Among the pathological views of homoeopathy that are worthy of recognition, is the propagation of the itch theory. Similar opinions have been advocated by our school here long ago, although with less exaggeration, but they did not find the recognition which they deserved itch medical world. Since Hahnemann’s exaggerations the belief in an itch theory is increasing with wonderful rapidity.
Wedekind of Darmstadt agrees: I will readily believe with Hahnemann that phthisis wand narrowness of the chest may proceed from the itch.”
Hufeland: “At last the physician discoveries that there is underlying, a hidden scabies or syphilis.”
In the year books of Schmidt, we read: :”Did not Autenrieth (Tubingen) think f a rectified doctrine of psora long before Hahnemann’s time?”
Lesser: “The truth of the matter is, that an inveterate and carelessly suppressed itch will always cause subsequent illnesses, and not in frequently even death. yet this is something that every sensible physician has known for a long time.” The base way if fighting, resorted to by other opponents, shows itself in criticisms such s the following:
In order to prove these (chronic diseases as a result of suppressed itch-R.H.) Hahnemann need not have filled thirteen pages with quotations from older writings…. but his greed for money induced him to do it in order to increase the honorarium. (From: :”Wonder of Homoeopathy.” 1833.,)
And:
A famous German physician had, long before Hahnemann rattled about the itch theory, made a similar statement, that very many chronic disease-but not 7/8 the of them as Hahnemann foolishly says-are produced by badly treated and suppressed itch.
Hebra, Director of the great section or skin diseases, at the General Hospital at Vienna, pioneer of local treatment for skin diseases, who have always a decided opponent of Homoeopathy, rejects emphatically “the old myth of the itch metastasi and psoric acidity.”
From nature and not from books such metastasia must be proved;
“The mite alone is the pathological Deity. to drive him swat from his throne, the skin, is the object of a therapy, which is not mythological.” Naturally Hebra disputes the effectiveness of sulphur as a curative agent: it only causes diarrhoea, but could not produce mites; therefore the whole fundamental law of homeopathy is nothing. But in an exceptional case of eczema which he describes, he too must admit, that there exist certain connections between skin eruptions and the general condition of the body.
2.CRITICISMS OF THE PERIOD SUCCEEDING HAHNEMANN.
Hirschel of Dresden considers:
This theory, extreme in any case, the quintessence of which according to Rau is the conception of the internal hidden quantities and the “latent dyscrasia” -has perforated the foundation the consequences of Hahnemann’s dynamic ideas by laying down material, humoral-pathological abnormalities. The same things happened here to Hahnemann as happened to Kant in his Critic of pure and practical reason. What he fought in the one, he himself established in the other. But Hahnemann’s successors ejected that theory, by retaining what had a real foundation, and was partly the property of the older medicine, and extracted that which was useful for the treatment of chronic diseases, especially by using the newly acquired powerful remedies in accordance with the Law of Similars.
Altschul of Prague dealt with Hahnemann’s doctrine of psora in his “Systematic manual of theoretical and practical Homoeopathy, ” in its opposition to the “theory of the mite” as upheld by Hebra of Vienna, and Karsch of Munster, according to this theory, no itch is conceivable with the mite. Altschul arrives at the following conclusion:
Let us concentrate our attention on the meaning of the two theories, the psora teaching and the mite theory, and all we shall perceive will be a quibble about terminology, seeing that it is much more a matter of words than of ideas; because if instead of psora, we put the term blood-disorder, dyscrasia, we find many points of agreement between Hahnemann’s doctrine of psora and the itch doctrine the new school” (at the end of the fifties -R.H.) It would do no harm to homoeopathy, if instead of psora we put dyscrasia, and instead of antipsoric, anti- dyscrasia….The itch ( in the sense in which it was used in Hahnemann’s days-R.H.) consists therefore partly of itself, but conditioned through an inner dyscrasia disease, and called by Hahnemann psora dyscrasia; this offers an explanatory reason for manifold forms of disease, such as scrofula and tubercular dyscrasia, of the new physiological school but in that case the homoeopathic physician uses internal remedies, especially where the disease takes on a chronic character and unexpected disease manifestations appear.. we are therefore of opinion that Hahnemann’s doctrine of psora leads us to a better knowledge of several remedies; it certainly has attained a higher rank that the contemporary pathological teaching of an acidity of the humours, and is equal to the blood-disorder theory and doctrine of “crasia” of more recent times; the “crasia” theory of to-day, which is ” only a metamorphosis of the older theory of Acrimoniis, the dying embers of which have been fanned by its into new and vigorous life.”
And addressing Karsch, the chief opponent, he concludes;
Let the opponents consider that Hahnemann’s pathological idea on chronic diseases do not contribute in the slightest to the confirmation or repudiation of the pure principle derived from experience. The psora theory can stand or fall, Similia similibus remains meanwhile apart from any other consideration, the chief rule of all medical treatment fro obtaining a quick, certain, and lasting cure. When studying Hahnemann’s writings we must remain just as unprejudiced as when judging other systems of treatment, and separate as sharply as possible what is hypothesis from what is unimpeachable and established, and try to emphasise those principles that are truly practical and can influence our way of proceeding in the rational treatment of disease.
Von Grauvogl, one of the most intellectual. prominent and successful homoeopathic physicians of the times succeeding Hahnemann, takes up approximately the following position towards the psora teaching:
It cannot be excused that the homoeopathy of to-day (of the year 1866) has almost completely forgotten Hahnemann’s psora, sycosis, and syphilis; while no observation of a great man must eve be ignored.Hahnemann’s theory of psora can be traced back to the Law; material reasons and conditions like the itch poison, sycosis, syphilis and animal substances, which given favourable conditions even now would reproduce themselves, and will be passed on from parents to children, and children’s children; they can produce diseases which may be cured by Sulphur, and their basic effects by remedies similar to sulphur.
Only the Hahnemann theme: sycosis, syphilis and psora, creates too much chaos; it lacks definition of form which should lead us to the fundamental. But that ‘the manifestations are governed by a course of events in accordance with the law, from given elements, cannot be doubted. ”
Chronic diseases which arise from such a constitution constitute of retention process; in an excessive retention of the the substances which constitute the organism its.To these belong belong not only the atmospheric conditions, but also the causes to which are ascribed sycosis, syphilis, scrofulosis and tuberculosis. Grauvogl calls them “carbo-nitrogens” by reason of their cause and conditions of matter, and until a general understanding has been reached in regard too the choice of a suitable name, others may choose another name for them… Yet it must never be overlooked that neither the substances which lie in the organism and produce the conditions by themselves, nor the external causes along, but only the combined result to both, produce the condition which we call chronic disease. There always remains a certain unknown something which is not yet fully understood.
Pettenkofer calls it the X, Hahnemann has named it Psora,, Grauvogl sees in it diseased metabolism of an interchange of substances.
The ground was gradually prepared for the understanding of Hahnemann ideas on psora, in a sense, by the results of Liebig and Pettenkofer’s investigation, and by the facts result from Rademacher’s activities.
Justus von Liebig proved that the throwing of plants was dependent on the chemical composition of the soil in which they grew. Pettenkofer taught that the producers of disease in the human body the bacteria, which belong to the vegetable kingdom, are equally dependent for their nourishment on the soil, which is the human body and its different parts, as well as on the influence of the surroundings atmosphere. Rademacher asserted from the knowledge gained by experience that certain substances, contained in the atmosphere act as a promoting or retarding factor on the human organism, and in this way prepare it for health or disease. Thus a straight and connected dine of development extends from Hahnemann’s psora to Grauvogl’s constitutional doctrine, and on to the opinions of modern times, of “arthritismus,” of “exsudave” (Czerny), “lymphatic” (Escherich), and “uric acid diathesis ” (Haig). They all talk of a general predisposition for this or that disease, and of a favorable or unfavorable fertile soil, for certain parasitic diseases.
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