of the thirtieth dilution. Here, it is true, the dilutions were preceded by low trituration, yet the Austrian provers were of opinion that in these cases the lower preparations did not influence the susceptibility of the system to the higher potencies.
In proving Kali bichromicum, in only two cases was a dilution higher than the third employed. In both of these the twelfth was used and symptoms were obtained. In one, that of Dr. Wachtl. the symptoms from a single dose give a complete picture of the subjective and objective effects of this drug in the pharynx and neighboring organs. In neither of these cases had the drug been previously taken in massive doses.
In the proving of Colocynth, fifteen prover made twenty-five experiments. Ten were made with dilutions, and in nine, symptoms were obtained. In three of these, the third dilution was used and no other preparation of Colocynth had previously been taken.
In proving Thuja, twenty-three proves made fifty-nine experiments. Seventeen were made with dilutions, and, in thirteen, unequivocal symptoms followed. Nine began their provings with dilutions and got symptoms. Four began their provings with dilutions and got no symptoms. But, on the other hand, seven conducted their provings with massive doses of the tincture without obtaining any unequivocal symptoms. It is evident, then, that negative testimony on this subject is of little value.
In proving cochineal, four provers began their experiments with the hundredth dilution, one with the sixtieth and one with the thirtieth dilution, and all got valuable symptoms. One prover, on the other hand, began with the 200th dilution and gradually descended, getting no symptoms until he took massive doses.
In the proving of Natrum muriaticum, thirty-nine provers took part. Fourteen began with dilutions varying from the sixth to thirtieth, the majority beginning with the thirtieth, twelve obtained symptoms of which some are of great value, lasting and recurring for many days after the last dose. Thus, in twelve cases out of thirty-nine, dilutions were taken before “the system was saturated with massive doses of the strongest preparations, etc.,” instead of dilutions being “invariably tried after” such massive doses.
We may remark that in every case in which we ascribed symptoms to the dilutions, except the case of the 203d of Bryonia, they have been so admitted by the Austrian provers themselves.
In conclusion, was may observe that Natrum muriaticum the record of the Austrian provings closes. In his concluding remarks on that drug, Dr. Watzke uses the following language: “I am-alas! I say, alas! for I would much rather have upheld the larger doses which accord with current views-I am compelled to declare myself for the higher dilutions. The physiological experiments made with Natrum muriaticum, as well as the great majority of the clinical results attained therewith, speak decisively and distinctly for these preparations. Several of our most cautious provers have obtained no questionable characteristic Natrum muriaticum symptoms from them.” It is remarkable that as Hahnemann was evidently led by experience to recommend that in drug-provings dilutions should be used as well as crude preparations, in like manner, the Austrian prover should, as the result of his experience, express himself as above. Watzke further remarks: (1 Oest. Zeitschrift, vol. iii., p. 64, note) “I am very far from regarding a stormy method of proving as the only proper and useful one, and I recognize the conditions of an all-sided knowledge of the remedy, in the free, unrestrained method we have adopted; experiments being made with large, small, and smallest doses according to the disposition, judgment and good pleasure of the prover.” And again, in reply to a critic, “My friend says, “I have proved all my remedies in strong and some in the strongest doses; with many I have also made provings with the higher, even with the thirtieth dilution’ Have I then done otherwise?”
In a recent number of the Allg. Zeitung, it is stated that I member of the Old Austrian Provers’ Union has begun to prove Quassia amara with the thirtieth dilution, and has obtained valuable symptoms. Experto crede.
In view of these facts, we think Dr. Hempel is hardly correct in stating that “all the provings of the Austrian Provers’ Union were made with massive doses, etc. the middle and higher potencies being invariably tried after the massive doses.”
The records of the Austrian Union not only prove that dilutions may evoke trustworthy symptoms in a majority of the cases in which they are employed, but they also give us the means of forming a judgment on the propositions which form the substance of Dr. Hempels’s report.
1. “Drugs should not be proved with attenuations.” Now, since it has been shown that attenuations produce reliable and valuable symptoms, we submit that they should be used and for these reasons:
(a) Because attenuations have produced symptoms which have not also been produced by massive doses, and which have been confirmed by clinical experience. In the proving of Natrum muriaticum, the only distinct picture of periodic fever was induced in Dr. Wurmb while proving the thirtieth and twenty-fifth dilutions. Dr. Schreter, proving the thirtieth, got symptoms which no prover with massive doses presents. In the proving of Thuja, certain symptoms affecting the vision were produced in Dr. Huber by the sixtieth dilution, and in Prof. Zlatarovich by the twelfth, which no other proves have recorded. In the proving of Colocynth, the third dilution produced symptoms not recorded by any prover who took massive doses, and yet corroborated by a second prover with the third.
Dr. Dunham graduated from Columbia University with Honours in 1847. In 1850 he received M.D. degree at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of New York. While in Dublin, he received a dissecting wound that nearly killed him, but with the aid of homoeopathy he cured himself with Lachesis. He visited various homoeopathic hospitals in Europe and then went to Munster where he stayed with Dr. Boenninghausen and studied the methods of that great master. His works include 'Lectures on Materia Medica' and 'Homoeopathy - Science of Therapeutics'.