I grant that all the medicinal substances that have been proposed as substitutes for cinchona-bark, from the lofty ash down to camomile and lichen on the wall, as also from arsenic down to Jame’s powder and sal-ammoniac, I grant, I say, that every one of those medicinal substances I have named, and others I have not named, has of itself cured particular cases of ague (their reputation proves they have done this now and then). But from the very circumstance that observers state of one or other that it was efficacious even when cinchona bark did no good or was hurtful, they prove clearly that the ague which the one medicine cured was of a different kind from that other cured! For had it been an ague suited for china, this medicine must have removed it, and none other could have been of use. Or else there must be foolishly attributed to the china in this case a peculiar malignity and spitefulness, making it refuse to be helpful, or to the other vaunted medicine, which was efficacious, a peculiar amiability and obligingness, causing it to do as the doctor wished! It would almost appear as if some such foolish notion was entertained!

No! the truth of the matter, which has not been perceived, is as follows: It is not the bitterness, the astringent taste, and the so-called aroma of the cinchona bark, but in its whole intimate nature, that resides the invisible dynamical working spirit, that can never be exhibited in a material separated condition (just as little as can that of other medicinal substances), whereby it differentiates itself from all other medicines in the derangements of the human health it causes. See the observations recorded below.

Everyone one of the medicinal substances recommended in agues has its own peculiar action on the human health, differing from the medicinal power of every other drug, in conformity with eternal immutable laws of nature. Every particular medicinal substance, by the will of the Creator, differs from every other one in its externals (appearance, taste, and smell), and even much more so in its internal dynamic properties, in order that we may be enabled by means of these differences to fulfil all possible curative intentions in the innumerable and various cases of disease. Is it to be supposed that the all-good and omnipotent Creator of thew infinite varieties of nature could, would, or should have done less?

Now, if everyone of the vaunted ague remedies, whilst leaving other agues uncured, has really cured some cases – which I will not deny as far as regards those cases where the observers have given the remedy by itself – and if every single one of these remedies has affected its cure, not as a matter of especial favour towards the doctor who prescribed it, but, as it is more rational to suppose, owing to a peculiar power bestowed on it in conformity with eternal laws of nature, then it must necessarily be that the case in which this remedy, and not another, did good, was a peculiar form of ague, adapted for this medicine only, and different from that other ague which could only be cured by some other remedy. And so all agues, each of which requires a different medicine for its cure, must be agues absolutely dissimilar to one another.

Again, when two agues betray their difference, not only by symptoms palpably different from one another, but also, as I have said, by this, that the one can only be cured by one remedy and the other by another remedy, it plainly follows from this, that these two remedies must differ from one another in their nature and action, (Otherwise theone medicine must have been able to cure just as well that ague which yielded to the other medicine, if the action of both was the same.) and cannot be identical, consequently cannot be considered as the same thing, and therefore cannot reasonably be substituted for one another; in other words, the one ought not to be represented as a surrogate for the other.

Or have those gentlemen, who do not see this, some mode of thinking peculiar to themselves and unknown to me, some logic of their own that stands in direct contradiction to that of the rest of mankind?

Infinite nature in much more multiform in her dynamic endowment of medicinal substances than the compilers of medicinal virtues, called teachers of Materia Medica, have any idea of, and immeasurably more multiformin the production of innumerable deviations in human health (diseases) than the bungling pathologist enamoured of his natty classification is aware of, who, by his couple of dozen, not even correctly (What physician, except HIPPOCRATES, have ever described the pure course of any disease where no medicine has been given from the beginning to the end? Consequently, do not the recorded histories of diseases contain the symptoms of the diseases mixed up with those of the domestic remedies and drugs given during their course? ) designated, forms of disease, seems only to give expression to the wish that dear nature might be so good as to limit the host of diseases to a small number, so that his brother therapeutist and practitioner – his head stuffed full of traditional prescriptions – may the more easily deal with the little collection.

That the ordinary physicians, by mingling iron in the same prescription with bark, often dish up for the patient a repulsive-looking and unsavoury ink, may be overlooked, but they must be told that a compound results from this mixture that possesses neither the virtues of cinchona bark nor those of iron.

The truth of this assertion is manifest from the fact when cinchona bark has done harm iron is often its antidote and the remedy for its injurious action, as cinchona bark is for iron, when indicated by the symptoms caused by the unsuitable medicine.

Still iron can only remove some of the untoward symptoms, those, namely, which it can produce in similarity in healthy persons.

After long-continued treatments with large doses of china many symptoms often remain for which other medicines are required; for we frequently meet with china-cachexia of such a severe character that is only with great difficulty that the patient can be freed from them and rescued from dearth. In those cases, Ipecacuanha in small doses, more frequently Arnica, and in some few Belladona, is of use, the indication for the antidote being determined by the symptoms of the china-disease. Veratrum is useful when coldness of the body and cold sweats have been caused by bark, if the other symptoms of this drug correspond homoeopathically.


The following old-school authoritues are quoted:

ALPINI, Hist, Febr. epid.

BALGIVI, Praxis, Lib. ii.

BAKER, in Medical Transactions, vol. iii. Lond., 1785.

BAUER, J. Fr., in Acta Nat. Cur., iii.

BERGER, JOH. GOTTFR., Diss. de Chinchina ab uniquis judiciis vindicata. Viteb., 1711.

BRESLAUER Samml., 1728.

CARTHEUSER, J. F., Diss. de Febre intermitt. Epid. Francoff ad V., 1749.

CLEGORN, Diseases of Minorca.

CRUGER, DAN., in Misc. Nat. Cur., Dec. iii, ann. 3.

ETTMULLER, B, M., Diss. de usu et abusu praecepit.

FISCHER,C. E., in Hufel. Journal f. pr. A., iv.

FORMEY, Medorrhinum Ephem., i, 2.

FOTHERGILL, Essays, tom. ii.

FRIBORG, Diss. de usu cort. Peruv., 1773.

GESNER, J. A. PH., Sammlung, v. Beob.,i. Nordlingen, 1789.

GREDING, in Ludw. Advers., tom. i.

HILDENBRAND, J, v. VON, in Hufel. Journ., xiii.

JUNCKER et FRITZE, Diss. de usu cort. Peruv. Discreto. Halae, 1756.

KOKER, JOH, DE (work not given).

KREYSIG, Diss. Obs. de Febr. Quart. Viteb., 1797.

LIMPRECHT, J.A., in Acta Nat. Cur., ii.

MAY, W., in Lond. Medorrhinum Journ., 1788.

MORTON, Opera, ii.

MURRAY, Apparat. Medicam, 2nd edit., i.

PELARGUS, Obs., ii.

PELARGUS, Obs., ii.

PERCIVAL, Essays. vol. i.

QUARIN, Method. Medorrhinum Febr.

RAULIN, J., Observat. De Medorrhinum Paris, 1754.

RICHARD, Recueil d’ Observ. De Medorrhinum, ii.

ROMBERG, j. W., Misc. Nat. Cur., Dec. iii, Ann. 9, 10.

ROSCHIN, in Annalen der Heilkunde, 1811, Feb.

SCHLEGEL, in Hufel. Journ., vii.

STAHL, J. E., Diss. Problem. De Febrobus, – Obs. Clin.

SYDENHAM, Opusc. Lips., 1695.

THOMPSON, AL., in Medorrhinum Inqu. And Observ., iv, No. 24.

THOMSON, THOM., Medorrhinum Rathpfleg. Leipzig, 1779.

In the Frag. De Vir. China has 221 symptoms, in the 1st Edit. 1082, and in this 2nd Edit. 1143.]


Vertigo. [J. F. CARTHEUSER, (Results of suppression of intemittents by china) Diss. de Febre intermitt, epid. Francof. Ad. V., 1749.]

First vertigo and giddy nausea, then general feeling of heat. (Comp. with 1, 3, 4, 5.)

Vertigo in the occiput, when sitting. [Fz.]

Vertigo; the head tends to sink backwards, worse when moving and walking, diminished by lying down (aft. a few m.). [Hrr.]

5. Constant vertigo, the head tends to sink backwards, in every position, but worse when walking and moving the head (aft. 6 h.). [Hrr.]

Stupidity. [CARTHEUSER, l. c.]

He is long in collecting his thoughts, is much disinclined for movement, and more disposed to sit and to lie.

Samuel Hahnemann
Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) was the founder of Homoeopathy. He is called the Father of Experimental Pharmacology because he was the first physician to prepare medicines in a specialized way; proving them on healthy human beings, to determine how the medicines acted to cure diseases.

Hahnemann's three major publications chart the development of homeopathy. In the Organon of Medicine, we see the fundamentals laid out. Materia Medica Pura records the exact symptoms of the remedy provings. In his book, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homoeopathic Cure, he showed us how natural diseases become chronic in nature when suppressed by improper treatment.