CHRONIC DISEASES: THE THEORY OF PSORA
SUPPLEMENT 86
ANTIPSORIC REMEDIES
Synopsis of the antipsoric remedies and numbers of symptoms from the provings in “Chronic Diseases.” Name Materia Chronic Diseases.
Medica Pura. I edition II edition Agaricus — — 715 Alumina — — 1161 Ammonium carbonicum — 159 789 Ammonium muriaticum — — 397 Anacardium — — 622 Antimonium crudum — — 471 Arsenicum 1079 — 1231 Aurum 376 — 461 Baryta carbonica — 286 794 Borax — — 460 Calcarea 269 1090 1631 Carbo vegetabilis 720 930 1189 Carbo animalis 191 191 728 Causticum 307 1014 1505 Clematis — — 150 Colocynthis 250 — 283 Conium 375 700 912 Cuprum — — 397 Digitalis 428 — 702 Dulcamara 401 — 409 Euphorbium — — 281 Graphites — 590 1144 Guaiacum 145 — 160 Hepar Sulphuris 307 — 661 Iodium — 133 624 Kali carbonicum — 938 1650 Lycopodium — 891 1608 Magnesia carbonica — 128 890 Magnesia muriatica — 69 749 Manganum 331 — 469 Mezereum — — 610 Muriatis acidum 279 — 574 Natrum carbonicum — 306 1082 Natrum muriaticum — 897 1349 Nitri acidum — 803 1424 Nitrum — — 710 Petroleum 623 — 776 Phosphorus — 1025 1915 Phosphori acidum 679 — 818 Platina — — 527 Sarsaparilla 145 — 561 Sepia — 1242 1655 Silicea — 567 1193 Stannum 660 — 648 Sulphur 815 1041 1960 Sulphuris acidum — — 521 Zincum — 723 1375
NAME OF PROVERS
Adam. Hartlaub. Rummel.
Apelt. Haubold. Schonke.
Bethmann. Hering. Schreter.
Brunner. Jahr. Schweikert.
Bute. Lesquereur. Seidel.
Caspari. Kretschmar. Tietze.
Foissac. Nenning. Trinks.
von Gersdorff. Piepors. Wahle.
Goullon. Rohl. Woost.
NUMBERS OF SYMPTOMS TAKEN FROM OTHER AUTHORS.
Total No. No. of Name. of Borrowed Symptom. Symptoms.
Agaricus 715 21 Anacardium 622 3 Antimonium crudum 471 71 Arsenicum 1231 382 Aurum 461 6 Baryta 799 4 Clematis 150 6 Colocynthis 283 29 Conium 912 155 Cuprum 397 154 Digitalis 702 131 Dulcamara 409 83 Euphorbium 281 22 Guaiacum 160 3 Hepar Sulphuris 661 11 Iodium 624 348 Mezereum 610 34 Muriatis acidum 574 16 Nitri acidum 1424 30 Nitrum 710 122 Phosphorus 1915 84 Sarsaparilla 561 4 Stannum 648 5 Sulphur 1969 10 Sulphuris acidum 521 8
SUPPLEMENT 87
OPINIONS ON THE THEORY OF PSORA.
I. HAHNEMANN’S CONTEMPORARIES.
According to Stapf the book on “Chronic Diseases,” gives surprising explanation on the nature and treatment of chronic illness. Homoeopathy is brought many steps nearer to its completion by it. Stapf would even like to date therefrom a new era in the history of homoeopathy. The first condition for results of course is to adhere strictly to Hahnemann’s prescriptions, every deviation would “most certainly” punish itself; for Hahnemann teaches here an” accurately recognised and manifest law of nature.”
That Boenninghausen took up this teaching of the Master with enthusiasm hardly needs mentioning. Hahnemann had talked to him quite openly during the time followed the publication, on all the points that affected him, and Boenninghausen, a few years later, published a special repertory exclusively for antipsoric remedies.
Among the staunch supporters of the Psora theory is to be Constantine Hering. A short time after the publication of the first edition of “Chronic Diseases,” he wrote to Hahnemann from Paramaribo in Dutch Guiana (South America) in May, 1829, not he occasion of his Doctor’s Jubilee:
Leprosy is now conquered; I actually see the most remarkable proofs of it. The antipsoric remedies, in the smallest doses, conquer this monster which so far has been unconquerable. It is only four months since I have been able to employ these remedies for it, and already I have obtained brilliant results, in all patients. There is not a single leper patient who has not improved, many are already quite near being completely cured.
Hering independently followed the new doctrine further. He tried for instance, to protect psoric patients from new infections, or after a new probable infection, from a further development of an inner psora; he considered all epidemic fevers, also many acute contagious diseases as “psoric,” he even maintained that there is no dividing line between psoric and non- psoric diseases.
Dr. Paul Wolf put before the Central Association at their Magdeburg congress of 1836, eighteen theses in which were established the views of the homoeopathic physicians of that time regarding the old school medicine of those days, and also in regard to the extreme ideas held by Hahnemann. In No. 12 thesis he dealt with the psora doctrine and elaborated something like the following.
Hahnemann’s doctrine of psora owed its origin to the indubitable fact, that a considerable number of chronic diseases could not be completely cured; that it would not be invariably accepted that the reason for this should lie in an itch disease. Otherwise the psora doctrine had “practically no influence” on general practice.
Rau of Giessen recognises the truth, that a large number of chronic diseases may be the outcome of itch not properly cured, and therefore sometimes he delivered to the Central Association in 1837 at Frankfort-o-M.) an endeavour on the part of Hahnemann, to fill up a considerable gap in the homoeopathic treatment; with this doctrine Hahnemann acknowledges the necessity of going back to a morbid condition of the organism in order to be able to recognise the importance of the outward manifestation. According to Rau the “quintessence” of the teaching consists in “having to take into consideration the internal hidden conditions and especially the latent dyscrasia.” But it remains untenable in the way in which Hahnemann conceived and represented it.
Owing to the impression made by this lecture, the Central Association rejected the doctrine of psora, but recognized fully the efficacy of the psora remedies in chronic diseases.
Jahr, one of the keenest pupils and admires of Hahnemann, relates that he has seen protracted affections from the outward expulsion of the itch, yet the thinks it very doubtful that all chronic diseases, which have not their origin in syphilis, should originate from the itch and should not proceed from other sources.
As Trinks could not agree in any way with the teaching put forward by Hahnemann in “Chronic Diseases” it made the gulf between Hahnemann and himself much deeper.
If a separate proof of this could be necessary, we have only to remember his declaration on the doctrine of psora during the controversy about the 6th edition of the “Organon” in the “Allg.hom.Ztg.” He wished to see the psora doctrine excluded from the “Organon,” as if was not firmly established either scientifically or by experience.
Schron finds that the action of homoeopathic remedies in chronic diseases is not founded on the theory or psora, but not he truth of the law of similars. Homoeopathic cures have taken place before the advent of the psora teaching; of the fifty remedies named in 1828 as antipsorics twenty-two had been previously incorporated in our Medical treasury and have cured without their “title of nobility”; chronic evils have been cured by remedies which do not belong to the “antipsorics.”
Ernst von Brunnow writes in his little book, “A glance at Hahnemann and Homoeopathy”:
Hahnemann thought out the so-called dilution, by mixing intimately, the liquid medical substance with spirits of wine, and by combining most carefully by trituration the dry substances with sugar of milk. The proportions of this dilution was the centesimal, that is one drop or grain of medicine in a hundred drops or grains of the vehicle, constitutes the first dilution, one drop or grain of this first dilution with one hundred drops or grains of the vehicle again mixed or triturated gives the second dilution, etc. If Hahnemann had used the designation, drop or grain of the first, second or third dilution, etc., the matter would have given less occasion for derision. But unfortunately he named it intentionally according to arithmetical progression and spoke in consequence of hundredth particle, thousandth particle, then thousandth particle, millionth particle, etc. The wit of his opponents was exhausted in calculations, in consequences of which is was stated, that water globules of the size of the earth, or even of the diameter of the sun would be necessary in order to manufacture Hahnemann’s billions and trillions. And yet only three thousands drops altogether were required to reach the highest rung on the scale of Hahnemann’s dilution. In his first and second editions of the Materia Medical we had gone up the whole scale, in only very few heroic remedies as for instance. Arsenic; the mildest remedies he gave even in a completely undiluted condition. In his work on Chronic Diseases the thirtieth dilution was suddenly introduced as a general rule for all remedies (the decillionth dilution as he called it).
Now the so-called theory of potentising received its full development, Hahnemann maintained that shaking vigorously and mixing the liquid medicinal substances with water or spirits of wine, and triturating the dry ones with sugar of milk did not produce an ordinary dilution that is a weakening, but rather a potentising, that is a higher development of the hidden medicinal powers. Hahnemann started from a correct fact in this instance.
Richard Haehl was also an editor and publisher of the homeopathic journal Allgemcine, and other homeopathic publications.
Haehl was responsible for saving many of the valuable artifacts of Samuel Hahnemann and retrieving the 6th edition of the Organon and publishing it in 1921.
Richard Haehl was the author of - Life and Work of Samuel Hahnemann