DOSES EMPLOYED IN HAHNEMANN PROVING OF GOLD.
HAHNEMANN states (Choron, Krank., ii. 217) that, in the proving of gold, some of the provers took one hundred grains of the Ist trituration of gold-leafs, equal to one grain of pure gold, while the others took two hundred grains of the same preparation, in order to produce the effects recorded.
DR. ALTSCHUL’S POSOLOGICAL RULE.
In my lecture on the “Theories of Cure,’ page 85 (note a), I promised that when I came to treat of homoeopathic posology, I should give an account of Dr. Altschul’s attempt to determine the proper dose of the remedy by the laws of polarity. I find, however, that in may lectures on posology I have unaccountably omitted all allusion to Dr. Altschul’s views. I must therefore beg the reader to peruse the following account in connection with Lecture XV. It should have come in at page 434, immediately after the exposition of Attomyr’s views.
Dr. Altschul (Das therapeutische Polarititatsgesetz der Arzneidosen) takes a precise contrary view of the dose question to that expressed by ottomyr. He ingeniously labours to prove that large and small doses of medicine have an exactly opposite action; that they are, in fact, polar opposites, and that we cure disease by effecting a neutralization, by means of bringing the two opposite poles to bear upon the another. Thus, if we have before us a case, say of cholera, presenting the symptoms which would be caused by a large dose of arsenic, we give a small dose of arsenic, and the desired neutralization takes place. In other words, we act antipathically in our treatment of disease, as far as doses are concerned, and give for a certain state a dose which we believe has the inherent power of producing precisely the opposite state.
Such is Dr. Altschuls idea as far as I can make it out but I am half inclined to doubt if I have apprehend him aright, for I find a little further on that he recommends small doses of a remedy he proved (sumbul) for the cure of conditions precisely the opposite of those the large doses produced on himself and fellow-provers. Thus the large doses he took produced excessive constipation; he recommends it for profuse diarrhoea, in small doses. The catamenia were delayed by the large doses; he in small doses for excessive and premature menstruation. What does he mean? Methinks, he has wandered by mistakes into the homoeopathic camp, and that, as his name (Atschul, anglice Old-school) implies he still belongs to the ranks of our opponents; at all events, I imagine the new school will not be anxious to claim him as an exponent of their doctrines, with his present confused ideas.
DIFFERENT CURATIVE POWDERS OF VARIOUS DOSES.
At page 444, when alluding to the fact that diseases which have resisted the employment of a remedy in one dilution have, sometimes yielded to the same remedy in a different dilution, I have mentioned but one solitary instance of this certainly rare circumstances. As several other striking examples of their occurrence are recorded in our homoeopathic literature, I think it right to record a few more of them in this place, in order that my readers may not go away with the impression that my readers may not go away with the impression that there is almost no difference in the power of different doses to subdue disease.
Dr. G. Schmid (Bekennt ub. die Hom) mentions that his own child lay dangerously ill of smallpox, and the eruption suddenly receded; he gave belladonna 14, but the patient only grew worse. Convinced that belladonna was the right remedy, he now gave a drop of he 1st dilution, which was speedily followed by amendment, and the child recovered, Dr. Rau relates (Org. g. spec. Heilk.) how, in a case of venous hemorrhage from the worms, cross 6 was of no use, whereas a drop of the Ist dilution, which was speedily followed by amendment, and the child recovered. Dr. Rau relates (Org.d.spec Heilk) how, in a case of venous hemorrhage from the womb, crocus 6 was of no use, whereas a drop of the 1st dilution had the best effect.
Also, that ipecacuanha 3 produced no change in a case of dyspepsia, attended with vomiting but that three drops of the 1st dilution gave relief in a marvelously short space of time. Dr. Thinks (Hansdbuch, ii.741) mentions the cause of a man aged 50, who had been treated for three years without the slightest benefit, by Hahnemann himself, for a paralytic affection of the legs, unattended by pain; after this he got tinct. rhus tox., in increasing doses, until be had consumed the large quantity of four ounces, whereby he was perfectly curd of his paralyses, without the slightest derangement of his general health whilst taking this, for a homoeopathic treatment, unprecedented quantity of a powerful medicine. Doubtless, he had received the same medicine from Hahnemann in similar doses, as it was quite homoeopathic to the symptoms present. Dr. Roth of Paris (jour. de la soc Gallic., iv. 282) relates a case of attacks of ophthalmia arthritica, with tearing and digging pain in the bones surrounding the eye, chemosis, photophobia, and fever.