B. FINCKE., M. D.
STATEMENT OF HAHNEMANN’S VIEWS.
Boenninghausen intimates (Aphorisms) that Hahnemann, who translated the Materia Medica of Cullen, and probably also read his theoretical and practical elements of medicine, where the contrariety of large and small doses of medicine is explained by a general law of the human economy. By this law the forces injurious to the system evoke in it such processes as can prevent and annihilate their noxious effects. This is the healing force of nature (the vis medicatrix naturoe), and probably many of the motions excited in fevers are effect of this natural force.
Hahnemann, in his “Essay on a new principle for the exploration of the medicinal forces of the medicinal substances, with some glances at the former principles,” published in 1796 [Stapf’s Lesser Writings, I., 135.], which contains the first public announcement of the discovery of the homoeopathic principle, also gives his first view on our subject in the following words: RI.
Most medicines have more than one action, a direct initial one, which gradually passes into the second (I call it indirect after action). The latter is usually a state directly opposed to the first. II. But few medicines make an exception, and continue their initial action uninterruptedly, but in an equal manner, though in decreasing degree, till nothing more is to be felt. Of this kind are the metallic (and other mineral?) medicines, e.g., arsenic, quicksilver, lead, etc.
In the preface to the Fragmenta, in 1805, Hahnemann says: “Any medicine produces its actions, some sooner, others later, both of which are somehow opposed to each other and unequal, in diametrical opposition; those actions I term primary, or of the first order, and these secondary, or of the second order”.
“Some drugs I have observed to operate in the course of two, three and more paroxysms, comprising both primary and secondary actions; the former, however, in general, at first, the latter afterward”.
“But by moderate or small doses, no other than actions of the first order appear, less of the second order. The former I have mostly cared for as best adapted to the exercise of the healing art, and most worth knowing”.
In the first edition of the Organon, in 1810, Aphorism92, Hahnemann says: “The circumstance that the succeeding negative, as they may be called, or secondary symptoms, mostly occur from very large doses, and become less the smaller the does is, shows that the secondary symptoms are a sort of after-disease, which arises after the use of large doses when the initial symptoms (positive or primary symptoms) have passed a sort of opposite state.” And Aphorism112, “the lesser the doses, the lesser the secondary symptoms”.
Thus far the diversity of action is stated as the observations warranted it, without going on theoretical ground. But in the second edition of the organon, in 1819, Hahnemann tries the theoretical explanation in Aphorism74 seq., where the after action of the medicines is laid to the actively roused life force, which, at first passive, asserts, as it were, its manhood in producing the after action. This is always opposite to the first action and proportioned to this, and to the potentiality of the life force.
Examples follow in confirmation. All these sections have gone through the following editions of the Organon, and are also reproduced in the fifth, before us, with the exception that in the fourth and fifth editions the sentence is added, “that where there is not such a contrariety of action, the life force tries to indifferentiate itself in resuming the normal physiological action.” In connection with this subject, it may be remembered that Hahnemann assigned to the life force the high position of a ruler of the organism, first in 1829, in the preface to the fourth edition (Aphorism9), and later, 1833, in the text of the fifth edition.
CRITICISMS OF HAHNEMANN’S DISCIPLES.
As early as 1834, Hering denied the assumption that the after action is reactionary phenomenon of the life force, and he accepted the most decided after actions of every remedy for healing (Neues Archiv, 1, 3, p. 167) so much so that he proposed the rule: the more lasting and permanent, and the more opposite these later after actions are, the more useful they are for healing.
Here we may add for further reference the other proposition (ib., p. 175): “All symptoms from provings with higher potencies are equal to the after actions of the lower or so-called stronger doses, but they are not equal to their primary actions.” In his epilogue to the proving of Coca, “to this class (the secondary symptoms of Hahnemann) seem to belong all symptoms caused by proving with the higher potencies”.
Boenninghausen accepted the Hahnemannian theory without reserve. His reason for the application of the small dose is: “Since the healing, i,e. the healing after action, is the aim of the physician, the medicine must to given in such a manner that the first action is as mild and rapid as possible, in order to prevent an unnecessary and injurious prolongation of disease”.
Trinks, the inveterate enemy of infinitesimals, admits no discrimination between first and after action, but all the phenomena following a medicine are its peculiar action, if they last ever as long. if the after action occurs, it is a sign of the cessation of the action. At the same time, he acknowledge the alternate actions. But in fact, this cessation is the Hahnemannian reaction of the force. Similarly, Hirschel places the continued phenomena of artificial disease in the after in the reaction of the life force, which is returned by the medicine, and hence presents the opposite state to the initial phenomena.
Grauvogl says substantially the same, when he calls the after action the consequence of the necessary condition of the existence of the organism. hence the after actions are never useful for healing because they belong to convalescence. First action and alternation of action are hypothetical relative notions without value.
Jahr likewise accepts Hahnemann’s view, but both first and after action are free self-acting effects of the organism and not of the medicine which plays only the role of the exciting cause. Every after action is a counteraction of the organism consequent upon the morbid process.
Fincke gave his opinion in 1866, in some observations attached to provings of Camphora and Cuprum met, in high potencies.
“6. Inasmuch as it is impossible to assign the precise limits, between primary and secondary symptoms it appears to be inappropriate, for practical use, to divide upon the theoretical distinction between primary and secondary action. From the rapidity of action of Camphor, Hahnemann himself inferred, that it is most difficult to understand, because the primary, secondary, and alternate actions run into each other.
“That division is made on purely theoretical grounds; for in the given case, nobody can practically severe the primary action of the remedy from the secondary action of the organism. The fact is, that what we observe after the taking of a remedy is already the result of the mutual action of the remedy and the organism; and hence it can not be said to belong to either the one or the other.
They both combine in order to give the observable symptom, and all we know of the remedy after its susception, is the symptom appearing in the subsequent change of the state of the organism, from health to disease. Now, this mutual action between organism and remedy actually continues as long as there is anything of the remedy or the force it exerts, being left, and able to cause a change. And from this continued action we have a series of actions and reactions or mutual actions, the terms of which are indicated by the symptoms appearing from time to time.
“7. When in the course of time, opposite or contrary symptoms make their appearance, as is frequently the case, it does not follow that this is a secondary action. Nor is it a secondary action when the organism tends to “indifferentiate itself (Org., Aphorism 64); that is to prove its overweight by extinguishing the change caused from outside (by the remedy), S which is what Hahnemann rightly calls only a “Nachwirkung,” i, e., first action, in the order of time.
“All the symptoms indicating the action of a remedy in the organism are as one continuous curve, which may assume all possible shapes, including the contrariety of action as well as the actions tapering out to nothing, going on sometimes in a circle to its speedy termination, sometimes to a slower and more tedious end in a more or less irregular line, frequently receding, and sometimes even assuming similar forms.
“8. From these considerations it follows, that all the symptoms appearing in a healthy body, after the remedy has been taken, and every one of them have equal pathopoetic and hygiopoetic value, being as curative in a given similar case as it is probative in the present pathopoetic: always provided that precautions have been taken against other pathopoetic influences, affecting the organism during the time of the proving.
“And here it will appear, how absurd it would be to take such a symptom, for instance, as the death rattle as diagnostic for cure by Camphor or Opium, because they, on poisoning, produce a similar death rattle.
“Nobody can blame homoeopathy, if, notwithstanding the truth of the principle Similia Similibus Curantur, it cannot always save the patient after a protracted or fatal disease. For in such cases, the potentiality of the organism is too low to admit of the proper mutual action cannot take place at all, even if the remedy he suspected at all. where the potentiality of the organism is high enough for admitting the mutual action requisite for cure, there the infinitesimal dose of the simile will certainly cure the similar rattle, and thus prevent its becoming a death rattle.
“Thus it is explained how symptoms resulting from poisonous doses are made available for cure.
“9. Hering and Boenninghausen found that those symptoms which are the last to appear in a proving are the most valuable because they are characteristic of the remedy. This observation has been confirmed by competent observes, and it strengthens our proposition. As the same time it admonishes us to multiply provings by the potencies in single doses, with sufficient time for the full sway of their actions in order to ascertain the proper and characteristic action of the remedy.”.
In 1875 a report of the Bureau on Materia Medica was presented to the Institute by Dr. Dunham, but not printed in its transactions, as excluded by the laws of the Institute. The papers contained in it on primary and secondary symptoms, however, found their way in print in the journals from which the following is quoted:.
Dunham rejects also the theory of the life-force producing the after action, but accepts the facts. No law of the dose can be deduced from the relation of the contrariety of symptoms.
T. F. Allen arrives at the conclusions: The primary effect of large doses is, in reality, a secondary effect of the drug, and the reaction following exhibits genuine primary effects. Similar doses develop in least susceptibility first primary, in greatest susceptibility first secondary effects.
In any given individual the smallest dose develops first primary symptoms, the largest dose first secondary symptoms.
McGeorge calls primary the symptoms appearing first as to time, and secondary appearing after the disappearance of the primary symptoms, and these latter are of as much and more value than the primary. The low potencies produce the medicinal action first which we do not want, white the high potencies produce the curative effect at once.
Sharp acknowledged the contrariety f action in large and small doses, and called it antipraxy, our antipoesis, and the alternate action, dipraxy, is our diapoesis. He sums the thing up: small doses have one direction, large doses have the opposite direction, and middle doses have both actions, as the judge who gave both parties the right.
Now to the allopaths who begin to make much of this contrariety of action by which they think capturing our citadel.
Dr. Winkler wrote a valuable essay, in 1861, on our subject, which he called the law of reciprocity, and gave the actions of most of the medicines which showed this law in their action upon the organism. He came to the conclusion, that by this law he had reconciled Allopathy with Homoeopathy, because it showed that “Allopathy had recognized the right goal and Homoeopathy the right ways for healing. which, at any rate, is complimentary on the part of an allopath.
But now a Greifswald professor, Dr. Hugo Schultz, who has for several years made provings on the healthy, after his own fashion, comes out and tries to steal the thunder of the homoeopathic Thor by the following conclusions:.
1. “The efficaciousness of a medicament depends in the first line upon the nearer or wider relation existing between it and the organ”.
This means our homoeopathicity between medicine and organism.
2. “The physiological action of a medicament upon an organ, however, is dependent upon the quantity of the remedy in such a manner, that according to the quantity actually working, phenomena appear which find a complete analogy in the “Zuckungageciz”.
This law, evolved by electrical experiments upon living nerves by Pfluger, has been announced as the fundamental law of Biology. It is this: Feeble stimuli excite the vital activity, middle-strong ones promote it, strong ones cheek it, and most strong ours extinguish it.
“Of what gigantic signification this law must be for our entire therapy, especially the one conditioned by medicaments, is self-evident, S exclaims an enthusiastic member of the pernicious, mingling sect in the Berlin Zeitschrift, and he continues: “The individualization in the treatment will have to become the common property of the physician, more than has hitherto been the case, and the administration of the well selected medicaments in small doses will have to be practiced much more frequently than presently is believed.”
But what he means by small doses appears, when he says: “With Fowler’s solution, one to one and a half drops, I have in a single case gained more, perhaps, than with the recommended administration in gradually increasing dose to three times daily, of five, six and eight drops”.
Later on we are told by this progressive would be homoeopath: “That we need not believe in a mystic force which waves around the higher potencies, but the appropriateness of their applications follows exceptionally from Pfluger’s law in its applications to the sick cell, rest, the sick organ.”
He evidently has not studied the Organon, or he would find there Pfluger’s law already in the observations on the actions of medicines and their relation to the organism, not merely the sick cell, or the organ.
QUOTATIONS FROM HAHNEMANN.
Let us now proceed to the facts upon which Hahnemann, built his hypothesis of the reaction of the life-force in the after action of some medicines.
Org. Aphorism65. RAfter deep, stupefying sleep, caused by opium (first action), the ensuing night becomes more sleepless (counteraction, after action)”.
Mat. Med. 1. p. 265. “Opium produces in the first action symptoms of excitation; in the after action of depression”.
P. 266. “In large doses the symptoms rise to a dangerous height, and in stormy haste are mixed frequently with after actions or passing into them”.
P. 270. “Almost only opium produces not one single pain in its first action”.
P. 271. “All the pains palliatively removed by depression of sensation and by its stupefying power of any duration return immediately, when the stupefying first action is passed and at least as strongly us before”.
P. 275. “These rare, momentary, primary reactions correspond almost entirely with the after action of the organism after opium, and are, so to say, a reflection of this after action: pallor, coldness of limbs, fearful anxiety, trembling, mucous stool, momentary vomiting, backing cough, or, very seldom, this or that pain. These symptoms occur in very excitable persons, and those not used to it, but more in very large doses; but on account of their short duration or variety or of their nature, they must not be confounded with the peculiar first action”.
P. 276. “The Oriental debauchees in opium, after the sleep of opium intoxication, always in a state of the after action of opium; their mental powers are weakened very much by the frequent habit. Chilly, pale, bloated, tremulous, discouraged, weak, stupid and with a visibly anxious inner ill- feeling he staggers to the opium pills and to give the blood again acceleration and warmth, to refresh his sunken, vital spirits, to reanimate his frigid imagination with some ideas, and palliatively to procure some activity to his paralytic muscles”.
“The symptoms in the provings below are mostly after action and counter-action of the organism”.
P. 280. “Ecstasies of mind and spirit are rapidly passing first actions”.
P. 287. “Loss of memory is after action”.
P. 291. “Terrible pains like labor pains in the womb (after 15 minutes). Terrible pain in the rectum as if pressed asunder (after four and six hours)”.
P. 310. “The palliative first action of opium makes the Turks courageous and mad, upon which, as after action, discouragement and stupefaction follows”.
Org., Aphorism 59. “Against awakening every night they gave Opium, which, according to its first action, produced a stupefying sleep, and the following night, as after action, a greater sleeplessness”.
“To chronic diarrhea they opposed Opium, the first action of which is constipation, and soon after the diarrhea returned worse than before.
“Violent pains were suppressed by stupefying Opium, but they returned worse than ever”.
Mat. Med., IV., p. 150. “This substance, Camphor, is, in its action, extremely enigmatical and difficult to prove, because its first action frequently very rapidly alternates and mixes with the reactions of life (after action), as in no other medicine, so that it is often difficult to discriminate which may be the counteraction of the body, or the alternate action of Camphor in its first action.
Chron. Dis., III., p.231. Digitalis. “This true homoeopathician shall never, as the old school dis, deem it indicated e.g. in a rapid pulse; because in its first action, the pulse is uncommonly slow; and because in its first action, the pulse is uncommonly slow; and hence, in its after action, the more rapid as the counteraction of the life force.”
Org., Aphorism 112. “These symptoms opposed to the first action or to the proper in working of the medicines upon the life force are the counteraction of the life force; its after action of which, however, in moderate doses, for proving upon healthy bodies, rarely, or almost never, the least is to be noticed, and in small doses not at all”.
Aphorism 114. “These narcotics excepted, the first action is only observed from moderate doses”.
Aphorism 137. “The more moderate the doses designed for provings are, the more distinctly the first actions appear, and no after actions of the life force”.
Mat. Med., II., p. 274. Pulsatilla. “Since the provings were made with very moderate and small doses, the symptoms are, almost without exception, first actions.
CRITICISM ON OPIUM.
There is in Opium a difference in the conception of the first and after action. Hahnemann says in the Organon: Upon the stupefied, deep sleep produced by opium (first action), the following night becomes the more sleepless (after action); and in R. A. M. L. I., 265, he gives this as after action: Loss of irritability and inactivity of the voluntary and morbidly increased irritability of the involuntary muscles, and loss of ideas, obtuseness of fantasy, with timidity and over- sensitiveness of general sensation.” In comparing this with the alleged first action given before: ”
Increase of the irritability and activity of the voluntary muscles, and its decrease of the involuntary muscles; exaltation of imagination and courage, and obtuseness of the general sensation and consciousness and stupefaction.” We find in the after action an excitement of the involuntary muscles against decrease of the activity of the same, and the mental symptoms are the same in both first and after action, but a first action increase of imagination and courage. How these symptoms can be contrasted as first and after action is not well to be seen.
Hahnemann says that Opium in its first action produces almost no pain, but the contrary, sensibility, the invariable consequence of which is increased sensibility. But the experiments contradict this statement.
He himself gave in his provings, symptoms of pain in symptoms 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 130, 133, 135, 138, 163, 164, 203, 205,206, 207, 208, 210, 211, 212, 213, 218, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 246, 259, 260, 262, 263, 275, 355, 356, 357, 359, 360, 361, 362, 376, 379, 382, 390, 391. Among these symptoms are many of great severity.
Again, p. 266, the first action rises from large doses to a dangerous height, and passes in stormy haste into the after action. And in note, p. 268, these first actions are to be found only in its after action (and the momentary initial reaction-its reflection). Here the initial momentary reaction is the reflection of the after action, which is not yet present, because it comes later.
Then of the reflection of the after action first mentioned he says, p.275: “These rare initial momentary reactions correspond almost entirely with the after action of the organism upon Opium-pallor, coldness of limbs or while body, cold sweat, timid anxiety, trembling, slimy stool, hacking cough, or very rarely this or that pain. “But these symptoms are not to be assigned to the first action. But similar symptoms were observed in proving cm. as first actions. According to the theory, these symptoms should have been after actions, but where was then the first action?.
Pages 309, 310 are the exciting symptoms of the opium eaters and of timid people, palliative first actions; also the wildness and increased courage by the discouraged. How does all at once the palliative action come in ? It has here no place.
How, therefore, can, according to Hahnemann’s own proving, the deep, stupefied sleep he considered as first action? It is evidently after action, for it follows everywhere the exaltation as first action, and where it is found it is only the reflection of its after action. But the prover of cm. had these symptoms as first action, and the exciting symptoms followed afterward as after action. According to Hahnemann, these actions should be after action; but in what would consist the first actions? In a case of proving with 13c, the first action sleepiness occurred.
Hence, the fact is that Opium produces with some sleepiness, and in others sleeplessness in its first action. Hence, the supposition of Hering, that (Neues Arch. 1., 3, p. 76) provings with high potencies with Opium would in sensitive, exactly resemble the after action in large doses as not confirmed, but its effects are real first action, to whom the after action may follow according as the first actions preceded it either in excitation or depression.
It is just as if the medicine consumes a certain amount of life force, by which the organism gets into disorder, so that afterward it suffers in its organs till the life force succeeds in repairing the losses. After the battle the dead and wounded are lying about on the field. This is, indeed, an after action, of a sort of a causal and consecutive, chronological kind, but it is not in the sense of Aphorism 63, for it is not a reaction against the remedy taken. Hence, the fault is in illogical conclusion.
If the organism after Opium makes in its first action sleep, as action of the medicine plus organism, the following sleeplessness is not the reaction of the organism divided by the medicine, but a necessary addition to the action passed, viz.: Opium plus organism=sleep plus sleeplessness. Thus the organism is divided by the life force, which must be repaired in the physiological way. After that the attack of the medicine, or the action is in consecutive mutual action equalized.
But what Hahnemann means in Aphorism 63 about action and reaction of medicine and organism, can not be perceived in outward symptoms (they are rather an after action of it), but whose symptoms-series is at the same time a series of the mutual action of medicine and organism, and every symptom stands for a link of this series. This series continues as long as symptoms are observed and, therefore, all those also belong to it which are contrary to the one appearing first.
We might call them the negative terms of the series, which nevertheless have as much positive value as the first actions, only when health reappears, the pathopoetic series of the medicines is finished and it gives us the distinct picture of the artificial disease. Consequently in those who first are affected with depression, the terms of the series shall a range themselves in the reverse from those who first observe excitation. In comparing both series, it is easily seen that the pathopoesis amounts to the same thing.
Both series present the same terms, which are only different in time and directions. hence it does, also, not depend upon the size of the dose which series we obtain, but upon the quality of the organism, its sensitivity. if, however, too large a dose is taken, which surpasses the potentiality of the organism, it gives no series at all, or only a short one-the fatal series leading to death.
But in all other doses which are not fatal, though in very sensitive persons they can already kill in doses of comparative smallness from the drop of tinct. fortis to cm. the prover can, according to his sensitiveness, present one or the other series of symptoms, and they are all available for healing.
PROVINGS WITH OPIUM HIGH.
Taking Opium, the actions of which are so well known from olden time, as a type for experimentation in regard to allopathic conditions if medicines in general, I have made some provings with high potencies of Opium in globules upon healthy persons twenty-two years ago, which are here presented for comparison with what is already known. Old Moliere’s adage, Opium sedat, Opium meherde excitat! is indeed not cleared up yet in spite of all efforts of celebrated men. Perhaps the actions of high potencies may contribute something in the direction. Opium.
Cm. Woman. Immediately heat all over the body as if sweat would break out (after one-half hour). Heavy forehead. Inclination to vomit. Very much thirst.
Cm. Girl. Immediately when sitting on a chair, thinks she must fall asleep.
13c. Girl. After 65 minutes: Anxiety. Swollen, watery eyes with red conjunctiva. Lachrymation. Dizzy like drink.
Tumefied, red face, especially forehead and eyes. Going around in head. Letters look smaller, right half not seen. Pulse 84, small and feeble. Must sit down, everything moving to and fro before eyes. Cannot walk in a straight line, totters to the right. Cannot see much on right side. Heaviness, forehead. These symptoms lasted an hour, then very sleepy.
Cm. Girl. Painful stinging in left frontal eminence, toward the left side. Heaviness of whole head and dizziness like drunk, objects moving before eyes, can scarcely see. Sleepiness Heat and chill alternating in whole body. On steeping, pricking in left foot as of needles. This lasted four hours and twelve minutes, till 9 P.M., when falling asleep. Sleep fast; hard to wake in morning.
Five days after, stinging from right forefinger along forearm to elbowjoint, palmar side; could not close hand well. At first a vein was thickly swollen in a line from forefinger to wrist, palmar side. The stinging continuing next day. Restless nights with jactitations.
Cm. Girl. Stinging in forehead, backward, as of needles, afterwards more cheerful than before and good sleep. Next day stinging in r. elbow. Nights restless with jactitations.
Cm. Woman. Drawing pains from left elbow-joint into fore and middle fingers, palmar side.
Cm. Woman. Immediately turning in head. Nausea and eructation of air for four hours and a half, then sleepiness with yawning and nausea. less appetite, sleep good. Dreams of being burned.
Cm. Irish cook. Immediately light-headed. Half an hour late: heavy in stomach, vomiting dinner, first yellow. Heaviness of body, yawning, sleepy, wants to lie down. Inclined to vomit, going up and down from stomach to throatpit. Retching heard all over the house.
Face red and bloated , red eyes, standing out like drunk (Oh! Lord! look at them eyes; look at them!). Dizziness, thins going round. Lightheaded. Nausea, put her finger in throat but could not vomit (through she vomits easily). So tired in evening that she went to bed without undressing. In morning something like a lump in chest on swallowing. Felt like moving of bowels without effect. She thought she had taken an emetic.
Cm. Old unmarried lady, very sensitive. Commenced with chills, real death coldness and sundry strong symptoms lasting for an hour and a half. better in afternoon, after eleven hours. In evening burning heat in head, swelling of veins of neck and hands, throbbing carotids, resounding in head, red saddle over upper nose, especially left side, dry and sore to touch, and swollen.
Dry cough. Distended abdomen. After three minutes a profuse sweat all over the body with cessation of other symptoms, except the heat in the head, which lasted three hours longer and was followed by sound sleep. The third day at 6 P.M.: Dry cough, burning heat in head, face and nose, as before. The fourth day, at 5 P.M., dry cough, followed by turning heat, etc., as before. The fifth day at 4 P.M., short, dry cough.
High-unknown-one drop. A young man. Redness of face a half hour later.
Cm. Young man. Tongue like scalded (induct). 19m.same. Tearing around left wrist, then whole hand. Fingers get asleep. Tearing continues; then whole hand cold.
23m. Same symptoms continue. it now affects last two fingers more than before. When touching a place on forearm, near wrist, a stinging pain. This and the coldness of hand lasted quite a while.
Cm. Lady. Produced the same excitement as from lower forms, i.e. nervousness and loss of sleep.
23m. Man. Smelled like balsam of Peru when taken on tongue.
3. Man. In water smelled like violets.
To these are added some provings and experience with crude medicine, which, per contra, show that this question is yet in a very unanswerable condition.
PROVINGS WITH OPIUM LOW.
J.C. Morgan gave a dog 25 grains of Opium, which resulted in paralysis of his hinder parts so that he dragged his legs after him.
Waltt. Took one grain of Opium shortly before going to bed. Sleep frequently interrupted by awakening, and no sleep for a long time, so that he had to rise once as early as 3 A.M.
Same. Took two grains of Opium. Headache, sleepiness without quiet sleep. Red, turgescent face. Somewhat accelerated pulse. Profuse sweat.
Same. After four grains of Opium. Violent headache after an hour. Redness of face. Pulse accelerated. Profuse sweat. Inclination to sleep, but no quiet sleep. All this after one hour. After five hours: Vomiting eight times without much effort.
Gesner. Young man took for a spasmodic attack Opium every night because the spasm returned and was found dead on the eighth evening when the spasm had not appeared. Being ordered to take as much of the the basic extract as necessary to meet the attacks, he found 22 grains to be the dose which he took every night for a week. But he showed to tendency to sleep.
EXPERIMENTS WITH OPIUM LOW ON THE PULSE.
The following experiments were made by Sharp: A man took one drop of the first centesimal Opium night and morning for ten days, and observed only a considerable increase of appetite. Just when taking the same in doses f five drops. The same took 10 drops of tinct. Opium in water when his pulse was 72, at 6 p.m.
COMPARISON OF HAHNEMANN’S STATEMENTS.
Having collected the materials for comparison, let us now examine Hahnemann’s own statements from his own works:.
First action [a].
After action [b].
1a)Org. 65. Deep stupefying sleep
1b) Grater sleeplessness.
265 a. Excitation.
266 a. Mixed.
270. a. No pain.
271. a. Stupefying, removing pain.
b. More Pain.
275. a Pallor, coldness, anxiety,
trembling, mucous stool,.
vomiting, cough, pain.
(reflection of after action).
276. a. Opium users’intoxicated.
281. Loss of memory.
291. Terrible pains, like labor-.
pains; terrible pain in rectum,.
as if pressed asunder.
309. Exciting symptoms in opium.
users, and timid persons.
310. a. Courage of Turks in battle
Org. 59. A. Stupefying sleep.
b. Greater sleeplessness. a. Constipation.
A. Suppression of pains
B. More pain.
a. Digitalis, slow pulse
b. Rapid pulse.
COMPARISON OF PROVINGS FROM HIGH POTENCIES.
Cm. Heat as to sweat, heavy.
forehead, Inclination to vomit, thirst.
13c. Anxiety; watery, swollen,.red eyes; dizzy, like drunk;.
bloated forehead and eyes; pulse 84, weak and.
small; tottering; forehead heavy.
Very Sleepy after 1 hour
Cm. Stinging forehead;, heavy head; dizzy, like drunk; can scarcely see; sleepiness; heat and chill alternating.
Sleep after 4h. 12m.; stinging,.fifth day, finger; restless nights; jactitation.
Cm. Stinging forehead;.cheerful; good sleep.
Stinging in elbow; restless. nights; jactitation.
Cm. Drawing pain, arm.
Cm. Dizziness, nausea, eructation.
Sleepiness after 4th.; loss. of appetites; good sleep;. dreams of being burned.
Cm. Dizzy; heavy stomach; vomiting; heaviness; sleepy; reddening face, bloated; eyes like drunk, protruding.
Fast sleep; inclination to stool.without effect.
Cm. Chills; deathlike coldness.
Burning heat and swelling veins of neck; head. throbbing, carotids; red nose, swollen; distended. abdomen; profuse sweat; sound sleep (for 4 days)
Cm. Tongue like scalded.
19m. Tearing waist; fingers asleep.
Cm. Excitement, nervousness.
and loss of sleep.
23m. Smell like balsam of peru.
3. Smell like violets.
CRITICISM OF EXAMPLES BEFORE EVERYBODY’S EYES.
Let us now, before drawing conclusions from the foregoing date, glance at some of the examples given in Section 65, as corroborating the views on first and after action, “lying before everybody’s eyes”.
1. “A hand bathed in hot water is at first much warmer than the other unbathed hand (first action), but removed from the hot water and fully dried, after some time gets cold, and finally much colder than the other (after action).S A hand bathed in hot water becomes warm not only because of the impression of the caloric force upon the life force, which is reached by it as the sensation of heat, but also on account of the physical transmission of heat upon the body of the hand.
Any other substance, as wood, stone, iron, will show an increase of temperature after immersion in hot water. if we take the substance out and dry it carefully, two things happen: Some of the moisture will remain and in combination with that in the act of drying evaporate and hence lower the temperature, and the rest of the heat is given off to the surrounding air. it is not this loss of heat which is perceived by the vital force as coldness in the hand, and the degree of it depending rather upon the rapidity of the loss of heat than upon the reaction of the life force?
Does it not seem natural to suppose, rather, that the coldness of the inorganic as well as the organic body is an after action of the change of state, her the heating by hot water? The action is a continuation of transmission of beat to the body as long as the source of it, the immersion in hot water, is maintained, but now it is interrupted, the hot water is wiped off, the body gets cooler, because removed from the heating cause, and by evaporation may assume even a lower temperature than the other hand, till partly by the unchanged surrounding air, party by the physiological action of the life force, the normal temperature is restored.
Thus far Hahnemann says nothing of the life force; he only speaks of the hand as a body by itself. Now what is claimed from this experiment is that what Hahnemann calls after action is the action following the interruption of the transmission of heat, and chronologically should therefore be called the after action of the heat employed. Is it not so? For if no heat had been employed, and its conduction had not been interrupted, no cooling would have ensued. The body acts or reacts all through the whole process, in every infinitesimal of time and space, as well in the inorganic as in the organic body.
We might compare the heating of the hand with the action of the crude medicine upon the life force. The taking the hand out of the hot water and the interruption of the conduction of heat might also be compared to the cessation of the medicine action upon the life force at a point when the life force has been so much acted upon in a noxious manner and perceives it as a loss of energy.
Now the sequel of the hot hand taken out of the water is cooling off. The sequel of the medicine action is a return or a contrary direction being driven back upon the first action, because the life force is not able to bear up with th same energy which it had when opposing the first action, and this is the after action or the medicine employed. Hence this after action of crude medicine is so severe and of greater severity than the first action, an the life force is rather succumbing under it than going actively against it.
If then the first action of the crude medicine is so powerful as the after action just described, it may be compared to boiling hot water which would scald the hand and produce morbid processes, of which there is no question in our example.
2. “The person heated by violent exercise of the body (first action) is attacked by chill and shivering (after action).S The exercise is here, the force supplying the heat increasing the normal standard in the body. Suppose the person thus heated goes into an atmosphere equal in temperature to the degree of heat raised in his body. Will then also chill and shivering befall him? Very likely not. Why should the heat continuing from outside not supply the transmission by exercise from the circulatory organs through the various parts of the body, perceived by the life force as heat, after cessation of the exercise?.
But in our example the surrounding air is of the same temperature before and after the exercise. The body at the end of the exercise is in a different state as before, it is sick with the exercise, or heated; with the exercise stops the cause and supply of the excess of heat, and difference between this and the surrounding air causes the chilly sensation which was not felt before and during the exercise.
Was then, the chill the effect of the rousing life force? Or was it the natural effect of the temperature in its difference of degree, and was not the chill the after action of the rise of temperature by exercise, rather than that of the life force?.
3. “The person heated yesterday by much wipe (first action) to-day every little draught is too cold (after action)”. This is a modification of the former example and to be judged the same way.
4. “The arm immersed in cold water gets hot,S is the first example reversed.
5. “Upon strong coffee follows over excitement 9first action, but afterward laziness and sleepiness remain (after action)”. Here again is a curious contradiction of the life force, is rousing its manhood by making the organism lazy and sleepy. It is after action of the medicine but not of the life force.
6. “Upon deep stupefied sleep caused by Opium (first action), the ensuing night becomes more sleepless (after action). This is the opposite of the former example. Sleeplessness would have to be the sign of aroused energy if the Aphorism 63 were right, while it is a sign of the contrary.
7. “After constipation by Opium (first action)S follows diarrhea (after action)”.
8. Rafter evacuations by purgatives (first action) follow obstruction and constipation (after action)S are likewise examples which contradict the conclusive evidence of this section: that the life force upon every first action produces the direct contrary in the after action, because the life force is just as passive to the medicine in the after action as it was in the first action and reacts altogether in the defensive.
Going over the ground we have traveled so far, it is plain that the statements and views of Hahnemann and his followers contradict each other more or less. On Hahnemann’s side stand Boenninghausen, Trinks, Hirschel, Grauvogl, Jahr: on the opposite side Hering. Dunham, C. Wesselhoeft, McGeorge and my own little self.
Hahnemann himself contradicts himself in many places as we have seen in the table of the contraposition of the first, and after actions of Opium.
The allopathic physicians engaging in the solution of this question, can not give us may light especially since what they call small doses are for us still large doses.
Because, then, there is so much uncertainty, this matter is presented for discussion in the hope that it will tend to clear it up. At any rate it is a subject worthy of the most extensive discussion; though, for the most part apparently theoretical, the solution of the problems of alloeopoesis goes directly to the important doctrine of homoeopathic posology, which may be taken up again at some future time.
Medicine, in proving, acts as a force upon the life force of the organism in health in the direction of its pathopoetic quality, and in the course of its action indicates by symptoms produced by the reaction of the life force, the change which the state of health has undergone in this process of mutual action, till the medicinal force will gradually lessen in its action and finally case in the complete restoration of the previous state of health. Medicine, therefore, has overtuned the organism in the ratio of its pathopoesis and converted health into disease, and them the life force, by its inherent power, has returned the organism in the opposite direction, and converted the state of disease into health.
The same process takes place in becoming sick by natural causes, and health is restored in the same modus operandi if the life force is strong enough to overtune the pathogenetic force. if not, a medicinal force is necessary which by its similar pathopoetic symptoms. This is done by the pathopoetic force taking the place of the pathogenetic force in the organism in virtue of its homoeopathicity, from which equalization of both forces ensues, and the life force is enabled to resume and continue its normal function.
Therefore by the symptoms-similiarity equality of action of the medicine and reaction of the life force is obtained, if at the same time the quantity of medicine or the pathopoetic potency is so apportioned to the life force, that it is enabled to exert as much reactionary force as is necessary and sufficient for equalization.
If the medicine force is too great, the life force is overwhelmed by the excess and compelled to produce additional pathopoetic symptoms, in order to ward off the overaction of the medicine. if the force is too small, it will come short in the equalization of the mutual action in touching only those parts in the organism for which it will be apportioned to the life force, and only single symptoms will be removed, while the sickness continues.
How can we find out which is the proportionate quantity, or dose, or potency in the given case? Most certainly by avoiding the large doses of crude drugs which we know by their pathopoetic effects to produce decided opposite after actions and by administering potencies, i,e., medicines potentiated to such a degree that they will not exert the deleterious opposite effects of the crude medicines.
But which will be the appropriate potency in th given case? That one which will be proportioned to the degree of susceptibility depends not so much upon the liability of the life force to be disturbed by potencies of greater or lesser degree, but more upon the sensitivity of the patient which resides in the potentiality of the life force.
In this sensitivity of all patients must be sought the reason why one and the same medicine, e,g., Opium, excites one person at first and depresses afterward, and why another person is first depressed and excited afterward, or a third is excited or depressed in alternation, or a fourth is excited without consecutive depression, and a sixth does not slow any difference from the exhibition of the medicine in any form, and a seventh is poisoned by it and an eighth benefited.
Hence, th contrariety of action in medicine does not depend upon large doses exclusively, but upon the sensitivity of the organism. This sensitivity governs the homoeopathicity of the life force, is the life force itself in its sensitive state, continually active for the well being of the organism which is in its care. By the homoeopathicity of the life force the medicine turns the healthy state into its opposite, the sick state, in such a manner as conditioned by the individuality of the pathopoetic force.
It is this homoeopathicity again which enables the life force by its reaction to turn the imposed sick state back into health again without any medicine, by its own autocratic force, Aphorism9, according to acknowledged dynamic laws. For the force of any moving body diminishes in the ratio of the resistance of the reactive force in the body till it ceases altogether, having spent itself in its action.
Hence, it is not the life force which, when the opposite action of the medicine, rouses itself to manhood, as Hahnemann has it, to throw off this opposition in a contraries or after action, but a necessary consequence of the action of the intruding excessive force which turns the present state of the life force into its opposite, so that it presents now the symptoms opposite to the first action, just as a strong magnet will reverse the poles of a weaker fixed magnet if the like poles are directed to each other.
Hence the after action is not, as appears from Hahnemann’s expression, a sign of superior strength of the life force, but the reverse. The after actions of crude Opium are of such a serious character, that they must be considered as poisonous effects, and the life force, then, is in the greatest distress and danger, if the physician does not step in to assist it.
But this can not apply to the opposite actions which we observe in the provings of high potencies of Opium as in our examples. They are not dangerous, because high potencies are affined and attuned to the nature of the life force. If they act powerfully, it is on account of the least expenditure of force which they exert, and it is taken up by the life force, if in health, with a passing inconvenience; if in disease, with the greatest benefit, because it enters into its innermost existence, and loses itself in mutual action without further disadvantage.
The sensitiveness of the organism is similar to the fineness of the potency. Their similarity consists in the dynamics which they both possess, and which is different by opposition. But if the low potency or crude substance acts upon the life force even when similar by the symptoms, it either blunts its sensitiveness palliatively and increases its suffering afterward, or it throws it into a dangerous and tumultuous condition to which it not seldom succumbs and from which if often never recovers.
The mass of medicine here enters into a kind of noxious potentiation in the body, making the particles composing it suddenly, simultaneously and successively active, as to attack the life force with superior force that if can not resist, while he high potency, especially when given in a single dose, or at any rate in judiciously repeated doses, can not affect the life force in this way, because they act only from one point, as a clear force devoid of any mass or substratum except the simple inert vehicle.
Hence, the high potency exerting its force merely by its homoeopathicity, can not endanger the life force if it is proportioned to its sensitiveness, and must, under all circumstances, act beneficially when homoeopathically selected. The whole force being without medicinal substance expends itself in the reaction of the life force, and therefore the high potency acts with the least expenditure of force.
For confirmation read what Boenninghausen wrote in his celebrated essay: The three precautions of Hahnemann (N. Archiv., 1. 1, p. 109) where he bewails the time when the doctrine of the large and often repeated doses came over Germany: RI must indeed call this a true misfortune, for in spite of the correctly chosen homoeopathic remedy, Phosphorus, I saw from it in doses of low potencies repeated once a weak not only no desired result, but severe aggravation and the appearance of many formerly never noticed symptoms, belonging to Phosphorus.”
This was an experience, observed on his own son, whom he cured afterward by single doses of high potencies, repeated in long intervals. Another example comes to hand in a case of croup by Tieke (Ibid., p. 119), where, at the recommendation of Dr. Koch, Iodium was used. One grain dissolved in 100 drops of alcohol, and of this 1 drop, which he called the first potency, was given. The result was great homoeopathic aggravation, and with temporary improvement afterward.
Within eleven and one half hours three doses were given, and then the child presented the very picture f poisoning with Iodium. The boy was suffocating; he jumped up in the bed, could not utter a sound; respiration was sharp whistling and hissing, to be heard out of the room. Face blue, lips blue, and everted, cough terribly hollow and dry, a true barking, and violent cutting in abdomen. After that he had another intermission and gradually got well under application of a number of low potencies, Hep.s.c.3, Acon. 15, and Iod. 1, which seemed to effect him no more, in two doses given the next two days.
Per contra, Dr. Kent’s case of Croup:.
“Dr. -called Sunday evening, in reference to a case which had puzzled her three days, and seemed about to die. The few symptoms she gave, led me to advise Calc.s. which brought on only aggravation after midnight, if it did anything. In the night Dr. -was called in and gave Brom. The child grew worse, of course. The morning brought an urgent call to meet the attending physician at 7 A.M., at the house.
The little, fat, pale two-year-old girl was sick. She was pale and blue, and covered with copious sweat, intense fever, great thirst; dry, ringing, barking cough like croup, piping. No satisfaction from cold drinks which she wants all the time. She licks her lips and seems sorry when the glass is removed.
Phos. M (F) was given, one dose.
At 11 A.M. patient is red in the face, she had vomited the water as fast as it got warm in the stomach. This soon passed. In the evening there was none of it, she got well right off.
A simile for the mutual action of medicine and life force offers readily in the pendulum.
Suppose you hang up a pendulum consisting of a fine fibre, to the free end of which a few grains are attached as weight. if you set it swinging, it will acquire a motion to and fro, or oscillations lasting a certain time. It makes no difference if you make the weight a hundred pounds attached to a strong cord, if the length of the cord he the same as that of the thin fibre. The duration of oscillation in either case will be equal, because it does not depend upon the weight of the swinging material, but upon the length of its suspension.
But there will be a great difference between the two if you try to stop the two swinging weights. It will require a much greater resistance on your part, to stop the hundred pound weight than that of a few grains. And this is precisely the part which the life force has to assume if the excessive quantity of medicine, the life force has to assume if the excessive quantity of medicine, the too great force turns upon it with its specific power and causes it to produce the opposite symptoms.
what can a poor life force do, if an Opium criminal presents the dreadful consequences of abuse of Opium in its dread after action? Can this reaction be called a rousing of the energy of the life force, capable of throwing off the enemy which has grappled him for a death struggle? No, in this case the life force can not help itself, it is down, it presents rather a picture of weakness than of strength and energy which calls for existence, because it is well nigh exhausted.
But the after action and the opposite action in high potency provings has quite another meaning. Here the medicine does not rouse the energy of the life force so much as to necessitate it to ward off a highly injurious section, and to submit to it; nor has it to exert a resistance at the heavy expense of its potentiality. For it is only in the sensitivity of the life force, which makes the high potency homoeopathic, that it shows its pathopoetic characteristics.
If there is no sensitivity, no symptoms will appear (point d’argent point de suisse);and the degree of sensitivity decides the question which of the contrary actions will appear, so that in this view we avoid the absurdity of making the secondary action, or after action, appear first, and the first action last. Therefore, the contrariety of action has a different meaning in the action of high potencies from that of crude medicines.
The latter force the life force to a resistance with great and lasting loss of potentiality: the others force the life force to a resistance with little and transient loss of potentiality, though the phenomena may be precisely the same in both cases, similar to the equality of oscillations of the pendulums of equal length through different weights.
If you present the north pole of a magnet to the north pole of an oscillating magnet, the latter will be thrown back from it and the south pole attracted by it. The oscillating magnet is the life force, the fixed magnet the medicine. Make the latter ever so small or large, the polar law will be satisfied, similar to the indifference of weights in the pendulum. But if the fixed magnet is of large size, it will throw the oscillating magnet into a great commotion, which will last quite a while before the after action occurs, which is the attraction of the south pole; therefore, the contrary to the former state.
But this attraction is quietly and gently produced by the least bit of magnet just as efficiently. Suppose the magnet to be acted on, be fixed, and you apply the north pole of a powerful magnet to the north pole of a much weaker magnet, it will convert the magnetism into its opposite; the former north pole of the fixed magnet will now be the south pole. Would you call that over action of the large magnet, a rousing of the energy of the magnetism in the smaller magnet, if it succumbs to the powerful force and changes its magnetism into the opposite state? No energy, no rousing to manhood, as it were, will change the south pole again till a new induction of magnetism takes place. This is the action of the large and powerful magnet.
If you apply your north pole to the fixed north pole not exceeding its amount of magnetism, it will not change its state. The two will not assimilate. What they assimilate will be repulsion which can not be shown in motion, because both are fixed, and no symptoms can be observed. Only then, when you make the magnet acted on movable, you will observe the phenomenas, and this pivot, this turning point, which mediates the action of the magnets in our example, is also the mediator of the action the life force; is the sensitivity of the life force.
Since the opposite actions of the high potencies are equally positive as those of the crude medicines, the symptoms evolved by them in provings are just as serviceable for healing purposes. whatever symptoms may be present in the patient, it finds its counterpart in the pathopoetic symptom of the medicine, contrary or not. If a patient is sleepless, Opium in the proper potency, other things equal, will just as well produce sleep, as it will relieve stupor in another case. But the difference is in the sensitivity of the patient to whom the medicine is administered. And this has to be worked out by practical observation.
Why does the action of the medicine not go straight on to the end in a continuous straight line, but form curves and even a circle and act with greater or lesser intensity? This seems to find an explanation in the reaction of the life force which has to meet the specific direction of the medicine force in the organism as it finds it, and at the same time has to take care of the preservation of the whole organism over which it presides.
Thus the pathopoetic pictures of Opium gives not only a picture of its own individual action, but at the same time that of the reaction upon it shown in the distunement of the life force. They can not be separated, as Hahnemann has done, for the sake of better understanding such a difficult matter. (cp. Aphorism 15.).
But in the view here presented, there is no difficulty in recording the apparently contradictory, in reality however, only contrary facts, because the varying homoeopathicity of the life force for the medicine explains it all. There never has been any difficulty in practice thus far because prescriptions have been made and are being made constantly without reference to first and after actions of medicines, and cures are effected notwithstanding the theoretical dilemma in the Organon.
The truth is, that all symptoms observed from crude and potentiated medicines from large and small doses and even from poisoning cases-if the observations are only made with the necessary precaution and scientific accuracy, so that the symptoms are pure effects of the one medicine employed -are serviceable for the purpose of healing, even down to the last death rattle, which can be and has been removed by the appropriate remedy and potency, before death.
Hahnemann wrote to Stapf in 1825: “To this must be added that of many we can not yet determine with certainty that they are true after actions (much of this will have to be left to the future centuries).S This parenthesis may be the excuse for the present criticism.
Our endeavor, however, to base the law of healing upon the third law of motion as an immutable law which can not be controverted, is perfectly justified by Hahnemann, and has been acknowledged by him, though he does not expressly mention it, in the first edition of the Organon in Aphorism 12, 13 and 19, where the says:.
Aphorism 12. “Should we find in the experience (as we actually do) that a given symptom of a disease would be cancelled by that medicine substance, which shows a similar one among its symptoms (produced by it in the healthy body), it would already be probable that this medicine, by its tendency to excite coequal (gleichartige) symptoms, would be capable of annihilating in this disease symptoms of equal kind”.
Aphorism 13. “If, furthermore, it should be found (as it is indeed) that that medicine, which in its in working on the healthy human body has produced all the symptoms comprising the disease to be healed, would in its medical administration also cancel the whole complex of the disease symptoms, the whole present disease, and convert it into health, it could not be doubted that the law would have been found, according to which this medicine has acted salutiferously upon this disease, the law: Coequal symptoms of this medicine, cancel coequal symptoms in this given disease”.
And Aphorism 19, he maintains: “the healing power of medicines depends upon their symptoms which are uniform with those of the disease; or in other words: every medicine, which among their disease symptoms produced by it in the healthy human body, can show the most symptoms observable in a given disease, can heal this disease most speedily, thoroughly and lastingly”.
Nobody will deny, by deducing the law of healing from the third law of motion, and inducing it from the facts represented by the Science of Homoeopathics as based upon that law, it necessarily will apply to the full extent to the animal creation as far as health and disease are concerned.
And if there is any question of its generality, it can not be gainsaid, because it is subordinate to the law of motion which in its undoubted universality extends not only to the physical but also to the spiritual world, being itself based upon that mathematical principle, Proportionality, which again grows out of the general philosophical principle of homoeosis.
Hahnemann was naturally so constituted and so carefully educated and thoroughly schooled, that his observations were based upon the rock of a correct experience, which of course cannot be otherwise than the realization of immutable principles.